The surge isn't working

[geoguy]

The media will sensationalize failure? Of course it will. The media will also lap up phony stories of the 'heroism' of the blonde pixie during the invasion. The media will do anythng to exaggerate the importance of anything to fill their 24/7 news. More importantly the rest of the world doesn't tow the US line and BBC in the early days of the war were savage in exposing Yellow Cake lies, etc.

 

What's bizarre is that the warmongers in the US government didn't get this BEFORE the invasion. Why use 'Yellow Cake' when the media would dig and dig under every rock and expose lies?

 

Did they never learn from Vietnam? Did they think the press would go away? Did they not learn from photos of Vietnam of people screaming after napalm attacks? How could there not have been checks and balances to assure that an Abu Graib would not happen when such a event would negate the positive of a hundred thousand American troops being professional in their deportment?

 

The USA was warned. 'Don't jump into the quicksand'. None of the consequence of the misaventure were unknowns or hiddens. Iraq had the same social divisions it has today.......Iran and Syria were border states....the vigilant world media is the same... the American answer to the warnings was 'Freedom Fries'.

 

The irony of the US defeat in Iraq is that there are no unknown variables thrown into the mix since the debacle was first undertaken. All the cards were face up on the table. For some wierd reason the USA decided to ignore the cards and jump into the quicksand. There was no plague, no asteroid hitting the USA, no attack on the USA, nothing...no major variable has popped up that wasn't written in neon across the sky saying 'Don't invade or Iraq will become Iraqinam'.

[ParanoiA]

The media will sensationalize failure? Of course it will. The media will also lap up phony stories of the 'heroism' of the blonde pixie during the invasion. The media will do anythng to exaggerate the importance of anything to fill their 24/7 news.

 

Exactly. Good news is not interesting. Good news and successes in Iraq are not interesting. Bombs and blood and dramatic references to screaming and napalm are what's interesting.

 

They expose the war with pretention, as if war was promised to be really nice and civil-like. They report dead civilians as if war isn't supposed to do that. They report bombings throughout the country of Iraq, as if war isn't supposed to have fighting and explosions. They report ramped up enemy attacks as if the enemy isn't supposed to want to fight our military in war.

 

All of these things effect us, non-military folk, profoundly. And it should, as we shouldn't be comfortable with violence. So, we overcompensate by toying with our young men and women's lives over there for purposes of our guilt. We feel guilty about the catastrophe of war, so we pass our unrealistic, childish burden of our ideas of civility onto these brave men and women - demanding an expectation that we should be ashamed of.

 

The insult? That we do this from air conditioned modern societies, thousands of miles away from where any of this is going on. We ignore those that are standing RIGHT THERE IN IT - and instead we arrogantly rely on corporate sensationalist businesses to provide this information. We even ignore generals and pretend like we know better. We're idiots. My countrymen have lost their freaking minds.

 

War is ugly, unfair, despicable and resolute. When we wage war, we ought to be damn sure this is what we want. And then do it. Get it done and do it. If we're not prepared for the sensationalism delivered by media, or the truth about collateral damage, to bear the burden of what we've agreed to and unleashed onto other living human beings - then don't wage war. I would go so far as to request people to ask themselves, "is this worth killing children over?". If not, then don't wage war. Incidentally, this is why I have such a problem with interventionism and conflict. It's rarely worth it.

 

But to go in half assed, trying to kill people all civil-like, kinda half war and half civil-ish, we're not going to win anything. We're just killing people in vain. That's what we're doing in Iraq. Since we won't just perform warfare and get it done, we're actually far more cruel and are far more destined to lose, leaving nothing but dead people for no gain at all - nothing.

 

This is why war should be declared, not abdicating responsibility by passing a "resolution" for the president to "kind of" wage war.

 

The irony of the US defeat in Iraq is that there are no unknown variables thrown into the mix since the debacle was first undertaken. All the cards were face up on the table. For some wierd reason the USA decided to ignore the cards and jump into the quicksand.

 

This is where you keep missing the point. What makes you think there is any defeat? You're assuming you know what the goal is. If the goal is to flame up terrorism over there, to stir up the hornets nest and fight it out - however long that takes - then the goal is working brilliantly. If the goal is to create stability in the region, then I'd say it's failing miserably.

 

We know the stated goal, so by all means, enjoy following the magician's right hand, following the yellow cake and freedom fries you're so obsessed about. My eye is on his left...

[Wormwood]

Pat Buchanan called it a failure of the president and a result of no more credibility. As Pat pointed out: Paris Hilton gains the headlines not only in the tabloids but on CNN and Foxnews. He said the surge will not quell the demand for withdrawal when more time is devoted on CNN to what Paris was wearing when she left jail than to 5 american soldiers being killed on the same day.

Well in their defense, they can see 5 soldiers die anytime, but Paris only gets out of jail once (well, so far...)

 

Americans are turned off. After all the hooplah of the invasion wore off it was ...'oops, it's not a game?'

I think you have misread the American population. This administration used the fear of the 9/11 attacks to drum up support for attacking. We were attacked, and we were pissed, and therefore easily manipulated. I don't know of anyone that was just up for a war, or that thought of this as a game. I think the people that were in favor of a war were not aware that we would be fighting with extreme limitations and that we would have to stick around and rebuild all of the sh*t we just blew up.

 

the warmongers will continue to try to stabilize a Tehran-friendly Shiite government in Iraq (the irony) but most Americans don't give a darn. You can't win a war when most folks look to September as the start of the NFL season and not an update on 'progress'.

That's the whole reason we took the war to the middle east though; so we don't have to deal with terrorism here, and so our standard of living isn't really effected. No one cares about the "progress" because A) it will most likely be stretched truths, fabrications, and outright lies and B) Even if the report says we are doing a terrible job, no one is going to pull the troops out so it doesn't really matter. It's just some BS made up to appease the public who has lost interest anyway.

-----------------------------------------------------------

You know, the more I think about it the more I agree that it is like Vietnam over there.

Really? The media has only been trying to force that association since the first day of the war. For anti-war people Vietnam is the ONLY example they have of opposing a war and being completely justified. Since then, they try to turn every war into Vietnam. The anti-war crowd during the gulf war said the same types of things. Sometimes we need war, and when we do, we should fight to win, not to make friends or feel like humanitarians. There is no nice way to kill someone, but sometimes it must be done.

 

So, yeah, I think geoguy's right on the money here. Regardless of success or failure, the media will sensationalize failure - for whatever reason - just like Vietnam.

I don't think that was his point at all. He was comparing it to Vietnam, like most anti-war people, because he sees it as an unwinable war against an unseen enemy. I'm pretty sure that's what he was talking about; I might be mistaken.

 

What's bizarre is that the warmongers in the US government didn't get this BEFORE the invasion. Why use 'Yellow Cake' when the media would dig and dig under every rock and expose lies?

Let me answer your question with another question:

Does it matter? Seriously, the media has already uncovered the lies...what horrible repercussions have happened? The lies got Bush and pals the war they wanted, end of story.

 

Did they never learn from Vietnam? Did they think the press would go away? Did they not learn from photos of Vietnam of people screaming after napalm attacks?

No. They should have learned to keep the American press away from the war front if that is how they're going to be. War is ugly; it just is. A bunch of soft people in their comfortable homes see only the worst scenes and in it they see barbarism because their lives are not in danger. It is simply an appeal to the lowest common denominator.

 

The irony of the US defeat in Iraq is that there are no unknown variables thrown into the mix since the debacle was first undertaken. All the cards were face up on the table. For some wierd reason the USA decided to ignore the cards and jump into the quicksand. There was no plague, no asteroid hitting the USA, no attack on the USA, nothing...no major variable has popped up that wasn't written in neon across the sky saying 'Don't invade or Iraq will become Iraqinam'

I am still not getting this term "Iraqinam". Is that supposed to be clever or something? Do you think "Nam" means something it doesn't? Or is it just that you, like many other anti-war people, simply want to try to draw an association with VIET nam so you can feel likewise justified in your protests? Just so you know, there is no draft for this war, and no American demonstrators have been shot to death yet, so I think you have along way to go before you can really connect that justification.

[ParanoiA]

Really? The media has only been trying to force that association since the first day of the war. For anti-war people Vietnam is the ONLY example they have of opposing a war and being completely justified. Since then, they try to turn every war into Vietnam. The anti-war crowd during the gulf war said the same types of things. Sometimes we need war, and when we do, we should fight to win, not to make friends or feel like humanitarians. There is no nice way to kill someone, but sometimes it must be done.

