Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 90

Thread: Numbers "Petraeying" a lost cause in Iraq

  1. #1

    Numbers "Petraeying" a lost cause in Iraq

    [I]Roadside bomb attacks and fatalities in Iraq are down by almost 90% over the last year, according to Pentagon records and interviews with military leaders.[/I]

    [url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-06-22-ieds_N.htm[/url]

    -----------------

    A war is already either won or completely in hand, not that TV or the papers care much.

  2. #2
    [QUOTE=sackdance;2597058][I]Roadside bomb attacks and fatalities in Iraq are down by almost 90% over the last year, according to Pentagon records and interviews with military leaders.[/I]

    [url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-06-22-ieds_N.htm[/url]

    -----------------

    A war is already either won or completely in hand, not that TV or the papers care much.[/QUOTE]

    Just curious: What have we "won," in your opinion? Six years in, what strategic aim benefitting the United States has been achieved?

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2597092]Just curious: What have we "won," in your opinion? Six years in, what strategic aim benefitting the United States has been achieved?[/QUOTE]

    No attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.

    Beyond that.......well, the vast amount of money and the U.S. soldiers lives lost may have been better spent elsewhere.

  4. #4
    Iraq did not attack the USA. Furthermore, the terrorists are only in Iraq now because we are

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;2597141]Iraq did not attack the USA. Furthermore, the terrorists are only in Iraq now because we are[/QUOTE]

    And that's a great place to kill them.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2597143]And that's a great place to kill them.[/QUOTE]

    come for the sand....stay for the killing.....

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2597143]And that's a great place to kill them.[/QUOTE]

    Unless they all can be killed, the problem won't be solved

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2597143]And that's a great place to kill them.[/QUOTE]

    Not particualrly productive considering a lot of the groups we have been fighting there literally only exist to be killed because we invaded in the first place, like Al Qaeda in Iraq, for instance.

  9. #9
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    It's all relative
    Posts
    4,285
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2597137][B]No attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.[/B]

    Beyond that.......well, the vast amount of money and the U.S. soldiers lives lost may have been better spent elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

    Last one before 9-11 was Feb 26, 1993? WTC bombing? I guess you could then say Clinton did a good job preventing attacks after that, no? Bush takes office, and we're attacked. So you give Bush credit for not being attacked since. :rolleyes:

  10. #10
    the number of attacks on US soil are so seldom that it isn't a good enough of a barometer to determine success or not..

    the lowered violence is great, but I do not think it is also a great assessment of our success or failure in Iraq...

    are things getting done which will put the US in a position to withdraw...that is the real measuring stick..

    how far along is the new Iraqi gov't to becoming self-reliant and secure?

    Everything else is just window dressing......

  11. #11
    I cant think of anything that pisses me off more then these ****ing neo-cons who back this Iraq war saying it was because we were attacked on 9/11

    I can understand the people in Oklahoma or some backwater place in Georgia thinking we attacked Saddam because of the attacks on 9/11

    But you people are from ****ing NEW YORK


    By you saying we attacked Iraq because of 9/11 just discredits the entire war and basically admits that all this money spent and all those people who died died for nothing

    At least go with the argument that we are trying to spread freedom and democracy to Iraq, I can live with that argument


    Seriously What the **** is wrong with Neo-con REpublicans, are you so in denial about your support for Bush that you cant admit he ****ed up? Are you making money from the Iraq war and trying to justify it?(most likely)

    God damn you people piss me the **** off

    As I said in the other thread , Neo-Con Republicans are the biggest threat to humanity, this diseased Reagan-Bush-Bush-McCain cult that has plagued this country over the last 25 years
    Last edited by Tok3535; 06-23-2008 at 01:59 PM.

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,259
    [QUOTE=Tok3535;2597334]I cant think of anything that pisses me off more then these ****ing neo-cons who back this Iraq war saying it was because we were attacked on 9/11

    I can understand the people in Oklahoma or some backwater place in Georgia thinking we attacked Saddam because of the attacks on 9/11

    But you people are from ****ing NEW YORK


    By you saying we attacked Iraq because of 9/11 just discredits the entire war and basically admits that all this money spent and all those people who died died for nothing

    At least go with the argument that we are trying to spread freedom and democracy to Iraq, I can live with that argument


    Seriously What the **** is wrong with Neo-con REpublicans, are you so in denial about your support for Bush that you cant admit he ****ed up? Are you making money from the Iraq war and trying to justify it?(most likely)

    God damn you people piss me the **** off

    As I said in the other thread , Neo-Con Republicans are the biggest threat to humanity, this diseased Reagan-Bush-Bush-McCain cult that has plagued this country over the last 25 years[/QUOTE]



    So you're saying you're not sure where you stand on Neo-Cons?:P

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=Big L;2597299]Last one before 9-11 was Feb 26, 1993? WTC bombing? I guess you could then say Clinton did a good job preventing attacks after that, no? Bush takes office, and we're attacked. So you give Bush credit for not being attacked since. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    Nuu asked what we've won.

    I clearly said the only clear "win" thus far has been remaining attack-free thus far. Everything else in Iraq is far too tenuous and far too amorphous to be called a win at this point.

    Should these things change, so will my opinion. Then. Not now.

    Clinton (and the Govt. services sword to protect us under him) rightfully take the vast majority of blame for 9/11. Bush too takes a portion. I'm not going to defend Bush. He's a abject failure as I see it, on a myriad of levels.

    And should we be attacked again, before or just after he leaves office, no one in the right mind would use "no attacks" as a "win", and the blame will be squarely on Bush and and the Govt. services under him sworn to protect us.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=piney;2597309]the number of attacks on US soil are so seldom that it isn't a good enough of a barometer to determine success or not..

    the lowered violence is great, but I do not think it is also a great assessment of our success or failure in Iraq...

    are things getting done which will put the US in a position to withdraw...that is the real measuring stick..

    how far along is the new Iraqi gov't to becoming self-reliant and secure?

    Everything else is just window dressing......[/QUOTE]

    Good post btw.

  15. #15
    Shouldn't we just withdraw our troops and let Iran and Syria take control of the Iraqi oil fields and pretty much the entire middle east?

    Or, should we stay there indefinitely and keep Iran in check?


    The choice seems fairly obvious to me.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=Tok3535;2597334]I cant think of anything that pisses me off more then these ****ing neo-cons who back this Iraq war saying it was because we were attacked on 9/11

    I can understand the people in Oklahoma or some backwater place in Georgia thinking we attacked Saddam because of the attacks on 9/11

    But you people are from ****ing NEW YORK


    By you saying we attacked Iraq because of 9/11 just discredits the entire war and basically admits that all this money spent and all those people who died died for nothing

    At least go with the argument that we are trying to spread freedom and democracy to Iraq, I can live with that argument


    Seriously What the **** is wrong with Neo-con REpublicans, are you so in denial about your support for Bush that you cant admit he ****ed up? Are you making money from the Iraq war and trying to justify it?(most likely)

    God damn you people piss me the **** off

    As I said in the other thread , Neo-Con Republicans are the biggest threat to humanity, this diseased Reagan-Bush-Bush-McCain cult that has plagued this country over the last 25 years[/QUOTE]
    Eloquent. Too bad you can't scream that we're getting our butt kicked over there.

  17. #17
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    It's all relative
    Posts
    4,285
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2597343]Nuu asked what we've won.

    I clearly said the only clear "win" thus far has been [B]remaining attack-free thus far. [/B] Everything else in Iraq is far too tenuous and far too amorphous to be called a win at this point.[/QUOTE]


    I'm just sayin, I don't think Bush or his regime have anything to really do with that. Clinton remained attack-free for 7.5 years, and we weren't even fighting anyone/anything. Maybe terrorists are on a 7.5 year cycle, I dunno. But I think you or I could have been president after 9/11 or the first WTC bombing and we'd still be attack free almost 7 years later.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=sackdance;2597383]Eloquent. Too bad you can't scream that we're getting our butt kicked over there.[/QUOTE]

    well we could probably kick the **** out of Iceland if we decided to invade it, should we invade it?

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2597348]Shouldn't we just withdraw our troops and let Iran and Syria take control of the Iraqi oil fields and pretty much the entire middle east?

    Or, should we stay there indefinitely and keep Iran in check?


    The choice seems fairly obvious to me.[/QUOTE]

    Wait a minute, wasn't that what Saddam was doing? And doing it better, I might add. A perfect situation for Kissinger style (Meternich) diplomacy: manipulating antogonists, since Iran and Iraq were at each others' throats.

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=Big L;2597391]Clinton remained attack-free for 7.5 years[/QUOTE]


    The Clinton years were the "Golden Age" of Al Qaeda, where they grew dramatically and became emboldened.


    * February 26, 1993, attack on the World Trade Center: 6 deaths and 1,042 injured

    * June 25, 1996, Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia: 20 deaths and 372 injured

    * August 7, 1998, attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania: 12 U.S. deaths out of a total of 223 deaths; 12 U.S. injured out of a total of over 4,000 injured

    * October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole in Yemen: 17 deaths; 39 injured

    * September 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington (occurred during Bush presidency but planned during Clinton administration): 2,975 deaths and 24 missing.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us