getting prowar people to define victory

[spivey378]

i am still yet to hear what it takes victory over in iraq

saddam is dead

there are no wmd's they can use


seems to me we already won and its up the iraqi's where they should take it from here.

we've already won with "honor"

 

[Starks]

It's not that simple. Even if you are against the war, it's dangerous to simply cast aside what has happened since May 2003.

 

[Original_Intent]

I agree, there has never been a definition of victory. This is because the neocons want us there indefinitely.

We should declare victory, bring the troops home to ticker tape parades, and wish the Iraqi's well.

 

[njandrewg]

we already won, its time for Iraq to stand on its own...those who want to stay in Iraq are the real defeatists

 

[Artemus]

When the last "terrorist" is dead, this war will end.

 

[jaumen]

When the last "terrorist" is dead, this war will end.

Exactly.... which is another way of saying "Never."

 

[nullvalu]

Exactly.... which is another way of saying "Never."

not to mention the mere fact that we're there fighting this 'war' is creating new terrorists..

 

[transistor]

Hell, I'm not even sure why we went to war in the first place

 

[ghemminger]

Your going down the wrong tract on this one - let the NeoCons run out their course here into destruction we will have to pick up the peices

 

[Zack]

i am still yet to hear what it takes victory over in iraq

saddam is dead

there are no wmd's they can use


seems to me we already won and its up the iraqi's where they should take it from here.

we've already won with "honor"

Yes, the war was jusified by the theory that we were enforcing UN regulations, which we were, albiet in a way most UN countries didn't approve of. The UN regulations refer to the government we already defeated, as you said. Therefore are justification for engaging in war is gone.

What we are currently taking part in, is a misguided international policing operation in an area of the world where are brave policing soldiers are going to have loads of potshots taken at them for as long as they stay.

By using the term "war", they wish to imply that there is a war to lose, or retreat from. To "cut and run" from. If we put 150K soldiers in any country in the middle east, and have them patrol the area, guess what? They'll get potshots taken at them there, too. And we'll eventually have thousands dead there, instead. And they'll inspire the creation of new al-qaeda groups in those regions, as well.

That doesn't mean they would be "fighting a war".

 

[Bob Cochran]

It's not that simple. Even if you are against the war, it's dangerous to simply cast aside what has happened since May 2003.

Dangerous in what way?

If your butt were there getting shot at, and you heard you could go home tomorrow, would pulling out completely seem like a dangerous idea to you?

Please be precise and do not speak in hypotheticals.