What Does Bush Mean by "Victory in Iraq"?

chuam

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
0
As the toll of Americans killed in Iraq topped 4,000 this week, President Bush publicly vowed "to make sure that those lives were not lost in vain"—that the war's outcome "will merit the sacrifice" and that "our strategy going forward" will be to "achieve victory."

We all wish that this were so. But what does he mean by "victory"?

link
 



chuckslayer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
829
Reaction score
0
My firewall dumped you link to SLATE before I could read it..must have been "toxic".. No matter though, I'm sure it was the usual lefty blather ( or Chuam would not have posted it).
For the enlightenment of slow witted liberals..Victory comes in increments; first one takes over the terror-ruled country, then dislodge the dictator, then get the dictators likely successors (his brats) , then get the dictator himself. Hunt down the henchmen of the dictator..even it it means making a deck of cards with their "wanted posters" printed on them.
Encourage the newly freed Iraqis to freely elect a government in place of the former dictatorship. Once the government is in place,
encourage the Iraqis to form their own army and police force..
Then charge the army and police force to take over the suppression of terrorism and the arrest of foreign agents of terror.

Looks like real progress has been made..even though the libs would like us to lose...!

see.. www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XZkhEcVSZE

That link is worth checking out. It shows how the libs want millions to suffer..just as they have done before...
 

leftyhunter

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2006
Messages
1,232
Reaction score
16
Hi Chaum,
Check out Alternet which I got the link to from BBC. They had a very good article about the history of the War on Terror from Tomsdispatch titled something to the effect that How America lost the war on terror.

Chuckslayer ,
I don't know of an example of where a foreign country can invade another country and then convert it in to a nice democratic country by force. Yes we did conquer Japan and Germany but once their armed forces surrendered our troops did not have to control the locals. All they had to do was visit the bars and houses of ill fame to stimulate the economy plus the Marshall Plan and the local authorities did the rest. Japan and Germany did not have any major ethnic divisions has Iraq does nor any serious sectarian divisions. Once we got rid of Tojo and Hitler we could use the same govt officials that they used to keep the country together. Iraq is a different story and has the Sadar movement renounces their truce with us things are not looking well. We libs don't want to see the US fail for America is our country has much has yours. We just don't want to see our blood and treasure squandered for nothing.

Leftyhunter
 

chuckslayer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
829
Reaction score
0
Another thing you forgot to mention about our efforts in WW2...

All Americans acted like Americans..We were united. no left wing "hate America" crowd trying to undermine everything our brave troops
had accomplished.
Back then, we had no ugly left such as we have today. There were a few that were deluded into Communism, but they were considered "hide under rocks" material....unlike today, where cowardice seems to be a common virtue among them !
 

mdhntr

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
99
Reaction score
1
What tires me, is the constant reminder from the bleeding heart libs about how many troops we have lost. Like many others on this board, I have served my country in both active duty and reserve service and I continue to do so in my current job, supporting our troops here and overseas. I don't take the lost lives lightly, and I honor those that have made the choice to volunteer to serve our county. We lost 3000 lives in the 9-11 attack, do any of you libs really feel sorry about that? What about the other countless lives in unprovoked embassy attacks over the years? How about the attack against the USS Cole? Does not an attack against an American warship constitute an act of war? But your favorite President was apparently too busy with a sex scandal to take it serious. I heard a radio report that in L.A. they are planting trees and putting large rocks around city park areas to deflect bullets from drive by shootings, to prevent children from being killed. Why don't you get angry about that? To get to the point, you know what "Victory in Iraq" means, you just need to take off your blinders to see the answer. I say. pitch in and be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem.
 

leftyhunter

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2006
Messages
1,232
Reaction score
16
In WWII Japan attacked pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on the US. Many Communists did serve in the armed forces . Not all Americans fought some ran away and some were able to get fake deferments such has Marlon Brando and Malcom X ( to name some famous examples)but most eligible Americans did fight. Many vets including those who fought in Iraq want us to pull out so its not all bleeding hearts. Clinton was not my favorite president but we were in a lot better shape with him then Bush. If the war on terror is so important then tax's need to be raised so we don't fight the war on a deficit basis where we need the Chinese Communists to finance us. We should also conscript Americans so we spread the burden around not just have poor and lower middle class kids fight. Yes the bombing of the Cole was an act of war but attacking a nation that had nothing to do with it is not the answer.

Yes LA and other large cities including those in Red States have a large gang problem. Maybe we should take a page from Iraq and have "Sons of America" giving local residents AK-47's and let them administer law and order since the police are grossly undermanned by the gang members. Most liberals do support US efforts in Afganistan even though we are not doing very well there at the present time. I don't think the 'liberals' hate America just because they oppose the Iraq war not all former generals support it either. Those who oppose the war don't want to see our blood and treasure wasted like it was in Vietnam.

Leftyyhunter
 

swampy tim

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2004
Messages
812
Reaction score
3
Clinton is a treasonous bastard and deserves the maximum punishment for allowing the sale of U.S. missile technology to China. Of all the worthless things he did this was by far the most detrimental to everybody and there children. S/T
 

Buck-eye

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 25, 2003
Messages
3,551
Reaction score
33
We did rebuild both Germany and Japan after the war. Look at the today. Our national pastime had its OPENING SEAON game in Japan. Id say, although the loss of life was horrible, it turned out okay.
If you expect instant results in Iraq, then you stand to be very disappointed.
Heck, it took us over 100 years to get our crap together, and even after that the corruption lasted another 100 years. Democracy and freedom should be an option for an person in the world. You are assuming that we just went in there and wrecked shop without provocation. I would think a vast majority of the Iraqi population was begging for someone to help them get out from under the thumb of someone who would murder and rape at random. Seems like we go over this perpetually. This isnt a war for everyone. But, I agree with it. Our folks are fighting to keep people whop are actually strapping bombs to children and women, out of our country,and hopefully off this planet. Until we are able to understand why this sect likes to live under 10th century values (ie, stoning, beheading, bigomy, women as a subserviant class), I believe their more vociferous leaders need to be eliminated.
 

Caninelaw

Banned
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
3,601
Reaction score
66
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mdhntr @ Mar 27 2008, 05:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
What tires me, is the constant reminder from the bleeding heart libs about how many troops we have lost. Like many others on this board, I have served my country in both active duty and reserve service and I continue to do so in my current job, supporting our troops here and overseas. I don't take the lost lives lightly, and I honor those that have made the choice to volunteer to serve our county. We lost 3000 lives in the 9-11 attack, do any of you libs really feel sorry about that? What about the other countless lives in unprovoked embassy attacks over the years? How about the attack against the USS Cole? Does not an attack against an American warship constitute an act of war? But your favorite President was apparently too busy with a sex scandal to take it serious. I heard a radio report that in L.A. they are planting trees and putting large rocks around city park areas to deflect bullets from drive by shootings, to prevent children from being killed. Why don't you get angry about that? To get to the point, you know what "Victory in Iraq" means, you just need to take off your blinders to see the answer. I say. pitch in and be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem.[/b]
Thanks for you service mdhntr -

For comparison:
- Revolutionary war 1775 - 1783 - 25,324 KIA

- Mexican War 1846 - 1848 - 13,283 KIA

- Civil War 1861 - 1865 - North - 363,020 KIA - South - 199,110 KIA

- Spanish American War 1898 - 2,893 KIA

- Philippines War 1899 - 1902 - 4,273 KIA

- WWI 1917 - 1918 - US - 116,708 KIA

- WWII 1941 - 1945 - 408,306 KIA (Pearl Harbor 12/7/41 {approx. 3 hours} 2,388 KIA - Iowa Jima 1945 2/19 - 3/16 - 6,891 KIA - Okinawa 1945 Apr - June - 13,000 KIA)

- Korean War 1950 - 1953 - 54,219 KIA

- Vietnam War 1957 - 1975 - 58,219 KIA


American Revolution: $3.2 billion = $38.5 billion in today’s dollars (note: calculated for 1800 dollars – as far back as the inflation calculator would go).

