Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Should we get Reinvolved with Iraq?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="uncle money bags" data-source="post: 2532580" data-attributes="member: 8377"><p>you only left out a couple of things.</p><p>You left out the part where the UN mandate; which was secured by a coalition including several middle east nations, called for the removal of Iraq's military forces from Kuwait, full stop. There was never a contingency for full scale operations to remove Saddam Hussein or his government as the controlling authority over Iraq except as provided later on with the no fly zones and subsequent humanitarian mission for the Kurds. An argument could be made that our promise of support for a Kurdish rebellion against the Baathist regime was sort of a plan to remove Hussein, but even that did not include large scale military intervention by the allies. That is another story altogether, we screwed them in my opinion. </p><p></p><p>Sr. stopped the fighting at the point where the mission had been accomplished and we were in a position of dominance to dictate the terms of surrender. In fact, some think we went too far according to the terms of the UN resolution. I am not one of them. I was of the opinion that we should have taken care of the rest of Saddam's forces and removed him from power in spite of what the agreed mission was. Of course I was just a 22 year old piss ant E4 at the time, with all the wisdom that entails. The benefit of time has shown me that it would not have been as simple as it seemed.</p><p>First of all, if we had tried to go further we would have lost the support of the Arab nations in the coalition. That means no bases in Saudi to work out of. Why is that important? Why not just move our base of operations to another country? It would mean moving the half million men and women and associated equipment out of Saudi, the gulf and Kuwait for one. Considering the time it took to secure the bases we were already occupying and moving that mass of war making implements would have taken too long. That is assuming we had somewhere to take them which could support operations and was willing to let us park there while we conducted business. </p><p></p><p>As far as Jr's information on invading Iraq. People like to harp on the weapons of mass destruction angle while ignoring the fact that Saddam and the Baathist were overt and covert supporters of Al Qaeda. For me , that was enough to justify leveling the country. WMD's would have just been the icing on the cake. I am not satisfied with the way the war was fought beyond the specific military operations which defeated Iraq's armies. The subsequent inability of our leaders to timely transition to a different kind of war was and is an issue. </p><p></p><p>I dont think you misrepresented anything, just gave your opinion from your perspective. Thats the same thing I am doing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="uncle money bags, post: 2532580, member: 8377"] you only left out a couple of things. You left out the part where the UN mandate; which was secured by a coalition including several middle east nations, called for the removal of Iraq's military forces from Kuwait, full stop. There was never a contingency for full scale operations to remove Saddam Hussein or his government as the controlling authority over Iraq except as provided later on with the no fly zones and subsequent humanitarian mission for the Kurds. An argument could be made that our promise of support for a Kurdish rebellion against the Baathist regime was sort of a plan to remove Hussein, but even that did not include large scale military intervention by the allies. That is another story altogether, we screwed them in my opinion. Sr. stopped the fighting at the point where the mission had been accomplished and we were in a position of dominance to dictate the terms of surrender. In fact, some think we went too far according to the terms of the UN resolution. I am not one of them. I was of the opinion that we should have taken care of the rest of Saddam's forces and removed him from power in spite of what the agreed mission was. Of course I was just a 22 year old piss ant E4 at the time, with all the wisdom that entails. The benefit of time has shown me that it would not have been as simple as it seemed. First of all, if we had tried to go further we would have lost the support of the Arab nations in the coalition. That means no bases in Saudi to work out of. Why is that important? Why not just move our base of operations to another country? It would mean moving the half million men and women and associated equipment out of Saudi, the gulf and Kuwait for one. Considering the time it took to secure the bases we were already occupying and moving that mass of war making implements would have taken too long. That is assuming we had somewhere to take them which could support operations and was willing to let us park there while we conducted business. As far as Jr's information on invading Iraq. People like to harp on the weapons of mass destruction angle while ignoring the fact that Saddam and the Baathist were overt and covert supporters of Al Qaeda. For me , that was enough to justify leveling the country. WMD's would have just been the icing on the cake. I am not satisfied with the way the war was fought beyond the specific military operations which defeated Iraq's armies. The subsequent inability of our leaders to timely transition to a different kind of war was and is an issue. I dont think you misrepresented anything, just gave your opinion from your perspective. Thats the same thing I am doing. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Should we get Reinvolved with Iraq?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom