Victory?

~~SH4President~~ · Mar 27, 2003, 08:34 PM

I wanna ask the people on here that supports the war what they consider a victorius end too the war?

Mar 27, 2003, 11:50 PM

Saddam killed or exiled/imprisoned Iraq unarmed the country rebuilt and a new democratic government

Falstaff · Mar 28, 2003, 04:02 AM

regardless of how long it takes, may the inheritence of the children be a country on it's way to democratic reforms, A strong economy, and an educational system worthy of any great nation, and a chance to stand shoulder to shoulder with the great nations of the world, without recrimination..

~~SH4President~~ · Mar 28, 2003, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by generalstupid
Saddam killed or exiled/imprisoned Iraq unarmed the country rebuilt and a new democratic government

And how long do You think this will take, couple of weeks?
I would say about 2-5years. Are US-forces going to stay in Iraq that long?

Falstaff · Mar 28, 2003, 05:40 AM

We are going to wrap this up soon, if you don't count the support that will exist after the war, and the rebuilding process, I can see this lasting alot longer than 2 to 5 years, it took Germany and Japan a little longer, because we resurrected their economies, I doubt we will have to do that for IRAQ

Smoothdrive · Mar 28, 2003, 08:42 AM

A safe, stable, democratic, prosperous Iraq is victory IMO..this implies Saddam has to go of course.

This will take 2-5 years indeed..i think UN forces have their job cut out for them..unfortunatelly the same countries that helped Saddam stall for time are now saying they will not help..scrap the UN..the Coalition should set up a new organisation that is a "new and improved" UN and they will help rebuild Iraq.

radTube · Mar 28, 2003, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Smoothdrive
This will take 2-5 years indeed..i think UN forces have their job cut out for them..unfortunatelly the same countries that helped Saddam stall for time are now saying they will not help..scrap the UN..the Coalition should set up a new organisation that is a "new and improved" UN and they will help rebuild Iraq.

The UN is just saying that the rebuilding is the responsibility of the agressor as the war was started without their consent. I can see the logic in that.

Heh, the last sentence about a new UN is a joke right? You might not believe this but it is not supposed to be an US/UK organization for controlling the rest of us.

Smoothdrive · Mar 28, 2003, 09:36 AM

No it was not a joke unfotunatelly..The UN has proven powerless due to it's veto's before this war and is threatening to abandon it's believes in the aftermath by not aiding Iraq in rebuilding..if this happens than i'ld rather see the coalition set up a new organisation ..(only US & UK ?? What about the other 30+ countries supporting this war ??)

If the UN fails at both actively keeping the world secure and fails to help a country rebuild after war than the UN no longer has a base of existence..i'ld rather see a new organisation taking over in that case.

~~SH4President~~ · Mar 28, 2003, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Smoothdrive
No it was not a joke unfotunatelly..The UN has proven powerless due to it's veto's before this war and is threatening to abandon it's believes in the aftermath by not aiding Iraq in rebuilding..if this happens than i'ld rather see the coalition set up a new organisation ..(only US & UK ?? What about the other 30+ countries supporting this war ??)

If the UN fails at both actively keeping the world secure and fails to help a country rebuild after war than the UN no longer has a base of existence..i'ld rather see a new organisation taking over in that case.

You are a funny guy.
UN fails too keep the world secure??!!
US has invaded Iraq and you blame the UN??!!
And the organiztion that should take over from UN should be lead by USA??!!
Are you an comlete idiot or have you been smooking too much?
And why should UN-countries like France and Germany pay for the rebuild of Iraq when it is the USA that has done the damage?
Why should UN-forces haveto deal with the anger and rage of the Iraque people when main war is over? I hope you dont believe the shit about the Iraque people greating US-forces with white flags?
If you believe that you probably believe it will be a quick war too.

Smoothdrive · Mar 28, 2003, 02:04 PM

Yes thank you, you seem very inteligent as well when you reply like this

Smoothdrive · Mar 28, 2003, 03:07 PM

Well ok..here goes

UN fails to keep the world safe -> Not attacking Iraq is making the world more dangerous by the day..so yes fail to attack is fail to keep the world safe.

US invasion and blaim the UN -> Not exactly, i would rather have seen an attack with UN support..but as we have seen one man can say "i won't even read it i'll just veto against" thus the lack of democracy in the UN has caused this attack by the Coalition without UN support.

Organisation take over from the UN -> Yes..either that or the UN should reform dratically
Lead by the US -> That's your words, not mine..i only suggested that the US would set it up, not lead it..this time it should be without veto's and based on democracy

UN countries rebuild Iraq -> since it is the moral obligation of any UN memeber to help rebuild any country after any war..regardeless of who started it..besides no one hads to pay for rebuilding Iraq..Iraq is rich enough to cough up the funds itself..they just need organisational help.

Quick war -> It IS a quick war so far..just over one week and "only" Bagdad left to conquer
and some other cities to secure. It will take more time to finish this thing of course.

Hope that answers all of your questions

BWX · Mar 28, 2003, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fallang_jeff
regardless of how long it takes, may the inheritence of the children be a country on it's way to democratic reforms, A strong economy, and an educational system worthy of any great nation, and a chance to stand shoulder to shoulder with the great nations of the world, without recrimination..

???????????

So we won't have one the WAR until Iraq has a good school system? and whatever else...
You have got the word WAR mixed up w/ post war liberation/nation building- Winning a war has nothing to do with what happens after- The winning of the war is when we rid the nation of an evil dictator and then we can BEGIN to do those things.
I guess this view is starting so that people can say "see, you didn't win yet" 1,2,5,10 years after the war has been over and done with.

If Saddam is gone and we as a world can start to freely help those poor people in Iraq, THAT is when we have won the war. I am sure no matter what there will be people that will never except the fact that the US won the war when we do anyway.

BWX · Mar 28, 2003, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by radTube
Heh, the last sentence about a new UN is a joke right? You might not believe this but it is not supposed to be an US/UK organization for controlling the rest of us.

Are you saying that there are only 2 countries in the coalition? You haven't been given the true facts my friend.

GOG · Mar 28, 2003, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BWX232
Are you saying that there are only 2 countries in the coalition? You haven't been given the true facts my friend.

Then please tell me why I only see American and Brittish officers bragging about their success in my TV. Tell me why it's only American and Brittish bombs that kill the civilians.

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 28, 2003, 07:29 PM

Spain is in the coalition..Currently 9 out of ten Spaniards is against this and their current prime minister risks loosing his job....because of it..

And then there is Denmark...that has sent one submarine ans one smaller ship to the area.

Maybe there are more..i dont know...Holland?

Bluelight

GOG · Mar 28, 2003, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
Spain is in the coalition..Currently 9 out of ten Spaniards is against this and their current prime minister risks loosing his job....because of it..

And then there is Denmark...that has sent one submarine ans one smaller ship to the area.

Maybe there are more..i dont know...Holland?

Bluelight

Yes I know, Spain has sent no units what so ever, Denmark has sent a submarine and a corvette to a desert war... What I meant was that this is a American/British operation from the beginning to the end (mostly American). I think that Australia and Poland has some units there as well.

BWX · Mar 28, 2003, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
Spain is in the coalition..Currently 9 out of ten Spaniards is against this and their current prime minister risks loosing his job....because of it..

And then there is Denmark...that has sent one submarine ans one smaller ship to the area.

Maybe there are more..i dont know...Holland?

Bluelight

You people live in a dreamworld. If you think there are only 2 countries in the coalition you need to go read a non-bias newspaper or watch a non-bias news channel.

~~bluelight~~ · Mar 28, 2003, 10:30 PM

Well give us the names of those contributing to the coalition with troops apart from Spain and Denmark...

You may be right...i dont know...oh yeah....now i remember...Australia sent people....apart from that....?

It doesnt really matter.It is an American enterprise.

Bluelight

Falstaff · Mar 29, 2003, 05:27 AM

It really doesn't matter who is in the "COALITION". it is a concert of military and economic powers that haven't set a foot in IRAQ, Many world powers are going to make a huge profit on the war in IRAQ, and it isn't going to be who you think....

JavaFox · Mar 29, 2003, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BWX232
You people live in a dreamworld. If you think there are only 2 countries in the coalition you need to go read a non-bias newspaper or watch a non-bias news channel.

Actually, there are 40. Now, granted, only the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia have sent troops, but many other nations support this endeavor. Spain, Italy, Japan, and much of East Europe mind.

GOG · Mar 29, 2003, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
Actually, there are 40. Now, granted, only the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia have sent troops, but many other nations support this endeavor. Spain, Italy, Japan, and much of East Europe mind.

And how many nations are members in the UN? Well, I'll tell you, there are 191. Do you consider 40/191 to be a majority?

Falstaff · Mar 30, 2003, 12:32 AM

What does a majority have to do with anything? Are you looking for an argument or are you making a point? You might find more satisfaction criticizing the U.N. rather than those countries that have to soldier on regardless of the ineffectiveness of the great "social compact" started long ago...what is your point?

~~SH4President~~ · Mar 30, 2003, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fallang_jeff
What does a majority have to do with anything? Are you looking for an argument or are you making a point? You might find more satisfaction criticizing the U.N. rather than those countries that have to soldier on regardless of the ineffectiveness of the great "social compact" started long ago...what is your point?

I realize that you as an american dont understand what the majority has to do with anything.
After all you have a president that didnt get most of the votes in the last election.

In the rest of the world we call it democracy when the majority rules.
But I dont acspect you as an american to understand that.

ToshiroOC · Mar 30, 2003, 03:09 AM

Please, SH4President, no snide comments like that. Check your PM.

JavaFox · Mar 30, 2003, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SH4President
I realize that you as an american dont understand what the majority has to do with anything.
After all you have a president that didnt get most of the votes in the last election.
In the rest of the world we call it democracy when the majority rules.
But I dont acspect you as an american to understand that.

SH, from your post, I assume that you are not an American. As such, I can understand that you may not know all that much about our political system. I would be glad to educate you. Our president is not directly elected based on the votes of the people; he is elected by a somewhat elaborate body called the electoral college. It is a different system.

Now, then, whether you are aware of it or not, many people do not support the democracy that you seem to. The democracy you seem to be referring to is what Aristotle warned us about. Most people reject the "majority always rules / mob rule" you are talking about; most stable "democracies" are in fact, republics of some form.

Falstaff · Mar 30, 2003, 03:31 AM

I am wondering if SH4President watches the media in Europe, and if so, he is just as vulnerable to suggestion as many americans, I know some retired military folks that would refute anything that wasn't printed in soldier of fortune magazine, ha ha.....insults or not, he clearly doesn't understand the American Political system, and embarrasingly enough, neither do many loyal americans....I am not insulted, just dissapointed, he might just have a viable point somewhere, I am paitient, at least he is trying ha ha..

Falstaff · Mar 30, 2003, 03:34 AM

Where do you live, where are you from, how old are you? I am just curious, you don't have to reply, but I am wondering if you are looking for arguments or a debate, I enjoy an opposing view, I have two kids in college, and I get alot every day, ha ha..

raid517 · Mar 30, 2003, 03:45 AM

Well not every democracy is a Republic... But I agree inasmuch as it would be senseless to completely hand power over to majority only rule. If we did then you can guarantee some very crazy laws would be passed. What we have is a representative democracy, where all the views of society can be voiced, regardless of whether those views are in the minority or not. In a representative democracy the views and rights of the minority are very important and are often enshrined in law. I don't know how it works in America... Things are changing fast and who knows where it might end... But at least that's the way we do democracy in the UK.

Q

Falstaff · Mar 30, 2003, 03:52 AM

I know this is another cynical view, but I think we hear alot from americans that abhor war and demonstrate frequently to call attention to their cause, they have that right...but lots of americans I believe, just want a little reality T.V. before they go to bed, and they have no vested interest in what is going on, If you go by the numbers for voters that participated in the last election, and the total number of registered voters and then further include the number of eligible voters, it seems amercians are apathetic about the political process, there is the rub, that is where the devil lies in my opinion. American apathy about the political process, or what I refer to as the "herd mentality" is responsible in some way for the current situaiton from my perspective, but then my canidate won....I didn't like Gore, and never will..when we are victorious and we will be, Will it be a hollow victory, I hope not, I hope we learn something from this..But in a strange Orwellian way, government or "big brother" is carefully closing his grip on the average amercian.....whoops, I am too cynical, ha ha...

~~SH4President~~ · Mar 30, 2003, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JavaFox
SH, from your post, I assume that you are not an American. As such, I can understand that you may not know all that much about our political system. I would be glad to educate you. Our president is not directly elected based on the votes of the people; he is elected by a somewhat elaborate body called the electoral college. It is a different system.

