DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: domer on September 30, 2006, 01:09:40 PM
-
I ask these questions in all sincerity, and as I do, I note one of the lessons of Vietnam: a "strategic defeat" can usher in an overall victory (the Soviet Union falling some 15 years after our withdrawal from Vietnam). Would anyone care to discuss this in realistic terms?
-
what is winning?
Winning the "Iraq war" (vs the War on Terrorism) is the Iraqi Government & it's military/police forces working independently without any further serious American Military Intervention, be it as a defacto Iraqi Army or as Governmental Security forces, etc. Winning is the Iraqi Government telling us to "please leave now, we can take it from here"
The above needs to and is occuring on their timetable, not ours. Any arbitrary timetable we try to apply will only make the case for the enemy & insurgents to just hold out a little longer...that the Americans are going to"run away like cowards as they ususually do"
-
I would discuss the prospects of winning it in realistic terms, but you have always persisted in looking at the real objectives of the invasion in unrealistic terms. If you can't accept that the real objectives are to secure the oil wells as a strategic as well as a possible economic asset, then the whole exercise becomes one of assessing whether the US can achieve a "stable" and "democratic" and "independent" Iraq, which just begs the question of whether the US should win or not.
-
That parroting of the party line does nothing for me. Maybe I've been affected by my formative years. When I was not quite 18, I witnessed "the college game of the century," from the sidelines, on a dank November day in East Lansing, Michigan. My coach "settled" for a tie in that game to give us a better opportunity at the "prize," the national championship, which would be (and was, in our favor) decided by the next week's game. Maybe we have a nation that elevates Pickett to greatness because of his reflexive "courage," but I prefer a MacArthur returning to Bataan after an "ignominious" retreat.
-
Strange, I thought a serious question was being posed. My bad
-
If you can't accept that the real objectives are to secure the oil wells as a strategic as well as a possible economic asset, then the whole exercise becomes one of assessing whether the US can achieve a "stable" and "democratic" and "independent" Iraq, which just begs the question of whether the US should win or not
Start with a false premise and ....... well, we all know the rest :P
-
You can't seriously be thinking of this as a college football game?
-
It's a metaphor, (capece?) you asshole.
-
It's a metaphor, (capece?) you asshole
Nice. Great example at trying to lead a discussion on a supposed serious subject. Only 2 posts into the thread. I guess that's better than just a knee-jerk 1 response before flailing the insults
-
Well, it's one of the poorest metaphors I've ever seen.
-
<<Start with a false premise and ....... well, we all know the rest >>
What's debatable is WHOSE premise false. But I've gotta go for lunch and a slice of real life, so I'll just settle the issue now by providing the answer: Yours and domers'.
-
Yes, gentlemen, give me a lecture on serious and intelligent. I'll be back.
And, Tee, you don't know much about the American (administration) psyche if a sports metaphor (especially a football metaphor) is viewed as inapt. Indeed, a celebrated "novel" of the Vietnam era by Norman Mailer, "Why Are We in Vietnam," employed an extendded metaphor, to considerable effect, of war as an extension of our indigenous hunting culture, et al.
-
What's debatable is WHOSE premise false
The one that this is all about the oil. The one that has no basis in reality or fact, but gobs load of conspiratorial nonsense
-
. If you can't accept that the real objectives are to secure the oil wells as a strategic as well as a possible economic asset,
I don't accept this as genuine , but I am willing to discuss it.
If this is really what we want winning is pretty simple , we have won already all the access we will ever need and simply by quitting to defend the feilds from the "terrorists " we can punish Europe and China where the need for this particular sorce of oil is more critical than it is for us.
Oh but what shall we do if we run low on terrorists willing to disrupt the mineing and distribution of oil?
-
Good question Domer. My apologies for the initial round of responses.
Perhaps everyone involved would like a do-ever and try to respond seriously to the question posed.
Personally i think Iraq is but one piece of the puzzle. And i don't think peace wil break out until all countries in the region (including a free Palestinian State) are willing to recognize each others sovereignty and be willing to peacefully co-exist.
-
Perhaps everyone involved would like a do-ever and try to respond seriously to the question posed.
I thought I had ???
-
I ask these questions in all sincerity, and as I do, I note one of the lessons of Vietnam: a "strategic defeat" can usher in an overall victory (the Soviet Union falling some 15 years after our withdrawal from Vietnam). Would anyone care to discuss this in realistic terms?
Hmmmmm..... Viet Nam was sponsored by the USSR and the demise of the USSR from exaustion was in part due to fighting in Viet Nam and fighting in Afganistan.
What is the sponsor behind the fighting now that we are hopeing to stratigicly defeat later after a tactical retreat?
If we leave Iraq suddenly it might do alright , if the government can hold its controll in the struggle , or the place might become a sept of Iran or a tool of Al Queda if it cannot.
Do you suppose that Iran could become overextended and exausted because it will be fighting Kurds and Al Queda in Iraq?