The Baghdad Conundrum: Must We Lose To Win?

[nostamj]

The Baghdad Conundrum: Must We Lose To Win?

If the bushies are viewed as successful in the Iraq War, a second term is virtually inevitable and the worldwide bloodshed will certainly escalate. As unthinkable as the ongoing death and injuries are, if this occupation succeeds... it will not be the last.

Bush, simply, must fail. And the truth behind this misadventure must condemn him forever.

But bush will never admit defeat any more than he would admit a mistake.... until it is politically impossible not to. In a case this extreme, it would be when the citizens are 1000 deep around the White House with pitchforks and torches.

Because Bush will not relinquish control or accept failure, more will die. Soldiers and citizens. And the world will be just that much more threatened by fundamentalist revenge.

I don't *hope* for bloodshed. I want this to END.

If the Bush's occupation of Iraq succeeds, there might be a temporary drop in troop deaths. But, emboldened by their success in Iraq (and their acclaimed, but bogus, success in Afghanistan), the deaths will only escalate with the next and the next and the next adventure.

It is a grim equation. Bushies must fail. Innocents will die before Bushies admit failure.

it's sickening.

but is it wrong?

[gristy]

1. I think it is a non-issue

We really have no control over whether Bush succeeds or fails in Iraq. And - here is the clincher - neither does Bush. Bush will fail - it is out of even his hands now.

[Zorba607]

2. It's perspective

People are going to freak out here saying you want americans to die and that assorted BS. Frankly though, I don't think you're wrong. This is a 'big picture' perspective that accepts that people will die, others will claim a 'small picture' and say that every death is a tragedy. Both are right, but to me it seems like they're talking about different issues.

[nostamj]

5. i clearly state i don't want ANYONE to die.

and I agree that there is little, if anything, we can do to affect bush's decision.

the conundrum i was trying for is:

we want it to end but know that if it ends that it will never end.

bush must fail. utterly. and for that to happen, more will die. and no one wants that.

arrgghh... it's just white&black (except to W)

[Cha]

3. Color me naive but I believe that

since it was the wrong murderous mass homicide thing to do in the beginning...that it will never turn "out right". bush is going to be out in 2005 and we will be left to clean up.


These People in the UK are not too happy with bush...I envy them because they get the real news!
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=461995

"Reg Keys, whose son, Lance Corporal Thomas Keys, was one of the six Royal Military Police killed by a mob near Basra in June, said he had developed "a quite passionate hatred" of the US leader.

"I can't stand the man," said Mr Keys, 51, of Llanuwchllyn, north Wales. "He has a nerve coming over to this country after all the misery he's caused. I just can't understand why Bush was so keen to go to war against Iraq - it's almost as if he was hell bent on making a name for himself."

[leftofthedial]

4. Innocents would die no matter what

If we hadn't invaded, innocents would have died at Saddam's hand and eventually in his overthrow. Innocents die daily in the West Bank, Gaza and Israel. Innocents die in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

If we stay, "win" or lose (and we've already lost by becoming invaders and occupiers, in my opinion), innocents will die. If we leave right now, innocents will die, but Iraq will find its own equilibrium, as it must eventually anyway.

At least the US troops who are the victims of the Bush-GOPNAC-Halliburton plot in Iraq are dying for something more than just Halliburton's profits. Each death, as tragic and frustrating as it is, brings our nation one step closer to understanding the truth about this fraudulent and criminal occupation and the criminals who currently infest the Executive Branch.

[nostamj]

7. gotcha

At least the US troops who are the victims of the Bush-GOPNAC-Halliburton plot in Iraq are dying for something more than just Halliburton's profits. Each death, as tragic and frustrating as it is, brings our nation one step closer to understanding the truth about this fraudulent and criminal occupation and the criminals who currently infest the Executive Branch.

this is what I'm trying (perhaps feebly) to get across.

[leftofthedial]

9. still, if I could somehow stop the bloodshed tomorrow

I'd do it regardless of the political cost.

Personally, I'd do it by leaving Iraq tomorrow.

