What am I missing in Iraq

[mneilmont]

I remember Saddam talking about a blood bath in the desert. He said he had the 4th largest army. The war began with US and allies moving across into Kuwait.

The 4th largest army began coming out of their foxholes, throw their rifles down and attempt to hug the invading forces. That was Saddam's army. There was certain death for anyone who crossed him, but the army refused to fight for him. How could that be???

Fast forward. US trains Iraqi Army for ten years and at first sight of ISIS military. you guessed it, they throw down the US provided weapons and retreat. How could that be???

Do they have no pride in country? Obviously not. What is the reward if they defend their country? Nothing really. If US goes back into Iraq, what should they expect? Can they rely on an Iraqi army to do anything but run? Realistic man has got to say no. So, if the decision is to go back, we need some nation building plans to install a ruler, and move to elections over the next 20 years at the pearl of gains.

One mans opinion.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

I remember Saddam talking about a blood bath in the desert. He said he had the 4th largest army. The war began with US and allies moving across into Kuwait.

The 4th largest army began coming out of their foxholes, throw their rifles down and attempt to hug the invading forces. That was Saddam's army. There was certain death for anyone who crossed him, but the army refused to fight for him. How could that be???

Fast forward. US trains Iraqi Army for ten years and at first sight of ISIS military. you guessed it, they throw down the US provided weapons and retreat. How could that be???

Do they have no pride in country? Obviously not. What is the reward if they defend their country? Nothing really. If US goes back into Iraq, what should they expect? Can they rely on an Iraqi army to do anything but run? Realistic man has got to say no. So, if the decision is to go back, we need some nation building plans to install a ruler, and move to elections over the next 20 years at the pearl of gains.

One mans opinion.

That is a pretty naïve, ignorant assessment. Colin Powell said it best....if you break it, you own it. Well, we broke it. Never mind the manipulation and lies to get us in there to begin with. After the fact, the W admin had no clue about the intricacies Iraqi culture and history, apparently. The apparently didn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shiite. They were hellbent on the "de-Baathification" of Iraq banishing the Sunnis from the power structure. They got in bed with Malaki who was working for the Iranians. The Iranian govt, btw, is controlled by the Shiites. So, effectively, all the people in the Iraqi army who could've been used to stabilize the country were kicked out. Many of those are part of ISIS today. And they, apparently, are pretty effective fighters-relatively speaking.

The neocon idea that we could impose our own political structure in Iraq was a failure from the beginning. As I said at the time, these people don't know democracy. It will never work there. What W and his neocons did was destabilize the whole area. A power void was created. We propped up and Iranian backed regime. The traditional dominant faction in Iraq was outcast. We reap what we sow. thanks W.

 

[TarHeelEer]

That is a pretty naïve, ignorant assessment. Colin Powell said it best....if you break it, you own it. Well, we broke it. Never mind the manipulation and lies to get us in there to begin with. After the fact, the W admin had no clue about the intricacies Iraqi culture and history, apparently. The apparently didn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shiite. They were hellbent on the "de-Baathification" of Iraq banishing the Sunnis from the power structure. They got in bed with Malaki who was working for the Iranians. The Iranian govt, btw, is controlled by the Shiites. So, effectively, all the people in the Iraqi army who could've been used to stabilize the country were kicked out. Many of those are part of ISIS today. And they, apparently, are pretty effective fighters-relatively speaking.

The neocon idea that we could impose our own political structure in Iraq was a failure from the beginning. As I said at the time, these people don't know democracy. It will never work there. What W and his neocons did was destabilize the whole area. A power void was created. We propped up and Iranian backed regime. The traditional dominant faction in Iraq was outcast. We reap what we sow. thanks W.

Compare and contrast to Libya, Syria, and Egypt for starters.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

Compare and contrast to Libya, Syria, and Egypt for starters.

We've never invaded any of those countries and attempted to install a government....for starters.

 

[WVPATX]

That is a pretty naïve, ignorant assessment. Colin Powell said it best....if you break it, you own it. Well, we broke it. Never mind the manipulation and lies to get us in there to begin with. After the fact, the W admin had no clue about the intricacies Iraqi culture and history, apparently. The apparently didn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shiite. They were hellbent on the "de-Baathification" of Iraq banishing the Sunnis from the power structure. They got in bed with Malaki who was working for the Iranians. The Iranian govt, btw, is controlled by the Shiites. So, effectively, all the people in the Iraqi army who could've been used to stabilize the country were kicked out. Many of those are part of ISIS today. And they, apparently, are pretty effective fighters-relatively speaking.

The neocon idea that we could impose our own political structure in Iraq was a failure from the beginning. As I said at the time, these people don't know democracy. It will never work there. What W and his neocons did was destabilize the whole area. A power void was created. We propped up and Iranian backed regime. The traditional dominant faction in Iraq was outcast. We reap what we sow. thanks W.

As Obama said, Iran is a stable, peaceful country. Obama pulled out against the wishes of the military and the advice of our intelligence agencies (watch Morell's interview). It resulted in chaos. ISIS in Iraq is Obama's fault. The void was created when Obama decided to pull out. Nice try blaming Bush. Doesn't wash.

 

[RichardPeterJohnson]

As Obama said, Iran is a stable, peaceful country. Obama pulled out against the wishes of the military and the advice of our intelligence agencies (watch Morell's interview). It resulted in chaos. ISIS in Iraq is Obama's fault. The void was created when Obama decided to pull out. Nice try blaming Bush. Doesn't wash.

Regarding the pull out from Iraq, that agreement was actually negotiated and agreed to by W in 2008. BO actually kept US forces there longer than the agreement. Iraq was going to explode the moment we left. Period. That was the problem all along. The power struggle would begin then. And few people wanted US troops in Iraq indefinitely. BO actually ran against McKain with the promise of bringing US troops home from Iraq. Guess what? He won overwhelmingly. And he delivered on that promise. If you actually believe that BO is responsible for the mess that is Iraq (and it was predicted 10 years ago that place would be just like it is now the moment we left), then you have no clue about reality.

 

[WVPATX]

We've never invaded any of those countries and attempted to install a government....for starters.

LMAO. Overthrowing Khadafi was Hillary's recommendation. We were "leading from behind" and are now paying the price. Remember Obama's red line in Syria, lol. And Obama's decision to back the Muslim Brotherhood? He has been wrong at every turn.

 

[WVPATX]

Regarding the pull out from Iraq, that agreement was actually negotiated and agreed to by W in 2008. BO actually kept US forces there longer than the agreement. Iraq was going to explode the moment we left. Period. That was the problem all along. The power struggle would begin then. And few people wanted US troops in Iraq indefinitely. BO actually ran against McKain with the promise of bringing US troops home from Iraq. Guess what? He won overwhelmingly. And he delivered on that promise. If you actually believe that BO is responsible for the mess that is Iraq (and it was predicted 10 years ago that place would be just like it is now the moment we left), then you have no clue about reality.

It was Obama's decision to pull out. Watch Morell's interview. He blames Iraq's mess on that decision and he's right. Panetta likwise blames Obama. Heck, even Andrea Mitchell blames Obama. If he really wanted a SOFA, he could have had one. He wanted out. Yes, he won the election, but a President must do things that are sometiimes unpopular with his base. It's called leadership.

 

[bornaneer]

Lets stay out of the middle east and leave its future to the people who live there. Bush made a big mistake and Obama has made blunders with his support of the "Arab Spring" and "Muslim Brotherhood" miscalculations. Our 'Nation Building" efforts by all U.S. leaders has been an utter disaster. Its all very simple, we are not wanted in that land. How would you feel if our future was being dictated by outsiders. Those days are long gone.

 

[WVPATX]

The ME is far too strategic to stay out of. We must be involved to protect our interests. That doesn't mean we have to engage in war, but it does mean we have to engage. Not only is the ME a vast resevoir of hydrocarbons, but it is the chief exporter of terroism which will target Americans both inside and outside the U.S.

 

[bornaneer]

North America has all the hydrocarbons we will ever need. I think we can handle the terrorism, it's just a matter of our resolve. Lets start with a few terrorist breeding mosques getting leveled. The return on lives and resources to the middle east is not worth it.

 

[mneilmont]

I remember Saddam talking about a blood bath in the desert. He said he had the 4th largest army. The war began with US and allies moving across into Kuwait.

The 4th largest army began coming out of their foxholes, throw their rifles down and attempt to hug the invading forces. That was Saddam's army. There was certain death for anyone who crossed him, but the army refused to fight for him. How could that be???

Fast forward. US trains Iraqi Army for ten years and at first sight of ISIS military. you guessed it, they throw down the US provided weapons and retreat. How could that be???

Do they have no pride in country? Obviously not. What is the reward if they defend their country? Nothing really. If US goes back into Iraq, what should they expect? Can they rely on an Iraqi army to do anything but run? Realistic man has got to say no. So, if the decision is to go back, we need some nation building plans to install a ruler, and move to elections over the next 20 years at the pearl of gains.

One mans opinion.

That is a pretty naïve, ignorant assessment. Colin Powell said it best....if you break it, you own it. Well, we broke it. Never mind the manipulation and lies to get us in there to begin with. After the fact, the W admin had no clue about the intricacies Iraqi culture and history, apparently. The apparently didn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shiite. They were hellbent on the "de-Baathification" of Iraq banishing the Sunnis from the power structure. They got in bed with Malaki who was working for the Iranians. The Iranian govt, btw, is controlled by the Shiites. So, effectively, all the people in the Iraqi army who could've been used to stabilize the country were kicked out. Many of those are part of ISIS today. And they, apparently, are pretty effective fighters-relatively speaking.

The neocon idea that we could impose our own political structure in Iraq was a failure from the beginning. As I said at the time, these people don't know democracy. It will never work there. What W and his neocons did was destabilize the whole area. A power void was created. We propped up and Iranian backed regime. The traditional dominant faction in Iraq was outcast. We reap what we sow. thanks W.

Surprise! I make a comment about the Iraqi people having no desire to defend the country for a despot. Then they will not defend it after trained and given weaponry to do so. They still would run rather than defend for a ruler.

Triple Prick comes bashing Bush??? He is throwing the same crap that has been disproven again and again. Bush removed Saddam to hiding. Triple Prick wants to install Saddam's Republican Guard to protect and govern Iraq. Remember, Saddam is in a Spider Hole hiding out. The Republican Guard was an elite fighting force and loyal to Saddam. Triple Prick, with his vast military knowledge wants to walk away as though nothing has happened.

The only thing he wants to do is continue to bash Bush and repeat his lie about Bush lying to get us into war - a babbling brook just goes on and on. I, like most, supported the removal of Saddam. I hate that it turned out the way it did, but I could not have foreseen the inability of the Iraqi people to select a leader. The three segments had to be represented to have a viable government. We were too quick to relinquish control because we didn't want to be seen as nation building, IMO.

Will Triple Prick respond with derogatory personal attacks on me(and Bush)? Odds about 100%. Sometime he makes sense, but when Bush is involved, he just goes all to hell. Probably needs some of the folks meds.

 

[TarHeelEer]

We've never invaded any of those countries and attempted to install a government....for starters.

You didn't compare. Learn how to follow directions.

 

[wvu2007]

DickPeterJohnson stating incorrect information again? Color me shocked!