0
   

What does "Victory in Iraq" Mean?

 
 
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 07:24 pm
Conservatives are still using the phrase "We won't get out of Iraq until we have achieved victory"?

However I have know idea what this means. We have already gotten rid of Saddam, and we have ensured that there are no WMD's in Iraq. Is it possible that we have already achieved victory and can start leaving now?

If victory means a stable pro-US government, then staying in Iraq until we get victory means we will be staying in Iraq for a very long time. The problem, of course, is that a government is only stable if all major parts of society accept it (either through an agreed fairness, or through repression). The current government is going in the wrong direction-- getting less and less stable every day as sectarian violence continues rising daily.

So my question is simple. I would like your opinion on what specific things must happen before we can declare that we have "victory" in Iraq (and can start leaving).

I ask that if you respond, you be specific and measurable-- a good measure of victory would be something like-- less then 10 acts of political violence a day.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,005 • Replies: 23
No top replies

 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 07:41 pm
Re: What does "Victory in Iraq" Mean?
ebrown_p wrote:
Conservatives are still using the phrase "We won't get out of Iraq until we have achieved victory"?

However I have know idea what this means. We have already gotten rid of Saddam, and we have ensured that there are no WMD's in Iraq. Is it possible that we have already achieved victory and can start leaving now?

If victory means a stable pro-US government, then staying in Iraq until we get victory means we will be staying in Iraq for a very long time. The problem, of course, is that a government is only stable if all major parts of society accept it (either through an agreed fairness, or through repression). The current government is going in the wrong direction-- getting less and less stable every day as sectarian violence continues rising daily.

So my question is simple. I would like your opinion on what specific things must happen before we can declare that we have "victory" in Iraq (and can start leaving).

I ask that if you respond, you be specific and measurable-- a good measure of victory would be something like-- less then 10 acts of political violence a day.

Simple, when the Iraqis can & do take care of their own soveringty, their own safety, keep & build on the taste of democracy thay have been given.
This isn't a video game war, this is real stuff & there has never been nor will never be instant gratification in a war.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 07:54 pm
It's possible to establish a pro-US government in Iraq but at the point of a gun. A Democratically elected pro-US government in Iraq is far fetched. We're so hated in the ME that creating Democracies there is not likely to lead to any pro-US government.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 07:55 pm
I was looking for more specifics Madam, but we can start here...

The term sovereignty in this context is kind of silly.

You are basically saying, we will end the military occupation when you show sovereignty (kind of like the boss who said the beating would stop as soon as morale improves).

Of course the big problem with sovereignty is that very few Iraqi's want a sovereign Iraq. The Shiites want the power their majority (without the interference from the US and other outside powers) entitles them. The Sunnis want what is best for the Sunnis, and of course the Kurds will want a Kurdish state.

This means the US, being the only power in Iraq that wants a sovereign Iraq, is in the position of trying to force people to do what they don't want to do.

This is the recipe for a stalemate-- with the US imposing a fake government by force that most people don't want. This will mean the US troops will be their for a very very long time.

There is also the problem with Democracy. A real Democracy would mean that the people could demand whatever they wanted without interference from an occupying military power.

If the Iraqi people voted on it and the will of the majority would be respected, the American troops would be out tomorrow.

Hezballah and Hamas have both benefitted greatly from the Democracy we have brought to the region.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 10:09 pm
blueflame1 wrote:
It's possible to establish a pro-US government in Iraq but at the point of a gun. A Democratically elected pro-US government in Iraq is far fetched. We're so hated in the ME that creating Democracies there is not likely to lead to any pro-US government.

It took us 11 years to get our stuff together after the revolution.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 10:10 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
I was looking for more specifics Madam, but we can start here...

The term sovereignty in this context is kind of silly.

You are basically saying, we will end the military occupation when you show sovereignty (kind of like the boss who said the beating would stop as soon as morale improves).

Of course the big problem with sovereignty is that very few Iraqi's want a sovereign Iraq. The Shiites want the power their majority (without the interference from the US and other outside powers) entitles them. The Sunnis want what is best for the Sunnis, and of course the Kurds will want a Kurdish state.

This means the US, being the only power in Iraq that wants a sovereign Iraq, is in the position of trying to force people to do what they don't want to do.

This is the recipe for a stalemate-- with the US imposing a fake government by force that most people don't want. This will mean the US troops will be their for a very very long time.

There is also the problem with Democracy. A real Democracy would mean that the people could demand whatever they wanted without interference from an occupying military power.

If the Iraqi people voted on it and the will of the majority would be respected, the American troops would be out tomorrow.

Hezballah and Hamas have both benefitted greatly from the Democracy we have brought to the region.

What you're looking for is agreement with you, it ain't gonna happen, not from me, unless you get real & quit playing politics with this war.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 11:24 pm
A criterion for leaving would be establishing a stable democracy, pro-US or not, that's capable of defending itself in order that the democracy can be maintained.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 11:32 pm
Is it me or are LSMs post becoming even more insipid with each passing minute, hour and day?
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Dec, 2006 11:57 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
A criterion for leaving would be establishing a stable democracy, pro-US or not, that's capable of defending itself in order that the democracy can be maintained.


At this juncture, do you seriously believe that is possible?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 02:02 am
ebrown_p wrote:
If the Iraqi people voted on it and the will of the majority would be respected, the American troops would be out tomorrow.
When did the Iraqi people vote that they wanted the US to leave? It's clear they don't like us there, but I don't recall seeing any poll that suggested a majority wanted the US to leave right now. The US didn't elect their government; they did. No US troops were even in the buildings they voted in at the time.

Sectarian violence there is horrific... but do you think it would get better if we left? Do you think our security would improve if we left? Do you really think it acceptable to abandon the Iraqis, again?

Think of it as a controlled burn that has jumped the tarmac. Worse still, there are teams of arsonists promoting the now uncontrolled burn. It's not going as planned, but we can't just walk away from it. Not only do we need to find a way to get it back under control; we have to address the folks sneaking in to pour gasoline on the fire... and addressing the arsonists themselves is useless, unless we go after the folks who are sponsoring them.

Iraq was a fine place to start, but if the US wants to succeed, it can't stop there. All state sponsors of terrorism, including the assistants of insurgents in Iraq, need to believe they'll be held accountable.

Remember JFK's speech about the Cuban Missile Crisis? NO ONE wanted war with he Soviets, but it was paramount that the Soviets understood the US was prepared to go there.

Listen to THIS SPEECH
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 03:40 am
kelticwizard wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
A criterion for leaving would be establishing a stable democracy, pro-US or not, that's capable of defending itself in order that the democracy can be maintained.


At this juncture, do you seriously believe that is possible?

One tries to do the right thing, even when difficult. You don't just walk away from people who will suffer greatly because you do.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 04:33 am
Even so, one does not keep making beds in a burning house.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 06:58 am
Or keep rearranging deck chairs while the Titanic begins to list.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 07:27 am
Well, i thought this thread might be interesting, when i saw it yesterday. So far, however, i have not seen any concrete proposal from anyone who asserts that victory is possible, just vague comments.

Iraq is sovereign--but its sovereign character is suspended for so long as it is occupied by foreign troops, and for so long as a foreign power dictates to its putative government, regardless of how democratically chosen one asserts that that government be. Insisting that any government there be democratic and pro-U.S. is very likely insisting upon an oxymoron. The majority of the Iraqi population are Shi'ite, and their loyalties will inevitably be given to other Shi'ite states in their neighborhood. Right now, that means Iran, although it might include the Lebanon if Hezbollah succeeds in toppling the government and taking control of the current opposition. The likelihood that any truly democratically elected government in Iraq will be voluntarily pro-U.S. seems very low to me. Insisting upon it as a condition without which the United States troops will not leave is tantamount to saying that we're in there permanently. Of course, that's precisely what the neo-cons at PNAC intended from the beginning.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 07:33 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
kelticwizard wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
A criterion for leaving would be establishing a stable democracy, pro-US or not, that's capable of defending itself in order that the democracy can be maintained.


At this juncture, do you seriously believe that is possible?

One tries to do the right thing, even when difficult. You don't just walk away from people who will suffer greatly because you do.


With a half-a-million dead, the Iraqis seem to be suffering pretty-damned much without the prospect that we will just walk away. In fact, it looks like the American presence is proving far more lethal to them than was the former Ba'athist regime.

How about, rather than sniping at those with whom you disagree, you offer a concrete and realistic statement of what you consider "the right thing" is that we must do?
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 07:53 am
Re: What does "Victory in Iraq" Mean?
LoneStarMadam wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Conservatives are still using the phrase "We won't get out of Iraq until we have achieved victory"?

However I have know idea what this means. We have already gotten rid of Saddam, and we have ensured that there are no WMD's in Iraq. Is it possible that we have already achieved victory and can start leaving now?

If victory means a stable pro-US government, then staying in Iraq until we get victory means we will be staying in Iraq for a very long time. The problem, of course, is that a government is only stable if all major parts of society accept it (either through an agreed fairness, or through repression). The current government is going in the wrong direction-- getting less and less stable every day as sectarian violence continues rising daily.

So my question is simple. I would like your opinion on what specific things must happen before we can declare that we have "victory" in Iraq (and can start leaving).

I ask that if you respond, you be specific and measurable-- a good measure of victory would be something like-- less then 10 acts of political violence a day.

Simple, when the Iraqis can & do take care of their own soveringty, their own safety, keep & build on the taste of democracy thay have been given.
This isn't a video game war, this is real stuff & there has never been nor will never be instant gratification in a war.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 08:14 am
Setanta wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
kelticwizard wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
A criterion for leaving would be establishing a stable democracy, pro-US or not, that's capable of defending itself in order that the democracy can be maintained.


At this juncture, do you seriously believe that is possible?

One tries to do the right thing, even when difficult. You don't just walk away from people who will suffer greatly because you do.


With a half-a-million dead, the Iraqis seem to be suffering pretty-damned much without the prospect that we will just walk away. In fact, it looks like the American presence is proving far more lethal to them than was the former Ba'athist regime.

How about, rather than sniping at those with whom you disagree, you offer a concrete and realistic statement of what you consider "the right thing" is that we must do?

That was sniping? I answered the question asked in the post opening thread. Furthermore, even if they are suffering now, it's unrelated to the idea that we don't wish to abandon a feeble democracy and just watch it fall.
0 Replies
 
Zippo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 08:23 am
Quote:
What does "Victory in Iraq" Mean?


I don't know about Iraq, however, for the August 6, 1945 war with Japan, it was "Little Boy" and "Fat Man". We had to nuke em in order to save lives and win the war.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 08:29 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
That was sniping? I answered the question asked in the post opening thread. Furthermore, even if they are suffering now, it's unrelated to the idea that we don't wish to abandon a feeble democracy and just watch it fall.


No, you were not answering the question asked in the opening post, you were responding to KW's question about your response to the opening post--which was vague and non-specific. Your response to KW implied that anyone who does not think as you do intends not to "do the right thing," and intends to "just walk away from people who will suffer." I consider that to be partisan sniping.

E_brown's opening post asked for specifics, and you have provided none. In the context of his opening post: you have failed to specify what a stable democracy will be, and how you will determine that it is capable of defending itself. It was rather the point of this thread, if i read E_brown's opening post correctly, to get specifics, and not vague bromides. Specifically, he wrote:

So my question is simple. I would like your opinion on what specific things must happen before we can declare that we have "victory" in Iraq (and can start leaving).

I have emphasized the important word here which tends to beggar your initial response, to which KW had responded.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Dec, 2006 09:10 am
Setanta wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
That was sniping? I answered the question asked in the post opening thread. Furthermore, even if they are suffering now, it's unrelated to the idea that we don't wish to abandon a feeble democracy and just watch it fall.


No, you were not answering the question asked in the opening post, you were responding to KW's question about your response to the opening post--which was vague and non-specific. Your response to KW implied that anyone who does not think as you do intends not to "do the right thing," and intends to "just walk away from people who will suffer." I consider that to be partisan sniping.

E_brown's opening post asked for specifics, and you have provided none. In the context of his opening post: you have failed to specify what a stable democracy will be, and how you will determine that it is capable of defending itself. It was rather the point of this thread, if i read E_brown's opening post correctly, to get specifics, and not vague bromides. Specifically, he wrote:

So my question is simple. I would like your opinion on what specific things must happen before we can declare that we have "victory" in Iraq (and can start leaving).

I have emphasized the important word here which tends to beggar your initial response, to which KW had responded.

1. Use what words you like, there was no sniping. And, although I really dislike any reference to the poster in my arguments, I really must point out that you're in no position to comment on anyone else's sniping.

2. The post opening question was:

Quote:
I would like your opinion on what specific things must happen before we can declare that we have "victory" in Iraq (and can start leaving).


and I did indeed answer it with:

Brandon9000 wrote:
A criterion for leaving would be establishing a stable democracy, pro-US or not, that's capable of defending itself in order that the democracy can be maintained.


That is a specific thing that must happen. I'm not about to spend months attempting to write a blueprint on how to achieve it, nor will I define words that everyone understands the meaning of.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What does "Victory in Iraq" Mean?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/06/2021 at 08:55:43