What's the definition of losing in Iraq? What's the definition of winning?

Question

This is a sincere question, and I'd like to hear all sides!

Answer 1

Restoring freedom to the Iraqis means that US already won. While fighting against the Iraqis means that US is losing.

Answer 2

We already lost in Iraq, what ever we tried to win, which I still don't know, what that was suppose to be.
Now, we can only retreat, like the German Army after Stalingrad, beaten by some hoodlums and the heat. But like Stalingrad, the Commander in Chief is a cretin and won't let go.

Answer 3

Losing is not letting the Imperialism take a firm hold.
Winning is just the opposite.
Bush does not want the troops to leave simply because of the long term investments his cronies have made, this forced democracy is neoliberalism at its worst.

To the dictatorship of free market capital circulation, only the neoliberal economic system and its survival matters. Totalitarian, democratic, non-democratic, communist and non communist, are welcome into the community of neoliberal nations, as long as the prerequisites for membership are adhered to, that is, that they embrace and participate in free trade without restrictions nor impediments. Neoliberal-accepting nations must place everything up for sale, the material as well as the human (worker) natural resources.

While one dictator, the former CIA asset, Saddam Hussein, was executed after the illegal occupation of Iraq, another dictatorship and oppressive monarchy next door in Saudi Arabia is embraced. Saddam bucked neoliberalism by nationalizing Iraq's oil industry, while the House of Saud embraces and is a major player in it. It is interesting to note, that while Iraq accepted and played along with neoliberalism, Saddam Hussein, was allowed to run his country any way that he wanted. Saddam's torture and gassing mattered not as long Saddam played by neoliberalism's rules. History records the brutal march of globalization:

Globalization was brought to the many at the “point of a gun”, and many were “globalized” literally kicking and screaming, from Commodore's Perry ultimatum which opened Japan, to British and French gunboat diplomacy in Tunisia, Egypt and Zanzibar, to the Opium wars and gunboats that patrolled Chinese internal waterways. And, worst of all, for many millions who were sold in slavery, or who toiled sixteen hours a day on plantations from Malaya to Brazil that too was globalization. Globalization was not merely accompanied by the worst excesses of colonialism; colonialism was not an accident. On the contrary, globalization was colonialism because it is through being colonies that most of the non-European nations were brought to the global world. (The Two Faced of Globalization, Against Globalization As We know It, Banko Milanovic, Development Research Group, Wold Bank).

Milanovic further states that “to question the profit objective is not to denigrate its importance, much less to argue that it should not be an important, perhaps the most important, criteria. But it should not be the sole criterion.” Woe to those nations that do not embrace the profit motive as the most important mechanism within the panalopy of human interchange. Woe to those individuals who denigrate the importance of profit, and to those who reject profit over everything else.

Neoliberalism is now marketing disease. When sales of pharmaceuticals slow down, or profits do not reach expectations, the pharmaceutical corporations redefine the disease to reverse the trend. For example, if not enough high blood pressure medications are being sold, then the peddlers of the pills need only to redefine what high blood pressure is to sell more medications. Redefining obesity creates increased sales of a plethora of dietary products, ranging from weight reduction pills through home delivery of special foods guaranteeing weight loss. And why not buy a Bow Fux exercise machine, or two, on the installment plan to shed those pounds?

Marketing illness and disease is big business. Selling sickness sells everything including pharmaceuticals, herbs, yoga, hospital services, chiropractic visits, weight watcher programs, diets, gym subscriptions, etc. It would be a better society if neoliberalism truly gave a damn about people's health. It does not. All it cares about is that the people spend money in pursuit of it, a cure to some condition, ailment, or disease, and, that chasing the cure or solution through spending continue for a long time.

Answer 4

Winning = Getting out

Losing = Staying In

Answer 5

Nobody is going to win anything in Iraq. Everybody is going to lose something. It's a tragic blunder made by an unintelligent man.

Answer 6

Your question needs to be a little more precise. Loosing what winning what? R y ou talking about the football, cause Iraq just won the football and are the asian football champs. They are winners like their counterparts and wonts stop without a win I guess.

Answer 7

no free oil=usa+uk lost
lots of free oil =usa+uk won