BF2S Forums Who Wins in Iraq?

A bit silly, because you could make an argument for my grandmother benefiting from the war. You could make an argument that the war has been a setback for every one of those parties as well.

China; The United States’ missteps in Iraq have given a rising superpower in the East room to grow.

China hasn't sped up or slowed down in growth because of Iraq one iota. Unless you consider the price of oil may have had any impact at all, which is unlikely.

And would the US be putting pressure on China to try and keep them down? I doubt it. The US has out grown the fear of communism I would have thought.

The United Nations; Suddenly, the global body’s brand of multilateral diplomacy doesn't look so bad.

When did it look bad? It's always been a force for good. And the US is a permanent member of the security council. The only time the UN looks bad is when China, Russia or the US veto each others resolutions.

Old Europe; Four years on, Europe’s naysayers are looking wise beyond their years. But can they do any more than sit back and gloat?

Old Europe? That was a stupid tag Bush gave the European countries which were against the invasion of Iraq. They looked smarter then, and even smarter now. They have never sat back and gloated. They've sat back and shook their heads in disbelief.

There's a reason Obama's visit to Germany has given the EU hope that US foreign policy may bridge the gap caused by labelling certain countries opinions as outdated. Old Europe. lol

Last edited by TheAussieReaper (2008-07-30 23:57:20)

I'd have put Bin Laden first and Israel second.

In their rush to get into Iraq the US was turfed out of Saudi Arabia - Bin Laden's number one objective, and lost Bin Laden in Pakistan, (probably Bin Laden's close second objective )

Rushing around the ME bombing and threatening Israel's enemies can only be good for Israel - at least a dimwit like Bush would think so.
Creating a stable peace would actually have been a lot cheaper and easier - just needed to force Israel into some concessions by threatening to withdraw the $6bn in direct aid and >$6bn in indirect aid they get every year.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'd have put Bin Laden first and Israel second.

In their rush to get into Iraq the US was turfed out of Saudi Arabia - Bin Laden's number one objective, and lost Bin Laden in Pakistan, (probably Bin Laden's close second objective )

The US was reducing forces in Saudi long before the Iraq build up.

So UBL is hiding in a cave somewhere, totally marginalized when it comes to having any operational input to AQ activities...but he won.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Rushing around the ME bombing and threatening Israel's enemies can only be good for Israel - at least a dimwit like Bush would think so.

Which enemy of Israel in the ME has the US bombed and threatened again?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Creating a stable peace would actually have been a lot cheaper and easier - just needed to force Israel into some concessions by threatening to withdraw the $6bn in direct aid and >$6bn in indirect aid they get every year.

And who's going to force Hamas into concessions to get the other side of that "stable peace" going?

Dilbert_X wrote:

So UBL is hiding in a cave somewhere, totally marginalized when it comes to having any operational input to AQ activities...but he won.

The US is out of Saudi - he won.

The US didn't leave Saudi because that's what UBL wanted. So no...he didn't win. Having what you want to happen actually happen through coincidence and not your own efforts is not winning.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Which enemy of Israel in the ME has the US bombed and threatened again?

Iraq and Iran respectively.

Iraq had nothing to do with Israel and wasn't any more of an enemy of Israel than any other nation over there.

And point out (God this is getting old) where the US has threatened Iran. You can't, because we didn't. No matter how many times you say it, overtly stating that no options are off the table is not a threat. It's entering negotiations with no preconditions...exactly what you have said everyone needs to let Iran do.

So...wrong on both counts. Got any others?

Dilbert_X wrote:

And who's going to force Hamas into concessions to get the other side of that "stable peace" going?

They have none to make.

Of course they do. The biggest concession they can make is to actively work to prevent militants from carrying out attacks on civilians. They can concede their position on Israel's right to exist. They can publicly renounce their goal of the elimination of the State of Israel.

See? If you apply even a little bit of objective thought, there's room on both sides to give.

I win.  those motherfuckers couldnt kill me. ahahahahahahahahaha

r'Eeee wrote:

Kinda selfish of you to think this way. How about your fellow soldiers?

i was not fighting my fellow soldiers.

r'Eeee wrote:

usmarine wrote:

r'Eeee wrote:

Kinda selfish of you to think this way. How about your fellow soldiers?

i was not fighting my fellow soldiers.

You know what I meant, silly

what they think is what they think.  i won against the ones i took on, i know that at least.

Last edited by usmarine (2008-08-01 11:28:17)

r'Eeee wrote:

You're fighting as a nation, not a 1 vs 1 fighting game.

thats what you think.

usmarine wrote:

I win.  those motherfuckers couldnt kill me. ahahahahahahahahaha

ditto

Lotta_Drool wrote:

I watched on T.V. because I refused to reenlist after Clinton became the commander and theif.  Fucking political wars, I will make sure my kids know NOT to join the military unless THEY decide that the war being waged is actually defending America and not just promoting a political agenda.

My father gave me this same advice and cited himself growing up during the Vietnam war.  Of course I ignored him and thought he was just a peacenic hippy, but after seeing the US government opening up the supposedly "evil communist" vietnam so the good old US Corporations can exploit the repressed people that were once supposedly worth forcing American children to fight and die for, I can say I was a real fucktard for thinking I knew more than him.

This is why I feel I won over both of you.

You lost.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The US didn't leave Saudi because that's what UBL wanted.

Nevertheless they left when they wanted to stay.

And you got that bit of wisdom from where? The primary US force in Saudi was the AF...and we wanted to base elsewhere for a long time.
   

Dilbert_X wrote:

Iraq had nothing to do with Israel and wasn't any more of an enemy of Israel than any other nation over there

Why not read what the Israelis think
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/807388.html
Iraq, Iran you're doing their bidding.

What did that story have to do with your claim again? I didn't see anywhere in there where Israel benefited from the Iraq war. In fact, the article would point more toward the opposite:

article wrote:

In the wake of the execution of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh on Saturday expressed his concerns about Iraq's path in the post-Saddam era.

Sneh told Israel Radio that Israel was concerned about the strengthening of Iranian influence in the Shiite sections of southern Iraq and also in the central government. Iraq had also become a regional "power station" for terror that could spread chaos throughout the Middle East, he said.

Regardless, should you actually provide a source that has any relevance to your claim, it doesn't really matter what the Israelis think. What matters is the reality of why things were done, which had nothing to do with Israel.