Do you want to us to win in Iraq...

[Stinger]

Yes Stinger, one side wins. But by side, I just mean the name. The British Won in WWII. You can write down The U.K. The British as a name did, but the British people lost, we all lost.

No you won. Along with the rest of the Allied nations you won. And many brave and daring young British men died or were wounded accomplishing that task. Else Britain would have been under Nazi rule.

I am not sure about you, but both of my Grandfathers were bomber pilots that bombed the **** outa of Germany

My father was a gunner on a B17 which fly over Germany.

and they did not ever say that they won anything,

Well history says differently.

even when asked how it felt to win the war. They said that they did not win anything, they said that they did what they had to do to end the war.

And they ended it by winning it.

Have you fought in a war?

Fortuniately not, but that has nothing to do with anything.

We attained Victory be defeating our enemies and accomplishing an unconditional surrender.

To argue otherwise is folly.

Perhaps you know something that we could add? I have never fought in a war, but from friends in Gulf War I

I have one son currently in Iraq due back in three weeks and one I just got an email from today mid-way across the Atlantic not sure if they will go to Iraq or be diverted to Somalia.

Is this some kind of who can up the ante the highest and that is the person who is correct tactict?

That is what armchair soldiers and historians that can't interpret information talk about.

I have no idea what you are taking about. Are you taking the position we should not have defeated the Nazi's and achieved total victory over them. Was that war wrong or something?

 

[Stinger]

Thank you putting it better in one post than I could have done in a whole thread.

What did any of it have to do with what I said?

 

[Stinger]

Of course I want us to win the war in Iraq, which is why I voted Democrats into office. It's obvious Bush's "plan" for Iraq is not working and new direction is needed.

And the Democrat plan to win the war is what?

 

[RadFemRocker]

What did any of it have to do with what I said?

Did it have to have anything to do with what you said for me to find it impressive? The point I've been grappling for all night is that "sides" win, but the people who amke up each side lose. He put that better than I ever could.

 

[Stinger]

See, this is the arrogant attitude that infuriates me

It was a statement of fact. Had the US not entered the war Britain would have lost North Africa, we never would have been able to invade Italy to open that front and control the Med and France would never have been liberated and the Soviet Union stood much greater chance of defeat. That does not belittle the brave British Soldiers and Airmen who fought and died, but to deny the role the brave American Soldiers and Airmen played and the fact that without their sacrifice Europe would have been lost is to deny history.

But that's not the issue here even though YOU insisted on bring it up. It's a phony issue.

and belittles the brave men from Britain and maniland Europe who gave their lives fighting in the war, particularly in the first two years when the US was content to sit back and watch us slaughtered.

Well just like now there was a peace movement that thought we could negotiate with a evil dictator, that we could appease him, and that we shouldn't get involved.

Which side are you on?

They entered only when they themselves were threatened, which doesn't exactly fit in with the picture of benevolent heroism you're trying to project.

And the first few years when the Czechoslovakia fought and were defeated and when Hitler rolled into Austria and Poland? How about the Brits then?

While I'm grateful for the help the US gave during the war, by acting as though you were the only nation that matter, you belittle our dead and the sacrifice they made.

Well you certainly don't know how to express it very well and NO ONE has belittled any of the allied forces. Your claim is absurd and you can't post one single sentence where anyone did.

 

[Stinger]

Did it have to have anything to do with what you said for me to find it impressive? The point I've been grappling for all night is that "sides" win, but the people who amke up each side lose.

No they don't. We the people of the free world won when Hitler and the Japanese under Tojo were defeated.

 

[Gibberish]

And the Democrat plan to win the war is what?

Both parties have no plan. Only end goals. The democratic goal is not NOT spend the next 10 years in Iraq.

 

[niftydrifty]

The ones that have lost the stomach for the fight in Iraq and want to cut and run........The same kind of people that wanted the same thing in Nam over 30 years ago........

LOL! Why name names, when you can just make stuff up?

Why do liberals ALWAYS try to dodge questions like this?

Hey NavyPride, lmw12989 thinks you're a liberal.

 

[RadFemRocker]

It was a statement of fact. Had the US not entered the war Britain would have lost North Africa, we never would have been able to invade Italy to open that front and control the Med and France would never have been liberated and the Soviet Union stood much greater chance of defeat. That does not belittle the brave British Soldiers and Airmen who fought and died, but to deny the role the brave American Soldiers and Airmen played and the fact that without their sacrifice Europe would have been lost is to deny history.

One can acknowledge the role of the US in the libeartion of Europe while maintaining that thay were not the only nation to win it. How much harder would it have been for the US to attack Europe had Britain not stayed free of occupation? You don't think having to fly over the Atlanctic for every mission as opposed to flying from Britain would have not only been more expensive but more dangerous? How many more dead American soldiers would there be if the Soviet Union hadn't essentially fought the eastern half of the war alone as she advanced from the east as part of the east-west pincer movement that made German defeat a certainty? You certanly deserve some of the credit but I don't get the desire to have it all.

But that's not the issue here even though YOU insisted on bring it up. It's a phony issue.

