Should the US accept defeat in Iraq

[Gravitymaster 0]

So, should the US just give up, admit defeat and bring all the troops home ASAP?

[akarunway 1]

Quote

So, should the US just give up, admit defeat and bring all the troops home ASAP?

Define defeat. Our lame govt. got us in the quagmire to begin w/.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

So, should the US just give up, admit defeat and bring all the troops home ASAP?

No. To do so would abandon the other 30+ countries that are in Iraq with us as part of the coalition.

It would also abandon the Iraqis who are not ready to see us leave, despite the violence (one can yell I'm full of it all they want, many Iraqi soldiers and civilians have told me so directly).

All the defeatist talk...good God! Even if there was a 180 degree change in policy, or more troops were sent in with success, or whatever, the opposition will never be happy. It's that simple.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

So, should the US just give up, admit defeat and bring all the troops home ASAP?

Define defeat. Our lame govt. got us in the quagmire to begin w/.

Use whatever your definition of defeat is.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

No.

The US should admit they made a major mistake, that they were wrong, but that they will do everything in their power and ability to leave the place in a better situation than they found it in, with a stable democratically elected government, no matter what their leanings are.

[kallend 2,146]

Insufficient choices. You need an "Other" if you can't think of any more options yourself.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnnyD 0]

It is not possible to be defeated in Iraq, just as it is equally not possible to be victorious. Such is your lot when engaging in a war with an intangible object.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Insufficient choices. You need an "Other" if you can't think of any more options yourself.

Feel free to comment. I didn't list "other" because it was too easy and wouldn't really be an answer.

[shropshire 0]

Good answer mate - to cut and run from the people who supported the US and followed them into this little expendition would be 100% wrong.

When the time comes : Go One - Go All is the only acceptable exit strategy.

.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Good answer mate - to cut and run from the people who supported the US and followed them into this little expendition would be 100% wrong.

When the time comes : Go One - Go All is the only acceptable exit strategy.

.

Let's assume that if the US surrenders and leaves, that all the other coalition partners would do the same. Does that change your answer?

[kallend 2,146]

NO. A surrender would have devastating Global Consequences

That is clearly untrue. Most of the world outside the US/UK would be pleased (and I'm not too sure about the UK). It would have very negative consequences for the US self-image and for the Bush Doctrine of "Speak incomprehensibly and whack with a big stick". However, staying the course is proving to be just as bad. The world can see that Iraq is a quagmire of our creation.

Whenever a Bush supporter asks the question "well, what would you do?" it reminds me of an old British radio serial when two different scriptwriters wrote alternate months. Each one would create an impossible situation at the end of his month, leaving the other one to figure a way out.

Fact is, I wouldn't have got into the mess in the first place (links available on request) and the only way out now that I can see is for the US (Bush)to eat a very big helping of crow.

I don't think Bush, growing up with a silver spoon in his mouth, "legacy" admission to college, avoiding Vietnam... is constitutionally capable of eating crow. Why should he, it's not his kids dying over there.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[shropshire 0]

No, I dont think it would... It doesn't have to be called a surrender, after all the attack wasn't called a war....

For once, in this miserable adventure, there just needs to be a consensus and planned exit strategy (but I can't see it happening). The heads of state need to liksten to their Generals and let them do their jobs, instead of working to their own hidden agendas.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[livendive 8]

Quote

So, should the US just give up, admit defeat and bring all the troops home ASAP?

Why would we do that when we could claim "Mission accomplished", declare ourselves victors, and bring all the troops home ASAP?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

So, should the US just give up, admit defeat and bring all the troops home ASAP?

Why would we do that when we could claim "Mission accomplished", declare ourselves victors, and bring all the troops home ASAP?

Blues,
Dave

You forgot the "give medals to all the generals" bit.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skymiles 3]

Without a massive increase in troops on the ground and a new strategy to win (or any strategy for that matter), there are only two choices 1) withdraw in defeat or 2) stay and be defeated. The only difference is the US body count.

Phil

[freethefly 6]

Quote

To do so would abandon the other 30+ countries that are in Iraq with us as part of the coalition.

Current members of the "Coalition" not counting the U.S. is 18

U.S. 100,000+ troops

1000 - 10,000
UK 7,500
Australia 1000+
S. Korea 2300

100 - 999
Poland 900
Georgia 800
Denmark 550
El Salvador 380
Azerbaijan 250
Mongolia 131
Albania 120
Latvia 136
Slovakia 110

Less than 100

Bosnia 36
Estonia 35
Macrdonia 33
Kazakhstan 29
Maldova 12
____________
For a total of 14,322, just about half are ground troops, hell they might as well go home and enjoy their lifes.

