Do you want our troops to win the war in Iraq?

I think it is a honest simple question,Either you want our troops to win or you do not.


If you do not want our troops to win the war in Iraq,please have the balls to vote "no" do not make up pathetic punk *** excuses in order to avoid answering the poll.Excuses to avoid answering the poll will be seen as a "no" answer.

Define "winning the war" please.

Of course we all want our forces to be victorious....But What Will It Take?

This is actually one of the main reasons I am unhappy with our current leadership, Cheney and Rumsfeld in particular....and Bush by association. Anyone who actually, and seriously wants the U.S. to win this thing, would feel the same way after looking at how this has been handled. We have a Pentagon...remember that place.....because it seems they really dont.

Kandahar said:

Define "winning the war" please.

Click to expand...

I will take that as a "no" answer,since you seem to want to make a sissy excuse in order to avoid answering the question.

I assume that you at least have a high school diploma or a a GED.So please do not pretend to be retarded and just answer the poll question with a "no" answer.We know you want to answer the poll question with a "no", so just have the cajones to answer how you feel.

I would like Iraq to become a peaceful happy democracy.I want to win the war. I wish all the isurgents could be isolated and removed.

However, that means exactly one thing: I wish we could win the war. It doesn't mean I think we will win the war, or that the current leaders are good for the war effort.

I voted no.

It was a loaded question, so I voted no partly for that reason.

Do I want our troops to 'win'? Yes, by us ending the war.
Do I want the United States to win? No. I believe we went there under false pretenses and deserve to 'lose'. We abused the memory of the people who died in the 9/11 attacks in order to do so, so in a certain sense, we've already lost.
Do I want the Iraqi people to win? Yes, wholeheartedly. But, that is up to them.
Do I want the Iraqi insurgents to win? No, absolutely not. But, that is up to the Iraqi people.
Do I want Americans to die? No, I want to bring them home.

Am I willing to set a timetable for Americans to come home? Yes. We cannot help them further in establishing democracy. They deserve to know when we are leaving, however, in order to have time to establish their own authority. We owe them that much.

jamesrage said:

I think it is a honest simple question,Either you want our troops to win or you do not.


If you do not want our troops to win the war in Iraq,please have the balls to vote "no" do not make up pathetic punk *** excuses in order to avoid answering the poll.Excuses to avoid answering the poll will be seen as a "no" answer.

Click to expand...

Ah, the Bill O'Reilly question from Letterman....

Define "win" please.

its not a matter of whether people want them to win. its a matter of whether people think they can at an acceptable price.

tecoyah said:

Of course we all want our forces to be victorious....But What Will It Take?

This is actually one of the main reasons I am unhappy with our current leadership, Cheney and Rumsfeld in particular....and Bush by association. Anyone who actually, and seriously wants the U.S. to win this thing, would feel the same way after looking at how this has been handled. We have a Pentagon...remember that place.....because it seems they really dont.

Click to expand...

I have never seen anyone with any support attempt to present a policy other than the Prez Bush Policy-strategy to win. Several individuals have ideas but they are in the extreme minority. The division between the political parties instantly brings support for the War at a little over 50% days after the conflict started... everything is skewed that every action is a mistake that doesn't work as planned... anyone who watches sports knows Monday morning quarterbacking is just that could of's and would of's...

The fact is you either desire victory "even" if it happens under Republican leadership or you wish for defeat because it is managed by the Republican leadership... it is really quite sad to think soldiers have to work with half of the nation on their side and all of the enemy against them.

An overwhelming majority of congress voted to go to war... 75% or higher... then they convince ignorant citizens that they are more ignorant than the person they complain about who tricked them... Think about that... I was tricked by Prez Bush... I really must be f%$#ing stupid... now here is how I would have done it... tell me more your brilliantness...

Go back to the vote for the restart of hostilities and find Senator Kerry's speech to the Senate... he spoke for over two hours about why he should vote no... then he voted yes... because he planned to cover both possibilities the war goes good I voted yes... the war goes bad I argued against it... I was tricked by someone I consider stupid... elect me....

THIS IS AS POLITE AS I CAN PUT IT

**** you and people like you who say a statement that appears black and white when it clearly isnt.What really pisses me of is this question is ment in a way to look bad on anyone who disagrees when the question itself is pointless.

What would winning the war mean tell me because its quite clear the bush administration hasnt got an answer that seems in the slightest likely to come true.

i want are troops to win but uknow maybe mistakes like disbanding the border control when we first took over wouldnt reflect that want or disbanding the iraqi police.

WHAT I WANTED WAS IF WE WERE GOING TO WAR A PLAN TO CONTROL THE COUNTRY FROM CHAOS AFTER THE EVENT SO MAYBE THE TROOPS WOULD HAVE A CHANCE OF WINNING.

