New Iraq report: 15 of 18 benchmarks satisfactory

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 it?