0
   

Why do most of the liberals view Iraq as a failure?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Jeremiah
 
Reply Tue 20 Mar, 2007 09:50 pm
Is it because larger number of deaths inflicted on the Americans?

If that's the case...then WW1, WW2 and the Civil war were failures also.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 8,476 • Replies: 174
No top replies

 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Mar, 2007 09:51 pm
Please explain your question.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Mar, 2007 10:14 pm
Re: Why do most of the liberals view Iraq as a failure?
Jeremiah wrote:
Is it because larger number of deaths inflicted on the Americans?

If that's the case...then WW1, WW2 and the Civil war were failures also.


The Civil War started in 1861 and ran into 1865.
The U.S. entered WWI in 1917 and it was over on 1918.
The U.S. entered WWII in 1942 and it was over on 1945.

The U.S. has already in Iraq longer than any of those wars lasted and there is no apparent end in sight. People, be they liberals or conservatives, generally don't have toi much problem committing to war (provided they see it as a necessary and just action) but they do expect a conclusion at some point.

No one in their right mind supports an open-ended war.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Mar, 2007 10:25 pm
I think it's safe to say that even a lot of Republicans can call the war a dismal failure also! This is a war that didn't have to happen. It was lost before the first shot was fired. The Iraqi citizens were no threat to us. Nonetheless, we have made it our duty to kill over 200,000 of them. And the death of 3,000 American soldiers. In dollar amounts, this war has cost 6 times in today's dollars what the entire WWII cost. And we are still paying. This is a war the US started for no good reason. This war has proven the weakness of the US Military. We have proven that we can't even defeat a tiny country with limited arms. I could go on but let's end there.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Mar, 2007 10:33 pm
Re: Why do most of the liberals view Iraq as a failure?
Jeremiah wrote:
Why do most liberals view Iraq as a failure?

Is it because larger number of deaths inflicted on the Americans?


It could be something to do with the invasion being illegal, immoral, counter-productive and stupid, misbegotten in arrogance and hubris, and suffering from the effects of very poor planning and erroneous assumptions about the nature and scale of the problem.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Mar, 2007 11:48 pm
It remains a failure because it was not necessary for America's safety. The US is less secure now than it was four years ago. All that happened is brave young men and women, 27,000 of them either died or suffered wounds. The US Army and National Guard are at the breaking point where 19 of 20 Army brigades are overseas, and has forced the US into foreign policy decisions that remain less than optimum for our national security. We can no longer project our strength in a myriad of places where we once could.

This war has cost the US taxpayer nearly $1,000,000,000 (that is 10 % of our yearly GDP) when the costs are projected out for medical care and refurbishing of weapons and equipment.

Did we do it to fight a war to end all wars? No.

Did we do it to fight Hitler and world domination by Nazis? No.

None of that, we engaged in a war for the absolute worst of reasons; simply because we could.

History will show that the invasion of Iraq by the US will lead to the same affect as the Athenian invasion of Syracuse and the destruction of its Golden Age.

We will lose our economic world empire as a result and through the following years George Bush's name will be cursed by generations of American children much as Roman children cursed the name of Sulla as the man who destroyed the Republic and our world empire for vainglorious reasons.

And I pray each night that the man dies the most hideous death imaginable because if it.

I am a patriot who wants America to be the best country in the world, as William Bradford said 400 years ago, to be a city on a hill, shining its light on the world, a place for all nations to emulate.

Let that be our strength, let that be our legacy.
0 Replies
 
chiso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 12:48 am
War is different now. It's fought with political correctness.
If we (US) fought this war the way we did WWI and WWII it would have been over the same calendar year it started.

IF we're going to fight a WAR - I say fight to win it and end it, as soon as possible. Take names and questions later.

War is grave and ominous, an ultimate declaration. Whether I agree with the reasoning of the declaration or not - if we're putting our troops lives on the line - we owe it to them to fight it, win it, and end it. As soon as possible. But we don't do that any more.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 01:05 am
Well, that's nice and vaporous.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 01:43 am
Yeah, the terrorists also believe in the idea of "at any cost."
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 03:30 am
NickFun wrote:
This war has proven the weakness of the US Military. We have proven that we can't even defeat a tiny country with limited arms. I could go on but let's end there.
What an absurd thing to say. The United States Military dominated the Iraqi Military like a lawnmower going over grass. That we have now undertaken the daunting, perhaps equally unnecessary in your mind, task of helping the Iraqis transition into a democracy, hopefully without a full-blown Civil War taking place... and are struggling against the tide in that effort; in no way suggests the United States Military is anything but the most powerful force mankind has ever known. Get a clue.

kuvasz wrote:
History will show that the invasion of Iraq by the US will lead to the same affect as the Athenian invasion of Syracuse and the destruction of its Golden Age.

We will lose our economic world empire as a result and through the following years...
Am I ever glad I don't have to live in your demented world of inevitable doom.

Chiso is correct in pointing out the change in Military Tactics. Google up some photo's and Death Toll Stats of Dresden or Hiroshima and see if you can see the difference. Had we elected to "Go Roman"; there would scarcely be an Iraq left to fight over.

InfraBlue wrote:
Yeah, the terrorists also believe in the idea of "at any cost."
So did John F. Kennedy. "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty...
...To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required?-not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich...
... All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin...
...My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."

This truly remarkable speech can be read, heard or even watched, in its entirety, by clicking here
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 03:38 am
Re: Why do most of the liberals view Iraq as a failure?
McTag wrote:
Jeremiah wrote:
Why do most liberals view Iraq as a failure?

Is it because larger number of deaths inflicted on the Americans?


It could be something to do with the invasion being illegal, immoral, counter-productive and stupid, misbegotten in arrogance and hubris, and suffering from the effects of very poor planning and erroneous assumptions about the nature and scale of the problem.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 04:02 am
I'm somewhat liberal -- more liberal than conservative, at any rate. I don't consider the war a failure. We won it in short order, just a few weeks and saddam Hussein's regime was toppled, a bit more time and a new, supposedlu US-friendly, government was elected. How's that a failure?

So, if it was such a great success, what the hell are our military forces still doing in Iraq? They should have been brought home years ago.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 04:20 am
It's not liberals. Anyone who can f@cking SEE know's that Iraq is a complete friggin' disaster.
0 Replies
 
George
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 06:43 am
There are so many definitions of "success" and "failure" in Iraq, that one
can simply choose the one he likes and declare success or failure
accordingly.

Plan B, of course, is to pass over the definition of terms and drone on and
on and on...
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 07:01 am
Maybe this will get you a clue to your question.

Quote:
'Deteriorating lives'

The poll was commissioned by the BBC, ABC News, ARD German TV and USA Today. It was conducted by D3 Systems.


People were questioned in more than 450 neighbourhoods and villages across all 18 provinces between 25 February and 5 March.
The findings contrast sharply with those of a similar poll in 2005, a year when elections were taking place.

Asked now whether they thought reconstruction efforts in Iraq had been effective, some 67% said they felt they had not.

And just 38% said the situation in the country was better than before the 2003 war, while 50% said it was worse.

Many said the quality of their lives was deteriorating, with a particularly high proportion (88%) saying electricity and fuel supplies were poor.

Security remains a serious concern, with only 26% saying they felt safe in their own neighbourhoods.

More than half of those polled said that they have not gone to markets or crowded areas and often stayed at home in order to avoid trouble.

Many said they often stopped their children from going to school.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 07:09 am
Do you listen to the music the liberals have been producing lately? A bunch of whiney, depressing, worthless ****. There's no wonder they're act the way they do - Zoloft enemas.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 08:14 am
Simply because it is. Sure we toppled Saddam. And in his place, he was replaced by a far worse civil war.
No matter how many troops we station in Iraq it is a no win situation for the US.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 08:42 am
I suppose the Iraq war COULD be viewed as a success. We have succeeded in killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. We have succeeded in destroying a nation. We have succeeded in making ourselves the enemy of the entire world. We have succeeded in spending hundreds of billions of dollars. You see? As someone mentioned, it's just you definition of "success".
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 09:17 am
Jeremia wrote:
Why do most of the liberals view Iraq as a failure?

Speaking as a libertarian who opposes this war, the main reasons I consider it a failure are the following:
  1. The US missed its most important war goal, to dismantle Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, because there were no weapons of mass destruction to dismantle.
  2. The US missed its next most important war goal, which was to weaken terrorism. As a result of America's invasion, Al Quaeda now has a strong base in Iraq, which it hadn't before it.
  3. The US withdrew forces from Afghanistan to fight the war in Iraq, thwarting its attempts to defeat the Taliban and Al Quaeda there.
  4. Iraq is sliding into a three-way civil war as a direct result of the invasion
  5. Nobody knows the outcome of this civil war, but under most realistic scenarios it will likely be worse than Iraq under Saddam -- and that's saying something.

I would expect that liberals consider the war a failure for similar reasons as this libertarian does.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Mar, 2007 09:23 am
It's posts like this:

chiso wrote:
War is different now. It's fought with political correctness.
If we (US) fought this war the way we did WWI and WWII it would have been over the same calendar year it started.

IF we're going to fight a WAR - I say fight to win it and end it, as soon as possible. Take names and questions later.

War is grave and ominous, an ultimate declaration. Whether I agree with the reasoning of the declaration or not - if we're putting our troops lives on the line - we owe it to them to fight it, win it, and end it. As soon as possible. But we don't do that any more.


and this:

Quote:
What an absurd thing to say. The United States Military dominated the Iraqi Military like a lawnmower going over grass. That we have now undertaken the daunting, perhaps equally unnecessary in your mind, task of helping the Iraqis transition into a democracy, hopefully without a full-blown Civil War taking place... and are struggling against the tide in that effort; in no way suggests the United States Military is anything but the most powerful force mankind has ever known. Get a clue.


Show just how moronic some people can be when it comes to modern warfare.

Warfare isn't about blowing up as much stuff as you can, or killing as many as you can. It isn't about the biggest guns, most troops, most missiles, or best intelligence. It's about accomplishing the objective. And we have decidedly failed to do that in Iraq. In spectacularly horrible and expensive fashion.

Chiso, who should we attack with more force? Should we kill indiscriminately? Should we just blow up entire neighborhoods where we expect insurgents and terrorists to live? How do we tell the good guys from the bad guys?

I'd like to know exactly who you propose we kill, and what we should do in order to secure Iraq and turn them into a peace-loving democracy - remember, the objective. Specifically. It's easy to talk about taking the gloves off, but difficult to talk about how that would actually help.,

O'Bill, why don't you get a clue and realize that having the most powerful force manking has ever known doesn't mean dick if you can't use that force to accomplish the objective. Which you know we aren't doing.

The war in Iraq was a mistake from day -30 and remains so. No evidence of WMD or active WMD programs was uncovered. Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone at all. Countless lives, innocent and non, have been wasted in this stupid war and just think of the prestige the US has lost. It has been an exercise in idiocy from the beginning and continues to be so.

Those of you who support it are more guilty than those who fight against it, but we share some guilt to. That's what this war has done; put blood on all of our hands.

Cycloptichorn
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
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why do most of the liberals view Iraq as a failure?
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/12/2026 at 06:04:52
▲ ▼