How Long Before We Realize TWOT is Not Working

[sanantonio]

This is really just a question because I've said it for some time now and will continue that we are wasting valuable resources in Iraq. Couple that with ramped up talks about Iran and it makes you wonder are our leaders even thinking this through?

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL037906320071007

Having argued with some of you guys in the past about the war don't think I don't know how you feel because at one time I was one of Bushes staunchest supporters. After awhile though you just have to say enough is ehough.

[resnor]

That's a joke. Their solution for getting AQ and the like out Afghanistan and other places is to stop using troops, and throw money at them, in an attempt to get them in "the political process." Now, why the heck would they WANT to be politcal? The wouldn't. And, even if they were political, it wouldn't mean that they wouldn't still be terrorists.

[ATOMDOMB]

This is really just a question because I've said it for some time now and will continue that we are wasting valuable resources in Iraq. Couple that with ramped up talks about Iran and it makes you wonder are our leaders even thinking this through?

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL037906320071007

Having argued with some of you guys in the past about the war don't think I don't know how you feel because at one time I was one of Bushes staunchest supporters. After awhile though you just have to say enough is ehough.


when you say twat, i am assuming you are refering to yourself.

[sanantonio]

when you say twat, i am assuming you are refering to yourself.

Reading is fundamental it said T-W-O-T, now what you assume is up to you.

[sanantonio]

That's a joke. Their solution for getting AQ and the like out Afghanistan and other places is to stop using troops, and throw money at them, in an attempt to get them in "the political process." Now, why the heck would they WANT to be politcal? The wouldn't. And, even if they were political, it wouldn't mean that they wouldn't still be terrorists.

The point being that our current path is not working and we really have no way of knowing if thier solution will work or not. The current path is leading us to God only knows where.

[SUPDOGG]

The point being that our current path is not working and we really have no way of knowing if thier solution will work or not. The current path is leading us to God only knows where.

Explain to us why it is not working.

[jerseyjay14]

This is really just a question because I've said it for some time now and will continue that we are wasting valuable resources in Iraq. Couple that with ramped up talks about Iran and it makes you wonder are our leaders even thinking this through?

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL037906320071007

Having argued with some of you guys in the past about the war don't think I don't know how you feel because at one time I was one of Bushes staunchest supporters. After awhile though you just have to say enough is ehough.

i think we will end up being in some middle east country with tons of money being poured into this "war" which will spill over from country to country.

i wanted to pull them out the second they were sent in.

[jerseyjay14]

Explain to us why it is not working.

mmm...

- tens of thousands of deaths including U.S. soldiers and innocent iraqi civlians

- nothing accomplished other then having other countries hate us more around the world.

- we are no safer then we were 5 or 10 years ago

[Roachk1lla]

you guys arent over there you dont know how we are being treated. The iraqis love us there. I dont get into these debates but its very easy for people to sit here and say this is working/ or this aint working. Until your there in the fight i dont think you should be judging anyone. You have never been there and dont know what its like.

[maddenbowl62]

Explain to us why it is not working.

Explain to us why it is working?


If an incompetent administration focused on Afghanistan (you know the country that is responsible for 9/11) instead of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and little to do with terrorism against the U.S. (Al_qaeda, Zarqawi) then, we probably have OBL now and destroy Al-Qaeda. Instead, Al-qaeda got time to regroup and had a resurgence.


BTW, people keep talking about all the security progress about the surge, but there has been zero poliical progress from the government. In fact it is in turmoil now.

[SUPDOGG]

mmm...

- tens of thousands of deaths including U.S. soldiers and innocent iraqi civlians

- nothing accomplished other then having other countries hate us more around the world.

- we are no safer then we were 5 or 10 years ago


Yes people die in war. I am as unhappy about that as anyone. But to measure the GWOT by people dying is not a good measuring stick. Many people died in the Civil war....in the end, that was successful, do you agree? Yes or no?

