Personal Committment to Iraq War

First off, I thank you for your service to the nation.

Second...is that an admission that the Iraq War was based on oil?

 

My brother and brother-in-law both served in Vietnam. We pulled out of Vietnam the same year that I turned 18. If the war had continued perhaps I would have served in Vietnam as well. It wouldn't have mattered about the politics of the situation, I would have gone just like my brother and brother-in-law did.

If we had a draft and I was of draft age and I was drafted to serve in Iraq, then I would go. Period.

 

Right Daisy, I should clarify that the distinction between Viet Nam and Iraq is the way our President has managed the war in Iraq. George Bush's lack of real military experience has put him at a disadvantage, he is not able to think like a soldier because he has never really been one himself, he doesn't understand the sacrifice that our military men and women have had to make because he was never required to make any sacrifices on his own. Mr. Bush has lead a charmed life letting others suffer the consequences for his bad decisions and the worse part about it all is that it doesen't seem to even bother him at all.

 

You said it much more eloquently than I, and thank you. The policy was and continues to be flawed and history will prove that to be true. It is religious factions who are fighting against each other (and tribal loyalties) as to which religious sect will be in control of the country's resources. Also, each side wants to be the islamic sect in control when the Mahdi comes. The American people who "support" this war, don't understand the religious catalyst and significance of these groups warring with each other -- and Bush sure doesn't. Anyway, THAT FACT is only one reason this is not like the American Revolutionary War.

 

[SIZE=+1]I've been avoiding posting for several months because it often gets my blood pressure up and I really don't need that. But, having read your post, I have to post this time.

I like what you wrote and agree with it fully!

I didn't care much for the Canada bound boys during Viet Nam and wouldn't today either. I just can't respect that kind of conduct. I believe Carter's amnesty program was a big mistake. I think all of them that ran to Canada should have served time in prison doing hard labor and studying the personal history and sacrifices of those who did serve.

I believe our failure to respond to the breach of the peace treaty in Viet Nam was a big mistake. We did not live up to what we said we'd do. We didn't directly loose that war but we did nothing when the end came. In the eyes of the world we lost and it's a reputation that will never be forgotten. Our enemies know our weakness.

I believe our failure to clean out Iraq in 1991-1992 was a big mistake. We stopped when people had trouble with the killing on the road to Basra. We didn't have the determination to finish the job all the way to Baghdad or beyond.

I don't always agree 100% with all the decisions our leaders make. Usually I don't think we follow through like we should. For that reason only, I wish we wouldn't start things if we don't have the determination to finish them. But once we - our nation - makes a decision to go, I think we should support the cause for the sake of those we send to do it. Who wants to go fight a war for a nation that doesn't support it? How long will they be willing to do that? That only benefits the enemies of our nation. They fear our strength but laugh at our weakness.

I don't like our focus on regulating ourselves and developing a siege war mentality to deal with terrorism. I believe we need to take the fight to them and destroy them all. We're just making life harder on ourselves and draining our resources. Take the fight to the enemy in their land among their people. Make them worry about security.

We seem to talk big at first and then wimp out when it gets really difficult. These days it often seems we spend more and more time beating ourselves up than we do our enemy. We dwell on our mistakes. We paint everyone we do with the brush we should use on our enemies' actions. We just can't seem to stick with anything that's difficult. It seems those that try the hardest become the enemies of those they're trying to serve. We want instant success. We don't have the determination to fight a ten to twenty year war like some of our former enemies did.

My parents weren't "happy" when I went to Viet Nam but they were "proud" that I did. Essentially no one wants their loved ones to suffer or to suffer themselves. But a lot of people realize that to survive as a free and prosperous nation we have to be willing to sacrifice even to the point of our lives to defend it and protect. That's why it's called "service". It's not for one's self that it's performed but for the good of others even in later generations.

I greatly respect all those who serve today and do what their country asks - actually demands - of them. That means more to me than all the protesting and complaining.[/SIZE]

 

I think that the only viable long-term option is a Balkanization of Iraq. I don't see how these factions could cooperate in any government. We could prop-up a one-sided government in Iraq if we had no pretense of freedom or liberty of any kind. People like Saddam could rule all of Iraq because they could kill everyone in opposition. A free government cannot (and should not) do such a thing.

I know this would be very hard to work out, but I think our only solution is to have a Sunni state, a Shia state, and Kurdistan. That will definitely complicate the oil revenues, but I don't see how a one-government Iraq could ever find peace.

For all the rhetoric we hear about how the Iraqis want freedom--it's mostly garbage. Sure, they don't want to be enslaved, but to think that they will willingly accept a forced form of Western democracy is woefully naive, IMO. If US policy requires Western democracy to be satisfied, the US will not be satisfied at any time in the near future (read several decades or longer).

The problem is this. These rival factions are jockeying for power. They do not have any constitutional traditions upon which to rely. For them, this government is just window-dressing for old hat--a way to grasp unrivaled power. Can anyone honestly think that a Shia dominated government will respect the rights of the Sunnis? I think not. The Sunnis sure don't. That's why they attack. They can't gain power through the ballot, so they fight.

Iraq is dog-eat-dog right now, and a stable, constitutional government requires some modicum of restraint. That restraint is obviously not forthcoming.

These reasons are why I do not support our efforts in Iraq. Our troops are serving honorably, but I fear that their efforts cannot change Iraqi hearts.

 

I believe you are mistaken.

You evidently don't know how badly the Vietnam War was managed by Johnson and his administration.

Bush is nowhere near the militarily uneducated micro manager Johnson and his crew were.

 

Careful! You might hurt my feelings.:tear:

 

Johnson and Bush do have a lot in common with the exception that Bush is more delusional, at least Johnson had some sort of grasp on reality but you are entitled to your own opinions Carpo.
Johnson did actual service and was awarded a Silver Star by General Douglas MacArthur unlike Bush who wimped out and got into the Air National Guard via political favors. George Bush has led a charmed life free from any real responsibilities.

 

Neither was Bill Clinton able to think like a soldier, yet he directed military interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo. He ordered air attacks on Iraq, and ordered troops to Somalia, Rwanda and Haiti. He didn't pretend to be a military expert, and neither does Bush.

 

In the sense that Johnson and his crew actually served honorably. BTW, Johnson had very little to do with "micromanagement" of the Vietnam war. It might have been better if he had intervened more directly.

True. But Clinton didn't have to be a great soldier. He had great soldiers working for him, and he relied on their understanding, instead of publicly making fun of them, as Bush's crew did.

Incidentally, Clinton's military actions were generally successful. Bush's so far have been failures. Perhaps combat veterans are smarter than Bush thinks they are.

 

Somalia, Rwanda and Haiti were success stories?

Bosnia is slowly improving. We've had troops there for 11 years.

 

:laugh:

I'd like to hear a little more about the successes in Somalia.

 

You need to study a little more Vietnam War history. You're making yourself look ridiculous.

 

It is very different from Viet Nam.

We did not follow the evil puppet regime in and try to keep it in power. We went in and got rid of the evil regime.

 

Then their civil war has been ongoing for about 1400 years . . .

 

But the short-sighted Rumsfeld does.

 

Whether you like him or not. Yes, the near-sighted 'Rummy' has much more experienc than you do . . .

And whether you like the manner in which he is defending our great way of life or not, he is defending the country against enemies foreign, and even domestic.

 

Maybe if you sang the Marine Corps Hymn . . .

What is it?

"From the shores of. . . " where? D.C.? New Orleans? New York City?

Try "Tripoli" . . .

The twin towers was just one in a long string of terrorist attacks coming from those 'friendly' muslims. To be sure, there is a the possibility of a majority of friendly muslims over there - but, they don't keep their rabble calmed down.

 

We successfully pulled out quickly when they killed our men?

We successfully allowed Osama to go free, again?

We successfully allowed the Muslims kill more Christians?