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

[The Rabbi]

Korea didn't have much of a culture of democracy either. And indeed for many years until recently there was always some leading figure or other.
But Iraqis have something Germans etc did not have: access to modern communications. Iran has an active democratic movement going on (unsupported by this administration btw) mostly due to the internet and contact with the West.
In any case, history in Iraq is moving against your view and towards mine.

 

[Samson]

In any case, history in Iraq is moving against your view and towards mine.

I hope you're right.

But, I'm not one to extrapolate less than 8 years of history very far into the future. Call me pessimistic.

But it remains to be seen if the USA has won anything.

 

[The Rabbi]

In any case, history in Iraq is moving against your view and towards mine.

I hope you're right.

But, I'm not one to extrapolate less than 8 years of history very far into the future. Call me pessimistic.

But it remains to be seen if the USA has won anything.

OK. So two pages later I am still waiting to hear a definition of victory that somehow excludes what we've done in Iraq.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Ah the IGNORE list the last hope of those who can not debate. Knock yourself out Rabid. You too Samson.


I posted those rapid fire posts to show Rabid how completely his misconstrued his OWN evidence. He OBVIOULSY didn't read past the first paragraph.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

In any case, history in Iraq is moving against your view and towards mine.

I hope you're right.

But, I'm not one to extrapolate less than 8 years of history very far into the future. Call me pessimistic.

But it remains to be seen if the USA has won anything.

OK. So two pages later I am still waiting to hear a definition of victory that somehow excludes what we've done in Iraq.

Oh and HISTORY goes back more than TWO YEARS......HISTORY shows an Iraq that will ALWAYS be at war with itself........Go back a MILLENIA if you want to talk about the HISTORY of Iraq. Oh and by the way you are STILL an "Israeli Firster" your posts make it PERFECTLY clear. Your INABILITY to explain away the USS Liberty but to say "it was an ACCIDENT" when ALL the proof shows that to be an absurd beleif. Thus you are an ISRAELI FIRSTER because you are on the side of ISRAEL rather than the US SERVICEMEN who were MURDERED by that TOTALLY UNPROVOKED attack.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

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.

Neither Japan NOR Germany have the type of INTERNAL strife that Iraq has.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

So tell me Samson did you read Rabbi's link? If not you should because it shows what a total joke Iraq's army was before our "Shock and Awe" attack.

 

[The Rabbi]

You obviously have nothing to contribute here. All your so-called points have been answered, except those based on your own misinformation and stupidity.
Off you go to iggy, with your friends Sunniman and Meshogun.

 

[Samson]

Neither Japan NOR Germany have the type of INTERNAL strife that Iraq has.

I think you mean Germany and Japan did not have a Civil War after they were defeated by the USA, and that Bavarians were not killing Prussians, Calvinists were not killing Catholics.

The EXTREMELY Homogeneous societies of Germany and Japan made setting up new governments there very easy. Of course, the USA could have made the whole process in Iraq MUCH easier had they done what Patton did after Germany surrendered: Keep the Useful Part of the Nazi Party in Place. This pragmatic approach wasn't much politically appreciated by the Russians, or US Politicos. Preempting any such pragmatism in Iraq the US threw the baby out with the Baath-water (forgive my pun).

So tell me Samson did you read Rabbi's link? If not you should because it shows what a total joke Iraq's army was before our "Shock and Awe" attack.

No, I didn't need to read any link to know what the outcome was of the military battle between Saddam's Iraq and the USA. The USA was very lucky the Iraqi's didn't use gas. Nonetheless, the USA won the battle, with very few casulties.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What a country. A slight majority don't think we won in Iraq. A House divided cannot stand and a house where the Left is trying to blast the foundation is in real deep shit

 

[Samson]

What a country. A slight majority don't think we won in Iraq. A House divided cannot stand and a house where the Left is trying to blast the foundation is in real deep shit

I wouldn't make too much of the poll.

The way it is written makes it sound as if the war is over, and the USA either won or lost.

"The Fat Lady Hasn't Sung," makes a piss poor banner on an Aircraft Carrier.

 

[antagon]

iraq: a loss on timing, cause, form and effect.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Neither Japan NOR Germany have the type of INTERNAL strife that Iraq has.

I think you mean Germany and Japan did not have a Civil War after they were defeated by the USA, and that Bavarians were not killing Prussians, Calvinists were not killing Catholics.

The EXTREMELY Homogeneous societies of Germany and Japan made setting up new governments there very easy. Of course, the USA could have made the whole process in Iraq MUCH easier had they done what Patton did after Germany surrendered: Keep the Useful Part of the Nazi Party in Place. This pragmatic approach wasn't much politically appreciated by the Russians, or US Politicos. Preempting any such pragmatism in Iraq the US threw the baby out with the Baath-water (forgive my pun).

So tell me Samson did you read Rabbi's link? If not you should because it shows what a total joke Iraq's army was before our "Shock and Awe" attack.

No, I didn't need to read any link to know what the outcome was of the military battle between Saddam's Iraq and the USA. The USA was very lucky the Iraqi's didn't use gas. Nonetheless, the USA won the battle, with very few casulties.

GREAT POINTS Samson. You took my VERY basic premise and expounded upon it. You see this is the type of awareness about Iraq that Rabbi either doesn't or REFUSES to acknowledge. There MUST be an awareness of the history and the factions present in a country if you plan on occupying it..........We blew it about as badley as we could have in Iraq. We sent TOO FEW troops........Bush KNEW this because every military advisor told him so. We disbanded the Iraqi army which Bush KNEW would be a bad decision because his military advisors TOLD him it would be. We took out the Iraqi Gov't and FAILED to stop massive looting and mayhem that took place directly following our occupation.......Again Bush was warned about this but he wanted to do it HIS way....ON THE CHEAP which in the long run has been FAR too expensive both in lives and $s.

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.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

You obviously have nothing to contribute here. All your so-called points have been answered, except those based on your own misinformation and stupidity.
Off you go to iggy, with your friends Sunniman and Meshogun.

You didn't dispute a SINGLE point I made about Iraq's military strength and I based ALL my points on YOUR source. Sad but true Rabid I READ the article and you SCANNED it for one sentence that supported your FATALY FLAWED conclusion.

 

[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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

.

I don't think that's even possible.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

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.

.

I don't think that's even possible.

What is that I hear?????? The sound of someone "ignoring" me. Give it up Rabbi until you can DISPUTE my points REFUTING your claim using YOUR OWN SOURCE then you come off as COMPLETELY IGNORant of what the ME is and is NOT. I really don't think you have a SINGLE clue about the ME yet you CONTINE to act as if you do proving OVER and OVER and OVER how foolish you are.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

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?

 

[sealybobo]

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.

.

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.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Samson......Would it surprise you to know that Rabbi and I used to agree on more things than not? There was a thread about the USS Liberty and all he could do was echo the Israeli claim that it was an ACCIDENT. If you know much about the attack then you know that ACCIDENTAL is one of the least likely words to acurately describe it.