Has the US "lost" the war in Iraq?

[billvon 3,078]

>pulling out right now would be a greater evil than staying...

Right now I agree. But the next president will not feel the same need to 'make it work' and may realize that public opinion is now very strongly against the war.

>unless you believe our soldiers lives are more valuable than the lives
>of many other innocent Iraqis our government have vowed to protect.

??? Huh? You do realize we've killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, right? If we do think our soldiers lives are equally valuable, we have a strange way of showing it.

[shropshire 0]

Sorry peeps..

I know that for some people, the US is THE only country on earth, but the Cluster Fuck in Iraq belongs to other dick-heads as well - give them a break from you Americancentric view of the world for a change - Share the blame a bit more fairly or I'll take my toys home

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[sinker 0]

Quote

>pulling out right now would be a greater evil than staying...

Right now I agree. But the next president will not feel the same need to 'make it work' and may realize that public opinion is now very strongly against the war.

>unless you believe our soldiers lives are more valuable than the lives
>of many other innocent Iraqis our government have vowed to protect.

??? Huh? You do realize we've killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, right? If we do think our soldiers lives are equally valuable, we have a strange way of showing it.

I don't know what the figure is re: how many thousands of innocent Iraqi's died at the hands of US weapons, but I do know that Saddam was responsible for many more and that perhaps many more may occur if we pull out right now. That was my point.

I hope you don't mean to imply that we targeted innocent Iraqi's, do you Bill?

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I hope you don't mean to imply that we targeted innocent Iraqi's, do you Bill?

no, no. When they say stuff like that over and over again, they only 'want' people to 'infer' that we directly targetted innocents. It gets their intent across while still keeping their personal honesty intact.

I know a woman who is convinced that any military is directly tasked with the sole responsibility to kill children. Target and kill children is the only role and she's convinced there is no other purpose than that. She goes to tears anytime she sees a uniform and is convinced every serviceman serves and is eager to strangle babies. I don't doubt that off the cuff emotional manipulation and blanket comments like that is a big part of it. That and she's a nutjob too.

So what's the point? None, she's just a very extreme case and fun to point out once in a while.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It doesn't look like there are any winners in this mongolian cluster fuck of a war.

Lots of winners. I'm sure the Kurds are much happier without Hussein around.

No more payoffs to suicide bombers (at least from Hussein) in Israel either.

Worth the price? Very different question.

[sinker 0]

Quote

Quote

It doesn't look like there are any winners in this mongolian cluster fuck of a war.

Lots of winners. I'm sure the Kurds are much happier without Hussein around.

No more payoffs to suicide bombers (at least from Hussein) in Israel either.

Worth the price? Very different question.

At least where I live in Nashville TN, there are lots of happy Kurds, my wife used to teach English as a second language to Kurdish women, most of whom had to huridly (sp?) leave the country w/ their husbands and kids, leaving all they had and their extended families behind, not knowing if they were still alive or what.

My wife was still teaching them when the most recent war started... the women were jubilant, as were their children and husbands. It wasn't long after that many of them were able for the first time to finally contact their families w/o fear of having them be hunted down and imprisoned or murdered. Some were able to return to Iraq and start new lifes, albeit with much difficulty.

Some people definately are winning...

-the artist formerly known as sinker

[Everon 0]

A lot of things went wrong here. To have forseen what is happening today one needed a strong grasp of Middle Eastern history and the USs involvment in it. As our leaders were reassuring (seen as liberators, etc.) none of them clearly had a grasp of what they were about to undertake. One guy did - Saddam himself. And he said it before the invasion proper - "he's going to see another Vietnam." Say what you will about the man, but he has a deep understanding of the workings of the US and surely did not forget about the USs betrayal of him in the Iran-Iraq war.

What's ultimately far more sobering is that, knowing we will not be able to pull out of Iraq for many years to come, the door has been left wide open for by far and away the most powerful country in the Middle East - Iran. This is going to be a wonderful opportunity for the fundamentalist, very dangerous regime extremely hostile towards the US (much more so than Saddam ever was) to become more powerful than anyone could imagine. Was there anyone who spoke of this potential danger before the unjustified invasion of Iraq? Nadda.

I don't even want to ponder any further than this - the thoughts become very ugly.

[billvon 3,078]

>I hope you don't mean to imply that we targeted innocent Iraqi's, do you Bill?

No more so than we 'target' US military to be killed. But when you invade a country, innocent people die; it is an expected and usual result of warfare. So we decided to go in knowing full well they would die - and decided that was OK. So I don't quite believe the "we take our vow to protect innocent Iraqis very seriously" thing. We surely think Iraqi lives are important, but they are certainly not #1 on our list.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

none of them clearly had a grasp of what they were about to undertake. One guy did - Saddam himself. And he said it before the invasion proper - "he's going to see another Vietnam." Say what you will about the man, but he has a deep understanding of the workings of the US and surely did not forget about the USs betrayal of him in the Iran-Iraq war.

