Originally Posted by 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?

I think the Gulf of Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Alaska, and a few other States has more oil than most other places in the World except Siberia and Saudi Arabia. Don't get too excited about the US running low, it's just cheaper to buy from the Middle East. Light, sweet crude from West Texas is so pure, it's almost already fuel. I've seen roughnecks clean their tools with it after a day's work.

Originally Posted by Snauhi

Then why did USA start the war?

US generals dint think about what would happen after the "normal" war.

Now its so many rebels there so they can scare the iraqi people that are co-operating with americans.They will spread propaganda and it will work, because americans arent doing enough to stop it.

The USA didn't start the war, it was started 9/11/01 and I personally didn't give a rat's rear end which country got hit first.

Originally Posted by Missileer

The USA didn't start the war, it was started 9/11/01 and I personally didn't give a rat's rear end which country got hit first.

as far the the invasion of iraq goes...the US DID start the war. iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, which was the whole reason for the war on terror (T.W.O.T tm)

but the mess has been created now and troops need to stay till it's sorted

For militay history buffs you guys sure do know how to get manipulated out of your intellectual zone by CNN don't you?

Regardless of whether invading or not was right, I can see absolutely no sound strategic reason to pull out of Iraq. In terms of attrition we'd have to lose over what Vietnam cost us in terms of soldiers killed for me to consider pulling out (aka surrender).

I'm not very pleased with how the U.S. is handling the war, however. I haven't believed this BS about 'kill one insurgent and you make 3 more' for a second. That mentality let Fallujah fester for 8 months longer than we should have let it and the cost has been high for us.

I think Bush was very smart to go to war, if I had the same intelligence as him I would have done the same thing. I think he was a complete idiot for believing his own propoganda that we would be greeted as liberators and all would be well; Hitler suffered the same error in judgement.

I am skeptical of the plan for elections, if it was me running the show I would have gone in with a MacArthur post-WW2 japan plan of strong U.S. presence and gradually giving it over to the locals over long number of years.

I think that pretty well expresses my views, mostly. The decision was made that the U.S. not wage total war and it is evident what that cost has been. I also believe that military strategists are not as involved as they should be from the Pentagon.

Originally Posted by Snauhi

US generals dint think about what would happen after the "normal" war.

How do you know?

Originally Posted by RnderSafe

How do you know?

It is known that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz with their philosophy of "light strike force" beat down people like Sanchez and Powel's philosophy of "large ground presence" with politics. At the time we'd just secured Afghanistan with minimal ground presence and Bush was buying into that line of "we are liberators" thinking so he bought Rumsfeld's line. That is why I feel it is bothersome for America that Rumsfeld is still in house while Powel and Sanchez are gone.

In his memoirs, A World Transformed, written more than five years ago, George Bush, Sr. wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

Originally Posted by Missileer

The USA didn't start the war, it was started 9/11/01 and I personally didn't give a rat's rear end which country got hit first.

Some much needed education...........9/11 is a diff thing to the gulf war..........2 diff people...............bush may of claimed but he was wrong

Anya, you need to work on making your posts more clear. Make certain if you are using the "quote" function, you are doing it properly. As it stands now, your post is very difficult to read and respond to.