Posted on 08/24/2007 4:17:54 AM PDT by goldstategop
Pass along the details of the upcoming events I've shared with you here. Just be sure not to let the Lefties know. It's our little secret, and you know how bad liberals are at keeping important secrets in a time of war.
Just read the New York Times if you don't know what I mean.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Better late than never, I guess. Don’t mean to sound negative but it has been six years...plus I just woke up. Anyway, I’ve been out numbered and out shouted for that long. It’s about time. Why do conservatives take soooo long to come together?
What exactly does victory in Iraq or victory in the War on Terror entail?
I’m thinking he’s talking about the propaganda war. The WOT won’t be won until we recognize and name a physical enemy.
Victory in Iraq is simply the Iraqi gov. saying "Thank you very much, we'll take it from here"
That would be a hugh psycological victory in a war that is first and foremost psycological. Seen in this context the end is indeed in sight simply because pressure on the Iraqi gov will increase to ask for our withdrawl.
Victory means a representative, stable, free market ally of the US. The creation of such a state will transform the middle east forever and for the better.
Kicking al Queda's butt and killing every terrorist in the world would be a good start. The WOT should have ended on 9/12/01, with Mecca and several other terrorist havens being incinerated with nukes.
BTW, welcome to FR - I think.
That sets the bar beyond reach because those characteristics are entirely dependent on the Iraqi people. Even W has said if the Iraqis elect an anti-US gov, that's their decision.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Our victory will be achieved when we're asked to leave.
Victory in the war on terror will mean that we have discouraged, disgraced or killed the mullahs who push it. Give ‘em the “Will of Allah” and make ‘em like it.
I don’t believe it is beyond reach. The President said on Wednesday that a “free Iraq is within reach”. A free Iraq will develop a western style economy, and rely on the US for security, making it an ally. Some form of representative government will follow. This will be the great legacy of our current President, and will transform the middle east for the better. This is what the military is fighting for. The only thing hampering us from accomplishing this is domestic weakness. If it could be done in Japan, S. Korea and Germany, it can be done in Iraq.
I define victory as killing, capturing, or otherwise rendering impotent so many terrorists that a terrorist attack on American soil (of any significance-—say, over 50 dead) is no longer possible, and a terrorist attack by Arab/al-Qaeda related forces on foreign soil is infrequent.
I agree in principle w/ your descriptions, however, milestones are key elements if only for public consumption. Therefore victory in Iraq, that is both definable and achievable, is highly desirous.
I don't know, I hear you and understand your sentiment, but the way I look at it is this: we either still believe in the cause and therefore welcome the very belated help, or else we can let the anti-war liberals win and hurt America's iamge around the world, stab our troops in the back, and jeopardize our national security.
Are you asking rhetorically? It seems to me quite obvious that the most principle victory is that the jihadists are defeated there, al-Qaida doesn't get to have Iraq as a new breeding ground, and a regime independent of Iran and Syria that advances democratic principles and fosters good relations with the U.S. is in place.
I like your explanation of victory better - you were much more succinct and on target.
If you use some milestone of the Iraqi government doing certain things, well, that's just ridiculous. As I point out in my public talks, the French, who had their independence from monarchy in 1789, had civil wars for the next HUNDRED YEARS and didn't have a truly "stable" government until the 1950s. England was even worse, having civil wars some 400 years after the Magna Carta.
Once you tie yourself to ANY "milestone" except common sense and the elimination of the threat, then you are setting yourself up for defeat.
I think we need clear conditions for victory. We can’t just send troops to places without a clear idea of what the objective is.
OK - taking that argument and the logic behind it, which I acknowlege there is, then can't we both agree that defeat is easy to define?
As Move America Forward views it the objective is to defeat a state sponsor of terror and leave Iraq as a nation that does not harbor, train, fund or sponsor Islamic terrorist groups.
I defined victory, above, as eliminating a high enough percentage of the enemy that no further substantial attacks against the U.S. mainland can be launched, and only attacks with minimal results can be launched on our allies. That is achieved by killing enough terrorists as to render their organizations null and void.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.