For active duty military and veterans only

All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the Uni

  • Total voters
    57
  • Poll closed .
You still believe it was presented later or no?
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe nation building in Iraq was presented later.

Bush campaigned against nation building in 2000. I remember hearing him speak on this topic, and he was clearly against nation building in general. When we were about to attack Iraq, he said we were going into Iraq because Saddam was not complying with the previous cease fire agreement that allowed for WMD inspections, and that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US because of WMD. He was clear up front that Saddam would be removed, as I recall, but never said anything about being there 5 years later. He and his staff felt that we would be greeted as liberators.

There's no real reason to argue about this. I already know you strongly support staying in Iraq until Armageddon, and I also already know the vast majority of people would agree with my description in the preceeding paragraph.
 
Are you currently in an impressionable state?
Let's try and have a serious discussion OK.
This link and your last post don't fit into anything resembling real.

Rationally rectify your statments with what was stated at the beginning of OIF.
"This campaign may take longer, and be more difficult than some predict, and helping Iraqis create a united, stable, and free country will require our sustained commitment."

"We have no ambitions in Iraq except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to it's own people."

Direct quotes.......

Do you really think ANYONE (else) buys the lie your still trying to hold up after reviewing that clip?
 
Do you really think ANYONE (else) buys the lie your still trying to hold up after reviewing that clip?
Click to expand...

I do not believe that was the message that was widely disseminated at the beginning of the war. If what Bush meant by "helping" was to leave our military overextended in an endless war, then he certainly did not make that point clear to the American people. The overwhelming message that we got was we were going to stop WMD and remove Saddam. I believe in excess of 70 percent of the population believes this. I think his statement that " helping Iraqis create a united, stable, and free country will require our sustained commitment" was not interpretted by most people to believe it would be a sustained military commitment. I do not believe Bush even believed that at the time. He thought we would be greeted as great liberators and have roses thrown at our feet. I think most people would have been willing to help out the Iraqis after the war by providing diplomatic, financial, and technical expertise to allow them to rebuild their country, however.
 
Believe what you will. Further assertions may be met with the 'willing suspension of disbelief' your working to red line here.

Till' it be marrow.
 
Speaking just within the limits of my own experiences, a resounding no. It was a complete waste of time, and our lives were at risk for nothing.

I was on a convoy security team in Anbar (West of Ramadi, so basically nothing). We were responsible for safe transport of supplies, IAs, IPs, to training, leave, etc. Some of this was worthwhile, but a lot of it was not.

What was not was that the majority of the convoys we ran were full of empty trucks and trailers. We were essentially riding up and down the roads being mine sweepers. At first we thought, we take empty trucks and trailers to other bases, so that they can go to different points from there, but we then realized the next mission, we would be taking the same trucks and trailers back to our base...

As time progressed, one of our guys asked a KBR employee what was the deal with all the empty trucks we take out, and since he was a former serviceman, he gave us the straight scoop and said it was because KBR makes money based on how many trucks go out, regardless if it needs to or if it is carrying anything crucial.

Now, I was there in 2006, so Anbar was pretty much pacified, but still there were IEDs and mines, etc. on the roads and from time to time ambushes and indirects on the roads. I know this comes with being in Iraq, so I'm not comlaining, but to be out there and be exposed to that for something pointless or so that KBR can make more $$ is BS to me. We were just really lucky because we only got hit twice, and both times it was on a civilian (one driver dead, one driver wounded), but other convoys were hit more often or weren't as lucky taking military casualties. It sucks that the civilian drivers got hurt or killed, but they knew what they were there for, money, because all of them were poor people from Eastern Europe, India, Pakistan, Turkey, Bangladesh, Phillippines, etc. and driving trucks in Iraq was way better than being at home despite the danger.

But for us, if we were just going out just to go out, then it was BS. I am no tough guy, hero, or whatever, I didn't receive any combat action, but I would have gladly gone to Baghdad or Ramadi instead of doing some BS, at the very least, it would have made it worthwhile.

That's my story.

As far as the govt. selling to the American people that we were really there to help them. I can't say. I know some people were helped, many others were not. I am a cynical guy by nature, and despite a few instances, I don't think we were ever anywhere genuinely to help anyone if it didn't serve our interests, either govt. or big business.
 
I think it was important, right, and justified....I did when I was there at the start of the invasion, through my second tour, 2 friends dead and another friend having lost half his leg in Fallujah. I still think its important that were there, and I think we need to stay there as long as needed.

And, while I've gotten a lot of grief for having said this before in public, Im gonna say it again....IMHO every Iraqi man, woman, and child owes a debt of gratitude to every soldier who served or was killed in Iraq, regardless of nationality, that they will never be able to repay.
 
