NationStates Jolt Archive

What are we going to define as winning?

People say that we're fighting a war that can't be won, but haven't we already won it? Most of the Iraqi population approves of their countries general direction. Most Iraqis want U.S. soldiers to leave. A U.S. company will rebuild Iraqi oil. What's left?

Is stopping the civil war going to be winning? Because it seems to me that it's a new war, not an old one. Saying that the current Iraqi Civil War is a continuation of the Iraq War is like saying that WWII was just WWI continued.

I mean, if we haven't won, I'll accept the facts, but how the hell are we defining "victory" anyway?

We're NOT defining victory. Same with this whole bloody "War on Terror."

They intentionally don't get specific about victory conditions, so that victory can be declared whenever politically convenient. Up to and including eternity.

We're NOT defining victory. Same with this whole bloody "War on Terror."

They intentionally don't get specific about victory conditions, so that victory can be declared whenever politically convenient. Up to and including eternity.
I doubt that it's intentional. I think it's more because we went into the country without a real reason, and therefore had no goal that could be fulfilled, which means that victory couldn't really be achieved.

but haven't we already won it?

No, on the contrary you've already lost it. It's pretty apparent, really.

No, on the contrary you've already lost it. It's pretty apparent, really.

Can't we just kill every single Iraqi and call it a draw?

I doubt that it's intentional. I think it's more because we went into the country without a real reason, and therefore had no goal that could be fulfilled, which means that victory couldn't really be achieved.

Of course it's intentional! Having a foreign war is great for keeping people's minds off domestic problems. Having a foreign war that's over and done with immediately is no good for that purpose. Having one with nebulous victory conditions, however, means that you can declare victory for a ratings boost ("Mission Accomplished!") and then later on, counting on the public's ability to forget anything that happened more than 2 minutes ago, gravely insist that we have to "stay the course" and "finish the job."

And with the War On Terror. Well, if we just declared a War on Al Queda, that'd be over yes? On the other hand, "Terror" as an intangible, general concept of warfare can't be defeated. So it makes a perfect war for a war-hungry populace.

That's why we have so many other "wars." War on Drugs, War on Poverty, War on Crime. None of these can ever be defeated, but putting them in a war context means that authoritarianism and accusations of cowardice can be effective - and sustaining - political tactics.

No, on the contrary you've already lost it. It's pretty apparent, really.

Heh, it was lost before it even started, as you Europeans (and the rest of the world) tried to warn. Alas, most people here were too stupid to listen, and because of that, we have hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, 3000+ dead Americans, several allied deaths, and a humongous debt and deficit to pay for it.

Can't we just kill every single Iraqi and call it a draw?

I say we win their hearts and minds and then crush their dreams and aspirations.

I say we win their hearts and minds and then crush their dreams and aspirations.

We sure are accomplishing the second part, that's for sure.

Heh, it was lost before it even started, as you Europeans (and the rest of the world) tried to warn. Alas, most people here were too stupid to listen, and because of that, we have hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, 3000+ dead Americans, several allied deaths, and a humongous debt and deficit to pay for it.

If anything begged for a Nelson photo, it's this, but "we told you so" is so gauche. Very much true, but still gauche.

No, on the contrary you've already lost it. It's pretty apparent, really.
I'm sure it was very apparent that all homosexuals were evil deviants that deserved everything Torquemada could thing up when that was popular opinion, but you can give me any reasons- hell, any victory conditions- I'd be happy to hear them.

Can't we just kill every single Iraqi and call it a draw?

You couldn't do it by proxy through Saddam, and you can't seemingly do it directly either (despite fervent attempts, bless your hearts), so I don't think that's a logistically feasible option.

What are we going to define as winning?

People say that we're fighting a war that can't be won, but haven't we already won it? Most of the Iraqi population approves of their countries general direction. Most Iraqis want U.S. soldiers to leave. A U.S. company will rebuild Iraqi oil. What's left?

Is stopping the civil war going to be winning? Because it seems to me that it's a new war, not an old one. Saying that the current Iraqi Civil War is a continuation of the Iraq War is like saying that WWII was just WWI continued.

I mean, if we haven't won, I'll accept the facts, but how the hell are we defining "victory" anyway?
The only definition that matters is Bush's, and as usual, he's fucked that up, because he's never defined victory--only the opposite. He's said clearly and consistently that leaving is losing, and he's not leaving, so this will be a mess the next President, whoever he or she is, will be dealing with in 2009.

I'm sure it was very apparent that all homosexuals were evil deviants that deserved everything Torquemada could thing up when that was popular opinion,

How tactless and lacking social grace. Just the sort of unimaginative and flaccid gauche-ism I was referring to.

but you can give me any reasons- hell, any victory conditions- I'd be happy to hear them.

There are no victory conditions, as this was a stillborn endeavour. Enjoy the quagmire.

The only definition that matters is Bush's, and as usual, he's fucked that up, because he's never defined victory--only the opposite. He's said clearly and consistently that leaving is losing, and he's not leaving, so this will be a mess the next President, whoever he or she is, will be dealing with in 2009.

So, to never leave is to win?


Weird.

What are we going to define as winning?

People say that we're fighting a war that can't be won, but haven't we already won it? Most of the Iraqi population approves of their countries general direction. Most Iraqis want U.S. soldiers to leave. A U.S. company will rebuild Iraqi oil. What's left?

Is stopping the civil war going to be winning? Because it seems to me that it's a new war, not an old one. Saying that the current Iraqi Civil War is a continuation of the Iraq War is like saying that WWII was just WWI continued.

I mean, if we haven't won, I'll accept the facts, but how the hell are we defining "victory" anyway?

Fucking stupid war anyway. The famous "War on Terror" is like a war on cheesecakes. They're everywhere, and as soon as you get rid of one, another will pop up.

Fucking stupid war anyway. The famous "War on Terror" is like a war on cheesecakes. They're everywhere, and as soon as you get rid of one, another will pop up.
Worse than that. It's like declaring a war on Pincer Movements or Air Superiority.

So, to never leave is to win?


Weird.

In his eyes, yes, and then of course he'll be vindicated in the long run if, in twenty or fifty years or however long it takes, Iraq winds up as a free and democratic society, because he'll have set the whole thing in motion. That's how these people think (if you can call it that).

That's how these people think (if you can call it that).

You can't call it that. ;)

If anything begged for a Nelson photo, it's this, but "we told you so" is so gauche. Very much true, but still gauche.

Nelson photo?

And what does "gauche" mean? :confused:

(Sorry if these are stupid questions)

In his eyes, yes, and then of course he'll be vindicated in the long run if, in twenty or fifty years or however long it takes, Iraq winds up as a free and democratic society, because he'll have set the whole thing in motion. That's how these people think (if you can call it that).

George W. Bush's Presidential War Notebook to be put on exhibit in his insanely expensive library:
http://www.tufts.edu/communications/stories/images2001/etchsml.JPG

George W. Bush's Presidential War Notebook to be put on exhibit in his insanely expensive library:
http://www.tufts.edu/communications/stories/images2001/etchsml.JPG

ROFLMAO

Damn, DM, made me spill hot coffee on my lap! :p

We won't achieve victory until we find those damn hidden WMDs! :mad:

So if Iraq ever wants us out of there, they better get cracking, make some and hide them. Because we aren't leaving until we find em! :p

An oldie but a goodie:

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW112906.jpg

Nelson photo?

Nelson Muntz. (http://images.google.se/images?svnum=10&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&q=simpsons+nelson&btnG=Search)

And what does "gauche" mean? :confused:

Gauche. (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=gauche)

(Sorry if these are stupid questions)

Don't worry about it, you're not the first anglophone I have to explain English words to, and you most certainly won't be the last.

Nelson Muntz. (http://images.google.se/images?svnum=10&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&q=simpsons+nelson&btnG=Search)



Gauche. (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=gauche)



Don't worry about it, you're not the first anglophone I have to explain English words to, and you most certainly won't be the last.

Thanks.

lol, I've noticed that of the English-speaking people I've encountered, the ones who speak it as a second language speak it better than people who've been speaking it their whole life. :D

Nelson Muntz. (http://images.google.se/images?svnum=10&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&q=simpsons+nelson&btnG=Search)



Gauche. (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=gauche)



Don't worry about it, you're not the first anglophone I have to explain English words to, and you most certainly won't be the last.

I thought gauche was French. ;)

I think that victory is a stable, responsible state in Iraq, be it a democracy or not.

Fucking stupid war anyway. The famous "War on Terror" is like a war on cheesecakes. They're everywhere, and as soon as you get rid of one, another will pop up.

Worse still: a "War on Terror" is like a war on traffic violations: we are trying to stop not a particular ideology, nation-state, or organization. We are trying to stop an action. Look at the traffic laws example: even with law enforcement, people still get into trouble for violating traffic laws. The most we can do is to try to keep it to a manageable level, prevent the worst offenses, and try to understand what motivates people to do it in the first place and work on preventative measures. Of course, the analogy breaks down when you consider that you can stiffen the penalties for traffic violations.

The reason terrorism exists (whatever form it takes: there are more kinds of terrorism than just the Islamist-radical variant) is because there are people frustrated with their inability to produce meaningful change through legitimate means, so they turn to violence instead to bring about change. In theory, democritization is the way to end terrorism. In practice, things aren't nearly so simple. Perhaps the best solution is to basically leave the region to its own devices and let the forces of social change eventually create a stable situation in the Mideast. The forces of social change won't be pretty and the resulting stability won't be in any form we'll particularly enjoy, but at least things will become relatively peaceful for a change...

I thought gauche was French. ;)

Etymologically, yes, but etymological's not a language, silly.

I thought gauche was French. ;)

An awful lot of English is actually French. They've been sabotaging our language for years. Wait... sabotage... damn!

I think that victory is a stable, responsible state in Iraq, be it a democracy or not.

I believe the last stable responsible government Iraq ever had was under the control of the Babylonians. :p

Saying that the current Iraqi Civil War is a continuation of the Iraq War is like saying that WWII was just WWI continued.
actually, WWII was precisely that...

I believe the last stable responsible government Iraq ever had was under the control of the Babylonians. :p

Actually it was under the Ottoman Empire, until the end of WWI, when it ceased to exist and the British administrated the region. After that, there was a quasi-democracy fraught with corruption until the beginnings of the fascist Baath Party movement which rapidly took power, backed by the CIA, in the late '70s in response to events in Iran. From there, we sold chemical and biological weapons to Saddam with which to kill Iranians, and which were later also used to kill Kurds (and possibly deployed against US troops in Gulf War I, as evidenced by the still-officially-unexplained Gulf War Syndrome). The reason we suspected Saddam was trying to make homegrown WMDs is because CIA estimates were that he had by then used up the stocks that they had sold him earlier. Wasn't Cold War politics fun?

I believe the last stable responsible government Iraq ever had was under the control of the Babylonians. :p

You forget the one under a man who was just hung, now don't you.

actually, WWII was precisely that...
WWII was caused in part by WWI, but it wasn't the same war.

You forget the one under a man who was just hung, now don't you.

100,000 gassed iranians and kurds might disagree with the 'responsible' label. :p

You forget the one under a man who was just hung, now don't you.

Stable, sure. Responsible, not so much.

reality aside...

we have already acheived our stated aims for the iraq war--regime change and removing iraqs potential to hurt us and our allies.

we tend to forget that this was our aim since it was acheived back when bush was on that aircraft carrier in front of the mission accomplished banner back on may 2, 2003.

everything since then has been trying to stablize an unstable nation.

i guess we "win" when iraq has a stable government that likes the united states.

STOP LAUGHING! it could happen!

WWII was caused in part by WWI, but it wasn't the same war.

yeah there was at least a few years of peace before Europe went fucking ape shit again.

I think that victory is a stable, responsible state in Iraq, be it a democracy or not.
Oh. Then I don't think we've lost.


I think that the three-state solution would work well in Iraq. It's quite possible to create a situation like Bosnia, with each of the countries three ethnic groups being given their own governments. I highly suggest taking a look at Joe Biden's plan. Even though I disagree with a few parts, it's a good overall blue-print for a new Iraq.


And when you say "Responsible", I assume you mean "Middle-East responsible", because asking more than that is just unfair.

I mean, if we haven't won, I'll accept the facts, but how the hell are we defining "victory" anyway?
War is usually a defeat for humanity, but the sheer abscence of anything resembling peace - and the lack of any improvement in this area - indicates loss.

Etymologically, yes, but etymological's not a language, silly.
Etymology is not a language. ;)
[/grammar nazi]

100,000 gassed iranians and kurds might disagree with the 'responsible' label. :p

What? Saddam did something bad to them? That can't be right... After all, the charges against him were dropped (post mortem) :rolleyes:

Etymology is not a language. ;)
[/grammar nazi]

You obviously failed your SS accreditation to have missed my substantivising of the adjective from which I formed the adverb, keeping with a theme. You'll never make Gestapo this way.

I thought gauche was French. ;)

Gauche is French. It means "anything left". Depends on the sentence really. Fass is just trying to be smart and make other people looks stupid. Really a immature thing to do. Fass eventually you get caught in your bullcrap. No one says that word that speaks English. Only time I have ever heard it is from French speakers. Yes, I do speak French too.

Fass eventually you get caught in your bullcrap. No one says that word that speaks English. Only time I have ever heard it is from French speakers.

Gauche.
(http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=gauche) Look at that - an English word taken from French used completely differently than in French. It's as if English were a language that did that sort of thing all the time, as if it had somehow had a history of importing French words because of a close shared past with the "hexagon"...

In any case, you'll get no pity from me for only "having heard" from people who are challenged in their vocabulary. Perhaps you should expand and upgrade your social circle? Read a book more advanced than "remedial English" once in a while?

Yes, I do speak French too.

Hopefully better than the English you just gave proof of here. Seriously, "No one says that word that speaks English" - that's enough to give even the most lax of grammar Nazis a coronary.

Hopefully better than than the English you just gave proof of here. Seriously, "No one says that word that speaks English" - that's enough to give even the most lax of grammar Nazis a coronary.
I think we're all convinced (again) that you're a masterful linguist, Fass. Who cares, really?

Gauche.
(http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=gauche) Look at that - an English word taken from French used completely differently than in French. It's as if English were a language that did that sort of thing all the time, as if it had somehow had a history of importing French words because of a close shared past with the "hexagon"...

In any case, you'll get no pity from me for only "having heard" from people who are challenged in their vocabulary. Perhaps you should expand and upgrade your social circle? Read a book more advanced than "remedial English" once in a while?



Hopefully better than than the English you just gave proof of here. Seriously, "No one says that word that speaks English" - that's enough to give even the most lax of grammar Nazis a coronary.

You can pull up words all day and try and say it is English. It is a French word. It is used commonly in the French language. No one says this word in English. Never heard of anyone ever using it.
My social circle is large and I am a wordly person. So stuff it Fass your not going to pull one over on me.

Is stopping the civil war going to be winning? Because it seems to me that it's a new war, not an old one. Saying that the current Iraqi Civil War is a continuation of the Iraq War is like saying that WWII was just WWI continued.


...

Um...

And? WWII WAS just WWI continued because of the rejection of Wilson's 14 points and because of the same nationalism that caused WWI.

My social circle is large and I am a wordly person. So stuff it Fass your not going to pull one over on me.
Don't have a heart attack old man!

I think we're all convinced (again) that you're a masterful linguist, Fass. Who cares, really?

One can't let ignorantly false claims like "gauche" not being used in English stand, especially when correction of the inaccuracy takes so little effort. That, and of course me having a pet peeve about being, incorrectly mind you, called on my "bullcrap" by people who can't even string together a relative clause that refers to the proper antecedent.

In any case, you'll get no pity from me for only "having heard" from people who are challenged in their vocabulary. Perhaps you should expand and upgrade your social circle? Read a book more advanced than "remedial English" once in a while?

Fass, it may be a word in the English language, but it isn't colloquial by any means. Hell, it isn't even used in writing. Even in more obscure books, I've never seen the word used. The sheer snobbery of waving around your superior (and, interestingly enough, useless, since the word isn't colloquial, and therefore has no point outside of Scrabble).

