BF2S Forums So Has It All Been Worth It?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Yes, except just the declarations of war do not favor the extremists and anti-Americans. (well, maybe the French, but I'm talking about the ME perspective)

The act of standing up after being attacked is good, we're showing that the attacks were unacceptable, and we're going to do something about it. The problem comes when we really put such a half-assed effort into it, not fully committing in the way military analysts said we should before we went into either country. Then when we start showing losses and not maintaining any semblance of complete order, it showed to the people that Al-Qaeda was right, the U.S. is weak and very deflatable. If we could have had a decisive victory it would have been a very good deterrent to future action against the U.S.

Why go into Afghanistan at all? You really think moving the whole army over there is going to be any more effective at finding Osama than the special forces teams that were already there before 2002?

Beefing up security does not work in a country like the U.S. that is tripping over itself trying to be as free as possible. In today's world, oceans really don't mean much as far as security. The fact is as complacent as America is today, 2000 civilians dying is absolutely unacceptable. The only way to really prevent another attack is to make them not want to do it again, because if they want to do it, they will succeed.

Firstly, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so I just can't see how pounding Iraq was in any way a good response to the atrocities experienced in New York and the Pentagon on that day.

Secondly, I wouldn't say the US is tripping over itself to be free these days. The patriot act and other such legislation would suggest the US government is happy to sacrifice personal freedoms in the name of security.

You say the only way to make the US safe is to make the extremists not want to do such a thing again... these are people who believe God himself is on their side, people who will strap explosives to themselves and blow themselves up just to take out a few of the enemy, people who will not only accept their own death as part of their greater battle but will actually happily accept death in battle because it fast-tracks them to heaven. Do you honestly think you will ever be able to defeat that kind of mentality with brute force?

You say oceans mean nothing in International security these days. How about you maintain the high levels of post 9/11 security on all US flights, invest heavily on domestic intelligence and security services instead of Iraqi and Afghani operations and develop a missile defence system for your own landmass (instead of one in our backyard)? I mean how does reeking havoc in the Middle East in any way lessen the threat of another 9/11 style attack?

Last edited by Braddock (2008-03-31 17:03:56)

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The current generation of terrorists from the Cold War aren't going to be stopped, you're right. What we are/should be trying to do is keep more people from joining their ranks, and if they see the kind of enemy they are up against, the chances of them being eager to go up against it will be greatly reduced. We have to be looking at the global situation 20 years from now.

By your reasoning Afghanistan is going too far as well, it didn't particularly accomplish anything.

There are 2 reasons why I see Afghanistan differently.

1. the majority of the world supported us

2. there was an actual government sponsoring terror involved

The terror that Saddam was connected to was considerably less significant than the Taliban and its friends.  Invading Afghanistan set a precedent that the world was against terror.  That's the true message we want to send.

Invading Iraq ruined that, because it then became an "us" vs. "them" mentality.

1. The support of other countries shouldn't matter. If it's important enough for us to go to war in the first place, there should be no question of our will. If we have to be looking at who else would be backing us, we should re-examine our reasons for war.

2. Sponsoring it yes, but it's not like they were controlling it. The Taliban may have made it easier for Al-Qaeda by sheltering them, but by no means did Al-Qaeda need them to operate at full efficiency.

Invading Iraq ruined the American mentality I would agree, but not because it was any more or less justified than the war in Afghanistan.

Braddock wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Yes, except just the declarations of war do not favor the extremists and anti-Americans. (well, maybe the French, but I'm talking about the ME perspective)

The act of standing up after being attacked is good, we're showing that the attacks were unacceptable, and we're going to do something about it. The problem comes when we really put such a half-assed effort into it, not fully committing in the way military analysts said we should before we went into either country. Then when we start showing losses and not maintaining any semblance of complete order, it showed to the people that Al-Qaeda was right, the U.S. is weak and very deflatable. If we could have had a decisive victory it would have been a very good deterrent to future action against the U.S.

Why go into Afghanistan at all? You really think moving the whole army over there is going to be any more effective at finding Osama than the special forces teams that were already there before 2002?

Beefing up security does not work in a country like the U.S. that is tripping over itself trying to be as free as possible. In today's world, oceans really don't mean much as far as security. The fact is as complacent as America is today, 2000 civilians dying is absolutely unacceptable. The only way to really prevent another attack is to make them not want to do it again, because if they want to do it, they will succeed.

Firstly, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so I just can't see how pounding Iraq was in any way a good response to the atrocities experienced in New York and the Pentagon on that day.

Secondly, I wouldn't say the US is tripping over itself to be free these days. The patriot act and other such legislation would suggest the US government is happy to sacrifice personal freedoms in the name of security.

