RE: Defining Victory in Iraq

RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (Full Version)

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

Message

farglebargle -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 10:01:28 AM)
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.

philosophy -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 10:11:38 AM)
FR ......a victory for who? ......i'm not sure that claiming a win is possible for the US any more, maybe it's a question of playing for a draw and denying a win to AQ or other militants. In which case, i'd suggest the time when Iraq has normalised. So, if a US contractor kills a few civilians then there is no question of the US state office granting immunity, the contractor faces trial under Iraqi law...and no-one argues about it. If AQ explode a bomb in a marketplace they are hunted down and tried under Iraqi law....and nobody argues about it.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 10:47:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania 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? My quoted post was in response to the question "define victory in Iraq" I take your point about Saddam but I would say that anyone who in power executes the opposition, limits the freedom of "not sure which Islamic sect" , gases the Kurds and launches a war against Iran in which millions were killed has the touch of what we may call fundamentalism about him. He certainly has a stong belief in what he is doing. lol Why the invasion? In the expectation of finding seriously destructive weapons that he could have used against Israel and as a side issue get rid of him. adding: I would love to see the, I expect, top top top secret exchanges between Israel and the US when the decision to attack Iraq was being made.

Petronius -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 2:43:54 PM)
Define "victory in Iraq?" Didn't Bush already define it for us and claim he achieved it? Something about the whole "Mission Accomplished" thing?

luckydog1 -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 2:59:18 PM)
Are you actually confused about that petronius? The carrier group Bush flew out to and gave a speech to, accomplished its missions incredibly well. They went from enforcing the No Fly Zones, over to Afghanistan (where they performed incredibly), then back to Iraq to take out Saddam's air defenses, where they again performed amazingly. I am not sure but I believe it was one of the longest active deployments in History with a record number of missions. Their Mission was certainly accomplished and they deserved a pep talk. Some people have a hard time grasping that the President (or anyone) can be speaking to a certain individual or group, while others are listening on TV. As an analogy, imaigne you were speaking to your sweetie in club. You tell her you love her, by saying "I love You!". Someone at the next table hears, and thinks you told her you love her. She keeps saying, but you said "I love You!" over and over, making a scene.... That carrier group accomplished its mission admirably.

Sinergy -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 3:01:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Petronius Define "victory in Iraq?" Didn't Bush already define it for us and claim he achieved it? Something about the whole "Mission Accomplished" thing? I distinctly remember Bush and his supporters mentioning something about this at the time. One lesson I learned years ago was to stand up for and admit my mistakes and do what I could to fix them. Almost none of the people chomping at the bit to invade, insisting we did the right thing, demanding we stay the course, and all that other twaddle have stood up and said "oops, we screwed up." Instead, we are treated to unrealistic nonsense about throwing good money after bad, invading neighboring nations, and mistreating the poor unfortunates who trusted their government enough to sign military enlistment contracts. The term for this is "failing forward" and refers to screwing up something, and rather than fixing it and making it right, finding something else to screw up and hoping nobody notices the earlier mess. When those of us mention it was a bad idea to begin with, a stupid idea to continue, and perhaps we should end it, we get called names like unpatriotic or cowardly. When reality finally penetrates the brains of the war supporters and they start saying "we should leave" or "this was stupid," those opposed to the war from the beginning have it explained to us like it is a new idea. Sinergy

Slavehandsome -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 3:02:51 PM)
"I take your point about Saddam but I would say that anyone who in power executes the opposition, limits the freedom of "not sure which Islamic sect" , gases the Kurds and launches a war against Iran in which millions were killed has the touch of what we may call fundamentalism about him. He certainly has a stong belief in what he is doing." Actually, replace the name Saddam, with Rumsfeld or Bush, and you now have a more updated scenario of Iraq without Saddam. We've: executed Saddam (and his sons plus countless civilians), limited the freedom of everybody there (regardless of "Islamic sect"), given the former regime there the gas to use against the Kurds and Iranians, and launched a war against Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran (undeclared by Congress by the way ;-)) which is in the process of killing millions. However, don't put the label "fundamentalism" on it, because none of the decision makers (shareholders) are doing this for religious reasons, they're doing it so that the companies who supplement and provide for the armed forces will generate the tasty profits of war. Victory, you ask? Victory, is only here for the shareholders. Until someone drags them out of bed in the middle of the night, don't expect things to change.....except maybe "due to fear and speculation of the middle east, prices have sharply risen".

