So Bush and Cheney Have Declared The War A Success

[YouMadeTheScene]

I'm not trying to be Mr.Liberal here because that just leads to fighting here, but...Wasn't the first plan of the war to go in and find the WMDs? Yes I know they "probably were transported out on our way over there," but if that was our plan and we didn't execute how is it a success? Even further wouldn't a war that was supposed to be a in and out affair that has now lasted 3 years a failure? Former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who the Bush Regime fully supported, has said that they are now in civil war, which to me doesn't sound much like success.

To me it seems as if we had our chance to get out. When we first were installing a government there, the violence was at a low. We had things going well I suppose, and then we overstayed our welcome. Now we are too deep.

So is this war a success like Bush and Cheney have said, and if so explain.

[oldwirehands]

Maybe their standards aren't very high?

[YourMusicSucks]

We completely whiped a hostile government off the face of the earth and are (possibly much too slowly) replacing it with a goverment that suits us.

That could be seen as a success to some.

[hobbes2809]

Im pretty sure if you lived in Iraq ten years ago, and compared it to living in Iraq now, you'd probably call it a success too

we freed their people from a govt that practically has committed genocide against them, removed a tyrant dictator, and are giving these people a chance for a better life

no WMD's were found, no, but the potential for them to be created has been eliminated

I think these few points alone constitute the term "success" so far

just my two cents

[commatosa]

here's what we did....we invaded a country and forced "democracy" on them. We "freed" them so that they could have a civil war. And we killed 2300 of our soldiers and more than 30,000 of their people. If that's not a victory than I don't know what is.

[hobbes2809]

here's what we did....we invaded a country and forced "democracy" on them. We "freed" them so that they could have a civil war. And we killed 2300 of our soldiers and more than 30,000 of their people. If that's not a victory than I don't know what is.

Mr. Negativity here has never heard of the song "Always Lookin on the Bright Side"

[cal1082]

here's what we did....we invaded a country and forced "democracy" on them. We "freed" them so that they could have a civil war. And we killed 2300 of our soldiers and more than 30,000 of their people. If that's not a victory than I don't know what is.

Same could be said for WWII, but on an even larger scale. Would you consider that a success?

[YourMusicSucks]

here's what we did....we invaded a country and forced "democracy" on them. We "freed" them so that they could have a civil war. And we killed 2300 of our soldiers and more than 30,000 of their people. If that's not a victory than I don't know what is.

If I was too ignorant/set in my ways to want democracy, I'd hope somebody would force it on me. Not that I'm implying that's the case.

[YouMadeTheScene]

here's what we did....we invaded a country and forced "democracy" on them. We "freed" them so that they could have a civil war. And we killed 2300 of our soldiers and more than 30,000 of their people. If that's not a victory than I don't know what is.

Basically. Although they sort of chose democracy. Sort of.

Same could be said for WWII, but on an even larger scale. Would you consider that a success?

we didn't go into world war II to set things right in the world. We went to war because we were attacked by Japan. In turn we then went to war with Japan, which lumped us with the Allies. So we didn't exactly go out to be high and mighty. In fact we sat back for 2 or 3 years before doing anything. And even if we went to war to set the world right, they accomplished that goal. We didn't go to war to install democracy and free the people of Iraq, we went over to attack the production of the non-existent WMD's.

We completely whiped a hostile government off the face of the earth and are (possibly much too slowly) replacing it with a goverment that suits us.

That could be seen as a success to some.

There are a lot of hostile governments in the world, many of which don't suit us, so should we declare war on all of them? And the bottom line is that the war wasn't about the government being bad for the people, but after we failed to find WMDs and our intelligence went to shit we needed a reason to be there so it become the Freedom of Iraq.

Im pretty sure if you lived in Iraq ten years ago, and compared it to living in Iraq now, you'd probably call it a success too

we freed their people from a govt that practically has committed genocide against them, removed a tyrant dictator, and are giving these people a chance for a better life

no WMD's were found, no, but the potential for them to be created has been eliminated

I think these few points alone constitute the term "success" so far

just my two cents

10 years ago there was no Civil War.