Yes, terrorist supporting countries probably hate us a whole bunch by now. That again does not measure success.

I think we are safer. You have NOTHING to measure that by except your anti-bush "wishful thinking".

[Milwaukee]

Yes, terrorist supporting countries probably hate us a whole bunch by now. That again does not measure success.



You seriously don't think countries other than "terrorist supporting" countries hate us due to this?

[SUPDOGG]

[]Explain to us why it is working?

Why yes, that was the question.


If an incompetent administration focused on Afghanistan (you know the country that is responsible for 9/11) instead of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and little to do with terrorism against the U.S. (Al_qaeda, Zarqawi) then, we probably have OBL now and destroy Al-Qaeda. Instead, Al-qaeda got time to regroup and had a resurgence.

OBL is not in Afghanistan, he was though when Billy passed on capturing him.


BTW, people keep talking about all the security progress about the surge, but there has been zero poliical progress from the government. In fact it is in turmoil now.[/QUOTE]

IT IS A MILITARY SURGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Amazing, typical liberal. As soon as you mention the surge they cling to thier "well the political atmosphere is bad".

Listen closely.....YOU CAN'T HAVE AN EFFECTIVE FUNTIONING GOVERNMENT WHEN EVERYONE IS GETTING BLOWN UP BY TERRORISTs!!!!!!!!!!!!

THAT IS WHY THE MILITARY SURGE IS IN EFFECT. FIRST WE GET A HANDLE ON THE VIOLENCE, AND THEN WE FOCUS MORE ATTENTION ON HELPING THE IRAQI'S FORM THEIR GOVERNMENT. MAKES SENSE, DOESN'T IT!!!! WHY YES IT DOES SUPDOG.

So, do you agree with all the reports that the Military surge is working? Yes or no?

[sanantonio]

Explain to us why it is not working.

You got two good answers from jerseyjay and Maddenbowl not much I could add.

[Milwaukee]

All this talk about "progress" isn't what makes me sick. The fact that people continue to believe this bullsh1t is. Remember "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"? :rolleyes:

[maddenbowl62]

OBL is not in Afghanistan, he was though when Billy passed on capturing him.

Well he was in Afghanistan when we invaded. We let him go to go to a country that was zero threat tot he U.S. Great logic by the administraion. :rolleyes:


IT IS A MILITARY SURGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Amazing, typical liberal. As soon as you mention the surge they cling to thier "well the political atmosphere is bad".

It's pretty hard to say a surge is working when 30-50 people are still being killed everyday.



Listen closely.....YOU CAN'T HAVE AN EFFECTIVE FUNTIONING GOVERNMENT WHEN EVERYONE IS GETTING BLOWN UP BY TERRORISTs!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe you didn't read it correctly but there has zero political progress even there has been "progress" in the surge. In fact the government stability has been declining.


THAT IS WHY THE MILITARY SURGE IS IN EFFECT. FIRST WE GET A HANDLE ON THE VIOLENCE, AND THEN WE FOCUS MORE ATTENTION ON HELPING THE IRAQI'S FORM THEIR GOVERNMENT. MAKES SENSE, DOESN'T IT!!!! WHY YES IT DOES SUPDOG.

So, do you agree with all the reports that the Military surge is working? Yes or no?

There has been "progress" but it isn't really that much.

So how long do you think it is worth it to stay in Iraq to stabilize a country that was already stabilized? 5 years? 10 years? Is 2 trillion, 5,000+ dead soldiers, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraq civilians, Hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians wounded worth it to fight the country that wasn't apart of 9/11 didn't harbor or aid guys like Zarqawi, didn't have a meaningful relationship with Al-Qaeda.

[resnor]

Mission Accomplished was taking out Saddam. Now, the mission is getting the Iraqi government up and running.

