1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Who decided the war was over?

Discussion in 'The Dungeon' started by HPPT, Apr 5, 2004.

  1. HPPT

    HPPT !!!

    The more I watch what is happening in Iraq, the more I wonder. What exactly is the situation there? Who decided when the war ended? I am getting a little confused. Since American troops are not certain yet who the current enemy is, we can't discount the possibility that some are the same people who were involved in the "war." When does a war start and end?:confused:
     
  2. mtk

    mtk All-Pro Bike Crasher

    The war isn't over. We only declared an end to major combat operations and that statement is true. We've taken Baghdad and ran the Iraqi army out of power. While there may be small attacks here and there, we control Iraq and the attacks don't change that fact.
     
  3. HPPT

    HPPT !!!

    I see. However I see nothing minor in the number of casualties since. Matter of perspective, I guess.
     
  4. El Amin

    El Amin Well-Known Member

    635+, versus the 57,000 in Vietnam with no clear objective.
     
  5. MarkB

    MarkB All's well that ends well

    It was a war, but not a "true" war as such. A "true" war is between nation states (or similar), and usually involves a surrender or formal cessations of hostilities.

    I wonder if we should have left Saddam in power? We could have negotiated a surrender with him. Given him honor in defeat (as repugnant as that would have been to us). As a defeated head of state, he would have led his country in the surrender, and told them to cooperate in the rebuilding of Iraq.

    Instead we tried to kill/capture/humiliate Saddam for our own satisfaction, and perhaps, we are now paying the price by having to preside over his unruly people.
     
  6. El Amin

    El Amin Well-Known Member

    He was given over 48 hours prior to the war to do just that.
     
  7. MarkB

    MarkB All's well that ends well

    I think the inital strike on his bunker/palace would indicate no desire to negotiate a surrender.
    We could have humiliated his army, then offered him a conditional surrender. We could have promised him his safety if he could hand an ordered Iraq to us. In time he would have been phased out and democratic elections held. He could even have run for office should he have wished to do so.
     
  8. El Amin

    El Amin Well-Known Member

    He was offered a chance 48 hours before the first bomb fell in Iraq. His downfall, and his people's current hardship are his own making.

    I'm sure Fidel Castro thinks he is/was a maniacal idiot. He could have just taken his money and left his position of power. But, his ego would not allow it.

    Less than 200 U.S. soldiers perished in the actual fighting. The rest have been industrial type accidents, and ambush by radicals.

    Only the U.S. could fight a war so efficiently.
     
  9. MarkB

    MarkB All's well that ends well

    No doubt, but we're talking about keeping the peace here, not fighting the war. Perhaps we should have kept Saddam in control of his people, while we controlled Saddam?

    I dont care as much about punishing Saddam. Nothing we do will bring back the people he killed; let his punishment be in some other life. Our desire to humiliate and remove him is now costing us additional lives.
     
  10. El Amin

    El Amin Well-Known Member

    Yes, that is a shame. If only the Iraqi insurgents would use their own minds, instead of patriotic lathering. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the U.S. just pulled out and gave them what they "think" they want.
     
  11. Robert

    Robert Flies all green 'n buzzin

    Aren't the USA and Iraq both "nation states?" I don't think how a conflict ends has any bearing on it's definition.

    Technically if the remains of the Iraqi army are the ones responsible for the bombings and killings, then hasn't it just changed into a guerilla war?

    And it would be hard to give a mass murderer "honour in defeat" when at the same time he is swinging from a tree. With that lawyer Verges, the trial will be a regular circus.
     
  12. MarkB

    MarkB All's well that ends well

    Agreed. But pull the British out too while you're at it...without the US there, they'd be a little outnumbered.....:D
     
  13. El Amin

    El Amin Well-Known Member

    :D
     
  14. El Amin

    El Amin Well-Known Member

    I can tell you that no one here in Iran would care if Saddam's fate is a short rope.
     
  15. MarkB

    MarkB All's well that ends well


    My point is simply this:
    - what do we lack in Iraq? - control over the people.
    - what was the one thing Saddam had? - control over his people.

    I think we could have made better use of that in the transition of a people (who cares about the individual) to democracy.
     
  16. CorollaDude

    CorollaDude Beach Bum

    This war won't be over with until the wimmin over there stop giving up the booty to their sorry @$$ men. It's as simple as that. :)

    Those Jihadudes couldn't care less about Allah, God, Halliburton, Bush, Israel, oil, the 82nd Airborne, or whatever. The real unspoken reason they hate and fear us is because we represent the beginning of the end of them being able to treat their wimmin like dirt. :mad:

    Oh, you'll see a few wimmin there as suicidal bombers and you'll see them march in the streets burning American flags. But they're nothing more than versions of that famous Indian chief who the Brits (well it was really us, but before the tea party) paraded around the social functions in London to thank and praise all the aristocrats for their "help." Or the Uncle Tom slaves who fought against the Northern "invaders" under promises they'd be moved up to work in the "big house" once the Yankees were licked. :rolleyes:

    Mark my words, you young'uns. There's always only two reasons for a war: money and/or poontang.

    Hey WERA29, this is the Cliff Notes version of this, so you can %#$@ off! :Poke: :D

    http://www.carolinabreeze.com/article.php?n=307
     
  17. RichDesmond

    RichDesmond Well-Known Member

    But his control over his people was achieved with fear, terror and intimitation. We wouldn't have allowed him to use those methods and his "control" would have quickly vanished.
     
  18. Ex CCS Racer

    Ex CCS Racer Banned

  19. tcasby

    tcasby Banned

    I'm starting to wonder if the Iraqis didn't deserve Sadam.
     
  20. WeaselBob

    WeaselBob Well-Known Member

    no... but they didn't deserve Bush either :D
     

Share This Page