Yet another reason . . .

I don’t really have much of a comment, except to say: “don’t believe everything you hear.”

um, i dont really know how to respond. that doesnt really seem like news to me. imo,

1. any idiot could have predicted that there would be post-war turmoil in Iraq
2. that the US predicted more favorable conditions could have been a number of things (for starters, remember that any combination of “great minds” has the potential to seem idiotic.
3. they could simply have been lying in their predictions, or held different opinions, to gain more public support

While I agree with D:S, it’s also entirely possible that they “failed to predict the future.” That’s what they’re paid for, but it’s not easy to do.

They should have asked me about what would happen in Iraq,Iknew it all along.The skills I have picked up from playing A&A might come in handy.lol.Just kidding.But seriously,playing this game all these years has given me a lot of insight about what went on in WW2 and whats going on today.

Really. IN what way?

1)They expected a longer fight.
2)They expected the Iraqi’s to fight(and die.)
3)They did’t expect to have from 10,000 to 20,000 of Saddam’s special forces melt into the night to play “wack-a-soldier.”
4)They didn’t expect a contant flow of Muslims to sneak across the borders to launch attacks(I’ll blame the Administration for that, though they did expect Al Qaida and did get some nibbles there.)

Wasn’t the old saying “Plans change on contact with the enemy”?

We don’t really know the truth of what is happening there since we are not there.

As I’ve said in other post in other threads…I have friends serving there now.

They tell me they have power running to parts of Iraq that never had power before. The power in Baghdad and Tikrit is hard to keep running because that is where most of the attacks are(95%. Most of the attacks are all on one street[80%]).

My friends tell me that the Kurds and Shi’ites are happy we are there and want us to stay until they can handle it. It’s the Sunni minority, mostly in the Baghdad triangle(where the news agencies take all their polls), that don’t like us there.

I love some of the poll results I heard…
They don’t like us there.
But they don’t want us to leave(dead in many ways if we do leave.)
Things are worse there than before the war(DUH!!)
Their lives will be better in 5 years.

And then there’s congress…
How much will it cost?(Ask FDR[WWII].)
How long will it take?(Ask FDR[WWII] and Bill Clinton[Yugoslavia & Kosovo.]) NOTE: We are still there.

It will take time, though Iraq will be a much better country in the end. Heck, it’s already a much better country right now. The terrorist know this, and they’re trying to do everything in their power to stop it.

people really anger me talking about how we should leave iraq and stop the rebuilding effort.

we helped rebuild japan and germany after WWII and now they are major economic players nad allies

@dropkickjake:

people really anger me talking about how we should leave iraq and stop the rebuilding effort.

we helped rebuild japan and germany after WWII and now they are major economic players nad allies

yes we rebuilt them but in Japan we killed untold, innocent millions in bombings even unrelated to A-bombing… in Germany, during WW1 we blockaded them for 2-3 months after the war because of “hostilities” and killed 12,000 children due to starvation… we also killed more children by putting sanctions on Iraq then Saddam and Mesivoloc (wrong spelling :roll: … the Balkans chap…) and Russia’s first Democratic president (another M-name killer :P …) combined between 1991-2003… we probably should be(I’m being serious. Not Fesicsious…) in Iraq for some reasons but the WW2 comparison isn’t exactly fair… and we really owe them (Iraq) alot for what we did…

in Germany, during WW1 we blockaded them for 2-3 months after the war because of “hostilities” and killed 12,000 children due to starvation…

AFAIK that was the work of the UK navy after the war, not the US. Also, they were forcing the Germanys into accepting the peace treaty.

yes we rebuilt them but in Japan we killed untold, innocent millions in bombings even unrelated to A-bombing…

The Allies (including US) did the same to Germany, I don’t see the point you’re trying to make.

also killed more children by putting sanctions on Iraq then Saddam and Mesivoloc (wrong spelling … the Balkans chap…)

False. THis had more to do with Saddam starving those he considering the “opposition,” like various ethnic groups. Money for food from the OFF program instead were used by Saddam to rebuilt his army and create more palaces.

u say that we owe iraq a lot, and yet that we shouldnt be there….

u seem to be contradicting yourself here…

true both of you saw flaws in my writing… yes Germany did get bombed, but Japan was hit more as far as losses(Both could be chosen for the arguement)… Yeah and we supported the British in there blockade! why didn’t stop them… wether saddam killed them or not we could have looked more like the “good guys” by supporting the people at least trying to put aid into the country… True Saddam killed thousands but some died instead of being shot that were not starved by him, instead there was no economy…

true both of you saw flaws in my writing… yes Germany did get bombed, but Japan was hit more as far as losses(Both could be chosen for the arguement)…

The bombing of war factories was necessary to win the war, it is unfortunate that the civilians got caught in the crossfire. Also, there can be a point said that the bombings lowered morale and led to less loss of life (as the A-bombs did)

Well, the US has a responsibility to finish cleaning this mess that they generated. Yes, the posibility exists for a democratc gov’t blah blah blah, but really, they attacked a sovereign nation with out appropriate provacation, and they continue to murder Iraqi civilians.

