Do you want to us to win in Iraq... (1 Viewer)

[conserv.pat15]

Do you want us to win in Iraq? (This question is directed to those against the war in Iraq... but feel free to comment whether you are for or against the war in Iraq)

 

[Flea]

You need to define "Win" because there really are no winners in a war.

 

[RadFemRocker]

You need to define "Win" because there really are no winners in a war.

Exactly, I agree.

 

[conserv.pat15]

You need to define "Win" because there really are no winners in a war.

"Win" means securing Iraq, destroying large amounts of terrorists, train Iraqis to be able to fully defend themselves, ect... the obvious.

Also, you claim there are no winners in a war... I disagree. For example, World War 2 is a great example of victory, not only for the U.S., but for the world and humanity.

 

[Flea]

Nobody won in WWII, we simply did not lose.

Thank you for clarifying, I hope that we achieve our goals and leave the entire area.

 

[RadFemRocker]

"Win" means securing Iraq,

Define "securing"? Do you mean ending the civil war? Reducing the violence being perpetrated by Iraqis against Iraqis? I don't thk the USA can do either of those things, and think the allied prescence in Iraq only leads to more tension and more dead Iraqis.

destroying large amounts of terrorists,

I guarantee you, no Iraqi has killed as many people through terrorism as the US has through bombing and sanctions. You want to eradicate terrorism, great, then lobby your government to stop their ham-fisted actions in Iraq. The fewer Iraqs who see their homes torn apart by bombs, who see their families dead in the street courtesy of the USA/UK, the fewer Iraqis will want to hurt us. Start looking to combat your own domestic terrorists(abortion clinic bombers would be a good start) as well as theirs.

train Iraqis to be able to fully defend themselves, ect... the obvious.

Why should the USA/UK get to tell them how to do this? If the Iraqi government is going to be anymore than a puppet parliment, it should have this right.

Also, you claim there are no winners in a war... I disagree. For example, World War 2 is a great example of victory, not only for the U.S., but for the world and humanity.

Nobody really won that war. Nevermind the fallacy in comparing a far against actual nations with a war against a minority of a country, nobody wins a war. Wnning wuld involve some kind of gain, som positive outcome, but there can be no positive outcome to this mess, just hopefully a less negative one. I don't want anyone to "win" or "lose", I want a speedy withdrawal and the least amount of furher deaths.

 

[Stinger]

You need to define "Win" because there really are no winners in a war.

No you don't, it has been repeatedly, and yes there are. Those who cannot answer the question should not be in charge.

 

[Stinger]

Exactly, I agree.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Go back and read Bush' speeches. Listen to him tonight. If you don't want us to win then just admit it.

 

[Stinger]

Nobody won in WWII, we simply did not lose.

No we won an unconditional surrender and brought freedom and liberty and democracy to Germany and Japan and Italy and secured ourselves and the free world from the being ruled by the Axis.

I guess you would have protested WW2?

Thank you for clarifying, I hope that we achieve our goals and leave the entire area.

So you hope we win? You still seem to be hedging. Those are the exact same things Bush and his administration have been saying for 5 years.

 

[RadFemRocker]

Then you haven't been paying attention. Go back and read Bush' speeches. Listen to him tonight. If you don't want us to win then just admit it.

I do think it's egotstical to imply that the only reason one would disagree with you is through ignorance. I'll say what I've said before, I don't care about who is judged to have one or lost by history, I care about the fatality numbers and keeping them down. My opinions on the Iraqi war are motivated by this.

 

[RadFemRocker]

No we won an unconditional surrender and brought freedom and liberty and democracy to Germany and Japan and Italy and secured ourselves and the free world from the being ruled by the Axis.

You "won" in colaition with many other nations and entered only when your own *** was on the proverbial line. You "won" by dropping a nucleur bomb on a nation that still feels fallout today from your desire for a quick finish.

 

[Flea]

He doesn't need to define what he means by "Win"? Please explain why?

To him, for all I know, to "win" means firebombing all of the major cities in Iraq killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in order to get the terrorists out so that we can simply instal the government that we want. What do you mean he doesn't need to provide his definition of win, that is totally ridiculous.

And "Yes there are" winners in a war? Depends on how you look at it. I think that while one nation might have beaten another, the nation is made up of people and the people of both nations suffer horribly, if for no other reason than losing loved ones. Infrastructure and money get wasted or destroyed and babies and pregnant mothers get killed. I think my statement stands. "Nobody" - no body - no person, wins. Even those that gain monetarily do not win, for they gain on others suffering.

Nobody wins, some people just don't lose. Did the Jews that survived Auschwitz win? Did the Russian people of Stalingrad win? Did those that survived the Bataan Death March win? Did those that survived the Lusitania win?

Things might improve through time, but this isn't Checkers, the people don't "Win".

 

[conserv.pat15]

Define "securing"? Do you mean ending the civil war? Reducing the violence being perpetrated by Iraqis against Iraqis? I don't thk the USA can do either of those things, and think the allied prescence in Iraq only leads to more tension and more dead Iraqis.

The question was "Do you want us to win in Iraq?" Not "How do we win in Iraq?"

A simple yes or no answer will do.

I guarantee you, no Iraqi has killed as many people through terrorism as the US has through bombing and sanctions. You want to eradicate terrorism, great, then lobby your government to stop their ham-fisted actions in Iraq. The fewer Iraqs who see their homes torn apart by bombs, who see their families dead in the street courtesy of the USA/UK, the fewer Iraqis will want to hurt us. Start looking to combat your own domestic terrorists(abortion clinic bombers would be a good start) as well as theirs.

I gaurantee you the terrorists in Iraq have killed more innocent people than the U.S. has.

Why should the USA/UK get to tell them how to do this? If the Iraqi government is going to be anymore than a puppet parliment, it should have this right.

What's wrong with the U.S. helping to train the Iraqis to defend themselves?

Nobody really won that war. Nevermind the fallacy in comparing a far against actual nations with a war against a minority of a country, nobody wins a war. Wnning wuld involve some kind of gain, som positive outcome, but there can be no positive outcome to this mess, just hopefully a less negative one. I don't want anyone to "win" or "lose", I want a speedy withdrawal and the least amount of furher deaths.

Nobody really won that war? Hahaha... that is laughable. You say that winning would involve a positive outcome... How is destroying Nazi Germany and Hitler, as well as defeating the empire of Japan not a good thing?

Where are you from?

 

[Stinger]

You "won" in colaition with many other nations

So?

and entered only when your own *** was on the proverbial line.

Yes the appeasers said Hitler wasn't an imminent threat, that we should neogtiate with him. Too bad had he been stopped earlier millions would not have had to perish.

You "won" by dropping a nucleur bomb on a nation

That was prepared to sacrifice millions of their own and cause the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

that still feels fallout today from your desire for a quick finish.

As opposed to a long drawn out deadly invasion that would have cost 10 times as many lives?

So why do object to the fact that we brought freedom and liberty back to Europe and to Japan?

Of course we did. If would have been foolish to have done otherwise.

 

[Stinger]

He doesn't need to define what he means by "Win"? Please explain why?

He already has, repeatedly. Perhaps if you listened to a better news source you would know that.

To him, for all I know,

Then you don't know much.

And "Yes there are" winners in a war? Depends on how you look at it.

No even the losers ultimately admit the otherside won.

So do you want us to win or not?

 

[RadFemRocker]

The question was "Do you want us to win in Iraq?" Not "How do we win in Iraq?"

A simple yes or no answer will do.

There's no simple answer because it isn't a simple question. I wnat humanity as a whole to win, and the only way to do that is to end this thing with the minimum amount of fatalities.

I gaurantee you the terrorists in Iraq have killed more innocent people than the U.S. has.

I look forward to seeing statements to back this up.

As for back-up for my statement, take a look at this study from the Lancet shwoing at least 100,000 extra deaths in the 17.8 months following the invasion compared to the 14.6 months preceding it.

http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf

What's wrong with the U.S. helping to train the Iraqis to defend themselves?

How many Iraqis do you think trust the USA enough to want these lessons from you?

Nobody really won that war? Hahaha... that is laughable. You say that winning would involve a positive outcome... How is destroying Nazi Germany and Hitler, as well as defeating the empire of Japan not a good thing?

"Winning" is too positive a word for defeating a menace that we allowed to grow through our inaction, too positive a word for a war whichleft hundreds of millions dead. Our world lost too much to say it was a "win". We neutralised a threat that wouldn't have required such a large scale war had we intervened earlier, so I wouldn't call that winning.

Where are you from?

What does that matter?

 

[niftydrifty]

I would love it if we would win in Iraq, no matter what "win" means. But the question is irrelevant, because we won't "win." Not in any real sense. The war was a blunder, a disaster. And it was predicted. Anyone that thought it was going to be easy, or even winnable, simply didn't know very much about Iraq or the Middle East. But this doesn't mean that I don't WANT us to win. It means that in my opinion I don't think we are going to.

It's like if you were to be driving 90 miles an hour towards a cliff. You're headed straight towards it, and you get a few feet from the edge. You don't want to go over the cliff, but the evidence is such that the only reasonable conclusion that can be made, is that you are definitely going to go over that cliff.

Such is the situation in Iraq.

What we want is irrelevant. The conclusions we are making about the outcome, based upon the evidence at hand, is what those of us that think that the invasion of Iraq was a terrible idea, are talking about.

 

[Flea]

When people die, it is not a win. Most people look at it in black and white terms like you, and that is one of the problems with the cyclical nature of violence. It appears that you are unable or unwilling to understand this point, so I will move on.

"He already has, repeatedly. Perhaps if you listened to a better news source you would know that."

Who the hell are you talking about Stinger? I am talking about the guy that started this thread, not some imagined conversation with Bush. I want to know what he thinks winning is for the very reasons I already mentioned in the previous post.

 

[niftydrifty]

I want to know what he thinks winning is for the very reasons I already mentioned in the previous post.

