Are people happy to lose a war?

"losing in Iraq and the entire war on terror."

Okay, are you sayin that if we lose in iraq, we're going to lose the war on terror?


"You don't have to agree with war, but why would you want and even encourage your own country to lose?"

Perhaps so that a certain someone(s) might realize that war is not the best option? To humble ourselves when we've become too arrogant?

Obviously we're not as great as we thought, we seem to be getting our asses handed to us in Iraq.

Okay, are you sayin that if we lose in iraq, we're going to lose the war on terror?

That's not what I said at all.  I said there are people who seem content on losing both wars.  However, I think losing in Iraq will be a huge win for islamic terrorists.

Obviously we're not as great as we thought, we seem to be getting our asses handed to us in Iraq.

I disagree, and we certainly not getting our asses handed to us.  How about we take a look at how many terrorists we have taken out in Iraq.  

So you agree that it's acceptable to encourage your country to lose a war in order to make an anti-war point?

I disagree, and we certainly not getting our asses handed to us. How about we take a look at how many terrorists we have taken out in Iraq.

We're not? We keep taking them out, and they keep coming. It's like fighting a hydra...you can only take the head off so times. If we want to beat terrorism, or at least the problem in Iraq - then deal with the core of the problem.

That's not what I said at all. I said there are people who seem content on losing both wars. However, I think losing in Iraq will be a huge win for islamic terrorists.

Okay, gotcha.

So you agree that it's acceptable to encourage your country to lose a war in order to make an anti-war point?

I think we need to be humbled off our arrogant perch, yes.

Does that mean we should lose a war many have died fighting, for their country? No.

Some people are so afraid of any kind of show of strength they are ready to apologize for it.  Weakness is somehow more noble to them.  They fear showing strength because in their myopic little world, showing strength only pisses off the "Victims" of that strength.

You see this all over, they show themselves when they say stupid things like, "the war in Iraq created more terrorists", as if there was no terrorism before Iraq, and if we just give the nation of Iraq over to the terrorists, life would once again be all peachy.

You also see it in that naive questions like, "Okay, are you sayin that if we lose in iraq, we're going to lose the war on terror?".  They have themselves convinced that the war on terror is being fought everyone BUT Iraq.  The reality is, while it is being fought other places, Iraq is the epicenter of the war on terror, and the bacteria are counting on Spineless Americans to ensure they win.

There is no honor in losing a war... there is only shame.  There is no strength in cowards... only shame.  The Americans who are calling for a "time table" or some other end with no victory would rather be able to blame Prs. Bush for the loss than have to congratulate him for the win... and they couldn't care less what it costs the nation or the troops.  As long as they can point their stinky little fingers, they are pathetically happy.

How did we 'lose' the Iraq conflict when you haven't defined 'winning', Island Dog?

If winning is regime change, then we won. If you're referring to winning as babysitting Iraq for the next forty years with a large military presence then you may be sorely disappointed to find that few Americans are interested in the prospect of our guys being a big fat bullseye in the middle of the desert until Iraqis are dragged, kicking and screaming, into becoming a contemporary secular democracy that economically plays well with others.

Nobody is happy about the way things are going in Iraq. Not President Bush, not Democrats, not Insurgents, not Iraqi civilians, not 'terrorists', not Republicans, not me, and not you.

Since we know that you have no definition of what winning is, Island Dog, we're going to have to guess that maybe the people you are speaking of "...who seem content and even happy about the possibility of losing in Iraq.." are those feeling a little vindicated in their original judgement and arguments against invading and / or staying in Iraq in the first place.

I could once again provide some of the arguments I made for not being in Iraq (possible civil war, expense in loss of American lives, angry Iraqi civilians from bombings and Depleted Uranium, heavy civilian casualties, agitation of 'terrorism' making it worse, driving up our deficet, costing and being much more expansive and time consuming then what we were led to believe, etc., etc.), would you still brush them aside today as mere 'democratic talking points'? The fact is, there were and are very good reasons to not be in Iraq. Those reasons were slapped aside by the brainwashed.

I'm not happy about Iraq and the way things are going, I'm happy that those who created the mess are having it bite them in the tookus, it's just too bad I happen to be in the same boat with them. Thanks for your support of a terrifically bad idea.

