US flag ceremony ends Iraq operation

[Jimbuna]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16192105


The US Defence Secretary, Leon Panetta, told troops the mission had been worth the cost in blood and dollars.


Not so sure I agree with that statement :hmmm:

[Dowly]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=190572

[Herr-Berbunch]

Also by Jim :doh:

I don't think it was worth it. Personally it got me some nice times abroad, but that was before they really started fighting back and we were almost welcomed. I'd swap all that niceness I had to get one missing friend and colleague back.

RIP Baz :cry:

[August]

Yeah it was worth it imo. Saddam left in power was a knife ready to stab us the second our back was turned.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yeah it was worth it imo. Saddam left in power was a knife ready to stab us the second our back was turned.


The country is in disarray and turmoil. We are leaving...for now....

[joegrundman]

Yeah it was worth it imo. Saddam left in power was a knife ready to stab us the second our back was turned.

the augustinian fantasy! i love it:rock:

[Dowly]

Was it worth it really depends on how Iraq comes out of this.

My guess is it'll go downhill very quickly for them. :-?

[August]

the augustinian fantasy! i love it:rock:

Fantasy? I'd say that anyone who thinks otherwise is the one having the fantasy here.

[AVGWarhawk]

Was it worth it really depends on how Iraq comes out of this.

My guess is it'll go downhill very quickly for them. :-?


I will raise you a guess and agree!

[Takeda Shingen]

So ends a war that should never have been fought, and with more questions and threats than existed for the United States back in 2001.

[Tribesman]

Saddam left in power was a knife ready to stab us the second our back was turned.
What a pile of crap, how on earth can someone still trot out that rubbish:doh:

[Betonov]

Sadam was more worried the Iranians would stick a scimitar in his back to think stabbing the US in the back

[Jimbuna]

If sad man was still around today and in power I should imagine he would be experienciong many a sleepless night at the thought of Iran achieving a nuclear capability.

[MH]

Saddam gone is not a bad thing.
The gamble USA took did not pay off very well because no one expected it will turn so bad.
I still see it as experiment to sell western democracy to ME...may it be for personal gain.
Now Iraq probably will turn to Iranistan.
If USA went straight for Iran back then...thing could be much better for Iraq.

[steve_the_slim]

Saddam left in power was a knife ready to stab us the second our back was turned.

What the hell was he supposed to stab us with? Even if he had actually had chemical weapons, he had no way to use them against the US. There might have been a possibility of terrorists getting their hands on some, but then they would have had to smuggle it past Homeland Security, and it wouldn't have been Saddam's fault anyway!

Saddam was a scumbag who deserved what he got, but in the end the war wasn't worth it.

[nikimcbee]

Was it worth it really depends on how Iraq comes out of this.

My guess is it'll go downhill very quickly for them. :-?

I agree with Dowly. The ball is in there court now. Let's check them in 10 years and ask this question again. I'm not holding my breath though.:dead:

So who do you think the biggest threat is Iraq's future?

1. Islamic nutjobs.
2. Iran.
3. all of the above.

[August]

What the hell was he supposed to stab us with?

It's amazing what you can buy with billions of petro-dollars.

Even under sanctions, no fly zones and a seriously bad image problem he was able to profit from the oil for food program (while his people starved). It's not difficult to imagine what he would have been able to get away with once all that was withdrawn.

[Tribesman]

It's amazing what you can buy with billions of petro-dollars.

Its amazing that people will still trot out the same worn out crap instead of facing the fact that they supported a massive screw up and swallowed the biggest pile of bull from idiot politicians.

Even under sanctions, no fly zones and a seriously bad image problem he was able to profit from the oil for food program (while his people starved). It's not difficult to imagine what he would have been able to get away with once all that was withdrawn.
Seriously pathetic, someone who has to believe the delusional fantasy because the truth is too painful for him to face.
It isn't pleasant but you have to face it August, 202 of your paratroopers died for some lame brain fantasy that unfortunately simply handed power to the Iranian supported nuts.

[Madox58]

202 of my BROTHERS died doing thier duty.
All were double volunteers by the way.
They enlisted knowing the dangers, then went AirBorne knowing the dangers.
As a Soldier, you do not have the option to decide when and where you will fight.
It could be the politics got them killed. That's for history and the future to show if it was all worth it.
But don't besmirch the fact they had the GUTS to go do what a ParaTrooper does.
He completes a MISSION no matter what!
:rock:

[Jimbuna]

Not taking sides but COOL HEADS everyone please.

