@Jack No way we would have turned W Germany over to the Soviets. True we did have advantages in Germany, but don't forget the Iraqies had lost 3 out of 3 devastating wars and a failed uprising. Their cities where not leveled due to smart munitions, but more explosives where droped in the first Iraq war than we did in the entire WWII Germany. Inspite all that you mentioned, we still had an active insurgance in Germany that lasted for years. It's lack of success was in part due to the Western Allies in Germany not acting as we did in Iraq. If they had the insurgent problem in Germany would have been fruther prolonged and deadlier. The main comparision I was trying to make was the lack of any serious action taken the first days or weeks. This gave critical time for the low profile people to hide and stash arms.

I'm talking about the individuals. The mere fact that the Soviets were there and much less happy and fuzzy was a strong inducement for the Germans to make nice with the Western powers.

Also, another difference is that the average US soldier in Germany was either of German descent, or knew somebody who was of German descent. Also, we came from the same culture. Iraq has been civilized since before recorded history. The average good old boy National Guardsman from Alabama not only has no idea of the cultural mores and history of the region, he actively thinks its scornworthy (I'd be willing to bet most ex-military guys know what I'm talking about). So we act differently there (the royal 'we') than we did in Germany.

Its a fucking gongshow, is what that is.

Sure there is a large culture gap. There was a culture gap in post war Japan, and S. Korea also. That also does not change the fact that at first Iraqies were glad to see the end of Sadam, and glad to see us. Than we had the troops sit and watch as the country fell apart because there was no longer a goverment. This was the critical time when we should have been acting. It was this lack of a rational plan for after the conventional fighting, and the contunued use of halfass plans with to few troops the fallowing years that just made it worse. This is the kind of thing that happens when politicians ignore their generals. Also give more credit to the modern soldier who is in general better educated and trained than any time in the past. If they are scornful of somethings they are smart enoff to not let it show.

And give more credit to the previous soldier - even now the works of TE Laurence are read as an insight for how to fight a guerilla war and how to work with people across a culture boundary.
Quite how they are so famously read and yet his main message was ignored I don't know :/

I'll listen to bitching about Defense Spending when we no longer have crop subsidies, that Social Security bullshit that I'll pay for all my life and never get anything out of, pork barrel spending sent out to every district who's congressman sells his vote for it, and that Healthcare crap gets repealed. Till then we've got way less important stuff that we're throwing money away on. Money that my generation will have to pay back.

@LJ
A lot of that damn pork barrel spending is military related. Tell you what, when they reduce defense spending to less than 25% of the entire world(including all the associated costs, like the budget money going to DOE to maintain our nuclear bombs and the money going to VA...etc, etc), then I may listen to your bitching about the things that actually help the people I have met in my life. The healthcare bill that will allow my two friends with disabled kids to actually get their kids insurance. The healthcare bill that will remove rescission. The social security bullshit that supported some of my friends grand parents who shouldn't have been in stocks as they approached retirement, but didn't know better 10 years ago, and lost most of their retirement money in the downturn, living week to week, waiting for the stocks to recover.

I will give you crop subsidies. Those things are absolute crap and should be removed.

@LJ
I feel it is good to have things that actually help/affect our lives, rather than spending money on stuff like invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Seemingly, that will have no positive affect on my life, while costing the nation lots of money and injuring friends I know that enlisted because they believe so strongly in this country.

When they reduce military spending to less than 25% of the entire world who's the UN going to call when shit breaks loose around the world? France?

@Krellin:
Were you hoping for America to be the world's policemen forever more, without actually getting anything but resentment for it? I mean, sometimes that is true now, though if it is...it is a somewhat out of control policeman that can randomly arrest people when the DA has said not to...

How about if the US, Canada, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Australia, Russia, China and Japan all get together and share in the duties?

@ Tantris While I don't like the ideal of the US being world cop forever or now. The UN in the past has had a very mixed history on dealing with world problems. Ignoring one problem, passing toothless proclimations in other places, turning UN troops into nice blue targets in yet others. Most constructive interventions are after the real killing is over. Your going to have to find away to get the major nations to be willing to go against their own interests at least some of the times.

The UN was designed to eliminate war. It does that well, since only when there is a real extreme do they support action. But, are they wrong? It isn't like Iraq needed to be toppled. The UN inspectors said as much and were right. It is expensive for us to do all this military stuff, especially when we are essentially alone.

LJ: Read 1984 and get back to me. If you've already read 1984 and don't see the relevance, read 1984 again until you understand it.

@Tantris Nuks eliminated large continental spaning wars, not the UN, and other wars have continued unabated. Iraq was screwed up from before the start and the UN only occasionly being correct just proves my point, it's not reliable. Even a broken watch (analog) is correct sometimes. I do not want the US to be world cop and we not rush in every chance as often claimed. Infact people have been critical of the US for not doing so in Africa. We are not the only country playing cop, other nations like France in Chad, NATO in the Bulkans, and if you fallow the Russian line, they have been occupied in the Caucasus area.

The amusing thing about crop subsidies is being in Iowa, and hearing the farmboys rant about how the president is turning the US into a socialist nation.... and then I ask them if they take farm subsidies.... they usually claim that isn't socialism, but it doesn't really stick. :)

Sugar growers getting subsidies when we talk about taxing soft drinks to cut down consumption.

@ pastoralan & Tantris - 1984? I've listened to it. That's Van Halen's second album right? Anyway, I give. I'm tired of arguing with Socialists about points they should've understood years ago but still don't. Healthcare's going to "remove the recession." What bullshit. I'm outta here.

Up

@LJ, surely if militrary spending provides jobs and economic recovery the same could be true of helath care spending, no?

"who's the UN going to call when shit breaks loose around the world? " - do it and find out.

"Infact people have been critical of the US for not doing so in Africa." - people have been critical of everyone no going into various african war zones and try to organise some peace keeping, African Union forces maybe will do better than more foreign intervention...

"Sugar growers getting subsidies when we talk about taxing soft drinks to cut down consumption. " - not that i'm a fan of farm subsidies in Europe, but they make sense on a certain level, of course they just prevent local producers in developing countries from competing, why not pay the farmers to mind the land and make sure it is in suitable condition to grow food if demand spikes (due to international food markets not providing enough) that will cut their costs, and thus seriosuly reduce the amount of subsidies they need.

The US and UK should not have invaded Iraq in the first place. There was no link to Al-Quaeda, and Saddam did not have WMDs. Every penny spent in the illegal invasion has been wasted.

@ LJTD: "Healthcare's going to "remove the recession." What bullshit. I'm outta here."

He didn't say "remove the recession", he said "remove the rescission". RESCISSION, not recession. It's a legal term. In terms of health insurance, it refers in particular to people's health insurance policies being cancelled by insurers who claim that they had a 'pre-existing condition'.

Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescission

and next time read people's posts more carefully before you start blasting them.

@Jamiet99uk:
That is hilarious. I didn't realize that comment about the recession was in response to my post. I was confused where that had come from.

@Jamiet99uk: I agree going into Iraq was a mistake in the first place. But at least do the military ops correctly, it saves blood on both sides.

Attempting to move units to Iraq is always a mistake in the standard game. Don't do it kids.