Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iraq bombings start

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Doktor View Post
    What choice did they had?
    To hang him themselves anythime in the past two decades?

    Edit: My first post was directed at Bigross/Yellows earlier posts and the way the chose to present the withdrawal from Iraq, which i found somewhat hypocritical.
    Looking foward to reading any articles/analysis posted int his thread regarding posible outcomes or the curent situation
    Last edited by Dante; 23 Dec 11,, 11:20.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Dante View Post
      To hang him themselves anythime in the past two decades?
      My remark was to the chosen leader. How did they choose Saddam?
      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Doktor View Post
        My remark was to the chosen leader. How did they choose Saddam?
        They chose him because he was allowed to stay in power, they made that choice every day.
        I understood the first time what you asked.

        Comment


        • #19
          To be fair,Saddam had a good share of rebellions.The Kurds had theirs,the Shia after the 1st GW,the continous troubles in the 90's.Hence the easy victory during the invasion.
          Hitler was right when he said a modern dictator cannot fall from power on his own unless he chosses suicide and Saddam was such a dictator.As long as there is a loyal group willing to use arms to stay in power,all is fine and well.Of course,it also creates a system way to sensible to any changes in the environment,which is bad.Can lead to hanging or firing squad,but that's life and those are the risks.
          Those who know don't speak
          He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by S2 View Post
            "...It was a waste of precious lives and money to go there."

            Disagree. It may have been, however, "...a waste of precious lives and money..." to stay there.

            Tearing the place apart was entirely appropriate. Putting humpty-dumpty back together again? Nyet.
            What purpose did it serve to go into Iraq and tear it apart? Did we really accomplish anything? We will NEVER get anybody over there to embrace our type of Democracy and yes Saddam was a piece of shyt but he also kept Iran in check. I just don't see what we accomplished and to lose all those lives for what? Afghanistan is a different story but now that Osama is dead it is time to pull out.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by S2 View Post
              "...It was a waste of precious lives and money to go there."

              Disagree. It may have been, however, "...a waste of precious lives and money..." to stay there.

              Tearing the place apart was entirely appropriate. Putting humpty-dumpty back together again? Nyet.
              Gramps, IMO the notion of "dispensing democracy" like it was some drug is foolhardy. The job is to eliminate a threat with overwhelming violence, not set up a parliamentary system.

              This has been my view since I was out of diapers and playing with a Crosman BB gun, fighting commie hordes.

              The job of a military is to enter, dispense Biblical death and destruction, and then leave. When did this notion start that soldiers and airmen should stick around for years, play police, play doctor, civil engineer, and politician, leaving them open to every swinging d**k with an AK or some fertilizer?

              We should have exited Iraq on the day Saddam swung, possibly even well before. NO MORE NATION BUILDING.

              Comment


              • #22
                French&British armies did those things,like playing doctors,engineers and policemen.It was called differently and worked well.If you want to do the thing,you need to reshape your nation first.Otherwise,stay out.
                Those who know don't speak
                He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                Comment


                • #23
                  Chogy,
                  You and i have always agreed on this, the question is was there a clear and present danger to the U.S. or any of our allies? IDK, were there WMD? Sorry but I have seen no proof. But if there was WMD we should have gone in with full force and decimated them and LEFT!! Let the rest of the others over there know not to screw with us. We keep screwing around over there and our men and women are getting blown to pieces by IED's every week. Enough already, let them build their own nation. We need to send a message that you screw with us we will blow your arse to Kingdom Come and leave you to rot. Screw with us again and we will do it again!! But to sit there and occupy these God forsaken countries and lose people every day just to pack up and leave having really done nothing that we couldnt have done in a couple of months is nuts.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Chogy View Post
                    Gramps, IMO the notion of "dispensing democracy" like it was some drug is foolhardy. The job is to eliminate a threat with overwhelming violence, not set up a parliamentary system.

                    This has been my view since I was out of diapers and playing with a Crosman BB gun, fighting commie hordes.

                    The job of a military is to enter, dispense Biblical death and destruction, and then leave. When did this notion start that soldiers and airmen should stick around for years, play police, play doctor, civil engineer, and politician, leaving them open to every swinging d**k with an AK or some fertilizer?

                    We should have exited Iraq on the day Saddam swung, possibly even well before. NO MORE NATION BUILDING.
                    Aye, You could have invaded 20 times over for the final cost of this war.

                    Pretty sure after the 6th invasion, they'd try not getting themselves in the same pickle again..
                    Ego Numquam

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Gramps View Post
                      Chogy,
                      You and i have always agreed on this, the question is was there a clear and present danger to the U.S. or any of our allies? IDK, were there WMD? Sorry but I have seen no proof. But if there was WMD we should have gone in with full force and decimated them and LEFT!! Let the rest of the others over there know not to screw with us. We keep screwing around over there and our men and women are getting blown to pieces by IED's every week. Enough already, let them build their own nation. We need to send a message that you screw with us we will blow your arse to Kingdom Come and leave you to rot. Screw with us again and we will do it again!! But to sit there and occupy these God forsaken countries and lose people every day just to pack up and leave having really done nothing that we couldnt have done in a couple of months is nuts.
                      There is plenty of proof. It all depends upon which politicians definition of WMD you wish to choose and how deep you wish to look. Just last week a man was arrested for setting a pipe bomb here in the US. He was charged with many counts including intending to detinate a WMD. Saddams WMD was in the least mustard and sarin gases. Not used only on the Iranians during the Iran/Iraq war but also against his own people. His were much more capable (proven) then a pipebomb filled with shot.
                      Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Dante View Post
                        Well, the "rest of the world" just hang theyre chosen leader last year, after they where conquered. Do you think you did theme a favor?
                        Btw, I fully suported the Iraqi war, just not the insane ideea that "you gave them a chance" and the pricinciple of shoving your's/ours way of thinking in somebodys else head and going home when, surprise, dosen;t work.
                        No, Saddam was an itch Dubya wanted to scratch and you can debate the merits of whether invading was a good idea or not. Nevertheless a chance for them was created to build better lives for themselves when we invaded and if they're going to piss it away, screw 'em.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Chunder View Post
                          Aye, You could have invaded 20 times over for the final cost of this war.

