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

[The Rabbi]

I've been on a number of boards for almost a decade. You'll need to become much more obnoxious before I ignore you.

.

I don't think that's even possible.

Why did Bush let Bin Ladin go? They needed a bogie man on the loose so they could lie us into Iraq. No other explanation. Did we win? Haloburton and Blackwater and Hunt Oil did. I hear all the time of other rich oil tycoons winning contracts in Iraq. Iraq only gets $2 of every barrell they sell.

Yet the American people don't get the spoils of war. The defense contractors and oil companies that own America do.

And we know that Americans don't work for defense contractors like Boeing or GE or oil companies. Nor are Americans shareholders in either of those companies.
And in any case please post earnings reports showing the windfall those companies made from Iraq.

 

[Samson]

I like you Samson so I would prefer that you not put me on your ignore list but if you feel that strongly about, as far as I know, one incident then so be it.......Now comes the juvinile jab.....If you don't put me on ignore be sure to remind Rabbi that I am COMPLETELY disproving his "points" on a pretty regular basis.

I've been on a number of boards for almost a decade. You'll need to become much more obnoxious before I ignore you.

You are correct: To accomplish the goals the USA wanted to accomplish, there needed to be MANY more troops. The USA FLOODED Germany and Japan after WWII and as a result of the astonishing show of power, there were few incidents of IED's, etc.

What's scary is the number of troops sent into Iraq was actually quite a bit more than Rumsfield wanted (I don't think Bush had the slightest notion of what was going on).

But, it is also quite astonishing given the fact that the Middle East had been under the USA's magnifying glass since let's say 1960, that advisors to the president, INCLUDING HIS OWN FATHER, could not have forseen the outcome more clearly.

You know Sampson that is the ONE think I just can NOT grasp, I mean I REALLY can't wrap my mind around it. GHWB, Rumsfeld, AND Cheney ALL knew what the risks were of removing Saddam and that's why they DIDN'T DO IT in GWI. They give their reasons for not "going to Bagdhad" in THEIR OWN WORDS! Why was it prudent for JR to invade, occupy, and NATION BUILD in Iraq? Why was it even JUSTIFIED? I find VERY few people here who know the difference between PREEMPTIVE and PREVENTITIVE war I suspect you are one of them so I would think you could NEVER call this war a "win" since it was an illegal occupation in the first place.


WHAT RIGHT did we have to invade?

As in all wars, any question of "legality" or "right to invade" will be answered by the victors. I think the Bush Administration at least knew this much, and that they expected to "win" much more quickly.......AND THEY COULD HAVE!

But they made a series of silly errors which were brought about because Bush tried to make all of the people happy all of the time. They didn't want to spend $ and lives in the invasion. So they sent slightly more than the necessary number of troops (I think they expected gas attacks, so the number of invasion troops was kept to a minimum to reduce these casulties.

Then, they eliminated the Baath Party Government to make the Shiites happy, and there was no one that knew how to turn on the lights, much less repair a generator.

Then, they tried to consolidate local power around a con man, who had convinced them he was the de facto government in exile. How Fucking Stupid.

Then, instead of getting the water running, they twiddled their thumbs for about a YEAR debating the way elections would be held in an Islamic Country that hadn't the slightest notion of what an election means. This made Americans Happy because pointy headed Ivory Tower dwellers insist there are "Universal Rights." We have ben brainwashed to believe democratic form of government is naturally the best form of government because it works well at Princeton University.

 

[The Rabbi]

And of course they should have just asked you at the time.

It is sooooo easy to play Mon morning quarterback, especially when you have no idea what they knew or didnt know at the time.

 

[Samson]

And of course they should have just asked you at the time.

It is sooooo easy to play Mon morning quarterback, especially when you have no idea what they knew or didnt know at the time.

You are right, hindsight is 20:20.

This is why I really didn't mention these details regarding whether or not the war has been won or lost: In hindsight, who really cares why? The point is that it has NOT been won, and is unlikely to be won because if it WAS to be won, this should have happened 5 years (or more) ago.

