WikiLeaks

[Fast_Eddie]

I only sorta, kinda understand the objection to saying "we lost". When I was a kid, they fired the football coach in Cincinnati because the Sports reporters were drilling him after a bad loss. He finally said something like "hey, guys, it's a football game". People didn't much like that. But he was right. They were making out like a bus full of orphans had driven over a cliff. They lost. There's another game next week.

So - Iraq. Did we lose? Well, there's no question we lost almost 4,500 American lives. No question we lost something like $700B. Did we win anything? I guess time will tell. I hope so. I'm sure there is some degree of truth in the notion that the Iraqi people won. I hope that's the case. Did we win any safety and security? It's not really looking like it. I hope, in the long run, that country turns into something stable and is an ally to the U.S. But we won't know that for a good long time.

I don't know. It's hard to make any concrete case we won. I guess it's too soon to say, really. But if pressed, at least right now, looks to me like we lost more than we won.

Guess I wouldn't make much of a football coach.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

:shrug: time will tell. We certainly beat the forces fighting us.

We did that the first time too.

[piece-itpete]

Well, Eddies' out of the running for my local peewee football coach position

Pete

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Truth hurts, don't it? The only winner in the Iraq War was Iran and we did the fighting for them.

'course, that the context of Reid's remarks when he made them, was it?

At the time he made those remarks, the surge had just begun and there was an eruption of violence in a couple of cities in Iraq. He used the occasion of that enemy outburst, at a time when he was looking for a political opportunity to defund the war, to say that the Iraq War “is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything..."

Of course, during the campaign he attempted to spin his earlier comments into something more benign. His campaign said "Senator Reid’s comment was in agreement with General Petraeus’ assessment that the Iraq War could not be won by military force alone and that a political solution was also needed as part of a two-part strategy — which President Bush refused to pursue.”

Yeah, right. I seemed to have missed the part where Patraeus said "We lost."

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by whell

'
At the time he made those remarks, the surge had just begun and there was an eruption of violence in a couple of cities in Iraq. He used the occasion of that enemy outburst, at a time when he was looking for a political opportunity to defund the war, to say that the Iraq War “is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything..."

You're right, to be sure. Ried was spinning things, as best he could, for his political gain. In reality, the Surge worked, at least in as much as it could. The situation in Iraq improved when Bush sent more troops, even though many would say it was only improving a situation we shouldn't have been in in the first place. But it worked and Ried spun it for political gain.

If you're outraged by that, I hope you'll join me and write your representative in Washington and ask that they stop saying the Stimulus failed. Why do they insist that we lost, when it is widely agreed that the Stimulus worked and we would be in far worse shape right now had President Obama not done it. In fact, I believe part of the motivation for the compromise deal on taxes and unemployment is to get a second, back door stimulus passed, knowing that another spending measure has no hope. I think the President believes that we do need to borrow more money from China and dump it into our economy, and he'll take it any way he can get it rather than risk slipping back into recession. I don't know if he's right, but that's what I think he's trying to do.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

'course, that the context of Reid's remarks when he made them, was it?

At the time he made those remarks, the surge had just begun and there was an eruption of violence in a couple of cities in Iraq. He used the occasion of that enemy outburst, at a time when he was looking for a political opportunity to defund the war, to say that the Iraq War “is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything..."

Of course, during the campaign he attempted to spin his earlier comments into something more benign. His campaign said "Senator Reid’s comment was in agreement with General Petraeus’ assessment that the Iraq War could not be won by military force alone and that a political solution was also needed as part of a two-part strategy — which President Bush refused to pursue.”

Yeah, right. I seemed to have missed the part where Patraeus said "We lost."

OK. But it's not clear to me that a decision to defund the war at that time would have had any appreciable difference in the ultimate outcome of the war. Whenever we pull out (next month or next year or three years ago), it will revert to a civil war with the Shia having the numbers and the support of Iran. Simple as that, really.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Whenever we pull out (next month or next year or three years ago), it will revert to a civil war with the Shia having the numbers and the support of Iran. Simple as that, really.

Well, there may be an elegent solution to the two problems of Iraq and Iran. Maybe we'll set up a dictator who hates Iran as much as we do. The revolution was a threat to some of those guys who are worried that Iran won’t be happy until they control the entire region. We can supply a dictator with weapons to keep Iran at bay and let him be the bad guy. Think about it- with Iraq and Iran at each other, we can watch from a distance. Kind of a "dual containment" policy, if you will, with U.S. forces just over the horizon. You know, exactly like we did with... oh, wait a minute, that was Iraq.

Well, once they get a taste of democracy, I'm sure they'll stop fighting each other and make nice. Yeah. That's the ticket.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Well, there may be an elegent solution to the two problems of Iraq and Iran. Maybe we'll set up a dictator who hates Iran as much as we do. The revolution was a threat to some of those guys who are worried that Iran won’t be happy until they control the entire region. We can supply a dictator with weapons to keep Iran at bay and let him be the bad guy. Think about it- with Iraq and Iran at each other, we can watch from a distance. Kind of a "dual containment" policy, if you will, with U.S. forces just over the horizon. You know, exactly like we did with... oh, wait a minute, that was Iraq.

Well, once they get a taste of democracy, I'm sure they'll stop fighting each other and make nice. Yeah. That's the ticket.

Well, if we ain't gonna kill 'em all, let's put 'em on welfare.

Give everybody and their dog a teevee, an air squezzer, and all they want to eat.

Within 6 months they'd all be too lazy to blow their nose.

Chas

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Charles

Well, if we ain't gonna kill 'em all, let's put 'em on welfare.

Give everybody and their dog a teevee, an air squezzer, and all they want to eat.

Within 6 months they'd all be too lazy to blow their nose.

Chas

It sure would be a lot cheaper and less dangerous.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

OK. But it's not clear to me that a decision to defund the war at that time would have had any appreciable difference in the ultimate outcome of the war. Whenever we pull out (next month or next year or three years ago), it will revert to a civil war with the Shia having the numbers and the support of Iran. Simple as that, really.

Explain that to Mr Reid. He was quoted in August as saying, when welcoming the troops home in August, that they played a valuable role in successfully defending American interest in Iraq.