Another reason for the Baghdad turn-around

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Arlo
Much more believable than the Dago "theorem." I'm so glad the Bush administration was able to try everything else first to make sure it was a feasible plan. And hey, timing is everything. No better way to support the troops.

Timing IS Everything... ask the 4000 American and upwards of 900,000 Iraqis that have already died... oh wait, you can't.

Iraq, as an entity, cannot exist anymore.  All three groups involved there have different agendas and no uniting principle between them.  All the surge has done is stress our already overwhelmed military, and proven that Iraqis really don't want what we brought them... Freedom.  Their leadership, appointed by the US, supported by the US... isn't going to work there, no more than a leaderhip here in the 1770's, appointed by France would have.  They, as a nation must choose what destiny is theirs.  Nation building doesn't work.... it's been proven time and again through history.

This "war", when it wasn't a war to begin with, was a failed enterprise that had good intentions to begin, but it will not play out the way we would like it to.  Bush is just playing out the clock now, to hand off a failed policy to the next in line.  I hope none of your friends and family are there now... I only have one friend left there, out of four who deployed..three made the ultimate sacrifice.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by C(Sea)Bass
Some of the problems occuring in the war can be blamed on the democrats. Clintonin particular. His cutting of Military funding and programs left our military in a position where it was not able to be as effective as it should be.

Kind of interesting opinion, considering Clinton was overshadowed by a republican DOMINATED congress.  You have no clue.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by crockett


Lucky for them it came about the same time that the Iraqi's decided it was better to work together than try to kill each other, at least for the most part.

There's not many left to kill.

[lazs2]

There are less bad guys in the world and we got to kill them far far from home.

Sure... I wish that we had not made so many mistakes at first.  But no, I don't think the democrats "cut and run" plan was the answer..

it was the worst plan of the war so far.   We should be glad that they didn't get their way.

lazs

[indy007]

Originally posted by bj229r
'THEY', being AlQueda---What isn't touched on much is that they made Iraq their Alamo, and they have lost---Sunnis tand the Sh word that filter stops you from typing, have united in their utter hatred of these aholes

... and the Alamo is famous for being a successful last stand?

[lazs2]

I think he meant that the actual fight is akin to the alamo.. but... unlike the alamo.... it isn't going to have the inspiration of the alamo.. the troops won't come to avenge it.

The real nut jobs are decimated and hurting.

lazs

[LTCClark]

Want Real news about Iraq, Simply read
http://estripes.osd.mil/ and click on middle east edition.

or also see http://www.debka.org  there you will find stories before they break on the news.

CNN doesnt cover what the stars and stripes covers, nor does it cover what debka.org covers.

As for me.  I have been in Talil Iraq for the past 6 months and am midway through my tour of duty there.

We are working 7 days a week, and run covoys where we still have IED's or roadside bombs, and still get sniper and mortar fire occasionally,  however in southern iraq it is alot better than northern iraq.

However also one aspect to look at is IRAN and its part in the war in iraq. Most of all of the insurgents are led by Iranian Republican Guard and have also been on our hitlist, however we do nothing about it. No ultimatums, no bombing campaign, or invasion of IRAN.

If we are to keep Iraq and Afghanistan, we are going to have to have IRAN back out, or bomb them until they do.

We are never going to leave IRAQ, or Afghanistan, and never are going to leave the middle east, the interest of oil, and other things that are keeping us there and are vital to our economy as well as the worlds economy will not allow us to leave.  As we have an interest in that region.

[Yeager]

We are never going to leave IRAQ, or Afghanistan, and never are going to leave the middle east, the interest of oil, and other things that are keeping us there and are vital to our economy as well as the worlds economy will not allow us to leave. As we have an interest in that region.
====
Tell that to Grand Poo-ba Pelosi and her wild eyed band of liberal misfits.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by MORAY37
Timing IS Everything... ask the 4000 American and upwards of 900,000 Iraqis that have already died... oh wait, you can't.

I'm thinking you're thinking my post was genuine praise.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by indy007
... and the Alamo is famous for being a successful last stand?

Yup. Wan't a very good choice of comparison on BJ's part.

[Bodhi]

Originally posted by Yeager
Tell that to Grand Poo-ba Pelosi and her wild eyed band of liberal misfits.

Pelosi is a liar.  As are almost all politicians.  She is just kowtowing the Democratic line to help win the election.  If the Democrats win, we will still be involved in Iraq and Afganistan albeit with less troops.  

They all know we can not cut tail and run as Iran will take over the whole of Iraq, but they never admit it.

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by Arlo
Hmmmm ..... interesting theory, I reckon. Floats about as well as Republicans choosing to occupy Iraq because a short war doesn't guarantee a reelection for a Bush, I guess. But then, I'm just not that much into manic-depressive, paranoid, mission accomplished/stay the course, if it don't work out we got a back-up scapegoat plan ready for political hype at the expense of the nation/world type of reasoning .

It's not a theory.  The democrats have come out and specifically said that it is bad for them for the war to go well.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
It's not a theory.  The democrats have come out and specifically said that it is bad for them for the war to go well.

The reason you have no source to back this up is .... ?

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Bodhi
Pelosi is a liar.  As are almost all politicians.  She is just kowtowing the Democratic line to help win the election.  If the Democrats win, we will still be involved in Iraq and Afganistan albeit with less troops.  

They all know we can not cut tail and run as Iran will take over the whole of Iraq, but they never admit it.

"They" admitted exactly that during the democratic debates. "They" often say and do things much differently than Rush or Hannity or the other idiot pundits say "they" do.

The leading Democratic White House hopefuls conceded Wednesday night they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21000458/

[bj229r]

Originally posted by Arlo
The reason you have no source to back this up is .... ?

link

For most Americans, positive developments in Iraq are very welcome. But good news is bad news for the Democratic left, where opposition to the war has become an emotional investment in defeat. House majority whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina was asked by the Washington Post what Democrats would think if Petraeus reports next month that the war is going well. "That would be a real big problem for us," Clyburn candidly replied.

The intensity of the left's determination to abandon Iraq was reflected in the reaction to a single line in Hillary Clinton's speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars last week. "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq," she said, referring to the surge, "and in some areas, particularly al-Anbar province, it's working."

That mild comment instantly drew fire from Clinton's Democratic rivals. John Edwards's campaign manager, David Bonior, warned her against "undermining the effort in the Congress to end this war." New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, another presidential hopeful, piled on: "The surge is not working. I do not give President Bush the same credit on Iraq that Hillary does." When Barack Obama addressed the VFW one day later, he stuck to the defeatists' script. "Obama Sees a 'Complete Failure' in Iraq," The New York Times headlined its report on Aug. 22.

Within 48 hours, Clinton was scurrying to toe the all-is-lost line once again: "The surge was designed to give the Iraqi government time to take steps to ensure a political solution. It has failed. . . . We need to . . . start getting out now."