Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 GOT FEVER
Joined: 10/29/2007
Msg: 76
We're winningPage 2 of 16    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
manerider:


You wrote it. NOW, Perhaps you'd be considerate enough to elaborate your thoughts (issues, confusion) so we all know what you're trying to say. Surely, there's something, besides dead space between those ears, that allows you to further exemplify your thoughts. Surely, you have the wherewithal to stand behind your statements. Yes? Otherwise, ppl may think you're just spewing garbage and rhetoric.


Since you insist on a pisssing match with me and this is SO way off topic, care to butt heads in a private email session, or can you finish what you start? Perhaps direct me to a thread where I can finish knocking your**** in the dirt, either way, will gladly take it up with you


Someone come wake me up when it's 2009, please.


Oh yeah, I'm about to do that right now
 srqflaman
Joined: 10/29/2007
Msg: 78
We're winning
Posted: 11/6/2007 7:28:44 AM
Keep in mind the Soviets thought they were winning against the Mujuhadin...

Keep in mind we thought we were 'winning' in 'Nam....

The ONLY way you WIN is to anihilate your enemy in WAR.....you make that **stard fall to his knees and surrender...or die preferably

SEMPER FI
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 79
We're winning
Posted: 11/6/2007 8:16:16 AM
The ONLY way you WIN is to anihilate your enemy in WAR

Yes, but who is the enemy in Iraq? Actually, we have found the enemy, and it is us...

SEMPER FI
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 81
We're winning
Posted: 11/7/2007 1:05:48 PM
So, as of yesterday, the US body count reached the highest single year total since the beginning of the war (and there are still almost 2 months left in the year).

Within a mere 10 months the 2007 US death toll in Iraq has exceeded any yet recorded despite the last 2 months being the least violent of the year.

Doesn't sound a whole lot like winning to me.
 ManeRider
Joined: 5/22/2005
Msg: 86
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 11/8/2007 8:35:32 AM
If you consider big business and its executives (Haliburton), elitist (wealthy), government run companies or private subsidiaries/extensions of military office, legislative branches of government, mercenary groups contracted to "rebuild" Iraq... as they..... then yes, they are winning.
Middle class? As far as they're concerned, they could care less about the middle class. They walk on our backs on their march to "winning". But, it's really only about money. They only think they're winning. They consider money as the only form of success, they negate whatever negative affects will come from their lust for money, their greed that overcomes them.
Dennis Kucinich is the only presidential candidate with balls to evict Cheney from office, through an impeachment. These loons have turned our government into a 7 yr old soccer game, and I quote (Richard Clarke, former Bush security aid)


National Security Council veteran Rand Beers has called this the "7-year-old's soccer syndrome" - just like little kids playing soccer, everyone forgets their particular positions and responsibilities and runs like a herd after the ball.

In the end, there are only 12 seats at the conference table in the White House Situation Room, and the key players' schedules mean that they can seldom meet there together in person or on secure video conference for more than about 10 hours each week. When issues don't receive first-tier consideration, they can slip by for months. I learned this firsthand: In the early days of the Bush administration, I called for an urgent meeting to discuss the threat al-Qaeda posed to the United States. The Cabinet-level meeting eventually took place - but not until Sept. 4, 2001

. Without the distraction of the Iraq war, the administration would have spent this past year - indeed, every year since Sept. 11, 2001 - focused on al-Qaeda. But beyond al-Qaeda and the broader struggle for peaceful coexistence with (and within) Islam, seven key "fires in the in-box" national security issues remain unattended, deteriorating and threatening, all while Washington's grown-up 7-year-olds play herd ball with Iraq(Richard Clarke)


Go Dennis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oust those douche bags. Do a pirouette` on their forehead!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have we lost the OP?
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 88
We're winning
Posted: 11/10/2007 12:51:56 AM

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.


You follow the example of our President and his VP, or is it the VP and his President. You simply stonewall until the issue goes away. And then you start calling anyone who tried to keep it alive bitter and out-of-touch with the mainstream.

Works every time! (Unfortunately for us all.)

Now, as far us us "winning" over there, every time we get into a war we make a huge dent in the world's oil supply. With all the fuel we spent in the 20th Century wars through the current ones, we could have colonized Mars. As the rate we're going, we'll never get off this rock, and when we've thoroughly trashed it in the name of "winning" at whatever cost--to our dignity, our freedom, our Constitution, our faith--our grandkids will look back on us with horror for wasting what to them will seem like the most precoius resource imaginable.

There was an old Italian general named Pyrrhus who successfully defeated the Romans twice. However, his most famous remark was that "one more such victory would undo him." We can win all the wars we can get into, but none of them will put food on the table for our great grandkids.
 ManeRider
Joined: 5/22/2005
Msg: 95
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 11/11/2007 12:42:34 AM
I doubt it's as much a measure of people wanting the US to lose, in Iraq, as it is the fact that, unlike the Gulf War in Kuwait/Saudi A./Iraq, this occupation of Iraq has become protracted, and it's been intentionally drawn out, so as to create revenues for those companies who prosper, which is why the push is on to impreach Cheney. Most people would have anticipated a crisp, successful "job done" would be achievable in Iraq, as was in the Gulf war, but it's been less than crisp, OR successful, for some time. It's growing very old in the eyes of the majority of citizens and people are beginning to see our leaders more as our liabilities, globally speaking, than as our assets. Because someone thinks it's wrong for our country to occupy another, for whatever reason, greedy or otherwise, doesn't translate into someone hoping we lose. Point is, we're not winning anything right now, so guess what that is extrapolating into. Just like Got Fever manages to exemplify her own ignorance of heavily pressing "other" world issues, so does this administration.
AS Global Warming isn't a party issue, neither is a war involving our own troops. Both parties have something valuable at stake. Both parties are susceptable to the problems our Country may suffer, in the aftermath, whether we win or lose.
It appears as if we're not making progress holding the Iraqi's accountable for establishing their own democracy of government, and bringing ou troops home. Rather, they are asking for more money and more troops, instead.
Staggering Billions of USD are used to continue this occupation of a Country that doesn't "roll" like we do. They are fundamentalist. AS for winning the war, I'm not sure there's definition to that statement, since Al Queda reside in places other than Iraq. Terrorism isn't relegated to only one Country.
If our comfy ways of life are to be to be diminished, or our status as a Superpower is called into question, you can certainly look at the US's poor handling of the Iraq occupation as having a significantly high impact on how other Countries view the US. If, indeed, we have long held such prominent stature, it's been severely tarnished, as of late.



Then all that money that is currently going to things like healthcare and other social programs, R&D, etc. can continue to go to those programs giving you your lifestyle rather then spend those resources defending you agianst a-holes who don't want you to have said lifestyle
When Big Businesses bu+tholes start shrinking, cutting benefits of one sort or another, and when people are losing jobs, and the numbers of home foreclosures are superceeding the number of sales, what more example is needed to show how much an impact this war is having on our Country, all by itself. Shouldn't we be protecting our own borders, instead? Maybe concern ourselves with our own infrastructure, rather than play world police halfway across the globe, at a cost that is completely disproportionate to any benefits we might have otherwise anticipated from our efforts?
It's naive to think we're going to "win" anything in Iraq. There is no easy out. We've dug ourselves a ditch over there, and it appears, we may have to lie in it. It doesn't appear the current admin has the capability to take the advice of other world leaders, nor their own scholars best advice, starting with NO WMD's. They're still playing "herd the 'Iraqi' soccer ball" over a war that has no end.
 acranger
Joined: 4/24/2007
Msg: 96
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 11/11/2007 12:42:53 AM
Anybody with half a brain can see that now that things are improving in Iraq, the coverage in the media on the issue has declined considerably.

A few months ago anytime an Iraqi stubbed his toe going to the bathroom we got a news story about how bad it was to be in Iraq.

Now that casualties are down, and things are improving, we rarely see any stories detailing the success, and the ones that mention it follow it up immediately with a BUT....

Im confident most people are smart enough to realize this.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 97
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 11/11/2007 12:43:33 AM
Msg 143:
No, you missed the point.

The point many posters followed with was NOT "who cares if the US is winning". The point was that the US is NOT winning, and is in fact possibly making the problem WORSE.

Some, including myself, would argue that the US military and the US government KNOW this [it's addressed in various policy and study documents going back a minimum of 50 years, and apparently to points prior to the existence of the USA], and try to avoid this unsuccessfully. Two things are getting in the way: 1) bungling, 2) getting in deep enough that now there's no way out. I would not argue that the US should have its ass kicked, but I will say it deserves to. The policy makers know full well how to win a war of this nature. The public and the various people in upper government do not. In a guerrilla war, the enemy is the faceless public. The allies are also the faceless public. The only way to win is to make sure the faceless public are happy to be your friend. How is this being done? Well, to start, some jackass conquistador raises an American flag the moment he arrives in Baghdad. So much for "liberation". The there's Abu Graibh, waterboarding, assault on civilians, and a general lack of success in many areas. So much for "better than they are".

You are losing the battle of hearts and minds...and that's the only battle you can use to claim victory.

note - it's not an ad hominem to point out critical flaws in your lack of reasoning.
 acranger
Joined: 4/24/2007
Msg: 102
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 11/11/2007 8:10:01 AM
Amen dreadstalker.


You can see on these forums that most these people are second rate conspiracy theorists and your typical dime store anti-war wimps.

They are lazy, as illustrated by the staggering amount of cut and paste that goes on in just about every thread.

Im in Iraq right now and have spent a considerable amount of time over here.

Things are improving. But don't take my word for it. Take the word of some radical far left blogger who has never served a day in their life.

Pathetic.
 acranger
Joined: 4/24/2007
Msg: 104
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 11/11/2007 12:14:49 PM
Take my word for it because I am sitting in a container right now in Anbar province. I see what has been happening 1st hand.

Violence is down, way down. 77% in Baghdad.

Want some proof?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071111/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq


Read that. Of course I actually had to look for this one. I usually check my news from the front yahoo page.

The headline for the article cited above, "Iraqi PM sees decline in Baghdad attacks" Was buried deep in the yahoo news section off the main yahoo page.

Yahoo did have room however for an article about the failing economy and a very important article about disabled theme park visitors suing Disneyworld on their main page.

But dont worry, the next bombing that kills a couple people in Iraq will be sure and make it to the main yahoo page, you can bet on that.

Honestly, if you people cant see that the media is now ignoring the success of the surge, then I have a hard time taking anything else you say seriously.

As an American combat veteran, it is very upsetting for me that people would rather see us fail and lose in Iraq than see George Bush's strategy work.


And 15 or 20 NCOs who wrote letters? Out of the more than 500,000 combat tours in Iraq? When I talk to soldiers over here the majority of them believe in what they are doing. I know that is an anecdotal example.

But like I said, I have served over here as both a soldier and a civilian, and things are improving. I talk to Iraqis every day who are very happy to have Saddam gone, and who have joined forces with the Americans to run Al Qaeda out of Anbar.

But stories like that dont fit into your little Bush is a terrorist the war was illegal and we need to pull out now template, so you either discredit it or ignore it.

 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 105
We're winning
Posted: 11/11/2007 12:38:32 PM

Violence is down, way down. 77% in Baghdad.

Yes, that has been widely reported and even acknowledged in this thread. The levels have been reported dropping (especially in Baghdad) for a couple of months now.

However, that does not mean as much as you seem to want to play it up to mean. All it means is that the number of civilian deaths is down now that the various factions have pretty much completely segregated themselves and taken a breather for Ramadan and to consolidate their holdings (which is common in situations of sectarian violence).

It does not mean that the US is anywhere near to "winning" (unless you want to try to take credit for something that is almost completely out of US control).

Want some proof?

This year's death toll of US service personnel is the highest it has ever been in Iraq, from the war's inception. There has been no abatement in US deaths (the one fact that is within US control).
 acranger
Joined: 4/24/2007
Msg: 107
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 11/11/2007 1:00:34 PM
WWII......1940s.......troops still in Germany today

Korean War.....1950s........troops still in Korea today



Iraq war early 2000s.............a long ways to go


I think this war was as much about getting a solid foothold in the region for both action against Iran and for increasing influence and access to energy as the Chinese and Indian markets grow and need more oil, while at the same time the oil reserves drying up.

So Honestly, we will be here for the next 20 years minimum, in some capacity or another.


And you are right. Things are improving, but we are indeed a long way from "Winning"

And if the only definition of winning is us being able to pack up and leave completely within 1, 2 or even 5 years, then no, we are not, and will not win.

The region is too vital to our national interests for us to leave. It is unfortunate so many people fail to grasp this concept.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 108
We're winning
Posted: 11/11/2007 2:00:06 PM
WWII......1940s.......troops still in Germany today

Korean War.....1950s........troops still in Korea today

Umm... are you sure you don't want to rethink those exemplars?

US troops (and British, French and Canadian troops) remained in Germany for decades after WWII as a result of, wait for it, the NATO alliance (in otherwords, with the agreement, invitation and consent of Germany). They are not there as an occupier, they are not there for the internal security of the country (and haven't been for decades, the Germans are quite capable of handling that on their own). They are not there fighting against Germans who don't want them there and there have been no US combat deaths (unless you count the few who died or were wounded in terrorist attacks, yet even those did not prompt a US invasion).

The Korean War has not ended yet. US troops are there at the direct invitation of the Koreans in order to respond to any efforts to resume the armed conflict. US soldiers are not there to maintian internal security for the nation, they are not an unwelcome invasion force (unless you are North Korean) and there have been no US combat deaths in decades.

Iraq war early 2000s.............a long ways to go

In this case the US troops are an invasion force, in a country which did not attack the US and for which the US had no legal basis to attack.

You certainly are right that there is a long way to go (if the US stays) but that is the direct result of an unwarranted US action (and some wonder why the Iraqi's are shooting at Americans instead of greeting them in the streets with flowers though I can see how some were so brainwashed as to think that might happen).

I think this war was as much about getting a solid foothold in the region for both action against Iran and for increasing influence and access to energy as the Chinese and Indian markets grow and need more oil, while at the same time the oil reserves drying up.

That is the first intellectually honest assessment of US involvement in Iraq you have yet provided. The US isn't there because Saddam was a "bad person' or was a threat to the US. They are there because the US's domestic interests are considered by some to be more important than the lives and autonomy of foreigners (even in the others' own country).

It is about oil, about control, about selfish interests and has nothing to do with freedom, democracy or any other high-minded ideal.

The region is too vital to our national interests for us to leave. It is unfortunate so many people fail to grasp this concept.

Actually, pretty much everyone else does "grasp" this concept and it is one of the largest reasons why Americans and others around the world are so opposed to the US invasion of Iraq. We realize it has nothing to do with all of those "grand" reasons BuchCo. gave for it (like freedom, democracy, human rights, threats to world peace) and that it is about pure, unadulterated selfishness (only the US interests count for anything, anyplace in the world, and everyone else can simply suffer if they get in the way).
 acranger
Joined: 4/24/2007
Msg: 109
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 11/11/2007 2:13:58 PM

WWII......1940s.......troops still in Germany today

Korean War.....1950s........troops still in Korea today

Umm... are you sure you don't want to rethink those exemplars?


The question was how long I thought troops were going to be in Iraq.

Those are both valid examples.

And thanks for the quick history lesson on the Korean war, but I spent 2 years there and we are a lot more unwelcome there than you might think. But thats beside the point.

The question had nothing to do with the perceived legality of the wars or the reasons for invading.
 mungojoe
Joined: 11/15/2006
Msg: 110
We're winning
Posted: 11/11/2007 3:10:39 PM
And thanks for the quick history lesson on the Korean war, but I spent 2 years there and we are a lot more unwelcome there than you might think. But thats beside the point.

Uh, yeah...

I've been there too... and Germany... and England... and the Middle East. There are always those, in those countries, who don't want foreign troops on their soil for any reason but for the most part they don't shoot at you because of it (unless, of course, you are a UN peacekeeper and the shooters are IDF).

The point you seem to be missing is that the presence of US troops in Europe and Korea exists because of bi-lateral agreement between the gov'ts (there are German and South Korean soldiers in the US too) not as a result of an illegal invasion to secure US self-interest at the expense of the indigenous population.

That (bi-lateral agreement rather than invasion) is what invalidates the comparison. US (and other troops) have remained in those other countries by agreement, not by unilateral force, and that is why they remain, not because the gov'ts of the time 'screwed the pooch' as this one did with Iraq.
 woobytoodsday
Joined: 12/13/2006
Msg: 113
We're winning
Posted: 11/11/2007 7:11:03 PM
Gosh. So glad we're winning. My google news alert arrives daily with other news. . . .


Article published Sunday, November 11, 2007
Tragic milestone

THE war in Iraq reached a new milestone this week as the military recorded the highest annual death toll of American soldiers - just halfway through the fifth year of the conflict.

U.S. deaths reached 852 for 2007, and a total for the war of well over 3,800. In a way this is not surprising, since the level of U.S. forces in Iraq at 165,000 is the highest ever. What's more, the climbing figure suggests that no end is in sight, unless a macabre logic is employed which says that the more Americans die in the effort, the closer comes the victory President Bush promises.

It is difficult to gauge the long-term impact of the war on the state of U.S. forces in general. An element that is disturbing, in light of occasional accusations of misbehavior that come from the battlefield, is that the U.S. Army is now planning to lower its recruitment standards further, allowing into the service soldiers with convictions for minor crimes. The implications for discipline and conduct are serious.

Action by a House-Senate conference committee on a request from Mr. Bush for an extra $70 billion in unrestricted war funds indicates that the Congress may be waking up to its constitutional responsibility to act as a curb on the president. The committee rejected his request, although it approved a blockbuster $460 billion Department of Defense budget, thus assuring that American forces in the field will not be denied anything they need.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071111/OPINION02/711110304


From The Times
November 12, 2007
Armed Forces' bloodiest year since the Falklands
Fran Yeoman

The Queen and thousands of war veterans gathered at the Cenotaph in London yesterday at the end of the bloodiest year for the Armed Forces since the Falklands War.

Since November 11 last year, 92 servicemen and women have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the highest death toll since 253 died in the South Atlantic a quarter of a century ago.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2852674.ece

.
 acranger
Joined: 4/24/2007
Msg: 114
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 11/11/2007 10:02:20 PM
Thank you Montreal guy.

While we do disagree on many things, we do in fact share some common ground.

I respect your point of view.
 chapel551
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 115
We're winning
Posted: 11/12/2007 6:07:47 AM
well for all you that believe we are winning why is oil almost $100.00 a barrel we are stealing the oil and paying a high price for it gas price in iraq about .20 cents a gallon usa is the largest terroist group in the world and why do the politians think we are suppose to be the world police force we are actually occuping iraq as for being there its crazy the money that is being spent could have built 2 large fences one with canada and another with mexico and have hired enough immigration officers to defend our borders,along with provideing enough investigation officers to protect us,why in hell do we care about the rest of the world who dont help to protect themselves.
 acranger
Joined: 4/24/2007
Msg: 118
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 11/12/2007 8:44:59 AM

Happy Veteran’s Day. All gave some, some gave all.


Happy Veterans Day to you too, brother.
 ManeRider
Joined: 5/22/2005
Msg: 119
view profile
History
We're winning
Posted: 11/12/2007 8:10:07 PM
^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
*****>>>>>>>We lost when Bush challenged militants to “Bring it on!" {He is not a 5-year-old in a sandbox, he’s the leader of the free world (serendipiteee ) <<<<<*****
Well put.
I thought there were checks and balances in place to keep our administrative branches of gov't. in check in case someone went loco-dictatorial on us.

Impeach Cheney
Dennis Kucinich, <<<<<
Happy Veterans day, to all the vets.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 120
We're winning
Posted: 11/13/2007 10:04:14 AM
It's a very good point! There's a difference between wanting to lose and recognizing that there's just no way to win or that any supposed victory is likely to cost us more than it's worth. There's only so much sand you can poud down a rathole, and forcing "democracy" down someone else's throat is kind-of like that.

Either people want the benefits or they don't. If they don't, and they continue to vote against it with their behavior ... guess what ... that's their vote!

Ultimately, it's our competence and adaptibility that will "win" in the competition of ideas. It is simply true that universal agreement about the sanctity of human rights frees people up to perform better. When you have an entire society of people who feel free to find their best calling in life and do it full out, that society will consistently outperform another society in which people feel that they must conform to restrictive roles. If people in that other society want to hold themselves back for "religious" reasons, that's what they're going to do. If they want to export that religion by force, well, that would violate the rights of others and so must be curtailed. But by the same token we have no right to force our secularity on those who don't want it.
 AceOfSpace
Joined: 5/28/2007
Msg: 121
We're winning
Posted: 11/13/2007 4:56:49 PM

The general populace is more then happy to have a democratic say in their political system. It is the insurgents and religion extremists that are the cause of the vast majority of the problems happening.


That's a good point, and up to a point I agree. However, I can't help but wonder why the local populace doesn't do more to undermine the insurgents--who couldn't continue for long without local cooperation. When caught between two devils, as the locals must feel they are, who do you turn to? Obviously the one who's more familiar.

There's a big difference between being happy to have some control over your governance and making a stand to take that control. Until they make that stand themselves, their tacit vote is to go with what they've always known. I can't say as I blame them for that, but I sure don't want my countrymen's lives on the line for something that they'd be happy to have but not willing to put their own lives on the line for.

Unfortunately, it looks as though for them to get any control over their situation they'll have to get rid of not just the foriegn insurgents, but our troops as well. As long as the foriegn insurgents are willing to take us on, isn't it in the perceived interests of ordinary Iraqis to let them? After all, they lived right next to Iran. They know what sort of puppet regime our government is likely to install. In fact, they don't even need to look at the Shah. They only need to look at our previous support for Sadaam Hussein.

They have absolutely no reason to trust us our government all.
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 122
We're winning
Posted: 11/13/2007 9:08:43 PM

When in fact by not presenting a unified front they are in fact doing the most harm.

A front doesn't get much more unified than it was after 9/11. That was solidarity with a capital "S." I don't think that was seen in this country since WWII.

Guess who pi$$ed it away?

A enemy doesn't have to win battles against our military forces. In point of fact that doesn't happen very often.
The only thing that they have to do is win the media war.

True. However, the reverse is not true because the US is the foreign force (and usually is). What the US needs to succeed is a thoughtfully conceived military strategy, well defined military objectives, a plausible exit strategy, and a politcal and diplomatic plan to top it all off.

Again, guess who didn't think this through?
 flyguy51
Joined: 8/11/2005
Msg: 123
We're winning
Posted: 11/13/2007 9:28:09 PM
I'm talking about the solidarity of the nation's populace, not just the political parties, as I thought you were. Didn't many of the Dems also vote to invade Iraq, though? If your cynicism says that there cannot be solidarity between political parties, and you say solidarity is required in order to succeed in war, it sounds like you are arguing that the US was doomed to fail at the outset. Either that, or you are contradicting yourself in order to chip away at my argument.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  >