[ATOMDOMB]

Iraqi deaths fall by 50 percent By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer
Mon Oct 1, 6:10 PM ET



BAGHDAD - The number of American troops and Iraqi civilians killed in the war fell in September to levels not seen in more than a year. The U.S. military said the lower count was at least partly a result of new strategies and 30,000 additional U.S. forces deployed this year.
are we just lucky this hasn't happened in a year or is it the surge?

Although it is difficult to draw conclusions from a single month's tally, the figures could suggest U.S.-led forces are making headway against extremist factions and disrupting their ability to strike back.

The U.S. military toll for September was 64, the lowest since July 2006, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press from death announcements by the American command and Pentagon.
just lucky?
More dramatic, however, was the decline in Iraqi civilian, police and military deaths. The figure was 988 in September — 50 percent lower than the previous month and the lowest tally since June 2006, when 847 Iraqis died.
lucky right?
The Iraqi death count is considered a minimum based on AP reporting. The actual number is likely higher, as many killings go unreported.

Nevertheless, the heartening numbers emerged just three weeks after U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and commander Gen. David Petraeus argued before a divided Congress that more time was needed for Iraq to begin seeing results from President Bush's dispatch of an additional 30,000 forces to pacify Baghdad and surrounding regions.

On Monday they issued an unusual joint statement to the Iraqi people that credited them for the decline in violence.

"We must maintain the momentum that together we have achieved. We are confident that you and your fellow citizens will continue to display determination, that Iraqi security forces will remain vigilant and that additional Iraqis will join our combined effort," they said.

Their message opened with greetings to the Iraqi people during the holy month of Ramadan, when Muslims focus on their spiritual lives and fast from dawn to dusk.

"Please know that we remain absolutely committed to this effort. ... Much work lies ahead of us. Despite the challenges, we can, together, achieve success," the two men wrote in the statement signed and dated by each.

Of particular note, the message referred to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr by his honorific, Sayyid Muqtada. Sayyid is a title designating a religious figure as a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad.

"We also sincerely hope that the cease-fire declared by the Sayyid Muqtada will continue to be observed and be further extended to all members of Jaysh al-Mahdi (Arabic for Mahdi Army)," Crocker and Petraeus wrote.

After a violent confrontation between the Mahdi Army and guards at a religious shrine in the holy city of Karbala in August, al-Sadr said he was standing down his fighters for six months to reorganize.

Col. Steven Boylan, spokesman for Petraeus, said there was "no silver bullet or one thing" responsible for the declining death tolls. But he credited increased U.S. troop strength, saying that had allowed American forces to step up operations against al-Qaida in Iraq and other insurgent and militia fighters.
more luck.
Anthony H. Cordesman, former director of intelligence assessment at the Pentagon and analyst with the private Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the decline in violent deaths was a positive trend that does seem to be related to the increase in U.S. forces. But he said it was too early to know if it will last.

"We tend to focus too much on killing rather than wounded, on extreme acts of violence rather than patterns of displacement or ethnic cleansing." He said that when looking at overall stability in Iraq, killings are only one measure.

"This is, I think one of the great difficulties. It's a very complex pattern of fighting and people look for simple statistical bottom lines rather the overall pattern," he said.

"You know you've won when you've won, not when you get the first set of positive indicators," he said.

While civilian deaths were sharply lower last month, Baghdad remained the center of violence in percentage terms. For this year, 54 percent of all sectarian killings occurred in the capital and suburbs. That figure declined to just above 49 percent in September. For the year, the next two most violent regions were the provinces of Diyala and Nineveh.
interesting as luck would have it.

The number of civilian deaths in Baghdad, 487, also far outstripped any other region in September. Next highest was Diyala province, an al-Qaida sanctuary immediately north and east of the capital, where 124 civilians were killed.

AP tallies civilian, Iraqi military and Iraqi police deaths each day as reported by police, hospital officials, morgue workers and verifiable witness accounts. The security personnel include Iraqi military, police and police recruits, and bodyguards. Insurgent deaths are not included.

In the latest U.S. deaths, the military reported that an American soldier was killed and 10 were wounded Monday in combat operations in central Baghdad. The same day, a soldier was killed and another was wounded in a non-combat accident in Qadisiyah province.

In Washington, Senator Joseph Biden issued a statement clarifying what he said were misconceptions about a nonbinding Senate resolution that passed last week under his cosponsorship.

The resolution calls on the Bush administration to encourage the Iraqi government and parliament to adhere to the country's constitution, which lays out a plan for a loose confederation of regions under a limited central government, leaving the bulk of power with the regions.

"Since then, some political leaders in Iraq have misunderstood the amendment. Instead of working to clear up any misunderstandings about the Senate amendment, the U.S. embassy in Baghdad issued a statement that dangerously mischaracterizes it," said Biden.

He said the amendment, co-sponsored by Republican Senator Sam Brownback, "does not call for the partition of Iraq. To the contrary, it calls for keeping Iraq together by bringing to life the federal system enshrined in its constitution.

"Partition, or the complete break-up of Iraq, is something wholly different than federalism. A federal Iraq is a united Iraq, but one in which power is devolved to regional governments with a limited central government responsible for protecting Iraq's borders and oil distribution.

"It leaves the door open for stronger unity if and when passions cool, as we're seeing in the Balkans. Nor does the amendment call for dividing Iraq along sectarian lines," Biden said, adding that the resolution only calls for Iraqis to implement their constitution.

The U.S. Embassy joined a broad swath of Iraqi politicians — both Shiite and Sunni — in criticizing the resolution, seen here as a recipe for splitting the country along sectarian and ethnic lines.

Biden contested the Embassy's assertion that the resolution could lead to "bloodshed and suffering" in Iraq and charged the Bush administration was "pursuing a fatally flawed policy in trying to create a strong central government in Iraq." Biden is a Democratic candidate for president; Brownback is seeking the Republican nomination.

[blitzrique]

The report -- Alternatives to the War on Terror -- recommended the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq coupled with intensive diplomatic engagement in the region, including with Iran and Syria.

Yeah, that would work. :rolleyes:

The fact is that Iraq is slowly getting better. These things take time. An "immediate withdrawal" would be a victory for AQ and Iran, which is even why Hillary has said she won't do that if elected.

Oh yeah, the "Anbar awakening" is slowly spreading to other parts of the country. I guess that sucks for those that want us to lose.

[blitzrique]

Iraqi deaths fall by 50 percent By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer
Mon Oct 1, 6:10 PM ET



BAGHDAD - The number of American troops and Iraqi civilians killed in the war fell in September to levels not seen in more than a year. The U.S. military said the lower count was at least partly a result of new strategies and 30,000 additional U.S. forces deployed this year.
are we just lucky this hasn't happened in a year or is it the surge?

Although it is difficult to draw conclusions from a single month's tally, the figures could suggest U.S.-led forces are making headway against extremist factions and disrupting their ability to strike back.

The U.S. military toll for September was 64, the lowest since July 2006, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press from death announcements by the American command and Pentagon.
just lucky?
More dramatic, however, was the decline in Iraqi civilian, police and military deaths. The figure was 988 in September — 50 percent lower than the previous month and the lowest tally since June 2006, when 847 Iraqis died.
lucky right?
The Iraqi death count is considered a minimum based on AP reporting. The actual number is likely higher, as many killings go unreported.

Nevertheless, the heartening numbers emerged just three weeks after U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and commander Gen. David Petraeus argued before a divided Congress that more time was needed for Iraq to begin seeing results from President Bush's dispatch of an additional 30,000 forces to pacify Baghdad and surrounding regions.

On Monday they issued an unusual joint statement to the Iraqi people that credited them for the decline in violence.

