Thank you for your service Freddie............You DID make a difference.

Bob

 

Thank's freddie22, I appreciate your service to this country too!!

 

Nice post Freddy. I am in no way knocking your service. I think the point the author is making is that in a time of war, people are often gung ho. The danger of this can be blind faith to the leaders, who often themselves know nothing about combat and look at casualties as statistics. Our military should be use tactfully and efficiently.

My personal beef is that our great military is being used as an occupational force. It was not built for that. It is built to make an overwhelming kill, then pullback. Occupation drains numbers and moral. Our administration didn't do their homework before going into Iraq. A lot of soldiers are suffering unneccesarily, as a result.

 

In your personal opinion, Instead of going into Iraq and removing Saddam, What should have America done?

 

I would have gone after the people who claimed responsibility. Bin laden and al quita....who nobody seems to care about finding anymore, or even think about anymore (according to bush).

 

<<<In your personal opinion, Instead of going into Iraq and removing Saddam, What should have America done?>>>


First of all, I would have finished Afghanistan. Then, I would have hit another country, possibly even Iraq. But.....the key would be a quick strike take out the military, an easy task for our military. But here is the tricky part......You don't remove the entire ruling class of the country, as we did in Iraq. This was the biggest mistake of the Iraq war. Also, when you take Iraq, you don't do it on the cheap. You put in an overwhelming force, thus the looting and choas that followed Saddam's fall doesn't happen. Our leaders were warned about this, yet they ignored and embarrassed any general who disagreed with Von Rumsfeld's "On the cheap" method.

Look after WW2 General Patton left a lot of ***** in power. You can't take over a dictatorship and fire the entire ruling class of the country and not expect chaos. Also, by announcing that Bathists can never be part of the new govt. we basically created the insurgency. 80,000 civilians, instantly cut out of the future. Not to mention an army of 400,000 that was fired without a thought.

By going in on the cheap, now we are stuck there, paying through the nose, in lives and money and morale. We could have reinstated a good part of the Iraqi ruling class and military, then stepped back. Back far enough to stay out of affairs, but close enough to keep the impending threat of our miltary in sight. There was obviously little thought put into this war and it is obvious that our leaders were recklessly and unimformed about our foe.

We could take out every country in the middle east if we wished. One by one, all with a quick overwhelming strike, then a step back. If it was done right, every arab country would have fallen in line. We wouldn't have to attack many. We would have maintained the ability to strike in any direction at our will. In reality what we have now, is a huge amount of troops bogged down in a grueling occupation, while bordering countries thumb their noses at us. Because they see our week situation.

Our leaders took Iraq, and immediately gloated their success, didn't try for a second to be diplomatic with anyone, allies or foes. Now it is biting all of us in the azz, collectively. Yet, 51% of the country doesn't hold our leaders accountable. I guess as long as Bush is doing something, even with no plan, that is good enough for 51%. But it is not good enough for me.......

 

I served in the Navy under Clinton and I can say that when I enlisted, I may have been told an untruth or two by the recruiters, but anyone with half of a brain knows what the military is for and what chances you take when you sign those papers, either active duty or reserves. Our military is now 100% voluntary. Although I feel a certain amount of sorrow for those who have lost loved ones or a part of themselves in Iraq, I believe that it is not in vein. I understand that some feel this war isn't necessary, but the soldier or sailor there IS there on their own accord. War changes opinions, but don't blame someone else for signing a piece of paper or feel sorry for those who have as though they are victoms. I believe Clinton did our country a grave injustice by downsizing and turning his back on terrorism, but I didn't cry about it. I volunteered, just as those there now have. They shouldn't be made out to be victoms if you don't believe in the war, but rather as someone who had the guts to stand up for what they believe in, or possible just someone who made a bad dicission to pay for college and now doesn't want to pay the price for their GI Bill. It just doesn't make any sense to me to call someone who volunteered for the military and was sent to war, a victom. I believe everyone here that the military is to defend, not to broker oil deal to fund terrorism, oh wait, that sounds like the UN.

 

<<<<I served in the Navy under Clinton and I can say that when I enlisted, I may have been told an untruth or two by the recruiters, but anyone with half of a brain knows what the military is for and what chances you take when you sign those papers, either active duty or reserves. Our military is now 100% voluntary. Although I feel a certain amount of sorrow for those who have lost loved ones or a part of themselves in Iraq, I believe that it is not in vein. I understand that some feel this war isn't necessary, but the soldier or sailor there IS there on their own accord. War changes opinions, but don't blame someone else for signing a piece of paper or feel sorry for those who have as though they are victoms. I believe Clinton did our country a grave injustice by downsizing and turning his back on terrorism, but I didn't cry about it. I volunteered, just as those there now have. They shouldn't be made out to be victoms if you don't believe in the war, but rather as someone who had the guts to stand up for what they believe in, or possible just someone who made a bad dicission to pay for college and now doesn't want to pay the price for their GI Bill. It just doesn't make any sense to me to call someone who volunteered for the military and was sent to war, a victom. I believe everyone here that the military is to defend, not to broker oil deal to fund terrorism, oh wait, that sounds like the UN.>>>>


So, in essense what you are saying is.....by enlisting a military person can assume the leaders have the right to recklessly use them however they see fit. No bitching ....you signed up... Well, with that attitude, eventually people will be less likely to sign up, and our military power will deminish...

I see it differently. Having a powerful military is vital for our country. We have the world's greatest military.....This does not give our leaders the right to exploit it recklessly, without a firm viable plan....This war inevitably will weaken enlistment and our military as a whole.....If you want people to enlist, it is not good to send them the message that leaders who have never seen combat can start wars with immpossible missions as they see politically expedient.....It is also not good to send the message that we will blindly follow our leaders to any war they chose and never hold them accountabl;e when they have lousy plans and refuse to admit when they have made a mistake......

 

bsb64. great post on this. i get it completly. i have been saying this even before iraq. of corse, no where near as good as the writer has, or yourself for that matter. so, i will give my 02 here also.
i beleave being american is also about questioning your government. this does not mean you dislike the soulders, but morso that you love them enough to want to see them used correctly, not for knotches on a draft dodgers belt. I also beleave that no country has the right to invade another country un prevolked. People state that sadam was a mass murder of people. well, i can name a few country's that have leaders like that, why arent we there also? heck, why not declare war on every nation that does not see things are way?
this world has threats against us around mosty corners. yet, we picked a country that had almost no military value, was NOT a terrorist nation, and has made no threat against us in years. why? for oil? for position in the middle east? Meanwhile, afganistan is slowly rebuilding there terrorist networks, and training sites.
I feel that these great men and woman who take the plung, so to speek, for our nation, deserve better. i can also name numerous country's that are a much greater threat against us that iraq ever was.
what has happened in iraq was bad from the get go. done poorly, with no finish line planned. my fellow americans are dying, and my government try's to use relgion and good verse evil to cover it up. the terrorists now have a new place to fight, thanks to george's moves, and we are bogged down.
i wonder about 20 years from now. when the children of the bombed civilians grow up with no parents. there train of though. what will they say and think of america? not in afganistan, but iraq. i know that if a country invaded my homeland, and killed my family while we did nothing to them, i would want revenge. are we solving terrorism, or building it for years to come.
i am glad someone else looked at poland in 1939. my family spent years in camps from living in poland. my father in law was sold into slavery becouse he was healthy at 78 lbs. and 5 ft 10 . i am sure the germans were told that poland was a threat, and did this due to orders. did it make it right?

anyway. i am glad to see that others feel somewhat like i do. i just dont have the ability to express myself as good as others.

god bless the usa, and merry christman to all

 

It's for the oil!!!..........AND..........make no mistake.........it is vital to the entire civilized world.

Bush came up with many other reasons......most infamously WMD's......because it's not "politically correct" to say it's for security of the oil supplies.

But let there be no doubt......security of the worlds energy supply is VITAL to each and every American as well as it is for the rest of the civilized world.

You can call the Saudi Royal family corrupt..........and you would be correct. But guess what........they are now, and have been for many many moons, the ruling government and >>they control the oil supplies<< and we NEED to be dealing with them. It's in our National interest. It's in the interest of the entire globe.

Saddam Hussan(sp) invaded Kuwait for their oil and showed he had designs on dominating the region. We ejected him and sent him back to Iraq........which is exactly what the UN charter was from the get go in 1992. It was never to invade Iraq or overthrow him.

The problem is that over the following decade Saddam thwarted every UN sanction and generally became an extremely unstable and volitile element in the heart of Petroleumland.

The civilized world needs to have stability amongst the Arab oil governments for the reason of security of the oil supplies.

There are those who will say........'Ohhh we should develope "renewable energy" and other "environmentally friendly" energy sources and make more energy efficient cars so that we are not dependant on oil imports'. Well.......that's great.......I agree. The fact is those technologies have been under developement for decades and some of them are now being implimented. The research is being funded through federal and state grants as well the private sector. These are good aspirations and should be continued tenatiously. The thing that everybody needs to understand, however, is that these
technologies, even if they were to be expansively developed, could not even come anywhere CLOSE to meeting the demand.......U.S. demand and global demand for oil........not a pimple on the **** of a dinosaur worth of the demand. The demand is there right NOW........and it will still be there a decade from now. Face it .......we need that oil........and THAT is what we as a society need to understand. Therefore, we should also be developing the additional oil fields up in Alaska with haste.

Saddam had to go because of what he meant to that region. Security of the primary energy supplies for the civilized world is...... 'kinda important'.

The fact is that our National security is dependant upon those oil supplies and it is in our National interests to protect them by whatever means necessary........including taking out radical and destabilizing governments if WE deem it necessary. Saudi Arabia itself will fall to Islamic religious radicals before too long. The Royal families $$$ keeps their corrupt rearends out of the fire for now.......but it's just a matter of time before the barbarians overthrow them and take over. That my friends is when the **** really hits the fan!

Do we let the barbarians take control of the worlds primary oil supplies???