If Bush was for cut and run, the democrats would be against it.  It has nothing to do with liking anything.  It is simple hate.  That is all they have left, and they feed on it.

 

If we want to beat terrorism, or at least the problem in Iraq - then deal with the core of the problem.

And what is your version of the "core" problem?

 

 

 

We're not? We keep taking them out, and they keep coming. It's like fighting a hydra...you can only take the head off so times. If we want to beat terrorism, or at least the problem in Iraq - then deal with the core of the problem.

There are still Nazis out there. I guess we lost World War II.

Do you even know what the core problem is? Given that you don't know what the Sharia is I doubt you do.

You also see it in that naive questions like, "Okay, are you sayin that if we lose in iraq, we're going to lose the war on terror?". They have themselves convinced that the war on terror is being fought everyone BUT Iraq. The reality is, while it is being fought other places, Iraq is the epicenter of the war on terror, and the bacteria are counting on Spineless Americans to ensure they win.

I wasn't sure what he meant. I was trying to get it clarified, so...next time you assume, be sure you're right. Okay?

And what is your version of the "core" problem?

Iraq - in my opinion - is not the epicenter of the war. The center is in our homes, our lives...this "war" is about beliefs/ideals. Essentially, "us against them."

You see this all over, they show themselves when they say stupid things like, "the war in Iraq created more terrorists", as if there was no terrorism before Iraq, and if we just give the nation of Iraq over to the terrorists, life would once again be all peachy.

It certainly created something, I say: A fuck up.

We messed up, badly...lets just admit we did, and do something about it.

There is no honor in losing a war... there is only shame. There is no strength in cowards... only shame. The Americans who are calling for a "time table" or some other end with no victory would rather be able to blame Prs. Bush for the loss than have to congratulate him for the win... and they couldn't care less what it costs the nation or the troops. As long as they can point their stinky little fingers, they are pathetically happy.

There's no such thing as accepting that you've lost? Wow, that's....arrogant.

Do you even know what the core problem is? Given that you don't know what the Sharia is I doubt you do.

I have my opinion of it.

I know what sharia law is.

There are still Nazis out there. I guess we lost World War II.

How do you assume that?

Iraq - in my opinion - is not the epicenter of the war. The center is in our homes, our lives...this "war" is about beliefs/ideals. Essentially, "us against them."

That doesn't seem like a definition of a "core" problem.

That doesn't seem like a definition of a "core" problem.

Perhaps to you, but that's what I believe.

It's all about ideals.

Islam -vs- Us? Christianity? the west?

Islam versus....themselves, perhaps?


 

It's all about ideals. Islam -vs- Us? Christianity? the west? Islam versus....themselves, perhaps?

To allow women to have a job, to study, and have the right to choose their husband without fear of being punished by their family.

To allow everybody to have their religion of choice, and no one is diminished because of it's spiritual choices. Meaning: Tolerance zero for intolerance (I know, it's an oxymoron)

To allow everybody to be free of their sexual choices, be it homosexual or heterosexual. As long as no one is abused (like, no way I am gonna condemn pedophily. I hate the idea of a 12 year old girl being wed to a 30 years old man)

To allow a raped girl to abort. Or even a teenage girl who've screwed around and want to abort, 'cause if she doesn't, he family will throw her out. Maybe kill her.

I guess there are other ideals we fight for. I would love people here to say them, to check what kind of values they say they are fighting for.

And if you said "no way I'm for abortion, I want it outlawed", then it's not my fault if you live in a socially backward country.

I wasn't sure what he meant. I was trying to get it clarified, so...next time you assume, be sure you're right. Okay?

So tell me where I am wrong.

Iraq - in my opinion - is not the epicenter of the war. The center is in our homes, our lives...this "war" is about beliefs/ideals. Essentially, "us against them."

Oh really? How many shots have you fired at a terrorist? How many nights have you spent away from your nice cozy little comfort zone? How has terrorism effected your life directly?

Don't tell me it's in your home if the closest it comes to your home is on your TV. Yes, they are out to kill us all, but because of the very troops that you openly despise, it hasn't come to that. So let the commanders and troops on the ground fight the war and lets not let the suits in Washington try to call the shots.

Sorry to say, but America is weak in traditional warfare.
You have no endurance of losses. You lost some 3000 troops and you plan to pull out.
3000 troops is nothing. Comparing to 300 million it is 0.00001.

And in case you really do it, and pull out, you will just leave behind chaos and hate. It will be the least successful war of the past hundred years, wasting military personnel, money and prestige in the process.

So tell me where I am wrong.

You used my question, thereby implying i am, "one of them."

Granted, I don't think Iraq is 'the' center, it is just one of many places.

The reason I say: "The center is in our homes, our lives...this "war" is about beliefs/ideals. Essentially, 'us against them.'"


Is because the fighting is a result, the real battle is between idealogies/beliefs.

but because of the very troops that you openly despise

Dude!

Get a freakin grip. I NEVER said I despise our troops, EVER.

Jesus Mary Mother of God........wooh, have you gone off the handle with that statement.

I'm proud of our troops, I'm proud of my family, and ancestors who have served in the military.

~L

Sorry to say, but America is weak in traditional warfare. You have no endurance of losses. You lost some 3000 troops and you plan to pull out. 3000 troops is nothing. Comparing to 300 million it is 0.00001.

America is not weak.  Certain political elements and the media are.  Big difference.

America is not weak. Certain political elements and the media are. Big difference.

eh?

So....the elements inside america, the ones that make up it's core....are weak, but it isn't?

Forgive me, but for some reason that's not computing right now.

As long as America won't meet its match, it will be unable to conduct a successful war because these political elements and the media. Pulling out because of some 3000 losses is a major weakness. It is called major defeat.

It also raises doubt what kind of morale this country has. If losing 3000 troops is a serious loss, what will happen in a real war?

And don't forget, there is no American living now who experienced what a real war can mean in terms of economic disruption. You were never ever bombed on your own soil. And I read that lots of young Americans are very obese. Obese people don't make good soldiers.

So....the elements inside america, the ones that make up it's core....are weak, but it isn't?

The left doesn't make up the "core" of this country, and if any do, they aren't much.  Are you going to tell me the far left in this country are not weak when it comes to fighting terror?

And don't forget, there is no American living now who experienced what a real war can mean in terms of economic disruption. You were never ever bombed on your own soil. And I read that lots of young Americans are very obese. Obese people don't make good soldiers.

1. We were bombed in WW2, by the Japanese. There is a memorial for several people lost, only a mere...30-35 miles from here. We were also bombed in Hawaii.

2. Hmmm, I know a few individuals who suffered: WW1, WW2, Vietnam, and other wars.
(Seperate individuals)

3. Don't believe everything you hear.

4. Even if it's true, the military can take care of it all. They have a damn good weight loss program.

I didn't express myself something sharply.

What I meant is that American civilians never really experienced war on their on skin. American cities were never bombed, nor factories. It became never a mass experience for them that war is a horrible thing. American population lacks the experience of being bombed on a daily basis, living in fear, having blackouts every third our, having not enough food.

And your country is very vulnerable not just on the side of morale.

You are also over-reliant on technology. For example,
nowadays America doesn't produce real bombers, it produces gadgets and toys. For the price of one of your black stealth fighters you could build ?(how many?) A10s. And I'm sure, more A10s are way better than these black and very expensive "undetectable"(remember that one in Serbia?) laser and whatnot-guided precision bombers.

"Sorry to say, but America is weak in traditional warfare."

Credibility Zero

"If Bush was for cut and run, the democrats would be against it. It has nothing to do with liking anything. It is simple hate. That is all they have left, and they feed on it."

Perhaps, it sure does seem that way when you line up other issues.

"You have no endurance of losses. You lost some 3000 troops and you plan to pull out."

Misrepresentation as I see it. I would like nothing more then either total Iraqi freedom, success, and partnership, seeing as I can will that no more then I can will total pull out from Iraq, your post that we have no endurance of losses is bogus. There has been a steady, and unyielding loss of lives of American servicemen and women, I won't be so bold as to not say the same of other countries.

It was Spain who pulled all of their troops and caved to terrorism, voting against their "pro-freedom" elected government in their last elections. In our last election, the vote was more about the people being lied to and this war being misrepresented as a hunt for WMD, and regime change, that has been accomplished, there are no WMD's in Iraq to be handed off to terrorists, and a new regime is in power. Yet we remain in country in force.

If it were that our country were weak militarily, then the terrorists wouldn't have bothered with the "shock punches" of 9/11 and cheap shots, but an invasion of Muslims and a declared war against America with uniformed troops.

If the occupation of American troops in the war/postwar was accomplishing anything more then perpetuating an on going speculation that the situation is on the brink of a muti-faceted civil war, at this point in Iraq pull out seems to be favorable, as our troops could be used in post-Katrina rebuilding efforts, or perhaps in other areas of the world, i.e. South Korea, perhaps even Afghanistan again. Nobody is calling for more troops or us to not pull out of Afghanistan yet the on-going efforts for democracy there also seem to have hit a new equilibrium as well.

The other option, is no doubt, as was put, GO LONG, we'll be there for quite some time. Decades. Though it would be nice for Iraq to be democratic, what if the Iraqi's decide they want security, in the form of a strong tyrannical leadership, and martial law, rather then the daily potential for chaos that is Israel, and free democratic nations, especially those newly created ones, that exprience so much violence during their creation. It is truely their decision, and little that we do will change their decision making.

Right now there are areas, of the country that exprience daily violence. There certainly are even larger areas that are divided in their daily belifes, though they may choose to peacefully work together to solve those problems, they may not. I'm not sure where we fit in, since we cannot force them to decide one way or the other.

There's no such thing as accepting that you've lost? Wow, that's....arrogant.

So what would constitute victory?

The problem I'm having, largely because I read and keep up with news, is that we went into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime.

So when I see someone like you sayign we're getting our "asses handed to us" I keep trying to reconcile that statement with Saddam Hussein being scheduled to be hung in the next 30 days.  What am I missing?

The United States conquered a significant nation state with less than 500 combat deaths. In the 3 years of occupation since then, we've lost another 1500 or so in combat. And that equates to "getting our asses handed to us"?  My god man, do you have any knowledge of history at all?

What US goals have not been achieved in Iraq?

[X] Remove Saddam

[X] Remove any WMD programs in Iraq

[X] Set up new govermnent

[X] Create new constitution for government

[X] Get a legitimate election put together and executed

[X] Get new elected Iraqi government formed

[ ] Get Sunnis and Shittes to quit killing each other

Now, far be it for me to sound blood thirsty, but I guess I don't see the last time as being a huge...you know..issue.

The problem is that I don't even accept the premise that we are  "losing" anything because in order for someone to do that, they have to also provide the requirements for "victory".  If Iraqi's blowing each other up in a handful of cities in Iraq constitutes "defeat" then what constitutes victory?

Did the United States lose the Revolutionary war? Because there seems to be a lot of violence in Washington DC and elsewhere.  Was the liberation of France successful? They certainly seem hostile towards us today and there's plenty of violence there too.

I will certainly agree that Bush is a fool for allowing his opponents to define what failure is without providing what success is. But that doesn't mean that we are actually "losing" anything.

You are also over-reliant on technology. For example, nowadays America doesn't produce real bombers, it produces gadgets and toys. For the price of one of your black stealth fighters you could build ?(how many?) A10s. And I'm sure, more A10s are way better than these black and very expensive "undetectable"(remember that one in Serbia?) laser and whatnot-guided precision bombers

One B-2 bomber could exterminate every man, woman, and child in Iran.

A-10s are anti-tank planes.

One F-117A was shot down in Serbia because the gunners can still physically see planes flying at relatively low altitutde. The F-117A was also the very first generation stealth. 

The US managed to conquer all of Iraq in a couple of weeks and remove its government despite having to ship its divisions around the world and literally telegraph to its enemy the date in which the war would start. 

And the US is so picky about casualties that its citizens complain about combat deaths that occurred over 3 years whose level was still less than what the Russians have run into taking individual cities in Chechnya.

The primary problem with the United States is that its citizens generally have no knowledge of history and therefore no perspective on the nature of war. Combined with a very liberal media which sees its job to promote its left-wing agenda by constantly spewing anti-Bush propaganda and you have what we have now.

Compared to Post-War Europe, Iraq is a paradise.