RE: Defining Victory in Iraq

RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

dcnovice -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/2/2008 5:37:48 PM)
quote: getting out at the appropriate time seems good to me Sounds good to me too. The hard part, though, is figuring out when the appropriate time is.

kdsub -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/2/2008 5:38:42 PM)
Victory for me will be when my country, the United States, realizes we should not and cannot guarantee a democratic form of government and personal freedoms to every person on earth. Victory to me will be when my country’s government pays more attention to the needs and rights of people world wide rather then the almighty dollar. Victory to me will be when my government understands it does not have the right to interfere with, overthrow, or change a government simply because it disagrees with its form or policies. Victory to me will be when our sons and daughters do not have to die to protect people that do not want or need us, and most certainly do not DESERVE us. Butch

dcnovice -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/2/2008 6:06:37 PM)
Thoughtful and eloquent, Butch. Thanks.

TheHeretic -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/2/2008 6:30:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice How do you define victory in Iraq? By not letting Al Qaeda have a victory parade in Baghdad.

dcnovice -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/2/2008 6:32:27 PM)
Well said, Rich. Thanks.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/2/2008 8:10:31 PM)
I consider it victory when the people of Iraq maintain their own country in all areas. This includes the withdrawl of all foreign military and insurgents. After they have the reigns back if they want to change to any other type of government, they should have the freedom to do so. I truly believe a country cannot politically evolve unless they go through certain stages on their own. If this means a civil war in Iraq, then so be it. quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice Many a CM political thread soon becomes a slugfest about whether the U.S. and its allies are "winning" or "losing" in Iraq. Yet I can't recall our ever pausing to define what victory means in the Iraqi context. This thread offers the opportunity to do so. So . . . how do you define victory in Iraq?

FangsNfeet -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/2/2008 8:35:50 PM)
First, I think we should define "The War" After all, we trampled the Iraq Army and took Saddam out of power with little effort. The fight was like seeing a Tuna fight a Great White. That War was done and over with for a while now. It's this Reform crap that's in debate of weither we're winning or loosing. How much can we Change Iraq without forcing people to do what we want them to do and not set up a Pupet Government? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

dcnovice -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/2/2008 8:37:23 PM)
Thanks, Orion and Fangs!

Termyn8or -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/2/2008 11:02:23 PM)
War is killing, so the only definition that fits is we have won when they are all dead. But we poisoned their land so bad it will not only not be arable for millenia, it will be hard to live on at all. DO NOT go out in your bare feet in Iraq, there is depleted uranium all over the place. OK, I have to get one dig in : YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK. T

Muttling -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/3/2008 4:27:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle THE GOALS: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030322.html quote: And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people. Minor detail, you are quoting a 2003 document with the initial goals our Iraqi involvement. We have clearly achieved each of those goals since the WMD program didn't exist, Saddam is dead, and the Iraqi people are free of Saddam's tyranical government. NOW......Does that mean we can jut have a press conference on an aircraft carrier, declare job well done, and walk away???? I don't think so. The great failure of this war was a failure to properly plan for dealing with the aftermath of having eliminated Iraq's government. If we pull out, the Iranians will be more than happy to fill the void and create a new ally in the process. We broke it, we gotta fix it. A stable government that is capable of maintaining order within it's own borders is victory to me. I don't care if they are pro-American or not and that frequently pisses off military counter-parts. I just don't want to see Iraq become a post-war Afghanistan where a Taliban like government fills the gap or a chaos ridden country like Somalia. Given Iraq's strategic location and oil reserves, I can't see the ilk of Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan not meddling in an effort to covertly take control if we pull out. (Most of those nations are currently meddling and have been since before we invaded, but how much more would they do if we simply pulled out?) It's a serious mess, but the surge IS working and we are on the right track to fixing it. I just hope we can hold to this burn rate long enough to get the new government standing on it's own feet. P.S. - For those who are interested in knowing, the Joint Chiefs started asking for a troop surge in 2004 and were consistently denied their requests.

Muttling -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/3/2008 4:35:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or But we poisoned their land so bad it will not only not be arable for millenia, it will be hard to live on at all. DO NOT go out in your bare feet in Iraq, there is depleted uranium all over the place. OK, I have to get one dig in : YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK. T Actually, that is not true. Your tax dollars have paid for contractors like me to clean up the D.U. strike locations and recover the munitions debris (think billions). I'm sure that there are quite a few we didn't get, but D.U. is a very particular round with a very particular purpose (destruction of heavy armor.) HE or high explosive is the round of choice unless you're busting tanks and the tank battles were limited to a handful of areas in both Gulf Wars. (White phosphorus was also used extensively by both sides, but that is a seperate subject and not a contamination issue unless it is an unexploded round.) EDIT: By the way, I presume you are aware of the fact that the Iraqi's and the Iranians (along with every other major military in the world) has been using depleted uranium rounds for decades. It was heavily used in the Iran-Iraq war. The only difference is that we went back to clean up our D.U. strikes while the Iranians and the Iraqis just left area contaminated for their citizens to live near.

