Do you accept defeat?

[conserv.pat15]

If we pull out of Iraq before the job is finished, it will be a defeat for the United States. Liberals, do you accept defeat?

 

[Kandahar]

If we pull out of Iraq before the job is finished, it will be a defeat for the United States. Liberals, do you accept defeat?

We don't really have a choice. The question is whether we accept defeat now, or accept defeat after thousands more US soldiers die.

 

[Hatuey]

If we pull out of Iraq before the job is finished, it will be a defeat for the United States. Liberals, do you accept defeat?

Defeat? I thought we beat Saddam. We won. There's a civil war now. We've got nothing to do with that. It's all the Iraqis. No more questions.

 

[talloulou]

We don't really have a choice. The question is whether we accept defeat now, or accept defeat after thousands more US soldiers die.

Hopefully you're wrong. :doh

 

[Iriemon]

If we pull out of Iraq before the job is finished, it will be a defeat for the United States. Liberals, do you accept defeat?

It was a defeat when we attacked Iraq for WMDs that didn't exist.

 

[conserv.pat15]

Defeat? I thought we beat Saddam. We won. There's a civil war now. We've got nothing to do with that. It's all the Iraqis. No more questions.

Yes, part of winning in Iraq was to get rid of Saddam.

If it is just a "civil war" going on in Iraq, then why are terrorists still targeting our soldiers?

Iraq is a very important battle in the war on terror and we can not lose.

 

[Iriemon]

Yes, part of winning in Iraq was to get rid of Saddam.

If it is just a "civil war" going on in Iraq, then why are terrorists still targeting our soldiers?

Because our troops are illegitimately occupying their land.

Iraq is a very important battle in the war on terror and we can not lose.

The longer we stay their, the more we prove our opponent's point that the US's interest is controlling Iraq and its oil and their religion. Even if Iraq idealically became a democracy its government would be seen as illegitimate. The US has no credibility in Iraq or the ME because of the misrepresentations of this Govt and our presence in Iraq is adding "fuel to the fire" (to use GySgt's words) of anti-American radical terrorism.

You're looking at Iraq as a football game and not the big picture of what US intervention is doing to the political of the ME.

The goal should be reducing the threat of terrorism. Ultimately to do that you have to convince people not to become radical terrorists. Our invasion and occupation in Iraq is accomplishing precisely the opposite.

 

[DeeJayH]

The longer we stay their, the more we prove our opponent's point that the US's interest is controlling Iraq and its oil and their religion. Even if Iraq idealically became a democracy its government would be seen as illegitimate. The US has no credibility in Iraq or the ME because of the misrepresentations of this Govt and our presence in Iraq is adding "fuel to the fire" (to use GySgt's words) of anti-American radical terrorism.

You're looking at Iraq as a football game and not the big picture of what US intervention is doing to the political of the ME.

The goal should be reducing the threat of terrorism. Ultimately to do that you have to convince people not to become radical terrorists. Our invasion and occupation in Iraq is accomplishing precisely the opposite.

you are correct
but things needed to be shaken up in the ME for the benefit of our country and the region itself
can you not atleast acknowledge the possibility that something great could have evolved from a more properly executed war and 'keeping of the peace', that would have made for positive change in the reason

myself, I choose leaders of action, rather than all those of INAction
it is better to do something wrong, than to do nothing at all and allow the current status to go on unchecked

 

[Hatuey]

you are correct
but things needed to be shaken up in the ME for the benefit of our country and the region itself
can you not atleast acknowledge the possibility that something great could have evolved from a more properly executed war and 'keeping of the peace', that would have made for positive change in the reason

myself, I choose leaders of action, rather than all those of INAction
it is better to do something wrong, than to do nothing at all and allow the current status to go on unchecked

It's better to do something wrong? How about if you're going to do it wrong. Don't do it at all.

 

[DeeJayH]

It's better to do something wrong? How about if you're going to do it wrong. Don't do it at all.

so you are teh guy with crystal ball, huh?
you always know how things will play out when you start something?
do you rent out that crystal ball of yours
cause I sure would like to be perfect too
better yet, i will pay you to send it to Bush

 

[Hatuey]

so you are teh guy with crystal ball, huh?
you always know how things will play out when you start something?
do you rent out that crystal ball of yours
cause I sure would like to be perfect too
better yet, i will pay you to send it to Bush

The problem with people like ya is that you're the kind that does something wrong and would still do it the same way if he was given a second chance to do it right. Sorry if I do not believe in this logic. I'd rather measure 10 times and cut once. Get it right the first time you know? .

Adding : IMO Bush and his people made the worst mistake leaders can make. They didn't think enough of this enemy we're now facing. They rushed this war into production and now we're all paying the cost.