Its not about the troops its about the pathatic bush administration that has let them down.

Ok, James, we liberals will finally come clean with you. Everything you’ve ever said about us is absolutely true. We liberals do not want our troops to win; in fact, we’d like nothing more than for every single American soldier to die a horribly bloody and completely dishonorable death thousands of miles away from home. We’d get away with it too, if not for you canny conservatives and those blasted Fox newshounds.

mikhail said:

THIS IS AS POLITE AS I CAN PUT IT

**** you and people like you who say a statement that appears black and white when it clearly isnt.What really pisses me of is this question is ment in a way to look bad on anyone who disagrees when the question itself is pointless.

What would winning the war mean tell me because its quite clear the bush administration hasnt got an answer that seems in the slightest likely to come true.

i want are troops to win but uknow maybe mistakes like disbanding the border control when we first took over wouldnt reflect that want or disbanding the iraqi police.

WHAT I WANTED WAS IF WE WERE GOING TO WAR A PLAN TO CONTROL THE COUNTRY FROM CHAOS AFTER THE EVENT SO MAYBE THE TROOPS WOULD HAVE A CHANCE OF WINNING.

Its not about the troops its about the pathatic bush administration that has let them down.

Click to expand...

Perhaps all of the real smart ways to fight the war should have been put in print before the actions took place by those who put them in print after having time to fit their expert opinion on paper in complaints to how it "was" conducted. Had any leader that has better plans presented a dated letter supporting a certain plan or action prior to it taking place I would take it seriously... Who told Prez Bush before it happened what you now think is smart... how did you come up with the smart choice? Ans... someone Monday morning quarterbacking... it's like having two enemies to fight with your allies not on your side.

And I would like to think that you and the left are America's allies in support so why didn't you send a dated letter with all of this breaking news?

Everyone 'wants' to win. But almost no one is willing to pay the price. Even if we do somehow leave with a stable Iraq, that doesn't mean it will stay that way. I don't think we will win, we lost this war in 2003 before we ever even invaded.
----
Answer the question james, define 'win'.

Can someone define 'winning'?

A peaceful Iraq created were americans can be tourists?

Or a violent Iraq were oil companies can make a bundle?

jamesrage said:

I think it is a honest simple question,Either you want our troops to win or you do not.


If you do not want our troops to win the war in Iraq,please have the balls to vote "no" do not make up pathetic punk *** excuses in order to avoid answering the poll.Excuses to avoid answering the poll will be seen as a "no" answer.

Click to expand...

See, James Rage, this all brings me back something my Dear Ol' Dad used to say to me, he'd say, "Duke, now if you ask me a stupid question, you'll get a stupid answer." So, in accordance with this little rule, I voted no. :mrgreen: :roll: :mrgreen:


Duke

Topsez said:

Perhaps all of the real smart ways to fight the war should have been put in print before the actions took place by those who put them in print after having time to fit their expert opinion on paper in complaints to how it "was" conducted. Had any leader that has better plans presented a dated letter supporting a certain plan or action prior to it taking place I would take it seriously... Who told Prez Bush before it happened what you now think is smart... how did you come up with the smart choice? Ans... someone Monday morning quarterbacking... it's like having two enemies to fight with your allies not on your side.

And I would like to think that you and the left are America's allies in support so why didn't you send a dated letter with all of this breaking news?

Click to expand...

Well i believe the conservative party in the uk warned against disbanding the iraqi policyou e before and why dont you look there is plenty before the events warning.

Most of these mistakes are no brainers if they had consulted any experts on the middle east.They have the US government has performed awfully from the start of this conflict.There is no way you can say nobody else would have done better saddam hussein did a better job of taking over iraq with less bloodshed(not condoning just saying).

I dont care if your a democrat, republican, hippie or facist nobody can realistically say we have done the best job we could of and that is regardless of knowing what we now know its been mistake after mistake.


but more importantly this whole question is a fallacy i mean what if 10 million people have to die for it to happen. Yes i want the troops to win but i believe there is limit.

Topsez said:

Perhaps all of the real smart ways to fight the war should have been put in print before the actions took place by those who put them in print after having time to fit their expert opinion on paper in complaints to how it "was" conducted. Had any leader that has better plans presented a dated letter supporting a certain plan or action prior to it taking place I would take it seriously... Who told Prez Bush before it happened what you now think is smart... how did you come up with the smart choice? Ans... someone Monday morning quarterbacking... it's like having two enemies to fight with your allies not on your side.

And I would like to think that you and the left are America's allies in support so why didn't you send a dated letter with all of this breaking news?

