WWII in Europe didn't end because of the Allied Force's success, it ended because of Germany's willingness to accept surrender. Japan during WWII, had nothing to do with the bombs - they just decided to surrender, also. Gulf War 1 ended because the Iraqis came to the table and accepted the terms (whether they were enough is another debate) of the Allied Forces.

You do realize that it was do an overwhelming show of strength that caused these events to occur, don't you? Or was it a change of heart on their part or the fact that we said please? They accepted our terms over their demise. Ever notice how these factions change sides on a whim, it is due to thier immediate survival requirements and they go with the strongest side. Sometimes you have to show who the strongest side is.

Try to go beyond the bullet statements that you see on TV.

 

I'm sure that tactical success against al Qaeda forces, providing breathing room for the Sunnis to be able to move their position toward the US, had nothing to do with it ...

Shoot, I guess we should have just kept all of our forces at home, asked Saddam Hussein to step down, and asked all the factions to play nice with each other. I'm sure that would have worked ...

 

All for that, except Why ask Sadaam to step down? He ran a pretty tight ship. What have we gained as a nation from this invasion/occupation? Was Iraq really a threat......to us? Invading Cuba would have been cheaper and just as justifyable.

 

A320,

A few questions for the above point, no flames, just asking.

Should we, the US, unilaterally enforce UN resolutions? Should military strategy be based on CIA intel (now known to be flawed)? Should we only go to war when attacked?

Again, just asking.

SC

 

Do the research, he was attempting to constitute a nuclear program and he had a rudimentary chemical program. Just because it was sent to Syria doesn't mean it was never there. And, some chemical munitions were found.

 

No, I don't think we should act unilatterally to enforce UN resolutions; we should do what's best for our national defense, we can do that unilaterally. And we can help our allies, not fight their wars for them; especially when they didn't ask. Israel would have handled the Iraq situation with much more efficacy.

If you decide that there is a need to put boots on the ground, based on any intelligence, put those troops on the ground with the directive and ablility to totally obliterate our enemy; not fight for their democracy and built their infastructure.

We need to get back into the intelligence business, so that we don't make these mistakes in the future. This is only my opinion, thanx for not flae-baiting

 

I think you're going to have to look beyond the talking points and sound bites you see on Fox news. The tide was already turning before the additional trooops arrived with the Anbar Awakening. The first additional troops didn't arrive until after the violence level had already begun to decline. The awakening brought about lower violence, the surge and redeployment of troops are helping to keep it low. The change of heart wasn't because of our show of strength, it was because Al Qaeda was killing Iraqis and destroying neighborhoods.

 

You're going to need to do the research. Don't just listen to what Cheney says.

Here you go

FOXNews.com - Report: No Iraq WMDs Made After '91 - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

and this is from Fox News.

This from factcheck.org

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...struction.html

After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration formed the Iraq Survey Group and tasked it with the job of locating WMD stockpiles in Iraq.

The ISG concluded that contrary to what most of the world had believed, Iraq had abandoned attempts to produce WMDs. In his congressional testimony, the head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, admitted, "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq.

The ISG report was sufficient to convince the Bush administration that there were no WMDs to be found; they called off the search in 2005.

 

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that there was still a weapons program in place. It may not have been very well developed, and even Saddam may have been misled by his staff and scientists about how far along the program was, but it was still in violation of UN mandates.

By the way, I recognize that this is all from unclassified sources - classified documents may be more enlightening.

I also understand that any banned weapons may have been spirited to Iran and/or Syria just as any flyable aircraft were. Just because they weren't there when we got there (how long did we try diplomacy and let them hide the stuff?) doesn't mean they weren't there. When I was in Mogadishu in '93, we had concrete evidence that the Russians were supplying several factions with weapons - but you didn't see that in public sources. I guess we went with diplomacy vs. the facts and the result was that you didn't see it on the news, but it still happened.

DefenseLink News Article: Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/...-munitions.pdf
The key parts of a National Ground Intelligence Center report, declassified by the Director of National Intelligence for the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, mentioned the recovery of approximately 500 chemical munitions in Iraq since 2003, which contained degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. However, the declassified parts gave no details regarding the purity of the agents.

Uranium removed from Iraq nuclear site - International Herald Tribune
American military personnel helped move about 600 tons of uranium in the form called yellowcake. It had been stored at Tuwaitha, an installation south of Baghdad that had been the site of Iraq's nuclear program.

Iraq's Nuclear Weapon Program
The inspectors determined that Iraq had managed to develop a successful bomb design and lacked only the fissile material to fuel it.

 

In part it was, the US was staying committed and engaged. Culturally and in practical terms, that was vital since the US has a rep of pulling out on 'friends' leaving them to hold the bag. This goes back to Vietnam. So yes, the surge in numbers was demonstration of US resolve to stay engaged. The alternative as you recall was some calling for immediate withdrawal or a defined date. The Iraqi's knew this was untenable. The surge gave them concrete evidence we were staying and not dropping dime.