So I will ask a different question. What would constitute a "victory" in Iraq?
A stable, self-supporting government that doesn't threaten the US. Bonus points if that government is a democracy, but if we continue to lose resolve at our current pace we may have to settle for any type of government.
A stable, self-supporting government that doesn't threaten the US.
That describes Iraq prior to our invasion, does it not??
Victory in Iraq would mean a stable govt.
That's easy to accomplish. Simple turn the country back over to Saddam. He managed to provide stability and keep the peace.
A stable, self-supporting government that doesn't threaten the US.
That describes Iraq prior to our invasion, does it not?
?
It does not.
Victory in Iraq would mean a stable govt.
That's easy to accomplish. Simple turn the country back over to Saddam. He managed to provide stability and keep the peace.
That period was not the end of a sentence. You understood that, of course, you just wanted to pull my words out of context. That is a form of mendacity. If you were interested in an honest discussion, you could quote the whole sentence:Victory in Iraq would mean a stable govt. we can work with, even if they are not entirely free from Islamist influence (a la Saudi Arabia).
But why argue with someone who can't comprehend having more than one reason for something? First it was WMD's, then 'regime change' and now 'democratization'. Clearly, there is no coherent strategy on the part of this administration. It makes no sense to continue this conflict.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=5211.msg79088#msg79088
Riley, you can't be taken seriously as long as you repeat such moonbatisms.
But why argue with someone who can't comprehend having more than one reason for something?
Quote
First it was WMD's, then 'regime change' and now 'democratization'. Clearly, there is no coherent strategy on the part of this administration. It makes no sense to continue this conflict.
Those are consecutive excuses, not concurrent reasons. As each 'goal' was accomplished, a new one was invented to take its place. Look, there are nearly 3000 American deaths and nearly 22,000 wounded-too many of them permanently disabled, missing arms, legs- since this fiasco began. And for what? Our national security interests were never at risk from pre-invasion Iraq. The intel was wrong. Everybody admits that, even George Bush. Why is he so hell-bent on continuing this folly? One can only speculate. Maybe it's about oil, or rewarding his friends with open ended sky's the limit 'contracts'. Maybe it's ideological; permanent bases in Iraq (which he's admitted are part of the 'plan') would provide a platform in the middle east from which to project power for whatever whimsical reason may arise. Maybe it's his own ego and inability to admit error-no matter what the cost to others. Or maybe a combination of all the above.
One thing's for sure-this administration does not understand the purpose of the military (which is not surprising, really, considering none of them served). They think social engineering is a legitimate use of our armed forces. And all along they've had the luxury of a rubber stamp Congress supporting this notion-all without any oversight whatsoever.
So, the Iraq Study Panel's 'workproduct', as impractical and scatterbrained as it may be has served a purpose-to provide an impetus for a change of direction of our Iraq 'policy'. That's a good thing.
Warning: I'm pretty harsh in this post. I'm tired of know-nothing nay-sayers repeating every two-bit opinion they hear in the press. Where did all of these foreign policy experts spring from?
Those are consecutive excuses, not concurrent reasons.
Says you. I think you're only reacting to sound-bites and forgetting that these reasons were all laid out prior the war. Weren't they?
As each 'goal' was accomplished, a new one was invented to take its place.
So you're saying we accomplished some of our goals?
Our national security interests were never at risk from pre-invasion Iraq.
In what world?
The intel was wrong. Everybody admits that, even George Bush. Why is he so hell-bent on continuing this folly?
What folly? The war? You think we should just quit the war?
Maybe it's ideological; permanent bases in Iraq (which he's admitted are part of the 'plan') would provide a platform in the middle east from which to project power for whatever whimsical reason may arise.
How could that possibly be a bad thing? And please tell me where he "admitted" (as if it were some dirty secret) that we would have permenant bases in Iraq? It worked in Germany, Japan and elsewhere.
Maybe it's his own ego and inability to admit error.
You have no way of judging his "errors," you're even more confused on this issue than I am.
One thing's for sure-this administration does not understand the purpose of the military (which is not surprising, really, considering none of them served). They think social engineering is a legitimate use of our armed forces. And all along they've had the luxury of a rubber stamp Congress supporting this notion-all without any oversight whatsoever.
Blah, blah, blah.
So, the Iraq Study Panel's 'workproduct', as impractical and scatterbrained as it may be has served a purpose-to provide an impetus for a change of direction of our Iraq 'policy'. That's a good thing.
more blah, blah.