Now, do you have something useful to contribute, or are you going to show off your vocabulary to bolster your ego?

You can pull up words all day and try and say it is English. It is a French word. It is used commonly in the French language. No one says this word in English. Never heard of anyone ever using it.

Your lack of proficiency in English has no bearing on the usage of the word (which isn't uncommon at all, I come across it regularly in anglophone papers and literature), which is as English as the rest of the words that English took from French and that make up around half of its vocabulary. Your ignorance says very little indeed.

My social circle is large and I am a wordly person. So stuff it Fass your not going to pull one over on me.

Your != you're. As I said, I hope you speak French better than you do English.

One can't let ignorantly false claims like "gauche" not being used in English stand

I disagree. One certainly can.

Fass, it may be a word in the English language, but it isn't colloquial by any means. Hell, it isn't even used in writing. Even in more obscure books, I've never seen the word used. The sheer snobbery of waving around your superior (and, interestingly enough, useless, since the word isn't colloquial, and therefore has no point outside of Scrabble).

Wow. That's so... preposterous.

Now, do you have something useful to contribute, or are you going to show off your vocabulary to bolster your ego?

I don't know, do you have something useful to contribute, or are you going to show off your glaring literary shortcomings?

I think that the three-state solution would work well in Iraq.

Imposed on by whom? See we have a political quandary. If the US and/or other foreign powers impose changes on Iraq, it is flat-out denial of the whole, "we liberated Iraq," "they are a democratic nation now," "we're not occupying them, we're just there to help defend against ebil terrorists" rhetorical lines.

So the only thing left is for the Iraqis to "solve" themselves into three states.

Luckily, it's easy enough for the US, as conquering invaders, to make their puppet governments do what we want.

Wow. That's so... preposterous.

Really? That's nice. Blanket statements proove everything, you know. Why don't you, y'know, actually show a case in which the word is used colloquially?


I don't know, do you have something useful to contribute, or are you going to show off your glaring literary shortcomings?

I already did. Now I'm busy being annoyed by a pompous, self-important snob who feels the need to show off his useless vocabulary to bolster his ego.

I disagree. One certainly can.

What one can is not what one shouldn't. Untruths and falsities should never be given reprieve, especially not when they try to impugn, however flimsily and feebly, one's character.

What one can is not what one shouldn't.

Are you entirely certain of that?

Untruths and falsities should never be given reprieve, especially not when they try to impugn, however flimsily and feebly, one's character.

Grammar Nazi. Why don't you go invade Grammar Poland or something.

Really? That's nice. Blanket statements proove everything, you know. Why don't you, y'know, actually show a use of the word being used colloquially?

No, since I never claimed it was colloquial. That little hang-up is no one's but yours.

I already did. Now I'm busy being annoyed by a pompous, self-important snob who feels the need to show off his useless vocabulary to bolster his ego.

You wound me so that I fear I shall momentarily exsanguinate. Woe.

One can't let ignorantly false claims like "gauche" not being used in English stand, especially when correction of the inaccuracy takes so little effort.
Who cares?

The ideal for Iraq-victory, if you will-is to create a stable, prosperous democracy that is an American ally, thereby encouraging reformers along the entire muslim world to replicate the Iraqi success.

However, that ideal seems like a very longshot, and in any case, a Reformation of the mid east is out of the books now. The dictators and theocrats tell their people "You want democracy? This is what democracy is-Sunnis and Shiites slaughtering each other."

So where do we go now? By this point, as long as Iraq doesn't became a terrorist outpost like Afghanistan prior to the invasion, we can consider that victory.

What are we going to define as winning?

People say that we're fighting a war that can't be won, but haven't we already won it? Most of the Iraqi population approves of their countries general direction. Most Iraqis want U.S. soldiers to leave. A U.S. company will rebuild Iraqi oil. What's left?

Is stopping the civil war going to be winning? Because it seems to me that it's a new war, not an old one. Saying that the current Iraqi Civil War is a continuation of the Iraq War is like saying that WWII was just WWI continued.

