The War in Iraq - AR15.COM

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The War in Iraq (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 11/27/2007 10:03:41 AM EDT

I was in the first Gulf War. We knew even then before the war started that the war was really all about oil. We figured hey "This sucks but its the only war we have so we better enjoy it." The current war in Iraq is confusing to me. Originally we were there for weapons of mass destruction, then we were there to end sadam's regime, then we were there to kill of the fedayeen, then we were there to capture sadaam hussein, then we were there to get his sons, then we were there for free elections, then we were there to establish a democracy, then we were there for defeating Al Qaieda... and now ??? I have no idea why we are still there.

The way I see the war now is this: On Monday drive down "Ahmed street" and pass out candy to children. On Tuesday drive down "Ahmed street" and get shot at by the childrens parents, kill as many as you can. ON Wednesday drive down "Ahmed street and get shot at by the sunnis, return fire and kill as many as you can. On Thursday drive Down "Ahmed street" and and get shot at by the shites return fire and kill as many as you can. ON Friday take a break because its the muslim holy day. on Saturday drive down "Ahmed street and get shot at by AL Qaida, return fire and kill as many as you can. Sunday take a break and do pm on the humvees and weapons. Monday back to passing out candy on "Ahmed street".

Does this pretty much sum up the war in Iraq now? As a former Marine I support the war because its the only one we have right now. "Better something than nothing." However is this a waste of soldiers and Marines? How about the money? I keep hearing how we will be there for another 50 years. Can we afford it?

Any way I am just not sure how I should feel about the war. Those of you who have been there and back let me know how I should view our presense in Iraq.

Why should I care that the sunnis are killing the shites and the shites are killing the sunnis? Let them solve there own problems.

Posted: 11/27/2007 10:35:24 AM EDT

[#1]

NUMBER 1 - There are no FORMER MARINES.

Brother it comes down to a couple of things.
I think many people forget how power hungry certain areas in that part of the world are..
Don't forget how many different groups/sects/tribes/etc. make up Iraq and how many of the surrounding countries/sects/tribes do not get along with the groups that make up IRAQ.

It is truely a security/building issue. (But more on another level)

If we leave at this point, IRAQ will fall/be torn apart.
The neighbors to the east would love to jump in and take over.
The neighbors to the NW would love to go in and smash the Kurds.
Terorists would love to be able to go in and set up camp in IRAQ.
The people would suffer.
There are other issues , but that is a little in a nutt shell.

As for the Sunni / Shiite issue.
AS HORRIBLE AS HIS REGIME WAS - Saddam actually kept IRAQ in check.
(Was it bad, you betcha.) (Was he one of the worste men to ever walk the earth, you betrcha) .... But there was a since of stability - even though it was a torturouse/horrible type of structure that was extremely oppresive to many under his rule.

(It is extremely sad, but we are in the middle of a HUGE cluster F***)

Posted: 11/27/2007 10:42:44 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
I was in the first Gulf War. We knew even then before the war started that the war was really all about oil. We figured hey "This sucks but its the only war we have so we better enjoy it." The current war in Iraq is confusing to me. Originally we were there for weapons of mass destruction, then we were there to end sadam's regime, then we were there to kill of the fedayeen, then we were there to capture sadaam hussein, then we were there to get his sons, then we were there for free elections, then we were there to establish a democracy, then we were there for defeating Al qaieda... and now beats me why we are there.

The way I see the war now is this: On Monday drive down "Ahmed street" and pass out candy to children. On Tuesday drive down "Ahmed street" and get shot at by the childrens parents, kill as many as you can. ON Wednesday drive down "Ahmed street and get shot at by the sunnis, return fire and kill as many as you can. On Thursday drive Down "Ahmed street" and and get shot at by the shites return fire and kill as many as you can. ON Friday take a break because its the muslim holy day. on Saturday drive down "Ahmed street and get shot at by AL Qaida, return fire and kill as many as you can. Sunday take a break and do pm on the humvees and weapons. Monday back to passing out candy on "Ahmed street".

Does this pretty much sum up the war in Iraq now? As a former Marine I support the war because its the only one we have right now. "Better something than nothing." However is this a waste of soldiers and Marines? How about the money? I keep hearing how we will be there for another 50 years. Can we afford it?

Any way I am just not sure how I should feel about the war. Those of you who have been there and back let me know how I should view our presense in Iraq.

Why should I care that the sunnis are killing the shites and the shites are killing the sunnis? Let them solve there own problems.

It's more like:

Plant both feet in Al Queda's back yard (the Middle East)...

Refuse to leave...

AQ attempts to defend...

AQ makes a total ass of themselves in the process, while getting their ass kicked...

Lots of terrorists die, Al Queda is shown to be brutal, murderous and militarily impotent...

And when we leave, Iraq is a free nation, an example to the rest of the region that Arabs really can (in their own tribal way) be free, and a great big cock-block to AQ's dreams of a new Islamic super-state...

WMD was just the 'public face' (and there were WMD, BTW)....

We are in Iraq to stab Al Queda in the heart... And we are doing quite well at it (or more accuratly, we are standing by and watching them commit suicide on an organizational/strategic level)...

Leaving now would be a terrible mistake...

In someone else's words:

Never interrupt your enemy when he is in the process of fucking himself in the ass...

Which is precisely what AQ has done by their actions in Iraq..

You might as be better off wearing the wrong 'colors' in the wrong part of LA, then be an AQ terrorist in Anbar these days... Your chances of survival would be better in LA....

Posted: 11/27/2007 10:56:10 AM EDT

[#3]

Please, everyone knows Al Qaida in Iraq is not who we are engaged with in fire fights everyday. Its either the sunnis or the shites. There are only a few hundred Al Qaida members in Iraq and even the Iraqis dont like them.

Al Qaida can be hunted down and destroyed in Iraq with a batallion of SF. We do not need 150,000 troops in Iraq to kill a few hundred Al Qaida.

Let the sunnis and shites do what they got to do and let us just go after Al Qiada. Remember Al Qaida is the enemy not the Iraqis. Yeah, yeah I know what about the chaos and death and all that once we leave. The middle east was F***** up before we got there and it will be f***** up when we leave.

Posted: 11/27/2007 11:44:07 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
NUMBER 1 - There are no FORMER MARINES...

