What should we really do with Iraq...?

[Joeychgo]

Ive been thinking about this lately - and there are some things that I jsut dont understand.

For example...

If we just follow GW's plan - when can we expect to declare victory?

By that I mean - what events have to happen to accomplish that?

A few things occur to me...

First, We accomplished regime change. Saddam is gone. A new government is in place.

Now, the reason for still being at war seem to have changed.

Are we -- protecting the Iraq government from outside influence? ie. Iran

or

Are we -- in the middle of a civil war and trying to keep it from either getting worse or actually becoming a more traditional civil war?

If its not one or both of those -- then - what are we doing?

I think this is the issue the american people are having the hardest time with. I know its a dem talking point, and I dont mean to be using it. But, what will victory look like? Put a different way - what has to happen for us to be able to say, we won, bring our soldiers home?

Ok - that question aside. I have been asking myself - what should we be doing now / next.

Well, short answer is, I have no clue.

I dont think we have enough troops to really effect ongoing security in Iraq. And I dot think we could really assemble much more in the way of troops to send there. Many of the troops we have there now have been there much longer then they anticipated / were promised.

On the other hand, if we just leave, then we will likely face an Iraq that would be worse then before. I think if we just left tomorrow, Iraq would just become a satallite Iranian state.

Proverbial rock and a hard place.

 

[Joeychgo]

Wow - no responses --

 

[mespock]

I hear you Joey... I can't see by leaving Iraq that we have lost... I thought that we won when we got rid of Saddam. We did what they said they would do...

Now we are just protecting our interests that we don't own...

 

[MERIJONS97LSC]

Ive been thinking about this lately - and there are some things that I jsut dont understand.

For example...

If we just follow GW's plan - when can we expect to declare victory?

By that I mean - what events have to happen to accomplish that?

A few things occur to me...

First, We accomplished regime change. Saddam is gone. A new government is in place.

Now, the reason for still being at war seem to have changed.

Are we -- protecting the Iraq government from outside influence? ie. Iran

or

Are we -- in the middle of a civil war and trying to keep it from either getting worse or actually becoming a more traditional civil war?

If its not one or both of those -- then - what are we doing?

I think this is the issue the american people are having the hardest time with. I know its a dem talking point, and I dont mean to be using it. But, what will victory look like? Put a different way - what has to happen for us to be able to say, we won, bring our soldiers home?

Ok - that question aside. I have been asking myself - what should we be doing now / next.

Well, short answer is, I have no clue.

I dont think we have enough troops to really effect ongoing security in Iraq. And I dot think we could really assemble much more in the way of troops to send there. Many of the troops we have there now have been there much longer then they anticipated / were promised.

On the other hand, if we just leave, then we will likely face an Iraq that would be worse then before. I think if we just left tomorrow, Iraq would just become a satallite Iranian state.

Proverbial rock and a hard place.

i am a vet from nam 1969-1970 our country was in that war for over ten year...it was a waste of over 60,000 young mens lives and countless numbers of wounded...when we left nam, it took the the north and vc less than a week to take over the south..if the people don't care about their country or being FREE it makes no differents how long our military stay.
i say pull out of irag now!!!

 

[Calabrio]

Proverbial rock and a hard place.

Yes. In order to discuss this issue, it is absolutely crucial that you put partisanship aside. And you have to realize a few basic truths.

1. There was uniform support for the action when it started.
2. There had been overwhelming and conclusive evidence in place to justify the war for over a decade.
3. That there were significant mistakes made at all levels of government throughout the entire conflict.

Bush lied, it's a war for oil, and all that other stuff is bullcrap. And by repeating it, it becomes impossible to honestly discuss what has happened.

The intelligence on Iraq before the war was not accurate and incomplete. Even in the minutes before the war started, the military was plagued by bad ground intelligence. Remember the air strikes attempting to get Saddam that eliminated the opportunity for a sneak attack. Based on bad intelligence.

McCain made a statement in his Presidential announcement today that is especially relevant:

America should never undertake a war unless we are prepared to do everything necessary to succeed, unless we have a realistic and comprehensive plan for success, and unless all relevant agencies of government are committed to that success.

Fault is abundant. The Bush team were much to optimistic in their design, and not forceful enough with the Democrats to secure funding and troop size. The Democrats are horribly negligent and liable for committing troops while having no long term interest in success, and staking their political future in failure.

There are profound lessons to be learned here. It's horribly callous to say this, but in a historical sense, the losses are modest. As mentioned, there were 58k American causalities in the Vietnam. And we, as a nation, are going to face similar, probably greater, challenges in the coming future, so it's important that we learn from the experience.

To leave now puts us at great risk. It further destabilizes the region, threatening to throw the entire thing into war. An abrupt pull-out is in defiance of every basic rule associated with foreign policy. Anyone who thinks that is an option, or that it will save lives, maybe well intentioned, but ignorant.

Repeatedly it has been stated, a political solution needs to be reached. The government of Iraqi needs to be functioning. Not perfectly. And violence isn't going to end. But some uniform semblance of stability needs to be achieved. The birth of a nation is a messy and violent process, if you don't believe me, you can even look at the history of this country.

Announcing a pull out BEFORE the troop surge is complete is a political gesture designed to appeal to weak minded, short-attention spanned American voters.

Having authorized the military action, sending troops in, investing lives,time, and equipment, now is not the time to pull the plug. Now is the time to do a major push and correct the mistakes of the pass. Increase troops, increase funds, and increase the use of force (and maybe a media black-out for a little while).

 

[MAC1]

i am a vet from nam 1969-1970 our country was in that war for over ten year...it was a waste of over 60,000 young mens lives and countless numbers of wounded...when we left nam, it took the the north and vc less than a week to take over the south..if the people don't care about their country or being FREE it makes no differents how long our military stay.
i say pull out of irag now!!!

After the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam, Pol Pot massacred about 2 million people. Similarly, should the U.S. leave Iraq, tens of thousands of Iraqis would likely be killed as a result of terrorism and sectarian violence. It's not as simple as pulling out and letting Iraqis fend for themselves since the prospects of all out civil war looms over innocent people should the U.S. leave. Little by little the Iraqi military should be able to take over.

 

[Eliot_Ness_Ls]

Now guys Im no politition nor do I speak to much politics.

I dont think there is much we can do besides what we are doing now, dealing with it. If you start to withdrawl at one point remainding troops will be left voulnerable and attacked eventualy anyway. What happens when we get attacked? We go to war, conflict is iminant with Iraq untill we completly leave alltogether. What some people dont understand even tho its told time and time again is we are not dealing with a small country, we are dealing with the Muslim radicals all over the world.

With out the worlds suport, this conflict will not end if we stay and try to clean up further. But at the same time it almost seems we have no choice but to have to stay till the end as much as it sucks.

This is a hostile part of the world no matter how you look at it, eventualy things wil go corrupt again no matter how its delt with now.

 

[MERIJONS97LSC]

After the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam, Pol Pot massacred about 2 million people. Similarly, should the U.S. leave Iraq, tens of thousands of Iraqis would likely be killed as a result of terrorism and sectarian violence. It's not as simple as pulling out and letting Iraqis fend for themselves since the prospects of all out civil war looms over innocent people should the U.S. leave. Little by little the Iraqi military should be able to take over.

they had enough time!
do you see how many iraqis are being killed by road side bombs now?
what terrorist group will kill thousands of iraqis after we leave that their not killing now?..if there is a civil war looming, our presents there is only prolonging the inevitable.

 

[Calabrio]

they had enough time!
do you see how many iraqis are being killed by road side bombs now?
what terrorist group will kill thousands of iraqis after we leave that their not killing now?..if there is a civil war looming, our presents there is only prolonging the inevitable.

Here's the first problem with what your saying, our actions aren't in a vacuum. If the only consequences were to befall the Iraqi people, the situation would be different. The problem is, a retreat on the part of the U.S. will have consequences that dramatically affect US as well.

In addition to the continues loss of prestige and reinforcing the notion that the U.S. is a paper tiger with no will and who can be defeated simply through the media and some photo-ops, AGAIN, there will be other consequences.

Those eager to attack the U.S. will be embolden. The country would likely descend into madness. Unlike now, where you're dealing with pockets of violence. The Kurds in the North may likely move for independence, thus motivating the Turkish Southern Kurd population to do the same, and then the inevitable response from the Turkish government. The same may happen in Iran. Iran will continue to influence the substantial Shiite populations in Iraq. The Saudi's, fearful of this, will then increase their funding of the Sunni populations, and possibly even commit troops. Now we have a defacto war between Iran and Saudi Arabia in Iraq. And if that doesn't happen, then we'll end up with a terrorist Shi'ite state, aligned with Iran, funded by Iraqi oil.

This is one of those things that can spiral out of control.

There are a couple acceptable outcomes possible, but they are extremely unlikely. But even those solutions end with $6+/gal gas and profoundly dangerous long term threats.

Vietnam wasn't "lost" because of the politicians and the media who deceived the public. We can't allow Iraq to be a loss for those same reasons.

 

[eastcoastLS]

i'm not a politician either. there are good statements made in some of the previous posts. but if we do pull out of iraq now, will the iraqi's feel they have defeated the united states or will they feel its their turn to cause ruckus and start some nonsense. plus if we do pull out of iraq then it will have the look of defeat. if you listen to the news (which you probably do) you will hear that the worst parts of iraq is baghdad. reports from citizens that live way out in the "countryside" of iraq say its not bad and that the u.s is doing a good thing right now, flip side the citizens of baghdad are saying the u.s. is not doing the right thing and things in baghdad right now are horrible

 

[Marcus]

You say this:

Yes. In order to discuss this issue, it is absolutely crucial that you put partisanship aside.

And then you say:

Fault is abundant. The Bush team were much to optimistic in their design, and not forceful enough with the Democrats to secure funding and troop size. The Democrats are horribly negligent and liable for committing troops while having no long term interest in success, and staking their political future in failure.

So much for putting partisanship aside. It was Rumsfeld who insisted on a small force, against the recommendations of actual military experts, like General Shinseki:

SEN. LEVIN: General Shinseki, could you give us some idea as to the magnitude of the Army's force requirement for an occupation of Iraq following a successful completion of the war?

GEN. SHINSEKI: In specific numbers, I would have to rely on combatant commanders' exact requirements. But I think --

SEN. LEVIN: How about a range?

GEN. SHINSEKI: I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant, with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so it takes a significant ground- force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment, to ensure that people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.

Sounds like a pretty damned accurate assessment to me. Not to mention that fact that Democrats weren't in control of Congress during the buildup. Many of them were calling for more troops at the time. The fact that they're calling for a withdrawal three years later doesn't make them flip-floppers, it simply means that they recognize the fact that that window of opportunity has already come and gone.

While I do agree that a full pullout would be a disaster, these doomsday scenarios of Iraq being taken over by terrorists if we do is nonsense, in my opinion. The vast majority of the Iraqi population are not terrorist sympathizers, and would never allow that to happen. It's the Shia vs. Sunni violence that is now the primary problem, and we're mostly just getting caught in the crossfire. It's very likely that if we were to leave, the Shia majority would have things cleaned up in fairly short order, although it wouldn't be pretty.

In any case, if I had to make a choice for a solution, I'm afraid it would be the "three-state" solution. Three semi-autonomous regions, with a weak central government. We could then concentrate our forces on securing the borders instead of scattering them over the entire country, putting out fires every time one flares up.

As disruptive as it would be to set up, both practically and politically, I think it's the only option that has any chance of success, at least in the near term. Otherwise, if we plan to stick with the current plan, we can count on being there for the next fifty years. I honestly believe that. There is no way to win this thing militarily at this point, if there ever was.

 

[Joeychgo]

Its what ive been saying all along.

We used 500k troops in gulf war I -- and that wasnt to occupy. If we are going to effect anything there - plan on a number much about the 160k we have there now. This 20k surge is a masterbation practice session. Another 100k at the minimum. But we cant do that because Rummy wanted a smaller for with more special ops, and now dont have the troops or the equipment.

This is the problem with not getting a sizable international force from the beginning. if we had 20k each from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc, then we could do this. This is where cowboy diplomacy really cost us.

