Are we winning or loosing in Iraq?

^I agree with that guy.

Spinkles said:

Right. The President who, after the conflict in Afghanistan, had the highest approval rating that any President has had in our nation's history, decided to start a tens of billions of dollars war in order to boost his chances for next election; an election that, as a result of the war in Iraq, he almost lost. Gotcha.

Click to expand...

I never accused the man of being smart... just evil to the core.

Many people predicted Iraq war will be another Vietnam war. Then skeptics said that there is no jungle for the guerilla to hide, only desert, where the enemy can easily be pickep up. Well, it looks like these insurgents can some how camouflage themselves. The only way they can do that is they have support from the mass (some may say that the mass are terrified into submission).

Are "we" (the US and UK, I presumed) winning or loosing in Iraq? The same question some people asked throughout Vietnam war. US went into Vietnam, fearing the domino effect of communism taking over the world. When that threat is no longer there, and when the price of keeping on the war is too high, then ending of the war is inevitable.
Similarly in Iraq, the US has the phobia of Muslim/Terrorist are taking over the world, and hence must be stopped at all price, hence going into Iraq and going in Afghanistan. (That is part of the reason, I think the main reason is the black gold there)

Anyway, the nation pride of a country, no matter how backward, or how poor that country may be, is an informidable force. And imposing an outside view onto that country has never been very successful throughout human history.

Minitary point of view, US has won the war, and is sliding back a bit in complete win, as insurgency has not been reduced, and is seen to be on the rise. But that is far from loosing in Iraq, if US is willing to send more troop in, or use more drastic means of wiping out the insurgent forces by taking them along with a large innocent Iraqi.

I say, it is a stillmate currently.

Harvster said:

Bush and his so called ‘palls’ IMO are not subject to war crimes as they have not committed anything wrong. Sure they went to war on the justification that Saddam had WMD and many died in the process however does not the freedom from a dictator who is said to be comparable to Hitler justify more greatly than WMD. Hitler killed Jews and many innocent people and if he was captured he would have been guilty of war crimes. Saddam not only killed thousand’s of innocent people, but also killed thousand’s of his own innocent people. He was a tyrant who needed to be taken out of authority. For me I will never forget the joy on the Iraqi peoples faces when the coalition forces moved into Baghdad for the first time and at last felt freedom for the first time since Saddam was given power.



I’ve heard a person who has been to Iraq on many occasions during the war as a kind of Chaplin. He served in the Vietnam War and said that the war was necessary based on what Saddam was intending and was doing. He has sat in the very elaborate gold, jewel encrusted throne which Saddam had built for his future palace in Jerusalem fully intending to Rule Israel much like he did his own country.

Click to expand...

I suppose it is now the responsibility of the United States to decide on who is morally correct enough to rule their country and to remove them from power (leaving no one in charge) if they do not live up to our standards. Why, then, do we not simply travel around the globe destabilizing every region ruled by leaders who have committed human rights violations? With the Iraq war as precedent, there should be no problem (as it is now acceptable to disregard any initial justification, such as WMDS, once we are beyond the point of no return).

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" "All rulers are appointed by God" (apparently the phrase "and the GOP" needs to be added to that last one):banghead3:banghead3:banghead3:banghead3

foregin nationals sprinkles, yep i agree that they are there and i agree that they are doing things that they have no business doing, however, because the pentagon says that they are blowing up mosques, voting booths, etc. means that this is the truth? the pentagon has not said one honest thing about iraq let alone afganistan or anywhere else for that matter so why should i believe that it is only the fault of the foregin nationals and resistence fighters? for all i know our military is doing these things as well. but sprinkles did it ever occur to you that perhaps the u.s. does not peace there? did it ever occur to you that perhaps civil war is excatly what the u.s. wants?
as far as afghanistan goes, guess what we are still involved in a war there, it never went away and some would say that things are worse there than the days of taliban, especially for the poor and women.

Mr_Spinkles said:

I think that it's because by killing Iraqis, radicals and foreign extremists can intimidate the citizens of coalition nations

Click to expand...

yes, that's right, they want the enemy to withdraw from thier land, this's thier natural human logical moral right.
and nobody,,, nobody ever can twist this fact.

But i can criticise the way they resist,,,
Iraqis musn't be killed,,,
the enemy soldiers are the guys who should be fought.
,,, thier blood in the neck of thier government, not the iraqi resistance.

Mr_Spinkles said:

so that the terrorists can fill the ensuing power vacuum and create an Islamic fundamentalist state similar to that of the former Taliban regime.

Click to expand...

a vey intelligent analysis
when'll people stop mixing (intentioally or incocently) between the facts?
do that small groups of mentally ill people who bomb and kill are the legitimate speakers of the Islam? ofcourse not.

i recommend to you to read more about islam and muslims from its right sources (without the pre-conceived ideas and the bad stereotype pormoted by an biased media)
http://www.islam-guide.com/
http://www.allaahuakbar.net/
http://www.islamanswers.net/

Mr_Spinkles said:

I don't know if we're winning or losing in Iraq, but I think we're definitely losing the propoganda war.

Click to expand...

does it matter anymore? the right question is how USA get out of thier? and probably that's what they are thinking in right now in the White House

greatcalgarian--

greatcalgarian said:

Anyway, the nation pride of a country, no matter how backward, or how poor that country may be, is an informidable force. And imposing an outside view onto that country has never been very successful throughout human history.

Click to expand...

Well I certainly agree with you in principle, however I wonder who is doing the 'imposing' in Iraq. Is it the coalition and coalition-trained forces who removed Saddam, protected voters during Iraq's first free elections in recent history, and allowed freely elected Iraqi representatives to begin drafting a national constitution which will need to be ratified before taking effect? Are they the ones "imposing an outside view" onto Iraq? Or is it the Egyptian, Saudi Arabian, Iranian, Syrian, etc., radicals who entered Iraq after the war in order to carry out a terror campaign that deliberately targets innocent Iraqi civilians in order to achieve their ideological ends?

almifkhar--

almifkhar said:

foregin nationals sprinkles, yep i agree that they are there and i agree that they are doing things that they have no business doing, however, because the pentagon says that they are blowing up mosques, voting booths, etc. means that this is the truth?

Click to expand...

Actually, many news sources covered the terrorist attacks that targeted Iraqi voters back in January. I found the following list of attacks in Iraq on election day, from CNN's website, both informative and disturbing.

sinbad5--

sinbad5 said:

yes, that's right, they want the enemy to withdraw from thier land, this's thier natural human logical moral right.

Click to expand...

So you agree that the foreign terrorists in Iraq should leave, then?

sinbad5 said:

But i can criticise the way they resist,,,
Iraqis musn't be killed,,,
the enemy soldiers are the guys who should be fought.

Click to expand...

The "enemy"? I wonder, who really is "the enemy" of the Iraqi people? Let's see here:

• Egyptian, Iranian, Syrian, etc., fundamentalists sat and did nothing while Saddam butchered Iraqis. American soldiers risked their lives to expel Saddam.
• American soldiers risked their lives trying to protect Iraqi voters in their first free elections in decades. Egyptian, Iranian, Syrian, etc., fundamentalists blew themselves up near lines of voters to derail the elections. After the elections, they assassinate political leaders in an attempt to throw the fledgling democracy into chaos.
• American soldiers train Iraqi policemen and military who want to be able to protect their own country. Egyptian, Iranian, Syrian, etc., fundamentalists detonate carbombs outside of Iraqi police and military stations, killing both policemen and innocent civilians who happen to be nearby. Iraqi policemen and soldiers are forced to wear masks while on duty so that terrorists cannot identify them and kidnap their family members.

It seems to me that the "enemy" here consists not of American troops, but of fanatical Muslim terrorists who share Zarqawi's hatred of democracy.

sinbad5 said:

a vey intelligent analysis
when'll people stop mixing (intentioally or incocently) between the facts?
do that small groups of mentally ill people who bomb and kill are the legitimate speakers of the Islam? ofcourse not.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but I think I have been misunderstood here. I do not think that the terrorists in Iraq are the legitimate speakers of Islam, but merely that they wish to create a fundamentalist Islamic state. Indeed, the Iraqi civilians with whom I sympathize are predominantly Muslim.

