cstr20cstr

In the last few months, the death tolls in Iraq have dropped a lot, and there's been far fewer suicide bombers :
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...i-deputy_x.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3673450

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/us-mili...990020?cid=842

But there still are troops and people being killed by terrorists and radicals unfortunately. But obvious progress is being made with the U.S. troop build-up that the leftists opposed with a passion. Less deaths in Iraq = less anti-U.S./Bush propoganda material for the radical left.

So as things are beginning to improve in Iraq, what do you think left-wing radicals are going to do now ?
A. Dig for any problems they can find in Iraq and dwell on them, rather than positive news.
B. Continue to blame Bush for what the terrorists & radical muslims have done in Iraq, rather than the terrorists themselves.
C. Ignore and/or downplay this positive trend in Iraq.
D. Give Bush credit for his troop build that's resulted in this. doubtful.
E. Continue to bad-mouth the U.S./Bush rather than the terrorists causing all the problems in Iraq.
F. All of the Above (except "D").

I'm picking "F".

bruiser

I'll go with F.

40sondacurb

There is no such thing as a successful Iraq to a leftist. From what I understand, according to the philosophies of the more radical groups, as long as there are troops in Iraq the US is implementing a losing policy.

Knowing that, the only hypothetical you listed that would make sense is C. and A.

I would pick one, but that would be about as interesting as predicting the sun will rise.

Nik00117

You know, I say this time and time again, I have the best news source for Iraq that their is, its 1st person hand accounts.

I work with soliders day in and day out, I work with mortor vicitms, lialosion officers, infantry men, tank commanders, EOD speacilies I work with them all, and we have our quick chats on whats happening down range.

And the general report from them is its still bad, its still not a paraside however its a billion times better then what it used to be. Kids go to school now, bombing attacks are falling, more tips are coming in.

The iraqi poeple are getting braver. One infantryman once said he remember when he first got into Iraq when it was getting really really bad. Poeple wouldn't even APPROACH the troops for fear of what the insurgent groups would do to them. Now they will walk up to a solider and tell them where they saw a weopons cache, in board daylight, Iraq is imporving this troop surge was a brilliant idea wish it would of happened earlier. If anything I think it was a bit weak really. 25k? Should of gone for 40-50 in my eyes but I think when you factor in the logiticies and numbers 25k was the best choice.

O and just to ensure everyone understands a majority of those 25k, like 20k went into the triangle. This is where something like 70-80% of attacks happen.

Don't get me wrong, poeple are still dieing, their is still suffering, their are still groups alive and well with plently of fight. However we are winning. Pulling out now would be the same as if someone was handing money to you as long as you stood still and then you decide your not getting any money so you walk away.

yustr

I think it's great that fewer people are dying - if in fact those are real numbers - which is not at all certain. If the "surge" contributed - great strategy. (I could ask why he fired Gen Shinseki for suggesting more troops were needed fron the get go but that is old news...)

If it is real - then its time for some political movement on the part of the Iraqi government - of which there is no indication of any. So even if all of the fighting stopped - there's still a long way to go before success can be declared.

And, it does not change my view that this whole war has been a disaster for all parties - especially the Iraqi's. That it was unnecessary, irrational, illegal, and has severely damaged our position in the world...for generations to come...

Where does that fit into your <TWIBAT> little list?

Nik00117

Yes however I don't care if you think the war was a mistake or the best thing that has ever happened to this country. We need to fix it, cause we broke it.

cstr20cstr

cstr20cstr

First off, when the U.S. invaded Iraq in a relatively quick and bloodless war, it then started working on rebuilding Iraq's poor infrastructure (mainly due to Saddam's regime) and gave Iraqi's new freedoms. The US was working hard to find Saddam too and the Iraqi's had free elections. Then, a few months later, THE TERRORISTS broke all hell loose in Iraq.
So it wasn't "we" who broke Iraq, it was THE TERRORIST bombers.

Secondly (in reply to Yustr's assertion, it was an "illegal" war).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the UN's options in their Iraq resolution after the Gulf War, was that if Iraq didn't comply with their resolution, war was an option. And as we all know, Saddam was definitely not complying with the UN resolution, always thumbing his nose at the world, not allowing UN inspectors to do their job, shooting at surveillance planes, etc....The U.S. enforced the UN resolution through force (war), and of course we later learned that many of the countries that didn't follow us were involved in the oil-for-food scandal (which WAS illegal). Additionally, most of those countries that didn't help depose Saddam were run by leftist leaders (in France, Germany, Russia, China), who were motivated by politics, NOT morality.

Nik00117

Ok, lets look at why those terrorists broke all hell loose in IRaq to begin with.

Um, we were there. We were and are the targets of their attacks. Had we gone anywhere else we'd of be hit their as well.

If anything America has just created the worlds biggest and most advanced terrioist education center. ITs called Iraq, go to Iraq learn the ins and outs of IEDs, ambushes, convert ops aganist a large military, producing car bombs, deploying car bombs, hiding weopon caches.

Quite frankly I'd rather see Saddam still in power then our boys dieing in the sand.

RedScott

We can't fix it, and assuming we can is exactly the kind of hubris that made so many Americans believe we were liberating Iraqis by dropping bombs on their houses.

Well that's the reason they attack us in Iraq, but it's also the reason they attack us here in the States when they get the chance.

The legality of the war has nothing to do with the U.N. The war was illegal because congress did not declare war. Read your constitution son.

yustr

Yup, things are just hunky-dory

Chode

The Republican Right just can't seem to come to grips with the essential fact that only the Iraqi's can control their own destiny. Let's just take a minute to think back to the year 2000 and the Presidential campaign. Yes, I know; it makes my head hurt, too, but it is worth the effort.

Wubbya had some strong words about what he perceived as the Clinton/Gore program of "nation building" in Eastern Europe. http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1710.htm

So, here we are in the closing months of 2007. Clinton's strategy in the Balkans has been mostly (though not entirely) successful because of local support. In Iraq, U.S. intervention has mostly failed because of a lack of strong local support. Kurdistan is an exception. Most of the recent U.S. "successes" are due less to increased troop strength than better cooperation with tribal leaders. Unless the Iraqi's can put aside their sectarian and ethnic divisions, they'll never be a nation.

cstr20cstr

And where exactly in the Constitution does it say "Congress MUST declare war" in order for it to be legal ?
As far as I know, the Constitution merely states Congress has the power to declare war, not that a war has to be approved by Congress.

"The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148) limits the power of the President to wage war without the approval of the Congress."

Seeing how :
In October 2002 (the 107th Congress), both the House and Senate passed a resolution giving President Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq.
And Congress has been helping fund this war, I don't see where
you can call it an "illegal" war by the Constitution.

Looks like someone else needs to read their constitution, and history.

bry623

In an historical perspective, the total number of deaths are much smaller than other wars we have been in.

cstr20cstr

That's a no-brainer IF the Iraqi's can handle the terrorism by themselves. Up until now, and probably for some time to come, Iraq needs help.
Do you really think Iraq could have handled this terrorism and in-fighting by themselves up til now if we ditched them ???

Of course some radical leftists have WANTED U.S. troops pulled out ASAP so that Iraq would become a complete failure, which of course, they would blame on Bush/U.S. rather than themselves for their "brilliant" idea.

Nik00117

Thats assuming defeat too soon.

Point is, terrioist would of never gone there had we not gone there.

I never said its just hunky-dorty I said better, implying its not as bad as it once was.

All depends on how you look at it. Example Mr. Teddy boy said as long it doesn't say that I can't do it i'll do it. then you got another pres who said if It says I can do it I can.

Also your forgetting one of the presidents many powers. Its this thing thats called Commander in Cheif which means hes in charge of the military. Hes the top dawg in the military hes the one that can overrule anything the military does.

Now granted congress as the power to stop funding, but it cannot tell the president what do with the army. Granted if theirs no cash to do what the president wants to do then he can't do it, but as long as he gots the cash he can do it.

A close friend of ours is a doc who deals mostly with injuried soliders. He was medically trained about 22 or so years ago.

In his training he was taught their are simply some injuries and diseases which their is no cure, and you can only treat the symptons most of which are head related.

Thats no longer the case, he's brought poeple back from the dead basically. Something that perversionally was a impossibility.

Granted I don't think the casulaties for the iraqis are that low though. OUrs are low because when our boys get shot up they get patched up relaly nice, not the same for the iraqis.

In the end, I don't care if I die of old age and we are still in Iraq, we remain until we'ved fixed out mess. We've spilt milk and now we can clean it up.

I know if I spill milk, and leave it the conquesences are a lot more serious then if I hadjust cleaned my mess up same in IRaq with bigger risks

EnglishPaul

So deaths are down in Iraq for the moment. Does that spell success?

Nasty Islamic fundamentalists haven't hijacked a plane over America since 9/11. Does that mean the risk is past? The war on terror is won?

It is early days.

yustr

I suggest you re-read the Constitution. It is very clear that the President is only the CiC when he's "in the actual service" of the US. Meaning; he puts on the uniform and commands troops. It is Congress that has to act first by declaring war then and only then can the Pres take over the troops. Otherwise it is Congress that controls the military - not the President. The writers are very clear here - we've just forgot how to read and think for ourselves and are being led around by our collective noses. Bahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Bahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Nik00117

all depends on the side your looking at.

bry623

Spin!