Interesting perspective on Iraq from a Soldier

[justfishin]

That picture you have of the Greenbrier River reminds me of some of the spots on the Upper Potomac in MD. I live a stones throw from it. What size are the typical smallie on this river? Is the river healthy? It sure looks like a little chunk of smallie heaven.

[Troutfisher]

The Greenbrier is approximatey 3-ft deep, with several deep holes that range to about 10 ft.  The typical smallie is about 12 inches, however, there have been several lunkers pulled out of there.  When I went this past summer, I caught a 3 lb beauty on a live crawdad.  The river is very healthy and maintains a healthy smallie population, as well as a good trout population.  I haven't caught any largemouth in the river, although I know they're there.  When I was canoeing a while back, we drifted over a deep hole, and we saw several BIG fish laying on the bottom...not sure if they were carp or catfish.  The river is about 3 hrs away, but me and my grandpa camp there frequently.  

[justfishin]

Thanks, it looks like it would be a fantastic place for some fly rod action.

[Troutfisher]

No problem...I've been wanting to give my fly rod a run up there, and I'll even bring it, but I'll start off fishing with spinning gear and can't stop.  

[justfishin]

I think a good old fashioned debate is healthy. It is nice to know that we can do it in here in a adult manner. Every year my girlfriend along with five of our friends and their wives go to Chincoteage Island in Virginia a couple of times of year to do some flounder fishing and eat seafood until it comes out of our ears. In the evenings on the deck over a bottle of wine or a couple of beers the guys usually get into a heated debate about some world affair and the girls always think we will never speak again. The next morning we get up joking and laughing getting ready for a day of flounder fishing and the ladies always laugh at us and call us a bunch of idiots. Friends allow friends to have opinions and let it at that.

[Chris]

Kuwait (Sept 20, 1996)

While the confrontation between the United States and Iraq has eased in the past week, the Americans have continued their build up in the Persian Gulf.  More than 30,000 U.S. military personnel will be in the Gulf compared with fewer than 20,000 before the latest crisis in Iraq erupted three weeks ago. Iraq has been using radar to track U.S. aircraft patrolling the "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq, but it has not fired on any planes in the past week. "The bad news is that we have to do it" said Col. Robert Pollard. "Saddam continues to flex his muscles, therefore we have to continue to deploy our forces." Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are the only Gulf states playing host to large numbers of American forces, with several thousands U.S. personnel in each. In Washington, CIA Director John Deutch said the Kurdish faction leader who forged a temporary alliance with Saddam last month to rout a rival Kurdish faction is now seeking U.S. protection. Meanwhile, the exact number of dead and wounded remained in dispute Friday following Wednesday's shelling of a refugee camp in northwest Iran that is full of Iraqi Kurds who fled the recent turmoil. Iran said the camp shelters about 35,000 Iraqi Kurd refugees.

(Saddam) at times his actions seem to defy logic. Why, for instance, did he choose to provoke the United States just when he was about to clinch the oil-for-food deal he'd demanded for so long.

I still have this clip that was sent to me when I was in the middle of all that stuff. The whole thing is 5 pages long I thought it was interesting. To fire on a U.S. aircraft defending a no-fly-zone is an act of war. To take (Saddam's)your troops and move them past the no-fly-zone to Kuwait's boarder is an act of war.

The problem that I see is that your going to have all these different groups gunning for control if we don't have something in place that other groups can't run right over, you might end up with something that is worse than Saddam. That is a fact and we will all be sitting here wondering what to do next. This isn't like a normal war when you can pick up your toys and go home and not worry about things. It doesn't work that way I wish it did. If someone takes over the government that was in place and they say well lets attack the "bad guys" us here we are back in the middle of things. When you hear Iran says death to America, death to Israel guess what he means it. Iran would be the first to try to take over Iraq in my opinion. That is one of the big reasons why there is in influx of insurgents. If a war becomes unpopular then America brings the troops home. The different tribes don't have big army's, planes, missiles, tanks, they just fight among themselves let them hash it out right? We leave and watch Iran who has organized troops, tanks, planes, missiles, turn it into a parking lot. Then what blame America for leaving I can hear it now. The world will have a field day. We will point fingers saying "I told you he had nukes" the world will point fingers "why didn't you do something you where distracted." Iran is the problem or the MAIN problem that needs to be looked at before we decide to just leave.

I have issues and concerns myself but I understand the bigger picture and how bad it can become.

