Should We Went To Iraq?

I have been seeing alot on here that people believe that we shouldn't went to Iraq, Well should we have let Saddam stay in power? I find it funny how they now after being freed support a anti-american cleric.

reply to post by FearSoul

How about giving us yuor opinion and then maybe this thread be able to continue. Do you think its right to walk into a strangers home, tell them how to live and if they refuse you use force which you have in abundence. Do you think this is right.

Simply yes. I think we can all agree that the reasons to invade Iraq was not to take out an unpleasant leader or prevent the use of WMDs on the world.

And I would maintain there are world leaders just as unpleasant as Saddam was, so why has the world not taken action to remove:

Robert Mugabe and Kim Jong-il are just two current world leaders that the world has failed to deal it. But this begs the question, who judges who is a unpleasent leader.

The UN? EU? America?

first yes, saddam was a douch. i was there and regardless what you see on the news many iraqi's came up to me with tears in their eyes thanking me (meaning the u.s.) for getting rid of that guy. one man told me about being arrested (kidnapped) three times and tortured for no reason and with no charges by saddam's police. he was just an old man with nothing but the mandress on his back. they never asked him to admit to anything they just kept him for a couple months at a time to beat on for awhile then let him go for laughs.

BTY, in 03' during the invasion my unit shot up a scud missle truck. after going over to check it out, white powder was spilling out of the 50cal holes in the missle. when it was radioed in the guys closest to it were ordered to stop everything, sit up security around it, keep on all their NBC gear and wait. after a few hours later a unit we never saw before in full chem suits showed up and boxed it all up. no one ever heard any more about it, but a few months later everyone that was there got blood and urine tests and were never told why or the results. you figure that one out...

Something what I have never understand in Iraq war...

You should ask these question today, and demand some answers too!

Lets assume, that it was necessary to invade Iraq, no matter what the reason really was, but

- Why did you rush to your victory in such greed?
- Where and why the hurry?

You had enormous firepower in front of your troops. Iraqi forces was weakened, and enemy was surrendering in all directions... I remember how amazed your generals was from such progress, and everybody was that time, and it seems that no one in US headquarter had even idea, that war can go so well, fast, and easily forward; but they should.

After weakening enemy with superior airpower, and by destroying all supply from enemy, someone, at least you chief of staff should give that optimistic point of view: But,

- Why did USA step in from gates of Babylon, without having a plan how to keep it?

When chaos came to Baghdad, and National Museum was robbed, I said to my friends, "there is no way that US can win this war anymore..." I was right. You lost the war, when it was just won... And why so?

- By using attack forces as your occupation forces, they are not trained to keep, but they are trained to take; thats totally two different tasks.

- Using same force which destroy, to rebuild the damage? No "hearts and minds" would be won with that strategy - To your enemy, that same attacking force is their true enemy!

Ok, lets assume that there was no time to make any other arrangements, when attack to Baghdad was done... But why it was done at first place?

- In history there are several successful examples from surroundings, when there is no reasonable goal to occupy some city; thats truly is ancient strategy; when goal is not the city itself, but its influence in region.

And I assume that was the goal - Oil is still not in Baghdad.


I see very many great faults made in US strategy at crucial moment!

- When US took their task to be the attacking force, why didnt they give the task of occupying to another allied forces, who have lots of more experience from that difficult task from past? - To UNITED KINGDOM?

Lets look a while to that very possible imaginary situation,

If there would been US forces heavily surrounding Baghdad, controlling everything whats going in and out from there, at first, you would be much more safer in your battle stations, than inside that dangerous Urban area, and second, you would still decide the future of your enemy - Firepower and will of action in your hands.

- Your superior situation would give you all the right demand what you want in negotiations with surrounded city, like giving their leaders, weapons, what ever you would wanted... Trading with supply everything would been possible. But what most important, surrounding the city you could then avoid chaos and destruction inside the city too.

Then, in time of negotiations you could sent there in UK troops, as "international police" forces to take over city main security posts, with the remaining local police force... In that time, every good sign from you, would be just a show of your true power, and seen as grateful humanistic act.

UK, still their face and hands clean from violent and attacking acts, could play then "double faced" and very effectively in common goals, putting them self as "neutral" in difficult demands, and maybe tough and violent situations.

- Winning hearts and minds!

In history some surroundings has lasted successfully 30yrs. You could do that even today, and still there would be no casualties in US occupying forces, but well progress in your demands...

To the end,

I hope you get my point. "Forcing to peace", and "keeping the peace" its two totally different jobs. US had trained just one of those jobs, but troops was ordered to do both... That great mistake is done.

Maybe your fool president ordered your army to keep moving... But somewhere is the reason, and somebody made that crucial mistake, and should be sent to justice from his faults.

Question is simple = "Why did we march in, if we had no way out?"

US strategy in Iraq war is widely doomed also in Arab world:

"Army which can attack, but cant retreat, is useless."

reply to post by AgentBlack


But why just saddam, AgentBlack? What about all the other douch leaders around the world? You could say that the leadership in China is not the best in the world but I do not hear demands to invade China and change their leaders. And why not North Korea? If the reason to take Saddam out was WMDs then clearly we must seriously think about North Korea.

Ahhhh, then we have to deal with Pakistan, India, Israel.................

If only our Governments could be honest with us. How many would us would care if the US and UK Governments said the only reason for invading Iraq was to protect our access to oil. You would still have got the people who would have opposed any kind of action for any reason but I suspect the vast majority would have gone "So what"

No we shouldn't have.Saddam is a bad man if he doesnt dance to our music,when he does we give him money and weapons.There were much much much more easy ways to take care of saddam,but of course that wasnt the point in going there so its all moot.