News Will Victory Be Declared Before Saddam is Found?

[Nicool003]

Today there was talk of when the Victory would be declared and stuff like that. It was asked if victory would be declared before saddam was found but the response was that it was a war against his regime not just him. What do you think?

 

[kyleb]

well i never really wanted them to start, so the sooner they call it over the better in my book. then we can concentrate on making things better for all the innocent people who are bound to be pissed off that we have been putting though hell, that is what i am worried about at this point.

 

[Nicool003]

Actually many people are HAPPY with us now because despite what some people think, a lot of them hated saddam. So I am sure they won't mind us helping them set up a government and stuff. I can't believe the UN actaully wants control of that. What a joke. anyways let's save that UN stuff for another thread...

 

[Mulder]

Yes, if anything it's more about the regime than Saddam alone. US soldiers were practically sat across the road from that crazy (dis)information minister earlier with him in their sights, but said they didn't just pop him because this conflict is about getting rid of the regime rather than focussing on particular individuals.

 

[FZ+]

I think they are saying that because they no longer expect to capture Saddam, dead or alive.

 

[Nicool003]

Oh they also killed saddams cousin, a major chemical weapons person in Iraq. You are right (as were the people that said this) That it is as much if not more against saddams regime than anything but being that he led it and caused it, I think they should find him or at least find out if he is dead or alive. But I don't think that should stop them from declaring victory.

 

[Nicool003]

I think they are saying that because they no longer expect to capture Saddam, dead or alive.

Perhaps but they could have already killed him and not known it.

 

[Mulder]

Well if Saddam has already unavoidably fled to Syria, then there isn't really a lot we can do. No doubt that would bring the inevitable criticism from some quarters too

 

[damgo]

I think they ought to wait until they finish winning before they declare victory. Ba'ath should have no power left, the coalition should control all the cities. Not just Baghdad, but Tikrit, Mosul, Kirkuk in the north; and control in a "we can walk through the streets" way.

 

[Nicool003]

Define control. There is no desire to control as in rule or dictate Iraq. I assume you mean until his arm had been defeated?

 

[kyleb]

as in make it safe for an American solder to walk down the streets.

 

[Alias]

*deleted because of Physics Forums Guideline violations*

 

[Nicool003]

what do you mean Kyleb? Alias maybe if you fix that last post of yours... I don't know what was wrong with it.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nicool003
Define control. There is no desire to control as in rule or dictate Iraq. I assume you mean until his arm had been defeated?

as in make it safe for an American solder to walk down the streets.

Yeah. Control in a military sense simply means an end to meaningful resistance.

 

[FZ+]

How do you define meaningful resistance?

 

[enigma]

I'd define it as: being shot at on a regular occasion.

 

[kyleb]

exactly, if a solder can feel rather safe walking down the street alone without his gun readied; then there is no meaningful resistance.

 

[FZ+]

If we apply that definition to Afghanistan then, we find we haven't won the war there after all...

 

[Nicool003]

How do you define meaningful resistance?

A resistance of saddams troops/army to surrender or stand down. And when you say meaningful I doubt they would worry about anything less than a few hundred men. A big resistance can cause many problems with the new government, like when afghanistan got a new government, there were several attempts to kill their new leader.