The war in Iraq is over THOUGHTS?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tim Elliott

I support soldiers and veterans. The where and the why and the who is not relevant. Every last one of them is brave and necessary and has my respect.

The people that send them places, not so much.

If the objective was to deal with the people who were pissed off at you, increasing the number of people pissed off at you might not have been the best way to go about it. I read an estimate that the Iraqi civilian dead may be as high as 1 million, based on a survey of people who had lost relatives which was expanded to the population as a whole. The worst areas were to dangerous to survey. The fact no one really knows how many is scary enough. Those people had mothers, brothers, sisters, fathers.

I think internationally, to a lot of people, the war on terror makes little sense. Afghanistan made sense. Iraq, no sense. Even suggesting Iran is lunacy.

---

I served in joint operations with Brits, Kiwis and the Australians...and I gotta say, that joint unit was highly effective :)

As far as not being a connection between Iraq and Afghanistan...I disagree, but the point makes it certain that the misgivings of the media and the lask of attention to those connections for the public crosses all boarders.

The US is leveraged to participate in the forefront....the reason (I believe) has nothing to do with the lack of ability by our coalition partners...I believe it has to do with the ability of our bank roll and the perception that we are the worlds "police force". That being said, coalition forces (to include those who are less fortunate with funding but just as powerful with capability and knowledge) is essential in the war on terror. The much larger question is:

How do we beat "Terror", or can we beat terror? One side is to attack and be pro-active, the other side is to do nothing and play defense and hope we are not victims again. Is there a middle ground??

Funnily enough, the only friend I have had there recently was Norwegian.

The problem with the war on Terror is its an emotion. The news media are the worlds greatest terrorists. Al Qaeda are amateurs by comparison. If they didnt spend all day over dramatising stuff and trying to get mileage people would not be terrified.

Heres something you might want to think about. I spend a lot of time at the University of Otago in New Zealand. My girlfriend is one of the international student hosts so she (and subsequently I) have lived with American students the last couple of years. I have studied with and later taught many more.

Now I like America. It gave me the the Amax, UFC, Jenna Jameson and 10th Planet, and some of my best friends are excellent American geologists. However, as a country, you are not popular internationally. In the time of Bush, I saw American students verbally abused and harassed on a generally very friendly campus. Iv seen flats trashed because people thought Americans lived there. Since Obama was elected, I have seen very little of this. It impressed people.

Its comparable in a way. Restore peoples faith in a country and make them like you, and they will stop throwing eggs/grenades at you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevin Green

I served in joint operations with Brits, Kiwis and the Australians...and I gotta say, that joint unit was highly effective :)

As far as not being a connection between Iraq and Afghanistan...I disagree, but the point makes it certain that the misgivings of the media and the lask of attention to those connections for the public crosses all boarders.

The US is leveraged to participate in the forefront....the reason (I believe) has nothing to do with the lack of ability by our coalition partners...I believe it has to do with the ability of our bank roll and the perception that we are the worlds "police force". That being said, coalition forces (to include those who are less fortunate with funding but just as powerful with capability and knowledge) is essential in the war on terror. The much larger question is:

How do we beat "Terror", or can we beat terror? One side is to attack and be pro-active, the other side is to do nothing and play defense and hope we are not victims again. Is there a middle ground??

---

Sorry about the Australians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tim Elliott

Funnily enough, the only friend I have had there recently was Norwegian.

The problem with the war on Terror is its an emotion. The news media are the worlds greatest terrorists. Al Qaeda are amateurs by comparison. If they didnt spend all day over dramatising stuff and trying to get mileage people would not be terrified.

Heres something you might want to think about. I spend a lot of time at the University of Otago in New Zealand. My girlfriend is one of the international student hosts so she (and subsequently I) have lived with American students the last couple of years. I have studied with and later taught many more.

Now I like America. It gave me the the Amax, UFC, Jenna Jameson and 10th Planet, and some of my best friends are excellent American geologists. However, as a country, you are not popular internationally. In the time of Bush, I saw American students verbally abused and harassed on a generally very friendly campus. Iv seen flats trashed because people thought Americans lived there. Since Obama was elected, I have seen very little of this. It impressed people.

Its comparable in a way. Restore peoples faith in a country and make them like you, and they will stop throwing eggs/grenades at you.

---

I am not debating that we are not always liked internationaly. I am not saying that we are not the most popular at times. I am not saying I am a Bush fan at all....what I am saying (and this is food for thought) Many people who have no real combat experience nor understand the point of war in its entirety have opinions about it (and that is what freedom is all about). Many of the Soldiers (US and others) arent too concerned about popularity nor do the protests help them do their jobs day to day - but do you think the outcome of the war would have been better without US involvement? Do you think the link between Iraq and Afghanistan is not legit so you support Afghanistan but not Iraq?

As a combat vet, Ive been applauded and Ive been ridiculed - at the end of the day (like you stated earlier) wether you agree with the war or not you cant deny the Soldiers and their families all deserve support. I also agree with the things you said the US has given you, but I hope thats not the only thing you see us as providing.. :)

Everyone gets pulled out of Iraq and sent to Afghanistan and Iraq will break out in a civil war in a few years. History repeats it-self troops pulling out of Iraq is good though.

I suppose Iraq just stank of false pretences. Im not anti war at all. You will get no protests from me. Theres a mess now, and I guess it must be cleaned up.

From a non military perspective, the list of interference in the middle east is a long one, and repeatedly ends in tears.

Slightly unrelated, but maybe not.

Immediately after 9/11, the French President Jaques Chirac stood up and said that France had never had anything to do with Terrorism etc etc. This was viewed dimly by those New Zealanders who remembered that the French Intelligence blew up a ship In Auckland Harbour, New Zealand in 1985 killing a photographer. The two agents were caught immediately.

New Zealand just had to lump it. What were we going to do? No one else seemed to care either. We are just a small country after all.

There is a definitive correlation between Iraq and Afghanistan as far as terrroism goes. There is a link for training and funding. The problem is in the media description, the Bush administration objectives, and the public perception. Often, there were conflicting ideas of what we wanted to get out of an Iraq offensive, and more often than not, no mention of, or pursuance of, our objectives in Afghanistan. I've never served in the armed forces, but as a student of history,and a sincere effort to become more educated to the process, thinking, and methods of the military, I feel I have a good understanding of what occurs. I certainly defer to vets like Kevin who have a distinct advantage in knowledge first-hand, of course.
The offensive in the middle east was necessary. It was a deterrent to any further offensives against us on the scale we saw on September 11 for certain. However, the biggest problems are a culture, society, and doctrine that is over 2000 years old in the near and middle east. We can't expect cultural norms and beliefs to be changed in a decade, or even two decades. Without education, an exposure and participation to the rest of the world, and a significant political and cultural shift in the near and middle east, the zealots and extremists will continue to thrive and be determined to destroy all those, not just Americans, that they believe don't belong in their world view. The sad thing is, it's not Muslims that are at issue. True Muslims are no different than anyone else. It's the petty zealots and extremists in power and have influence and who strive to keep their citizens uneducated, uniformed and down-trodden. Only with a change at the top over time, further education, a strong infrastructure, and a stable economy can we expect any true change in the near and middle east.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Roderick