 

[The Rabbi]

Iam still waiting to hear a definition of victory that does not include decimating an enemy's army, taking control of its territory and replacing its government.

 

[Samson]

Iam still waiting to hear a definition of victory that does not include decimating an enemy's army, taking control of its territory and replacing its government.

If we were sitting in 1943 Paris, you would be saying that Germany had won WWII.

Germany had;

1. Decimated the French Army
2. Taken control of France
3. Replaced the French Government

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Iam still waiting to hear a definition of victory that does not include decimating an enemy's army, taking control of its territory and replacing its government.

If we were sitting in 1943 Paris, you would be saying that Germany had won WWII.

Germany had;

1. Decimated the French Army
2. Taken control of France
3. Replaced the French Government

OH SNAP!! I know juvinile but funny. I STILL assert that no matter who wins the TIE goes to the country that was attacked. Once again there IS a difference between PREVENTITIVE and PREEMPTIVE war. One is LEGAL acording to INTERNATIONAL LAW and the other isn't.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

My post 607 is one of HUNDREDS of facts that Rabbi refuses to admit or even acknowledge. He has NO CLUE as to the difference between Preemptive and preventitive wars. He has NO CLUE as to the politics of the ME. He has NO CLUE as to the HISTORY (that is before the 80's) of Iraq or the Shia/Sunni conflict that has been going on for a MILLENIA. Tell me Rabbi do you know the difference between Shia and Sunni? Don't look it up tell me RIGHT NOW in your OWN words what the differance is.

 

[The Rabbi]

Iam still waiting to hear a definition of victory that does not include decimating an enemy's army, taking control of its territory and replacing its government.

If we were sitting in 1943 Paris, you would be saying that Germany had won WWII.

Germany had;

1. Decimated the French Army
2. Taken control of France
3. Replaced the French Government

Except WW2 was fought between the Axis Powers, i.e. Germany, Italy and Japan, and the Allied Powers, i.e. France, Britain, the U.S and USSR. Had Germany decimated the armies of all those countries, taken control of their territory and replaced their governments I would have to have said that Germany won WW2.
In fact the Allies won by
1) Decimating the armies of Germany, Italy, and Japan
2) Taking control of their territory
3) Replacing their governments.
Nice try but major historical fail.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Iam still waiting to hear a definition of victory that does not include decimating an enemy's army, taking control of its territory and replacing its government.

If we were sitting in 1943 Paris, you would be saying that Germany had won WWII.

Germany had;

1. Decimated the French Army
2. Taken control of France
3. Replaced the French Government

Except WW2 was fought between the Axis Powers, i.e. Germany, Italy and Japan, and the Allied Powers, i.e. France, Britain, the U.S and USSR. Had Germany decimated the armies of all those countries, taken control of their territory and replaced their governments I would have to have said that Germany won WW2.
In fact the Allies won by
1) Decimating the armies of Germany, Italy, and Japan
2) Taking control of their territory
3) Replacing their governments.
Nice try but major historical fail.

Gosh so I guess that Bush's war can't be won until his moronic "axis of evil" are ALL decimated.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Good luck when one warhawk with a hardone convinces a President to get into open warfare with N. Korea. MILLIONS will die within the first few weeks. It WON'T be a pretty site I GUARENFUCKINGTEEIT!

 

[Samson]

Iam still waiting to hear a definition of victory that does not include decimating an enemy's army, taking control of its territory and replacing its government.

If we were sitting in 1943 Paris, you would be saying that Germany had won WWII.

Germany had;

1. Decimated the French Army
2. Taken control of France
3. Replaced the French Government

Except WW2 was fought between the Axis Powers, i.e. Germany, Italy and Japan, and the Allied Powers, i.e. France, Britain, the U.S and USSR. Had Germany decimated the armies of all those countries, taken control of their territory and replaced their governments I would have to have said that Germany won WW2.
In fact the Allies won by
1) Decimating the armies of Germany, Italy, and Japan
2) Taking control of their territory
3) Replacing their governments.
Nice try but major historical fail.

