A Sincere Question.

[Iron_Ranger]

I have seen several articals, US and internationaly based, that would like to lead us to believe that we are losing the war.

How on earth are we losing the war? Its hasnt even been a month yet and we a very close to Baghdad, very few (relativley) causualtys, various rumors that Saddam is dead, we controll most of Iraqi air space, a large portion of deaths that have come for the Coalition side werent even in battle.

So I would really like to know why mostly left-wing news agencys would like to have us believe that we are losing the war.

[Djinn Raffo]

Maybe cause everyone loses when their is a war? Nobody wins? ..don't know..

edit> that a diff tangent.. i think you are meaning tactically losing the war.. yah.. can't see how that is the case short term..

[ 04-03-2003, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: Djinn Raffo ]

[Iron_Ranger]

But that doesnt really answer the question..

Maybe its because they didnt want the war, and now that its here they are doing everything in the power to make it look like a bad descion. Thats the only conclusion I can draw.

Edit- Also, most wars arent really fought for people. They are fought for ideals, and what are ideals with out people? So it kind of ties in together. Make sence? Not really, but it does in a vauge way,sorta.

[ 04-03-2003, 12:40 AM: Message edited by: Iron_Ranger ]

[Djinn Raffo]

Just edited.. i know you meanign tactically losing i believe.. yeah.. who knows.

[pritchke]

I have not seen any articles saying you are losing the war except for the ones from Iraq. The others are just stating it is going worse than originally planned and that not every one is all happy about being invaded, the Shack and awe did absolutely nothing, most troops are not surrendering as was planned. In the end after troops have occupied Iraq for many years which is the plan(holding my breath that it is not). Bin Laden would have been cloned over and over so yes in that sense it would be a lose when terrorist become a common thing. Currently I will give your benefit of the doubt saying it will get rid of Saddam and leave if it is what the Iraqis want.

[Night Stalker]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: But that doesnt really answer the question.. Maybe its because they didnt want the war, and now that its here they are doing everything in the power to make it look like a bad descion. Thats the only conclusion I can draw. Edit- Also, most wars arent really fought for people. They are fought for ideals, and what are ideals with out people? So it kind of ties in together. Make sence? Not really, but it does in a vauge way,sorta.

Actually, wars have not been historically fought for ideals. They were fought for food, land, resources, trade rights, breeding stock. It's only been in the last few hundred years or so that the idea of war for ideas really came about - and alot of those could arguably be attributed to other things.

As to why some think the war is being lost ... well the myth of sterile warfare due to overwelming technology has been allowed to propagate for a long time now. Combine that with instant gratification/ all news (noise) 24/7/ lottery dreams/ blablablah and you get people complaining that the war isn't over within 24 hrs of shots being fired. It's all lies and fantasies.

EDIT:

Pritchke - "shock and awe" has not been implemented. Unleashing that type of hell is counter productive to winning the hearts and minds. Make no mistake that if we were unconcerned for the indig population, Iraq would be a smouldering ruin - without even using nukes. Of course if we did loose that kind of fury, the rest of the world would rise up against us.

So, an army pushing an objective 300+ mi in less than 2 weeks (never before accomplished - blitzkrieg may be close+) is an obvious failure in this light.

[ 04-03-2003, 01:24 AM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

[Iron_Ranger]

Originally posted by pritchke: I have not seen any articles saying you are losing the war except for the ones from Iraq. The one that jumps to mind first is of course the whole Arnett deal. The others are just stating it is going worse than originally planned and that not every one is all happy about being invaded, the Shack and awe did absolutely nothing, And how exacly do you know that? Maybe its just be but I would say taking out prime Republican Guard spots certaintly isnt 'absolutley nothing'. I have also heard military officals say Saddam has been dead since the day one. most troops are not surrendering as was planned. This is exacly what I am talking about. In the end after troops have occupied Iraq for many years which is the plan(holding my breath that it is not). Its my belief you are dead wrong on that, but there is no point in speculating because the war isnt over yet. Bin Laden would have been cloned over and over so yes in that sense it would be a lose when terrorist become a common thing. So is that a good enough reason to sit on our hands and do nothing? I doubt Iraqis will become terrorist, the majority of them anyway, because from what I have seen most of them are level headed enough to realize whats going on, and we are not attacking the Iraqi population. Currently I will give your benefit of the doubt saying it will get rid of Saddam and leave if it is what the Iraqis want.

[ 04-03-2003, 01:29 AM: Message edited by: Iron_Ranger ]

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: The one that jumps to mind first is of course the whole Arnett deal.

Have you even read the Arnett article? What he said was that the US's initial war plans had failed because of Iraqi resistance... Unless you're referring to something which wasn't covered in the Arnett topic here on Ironworks, he never said anything about "losing the war". Honestly, Iron Ranger, I've yet to see any articles claiming that the US and the UK are losing this war; so please give us examples of these articles*, as the point you're trying to make is more or less mute without them.
Though I agree with the sentiment that there aren't any winners in a war, only losers.

* Mind you, far left articles don't really count; they're as trustworthy and have as many (or have the same lack of) facts as far right articles, and aren't exactly representative for the general opinions of the entire pro- or anti-war movement. Any person with a right mind should dismiss the validity of both of those. But you seem to be implying that you were talking about larger newsstations, including International ones, so go ahead and post links to those; I'm curious.

[ 04-03-2003, 03:42 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Iron_Ranger]

Originally posted by Grojlach: Have you even read the Arnett article? What he said was that the US's initial war plans had failed because of Iraqi resistance... Unless you're referring to something which wasn't covered in the Arnett topic here on Ironworks, he never said anything about "losing the war". Honestly, Iron Ranger, I've yet to see any articles claiming that the US and the UK are losing this war; so please give us examples of these articles*, as the point you're trying to make is more or less mute without them. Though I agree with the sentiment that there aren't any winners in a war, only losers. * Mind you, far left articles don't really count; they're as trustworthy and have as many (or have the same lack of) facts as far right articles, and aren't exactly representative for the general opinions of the entire pro- or anti-war movement. Any person with a right mind should dismiss the validity of both of those. But you seem to be implying that you were talking about larger newsstations, including International ones, so go ahead and post links to those; I'm curious. [/QB]

'initial war plans had failed'. Failed usally indicates you are losing at something correct?
Initial war plans have not failed.

There arent all that many (unless you count far leftist) articals that say, simply we are losing the war. But its more of the spin news agencys put on it. Like 'Fierce Fire Fighting outside of Basra' and such. That implys we are struggling a great deal with the war in Iraq.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Iron_Ranger: 'initial war plans had failed'. Failed usally indicates you are losing at something correct? Initial war plans have not failed.

From what I understood the initial plan was that towns such as Basra would be bypassed and there was expected to be a mass uprising in the south of Iraq. That plan failed so they changed to a new plan.

[ 04-03-2003, 04:57 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]