Hi Resolution Pics Of Iraqi War

[Alex H]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+1 April 2004 - 03:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 1 April 2004 - 03:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by {I}{K}{E}@31 March 2004 - 16:34
<!--QuoteBegin-Marius24

@31 March 2004 - 22:22
jesus christ&#33; the two of the little boys are really bad


still it now makes me look at the war from a different perspective

thats what I thought some time ago...
If they were only after Saddam they could also send a sniper to take him out..
but no America prefers some giant tanks...

If it were as simple as that than don&#39;t you think that someone would have done that already? If the collation were just to take out one man (Saddam) and leave everything in place it would still be a mess. Even with Saddam gone the power would have gone to one of his sons and they believe are not were worse than he was. This was more than taking out one man, it was about removing a regime. If the regime&#39;s chain of command were to stay in tact than we would accomplish nothing and the terror would continue. [/b][/quote]
No, the new leader would have spent all Iraq&#39;s money removing the statues and pictures of Saddam and replacing them with his own.

Saddam WAS Iraq. When a dictator dies the country falls apart. There is no successor who can talk over because the whole regime is based around that one person.

Stalin died and the USSR spent the next few years trying get their shit together.

Hitler died and we all know what happend to the Nazi regime afterwards.

We could go on with all the African and Asian dictators since them, but history shows us that it is too hard to maintain a regime once the despot who created it dies.

[Barbarossa]

Originally posted by Alex H@1 April 2004 - 06:11

Stalin died and the USSR spent the next few years trying get their shit together.

Hitler died and we all know what happend to the Nazi regime afterwards.

We could go on with all the African and Asian dictators since them, but history shows us that it is too hard to maintain a regime once the despot who created it dies.

What are you talking about?

Hitler shot himself because he knew the game was already up - His country was already being overrun by Allied and Russian tanks at the time..

Stalin died in 1953, and the USSR managed to "struggle" on for nearly 40 years without him..

Dictators have a habit of trying to create ruling dynasties; contrary to popular belief most of them are not stupid and realise that they won&#39;t live forever.

History tells us the complete opposite of what you are saying&#33;

[BigBank_Hank]

Damn barbarossa you beat me to it B)

[Busyman]

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@1 April 2004 - 12:48
Damn barbarossa you beat me to it B)

Me as well.

Saddam had sons, btw. Both were nutjobs.

[Will_518]

Back to the photoes, don&#39;t you people think it&#39;s slightly biased towards the Americans, especially the kids&#39; pictures and the pics of water being given out. if Iraqis really love US soldiers that much they wouldn&#39;t be so eager demonstrating to kick US soldiers out and killing 1 or 2 US soldier everyday even now.

Despite what people might think, they don&#39;t kill people for fun you know, (Unlike the US soldiers who like to shot at the british and fire missiles at their own side, and pull grenades inside the barracks for fun). They obviously don&#39;t like US soldiers on their soil and US generals running their country, so if we support democracy so much why don&#39;t we pull out?

[BigBank_Hank]

The percentage that try to kill coalition forces is small, the majority of the Iraqi people are very glad that coalition forces are there and have freed them from Saddam. There are small pockets of resistance hiding and pop out behind bushes fire a rocket and run away, this makes it very hard to track them down and deal with. The main problem that we are having now is in the Fallujah area. That seems to be where most of the trouble makers are at and is where the last attack on U.S. forces took place. If this doesn&#39;t get taken care of soon it will start to spread to other small villages and get worse.

They obviously don&#39;t like US soldiers on their soil and US generals running their country, so if we support democracy so much why don&#39;t we pull out?

If coalition forces were to do that than who would they turn the power over to? No Iraqi government,police force, or military is ready to be handed over yet. If they pulled out right now and just left everything like it is it would be an absolute disaster. With no government,police, or military the country would be in chaos and the rest of the world would cry and say that they left the country before the job was done. The young men and women of the military are eager to come home and they don&#39;t want to stay longer than they have to, but they have to stay until the job is done, or we will effective will have accomplished nothing.

[Biggles]

Iraq will take a long time to resolve. I personally was not convinced that all-out war was the best long term solution (either for the Iraqis or ourselves), but it is done now.

It will cost many more lives and billions of dollars to put right. However, I do agree that to pull out now would just make matters worse and civil war all but inevitable. It would add inquity to what was only a folly.

The Iraqis don&#39;t like having us there, that much is obvious, The number of rejoicing people on the streets of Falujah drive that point home rather unpleasantly.

Even in the oppressed South, the people are getting fed up with British troops and major conflicts are arising out of trivial events. This is perhaps understandable, no one wants foreign troops running their country for years. Neither are they too keen on 70% unemployment. We went in prepared to win a war not run a country - (which is why I refer to it as a folly). It was a half baked idea.

[BigBank_Hank]

I think that the major folly as you put it is not having Iraqi&#39;s handle some of the tasks that need to be done. How else are the supposed to learn to run the country if we don&#39;t let them do some of the work themselves.

Fallujah is a good example where we could let Iraqi&#39;s handle the situation. That seems to be a real hot spot for violence and it needs to be taken care of if we want the attacks to stop. I think that sending in Iraqi&#39;s in with some Marine backup would be the best solution.

[Biggles]

Hank

Which Iraqis? Kurds? Shi&#39;ites?

We may find Sunni&#39;s a bit thin on the ground to support us on this. However, to send in either of the other two is to court civil war.

The Iraqis had a fully functioning adminstration and security service. We did not have to destroy all of it to take control we simply chose to do so. The situation in Iraq is called a liberation but this only works if it seen as such by the population at large. In Italy in 1944 a British or American soldier could walk unarmed into an Italian village and be quite safe even though German troops might only be 30 miles away on the other side of the front line - this would extremely unadvisable in Iraq (even in the relatively safe South or North).

[BigBank_Hank]

I agree that it is a touchy situation to say the least but its time to take care of this problem before it worsens. Americans at home are getting tired of seeing their sons and daughters blood run in the streets. These attacks have to stop and stop soon, this will be and incredibly difficult task to achieve but it must be done.