Attn: S.t.e.v.e.n.

[preppyak]

You posted this in the now locked thread, but I did want to respond:

Honestly, that you, George Bush or anyone else believed that we were going to be met with no resistance makes me question a lot of people's intelligence. Hence, the point of my post.

Perhaps you forgot the other time we encountered Iraq...in Desert Storm...and we cleared them out in about 3-4 days really.

"One hundred hours after the ground campaign started, President Bush declared a cease-fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cease-fire) and on February 27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_27) declared that Kuwait had been liberated."

I mean...we so clearly demolished their military ability in that conflict that it should have come to no surprise to the American people that we would be in Baghdad in a few weeks...which we were.

I'm not saying the American public should have thought this would be over in a few weeks...and that their would be NO resistance. But, for the parameters set (remove WMD threat), a few months to a year was a reasonable expectation...even if we met some insurgent forces that complicated things. I mean, South Africa dismantled their entire Nuclear Weapons program in the period of about a year...and we weren't even guaranteeing a full dismantling of Iraq's.

Now, had we actually found those WMD's, we would have been to work on removing their capabilities...and then, the additional time would be justified, we could have taken 5 years to dismantle the WMD's and the American Public would probably complain less because their was a tangible threat being removed. But, we haven't...thus why the time frame of the war has become such an issue.

[justinevans]

You posted this in the now locked thread, but I did want to respond:


Perhaps you forgot the other time we encountered Iraq...in Desert Storm...and we cleared them out in about 3-4 days really.

"One hundred hours after the ground campaign started, President Bush declared a cease-fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cease-fire) and on February 27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_27) declared that Kuwait had been liberated."

I mean...we so clearly demolished their military ability in that conflict that it should have come to no surprise to the American people that we would be in Baghdad in a few weeks...which we were.

I'm not saying the American public should have thought this would be over in a few weeks...and that their would be NO resistance. But, for the parameters set (remove WMD threat), a few months to a year was a reasonable expectation...even if we met some insurgent forces that complicated things. I mean, South Africa dismantled their entire Nuclear Weapons program in the period of about a year...and we weren't even guaranteeing a full dismantling of Iraq's.

Now, had we actually found those WMD's, we would have been to work on removing their capabilities...and then, the additional time would be justified, we could have taken 5 years to dismantle the WMD's and the American Public would probably complain less because their was a tangible threat being removed. But, we haven't...thus why the time frame of the war has become such an issue.

Things change in 11 years too.

[rocktometal]

You posted this in the now locked thread, but I did want to respond:


Perhaps you forgot the other time we encountered Iraq...in Desert Storm...and we cleared them out in about 3-4 days really.

"One hundred hours after the ground campaign started, President Bush declared a cease-fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cease-fire) and on February 27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_27) declared that Kuwait had been liberated."

I mean...we so clearly demolished their military ability in that conflict that it should have come to no surprise to the American people that we would be in Baghdad in a few weeks...which we were.

I'm not saying the American public should have thought this would be over in a few weeks...and that their would be NO resistance. But, for the parameters set (remove WMD threat), a few months to a year was a reasonable expectation...even if we met some insurgent forces that complicated things. I mean, South Africa dismantled their entire Nuclear Weapons program in the period of about a year...and we weren't even guaranteeing a full dismantling of Iraq's.

Now, had we actually found those WMD's, we would have been to work on removing their capabilities...and then, the additional time would be justified, we could have taken 5 years to dismantle the WMD's and the American Public would probably complain less because their was a tangible threat being removed. But, we haven't...thus why the time frame of the war has become such an issue.
Just for the record it should be states that George Bush Sr made a massive mistake when he pulled out of Iraq after only one hundred hours. Bush Sr. made the classic political mistake of over exaggerating the faults of the enemy, but then added to that mistake by playing mega conservative and the tail end of the conflict If he had not made Saddam out to be Hitler incarnate then chances are when George W was looking for a new target, Iraq would not have been his first choice..

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

You posted this in the now locked thread, but I did want to respond:


Perhaps you forgot the other time we encountered Iraq...in Desert Storm...and we cleared them out in about 3-4 days really.

"One hundred hours after the ground campaign started, President Bush declared a cease-fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cease-fire) and on February 27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_27) declared that Kuwait had been liberated."

I mean...we so clearly demolished their military ability in that conflict that it should have come to no surprise to the American people that we would be in Baghdad in a few weeks...which we were.

I'm not saying the American public should have thought this would be over in a few weeks...and that their would be NO resistance. But, for the parameters set (remove WMD threat), a few months to a year was a reasonable expectation...even if we met some insurgent forces that complicated things. I mean, South Africa dismantled their entire Nuclear Weapons program in the period of about a year...and we weren't even guaranteeing a full dismantling of Iraq's.

Now, had we actually found those WMD's, we would have been to work on removing their capabilities...and then, the additional time would be justified, we could have taken 5 years to dismantle the WMD's and the American Public would probably complain less because their was a tangible threat being removed. But, we haven't...thus why the time frame of the war has become such an issue.


You make only good points
My question was more or less a devils advocate type of thing, and your answer definitely brought up a good point that given our experience in Desert Storm we sort of set ourselves up for expecting quick victories.

[dw1003]

I'm incapable of critical thinking... and you called me on it.

fixed.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

fixed.

either that or i dont have a problem saying when someones point is a good one

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

To preppyak:

Do you think we should pull out of Iraq or that since we are there, now we have to stay until the "job is done", although what the "job" really is is certainly coming into question.

[dw1003]

either that or i dont have a problem saying when someones point is a good one

yes you do.

[s.t.e.v.e.n.]

someone in authority should just delete this thread

[dw1003]

someone in authority should just delete this thread

someone in authority should delete you.

[NickSyseJr]

when we went into iraq the first time... we had 27 divisions of TROOPS.
when we went in again... we had 2/3 of ONE division.

think about it.

are we really there to win this war? or are we about to spring like paper tigers.

desert storm just caused more fuel to fire the iraqi insurgents buddy.

[preppyak]

To preppyak:

Do you think we should pull out of Iraq or that since we are there, now we have to stay until the "job is done", although what the "job" really is is certainly coming into question.
I do not believe what we are doing now is truly fostering a democratic nation...certainly not one with a large amount of legitimacy. The longer we stay there, I think we actually hurt Iraq's democratic chances, because we are seen less as an adviser to them, and more as a controller.

If we pull out now, I think two things will happen:

1. The amount of attacks will go down...not disappear, but at the very least, go down significantly.

2. Iraq's current regime will be given a chance to grab power when things stabilize a bit.

The 2nd one is more of a hopeful guess than a factually based statement though...

Democracy is not something we can force upon them, and much like the Soviet Union found out with Communism, the harder you try to make the ideology work, the more people resist it. I think by use leaving now, we save lives on both sides, and we don't really hurt Iraq's chances to be a democracy.

And when I say leave, I mean a large portion of our troops, but not all of them, we would need to leave some in certain strategic points to make sure a surrounding nation like Iran doesn't get the idea they can invade Iraq, etc...

[preppyak]

fixed.
yes you do.
why are you such a dick?

And the thinking critically point is ironic coming from you...

either that or i dont have a problem saying when someones point is a good one
Just ignore him...I'm just glad you responded to my thing....i was gone for the weekend in Baltimore and hadn't had a chance to check

[we are cured]

Democracy is not something we can force upon them, and much like the Soviet Union found out with Communism, the harder you try to make the ideology work, the more people resist it. I think by use leaving now, we save lives on both sides, and we don't really hurt Iraq's chances to be a democracy.

You're making solid points but I just thought I would throw this out there.

The Soviet Union's imposition of communism is far different from the attempts at democratizing Iraq, so I don't think you can make the analogy of populace resistance to either ideolgy.

The USSR had a monopoly of force within its borders (and arguably almost anywhere it wanted to be), so resistance was impossible and had to be forced undergound. Only when the consequences of sheltering the domestic economy from the world, and of irresponsibly faking the economic stasis of the country, did the resistance have the ability to overtake the communist regime. This obviously took years to evolve, so the transition was a lot smoother than what is going on now (though it was really anything but smooth as a majority of post-communist countries are only now starting to show economic upside).

In Iraq, we instantaneously demolished a power structure, and expected that we would be able to convince the people that getting along is better than fighting. Unfortunately, the immediate takeover of the Iraq regime freed opposing sects from government oppression, and threw them into a power vacuum that is impossible to escape.

[rocktometal]

desert storm just caused more fuel to fire the iraqi insurgents buddy.

wrong: Desert Storm caused a great deal more then that. To name just a few effects of Dessert Storm: it did temporarily lead to an Iraqi uprising that died due in part to a lack of American support, it freed Kuwait, it left Saddam Hussein in a weakened position from which he never recovered, and it led America to regain it's confidence in American armed forces.

[preppyak]

In Iraq, we instantaneously demolished a power structure, and expected that we would be able to convince the people that getting along is better than fighting. Unfortunately, the immediate takeover of the Iraq regime freed opposing sects from government oppression, and threw them into a power vacuum that is impossible to escape.
Yeah...there's no denying that part.

My point with the Soviet analogy was more that Communism, as a true ideology where there was no ruling government, didn't work initially, and so they tried to force the uprisings...which didn't work. To compare the actual power of the governments would be absurd, because the Soviets, under Communism's guise, had an absurd amount of governmental power...probably unlike we will ever see again from such a large nation.

My point was more that I think we have to let democracy take its course...we have international organizations who monitor elections to make sure they are "free and fair", and that works very well for the most part...I think what we've done so far is perhaps the best we can do to give Iraq its framework for democracy, and now we have to let it go.

I mean, we've set up an interim government, they've held elections...they already have the framework for that democracy. And the hostility that exists in the area, to me, seems to be largely caused by our presence there, so, if we remove ourselves we ease some of that tension, and we give that Iraqi democracy a chance to gain legitimacy globally, not just for the US and a few other nations.

I can't guarantee that that strategy will work...its possible that that power vacuum is too much to overcome for a government, and that the civil war will go on as such...but, even then, our presence is only slowing that inevitability then, not stopping it.