• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Poll time Should we have boots on ground in Iraq?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Should we have boots on the ground again in Iraq?

  • Yes

  • No

Results are only viewable after voting.
Orignal Earl said:
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
Click to expand...

Cruise missles are joke (which Saddam knew), and I didn't say invade Iraq for 9/11. After 9/11, the US complaceny dynamic changed.
 
Zebo said:
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.
Click to expand...

I certainly hope you're not talking about me.
 
rudder said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes they do. Pics I seen at ISIS youtube with gen 3 NV, M16s, M249s, etc and they are Chechen trained in Gorgian army and whatnot. These are not scrubs thats for sure hence rapid advance.
 
never again.

if the Arab League feels the need to intervene, they're welcome to buy arms and equipment from us at market rates.
 
Jaskalas said:
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.
Click to expand...

I didn't advocate for overthrowing Saddam and then leaving, which is what your example would require.

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.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said 20-30 years - and with the requisite number of troops for both security and control (both violence control and social control).

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.
Click to expand...

I realize we suck at nation building. Probably because we're far too nice, far too impatient, and far too cheap.

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.
Click to expand...

Had we succeeded in Syria as we should have done in Iraq, there wouldn't be WMDs, and there wouldn't be an uprising. Iraq was a terrible mistake, on all sides on multiple levels. On the US side, we tried to do it far too cheaply, far to mismanagedly, at a cost to Afghanistan, and far to quickly. The lesson in Iraq is, a.) how many troops are needed to control every other block of the country and b.) lay out the 30 year indoctrination plan (of course you call it the Liberation Plan). If a Politician cannot do that, then we shouldn't be going in.
 
x0GGCMo.jpg
 
Orignal Earl said:
A joke?
They should of just sent you in, those cowards would of just melted away
Click to expand...

Yes, a joke. What exactly were cruise missles going to do to Saddam that years of sanctions didn't? Make him quake in his boots? Make him cry? Do you think he cares that some military equipment that gets blown up that he'll replace is gone? Precisely what do you think cruise missles were going to do?
 
chucky2 said:
Cruise missles are joke (which Saddam knew), and I didn't say invade Iraq for 9/11. After 9/11, the US complaceny dynamic changed.
Click to expand...

The US went batshit insane. No reliable evidence showed Saddam was a serious concern to US interests and worse Bush et al were told it was BS but ignored the facts and lied. What a cluster. Saying the war was done badly is entirely beside the point. It never should have happened.
 
Last edited:
Nope. Not our country so we should let them figure out what they want to do. Kill each other off? So be it. We should have never gone in the first time.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
The US went batshit insane. No reliable evidence showed Saddam was a serious concern to US interests and worse Bush et al were told it was BS but ignored the facts and lied. What a cluster.
Click to expand...

Nutty dictators that have no regard for human life, and possess the security and money to do almost anything they wish, and don't like the US, are always a potential serious concern to the US. I never said Saddam was an immediate threat to the US. I don't view Saddam being an immediate threat to the US as the only reason for going in. As for the Macro stuff, not even getting into it...
 
chucky2 said:
Yes, a joke. What exactly were cruise missles going to do to Saddam that years of sanctions didn't? Make him quake in his boots? Make him cry? Do you think he cares that some military equipment that gets blown up that he'll replace is gone? Precisely what do you think cruise missles were going to do?
Click to expand...

If we could somehow harness the power of the anonymous IT message board guy, we would rule the world
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
The US went batshit insane. No reliable evidence showed Saddam was a serious concern to US interests and worse Bush et al were told it was BS but ignored the facts and lied. What a cluster. Saying the war was done badly is entirely beside the point. It never should have happened.
Click to expand...

I can understand the thought process of instituting democracy/installing Western-friendly leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan putting pressure on the regimes in Iran and Syria... the problem is that no one actually thought about how to accomplish step 1 before invading.
 
I heard a radio interview where a reporter who was in Iraq many years ago was talking with some of the locals and they basically told him to take himself back to the USA!!
He asked why?
They went on to say you cannot change 1000 -- 1500 years of things being the way they are in a mere 50 yrs.....

There is a lot of truth to that.........

No troops on the ground!
 
We should do whatever necessary to save the American contractors there, and I have no objection to air strikes afterward if desired, but ground forces? Sure, we could kill off this bunch of assholes, but this is Islamaland - it's never running out of assholes. As far as giving them the weapons needed to win the war, they could then more safely just buy the Islamicists' friendship with those weapons, which would then be used against us or Israel.

They wanted us out. Well, we're out. This is the part of the world where the most evil guy is always going to be in charge.
 
chucky2 said:
Good dodge! Now explain what cruise missles were going to do to Saddam.
Click to expand...

All I meant by cruise missile king was vastly superior firepower
You know Shock and Awe
People like you and Saddam may be able to sit back and laugh at such, but I remember millions others being terrified
 
Orignal Earl said:
All I meant by cruise missile king was vastly superior firepower
You know Shock and Awe
People like you and Saddam may be able to sit back and laugh at such, but I remember millions others being terrified
Click to expand...

Saddam didn't give a F about some expensive cruise missles we were going to lob - somewhere (since our intelligence at the time was piss poor) - to make it look good for CNN. The terrified millions aren't a concern to oppressive dictators, they are kept in line by their military. Unless your intelligence is rock solid or the target is known and fixed, a cruise missle doesn't present much of a danger.
 
Theb said:
x0GGCMo.jpg
Click to expand...

LOL. I think thats one of Saddams stand ins. Doesnt even look like him.

But it's true. Saddam kept that place in line. Promoted secularism. Womans rights. Discos and booze was all over Iraq. Not sure why Americans fucked with him so hard. They created him in Iran war and perhaps encouraged Kuwait war if rumors are to be believed then spent the next 20 years breaking him and his county down. Like I said we broke it now fix it.
 
Orignal Earl said:
lol
Still haven't finished with Afghanistan
Let's take troops needed there, and put them in Iraq
Wait..what
Click to expand...

There are only 33,000 US service members currently in Afghanistan, due to shrink down to about 9,500 by the end of the year. Meanwhile there are 4.2 million total US military service members (active, guard & reserve) over half of whom have never deployed to combat. A little Iraq would do them some good.
 
chucky2 said:
Saddam didn't give a F about some expensive cruise missles we were going to lob - somewhere (since our intelligence at the time was piss poor) - to make it look good for CNN. The terrified millions aren't a concern to oppressive dictators, they are kept in line by their military. Unless your intelligence is rock solid or the target is known and fixed, a cruise missle doesn't present much of a danger.
Click to expand...

Ya..I suppose it don't work if you just go shooting off cruise missiles willy nilly.
Once again if only all the US generals had you to direct them, I'm sure the world would be peaceful by now
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top