Iraq War

[Storm Cadet]

I just heard on TV from Sen. Schumer from NY that we have been at war in Iraq LONGER than we were in WWll. Thats terrible news. When does it end?

[BillW]

Originally Posted by Storm Cadet

I just heard on TV from Sen. Schumer from NY that we have been at war in Iraq LONGER than we were in WWll. Thats terrible news. When does it end?

We handed the keys over to Germany in 1955. If you count from the Gulf war (which this is an extension of) he's right otherwise just propaganda.

[Danzig]

ww2 was fought completely differently. everyone was involved, everyone pushed towards winning that war--support from home was great, with everyone sacrificing time, money, the better things in life. everyone stepped up.
now, not the same. now, we're so far removed, it doesn't seem real. there's no push to get support, no one wants to get involved. just another example of the 'me' generation.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Danzig

ww2 was fought completely differently. everyone was involved, everyone pushed towards winning that war--support from home was great, with everyone sacrificing time, money, the better things in life. everyone stepped up.
now, not the same. now, we're so far removed, it doesn't seem real. there's no push to get support, no one wants to get involved. just another example of the 'me' generation.

Well, the two were very different from the get-go. Iraq posed no threat to America and no threat to world order like our enemies in WWII did.

I think that this being the "me" generation has absolutely nothing to do with there being no support for this war. People supported WWII because it was a noble endeavor that was necessary to stabilize the world. This one is very different in that there was nothing noble about starting this war. It's hard to ask an entire nation to sacrifice for a war that they don't support and that the majority never have, especially when the war was started against a country that posed zero threat to us.

The two wars are apples and oranges, and I don't think the attitude towards this war is the result of the "me" generation, it's the result of frustration that we started a war because we felt like it, not because we had to.

[BillW]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

it's the result of frustration that we started a war because we felt like it, not because we had to.

Hussein invaded Kuwait. Someone had to "feel like" helping them out - they were defenseless (and our ally BTW)

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Well, the two were very different from the get-go. Iraq posed no threat to America and no threat to world order like our enemies in WWII did.

I think that this being the "me" generation has absolutely nothing to do with there being no support for this war. People supported WWII because it was a noble endeavor that was necessary to stabilize the world. This one is very different in that there was nothing noble about starting this war. It's hard to ask an entire nation to sacrifice for a war that they don't support and that the majority never have, especially when the war was started against a country that posed zero threat to us.

The two wars are apples and oranges, and I don't think the attitude towards this war is the result of the "me" generation, it's the result of frustration that we started a war because we felt like it, not because we had to.

well, that's true too. we just seem so detached from it all. so many just say they want it to end, we all do. but how do we want it to end?
and i think it stinks that we went over and basically destroyed the country, and now so many just want to leave, turn over this huge mess to a bunch of people who didn't ask for all this.
that would be like me coming over, trashing your house, picking up two or three pieces of china, and then saying well, gotta go-it's all yours, handle it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by BillW

Hussein invaded Kuwait. Someone had to "feel like" helping them out - they were defenseless (and our ally BTW)

well, that's true. and there was colossal support for going in and kicking him out. and there was a reason hussein was left in place after we kicked him out of kuwait--bush completely ignored why saddam was left in place, why no one went in and kicked him. completely ignored all the facts, and just went in and removed him without considering all the fall out of doing so.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Danzig

well, that's true too. we just seem so detached from it all. so many just say they want it to end, we all do. but how do we want it to end?
and i think it stinks that we went over and basically destroyed the country, and now so many just want to leave, turn over this huge mess to a bunch of people who didn't ask for all this.
that would be like me coming over, trashing your house, picking up two or three pieces of china, and then saying well, gotta go-it's all yours, handle it.

I honestly couldn't agree more. I guess what frustrates me is the BushCo are handling it. There was a huge group of people who opposed this from day one, and he's basically telling them that if they don't like how it's going that they should fix it (though he won't let them...).

So using your example, that's like you and me being on a team. You say we should go trash Storm Cadet's house, and I say in no uncertain terms that we shouldn't. You get to make the decisions though, so you go do it anyway. Then when we get in trouble, you turn to me and say "don't like it? fix it yourself."

Originally Posted by Danzig

well, that's true too. we just seem so detached from it all. so many just say they want it to end, we all do. but how do we want it to end?
and i think it stinks that we went over and basically destroyed the country, and now so many just want to leave, turn over this huge mess to a bunch of people who didn't ask for all this.
that would be like me coming over, trashing your house, picking up two or three pieces of china, and then saying well, gotta go-it's all yours, handle it.

Well GW would differ in that some of the people in the neighbors house did play a role in trashing our house first (twin tower/AlQ connection; he says). Or a significant number of followers in the neighbors house were ready to trash our house (WMD's).

I agree in not leaving a mess that we made. But we made a mess that is politically impossible for us to clean now with the mistakes that were made in the beginning.

[BillW]

Originally Posted by Danzig

well, that's true. and there was colossal support for going in and kicking him out. and there was a reason hussein was left in place after we kicked him out of kuwait--bush completely ignored why saddam was left in place, why no one went in and kicked him. completely ignored all the facts, and just went in and removed him without considering all the fall out of doing so.

By ignoring the terms of surrender Hussein was indicating his intent on continuing his aggression. Our only other choice was to wait until he restored his financial resources (which was unfortunately accelerated by the UN) and picked out his next victim. Our policy of regime change (Public Law 105-338) was signed in the late '90's 1998 I believe. If anything was overlooked, it was done by a majority.

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Well GW would differ in that some of the people in the neighbors house did play a role in trashing our house first (twin tower/AlQ connection; he says). Or a significant number of followers in the neighbors house were ready to trash our house (WMD's).

I agree in not leaving a mess that we made. But we made a mess that is politically impossible for us to clean now with the mistakes that were made in the beginning.

pgardn,
"Mistakes"??? Buddy, this was done with intent. It was calculated.
Calling it a "mistake" is bogus....an excuse.
Also, earlier in this thread it seems that someone has a bit of confusion between "Operation Desert Storm" and "Operation Iraqi Freedom".
Perhaps he's one of the remaining 28% that's still a believer.
Let the war crimes trials begin!

[Danzig]

i understand that bill. what i don't understand is A: ignoring the vacuum that removal of hussein would create, hence the strengthening of iran we are currently witnessing, and B the half assed way we have gone about this 'war'. we didn't get the support necessary, everyone thought saddam was a paper tiger, and that continuing the un sanctions, etc, would keep him on a short leash.
yes, he supports terrorists, and that is a concern...but i don't think HIS support was any stronger, or more of a threat, than say syria, or iran, or even some of the sauds. that whole area is a festering sore on the face of the earth, but we've severely bungled this job. hopefully not beyond the point of recovery. problem is, so many just want to quit--there has to be a way to straighten out this mess, but the current admin doesn't seem to have what it will take.

[BillW]

Originally Posted by Danzig

A: ignoring the vacuum that removal of hussein would create, hence the strengthening of iran we are currently witnessing,

The situation in Iraq pretty much mirrors post WWII Germany, 2 to 3 years of insurgency and 10 years to get things stable enough to turn things over to the German people. So it wasn't totally unexpected, or ignored. The insurgency in Iraq will be more successful, and last longer because ...

B. the half assed way we have gone about this 'war'.

This is exactly the problem! And the reason we were successful in Germany. We took care of the situation with both halfs

we didn't get the support necessary, everyone thought saddam was a paper tiger, and that continuing the un sanctions, etc, would keep him on a short leash.

Hussein had proven he was not a paper tiger by his history. He Almost immediately attacked Iran after he took power and as soon he could after he recovered from that went into Kuwait. Through the 90's he showed every indication of continuing that pattern by adapting very well to the increased international scrutiny and building his financial warchest right under the nose of the UN.
Unfortunately sanctions only work with a compassionate gov't, otherwise it just punishes the people and is terribly misguided. The Iraqi people suffered due to the sanctions, but there was no way they were going to put pressure on Hussein to comply with the mandates as a result of those sanctions - he would just kill them. Hussein simply took advantage of the oil for food program to build his war chest and starved his people. The only thing sanctions did was give him an excuse to offer his people for their suffering ("It's the great satan's fault") and buy time.

I vote for "B" above - This discussion can go on for ever, but I need to get back to handicapping - take care,

Bill

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

that whole area is a festering sore on the face of the earth, but we've severely bungled this job. hopefully not beyond the point of recovery. problem is, so many just want to quit--there has to be a way to straighten out this mess, but the current admin doesn't seem to have what it will take.

And we've been bungling it since, what, the 1950's? Isn't that when we overthrew the democratically elected Iranian government to put in the dictatorship under the Shah?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story...022065,00.html

I think the place will be a powderkeg until we finally accept we've got to find an energy source that isn't oil. The user does not get to dictate terms to the pusher.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by BillW

We handed the keys over to Germany in 1955. If you count from the Gulf war (which this is an extension of) he's right otherwise just propaganda.

good spin.

america's combat in ww2 went from pearl harbor (dec 1941) to 1955.

everyone who reads about germany's surrender in 1945 will be surprised. i love the use of the word "propaganda". are you from the ministry of truth?

[hi_im_god]

"The situation in Iraq pretty much mirrors post WWII Germany, 2 to 3 years of insurgency and 10 years to get things stable enough to turn things over to the German people. So it wasn't totally unexpected, or ignored. The insurgency in Iraq will be more successful, and last longer because ..."

(jaw drops)

germany was a defeated country and comparing the minimal resistance after surrender to what is happening in iraq requires a level of denial that belongs only in this white house.

stop lying. you are only fooling your own choir.

It really is a very poor example.

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by BillW

The situation in Iraq pretty much mirrors post WWII Germany, 2 to 3 years of insurgency and 10 years to get things stable enough to turn things over to the German people. So it wasn't totally unexpected, or ignored. The insurgency in Iraq will be more successful, and last longer because ...

This is exactly the problem! And the reason we were successful in Germany. We took care of the situation with both halfs



Hussein had proven he was not a paper tiger by his history. He Almost immediately attacked Iran after he took power and as soon he could after he recovered from that went into Kuwait. Through the 90's he showed every indication of continuing that pattern by adapting very well to the increased international scrutiny and building his financial warchest right under the nose of the UN.
Unfortunately sanctions only work with a compassionate gov't, otherwise it just punishes the people and is terribly misguided. The Iraqi people suffered due to the sanctions, but there was no way they were going to put pressure on Hussein to comply with the mandates as a result of those sanctions - he would just kill them. Hussein simply took advantage of the oil for food program to build his war chest and starved his people. The only thing sanctions did was give him an excuse to offer his people for their suffering ("It's the great satan's fault") and buy time.

I vote for "B" above - This discussion can go on for ever, but I need to get back to handicapping - take care,

Bill

I may be wrong here...but wasn't Hussein attacking and fighting Iran with our blessing and support as well as aid??? I'm pretty sure Iran was the ultimate bad guy back in those days. We actively courted and financed a large part of Iraq's Iran adventure back in the day I'm pretty sure.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

I may be wrong here...but wasn't Hussein attacking and fighting Iran with our blessing and support as well as aid??? I'm pretty sure Iran was the ultimate bad guy back in those days. We actively courted and financed a large part of Iraq's Iran adventure back in the day I'm pretty sure.

You're not wrong. And of course, see link in earlier post for our adventures in Iran from the 1950's...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

I may be wrong here...but wasn't Hussein attacking and fighting Iran with our blessing and support as well as aid??? I'm pretty sure Iran was the ultimate bad guy back in those days. We actively courted and financed a large part of Iraq's Iran adventure back in the day I'm pretty sure.

sure 'nuff! back when our foreign policy was based on what russia did ( we invariably chose the other side) and of course the whole 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' line of thought. wwwaaay to go!! my, that worked out SO well.