Simple Question: Did we (USA) win Iraq War?

[Cold Fusion38]

Oh and if you look at their nifty graph of total military strength Turkey if FAR superior to Iraq.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Oh check the graph on page 90.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

*** Total tanks INCLUDE tanks in STORAGE or COVERSION!

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Oh and the "AIR FORCE" include heavy surface to air missile launchers.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Any time dumb fuck Rabbi!

 

[Liability]

Iraq War “To Do” List
1. Defeat Iraqi Military
2. Overrun Baghdad
3. Capture Saddam
4. Begin Martial Law
5. Defeat Insurgency
6. Facilitate Elections
7. Establish New Currency
8. Establish New Constitution
9. Establish Fair Markets
10. Rebuild infrastructure

10 for 10. Chalk it up for the Good Guys.

Stop with all the revisionist history.

Not only did we lose, but we got our asses thoroughly kicked.

This explains why, today, we all speak Arabic. President Saddam Hussein has so decreed.

 

[Samson]

The goal of war should be to achieve the country's objectives they failed to achieve by any other means. Typically that involves rendering the opposing country's military force ineffective. Often it means replacing the country's government and/or dictating terms of surrender.
So on that basis looks like we won.
Still waiting to hear on what basis we lost.

Ok, use your definition, however unrealistic and void of all evidence that The Goal has been to establish a Legitamate Democracy in Iraq, and there is no such thing, nor is it likely that there ever will be.

You can confidently vote in your poll, "YES."

I however, will vote "No," because I'm not going to ignore reality: This war, (or any other), is not waged just to destroy an existing military or government. If this was so, then it would have ended long ago.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

WOW libility chimes in for Rabbi. How ODD!

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Maybe we should have just continued our "Shock and AWE" for the last 5 years. Deny the "enemy" any electricity/water/food/medicine/fuel/military equip/ so on and so forth. I would say that eventually Saddam would have been turned in.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Let's see I think that would satisfy Rabbi's definition of "VICTORY". I bet you burn a big barrel of fuel puff yourself up and say "I love the smell of Napalm in the morning. It smells like VICTORY."

 

[Liability]

WOW libility chimes in for Rabbi. How ODD!

WOW Chilled confusion totally missed the point. How expected.

For the record, my post was responsive JUST to the OP. I had not read beyond the OP at that point. I was not responding to Rabbi or to Chilly Confusion. And -- uhm -- as is almost always the case, CF got it right in the first place.

 

[Samson]

"I love the smell of Napalm in the morning. It smells like VICTORY."

Does it smell a lot like an annoying post-whore who would destroy a relatively interesting thread with multiple meaningless Bullshit?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Well Samson if you had read Rabbis link you would have noticed everything I put up on the last page DIRECTLEY contradicted Rabbis claim of Iraqi military strength. Sorry if the facts disturbed you.

 

[Samson]

Well Samson if you had read Rabbis link you would have noticed everything I put up on the last page DIRECTLEY contradicted Rabbis claim of Iraqi military strength. Sorry if the facts disturbed you.

The only thing I noticed about your posts was that there were 7 of them in succession.

Facts aren't disturbing.

But, I don't suffer fools, and their juvenile stupidity.

 

[The Rabbi]

The goal of war should be to achieve the country's objectives they failed to achieve by any other means. Typically that involves rendering the opposing country's military force ineffective. Often it means replacing the country's government and/or dictating terms of surrender.
So on that basis looks like we won.
Still waiting to hear on what basis we lost.

Ok, use your definition, however unrealistic and void of all evidence that The Goal has been to establish a Legitamate Democracy in Iraq, and there is no such thing, nor is it likely that there ever will be.

You can confidently vote in your poll, "YES."

I however, will vote "No," because I'm not going to ignore reality: This war, (or any other), is not waged just to destroy an existing military or government. If this was so, then it would have ended long ago.

Well, they have had at least one election that was judged free and fair. They appear to be on track to have a second such election. That makes them better off than anyone else in the region (except Israel).
So I guess it depends on what your definition of "legitimate" is.


And Cold Fusion is a total wanker who is working towards my "ignore" list, joining other anti-semites and people too stupid to be worthy of debate. Just saying.

 

[Samson]

The goal of war should be to achieve the country's objectives they failed to achieve by any other means. Typically that involves rendering the opposing country's military force ineffective. Often it means replacing the country's government and/or dictating terms of surrender.
So on that basis looks like we won.
Still waiting to hear on what basis we lost.

Ok, use your definition, however unrealistic and void of all evidence that The Goal has been to establish a Legitamate Democracy in Iraq, and there is no such thing, nor is it likely that there ever will be.

You can confidently vote in your poll, "YES."

I however, will vote "No," because I'm not going to ignore reality: This war, (or any other), is not waged just to destroy an existing military or government. If this was so, then it would have ended long ago.

Well, they have had at least one election that was judged free and fair. They appear to be on track to have a second such election. That makes them better off than anyone else in the region (except Israel).
So I guess it depends on what your definition of "legitimate" is.


And Cold Fusion is a total wanker who is working towards my "ignore" list, joining other anti-semites and people too stupid to be worthy of debate. Just saying.

Can you place someone on ignore here? I'll have to check again, but if I can I may do the same with Mr. Fusion.

I'm thinking "legitamate" is a government something like 1950 Japan or Germany. A country capable of taking care of its internal affairs without US troops shadowing their every move.

Or, alternatively, a Disneyland being built in Bagdad.

 

[The Rabbi]

The U.S. had and continues to have a military presence in both Japan and Germany. In the early days, esp with Germany, that was to keep an eye on things and keep the Soviets out.
But it is hard to compare 1st world countries like Germany with a 3rd world country like Iraq. In any case, the Iraqis appear to be needing our help less and less.

Oh yea. Go to use CP and on the left side is a tab that says edit ignore list and when you get to that type Cold Fusion and the nasty little bugger is gone.

 

[Samson]

The U.S. had and continues to have a military presence in both Japan and Germany. In the early days, esp with Germany, that was to keep an eye on things and keep the Soviets out.
But it is hard to compare 1st world countries like Germany with a 3rd world country like Iraq. In any case, the Iraqis appear to be needing our help less and less.

Oh yea. Go to use CP and on the left side is a tab that says edit ignore list and when you get to that type Cold Fusion and the nasty little bugger is gone.

The fact that you agree that "1st World Countries" cannot be compared with "3rd world" countries is at the heart of the reason why I don't think the USA has won, or will win (establish a Legitamate Democratic Government) in Iraq.

Germany and Japan had adopted democratic governments ALL BY THEMSELVES, prior to Facism.

Iraq, had a loosly defined form of democracy imposed on them for only 24 years, almost a century ago, and Brutal Dictatorships that lasted DECADES. While it is certainly a nice photo op to see Iraqis holding up thier purple fingers after voting, they less about democracy than building igloos.

 

[The Rabbi]

All by themselves, really?
Germany was ruled by a kaiser up until 1918. As a result of Allied pressure the monarchy collapsed and a very weak democratic government took over. That didnt last too long until Germans voted themselves another dictatorship. It took another costly bloody war before Allies again dictated a government. Japan still has an emperor, albeit with no real power.
Yes, Iraq doesn't have much in the way of a democratic history, but the above examples show the power of ideas and military force. And currently Iraq seems to be doing fine in the democracy department.

 

[Samson]

All by themselves, really?
Germany was ruled by a kaiser up until 1918. As a result of Allied pressure the monarchy collapsed and a very weak democratic government took over. That didnt last too long until Germans voted themselves another dictatorship. It took another costly bloody war before Allies again dictated a government. Japan still has an emperor, albeit with no real power.
Yes, Iraq doesn't have much in the way of a democratic history, but the above examples show the power of ideas and military force. And currently Iraq seems to be doing fine in the democracy department.

My point is that Germans "Voted Themselves."

And, when I say that Germans had some past with democracy, I mean in a parlimentary form as the Reichstag, the Diets or parliaments of the Holy Roman Empire, of the Austrian-Hungarian monarchy and of Germany from 1871 to 1945. The Weimar Republic you refered to was a form of the Reichstag.

But really, this could be the subject of another thread.

My point is, compared with Germany, or really almost any Western, Christian, Nation, Iraqi culture has almost no democratic root, and worse, it has a very, very long history of the opposite: Islamic Dictatorship.

To believe that the USA can wage a war to reverse thousands of years of this culture, and "win" it only because national elections have been held under the guns of American Troops after 8 years is absurd.

Let's see the Iraqis have a national election WITHOUT the nation-wide presence of US troops. This will be the day I agree with you, Rabbi.