Click to expand...

Well i believe the conservative party in the uk warned against disbanding the iraqi policyou e before and why dont you look there is plenty before the events warning.

Most of these mistakes are no brainers if they had consulted any experts on the middle east.They have the US government has performed awfully from the start of this conflict.There is no way you can say nobody else would have done better saddam hussein did a better job of taking over iraq with less bloodshed(not condoning just saying).

I dont care if your a democrat, republican, hippie or facist nobody can realistically say we have done the best job we could of and that is regardless of knowing what we now know its been mistake after mistake.


but more importantly this whole question is a fallacy i mean what if 10 million people have to die for it to happen. Yes i want the troops to win but i believe there is limit.

Topsez said:

Perhaps all of the real smart ways to fight the war should have been put in print before the actions took place by those who put them in print after having time to fit their expert opinion on paper in complaints to how it "was" conducted. Had any leader that has better plans presented a dated letter supporting a certain plan or action prior to it taking place I would take it seriously... Who told Prez Bush before it happened what you now think is smart... how did you come up with the smart choice? Ans... someone Monday morning quarterbacking... it's like having two enemies to fight with your allies not on your side.

And I would like to think that you and the left are America's allies in support so why didn't you send a dated letter with all of this breaking news?

Click to expand...

Well i believe the conservative party in the uk warned against disbanding the iraqi policyou e before and why dont you look there is plenty before the events warning.

Most of these mistakes are no brainers if they had consulted any experts on the middle east.They have the US government has performed awfully from the start of this conflict.There is no way you can say nobody else would have done better saddam hussein did a better job of taking over iraq with less bloodshed(not condoning just saying).

I dont care if your a democrat, republican, hippie or facist nobody can realistically say we have done the best job we could of and that is regardless of knowing what we now know its been mistake after mistake.


but more importantly this whole question is a fallacy i mean what if 10 million people have to die for it to happen. Yes i want the troops to win but i believe there is limit.

POTUS has defined victory as a democratic Iraqi government which can stabilize the country and secure it from both internal and external threats. The problem is that strategic and tactical victory cannot be achieved with the resources that have been allocated thus far.

IMHO, victory in Iraq as defined by Mr. Bush would require 300,000+ US troops in-country for at least five additional years. It would also require a substancial increase in capital expendatures, private contractors, and civilian advisors. All of this is very unlikely to occur.

The US military committment required for victory is directly oppositional to Rumsfeld's mission of making the US military leaner and more compact. This is a major reason why US military theater commanders in Iraq are extremely reluctant to request the additional forces and assets necessary to achieve victory.

For domestic political reasons, neither the Bush administration nor Congress will even consider devoting additional resources and assets to Iraq. This is a political hot potato that no one wants in their political lap.

What exists then is the paradox that although defeat is not an option, no one in the US government is politically willing to do what is required to obtain victory. Despite the brave and valiant efforts of our men and women serving in Iraq, I highly doubt that victory in Iraq as defined by Mr. Bush can be achieved under the current status quo. In simple terms, victory has become subserviant to (and a victim of) domestic political reality.

jamesrage said:

I will take that as a "no" answer,since you seem to want to make a sissy excuse in order to avoid answering the question.

I assume that you at least have a high school diploma or a a GED.So please do not pretend to be retarded and just answer the poll question with a "no" answer.We know you want to answer the poll question with a "no", so just have the cajones to answer how you feel.

Click to expand...

I'm not surprised you didn't clarify, so I can only assume that you aren't really interested in discussing ideas. Nevertheless, I'll give it a second (and final) try: What do you mean by winning? Is stability enough? Or are democracy, territorial unity, and a pro-American government also part of your vision for Iraq?

Tashah said:

POTUS has defined victory as a democratic Iraqi government which can stabilize the country and secure it from both internal and external threats. The problem is that strategic and tactical victory cannot be achieved with the resources that have been allocated thus far.

Click to expand...

Another problem is that democracy and stability in Iraq are fundamentally incompatible goals. The current government (and all likely future governments) will be sectarian in nature. There is almost no reason for the losers to recognize the legitimacy of the Iraqi government.

Democracy is about more than holding elections. That shouldn't be done at all until stability is established and Iraq is educated and globalized.

Topsez said:

Perhaps all of the real smart ways to fight the war should have been put in print before the actions took place by those who put them in print after having time to fit their expert opinion on paper in complaints to how it "was" conducted. Had any leader that has better plans presented a dated letter supporting a certain plan or action prior to it taking place I would take it seriously... Who told Prez Bush before it happened what you now think is smart... how did you come up with the smart choice? Ans... someone Monday morning quarterbacking... it's like having two enemies to fight with your allies not on your side.

And I would like to think that you and the left are America's allies in support so why didn't you send a dated letter with all of this breaking news?

Click to expand...

Deny it all you want, but the Data, and the people were there to formulate a post war plan. Unfortunately most of this was ignored by the administration, in favor of Shock and Awe tactics followed by flowers in the air:

"As the insurgency has intensified, so has the scrutiny of the White House over warnings it received before the war that predicted the instability. An examination of prewar intelligence on the possibility of postwar violence and of the administration's response shows:

• Military and civilian intelligence agencies repeatedly warned prior to the invasion that Iraqi insurgent forces were preparing to fight and that their ranks would grow as other Iraqis came to resent the U.S. occupation and organize guerrilla attacks.

• The war plan put together by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Army Gen. Tommy Franks discounted these warnings. Rumsfeld and Franks anticipated surrender by Iraqi ground forces and a warm welcome from civilians.

• The insurgency began not after the end of major combat in May 2003 but at the beginning of the war, yet Pentagon officials were slow to identify the enemy and to grasp how serious a threat the guerrilla attacks posed."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-10-24-insurgence-intel_x.htm

"Then-CIA director George Tenet commissioned the report after the invasion of Iraq. The authors had access to highly classified intelligence data and produced three reports concerning Iraq intelligence.

Only the third has been released in declassified form. It is published in the current issue of Studies in Intelligence, a CIA quarterly written primarily for intelligence professionals. The report was finished in July 2004 just as Tenet was ending his tenure as CIA director.

The report determined that beyond the errors in assessing Iraqi weaponry, "intelligence produced prior to the war on a wide range of other issues accurately addressed such topics as how the war would develop and how Iraqi forces would or would not fight."

The intelligence "also provided perceptive analysis on Iraq's links to al-Qaeda; calculated the impact of the war on oil markets; and accurately forecast the reactions of ethnic and tribal factions in Iraq."

The postwar struggle pitting Sunni Arabs against Shiite and Kurdish factions has led some analysts, including Saud al-Faisal, foreign minister of neighboring Saudi Arabia, to conclude Iraq is at risk of splitting into three pieces."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-11-cia-iraq-report_x.htm


Though I agree hindsight is always 20/20, I refuse to let something of this magnitude slide. These guys are in a position of power, and chose to be there. They Chose to start a war, and send people into the line of fire. It is therefore their responsibility to accept the repurcussions of failure. It is also important to note that this war has been taken away from the Pentagon to an extent....which may very well have added to the failures we see.

the definition of "win"

http://www.glennbeck.com/realstory/iraq-video.shtml

when the positive things in that video are all we hear about, rather than the death and destruction of innocent lives by terrorists.

ProudAmerican said:

the definition of "win"

http://www.glennbeck.com/realstory/iraq-video.shtml

when the positive things in that video are all we hear about, rather than the death and destruction of innocent lives by terrorists.

Click to expand...

So.....propoganda defines a Win?

Seriously, while I am well aware of the good things happening in Iraq, I also wish to be informed of the Bad....we call this reality. If, as you suggest we remove the negative information from the American People, what indeed, are we doing....if not Lying through Censorship.
While you may decide to ignore the problems currently faced, and instead focus on the Happy, Happy feel good aspect of this conflict, others might just want to face the reality of our little occupation, and by doing so try to better it for all involved. If you look for it (and I do), there is quite a bit of progress taking place in Iraq.....but thus far it is far from outwieghing the negative in my opinion, an opinion I have formed by looking at the larger picture.

Seriously, while I am well aware of the good things happening in Iraq, I also wish to be informed of the Bad....we call this reality. If, as you suggest we remove the negative information from the American People, what indeed, are we doing....if not Lying through Censorship.

Click to expand...

fortunately I never suggested any such thing.

tell me, why do you have to go to glennbeck.com to see the good stuff? why not CNN, MSNBC, FOX, or ABC??

While you may decide to ignore the problems currently faced,

Click to expand...

why would I do that?

and instead focus on the Happy, Happy feel good aspect of this conflict,

Click to expand...

I believe you mean the positive things that are helping the Iraqi people find a better life.

others might just want to face the reality of our little occupation

Click to expand...

so what I posted isnt reality?

If you look for it (and I do), there is quite a bit of progress taking place in Iraq.....but thus far it is far from outwieghing the negative in my opinion

Click to expand...

hey, some people want to focus on the negative. I completely understand that. unfortunately, most do it for purely political reasons.

an opinion I have formed by looking at the larger picture.

Click to expand...

anyone looking at the big picture as a whole, must indeed admit we are doing some tremendously wonderful things over there.

I have never ignored the bad. I simply choose to also look at the good.