Is An American Victory in Iraq Possible? (1 Viewer)

[MarineCorpsCandidate]

With the US seemingly bogged down in what appears to be a guerrilla war in Iraq, is a US victory still possible? Anybody who served in Iraq care to respond on your views? What do you think?

 

[Billo_Really]

Victory over what?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Sure victory is possible. Define victory as you please.

Initially, we sought to empower a decent and accountable government w/ strong indigenous security forces. Then it seemed we decided to settle for merely a stable government and the continued national unity of Iraq as well as the avoiding of civil war.

How will we know when we've won?

 

[MarineCorpsCandidate]

Well, our stated objective was to remove Saddam from power and then institute a stable and democratically elected government. We have succeeded in removing Saddam from power. The question is can we leave and the Iraqi government will be able to sustain itself without the presence of US troops and operate in a democratic way in the image of it's own nation and culture? If we can withdraw troops from Iraq and have a government that can sustain itself, hold Saddam accountable and eventually become a stable democracy, then, I can say we have achieved victory. Right now, we hare having trouble achieving a sustainable, stable government in Iraq.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by MarineCorpsCandidate
Well, our stated objective was to remove Saddam from power and then institute a stable and democratically elected government. We have succeeded in removing Saddam from power. The question is can we leave and the Iraqi government will be able to sustain itself without the presence of US troops and operate in a democratic way in the image of it's own nation and culture? If we can withdraw troops from Iraq and have a government that can sustain itself, hold Saddam accountable and eventually become a stable democracy, then, I can say we have achieved victory. Right now, we hare having trouble achieving a sustainable, stable government in Iraq.

The question is, why do we as a nation, are not outraged at an un-provoked and illegal invasion of a sovereign country? Why do we talk about removing Hussein from power, when no country in the world has that right? Collectively, we do. But that's with UNSC authorization. If we were attacked by that country with a significant force, we would have that right. But we didn't have either. Are we that arrogant we think we can just go around the world and decide who leads what?

That Iraqi government is like a fetus. It can't sustain itself outside the womb [green zone]. It is practically non-existant to the rest of the country. And the only coordinated military they have is there roving Shiite death squads.

They don't even have control of their own oil industry. Some around here say they do. If they did, why would they have fuel shortages and overnight gas lines while sitting on one of the biggest reserves in the world?

Everyone that trys to legitimize using Iraq as scapegoats must make lousy parents. Because this is not how you teach children to be responsible for their own actions. This teaches them, "Do whatever you want, we'll make excuses later!"

 

[arussian]

According to "Greater Middle East" plans those are widely discussed within American specialists on Middle East there is no place for one integer Iraq. Instead three states Sunni (desert), Shia (oil-rich/ pro-American), and Kurdish are proposed.

Therefore sectarian violence and subsequent partition of Iraq is the American objective, that gradually comes into life.

Off course, warmongers will benefit from their bloody plans only if the new oil-rich Shia-state will be pro-American, and if it will be possible to secure pipe-line from it through Jordan to Israel, where "New Rotterdam" oil port is supposed to be built near Haifa.

 

[Vader]

According to "Greater Middle East" plans those are widely discussed within American specialists on Middle East there is no place for one integer Iraq. Instead three states Sunni (desert), Shia (oil-rich/ pro-American), and Kurdish are proposed.

Therefore sectarian violence and subsequent partition of Iraq is the American objective, that gradually comes into life.

Off course, warmongers will benefit from their bloody plans only if the new oil-rich Shia-state will be pro-American, and if it will be possible to secure pipe-line from it through Jordan to Israel, where "New Rotterdam" oil port is supposed to be built near Haifa.

Warmongers? How about Boris Putin! He's a warmonger. He sells weapons to terrorists. He's a terrorist-supporter. He should be put in prison for what he's done.

Boris Putin and his government put the owner of Russia's largest oil company in Nudgenka so the governemnt could steal his facalities and product.

The Russian people need to look at their own leader before they go accusing anybody else of "warmongering."

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If we can withdraw troops from Iraq and have a government that can sustain itself, hold Saddam accountable and eventually become a stable democracy, then, I can say we have achieved victory. Right now, we hare having trouble achieving a sustainable, stable government in Iraq.

How long is eventually? If it takes a thousand years, do we still get credit? What if it takes a century? Do we get to claim that we did it? What if it takes merely another few decades?

IIRC, Rumsfeld said that six months was the outside estimate of how long this would take. However, we seem to have passed that mark a while back.

 

[128shot]

Does it really matter?

 

[MarineCorpsCandidate]

How long is eventually? If it takes a thousand years, do we still get credit? What if it takes a century? Do we get to claim that we did it? What if it takes merely another few decades?

IIRC, Rumsfeld said that six months was the outside estimate of how long this would take. However, we seem to have passed that mark a while back.

Well, so long as the country doesn't disintegrate and the Iraqis are able to manage their own affairs in a democratic way that brings stability, then I think that is a victory for all parties concerned. It could take a long time.

 

[Volker]

According to "Greater Middle East" plans those are widely discussed within American specialists on Middle East there is no place for one integer Iraq. Instead three states Sunni (desert), Shia (oil-rich/ pro-American), and Kurdish are proposed.

Therefore sectarian violence and subsequent partition of Iraq is the American objective, that gradually comes into life.

A strong, unified, self-confident, prospering Iraq must be a nightmare vision for these guys.

Off course, warmongers will benefit from their bloody plans only if the new oil-rich Shia-state will be pro-American, and if it will be possible to secure pipe-line from it through Jordan to Israel, where "New Rotterdam" oil port is supposed to be built near Haifa.

Actually, they profit now, too. They make lots of money and it is not important for their business, if their fellow Yanks win or loose as long as it doesn't stop and billions in weapon sales are spent.