What do the US and Allies have to do to "Win" The war in Iraq?

[Zip]

Im asking this because of these reasons.

The Regime that America and the Allies went up against in Iraq got wiped out, They people and road blocks in just about ever corner of Iraq.
They took control of the Capital City, Captured there Leader and Have captured or killed all but 10 of the 55 most wanted people(the Deck of playing cards)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._list_of_most-wanted_Iraqis
They have managed to get people to Vote Democratically for there Leader.
They have been training up Troops and Police forces.

I would say that should be good enough to be classed as winning a war.


But that doesnt seem good enough to be classed as winning the war because of this:

They never Found any WMDs.
They couldnt Stop a lot of people kicking up a fuss and trying to destroy anything western.
They haven't completely rebuilt the Citys and regions yet.
They havnt managed to Stop insurgents.


Now if they did end up finding WMD would people say they have won?
Well thats easy to answer, it would be No. Reason? People will suspect they planted them.

Can they Stop the Iraqi People From kicking up a fuss?
No not really because if they do that they will have to use Suppression and fear tactics just like Saddam did to control them.

Can they rebuild the Citys and Regions?
They can try but it isnt easy when you have 2 different groups shooting at you and at each over blowing things up every where around you.

Can they Stop the Insurgents?
Probably not, They will keep coming from all the Arab nations and even western nations But they arnt the actual Iraqi military or regime we went into destroy.



Now IMO The Allies Won the war but then got Stuck in the Rebuilding Process.
They Won The military side of things, the invasion, they completely removed the Regime.
But then they couldnt rebuild and retrain and then a Civil War broke out and its seems its now a whole new war with them stuck in the middle trying to.
They Failed with the Logistics part.
But no one can say the military didnt do what they were supposed to do.

Pulling out wouldn't mean they have failed, it will just mean they didnt get enough support to rebuild and fix the country from the locals.

Thats my Opinion anyway, Whats yours? :)

[Zengotten]

I say that the "War on Terror" as it is called, isn't going to be won untill we have stopped "terrorism" (whatever we think terrorism means.).

[Zip]

The war on Iraq and the War on Terror are 2 different wars i thought:)

[|:XAS:| Bravo]

Technically not a war. We haven't had a war since Vietnam. OIF is generally part of the WOT.

You can't win in logistics, war is ever changing.

Yeah pull out... but then you have Vietnam all over again, then we lose.

The mission is Iraqi Freedom, until that mission is accomplished we haven't won. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When the citizens are being oppressed and killed by extremist groups then the mission isn't done.

I remember watching a show about a former terrorist who planned to blow up a coffee shop in Israel I think it was. He said he didn't do it because the rule was to not kill any Muslims. Today it's all different, they kill other Muslims, even when no westerners are around.

[SWAT Pointman]

We did give them freedom, and they're using that freedom to blow eachother up. And I doubt the fighting will ever stop until we leave.
And I'm frankly sick of our country being hated by the world because of this war.

[Combine]

Mr. Bush really dragged us all into a big quagmire in my opinion...

[SpicEwEazle]

We can't "win", there is just no way it's possible. Iraq was invaded under false pretences(it has SFA to do with al-queda and there were no WMDS). Corruption and poor supervision has squandered most of the "aid" money, so the infrastructure is in a worse condition then pre-invasion iraq. This leaves the iraqi popullace feeling pretty pissed. Throw in pro-saddam insurgence attacking US troops, then slowing muslims clerics using there militias against the U.S. finally it escalates to more open bombings, killing shi'ite and sunni civillians, and WHAM the undercurrent of ethnic tension boils over and we get full scale civil war.

iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, and it was intrusive U.S foreign pollicy that started this whole thing. It gave fuckwits an excuse to ligitamise and popullarise the Anti u.s sentiment under the guise of a holy crusade.

The only way things in iraq will be resolved is to leave and let them finish this civil war on their own.

[2ltben]

There are a number of fundamental problems in Iraq that need to be fixed before stability can be achieved. The government must function properly, which it does nominally, but the legislature just doesn't have that much power, and in order to get popular support from the people, the tribes need a say in government.

This leads to the security, they need to provide their own. The ISF is notoriously corrupt, prone to infiltration, and almost entirely ineffective at antimilitant and antipartisan functions.

Really, everything we need to see was outlined by the US government right after the beginning of the invasion, although I strongly disagree with their timeline and priorities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Strategy_for_Victory_in_Iraq

I think we'll see a stable Palestine before we see a stable Iraq. Palestine's in more or less the same situation and they've been at it longer.

[JonasDahlin]

Yeah pull out... but then you have Vietnam all over again, then we lose.


Iraq is already a new vietnam.

This is a bit interesting

"Six in ten Americans (60%) believe that the United States’ military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing"

"Among Iraqis, 78 percent believe that the U.S. military presence is provoking more conflict than it is preventing according to the September 2006 WPO poll."

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/283.php?nid=&id=&pnt=283&lb=hmpg1




The mission is Iraqi Freedom, until that mission is accomplished we haven't won. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When the citizens are being oppressed and killed by extremist groups then the mission isn't done.

Do you really belive that bollox yourself? :rolleyes:

[2ltben]

Bravo, you should really read up more on Arabic culture.

If you can correctly answer the following question, you may know what you're talking about:

What ethnicities live in Iran and Afghanistan?

[enigma]

We haven't had a war since Vietnam

What about all those islands and centeral americans countries you (not you personally) have invaded, the Gulf War, the Balkans etc?


They never Found any NBC weapons.
Iirc in the opening days of the war they found warhouses full of chems, cant remember what happened about that.
Theres also been warheads used in roadside bombs which have contained chemical weapons.

Prehaps not the masive horde but ...

Also what the hell was on the cargo ships which left Iraq just before war was decalred and were in international waters when the fighting started meaning we couldnt board them or something. I remember the news mentioning there was something very fishy about them but then nothing else as ever been mentioned about them...

What are you supose to think when you read things like this:

One of Saddam’s generals, General Georges Sada, has come forward with claims that Saddam moved his “special weapons” out of Iraq, to Syria in late summer 2002. He allegedly did this under the guise of humanitarian aid flights to Syria after there was a dam burst in July, and the shipments were made on modified civilian planes, by pilots Sada knows personally.

On June 17, 2002, the Times of London reported that Iraqi nuclear centrifuge parts were being smuggled out of Syria-originally stored at the port of Tartus, they had been moved to Damascus International Airport and moved to points unknown from there-effectively corroborating Sada’s story.

He has pubically stated that the country had NBC weapons and they moved them ...

Another example,


In December 2002, Russia’s Middle East envoy, Yevgeny Primakov (former Russian Intelligence Chief), flew to Baghdad under the front of making one last chance for peace with the dictator. As soon as his plane landed, it was allegedly loaded with “sensitive materials” and flown directly to Belarus.

Theres loads of stories of planes and ships shipping out material to Russia, east bloc countires or friendly neibours etc
of skirmishes on the borders between allied forces and Iraq/syrian/russians forces etc
of massive columns of iraqi trucks heading for Syria etc

The basic jist of it is, we didnt find any NBC weapons because they had been moved ... we know Saddam had them and had used them ... did they all simly just disappear .. did the dicator just get rid of them when the democratic countries of the world wont get rid of theres...

He played everyone for a fool and shipped them on out, poured them down the drain, buried them or/and drove them out the country... lol hes dead but he won! Hes the real victor...


As for what you said about planting them ... i think we should of to honest ... thousands of bloody nukes sitting off in bunkers and silos am sure they wouldnt have missed one ... just another figure for the guys monitoring MUF :p :D


As for the question

What do the US and Allies have to do to "Win" The war in Iraq?
2 very simple things...


Send more troops
Kill more Iraqis


War won!

:p


Things will be very different when am in charge!

[colonal chaos]

Mr. Bush really dragged us all into a big quagmire in my opinion...

Correct me if i'm wrong but didn't the majority of Americans want to go to war with Iraq?

[enigma]

Correct me if i'm wrong but didn't the majority of Americans want to go to war with Iraq?

Yep its the wonderful thing called democary where we all vote in favour and then betray everyone the momment it looks a tad hairy

[Kaos]

Correct me if i'm wrong but didn't the majority of Americans want to go to war with Iraq?

Probably, but that was after they and the rest of the world were subjected to propaganda and lies regarding Saddam Hussein's links to Al Qaeda and 9/11, Weapons of Mass Destruction, an imminent threat to 'freedom', conjuring up old Gulf War tales; "He tried to kill my Daddy" etc.

If the majority of the public were made aware of the fact there were no WMD's in Iraq, Saddam had no links to Al Qaeda, Iraq was planning to destroy freedom, democracy and the world as we know it they may not have been a war. Or at the very least some decent debate might have ensued regarding the proper course of action to take and setting some decent aims and goals. None of which actually happened.

[scottdog]

If America really wants to win, they would need to take extreem measures like hitler did. They would need to set up prison camps for all Suspected, have a high tolerence for casulties and get rid of democracy. Then mabye there will be some controll.

[enigma]

Kaos ... what about teh war which never ended. We had been at war with Iraq since 1991, no one cared then...
Where were the protestors agered about Cheyna, Sudan, Chinas occupation of Tibet and countless other conflicts around the world?


were made aware of the fact there were no NBC weapons in Iraq,

What about the evidence...

He had them
He had used them before
Saddam Ex Generals and Scientists have said he had them
Ex Generals have said it was taken out the country
The evidence which shows allot of material was shipped, flown or driven out of the country



an imminent threat to 'freedom'
Was it not the case the Freedom portion of it was brought up in regards to his own people and there lack of...

[Corporate Ignorance]

Enigma, let's make it straight= what do you think about the fact that all Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons were built with help and advice of American establishment?
And that while Saddam was commiting his worst atrocities, U.S. KNEW about them perfectly, and was his close ally, and after massacre of Kurds(of wich were known) simply continued to fund Iraqi military complex and provided everything for building of chemical weapons? For several years after the atrocities. Given fact. Rumsfield gave golden spurrs to Saddam. Saddam was ok until he invaded Kuwiet and started to act without orders from his master. Colin Powell knew about mass killings back in the 80s.

So, if America is following a noble and moral path(although if we look upon official Human Watch statistics on civilain looses(I posted it in Iraqi thread) and see the pictures of the crippled babies one already can DOUBT the goverment logic) where was their moral in the eighties? And earlier. In East Timor? In Greece? in Nicaragua?

Did you know that U.S. is THE ONLY country that is condemned by the world court? Yeah, yeah...For the unathorized and overly-agressive use of violence and military arms. That means something. I still can't understand how you belive in "moral" line of corporate intrest.

Hypocrasy.

[enigma]

Who has spoken of morals ... i know perfectly well that the West ... see the west not just America funded Iraq and supplied them with weapons, convential and NBC along with milatry training ... and so did Russia (unless of course, the UK, France or American uses Scuds and T72s).

I think they should have finidhed the job in 91 damm the alliance so you can shove the hypocarcy talk ;)

Also you keep saying its America this, its America that. You always leave out the rest of the world who have followed this "noble and moral path" and the majoirty of those countires who supported the war (a few hundred thousand protestors are not the majoirty).

[OliverMarshall]

They need to equip and pay the security forces more. The Taliban pay their soldiers about $200 a month in Afghanistan whilst the polics are paid less than $100 and are equiped with old AK-47's which don't work. Most of the money to pay for the fighters comes from Italy since most of the leather that they use comes from Osama's farms in Sierra Leon and places. Also they need to assasinate people, such as militia leaders, this would strongly help in the war against the insurgents.

[Corporate Ignorance]

I think they should have finidhed the job in 91 damm the alliance so you can shove the hypocarcy talk ;)

.