+1.

The new term that's in vogue is "inactive Marine".

Posted: 11/27/2007 12:20:57 PM EDT

[#5]

Please, everyone knows Al Qaida in Iraq is not who we are engaged with in fire fights everyday. Its either the sunnis or the shites. There are only a few hundred Al Qaida members in Iraq and even the Iraqis dont like them.

Really???? have you ever been over there (this war) I've been home for about two weeks and after having seen it with my own eyes I'll pass a little advice, quit getting your info from the MSM. The MSM has made it their mission to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Also no disrespect meant but there is such a thing as an ex-Marine, one word Murtha

Toad

Posted: 11/27/2007 12:58:02 PM EDT

[#6]

It is about oil, preserving access of the free world to the oil supplies we have become dependant upon.

It is about straegic positioning of US forces in the region relative to Iran - we now have forces on Irans' eastern and western borders; we have naval forces in the Gulf. It is easier to invade Iraq then move on Iran (if necessary) than to invade Iran directly.

Ever heard the expression, "talk softly but carry a big stick."

How different would things be if:

Al Qaeda ran Afghanistan?

Saddaam was free to develop weapons of mass destruction?

Iran had free-reign to develop nuclear weapons with the aid and support of the Russians?

Syria, de-facto, ran Lebanon?

Posted: 11/27/2007 1:10:47 PM EDT

[#7]

I thought the Taliban runs Afghanistan now. I heave heard they control over 1/2 the country now.

Posted: 11/27/2007 1:31:11 PM EDT

[#8]

Having not been there yet (Next year) I cannot speak for direct experience. I have studied Islam and the culture of Islam. I don't want to turn this into a religious thread but what we are fighting for is democracy and not a Theocratic ruling (trying to be at least) nation (Iraq AFG) ruling the world through their ownership of power by controlling oil.

Now that's one aspect.

he other is that the root of fundamental Islam (true Islam) is that democracy as we (US Citizens) know it and the freedom we have IS evil in their eyes.

I wonder how many actually read all of what I am about to reference. Which by no means makes me an expert, I knew many of these things before I read the item below.

As part of our work up I had to go through this training online which covers AFG from A-Z, I think if most people read this (military and civilian) they would understand why we must stay and help those that want help and defeat those that are opposed to a nation having a free Democratic (in a fashion of) process.

You can't beat an ideology (radical Islam ) but I think that if a government wants our help we should help. What we are doing is not colonizing any nation like the brits did, the government of these nations want our help...

they may not see things or think our way but they want change...

Just my 2 cents....

Posted: 11/27/2007 3:15:19 PM EDT

[#9]

The entire concept of American imperialism is BS. We do not go to nations in the way the British Empire did - "colonize them, take all the natural resources, ...

When we went into Iraq, it was not to "steal" the oil or to secure it for ourselves, but to secure it for the free world.

Posted: 11/27/2007 3:17:07 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
The entire concept of American imperialism is BS. We do not go to nations in the way the British Empire did - "colonize them, take all the natural resources, ...

When we went into Iraq, it was not to "steal" the oil or to sewcure it for ourselves, but to secure it for th efree world.

exactly my point

Posted: 11/27/2007 4:42:04 PM EDT

[#11]

First of all, to the OP.....

There is no "War in Iraq". It is the Iraqi theater of the GWOT.

Dave, we don't normally agree on a lot (philisophically), but I agree with almost your entire post.....

Quoted:

Quoted:
<snip>

It's more like:

Plant both feet in Al Queda's back yard (the Middle East)...

Refuse to leave...

AQ attempts to defend...

AQ makes a total ass of themselves in the process, while getting their ass kicked...

Lots of terrorists die, Al Queda is shown to be brutal, murderous and militarily impotent...

Exactly. This is like their Tet, militarily. They show up, they die.

Unfortunately, our media is trying to re-make into the image of Tet, but from a PR perspective .

And when we leave, Iraq is a free nation, an example to the rest of the region

Relatively, yes, that's the idea.

that Arabs really can (in their own tribal way) be free, and a great big cock-block to AQ's dreams of a new Islamic super-state...

WMD was just the 'public face' (and there were WMD, BTW)....

Agreed. I know the nukes were the ones that were "sold," so to speak, but why does no one recognize the chems?

(on a separate note, I still believe there may have been WMDs other than chem , but were either secreted away yet undetected or shipped "off-site" for safe-keeping; with the whole keep-the-UN-happy long run-up to the so-called "War in Iraq," they had plenty of time to do either/both)

We are in Iraq to stab Al Queda in the heart... And we are doing quite well at it (or more accuratly, we are standing by and watching them commit suicide on an organizational/strategic level)...

Leaving now would be a terrible mistake...

In someone else's words:

Never interrupt your enemy when he is in the process of fucking himself in the ass...

Which is precisely what AQ has done by their actions in Iraq..

You might as be better off wearing the wrong 'colors' in the wrong part of LA, then be an AQ terrorist in Anbar these days... Your chances of survival would be better in LA....

This is what I've heard from most of the BTDTs that I've talked to recently. The 2-3 who think otherwise seem to be disillusioned and not seeing the big picture.

Posted: 11/27/2007 4:43:06 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
NUMBER 1 - There are no FORMER MARINES...

+1.

The new term that's in vogue is "inactive Marine".

I was wondering, because "Marine not currently serving" seems a bit long.

Posted: 11/27/2007 4:46:04 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
It is about oil, preserving access of the free world to the oil supplies we have become dependant upon.

It is about straegic positioning of US forces in the region relative to Iran - we now have forces on Irans' eastern and western borders; we have naval forces in the Gulf. It is easier to invade Iraq then move on Iran (if necessary) than to invade Iran directly.

<snip>

Often-overlooked point. I've been saying it for a long time* -- GWB is a geopolitical genius** (or is at least listening to someone who is).

* even though I have a philosophical objection to the premise

** under the presently-reigning paradigm

Posted: 11/27/2007 5:21:07 PM EDT

[#14]

I have to agree with Toad_77, I have done multiple tours in Iraq so far and the what most Americans know about that war is less than accurate. Worse than that most Americans know about history and war is less than adequate or accurate. I really like the following by a retired army officer. It somewhat explains the misinformation that color most Americans view of war and why that hurts our chances of winning.