 

[shagdrum]

Joey, I don't think you or I are qualified to critizise the specifics of the plan, in reguards to troop levels needed. I am no military expert, I don't think u r and either way, neither of us is fully up to date on all aspects of the military campaign. Most of the "so-called experts" in the media are not qualified either do to at least one if not both of those reasons. There is a lot of evidence that the surge is working.

as to "cowboy diplomacy", that is just spin from the anti-Bush crowd and people who support a more appeasement style foreign policy. Weak appeasement foreign policy has never, I repeat NEVER worked!! the "cowboy diplomacy", which is basically to come from a position of strength has been the only thing to every work when it comes to foreign policy. Either way, it is irrelevant to what we should do in Iraq now (though these debates usually get caught up on weather we should have gone or not, and therefore become pointless because we r there now). After a point, u have to put some faith in the people running the war (hard to do with the media conducting a campaign of their own against the commander in chief). By faith, I mean "benifit of the doubt". We are not in a position (meaning qualified) to question military strategy, unless it becomes obvious that the strategy has changed from trying to win, like in Vietnam (which was mainly due to politics). Mistakes are always going to happen in any war, and with 24 hour media wanting to sqeeze as much out of a story as possible, they r going to sensationalize any minor event as much worse then it acctually is. From a purely number or deaths standpoint, this is the most effective military campaign in world history, though u wouldn't know that from listening to the media.

 

[Joeychgo]

But common sense tells you that if it took 500k for Gulf I - which had no occupation aspect, then 150k wasnt going to be enough this time around WITH occupation. I said this when they were contemplating the war, started the war, and ever since.

We have put faith in the people running the war, and repeatedly had bad results. The invasion went fine. Downhill since with really, no signs of progress. Why? This is literally no longer our war, this is a civil war amongst the iraq people.

And "Cowboy Diplomacy" --- is exactly what GW practices. In his mind, its his way or no way. Listen to the few press conferences he has held. He is indignant and defiant with anyone who questions his motives or methods in the least. The UN kept saying no, not yet... GW said "with us or against us."

 

[shagdrum]

But common sense tells you that if it took 500k for Gulf I - which had no occupation aspect, then 150k wasnt going to be enough this time around WITH occupation. I said this when they were contemplating the war, started the war, and ever since.

We have put faith in the people running the war, and repeatedly had bad results. The invasion went fine. Downhill since with really, no signs of progress. Why? This is literally no longer our war, this is a civil war amongst the iraq people.

And "Cowboy Diplomacy" --- is exactly what GW practices. In his mind, its his way or no way. Listen to the few press conferences he has held. He is indignant and defiant with anyone who questions his motives or methods in the least. The UN kept saying no, not yet... GW said "with us or against us."

As to troop levels, the way u present it, yes it would seem that way. But you nor I have all the info as to why the troop levels are the way they are. As I said before, evidence is that the surge is working (though it is rather early to tell). The complaint about troop levels is really a "best guess". I would say troop levels aren't the problem, but trying to minimize civilian casualties and accomplish military objectives. As with most things, when u try to accomplish two things at once, u end up half-ssing them both. Prime example, Fallugah (I don't know how it is spelled). We tried to sugically cut out the insugents, when we could have carpet bombed it and not risked any American lives. Maybe a little, extreme but u get the point. Either way, there is no way to know that I am right just as your troop level issue.

We have put faith in the people running of this war, and they did a near perfect job with the invasion. When it comes to the "occupation" ect, the view of abolute failure here is largely media made. Yes mistakes have been made, but no bigger than in any other occupation in U.S. history. Do u think, Rossevelt and his administration, or Lincoln and his administration could have done any better? In addition to running the occupation, Bush has a 24 hour media that is blatantly hostile to him to deal with. There isn't a "civil war" anywhere except in American news stories. Really, the only problem area is in Bahgdad and the surrounding 45 mile radius. At this point, we need to give the surge a chance to work. Like I said, u and I are not qualified to say it won't, only time will tell.

The "cowboy" thing...
This type of diplomacy is the only kind that works. The UN has been proven an irrelevant organization, much like the League of Nations before it. The UN always puts off any strong action to avoid resposibility for it. So what the UN says, is irrelevant. "cowboy diplomacy" is what the media has long used to discribe diplomacy they don't like. Reagan was labeled a "cowboy" and the media claimed his was gonna cause WW3. Instead, he defeated the USSR without a single shot. Agressive, stand your ground diplomacy has always worked, while any other kind hasn't. In reguards to Bush, again time will ultimately tell. U can't say his diplomacy has failed yet, it is too early to tell. The only thing u have to go by right now is that a lot of people and countries don't like it. That is hardly a measure to judge by. Diplomacy isn't about making countries like you, it's about protecting your interests. What matters is, does it accomplish what it tries to. Ultimately history will judge it.

 

[MERIJONS97LSC]

After the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam, Pol Pot massacred about 2 million people. Similarly, should the U.S. leave Iraq, tens of thousands of Iraqis would likely be killed as a result of terrorism and sectarian violence. It's not as simple as pulling out and letting Iraqis fend for themselves since the prospects of all out civil war looms over innocent people should the U.S. leave. Little by little the Iraqi military should be able to take over.

pol pot was the prime minister of cambodia ( and the khmer rouge )who massacred his own people..had nothing to do with viet nam..our pull out of viet nam had nothing to do with that mad mans quest to purify his country..as a matter of fact in 1979 viet nam invaded cambodia and lead to the collapse of the khmer rouge.

 

[MonsterMark]

.

 

[Calabrio]

So much for putting partisanship aside.

That's not partisanship. That's accurate. When one group is doing something for partisan reasons, it's foolish to NOT note that.

It was Rumsfeld who insisted on a small force, against the recommendations of actual military experts, like General Shinseki:

I indirectly addressed this in my previous statements. Overly optimistic expectations based, in large part, to what has now been demonstrated as a bad intelligence and military theory.

Sounds like a pretty damned accurate assessment to me. Not to mention that fact that Democrats weren't in control of Congress during the buildup. Many of them were calling for more troops at the time. The fact that they're calling for a withdrawal three years later doesn't make them flip-floppers, it simply means that they recognize the fact that that window of opportunity has already come and gone.

That's bull-crap. The people calling for a withdrawal now are not the people who were actively supporting a greater force in the past. The people calling for withdrawal are the people who were against the war from the start, OR, worse yet, supported the war purely for political reasons and now are following the political winds with the finger in the air.

This is emphasized by the fact that THE ENTIRE SURGE FORCE HAS NOT EVEN REACHED IRAQ YET and these defeatist are already calling for a full withdrawal.

While I do agree that a full pullout would be a disaster, these doomsday scenarios of Iraq being taken over by terrorists if we do is nonsense, in my opinion. The vast majority of the Iraqi population are not terrorist sympathizers, and would never allow that to happen.

How can you possibly rationalize this? Look at Iran, the majority of their population isn't terrorist, yet their government is a theocratic terrorist sponsoring rogue nation.

It's the Shia vs. Sunni violence that is now the primary problem, and we're mostly just getting caught in the crossfire. It's very likely that if we were to leave, the Shia majority would have things cleaned up in fairly short order, although it wouldn't be pretty.

What you mean is that the Shia would kill all the Sunni.

And do you think the Sunni neighbors in the region would be comfortable with a mega-Shiite state smack dab in the middle of it, a puppet of Iran, with Iraqi oil? The Sunni Saudi family. Or the Syrians? What about even the Egyptians a little further away? And Israel?

There are no guarantees as to what will happen. But the only "positive" scenario that is possible would be that the region explodes in violence and they just consume each other. That's a long shot. Things are never that neat.

In any case, if I had to make a choice for a solution, I'm afraid it would be the "three-state" solution. Three semi-autonomous regions, with a weak central government. We could then concentrate our forces on securing the borders instead of scattering them over the entire country, putting out fires every time one flares up.

And why do you think we don't have something similar to that right now? It's divided into 18 governorates, and 111 districts.

The formal three state solution isn't going to work, because the issue of sharing oil revenue can't be addressed.

As disruptive as it would be to set up, both practically and politically, I think it's the only option that has any chance of success, at least in the near term. Otherwise, if we plan to stick with the current plan, we can count on being there for the next fifty years. I honestly believe that. There is no way to win this thing militarily at this point, if there ever was.

This isn't a military issue any more. The military battles are always won by the U.S. If the military wants to shut down a town, they can. If they want to move, they can. Military isn't an issue.

Everything about this military operation now is ENTIRELY perception. We need to help secure the country long enough for the government to take root. If it looks like we are leaving in the short term, things will not improve. Regular people will not have the confidence to stand up to the minority of thuggish terrorists ruining the country.

But, unfortunately, from the start, this entire thing has been plagued by partisans and moronic peace-nics and America-haters that we can't win, we need to leave, and anything else they can say to undermine us.