There is a definitive correlation between Iraq and Afghanistan as far as terrroism goes. There is a link for training and funding. The problem is in the media description, the Bush administration objectives, and the public perception. Often, there were conflicting ideas of what we wanted to get out of an Iraq offensive, and more often than not, no mention of, or pursuance of, our objectives in Afghanistan. I've never served in the armed forces, but as a student of history,and a sincere effort to become more educated to the process, thinking, and methods of the military, I feel I have a good understanding of what occurs. I certainly defer to vets like Kevin who have a distinct advantage in knowledge first-hand, of course.
The offensive in the middle east was necessary. It was a deterrent to any further offensives against us on the scale we saw on September 11 for certain. However, the biggest problems are a culture, society, and doctrine that is over 2000 years old in the near and middle east. We can't expect cultural norms and beliefs to be changed in a decade, or even two decades. Without education, an exposure and participation to the rest of the world, and a significant political and cultural shift in the near and middle east, the zealots and extremists will continue to thrive and be determined to destroy all those, not just Americans, that they believe don't belong in their world view. The sad thing is, it's not Muslims that are at issue. True Muslims are no different than anyone else. It's the petty zealots and extremists in power and have influence and who strive to keep their citizens uneducated, uniformed and down-trodden. Only with a change at the top over time, further education, a strong infrastructure, and a stable economy can we expect any true change in the near and middle east.

---

These countries have been modern educated societies. Iran was a democracy until the United States helped place the Shah in power. Extremism arose as a result of the suffering the people experienced under his rule.

Iran endured further horrors during the Iran/Iraq war. A war in which Saddam Hussein had the support of the US, even while Saddam was using chemical weapons.

The damage is done and it is not lost on them who did it. Everyone in Iran knows whos fault it was they lost their democracy and had it replaced with a dictator who messed up their country. All the people that live there have ever known is dictatorship, horrific was and sanctions. That ill feeling spreads.

Quote:

---

I believe it has to do with the ability of our bank roll

---

This is probably the most dangerous misconception of all. We have no bank roll left. We are thoroughly in debt and we will never be able to repay it. Continuation of these wars on the level they are now surely means defaulting on our national debts. We aren't just continuing, we are escalating. We are pushing into Pakistan more and more. Watching Fox and CNN lets me know that we'll be in Iran at some point (probably before the 2012 presidential elections). Not to mention the Iranian scientist that was apparently kidnapped by the CIA... The supposed "draw down" in Iraq is complete bullshit. It is not happening and will not happen. People will be relabeled and the ones that are actually removed (if there are any) will be exchanged with civilian contractors.

As a "troop" I like the sentiment of "supporting the troops." I also hate it. We are ultimately responsible for our choices. Following orders is not an excuse for prosecuting an unjust war, if a soldier (sailor, airmen or marine) determines that it is unjust. At that point, they should start preparing their resume for when their contract is up. Also, the "support the troops" logic is what allows us to be so well funded and funding the war is essentially voting for it. So if you tell your politicians that you want them to support the troops, you are basically telling them to vote for the war. You may want to express your thoughts more succinctly than with a yellow ribbon magnet... not trying to be a dick. We do appreciate the thoughts. We also appreciate discounts (that's all I'm saying :o ).

The other thing is that many people think something along these lines: "they hate us because of our culture and our freedom." That is absurd... that is not the motivation for any terrorist attacks/attacks in general against US forces/civilians. In nearly every case, some group claims responsibility for the attack and gives their motivation. I suggest you hear their words. Not one of them is out there saying, "Brittney Spears is a ho and we just can't take your debauchery any more so we're going to blow your shit up." Usually, it goes a little like "quit interfering in Muslim lands" or "your sanctions are killing us."

So we should just all question, do we need to have armed forces all over the world? Don't just think about Iraq/Afghanistan. Think about Germany, Italy, S. Korea and Japan. Think about South/Central America. Wouldn't we be much safer if we didn't go out causing problems and instead had the most technologically advanced military possible sitting right within our borders. How much safer would we be if we could afford our expenditures and were not careening down the path to hyperinflation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Travis Reichert

Everyone gets pulled out of Iraq and sent to Afghanistan and Iraq will break out in a civil war in a few years. History repeats it-self troops pulling out of Iraq is good though.

---

Good point. I can see this happening as well...I think Iraq will kick back off very quickly if we pull out totally