Follow this through. We have a history of misstating what our conflicts are. I would say that what we did in Vietnam was a war, and what we are attempting to do in Iraq is a police action. It was a war, the first time we went over there, for about 23 days it was a war, then it was about the removal of a genocidal dictator. OK, mission accomplished. But the reality is that we are using soldiers to do the jobs of police. I came to the realization that what they are fighting is a series of inner-city street gangs with explosives. They are not hugely organized or united, except in their objection to us being there. They are warring amongst themselves.
2007-02-04
04:15:22
·
3 answers
·
asked by
dolphinparty13
2
in
Politics & Government
➔ Military
If we were not there, and they continue to blow each other up there is nothing we can do about it. Have you ever heard the phrase you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink? They have to decide to stop killing each other, we can not take any of the multitude of sides there are to this emerging democratic dynamic. By being there we are seen as supporting a certain political faction. Sure the truth is that what we are supporting is an oppressed majority. Now they are free and they need to take care of themselves. We can only advise them, we cannot afford to try to enforce peace between fundamentalist extremists. The actual percentage of militants to peaceful Iraq’s has to be less than 5% of the population. The general public does not want to be in a situation where they may be blow up at any minute. You can't teach common sense...
2007-02-04
04:16:17 ·
update #1