From all reports it appears that the surge is working and will be a huge success in Iraq.
quote:
The American media, even the Arab media have had to acknowledge that things are getting a lot better in Baghdad, and perhaps Iraq generally. Sadr City, the former no-go zone of the Madhi militia has reached an agreement with the U.S. military to be stationed with Iraqi troops right in the city.
The U.S. military has reached an agreement with representatives of the Shiite community in Baghdad's Sadr City enclave that will allow American forces to maintain a permanent presence in the militia stronghold for the first time since 2004, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Saturday.
Under the agreement, the U.S. will open one of the joint security stations that are a prominent feature of the new Baghdad security plan, with American soldiers living alongside Iraqi forces in a police station just inside the impoverished neighborhood, said Rahim al-Daraji, one of Sadr City's two mayors.
quote:
More Evidence Surge Is Working
Topics: Iraq
Dan Spencer points out at California Yankee that the surge is working while the Democrat's endlessly fight among themselves over whether they will poll better to micro-manage the war using Pelosi-Murtha "slow bleed," or to rewrite history by amending the 2002 "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq," even some Democrats have noticed that the revised strategy - the surge - is working.
But don't just take Dan's word on the success of the surge, he has up this video so you can hear it straight from the horses mouth - from the perspective of the Crazyhorse Troop of the 4th Squadron, 9th Cavalry:
Shhhh... The Surge is Working
By Patrick Ruffini
Saturday, February 24, 2007
A gloomy haze has settled over the nation's prosecution of the War on Terror as of late. It seems like we can only watch helplessly as Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha size up new angles of attack for undermining the war effort. The media is chomping at the bit the tell the story of an America, bruised and humbled and exhausted, heading for the exits in Iraq.
But something interesting is happening on the way to the "new direction." Early indications are that the troop surge into Baghdad is working. It hasn't been reported on widely, but murders in Baghdad are down 70%, attacks are down 80%, Mahdi Army chief Moqtada al-Sadr has reportedly made off for Iran, and many Baghdadis who had fled the violence now feel it's safe enough to return. The strategy that Congress is busy denouncing is proving to be our best hope for victory.
Where did you get this from? evry day on the news there hve been many killed In Baghdad the new trick is to set of car bombs on buy market places howevere recently we have seen bombs on buses. 40 people died in Sunday in attacks on Baghdad.
What you have in Iraq is probably the same thing we had in N.Ireland you sen in more troops and teh fighters back down for a while they wit until youare complacent or until you think you have won and you leave. These fighters have not gone they are surveying the new situation they still launch sopradic attacks after all they killed 2 us soldiers at the weekend there didn't they.
Edward Teach said this in post #1 : From all reports it appears that the surge is working and will be a huge success in Iraq.
An increase in US troops patrolling Baghdad streets is bound to decrease the sectarian violence on the streets of Baghdad to some extent, but do you think this is particular surge is a "turning point" in the Iraq war? There's been a lot of claims like this before, all of which turned out to be false dawns. What are the military saying? And why do you think it is going to be different this time?
Bush has been told a military solution is impossible in Iraq so this surge could just be Bush's way of passing the blame when it does fail onto the Democrats when they cut the money.
Actually Edward is right but the story has been spoun by the reporters. You see violnece in Feruary was down compared to January, howevere thats not a great acheivement when you consider that Dec 06 and Jan 07 were two of the deadliest months on record it also doe ot take into account any death this month. It also does not tell you that as attacks drop in Baghdad attacks in the ret of the country were on the rise, so it appears that militants have chaged the tactics which is a headache for the US because they have to make a choice change thier tactics and leave Baghdad or stay the course and secure Baghdad.
lodgebo said this in post #4 : it appears that militants have chaged the tactics which is a headache for the US because they have to make a choice change thier tactics and leave Baghdad or stay the course and secure Baghdad.
The Bush admin knew exactly what would happen if they sent troops into Baghdad. The militants would simple vanish. The fact that they are presenting this "surge" as a new tactic is baffling.
Edward Teach said this in post #6 : Do you even know what their doing?
I do know what the're doing, why? It's the same tactic being used in Afghanistan, Ink block counterinsurgency. And they are gaining control of areas of Baghdad, but what's to stop the militants simply moving elsewhere, as they have done in the past?
Why is it so surprising that violence has decreased in Baghdad? Violence has decreased in every Iraqi city the US troops have surged into. This has been going on unsuccessfully for the last 3 years.
Explain what is so new this time and why do you think it's going to work?
And couldn't this just be Bush's way of forcing the Democrats hand. When and if they cut funding it will go some way to getting Bush off the hook he's been squirming around on for the last few years. Politically it's cynical and clever and good for the Republicans, and with an election not so far away the Dems know how badly it will reflect on their party.
So enlighte us Edaward what are they doing? Here are 3 intresting points that came out this week regarding Iraq
Tony Blair today admitted that it is "to early to tell if the new American tactics are working"
Also this week 127 people have died in Iraq of which just under half where in the Baghdad region so much for it calming down.
Third intresting point is one that most news companies have missed for the first time ever the white house used the words "civil war" while describing Iraq.
The thing that they are doing that is different is that they are going door to door. Confiscating all weapons they fine and discovering ammo dumps.
Something else that came out today was that the Iraqi Govenment said that violence is down since the start of the surge. However the MSM has buried the story or did not report it at all. Most newspapers like NY Times buried it deep on like page 106 or something like that. MSNBC mentioned it very briefly and none of the other networks mentioned it at all except of course Fox News. Why because the Liberal Left doesn't want the surge to succeed. They want us to FAIL in Iraq and I have no idea why they want us to fail????
As far as the "Civil War" comment. I haven't seen it.
An Iraqi leader told President Bush on Thursday that the latest security crackdown in his country is working, but cautioned it will take more time. He thanked the American people for supporting Iraq.
"We are not finished, but we are doing better than expected," said Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi, a leading politician in the powerful Shiite Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
Bush met with Abdul-Mahdi in the Oval Office for just under an hour. The meeting happened as House Democrats advanced legislation setting a timetable for a U.S. troop withdrawal despite a veto threat from the White House.
"I appreciate the progress that you're making," Bush told the Iraqi leader. "I know it's hard work. It's hard work to overcome distrust that has built up over the years because your country was ruled by a tyrant."
The White House sees stability in the Iraqi capital as the centerpiece of a political, military and diplomatic plan to winning the war. But Bush's troop buildup in Iraq comes just as many lawmakers and the public have pushed for troops to come home.
Bush last met with Abdul-Mahdi in the White House last August. He met with Iraq's other vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, a Sunni Arab, in December.
Edward Teach said this in post #12 : The thing that they are doing that is different is that they are going door to door. Confiscating all weapons they fine and discovering ammo dumps.
Well thats a fairly good idea only two problems with it. 1. Not all weapons are going to be in houses 2. You can't cover the whole country that way it impossible
Something else that came out today was that the Iraqi Govenment said that violence is down since the start of the surge.
Well how long has the surge been going what just over a month hardly surprising violence is down in that time. The insurgents will probably sit back and evaluate the situation before making any move plus they are looking more at civlian targets than worrying about US forces. Also lets be honest violence would have gone down anyway Iraqs history has shown that after 2 extremly bloody months like December and January you normally have a few months of relative quiet then another month or two of death, it's the element of surprise. There is still murder in Baghdad but not on the scale we have seen recently.
However the MSM has buried the story or did not report it at all. Most newspapers like NY Times buried it deep on like page 106 or something like that. MSNBC mentioned it very briefly and none of the other networks mentioned it at all except of course Fox News. Why because the Liberal Left doesn't want the surge to succeed. They want us to FAIL in Iraq and I have no idea why they want us to fail????
No Edward the reason why is because the surge has not been going on long enought to be a success and I would not put your faith in Fox they have thier head so far up Bush's ass they can barely see what going on in Iraq. Take it from me battles like thia are not won in a months or two wait 12 - 18 months then at least we can have an indication of the way the surge is going. Trying to make a positive out of it after this short time or even trying to paint it as a potential victory is a foolish act.
As far as the "Civil War" comment. I haven't seen it.
Well I have seen it reported on Sky news. Might have been a prophecy actaully I mean this surge is it for Iraq if it fails Iraq slips into civl war and Bush and Blairs legacy is tarnished and the "model" of ME democracy become a laughing stock in that area.
You know another problem with this plan that I have just realised it also show that Bush has no idea about looking round the world and seeing what has happend.
Bush's plan is win back Baghdad and you go a long way to winning the war. Now take Afghanistan we have taken Kabul had it for a long time but the insurgents just took the fight to other parts of the country thats is exactly what will happen in Iraq.
The size of the coalition is irrelevent. Kabul fell withuin the first year of the US led invasion and it has remained in coalition hands since then you occasionaly weill get sporadic attacks in the capital but in the main it's peacefull, the reason why is that in making an effort to take Kabul the coalition let the insurgents set up inn other parts of the country. That seems to be the case in Baghdad is the surge concetrates on one part of the country the coalition will have to accept that the fighters will go somewhere else and kill people there. Do you know since the surge began Baghdad has become the 2nd most dangerous region in Iraq and the Al Anbar province is now the most dangerous do you think that's a coincidence.
Edward Teach said this in post #12 : The thing that they are doing that is different is that they are going door to door. Confiscating all weapons they fine and discovering ammo dumps.
How is that new? US troops have done patrols in cities all over Iraq for years, confiscating weapons. We're talking guerrilla warfare here, something the US military has not had a good record against in the past. This new tactic isn't new. It's just Bush dressing it up as something new because he has NO clue what else to do?
As for accusing a "liberal" media of ignoring this - that's nonsense. The surge has only been going on for a couple of weeks, and there is continuing violence occurring all over Iraq, including Baghdad. Also how many false dawns have the media previously announced? No wonder they don't want to do what you seem to be trying to do - implying victory is imminent.
Edward Teach said this in post #12 : Why because the Liberal Left doesn't want the surge to succeed. They want us to FAIL in Iraq and I have no idea why they want us to fail????
I'm still not even sure what Bush is trying to achieve in Iraq, so unless you define the mission what does success or failure mean?
What I and I'm sure most people would like to see in Iraq is peace and security for the Iraqi people, and the troops home. Is that what Bush actually wants or does he want something else? Who knows? There are so many other motives and intentions for sending troops to Iraq, most of them already failed, it's hard to tell anymore.
No surprise that there is a "surge" in attacks outside Baghdad. Does anyone seriously think this will be a surprise to the Bush admin? I very much doubt it.
quote:
Attacks surge in Iraq province instead of Baghdad
US, Iraq troops face attacks in Diyala amid massive crackdown by security forces in Baghdad.
By Jay Deshmukh – BAGHDAD
Attacks against US and Iraqi troops surged in Diyala province northeast of the capital after a massive crackdown by security forces in nearby Baghdad, commanders said Friday.
Around 90,000 US and Iraqi troops are deployed in the capital to rein in insurgent and sectarian violence, and many insurgents appear to have switched their focus to other provinces.
Colonel David W. Sutherland from 3rd Brigade Combat team, 1st Cavalary Division in Diyala, said: "There is a rise in attacks against coalition and Iraqi forces in Diyala while sectarian violence has reduced."
Reduction in sectarian violence is good, attacks against the coalition good too. Why because when they attack the coalition they will loose, everytime.
DESPITE sectarian slaughter, ethnic cleansing and suicide bombs, an opinion poll conducted on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq has found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants.
