Iraq today. Is winning still possible?

raid517

So you see killing 100's of thousands of innocent people as a 'victory?'

America should become the new butchers of Baghdad?

What the hell do you think you are supposed to be fighting this war for?

Maniac.

GJ

HawgsHead

Tactical nukes do not kill hunderds of thousands of people.If you go to war,you go to WIN!!!Period.And what about all of those hundred's of thousands of innocent people sadam killed over the past 30 years????Have you forgotten 09/11???...Have you forgotten the USS Cole???And I could go on and on and on.I will not argue this.

Dom

Yes, of course dropping a nuke on Iraq would be cool but if al-Qaeda nukes America that would be evil.

Dom

So equaling Saddam's killing sprees would make all everything better? You seem to believe in God (judging by your sig), you think God would condone such a thing?

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 nor the USS Cole. I wouldn't argue what you said neither.

raid517

So which nuclear bomb in particular are you referring to that somehow has the ability to distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys? Or do you mean we should just kill everyone with a brown face or a remotely Arab appearance?

GJ

Dom

I think he means #2.

Skrov

It might take some another leaders of the the occupation forces to 'win the war' - UN.The ones now have already lost it in my eyes.Lots (I´d guess 95%) of Iraqis don´t want the US & co to be their rulers ,they didn´t want it in the first place ,sure lots wanted Saddams butt kicked but they don´t want what´s now either.
The torture at Abu Ghraib ,the killings from all sides where many are innocent cilvilians and the chaotic situation as a whole in Iraq don´t help the occupation forces to win any popularity contests.

I´m not that stupid I think GW Bush will give away the control of one of the worlds richest Oil producing countrys so - the war is lost.

pr0digal jenius

A)-Tactical nukes don't kill 100s of thousands INSTANTLY...radiation has a nasty habit of staying aroudn for a while though

B)-Define 'win'. The humanitarian in you should descrbe war as a loss from the get go. The economist in you should see we are clearly losing this war. The politician in yous hould be able to tell that this war is all about pimping out our army and showign off more then anything else at this point.

C)- Nope, haven't forgotten...i just don't see how what we are doing is any better. Look at it from their side...we waltz around their sidewalks toting M4s and telling them how to run their country.....

FossiL

Hey guys, I see we have another debate about the validity of whether or not the iraqi war is going to give the people of iraq their indepence or not, first of all I want to say to raid517 that you are a smart & intelligent guy and for questioning the motives of the American Administration that other people are to afraid or to ignorant to understand (props). Its funny how some people seem to think that its "ok" to burn, bomb, rape, murder, terrorize the iraqi people into submission for what? They got rid of Sadam Hussien, there are no "WMD" that they had or didnt have.. hmm I dont think they know.. they keep changing their tune every 5 minutes.. so if the American Army is there to "help" the iraqi people then why do they keep killing them and their way of life.. make sense yet? didnt think so. The big picture is.. Bush & Cheney dont give a rats ass about the iraqi people and they never will.. as long as their pockets are lined with money whether it be covered in iraqi or american blood.. they DON'T care, and thats the bottom line. The answer to this thread about whether or not the war is being won on iraq or terrorism.. its not and never will be as long as people like Bush with the iq of 67 which is the intelligence of a very smart chimp sorry but true.. stay in power, but thats another debate that can be done somewere else.. and prodigal genius you've hit the very note of what is going on with your post of

[\quote]A)-Tactical nukes don't kill 100s of thousands INSTANTLY...radiation has a nasty habit of staying aroudn for a while though

B)-Define 'win'. The humanitarian in you should descrbe war as a loss from the get go. The economist in you should see we are clearly losing this war. The politician in yous hould be able to tell that this war is all about pimping out our army and showign off more then anything else at this point.

C)- Nope, haven't forgotten...i just don't see how what we are doing is any better. Look at it from their side...we waltz around their sidewalks toting M4s and telling them how to run their country.....[\quote]

Take a minute and "seriously" put yourself in the shoes of an iraqi Father, Brother, Sister, Son, Daughter, Uncle, or even a dead american soldiers family and tell me if its worth all the loss and if it's still ok with whats going on over there while you sit behind your computer desk and look at all the crap that the media spews out. It makes me sick.. literally.

me.myself.&.ATi

whatever god that you may worship I hope he/she/it will be as harsh on you as you were by making this statement when judgement day befalls us all...

to simply think this is in itself a crime against humanity!

there is no Honor in the things you say let alone any Glory!

me.myself.&.ATi

on a side note...

Thank Heavens for individuals like you raid517

i am really glad you didn't give up on us (DH that is) yet

sincerely,

Me.Myself.&.ATi

pr0digal jenius

I have...hence why I'm against this war. If i were one of the famiyl members of someone who died fighting over there I would want much mroe of an explanationf or why my loved one was there int he first place.....

raid517

@FossiL Well I don't know about all that. All I do know is that this show was probably over a while ago - and bar the reluctance of some politicians to admit it - it was pretty much one hell of a flop.

There isn't even very much entertainment value left in it. "More dead American soldiers in Iraq." It barely even manages to crawl on to the news at night.