Great post, JU.

When our guys are greeted with flowers. That's when the win will come.

I don't much like Thomas Friedman, but he had a great line about this. He said that Iraq will be won when Salman Rushdie can give a lecture in Baghdad.

 

[RadFemRocker]

So?

Yes the appeasers said Hitler wasn't an imminent threat, that we should neogtiate with him. Too bad had he been stopped earlier millions would not have had to perish.

The "appeasers" stopped saying that definetively in 1939 when the UK, the biggest voice for appeasement. Not that the USA couldn't have evaluated the information present on German re-armament themselves and made thir won choice inspite of appeasement. By 1941 mainland Europe was over-run by the Nazis, people were dying in their millions, and still the USA did NOTHING until they were put in danger themselves. I will not let you paint it as otherwise, for my family and for others like us who suffered in Nazi-Europe.

That was prepared to sacrifice millions of their own and cause the death of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

As opposed to a long drawn out deadly invasion that would have cost 10 times as many lives?

Statistics for the ten times as many deaths figure, unless it's just the kind of artistic liecence that should never be taken when discussing death figures in discussions where such things are pertinent to war strategy?

So why do object to the fact that we brought freedom and liberty back to Europe and to Japan?

I certianly object to your forgetting to remember in this statement that you had nations alongside you while you were "bringing liberty" who'd entered earlier than you for better reasons than yours, and I don't object to bthe defeat of facism, I object to the methods.

Of course we did. If would have been foolish to have done otherwise.

I see, so the non-nucleur approach that prevailed on mainland Europe would have been "foolish" to try in Japan? Why?

 

[Topsez]

I'll say what I've said before, I don't care about who is judged to have one or lost by history, I care about the fatality numbers and keeping them down. My opinions on the Iraqi war are motivated by this.

Failure in Iraq could bring fatalities in gas lines in your neighborhood. Millions of people could die in the ME if we leave with anything short of victory... millions! Each neighbor will take a piece of the action and no oil will leave... Israel will nuke Iran and the whole ME will be up in flames with death smell everywhere thanks to people just like you. Two million people died in SE Asia afte people like you ended Vietnam but Vietnam didn't export oil... I hope someone in your family needs gas to get to the hospital when you protest drilling in Alaska.

 

[Dezaad]

I voted a resounding "YES". Of course.

However, by comparison, I would have answered "YES" if the question had been: "Would you like me to deposit 1 million dollars into your personal bank account at 9 AM tomorrow?"

I would love for Iraq to be a secure democracy, a beacon of hope in the Middle East. But, I believe that is a pipe dream. I believe our attempts at doing so are actually backfiring, and the result of this is making matters worse. We are getting further away from that goal. This is not Germany or Japan post WWII, and it will never be.

What the creator of this thread and poll is likely unable to see is that we all want the same things. Some of us are realistic, however.

 

[Skip]

I voted a resounding "YES". Of course.

However, by comparison, I would have answered "YES" if the question had been: "Would you like me to deposit 1 million dollars into your personal bank account at 9 AM tomorrow?"

I would love for Iraq to be a secure democracy, a beacon of hope in the Middle East. But, I believe that is a pipe dream. I believe our attempts at doing so are actually backfiring, and the result of this is making matters worse. We are getting further away from that goal. This is not Germany or Japan post WWII, and it will never be.

What the creator of this thread and poll is likely unable to see is that we all want the same things. Some of us are realistic, however.

EXACTLY. I was going to write pretty much this exact same thing.

 

[dragonslayer]

It is not possible to win in Iraq. And once more if we do "win," what the hell does "win" mean? Oh goodie we killed a million Iraqis and we won, because they only killed 150,000 Americans.

there are some real thinking errors going in folk from the Right side of the dial.

Especially Bush, and his stupid cabinet.

 

[RadFemRocker]

Failure in Iraq could bring fatalities in gas lines in your neighborhood.

How?

Millions of people could die in the ME if we leave with anything short of victory... millions!

People were dyong there befor ethe invasion, and they'll be dying afterwards no matter what the outcome in Iraq due to border disputes, improper worker protection laws, human rights violations and endless other reasons. The US getting to pat themselve son the back as they leave Iraqwon't magically solve all those problems.

Each neighbor will take a piece of the action and no oil will leave... Israel will nuke Iran and the whole ME will be up in flames with death smell everywhere thanks to people just like you.

If Israel's armament scares you so, I suggest you lobby your goverment to stop seding them cash to buy arms.

Two million people died in SE Asia afte people like you ended Vietnam

Source for this claim?

but Vietnam didn't export oil... I hope someone in your family needs gas to get to the hospital when you protest drilling in Alaska.

I'm not a USA citizen so drilling in Alaska is not an issue that effects me directly but if people lobbied the government to force auto manufacturers to get more miles to the gallon there would be no decent arguement for drilling in Alaska.

I think's it's a little hard to see the concern you express for people as truly your motivation in wanting a USA "win" the amount of times you mention oil in this post.