[lotuseclat79]

Article here.

-- Tom

[Littlefield]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Article here.

-- Tom

It is a yes or no question .

[iltos]

Originally Posted by Littlefield

It is a yes or no question .

is it?....how do you know when you've won?

asking me if i want to "stay the course" is a yes or no question....but is that what you mean by winning?

asking me if i'm willing to do "whatever is necessary" to squash the insurgency is a yes or no question....is that what you mean by winning?

asking me if i'm willing to have our presence in iraq for a specific amount of time is a yes or no question.....but we all know that's got nothing to do with winning

is winning waiting until the iraqi government tell us to leave? is that what you mean by winning?

winning is a pretty vague word in this situation, littlefield.....that was the point of the article....

in order to actually discuss it, i'm gonna need a specific definition of what you consider to be a victory....otherwise its just smoke and mirrors, imo

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by iltos

is it?....how do you know when you've won?

Its impossible NOT to win. The only way to lose is to leave (early). This is the problem liberals have--you people have swallowed the propoganda and spin for so long you accept it as fact. I asked poochee in another thread to support her assertion that the war was "fruitless". All that liberals ever do is talk about the death toll. Of course if you measure the war on the death toll, its a complete failure because any more than a few hundred deaths is going to be viewed very disfavorably. However, if you actually look at what has been accomplished and what Iraq is today comparted when Hussein was in power, there is enormous progress. No liberals is going to want to hear that or believe it, but that's the facts.

[erick295]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Its impossible NOT to win. The only way to lose is to leave (early). This is the problem liberals have--you people have swallowed the propoganda and spin for so long you accept it as fact. I asked poochee in another thread to support her assertion that the war was "fruitless". All that liberals ever do is talk about the death toll. Of course if you measure the war on the death toll, its a complete failure because any more than a few hundred deaths is going to be viewed very disfavorably. However, if you actually look at what has been accomplished and what Iraq is today comparted when Hussein was in power, there is enormous progress. No liberals is going to want to hear that or believe it, but that's the facts.

Wow, you are totally blind. Do you honestly believe Iraq is in good shape? They're occupied by a foreign nation, on the brink of a sectarian civil war, and they have a pro-terrorist government that readily supports Hezbollah, yet won't even stand up for itself in its own country. Polls show that the majority of Iraqis want us out of there, but you'll no doubt dismiss those as liberal propaganda, just like you'll dismiss any bad news as liberal propaganda, because you're so determined to be a good ol' Republican that you'll just go along with whatever Bush does without ever even looking at the facts. Whether they are in better shape now compared to four years ago is debatable, but the idea that they are in anything even remotely close to good shape right now is laughable. But anyone who says that is accused of being "liberal," which has, for whatever reason, become a bad word.

So, tell me, how is it "impossible NOT to win?" When is it too early for us to leave? Do you want us to remain there for the next 2,000 years until they resolve their differences? What exactly would you like all of us to wait for? Please, tell us exactly what your idea of winning is.

According to Bush we already did win. Remember "Mission Accomplished?" How many years ago was that again?

[ekim68]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Article here.

-- Tom

Good article Tom. They're pulling out all the stops. They should live in shame for the way
they've divided this country.

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by erick295

Wow, you are totally blind. Do you honestly believe Iraq is in good shape? They're occupied by a foreign nation, on the brink of a sectarian civil war, and they have a pro-terrorist government that readily supports Hezbollah, yet won't even stand up for itself in its own country. Polls show that the majority of Iraqis want us out of there, but you'll no doubt dismiss those as liberal propaganda, just like you'll dismiss any bad news as liberal propaganda, because you're so determined to be a good ol' Republican that you'll just go along with whatever Bush does without ever even looking at the facts. Whether they are in better shape now compared to four years ago is debatable, but the idea that they are in anything even remotely close to good shape right now is laughable. But anyone who says that is accused of being "liberal," which has, for whatever reason, become a bad word.

So, tell me, how is it "impossible NOT to win?" When is it too early for us to leave? Do you want us to remain there for the next 2,000 years until they resolve their differences? What exactly would you like all of us to wait for? Please, tell us exactly what your idea of winning is.

According to Bush we already did win. Remember "Mission Accomplished?" How many years ago was that again?

How old are you?

[erick295]

Originally Posted by Mulder

How old are you?

Avoiding something, are we..? Like the half dozen questions I asked you?

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by lotuseclat79

Article here.

-- Tom

It's a loaded question! Fo you still beat your wife, is a yes or no question too!

[Mulderator]

Originally Posted by erick295

Avoiding something, are we..? Like the half dozen questions I asked you?

I only respond to intelligent questions.

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by Mulder

Its impossible NOT to win. The only way to lose is to leave (early). This is the problem liberals have--you people have swallowed the propoganda and spin for so long you accept it as fact. I asked poochee in another thread to support her assertion that the war was "fruitless". All that liberals ever do is talk about the death toll. Of course if you measure the war on the death toll, its a complete failure because any more than a few hundred deaths is going to be viewed very disfavorably. However, if you actually look at what has been accomplished and what Iraq is today comparted when Hussein was in power, there is enormous progress. No liberals is going to want to hear that or believe it, but that's the facts.

Tell us, what has been accomplished and show us how Iraqi's are better off today. Make sure you include the fact that the oil industry isn't functional, that the civil war continues, that 40% of Iraqis only have electricity for a portion of the day, that over 50,000 Iraqis have died, and the number is increasing every day, that over 2800 Americans have been killed and at least 10,000 wounded, that the police force has been infiltrated by the Shia militia,
that the "new" army is incapable of defending innocent people. Oh, make sure you tell us how President Malaki forced us to withdraw from Sadr City (we were looking for one of our military men ---you know the ones that the right cares so much about!) because he is closely allied to Sadr?

Last but not least---thank you for telling us that Iraqis are better off since we arrived. I didn't know that that was the reason we invaded. I thought it had to do with Sadaam Hussein having WMD's and being an imminent threat to the USA?

[erick295]

Originally Posted by Mulder

I only respond to intelligent questions.

Seems more like you "cut and run" when you find yourself painted into a corner. Maybe that's not the truth, but that sure is what it looks like

[poochee]

Originally Posted by erick295

Avoiding something, are we..? Like the half dozen questions I asked you?

He's trying to distract you because he doesn't want to answer. Lawyer tactic.

[poochee]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

Tell us, what has been accomplished and show us how Iraqi's are better off today. Make sure you include the fact that the oil industry isn't functional, that the civil war continues, that 40% of Iraqis only have electricity for a portion of the day, that over 50,000 Iraqis have died, and the number is increasing every day, that over 2800 Americans have been killed and at least 10,000 wounded, that the police force has been infiltrated by the Shia militia,
that the "new" army is incapable of defending innocent people. Oh, make sure you tell us how President Malaki forced us to withdraw from Sadr City (we were looking for one of our military men ---you know the ones that the right cares so much about!) because he is closely allied to Sadr?

Last but not least---thank you for telling us that Iraqis are better off since we arrived. I didn't know that that was the reason we invaded. I thought it had to do with Sadaam Hussein having WMD's and being an imminent threat to the USA?

[Lpar]

Originally Posted by erick295

Seems more like you "cut and run" when you find yourself painted into a corner. Maybe that's not the truth, but that sure is what it looks like

Yes, well proven. I asked him in another thread what he though success would look like in Iraq. Apparently he doesn't know.