Thread Tools

Display Modes

PaoloSmythe · 09-15-2008, 09:28 AM

of course the title of this thread is preposterous; but surely the fact that i am in the UK, is intimately linked to the fact that there have been no major attacks (since the oxo bombs),no?

but surely the surge of troops to Irak is intimately linked to the reduction of violence out there no?

Quote:

As he leaves Iraq this week, General David Petraeus, is sounding far less optimistic than the Republican presidential candidate. General Petraeus says recent security gains are "not irreversible" and "this is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not a war with a simple slogan."

Compare this with Sarah Palin's belief that "victory in Iraq is wholly in sight" and her criticism of Barack Obama for not using the word "victory". The Republicans have made these claims of success for the "surge" although they are demonstrably contradicted by the fact that the US has to keep more troops, some 138,000, in Iraq today than beforehand. Another barometer of the true state of security in Iraq is the inability of the 4.7 million refugees to return to their homes.

Ongoing violence is down, but Iraq is still the most dangerous country in the world. On Friday a car bomb exploded in the Shia market town of Dujail, north of Baghdad, killing 32 people and wounding 43 others.

Playing down such killings, the Iraqi government and the US have launched a largely successful propaganda campaign to convince the world that "things are better" in Iraq and that life is returning to normal. One Iraqi journalist recorded his fury at watching newspapers around the world pick up a story that the world's largest Ferris wheel was to be built in Baghdad, a city where there is usually only two hours of electricity a day.

Life in Baghdad certainly is better than it was 18 months ago, when some 60 to 100 bodies were being found beside the roads every morning, the victims of Sunni-Shia sectarian slaughter. The main reason this ended was that the battle for Baghdad in 2006-07 was won by the Shia, who now control three-quarters of the capital.

In Mosul, the government was trumpeting its success only a few months ago. It said it had succeeded in driving al-Qa'ida from the city, while the US said the number of attacks had fallen from 130 a week to 30 a week in July. But today they are back up to between 60 and 70 a week.

The perception in the US that the tide has turned in Iraq is in part because of a change in the attitude of the foreign, largely American, media. The war in Iraq has now been going on for five years, longer than the First World War, and the world is bored with it. US television networks maintain expensive bureaux in Baghdad, but little of what they produce gets on the air. When it does, viewers turn off.

An important reason for this optimism is the fall in the number of American soldiers killed. (The 30,000 US soldiers wounded in Iraq are seldom mentioned.) This has happened because the war that was being waged against the American occupation by the Sunni community, has largely ended. It did so because the Sunni were being defeated, by the Shia government and the Shia militias.

If McCain wins the presidential election in November, his lack of understanding of what is happening in Iraq could ignite a fresh conflict.

Whatever the reason for President George Bush's decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein in 2003, it was not to place the Shia Islamic parties in power and increase the influence of Iran in the country; yet that is exactly what has happened.

The surge only achieved the degree of success it did because Iran decided to back his government fully. It negotiated a ceasefire between the Iraqi government and the powerful movement of Muqtada al-Sadr in Basra in March and again two months later in the Sadrist stronghold of Sadr City.

It is very noticeable that in recent weeks the US has largely ceased its criticism of Iran. This is partly because of American recognition that US security in Iraq is highly dependant on Iranian actions.

General Petraeus has had a measure of success in Iraq less because of his military skills than because he was one of the few American leaders to have some understanding of Iraqi politics. If McCain supposes the US has won a military victory, and as president acts as if this were true, then he is laying the groundwork for a new war.

i am left to wonder if the 'patriotic' bravado and bluster being promoted by GOP candidates, is purely for the sustainence of conflict?

bombs make money yo!

Perpetual3am · 09-15-2008, 11:42 AM

...And it goes without saying that Canada owes their security to me and me alone! ;-)

She wants to use the word victory and yet the definition of "winning" in Iraq has changed a multitude of times over the past five years. I can only shake my head when people use such simplistic terms for an incredibly complex situation.

The benchmark for success can only be returning the country to a state when the average citizen can go about their daily lives. You only have to read a few Iraqi blogger sites and its easy to see that utilities are scarce and are still on a short rotating schedule in most cities. Sewage systems are barely functioning, if at all and as mentioned in the article, millions of people are still displaced. How anyone in their right mind could say that victory is imminent is a complete tool...but not surprising as she's never been there and only got her passport in 2007.

**Snowolf** · 09-15-2008, 05:41 PM

In my opinion, "victory" would mean an Iraq that is in better shape than when we invaded and improved peace in the region as a result of our actions included less global terrorism. By that litmus test, we are a long long way from "victory" to say nothing of how you would even begin to measure the deaths and injuries to both Iraqis and Americans; how do you put a price tag on that?She just repeats the same old talking points she has been programmed to say. I cannot fathom why half of the American people do not see these two as nothing more than the third term of Bush.

mpdsnowman · 09-15-2008, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Compare this with Sarah Palin's belief that "victory in Iraq is wholly in sight" and her criticism of Barack Obama for not using the word "victory". The Republicans have made these claims of success for the "surge"

Now be fair here...She didnt say this in the context of the ENTIRE IRAQ WAR..This is in regards to the surge which weather you admit it or not...has worked

U can come up with all the counter answers but you cannot discredit the fact that the surge has had a positive effect on the AREAS THEY IMPLEMENTED THE SURGE...

And I do see a withdrawl in sight...and I also see blame...blame that we trashed the place and withdrew and left a bunch of inept people...defenseless and inept..which is alot worse.

We should stay there until the Iraq govt and military/police are well in control and withdraw should be well thought out, organized and implemented with humanity.

Perpetual3am · 09-15-2008, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpdsnowman

Now be fair here...She didnt say this in the context of the ENTIRE IRAQ WAR..

Noooooo, she said she believes victory in Iraq is in sight, given the definition that Sno mentioned, which is a common sense definition of victory IMO, it is definitely NOT in sight.

Quote:

This is in regards to the surge which weather you admit it or not...has worked

U can come up with all the counter answers but you cannot discredit the fact that the surge has had a positive effect on the AREAS THEY IMPLEMENTED THE SURGE...

Again you mention the surge like it was the only factor that has made things better in Iraq. It has helped, but yet again you're touting it as being the definitive reason. For example, the surge without the truce with the Mahdi army would have just resulted in more dead Americans.

Quote:

And I do see a withdrawl in sight...and I also see blame...blame that we trashed the place and withdrew and left a bunch of inept people...defenseless and inept..which is alot worse.

Did I just see you admit to reality? Finally you're starting to get it.

Quote:

We should stay there until the Iraq govt and military/police are well in control and withdraw should be well thought out, organized and implemented with humanity.

We agree entirely, except for the fact that the well thought out and organized part should have come at the beginning before losing the the hearts and minds.

PaoloSmythe · 09-16-2008, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpdsnowman

U can come up with all the counter answers but you cannot discredit the fact that the surge has had a positive effect on the AREAS THEY IMPLEMENTED THE SURGE...

and you cannot discredit the fact that i and i alone prevent terrorism in my country and in your's! for i live in one of those nations and terrorist strikes have failed to arise since 9-11. get on your knees and give thanks to me!

incidentally, there are how many more troops in baghdad now trying to maintain a level of peace which only equals that seen BEFORE the surge?

also note for all the success that you claim.... 1 in 6 of all irakis cannot return home. in other words, they were at home, safe, well and dare i say happy under Saddam.

the occupation continues and the only reason this has failed to become another Vietnam of profound US bloodshed, is thanks to the Iranians!

Mooz · 09-18-2008, 01:41 PM

1 in 6 germans were at home, well, safe, and happy under Hitler too.

oneplankawanka · 09-18-2008, 04:12 PM

Thank you all for your eloquent posts....I am enthralled... I am in complete agreement with perpetual3.

I am gobsmacked..nothing to ad but anxiously awaiting the next thread.

Thread Tools Display Modes

Register Now

View more Snow Boarding photos

Thread Tools

Display Modes