Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|5702|SE London

Many years ago, when this forum was young and BF2 was a contemporary game, many contributors to this forum made all sorts of audacious claims about the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq.

Prior to the coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003 there was no terrorism in Iraq (as has been demonstrated all over the place, I'm not providing sources as this is common knowledge) but since the invasion, Al Qaeda and Islamic State activity has been at record levels with whole towns of innocent civilians being rounded up and shot or crucified and women and children being sold into slavery.

At the time, many claimed that removing Saddam from power would reduce levels of Islamic terrorism in Iraq.

Life under Saddam was harsh, there can be no denying that. Was life under Saddam as bad as life on the run from IS militants taking control of the country?

Would Islamic terrorism have been able to establish a foothold in Iraq under Saddam's brutal regime?
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+508|2840
There was violence in Iraq prior to the invasion. There was still fighting and unrest stemming from the 1999 Shia uprising.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+768|5805|United States of America

Bertster7 wrote:

Would Islamic terrorism have been able to establish a foothold in Iraq under Saddam's brutal regime?
No, but then again it would still be Saddam's brutal regime. If indeed the IS does manage to solidify themselves as the de facto ruler of the country, it's just another repressive government, though probably with a bit less violence than we're seeing now once they've consolidated their power. It does not help that 10 years of nation (re)building by the US could be undone in a manner of months, though.
pirana6
Go Cougs!
+647|5411|Washington St.

Bertster7 wrote:

Prior to the coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003 there was no terrorism in Iraq (as has been demonstrated all over the place, I'm not providing sources as this is common knowledge)
Yep. Life was great over there. Hunky fuckin dory
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|5896|Moscow, Russia
and now, when everything that had been holding their society together is no more, it's even better.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
jsnipy
...
+3,275|5643|...

$ (for somebody)
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,756|5227|eXtreme to the maX
All objectives have been achieved:

$$$ For Republican donors from US taxpayers thanks to the $2trillion cost
The ME turned into a cauldron - this was a stated objective of various neo-con groups
Israel left as the dominant military force in the now fragmented region

There has been a little blowback:
ISIS - An Islamic group so brutal and radical Al Qaeda wouldn't work with them are now likely to control Iraq and Syria
Al Qaeda are stronger than ever, they're running Libya and have large presences in whats left of Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan when they were less than trivial before.
Hundreds of thousands to millions of people killed or displaced.

Well done George!

https://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130701124348-george-w-bush-story-top.jpg
#Freed Britney !
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+508|2840
We spent good money trying to help them. Their situation is entirely their fault at this point.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|5702|SE London

SuperJail Warden wrote:

There was violence in Iraq prior to the invasion. There was still fighting and unrest stemming from the 1999 Shia uprising.
No there wasn't. That had been suppressed entirely by Saddam by the middle of 1999.

pirana6 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Prior to the coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003 there was no terrorism in Iraq (as has been demonstrated all over the place, I'm not providing sources as this is common knowledge)
Yep. Life was great over there. Hunky fuckin dory
No. Life was shit over there. But there wasn't terrorism. They are two different things. In this instance, I believe a brutal regime is less threat to the outside world than a terror network. Both are pretty rubbish if you live there.

DesertFox- wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Would Islamic terrorism have been able to establish a foothold in Iraq under Saddam's brutal regime?
No, but then again it would still be Saddam's brutal regime. If indeed the IS does manage to solidify themselves as the de facto ruler of the country, it's just another repressive government, though probably with a bit less violence than we're seeing now once they've consolidated their power. It does not help that 10 years of nation (re)building by the US could be undone in a manner of months, though.
Very fair points. However, who is more of a threat to the West, Saddam's regime or IS?

Western assessment of the situation in the Middle East has been shockingly poor. It's not long ago the US/UK were considering arming IS (before they had that name) in Syria.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+508|2840
No, there still was violence leftover.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
pirana6
Go Cougs!
+647|5411|Washington St.

Bertster7 wrote:

pirana6 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Prior to the coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003 there was no terrorism in Iraq (as has been demonstrated all over the place, I'm not providing sources as this is common knowledge)
Yep. Life was great over there. Hunky fuckin dory
No. Life was shit over there. But there wasn't terrorism. They are two different things. In this instance, I believe a brutal regime is less threat to the outside world than a terror network. Both are pretty rubbish if you live there.
So let that regime just continue? Let saddams brother gas the shit out of people? I'm not saying it's the reason we went into iraq, but we sure said it was (in part), which makes sense. One can argue that the US should mind it's own business on all international affairs that have nothing to do with it, but as of now, we don't. That being the case, we went in to stop the death-regime that was in place to try and install a better government.

Again, there are a lot of reasons why the US shouldn't have done that, or should have minded their own business (even though they were going for oil), etc., etc., but to start off saying there was no terrorism when there was clearly domestic and government backed terrorism, is not correct.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,268|5837

pirana6 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

pirana6 wrote:


Yep. Life was great over there. Hunky fuckin dory
No. Life was shit over there. But there wasn't terrorism. They are two different things. In this instance, I believe a brutal regime is less threat to the outside world than a terror network. Both are pretty rubbish if you live there.
So let that regime just continue? Let saddams brother gas the shit out of people? I'm not saying it's the reason we went into iraq, but we sure said it was (in part), which makes sense. One can argue that the US should mind it's own business on all international affairs that have nothing to do with it, but as of now, we don't. That being the case, we went in to stop the death-regime that was in place to try and install a better government.

Again, there are a lot of reasons why the US shouldn't have done that, or should have minded their own business (even though they were going for oil), etc., etc., but to start off saying there was no terrorism when there was clearly domestic and government backed terrorism, is not correct.
For an intervention to be successful, you'd need to have proportional force and pretty much have to give the people a better outcome than pre-intervention. Having massive terrorists attacks and having social services go to shit, no power, electricity, water etc is not exactly better than when Saddam was in charge.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+508|2840
We poured over a trillion dollars into developmental aid. We tried to help them. Whatever happens now is entirely on them.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
pirana6
Go Cougs!
+647|5411|Washington St.
Well...

Having an all-powerful, oppressive government that you have no means of stopping that requires the strongest army in the world to halt

or

(Essentially) Rebel fighters with headquarters in a different country that are opposed by the likes of (nearly) every established government as well as al-Qaeda and Hezbollah

Not necessarily better, but better in some ways.
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,719|5858|Oxferd Ohire
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me

i had a 3 letter response and was ninjad

Last edited by RTHKI (2014-08-14 16:42:04)

https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,756|5227|eXtreme to the maX

SuperJail Warden wrote:

We gave trillions to our own contractors, almost none of it actually reached Iraq.
Fixed
#Freed Britney !
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|5896|Moscow, Russia

SuperJail Warden wrote:

We poured over a trillion dollars into developmental aid. We tried to help them. Whatever happens now is entirely on them.
no matter how many times you repeat that shit, the fact remains: help them you didn't, on the contrary - you made the situation worse. what you've been trying to achieve, as well as the money you supposedly "poured" into their nation, none of that matters now.

Last edited by Shahter (2014-08-14 22:42:44)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+508|2840
Arab spring would have torn Iraq apart anyway. It would have been worse than our invasion.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,756|5227|eXtreme to the maX

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Arab spring would have torn Iraq apart anyway. It would have been worse than our invasion.
Probably not, the infrastructure would have been left intact, and the country wouldn't now be littered with toxic dust from DU munitions.
#Freed Britney !
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+508|2840
Syrian infrastructure is intact?
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
globefish23
sophisticated slacker
+334|5444|Graz, Austria

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Syrian infrastructure is intact?
No, because that's a full-blown civil war.

"Arab spring" as it happened in Tunisia and Egypt left the infrastructure pretty much intact.
Even in Libya, where it was a civil war as well, the important oil industry was left unscratched.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+508|2840
Saddam gassed his people. You can't be dumb enough to think it wouldn't have become a full on civil war.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
DesertFox-
The very model of a modern major general
+768|5805|United States of America
I mean, it didn't turn into a full-on civil war in the 15 years from when that happened to the second time the US invaded...
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+508|2840
The Arab spring was a much larger event than anything that had happened in the 15 years.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
globefish23
sophisticated slacker
+334|5444|Graz, Austria

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Saddam gassed his people. You can't be dumb enough to think it wouldn't have become a full on civil war.
He gassed the Kurdish minority.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard