What should we do about Iraq?
- Thread starter Jmurman
- Start date
- Status
GoRon
Member
Finnish what we started.
A free and prosperous Iraq will do more to promote peace in the region than any amount of aid and diplomacy.
A free and prosperous Iraq will do more to promote peace in the region than any amount of aid and diplomacy.
Nathaniel Firethorn
Member
Stay until there's a government there that can stand on its own. Then leave.
- pdmoderator
- pdmoderator
308win
Member
Stay to accomplish what? Those people have no idea what democracy is nor the discipline/will to implement and defend it. They lived like sheep for 25 years under Hussain and did nothing after all.
They will have their election; we will eventually leave after $billions and more of America's best sons/daughters lives are spent; the country will degenerate into a civil war that will last years and further destabalize the area as Iran and Syria won't resist the temptation to meddle while the Saudis, Kuwaitis, etc. wring their hands while asking us if we realize what we have done and 'what are we going to do about it?'
I vote for: lets create a separate country for the Kurds - as they appear to have the will; get the hell out and let the Sunni & Shi'a do us and the rest of the world a favor and kill each other fighting over the rest of the country.
They will have their election; we will eventually leave after $billions and more of America's best sons/daughters lives are spent; the country will degenerate into a civil war that will last years and further destabalize the area as Iran and Syria won't resist the temptation to meddle while the Saudis, Kuwaitis, etc. wring their hands while asking us if we realize what we have done and 'what are we going to do about it?'
I vote for: lets create a separate country for the Kurds - as they appear to have the will; get the hell out and let the Sunni & Shi'a do us and the rest of the world a favor and kill each other fighting over the rest of the country.
jefnvk
Member
Stabilize then go. If we stabilize, there is a chance that they will degenerate into civil war. If we leave now, it is the only option.
Yooper
Member
Finish our objectives as soon as possible, then let them stand or fall on their own.
griz
Member
Yea, stay or go are too limiting for me to vote. Leaving them with stability is what we are striving for. Unfortunately our standard for stability was a brutal dictator that was oppressive enough to keep down the civil war that we might have to officiate. Since don’t go there in the first place isn’t an option, I’ll vote for staying there until whatever government we leave has a chance of success, then bring everybody home.
George S.
Member
My basic belief is that we should stay to help the country get on its feet and help them to build a government that works. And there needs to be a lot of help with rebuilding the infrastructure. But if it appears that this is going to be a long drawn out fight with the radical elements, then it would be time to release the military units from the current limitations on engaging the enemy.
If these terrorists want their Jiihad, then unleash the dogs of war and give it to them. In Spades. Then get out of town.
IMHO, the longer we stay and appear to not be able to stop these bombing and other attacks, we will be seen in the rest of the Muslim world as being weak. While we have the resolve to help the country, we also have to show that the terrorists will pay dearly for what they do.
If these terrorists want their Jiihad, then unleash the dogs of war and give it to them. In Spades. Then get out of town.
IMHO, the longer we stay and appear to not be able to stop these bombing and other attacks, we will be seen in the rest of the Muslim world as being weak. While we have the resolve to help the country, we also have to show that the terrorists will pay dearly for what they do.
I said it over 9 months ago, Get out of Iraq while we still can!. Bush wouldn't listen, now we will have to get out of Iraq the same way we did Vietnam, with honor? There is NO EXCUSE for Bush repeating this same mistake! If we are there for the oil, fine, occupy the oil fields and cut a percentage of the profits to whoever rules Iraq at the time. Defend the oil fields and make them our 51st state. We might as well get something out of our efforts besides hollow, high sounding words. 
I think we tried the same solution in Vietnam, they were a 3rd world country also. Didn't work out too well did it?
Why? I own them nothing. Start a fund raiser if you want to "help" Iraq/Vietnam. A word to the wise...wait until at least 51% of the population asks for our help. It hard to "help" someone who insists on shooting you for "helping" against his will.
SnWnMe
Member
It will make into a nice big AIR FORCE base.
Or a Parking lot
Or a Parking lot
ETCss Phil McCrackin
Member
While it is truly a tragedy every time an American or an innocent gets killed, too simply "get out now" would not only leave the mission unaccomplished but would send the same message we have been sending to the world since Vietnam. The message that, the Americans are very strong in the beginning but just kill a few of them and their citizens will bring them home! Even though we have let ourselves become a nation of latte sipping, tree-hugging, politically correct metrosexuals, much of the rest of the world adheres to and respects the ideals of "if someone hits you, hit back HARDER!"
When we pull the same "drop a few bombs, shoot a few rounds, Miller time" crap we pulled in Somalia, we're just setting ourselves up to fight future battles. That’s why, right or wrong, WMD or no WMD, Al-Queda ties or no Al-Queda ties, we have to at least stay the course to the point where their government is ready to take over for themselves. If they subsequently fall to insurgents, then that’s their fault.
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand to see fellow service members die, and when we're done I think we should tell the rest of the world, "THATS IT, YOU UNGRATEFUL TURDS ARE ALL ON YOUR OWN FROM NOW ON!!"
When we pull the same "drop a few bombs, shoot a few rounds, Miller time" crap we pulled in Somalia, we're just setting ourselves up to fight future battles. That’s why, right or wrong, WMD or no WMD, Al-Queda ties or no Al-Queda ties, we have to at least stay the course to the point where their government is ready to take over for themselves. If they subsequently fall to insurgents, then that’s their fault.
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand to see fellow service members die, and when we're done I think we should tell the rest of the world, "THATS IT, YOU UNGRATEFUL TURDS ARE ALL ON YOUR OWN FROM NOW ON!!"
griz
Member
Therein lies the problem Telewinz. We went in, removed Iraq's government, military, and a lot of infastructure. Given that we are not at war with the country of Iraq, we owe them a return of a way of life at least as good as when we went in. Whether or not we should have gone in is irrelevant at this point, we have to fix it because we broke it.
DelayedReaction
Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2004
- Messages
- 645
Pull out, and have the UN replace our military presence with their own. Make the burden of reconstruction a global one, and bring them into the global community. This removes a target from the resistance (instead of attacking the American aggressors, they would now be attacking the world), and allows us to gently reduce our finanical and military burden.
We shouldn't leave, but to continue to have things as they are now only invites more death.
We shouldn't leave, but to continue to have things as they are now only invites more death.
308win
Member
Except when your name is George W. Bush. One draft dodger talking about another IMO unless Wayne was about the American public when he made that statement since he played them for morons with his barstool patriotism and made millions doing it. For my part, I refuse to watch a movie he is in.
And thats the rub, it's true. "Our colors may not run but they will fade if a little bleach is added to the mix."
Why else is our military designed to fight wars of short duration? This entire situation is a fruitless, stupid act. If we stay we will only increase our losses and continue to lose face. We are not going to win in Iraq! The "new" Iraq government will only be in power as long as we use force to protect it, once we leave (in honor?) it will fall. It's a no win situation, as much as it hurts our pride I say cut our losses and run. We can do it now or later but thats what we will end up doing.
Bush has already tried this "solution". The UN refuses (wisely) to get militarily involved now. Are we ready for the "Tet" offensive of '05? I'm willing to bet thats whats going to occur in a few days. :banghead: It's happening all over again, stupid civilian leadership is mis-using/destroying the World's finest Army. History repeats itself, over and over and over and over AGAIN!
Last edited:
jojo
Member
I voted to get out, but I agree with you Phil McCrackin.
I hate to stay one second longer, or have one more killed than we abosultely have to, but I think your right.
Stay until they can function, the hasta la vista BI##H!
jojo
I hate to stay one second longer, or have one more killed than we abosultely have to, but I think your right.
Stay until they can function, the hasta la vista BI##H!
jojo
George S.
Member
The biggest reason we did not "win" in Viet Nam is that the politicans decided on both strategic and tactical military actions. Hell, Johnson wound up personally approving and rejecting some bombing targets. Entire areas of North Vietnam were off-limits. SAM missle sites and war production plants were on a no-bombing list for years. Troops in the field could not chase VC or NVA units across borders even if combat action was right at the border.
Micro-managing combat actions is what loses wars. Hitler was basicaly responsibe for the Axis loss of WWII because he insisted on controlling the German Army. His invasion of Russia is one good example, and his refusal to release armor after the Normandy invasion was another. Had the German commanders in the field been able to fight like they wanted, WWII could have gone on for much longer if not a stalemate at some point.
My comment to "release the dogs of war" is to simply give unit commanders on the ground the ability to handle any situation that crops up. Known areas of terrorist groups would be destroyed. The troops should get ROE's that basically say if it looks like a terrorist or insurgent, acts like one, then take 'em out. No radio requests for engaging a target; you lock and load and rock and roll.
The terrorists rely on fear to take over. The seem to think that they can keep doing their roadside bombings, assinations, and other tactics with impunity. If the shoe was on the other foot, I have to believe they would begin to think twice about their actions. Once you are able to control the threat, then train the Iraqi army and police, and then you can leave.
ETCss Phil McCrackin
Member
Militarily, there is no way the insurgents could "destroy" the forces we have in theatre. If you recall, the Tet offensive was only a loss politically, and only because of the rabid anti-war movement in the states. After Tet the VC were annihilated as a combat force, and the NVA was severely weakened. If the tangos in Iraq were to try some all out offensive, I believe they would meet with the same result. Their strategy for victory is very similar to that of the VC, "destroy their willpower, and their armies will follow." The only reason we are used to the short-duration war, is because our populace is rife with the "band-aid/good intentions" sickness. Every time we are involved with something it continues just long enough for the ratings to drop, then as soon as a friendly gets killed, or the news media flashes the images of a flattened mosque, everyone wrings their hands and shrieks like my 2yr old, "Maaaaake it stop!"
