Was the invasion of Iraq necessary, can they fight back?

S

SniperWannabee

Active member
Some say that it was and it wasnt, but in my opinion i think it was somwhat right and wrong.Some also say that they arent allowed to fight back. i say that they are because we are invading them.

Whats your Opinion?
 
I believe that to win any war you have to do two things:

1. Win the battle
2. Win the peace.

I don't think No.2 was thought out very well in Iraq. Its going to be a hard struggle for the US and the British (somehow the Aussies bought into this as well thanks to Johnny Howard) to gain eventual success.

I agree with Bill Clinton. We should have waited till the UN inspectors had finished and gone in with full UN backing. This would have taken some time and the US military were primed to go.

In conclusion, its great to see Saddam gone (an absolute bastard) but the US will have to stay in Iraq for many years. I wonder if the US public will stand for that.
 
aussiejohn said:
1. Win the battle
2. Win the peace.
Click to expand...


I don't think that's entirely accurate. I'll refer to a quote from my favorite all time movie: "Do you think, if you get [the military leader] that we will simply lay down our weapons and adopt American democracy? Without victory, there can be no peace."
 
:lol: Hi Damien,

Great to see you are a cadet and have a strong interest in the Marines. They certainly have a fantastic fighting history particularly in the Pacific War in WW2.

Getting back to the topic.

I hope that we can get on top of the problems in Iraq fairly soon and a form of stable government can be achieved for the sake of all the Iraqi people.

To win any war you have to win the battle first, then win the peace. Winning the peace is usually more difficult than winning the war as it requires a lot more varying skills and resources than with fighting. I don't think the US planned for the "peace" very well. I think they hoped for the best case scenario and went for it.

If you haven't planned well for the peace then don't get into a war in the first place. The US will be in Iraq for a long time if they don't want the country to tear itself apart. I believe the violence will continue like it is now. Many more excellent US soldiers (including Marines) and innocent Iraqis (non combatants) will get killed.

In WW2 we had little choice in fighting Germany and Japan but while the war was still raging a lot of time and effort went into planning a post war peace. Even then there were still huge problems particularly in post war Germany.

A read a book recently called "Conqueror's Road" by Omar White. Omar White was an Australian journalist who was attached to Patton's 5th Army as it went into Germany. He describes the fighting and the problems in post war Germany. You should find it an interesting read Damien, about your country's military history in WW2.

Any way I am starting to ramble on a bit. I hope to read more of your forum contributions.
 
We fought a war against muslim extremists in the Philippians from 1899-1904. That war was almost like Iraq. After major operations, the military declared victory. Soon after Americans were dying in attacks. The key factor in winning that war was winning over the people. US troops set up schools, improved roads, provided governmenr services and treated prisoners extremely good. Soon, the locals realized that life was better with the Americans.
While we may be doing those things now in Iraq, we did not do so in the begining. After the war ended, I felt we sat around for a few months while we impoved our living conditions but not those of the Iraqis. Then there is Abu Ghraib. If you want to learn more, check out the Marines Small wars manual.
 
First off, do not listen to the media, I know they are supposed to tell the truth but they lie as much as Bush. I have seen letters written by very angry Soldiers in Iraq because they went out on patrol, a bomb went off, nobody was hurt but when they turned on CNN they were being told that 2 died and several more were wounded. The soldiers were upset and those of us at home are left to believe that we are hated by all Iraqis and that we are there oppressing the people.

Now, with that said, I will continue.

I believe the war was justified, we should have finished Saddam during Desert Storm, since we did not do that he was left in power, he then went and committed more crimes against the Kurds and plotted to kill President Bush Sr. that alone justifies a war in my opinion. The UN had 12 years to fix the problems in Iraq, I believe the US should be given the same amount of time.

And Iraq isn't the problem, the problem is still Al Qaeda, they are bringing in foreign fighters to fight in Iraq, they do not have to worry about the safety of their families as they are not in the country that they are fighting in. To truly win in Iraq I believe we must get rid of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
 
Other Damien, I agree. The war is completely justifiable.

However, I don't agree that Iraq wasn't a threat. Iraq was a growing problem, much like N. Korea is now. If we had left Saddam alone much longer, they could have attacked anyone with far worse results than the attacks of 9/11. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were the most dangerous men on Earth, but now Hussein is behind bars and bin Laden is hiding in some rat-infested cave. Just with that thought in my head, I can sleep a lot easier. Once bin Laden is found and persecuted, I will be much more at peace.

I applaud congress on their decision to invade Iraq.
 
The topic, or part of it (Some say that it was and it wasnt, but in my opinion i think it was somwhat right and wrong.) has been answered today by the Congress after the report of the Intelligence committee:

The US congress would have never allowed the war with what they know now today about the flaky intel they were provided with!

I guess they feel better saying it but what now?
We must finish it and clean up what was started, at least in the name of the 800 dead and thousands of our finest that have been the casualties of that mess.

And I want the freedom fries to be listed again as French fries at their cafeteria! :lol:
 
Damien435 said:
First off, do not listen to the media, I know they are supposed to tell the truth but they lie as much as Bush. I have seen letters written by very angry Soldiers in Iraq because they went out on patrol, a bomb went off, nobody was hurt but when they turned on CNN they were being told that 2 died and several more were wounded. The soldiers were upset and those of us at home are left to believe that we are hated by all Iraqis and that we are there oppressing the people.

Now, with that said, I will continue.

I believe the war was justified, we should have finished Saddam during Desert Storm, since we did not do that he was left in power, he then went and committed more crimes against the Kurds and plotted to kill President Bush Sr. that alone justifies a war in my opinion. The UN had 12 years to fix the problems in Iraq, I believe the US should be given the same amount of time.

And Iraq isn't the problem, the problem is still Al Qaeda, they are bringing in foreign fighters to fight in Iraq, they do not have to worry about the safety of their families as they are not in the country that they are fighting in. To truly win in Iraq I believe we must get rid of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
Click to expand...

Look, I will be one of the first people to congratulate the Americans if they achieve what they set out to do. We can't turn back the clock now but my stomach churns when I think of the problems that have to be overcome. Unfortunately US voters wil not be waiting 12 years for a solution. Iraq will cost many more lives and billions of dollars per year until things settle down.

I would say it's a pretty touchy subject with most Americans at the moment and is also with plenty of Aussies but we aren't taking any casualties!

Security is going to continue to a be major problem for many years. Iraqi security is generally hopeless. More international troops are required with full UN backing. If Australia really is a fair dinkum member of the coalition of the willing, more Australian troops and humanitarian workers need to be sent to Iraq. We only have a very small number of defence personnel there at the moment (800). We may as well not be there but it suits John Howard (and George Bush) politically.

It was a big mistake to disband the Iraqi Army.

Iraq is not the only problem regarding terrorism. Saudi Arabia (America's main source of oil) and Pakistan are shaping up as huge problems. Lets not forget Afghanistan as well which is still a scarey place to be outside Kabul and Kandahar.


By the way. Saddam killed many Shiites after Desert Storm because George Bush Senior failed to support them during their uprising which George Snr encouraged.
 
:roll: The war was never justified. There is and was no threat to us. For him to hit us with a Chemical missile or a really big fireworks he would have to have a ICBM (Intercontinental Balistic Missile) which obviuosly he never had and never would have. I completly understand with how the rebels from iraq. When you see a family member naked and tied down with sh*tty underwear on his head for humiliation. Thats just plain rediculas. But of course with our government there only going to punish the privates and low class soldiers and not the upperclass ones that knew about it and did not do a thing. Im sorry but if say mexico took us over and started doing that shit to us i would deffinatly be getting out my 10 gauge and .40 cal and making some mexicans look like the insides of burritos. Think of it in someone elses point of view. Would you really want mexico in this country not fixing are powerlines and water supply after a couple months because they just bombed the f*ck out of it? I sure the hell wouldn't want them in this country seting up a governement that i did not want and know about and giving say the Latinos all the power in the government like they have done with one of the tribes. They have made a tribe "i want to say the Sunnii's but im not sure" the dominant tribe of them all. I would be rip sh*t. They should have the power split up between 3 major powers or there will never be peace, such as 3 preidents ECT... Everything equal because when you favor one race or tribe theres always a rebelion no matter if we kill half of them or just sit there trying to solve it diplomaticly it wont matter when theres such a difference in power. :roll:
 
I am guessing you have no idea how things are over there. I was in Iraq from March through August. Here are some things about Iraq the media has NEVER told you.

Every family (mother, father, brother sister, grandparents uncles and aunts) in Iraq has had a member beaten, put in prison or killed via Sadam. A man in Al Mahmuduyah who spoke decent english told me this.

Sadam told his people that the Americans would kill their babies when we moved in. A woman broke down after one of my soldiers played with her son at a check point. That soldier had a new born back in the states that he had not seen.

80-90% of the people in Iraq support Sadam not being in power. The other 10-20% are the people who benefited from Sadam being in power. This info was given to me by an Iraqi man at wal-mart.

You cannot deny that Sadam is guilty of crimes against humanity. He authorized the killing of anyone who was against him. He gased the Kurds, made any body who protested his rule "disappear". The last I knew the mass graves were in the 10,000's. How can you say this war was not justified? I know the world hates the US, but why do they have to stick up for Sadam to show they are against the US. I will laugh at the ignorance of anyone who says the world is worse off now that Sadam is gone. If anyone is going to be mad about the war it should be me. I spent 11 months away from home and my life was put in danger so there would be a free Iraq. And after all is said and done, I fully support our actions over there
 
I do not hate the US and i definatly dont support saddam but i would of prefered it to of been a UN operation and that the politicians had not mislead us about the supposed WMD which makes the war look a lot more about oil! I am glad saddam was captured and he should definatly be charged with crimes against humanity, but he should have a lawyer otherwise i will not respect the outcome! everyman has a right to a fair trial no matter how great his crimes!
Iraqis fighting back? Only those supported by terrorist organisations can fight back and they arent fighting for iraq theyre fighting because they hate the coalition forces, or are being told to fight!
 
Doody said:
I am guessing you have no idea how things are over there. I was in Iraq from March through August. Here are some things about Iraq the media has NEVER told you.

Every family (mother, father, brother sister, grandparents uncles and aunts) in Iraq has had a member beaten, put in prison or killed via Sadam. A man in Al Mahmuduyah who spoke decent english told me this.

Sadam told his people that the Americans would kill their babies when we moved in. A woman broke down after one of my soldiers played with her son at a check point. That soldier had a new born back in the states that he had not seen.

80-90% of the people in Iraq support Sadam not being in power. The other 10-20% are the people who benefited from Sadam being in power.
This info was given to me by an Iraqi man at wal-mart.
You cannot deny that Sadam is guilty of crimes against humanity. He authorized the killing of anyone who was against him. He gased the Kurds, made any body who protested his rule "disappear". The last I knew the mass graves were in the 10,000's. How can you say this war was not justified? I know the world hates the US, but why do they have to stick up for Sadam to show they are against the US. I will laugh at the ignorance of anyone who says the world is worse off now that Sadam is gone. If anyone is going to be mad about the war it should be me. I spent 11 months away from home and my life was put in danger so there would be a free Iraq. And after all is said and done, I fully support our actions over there
Click to expand...

Hi Doody, I guess I am one of those people who has no idea what it really is like in Iraq.

You are are a very brave person who has had to put up with a hell of lot in carrying out your Governments wishes.

I suppose one thing about having a democracy is that we have a free press that sometimes manipulates news and doesn't always get things right.

How long to do you think most US voters will keep supporting the US military in Iraq?

Do you think the US is safer now after the US ousted Saddam?

Do you think the Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites, Turkamen, etc will be able to hold a stable democratic government together after the US soldiers have left Iraq?

I agree with you that Saddam has committed massive crimes against humanity and deserved to be removed (but with UN backing).

It is a pity that Bush didn't have the guts in the beginning to use "the crimes against humanity" excuse to kick out Saddam.

Extending your argument a little, Bush, Blair and Howard should now get involved in another war in Sudan where crimes against humanity are occurring right now. The conflict between Muslims of African and Arabic descent threatens to turn Dafur (West Sudan)- a region as big as France- into a vast slaughterhouse. At least 10000 people have been killed in the conflict, up to a million are desperately trying to escape it and, with the rainy season closing in, up to 350,000 may die of starvation.

:lol: Catch you later Doody.
 
US, UN and Iraq

hey aussiejohn,

Thanks man. I do put up with some crap just for being over there. I really hate it when people hold it against me for being over there. As a soldier, I don't have a choice as to wether I go or not, I go where I Army sends me.

I am not sure how voters will support our actions over there. I find it odd that there are hoards of people in the States who are set against operations in Iraq, but most soldiers are very supportive of Iraq. There are too many people in the US who accept something just because it was said by a famous person.

There must be trust in Iraq before a government can work. Each ethnic group over there has done something to the other. No one really trusts eachother at the moment. I have no idea how long it will take for trust to take hold. If we look at Bosnia, that may take years.

As for the UN, I am not happy with their track record. They were in Bosnia for almost a decade and there was no peace. NATO went in and stopped major fighting within 6 months. It seemed the UN turned a blind eye to the atrocities in Rwanda. The UN's track record with Iraq is not impressive to me. And yes, there is Sudan. I firmly agree with you that we (US or UN) should be over there attempting to stop the blood shed. Someone can argue that the US is doing nothing, but the UN is right there with us. Until the UN does the right thing everytime, I believe the US has the right to do things with out their backing. For them to criticize us is hipicritical

Well, I am off to France to check out the last part of the Tour de France....I'll chat more when I get back in AUG
 
Re: US, UN and Iraq

Doody said:
hey aussiejohn,

Thanks man. I do put up with some crap just for being over there. I really hate it when people hold it against me for being over there. As a soldier, I don't have a choice as to wether I go or not, I go where I Army sends me.

I am not sure how voters will support our actions over there. I find it odd that there are hoards of people in the States who are set against operations in Iraq, but most soldiers are very supportive of Iraq. There are too many people in the US who accept something just because it was said by a famous person.

There must be trust in Iraq before a government can work. Each ethnic group over there has done something to the other. No one really trusts eachother at the moment. I have no idea how long it will take for trust to take hold. If we look at Bosnia, that may take years.

As for the UN, I am not happy with their track record. They were in Bosnia for almost a decade and there was no peace. NATO went in and stopped major fighting within 6 months. It seemed the UN turned a blind eye to the atrocities in Rwanda. The UN's track record with Iraq is not impressive to me. And yes, there is Sudan. I firmly agree with you that we (US or UN) should be over there attempting to stop the blood shed. Someone can argue that the US is doing nothing, but the UN is right there with us. Until the UN does the right thing everytime, I believe the US has the right to do things with out their backing. For them to criticize us is hipicritical

Well, I am off to France to check out the last part of the Tour de France....I'll chat more when I get back in AUG
Click to expand...

Thanks for your interesting reply. Have fun in France.

aussiejohn
 
The invasion of Iraq still to this day seems pointless to me. They did not have ICBMs to hit us with nuclear or chemical weapon. They would of had to get real close to us and by then the coast gaurd would be saying "Sail your sail boat back to the sand dunes". They also said that they could hit Israel with a chemical weapon ECT... Who in there right minds in the middle east would screw with israel right now? There pissed off Jews with good weapons. If i was Sudan, Jordan, or even Iraq for that matter wouldnt even cough in there direction.
 
DontEatAnAnimal said:
They also said that they could hit Israel with a chemical weapon ECT... Who in there right minds in the middle east would screw with israel right now? There pissed off Jews with good weapons. If i was Sudan, Jordan, or even Iraq for that matter wouldnt even cough in there direction.
Click to expand...

They [Iraq] did it before.
 
RnderSafe said:
DontEatAnAnimal said:
They also said that they could hit Israel with a chemical weapon ECT... Who in there right minds in the middle east would screw with israel right now? There pissed off Jews with good weapons. If i was Sudan, Jordan, or even Iraq for that matter wouldnt even cough in there direction.
Click to expand...

They [Iraq] did it before.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's true -- in 1990. People might have forgotten it. I think it's right for the US to do what they have done in Iraq. Better to install a new government in Iraq than to let the former regime continue. What the world needs is peace.



"War is the path to peace''
 
Operation Freedom: Is it worth it.

I think that the iraqi people can obviously can fight back or other wise the U.S. Soldiers wouldn't be dying at a pace that they are. I am young and don't really understand all of this and probably never will. But i can't comprehend what was going through bush's mind when he started this war. It is not like we are going over there for one year and going to take down the communists and the taliban and expect the iraqi people to bow down to democracy. It was a very big decision that wasn't thought through well enough for the risks and consequences. Saddam is gone and peace has started to rise, but then we have to look at the iraqi people and wear their shoes for once. Obviously they don't want democracy or other wise terrorists wouldn't have killed the future president over there. Doesn't that tell us something right there. If some country came to the U.S and expected us to lay down all our values on the table and give them up we would fight back too. I mean it is a big change that just can't happen over night. Some signs are right in front of our face and some aren't. I believe that this will rise to become another Vietnam war and bush is doing nothing about it except ship more troops over seas. He is bad for the U.S. and he should be out of office. The only thing good about this war is that the economy is rising due to the availability of jobs. Our men are dying over there and we are getting nowhere.
 
Well, I can understand why we went into Iraq.

Saddam certainly needed to be removed from power. His periodic defiance was serving to diminish Western influence in the Middle East, his funding of Palestinian and other terror groups was destabilising the region, and he had murdered and tortured people in huge numbers (and was still doing so).

The issue was that to remove Saddam would never be straightforward. Sanctions and periodic bombing did not affect the regime's power. Saddam had good personal security, so assassination was out. Helping the Iraqis remove Saddam themselves was likely to provoke interventions by Turkey and Iran, so that was no good. The only option left was invasion - but until 9/11, invasion simply was not possible politically, due to both domestic and international public opinion.

The paradox of 9/11 was that while it made it politically possible to invade Iraq, it also meant we suddenly had other priorities. The murderers who attacked the USS Cole had now shown that they could launch a major attack on the United States itself, and if they could do that, they could attack or destabilise any country in the world. Saddam, conversely, had not killed a single American (or British person) since 1991.

It can therefore be argued that the United States and Britain should not have invaded Iraq when they did, but should instead have focussed on increasing the stability of the global system (for example, looking again at the Palestine issue), while at the same time building the global political and security environment that would have enabled the capture or killing of the remaining al-Qa'eda elements world-wide.

To my mind, the invasion of Iraq was not immoral, unjustified or done to get the country's oil: in itself, it was probably a good thing. It was nevertheless a policy error: while Saddam rots in a prison cell, Bin Laden's people are still out there, still armed, and determined to massacre as many people as they can before they are gunned down.

All we have done is given them time to regroup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top