So who Won Iraq?

[ArmChair General]

I hear people say we lost all the time. If thats the case...then who won?



anyone have the balls to answer that question honestly?

[Sgt Schultz]

The Grim Reaper.

[ArmChair General]

The Grim Reaper.

ok thats one person whos ball-less.

:D

[Sgt Schultz]

ok thats one person whos ball-less.

:D

Well I have been fixed. :D

But in all seriousness we won the war. What we're in now is the post war/occupation phase. We can't make any progress until the locals decide it's in their best interest to stop fighting each other. With the nature of the middle east and its history I don't think we're going to see that anytime soon.

[Rokerijdude11]

We did..............cool

gas should be 23 cents a gallon then soon eh?

[9sublime]

You won the war, but you've lost the occupation.

[drippinhun]

Only the people who made money off this excursion won, according to game standards. But a million-fold lost. What a waste. But some people make a living that way. I call them predators. Many people call them sir.

[top gun]

Well I have been fixed. :D

But in all seriousness we won the war. What we're in now is the post war/occupation phase. We can't make any progress until the locals decide it's in their best interest to stop fighting each other. With the nature of the middle east and its history I don't think we're going to see that anytime soon.

Very intelligent post I must say. I might have said that we're now in the "stuck on stupid phase"... but this way is way more diplomatic!:)

[top gun]

You won the war, but you've lost the occupation.

And yet another good angle to look at that I'd say at this time is probably quite accurate. :)

As an American I'd like to spin it as positive for us (the US) as possible and say... We accomplished or mission (where'd I hear that from?)... I guess that would be "Won".

And as soon as our leaders stop adding conditions on so we can leave we will then have an exit strategy and redeploy.

I'm pretty sure you are supposed to have and exit strategy before you go in. But with great minds like Dick Cheney telling the American people over & over again how US troops would be greeted as "LIBERATORS" that part of the plan must have been placed on the back burner.

[Abraxis Axis]

you all keep on thinking we won...................

damn people are Gullable

[USMC the Almighty]

you all keep on thinking we won...................

damn people are Gullable

We won militarily, there's no debating that. It's the Reconstruction phase that has posed the problems. Under your logic, the Confederacy won the Civil War since the North's Reconstruction was an abominable failure.

[Abraxis Axis]

We won militarily, there's no debating that. It's the Reconstruction phase that has posed the problems. Under your logic, the Confederacy won the Civil War since the North's Reconstruction was an abominable failure.

im sure glad you think so skippy......from where i sit i see the fukkers killing our kids at an alarming rate with rudimentary explosives if we had truly won militarily there would be no more kids dying ........

[USMC the Almighty]

im sure glad you think so skippy......from where i sit i see the fukkers killing our kids at an alarming rate with rudimentary explosives if we had truly won militarily there would be no more kids dying ........

There's people dying in Detroit right now at an alarming rate. There's people dying in Washington right now at an alrming rate. Violence is part of human nature, and when you have a country comprised of humans, well, you're going to have violence. Fortunately, we have limited much of this violence to the 10 mile radius around Baghdad.

Now, if only we can get the right number of troops to secure Baghdad...

[Abraxis Axis]

what Number is that?

so lets see there is violence in detroit and washington......so thats justification to purposely put our children in harms way?somehow by sending our kids to be killed needlessly helps the violence in Detriot?

No of course it dosent..... had we truly "WON" the war we wouldnt be burying 4 children a day on average.....

so again what is the Number YOU feel would elimintate the problem? i say we need 1for one to absolutly say we have it secured for every man woman and child in iraq there needs to be a soldiers assigened to eah and every one of them that is the ONLY way youll guarantee any change at all

[top gun]

There's people dying in Detroit right now at an alarming rate. There's people dying in Washington right now at an alrming rate. Violence is part of human nature, and when you have a country comprised of humans, well, you're going to have violence. Fortunately, we have limited much of this violence to the 10 mile radius around Baghdad.

Now, if only we can get the right number of troops to secure Baghdad...

There's people dying in Washington right now at an alrming rate. Violence is part of human nature, and when you have a country comprised of humans, well, you're going to have violence.

