Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (52886)	11/3/2006 4:04:24 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

>>Our enemy, the terrorists, will never stop fighting us. So your definition of victory is unattainable. Back to mine. If winning is defined by accomplishing the three stated reasons we entered Iraq (depose Saddam, extinguish WMD threat, bring 'democracy' to Iraqi people), we already 'won' this war a year-and-a-half ago when the Iraqis elected their government. If winning is defined by a state of little or no violence in Iraq, we are not winning and never will. IMO.<< Bill - Yes, you said all of that before. Well as I said, I see no evidence that we're winning, or that we can win. It's just possible that using "war" as the main tool against terrorism is the wrong course of action. Is there any chance of you answering the question I put to the thread about this, by the way? In your opinion, are we winning in Iraq, as our President says we are? HInt: To answer that question, you'd have to select a definition for winning. - Allen