View Single Post
Old 2003-09-23, 04:09   #17
Prime95
P90 years forever!
 
Prime95's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

11011111101002 Posts
Default

I think the most common definition of "winning a war" is either one country's troops defeating another country's troops OR through use of military force one country achieving a desired goal. In the strict sense of military victory, one could well argue that the Iraq war has already been won with the challenge of a successful rebuilding still an open issue. Using the goal-oriented definition, we first have to agree on what the U.S. goal was, and that could fill up another whole thread. My previous post made it clear that I think the (unstated) U.S. goal was to improve long-term national security by establishing a prosperous model democracy in the heart of the Middle East as a positive alternative to muslim raicalism.

Innocent casualties are a characteristic of every war, both won and lost, just and unjust. My point is that your articles would be better used to advance your position on a variety of different fronts, such as "Does anyone still think the Iraq war was worth the cost?", "Does anyone still think Iraq will be friendly to the U.S. after all these civilian casualties?", "Does anyone still think the U.S. can run a "clean" war with a minimum of civilian casualties?", or (about WMD) "Do you still trust your intelligence services enough to embark on the next war?", etc.

In the opening days of the Iraq war I had a long private email exchange with two members of the prime numbers mailing list. One bordered on the irrational. The other was very cordial and the exchange helped both sides better understand the viewpoints and motivations of the other. Quite interesting, but of course no minds were changed. Do you mind if I ask you where the U.K. anti-war crowd is now focusing its efforts? It seems to me you could go in any of several directions (or all at once).
1) You could stay focused in the past recalling the horrors of the war, the on-going problems, and lamenting the decision to go to war.
2) You could be after Blair's political head
3) You could be rallying European countries to make the U.S. "pay" for its war efforts by boycotting U.S. products, frustrating U.S. diplomatic efforts, etc.
4) You could be lobbying for or against an all-out reconstruction effort. I would think this is an especially troubling issue for the anti-war group as their compassion would make them favor reconstruction, but from their point of view the absolutely worst outcome of the Iraq war would be a successful reconstruction effort which might/would encourage the U.S. do it again in some other country.

Have protests waned or are they building momentum? Is Blair a goner? Care to give us a U.K. news update?
Prime95 is offline   Reply With Quote