What do you think about Iraq.

[Alen]

Or do we stay there and perform perpetual police service free of charge for years and years, like Afghanistan, Kosovo, South Korea, etc. etc.?

America is not the only one involved with Kosovo, besides I think it knows that if it left, all the Albanians would get owned by the Serb military.

-Alen

[Guest Guest]

America is not the only one involved with Kosovo, besides I think it knows that if it left, all the Albanians would get owned by the Serb military.

-Alen

Yes, but in every one of these places, as well as Iraq, we are simply keeping the peace, a task that our military is neither trained nor equipped for. The military has one goal: win the war. In these places we are there under the flag of the UN keeping the peace. Regardless of the outcome of leaving, we are still policing the place, trying to institute a "democracy," which would never work in any of those societies.

[JerryNumbers]

<>

What we did in Vietnam was to turn our back on those we promised to help, because of that many people died, because of that we lost all credibility.

Now the liberals in America want to do the very same thing in Iraq, turn our back on them.

Of course our enemies have been hearing this from the beginning so they know all they have to do is hold on, kill a few of our soldiers from time to time and we will turn our back on them, put our tail between our legs and run home, because we have done it before.

In 1965 what we should have done is bomb North Vietnam brutally, kept it up until they surrendered unconditionally. That would have save many Americans lives, many lives in South Vietnam,and the war would have ended very soon.

I don't know the answer for Iraq, but cutting and running is not the answer, but it is something we're good at.

[John81]

Good post Jerry!

American presidents never fully committed to winning the war in Vietnam. When one reads of that war, the totally non-sensicial policies the presidents put forth and used to bind the hands of our generals and troops, it's utterly amazing...and scary!

Indeed, America could have bombed the North Vietnamese to pieces. Their ability to communicate, produce war materials, supply their forces, etc., could have all been decimated. Their command structure could have been all but destroyed.

Instead, just like the precedent set in the Korean War, American presidents bound the hands of the generals and troops and refused to allow them to fight the war in a manner to actually win the war.

One of the problems with Iraq is there was never a clearly set agenda and goal to begin with. For whatever reason, Bush and Company thought they could easily defeat the Iraq army (they did that), kill or capture Saddam (they did that) and that the Iraqi people would be so grateful the American forces would be welcomed in the same fashion the French welcomed the American forces in WWII and that a free and America friendly Iraqi government would spring up and all would be almost instantly well (that didn't happen).

Bush and Company failed to have in place proper contingency plans. They failed to plan for a significant gurilla war. They failed to consider outside forces joining in the gurilla war. They failed to plan for the length of time it would take to establish a new government. They failed to plan for the lack of power and basic services that would be needed by the public. They failed to plan for something to occupy the Iraqi military which they foolishly disbanded and sent home. Etc.

So, like LAF pointed out; what is the goal in Iraq today?

Our politicians have bungled Iraq so badly that America is now sitting in a very bad place over there. If we leave and things fall apart, or worse, then America will be viewed as weak, lacking in long-term committment, untrustworthy, etc. If we stay until everything is looking safe and sound, America could be in Iraq for decades.

[JerryNumbers]

The trouble in Vietnam is, our presidents, both Johnson and Nixon tried to please the American people by not bombing North Vietnam as they should have in the beginning. I have read they talked about using a nuclear bomb, they should have, them we would have won.

The American people will not let America win a war, there is only one way to win.

We used that method on Japan, Japan surrendered because they knew if they didn't more would come and many would die.

Plus we must remember that the Soviet Union and China were supplying North Vietnam with arms, planes, bombs, money and training. They wanted the United States to be defeated, and we were. American that died in Vietnam died for nothing, thanks to people like John Kerry, Jane Fonda and the likes who committed treason and rallied the American people so as to tie the hands of our leaders.

Now we have many outside of Iraq doing what the Soviet Union and China did in the Vietnam War.

They know the perfect tactic to use against us, they studied their history, and its working, nearly 75 % of Americans want us to cut and run.

The way things are now, if another country got nuclear weapons as the Soviet Union did thru the Cold War, I believe the American people would tie the hands of our leaders to the point that we would go down.

You can't win a sanitized war.

And no one knew that Iraq would take off in this manner, no one, that was something you could not plan for. I recon many think you can because of the stupid line that John Kerry came up with, you've got to have an exit strategy when you go to war. No what you have to do is do what ever it takes to win.

We do not have the will to win against evil.

[John81]

Americans today want their wars to be quick, clean, low-cost.

The war aspect in Iraq met all the above.

However, the post-war matters have been a disaster.

Americans don't want to be bogged down in a gurilla war. They don't want to see on the news each night about American soldiers being killed with no end in sight.

Had Bush and Company better prepared for the post-war aspects we likely wouldn't be in such a mess today. As it is, the war in Iraq was long ago declared by Bush to be over. Our troops have been there so long they absolutely no longer look like liberators but as occupiers.

Islam is a militant religion. Bush and Company should have realized this and planned for the need to secure the borders of Iraq, to establish an Iraqi government quickly, to be prepared for gurilla warfare, to be prepared for the longer our troops remained for more problems to arise.

In Vietnam, Johnson could have launched an all-out, go for a quick win assault on the North Vietnamese during the beginning of that war and won that war. However, once our troops had been there awhile and the American people began crying, such an option became political suicide.

In Iraq, Bush brought us a decisive victory. Then he dropped the ball by declaring the war over too soon and not being prepared for what needed done to establish the peace and keep it.

Iraq is an ugly situation and one we won't extricate ourselves from in a pretty fashion.

[Tim]

We also abandoned the Kurds after Desert Storm and look what happened there. Thousands killed many more lost their homes. Because of our status as a world superpower we have an obligation to help others in the world that can't defend themselves. It ain

[pneu-engine]

:goodpost: :goodpost:

[Tim]

Somehow I knew you would agree PE

Great minds think alike :D

[John81]

Where in the U.S. Constitution is America obligated or authorized to police the world?

Should America go to war with China to free Tibet?

Should America send the troops into a dozen or more African and South American nations?

What about Russia, China, India, or even France or England? They each have the means to police some or part of the world. Should we welcome such?

What laws or rules determine when a nation needs to be invaded? Or why some nations get away with some things but others are attacked for it?

We should pray for other nations and peoples and their leaders. We should send missionaries, church planters, Bibles, gospel literature and the like around the world. We should offer food and water aid where possible.

[JerryNumbers]

Tim, Perhaps when something needs to be done, the military needs to be told the object and what needs to be accomplished, them turned them loose to do the job instead of politicians tying their hands behind their backs, this hand trying has cost many lives.

And yes I agree, what we know now changes so many things, but I hate the way the democrats lie about it over and over, they have gained much strength doing this, and have compromised our effort in Iraq, thus making it much worse.

At the time President Bush made the right decision.

If our effort at home was much more supporting, I firmly believe things would be going much better than they are.

[Tim]

Where in the U.S. Constitution is America obligated or authorized to police the world? Where is it prohibited, the Constitution does not state explicitly every function of the US government or our military. It is a framework that the government uses maintain a balance of power, protect individual rights, and provide for the common welfare of the citizens of the nation. Just as with the Bible there are certain clear cut commands and then there are principles. One of the powers granted is the President as Commander-in-Chief uses our military forces in a way that help protect the Nation as a whole. Trying to bring stability to the world is one way to accomplish this. This can be done by using our troops as peacekeepers or attacking those who are a threat to our stability or security. Now I don't agree with every decision or even most decisions to use our troops but Constitutionally the President and Congress are well within their powers to use the troops in this manner. Just because their actions don't fit your idea of common defense doesn't mean they are wrong.

Should America go to war with China to free Tibet? Strategically speaking would that be a good choice for the USA ? Could we defeat China in a head to head war ? At what cost and what benefit ? Is China a destabilizing force in the area ? Has China used WMDs on the citizens there? We have an obligation to do what we can; in the case of Tibet we are greatly limited in our options by China

[Tim]

Tim, Perhaps when something needs to be done, the military needs to be told the object and what needs to be accomplished, them turned them loose to do the job instead of politicians tying their hands behind their backs, this hand trying has cost many lives.

And yes I agree, what we know now changes so many things, but I hate the way the democrats lie about it over and over, they have gained much strength doing this, and have compromised our effort in Iraq, thus making it much worse.

At the time President Bush made the right decision.

If our effort at home was much more supporting, I firmly believe things would be going much better than they are.

I agree Jerry, Bush did the right thing with the information he had. I also agree the military commanders on the ground need to be given much more freedom to plan, and execute. Some things require political oversight while other do not. Because most politicians are power hungry they tend to blur the lines between military command and civilian control.

Many Bush haters have used the intelligence failures and tactical failures to "get Bush" it isn't just the Dems though, many "conservatives" have done the same thing only in a slightly different way.

IMHO America as a whole does not have the guts to fight a war or to do what needs to be done to actually win a war.

For example there have been a little over 3000 US troops killed in Iraq in WWII there were approximately 405,000 US servicemen killed and approximately 50-60 Million killed worldwide. What do you think the reaction to numbers like those would be today in the age of Cindy Sheehan and the rest of the screaming ninnies.

[Alen]

Yes, but in every one of these places, as well as Iraq, we are simply keeping the peace, a task that our military is neither trained nor equipped for. The military has one goal: win the war. In these places we are there under the flag of the UN keeping the peace. Regardless of the outcome of leaving, we are still policing the place, trying to institute a "democracy," which would never work in any of those societies.

I wasn't disagreeing with what you're saying I totally agree, the military is being misused by being there. I was just explaining the most likely reason they were still there

By the way, why won't a democracy work in Kosovo?

-Alen

[Psalms18_28]

I didn't vote either. There should have been "I am not sure" option.