What is Digg?65 Comments
- BamB00, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33Winning means:
1. The fall of Al Qaida group(nope)
2. Death of Osama bin Laden (?)
3. Price of Oil drops under $2 (nope)
4. President Bush resigns (nope)
5. Found WMD (nope)
6. Peace in Middle East (nope)
7. Peace in Korea (nope)
8. Safety in USA (nope)
9. President of 2008 (?)
10. End of the War (nope) - Ascendant, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27What’s funny is that someone from the Administration is asking someone from the media what the definition of “winning” is.
- RamanujanRedux, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24Their only definition of 'winning' they know the past six years involves manipulating the Electoral College.
- jackelsmack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17"Victory is not optional... we're not exactly sure what victory looks like though. Anyone got suggestions? Got to stay the course until the job is done... not sure how to tell when the job is done though. The mission has been accomplished, is being accomplished, and will be accomplished. Not sure what the mission is though, or how to measure accomplishment... but neither do you guys, so take THAT liberal media!"
- jackelsmack, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17A few years ago, I would've assumed you were just a troll. But now that the failure of the Iraq project has become too obvious to deny, you students of the "Kill More People" school of foreign policy start coming out of the woodwork. I'm not even sure where to start... you're saying US troops should do what, act like they did at Haditha 100% of the time? Go on more rampages? Torture more people? You're saying we should keep killing until every remaining man, woman, and child in Iraq submits to imperial authority?
I volunteer you for this mission, report to your local recruiting office for further instructions.
(Cluetrain: In WW2, we were fighting regulars in state-based armies. In Iraq we're fighting independent irregulars and civilians with guns. Not possible to win in Iraq the way you're talking about.) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Tony doesn't know if we're winning? Then who does know, Tony. One would think the White House press secretary would be one of the people who knew. But okay, if you don't know, who does?
- lopla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13These righties are absolute lunatics. I'm downright ashamed that they are my fellow country men.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13nicely put. I wonder who's trying to bury you!
Tony Snow? - WalterDirt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Thank you.
If you want and agree with the war, sign up and fight, otherwise, SHUT THE F*CK UP, because who is the bigger coward; the guy who disagrees on prinicple to fight, or the guy who is all *ra-ra-ra killem sand n*ggers* but refuses to fight?
/proud anti-war liberal - Mozmonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Just because the President says we're going to win means it must be true, right? Let's all forget about all the other variables involved in winning a war.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Sign up or shut up.
- Ascendant, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11right... we should figure out why the Iraqis aren't all so happy about us liberating them. I'm sure it's just because our occupation hasn't been brutal enough.
I mean, it worked for Saddam, right? - joeyjojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7'Winning' is impossible, just as loosing is.
The administration has never defined what success is. As long as they avoid that, they can never say they were unsuccesful.
Sadly, much of the country finds nothing wrong with that logic. - Meadow113, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It just gets more unbelieveable everyday from this bunch. RIght now, 60 percent of Iraqi's support attacks on our troops, 71 percent want us to leave, how high do those numbers have to be?
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's Viet Nam. It's Cambodia. We're caught in someone else's war afraid of what might shake loose when neither of them want us around. The only way to control Iraq is to control Iraq, and if we succeed we've lost our moral high-ground.
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Didn't the President say we were going to find Weapons of Mass Destruction and be praised as liberators?
Maybe Tony should try asking someone who knows what the Hell he's talking about? - toddmoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3How about NO we are not, we are going backward and we should not have been there to begin with, the entire rest of the world was right and this administration was wrong.
I believe it was Colin Powell who said "you break it, you buy it" now we are stuck and we are going to be stuck for years to come.
Thanks George. - jaibee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I didn't think anyone could be worse than Scott Mcclellan, yet everytime this man speaks I am constantly amazed at how wrong I was.
- killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@jdfoote
Or we could blame the chopping up of the middle east after WWII. But that couldn't be used to gain votes. Its much easier for conservatives to blame Clinton for not killing bin laden or liberals to blame Bush for not trying hard enough in his 8 months. - Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The thing about Tony Snow is that he actually attempts to answer the questions, which usually ends up with him caught in a half assed "So what, your breath stinks" line or whatnot. Scott Mcclellan at least let you know that he didn't have an answer, didn't want to answer, and that he was late for his appointment with his twinky.
- Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3There wasn't anything to win in this war from the beggining, anyway. It was a big mistake
- Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Not only is there no set terms for victory (which I'm assuming is the dismantling of all terrorism, which would sorta put us on that list) but there is no set term for progress either. What is progress in this war. The capturing of influential terrorists? Even the death of their leaders has done nothing but increase the nefarious acts of not only terrorists now, but that of Iraq's own civilians. What else is there... We can scratch the finding WMDs thing out of the equation because even the administration has confided to us that what they "thought" were WMDs were KNOWN to be nothing more than forgotten chemical weapons with the power to make a few hundred people sick and even fewer die.
What else is there? - Ethanael, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3How could you define winning in this war? This is a war that you can not win. We removed saddam and that's about as good as it gets while we are there. The reason being, How do you kill every single person that decides to rise up with their own methodology to kill Americans and to kill those that are helping Americans? You just don't. Joe blow next door in Baghdad today may support the effort, but then all of a sudden something happens and he decides to join the opposition... Terrorists are made on a daily basis.
So, how do we win? I honestly couldn't tell you and I don't think the people in Washington could tell it either. The more we rebuild, the more they car-bomb. The longer we stay, the more of my friends that die. The longer it takes for us to realize that we need to define what it is what we are going to do there and GET OUT, the more people start to hate Bush and eventually leads to everybody in this world spitting on American flags.
Case in point: DEFINE our mission, finish the mission, and get out. Leave this whole, "We're going to remove the terrorists", and put in soemthing like, "We're going to put 80% of our effort into training an Iraqi military to support themselves." That should be the main mission. If they can hold their own, atleast somewhat... That country would be better off if we're not on that land.
Thats my two cents, for what its worth. - reallydigginit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The White House, through its spokesman, has just admitted that it is unable to define victory in Iraq (and is taking suggestions from reporters).
Why is this not a bigger story? - reallydigginit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2EXACTLY.
- Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I say success would be an education system that can teach our children the proper spelling of LOSING.
- Bieling3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, how do you win a war against an idea? I would be confused as how to answer as well. Say, how's that War on Poverty and that War on Drugs coming? Have we turned the corner there as well? Snow couldn't just come out and say we do not, and never have, intended to win the War in Iraq, or the War on Terror. We are waging war to make people at home feeel like they are more secure, because if they didn't have terror hanging over their heads, why would you need Republicans?
- jon3k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You're right, we should have left Sadaam in power and let him continue to slaughter people by the tens of thousands, invade his neighbors and manufacturer chemical weapons (which he used against his own people).
Yeah, that makes sense.
You might not like our current course of action, but would you be happy with complete inaction against Sadaam and his Iraqi regime? - jon3k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1At least we can all agree, right or left, that useless comments like this have no place on digg. Next time, as opposed to just whining and slinging mud, try adding something to the debate.
You know, I might not always agree with everyone on here, but I have gotten an opportunity to at least hear from the other side of the isle, from moderate to extreme, and I really do appreciate that. - Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Speak for yourself about arguing. Why don't you send your counterpoint instead of retorting with a redundant question? If not, I've got no time for you then.
- WalterDirt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jon3k
Actually I've made a few flyer's for use in protests you presumptuous cowardly windbag, why don't you go sign up to lick Bush's taint. - Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It doesn't matter how high the degree when the variable is MEANINGLESS
- Meadow113, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As I said, how high do the numbers have to be?
- avidlinuxuser, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Come on, guys. If the terrorist know what it means to "win", they will just hold out till we "win.". It'll give them hope. You don't want to be a terrorist supporter, do you?
/sarcasm - Meadow113, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Asian, that was the question that I had asked in the first place, when you attacked the poll that I sited and asked for a source, I gave you the source, you state that the poll just states the obivous, so I went back to the original question, which was how high do the numbers have to be?
- reallydigginit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Asianwaste,
Actually, it's a typo.
However, if you work under the assumption that it IS a spelling error, you can rightly assume that if joeyjojo cannot spell and cannot type, that all he needs now is a nasty coke habit, a rich daddy, and a couple of slut daughters— then he could be President of the United States! - Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jon3k: Saddam surely is not the best person to lead, OK he is a mad dictator to be precise. I just don't think that the troops sent there made Iraq any better, quite the opposite if you ask me. At least Saddam knew how to handle the Iraqis, now what? The "liberators" caused a civil war, not to say that the situation didn't seem to go that way but as I said before Saddam knew how to handle such civil wars, the "puppets" of the liberators are too weak.
- voteforblank, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Winning = Crushing the Constitution While Wasting Time in IRAQ!
- reallydigginit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1excellent.
- avolant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1personally, i still pray for a draft. you cant tell me this ridiculous thing would survive if it were running on the lives of the random public. we just dont support it on a large enough scale to make such a thing viable. you can pay for my training and give me a gun. that doesnt mean i have to fight.
and in that regaurd, maybe it would be best if all of us who disagree with the mess signed up. im sure there are plenty out there who would be willing to do some civil disobedience in the belly of the beast. no? well, i wouldnt expect the individuals in power (on any side of the issue) to be putting this one down for a while.
like most societal problems, this can be solved by utelizing the fine art of sitting down. a skill forgotten in a culture that feels the need to fight about everything, but particularly effective against an entity that cannot attack with less than full force. a little organization never hurts, but overall its just a matter of whether youd prefer to sit behind a desk reading stories about how ridiculous the whole thing is or in a blockade against the war effort itself. it is the job of a society to regulate government, after all. not the other way around. - Meadow113, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Asianwaste: I got those numbers here:
The WorldPublicOpinion.org poll was conducted September 1-4 by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. It was fielded by KA Research Ltd./D3 Systems Inc. Questions were asked of a nationwide representative sample of 1,150 Iraqi adults.
The report is at the Program on International Policy Attitudes Web site at: http://www.pipa.org/
The US State Department has also done some polling, I have only found references to that though, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html
I guess maybe after the election we might see an official release of that data. - jon3k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's a misleading question that's impossible to answer. I wish I could live in the liberal world, where everything is as black and white as "winning or losing" against an Insurgent army that you wouldn't ever possibly know if you defeated. How do you "win" ? Kill every one of them? I'd hardly call that a "victory".
Some of you people are so simple minded. - jon3k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@WalterDirt
He has just as much right to complain as you do. If you don't like the war in Iraq, why not go run for political office and do something about it? I'm sure you're out protesting, right? Or somehow involved in the movement to end the occupation of Iraq, of course ... right?
Yeah, I thought not. Another liberal sitting in his mom's basement whining about violence. That argument works both ways. - an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@jon3k
I guess that's fair... let's rephrase it. Snow keeps saying we are "making progress" in Iraq. What does "making progress" mean?
Like less terrorism, winning the hearts and minds, what? Please explain from the viewpoint of the complex. - Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hey moron if you were there to see for yourself, you'd know that we've done more things than shoot people there. The Army Engineers and Navy Seabees have constructed schools and helped rebuild communities around Baghdad. At GTMO there are Arabic and Farsi literacy classes to help some detainees read the Koran. The only reason there are no good news in Iraq is because IT'S NEVER REPORTED. I've seen CNN flat out lie and make stuff up that supposedly happened in my very camp when I was there. Open my ears? I saw all this with my own friggin eyes. Open your brain for a bit.
- Daunting, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0tens of thousands over the span of 20 years. Hundreds of thousand over the span of 3 years. Come on....
- Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0... you're an idiot. You're done.
- Meadow113, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Can't argue, so you insult
- an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@sianwaste
Pull your fingers out of your ears, boy. There's no media conspiracy to bury the good Iraq news, there is no good Iraq news.
Believe me, liberal or conservative, we all wish that there were. - an0nymous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@Jon3k
Yes. 3000 dead Americans, 600,000(?) dead Iraqis, thousands of newly invigorated terrorists, replacement of a brutal dictatorship with anarchy, nilhilism, civial war and ultimately a even more brutal theocratic dictatorship.
We (by which I mean everyone with the exception of the Kurds) would have been better off with Saddam. We are responsible for far more deaths than he. Of Americans and Iraquis both. -
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is