What is the job? We eliminated Sadamm's regime. There were no WMD's or viable plans to create them. Is our job to just babysit an uncivliized nation? Why aren't we doing that in Sudan or Congo or Pakistan? What makes Iraq worth our troops blood?
If you leave before the country is stabilized you have created a massive power vacuum that is ripe for Iranian supported Islamic Fundamentalists to sieze control of the nation and control it's Billions of dollars of oil, while at the same time emboldening supporters of Jihad and it's war against the West. I don't know if I can break it down any simpler than that...
That sounds all good and sensationalized, but is it practical? Name one successful democracy that was imposed on a people by a conquering power. You are right on one point we went a destabilized the whole region, and now we have no exit strategy that we can control.
An Iraqian democracy will not be imposed by the United States. The Iraqies wrote their own constitution and elected their own government. The United States did not dictate anything to them.
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf It's naive to believe that Iraq didn't have WMD's, especially during the Gulf War and to believe that Saddam didn't go out of his way to hide the weapons is wrong too. We are obligated to get Iraq to a level in which they can take care of themselves without help from us and our allies. This is a different breed of enemy we are fighting in this war and we have to adapt to it. We are just going through the same cycle where we are getting tired of war. It's happened in the Civil War, WWI, and WWII.
Amigo, there is already war against the west. Do you see anything that looks like this country is headed towards stability, much less democracy? It's free-for-all chaos presided over by us. Let the Islamic fundamentalists kill each other all they want. There are hundreds of militias and faction and they will merrily kill each other if we only let them. There is not going to be a democracy emerging in Iraq, there is going to be a new strongman, just like it always has been, just as soon as we leave. The sooner the better for us. If an islamic dictatorship emerges and threatens the US we can deal with it country-to-country on our full military terms until they become reasonable. The stupid thing is to try to fight every angry raghead in the middle east one-at-a-time on their turf in a guerrilla war where we can't use our airpower or navy to advantage. fighting the enemy's kind of war with one hand tied behind our back . . . just like Vietnam. Babysitting someones else's civil war. Staying the course. These Shia and Sunni are just going to have to fight it out and it ain't our fight. It's been going on for 500 years. We need to continue to protect the Kurds, because they have cooperated with us and are not killing our troops. But the Sunnis and the Shiites can kill each other for another 500 years as far as I care. The real fight is against al Qaida, the Iraqis never attacked the US and they were and are no threat to do so. But Osama is still out there and he has proven he can and he will.
The Gulf War? In 1991? All those tons of chemical stockpiles were destroyed by UNSCOM in the 10 years of sanctions and inspections. Did a few stray artilery shells escape? Sure. But these questions beg to be asked: 1. Why haven't they been used against US troops or rival militias? [ANSWER: They are obsolete, depleted, and ineffective duds] 2. How old are these shells? [ANSWER: About 20 years. They were left over from the 1981-88 Iran-Iraq war, not from new WMD's being built by Saddam? And don't neglect that the Pentagon response in the FOX news story pointed out that these were old ineffective munitions from the 1980's. A senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions. "This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."] 3. How long is the the shelf life of sarin? [ANSWER:Technically this is classified, but it ain't 20 years apparently.] Don't forget that this story was put out by a Republican Senator running for reelection, not the Pentagon. He is exaggerating the significance and neither the Administration nor the Pentagon backed him up.
never in the history of the world has there been a country so well-meaning as the US that conquers places and then gives them right back to the citizens of the country. other conquerors take over a place and keep it. other superpowers dont fight to give other poeple freedom like we do. you are implying that history is littered with examples of conquerors imposing democracy and failing. there isnt.
