Question for War Supporters

[Hugh Lincoln]

What would a "victory" in Iraq look like?

(Please note that I am not a liberal. I don't like Pelosi, Hillary, Obama and the gang. I have voted exclusively for Republicans all my life. But I am also not a "neocon" by any stretch - I prefer the Reagan right, the paleocons, the hard-core right, Pat Buchanan, etc. Just for the record so folks know where I'm coming from.)

[Dilloduck]

What would a "victory" in Iraq look like?

(Please note that I am not a liberal. I don't like Pelosi, Hillary, Obama and the gang. I have voted exclusively for Republicans all my life. But I am also not a "neocon" by any stretch - I prefer the Reagan right, the paleocons, the hard-core right, Pat Buchanan, etc. Just for the record so folks know where I'm coming from.)

I think a US victory in Iraq would be represented by a sovereign Iraq that setted its' internal differences wthout resorting to killing each other, saw the US as an ally and the expulsion of all foreign influences dedicated to keeping Iraq as a chaotic radical Islamic arena.

What would a defeat look like ?

[Hugh Lincoln]

Fair enough answer... I just don't think that's much of a military goal or even a legitimate political one. How can soldiers settle the tribal differences? Soldiers kill people. The only solution there would be to kill all the Sunnis and just let the Shiites take over. But then... the Shiites still have radical Islamic tendencies.

And I guess I don't know what a defeat would look like, since I think "victory" and "defeat" are the wrong terms here.

Whole thing's a huge mess. Personal opinion is the military should be used to defend our territory where the defense requires securing land and driving out enemies. Not humanitarian missions, etc.

[Dilloduck]

Fair enough answer... I just don't think that's much of a military goal or even a legitimate political one. How can soldiers settle the tribal differences? Soldiers kill people. The only solution there would be to kill all the Sunnis and just let the Shiites take over. But then... the Shiites still have radical Islamic tendencies.

And I guess I don't know what a defeat would look like, since I think "victory" and "defeat" are the wrong terms here.

Whole thing's a huge mess. Personal opinion is the military should be used to defend our territory where the defense requires securing land and driving out enemies. Not humanitarian missions, etc.

You're the one who came up the word ! Ya--soldiers kill people who are in the way of victory. The more they kill the better chance for victory (unless of course polticians snatch it away from them).

[darin]

Whole thing's a huge mess. Personal opinion is the military should be used to defend our territory where the defense requires securing land and driving out enemies. Not humanitarian missions, etc.

If we lose, Al Qaeda gets control of Iraq's resources. Winning in Iraq IS defending our borders.

[Hugh Lincoln]

If we lose, Al Qaeda gets control of Iraq's resources. Winning in Iraq IS defending our borders.

So how would you achieve this victory?

I don't know about the al Qaeda connection. Saddam Hussein would have crushed al Quada without mercy... how was removing him from power a path to this?

[SassyLady]

Fair enough answer... I just don't think that's much of a military goal or even a legitimate political one. How can soldiers settle the tribal differences? Soldiers kill people. The only solution there would be to kill all the Sunnis and just let the Shiites take over. But then... the Shiites still have radical Islamic tendencies.

And I guess I don't know what a defeat would look like, since I think "victory" and "defeat" are the wrong terms here.

Whole thing's a huge mess. Personal opinion is the military should be used to defend our territory where the defense requires securing land and driving out enemies. Not humanitarian missions, etc.

You make it sound as if the only mission a solider has is to kill. You need to get a wider perspective on what soldiers do. Yes, they are trained to kill when NEEDED, however, their main mission is to provide a forum for freedom to flourish.

The military is to defend our homeland and to protect national interests, both here and abroad. Those who think the military is to only be stationed within the US borders is shortsighted and dangerous.

The US cannot be self-supporting in all areas. We need other countries for receiving our goods and for producing goods we need. Humanitarian efforts are ultimately in our best interests.

[Hugh Lincoln]

You make it sound as if the only mission a solider has is to kill. You need to get a wider perspective on what soldiers do. Yes, they are trained to kill when NEEDED, however, their main mission is to provide a forum for freedom to flourish.

Whose damn freedom?

And who's standing in the way of it?

If the Shiite population wants an Islamic government in Iraq, well, U.S. soldiers sure as FUCK aren't "provingd a forum" for their freedom. If the Sunnis want Saddam back, same thing. The Kurds, maybe? Some seem to be defining "freedom" or "democracy" for Iraq in a way that just doesn't make a lick of sense. They imagine this amorophous "Iraqi people" that just doesn't exist. "Iraq" isn't even a real nation... it was drawn up by the British and ropes in wildly differing ethnic and tribal groups usually at odds with each other. Saddam kept it together by terrorizing Kurds and Shiites, best I can tell.

The truth is that the military mission was never to create a stable Iraq with a different leader. It was to create chaos for a nation that threatened Israel, and possibly set off a conflagration of the middle east that would see the U.S. destroying most of it so that Israel wouldn't have to launch one of its nukes... or could at least launch one with good reason, maybe at Iran.

None of which has anything to do with America's interests.

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

[SassyLady]

Whose damn freedom?

And who's standing in the way of it?

If the Shiite population wants an Islamic government in Iraq, well, U.S. soldiers sure as FUCK aren't "provingd a forum" for their freedom. If the Sunnis want Saddam back, same thing. The Kurds, maybe? Some seem to be defining "freedom" or "democracy" for Iraq in a way that just doesn't make a lick of sense. They imagine this amorophous "Iraqi people" that just doesn't exist. "Iraq" isn't even a real nation... it was drawn up by the British and ropes in wildly differing ethnic and tribal groups usually at odds with each other. Saddam kept it together by terrorizing Kurds and Shiites, best I can tell.

The truth is that the military mission was never to create a stable Iraq with a different leader. It was to create chaos for a nation that threatened Israel, and possibly set off a conflagration of the middle east that would see the U.S. destroying most of it so that Israel wouldn't have to launch one of its nukes... or could at least launch one with good reason, maybe at Iran.

None of which has anything to do with America's interests.

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

My statement was about the primary function of the military which you tried to say was to KILL. I pointed out to you that soldiers are trained to kill when NEEDED as opposed to your theory that their primary function is to kill.

Their primary function is to protect the interests of their country....both domestically and nationally, and at times this necessitates killing.

And I can tell from your post that you must hate Israel.

As for what our soldiers are doing in Iraq --- Shite, Kurd, Sunni and others should be given a chance to decide, by vote and not by dicatorship, what type of freedoms they want.

American interests - do you really think we have no interests in the ME?

[Dilloduck]

Whose damn freedom?

And who's standing in the way of it?

If the Shiite population wants an Islamic government in Iraq, well, U.S. soldiers sure as FUCK aren't "provingd a forum" for their freedom. If the Sunnis want Saddam back, same thing. The Kurds, maybe? Some seem to be defining "freedom" or "democracy" for Iraq in a way that just doesn't make a lick of sense. They imagine this amorophous "Iraqi people" that just doesn't exist. "Iraq" isn't even a real nation... it was drawn up by the British and ropes in wildly differing ethnic and tribal groups usually at odds with each other. Saddam kept it together by terrorizing Kurds and Shiites, best I can tell.

The truth is that the military mission was never to create a stable Iraq with a different leader. It was to create chaos for a nation that threatened Israel, and possibly set off a conflagration of the middle east that would see the U.S. destroying most of it so that Israel wouldn't have to launch one of its nukes... or could at least launch one with good reason, maybe at Iran.

None of which has anything to do with America's interests.

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html

I'm damn intersted in sticking it to the crazy Islamists and damn intersested in protecting our oil supply until we can find a replacement

[trobinett]

Fair enough answer... I just don't think that's much of a military goal or even a legitimate political one. How can soldiers settle the tribal differences? Soldiers kill people. The only solution there would be to kill all the Sunnis and just let the Shiites take over. But then... the Shiites still have radical Islamic tendencies.

This ISN'T a war of "kill them all, and let God sort it out", its a war about eliminating the Islamic radicals.

War, however, IS about KILLING PEOPLE, always has been, always will be.

I'm on board with the elimination of the radical Islamic players. It's what has to happen.

And I guess I don't know what a defeat would look like, since I think "victory" and "defeat" are the wrong terms here.

Well, YOU are the one that asked what VICTORY would look like. Defeat would look ugly, sorta like Bully.

Whole thing's a huge mess. Personal opinion is the military should be used to defend our territory where the defense requires securing land and driving out enemies. Not humanitarian missions, etc.

Sorry Hugh, this WOT isn't a humanitarian mission, its a mission of survival, OUR survival.

[LiberalNation]

I'm on board with the elimination of the radical Islamic players. It's what has to happen.

lol you think that'll fix the problem. Leaders just lead the people behind them. Everyone you kill there will be another to replace him. You can't beat an ideology like this with guns and bombs. It's a propaganda war, a war of hearts and minds, one we're loosing pretty badly right now IMO.

[SassyLady]

any idea how we won previous wars?

[darin]

lol you think that'll fix the problem. Leaders just lead the people behind them. Everyone you kill there will be another to replace him. You can't beat an ideology like this with guns and bombs. It's a propaganda war, a war of hearts and minds, one we're loosing pretty badly right now IMO.

Yup - Just like Nazism and Communism right? There's NO WAY we could win against the Soviet Union's SUPERIOR NUMBERS!! we can't win!! Let's just cower to the bullies!

You're weak. Ya know that? Weak.

[manu1959]

lol you think that'll fix the problem. Leaders just lead the people behind them. Everyone you kill there will be another to replace him. You can't beat an ideology like this with guns and bombs. It's a propaganda war, a war of hearts and minds, one we're loosing pretty badly right now IMO.

not if you kill them all......

it is dificult to beat a propagand civil war waged by your own media.....