Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Will someone explain to me what is meant by "winning" or "losing" the war in Iraq?

Losing = Declaring the wogs unfit for civilization and going home. Letting Iraq disintegrate

into warring chaos. Withdrawing our troops, as power struggles rage and rival militia

groups continue to slaughter each other for generations, inciting further violence and bloodshed.

Winning = Defeating and disarming vigilante militias, forming a democratic, peaceful Iraq,

capable of taking care of its own defense, law, and order.

VERY NICE MARK!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not being a jerk. I really do want to know what people mean when they say "winning" or "losing" this war.

What are the deciding factors in this matter to those who consider it to be a war won or lost?

Is it autonomy for Iraq and freedom from the oppression they've experienced or is it something else?

Winning is defined as being able to pull our troops out of daily combat and have the Iraq army capable of dealing with any threat internal or external. Also, to have a stable government able to keep the country together and to support itself.

I'm going to ask a stupid question. Who exactly are we at war with? Because, we defeated the Iraqi army like 5 years ago and now we actually are fighting with them. Would it be fair to say that we won the 2nd Iraq war 5 years ago and now we playing policemen, or is there an actual organization we can put our finger on to say- we are at war with them?

Because that would require the simple (and rather unpalatable answer) that we're fighting the Iraqi population. Specifically - Al Qaeda who showed up after Saddam's Regime was deposed and because the Shia were killing the Sunnis, the Iraqi Shia groups that aren't affiliated with Iran; and the ones that are. In short its a bloody mess.

We're obviously not fighting the whole Iraqi population, not even a good percentage of it. Okay, so now it's Al Qaeda and the Shia. Wouldn't you say this is a different war than the one we started over 5 years ago?

Well obviously we're not fighting the whole population - we are fighting the power groups with or seeking political influence over the future of the country.

And yes - obviously its a different war than the one we started 5 years ago. Its exactly the war that the previous Bush administration didn't want to fight after the '91 Gulf War, hence Saddam was allowed to remain in power. The thinking being that the country would erupt into civil war and chaos (with a net benefit to neighbouring Iran) and that with sanctions - Saddam would be sufficiently weakened that his government would collapse naturally, allowing some sort of peacekeeping force in to ensure a peaceful transition.

Edited June 3, 2008 by Number 6

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm not being a jerk. I really do want to know what people mean when they say "winning" or "losing" this war.

What are the deciding factors in this matter to those who consider it to be a war won or lost?

Is it autonomy for Iraq and freedom from the oppression they've experienced or is it something else?

Winning is defined as being able to pull our troops out of daily combat and have the Iraq army capable of dealing with any threat internal or external. Also, to have a stable government able to keep the country together and to support itself.

I'm going to ask a stupid question. Who exactly are we at war with? Because, we defeated the Iraqi army like 5 years ago and now we actually are fighting with them. Would it be fair to say that we won the 2nd Iraq war 5 years ago and now we playing policemen, or is there an actual organization we can put our finger on to say- we are at war with them?

Because that would require the simple (and rather unpalatable answer) that we're fighting the Iraqi population. Specifically - Al Qaeda who showed up after Saddam's Regime was deposed and because the Shia were killing the Sunnis, the Iraqi Shia groups that aren't affiliated with Iran; and the ones that are. In short its a bloody mess.

We're obviously not fighting the whole Iraqi population, not even a good percentage of it. Okay, so now it's Al Qaeda and the Shia. Wouldn't you say this is a different war than the one we started over 5 years ago?

This goes back to the "mission accomplished" banner the left so loves to beat us over the heads with. Yes, we won the war against Saddam. Yes, we are in a different war now. We are fighting a proxy war with Iran now. The Iraq population has pretty much stopped fighting us. The real threat comes from outside Iraq and is funded by Iran.