The bottome line to me at least is that we went in to do something and we didn't. We changed our mission to then bring peace and democracy to Iraq and there is currently civil war and a mess of a government where one of the members of the board and former Prime Minister feels that they are falling into an endless hole. That's not exactly a success to me.

[hobbes2809]

The bottome line to me at least is that we went in to do something and we didn't. We changed our mission to then bring peace and democracy to Iraq and there is currently civil war and a mess of a government where one of the members of the board and former Prime Minister feels that they are falling into an endless hole. That's not exactly a success to me.

okay, for the sake of discussion, now that we are there, whether we shouldve been or not, what do you think we should do that would qualify as a success?

im just curious what you think? should we leave them alone now? sure we probably made a mess over there, but it feels like the right thing to do is go "okay we fucked up, now we're gonna clean up our mess and try and make the best out of the situation we put ourselves in"

[YouMadeTheScene]

okay, for the sake of discussion, now that we are there, whether we shouldve been or not, what do you think we should do that would qualify as a success?

im just curious what you think? should we leave them alone now? sure we probably made a mess over there, but it feels like the right thing to do is go "okay we fucked up, now we're gonna clean up our mess and try and make the best out of the situation we put ourselves in"

I hate to answer a question with a question but, will there ever be a success? I mean does anyone actually imagine that within the next 10 years we will see a developing Iraq in the light of Japan?

People always make the comparison of this war to WWII in terms of what we are done, then fine lets look at that.

Japan- They were under the rule of an emperor who they adored. After he was taken down, they were left dejected and in turn they were easy to mold. In doing so we molded them into a mini-US, and they've done great

Germany-They were led by a dictator who the majority of the people hated. He was taken down and they fell into a civil war that basically lasted until 1989.

What sounds more similar in terms of situations? Pretty easily Germany.

Now I know the next argument will be, but Russia is the one who went in and forced Communism in Germany!! Well guess what, at this point the way Russian was looked down upon we are currently looked down upon. The rest of the world sees us as big bullies like Russia.

So I guess my answer is, there will be no peace there. Not for decades. The best thing we can do is pull the majority of our soldiers out of there like we did in Vietnam to save ourselves more death.

[hobbes2809]

So I guess my answer is, there will be no peace there. Not for decades. The best thing we can do is pull the majority of our soldiers out of there like we did in Vietnam to save ourselves more death.

I guess in the end, I feel that it is largely irresponsible to simply get up and leave, letting them fall back into chaos, and, as much as much of the middle east hates us now, they will only hate us more if we abandon them in the middle of all this.

Furthermore, I have a friend in Iraq, and all he talks about is all the great things going on over there, and how much we are helping and how grateful they are. I think the situation is really much better than most people want to accept or believe.

and, as ridiculous as this sounds, I believe America is better than quitting on our mistakes. Sure, accept the blame, but fix what was wrong.

[YouMadeTheScene]

I guess in the end, I feel that it is largely irresponsible to simply get up and leave, letting them fall back into chaos, and, as much as much of the middle east hates us now, they will only hate us more if we abandon them in the middle of all this.

Furthermore, I have a friend in Iraq, and all he talks about is all the great things going on over there, and how much we are helping and how grateful they are. I think the situation is really much better than most people want to accept or believe.

and, as ridiculous as this sounds, I believe America is better than quitting on our mistakes. Sure, accept the blame, but fix what was wrong.

We did it in Vietnam. The thing is, is it worth it to stay there for what may be 10 years and see tens of thousands of our own soldiers and maybe hundreds of thousands of the Iraqi people die?

It's odd because you hear conflicting reports from Iraq. At the same time there are soldiers who see and feel the opposite.

I see what you are saying thought, and it is an obvious response and a good one, but the question is, is it worth taking that risk and the possibility that your friend could perish in a war like this?

[hobbes2809]

We did it in Vietnam. The thing is, is it worth it to stay there for what may be 10 years and see tens of thousands of our own soldiers and maybe hundreds of thousands of the Iraqi people die?

It's odd because you hear conflicting reports from Iraq. At the same time there are soldiers who see and feel the opposite.

I see what you are saying thought, and it is an obvious response and a good one, but the question is, is it worth taking that risk and the possibility that your friend could perish in a war like this?

If, at the end of those 10 years, there is peace and stability in Iraq, then I think yes.

In regards to my friend, he believes what he is doing in Iraq is the right thing, and he made the decision to enlist voluntarily, knowing the potential risks, and I admire that strength of character.




discussing politics is funny to me sometimes, because in order to have a good discussion, I have to fight the urge to throw out an existential argument haha

"we're all gonna die anyways, who gives a flying fuck what happens"

[cal1082]

we didn't go into world war II to set things right in the world. We went to war because we were attacked by Japan. In turn we then went to war with Japan, which lumped us with the Allies. So we didn't exactly go out to be high and mighty. In fact we sat back for 2 or 3 years before doing anything. And even if we went to war to set the world right, they accomplished that goal. We didn't go to war to install democracy and free the people of Iraq, we went over to attack the production of the non-existent WMD's.

I'm not arguing reasons for war, nor was he. The question is "success of the war". The reasons for war has nothing to do with the success of the war, so while you might have a point, it doesnt have anything to do with his point or my point.

[cal1082]

I hate to answer a question with a question but, will there ever be a success? i mean does anyone actually imagine that within the next 10 years we will see a developing Iraq in the light of Japan?

People always make the comparison of this war to WWII in terms of what we are done, then fine lets look at that.

Japan- They were under the rule of an emperor who they adored. After he was taken down, they were left dejected and in turn they were easy to mold. In doing so we molded them into a mini-US, and they've done great

Germany-They were led by a dictator who the majority of the people hated. He was taken down and they fell into a civil war that basically lasted until 1989.

What sounds more similar in terms of situations? Pretty easily Germany.

Now I know the next argument will be, but Russia is the one who went in and forced Communism in Germany!! Well guess what, at this point the way Russian was looked down upon we are currently looked down upon. The rest of the world sees us as big bullies like Russia.

So I guess my answer is, there will be no peace there. Not for decades. The best thing we can do is pull the majority of our soldiers out of there like we did in Vietnam to save ourselves more death.

i could easily see a developing Iraq, considering the fact they are sitting on a mountain of oil. Does it have to be set up like Japan? Of course not...........but you're looking for a stable government that represents the people of Iraq. There are a number of different muslim countries that have a stable government that has worked relatively well with the international community (turkey, Jordan, Kuwait, UAE). Now I don't know how in depth there tribal conflicts go and how they compare to those of Iraq. But to assume that these groups can't work with each other is very unfair.

And I think it should be noted the MAJORITY of Iraq is not facing the real threat of a civil war. Not to say that it couldnt spill over if things got worse though.

[cal1082]

We did it in Vietnam. The thing is, is it worth it to stay there for what may be 10 years and see tens of thousands of our own soldiers and maybe hundreds of thousands of the Iraqi people die?

It's odd because you hear conflicting reports from Iraq. At the same time there are soldiers who see and feel the opposite.

I see what you are saying thought, and it is an obvious response and a good one, but the question is, is it worth taking that risk and the possibility that your friend could perish in a war like this?

I'd pose the same question. Is it worth leaving and perhaps allowing an agressive, sunni dominated government like the Saddam regime taking control and perhaps aligning itself with Iran and other aggressive forces that pose an extreme threat to Israel and the US?

[ArTkY_]

here's what we did....we invaded a country and forced "democracy" on them. We "freed" them so that they could have a civil war. And we killed 2300 of our soldiers and more than 30,000 of their people. If that's not a victory than I don't know what is.
That's basically it. Drinks all around!

[cal1082]

Just to answer the main question I'd say it's to difficult to sum it up in such simply terms as a success or victory overall. There's been great success and tremendous failures on both ends (just like in WWII in the years that followed). It'll probably be decades before you can look at the chain of reactions that the war has set off and determine the true success.

[YouMadeTheScene]

I'm not arguing reasons for war, nor was he. The question is "success of the war". The reasons for war has nothing to do with the success of the war, so while you might have a point, it doesnt have anything to do with his point or my point.

wouldn't success be measured by the accomplishment of the goal?

[cal1082]

wouldn't success be measured by the accomplishment of the goal?

yes

[YouMadeTheScene]

yes

and they never did that. so in turn must it be a failure?

[cal1082]

and they never did that. so in turn must it be a failure?

well you're summing the whole campaign up into one goal. what is that one goal you're referring to?

[YouMadeTheScene]

well you're summing the whole campaign up into one goal. what is that one goal you're referring to?

the point that the war was started on which was weapons of mass destruction. they failed that. then it was to bring peace to Iraq, and well it doesn't seem very peaceful when you have head Iraqi officials saying his country is in a civil war.

[commatosa]

Same could be said for WWII, but on an even larger scale. Would you consider that a success?

how could you compare WWII with Iraq? We didn't storm Normandy to force democracy on the germans (yes, I know normandy is in france).

[commatosa]

I'm telling you. we tried, we failed miserably. now that there's no hope, why are we still over there? All we did was make things worse. Everyone kept saying "if we leave it will lead to civil war." So now that civil war is apparently inevitable, can we leave? And if war supporters still want us to stay over there than you truly do NOT support the troops.

[cal1082]

the point that the war was started on which was weapons of mass destruction. they failed that. then it was to bring peace to Iraq, and well it doesn't seem very peaceful when you have head Iraqi officials saying his country is in a civil war.

there were many, many goals in the war with Iraq

[commatosa]

there were many, many goals in the war with Iraq

and an exit strategy wasn't one of them

[cal1082]

how could you compare WWII with Iraq? We didn't storm Normandy to force democracy on the germans (yes, I know normandy is in france).

i comparing every single failure you pointed out in your first post with WWII (which are very compariable)

"here's what we did....we invaded a country and forced "democracy" on them(JAPAN). We "freed" them so that they could have a civil war (PICK YOURSELF A COUNTRY IN WESTERN EUROPE). And we killed 2300 of our soldiers and more than 30,000 of their people(NEED I EVEN POINT THIS OUT?). If that's not a victory than I don't know what is."

I dont care if your opinions are really out there, but at least attempt to provide some sort of substance!

[commatosa]

i comparing every single failure you pointed out in your first post with WWII (which are very compariable)

"here's what we did....we invaded a country and forced "democracy" on them(JAPAN). We "freed" them so that they could have a civil war (PICK YOURSELF A COUNTRY IN WESTERN EUROPE). And we killed 2300 of our soldiers and more than 30,000 of their people(NEED I EVEN POINT THIS OUT?). If that's not a victory than I don't know what is."

I dont care if your opinions are really out there, but at least attempt to provide some sort of substance!

okay, so what you're trying to say is that civil war is okay cause it's happened before. and we invaded japan to spread democracy. are you still defending this war cause you believe in it or are you just so blinded by your conservative stubborness that you'll never admit that this war was pointless and retarded from the start?

[cal1082]

okay, so what you're trying to say is that civil war is okay cause it's happened before. and we invaded japan to spread democracy. are you still defending this war cause you believe in it or are you just so blinded by your conservative stubborness that you'll never admit that this war was pointless and retarded from the start?

What? I'm simply pointing out that everything you pointed out as proving our failure in this war occured during WWII, and I asked (which you havent answered) if you consider WWII a failure?

It's that simply..............We shouldnt have to run into a circle of posts and end here where my first post to you started.

[lightcollapse]

we are putting so much FUCKING money into iraq and it doesn't reciprocate (duh, because its in fucking iraq, rather than the US.) i don't see how any conservative can support this war.

(i'm not a conservative, just speaking from an alternate viewpoint.)

[Vonck]

hahaha, i love when people try to act like america have been some kind of heroes to the iraqi people. instead of hussein killing them, we're doing it. instead of hussein having power over them, we have them in anarchy.

interesting quote, let's see if anyone recognizes it: "Thou wouldst go into the world, and art going with empty hands, with some promise of freedom which men in their simplicity and their natural unruliness cannot even understand, which they fear and dread -- for nothing has ever been more insupportable for a man and a human society than freedom."