Unregistered
Moderator
Thats great. Now lets declare victory (if it makes us feel better) and get the heck out. Instead of defending Iraq's borders, lets use the troops to defend our own.
Al Q has it's back broken in Iraq. ZERO Al Q control in Baghdad!!
- Thread starter Bruxley
- Start date
JuanCarlos
New member
That or they'll just move on to (or continue) attacking our forces in Mosul, or Kirkuk, or in backwaters around the Sunni triangle like Al-Hawijah. I don't think it's hard to spin this as "shifting tactics" rather than "running away," especially if you have a sympathetic audience.
Harry Reid had already said we had lost. Evidently Al Queda didn't get that DNC memo.
I'm not sure which specific quote you might be referring to, but you do realize that we aren't fighting some clearly defined war against Al-Qaeda, right? An Al-Qaeda withdrawal from Baghdad is not "victory." Even an AQ withdrawal from Iraq is not "victory." We can keep moving the goalposts but by the value that I, and hopefully most, would place on thousands of American lives (those lost outright and those otherwise ruined) and billions of dollars I think "victory" in Iraq is still a bit of a long shot.
You can go one of two ways on that one. For one, he only said that US deaths were the lowest that they'd been since......last year? Not impressive. Regardless, it's not hard to achieve "progress" by simply redefining it. Then again the number of US casualties is probably not a great indicator of progress either way (which is to say, in either direction); it's a very easy to define number, but fails to take into account the many other factors that are important in the region.
I'd say it seems that some progress is being made on at least some fronts. The better question is whether this progress will continue, or even be maintained, when we pull out the extra 30K or so "surge" troops...let alone if/when we actually start withdrawing more beyond that.
On another note:
Democratic Party. Always has been. We've been through this. You do know better, and this constant juvenile partisan baiting is getting old. Especially since you talk about "being blinded by partisan hate" and all.
Garand Illusion
New member
To me ...
This way may or may not have been a justifiable asault on terrorism, but that point is moot now. Al Q is using it as a battleground against America.
If you knock over a hornet's nest, you just don't realize it was stupid to knock it over and ignore the hornets swarming around you. You deal with the consequences of your mistake or things will get worse.
It's a war against Al Q NOW. Since things seem to be going our way, what do you say we all try pulling together for another year or so and try to WIN it. I know that word is no longer in the democrat vocabulary (just like RUN AWAY has been changed to REDEPLOY) but we should not let them take it from us. Americans love to Win, but Democrats only win when we lose, and they know it.
But don't expect Al Q. to learn any lessons from this. We chased them out of Afghanistan in months, they only held out in Tora Bora for days, and yet they claim both of those as victories.
Just like the Alamo was a victory for Texas and the Little Bighorn was a victory for Custesr. (looks like Al Q is just as good at changing the meaning of words as the Democrats!)
This way may or may not have been a justifiable asault on terrorism, but that point is moot now. Al Q is using it as a battleground against America.
If you knock over a hornet's nest, you just don't realize it was stupid to knock it over and ignore the hornets swarming around you. You deal with the consequences of your mistake or things will get worse.
It's a war against Al Q NOW. Since things seem to be going our way, what do you say we all try pulling together for another year or so and try to WIN it. I know that word is no longer in the democrat vocabulary (just like RUN AWAY has been changed to REDEPLOY) but we should not let them take it from us. Americans love to Win, but Democrats only win when we lose, and they know it.
But don't expect Al Q. to learn any lessons from this. We chased them out of Afghanistan in months, they only held out in Tora Bora for days, and yet they claim both of those as victories.
Just like the Alamo was a victory for Texas and the Little Bighorn was a victory for Custesr. (looks like Al Q is just as good at changing the meaning of words as the Democrats!)
JuanCarlos
New member
Um...no. The war is not against Al-Qaeda now. That is but one facet of it (and yes, it is a very real part of the conflict). But if we managed to utterly expel Al-Qaeda from Iraq, and even weaken the groups such that they can't manage another attack for decades, I'd still not consider the operation a rousing success if Iraq as a whole ends up under an extremist theocracy or devolves into genocide.
Would you?
So yeah, the expulsion of Al-Qaeda from Baghdad is definitely a good thing (assuming, of course, that this is even the case...which I'm willing to for now). But that's still not the end objective, and we can still end up "failing" in Iraq even if we "defeat" (whatever that means against such a group) Al-Qaeda.
Exactly...that's what I was getting at with my response. For as long as these people have a sympathetic audience, it's not going to be hard for them to spin just about anything as a "victory" against the Americans. Though it sounds like in Iraq at least the audience is less than sympathetic nowadays...if only their support in Iraq had been more than a sliver of their support (and the support of similar groups) as a whole.
No rush on the debate here. We have nothing but time, and that (rather than body counts) is a pretty good measure of how things are really going. A general can say Baghdad is improving today, but we'll see what things look like next year. Unless/until the Democrats get a veto-proof majority, and/or until public sentiment shifts (it's still not really in favor of cutting funding and ending the war tommorow*), there's not much that can be done to end it.
* - Note that at least from most polls I've seen, it seems that the most people seem to want (which is to say significant numbers of people, let alone anything near a majority) is withdrawal within some arbitrary medium-term length...6 months, a year, two years, whatever. This is true regardless of how much time goes by...heck, I imagine you could ask the same person today and in May and still get the same "six months" or "one year."
Much as I hope this is true, I'm always leary of proclaiming victory when the dust has yet to settle. I'm reminded of those warnings in high school about answers to multiple-choice exam questions that include the words "always" or "never" as being usually the wrong answer.
There are serious, long-term consequences if we stay in Iraq and if we leave in Iraq. These consequences need to be considered rationally and thoroughly because this is real combat, real life-and-death, and not just for now but also for the long-term.
Unlike a computer game, there is no "undo" or "restart" selection.
Unlike a business, or a personal day planner, you can't place a timetable on victory. You can work toward a target date, but you can't schedule it like a goods delivery or a vacation.
I hope this news is true and has sticking power, that it's a trend in the right direction, but I'm not breaking out the hats and horns just yet.
If you knock over a hornet's nest, way out in the woods and far away from your home you don't stand there like an idiot trying to swat each hornet while being stung to death, you leave.
Those "insurgents" are supposedly all foreign fighters and the overwhelming minority in Iraq, according to our administration. The same Admin says the Iraqis themselves are fully in favour of democratic rule. Now they say that AQ has been effectively knocked out. Is there any reason we are still needed there then? Shouldn't the Iraqi's, if they really believe in their own nation, be able to defend it? If they don't then why should we?
Really?
All I saw was a statement that there was no credible evidence to support ties,even though the original indictment against Bin Laden by the justice department in 98 confirmed that there was
In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.
I am also aware of the Iraqi military officer that claims that AQ was trained at a camp in their desert
Show me that debunking please
This is good news, I hope. If true, foreign Al Q fighters are less popular in Iraq (or at least Baghdad) than the US military. If they go away, we're left with a couple of problems:
Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq have problems getting along, and the Kurds seem to be continuing to try for quasi-independence, much to the irritation of our NATO ally, Turkey. Trying to mold that whole mess into a country is probably one of the toughest nation-building challenges in history, and it was not being made easier by interference from Al Q. If they have to run away, it's because Iraqis don't like them and won't hide them, and that can only be good for us.
So the Iraqis have an elected government, and Al Q is on the run. At what point can we declare victory and leave?
Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq have problems getting along, and the Kurds seem to be continuing to try for quasi-independence, much to the irritation of our NATO ally, Turkey. Trying to mold that whole mess into a country is probably one of the toughest nation-building challenges in history, and it was not being made easier by interference from Al Q. If they have to run away, it's because Iraqis don't like them and won't hide them, and that can only be good for us.
So the Iraqis have an elected government, and Al Q is on the run. At what point can we declare victory and leave?
Unregistered
Moderator
There are no plans to leave. The Republicans will contrive reports between now and election time that indicate Al Qaeda has been vanqished, then after the election we will learn about faulty intelligence and honest mistakes.
Unregistered
Moderator
Now its been a while since I looked at the report, but I am pretty certain their conclusion was that AQ was not working with Iraq during the planning and execution of the 9-11 attacks. If you can show otherwise, please do, and I will stand corrected. I have read in multiple places that Bin Laden did not approve of the type of Islam and secular culture Iraq was involved in, but perhaps those sources were all incorrect. If you have other information, I would be interested in seeing it.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Bruxley, surely you can't be that naive, can you? What do you mean they can no longer claim to be strong or courageous for standing up to the US? Saddam did it quite well after getting his butt kicked in the first Gulf War.
They most certainly can claim that their mere ability to continue fighting is evidence of the righteousness of the cause. It doesn't matter what we believe on this topic. What matters is what they believe.
Yep. Just as I suspected.
Looks to me like your celebration was (once again) a wee bit premature. Somehow I'm not surprised.
Looks to me like your celebration was (once again) a wee bit premature. Somehow I'm not surprised.
Unregistered
Moderator
I have no doubt we are winning. It would be crazy to think that the world's only superpower could not eventually defeat a band of terrorists who by US Army standards are poorly organized, poorly trained, and poorly funded.
The question to me is not whether we are winning or losing, but at what cost are we winning? If we jeopardize liberty at home to defeat Al qaeda in Iraq, what have we accomplished? If we financially bankrupt our nation because of the money we are spending overseas, what have we accomplished?
I was actually baiting you a little
Most people will give the partial quote of the commission saying that Iraq was not involved with AQ but will leave out the rest of the statement "in regards to the 9/11 attacks
But they concluded nothing except that there was no evidence to support an involvement
No political entity will state categorically that there was no connection, especially when some on the commission supported the theory that there was when their friends sat in the big chairs
Those sources are most likely correct, but at the behest of the Sudanese government Osama sought a working relationship with Saddam
The commission also stated that it was not known if the request was answered
Credible sources state that the trip was to attempt to purchase yellow cake uranium, or goats
It is known that an emissary from Iraq was sent to Sudan around that time