Question Details	Asked By	Asked On
Winning the war in Iraq	excon	01/31/06
Hello righty's: I always thought of conservatives as being rather pragmatic, whereas I classify liberals as being wishful thinkers. I know you say we are "winning" in Iraq, but you should pardon me if I am skeptical. I offer only two facts. To me, they indicate that we are NOT winning. Just who are the wishful thinkers in America? 1. Today is day 1,050 of the Iraq war. Day 912 of WW2 was D-Day. Iraq doesn't look any closer to being pacified than it did three years ago. 2. Most recent democratic elections held in the Middle East have produced victory for the terrorists. The jury is still out on the Iraqi election. excon
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/02/06 2:51 pm: >>>However, I think being able to walk down the street safely is a better harbinger.<<< So do I. And I have no fear of a bomb going off on 6th Avenue in Manhattan. I can walk down the street pretty safely. So yes, by that standard, we are winning the war. Thanks for agreeing with me. Elliot
Answered By		Answered On
ETWolverine		02/02/06
Excon, 1) WWII lasted 2,193 days. D-Day started off as an unmitigated disaster with the 82nd Airborne being scattered to hell and back, the Sherman Tanks at Gold Beach being delayed, and every officer and seargant in the lead elements at Omaha Beach being killed within minutes of landing. It wasn't until much later that things started clearing up and going in favor of the Allies. By the end of WWII, there were over 25 million military deaths, and another 25 million + civillian deaths. So the fact that there have been as few deaths as we have seen is a good thing, and is in and of itself a success. Furthermore, this is a very different war than WWII, and you can't compare a turning point like D-Day (Operation Overlord) to anything in this war. In WWII, success was defined by winning battles and taking land, and forcing the surrender of the enemy. In this war, success is defined as not seeing attacks on US soil. In that sense, we have gone 1,605 days without an attack on US soil, and that indicates pretty good success in my book. 2) Actually, the jury is not out in Iraq. In Iraq, the terrorists are out of political power. The government that has been elected has been inclusive of all elements of Iraqi society, Sunni, Shia, Kurd, etc. A broad coalition of bodies has been jointly given political power, and they all have renounced terrorism. Contrast that with Hamas, which is setting itself up as the SOLE political body in the PA, and has not renounced terrorism. The Iraqi system specifically prohibited terrorists from running for office. The PA system didn't. The situations are, therefore, very different. Furthermore, we never promissed the Iraqis or the world a democracy. All we promissed them was the chance to determine their own future for themselves rather than having it thrust upon them by Saddam. They may choose Democracy, and it seems as if they have. But if they havn't, that's their business. Same with the PA. Nobody promissed them a democratic system, they were only promissed the right to choose their own system for themselves. And if what they choose is a theocracy, that's their problem. If they willingly vote away their own freedoms, that is their choice. And their bad choices or decisions do not indicate a wrong decision on our part. The decision to invade Iraq was correct from a military and a political perspective. What happens afterward doesn't change the correctness of that decision. We have given Iraq the ability to choose their own government. If they make a bad choice, that doesn't mean that we were wrong for giving them that choice. And so far, they are making the right choices. Elliot

Additional Options and ratings are only visible when you login!