farglebargle -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/3/2008 6:52:48 AM)
quote: Minor detail, you are quoting a 2003 document with the initial goals our Iraqi involvement. We have clearly achieved each of those goals since the WMD program didn't exist, Saddam is dead, and the Iraqi people are free of Saddam's tyranical government. Oh, they're free of Hussein, but we've exchanged ONE totalitarian dictator for EIGHTEEN, as there is no Unified, National Iraq and it's devolved into 18 semi-independent Nation States. So rather than ONE tyrranical government, which was the MOST SECULAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST, you have EIGHTEEN crazy dictators who run the range from NOT-TOO-FUNDAMENTALLY-CRAZY to RABID-LUNATIC. At least under Hussein, women had enough civil rights to get their hair done.... Which bring us back to... Under Hussein's government of 24 years they discuss a Million Dead... That's what, 45k/year in casualties maintaining Iraq in a state of Civil Unity? In 4 years Bush has run up the same number of casualties, a Million, and that's 250k/year... So, are the additional 200,000 dead A YEAR better off under Bush's Occupation? AND Have we prosecuted the alleged offenders for the Fraud relating to the WMD Claims yet?

Politesub53 -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/3/2008 7:31:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Which bring us back to... Under Hussein's government of 24 years they discuss a Million Dead... That's what, 45k/year in casualties maintaining Iraq in a state of Civil Unity? In 4 years Bush has run up the same number of casualties, a Million, and that's 250k/year... So, are the additional 200,000 dead A YEAR better off under Bush's Occupation? i agree one type of tyranny has been replaced by another. Yet if the US and Uk withdraw, there will be civil war. The Arab states will back the Sunnis and Iran will back the Shia. Death tolls under Saddam were totally due to him alone. Death tolls under Bush are mostly due to extremist violence. Maybe Bush and Blair did the wrong thing going on, not having thought thing through reguarding the aftermath. There will be no victory until there is no killing being done by anyone. Thats the bottom line here.

dcnovice -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/3/2008 7:52:40 PM)
Great response, Muttling. Thanks!

dcnovice -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/3/2008 7:54:52 PM)
quote: Yet if the US and Uk withdraw, there will be civil war. That's my great worry about the situation. quote: There will be no victory until there is no killing being done by anyone. Thats the bottom line here. Nicely put, Polite. Thanks!

Muttling -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/3/2008 8:12:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: Minor detail, you are quoting a 2003 document with the initial goals our Iraqi involvement. We have clearly achieved each of those goals since the WMD program didn't exist, Saddam is dead, and the Iraqi people are free of Saddam's tyranical government. Oh, they're free of Hussein, but we've exchanged ONE totalitarian dictator for EIGHTEEN, as there is no Unified, National Iraq and it's devolved into 18 semi-independent Nation States. So rather than ONE tyrranical government, which was the MOST SECULAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST, you have EIGHTEEN crazy dictators who run the range from NOT-TOO-FUNDAMENTALLY-CRAZY to RABID-LUNATIC. At least under Hussein, women had enough civil rights to get their hair done.... Which bring us back to... Under Hussein's government of 24 years they discuss a Million Dead... That's what, 45k/year in casualties maintaining Iraq in a state of Civil Unity? In 4 years Bush has run up the same number of casualties, a Million, and that's 250k/year... So, are the additional 200,000 dead A YEAR better off under Bush's Occupation? AND Have we prosecuted the alleged offenders for the Fraud relating to the WMD Claims yet? With all do respect, do you have a precise point or do you just wish to speak in endless circles???? You are hung up on we screwed things up in Iraq despite my clear statement that I agree with you on that point. Now get over your crap and move on instead of arguing about something we agree upon.

farglebargle -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 6:34:05 AM)
quote: With all do respect, do you have a precise point or do you just wish to speak in endless circles???? The US didn't Free anyone in Iraq, as they were demonstrably better off under Hussein...

samboct -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 8:41:31 AM)
I find myself agreeing with both Butch (perhaps surprisingly) and PS53. I don't trust any of the propaganda coming out about this war- so I have no idea of whether the surge is working or not. It does seem like people continue to get blown up when going shopping for vegetables. I also grudgingly concur with the notion, of we broke it- we better fix it. But my response to how to get there is very different. Get the US energy independent of imported foreign oil and domestic coal usage within a decade-perhaps less, and the economic impact of oil will diminish drastically which will allow the people in that region to quit killing each other over the oil money, and go back to killing each other over religious disputes. Hence, while I agree with PS53 that a victory would be when the killing stops- I doubt that's going to happen- these guys like killing each other too much- and no external power on earth can change that. Sam

farglebargle -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 9:21:52 AM)
Maybe it IS all our fault... I know I'm not praying to Jesus for George Bush to be victorious in Iraq... How about the rest of you slackers? Because "Divine Intervention" what's needed here for him to be successful.

juliaoceania -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 9:50:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave When the mindless Islamic fundamentalists realise what an opportunity has been offered to them to run their country in a more civilised way. By that definition victory is a long way off...and its not GWB's fault ! Saddam was not a fundamentalist, so why did we invade in the first place again?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875