 

I don't think that was his point at all. He was comparing it to Vietnam, like most anti-war people, because he sees it as an unwinable war against an unseen enemy. I'm pretty sure that's what he was talking about; I might be mistaken.

 

I think you missed my sarcasm. I know that wasn't the point he wanted to make. And believe me, the anti-war obsession with recreating vietnam, conflict after conflict, has not escaped my notice.

 

I was just doing some reading on the Tet offensive when I stumbled across this blurb about the media misrepresenting the battle, irresponsibly, in the same way we're experiencing media coverage on Iraq. I especially took notice to the polls that concluded that 60% of americans were under the belief the Tet Offensive was a loss for us.

 

So, I concluded, in sarcasm, that he was right - the media is doing the same sensationalizing and failure propogation they did in vietnam, only they've taken it up a notch with all the new technology.

[Wormwood]

^^^ Sorry man. After reading it again I see what you mean. I just get frustrated when people keep comparing every war to vietnam because they want to feel justified in their pacifism, or they want to be seen as the rational social progressives that protestors were seen as in a previous conflict.

 

Sarcasm noted!

[CPL.Luke]

actually the tactical situation in Iraq is very similar to the tactical situation in south vietnam, where the insurgency (why do we keep calling it that anyway, they're not insurgents anymore) substitutes for the vietkong an enemy that blows up random buildings, and occasionally occupied a village or two. That is exactly what we have in Iraq, The US like in vietnam could hands down win every single major engagement. The problembeing that there will never be a final battle. Even if we sent in 500,000 troops to completely seal the borders of IRaq so new weapons can't get in, the resistance knows howto make EFP's which are capable of piercing the uparmored humvees and striker vehicles, these devices can be made cheaply and with stuff you find in a grocerystore.

 

BEsides that how long could we maintain a troop level that was capable of stopping almost all of the violence. The answer not very long, and the problems would return the moment we departed.

[Phi for All]

Americans are turned off.

 

the American answer to the warnings was 'Freedom Fries'.

 

Perhaps Americans should refrain from the lies and fake evidence to invade and occupy countries.

 

Your baloney meter is on full. For 4 and a half years Americans have lied, fudged facts and want to continue the same 'in the name of science'.

 

Hint: Pangloss brought up the 'science' argument...not me. americans have tried every other tactic to justify the quagmire of Iraqinam so now it is the 'scientific' approach. Well, sorry, not buying that garbage.

These are persistent Hasty Generalizations. The conclusions you are drawing are based on fallacious logic. Please stop attributing the actions of some Americans to all Americans.

[geoguy]

These are persistent Hasty Generalizations. The conclusions you are drawing are based on fallacious logic. Please stop attributing the actions of some Americans to all Americans.

 

The USA is a free and democratic country. Your Congress is 'We the People'. The Congress voted to support the war and at numerous watershed points (one recently) voted to continue supporting this war. It certainly is the American people.

 

Bush wasn't reelected in 2004? Most senators and congressmen on 2004....and 2006.?..the leading Demo candidate for President didn't vote to support the war?

 

Going to war in Iraq certainly was the choice of the American people and the representatives of the peoplke have stayed that course for 4 and a half years.

[CPL.Luke]

geoguy I take it that you haven't been to the US to discuss this issue at all, nor have you even taken a count of the americans on this board who don't support the war. Or the approval ratings of mainstream politicians. or the generally held oppinion on the Iraq war as illustrated by the latest polls.

 

You also don't seem to be offering up any suggestions, if there was a clear way to stabalize Iraq than the military would immediately pursue that course and be outta there next month. The problem is that nobody really knows what to do with the place at this moment, and as such the prevalent logic is to try and force stability so that the Iraqi's have a moment to structure the country rationally rather than out of fear. Unlike vietnam we can't just leave and expect that the country will turn out ok (even if there isn't a government that we like) if the US pulls ou of Iraq tomorrow there will be a genocide, like the ones that you constantly see protestors demanding that we intervene in. The problem here is that when the Us steps up the protection to stop the violence between ethnic groups, they end up being attacked.

 

the only solution that has worked to correct these situations in the past is to break the country up into several smaller portions, such as what happened in kosovo years ago. However there are actually UN sanctions against such an action, and there are heavily mixed regions in between the predominately sunni/shia/kurdish areas. Thus meaning that any breakup of the country would lead to situations such as what appened in northern Ireland, or parts of Israel etc.

 

Personally I wuold say that the only effective solution at this point would be to say to hell with the UN break up the country, provide aid for those people who need to move, and to make baghdad a neutral zone. Then leave US soldiers along the borders of the 3 seperate states for the next several years, where they would function to prevent war between the seperate states, then have a phased withdrawal over the next 10 years. (the majority of troops could be removed far sooner than that).

[iNow]

The USA is a free and democratic country.

Actually, we are a representative republic with an electoral college and hanging chads. Despite the questionable circumstances which put the current administration in place, they are there until the end of their terms unless we can impeach them. Impeachment rules are implicitly vague (for good reason), and proving high crimes and misdemeanors is troublesome. Further, were Bush impeached, Cheney would remain, and many in the US populace see that as a far worse potentiality.

 

So... many recognize the problems, ask for change, and want better... but must wait until the next election cycle. Unfortunately, we are continually fed cookie cutter candidates who are clones of one another and pander to the issue which will draw them the most votes.

 

There are inherent flaws in the system, which worked with tremendous success during centuries past, but which now is struggling to find traction in today's modern context. Further, the ideological divisions of a bicameral system are outdated, and we need individual leaders, not party voting robots.

 

Maybe we should start texting votes for president. It seems to work for reality TV.

 

 

Rock the vote baby!

[Pangloss]

The USA is a free and democratic country. Your Congress is 'We the People'. The Congress voted to support the war and at numerous watershed points (one recently) voted to continue supporting this war. It certainly is the American people.

 

Bush wasn't reelected in 2004? Most senators and congressmen on 2004....and 2006.?..the leading Demo candidate for President didn't vote to support the war?

 

Going to war in Iraq certainly was the choice of the American people and the representatives of the peoplke have stayed that course for 4 and a half years.

 

Those bloody Americans, never doing what they're told. What they're supposed to do.

 

Of course, one can always blast them on the Internet. Meanwhile one can just sit back, all warm and comfy. No 9/11 to worry about. No Kyoto accords to step on the economy. No unfair trade practices to worry about. All one's ills one can just blame on those awful Americans. What an easy target -- everybody hates them anyway. Even if they do something to defend themselves one can still make them wrong, because then they're the Big Bad Evil Empire picking on the little guy. And if a real evil empire gets out of control well we'll just blame that on Americans too. And all the while we can make them pay for our roads, our schools, our food and our entertainment. What's not to like? What could possibly go wrong?

 

Must be nice. Sure beats having to actually make these decisions, actually figure out which one of a bad crop of career politicians is the least dangerous and unfaithful. Which one is going to kill our children. Which one is going to destroy our homes. Why deal with any of that when one can just sit back with 20/20 hindsight and lob grenades over the fence? It's easy, and you never have to suffer being wrong!

[john5746]

The USA is a free and democratic country. Your Congress is 'We the People'. The Congress voted to support the war and at numerous watershed points (one recently) voted to continue supporting this war. It certainly is the American people.

 

Bush wasn't reelected in 2004? Most senators and congressmen on 2004....and 2006.?..the leading Demo candidate for President didn't vote to support the war?

 

Going to war in Iraq certainly was the choice of the American people and the representatives of the peoplke have stayed that course for 4 and a half years.

 

If you were an American, what would you do to change things? Would you protest and vote - or use bombs?

[ParanoiA]

There are inherent flaws in the system, which worked with tremendous success during centuries past, but which now is struggling to find traction in today's modern context. Further, the ideological divisions of a bicameral system are outdated, and we need individual leaders, not party voting robots.

 

I just love this post. So true.

[geoguy]

geoguy I take it that you haven't been to the US to discuss this issue at all, nor have you even taken a count of the americans on this board who don't support the war. Or the approval ratings of mainstream politicians. or the generally held oppinion on the Iraq war as illustrated by the latest polls.

