BF2S Forums Without WMD we would have found another excuse to invade Iraq

To all those who still say it was ok to go to war because they still broke some rules, tell that to the families of all the soldiers and civilians killed for what was essentially a pointless war at the wrong time (Afghanistan was still going on, for those who forgot)

At the end of the day, you can't justify the war, especially not when you're already fighting one, look at what this shit did, now look at the state Afghanistan and Pakistan is in, you ask whether it was worth it, fuck no. UN Rules or not, it was never be worth it.

It doesn't matter how bad he was, there's plenty of dictators around, you can't go around fighting them all, especially not if you're fighting in a war already, and especially if its regarding a country that hates you and would never want you coming in to "save them"

That's the worst thing, all you guys that are so pro-Iraq war, regardless of WMD's or not and just wanted war for whatever reason, you guys all hate Arabs/Muslims anyway, so why is it all of a sudden you care about an evil dictator and all that shit, all of a sudden your heart bleeds for Iraqi people, you gotta be fucking shitting me. You guys also hate the UN, so why is it all of a sudden you care that someone breaks the UN's rules.

Tough shit for the Iraqi's, they should have been allowed to get rid of Saddam themselves, it's not like Dictatorships haven't been overthrown by the people before.

Afghanistan should have remained priority, and Iraq will always be seen as a huge fuck up.

Mekstizzle wrote:

To all those who still say it was ok to go to war because they still broke some rules, tell that to the families of all the soldiers and civilians killed for what was essentially a pointless war at the wrong time (Afghanistan was still going on, for those who forgot)

At the end of the day, you can't justify the war, especially not when you're already fighting one, look at what this shit did, now look at the state Afghanistan and Pakistan is in, you ask whether it was worth it, fuck no. UN Rules or not, it was never be worth it.

It doesn't matter how bad he was, there's plenty of dictators around, you can't go around fighting them all, especially not if you're fighting in a war already, and especially if its regarding a country that hates you and would never want you coming in to "save them"

That's the worst thing, all you guys that are so pro-Iraq war, regardless of WMD's or not and just wanted war for whatever reason, you guys all hate Arabs/Muslims anyway, so why is it all of a sudden you care about an evil dictator and all that shit, all of a sudden your heart bleeds for Iraqi people, you gotta be fucking shitting me. You guys also hate the UN, so why is it all of a sudden you care that someone breaks the UN's rules.

Tough shit for the Iraqi's, they should have been allowed to get rid of Saddam themselves, it's not like Dictatorships haven't been overthrown by the people before.

Afghanistan should have remained priority, and Iraq will always be seen as a huge fuck up.

I'm pretty sure more Afghani's would've died over the last 8 years under Taliban rule than have died under coalition leadership. Just sayin'.

Mekstizzle wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I'm pretty sure more Afghani's would've died over the last 8 years under Taliban rule than have died under coalition leadership. Just sayin'.

Er.. re read the post or something. I never said anything about not being in Afghanistan.

Fine then substitute Iraq for Afghanistan and Saddam for the Taliban and it's still valid.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I'm pretty sure more Afghani's would've died over the last 8 years under Taliban rule than have died under coalition leadership. Just sayin'.

Er.. re read the post or something. I never said anything about not being in Afghanistan.

Fine then substitute Iraq for Afghanistan and Saddam for the Taliban and it's still valid.

So now you're saying that more Iraqi's would have died had we not invaded, now you're definitely smoking some of that shit if you're thinking like that. That's absurd

JohnG@lt wrote:

I never said I was in favor of the invasion. Does it really matter anymore? A strong argument can be made that the future of the Iraqi people does look a lot brighter now, especially after signing the oil deals that I linked earlier.

There were oil deals in place with French and Russian companies before the invasion. The only difference is that sanctions have been lifted, which could have been done without military intervention (but would obviously have helped Saddam). The war has just turned Iraq into a big terrorist training camp. An iron fist will always be required to keep a lid on such a ludicrously divided nation (British post-war straight line cartography to blame there).

CameronPoe wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I never said I was in favor of the invasion. Does it really matter anymore? A strong argument can be made that the future of the Iraqi people does look a lot brighter now, especially after signing the oil deals that I linked earlier.