                          Pretty sure after the 6th invasion, they'd try not getting themselves in the same pickle again..
                          Palestinians don't learn, why would Iraqis?
                          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            What was there to learn in the first place?Pals have a cause,while Israelis for better or worse still have to play it by the rules.
                            Those who know don't speak
                            He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Back on track , I just love the bolded bit , blind pugh could have predicted it , ah well about turn troops head to Syria wasting more . :slap:


                              SAMARRA, Iraq (Reuters) - Several thousand Iraqis in Sunni Muslim strongholds protested on Friday against Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, responding to his moves against two Sunni leaders and taking to the streets a day after fatal bombings hit the capital Baghdad.
                              Maliki this week sought Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi's arrest on terrorism charges and moved to fire a Sunni deputy. On Thursday at least 72 people were killed in Baghdad by bombings in mainly Shi'ite neighbourhoods.
                              The events threaten to splinter Iraq's fragile sectarian and ethnic faultlines and highlight the risk of the country tumbling into the kind of bloody slaughter that a few years ago led the OPEC oil-producer to the edge of civil war.
                              After Friday prayers, with Sunni imams warning Maliki was seeking to foment sectarian divisions, protesters were on the streets of Sunni-dominated Samarra, Ramadi, Baiji and Qaim, many waving banners in support of Hashemi, and criticising the government.
                              "The charges against Hashemi were orchestrated behind closed doors. Maliki is trying to remove Sunnis from power to get a tight grip, like as a new dictator of Iraq," said Ahmed al-Abbasi, a+ protester from Samarra.
                              The crisis could scuttle a delicate power-sharing agreement that splits posts among Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders just days after the last American troops withdrew nearly nine years after the invasion to oust Saddam Hussein.
                              "What's happening in Iraq is settling political scores," Iyad Allawi, Maliki's predecessor and head of the Sunni-backed Iraqiya bloc, told al-Arabiya television.
                              Analysis on neighbours' unease ID:nL6E7NL42A]
                              Graphic on ethnic divide http://link.reuters.com/wub75s
                              Graphic on bombings http://link.reuters.com/sub75s
                              An emergency session in parliament among leaders of political blocs to debate the crisis was cancelled on Friday.
                              For many Sunnis who feel marginalised by the rise of Iraq's Shi'ite majority since the fall of Saddam, Maliki's measures have deepened worries the Shi'ite leader is making a power grab to consolidate Shi'ite power.
                              "Hashemi, fear not, with our blood we support you," one banner read in Samarra.
                              Hashemi denies charges his office ran an assassination squad. After the interior ministry broadcast what it said were confessions from Hashemi's bodyguards, the Sunni leader left for semi-autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan, where he is unlikely to be handed over to central government authorities.
                              U.S. DIPLOMACY, REGIONAL WORRIES
                              Baghdad was quiet on Friday with many people deciding to stay off the streets following Thursday's string of bombings, which included a suicide bomber, driving an ambulance, who detonated his explosives outside a government office.
                              The last American troops left Iraq over the weekend, nearly nine years after the invasion that toppled Sunni dictator Saddam. Many Iraqis fear a return to sectarian violence without a U.S. military buffer.
                              U.S. officials are trying to stay engaged in Iraq. Vice President Joe Biden called Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to support efforts to resolve tensions and Army Chief of Staff General Raymond Odierno met with Maliki on Thursday.
                              U.S. intelligence agencies had warned that security gains in Iraq could degenerate into sectarian violence after the withdrawal.
                              Turmoil in Iraq would have wider consequences in a region where a crisis in neighbouring Syria is becoming increasingly sectarian, and Shi'ite Iran, Turkey and Sunni Arab Gulf nations are all positioning for more influence.
                              Iraqi Shi'ite leaders worry a shift to a hardline Sunni government in Damascus if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad falls would unbalance their country's own delicate sectarian makeup, or spill instability over the border.
                              Last edited by tankie; 23 Dec 11,, 19:43.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Chogy View Post
                                Gramps, IMO the notion of "dispensing democracy" like it was some drug is foolhardy. The job is to eliminate a threat with overwhelming violence, not set up a parliamentary system.

                                This has been my view since I was out of diapers and playing with a Crosman BB gun, fighting commie hordes.

                                The job of a military is to enter, dispense Biblical death and destruction, and then leave. When did this notion start that soldiers and airmen should stick around for years, play police, play doctor, civil engineer, and politician, leaving them open to every swinging d**k with an AK or some fertilizer?

                                We should have exited Iraq on the day Saddam swung, possibly even well before. NO MORE NATION BUILDING.
                                It was never about "nation building" in Iraq. It was all about Iran not getting controll over Iraq, after you deposed the Sunni Regime i.e. Saddam.:Zzzzzz:

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X