1) What blows my mind is why don't we disarm everybody. That is BS

2) When the troops where told to release someone by the prime minister who was wanted. That was BS

3) when they lifted some of the road blocks and the next day the area was bombed. That was BS

[Troutfisher]

When you hear Iran says death to America, death to Israel guess what he means it. Iran would be the first to try to take over Iraq in my opinion. That is one of the big reasons why there is in influx of insurgents. If a war becomes unpopular then America brings the troops home. The different tribes don't have big army's, planes, missiles, tanks, they just fight among themselves let them hash it out right? We leave and watch Iran who has organized troops, tanks, planes, missiles, turn it into a parking lot. Then what blame America for leaving I can hear it now. The world will have a field day. We will point fingers saying "I told you he had nukes" the world will point fingers "why didn't you do something you where distracted." Iran is the problem or the MAIN problem that needs to be looked at before we decide to just leave.  

Those are very true words.  Y'see, some people don't realize that not only did the United States Military take control of the country, but they also are training soldiers to have a full fledged democracy.  Establishing a country takes a long time, not just get it, get out.  Without the proper training, the Iraqi policemen and militia won't stand a chance against neighboring countries, and all the effort put forth by our soldiers, and those who died in action, would have been in vain.

[Low_Budget_Hooker]

Pull the troops, send a nUke and then gived our homeless jobs excavating oil and we can go back to $1 a gallon.

[Guest avid]

When you hear Iran says death to America, death to Israel guess what he means it. Iran would be the first to try to take over Iraq in my opinion.

Exactly.

And that's why President Bush (the first) chose not to topple Saddam and left him with a sufficient military capablity to defend his country.

Iraq, was never our enemy. He was a secular leader who got carried away with himself and went too far. OK - we smacked him down. Hard. After we bombed him back to the stone age, he was a threat to no one in the region except those Iraqi's who tried to overthrow him.

HE WAS LEFT THERE AS A BUFFER AGAINST IRAN.

They are the militant Islamic fundamentalists who threaten us. After Gulf 1 Sadddam was a toothless blowhard preoccupied with thwarting the plots against him.

General Schwartzkorf's army in Gulf one had defeated the Republic Guard and was within 30 miles of Baghdad with nothing to stop him. He was ordered to stop by a wise president who realized that toppling Saddam would leave us with what we have today. Namely Iraq in chaos and Iran as the regional power.

I think President Bush (the second) got really pizsed off when Saddam stupidly tried to assasinate the senior George Bush.

Going into Iraq was a huge mistake. The next few months as the President and congress work out a new strategy (Hopefully this time they will listen to the joint chiefs) are of historic proportions whose impact will be felt for decades.

It is my fondest wish that wisdom and mutual self interest will prevail over ego's and the national pride of those involved.

This is a very volatile situation.

If you pray, now is a good time.

avid.

[Hookemdown.]

Pull the troops, send a nUke and then gived our homeless jobs excavating oil and we can go back to $1 a gallon.

I'm know who i'm not going to vote for president.....

[Troutfisher]

The president has made it clear that his policy has failed and he will be announcing a new direction in January.

The President has not said that his policy failed, he has not said that Iraq is a disaster, and he has not said that he is going to cut and run in Iraq.

Namely Iraq in chaos

Iraq is not in chaos; the media would have you to believe that, but if you ask a soldier, you'll hear a different story. If the New York Times, Washington Post, and the mainstream media had people stationed in Japan during World War II, they would have had similar headlines, except that it would have been thousands killed a day. In war, you are going to have deaths. Constructing a democracy is hard work, especially when the enemy you are fighting are cowardly enough to hide amidst honest civilians.

[Chris]

Iraq in the beginning was not our enemy.-true

When he pushed his forces down to Kuwait and was trying to take over Kuwait and maybe move into Saudi Arabia then we stepped in. Kuwait, Saudi, asked for help and we helped. Saddam was rather ticked and Iraq became our enemy. I know when I was in the service I have been deployed to the region 3 different times because he was a threat to someone.

He was left there as a buffer against Iran.-true Iran and Iraq have been at war for years.

After Gulf 1 Sadddam was a toothless blowhard preoccupied with thwarting the plots against him.-true but he also threatened countries around him.

General Schwartzkorf's army in Gulf one had defeated the Republic Guard and was within 30 miles of Baghdad with nothing to stop him.  He was ordered to stop by a wise president who realized that toppling Saddam would leave us with what we have today-False he was ordered to stop because of politics. The countries around the region wanted us to stop.

Namely Iraq in chaos and Iran as the regional power.  

I think President Bush (the second) got really pizsed off when Saddam stupidly tried to assasinate the senior George Bush.-maybe but the bigger picture was if they didn't take out Iraq then the problems that we see there would be the same in Afganistan. When we went into Afghanistan insurgents where coming from Iraq.  

[Glenn]

LBH - I know you're kidding around, but some people are new and don't know you.  So.... just so y'all know, LBH is the class clown around here, always cracking jokes and trying to add a little levity to an otherwise serious topic.

*** The preceeding was a public service message.  Now go fish! ***

[Troutfisher]

Get back in that UPS truck, LBH!  ;D  ;D  ;D

[Guest avid]

General Schwartzkorf's army in Gulf one had defeated the Republic Guard and was within 30 miles of Baghdad with nothing to stop him.  He was ordered to stop by a wise president who realized that toppling Saddam would leave us with what we have today-False he was ordered to stop because of politics. The countries around the region wanted us to stop

Of course they wanted us to stop Chris.  They know the region and they knew what would happen.  President Bush the first was wise enough to listen.

If you recall before the presant Gulf war, The Saudi's and other well meaning friends of the USA urged us NOT to go in.

President Bush the second was unwise and did not listen. Hence the current situation.

[Troutfisher]

Oh, yeah, the Saudis are well meaning friends of the U.S. all right.

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/995

[Chris]

They know the region and they knew what would happen.  President Bush the first was wise enough to listen.

If you recall before the present Gulf war, The Saudi's and other well meaning friends of the USA urged us NOT to go in.

You need to understand is that the Saudi's have a bunch of their own terrorist. In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia you have one side that likes the U.S. You have the other side that want the spread of Islam and rejects the U.S. and Israel. Publicly they do not support terrorist, but you still have large companies, and government branches that do. It is a kinda under the table thing. They are playing both sides because they have their own interests. Publicly they gave money to help rebuild Iraq, but I would bet that the amount is nowhere near how much was spent to destroy it. Look at how they are handling the government of Iraq "if you do not support the sueny<sp? population to our liking then Saudi will not support the U.S." That faction is the same faction that makes up the majority tribe in Saudi. Saudi has an agenda so I wouldn't call them a "well meaning friend." Our relationship is a business relationship they needed us to develop their oil and develop the country and they feel that their money can buy influence. They do not have a democratic government nor want one.

[Guest avid]

I completley retract the term "well meaning friend" as applies to Saudi Arabia.  I actually meant that they and other US allies, advised us to stay out.

Believe me, I fully understand that the Saudi's are in the business of protecting thier monarchy and business interests just as we are passionate in our belief in democracy and our thirst for oil.  But whatever their internal politics, they are our allies in the region.  They sell us their oil and they buy our weapons.  

My point is simply, that in Gulf 1 it was in our interest and the interest of the oil rich kingdoms of the region to stop Sadaam, so the kingdoms welcomed our military intervention.

In Gulf 2 the kingdoms understood that it was not in their interest to topple Sadaam and warned us about the dangers of doing so.

We should have listened.

[Chris]

So if Iraq, Iran, and Korea all have nukes, claim to have them, show evidence of having them, or threaten to use nukes on the U.S. and their allies and the rest of the world say don't do anything we should forget about our interests? I think at the time the President was making a strong case that Iraq had nuclear capability and was crazy enough to use them. Regardless if the information was inaccurate based on what was found on the ground after the fact, at the time we thought they did. They did have enough compelling evidence to take action and had both sides of the aisle based on the intel say we need to take action. If Iraq did have the bomb I feel that they would use it without question is it worth the chance?

[Troutfisher]

Better to take chances and settle things with them before they produce nuclear capabilities than after.

[Guest avid]

Chris my friend,  have you forgotten that the so called evidence was non existant and President Bush knew it?  Remember the famous line in the Presidents state of the union address about Sadaam seeking yellow cake (encriched plutonium)?

The cia after reading a draft of his speech advised him to remove the reference because there was no evidence to support it and the source was unreliable?  But he chose to keep say it anyway, IMO because he had decided he wanted to invade Iraq in the hopes of installing a democratic government friendly to the USA.  He KNEW Saddam wasn't trying get nuclear material, because his own CIA told him so.

There are real nuclear or potential nuclear threats to the US out there. N.Korea and Iran are two prime examples.  But Iraq wasn't.

The debate about whether we were justified in invading Iraq is long over.  He didn't have WMD's was not trying to get them, was not in a position to threaten his neighbors, and our regional allies who asked us for help in Gulf one asked us not to invade in Gulf two.

The only real question is now that we are stuck there how do we get out without making things worse.

[senile1]

Avid stated:

Chris my friend,  have you forgotten that the so called evidence was non existant and President Bush knew it?  Remember the famous line in the Presidents state of the union address about Sadaam seeking yellow cake (encriched plutonium)?

The cia after reading a draft of his speech advised him to remove the reference because there was no evidence to support it and the source was unreliable?  But he chose to keep say it anyway, IMO because he had decided he wanted to invade Iraq in the hopes of installing a democratic government friendly to the USA.  He KNEW Saddam wasn't trying get nuclear material, because his own CIA told him so.

It is debates like these which have led me to not trust either party to tell the truth about anything.  The Congressmen and Senators on the armed services committee also knew about the yellow cake and some of them voted in support of going to war in Iraq, including Democrat John Kerry (who of course later changed his mind when he decided to run for President.)  You guys who praise Bush and Republicans need to understand there have been a number of errors in judgement that have been made which have hurt us as a country.  You guys who praise the democrats need to understand that a number of them voted their support for this war and then changed their minds (many doing so just because they knew it was in their interest in order to get elected.)  Geez guys, just about everyone of these people are rich lawyers and most haven't a clue what it is like to live as a common man or woman in this country.   How can you be so hard core in favor of one party over the other.  Wake up!!!!  Money controls the system and both democrats and republicans know it.  They love to keep you arguing amongst yourselves because this insures that they (the very rich of this country) will retain power.  Keep the fundamentals of our system which have proven to be the best form of government, but remove the money and the influence and you correct its flaws.   Then, maybe, a more common person could run for President.  Do you think that all of these wealthy people are going to change the system without a terrific outcry from us about its unfairness?  Of course not.  They like it the way it is.  

Sorry, I know this is off-topic, but Democrats and Republicans have become so polarized in their opinions that this is the greatest threat to America, IMHO.  Read plenty of opinions that go against your own, and read them with an open mind.  You'll find out that your favorites are tainted with corruption as well.  

[Troutfisher]

The debate about whether we were justified in invading Iraq is long over.  He didn't have WMD's was not trying to get them, was not in a position to threaten his neighbors, and our regional allies who asked us for help in Gulf one asked us not to invade in Gulf two.

The U.N. alerted the U.S. of nuclear capabilities that Saddam had.  That is one of the reasons we invaded Iraq.  Perhaps the three day warning we gave them gave them time to hide/destroy any weapons they had?

[Guest avid]

I think I have made my position pretty clear and see no point in continuing the discussion. Others may feel differently and I would be interested in reading fresh opinions like that of Senile1.

I often think that because our military is so outstanding, that it's tempting for our leaders, both democrat and republican to rely on the armed forces to resolve what are essentially political problems.

I know we are all united in wanting to see the Iraq war come to a satisfactory conclusion (whatever that may be) and the terrorists destroyed.  So I'm prepared to focus on what we CAN agree on.

It's Christmas.  Time for Peace on Earth and good will towards men.

I think it's an idea whose time has come.

I wish a happy and peaceful Christmas to all

Sincerely,

avid

[Troutfisher]

 guys who praise Bush and Republicans need to understand there have been a number of errors in judgement that have been made which have hurt us as a country

I have a hard time believing that they have made so much errors.  He certainly did make much better decisions than when Clinton was in office.  Have you not noticed the Economy recently?  All time high?  This "all politicians are corrupt" thing doesn't fly with me.  If politicians are only concerned about money, then this country wouldn't have lasted for centuries like it has.

As for pulling out of the war, yes, now that we have successfully established a country in a place that was once oppressed by the grip of dictatorship, we can begin early plans for leaving the country sometime the end of next year, or even later. Contrary to what the media will have you believe, we are winning the war in Iraq, and the War on Terrorism. No matter what the latte sipping, overpaid brats in Hollywood will have you believe, the true heroes are the United States soldiers. Soldiers who will let you know that we are winning the war we are fighting. President Bush made his decision clear when he said that the U.S. would be invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Unlike a certain President who opted not to go after Saddam when he had the chance (cough * cough Clinton), President Bush stayed the course. Even after being hit with slanderous reports by the mainstream media, and being ridiculed and the such, the President and the U.S. soldiers have not lost their resolve. We should stand behind them and wish them well until the job is done, and they can come home.