Saddam Hussein to receive death penalty

Originally Posted by Capo

And never will - ever.

i'd like to respond to this comment...

while there may have been no victory in iraq inasmuch as the country is a stable place with the us government's seal-of-approval, there has been a victory on the side of the "allies." that is to say: a despot WAS deposed, a newer government has been (begun to have been, anyway) set up, and that country has even put its former tyrant on trial. these are for the most part positive changes in that they are helping a country that was in an ambiguous-at-best place before this "war."

however, when it comes to victory in the sense of completion and achieving of initial goals... i'm not sure that is a possibility. achieving the initial goals is pretty much impossible due to the fact that the initial goals (at least those presented to the public by the US gov't) are unachievable. we can't eliminate WMDs that don't exist, we can't cut back support that wasn't being given by the iraqis to al qaeda, and we can't force a new form of government on an entire people with their full cooperation and excitement.
victory as completion is basically impossible because completing the creation of a government simply doesn't happen. the US has been around for more than 200 years and we've still got PLENTY of kinks in our system. also, there will always be rebels and insurgents who will act radically, and right now this war is mostly fighting them. the problem is, they aren't a good target to fight in the same way terrorists are difficult to target - they don't necessarily act cohesively, they often are more than willing to die for their cause, and their major goal is to stall their enemy (which is a goal achieved simply by having an enemy engaged).

so, in those respects, we never will have a victory. and i agree with Capo. however, in the way that Gechmir was describing it, we have had a victory. but i guess my main point is that having this (more technical) victory, and now having successfully tried and convicted and sentenced the former tyrant of the country we invaded ---- what's left to do there considering the fact that a more satisfying victory, like the one i described above, is essentially unreachable?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

If we stay and fight, we will win, hands down, every time. It's not a matter of ability, it's a matter of will...

what you're actually saying is that, if the insurgants stay and fight, they'll win because they have the will. in fact, like i said before, all they have to do is oppose us and keep killing off our soldiers.

however, in direct contradiction to what you said, we have to kill/assimilate all of the insurgents to win... good luck there.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

You don't know what you're talking about.

thanks, i feel the same about you.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

Insurgencies can't go on forever,

insurgencies can't go on forever? well, i guess so. but on the same token, neither can state-supported combat using armies.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

especially when they tend to kill more civillians than actual soldiers.

they care, why? i mean, their mission is chaos and killing civilians doesn't matter to them -- casualties of war to them. in any case, i think they can last indefinitely as they have no unified financial backer who is suffering, and instead they will keep fighting because they believe they are doing a service to themselves. further, even when the current generation of insurgents dies off, there will always be children to indoctrinate and convert to their cause.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

Insurgencies win because they make things difficult for the politicians who command the troops back at home. The insurgents can only win if we choose to give up.

as a logical consequence, we will only win by staying there forever OR by having them all die out (unlikely since there are constantly newly indoctrinated ones).

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

Every day that passes, we eliminate their support base because everytime we engage them we kill them by the DOZENS and they tend to kill hundreds of the people they claim to be 'liberating' from American occupation.

every da, they kill our soldiers, weakening the morale of the troops and the support back home. and like i said before, i don't think they really care about the casualties on their side. i mean, these are the people who believe strongly it's more than worth it to die for this cause (as evidenced by the suicide bombers).

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

"Ok, we're going to keep troops there until May 1st 2007 and then we're going to leave, regardless of the situation" - which is what the Democrats want.

i don't believe you have the authority to make such a statement on behalf of a group which you are not a part of. democrats, in fact, do not think as a collective. here is an excerpt from the Boston Globe about democrats and a proposed plan to move out of iraq:

Quote:

...It sets a goal of a phased troop withdrawal that would take nearly all US troops out of Iraq by the end of 2007, although many Democrats disagree on whether troop draw-downs should be tied to a timeline.

there are democrats who may think of date-based deadlines as important, and there are others that think more of goal-based deadlines.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

But if he knows that you're coming after him full force until you put him on the ground for the knockout, then he doesn't have that option. At some point, he knows he's going to have to have to actually beat you because you won't give up.

but, no matter his determination, if his body gives out, he's going to get knocked down.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

I don't give a shit what you believe.

how adult of you

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

This is the policy the Democrats want

i just showed this to be untrue.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

and by and large, the leadership of the Democratic Party, which is overwhelmingly anti-American and socialist in their ideologies, wants America to immediately begin to draw down troop levels regardless of the level of progress in Iraq.

i love it. anti-american. that term is utterly ridiculous to be applied to anyone who is elected and represents the opinions and views of AMERICANS (at least those of a plurality of the election voters)

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

Even though the newly elected Democrats in Congress are more centrists, the people who hold the power are these ultra-liberals who want to make America weaker.

i don't understand this point of view -- why would ANYONE who lives and works for the promotion of america want to make it weaker.

I was speaking idiomatically.

well, at this point, i'm realizing that your views are such that they cannot be changed because you won't allow them to be.

all i want to say is that, though you may disagree with democrats (as i sometimes do with them, and almost always do with republicans), anti-american is just plain the wrong word. are they wrong? maybe. are they not considering all the facts? maybe. are they deliberately sabotaging our government? if they are, they aren't following the most basic democratic principles.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?