Has the US. won the war in iraq..

[Rainbow Moonlight]

I think the question has no substantive basis. There is no war and has been no war. There was an illegal invasion by a vastly superior military power, then a heartless and ill-planned occupation and disregard of international laws. Ask again- has the US done these terrible things? Why, yes. Has it fought a war? No, it has not. Has it won a war? No, it is not even engaged in one- yet.

[JW Frogen]

War is violence to achieve political ends; if the violence is opposed by some group one has war.

The present Iraq is a war, though I agree with a point Ele unintentionally makes, the insurgency had so little support that it could not resist in a significant manner by historical standards, making the abject despair and 'woe is me all is lost attitude' almost universally found on the old PA for years, (only Animal Mother and I seemed to understand all was not lost and supported the surge), and even worse found in some American political leaders at the time, almost every Democrat, including Obama, (who at least has the presence of mind to admit he was wrong about the surge), even more an act of self indulgent despair rather than an act of real thought and caring about Iraq.

Boxy asks an important question.

Was it worth it?

Certainly Bush’s lack of occupational planning made the war far more costly in money and human life than it ever needed to be. The success of the surge reveals had adequate troop numbers been deployed in the first place there would have been little or no insurgency at all.

Was it still worth it? For the US the question will probably not be answered for a decade or so. If Iraq stabilizes into a functioning democracy that is allied with or at least openly not hostile to the US (as was Saddam post 1991), a democracy that is not constantly destabilizing the region (as with Saddam almost his entire time in power) than yes it was worth it.

As the Kay report reveals Saddam was determined to reconstitute his WMD programs and re-invade Kuwait an an opportune time. The US would have had a war there sooner or latter, better to persue it when the advesary was weak.

If Iraqi democracy holds the country will become a transformative power in the region, one that will have a positive influence on her neighbours, one that may in the long run even get the long suffering people of Iran to demand real democracy in their country. (The example of a Shia majority running an effective multi religious and ethnic democracy right next door will not be lost on the majority of Iranians.)

Was it worth it for Iraqis?

Yes. They have said so in three elections, soon to be four. A majority of the parties supported liberation, even anti US Sadar intially, (if were not thrilled with the nature of the occupation) and the numbers that voted (under vile threat from the insurgents) reveal they want a democracy to work.

The choice was never between peace and war, tyranny is not peace and Saddam was at war more than half the time he was in power, all caused by his policy.

Under Saddam Iraqis had no future but continued tyranny (a tryanny at war and mass killing it's own people) and if we look at Saddam’s record, continued war after war would have been in Iraq's future, now they have the possibility of self-determination and real peace.

The majority of Iraqis have taken far greater personal risks to establish their fledgling democracy than most people in the stable West have ever taken (certainly more than almost anyone on this forum has ever taken) and have told you they want democracy, the cynical and self indulgent dismissal of their courageous efforts to be free says far more about the atrophied nihilism infecting many of you than it does anything about Iraq.

[Rainbow Moonlight]

We had many threads about what should be done in Iraq. i said from the beginning that US soldiers should move out of the Green Zone, live in and and patrol with Iraqi soldiers in areas of most unrest and even earlier that there should be provincial elections based on the old provinces and with locally nominated people.

Thanks for the credit you give me for my suggestions. They were made as ways to rescue a hopeless and extremely ill or recklessly planned situation. I doubted the "surge" could at the late time it was implemented achieve but it has improved security in some areas.

[Rainbow Moonlight]

And regarding the disproportionality of the attack, the remark was intentional. Iraqi anti-aircraft positions had been taken out the year prior to the attack, and the people had been humiliated and caused to suffer and die for many years by US decisions in their position as a permanent member of the security council with a right to veto majority decisions on approved trade contracts. Indeed, as i understand it, US also deliberately attacked power and water plants to increase sickness in the Iraqi population in the gulf war and again during the invasion.

[Rainbow Moonlight]

And further that you fail to recall these matters after our extensive conversations on them suggest you are either not who you claim or your memory itself is affected by drink.

[Jovial Monk]

And in the meantime DT's hero 'man of action' failed to win the war in Afghanistan and the Taliban are on the verge of winning back power there.

[JW Frogen]

And in the meantime DT's hero 'man of action' failed to win the war in Afghanistan and the Taliban are on the verge of winning back power there.

Failed war?

Oh the Taliban hide in the east of the country and can kill a few soldiers now and then and more fellow Afgan civilians more often than not, the horror, the horror.

Compared to what happened to the Soviets this is a picnic, and we could sustain this conflict for decades to come, keeping them camping in the mountains getting a lucky hit every now and then rather than letting them (as most of the woe is me Left crowd would do) take back control of the entire country and then plan attacks against Western cities.

This is one of the easiest wars ever fought, and of course the Left has already decided to loose and then hope for a backbone donor.

[mantra.]

Compared to what happened to the Soviets this is a picnic, and we could sustain this conflict for decades to come, keeping them camping in the mountains getting a lucky hit every now and then rather than letting them (as most of the woe is me Left crowd would do) take back control of the entire country and then plan attacks against Western cities.

This is one of the easiest wars ever fought, and of course the Left has already decided to loose and then hope for a backbone donor.

Frogen if what you say is true, why are we constantly hearing that we are fighting a losing battle in Afghanistan and that the Taliban have almost taken control again. All reports appear to point in the direction of us having lost the battle and the Taliban are everywhere. Afghanistan has a weak President and even when elections were held, it was the allied countries who paid for it - they will not be able to continue to have future elections without our support. The moment we step out of Afghanistan - everything will return to the way it previously was.

We can't afford to stay there indefinitely.

[JW Frogen]

The Talaban can’t take the capital or control most of the country, they can not inflict serious causality levels on our forces, not even at Iraq levels (a war we have all but won), they can not get any serious support from the majority of Afghans, but we have lost!

Woe is me, we have lost.

We will always loose.

That is the Mantra of the Left.

Even Obama knows this war is winnable but will take more effort and time, even he understands that the present situation is better for us, with the Talaban and Al Qeada fighting in the mountainous East, hit and running, than controlling an entire country, and most decent people would say that even the present war is preferable to the Talaban controlling the entire country inflicting the medieval barbarity on the country (in particular women) that not longer exists in most of the country.

But no, we have lost.

That is the only idea the Western Left has left.

We have lost.

Even against historically weak enemies, we have lost.


All I ask is please, keep your personal lack of will and despair personal, and do not sink our entire civilization with you.

[mantra.]

You have misinterpreted my post Frogen. I was just questioning your comments.

Even Obama knows this war is winnable but will take more effort and time, even he understands that the present situation is better for us, with the Talaban and Al Qeada fighting in the mountainous East, hit and running, than controlling an entire country, and most decent people would say that even the present war is preferable to the Talaban controlling the entire country inflicting the medieval barbarity on the country (in particular women) that not longer exists in most of the country.

OK that's your view and yes theoretically it's right. It is better that we stay in Afghanistan indefinitely, because the Taliban won't give up and while they're scattered we are winning. Although the US, Australia and allies continually lose troops, spend great quantities of money in a global depression - we will battle on for the sake of maintaining a semblance of democracy in Afghanistan.