There were oil deals in place with French and Russian companies before the invasion. The only difference is that sanctions have been lifted, which could have been done without military intervention (but would obviously have helped Saddam). The war has just turned Iraq into a big terrorist training camp. An iron fist will always be required to keep a lid on such a ludicrously divided nation (British post-war straight line cartography to blame there).

I had hadji duty one day (providing armed escort to Iraqi contractors on base) and I got to talking with the guy. He was a Christian and his family was originally from Hungary but moved to Iraq before the Gulf War to work on the oil fields etc. He explained to me that there are something like 178 different tribes within the borders of Iraq, that they all have their own dialects and customs, and that they also possess ancient grievances that Saddam suppressed. He said the only way to stop the country from descending into perpetual civil war would be to level the place with nukes as we flew home.

Personally I think the best way to rule a multi-ethnic/lingual country is to have a good federal representative democracy. Dictatorships don't work in multi ethnic countries because one ethnic group always comes out on top which pisses everyone else off. So then you have shit like what you saw in the USSR, or Yugoslavia and now Iraq.

Saying that, the differences within Iraq aren't that big, it's still majority Arab and majority Muslim, the latter should be the unifying factor but then again lack of education and general lack of wealth will mean the little things always become magnified and everyone ends up hating on everyone else.

If you've read the news recently you'll find out that India created a new state based on linguistic lines, 36 million people who spoke a language didn't have a state of their own, now they do and that's how you keep shit together. A country like India is more ethnically, religiously and linguistically divided than perhaps any other single nation in the world. Yet they can still keep their shit together cos that country has always been a representative democracy.

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-12-12 12:10:45)

CameronPoe wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Personally I think the best way to rule a multi-ethnic/lingual country is to have a good federal representative democracy. Dictatorships don't work in multi ethnic countries because one ethnic group always comes out on top which pisses everyone else off. So then you have shit like what you saw in the USSR, or Yugoslavia and now Iraq.

Saying that, the differences within Iraq aren't that big, it's still majority Arab and majority Muslim, the latter should be the unifying factor but then again lack of education and general lack of wealth will mean the little things always become magnified and everyone ends up hating on everyone else.

If you've read the news recently you'll find out that India created a new state based on linguistic lines, 36 million people who spoke a language didn't have a state of their own, now they do and that's how you keep shit together. A country like India is more ethnically, religiously and linguistically divided than perhaps any other single nation in the world. Yet they can still keep their shit together cos that country has always been a representative democracy.

Yugoslavia disintegrated into several totally independent nations, some of which despise each other. Same goes for the USSR. There needs to be a Kurdistan, Shiastan and Sunnistan.

If Iraq can turn itself into a good and fair representative democracy, then there's no reason to split it up, I think the same can be said for Yugoslavia and the USSR. If they weren't dictatorships, then they probably would have had a good chance of staying alive for much longer. IMO anyway

But yeah, it all depends on the place in question, Iraq is probably better off just being broken up. The dictatorship probably ruined any chance of staying together peacefully

ghettoperson wrote:

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8408918.stm

Pretty incredible really, Blair is admitting the invasion was a war crime and that he and Bush lied to their countries to take them into war.
Without WMD Saddam simply wasn't a significant threat to anything.

I still don't believe the WMD intel was anything other than concocted - and I mean WMD intel, not suggestions the Iraqis were concealing 'something'.

good you shouldn't, because the resaon we went back was the breaking of the resolutions that stopped hostilities in 91.

Which until the Security Council says it is, is not a good enough reason to invade.

They already did, back in 91

JohnG@lt wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

I don't remember ever telling anyone that I was in Cav. Nor did or would I say that I was infantry.

I was on FOB Falcon for three months with the 2/504th Infantry running the show there before 1st Cav was given orders to take over. It was a quiet FOB because after getting hit with mortars every day for a month, the base commander sent out a scout team to locate where the mortars were being shot from. The next night they fired, they called in a four hour artillery barrage on them. I liked the 82nd.

