BF2S Forums United States War in Iraq -- Can We Afford to Lose?

I know that the ba'ath party went underground when the war started, merged with AQ in Iraq, and now forms the core of ISIS leadership. I know that the shi'a took their revenge when they took power and excluded most sunnis while creating closer ties with Iran, as Iran was the major source of funding and arms for their militias.

What's going on now is a long overdue civil war that we spawned and would not have occurred if we hadn't deposed Saddam and disbanded the Iraqi military after the invasion.

But hey, more bombs will fix it all, right?

I don't. I'm an isolationist who feels our money is better spent internally rebuilding our infrastructure and paying off our national debt. Boring, I know.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

If not bombs, how do you propose we destroy the ISIS training camps that the French terrorist visited before the attack? How we do stop the flow of refugees?

Bombs work if you follow up on them by providing alternatives.

Close the borders, strip search every muslim or anyone who looks like a muslim.

Anyone familiar with the concept of transgenerational trauma? Even if poverty was eliminated among the refugees and their children we are going to have issues with them for a very long time.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Anyone familiar with the concept of transgenerational trauma? Even if poverty was eliminated among the refugees and their children we are going to have issues with them for a very long time.

I keep reading that as transgenderational trauma. Thanks, gay marriage thread.

Cybargs wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Anyone familiar with the concept of transgenerational trauma? Even if poverty was eliminated among the refugees and their children we are going to have issues with them for a very long time.

Jews and Chinese don't really have that issue.

Sarcasm? The term was literally created after studying the children of Holocaust survivors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgene … ma#History
it was called concentration camp syndrome.

Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2016-03-11 16:51:39)

Its really nice to be proved right after all this time.

The Chilcott report is about as savage a hatchet job on Blair as the UK civil service could possibly produce.

Points it hasn't apparently addressed it wasn't directed to.

Points it has addressed basically destroy Blair, Straw and the intelligence services.

The most interesting part, and the part Blair desperately tried to keep secret, is the trail of memos between Bush and Blair, which clearly show that both were looking for a pretext to attack Iraq even before 9/11

Do the pair of them look ridiculous now? A draft dodger dressed up as a military man, and a twerp hanging off his coat tails?



"There is a real willingness in the Middle East to get Saddam out but a total opposition to mixing this up with the current operation [bombing Afghanistan]... I have no doubt that we need to deal with Saddam. But if we hit Iraq now, we would lose the Arab world, Russia, probably half the EU and my fear is the impact of all of that on Pakistan. However, I am sure we can devise a strategy for Saddam deliverable at a later date."

"devise a strategy for Saddam", no wonder Blair wanted that kept secret.

""If toppling Saddam is a prime objective, it is far easier to do it with Syria or Iran in favour or acquiescing rather than hitting all three at once, I favour giving these two a chance at a different relationship…"

But toppling Saddam was never the objective, it was removing WMD wasn't it? And why would we have wanted to attack Iran and Syria as well?

"Suppose it got militarily tricky. Suppose Iraq suffered unexpected civilian casualties. Suppose the Arab street finally erupted. Suppose Saddam felt sufficiently politically strong, if militarily weak in conventional terms, to let off WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. suppose that, without any coalition, the Iraqis feel ambivalent about being invaded and real Iraqis, not Saddam's special guard, decide to offer resistance."
So the insurgency was fully predicted.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-36722312

Watching Blair squirm and lie and try to transfer the blame on Islamic extremism, and suggest ISIS evolved from Al Qaeda (not disenfranchised Baathists) is thoroughly enjoyable.

I hope he gets hanged from a lamp-post.

Oh, and maybe Americans should see how much real freedom of information they enjoy and try getting hold of the other side of the memo exchange.
You might find finally find out the truth of why you blew 2 Trillion dollars and 5,000 soldiers.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2016-07-07 03:40:31)

Poor Tony, he's Billy No-Mates now.

I know we aren't going to war with Iran but it would be cool if we did. I am midway through season 3 of the Trump show and bored. A spin off Iran War series would be cool and the Iran plotline would make the Trump show interesting again.

america couldn't defeat a bunch of stoned goat farmers in afghanistan or a few rabbles in iraq. short of going nuclear and turning the area into a glow-in-the-dark glass carpark, iran would put up a very good fight. you guys consistently confuse might with power.

Last edited by uziq (2019-05-21 03:44:40)

Even Trump isn't dumb enough to engage in a ground war, just bomb it from a height, let the Israelis bomb it too, if that doesn't work probably nuke them, most likely with some of the mysterious nuclear weapons Israel doesn't have.

Then he'll expect to walk away and move on, and be surprised when there's payback - because his attack was 'payback' in the first place so it was all fair and those pesky muslims just hate Israel and America for no reason.

The Iraqi army didn't fight too hard. If they'd fought as hard as the insurgents with their full range of military eqpt every town could have been Mogadishu ten times over.
Iran would be very different, hence there won't be a ground war.

It'll be Palestine II - bomb it from 20,000ft and then complain the savages respond with 'terrorism'.

why are you all entertaining a fantasy war with Iran? It will not happen. If only for the fact that the Stuxnet virus already proved to be much more (cost) effective at sabotaging the Iranian nuclear ambitions than any conventional military option would be. You wouldn't be able to formulate a strategic objective that could hold up to any scrutiny. If the US and other western powers wished to do so, there's other ways to influence the situation, all of them better than an invasion.