[Cyrax9]

I have to add to this--

The problem with Iraq wasn't even going in, it wasn't even the fact that we went to war, it was the reason we went to war and the timing we chose to do so.

When President Bush (Sr.) pulled out of Iraq, he did so to increase his reputation, he SCARED Saddam Hussein into fear of American attacks! Saddam was never a "threat" to the USA in the sense of a dictator who would attack us, if we were attacking to remove Dictator's, which is ironically the UN's job (notice how well they do it), one could argue we should be attacking small African countries as well. Thus, the idea of Iraq being a "true threat" to the US is ridiculous, they're more of a threat with Saddam gone.

Okay now I realize Saddam is a monster, if you don't then you probably are naive, but that's beside the point. Saddam isn't the only dictator around. Kim Jong Il was far more of a threat with his mental instability and his nukes than Saddam was. Osama Bin Laden was hiding in his caves which raises a question: Why did we go into Iraq with OBL still at large (and still at large now,) and why didn't we go and bomb North Korea's nuclear power plants? Probably because Iraq was used as a "stage" to cover over anymore fear of nukes from Korea and Osama and divert our attention to a problem we created.

Now the timing issue is what hurt us, if OBL or North Korea had to ceased to be a threat and been removed from the front of the Newspaper prior to entering Iraq, we'd have had a better chance.

Ok, the UN and NATO, while it's true the USA does all the "dirty work" as Cam said and often waits for 95% of the war to be faught, we can't fight it alone, it creates bad blood between the US and our allies. If more people supported us, even in the sense of a "Good Luck don't get killed" letter, that could be a major change later on in the war. More people would have been willing to support us.

I have a friend in the USAF, he builds munitions and for awhile he was stationed in Iraq before he was transferred back to TEXAS where he's currently stationed. I believe his exact words were "This war isn't about oil, or about Saddam as anybody believes, this is about the 51st state of America and Americanizing Iraq, and that's where the problem is!" He was VERY EMPHATIC at critizizing the planning and handling of the war and the mis-use of our troops.

This brings me to my next point: We had to fight this war eventually but we had to plan more and realize that these people were going to fight the same way the VC fought in Vietnam.

Yes, this is a "new" kind of war in the sense of weapons being used, but the basic mentality of Geurilla Warefare hasn't changed. To be "more prepared" doesn't mean being completely ready -- that's impossible unless your telepathic and know your enemies moves! To be "more prepared" involves the idea of how much money can we invest in this? How will an insurgence in population react? Do we have enough of an economy to cover the cost of the war? How about troops, are there enough? Should we try to recruit first, or recruit using Selective Services?(The Draft)

Minor things like that can lead to major differances, the whole Prison scandal was because eveerybody was oblivious too it at first, if we had more troops, with better training, we'd have been better off. These people do NOT KNOW what US Money is worth, they're from a country that hasn't evolved much and runs on the basis of religion. The idea of an education is one we need over there, but we can't educate Iraq when we are usually listed as the "Stupidest" of the "Educated" countries ourselves! If we're uneduacted, how are we supposed to educate Iraq? We need help in that department, and we have to realize that this is a different culture than America is used too.

Democracy in other countries is quite different from a democracy in the US, in some parts of Europe it's almost leftist. A Democracy in Iraq won't be the same type of Democracy that the US is used too, a Democracy in Iraq has to be "fit" to the culture, then and only then will they be able to understand it and while it may not be our idea of a democracy as they latch onto it and learn how to use it they will learn how to make alliances and establish trade routes in the area. With alliances and trade routes they can work on education and cultural differances which is something the US itself has a problem with.

Was the war in Iraq a mistake though? In my opinion yes, if it was another time and Saddam posed a threat or we had more backing I'd have supported it, but our timing went over as well as a wet fart in church. Do I think we should pull out though? No, if we do that than what we're doing is for nothing and we come back looking stupider than when we went in, if the first steps of democracy in Iraq are taken, even if they're baby steps that don't do much in the short-term, than at least we've accomplished something over there.

Would it be nice if the entire part of the planet burst into flames and fell into the sea? Maybe but that to me just says we're not trying to better humanity, to better humanity we have to accept their culture and while some sicko is usually running the countries in that region, its' better that ti be there sicko instea of ours, keep in mind we wanted Saddam, well guess what America? We got Saddam! We wanted Osama to have weapons, he has weapons, we wanted Castro in Cuba, he's in Cuba! My point? Be careful what you're wishing for, you just might get it, a democratic Iraq may be more than we bargained for, it may also work out fine, but until Iraq can realize that its' true enemy's aren't Americans and America in turn can realize that this war was a mess, not much is going to be accomplished.

On one last note, I remebr talking to someone who knew a friend stationed in Afghanistan. One day one of the women there went to the American military "base" with a matter of severe concern. What was it? She needed SEWING MACHINES! The base commander didn't kow what to do because he'd never HAD anyone ask for this type of thing before, he had to explain to her that he couldn't help and that she would have to ask humanitarian assiatance for such help! Iraq needs humanitarian assistance. We need to concntrate on problems at home, we need to provide America with what it needs or we'll be of no use to Iraq. If we had more people doing humanitarian aid, and this includes education and even police, we'd have a beter chance in Iraq, but as it stands the country's biggest problem is how it reacts to other cultures. Japan and China were untouched for ages, two of our strongest trade allies developed on their own, and when one attacked us in WW2, we fought back and in the end created a strong ally, but only because we fought in DEFENSE, and humbled their emperor who was considered a god. In Iraq they don't see us as liberators they see us the way we see Osama Bin Laden, as terrorists, and that's what really hurts us.

I have to say I'm with Neo on this one, Iraq was poorly handled, we could ahve done better.

I should also note, whenever we win a war we gain a strong ally, whenever we loose a war, we either make an enemy hate us more, or just "put up with" our existance, for us to "truely" win this war, we have to have Iraq as an ally, our strongest Allies, from the UK, to Germany, to Japan were all our enemies once, we beat them all in a war, (American Revolution, WWII and WWII respectively.) and they subsequently allied with us. Even with Russia we bankrupted them before they became a Democracy, Iraq is the same way, I was aganst going in, but pulling out makes no sense now unless 1000 lives are nothing. +Rep to Neo and to CamFu for a good debate.