To: endthematrix
But I don't think that we dealt with the Baathist party in the proper way after we defeated the army. We should have went after them more aggressively.
No, we needed a lot more troops...
4 posted on
12/12/2004 1:07:17 AM PST by
oolatec
To: TheTwelvePack
The decision to de-Ba'athify Iraq was engaged and dis-engaged very quickly...
5 posted on
12/12/2004 1:09:18 AM PST by
ApesForEvolution
(You will NEVER convince me that Muhammadanism isn't a death cult that must end. Save your time...)
To: TheTwelvePack
Actually we were too strong (what some say) by refusing to reinstate them to their employment. Bremer led that fight. There were way too many Party members. IIRC we allowed them to recant allegiance (or something) to get back to work.
7 posted on
12/12/2004 1:14:12 AM PST by
endthematrix
("Hey, it didn't hit a bone, Colonel. Do you think I can go back?" - U.S. Marine)
To: TheTwelvePack
But I don't think that we dealt with the Baathist party in the proper way after we defeated the army. We should have went after them more aggressively. How do you know "we're" not? (I say "they," meaning our troops and the Iraqi military, etc.)
I cannot go into detail, but Baathist members are still being sought, located and arrested. To this day.
22 posted on
12/12/2004 1:25:19 AM PST by
Allegra
(8 days until I'm home!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson