What went wrong and what went right with Iraq?

Iraq Forum

I would like to get your opinion on what went wrong in Iraq, what went right in Irag and what you believe is the solution to Iraq.

I don't want you to use this as a I hate Bush and America is evil platform. Instead handle it like a third party. As someone who looks at everything from the start until now and come up with an intelligent response. Realize that what happened happened. Some of you have been here from the beginning and have followed everthing. If you haven't been here from the beginning I encourage you to go back to the beginning threads of this forum and get caught up.

I'll start by asking a few questions.

1. Why did America go into Iraq in the first place? Was it the right thing to do?

2. Saddam threatened to use WMD against the Coalition. Did Saddam know that he didn't have WMD?

3. Just about all countries in the UNSC thought Iraq had WMD. Why? Who got it right and who got it wrong?

4. Should we have left Saddam in power and why?

5. There have always been Sunni's, Shi ite's, Kurds and Christians in Iraqi how did Saddam keep them from killing each other? Would that work today?

6. Where are they getting their weapons/bombs to kill each other?

7. How do we stop them, or should we stop them?

8. Some say that the initial war ended and we are in a different war. What happen?

9. Who is the Coalition fighting now? Would the fighting stop if we left?

10. If you were in charge of the Coalition what would you do.

11. If you were President of Iraq what would you do?

12. If you were President of the US or PM of Great Britain what would you do?

13. What should Iraq's neighbors do, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, Syria?

14. Anything else that you want to interject including any questions you may have?

15. How does this end?

Don't feel like you have to answer everything in one post and you don't have to number your answers.

I don't think an actual Police State by it's definition is the answer. And I think that the militias are too organized and have too many weapons for it to be handled by any police.

Personally I do think that there is a Civil War going on there and I don't think that us being there has all that much to do with it. Iraq was on the brink of Civil War for many years prior to us going in. Except now with Saddam and his henchmen out of the way they now feel that the time is right. If you remember during the 80's and 90's expecially the 90's the only thing that prevented the Shi ite's from attacking Saddam was the U.S. or lack of backing by the U.S.

If you remember the Shi'ites rose up against Saddam and were defeated. They were expecting help from the U.S. promised by Bush 41. However (either during Clinton or our Democratic Congresss during Bush 41) prevented the U.S. from helping the Shi'ites and after that they didn't trust the U.S. to keep it's promises.

1. Why did America go into Iraq in the first place? Was it the right thing to do?
a. Oil, Oil and Oil, and to have a foot hold in the region, a clear massage to all governors of the middle east that Big brother is here. Here we see success in achieving the above. Don’t tell me that the oil prices had gone sky high, I know and you should also know who is gaining the profits..
b. Secure Israel and provide all the means to the peace process. So far we had seen clearly the stand of all Arab leaders accept Basher Al Asad of Syria towards the war between Hizbullah and Israel.

2. Saddam threatened to use WMD against the Coalition. Did Saddam know that he didn't have WMD?
a. Yes he knows that he don’t have WMD, he was gambling on that paper (the fear of he might have WMD), although he clearly said in TV interviews that he dose not have WMD.

3. Just about all countries in the UNSC thought Iraq had WMD. Why? Who got it right and who got it wrong?
a. What would be the reason to justify a war in Iraq other than the existence of WMD?
b. Who put this idea on the table?? USA and Britain, why?? See above.

4. Should we have left Saddam in power and why?
a. Although I am so grateful for the removal of Saddam, but he was no threat to the USA, yes he played mouse and cat every now and then but he was not going to do any thing, the army was at its lowest and the masses were so tired of the embargo which was imposed on the ordinary people of Iraq and not on Saddam and his cronies who are fighting for him now.
b. Apparently saddam was in defiance to the American policies, just like Hugo shafeez and such people should not exist (that’s what American rulers think) so leaving him in power will encourage others to stand up and say NO to the American policies, an example must be set up and he was picked up. Thank you America.