My answer would be yes. However once we decided to go I believe that all PC crap should have been thrown out the window and the war should have been fought heatlessly. I am talking about cowing the populace into submission regardless of world/civilian opinion. To fight it even less seriously than Vietnam is to not only repeat a mistake made 40 years ago, but to take what we did wrong last time and increase it!!! To those who think an popular insurrection cannot be smashed....look only to the Philipines. BTW whenever their was a moderate to large uprising in Mosul and it was put down indesciminatly (sp) with a high body count the city did not get outraged it got compliant.
 
To fight it even less seriously than Vietnam is to not only repeat a mistake made 40 years ago, but to take what we did wrong last time and increase it!!!
Click to expand...

When we turn troops into policemen and social workers it will always fail and
to assume all people want the same as Americans is naive. Simply in this
era of high cost we cannot afford to fight wars of this type especially when
you add the fact that most goods we buy for such ventures are made in other
countries. Iraq is a no win guys because of religion/cultural difference and in
the end it will return to a dictator form of government at a huge waste for
America. We have some great guys in uniform and I always support what they
do but we must stop using them in this manner.
 
Bad idea from the start.It diverted much needed resources from the Afghanistan campaign which will probably not end in the forseeable future.Now we're stuck in Iraq and if we pull out we'll have another debacle like Vietnam,except the Vietnamese had no interest in coming to the USA to carry on a terrorist campaign.Going in on the cheap was insane-planned by draft dodging paper pushers like Perle and Wolfowitz.I recall Jack Jacobs,a MOH recipient in Vietnam saying on MSNBC that they should not go in without the 4th ID because they needed that extra strength.No one listened to him and look what happened-all the ammo dumps were leapfrogged and the insurgents loaded up on ordnance for IED's.
I am a Vietnam veteran (1968-69) and an NRA member and pretty conservative,but I didn't vote for Bush OR the democrats in the last two elections.
 
No. Fighting Israel's proxy war in Iraq costs them nothing and cost us everything.

Wolfowitz, Fieth and Perle should dangle from the end of a rope.
 
No. Fighting Israel's proxy war in Iraq costs them nothing and cost us everything.

Wolfowitz, Fieth and Perle should dangle from the end of a rope.
Click to expand...

+1:mad:

I'm glad someone else can see the obvious stevelyn. For all the rhetoric and endless pages of documents purporting or 'need' to go to Iraq, one need look no farther than the plans and security of Israel.
 
As a vet, it's a moot point - we go where we're sent and do what we're told to do. I see a lot of folks saying we need to go back to isolationism; however, that has never worked and doubt it will.

As I see it now, we either stabilize the country the best we can before we go or we tuck tail and let the radicals win - neither is a great option but that's where we are...
 
I see a lot of folks saying we need to go back to isolationism
Click to expand...

Pulling out of Iraq is not "isolationism".

Isolationism would involve pulling out of everywhere, stop being world policeman, and stop meddling in the affairs of other nations. There is no politician today who wants to do those three things.
 
Pulling out of Iraq is not "isolationism".

Isolationism would involve pulling out of everywhere, stop being world policeman, and stop meddling in the affairs of other nations. There is no politician today who wants to do those three things.
Click to expand...

There is one that I know of, but invoking his name would cause mass internet hysteria and panic.

This person also wants to follow the Constitution, at the very least, a little more closely.
 
I'm quite against remaining in Iraq, especially for the stated reasons. The ONLY benefit that I see right now is that we have troops inside most of the top oil producing nations in the world with another one surrounded. If that were the stated reason from the beginning I think I might be less against what's going on. Whether that was the original intent or not we may never know, but the reasoning behind the invasion and occupation was and is complete nonsense. We're also paying for this occupation with credit cards and the bill will come due.

I'm a member of the Air Force. Over 20,000 Airmen lost their jobs (the plan is 40,000) to help pay for our new aircraft. Those programs are moving forward at a much more rapid pace simply because we're involved in an armed struggle. It's tough to function when you're losing more than 10% of the active duty members. We've already lost around 6-7% and are hurt pretty badly. I think these upgrades could have been accomplished in a much better manner but the military morass that we're involved in caused people to make some serious mistakes.

Am I against the war in Iraq? Damn right. Am I somewhat biased because a good friend of mine was shot in the head and killed? Absolutely. If we're there for the oil we'd better get to work. If we're not there for the oil, we need to get the hell out.
 
What to hell is Uni
Click to expand...

go back to the original post.
UNIted states........

BTW, I am against wasting american lives for most any reason, but especially when we gain nothing from it!
we should have supported an Isreali initiative to crush Saddam and then leave the police work and rebuilding to Isreal. they're the only one that benefit from this mess.
jmho
tom
MAJ USA RET
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top