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: Cogito who wrote (36768)	4/24/2007 4:12:16 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541986

One problem with your simple statement is that it so narrowly defines the scope of the war. The war didn't end when our occupation of Baghdad began, or when George Bush stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier and said it did. Another problem is that it really doesn't mean anything. We won! Say it until you're blue in the face, but what exactly is it that was so great about that? If you want to view the war as ending when Baghdad fell, then you could say that the armed forces of the most powerful nation on earth won a war against the disorganized, poorly trained, and poorly equipped army of a tiny country led by a delusional despot. Hurrah! And look at the results! To me, that "victory" doesn't seem to be something to be proud of. Well, we agree that there are better ways to describe what is going on in Iraq today than as a loss or defeat in "war". But it still amazes me how people have a "reaction" to the idea that there was a traditional war in Iraq - the coalition versus the existing Iraqi government - and the coalition won. It's clear and indisputable, but so many people just can't bring themselves to say it. It is narrowly defined - coalition versus the former regime. It doesn't argue that either Iraq or the coalition members are better off as a result. It doesn't argue that it is an achievement the coalition should be proud of, or that there is anything "great" involved. It doesn't say anything about the situation which followed the defeat of Iraq's former government. It's just a simple fact. That so many people have such a strong reaction against it is strange. They want to broaden the definition of "war" to include providing electricity, education, health care and zero crime to the defeated government's population. Does providing electricity sounds like an act of war to you? They want to say (as you did) that there is nothing "great" or "to be proud of" in the outcome, no deeper "meaning" to the statement, although nothing great or to be proud of or deeper meaning was ever claimed in the simple statement.