Victory In Iraq?

[Death_Machine]

So we found the NBCs and punished the people responsible for 9/11, as per that Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 thingy?

Dude, we know Sadam gassed the Kurds, he had chemical weapons. The question is where is that stuff now?

What else is he going to do - cry that Bush screwed up so badly and declare defeat?

Why not, it has been the liberal rally cry for the last several years.

What a truly horrible example.


Shane, you forgot Haiti about three times, Cuba twice, Nicaragua twice, the Dominican Republic twice, Panama, passively Venezuela, and Grenada.

The examples of US interventions gone wrong far outweigh those gone right.

The examples you just used all fall under the Monroe Doctrine. While people can argue all they want about Iraq there is long standing precedence for taking care of business in our own backyard. Speaking of which, blasting Mexico further back to the stone age or annexing them might not be a bad idea.

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

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

Remember when the liberal nightly news was projecting 50,00+ casualties if we actually tried to enter Baghdad?

 

[MobBoss]

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

Actually, it wasnt an insight....the "?" at the end of it indicated that it was a question.

 

[.Shane.]

@MB.... I'm curious.

How do you define "victory" in this case? How would any of you reading this thread define it?

To me that an interesting question. It can't be defeating Saddam, that was years ago. And, it can't be a secure and stable Iraq because, as you pointed out, we have to wait and see what its like in say... 10 or 20 years.

MB, didn't see if you replied to this, kinda got buried in the chest thumping... tx

 

[Formaldehyde]

Actually, it wasnt an insight....the "?" at the end of it indicated that it was a question.

Of course it was:

Well, it appears Obama has picked the date of when Victory in Iraq will be claimed by the democrats.

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?

Need I go on?

I know it must be a huge personal disappointment to you that the nation has finally come to its senses regarding the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Perhaps someday you will get over it. Or perhaps not.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Dude, we know Sadam gassed the Kurds, he had chemical weapons. The question is where is that stuff now?

He got rid of it years ago, that's where it is.

The examples you just used all fall under the Monroe Doctrine.

The Pope is Catholic.

While people can argue all they want about Iraq there is long standing precedence for taking care of business in our own backyard.

None of our interventions have been justified. All have been about enforcing American will and power on other areas of the globe. All are wrong. It doesn't matter if some dude said some thing some time about the US magically having the right to rule over an entire hemisphere, it is still just as wrong.

Speaking of which, blasting Mexico further back to the stone age or annexing them might not be a bad idea.

You realize we create one of the biggest problems that drives Mexicans to emigrate to America, right?

Remember when the liberal nightly news was projecting 50,00+ casualties if we actually tried to enter Baghdad?

No, actually, I don't.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That's because, unlike Fox "News", the "liberal media" has never "projected" anything regarding the war. They seemed to know better than to engage in idle speculation by ex-Generals who turned out to be nothing but GWB administration shills.

 

[MobBoss]

MB, didn't see if you replied to this, kinda got buried in the chest thumping... tx

I have mentioned it in other threads before this one, but here it is again. Loosely, Victory comes when we reach the point where the Iraqi military and police forces are able to defend their country from within and from their neighbors without having to rely on us to help them out.

Essentially, we were already headed towards such a move regardless if Obama was in office or not. Bush had already signed orders beginning the earlier pullout of some units in Iraq, and the powers that be have turned the focus of operations towards Afghanistan.

Need I go on?

I know it must be a huge personal disappointment to you that the nation has finally come to its senses regarding the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Perhaps someday you will get over it. Or perhaps not.

Are you for real?

Since I have personal friends over there in Iraq right now, I am glad things are so quiet, and I have great hopes they will come home safely. But thats just on one front. The job in Afghanistan goes on.

Do I feel personal disappointment? Hell no. I really dont think you have any idea what its like to be a soldier at all if you think this. I am glad they upped the numbers with the surge and let us do our jobs over there.....they should have done it years ago.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Are you for real?

Yes. Are you?

Since I have personal friends over there in Iraq right now, I am glad things are so quiet, and I have great hopes they will come home safely. But thats just on one front. The job in Afghanistan goes on.

