What should we do?

[Bern80]

We've had a lot of different posts on here about why things didn't go as planned as far the 'Iraq' invasion and who is to blamed for it. I have come to the basic conclusion that many have, in that the biggest mistake this administration made was severly, overestimating a group of people's ability to get along. Love him or hate him, Saddam was the only thing keeping things in check.

But our military is there now, and the sectarian viloence there is basically a result of us removing that 'stability'. Our military is there now only to keep fanatics from each others throats. So.....what should we do? I have half a mind to say get the hell out and see what the children do w/o mommy around. Or, are we obligated to see this to the end (though I don't see an end in sight) basically because we made the mess?

 

[Annie]

We've had a lot of different posts on here about why things didn't go as planned as far the 'Iraq' invasion and who is to blamed for it. I have come to the basic conclusion that many have, in that the biggest mistake this administration made was severly, overestimating a group of people's ability to get along. Love him or hate him, Saddam was the only thing keeping things in check.

But our military is there now, and the sectarian viloence there is basically a result of us removing that 'stability'. Our military is there now only to keep fanatics from each others throats. So.....what should we do? I have half a mind to say get the hell out and see what the children do w/o mommy around. Or, are we obligated to see this to the end (though I don't see an end in sight) basically because we made the mess?

You are right about Saddam, he was like the post WWII Tito. We saw what happened with Yugoslavia, Iraq was and now is going down that path. What was the interference that worked in Bosnia, US. What now? US.

 

[maineman]

You are right about Saddam, he was like the post WWII Tito. We saw what happened with Yugoslavia, Iraq was and now is going down that path. What was the interference that worked in Bosnia, US. What now? US.

the US, of course, did not invade Yugoslavia preemptively and depose Tito....and the Yugoslavians KNEW that.

 

[Annie]

the US, of course, did not invade Yugoslavia preemptively and depose Tito....and the Yugoslavians KNEW that.

Do you think that in any case imaginable, that would have mattered? What a red herring, way beneath you.

 

[maineman]

no...I think that the citizens of the former Yugoslavia saw us in some ways as white knights riding in to STOP sectarian violence, whereas the citizens of Iraq see us as the proximate cause of the sectarian violence.

Face it... there was no sectarian carnage in the streets of Baghdad until AFTER we decided to invade, conquer and then occupy that country with an inadequate number of occupiers.

 

[Annie]

no...I think that the citizens of the former Yugoslavia saw us in some ways as white knights riding in to STOP sectarian violence, whereas the citizens of Iraq see us as the proximate cause of the sectarian violence.

Face it... there was no sectarian carnage in the streets of Baghdad until AFTER we decided to invade, conquer and then occupy that country with an inadequate number of occupiers.

Sectarian in the sense of Sunni v Shia? No. Violence, yes. Lots of it. All shia and kurd. No Sunni, or little. I'll assume that some Sunni soccer players were shredded, as well as nubile Sunni women that one of the sons or Saddam took a hankering for. rape and kill, no problem. The bullet charged kills though, Shia mostly.

 

[maineman]

Sectarian? No. Violence, yes. Lots of it. All shia and kurd.

no.... not much at all in the last decade....

the carnage on the streets of Bagdad was unheard of four years ago.

 

[Annie]

no.... not much at all in the last decade....

the carnage on the streets of Bagdad was unheard of four years ago.

That's not true and the documentation is there. I'm not going to dig that up, but you really should, if you think such.

 

[90K]

I'd say on the surface Saddam held things in order just because he could, I don't think that if our government had left him alone that he'd just be some dictator in the Middle East. He would have invaded other m/e countries and he wanted to rule that part of the world. Am I right? Well wait in about 30 years when we are too old to give a damn and we'll have the answer. Our faults were once we uncovered spider hole man he should have been shot dead on sight, al sadr should be dead, and the other idiot al qaeda in iraq has been killed so those were great targets that needed taking out. We should have told the iraqi government and people we are leaving and that they had better get on board with protecting and governing there land or iran or syria could take it. We allowed things like abu grabe to scar our services; this is a very sore area and topic for me. The female general should be in prison like the other enlisted fall guys and everyone from that general down to the E-1 should be doing time for their role in that mess! Had that happened things in the military would be different. Our troops should have been allowed to do its job without being followed and told by tree hugging liberal media pukes what was a valid target and what wasn't. The whole government should have stood behind our troops in iraq and in afganistan until the job was done; now we'll have to cut and run on a nasty half finished job and for the next 30 years it will all be excuses on why things failed. Our military troops are the best trained and best armed in the world. It is our people who for lack of better words had little faith on there success, death is part of the deal in any war and unlike past wars our technology has helped keep a lot of people alive. And if you were to graph out our operations and our weapons used no time in history had we narrowed the kill rate accuracy down and the collateral damage to a really low number and that would include urban warfare that is being used right now. There was a time when sadr city would have been carpet bombed.

 

[Little-Acorn]

the carnage on the streets of Bagdad was unheard of four years ago.

Correct. Instead, it took place indoors, in Saddam's "interrogation" chambers, in prisons such as Abu Ghraib when the REAL dictator ran it, and out in the deserts when we keep digging up mass graves today.

Not in the streets of Baghdad.

Thanks for pointing that out, maineman.

 

[maineman]

That's not true and the documentation is there. I'm not going to dig that up, but you really should, if you think such.

are you suggesting that sunnis and shiite suicide bombers were a daily occurence in Baghdad four years ago? Are you suggesting that the civiliain death toll in Iraq in 2001or 2002 was anywhere NEAR what it was in 2006?

 

[maineman]

Correct. Instead, it took place indoors, in Saddam's "interrogation" chambers, in prisons such as Abu Ghraib when the REAL dictator ran it, and out in the deserts when we keep digging up mass graves today.

Not in the streets of Baghdad.

Thanks for pointing that out, maineman.

yeah...Saddam and his sons killed and raped 35K Iraqis a year in the decade since GW1,

what is the color of the sky in your world?

 

[Bern80]

yeah...Saddam and his sons killed and raped 35K Iraqis a year in the decade since GW1,

what is the color of the sky in your world?

What is your point? Is this a trick question?

 

[Annie]

are you suggesting that sunnis and shiite suicide bombers were a daily occurence in Baghdad four years ago? Are you suggesting that the civiliain death toll in Iraq in 2001or 2002 was anywhere NEAR what it was in 2006?

No but you are acting every bit as much a partisan as those you claim can't think for themselves. You just fail to provide a source, which they do.

 

[maineman]

No but you are acting every bit as much a partisan as those you claim can't think for themselves. You just fail to provide a source, which they do.

I am not saying that Saddam was an angel or a good guy...I am saying that the average citizen of Baghdad did not live in fear of suicide bombers and car bombs exploding in marketplaces killing scores of people every day in the years following the first gulf war.

 

[Bern80]

I am not saying that Saddam was an angel or a good guy...I am saying that the average citizen of Baghdad did not live in fear of suicide bombers and car bombs exploding in marketplaces killing scores of people every day in the years following the first gulf war.

I think it would need to be pointed out that perhaps they didn't have that particular fear. I would be surprised if they were completely unafraid.

 

[maineman]

I think it would need to be pointed out that perhaps they didn't have that particular fear. I would be surprised if they were completely unafraid.

hell...I am not completely unafraid when I walk though sections of Boston after dark... the fact is, they were a lot safer from sectarian carnage, or widespread carnage of any kind before we blundered onto the scene.

 

[Bern80]

hell...I am not completely unafraid when I walk though sections of Boston after dark... the fact is, they were a lot safer from sectarian carnage, or widespread carnage of any kind before we blundered onto the scene.

I suppose the question is which was more preferable? Under Saddam's boot w/o freedom. Or threat of suicide bombings with freedom. One goal in going there, whether realistic or not, was to free people from Saddam's my way or the highway rule. Maybe there learning just like our country did that being truly free generally doesn't come cheap.

But, we've covered this ground pretty extensively. I'm more interested in answers to my original question which is basically what now?

 

[Hamiltonian]

hell...I am not completely unafraid when I walk though sections of Boston after dark... the fact is, they were a lot safer from sectarian carnage, or widespread carnage of any kind before we blundered onto the scene.

I'd second that about Boston. Try being near Revere Beach at 11:00pm

By all sorts of measures of why we came to Iraq, so far we have failed. If it was to provide relief from the mass killings of evil Saddam, we've failed because there are still mass killings in Iraq. If it was to make the government of Iraq friendly towards us, we have failed. If it was to create a free and equal society, we have failed. If it was to get rid of Saddam's WMD, we have never found them, so we failed even if they do exist.

I'm pretty sure if you asked Iraqis the famous question Reagan issued, "Are you better off than you were four years ago," I think a majority of the Iraqis would answer no.

 

[Annie]

I'd second that about Boston. Try being near Revere Beach at 11:00pm

By all sorts of measures of why we came to Iraq, so far we have failed. If it was to provide relief from the mass killings of evil Saddam, we've failed because there are still mass killings in Iraq. If it was to make the government of Iraq friendly towards us, we have failed. If it was to create a free and equal society, we have failed. If it was to get rid of Saddam's WMD, we have never found them, so we failed even if they do exist.

I'm pretty sure if you asked Iraqis the famous question Reagan issued, "Are you better off than you were four years ago," I think a majority of the Iraqis would answer no.

I disagree, my guess, most Iraqis of whichever religious affiliation will say they now have a chance for something better. Even the Sunnis, while one being in favor, know that they were living the lives of slavemasters, always in fear of the now all too real, slave revolts, now to get by that.

Now however, the possibility lies before all, to find a common defense against enemies an the chance to work out what assets exist to benefit all.