I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that we should have never even went to Iraq to begin with?

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that the war in Iraq is both illegal and unjust?

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that American lives are more important tha Iraqi lives?

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that we should have never even went to Iraq to begin with?

No, but I believe we should have never gone

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that the war in Iraq is both illegal and unjust?

Damn tootin'

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that American lives are more important tha Iraqi lives?

If you are now claiming you only want the US to pull out immediately, perhaps you should start over and rename this thread to something that better signifies your "true" meaning. "I want the US to lose the war in Iraq" doesn't seem to carry the meaning you are now trying to nuance. Neither does ... "So, can an American want the United States to lose the war in Iraq and still be patriotic? Yes. And I am one of those Americans."

Maybe a better title for your thread would have been "I want the US to immediately withdraw from Iraq."

Then we could later debate whether such action would signify a "defeat" to the US. You could have gone on to claim to be patriotic for thinking such thoughts, and I could have saved a lot of time responding to you .... but perhaps that was your goal all along.

Others might have responded, for there are no doubt many who think you must support the US in everything it does in order to be a patriot. I am not one of those. But if you want the US to "lose," you are not a patriot.

McGentrix wrote:

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that we should have never even went to Iraq to begin with?

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that the war in Iraq is both illegal and unjust?

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that American lives are more important tha Iraqi lives?

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'll be happy to answer your questions, McG, as long as you promise to answer the questions posed by DrewDad. That's only fair, doncha' think?

Here they are again:

1. Show me a practical winning scenario. (What has to happen, how long does it have to last.)
2. Give me odds.
3. Give me casualty estimates.
4. Tell me again that it constitutes winning.

joefromchicago wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that we should have never even went to Iraq to begin with?

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that the war in Iraq is both illegal and unjust?

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that American lives are more important tha Iraqi lives?

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I'll be happy to answer your questions, McG, as long as you promise to answer the questions posed by DrewDad. That's only fair, doncha' think?

Here they are again:

1. Show me a practical winning scenario. (What has to happen, how long does it have to last.)
2. Give me odds.
3. Give me casualty estimates.
4. Tell me again that it constitutes winning.

If I had good answers for those questions, I wouldn't be sitting around posting on an internet forum...

I can give you my opinion on those questions if you'd like though.

A practical winning scenario would involve the death of terrorism and the insurgency. Backed by an Iraqi gov't that was elected and had the full support of the three major sects in Iraq the police force and army of Iraq that has been trained and equiped through the use of Iraqi money as a result of a newly created Iraqi infrastructure. Iraqi's will have completed most of those tasks and would again own their country.

Odds? On what? The odds are good the Patriots will be in the superbowl again. (Go Pats!)

Casualty estimates? No more than neccessary, but no fewer either.

Winning means attaining the goals set out by which ever side wins.

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that we should have never even went to Iraq to begin with?

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that the war in Iraq is both illegal and unjust?

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that American lives are more important tha Iraqi lives?

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that we should have never even went to Iraq to begin with?

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that the war in Iraq is both illegal and unjust?

Is it the opinion of the liberals here that American lives are more important tha Iraqi lives?

A practical winning scenario would involve the death of terrorism and the insurgency. Backed by an Iraqi gov't that was elected and had the full support of the three major sects in Iraq the police force and army of Iraq that has been trained and equiped through the use of Iraqi money as a result of a newly created Iraqi infrastructure. Iraqi's will have completed most of those tasks and would again own their country.

Ticomaya wrote:

...

Maybe a better title for your thread would have been "I want the US to immediately withdraw from Iraq."

If the thread had been entitled "I want the US to withdraw from Iraq," would you have even paid any attention to it?

Ticomaya wrote:

Then we could later debate whether such action would signify a "defeat" to the US. You could have gone on to claim to be patriotic for thinking such thoughts, and I could have saved a lot of time responding to you .... but perhaps that was your goal all along.

You could have saved both of us a lot of time if you had just read my posts.

Ticomaya wrote:

Others might have responded, for there are no doubt many who think you must support the US in everything it does in order to be a patriot. I am not one of those. But if you want the US to "lose," you are not a patriot.

So do you think that an immediate withdrawal of US troops would constitute a "defeat?" And if so, do you think that anyone who advocates such a withdrawal can still be a patriot?

McGentrix wrote:

A practical winning scenario would involve the death of terrorism and the insurgency. Backed by an Iraqi gov't that was elected and had the full support of the three major sects in Iraq the police force and army of Iraq that has been trained and equiped through the use of Iraqi money as a result of a newly created Iraqi infrastructure. Iraqi's will have completed most of those tasks and would again own their country.

In your opinion, then, would anything short of this scenario constitute a defeat?

A practical winning scenario would involve the death of terrorism and the insurgency. Backed by an Iraqi gov't that was elected and had the full support of the three major sects in Iraq the police force and army of Iraq that has been trained and equiped through the use of Iraqi money as a result of a newly created Iraqi infrastructure. Iraqi's will have completed most of those tasks and would again own their country. (emphasis added)

If I had good answers for those questions, I wouldn't be sitting around posting on an internet forum...

I can give you my opinion on those questions if you'd like though.

A practical winning scenario would involve the death of terrorism and the insurgency. Backed by an Iraqi gov't that was elected and had the full support of the three major sects in Iraq the police force and army of Iraq that has been trained and equiped through the use of Iraqi money as a result of a newly created Iraqi infrastructure. Iraqi's will have completed most of those tasks and would again own their country.

Odds? On what? The odds are good the Patriots will be in the superbowl again. (Go Pats!)

Casualty estimates? No more than neccessary, but no fewer either.

Winning means attaining the goals set out by which ever side wins.

You have a better idea of what my opinion is on this Set? Let's hear it...

The Sunnis shouldn't have any more impact on the January elections than did the Green party in this country's recent election.

U.S. Is Suggesting Guaranteed Role for Iraq's Sunnis

WASHINGTON, Dec. 25 - The Bush administration is talking to Iraqi leaders about guaranteeing Sunni Arabs a certain number of ministries or high-level jobs in the future Iraqi government if, as is widely predicted, Sunni candidates fail to do well in Iraq's elections.

An even more radical step, one that a Western diplomat said was raised already with an aide to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most revered Shiite cleric, is the possibility of adding some of the top vote-getters among the Sunni candidates to the 275-member legislature, even if they lose to non-Sunni candidates.

The diplomat said even some Shiite politicians who were followers of Ayatollah Sistani were concerned that a Pyrrhic victory by Shiites, effectively shutting Sunni Arabs out of power, could alienate Sunnis and lead to more internal strife. Shiites make up about 60 percent of Iraqis and were generally denied power under Saddam Hussein.

Strife was still the word in Baghdad, where the death toll from the explosion of a tanker truck on Christmas Eve rose to nine on Saturday, with 19 wounded, the Interior Ministry said. No group has taken responsibility for the attack, which apparently did not damage any obvious insurgent targets.