 

[MSgt]

C.mon people. Be fair. This isn't something that words like "defeat" or "victory" can be easily applied if we don't acknowledge first what is a defeat and what is a victory.

1) No enemy will come to a peace table and sign a surrender, because this isn't that type of war. This does not mean defeat.

2) Iraq will never look like Vermont, because their culture simply will not allow it. This also does not mean defeat.

Look at the stages...

A) We toppled Saddam Hussein. A man who invaded two neighboring countries and terrorized his populations. A man who rewarded suicide bombers in "Palestine" by paying out to the bomber's surviving family. - Success.

B) Past this, we had the civil unrest fueled on by international terrorists and Al-Queda. Eventually, Al-Queda's most ruthless agent, Zarqawi, one of the butchers of Sudan during the 90's, was killed and eventualy so was the Al-Queda base that was trying set up camp leaving the local insurgency to largely attack on its own. -Success.

C) Past this, we are left with the civl unrest between Sunni insurgents displeased with sharing equal power with the Sh'ite (*historical issue alert*) and the Shi'ite retaliation with Sadr's militias. Now we are executing missions to gut out Baghdad and surrounding city strongholds where militias and insurgents have headquartered. This, along with the troop surge, will allow the Iraqi government to address those nagging political issues between the Sunni and the Sh'ite. In the mean time, British forces have begun to plan the pull out of the South leaving it largely in control if the newly trained, but already battle hardened Iraqi military. -Success on the way.

Of course, along the bloodshed way, a new democratic Muslim nation has formed in which the people voted for their representatives and the laws that would govern them (Despite the low number of Sunni that participated, it was a first for an Arab civilization).

So, we have all kinds of success and a great measure of it is already guaranteed. At this point there is no defeat. And despite its ups and downs, overall, a marginal success is not only satisfactory, but more than this country was capable of doing for themselves. We can make arguments about how Islamic terror has been fueled, but this argument is for the campus intelligencia and for the Washington cowards who always predict failure over success (its safer) and cater to present day realism rather than what it is supposed to be doing. We face a civilization (Middle East) that is determined to breed hatred and its by product. Because of this the immediate creation of more terrorists is always going to be present no matter what we do or don't do. 9/11 was on their terms. Al-Queda and its terror masters were only the tool - a symptom of a larger disease. Forcing Iraq to be a beacon for the rest of the Middle East was on our terms.

Afer 10~15 years, the success or failure of Iraq will be more clear. It is up to Iraqis.

 

[conserv.pat15]

The longer we stay their, the more we prove our opponent's point that the US's interest is controlling Iraq and its oil and their religion.

The United States' is not interested in "controlling Iraq and its oil and their religion." Do you actually believe this? You sound like the "war was for oil" type. The United States is interested in fighting and killing terrorists, while securing and helping Iraq form their Democracy.

Even if Iraq idealically became a democracy its government would be seen as illegitimate. The US has no credibility in Iraq or the ME because of the misrepresentations of this Govt and our presence in Iraq is adding "fuel to the fire" (to use GySgt's words) of anti-American radical terrorism.

Why would it be seen as illigitimate? Why do you say the United States has no credibility? Islamic terrorists would still hate us if we were not in Iraq.

You're looking at Iraq as a football game and not the big picture of what US intervention is doing to the political of the ME.

No, you are not looking at the big picture. Iraq is a major part on the war on terror.

The goal should be reducing the threat of terrorism. Ultimately to do that you have to convince people not to become radical terrorists. Our invasion and occupation in Iraq is accomplishing precisely the opposite.

The terrorists attacking us in Iraq would still hate the United States if we were not in Iraq.

 

[DeeJayH]

The problem with people like ya is that you're the kind that does something wrong and would still do it the same way if he was given a second chance to do it right. Sorry if I do not believe in this logic. I'd rather measure 10 times and cut once. Get it right the first time you know? .

Adding : IMO Bush and his people made the worst mistake leaders can make. He didn't think enough of his enemy. He rushed this war into production and now we're all paying the cost.

just like I dont know you
you dont know jack about me

it is about somebody who sees a tough problem and decides to deal with
they try to get it right, but sometimes it goes wrong
I would take 10 of those guys over 1 guy who does nothing hoping things would go away if htey bury their heads in teh sand (insert french joke here :lol: )

maybe you have heard of the old military addage
All plans go out the window when the first shot is fired
just maybe

 

[Iriemon]

you are correct
but things needed to be shaken up in the ME for the benefit of our country and the region itself
can you not atleast acknowledge the possibility that something great could have evolved from a more properly executed war and 'keeping of the peace', that would have made for positive change in the reason

myself, I choose leaders of action, rather than all those of INAction
it is better to do something wrong, than to do nothing at all and allow the current status to go on unchecked

I completely disagree. Doing the wrong thing makes things worse. Putting aside the geopolitical ramifications of the US's blundering in Iraq, scores if not hundreds of thousands are dead and hundreds of billions have been wasted.

