Specifically talking about Iraq, a "win" would be at minimum stable Iraq with a pluralistic government system--no other system would be stable given the makeup of the nation--and the elimination of the terrorists as a major threat. Getting it at least to the point Israel is now in terms of government, despite the battles still being fought by that nation, would be a major victory.
I'm sure there's a lot of people who don't think the Iraqis can handle democracy. The same kind of people said the same things about the Japanese.
I'm not sure what finding large WMD stockpiles would have done to create a victory of this kind.
Even if Bush had found 5,000 nuclear-tipped missiles in Iraq, and personally disarmed them, would there be fewer insurgents right now? Fewer roadside bombs? Would Iran and Syria not be gumming up the works? Would all the terrorists and Islamic radicals who hated us before the war and hate us now be showering us with love because we found WMDs?
I wish you and a few others here would try pick your viewpoint up off that line scratched in the dirt.
Current Events » in reply to Define "win" in realistic terms. I thought it meant finding WMD.
re: "win" in realistic terms.
The whole thread (17 posts)
- Kerry, drawing on his Vietnam experience, explains his Iraq exit solution.
- By the way, what's Bush's? After he finds the WMDs, of course. (n/t)
- Win. Even if France doesn't want us to. (n/t)
- Define "win" in realistic terms. I thought it meant finding WMD.
- re: "win" in realistic terms.
- If Bush had found 5,000 nuclear missiles, our action of preemptively invading a nation on the basis of imminent threat would have been true.
- re: "win" in realistic terms.
- Define "win" in realistic terms. I thought it meant finding WMD.
- Win. Even if France doesn't want us to. (n/t)
- BTW, I don't blame Kerry or his staff for this one.
- By the way, what's Bush's? After he finds the WMDs, of course. (n/t)
