Public Voice Network
- Santaland Diaries by Davi…
- blog 3116031160
- spec work at its finest 44
- photoshop on pixel design 1919
- Show some recent work 11931193
- Download anyone's FFF… 2727
- vector 3d 1616
- What are you listening to… 960960
- Darth Vadar Bowling 55
- clear glossy stickers 55
- Vid of the Day 164164
- Asked to help with redesi… 1010
- Pic of the Day 1047810478
- freshbooks 1111
- what camera 66
- What would Bringhurst do? 1414
- rippity rip 5252
- brand design studio 1111
- New Apple Cinema Display 1515
- capitalism 395395
- Public Enemy 2727
- clothing line 2727
- Vacation tomorrow 88
- Politics 50455045
Victory in Iraq? 3131 Responses
Last post: 3 months, 2 weeks ago | Thread started: Aug 20, 08, 12:19 p.m.
- mg33
I know we have several Obama and McCain election threads, but I'm curious about your take on something since it's McCain's soundbyte du jour day in and day out:
What do you consider "victory" in Iraq? What do you consider the definition of "winning" there?
McCain basically says he's the only candidate concerned with victory there, with "winning" and bringing the troops home. But what in the world does that mean? What do you think he thinks it means?
I don't know if any true victory is possible there. Remember, victory was already declared there by Bush years ago, so, all the more confusing.
- Aug 20, 08, 12:19 p.m. – Permalink
- ukit
Well we went in, took the shit over, and now we have a fairly stable government controlled by the U.S.
The reasons for going in were completely dishonest and never fully explained by the government, but I think we have achieved what they were aiming for.
- Dog-earAug 20, 08, 12:22 p.m. – Permalink
- mrdobolina
It isn't truly a war. It is an occupation, in reality. You can not win an occupation. There are no front lines to conquer and no army to surrender. It is a ridiculously simplistic soundbyte that appeals to the lowest common denominator in our country.
- Dog-earAug 20, 08, 12:22 p.m. – Permalink
- TheBlueOne
No one has ever given or defined "victory" conditions. It is whatever you want it to be.
- Dog-earAug 20, 08, 12:23 p.m. – Permalink
- designbot
It is totally ambiguous. There can be no definitive end to the war. I think it was cleverly sold this way. How do you end terrorism? It's impossible.
But now we are in a total predicament, and there is no easy solution to getting out of Iraq. The permanent military bases that have been established are proof that we never planned to leave. I don't think it was all for oil, but I do think that the US has some sort of twisted imperialistic plan in all this. Afterall, It's not just happening in the Middle East.
- Dog-earAug 20, 08, 12:27 p.m. – Permalink
- mg33
Exactly mrbdolina. Exactly.
Victory is a terrible word in this context and I wish that the press would call McCain on it and get his definition, because it's roughly the same as Obama's I think: it means "responsible conclusion," or "responsible withdrawl," because, like you said, you can't win an occupation.
I'm fairly sure this will be a debate question... can't wait to see both answers be somewhat the same.
But since McCain's a war guy, a vet, a warmongering bully, it's the only rhetoric and verbiage he knows.
- Dog-earAug 20, 08, 12:28 p.m. – Permalink
- TheBlueOne
Well, it didn't need to grab it really for it's own energy use, but rather to control the rest of the worlds energy supplies. Despite popular opinion, middle eastern oil is not important to US energy needs (however it is important to the oil corporations).
It was a land grab for larger military.strategic reasons and corporate interests. Had zero-nada to do with national security
- Dog-earAug 20, 08, 12:29 p.m. – Permalink
- dog_opus
We have effectively won it, in spite of near-lethal rules of engagement. The holy warriors in Iraq couldn't jihad their way out of a wet piece of pita bread at this point. That's kind of not the issue, though. What matters is that Iraqis unify around a civil and peaceful idea. I personally have my doubts about the likelihood of that happening, let alone via democratic/republican ideals. The Arab soul and the Islamic faith are inimical to Western liberal democracy. It was a gross misunderstanding, unfounded confidence, and lack of foresight on President Bush's part to think otherwise. I have to admit that I too was naive enough to think it would work.
I have nothing but respect for our troops, and General Petreaus, though (as well as our friends in the coalition). They've done a stupendous job in spite of great odds, and plenty of hateful idiots back here at home (as well as abroad).
- Dog-earAug 20, 08, 12:35 p.m. – Permalink
- TheBlueOne
You know, the whole "War on Terror" is running out of steam. So that's why they had to kick it up a notch, bring back the good old russians:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080…
Seriously, what in the US national interest and security is there in giving a fucking missle shield to Poland. Really. I would like a logical argument for this? Is it worth creating an enemy out of Russia again? Apparently it is, because they are doing it. Good old Condi is over there in Europe today sticking a bug up the bear's ass meters deep.
Cui bono?
- Dog-earAug 20, 08, 12:38 p.m. – Permalink
- ukit
I do wonder though, if tighter interdependence between Iran and the U.S. wasn't one of the long term goals. We could never invade Iran, it's too big a country and hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers would die. However, if we control Iraq, U.S. becomes heavily invested in the Iraqi economy, which in turn is no longer an enemy of Iran...so that the countries become economically interdependent and less likely to go to war in the long run. Over time, we gain influence over Iran and bring them into the fold in the same way we did w Germany and Japan.
- Dog-earAug 20, 08, 12:47 p.m. – Permalink