You seriously did not just use this example to try and justify the killing and the dieing in Iraq... you cannot be serious.

[USMC the Almighty]

There's people dying in Washington right now at an alrming rate. Violence is part of human nature, and when you have a country comprised of humans, well, you're going to have violence.

You seriously did not just use this example to try and justify the killing and the dieing in Iraq... you cannot be serious.

What I was trying to get at is not that I think Americans dying in Iraq is justified (especially the military members, who I consider to be the greatest Americans), but that some level of violence does not indicate failure.

There is a certain level of violence that will be present in any city (i.e. Detroit or Washington).

[ArmChair General]

What I was trying to get at is not that I think Americans dying in Iraq is justified (especially the military members, who I consider to be the greatest Americans), but that some level of violence does not indicate failure.

There is a certain level of violence that will be present in any city (i.e. Detroit or Washington).

how many carbombs and ied's go off in detroit and washington city per year?

[Napoleon]

im sure glad you think so skippy......from where i sit i see the fukkers killing our kids at an alarming rate with rudimentary explosives if we had truly won militarily there would be no more kids dying ........

We won in the sense that we fulfilled the vast majority of our obligations and achieved most of our goals over there. Everything else is just icing on the cake. The problem now is that our military is being treated like a collective rent-a-cop because the Iraqis chose to use the freedom we provided them to blow themselves up and seem to believe that they're entitled to suckle on the American breast for the duration of Iraq's existence. The problem is the Iraqi people, the people who love to throw their weight around once the danger is over but cry for Uncle Sam to save them every time something, somewhere, blows up. They criticize our handling of the situation yet, by and large, won't lift a finger to change things and don't offer any alternate solutions. The problem is that they aren't ready for the level of freedom we've given them because they are unwilling to fight and make sacrifices for it. They've designated the United States as their beast of burden and there's only so much we can do without significant contributions from them. If your definition of victory is that 'no more kids die' then we've never won a war.

[ArmChair General]

We won in the sense that we fulfilled the vast majority of our obligations and achieved most of our goals over there. Everything else is just icing on the cake. The problem now is that our military is being treated like a collective rent-a-cop because the Iraqis chose to use the freedom we provided them to blow themselves up and seem to believe that they're entitled to suckle on the American breast for the duration of Iraq's existence. The problem is the Iraqi people, the people who love to throw their weight around once the danger is over but cry for Uncle Sam to save them every time something, somewhere, blows up. They criticize our handling of the situation yet, by and large, won't lift a finger to change things and don't offer any alternate solutions. The problem is that they aren't ready for the level of freedom we've given them because they are unwilling to fight and make sacrifices for it. They've designated the United States as their beast of burden and there's only so much we can do without significant contributions from them. If your definition of victory is that 'no more kids die' then we've never won a war.

Great, so lets leave.

[ArmChair General]

Well since no one else has actually honestly answered the question, I'll go ahead and do it.

Iran wins BIG TIME short term, Long Term winners Include China and India.

Thank you Dick Cheney and George Bush!

[USMC the Almighty]

how many carbombs and ied's go off in detroit and washington city per year?

I don't know, but probably not a lot. The point is that you can't just say "Oh, Americans are still dying, therefore we lost the war."

[top gun]

I don't know, but probably not a lot. The point is that you can't just say "Oh, Americans are still dying, therefore we lost the war."

No but I think we could say we completed all of our original objectives + 4 years and we are now going to redeploy and let the feuding locals have less American targets to kill.

STARTING TOMORROW EVERYONE PLEASE REGISTER ALL YOUR FRIENDS TO VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY! That's the only way we'll be allowed out of this Bush/Cheney mess!:mad:

[Napoleon]

Great, so lets leave.

I wouldn't be opposed to a phased withdraw.

[Bunz]

Winners include, but not limited to...Boeing, Haliburton, Chrysler, AMG, Colt, Raytheon, BP, Exxon, OPEC, Betchel, Iran, China, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey(yet to be seen)

[ArmChair General]

Winners include, but not limited to...Boeing, Haliburton, Chrysler, AMG, Colt, Raytheon, BP, Exxon, OPEC, Betchel, Iran, China, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey(yet to be seen)

Bingo.

[Chip]

To ask who won Iraq is like asking who won the armed bank robbery.

When an act of murderous thievery occurs, which is exactly what the U.S. did to Iraq, nobody wins.

[rmbarron]

To ask who won Iraq is like asking who won the armed bank robbery.

When an act of murderous thievery occurs, which is exactly what the U.S. did to Iraq, nobody wins.

Actually, I disagree. If the murderous thieves get away with it, they win.:D

[USMC the Almighty]

To ask who won Iraq is like asking who won the armed bank robbery.

When an act of murderous thievery occurs, which is exactly what the U.S. did to Iraq, nobody wins.

"Murderous thievery". Let me see you try to substantiate this little gem.

[Beetle Bailey]

I hear people say we lost all the time. If thats the case...then who won?



anyone have the balls to answer that question honestly?

It ain't over till it's over. We won't pull out of Iraq before 2009, that's for sure. Bush has nothing to loose now. I'm not saying we are winning. But a lot can change in a year and a half. Iraqi politicians might even reach an agreement. We are currently in the process of retraining 30,000 airmen and sailors as infantry. All volunteers. Another "surge" is coming. We could expect to see 200,000 US troops in Iraq by this time next year. Withdrawing from Iraq may be a foregone conclusion. But it's still a long way off.

[Chip]

"Murderous thievery". Let me see you try to substantiate this little gem.
The U.S. invaded Iraq solely to steal Iraq's oil distribution rights.

We so invaded in response to Saddam Hussein's threat in the fall of 2002 that he would divert our share of Iraqi crude to China just as soon the sanctions against him choosing new trading partners came to an end "and there's nothing you can do to stop me" ... and those sanctions were about to come to an end ... when we invaded.

Had we allowed Saddam to stop selling us the special light, sweet Iraqi crude, for which there is no available alternative supply, the loss of that crude, which accounts for nearly 20% of the crude oil refined in California alone, would have flung us into a severe depression and taken our allies with us.

Bush and the Senate Security Committee reasoned that it was better to commit the predicted slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in securing "our" continued receipt of Iraqi crude than to lose that crude and spiral into a devastating economic depression.

But, he obviously couldn't tell the truth of the matter -- that he was committing a blood-for-oil murderous thievery -- so he and the commission told the rank-and-file of Congress the standard WMD, terrorist, "evil" dictator, Muslim jiahd lies so as to post-9/11 fear-bait them into supporting the invasion.

The truth of the matter is that we spent many billions on the invasion to save many trillions in losses that would have occurred had we lost the Iraqi crude we had been receiving for decades.

The truth of the matter is as I tell it.

That makes the U.S. a murderous thief.

That makes our soldiers in Iraq henchmen.

That makes Bush a crime boss.

Many GOP Presidential hopefuls are distancing themselves from Bush now, as the leak from the Senate Security Commission has informed them that it will not be long before the whole world public knows the truth of this, and if they expect to have any chance of getting elected, they must remove as much Bushian dirt from their mantle as they can.

So, there you have it -- the truth.

The U.S. invaded Iraq solely to steal Iraq's oil distribution rights, predictably slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, nearly half of whom were children with a median age of eight years-old ... and that thereby makes us murderous thieves.

[Bunz]

Bush has nothing to loose now.

Bush may not, but thousands of American Armed forces on the ground do, thier lives and limbs. In addition to what the families and friends of the soldiers who come back unscatched physically have to manage.

[Bunz]

Hey Chip, Ill let you have your say on opinions and such, but Id recomend getting your facts straight. The following statement is not true.

Had we allowed Saddam to stop selling us the special light, sweet Iraqi crude, for which there is no available alternative supply, the loss of that crude, which accounts for nearly 20% of the crude oil refined in California alone


Across the country, Iraqi oil accounts for %7 of imports. Behind Canada, Mexico, Venezuela Saudi Arabia and Nigeria.
In California, I think you got Iraqi oil mixed up with Alaskan oil, but Iraqi oil only makes up %12 of the IMPORTED oil in California, whereas %21 of all California oil comes from Alaska. The light sweet crude with a gravity measure of 24-40 is what comes from Alaska.

