Is it among shamefull things America has done to it's troops ?
When they stand up, we'll stand down.
We're there just "as long as it takes".
Is this an extreemly sloppy way to define victory ?
2006-11-11 08:16:44 · 4 answers · asked by roostershine 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It is a matter of perspective. If you define victory too narrowly and accomplish those goals, but you didn't get what you wanted done then you don't feel you won. For example, I would already argue that we have won the Iraq war. There were 2 main goals at the beginning--make sure there were no WMD's and to remove Saddam Hussein from power. A third goal of establishing democracy was added in the middle of the war.
Number one was accomplished. We made sure he didn't have any; and while I certainly agree we could (and should) have done it without going to war, we did accomplish that goal. Number 2 is accomplished, Saddam is out of power. Those two everyone agrees have been accomplished, the only problem anyone has is how it was accomplished.
The third one (establishing democracy) is tougher to prove, but I say it has been done already. I define democracy has the people having the choice in the matter. The Iraqis voted and established a government, and then they chose civil war. The fact that they didn't choose what we wanted doesn't change the fact that they did make the choice, so democracy was established and our third goal is done.
But our third goal was not accomplished in the way Bush wanted. It was accomplished, but not how he wanted. By remaining vague though, he has left himself room to continue the war until he can accomplish it the way he wants it done. So to a point it is shameful, but to leave it as it was would still leave the possibility that terrorists would take over that country (at least, to his way of thinking it would); which would be more shameful.
I still think this war is wrong, and that Bush continuing it is more wrong; but to many people's moral code what Bush is doing is morally correct. And it is because he remains vague that he can continue to act in what he and others think is a morally correct path. I disagree (and apparently so do you), but that is because morals are subjective. God will sort it out in His own time.
2006-11-11 08:29:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
We had no definition because Bush and Rummy believed Ahmed Chabali that Americans would be welcomed by the a united thankful Iraq people
They never even expected insurgency..
The policy was more ignorant than sloppy.
2006-11-11 16:23:00 · answer #2 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because America has failed, that's why!
2006-11-11 16:19:02 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
What was shameful, was when the Democrats said: "WE SURRENDER".
2006-11-11 16:21:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