An emotive subject I know and ultimate respects to those that did their duty :salute:

[August]

202 of my BROTHERS died doing thier duty.
All were double volunteers by the way.
They enlisted knowing the dangers, then went AirBorne knowing the dangers.
As a Soldier, you do not have the option to decide when and where you will fight.
It could be the politics got them killed. That's for history and the future to show if it was all worth it.
But don't besmirch the fact they had the GUTS to go do what a ParaTrooper does.
He completes a MISSION no matter what!
:rock:

Damn straight. http://home.comcast.net/%7Erdsterling/pwpimages/maroonberetsalutesmiley.gif?PHPSESSID=99e719f19574 849672ccad14abeef220

[TLAM Strike]

There might have been a possibility of terrorists getting their hands on some, but then they would have had to smuggle it past Homeland Security...

:har::har::har::har:

What the hell was he supposed to stab us with? Even if he had actually had chemical weapons, he had no way to use them against the US.

Just stick a Scud on the back of a cargo ship and launch from the mid Atlantic.

[Madox58]

but then they would have had to smuggle it past Homeland Security
Like they are doing such a GREAT job stopping Drugs from South America?
:o
Wake up and sniff some of that Coke that has little problem getting here.
:nope:
What if those drugs coming in were tampered with? Say added something like Ebola? Can you picture the results?
:o

[Tribesman]

But don't besmirch the fact they had the GUTS to go do what a ParaTrooper does.

Who is besmirching what they do?
It is addressing those that still support the obvious nonsense as it was sold by the politicians
Though it could be said that some are besmirching them by denying the plain truth of the screw up that was Iraq, and in case you missed it that was all politics not the troops.
It wouldn't be an issue if someone wasn't praising the troops but spouting the lies of the politicians at the same time to justify it all.
Like I said he is spinning the old the political lies because he appears unable to face that they were just doing the job and wants to try and justify it further by making it a decent cause.
I suppose it is in much the same vein as those who still insist the events in the Tonkin gulf really happened as they were told at the time.


Damn straight.

The only thing thats damn straight is that you are spinning a line which was widely seen as nonsense a decade ago and now is plainly admitted as nonsense by a major segment of the very people who told you it in the first place.

[August]

:har::har::har::har:



Just stick a Scud on the back of a cargo ship and launch from the mid Atlantic.

You guys think too high tech.

Some sacrificial fool cracking open the valve of what looks like a 20lb barbecue gas tank that he has positioned near a crowded buildings air intake is a far more likely scenario.

[TLAM Strike]

What if those drugs coming in were tampered with? Say added something like Ebola? Can you picture the results?
:o

You guys think too high tech.

Some sacrificial fool cracking open the valve of what looks like a 20lb barbecue gas tank that he has positioned near a crowded buildings air intake is a far more likely scenario.

Take your pick...

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/7071/executiveorders.jpghttp://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1854/tomclancyrainbowsix.jpg

Ooops I just ran strait in to Takeda Law...

[Oberon]

/thread

[Madox58]

Out of all the casualties in Iraq, why point out the 202 ParaTroopers?
As a way to attack August I suspect.
You should consider there are some of us that don't care about this debate until you pointed to the 202.
That number was not in this thread until you raised it.
By doing that? You attack the sacrifice they made for your benifit.
:nope:
I find that highly offensive given what they paid.
You and August can run around as long as you both wish with exchanges.
I do not care at all in any way.
But please do not use My fallen Brothers to make a point.
They deserve much more then that.

Regards,
Jeff

[August]

You and August

Don't put me in the same sentence as that jerk. I keep him on ignore for a reason. If the rest of you did the same he'd eventually scuttle back to whatever dark troll cave he came from.

[Madox58]

I'll apologize to you for doing that.
But others still see the whole exchange.
I find the 202 reference offensive given the facts and how it was used.
No doubt I'll be attacked next given past postings.
:haha:

[Takeda Shingen]

Take your pick...

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/7071/executiveorders.jpghttp://img408.imageshack.us/img408/1854/tomclancyrainbowsix.jpg

Ooops I just ran strait in to Takeda Law...

I'll never understand your infatuation with those dime store novels.

[Madox58]

I'll never understand your infatuation with those dime store novels.
:haha:

[Tribesman]

Don't put me in the same sentence as that jerk
:har::har::har::har::har:


I keep him on ignore for a reason.
Just like Skybird:yeah:



@Privateer, a good measured response, however
Out of all the casualties in Iraq, why point out the 202 ParaTroopers?

Because it was raised in a matching topic.

As a way to attack August I suspect.

To attack the worn out lies that he still spouts as if they still retained even a fragment of credibility.
He can salute their sacrafice all he likes, that will always be respected as it should be, but when he sullies it with mixing in the silly pre war political nonsense which is well past its sell by date he is making a mockery of them.

[Madox58]

@Privateer, a good measured response, however


I measured nothing. I speak from my heart.
I was never given the choice of where I served and use what I was trained to do.
Should one decide to argue politics? That's fine and dandy.
Have a good go around all you wish.
I have no interest in your opinions nor August's opinions.
To be honest? You both bore me on this subject to a near sleep needed basis.
I'd have never posted if the 202 had not been used.
Slant the useage all you want.
It was still wrong in my eyes.
I can grab BS from all kinds of threads if I want but that does not make it right nor excuse the transgression.

I will assume you never did a Tour of Duty?

[Oberon]

At the end of the day, I get the feeling that even those in the upper chains of command think that the war against Iraq was a mistake, or at the very least the occupation of Iraq was a mistake. It's going to tie down US troops long into the future, because you know that as soon as the US leaves, the government is going to fall down and need US support to be propped back up again. The same thing happened in Afghanistan back during the Anglo-Afghan wars, and things in the Middle East really haven't changed that much, it's going to be an ongoing concern for at least another three decades until either the oil runs out and the whole of the Middle East turns on itself and neutralizes itself or until the Iraqi military and government are strong enough to stand on their own two feet.
Don't get me wrong, the Iraqi military guys who want to serve their current government are brave, damn brave, but there's most likely a nice sizable amount of soldiers in the Iraqi army which are just waiting for the US to leave so they can stage a coup and change the government.
Afghanistan is going to be even worse because of the history of unrest its had, and the fact that Pakistan is the next door neighbour...IIRC they once called Afghanistan 'The Graveyard of Empires', and it hasn't changed at all.

However, like in the Charge of the Light Brigade, 'Theirs is not to question why, theirs is but to do and die.' and I have the utmost respect and admiration for the armed forces of the coalition deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't agree on why they are there, but I will support them all the way.

[Tribesman]

I was never given the choice of where I served and use what I was trained to do.

Occupational hazard.


I will assume you never did a Tour of Duty?
Too right, I have no faith in politicians being to make those occupational hazard choices wisely for me.
Politicians the world over have a good track record of proving that view as correct.

[Madox58]

Occupational hazard.
Too right, I have no faith in politicians being to make those occupational hazard choices wisely for me.
Politicians the world over have a good track record of proving that view as correct.
There does come a time when one makes a choice.
Those that never serve I respect as much as those that do.
That is what freedom is all about in a way.
But I draw the line at that point.
Those that never served have no basis to judge those that did.
You gave up that one single right freely.
And to stand out there and use mortality rates of those who served?
That is the mark of cowards in my eyes.
Twist it all you want, you used numbers from a different thread to attack someone that you could not stand up to without going dirty.
:nope:

[Tribesman]

Those that never served have no basis to judge those that did.

Serving does not by magic make someones comments untouchable.

Twist it all you want, you used numbers from a different thread to attack someone that you could not stand up to without going dirty.

Not in the slightest, using the numbers just gives a bigger impact on the falseness of his standpoint.
Like I said praising the troops but lying about the war they died in is an insult to them regardless of if he served or not.

[Catfish]

... Like I said praising the troops but lying about the war they died in is an insult to them regardless of if he served or not. ...

This.


Privateer wrote:
" ... I measured nothing. I speak from my heart.
I was never given the choice of where I served and use what I was trained to do.
Should one decide to argue politics? That's fine and dandy.
[...]
It was still wrong in my eyes.
[...]
I will assume you never did a Tour of Duty?
..."

Yep, also this. All soldiers or at least combatants experience at some point that it either is wrong, or not possible to justify. However it is your duty, you serve. You fight with your comrades and die for them.
The german soldiers inWW2 did nothing else than that.
They were not given a choice when they served , and where exactly.
They also did not decide not to use and do, what they were trained to do, when the order came.
Should they have argued politics ? Does anyone believe that would have worked, or that it works today ?

