It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


We will win the war in Iraq?

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 06:53 AM

Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 30, 2005; A03

FORT IRWIN, Calif., Aug. 29 -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld offered a passionate defense of the war in Iraq while speaking to a group of hundreds of soldiers at the Army's National Training Center on Monday afternoon, urging them not to give up on the war against extremism as they prepare to re-enter the fight in coming months.

While Rumsfeld has consistently emphasized the need for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his speech was particularly emphatic and included criticism of those in Congress and the media who have questioned the rate of progress, specifically in Iraq.

Will we?
How many of you think we will win this war hands down?

I think this war will go on as long as the current administration is in place.
I'm counting on not being there in 2008.

posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 07:50 AM
The Problem Dg is that we are not at war in Iraq, many people are mistaken US is not at war with Iraq or the Iraqi people that is the message that our Government is giving to the public.

But the amount of casualties withing the population makes it look like the US is targeting civilians.

We can not win a war that was never wagged to Iraq.

The "Conflict" in Iraq has gone to many changes strategically when it comes to the US involvement.

Many names has given to the role of the US from "liberators" "Invaders" to "occupation"

The war names has change from "War on terror" to "fighting the radicals and fundamentalist terrorist."

Now how can you win over that and claim victory?

US already claimed victory of the Invasion and was right about that.

But the war in Iraq is nothing more a myth, we are not fighting Iraq. and that is a fact.

What US forces are now trying to avoid is the conflict between rival tribes to escalate into civil unrest and that is bound to happen one way or another.

The so call "insurgency attacks of civilians" is nothing more than the instigation for fights between the religious leaders between the tribes.

[edit on 31-8-2005 by marg6043]

posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 08:21 AM
Thank you for your contribution to this thread, Marg

I figure everyone has their own opinion and i am hoping to see some people respond.

You are right, the war is not just Iraq but thats how the administration calls it. I personally, dont foresee the end as of now.

I know you're out there, people.

Any thoughts?

posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 08:22 AM
dg, I just get this with your link:

In answer to the question, I'm not really sure what this war is right now. If it's a War in Iraq, to kill or disband and disperse all 'insurgents' and have the remaining populace succumb to a centralized government (which is my best guess at the time) then I think it's a possibility to 'win' it. I say 'win' because I would consider that a subjugation more than a win. With our superior military and weapons, we will probably eventually (after much more death and destruction) be able to vanquish any obvious sign of 'rebels'.

So, yeah, I think the US and coalition can eventually brute-force any dissenters to either give up or leave. Temporarily. Once the guard is down or we leave Iraq, the 'insurgents' (of whatever ilk) will arise and an internal war will take place. I'm almost sure that will happen regardless of the outcome of this 'war'.

If, OTOH, this is the beginning of some kind of War against Extremism or Terrorism instead of a war with a nation, then my answer is a definite no. I don't think we'll ever wipe out terrorism or extremism. In fact, I think what we're doing is worsening it.

If we took a completely different tack and looked at the big picture of extremism and evaluated why these groups form and what we could do (aside from brute force) to stop it, then there may be a chance of lessening terrorism and it's effects in the world, but I have very little hope that this government or any government is willing to look beyond the 'track 'em down, shoot 'em up' mindset that is so ingrained in our culture today.

posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link /08/29/AR2005082901916_pf.html

I hope this is working. Thank you BH for pointing this out and for your wise contribution

[edit on 31-8-2005 by dgtempe]

posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 08:40 AM
Well Benevolent Heretic one of the things that I know for sure is happening in Iraq is that US troops are fighting but to what or who they are fighting is kind of unclear; we have been told that is the “insurgency” and “terrorist” due to the nature of the attacks.

But then again the resentment against tribal groups is growing also, and to come out clean and said that is a civil unrest brewing in Iraq will not look good on the planned victory of democracy that our government has sold to us.

You are right our superiority will prevail but at the cost of many lives.

Is not doubt that as soon US leaves it will be a battler of wills in Iraq between the tribes for power.

I agree with you that the war on “extremist and Terrorist” will never be won due to the fact that is an ideology and is has not boundaries or nationality but only the desired to fulfill usually a religious cause.

In Iraq the only way to pacified the “insurgency” will be with the annihilation of an entire tribal group, the Sunnis will never give up and they will fight to regain power, and we have to understand that the Sunnis are not only in Iraq they are a tribe that extends to Iran and Saudi Arabia.

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 05:12 PM
I agree that we are trying to contain an ideological battle that cannot be won with military means. We can host as many Iraqi elections as we please and fight as many regenerating insurgents as we want, but the Iraqis themselves have to resolve this conflict and no forced dose of freedom coming from Bush and Co/warhawks/neo-cons/retards is going to change that.

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 06:19 PM
I have sat here for the last fifteen minutes trying to find the best way to chime in with out making anyone mad for my opinion.

Marg is right, we are not at war with Iraq or Iraqi citizens. But we are at war with "insurgents", Terrorists and those that target civilians for the simple fact that they don't want them to be a democratic republic.

Now people can say what they want as to why we are in Iraq, that makes no difference to me since many people will put their spin on the situation.

But the situation is this: Terrorism has been around as long as warfare has been and until now no one has done anything about it and now is the time to try and do something about it. Why? Because if not then it would grow way outta hand to the point that it will never be controlled and then alot of people will be complainging as to why nothing was done.

