| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 4:59:46 AM | | Now that it's clear that we are winning in Iraq, how are the politicians who have done everything from warning the enemy to our movements six months in advance, to calling our soldiers terrorist, to saying we can't win, or even stating that we lost,-How are they gonna save face. Are they gonna try to take credit for the victory? Or, are they gonna deny that they made their foolish statements? | |
|
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 7:45:00 AM |
Now that it's clear that we are winning in Iraq
Define winning please. | |
|
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 7:51:56 AM | | I define winning, by the other side giving up. Violence in Iraq has gone down every month for the last four months. A nation in the middle east is slowly learning to solve problems with elections instead of bombs. Our goals were to oust Saddam. Done. And allow the folks there to learn to govern and defend themselves. They are acheiving this more and more each month. Therefore, we are reaching our goals. Our enemies are not. This is winning. | |
|
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 7:53:12 AM | | There are just so many blatant lies in the OP it's hard to know where to start. In three lines, she's managed to malign nameless politicians for warning "the enemy" about troop movements and calling soldiers "terrorists." Hell, the friggin' generals don't know where the troops will be needed six months from now. But somehow "politicians" - and I'm assuming they must all be Democratic - have precognitive powers which they use further the cause of the Resistance in Iraq. | |
|
Hoop
|
Joined: 5/1/2006
Msg: 5 | |
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 8:01:05 AM | Winning WHAT in Iraq?
warning the enemy to our movements six months in advance
Movements? Iraq (land mass and population) is the size of TX for crying out loud.
Think about that for a moment..
Do you think the locals aren't aware of a foreign military's presence?
You entertain the illusion that knowing where the US military is,
is a big secret to the locals, and that anything you heard on the god-box regarding this, they were not already aware of?
Do you think that all the permanent bases the size of small cities (industrious) are shrouded in some kind of stealth shield tech. and that they're construction was not witnessed by the locals?
Winning.. do you mean conquering a civilization?
The world's first known civilization.
The US wasn't even a remote glimmer in the eye of history.
Look it up. How old is the middle east, and how old is the US.
What in the world makes the infantile young, arrogant warmongers of the US, (and their devotees) think that ANY of the ancient middle east civilizations need anything from the US?
What has that god-box tricked you into believing..
The only thing I can see that is being won is the brainwashing game. | |
|
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 8:03:46 AM | | I was not trying to name names or parties, be it democrats or republicans, conservitives or liberals, men or women, tall or short. I'm just wondering what any politician who has spent the last several years saying that we cant win, or that we've already lost, gonna say when it becomes clear,(as it seems to be) that we have reached our objective,I.E. won. I was watching the news the other night and the anchorman stated "and now for the news from Bagdad, there is none, nothing has blown up and there are no reported attacks." This is very good news, and it seems the Iraqi's are taking over more and more of the security, Again, I take this as signs of winning. | |
|
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 8:11:33 AM | Now that it's clear that we are winning in Iraq...
No one wins in a war.
No one and NO nation wins at war.
Literatim.
I was watching the news the other night and the anchorman stated "and now for the news from Bagdad, there is none, nothing has blown up and there are no reported attacks." This is very good news, and it seems the Iraqi's are taking over more and more of the security, Again, I take this as signs of winning.
Because there were no bombings and killings for that one day, it's all thanks to the USA gvt?
Oh, yes...winning.
Right. | |
|
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 8:14:41 AM | The OP is delusional.
The entire war was a sham, and hundreds of thousands have died because of it. Congratulations on your victory. | |
|
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 8:21:24 AM | >>>Violence in Iraq has gone down every month for the last four months.
Define Violence. Are you talking about Iraqi Deaths? Collation Deaths? Shere number of bombs? The vagueness of this statement will ensure you are right even if you are wrong, since you can simply jump from one definition to another. | |
|
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 8:26:37 AM | | And when violence picks up again in the spring - like it always does - the poster can blame the Democrats and Europeans. It's a great closed system she has there. Don't let in any information that doesn't fit with her theories. | |
|
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 8:29:45 AM | >
Well hoop, you're from PA so i guess you're right in amongst us infantile warmongers eh? I feel your pain though, I was in the Marines during the first gulf war. I suppose that as the leader of this ancient wizened civilization you are so enamored with, that you feel Saddam was just somehow overlooked for the nobel peace prize? Yeah, thats it, he should have gotten in a dual ceremony it with Yasser Arafat.
If I had to go, I'd much rather get blown up quickly by collateral damage from a stray US bomb as opposed to being tortured to death for making a mistake playing soccer by Saddam's son or because my neighbor turned me in for saying something negative against the regime.
I don't agree with the OP in the overall assumption that we've won in any permanent sense, and insurgent war is by nature a very complicated and multilayered thing, but if you can be objective about the politics in any way, it is hard to not recognize that it is "good" politically for democrats if the situation in iraq deteriorates and it is "good" politically for republicans if it improves. As a country, outright failure would be a disaster for us all in the long term. Just yanking up the tent pegs and rolling out would be horribly irresponsible. If you think of this as a mess, well we made the mess, shouldn't we clean it up before we leave the sandbox?
In my opinion, using the Iraq conflict for personal or political gain is to be avoided and condemned by BOTH sides. | |
|
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 8:33:56 AM | OP.... How is it winning?? Bush and his croonies are killing people to make more money from his oil wells and using the American peoples money and getting our children killed and maimed doing it.....
The only one winning is the rich republicans who are behind all this...
There is a not so secret sociaty that is bent on world domination...
This is just another scheem in taking over the world...
Have you ever heard of the NEW WORLD ORDER ???
What do you think this is????
Do you know what a TOTALITARIAN SOCIATY is????
It is the worst form of overbearing government known to man..!!!!
WE THE PEOPLE OF THE EARTH ARE LOSING..!!!@ | |
|
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 8:40:28 AM | In msg 6, stratdigger said:
I was watching the news the other night and the anchorman stated "and now for the news from Bagdad, there is none, nothing has blown up and there are no reported attacks."
Just because nothing is reported on the network news does not mean nothing happened. Things happen every day there that do not get reported, simply because a reporter wasn't there, or whatever-it-was wasn't "sexy" enough to lead the six o'clock news. Every time you hear on the news that x number of soldiers were killed in an attack, there were probably a dozen or more attacks that you didn't hear about because nobody was killed or injured. So saying that "we're winning because nothing was reported last night on the news" is a gross oversimplification of the reality of the situation.
Just out of curiosity, which network were you watching? | |
|
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 8:51:08 AM | "In my opinion, using the Iraq conflict for personal or political gain is to be avoided and condemned by BOTH sides."
Damn straight..... and never let it be said that it was begun for those reasons either, lest there be doubting. | |
|
Hoop
|
Joined: 5/1/2006
Msg: 15 | |
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 8:56:28 AM | Interesting...
I was in the Marines during the first gulf war
The infamous televised war you mean..
insurgent war is by nature a very complicated and multilayered thing
No doubt.
The selling of this particular concept has been quite effect.
but this current illusional event.. you have to admit.. has more of a 'meat and potatoes' feel to it.
Only thing is, not everyone is buying it.
ancient wizened civilization
Precisely. Now why don't you explain how you and the US, a country in it's infancy in comparison, have any business interferring in that part of the world?
In my opinion, using the Iraq conflict for personal or political gain is to be avoided and condemned by BOTH sides.
So why do you reinforce the illusion? | |
|
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 9:15:14 AM | | If we are winning the war on terror, where is bin laden? | |
|
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 10:34:13 AM | it's clear that we are winning in Iraq 
mission accomplished mission accomplished mission accomplished mission accomplished mission accomplished mission accomplished
hi what you been drinking let me know also i wants to think i got spidy powers woohoo
sweety you guys are far Far from winning do you even know where mid east is in map ?