Not to denigrate anyone, but if someone really thinks whether the order given is wrong or right and acted accordingly, he would be a very bad soldier.
Do you blame soldiers for that they do not see through lies, and ask them why they did nothing against their commander/government ?
Nothing has really changed, everyone is sure to be on the right side.

[Madox58]

Serving does not by magic make someones comments untouchable.
I don't believe any such claim was made.
But you seem to use 'magic' to twist any posted statements to your needs.
Well done Mage.

Not in the slightest, using the numbers just gives a bigger impact on the falseness of his standpoint.

Again you, as so many others do, twist/use numbers to suit your whims.
I want a bigger number on Trolls?
Should I use your post count?
:hmmm:
Buy your standards that's fair play.

[Tribesman]

I don't believe any such claim was made.

Since it was about comments being made how can it not be about that?

But you seem to use 'magic' to twist any posted statements to your needs.

That doesn't stand, a person saluted the fallen paratroops , then that same person spouted some worn out fabrications about what they had fought and died for.
That puts him on the same field as the various Republican idiots who trot out crap every easter in their "memorial" to the fallen or the pile of idiots who refuse to honour the lost on armistice day.

Again you, as so many others do, twist/use numbers to suit your whims.

It was to the point, very heavily I agree, but it was to the point.

[gimpy117]

I'd like to think we created a better Iraq after all the blood ans money we gave to that place....but I really can't see that. We created a bad situation there that will last for quite some time, and spent trillions shooting ourselves in the foot...all because W wanted to prove he was better than his daddy. I'm sorry, but as wars go, Iraq was a failure even larger than Vietnam...and really, In my opinion there is NO silver lining to the deal. We didn't just make a mistake, we were tricked into a war that only served to make a few men rich and destroyed two countries, on the economic and international stage

[August]

Whether we have created a better Iraq or not we removed a vile and oppressive dictatorship. That is not something to be ashamed of.

[CCIP]

Whether we have created a better Iraq or not we removed a vile and oppressive dictatorship. That is not something to be ashamed of.

Sure, but at what cost? Pragmatically speaking, there are a lot of dead people now who may have preferred to be living under a vile dictatorship than dead in a 'free country'.

[Takeda Shingen]

Sure, but at what cost? Pragmatically speaking, there are a lot of dead people now who may have preferred to be living under a vile dictatorship than dead in a 'free country'.

That's right. And let's not forget that we (the US) went in there in the name of national security. I don't think that anyone can honestly argue that our actions have made the United States and it's allies any safer than they were in 2003. If anything, the region is less stable now than it was then, and it is becoming clear that, if the 'Arab spring' is any indication, we have handed Iraq over to the fundamentalists, and at the cost of thousands of American lives. That's not something to be proud of. That is a failure of our political leadership, and a corruption of the vision of what the American government's primary function should be; namely the provision of security for it's citizens.

[August]

Sure, but at what cost? Pragmatically speaking, there are a lot of dead people now who may have preferred to be living under a vile dictatorship than dead in a 'free country'.

They were also dying under the dictator that so many here seem to prefer or has everyone forgotten that?

Pragmatically speaking I guess it's rather easy to let other people live under a cruel dictator as long as he provides some illusion of security and stability.

[CCIP]

Pragmatically speaking I guess it's rather easy to let other people live under a cruel dictator as long as he provides some illusion of security and stability.

For better or worse, that's been the case and is the case in many places in the world today. I think at the end of the day, when given choice, most normal people would prefer to at least live - no matter the conditions. That doesn't make it right, but honestly the price of this was just exceptionally high for Iraqis. Saddam was killing them, yes, but not at the rate which we'd seen from 2003 on. To call the war 'good' for the Iraqis is nonsense. It wasn't. Even by conservative estimates it's killed a 6-digit number of civilians, at least 100-150,000. That's 0.5% of the country's population. And that number is still growing.

My fundamental problem with that is that nobody has even asked them. A US-led coalition - which didn't even bother to ask their voters directly - sent in troops who volunteered for their service. The result is tens of thousands of dead Iraqis, whom noone consulted about what they actually wanted. Of course there wasn't a way to ask them, but that doesn't mean it's morally justifyable to walk in and make the choices based on your own ideology and your own political power. The people who started this don't deserve to be forgiven for the deaths of those who didn't volunteer to die for that or other cause. You have no right to tell people what their life is worth. Only they can decide that. That should be on the conscience of every single non-Iraqi supporter of the war.