The "Mission Accomplished" banner was the biggest blunder ever. More US service personnel and more Iraqis have died in the fighting after the declared end of major combat operations (that was the "accomplished mission" per the President's remarks, not merely the ouster of Saddam) than during the major combat operations. They had no clue what they were getting the country into. W should have talked to and taken a lesson from his old man. GHWB knew why he wasn't going to go in. And the elder Bush was right on that one.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not being a jerk. I really do want to know what people mean when they say "winning" or "losing" this war.

What are the deciding factors in this matter to those who consider it to be a war won or lost?

Is it autonomy for Iraq and freedom from the oppression they've experienced or is it something else?

Winning is defined as being able to pull our troops out of daily combat and have the Iraq army capable of dealing with any threat internal or external. Also, to have a stable government able to keep the country together and to support itself.

I'm going to ask a stupid question. Who exactly are we at war with? Because, we defeated the Iraqi army like 5 years ago and now we actually are fighting with them. Would it be fair to say that we won the 2nd Iraq war 5 years ago and now we playing policemen, or is there an actual organization we can put our finger on to say- we are at war with them?

Because that would require the simple (and rather unpalatable answer) that we're fighting the Iraqi population. Specifically - Al Qaeda who showed up after Saddam's Regime was deposed and because the Shia were killing the Sunnis, the Iraqi Shia groups that aren't affiliated with Iran; and the ones that are. In short its a bloody mess.

We're obviously not fighting the whole Iraqi population, not even a good percentage of it. Okay, so now it's Al Qaeda and the Shia. Wouldn't you say this is a different war than the one we started over 5 years ago?

This goes back to the "mission accomplished" banner the left so loves to beat us over the heads with. Yes, we won the war against Saddam. Yes, we are in a different war now. We are fighting a proxy war with Iran now. The Iraq population has pretty much stopped fighting us. The real threat comes from outside Iraq and is funded by Iran.

The "Mission Accomplished" banner was the biggest blunder ever. More US service personnel and more Iraqis have died in the fighting after the declared end of major combat operations (that was the "accomplished mission" per the President's remarks, not merely the ouster of Saddam) than during the major combat operations. They had no clue what they were getting the country into. W should have talked to and taken a lesson from his old man. GHWB knew why he wasn't going to go in. And the elder Bush was right on that one.

The worst thing here is that none of the stuff that happened following Saddam's downfall was in anyways unpredictable. And yet the administration claimed to be blindsided by the insurgency...

[dalegg 143]

The "Mission Accomplished" banner was the biggest blunder ever. More US service personnel and more Iraqis have died in the fighting after the declared end of major combat operations (that was the "accomplished mission" per the President's remarks, not merely the ouster of Saddam) than during the major combat operations. They had no clue what they were getting the country into. W should have talked to and taken a lesson from his old man. GHWB knew why he wasn't going to go in. And the elder Bush was right on that one.

But technically that Mission was accomplished, (unless actually finding WMD was part of the mission statement). They just created a new mission. Thats why I want a new name for this war. It doesn't make sense to me to say we keep referring to this as the same "Iraq War" when we aren't fighting the same army we were fighting before. Maybe its just symantics.

The worst thing here is that none of the stuff that happened following Saddam's downfall was in anyways unpredictable. And yet the administration claimed to be blindsided by the insurgency...

Yes, I totally agree with you on that one.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I'm not being a jerk. I really do want to know what people mean when they say "winning" or "losing" this war.

What are the deciding factors in this matter to those who consider it to be a war won or lost?

Is it autonomy for Iraq and freedom from the oppression they've experienced or is it something else?

Winning is defined as being able to pull our troops out of daily combat and have the Iraq army capable of dealing with any threat internal or external. Also, to have a stable government able to keep the country together and to support itself.

I'm going to ask a stupid question. Who exactly are we at war with? Because, we defeated the Iraqi army like 5 years ago and now we actually are fighting with them. Would it be fair to say that we won the 2nd Iraq war 5 years ago and now we playing policemen, or is there an actual organization we can put our finger on to say- we are at war with them?

Because that would require the simple (and rather unpalatable answer) that we're fighting the Iraqi population. Specifically - Al Qaeda who showed up after Saddam's Regime was deposed and because the Shia were killing the Sunnis, the Iraqi Shia groups that aren't affiliated with Iran; and the ones that are. In short its a bloody mess.

We're obviously not fighting the whole Iraqi population, not even a good percentage of it. Okay, so now it's Al Qaeda and the Shia. Wouldn't you say this is a different war than the one we started over 5 years ago?

This goes back to the "mission accomplished" banner the left so loves to beat us over the heads with. Yes, we won the war against Saddam. Yes, we are in a different war now. We are fighting a proxy war with Iran now. The Iraq population has pretty much stopped fighting us. The real threat comes from outside Iraq and is funded by Iran.

The "Mission Accomplished" banner was the biggest blunder ever. More US service personnel and more Iraqis have died in the fighting after the declared end of major combat operations (that was the "accomplished mission" per the President's remarks, not merely the ouster of Saddam) than during the major combat operations. They had no clue what they were getting the country into. W should have talked to and taken a lesson from his old man. GHWB knew why he wasn't going to go in. And the elder Bush was right on that one.

What about Baracks church BANNER? Selective? Lets tie some square knots heh!

Edited June 3, 2008 by ={Rogue}=

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not being a jerk. I really do want to know what people mean when they say "winning" or "losing" this war.

What are the deciding factors in this matter to those who consider it to be a war won or lost?

Is it autonomy for Iraq and freedom from the oppression they've experienced or is it something else?

Winning is defined as being able to pull our troops out of daily combat and have the Iraq army capable of dealing with any threat internal or external. Also, to have a stable government able to keep the country together and to support itself.

I'm going to ask a stupid question. Who exactly are we at war with? Because, we defeated the Iraqi army like 5 years ago and now we actually are fighting with them. Would it be fair to say that we won the 2nd Iraq war 5 years ago and now we playing policemen, or is there an actual organization we can put our finger on to say- we are at war with them?

Because that would require the simple (and rather unpalatable answer) that we're fighting the Iraqi population. Specifically - Al Qaeda who showed up after Saddam's Regime was deposed and because the Shia were killing the Sunnis, the Iraqi Shia groups that aren't affiliated with Iran; and the ones that are. In short its a bloody mess.

We're obviously not fighting the whole Iraqi population, not even a good percentage of it. Okay, so now it's Al Qaeda and the Shia. Wouldn't you say this is a different war than the one we started over 5 years ago?

This goes back to the "mission accomplished" banner the left so loves to beat us over the heads with. Yes, we won the war against Saddam. Yes, we are in a different war now. We are fighting a proxy war with Iran now. The Iraq population has pretty much stopped fighting us. The real threat comes from outside Iraq and is funded by Iran.

The "Mission Accomplished" banner was the biggest blunder ever. More US service personnel and more Iraqis have died in the fighting after the declared end of major combat operations (that was the "accomplished mission" per the President's remarks, not merely the ouster of Saddam) than during the major combat operations. They had no clue what they were getting the country into. W should have talked to and taken a lesson from his old man. GHWB knew why he wasn't going to go in. And the elder Bush was right on that one.

What about Baracks church BANNER? Selective? Lets tie some square knots heh!

Selective? Barack's church has nothing whatsoever to do with this.

Apples and oranges?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I'm not being a jerk. I really do want to know what people mean when they say "winning" or "losing" this war.

What are the deciding factors in this matter to those who consider it to be a war won or lost?

Is it autonomy for Iraq and freedom from the oppression they've experienced or is it something else?

Winning is defined as being able to pull our troops out of daily combat and have the Iraq army capable of dealing with any threat internal or external. Also, to have a stable government able to keep the country together and to support itself.

I'm going to ask a stupid question. Who exactly are we at war with? Because, we defeated the Iraqi army like 5 years ago and now we actually are fighting with them. Would it be fair to say that we won the 2nd Iraq war 5 years ago and now we playing policemen, or is there an actual organization we can put our finger on to say- we are at war with them?