You say the only way to make the US safe is to make the extremists not want to do such a thing again... these are people who believe God himself is on their side, people who will strap explosives to themselves and blow themselves up just to take out a few of the enemy, people who will not only accept their own death as part of their greater battle but will actually happily accept death in battle because it fast-tracks them to heaven. Do you honestly think you will ever be able to defeat that kind of mentality with brute force?

You say oceans mean nothing in International security these days. How about you maintain the high levels of post 9/11 security on all US flights, invest heavily on domestic intelligence and security services instead of Iraqi and Afghani operations and develop a missile defence system for your own landmass (instead of one in our backyard)? I mean how does reeking havoc in the Middle East in any way lessen the threat of another 9/11 style attack?

Afghanistan had just about as much to do with 9/11 as Iraq did.

We have the Patriot Act, and yet increasing security in airports that led to any more time spent in security would be completely unacceptable. Acts like that were really only passed because the right took advantage of the present situation, and had some excellent spin.

Christianity gave up the Crusades eventually. The religion didn't particularly change, but sending a whole bunch of people to slaughter got old.

Again, the American people aren't going to put up with Israeli-level security. We aren't worried about an ICBM, we're worried about poisoned water supplies, dirty bombs snuck into the country, or running another plane into a building. We really can't do much about these type of attacks, except stop them at the source. Now that they know they can fuck with us, they have to understand that if they do fuck with us, there will be consequences.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

1. The support of other countries shouldn't matter. If it's important enough for us to go to war in the first place, there should be no question of our will. If we have to be looking at who else would be backing us, we should re-examine our reasons for war.

The support of other countries means everything when the fight is against an ideology.  When we had Muslim nations supporting us against terror, that's when we were best at defusing terror.  Now, a lot of the Muslim World hates us, so they often sympathize with terror rather than fight it.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Afghanistan had just about as much to do with 9/11 as Iraq did.

We have the Patriot Act, and yet increasing security in airports that led to any more time spent in security would be completely unacceptable. Acts like that were really only passed because the right took advantage of the present situation, and had some excellent spin.

Christianity gave up the Crusades eventually. The religion didn't particularly change, but sending a whole bunch of people to slaughter got old.

Again, the American people aren't going to put up with Israeli-level security. We aren't worried about an ICBM, we're worried about poisoned water supplies, dirty bombs snuck into the country, or running another plane into a building. We really can't do much about these type of attacks, except stop them at the source. Now that they know they can fuck with us, they have to understand that if they do fuck with us, there will be consequences.

If someone is willing to commit suicide in a bombing, the threat of us retaliating doesn't hold much weight, because these people don't fear death.

We weren't exactly looking for support of Islamic nations, from what I remember we were mostly looking to European countries. The only Islamic one I remember specifically was Turkey, so we could use air bases in their country.

They don't fear death because they hold something other than their life most dear. Break their will, and they become a much more reasonable enemy.

NO, it was not worth it.  We should have pulled troops out of Europe and sold Sadam chemical weapons and advanced fighter jets in exchange for cheap oil deals and then let Euorope deal with the worlds most powerful dictator.  I have heard a lot of good ideas coming out of Ireland lately on how they know how to deal with the Peace loving Islamic regimes in that region so I am sure everything would be warm and fuzzy in the world this way.

Dilbert_X wrote:

No, its not been 'worth it'.
Nothing significant has really been achieved except to destablise the Middle East further - one of the the real objectives - and to increase hatred of the West - a side effect which is also useful.
All at immense financial cost in many different ways.
The oil price must surely be connected, invading one major oil producer - Iraq, threatening another - Iran and fronting up to a third - Venezuela, must have some effect - the second real objective.

A lot could have been acheived - capture of Bin Laden, destruction of Al Qaeda, creation of a proper nation state in Afghanistan which could have been an example of how the West deals constructively with the Islamic world.
Looking from the outside it seemed the objective of the Afghan campaign was to sweep Bin Laden and AQ into Pakistan and leave him there.

Instead we have this pointless mess in Iraq - which the Bush admin had been planning since before they were elected.
Furthermore the US and UN are now so weakened the only realistic threat in the region  - Iran can't now be usefully dealt with.

Interesting how you know the "real objectives". Would be even more interesting if it wasn't so tinfoil-hat laughable. Or had some facts to back it up.

Time will tell if it was worth it.

If Iraq can become a relatively peaceful and democratic nation because of our actions then I say yes.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Afghanistan had just about as much to do with 9/11 as Iraq did.

I'd argue with that. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 whereas the Taliban was a known sponsor and supporter of Al Qaeda. Bin Laden was also thought to be located somewhere in the Bora Bora region at the time and the Taliban were refusing to give him up.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

We have the Patriot Act, and yet increasing security in airports that led to any more time spent in security would be completely unacceptable. Acts like that were really only passed because the right took advantage of the present situation, and had some excellent spin.

I don't get your mentality, do you find it more acceptable to send thousands of Americans to die in the Middle East than to stand in line at a security check-point?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Christianity gave up the Crusades eventually. The religion didn't particularly change, but sending a whole bunch of people to slaughter got old.

Maybe suicide bombing will got old eventually too!?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Again, the American people aren't going to put up with Israeli-level security. We aren't worried about an ICBM, we're worried about poisoned water supplies, dirty bombs snuck into the country, or running another plane into a building.

If you honestly don't want another 9/11 style attack to happen again you're going to have to deal with Israeli level security... welcome to the real world my friend. The US have had a cosy time of it up until 9/11, Timothy McVeigh was the closest thing you got to terrorism but now you get to see what life has been like in Israel, Northern Ireland and all the other trouble spots of the world.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

We really can't do much about these type of attacks, except stop them at the source.

Laughable. 'Attack is the best form of defence' only holds true in sport. If you really want to stop it at the source you're going to have to wipe them out genocide style.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Now that they know they can fuck with us, they have to understand that if they do fuck with us, there will be consequences.

This is not a Chuck Norris film. That nonsensical macho attitude will have the US going the same way as the Romans did. You have to fight smart, if you continue down the heavy-handed road you'll end up with no friends in the International community and the minute China take over top spot no one will put up with your shit anymore. There is no clean decisive win in the 'war on terror', you've declared war on a concept... all you can do is monitor and contain terrorist activity and that is not done by invading countries, it is done using intelligence agencies and stealth.

Last edited by Braddock (2008-04-01 06:22:17)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Interesting how you know the "real objectives". Would be even more interesting if it wasn't so tinfoil-hat laughable. Or had some facts to back it up.

Well we know there were no WMD, we know there was never any hard evidence or anything approaching evidence. What little there was was concocted, exaggerated or both. Maybe there was a deception plan - nevertheless no REAL evidence despite wild claims to the contrary by your govt.
So disposing of WMD can't have been a real objective. It may have been a smokescreen to conceal GWBs pre-election agenda but it was never an objective.

Do you even read what you type before you hit SUBMIT?

The whole point of a deception op is to make someone (or multiple someones) believe something is true that is not. We've gone over the mountains of technical evidence that pointed to an active WMD program...just what the deception plan was designed to do.

Deception is one of the simplest military strategies out there. Even a "tinpot dictator" can do it correctly, particularly if his rule is unquestioned. As was the case in Iraq.

Your logic is unbelievably flawed. According to you, because the deception plan worked, going after WMD couldn't have been a real objective. If the deception plan worked (which it did), then going after WMD (that Saddam's plan made multiple countries believe was there) was absolutely a real objective. The fact that there were not any WMD actually there, while frustrating in the extreme, is totally unrelated to whether going after the suspected WMD was a real objective.

You have to look at what the preponderance of evidence showed then, absent what we know now. What we know now is that the preponderance of evidence the world had then was based on a deception plan run by Saddam. And the only way to have known that before the invasion was to have Saddam or Qusay Hussein as a spy on the inside.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I've made some educated wild-assed guesses and put forward my ideas as to the real objectives, which of course may well be are wrong.
I've asked you guys in a separate thread to put forward your views but all I get is ridicule.

Then come up with something reasonable, supported by facts.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Maybe you'd like to explain to us, and the families of 4,000 dead servicemen what it was all about.

I doubt many of those families question it nearly as much as you do, but they certainly had a more vested interest. Their child, father, mother, sister, brother died...and you sit there smirking and making condescending comments.

FEOS wrote:

Do you even read what you type before you hit SUBMIT?

The whole point of a deception op is to make someone (or multiple someones) believe something is true that is not. We've gone over the mountains of technical evidence that pointed to an active WMD program...just what the deception plan was designed to do.

"Mountains of technical evidence"?  You mean Powel's little slide show at the UN?

Deception is one of the simplest military strategies out there. Even a "tinpot dictator" can do it correctly, particularly if his rule is unquestioned. As was the case in Iraq.

You're talking about one of the most surveyed countries on the planet by our intelligence apparatus for the 10 years after the war.  He was attempting to fool his own people, outside intelligence services weren't as gullible as you think.  Repeat after me, DIA was not fooled.  CIA was not fooled.  The only people fooled were those that bought into the newsfeeds that were written by Rummy's Office of Special Propoganda during the run-up to the war, and then aired/re-printed without investigation or question by media conglomerates.  People wanted blood after 9/11, it was very easy to point out an enemy.

Your logic is unbelievably flawed. According to you, because the deception plan worked, going after WMD couldn't have been a real objective. If the deception plan worked (which it did), then going after WMD (that Saddam's plan made multiple countries believe was there) was absolutely a real objective. The fact that there were not any WMD actually there, while frustrating in the extreme, is totally unrelated to whether going after the suspected WMD was a real objective.

The USA was flexing their muscles.  Most countries just shut up, wouldn't want to poison the well for the potential post-war wind fall the administration was promising.  With the countries that did give open support for Bush's Iraq adventure, do you have any idea what kind of back room business deals went on?  How 'bout billions of dollars in bribes and "foreign aid" handed out to the poorer countries for their support?  This is one thing I know about first-hand.  You ever seen $25 million in cash before? I have, and it didn't come from Saddam's palaces.

You have to look at what the preponderance of evidence showed then, absent what we know now. What we know now is that the preponderance of evidence the world had then was based on a deception plan run by Saddam. And the only way to have known that before the invasion was to have Saddam or Qusay Hussein as a spy on the inside.

Or look at the reems of aerial recon photos, satellite imagery, captured documents from Desert Storm, or interviews with thousands of Iraqi emmigrants living in neighboring countries which the CIA always got around to talking to.  There were a few unknowns about their military capability (which we later evaluated as "it sucked"), but their WMD programs, or lack thereof, were fairly well mapped out.

Then come up with something reasonable, supported by facts.

If you want to execute a war of aggression, and continue to prosecute a costly occupation, the burden of proof is on you.  The psychology at work here is amazing.  Every excuse gets debunked, every bit of reasoning and logic is thoroughly disproven, step by step.  There is no grand pay-off in the end.  Their oil will be nationalized.  Iran will have an influence on their neighbor (and knock off the "Iran wants Iraq in chaos" crap, it is completely against their interests, they want the USA out, but a stable neighbor is still the goal).  Though I appreciate Gunslinger's earlier convictions, it is still the Sunk Cost fallacy at work.  No amount of emotional investment should be a factor in what looks like a straight-forward business decision.

I doubt many of those families question it nearly as much as you do, but they certainly had a more vested interest. Their child, father, mother, sister, brother died...and you sit there smirking and making condescending comments.

As a final "fuck you", after stop-lossing me, the Army decided to put me on funeral detail awaiting my discharge when I got back from Turkey.  Around 40 bodies I pulled off the airplane in Rammstein that summer (lots of other funeral details working also).  Thankfully this was before the "insurgency" went into full swing.  I guarantee every one of those families wants to do one of two things, believe that their kid/spouse/parent died for a good cause and bury their head in the patriotic sand, or know why the fuck Bush and company aren't in prison.  I sure do.

FEOS wrote:

Repeat after me: DIA was fooled. CIA was fooled. NSA was fooled. At least the AOs and principals I worked with. Their equivalents at the UK, France, and Germany were fooled.

You're right.  They pinned the entire blame for shitty pre-war reports on (paraphrasing) "DIA and CIA analysts at the lower levels suffering from groupthink".  Its in this POS somewhere... http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/crep … 1/sec1.pdf

It was my fault after all.  Fucking bunch of BS.  Wake me when its over.

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Repeat after me: DIA was fooled. CIA was fooled. NSA was fooled. At least the AOs and principals I worked with. Their equivalents at the UK, France, and Germany were fooled.

You're right.  They pinned the entire blame for shitty pre-war reports on (paraphrasing) "DIA and CIA analysts at the lower levels suffering from groupthink".  Its in this POS somewhere... http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/crep … 1/sec1.pdf

It was my fault after all.  Fucking bunch of BS.  Wake me when its over.

Who said it was your fault? Did you single-handedly produce the intel reports?

It's fine to be pissed...it's quite another to throw around accusations that either have no hard facts to support them or have been disproven with hard facts to the contrary.

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

You were a zoomie?  It explains the inability to grasp sarcasm.

It might also explain fuck-ups in the DIA...I forgot all about the AF analysts being part of the picture.  AF leadership has been praying for another "God's victory over Allah" since the end of Desert Storm.  This explains a lot actually.

You keep touting those hard facts, at least link something 'cause I'm coming up empty unless I go into "Weekly Standard"-land.

No, I'm not a zoomie. I did not attend the AF Academy.

I'm not an AF intel analyst either, but gg disparaging them. Good thing you got out with that piece of shit attitude.

When I can link to SIPR or JWICS on the unclass side...I'll retire and live in a mountain cabin.