Had this actually been about genocide and mass murder, or even helping people like the Kurds or Shia resistance, I think this would've all been easier to swallow. But the war was very clearly not about that, it was about a very nasty piece of misguided fiction. Nor did Saddam's removal solve anything, and in many cases has accellerated killings caused by the country's political mismanagement and ethnic tensions. The fact these aren't carried out by the Baath party anymore isn't much of a relief.

I think it's very easy for people to call for freedom or death when they and their families don't have to face the reality of that choice at home in their ordinary life.

[Tribesman]

Whether we have created a better Iraq or not we removed a vile and oppressive dictatorship. That is not something to be ashamed of.
Since we are warned of the serious threat from Iran to the entire region and wider world it would be something to be ashamed of to help the Iranian based Suprmeme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq to get into power in Iraq.
So did that happen:yep:

They were also dying under the dictator that so many here seem to prefer or has everyone forgotten that?

Thats such a lame line, so...why do you hate freedom?:rotfl2:

Had this actually been about genocide and mass murder, or even helping people like the Kurds or Shia resistance, I think this would've all been easier to swallow. But the war was very clearly not about that, it was about a very nasty piece of misguided fiction. Nor did Saddam's removal solve anything, and in many cases has accellerated killings caused by the country's political mismanagement and ethnic tensions. The fact these aren't carried out by the Baath party anymore isn't much of a relief.

Sums it up very well:up:

[August]

...but that doesn't mean it's morally justifyable to walk in and make the choices based on your own ideology and your own political power.

Then no war is morally justifiable, including WW2. Should we have asked the German or Japanese voters what they wanted before declaring war on hitler and tojo? Besides Iraqi expat groups had been lobbying for us to finish off Saddam ever since we walked away from the Iraqi people in Desert Storm after telling them to rise up against the dictator.

Nor did Saddam's removal solve anything,It solved the problem of Saddam, and that's good enough for me. For some here it isn't.

I think it's very easy for people to call for freedom or death when they and their families don't have to face the reality of that choice at home in their ordinary life.Maybe so but that doesn't mean these people wouldn't still call for those things if they did have to face the reality of that choice.

[Betonov]

Then no war is morally justifiable, including WW2.

NO war is morraly justifiable. Including WW2. That war was started by a genocidal maniac with only half a tresticle under false pretenses. Just like the Iraqi invasion of 2003

[August]

NO war is morraly justifiable. Including WW2. That war was started by a genocidal maniac with only half a tresticle under false pretenses. Just like the Iraqi invasion of 2003

Ignoring your stupid sarcasm, let me just say that it takes (at least) two sides to have a war. Was it morally justifiable or not for your ancestors to make war upon the invading nazis?

Saddam needed to go so we took him out, end of story. As far as i'm concerned our attempts to help the country transition into a free society afterward are laudable but secondary to removing him.

[Betonov]

I guess I forgot to make something a bit more clear. I'll write it as simply as possible

Fighting an enemy that atacked you is morally justifiable. You defend yourself against a threat that's allready burning down your villages and taking your countrymen to concentration camps. If we must talk about my ancestors.
War is also justifiable if you're fighting against a direct opressor that's making living immposible for your family and your countrymen. If we must talk about your ancestors.

Starting a war is not justifiable. Never. And don't start me with liberating an opressed nation. You were willing to loose 4500 soldiers for ''liberating'' Iraq, but you pulled out of Somalia after loosing 18 soldiers in 1993, though Somalian civilians were in a hell hole 20 Sadams could not dream of in their most perverted nightmares. Do I smell oil ??


Plus, you've been the only superpower for too long. You've lost the art of playing your enemy against your worst enemy. Sadam hated the US, but he despised Iran. And vice versa. Sadam would keep Iran in check. He'd even accept terms from the US for a chance to stick it to Teheran. These days you only play against everyone.

[Tribesman]

Then no war is morally justifiable, including WW2.
Wow:doh:

Should we have asked the German or Japanese voters what they wanted before declaring war on hitler and tojo?
Errrrrr....they declared war on you:doh:

Besides Iraqi expat groups had been lobbying for us....

Those naughty boys told us to do it:rotfl2:
BTW those naughty boys turned out to be working for Iran all along didn't they:yep:

Saddam needed to go so we took him out, end of story.
Firstly, why did he need to go?
Secondly, its only the start of the middle of the story.
I understand why you want the story to end there though as the beginning of the story was already unravelling and the rest of the story turns out to be not like you would pretend it was.