By Ralph Peters

12 Myths of 21st-Century War
Unaware of the cost of freedom and served by leaders without military expertise, Americans have started to believe whatever's comfortable.

We're in trouble. We're in danger of losing more wars. Our troops haven't forgotten how to fight. We've never had better men and women in uniform. But our leaders and many of our fellow Americans no longer grasp what war means or what it takes to win.

Thanks to those who have served in uniform, we've lived in such safety and comfort for so long that for many Americans sacrifice means little more than skipping a second trip to the buffet table.

Two trends over the past four decades contributed to our national ignorance of the cost, and necessity, of victory. First, the most privileged Americans used the Vietnam War as an excuse to break their tradition of uniformed service. Ivy League universities once produced heroes. Now they resist Reserve Officer Training Corps representation on their campuses.

Yet, our leading universities still produce a disproportionate number of U.S. political leaders. The men and women destined to lead us in wartime dismiss military service as a waste of their time and talents. Delighted to pose for campaign photos with our troops, elected officials in private disdain the military. Only one serious presidential aspirant in either party is a veteran, while another presidential hopeful pays as much for a single haircut as I took home in a month as an Army private.

Second, we've stripped in-depth U.S. history classes out of our schools. Since the 1960s, one history course after another has been cut, while the content of those remaining focuses on social issues and our alleged misdeeds. Dumbed-down textbooks minimize the wars that kept us free. As a result, ignorance of the terrible price our troops had to pay for freedom in the past creates absurd expectations about our present conflicts. When the media offer flawed or biased analyses, the public lacks the knowledge to make informed judgments.

This combination of national leadership with no military expertise and a population that hasn't been taught the cost of freedom leaves us with a government that does whatever seems expedient and a citizenry that believes whatever's comfortable. Thus, myths about war thrive.

Myth No. 1: War doesn't change anything.

This campus slogan contradicts all of human history. Over thousands of years, war has been the last resort - and all too frequently the first resort - of tribes, religions, dynasties, empires, states and demagogues driven by grievance, greed or a heartless quest for glory. No one believes that war is a good thing, but it is sometimes necessary. We need not agree in our politics or on the manner in which a given war is prosecuted, but we can't pretend that if only we laid down our arms all others would do the same.

Wars, in fact, often change everything. Who would argue that the American Revolution, our Civil War or World War II changed nothing? Would the world be better today if we had been pacifists in the face of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan?

Certainly, not all of the changes warfare has wrought through the centuries have been positive. Even a just war may generate undesirable results, such as Soviet tyranny over half of Europe after 1945. But of one thing we may be certain: a U.S. defeat in any war is a defeat not only for freedom, but for civilization. Our enemies believe that war can change the world. And they won't be deterred by bumper stickers.

Myth No. 2: Victory is impossible today.

Victory is always possible, if our nation is willing to do what it takes to win. But victory is, indeed, impossible if U.S. troops are placed under impossible restrictions, if their leaders refuse to act boldly, if every target must be approved by lawyers, and if the American people are disheartened by a constant barrage of negativity from the media. We don't need generals who pop up behind microphones to apologize for every mistake our soldiers make. We need generals who win.

And you can't win if you won't fight. We're at the start of a violent struggle that will ebb and flow for decades, yet our current generation of leaders, in and out of uniform, worries about hurting the enemy's feelings.

One of the tragedies of our involvement in Iraq is that while we did a great thing by removing Saddam Hussein, we tried to do it on the cheap. It's an iron law of warfare that those unwilling to pay the butcher's bill up front will pay it with compound interest in the end. We not only didn't want to pay that bill, but our leaders imagined that we could make friends with our enemies even before they were fully defeated. Killing a few hundred violent actors like Moqtada al-Sadr in 2003 would have prevented thousands of subsequent American deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths. We started something our national leadership lacked the guts to finish.

Despite our missteps, victory looked a great deal less likely in the early months of 1942 than it does against our enemies today. Should we have surrendered after the fall of the Philippines? Today's opinionmakers and elected officials have lost their grip on what it takes to win. In the timeless words of Nathan Bedford Forrest, "War means fighting, and fighting means killing."

And in the words of Gen. Douglas MacArthur, "It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it."

Myth No. 3: Insurgencies can never be defeated.

Historically, fewer than one in 20 major insurgencies succeeded. Virtually no minor ones survived. In the mid-20th century, insurgencies scored more wins than previously had been the case, but that was because the European colonial powers against which they rebelled had already decided to rid themselves of their imperial possessions. Even so, more insurgencies were defeated than not, from the Philippines to Kenya to Greece. In the entire 18th century, our war of independence was the only insurgency that defeated a major foreign power and drove it out for good.

The insurgencies we face today are, in fact, more lethal than the insurrections of the past century. We now face an international terrorist insurgency as well as local rebellions, all motivated by religious passion or ethnicity or a fatal compound of both. The good news is that in over 3,000 years of recorded history, insurgencies motivated by faith and blood overwhelmingly failed. The bad news is that they had to be put down with remorseless bloodshed.

Myth No. 4: There's no military solution; only negotiations can solve our problems.

In most cases, the reverse is true. Negotiations solve nothing until a military decision has been reached and one side recognizes a peace agreement as its only hope of survival. It would be a welcome development if negotiations fixed the problems we face in Iraq, but we're the only side interested in a negotiated solution. Every other faction - the terrorists, Sunni insurgents, Shia militias, Iran and Syria - is convinced it can win.

The only negotiations that produce lasting results are those conducted from positions of indisputable strength.

Myth No. 5: When we fight back, we only provoke our enemies.

When dealing with bullies, either in the schoolyard or in a global war, the opposite is true: if you don't fight back, you encourage your enemy to behave more viciously.

Passive resistance only works when directed against rule-of-law states, such as the core English-speaking nations. It doesn't work where silent protest is answered with a bayonet in the belly or a one-way trip to a political prison. We've allowed far too many myths about the "innate goodness of humanity" to creep up on us. Certainly, many humans would rather be good than bad. But if we're unwilling to fight the fraction of humanity that's evil, armed and determined to subjugate the rest, we'll face even grimmer conflicts.

Myth No. 6: Killing terrorists only turns them into martyrs.

It's an anomaly of today's Western world that privileged individuals feel more sympathy for dictators, mass murderers and terrorists - consider the irrational protests against Guantanamo - than they do for their victims. We were told, over and over, that killing Osama bin Laden or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, hanging Saddam Hussein or targeting the Taliban's Mullah Omar would only unite their followers. Well, we haven't yet gotten Osama or Omar, but Zarqawi's dead and forgotten by his own movement, whose members never invoke that butcher's memory. And no one is fighting to avenge Saddam. The harsh truth is that when faced with true fanatics, killing them is the only way to end their influence. Imprisoned, they galvanize protests, kidnappings, bombings and attacks that seek to free them. Want to make a terrorist a martyr? Just lock him up. Attempts to try such monsters in a court of law turn into mockeries that only provide public platforms for their hate speech, which the global media is delighted to broadcast. Dead, they're dead. And killing them is the ultimate proof that they lack divine protection. Dead terrorists don't kill.

Myth No. 7: If we fight as fiercely as our enemies, we're no better than them.

Did the bombing campaign against Germany turn us into Nazis? Did dropping atomic bombs on Japan to end the war and save hundreds of thousands of American lives, as well as millions of Japanese lives, turn us into the beasts who conducted the Bataan Death March?

The greatest immorality is for the United States to lose a war. While we seek to be as humane as the path to victory permits, we cannot shrink from doing what it takes to win. At present, the media and influential elements of our society are obsessed with the small immoralities that are inevitable in wartime. Soldiers are human, and no matter how rigorous their training, a miniscule fraction of our troops will do vicious things and must be punished as a consequence. Not everyone in uniform will turn out to be a saint, and not every chain of command will do its job with equal effectiveness. But obsessing on tragic incidents - of which there have been remarkably few in Iraq or Afghanistan - obscures the greater moral issue: the need to defeat enemies who revel in butchering the innocent, who celebrate atrocities, and who claim their god wants blood.

Myth No. 8: The United States is more hated today than ever before.

Those who served in Europe during the Cold War remember enormous, often-violent protests against U.S. policy that dwarfed today's let's-have-fun-on-a-Sunday-afternoon rallies. Older readers recall the huge ban-the-bomb, pro-communist demonstrations of the 1950s and the vast seas of demonstrators filling the streets of Paris, Rome and Berlin to protest our commitment to Vietnam. Imagine if we'd had 24/7 news coverage of those rallies. I well remember serving in Germany in the wake of our withdrawal from Saigon, when U.S. soldiers were despised by the locals - who nonetheless were willing to take our money - and terrorists tried to assassinate U.S. generals.

The fashionable anti-Americanism of the chattering classes hasn't stopped the world from seeking one big green card. As I've traveled around the globe since 9/11, I've found that below the government-spokesman/professional-radical level, the United States remains the great dream for university graduates from Berlin to Bangalore to Bogota.

On the domestic front, we hear ludicrous claims that our country has never been so divided. Well, that leaves out our Civil War. Our historical amnesia also erases the violent protests of the late 1960s and early 1970s, the mass confrontations, rioting and deaths. Is today's America really more fractured than it was in 1968?

Myth No. 9: Our invasion of Iraq created our terrorist problems.

This claim rearranges the order of events, as if the attacks of 9/11 happened after Baghdad fell. Our terrorist problems have been created by the catastrophic failure of Middle Eastern civilization to compete on any front and were exacerbated by the determination of successive U.S. administrations, Democrat and Republican, to pretend that Islamist terrorism was a brief aberration. Refusing to respond to attacks, from the bombings in Beirut to Khobar Towers, from the first attack on the Twin Towers to the near-sinking of the USS Cole, we allowed our enemies to believe that we were weak and cowardly. Their unchallenged successes served as a powerful recruiting tool.

Did our mistakes on the ground in Iraq radicalize some new recruits for terror? Yes. But imagine how many more recruits there might have been and the damage they might have inflicted on our homeland had we not responded militarily in Afghanistan and then carried the fight to Iraq. Now Iraq is al-Qaeda's Vietnam, not ours.
Myth No. 10: If we just leave, the Iraqis will patch up their differences on their own.

The point may come at which we have to accept that Iraqis are so determined to destroy their own future that there's nothing more we can do. But we're not there yet, and leaving immediately would guarantee not just one massacre but a series of slaughters and the delivery of a massive victory to the forces of terrorism. We must be open-minded about practical measures, from changes in strategy to troop reductions, if that's what the developing situation warrants. But it's grossly irresponsible to claim that our presence is the primary cause of the violence in Iraq - an allegation that ignores history.

Myth No. 11: It's all Israel's fault. Or the popular Washington corollary: "The Saudis are our friends."

Israel is the Muslim world's excuse for failure, not a reason for it. Even if we didn't support Israel, Islamist extremists would blame us for countless other imagined wrongs, since they fear our freedoms and our culture even more than they do our military. All men and women of conscience must recognize the core difference between Israel and its neighbors: Israel genuinely wants to live in peace, while its genocidal neighbors want Israel erased from the map.

As for the mad belief that the Saudis are our friends, it endures only because the Saudis have spent so much money on both sides of the aisle in Washington. Saudi money continues to subsidize anti-Western extremism, to divide fragile societies, and encourage hatred between Muslims and all others. Saudi extremism has done far more damage to the Middle East than Israel ever did. The Saudis are our enemies.

Myth No. 12: The Middle East's problems are all America's fault.

Muslim extremists would like everyone to believe this, but it just isn't true. The collapse of once great Middle Eastern civilizations has been under way for more than five centuries, and the region became a backwater before the United States became a country. For the first century and a half of our national existence, our relations with the people of the Middle East were largely beneficent and protective, notwithstanding our conflict with the Barbary Pirates in North Africa. But Islamic civilization was on a downward trajectory that could not be arrested. Its social and economic structures, its values, its neglect of education, its lack of scientific curiosity, the indolence of its ruling classes and its inability to produce a single modern state that served its people all guaranteed that, as the West's progress accelerated, the Middle East would fall ever farther behind. The Middle East has itself to blame for its problems.

None of us knows what our strategic future holds, but we have no excuse for not knowing our own past. We need to challenge inaccurate assertions about our policies, about our past and about war itself. And we need to work within our community and state education systems to return balanced, comprehensive history programs to our schools. The unprecedented wealth and power of the United States allows us to afford many things denied to human beings throughout history. But we, the people, cannot afford ignorance.

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer, strategist and author of 22 books, including the recent "Wars of Blood and Faith: The Conflicts That Will Shape the 21st Century.

Posted: 11/27/2007 6:10:53 PM EDT

[#15]

Forget the propaganda of the reasons why we are there. It is not-PC to announce the real reason; to show all the rest of the Muslim community that we can topple the biggest bad guy in their neighborhood. Too bad we forgot it ourselves and want to now play nice with them.

Posted: 11/28/2007 5:39:58 AM EDT

[#16]

I served in the Army during the first gulf war. I stated very loudly we'd be back because we didnt finish the job.

Fast forward for the next decade and all the build up, stand down, build up, stand down
get on the bus, get off the bus, get on the bus, get off the bus. Sound familiar.

I feel bad for the men and women fighting today because we didnt finish the job in 91.

As for the reasons we went back this time i have my thoughts.
1. War for Oil is reality so get over yourselves. The first people saying no blood for oil
are the first ones bitching when gas went to $2 a gallon.
2. WMD they were there, first because we gave them to him during the Iran/Iraq war second,
because he had them and some of us were exposed. Third do you think he wouldnt let
the inspectors in because he had nothing to hide? Get Real. I call this my Sept 12th
theory. On Sept 12, 01 the vast majority of people asked the government why didnt you stop
the terrorist. If Saddam had and used WMD on Americans and we didnt do anything about it
there would have been an outcry of WHY?

I get frustrated by the average american citizen who enjoys freedom but has no clue as to the
cost of that freedom. I ask what have you done for America and most only can answer Pay Taxes.
Just like I support the troops but not the war and when asked what they do to support the troops
Oh I have a yellow ribbon bumper sticker.

Give me a break. Sorry for the rant.

Posted: 11/28/2007 5:48:33 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
I served in the Army during the first gulf war. I stated very loudly we'd be back because we didnt finish the job.

Fast forward for the next decade and all the build up, stand down, build up, stand down
get on the bus, get off the bus, get on the bus, get off the bus. Sound familiar.

I feel bad for the men and women fighting today because we didnt finish the job in 91.

As for the reasons we went back this time i have my thoughts.
1. War for Oil is reality so get over yourselves. The first people saying no blood for oil
are the first ones bitching when gas went to $2 a gallon.
2. WMD they were there, first because we gave them to him during the Iran/Iraq war second,
because he had them and some of us were exposed. Third do you think he wouldnt let
the inspectors in because he had nothing to hide? Get Real. I call this my Sept 12th
theory. On Sept 12, 01 the vast majority of people asked the government why didnt you stop
the terrorist. If Saddam had and used WMD on Americans and we didnt do anything about it
there would have been an outcry of WHY?

I get frustrated by the average american citizen who enjoys freedom but has no clue as to the
cost of that freedom. I ask what have you done for America and most only can answer Pay Taxes.
Just like I support the troops but not the war and when asked what they do to support the troops
Oh I have a yellow ribbon bumper sticker.

Give me a break. Sorry for the rant.

yup....

Posted: 11/28/2007 6:48:16 AM EDT

[#18]

OK lets get over ourselves....

30 seconds on
Google

If it's all about the oil then we're shooting at the wrong place, we import more than three times the amount of oil imported from Iraq from Canada, more than double the amount from Saudi Arabia and Mexico and nearly double the amount Venezuela and Nigeria.

I'm so damn sick of all the libtard BS, Saddam was a brutal dictator who if left unchecked would have moved from chemical/bio weapons (he had used them in the past on HIS OWN PEOPLE, remember the Kurds) to what ever type of WMD he could get in his arsenal.

Can anyone tell me how many Iraqi's ended up in mass graved because of Saddam?? Saddam himself was a WMD.

Toad

Posted: 11/28/2007 9:10:23 AM EDT

[#19]

Al Qiada strategy is to slowly bleed us. We are fighting the war on their terms not ours. Maintaining an occupying force of 150,000 is unsustainable and will bankrupt this country. They are trying to do to us what we did to the soviet union. Break us financially and morally.

We can easily beat them and with a whole lot less money. Only use conventional forces for conventional battles. We do not need to patrol the streets of Iraq with a convoy of Hmmwv's or the new Mraps or lav's looking for "Al Qaida" or "insurgents". instead........

We should have some sf dudes hearding goats past a village. They spot insurgent activity, call up an airstrike from a global hawk and the insurgents are dealt with. This strategy is much more cost effective and the losses are minimized. If our true enemy is Al Qaida in Iraq we should be focusing on destroying Al Qaida not nation building or someother BS

Lets fight the global war on terror on our terms. "As cheaply and quickly as possible" If we have to deal with third party "slum lords" I mean religious leaders with their own militias, give them an ultimatum. Dont let them hide in shrines and dictate terms for a cease fire like in Najaf. Give them one opportunity to surrender unconditianally. If they reject, dont send in the Marines to fight their militias in a graveyard out side of the mosque.

Instead carpet bomb the entire area with B 52's

If we are to win the war against radical islam, we must fight it on our terms not on theirs. If not, we will financially bleed to death and lose. If we are not willing to wipe out complete villages then we will not win. We must completely crush and destroy our enemies. If the enemy choose to hold up in a city, village or wherever building they are at. The civillian deaths that occur are the enemies responsiblity for putting these civilians in harms way. Make them aware of this fact. Make them know we will destroy them unconditianaly, violently and quickly. With no reservations and no regrets in doing so.

Posted: 11/28/2007 9:23:14 AM EDT

[#20]

john-stewart,

part of winning a battle in a country like what we are in is also trying to win the "Hearts & Minds" of the people. Please don't flame me for that cliche'

You can carpet bomb a country into the next century...guess what they will still be your enemy.

do I think we can "win" all the people over there nope...they have some huge problems to overcome. They are a backward (technology & Economy) country and are struggling with becoming a modern world. With the modern world brings many things that even I may not like at times.

For them they (fundamentalist, radical, whatever you want to say) see the modernization as losing their identity but more importantly losing their faith and modernization as an attack on their religion.