[nostamj]

12. no argument no/text

[MrSoundAndVision]

6. It's the corporations that Bush represent that must lose

It is the Lockheed Martins of the world that have launched us into continual war. They have compromised our government, and the media has agreed to change the face of the world with them by keeping the American dissenter uncovered and impotent. So I ask this: Does it make sense to endorse a presidential candidate that is obviously supported by the media? Can a candidate with the nod of the accomplice of the war machine be trusted?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nostamj]

10. well, there's only been ONE

on US soil.

but, i do think that focusing on terrorists and not oil emperialism is a better path for the US

[greatauntoftriplets]

11. Have you enlisted yet?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

14. If we "win"...

or hang in til the bitter end, do YOU think the terrorists would diminish their 9-11 style attacks?

Considering Osama is still on the loose and Saddam Hussein had DICK to do with 9/11, I suspect not...

[Old and In the Way]

16. I wonder too.

Since we've yet to have a complete public investigation on the attacks of 9/11, I don't know who the terrorists are. Do you? Assuming they are Saudi's (and I have no idea that they were), why did we invade Iraq? And if this administration lied about the reason to invade Iraq, could they be lying about what they know on the events of 9/11?

And do you really think the actions of this administration make it less likely that we'll experience attacks in the future? I think all Dimson and the Halliburton warriors have done is to create 10's of thousands of new recruits to carry on the war for decades to come.

But if you are concerned about failing in Iraq, I suggest you round up all the typo-warriers at the FreeReoublic and volunteer to help your pResident win this war to liberate the oil.

[DUreader]

18. When Is The Bush Admin Going to Release the 9/11 Evidence??

[okieinpain]

13. nope all bush has to do is pull out the troops and turn over

control to the un. but of course if he did that he could not pay back his bechtel, and halliburton buddies. so I guess we will have to lose to win.

[Lars39]

15. So many don't keep up with even Fox news.

They couldn't tell you how many have died, or the number of wounded.
And estimates of those who have died from their injuries are just estimates, 'cause there has been no official word on the numbers.

To end the war quickly, with less lives lost/ruined, is the goal.
I don't buy the theory that the people in the US have to see a massive amount of deaths to rise up on their hind legs and send this administration packing.

It won't necessarily take massive death counts, just well-publicized deaths and injuries.

If the deaths and injuries thus far had been reported on correctly, we would probably already be out of Iraq. If the mainstream media isn't doing their job, it's up to us. Maybe we all need to become human billboards for the daily totals. :shrug:

[Old and In the Way]

17. You are totally right.

I am rooting that this pResident to meet his Waterloo in Baghdad. The arrogant AWOL'er just had to invade Iraq....couldn't let the UN complete its mission and not find WMD. Had to prove to the world that America was #1 and he was the #1 CIC. His unilateral approach in making the UN irrelevant was part of the PNAC plan.

If he's sucessful in Iraq, we know it's war without end. We were strong under Clinton because he could marshall world opinion to support our national objectives without shedding American blood. We are weak under Bush because he committed US troops to further his political power...instead we are bogged down in an unwinable war and our international reputation is lower than at any time I can remember.

[IndianaGreen]

19. Don't think in terms of partisan politics

If the US "wins" in Iraq, then Bush's war of preemption will become commonplace, and no one will be safe from an Imperial America, not even Americans.

If the US "loses" in Iraq, then there are two possible outcomes. In one scenario, America's humiliation will be such that rather than learning from this folly, many Americans will turn towards Fascism to fight those that "betrayed" the nation. Another scenario is one in which America learns to behave as a civilized nation in a family of nations.

[nostamj]

21. bushies are really republican though

they're bushies

a total SUB-species

[nostamj]

22. i don't consider bushies to be really 'republican'

they aren't. they're bushies. not republican, really. certainly not really conservative.

they are fascists. corporate whores. they use politics to MAKE MORE MONEY. hell, they use war to MAKE MORE MONEY

(total typo on last night's response.... not ARE, but, of course, AREN'T)

[Minstrel Boy]

20. As grim as it is,

all that's impeding their next adventure is the stubborn and bloody rejection of their last.

It will take a different government with a different agenda to change the equation. Until then, it's nothing but bloodshed.