Iraq handled like the presidency - with incompetence.

[CamFu]

Well, I’m very impressed with what you have said Cyrax. I’m going to debate your comments… of course, but I’m going cover it all. That is THREE pages of depating. I’m going to stick to what jumps out too me.

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.

Bravo on picking up on this point. Personally I have very mixed feeling on this point. Timing is a very big key when going to “war”. Was it bad timing? I don’t really know, I mean think about it. America had just been kicked in the face with the attacks from Sept. 11th. And we hadn’t done anything about it other then send the UN over there to inspect. How long would you wait to hit somebody back after they had punched you in the face… not once but three times? Would you wait until a crowd came to support you? Would you wait for some friends to come back you up? Even if you where the all mighty class president and your reputation stood on the line… would you wait to get approval to fight?

On top of that, there used to be talk about how Syria was helping Iraq out. There where only so many inspectors over there (UN type), and while their backs where turned, who’s to say that Saddam didn’t start transporting weapons across the border? Because the UN never saw it or the news never reported it? Or how about Syria helping Iraq Import weapons into Iraq? Maybe if we just waited a little longer, we could have seen what really would have happened. Since the UN is always looking out for the US’s best interest.

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.

Ok I’m going to make this all tie in together… just work with me here. Let me start off by saying Saddam was never scared that the Americans were going to attack. Saddam could give a rats a$$ about the USA and their Army. The first part of the statement is correct… Bush (Sr.) pulled out to increase his reputation. He also had congress breathing down his neck pulling him every which way. There was no fear in Saddam. We had no control (I mean political type) over Iraq. We have tried to put a strong hold on them, but with Saddam in power there was no bending. Now with countries like North Korea, we do have a political hold on them. Proof, we are in a cease fire right now, as we speak, with North Korea. And that was done over 50+ years ago. Why didn’t we do that with Iraq after Desert Storm? Because Saddam doesn’t care about what the US can do for him. And US Military has control over North Korea; they aren’t a threat to us. And if you actually think that Saddam wasn’t a threat, you need to recheck the facts of what kind of person this guy is, what his goals are in life. As for the African countries, you have to do the math here. I don’t remember any African military having the numbers to being one of the largest Militaries in the world. Iraq did. And if we waited, they could have built to greater numbers. I’m not 100% sure as of right now, but during Desert Storm, Iraq had the 3rd largest military in the world, personal wise.

Why did we go into Iraq with OBL still at large (and still at large now,)

Why do you think we are in Afghanistan? Who do you think is there? Why do you think that more countries support us being in Afghanistan then Iraq? If you answered “Because that is where the US thinks Bin Ladan is at”, you answered correctly. We are still trying to find him and bring him to justice.

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.

Now Cyrax, I don’t want to offend you and I hope I don’t. But I’m going to put this out straight forward. Your Friend is an idiot. By your comments below… such as ” 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.” This just shows me that you know more about this war then he does. This isn’t what I’ve heard high racking officers and NCO’s saying verbatim, but it’s all the same lines.

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.

Once again, not trying to be an ass, but you sound like you read that some where. Don’t try and comment on something you don’t truly experience. I’ve heard this war compared to Vietnam, but these people don’t fight like the VC did. Guerilla Warfare, yes and that is where the comparison stops. One VC had more pride for their country then the whole Army of Iraq does for theirs. If this war was like Vietnam, don’t you think we would have been better prepared? I think so, because we have already experienced that type of enemy. Again, Cyrax… not trying to be a prick.

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.

Dang it, I had a whole story written out for this and I forgot my point. So here is the short and sweet of it. Training, that is nonstop event out there and in the rear. More troops, you can only have so many people in fight before you start accidentally hitting your buddy.

As for you education comment. Maybe we aren’t considered the smartest in the world (hell, I use word to spell check more me), but I can tell you that when you start learning, you don’t jump straight into college. You have to start slow.

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

And I still disagree.

[Neo]

Originally Posted by CamFu

America had just been kicked in the face with the attacks from Sept. 11th. And we hadn’t done anything about it other then send the UN over there to inspect. How long would you wait to hit somebody back after they had punched you in the face… not once but three times?

There was no link between 9/11 and Iraq. People just like to believe there was.

[CamFu]

Originally Posted by Neo

There was no link between 9/11 and Iraq. People just like to believe there was.

The link would be the Taliban and al-Qa’ida's. There where many of these groups over in Iraq and being supported by Saddam. The hijackers of the planes where part of al-Qa’ida.

And we can't have a country that supports terrorists, if we just attacked Afghanistan, they would have some where to hide and be safe.

[Neo]

There is no credible evidence that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. I've heard Taliban say they hate Saddam and are at odds with his policies. The Taliban controlled their own territories in Iraq independent of Saddam.

[Xantar]

Bravo on picking up on this point. Personally I have very mixed feeling on this point. Timing is a very big key when going to “war”. Was it bad timing? I don’t really know, I mean think about it. America had just been kicked in the face with the attacks from Sept. 11th. And we hadn’t done anything about it other then send the UN over there to inspect. How long would you wait to hit somebody back after they had punched you in the face… not once but three times? Would you wait until a crowd came to support you? Would you wait for some friends to come back you up? Even if you where the all mighty class president and your reputation stood on the line… would you wait to get approval to fight?

The timing was bad, but I don't think it had anything to do with gaining the world's approval or having a case that Iraq had WMD or anything like that.

One thing I've learned while studying political science is how wars are fought. Arguably the greatest military philosopher of all time, Carl von Clausewitz, wrote that there are three elements to a war force: the civilian rulers, the military and the public. You need the support of all three in order to successfully prosecute a war.

Consider World War II. None of us here is old enough to remember that time, but you can read up about it and get enough information for our purposes. During that time, you had events like neighborhood drives to donate your used tires for the war. People were told to donate all their scrap metal and other materials for the cause. In their minds, the ordinary citizens were helping to fight the war.

The same wasn't true about Vietnam. And it wasn't true about Iraq. The quagmire wasn't that American soldiers would face guerilla war. It was that they would face the opposition of people back home.

President Kennedy back in the day and President Bush now didn't mobilize public support for their wars. They convinced the public instead that the sacrifice would be relatively small ("Look at how tiny that country is. They'll roll right over for us!"). And the public in both cases didn't fully understand what the reasons for going to war were. Nowadays, President Bush is saying that we fought the war in Iraq to establish a democracy in the Middle East and free some oppressed people. That's all well and good except back when the war started, people who supported the war thought it was to fight terrorism and get rid of WMDs. And supporters for the war were a lukewarm 60% of the population at best.

So now consider the reactions to the news that casualties now number 1,000. In World War II, the people would have said (more or less), "They've killed a thousand of our young men! Congress and Mr. President, I want that Hitler dead for what he did!"

Now, the reaction looks something more like, "One thousand dead? I don't know. Was it worth it?" Some people say yes. Some people say no. That's not the point. If it's not a thousand, it will be two thousand. Or three thousand. Every supporter of the war in Iraq has a limit. This was not true in World War II where the stakes were unconditional surrender and the battles were to be won at all costs. And as a result, public pressure is forcing even President Bush to come up with a plan for pulling out, probably much earlier than he would like.

Then there was the military. What happened went more or less like this: the Bush Administration says to the military, "We want to make war with Iraq." The military responds, "OK, we'll need at least 500,000 troops. More would make it even safer."

This wouldn't do for the Bush Administration. A deployment that big was not politically feasible (perhaps partly because of opposition by citizens). So they ordered the military to execute the war with much fewer troops. And in effect, they went into the war with a certain amount of the military opposed to them as well.

This is what President Bush should have done: he should have stated his case for the war, whether it is for the WMDs or to establish democracy or whatever. And he should have stated that sacrifices on everybody's part will be necessary and that there is a likelihood that the war will go on for much longer than anticipated. There wasn't a single military expert at the time who didn't think that Iraq would probably become a long term problem.

If there were clear indications that the public supported him fully and was willing to go forth no matter the cost, then he should have gathered the support of the military community as well. He should have said, "Tell me what you need to do this and I will see to it that you get it." The military might be cautious, but being cautious along with them wouldn't have hurt.

If President Bush didn't get the support of the public and the military, he should have waited to try to persuade them to his side. And if he couldn't do that, he shouldn't have gone to war. Whether the cause was just or not, as a politician his job is to be pragmatic and do what is within the capabilities of the country.

One last thing: if the reasons for the war turn out to be empty or false midway through, President Bush should have said that outright. What he did instead simply caused the public to distrust him.

Originally Posted by CamFu

Americans can't give these people freedom, why because they don't know what it's like to fight for it.

This is a very important point as well. Governments, especially democracies, cannot be given to a people. They might be imposed, but they can't simply be given. The people have to choose that government and then struggle for it in some way. That might be through war. It might be through Gandhi-style protests. But in any case, a government is not the people's unless they have fought for it.

That's the reason why Liberia has failed. Ex-slaves were shipped to Africa and then simply told to go be free. But that didn't work. Liberia is now in many ways a failed state. Liberians didn't feel any attachment to their government because they hadn't struggled for it.

Originally Posted by Crono

I know for a fact that Islam is not a religion of tolerance, not ONE Islamic nation is free. Changing Iraq could possibly change the Muslim world for the better.

Indonesia is a democratic country that has not only elected a ruler but has also had a peaceful transfer of power. It is made up of several ethnic groups scattered across several islands. There are three official languages. But all the Indonesians more or less co-exist together without much friction.

And the astonishing thing is the vast majority of Indonesians are Muslim.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by Xantar

Indonesia is a democratic country that has not only elected a ruler but has also had a peaceful transfer of power. It is made up of several ethnic groups scattered across several islands. There are three official languages. But all the Indonesians more or less co-exist together without much friction.

And the astonishing thing is the vast majority of Indonesians are Muslim.

Ok, one country. One country that isn't even in the middle east. Not a single middle eastern country is free. That was my point.

[Xantar]

I could have sworn that your point was that "Islam is not a religion of tolerance." Ah well. At least we've clarified that point.

Now what about my point that you can't impose or give democracy but that the people have to work for it themselves in order to make it valid?

[Kitana85]

What I'm not understanding, nor have I understood, is how "freedom" can be forced on another nation, and why our version of freedom has to be theirs-- we hate socialism, the Euopeans like democratic socialism, if I just said democratic socialism without pre-ing it with Europe everyone would have been like--boooo....
Also, look at what's happened when its tried to happen before, we got Castro in Cuba, and revolving door leaders in Haiti.

Oh, and a coutry in the middle east... Lebanon? Its a muslim nation which borders on Syria... its a republic (as is the US), how much freer do you want it?

[Neo]

No country is ever truly free until it has its own smoldering crater of U.S. freedom.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by Neo

No country is ever truly free until it has its own smoldering crater of U.S. freedom.

You would not believe how cocky and arrogant that sounds.

But I agree with Kitana.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by Kitana85

What I'm not understanding, nor have I understood, is how "freedom" can be forced on another nation, and why our version of freedom has to be theirs-- we hate socialism, the Euopeans like democratic socialism, if I just said democratic socialism without pre-ing it with Europe everyone would have been like--boooo....
Also, look at what's happened when its tried to happen before, we got Castro in Cuba, and revolving door leaders in Haiti.

Oh, and a coutry in the middle east... Lebanon? Its a muslim nation which borders on Syria... its a republic (as is the US), how much freer do you want it?

Lebannon is a "republic", doesn't mean it's free. Just look at North Korea.. it's a "People's Republic", and it is the total opposite.

You can not find safety or freedom anywhere in the middle east. At least not the type of freedom us westerner's are used to.

[Kitana85]

Originally Posted by Crono

At least not the type of freedom us westerner's are used to.

Wow, I honestly cannot believe you just said that! Maybe I misinterpreted, but it sounded like you said that because their freedom is different, it isn't real freedom.

In the 1700's, the Brits tried to sqaush insurgets in some of their colonies. These insergents were against freedom! They had to be, England was the freest nation in the WORLD, the people voted for parlement, unlike in the unfree France, Spain, and Portugal, yes, 10% of the people living in England could vote of hold office, they were by far the freest nation in the world... AND THESE, these rebels, they had to be against freedom!

Comparing Lebanon to North Korea is just bullsh!t. If you look at statistics, standered of living and MOST IMPORTANTLY rights given to citizens, they are free. Lebanon is rare in the middle east, but don't pretend it doesnt' exist.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Kitana85

What I'm not understanding, nor have I understood, is how "freedom" can be forced on another nation, and why our version of freedom has to be theirs?

Thats incorrect. The government being established in Iraq will be more like the European Parliamentary system than the American system of 3 branches.

[Kitana85]

or then why it has to be like theirs