Why do liberals need OTHERS to define for them what "winning in Iraq" means?

Question

Is it REALLY that complicated?

Do they really NEED to be told what winning means?

Has their moral confusion become so pathological?

LOL, man you folks are proving me right.

Answer 1

We won when Saddam was removed.

And now we need to leave and let the Iraqis run Iraq themselves.

Answer 2

We were at war with Korea and Vietnam we won those right ? If we won the war why aren't troops coming home ? When did the surrender document get signed like Japan and Germany ? . Bush declared war against terrorists not a country . You can never win a war against uncivilized murderers . My moral compass says we should have never went there in the first place .

Answer 3

It is indeed confusing that they just seem to go deaf every time it is explained to them.

They keep saying there is no definition.
They keep saying there is no clear mission.
They keep saying there should be an 'exit strategy'. (That's one that I would like explained. What the hell is an exit strategy and what would be an example you could point to in history?)
I have given up on this one. It wouldn't matter if I blurbed it or wrote a dissertation on the subject, they wouldn't accept it.
Or if the entire administration along with the state department and the Pentagon joined hands and screamed it into the TV cameras, they still wouldn't get it. Even if they don't agree with the explanation, how can they say they never got one?

Same goes for the economy.
We just saw that there has been an unprecedented reduction in the debt and they still say it's rising.
We have seen five straight YEARS in the growth of the DOW and a bull market and they still say we on the verge of a crash.
We are at near full employment and they still say no one has a job.
We are ahead of the rest of the world in every category and pulling away yet they still say we should look up to Europe.
On the one hand they say we have no manufacturing jobs and on the other hand we can't staff the jobs without illegal aliens. Huh?

I just don't get it.

Answer 4

Concerning Iraq, yes. I DO want to know you define a victory there. From here it seems more like a fantasy.
Winning is when the US goes home and the Iraqis deal with their own situation and find a workable political solution ON THEIR OWN.

Answer 5

The actual war itself (major combat operations during the invasion) was finished long ago with the removal of Saddam from power. It is no longer a war but an occupation of another nation.

However, you cannot win a war based on a concept (terror, drugs). The only ones who stand to "win" are special interests that benefit from prolonged and continued strife.

Answer 6

No, we know there is no such thing as "winning in Iraq". We just ask the question in the hope that supporters of the war might awaken from their trance and start to think for themselves.

Answer 7

The question needs to be asked for the sake of the American people because the Presidents own definition of "winning" in Iraq has changed several times. In a taxpayer funded operation in a foreign country is in the public's best interest to know what it is that we are paying for. There is nothing wrong with asking questions.

Can you tell me what winning is? Please do so if you can.


Edit:.... still waiting, you had time to post something extra but you still can't explain what winning is? Ok, I'll post my own question and you can answer there if you know the answer. If not I will assume you are as ignorant as you sound.

Answer 8

So, how would YOU define 'winning in Iraq'?

Do you believe we're 'in' Iraq to bring democracy to that country? Do you assume we're 'in' Iraq to defend our own borders against some 'terrorists' from an unknown 'evil empire'? Do you really think we're 'in' Iraq to establish peace in the Middle East??

Or, could it be that we're 'in' Iraq so that we can control the vast oil reserves there?
Might that be the reason behind Bush's number-one, non-military 'benchmark', which is trying to force the Iraqi Parliament to surrender 66% of its ol fields to private, foreign oil companies, thus overtaking Iraq's most valuable economic resource??

Could we be 'in' Iraq for OIL and WAR PROFTEERING??
(Republican Dwight Eisenhower warned us about the giant U.S. military/industrial complex and how its need to boost sagging profits would always result in more 'war').

Might we be 'in' Iraq so that a handful of wealthy elitists, industrialists and power brokers can become wealthier and more powerful??

It appears to me that the only 'moral confusion' rests in the blackened hearts of the war-mongers whose warped minds insist that 'war brings peace' when - in fact - they really know that 'war brings profits'. Two of our federal government's largest war vendors - the Carlyle Group and Halliburton - both have direct ties to the Bush-Cheney White House. We're building the largest U.S. embassy in the world on a 104-acre site in downtown Baghdad overlooking the modest headquarters of the 'new' Iraqi puppet government installed by the Bush administration. Halliburton is building fourteen (yes - 14!) new permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.

It looks to me like we plan on being in Iraq for decades - if not generations - until we've managed to suck all its OIL from its sands.

Congress was lied to, the American people were hoodwinked, and our valiant U.S. troops were conned into believing this 'war' had honorable purpose. In fact, this obscene, unconstitutional, illegal, unjustified, immoral 'war' against another sovereign nation that in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the United States is the most shameful sham perpetrated upon the American taxpayers, who will be paying off this multi-trillion-dollar debt for generations to come.

675,000 Iraqis and 3,800 U.S. soldiers have sacrificed their lives so that a handful of individuals and corporations could get filthy rich. That is a moral indignation.

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and all of their war-mongering friends deserve a special oil-soaked, blood-stained corner of Hell where they can spend their eternity, along with:
ALL 535 members of the most arrogant, incompetent, evil, contemptible, cowardly, corrupt Republican-led Congress in U.S. history that stood by and allowed Bush to run rip shod over our Constitution -and-
ALL 535 members of the most arrogant, incompetent, evil, contemptible, cowardly, corrupt Democratic-led Congress in U.S. history that promised to end this vile 'war' if they were elected - and, to date, have done nothing to honor that promise to the American voters. May God DAMN them all!! -RKO- 10/10/07

Answer 9

liberals schmiberals. the war on iraq was NEVER meant to be won. it was only meant to be sustained. when you take a look at the most prevelant case of war profiteering in the history of mankind, one only needs to ask himself who stands to benefit from the current mess? contractors and profiteers. sitting on the lightest, sweetest crude oil on earth, it doesn't take a nobel prize winner to see through this 'bring democracy' to iraq bullshift.

if you bought into it, you have no one to blame but yourself. i'm speaking generally.

Answer 10

Buddy, I already got my definition.

Winning in Iraq: A physical impossibility.