The war in Iraq has been won

reply to post by SmokeyJo


You will find in this link bellow a very different picture from the tabloid web-news article that you have refer as good source.
This is not journalism what you have linked there but simple propaganda.
Is the link:
icasualties.org...

kacou

reply to post by Equinox99


Actually the war was won by the US long ago. Its the peace keeping that has been giving us problems. That too soon will pass as the article shows its well on the way. The war was won easily and quite convincingly by US led forces long ago. I am sorry to say, the US is now being held up, doing the job of the UN. Peace keeping or playing toe world's policeman does not fall on the hands of America, but since the UN does not know how to do it (Myanmar, Darfur) we will gladly run the gaunlet on this one, but the UN owes us a favor now. You guys could atleast go do something cronstructive in Darfur or Maynamar, or are you waiting for us to finish here, so we can go there too????

DAM
23

Another source from faux news. Nothing to see here folks just more never say die right wing propaganda to hide the pathetically obvious fact that they, the Republican party, and this administration are morally bankrupt.

Pet them on the head, give them a cookie and send them on their deluded little way happily believing the spin that with a 24% approval rating that bush minor is a great president and this war is the next best thing to spam.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
reply to post by Equinox99

 

Actually the war was won by the US long ago. Its the peace keeping that has been giving us problems.

Why should the U.N keep the peace in Iraq? We went against the U.N. security council's wishes to go and fight in Iraq. Besides the U.N. will play a larger part in the war despite the protests of the U.N. staff council that represents 25,000 U.N. workers.

Here's a link: www.globalpolicy.org...

That too soon will pass as the article shows its well on the way.

The article that you are citing is propaganda. The website shown by Kacou paints a different picture. icasualties.org...

The war was won easily and quite convincingly by US led forces long ago. I am sorry to say, the US is now being held up, doing the job of the UN.

Again, the U.N. didn't sanction the war in Iraq. We went without them. Even Kofi Annan, former security general of the U.N. said that the war in Iraq was illegal because we made the decision to go to war without going through the security council. news.bbc.co.uk...

Peace keeping or playing toe world's policeman does not fall on the hands of America, but since the UN does not know how to do it (Myanmar, Darfur) we will gladly run the gaunlet on this one, but the UN owes us a favor now.

The U.N owes the U.S and Britain nothing. Their name has been dragged through the mud, and many look at them now as the new League of Nations. They are trying to have peace talks over in Darfur, and the U.N is going to get more involved in Iraq thanks to the new Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. It's not right that the U.N. is getting involved in Iraq.

reply to post by MacDonagh


Un-sanctioned because Kofi Annan was too busy taking bribes in the oil for food scandal. Oh wait, its bad form to talk negative about such a pristine organization. My bad.

Un-sanctioned because the UN was afraid of Iraq and all the oil contracts held (against UN rule) by the French oil companies, Russian oil companies....

Please, forget the UN, they are worthless. Always late to the party, and the first to point fingers. If they did their job, Darfur would be secure, Mayanmar would not have happened and there would have BEEN NO NEED FOR US TO GO INTO IRAQ in the first place. Open your eyes.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I was just talking to some friends about this and we all spent time in Iraq. We have come to the conclusion that sooner or later people get tired of war and start to pursue other non-violent avenues. Just think about 5 years of everyone around you fighting with each other and dyeing. At first everyone was all hyped up to finally be free, and this freedom was like a six year old set free in a gun store. Now the people over there are very weary of this terrible life they have created by not working together.

I agree with you and hope it happens that way. However history also shows us that it can take a hell of a long time for people to get tired of fighting. Northern Ireland and Lebanon come to mind.

reply to post by Solarskye


Well said. i gave you a couple of stars as i agree we could have been on Mars by now instead of killing each other. We only live 100 yrs each if that. Why bother? Let's do something productive with those 100 years and give something to our children that they can be proud of.

Wait for it... ok, we won again... no wait... now... no sorry... uh... wait... now.

It should be apparent now, as it was when the war on terror started, that you simply cannot win a 'war' against an 'idea'.

It was a stupid notion when it started, and it remains a stupid notion. The only difference between then and now is, countless civilians are dead, and the US military walks away with a slightly bruised ego.

Oh yes... and the eastern world has just been given justification for their hatred toward the US government... and thousands more terrorists exist now than when the US started.


Sounds like a loose-loose situation to me.

reply to post by SmokeyJo

So the war is won! great......now irak is democratik...that means:
the people can choos between some apples (other fruits are forbidden ofcourse)
once they have made there decision...alle apples will be gatered together and fabricated to apple-juice......
wich is sold with good profit for america..
thats the issue for democratie.......

but still a great victorie for the administration! they will get for sure the billions they asked for by the congress......

Originally posted by GiantPanda1979
So what? Who cares who trained him? He pushed the button.

You're forgetting the fact that he never would have used chemical weapons had we not SOLD them to him. What if you were to sell explosives or mustard gas to someone off the street and they subsequently used what you sold them to murder people? You would be liable for their lives would you not?

Did your pops ever teach you how to ball up a fist? Seriously... You ever been bullied? Hell, if you stood up for yourself and beat that kid down people might think you are bad, your dad a bad parent. My point is this: Survival of the fittest! Your pops taught you to defend yourself and hell, your expected too.

The problem with your analogy is that America was never bullied by Iraq, and in fact we enabled Iraq to bully Iran in the Iran/Iraq war.

Btw, I'm glad we took that soab and his kids out! He may have gotten nukes one day.

Any country might get nukes one day. You might kill someone one day. Does that mean that law enforcement should pre-emptively arrest you and throw you in prison for something you might do?

(BTW) if the government were to ever begin pre-emptively arresting people based on the suspicion that they might be a threat to society, you and I are at the top of the list simply for being members of this site. Perhaps that is what motivates your political views. So that when the time comes for the feds to round up the opposition you can prove that you're a loyal member of the party.

Question: where were you in the 60's? Smells of liberal hippie patuli.

Ah the 60's! One of the most hated time periods of neoconservatives. A time when people accross America believed in peace and stood up to the blood thirsty military industrial complex. Another unprovoked war of aggression was being waged at the time. And while George Bush and Dick Cheney certainly were not part of the hippie movement that you so vehemently dispise, they did both shamefully dodge the Vietnam draft.

Get with the program or move to france!

It is my right as an American to dissent and speak out. The people that dont belong in America are the ones who respect authority more than they respect the constitution.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
reply to post by MacDonagh

 

Un-sanctioned because Kofi Annan was too busy taking bribes in the oil for food scandal. Oh wait, its bad form to talk negative about such a pristine organization. My bad.

It is your bad. He was cleared due to lack of evidence. His son Kojo was involved in the scandal. news.bbc.co.uk...
Get some evidence to prove otherwise.

Un-sanctioned because the UN was afraid of Iraq and all the oil contracts held (against UN rule) by the French oil companies, Russian oil companies....

Why would the U.N. be afraid of Iraq? The weapon inspections that were done by the U.N destroyed 90-95% of the wmds and completely destroyed Saddam's ability to reconstitute a WMD programme. Also the economic sanctions enforced by the U.N. reduced the country to a pre-industrial wasteland and killed one and a half million Iraqis, a third of them children. It's nice that the U.S. have gotten all of the oil contracts in one fell swoop as well eh?

en.wikipedia.org...

Please, forget the UN, they are worthless. Always late to the party, and the first to point fingers. If they did their job, Darfur would be secure, Mayanmar would not have happened and there would have BEEN NO NEED FOR US TO GO INTO IRAQ in the first place. Open your eyes.

You want the U.N to clean up after our mess? Why the hell should they? There have been mistakes made in Darfur, and Mayanmar, but they are doing their best to fix it. It would help if we stopped selling them arms but who are we kidding? My eyes are very open on Iraq. This war is far from won, and we will lose in the end because we can't win. Besides, the only real need for us to be involved in Iraq was for OIL. That nasty three lettered word.

I'll stop now.

[edit on 2/11/07 by MacDonagh]

[edit on 2/11/07 by MacDonagh]

mods please delete this post (I mistakenly quoted myself when I was trying to hit edit. Only now do I sadly realize that my grammatical error will live on in eternity.)

[edit on 3-11-2007 by Rahul Buttar]

Originally posted by centurion1211

I agree with you and hope it happens that way. However history also shows us that it can take a hell of a long time for people to get tired of fighting. Northern Ireland and Lebanon come to mind.

The key here is the fighting in Iraq is at such an extreme level. Ireland was in it for the long haul, but they would not round up 200 people and kill them or kill 1000 people per day in small secular fights.

The more insidious side over there is when the local officials are in on the secular fighting too. I remember reading a story of a family that could not go to the morgue to get a love one killed in a secular battle because of where the morgue was in the city. When two of his sons went to retrieve the family member they were arrested and ended up in the morgue too beaten to death. The family was notified of this and was never able to get the bodies.

This is the level that they have been living with for the last five years that I’m talking about as having enough.

What war??? Oh you mean the self induced take over a country under lies like weapons of mass destruction or if that doesn't work ; how about trying to rid of al-queda???

Sweet! We won?! Awesome news. OK then, pack them up, bring them home and lets stop payment on the rest of the outstanding $12b checks out there. Wait... didn't elpresidente just ask for another $42b for the war? Is that for a celebration party? Can we all come?

Allah/GOD be great for the messenger has awoke, be still my children for thou anger shall perish us all. Salvation is not through the spilling of blood, but in the communion of faith. In the knowledge that life is motionless. So shall brothers in arms be motionless like a valiant sentry strong in resolve, determined in will power, un failing in faith.

For even thou has sinned and spoke of death in the valley of angels so to shall you repent for your wickedness. For the messenger has come and spoken his word. REJOICE. And praise the holy.

It is time for the insurgents in Iraq to mend there ways with their bretheren and end the killing. For this will be the only way to faithfully liberate Iraq and its people. Not from US forces but to liberate themselves from their own persecution their own divisions their own hate.

The pen is mightier then the sword, in this case religious atonement has the insurgents re-thinking their strategy for even Osama as wicked as we perceive him to be must have some spiritual foundation which finally brought to light the error in his operational thinking for Iraq.

You can not win the will of the people by slaughtering them, you must win them with compassion do not divide but compromise and build unity.

Do not be lured into the sense of security based on the recent drop in death rates, for I fear it may be the lull before the storm.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Who gave the order to use it? Saddam

Who had to setup massive no fly zones for 10 years to keep him at bay? the US

I am pretty sure its irrelevant who actually pulled the trigger.

That's the same as saying weapon manufacturers and gun runners are irresponsible for the deaths caused by those weapons.

The US hadn't done # to stop him from killing civilians. We started the Iran-Iraq war, thanks to careful diplomacy.

Who do you think wanted Iran from gaining so much power, Iraq or the US? Granted it was mutually beneficial, but a strong Islamic People's Republic in power scares the powers that be.

This thread makes me proud of a lot of people here. I got worried at the beginning, because it was starting to de-evolve into the left-right dem-repub paradigm. We all need to teach our minds to reject that conditioning. Otherwise we continue infighting and no real progress is ever made.

We've seen just about every angle covered, here, so I leave you all with some observations: The source the OP cited is NOT a news article. It is clearly labeled as an Op/Ed piece. I think we all need to be careful not to take Op/Eds as news. This seems to be the MSM's favorite tactic of late to dictate the people's opinion.

Also, it is from Australia. Whatever that means is up to you.

Again, still a good discussion here. A lot of good points, and well balanced out by a lot of absolute ill-informed partyline rubbish. But that's good. A one-sided forum is no fun!

Some of you well-informed folks give me hope for the future when I think I'm losing it sometimes. OK sorry for the interruption, carry on.

And then there is this nugget just today:

2007 Is Deadliest Year for US in Iraq

I guess the OP just has a different point of view vis a vis the word 'Won'.

US troops pass 'deadliest year' mark

From correspondents in Baghdad
November 07, 2007 12:53am

SIX US soldiers were killed in Iraq on Monday, the US military said, making 2007 the deadliest year for US forces in the country.

The deaths took the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq this year to 852.

The worst previous year was 2004, when 849 deaths were recorded.

In total, 3855 US soldiers have been killed since the US-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003.

“We lost five soldiers yesterday in two unfortunate incidents, both involving IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices),” US military spokesman Rear Admiral Greg Smith said in Baghdad on Tuesday.

The military said both attacks took place in Kirkuk province near the volatile oil-refining city of Baiji, 180km north of Baghdad.

In the worst incident, four soldiers were killed when a roadside bomb exploded near their vehicle.

A sixth soldier was killed in western Anbar province, once one of the most dangerous places in Iraq for US troops but now seen as a success story for US President George W. Bush's new Iraq strategy since Sunni tribes there turned against al-Qaeda.

US forces in Iraq say a major build-up of troops since February has helped stem sectarian violence and reduced the number of insurgent attacks on coalition forces.

Lieutenant-General Raymond Odierno, the second-ranking US commander in Iraq, told a Pentagon briefing last week there had been a five-month decline in combat deaths.

Lt-Gen Odierno said insurgent attacks had been on a steady downward trend since June, with roadside bomb blasts in particular sharply down in the last four months.

Independent Website icasualties.org, which monitors US troop deaths, said 38 US soldiers were killed in October, the lowest death toll since March 2006.

The deadliest month so far in 2007 was May, when 126 US soldiers were killed, and the deadliest quarter was April to June, when 331 died.

US forces completed their build-up of an extra 30,000 troops in mid-June and swiftly launched a series of military operations against al-Qaeda in Iraq, other Sunni Arab militants and Shiite militia groups around Baghdad.

Troops were moved out of their large bases into smaller combat outposts in neighbourhoods. Soldiers also went into areas previously viewed as no-go zones, exposing them to frequent roadside bomb and sniper attacks that took a deadly toll.

www.news.com.au...