And the Winner Is...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Nice picture, taken at the end of the Iraq war after the defeat of Sadam's forces and begining of the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq. That is mission accomplished is it not? The enemy was defeated, his country occupied, that is victory. Occupation and insurgency is not a continuation of the war against Sadam's forces. Or are you trying to suggest that Sadam's army wasnt defeated, that the insurgency is a continuation of the defense of Sadam's military?

---

:laugh4:

The mission: Find WMDs.

Mission accomplished? Give me a break.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

:laugh4:

The goal: Find WMDs.

The mission: topple saddam

Mission accomplished? Yessiree.

The goal: oops, sorry

---

fixed :bow:

Oh and this is where you cry oil, hey thanks america! http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f20_1226167703

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

fixed :bow:

---

The story about us being there to topple Saddam only came about after it was obvious that there were no WMDs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

The story about us being there to topple Saddam only came about after it was obvious that there were no WMDs.

---

Hardly obvious. He destroyed the bulk of them after 1991 but what kind of evil dictator are you if you don't save a few for rainy days?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Ask yourself again what you are comparing. Then ask if you want to stand by your analogy.

You could have just said "we've over paid", but then you'd get into an argument that put a physical price tag on a metaphysical value.

---

Isn't the pleasure of winning the lottery a metaphysical value? But no doubt you'd compare it to the freedom of millions of people and consider it lesser. You are in effect putting a price tag on it. Just like bill gates looks at the r.o.i. of the lottery and puts his money elsewhere. How many people die a year from malaria? How much money would it take to save them? I'll stand by my analogy any day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Isn't the pleasure of winning the lottery a metaphysical value? But no doubt you'd compare it to the freedom of millions of people and consider it lesser. You are in effect putting a price tag on it. Just like bill gates looks at the r.o.i. of the lottery and puts his money elsewhere. How many people die a year from malaria? How much money would it take to save them? I'll stand by my analogy any day.

---

That does not sound very ideologically valuable. :smartass:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Isn't the pleasure of winning the lottery a metaphysical value? But no doubt you'd compare it to the freedom of millions of people and consider it lesser. You are in effect putting a price tag on it. Just like bill gates looks at the r.o.i. of the lottery and puts his money elsewhere. How many people die a year from malaria? How much money would it take to save them? I'll stand by my analogy any day.

---

So your argument is that because other things cost money, any money spent on the war in Iraq is wasted in the wrong direction. What was an acceptable price tag for the war in Iraq?

Free nations with un-obstructive governments will benefit from disease control the most and be able to perpetuate it beyond the acute western intervention. Spread the freedom first.

It depends on why the hell we went in there to be honest, in terms of the war on terror its a disiaster, Al Qaeda were enemy's with Saddam and had basically nothing to do with Iraq, now look at AQ in iraq, its a loss on that front

We replaced saddam at huge cost and have a potentially stable Iraq now, slight success....

WMDs... need i say more....

At the end of the day taking it all into account i don't now if i would declare victory... a somewhat stable iraq does seem possible, civil war isn't inevitable anymore and the death toll seems to have slowed somewhat, not exactly a victory but something good at least..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

WMDs... need i say more....

---

Hiroshima mon amour

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Hiroshima mon amour

---

What does that movie have to do with anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

It depends on why the hell we went in there to be honest, in terms of the war on terror its a disiaster, Al Qaeda were enemy's with Saddam and had basically nothing to do with Iraq, now look at AQ in iraq, its a loss on that front

We replaced saddam at huge cost and have a potentially stable Iraq now, slight success....

WMDs... need i say more....

At the end of the day taking it all into account i don't now if i would declare victory... a somewhat stable iraq does seem possible, civil war isn't inevitable anymore and the death toll seems to have slowed somewhat, not exactly a victory but something good at least..

---

Do you view insurance costs as a waste of money if there is no catastrophe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Do you view insurance costs as a waste of money if there is no catastrophe?

---

So now we're basing a foreign policy on..... hypothetical stuff?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

What does that movie have to do with anything?

---

What's it to you how I adress LittleGrizly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

What's it to you how I adress LittleGrizly?

---

:laugh4:

The message that is vindicated is that even though it was wrong to invade Iraq in the first place, once it's done it's morally required and possible to create a new state that's stable and more benign than Saddam's regime. Dubya was wrong, and the "defeatists" were too (that includes the Obama we saw until about a year ago)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

:laugh4:

The mission: Find WMDs.

Mission accomplished? Give me a break.

---

Changing your definition of victory when one is disproved? Earlier you stated that victory was the passification of insurgent forces in Iraq.

Wmd's was used as the casus beli to invade iraq. The objective, and victory, is still the defeat of the current regime and conquest of it's territory. Conquering, occupying and then capturing the leader of the country is victory. Now controling said territory is another topic all together, but it is seperate to victory in the war.

Germany wasnt completely pacified when the time the surrender was signed, in fact it was a long time till it was. But that did not mean the allie's had not achieved victory over Germany.

The war was a success, an amazing success at that. Now though we have a different problem, keeping together a country that was only being held together by the brutality and torcher of a minority, and trying to heal the wounds caused. It's going to take a long time, and I hope that we are not so cold as to abandon them when we have destroyed the only thing keeping it in one piece.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Changing your definition of victory when one is disproved? Earlier you stated that victory was the passification of insurgent forces in Iraq.

Wmd's was used as the casus beli to invade iraq. The objective, and victory, is still the defeat of the current regime and conquest of it's territory. Conquering, occupying and then capturing the leader of the country is victory. Now controling said territory is another topic all together, but it is seperate to victory in the war.

Germany wasnt completely pacified when the time the surrender was signed, in fact it was a long time till it was. But that did not mean the allie's had not achieved victory over Germany.

The war was a success, an amazing success at that. Now though we have a different problem, keeping together a country that was only being held together by the brutality and torcher of a minority, and trying to heal the wounds caused. It's going to take a long time, and I hope that we are not so cold as to abandon them when we have destroyed the only thing keeping it in one piece.

---

We'll have alot of fun with Democrats in the White House. They've had 8 years of no-holds-barred, viscous criticism; as is their right.

They should prepare to defend the crown - it is a tough job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Changing your definition of victory when one is disproved? Earlier you stated that victory was the passification of insurgent forces in Iraq.

---

I only take that view when I feel like debating on somebody else's terms. That was not our goal and it never has been. it is just a convenient excuse to keep soldiers there...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

Wmd's was used as the casus beli to invade iraq. The objective, and victory, is still the defeat of the current regime and conquest of it's territory. Conquering, occupying and then capturing the leader of the country is victory. Now controling said territory is another topic all together, but it is seperate to victory in the war.

---

Sooo... that would make it... our goal? :idea:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigTex

The war was a success, an amazing success at that. Now though we have a different problem, keeping together a country that was only being held together by the brutality and torcher of a minority, and trying to heal the wounds caused. It's going to take a long time, and I hope that we are not so cold as to abandon them when we have destroyed the only thing keeping it in one piece.

---

The invasion was a success. The war is not over and will not be until the last soldier leaves.

Do you view insurance costs as a waste of money if there is no catastrophe?

The only thing i can think you mean is it was worth all the money to remove saddam just in case... which doesn't seem to convincing...

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
winner :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
what a pile of tripe

Iraq has been won if you redefine the vast majority of the objectives set out by the US at the start of the war , just like the surge has been a success if you ignore nearly all of the aims of the surge .
I like how the blogger says you are just one more major election away from victory , hmmmmmm..... one more election ......that was supposed to be in october wasn't it , it didn't happen did it , why didn't it happen ?
But its OK because they are having an election , they have set another date , though it isn't going to be the major election that they are supposed to have already had is it , can anyone explain why the major election isn't happening ?
Once you can explain that you should be able to understand why the claim of a win is such a joke .


Nice blog though Tuff , go through the archives and see how many times that blog has declared victory since 2003 .:yes:

Quote:

---

The war in Iraq was won, the occupation and stabalization of the country though is a different matter.

---

That is where you are wrong Tex , the stabilisation of Iraq was the major objective of the war ...an Iraq that is free and democratic , an Iraq that doesn't have torture and exectution of dissidents , an Iraq that isn't a threat to its neighbours , an Iraq that isn't a refuge for terrorists , an Iraq that is a beacon that shines as an example throughout the region .

BTW now that the new revised SOFA has got cabinet approval , does the fact that the cabinet wouldn't give their approval until Sistani said it was OK mean that this "democracy" is really a theocracy like Iran with an Iranian backed mullah running the show as supreme leader ?