Cav rolled in and it became a clusterfuck. On the day they arrived one of their officers told his soldier to clear his AT4. He shot the round clear across the base and barely missed a guard tower. As soon as they arrived it became much less about getting the job done and much more about the dog and pony show Hood is famous for. The boxing ring disappeared and now I had people hounding me about the strap on my boonie cap not being tucked in. Please.

I agree with you on the fact that it got increasingly garrison like as the deployment drew on but you can not knock the combat record of the division as a whole.  We killed more insurgents than anyone before us.  The guys who were there before us let haji run free and plant caches and IED's everywhere.  The guys we replaced secured shit.  The first two hours from arriving in taji, we received incoming killing 4 national guardsmen.  I was at Provider, gunslinger, Taji and Fort Apache.  I dont need to tell you how those places were since youre an expert.

So, why dont you be a little more fucking respectful for the what the cav has done 2004-2005 and for the sacrifices of its soldiers.  Its great you were deployed, great, but keep it real with your self, your experience outside the wire is marginal at best.

No, it wasn't the previous guys fault for the shit that happened. It was the retarded ROE that 3 Corps made up for it's deployment. They changed it from a kill on sight to a kill if fired upon ROE. So, one day the dudes would be shot dead in the street and the next day the rules changed and they realized they could do whatever the fuck they wanted as long as they weren't walking around with a mortar tube under their arm. I don't blame Cav for the clusterfuck, I blame 3 Corps. Still doesn't change the fact that I avoided the douche that reeked out of that half of the post when we were stateside if I could help it. 4ID was a lot more chill.

lets agree that Franks fucked up from the begining and Abizaid just let shit stay the way it was.

CameronPoe wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

Er.. re read the post or something. I never said anything about not being in Afghanistan.

Fine then substitute Iraq for Afghanistan and Saddam for the Taliban and it's still valid.

Saddam didn't fly airliners into the Pentagon and World Trade Centre towers... And I think the current death toll probably outstrips that of Saddam's.

Would be vaid if that were the reason war started up again in Iraq. It wasn't

eleven bravo wrote:

lets sum up so far, youve called me:

a retard

a bullet catcher

a troll

stupid

you just said the cav is mostly moron, thereby calling me a moron


all because I called you out on your FOB ranger status.  The truth hurts, donut?

Im starting to think lowing has more relevant experience than you.

Don't get me into this shit, I have never ever tried to embellish my time in Iraq as more than what it was. I spent my time bunker diving and watching with awe those around me in their bad ass machines ( most notably for me the Apaches). I never would ever try to take away from those that were fighting in Iraq. I knew my place.

I will say however, As a civilian over there, I respected every and all servicemen and women who were torn from their families to go there, some fought, some supported those who fought. I respected them all. I have been moved to tears sitting in the chow hall listening to some of the stories the soldiers tell, or learning of how our American medics and doctors struggled to save the life of an insurgent who was medivaced in from the field as one of my injured co-workers watched, as well as when we were flying over a decimated families house and seeing an Iraqi father kicking a soccer ball with his kid.

This next one deserves a second paragraph. In August of 07 we came under a rocket attack where me and some co-workers were almost hit. The explosion did kill a female soldier on the other side of it as well as a female soldier in an MWR in another explosion. going back in 08, that MWR had been re-named after that soldier with a mural of her on one of the walls as a memorial. I cried again.

Their names are Sgt. Princess C. Samuels and Spc. Zandra T. Walker both killed August 15 2007.

found here http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/f … 07.08.html

Spc Walker was the one killed in the MWR and has her mural painted on the wall there. Sgt. Samuels was the soldier on the other side of the explosion that almost hit us. My co-worker heard her scream, so we ran back out to try and find her, we could not, so we fought the fire that blew up a hooch. A short time later we were told that she ran into another hooch after being hit only to die in the arms of a fellow soldier. I did not see this so I do not know if that is true. I however have no reason to disbelieve it.

I guess the point being with all of this, please do not try and take away from the service given by those who do not "kick down doors", some of them paid the ultimate sacrifice and without even a chance to defend themselves.

Last edited by lowing (2009-12-12 14:18:39)