Do you want America to win the war in Iraq?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Even if it means destroying every single principle this country was founded on? Even if it means the deaths of an entire generation of people? Even if it means the genocide of the population of Iraq?

Let's not make up imaginary situations when I say such things. We all know we can create very extreme situations in which all of us would disagree with. But let's face it, are those extreme situations really likely to happen? No.

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Again, I think you're thinking is too near-sighted. Think of the long-run...the world-wide political spectrum.

If we lose in Iraq, because it is 'costing too many American lives', we are in deep trouble, because every terrorist organization in the world now views us as an easy target. I don't ever downplay the lives of our soldiers, but there is no way in hell anybody can ever say we've lost too many American lives in this war, when they are in reality so few that we've lost.

That is quandry in this win lose scenario. Im not sure I believe that if we win it is going to be of benefit in the world-wide political spectrum. I certainly do not believe a win in Iraq is a win for the war on terror. To the contrary, I believe the war in Iraq has done more to unite and further solidify terror organizations all over the globe. There is nothing near sighted about my views. Winning at any and all costs just for the sake of winning is pretty near sighted if you ask me. Future benefits for our society are only speculation. What I do believe is that a win in Iraq (whatever that means) will further the goals of the neoconservative agenda. What I do believe, is that, I do not believe in the goals of the neoconservative agenda.

[motivez]

Well, considering we're already on the road of abandoning our most sacred principles and liberties in the name of temporary security, it's hardly imaginary.

In any case, absolutes and not thinking about the consequences of victory is a myopic view of what's going in Iraq. One should step back and look at the big picture and contemplate the potential consequences.

[Diamond Cross]

I wangt America to win.

However, I do care about how we go about it. America is supposed to be the good guys. That has to mean something. It means we hold ourselves to the standards that we hold everybody us to. So what does that mean?

Well for one thing that means we follow the rules. We hold ourselves to the Geneva conventions. We don't torture our prisoners. We don't imprison prisoners just under the assumption of guilt. We pay our dues. And so on.

That's what will separate us from the bad guys who don't give a damn about the Geneva conventions, or will use torture, and so on and so forth.

I realise this might seem naive to some, but remember, we are the ones who suffered a completely unprovoked attack on our soil against civilians, causing 2,000 deaths. The world supported us then because they too had seen these kinds of unwarranted attacks and they mourned with us. These attacks are4 not carried out by government-support but by individuals who don't like America for religious reasons.

Now we have a President who's completely forgotten about the War On Terror just to go after Iraq. Yet Iran is arming themselves to the teeth and all we do is pat them on the head and treat them like a toddler having a tantrum in a store.

[ethyl]

Sure I want the US to win... but there are multiple 'wins' that we need to achieve. First is the transfer of security to the Iraqis which according to General Casey will happen within about a year. After that, another win will be a continued US allied Iraq. Iraq may not become a pristine democracy but I'll be satisfied if they're no longer a threatening presence to the region. If that takes splitting up the country than so be it.
They'll have a voice of their own so I certainly don't expect them to cave to every US demand.. but so long as they aren't pulling openly 'Iran type rhetoric' towards the US, I'll be content. A tertiary win would be a drastic reduction in sectarian violence after the US withdrawal, but this would be more of an Iraq win than something the US should be responsible for...

[Donkey®]

Win what? The Iraq was isn't about a win or loss for us...it is about a win for the Iraqi people.

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Win what? The Iraq was isn't about a win or loss for us...it is about a win for the Iraqi people.

Good point.

[6SpeedTA95]

The answer is a most definately yes...of course its complicated why is that even an option?

[Scrum]

What is it we are going to win?






The war against Saddams Republican Army?

We already won it.



The civil war raging over there right now?

It's not a win/lose for us. It's their conflict.

This is like asking if I want to win a game of checkers that Ballz and Motivez are playing.

[motivez]

That's why I put "It's complicated". I really think a "win / loss" framing of the issue isn't any kind of way to look at what's happening over there.

We won the military battles hands down. That part is over. Now it's about a political solution within Iraq, and that's something the Iraqi's are going to have to decide.

We can't force them to get along. We can't force them to work together. We can't force the government to succeed. It's not about winning or losing, it's about "best case scenario" now that we've gone in and messed with things.

[Ardentfrost]

I'm agreeing with the "It's complicated" people. Without understanding "win" how can I want it? What if the "prize" is a big steaming pile of shit? I don't want that.

Like playing the "who can hit softest" game... the point is to lose because the winner ends up with a more hurt arm. But even then, with relation to this conflict, I don't even know what "losing" is. I think we have both won and lost. Someone mentioned winning vs. Saddam's Republican Guard, which is true. We've also won vs. Saddam (we found him). But what have we lost? With stuff like the PATRIOT Act, and most recently the MCA, I think my arm is pretty sore. I don't know if it's more sore than whoever it is we're fighting (another complicated part), but I certainly feel like a loser in this mess.

[IminWonderland]

I might be being too introspective.....

But, can war ever really have a clear winner without annhilating a country? I mean, Even when we win, there is something that we loose in winning. There is actually alot of loosing in winning.

This isn't a marathon race, and who ever crosses the finish lines gets something shiny. This isn't a baseball game, where win or loose we line up against the other country and slap hands in gratitude for the "good game".

No matter who comes home first, who throws the white flag first, both sides have already lost too much, and when it's over, there are things we will loose some more. This war isn't going to end when we come home after what we feel is "winning". The reprussions from this action will affect our children, or, if the world isn't destroyed by nukes by then, our grandchildren. Just like we still feel the aftermath of the Civil War, World War 2, Vietnam, and each of us have been shaped in some way by each conflict. And likewise, the countries we have fought in those applicable instances have shaped from those actions too. It's because of this, that War should never be something that we just do because we have some extra troops about, and some money we'd like to spend, some companies we want to make rich, and some selfish pride and patriotism we want to buy for ourselves. A Country's overinflated self esteem has been the downfall of civilizations, and we aren't immune from being gratuitious with how "WONDERFUL" we think we are.

I hate your question. Because if life ever got that black and white, then that means that we are living in "a world of shit".

This isn't just "COMPLICATED", like some kind of messy relationship that we are trying to get out of without hurting the other person. We have created a literal shit storm in a hornets nest. And those people, that are already very angry that we set foot in their country, who have had the lives they once had destroyed, watched people they have loved died, they aren't likely to forget that what has caused all of this death and destruction, that happened when we got there. Don't bother with the big bad Saddam issue, because if that's ALL it was, then "getting" him would have solved this, and it didn't.

This is beyond Yes, No, or it's complicated.

[Kytro]

404 - war is not found.

Iraq is a "friendly" nation who the US is "helping" defend against "insurgents". The "war" was won ages ago.

[WickedLou9]

Unless you can define what constitutes winning and losing.. it's hard to say.. rigth now we don't even know what winning is. We know what we don't want to happen. that much We have down pat. but what do we want to happen? What will we accept as victory? Would a 3 state Iraq be a victory?

Sure in the general sense that I want the US to come out of this and obtain some sort of positive results. In this conflict there isn't really winning and losing. There are varying degrees of success./

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Again, I think you're thinking is too near-sighted. Think of the long-run...the world-wide political spectrum.

If we LEAVE in Iraq, because it is 'costing too many American lives', we are in deep trouble, because every terrorist organization in the world now views us as an easy target. I don't ever downplay the lives of our soldiers, but there is no way in hell anybody can ever say we've lost too many American lives in this war, when they are in reality so few that we've lost.

This is a legitamit arguement you make. It has a strong place in a debate and is seemingly well informed. Asking people whether they want american to win and saying America should win at any cost is almost childish.

[avsp]

b2w: if you define 'winning' as being generally perceived worldwide to have 'won', (which is what I think you mean, isnt it?), then your question really becomes something like
"Do you agree that being percieved to have won is so important that you are prepared to accept methods, costs & results that you would not otherwise accept?'

If so, I'd argue that there is now no way that the Coalition can be perceived to have won as PNACs stated aims cant now come true & the 'myth' of massive western military supremacy lie shattered as does the credibility of the office POTUSA & democracy, (& much else besides).

Also there still is not an 'at any cost' condition. Some costs (for example,behaving like Saddam or splitting Iraq up) would still be widely percieved as failures & thus 'winning' (in the sense defined above) wouldnt be possible in those cases.

We are just going to have to accept that the Coalition has lost & aims have been downshifted to avoiding/minimising escalation & coping with the fall-out of global security arrangment adjustment. This is going to be hard enough, not least as pressure for withdrawal is, seemingly, going to be driven by the US electorial cycle.

OTOH in 30 years time, if the 'course is stayed', then perhaps the 'draining the swamp' strategy may bear fruit.

Cliffs: I'd think an enourmous amount of effort should be spent on avoiding WWIII so I voted 'yes 'but otherwise I think your question is poorly worded*, (possibly), & too late & thus almost redundant anyway.

* for lots of reasons in addition to those given above

[Vietvet]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

So you think that if the cost was 'too high' right now, you would support not winning?

I find that to be the most dangerous thought of all, that there are people saying such things. I think we should win, at any cost, becuase the long term affects of NOT winning are far more detrimental than the cost in the short run. Imagine what would happen if we didn't lose because we were worried about a couple hundred or thousand more US soldiers dying, or it costing a few more billion dollars. The thought scares me.

I want the US to win, at any cost.

We've already LOST, as far as I'm concerned. We LOST, as a country, the minute we enabled Bush to invade a sovereign country for a bogus reason. The ones in my own party, the democrats, who voted to give Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq in the first place, must also bear part of the blame. This war has divided Americans, wasted too many lives already, and has been totally mishandled and misconceived from the beginning. I'm sorry, but asking whether people on this board want us to "win" is naive and simplistic. As much as some on the right would like to believe it, this is not a "black and white" situation. It WAS black and white before we so stupidly invaded. It is NOT black and white at this point. The Shiites are killing each other; Shiite militias are attacking the Sunnis; The Sunnis are attacking the Shiites and the Kurds; The puppett government that we are supposed to be supporting is supported by our enemies the Iranians; The leader of this government (Iraqi)voiced support for Hezbollah against our allies in Israel. In short, who is on OUR side, and how can you "WIN" when you can't even tell who's on your side and who is your enemy?? Your overly simplisitc question simply won't cut it in the REAL world. We need to get the international community involved, in order to secure Bagdhad. Then I think the country needs to be divided between Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites, with an international peace-keeping force taking the place of our American GIs, who at present are nothing more than referees in a civil war, with targets on their backs. The bottom line: "Victory" is not an option. We broke it, we bought it, to paraphrase Colin Powell. It will take a new president who has a clue about international diplomacy to get the international community involved in a viable solution to this mess. If this answer is not simplistic enough for you, that's too bad. This is not a simplistic MESS we find ourselves in. Unfortunately, we have a Simpleton in charge. The closest thing to "victory" we can hope to achieve is to throw ALL these clueless a-holes out of office and start over. At least that would be a start. Get a Commander-in-chief who is capable of rational thought and not just simplistic sloganeering.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Vietvet

We've already LOST, as far as I'm concerned. We LOST, as a country, the minute we enabled Bush to invade a sovereign country.......<snip>

[six6ftr]

Well said!

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by Vietvet

The ones in my own party, the democrats, who voted to give Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq in the first place, must also bear part of the blame. .