The initial mess up happened way back in the Eisenhower Administration when they decided to overthrow the Iranian Government and put the Shaw in on the Peacock throne. It was further compounded by all of the preceeding presidents who continued to support the murderous dictator, it should have ended long ago. But then came Jimmy Carter who gutted the CIA leaving us blind and dependent upon foreign intel services to try and make sound decisions. Who then further added insult to injury by welcoming the Shaw here after he'd been thrown out of Iran. Shall I keep going? And then came Reagan who saddled up with Saddam Hussein by selling him weapons and the technology to produce WMD, because he was at war with Iran. And let us not forget the Iran-Contra affair... Then Bush (senior) wo had to do the U.N.'s job by asembleing a coalition military force to send Saddam back across the Iraq/Kuwaiti border. Clinton, who like the U.N., didn't really do anything to uphold the U.N. Sanctioned cease-fire agreement and finally Bush (junior) who, like his father, was forced to deal with Saddam's infractions of the U.N. cease fire agreement, this time, because the U.N. was too corrupt. How am I doing thus far? Have I lost anybody? Still not satisfied? And so as I understand it by friends still in, when Bush presented the case for war, the Joint Chiefs were asked to submit their recommendations. They gave a set number of boots neede to do the job. Rumsfeld cut that number in half and presented it to the CINC who agreed an put his stamp of approval on it. Had there been enough boots on the ground initially to secure the borders, Iran wouldn't be an issue today.. So, WHY IS Iran there? Something to do with mismanaged state run oil companies. Hint. Iran's oil wells are now all over 50 years old. I ran as not been investing in R&D. Iran discourages foreign oil companies from coming in and doing business. Iran's wells are prdoucing at a declining rate of 13% per year. So, while they sit atop the world's third largest known oil deposit, last year, they were unable to export a single drop of oil. Instead, they had to import. Their people are currently paying 38 cents a gallon at the pumps but all profits are being funneled into social programs and not R&D. This folks is also the smoking gun as to why they're pushing for nuclear power plants (which also have a biproduct of weapons grade plutonium -- they support and export terrorism). SO. You have the Sunnis and the Shiites. One side is sponsored and supported by the Saudis and you have the other, sponsored and supported by the Iranians. The Saudis are for the most part, sitting fat and happy. The Iranians on the other hand, have everyting to gain by further destabilizing an already unstable and volitile situation. Push hard enough and they know the Americans will cut and run. They have no stomach for it. Their vision is always extremely miopic and they will leave as they have always done. Just play their media for all it's worth. And there in, lies your answer. The whole history of the U.S. involvement in the region reads like the biography of Otto von Bismarck, who set up all of the key players for WW I thirty years prior.
2007-01-16 14:53:50
·
answer #1
·
answered by Doc 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
The President miscalculated the mood of the American people as expressed by the news media. He felt that we were up to the task of helping the Iraqi people establish a democratic government in Iraq. The terrorists have proved him wrong and demonstrated that the American people lack the will to succeed when the going gets tough. If that seems harsh think of it this way, the same attitude, peace at any cost, was pushed by the media and the far left during the Vietnam war. Hollywood made it so popular that it became a popular sub culture...now....we have taught the American military that anything short of a quick victory is unsupportable. So...what will we do when Israel is attacked by an emboldened Iran? Remember, they have been all over us since the Carter administration where we were intentionally weak and tried to talk to them without success....there is no way the American military will recommend a bigger war against a more aggressive enemy given current public opinion..so...we take what they decide to dish out.
The Saudis understand this...today they announced that they may send troops to Iraq to protect Sunni citizens there. This is a realization that the US lacks the resolve to finish the job.
2007-01-16 22:27:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by Mike C 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
The biggest problem that led to the issues we have now in Iraq is this,
we didnt start off with a big enough force to get the job done right. I we would have went in with a force size equivilent of Desert storm we could have secured the copuntry easier.
Also we were in such a rush to get to Baghdad that we didnt take care of much of the population that was against us to begin with. we took thier arms and sent them on thier way, to fight us another time,
third, we never should have dissapated the Iraqi army. It takes years and yeard to develop an officers corp, capable of leading an army, not a few months. These people were more loyal to job security than to Saddams Baathiist party. If they were in place supporting the new government it would be easiert to get the transition over to them
2007-01-17 02:47:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by shaqle2001 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
after a serious thinking and research i know that all what has happened recently is a great mess... first of all 911 was one of the biggest lies of history (plz refer to the video in source list) ... american govt and its best ally was involoved in 9/11 ...
Secondly the weapons of mass destruction were never found because they were not there in the first place.... and if america is so much against WMDs why dont it give up the nuclear power.... It is the most dangerous country for the whole world... look at past 100 years and you will see america started more than 100 conflicts and wars.... and have killed millions and millions of innocent people including women and children.... so who is more dangerous IRAQ or USA... and dear freind .... how do you know that there is really suicide bombing going on in Iraq... only because you hear on news.... do you know that how strong is the media filtering.... we never know the exact news.... its american army that is doing every thing not the ex iraqi soldiers(please refer to video # 3 and 4 in the source list) ....
anyways i dont blame USA because USA is just a puppet being run by the Jews........
No one has the rigth to invade a country to bring democracy there... if they dont like it why to force it .... and do you think there is democracy in USA ........
2007-01-16 22:30:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by AM 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
Some of the first things the military did in Iraq was destruct a lot of the government and all of the army. This, combined with power outages and a lack of basic safety resulted in massive unemployment. This was the first most devastating thing of the invasion, and they are still trying to correct it.
2007-01-16 22:55:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by Webber 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think that America should've sent in about 250,000 troops, not the lowly 130,000 that we did. That number of troops could not reasonably keep insurgents at bay. We should have sealed off the borders with Iran and Syria to keep them from coming in from Iran.
2007-01-16 22:56:55
·
answer #6
·
answered by KungFuKricket 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Gee, there were so many but the worst was not having enough troops to stop the looting right after we won the war. Fanatics looted armories and got most of the bombs they are now using to cause chaos.
2007-01-16 22:21:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by Michael da Man 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
I would say when we went over there without real proof of them having weapons of mass destuction, which is the whole basis of being over in Iraq in the first place, we never even found the weapons, and we are now fighting a war that is not even UN backed, that is where we went wrong, when we went over there in the first place.
2007-01-16 22:22:00
·
answer #8
·
answered by Sarah E 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
WE did not have a good plan for once we over took the country. We had no stabilization plan and not enough troops up front to hold down the situation.
2007-01-16 22:21:38
·
answer #9
·
answered by auhunter04 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
Iraqi + soldier = fantasy
We never should have gone with the police action. We should have not stopped for lunch on the first day, crushed their pitiful army and then surrounded their oil fields and started pumping. Our gas prices would be at $0.27 a gal, their oil would be gone, we would be gone and could have been pumping in Iran for the last 18 months.
2007-01-16 22:22:27
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