Or he was just talking shit again. Propoganda, not real political insight. I'm sure he viewed that Vietnam with him as leader Ho Chi Minh, not in jail.

Many times he bet that he could dance on the line and get away with it, that the US would never actually make good on his treaty violations. Or that if he stalled long enough in 2003 that we would cancel the invasion in the face of the coming summer. He was wrong.

[Everon 0]

No, he knew. He opened his borders "wide open" just before the invasion, knowing full well this would be the result.

[wmw999 2,545]

Quote

Or he was just talking shit again. Propoganda, not real political insight

Just because someone is our enemy doesn't make him stupid. That's a really dangerous position to take

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,078]

>Or that if he stalled long enough in 2003 that we would cancel the
>invasion in the face of the coming summer. He was wrong.

Actually, all evidence points to the fact that he _did_ start taking us seriously, and did destroy his WMD's. He was an expert at playing the game to stay in power, and he knew that the US presented enough of a threat that he basically had to roll over. Which he did. That didn't fit into our plans for the area so we invaded anyway.

[Everon 0]

Let's put it this way. This guy (Saddam) rose to power in a not too dissimilar fashion from the way Stalin did (poor families, no resources, etc.) GWB was handed millions in wealth and businesses with a silver spoon and f*%^ed them all up. Who is smarter in your book?

[Everon 0]

<"we take our vow to protect innocent Iraqis very seriously"

Just like in the first Gulf war, when the US bombarded retreating Iraqi medical personnel in the Mittlah Ridge. Over 2,000 Iraqis were incinerated - mostly civilians. Yes indeed, the vow is real, isn't it? And one does not understand why they hate us? US cynicism knows no bounds.

[Channman 2]

>I can't see that we've "won" anything.

What the Hell!!!

Americans need to develope a back bone and stop crying. Our troops are winning every engagement, stop this damn political correctness and let them take the gloves off and finish this thing.

Hell Kallend son is on his way over there, let the kid do is job, support him and his buddies to kick some ass and take names. This is a war, to set all nations free from terriorist, (my personnal opionion), so lets kill im all, i.e. the bad guys.

And for those of you that may be confused with your manhood, and the goodness of our nation we need to fight this battle and the others which will surely come and purge these bastards from the face of the earth to be remembered no more.

The greatest generation, my father, being one, would be some what put out by the cheese eating weasel rats we have running around in the news lately complaning of the hardships we are facing over there.

I see plenty of what we won over there and laying it all out before you now would do little good, as we have had this discussion many times before in previous threads.

>Should we pull out now and cut our losses?

Yea why the hell not, and while doing so we can trample on the graves of our sons and daughters who have given all TRYING to keep us free.

As it turns out MOM and DAD don't have the courage of their children, much less dicipline.

My answer to your question is NO!!!

[wmw999 2,545]

My father is also part of the greatest generation (Pacific theatre). He was in favor of the Vietnam war. He thinks we are dead wrong to be in Iraq.

How do we tell the difference between terrorists and people who just don't want foreigners in Iraq?

How do we know that by by using all of our massed power in Iraq we will win against terrorists everywhere? "Just be a man" is not reason enough.

Heck, if we use all our massed power, we can simply nuke the whole place. Then there won't be any Iraqis, any Iranians, or anyone else. That would solve the problem in the short term.

Do you think that might piss other people off? Should we just keep nuking them until there is no one left that is pissed off? Do you think that maybe, just maybe, that would mean that there was no one left but us?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Channman 2]

To your last question no, but if you are to engage your nation in a war, do so willing to win a complete decisive victory with the enemy giving their complete unconditional surrender. With terrorist, working in multiple nations it will require snuffing them out. That will take time, lots of time.

[billvon 3,078]

>How do we tell the difference between terrorists and people who
>just don't want foreigners in Iraq?

Easy. The terrorists hate us, the people who don't want foreigners in Iraq just hate foreigners. (Ever been to Iraq? It's almost all foreigners!)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Or he was just talking shit again. Propoganda, not real political insight

Just because someone is our enemy doesn't make him stupid. That's a really dangerous position to take

Wendy, nothing about my statement says that he was stupid. Bush used a lot of propoganda too in the build up to the war. (In particular, just about everything said about WMDs) Overall, Hussein showed himself to be a pretty smart guy, but I think he misread the new reality that 9/11 delivered to White House foreign policy. Afghanistan should have been the tipoff. If he cared at all about his people he should have backed down early, and even just for preserving his position he should have seen that it was the only way to survive.

But what inferior country hasn't promised to resist a la Vietnam invading armies from a first world country? That talk is really meant for internal consumption, to get the people ready for what is coming.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Or that if he stalled long enough in 2003 that we would cancel the
>invasion in the face of the coming summer. He was wrong.

Actually, all evidence points to the fact that he _did_ start taking us seriously, and did destroy his WMD's. He was an expert at playing the game to stay in power, and he knew that the US presented enough of a threat that he basically had to roll over. Which he did. That didn't fit into our plans for the area so we invaded anyway.

He didn't roll over fast enough. I think his past success worked against him. But yeah, at the end, nothing would have stopped it. You listen to Bush's final speech and it was rather apparent that he wasn't expecting or prepared for Hussein to meet the demands to step down. (Rather like his speech to the Taliban 18 months earlier.)

BTW, your words suggest you agree that it was US aggression that got him to destroy his remaining WMDs, not the spineless work of the UN.

[Everon 0]

Actually, Saddam's son-in-law Kamel had already told the CIA he had destroyed them - long before 9/11. And Kamel's other intel proved to be accurate from years before. And this administration knew this.

The only reason he showed defiance is his paranoia from his much stronger neighbor - Iran. Saddam had no fear greater than a war with his greatest enemy, and that's why he gave the illusion he might have WMD - to deter Iran from invasion. The inspection bullshit had nothing to do with it. Most Europeans were aware of this (which is why there was no coalition) as was anyone who decided to educate hisself on Middle Eastern history - but that is certainly not a priority in the US - education, that is.
It was unbelievable to me that so many people (in the US) bought this lie (WMD).

[billvon 3,078]

>BTW, your words suggest you agree that it was US aggression that
> got him to destroy his remaining WMDs . . .

You mean the aggression that had not yet occurred? An interesting cause-effect relationship there. Do you think we launched the first Gulf war as a result of 9/11?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

I can't see that we've "won" anything.

I don't think there are any "spoils" which we will be able to take home with us.

Quote

Should we pull out now and cut our losses?

No. It will cost us, Iraq, and the world more in the long run.

Quote

Any comments?

Why yes.
Going back to your first question, I believe that if we can solidify the political power of the new Iraqi government in a manner that the people of Iraq will want to have it, then we will have "won", in a manner of speaking.

Conceptually, this is not hard for us to grasp, because we've been living in that environment all our lives. We vote, we empower our government. The Iraqis, indeed most of that region, has never known such a concept and instilling the mindset of having a people or society participate in their fate will take years.

Case in point, though not quite as violent, Russia. There are many in today's Russia who long for the return of the former Soviet Union and "communism" (really socialism). Even today, many are not willing to participate in their destiny. Many of these people will not be able to learn that way of life.

So too, with many Iraqis, some who are former Ba'athists, some who have only known Saddam.

Fear is what will stump progress. Fear is the root of almost every misgiving a person, or society can have. It drives our own silly extremes to be "PC", for "fear" of insulting an African American, when they were called Negroes or Black ten years ago. It drove the revolution in Iran in 1979. It drove, fostered and solidified Saddam's rise to power.

It's the Iraqi's to lose at this point (in my mind). We need to remain to ensure that if they face their fears, thwart their foes, they will be welcomed in the world community, as a free nation of willing citizens.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>BTW, your words suggest you agree that it was US aggression that
> got him to destroy his remaining WMDs . . .

You mean the aggression that had not yet occurred? An interesting cause-effect relationship there. Do you think we launched the first Gulf war as a result of 9/11?

Sending tens of thousands of troops near near the border is quite 'aggressive.' Without doing that, the most the US can do is launch more cruise missiles. Bad for those they land on, but not particularly bad for Iraq as proven by the numerous incidents between 91 and 03.

I took your words to refer to the timeline building up to the 2003 invasion, but I better backstep and leave it to you to confirm when you believe he destroyed his weapons.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

Quote

I hope you don't mean to imply that we targeted innocent Iraqi's, do you Bill?

no, no. When they say stuff like that over and over again, they only 'want' people to 'infer' that we directly targetted innocents. It gets their intent across while still keeping their personal honesty intact.

Dude. Dead is dead. Do you think it would matter to those killed?


I know a woman who is convinced that any military is directly tasked with the sole responsibility to kill children. Target and kill children is the only role and she's convinced there is no other purpose than that. She goes to tears anytime she sees a uniform and is convinced every serviceman serves and is eager to strangle babies. I don't doubt that off the cuff emotional manipulation and blanket comments like that is a big part of it. That and she's a nutjob too.

So what's the point? None, she's just a very extreme case and fun to point out once in a while.

You are deliberately targeting this tortured individual for your amusment and to make a point on the internet??

jen

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".