Originally posted by: eskimospy
*sigh*. Why do you make me do this TLC?
Iraq is considered part of the war on terror because our government has, from the start until today considered it the 'central front' in the WoT. The consequences in terms of safe havens for terrorists, etc. have always been among the top reasons for staying in Iraq. Whether you (or I) consider these to be the most important reasons, Iraq is part of the WoT because our government has explicitly made it as such. Since Iraq is directly related to the WoT (repeatedly referenced to as a mere 'battle' in such a war), the expenditures on it are directly related. Don't be dense.
I consider Iraq important in the WoT because it's my belief that in order to fight any such war we had to have a presence in the ME. Wagging our finger at them from our homey little place across the ocean would do nothing at all to fight the WoT. We had to do more than (What's that favored phrase of the left? Oh yeah...) play "whack-a-mole." We had to show strength, authority, brutality, and more strength because those are the only things that get the terrorist's attention. We had to embarrass them, subjugate them, show them we are not afraid because the typical finger wagging and lobbing an occassional missile at didn't do diddly squat to solve the problem. Nor is taking our ball and leaving their suuposed sacred land any solution. If anything, doing that would embolden them that much more and help further instill the belief that we are nothing more than the soft-bellied fraidy cats OBL claimed we were.
I'm not sure if you even read my posts about Bush, but had you done so you would see that I explicitly mentioned that it was not possible to know his mind. I merely said that the evidence is fairly strong that they suppressed dissenting viewpoints and that it was misleading. Please read more carefully in the future. I'm still left wondering how you have divined the intentions of posters on here with so much less information then is available about Bush. I'm guessing you just didn't think before you posted.
Yes, the evidence is "fairly strong," even though nobody can actually produce any evidence.
At least if I want to get an idea of someone's mind here I can read their posting history. When their mind often seems limited to posting "Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied"...ad naseum, it's not actually that difficult to divine what they are thinking. Of course, that's imo. ymmv.
Then you ask for realistic expectations on Iraq and asking if victory is possible without defining what you mean by victory. I tried to tell you that your question was stupid without defining the terms... but I don't actually think you were interested in the answer anyway. If you ask for realistic outcomes for Iraq and then write off people for dismissing the unrealistic goals of our administration you are doing nothing more then a linguistic two step to avoid having to answer.
I already stated that "victory" would be defined on your terms. Each person answering the question could consider their own definition and then answer the question. They didn't even need to spell out what their definition of victory was. I also believe that some in here have no definition of victory. They believe we can't win in Iraq just because that's what they believe, and their mind is already made up on the matter. If you haven't been paying attention, a poll was released recently where people stated that even if Patraeus reports progress they still won't change their mind on the issue.
I'm trying to find out whose mind is already firmly sewn shut, because if that poll was any indication, there are many such individuals out there. Most of them were of the leftist persuation. Considering the overwhelming number of lefties (Oops, pardon me. I meant "progressives.
😉 ) in this forum it wouldn't surprise me if there's quite a few in here as well.
It's simple. Victory as the administration defines it is almost certainly not possible. If you want to scale back what you consider victory, then maybe it becomes possible. That's why I asked that to begin with.
I think it's simple too. Victory is being able to withdraw from Iraq and leave a relatively stable country with a democratic government that can protect its sovereignty and its citizens from the rabble and troublemakers. Does that mean nobody after that dies in violence? No. Does that mean every single terrorist will be gone? Impossible. Does that imply Iraq might not stumble along their new path? That should be expected, particularly when they begin taking baby steps without us.
You know that though, you've just chosen to ignore it to continue your trash talking.
Ah, yes. Trash talking and "smart ass" comments. My apoloies and sorry for forgetting my place. I completely disregarded the fact that only the avid Bush bashers in this forum are allotted the freedom to talk trash and make smart ass comments. Everybody else better STFU. But "Rah, Rah" for freedom of speech.
So this time... without all your dancing around the question. You say winning in Iraq is possible. What do you mean by 'winning'? Do you mean the administration's goals? Do you mean some 'realistic expectations'? If so, what are these? What should we do to accomplish them? How much should we spend to do it? Lets hear it... and with any luck you'll ditch the adversarial posting and actually address the question.
No, I don't mean administration goals. I mean doing what it takes to get Iraq stabilized and self-sufficient. Part of that process should be the American people showing a united face on getting Iraq to that point, despite any disagreements about the invasion. The invasion is water under the bridge. Why or how we got where we are are all moot points now. Withdrawing from Iraq at this point would cause major problems for Iraq and for ourselves and would hand the jihadis a victory on a silver platter. That's the last thing we need and we should be making every effort to ensure that doesn't happen.