"We must maintain the momentum that together we have achieved. We are confident that you and your fellow citizens will continue to display determination, that Iraqi security forces will remain vigilant and that additional Iraqis will join our combined effort," they said.

Their message opened with greetings to the Iraqi people during the holy month of Ramadan, when Muslims focus on their spiritual lives and fast from dawn to dusk.

"Please know that we remain absolutely committed to this effort. ... Much work lies ahead of us. Despite the challenges, we can, together, achieve success," the two men wrote in the statement signed and dated by each.

Of particular note, the message referred to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr by his honorific, Sayyid Muqtada. Sayyid is a title designating a religious figure as a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad.

"We also sincerely hope that the cease-fire declared by the Sayyid Muqtada will continue to be observed and be further extended to all members of Jaysh al-Mahdi (Arabic for Mahdi Army)," Crocker and Petraeus wrote.

After a violent confrontation between the Mahdi Army and guards at a religious shrine in the holy city of Karbala in August, al-Sadr said he was standing down his fighters for six months to reorganize.

Col. Steven Boylan, spokesman for Petraeus, said there was "no silver bullet or one thing" responsible for the declining death tolls. But he credited increased U.S. troop strength, saying that had allowed American forces to step up operations against al-Qaida in Iraq and other insurgent and militia fighters.
more luck.
Anthony H. Cordesman, former director of intelligence assessment at the Pentagon and analyst with the private Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the decline in violent deaths was a positive trend that does seem to be related to the increase in U.S. forces. But he said it was too early to know if it will last.

"We tend to focus too much on killing rather than wounded, on extreme acts of violence rather than patterns of displacement or ethnic cleansing." He said that when looking at overall stability in Iraq, killings are only one measure.

"This is, I think one of the great difficulties. It's a very complex pattern of fighting and people look for simple statistical bottom lines rather the overall pattern," he said.

"You know you've won when you've won, not when you get the first set of positive indicators," he said.

While civilian deaths were sharply lower last month, Baghdad remained the center of violence in percentage terms. For this year, 54 percent of all sectarian killings occurred in the capital and suburbs. That figure declined to just above 49 percent in September. For the year, the next two most violent regions were the provinces of Diyala and Nineveh.
interesting as luck would have it.

The number of civilian deaths in Baghdad, 487, also far outstripped any other region in September. Next highest was Diyala province, an al-Qaida sanctuary immediately north and east of the capital, where 124 civilians were killed.

AP tallies civilian, Iraqi military and Iraqi police deaths each day as reported by police, hospital officials, morgue workers and verifiable witness accounts. The security personnel include Iraqi military, police and police recruits, and bodyguards. Insurgent deaths are not included.

In the latest U.S. deaths, the military reported that an American soldier was killed and 10 were wounded Monday in combat operations in central Baghdad. The same day, a soldier was killed and another was wounded in a non-combat accident in Qadisiyah province.

In Washington, Senator Joseph Biden issued a statement clarifying what he said were misconceptions about a nonbinding Senate resolution that passed last week under his cosponsorship.

The resolution calls on the Bush administration to encourage the Iraqi government and parliament to adhere to the country's constitution, which lays out a plan for a loose confederation of regions under a limited central government, leaving the bulk of power with the regions.

"Since then, some political leaders in Iraq have misunderstood the amendment. Instead of working to clear up any misunderstandings about the Senate amendment, the U.S. embassy in Baghdad issued a statement that dangerously mischaracterizes it," said Biden.

He said the amendment, co-sponsored by Republican Senator Sam Brownback, "does not call for the partition of Iraq. To the contrary, it calls for keeping Iraq together by bringing to life the federal system enshrined in its constitution.

"Partition, or the complete break-up of Iraq, is something wholly different than federalism. A federal Iraq is a united Iraq, but one in which power is devolved to regional governments with a limited central government responsible for protecting Iraq's borders and oil distribution.

