Iraq Operations = Search and Destroy 2.0?

[Major.Stupidity]

US launches newest offensive in Iraq

With the US military launching constant operations in western in Iraq it reminds me of the military operations carried out in the Vietnam era. With US troops searching for Viet Cong in areas and then leaving. The same thing seems to replaying itself in Iraq. With the US launching operations near the Syria border. Sure, they always accomplish their goals, but they can never hold their ground much like in Vietnam.

[invictus]

Shhhh.....dont tell the US that, let them spread their forces thin, making it even easier to fight them. -Leon

[Pra]

US launches newest offensive in Iraq

With the US military launching constant operations in western in Iraq it reminds me of the military operations carried out in the Vietnam era. With US troops searching for Viet Cong in areas and then leaving. The same thing seems to replaying itself in Iraq. With the US launching operations near the Syria border. Sure, they always accomplish their goals, but they can never hold their ground much like in Vietnam.

I concur with your analysis. Hopefully, we can pull out after a democratic government has been solidified-one that can guarantee a self-sustainance and can prevent itself from falling apart.

[RusskiSoldat]

At least here we don't have a North Iraq and a South Iraq.
And bringing democracy there was failure on the US' part, for democracy is only as strong as the popular support for it, which as we can see by people helping militants so much is not high.
A dictatorship would be good, one ruled by a stable ruller, one who sees teh advantages of industrialization and education for the masses, a secula rman who rules strongly, but with little interference.
Oh wait, that was Hussein n/m

[Pra]

At least here we don't have a North Iraq and a South Iraq.
And bringing democracy there was failure on the US' part, for democracy is only as strong as the popular support for it, which as we can see by people helping militants so much is not high.
A dictatorship would be good, one ruled by a stable ruller, one who sees teh advantages of industrialization and education for the masses, a secula rman who rules strongly, but with little interference.
Oh wait, that was Hussein n/m

Your prejudices do interfere with your opinions-I do take that you are a advocate of the communist/socialist/marxist system. I'm sure that the Iraqis would rather live under a democratic government than that of a despotic tyranny; rather, the matter is how this democracy is established-with US intervention, or through internal vicissitudes.

[Major.Stupidity]

At least here we don't have a North Iraq and a South Iraq.
And bringing democracy there was failure on the US' part, for democracy is only as strong as the popular support for it, which as we can see by people helping militants so much is not high.
A dictatorship would be good, one ruled by a stable ruller, one who sees teh advantages of industrialization and education for the masses, a secula rman who rules strongly, but with little interference.
Oh wait, that was Hussein n/m

Ah, but the Democracy in Vietnam failed simply because it did not have a history of democracy much like Iraq does.....

[danzig]

Ah, but the Democracy in Vietnam failed simply because it did not have a history of democracy much like Iraq does.....

A failure in one area in the world doesnt automatically dictate a failure is a certain thing in another part of the world.

[Count of Montesano]

At least here we don't have a North Iraq and a South Iraq.
And bringing democracy there was failure on the US' part, for democracy is only as strong as the popular support for it, which as we can see by people helping militants so much is not high.
A dictatorship would be good, one ruled by a stable ruller, one who sees teh advantages of industrialization and education for the masses, a secula rman who rules strongly, but with little interference.
Oh wait, that was Hussein n/m

Wow, all this praise for a man who built lavish palaces while his people starved, who ordered troops to take babies from incubators and let them die during the invasion of Kuwait, who allowed his sons to rape any woman (or young girl) who took their fancy.

From the number of Iraqis who risked their lives to vote, it's obvious that democracy can gain a foothold in Iraq. First things first, the Americans need to be better about protecting the basics of modern life - gas and electricity, law enforcement, garbage pickup, etc. It's a harsh measure but the border area towns probably need to be evacuated and the borders strewn with landmines and checkpoints like the Korean demilitarized zone. That would It might also not be a bad idea to let the country divide into three loosely confederated sections - Shia, Sunni and Kurd - for the time being. The 13 colonies needed time to be independent before they realized that the only way to survive was to unite under a strong national government.

[Pra]

Wow, all this praise for a man who built lavish palaces while his people starved, who ordered troops to take babies from incubators and let them die during the invasion of Kuwait, who allowed his sons to rape any woman (or young girl) who took their fancy.

From the number of Iraqis who risked their lives to vote, it's obvious that democracy can gain a foothold in Iraq. First things first, the Americans need to be better about protecting the basics of modern life - gas and electricity, law enforcement, garbage pickup, etc. It's a harsh measure but the border area towns probably need to be evacuated and the borders strewn with landmines and checkpoints like the Korean demilitarized zone. That would It might also not be a bad idea to let the country divide into three loosely confederated sections - Shia, Sunni and Kurd - for the time being. The 13 colonies needed time to be independent before they realized that the only way to survive was to unite under a strong national government.

Actually, the strong national government was meant to share power-in a federated system- with that of the state. However, lately, the trend has been towards a more centralized national government.

Indeed, many today still think of the states as bastions against the corrupting power of the national government.

[Tiwaz]

Wow, all this praise for a man who built lavish palaces while his people starved, who ordered troops to take babies from incubators and let them die during the invasion of Kuwait, who allowed his sons to rape any woman (or young girl) who took their fancy.

From the number of Iraqis who risked their lives to vote, it's obvious that democracy can gain a foothold in Iraq. First things first, the Americans need to be better about protecting the basics of modern life - gas and electricity, law enforcement, garbage pickup, etc. It's a harsh measure but the border area towns probably need to be evacuated and the borders strewn with landmines and checkpoints like the Korean demilitarized zone. That would It might also not be a bad idea to let the country divide into three loosely confederated sections - Shia, Sunni and Kurd - for the time being. The 13 colonies needed time to be independent before they realized that the only way to survive was to unite under a strong national government.

And Iraqis would praise (not) you for this another example of mooning on their independence.
Do you realise that overall they voted only for their ethnic group, as ordered... So it was no surprise that shias became largest group, since they are largest ethnicity, kurds came second because sunni leaders told their people not to vote so only small dribble of sunni votes came.

Using USA as example of how things could work is insane. USA did not have weight of few centuries of hatred on it's back. Three loosely confederated sections would become three warring states in matter of months. Be it full out civil war or more limited terror war.

[RusskiSoldat]

Your prejudices do interfere with your opinions-I do take that you are a advocate of the communist/socialist/marxist system. I'm sure that the Iraqis would rather live under a democratic government than that of a despotic tyranny; rather, the matter is how this democracy is established-with US intervention, or through internal vicissitudes.

Hussein was a marxist now?
I am not pinning my hopes on Iraq being the first nation to establish communism in it's pure form, but on ending that mess in a way that hurts everybody the least.
Hussein's evil is greatly exagerated, and I don't know about the Iraqis, but I would much rather live under a despot than under a democratic government so weak there is nothing but anarchy.
The only thing that could emerge out of Iraq is an Islamic republic or an Islamic theocracy, and I am personally prejudiced against religion.
Not to mention the Iraq was is damaging the US.
US has installed plenty of thinly veiled dictatorships before with great success, I say it should do the same here.

[Pra]

Hussein was a marxist now?
I am not pinning my hopes on Iraq being the first nation to establish communism in it's pure form, but on ending that mess in a way that hurts everybody the least.
Hussein's evil is greatly exagerated, and I don't know about the Iraqis, but I would much rather live under a despot than under a democratic government so weak there is nothing but anarchy.
The only thing that could emerge out of Iraq is an Islamic republic or an Islamic theocracy, and I am personally prejudiced against religion.
Not to mention the Iraq was is damaging the US.
US has installed plenty of thinly veiled dictatorships before with great success, I say it should do the same here.

I never claimed that Hussein was a Marxist, rather that your predispositions would rather support a secular dictator in a economic/social crisis than a democratically elected leader-a leader that can, with proper support, fill the power vacuum and create a secular and democratic nation.

Unfortunately, the US can not afford to put up a despotic regime in the wake of the Iraq Debacle; the world's eyes are watching, and they do expect some truth to the rhetoric that has been promised from Washington-that of a democratic Iraq.

[Tom Paine]

I never claimed that Hussein was a Marxist, rather that your predispositions would rather support a secular dictator in a economic/social crisis than a democratically elected leader-a leader that can, with proper support, fill the power vacuum and create a secular and democratic nation.

