Why Must The Opposite of Winning In Iraq Be Losing?......

If people say we can't win in Iraq - why would we consider that a loss?

If we can't declare Iraq a victory - with the removal of Saddam and reinstating a new government that the Iraqi's can build on - then what is victory? And why would we call pulling out a loss?

Seems to me if we can't declare a clear victory - then we can't declare a clear loss either.

Why are we so intent on winning? Winning what?

Why are we so afraid of a loss?

However, I also believe Iraq was a lose-lose proposition from the beginning. We were never going to "win." But when will the moron cut his losses and leave. Not cut his losses and run.

framing the debate and concocting bumper sticker slogans,,,,

I agree with you,,,, This is not about winning or losing anything, we are 'at war' because this administration and their corporate backers want us to be.

well, mostly white, but you know what I mean....

when she said it is not a war but a situation to be solved.

This is obvious to all of them, but to say it publicly opened her to mockery by scoundrels playing to morons who watch too much sports and too many war movies.

that says if you don't win the game, you're a loser. It doesn't matter how well you played, whether your key players were out with injuries, whether the other side cheated. You lost. You're a loser.

Stupid should have declared victory the day he handed Saddam Hussein over to the Shi'a. We should have been out of there from that day. There is no way we can "win." As tough as it is for team sports fans out there to admit, some games are unwinnable on another team's field when the other team puts all their players on the field while you only have the regulation number of players and that other team has decided to throw the sportsmanship rule book out and do whatever it takes to get your players out of the game.

A "loss" in such an unbalanced game is not a loss at all. It's called a strategic retreat.

It's like putting one team of players up against the rest of pro sports.

Win what? We invaded another sovereign country and made a big mess.

We can continue making a big mess or we can do something to start
cleaning up our big mess... there is truly no winning in Iraq until we leave.

Voila! :bounce:

NGU.

:toast:

Never Give Up,

But that doesn't mean those are the only possible outcomes. In fact, there have been few historical instances in which an occupying power has won a clear-cut victory against a popular insurgency--and literally none when the occupying power was unwilling to resort to brutally repressive tactics. But let's say the real objective is simply to keep U.S. troops in the region for thirty years or so--long enough to pump most of Iraq's oil. If you're a neocon, thirty years is doable--we're talking roughly 1,000 U.S. casualties a year, so the death toll is still less than Vietnam (where, you know, we didn't lose--we quit). And the potential profits (and yes, this is a for-profit war) are staggering: onn the order of $16,500,000,000,000 (yep--$16.5 trillion). If you're a neocon, trading 30,000 dead Americans for $16.5 trillion is the deal of the century. Leaving all that oil to a bunch of dirty Arabs? Treason!

can't lose?

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org

http://www.frameshopisopen.com

NGU.

Would we win if there's no violence in Iraq, or just if Al Qaeda isn't involved? If it's just Sunnis killing Shia and vice-versa, would that be victory? And how the hell could we do that? That's why it's called a CIVIL WAR. And this president created it.

And as far as the "opposites" idea, it's because we're binary. Yes or no. 1 or 0. :)

Actually, it's because the right-wing thinks Americans are too stupid to think in shades - just black and white.

"If you want the troops out, you don't support them."
"If we stay until we win, we lose."

A better

simple and easy. its all black and white, for us against us, fight em there so we dont fight em here....

Its framing.... and unfortunately.. its effective...

:sarcasm:

Or at least that is what professional political consultants tell our so-called leaders. And their jobs wouldn't exist without false dichotomies.

And they don't listen to nor talk to us. That should have been pretty clear from the first attacks, from both sides, on Howard Dean.

The only win for those that advocate the clusterphuck in Iraq is an endless war for nothing but profit.

You know, the same old "Weak on defense, soft on Crime" shtick.

------its all semantics--but thats how we will be potrayed in the MSM.