BF2S Forums Who is to blame for the failure in Iraq?

Bubbalo wrote:

Indeed, but if you claim that the reason you invaded Iraq was to defend yourself, you have to show a link to attacks on the US.  Saddam primarily concerned himself with Palestinian groups.

Not my claim. Invasion was a fuck up. I was just trying to say Saddam could have done things to prevent it as well. The United States can only go to war if they see a nation as a clear and present danger to itself. Iraq was a threat but not an immediate one.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-13 00:31:33)

But you're blaming him for you declaring war on him, and then you failing to impose order.  How is it his fault that you went in unprepared to deal with the results?

A better poll might be...will Ireland ever amount to anything?

Kmarion wrote:

Not my claim. Invasion was a fuck up. I was just trying to say Saddam could have done things to prevent it as well. The United States can only go to war if they see a nation as a clear and present danger to itself. Iraq was a threat but not an immediate one.

I always got the impression that Saddam was taunting the west so he could say to the rest of the middle east look the bullies are picking on me.  I don't think he ever expected his people to turn against him though.

Kmarion wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

But you're blaming him for you declaring war on him, and then you failing to impose order.  How is it his fault that you went in unprepared to deal with the results?

His blame lies within his BS he displayed to everyone.

Edit:getting late

Wrong.

As a leader he had to demonstrate to his nation he is resilient to overt threats.  This he duly did.  The onus was on the USA to demonstrate categorically Saddam was in possession of WMD, harboured terrorists, and was a clear and present threat.  Just because Saddam is frontin' isn't an excuse to blame him for punitive failures demonstrated by the invading army.  For Christ sake do you think he was going to tell the truth?  All he was capable to doing prior to the invasion was talk shit.

The fact of the matter is, to levy your argument that Saddam was to blame and the intelligence is wrong is totally unacceptable.  You were the invading army, you had the 'intelligence', you were the ones who felt threatened, you where wholly responsible for getting it right....you failed.

Last edited by m3thod (2007-01-13 03:33:24)

Sgt.Zubie wrote:

A better poll might be...will Ireland ever amount to anything?

LOL, Ireland is one of the best countries in the world matey, socially and they are quite good economically.

CameronPoe wrote:

The invasion and occupation of Iraq appears to be an unremittingly grim failure and general debacle. ATG seems to allude in his 'touching' tribute to a fallen hero that the blame lies with the Democrat party, rather oddly. He blames them, as the opposition party for the past 12 years, for being 'in opposition' as he put it. He seems to skirt over the fact that they didn't have the voting power to overturn any decision made by the Republican party for quite some time. They have been in control of the Senate and Congress for approximately 12 days.

What say you in the blame-game?

For me: George W. Bush, his advisors, the Republican party for going along with it and 51% of the American public for swallowing the bullshit he is now openly apologising for and voting him in for a second term.

Yeah ok Cam, how 'bout you go back and re-read some resolutions, concentrating on those that clearly held Iraq as a threat to the world. Resolutions drafted by the UN.

Then you can go back and re-read old articles that clearly show Iraq in violation to those resolutions for a decade, all the while the UN still holding Iraq as a threat to the world.

Then you can go back and re-read all the intel that was gathered and mutually agreed upon by the UN. Which determined Iraq was harboring WMD's. Which it was.

Then maybe you can go back and tally all the votes from the democrats that voted in favor of going to war then decided that they didn't want to see it through, because there was more power and clout to be made in opposing the war than supporting it.

Then how about you go back and check exactly who is the ones killing more civilians in Iraq, the coalition or the terrorists.

While you are at it, you can double check to see who is trying destroy everything needed for a stable and peaceful Iraq against who is trying to build such an infrastructure.

Finally, do some soul searching, and answer honestly, who wants a peaceful and stable Iraq more, the coalition or the terrorists, and who is working toward it?

The terrorists are to blame for Iraq, and the world is to blame for letting it continue. DO NOT assign blame for terrorism to the nations that are in open combat against it.

lowing wrote:

The terrorists are to blame for Iraq, and the world is to blame for letting it continue. DO NOT assign blame for terrorism to the nations that are in open combat against it.

So, basically, you feel it is the world's responsibility to fix the mistakes of a few nations?

CameronPoe wrote:

The invasion and occupation of Iraq appears to be an unremittingly grim failure and general debacle. ATG seems to allude in his 'touching' tribute to a fallen hero that the blame lies with the Democrat party, rather oddly. He blames them, as the opposition party for the past 12 years, for being 'in opposition' as he put it. He seems to skirt over the fact that they didn't have the voting power to overturn any decision made by the Republican party for quite some time. They have been in control of the Senate and Congress for approximately 12 days.

What say you in the blame-game?

For me: George W. Bush, his advisors, the Republican party for going along with it and 51% of the American public for swallowing the bullshit he is now openly apologising for and voting him in for a second term.

Stupid question: humans are to blame.

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

The invasion and occupation of Iraq appears to be an unremittingly grim failure and general debacle. ATG seems to allude in his 'touching' tribute to a fallen hero that the blame lies with the Democrat party, rather oddly. He blames them, as the opposition party for the past 12 years, for being 'in opposition' as he put it. He seems to skirt over the fact that they didn't have the voting power to overturn any decision made by the Republican party for quite some time. They have been in control of the Senate and Congress for approximately 12 days.

What say you in the blame-game?

For me: George W. Bush, his advisors, the Republican party for going along with it and 51% of the American public for swallowing the bullshit he is now openly apologising for and voting him in for a second term.

Yeah ok Cam, how 'bout you go back and re-read some resolutions, concentrating on those that clearly held Iraq as a threat to the world. Resolutions drafted by the UN.

Then you can go back and re-read old articles that clearly show Iraq in violation to those resolutions for a decade, all the while the UN still holding Iraq as a threat to the world.

Then you can go back and re-read all the intel that was gathered and mutually agreed upon by the UN. Which determined Iraq was harboring WMD's. Which it was.

So where are the WMD's?

Then maybe you can go back and tally all the votes from the democrats that voted in favor of going to war then decided that they didn't want to see it through, because there was more power and clout to be made in opposing the war than supporting it.

The Democrats IMO are a bunch of lameasses who don't present a real alternative to the Republicans. but then I'm not a US citizen...

Then how about you go back and check exactly who is the ones killing more civilians in Iraq, the coalition or the terrorists.

Directly or indirectly?

While you are at it, you can double check to see who is trying destroy everything needed for a stable and peaceful Iraq against who is trying to build such an infrastructure.

Directly or Indirectly?

Finally, do some soul searching, and answer honestly, who wants a peaceful and stable Iraq more, the coalition or the terrorists, and who is working toward it?

The coalition of course, but are they using the right methods? Good intentions aren't enough.

The terrorists are to blame for Iraq, and the world is to blame for letting it continue. DO NOT assign blame for terrorism to the nations that are in open combat against it.

Again... directly or indirectly?

stupid responses:

you must be one of those that will blame water for getting wet. Or blame wet paint for not being dry when you touched it.

The ones strapping bombs to their chests or blowing up markets and schools and kidknapping the educated and killing them arethe ones to blame. period.

lowing wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

lowing wrote:

The terrorists are to blame for Iraq, and the world is to blame for letting it continue. DO NOT assign blame for terrorism to the nations that are in open combat against it.

So, basically, you feel it is the world's responsibility to fix the mistakes of a few nations?

Well bubbalo, I kinda looked at like we were in combat against repeated Bali bombings, repeated London bombings, repeated Spain bombings ( although appeasement and cowering seems to work best for them), against attacks in the Phillipines as well as repeated 911 attacks . The mistakes that were made were by the world burying its head in the sand for too long hoping this problem would go away.

None of which had any relation to Iraq, with the exception of the Spain attacks, which were made when Spain looked certain to withdraw from Iraq: that is to say, if Muslim terrorists made them, their intent could only have been to draw them back into Iraq.

lowing wrote:

So you think terrorists will NOT find safe harbor in Iraq if we leave there. Keep dreaming. In case you hadden read the papers lately, this fight is not for Iraq anymore, hasn't been for a few years now. This fight is against terrorism and that fight happens to have fronted itself in Iraq. If it were not in Iraq we would be fighting this same fight somewhere else. That is, those nations with the stones to stand up and fight terrorism in the first place..

Good luck, given that by the DoD's and FBI's own definitions of the word 'terrorism' America is one of the worst offenders on the global stage today...

You know where America has the best chance of winning the War on Terror?  The same place it was started, in America.

lowing wrote:

UON wrote:

lowing wrote:

So you think terrorists will NOT find safe harbor in Iraq if we leave there. Keep dreaming. In case you hadden read the papers lately, this fight is not for Iraq anymore, hasn't been for a few years now. This fight is against terrorism and that fight happens to have fronted itself in Iraq. If it were not in Iraq we would be fighting this same fight somewhere else. That is, those nations with the stones to stand up and fight terrorism in the first place..

Good luck, given that by the DoD's and FBI's own definitions of the word 'terrorism' America is one of the worst offenders on the global stage today...

You know where America has the best chance of winning the War on Terror?  The same place it was started, in America.

Really? Do you care to back up what you say with facts or are just gunna destroy me with irrational opinions?

You can start by showing me where the US is purposely setting out to kill women and children in this struggle.
After that, you can actually address my post, instead of bombarding me with anti-American rhetoric.

When you do that I will counter with articles on smart weapons technology that the US is spending countless dollars to perfect in an effort to spare the innocent.

Purposely setting out to kill women and children is not how the DoD and FBI define terrorism.  Breaking laws (e.g. Iraq War) to influence government (e.g. overthrowing Saddam) is.

edit: I suppose you are going to claim that the DoD and FBI must be Anti-American too

Last edited by UON (2007-01-13 19:39:51)