[Chip]

Hey Chip, Ill let you have your say on opinions and such, but Id recomend getting your facts straight.
In 2001 nearly 20% of the imported crude oil refined in California was Iraqi crude.

That's a fact.

Our share of Iraqi crude had been proportionally consistent over time prior to the invasion.

In 2001 this accounted for approximately 8% of the oil refined in California.

A loss of merely 5% was judged to have considerable national repercussions.

And remember, this is just California.

Other states refining Iraqi crude would also lose their share.

The Bush administration and the Senate Security Committee knew that such a loss would be catastrophic.


Across the country, Iraqi oil accounts for %7 of imports. Behind Canada, Mexico, Venezuela Saudi Arabia and Nigeria.
You appear to have a link.

I would like to see your current link.

It's not that I don't trust you.

It's just that I value current information and I'd like to read it.

Regardless, from a current perspective, we've lost a part of a percent of our regular allotment of Iraqi crude simply from sabotage in Iraq. We repair the pipelines and then the flow resumes ... and the sabotage recurs ... and we repeat reparations ... ... and our share isn't quite as high as before.

So we dip into reserves ... and, of course, the price skyrockets.

But the reserves won't last ... and if we were to lose all seven percent, as the Bush administration tabulators presented, there is no alternative supply of the special light, sweet crude like Iraq's. Disaster would quickly result.


In California, I think you got Iraqi oil mixed up with Alaskan oil,
No, not at all.

My figures are pre-invasion figures, the figures Bush used to base his invasion.

And keep in mind that we're using the oil we pump through the Alaskan pipeline, as fast as we can pump it.

There's no increase possible thru that pipeline that could ever offset the loss of the Iraqi crude.


but Iraqi oil only makes up %12 of the IMPORTED oil in California,
Again, if you have current figures, I'd like to see them.

But again, if they are true, the reduction from nearly 20% to 12% in California is due to the lengthy periods of sabotage by Iraqi defenders in their attempts to keep their oil out of our thieving hands. The degree of sabotage is kept from the media, but my guess is it is ongoing to this day.

The 8% cumulative drop since the invasion is likely accounted for by such sabotage, etc.

The outrageously high petroleum prices in California can be accounted for by this loss which has only been partially compensated by reserves, as rather than replenish all of the 8% loss via reserves, we've been asked to simply cut back on fun-based petroleum expenditures.


whereas %21 of all California oil comes from Alaska.
Irrelevant.

The percentage that came from Alaska has pretty much declined before and after the drop in receipt of Iraqi crude.

Thus it could hardly be compensation for Iraqi crude loss, and thus your statement is irrelevant.

Again, however, I would be interested in the link to your figures.


The light sweet crude with a gravity measure of 24-40 is what comes from Alaska.
According to what may be your link (http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-600-2006-006/CEC-600-2006-006.PDF) the Alaskan North Slope crude ranges from 22 degrees of gravity to 40 degrees of gravity.

Heavy crude is 18 degrees or less, intermediate crude is 19 - 35 degrees, and light crude is 36 degrees to 40 degrees.

Thus it is clear that Alaskan oil is seldom light and mostly intermediate, and that's a crucial difference in this matter.

Alaskan oil is also a sour crude, not a sweet crude.

Here is a quote from the link: "In 2005 California imported 21 percent of its total crude oil supply from Alaska. Oil fields in Alaska's North Slope produce a wide range of crude oils. API gravities from different fields range from 22 to 40 degrees. Alaskan refineries located along the Trans Alaskan Pipeline System (TAPS) "top" the crude oil to produce light petroleum products and return residual products to the line. The resulting blended crude oil stream is referred to as Alaska North Slope oil (ANS). The ANS is an intermediate sour crude with an average API gravity of 29-29.5 degrees and sulfur content of 1.1 percent.".

Thus it is clear that Alaskan ANS oil California receives is not light and sweet, but intermediate and sour.

Also, as the report states, production from the TAPS is decreasing at about 5% per year.

Obviously, ANS oil is no substitute for the special light, sweet Iraqi crude.

And thus the decision was made to go to war to keep the essential Iraqi crude flowing to the U.S.