Pelosi on Iraq: This isn't a war to win...

And?


I agree with her. With this situation in Iraq, there is no winning per sec. Only solving the problems that are there and trying to make the place stable. (Or at least as stable as any Middle Eastern country can be)


If I were to say that Iraq was a war to win, when I would have to say we have already won it. The only thing I could see that a "won war" would be would be that Saddam was taken out and was no longer in power. Since that is the case, haven't we already won? The isn't the only thing left to do is fix the situation to stablize it?

Just my opinion....

Jamie

 

Interesting, Maybe we already won the war just before GWB stood on the ship in front of the Mission Accomplished banner. Now we are just trying to solve post war problems before we leave.

Is that what you are saying?

 

Call it what you will.. It sounds like a plan. It sounds like something to work towards.


Jamie

 

Sounds like a sound bite to me.

 

Did you miss this part of my statement: " If I were to say that Iraq was a war to win..."


There is an IF there. I don't think the Iraq war is one that can be "won". It will drone on and on just like the "War of Drugs" How long have we been fighting that "war" without winning it? One step forward, Two steps back...

No, I don't think Bush Accomplished the Mission when he said he did... Oh, wait.. He didn't say it.. It was the Ship that put that there.. It was because the Ship had just Accomplished their mission... Remember?

Nice try though..

Jamie

 

Finally, a Speaker of the House with some common sense! There is a problem in Iraq, and it needs to be solved. I'm not talking about the war on terror. I'm talking about the civil war in Iraq that this botched invasion has produced.

 

We won the war in Iraq. In a very short time, with very few casualties, thanks to the outstanding officers and troops in our armed forces, and the best weaponry in the world.

We are losing the civil war. Occupying forces almost always lose civil wars.

How could this have been handled without a disaster?

1. Having won, round up the Baathist leaders, and dispose of those at the top.

2. Tell the second echelon that if they don't threaten their neighbors, stop commiting atrocities against their own citizens, and don't try to accumulate WMD, there will be no further trouble with us.

3. Leave.

Everyone wins. Iraqis become as free as reality will permit. Iraq remains stable and a useful counterweight against Iran. And about 3000 American troops get to live where they would otherwise have died in a hopeless and useless strugge. And the people of other nations in the area breath a sigh of relief at the demise of a brutal dictatorship.

Too late for that, now. I have no idea what it's going to take to get out without causing an even bigger disaster.

 

Well put. :thumbs:

 

That is not an unreasonable position to take. Why could we not do that now or in the near future. Seems some time for the goverment to stableize would be in order. I would propose that once SH is hung in January we do just what you suggested. Leaving a small number of troops in a base for a period of time with Iraqs permition. Protecting only the base and leaving the door open to send troops back if needed.

 

What ever. I say WW2 was not a war just a problem to be solved. The problem, enemies with guns shooting at our troops. Call it what you want.

How stupid is it to get into a debate of terminology while our solders are shooting and being shot at. What we are doing in Iraq meets every definition of the word WAR.

 

I'm not sure, because I can't think for the Speaker Elect, but I don't think she was saying it wasn't a war. She said it wasn't a war to win.

I believe what she was trying to say was it's a hard thing to define a "win" in this type of situation.

What exactly determines a win?

Saddam gone? done

Iraqis voting? done

No trouble in that area at all, ever? not possible

Perfect peace? Never will happen

So what defines a "win"? In my opinion, in this situation, there are so many things to accomplish, that it's hard to truely define a "won war"

Again, it's not that there is a debate about if it's a war or not, the question was can we "win"? or can we fix a problem and move on.

Jamie

 

OH in that case I agree with her. We should have defined the terms of a win early on. SH gone, votes complete, % of iraq army and police trained and gone. We win.

I am going to give her the benifit of the doubt and think she ment it like this.

 

What exactly do you have in mind to constitute a "win"? Bush proclaimed that three years ago.

What we have there now is an occupation in the middle of a civil war. Increasing our troop strenght there might hold the lid on in some places, but what would the increased troops "invade"? We already occupy the country. What more is there to do?

Bomb more innocent civilians? Turn large sections of Baghdad into ruins?

This is a quagmire like Vietnam was. There is no way to win. The moment we leave, the current Democratically elected government, and I use that term loosely, will fall. Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds will fight for their own autonomy.

At least Nancy Pelosi is smart enough to see what the dull witted idiot in the White House couldn't.

So, what constitutes a win? If you are going to criticize Pelosi's statement, then you need to describe what you think a "win" in Iraq would be. Your use of the term "preemptive surrender" is meaningless criticism, indicating that you obviously do not have a clue about the situation in Iraq. In that, at least, you're in the same boat with the President.

 

bomb the eintire middle east into a desert...there no real hebrews there anyway to protect...no pure heberew in their right mind would be in Isreal anyway....so no one there is of any purpose...then we'll have room for The New Jeruselam to be put there permanately and several Chapters of Relebvation can be skipped!

 

"Cut and Run" isn't the Democratic strategy, though at this point, it would save us billions upon billions of tax dollars and the result would likely be the same in any event.

It would still be better than anything Bush has done. Had he left it alone, we would have in Iraq just another brutal middle eastern dictatorship, and a lot less hypocrisy about being motivated to bring "Democracy." That's why the Democrats picked up both houses of Congress and more than 60% of the vote earlier this week.

I guess your little remark about "trashing the troops" is about Kerry's gaffe. No other Democrat has done that, and by and large, that's still better than wasting the lives of thousands of our soldiers because an ineffective President needed a propaganda tool to appear like he really was doing something about America's security problem. The smart thing to do would have been to never have gotten involved in Iraq in the first place, but Bush and smart don't belong in the same sentence. Had we done that, we could have actually used our military force on an honest to goodness effort to search out and find Osama Bin Laden. Remember him? He's the real enemy.

So let's hear it. Your criticism is absolutely invalid, and laughable, without a definition of what it means to win in Iraq.

 

Why aren't you listening? Iraq isn't the problem! The whole middle east, liberals, and a whole lot else, needs to get off this planet, so I can be get the joy God promises, and then I can start making childern's movies that will keep in the high box office listing