Gen Petraeus has recently been put in charge with overwhelming support. A surge has been approved and is being implemented. But before it's even been fully achieved, these Senators are undermining the war calling for a complete withdrawal, assuring failure.

In the meantime, the Democrat Leadership, repeatedly passes on requests by Gen Petraeus to meet them in person:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3075560

 

[Eliot_Ness_Ls]

These people are fighting for the people, there will not be a mass murdering. There will be a much needed civil war as soon as we get out and stop "stopping" it from happening. No other Country wants a part of this or we wouldnt be haveing such a problem so why should our Economy just keep suffering when we say it is to better the world when the world has been shrugging its shoulder to the US.

This isnt about war and millitary right now its about assets, whats going to happen when we keep going at it with this BS and end up with no assets and no one to help us with any cause of the way we handled this?

We can leave with what we have now or wait till we get cut off by everbody once we waste it all.

 

[Calabrio]

What the hell are you talking about?

Why is a civil war needed, and if so, what will the political divisions be?

Second, our economy is not suffering at all. The Dow just reached 13,000. Unemployment is at a historic low, and past statistical zero. And quarterly growth is strong. So, our economy isn't suffering at all right now, and certainly not because Iraq is bankrupting us.

 

[Eliot_Ness_Ls]

Why is a civil war needed, and if so, what will the political divisions be?

Because there is a bunch of pissed people that live there and want it to happen. What should we do force them into segragation and divideing it up into a :q load of different states so the Islamic nation can blame us for more tampering with Islam and dividng the Holy Land up. Obviously our way of teaching them how to run a gov. aint working so let them deal with it, look at the way ours is working now anyways.

Trust me that would cause a hell of a lot more Terrorism than there is right now.

Our economy surges and when it hits lows it hits hard lows and it is because of wasting time on this war and the more gas prices rise sooner or later our industry will bomb.

Iraq didnt bankrupt us anyway, we owe how much money?

 

[MonsterMark]

Gen Petraeus has recently been put in charge with overwhelming support. A surge has been approved and is being implemented. But before it's even been fully achieved, these Senators are undermining the war calling for a complete withdrawal, assuring failure.

You mean the stink between General David Petraeus vs General Harry Betrayus?

Yes, we don't want one of our most decorated military commanders running this war, we want the turn-coat land grabber used car salesman from Nevada.

 

[shagdrum]

pol pot was the prime minister of cambodia ( and the khmer rouge )who massacred his own people..had nothing to do with viet nam..our pull out of viet nam had nothing to do with that mad mans quest to purify his country..as a matter of fact in 1979 viet nam invaded cambodia and lead to the collapse of the khmer rouge.

You really haven't a clue about Vietnam do you?! wow.

 

[Calabrio]

Because there is a bunch of pissed people that live there and want it to happen.

Violence does not mean a civil war. By definition, a civil war must have two sides fighting each other. Right now, you only have violence. Groups targeting innocent civilians with no strategic goal (other than demoralizing the American public and motivating us to withdraw.)

What should we do force them into segragation and divideing it up into a :q load of different states so the Islamic nation can blame us for more tampering with Islam and dividng the Holy Land up.

........... ..............
I think you meant to include a comma and question mark in this sentence. If you're having a discussion like this, punctuation is even more important than it is in the tech forums...

Obviously our way of teaching them how to run a gov. aint working so let them deal with it, look at the way ours is working now anyways.

Trust me that would cause a hell of a lot more Terrorism than there is right now.

Our economy surges and when it hits lows it hits hard lows and it is because of wasting time on this war and the more gas prices rise sooner or later our industry will bomb.

Our economy hit a low in 2001, was that a hard hit? What are basing this claim on? And are you saying by withdrawing from Iraq immediately, the resulting consequences won't ultimately have a negative impact on the economy? An Iranian superstate, or widespread regional warfare in the Middle East won't hurt our economy?

Iraq didnt bankrupt us anyway, we owe how much money?

We're not bankrupt, but if you want numbers look how much money is spent on entitlements and social security compared to the military.

 

[MERIJONS97LSC]

You really haven't a clue about Vietnam do you?! wow.

i'm not saying i'm a historian on viet nam..but for you to tell me i haven't a clue..seems to be a little funny to me ..being that i was there for two tours..and you weren't even born at the time..i got my information first hand..show a little respect..i had enough disrespect when i came home in 1971 and i don't want it now.