IMO, when you invade a country based on pretext and misrepresentations in an environment that you know nothing about and that is hostile to you by nature, the chance of something great happening is far outweighed by the chance that something terrible will happen that will end up biting you in the ***.

Even putting aside the legitimacy of the attack, the invasion of Iraq was a stupid gamble. Hussein was big mouth two bit dictator, but he was not a radical Islamist and not our enemy in the "war" against terrorism.

 

[jfuh]

Yes, part of winning in Iraq was to get rid of Saddam.

What was the other part?

If it is just a "civil war" going on in Iraq, then why are terrorists still targeting our soldiers?

That's what terrorist do, they target anyone other than them.

Iraq is a very important battle in the war on terror and we can not lose.

We've already lost. Has nothing to do with liberals either, but an incompetent and arrogant commander in chief.

 

[jfuh]

myself, I choose leaders of action, rather than all those of INAction
it is better to do something wrong, than to do nothing at all and allow the current status to go on unchecked

Even though doing something wrong leads to a worsening of the situation than before?

ie, a dam is leaking, you chisel away at the crack so as to create a uniform clean surface so as to "plug" it up. But that chiseling creates a larger crack, before you know it the dam is now on the brink of completely failing. Inaction is not good, but so making the matter worse than it is hardly helps the situation in anyway.

 

[Hatuey]

After 10~15 years, the success or failure of Iraq will be more clear.

See I don't agree with this sentence. To me it's very clear how this situation is going. I think the moment we leave the Iraqi government will fall and a new strong man will take power. I don't have much faith in a people that have never known anything even remotely close to democracy. It happened in Africa and it'll happen again here. Now people will say "Yes but Hatuey America struggled in it's infancy. You cant expect them to become like the U.S. after what they've been through". I agree. However one can't compare Iraq to the U.S.. Main reason is we actually fought for our freedom. We wanted it. We managed to get over our differences and came together as one nation. As Americans. The list of religious issues between the Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq are way too long. They wont just forget these differences and come together as Iraqis. I'm starting to think the best option is to separate them into 3 different nations(Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds) and then hope for the best.

 

[Gibberish]

Afer 10~15 years, the success or failure of Iraq will be more clear. It is up to Iraqis.

Do you feel we should stay in Iraq for another 10-15 years as it stands now?

What I don't like about the situation in Iraq is that we are on their terms. It is up to the Iraqi soldiers and it's government when we get to leave.

We accomplished the goals we set for Iraq. Now it is up to Iraq to make what it wants with itself. You can't force a specific outcome of democracy onto people. They will make with it what they will.

 

[Iriemon]

C.mon people. Be fair. This isn't something that words like "defeat" or "victory" can be easily applied if we don't acknowledge first what is a defeat and what is a victory.

1) No enemy will come to a peace table and sign a surrender, because this isn't that type of war. This does not mean defeat.

2) Iraq will never look like Vermont, because their culture simply will not allow it. This also does not mean defeat.

Look at the stages...

A) We toppled Saddam Hussein. A man who invaded two neighboring countries and terrorized his populations. A man who rewarded suicide bombers in "Palestine" by paying out to the bomber's surviving family. - Success.

Success as an objective but failure in the war on terror. Hussein was not a radical Islamist terror supporter. He was relatively secular, who had a Christian as his top minister. Iraq was relatively stable under his brutal rule and he served as a check against Iran and radical terrorists. Removing Husseins Govt destablized Iraq, removed it as a check against Iranian hegemony and created a lawless civil war environment where terrorists could thrive. Iraq will in all probably either end up under Iran's influence or devolve into warring separate states as a perfect breeding ground for terrorists.

A net big loss in the war on terror.

B) Past this, we had the civil unrest fueled on by international terrorists and Al-Queda. Eventually, Al-Queda's most ruthless agent, Zarqawi, one of the butchers of Sudan during the 90's, was killed and eventualy so was the Al-Queda base that was trying set up camp leaving the local insurgency to largely attack on its own. -Success.

We killed an Al-Queda leader in Iraq. Meanwhile, to use your phrase, the illegitimate US attack on Iraq has fueled the fire of anti-American radicalism throughout the ME, helping to lead an explosion of terrorists groups and radical governments in Iran, Palestine, and Lebananon.

Big loss in the war on terror.

C) Past this, we are left with the civl unrest between Sunni insurgents displeased with sharing equal power with the Sh'ite (*historical issue alert*) and the Shi'ite retaliation with Sadr's militias. Now we are executing missions to gut out Baghdad and surrounding city strongholds where militias and insurgents have headquartered. This, along with the troop surge, will allow the Iraqi government to address those nagging political issues between the Sunni and the Sh'ite. In the mean time, British forces have begun to plan the pull out of the South leaving it largely in control if the newly trained, but already battle hardened Iraqi military. -Success on the way.

Death throes?

Of course, along the bloodshed way, a new democratic Muslim nation has formed in which the people voted for their representatives and the laws that would govern them (Despite the low number of Sunni that participated, it was a first for an Arab civilization).

So, we have all kinds of success and a great measure of it is already guaranteed. At this point there is no defeat. And despite its ups and downs, overall, a marginal success is not only satisfactory, but more than this country was capable of doing for themselves. We can make arguments about how Islamic terror has been fueled, but this argument is for the campus intelligencia and for the Washington cowards who always predict failure over success (its safer) and cater to present day realism rather than what it is supposed to be doing. We face a civilization (Middle East) that is determined to breed hatred and its by product. Because of this the immediate creation of more terrorists is always going to be present no matter what we do or don't do. 9/11 was on their terms. Al-Queda and its terror masters were only the tool - a symptom of a larger disease. Forcing Iraq to be a beacon for the rest of the Middle East was on our terms.

Afer 10~15 years, the success or failure of Iraq will be more clear. It is up to Iraqis.

We are *far* worse off having invaded Iraq that we would have been otherwise.

 

[conserv.pat15]

Even though doing something wrong leads to a worsening of the situation than before?

ie, a dam is leaking, you chisel away at the crack so as to create a uniform clean surface so as to "plug" it up. But that chiseling creates a larger crack, before you know it the dam is now on the brink of completely failing. Inaction is not good, but so making the matter worse than it is hardly helps the situation in anyway.

Do you believe it is better to leave a murderous dictator in power or take the risk of losing many lives in order to free a nation from a murderous dictator?

You can answer by saying "freedom" or "dictator." Simple answer please.

 

[bub]

If it is just a "civil war" going on in Iraq, then why are terrorists still targeting our soldiers?

Because our troops are illegitimately occupying their land.


Quote:
Iraq is a very important battle in the war on terror and we can not lose.

The longer we stay their, the more we prove our opponent's point that the US's interest is controlling Iraq and its oil and their religion. Even if Iraq idealically became a democracy its government would be seen as illegitimate. The US has no credibility in Iraq or the ME because of the misrepresentations of this Govt and our presence in Iraq is adding "fuel to the fire" (to use GySgt's words) of anti-American radical terrorism.

You're looking at Iraq as a football game and not the big picture of what US intervention is doing to the political of the ME.

The goal should be reducing the threat of terrorism. Ultimately to do that you have to convince people not to become radical terrorists. Our invasion and occupation in Iraq is accomplishing precisely the opposite.

This IS a great post!


As for the poll, I'd agree with GySgt, there have been successes, even if he seems to be a bit too optimistic (once more I have to agree with Iriemon's counter arguments)

 

[Hatuey]

just like I don't know you
you don't know jack about me

it is about somebody who sees a tough problem and decides to deal with
they try to get it right, but sometimes it goes wrong
I would take 10 of those guys over 1 guy who does nothing hoping things would go away if they bury their heads in the sand (insert French joke here :lol: )

maybe you have heard of the old military adage
All plans go out the window when the first shot is fired
just maybe

I think the logic here is very flawed. I think a leader should have the foresight to at least think that maybe just maybe it wont all go as great as the plan makes it look. While I do see how you can say that yeah it's better to do something then nothing at all. Screwing up doesn't improve the situation. It makes it worse. We can argue all we want about what the best course of action would have been but we'll always agree on one thing. Had Bush and his people decided to let Saddam go and instead had concentrated on real terrorists like Kim Jong Il and Amernutjob they would probably be doing less question dodging.

 

[Kandahar]

Do you believe it is better to leave a murderous dictator in power or take the risk of losing many lives in order to free a nation from a murderous dictator?

You can answer by saying "freedom" or "dictator." Simple answer please.

If you expect a simple one-word answer to a question that has hundreds of factors you didn't specify, then you're simple-minded.

When can we expect the invasion of Zimbabwe, Libya, Belarus, Turkmenistan, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia and China to begin? Don't those countries have murderous dictators?

 

[ptsdkid]

We don't really have a choice. The question is whether we accept defeat now, or accept defeat after thousands more US soldiers die.

**There's the defeatist attitude that I've been trying for weeks here to get liberals to admit to. Thank you Kandy, for finally coming out of the closet. Perhaps now we can get on to the business of supporting our troops and all the Republicans/Conservatives that seem to be the only people/Americans willing to win the war.