Iraq: "A War We Just Might Win"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Mother and apple pie question.

---

True enough. My point in posing that question is that the U.S. citizen who would prefer such a loss is bringing in a VERY different (and to me disturbing) frame of reference than the person who would like to see us succeed but believes that we're going about it entirely wrong.

I did lay out my stipulations to note that I was aware of his expressed views on the subject to date and that I was not seeking to argue against them with this question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Kafir':
Please answer me this.
Stipulated:

1. You view the war in Iraq as a bad policy choice from the outset.

2. You view the war in Iraq as effectively unwinnable and a pointless waste of lives.

3. You view the Bush administration as being a combination of inept and/or actively evil in their reasons for pursuing a conflict in Iraq.

4. You believe the Bush administration to be running roughshod over the Constitution and worthy of impeachment.

Those points having been stipulated,

As of this moment, would you prefer a US victory in Iraq or a US defeat?

---

To answer:
1) Absolutely true - and today so do +80% of Americans and +85% of Iraqis. Who does that leave, but the neo-cons that started this quagmire and their die-hard robotons.

2) Again, define win. We already won the war, it's the occupation we are losing.

3) and your point is? They aren't?

4) Yes. I did start a seperate thread on why Bush and Cheney needed to be impeached. Regardless, all the GOPists players remain in place and we all know they would simply be pardoned before any serious charges were fully investigated. So, what would be the point.

U.S defeat? Obviously you chose to ignore my post about the "Battle of Algiers", or opted to believe it is somehow a completely different scenario from our quagmire in Iraq. I mean, the French had many more advantages in Algiers - than we do in Iraq, and they ultimately lost. They to won all their battles and still lost.:wall: We've already been defeated, some just don't want to accept or realize it.

As to defining a victory in Iraq, Brenus. It must remain up to the Iraqi's themselves to define one, no one else.

It would be wonderful if suddenly all the imaginings of Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice and friends became reality - a free secular-democratic Iraq, that Iraq became the cornerstone for spreading democracy throughout the region and the world. That all the factions there laid down their vendettas, hugged one another, and began singing "cumbaya". But, past military historys involving a nation imposing its political will over a foreign region prove my point, what history proves another out come (in the modern era?).
The present situation can not be resloved with arms, but maybe affected by a united diplomatic effort by the (all) western powers and those of the region (including all the "evil" ones). Staying the course is no longer a practical option - it is a failed policy and will remain one regardless of what they call it.
:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

This has been the cover story of the news magazine Der Spiegel last week:

Hope and Despair in Divided Iraq

It's a rather long article but I think it might be worth a read in the context of this thread.

---

good article, i read that when it came out.

there may yet be hope.

“citizen who would prefer such a loss is bringing in a VERY different (and to me disturbing) frame of reference than the person who would like to see us succeed but believes that we're going about it entirely wrong.” I voluntarily cut the US, because this sentence brings a question. If I understood it well, of course. Do you think, Seamus that all victories should be what a citizen should wish for his country? And to be more explicit do you think that we should always support our country, even if our country is wrong?

“As to defining a victory in Iraq, Brenus” Kafir, you don’t answer the question because it is trapped one. If you say I want US to be defeated, you’re a traitor, but if you say well I wish our victory knowing it is just one based on lies, deception and financial interest, you betrayed what you believe in…

The problem is a complex one. Why am I proud of the French defenders in Dien Bien Phu? They fought with courage. However their fight was NOT for justice and freedom but to keep Michelin its plantation and Schneider it coal and iron mines…:no:

The PC answer to this question is: I wish the US victory bringing peace, democracy, stability and happiness to the people of Iraq and theirs neighbours. This victory won’t be a peace from war but a beam of freedom in the region, built by the people of Iraq, showing to the world what free men can achieve when tyrants are put down… Vive l’Irak, et vive l’Irak Libre ( in French in the text, with De Gaulle’s accent)…:beam:

A contrasting view of the surge, from grunts on the ground. Sample:

A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

August 19, 2007
Op-Ed Contributors

The War as We Saw It

By BUDDHIKA JAYAMAHA, WESLEY D. SMITH, JEREMY ROEBUCK, OMAR MORA, EDWARD SANDMEIER, YANCE T. GRAY and JEREMY A. MURPHY

Baghdad

VIEWED from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the “battle space” remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers’ expense.

A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.

However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.

In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a “time-sensitive target acquisition mission” on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse — namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.

Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.

The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.

Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington’s insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made — de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government — places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.

Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.

At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. “Lucky” Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, “We need security, not free food.”

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

Buddhika Jayamaha is an Army specialist. Wesley D. Smith is a sergeant. Jeremy Roebuck is a sergeant. Omar Mora is a sergeant. Edward Sandmeier is a sergeant. Yance T. Gray is a staff sergeant. Jeremy A. Murphy is a staff sergeant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

A contrasting view of the surge, from grunts on the ground.

---

An interesting perspective. I wonder where in Baghdad they were deployed? Things have been pretty hairy in much of that city for quite awhile. I think they're being truthful in their assessments, but it doesn't extrapolate to Iraq as a whole any more than an rosy assessment from a relatively passive part of Iraq. Both would have very different pictures of Iraq, and both would be accurate.

Even if there is significant progress, it should surprise no one that there are still substantial areas where violence continues almost unchecked. Btw, I thought you disapproved of op-eds.~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

An interesting perspective. I wonder where in Baghdad they were deployed? Things have been pretty hairy in much of that city for quite awhile. I think they're being truthful in their assessments, but it doesn't extrapolate to Iraq as a whole any more than an rosy assessment from a relatively passive part of Iraq. Both would have very different pictures of Iraq, and both would be accurate.

---

Did they leave out the "good part"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Btw, I thought you disapproved of op-eds.~;p

---

Yeah, I should clarify that. I get tired of people with no first-hand knowledge pontificating about the war. Grunts can op-ed all they like, and I'll read it gladly. Likewise journos who have the guts to get out of the Green Zone.

When there's too much spinning going on, I prefer firsthand accounts. And lordy, I don't think there's ever been a war as spun as Iraq. The confusion on the ground is weirdly reflected in the multiple sides, multiple agendas, and multitudinous lies being slung about it in Washington, D.C. Very, very hard to get a grip on what's real and what's partisan obfuscation.

Quote:

---

Did they leave out the "good part"?

---

Don't be so cruel .
Over the years there have been many many "good news from Iraq" topics by Xiahou from the State of D'Nile , you just have to have an exceptionaly positive outlook and a special ability which allows you to ignore reality to truly appreciate them .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Did they leave out the "good part"?

---

Like I said, they commented on what they saw and how they felt about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Yeah, I should clarify that. I get tired of people with no first-hand knowledge pontificating about the war. Grunts can op-ed all they like, and I'll read it gladly. Likewise journos who have the guts to get out of the Green Zone.

When there's too much spinning going on, I prefer firsthand accounts. And lordy, I don't think there's ever been a war as spun as Iraq. The confusion on the ground is weirdly reflected in the multiple sides, multiple agendas, and multitudinous lies being slung about it in Washington, D.C. Very, very hard to get a grip on what's real and what's partisan obfuscation.

---

So, just to be clear, someone who's made several visits to Iraq, was a CIA analyst on Iranian/Iraqi affairs and was the NSC Director of Near East and Persian Gulf Affairs under president Clinton can offer no worthwhile insight on Iraq in the Lemur's opinion?

Personally, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to think that there can be more than one view on Iraq that can be equally valid. There are improvements, and there are many areas where there are significant, ongoing problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Don't be so cruel .
Over the years there have been many many "good news from Iraq" topics by Xiahou from the State of D'Nile , you just have to have an exceptionaly positive outlook and a special ability which allows you to ignore reality to truly appreciate them .

---

I'm not going to take the bait today- but I encourage you to keep right on trolling. You never know, it might pay off one of these days. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

So, just to be clear, someone who's made several visits to Iraq, was a CIA analyst on Iranian/Iraqi affairs and was the NSC Director of Near East and Persian Gulf Affairs under president Clinton can offer no worthwhile insight on Iraq in the Lemur's opinion?

---

Speaking of trolling. Please show me where I took that position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Speaking of trolling. Please show me where I took that position.

---

How is that trolling? If I misunderstood you- great. I got the impression that since you posted a number of approving posts from a blogger who was trying to slime and discredit Ken Pollack and then went on to express disdain for op-eds from non-grunts. If your disdain wasn't directed at them, I guess we're ok. I wasn't sure, so I asked for clarification. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

How is that trolling? If I misunderstood you- great. I got the impression that since you posted a number of approving posts from a blogger who was trying to slime and discredit Ken Pollack and then went on to express disdain for op-eds from non-grunts. If your disdain wasn't directed at them, I guess we're ok. I wasn't sure, so I asked for clarification. :bow:

---

It's trolling when you take a number of positions I've taken an boil them down in a patently absurd way, claiming that you're seeking "clarification." Whatever.

I'm far from decided on the surge. I am fully sure, however, that the whole thing is being spun so fast that it may come apart from centrifugal force.

The "number" of links to the debunking of Ken Pollack was two. I haven't seen anyone contesting the debunking, by the way. Pollack positioned himself as a "longtime critic" of the war, which was 100% false. The liberal MSM missed this, and a blogger caught it. Contest the blogger's facts if you like, or scream "bias!" to the rafters. "Slime," not so sure about, but he did a fine job at "discredit."

Are you seriously suggesting that Ken Pollack has been Swiftboated by an evil blogger? Post the rebuttal, then.

The related point I made later was that there's a lot of spin and lying going on, both by the administration and the anti-war camp, and that in the weltering swamp of partisan hackery, I have more faith in firsthand accounts when trying to piece together something resembling a truth. If that equals "disdain" in your book, that's entirely your problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

To answer:
...
U.S defeat? Obviously you chose to ignore my post about the "Battle of Algiers", or opted to believe it is somehow a completely different scenario from our quagmire in Iraq. I mean, the French had many more advantages in Algiers - than we do in Iraq, and they ultimately lost. They to won all their battles and still lost.:wall: We've already been defeated, some just don't want to accept or realize it.

---

This was the only paragraph needed to answer my question. By stipulating (which is what a person is doing when they say "Let's accept that point just for the sake of argument") the other points, I was stating that I knew them to be your position and that you did not need to address them.

You still don't answer whether such a defeat is your preference, but you clearly believe that my question is moot -- which is a clear answer of itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It's trolling when you take a number of positions I've taken an boil them down in a patently absurd way, claiming that you're seeking "clarification." Whatever.

---

That would be a strawman- a characterization I still disagree with. I outlined the absurd position you seemed to be boxing yourself into and wanted you to disavow it. Regardless, moving on...

Quote:

---

The "number" of links to the debunking of Ken Pollack was two. I haven't seen anyone contesting the debunking, by the way. Pollack positioned himself as a "longtime critic" of the war, which was 100% false. The liberal MSM missed this, and a blogger caught it. Contest the blogger's facts if you like, or scream "bias!" to the rafters. "Slime," not so sure about, but he did a fine job at "discredit."

Are you seriously suggesting that Ken Pollack has been Swiftboated by an evil blogger? Post the rebuttal, then.

---

You missed post 71? I'll summarize 1)they have criticized Bush's handling of the war- nothing false about it. 2) By the measuring stick applied by the sock-puppet, most Democrats in congress could be written off as administration shills as well. Most of them have, to varying degrees been supportive of the war.

Edit: Speaking of someone whom Greenwald would doubtlessly characterize as a Bush lapdog, Carl Levin released a joint statement with John Warner today that, in between bashing Al-Maliki, acknowledged significant improvement in security from the surge.

We visited forward operating bases in Mosul and Baghdad. In these areas, as well as a number of others in Iraq, the military aspects of President Bush’s new strategy in Iraq, as articulated by him on January 10, 2007, appear to have produced some credible and positive results.
....
We have seen indications that the surge of additional brigades to Baghdad and its immediate vicinity and the revitalized counter-insurgency strategy being employed have produced tangible results in making several areas of the capital more secure. We are also encouraged by continuing positive results -- in al Anbar Province, from the recent decisions of some of the Sunni tribes to turn against al Qaeda and cooperate with coalition force efforts to kill or capture its adherents. We remain concerned, however, that in the absence of overall “national” political reconciliation, we may be inadvertently helping to create another militia which will have to be dealt with in the future.

We note the continuing improvement in the ability and willingness of the Iraqi Army to conduct combat operations against the insurgents, but remain concerned about the lack of experience of some of its leadership and the lack of critical military capabilities needed before more of its units can operate independently. Chief among these are modern small arms, artillery, combat and lift aviation, explosive ordnance disposal, transportation assets, and engineer capability essential for force protection. Logistics capabilities are virtually non-existent and are a major hindrance to independent action.

Quote:

---

The related point I made later was that there's a lot of spin and lying going on, both by the administration and the anti-war camp, and that in the weltering swamp of partisan hackery, I have more faith in firsthand accounts when trying to piece together something resembling a truth. If that equals "disdain" in your book, that's entirely your problem.

---

Plenty of spin, to be sure. But it's also a mistake to give too much weight to first-hand accounts. They present a valuable insight, but usually only a 'snapshot' of a specific time/place. A sergeant would almost certainly have plenty of insight on what's going on in the area he patrols, but he would also be likely to have sparse information to offer on the overall strategy or events outside of his area. Does that mean their insights are without value? No, it does not- their views are an important part of trying to for a whole picture.

Xiahou, I don't think we're that far apart on this issue, to be honest. I'm very much in a wait-and-see mode regarding the surge. You are certainly free to believe whom you like and trumpet whatever headlines you like.

Post 71 was a bit of a scattershot indictment of quite a lot of people, with an amusing aside about Greenwald's adventures in sock-puppetry. It didn't cohere as any sort of rebuttal to this lemur, beyond the ad hominem stuff on the blogger.

If you're convinced the surge is great and victory is around the corner, then more power to ya. This lemur is unconvinced.

-edit-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Plenty of spin, to be sure. But it's also a mistake to give too much weight to first-hand accounts. They present a valuable insight, but usually only a 'snapshot' of a specific time/place. A sergeant would almost certainly have plenty of insight on what's going on in the area he patrols, but he would also be likely to have sparse information to offer on the overall strategy or events outside of his area. Does that mean their insights are without value? No, it does not- their views are an important part of trying to for a whole picture.

---

The administration has shown time and time again that it will say anything and do anything to get its way. That ranges from the outright fabrications used to get us into this mess to any and all forms of propaganda and story-placing to spin it their way. You will pardon me if I am heartily suspicious of anything they have to say on the matter.

In my (futile?) quest for a little more solid ground, I'll place whatever emphasis I like on firsthand accounts. At least a grunt is going to tell it like it is. Will his viewpoint be limited? By definition. But at least his reporting is likely to be honest. That's a starting point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Xiahou, I don't think we're that far apart on this issue, to be honest. I'm very much in a wait-and-see mode regarding the surge.

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

If you're convinced the surge is great and victory is around the corner, then more power to ya. This lemur is unconvinced.

---

Convinced? No. Hopeful? Yes. It really is imperative that we stabilize Iraq, the alternative is disaster. So I am quite pleased when we hear credible news of any improvement.

Er, Seamus, you asked if I prefered "defeat". Which is about the same as asking "when did I stop beating my wife?"

Personally, I answered as honestly as possible, and thoroughly.

Again, define victory. Define, defeat. For America in Iraq, is defeat our turning over full responsability there to the Iraqis - all facets? Immediately.

Or, is that vitory?
:dizzy2:

Iraq is no longer an American conflict, unless we continue to encourage it. America is an occupying force - nothing more. When 85% of a the populace being occupied view that the killing of our solidiers is OK, one ought to ask what our goals really are and why the present administration has so much difficulty defining them (as opposed to spinning the same old "stay the course" or the hornets nest we created will follow us home - just as they did in the Vietnam era).

Understand, the only condition for a US victory is to create a secure region to allow the economic stability of the region. Since we cannot do this, we need to pull back and allow the Iraqis to sink or swim. It is a regional problem, by our insistance that only we know what is good, and all that differ with those reasonings are evil - we encourage those that wish us to get the hey out - or that have presented suggestions that were welcomed and ignored (Iraq Study Group, etc.). We cannot win something that is not our to win - it is up to the Iraqis and their neighbors, not us.

:balloon2:

An interesting final line there Kafir , its only today that two neighbours after meeting with Iraqi leaders said they would help , you know help stabilise and all that jazz .
One ever so slight little condition they put on it though . They will only do it if the coilition buggers off home .
Isn't it funny , two terrorist sponsoring nations saying they will step in to help a nation with lots of terrorist problems if other terrorist sponsoring nations get out of that country and go home .
Hey Iran might even be really nice and stop the artillery bombardment of Iraq that it has maintained for the past 4 days , apparently the shelling is an attempt to get rid of terrorists in Iraq to bring stability to the region .:laugh4

Anyway to answer Seamus' question .
Perhaps defeat would be preferable , it might just make the muppets think twice next time and put some proper planning into it before they try such a large scale very dangerous adventure based on half baked ideas and a pile of lies

The British, being an extremely belligerent nation over the years has committed bungles all over the world. Have we learnt from this? Doesn't appear so.

Of course next time the blinkered brass will assure us that there are no problems as with the new [insert technology] means that water will flow uphill and the natives will enjoy THE USA dropping bombs on potential targets.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KafirChobee

Er, Seamus, you asked if I prefered "defeat". Which is about the same as asking "when did I stop beating my wife?"

Personally, I answered as honestly as possible, and thoroughly.

---

I wasn't upset with your answer. Calling the question moot -- while not a direct response per se -- was pretty clearly stated. The question asked did not exactly parallel the classic question you refer to, but I do admit I was positioning you for a forced choice response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

One ever so slight little condition they put on it though . They will only do it if the coilition buggers off home .
Isn't it funny , two terrorist sponsoring nations saying they will step in to help a nation with lots of terrorist problems if other terrorist sponsoring nations get out of that country and go home.

---

Do you mean that to imply:

a) Since the USA's hands are not absolutely clean, we have no right to demand a say in the conflict resolution process

b) that all 4 nations Syria, Iraq, Iran, and the USA are equally guilty and that any such agreement is ludicrous

c) other

?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Anyway to answer Seamus' question.
Perhaps defeat would be preferable , it might just make the muppets think twice next time and put some proper planning into it before they try such a large scale very dangerous adventure based on half baked ideas and a pile of lies

---

Would you still hold that opinion if it were Eire in the role of the USA (I'll stipulate that this is PURELY hypothetical as that would not mesh with modern Ireland's track record at all)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Would you still hold that opinion if it were Eire in the role of Iraq (I'll stipulate that this is PURELY hypothetical as that would not mesh with modern Ireland's track record at all)?

---

Fixed it for you. :laugh4:

Your original question is too easy to hold that option on. A muppet screwing up should not be rewarded with a miracle.

Quote:

---

Since the USA's hands are not absolutely clean, we have no right to demand a say in the conflict resolution process

---

They can demand all they like , if the people that matter don't give a damn what America "demands" then Americas demands are irrelevant , Iran knows it played the US for a sucker , its sitting pretty while your government still pretends that it hasn't been exceptionaly stupid .

Quote:

---

that all 4 nations Syria, Iraq, Iran, and the USA are equally guilty and that any such agreement is ludicrous

---

What agreement and why only four players ? The offer is a joke , but so is the occupation , you cannot take it but you cannot afford to not take it .
Besides which its regional so add in Israel , Jordan , Saudi ,Turkey for starters then add some of the bit players . Complicatedisn't it , but it was obvious since long before the start of the fiasco that it was a very complex and dangerous mess that they willingly chose to jump into .

Quote:

---

Would you still hold that opinion if it were Eire in the role of the USA (I'll stipulate that this is PURELY hypothetical as that would not mesh with modern Ireland's track record at all)?

---

Yep . Ireland is just a country like any other it would make no difference if it was Luxembourg or Timor Leste(unless blinded by patriotic nonsense).
If it makes a crazy screw up then it is time for it to stop , sit down , think very hard and try and work out how and if anything remotely worthwhile can be achieved .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yep . Ireland is just a country like any other it would make no difference if it was Luxembourg or Timor Leste(unless blinded by patriotic nonsense). If it makes a crazy screw up then it is time for it to stop , sit down , think very hard and try and work out how and if anything remotely worthwhile can be achieved.

---

Not quite at my point. Were it YOUR country that was occupying Iraq, would you still think defeat was the preferred result?

I'm not saying that a bad policy shouldn't be re-thought and/or changed. This is always a worthy thought.

I'm not saying that you (or anyone for that matter) had to agree with the original option -- I'm well aware that you did not.

I'm asking you if you really would prefer defeat over success -- forced choice -- if you believed your country was wrong. I'm well aware that your actual preference would be for the policy etc to be changed instead, so set that aside.

Quote:

---

I'm asking you if you really would prefer defeat over success -- forced choice -- if you believed your country was wrong.

---

Well thats an easy one , you put in an important word there .
Yes .
How could anyone prefer something that is wrong to be a success .

Anything else would be the realm of those who go for the "my country right or wrong" line , which is an absolute pile of tripe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I'm asking you if you really would prefer defeat over success -- forced choice -- if you believed your country was wrong. I'm well aware that your actual preference would be for the policy etc to be changed instead, so set that aside.

---

Surely Seamus, any clear thinking person would prefer the defeat of their country if it was wrong? I would agree with Tribesman - the ideal would be a properly humiliating defeat that ensured such foolishness never happened again.

At the risk of invoking Godwin, surely some Germans hoped for the defeat of Hitler's Germany - and were right to do so. Japan likewise, and in both cases the humiliation of defeat helped create better societies than victory would have done.

Not quite the same, but for an Irish example: I would have hoped that the anti-treaty rebels of the Irish Civil War lost (despite my sympathy for their political ambitions) because they were wrong to reject the decision of the people to accept the treaty, however flawed. That would have made me an outcast among my community then, as it did my grandfather.

So yes, when one's country is wrong it is right to hope and work for her defeat. And I would argue that this is the highest form of patriotism.

Quote:

---

Surely Seamus, any clear thinking person would prefer the defeat of their country if it was wrong? I would agree with Tribesman - the ideal would be a properly humiliating defeat that ensured such foolishness never happened again.

---

That is an incredibly insulting and inflamatory post .:2thumbsup: