The U.S. is now "officially" done with the Iraq War.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Serraph105"]

so what will we file the new civillian deaths under now that they can't be put under the war umbrella?

No. Such a financial burden should fall upon those who enthuastically supported going into this quagmire, not those of us who opposed it. Your suggestion is kinda like a group of people setting fire to a neighboring town and then saying that the folks who were against burning the town should pay for the damage.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Serraph105"]

so what will we file the new civillian deaths under now that they can't be put under the war umbrella?

I just thought it might cause a problem for the administration when there are future civilian deaths despite not being at war.

I'd love to see Bush's face right now.metallica_fan42

You do know his administration was trying to get Iraq to a state where it currently is so we could leave? Do you really think that Bush wanted to keep wasting billions and billions on a constant military occupation of a unstable country because he felt like spending?

The whole second half of the Bush administration was trying to get Iraq to a stable state so we could leave. Even now it's not very stable but we decided to pull out anyways. I would be willing to bet the country goes through some much more difficult times.

After we invaded after having good reason to believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he was currently aiding terrorists which we are still today engaged in a war against, the country was extremely unstable. Weather you agree with the war or not, it happened and there is nothing you can do about it. The country at the time supported the war, possibly for the wrong reasons, but they still did.

Anyways after we defeated what was left of the already weakened government after we whooped their ass after the first Persian Gulf War (don't invade your peaceful neighbors), the country became extremely unstable from the lack of a very strong central authority. We had to step up and take that role. Ever since then we did everything we could to re-stabilize the country, train a local defense force, and leave to continue fighting in Afghanistan and where the real enemy is. However things didn't work and we ended up staying there much longer than we needed.

The difference between Bush and Obama is Bush was committed. We destabilized the area, it is our job to get it back to being stable. During the Bush administration we did pull out many soldiers from the major cities of Iraq to eventually phase them out. However, every time we did that, the newly trained Iraqi army would fail to keep the peace and we would have tore-stabilizeto prevent the outset of total civil war and thousands of civilian casualties. Iraq has finally been getting back to that state of stabilization and self governance finally after these many years. Obama however is trying to pull us out possibly prematurely, only time will really be able to tell on that.

If this works and they can self govern themselves finally without having bombs exploding everywhere and civilians being killed left and right because of the waring local factions, Obama will take all of the credit for what has been a long process of peace and stabilization. So Bush will continue to be hated on and Obama will be loved for what has been a joint effort over many years.

I'm happy to see them pull out of Iraq, I'm just hoping that the country can go back to being stable and not start killing each other in mass again. Combat operations should be left to those in charge of the nation now and we need to focus on dealing with the real enemy from here on out.

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]

The country was better off under Saddam for this one reason:

The various factions and groups feared him more than they hated each other.

bsman00

Yeah, minus the fact that he was a terrible tyrant who did terrible things to his people and only benefited his cronies. :|

saddam didn't brainwashed his people into thinking he is god

It's a crappy half assed war that shouldn't care about who's right or wrong and just get in their, kill anyone who wears a shirt you don't like the look of and walk away with the spoils, then we get progression and a breath of fresh air.

cool. *waits patiently forIraq to descendinto total chaos*

[QUOTE="p2250"]Iraqis should've not cheered and celebrated the deaths on 9/11. Otherwise, I would have some sympathy for them, but I don't and never will ever again.scorch-62

some people think we are still fighting iraqi army

Until they run out of oil.

I did not read the other pages of this thread (too long) but I would just like to mention one thing. The military contractors that the U.S. hired are still there (ex Blackwater) as are 50,000 other troops. Furthermore the U.S. has built 14 HUGE bases in Iraq as well. The "combat" may be over but the occupation sadly continues and the Iraqi death toll will continue to rise as well. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

I did not read the other pages of this thread (too long) but I would just like to mention one thing. The military contractors that the U.S. hired are still there (ex Blackwater) as are 50,000 other troops. Furthermore the U.S. has built 14 HUGE bases in Iraq as well. The "combat" may be over but the occupation sadly continues and the Iraqi death toll will continue to rise as well. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Chefboyrd03

[QUOTE="metallica_fan42"]I'd love to see Bush's face right now.Wasdie

You do know his administration was trying to get Iraq to a state where it currently is so we could leave? Do you really think that Bush wanted to keep wasting billions and billions on a constant military occupation of a unstable country because he felt like spending?

The whole second half of the Bush administration was trying to get Iraq to a stable state so we could leave. Even now it's not very stable but we decided to pull out anyways. I would be willing to bet the country goes through some much more difficult times.

After we invaded after having good reason to believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that he was currently aiding terrorists which we are still today engaged in a war against, the country was extremely unstable. Weather you agree with the war or not, it happened and there is nothing you can do about it. The country at the time supported the war, possibly for the wrong reasons, but they still did.

Anyways after we defeated what was left of the already weakened government after we whooped their ass after the first Persian Gulf War (don't invade your peaceful neighbors), the country became extremely unstable from the lack of a very strong central authority. We had to step up and take that role. Ever since then we did everything we could to re-stabilize the country, train a local defense force, and leave to continue fighting in Afghanistan and where the real enemy is. However things didn't work and we ended up staying there much longer than we needed.

The difference between Bush and Obama is Bush was committed. We destabilized the area, it is our job to get it back to being stable. During the Bush administration we did pull out many soldiers from the major cities of Iraq to eventually phase them out. However, every time we did that, the newly trained Iraqi army would fail to keep the peace and we would have tore-stabilizeto prevent the outset of total civil war and thousands of civilian casualties. Iraq has finally been getting back to that state of stabilization and self governance finally after these many years. Obama however is trying to pull us out possibly prematurely, only time will really be able to tell on that.

If this works and they can self govern themselves finally without having bombs exploding everywhere and civilians being killed left and right because of the waring local factions, Obama will take all of the credit for what has been a long process of peace and stabilization. So Bush will continue to be hated on and Obama will be loved for what has been a joint effort over many years.

I'm happy to see them pull out of Iraq, I'm just hoping that the country can go back to being stable and not start killing each other in mass again. Combat operations should be left to those in charge of the nation now and we need to focus on dealing with the real enemy from here on out.

By and large an excellent post. I think that going into Iraq was a mistake, but once there, we couldn't just call it a day.

Maybe its a part of the US plan to reform the middle east? its not secret that this is a project that has been going on for the past 30 years or so.GazaAli

It's possible. After the invasion, there was some reform in Saudi Arabia but nothing major. Still, it would be nice to see the Middle East reformed and turned into an advanced civilization just as they were in the past.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"] I think that every left leaning person in this country should donate 2/3 of their savings for a fund to service these civilians and their families. It's the only just thing to do if you feel so upset about. No use talking about it, do something to alleviate the guilt.sonicare

No. Such a financial burden should fall upon those who enthuastically supported going into this quagmire, not those of us who opposed it. Your suggestion is kinda like a group of people setting fire to a neighboring town and then saying that the folks who were against burning the town should pay for the damage.

You have no choice in paying taxes, so no, paying taxes does not equal support for the war. And who says that those who were opposed to it feel guilt over it? I sure as hell don't. And what, pray tell, is your idea of "doing something to stop it"?

If I'm not mistaken, we still have about 50k soldiers there, no?

honestly this should be the most popular thread of the day. It should not still be hovering at 11 pages. Especially given that some people consider this good new and others believe it to be horrible news. It leaves loads to discuss.

honestly this should be the most popular thread of the day. It should not still be hovering at 11 pages. Especially given that some people consider this good new and others believe it to be horrible news. It leaves loads to discuss.

Serraph105

Horrible news? Haven't seen that reaction yet. From what I gather, its an old topic.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

honestly this should be the most popular thread of the day. It should not still be hovering at 11 pages. Especially given that some people consider this good new and others believe it to be horrible news. It leaves loads to discuss.

coolbeans90

Horrible news? Haven't seen that reaction yet. From what I gather, its an old topic.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

honestly this should be the most popular thread of the day. It should not still be hovering at 11 pages. Especially given that some people consider this good new and others believe it to be horrible news. It leaves loads to discuss.

Serraph105

Horrible news? Haven't seen that reaction yet. From what I gather, its an old topic.

