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

UON wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

A war on terrorism will, by its very nature, create more terrorists. The best you can hope for is to reduce the number of terrorists and to limit the arms they can get their hands on.

Which will probably just force a shift towards homemade explosives and soft targets, since direct confrontation with armed forces will result in certain death anyway if you don't even have a gun.

Both of the above posts are true imo, but I would be curious to hear what you two believe are alternatives?  If you dont fight terrorists, will they just go away?  Of course not.  So how do you "reduce the number of terrorists?"

pRiNcEkAhUnA1 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

In that case, can I blame Americans for the 9/11 attacks, for building a tower?

mod:  removed

I hate to see you waste yourself getting in trouble flaming Bubs.
What he said may have been repulsive, but it wasn't bannable.

Report it, and combat it with words, throwing yourself in front of a train may only have the forums lose a potentially good member.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jun2006 … _5547.html
Another link on WMD's Found in Iraq.  I do remember seing this on TV but it sure as hell didn't last long.  Maybe about an hour.

weamo8 wrote:

UON wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

A war on terrorism will, by its very nature, create more terrorists. The best you can hope for is to reduce the number of terrorists and to limit the arms they can get their hands on.

Which will probably just force a shift towards homemade explosives and soft targets, since direct confrontation with armed forces will result in certain death anyway if you don't even have a gun.

Both of the above posts are true imo, but I would be curious to hear what you two believe are alternatives?  If you dont fight terrorists, will they just go away?  Of course not.  So how do you "reduce the number of terrorists?"

Well, for starters a blanket policy that "We do nut nee-go-she-ate with terr-o-rists" (make sure you do the bootcamp sargeant voice for that sentence) doesn't help, especially if you count pretty much anyone who reads the Qu'ran or doesn't like Bush as a terrorist.

m3thod wrote:

ATG wrote:

pRiNcEkAhUnA1 wrote:

I hate to see you waste yourself getting in trouble flaming Bubs.
What he said may have been repulsive, but it wasn't bannable.

Report it, and combat it with words, throwing yourself in front of a train may only have the forums lose a potentially good member.

add him too your sig ATG!

Proudly.   I'd rather die for something than die for nothing.

UON wrote:

pRiNcEkAhUnA1 wrote:

Proudly.   I'd rather die for something than die for nothing.

How much?  We'll have a whip round...

?

Bertster7 wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

The war on terror in Iraq and the rest of the world isnt over yet...  it will take a long time but we will win... and we will protect even the morons who dont think there are any terror issues in the world...

You (we) can't win. It's impossible.

A war on terrorism will, by its very nature, create more terrorists. The best you can hope for is to reduce the number of terrorists and to limit the arms they can get their hands on.

That's the whole problem with the war on terror. It's pretty much futile.

How do you know its impossible?  Enlighten us... lol

"A war on terrorism will, by its very nature, create more terrorists. "   
Did you copy that from somewhere...lol?

If there are more terrorists... we will just eliminate them too eventually...   we have too...
and its funny to see you have given up on getting the terrorists... nice... "futile"   lol

lowing wrote:

Is this where you suggest that we need to actually consider appeasing terrorists??


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070115/ts_ … s_hamas_dc I guess helping to destroy Israel would just as good a place to start as any other.

Who said Quran readers are all terrorists, or for that matter who said Bush haters are all terrorists. Kinda funny that ALL terrorists are Bush haters though isn't it??

For a start there is just one bad example where appeasement proved to be counter-productive, at a time when Europe was on the rebound from pretty much the most extreme violence in recorded history.  There is a massive difference between "peace at all costs" and reasoned and open debate. 

Ideally, negotiations should be moderated by a third party like the UN, after removing all veto votes to prevent deadlock.  Global democracy would involve letting every nation select representatives (like every state does edit->in the "model" democracy that is America) and those representatives listening to both sides of the story and voting on which points should be conceded to each party.  Veto is basically why the UN doesn't work.  Weighting votes according to population would be even fairer. 

Of course, it's never going to happen, the UN will never have any power as a moderator when a non-veto wielder is presenting greivance, so it's down to individual nations to open diplomatic channels and speak on fair and level terms.  It's not an easy process, and there will be lolcats at every turn trying to derail the process, but it takes more balls to admit that you might be wrong on certain points than to say you are right about everything, and that even one concession is appeasement comparable to the "peace at all costs" incident prior to WWII.

Last edited by UON (2007-01-15 17:00:57)

Bertster7 wrote:

weamo8 wrote:

UON wrote:

Which will probably just force a shift towards homemade explosives and soft targets, since direct confrontation with armed forces will result in certain death anyway if you don't even have a gun.

Both of the above posts are true imo, but I would be curious to hear what you two believe are alternatives?  If you dont fight terrorists, will they just go away?  Of course not.  So how do you "reduce the number of terrorists?"

More focus on intelligence. Less focus on disrupting global stability (ie Iraq) and creating a media frenzy about terrorism.

Afghanistan was an important step in combating terrorism, so I'm not ruling out military action against nations that support terrorism.

You're sounding less and less confused.

What USA have to doo is not to appease terrorists...they have to stop producing them. Then there will be none to appease. But from what many has posted in theese forums is that if you don´t fight them with guns you are appeasing them...strange thinking I´d say. USA have fertalized terror for decades and it will grow until fertalizing stops.

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

The war on terror in Iraq and the rest of the world isnt over yet...  it will take a long time but we will win... and we will protect even the morons who dont think there are any terror issues in the world...

You (we) can't win. It's impossible.

A war on terrorism will, by its very nature, create more terrorists. The best you can hope for is to reduce the number of terrorists and to limit the arms they can get their hands on.

That's the whole problem with the war on terror. It's pretty much futile.

How do you know its impossible?  Enlighten us... lol

Because as there become fewer and fewer terrorists the rate at which they are killed/caught will diminish exponentially. The high profile of the global anti-terrorism campaign will provide more recruiting matierial for radical extremists and more terrorists will appear.

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

"A war on terrorism will, by its very nature, create more terrorists. "   
Did you copy that from somewhere...lol?

No. I believe it to be true, so I wrote it.

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

If there are more terrorists... we will just eliminate them too eventually...   we have too...
and its funny to see you have given up on getting the terrorists... nice... "futile"   lol

You really don't get it do you? The more frenzied this war on terror becomes, the easier it becomes for terrorist cells to recruit and for new terrorist cells to spring up on their own.

The best that can be done is to supress the numbers of terrorist organisations and to limit their access to weaponry.

Intelligence, 'hearts and minds' stuff and swift decisive action (not neccessarily military, richer nations will often buckle under economic sanctions) against terrorist sponsors regardless of economic ties (think Saudi Arabia for example). Most importantly, a lower media profile.

pRiNcEkAhUnA1 wrote:

I find it interesting people don't want to even respond to the links saying there were WMDS FOUND in Iraq.

OK. Well, one of your links is dead. The other is from FOX, so is of course completely reliable. The FOX article mentions a Sarin gas round which was discovered, it also notes that further tests would need to be carried out to see if this round was still in working condition.

FOX wrote:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the results were from a field test, which can be imperfect, and said more analysis was needed. If confirmed, it would be the first finding of a banned weapon upon which the United States based its case for war.

Since no more was ever heard about this and since subesequent statements from the Whitehouse have confirmed no WMDs were found in Iraq, I going to go ahead and assume these tests showed the round was inoperable (it was also an unmarked shell and the common belief amongst US military experts is that the insurgents who planted the shell were unlikely to have known that it was a chemical weapon and that is the most likely reason it had not been properly disposed of at an earlier date). The FOX article also mentions mustard gas that was "ineffective", in other words not a usable WMD.

George W. Bush wrote:

We thought he had weapons of mass destruction, turns out he didn't

Happy now?

The Iraq survey group also concluded there were no WMDs and Saddam had not been pursuing WMD programmes since '91. The key findings of the report can be found here.

Bubbalo wrote:

ATG wrote:

pRiNcEkAhUnA1 wrote:

YOUR A TRUE FUCKING ASSHOLE!!! I HOPE YOU GO BURN IN FUCKING HELL!!!
I DON'T GIVE A SHIT IF I GET BANNED NOW.  YOU'VE GONE WAY TO FUCKING FAR WITH THAT FUCKING BULLSHIT! GO DIE!

I hate to see you waste yourself getting in trouble flaming Bubs.
What he said may have been repulsive, but it wasn't bannable.

Report it, and combat it with words, throwing yourself in front of a train may only have the forums lose a potentially good member.

How so?  I wasn't saying that America should be blamed, rather that, based on the logic being used, they could be blamed.

Further, there's no point in reporting it, since there's no violation to report.

I also find your choice in good forum members........interesting, to say that least.

In that case I blame you for crunolla.