Iraqis going Whacky Already

[Rommel]

The great part is:

Obama will blame Bush!

WTF not? Apparently, Bush is responsible for all evils throughout history, and half of the evils yet to come.

-I sure wish to hell we had an adult in the oval office.

You got it!

 

[Rommel]

And the Iraqis are already blaming the U.S.

Also true.

 

[Rommel]

This is what happens when you let Politicians Dictate War Strategy. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 1 & 2, Afganistan. Politics and War don't mix. If your going to go to War, then Defeat your Enemy and let the Politicians Deal with what's left.

Thank you. The other problem with politicians running the show is how they leave the situation. Case in point post WWII Germany. Leave some of the old officials in power because they at least know how to police/enforce things. Leaving weak-a$$ people in office with a joke of a police force will not work.

 

[Rommel]

Iraq would not have been a problem if we had done it right the first time. Just like Petro_58 I believe when you go in you go "all in". If I recall correctly it was the politicians that prevented us from invading Bagdad back in '91. Fast forward to '03 and were still dealing with the stuff (to put it lightly). IMO we went into Iraq for the right reasons but somehow managed to step in a big pile of dog poop (putting it lightly again). That is a) politicians running the war and b) an the formation of a new Iraqi army (if you want to call it that) which would make the South Vietnamese resistance laugh. Again this is my opinion but we (the United States) are not here to win wars for countries whose populous could care less. If they are not going to put their balls on the chopping block then forget them. But when a country (such as pre-war Iraq) DOES possess WMD's and is partaking in Genocide and our Commander-in-Chief says "go", then we need to go in blazing and with the mind-set to win. Now I know those last to sentences may sound like they contradict themselves but think about it.
-Dictator ordering executions by the thousands: Dead.
-WMD's: Gone. At least from Iraq (probably in Putnin's back yard).
Now in hind-sight who knew that the new Iraqi army was going to turn out to be a joke. Maybe as I stated earlier we should have left some of those that were used to holding commands in place.

P.S. And back to my earlier reference to post war Germany. We did not leave there over-night. We obviously brought the bulk of the troops home but had troops over their to keep everything in line for years. To think that we could leave Iraq like we did and hope everything will turn out alright is ridiculous.

 

[Rommel]

i was playing devils advocate. i never really gave an opinion to clear on here (more along the lines is i have an opinion i just didnt share it)

i was just challenging your claim as for blood for oil.....which is out and out false

as far as spending trillions or billions, well thats a government issue that has to do with the FIAT system more than anything (our government operates on a credit based system, i mean they really dont have any money just what its valued at, at the promise of it being honored). the governments incentive to balance a budget is the last thing on either side of politics agenda. while i agree that alot of it is needless spending, i challenge that we would still have accrued a massive amount of debt with or without iraq. hell you could say it was a huge benefit to americas economy, all those soldiers and contractors making bank pump it directly back stateside most of the time. if ya wanna get technical the military is the best jobs program we have ever had

did i profit from the war? whos to say, i might have and i might not have, hind-sight being 20/20 its to easy to criticize especially when the unknown is just rhetoric and speculation based on predisposed beliefs (most folks already have their mind made up on an issue and keep it that way)

as far as the soldiers dieing, the united states has lost about 3000 (i think this number is is for both afghanista and iraq, and it comes from last figure i heard (so dont quote me on the exact amount). that being said, statistically for an american citizen (im disregarding MOS and and what not) i would bank it would be safer being depolyed than living in detroit (as our combat casualty is very, very low for a decade long conflict. also since the pentagon refuses to openly publish the amount of enemy KIA its hard to get a good picture)

again, my point is the united states cannot be solely blamed for the ragged condition of any one nation, especially those in the middle east (cause they all suck)

my honest opinion is that iraq provided jobs and a source of revenue, as well as gave us a strategic military position and essentially a show of force. i could also go so far as to conjecture that it prevented new terror attacks on american soil (of course this cannot be proven) but the idea is easy to understand. if you have a nation like iraq and we have a military presence there, then terrorists (including the myriad of foreign fighters in that nation) then the military becomes a target. now would it be easier for a muzzy to attack the "infidel invaders in muslim holy land" or try and get to america and plan and execute a complicated and dangerous plan?

the idea being we put military in iraq as a lure for terrorists to attack them instead of the homeland. now this isnt necessarily true but im offering a different perspective, one which is in no way less ludicrous than the proposed "we went there for oil for haliburton"

X2 on the good points.