BF2S Forums Will the America/Israel haters please take note.

Finally!

Maybe some good will come of all this, I hope so, but I'm not expecting any miracles.

America, " YOU" made the FIRE, now, "YOU" have to put it OUT!!!

usmarine2007 wrote:

acidkiller187 wrote:

America, " YOU" made the FIRE, now, "YOU" have to put it OUT!!!

Bullshit.  We do not really have to put out anything.  We could have just gone in, got rid of Saddam, proved there were no weapons, and left.

Or just stayed home and had a nice cup of tea and some biscuits ......

usmarine2007 wrote:

acidkiller187 wrote:

America, " YOU" made the FIRE, now, "YOU" have to put it OUT!!!

Bullshit.  We do not really have to put out anything.  We could have just gone in, got rid of Saddam, proved there were no weapons, and left.

That is exactly it. I have to agree with you there. If you were going to insist on pre-emptive military action, which I disagree with in nearly all situations I must spell out, then that is exactly the way the US should have dealt with the situation. WMD were, in theory, all the US was supposed to have been concerned about.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-02-28 07:12:42)

Stingray24 wrote:

It makes no sense at all to only remove Saddam and then leave the region a vacuum for Iran and Syria to fill.

Erm. That's what's going to happen anyway....? You can't force regime change or a system of government on a people - they will always try and self determine unless brutally repressed. It stands to reason that Iran are going to fill the vacuum given that the majority of Iraqis are Shi'a. Last I heard, Bush & Co. were meeting with Syria and Iran to thrash things out...

The military occupation is and always has been largely futile.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-02-28 07:16:08)

Stingray24 wrote:

"Force" regime change?  The Iraqis just loved good ol' Saddam didn't they . . .

StingRay - Saddam brutally repressed segments of society thus keeping them all in line and keeping a lid on the ethnic tension in the country. Unless the US planned or plans to be equally as brutal and harsh then I'm afraid the US are not going to mould Iraq into a country of their pleasing.

The gloves are off and all of the different factions are now free to battle it out for the right to bring Iraq in the direction they want - they are self determining, albeit with external hands trying to push things one way or another (the US and Iran). The revolution, and independence, is won by the people of a particular country - victory, peace and prosperity cannot handed out by some external power.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-02-28 07:59:45)

Stingray24 wrote:

Several posts back you agreed that the US should've taken out Saddam and then left.  That's why I said it makes no sense to do that and leave and allow countries to exert control who do not have the best interests of the West in mind.  It is only prudent to attempt to push things away from further influence by Iran. 

Someone has to attempt to maintain control until the Iraqis figure out what the hell their going to do with their country.  The US is damned if we do, damned if we don't.  We capture terrorists and throw em in Gitmo and we're bad and too harsh.  We don't repress Iraq and we're bad because we're not harsh enough.  I, for one, am tired of all the Monday morning quarterbacking by the rest of the world who sits on their ever expanding rear end doing NOTHING while the US does the heavy lifting.

No you slightly misread what I said. IF I WAS THE US AND WAS HELL-BENT ON PRE-EMPTIVE ACTION (<-- a hypothetical) then I would have knocked out the leader, checked for WMD and gotten out of there. No matter how many thousands of years you stay in that country the people are not going to bend to your will. The Brits tried it for 800 years here in Ireland. I'm just trying to impress upon you the futility of what you propose as 'the right course of action'.

1. Gitmo - harsh, unfair and ineffective at reducing terror.
2. Installing another Saddam - harsh, unfair and possibly capable of marginally reducing the terror threat (slightly) .
3. Minding your own business, building up deterrency, securing your borders - not harsh, not unfair.

It's as simple as that. The responsibility to sort out Iraq is that of Iraqis alone, not some foreign hand.Reality can sometimes be a bitter pill to swallow for some who are adamant they can try and control the will of a people.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-02-28 08:18:42)

Stingray24 wrote:

Several posts back you agreed that the US should've taken out Saddam and then left.  That's why I said it makes no sense to do that and leave and allow countries to exert control who do not have the best interests of the West in mind.  It is only prudent to attempt to push things away from further influence by Iran.

Which further supports the conclusion that the US went into Iraq specifically with the intention of establishing a Western friendly foothold in the heart of the Middle East. Which is by any standards, wrong. 

Stingray24 wrote:

Someone has to attempt to maintain control until the Iraqis figure out what the hell their going to do with their country.  The US is damned if we do, damned if we don't.  We capture terrorists and throw em in Gitmo and we're bad and too harsh.  We don't repress Iraq and we're bad because we're not harsh enough.  I, for one, am tired of all the Monday morning quarterbacking by the rest of the world who sits on their ever expanding rear end doing NOTHING while the US does the heavy lifting.

That's not the case at all. Most of the rest of the world said that going into Iraq was a bad idea, hence the lack of a UN resolution to support the war. Now that the US led coallition have conducted their absurd little war it's all gone horribly wrong. Saying "I told you so" is not Monday morning quarterbacking.

The whole point is that there will be no 'control' with the US in Iraq. Pretty much all the surrounding nations are pumping weapons, insurgents and mercenaries into Iraq to target the US forces there with the aim of destabilising Iraq. They are succeeding and will continue to do so until western forces withdraw from Iraq. It is highly unlikely that the regime that arises after US forces leave (if they ever do) will be friendly to the west, the US in particular, it is much more likely to be something similar to the Iranian system of government.

The US is unable to subjugate the entire Middle East and so the whole Iraq strategy is doomed to failure. Stop wasting money on it and leave them alone.

CameronPoe wrote:

It's as simple as that. The responsibility to sort out Iraq is that of Iraqis alone, not some foreign hand.Reality can sometimes be a bitter pill to swallow for some who are adamant they can try and control the will of a people.

Its far from as simple as that. You think Bush will stay in Iraq one minute more than necessary? The removal of Saddam created a vacuum of power in the most unstable portion of the world, not to mention being the worlds largest terrorist breeding grounds. The responsibility is not just Iraqis anymore, since if a belligerent, terrorist, anti-US government takes the place of Saddam the US will be to blame.

EVieira wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

It's as simple as that. The responsibility to sort out Iraq is that of Iraqis alone, not some foreign hand.Reality can sometimes be a bitter pill to swallow for some who are adamant they can try and control the will of a people.

Its far from as simple as that. You think Bush will stay in Iraq one minute more than necessary? The removal of Saddam created a vacuum of power in the most unstable portion of the world, not to mention being the worlds largest terrorist breeding grounds. The responsibility is not just Iraqis anymore, since if a belligerent, terrorist, anti-US government takes the place of Saddam the US will be to blame.

Better get prepared, because that's what'll happen.

usmarine2007 wrote:

EVieira wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

True, and the UN could have enforced their sanctions..............

And Iraq would still NOT have WMD...

Everyone from Clinton to Gore, to Bush, to Kerry, to the CIA thought they had them and wanted to prove for sure if they had them or not.

And thanks to Bush, you're paying the price of being utterly wrong. Well, its just a couple of hundred billion and a few thousand lives, nothing that will actually destroy the american hegemony anyway...

usmarine2007 wrote:

EVieira wrote:

usmarine2007 wrote:

True, and the UN could have enforced their sanctions..............

And Iraq would still NOT have WMD...

Everyone from Clinton to Gore, to Bush, to Kerry, to the CIA thought they had them and wanted to prove for sure if they had them or not.

This is what really bugs me, lets say Saddam did have WMDs. Why would the US invade with conventional forces instead of destroying the alleged locations of the WMDs? The reason i ask this is obvious to me now....why RISK the death of Americans and other "coalition" members with the possibility of a nuke/chemical weapons going off as a last ditch attempt to hold power?