How do you think USA is handling operation Iraqi freedom?? - Page 2




View Poll Results :How do you think USA is handling operation Iraqi freedom??
I'm positive on this opinion 13 37.14%
I'm in the middle 14 40.00%
Bush should withdraw the troops 8 22.86%
Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
Boots
 
November 18th, 2004  
Hegario
 
Heheheheee.

Now I know how the americans are winning over the hearts and minds of the Iraqis.

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/sou...51678833&cdi=0
November 18th, 2004  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
BAHAHAHAH!! :P
November 18th, 2004  
Kane
 
Quote:
Heheheheee.

Now I know how the americans are winning over the hearts and minds of the Iraqis.
Absurd statement.

Quote:
Does anyone believe that USA is handling operation Iraqi freedom well, or should they think their tactics over again?
The United States have handled quite well of trying to minimize civilian casualties, gaining control of Bahgdad, capturing Saddam.

However, the search for possible WMD in Iraq was purely bogus...most of the stuff was moved out or gone. Plus the USA was unprepared for this kind of encounter with terrorists and insurgents within the country. The Bush Adminstration does not have the so-called "Exit Strategy" and plans to pull out of Iraq seems to be a distant future.

Progress for development have been made but at a poor slow rate.
--
Boots
November 18th, 2004  
FlyingFrog
 
Militarily: quite decent work

Politically: a disaster (for USA)

Economically: a disaster (for Iraq)

Can they do better?
No, since the start of the war was already wrong.
Bush might have thought that now USSR is gone so he can do whatever a sole superpower likes to do, but he underestimated too many factors in this world. Playing world game you gotta to be a world master.
November 18th, 2004  
egoz
 
Hegario, u think that's the middle east version with women without their veils on? Secrecy, lighten up, he was joking.

Before conducting an operation you're supposed to know what the possible backlash could be. I'm positive they knew what was going to go wrong (which was why IS and SF had their own plans). The plan to take care of it was poorly executed, or planned. I think it's already come to the realization that we're in this for the long haul. We really do need a coalition involved at this point at least for peacekeeping. Particulary from other Middle Eastern countries and from soldiers who understand the customs better. But that's just a thought.
November 19th, 2004  
Kirill K
 
For how long do you think this operation "Iraqi Freedom" will take?? Years, months?? But think about why they went to Iraq??? Because of some biological weapons that was "persumed" that Saddam had, but where is the proof that they had weapons of such kind?? Everyone sort of forgot about the main reason USA attacked Iraq, but i think it was mainly to get a hold of more oil. Why? Because California is running out of it, and soon enough there wouldnt be any, so USA had to plan out to attack a country and gain its oil resources. The weakest country that had lots of oil.. who? Iraq.

What do u think about that?
November 19th, 2004  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
For one, it wasn't just for biological weapons, nuclear and chemical were also suspected.

Links to terrorism was also a factor, no direct links to Al Queda, however one of Usama's puppets "Abu Massad Al-Zakawi" is inside and is actively fighting the US with his terror cells inside Iraq.

uhh, I also believe he(saddam) broke like 17 UN sanctions.

California running out, you say? Well just move to Alaska, or oil deep in the sea. Besides, I highly doubt the rate of oil consumption will make Cali dry anytime soon.

How long will this war take? 2-4 years, IMO. The enemy will fail, the insurgencies cannot maintain this rate of damage, the "smoke screen" the professional terrorist are useing is thinning, they can't hold on forever like this. Unlike Vietnam, they havn't a pool of tens of thousands of men to pump from.
November 19th, 2004  
Hegario
 
One of the terror groups they mentioned before the start of the war as having Al-Quaeda connection was Ansar-al-Islam (sp?). I found it really weird that this group that was based in the Kurdish region way past the nofly-zone and also beyond Saddams territory was being used as one of the reasons to invade Iraq. The Kurds have had practical autonomy since the first Gulf war so they could've just easily destroyed them without resorting to a full-blown invasion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chocobo_Blitzer
How long will this war take? 2-4 years, IMO. The enemy will fail, the insurgencies cannot maintain this rate of damage, the "smoke screen" the professional terrorist are useing is thinning, they can't hold on forever like this. Unlike Vietnam, they havn't a pool of tens of thousands of men to pump from.
I hope that the enemy will fail too, since a stable Iraq is in the whole worlds best interest, but I do not share your optimism about the timetable, and unfortunately, I believe they will have the manpower soon. Foreign insurgents have probably seen pictures such as the marine shooting, Abu Ghraib prison pictures and the positions of even moderate muslims have grown more radical lately. Most of the insurgents probably aren't professional terrorists like Al-Quaeda, but ordinary people whose lives have been so dramatically altered by the war that they blame the US for it.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

According to this page, there are 1.3 billion muslims in the world and a great many of them do not like the US policies in Iraq. Even with miniscule percentages, the amount of terrorist volunteers is likely to increase dramatically. It's because of this that the world is not any safer than when Saddam was in charge.

Sadly, I don't know of a way the war could've been handled better because I think that even if the US military columns would've been followed by even bigger aid columns, the end result would still be the same.
November 19th, 2004  
Young Winston
 
 
Hard to say. I'm not there and can only pick my way through many of the media reports.

Security is still a huge issue. I don't think there are enough US and foreign troops in Iraq. Always have. Trained-up Iraqi units seem unreliable but then I'm not in Iraq.

Can't really say (but not positive!) until we have elections and just see how all the factions get on with each other in some sort of a democratic government (not sure how this will happen??).

As someone said earlier, we will have to wait until the "US boots are off the ground". That will be very interesting and could be a long time coming.
November 19th, 2004  
Chocobo_Blitzer
 
Quote:
Most of the insurgents probably aren't professional terrorists like Al-Quaeda, but ordinary people whose lives have been so dramatically altered by the war that they blame the US for it.
My point in the use of the word "professional" was to address the terrorist such as Al Zaraqawi and his group. The bulk of the enemy is made up of insurgents such as disgruntled Sunni's, while the real terrorist hide along with them. I just don't think the amount of insurgents can "screen" the terrorist for long, their failure in Najaf, Fallujah, etc. are evident.

My point is, they (the terrorist) will have to split into smaller cells, this, in my opinion, will make it harder for them to evade raids and such. They won't have an army of local insurgents to hide behind. They (terrorist) will eventually get fed up, beaten, and leave.

least that's my word.... 2-4 years!