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

[SFC Ollie]

We and the Iraqi people have won.

No news is good News

You won't read it in the morning paper or see it on the evening news, but the U.S. military has dramatically - and perhaps irreversibly - turned the corner in Iraq, as the nonpartisan Brookings Institution details in it's Iraq index:

* Iraq rates forth in the region in political freedom, behind Israel, Lebanon, and Morocco.

* Under Saddam Hussein, there were no commercial TV stations and no independent newspapers; by 2006 there were 54 commercial TV stations and 268 Independent newspapers and magazines.

*Pre-war Iraq had just 833,000 telephone subscribers; today there are 17.7 million cellular and 1.3 million land line phone subscribers.

* Attacks on energy installations and personnel have fallen from 30 per month in late 2004 to one per month in 2009.

* The size of Iraqs security force has grown from 30,000 in mid 2003 to 589,000 in late 2008.

* Monthly U.S. troop fatalities that once were as high as 137 now are in the single digits and low teens.

Iraq Index - Saban Center for Middle East Policy - - Brookings Institution

That can easily be translated as a desperate attempt to try and justify a completely optional invasion and occupation. It's understandable as some must find a reason or justification for the many many sacrifices. But that dog won't hunt.

It's called facts.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah.
That was an example of #2: But it wasn't worth it because gosh look at all the money and lives it cost.

That argument is Number Two in more ways than one.

The other is, maybe we won, maybe we lost. It's too early to tell yet. When Iraq looks like Switzerland politically then we can say we won.

 

[CurveLight]

And "our Creator" is the source of American law. Your point?
As to VArth Dader's stupid point: if he could show that the Founders practiced witchcraft, that basic tenets of witchcraft showed up in their other writings, that their world view was colored by witchcraft, he would have a point.
But since he can't, while the connection with protestant Christianity can be demonstrated, my point is entirely valid.

So do you understand the difference yet between the Vatican and Iran, where clerics control the law-making process, versus the United States and Iraq, where they dont?

Where in our Constitution does it say anything about any religious text being the source of our legislation?

Yet again you completely ignored the relevant information. I'm not playing this game with you.

No, because you if you do you lose.
Do you understand the difference yet between the Vatican and Iran, where clerics control the political process, and the U.S. and Iraq, where they don't?
You won't answer the question because you know the answer shows the truth.

Look at post 263 where I explained the difference between an official state religion and a theocracy. No, I mean really look at it. No. I mean please stop reading this post until you read 263. Done that yet? When you have then please continue reading this post. You do realize iran is a theocracy that has democratic elections right? Let's look at some more info:




"One can clearly see that already the powerful influence of clerics is apparent," Hamdan said. "The parliament and government cannot take any step without first consulting the clerics."


But the U.S. occupation forces and their leadership have depended on clerics since the early days of occupation. The Iraqi Governing Council included clerics like Ayatollah Bahrul-Uloom and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, together with leaders of other Islamic parties like al-Dawa and the Iraqi Islamic Party.

The elections in January 2005 were almost completely controlled by religious groups and their political parties.

Shia parties, especially The Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, led by Hakim, cited Sistani asking "believers" to vote for the political list that included the Shia coalition. That list continues to play a powerful role in government today."
IRAQ: Clerics Begin to Take Over - IPS ipsnews.net


Once again you completely ignore the fact the Iraq Constitution states islam is the fundamental source of legislation. Impress us with how ridiculously stubborn you can be and ignore that again. Kind of like how you have never given a definition of victory in iraq in your own words. Dazzle and shine!

 

[CurveLight]

We and the Iraqi people have won.

No news is good News

You won't read it in the morning paper or see it on the evening news, but the U.S. military has dramatically - and perhaps irreversibly - turned the corner in Iraq, as the nonpartisan Brookings Institution details in it's Iraq index:

* Iraq rates forth in the region in political freedom, behind Israel, Lebanon, and Morocco.

* Under Saddam Hussein, there were no commercial TV stations and no independent newspapers; by 2006 there were 54 commercial TV stations and 268 Independent newspapers and magazines.

*Pre-war Iraq had just 833,000 telephone subscribers; today there are 17.7 million cellular and 1.3 million land line phone subscribers.

