is the road from the airport to baghdad is not secure, never has been. its 6 miles long and the worlds only superpower cannot make it safe to travel.....that in itself speaks volumes.
2006-09-08 05:49:20 · 20 answers · asked by bush-deathgrip 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
The Human mind is a complex thing. We can creat and we can destroy. But creating is much harder then destroying. When it comes to destroying there are innumerable permutations on how to destroy something. For example. An IED (Improvised Explosive Device). It can be anything from a soda can to a pile of trash, maybe even a hubcap sitting in the middle of the road, or something sitting inside a pothole in the road. So There is no real way to secure this road. The road has walls, buildings, bushes and trees on either side of the road, at different points. I worked at the airport two years ago. The troops do a great job of makeing it as secure as possible, and helping each other out. I heard many stories from the Army guys. I was AirForce, I'm out now. But, the troops do an awsome job. One story was a Hummer got hit by a rocket, the engine fried. The guys in there were safe from the hit, nobody inside was hurt, just stunned. The Hummer behind them got on the horn, and talked to the one that got hit, and they decided to push the broken Hummer 2 miles to safety, while takeing fire. I can't say weather we should be there or not. But those boys and girls deserve your respect. They deal with so much more then you can imagine. They have lost friends, commrades. People they call their brother or sister. They go through such a hard time, for anybody to say anything against them is wrong... Just my opinion. I thought I'd put my two cents in here.
2006-09-08 06:14:44 · answer #1 · answered by Rivan81 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The amazing thing about this war is the amount of gross misinformation spread about it. This war isn't over oil - if we wanted oil from Iraq all we had to do is lift the embargos we had. Ta da, more oil. It also wasn't safer under Saddam, it just wasn't on primetime TV in the US every time the guy offed someone. Previous responses are right in that Iraq was no safe haven for terrorists - Iraq was a safe haven to dictatorial butchers.
The only thing wrong with this war is that it is unfortunately situationed in a post-Gulf War 1 time when citizens think war is easy. Blowing up a mobilized force is relatively easy. An occupational war is not. The average armchair general getting their info from the TV has no idea what the difficulties involved in such a task are. There have been insurgencies after every major occupational war in modern history, even during times when you could round up whole towns and put them in camps while you root out the bad guys.
2006-09-08 06:22:26 · answer #2 · answered by rakhirbfp 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should just send some street gangs from our inner-cities over there... I bet the insurgency would end pretty quick. We would just have to worry about our humvees being jacked and the radios being stolen.
Ok.. just kidding... really, what kind of question is that though? Ask the pentagon or some military strategists in iraq. Maybe we should install some sort of video surviellance systems along the road? I dont know this is all really non-sense im writing. Just some ideas though.
2006-09-08 07:29:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Trying to rein in unconventional forces is never easy. How are you going to know if a car has a bomb? You never will. Even with the most advanced technology you will never know that it's hit you because they will set it off at the moment of their choosing. Security is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type of situation. If you implement security, people get mad, if you don't and people die, they get even more mad.
When they are using women and children as their bomb carriers and in certain cases medical vehicles to smuggle arms/bombs and terrorists, what do you think will happen?
Violence and war is a fluid situation and can never be fully controlled. No country in the world or a coalition of superpowers could ever hope to totally end such attacks, especially when those who are willing to carry these bombs are not afraid to die.
2006-09-08 06:46:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The country was probably more secure under Saddam Hussein. What makes me really angry is when we went in there we had no plan to secure and protect Iraq's antiquities collection. That is nothing more than blatant, ignorant racism on the part of the administration, considering the Baghdad Museum held the best collection of Mesopotamian, Babylonian, Persian, and Assyrian antiquities in the world and was systematically looted less than a week after our troops entered there. Not to mention all archaeologists and anthropologists had to flee the country when the US came in, and sites that were once open to the public and sites that were being worked on have all nearly been abandoned and looted. We would be angry if someone looted the Smithsonian...so why is it ok to allow this to happen over there?
2006-09-08 05:53:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I know what you mean, things that like that have boggled my mind too. Ya know, Iraq wasn't really that much of a safe haven for terrorists until we got there. I don't remember car bombs, IEDs, etc. when Hussein was in power. Sadaam, in a way, seemed to keep his people in check...what did he do different--what was his trick?! He killed people, we kill people and still, the insurgency keeps on coming...they either liked it better w/ Sadaam...or, WE created the safe haven for terrorists.
2006-09-08 06:02:46 · answer #6 · answered by ♥austingirl♥ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the bigger issue was the destruction after hurricane katrina. It took the US government 4 days to get the people aid. For the only superpower who frequently reminds the world of his strength i think it shows a desperate lack of organisation and sense of urgency.
2006-09-08 05:54:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Watch Spaceballs
2006-09-08 05:51:34 · answer #8 · answered by Russianator 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The most amazing things about the war is that we are over there fighting it. We have lost more people over there then we did in 911 - so isn't Bush more of a terrorist than Al Quida?
2006-09-08 05:55:40 · answer #9 · answered by shafermeyer 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i imagine McCain is extra risky to the peace of the international than Bush has been. We really do no longer want to modify fowl Hawk Bush with warfare Hawk McCain. once you've toddlers of militia age and choose them to die in a unnecessary warfare than McCain is your guy. in case you go with peace, prosperity, and a rustic with a pacesetter we will be pleased with than Obama is your purely determination. Obama in 08
2016-11-06 21:56:45 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