Is Iraq also a war we have to win? - Page 11

Truth Detector · 07-23-08, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Clearly you didn't read my post very well. Here you are ranting for paragraphs about some "timetable" that I never mentioned. Not once.

Care to try again?

"And, if it's not defined well enough, then we have no defined, measurable means with which to determine when we should terminate our occupation."

The above EQUALS time table. Good lord, you cannot even keep up with your own hyperbole.

Truth Detector · 07-23-08, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Clearly you didn't read my post very well. Here you are ranting for paragraphs about some "timetable" that I never mentioned. Not once.

Care to try again?

Now I will ask you again;

What difference does it make if we are there for one year, another three years, or fifty? Can you give me ONE reason it matters?

I wait to hear your compelling argument that suggests that we cannot at least wait until the Government of Iraq has decided they are indeed ready and are unanimous in that decision.

Truth Detector · 07-23-08, 05:36 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth Detector
I have read your posts and I don't see anything where you have proved the case of failure in either country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kandahar

Umm reread the post you responded to. I didn't say that I *had* "proved the case of failure" on this thread, although I could easily do so for Iraq. We were talking about what success and failure in Iraq and Afghanistan would LOOK like. It makes no sense to ask if we can win, unless one has a clear image of what constitutes success and failure.

Here is what you said:

Quote: Originally Posted by Kandahar
I've noticed that, although *I* am able to illustrate my view of success/failure in both countries, you have failed to do so...instead opting to attack other posters who dare ask you what you mean by success/failure.

I have seen NO illustration of success/failure from you, just the typical hyperbole. Like I stated above and before, how can one determine we have failed when we are still not done with the job? Because you say so?

Why is it so important to have a date certain to pull out? What if it takes six months, or perhaps five years, what is the BIG deal?

No one seems able to answer the question; at least with any intellectual honesty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth Detector
How can you determine there has been failure when we aren't done yet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kandahar

Depends how you define failure. We certainly aren't going to turn Iraq into a liberal democracy. We aren't going to turn Iraq into an ethnic love-fest of peace and harmony. And we can't remove WMDs that didn't exist in the first place.

Who is suggesting that Iraq should be a “liberal” democracy where everyone is in an ethnic love fest? YOU?

What do WMDs have to do with your weak arguments? As I have stated a thousand times before, READ the Joint Resolution if you have any doubts as to the LEGAL reasons we went in. It contains 1,857 words of which about 200 were devoted to WMDs. But again, it continues to BEG the question, unless you have a POLITICAL agenda, what is your point? Why is it so important to pull out just because YOU and a bunch of Liberals say so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kandahar

I skimmed over the partisan rant. Let me know if you actually want to debate the subject at hand.

Skimming over FACTS appears to be what you do best. How convenient; just label something a “partisan rant” and you can ignore it. Bravo, so you prefer to wallow in denial and ignorance.

That “partisan rant” which you like to call it contained nothing BUT facts. But I am sure had you NOT decided to conveniently skim over them, you could have refuted them with some FACTS of your own.

Frankly, it is hard to debate with someone who finds facts inconvenient and has no time for them. I guess I should thank you for not wanting to have a debate…..it would be a waste of time and just lead into that familiar circle of futility where you just say something is so, then are given the facts, then jump off to the next false assertion.

Kandahar · 07-23-08, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

I have seen NO illustration of success/failure from you

Then evidently you didn't look very hard:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kandahar

Failure in Afghanistan - The Taliban takes over large swaths of the country and competes with the Karzai government for dominance of the country. While not being able to pose a serious threat to the existence of the democratic government, the Taliban is able to stir up quite a bit of trouble. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda turns the entire border region into a terrorist training camp and bullies the local populace into submission. It is never able to regain the kind of foothold it had before the Afghanistan invasion, but it is able to operate along the border with relatively few threats.

I regard this scenario (or something equally as bad) as 60% likely to happen if we withdraw, and 30% likely to happen if we stay.