you have conflict of turkey & Kurds, Iranians activities in Iraq are on rise.  | |
|
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 12:35:55 PM | Date Incident Civilian ISF Total
11/01/07 BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb exploded near an administrative building, killing six people and wounding seven in Binoog district of northern Baghdad, police said. Earlier police said the bomb had targeted members of an anti-al Qaeda group. 6 0 6
11/01/07 BAGHDAD - Gunmen killed a man in drive by-shooting in Mansour district in central Baghdad, police said. 1 0 1
11/01/07 BALAD RUZ - Six police guards were killed and eight wounded in an attack on Faris al-Umairi, police chief of the town of Balad Ruz, near Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) north of Baghdad. The police chief was not harmed, police said. 0 6 6
11/01/07 KIRKUK NEAR - Sabri Abdul-Jabar, a university professor in Kirkuk, was found shot dead two days after being kidnapped in a town near the city of Kirkuk, 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad, police said. 1 0 1
11/01/07 SAADIYA - A suicide truck bomber targeting an Iraqi army base killed five people, including three soldiers, and wounded 18 civilians and soldiers in the town of Saadiya, about 150 km (90 miles) northeast of Baghdad, police said. 2 3 5
Umm this is winning?This war has been a clusterf$ck since it began.Read the powell doctrine no one in the white house did!
 | |
|
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 12:46:02 PM | And to the original op here is the powell doctrine too bad bush and the rest of the neocons didnt listen
Is a vital national security interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?
 | |
|
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 1:00:12 PM |
Now that it's clear that we are winning in Iraq Define:
1. It's
2. Clear
3. We
4. Winning | |
|
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 1:10:32 PM | To message 19. The answer to all your questions is- Yes.
To message 20. Yes we are winning.
But, back to the original question--How are the folks who have been steadily preaching defeat going to make the turnaround. I'm asking a political question. When you have blatently stood on the wrong side of an issue, is it the death of your political career, or can you save yourself.
And last of all, to the person who asked "Where is Bin Laden?" That's right. Where is he? I'm sitting at my computer when I want to. I'm going outside and roaming freely when I want to. I go eat at taco bell when I want to. I don't have to hide in some cave. I am free. Bin Laden is not. Besides all that, the war is not against Bin Laden, it's against terrorism and extreme Islam. Bin Laden is just another terrorist, deserving no special attention except for being a mass murderer. | |
|
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 1:19:17 PM | You may not have noticed, but you're pretty much the only person here, or possibly on this continent, who believes that the US is winning. So the question you keep repeating is viewed as moot.
And if the war is against terrorism and extreme Islam, why did Bush invade the only secular nation in the Middle East, and the only one that didn't fund Islamic terrorism - if only because Islamic groups hated the secular nature of the regime and wouldn't have taken his money? But he's all buddy-buddy with the nation that did and does fund Al Quaeda, and did provide almost all the 9/11 hijackers? | |
|
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 1:30:43 PM | From msg 19:
1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
I took the liberty of numbering the questions, to ease referencing them.
The OP, in msg 21:
To message 19. The answer to all your questions is- Yes.
Going through the questions:
1. No, they were not.
2. Debatable. Many people who have been to the region say that the administration's goals are not realistically attainable. This is why the definition of the goals has changed since 2003.
3. No, they were obviously not. The administration has admitted this. Trying to deny it makes one look foolish.
4. No, they were not. The UN asked for more time.
5. Hardly. Trying to claim the answer is "yes" displays monumental ignorance.
6. No, they were not.
7. Some, hardly all. Less and less as time goes on.
8. Hardly. Again, trying to claim the answer is "yes" displays fundamental ignorance of international affairs.
If you really believe that all of the answers are "yes", then you are significantly less informed than you realize.
You didn't answer my earlier question: which network were you watching? | |
|
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 1:41:38 PM | Once again, no one wants to answer my question. How do you repair the political damage when you find that you have been on the obvious wrong side of an issue. I personally don't think that you can, but I could be wrong.
As far as winning or losing, we have basically already won. The only possible way to lose now would be to quit, as we did in vietnam. Up 85-0 in the fourth quarter and forfiet. Thank God the american people are behind our troops this time.
But, please, someone answer the question that I asked. As for me, I'm not interested in a debate about the war. | |
|
| We're winning
Posted: 11/2/2007 1:43:32 PM |
But, please, someone answer the question that I asked.
Can't answer a question that is so fundamentally flawed. | |
|
Home
login 
