Author Topic: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?  (Read 17492 times)

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,369
  • I Am Inimical
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #25 on: September 05, 2007, 11:27:14 AM »
And the counter problem is that the Dems and others see no hope for any solution at all in Iraq so their "solution" is to cut and run like the chickensquirts they are.

I suspect that even if the situation in Iraq turned completely around and peace and cooperation were established the Dems would still be screaming about how it's such a huge failure.

No, I'm not happy about the situation in Iraq. No, I'm not happy about the fact that there was an invasion in the first place, and I spoke against it quite frequently before it actually happened.

But what the Dems and their buddies are proposing isn't any more of a solution than what's happening right now. In fact, it's a far WORSE 'solution.'
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #26 on: September 05, 2007, 11:48:31 AM »
The responses in this thread highlight the problem-nobody knows, let alone is able to articulate what 'Win in Iraq' means. The only consensus is that the Dems are the enemy and will ultimately be responsible for any 'failure' (whatever that means) in Iraq.

Maybe annihilation of the Dems and any other anti-Iraq-war types='Win in Iraq'?



Every time this topic has come up people have given extension descriptions of what "win" means.  You just aren't paying attention or you keep repeating the same mantra, hoping no one will notice.
As for annhilating the Dems, there's always hope....
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,836
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #27 on: September 05, 2007, 11:59:16 AM »
I think a win in terms of a stable Iraq that does not harbor Al Qaeda is actually quite attainable.

The problem is that the only realistic scenario for this is under the aegis of an Iranian backed fundamentalist political system, much like the one that is currently in power (at least inside some of its own buildings in Baghdad.) 

That's the big problem with this war as I see it: either option is bad.  If it fails, the Iran-supporting fanatics will not be able to do much, but the country will be a dangerous war-zone and hotbed for terrorists.  If it succeeds, then we will have parties like "The Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council" and "Islamic Daw'a" (both with more ties to Iran than the US) ruling Iraq, which is exactly the opposite of what the battle was supposed to achieve.

So the result is that a win is not really much of a win.
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #28 on: September 05, 2007, 01:27:05 PM »
Actually I remember the '60s rather well.   The dissolution I speak of had already begun before the '60s but the '60s provided the spiritual playbook and the army of "progressives" who, forty years later, have insinuated themselves into every corner of the law, government bureaucracies, NGOs, and education.  Even our billionaires talk like good little leftists, remarkably enough.

Don't get me wrong?  I don't see the problem as insoluble, I just think the resolution of it will be wrenching.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,425
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #29 on: September 05, 2007, 01:37:48 PM »
Longeyes, I share your concerns.  Our nation has some serious cultural, social and political problems.  I think the America of sixty years ago would never have succumbed to the now-common defeatist attitude about this current war.  If we want to turn this ship around, we'll need to stop thinking that a foreign war is going to stop us.  We need to stop carping that fighting a war over there is somehow stopping us from shaping up over here. 
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #30 on: September 05, 2007, 01:55:53 PM »
Quote
I think the America of sixty years ago would never have succumbed to the now-common defeatist attitude about this current war.

The America of 60 years ago would not have entered into this war.  That said, it is imperative we maintain the strength and firm resolve to bring this to some conclusion other than defeat.  It is unfortunate-no, it is unacceptable that Bush allowed SecDef Rumsfeld to botch this campaign for four years.  That is time, money, and lives needlessly spent.  The new SecDef is on the right track, but time is limited.  Bush will leave office January 20, 2009, and there must be some resolution by then. 

thebaldguy

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 789
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #31 on: September 05, 2007, 01:58:33 PM »
My first question is define "win" in Iraq. I just don't see all those different groups living in peace.

If we won, it would be just like the all the politicans said years ago; cheap oil, stability, end of violence, end of terrorism, etc. It would be perfect.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see it happening. Good fantasy, though.

stevelyn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,130
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #32 on: September 05, 2007, 02:20:03 PM »
Iraq is not a political football.  And anybody who uses it that way needs to be tarred and feathered and then given a public birching in the town square.

Well then, you can start by tarring and feathering the jackass(es) that ordered the invasion. Because it wasn't done in response to a clear and imminent threat.
Be careful that the toes you step on now aren't connected to the ass you have to kiss later.

Eat Moose. Wear Wolf.

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #33 on: September 05, 2007, 02:36:50 PM »
Because it wasn't done in response to a clear and imminent threat.
Ha!!

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #34 on: September 05, 2007, 03:26:50 PM »
Because it wasn't done in response to a clear and imminent threat.
Ha!!

Double ha.
If you are only ready to go to war when the enemy has been massed and awaiting orders for attack, then you've already lost.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #35 on: September 05, 2007, 03:44:13 PM »
Yeah, that Saddam, any day he was going to gear up and come a-knockin'. I know that we were all living in a constant state of fear in 2002 that the Iraqi Army was poised to strike a blow against, um... uh... er...
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #36 on: September 05, 2007, 03:53:51 PM »
Quote
Yeah, that Saddam, any day he was going to gear up and come a-knockin'. I know that we were all living in a constant state of fear in 2002 that the Iraqi Army was poised to strike a blow against, um... uh... er...

Quote
Well then, you can start by tarring and feathering the jackass(es) that ordered the invasion. Because it wasn't done in response to a clear and imminent threat.

Wow, wooderson and stevelyn.  You're smarter than all these Democrats.  I'm impressed!

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
    Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
    Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
    Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force  if necessary  to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
    Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #37 on: September 05, 2007, 04:46:07 PM »
Quote
You're smarter than all these Democrats.
The Democratic leadership has been particularly craven in their treatment of the war, yes - afraid to say an unkind word when they thought it suited them politically, unwilling to take a stand to end the charade because they aren't sure it suits them well enough (better to have an ongoing fiasco through 2008).

So what's your point?

(in the Democrats' defense, loathe as I am to say anything, the first set of quotes are prior to the air and missile attacks that are generally believed to have ended even the pipe dream of Saddam gaining WMD capabilities. That's what makes both parties dishonesty in the leadup to the debacle in Iraq so shameful.)
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,425
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #38 on: September 05, 2007, 07:59:29 PM »
Quote
I think the America of sixty years ago would never have succumbed to the now-common defeatist attitude about this current war.

The America of 60 years ago would not have entered into this war. 

Why not?  Forty years ago, we were in 'Nam.  Fifty years ago, we were in Korea.  Sixty years ago, we were just finishing up a world-wide conflict.  WWI before that.  The Philippines.  Spanish-American War.  And so on and so forth. 

Chronology is approximate. 
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Ezekiel

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Intellectual Masturbationist
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #39 on: September 05, 2007, 10:46:02 PM »
So the result is that a win is not really much of a win.

Don't we have Presidential advisors that are supposed to spell this stuff out BEFORE we step in it?

Oh, wait, I forgot: an idiot at the wheel and Darth Cheney pulling the strings...

(sigh)
Zeke

Bogie

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,214
  • Hunkered in South St. Louis, right by Route 66
    • Third Rate Pundit
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #40 on: September 06, 2007, 05:03:59 AM »
Is he an idiot or an evil genius? Why do we keep hearing both?

If we hadn't invaded the middle east: Deniable state sponsored terrorists would have continued to train. We probably would have had another major attack on US soil.

We will eventually. These people are nuts.
 
If we bug out, they won't see it as negotiation or compromise. They'll see it as a sign of weakness. And they'll launch something else. They don't need the technology to build a cruise missile. They steal 'em, and provide their own meatware guidance systems.

With the next major attack, all the nice folks are gonna break out their flag lapel pins again, and they're gonna be asking why Bush didn't nuke the place.
 
Blog under construction

Ezekiel

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 819
  • Intellectual Masturbationist
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #41 on: September 06, 2007, 07:25:30 AM »
Bogie:

Admittedly, a very valid point, as it IS difficult to prove a negative.  (i.e., because of Action A [invasion], there have been no instances of Action B [terrorist attack]...)

But I don't see Evil Genius.  Sad
Zeke

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #42 on: September 06, 2007, 07:29:41 AM »
Bogie:

But I don't see Evil Genius.  Sad

So he must be a fool.
But this fool was able to persuade Congress and any number of allies to vote for and support the war.  Interesting.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #43 on: September 06, 2007, 07:33:22 AM »
Neither genius nor fool.  Misguided and shortsighted.

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #44 on: September 06, 2007, 07:37:54 AM »
If it takes 13 weeks to forge a Marine, why is the Iraqi military "always one year away?"

The problem Over There is cultural, that's why, and the sooner we recognize that our paradigm of "conversion to Americans in Iraqi skins" isn't going to really work the better off we'll be. 

We need to define clearly where the real sources of danger to this nation and to civilzation are and bring all practical force to bear on them.  All the rest seems to me throughly tainted with economic expediency, empty moralizing, and misplaced "humanitarianism."  This is one theater of a do-or-die global war, not more expensive social work.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #45 on: September 06, 2007, 10:07:41 AM »
Quote
If we hadn't invaded the middle east: Deniable state sponsored terrorists would have continued to train. We probably would have had another major attack on US soil.

It continues to amaze me that people genuinely believe this nonsense.
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #46 on: September 06, 2007, 10:29:38 AM »
Quote
If we hadn't invaded the middle east: Deniable state sponsored terrorists would have continued to train. We probably would have had another major attack on US soil.

It continues to amaze me that people genuinely believe this nonsense.

I'm amazed that people continue to deny what seems like an obvious truth.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #47 on: September 06, 2007, 10:49:08 AM »
Why is it an 'obvious truth'?
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #48 on: September 06, 2007, 11:50:35 AM »
Why is it an 'obvious truth'?
Because our enemies have repeatedly told us they are trying to attack us and that our operations have caused them quite a bit of damage.  Give them some credit for forthrightness.

Removing their training grounds (Afghanistan & Iraq), disrupting commo & financing ("Bushitler" wiretaps), and planting a flag in the ground for them to be attracted to and attack (Iraq) have definitely disrupted Al Queda and other terrorist types.  We have intercepted their own communications stating as much. 

Iraq & Afghanistan may never be Switzerland, providing "Victory And Peace In The World, Now And Forever," but they are part & parcel of the fight civilization must take to barbarism if civilization is to endure.  The current struggle has been going on since 632AD, so expecting it to be over & done with by Christmas when it has been in progress for centuries is unrealistic. 
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

wooderson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,399
Re: What If We Actually Win In Iraq?
« Reply #49 on: September 06, 2007, 12:08:32 PM »
Quote
Removing their training grounds (Afghanistan & Iraq)
Remarkably dishonest to conflate the two.

Which is to say that's often the only way we often see justification for the debacle in Iraq - when it involves assigning credit for victories in Afghanistan to our Middle East adventurism (which, of course, stalled progress in Pakistan and Afghanistan...).
"The famously genial grin turned into a rictus of senile fury: I was looking at a cruel and stupid lizard."