"Victory?"

[Giggle Goose]

I've heard a lot of politicians talk about not pulling out of Iraq until we have "won" or achieved "victory." Well, that's fine and dandy, but we're talking BILLIONS of dollars a month here.

Believe it or not, I happen to be pretty fiscally conservative. Which is why the Bush administration has perplexed the hell out of me.

I'm not trying to attack anyone who supports the war, but just WHAT are you talking about when you say "victory?" If it's worth writing a blank check of OUR money for; then I'd like to hear your definition of what it means to "win" a war in this day and age. Al-Qaeda surrendeurs? The Iraqis tell us to get the f*** out, they're fine on their own? Inquiring taxpayers want to know.

[Dreamstalker]

There is no "victory", at least not that I can see. If the US stays, the insurgents get smarter, more soldiers and civilians die and more money hemorrhages.

The Iraqis won't tell us themselves to get out, because they know Uncle Sam is there and will take care of things. I'm not blaming the Iraqi government, we were and are being too helpful.

IMO, the way to get them spurred into action to solve things themselves is to pull out. Call me an idealist, but it seems to me that once that happens, things will get back to some sort of balance.

The "threat" of Al-Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist until we moved in, it is entirely our making so there is no basis to complain.

[Sylvia727]

I have always assumed that the "victory" is stability. But then again, the soldiers are still over there. So who knows.

[MadMike]

Well, what do you expect from the people who brought us "Mission Accomlished?"

[Slytovhand]

I think that's part of the idea, GG, leave an open-ended goal, so you can have it for as long or as short as you want.

Remember, a lot of people are making a lot of money (the only thing that actually counts to those people) from all those wars... so it's a good way to keep both sides 'happy'.