What Will We Have Won?

I keep hearing that we will win in Iraq... so.... when the dust settles what will we have won? Peace? Does anyone really believe that? Has there ever been a time in the recorded history of the world that there wasn't a war going on somewhere?

What will we have to hold in our hands as proof of victory?

Any ideas?

the thread title is "What Will We Have Won."

I answered this question clearly, and unambiguously, whether you choose to acknowledge my words or not. What we will have won is a transition from uncertainty about whether an evil dictator in Iraq still has doomsday weapons and development programs to certainty that that is not the case.

Stating it's from a template is irrelevant. The only relevant analysis is whether I'm correct or incorrect. He asked what we will have won and I mentioned something significant and worthwhile.

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

I keep hearing that we will win in Iraq... so.... when the dust settles what will we have won? Peace? Does anyone really believe that? Has there ever been a time in the recorded history of the world that there wasn't a war going on somewhere?

What will we have to hold in our hands as proof of victory?

Any ideas?

Brandon9000 wrote:

the thread title is "What Will We Have Won."

I answered this question clearly, and unambiguously, whether you choose to acknowledge my words or not. What we will have won is a transition from uncertainty about whether an evil dictator in Iraq still has doomsday weapons and development programs to certainty that that is not the case.

You want to discuss certainty vs. uncertainty in a thread about what was "won" in Iraq. You can't possibly believe that certainty or stability has become the status quo since the US led invasion.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Stating it's from a template is irrelevant. The only relevant analysis is whether I'm correct or incorrect. He asked what we will have won and I mentioned something significant and worthwhile.

....and I believe that you are incorrect due to the fact that you refer to your response template rather than referring to anything rational, logical, factual, measurable, empirical or otherwise.
That we can predict with 100% accuracy what your respose will be vis a vis the Iraq conflict is not (as Bush and his handlers would defend) a virtue, it's illustrative of selective acceptance of current events and inticates severe philosophical impediment.

There was no possibility of WMDs in Iraq at the time of the attack.

My personal merits or demerits are irrelevant and can't be used to discredit my ideas, no matter how much you wish to avoid debating my ideas themselves.

Now either debate the idea itself or concede defeat.

Brandon9000 wrote:

My personal merits or demerits are irrelevant and can't be used to discredit my ideas, no matter how much you wish to avoid debating my ideas themselves.

But my dear firend, it is you precious "ideas" (or, "idea") that I am attmpting to discredit.
That you and this current administration believe that there was a real possibility that Hussein had WMD was based on a prejudiced and biased response to any such questions he could have come up with vis a vis WMD.
A flawed premise simply can not result in a valid conclusion.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Now either debate the idea itself or concede defeat.

This is not a thread in which I am attempting to emerge victorious Brandon. It is aparent to me and everyone on this board that your mantra has been well rehersed and propaganda has become true belief.
The loser is not going to be me, for it is you who fails on every occasion to be bothered by any facts on the matter.
I do not lose anything when that happens.

Brandon, you are out of it. I have nothing more to say directly to you.

There was no possibility of WMDs in Iraq at the time of the attack.

I certainly do assert that he might have still had WMD and development programs at the time of the invasion. If you believe that this is false, then please give a reason, or, indeed, no matter what rationalization you use, you will have lost the argument, whether you think you are competing or not.[/b]

What oil?

I said that by invading we gained certainty that Iraq had no WMD.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I certainly do assert that he might have still had WMD and development programs at the time of the invasion. If you believe that this is false, then please give a reason, or, indeed, no matter what rationalization you use, you will have lost the argument, whether you think you are competing or not.[/b]

You wonder why no one wants to debate anything with you.
You claim that they storm off in huff, yet leave no room for rational debate.
You're so hung up on emerging victorious and are so steadfast in maintaining the validity of proven falshoods that no amount of logic and no mountain of facts will suffice.
I too have no time to discuss any such matters with any such individual...

uhhh, "mad dictator" gone, and WMD myth debunked.
Please elaborate on the concept of "victory" to this simpleton, because with these two issues already settled, has victory not already been reached....by your definition?

Brandon9000 wrote:

I said that by invading we gained certainty that Iraq had no WMD.

... Even if they did have WMD's, they could never have delivered, and that was common knowledge before the war.

They could have delivered them. All they had to do was take them apart, smuggle the pieces into an American city, and re-assemble them.