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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (36680)	4/22/2007 3:53:21 PM
From: Cogito	Respond to of 541933

>>However, the part that most resembles what you average person considers a "war" was the coalition versus Saddam's regime, and I'm still surprised at people who are hesitant to say the coalition won that war hands down. Whether it has positive or negative results for the US, the coalition won that war. Whether rebuilding a stable regime for the people of Iraq is also part of another "war" is debatable, but in that it is US goals thay may not succeed, but to call a lack of success in building a stable environment the same as losing a war trivializes the reality of losing a war. When you lose wars, you don't turn the channel to watch American Idol while planning summer vacations in Vegas, you look for food.<< Elroy - Argentina lost the Falklands war in 1982, but that didn't leave the Argentineans looking for food. Let's look at this a different way. When you win a war, your troops stop being killed, and they get to come home. Plus, you get to dictate terms of surrender and have your way with regard to what happens next in the defeated country. Our invasion may have toppled Saddam, but the Baathist insurgency began immediately after that. We never really got the upper hand against the insurgents. The conflict then morphed into the multi-sided civil war that continues to produce both Iraqi and American casualties. If that's a victory, it's a pyhrric one. - Allen