Political Crossfire Forums

[mr_happy]

While many people are against the war, I would like to ask a serious question

"Was the Iraq War a doomed failure from the beginning, or did it have potential that was destroyed by mismanagement in Washington?"

To me its hard to determine. Right after Saddam's Fall, the U.S. and coalition forces were pretty popular in IRaq. However, as security, water, and power diminished, the populace became more agitated and angry. If the administration hadn't screwed up in the beginning, would Iraq have had a chance?

[henri]

mr_happy wrote: While many people are against the war, I would like to ask a serious question

"Was the Iraq War a doomed failure from the beginning, or did it have potential that was destroyed by mismanagement in Washington?"

To me its hard to determine. Right after Saddam's Fall, the U.S. and coalition forces were pretty popular in IRaq. However, as security, water, and power diminished, the populace became more agitated and angry. If the administration hadn't screwed up in the beginning, would Iraq have had a chance?

*****

First of all, mr Happy,

We went to war in Iraq, not to catch Saddam Hussein.

Our beloved Dubya deceived most Americans by making us believed that we have to get Hussein's WMDs. because our national security is in great danger. Saddam could launch his "nuclear missiles" within a couple of hours. He has a stockpiles of nuclear bombs and deadly chemicals ready to be launched against us...etc. Dubya and his gang even showed fake pictures of mobile missile launchers ready to roll.

We invaded Iraq and destroyed that country's infrastructure, it's water and electricity, their houses, schools and other buildings.
And we precision bombed at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians to oblivion (and still counting), mostly women and children.

Do you expect the populace to welcome their killers with open arms?
Iraqis never attacked Americans before we occupied their country.

[MoscowMatt]

henri wrote: Iraqis never attacked Americans before we occupied their country.[/b]

Apart from those shots they fired at the US in the FIRST gulf war eh?!!!! :lol:

[SpartanPhalanx]

MoscowMatt wrote: henri wrote: Iraqis never attacked Americans before we occupied their country.[/b]

Apart from those shots they fired at the US in the FIRST gulf war eh?!!!! :lol:


Again, the U.S chose to invade......besides what`s that got to do with this war.....

Grasping at straws as usual eh mat....

[Duchifas]

SpartanPhalanx wrote: MoscowMatt wrote: henri wrote: Iraqis never attacked Americans before we occupied their country.[/b]

Apart from those shots they fired at the US in the FIRST gulf war eh?!!!! :lol:


Again, the U.S chose to invade......besides what`s that got to do with this war.....

Grasping at straws as usual eh mat....

Yeah, that crazy, US, chose to invade the poor Iraqi army, which was only temporarily in Kuwait for a mass picnic. A beach outing for the Republican Guard, so to speak. And those damn yankees come and ruin everything. Boo hooo.

[Plato & Socrates]

MoscowMatt wrote: henri wrote: Iraqis never attacked Americans before we occupied their country.[/b]

Apart from those shots they fired at the US in the FIRST gulf war eh?!!!! :lol:

Just out of curiosity where were those American soldiers when Iraqi's fired shots at them?

[superskippy]

Quote: Iraqis never attacked Americans before we occupied their country.

Close enough to the truth anyway.

They didnt attack America this is true, but they did launch a total invasion of a peaceful nation for the sole purpose of annexing it and with the support of the world the US led the charge to defeat them.

[mr_happy]

please stay on topic. Yes, the Iraqis did greet U.S. soldiers enthusiastically when the war first began. I have first-hand accounts of this, and i doubt anyone of you were there. However, now the IRaqis seems split on pro-US and anti-US. The question is, did washington screw this up or was it doomed from the beginning?

[henri]

MoscowMatt wrote: henri wrote: Iraqis never attacked Americans before we occupied their country.[/b]

Apart from those shots they fired at the US in the FIRST gulf war eh?!!!! :lol:

[/b]*****

The US declared war on Iraq in the first gulf war, not the other way around. Do you expect the Iraqis to just sit still and eating off their noses?

You've heard the bell ringing but you don't know where the clapper hangs.

[mendosan]

henri wrote: MoscowMatt wrote: henri wrote: Iraqis never attacked Americans before we occupied their country.[/b]

Apart from those shots they fired at the US in the FIRST gulf war eh?!!!! :lol:

[/b]*****

The US declared war on Iraq in the first gulf war, not the other way around. Do you expect the Iraqis to just sit still and eating off their noses?

You've heard the bell ringing but you don't know where the clapper hangs.

So your fine with nations annexing territory then? so why do you oppose the second gulf war?

[Duchifas]

mr_happy wrote: please stay on topic. Yes, the Iraqis did greet U.S. soldiers enthusiastically when the war first began. I have first-hand accounts of this, and i doubt anyone of you were there. However, now the IRaqis seems split on pro-US and anti-US. The question is, did washington screw this up or was it doomed from the beginning?

Washington is screwing it up. You don't fight the insurgency with kid gloves. Terrorists in Fallujah should have been given an ultimatum to surrender or be vaporized. Then that ultimatum should have been acted upon to set an example. None of the sending Marines in to fight them one on one. After an example or two, the insurgency would have been long dead. Instead, catering to the media and afraid of being seen as heavy-handed, US is giving every incentive to the terrorists to fight on.

That's the biggest blunder in managing this war, and it is costing us daily.

[MoscowMatt]

Plato & Socrates wrote: MoscowMatt wrote: henri wrote: Iraqis never attacked Americans before we occupied their country.[/b]

Apart from those shots they fired at the US in the FIRST gulf war eh?!!!! :lol:

Just out of curiosity where were those American soldiers when Iraqi's fired shots at them?

Liberating Kuwait I think you'll find!!!!! :lol:

[MoscowMatt]

henri wrote: MoscowMatt wrote: henri wrote: Iraqis never attacked Americans before we occupied their country.[/b]

Apart from those shots they fired at the US in the FIRST gulf war eh?!!!! :lol:

[/b]*****

The US declared war on Iraq in the first gulf war, not the other way around. Do you expect the Iraqis to just sit still and eating off their noses?

You've heard the bell ringing but you don't know where the clapper hangs.

And why was that then? Didn't have anything to do with the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq per chance did it!!

Neevr mind the clapper you don't even know where the bell is!! :lol:

[Yojimbo]

Duchifas wrote: mr_happy wrote: please stay on topic. Yes, the Iraqis did greet U.S. soldiers enthusiastically when the war first began. I have first-hand accounts of this, and i doubt anyone of you were there. However, now the IRaqis seems split on pro-US and anti-US. The question is, did washington screw this up or was it doomed from the beginning?

Washington is screwing it up. You don't fight the insurgency with kid gloves. Terrorists in Fallujah should have been given an ultimatum to surrender or be vaporized. Then that ultimatum should have been acted upon to set an example. None of the sending Marines in to fight them one on one. After an example or two, the insurgency would have been long dead. Instead, catering to the media and afraid of being seen as heavy-handed, US is giving every incentive to the terrorists to fight on.

That's the biggest blunder in managing this war, and it is costing us daily.

Actually, most of Fallujah was "vaporized." Lots of intense shelling before the Marines entered. The civilian population was ordered to evacuate, electricity was shut off, the town was blockaded, curfews put in place w/ orders to shoot on sight anyone violating the curfew, etc. The town was utterly destroyed, many civilians killed, charges that chemical weapons (white phosphorous) were used have been leveled. I guess the U.S. military could have demolished the town a little more thoroughly, but I think that would create more resentment and more insurgents, don't you? I think the brutal nature of the U.S. occupation is contributing to the insurgency moreso than our unwillingness to use force.

[Duchifas]

Yojimbo wrote: Duchifas wrote: mr_happy wrote: please stay on topic. Yes, the Iraqis did greet U.S. soldiers enthusiastically when the war first began. I have first-hand accounts of this, and i doubt anyone of you were there. However, now the IRaqis seems split on pro-US and anti-US. The question is, did washington screw this up or was it doomed from the beginning?

Washington is screwing it up. You don't fight the insurgency with kid gloves. Terrorists in Fallujah should have been given an ultimatum to surrender or be vaporized. Then that ultimatum should have been acted upon to set an example. None of the sending Marines in to fight them one on one. After an example or two, the insurgency would have been long dead. Instead, catering to the media and afraid of being seen as heavy-handed, US is giving every incentive to the terrorists to fight on.

That's the biggest blunder in managing this war, and it is costing us daily.

Actually, most of Fallujah was "vaporized."

Not true. About 1/4 of homes in Fallujah were destroyed. That's hardly most, and hardly vaporized.

Quote: I guess the U.S. military could have demolished the town a little more thoroughly, but I think that would create more resentment and more insurgents, don't you? I think the brutal nature of the U.S. occupation is contributing to the insurgency moreso than our unwillingness to use force.

Experience shows that anything US (or other Western states) does or fails to do creates "resentment" among the Arabs. For example, in the case of Israel, first occupation caused resentment which caused terrorism. Now that Israel pulled out of Gaza, Palestinians are still resenting something or other by showering rockets on Israeli border towns. In Iraq, insurgents were blowing up people and chopping off heads both before and after Abu-Gharib. So, whatever we do or do not do, we will be resented by someone somewhere.

The only thing we can do to take the resentment away is to withdraw completely from entire world, never leave our borders, and eventually convert to Islam. Otherwise, we will be resented.

What we need to do is add a healthy dose of fear to supporters of insurgency and a sense of futility to the insurgents themselves. The Japanese resented us plenty in 1945. But they got over it, didn't they?

[Plato & Socrates]

MoscowMatt wrote: Plato & Socrates wrote: MoscowMatt wrote: henri wrote: Iraqis never attacked Americans before we occupied their country.[/b]

Apart from those shots they fired at the US in the FIRST gulf war eh?!!!! :lol:

Just out of curiosity where were those American soldiers when Iraqi's fired shots at them?

Liberating Kuwait I think you'll find!!!!! :lol:

I like that quote MoscowMatt "Liberating Kuwait I think you'll find!!!!!" :lol: Liberating Kuwait from who? Do you know the reason at least historical, why Saddam invaded Kuwait? Dont forget one of Saddams claim was to correct a historical wrong. Just for the sake of honesty Kuwait was liberated because we didnt want to lose our supply of oil. Kuwait never existed until our Whitehall mandarins got there geographical pens out and sliced off a chunk of old Iraq, drew a new boundary in the map and called it Kuwait and installed a puppet monarchy government in 1922.

Surprise, surprise? :lol: Some things never change eh ? Dont forget later generations of this very same puppet government in Kuwait, backed Iraq and sent them money to help defeat Iran in the Iraq-Iran war of the 80s, totally unprovoked. I wondered who told them to do that? :lol:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kuwait

I suppose you are right, American soldiers were shot at defending/liberating there puppet regime in Kuwait. Does that really count though?

[cap'n queasy]

There is no "old Iraq" the same people created it that created Kuwait.

Perhaps we should give the entire area to the Assyrians. There are groups lobbying for that very thing, believe it or not.

http://www.aina.org/

[MoscowMatt]

Plato & Socrates wrote: MoscowMatt wrote: Plato & Socrates wrote: MoscowMatt wrote: henri wrote: Iraqis never attacked Americans before we occupied their country.[/b]

Apart from those shots they fired at the US in the FIRST gulf war eh?!!!! :lol:

Just out of curiosity where were those American soldiers when Iraqi's fired shots at them?

Liberating Kuwait I think you'll find!!!!! :lol:

I like that quote MoscowMatt "Liberating Kuwait I think you'll find!!!!!" :lol: Liberating Kuwait from who? Do you know the reason at least historical, why Saddam invaded Kuwait? Dont forget one of Saddams claim was to correct a historical wrong. Just for the sake of honesty Kuwait was liberated because we didnt want to lose our supply of oil. Kuwait never existed until our Whitehall mandarins got there geographical pens out and sliced off a chunk of old Iraq, drew a new boundary in the map and called it Kuwait and installed a puppet monarchy government in 1922.

Surprise, surprise? :lol: Some things never change eh ? Dont forget later generations of this very same puppet government in Kuwait, backed Iraq and sent them money to help defeat Iran in the Iraq-Iran war of the 80s, totally unprovoked. I wondered who told them to do that? :lol:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kuwait

I suppose you are right, American soldiers were shot at defending/liberating there puppet regime in Kuwait. Does that really count though?

Quote: Kuwait never existed until our Whitehall mandarins got there geographical pens out and sliced off a chunk of old Iraq, drew a new boundary in the map and called it Kuwait and installed a puppet monarchy government in 1922

That's interesting about how you said Kuwait never exsisted until 1922 because I read the link you gave and it reckons "Kuwait was founded in the early eighteenth century by various clans of the Anaiza, who gradually migrated sometime in the late seventeenth century from Nejd to the shores of the Persian Gulf"

Which is ever so slightly before 1922!!!! Whoops never mind eh!!! :lol:

Ah and so we only liberated Kuwait for the oil. Oh I see, bit like we only helped the Kosovans because ..... oh hang on no oil!!! See America do get involved in conflicts for reasons other than oil so you can drop that bit of cynasism!!

[Plato & Socrates]

MoscowMatt wrote: Plato & Socrates wrote: MoscowMatt wrote: Plato & Socrates wrote: MoscowMatt wrote: henri wrote: Iraqis never attacked Americans before we occupied their country.[/b]

Apart from those shots they fired at the US in the FIRST gulf war eh?!!!! :lol:

Just out of curiosity where were those American soldiers when Iraqi's fired shots at them?

Liberating Kuwait I think you'll find!!!!! :lol:

I like that quote MoscowMatt "Liberating Kuwait I think you'll find!!!!!" :lol: Liberating Kuwait from who? Do you know the reason at least historical, why Saddam invaded Kuwait? Dont forget one of Saddams claim was to correct a historical wrong. Just for the sake of honesty Kuwait was liberated because we didnt want to lose our supply of oil. Kuwait never existed until our Whitehall mandarins got there geographical pens out and sliced off a chunk of old Iraq, drew a new boundary in the map and called it Kuwait and installed a puppet monarchy government in 1922.

Surprise, surprise? :lol: Some things never change eh ? Dont forget later generations of this very same puppet government in Kuwait, backed Iraq and sent them money to help defeat Iran in the Iraq-Iran war of the 80s, totally unprovoked. I wondered who told them to do that? :lol:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Kuwait

I suppose you are right, American soldiers were shot at defending/liberating there puppet regime in Kuwait. Does that really count though?

Quote: Kuwait never existed until our Whitehall mandarins got there geographical pens out and sliced off a chunk of old Iraq, drew a new boundary in the map and called it Kuwait and installed a puppet monarchy government in 1922

That's interesting about how you said Kuwait never exsisted until 1922 because I read the link you gave and it reckons "Kuwait was founded in the early eighteenth century by various clans of the Anaiza, who gradually migrated sometime in the late seventeenth century from Nejd to the shores of the Persian Gulf"

Which is ever so slightly before 1922!!!! Whoops never mind eh!!! :lol:

Ah and so we only liberated Kuwait for the oil. Oh I see, bit like we only helped the Kosovans because ..... oh hang on no oil!!! See America do get involved in conflicts for reasons other than oil so you can drop that bit of cynasism!!

I thought you knew more than I anticipated. Let me be brief, That explanation of Kuwait is about as in depth as saying some of Cornish and Devonian inhabitant wishes to see them self independent of the UK. A perfect example would be the Catalans view of themselves towards Spain as a whole. Or The Mac Clans of Scotland being the airs to Scotland.

Yes those tribes have been in the Kuwaiti region Just like you will associate the names Jones or Davies coming from the area Wales but they were always and historically seen as being part of Broader Iraq. What we did in 1922 was the equivalent of giving the Cornish there own State out of England, or recognising the North south divide of England from the Watford Gap and dividing England into 2 states. Because our justification was just as lame.

[TNBiologist]

Yojimbo wrote: Duchifas wrote: mr_happy wrote: please stay on topic. Yes, the Iraqis did greet U.S. soldiers enthusiastically when the war first began. I have first-hand accounts of this, and i doubt anyone of you were there. However, now the IRaqis seems split on pro-US and anti-US. The question is, did washington screw this up or was it doomed from the beginning?

Washington is screwing it up. You don't fight the insurgency with kid gloves. Terrorists in Fallujah should have been given an ultimatum to surrender or be vaporized. Then that ultimatum should have been acted upon to set an example. None of the sending Marines in to fight them one on one. After an example or two, the insurgency would have been long dead. Instead, catering to the media and afraid of being seen as heavy-handed, US is giving every incentive to the terrorists to fight on.

That's the biggest blunder in managing this war, and it is costing us daily.

Actually, most of Fallujah was "vaporized." Lots of intense shelling before the Marines entered. The civilian population was ordered to evacuate, electricity was shut off, the town was blockaded, curfews put in place w/ orders to shoot on sight anyone violating the curfew, etc. The town was utterly destroyed, many civilians killed, charges that chemical weapons (white phosphorous) were used have been leveled. I guess the U.S. military could have demolished the town a little more thoroughly, but I think that would create more resentment and more insurgents, don't you? I think the brutal nature of the U.S. occupation is contributing to the insurgency moreso than our unwillingness to use force.

White phosphorus is not veiwed as a chemical weapon. Chemical weapons are usually gases or liquids. White phosphorus is a raw element that is packed into an explosive round. The pure elemental phosphorus reacts with the O2 in the air and catches fire and burns until it burns itself out. It is actually a very useful weapon not a chemical weapon.