I think we should have gone in there, and just taken over the place, completely, and then slowly give the Iraqi's their new country, sort of like the Phillipines.
Ruth, don't answer, because I must be too young to talk to you about this. jk :)
2006-11-29 15:57:22 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Heavy, massive, unrelenting bombings that would have destroyed the country for years to come, a hostile take over with no prospects of leaving for a while, and a brutal authoritarian dictatorship placed to rule over those people until the get their act together. The soldier that found Saddam in that hole? He shoulda shot him on sight instead of letting this trial crap drag on. We should have continued the offensive until the terrorists surrendered.
Do I believe everything I just said? I dont know, kinda, I need a cigarette
2006-11-29 16:01:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I have a slight problem with your question. Granted it fits the current idea that the Iraq War wasn't over when the traditional military forces in the country were cowed, but I think that what we've had since has been a reconstruction/occupation period.
That said, I would have long ago liked to have seen the conflict treated very differently. Once we established control the first thing that should have been done was the creation of a border between Southern Iraq and the lands/provinces claimed by the Kurds. While the Kurds have not been the problem in the region their viewpoint will eventually come into conflict like the current Sunni and Shiite conflict due to differences in opinion.
After this Kurdish state was established and our forces could be pulled out of the area (except for resupply depots of course) the Sunnis should have been moved to their traditional "homelands" in the Western portions of Iraq and the Eastern portions of the nation should have ceded to the Shiites (the majority). With the uniformity of each region being paramount the U.S. forces could have focused on taming the rebel Sunni elements which have been the problem from the start of the conflict. Resources to improve the quality of the poorly developed Western region of the nation could have then been provided as a further deterrent against attacks on top of the American troops which would have had a much smaller area to patrol.
I think the overall reason why this was not done is our "liberal" Western mentality. If you look at the nation today as well as the general area today and in the past the main conflicts have always come from making two groups of people who disagree live near each other despite overwhelming force. Overwhelming force worked in Europe, but in the Middle East and Africa it never has. Genocide is the answer to which the region has always held.
I do not support genocide, but I do support a more "historic" position for the problem as evidenced above. Move the dissident parties into areas where they can be contained and fitting their status in the majority/minority breakdown. It smacks of Imperialist Europe or American treatment of the Native American tribes, but left alone it is better than the alternative which would have and is beginning to take hold... all out genocide with one side against the other.
Read the Book of Joshua sometime. That is the mindset of the region. We need to "get real" or "get out".
Cheers,
Michael D
2006-11-30 00:23:04 · answer #2 · answered by Michael D 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think we should have gone in completely the opposite of what Rumsfeld did: with a lot of troops and some real shock and awe, if we had done that and taken the place over for a brief time like you said, we probably would have been about done or completely done by now with less casualties on both sides.
Anthony S there are a lot more Republicans kids in the army than Democrats. I am Republican and my nephew just got back from 2 years there and my other nephew will be going there soon. My sister was in the army too and she could beat the crap out of you!!
2006-11-30 00:37:40 · answer #3 · answered by inzaratha 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Oh it should have begun but it should have also ended by now.....American involvement that is. Can anyone tell me what our current objective in Iraq is? Or if we are achieving that objective. I think we are just in the middle of a multi sided civil war and that's a bad place to be! Maybe it's just the slanted media but for all the information in the news daily about Iraq I never hear anything about what we are doing or how long it will take or if we are on track with what ever it is we are doing.
2006-11-30 00:09:17 · answer #4 · answered by Barry DaLive 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that the U.S. has its own domestic problems to worry about and that when they found out that saddam did not have the mass weapons if distruction which was the reason the US invaded then they should have stopped there and went home, instead of killing innocent children and kiling soldiers who didnt want to be there in the first place. I think its sad to see what Iraq has come to, it honestly took a turn for the worse. As bad as it was with Saddam, it wasnt nearly as bad as it is now. Im sure oil has a lot to do with this issue too.
2006-11-30 00:03:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i think wwe should have went in bombed the **** out of them and left because the way things have or have not been done we will never be taken seriously. look at it now getting ready to be a civil war, this could have been prevented. it would have too if we would have been able to do that several years ago when we had to go over there because of their threats and bull ****.
2006-11-30 00:17:26 · answer #6 · answered by Sissy 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, we should NOT have gone in in the first place. We messed up the situation with Iran aswell as Iraq by attacking, and it's really screwed up. But, if we had to go in, I agree with you, we should have gone in strong, instead of pulling back and like hiding in the bushes like they are now.
2006-11-30 00:05:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
We should have waited for the UN, leveled the place and come home. I do not believe we have the obligation to repair a country that we go to war with.
2006-11-30 00:01:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
how about...not at all. let the UN do their work and use diplomacy instead of invading without any other nations in agreeance with our opinions as to what the status is regarding WMD. having the Brits are great but them being the only other major member of the UN is a bit depressing and scary if you ask me.
2006-11-30 00:01:42 · answer #9 · answered by Jessy 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Saddam and Bush in that round thing with Tina Turner.
Two go in one comes out.
Go big Red Go
2006-11-30 00:00:25 · answer #10 · answered by 43 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