• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What is "victory"?

cnredd said:
What you've said is half right...The "war" cannot be won by military means alone...But diplomacy alone would be much worse...There HAS to be a combination...
I agree. But my point was more towards perceptions. Cheney and Bush have been admimant on pushing on the "wuss" factor. What will we look like to the world if we leave. They seem to flip-flop (to coin a phrase) about whose perception of America maters.

cnredd said:
What MUST be done is to be combative against the ones who hold on to their radical beliefs WHILE changing the ideology so that future generations will not go that direction......
But if they vote for it we have no choice. We may want the to drive a round safely in a Volvo but if they choose the Pinto it's not our fault.

cnredd said:
It's sad when some people don't have the patience for this and believe that if it's not done in the next few months, than it's not worth doing at all...
For me it's never been about patience. I think some people don't understand certain aspects.
Bill O’Riley (two weeks ago) on the Today show was interviewed by Katie Couric and he blurted out (adlib) “it takes 7 weeks to train a soldier in the US military and then they go on to more advanced training right? Well we’ve been there over two years what’s taking so long.?!?” A certain SFC Welch was stationed in Iraq training the new Iraqi Army (he’s a senior Drill Instructor) he told me that when they first arrived they had a lot of desertions. When they went to storm Fallujah (or one of the times they did) they had 600 Iraqi troops ready to go. On the morning of the assault they had 200 the others left. Over time when they became more confident the numbers of deserters went down. So there is a reason it is taking longer.

But he didn’t fail to mention the terrorists they were capturing were coming from places like Syria and Saudi Arabia. He even went so far as to say that time would have been better spent going after SA instead of being in Iraq.

But I digress…for me it was never what we were doing there or how long it was going to take it was the reasons for being there.
 
When there is no more fightback from the insurgents,when Iraq becomes another appendant country to the U.S.,when Bush get great benefit from Iraq,on that great day of deliverance,the real victory comes.Bush will get what he wants and Iraq will get its "democracy".
 
This has probably already been stated but I haven't gone through the entire thread. I think victory entails an Iraqi elected government that can take control of the country and a military/police force that can stand on it's own 2 feet and defend Iraq without the help of U.S. forces.
 
Oh,sure...

I believe that you are a kind person any way,man.And you do consider a lot for the Iraqis.But I don't think that the U.S. government consider the same way.

How can the world police spend a lot of money and get so many soldiers killed and wounded just for the peace of another country?

That's only the subterfuge,isn't it?
 
Hopefully Iraq will eventually develop into a secular pularistic democracy. But in the short term, I see that Iraq may develop into a slightly theocratic democracy.

Only hope for the best.
 
rainfox said:
How can the world police spend a lot of money and get so many soldiers killed and wounded just for the peace of another country?

Worked for South Korea. And Germany in WWII. More American soldiers died on D-Day on the beaches of France, liberating them from Germany, than over the course of the entire war in Iraq.
 
M14 Shooter said:
In the longer term:
An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.
I bet there is oil in the long term one too....
 
The Real McCoy said:
Worked for South Korea. And Germany in WWII. More American soldiers died on D-Day on the beaches of France, liberating them from Germany, than over the course of the entire war in Iraq.


As a foreigner,I like the movie called "Saving Private Ryan" very much.In some scenes of it,such as landing,the battles are described quite booldy and so impressive.

And at that time the American soldiers were for the justice.These men are heroes.Not only the Americans,people around the world who love peace will also remember them.

But now can you declare that the war in Iraq is also for justice?Or for one man's greed?

Don't be cheated,man.
 
rainfox said:
As a foreigner,I like the movie called "Saving Private Ryan" very much.In some scenes of it,such as landing,the battles are described quite booldy and so impressive.

And at that time the American soldiers were for the justice.These men are heroes.Not only the Americans,people around the world who love peace will also remember them.

But now can you declare that the war in Iraq is also for justice?Or for one man's greed?

Don't be cheated,man.

Where are you from?

I used to buy into all the media propaganda villifying Bush as greedy and going to Iraq for his own selfish reasons but then I educated myself and grew out of that narrow minded view.
 
rainfox said:
But now can you declare that the war in Iraq is also for justice

Absolutely.

Just take a look at some of those mass graves into which Saddam dumped thousands.

Just take a look at some of the photos of the Kurds and others whom Saddam gassed.