I was referring to the war, not really the topic. (I still consider to be relatively new) It just seems that Iraq is the most burned out topic, religious topics notwithstanding.

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="Lto_thaG"]

So....Who's next?Belgium?

coolbeans90

We are short a Queen.

No, no, no! CANADA! They have a queen and OIL! Plus who knows what they're plotting up there, they've been quite for far too long. :evil:

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Serraph105"] I'm thinking England. We haven't fought them for a while.Former_Slacker

We are short a Queen.

No, no, no! CANADA! They have a queen and OIL! Plus who knows what they're plotting up there, they've been quite for far too long. :evil:

Well, they obey and worship the queen, but they don't really have her. Plus, Quebec. 'Nuff said.

$20 says that Iraq goes into a violent civil war within the next 10 years that only ends with another theocratic dictator taking over.gameguy6700

I highly doubt that, and there are still 50,000+ troops in Iraq.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]$20 says that Iraq goes into a violent civil war within the next 10 years that only ends with another theocratic dictator taking over.taj7575

I highly doubt that, and there are still 50,000+ troops in Iraq.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"]$20 says that Iraq goes into a violent civil war within the next 10 years that only ends with another theocratic dictator taking over.gameguy6700

I highly doubt that, and there are still 50,000+ troops in Iraq.

They are better than random terrorist groups that will show up every once in a while.

They won't be perfect, but I'm sure they can handle themselves.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="taj7575"]

I highly doubt that, and there are still 50,000+ troops in Iraq.

taj7575

They are better than random terrorist groups that will show up every once in a while.

They won't be perfect, but I'm sure they can handle themselves.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"] What makes you so sure about that? The Iraqi police and military are highly incompetent and those troops are going to be gone by December 2011.gameguy6700

They are better than random terrorist groups that will show up every once in a while.

They won't be perfect, but I'm sure they can handle themselves.

what do you expect its a puppet goverment

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"] What makes you so sure about that? The Iraqi police and military are highly incompetent and those troops are going to be gone by December 2011.gameguy6700

They are better than random terrorist groups that will show up every once in a while.

They won't be perfect, but I'm sure they can handle themselves.

What? Where do you get that? :?. Iraqi and US military did missions together and fought together.

Corruption did run deep..But Iraq now has democratic elections.

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="taj7575"]

They are better than random terrorist groups that will show up every once in a while.

They won't be perfect, but I'm sure they can handle themselves.

Vader993

what do you expect its a puppet goverment

How does a puppet leader get democratically elected? It's not like we are dealing with the Shah in Iran..

So you think not another round will be fired or another IED set off? Are you really that naive? It's FAR from over.

>More like a step forward considering Iraq is now free from dictatorship. The cost of life was staggering but the cause was justified in order to create a better Iraq.

That's the case for any revolution. Sure, the American colonies shouldn't of rebeled so they would suffer loss of human life but did so anyway because they believed in a noble and just cause.

leviathan91

The Invasion of Iraq, whether the Iraqi people desired it or not, was thrust upon the Iraqis. It's easy to talk about it being "worth it" to assuage American conscience, but comparing it to the US Revolution is wrong. France, for example, did not invade Boston sparking the war with the justification of freeing the colonists.

You're also assuming that Iraqis would have preffered their current government to Saddam, and the lives lost and turmoil caused, in order to pay for their new government. In addition, you're assuming that it's nothing but clear skies ahead for Iraq. It may not be.

[QUOTE="taj7575"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"] What makes you so sure about that? The Iraqi police and military are highly incompetent and those troops are going to be gone by December 2011.gameguy6700

They are better than random terrorist groups that will show up every once in a while.

They won't be perfect, but I'm sure they can handle themselves.

Any sort of remote sort of basis for this statement?

$20 says that Iraq goes into a violent civil war within the next 10 years that only ends with another theocratic dictator taking over.gameguy6700

"Another theocratic dictator"? When was the first one?

Never mind the invasion. The previous U.S. administration was "hell-bent" on making sure it happened. I'm only wondering how much less deadly and shorter the insurgency might have been if the Coalition Provisional Authority did not do something as stupid as dissolve the Iraqi military and police. That left a security gap and power vacuum that will take years still to completely fill.

jetpower3

They could have done several things that would have prevented the insurgency. There were 100 ways to make this war a cakewalk and 10 to make it a long drawn out conflict. Clearly, we decided to chose the latter. Even had they disbanded the Iraqi military had they listened the original troop numbers planned by General Eric Shinseki the insurgency wouldn't have taken hold. Shinseki wanted to invade with 500,000 soldiers at the very least and said that several hundred thousand would be needed for the post war occupation. Of course the natural response from the White House and Secretary of Defense was to completely ignore him and force him into an early retirement. :roll:

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

Never mind the invasion. The previous U.S. administration was "hell-bent" on making sure it happened. I'm only wondering how much less deadly and shorter the insurgency might have been if the Coalition Provisional Authority did not do something as stupid as dissolve the Iraqi military and police. That left a security gap and power vacuum that will take years still to completely fill.

UnknownSniper65

They could have done several things that would have prevented the insurgency. There were 100 ways to make this war a cakewalk and 10 to make it a long drawn out conflict. Clearly, we decided to chose the latter. Even had they disbanded the Iraqi military had they listened the original troop numbers planned by General Eric Shinseki the insurgency wouldn't have taken hold. Shinseki wanted to invade with 500,000 soldiers at the very least and said that several hundred thousand would be needed for the post war occupation. Of course the natural response from the White House and Secretary of Defense was to completely ignore him and force him into an early retirement. :roll:

That too, but I still think that foreign troops, although perhaps able to maintain a semi balance of security, would be no substitute for homegrown and experienced troops who know their land, can speak the language, and know the culture and potential key troublemakers. If I may do so myself, I'd like to add a potential 3rd mistake: failing to secure the munitions and arms of Saddam's army fast enough. It's been estimated that 250,000 tons of munitions were looted following the invasion, which no doubt to this day gives the insurgency a massive supply in which to launch continuous bomb attacks.

[QUOTE="Vader993"]

[QUOTE="gameguy6700"][QUOTE="taj7575"]

They are better than random terrorist groups that will show up every once in a while.

They won't be perfect, but I'm sure they can handle themselves.

taj7575

what do you expect its a puppet goverment

How does a puppet leader get democratically elected? It's not like we are dealing with the Shah in Iran..

[/QUOTe

shah of iran was best to happen iran since cyrus the great,now we are run by narrow minded

islamic fundamentalist

[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]

[QUOTE="jetpower3"]

Never mind the invasion. The previous U.S. administration was "hell-bent" on making sure it happened. I'm only wondering how much less deadly and shorter the insurgency might have been if the Coalition Provisional Authority did not do something as stupid as dissolve the Iraqi military and police. That left a security gap and power vacuum that will take years still to completely fill.

jetpower3

They could have done several things that would have prevented the insurgency. There were 100 ways to make this war a cakewalk and 10 to make it a long drawn out conflict. Clearly, we decided to chose the latter. Even had they disbanded the Iraqi military had they listened the original troop numbers planned by General Eric Shinseki the insurgency wouldn't have taken hold. Shinseki wanted to invade with 500,000 soldiers at the very least and said that several hundred thousand would be needed for the post war occupation. Of course the natural response from the White House and Secretary of Defense was to completely ignore him and force him into an early retirement. :roll:

That too, but I still think that foreign troops, although perhaps able to maintain a semi balance of security, would be no substitute for homegrown and experienced troops who know their land, can speak the language, and know the culture and potential key troublemakers. If I may do so myself, I'd like to add a potential 3rd mistake: failing to secure the munitions and arms of Saddam's army fast enough. It's been estimated that 250,000 tons of munitions were looted following the invasion, which no doubt to this day gives the insurgency a massive supply in which to launch continuous bomb attacks.

Invading without the proper number of troops is what lead to so much munitions being left around for the insurgency to use. Soldiers that should have been securing towns,restoring order and gathering left over munitions were instead being told to simply drive on to the capital. What did military planners think was going to happen to all of the left over Iraqi munitions? Did anyone even consider what post war Iraq would look like? Or did they instead choose to ignore the only man that did?