The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services.
The survey, published today, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war.
Officials in Washington and London are likely to be buoyed by the poll conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB), a respected British market research company that funded its own survey of 5,019 Iraqis over the age of 18.
The 400 interviewers who fanned out across Iraq last month found that the sense of security felt by Baghdad residents had significantly improved since polling carried out before the US announced in January that it was sending in a “surge” of more than 20,000 extra troops.
The poll highlights the impact the sectarian violence has had. Some 26% of Iraqis - 15% of Sunnis and 34% of Shi’ites - have suffered the murder of a family member. Kidnapping has also played a terrifying role: 14% have had a relative, friend or colleague abducted, rising to 33% in Baghdad.
Yet 49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddam’s era, while 16% said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer.
Not surprisingly, the divisions in Iraqi society were reflected in statistics — Sunnis were more likely to back the previous Ba’athist regime (51%) while the Shi’ites (66%) preferred the Maliki government.
Maliki, who derives a significant element of his support from Moqtada al-Sadr, the hardline Shi’ite militant, and his Mahdi army, has begun trying to overcome criticism that his government favours the Shi’ites, going out of his way to be seen with Sunni tribal leaders. He is also under pressure from the US to include more Sunnis in an expected government reshuffle.
The poll suggests a significant increase in support for Maliki. A survey conducted by ORB in September last year found that only 29% of Iraqis had a favourable opinion of the prime minister.
Another surprise was that only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war. Again, that number divided along religious lines, with 41% of Sunnis believing Iraq was in a civil war, compared with only 15% of Shi’ites.
The survey is a rare snapshot of Iraqi opinion because of the difficulty of working in the country, with the exception of Kurdish areas which are run as an essentially autonomous province.
Most international organisations have pulled out of Iraq and diplomats are mostly holed-up in the Green Zone. The unexpected degree of optimism may signal a groundswell of hope at signs the American “surge” is starting to take effect.
This weekend comments from Baghdad residents reflected the poll’s findings. Many said they were starting to feel more secure on the streets, although horrific bombings have continued. “The Americans have checkpoints and the most important thing is they don’t ask for ID, whether you are Sunni or Shi’ite,” said one resident. “There are no more fake checkpoints so you don’t need to be scared.”
The inhabitants of a northern Baghdad district were heartened to see on the concrete blocks protecting an Iraqi army checkpoint the lettering: “Down, down with the militias, we are fighting for the sake of Iraq.”
It would have been unthinkable just a few weeks ago. Residents said they noted that armed militias were off the streets.
One question showed the sharp divide in attitudes towards the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq. Some 53% of Iraqis nationwide agree that the security situation will improve in the weeks after a withdrawal by international forces, while only 26% think it will get worse.
“We’ve been polling in Iraq since 2005 and the finding that most surprised us was how many Iraqis expressed support for the present government,” said Johnny Heald, managing director of ORB. “Given the level of violence in Iraq, it shows an unexpected level of optimism.”
Despite the sectarian divide, 64% of Iraqis still want to see a united Iraq under a central national government.
One statistic that bodes ill for Iraq’s future is the number who have fled the country, many of them middle-class professionals. Baghdad has been hard hit by the brain drain — 35% said a family member had left the country.
Okay take the news survey away and lets look at the real facts. 7more US servicemen died today ( Sunday) and at the enbd of last week for the first time the insurgents succesfully carried out a chemical attack 14 more people died in Baghdad on sunday and another 24 wounded 5 more bodies were found in other parts of the capitl. Anbar province which I mentioned in an earlier post nine policemen were found decapitated Which proves that the surge is not working people are still dying and the insurgents are becoming more and more deadly esp outised Baghdad. Serioulsy the right wingers need to cast an eye away from Baghdad.
And as for the survey look at the pool 5000 Iraqis for Christ sake this is a country of around 24 million right?
Edward Teach said this in post #22 : Reduction in sectarian violence is good, attacks against the coalition good too. Why because when they attack the coalition they will loose, everytime.
You still seem to believe there is some kind of US military victory to be won in Iraq. This fantasy is ludicrous, presented by Bush as the only option so he can avoid the inevitable - a real change in policy. Bush will not accept things need to change because it would mean accepting he has failed, something he is unwilling and unable to do, regardless of how many troops have to die to prove him wrong.
I'm not saying this because I want the surge to fail. I'm saying it because I believe the Bush administration know it will fail, and they are using the surge as cover to avoid the truth. Better to keep on pretending to be winning (whatever that means in Iraq) than face the music.
Failure is not an option. It's not Bush or his administration that want failure, it's the anti-war left that would love to see failure. A lot of the DEMS want a pullout before the job is done and that signals failure.
See what they don't understand is that in that part of the world anything short of an all out victory is a view that they won. We have to finish the job declare victory and then we can leave. We'll most can leave, we'll have to leave a presence there with some military installations. I expect we will have a presence there for many decades.
Edward Teach said this in post #26 :
Failure is not an option.
America can send troops to Iraq indefinitely, regardless of any "success", regardless of how many get killed, and regardless of whether or not the violence continues. That way you'd never have to admit it's all gone wrong because it never has to end.
quote:
It's not Bush or his administration that want failure
Of course they don't want to "fail". And they don't have to just as long as they keep the war going for another two years, they can leave office and give the failure to someone else, claiming - "see, not my fault".
quote:
A lot of the DEMS want a pullout before the job is done and that signals failure.
Pullout signals failure? You've got to be kidding? We're talking about the strongest, most expensively equipped military in history against home made bombs. And were talking about US involvement in Iraq which has now stretched on longer than US involvement in WWII. Do you actually believe that Bush's war in Iraq, this quagmire he created, isn't a continuing failure for all the world to see?
quote:
See what they don't understand is that in that part of the world anything short of an all out victory is a view that they won.
How many times have you heard the comment - there is NO military victory possible in Iraq. Bush lost the war by not accomplishing the mission 4 years ago. Since then it has gone from bad to worse.
quote:
We have to finish the job declare victory and then we can leave.
Finish what job? What is the job - bring democracy to the middle east? The US is more hated in the middle east now than it was before Bush decided to go and start wars there. The idea that you can point a gun at someone and force them to be your friend has been proved to be as stupid an idea as it first sounded.
quote:
We'll most can leave, we'll have to leave a presence there with some military installations. I expect we will have a presence there for many decades.
If anything is going to fan the flames of US hatred in the Middle East and help recruit young people to radical terrorist causes, it's permanent US military bases in Iraq. Get real. Iraq is not America's plaything to carry out it's experiments on.
America can send troops to Iraq indefinitely, regardless of any "success", regardless of how many get killed, and regardless of whether or not the violence continues. That way you'd never have to admit it's all gone wrong because it never has to end.
That's the far left mantra that its all gone wrong. But in realality it hasn't.
quote:
Of course they don't want to "fail". And they don't have to just as long as they keep the war going for another two years, they can leave office and give the failure to someone else, claiming - "see, not my fault".
Hmmm interesting concept but NO. I suspect that we will start to pull out later this year. I suspect that Bush will end it on his watch. However it doesn't mean that we won't have a presence there.
quote:
Pullout signals failure? You've got to be kidding? We're talking about the strongest, most expensively equipped military in history against home made bombs. And were talking about US involvement in Iraq which has now stretched on longer than US involvement in WWII. Do you actually believe that Bush's war in Iraq, this quagmire he created, isn't a continuing failure for all the world to see?