Just take a look at the seven Iraqis who came to the US after the fall of Saddams regime and received prosthetic hands to replace those cut off by Saddams hencmen.

Just go to Spirit of America and see some of the good that we are doing there.

etc. etc. etc.
 
oldreliable67 said:
Absolutely.

Just take a look at some of those mass graves into which Saddam dumped thousands.

Just take a look at some of the photos of the Kurds and others whom Saddam gassed.

Just take a look at the seven Iraqis who came to the US after the fall of Saddams regime and received prosthetic hands to replace those cut off by Saddams hencmen.

Just go to Spirit of America and see some of the good that we are doing there.

etc. etc. etc.

I've seen that.Thank you,buddy.

But I also got some intractable things in hand here.

I'm rather confused now.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/iraqis_tortured/
 
The Real McCoy said:
I used to buy into all the media propaganda villifying Bush as greedy and going to Iraq for his own selfish reasons but then I educated myself and grew out of that narrow minded view.

Then in your opinion,Bush is the God of love and peace.He started the war at least for the national security,right?

What did he find in Iraq?Anything convictive.

Tell me please,what do you think is his real goal?
 
rainfox said:
Then in your opinion,Bush is the God of love and peace.He started the war at least for the national security,right?

What did he find in Iraq?Anything convictive.

Tell me please,what do you think is his real goal?

Never said he was anything near the "God of love and peace."

No weapons were found in Iraq because of intelligence errors which is a whole other topic.

As far as his goal concerning Iraq: he wants to establish a democracy in the Middle East and allow freedom to flourish, setting an example for that region in hopes that the long standing oppressiveness (a key ingredient fueling Islamic extremism) will wither away in time.
 
Rainfox,

A very basic difference to keep in mind: Saddam was the government, the top guy. When he did bad things, there was no higher authority to whom those wronged could appeal.

When some of our people did something wrong, they were caught because the good guys turned them in. The guilty were punished.
 
To me victory is when Iraq is econimically and socially stable, and it's neightbors are on good terms with them (little to no chance of invasion or attack). Victory is when the only troops in Iraq are in the Iraqi military, and they are used to aid and protect the populace. Victory is when the governmental system there is one that a vast majority of the population wants and is involved in. Victory is when Iraq can deal fairly in the trading of it's own natural resources, including but not limited to oil, with anyone they want. Victory is when an Iraqi representative has a voice on the UN security council. Victory is when Iraq formally announces that they will not harbor or suport terrorism in any way, and anyone found in Iraq to be involved in terror will be tried in a fair court for their crimes. Victory in Iraq is when I (an American) can get on a plane and take a beautiful vacation in Umm Qasr near the Persian Gulf, and visit museums filled with historical items. Victory in Iraq is a sense of pride, and not of prejudice.

Is it posible? Eh, probalby not. It doesn't hurt to dream.
 
oldreliable67 said:
Rainfox,

A very basic difference to keep in mind: Saddam was the government, the top guy. When he did bad things, there was no higher authority to whom those wronged could appeal.

When some of our people did something wrong, they were caught because the good guys turned them in. The guilty were punished.

What a wonderful explanation!I trust you,buddy.

But who authorized the U.S. to start the war?

In other words,if Bush makes some mistakes who's gonna to do the same thing as the America's doing to Saddam now?
 
rainfox said:
Then in your opinion,Bush is the God of love and peace.He started the war at least for the national security,right?

What did he find in Iraq?Anything convictive.

Tell me please,what do you think is his real goal?
The real goal has already been explained....
 
rainfox said:
What a wonderful explanation!I trust you,buddy.

But who authorized the U.S. to start the war?

In other words,if Bush makes some mistakes who's gonna to do the same thing as the America's doing to Saddam now?

Who authorized us to start the war? Congress.

And how can you compare Bush to Saddam Hussein? Bush didn't have hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans slaughtered. Bush doesn't have the hands and tongues of those who speak out against him cut off. Bush didn't have public hangings of Jews. Bush didn't have those he though conspiring against him murdered.
 
Congress,Yeah,I think that's a saint place.

Well,I almost forget one thing.Do you mean that the American Congress permit its own contry to invade another country even without the permission of UN?

>>>Bush didn't have hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans slaughtered. Bush doesn't have the hands and tongues of those who speak out against him cut off. Bush didn't have public hangings of Jews. Bush didn't have those he though conspiring against him murdered.<<<<<<

Maybe you are right.But all above won't mean that he didn't make any mistakes or will never make a mistake,right?

Just tell me what I want to hear.
 
The Real McCoy said:
Never said he was anything near the "God of love and peace."

No weapons were found in Iraq because of intelligence errors which is a whole other topic..

But without any useful proof people can only doubt about original intention of the entire war.

The Real McCoy said:
As far as his goal concerning Iraq: he wants to establish a democracy in the Middle East and allow freedom to flourish, setting an example for that region in hopes that the long standing oppressiveness (a key ingredient fueling Islamic extremism) will wither away in time.

Yeah,without convictive proof,the only thing people can do is to put on the clothes of human rights defender again and say something like that.
 
rainfox said:
Congress,Yeah,I think that's a saint place.

Well,I almost forget one thing.Do you mean that the American Congress permit its own contry to invade another country even without the permission of UN?

Many of the members of the UN are corrupt totalitartian regimes themselves... and then of course there was the Oil for Food scandal...


rainfox said:
>>>Bush didn't have hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans slaughtered. Bush doesn't have the hands and tongues of those who speak out against him cut off. Bush didn't have public hangings of Jews. Bush didn't have those he though conspiring against him murdered.<<<<<<

Maybe you are right.But all above won't mean that he didn't make any mistakes or will never make a mistake,right?

Just tell me what I want to hear.

I'll tell you the truth, whether or not it's what you want to hear is a different story...

Do I think Bush made mistakes? Absolutely.


The Bush Administration didn't anticipate the strength of the insurgency.

The DOD should have armored their vehicles a little better so they wren't so vulnerable to roadside bombs.

Bush shouldn't have publicly declared victory and stated major combat operations have ended.

There's more but those are the ones that come to mind.

But do I still think we should have gone to Iraq? Yes.
 
The Real McCoy said:
Many of the members of the UN are corrupt totalitartian regimes themselves... and then of course there was the Oil for Food scandal...




I'll tell you the truth, whether or not it's what you want to hear is a different story...

Do I think Bush made mistakes? Absolutely.


The Bush Administration didn't anticipate the strength of the insurgency.

The DOD should have armored their vehicles a little better so they wren't so vulnerable to roadside bombs.

Bush shouldn't have publicly declared victory and stated major combat operations have ended.

There's more but those are the ones that come to mind.

But do I still think we should have gone to Iraq? Yes.

Sure Saddam was a bad person but that doesn't mean that we can make stuff up about him having weapons and then invade his country. After we invaded his country we found no weapons but decided that since we were there we might as well take him out of power. Seems to me that democracy is spreading like communism...kill the old leaders and put in new one's that will follow your every word...
 
It is pretty clear by this time that there is no clear term for "victory" in this case. There are a lot of opinions, all different but no clear cut definition of victory, much less total or complete victory.

According to some we have achieved victory, according to others we are in the process of attaining victory some think slowly, some think progress is rapid and surefire, and according to still others victory will never be achieved. So much for this subject.
 
YNKYH8R said:
Then there is also what happens if Iraq bcomes an Islamic State, following in Iran’s influence? PS. Harvey Fierstein is a gay actor he was in Mrs. Doubtfire and Independence Day to name a few.


Iraq will have a greater influence on Iran, not the other way around. This isn't "guessing" or "opinionated" talk. This is fact based on the social shapings and the current situations of the region.

The only "clear cut" voctory was taking out Saddam's regime. Easy enough. There never was a "clear cut" victory envisioned for the desease behind the symptoms. There can't be. People don't just give up their religions and the fanatics do not simply turn their God away. The success or failure of Iraq is on their shoulders and the ramifications of a successful Iraq on this region will be seen in the generations to come. A failed Iraq (Islamic state) is not possible anymore.

Facts...

1) 70 percent of Iran is populated by youth under the age of thirty and they are disenchanted with their current Mullah and government status. They want a more democratic nation away from the failing Iranian theocracy Khomeini brutalized Islam to create.

2) Reformist inside Syria do not want American boots on the ground, but they do want Bush's vision of change in their country. The current Baathist party leadership are imprisoning them for their influence upon Syrians.

3) The Jordanian King wants his country to replace it's current monarchy with a Democratic one. He is aware of the need for his country to change and develop into a 21st century nation.


A reference point in history that pertains to what is going on in the Middle East today would be the American South in the mid 1800s. Nobody could expect the racist south to change over night, but it is what it is today because of events that happened back then.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom