For a country to win a war means that they accomplished their objectives, and for a country to lose a war means that they failed to accomplish their objectives. But the whole concept breaks down when a country didn’t have any objectives.
Pretty much this, though it will also become a narrative all about the soldiers. Much like how the story taught about Vietnam is that the returning soldiers weren’t treated properly (complete with fabricated history about being spat on at airports), with all the brown-skinned casualties relegated to second place in the pecking order behind the precious feelings of Americans.
That’s assuming the war ever ends. I would theorize that the war will never end until the oil companies get all the oil, or alternative energy makes oil less profitable.
In fact, Saddam was tried by the puppet government the U.S. had installed, not by the U.S. Fairness had nothing to do with it.
Will this book explain why the invasion was a victory even though the weapons that were alleged to justify it were never found, or will Bush’s lies be ignored altogether?
And your wrong. Your talking points won’t make it into the history books. It’d be silly to think your cheerleading will be taken seriously.
Analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified U.S. government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, show (1) that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja, and (2) that the United States, fully aware it was Iraq, accused Iran, Iraq’s enemy in a fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. The State Department instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame.
…
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/17/opinion/17iht-edjoost_ed3_.html
I dare say for most history books (at least the academic ones as opposed to US schoolbooks) democracy, stability and quality of life for the people of Iraq (or their absence) will be neither here nor there regarding the question whether the US won or lost the war. What’s going to count is whether Iraq’s governments in the next decade or two will align themselves with or against US interests.
I’m trying to parse this sentence. You oppose women’s rights to an abortion, but that’s not anti-women’s rights because you also oppose men’s rights to an abortion.
Have I got that right?
I don’t understand how so many people can defend the actions of the Bush administration…he’s gotta be THE worst president to ever hold office and twice! Trust me, Iraq will NEVER be a true democracy, it’s religion is too deeply tied to its political ideology. His damn election was controversial. And its religion is not for sale.
Sadly I say this but I wish it were different…too many strange things happened in 2001.
:rolleyes:
Except Germany was defeated by the United States in World War II while we defeated Iraq in the Iraq War so the analogy doesn’t work.
How would you explain all the US troops being withdrawn right now? :rolleyes:
Its hardly a puppet government. Maliki’s been pressuring the US to withdraw for the last year or two.
It was a mistake but a mistake made from utilizing information and which was a rational conclusion.
I don’t support men to force women to have an abortion or families to force minors to have an abortion.
With all due respect this sounds parodic. George W Bush, no matter how the Iraq War turns out, will not be the worst President due to a certain man known as James Buchanan. Plus considering Iraq has made somewhat of a functioning democracy in the last few years your comment seems to be rather hasty.
Garbage. The war was based on cherry picked intelligence and outright lies.
No. Inspection reports at the time did not support the US’s claims. US troops did not move to inspect alleged depots but secured Iraq’s Oil Ministry. When it was shown that the US’s claims were false, Bush reacted not by withdrawing his military in horror and making reparations, but by making a funny video about looking for weapons in his office and continuing with the invasion. It’s ludicrous to even suggest the US government was acting in anything like good faith.
Once the invasion happened what were we supposed to do? Iraq within a few days of the invasion had its government shattered from various factors. Plus by reparations do you mean giving it to the Hussein regime?!?!
Also the selfish option would have been just occupying oil rich areas and have the US directly take control of the oil fields.
Nothing we did in Iraq was anything but selfish or worse.
Only the Sith deal in absolutes. :rolleyes:
I’m surprised at you, Der Trihs. You don’t need the phrase cherry picked intelligence there, dude.
A movie quote is your defense of American behavior? And not even one that makes sense, since it is internally contradictory as various people have pointed out.
I was being sarcastic. Plus for an atheist who should be rational you make plenty of absolute statements about how the US is always evil, selfish, etc.
Yeah, Britain and all the other Allies had nothing to do with defeating Germany. USA! USA! USA!
Seriously, we’ve been through this kind of thing with you before. Your pattern seems to be to take a staunch position, then cherry pick examples from history to support it. Only your command of history sometimes fails you, yet you stick to your position no matter what.
It’s been said to you before, and I’ll chime in now too: Other people are right sometimes, and many of them have more experience than you. Learn from them. There’s no shame in that.
So should I have listed all the Allied nations in World War II down to Uruguay and Mongolia? I was making a simplified statement because it wasn’t really necessary to list every Allied nations.