 

You also don't seem to be offering up any suggestions, if there was a clear way to stabalize Iraq than the military would immediately pursue that course and be outta there next month. The problem is that nobody really knows what to do with the place at this moment, and as such the prevalent logic is to try and force stability so that the Iraqi's have a moment to structure the country rationally rather than out of fear. Unlike vietnam we can't just leave and expect that the country will turn out ok (even if there isn't a government that we like) if the US pulls ou of Iraq tomorrow there will be a genocide, like the ones that you constantly see protestors demanding that we intervene in. The problem here is that when the Us steps up the protection to stop the violence between ethnic groups, they end up being attacked.

 

the only solution that has worked to correct these situations in the past is to break the country up into several smaller portions, such as what happened in kosovo years ago. However there are actually UN sanctions against such an action, and there are heavily mixed regions in between the predominately sunni/shia/kurdish areas. Thus meaning that any breakup of the country would lead to situations such as what appened in northern Ireland, or parts of Israel etc.

 

Personally I wuold say that the only effective solution at this point would be to say to hell with the UN break up the country, provide aid for those people who need to move, and to make baghdad a neutral zone. Then leave US soldiers along the borders of the 3 seperate states for the next several years, where they would function to prevent war between the seperate states, then have a phased withdrawal over the next 10 years. (the majority of troops could be removed far sooner than that).

 

The solution is to get out. Get out now and watch it all fall apart or get out in 5 years with the same results. The crazies will fight it out until some strongman takes over.

 

It's not up to the USA to partition Iraq into three nations any more than it's up to Iraqis to partition the USA up into political zones. The USA is in a mess because it still continues the idea of 'Whiteman's Burden'. Don't worry about the oil. Military dicatators, Royal thugs, Islamic nutbars and various other assorted Muslim whackos will sell you oil. If the Saudi thug is overthrown, the next thug will sell yoo oil 'if' you butt out and stop giving them a cause to hate you. Musims don't hate Americans for no reason. Stop fueling the fire. Stop selling billions in weapons to the Saudis, holding hands with the Jordanian king, worrying about internal Iraqi problems. Butt out. Stay home.

 

The nutbars are little threat to the USA. Their only status is obtained by the attention they receive from the West. We can squish countries like Syria and Iran as easily as we can squish a bug. Let them have all the rope they want to hang themselves. Israels's concern when spanking the Palestinian and Lebanese is not losing the war but in minimizing the impact of their own victory on Arab civilians. The same with the USA vs Iran. The issue in any confrontation with Iran would be to what level the USA escalates the level of force. How much damage does the USA do to Iran. Iran is no threat. the West has the means at the end of the day to wipe these nations out...completely.

 

The USA should get out of the gutter in the Middle East. Stop playing their game. Make it clear that there will be a hammer used if there is state sponsored terrorism against Western democratic nations. The reaction after 9/11 was exactly the message that was needed....destroy a regime like that in Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq, in contrast, played into the hands of the terrorists and Islamic nutbars.

[ParanoiA]

The USA should get out of the gutter in the Middle East. Stop playing their game. Make it clear that there will be a hammer used if there is state sponsored terrorism against Western democratic nations. The reaction after 9/11 was exactly the message that was needed....destroy a regime like that in Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq, in contrast, played into the hands of the terrorists and Islamic nutbars.

 

Nice post.

 

I wish my countrymen would adopt the philosophy of independence as well, which would compliment a withdrawal from the middle east. How can we truly be free when we depend on other countries for our energy? Or any other modern resource...

[Pangloss]

It's not up to the USA to partition Iraq into three nations any more than it's up to Iraqis to partition the USA up into political zones.

 

This is actually a perfect example of how partisanship for the sake of partisanship is detrimental, taking what may be a viable solution and causing it to be discarded not because there are better ideas but because no solution that allows any kind of potential for success can be allowed to move forward. The Americans want it, therefore it has to be wrong.

 

The three-state solution is not an American idea, it's an international one, with support amongst all three of the major factions in Iraq. It also satisfies the United Nations requirement that Iraqi oil production be controlled nationally (to guarantee factionless control) before it can be distributed on the open market. Aside from "stay the course", it is the ONLY plan that brings that about. And it is THE only plan that enjoys broad international support.

 

That doesn't mean it's perfect or even that it would work. But YOU would chuck it out the window not because you have a better idea, or even because you think it's flawed, but (by your own statement) because it's Americans who would be doing it.

 

That speaks volumes about whether your interest here is Iraq's welfare or America's failure.

[SkepticLance]

I mostly agree with what geoguy says. it has nothing to do with anti-Americanism. It is to do with anti-stupidism.

[john5746]

I mostly agree with what geoguy says. it has nothing to do with anti-Americanism. It is to do with anti-stupidism.

 

 

Yep, and if I say I am tired of Canadians being impotent, do nothings just like New Zealanders, then I am just being anti-do-nothings, not anti-your-countries. Yep, that's right.

[SkepticLance]

john

 

If you catch me attacking Americans as a class, please slap me down.

I do not believe that geoguy intends that, either. We are, though, agin the aggressions of the Bush administration. I am aware, pleasurably so, that a large fraction of the American public feels exactly the same way. Lots of Americans can't wait to see the back of Bush junior. And likewise cannot wait to see the US get out of Iraq.

[geoguy]

Yep, and if I say I am tired of Canadians being impotent, do nothings just like New Zealanders, then I am just being anti-do-nothings, not anti-your-countries. Yep, that's right.

 

When there is an issue the answer isn't 'to do something' like go off half-crazed in a jingoistic fervour and attack and occupy a country that is no threat. Presidents from Eisenhauer to Reagan understood that the answer wasn't 'what the heck, let's at least do something and attack the Soviet Union'.

 

Actions have consequences. When you get a thorn in your finger, you don't amputate. You use appropriate means to deal with the magnitude of the problem.

 

'I have a thorn, I'm going to die!' is the equal to 'Sadam has weapons. We're all doomed....attack!!!!

 

Next it will be Iran. The U.S. regime will build up a hysteria. The media will lap it up and some the people will be worked up into the United States of Paranoia. 'Must attack...must bomb....must destroy the 'evil 'of the Axis of Evil;' Fortunately most Americans are intelligent and won't buy into the frenzy. Bush will be frantic to 'do something' before his reign ends. Most won't follow the lad as he 'does something' like jump into the quicksand.

 

The American government needs a valium. Deep breathing lessons. Somethng to lower the need to look under the bed to make sure the Boogy man isn't 'about to git ya'.

 

Sure action is necessary at times. Action such as a dedicated effort of western democracies to wean themselves off of Middle East oil. Earlier presidents up to Reagan had the cold war on their plate and security meant making a devil's bargain with unsavoury regimes. with a freedom to act outside of the Cold War, Clinton and the Georges have ben abysmal failures on security. They did nothing meaningful on the energy issue...an issue that influences foreign policy and thus the security of the the country. Terrorist sponsoring regimes such as the Saudis are treated with kid gloves...issues of whether or not to attack Iran must take into account the energy issue...a leader like Chavez of Venezuela can declare a verbal war against the USA and isn't told to 'F...off' and sanctions made against his country. The USA needs Venezuelan oil.

 

'Do something' doesn't need to equate with 'invade and occupy'.

[pioneer]

The Iraqi war ended after Sadaam was overthrown. After that it has been a occupation that is still labelled a war. Like in occupied Germany and Japan after WWll, the America was there to stabilize and help rebuild the countries so they could become peaceful-autonomous. The US does not create an empire. Many of the places we helped are free to be ungrateful without fear. American are too generous and gentle. We never ask to be repayed or even expect simple gratitude.

 

The difference in Iraq and other occupancies is that foreign fighters are coming into the Iraq trying to destabilize the rebuilding of Iraq. The Democratic party in America, the liberals, and the liberal media, have sided with those who are trying to destabilize Iraq. In other words, the terrorist hate American being there. The Democrats and the liberal media hate American being there. These two are essentually on the same side. The liberal media gives extra attention to all terrorist activities, helping the terrorist promote their fear way beyond their humble numbers. This may be due to economics, with the fear helping them to sell soap. The media is sort of like second hand terrorist smoke. The media has done more to make be insecure than the terrorists themselves. It appears they have the same agenda and are on the same team, helping each other.

 

On the other hand, one will rarely see the media going into the Iraq to show the positive things that are happening. It can't be 100% bad. One will rarely see anything that looks like it is helping American propaganda. The govenment tries to put some positive psin, but this quickly spun to back to the darkside to help the terrorists. Balance reporting would cause many to change their attitudes away from fear. Without the fear and outrage (terrorist specialty), the terrorist would lose their foothold and the media would not be able to sell as much soap and terror.

 

When the report comes from Iraq, the good news is not going to be good for the terrorist team; terrorists and the liberal media. They will try to spin it so they can give further support to their terrorists allies. The Democrats have gotten so involved in their political games they picked the wrong horse to win just to take a contrary position. They even worked hard to throw debris on the track to help fix the race. They need to get on the winning team so we can bring closure to this. They can't keep helping the terrorist, for their own political aims, because even they are suffering. They need to show good sportmanship. It will go a long way.

[geoguy]

Pioneer;

 

'If' all that is true, then why did the USA invade and occupy Iraq? Why can you understand the obvious but the folks insisting on a war couldn't? Are you implying that Bush knowingly sent soldiers to their deaths and spent hundreds of billions only for the end result being American humiliation and a disaster in Iraq?

[SkepticLance]

To Pioneer.

 

Wow!!!!

I have rarely seen such a distorted and jasperist view of politics. You are to be congratulated for setting a new record.

 

You said :

 

American are too generous and gentle. We never ask to be repayed or even expect simple gratitude.

 

Does this explain why Americans are hated with a terrible intensity in third world nations dotted all over the globe?

 

Is it the gentleness of Americans that led to over 2 million Vietnamese dying in the Viet Nam war; for the tens of thousands burned by napalm, and for the 655,000 innocent Iraqi civilians dying over the last 4 years? Saddam killed only 200,000 with his nerve gases.

 

I am not calling Americans cruel or sadistic, but I am saying that the actions taken by successive American administrations has had the same effect.

 

The great irony in my view, is that under Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda was almost totally ineffective inside Iraq. Under American occupation, Al Qaeda has gone from strength to strength, and is now recruiting young Iraqi men, many willing to die in suicide attacks, by the tens of thousands. Bush junior has done exactly what was required to make the terrorist problem much worse.

[geoguy]

To Pioneer.

 

Wow!!!!

I have rarely seen such a distorted and jasperist view of politics. You are to be congratulated for setting a new record.

 

You said :

 

American are too generous and gentle. We never ask to be repayed or even expect simple gratitude.

 

Does this explain why Americans are hated with a terrible intensity in third world nations dotted all over the globe?

 

Is it the gentleness of Americans that led to over 2 million Vietnamese dying in the Viet Nam war; for the tens of thousands burned by napalm, and for the 655,000 innocent Iraqi civilians dying over the last 4 years? Saddam killed only 200,000 with his nerve gases.

 

I am not calling Americans cruel or sadistic, but I am saying that the actions taken by successive American administrations has had the same effect.

 

The great irony in my view, is that under Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda was almost totally ineffective inside Iraq. Under American occupation, Al Qaeda has gone from strength to strength, and is now recruiting young Iraqi men, many willing to die in suicide attacks, by the tens of thousands. Bush junior has done exactly what was required to make the terrorist problem much worse.

 

Don't forget the liberal U.S. media that was so against the invasion! Especially foxnews

 

What's wierd is that yesterday CNN had the same idiot, a General Grange, on for his 'expert analysis' that they've had on for over 4 years. None of these ex-general-talking heads 'experts' have got a darn thing right to date but they are still the same talking heads that feed Americans the rubbish they believe. compare it to interviews on BBC where the interviewer asks point blank 'why should we believe you when you've wrong to date?' Yesterday I watched an interview in which the BBC interviewer asked a talking-head-general why anyone should believe the Pentagon or the Secreary of Defense when they are so out of touch with reality.

On CNN the interview ends with some silly fluff like 'we appreciate your expert take on things and look forward to your reports keeping us up to date with the situation on the ground'. and listen for the talking-head ex-general to intersperse tough questions with 'I have complete faith in the capability of the men and women of the armed forces'. Lou dobbs would then add 'we can all agree on that'. In contrast, the BBC reporter would jump on that statement and ask 'exactly why the confidence when after 4 years the country is in a greater state of turmoil and insurgents control the streets?

[doG]

New military tactics in Iraq are working but the best way to honor U.S. soldiers is "by beginning to bring them home," Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told war veterans Monday....

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070821/ap_on_el_pr/candidates_iraq_6

 

It seems that Clinton thinks the surge is working....