And what job is that? Killing all the Muslims before they kill us?

Moderator Action: Don't troll.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Do I feel personal disappointment? Hell no.

It sure sounds like it. Your apparent hero got beaten up after claiming victory in this traveshamockery called a 'war', and now you are alleging that the Obama administration is doing the same thing when they obviously are not. That certainly sounds like sour grapes to me.

I really dont think you have any idea what its like to be a soldier at all if you think this.

And you do? Or are you more than a "military paralegal" as you claim to be?

I am glad they upped the numbers with the surge and let us do our jobs over there.....they should have done it years ago.

Ah. You are one of those who actually believe that 20,000 additional troops magically fixed all the problems with the so-called war, and that making a truce with Al-Sadr and the other Shiites had absolutely nohting to do with it. And you actually think that doing so earlier would have also magically worked as well. I should have figured as much.

 

[MobBoss]

And what job is that? Killing all the Muslims before they kill us?

Riiiiight.

It sure sounds like it. Your apparent hero got beaten up after claiming victory in this traveshamockery called a 'war', and now you are alleging that the Obama administration is doing the same thing when they obviously are not. That certainly sounds like sour grapes to me.

Nope. Reason being I understood what Bush was referring to while a lot of other people dont. There are many 'missions' in a conflict, and the mission of destroying the Iraqi army and deposing Saddam had been accomplished. It didnt mean it was over. Not by a long shot.

And fwiw, the only sour grapes to be found are probably on the lib side who continually predicted death, doom and destruction in Iraq, only to see their hopes blown away by our success there. Now thats sour grapes.

And you do? Or are you more than a "military paralegal" as you claim?

Yes, having been in the military for 22 years now and counting, I absolutely know what its like to be soldier.

Ah. You are one of those who actually believe that 20,000 additional troops magically fixed all the problems with the so-called war. And you actually think that doing so earlier would have also magically worked as well. I should have figured as much.

Nothing magic about it. We needed more troops there from the beginning.

I am on record here as saying one of the mistakes of the war was the admin not listening to the Army generals who called for about 100k more troops at the beginning of the war. They tried to do it on the cheap and it was a mistake.

I think its absolutely irrefutable that having more troops to get the job done would have made things easier in the early parts of the war.

You, however, are free to think what you want. But thats my opinion in regards to it, and I think its pretty solid.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Nope. Reason being I understood what Bush was referring to while a lot of other people dont. There are many 'missions' in a conflict, and the mission of destroying the Iraqi army and deposing Saddam had been accomplished. It didnt mean it was over. Not by a long shot..

To quote you: Riiiiight.

And fwiw, the only sour grapes to be found are probably on the lib side who continually predicted death, doom and destruction in Iraq, only to see their hopes blown away by our success there. Now thats sour grapes.

Bwahahaha. Hello pot. This the kettle calling. And you make it sound like they were all Rush Limbaughs hoping that more Americans would die so they could make a political point. Do you honestly believe that?

Yes, having been in the military for 22 years now and counting, I absolutely know what its like to be soldier.

Yet you don't seem to have much of a clue about politics and what has really been going on. As an example in this thread alone, you seem to buy Fox News's obvious troll as the unvarnished truth:

Well, it appears Obama has picked the date of when Victory in Iraq will be claimed by the democrats.

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?

Nothing magic about it. We needed more troops there from the beginning.

Yes, we did. But it was a far more than 20,000.

I am on record here as saying one of the mistakes of the war was the admin not listening to the Army generals who called for about 100k more troops at the beginning of the war. They tried to do it on the cheap and it was a mistake.

Ah. So you did pay attention to something other than Fox News. Yet you actually think that putting in 20,000 at a later date magically fixed everything. How do you rationalize that?

I think its absolutely irrefutable that having more troops to get the job done would have made things easier in the early parts of the war.

Well, duh. And having a few additional troops later on certainly helped, but it was obviously no panacea like John McCain, you, and all the neocons seem to believe. It was just a tiny segment of what turned Iraq around. Most of it was undoing all the absurd policies that the Bush administration had enacted in the first place while making a truce with over half the people who were fighting us in the first place.

