What does the east think about the Us and it allies participation in iraq?
What does the east think about the Us and it allies participation in iraq
- Thread starter Us citizen
- Start date
Due the abcent of PM feature of new members I have say this puplicly...
First of all welcome to SDF. You'll notice that we are a discussion forum which tries to set up proffesional and constructive discussion about chinese military issues. This general goal of us is shown in many cases, for instance we have certain guidelines which aplies to new threads opened. Thats the reason why I deleted your last one. Please take look to this link:
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=1574
In there you will find the general rules and regulations which aplies to new topics. In this case it means that you need to give some own imput as well, not just posting oneliner questions. As a US marine, I'm sure you have lots of insight to give us to judge
Gollevainen, supermoderator
First of all welcome to SDF. You'll notice that we are a discussion forum which tries to set up proffesional and constructive discussion about chinese military issues. This general goal of us is shown in many cases, for instance we have certain guidelines which aplies to new threads opened. Thats the reason why I deleted your last one. Please take look to this link:
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?t=1574
In there you will find the general rules and regulations which aplies to new topics. In this case it means that you need to give some own imput as well, not just posting oneliner questions. As a US marine, I'm sure you have lots of insight to give us to judge
Gollevainen, supermoderator
Last edited:
The question is what do you think about it US citizen? Your profile says you are a US marine for 4 years? Did you get out? Is that why you are in Oklahoma? What was your MOS? Where where you stationed? Just curious...
Usally these Iraq war threads tun into flame wars. But I will say this. The US & coalition forces invaded Iraq to rid the world of Sadamm Hussien & the invisible WMD. Sadamm was defeated and the WMD never found
. The US and it's allies where not prepared for the insurgency, civil & religious strife that followed. Iraq is a quagmeyer of a war now. No end in sight.I posted some time ago that I think that Iraq was chosen as a battlefield against the terroist. I wish I could find that post..maybe later..
To all forum members..if this thread starts any sort of flame war it will be closed.
bd popeye moderator
Last edited:
The question is what do you think about it US citizen? Your profile says you are a US marine for 4 years? Did you get out? Is that why you are in Oklahoma? What was your MOS? Where where you stationed? Just curious...
Usally these Iraq war threads tun into flame wars. But I will say this. The US & coalition forces invaded Iraq to rid the world of Sadamm Hussien & the invisible WMD. Sadamm was defeated and the WMD never found
I posted some time ago that I think that Iraq was chosen as a battlefield against the terroist. I wish I could find that post..maybe later..
To all forum members..if this thread starts any sort of flame war it will be closed.
bd popeye moderator
I have to diagree about a few things. Now I don't know if this is crossing the line into politics, but since this whole thread seems to be politics, I'll go ahead and write it. I'm not trying to break any rules or anything.
First off I'd like to say I live in and am from the United States, so I can't say what residents of Asian nations think about the Iraq War. I doubt that it is a big issue there though...if I had to guess I would say they feel the same as everyone else but less passionately.
Anyway, Popeye, I am of the belief that the Iraq War was a neo-con pet project that was made conveinent by 9/11 and the War on Terror. It was done for geopolitical reasons-undermining Iran, securing a supply of oil, and planting a US and Israel friendly nation in the heart of the Middle East. I don't dispute that the ouster of Saddam brought real benefits to the Iraqi people (or at least would have if they had wanted to recieve them rather than kill each other). Militarily I think the Iraq War is now unwinnable for the United States. It is now a civil war and so victory will have to be decided between the Sunnis and the Shiites. I put my money on the Shiites-they have Iran's help. The Sunnis have no one, although I can imagine the US giving them clandestine aid in order to limit the power of Iran and its puppet Moqtada al-Sadr.
The Kurds will probably emerge as winners from this because the Sunnis and the Shiites will be too busy fighting each other to focus against them and there will be no central authority in Iraq or indeed anywhere that can control them. They will be able to continue in de facto independence for a long time, just like they did during the years when the coalition protected them with the no-fly zone. Militarily they will be set to take control of Kirkuk and the Northern oil fields once the US withdraws because they already have well organized and experienced peshmerga units, many of which were assimillated into the Iraqi Army, recieved training and weapons from the US and essentially reverted to being peshmerga in Iraqi government uniforms. If/when the Shiites defeat the Sunnis in the coming Iraqi Civil War, the Kurds will be next on the chopping block-the ayatollahs in Iran will never allow for the Kurds, who are American allies, to be independent and well armed right in the middle of what Iran wants to be its "near aboad".
Finn, actually I agree with much of what you posted.
Possibly..those circumsatnces certianly do seem probale at this point.
Agreed. the best the US could do now is come up with a time line for the widthdrawal of troops. Based on the now near civil war in Iraq. It should be up to the Iraqi's to settle this civil war.
I agree again..You explain things in a very clear and consise manner. Outstanding.
Excellent post on your part.
This post is a model for this thread. No flaming!!
Possibly..those circumsatnces certianly do seem probale at this point.
Agreed. the best the US could do now is come up with a time line for the widthdrawal of troops. Based on the now near civil war in Iraq. It should be up to the Iraqi's to settle this civil war.
I agree again..You explain things in a very clear and consise manner. Outstanding.
Excellent post on your part.
This post is a model for this thread. No flaming!!
The question is what do you think about it US citizen? Your profile says you are a US marine for 4 years? Did you get out? Is that why you are in Oklahoma? What was your MOS? Where where you stationed? Just curious...