I am a fundamental baptist and I see modernization of many things that is destroying even in our own country the Moral fabric of what we once were ( now I don't go around killing people who disagree)

, now imagine a country that is many many years behind us and WAY more fundamental then I COULD EVER be and imagine that they are also willing to die to save and protect their way of life.

So having said all that their is a lot more to war then just carpet bomb and incinerate the villages...

People are still people and we have to deal with them...not just kill them all off...

Trust me I am not opposed to fighting the war and the taking of lives, but I also think a good soldier is also a smart one.....

Peace

Posted: 11/28/2007 9:27:47 AM EDT

[#21]

You do not win a war by "winning the hearts and minds of people"

You win a war by "eliminating their existance".

Posted: 11/28/2007 9:31:47 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
You do not win a war by "winning the hearts and minds of people"

You win a war by "eliminating their existence".

Somehow I knew you would latch on to that...

That's not what I said though

part of winning a battle in a country like what we are in is also trying to win the "Hearts & Minds" of the people. Please don't flame me for that cliche'

I also said

Trust me I am not opposed to fighting the war and the taking of lives, but I also think a good soldier is also a smart one.....

Posted: 11/28/2007 9:34:13 AM EDT

[#23]

You do not win a war by "winning the hearts and minds of people"

You win a war by "eliminating their existance".

Dude you are seriously out of touch........

Who does "their" refer to, the men women and children who want nothing more than to live in peace or the foreign fighters of AQ in Iraq?

Posted: 11/28/2007 9:34:40 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Al Qiada strategy is to slowly bleed us. We are fighting the war on their terms not ours. Maintaining an occupying force of 150,000 is unsustainable and will bankrupt this country. They are trying to do to us what we did to the soviet union. Break us financially and morally.

We can easily beat them and with a whole lot less money. Only use conventional forces for conventional battles. We do not need to patrol the streets of Iraq with a convoy of Hmmwv's or the new Mraps or lav's looking for "Al Qaida" or "insurgents". instead........

We should have some sf dudes hearding goats past a village. They spot insurgent activity, call up an airstrike from a global hawk and the insurgents are dealt with. This strategy is much more cost effective and the losses are minimized. If our true enemy is Al Qaida in Iraq we should be focusing on destroying Al Qaida not nation building or someother BS

Lets fight the global war on terror on our terms. "As cheaply and quickly as possible" If we have to deal with third party "slum lords" I mean religious leaders with their own militias, give them an ultimatum. Dont let them hide in shrines and dictate terms for a cease fire like in Najaf. Give them one opportunity to surrender unconditianally. If they reject, dont send in the Marines to fight their militias in a graveyard out side of the mosque.

Instead carpet bomb the entire area with B 52's

If we are to win the war against radical islam, we must fight it on our terms not on theirs. If not, we will financially bleed to death and lose. If we are not willing to wipe out complete villages then we will not win. We must completely crush and destroy our enemies. If the enemy choose to hold up in a city, village or wherever building they are at. The civillian deaths that occur are the enemies responsiblity for putting these civilians in harms way. Make them aware of this fact. Make them know we will destroy them unconditianaly, violently and quickly. With no reservations and no regrets in doing so.

Your methods defeat the entire purpose for going into Iraq....

In addition to being illegal, immoral, and ineffective...

1) Al Queda used the don't-have-an-air-force equivalent of this approach... It bought them a citizen's revolt that looks like it might destroy their entire organization in Iraq... Same for the Mahadi Army...

Queda wiped out complete villages... Queda car-bombed innocent civillians... Queda is losing because of it...

2) If we blow the place up, it can't serve as an example, and it can't destroy Al Queda's ability to achieve their final goal...

Why is this so hard to understand?

Posted: 11/28/2007 9:35:00 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Dude you are seriously out of touch........

I guess I am....

Posted: 11/28/2007 9:36:15 AM EDT

[#26]

Wait a minute Dave.......you sound like a smart soldier!!!

Quoted:

Quoted:
Al Qiada strategy is to slowly bleed us. We are fighting the war on their terms not ours. Maintaining an occupying force of 150,000 is unsustainable and will bankrupt this country. They are trying to do to us what we did to the soviet union. Break us financially and morally.

We can easily beat them and with a whole lot less money. Only use conventional forces for conventional battles. We do not need to patrol the streets of Iraq with a convoy of Hmmwv's or the new Mraps or lav's looking for "Al Qaida" or "insurgents". instead........

We should have some sf dudes hearding goats past a village. They spot insurgent activity, call up an airstrike from a global hawk and the insurgents are dealt with. This strategy is much more cost effective and the losses are minimized. If our true enemy is Al Qaida in Iraq we should be focusing on destroying Al Qaida not nation building or someother BS

Lets fight the global war on terror on our terms. "As cheaply and quickly as possible" If we have to deal with third party "slum lords" I mean religious leaders with their own militias, give them an ultimatum. Dont let them hide in shrines and dictate terms for a cease fire like in Najaf. Give them one opportunity to surrender unconditianally. If they reject, dont send in the Marines to fight their militias in a graveyard out side of the mosque.

Instead carpet bomb the entire area with B 52's

If we are to win the war against radical islam, we must fight it on our terms not on theirs. If not, we will financially bleed to death and lose. If we are not willing to wipe out complete villages then we will not win. We must completely crush and destroy our enemies. If the enemy choose to hold up in a city, village or wherever building they are at. The civillian deaths that occur are the enemies responsiblity for putting these civilians in harms way. Make them aware of this fact. Make them know we will destroy them unconditianaly, violently and quickly. With no reservations and no regrets in doing so.

Your methods defeat the entire purpose for going into Iraq....

In addition to being illegal, immoral, and ineffective...

1) Al Queda used the don't-have-an-air-force equivalent of this approach... It bought them a citizen's revolt that looks like it might destroy their entire organization in Iraq... Same for the Mahadi Army...

Queda wiped out complete villages... Queda car-bombed innocent civillians... Queda is losing because of it...

2) If we blow the place up, it can't serve as an example, and it can't destroy Al Queda's ability to achieve their final goal...

Why is this so hard to understand?

Posted: 11/28/2007 9:36:32 AM EDT

[#27]

I am sorry man. I just cant take it anymore. If we are really in a war then "Damm it, lets win it"

We should bomb them from the air. We should bomb them from the land. We should bomb them from the sea, but we should never, never quit bombing them.
John-Stewart

Posted: 11/28/2007 9:38:08 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
You do not win a war by "winning the hearts and minds of people"

You win a war by "eliminating their existance".

No, that's not how it works... Especially in 4GW...

You win a 4th generation war by convincing the people of the nation in which you are fighting to join you against the enemy...

Not by committing genocide...

You win wars by forcing the enemy to see that further resistance is futile... And in a 4th gen war, the only way to do this, short of genocide, is to get the local population to grab their guns & fight for your cause....

Which is what we are actually doing in Iraq...

Oh, and it's alot cheaper in blood and treasure to do it that way then to do it the genocide way....

Posted: 11/28/2007 9:40:59 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Dude you are seriously out of touch........

I guess I am....

Sorry, original post edited to show what that was in reference to...

Toad

Posted: 11/28/2007 9:42:05 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Dude you are seriously out of touch........

I guess I am....

Sorry Corey...misunderstood you...

peace

Posted: 11/28/2007 9:44:47 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
I am sorry man. I just cant take it anymore. If we are really in a war then "Damm it, lets win it"

We should bomb them from the air. We should bomb them from the land. We should bomb them from the sea, but we should never, never quit bombing them.
John-Stewart

That's not how you win a 4th gen global war against a state-less enemy...

Since the enemy doesn't have any villages, factories, cities or other bomb-able targets, it just doesn't work...

Convincing the enemy's neighbors that we're on their side, and that they really should grab their guns and shoot the enemy for us... That DOES work...

Not to mention that what you advocate is illegal and immoral... The only reason it was given a pass in WWII is that we lacked the technology to be more precise & accurate...

Posted: 11/28/2007 9:53:43 AM EDT

[#32]

Winning the hearts and minds worked so well in Vietnam.

Wining the hearts and minds works soo well for the Isrealis in the gaza strip.

Lets develope our whole war strategy bassed on theses succeses with 4gw.

BS

Or, we could just go in and kick their ass.

Posted: 11/28/2007 10:15:53 AM EDT

[#33]

Winning the hearts and minds worked so well in Vietnam.

Have you ever done your own research or just regurgitated whatever you're told?

Much of Vietnam was going well, hell the Tet Offensive was actually a huge defeat militarily for the VC/NVA, it was the lefts media misrepresenting what was really going on over there that turned the public against the war.

A good book I'll recommend that covers back to Vietnam on up to the current war.
War Crime's: The Left's Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror

While there are parts of the book I don't agree with I found it rather enlightening and the author has all his references listed

Posted: 11/28/2007 10:33:10 AM EDT

[#34]

Yes. lets do some history.

1 The vietnamese had been subjugated by the french and before that the japaneese.
2 The vietnamese wanted to have their own country independant of colonialist.
3 The average pig farmer in vietnam probably would have even had a better life under communism.

Yeah its going to be easy to win their hearts and minds.

Posted: 11/28/2007 10:33:46 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
Winning the hearts and minds worked so well in Vietnam.

Wining the hearts and minds works soo well for the Isrealis in the gaza strip.

Lets develope our whole war strategy bassed on theses succeses with 4gw.

BS

Or, we could just go in and kick their ass.

1) Actually, we never tried to win hearts & minds in Vietnam... We tried to 'just kick their ass'

Result? We did kick alot of ass, but because the South Vietnamese population as a whole (not just the urban-dwelling upper class) was never really motivated to live free or die trying, they never really stood up alongside us to defend their country against Communist invasion... So when we eventually left, the whole thing came falling down...

Contrast this with the attempted Communist takeover of Greece.. The Greeks - most of them - hated Communists with a religious passion (literally) and fought tooth and nail to defeat the Communist insurgency... We provided assistance, but they ultimately won the war themselves...

2) The Israelis, similarly don't try to win hearts and minds - they just trade bullets & rockets in a never-ending game of whack-a-mole... Basically, they just try to kick ass & force surrender...

Ironically, BOTH OF YOUR EXAMPLES actually support MY point...

Hmm...

Posted: 11/28/2007 10:37:10 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Please, everyone knows Al Qaida in Iraq is not who we are engaged with in fire fights everyday. Its either the sunnis or the shites. There are only a few hundred Al Qaida members in Iraq and even the Iraqis dont like them.

Al Qaida can be hunted down and destroyed in Iraq with a batallion of SF. We do not need 150,000 troops in Iraq to kill a few hundred Al Qaida.

Let the sunnis and shites do what they got to do and let us just go after Al Qiada. Remember Al Qaida is the enemy not the Iraqis. Yeah, yeah I know what about the chaos and death and all that once we leave. The middle east was F***** up before we got there and it will be f***** up when we leave.

I'm sorry, man, but this post just takes on a completely different tone than your original post.

In the original, it sounds/sounded like you were asking a legitimate question and were actually interested in an/the answer.

In this one (and most of your subsequent posts, for that matter), it sounds more like you're proselytizing and don't really care about the answer to the initial question you asked.

Just my two cents. Feel free to make change.

Posted: 11/28/2007 10:43:46 AM EDT

[#37]

My delima is this.

I want the enemy to be destroyed. What we are doing in Iraq, keeping 150,000 troops there indefinietely is not good. A recent general has said we will have to have troops there for the next 50 years.

So I am all for the all out destruction of islamic jihad, but I am not for $190 billion dollar a year war in Iraq that lasts for another 50 years.

so how should I feel?

Posted: 11/28/2007 10:55:17 AM EDT

[#38]

My delima is this.

I want the enemy to be destroyed. What we are doing in Iraq, keeping 150,000 troops there indefinietely is not good. A recent general has said we will have to have troops there for the next 50 years.

So I am all for the all out destruction of islamic jihad, but I am not for $190 billion dollar a year war in Iraq that lasts for another 50 years.

so how should I feel?

Has it escaped you that we are still in Japan and Germany some 62 years after the end of WWII?

We may have bases in Iraq for the next God knows how long but it will probably be the same situation as Japan and Germany, working peacefully with the people of the country for the common good.

Toad

Posted: 11/28/2007 11:25:05 AM EDT

[#39]

^ Agreed. I don't particularly *like* it, and it's certainly not my first choice in how to do these things, but sometimes that's just the way the world works. :shrug:

Posted: 11/28/2007 11:27:35 AM EDT

[#40]

IMO the current mission in Iraq is nation building in an attempt to bring stability to the region and to keep forward operating bases available for the US for future conflicts.

Posted: 11/28/2007 11:29:57 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

It's more like:

Plant both feet in Al Queda's back yard (the Middle East)...

Refuse to leave...

Didnt we do that already in Saudi Arabia? We had a presences there. The terrorists have often claimed our presence there is their motivation in atacking us though. Is Iraq a more acdeptable forward operating base to the terrorists than saudi arabia?

Posted: 11/28/2007 11:39:03 AM EDT

[#42]

The reasons for the Iraq war in 2003.

denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml

The purpose of this document is to provide a high level strategic view of the cause of the war, the reason that the United States became involved in it, the fundamental goals the US has to achieve to win it, and the strategies the US is following, as well as an evaluation of the situation as of July, 2003. Most of what is here has been explored in far greater detail in numerous posts made on USS Clueless (http://denbeste.nu). [It was adapted from this entry.]

[20030913: I have been making ongoing revisions to this document. I've been adding links to supporting information, and rewriting some sections which were misunderstood, whether accidentally or deliberately.]

The original version of this outline can be found at http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml. (Please include this URL in any copy made of this document.)

What is the root cause of the war?

Edited ~ 82nd :: See link posted above

Posted: 11/28/2007 11:46:31 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
The reasons for the Iraq war in 2003.

There were many valid reasons for invading Iraqw. We won the war when we defeated the Iraqi military and captured Sadam.

so the question is why are we still there? What are trhe reasons for the continued natin building mission in Iraq?

Posted: 11/28/2007 12:50:25 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Please, everyone knows Al Qaida in Iraq is not who we are engaged with in fire fights everyday. Its either the sunnis or the shites. There are only a few hundred Al Qaida members in Iraq and even the Iraqis dont like them.

Al Qaida can be hunted down and destroyed in Iraq with a batallion of SF. We do not need 150,000 troops in Iraq to kill a few hundred Al Qaida.

Let the sunnis and shites do what they got to do and let us just go after Al Qiada. Remember Al Qaida is the enemy not the Iraqis. Yeah, yeah I know what about the chaos and death and all that once we leave. The middle east was F***** up before we got there and it will be f***** up when we leave.

I don't know where to start because you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the dynamics of the insurgency.

Posted: 11/28/2007 4:10:07 PM EDT

[#45]

correct me if i am wrong but we cannot possibly be over there just for oil. Arent most of the oil fields in kuwait saudi arabia and the persian gulf? dont we already control that area???

Posted: 11/29/2007 11:13:17 AM EDT

[#46]

John Stewart-
We cannot force them to fight on our terms. We are not fighting a conventional war and it's ridiculous to suggest we can win the war by treating it as such.
You don't understand how to defeat an insurgency- if we bomb them back to the stone age then we lose the insurgency. If we "win the hearts and minds" then we win the insurgency as they will have no support from the people. Did it work in Vietnam? We never found out because we NEVER did win the hearts and minds. We have to show the average Iraqi that life is better if they support us than if they support the insurgents. We also have to show them that we don't want to change their culture (it sounds silly to an American but that makes it no less true).
I suggest you study up on insurgencies so that you can understand how it works. I know some Marines that were in one specific place about 2 years ago IIRC and they said the place was very dangerous- Marines we saying their prayers before patrols. The Marine said he returned to the same area earlier this year and it was a like a different place- Marines were giving out candy to kids etc...this change was attributed to the USMC implementing counter insurgency techniques (AKA winning hearts and minds). So yes, it CAN and DOES work- IF DONE PROPERLY.
Also study up on the concept of the 3 block war.

Posted: 11/29/2007 11:16:17 AM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
My delima is this.

I want the enemy to be destroyed. What we are doing in Iraq, keeping 150,000 troops there indefinietely is not good. A recent general has said we will have to have troops there for the next 50 years.

So I am all for the all out destruction of islamic jihad, but I am not for $190 billion dollar a year war in Iraq that lasts for another 50 years.

so how should I feel?

By destroyin the enemy how YOU suggest we create more enemies. This is not a conventional war.

We have to defeat it now, or in 50 years it will be even worse.

Posted: 11/29/2007 3:22:21 PM EDT

[#48]

I always viewed it as leave te FOB with the attitude "run motherfuckers 'cause I'm here now", then "drive down any street and return fire with as much violence as you can muster at anything with a gun", and go back to base alive.

I've passed out soccer balls to kids only to be shot by a sniper seconds later (love the SAPI plate). Life ain't dull outside the wire.

Posted: 12/1/2007 4:55:19 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The reasons for the Iraq war in 2003.

There were many valid reasons for invading Iraqw. We won the war when we defeated the Iraqi military and captured Sadam.

so the question is why are we still there? What are trhe reasons for the continued natin building mission in Iraq?

Same reason why we did the exact same thing in WWII. When we invaded Sicily, on our troop transports were not only loaded all of the implements of war, but also everything to sustain and rebuild a nation. Of course times have changed and rebuilding nations have change but you cant just go in, kick the shit out of the country and say "Have a nice day" and go back home and leave them in turmoil, then you will just have a big pile of shit on your hands to deal with again in another 15 to 20 years.

Posted: 12/1/2007 4:59:36 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
My delima is this.

I want the enemy to be destroyed. What we are doing in Iraq, keeping 150,000 troops there indefinietely is not good. A recent general has said we will have to have troops there for the next 50 years.

So I am all for the all out destruction of islamic jihad, but I am not for $190 billion dollar a year war in Iraq that lasts for another 50 years.

so how should I feel?

Why not take a trip to the recruiter, go over to Iraq and then see how things are going over there for yourself, get on the big red bat phone and call up GW and let him know when and where to start the carpet bombing? I like the fact that you asked a serious question on here but the first time someone with real experience over there responds you blast him with your ignorance. Smart Tom, very smart.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The War in Iraq (Page 1 of 2)

General » Hall Of Heroes

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us