Last Combat Brigade to Leave Iraq

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by valo403

So unless we have first hand or family experience discussion is off the table? That seems like it might make places like this a little sparse on the posting side, no?

I haven't seen the documentary, but slanted or not it gives more insight than any of us apparently have. But dismiss it based solely upon the network that aired it, that seems reasoned.

Agreed.

Just because Ignatieff (whom I despise) is the one saying 2+2=4, it doesn't change the fact that 2+2 is actually 4. Probably a bad example though....as a politician is more likely to be 2+2 = 4 + Tax.

[badnarik]

50,000 "support" troops

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by badnarik

50,000 "support" troops

Most troops are "support" troops - CC can correct me on this, but for an American division with 25,000 personnel, I believe only 7-8,000 are actually "combat" troops.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by valo403

So unless we have first hand or family experience discussion is off the table? That seems like it might make places like this a little sparse on the posting side, no?

I haven't seen the documentary, but slanted or not it gives more insight than any of us apparently have. But dismiss it based solely upon the network that aired it, that seems reasoned.

Yeah that was a bit strongly worded. The point being, that it was a documentary looking at a few Iraqi’s, not the country as a whole. But let’s face it, finding a couple Iraqi’s on the street that will come out and say they preferred Saddam is a pretty impressive slant.

I wonder what IraqPuck’s Off Topic board looks like though - the debates must be epic.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Most troops are "support" troops - CC can correct me on this, but for an American division with 25,000 personnel, I believe only 7-8,000 are actually "combat" troops.

Depends on the division, but most divisions are between 18 and 25k men. In terms of combat power. If you look at the 1st Cav its got

A headquarters battalion
4 Maneuver divisions, each of which consist of 3 tank battalions, 1 artillary batalion, a support brigade, and a special troop brigade which is usually scout.
1 combat aviation brigade

I think that the number of actual combat troops is much higher then 8 thousand if you include field artillary and aviation as combat troops.

I think in the case most of those 50,000 are involved in administration, logistics and supervising the dismantling of the American infrastructure there. Probably the minority are trainers and advisors.

It is good to see the American's leaving Iraq, it will be interesting to see what happens there. We will either see Iraq break into civil war, or we'll see the rise of another strong man.

But I think democracy will be a short lived experiment.

[mac_82]

Where did Saddam get all his gas from?



Saddam was funded by the USA for most of his career.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by mac_82

Where did Saddam get all his gas from?



Saddam was funded by the USA for most of his career.

Who was Iraq's primary enemy when Saddam was in power?

[mykalberta]

IMO you change the link to CBC so 2/3 of the CP populace doesnt disregard the thread as false.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

I don't want facts to get in the way, but I just want to point out that....

The guy gassed the Kurds in 1988. (25 years before Iraqi Freedom)
The last war Iraq fought was in 1993. (22 years before Iraqi Freedom)
The last missiles fired into Israel was in 1993. (22 years before Iraqi Freedom)

Did it ever occur to you that the reason for the 22 year gap was the large amount of UN troops already in the country enforcing no fly zones. Not to mention the massive amount of economic sanctions.

So the US was faced with a decision. Let Saddam gain full strength, remain in Iraq indefinitely enforcing no fly zones and economic sanctions, or invade.

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

Over the course of his reign (1979-2003), about 300,000 people are known/suspected to have been killed. That's half the number attributed to the Iraqi War by the Lancet Survery 2006 (650,000) and nowhere near the number of 1,000,000+ (look at all those zeros!) suggested by ORB in 2008. And that 100%-350% increase only took 5 years!

So now that the death toll has risen, the country has minimal infrastructure, and at least one generation of civilians is fervently anti-west, we're in a much better shape for regional and worldwide stability than if that madman Hussein had stayed in power.

Where are you getting this number from? Over a million people died in the iraq/iran war alone. The number must include only summary executions and not combat deaths of which there were many. Kind of a skewed number since the American figure you are using most certainly does include combat deaths.

I'm not trying to justify the Iraq war as only time will tell, but if you're going to make a donkey hole comment like: "I don't want facts to get in the way, but I just want to point out that...." Please get the facts straight.

Edit: I also did a little more research and the Lancet survey and the ORB survey you cite are the two highest estimates....by an extremely large margin. The numbers came largely from surveys where they asked people to fill out the amount of people they knew who were dead and then extrapolated the numbers based on that . The only problem with that kind of method is that you

Other very reputable organizations like the Associated Press are claiming just over 100k dead since the invasion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualt...sociated_Press

[Russic]

I sincerely hope I'm underestimating the majority of Iraqi people, but I just don't see how they won't be back in the exact same pre-war condition in 5 years (or worse).

[mac_82]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Who was Iraq's primary enemy when Saddam was in power?

(Iran). But does it matter? The US gave Saddam the WMDs.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by mac_82

(Iran). But does it matter? The US gave Saddam the WMDs.

Sure it matters. The American's knew that Saddam was going to be a large part of the strategy to contain Iran. They also knew that Iran also had a massive stock of chemical weapons and biological weapons.

I'm pretty sure that the American's going back to the 70's didn't encouraged Saddam to gas the Kurds. What the American's should have done is different and up for debate.

But to me its equivalent to giving a cop a gun, you issue it for him to use in his everyday work. You don't calculate that he's going to gun down 50 innocent people at McDonalds with it.

At the point in time that Saddam first took power, outside of Israel, Iraq was really the only somewhat friendly regime in that region, and the only somewhat friendly regime with a military that could tie up and bleed Iran.

I think we're also forgetting that the Chinese and to an extent other eastern nations provided Saddam with WMD's or the technology to create WMD's.

[tjinaz]

Sure it matters. The American's knew that Saddam was going to be a large part of the strategy to contain Iran. They also knew that Iran also had a massive stock of chemical weapons and biological weapons.

I'm pretty sure that the American's going back to the 70's didn't encouraged Saddam to gas the Kurds. What the American's should have done is different and up for debate.

But to me its equivalent to giving a cop a gun, you issue it for him to use in his everyday work. You don't calculate that he's going to gun down 50 innocent people at McDonalds with it.

At the point in time that Saddam first took power, outside of Israel, Iraq was really the only somewhat friendly regime in that region, and the only somewhat friendly regime with a military that could tie up and bleed Iran.

I think we're also forgetting that the Chinese and to an extent other eastern nations provided Saddam with WMD's or the technology to create WMD's.

Woah there hotshot.... you are violating the basic premise here.

Now repeat after me.

1. the US is the primary force for evil in the world
2. Any evil done in the world not done directly by the US was either paid for or supported by them
3. If they did not either do directly, pay for or support ie Stalin, Mao, etc they are equally complicit as they did nothing to encourage its end.
4. Any actions they did take in the cause of stopping oppression that caused any injury up to and including hurt feelings make the entire program evil and wrong as well.

Once you observe these simple rules every thing will become clear.

[PIMking]

My mom is still over there. Working on some base in the Green zone. So Hopefully they keep soldiers around a little longer....

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Sure it matters. The American's knew that Saddam was going to be a large part of the strategy to contain Iran. They also knew that Iran also had a massive stock of chemical weapons and biological weapons.

I'm pretty sure that the American's going back to the 70's didn't encouraged Saddam to gas the Kurds. What the American's should have done is different and up for debate.

But to me its equivalent to giving a cop a gun, you issue it for him to use in his everyday work. You don't calculate that he's going to gun down 50 innocent people at McDonalds with it.

At the point in time that Saddam first took power, outside of Israel, Iraq was really the only somewhat friendly regime in that region, and the only somewhat friendly regime with a military that could tie up and bleed Iran.

I think we're also forgetting that the Chinese and to an extent other eastern nations provided Saddam with WMD's or the technology to create WMD's.

The US was busted red handed selling Saddam biological weapons, but it was largely chemical weapons (mostly mustard and sarin gas) used on the Kurds. They probably came from the USSR. The planes used to deliver them were MIGs and Mirage's, of USSR and French origin.

[mac_82]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Sure it matters. The American's knew that Saddam was going to be a large part of the strategy to contain Iran. They also knew that Iran also had a massive stock of chemical weapons and biological weapons.

I'm pretty sure that the American's going back to the 70's didn't encouraged Saddam to gas the Kurds. What the American's should have done is different and up for debate.

But to me its equivalent to giving a cop a gun, you issue it for him to use in his everyday work. You don't calculate that he's going to gun down 50 innocent people at McDonalds with it.

At the point in time that Saddam first took power, outside of Israel, Iraq was really the only somewhat friendly regime in that region, and the only somewhat friendly regime with a military that could tie up and bleed Iran.

I think we're also forgetting that the Chinese and to an extent other eastern nations provided Saddam with WMD's or the technology to create WMD's.

-As far as I know, it has never been proven Iran used chemical weapons. They didn't retaliate against Iraq with chemical weapons, so it is suggested they may have never had any

-A cop with a gun doesn't violate the Geneva Protocol of 1925 which prohibits the use of chemical weapons in war

I'm not saying the US shouldn't have supported Iraq. I am just saying they didn't need to give a trigger happy dictator chemical weapons. Saddam used chemical weapons against civilians of Iran and Iraq...

But I guess if they just gave him more missiles he still would have killed civilians, so it's a lose-lose situation really.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

Everyone is welcome to their perspective/viewpoint, sure.

I don't want facts to get in the way, but I just want to point out that....

The guy gassed the Kurds in 1988. (25 years before Iraqi Freedom)
The last war Iraq fought was in 1993. (22 years before Iraqi Freedom)
The last missiles fired into Israel was in 1993. (22 years before Iraqi Freedom)

Post Gulf War, the guy was a regional nuisance at best. Yes, he was torturing enemies and doing all the things that dictators/autocrats tend to do, but in doing so had alienated himself from the region and had very little influence at all.

As for whether removing Hussein has been beneficial......

Over the course of his reign (1979-2003), about 300,000 people are known/suspected to have been killed. That's half the number attributed to the Iraqi War by the Lancet Survery 2006 (650,000) and nowhere near the number of 1,000,000+ (look at all those zeros!) suggested by ORB in 2008. And that 100%-350% increase only took 5 years!

So now that the death toll has risen, the country has minimal infrastructure, and at least one generation of civilians is fervently anti-west, we're in a much better shape for regional and worldwide stability than if that madman Hussein had stayed in power.

Evidently you don't want to let math get in the way either.

So as not to be petty and only address the mathematical issues in your post let me say this...

17 UN security council resolutions were violated by Hussein between 1993 and 2005. Is that the definition of a regional nuisance?

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Evidently you don't want to let math get in the way either.

So as not to be petty and only address the mathematical issues in your post let me say this...

17 UN security council resolutions were violated by Hussein between 1993 and 2005. Is that the definition of a regional nuisance?

Can't believe I missed that the first time through. Yeah that math is not even close to correct.

[Azure]

I find it hilarious how some of you think the whole country is going to hell in a hand basket after the US leaves.

The US has been leaving for a long time now, and the Iraqi Government has held power and looked after security in numerous regions for a while.

The country won't fall apart. They will deal with violence for the rest of their existence simply because of the region they are in, but take it to the bank when I say that 10 years from now Iraq will be the glimmer of hope that Middle East can actually move out of the 13th century.

Israel should technically be that country, but since so many people hate those terrorist killing scumbags, Iraq is the next best choice. Unless you want to go for the technically-not-a-MiddleEast-country-terrorist-supporting-Pakistanis.

[worth]

I actually don't think the US should pull out. I think they should stay longer to try to make more progress with the help of the Iraqi government. Without this help, I'm skeptical that they will be able to pull through. But I do hope that in 10 years time Iraq will be a glimmer of hope, as you have said Azure.