Usally these Iraq war threads tun into flame wars. But I will say this. The US & coalition forces invaded Iraq to rid the world of Sadamm Hussien & the invisible WMD. Sadamm was defeated and the WMD never found
I posted some time ago that I think that Iraq was chosen as a battlefield against the terroist. I wish I could find that post..maybe later..
To all forum members..if this thread starts any sort of flame war it will be closed.
bd popeye moderator
I was in the 22 meu stationed at Camp Lejeune, nc. and yes i am out of the military due to reasons after my tour of iraq. y u curios?????????
Interesting exchange of ideas, I'd like to share some of my thoughts while really trying to stay away from flaming.
Popeye you came up with a timetable for withdrawl. I remember an interview with an old german journalist who spent many years in the mid and far east, expressing conserns over the impacts a full civil war in Iraq after the coallition leavs. There might be space for several elements trying to use this lawless arena to enforce their own interests. Wouldn't that perhaps negate the achievement of ending the former regime ?
Therefore I seem to see a need for a broader solution, something like a regional consesus of how to go forward.
Now the point that the coalition was not prepared for the afterward strife. Right for sure, the culteral understanding was probably not well enough. But there's another point on that. The militatry's transformation to a high tech force with fewer soldiers is usefull for conventional warfighting, and the Iraqi forces were defeated quickly, 3 weeks I think. But when it comes to "nation building" and securing the streets you just need soldiers there on the ground. All those sattelites, high-end UAVs, stealth bombers, advanced helicopters can't look into, caves, houses or the minds of people.
Popeye you came up with a timetable for withdrawl. I remember an interview with an old german journalist who spent many years in the mid and far east, expressing conserns over the impacts a full civil war in Iraq after the coallition leavs. There might be space for several elements trying to use this lawless arena to enforce their own interests. Wouldn't that perhaps negate the achievement of ending the former regime ?
Therefore I seem to see a need for a broader solution, something like a regional consesus of how to go forward.
Now the point that the coalition was not prepared for the afterward strife. Right for sure, the culteral understanding was probably not well enough. But there's another point on that. The militatry's transformation to a high tech force with fewer soldiers is usefull for conventional warfighting, and the Iraqi forces were defeated quickly, 3 weeks I think. But when it comes to "nation building" and securing the streets you just need soldiers there on the ground. All those sattelites, high-end UAVs, stealth bombers, advanced helicopters can't look into, caves, houses or the minds of people.
the answer is simple .i will never get into details and write hundreds of letters.first of let us see wat does ur own country and ur allies think abt invading iraq. from the very first day b4 invading iraq ur countries were at a standstill due to protests.then after u invaded then as a result in ur country ur president ratngs were always low.then this mid-term elections prpved to be refernedum on IRAQ .the east particlarly where i live we think that it was just an unjust invasion of a country which had nothing to do with terrorism and all there was a massive sclae of lies and fabrication regarding WMDs .whic in turn never turned out to exist .os it was WAR FOR OIL
from the very first day b4 invading iraq ur countries were at a standstill due to protests.then after u invaded then as a result in ur country ur president ratngs were always low.then this mid-term elections prpved to be refernedum on IRAQ .the east particlarly where i live we think that it was just an unjust invasion of a country which had nothing to do with terrorism and all there was a massive sclae of lies and fabrication regarding WMDs .whic in turn never turned out to exist .os it was WAR FOR OILAsad shah,
Some members of the forum might not speak English as a first language. It might be better to use correct spelling for ease of understanding.
Oil was not a major factor in the invasion of Iraq. There was no oil crisis in the USA in either price or supply.
The main factors in the decison to invade Iraq were
- A President who lacks the academic qualifications or natural intelligence to make good policy decisions in a complex environment. As such, he relies very heavily on "Hawkish" Neo Con advisors (Rumsfeld, Cheney and others)
- This same President views that the 9-11 terrorist attacks have given him a "mandate to act anywhere"
- Over confidence in the ability of U.S. technology to win wars with few U.S. casualties. (Afghanistan, Kosovo, Gulf War I were easy victories)
- Influence of Christian sects that emphasize "Revelations Theology". (Belief that many Biblical prophesies are unfolding today and that they need to be acted on)
- The natural tendency to hit back after being attacked and not to think much about who you are hitting.
Some members of the forum might not speak English as a first language. It might be better to use correct spelling for ease of understanding.
.os it was WAR FOR OIL
Oil was not a major factor in the invasion of Iraq. There was no oil crisis in the USA in either price or supply.
The main factors in the decison to invade Iraq were
- A President who lacks the academic qualifications or natural intelligence to make good policy decisions in a complex environment. As such, he relies very heavily on "Hawkish" Neo Con advisors (Rumsfeld, Cheney and others)
- This same President views that the 9-11 terrorist attacks have given him a "mandate to act anywhere"
- Over confidence in the ability of U.S. technology to win wars with few U.S. casualties. (Afghanistan, Kosovo, Gulf War I were easy victories)
- Influence of Christian sects that emphasize "Revelations Theology". (Belief that many Biblical prophesies are unfolding today and that they need to be acted on)
- The natural tendency to hit back after being attacked and not to think much about who you are hitting.
Last edited:
Yeas, Asad shah, pay to attention to the rules of the forum, only understandable english, no .os, ur, b4...they aren't english words, you know
Also lets try to remember what Popeye said, no politics!
Also lets try to remember what Popeye said, no politics!