juliaoceania -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 3:08:46 PM)
quote: I take your point about Saddam but I would say that anyone who in power executes the opposition, limits the freedom of "not sure which Islamic sect" , gases the Kurds and launches a war against Iran in which millions were killed has the touch of what we may call fundamentalism about him. He certainly has a stong belief in what he is doing. lol If that is your definition of "fundamentalism", any two bit dictator has a touch of it about hiim. What about how Saddam was set up to commit these atrocities by the very goverment that 15 years later invaded him? The USA was more than happy to overlook these and other atrocities as long as Saddam was our boy... Refer you to this photo taken at the time of these atrocities you mention http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ As long as he was the enemy of our enemy he was our friend.... so what is worse, I ask you, putting your stamp of approval on such atrocities because it is politically expedient" Or being a "true believer"?

juliaoceania -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 3:27:31 PM)
quote: The term for this is "failing forward" and refers to screwing up something, and rather than fixing it and making it right, finding something else to screw up and hoping nobody notices the earlier mess. When those of us mention it was a bad idea to begin with, a stupid idea to continue, and perhaps we should end it, we get called names like unpatriotic or cowardly. When reality finally penetrates the brains of the war supporters and they start saying "we should leave" or "this was stupid," those opposed to the war from the beginning have it explained to us like it is a new idea. I cannot state how much I agree with this post... those of us that did not want to open this can of worms in the first place are never taken very seriously in how we should exit now. Perhaps this will change with the next election.. until then we are stuck on this course with no rudder, throwing good after bad.... The thing is, there is no victory to be had in Iraq... too much death, too many lives destroyed, too many people used up and spit out and treated as though they were expendable on both sides... from a human stand point there is no victory ever in Iraq. From an economic standpoint there is no victory in Iraq,..we reach 100 dollars a barrell for oil... and I cannot help but think that the instability that this war has caused has a direct correlation here. It maybe understandable, except the record profits that Big Oil has produced while we pay for it with lives and tax dollars... actually our grandkids are paying for it... those greedy bastards. There are also environmental impacts of staying the fossil fuel course, while we could use the money spent chasing black gold into alternative energy resources... Where is the victory here? I can't see anything coming close to one

seeksfemslave -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 3:30:29 PM)
Juliaoceania: First of all I do not believe that any US govnt condoned or abetted the atrocities committed by Saddam against the Kurds In fact loadsa money was spent protecting the Kurds from Saddam. A zone of exclusion was established, patrolled by gas guzzling fighter jets. With regard to a different US administrations support of Saddam at a totally different time in history, ie Saddam had not demonstrated his lust for control of Middle East resources. YES OIL, then what happened is called Real Politik my dear, I say patronisingly. When the world is perfect and we all love one another we can all dance around the maypole and be happy, until then watch the other bastard and be prepared to take action if your interests are threatenend. Now whats so wrong with that I arsk you.?

Sinergy -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 3:36:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Juliaoceania: First of all I do not believe [patronizing] What you believe is irrelevant, seeks. [/patronizing] Feel free to provide source material to support your beliefs and we can talk about it. Sinergy

juliaoceania -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 3:38:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Juliaoceania: First of all I do not believe that any US govnt condoned or abetted the atrocities committed by Saddam against the Kurds In fact loadsa money was spent protecting the Kurds from Saddam. A zone of exclusion was established, patrolled by gas guzzling fighter jets. With regard to a different US administrations support of Saddam at a totally different time in history, ie Saddam had not demonstrated his lust for control of Middle East resources. YES OIL, then what happened is called Real Politik my dear, I say patronisingly. When the world is perfect and we all love one another we can all dance around the maypole and be happy, until then watch the other bastard and be prepared to take action if your interests are threatenend. Now whats so wrong with that I arsk you.? I am more familiar with United States history than you are... the gassing of the Kurds took place during the Reagan era... 1988 Here is a link and an excerpt quote: The United States had not had diplomatic relations with Iraq since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. In December 1983, however, President Reagan sent his personal envoy, former secretary of defense in the Ford administration Donald Rumsfeld, to Baghdad to meet with Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld returned to Iraq in March 1984, precisely when both Iran and the United Nations were accusing Saddam's regime of using chemical weapons in an increasingly brutal war. Rumsfeld, however, made no reference to the Iraqi gas attacks. Instead, he declared that "the defeat of Iraq in the three-year-old war with Iran would be contrary to U.S. interests?" In November 1984, Washington restored full diplomatic relations with Baghdad and stepped up the sales to Saddam of a range of munitions, including helicopters used in subsequent gas attacks. One of these assaults was the March 1988 gassing of Kurds in the village of Halabja that killed some 5,000 people. The United States maintained friendly relations with Iraq right up until the moment that Saddam revived Iraq's old territorial claims on Kuwait and on August 2, 1990, carried out his surprise attack against that country. It was barely two years since the end of Iraq's bloody war with Iran. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chalmers_Johnson/Iraq_Wars_TSOE.html