"It leaves the door open for stronger unity if and when passions cool, as we're seeing in the Balkans. Nor does the amendment call for dividing Iraq along sectarian lines," Biden said, adding that the resolution only calls for Iraqis to implement their constitution.

The U.S. Embassy joined a broad swath of Iraqi politicians — both Shiite and Sunni — in criticizing the resolution, seen here as a recipe for splitting the country along sectarian and ethnic lines.

Biden contested the Embassy's assertion that the resolution could lead to "bloodshed and suffering" in Iraq and charged the Bush administration was "pursuing a fatally flawed policy in trying to create a strong central government in Iraq." Biden is a Democratic candidate for president; Brownback is seeking the Republican nomination.


“I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief,”

The surge [the Pretraeus counterinsurgency strategy, or COIN] has been working, which is the truth that Pretraeus reported to congress. Douchebag lefties smeared him for telling the truth, as the truth means nothing to the nutroots. [More than one person here smeared the man as I recall.]

Atombomb, I wonder why the continuing good news like the article you posted isn't getting more play in the media?

Watch this little CNN clip for the answer. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwyqsd-FCw8)

It seems the liberal media doesn't think that good news coming out of Iraq is as newswothy as bad news. What a joke they are.

[BluEStorm_47]

THANK YOU!

That is finally the point. A complete withdrawal just doesn't allow the government to quickly fall to evil hands that could snatch it up just like THAT, it is going to fall to Iran. What is there to stop them once the U.S. withdraws?

Is Iran a problem that can go unlooked especially if they have areas of influence over what was once Iraq? I aint gonna lie, the situation sucks...but how can we pull out and allow this to happen?

It's not like you can just say to Iran, Jordan, and Syria..."We set up an incomplete government that we were working on, but we decided to withdraw all of the troops that we were using to stabilize the government from crazies and try to bring peace to the area. So, if we leave...please don't interfere with this new and relatively weak government."

[BluEStorm_47]

And I don't speak to anyone inparticular, but let's wake up and smell the coffee. Should we have gone to war? Who knows...we all have our different opinions and evidence stacked up against eachother that the argument can be carried on for eternity.

BUT, where are we at right now?

Instead of arguing the if's, what if's, and we should of's...why not look at some viable solutions to the problem at hand and their implications on both the United States and those countries involved (Iraq)/possibly to be involved (Iran)

[sanantonio]

And I don't speak to anyone inparticular, but let's wake up and smell the coffee. Should we have gone to war? Who knows...we all have our different opinions and evidence stacked up against eachother that the argument can be carried on for eternity.

BUT, where are we at right now?

Instead of arguing the if's, what if's, and we should of's...why not look at some viable solutions to the problem at hand and their implications on both the United States and those countries involved (Iraq)/possibly to be involved (Iran)

Here's a viable solution just leave.

[Nevada_Ballin]

This is really just a question because I've said it for some time now and will continue that we are wasting valuable resources in Iraq. Couple that with ramped up talks about Iran and it makes you wonder are our leaders even thinking this through?

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL037906320071007

Having argued with some of you guys in the past about the war don't think I don't know how you feel because at one time I was one of Bushes staunchest supporters. After awhile though you just have to say enough is ehough.


Some of us had realized it wouldn't work before it was even implemented. It's nothing but one huge political power play, America's security against terrorism has nothing to do with the real reasons.

Remember, America is the planet's biggest prostitute. We'll get in bed with anyone for a buck.

[resnor]

Here's a viable solution just leave.

Dude, that ISN'T a viable solution. IF WE LEAVE, the area is even worse than we went in. If we pullout, Iraq falls to the insurgents, and becomes a horrible, horrible place. The only chance Iraq has is that the U.S. stays there long enough to get the government on it's feet. That's a fact. You may not like that we're there, you may think we never should have gone there. Those two things, however, have NOTHING to do with the here and now. We ARE there, and we have to STAY THERE, until Iraq can hold it's own against the insurgents.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Instead of arguing the if's, what if's, and we should of's...why not look at some viable solutions to the problem at hand and their implications on both the United States and those countries involved (Iraq)/possibly to be involved (Iran)

i've been offering up solutions for the past 2 1/2 years on "present situations" - but there's no money in my solutions, only peace, therefore no one will buy into them.

