Was it too:
1) Have a larger military presence at the very beginning
2) Secure weapons and bombs instead of leaving unprotected
3) Been much more informed about ethnic conflicts between Iraqis
Which is the most significant of the three things (that should have happened)?
2006-12-19 13:26:24 · 13 answers · asked by DenimGuy555 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
2. With no weapons to fight us and kill civilians with, the set up of the government would have been far easier.
2006-12-19 13:47:43 · answer #1 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Of the three choices, having a larger military presence to begin with. My opinion is, we should have had a specific plan of how and when we would help re-establish Iraq's infrastructure. Getting power and water to the people would have drastically cut down on attacks against American military and contractor personnel.
2006-12-19 21:57:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Neither. We should have flattened any area filled with terrorists. No more being nice because the bad guys hide in hospitals.
1. It is not a size issue, it is fighting to win.
2. Not sure what you mean. We should have destroyed all weapons.
3. The conflict is caused by Iran and Syria sending in forces. Close the borders and they cannot enter.
2006-12-19 21:30:31 · answer #3 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
1 and 3.If you invade a country you need to show complete dominance,but with the troop level we deployed to the country it wasn't enough to scare the terrorists.They just fell back to a rallying point,were able to get organized and started what their doing today.
We also should have realized what the ethnic groups were up to and tried to help the rival groups with their problems.
2006-12-19 22:55:12 · answer #4 · answered by Johnathon K 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
apologize to Osama bin Ladin for making him the fall guy
tell the truth about the World Trade Centre "FALSE-FLAG" operation by the CIA
have the Shiia population carve out their portion of the land and join Iran because Iran is made up of mostly Shiia Muslims
have the Sunni population in Iraq carve out their portion of the land and join Syria & Saudi Arabia
have the Kurdish population living in the northern part of Iraq carve out their rightfull piece, and take the piece of land back from Turkey that was stolen from them, and the part of Iran that was stolen from them and make their country KURDISHSTAN whole again.
appologize to all Iraqis for the western imperialist abuse they have received for the past 200 years.
help them rebuild with interest free loans provided by the military corporate establishments that have made all these blood stained prophits.
books could be written on this subject...
2006-12-19 22:00:06 · answer #5 · answered by lovefights 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
2
We had enough military and we knew about the ethnic conflicts. The ethnic conflicts are why saddam was in power in the 1st place. The only thing those people understand is raw power.
2006-12-19 21:32:10 · answer #6 · answered by noobienoob2000 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They should never have gone there in the first place. But since they did, they didn't have a realistic plan. Take Saddam out and everyone would be happy. 3) Been much more informed about Iraq. God bless the Troops.
2006-12-19 21:32:42 · answer #7 · answered by edward 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
None
Total aggression without repercussion is the answer.
Beat the enemy and anyone who happens to be near them into submission with overwhelming force.
A military police state is the answer, and instant death is the solution.
Oh my, I sound like a Jihadist, so be it.
2006-12-19 21:35:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
#1
2006-12-19 21:28:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Flood the area with CNN reporters.
2006-12-19 21:28:28 · answer #10 · answered by Shaddup Libs 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