Because that would require the simple (and rather unpalatable answer) that we're fighting the Iraqi population. Specifically - Al Qaeda who showed up after Saddam's Regime was deposed and because the Shia were killing the Sunnis, the Iraqi Shia groups that aren't affiliated with Iran; and the ones that are. In short its a bloody mess.

We're obviously not fighting the whole Iraqi population, not even a good percentage of it. Okay, so now it's Al Qaeda and the Shia. Wouldn't you say this is a different war than the one we started over 5 years ago?

This goes back to the "mission accomplished" banner the left so loves to beat us over the heads with. Yes, we won the war against Saddam. Yes, we are in a different war now. We are fighting a proxy war with Iran now. The Iraq population has pretty much stopped fighting us. The real threat comes from outside Iraq and is funded by Iran.

The "Mission Accomplished" banner was the biggest blunder ever. More US service personnel and more Iraqis have died in the fighting after the declared end of major combat operations (that was the "accomplished mission" per the President's remarks, not merely the ouster of Saddam) than during the major combat operations. They had no clue what they were getting the country into. W should have talked to and taken a lesson from his old man. GHWB knew why he wasn't going to go in. And the elder Bush was right on that one.

What about Baracks church BANNER? Selective? Lets tie some square knots heh!

Selective? Barack's church has nothing whatsoever to do with this.

Apples and oranges?

Show me a pic of Bush tieing up the mission accomplished banner! Lets pick some fruit shall we!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not being a jerk. I really do want to know what people mean when they say "winning" or "losing" this war.

What are the deciding factors in this matter to those who consider it to be a war won or lost?

Is it autonomy for Iraq and freedom from the oppression they've experienced or is it something else?

Winning is defined as being able to pull our troops out of daily combat and have the Iraq army capable of dealing with any threat internal or external. Also, to have a stable government able to keep the country together and to support itself.

I'm going to ask a stupid question. Who exactly are we at war with? Because, we defeated the Iraqi army like 5 years ago and now we actually are fighting with them. Would it be fair to say that we won the 2nd Iraq war 5 years ago and now we playing policemen, or is there an actual organization we can put our finger on to say- we are at war with them?

Because that would require the simple (and rather unpalatable answer) that we're fighting the Iraqi population. Specifically - Al Qaeda who showed up after Saddam's Regime was deposed and because the Shia were killing the Sunnis, the Iraqi Shia groups that aren't affiliated with Iran; and the ones that are. In short its a bloody mess.

We're obviously not fighting the whole Iraqi population, not even a good percentage of it. Okay, so now it's Al Qaeda and the Shia. Wouldn't you say this is a different war than the one we started over 5 years ago?

This goes back to the "mission accomplished" banner the left so loves to beat us over the heads with. Yes, we won the war against Saddam. Yes, we are in a different war now. We are fighting a proxy war with Iran now. The Iraq population has pretty much stopped fighting us. The real threat comes from outside Iraq and is funded by Iran.

The "Mission Accomplished" banner was the biggest blunder ever. More US service personnel and more Iraqis have died in the fighting after the declared end of major combat operations (that was the "accomplished mission" per the President's remarks, not merely the ouster of Saddam) than during the major combat operations. They had no clue what they were getting the country into. W should have talked to and taken a lesson from his old man. GHWB knew why he wasn't going to go in. And the elder Bush was right on that one.

What about Baracks church BANNER? Selective? Lets tie some square knots heh!

Selective? Barack's church has nothing whatsoever to do with this.

Apples and oranges?

Show me a pic of Bush tieing up the mission accomplished banner! Lets pick some fruit shall we!

I don't think it really matters whether or not he personally tied it up, as much as that it was used for the purposes of a staged photo opportunity.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I don't think it really matters whether or not he personally tied it up, as much as that it was used for the purposes of a staged photo opportunity.

Yea, but it has been used as though he did! Over and Over and Over. So what goes around comes around. Funny how the congress singing "god bless america" on the steps of the capitol after 911 has been forgotton. Who divided the ppl on those steps? I beleive it starts with a (D)! Before each of theyre names.

Please take note of (theyre)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think it really matters whether or not he personally tied it up, as much as that it was used for the purposes of a staged photo opportunity.

Yea, but it has been used as though he did! Over and Over and Over. So what goes around comes around. Funny how the congress singing "god bless america" on the steps of the capitol after 911 has been forgotton. Who divided the ppl on those steps? I beleive it starts with a (D)! Before each of theyre names.

Please take note of (theyre)

Whether its been used that way or not - it doesn't matter; and it doesn't change the fundamental point as to how it was used - namely as a photo opportunity to gain political points. That's all it was - a photo opportunity to help the administration's case for re-election in the following year's election. So no - Bush didn't put it up himself, but he might as well have.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I don't think it really matters whether or not he personally tied it up, as much as that it was used for the purposes of a staged photo opportunity.

Yea, but it has been used as though he did! Over and Over and Over. So what goes around comes around. Funny how the congress singing "god bless america" on the steps of the capitol after 911 has been forgotton. Who divided the ppl on those steps? I beleive it starts with a (D)! Before each of theyre names.

Please take note of (theyre)

Whether its been used that way or not - it doesn't matter; and it doesn't change the fundamental point as to how it was used - namely as a photo opportunity to gain political points. That's all it was - a photo opportunity to help the administration's case for re-election in the following year's election. So no - Bush didn't put it up himself, but he might as well have.

So you admit that this is okay too then. This was a photo-op too, right? Untill it turned to a negative now look at the punk RUN from his proud photo-op You really should apply the same principals.

Funny how one wants togetherness for us all, but splits from someone that he's loved for twenty years.

Theres a GOOD freind for ya. He's a phoney politically expedient punk. He has shite on his shoes and is wipin it off on his followers. The forgiveness is so selective and forthright for one but not another its sickening.I would never EVER be proud to be part of that crowd.

Personally I couldnt live with that on my consious.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think it really matters whether or not he personally tied it up, as much as that it was used for the purposes of a staged photo opportunity.

Yea, but it has been used as though he did! Over and Over and Over. So what goes around comes around. Funny how the congress singing "god bless america" on the steps of the capitol after 911 has been forgotton. Who divided the ppl on those steps? I beleive it starts with a (D)! Before each of theyre names.

Please take note of (theyre)

Whether its been used that way or not - it doesn't matter; and it doesn't change the fundamental point as to how it was used - namely as a photo opportunity to gain political points. That's all it was - a photo opportunity to help the administration's case for re-election in the following year's election. So no - Bush didn't put it up himself, but he might as well have.

So you admit that this is okay too then. This was a photo-op too, right? Untill it turned to a negative now look at the punk RUN from his proud photo-op You really should apply the same principals.

Funny how one wants togetherness for us all, but splits from someone that he's loved for twenty years.

Theres a GOOD freind for ya. He's a phoney politically expedient punk. He has shite on his shoes and is wipin it off on his followers. The forgiveness is so selective and forthright for one but not another its sickening.I would never EVER be proud to be part of that crowd.

Personally I couldnt live with that on my consious.

It politics isn't it. I don't idolise any US politician. Not a single one.

[Heracles 417]

Yay!

Nothing like winning an illegal war!

Since you think it was illegal does that mean you want us to lose?

No I want us to leave where we do not belong. Intelligently, of course. We already lost that war the moment we allowed ourselves to invade based on lies.

Leave how so? basically pull another Vietnam right? AKA #### everyone who is left there to fend for themselves right.

I never knew wars could be illegal. But hey there is a first for everything.

How did we lose? Actually what did you think that a region in turmoil for thousands of years is just going to be peaceful within a week.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I never knew wars could be illegal.

Maybe you should try and do a bit of reading then.