You need to undertand the mentality of the Middle East. Al Qaeda, Insurgents and Iraq neighbors (Iran and Syria) will state that they beat the mighty United States Military and their allies if we just leave. In that part of the world it will be viewed that they won and we lost. We can't let that happen, we must leave with a victory. Even if it's a preceeved victory. We will have to signal to the world and especially the Middle East that the US and the Coalition Forces acheived Victory. Anything short of that will be viewed by the Middle East as a victory for the Insurgents. Once you understand that then you will understand the reason we can't "JUST PULL OUT".
quote:
How many times have you heard the comment - there is NO military victory possible in Iraq. Bush lost the war by not accomplishing the mission 4 years ago. Since then it has gone from bad to worse.
Many by the defeatest Far Left. But they are wrong.
quote:
Finish what job? What is the job - bring democracy to the middle east? The US is more hated in the middle east now than it was before Bush decided to go and start wars there. The idea that you can point a gun at someone and force them to be your friend has been proved to be as stupid an idea as it first sounded.
The one job left to accomplish is Stability and that is coming slowly but surely. Stability is getting better every day.
quote:
If anything is going to fan the flames of US hatred in the Middle East and help recruit young people to radical terrorist causes, it's permanent US military bases in Iraq. Get real. Iraq is not America's plaything to carry out it's experiments on.
Well they better get used to it because we will be there a very long time.
Edward Teach said this in post #28 : That's the far left mantra that its all gone wrong. But in realality it hasn't.
You're right, it's only gone wrong in Iraq militarily and politically (depending on WHAT the mission actually is). Financially it's been a huge success, a gluttonous bonanza for some companies. The war profiteering (frowned upon in different times) going on in Iraq has been an absolute scandal and yet Bush supporters say nothing.
quote:
You need to undertand the mentality of the Middle East. Al Qaeda, Insurgents and Iraq neighbors (Iran and Syria) will state that they beat the mighty United States Military and their allies if we just leave.
Unlike the mentality of the average right-winger, who is willing to sacrifice any number of young Americans just so someone thousands of miles away can't claim they beat the US? Let's hope all those deaths are worth it just so you don't feel bad.
quote:
In that part of the world it will be viewed that [B]they won and we lost. We can't let that happen, we must leave with a victory.
Who do you think you are? What is "We can't let it happen" even supposed to mean? Bush failed. Bush is a failure. Bush created Vietnam mark II.
If "they" want to claim they won then there's little you can do about it. But if you want to pile failure on top of failure so they can't say they beat the mighty US then keep on supporting Bush and let him carry on as he is doing. But it is not going to be any easier in a couple of years time, or 5 years, or 10.
quote:
Even if it's a preceeved victory. We will have to signal to the world and especially the Middle East that the US and the Coalition Forces acheived Victory. Anything short of that will be viewed by the Middle East as a victory for the Insurgents.
You still think you control Iraq, don't you? Despite the fact that the MAJORITY of Iraqis support attacks on US troops. The MAJORITY of Iraqis have no faith in America to do any good there. Iraqis are not relying on America for protection and help. Iraqis are relying on militias to protect them, militias that are a big part of the Iraqi police and military. Militias evolved along sectarian lines.
quote:
The one job left to accomplish is Stability and that is coming slowly but surely. Stability is getting better every day.
Please explain how the hell stability is or has ever been getting "better" in Iraq? Just take the surge for example. What do you think this surge is for, which started just 3 weeks ago, that's 4 years after "mission accomplished"? Why do you think Bush feels the need to order thousands of troops into Baghdad if "stability is getting better every day."
quote:
Well they better get used to it because we will be there a very long time.
They better get used to it? Why what if they don't, what are you going to do - start a war.
You're right, it's only gone wrong in Iraq militarily and politically (depending on WHAT the mission actually is). Financially it's been a huge success, a gluttonous bonanza for some companies. The war profiteering (frowned upon in different times) going on in Iraq has been an absolute scandal and yet Bush supporters say nothing.
Nope you're wrong.
quote:
Unlike the mentality of the average right-winger, who is willing to sacrifice any number of young Americans just so someone thousands of miles away can't claim they beat the US? Let's hope all those deaths are worth it just so you don't feel bad.
All volunteer force!!!! For centuries world leaders send their folks into battle. Lives are lost, it's part of fighting for your country. Every soldier knows that one day they may have to make the ultimate sacrafice. Most military folks know this and serve willingly.
So you are saying that only right wingers send their people into battle. I guess that means that Osama bin Laden and Saddam along with all those Al Qaeda who send innocent civilians to their death are RIGHT WINGERS????
quote:
Who do you think you are? What is "We can't let it happen" even supposed to mean? Bush failed. Bush is a failure. Bush created Vietnam mark II.
Your opinion which is wrong.
quote:
If "they" want to claim they won then there's little you can do about it. But if you want to pile failure on top of failure so they can't say they beat the mighty US then keep on supporting Bush and let him carry on as he is doing. But it is not going to be any easier in a couple of years time, or 5 years, or 10.
More wrong statements. Man you really don't understand dod you. By the way what grade are you in??
quote:
You still think you control Iraq, don't you? Despite the fact that the MAJORITY of Iraqis support attacks on US troops. The MAJORITY of Iraqis have no faith in America to do any good there. Iraqis are not relying on America for protection and help. Iraqis are relying on militias to protect them, militias that are a big part of the Iraqi police and military. Militias evolved along sectarian lines.
We do control Iraq. And where did you find this information about many Iraqis supporting attacks on US Troops. Give me a source.
You mean those same militias that are killing Iraqi's in cold blood. Something that the Coalition is NOT doing. I think you got that backwards bud.
quote:
Please explain how the hell stability is or has ever been getting "better" in Iraq? Just take the surge for example. What do you think this surge is for, which started just 3 weeks ago, that's 4 years after "mission accomplished"? Why do you think Bush feels the need to order thousands of troops into Baghdad if "stability is getting better every day."
All you have to do is look it up yourself. Go to the some of the sites I've posted. It's so easy a caveman could do it. All you got to do is READ!!!
quote:
They better get used to it? Why what if they don't, what are you going to do - start a war.
BAGHDAD — A press conference concerning the progress of security in Diyala, Iraq was held via videoconference at the Combined Press Information Center in the International Zone Friday.
Army Col. David W. Sutherland, commander of 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, and Maj. Gen. Shakir Halail Husain, 5th Iraqi Division commander, discussed increased enemy activity due to escalated Coalition and Iraqi security forces operations and the continuing effort to fight terrorism.
“We have seen an increase on attacks against Coalition and Iraqi security forces in the past several months,” Sutherland said. “On the other hand, we have also seen a drop in the overall sectarian violence in the [Diyala] province.”
The deployment of the Strykers from the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division of Fort Louis, Wash., will support our current counterinsurgency strategy and improvements will be made as necessary, said Sutherland.
“They will be used to build upon recent successes in the area of Buhriz, Tahrir, Mufrek and in the Baqubah area,” he said.
To combat terrorism, Coalition and Iraqi troops rely on citizens of the Diyala province who are beginning to aid the forces in establishing security.
“The increase in violence and attacks cannot happen without the support of the people,” said Sutherland. “We’re actually seeing flyers distributed by the people telling the terrorists to leave.”
In other areas, Iraqi civilians are also taking on terrorists.
“The tribal members near Muqdadiyah are actually fighting the al-Qaida. They’re sick, tired and disgusted by these individuals,” said Sutherland.
As operations continue, Coalition and Iraqi security forces leadership remain optimistic in the fight against terrorism.
“The morale of the people is high now, and the citizens [of Diyala province] are now providing us with information about terrorists,” said Husain. “We fight terrorism wherever it is.”
We are seizing every opportunity we can, and there will be no missed delays. We will secure the Diyala province and restore hope to its people, said Sutherland.
(By Spc. Carl N. Hudson, Combined Press Information Center)
Edward Teach said this in post #30 :
Nope you're wrong.
Well if that's you're argument, what can I say? What about the war profiteering? Nasty isn't it? Did you know that Halliburton just moved their HQ to Dubai? Nice.
quote:
All volunteer force!!!! For centuries world leaders send their folks into battle. Lives are lost, it's part of fighting for your country.
Is that what the American troops are doing in the Middle East, in Iraq, thousands of miles from home soil, fighting for America? Maybe they're fighting for some foggy, Neocon ideas, losing their lives because of some ludicrous agenda that's part of the Project for the New American Century?
quote:
Every soldier knows that one day they may have to make the ultimate sacrafice. Most military folks know this and serve willingly.
Yes but it would be nice if the troops and the country were not lied to to get them to support the attack of a country that did not attack America. Bush used the 9/11 attack, fear and patriotism to get you to back his war of aggression against Iraq. Why? Clearly you don't care. Most likely you don't like to even think about it above and beyond the websites you read and quote like the one above -
"Operation Iraqi Freedom - Official Website of Multi-National Force - Iraq"?
btw - You do know that it was the Saudi dictatorship that has been funding and spreading radical Muslim fundamentalism around the Muslim world? Now here's a question: if Bush really wanted to spread "freedom" why didn't he just ask his friends and business associates in Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Royal family, to make some real democratic reforms in the Middle East? Wouldn't that have been slightly easier than going to war? I doubt you'll even give this a moment's thought.
quote:
We do control Iraq.
Of course you do. And the Iraqis love you. And they trust you. And they believe that America is spending billions of dollars a month, and losing thousands of soldiers because they want to bring freedom to a bunch of Arabs. Your naivety is touching. If only the Iraqis were as ill informed and unaware.
quote:
And where did you find this information about many Iraqis supporting attacks on US Troops. Give me a source.
Since the end of the war in Iraq, thousands of civilians have died in violence on the streets. Support for the coalition forces based in Iraq is low - with 82% expressing a lack of confidence in them and 69% thinking they had made the security situation worse.
You mean those same militias that are killing Iraqi's in cold blood. Something that the Coalition is NOT doing. I think you got that backwards bud.
Of course the US is not killing Iraqis, we just like to tickle them into submission.
Shia and Sunni both have militias and armed groups who protect them because the security is so bad and they have no one else to turn to. Learn something about Iraq please before you make statements like "militias are killing Iraqis" because it means nothing - there is not one militia or one group of Iraqis. Try to look beyond your b&w world.
quote:
All you have to do is look it up yourself. Go to the some of the sites I've posted. It's so easy a caveman could do it. All you got to do is READ!!! This doesn't even deserve a response. [/B]
You posted pure military propaganda. It doesn't even pretend to be anything else. At least post something from a right-wing media outlet like Fox, if you want to post anything with any credibility (a joke btw).
The thing is Edward wht you, Bush and the whole of the right are missing is this. YOu sendf in 20,000+ troops to Bgahdad the militants either vanish or wind down operations and pick them up in another part of Iraq say Anbar, so in a year or two when the durge has been "succesful" you move to Anbar to quell the violence in that part of the city so the militants either go back to Iraq to raise hell there or go to anopther part of the country and raise hell there and it becomes cycle. It's classic military cat and mouse tactics and the mouse right now is playing the cat for a fool.
That's 20,000+ on top of the 130,000+ that's already in Iraq. And let's just see how it goes once they are all in place.
H@ts,
Yeah propaganda, that's fine and you know what it works and the other side has been playing that tactic also.
By the way your poll from BBC/ABS is contrary to the other poll that canvased Iraq. What is the sample size of the BBC/ABC poll by the way. I know the sample size of the other poll (sorry I don't remember what group conducted it) was something over 5000. I'll see if I can find it.
Yes but the half that are there and the rest that are going know there mission and thier location Baghdad stamp out insurgents. That won't change only thing that will as time goes by is location as this game of cat and mouse is played out.
