venturer9 Loc: Newton, Il.

And once again, you and so many others never address the current President's action or decisions..... Your Immediate response is to slide back many years, blame that president and totally ignore that he (Bush) hasn't been the president for lo these many years.... When are you and our current President going to accept that and DO what is needed Today...not 6-10 years ago....

Mike

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

First of all, lets recognize that Iraq is not a country, and never was. It was cobbled together after WWI, but Never had any sense of coherence.

It survived only under "strong" administration--that is, violence and ruthless domination. That was something Saddam could do, though it lacked a certain elegance.

All of this is against a background of 5,000 years of constant violence and war in the Middle East.

Saddam held the country together and held Iran at bay. It wasn't pleasant, but he did it.

Only the most ignorant of the ignorant would meddle in that, and we did it.

"Winning" is imposing your will on your enemy. Upon whom did we impose our will? You might say Saddam, but the cost was 10,000 soldiers and contractor's lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizen's lives, and two Trillion US dollars, and after we hung him, we didn't leave, but stayed for more.

Some deal!

In exchange for this, we got Iran and Syria strengthened and more active; we freed them to act.

Now let's be honest. This problem arose in 2002-3, after we watched the Russians struggle against the Middle East for ten years, lose, and leave.

Some of our leaders then thought we could do better, and lied us into a needless war-- remember 'Shock and Awe'?

Now we are getting the inevitable result that any reasonable and informed person could anticipate--And DID Anticipate!

Obama inherited this situation, and pledged to get us out. It's been six years, and he hasn't done it completely yet; if you think this is easy, you are naive and mis-informed. Still, I grow impatient, as do many others.

However, it is a big help to have uninformed conservative partisans share their ignorance and bleat helplessly, blaming someone who was eight years from the Presidency when it all began. ;-)

The country made a profoundly serious error, ignorant beyond belief, dishonest and incompetent, and the military came in second best in their third and fourth consecutive wars...and now we pay the butcher's bill.

What's not to like?

James Shaw

Don't think Obama's objective was ever to win in Iraq. But he now has a chance to change the country, if he can get the various factions to oust its current leader, and if they then are willing to institute a government of the people. Winning is not our choice for tribal leaders who want to kill each other.

Can't win; just conqueror and occupy, and that is unrealistic.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

as for getting into wars we didn't win, remember korea and viet nam. nuff said?????????

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

"If you’re not going to “win” in some definable sense, why bother to play? President Obama has no coherent definition of winning, no metric of what it means to be ahead. The very notion of triumphing has somehow become evil. Instead he has raised process to an end it itself and plays a scoreless game in a world of local contexts. His goal is merely to be perceived as ‘engaged’ and acting ‘responsibly’ — whatever that means."


Obama bothers to play because he has no choice--he inherited the situation when Bush quit trying. He has no 'coherent definition of winning' because there is no winning in Iraq, only disaster. That's why smart people didn't go there.

"The very notion of triumphing" is not evil--Osama Bin Laden doesn't think so--but impossible in Iraq. There is no triumph there, never has been, never will be. Only republicans don't know that.

And 'being engaged and acting responsibly' means only one thing--getting out.

Twardlow Loc: Arkansas

...and Iraq...and Afghanistan...

James Shaw

The most "right on" assessment I have read so far, regarding Obama, Iraq, and "winning" in Iraq. Thank you.

James Shaw

Exactly, We didn't win in Vietnam; we didn't win in Korea; and we didn't nor will we win in Iran. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

venturer9 Loc: Newton, Il.

We hear over and over how badly the Republicans want to go to war.... Well, since President Obama has never listened to anything else they wanted to do, I believe that, if he Does go to war, it will be of his own volition,,,,not encouragement by the Republicans....

But of course if he goes to war and wins... I DID IT
and of course if he loses ................. They made me do it.....

Mike

James Shaw

Nice Mike but, really, there is no winning in Iraq for the U.S. We may change the course there a little, but with the cost of many American lives, but it's a no win. Much like Vietnam.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

Yes and our physical presence began with sending "advisors" to VietNam in the 60s and look what that led to.

James Shaw

For some reason some of each generation has to learn on their own and not from history books. We hid behind trees and with the Indians shot the British with their bright red and blue uniforms (targets) during the Revolutionary War.

In Vietnam, we put on our uniforms (targets) and the Viet Cong used them as targets.

In Iraq, we land on an aircraft carrier and declare victory. The enemy then comes out of the bushes and attacks.

What good is history if one does not learn from it?

SHUTERED Loc: SO. CAL.

And so after firing a lot of Pentagon brass who disagreed with his withdrawal plans he now sends 300 ( Spartans? ) to do the impossible. Wow! Hope I am wrong about the Spartan part.