Defeated US leaving Iraq quietly!!

[longbrained]

I think US got what it wanted. They wanted a friendly neighbourhood in ME, and Saddam was a rogue who was to be dealt with.
They dealt it with a ease of school teacher spanking unruly kids.
In the process, everybody(including israel and soudis) are happy that they are not under threat.
And US maintains influence in the ME.

Friendly? Are you sure? Maiki kicked out US despite repeated call from US to keep troops there in the form of some permanent bases, similar to Germany and Japan. US was never under threat by Saddam as he was the old buddy who had gone rogue much similar to Osama. But on his own he was powerless, and US knew it. US had gone in to steal the oil but could not get it at the end. US has no influence in middle east except with some dictators whose regimes are already unstable. As has been shown democracy in middle east kills US influence.

 

[livingdead]

you are defeated not because you captured baghdad but because you didnt achieve any aim, and it costed you billions of dollars, dented an irrepairable economy

1. Overthrow anti-american regime(Saddam and Baath party)
2. Install a govt which is not anti-american and do not threaten its allies
3. Send signals to Israel and Soudis that they can count on US intervention
4. Secure energy routes.

 

[longbrained]

WMD was a lie. Everybody knows that. I am not supporting US invasion on Iraqi soil. But they have created a stable government in Iraq and crushed rebellions. That's it.No need to be emotional.

You mean created a pro-Iranian government. That is called defeat. Much like Vietnam when US left the place.

 

[53fd]

You can say US is defeated in Afganistan if it falls into enemy hands again. Nobody knows what will happen next, I am sure US will protect its interest in central asia(as russia and others).
In case of Iraq, I am not really sure it will do any funny activity like suddam anytime soon.

Dude, more than half of Afghanistan is effectively controlled by the Taliban.

 

[ramu]

Defeated in what way ? What military objectives have they not met ?

 

[livingdead]

Friendly? Are you sure? Maiki kicked out US despite repeated call from US to keep troops there in the form of some permanent bases, similar to Germany and Japan. US was never under threat by Saddam as he was the old buddy who had gone rogue much similar to Osama. But on his own he was powerless, and US knew it. US had gone in to steal the oil but could not get it at the end. US has no influence in middle east except with some dictators whose regimes are already unstable. As has been shown democracy in middle east kills US influence.

Saddam could just walk into kuwait, a friendly country of US. It could threaten soudis and Israel. Hence required to be disciplined.
There are regimes which are vital to US interest in ME, and the war was an effort in securing them.

 

[longbrained]

1. Overthrow anti-american regime(Saddam and Baath party)
2. Install a govt which is not anti-american and do not threaten its allies
3. Send signals to Israel and Soudis that they can count on US intervention
4. Secure energy routes.

1- Replaced an old US buddy Saddam who had become weak with a pro-Iranian government.
2-Installed a govt which is telling US to mind its own business and cares more about Assad in Syria than US.
3-Send signals to Iran that US intervention can be counted on as an opportunity to win over US.
4-Increase the price of oil by 500%.

 

[53fd]

Defeated in what way ? What military objectives have they not met ?

The strategic, geopolitical long term objectives were not achieved. There is a lot more to things than military objectives. If that were the case, the US would have left Iraq right after they killed Saddam.

 

[longbrained]

Defeated in what way ? What military objectives have they not met ?

That is a rhetoric. What military objectives have they met, may I ask? They are leaving the country having achieved nothing. Only losses amounting to trillions of dollars.

 

[Ambitious449]

You mean created a pro-Iranian government. That is called defeat. Much like Vietnam when US left the place.

I know there is lots of hatred against US in Pakistani minds. Just don;t rule those emotions on your practical mind. US has achieved whatever they wanted. was that justified or not is different question.

 

[livingdead]

Dude, more than half of Afghanistan is effectively controlled by the Taliban.

Many parts of bordering places in pakistan was effectively independent. Does not mean they rule pakistan. It will be interesting if kabul falls into hands of taliban again.
Also, the promise of withdrawl before 14 seems to be an election promise and it can be delayed(may be by blaming everything on pakistan

 

[livingdead]

1- Replaced an old US buddy Saddam who had become weak with a pro-Iranian government.
2-Installed a govt which is telling US to mind its own business and cares more about Assad in Syria than US.
3-Send signals to Iran that US intervention can be counted on as an opportunity to win over US.
4-Increase the price of oil by 500%.

Well the price of not intervening would have possibly been greater. They would have lost Soudis(who even now want to attack iran, spend billions on arms). Possibly arab war with Israel(their main friend in ME).
Saddam was weak for america, but a strongman in ME.
Maliki at least is not anti american. Iraq is not exactly anti-american, if you ask ordinary iraqi, they may have religious affiliation with shia Iran.
Overall, there is a case of war(seeing purely on basis of cost/benefit, and I still think cost to america would have been far more)

 

[53fd]

Many parts of bordering places in pakistan was effectively independent. Does not mean they rule pakistan. It will be interesting if kabul falls into hands of taliban again.
Also, the promise of withdrawl before 14 seems to be an election promise and it can be delayed(may be by blaming everything on pakistan

That's not true. The Pakistan government controls most parts of Pakistan, about 90% of Pakistani territory is effectively controlled by Pakistan. Which is more than what the Indian government has control over India.

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

US has the power too
1. Destroy any country and put its puppet
2. Kill any one
3. Keep occupation with the help of divided nation. (were one group hating the other so much that one allies with US to crush the other)

But
1, US can't unite a captive nation, as it divide's first to invade and by then there is so much hate (thanks to US policy of divide and rule) that nation can never be one (Shiite Sunni and Kurds). Democracy fails were one group is in majority and hates other minorities.
2, US army is high tech and needs so much comfort that even when its troop don't fight, they need 1000$ a day per person to deploy . US economy is weak now for another Iraq.
3, US find love from few and hate from many as by default people supporting them are corrupt and ignore the needs of other fellows.

 

[livingdead]

That's not true. The Pakistan government controls most parts of Pakistan, about 90% of Pakistani territory is effectively controlled by Pakistan. Which is more than what the Indian government has control over India.

Not sure how much Indian govt controls, I cant convert a vague feeling into a magic percent number.
But GoI controls which it thinks important enough, and is willing to fight wars,face threat of alleneation and international condemnation for places which is really important(like kashmir).