Should We Get Involved in Iraq Again

Should We Get Involved in Iraq Again

Posted in the Pikeville Forum

First Prev
of 15
Next Last
The Four Horsemen

Winchester, KY

#1 Jun 17, 2014
The second Gulf War in Iraq was a war of choice, more for the Carlyle Group and Dick Cheney's Haliburton. There were never any WMD's in Iraq, no Al Qaeda "at that time. We were told by every Middle Eastern Government no to do it and it would end in disaster. Sunni and Shite sect have been at each others throat since the 7th Century. Most of the oil producing countries are Sunni Muslims. Saudi Arabia spends millions supporting Sunni terrorist including the ones in Syria and Iraq right now. George W. wanted that war for his industrial military complex buddies and was planning it before he even got elected. Now Iraq has fallen into a cesspool cauldron of sectarian violence as predicted. The Shite government we installed and left in power never tried to share power and government with the Sunni's. We should never have gone into Iraq "spent trillions off budget and thousands died" only to set Iraq up for the inevitable sectarian war. The whole region could go up in flames over this. Under no circumstances should we get involved back in that country militarily, there is no reason or diplomatic solution to a sectarian religious war. Never should have destabilized the country and we damn sure don't want to back in there again.
This will be the major catastrophic event of this decade, the whole region will probably end up engaged in a sectarian war and we will be lucky if the oil crisis it causes does not bring down world governments. This is one scary mess! Much larger than the ability of Obama to control and way to risky for us to ever get involved with again.
patriot7

Whitesburg, KY

#2 Jun 17, 2014
NO! We shouldn't set foot in another country until we get the spineless, limp wrist-ed, government officials out of office (Dem and/or Repub). We need a real leader with balls! Put the bleeding hearts on ignore, send in troops with at least a 5:1 ratio over the enemy. Give all towns and villages warning that if you are hiding an insurgent, you are an insurgent! Tell the people of that country they have 30 days to handle their own problems or we start rolling. Tell them this time we will NOT be rebuilding anything! We will not be giving your government a damn dime! This time we will not be there to be your friends. Tell them IF we have to handle this, we will leave their country in ruins and they can survive the bast way they can because when it is done, it is done! Until there are serious consequences no one will fear us and this will go on forever.
Sister

Staffordsville, KY

#3 Jun 17, 2014
patriot7 wrote:
NO! We shouldn't set foot in another country until we get the spineless, limp wrist-ed, government officials out of office (Dem and/or Repub). We need a real leader with balls! Put the bleeding hearts on ignore, send in troops with at least a 5:1 ratio over the enemy. Give all towns and villages warning that if you are hiding an insurgent, you are an insurgent! Tell the people of that country they have 30 days to handle their own problems or we start rolling. Tell them this time we will NOT be rebuilding anything! We will not be giving your government a damn dime! This time we will not be there to be your friends. Tell them IF we have to handle this, we will leave their country in ruins and they can survive the bast way they can because when it is done, it is done! Until there are serious consequences no one will fear us and this will go on forever.
Didn't we already do that???
My 2 cents

Fort Worth, TX

#4 Jun 17, 2014
Really at this point its all opinion. Here is what I would do.

I would use satellite imagery and high altitude drones to track the insurgents west and north of Baghdad and the border with Syria. I would use the regional intelligence to focus the satellite imagery and drones. Let the Iraqi's put together their own ground offensive with whoever they see fit. This would force the Iraqi's hand to unite politically. Worse case scenario is Iran and Iraq merge and next time we fight them they will be twice as large. Assuming that the Iraqi's will push the enemy north. I would setup aerial bombardment of submarine based cruise missiles and unmanned drone missiles. Then the finishing move would be to flank the retreating enemy heading back north toward Syria. Don't let Syria be the next Cambodia like in the Vietnam war. Hit them hard from the air. It's a proven fact that since the use of the airplane in war no side has ever won without air superiority. NO AMERICAN GROUND TROOPS. We have to act because like it or not we are dependent on foreign middle eastern oil.
A complicated mess

Winchester, KY

#5 Jun 17, 2014
My 2 cents wrote:
Really at this point its all opinion. Here is what I would do.
I would use satellite imagery and high altitude drones to track the insurgents west and north of Baghdad and the border with Syria. I would use the regional intelligence to focus the satellite imagery and drones. Let the Iraqi's put together their own ground offensive with whoever they see fit. This would force the Iraqi's hand to unite politically. Worse case scenario is Iran and Iraq merge and next time we fight them they will be twice as large. Assuming that the Iraqi's will push the enemy north. I would setup aerial bombardment of submarine based cruise missiles and unmanned drone missiles. Then the finishing move would be to flank the retreating enemy heading back north toward Syria. Don't let Syria be the next Cambodia like in the Vietnam war. Hit them hard from the air. It's a proven fact that since the use of the airplane in war no side has ever won without air superiority. NO AMERICAN GROUND TROOPS. We have to act because like it or not we are dependent on foreign middle eastern oil.
With no good options for the U.S. or Iraq, a centuries old religious rift that Saddam kept tamped down "by force". He was a Sunni, the barbaric treatment of the Shiite majority led to pent up hatred of the Sunni. Most Arab oil countries are Sunni, including Saudi Arabia. If we bomb the Sunni's the house of Saud is supporting we will lose one of our closest allies aside from Israel in the middle east. The Saud's fear the Shiite Iranian's that are Persians not Arabs, they will do anything to keep Iran in check. The Iraq situation has no good options be cause the army we trained up won't and can't fight. Half the forces are Sunni and when the Sunni rebels attack they throw down their weapons and refuse to fight them. The force that Iraq will stand up will be the new Shiite volunteers wanting to kick some Sunni butt and they will have to be trained. We have no intelligence on the ground now and can't trust the Shiite forces to call in air strikes. That means boots on the ground, special forces as forward observers. It is a slippery slope into hell. We need to let them kill each other and let god sort them out or Allah as the case may be. We never should have took that country down in 2003," you can conquer a country on horseback but you can't rule it from horseback". A famous Chinese generals quote from a couple thousand years ago. We are going to choose side and which ever one we choose will be the wrong side. The only thing dumber than getting involved in the last Iraq war is to get involved in this one. We are broke, Bush had a large tax cut and fought two wars on a credit card. A large part of the deficit is Bush/Cheney war in Iraq, we simply can't afford this! We have spilled enough American blood inn the sands of Iraq, no more bodies coming home for a lost cause. Blood for oil has to stop, especially when this time we will only get the worlds oil cut off.
My 2 cents

North Richland Hills, TX

#7 Jun 17, 2014
You say:

"We have no intelligence on the ground now and can't trust the Shiite forces to call in air strikes"

Boots on the ground aren't needed in today's warfare for identifying, painting, and aerial bombing using the new technology. How do you think we are able to use the drones in Pakistan without boots on the ground? That was a problem with the first gulf war because the satellites couldn't see through the clouds and the enemy used that to their advantage. Now we have the global hawk high altitude unmanned reconnaissance aircraft that can loiter for days over a target. we have new cruise missiles that can loiter for days over potential targets. we have drones that can run without any human control from takeoff to landing. If we can read a license plate off a vehicle from outer space then how hard is it to see something three times bigger like an ak47 in a bad guys hands? you underestimate our capability my friend. the only problem they are still working on is reducing collateral damage with the missile strikes. they are working now on missiles that have focused kinetic energy to eliminate only a single bad guy in a crowd.
A complicated mess

Winchester, KY

#8 Jun 18, 2014
My 2 cents wrote:
You say:
"We have no intelligence on the ground now and can't trust the Shiite forces to call in air strikes"
Boots on the ground aren't needed in today's warfare for identifying, painting, and aerial bombing using the new technology. How do you think we are able to use the drones in Pakistan without boots on the ground? That was a problem with the first gulf war because the satellites couldn't see through the clouds and the enemy used that to their advantage. Now we have the global hawk high altitude unmanned reconnaissance aircraft that can loiter for days over a target. we have new cruise missiles that can loiter for days over potential targets. we have drones that can run without any human control from takeoff to landing. If we can read a license plate off a vehicle from outer space then how hard is it to see something three times bigger like an ak47 in a bad guys hands? you underestimate our capability my friend. the only problem they are still working on is reducing collateral damage with the missile strikes. they are working now on missiles that have focused kinetic energy to eliminate only a single bad guy in a crowd.
You are still killing Sunni's, most of the Arab oil rich countries are Sunni's. For everyone you kill you also create 20 more terrorist, brother, uncle, dad whatever, those people live by the feud. You save a lot of money and avoid the risk of terrorist attacks in the U.S. by just keeping our nose out of it. We get no oil from Iraq contrary to what George Bush told you. Saudi Arabia is our main source and they are Sunni, we just about are oil independent now but now quite there yet. No more American blood and treasure lost in the sands of Iraq. We handed that country to Iran on a platter when we took it down and installed the Shiite government. George Bush the great stratigizer....the biggest blunder the U.S. has ever made that 2nd Iraq War.
grasshopper

Pikeville, KY

#9 Jun 18, 2014
its like a car,,,fix the problem or junk it or give it to someone else
A complicated mess

Winchester, KY

#10 Jun 18, 2014
grasshopper wrote:
its like a car,,,fix the problem or junk it or give it to someone else
Put in a European garage and let them fix it. We were shade tree mechanics, we broke it and don't know how to fix it. Since the Europeans and the Arab countries have a vested interest in fixing it, we should let them and ride the peace bus, stick the with the bill.
my 2 cents

North Richland Hills, TX

#11 Jun 18, 2014
What I am proposing in Iraq is to be the statistical equivalent to the green landings on a roulette wheel. Those green landings give the casino the house advantage making the game impossible to win. Have you ever seen the movie Lord of War? This quote in the movie really stuck with me.

Simeon Weisz: I don't think you and I are in the same business. You think I just sell guns, don't you? I don't. I take sides.

Yuri: But in the Iran-Iraq War, you sold guns to both sides.

Simeon Weisz: Did you ever consider that I wanted both sides to lose?

If the middle east wants to spend their oil money fighting each other then thats fine by me. I just want the United States to keep the oil flowing by being the green wheel on the roulette wheel to whoever the lesser side in the conflict is. We have made it to the point where we don't have to sacrifice americans blood anymore to conduct war. All we need is a friendly middle eastern country where we can seep or directional drill into the other guys oil.
A complicated mess

Winchester, KY

#12 Jun 18, 2014
Well the Carlyle Group and the Industrial Military Complex love war, it's a money maker. They kept talking about a peace dividend after the cold war, not having to spend billions to defend against the old soviet union and the Warsaw Pact....lol
They come up with a booger man within a year, hot damn there's gold in them thar wars....lol
The Saudi's and Japan paid for the first Iraq war, W was stupid he put the second on a credit card but all the Wall Street weapons boys and the oil companies loved it. Haliburton loved Iraq 2.0...143 subsidiaries with billions of no bid contracts doing everything from transportation, cooking the meals, construction, selling the fuel to the Military...Ratheon loved it, McDonald Douglas, Boing and General Dynamics loved it, every ammunition and arms company that sold to the U.S. loved it.
In a weak economy with the Wall Street and Pentagon lobbyist shoving money in legislative and executive pockets it is just so tempting to go to war. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY, MONEY!
Just so happens that Iraq 3.0 may be the one that burns the bank down. The petro dollar may not come out of this unscathed, a new oil kingdom and power broker may emerge to take the Saudi's place. We have had a secret commitment with them to defend them since the 74 oil embargo. Obama will shatter that agreement if he cooperates with the Shite Iranian government and attacks the Sunni's jointly. It's a fine line we are walking here, it is damned if you do and damned if you don't but the U.S. better weigh the price of another military involvement. The Sunni Rebels are marching through Iraq like Sherman through Georgia. The new Iraqi Army is a joke, they are not trained and do not have the discipline to stand and fight. The U.S. Marines took and held Fallujah at a great cost, the Iraqi Army is not U.S. Marines. Their guns are sought after all over the middle east, they have never been fired and only dropped once. No need giving air support to Shite Iraqi army that the Sunni's have been kicking their ass for centuries....We have not picked a winner in years, John Kerry is a Vietnam cry baby protester, a limp wristed, wet noodle joke.
Best stay out of this one, it's a ;losing proposition and the American people are fed up with this Wall Street, oil company, puppet show. They need to call 911 Europe this time, we don't need their oil and we don't need to be Saudi Arabia's rent a cop...F em, let the Communist Chinese spend some of that Walmart money we give them, let them sort it out. We got to quit being the 911 number for the world, we can't afford it anymore.
ibriam