It seems that you think that I admire our Russian leaders and Soviet Union policy in particular? Not at all. I hate it. So I don't see an objection here really-If America is doing shitty things, does it mean that if others do shitty things it stands as excuse for America, especially if we take into view that modern American ideology indeed often applies to high moral standards...We all question the given "justified" reasons behind the war...That is crucial point, to my mind.

I speak about America because it's the only superpower left in the world, and it still the same. Modern Russia is weak and America is MUCH more powerful- U.S. spends as much money every year only on military budget as Russian goverment spends on entire budget of Russian Federation. So, Russia is a Third World country with lots of nuclear weapons.

So, you think that if majority belives in something, it can't be wrong? Hitler was democratically elected ruler, supported by overwhelming majority of people not only in Germany, but he was admired worldwide.
In 1917 Revolution the majority also decided to see what Bolsheviks will bring.
Don't trust the mass. Majority can be a very dangerous tool of the state. Our modern media is dedicated to creating obidient majority. It's the law of public relations.

"a few hundred thousand protestors are not the majoirty"

As for several hundred thousands protesters-
Actually, Iraq war is a unique war in the sense of protest- because it's a unique thing in human history when the war caused protests in such numbers before the actual start.

Europe saw the biggest mobilization of protesters in human history, actually. Including a rally of 3 million people in Rome, which is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally.

Millions of people protested, in approximately 800 cities around the world. Listed by the 2004 Guinness Book of Records as the largest protest in human history, protests occurred among others in the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, Ireland, the United States, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Syria, India, Russia, South Korea, Japan, and even McMurdo Station in Antarctica. The largest demonstration this day occurred in London, where 2,000,000 protesters gathered in Hyde Park.

According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.
And that is only in 2003. There was also a 2002.

In 2004, 2005,2006,2007 there were much more numerous and active protests- consult the wikipedia-

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

[enigma]

Where were those protestors when we were bombing Iraq during the 90s?
Where were those protestors over any other war in the history of mankind which got started over the stupidest reasons?

Every war is "justified" to whoever goes and starts it ... where are these protestors?
Why don’t they care about ... lets pick a few from the current ongoing wars around the world:

Burman and Columbian insurgencies
Chinese occupation of Tibet
Russia against the Chechens
Turkey against the Kurds

Why don’t they get out in equal numbers over them?

Also why is it when some of these protestors are put on the spot they cant give a decent answer to why they oppose the war ... that some of that are just sheep on the bandwagon so to speak.

You can cite the few million people who protested, but facts are facts ... the majority of people supported the war, the majority in our nations parliament supported the war.
These figures only start falling when everyone then starts stabbing each other in the back as time goes on (i.e. the politicians who said they supported the war now changing there mind because of xyz etc).

Consulting your link it would show that the number of protestors have dropped dramatically as time as gone on, where are all these people who were out on the streets?
In fact the last one on that list in March drew an equal number of "pro-War" people as well.


So, you think that if majority believes in something, it can't be wrong? Hitler was democratically elected ruler, supported by overwhelming majority of people not only in Germany, but he was admired worldwide.

Not that it can’t be wrong but that it’s democratically what the people want.

If i want and stood outside parliament demanding 100 million pounds for me ... well that’s just me a minority ... there not going to give in … if 30 million people stood with me in support of my demand I think they would possibly change there minds.

As for Hitler, he was a political genius ... and what the people wanted a strong leader who then put a load of people back into work, started major construction works, started youth programmes etc
Its want any country wants really, a strong leader supporting the country etc

If any of them had possibly read his book or started to question the stance which there government had started to take against certain religious and political groups who knows …


In 1917 Revolution the majority also decided to see what Bolsheviks will bring.
Well the Bolsheviks was the minority movement, wasn’t it a case of they didn’t win nor have the backing of the majority during the revolution? ;)

As for the first two paragraphs, because America is the only Superpower (what about China? Or what political commentators would call the Great Powers) left we should just focus our attention on there conduct ... meh who cares about all the other wars anyway!

[-X-Sublime]

more men at the hight of the veitnam war we had 2.5 MILLION and that was still not enough and now in iraq we only have 135,000 140,000 no where near enoguh to maintain control

[Corporate Ignorance]

There are simple answers to your questions...:)
1. Where were those protesters during other wars..There are several reasons, as I can see it-
that is easy to explain- America is now the center of the world- I mean, it's so powerful and its inluence both spiritual and material, is so great that such act as an act of war draws much more attention to the activites of the Americans who control both hemispheres, then to a conflict in some God forsaken hole with unprounouncable name , of which noone(among general population) even aware of. Information regarding Iraq is much more accesible.

It's the OFFICIAL war of the most powerful country in the world whose influence and impact upon every sphere of human life is huge. That's why people know about it. It's the major conflict, involving a great country.
But here are other reasons as well-
American and European civilizations are very introverted. They don't know much about the world- not because they are stupid, but just because media works that way.

Occupation of Tibet is UNKOWN for general population. It's not the matter of debate on T.V. They are not making anti-war movies. Noone gives a damn about those issues. That's right. Ecxept few activists and people who analyze world affairs and try to keep an open mind.
Noone knows about Columbian or Burman insurgency. Because it dosen't exist for average consumer of European civilization.
The chances for us to see Ronald MacDonald or Paris Hilton in the media are much higher then to see about massacre in Congo with objective analyses. Given fact. But I have to repeat myself- if there are no protests against any given war, it dosen't make the war any better, don't you think? That is my point.

If majority of humanity like to eat hamburgers , dream about Christina Aguliera, it dosen't mean that what is happening is right and protests are worthless, and there are no people who are against it. It just proves that people are simply UNAWARE of what is happening in this world.

They are content in their information vacuum. If media tried to draw more attention to Angola, belive me much more people would scratch their hread and say"Hell, why this is happening?" Because peopel are not that bad. They still can feel empathy.

But even now there are people who knows- hundreds of millions- they are against wars. And we should stick with them, I guess...Or else- Iraqi war is a vivid example.

2.America-Superpower?
China IS MUCH weaker. China and Japan form the Asian most powerful states, but their inluence, their economic, geopolitical capability(for now) are far, far below U.S. And U.S has the strongest and most well-equiped armed forces in the world, and spends huge sums(bigger then budgets of many, many countries) on investments in industrial-military complex.
And America, still, however expiriencing troubles, is the strongest country in the world. You will object that?:)
America is the Empire. It's very, very, very infuential country. It used all means, including violent and unlawful, to keep their influence-

we have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population....In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity....To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives....We should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.
George Kennan, headed the State Department planning staff of the U.S. until 1950

[dominicus]

Zip: obviously we won the military part. WHO DIDN'T EXPECT THAT? The U.S. has the best, most advanced military in the world. We're good at killing.

As for us 'holding the capital city' or training the Iraqi troops and police forces, that is not really happening. U.S. commanders and generals constantly say that Baghdad is not really under control and that Iraqi army and police could not handle anything by themselves.

I don't know why you want that 'victory' label so much when it's really difficult, if not impossible to attain. The only victory that counts much is how Iraq stands today and the situation right now is still very ugly.

Also, I hope you don't mind me asking, but is English your second language? Use a spell-checker..

[enigma]

In regards to point 1, exactlly if its not on TV or advertised all over the place it appears they really just dont give a crap so what does that say ... do they truly even care (i understand some must, but all those people who protested).

[2ltben]

I tried finding the second torture scene from Three Kings to make my point, but this was the best I could do
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSCil1bGCXo

Though on a lighter note
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxwSoSELiz0

*edit*
This is the scene I'm talking about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNv5vAZtyUc

[|Crimson|]

Yes, Enigma. They would care, if they knew about it. But unfortunately the majority of people are very busy with their own lives and maybe catch the 10 o'clock news if they are lucky.

Therefore, most people in Europe and America are heavily swayed by mainstream media, such as the BBC.

[Xeathos]

Well, They could GET OUT of there and let them fight each other, then go back and clean up the mess untill we controll the territories, OR..
We could declare it a "War" and send many many soldiers over there to controll it strictly...