Daily Wisdom

August 25, 2007

The Liberal Definition of "Victory"

Hat-tip to Beerme.

Based on the comments of various Democrats, Liberals and the Left-Wing Media in general, it is apparent that we have lost the war in Iraq. And not just once, but several times, and for various reasons. Since I have had a hard time understanding how we lost the war, or who actually won, I decided to do some research and see if I could figure out what it really takes to achieve victory in standard Liberal parlance. I have therefore come up with the following Liberal definition of "Victory"...

"Victory" can ONLY happen when...

  • A war is fought with the permission of France
  • A war is fought with the permission of Germany
  • A war is fought with the permission of Russia
  • A war is fought with the permission of China
  • A war is fought with the permission of the U.N.
  • A war is fought in a country without oil
  • A war is fought in a country without sand storms or jungles
  • A war is fought for no more than one week
  • A war is fought while terrorists do not remain at large
  • The President does NOT receive bad pre-war intelligence
  • The President is a Democrat
  • No one is killed on either side
  • No collateral damage occurs to persons or property
  • No accidental deaths or friendly-fire incidents occur
  • Reporters feel safe to visit the front lines
  • Reporters are free to learn our strategic plans and disseminate them to the world
  • Intelligence on foreign enemies cannot be obtained
  • We do not interrogate captured enemy combatants
  • We respect the traditions & customs of foreign enemy combatants
  • We provide foreign enemy combatants with American constitutional rights
  • There are no frat-style AbuGhraib-type hijinks
  • Everyone on both sides is at their best behavior at all times
  • No brutal dictators are removed from power
  • No authoritarian governments are toppled
  • No new post-war governments or constitutions are required
  • No post-war reconciliation between ethnic, religious, or political groups is required
  • Americans are greeted as liberators with flowers, hugs and kisses from EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN of the country
  • A war is followed by NO insurgencies of ANY kind
  • A war is followed by rebuilding efforts that do not use Haliburton contracts
  • A war is followed by NO rebuilding efforts, because that takes money from social programs
  • A war is followed by our immediate withdrawal so as not to be labeled 'occupiers'
  • A war costs absolutely NO money, because ANY amount is too much

  • I think I missed a few, but failure to meet any of the above equally-weighted criteria results in immediate defeat for the United States! Got it now?

    13 Comments:

    At 8/25/2007 5:27 PM , Blogger camojack said...

    Definition of "Victory"?

    It's a motorcycle, of course...

     
    At 8/25/2007 10:42 PM , Blogger mindknumbed kid said...

    Victory Hammer commercials make me drool....
    I think you missed that a war is lost if there is a democrat looking for face time on TV or wants to be elected to a higher office.

     
    At 8/25/2007 11:06 PM , Anonymous Elroy said...

    In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.

    Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

    Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field.

    With his forces intact he will dispute the mastery of the Empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete. This is the method of attacking by stratagem.

    – Sun Tzu, The Art Of War.

     
    At 8/26/2007 9:15 AM , Blogger Beerme said...

    Was Sun Tzu describing illegal immigration?

     
    At 8/26/2007 10:14 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

    Camo,
    Yeah, those are some nice bikes.

     
    At 8/26/2007 10:16 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

    mindknumbed kid,
    Yep! I forgot that one.

    (:D) Regards...

     
    At 8/26/2007 10:18 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

    Elroy,
    Very philosophical indeed...

    "In the practical art of economics, the best thing of all is to earn your first million before age 25." --Hawkeye®

    It may be the best thing of all to do... but that does not necessarily make it possible or achievable.

    For example, I don't know of any particular "stratagems" that Al-Qaeda would succumb to... do you?

     
    At 8/26/2007 10:21 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

    Beerme,
    Funny! (Your comment... not the illegal immigration).

    (:D) Best regards...

     
    At 8/26/2007 7:34 PM , Anonymous Elroy said...

    Beerme – um, no, Sun Tzu was talking about war. But if he was describing illegal immigration, do you think he was offering advice to the Americans or the Mexicans?

    Hawkeye, you are getting confused. Your four fallacies of the Iraq war do not mention Al-qaeda as a reason for going; would you, as GWB likes to do, add it to the list after the fact?

    The Iraq war was never about chasing Al-qaeda or being chased by them – it might be now, but that it because Rummy ignored another of Sun Tzu's famous edicts:

    'If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.'

    I posit that Rummy did not know the enemy. Who was/is the Army fighting? Sunni insurgents? Shiite insurgents? Al-qaeda? The State Department? All four at once? Tzu would not be amused.

     
    At 8/26/2007 8:52 PM , Anonymous Hankmeister said...

    You nailed it, Hawkeye. That's the "reality-based community" for you, always living in their ivory towers and never wanting to become a human shield to back up their rhetoric of love for their fellow man, even though there is no age limit or physical to pass to be a human shield.

    In my experience, liberals are people who wax eloquently about their love for humanity while hating people who don't agree with them.

    BTW, other than Elroy and a few "reality-based" moonbats, where have shattered and destroyed Iraq? Isn't it the Islamofascists who are doing their best to do that? Oh, that's right, like Flip Wilson's "the devil made me do it", [Great Satan] America makes Muslim whackos become even more destructive of their own brethren, right?

     
    At 8/26/2007 8:53 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Sorry, should read: "Where has America utterly shattered or destroyed Iraq?"

     
    At 8/26/2007 10:59 PM , Anonymous Elroy said...

    In my experience, Hankmeister, the people who wax eloquently about their love for humanity while hating people who don't agree with them are the conservatives, except that they don't actually love humanity.

    Where has America utterly shattered and destroyed Iraq? Um, Iraq. Do you think that there would be 700,000 dead, 4 million refugees and 8 million destitutes if America had not gone in?

    Anyhoo, I reckon you should all take a look at this:

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle

    Your taxes at work!

    Cheers

    Elroy

     
    At 8/26/2007 11:01 PM , Anonymous elroy said...

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/
    the_great_iraq_swindle

     

    Post a Comment

    Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

    << Home