United States

#13 Jun 18, 2014
grasshopper wrote:
its like a car,,,fix the problem or junk it or give it to someone else
The last part of your statement is correct. All Muslims, as far as I know, believe, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." The US has no need to have forces on the ground in the near east. Withdraw completely all US military from the near eastern countries to include Kuwait and the rest of Arabia. The problem would finally become theirs. Let the Muslims murder one another in an endless blood bath while the US and allies work behind the scene, switching sides yet pitting insane Muslims against their own. Traditional warfare can not be waged or won against these who are prepared to die for the will of Allah. If the families of theses deadly faithful were targeted and eliminated, including infants and children, more then one would be given cause to rethink such a dogmatic commitment, as this they would understand. Yet they also understand that the West has no stomach for such brutality preferring to fight a gentleman's war while losing. The enemy of my enemy is no gentleman. Where ever there is a Muslim there is no peace. Let them kill them.
Correct

Winchester, KY

#14 Jun 18, 2014
ibriam wrote:
<quoted text>
The last part of your statement is correct. All Muslims, as far as I know, believe, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." The US has no need to have forces on the ground in the near east. Withdraw completely all US military from the near eastern countries to include Kuwait and the rest of Arabia. The problem would finally become theirs. Let the Muslims murder one another in an endless blood bath while the US and allies work behind the scene, switching sides yet pitting insane Muslims against their own. Traditional warfare can not be waged or won against these who are prepared to die for the will of Allah. If the families of theses deadly faithful were targeted and eliminated, including infants and children, more then one would be given cause to rethink such a dogmatic commitment, as this they would understand. Yet they also understand that the West has no stomach for such brutality preferring to fight a gentleman's war while losing. The enemy of my enemy is no gentleman. Where ever there is a Muslim there is no peace. Let them kill them.
There were no terrorist in Iraq under Saddam, I mean you could be a suicide bomber and go collect your 77 Virgins. On the way you would have to think about the rest of your family you left behind. Saddam would kill your parents, your brothers and sisters, your uncles and aunts, everybody he could associate with you! Cheney lied about the WMD's and he lied about Al Qaida in Iraq in order to got to war....Bush/Cheney legacy, we are reaping it now and governments ill fall like domino's over it when the oil gets cut off to Europe, then our economy will crash. Iraq 3.0 will not be contained, the middle east just got the match set to the powder keg. Obama ain't got a clue how to handle this and it's to late now anyway...Should have seen this coming!
Republicans Are Stupid

Shelbiana, KY

#15 Jun 19, 2014
Correct wrote:
<quoted text>
There were no terrorist in Iraq under Saddam, I mean you could be a suicide bomber and go collect your 77 Virgins. On the way you would have to think about the rest of your family you left behind. Saddam would kill your parents, your brothers and sisters, your uncles and aunts, everybody he could associate with you! Cheney lied about the WMD's and he lied about Al Qaida in Iraq in order to got to war....Bush/Cheney legacy, we are reaping it now and governments ill fall like domino's over it when the oil gets cut off to Europe, then our economy will crash. Iraq 3.0 will not be contained, the middle east just got the match set to the powder keg. Obama ain't got a clue how to handle this and it's to late now anyway...Should have seen this coming!
But Cheney said we would be greeted in the Streets with Flowers.
Careful

Winchester, KY

#16 Jun 19, 2014
Maliki is just an Iranian Shite puppet, he is an Iranian. He took a warrant for the duly elected Sunni vice president and would have killed him it the guy was not hiding out. Bush handed Iraq over to Iran on a silver platter, Iran wants in there so bad they can't stand it. We tried to get Maliki to sign a Status of Force Agreement allowing us to leave some combat troops in there, he didn't. He went on a tear locking Sunni's out of government. Now we are supposed to be the Air Force for the shite militia? Saudi Arabia are Sunni Arabs, they hate the Shite Persians and warned them not to go into Iraq.
Do we really want to get into this, do we? Better think a little harder than when Bush/Cheney lied us into Iraq in 2003 and set this mess in motion.
No win situation here with Maliki in power and it's an Iraq problem now not ours...
Tyrone

Stollings, WV

#17 Jun 19, 2014
Republicans Are Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>But Cheney said we would be greeted in the Streets with Flowers.
Thats not how you greet me!You make me bend over !
Ole Rover

Winchester, KY

#18 Jun 19, 2014
Tyrone wrote:
<quoted text>Thats not how you greet me!You make me bend over !
Tyrone wants a bone, someone give old Tyrone a bone!
Historian

Marion, KY

#19 Jun 19, 2014
My 2 cents wrote:
It's a proven fact that since the use of the airplane in war no side has ever won without air superiority.
Vietnam?
My 2 cents

North Richland Hills, TX

#20 Jun 19, 2014
Historian wrote:
<quoted text>
Vietnam?
Vietnam was politically ended by congress. Direct U.S. military involvement ended on 15 August 1973 as a result of the Case–Church Amendment. The Case–Church Amendment was legislation approved by the U.S. Congress in June 1973 that prohibited further U.S. military activity in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia unless the president secured Congressional approval in advance. Congress ended direct U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam War.

Here are the numbers:

America had air Superiority and we had 58,220 U.S. service members died in the conflict.

Estimates of the number of Vietnamese service members and civilians killed vary from 800,000 to 3.1 million. Some 200,000–300,000 Cambodians, 20,000–200,000 Laotians.

Now looking at the numbers you can see how air Superiority decides casualty rates.
My 2 cents

North Richland Hills, TX

#21 Jun 19, 2014
forgot to add note about technology improvement Since Vietnam.

In Vietnam missile technology was limited to Fly by wire guidance and limited heat seeking missiles with short ranges.

Now we can paint targets from outer space, fire a cruise missile from 600 miles away, let it loiter for days, prioritize pick the target and hit it within a 3 foot window.

We have airplanes that give a radar signature the size of a bird that can fly without human guidance to follow the terrain to further evade radar that fire missiles hitting targets hundreds of miles away.

We have drones that are made on assembly lines like the model T fords for mass production that can fire hellfire missiles.

Needless to say our air power has evolved since Vietnam.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 15
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pikeville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Island Creek shooting 4 min legal eagle 102
What's mitch McConnell done for coal, when ther... (Jul '14) 4 hr Paris 32,359
Hillary Clinton OUR next President (Jun '15) 4 hr Noway Killery 2,218
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 5 hr just saying 148,850
Add a word, Drop a word (May '10) 5 hr _FLATLINE-------- 25,479
West Virgina deserved it 6 hr Man I m not a willy 18
When a woman shows you no affection but doesn't... (Aug '12) 7 hr Kat man 36
Glen Hammond Ray Jones Round 2 15 hr Power Breeds Trouble 16
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Pikeville Mortgages