**POLL** WAR Success?

[CADsortaGUY]

Please keep any commentary focused on the Military portion of this WAR.

CkG

 

[Piano Man]

I don't understand what you mean by Military Position. The fact is that we've killed alot of people, no WMD has been retrieved, and we pretty much pissed off the whole world. But thank god we're now at yellow alert!!! Success? No.

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: Piano Man
I don't understand what you mean by Military Position. The fact is that we've killed alot of people, no WMD has been retrieved, and we pretty much pissed off the whole world. But thank god we're now at yellow alert!!! Success? No.

You didn't read CAD's post.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Piano Man
I don't understand what you mean by Military Position. The fact is that we've killed alot of people, no WMD has been retrieved, and we pretty much pissed off the whole world. But thank god we're now at yellow alert!!! Success? No.

Please re-read the question and my first post. This poll is about how the Military campaign went - NOT about the politics of the matter.

CkG

 

[jjones]

No, it was a failure. It took longer than three minutes and people got hurt, some even died, Saddam wasn't killed the first second of the war, WMD weren't found inside of two minutes, 100% of the Republican Guard didn't surrender, not every single civilian was glad to see US troops, the Iraqi people haven't written a new constitution, there hasn't been a democratically elected leader yet, Iraq is not yet a shining example of democratic freedom in the Middle East.

What's taking so long?

 

[SuperTool]

Militarily, if the goal is to overthrow Saddam, then it's a success.
But in the words of Chris Rock, WTF did we win?

 

[HappyPuppy]

Originally posted by: jjones
No, it was a failure. It took longer than three minutes and people got hurt, some even died, Saddam wasn't killed the first second of the war, WMD weren't found inside of two minutes, 100% of the Republican Guard didn't surrender, not every single civilian was glad to see US troops, the Iraqi people haven't written a new constitution, there hasn't been a democratically elected leader yet, Iraq is not yet a shining example of democratic freedom in the Middle East.

What's taking so long?

I like your sarcasm. Keep it up.

 

[apoppin]

Define "success".

We did get Saddam removed from power . . . BUT we still have found no WMD and haven't gained the hearts and minds of the Iraqis . . . it's pretty hard to rebuild a nation and is going to hurt our own economy . . . our credibility is weakened among our allies . . .

HOWEVER, compared with how badly it MIGHT have gone - it is a "success".

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Define "success".

Definition:
a : to turn out well b : to attain a desired object or end

MILITARILY!!!!!

<-- see I can use them at the end of all my posts too

CkG

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: apoppin
Define "success".

We did get Saddam removed from power . . . BUT we still have found no WMD and haven't gained the hearts and minds of the Iraqis . . . it's pretty hard to rebuild a nation and is going to hurt our own economy . . . our credibility is weakened among our allies . . .

HOWEVER, compared with how badly it MIGHT have gone - it is a "success".

Oh, "MILITARILY" . . . what a stupid poll.

Of course - for the US/Britain (Austrailia) - a SUCCESS.

 

[Zebo]

Very $ucce$$ful. No doubt. we $hould have gone in there earlier. But late i$ better than never.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Very $ucce$$ful. No doubt. we $hould have gone in there earlier. But late i$ better than never.

How can it be ANY answer OTHER than "successful" from a US military standpoint?

I dare ANYONE to (seriously) say the "coalition" was NOT militarily successful.

That's why I say this Poll is "silly" OR needs to be EXPANDED. Or else the "discussion" will just turn into "self-congratulations" which may feel good for a bit but after a while gets boring (kinda like, 'you know') . . .

EDIT: What does this "I supported" or "I did not support" have to do with military success? (A simple question for the topic's poster.)

 

[flavio]

Did we defeat a vastly inferior force and kill a bunch of people? Sure we did.

Was there supposed to have been some doubt about who had the stronger military or something?

Maybe you have some other definition of "success" that would make the question relevant?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

apoppin - that distinction in the poll was the only part that could possibly be "political". Meaning, that No I didn't support our decision to go to War or yes I did support going to war.

So maybe it was a stupid poll, but is no more "stupid" than alot of the threads in this forum

CkG

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
apoppin - that distinction in the poll was the only part that could possibly be "political". Meaning, that No I didn't support our decision to go to War or yes I did support going to war.

So maybe it was a stupid poll, but is no more "stupid" than alot of the threads in this forum

CkG

Well, I suggested you "open" it up just a bit so there could be some "discussion" instead of just "agreement".

You have to admit the way it is currently presented, it is a bit "loaded" and/or "lopsided" . . . the French, Germans, even the Arabs are shocked at the speed of the US/Britain military success. Who - outside the Iraq Info Minister - thinks the US military objectives (with the exception of actually capturing Saddam and finding WMD yet) were not achieved rather handily.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

No - there is plenty to discuss about the Military side without getting into the Politics.

Was the run for Baghdad the correct call? Did we learn anything from using that tactic?
Did we need to drop more/less bombs?
The hand wringers had a field day the first time we took some combat casualites...
EDIT - Heck - even the amount of "collateral" damage qualifies as Military
Those are few things that had people jabberjawing a month ago.

Heck I could point some things out that happend during the campaign that could be considered "unsuccessful" Militarily

CkG

 

[Jimbo]

apoppin,
you forgot your eye-roll!

here, you can have one of mine.

 

[maverik]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
No - there is plenty to discuss about the Military side without getting into the Politics.

Was the run for Baghdad the correct call? Did we learn anything from using that tactic?
Did we need to drop more/less bombs?
The hand wringers had a field day the first time we took some combat casualites...
EDIT - Heck - even the amount of "collateral" damage qualifies as Military
Those are few things that had people jabberjawing a month ago.

Heck I could point some things out that happend during the campaign that could be considered "unsuccessful" Militarily

CkG

run to baghdad: with limited forces to "occupy" areas, yes, sensible.
did you learn anything: well, oldest rule, protect supply lines, almost forgot that didn't they?
more bombs?: oh, sure, why not, i see a few buildings still intact, and would have lost less troops if you had just stuck to bombing them all to hell!
combat casualities: refer to the previous answer. i am all for the sanctity of life, but did anyone count iraqi troop casualities, and did a comparison? and when last was a "war" fought without casualities?
collateral damage: "smart" bombs don't seem that smart do they? and weren't they supposed to avoid power stations and such? why is baghdad just getting power restored?

now for a few of my own

do you think that they could have gone in earlier without wasting time at the UN, considering they don't care about what others have to say anyway? would this have created more favourable conditions for the takedown of sadham and the retrieval of wmd (if they ever existed) before they were hidden or destroyed?

where is the iraqi air force? i am curious, i remember something about some planes landing in iran during the first gulf war, but i don't know what happened afterwards.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

The war was a success militarily despite what a lot of people thought. I honestly thought there was going to be a bloody battle going on in Baghdad and that it was going to be drawn out all summer with urban warfare. Thank God I was wrong. In hindsight everyone is saying how easy it was going to be all along, but remember the newspapers making it out to be Vietnam II. I was really impressed and amazed by our technology and control of the situation.
The overall success of the whole campaign will remain to be seen. The most difficult part is still ahead of us. I always supported this movement, but ONLY if we do it right or die trying. The problem is there are going to be a great mass of people that are going to believe we did it wrong no matter what happens. People want it to be finished fast, but haste makes waste and if we really want stability out of Iraq we are going to have to take it really slow. The entire fate of our relations in the middle east, and the rest of the world for that matter, rest on the shoulders of a liberated Iraq and how well we deal with them.
I think this poll is important, because a lot of people, including me, were surprised at how well the military part of the war went for us. I hope there will be other polls on how well everything else goes too.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: maverik

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
No - there is plenty to discuss about the Military side without getting into the Politics.

Was the run for Baghdad the correct call? Did we learn anything from using that tactic?
Did we need to drop more/less bombs?
The hand wringers had a field day the first time we took some combat casualites...
EDIT - Heck - even the amount of "collateral" damage qualifies as Military
Those are few things that had people jabberjawing a month ago.

Heck I could point some things out that happend during the campaign that could be considered "unsuccessful" Militarily

CkG

run to baghdad: with limited forces to "occupy" areas, yes, sensible.
did you learn anything: well, oldest rule, protect supply lines, almost forgot that didn't they?
more bombs?: oh, sure, why not, i see a few buildings still intact, and would have lost less troops if you had just stuck to bombing them all to hell!
combat casualities: refer to the previous answer. i am all for the sanctity of life, but did anyone count iraqi troop casualities, and did a comparison? and when last was a "war" fought without casualities?
collateral damage: "smart" bombs don't seem that smart do they? and weren't they supposed to avoid power stations and such? why is baghdad just getting power restored?

now for a few of my own

do you think that they could have gone in earlier without wasting time at the UN, considering they don't care about what others have to say anyway? would this have created more favourable conditions for the takedown of sadham and the retrieval of wmd (if they ever existed) before they were hidden or destroyed?

where is the iraqi air force? i am curious, i remember something about some planes landing in iran during the first gulf war, but i don't know what happened afterwards.

Saddam hid 20 Mirage jets in Iran, they never gave them back. The French are still selling them the parts they need to keep them in the air. Those are capable of carrying a nuclear payload.

 

[swifty3]

Originally posted by: flavio
Did we defeat a vastly inferior force and kill a bunch of people? Sure we did.

Was there supposed to have been some doubt about who had the stronger military or something?

Maybe you have some other definition of "success" that would make the question relevant?

What a stupid question. Of course it was a success. How could it not be? Isn't Saddams regime overthrown? Come up with a better topic next time.

 

[Electrode]

The US did indeed achieve its stated goal of overthrowing Saddam, but I'm not going to use the words "win" and "war" in the same statement. As so many have said, there are no winners in war.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: Electrode
The US did indeed achieve its stated goal of overthrowing Saddam, but I'm not going to use the words "win" and "war" in the same statement. As so many have said, there are no winners in war.

There are no winners in war, in the short term.

 

[kylebisme]

it's a mixed bag which really depends on which of the many justfications for this war one considers vaild in the first place. Saddam is out of power so i have to give them props for that, not that i though it would turn out any other way. as for freedom for the Iraqi people, it is a bit early to call; the same goes for pereventing terrorism. ask me agian in a year or five.

 

[CaptnKirk]

What makes you think that the Military phase is over yet?
There's no Iraqi Government representatives to unconditionally surrender.
Tommy Franks hasn't come out ans said " O.K. - Officially, it's over."
I haven't seen a fat lady sing.

Maybe the Iraqi Army has gone underground - like the Viet Cong did - to re-organize and fight on their terms.

Those that learn to run away, survive to fight another day.