There ain't no applause no invite for an extended tour from the Iraq people, no deep admiration for any of our democratic aspirations for them (they want theocracy, not democracy) almost every objective we set out to achieve there has failed. We can't even control the apparently few insurgets there are regardless of how much more military hardware and money we pump in.

Why are we there? I'm starting to forget - and I don't think I'm the only one. Why indeed. It beats me is all I can say. Maybe we just make good target practice?

GJ

raid517

You know what too. Most of you guys think that the Afganistan war is over and won too. But each week the number of American and allied dead there continues to grow. There are only tiny pockets of that country that we are still in control of too and the so called President of Afganistan Hamid Karzai is little more than a glorified American sponsored mayor of Kabul. He has little or no influence outside of Kabul or of any of those few other small areas that the allies there do control. Even here the fight is far from over. If anything it is just beginning. The Afgans have pretty much booted everyone out of their country who have invaded them in the last 200 years.

Is that the model for 'democracy' that we now have envisioned for Iraq? Because if so, where do any of you guys see the victory in this?

Indeed the Russians made the same mistake. They invaded with a huge show of force. Shortly after taking Kabul they declared victory. Several years down the line and many thousands of killed and injured Russian soldiers later - leaving behind them a decimated country - they too were forced to leave.

The real difficulty is that we always imagine we are fighting people a lot less sophisticated than us - that with our superior weapory and superior firepower how on earth is it possible for us to loose? But the reality is what we are fighting is human beings - and that is by far the most leathal and smartest weapon of all.

The biggest problem is we cannot possibly keep the promises we made - either in Iraq or in Afagnistan. We cannot impose democracy on a largely hostile population, nor can we stay indefinately just so our troops can be shot at in order to maintain the limited semblence of democracy that we have created there. Nor can America pump an endless supply of money into these countries ecconomies in order to shore them up hard enough to enable them to stand on their own two feet - particularly at a time when the American ecconomy is having some considerable difficulty in doing this for itself. America has long been warned about the dangers in indulging in nation building.

What I would like to know is, what is the plan when things don't go according to the script? Because right now, there doesn't seem to be one.

GJ

Skrov

One other thing that tells me you´re right (though I don´t know who 'we' are) is the fact that Afganistan produces more Heroin than ever - it´s 30% up the last couple of years.Most of this smack comes to Europe ,is that why it´s not a political issue in the US?

raid517

Well 'we' in Afganistan at least are nato - much more so than in Iraq. There are many more countries represented there - but by far the largest force remain the Americans - though they are as much confined to a few major population areas as is everyone else. Beyond this it is the old war lords who rule the roost - and as ever they are little more than a bunch of bloodthirsty gangsters. It is these who control the heroin trade - and who have made it impossible for the 'aillies' to operate outside a few restriced enclaves there.

It is very odd I think to consider, horrible as they were, the taliban could virtually eliminate the heroin trade, while we seem singularly unable (or unwilling?) to do anything at all about it.

GJ

aboyandhisblob

kerrys stabilization of iraq sounds very similar to the "operation madman" nixon used to "end" viet nam.

raid517

I think you may have been playing too many video games. I am familiar with the history of most of the battles in Vietnam - but not that specific one.

Given that I might be wrong, what is your source for that particular battle plan.

GJ

ronnn

Americans will never vote Bush out. This would take admitting they lost this war and the last president to lose a war had to resign or face impeachment. I say vote for Bush and impeach him when he has no choice but to admit defeat. And I hope Canada never joins this lost effort, as our ecconomy continues to perform well without the constant cash drain. This is a war that can not be won with bombs and armies. It will take education and opportunity and George Bush is certainly lacking in the former. His performance in the great debate was pathetic.

bird chest

We can win this war but not with guns. The only way to win is to stabalize the country and help the economy to a point where the standard of living is good enough so that terrorists wont be able to spurr the masses so much, of course this is my opinion. This is not a quick victory. OF course this is my own opinion. But I will see how things are going when I go to Iraq or afgahnistan in march I am guessing. I think that is when I will be shipping out.

Nacht

good job making the biggest sweeping generalization i have ever seen on this board.

impeachment and 'loosing' the war do not go hand in hand.

bush is not an idiot.

raid517

Well Nixon wasn't impeached for loosing the war. He was impeached for lying to the American people - and for conspiring in clearly criminal activities. So I guess I kind of agree - even loosing a war might not be enough to remove an American President.

Bush may or may not be dumb - that is a long running debate - but he still looks pretty dumb when put up against someone who clearly isn't. Does that make either of them very good candidates? Fumbling, mumbling and incoherant v's clever but potentially inconsistant?

I suppose at least Bush has some good script writers who help a lot to keep him on message. It makes him look more dependable.

I guess people tend to plump for consistancy - they like to know where they stand.

That is the message the Democrats need to learn for next time I think. Get on message. Choose a guy with a good solid record of saying and doing the same things and keep bangnig the same drum until eventually people take it in. That is what Clinton did - and it seemed to work quite well for him.

GJ