Mexican War: $1.8 billion = $39.6 billion in today’s dollars.

Civil War: $50 billion Union, $21.8 billion Confederacy = $655.9 billion for the Union and $286 billion for the Confederacy in today’s dollars.

Spanish-American War: $6.5 billion = $160 billion in today’s dollars.

Philippines War : $600 million = $14.8 billion in today’s dollars.

World War I: $588 billion = $9.4 trillion in today’s dollars.

World War II: $4.8 trillion = $56 trillion in today’s dollars.

Korean War: $408 billion = $3.1 trillion in today’s dollars.

Vietnam War: $584 billion = $2.4 trillion in today’s dollars.

Operation Iraqi Freedom: $197 billion, as of March 2006.
 

chuam

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Caninelaw @ Mar 28 2008, 10:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mdhntr @ Mar 27 2008, 05:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
What tires me, is the constant reminder from the bleeding heart libs about how many troops we have lost. Like many others on this board, I have served my country in both active duty and reserve service and I continue to do so in my current job, supporting our troops here and overseas. I don't take the lost lives lightly, and I honor those that have made the choice to volunteer to serve our county. We lost 3000 lives in the 9-11 attack, do any of you libs really feel sorry about that? What about the other countless lives in unprovoked embassy attacks over the years? How about the attack against the USS Cole? Does not an attack against an American warship constitute an act of war? But your favorite President was apparently too busy with a sex scandal to take it serious. I heard a radio report that in L.A. they are planting trees and putting large rocks around city park areas to deflect bullets from drive by shootings, to prevent children from being killed. Why don't you get angry about that? To get to the point, you know what "Victory in Iraq" means, you just need to take off your blinders to see the answer. I say. pitch in and be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem.[/b]
Thanks for you service mdhntr -

For comparison:
- Revolutionary war 1775 - 1783 - 25,324 KIA

- Mexican War 1846 - 1848 - 13,283 KIA

- Civil War 1861 - 1865 - North - 363,020 KIA - South - 199,110 KIA

- Spanish American War 1898 - 2,893 KIA

- Philippines War 1899 - 1902 - 4,273 KIA

- WWI 1917 - 1918 - US - 116,708 KIA

- WWII 1941 - 1945 - 408,306 KIA (Pearl Harbor 12/7/41 {approx. 3 hours} 2,388 KIA - Iowa Jima 1945 2/19 - 3/16 - 6,891 KIA - Okinawa 1945 Apr - June - 13,000 KIA)

- Korean War 1950 - 1953 - 54,219 KIA

- Vietnam War 1957 - 1975 - 58,219 KIA


American Revolution: $3.2 billion = $38.5 billion in today’s dollars (note: calculated for 1800 dollars – as far back as the inflation calculator would go).

Mexican War: $1.8 billion = $39.6 billion in today’s dollars.

Civil War: $50 billion Union, $21.8 billion Confederacy = $655.9 billion for the Union and $286 billion for the Confederacy in today’s dollars.

Spanish-American War: $6.5 billion = $160 billion in today’s dollars.

Philippines War : $600 million = $14.8 billion in today’s dollars.

World War I: $588 billion = $9.4 trillion in today’s dollars.

World War II: $4.8 trillion = $56 trillion in today’s dollars.

Korean War: $408 billion = $3.1 trillion in today’s dollars.

Vietnam War: $584 billion = $2.4 trillion in today’s dollars.

Operation Iraqi Freedom: $197 billion, as of March 2006.
[/b][/quote]


Actually we're at $500 billion right now.

There were no terrorists strapping bombs to children before we went into Iraq. We would probably be fighting them in Afghanistan instead of Iraq and we wouldn't be wasting money on trying to build a democracy in a country that is clearly not ready for it. We rebuilt Germany but they actually had a functioning democracy before hitler took over. We didn't clean out the entire govt. in japan like we did in Iraq either.

Was Saddam a bad guy? Yup, but we had him in check. If you want to see what diplomacy can do you really have to look no further than what has happened in Libya. Did we need to invade and force a democracy on them? Nope.

