We're winning in Iraq.

[robattle]

Here's the news report from CBN:

WASHINGTON - After all the setbacks, are things finally starting to turn the corner in Iraq? There are signs the current U.S. troop surge has made a positive difference on the ground. But success in Iraq may ultimately depend on political--not military--progress.

Anbar province used to be a notorious al-Qaeda stronghold. Not anymore. As CBN News first reported in April, violence there has dropped in a major way. One reason is that local tribal leaders are working with U.S. forces to root out terrorists.

The U.S. ambassador to Iraq toured the province recently without a flak jacket or helmet. This would have been unheard of just a few months ago.

"This is not your big brother's Ramad," said Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq. "The change here has been absolutely unique."

Gradual success in Anbar and other Iraqi provinces has raised hopes that General David Petraeus's strategy is working. Petraeus will update Congress on progress next month. He's expected to say more work is ahead and that U.S. troops need to stay in Iraq at least through 2008.

His plan received an unexpected boost recently in The New York Times. Michael O' Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the Liberal Brookings Institutions wrote about their visit to Iraq.

They wrote, "We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily 'victory' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with."

With polls showing the war is still unpopular among the American public, it's a message President Bush wants heard.

Bush said, "There's a lot of work to be done, and the fundamental question facing America is, is it worth it? Does it matter whether or not we stay long enough for an ally in this war against radicals and extremists to emerge? And my answer is, it does matter."

Leading Democrats in Congress continue to be skeptical of chances for success in Iraq. They point to the Iraqi government's strong ties to Iran and failure to promote reconciliation between Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds.

As military gains continue, the Bush administration may have to decide whether the current Iraqi government is fit to lead Iraq into a new, democratic era.

End.

There's also a video with more info here.

So what do you think are we on our way to winning, or losing?

I think we're winning.

Btw is this a "wall of text"? Because it shouldn't be.

[Memorize]

At 8/14/07 06:48 PM, robattle wrote:

Leading Democrats in Congress continue to be skeptical of chances for success in Iraq. They point to the Iraqi government's strong ties to Iran and failure to promote reconciliation between Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds.

When I first heard that part a few days ago, I laughed.

Congressional Democrats: "The surge will never work. It's a failure. Pull out now!"

*surge working*

Congressional Democrats: "Well um... their government hasn't done much"

*looks at Congress' recent failures and how many days they've worked out of the year*

[Joe67]

At 8/14/07 06:55 PM, Memorize wrote:

Congressional Democrats: "The surge will never work. It's a failure. Pull out now!"

*surge working*

Congressional Democrats: "Well um... their government hasn't done much"

IN YOUR FACE you Congressional Democrats.

lol.

[stafffighter]

Of course additional manpower is going to make things more secure in the short term , more guns on your side than on the other tend to do that. But as has been stated this brings us no closer to meaningful resolution. All we're doing is favoring one side of an ancient conflict over the other and if we leave tommorow or 10 years from now things will pick right back up.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 8/14/07 06:48 PM, robattle wrote:

So what do you think are we on our way to winning, or losing?

I think we're winning.

The issue is that this is an un-winnable war. The true "War in Iraq", the one that we entered all those years ago, was against Sadam Hussein and his regime. It took us, what, about a month to acomplish that? Hell, there where even reports, hours before Operation Shock and Awe, of Iraqi Militants wandering over to the U.S forces and offering to surrender themselves. Before the actual war.

Now, however, those fighting the U.S can basically be divided into 3 groups; one, the odd terrorist. No matter how many of those we kill, they will never "lose" in Iraq unless we can convince Iraq's neighbors (including the U.S governments current butt-buddy, Pakistan) to close their borders. The second group is anti-U.S insurgents. They will exist as long as the U.S is in Iraq; when a man has everyone he ever loved blown up by a wayward U.S clusterbomb, and is then subjected constantly to the news of some rougue Marine doing some sick shit like raping and murdering a 9 year old girl and her family, no amount of surge is going to stop him from blowing us up. The only way to get the insurgents under control is to pull out and leave Iraqi police in charge; however, anyone who has a clue realizes that that's impossible, since the Iraqi military/government has so far proven themselves inefficient at every single level. Finally, there are the religious fundementalists in the newly formed Iraq Civil War, and as anyone can tell you, no amount of anything will make a hardcore religious fundementalist stop being so fucking crazy.

IMO, the only way we're going to ever win is to find an already existing force in Iraq and hand it off to them. What we need is someone like the UIF, who we're handing Afghanistan over too.

[klopatng]

Well, there's still no real way to pull out, considering leaving would create a power vacuum, and another evil bastard would most likely take up the reins again. So, we're in the middle of a shootout, Iraqi against Iraqi. We're just jumping in front of the bullets/roadside bombs. And there's no way to leave without basically undoing what we've worked for years to do. So, uh, I'd say we're losing.

[St1cki3]

wow dude ur really know ur stuff!

[notsneaky]

oh please iraq (al queda) is so stupid, they have no military strength so they just hijack planes and crash them into stuff their making it really inconvenient for travelers to get to places by an increase in airport checking and if they actually were a COUNTRY I mean not a group scattered around the world from what i heard, the usa would have nuked them already instead of doing these tedious missions where thousands of soldiers die, al queda are a bunch of spineless irrational cowereds, hmm i guess thats the way they think their god would want them to fight,not honourable men but like some sort of worms

[TonyTostieno]

At 8/14/07 09:29 PM, notsneaky wrote: oh please iraq (al queda) is so stupid, they have no military strength so they just hijack planes and crash them into stuff their making it really inconvenient for travelers to get to places by an increase in airport checking and if they actually were a COUNTRY I mean not a group scattered around the world from what i heard, the usa would have nuked them already instead of doing these tedious missions where thousands of soldiers die, al queda are a bunch of spineless irrational cowereds, hmm i guess thats the way they think their god would want them to fight,not honourable men but like some sort of worms

It takes a lot of guts to blow yourself up to accomplish something for what you believe in, no matter how strongly you believe in it. If you want people to fight like "honorable men" than go back to the 1200's when they blew trumpets and said, "HEY LOOK EVERYONE WE'RE ATTACKING YOU! GET YOUR GUNS READY SO WE CAN HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF UNNECESSARY DEATHS!" There's no honor in war people need to learn that. And yeah, we CAN'T pull out because we would leave this big gaping hole someone would try to fill, and there would just be more fighting, and if we pull out later, it will still happen.

[stafffighter]

At 8/14/07 09:29 PM, notsneaky wrote: oh please iraq (al queda) is so stupid,

Two seperate creatures dude. It's been proven repeadedly that Iraq and saddam had nothing to do with bin laden. Theory is is Saddam, power hungry as he was, didn't want to let other guys in on the action. Why are we seeing their presence now? Because there's nothing stable in place to keep them out.

[robattle]

At 8/14/07 07:56 PM, St1cki3 wrote: wow dude ur really know ur stuff!

Yeah I know, I look at a lot of stuff.

Some of it is crap, some of it good, and some of it is good enough for NG.

Oh and guys you should all Read the WHOLE thread to understand.

[animehater]

At 8/14/07 10:39 PM, stafffighter wrote: Why are we seeing their presence now? Because there's nothing stable in place to keep them out.

Except the United States of America which is really one of the major reasons why we need to stay and fight. Whatever fuck ups that took place and got us there in the first place can be dealt with later. Right now the focus should be on preventing then from taking over the country and making it easier to launch attacks. End.

[stafffighter]

At 8/14/07 10:52 PM, animehater wrote:

At 8/14/07 10:39 PM, stafffighter wrote: Why are we seeing their presence now? Because there's nothing stable in place to keep them out.

Except the United States of America which is really one of the major reasons why we need to stay and fight. Whatever fuck ups that took place and got us there in the first place can be dealt with later. Right now the focus should be on preventing then from taking over the country and making it easier to launch attacks. End.

WE CAUSED THE PROBLEM. We took out one bad dude and others were there to take the place. If we're waiting for that to not be the case in that region we are shit out of luck.

[animehater]

At 8/14/07 11:36 PM, stafffighter wrote: WE CAUSED THE PROBLEM. We took out one bad dude and others were there to take the place. If we're waiting for that to not be the case in that region we are shit out of luck.

Like I said. Try TRY GIMMIE THAT to make iraq a stable democracy and then you can bitch about how it started.

[notsneaky]

At 8/14/07 10:39 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 8/14/07 09:29 PM, notsneaky wrote: oh please iraq (al queda) is so stupid,

Two seperate creatures dude. It's been proven repeadedly that Iraq and saddam had nothing to do with bin laden. Theory is is Saddam, power hungry as he was, didn't want to let other guys in on the action. Why are we seeing their presence now? Because there's nothing stable in place to keep them out.

sadams a martyr now that he died, people who believed in him have more reason to fight

[JBlauth]

We are winning for now. Iraq is unwinnable because of the insurgency, and muslim radicals.

There's three solutions to this problem.

