How Do We Win in Iraq?

Brandon9000 wrote:

freedom4free wrote:
The only way for the US to come out of Iraq with any dignity is to stand up and say that what you have done there is an unmitigated disaster for Iraq and the US. Commit to rebuild at least some of the infrastructure that you have destroyed, in co-operation with whatever government emerges.
Say that you have learned that you do not want to be an imperial power. That you will instead use your position in the world to further democracy and human rights through co-operative projects with countries who can and will use help to benifit their people.
A good guy can admit to error and come out ahead in the end. Do it. A bunch of lies and posturing will not fool anyone, and make you look weak as well as dumb.

Actually, we're not going to say this because it isn't true. The invasion of Iraq was necessary to find out the truth about the WMD Iraq had had, and the next time we're in the same situation (negotiation has failed by any rational standard), invasion will be necessary again. Man's weapons technology is progressing at a speed such that it will quite possibly destroy him. The inevitable can at least be delayed if we keep doomsday weapons out of the hands of madmen like Hussein.

It's funny how every time someone asks a question about Iraq, you can't resist using it as an excuse to tell us all about how it was justified, whether that is the topic of the thread or not.

I can understand your obsession, but the question was "How do we win in Iraq?" Do you have an answer?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

"...had there been WMD..." is an oxymoron. You can't keep pushing WMDs that have never been found, no matter how often repeated.

"Had there been WMD" is only an oxymoron to a moron. The sentence has a clear meaning. When we invaded, we didn't know for sure whether there were still WMD in Iraq or not. Either result might have turned out to be the case. Now, you're going to tell me that "Had there been WMD" is not a meaningful English phrase? An oxymoron is a term which contains two elements which cannot both be true. "Had there been WMD" is not such a term. I'm saying, "but what if we hadn't checked and the proposition had been true, which is certainly a meaningful phrase. Your statement that this is not a legitimate speculation is absurd.

cicerone imposter wrote:

"Fear" is not justification to preemptively attack another sovereign country that kills thousands of innocent people.

1. The fear of possible grave, fatal danger certainly is a justification. Any entity is entitled to self-denfense, and the prospect of a madman amassing doomsday weapons is something that would be gravely dangerous if true.
2. It is usually said to be immoral to invade a sovereign nation because it denies the inhabitants the right to self-determination, but they lacked that before the invasion, since the country was being ruled by murderous thugs who dealt violently with citizen dissent.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
freedom4free wrote:
The only way for the US to come out of Iraq with any dignity is to stand up and say that what you have done there is an unmitigated disaster for Iraq and the US. Commit to rebuild at least some of the infrastructure that you have destroyed, in co-operation with whatever government emerges.
Say that you have learned that you do not want to be an imperial power. That you will instead use your position in the world to further democracy and human rights through co-operative projects with countries who can and will use help to benifit their people.
A good guy can admit to error and come out ahead in the end. Do it. A bunch of lies and posturing will not fool anyone, and make you look weak as well as dumb.

Actually, we're not going to say this because it isn't true. The invasion of Iraq was necessary to find out the truth about the WMD Iraq had had, and the next time we're in the same situation (negotiation has failed by any rational standard), invasion will be necessary again. Man's weapons technology is progressing at a speed such that it will quite possibly destroy him. The inevitable can at least be delayed if we keep doomsday weapons out of the hands of madmen like Hussein.

It's funny how every time someone asks a question about Iraq, you can't resist using it as an excuse to tell us all about how it was justified, whether that is the topic of the thread or not.

I can understand your obsession, but the question was "How do we win in Iraq?" Do you have an answer?

It may not have been the topic of the thread, but I am entitled to express disagreement with statements made in a post.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

kickycan wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
freedom4free wrote:
The only way for the US to come out of Iraq with any dignity is to stand up and say that what you have done there is an unmitigated disaster for Iraq and the US. Commit to rebuild at least some of the infrastructure that you have destroyed, in co-operation with whatever government emerges.
Say that you have learned that you do not want to be an imperial power. That you will instead use your position in the world to further democracy and human rights through co-operative projects with countries who can and will use help to benifit their people.
A good guy can admit to error and come out ahead in the end. Do it. A bunch of lies and posturing will not fool anyone, and make you look weak as well as dumb.

Actually, we're not going to say this because it isn't true. The invasion of Iraq was necessary to find out the truth about the WMD Iraq had had, and the next time we're in the same situation (negotiation has failed by any rational standard), invasion will be necessary again. Man's weapons technology is progressing at a speed such that it will quite possibly destroy him. The inevitable can at least be delayed if we keep doomsday weapons out of the hands of madmen like Hussein.

It's funny how every time someone asks a question about Iraq, you can't resist using it as an excuse to tell us all about how it was justified, whether that is the topic of the thread or not.

I can understand your obsession, but the question was "How do we win in Iraq?" Do you have an answer?

It may not have been the topic of the thread, but I am entitled to express disagreement with statements made in a post.

Again I ask, what's your answer to the topic question?

0 Replies

Good Luck with that one, Kicky. Brandon isn't here to have meaningful policy discussions; he's here to antagonize, and then attack the position of those who respond to his antagonism...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Only a moron would use an oxymoron. That's the reason why "moron" is part of the word.

0 Replies

Brandon has one boiler plate response to all queries about Bush's invasion of Iraq. It can be found on dozens of threads.

0 Replies

Sturgis wrote:

Even for leftist stupidity that was way out there.

You give no reason why my statement is untrue.

Feel free to post sometime when you have something of actual value to add.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

We would have been justified in invading Iraq the very first time Hussein violated his surrender treaty for Gulf War 1.

Maybe yes, maybe no. But that still has nothing to do with the issue that Bush claimed WMD's were his concern, yet he ordered out of Iraq the very inspectors who could provide him with a definitive answer about their existence.

Brandon9000 wrote:

....but when they [the UN] demonstrated that they lacked the resolve to enforce their own mandates....

Allowing inspectors to find out for sure if Iraq had WMD's counts as lack of resolve in your world?

Brandon9000 wrote:

A dozen years had passed and now Hussein was saying that all remaining weapons had been destroyed, but that he had no real proof, which is something he easily could have had.

That is simply a lie. Hans Blix demonstrated that in the second round of inspections, this proof was being shown in many instances, and progress was being made in the other instances when Bush ordered the inspectors out and invaded.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Since the consequences of Iraq managing to hide the weapons well enough to continue to fool the inspectors might include the use of a WMD in a city, the matter had to be taken as gravely serious.

Then why did Bush agree to the inspections in the first place if he felt they could be fooled?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Had Hussein merely been hiding the weapons better, and had Bush not invaded, then when WMD were later used to annihilate entire cities...

Once again, why did Bush agree to inspections in the first place if he felt that Hussein could have successfully hid them? And once again, why did Bush invade just when the very proof of Iraq's disposal of their WMD's was being provided to inspectors?

0 Replies

I am tired of the bullshit about "WMD" Specifically, those who gave Bush a tentative go ahead were concerned about "mushroom clouds." That all turned out to be total bullshit. So Brandon, stop trying to feed us your "probabilty of WMD theory." It is crap, everyone knows it's crap and all you are doing at this point is exposing your appalling ignorance.

0 Replies

When we review the history of the inspections, the following facts become clear.

A) Bush claimed to be concerned about WMD's, yet ordered the very inspectors out who could tell him for sure if they were there.

B) Bush ordered the inspectors out just when they were getting the proof Bush supposedly was looking for, proof of Iraq's disposal of the WMD's.

It is quite obvious that Bush invaded when he did because it was becoming uncomfortably clear to him that very possibly there WERE no WMD's in Iraq, but he didn't want the invasion frenzy he had whipped the country into to go unused.

0 Replies

And he couldn't claim to be the "war president."

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
kickycan wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
freedom4free wrote:
The only way for the US to come out of Iraq with any dignity is to stand up and say that what you have done there is an unmitigated disaster for Iraq and the US. Commit to rebuild at least some of the infrastructure that you have destroyed, in co-operation with whatever government emerges.
Say that you have learned that you do not want to be an imperial power. That you will instead use your position in the world to further democracy and human rights through co-operative projects with countries who can and will use help to benifit their people.
A good guy can admit to error and come out ahead in the end. Do it. A bunch of lies and posturing will not fool anyone, and make you look weak as well as dumb.

Actually, we're not going to say this because it isn't true. The invasion of Iraq was necessary to find out the truth about the WMD Iraq had had, and the next time we're in the same situation (negotiation has failed by any rational standard), invasion will be necessary again. Man's weapons technology is progressing at a speed such that it will quite possibly destroy him. The inevitable can at least be delayed if we keep doomsday weapons out of the hands of madmen like Hussein.

It's funny how every time someone asks a question about Iraq, you can't resist using it as an excuse to tell us all about how it was justified, whether that is the topic of the thread or not.

I can understand your obsession, but the question was "How do we win in Iraq?" Do you have an answer?

It may not have been the topic of the thread, but I am entitled to express disagreement with statements made in a post.

Again I ask, what's your answer to the topic question?

First of all, I do not accept the premise of the question - that we are not winning. Most wars won in the past have not, in fact, been quick, surgical wins. Usually they contain numerous mistakes, and we sometimes only win because we are willing to stick it out.

I would, however, be willing to answer the question, "How can we win better in Iraq?" First of all, I must say that I never claimed to be a military genius. If you want me to opine on the subject, however, I will. I think we should send in a lot more troops and equipment, and be a lot more energetic in pressing our case, including the use of spying and psychological warfare.

Secondly, it is very hard to win any war when millions of people at home are screaming that entering the war was a hideous miscarriage of justice, that we should leave immediately, demanding the immediate statement of an exit strategy, and trumpeting everything as a setback that could conceivably be regarded as one. This emboldens the enemy and undermines our own will to fight. Dissent is good, but it shouldn't include giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war. Do you think the "Time Magazine" cover discourages Al Qaeda???

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

freedom4free wrote:
The only way for the US to come out of Iraq with any dignity is to stand up and say that what you have done there is an unmitigated disaster for Iraq and the US. Commit to rebuild at least some of the infrastructure that you have destroyed, in co-operation with whatever government emerges.
Say that you have learned that you do not want to be an imperial power. That you will instead use your position in the world to further democracy and human rights through co-operative projects with countries who can and will use help to benifit their people.
A good guy can admit to error and come out ahead in the end. Do it. A bunch of lies and posturing will not fool anyone, and make you look weak as well as dumb.

Actually, we're not going to say this because it isn't true. The invasion of Iraq was necessary to find out the truth about the WMD Iraq had had, and the next time we're in the same situation (negotiation has failed by any rational standard), invasion will be necessary again. Man's weapons technology is progressing at a speed such that it will quite possibly destroy him. The inevitable can at least be delayed if we keep doomsday weapons out of the hands of madmen like Hussein.

We are in Iraq because the oil industry is in the government. The same government that gave Irag the technology, Chemicals and equipment for the weapons we are now going in to get and can't find. When Hussein decided not to play ball with the U.S. anymore only then did he become a madman. If I remember right Iraq let the inspectors in under pressure. The inspectors were finding nothing. When Bush saw that Iraq was cooperating with the inspectors he gave them 48 hours to leave the country. Bush (the oil industry)did not want diplomacy to work because he wanted to control the resources in that area. They also want to build a pipeline through Afganistan. Thats why they fabricated intelligence and gave 48 hours for inspectors to leave the country.

People believe Iraq got rid of their WMD project because they knew they had to. If they could ever do it anyway. Now that we have attacked the way we did everybody has a WMD program because they see us the same way we saw Germany in WWII. The world in cooperating against us which is why the other higherups in our government tried to tell Bush and the gang it was a bad Idea to attack. Many intelligent people from the top to the bottom of our government predicted all of this and warned the administration of the outcome of such an action, and they were right and they were dismissed and here we are.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
freedom4free wrote:
The only way for the US to come out of Iraq with any dignity is to stand up and say that what you have done there is an unmitigated disaster for Iraq and the US. Commit to rebuild at least some of the infrastructure that you have destroyed, in co-operation with whatever government emerges.
Say that you have learned that you do not want to be an imperial power. That you will instead use your position in the world to further democracy and human rights through co-operative projects with countries who can and will use help to benifit their people.
A good guy can admit to error and come out ahead in the end. Do it. A bunch of lies and posturing will not fool anyone, and make you look weak as well as dumb.

Actually, we're not going to say this because it isn't true. The invasion of Iraq was necessary to find out the truth about the WMD Iraq had had, and the next time we're in the same situation (negotiation has failed by any rational standard), invasion will be necessary again. Man's weapons technology is progressing at a speed such that it will quite possibly destroy him. The inevitable can at least be delayed if we keep doomsday weapons out of the hands of madmen like Hussein.
We are in Iraq because the oil industry is in the government...

Give me some evidence of this.

Amigo wrote:

When Hussein decided not to play ball with the U.S. anymore only then did he become a madman.

I don't know, it seems to me that he was when he murdered and/or tortured and/or raped a million of his citizens. Don't you think so?

Amigo wrote:

...Bush (the oil industry)did not want diplomacy to work because he wanted to control the resources in that area.

Evidence that this wild speculation is true? Real evidence?

Amigo wrote:

...Now that we have attacked the way we did everybody has a WMD program because they see us the same way we saw Germany in WWII.

Evidence?

Amigo wrote:

The world in cooperating against us which is why the other higherups in our government tried to tell Bush and the gang it was a bad Idea to attack. Many intelligent people from the top to the bottom of our government predicted all of this and warned the administration of the outcome of such an action, and they were right and they were dismissed and here we are.

You're wrong. The potential consequences of Hussein with a stockpile of serious WMD outweigh almost any other consideration. The invasion was necessary by any rational standard.

0 Replies

It's always the oil, and here's proof:

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=ffca5a29cb684c95

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's always the oil, and here's proof:

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=ffca5a29cb684c95

This seems mostly like a series of unsubstantiated claims to me, but why don't you pick one or two specific examples of "proof" from it and re-quote them in a post? Giving a link isn't much of a defense of thesis.

0 Replies

How about the simple fact that this administration protected the oil wells when they first occupied the country, and nothing else. Not the borders, not the antiquities, not the munitions, and no sufficient equipment and foot soldiers on the ground. If it looks like oil, flows like oil, and smells like oil, it must be oil. It didn't seem not much else mattered.

0 Replies

U.S. Protected Oil Ministry While Looters Destroyed Museum

by Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles and David Keys, Archaeology Correspondent, The Independent/UK
April 14th, 2003

The United States was fiercely criticized around the world yesterday for its failure to protect Baghdad's Iraq National Museum where, under the noses of US troops, looters stole or destroyed priceless artifacts up to 7,000 years old.

Not a single pot or display case remained intact, according to witnesses, after a 48-hour rampage at the museum - perhaps the world's greatest repository of Mesopotamian culture. US forces intervened only once, for half an hour, before leaving and allowing the looters to continue.

Archaeologists, poets, cultural historians and international legal experts, including many in America itself, accused Washington of violating the 1954 Hague Convention on the protection of artistic treasures in wartime.

British experts were distraught at the loss. "This is a terrible tragedy. Iraq is the cradle of civilization and this was a museum which contained a large portion of the world's cultural heritage. The British Museum stands ready to help our Iraqi colleagues in whatever way we can," Dr John Curtis said. He is keeper of the Department of the Ancient Near East at the British Museum, which holds an important collection of Mesopotamian treasures.

Dr Jeremy Black a specialist on ancient Iraq at Oxford University, said: "What has befallen Baghdad and Mosul museums was foreseen by archaeologists worldwide. Meetings were even held with the American military before the war to warn of the extreme likelihood of looting should an invasion occur.

"Sadly, however, the occupying forces failed to implement in practical terms the measures to protect Iraq's and the world's cultural heritage. US and British forces must now act immediately to safeguard what remains in the museums and at key archaeological sites."

A Chicago law professor, Patty Gerstenblith of the DePaul School, said the rampage was "completely inexcusable and avoidable".

In Iraq itself, art experts and ordinary demonstrators made clear they were far angrier at President George Bush than they were at the looters, noting that the only building US forces seemed genuinely interested in protecting was the Ministry of Oil.

0 Replies

C.I., dont play a suckers game. you will be forced to document every single item and he is unwilling do the same for his position, and even then, as this weirdo just did to you, your documentation will be cast a side with a "so what?"

best force your adversary explain his definition of "winning" in iraq, how it relates to what was purported the reason bush invaded, have him define the measurement for "winning" and provide relavent benchmarks that are quantifyable. if he can't do that, then any claim of "winning" in iraq is just so much smoke being blown up your a$$ .

i just think the guy is intellectually incapable of admitting he was snookered, you are wasting your breath and time on the likes of such. a lot of ego is riding on this for him and to admit he is wrong is simply too much for such a fragile mind.

give it up. you wil get more objectivity from your dog.

0 Replies

How Do We Win in Iraq?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know