Poll time Should we have boots on ground in Iraq?

[Zebo]

Should we have boots on ground in Iraq?

I vote yes. After all we still have troops in Germany, Japan and Korea 70 years later. Rebuilding a country takes time and we bought it with our strategic blunder of invasion which anyone that knows me knows I railed against day 1. But pulling out even graver mistake. 3 million Vietnamese and South Eastern Asians were slaughtered due to our hasty non political solutions withdrawl from Vietnam. Many more could be killed here not to mention regional conflagration which could result.

Air strikes wont do anything to dispersed hardcore militias. You have to control land and political events which can only be done with boots on ground.

 

[realibrad]

Should we have boots on ground in Iraq?

I vote yes. After all we still have troops in Germany, Japan and Korea 70 years later. Rebuilding a country takes time and we bought it with our strategic blunder of invasion which anyone that knows me knows I railed against day 1. But pulling out even graver mistake. 3 million Vietnamese and South Eastern Asians were slaughtered due to our hasty non political solutions withdrawl from Vietnam. Many more could be killed here not to mention regional conflagration which could result.

Air strikes wont do anything to dispersed hardcore militias. You have to control land and political events which can only be done with boots on ground.

So, air strikes wont stop hardcore militias, but a 2nd invasion will?

 

[Zorba]

Hell no. Going back in will do no good, the second we leave, it will return to its natural state of warring. Until a new dictator takes over, who will probably make Saddam look good.

We are not in Germany, Japan and Korea to build those nations, we are there for our own strategic reasons, and to defend our allies.

 

[z1ggy]

In short, no. It will be wasting countless dollars and lives.

 

[Nebor]

Yes. I've never gotten to be part of an initial invasion before. I just have to watch Generation Kill and dream of non-existent ROE.

 

[Zebo]

So, air strikes wont stop hardcore militias, but a 2nd invasion will?

Iraq was pretty stable when we were paying them not to kill us. (awakening councils) Ultimately that's whats rebuilding is all about. Opportunity. Iraq was a stable jewel in the 60s and 70s then we systemically destroyed it. First by coaxing an Iranian invasion then direct warfare against her. If we don't bear some responsibility for this I think whole region goes up in flames.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Fuck. No.

Never again.

No boots, tanks, soldiers, Americans anywhere. I don't care if it's the Ukraine, Iran, North Korea or your mother's bedroom. NO.

Enough already.

 

[Jaskalas]

In my dreams... yes... IF we could simply go in with a military march to steamroll ISIS forces. From the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. Then let the locals pick up the pieces and seize power from there. Invite Syria, Turkey, and Iran to help keep the peace.

No... because that fantasy would never happen. United States policy, as proven this past decade, would never be so intelligent. So I cannot condone boots on the ground as I'd expect our "leaders" to leave them on the ground as fodder.

I strongly oppose our nation building methods. I do not oppose our capacity to kill the enemy. This conflict could only be resolved by a United States President who clearly defines the mission as meeting my criteria. Without such confidence, I cannot support "boots on the ground".

Supporting the locals, however, with airstrikes. Giving them the firepower to win the war. That we can do without boots on the ground. Without an occupation force. I can support killing our enemies.

 

[Zebo]

Fuck. No.

Never again.

No boots, tanks, soldiers, Americans anywhere. I don't care if it's the Ukraine, Iran, North Korea or your mother's bedroom. NO.

Enough already.

No worries - The MIC/Security state only monitor internet traffic and telephone calls in my mother bedroom. Yours too..

 

[Orignal Earl]

lol
Still haven't finished with Afghanistan
Let's take troops needed there, and put them in Iraq
Wait..what

 

[phillyTIM]

No. To say quite the very least.

 

[chucky2]

Supported the Iraq invasion (and still do, just not the mismanagement of it), but would have to say No here. Iraq elected Politicians decided they didn't want us there, and we're not. They had ample time and money to get their shit straight, and still don't. Maybe this will be what is needed for them to come together and get themselves straight. Or, maybe it'll lead to Iraq being restructured (not a bad thing perhaps). I'd not even be in favor of air strikes really - with all the civilians being disturbed, how would we know who is friendly and who is not?

 

[Orignal Earl]

Supported the Iraq invasion (and still do, just not the mismanagement of it)

Why?

 

[ch33zw1z]

We left?

 

[hal2kilo]

Fuck no.

 

[Zebo]

Supported the Iraq invasion (and still do, just not the mismanagement of it), but would have to say No here. Iraq elected Politicians decided they didn't want us there, and we're not. They had ample time and money to get their shit straight, and still don't. Maybe this will be what is needed for them to come together and get themselves straight. Or, maybe it'll lead to Iraq being restructured (not a bad thing perhaps). I'd not even be in favor of air strikes really - with all the civilians being disturbed, how would we know who is friendly and who is not?

How can you call it an election when many were under threats of death for even voting? Easy to wash hands I guess this way but reality is they were not ready for elections. Country never rebuilt and not even stable.

If you ever seen 30-40 year old pictures of a stable prosperous rich Iraq you'd know what they are capabale of. We took 30 years to break the place whats 30 to fix it?

Air Strikes would be a disaster killing innocent a plenty and uniting secs against us and towards their fundis

 

[chucky2]

Why?

In light of 9/11, and assuming it would be managed correctly (it wasn't), was a perfect opportunity to send a message to that shithole of a world that the gullible US can in fact get its shit together when needed and is a force to be respected. Plus intelligence was not good enough to guarantee Saddam wasn't pursuing WMD, nor had he got any religion on not playing games with the UN, who is, well...the UN (enough said there). The mistake Bush made in making the case for Iraq is he didn't use all the reasons to go to Iraq (some he couldn't, such as impressing on the power that be in that region not to F with us), they just picked WMD as if that was enough. It's simple enough to understand for the normal US citizen lemming, but it's not the entire reason for going in.

A properly managed Iraq would have taken us probably 20-30 years and necessitated 400k troops, something not politically available given US public mentality...but I'd expect someone going in to properly manage that regardless of the US civilian capital needed. I'd also expect them to not take any focus off of Afghanistan.

Clearly mistakes were made, but the decision to go overthrow a POS dictator that no one really cared if we overthrew (except if they were making money off him of course) to perhaps advance that area 1000 years socially into the future after 20-30 years of effort, all while delivering a message, was a good one. Badly executed, but, a good initial decision.

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

How can you call it an election when many were under threats of death for even voting? Easy to wash hands I guess this way but reality is they were not ready for elections. Country never rebuilt and not even stable.

If you ever seen 30-40 year old pictures of a stable preposterous rich Iraq you'd know what they are capabale of. We took 30 years to break the place whats 30 to fix it?

See my reply to Earl. The Iraqis pre-invasion were not the 30-40 year old pictures ago Iraqis. The UN, with major US help, F'd that up long long ago.

 

[Thebobo]

NO

Unless its just Bush Cheney Rice and the rest of the chicken hawks

 

[Atreus21]

Should we have boots on ground in Iraq?

I vote yes. After all we still have troops in Germany, Japan and Korea 70 years later. Rebuilding a country takes time and we bought it with our strategic blunder of invasion which anyone that knows me knows I railed against day 1. But pulling out even graver mistake. 3 million Vietnamese and South Eastern Asians were slaughtered due to our hasty non political solutions withdrawl from Vietnam. Many more could be killed here not to mention regional conflagration which could result.

Air strikes wont do anything to dispersed hardcore militias. You have to control land and political events which can only be done with boots on ground.

I honestly don't know the scale of the conflict in Iraq. I voted no. We should do something/b] substantive to help them. Air strikes, equipment.

 

[Orignal Earl]

In light of 9/11, and assuming it would be managed correctly (it wasn't), was a perfect opportunity to send a message to that shithole of a world that the gullible US can in fact get its shit together when needed and is a force to be respected.

You figure Saddam did not know that the US was the cruise missile king, and that you proved to the world that the US is not gullible by invading Iraq for 911

 

[rudder]

At one point in time I would be inclined to say yes... however the violence there would be an endless cycle. Troops on the ground... push back jihadists... leave .... jihadists return. Rinse and repeat.

On top of that.. these jihadists have been supplied inn Syria by the CIA and likely have top notch gear.

 

[Zebo]

Goodness I'm getting slaughtered by an order of magnitude 30:3 and one supporter never saw a war he didnt like. Oh well I'm usually in minority. Be fun to revisit this in a couple years.

 

[realibrad]

Iraq was pretty stable when we were paying them not to kill us. (awakening councils) Ultimately that's whats rebuilding is all about. Opportunity. Iraq was a stable jewel in the 60s and 70s then we systemically destroyed it. First by coaxing an Iranian invasion then direct warfare against her. If we don't bear some responsibility for this I think whole region goes up in flames.

The infighting is necessary. You have people fighting over ideology that are mutually exclusive. They cannot coexist, and have fought for a very long time. Far more people will die, and many more battles won, because the west has been helping to keep the peace, instead of a natural solution. Wars over ideology are a very scary thing. The middle east is stuck in a violence trap, and western activity has only made things worse. For now, the middle east is attacking themselves, and hopefully when they are done, they will be better off.

It seems very sick to feel this way, but its what I have come too, as any sort of political attempts have done little to nothing at best, and made things worse most of the time. You are dealing with a region that wants to kill its neighbors because its the moral thing to do.

 

[Jaskalas]

Clearly mistakes were made, but the decision to go overthrow a POS dictator that no one really cared if we overthrew (except if they were making money off him of course) to perhaps advance that area 1000 years socially into the future after 20-30 years of effort, all while delivering a message, was a good one. Badly executed, but, a good initial decision.

Imagine if we had succeeded at overthrowing the dictator in Syria. Just last year WE, the United States, tried to do this. Syrian chemical weapons would be in the hands of ISIS.

A primitive, tribal, people whose nations were forcibly drawn up by the UN after WW2 haven't had generations to build on a stable functioning culture. After witnessing our failures the past decade, I firmly believe that Democracy has to be earned. That a proper groundwork must first be culturally established through generations.

Learn from history how the Western world progressed from simple tribes. We grew bigger tribes and called them Kingdoms. Many of these Kingdoms eventually became stable enough to foster an economy. From commerce came riches. From riches came powerful men separate from the King, or dictator. From these rich men came the notion of Parliament and Congress, of voting. Thus Democracy was born.

It took us nearly 2,000 years to move from Barbarians to Democracies. Iraq had no chance in hell in a mere decade. They need to find their own path forward, through dictators who keep the tribes together. Saddam was such a man and we killed him. This reverts Iraq back to anarchy and tribalism.

We've actually worked to do the same thing to other nations, to move them backwards into more violence. We must study history, both distant and recent to realize that our actions have been stepped in ignorance. That our stupidity HAS cost lives. Hundreds of thousands of lives.

If we had succeeded in Syria, our stupidity would have resulted in the widespread use of WMDs. I cannot condone actions that remove stability and replace it with anarchy. The overthrow of dictators is the eventual goal, but I do not accept rushing into it and ignoring the consequences.

Iraq was a terrible mistake. Let us learn from it and tread carefully.