Failure in Iraq - Under the struggle of competing factions, the democratic government completely collapses. Anarchy follows for a few months or years, followed by a loose confederation of states. The Kurds declare independence. The Arab Sunnis elect a strongman, with whom they are reasonably happy. The Shia portion of Iraq deteriorates into several microstates, constantly at war with the Sunnis and each other. The largest microstate is a partially-democratic client state of Iran, unable to challenge the authority of its benefactor for at least a decade.

I regard this scenario (or something equally as bad) as 75% likely to happen if we withdraw, and 75% likely to happen if we stay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

Like I stated above and before, how can one determine we have failed when we are still not done with the job? Because you say so?

Well what are we still fighting for in Iraq? Maybe if you explain what your view of success is, I can explain how we can tell if/when we've failed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

Why is it so important to have a date certain to pull out? What if it takes six months, or perhaps five years, what is the BIG deal?

Thousands of people will die and hundreds of billions of dollars will be spent in the mean time, for little benefit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

No one seems able to answer the question; at least with any intellectual honesty.

Do not speak to me about "intellectual honesty" as long as you continue to avoid defining success/failure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

Who is suggesting that Iraq should be a “liberal” democracy where everyone is in an ethnic love fest? YOU?

What are we fighting for, if not that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

What do WMDs have to do with your weak arguments?

What are we fighting for, if not that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

Skimming over FACTS appears to be what you do best. How convenient; just label something a “partisan rant” and you can ignore it. Bravo, so you prefer to wallow in denial and ignorance.

That “partisan rant” which you like to call it contained nothing BUT facts. But I am sure had you NOT decided to conveniently skim over them, you could have refuted them with some FACTS of your own.

Frankly, it is hard to debate with someone who finds facts inconvenient and has no time for them. I guess I should thank you for not wanting to have a debate…..it would be a waste of time and just lead into that familiar circle of futility where you just say something is so, then are given the facts, then jump off to the next false assertion.

rivrrat · 07-23-08, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

"And, if it's not defined well enough, then we have no defined, measurable means with which to determine when we should terminate our occupation."

The above EQUALS time table. Good lord, you cannot even keep up with your own hyperbole.

Oh, I was under the impression that when we accomplished our goals, we would leave. Is that not the "plan"? (and I use that term very loosely)

I said nothing about demanding any sort of timetable. What I am demanding is the measure of success.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

Now I will ask you again;

What difference does it make if we are there for one year, another three years, or fifty? Can you give me ONE reason it matters?

I wait to hear your compelling argument that suggests that we cannot at least wait until the Government of Iraq has decided they are indeed ready and are unanimous in that decision.

I suppose I can answer again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivrrat

Money and lives. There are two reasons.

They've asked us to leave numerous times. And then suspiciously back off the statement a little after some pressure from us.

I'm waiting to hear a compelling argument that suggests why we cannot do as the government of Iraq has asked us to do multiple times.

And unanimous? WTF? If we waited for our Senate and Congress to be unanimous to do anything, we'd never get anything done. Why the **** would anyone think it even remotely logical to expect the multi-faceted government of Iraq to EVER be unanimous about ANYTHING?

GySgt · 07-24-08, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kandahar

I'm glad that you think that way. Hopefully the White House will come around to your point of view. It's time to "declare victory" or whatever in Iraq, and get out.

I'm sure they know this. Ever since the White House dropped Rumsfeld, tapped into Vali Nasr, and gave the military leadership the respect it always deserved, the President seems to be more knowledgable of things. But the White House would be foolish to declare a "victory," because critics will simply rip it apart trying to define the word. Our departure from Iraq will not be an over night event. It will be gradual because we have to ensure that what has been done will not be easily undone. The Iraqi government wants a sort of timline, but this is mostly to please the public who have consistantly stated that they want us gone as soon as possible. I believe we are past the point where a timeline will embolden this battered enemy. Aside from the Iraqis handing over Iraq, our enemies can't do much to wreck what has been achieved. The Iraqi military commanders have stated that they need us to stay for a bit more to give them time to harness their own air support.

We are just making sure of things these days and sweeping up messes as they arise. The time is near. Maybe another couple years. Maybe less.

Joby · 07-24-08, 01:31 PM

No, it's a war the Iraqis have to win.

Bodhisattva · 07-26-08, 08:15 PM

I think a better question is... "Is Iraq a war that we can win?"