I DON'T SUPPORT our troops.

[monoman]

Exactly! We don't have a choice in being there anymore, let's play to win. We need to bring our boys home by accomplishing thier mission.

That may be so but Skeptic seems to be implying that anyone, from the "anti-war crowd", who doesn't support winning the war has somehow not thought it through.

Just because you live in a country doesn't mean you have to blindly follow every decision they make. This isn't a matter of national security, it's a war in a far away land.

By not supporting the ongoing war, one might hope to effect future decisions.

I would add that I think the troops should stay there until things have settled and hopefully we'll be left with a stable democracy.

 

[The Fool]

any ideas anyone? what is (for you) a "win" in Iraq would be and how it would be decided that the "win" has happened? How long would you continue to support the presence of a large portion of the US army in Iraq after this condition is met....

Is anyone able to point me to the answer to this from the current US government...what is the official "win" criteria?

 

[Mycroft]

That may be so but Skeptic seems to be implying that anyone, from the "anti-war crowd", who doesn't support winning the war has somehow not thought it through.

I agree that it's very likely there are people from the anti-war crowd who support the defeat of the US forces and who have thought it through. These would be people with a very different standard of ethic that what most people find acceptable.

 

[Bob Klase]

any ideas anyone? what is (for you) a "win" in Iraq would be and how it would be decided that the "win" has happened? How long would you continue to support the presence of a large portion of the US army in Iraq after this condition is met....

Is anyone able to point me to the answer to this from the current US government...what is the official "win" criteria?

WWII ended 60 years ago. We still have troops in Germany. Can you tell me (or point me to the answer from any US government in the last 60 years) when a "win" will happen there?

 

[Orwell]

These comparisons to WWII are a load of male bovine manure, and for very obvious reasons. Who is playing nazi Germany in Iraq? The terrorists? Gimme a break!

S. Korea and Japan are bad examples of democracy being supported by a foreign army. S. Korea was a military dictatorship up until the 80s. Up until 1949, political power in Japan was essentially between the hands of MacArthur. And almost everybody would agree (even the japanese, I would bet) that the US had legitimate reasons to occupy Japan. This is far form being the case in Iraq.

 

[Mycroft]

These comparisons to WWII are a load of male bovine manure, and for very obvious reasons...

Not so obvious to me. As examples of occupations that lasted a long time, they're quite relevent.

 

[Orwell]

When will the US "win the war" in Iraq? What are the conditions needed for the US to "win the war"?

Is it possible that the presence of the US in Iraq is actually making things worse? If you don't think so, why do you not think so?

 

[Orwell]

Not so obvious to me. As examples of occupations that lasted a long time, they're quite relevent.

Nobody (not even most of the occupied populations) questioned the legitimacy of the occupation of the axis countries by the US and its allies, plus the USSR, in the post WWII period. The US and its allies had a moral authority back then that virtually doesn't exist now. Plus, the governments of the occupying powers had the full support of most of their populations.

 

[Giz]

These comparisons to WWII are a load of male bovine manure, and for very obvious reasons. Who is playing nazi Germany in Iraq? The terrorists? Gimme a break!

S. Korea and Japan are bad examples of democracy being supported by a foreign army. S. Korea was a military dictatorship up until the 80s. Up until 1949, political power in Japan was essentially between the hands of MacArthur. And almost everybody would agree (even the japanese, I would bet) that the US had legitimate reasons to occupy Japan. This is far form being the case in Iraq.

You will note that S. Korea is better off than the part of Korea that wasn't "occupied" by US troops...

 

[monoman]

I agree that it's very likely there are people from the anti-war crowd who support the defeat of the US forces and who have thought it through. These would be people with a very different standard of ethic that what most people find acceptable.

You may not agree with someone's point of view but that doesn't mean to say it's unacceptable. I can quite happily go for a pint with someone who holds these views without thinking they're unethical.
This is something that set's us apart from large parts of the middle east.

As an analogy, imagine you have 6 brothers who you love. They're unruly and spend their days robbing, mugging etc. Would you shop them in? Down to the idividual.
If they were caught and locked up you'd probably be relieved but you wouldn't cheer. In the same way, i'm sure the vast majority of the anti-war crowd don't cheer every time there's a death in the coalition.

 

[egslim]

One fundamental difference between US troops in Iraq and those in Korea, Japan, Europe, etc is that only the ones in Iraq dominate their guest country. Yes, there is a democratic government now, but they can't make any decision except by the grace of US forces.
If Korea decides to kick US forces out, they're gone. If the democratic Iraqi government makes the same decision it is very much up to the US wether they will actually comply.
Generally, people don't like foreigners having such power over them - no matter how carefully they exercise it. That's why there's almost no more colonialism left, even if it meant the former colonies subsequently fell into disarray.

In my opinion the term "occupation" in this case is only academic and fairly irrelevant. It doesn't describe the complicated situation in any useful way.

 

[jj]

I agree that it's very likely there are people from the anti-war crowd who support the defeat of the US forces and who have thought it through. These would be people with a very different standard of ethic that what most people find acceptable.

I'd find it very odd that they'd thought this through, too, and are willing to accept the likely consequences. If they have, and they do, I would have to question if they have any ethical standards at all. I suppose some few such people might be using a religious standard involving the triumph of Islam, therein lies a different problem.

 

[Bob Klase]

These comparisons to WWII are a load of male bovine manure, and for very obvious reasons. Who is playing nazi Germany in Iraq? The terrorists? Gimme a break!

Who was playing nazi Germany in Germany after Hitler was dead the nazi army was out of play?

No comparison to anything would be 100% accurate. But there's a valid comparison between Hitler and Hussein. Hitler's government was removed from Germany and Allied forces have remained there for 60 years since then. So to think that 2-3 years is some kind of record is just head-in-the-sand thinking.

 

[monoman]

I'd find it very odd that they'd thought this through, too, and are willing to accept the likely consequences. If they have, and they do, I would have to question if they have any ethical standards at all. I suppose some few such people might be using a religious standard involving the triumph of Islam, therein lies a different problem.

Why do you think this? Do you mean any conflict or this conflict in particular? What if you'd been an iraqi during the invasion of kuwait. Would you have hoped for victory too then?

 

[Orwell]

Who was playing nazi Germany in Germany after Hitler was dead the nazi army was out of play?

No comparison to anything would be 100% accurate. But there's a valid comparison between Hitler and Hussein. Hitler's government was removed from Germany and Allied forces have remained there for 60 years since then. So to think that 2-3 years is some kind of record is just head-in-the-sand thinking.

No, there isn't a valid comparison between Hitler and Hussein. Hitler ruled one of the most powerful nations in the world at the time, Hussein was the dictator of a third world country, a country that had been considerably weakened by a previous war with the US and a decade of sanctions.

 

[Mycroft]

You may not agree with someone's point of view but that doesn't mean to say it's unacceptable. I can quite happily go for a pint with someone who holds these views without thinking they're unethical.
This is something that set's us apart from large parts of the middle east.

That's where you and I disagree. There is a word to describe someone who roots for our armed forces to lose a war, that word is "enemy."

There are many points of view where I can respect someone who disagrees, that's not one of them. Some points of view, support for child molestation as an example, that are an abomination I find unacceptable.

As an analogy, imagine you have 6 brothers who you love. They're unruly and spend their days robbing, mugging etc. Would you shop them in? Down to the idividual.
If they were caught and locked up you'd probably be relieved but you wouldn't cheer. In the same way, i'm sure the vast majority of the anti-war crowd don't cheer every time there's a death in the coalition.

Your analogy fails in that while I still might love my brother, I wouldnt' hesitate for a moment in condemning his actions, his morals, and whatever views led him to believe such behavior was acceptable.

 

[The Fool]

WWII ended 60 years ago. We still have troops in Germany. Can you tell me (or point me to the answer from any US government in the last 60 years) when a "win" will happen there?

Victory (I believe) was proclaimed with the unconditional surrender of German forces...are you suggesting this as the criteria for measuring victory in Iraq?

The fact that US still has troops in germany? well, would you support the US having troops in Iraq to 2060 and beyond?

I'm just trying to find what people think "victory" in Iraq is....any suggestions?

 

[monoman]

That's where you and I disagree. There is a word to describe someone who roots for our armed forces to lose a war, that word is "enemy."

There are many points of view where I can respect someone who disagrees, that's not one of them. Some points of view, support for child molestation as an example, that are an abomination I find unacceptable.




Your analogy fails in that while I still might love my brother, I wouldnt' hesitate for a moment in condemning his actions, his morals, and whatever views led him to believe such behavior was acceptable.

It fails for you but not all people. As i mentioned in a reply to jj, would you expect all iraqis to have supported the invasion of kuwait just because they are iraqis?

You may love your country but you can still condemn some of her actions and morals.

 

[The Fool]

anyone thought of what a win is yet?

If I where to attempt to put words in the mouth of the "pro war" crowd (thats a group of people that I claim match my straw man.......bit like the "anti war" crowd)
I would say thier ideas are limited to something like when the people who are attacking us in Iraq give up and stop attacking us

which seem to have a familiar ring to it...

Clark Clifford, U.S. secretary Of defense

"I'd ask questions like, er, when is the war going to end? Well, we don't know. How many more men do you think we're going to lose? Well, we really don't know. Then I finally got down to it and said, 'What is our plan to win the war in Vietnam?' Turned out there wasn't any. The plan was just to stay with it and ultimately hoping that the enemy would finally give up."

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/11/script.html

come on "pro war" people "when they give up" is a straw man...I'm sure you have something better.....whats a "win"???

 

[Perforatu]

come on "pro war" people "when they give up" is a straw man...I'm sure you have something better.....whats a "win"???

I'm wasn't pro-war, but I am pro-finish-the-job-right... Mind if I take a stab?

I'd define a "win" as a situation in which Iraq proved capable, over a longer period of time (say at least ten to twenty consecutive years) to maintain a stable form of government and not erupt into civil war, nor be on the brink of civil war. While insurgency might still exist, it should have become very small-scale by then, and be condemned by the vast majority of Iraqis (who ideally would've learned to battle out their differences using ballots, not guns).

I realize it will take an unsatisfyingly long time to be able to declare "victory" or "defeat" according to my definition. And yes, I think there should be an American presence throughout the entire process, although not necessarily of its current size.