Iraq War

[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.

[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

[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.

[Downthestretch55]

Just to clarify...the military operations by the US in Iraq are not involved in a "war". US military is an occupation force.
As previously stated by our beloved President on the deck of the US carrier, Abraham Lincoln, "Major American combat operations have been successfully completed." Google "mission accomplished".
American forces are NOT involved in "war".

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by Downthestretch55

Just to clarify...the military operations by the US in Iraq are not involved in a "war". US military is an occupation force.
As previously stated by our beloved President on the deck of the US carrier, Abraham Lincoln, "Major American combat operations have been successfully completed." Google "mission accomplished".
American forces are NOT involved in "war".

Follow up:
The democraticly elected majority of Iraq's parliament have spoken.
Does anyone remember all those purple fingers?
Though this story has been bypassed by the main stream press, the rest of the countries on the planet have access to this story.
So should you:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51624/

[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.