Unfortunately, the US can not afford to put up a despotic regime in the wake of the Iraq Debacle; the world's eyes are watching, and they do expect some truth to the rhetoric that has been promised from Washington-that of a democratic Iraq.

Democracy only works when the people want it. The Weimar Republic failed in part because trhe people did not want democracy, tyhey saw the politicians as betrayers of Germany (the November Criminals). The Iraqis apply the same sort of situation, it seems. They don't trust it and therefore it won't work.

[Pra]

Democracy only works when the people want it. The Weimar Republic failed in part because trhe people did not want democracy, tyhey saw the politicians as betrayers of Germany (the November Criminals). The Iraqis apply the same sort of situation, it seems. They don't trust it and therefore it won't work.

They would have trusted democracy if it was brought about from their own actions against the despot-the end, in this case, is not justified by the means.

[imb39]

Introducing democracy into Iraq was always going to be tricky. Iraq is a fairly modern construct (in terms of its borders) and comprises of three distinct cultural and ethnic groups. They do not get along particularly well at the moment. Kurds and Shiahs control the oil areas, Sunnis control Baghdad and... desert - they were also dominant through Hussein.

Imposing unrealistic deadlines (for which no one really understands why... [though many have suspicions {cough*mid term elections*cough}]) have further soured the atmosphere - so the consitution will fail.

The biggest failure, though, was that the politicians never thought about what to do after the war - the result was bodged decisions after another. Who pays the price? Iraqis. The result - increased insurgency that primarily targets Sunnis in an attempt to spark civil war. Who pays the price? Iraqis.

There are positives- there is a strong national identity (perhaps not with the Kurds...) and this needs to be built upon. Other positives... I can't think of any at the moment, but one is a start. Oh yes - the religious leaders have been quite restrained on the whole - how much longer remains to be seen, especially with the numbers being murdered at the moment.

[nahirean]

I wish these guys could just get over their bloody bickering. I know the US is a forgein invader, and I understand why they would take up arms against the US. But retarded actions such as "Setting off a car bar at a restaurant and killing 50 civilians" just baffles me. It makes no sense, the people who are doing it are absolute morons any way you slice it. I honestly beleive that Islam is easily misunderstood, just like Christianity. (A good example of the latter is that the book of "Revalations" is clearly a criqtue of the Roman empire, but whackos take it to mean an entirely different thing.) These people need to realize that they are killing non-combatants.

[Tiwaz]

I wish these guys could just get over their bloody bickering. I know the US is a forgein invader, and I understand why they would take up arms against the US. But retarded actions such as "Setting off a car bar at a restaurant and killing 50 civilians" just baffles me. It makes no sense, the people who are doing it are absolute morons any way you slice it. I honestly beleive that Islam is easily misunderstood, just like Christianity. (A good example of the latter is that the book of "Revalations" is clearly a criqtue of the Roman empire, but whackos take it to mean an entirely different thing.) These people need to realize that they are killing non-combatants.

What you do not understand is that they do not see themselves killing fellow iraqis. Sunnis kill shias and kurds, shias kill sunnis and kurds, kurds kill shias and sunnis... The three groups are so vehemently hostile to one another that they view each other enemies just like they view invaders to be enemies.

Saddam kept peace with iron fist which kept hatred from spilling over but current system is incapable of doing it. Any leader that takes place with blessings and support of invaders will be viewed as puppet and treated accordingly.

Only way to pacify Iraq now would be driving invaders out in bloody war and resulting civil war ending with some powerful figure taking control and becoming new Saddam. Of course this civil war would have realistic chance of dragging in neighbouring nations. (partially because neighbours do not want to see kurds get power out of fear of their kurd minorities becoming a problem and partially because of Iran interfering on behalf of their religious brothers in southern Iraq)

[Major.Stupidity]

A failure in one area in the world doesnt automatically dictate a failure is a certain thing in another part of the world.

But you must agree that in order for a democracy to work, it has to have a history of democracy. Vietnam didn't and neither does Iraq.

More bad news for Iraq's future

[Tom Paine]

Interestnig question there: would they have trusted it then or just installed another despot,t he way many revolutions and plebicites do?

[Pra]

Interestnig question there: would they have trusted it then or just installed another despot,t he way many revolutions and plebicites do?

Perhaps they would have... It all depends on the intentions of the usurper-like those during the revolution that shook the Soviet Union.