"Barack Obama's campaign is built around us losing in Iraq."

[Greg the dogsitter]

Oh, boolshyte.

[karsen]

A victory in Iraq doesn't help his cause.

[Greg the dogsitter]

This reminds me of the false dilemma of a loving parent who will eventually leave a big inheritance. One can want the parent to live, and one can want the benefit of the inheritance. Though the two outcomes cannot coexist, this does not mean that one can't want both.

The quote in my subject line equates the desire for the inheritance with the desire for the parent's death, and that's dishonest.

[loveshine]

Did we declare a war on Iraq? Who is the enemy we are fighting against?

Please someone clearly explain what winning could possibly mean when it is no secret that this is a civil war being fought by Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds?

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:2A-...+war+biden&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=safari

[Grateful11]

What victory? You spend a trillion dollars fighting people living in mud huts they're bound to
throw in the towel eventually.

BTW: Look where we're headed next, exactly where Obama said we needed to be to begin
with, Afghanistan. It's going to be a bloodbath there.

[Ted King]

What does McCain mean by "victory" in Iraq. Here's what his campaign page on the subject says:

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issu...3F11D8.htm

But what happens if the Iraqi government insists that we leave before these conditions for "victory" are achieved? Would president McCain keep troops there anyway (and in spite of the UN mandate having elapsed that provides a legal justification for the occupation)? Or would he pull the troops out as the Iraqis insist and admit that since his conditions for victory have not been met that we have lost the war in Iraq? Or would he redefine his conditions for victory as the ones that happen to be the case at the time and declare victory and leave?

My point is that this whole "victory" thing is an emotional appeal and has little to do with the way the actual winding down of the occupation of Iraq is likely to unfold. It could be that the surge did help the process along, but that is far from certain. There is strong evidence that the Shiite governing powers are not seriously trying to make accommodations with the Sunnis, and since we have been arming the Sunnis to the teeth, it is a distinct possibility that what the surge will have accomplished is delaying what may be a nearly inevitable horrible armed clash between the two groups. I hope not, but it isn't a low probability. If it does happen, would a president McCain pick a side and keep us in the middle of what would be essentially a civil war for who knows how long or would he just get out? My guess is the former. And my guess is that Obama would do the latter. And I guess which option would seem best to you is going to depend on your predisposition. One thing I don't think you should do is ignore the distinct possibility that thing may unfold that way, though, just because we have gotten the impression that the surge has somehow created the conditions where it is highly unlikely such a thing will occur.

[davester]

"Victory" or "winning" is a complete non-sequitur in the situation that we're in, which is a hostile occupation of a country in which we've violently overthrown the government. "Victory" refers to scoring more than the other team in a sports competition, or vanquishing and subjugating the peoples of the land you are invading (neither of which seem to be goals of either the Bush administration or McCain). Saying that you are seeking "victory" in the situation in Iraq is the statement of an oblivious moron or a grandstanding propagandist...capiche?

[Black Landlord]

[quote davester]"Victory" or "winning" is a complete non-sequitur in the situation that we're in Exactly.

[Lux Interior]

Silly McCain! "Victory" was achieved five years ago!

[mikeylikesit]

We left Vietnam under less than "honorable" circumstances. They settled their differences among themselves and today are one of our trading partners. Of course if they been sitting on a wealth of oil, we'd probably still be there.