Now, then, whether you are aware of it or not, many people do not support the democracy that you seem to. The democracy you seem to be referring to is what Aristotle warned us about. Most people reject the "majority always rules / mob rule" you are talking about; most stable "democracies" are in fact, republics of some form.

You americans are incredible!!!!!

You say, "Our president is not directly elected based on the votes of the people"!!!!!!!!!
Then the people doesnt decide who becomes president!!
Then USA isnt a democracy!!!

Mar 27, 2003, 08:34 PM	#1
~~SH4President~~ Banned Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 111 Rep Power: 0	Victory? I wanna ask the people on here that supports the war what they consider a victorius end too the war?

Mar 28, 2003, 04:02 AM	#3
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	the children of IRAQ regardless of how long it takes, may the inheritence of the children be a country on it's way to democratic reforms, A strong economy, and an educational system worthy of any great nation, and a chance to stand shoulder to shoulder with the great nations of the world, without recrimination.. __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Mar 28, 2003, 05:40 AM	#5
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	Nah, two months tops We are going to wrap this up soon, if you don't count the support that will exist after the war, and the rebuilding process, I can see this lasting alot longer than 2 to 5 years, it took Germany and Japan a little longer, because we resurrected their economies, I doubt we will have to do that for IRAQ __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Mar 28, 2003, 08:42 AM	#6
Smoothdrive Foolish Genius Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 455 Rep Power: 0	A safe, stable, democratic, prosperous Iraq is victory IMO..this implies Saddam has to go of course. This will take 2-5 years indeed..i think UN forces have their job cut out for them..unfortunatelly the same countries that helped Saddam stall for time are now saying they will not help..scrap the UN..the Coalition should set up a new organisation that is a "new and improved" UN and they will help rebuild Iraq. __________________ GA-7VRXP, AMD2000+, 256MB PC-2700 DDR, Radeon 8500LE, 2x Maxtor 740 (40GB) stripe set, AGNeovo X-150.

Mar 28, 2003, 09:36 AM	#8
Smoothdrive Foolish Genius Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 455 Rep Power: 0	No it was not a joke unfotunatelly..The UN has proven powerless due to it's veto's before this war and is threatening to abandon it's believes in the aftermath by not aiding Iraq in rebuilding..if this happens than i'ld rather see the coalition set up a new organisation ..(only US & UK ?? What about the other 30+ countries supporting this war ??) If the UN fails at both actively keeping the world secure and fails to help a country rebuild after war than the UN no longer has a base of existence..i'ld rather see a new organisation taking over in that case. __________________ GA-7VRXP, AMD2000+, 256MB PC-2700 DDR, Radeon 8500LE, 2x Maxtor 740 (40GB) stripe set, AGNeovo X-150.

Mar 27, 2003, 11:50 PM	#2
generalstupid Guest Posts: n/a	Saddam killed or exiled/imprisoned Iraq unarmed the country rebuilt and a new democratic government

Mar 28, 2003, 02:04 PM	#10
Smoothdrive Foolish Genius Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 455 Rep Power: 0	Yes thank you, you seem very inteligent as well when you reply like this __________________ GA-7VRXP, AMD2000+, 256MB PC-2700 DDR, Radeon 8500LE, 2x Maxtor 740 (40GB) stripe set, AGNeovo X-150.

Mar 28, 2003, 03:07 PM	#11
Smoothdrive Foolish Genius Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 455 Rep Power: 0	Well ok..here goes UN fails to keep the world safe -> Not attacking Iraq is making the world more dangerous by the day..so yes fail to attack is fail to keep the world safe. US invasion and blaim the UN -> Not exactly, i would rather have seen an attack with UN support..but as we have seen one man can say "i won't even read it i'll just veto against" thus the lack of democracy in the UN has caused this attack by the Coalition without UN support. Organisation take over from the UN -> Yes..either that or the UN should reform dratically Lead by the US -> That's your words, not mine..i only suggested that the US would set it up, not lead it..this time it should be without veto's and based on democracy UN countries rebuild Iraq -> since it is the moral obligation of any UN memeber to help rebuild any country after any war..regardeless of who started it..besides no one hads to pay for rebuilding Iraq..Iraq is rich enough to cough up the funds itself..they just need organisational help. Quick war -> It IS a quick war so far..just over one week and "only" Bagdad left to conquer and some other cities to secure. It will take more time to finish this thing of course. Hope that answers all of your questions __________________ GA-7VRXP, AMD2000+, 256MB PC-2700 DDR, Radeon 8500LE, 2x Maxtor 740 (40GB) stripe set, AGNeovo X-150.

Mar 28, 2003, 07:29 PM	#15
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	Spain is in the coalition..Currently 9 out of ten Spaniards is against this and their current prime minister risks loosing his job....because of it.. And then there is Denmark...that has sent one submarine ans one smaller ship to the area. Maybe there are more..i dont know...Holland? Bluelight

Mar 28, 2003, 10:30 PM	#18
~~bluelight~~ Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,328 Rep Power: 0	Well give us the names of those contributing to the coalition with troops apart from Spain and Denmark... You may be right...i dont know...oh yeah....now i remember...Australia sent people....apart from that....? It doesnt really matter.It is an American enterprise. Bluelight

Mar 29, 2003, 05:27 AM	#19
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	Coalition It really doesn't matter who is in the "COALITION". it is a concert of military and economic powers that haven't set a foot in IRAQ, Many world powers are going to make a huge profit on the war in IRAQ, and it isn't going to be who you think.... __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Mar 30, 2003, 12:32 AM	#22
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	your point What does a majority have to do with anything? Are you looking for an argument or are you making a point? You might find more satisfaction criticizing the U.N. rather than those countries that have to soldier on regardless of the ineffectiveness of the great "social compact" started long ago...what is your point? __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Mar 30, 2003, 03:09 AM	#24
ToshiroOC Unbiased. Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 4,812 Rep Power: 0	Please, SH4President, no snide comments like that. Check your PM. __________________ [img][/img] [color=White]Peace be with you, Joe.[/color] Driverheaven Staff Member (Supermoderator)

Mar 30, 2003, 03:31 AM	#26
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	I lived in Europe I am wondering if SH4President watches the media in Europe, and if so, he is just as vulnerable to suggestion as many americans, I know some retired military folks that would refute anything that wasn't printed in soldier of fortune magazine, ha ha.....insults or not, he clearly doesn't understand the American Political system, and embarrasingly enough, neither do many loyal americans....I am not insulted, just dissapointed, he might just have a viable point somewhere, I am paitient, at least he is trying ha ha.. __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Mar 30, 2003, 03:34 AM	#27
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	SH4President Where do you live, where are you from, how old are you? I am just curious, you don't have to reply, but I am wondering if you are looking for arguments or a debate, I enjoy an opposing view, I have two kids in college, and I get alot every day, ha ha.. __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."

Mar 30, 2003, 03:45 AM	#28
raid517 DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 2,518 Rep Power: 0	Well not every democracy is a Republic... But I agree inasmuch as it would be senseless to completely hand power over to majority only rule. If we did then you can guarantee some very crazy laws would be passed. What we have is a representative democracy, where all the views of society can be voiced, regardless of whether those views are in the minority or not. In a representative democracy the views and rights of the minority are very important and are often enshrined in law. I don't know how it works in America... Things are changing fast and who knows where it might end... But at least that's the way we do democracy in the UK. Q

Mar 30, 2003, 03:52 AM	#29
Falstaff Old Codger Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: USAFA Posts: 19,048 Rep Power: 207	We are insulated I know this is another cynical view, but I think we hear alot from americans that abhor war and demonstrate frequently to call attention to their cause, they have that right...but lots of americans I believe, just want a little reality T.V. before they go to bed, and they have no vested interest in what is going on, If you go by the numbers for voters that participated in the last election, and the total number of registered voters and then further include the number of eligible voters, it seems amercians are apathetic about the political process, there is the rub, that is where the devil lies in my opinion. American apathy about the political process, or what I refer to as the "herd mentality" is responsible in some way for the current situaiton from my perspective, but then my canidate won....I didn't like Gore, and never will..when we are victorious and we will be, Will it be a hollow victory, I hope not, I hope we learn something from this..But in a strange Orwellian way, government or "big brother" is carefully closing his grip on the average amercian.....whoops, I am too cynical, ha ha... __________________ "Inspiration is always a surprising visitor."