Originally Posted by SAINT

Yes.. Bush is right. He's a dynamic president

Well Saint you certainly get to the point but I would like to get some well informed reasons as well.

Doody, did the US really have to go in so quick? Was it because the US election was coming up and/or the US military build up in Kuwait reached a "tipping point" and action could not be reversed? I just don't know.


Two or three more months may have made a bigger difference to the situation we have now. The US would have more time to do deals with the French, Germans, Russians etc. More time could have been given to peace time planning in Iraq. The weapons inspectors would have finished their work. Bill Clinton would have done all this. He would have waited and done a much better job wheeling and dealing than Bush.

I agree the UN is very flawed but you cannot throw the baby out with the bath water. The pre-emptive strike doctrine (thanks to Bush and his pals) can now be used by any country in the future to pursue their political goals dressed up as reasons of national security. I would hate to be living in Grozny knowing the Russians will probably be looking for revenge as a consequence of the Beslan murders.

Have any of you boys given any serious thought as to how the political situation is going to sort itself out in Iraq? Structure of government? Power sharing between the factions, religious groups and tribes? Are you a little bit worried?

[quote="aussiejohn"]Al Zawahiri is the man you really need to get. He is the brains behind Al Queda. You boys seem to have a fixation with Bin Laden. Maybe the US media is getting in your heads just a little too much. [quote]

I believe he is in Iraq, or at least that is where he has been sighted and attacked multiple times.

Originally Posted by aussiejohn

While you boys are getting very cosy and agreeing with each other, could one of you Marine boys out there educate us on the real security situation in the US sectors? You would obviously have a better perspective than the journos, observers, govt officials, contract workers (and the ones taken hostage), etc.

The "journos" and contract workers have no reason being in Iraq, they are over there hoping to make a buck, let the Army Engineers build up the nation, they are damn good at it, (i.e. Phillipines, Puerto Rico, Japan, West Germany, Italy).

Originally Posted by aussiejohn

It doesn't look good in the media but I just guess we are getting it all wrong. Elections still looking good for January?

Elections are in November buddy.

Originally Posted by aussiejohn

Read the other day that the Marines around Tikrit are doing a great job. Things are very quiet relatively. They have been doing deals (money etc) with the local sheiks. The sheiks like to feel important. The Brits are doing similar things in Basra. Seems there will be a lot of deal making between now and January.

Yeah, about that, alot of the WMD's have been obtained by buying them off the black market, not the best way but you gotta do what you gotta do.

Originally Posted by aussiejohn

As for Afghanistan, the State Department Web Site list impressive achievements made. BBC web sites document major security problems outside the major centres. Upcoming elections in October need more security and observers/monitors. A real worry. Particularly as resources are going to Iraq.

We only had 10,000 troops in Afganhistan before Iraq, those troops are not losing any resources. I remember reading how 250 Marines were setting out to intercept a "large" group of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, I was thinking they were giong to get slaughtered, then an Marines Colonel came on and said that they were playing it safe and taking 5 times the firepower they needed, it was then I realised the discrepency between the United States and the Taliban.

Originally Posted by aussiejohn

My views are: I agree with the stand taken in Afghanistan but not in Iraq. Bill Clinton had the right idea. We should have waited and planned better for the peace.

Clinton, he should have carpet bombed Iraq into oblivion when the CIA uncovered the plot to kill Bush Sr. and after Saddam repeatedly fired upon US planes, some of those that were fired upon came from the South Dakota Air Guard, which I almost joined but chose the Army instead.

aussiejohn, once again we find ourselves talking about the Iraq subject. I am honored to chat with you again.

Originally Posted by aussiejohn

Doody, did the US really have to go in so quick? Was it because the US election was coming up and/or the US military build up in Kuwait reached a "tipping point" and action could not be reversed? I just don't know.

Two or three more months may have made a bigger difference to the situation we have now. The US would have more time to do deals with the French, Germans, Russians etc. More time could have been given to peace time planning in Iraq. The weapons inspectors would have finished their work. Bill Clinton would have done all this. He would have waited and done a much better job wheeling and dealing than Bush.

I do agree that waiting a few more months would have done more good. I told my mom that I would have preferred to have been sitting on the Iraq border forcing Sadam to comply with the UN inspections. It is one thing to threaten someone with military action. It's a bit different when there are troops massed on your border.

On the subject of wars in the name of political goals and national security. We have a history of doing such a thing. The savage Wars of Peace by Max Boot describes these wars in great detail. One thing I have learned is that in our past, we did not mess around. If someone attacked or threatened the US, the US swiftly brought down the dogs of war. Between 1820 and 1930, the USMC landed on foreign soil over 180 times. Strangely, the Philippine campaign from 1899-1904 resembles the Iraq war we are fighting today.

I also agree with you on the fact that there wasn't enough post war planning. I believe that there were people in the military who saw these problems but were ignored. Remember how General Shinseki said it would take over 200,000 troops to take Iraq. Rumsfeld publically humiliated Shinseki citing that the US would only need about 60,000 troops to do the job. The higher ups settled on about 140,000 troops. Once the war was over and the attacks began, everyone realized that Shinseki was right and more troops were sent to Iraq.

Once again, it's good to chat with you

more on The savage Wars of Peace
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/G...20030829.shtml

Thanks Doody. It is good to read well informed comments.

Good to hear from you again. Hope things are going well.

Damien old boy, the Iraqi elections are scheduled for January if things go well.

Carpet bombing.....???????

Originally Posted by Red_Army

What does invading Iraq got to do with kids coming home safely.

Everything.

I already mentioned the reason in my post.

Originally Posted by aussiejohn

Thanks Doody. It is good to read well informed comments.

Good to hear from you again. Hope things are going well.

Damien old boy, the Iraqi elections are scheduled for January if things go well.

Carpet bombing.....???????

lol, I assumed you meant the upcoming elections here in America, my bad.

Carpet bombing, well, remember in WWII when we had to use 1000 bombers to destroy a single factory? Or when thousands of planes would drop bombs on Berlin everynight, destroying almost everyting? That is basically carpet bombing, except you truly destroy everything, essentially planes fly in massive formations, most likely B-52's, and drop bombs on anything and everything, a ten story building would be reduced to a 5 foot high pile of rubble. We did this against Iraqi ground forces, hours before a B-52 would fly over and drop leaflets saying that when and where we would be bombing, one B-52 could cut a quarter mile wide and 1 mile long line through anything in the way, the bombardment could be heard from miles away.

Damien, you did say the following

"Clinton, he should have carpet bombed Iraq into oblivion.........."

Originally Posted by aussiejohn

Damien, you did say the following

"Clinton, he should have carpet bombed Iraq into oblivion.........."

Well, Saddam was plotting to kill an American President and attacking our planes enforcing the No Fly zones, wonder what would have happened if we would have gotten evidence days after 9/11 saying that Iraq was directly involved with the attacks, wouldn't that make life so much easier for us, if we invaded Iraq becuase of 9/11 rather than telling of the WMD's they had (I have talked to some Marine veterans from different units who all tell the same stories of finding WMD's in Iraq) or because Saddam needed to be removed from power.

edited, I'll just wait for the releaee. Delete this if you want, thanks

Damien,

Carpet bombing Iraq into oblivion is a bit different than just invading the place.

I'll leave the WMD stuff alone. We could go on about that one for ages.

I have had a pretty good go on this topic so I think I will stop here. Catch you boys on another.