Hard headed? A question about the war in Iraq

[Gunthr]

Please bear with me... I sometimes go off half cocked; I just heard O'Reilly say something about ... "How could we have gone so wrong in Iraq?"

I'm not sure how anyone can conclude that we have gone SO wrong in Iraq.  And I don't think anyone is so naive to use body counts as a measure.

I could understand the $ spent as a point.  But only as a point to consider.

From day one, I believed that we needed to be in the Middle East, not just to remove Saddam's increasingly dangerous regime, but for the long term presence of a US capabilaty in that region as a matter of national security.   I still believe we need to be there.  Frankly, I've considered US liberal opinions to be contrary... and only concerned about reelection.

I will be flying this belief in the future... so gather your arguments so that we do not waste each other's time...

[Vudak]

I too believe we should be in the Middle East (I've read my Spencer), but speaking with the luxury of hindsight, I have to admit Iraq isn't the ideal country to start with.

Then again, I don't recall too much hawking about Iran or Syria back in 2001-03.  I don't know if that's because they didn't present a threat then, or if that's simply because the media worked us up on Iraq.  Kind of makes a difference.

Memory fails me

I do remember hearing generals ask for more troops back in 2003.  

[rpm]

Originally posted by Gunthr
"How could we have gone so wrong in Iraq?"

 We had the wrong leader.

[x0847Marine]

You need to define your terms.

IMO the "war" against Saddam's forces was "won" hands down by our troops.

The next phase is security and nation building, which is the domain of the incompetent boobs in the .gov, and the military is a tool to that end. Our forces will always win the battles, but at this point there's no more "war" to "win". Any end to this situation at this juncture will be made by our politicians, and as we well know most everything the repubs and dems try to accomplish FAILS.

So for the past 5 years our politicians have been in charge of using the military for security and nation building in Iraq... its fairly obvious there little or no security, why? because nation building of Iraq has thus far failed. And it will continue to be thwarted by all kinds of unreasonable, pissedoff, extremest whack jobs more than willing to take arms against out troops, many in the name of religion.

These same whack jobs will also do everything and anything to destabilize the US installed Iraq .gov. because as Bush Sr correctly stated; the Arabs don't want us there.

[rpm]

Just imagine if we handed over Iraq to some multinational force after we defeated Saddam. Elements from all over the world there to show the Arabs that it's not just the US that wants a safe, stable Iraq.

I wonder where we could have found something like that...

[FLS]

Originally posted by rpm
Just imagine if we handed over Iraq to some multinational force after we defeated Saddam. Elements from all over the world there to show the Arabs that it's not just the US that wants a safe, stable Iraq.

I wonder where we could have found something like that...

You can find that in Iraq.

[rpm]

I said a safe stable Iraq.

[FrodeMk3]

With the benefit of hindsight concerning current events, you could say it was inevitable.

There is going to be a shortage of oil, eventually. If you take all of the production fields scattered through the rest of the world, all together they can't equal the same production as the middle east. Plus, with nations' such as Vuenazuela giving us the finger ( Not that they've quit selling us oil, but their recent nationalization will affect the market) We will be hard pressed to find enough oil to meet demand. I grew up here in Kern County, near the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve. It used to produce as much oil as Salt dome in Louisana at one time. However, now they've depleted it to the point that it would'nt even help in an emergency.

So, for better or for worse, we'll be stuck in the Middle East for some time to come.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by Vudak
Then again, I don't recall too much hawking about Iran or Syria back in 2001-03.  I don't know if that's because they didn't present a threat then, or if that's simply because the media worked us up on Iraq.  Kind of makes a difference.

best reread the little speech from January 29, 2002

Iran and Syria are joined at the hip.

Iraq is all about Iran. It has been from the start. Let us retreat from there and you will see why.

[clerick]

Originally posted by rpm
Just imagine if we handed over Iraq to some multinational force after we defeated Saddam. Elements from all over the world there to show the Arabs that it's not just the US that wants a safe, stable Iraq.

I wonder where we could have found something like that...

Right, like the UN has any balls.  It was their lack of ability to back up their own resolutions that helped bring us to Iraq.  It's like the parent in the store promising punishment if the kid doesnt stop....

Un: "Saddam, get your hand out of the candy!"

Saddam : "no!"

UN: " I mean it Saddam! Let go of the candy! If you dont i'll take it away!"

Saddam: " NO!"

UN: "Ok, THIS time i REALLY mean it! Put it back! If you dont i'll send you to bed without dinner!"

Saddam: "So what? i dont NEED your dinner!"

..... goes on like this until Father Uncle Sam shows up...

FAS: "Put that back NOW!"

Saddam: "F*** me!"

The UN threatened and threatened Saddam for over a decade and it NEVER worked.  With out the U.S. the u.n. is a toothless dog.  They cant handle the conflicts in Africa much less iraq.  And to assume that the Arab nations really care about a world united for their bennefit.  They have made attacks in NUMEROUS countries other then the U.S.  They came here, lived the high life in our country, lived better here then they probaby would have at home.  They were afforded the freedoms granted by our constitution and they STILL repay our generosity and "tolerance" by kiling thousands.  

If you think they are so reasonable, go try and make friends with a man willing to blow himself up.

[clerick]

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
If you take all of the production fields scattered through the rest of the world, all together they can't equal the same production as the middle east.

I need to check, but i thought that the US got more oil from Canada then from the mideast....  I'm trying to check that again...

heres the data

[Rolex]

I can't believe it, another Iraq thread. You're putting out a challenge to argue the same points all over again? That was a rhetorical question. It's ridiculous. It's like "Groundhog Day."

[RedTop]

Originally posted by rpm
Just imagine if we handed over Iraq to some multinational force after we defeated Saddam. Elements from all over the world there to show the Arabs that it's not just the US that wants a safe, stable Iraq.

I wonder where we could have found something like that...

No place.

[Toad]

To paraphrase Milo, think of all the oil as being in a big pool underground. It gets sucked up through straws and sold. Particular countries have straws in the pool, some have bigger straws than others. Countries without straws buy oil from those with straws in the pool.

If some countries, say Iran and Venezuela, decide not to sell to another country, say the US, the oil will still get sucked out of the pool. It's how Venezuela and Iran make money, so they'll still keep sucking and selling.

That oil gets sold to someone and the US will eventually buy from them. The US may pay a higher price but the oil will be available from someone.

Have you heard any of the countries with straws in the pool say they are going to quit sucking and selling? Didn't think so.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Rolex
I can't believe it, another Iraq thread. You're putting out a challenge to argue the same points all over again? That was a rhetorical question. It's ridiculous. It's like "Groundhog Day."

You're right. Where's a good gun control thread when you need one?