“I know how to win wars. I know how to win wars”

[Article 15]

And I guess I should add the lack of International support for the Iraq War, too. The world was behind in the Gulf War and A-Stan because of their aggression but in Iraq's case it wasn't a case of pushing back invaders or aggressors. It was a war of choice.

 

[bornright]

We lost Vietnam. We're not doing well in Afghanistan. Iraq is questionable.

South Vietnam lost in the Vietnam war. The only reason they lost is because our Congress abandoned them. American troops were pulled out and Congress ceased the funding to South Vietnam when the north was financed by Russia and China. The US Congress abandoned an ally.

As far as Afghanistan and Iraq it first must be understood we are not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan. Please do not put so much stock in what you see on MSNBC as they have their own agenda and it is not to show any successes. If you speak to the returning troops you will get a much different picture than what you see from the media. Surely you know someone that has been there that you can talk to. Don't tell them what you think just ask them what is going on. We have great successes at both locations.....accept it and don't let it disappoint you so.

When I came back from Vietnam it amazed and disappointed me how the media had lied about us and what went on in Vietnam. Every smelly unbathed unemployed deadbeat thought they knew more than us about where we had just returned. Don't let that happen to the returning troops today. Listen to them. On a rare occassion you will find the John Kerrys in these wars also but listen to all and get the truth.

 

[bornright]

And I guess I should add the lack of International support for the Iraq War, too. The world was behind in the Gulf War and A-Stan because of their aggression but in Iraq's case it wasn't a case of pushing back invaders or aggressors. It was a war of choice.

We neither one know all of the information that the President and Congress had in having to make the decision that they made to go to war against Saddam. I do know, and you should know, the consequences of ignoring intelligence reports. One only has to remember 9-11 to know we have to act on these dangers to America and our way of life. Ignoring these intelligence threats is unacceptable to me as I am sure that it is to most thinking Americans. President Bush has to act on everything weither it be military action or further investigation and data gathering. What would you people be saying today about Bush and Congress if they had not chose to remove Saddam and later New York was hit by chemical weapons by terrorist which was supplied by Saddam?

 

[Article 15]

We neither one know all of the information that the President and Congress had in having to make the decision that they made to go to war against Saddam. I do know, and you should know, the consequences of ignoring intelligence reports. One only has to remember 9-11 to know we have to act on these dangers to America and our way of life. Ignoring these intelligence threats is unacceptable to me as I am sure that it is to most thinking Americans. President Bush has to act on everything weither it be military action or further investigation and data gathering. What would you people be saying today about Bush and Congress if they had not chose to remove Saddam and later New York was hit by chemical weapons by terrorist which was supplied by Saddam?

There is a difference between ignoring an intelligence report and assigning the proper weight to an intelligence report.

Your hypothetical scenario is noted though.

 

[sealybobo]

Why don't you give it the old college try ...

Jack Nicholson: You want answers?

Tom Cruise: I want the truth!

Jack: You can't handle the truth! You have the luxury of living in freedom because of what I do protecting you on that wall and you have the nerve to question me about how I do it?

Cruise: Did you lie us into iraq for oil? I mean did you order the code red?

Jack: You're god damn right I did!

We really haven't been told the whole truth, as if our government doesn't think we can handle it. So how do we prevent them from ever doing what they did again if we don't really even fully know what really happened?

 

[sealybobo]

Uh ... where's the standard explanation?

Thank you for yours' and your son's service.

Of course fighting in a war doesn't make one an expert in you aforementioned fields I was letting you know from where I was coming from.

Yes, thank you for defending our country and no offense but just like us, you were misled into thinking the mission was for something it wasn't. So you can understand why we don't buy thei current explanations.. And after about 5 different stories, and what's going on now, it seems like the only reason was oil.

We need to get thejob done in Afgan and Pakistan. I was on military.com and I read the military moved out of a town and al queda moved in. And things are getting worse for allied forces and the afganistan civilians. wtf! the ppl that did 9 11 are still on the loose? unacceptable.

 

[Charles_Main]

Yes, thank you for defending our country and no offense but just like us, you were misled into thinking the mission was for something it wasn't. So you can understand why we don't buy thei current explanations.. And after about 5 different stories, and what's going on now, it seems like the only reason was oil.

We need to get thejob done in Afgan and Pakistan. I was on military.com and I read the military moved out of a town and al queda moved in. And things are getting worse for allied forces and the afganistan civilians. wtf! the ppl that did 9 11 are still on the loose? unacceptable.

Can't say I don't agree with you on this Bobo. I hold this totally on Bush, we never sent enough troops to Afghan, and then pulled to many away to invade Iraq. I was actually for invading Iraq, only that was in 91 not 03

 

[Article 15]

Jack Nicholson: You want answers?

Tom Cruise: I want the truth!

Jack: You can't handle the truth! You have the luxury of living in freedom because of what I do protecting you on that wall and you have the nerve to question me about how I do it?

Cruise: Did you lie us into iraq for oil? I mean did you order the code red?

Jack: You're god damn right I did!

lol

We really haven't been told the whole truth, as if our government doesn't think we can handle it. So how do we prevent them from ever doing what they did again if we don't really even fully know what really happened?

I'm not sure that's possible.

We've seen first hand just how effectively a massive propaganda campaign can be waged on the American public and that our media "watch dogs" will go right along with it.

If they did it before, they can do it again.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

This probably off-topic here, but since you asked....

Going back to the response after September 11, which must be the genesis for this discussion. After Afghanistan was attacked and the Taliban toppled, Bush gave a speech. I think it was January 2002. It may or may not have been the State of the Union. In that speech he laid out his strategy concerning the war against the terrorists. Besides the typical you're with us or against us, if a country harbors terrorists, they are just as guilty, rhetoric, there was something else. He said something on the order of there needed to be a sea change in the middle east, that Madrasas could not be the only option. That hate could not be the only lesson available. I think this gives a glimmer of what Iraq was meant to be.

If you were going to take the offensive in the middle east, actually address the over-whelming hatred against the US that exists there, how would you do it? What could you possibly do to change it? Even a long shot. Clearly, what Clinton did, did not work. So, what else? Give them what they want and just leave? Order all commercial enterprises and US government installations shuttered and leave? That's not practical. So what?

The order of the day was a neo-con Hail Mary. You have to understand neo-cons worship at the alter of Democracy. I think they have a bit too much faith in that concept, but be that as it may, they believed they could flip a country make it a "shining city on a hill" make it an example. A choice for the restless young men of the middle east. Not immediately of course, but when all was said and done. Remember Bush told us this was a 50 year war. (Afghanistan is one battle in the war, Iraq is another battle in the war).

The question was which country? Iran or Syria? Both members of the "Axis of Evil," both terror supporters in their own rights. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the various Emirates dismissed because they were allies. Yeman? Too irrelevant. Other north African states too far on the periphery of the middle east, besides leverage could work on them (as in Libya). What about Iraq?

A country that lies in the middle of the middle east. A country with a secular background, less religious than other countries. A country with a strong, educated work force and some oil wealth. A country that had been weakened by sanctions for over 10 years.

Strategic Advantages:
Taking Iraq drives a wedge between Iran and Syria. It isolates Iran because we have Turkey and Turkmenistan in the north Occupied Afghanistan on one side, Occupied Iraq on the other. The US Navy controlling the Persian Gulf on another border. Perfect position to monitor one part of the Axis of Evil and add pressure to their government all around.

Syria is similarly isolated. Turkey to the north. Occupied Iraq, Israel only Lebanon and its puppet government was friendly, though that changed.

Taking Iraq meant instantly removing one malefactor from the middle east puzzle and at a minimum neutralizing it while we occupied it. With a little luck, it flips completely and we have another friendly country providing an axis across the middle east of Israel, Jordan and Iraq of friendly nations. Note how Saudi Arabia isn't in the list.

Reasons for war besides the above sited abbreviated list of strategic advantages:

The sanctions were falling apart. (France was openly advocating for the removal of sanctions. Most other European countries were just ignoring them). The oil for food program was a corrupt joke. The Iraqi military routinely fired on allied planes patrolling the no fly zones. Without continued sanctions, Iraq would once again become resurgent adding one more problem into an already problematic middle east.

The question then was do we remove the sanctions and hope for a new casus belli or do we go with what we have or think we have? (It would have been pie in the sky to think that Saddam was going to just be a good citizen, so that was not an option to consider).

My question was, why not tell the people what we are doing and why. Why use the WMD BS to justify the war. But, this was probably someone's bright idea that this is an easy mark. Everyone knew he had WMD, the hard part was making it look immediately dangerous. The only thing worse than the execution of the run up to war was the execution of the immediate aftermath of the military campaign. But, I think I'll stop here. I promised a why did we do Iraq essay, not a review of the entire war.

Ok, go ahead and fire away.

You've displayed the classical arguments of the reasoning and decision to go to war, but whether one believes it was worth allocating the troops, money, and resources to go into Iraq is debatable. You haven't said anything from an armchair general's standpoint that hasn't already been said or known. None of which you wrote PROVES that Iraq was a war of necessity. It's simply a matter of opinion.

 

[DiamondDave]

See my last post.

Pssst ... I fought in it ...

Pssst.... I did too

 

[DiamondDave]

Yes, thank you for defending our country and no offense but just like us, you were misled into thinking the mission was for something it wasn't. So you can understand why we don't buy thei current explanations.. And after about 5 different stories, and what's going on now, it seems like the only reason was oil.

We need to get thejob done in Afgan and Pakistan. I was on military.com and I read the military moved out of a town and al queda moved in. And things are getting worse for allied forces and the afganistan civilians. wtf! the ppl that did 9 11 are still on the loose? unacceptable.

It seems the only reason was oil?? Are you that fucking STUPID?? Well, I guess the answer to that is yes, considering the crap you have been posting in this forum...


We need to finish the job we are doing in Iraq, which is helping the country do whatever it can until the government and infrastructure is self sufficient... we ALSO need to do what we can in Afghanistan to battle the terrorist enemies there... as for Pakistan, we need to do SOMETHING, BUT with the political situation between the 2 countries, it is not so cut and dry as to warrant direct military intervention... unlike Iraq, there is no direct circumstance for an Iraq style invasion for the overthrow of the regime... though I PERSONALLY wish that something would/could easily be done considering the activities going on that are not directly tied to the government....

 

[DiamondDave]

And I guess I should add the lack of International support for the Iraq War, too. The world was behind in the Gulf War and A-Stan because of their aggression but in Iraq's case it wasn't a case of pushing back invaders or aggressors. It was a war of choice.

Ooooooh... Pansy Prance, errrr... France's backing is a reason to not back up the terms of cease fire... or, maybe Russia... or whatever else....


BULLSHIT...

It was a war that should have been finished LONG ago and was well overdue for being comleted against a tyrannical regime

 

[Article 15]

Ooooooh... Pansy Prance, errrr... France's backing is a reason to not back up the terms of cease fire... or, maybe Russia... or whatever else....


BULLSHIT...

It was a war that should have been finished LONG ago and was well overdue for being comleted against a tyrannical regime

I like how you ignore everything you either can't or don't have the ability to refute and just blurt out your next loud mouthed opinion.

Clown.

 

[Article 15]

Pssst.... I did too

Thx for your service, too.

 

[Article 15]

Ooooooh... Pansy Prance, errrr... France's backing is a reason to not back up the terms of cease fire... or, maybe Russia... or whatever else....


BULLSHIT...

It was a war that should have been finished LONG ago and was well overdue for being comleted against a tyrannical regime

Moreover, this kind of attitude is a big part of why the U.S. has lost much of it's credibility on the international scene.

This hyper-nationalistic jingoid machismo of "with us or against us," and railing on others in the world for daring to have an opinion or position that isn't in lock step with the way the US thinks things should be run is why backs are being turned on us.

 

[sealybobo]

Moreover, this kind of attitude is a big part of why the U.S. has lost much of it's credibility on the international scene.

This hyper-nationalistic jingoid machismo of "with us or against us," and railing on others in the world for daring to have an opinion or position that isn't in lock step with the way the US thinks things should be run is why backs are being turned on us.

said perfectly

 

[Ravi]

So much macho posturing on this thread. Amazing that no one could answer the question posed in the OP.

So in keeping with the drift of the thread, I'll rant.

All you people that dodged bullets, thank you. I can only go by what my father's experience was with combat, because I'm waaay to chicken to risk my neck for something I disagree with.

Sorry, but unless you are a general or whatever, someone in command, you're just following orders. My Dad fought in a war that he came to feel was a waste of time and lives. His opinion of Bush is that he should be taken out behind the woodshed, get his little fanny tanned, be sent to bed without dinner, and get up the next morning and apologize for all the stupid arrogance he's displayed. Does my Dad's combat experience make him qualified to give an opinion on military strategy? Of course not.

Yeah, you guys have a legitimate gripe, no one gives Vets the respect they deserve for signing up to protect the country. Including a president that misuses you. But that doesn't give you any more insight into "winning" a "war" than it gives the rest of us.

And, btw, you're welcome from a loud mouthed bitch who isn't afraid to mouth off about your civil rights.

 

[sealybobo]

Terrorism isn't the problem, it is the symptom. So how do we solve the problem? What is the problem? Why do they hate the US? I don't think its our freedom or our sinful ways. Is it that we take advantage of them? We do business with their leaders and their leaders keep them poor. And no doubt their leaders blame us. I'm referring to the Saudi's. The Iranian people and Arab Emerits are westernizing. Iraq, pakistan, palistinians. The more I think, the more I realize each country has their own reasons. Some have different reasons. Iran hates Israel, saudi kings make us the bad guys, iraq because we killed and displaced millions of them, or abandoned them in the first gulf war, we take their oil, etc.

its complicated. we are the superpower and probably think we are bullies, thieves and infedels.

best thing to do is develop alternative energy and they can drink their oil. We need to get off oil. And we ned to arm israel so they know not to fuck with them. then e can butt out.

 

[jreeves]

So said John McCain yesterday.

Can anyone tell me what exactly he's done in his life that makes this statement remotely true?

He pushed for the 'Surge in Iraq' which has resulted in a reduction of violence by 80%.

 

[DiamondDave]

Moreover, this kind of attitude is a big part of why the U.S. has lost much of it's credibility on the international scene.

This hyper-nationalistic jingoid machismo of "with us or against us," and railing on others in the world for daring to have an opinion or position that isn't in lock step with the way the US thinks things should be run is why backs are being turned on us.

Typical lib... popularity is not a reason to act or not act... popularity with another nation's thoughts based on a poll, or a current whim of government has no bearing.... I could not possibly care less if Prance thinks our actions are good in their eyes... we are not governed by their whim, Russia's whim, or anything else... we are not even governed (thank God) by the every changing whim of polls within the US... we are a constitutional republic where our leaders have the charge and responsibility to do what has to be done... and elections determine the next set of leadership, but strong leadership takes charge and does what it has to do regardless of electioneering