• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fireworks over Baghdad as Iraqis take over cities

Goobieman said:
That doesnt really answer my question...?
Click to expand...

It does. If Iraq falls in 10 years, and we've won the War on Terror by then, then I don't think it will be a defeat. If we haven't won the War on Terror, then it probably will be seen as a defeat.

That said, "win" and "lose" are hard terms to use in this situation. We technically "won" the moment we got Hussein out of power, we just had a lot of trouble with the aftermath.
 
americanwoman said:
​

Apparently Dick Cheney cares. Who knew?



That was so unbelievably hard to type Cheney and cares in the same sentence. However- Cheney and dick was rather easy. :2razz:
Click to expand...

Dick Cheney has his own "agenda", which does not run parallel with what is best for America.
 
WillRockwell said:
Who gives a crap what the insurgents do, there are insurgents in dozens of countries all over the world, and none of them are our problem.
Click to expand...

The Clinton adminstration thought that about Afghanistan and the Taliban. How did that work out for us? :roll:
 
Dav said:
It does. If Iraq falls in 10 years, and we've won the War on Terror by then, then I don't think it will be a defeat. If we haven't won the War on Terror, then it probably will be seen as a defeat.

That said, "win" and "lose" are hard terms to use in this situation. We technically "won" the moment we got Hussein out of power, we just had a lot of trouble with the aftermath.
Click to expand...

I'd like to put this comment in perspective:

We technically "won" the moment we got Hussein out of power, we just had a lot of trouble with the aftermath.

We only had trouble with the “aftermath” as it has been defined by the Liberals and drive-by media.

Apparently, the Liberal media and a majority of uninformed Americans think that we can and should only fight wars where we can accurately predict the outcome and have ZERO losses.

But then, that is not the REAL world and is a testament to the failure of our media and education systems to inform and to teach.

This is why I will NEVER support any further intervention of American troops ANYWHERE regardless of which party is in control unless it is the result of a direct attack on our soil. The American people have shown that they are incapable of supporting our military in such efforts and are more inclined to be fooled by a Liberal media who always cheered American failures and kowtowed to America's enemies.

They didn't want us involved in WWI, they didn't want us involved in WWII, they didn't want us involved in Korea, they didn't want us involved in Vietnam and they didn't want us involved in Kuwait.

They only wanted us involved 9-11 for the first few weeks. After that, they claimed they were against the war before they were for it. :cool:
 
danarhea said:
We do NOT belong in Iraq.
Click to expand...

The moment we dissolved their government we assumed responsibility for Iraq's future stability. We will stay until the damn job is finished. Unless we achieve victory all our sacrifices will have been in vain.
 
Truth Detector said:
I
They didn't want us involved in WWI, they didn't want us involved in WWII, they didn't want us involved in Korea, they didn't want us involved in Vietnam and they didn't want us involved in Kuwait.
Click to expand...

Can you please clarifi who "They Are"
 
I will go on record stating the USA will not leave Iraq in our lifetimes.

This "symbolic" gesture is just that. Public relations for the sheeple.

Troops will remain in a state of RDF indefinitely regardless of what is on MSNBC.

A Burger King just opened.

They will keep around 80000 troops there awhile maybe as a PR thing they may reduce that to 25-30k eventually but I highly doubt it will get less than that in our lifetimes.

Even old John McCaine said he was comfortable leaving troops there for a century.
Obama will DO the same thing no matter what he TELLS you.

Watch and see.


'100 years in Iraq'
 
Dav said:
It does. If Iraq falls in 10 years, and we've won the War on Terror by then, then I don't think it will be a defeat. If we haven't won the War on Terror, then it probably will be seen as a defeat.

That said, "win" and "lose" are hard terms to use in this situation. We technically "won" the moment we got Hussein out of power, we just had a lot of trouble with the aftermath.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of that last thought. Well, I'm not much for this comparison per se, but it does serve as interesting thought...but to a small degree we look at what happened to Vietnam after our pullout and the regime change and some may look at it like that also was somewhat worth our trouble. Eventually the United States and Vietnam had a much better relationship once the Vietnamese communist experiment did not pan out so well, let alone those who view Vietnam as that justified "battle" in the larger war of the Cold War, which was later "won".

These internationalist experiments we have tried throughout our history never really have a "win" or "lose" label that everyone or most everyone can agree upon, and it's difficult to establish any set time frame at which to declare victory, defeat, or something else altogether.
 
akyron said:
I will go on record stating the USA will not leave Iraq in our lifetimes.

This "symbolic" gesture is just that. Public relations for the sheeple.

Troops will remain in a state of RDF indefinitely regardless of what is on MSNBC.

A Burger King just opened.

They will keep around 80000 troops there awhile maybe as a PR thing they may reduce that to 25-30k eventually but I highly doubt it will get less than that in our lifetimes.

Even old John McCaine said he was comfortable leaving troops there for a century.
Obama will DO the same thing no matter what he TELLS you.

Watch and see.


'100 years in Iraq'
Click to expand...

We have troops all over the globe, so really, I would also be aware that while Iraq is more of a hot spot than most other areas in the world, any other belief that the United States doesn't have a concentration of troops in other regions in the world could perhaps also be said to be public relations, so when people gave McCain trouble about that statement, I happened to think he was right on the money.

What matters more is the number of troops, not the mere presence of troops.
 
Last edited:
akyron said:
I will go on record stating the USA will not leave Iraq in our lifetimes.

This "symbolic" gesture is just that. Public relations for the sheeple.

Troops will remain in a state of RDF indefinitely regardless of what is on MSNBC.

A Burger King just opened.

They will keep around 80000 troops there awhile maybe as a PR thing they may reduce that to 25-30k eventually but I highly doubt it will get less than that in our lifetimes.

Even old John McCaine said he was comfortable leaving troops there for a century.
Obama will DO the same thing no matter what he TELLS you.

Watch and see.


'100 years in Iraq'
Click to expand...

The US still has troops in nearly every country we have ever fought a war with. Though we may still have troops in Iraq this is a step in the right direction, and further proof of the changes that have come in Iraq. Before the US entered Iraq they would not have been allowed to have this celebration. It is alright to have troops in the country, I doubt they will be doing any of the hard core fighting that it took to get control and boot out the regime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom