Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91L960O0&show_article=1

so the white house has yet again given itself a self-congratulatory assessment of its own foreign policy. wow kidrock, thanks. make sure you post 50 more threads of the same topic.

So Schecter, would complete success in Iraq matter?

Complete success is unattainable considering our military is the only polarizing force there.

so war is ok as long as it is successful?

and, to be a little tongue in cheek, were any of those benchmarks the killing of Bin Laden or finding WMDs?

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Complete success is unattainable considering our military is the only polarizing force there.

So, complete success would not be acceptable to you? In other words, it does not matter how many of the 18 benchmarks are satisfied?

Does that mean you want the US to loose in Iraq?

Loose what?

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Loose what?

Are you asking what does Loose in Iraq mean? If so, that is a good question.

I would suppose that Iran taking over and controlling Iraq would be one definition of loose, but that really depends on what they do with it. A nuclear war in the middle east would also be an extreme example of loose.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you asking what does Loose in Iraq mean? If so, that is a good question.

I would suppose that Iran taking over and controlling Iraq would be one definition of loose, but that really depends on what they do with it. A nuclear war in the middle east would also be an extreme example of loose.

to loose, one would have to have a fairly clear idea of what it means to win

if 15 of 18 benchmarks can be met, and there is violence in the Green Zone on almost a daily basis, the standards for winning can be set so low that a corrupt bureaucracy that is controlled financially by Iran can be a victory. Millions of refugees, totally a quality of victory. Nuclear war? Hell, that is a sure sign we are winning.

lose*

Originally posted by inimalist
to loose, one would have to have a fairly clear idea of what it means to win

if 15 of 18 benchmarks can be met, and there is violence in the Green Zone on almost a daily basis, the standards for winning can be set so low that a corrupt bureaucracy that is controlled financially by Iran can be a victory. Millions of refugees, totally a quality of victory. Nuclear war? Hell, that is a sure sign we are winning.

You are not getting an argument from me.

So, the 18 benchmarks are erroneous in the first place?
If so, who set these benchmarks?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you asking what does Loose in Iraq mean? If so, that is a good question.

I would suppose that Iran taking over and controlling Iraq would be one definition of loose, but that really depends on what they do with it. A nuclear war in the middle east would also be an extreme example of loose.

I think Blax might have been partially joking, as it's "lose", not "loose".

If Iran taking over is the new win or lose scenario and the biggest fear, we shouldn't have removed Saddam, he was more than happy to gas the Iranians when ever they rattled their sabers toward Iraq.

Those benchmarks are irrelevant, they don't matter and they're arbitrarily declared most likely. When Iraq is able to sustain itself both politically and militarily, then that will be a "win".

So, is it?

Originally posted by Robtard
I think Blax might have been partially joking, as it's "lose", not "loose".

If Iran taking over is the new win or lose scenario and the biggest fear, we shouldn't have removed Saddam, he was more than happy to gas the Iranians when ever they rattled their sabers toward Iraq.

Those benchmarks are irrelevant, they don't matter and they're arbitrarily declared most likely. When Iraq is able to sustain itself both politically and militarily, then that will be a "win".

So, is it?

So, would a win, as you define it, be satisfactory to you?

Saddam Hussein may have been a "ruthless, murdering dictator" (that's David Lettermen calls him), but one thing he did do was keep Iran in check. They were deathly afraid him; I don't even want to imagine what he would do if he caught an Iranian intel agent in Baghdad.

If Saddam was alive, Mahmoud Ahmedinijad would not be a household name.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Saddam Hussein may have been a "ruthless, murdering dictator" (that's David Lettermen calls him), but one thing he did do was keep Iran in check. They were deathly afraid him; I don't even want to imagine what he would do if he caught an Iranian intel agent in Baghdad.

If Saddam was alive, Mahmoud Ahmedinijad would not be a household name.

So, it was ok when the US supported Saddam Hussein? Should we have let him keep Kuwait?

Where did I say it was ok?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Where did I say it was ok?

I asked you if is was ok. I never said you said anything.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I asked you if is was ok. I never said you said anything.

I think the govt should've supported him 100% from day 1 or opposed him 100%. Not chage their mind when it suited them.

But I wasn't talking about that. Saddam's one redeeming quality was keeping Iran in check. If he was still alive, no one would know who their loud-mouth nerdy-ass president is.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think the govt should've supported him 100% from day 1 or opposed him 100%. Not chage their mind when it suited them.

But I wasn't talking about that. Saddam's one redeeming quality was keeping Iran in check. If he was still alive, no one would know who their loud-mouth nerdy-ass president is.
What about Kuwait?

What about it?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, would a win, as you define it, be satisfactory to you?

Yes, but it isn't really my definition per say, we went into Iraq with the notion that after Saddam had been removed and the WMDs were removed, Iraq would be a stable self-sustained democracy. That is at least the neat little packaged deal we were sold.

So those benchmarks don't matter if that goal isn't being obtained or is unobtainable. As also noted, if we're lowering the benchmark so a "win" can be declared, it really isn't a win, now is it?

Edit: Did you see that other story on the link provided?

"Bush Signs $162 Billion War Spending Bill" So yeah, benchmarks or not, I think they know a "win" is a LONG way coming.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
What about it?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
... Should we have let him keep Kuwait?

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, but it isn't really my definition per say, we went into Iraq with the notion that after Saddam had been removed and the WMDs were removed, Iraq would be a stable self-sustained democracy. That is at least the neat little packaged deal we were sold.

So those benchmarks don't matter if that goal isn't being obtained or is unobtainable. As also noted, if we're lowering the benchmark so a "win" can be declared, it really isn't a win, now is it?

Edit: Did you see that other story on the link provided?

"Bush Signs $162 Billion War Spending Bill" So yeah, benchmarks or not, I think they know a "win" is a LONG way coming.

But I was asking you for your opinion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison


Yes.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But I was asking you for your opinion.

Which I said "Yes" too, but my opinion is what was initially sold to us.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, complete success would not be acceptable to you? In other words, it does not matter how many of the 18 benchmarks are satisfied?
We will never have complete success. Our goal is to create a stable country. If our army has to be there to keep it stable, we will never reach that goal.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
We will never have complete success. Our goal is to create a stable country. If our army has to be there to keep it stable, we will never reach that goal.

But that was not my question. I was asking a hypothetical.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But that was not my question. I was asking a hypothetical.

If a hypothetical is impossible, there's no point in answering it.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
If a hypothetical is impossible, there's no point in answering it.

Are there people in the US that will find political advantage to the US failing in Iraq?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are there people in the US that will find political advantage to the US failing in Iraq?

Yes.

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Yes.

Would it matter how many of the 18 benchmarks are satisfied to those who would gain from failure?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Would it matter how many of the 18 benchmarks are satisfied to those who would gain from failure?
Maybe, maybe not. I can't judge them.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Saddam Hussein may have been a "ruthless, murdering dictator" (that's David Lettermen calls him), but one thing he did do was keep Iran in check. They were deathly afraid him; I don't even want to imagine what he would do if he caught an Iranian intel agent in Baghdad.

If Saddam was alive, Mahmoud Ahmedinijad would not be a household name.

qft

(Ahmadinejad is actually relatively irrelevant when Khamenei and the Guardian Council actually hold the ultimate say in Iran...)

If one measures success in Iran by the true motives for invasion, removal of Saddam Hussein, open bidding on the Iraq oil fields and a permanent launching pad in the Middle East (closer than Turkey), then pending the negotiation of the status of forces agreement, the US has "won" in Iraq already.

But I highly doubt most people consider that actually "winning" nor that it has been worth the cost in lives and dollars.

For some reason there's a prevailing notion among some that elections precede liberty, that democracy can simply be imposed and that having a representative government will automatically lead a country to stability and prosperity. When really, it should probably go the other way around.

Originally posted by KidRock
lose* Oh thank God....didn't expect you to be the one, though.


Also, "per se".

Originally posted by Robtard
"Bush Signs $162 Billion War Spending Bill" So yeah, benchmarks or not, I think they know a "win" is a LONG way coming.

Well, I am pretty sure we all know the US already "lost" the war, no matter what imaginary goals they achieve from now one.

Originally posted by KidRock
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91L960O0&show_article=1 the last time the Bush Administration evaluated its own performance in Iraq, it drastically padded the results.

It can't possibly be satisfactory if they didn't even find the shit that got them there in the first place.

So what exactly are they trying to accomplish? Anyone even certain?

I totally agree

I've been trying to think what a real victory in Iraq might look like, even from a hawkish American perspective...

Being cynical, now that the oil fields are up for American and European contracts, I bet we see more talk about removing the soldiers, but the bases are going to stay. In some ways, certain goals have been accomplished, especially in a geo-realpolitik sort of way. And like was mentioned before, America already won the war against Saddam and Iraq in any conventional sense. So maybe this is victory, incalculable financial cost, thousands of Americans dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, millions of refugees, destabalized region, etc, for a marginal expansion of American influence into a region which reacts violently to Amreican influence.

god what a ****ed up situation...