Dearhunter3450
Active Member
Come on MM, our government looks the other way?? I don't believe it lol!! Sadly I truly believe if we want to keep Iraq the way WE made it the army could never leave. Sad but true , in my opinion for what that's worth.
Iraq.
- Thread starter Musket Man
- Start date
Possibly, but still I think it is better then letting everything we did get shot to hell like is happening now.
xtreme
Very Active Member
Musket Man is right about this being predictable, only it was predictable from the outset. Iraq was never going to stand on its own and even if it could have why let it? We have lots of blood and treasure there, I would never let the Iraq government set the rules. I have been through this in Viet Nam. We lost it all, 58,000 dead and all the treasure, we were simply out general. I spent three years in the 101st Airborne, 1960-1963 and three years in the Army Security Agency 1964- 1967. General Westmoreland, a good man, just did not have it right, never knew he was being out generaled, now come Obama, completely clueless. George Bush got some of it right but not near all.
IMO we need to decide what we want and Musket Man is right, it will take renewed ground forces and lots of them should we decide to re capture Iraq. Obama doesn't even come close to being a commander in chief so retaking Iraq is out, best to prop up a new government and let it play out. One more thing, I have informed my grandsons they are to stay out of the military. One is currently serving, a marine, one in ROTC. This worries me badly. I know there are several on this forum that are serving and I thank you, I also worry for you. My brother served 38 years, a retired bird. Another retired Bird is a hunting partner, the two of them started the only sniper school other than the one in North Carolina and they are in complete agreement with my view.
General Colin Powell had it right about going in with overwhelming force, and I might add a super kick A attitude. Rule of engagement will have to be modified too.
IMO we need to decide what we want and Musket Man is right, it will take renewed ground forces and lots of them should we decide to re capture Iraq. Obama doesn't even come close to being a commander in chief so retaking Iraq is out, best to prop up a new government and let it play out. One more thing, I have informed my grandsons they are to stay out of the military. One is currently serving, a marine, one in ROTC. This worries me badly. I know there are several on this forum that are serving and I thank you, I also worry for you. My brother served 38 years, a retired bird. Another retired Bird is a hunting partner, the two of them started the only sniper school other than the one in North Carolina and they are in complete agreement with my view.
General Colin Powell had it right about going in with overwhelming force, and I might add a super kick A attitude. Rule of engagement will have to be modified too.
tim
Veteran member
I support the troops, with that said, we never should have went to Iraq in the first place. I didn't understand it than, I don't know. Iraq had nothing to do with 911, only the worst president in the history of USA had to finish dads job.
I know this won't be poplular, but oh well.
I know this won't be poplular, but oh well.
Alabama
Veteran member
You're right, it ain't popular at all! I was going to stay out of this discussion but calling Bush Jr the worst president ever; with that a$$clown we have in there now is beyond belief.
I don't know if we should have went in there or not. I don't blindly swallow what the mass media is trying to feed everyone. Either way we did it and that can't be changed. If you commit to something you need to finish it. We can't be the world's police but we can't turn a blind eye to a situation that we helped create (not intentionally I know). We left a weak government in one of the most volatile regions in the world. Now innocent civilians are being killed including women and children and I feel it is our duty to help. In what manner and what scope I'll leave that to the people that are much smarter than me. We owe it to ourselves to stop ISIS while they are halfway around the world rather than our own backyard.
Just my opinion.
As I see it we have a great opportunity to eliminate alot of terrorists right now. We have an air craft carrier in the gulf, we have drones and surveillance flights running in Iraq, ISIS is where we can find alot of them, and Iraq is asking for help. All that is needed is the green light. Even without actually putting boots on the ground we could hurt ISIS real bad real fast from the air. They come from the same Al Qaeda bunch that attacked us on 9/11 and we have been fighting ever since. ISIS is so bad that Al Qaeda doesnt even want them anymore. I just cant understand not going after them and I dont like giving them the idea that we wont go after them. I also cant believe our president saying he doesnt want to do air strikes because it would make it look like we were taking a side and is against other countries taking military action against ISIS. I didnt know there was any question as to what side we were on. I dont like Syria but doing air strikes on ISIS seems like the first decent thing they have done. The problem I see with other countries like Syria and Iran is the ones that help are the ones that will have influence on Iraq. A few weeks ago he bypassed congress and illegally released 5 terrorists, now he doesnt want to bomb terrorists or make them think we are taking a side. Mr president and secretary of defense I would really like to know what side YOU are on!!!