seeksfemslave -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 3:41:41 PM)
Sinergy:Well the second half of the para. completes the thought. Is it True or False ? Its no good defending your beloved, she is so hopelessly "other wordly" as to be downright dangerous he he he he he he he

juliaoceania -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 3:44:46 PM)
I can dig for more links, but since you are the one who makes the assertion that the United States did not support Saddam during his atrocities when it is rather well known that the USA did, you should support YOUR assertion instead of just posting your "beliefs" which are not relevant to the topic Edited to add,... you never answered this question quote: As long as he was the enemy of our enemy he was our friend.... so what is worse, I ask you, putting your stamp of approval on such atrocities because it is politically expedient" Or being a "true believer"?

SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 3:52:24 PM)
i dont think we will ever have "victory" there......because we want them to see things our way and they never will. they have many more years of doing things their way than we do, and always will have. to me, victory would be them agreeing to leave us alone and us them........they think were nuts and we think the same of them.......they can choose to live in the insanity or change it them selves, just as we can here. and if they hurt one American. we nuke their asses. i may run for prez in 2012

juliaoceania -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 3:54:09 PM)
quote: to me, victory would be them agreeing to leave us alone and us them They never troubled us... we have always been the ones in their backyard... no Iraqi has ever attacked a United States citizen in the name of Iraq on our soil... just sayin

Sinergy -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 3:58:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Sinergy:Well the second half of the para. completes the thought. Is it True or False ? False. It completes your unsubstantiated belief. Which is not relevant to the discussion. Q.E.D. Sinergy

seeksfemslave -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 4:06:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania They never troubled us... we have always been the ones in their backyard... no Iraqi has ever attacked a United States citizen in the name of Iraq on our soil... just sayin Juliaoceania: this is exactly what I mean by your dangerous idealism. Were the West to allow fundamentalist Arab regimes control of the OIL resources then they would use that control to economicaly whip your arse. The West needs OIL. The West discovered it. The West extracts it. The West transports it one third of the way around the world so that in the UK it is cheaper than beer ! That which needs to be done to maintain that situation will be done. I cant recall why in the 1980's Iraq was considered the lesser of two evils. I'm going to do a bit of Googlin'

philosophy -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 4:07:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave I cant recall why in the 1980's Iraq was considered the lesser of two evils. I'm going to do a bit of Googlin' ...to save you the bother, Iran was an Islamic state and Iraq was nominally secular.

juliaoceania -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 4:09:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania They never troubled us... we have always been the ones in their backyard... no Iraqi has ever attacked a United States citizen in the name of Iraq on our soil... just sayin Juliaoceania: this is exactly what I mean by your dangerous idealism. Were the West to allow fundamentalist Arab regimes control of the OIL resources then they would use that control to economicaly whip your arse. The West needs OIL. The West discovered it. The West extracts it. The West transports it one third of the way around the world so that in the UK it is cheaper than beer ! That which needs to be done to maintain that situation will be done. I cant recall why in the 1980's Iraq was considered the lesser of two evils. I'm going to do a bit of Googlin' As opposed to dangerous Christian fundamentalists that have done even more to try to control the global economy, spread our form of what we believe is our cultural superiority upon people who do not want it... because, oh yes, our oil got under their land... how foolish of me to have some sort of "idealistic" ethical compass that says it is wrong to murder people because you want their resources.... You know... you may think that is ok... I just do not agree with you. I think we should do the more intelligent thing and not need their oil. But if we did that a few rich oil men wouldn't be quite as rich or powerful, and we all know it is about being rich and powerful.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625