For some here it isn't.

That is because at the time those arguements you still cling to made little sense and now a decade later they are sadly ridiculous.

[Takeda Shingen]

The United States was neither attacked, nor did it have war declared upon it by Iraq. The operations over most of the past decade were a 'preemptive action' taken over the matter of weapons of mass destruction that were not there after all. The comparison with the Second World War is a poor attempt to justify a war that should never have been fought.

[Skybird]

I still have not ever seen a number-excercise showing me that the dictator still in place would have casued as much bloodshed and suffering than the invasion and years of occupation have caused, and created room for. Even more so when considering the sectarian violence that now will unfold, and the poltiical influence Iran will seek.

The invasion pretty much serves a comparable mechanism like the Arab Spring.

Is the removal of a dicator as an act in itself a good thing? Yes. Is democracy by ideological idea and intention a better thing than dictatorship? Yes.

Is Libya, Egypt, Tunisia on the way towards liberal, free democratic reasonable societies? No, the fundamentalists are on the march that the iron fists of the tyrants before denied them. Is Iraq set for a bright, free, stable, democratic future? No, it is set for civil war, and a fundamentalist regime, at least massive fundamentlaist terror and sectarian violence, and ongoing war with the Kurds.

And it is the same with Afghanistan.

Despite my predictions abiout Al-Sadr and Iran, I said something else those many years ago: that America would soone ror later simply get tired of being worn down in an endless war it will be unable to win by its military power, that Smericans will get tired of it, and then would poull out through the backdoor - by which I mant they would get away as silently and without causing much global atge ntion as possible, hush hush out of there and then never tlak about the issue again. And that is what is happening. At least here in germany, compared to the Traaraaa! in 2003 and 2004, the media coverage on the last combat units pulling out, is surprisingly unspectacular, silent, almost unnoticed. And it see, to be like that in Austria and Switzerland as well.

One simply got tired of Iraq, finally, and now sneaks out - like if through the backdoor.

The real conflict for power so far has not taken place - it now is set to begin. And Iran will win it thanks to friendly preparatory work by the US. Same in Afghanistan: the real war over there will not begin before the US gets tired there and pulls out there, too. Like the Arab Spring: the real revolution has just begun - and it spills the fundamentalists to power. Instead of applauding this Arab Spring, we should wring our hands above our heads in despair. We have not won closer friends - but future enemies.

And Saddam - his teeth got pulled in 91, after that, he had no more military potency to pose a military thread beyond his borders. He was a pain in the lower button , but no strategic risk. The war in 2003 was neither needed, nor constructive. It was desired for economic and ideologic reasons only, and was counterproductive. That it somewhat backfired against the US in costs, seen this way has the taste of biblical justice. If only not the rest of the globe would pay for the US finances. Because the truth is - by financing the US debts that now are greater than it'S complete GDP, in the end it is the international financiers of said debts as well that payed the bill for this silly war.

It was talked of an "American century", and later one talked of at least an "American decade". To me, considering the issues above and the financial-economic crisis surfacing since 2008, it is a decade of American failure and blindness.

[Sailor Steve]

Plus, you've been the only superpower for too long. You've lost the art of playing your enemy against your worst enemy. Sadam hated the US, but he despised Iran. And vice versa. Sadam would keep Iran in check. He'd even accept terms from the US for a chance to stick it to Teheran. These days you only play against everyone.
Many years ago, right after the war itself ended, a pundit suggested that we keep Saddam in power as our puppet, making him play a little more nicely but having a strongman in place to at least keep everyone else in line.

I don't know if that was a good idea, but it was an interesting one.

[Takeda Shingen]

Many years ago, right after the war itself ended, a pundit suggested that we keep Saddam in power as our puppet, making him play a little more nicely but having a strongman in place to at least keep everyone else in line.

I don't know if that was a good idea, but it was an interesting one.

I agree that I don't think that would have been a very good idea, but it really cuts to the core of the matter. For good or ill, Saddam Hussein kept the people responsible for the terrorist attacks on September 11th, the very people that we spent the last decade fighting in Afghanistan and chasing around the globe, out of Iraq. As big as a threat that the radical Islamists are to us, they were an even greater threat to him. There's something to be said for the enemy of your enemy.

[MH]

Ignoring your stupid sarcasm, let me just say that it takes (at least) two sides to have a war. Was it morally justifiable or not for your ancestors to make war upon the invading nazis?

Saddam needed to go so we took him out, end of story. As far as i'm concerned our attempts to help the country transition into a free society afterward are laudable but secondary to removing him.

You smashing your head against the wall.
There is too much bigotry surrounding this war.
The end results is more due false understanding ME mentality and suffering caused by Iraqi extremists and external interest groups than directly by American forces.
The fact that USA tried to establish civic government in Iraq is undeniable and the civil war fueled by external extremist is undeniable.

It turns out things don't work in ME as they work in Japan or Germany and you get judged by end results.

Oh... yeah it was all about OIL and evil Bush.

[Skybird]

I agree that I don't think that would have been a very good idea, but it really cuts to the core of the matter. For good or ill, Saddam Hussein kept the people responsible for the terrorist attacks on September 11th, the very people that we spent the last decade fighting in Afghanistan and chasing around the globe, out of Iraq. As big as a threat that the radical Islamists are to us, they were an even greater threat to him. There's something to be said for the enemy of your enemy.

Realpolitik, or pragmatic thinking. the only issue I have today with having left Saddam in power after 91, was the little intermezzo of the CIA encouraging the Shia uprise - and then betraying them and having the promised aid sitting on the fenceline, watching while the Shias got slaugtered.

That little detail also will backfire in the forseeable future. They have not fogotten it.

But I also admit that I would not have minded for Saddam having been taken out in 91. I have attacked Bush senior often enough for having stopped the war too ealy, haven't I.

[MH]

It don't say much about evil Bush but may be worth reading....


INTRODUCTION
The US invasion of Iraq in April 2003 generated a new set of threats
and challenges for the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council
(GCC). These threats included the possibility of Sunni- and Shi'iinstigated
terrorism spreading to the GCC states from Iraq, and, as in
Iraq, the outbreak of sectarian fighting in these states. Iranian
ambitions to achieve regional hegemony and develop nuclear
capabilities also posed a threat to the GCC states. Finally, within the
GCC itself, there was the constant risk of failure to devise appropriate
strategies to confront these threats and the possibility that GCC unity
would fracture over disagreements regarding appropriate responses
and immediate interests. This study analyzes how the GCC states
attempted to cope with the US occupation of Iraq and the emerging
challenges to GCC security and legitimacy.
The discussion demonstrates that the challenges faced by GCC states
before 2003 were substantially different from those of the post-2003
phase; yet, GCC leaders remained preoccupied with the pre-2003
methods of response and failed to adopt a suitable strategy for dealing
with new threats. The 1990s were characterized by a Gulf region free
from serious security threats and conflicts, and this had allowed GCC
states to grow lax in their regional security and diplomatic
coordination. Except for Saddam’s short-lived occupation of Kuwait
in 1990-1991, GCC states did not find themselves effectively
threatened by either Iraq or Iran, and therefore were not forced to
* Joseph Kostiner is an associate professor at Tel Aviv University, in the
Department of Middle Eastern and African History. The author wishes to express
his gratitude to the BESA Center for sponsoring this paper, to his research
assistant, Joshua Goodman, to Jason Hillman and Teresa Harings, for their
assistance, and to Dr. Paul Marcus for his friendship and support.
MIDEAST SECURITY AND POLICY STUDIES
2
devise strategies to combat immediate threats. The US military
presence in Iraq starting in 2003 and the perceived ties between
American aggression and GCC-US cooperation marked the beginning
of a period of increased threats to the GCC, which the individual
states, and the GCC as a whole, were unprepared to address.
The impact of the US occupation of Iraq and the ambitions of Iran,
which crystallized after the election of Mahmud Ahmadinejad as
president in 2005, were crucial in shaping a new regional system.
These developments had three effects. First, the GCC states had
gotten used to regarding Saddam’s Iraq as the military aggressor, but
its power had been curbed by the US military and by crippling UN
sanctions. GCC leaders were not used to viewing post-Saddam Iraq as
a new center of unrest, with strong Sunni-Shi'i sectarian strife that had
the potential to impact the GCC states themselves. Likewise, GCC
leaders were unaccustomed to viewing Iran as a would-be nuclear
power with Middle Eastern hegemonic ambitions and an operational
axis of allies including regional guerilla organizations.
Second, the regional implications of Iran’s ascendancy forced the
GCC states to consider more than just their own interests: they also
had to consider the impact of Iranian policies in other Middle Eastern
arenas. Some problematic policies included: Iran’s development of
nuclear capabilities, its ambitions for regional dominance, and its
alliances with terrorist organizations, such as Lebanese Hizballah and
Palestinian Hamas, all aimed at destabilizing Arab regimes as well as
breaking the relative lull in the Arab-Israeli conflict. These challenges
concerned the GCC states in light of their physical proximity to Iran
as well as their participation in the greater Middle Eastern theater,
where Iran’s growing reach could challenge GCC policies.
Third, the US had had a balanced policy for the region, evidenced by
the “dual containment” principle and a relatively limited military
deployment in the Gulf. However, this changed in 2003, when the US
occupied Iraq and became a major actor in regional affairs. This
shattered the balance of power in the region, weakening Iran’s
regional rivals and enabling its rise to power.
GCC STATES AND SECURITY CHALLENGES
3
Throughout the period under discussion, the GCC states also had to
cope with the disparate positions and images of US policies and
presence in the region. The US role as the GCC’s major defender was
often overshadowed by Washington’s tarnished image as the occupier
of Iraq and the leading opponent of Iran, which generated criticism in
the GCC states. Consequently, GCC leaders were often forced to
devise contradictory policies to adjust to these conditions.
In response to these rising challenges, GCC leaders had to reevaluate
their pre-2003 defense policies. These had mainly been diplomatic,
tension-lowering gestures toward surrounding states and were not
devised to cope with the new regional circumstances.
This paper will examine GCC threat perceptions and responses. First,
the decade of the 1990s will be examined to understand the changes
in security threats to the GCC states at the turn of the century. Next,
the consequences of US policies in Iraq and Iran, as well as GCC
responses to regional issues such as terrorism, the Arab-Israeli
conflict, and regional nuclearization will be addressed in an attempt to
determine how the GCC perceived threats to its security in the first
decade of the twenty-first century, and how they chose to respond.



Full study
http://biu.ac.il/Besa/MSPS86.pdf

[Jimbuna]

The last of the US troops have left Iraq and crossed the Kuwaiti border.

Here's hoping they never feel the need to return....nearly 4,500 dead and a $1 trillion is one helluva price IMHO.

~SALUTE~ to them all.


The last convoy of US troops to leave Iraq has entered Kuwait, nearly nine years after the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.
The final column of about 100 armoured vehicles carrying 500 soldiers crossed the southern Iraqi desert overnight.
At the peak of the operation there were 170,000 US troops and more than 500 bases in Iraq.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16234723

[Tribesman]

It don't say much about evil Bush but may be worth reading....

Good reading.
We can see already who is filling the vacuum created by the foolishness, and it ain't pretty.

[soopaman2]

I am sad.

I was loving our boys getting killed by cowards with no uniform.
Hiding from arty/airstrikes in mosques. Cuz it is bad to bomb mosques that armed insurgents hide in...:down:

That war would have been over in 6 months if we followed the same rules of engagement we did in WW2. But some moron thought hearts and minds was the way to go, rather than fear and destruction as we are famous for.

Good though, all joking aside. My family lost enough to Bushs' (both) vendetta.

[CCIP]

My bottom line on this is that yes, of course everybody (except the Iraqi Baath party) is better off without Saddam. But everybody is far, far worse off because of this war (except defense and oil contractors, and possibly Iran). There is no moral or political justification for it, except the propaganda that prepared the war and the apologetics that followed. The propaganda long discredited itself - Iraq had no WMDs, it is now less stable, hardly more democratic, and far more filled with US-hating extremists than it ever was under Saddam (and worse yet, they might be in power soon); even those oil profits haven't really materialized. The fact that the best the apologists can do is say that "well, everything about Iraq is now worse, but at least Saddam's gone!" is pathetic. It was a gigantic waste of resources, political credibility, and worst of all Iraqi lives whose fate the US administration had no right to decide.

[Skybird]

The concealed refrigerator-lobe in my brain keeps telling me that we should have bought him a second time, and give him modern tech and bunker busters.

Then let him go after the Iranian nuke program.

One strike, but two flies falling.

[MH]

It was a gigantic waste of resources, political credibility, and worst of all Iraqi lives whose fate the US administration had no right to decide.

Of course....next time just call the sanctions and let them kill each other in free and independent way.
There is nothing worse to Muslims than western intervention in Muslim/Muslim killing-thas basic law.:haha:
Its sort of AK 47 voting-it was done with clubs sometime ago.

[MH]

~SALUTE~ to them all.




:salute: