Victory In Iraq?

[Zarn]

I heard you the first time. A nation should look out for its own interests first. Do you disagree with that? And what am I "lying" about? Since when can stating an opinion be lying?

If I am selfish for thinking America's best interests are not usually served by trying to forcibly enact regime change on the other side of the world, then yes I am very very selfish. I am so sorry.

I do disagree with looking out for our own interests only. Not everything is about us.

Edit: CG, I never hide behind anyone. Read it, again.

 

[illram]

I do disagree with looking out for our own interests only. Not everything is about us.

Edit: CG, I never hide behind anyone. Read it, again.

Our own interests first. Not only. First.

If you can't take care of yourself how are you supposed to take care of anyone else?

 

[Zarn]

Our own interests first. Not only. First.

If you can't take care of yourself how are you supposed to take care of anyone else?

We were fine then.

 

[GenMarshall]

Edit: CG, I never hide behind anyone. Read it, again.

I already freeking read it. Quit trying to tick me off! Just because I dont agree with you in regards on the part where we "won" in Iraq, does not grant you the right to be a jerk towards me.

 

[Fifty]

Edit: CG, I never hide behind anyone. Read it, again.

umm... sorry but civg did read your post.

 

[MobBoss]

Everybody is being lulled into a false sense of security right now. Iraq is far, far, far from over.

But you said the surge woudlnt work (it did).

You said casualties would continue to climb in Iraq (they actually kept going lower).

Etc. Etc.

Your ability to predict things in Iraq is running about as well as my predictions for the presidential election!

"Victory" is impossible, because over 600,000 Iraqis are already dead, for a state still not enjoying "freedom" due to violence.

Violence is extremely low over there right now. Victory is indeed possible, and guess what? Obama is going to claim it August 2010.

Things will certainly spiral out of control again, especially if we break our agreement with Iraq and say we have to stay beyond 2011.

Can I quote you on this when it doesnt?

 

[MobBoss]

It's for the benefit of the other posters who don't want to touch anything with a foxnews in a link.. I would provide the link, but I was posting that post from my iPod Touch. Yes MobBoss, there are people who do not believe in Fox (or Faux News as they call it) News.

Foxnews is a legitimate news source, similar to CNN or any of the other cable news networks.

There are also people in the world called 911 Truthers......simply because they believe something doesnt make it true. You need to stop riding people for using Fox as a source, even if you dont like em because they are indeed legitimate.

No, I'm not.

Yes you are. Why deny this? You have said this in front of everyone around here on muliple occasions. Again, why even try to deny that?

Why not just fess up to it and own it?

Have I in recent months stated that Iraq is an unwinnable meatgrinder?

I wasnt only referring to recent months. I have been referring to the last couple of years.

I barely even made a peep about Iraq in a while. And during that time, I have seen less news reports on bloodshed and bombings and more on improvements in Iraq itself to justify the need to change my stance. I have not stated my change of stance until now because:

So.....now that Obama is going to claim vicotry you change your stance?

Are you of the belief that you cannot change your stances based on new information?

We gave you information like that long ago....you still refused to recognize it then.

 

[GenMarshall]

In looking over this and reflecting, It's clearly that I am on the wrong side of the bench. I still think the Iraq War should have been handled better and not invade like a bullmoose in a China shop. I'm still awaiting proof for WMDs and proof that Saddam had ties with major terror groups.

On the other side of the coin. I am happy to hear that the casualty rates are going down and that there is light at the end of the tunnel out of Iraq and into peace.

But you said the surge woudlnt work (it did).

I was proven wrong, and I am wrong in stating that the surge failed.






I am starting to find out that it is too late to change stances now, without getting harped at.

 

[Neomega]

But you said the surge woudlnt work (it did).

No, I don't think it was the surge, and I don't think Iraq is done. Its a lull. The movement down in killings has more to do with the sectarian violence settled itself out, and Shiite and Sunni separated themselves out, or fled the country.

You said casualties would continue to climb in Iraq (they actually kept going lower).

I was right when I said it, casualties continued to climb (or stay at their elevated level) for another 6 months.

Violence is extremely low over there right now. Victory is indeed possible, and guess what? Obama is going to claim it August 2010.

You don't get it. 600,000 dead people is too much for an ideal of freedom that still does not exist, and probably will never exist. And certainly too much to secure oil fields for western companies and disarm a nation that was too weak to do anything.

Can I quote you on this when it doesnt?

If we stay in Iraq, I predict violence will start to rise again. the promise of leaving is one reason why people are less willing to give their lives to a cause they feel they already won. If the invaders are leaving soon, there really is no need for an insurgency.

 

[MobBoss]

No, I don't think it was the surge, and I don't think Iraq is done. Its a lull.

We shall see.

I was right when I said it, casualties continued to climb for another 6 months.

No they didnt.

You don't get it. 600,000 dead people is too much for an ideal of freedom that still does not exist, and probably will never exist. And certainly too much to secure oil fields for western companies and disarm a nation that was too weak to do anything.

Lots more than that have died in other wars to achieve victory. Dont you think 600k a hugely inflated figure to be honest as well? What if it were only 1/2 that? 1/3rd? 1/4? Where is your line in the sand?

If we stay in Iraq, I predict violence will start to rise again. the promise of leaving is one reason why people are less willing to give their lives to a cause they feel they already won. If the invaders are leaving soon, there really is no need for an insurgency.

Really? So you think they now see the new government as legitimate then? Good news I guess.

 

[Neomega]

Lots more than that have died in other wars to achieve victory. Dont you think 600k a hugely inflated figure to be honest as well? What if it were only 1/2 that? 1/3rd? 1/4? Where is your line in the sand?

1 casualty, when the war is unjustified, like Iraq was. 600,000 is 600,000 too many.

Really? So you think they now see the new government as legitimate then? Good news I guess.

Those who don't, are just waiting for the Americans to leave. Sound familiar? Used to be the big anti- "cut and run" argument. I believe it. They don't need a set date.

 

[GenMarshall]

Lots more than that have died in other wars to achieve victory. Dont you think 600k a hugely inflated figure to be honest as well? What if it were only 1/2 that? 1/3rd? 1/4? Where is your line in the sand?

To be honest, I have lost track of the amount and stopped paying attention to the casualty numbers.

 

[mrt144]

Why can't you set your monkey free?

 

[EnglishEdward]

Hey kids, it's always okay to compare totally dissimilar historical events! Because ignoring actual historical parallels is how the world works. I'd be a really bored dude if people learned the right lessons from history.

Confused. As the USA has not yet pulled out of Iraq, it is not even a historical event.


More specifically regarding the USA, did the passengers in the last US helicopter out of Saigon sing 'Victory in Vietnam' to the tune of John Brown's Body/Old Glory'?

If and when the British army pulls out from Iraq intact, we will likely all
give a huge sign of relief and claim Victory for Common Sense.

 

[GenMarshall]

Delete me, duplicate post, forum hicup

 

[GenMarshall]

Foxnews is a legitimate news source, similar to CNN or any of the other cable news networks.

There are also people in the world called 911 Truthers......simply because they believe something doesnt make it true. You need to stop riding people for using Fox as a source, even if you dont like em because they are indeed legitimate.

Irregardless if they are legitamate or not. Fox News is more on the conservative side than I am comfortable with. It has too much conservative bias in it for my taste.

Yes you are. Why deny this? You have said this in front of everyone around here on muliple occasions. Again, why even try to deny that?

Why not just fess up to it and own it?

It is true that I have said that Iraq was an unwinable meatgrider. The reason why I want to deny saying it and not own up to it is because I regret saying that statement an don't want to be bullied around about it when I change my stance on the issue based on new sources, especialy from the liberal media (yes Mobboss, the liberal media the likes of CNN are showing more good in Iraq) I am standing my ground and not fessing up to it and not owning it.

The only thing that I will have to say is that I was wrong with that statement that I made in the past and wrong for even doubing the sucsess in Iraq. Why not just accept the fact that I was wrong and that I admit that I was wrong with Iraq and move on. Instead of making a McCarthyish Witch Hunt about it.

So.....now that Obama is going to claim vicotry you change your stance?

Are you going to have a serious discussion, or just troll away? Because I have no time for any trollish antics. What is do are about people changing stances based on new information. My change in the stance with Iraq is based on new information in regards to the war, not because of what Obama said. FYI, I had been rethinking my views on Iraq long before the elections. To think that I changed my stance just because Obama stated that there is victory is absolutely reduculious (and perhaps a reason why I rarely state that I change my stance because of this sort of reaction)

We gave you information like that long ago....you still refused to recognize it then.

Not any more. I've accepted and reconize it after seeing the end results. However, I am still going to be skeptcal about Iraqi WNDs and Terror links with Saddam. My head has been out of the sand for a long time. And yes Mobboss, I did went back and actualy read thoes articals that you and others have posted.

 

[GenMarshall]

Delete me, duplicate post

 

[Zarn]

I already freeking read it. Quit trying to tick me off! Just because I dont agree with you in regards on the part where we "won" in Iraq, does not grant you the right to be a jerk towards me.

I'm not being a jerk. I don't like it, when people lie about my positions and change what is being discussed.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I wonder if certain dems like Harry Reid who said the Iraq war was 'lost' some time ago, will retract their statements in the face of their party leader claiming victory?

And you got this amazing insight from a Fox "News" article?

Short answer to an obvious Fox News troll: Now that GWB is out of office, nobody is claiming 'victory' in Iraq, much less the Obama administration.

 

[GenMarshall]

I'm not being a jerk. I don't like it, when people lie about my positions and change what is being discussed.

Neather do I. And I apologize if I unintentonaly offended you.