BF2S Forums Near Sadr City, U.S. Troops Await Attack

EVieira wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

There is no winning this conflict. You can either destroy the country completely or get out and let the Iraqis figure out for themselves what the future holds for them. You have removed Saddam, and given the Iraqis a chance for democracy. Fine. I say it's time for them to find out if they are ready for the challenge.

You should have thought of that BEFORE going in and toppling their former government, ruthless or not. Now you destabilize a country and just take-off leaving the people to kill each other until someone takes power? Thats giving democracy a chance?

You (US government, Bush, whoever...) made this mess, now you suck it up and fix it. You decided to put democracy in place in Iraq, now you better damn well stay there and fight until it is definitely in place. Use the troops, weapons, tactics, necessary to do so. I always though the invasion of Iraq was precipitated, but now thats its done it needs to go all the way.

The last option should be accepting defeat and go running home leaving Iraq at the mercy of al-Sadr, Iran, Syria or anyone else interest in a piece of oil-rich land.

Ha ha, you are trying to have it both ways.
You take me to task for advocating a tougher stance and now say this, lol!


Other than that, your exactly right.

B.Schuss wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

WWII-Iraq comparisons are fatuous.

agreed. Germany and Japan raised the white flag and accepted defeat. No guerilla war, no insurgency. No religiously or historically motivated aggression towards the occupying forces. Also, there was hardly any ethnic divide among japanese or germans.

From what I've read and watched there was an insurgency in Germany after their defeat.  Obviously, not as problematic as the one in Iraq.  Just thought I'd add that in.

Last edited by Mike_J (2007-01-10 08:28:51)

ATG wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

[
Schuss is from Germany btw Vieira, not USA. What you are suggesting is controlling the direction of Iraq - if that is against the will of the people of Iraq then it will never work. What is needed is for everybody to step back so that they can have their civil war and determine their own direction(s). .

Ask yourself; if the U.N. had done its job and enforced its own resolutions would we have invaded?
If certain European powers hadn't been ignoring U.N. sanctions would Saddam have been as defiant?
Now that we've destabilized the region ( collective guilt on the part of the world community i.e,. oil for food scandal etc...) do you really believe there is a shred of morality in "everybody to step back so that they can have their civil war and determine their own direction(s). "?

I call that liberal hypocracy and do nothingism exposed.

You're talking to someone who abhorrs the UN.

You're also talking to someone who believes that all of this animosity stems way back to long before the US ever dabbled in the middle east (pre-1900). I've been reading the history of modern Iran of late. It seems to be a typical example of any middle eastern country. Oil was discovered all over the country. The British and Russian empires (later USSR) fought over proxy-control of the country and their resources. Way back in 1900 there was a general feeling of animosity against foreigners entering their country to usurp their resources with the backing of their planted/sponsored dictators. The British Persian Oil Company was making far money from Iranian oil than the Iranian government were in royalties!!! Then WWII came along and the allies occupied Iran. USA replaced the weakened empires of the UK and Russia and became top dog. In return for throwing loads of money at the Pahlavi dynasty, who sought to build a massive military to protect the Shah from being overthrown, USA were given carte-blanche to take over the mantle of 'resource raper' and de facto foreign occupier/dabbler. The mood amongst locals harshened towards the USA, demanding that the oil industry be nationalised. This ultimately led to the Shah being overthrown, by the will of the Iranian people, the Islamic Republic was born and the oil finally belonged to Iranians. That was in 1979. Then whaddaya know? in 1980 Saddam Hussein, US stooge, launches a war against Iran with military and financial backing from USA! Coincidental timing, don't you agree? This US proxy war lasted ten years. Saddam failed. So he took a shot at Kuwait. Big mistake. The US controlled Kuwait so this was NOT gonna go down well. Saddam eventually gets killed for his crimes, despite having old buddies like Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. So what we have now is the US trying to restore their control over the resources of Iraq and Iran. Iran aren't helping matters with their ridiculous rhetoric but the last election showed discontent with this as many moderates were returned to parliament. Having said that, I know that if I was Iran I'd be working on nukes ASAP - cos the US are a vindictive and greedy empire and the Iranian victory of 1979 will not be allowed to stand, just as Saddams act of greed in the early 90s was not allowed to stand.

Do nothingism? You're goddamned fucking right I vote 'do nothingism'. If our greedy little hands hadn't been so busy trying to impose our will on foreign countries way back when then perhaps we would have a middle east we could do business with (not down the barrel of a gun). The ENTIRE problem stems from western powers interfering in the matters and lives of foreign people. I firmly believe that the people of the region should be exercising their rights to self determination, not being gently nudged in various directions by external powers, just like the Iranians did in 1979 after almost a century of foreign 'domination'.

Hypocrisy? LOL. The fact of the matter is I don't think it was ever the right of any western power to go fucking with the people of another region of the world that, at that time, did not threaten us and the result of which has been to alienate them from us forever more.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-10 09:00:22)

smtt686 wrote:

You say we were wrong for going to Iraq in the first place.  Ok, your opinion, whatever, its too late now since we are there, so your beating a dead horse

Now, you want us to leave.  Pick up everything and leave.  Just walk away.  But then you say we should stay and clean up what we left behind.  Which is it?

If you going to continue to complain about the same thing you might as well quit complaining.  Enough is enough already.

When did I ***EVER*** ever say 'stay and clean up' what you left behind???????????!? €100 if you can find me saying something like that. LOLORAMA

CameronPoe wrote:

Schuss is from Germany btw Vieira, not USA.

I know, I was directing that line to the USA. Hence the parenthesis: "you (US government, Bush etc...)". But I edited that, so you might have missed it the first time.

CameronPoe wrote:

What you are suggesting is controlling the direction of Iraq - if that is against the will of the people of Iraq then it will never work.

The damage is done, the direction of Iraq is already changed: Saddam is dead. Now that it has been started, it must go all the way through. Leave the job half done could be harmful to everyone. If a bloody civil war ensues, we could have an even worse guy at power than Saddam. Bad for Iraqis, bad for the rest of us.

CameronPoe wrote:

What is needed is for everybody to step back so that they can have their civil war and determine their own direction(s). Also - some nations are just not ready for democracy - the arbitrary borders defning Iraq give the false impression that it is a homogenous country, which is simply not true. You can't have a democracy when three large and distinct ethnic groups want to kill each other.

Isolationism will not work. Didn't help neither world wars, and sure as hell won't do the ME and Iraq any good. The groups that are resorting to car bombs and assassinations must be dealt with. The rest, most likely the majority, will have to come to terms.

CameronPoe wrote:

Nations need to be built from the bottom up, by the people of the region in question. Arbitrarily drawing lines on a map, as the Brits did post-war when defining Iraq, does not constitute 'nation-building'.

If it was the Brits that drew Iraqs border lines they did a good job. The only separatist on Iraq are the Kurds, to the north. If they could elect their own governors and leaders, they most likely will remain in Iraq. Get rid of trouble makers such as al-Sadr and neutrilize the influence of Iran and Syria and you got yourself a nation. Leave Iraq now and these powers will only grow and take over Iraq.

@EVieira

Sorry E but I don't think you're being realistic enough about what's possible. Anybody in Iraq who even so much as mentions the US in a favourable light is at best made a paraia or at worst lynched. To think that the US can 'carry this through' to some mysterious end I have yet to hear a specific desciption of is mindlessly optimistic to put it mildly. People don't like occupation!! Can't anyone understand that????

Doesn't anyone realise that most countries are born or shaped out of either a civil war or a war of independence? Let them at it. It's either that or administer a perpetual police state in Iraq.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-01-10 11:25:25)

CameronPoe wrote:

ATG wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

[
Schuss is from Germany btw Vieira, not USA. What you are suggesting is controlling the direction of Iraq - if that is against the will of the people of Iraq then it will never work. What is needed is for everybody to step back so that they can have their civil war and determine their own direction(s). .

Ask yourself; if the U.N. had done its job and enforced its own resolutions would we have invaded?
If certain European powers hadn't been ignoring U.N. sanctions would Saddam have been as defiant?
Now that we've destabilized the region ( collective guilt on the part of the world community i.e,. oil for food scandal etc...) do you really believe there is a shred of morality in "everybody to step back so that they can have their civil war and determine their own direction(s). "?

I call that liberal hypocracy and do nothingism exposed.

You're talking to someone who abhorrs the UN.

You're also talking to someone who believes that all of this animosity stems way back to long before the US ever dabbled in the middle east (pre-1900). I've been reading the history of modern Iran of late. It seems to be a typical example of any middle eastern country. Oil was discovered all over the country. The British and Russian empires (later USSR) fought over proxy-control of the country and their resources. Way back in 1900 there was a general feeling of animosity against foreigners entering their country to usurp their resources with the backing of their planted/sponsored dictators. The British Persian Oil Company was making far money from Iranian oil than the Iranian government were in royalties!!! Then WWII came along and the allies occupied Iran. USA replaced the weakened empires of the UK and Russia and became top dog. In return for throwing loads of money at the Pahlavi dynasty, who sought to build a massive military to protect the Shah from being overthrown, USA were given carte-blanche to take over the mantle of 'resource raper' and de facto foreign occupier/dabbler. The mood amongst locals harshened towards the USA, demanding that the oil industry be nationalised. This ultimately led to the Shah being overthrown, by the will of the Iranian people, the Islamic Republic was born and the oil finally belonged to Iranians. That was in 1979. Then whaddaya know? in 1980 Saddam Hussein, US stooge, launches a war against Iran with military and financial backing from USA! Coincidental timing, don't you agree? This US proxy war lasted ten years. Saddam failed. So he took a shot at Kuwait. Big mistake. The US controlled Kuwait so this was NOT gonna go down well. Saddam eventually gets killed for his crimes, despite having old buddies like Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. So what we have now is the US trying to restore their control over the resources of Iraq and Iran. Iran aren't helping matters with their ridiculous rhetoric but the last election showed discontent with this as many moderates were returned to parliament. Having said that, I know that if I was Iran I'd be working on nukes ASAP - cos the US are a vindictive and greedy empire and the Iranian victory of 1979 will not be allowed to stand, just as Saddams act of greed in the early 90s was not allowed to stand.

Do nothingism? You're goddamned fucking right I vote 'do nothingism'. If our greedy little hands hadn't been so busy trying to impose our will on foreign countries way back when then perhaps we would have a middle east we could do business with (not down the barrel of a gun). The ENTIRE problem stems from western powers interfering in the matters and lives of foreign people. I firmly believe that the people of the region should be exercising their rights to self determination, not being gently nudged in various directions by external powers, just like the Iranians did in 1979 after almost a century of foreign 'domination'.

Hypocrisy? LOL. The fact of the matter is I don't think it was ever the right of any western power to go fucking with the people of another region of the world that, at that time, did not threaten us and the result of which has been to alienate them from us forever more.

Woohoo  great post.

Poe for president of the USA

IG-Calibre wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y27/ac … r/cart.png

Point?

keep staring at it and see can you work it out for yourself - explained humour is never funny..

Still don't get it.  Oh well.

Mekstizzle wrote:

No offence but it's pretty obvious what it's trying to say....

Oh...............it is supposed to be funny.  ahahahahahahah




Fail

usmarine2007 wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

No offence but it's pretty obvious what it's trying to say....

Oh...............it is supposed to be funny.  ahahahahahahah




Fail

Never said I agreed with it. No need to be obnoxious, you clearly got what it meant. People these days...

ATG wrote:

Bush wrote:

American forces will now have the green light to enter these neighborhoods.

My condolences in advance to the families of the brave American soldiers during this new phase.

They don't need your condolences as much a money for lawyer to keep them out of Military prison when the congress investigates everytime some Iraqis get pissed off because infidels shot their neighbors.

meh, make the Iraqis do the urban warfare, the US should secure the borders.  If the Iraqis can't police their own neighborhoods and root out the terrorist, Americans never will.  fuck the Iraqis if they have no desire for peace and liberty from the insurgency.

Better yet, carpet bomb, take oil to pay for war, and leave the backward ass lazy racist desert turds to rot in their own hell.  I'm sick of Bush spending my children's future for ungrateful people of a hostile religion that will never allow true freedom in their Islamic controlled state.