SD Jarhead Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 To clarify what I mean by 'winning' - are the seeds of stability taking root over there? This is a crucial question that will be debated continually over the next few months. Do not mistake my question as "Should we have gone to war"; we've beat that dead horse a million times over. From my perspective, the surge seems to be working. It looks like the turning point was Maliki sending troops into Basra against Al Sadr, a fellow Shiite. That seems to have given him credibility with the Sunni's and Kurds demonstrating that he is a national leader and not just a 'shiite' leader. Or was Harry Reid right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I would say we're "winning" when are troops are coming home. Not before, not one minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I would say we're "winning" when are troops are coming home. Not before, not one minute. you our not going to win any grammar rodeos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 you our not going to win any grammar rodeos I can agree with that. I typed just a wee bit to quick. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I can agree with that. I typed just a wee bit to quick.. Yes, because you obviously typed it without thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Yes, because you obviously typed it without thinking. http://pbills.justgotowned.com/ That never gets old Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Yes, because you obviously typed it without thinking. No jerk off, just typed to fast. Can't read? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 http://pbills.justgotowned.com/ That never gets old WOW! Someones cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 I would say we're "winning" when are troops are coming home. Not before, not one minute. Interesting standard. Does this mean we lost World War II or that we're still fighting it? You can't ignore a 17 month trend. The violence is way down. Military deaths are down and Iraqi security is stepping up. The country is clearly stabilizing and we're on the way to a pretty remarkable achievement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 17 month trend after how many years...? yeah that's nice. Sorry, for me until the Iraqi government is ready to take over completely and troops are ready to come home... I'm not really going to call anything winning or mission accomplished, again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 I'd like to see how the surge would be doing if we didnt or stopped bribing both sides enormous sums of cash to NOT kill each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 I would say we're "winning" when are troops are coming home. Not before, not one minute. Thus illustrating the biggest part of the problem: no one can agree on what "victory" is supposed to be in Iraq. Used to be "a free democracy". Now it's "stability". Unless you're completely anti-war, in which case it's "No more Americans die (and who gives a sh-- about A-Rabs, by the way)." And then there's the complete idiots who believe victory involves somehow retroactively banning the invasion so it in some moral sense never happened - fortunately a distinct minority. Interestingly, what's probably the most sane definition - an Iraq independent of US support - is embraced by all sides, even though everyone's too busy fighting over it to realize it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted June 13, 2008 Author Share Posted June 13, 2008 Thus illustrating the biggest part of the problem: no one can agree on what "victory" is supposed to be in Iraq. Used to be "a free democracy". Now it's "stability". Unless you're completely anti-war, in which case it's "No more Americans die (and who gives a sh-- about A-Rabs, by the way)." And then there's the complete idiots who believe victory involves somehow retroactively banning the invasion so it in some moral sense never happened - fortunately a distinct minority. Interestingly, what's probably the most sane definition - an Iraq independent of US support - is embraced by all sides, even though everyone's too busy fighting over it to realize it. That unfortunately is what we've had to settle on with this mess. But I believe it is an obtainable goal if conditions continue to improve the way they have recently. Hopefully we don't go broke first... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 That unfortunately is what we've had to settle on with this mess. But I believe it is an obtainable goal if conditions continue to improve the way they have recently. Hopefully we don't go broke first... I am sure that if McCain gets elected we'll go broke first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 17 month trend after how many years...? yeah that's nice. Sorry, for me until the Iraqi government is ready to take over completely and troops are ready to come home... I'm not really going to call anything winning or mission accomplished, again. So you're ready to dismiss a 17 month trend and won't even commit to "winning" when things are clearly improving? Gosh, it's almost like people don't want to acknowledge any good news from the region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 So you're ready to dismiss a 17 month trend and won't even commit to "winning" when things are clearly improving? Gosh, it's almost like people don't want to acknowledge any good news from the region. No, there has been good news from there. Just as there has been bad news. People, like me, are getting tired of hearing about the "good news" when major officials involved come out and say that even though there have been some progress, we are not even close to the light at the end of the tunnel. Statements like those are what drive me to say it's not about winning, it's about knowing when to say we've done enough and to get out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 No, there has been good news from there. Just as there has been bad news. People, like me, are getting tired of hearing about the "good news" when major officials involved come out and say that even though there have been some progress, we are not even close to the light at the end of the tunnel. Statements like those are what drive me to say it's not about winning, it's about knowing when to say we've done enough and to get out. Part of the problem is that you don't really HEAR good news; what the mass media reports is whatever is salacious...which in a war zone is blood. No blood, no news. The news we get out of Iraq (or Afghanistan, or any other conflict region) is generally bad via corporate bias. On the other hand...there is the question of how worthwhile it is to keep pouring SO much money down a bottomless pit, no matter how good the news is. But hell, the US government doesn't give a sh--, it's not their money they're spending... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Part of the problem is that you don't really HEAR good news; what the mass media reports is whatever is salacious...which in a war zone is blood. No blood, no news. The news we get out of Iraq (or Afghanistan, or any other conflict region) is generally bad via corporate bias. On the other hand...there is the question of how worthwhile it is to keep pouring SO much money down a bottomless pit, no matter how good the news is. But hell, the US government doesn't give a sh--, it's not their money they're spending... Personally, I am getting tired of everyone blaming the media. Granted blood & guts stories sell newspaper and TV shows. However I would imagine that there are more bad stories to good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Personally, I am getting tired of everyone blaming the media. Granted blood & guts stories sell newspaper and TV shows. However I would imagine that there are more bad stories to good. And the only reason you'd have to imagine that is because it's what's reported. I don't "blame" the media, mind you. It's simply a fact that it's a for-profit industry that has to compete for viewers, which biases reporting towards the salacious and thus affects people's perceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Not saying that you blame the media... just that is all I hear all of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts