"Victory Is Not an Option"

[Chemical Ollie]

That it was a bad idea

[DinoDoc]

That makes you unique even in the American context in what way?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by padillah

We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable!

The absolute unequivocal resolution to prevailing after an invasion is to have troops in the country you invaded.

If you go to the store, where are you? In the store! That is the inevitable conclusion of you prevailing in your trip. Now if you had gotten into an accident you would not have been at the store but that wasn't your plan, that is a contingency. Once you arive at the store, having an accident on your way to the store will no longer be a contingency. It will have been resolved.

Tom P.

So you believe hes asserting not, that we are fighting to stop the current civil war/violence/horror, but that we are fighting to prevent our presence in Iraq?


If any current situation is inevitable, and doing something to stop an inevitable situation is absurd, than doing something to change any current situation is absurd.

I think you are misreading what Mr Odom means by inevitable. If he does mean what you claim he means (its not contingent cause its the case) then theres no point to the rest of what he says.

[The diplomat]

Just imagine if we had said "victory is not an option" in World War 2. This kind of defeatist attitude makes me sick.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Just imagine if we had said "victory is not an option" in World War 2. This kind of defeatist attitude makes me sick.

Ooo, great analogy! Except for the wee fact that, this far into our involvement in WWII, the war had already been over for several months.

On the other hand: we have a huge war machine; had the expectations of easy victory over inferior enemies; met those expectations early on; and plunged farther and farther into a losing proposition at the insistance of an inflexible, delusional leader who won't listen to his own generals. Okay, I can see a WWII analogy working here...but you're not going to like it.

[Patroklos]

Fear that Congress will confront this contradiction helps explain the administration and neocon drumbeat we now hear for expanding the war to Iran.

All I have seen is the administration say the exact opposite, in very clear language. Interesting how this myth persists.

We sent National Guard troops...for multiple tours. That was kind of a backdoor draft. Heck, we even toyed with the idea of re-inducting soldiers who's enlistments were up.

It was most certainly not a draft, it was the fullfillmet of their agreed upon contract. Just because many thought they would get a pretty much free source of income on the side for minimal risk is irrelavent to military stategy, they went in with their eyes wide open (and most still haven't served overseas).

Ooo, great analogy! Except for the wee fact that, this far into our involvement in WWII, the war had already been over for several months.

Not that I agree with the original analogy, but your response is even more retarded. If we are going to use one point of comparison (you chose time), I will go with deaths which is 3% of WWII over the same time period.

Isn't that game fun!!!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Patroklos

Not that I agree with the original analogy, but your response is even more retarded. If we are going to use one point of comparison (you chose time), I will go with deaths which is 3% of WWII over the same time period.

Isn't that game fun!!!

Except that we were talking about ultimate achieveability of the war's goals -- which is the only sensible gauge of a war -- not body count.

To toss another war into the mix: among the many things Vietnam showed us is that body count (whether high for them or low for us) is the last-resort measure of the side that won't, or can't, admit that it's losing.

[DinoDoc]

(If we're going to continue with the stupid WWII analogy) Aren't we still in Germany? Where's the exit strategy?

[Patroklos]

Except that we were talking about ultimate achieveability of the war's goals

So what does it lasting longer than WWII have to do with that? Again, you may have a point, but how long the war is devoid of any other factor does not make it.

[DinoDoc]

(Let's go foward a few years and look at the Korean War) Where's the exit strategy in Korea? We have thousands of troops there who's sole purpose is to die in the face of an enemy attack. Why are we sending our troops to mediate a foreign civil war?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Patroklos


So what does it lasting longer than WWII have to do with that? Again, you may have a point, but how long the war is devoid of any other factor does not make it.

My point is that any comparison to WWII is ludicrous...including my own, which is why I used the smiley.

But I think length of war does matter here, in that modern wars have tended to be relatively short. In fact, except for Vietnam, every war we've fought has lasted less than 6 years, and the ones we've won turned in our favor no more than 2-2.5 years in. If, by contrast, Iraq has dragged on for four years and seems only to be getting worse, history alone should dictate that we soberly reassess whether victory is possible. It might well be; Odom could be wrong. But blindly refusing even to consider the possibility victory is no long possible -- which is what diplomat implicitly suggests, and what I was responding to -- is fatally foolish.

[Patroklos]

I disagree. When was the last time we tried to do what we are doing now. When was the last time we utterly defeated a nation state and then tried to insert our own social values and political system?

WWII, but we have shown how stupid that comparison is no matter which way you are tying to use it. Comparing Iraq to any other modern war is not possible in a true sense. You end up just connecting isolated things. It is like saying Iraq is Vietnam all over again when there are a thousand true differences for every manufactured similarity.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I disagree. When was the last time we tried to do what we are doing now. When was the last time we utterly defeated a nation state and then tried to insert our own social values and political system?

Japan, 1945.

[DinoDoc]

Aren't we still there?

[RGBVideo]

I disagree. When was the last time we tried to do what we are doing now. When was the last time we utterly defeated a nation state and then tried to insert our own social values and political system?

WWII, but we have shown how stupid that comparison is no matter which way you are tying to use it. Comparing Iraq to any other modern war is not possible in a true sense. You end up just connecting isolated things. It is like saying Iraq is Vietnam all over again when there are a thousand true differences for every manufactured similarity.

First you wrap the argument over coming up with historical comparisons, then you dismiss all historical comparisons as stupid. Brilliant.