To accomplish certain objectives in the world, sometimes stuff has to get broke. I'm sure I don't speak for every servicemember, but I know what I signed up for. I know the sea isn’t the war zone for this little fracas, but as the USS San Francisco just showed us, there is inherent danger in most military activities. I can't say this enough, if we quit before accomplishment of the stated objective, we are not only loosing this battle but countless others which haven’t even started yet.
To accomplish certain objectives in the world, sometimes stuff has to get broke. I'm sure I don't speak for every servicemember, but I know what I signed up for. I know the sea isn’t the war zone for this little fracas, but as the USS San Francisco just showed us, there is inherent danger in most military activities. I can't say this enough, if we quit before accomplishment of the stated objective, we are not only loosing this battle but countless others which haven’t even started yet.
The simple truth is that we screwed the pooch in Vietnam (plenty of noble reasons) and we are doing the same thing with Irag. Yet people will be shocked when we end up with the same old results. Meanwhile, have we tried to win their hearts and minds yet? Lets use all the 'oldies but goodies' ideas from the 60's and 70's. And while we are at it, lets use the same old justification(s). It will make the war so much easier to understand and besides, reruns have become a part of the "American Way" like Mom and apple pie. Besides, Iraq and Vietnam bear little relationship with each other, different parts of the World 
Yea, thats it.
Yea, thats it.Ryan in the House
Member
I think we should stay until they are ready to defend themselves. If we leave before they are ready to stand by themselves, then 2 1/2 years of progress would have gone down the drain.
Noble justification, therefore lets invest 31/2, 41/2, 51/2 years (or whatever it takes) towards a wasted (BUT NOBLE) cause, it's worth it. Why not instead just insist our elected officials pick and choose their battles wisely? Is that really a radical thought? Vietnam all over again :banghead:
Ryan in the House
Member
Sorry, I'm no specialist on Vietnam, so you might try direction your comparisons toward someone who is more knowledgeable on that. You've managed to imply the comparison of Iraq to Vietnam in almost every post this thread that I can see, but (as far as I know) I don't see the similarities.
We failed to overthrow a government in Vietnam, and we succeeded in overthrowing a government in Iraq. We failed to gain North Vietnam's support in fighting Communism, and we succeeded in gaining Iraq's support in fighting terrorism.
These are two that stick out the most, to someone as uneducated on the Vietnam war such as me.
We failed to overthrow a government in Vietnam, and we succeeded in overthrowing a government in Iraq. We failed to gain North Vietnam's support in fighting Communism, and we succeeded in gaining Iraq's support in fighting terrorism.
These are two that stick out the most, to someone as uneducated on the Vietnam war such as me.
ETCss Phil McCrackin
Member
Indeed there can be parallels drawn between the war in Iraq and Vietnam, just as the lessons of Hannibal and Genghis Kahn can be readily applied to this day. I don't however, think that this is "Vietnam all over again" because while superficially similar, there are many important differences. For instance, but not limited to, the fact that AFAIK most of the Iraqi people either just want to live their lives, or support the coalition forces and the goal of democratic self-rule.
It's important to keep the lessons of history in the fronts of our minds, but we can't let the fear of re-living mistakes prevent us from finishing what we started. Not only is that a mark of character which is almost extinct nowadays, but, as I have already stated, it's an investment in the future if we do it right. Our current woes in the Middle East aren’t even the fault of anyone in power now, they can be tied to mistakes made in foregn policy as far back as the 70's or maybe even more.
Instances like Carter's weak handed bumbling during the hostage crisis, Clinton's "turn tail and run" policy in Somalia, and even George Sr's anti-climatic ODS, are what have taught the world that the US is "all bark and little bite". We have to handle this Iraq business with as much strength and solidarity as we can muster. I know Bush bashing and anti-war slogans are all the vogue, but I believe that crap like that spouted to the international media boarders on treason because every cross word spoken by our own citizens is just another arrow in the enemies quiver.
You can say your brother is an idiot all day, but not in public, and if someone else does it they need a shot in the teeth.
It's important to keep the lessons of history in the fronts of our minds, but we can't let the fear of re-living mistakes prevent us from finishing what we started. Not only is that a mark of character which is almost extinct nowadays, but, as I have already stated, it's an investment in the future if we do it right. Our current woes in the Middle East aren’t even the fault of anyone in power now, they can be tied to mistakes made in foregn policy as far back as the 70's or maybe even more.
Instances like Carter's weak handed bumbling during the hostage crisis, Clinton's "turn tail and run" policy in Somalia, and even George Sr's anti-climatic ODS, are what have taught the world that the US is "all bark and little bite". We have to handle this Iraq business with as much strength and solidarity as we can muster. I know Bush bashing and anti-war slogans are all the vogue, but I believe that crap like that spouted to the international media boarders on treason because every cross word spoken by our own citizens is just another arrow in the enemies quiver.
You can say your brother is an idiot all day, but not in public, and if someone else does it they need a shot in the teeth.
- Status