I mean, if we haven't won, I'll accept the facts, but how the hell are we defining "victory" anyway?

I'd consider the Iraqi Civil War to be a new conflict, one we have no reason to be involved in. We are not going to stop the Iraqis from killing each other, we are simply targets for the Sunni insurgents to kill U.S. troops. And I find it quite difficult to believe that any oil company will be able to export any sizable amount of crude anytime soon given the instability in Iraq. And if I was going to take a guess at the U.S.'s victory it would have to be the "stable and democratic Iraq" that Bush keeps harping about. Best definition I can think of anyway.

Btw, many historians have argued that WWII is simply taking up where WWI left off because of many unresolved issues at the Great War's ending.

Your != you're. As I said, I hope you speak French better than you do English.

Ohhh you got me. Tell you what since you don't like how I spell in English. You want a go in French or Arabic? Also like I said your pulling words out your ass to make yourself feel superior. Doesn't work on NS general. Time and time again you have been rebuffed. However you come back for more. Seems a little Sadistic to me.

Don't have a heart attack old man!

Thanks for the concern. Not getting worked up over Fass. Just pointing out his major personality flaw. We all know it. Yet it deserves to pointed out from time to time.

This Civil War in Iraq cant be considered a new conflict. Its just a New part in an already fucked up war. Plus, i doubt thered be a civil war without fucking bush and his massive incompetance.

you guys' attack on fass would make much more sense if you were right.

just because you havent heard anyone use the word gauche and havent read it, doesnt mean it isnt used.

i had no idea that it was so obscure. ive heard it and used it many times.

wouldnt it be better to just go back to the topic?

This Civil War in Iraq cant be considered a new conflict. Its just a New part in an already fucked up war. Plus, i doubt thered be a civil war without fucking bush and his massive incompetance.

i guess it depends on what you mean by that. do you mean that he should have been able to invade iraq, depose saddam hussein and prevent a civil war? or that he just shouldnt have invaded iraq to begin with?

100,000 gassed iranians and kurds might disagree with the 'responsible' label. :p


Allegedly, the trial was bias.

Allegedly, the trial was bias.

Which was shameful and unnecessary! I mean, if Saddam Hussein can't get a fair and unbiased trial, who can?


:D

i guess it depends on what you mean by that. do you mean that he should have been able to invade iraq, depose saddam hussein and prevent a civil war? or that he just shouldnt have invaded iraq to begin with?

We never should have invaded Iraq but we clearly could have done it better. Bush obviously had zero serious post-war plans and so we have our result. Not to mention doing dumbass things like disbanding the Iraqi Army, but we will be here all night if we try to list every stupid thing Bush has done with Iraq.

We never should have invaded Iraq but we clearly could have done it better. Bush obviously had zero serious post-war plans and so we have our result. Not to mention doing dumbass things like disbanding the Iraqi Army, but we will be here all night if we try to list every stupid thing Bush has done with Iraq.

true that.

i was thinking about it and wondering if there WAS a time when it could have gone right.

so we invaded--bad move

but if we had gone in with 500,000 troops could we have held it together?

so we went in with...200,000?--bad move

but if we had paid attention to those ammo dumps and other sources of weapons could we have held it together?

so we ignored everything by the ministry of oil--bad move

and on and on. so very many mistakes.

but if we added another 200,000 soldiers in a "troop surge" could we redeem it?

so we go in with 24,000....bad move?

true that.

i was thinking about it and wondering if there WAS a time when it could have gone right.

so we invaded--bad move

but if we had gone in with 500,000 troops could we have held it together?

so we went in with...200,000?--bad move

but if we had paid attention to those ammo dumps and other sources of weapons could we have held it together?

so we ignored everything by the ministry of oil--bad move

and on and on. so very many mistakes.

but if we added another 200,000 soldiers in a "troop surge" could we redeem it?

so we go in with 24,000....bad move?

I don't see how any number of troops will make a difference given many Iraqis don't care for our presence now. Escalating further sounds like a great way to destablize Iraq further. Given the fact that this is an insurgency as well, instead of a standard army I fail to see how simple numbers alone will make a huge difference when our tactics have been shown to be a constant failure.