How do you define and measure win and lose in a war ?

What's up guys? This is Activist4life aka Dear Aunaetitrakul. Yes, my real name is Dear.  I'm sorry that  I have not been on there for awhile. It's just I am trying to get my own blog site up in the air. This is the article I put on my blog site at www.openforum.wordpress.com

Hopefully you enjoy this article. Last but not least, don't forget to visit my web site.

Here is my article.

How do you define and measure win and lose in a war?

Let’s look at how the Oxford dictionary (askoxford.com) defines win and lose.

Win: 1) to be successful or victorious in a contest or a conflict 2) to gain as a result of success in a contest, conflict, etc.

Lose: 1) to fail to win 2) to become unable to find 3) to waste or fail to take advantage of.

Before I start saying anything out of the world, here is my take on win and lose in general.

Win is defined and measured by actions. For example, in sports, let’s say the Denver Nuggets beat the New York Knicks by 20 points which means the Nuggets wins.  In sports like basketball, whichever team that scores the most points or the highest number wins. How did the Nuggets win?  Well, there are many reasons to that. One of them could be that they performed on the court better than the Knicks.

Lose is also defined and measured by actions as well. Let’s stick to the Nuggets and Knicks example. The Knicks lost to the Nuggets by 20 points. One of the reasons to this failure could be that the team did not play well together as a team on the court.

Overall, if you get the highest number or score more than anybody else, you win. If you have the lowest score, you lose.

So let’s put this theory into a war situation. Let’s pick the war in Iraq because it’s an ongoing war that we all can talk about.

If the success of a war were to measure by which side has the higher number of casualties, then the Iraqis should win the war right? According to the CNN report, the U.S invasion in Iraq is responsible for at least 655,000 deaths. On the other hand, Alternet.org reported, there are at least 50,000 U.S casualties in that region. Another way of measuring a win is to decide by which side has the least number of deaths in the war, then the U.S should be considered as the winner.

When it comes to life and death situation, you can not measure win or lose in a war by the number deaths or how strong your military is. In the end, people are going to die. Look at the war in Iraq, the U.S troops is 100 percent more advanced than the Iraqi insurgents. Still, at least one U.S soldier dies everyday as we see on the news. When President Bush, politicians and new analysts say “Oh, we are winning in the war in Iraq”  or  “Yes, we are losing in this war,” what do you mean by that? How do you define and measure the win and the loss? When it comes to war, there are no winners. There are losers. People died on both sides regardless of the number. You can’t replace a life with money or pension. When we say, winners write history, are they really the winner? Or are they just lucky and have enough money to write history for the world to learn?

I am writing this blog out of frustration. I am sick of our leaders and news reporters tell us,  Americans that we are either winning or losing in war because they themselves don’t even know how to explain what a win and a loss is. How shameful is that?

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •    •    •    •