* Attacks on energy installations and personnel have fallen from 30 per month in late 2004 to one per month in 2009.

* The size of Iraqs security force has grown from 30,000 in mid 2003 to 589,000 in late 2008.

* Monthly U.S. troop fatalities that once were as high as 137 now are in the single digits and low teens.

Iraq Index - Saban Center for Middle East Policy - - Brookings Institution

That can easily be translated as a desperate attempt to try and justify a completely optional invasion and occupation. It's understandable as some must find a reason or justification for the many many sacrifices. But that dog won't hunt.

It's called facts.

I can cherry pick facts to show Elvis is still alive and the moon really is made of green cheese. The bottom line is many of our Troops have paid the ultimate and nearly ultimate Sacrifice when they were forced to out of sheer greed and political agendas that had nothing to do with defending our Constitution.

 

[CurveLight]

Yeah.
That was an example of #2: But it wasn't worth it because gosh look at all the money and lives it cost.

That argument is Number Two in more ways than one.

The other is, maybe we won, maybe we lost. It's too early to tell yet. When Iraq looks like Switzerland politically then we can say we won.

So which is it? You've been stampeding the Victory drum and now you Perot that to say it's too early to tell if we've won? Wow. All that without even a definition of Victory. I'm impressed.

 

[The Rabbi]

Where in our Constitution does it say anything about any religious text being the source of our legislation?

Yet again you completely ignored the relevant information. I'm not playing this game with you.

No, because you if you do you lose.
Do you understand the difference yet between the Vatican and Iran, where clerics control the political process, and the U.S. and Iraq, where they don't?
You won't answer the question because you know the answer shows the truth.

Look at post 263 where I explained the difference between an official state religion and a theocracy. No, I mean really look at it. No. I mean please stop reading this post until you read 263. Done that yet? When you have then please continue reading this post. You do realize iran is a theocracy that has democratic elections right? Let's look at some more info:




"One can clearly see that already the powerful influence of clerics is apparent," Hamdan said. "The parliament and government cannot take any step without first consulting the clerics."


But the U.S. occupation forces and their leadership have depended on clerics since the early days of occupation. The Iraqi Governing Council included clerics like Ayatollah Bahrul-Uloom and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, together with leaders of other Islamic parties like al-Dawa and the Iraqi Islamic Party.

The elections in January 2005 were almost completely controlled by religious groups and their political parties.

Shia parties, especially The Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, led by Hakim, cited Sistani asking "believers" to vote for the political list that included the Shia coalition. That list continues to play a powerful role in government today."
IRAQ: Clerics Begin to Take Over - IPS ipsnews.net


Once again you completely ignore the fact the Iraq Constitution states islam is the fundamental source of legislation. Impress us with how ridiculously stubborn you can be and ignore that again. Kind of like how you have never given a definition of victory in iraq in your own words. Dazzle and shine!

Now you are simply substituting your own definition of theocracy.
Iran does not have democratic elections. The council of mullahs vets each candidate before allowing them to stand. Not so in Iraq.
Do clerics have influence in Iraq? Yes, of course. It is a religious country so religious leaders have a lot of influence. That is not the same as having veto power over everything, like in Iran and Vatican City.
By that definition NYC is a theocracy since the Catholic Cardinal and the Jewish rebbes in Brooklyn both wield considerable influence.
Do you see the difference yet?

 

[CurveLight]

We and the Iraqi people have won.

No news is good News

You won't read it in the morning paper or see it on the evening news, but the U.S. military has dramatically - and perhaps irreversibly - turned the corner in Iraq, as the nonpartisan Brookings Institution details in it's Iraq index:

* Iraq rates forth in the region in political freedom, behind Israel, Lebanon, and Morocco.

* Under Saddam Hussein, there were no commercial TV stations and no independent newspapers; by 2006 there were 54 commercial TV stations and 268 Independent newspapers and magazines.

*Pre-war Iraq had just 833,000 telephone subscribers; today there are 17.7 million cellular and 1.3 million land line phone subscribers.

* Attacks on energy installations and personnel have fallen from 30 per month in late 2004 to one per month in 2009.

* The size of Iraqs security force has grown from 30,000 in mid 2003 to 589,000 in late 2008.

* Monthly U.S. troop fatalities that once were as high as 137 now are in the single digits and low teens.

Iraq Index - Saban Center for Middle East Policy - - Brookings Institution

That can easily be translated as a desperate attempt to try and justify a completely optional invasion and occupation. It's understandable as some must find a reason or justification for the many many sacrifices. But that dog won't hunt.

It's called facts.

I was going to let it go but I can't....so.....how can it be claimed the study is from a non-biased source when the lead author is a signatory participant of the PNAC? On at least two occasions he signed letters to Congress urging they continue the neocon agenda. Isn't that like asking Rudolph to criticize Santa's sleigh skills then claiming it was an unbiased assessment?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We and the Iraqi people have won.

No news is good News

You won't read it in the morning paper or see it on the evening news, but the U.S. military has dramatically - and perhaps irreversibly - turned the corner in Iraq, as the nonpartisan Brookings Institution details in it's Iraq index:

* Iraq rates forth in the region in political freedom, behind Israel, Lebanon, and Morocco.

* Under Saddam Hussein, there were no commercial TV stations and no independent newspapers; by 2006 there were 54 commercial TV stations and 268 Independent newspapers and magazines.

*Pre-war Iraq had just 833,000 telephone subscribers; today there are 17.7 million cellular and 1.3 million land line phone subscribers.

* Attacks on energy installations and personnel have fallen from 30 per month in late 2004 to one per month in 2009.

* The size of Iraqs security force has grown from 30,000 in mid 2003 to 589,000 in late 2008.

* Monthly U.S. troop fatalities that once were as high as 137 now are in the single digits and low teens.

Iraq Index - Saban Center for Middle East Policy - - Brookings Institution

Smells like victory

 

[CurveLight]

No, because you if you do you lose.
Do you understand the difference yet between the Vatican and Iran, where clerics control the political process, and the U.S. and Iraq, where they don't?
You won't answer the question because you know the answer shows the truth.

Look at post 263 where I explained the difference between an official state religion and a theocracy. No, I mean really look at it. No. I mean please stop reading this post until you read 263. Done that yet? When you have then please continue reading this post. You do realize iran is a theocracy that has democratic elections right? Let's look at some more info:




"One can clearly see that already the powerful influence of clerics is apparent," Hamdan said. "The parliament and government cannot take any step without first consulting the clerics."


But the U.S. occupation forces and their leadership have depended on clerics since the early days of occupation. The Iraqi Governing Council included clerics like Ayatollah Bahrul-Uloom and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, together with leaders of other Islamic parties like al-Dawa and the Iraqi Islamic Party.

The elections in January 2005 were almost completely controlled by religious groups and their political parties.

Shia parties, especially The Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, led by Hakim, cited Sistani asking "believers" to vote for the political list that included the Shia coalition. That list continues to play a powerful role in government today."
IRAQ: Clerics Begin to Take Over - IPS ipsnews.net


Once again you completely ignore the fact the Iraq Constitution states islam is the fundamental source of legislation. Impress us with how ridiculously stubborn you can be and ignore that again. Kind of like how you have never given a definition of victory in iraq in your own words. Dazzle and shine!

Now you are simply substituting your own definition of theocracy.
Iran does not have democratic elections. The council of mullahs vets each candidate before allowing them to stand. Not so in Iraq.
Do clerics have influence in Iraq? Yes, of course. It is a religious country so religious leaders have a lot of influence. That is not the same as having veto power over everything, like in Iran and Vatican City.
By that definition NYC is a theocracy since the Catholic Cardinal and the Jewish rebbes in Brooklyn both wield considerable influence.
Do you see the difference yet?

You didn't learn from your Italy mistake.

"The Parliament of Iran, comprises 290 members elected for four-year terms........

The President is elected by universal suffrage, by those 18 years old and older[1], for a term of four years."
Politics of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I did not say iraq is a theocracy because of "influence" from clerics. You ignored post 263.....again. Is this fun for you? Is this your form of personal entertainment? To come on here and pretend to be honest? I've always said iraq is a theocracy because its Constitution clearly states Islam is a fundamental source of legislation:

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam


Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam


Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam


Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam


Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam


Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam


Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam


Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam


Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam


Did you see that yet?

 

[The Rabbi]

Jesus are you uninformed. As they say, a little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.
Try this:
Guardian Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note the virtual veto power the mullahs have over candidates etc.
Note that the Pope has virtual veto power over anything that goes on in Vatican City.
Note the absence of any similar body or person in Iraq.
Case closed. I will not post on this again as the proof has been offered and demonstrated to anyone without a burning desire to think the US lost the Iraq War.

 

[CurveLight]

Jesus are you uninformed. As they say, a little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.
Try this:
Guardian Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note the virtual veto power the mullahs have over candidates etc.
Note that the Pope has virtual veto power over anything that goes on in Vatican City.
Note the absence of any similar body or person in Iraq.
Case closed. I will not post on this again as the proof has been offered and demonstrated to anyone without a burning desire to think the US lost the Iraq War.

Classy. Claim iran does not have elections and ignore the presented evidence showing they do. Something like the GC is not necessary for iraq to be a theocracy. You cannot rewrite the definition to ignore that it says a theocracy is based in religious authority. For iraq, that religious authority is Islam and it doesn't matter if someone has the title of cleric or pope or not. Legislation being founded in a religion is what defines a theocracy. But go ahead and ignore that again as you already have 7 times already. Just like you claim victory in iraq but you can't even write a simple definition of that victory in your own words. As much as you have embarrassed yourself I would hope you stop posting on the matter. That's your safest move. Unless you want to make more false claims followed by continually ignoring the definition of a theocracy. Oh, and you ignored post 263 again. Bravo! Jolly good show mate! You are helping to show why the pro war crowd are generally ignorant of basic info and too arrogant to be honest.

 

[The Rabbi]

That distraction out of the way, it is amazing that more people think we lost the Iraq War than think we won it.
I can't imagine what could account for this, other than opposition to the war and especially to Pres Bush.
Did we destroy the enemy's ability to wage war? Yes.
Did we unseat the enemy's government? Yes.
Did we impose our will and control over the country? Yes.
What other definition of victory can there be??

 

[Cold Fusion38]

We and the Iraqi people have won.

No news is good News

You won't read it in the morning paper or see it on the evening news, but the U.S. military has dramatically - and perhaps irreversibly - turned the corner in Iraq, as the nonpartisan Brookings Institution details in it's Iraq index:

* Iraq rates forth in the region in political freedom, behind Israel, Lebanon, and Morocco.

* Under Saddam Hussein, there were no commercial TV stations and no independent newspapers; by 2006 there were 54 commercial TV stations and 268 Independent newspapers and magazines.

*Pre-war Iraq had just 833,000 telephone subscribers; today there are 17.7 million cellular and 1.3 million land line phone subscribers.

* Attacks on energy installations and personnel have fallen from 30 per month in late 2004 to one per month in 2009.

* The size of Iraqs security force has grown from 30,000 in mid 2003 to 589,000 in late 2008.

* Monthly U.S. troop fatalities that once were as high as 137 now are in the single digits and low teens.

Iraq Index - Saban Center for Middle East Policy - - Brookings Institution

Smells like victory

It smells like SOMETHING.

 

[CurveLight]

That distraction out of the way, it is amazing that more people think we lost the Iraq War than think we won it.
I can't imagine what could account for this, other than opposition to the war and especially to Pres Bush.
Did we destroy the enemy's ability to wage war? Yes.
Did we unseat the enemy's government? Yes.
Did we impose our will and control over the country? Yes.
What other definition of victory can there be??

You just described Imperialism and not a War. Iraq was not a threat to the US so it could not have been an enemy. You probably don't even know five days after 9/11 Cheney told the world Iraq was not involved in any way for that day and Iraq was NOT a threat because Saddam was "bottled up." Be honest...you didn't know he said that and when.

 

[The Rabbi]

Are you planning on redefining words to suit your own warped view? Again?

I guess we demonstrated imperialism over Nazi Germany. England and Russia demonstrated imperialism over Napoleonic France. That's why France is still a colony of England, right?

 

[CurveLight]

Are you planning on redefining words to suit your own warped view? Again?

I guess we demonstrated imperialism over Nazi Germany. England and Russia demonstrated imperialism over Napoleonic France. That's why France is still a colony of England, right?

Is this how you get by? If you want to lie I can't stop it but I can hope someday you will find the courage needed to have honest discussions.

You probably don't know Germany Declared War on the US. Do you also know Germany was engaged in Imperialism by invading and occupying nations that did not attack it? Napolean engaged in Imperialism. In both examples you gave the allies fought against imperialism. We are now the nation engaging in that same form of Imperialism.

You see, Germany and Napoleon were both threats because.....they invaded nations and continued to do so. Iraq was not a threat to the US. Got anymore wonderfully bright analogies? Lol.

You have just joined the divecon crew. Congratulations.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ok. So when a nation declares war on another nation, that is imperialism. I see.

Do you have a clue? I mean, do you understand that words have specific meanings, not just what you think they ought to mean?
Imperialism is pretty well defined. And it doesn't mean declaring war on another nation.
Victory is pretty well defined. And it doesn't mean achieving bloodless triumph and turning your enemy into the political equivalent of Switzerland.

I am sorry if the war didn't go the way you wanted. I know you were really rooting for Saddam and then al Qaeda. But you have to accept that sometimes it just doesn't work out that way and teh bad guys--the United States to your thinking--end up winning.
But just accept that and don't engage in these infantile rantings of yours that make you look like a boob.

 

[CurveLight]

Ok. So when a nation declares war on another nation, that is imperialism. I see.

Do you have a clue? I mean, do you understand that words have specific meanings, not just what you think they ought to mean?
Imperialism is pretty well defined. And it doesn't mean declaring war on another nation.
Victory is pretty well defined. And it doesn't mean achieving bloodless triumph and turning your enemy into the political equivalent of Switzerland.

I never said that. I did say it is Imperialism when one nation invades and occupies another nation just because it can. That is what Napoleon did. That is what Germany did. That is what we have done and are doing in Iraq. It is NOT Imperialism when two sovereign nations declare war on each other. That is why it was NOT Imperialism when we entered WWII. Try to read what my posts say instead of trying to jump on what you perceive to be an error. Maybe you could dazzle us again with your dancing around of how Iraq is not a Theocracy even though the Iraq Constitution states Islam is a fundamental source of legislation. C'mon! That was fun!

I am sorry if the war didn't go the way you wanted. I know you were really rooting for Saddam and then al Qaeda. But you have to accept that sometimes it just doesn't work out that way and teh bad guys--the United States to your thinking--end up winning.
But just accept that and don't engage in these infantile rantings of yours that make you look like a boob.

This is the real test of loving America isn't it? When I was fighting in Iraq in 91' I never ever thought some years down the road another American would accuse me of rooting for Saddam. You know what? I would still gladly give my life to defend the Freedom necessary for people like you to make such accusations. March on brother!

 

[SFC Ollie]

That can easily be translated as a desperate attempt to try and justify a completely optional invasion and occupation. It's understandable as some must find a reason or justification for the many many sacrifices. But that dog won't hunt.

It's called facts.

I was going to let it go but I can't....so.....how can it be claimed the study is from a non-biased source when the lead author is a signatory participant of the PNAC? On at least two occasions he signed letters to Congress urging they continue the neocon agenda. Isn't that like asking Rudolph to criticize Santa's sleigh skills then claiming it was an unbiased assessment?

The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC. Our mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations that advance three broad goals:

* Strengthen American democracy;
* Foster the economic and social welfare, security and opportunity of all Americans and
* Secure a more open, safe, prosperous and cooperative international system.

Brookings is proud to be consistently ranked as the most influential, most quoted and most trusted think tank.


What more need anyone say?


Quality. Independence. Impact. - Brookings Institution

 

[The Rabbi]

No, we occupied Germany and Japan after WW2 because we could. So I guess that makes us imperialists.
The North occupied the South in the civil war. So I guess they were imperialists too.

I am convinced you have no idea what you are talking about. Simple terms in common use in political science elude you. So you substitute whatever you think might bolster your case. It is sad. A little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.