Againstthewind
Very Active Member
I was reading a book about the Berlin wall a while ago, and some of the stuff in that book has some lessons learned or not maybe. The tone of the book seemed to say that if Kennedy would have stood up to Khrushchev before they started to build the fence and close off the border, the Cuban missile crisis wouldn't have followed, then possibly even shortened the cold war. East Germany would have gone through a collapse pretty quickly. USSR was bluffing about a lot of stuff, but that is 20/20 hindsight. That would have sucked for my grandma and her family, but I don't think it was great there anyway. Anyway my point is Obama didn't follow through with his red-line in Syria, didn't do much that worked in Ukraine that I know of, and now is not doing enough maybe in Iraq. Its kindof a green light for anything goes, and pretty soon our backs will be up against a wall and then we will have to do something. I'm not trying to blame Kennedy or anything, just trying to tie some history in for discussion on what to do in the present (trying to follow xtreme there).
Last edited:
xtreme
Very Active Member
It is complicated. Did you notice, the Iraq soldiers laying down their weapons the being beheaded? Must be a lesson in that.
Im really surprised at how so many of them deserted. Maybe they were a different bunch in other areas but the ones I worked with in Bagdad might have been alot of things but they hated the insurgents and they were fighters and I couldnt see any of them giving up or running from ISIS.
http://rt.com/news/168916-isis-iraq-war-crimes/
jjenness
Very Active Member
MM you make a lot of good points. The thing is though, Obama has already chosen a side as far as ISIS goes. If you remember back to when the US was, and still is last I heard, aiding the rebels in Syria, those exact same rebels ARE THE ISIS! You see how can our commander in chief support them in Syria, and then turn around and not support them in the next door region, he can't! Now I am not saying Obama created all of this, but he sure as hell hasn't helped the stability of the region by arming the ISIS in Syria, or excuse me the rebels as he called them, in Syria. There is only one thing that is going to stabilize that region, and it involves the second coming of Christ!
I know ISIS is against the Syrian government but I dont think the rebels are necessarily part of ISIS. Im not quite sure what to make of the Syria situation. I dont like Assad but Im not sure how many of the rebels are on the good side of things and how many are terrorists either. I do believe alot of the insurgents that have been a problem in Iraq since we took Saddam out have come from Syria.
jjenness
Very Active Member
That's one of the biggest problems with these groups, one day they are fighting with us and the next day against us. You just can not tell who is who over there, and history has taught us that several times in the Middle East. We arm those who are with us today, and then get shot at by those same weapons tomorrow.
I agree and also there are alot of divisions inside these groups. Some good, some bad, some that could be swayed to either side and how do you tell them apart? its impossible.
Againstthewind
Very Active Member
I don't envy the decision makers at all. It is super complicated. Sunni vs. Shia, Maliki, Iraqi elections, Syria bombing ISIS after using chemical weapons on their own people, Mujaheddin coming from all over just to fight it seems like, ISIS doing all those awful things in that article from MM, the lines are really blurred, Iran with their own agenda. xtreme is probably right we have to decide what we want, but its hard to tell. Maybe the Iraqi elections will bring them together and the army will have something to fight for. Hopefully maybe. Way over my head, but interesting stuff.
Last edited:
In Iraq there are 3 main groups. Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds. Saddam was a Sunni and while he was in power the Sunni's were in control and they suppressed the Shiite's and Kurds so the Shiite's and Kurds dont like the Sunni's. The Kurds have most of the area with oil and really they just want to be left alone. Now that the Shiite's have some power they are trying to get back at the Sunni's and with Maliki in power have tried to push the Sunni's out of the government all they can and is why alot of Sunni's are with ISIS right now and probably why alot of Iraqi security forces deserted in mostly Sunni areas. That is the best I can explain it from what I do understand of it.
tim
Veteran member
No, i didn't go to Iraq, I was always dovish on Iraq, and did not understand why we didn't send all those troops to get Osama bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein.
Obummer has not been any better than Bush, or worse. Personally, i don't belong to any party. Yes, i do believe we should have done something after 9-11, Iraq wasn't the something though. I can support the family members, friends, and other soldiers who went off to do there job. But i can also question the why, they where sent to Iraq. What did Iraq get us, and where did it put us?
Obummer has not been any better than Bush, or worse. Personally, i don't belong to any party. Yes, i do believe we should have done something after 9-11, Iraq wasn't the something though. I can support the family members, friends, and other soldiers who went off to do there job. But i can also question the why, they where sent to Iraq. What did Iraq get us, and where did it put us?
Saddam was just not right in the head. No matter how much power and money he had I dont think it ever would have been enough, he would have wanted more. The guy had over 400 palaces built and obviously he could only be at 1 at a time. He fought Iran for years. I was told bagdad was a nice city until he went to war with Iran and spent all the money fighting instead of taking care of his own country. Then he tried to take over Kuwait. He had 1000's of people killed, basically murdered in Iraq. Who knows what he would have done next. He had a country and more money then he ever could have spent and still he wanted more while the Iraqi people were starving. 1 of his sons (I forget which now) used to send his "police" out and grab random people off the streets and feed them to his lions and tigers alive for entertainment. I was at the cages where that was done. I think if people that wonder why we went there went there and saw how those people live and knew how it was there with Saddam in power i think they would understand why I think going there was a good thing.