Most of the insurgents are Foreign fighters, not Iraqis. Like the first two "Iraqi" soldiers that were killed in the opening engagements of Iraq were Syrians.

That is the war we are fighting. We are fighting a war that is winless, no matter what happens, and it is a shame.

History Repeats itself, read and look heavily at the book of Revelations. Most of the signs are already there.

Just my two cents

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 07:59 PM
Blackbeard, I have to give you credit on that post, something that we forget sometimes is that war base on ideologies always end with many deaths and not winners.

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 08:27 PM
Thanks marg, appreciate it.

I have been a student of warfare since I was 8 years old and I am now 30. I have been in the Marines and I am now in the National Guard. If one really thinks about the many wars this world has had then one should be able to see the difference between wars for a cause (World War 2 / Revolutionary War), and wars over ideologies such as the Crusades and Vietnam.

It is a sad shame isn’t it?

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 08:37 PM

Originally posted by BlackBeard
Thanks marg, appreciate it.

You welcome.

I have been a student of warfare since I was 8 years old and I am now 30. I have been in the Marines and I am now in the National Guard.
It is a sad shame isn’t it?

You expertise will be welcome in many threads that deal with war issues here.

I am the wife of a 22 year retired marine, but I am a littler bit strong on my opposition to war.
Specially the Iraqi conflict

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 08:53 PM
Lets not forget those of us who have 'been there and done that,' and speaking for myself, that would be Kosovo and the 1st Gulf War.

As such, my opinion on this matter of 'if' or 'will' we win has been stated multiples of times within varying topics and forums within ATS.

We serve, we fight, we bleed, we die: That Others May Live.


[edit on 13-10-2005 by Seekerof]

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 08:55 PM
There is nothing wrong with opposing something. Especially the Iraqi Conflict, because I oppose it too. I just highly support our troops, no matter what they are asked to do. I would think and hope that the majority of the members around here do to, for their own countries military men and women.

I just don’t like to see this “no exit” strategy or the fact that the US government did not get what our troops needed going in. I also do not like the fact that the media never focuses on the positive, always the negative.

Sorry for getting off topic there for a moment.

As far as if I think that we will win this Conflict? Well, that all depends on the Iraqi Military and if they are determined to do the job that they are volunteering for. I also think that we will always have some type of presence over there like we did in Germany after World War 2.

Only time will tell and no one knows what the future holds.

posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 11:16 PM
How do you "win" a war like this, though?

I'm still not sure what we're doing over there. My husband's brother has a stepson over there, and I'd like to see my nephew back in one piece--and not in a bodybag.

posted on Oct, 23 2005 @ 01:49 PM
What we face in Iraq is an insurgency. Insurgency warfare is very tricky and from almost day one ofthe invasion the Bush administration has mismanaged this war in a way that compunds the difficulty of defeating the insurgency. To win this war we need to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. To do that we need to provide them with a decent level of security and the basic infrastructure( utilities, schools, hospitals, etc ) to carry out their basic lives. Because the Bush administration failed to listen to military advisors that recommneded sending in a much larger force than was actually sent, it made it impossible to provide the security we needed on the ground in Iraq. To this day it is my understanding you can't make the short drive from the Green or "safe" zone in Baghdad to the airport without risking getting your self blown away by the insurgents. Because a true level of security was never established it kept us from being able to send people in to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure at the pace required to keep the locals happy. The lack of security also gave would-be insurgents time to oraganize and develop in to a real threat.

The problem with an insurgnecy is you can win every major battle, which we have, and still lose the war because you don't defeat the ideology that drives it. I don't think we will really know if we won Iraq until a few years after most US forces are out of the county. If the Iraqi's can obtain a reasonable level of security without us without falling into a civil war first then there might be a chance at winning. But it doesn't look good right now and I see no indications the Bush administration is willing to make the necessary adjustments to make it happen. Honestly it may be to late even if they did.

posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 07:44 AM
The problem is the same as in Vietnam, you can't kill an enemy that you can't see...

posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 08:13 AM
We will have "won" this war when every drop of oil has been diverted to Bush & Cheney's Humvees. It's not about democracy, it's not about terrorism, it's not about humanitarian intervention. It's about the oil, they have it we want it and Iran is next not because they have or wiil have nuclear weapons but because they have oil.
Both Bushes have said, "The American lifestyle is non-negotiable" That's rhetoric for everything we own runs on oil.

posted on Nov, 10 2005 @ 09:16 PM

Originally posted by polanksi
We will have "won" this war when every drop of oil has been diverted to Bush & Cheney's Humvees. It's not about democracy, it's not about terrorism, it's not about humanitarian intervention. It's about the oil, they have it we want it and Iran is next not because they have or wiil have nuclear weapons but because they have oil.
Both Bushes have said, "The American lifestyle is non-negotiable" That's rhetoric for everything we own runs on oil.

I know this is a one liner but all I can say to this is "Amen". But what the United States doesnt realize is that we have plenty of oil hotspots in the U.S. Texas would be the place to find it at. I think thats what they call "oil reserve". Its a bunch of bull. We have plenty their to serve us for more than 20 years.

new topics

top topics


log in