Posted on 12/12/2006 9:32:13 AM PST by LAMBERT LATHAM
"Bush made the same mistake Hitler made when he invaded France. Hitler didn't expect a resistance movement after"
Hitler didn't make a mistake. French resistance is a myth. As for Iraq, the mistake we neocons made was the naive belief that people naturally embrace freedom over tyranny.
Yep
Conquered means American servicemen can walk unarmed and unaccompanied anywhere, and the locals avert their gaze lest they give offense.
You're right. In just over a year after we defeated Germany and Japan U.S. dependents were allowed to join our service men in Germany because it was safe enough for them to be there.
Four years after the defeat of Iraq, it isn't even safe for our service men and women.
"As for Iraq, the mistake we neocons made was the naive belief that people naturally embrace freedom over tyranny.
Indeed. That was a shocker. I'll admit I had that one wrong.
I think we needed to build more Mini Marts to give these people something to rob on Saturday nights ....thats what is great about America
While the French resistance was weak and small, it none the less existed. If the French could and did mount a resistance, why would anyone think that the savages in Iraq wouldn't mount one?
It wasn't even rational to not expect a strong resistance movement there.
Going into Iraq instead of getting bin Laden has made it less safe for us, for Israel and for the ME.
I agree.
I don't understand why we downgraded the search for Bin Laden. Making him pay for the American blood he spilled should be our top priority.
The overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people have embraced freedom over tyranny. The fact that you only hear about the comparatively small number of terrorists that are fighting for control, is not the fault of the Iraqi people.
I think the Iraq War was extremely successful in that it liberated the country and democratic elections were held. I also think we underestimated the possibility that al Qaeda...with help form Iran and Syria...would continuously kill other muslims solely to spite our efforts. This is nothing more than murderous terrorism, that the world has failed to unify against. If the rest of the world had joined to help protect Iraq, than the conflict would be perceived as al Qaeda against the world and not the evil US. Of course, our subversive press, which has undercut our efforts since the first week of the actual war...with questions like "are we behind schedule" despite the fact we took Iraq in a matter of months...has blown everything out of proportion being they hate Bush and any war to begin with. The fact that we have only lost 3,000...which is extremely miniscule in the scope of war, not to belittle the death of anyone...is simply amazing. What's sad is that the world has never shown any true concern for the Iraqis. If other country's endured bombings in their streets everyday, would they not do everything in their power to stop them? Instead, it seems everyone is out to spite us, to paint our efforts as a failure, instead of helping a people in need. It's sickening that political spite...emanating from the useless U.N. whose job is to oppose suffering...has become the mantra of the day.
Nothing, nothing went wrong!
What kind of question is this? We had an election and elections have consequences.
Anyone surprised by the lightening fast 180 degree turn in the political stance on Iraq wasn't paying much attention to what just happened in November.
Shame too.... this could have had an entirely different ending...
So what's your solution?
BUMP.
" The overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people have embraced freedom over tyranny"
That's an interesting use of 'overwhelming.'
I wasn't the one that initially compared Iraq to WWII in post #26. Personally, I always cringe when someone trys to compare the two.
It would have been great for controlling the 20% was doing the terrorizing, and is now supporting al-Qa'ida. We should have kept the Iraqi army intact, which we could have done by continuing to pay them. Even the deserters would have come back for that. Then we could have used the Iraqi army to control the Sunni areas, which would have been acceptable to all, while we demobilized them incrementally, and reconstitued a national army made of all ethnic groups.
One of my interpreters was a Kurd who was in the Iraqi army of old. He was a radio man, but they never let him near a weapon. Lots of people in the old army were Kurd or Shia, but placed in unarmed support roles. Giving them guns and some rank, while slowly demobilizing the Sunnis, would have worked out fine. Disbanding the army, and total de-Ba'athification, only served to alienate and scare the Sunnis, who reacted by supporting the insurgency.
The only thing I can see that we can do now is not politically popular.
We need to secure the oil and the borders. Protect the Kurds and send in the CIA to put a dictator in power who is more hostile to Iran than he is to us. Of course that will take sending in more men and increasing the violence done by our guys.
Pulling out now is not an option and waiting for the Iraqi's to embrace western style government is not realistic. There is no good choice now but the lesser of the bad ones is to set up a strong man in power.
Really? When 12 million Iraqis went to the polls to vote, that is an overwhelming majority when the entire population is only 25 million.....doncha think?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.