Mr_Spinkles said:

greatcalgarian--

Well I certainly agree with you in principle, however I wonder who is doing the 'imposing' in Iraq. Is it the coalition and coalition-trained forces who removed Saddam, protected voters during Iraq's first free elections in recent history, and allowed freely elected Iraqi representatives to begin drafting a national constitution which will need to be ratified before taking effect? Are they the ones "imposing an outside view" onto Iraq? Or is it the Egyptian, Saudi Arabian, Iranian, Syrian, etc., radicals who entered Iraq after the war in order to carry out a terror campaign that deliberately targets innocent Iraqi civilians in order to achieve their ideological ends?

Click to expand...

Let us look at Vietnam. US went in there to impose the western democracy, or to show the South Vietnamese how to vote for a government. The situation of "terror" there then is blamed to the North Vietnamese, the communist in Loas, the communist in Cambodia etc who infiltrated into South Vietname to carry out a terror campaign that deliberately targets innocent Vietnamese civilians in order to achieve their ideological ends?

Sound familiar? Because I plagarized your last sentence.

I think what happened in Vietname is going to happen in Iraq. A nation (especially one which has a very proud history in the past, the Iraq people) will not let outsider to determine how she want to run her government. In the case of Vietnam, they did not fall prey to the French, then the US, nor did they fall prey to Soviet, Chinese, Cambodian etc, where US is trying to help them to fight against.

Remember Iraq is not friendly with Egypt, Saudi, Iran etc. With Sadam there, no body can touch Iraq (no way these terrorist can go in to do what the US said they are doing now). By removing Sadam, US created a vacuum for surrounding outside force to move in the attempt to weaken or destroy the Iraq nation. If US is so kind and benevalent as to remove Sadam to save the Iraqi from the suffering under the hand of Sadam, then US must be prepared to send in enough force there to maintain the peace there, without letting in all the "terrorists".:jiggy:

greatcalgarian--

greatcalgarian said:

If US is so kind and benevalent as to remove Sadam to save the Iraqi from the suffering under the hand of Sadam, then US must be prepared to send in enough force there to maintain the peace there, without letting in all the "terrorists".

Click to expand...

Well I was going to take issue with your statement that the South Vietnamese did not fall victim to the communist forces, but it appears there is no need to respond to the rest of your post, as we clearly agree on this critical point (though I wouldn't have bothered putting 'terrorists' in quotes).

Mr_Spinkles said:

Actually, many news sources covered the terrorist attacks that targeted Iraqi voters back in January. I found the following list of attacks in Iraq on election day, from CNN's website, both informative and disturbing.

Click to expand...

Well, it appears that Mr_Spinkles jumps from causes to results very fast.
what you talking about above are the evil results that we were all afraid of.:banghead3
why you think- in god sake, the huge opposition before the war??? because we love Saddam?!
i'm sure there was other methods to remove the Saddam regime who caused a lot of pain for iraqis as well as the neighbors.

but i wonder, why the Guys in the US Admin. insisted on the war, and destroyed a deep-rooted country like the way we all saw?
for weapons cartels? maybe
for oil cartels? maybe
for Israel? maybe
for sieging Iran and Syria? maybe
for sieging Russia? maybe
for sieging europe, jus in case it become unified? maybe
to make an example to the other countries? maybe
just extending the great USA empire? maybe
or maybe all these.

but don't repeat their lies( spreading democracy, and protecting human rights...)
we all know the fact that the last people to talk about these great principles are the people who initiate the war at the first place.
do you know the bear who hit killed her owner because she saw a fly on his nose?

how poor these iraqis, a tyrant (Saddam) is replaced by occupation(USA army) and thereafter the Terrorism. Allah knows what will happen next.

greatcalgarian said:

If US is so kind and benevalent as to remove Sadam to save the Iraqi from the suffering under the hand of Sadam, then US must be prepared to send in enough force there to maintain the peace there, without letting in all the "terrorists".

Click to expand...

can't you see what's happening here... ?
USA (as an emperial force) have no ability to swallow iraq, things gone out of control, it's a mess thier.

sindbad5 said:

Well, it appears that Mr_Spinkles jumps from causes to results very fast.

Click to expand...

sinbad5 said:

what you talking about above are the evil results that we were all afraid of.

Click to expand...

almifkhar seems to think that what I was talking about above was mere propoganda spread by the Pentagon. :sarcastic

sinbad5 said:

i'm sure there was other methods to remove the Saddam regime who caused a lot of pain for iraqis as well as the neighbors.

Click to expand...

Maybe it would have helped if we had sent Saddam a nice fruit basket, with a note on it that said "Pretty please??"

sinbad5 said:

but don't repeat their lies( spreading democracy, and protecting human rights...)
we all know the fact that the last people to talk about these great principles are the people who initiate the war at the first place.
do you know the bear who hit killed her owner because she saw a fly on his nose?

Click to expand...

sinbad5 said:

how poor these iraqis, a tyrant (Saddam) is replaced by occupation(USA army) and thereafter the Terrorism. Allah knows what will happen next.

Click to expand...

Yes, and what a brutal occupation it is. Tell me: when was the last time an American soldier blew himself up while standing in a voting line?

Many Iraqis feel the war can go on a long time, and sensibly motivated to live and work that situation. The question is can they give support to each other while exploited in each one of their occupational states. It' s lucrative for some reason for their economy. But the American way promised full of optomism for the future is not believed in.

They get their no way improved but extra strong police force with the American's presence. This is the way "we" pay for denying them their own sort of security for so long.

Really the western Christian type of security existed under Saddam Hussein. Now instead I believe their culture is at the OPEN physical being irrationally both with and without Nature.
There is total certainty for what the scientists can predict. The discoveries are bought in books like always they were.:sarcastic

Mr_Spinkles said:

greatcalgarian--

Well I was going to take issue with your statement that the South Vietnamese did not fall victim to the communist forces, but it appears there is no need to respond to the rest of your post, as we clearly agree on this critical point (though I wouldn't have bothered putting 'terrorists' in quotes).

Click to expand...

It is not the communist forces that defeated US in Vietnam. It is the Vietnamese people nationalistic pride. Vietnamese fought with China in the border dispute (both practice communist system at that time). It is not a communist vs democracy fight. It is just a smoke screen created in the cold war period.

Mr_Spinkles said:

Yes, and what a brutal occupation it is. Tell me: when was the last time an American soldier blew himself up while standing in a voting line?

Click to expand...

why?

greatcalgarian said:

It is not the communist forces that defeated US in Vietnam. It is the Vietnamese people nationalistic pride.

Click to expand...

I totaly agree with you,,,
This what will happen in Iraq in the near future,
USA will be defeated by Iraqis (not by some groups of fanatic terrorists as Mr_Spinkles think)

It is the Vietnamese people nationalistic pride.

Click to expand...

It's far more virulent than that. This is a fight for survival as was the Vietnam war. Our soldiers had a home to retreat to. They were fighting for their very existence. Never corner a wild animal unless you WANT to be hurt. Even a domesticated animal will turn on you it it feels it is backed into a corner. Humans are animal by nature and we are subject to the same instinctual responses.

sinbad5-- Oops, I don't think I was very clear at the end of my last post there. When I said, "When was the last time an American soldier blew himself up while standing in a voting line?" I meant in a line of Iraqi voters. My point is that American soldiers aren't the ones wreaking havok on innocent Iraqis right now--they're trying to protect innocent Iraqis. It is the terrorists who are responsible for the suffering going on there.

Mr_Spinkles said:

My point is that American soldiers aren't the ones wreaking havok on innocent Iraqis right now--they're trying to protect innocent Iraqis. It is the terrorists who are responsible for the suffering going on there.

Click to expand...

The inhabitants of Fallujah might disagree however. The ones subjected to napalm for instance.

truthseekingsoul said:

The inhabitants of Fallujah might disagree however. The ones subjected to napalm for instance.

Click to expand...

Could you provide a reference please? I've never heard of this.

Mr_Spinkles said:

Could you provide a reference please? I've never heard of this.

Click to expand...

Sounds like truthseekingsoulis right (unfortunately) - see below:-

"FALLUJAH NAPALMED Nov 28 2004


US uses banned weapon ..but was Tony Blair told?

By Paul Gilfeather Political Editor