Actually, if you look back you'll see Navy Pride brought it up.

Well just like now there was a peace movement that thought we could negotiate with a evil dictator, that we could appease him, and that we shouldn't get involved.

Which side are you on?

The difference being that the security of all of Europe depended on eliminating the threat from Hitler, whereas war was waged on Saddam years after he had already been defeated in his atempts to invade other nations. He wasn't a huge threat to any other nations sovereignty at the time of the invasion. It's true both Hitler and Saddam committed human rights violations but considering the US has known about Hussein's treatment of his citizens for years...If it was really about human rights, he could've been dealt with then. Since the US left him in power for so long afterwards, my guess is that human rights is not the primary motivation for the war.

And the first few years when the Czechoslovakia fought and were defeated and when Hitler rolled into Austria and Poland? How about the Brits then?

I agree that Britain would have ideally got involved before Poland(as for where were when when he invaded Poland? Busy fighting him!), but we had reasons not to other than cowardice: fear of war, the overwhelming public opinion against war, the widespread belief that Germany had received unfair treatment at Versailles and most importantly the fact that the British army had not recovered from WW1 to the extent that it would have a hope in hell of defeating the Germans. And remember, you guys weren't exactly in there fighting the good fight then either.

Well you certainly don't know how to express it very well

Classy.

and NO ONE has belittled any of the allied forces. Your claim is absurd and you can't post one single sentence where anyone did.

If it wasn't for the U.S. you'd be speaking German and goose-stepping while saluting the Nazi flag. You can thank us later.

If it were not for the USA all Europe would be speaking German today and don't you forget it..........

These comments purport that the only thing between the world and Nazism was them. How is that not denigrating the other Allied nations and their combatents?

 

[Navy Pride]

And the Democrat plan to win the war is what?

CUT AND RUN!!!!!

 

[RadFemRocker]

No they don't. We the people of the free world won when Hitler and the Japanese under Tojo were defeated.

After seeing millions killed. Humanity loses EVERYTIME a war is waged because of the loss of life. Some situations are better than others and this respect and some call these the winning situations, but I don't think you say that the people of Europe won anything from WW2.

 

[Navy Pride]

One can acknowledge the role of the US in the libeartion of Europe while maintaining that thay were not the only nation to win it. How much harder would it have been for the US to attack Europe had Britain not stayed free of occupation? You don't think having to fly over the Atlanctic for every mission as opposed to flying from Britain would have not only been more expensive but more dangerous? How many more dead American soldiers would there be if the Soviet Union hadn't essentially fought the eastern half of the war alone as she advanced from the east as part of the east-west pincer movement that made German defeat a certainty? You certanly deserve some of the credit but I don't get the desire to have it all.




Actually, if you look back you'll see Navy Pride brought it up.




The difference being that the security of all of Europe depended on eliminating the threat from Hitler, whereas war was waged on Saddam years after he had already been defeated in his atempts to invade other nations. He wasn't a huge threat to any other nations sovereignty at the time of the invasion. It's true both Hitler and Saddam committed human rights violations but considering the US has known about Hussein's treatment of his citizens for years...If it was really about human rights, he could've been dealt with then. Since the US left him in power for so long afterwards, my guess is that human rights is not the primary motivation for the war.



I agree that Britain would have ideally got involved before Poland(as for where were when when he invaded Poland? Busy fighting him!), but we had reasons not to other than cowardice: fear of war, the overwhelming public opinion against war, the widespread belief that Germany had received unfair treatment at Versailles and most importantly the fact that the British army had not recovered from WW1 to the extent that it would have a hope in hell of defeating the Germans. And remember, you guys weren't exactly in there fighting the good fight then either.



Classy.







These comments purport that the only thing between the world and Nazism was them. How is that not denigrating the other Allied nations and their combatents?[/QUOTE]

I notice you neglected to mention all the American GIs buried in Europe.........

 

[RadFemRocker]

I notice you neglected to mention all the American GIs buried in Europe.........

While not mentioning the specifics of their burial I did acknowledge that their contribution to the war effort was helpful and advanced the cause of liberation.

 

[Navy Pride]

While not mentioning the specifics of their burial I did acknowledge that their contribution to the war effort was helpful and advanced the cause of liberation.

How many soldiers from Scotland who died in WW2 are buried in the USA.....When you needed us to help you we came as we always do......Never forget it...........

 

[RadFemRocker]

How many soldiers from Scotland who died in WW2 are buried in the USA.....When you needed us to help you we came as we always do......Never forget it...........

You got involved only after YOU were attacked. You came two years after we needed you. I appreciate the sacrifice America made, but you made it for reasons other than helping an ally, at least in part.

 

[vince0330]

First of all, it was a conservative poster who brought WW2 up.



Second, this attitude is not only profoundly wrong(see my below post to Navy Pride) but also belittling to the brave men and women of Europe who gave their lives in the war effort. You can apologise for brushing off my papa's sacrifice later.



A question involving so many variables(the definition of win, for example, when technically you've already "won" according to Bush) can't be resolved by a simple answer. It's not a simple question.



So basically, we either answer how you like or it's not an answer.

Wrong. I want an answer to the question. MY answer is just one of the two choices. The last thing you said would mean that my answer is both yes and no. When I asked the question, which was originally asked at the beginning of this poll, I gave two choices. When I said that I'll take non-answers as a no, I meant that if you want the U.S. to win you will answer yes...it's as simple as that.

Who would want terrorists to win?

RadFemRocker, who do you want to win in Iraq? Were you the one person who voted no?

 

[Navy Pride]

RadFemRocker;463940]You got involved only after YOU were attacked.[/B] You came two years after we needed you. I appreciate the sacrifice America made, but you made it for reasons other than helping an ally, at least in part.

If that is so how do you explain Korea, Vietnam Afghanistan, and Iraq?

 

[Mr.Clover]

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.



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.



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.



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.

Wow, you attacked his definition of "winning", that...did absolutely nothing.

So say it, do you want us to win, or no?

Oh and by "win" I'm using the above definition. The one you attacked.

 

[RadFemRocker]

Wrong. I want an answer to the question. MY answer is just one of the two choices. The last thing you said would mean that my answer is both yes and no. When I asked the question, which was originally asked at the beginning of this poll, I gave two choices. When I said that I'll take non-answers as a no, I meant that if you want the U.S. to win you will answer yes...it's as simple as that.

Who would want terrorists to win?

RadFemRocker, who do you want to win in Iraq? Were you the one person who voted no?

I haven't voted, and not because the answer is no. Assuming that those who don't vote mean no isn't a good way to go about things because if someone feels their answer is "no", they'll vote no. It's not like they refrain from voting because that's their only way of saying no. I haven't voted because neither of the poll options really expresses my opinion. If there was an option that said "I don't give a damn who wins as long as the killing stops" I'd have voted. If there was an option said "I want the Iraqi people to win in that their lives improve", I'd vote.

 

[Caine]

CUT AND RUN!!!!!

I thought that was your debate strategy.
:roll:

 

[RadFemRocker]

Wow, you attacked his definition of "winning", that...did absolutely nothing.

I didn't attack it, I asked for it to clarified. He did so, and I asked for further clarification and at that point other posters came in and claimed that wnaing to know exactly what the question was was actually a way of avoiding the question, so then things understandable became pretty frickin confusing.

So say it, do you want us to win, or no?

Oh and by "win" I'm using the above definition. The one you attacked.

And I'll say again, I don't care who wins, I just want the killing to end and the lives of the Iraqi people to improve.

 

[RadFemRocker]

If that is so how do you explain Korea, Vietnam Afghanistan, and Iraq?

I was referring solely to WW2 with that statement so I don't see what bringing any other war into the equation will acheive in terms of that particular debate.

 

[1069]

Do you want us to win in Iraq?

Not particularly. Not if "winning" will involve killing anybody else.
I don't know what "winning in Iraq" would mean anymore, really; I'm not sure I ever did.
I don't feel threatened by Iraq, or by anyone else, so if "winning" means we'll be safe, then we've already won. We are safe. And we have been. And we'll continue to be.
But we might be bankrupt soon, if we keep up this nonsense, and if it goes on much longer we may need a draft, and my kids will be draft-age in a few years, and... no.
I don't care if we "win" or "lose" at this point. If "winning" means we can stop this crap, then I'm all for winning. If losing means we can stop, then by all means, let's lose.
But I don't believe, anymore, that it will ever stop as long as GW Bush is in office.
And once he's out of office, I think everyone will be amazed at how easy it is to just stop. And how "winning" or "losing" aren't really even applicable terms here, although our government has fooled us into believing they are; it's not a game.
We're richer than them, stronger, more powerful, better. We rock. We win. We won even before we started. What are we trying to prove? Can we just for fvck sake leave now?

 

[RadFemRocker]

Not particularly. Not if "winning" will involve killing anybody else.
I don't know what "winning in Iraq" would mean anymore, really; I'm not sure I ever did.
I don't feel threatened by Iraq, or by anyone else, so if "winning" means we'll be safe, then we've already won. We are safe. And we have been. And we'll continue to be.
But we might be bankrupt soon, if we keep up this nonsense, and if it goes on much longer we may need a draft, and my kids will be draft-age in a few years, and... no.
I don't care if we "win" or "lose" at this point. If "winning" means we can stop this crap, then I'm all for winning. If losing means we can stop, then by all means, let's lose.
But I don't believe, anymore, that it will ever stop as long as GW Bush is in office.
And once he's out of office, I think everyone will be amazed at how easy it is to just stop. And how "winning" or "losing" aren't really even applicable terms here, although our government has fooled us into believing they are; it's not a game.
We're richer than them, stronger, more powerful, better. We rock. We win. We won even before we started. What are we trying to prove? Can we just for fvck sake leave now?

Thank you, exactly!

 

[Stinger]

Only end goals. The democratic goal is not NOT spend the next 10 years in Iraq.

That's everyones goal. What is the Democrat plan to do that and not allow a radical government overtake Iraq and support terrorist groups?