New Iraq report: 15 of 18 benchmarks satisfactory

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?

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

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?

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?

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*

Also, "per se".

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

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

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...