I think we need to listen to John Quincy Adams on this:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.[/b]
 

tmoniz

Banned
Joined
Sep 27, 2002
Messages
3,908
Reaction score
1
I posed a very direct question to someone here about the draft. And I want an answer.
I'm tired of FYI's.
I'm tired of the Lib's label being put on people who oppose war.

I oppose this war. Guess I'm just a product of the 60's.
 

leftyhunter

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2006
Messages
1,232
Reaction score
16
Hi Timonz,
I was born in 1962 and the draft ended when I was 10. I wanted to join the army but i had asthma. I have made a few arrests on federal property so I am doing what I can. I have known a fair amount of Vietnam War vets that doesn't make me an expert but I can see what happened to them. I am not opposed to military force against Al Quedea but I can also see who Bush has to be Bin Ladens favorite US President because he has only benefited from our wars in Afganistan , Iraq and he is making a come back in Somalia. I can't help remembering that at one time before the early 1970's there was no terrorism against Americans from the Moslem world. If the US would of been neutral in the Arab-Israeli dispute and not supported Arab dictators we has a nation would be in a better place.

If we withdrew from Iraq Al Quedea would not take over since even many Sunnis hate them and iraq is majority Shitte anyway plus the Kurds don't like Al Quedea either. Iraq is an artificial British creation founded in 1919. if we left they would eventually divide them selves some how. It is not for us to determine their future.

Well enough for now maybe I'll get in a little crow hunting done tommorow has our season is ending.

Leftyhunter
 

1fitspirit

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
Timonz,

I was born in 1960, missed the draft, volunteered for the US Navy and served proudly. IF I had been drafted, I would have gone. I am 100% in favor of a mandatory national service requirement. I would love to see every single American required to perform some type of service to this country, with NO deferments. If there is a medical reason that someone can't serve in the military, then they would be required to spend time in a civilian community corps or something similar, where they would perform public service in in some way. It would not be possible to buy your way out of it. This might help ease the financial burden in this country. It might also just give young men and women more of a sense of ownership in their country. I can get teary eyed at a ballgame when I hear a particularly stirring rendition of the Star Bangled Banner. I hate seeing the underdog get kicked, and I can't stand the idea of our usually benevolent country charging into a sovereign nation to rescue them from themselves. That is a waste of our country's youth, resources, and a senseless destruction of good will from the rest of the world. I don't recall the nation of Iraq, now or then, ever declaring war on us, never invading us, never attacking us. Have we become so arrogant that we now unilaterally decide who, what, when, where, and how other countries will run themselves? I am praying for anyone other than John McCain to be our next President so that we will have some hope of getting out of a country we have no business (pun intended) in. There will be no victory, there will only be losers all the way around. Whether or not we get out in 2 years or 20 years, as soon as we are gone, it will implode. Nothing short of another brutal, ruthless dictator will be able to hold Iraq together.
 

Buck-eye

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 25, 2003
Messages
3,551
Reaction score
33
Germany did not have a functioning democracy prior to the war. It was in complete disrepair from their last dust up in WWI. The entire country was topsy turvy, and that is what allowed a guy like Hitler to arise from the ashes.
I cannot believe that you are naive enough to even post that "they wer not strapping bombs to children before we entered Iraq." So by that rational discourse, it is the border of Iraq, that once crossed, drives these people insane? At some point in time you are going to have to smell what you are shoveling. In your manner of rationality, it makes more sense to fight in one country than another? What concrete basis did we have for precluding Iraq by Afghanistan? We actually used the inept UN and asked them to enforce the 17 resolutions put on Iraq, or else. Hell, you do let one person abscond you without taking some sort of retalitory measure.

Since you are so convinced that Iraq was "clearly not ready for" democracy, show me any country that made that turn with no snags. Are you Iraqi? Do you have a pulse of what those people want.
My neighbor is Iraqi. He had Sadaams henchmen come to his home and tell his entire family they had 5 minutes to evacuate their home or die. They hiked hundreds of miles to the Irani border, and eventually settled in Belgium, to be members of a free society. Later, when he properly assimilated in to American life, he has served as a teacher of 5 different Mid East dialects to our troops.

You know nothing other than your convictions which are solely based on hating one man. If Bush told you the sky was blue, you would argue it was green, and post us vitriolic responses from The Guardian and SF Chronicle how his oil henchman devised a plan to turn the sky blue. Its unfortunate that you can seemingly speak for the people of Iraq and their needs, when in actuality, you are blindly throwing darts in hopes that you eventually hit something on the board. Yawn.
 

chuckslayer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
829
Reaction score
0
Both the President AND Osama Bin Laden have declared Iraq as the "central front" in the war for/against terror. The glove has been thrown down !
Our strategy is working very well now ! Yes there were a few "glitches" just as there are in all wars..since the enemy is planning and plotting also. Anyone that doubts that the enemy is plotting, only has to see how well his propaganda has worked with some "Americans", even on this forum !
This is a hunting forum..how many here have hunted varmints/predators ? To hunt coyotes for instance, you go afield, set up, and call the the predators in to be shot ! That is just how it has worked in Iraq; and we are now at the point where the Iraqis themselves are manning the blind..and harvesting the coyotes.
Obviously; the 60s type "peaceniks' would rather let the varmints "raid the chicken coop"..time and again..as they did on 9/11/01..
Then they can wring their hands and cry huge, liberal tears..which Al Queda would much enjoy ! Remember how they celebrated in Palestinian streets on 9/12/01 ?

One of the great, almost infallible military axioms is; " The best defence is a determined and vigorous offence !".

Al Queda is presently reduced to using helpless women and mentally handicapped to deliver their bombs . Would you allow them a "time out" and allow "restful havens", where they can rest, train, rebuild and re-deploy ? If you are of that thought pattern, you could never win
a skirmish, say nothing about a war !

I doubt most of you would even want tour favorite football or basketball team to allow these "courtesies", even to something as harmless as a competing sports team !
Be honest; would you want your favorite football team..being ahead 50 to 1..to just leave the field on the last couple minutes of the last quarter, and let the opponents claim victory....by default ?

If we were to "cut and run' and allow the Al Queda safe havens, R&R and an opportunity to rebuild..with the help of Arab nations we have deserted..they can repeat the 9/11 game over and over..making the war casualties of the past 5 years look small, compared to the civilian casualties of the coming 5 years..or 10, or 15, or 20 years...
 

1fitspirit

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (chuckslayer @ Mar 29 2008, 05:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Both the President AND Osama Bin Laden have declared Iraq as the "central front" in the war for/against terror. The glove has been thrown down ![/b]
Who, in Iraq, declared war on us? No one, that's who. That's why there will bo no "victory" in Iraq. There is no contest, there is no "goal". The people that support this war sometimes say it is a war on terror...we'll never win that, we can only minimize the potential damage. Some say it was to depose Saddam. No doubt about it, he was a vicious killer, but the one time he screwed around with our allies, we spanked his butt, and he stayed at home after that. We are in a war, but we are in a war that we have no legal or moral justification to wage. Turn it around for a minute and think about this. What if Russia decided that we have wronged Iraq, went to the UN and got a handful of pissant countries to agree, and started shooting missiles at us. What is the difference? I suggest that there is no difference.
 

Caninelaw

Banned
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
3,601
Reaction score
66
Just got curious about something so I did some research...

Regarding Japan after WWII -
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
In 1949, MacArthur rubber-stamped a sweeping change in the SCAP power structure that greatly increased the power of Japan's native rulers, and as his attention (and that of the White House) gradually diverted to the Korean War, the occupation began to draw to a close. The San Francisco Peace Treaty, signed on September 8, 1951, marked the end of the Allied occupation, and when it went into effect on April 28, 1952, Japan was once again an independent state (with the exceptions of Okinawa, which remained under U.S. control until 1972, and Iwo Jima, which remained under US control until 1968).[/b]
Regarding Germany after WWII -
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
The Werwolf is thought to have had about 5,000 members. Both the British and Americans were attacked by them. Major John Poston, who had been with Field Marshal Montgomery in the desert, in Sicily and in northwest Europe, and served as a liaison officer for the field marshal, was ambushed in his jeep and killed. On 24th March, 1945, the Lord Mayor of Aachen was assassinated by Werewolf agents. He was not the only US appointed official to die at the hands of the partisans, but he was the most important. The Commander of the 3rd Armored Division, General Maurice Rose, was allegedly assassinated by Werewolf agents in Padeborn.

Radio Werwolf bragged that "the arm of the National Socialist Party was long and that its agents, the Werwolf, were vigilant, ruthless killers." The radio station broadcast a call to arms claiming itself to be the organization of National Socialist Freedom Fighters. The radio station vowed that the Werwolf would never bow to the enemy and would employ every means to damage the enemy. Perhaps more important, the radio station told the German people that the Werwolf was employing its own judicial system to decide the life and death of German traitors.[/b]
(Note - Werwolf was the Nazi guerilla resistance after WWII)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
How many Allied casualties were there during the occupation of Germany after World War 2?

In: World War 2
Casualties after V-E Day
The exact numbers are hard to come by. I have read as high as 700. I don't know for sure. It took 7 years to eliminate all Nazi sympathizers.

Here is more input:

The final guerilla resistance was not stamped out until 1948. They sniped, they planted bombs, and one of their favorite tricks was to stretch a rope across a road at the right height so that people riding in an open jeep would catch it in the neck. This could result in a broken neck or outright decapitation. The occupying forces executed guerillas when they caught them, the British used beheadings, and even resorted to taking and executing hostages.[/b]
I'm thinking here that the formal guerilla resistance was "stamped out" in 1948 but individual Nazi sympathizers took longer to eliminate.
 

tmoniz

Banned
Joined
Sep 27, 2002
Messages
3,908
Reaction score
1
Thanks Lefty. I just needed clarification.
The reason I oppose a draft is quite simple.
We have enough people out there that are more than willing to serve in the military.
They see it as a good way to jump start their adult lives.
And it is.

I was caught up in the draft in 1970. I was 19.
My number came up and I got the big fat letter.
I threw it in the trash and joined the Coast Guard.
I joined the Coast Guard because I lost 4 very good high school friends to Viet Nam.
I decided I wanted to be a part of an organization that saved lives rather than take them.
I wanted no part of that war.
Was I a coward?

Lucky me. 19 years of age going out on the high seas in small boats with my hair on fire looking to save some lives.
There was a sign at one duty station that said, "you always have to go out, but you don't always have to come back."

My dad was in the 8th Airforce during WWII. We all know their history.
Washing the remains of the belly gunner out of the belly gun turret after a shot up B17 barely made it back in.

My dad finally opposed the Viet Nam War. He said so because he felt there was no real cause and there was no Hitler.
So was Saddam Hitler?

All of your points regarding the war in Iraq are very valid. Saddam had to go and our government convinced it's self of their excuses to take him out.
But I do believe that this war is going to go on for a very long time. And many lives will be lost.
Iraq is not the environment for Democracy. They are too tribal and divided a society to accept what took nearly 200 years to apply here.
 

Buck-eye

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 25, 2003
Messages
3,551
Reaction score
33
So I guess we are in a syntax debate? Because no actual "war" was declared, no one can "win". Fair enough. Then, since no one can technically declare "victory", Ill have to go by the old method of how many KIA's each side has. And GW was incorrect on saying we are "winning". How about, we are killing a bunch of bad guys who are holding several parts of the country in fear. We are freeing the Iraqi people to be able to live in an open governmental system. Maybe Democracy doesnt work for them. Maybe they turn Socialist. It will still be better than what they had.
Strike that. We did declare war. War on terror. Its open ended, which I think is brilliant. Instead of declaring war on a nation, we say that we will hunt down and kill any group that messes with our allies, or our citizens or companies abroad. There would be no "war", conflict, dust up-whatever term you prefer, had it not been provoked in 1993, 1998, 2000, 2001.
We arent idiots. We'd much rather do business with countries than be at conflict. But, they want to kill us-and that is what we have to keep from happening.
 


Top Bottom