Iraq- will it fall to the terrorists?

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

funny thing is, when we went to war in WWII, we blew everything to hell. We flew huge bombers thousands of feet above and dropped bombs that literally just fell no what ever was in it's path. Huge cities were turned to ruins from literally bombing them like this for weeks.

 

Meanwhile, in the Iraq war, our military uses bombs so precise they can hit individual houses from miles away. Yes, some went a stray but not from lack of trying to be precise. We would sometimes NOT bomb because of too many pedestrians in the way. We would bomb at night partly because fewer people would be in government buildings.

 

And.....WWII is held up as the great war that we fought right. Iraq, we are a bunch of heathens that bomb innocent people. Both Iraq and Germany were led by tyrants that the world is better off without and in the end, both are gone from the face of the earth.

 

We weren't doing the invading in WWII. In fact, the truth has to be stretched to the breaking point to even get Iraq and WWII into the same conversation.

 

What truth is being stretched in my post?

 

I am simply stating that war used to be that we would go in and blow up everything and that was acceptable because we knew it had to be done to win. Now days, our military has gone to great lengths and amazing amounts of money per bomb to do everything we can to not kill innocent people and they are constantly criticized for doing so.

 

This point has nothing to do with if we are the invader or not.

 

Wildman seemed to get the gist of my post. Sorry you didn't.

 

The reason there is more criticism now is based on the popular opinion of the war, good or bad.

 

 

WWII-Popular opinion was good. No one cares how we win. Just win

Vietnam-Popular opinion was bad, so our soldiers we deemed baby killers

Afghanistan-Twin Towers go down, Popular opinion was pretty good so there wasn't much criticism

Iraq-Popular opinion is bad so our soldiers are criticized again.

 

That makes sense. However, I believe that with the media the way it is now in war zones, if we didn't have the technology that we do now and we were bombing afghan the way we bombed cities in WWII, the popular feelings would not be so nice to our military.

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

 

funny thing is, when we went to war in WWII, we blew everything to hell. We flew huge bombers thousands of feet above and dropped bombs that literally just fell no what ever was in it's path. Huge cities were turned to ruins from literally bombing them like this for weeks.

 

Meanwhile, in the Iraq war, our military uses bombs so precise they can hit individual houses from miles away. Yes, some went a stray but not from lack of trying to be precise. We would sometimes NOT bomb because of too many pedestrians in the way. We would bomb at night partly because fewer people would be in government buildings.

 

And.....WWII is held up as the great war that we fought right. Iraq, we are a bunch of heathens that bomb innocent people. Both Iraq and Germany were led by tyrants that the world is better off without and in the end, both are gone from the face of the earth.

 

We weren't doing the invading in WWII. In fact, the truth has to be stretched to the breaking point to even get Iraq and WWII into the same conversation.

 

What truth is being stretched in my post?

 

I am simply stating that war used to be that we would go in and blow up everything and that was acceptable because we knew it had to be done to win. Now days, our military has gone to great lengths and amazing amounts of money per bomb to do everything we can to not kill innocent people and they are constantly criticized for doing so.

 

This point has nothing to do with if we are the invader or not.

 

Wildman seemed to get the gist of my post. Sorry you didn't.

 

The reason there is more criticism now is based on the popular opinion of the war, good or bad.

 

 

WWII-Popular opinion was good. No one cares how we win. Just win

Vietnam-Popular opinion was bad, so our soldiers we deemed baby killers

Afghanistan-Twin Towers go down, Popular opinion was pretty good so there wasn't much criticism

Iraq-Popular opinion is bad so our soldiers are criticized again.

 

That makes sense. However, I believe that with the media the way it is now in war zones, if we didn't have the technology that we do now and we were bombing afghan the way we bombed cities in WWII, the popular feelings would not be so nice to our military.

 

There will always be caveats to a broad stroke that I painted. The point is that if America believes we have a reason to fight, we are usually all on board. When they don't believe there is a justifiable reason, they tend to get angry with everything the military does.

[wildman]

 

 

 

 

funny thing is, when we went to war in WWII, we blew everything to hell. We flew huge bombers thousands of feet above and dropped bombs that literally just fell no what ever was in it's path. Huge cities were turned to ruins from literally bombing them like this for weeks.

 

Meanwhile, in the Iraq war, our military uses bombs so precise they can hit individual houses from miles away. Yes, some went a stray but not from lack of trying to be precise. We would sometimes NOT bomb because of too many pedestrians in the way. We would bomb at night partly because fewer people would be in government buildings.

 

And.....WWII is held up as the great war that we fought right. Iraq, we are a bunch of heathens that bomb innocent people. Both Iraq and Germany were led by tyrants that the world is better off without and in the end, both are gone from the face of the earth.

 

We weren't doing the invading in WWII. In fact, the truth has to be stretched to the breaking point to even get Iraq and WWII into the same conversation.

 

What truth is being stretched in my post?

 

I am simply stating that war used to be that we would go in and blow up everything and that was acceptable because we knew it had to be done to win. Now days, our military has gone to great lengths and amazing amounts of money per bomb to do everything we can to not kill innocent people and they are constantly criticized for doing so.

 

This point has nothing to do with if we are the invader or not.

 

Wildman seemed to get the gist of my post. Sorry you didn't.

 

The reason there is more criticism now is based on the popular opinion of the war, good or bad.

 

 

WWII-Popular opinion was good. No one cares how we win. Just win

Vietnam-Popular opinion was bad, so our soldiers we deemed baby killers

Afghanistan-Twin Towers go down, Popular opinion was pretty good so there wasn't much criticism

Iraq-Popular opinion is bad so our soldiers are criticized again.

 

That makes sense. However, I believe that with the media the way it is now in war zones, if we didn't have the technology that we do now and we were bombing afghan the way we bombed cities in WWII, the popular feelings would not be so nice to our military.

 

 

valid point. Due to the news we are seeing wars in a different way and more upclose then we use to.

[Junior]

The reason there is more criticism now is based on the popular opinion of the war, good or bad.

 

 

 

WWII-Popular opinion was good. No one cares how we win. Just win

Vietnam-Popular opinion was bad, so our soldiers we deemed baby killers

Afghanistan-Twin Towers go down, Popular opinion was pretty good so there wasn't much criticism

Iraq-Popular opinion is bad so our soldiers are criticized again.

 

 

 

In what world are the soldiers from the Iraq war criticized in popular opinion? Military leaders and politicians, absolutely, but the only soldiers criticized were the ones at Abu Ghraib. Companies have made themselves fortunes selling how much they support the troops.

[BigRedBuster]

There will always be caveats to a broad stroke that I painted. The point is that if America believes we have a reason to fight, we are usually all on board. When they don't believe there is a justifiable reason, they tend to get angry with everything the military does.

 

 

They are on board until the slightest thing goes wrong and the media pounce on it and the political vampires come out with fangs thirsty for blood. Then, pretty much over night support for the war goes to about 50%.

[carlfense]

 

 

funny thing is, when we went to war in WWII, we blew everything to hell. We flew huge bombers thousands of feet above and dropped bombs that literally just fell no what ever was in it's path. Huge cities were turned to ruins from literally bombing them like this for weeks.

 

Meanwhile, in the Iraq war, our military uses bombs so precise they can hit individual houses from miles away. Yes, some went a stray but not from lack of trying to be precise. We would sometimes NOT bomb because of too many pedestrians in the way. We would bomb at night partly because fewer people would be in government buildings.

 

And.....WWII is held up as the great war that we fought right. Iraq, we are a bunch of heathens that bomb innocent people. Both Iraq and Germany were led by tyrants that the world is better off without and in the end, both are gone from the face of the earth.

 

We weren't doing the invading in WWII. In fact, the truth has to be stretched to the breaking point to even get Iraq and WWII into the same conversation.

 

What truth is being stretched in my post?

 

I am simply stating that war used to be that we would go in and blow up everything and that was acceptable because we knew it had to be done to win. Now days, our military has gone to great lengths and amazing amounts of money per bomb to do everything we can to not kill innocent people and they are constantly criticized for doing so.

 

This point has nothing to do with if we are the invader or not.

 

Wildman seemed to get the gist of my post. Sorry you didn't.

 

What truth is being stretched? First, acting like we went into WWII and Iraq to depose dictators. That might have been the result, but it was not the goal going in. That's the equivalent of firing an arrow and painting a bullseye around it.

 

Second, who holds up WWII as a war that we fought right? We intentionally and repeatedly targeted civilians with high explosives, fire bombing, and nuclear weapons. (Note that I'm not saying that it wasn't a just war.)

 

Third, who is saying that we are a bunch of heathens for killing civilians in Iraq? I don't doubt that some have said some equivalent of that but I'd wager a 6 pack of your choosing that the vast majority of the country disagrees with that idea.

[StPaulHusker]

 

The reason there is more criticism now is based on the popular opinion of the war, good or bad.

 

 

 

WWII-Popular opinion was good. No one cares how we win. Just win

Vietnam-Popular opinion was bad, so our soldiers we deemed baby killers

Afghanistan-Twin Towers go down, Popular opinion was pretty good so there wasn't much criticism

Iraq-Popular opinion is bad so our soldiers are criticized again.

 

 

 

In what world are the soldiers from the Iraq war criticized in popular opinion? Military leaders and politicians, absolutely, but the only soldiers criticized were the ones at Abu Ghraib. Companies have made themselves fortunes selling how much they support the troops.

 

Valid point and I should have written it differently.

[knapplc]

@Wildman - the lies about WMDs has been covered, and that's a big part of my answer.

 

As for the civilians welcoming us with open arms - Many of them did, and were glad we came over to oust Saddam. But across the world, especially in Africa, there are regimes as brutal or more brutal to their citizens, and yet we don't invade those countries. We cannot and should not invade every country with a tyrant. It's not our job, it's not worth getting Americans killed, it's not worth the toll it takes on soldiers' families back home.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

funny thing is, when we went to war in WWII, we blew everything to hell. We flew huge bombers thousands of feet above and dropped bombs that literally just fell no what ever was in it's path. Huge cities were turned to ruins from literally bombing them like this for weeks.

 

Meanwhile, in the Iraq war, our military uses bombs so precise they can hit individual houses from miles away. Yes, some went a stray but not from lack of trying to be precise. We would sometimes NOT bomb because of too many pedestrians in the way. We would bomb at night partly because fewer people would be in government buildings.

 

And.....WWII is held up as the great war that we fought right. Iraq, we are a bunch of heathens that bomb innocent people. Both Iraq and Germany were led by tyrants that the world is better off without and in the end, both are gone from the face of the earth.

 

We weren't doing the invading in WWII. In fact, the truth has to be stretched to the breaking point to even get Iraq and WWII into the same conversation.

 

What truth is being stretched in my post?

 

I am simply stating that war used to be that we would go in and blow up everything and that was acceptable because we knew it had to be done to win. Now days, our military has gone to great lengths and amazing amounts of money per bomb to do everything we can to not kill innocent people and they are constantly criticized for doing so.

 

This point has nothing to do with if we are the invader or not.

 

Wildman seemed to get the gist of my post. Sorry you didn't.

 

What truth is being stretched? First, acting like we went into WWII and Iraq to depose dictators. That might have been the result, but it was not the goal going in. That's the equivalent of firing an arrow and painting a bullseye around it.

 

Second, who holds up WWII as a war that we fought right? We intentionally and repeatedly targeted civilians with high explosives, fire bombing, and nuclear weapons. (Note that I'm not saying that it wasn't a just war.)

 

Third, who is saying that we are a bunch of heathens for killing civilians in Iraq? I don't doubt that some have said some equivalent of that but I'd wager a 6 pack of your choosing that the vast majority of the country disagrees with that idea.

 

As to your first four sentences, they don't have anything to do with my post. My post has nothing to do with if we are the invaders or not. Not sure where you are getting that. It has to do with how we used to bomb things and how we do it now.

 

As to your next two sentences, I have never heard or read anyone criticizing how we fought WWII. It is always held up as the greatest generation went in and saved the world. Now, maybe I am taking the lack of criticizing as evidence that people think we did it right.....

 

As to your last two sentences, just because the vast majority disagrees with that idea doesn't mean there haven't been people criticize our military for how they fought the war. I don't have links...sorry...but, I remember a lot of criticism from some people after our first wave of bombings of Baghdad.

[carlfense]

As to your next two sentences, I have never heard or read anyone criticizing how we fought WWII. It is always held up as the greatest generation went in and saved the world. Now, maybe I am taking the lack of criticizing as evidence that people think we did it right.....

You serious?

[BigRedBuster]

 

As to your next two sentences, I have never heard or read anyone criticizing how we fought WWII. It is always held up as the greatest generation went in and saved the world. Now, maybe I am taking the lack of criticizing as evidence that people think we did it right.....

You serious?

 

I'm serious with one caveat....now that I think about it. Obviously there has been a lot of criticism of how we won against Japan.

[carlfense]

I'm serious with one caveat....now that I think about it. Obviously there has been a lot of criticism of how we won against Japan.

Not just Japan . . . I'm sure that you know about Dresden, for example. Maybe you've just forgotten some of it?

[zoogs]

@wildman, I think a lot of Iraqis probably welcomed the ouster of Saddam. The Iraq War was probably always about regime change and I can't say it was done with bad intentions. But we've left it a mess. And worse, maybe not even that stable (right?) It's a great example I think of why we should not simply go out of our way and try to nation build. When the circumstances call for it, when we have to (i.e, Japan), by all means...otherwise, the world's lone superpower has to have some responsibility to not meddle wherever it pleases, because it's not that easy to transform a country and we're the ones deciding to pull the trigger on death and destruction when we try.

 

For what it's worth in the WWII comparison, I think history has been pretty critical of the area bombing in Dresden, Tokyo, Vietnam, etc. Like the mustard gas or chlorine of WWI, it's probably mostly thought of as an ugly product of the era, and something we're glad to be free from now.

[strigori]

Iraq and WWII have next to nothing in common. The Axis in WWII was on the offensive, and conquering European countries. Iraq was a tyrant only concerned with staying in power. We were not on a full scale war footing for Iraq either. There is a colossal difference between the regime change effort in Iraq, and full scale war like WWII. To be blunt, there has not been a true war on earth since WWII. In a true war, the ONLY directive is to win, as the loser ceases to matter, and history is written by the victors. Why we, and the Axis targeted 'civilians' is that when a nation is on full scale war footing, pretty much everyone in the nation is the support system for the military. Be it producing foot, or manufacturing weapons and other gear. And one weakens the armies, by destroying the support system. In that scenario, everyone is essentially part of the war effort and a completely valid target.

 

What we have been doing since has more in common with 19th century wars with the soldiers lining up in neat lines and only shooting the guys in the opposing uniform. WWII left the majority of the planet without the stomach to see another true full scale war, but the politicians and military industrial complex still wants to play at it, so we get what we have now.

[Husker_x]

Probably between 4-5 with a heavy lean toward 5. Bush's hubris and his fundamental misunderstanding of how difficult a project pacifying the MidEast is. If you don't believe me, check his initial estimates on the costs associated with the Iraq war. One of the most insidious and stupid arguments that will be made out of this is that it's somehow Obama's fault that Syria's civil war spilled over the border into Iraq. "He lacks leadership." "He lacks a commanding presence."

 

Bullsh#t.

 

Wars in the Middle East, or anywhere for that matter, are what Tywin Lannister called a "sinkhole for gold." The US and the UN (wouldn't this situation fall under their purview now?) can no more pacify the region than I can wave a wand to make a decent cup of coffee. No conquering force in history has been able to create a permanent peace, and most of us probably don't have to think that hard to discover the reason. The best strategic move America can make with regard to all of these countries is to belch out a more energy efficient solar panel, or a hydrogen fusion reactor, or something along those lines. Destroy the need for oil in the Western world and you do more damage to these radicals than all our efforts in the region combined. I sometimes wonder what the world would look like if we spent all that wasted Iraq money on something that actually solves the energy problem, not just kicks the can down the road.

 

The worst move we can make is reentering this nightmare with troops. Can anyone here even imagine what a victory scenario would look like?