Can Bush get his Victory?
- Thread starter fluff
- Start date
S'funny how everyone has ignored this thread but you.Changleen said:
Of course N8's busy trying to find an article that puts a positive spin on this.
Don't hold yer breath though...
Iraq would then be left to sink or swim, with a relatively small number of American soldiers working alongside Iraqi troops. Even if the Iraqis were not up to the job, and the insurgents either won the war outright or had to be brought into the government, the main American involvement would be long finished.
Vietnam was a huge screwup, so this time we're doing it backwards. Should get the opposite result, right?
<Bush>Hang on, let me check with Jesus. He says yep. The magic 8 ball still says "Outlook not so good." Obviously doesn't support the troops. Need to get another 8 ball. Maybe send this one to Cuba? Make a note...run that by Cheney. Actually, have someone who is literate make a note. I'm a goddamn CEO president, you can't expect me to write stuff.</Bush>
And people say that the Republicans don't have any good ideas...
Vietnam was a huge screwup, so this time we're doing it backwards. Should get the opposite result, right?
<Bush>Hang on, let me check with Jesus. He says yep. The magic 8 ball still says "Outlook not so good." Obviously doesn't support the troops. Need to get another 8 ball. Maybe send this one to Cuba? Make a note...run that by Cheney. Actually, have someone who is literate make a note. I'm a goddamn CEO president, you can't expect me to write stuff.</Bush>
And people say that the Republicans don't have any good ideas...
If we decide to stay in Iraq I doubt we could see a true victory while Bushy Jr is still in orifice.
No kidding. Does anyone know just how long the US had troops stationed in Japan? Is anyone willing to make an over/under bet? Vegas could make big bucks off a bet like this.Westy said:
They're still here. Sovereignty was returned in 1952 from memory however.reflux said:
reflux said:
And after the surrender the Japanese were quite cooperative.
So it should only be a matter of time for "the insurgency" to surrender once we drop a couple nukes? Great...Westy said:
You have a good memory. History has never been my bag, but yet I still show up here in the PD and try to contribute. Odd isn't it?valve bouncer said:
Define Victory.
Some would define victory as getting in the way back machine and undoing the invasion altogether.
Some would define it as all the US troops home tomorrow.
Some would define it as a functioning government that is capable of either resolving the problems that the "insurgents" have and integrating them into the system. Or at least supressing it to the point that its interference with everyday life is minimal.
Some would define it as no supression allowed at all.
For Bush and his crowd, I'm sure that victory is a reachable goal. For his political opponents, it'll never happen until. And no matter what happens, short of a total and complete eradication of all the insurgents and their families and a big chuck of the Arab world, someone will claim to have defeated the US and driven them out with their tail between their legs.
So the answer is yes to the specific question and no to the underlying one.
Some would define victory as getting in the way back machine and undoing the invasion altogether.
Some would define it as all the US troops home tomorrow.
Some would define it as a functioning government that is capable of either resolving the problems that the "insurgents" have and integrating them into the system. Or at least supressing it to the point that its interference with everyday life is minimal.
Some would define it as no supression allowed at all.
For Bush and his crowd, I'm sure that victory is a reachable goal. For his political opponents, it'll never happen until. And no matter what happens, short of a total and complete eradication of all the insurgents and their families and a big chuck of the Arab world, someone will claim to have defeated the US and driven them out with their tail between their legs.
So the answer is yes to the specific question and no to the underlying one.
Pretty true. Bush will just keep redefining victory until it matches his version of reality. I think we're on Mark 12 Mod 3 right now. Ultimately reality is getting out of Iraq and stopping the $100,000,000,000 drain on our economy and taxpayers, and leaving a country that is at least marginally stable. The catch 22 is the presence of US troops draws people to the insurgency, which causes the country to be unstable, which requires our troops to provide stability. Ultimately we'll see a Nixon like "peace with honor", we'll pull out, and the country will collapse into civil war.
And to the ultimate one?DRB said:
Come on, don't quit on me now, you're the only one who realises that there is more than one question here.
Well the answer to that one is 42, but we aren't exactly sure what the ultimate question is but in this case it probably should be "have we learned our lesson?fluff said:
Every so often it apparently is necessary for governments to learn their limits in regards to how far they can oppress their people, how much force they can apply on others and exactly how do they financial remain stable. Either they do or they fail. In comparison, the US usually has a decent handle on the first and third. The US's learning disability almost always revolves around the second.
So will the US involve itself in another boondoggle like Iraq for the next 15 to 20 years? I'd say the answer to that is pretty likely no. But will with time the US forget the lesson it learned this time around? I'd say the answer to that is pretty likely yes.