[blitzrique]

Some of us had realized it wouldn't work before it was even implemented. It's nothing but one huge political power play, America's security against terrorism has nothing to do with the real reasons.

Remember, America is the planet's biggest prostitute. We'll get in bed with anyone for a buck.

The modern lib discards facts [COIN is working], conjures a kooky theory and ends his sh-tty post with a little America hating.

Classic.

[The Sphinx]

The surge has been in place for a few months now but the War (and the planning) has been going on for over 5 years. While I am not a big fan of the decision to go to war, I am more embarrassed with how the first 4 years were managed. One of the things that disappoints me the most is that those who are supporters of the war won't even hold the people accountable for poor managment and really bad decision making. Regardless of whether you are for or against the war you have to admit that the "running" of the war has left a lot to be desired. From all that I have read (from neutral sources) it seems pretty universal amoung those who are educated on the matter that the first 4 years have been on average really poorly managed.

On the other side those who are against the war won't even acknowledge the progress has been made...(even if it is below what I would have thought 5 years after the war started).

People talk of the surge as evidence that the strategy is working. If that is true (which to be fair I haven't read enough unbaised stuff to get a clear picture, but it seems that I hear about less sectarian violence on a day-to-day basis which is a great thing and can be used as evidence of its success) then why did it take 5 years to get here? Why is the greatest super power on the planet debating potential loss to a 3rd world country? But if you even bring up the fact that the war wasn't managed the best you are called a "Bush hater" or "far-left loon". It seems silly.

I will admit I am not educated on the ins and outs of waging a war, but if someone would have said to me that almost 5 years after the war began we would still be in there with an increased number of troops I wouldn't have beleived it. To have the US actually talking about losing to untrained, poorly organized and vasty underarmed militias and terrorist seems laughable. Seems hard to believe this is the same country that bascially saved the world during WWII.

-TS

[KenFalco]

Solution to end the madness:

1. Pull out all troops, leave Blackwater behind
2. Surgical air strikes / focused attacks by elite SF units
3. drink beer


There you go. I think that's a solution that could please both sides.

Bad people die, good people live. A win-win for all involved.

Regardless of your political affiliation or level of patriotism you have to agree that American lives lost and mortgaging the future of this country for nothing isn't a smart plan.


Is the situation in Iraq better than before the U.S. occupied?


Before the "invasion"

Iraqis had electricity, water, food and jobs. (and Islamic law)
Some bad guys were hiding out there.

After the "invasion"

Iraqis have no electricity, icky water, bread and rice. some have jobs (and no law)
A *****-ton of bad guys are hiding out there.

Hmmm... :rolleyes:



And BTW... I am soooooo damn sick of people calling this a WAR.

During a "WAR" the Department of Defense becomes the Department of War. This hasn't happened, so this isn't a "WAR". That's pretty simple, right?

War on Terror sounded good, so... "Let's Roll" with that slogan... :rolleyes: Gimme a freaking break already.

BTW: children can't have healthcare because we need to hire more Blackwater security guards;)

[SUPDOGG]

Here's a viable solution just leave.

Wow, did I read this correctly, come on San antonio, get real alright?

This is why Hillary may win the next election.

Life in the land of la at its finest.:eek:

[kevin21boston]

i dont think you guys realize that if we "just leave" then iraq gets annexed by iran.

if we "just leave" and iraq is in shambles, then you liberals will just ***** some more about how we left iraq in shambles!

if we never went, then saddam would still be killing his own people and the liberals would be *****ing to the government about going into iraq and stopping the bloodshed (like they are with darfur)


if we stay and succeed, which we will, then iraq will be a great country and one that can stand on its own. they will have a diversified economy that will long survive after the oil dries up.

you anti-war people dont want to wait. you want results NOW NOW NOW. but nothing is that quick. weve only been at war for FOUR years. that is an amazingly short amount of time. the results will come, just be patient.

[blitzrique]

During a "WAR" the Department of Defense becomes the Department of War.

Nope.


Before the "invasion" // After the "invasion"

When I die and I'm going to ask God if I can skip heaven and be sent back in time to Saddam's Iraq. Fool.

[KenFalco]

When I die and I'm going to ask God if I can skip heaven and be sent back in time to Saddam's Iraq. Fool.

Saddam was a bad dude. I get that, but Americans weren't dying because of it. PLEASE DON'T go to the WMD theory and what if, what if, what if:rolleyes:

Why is it our job to dictate how other countries are ran? Our own country is in shambles and we can show/tell others how to do it? BRILLIANT!!!

Do you really have to wonder why the installed Iraqi government isn't working? Hmmm.. modeled after which government? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm:rolleyes:

HEY! I just thought of a great title for the Iraq strategy: SURGE N' SPLURGE

We should all get a choice, kind of like donating a buck and getting to put your name on a ballon for Jerry's kids, if we want to fund this W.A.R. (wildly attrocious reality) How much do you think the pretend Texan would get then? $50 or so?;)

You are the fool. I initially thought you were grabbing your ankles by choice and accepting all of this. Now, I see that your wrists are clearly permanently attached to your ankles.

[JoeJGibbs]

You are the fool. I initially thought you were grabbing your ankles by choice and accepting all of this. Now, I see that your wrists are clearly permanently attached to your ankles.

lol -- Ouch!

[sanantonio]

i dont think you guys realize that if we "just leave" then iraq gets annexed by iran.

if we "just leave" and iraq is in shambles, then you liberals will just ***** some more about how we left iraq in shambles!

if we never went, then saddam would still be killing his own people and the liberals would be *****ing to the government about going into iraq and stopping the bloodshed (like they are with darfur)

if we stay and succeed, which we will, then iraq will be a great country and one that can stand on its own. they will have a diversified economy that will long survive after the oil dries up.

you anti-war people dont want to wait. you want results NOW NOW NOW. but nothing is that quick. weve only been at war for FOUR years. that is an amazingly short amount of time. the results will come, just be patient.

Let's see here where else is there bloodshed? We are such the humanitarians why did we never enter into Angola, Sierra Leone, Chechnya, Algeria, Ethiopia, Columbia, Mexico (Chase Manhatten Memo or the Tzotzil Indian Massacre), Congo (there's oil there just a matter of time before we are)?

[KenFalco]

you anti-war people dont want to wait. you want results NOW NOW NOW. but nothing is that quick. weve only been at war for FOUR years. that is an amazingly short amount of time. the results will come, just be patient.

Now, now, now is right. The whole "Team America: World Police" thing is played out.

The TRUE purpose of going into Iraq?

Same concept that some use when they go to the club and can't land a hottie (bin Laden) so they settle for just any thing with a vagina (Saddam) because you got to have something (results?) NOW.

The results will come? Do you have "Bush" DNA or something?

You're still a young buck, I challenge you to join the military and go fight for this W.A.R. you seem so passionate about. Nah, not a good idea, eh? Rather go to college, get a great job, get rich and get you a hot spouse? 2,000 dead Americans (under the age of 24) probably had the same plan, but they chose to sacrifice their lives for this country they love to support politics. You could even just join a Reserve or National Guard unit like your Papa Bush did and never show up for weekend warrior duty.:rolleyes:

It's easy to appreciate their service and honor them for what they have done. Not as easy to sit around and listen to rants based solely on opinions of Blitzrique.

[Milwaukee]

Lmao Ken Falco back with a vengence