Well, then I suppose I'll just have to settle for the fact that Iraq has no government.

 

[The Rabbi]

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts!

 

[Toronado3800]

Did I already say I think its too soon to tell if we "won" or not since our real goal is the creation of a peaceful, sympathetic to the US Iraq?

Too bad something easily quantifiable like kicking a 3rd world dictator's butt back to the stone age doesn't count as winning.

 

[Samson]

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts!

What fact have you changed? That there are no US Forces in Iraq?

There is no government in Iraq: If there was, then there'd be, at maximum, the same US military presence there as in Saudi Arabia.

Rabbi, why do you care so much about making this war a Victory, now? I mean, for christssakes; are you so concerned that if we don't do it sooner, then later we won't do it at all? Do you think that US troops that have served there, or are serving there really give a fuck?

Given the choice, I believe they'd just as soon be home for Christmas than be able to say "yeah, we were able to destroy the Iraqi Army, and capture Saddam."

 

[Munin]

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

I disagree, it is not a simple question.

Define the Iraq War:
- If you mean a military victory against the Iraq of Saddam Hussain, then the answer is easy: Yes
- If you mean the war in Iraq that is still going on: no, because it isn't over. A better question is if it even is a US war and not an Iraqi civil war? The thing is: Iraq did not exist anymore after Saddam was defeated, he was the glue that held that country together (in an non-humane way, but he held it together none the less).
- ... (probably other ways to describe this)

Define winning: What did the US win?

- Oil? Yes

- Territory? No

- Credibility?
Yes: the US made the point that it can mess with everyone
No: the US proved that it couldn't do much outside Iraq and Afghanistan because its troops were committed (for example: gave Russia an opportunity to invade Georgia, although they probably would ve done it anyway: but the US made it easier. And it made Iran bolder, because it didn't have to occupy itself with its former ennemy). Big mistake with using the argument of Weapons of Mass destruction argument ...

- Military power? No (because of the huge financial crater the war has created)

- Allies?
No, it damaged US relations with its allies. Mostly because of lying about the weapons of Mass destruction, the countries supporting the US also lost credibility.
- Military Experience? Yes and the US can use this experience to maintain technological and doctrinal supperiority (new ways to wage guerilla warfare).

- Ideological? Yes and no (not really clear to me. the relationships is at least better than with saddam, not that it could get any worse ), can the US really trust Iraq as a partner?

- ... (the things I forgot)


I voted NO, because the war isn't over yet. And if it was, what has the US won from this war? (f.e. after WWII, the US had won serious trade advantages: all former colonies were freed, meaning that the US could trade with them now)

 

[The Rabbi]

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts!

What fact have you changed? That there are no US Forces in Iraq?

There is no government in Iraq: If there was, then there'd be, at maximum, the same US military presence there as in Saudi Arabia.

"

There is no government in IRaq? Who is Maliki? What is this website, | cabinet.iq | مجلس الوزراء العراقي |? To whom are Iraqi police and military forces answerable?
Your contention is absurd. You might as well claim the U.S. lost the Civil War, that Hitler escaped, the OJ is innocent.
What does the US military presence in Saudi Arabia, a country that has not waged war in generations have to do with Iraq? Why not ask why we don't have the same presence in Iraq that we do in Korea?

 

[Samson]

Why not ask why we don't have the same presence in Iraq that we do in Korea?

Ok.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Why not ask why we don't have the same presence in Iraq that we do in Korea?

Ok.

Uh we have a FAR greater military presence in Iraq than we do S. Korea.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why not ask why we don't have the same presence in Iraq that we do in Korea?

Ok.

Uh we have a FAR greater military presence in Iraq than we do S. Korea.

You just figured that out? Wow, what a genius. You deserve a MacArthur Award for the observation.