Continue to murder Iraqi civilians? Where is proof of this? As for appropriate provacation, then I guess US shouldn’t have gone into Liberia, Kosovo, ect.

Yeah and we supported the British in there blockade! why didn’t stop them….

There is a difference between support and intervention…

True Saddam killed thousands but some died instead of being shot that were not starved by him, instead there was no economy….

Sorry this makes no sense whatsoever.

another words the GNP of Iraq was crippled because of the sanctions and therefore price were high for and some people couldn’t buy anything…yes Saddam, but some were related to the fact that there was sanctions… your comment about loss of life doesn’t makes sense cause that’s what I said!!! Thanks for beating me up :cry: :evil: :wink: !!! Ha, but in my own mind I’m right so what does it matter… :D

another words the GNP of Iraq was crippled because of the sanctions and therefore price were high for and some people couldn’t buy anything…yes Saddam, but some were related to the fact that there was sanctions…

No, it is fault of Saddam. Those sanctions could’ve been lifted, but instead Saddam chose not to adhere to the policy of the UN. No shooting at US planes over the no-fly zone, not allowing weapons inspectors, ect.

your comment about loss of life doesn’t makes sense cause that’s what I said!!!

What loss of life are you talking about now?

@TG:

another words the GNP of Iraq was crippled because of the sanctions and therefore price were high for and some people couldn’t buy anything…yes Saddam, but some were related to the fact that there was sanctions…

No, it is fault of Saddam. Those sanctions could’ve been lifted, but instead Saddam chose not to adhere to the policy of the UN. No shooting at US planes over the no-fly zone, not allowing weapons inspectors, ect.

your comment about loss of life doesn’t makes sense cause that’s what I said!!!

What loss of life are you talking about now?

the Civilians lost…
yes I’ve already said Saddam was bad and caused innocent murder… but the US and UN were not angels either…
but never mind you win the arguement… :wink:

Mind if i add and correct a few things?

@TG:

The bombing of war factories was necessary to win the war, it is unfortunate that the civilians got caught in the crossfire. Also, there can be a point said that the bombings lowered morale and led to less loss of life (as the A-bombs did)

Well…… TG, pardon my harsh words, but this is BS.

“unfortunate civilians” … do you mean: 600,000 civilians of 161 cities and 800 villages, 75,000 unfortunate children and 78,000 unfortunate slave-workers.
And do you think you would call amied strikes at factories then an “area saturation doctrine” ?? With incendiary attacks from 28/03/42 (Luebeck … has a baltic port) over the 1000-bomber-raid on Cologne on the 31/05/42, Essen (a valid target though, with a big steel producing industry) three days later …
having dropped more than 100,000 tons by late may 1943, being proud of “wiping off the map” half of a city (Wuppertal, 29/05/43, btw what is now a suburb of Wuppertal was hit not month after that).
And then such things as “Operation Gomorrah” being called “the probably the most complete blotting out of a city that ever happened” by UK Air Ministry.
And these are the understandable attacks, as the war was still raging high at that point.

But … Dresden? Swinemuende (a refugee port!) ? Two new “single target” bomb record in march 45 (with 4.660 tons on the 11th onto Essen, and 4.800 tons on the 12th in Dortmund), Bombing the ruins of Hamburg again on the 21/03/45, attacking Hildesheim two days later (anyone of you knows where Hildesheim is, and what kind of military or strategical importance it could have??) More than 1000 bombers attacking Berlin on the 10/04/45 ?

It was not at all crossfire, but deliberate slaughter on civilians .

For the “less loss of life” …. mind you … [sarcasm] then the few thousands killed in the twin tower attack must be proud that they saved so many other lives. [/sarcasm]

@TG:

No, it is fault of Saddam. Those sanctions could’ve been lifted, but instead Saddam chose not to adhere to the policy of the UN. No shooting at US planes over the no-fly zone, not allowing weapons inspectors, ect.

What has the no-fly-zone to do with the UN? That was a totally illegal thing set up by the US. So… they defended themselves there against illegal intruders.
You are right with the weapon inspectors though.

For the mentioning of WWI, and the notion of “cleaning up the mess they created” … it would have been nice, if the US had defended their peace proposal much more, and not withdrawn and given in some demand sof the French and British after WWI. Could have saved the world from a lot of later trouble.

the above was me

Falk