Victory in Iraq?
- Started
- Last post
- 31 Responses
- 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.
- ********0
Just like our "victory" in Vietnam.
- ********0
- CALLES0
we won that shit like for years ago yo
- ********0
"War is like arguing on the internet, even if you win you still look retarded"
- ukit0
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.
- whether that was a good idea in the long run, who knows?ukit
- mrdobolina0
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.
- TheBlueOne0
No one has ever given or defined "victory" conditions. It is whatever you want it to be.
- ukit0
I think the U.S. realized it needed to grab a piece of the energy pie to counter its enemies in the world, and also to maintain military bases there in control to exert control over the region. It's as simple as that.
- designbot0
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.
- mg330
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.
- TheBlueOne0
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
- Exactly, although in the long run obviously it affects national securityukit
- ********0
but the real question is.
Did America gained anything positive from this occupation?- I meant Americans********
- Long term, medium term or short term?TheBlueOne
- debt of about $40,000 per family.mrdobolina
- I meant Americans
- ukit0
Quite possibly. Something being morally wrong doesn't mean country won't gain from it in the long run. But who knows, some kid in Iraq whose family was killed by American bombs could end up becoming the uber terrorist and blowing up Washington DC.
- There's always unintended consequences and outcomes to war.Mimio
- dog_opus0
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).
- How has it been won? it's now a failed state worse off then before.Mimio
- Our troops rock. Petreaus is a good commander.TheBlueOne
- That said nothing has been "won"...and alot lost, although not on the battlefield.TheBlueOne
- TheBlueOne0
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?
- It's a NATO thing. Bush & Co. are leaning on Russia.Mimio
- My question - why? And why now?
Cui bono?TheBlueOne
- designbot0
^you would rather see Russia attack it's own people? wtf are you talking about?
If we didn't do anything about it, people would be pointing fingers at the US for that too.
- What are you talking about?TheBlueOne
- That's what makes hating America such an alluring proposition for the ethically/mentally challenged.dog_opus
- I couldn't fuck you hard enough. How dare you impugn my patriotism jackhole.TheBlueOne
- Honestly TBO explain how you can be against the US actions in Russia? We setup an ANT-MISSILE defense system in Poland.designbot
- in Poland, because Russia can't be trusted.designbot
- Yeah, Russia should do the same thing in the U.S.A. and see if people react the same way.Jaline
- (of course, if something like that happened, Americans would be pissed off)Jaline
- Jaline, please don't tell me you are trying to compare America to Russia.designbot
- Cuban Missile CrisisMimio
- The U.S.A. doesn't have some kind of entitlement to automatically go in and say they are "fixing" things.Jaline
- I do agree that people would be upset if they didn't do anything either, but people should know better by now.Jaline
- That is the thing. The US is in a lose/lose situation. And many people do have the "With great power comes great responsibility" mentality.designbot
- ..great responsibility" mentality. And I think to some degree this is correct.designbot
- Yup, and all we do is screw the world up. Power and greed, we know those well.formed
- Llyod0
at some point no civilians will sign up for duty because they won't want to be struck in a desert hellhole. they'll have to bring back the draft.
- ukit0
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.
- Jaline0
There is no "victory" in this situation.