1.) Continue to fight and lose soldiers for no reason.

2.) Pull out, but make Iraq a target for a radical takeover

3.) Seize Iraq as ours, which is next to immpossible because of the insurgency, and the anti-american leaders in the region.

I believe we did the right thing by attacking. We have been there for too long now though. Our mission was to overthrow Saddam.

[animehater]

At 8/14/07 11:51 PM, JBlauth wrote: I Our mission was to overthrow Saddam.

Then the mission changed to something a bit more important that overthrowing a dictator.

[LabBattle]

What none of you realize is we will never pull our of Iraq, it is a stragetic stronhold. Iraq is right in the back yard of our enmies. And if you want to know how the war is going, why dont you ask some of the troops, see what the people who are and have been in the shit have to say.
Email a Servicemember

[stafffighter]

At 8/14/07 11:52 PM, animehater wrote:

At 8/14/07 11:51 PM, JBlauth wrote: I Our mission was to overthrow Saddam.

Then the mission changed to something a bit more important that overthrowing a dictator.

Only after changing from ties to the taliban to searches for nukes to the dictator thing.

[qawd15]

you know what!!! Canada FTW IMO!!!javascript:MakeSmileySelection(12)
;
Goofy ....QUEBEC EVEN BETTA!!!!

[klopatng]

At 8/15/07 01:21 AM, qawd15 wrote: you know what!!! Canada FTW IMO!!!javascript:MakeSmileySelection(12)
;
Goofy ....QUEBEC EVEN BETTA!!!!

Well, that wasn't stupid at all.

[Nylo]

At 8/14/07 07:09 PM, stafffighter wrote: All we're doing is favoring one side of an ancient conflict over the other and if we leave tommorow or 10 years from now things will pick right back up.

Aw c'mon Staff, you used to be part of the PC, you know better. If we leave tomorrow, there will be no government. If we leave ten years from now, Iraq at least has a fighting chance to become something better than it was. We're not favoring either side of their conflict, only our own in getting the hell out of there.

How it's done is entirely up to American democracy.

[Thread-Killer]

At 8/14/07 07:09 PM, stafffighter wrote: Of course additional manpower is going to make things more secure in the short term , more guns on your side than on the other tend to do that. But as has been stated this brings us no closer to meaningful resolution. All we're doing is favoring one side of an ancient conflict over the other and if we leave tommorow or 10 years from now things will pick right back up.

In 10 years, the Iraqi government might actually have the power to enforce a reasonable degree of security though. I do not think we are ready to call the government-build-up effort there exhausted, and I would imagine that, with more work, we can significantly improve the government's chances for survival. Unless you know something that no one else does, there seems to be no reason to withdraw now, as opposed to continuing building the government's strength.

[klopatng]

At 8/14/07 10:42 PM, robattle wrote:

At 8/14/07 07:56 PM, St1cki3 wrote: wow dude ur really know ur stuff!

Yeah I know, I look at a lot of stuff.

Some of it is crap, some of it good, and some of it is good enough for NG.

Oh and guys you should all Read the WHOLE thread to understand.

I'm fairly certain he was talking to me, considering it was under my post. All you did was post a news story, while I presented an argument as to why we are losing in a spectacular way.

[Thread-Killer]

At 8/14/07 11:51 PM, JBlauth wrote: We are winning for now. Iraq is unwinnable because of the insurgency, and muslim radicals.

Why? Some insurgencies can be defeated. And our military claims that with more time they can actually win. My question is, what do you know about the insurgency that our military does not? Why are you claiming it is insuperable?

There's three solutions to this problem.

1.) Continue to fight and lose soldiers for no reason.

The peace and security of Iraq, is not "no reason." Because that is what is at stake, as well as preventing Al-Qaeda from claiming victory and finding safe harbor in Iraq. We can either finish the mission now, or after the government has failed and Al-Qaeda has established its presense there, we may be forced to do so in 20 years--at a much higher cost.

2.) Pull out, but make Iraq a target for a radical takeover

Not a very good option.

3.) Seize Iraq as ours, which is next to immpossible because of the insurgency, and the anti-american leaders in the region.

Yeah, that is definately not an option.

I believe we did the right thing by attacking. We have been there for too long now though. Our mission was to overthrow Saddam.

No, our mission always included restoring security. To cause such a situation to happen and to not do anything to fix it, is just irresponsible.

[nukechicken]

Lets rename Iraq Vietnam 2 the desert of fury. See the greatest political blunder in the history of the U.S.A on the Big screen come October 2008.