Since when does winning a war mean you have to rebuild the country or else you lost?
967980
right, the war was against Saddam Hussein and the ba'ath party, not against the people of Iraq. the whole point of it was to liberate them. second there was more than enough money in the Iraqi oil trust fund, but this was swallowed up by corrupt politicians and big corporations who took the money but didn't do the work. a lot of the insurgency is not political, it is a vendetta. a jumpy young soldier at a check point shoots up a car full of innocent people and you've got a whole family and clan taking revenge. the shia were cooperative in the beginning, but as time went by and there was no improvement, no regular electricity, no water, no sewage, no work. the hospitals closing down due to the lack of medicine and equipment. they got a tad annoyed with the Americans and British whose corporations were there to improve things but were actually just taking the cash. there was no al-qaeda there until the invasion as they saw Saddam as a heretic and he mercilessly crushed them. they came after the invasion and the break down in law and order. it is a good recruiting ground for them and they are financed by the Saudis who are terrified by the idea of a democratic shia state next door to them. we, the British and the Americans have to pay for the blundering manner which our governments chose to liberate the people of Iraq, so that millions of innocent people do not suffer. it is our fault we voted the cretins in
761007
Get real it was the result of a nation gone mad, religious or other\nwise
905478
The problem with a "win" is that I can't think of a single way we can win. The only good we've done is get Saddam out of there (which sent warlords into fighting each other and us for power) and establishing some sense of democracy (which may or may not stick in the long run)\n\nI think at this point it's very complex because we have done some good, but I don't think that good will flurish in the long run unless we stay and hold their hands and I think we may not even be able to do that successfully (or if we could, we'd sacrifice too much doing it)
918780
Well I guess Alex B. set it all straight for us. Winning means establishing a "stable" government and then ditching them to finish what we started for us. Brilliant.
785966
The victory was in removing Saddam Hussein from power and giving that country a chance to be a a real country, where the people can live in freedom from oppression.  From taking a dictator out of power and unable to kill entire cultures within their borders and stop people from disappearing from their families.  We are allowing to to develop their OWN Govt and not law set up by our country.  It will allow their people to pursue their dreams, get education, and feel safe at night in their own homes.  If you cant understand, imagine all the privileges that you have, nice things in your homes, and to be able to go out to where u wanted and do what you wanted, all taken away and living in fear everyday.   So what do you think the US means by victory in Iraq!
983745
At this point, just leaving Iraq right now with the situation it's in is a recipe for disaster. If you think it's bad now, just imagine what it'll be like without us. On the other hand, it's more of a catch-22 than anything. If we keep staying in Iraq, insurgents will keep killing soldiers. If we leave, however, everything we've done will be for nothing. The closest thing we can do that would be considered winning in my opinion is to have a functioning government, an army that can hold it's own, and basically get Iraq back on it's feet. After that, then we should leave. If there is *no* way we can win the war without anything like divine intervention, then we might as well leave.
659937
Unless something's changed....flying another country's flag upside down, meant you conquered that country.\nPoor fools. Apparently they don't realize they're shooting themselves in the foot, and that a good number of people in this country are getting tired of them demanding "rights" that no one else has ever been granted.
980823
Winning is defined by whoever writes the history. Can't the cons just claim it, pay some journalists to say it, and publish it on the Fox website? (and quietly bring the troops home?)
1145061
If you truly want to win a war do not let the politicians run the show. The politicians can set the goals and provide the resources, but leave the planning and execution to the generals.\n\nOnce the military objectives are met and security has been established, then nation building (didn't someone say once that we were not going to be nation builders?) can begin. The contracts could have been distributed in a manner that would have multiplied the benifit to the Iraquis by providing jobs to help in rebuilding the infrastructure. \n\nSelf-determination was a big part of US rhetoric during the Cold War. Reconstructing the government should not have excluded groups because we have a knee jerk reaction against their ideas or goals. The people should make that determination themselves. Marginalized groups who are left out of the political system cause internal strife. (Look at the Maoist rebels in Nepal, the Basque Separatists in Spain, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, etc.)
1050715
I'm not sure it's that we lose these wars, we just refuse to win them; leaving the enemies to fight another day.\n\nI want to win so we can get it behind us [for good], but that requires something we [the culture at large] no longer posses: moral clarity, conviction & certainty of purpose.
683406
Wars are fought when two countries have big problems such as invasion when a country wants more space or more people there are many reasons why a country go to war but there are a lot of disadvantages to because going to war is  lose of a lot of money and loss of life.
1038586
After the war comes piece!...no I didn't spell it wrong. Fighting has great makeup rewards.
833444
It is an isolationist attitude much like that of America pre WWII.  Hitler had conquered Europe and N Africa minus the UK and Japan had dominated the Asian front, yet nobody in America wanted to commit money or troops to war.  History repeats itself often.  The same thing happened during the Revolution.  Our Army nearly starved to death during winters at valley forge and morristown because of the lack of local support, it was only after the war was won the Americans took credit for their loyal trust in support of the war effort.  Civil War identical, see how Lincoln trampled the constitution to get things done in order to win.  Anyway whether we win against terrorism is purely whether the people wake up from their long slumber and fight for their liberty.  I hope an American City doesn't have to be destroyed before we wake up and take action.
121748
after pain comes the victory. after sundown sunrise. so war comes first before peace. an example in my life time is the 2nd world war. Japan is at peace now with the allied nations
1029261
When the blue morons of Iraq and Afghanistan stop squabbling amongst themselves and decide that it is time to run their country rather than ruin it.  The one letter difference between run and ruin is significant.
945087
The only successful wars are those won by overwhelming force.  The wars that are ended through diplomacy only always boil back over later on.  Think of the difference between WW2 and Korea.  We baked the Japanese and they are now close friends of ours.  We negotiated an end to the Korean War, and we are still dealing with the pot-bellied dog-eating dictator, and now he's pointing his puny half-a**ed nukes at us. The only final victory is a complete victory.
603934
He's right no one wins in a war. People loose family and property. There's nothing but destruction and chaos. Absolutely nothing positive coming from war. That doesn't mean that they are not necessary still nothing positive.