Question for the left and right:

there is no victory. there was never victory or any chance of it.

where's the victory? A dictator has been replaced by total chaos... as many people dying horrifically as before and a country completely torn apart.

the country is no better off without hussein, in fact it is worse off on the whole.

there is no victory. there was never victory or any chance of it.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

there is no victory. there was never victory or any chance of it.

There is no Saddam Hussein running Iraq, due to the U.S. victory. That's a fact that will be in the history books.

Foofie wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

there is no victory. there was never victory or any chance of it.

There is no Saddam Hussein running Iraq, due to the U.S. victory. That's a fact that will be in the history books.

If removing Hussein from power constitutes victory in Iraq, why are we still there fighting?

After "victory" comes Reconstruction. Each Reconstruction has its own flavor. This one is apparently bitter, so to speak.

Foofie wrote:

After "victory" comes Reconstruction. Each Reconstruction has its own flavor. This one is apparently bitter, so to speak.

If reconstruction had been part of our goal, why are we doing such a bad job of it? Did we not do any pre-war reconstruction planning?

The United States, in conjunction with the United Kingdom, France and the U.S.S.R. accepted Germany's unconditional surrender in 1945. These countries thereupon divided Germany into 4 regions with each country acting as the occupying power in one of these regions. In 1949 the U.S., U.K. and France had reconstructed their zones to the point that they established the independent Federal Republic of Germany, i.e., West Germany.

The destruction of Iraq at the time that George Bush declared "mission accomplished" was not anything comparable to the total destruction that Germany had experienced by 1945. But almost 4 years after we invaded Iraq the country is still a war zone in places and has nothing like the political unity or economic prosperity that Germany had after 4 years of Anglo-American military occupation.

flaja wrote:

Foofie wrote:

After "victory" comes Reconstruction. Each Reconstruction has its own flavor. This one is apparently bitter, so to speak.

If reconstruction had been part of our goal, why are we doing such a bad job of it? Did we not do any pre-war reconstruction planning?

The United States, in conjunction with the United Kingdom, France and the U.S.S.R. accepted Germany's unconditional surrender in 1945. These countries thereupon divided Germany into 4 regions with each country acting as the occupying power in one of these regions. In 1949 the U.S., U.K. and France had reconstructed their zones to the point that they established the independent Federal Republic of Germany, i.e., West Germany.

The destruction of Iraq at the time that George Bush declared "mission accomplished" was not anything comparable to the total destruction that Germany had experienced by 1945. But almost 4 years after we invaded Iraq the country is still a war zone in places and has nothing like the political unity or economic prosperity that Germany had after 4 years of Anglo-American military occupation.

You're comparing Germans to Iraqis. I know nothing about Iraqis, but I thought Germany had a very cosmopolitan, cultured, sophisticated society prior to the Nazi regime. Is your comparison equating apples to apples?

Iraq on generally friendly terms with the US, similar to the relationship we have with Eygpt or Saudi Arabia.

engineer wrote:

Iraq on generally friendly terms with the US, similar to the relationship we have with Eygpt or Saudi Arabia.

That bad?