21 Countries that have withdrawn
Canada
Japan
Italy
Portugal
Ukraine
Bulgaria
Nicaragua
Spain
Honduras
Dominican Republic
Norway
Phillippines
Thialand
Singapore
Hungary
New Zealand
Tonga
Iceland
Romania
Cz Republic
Armania

POSTED ON OCTOBER 5, 2006:

Bush has a COW

The U.S., it turns out, paid off its coalition partners

By Jim Hightower

When George W. Bush talks publicly about his war in Iraq, he always points to his multinational partners, dubbing them the “coalition of the willing” — or COW.

But who are these partners, and how willing are they, really? Actually, of 192 nations in the world, only 48 — including such mighty military machines as Estonia, Latvia, Micronesia, and the Solomon Islands — signed up for the COW. Of these 48 nations, only 39 sent any troops at all, with 32 sending fewer than a thousand each, including many who sent only noncombat personnel. Of the 39 countries contributing troops, 17 have already withdrawn them and another seven are drawing down theirs this year.

If these nations seem to have a very shaky commitment to Bush’s COW, wait until you hear this: Bush has paid many of them to become our “partners in war.” It’s received little publicity, but the Pentagon runs a special Coalition Solidarity Fund that slips payments to many COW members, essentially buying their involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In 2005, for example, we taxpayers paid to airlift 2,400 Polish troops to Iraq, then we built their camps for them and provided equipment. On top of this, we simply gave $57 million to Poland from that solidarity fund. Meanwhile, Poland is planning to withdraw all of its troops from Iraq next year.

The “coalition” was constructed by the Bushites at the start of their war to try giving it an image of international legitimacy, but, as international security expert Patricia Weitsman writes, “Few people worldwide believe that the U.S. pays attention to the interests of others when making policy decisions. . . . The perception of America as unilateralist is pervasive.”

Bush’s COW is a papier-mâché fraud constructed of our money, just another in his endless war of lies.

Jim Hightower is a national radio commentator, columnist, and author.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Amazon 7]

Quote

You forgot the "give medals to all the generals" bit.

Dont forget Medals of Freedom all around for the Administration officials who went to war without knowing what war is all about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Medal_of_Freedom

[slug 1]

Quote

Quote

So, should the US just give up, admit defeat and bring all the troops home ASAP?

Why would we do that when we could claim "Mission accomplished", declare ourselves victors, and bring all the troops home ASAP?

Blues,
Dave

Bingo we have a winner
The american generals in the sandbox have already redefined thier mission so it will be accomplished.

A military victory (us vs them) is no longer a goal. The new goal is to train the iraqi army to take over what we started so that we can claim mission accomplished and go home.

Whatever happens after we've accomplished our new mission and leave victorious is on the new Iraqi army. To bad if their defeated for whatever reason.

The coalition forces I agree with the other writer the coalition is a propaganda smoke screen.

regarless how long we stay, how many troops we lose, how much money we spend if we win or lose, after we leave the result is going to be the same

[FlyinDawg 0]

If US accept defeat in Iraq, would it be first US lost the war in America wars history? Am I right?

Flyin' Dawg or SkyDog


"To understand is to forgive, even oneself."

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

If US accept defeat in Iraq, would it be first US lost the war in America wars history? Am I right?

See this to understand why the US cannot lose.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lummy 4]

Quote

If US accept defeat in Iraq, would it be first US lost the war in America wars history? Am I right?

I think Vietnam holds that honor

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[FlyinDawg 0]

Quote

Quote

If US accept defeat in Iraq, would it be first US lost the war in America wars history? Am I right?

I think Vietnam holds that honor

US have no victory nor defeat in Vietnam war. It's just friggin' communist war.

Flyin' Dawg or SkyDog


"To understand is to forgive, even oneself."

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

"Speak incomprehensibly and whack with a big stick".

LMAO

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Canada never sent any tropps to Iraq II. The only Canadian troops ever to fight in Iraq II were those already stationed in the US military.

Hence, Canada never withdrew any troops from Iraq II.

[Tonto 1]

Quote

US have no victory nor defeat in Vietnam war.

What? 50 000+ dead, complete withdrawal from the country in such haste the landing helicopters needed to be bulldozed off the ships to make room for others, and you see no defeat?

t

It's the year of the Pig.