5. There have always been Sunni's, Shi ite's, Kurds and Christians in Iraqi how did Saddam keep them from killing each other? Would that work today?
a. For ordinary people there was no problem at all, for example, my grand father is a shiat, my grand mother was a Sunni Kurd 9from my father’s side) my grand father was a shiat and my grandmother was a Sunni Arab, my father-in-law is a shiat and my mother-in-law is a Sunni Kurd, my best friends were Christians and I go to pray in a mosque and in a church. Both for me represent a house of god and god is one.
b. Saddam was by himself a problem that nothing else matters.
c. Shiat and Sunnis are fighting now, reasons?? Someone is igniting and fuelling this fight. Who? Americans of course Why? So that every one says America must stay and protect!! Hah got it??

6. Where are they getting their weapons/bombs to kill each other?
a. In Iraq you can find a weapon easiest than finding a piece of bread. Beside what is the roll of our brothers in Iran, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia? Aren’t they supplying fighters and weapons?
b. The Americans intentionally left the Iraqi army weapon stokes unguarded after the invasion, I pointed this out in one of my earliest discussions here on this forum and some one thought I was joking, I was not.

7. How do we stop them, or should we stop them?
a. Too late, the jinny (Goblin) is out of the bottle.

8. Some say that the initial war ended and we are in a different war. What happen?
a. The Americans went in, without a plan to what is next, they thought priority is to defeat the Iraqi army and topple Saddam, the fact was there were no Iraqi army and Saddam was on the verge of falling by him self.
b. For not planning for stage 2 it resulted into what we have now.
c. If the American were sincere in their acts they would have won the hearts of Iraqis instead getting their hatred, for three years now, where is the infrastructure of Iraq (mind you it was all destroyed in the 1991 war and the 2003 war) by whom?? I leave the answer to you. Power, drinking water, sewer, health, education, communication…..etc all gone and no one thought of the needs of the people.

9. Who is the Coalition fighting now? Would the fighting stop if we left?
a. Every one and the fighting will not stop if the Americans left Iraq.

10. If you were in charge of the Coalition what would you do.
a. The same they are doing right now “clueless”.

11. If you were President of Iraq what would you do?
a. Nothing he have no powers, he have no security forces to support him, he have no allies who would support him without recalculating profit and losses
12. If you were President of the US or PM of Great Britain what would you do?
a. Keep lying to the people until my term is finished then I go and enjoy life with all the money I made out of this war.

13. What should Iraq's neighbours do, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, Syria?
a. Leave Iraq for Iraqis to settle their differences.

14. Anything else that you want to interject including any questions you may have?
a. No

15. How does this end?
a. The break up of Iraq



Regards

Since WMD has become the pivot point in the overall argument, I think it would be helpful if someone could post a list of all the well-credentialed individuals and organizations who stated that Iraq had WMD during the years leading up to the Iraq invasion. Otherwise people might get the impression that Bush was the only one who made the mistake.

You really can't say what people knew at that time. Only what is known now. It's evident that the intel was flawed or wrong from all sources. But it took years after being there enmass before coming to that conclusion.

just noted that I am
Registered on 03-02-2004 (1000 Days) today

My wife had an interesting idea, she said we should send an all women military to Iraq. Tell them that we have sent our women to solve the problem since their men can't seem get along.

have you seen this??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT1I95dqrAY

this is another example of what role Jordan is playing in Iraq, the king is sitting with the chief of terrorests in Iraq
http://www.petra.gov.jo/nepras/2006/Nov/27/17277I.jpg

if you need to know whos is hareth Al dahree then please read
Profile: Dr Harith Sulayman al-Dhari

He was born in Baghdad in 1941. He earned his first degree in Sharia in 1967 from al-Azhar Islamic University in Cairo.

He belongs to al-Dhari clan, who live in Khan Dhari, about 25 miles west of Baghdad. He is a descendant of Shaikh Dhari who became a national hero when he managed to kill a colonial British officer, Colonel Gerard Leachman in 1920, triggering a massive revolution against the British occupation of Iraq.

He earned post-graduate degrees in Sharia and Hadith (sayings of prophet Muhammad). He lectured in several Arab universities before returning to his home country after the US-led occupation of Iraq in 2003.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1740926/posts

what if some one doing it to your car? will you still hahaha?

These idiots had no right to waht they did ikt is an absolute abuse of the power they have, they should have been severly discplined by thier superior officers but I doubt that will happen any time soom.

I disagree with everything you said and feel you didn't make any good points to back your beliefs, but anyway that is neither here nor there. What I find to be interesting if not extremely comical is what you say here.

What does one have to do with the other?

If the U.S. up and leaves tomorrow, AQ will come out of their caves and holes then celebrate. Same thing when/if the U.S. leaves in a year or five years.

-HECK!

Do you have any evidence that Sadamm and AL Queda were in some way linked? Seems fuuny that they would be linked when Sadamm warned Al Queda to stay out of Ireaq on numerous occasions and when you consider that the objecyives of AL Queda are a million miles from the objectives of Sadamm.

As for waht was said about if the US leaves Iraq then there would be a terror attack, well if that did happen it would only be coincidence, the type of attacks that Al Queda plan and execute takes years from plannig to attack.

How about that trail-blazing Iraq study group? Can anybody think of a less decisive course of action than their recommendation of a very, very gradual withdrawal?

I think they ought to study a little more.

Sounds like more Dubya Smear 'N Fear. "But if we leave Eye-raq now paw, we'll get hit by dem der aero-planes, drrrrrrr."

I had no idea prolonged conflict and creating a civil war in Iraq was the only thing keeping more terrorist attacks from happening on our soil.

What about the attacks by terrorists on our troops every single day. Americans are still dying at the hands of these AQ terrorists- er, insurgents.

-HECK!

I think the attitude about this war is affecting the general perception of it, which is slowly beginning to affect the outcome. So many people bleed pure hatred for Bush because they've been convinced they aught to. I see so much blind hate that I can't imagine how it's possible some of these people form an actual independent rational thought in their own head.

I think every moment of this war, just like in life, is an opportunity. And we have an opportunity to change the world for the better, if only the world could overcome it's pessimism and hatred.

Curley Joe? Who's that?

Man he disappeared after Nov 7th like Jimmy Hoffa.

You mean like the "fear n smear" campaign the republicans pulled in 2004 and tried again in 2006 one time to many?

Hey, there's still a butt-for-brains in the big seat making the big decision. Dem's might not have all the right answers but they would be hard pressed to screw the pooch as bad as their republican counterparts.

-HECK!

Problem is Dem's don't have any answers. Oh wait yeah just one Cut-N-Run!

If Al Qaeda is in Iraq let's keep them there. I'd rather them going after our brave heavely armed men and women in the military there then come here and attack people unot expecting it.

I hear that arguemnt a lot but the facts show diffrent. Ok we are fighting Al Queda in Iraq but the UK was fighting Al Queda in Iraq and still got hit, Spain was fighting Al Queda in Iraq and still got hit. We heard aily stories of thwarted terror attacks in the US and UK. So it's not like fighting them in Iraq has lessened thier ability to kill us over here has it.

So leave Al Qaeda there with you all to deal with by yourself. Is that what you want asantana?

And lodgebo, yeah you have your own brand of Al Qaeda that you need to get a handle on. And yes we have Al Qaeda here in the US I would suspect.

Now maybe you all are starting to see the light. Al Qaeda is a much bigger problem then what people think. They have their tenticales in many places and it will only continue to spread.

Sure I don't want to see our guys going to Iraq or Afghanistan to deal with this problem but the further it spreads the harder the problem gets.

I think a solution for Iraq is employement. If all those people were working then they wouldn't have time to fight.

Look, Al Qaeda started in the late 1980's. Long before Bush got involved. Bin Laden declared war on the United States in 1998 (I think it was) Long before Bush got involved and long before we went into Iraq. Many say that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq prior to the war. So we had Al Qaeda in the U.S., England, Germany, other parts of Europe, Afghanistan, Africa, East Asia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and many other countries yet decided not to go to Iraq? Surely you can't believe that?????

Al Qaeda is no longer about Bin Laden. Hell he's probably dead. No one has seen or heard from him in about 8 or 10 months. Bin Laden isn't pulling the strings anymore. Getting him will do NOTHING!!!

In fact if I was President I would drop the reward for Bin Laden to $0. Which will make a statement that He isn't worth anything anymore and that we believe that he is no longer in charge.

Just my opinion!

Edward Teach
your good old man (Bush), started it and he dont know how to finish it, in fact it finished him.
al Qaida was not active in Iraq but in Afganistan, funded by your goverment to fight the russians. Iraq had nothing to do with al qaeda but the huge mistake of your oldman is the source of all troubles. thats why no one likes him and he dont even have the support of his own people

No matter how bad some necon's want it to be true, Iraq & Saddam had nothing to do with AQ and 9/11. Sorry

-HECK!

EDwars where dop you stand on the UK and US commisons that found there was no link to Al Quedia and Sadamm?

Aside from Al Qaeda, what about Terrorism in general which was the initial question.

Oh and here are some Iraqi/Saddam terrorism history.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/834528/posts

What about the 2005 Senate report?

Well of course we are talking about thesecond senbate rpeort in to pre war intellignece and to my recollection the reports contained the following findings:

1. No formal link between Sadamm and Al Quieda exsisted
2. There was contact between Iraqi officila and AL Quedia leaders but they did add up to a formal relationshsip
3.That the Iraqi leadership did not turn a blind eyeor harbour Al Quedia officials
4.Iraq and Al Queida were idealogically poles apart
5. Sadamm was distrustfull of Al Quieda and all islamic extremists as they may have been a threat to his regime and as such any request for support were rekected.
6.The Iraq regime had repeatedly rejected Al Quieda requests for meetings
7.There was to much innaccurate information given and used that was supplied by anti Sadamm groups in the lead up to the war.

The findings of this report are the same as the 9/11 commiosn report and also a UK report carried out for the Government it also agrees with view put forward by the UN and the EU .

Forgive me if I've been misinformed, but wasn't it 13 Saudi Arabians who slammed those aeroplanes into the Trade Centre buildings? Ergo, shouldn't the US government have aimed its duplicitous invasion at Saudi Arabia and not Iraq? But we know why Saudi Arabia wasn't attacked, don't we? Because the US and Saudis governments are in each others' pockets. The maths is pretty simple, just like the current head of the US regime.

Preston

You would think so.

Also, remeber that guy, the head of the terror group that did this attack. It wasn't Saddam... his name was Osama something. Hmmm, too bad he's not a priority to capture.

-HECK!

Read it. Live it. Know it.

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004 ; Page A01

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

The finding challenges a belief held by large numbers of Americans about al Qaeda's ties to Hussein. According to a Harris poll in late April, a plurality of Americans, 49 percent to 36 percent, believe "clear evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found."

As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." Bush, asked on Tuesday to verify or qualify that claim, defended it by pointing to Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has taken credit for a wave of attacks in Iraq.

Bush's Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), sought to profit from the commission's finding. "The administration misled America, and the administration reached too far," Kerry told Michigan Public Radio. "I believe that the 9/11 report, the early evidence, is that they're going to indicate that we didn't have the kind of terrorists links that this administration was asserting. I think that's a very, very serious finding."

A Bush campaign spokesman countered that Kerry himself has said Hussein "supported and harbored terrorist groups." And Cheney's spokesman pointed to a 2002 letter written by CIA Director George J. Tenet stating that "we have solid repor