We now know a neoconservative is someone who sets his house on fire then boasts six years later that nobody can put it out. Bill Moyers

You, however, are free to think what you want. But thats my opinion in regards to it, and I think its pretty solid.

Of course you do. Who doesn't think their own opinions aren't 'solid'?

 

[Bronx Warlord]

I read it correctly . Don't try to hide behind the Republican War Hawks.

What about the Democrat ones that also voted for the invasion of Iraq. Even Kerry if he can make up his mind. Did he send me to war or not? no one knows!

fyi when you make statements like " republican war hawks " your really just showing that while your shirt may not be brown but your spitting out the same . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . the very people your pointing at are. Just a diffrent spin to fit your worldview.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Victory ...

I don't know. What goals were set in March 2003?

 

[Bronx Warlord]

And you do? Or are you more than a "military paralegal" as you claim to be?

Your speaking to a Sergeant First Class of the United States Army. Who are you to question his experance? Whats your rank? what training and schools have you been to? what units have you been in? what combat operations have you taken part in? What leadership experance do you have that can match his at least 15+ years as an NCO?

I'm a 0311 in the USMC. Feel free to look that up. I am an E-5 and have done the job of E-6's and several times E-7's in combat. I would stand at the position of parade rest for MB if we were speaking. Regardless if he is not a front line Soldier.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

E-5's, E-6's and E-7's, oh my!

All sound like food additives to me ... but they start at 100.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

E-5's, E-6's and E-7's, oh my!

All sound like food additives to me ... but they start at 100.

They are all NCO's in the US system. At 7 your considered a senior NCO and it pretty much takes congressional action to demote you. I think MB knows a bit more about being a Soldier than just about any of us on this forum.

 

[GenMarshall]

What about the Democrat ones that also voted for the invasion of Iraq. Even Kerry if he can make up his mind. Did he send me to war or not? no one knows!

The Democrats were mislead. However the point is moot. What happened back then happened and there's no point in turning back.

fyi when you make statements like " republican war hawks " your really just showing that while your shirt may not be brown but your spitting out the same . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . the very people your pointing at are. Just a diffrent spin to fit your worldview.

Geeze, watch the language buddy (Thank you autocensor). Also, FYI to you, making statements like "republican war hawks" does not show what you falsely described. Unless you are unaware, I am trying to avoid labeling the entire Republican party membership as one big war hawk party.

 

[eastsidebagel]

What defines actually a victory in a war who officially ended almost 6 years ago?
Personally, I don't think that you can call this conflict in any case a victory for the US, much more like a draw: Americans and Iraqis got blowed up likewise and all the reasons for the occupation in the first place got quickly dismissed and refuted one after another.
So, I suppose, no victory achieved for the US this time, am I right?

 

[RedRalph]

It's to early to tell.

The surge worked far better than I thought it would, but a big part of its success is down to bribes given to people to stop attacking the US military, when those bribes stop coming in and the US withdraws, I think we'll be right back to 2006 again, but thats not certain. The thing about it is, the US will go home eventually, Iran will always be next door.

 

[MobBoss]

:
Yet you don't seem to have much of a clue about politics and what has really been going on. As an example in this thread alone, you seem to buy Fox News's obvious troll as the unvarnished truth:

Foxnews wasnt the only media source to run the story.

Ah. So you did pay attention to something other than Fox News. Yet you actually think that putting in 20,000 at a later date magically fixed everything. How do you rationalize that?

You keep using this word 'magic'. I never have. It may appear to you that the hard work of soldiers paying off might seem like magic to you...but its not. Its simply being successful at a tough job. Perhaps it doesnt mean what you think it means.

@Bronx: Thanks for the comments!

 

[Monkeyfinger]

Victory in Iraq happened a couple years ago when Saddam got dug out and shipped off to prison, and it was confirmed that there were no WMDs. Since then we've just been kind of screwing around, pissing money and the lives of some american soldiers down the toilet.