Are we losing the war in Iraq?
 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5057770/

Are we losing the war in Iraq? Oil exports have stopped. Hostages are being taken and Americans are still being killed. Contractors are not being protected. Seems to be getting worse and worse. Sad news is, we need to send a ton more troops. I don't see us doing what's needed.

There was never a chance of defeating the iraqis :(

The other problem is: Look at the two ass-clowns that would be president. We're fucked :helpme

mismanagement

Just another Vietnam, we will keep pouring troops into Iraq with no chance of changing anything. Then we will pull out, and things will go back to just the way they were before except with a different, new and improved dick-tater.
I do believe that we should support our troops, but the idiots that sent them there should be shot.

Why is it that governments never learn from history?

Yep, we're doing a real good job! Not enough equipment, bad intelligence, not enough manpower, poor leadership, cancelled leaves, cancelled retirements?.

The war is over. This is a messy occupation - like the Phillipines during the Spanish-American War.

For sure, my uncle is a tank commander over there, and he told me that it's the biggest clusterfuck he's ever seen. His M-1 broke down one day, and he had to wait for almost a week to get the parts to fix it.

How long does it normally take? Cite examples from other wars.

Told to treat prisoners 'like dogs,' U.S. general says


More from today's Toronto Globe and Mail:

Iraqi President Ghazi al-Yawar said he would welcome militant Shia cleric Mutaqtada al-Sadr into politics

and

Hussein's former palaces could not be used for a US embacy project

and

Washington must hand over Hussein to the Iraqi's for trial.

Can we say, "Yankee go home?"

I dunno, I'm not a war expert. Considering that it is now an occupation and not an all out war, it shouldn't take a week to get a few parts from one part of the country to another. They coulda fed-ex'ed the shit from the states in less time then that.

I think this pretty much sums up the situation as it stands in just one brief sentence. Well said.

I agree that the occupation is messy- certainly more difficult than planned for. The daily bombings and assassinations are just that. Historically, exceptionally quick military victories lead to difficult occupations. The Phillipines during the Spanish-American War, Yugoslavia during World War II. Lightning quick victories leave millions of rounds of unused munitions in the field and leave an enemy not having felt their defeat. This has happened many times.

People like "Joe Citizen" believe the US military is omnipotent and that anything short of perfection is due to poor planning. They felt triumphant when a single American Apache was downed in the early stages of the war - as if the expectation was zero - as if the US military were gods. The truth is quite different. 150,000 troops are occupying a country of 25 million Muslims after a historic and lightning quick blitzkrieg to occupy a nation's capital. The US military is great but not perfect.

" Bring them on ..."

" The world is a much safer place ... "

How can you doubt your own president, commander in chief ???

The one saving you from the " war on terraaa " and the one that " liberated " your iraqi friends.... all without any selfish motivation!

So anti-american, anti USA : USA HATERS!!!! :1orglaugh

Just wait til the draft comes around.

In addition...basically the insurgency is isolated to 5% of the land mass and involves a very small percentage of the Iraqi population...but non the less represents a thorn in the side of the occupying coalition. In answer to the thread topic...as Colin stated...the war was over in the first few weeks of the invasion...so no...we are not losing the war. Will the mission in Iraq be accomplished? Yes...in a decade or more...providing the American people do not withdraw their support...which I regretfully fear they will.

I doubt every person on this planet. I doubt Bush, Kerry, Tony Blair and Paul Martin. I doubt Michael Moore. I doubt Rush Limbaugh. On some days I even doubt myself. I even doubt you. Where are you going with this?

Yes you are loosing the war

Depends who you are. Some people have made a killing, some people have been killed.

Well...you are not the original "doubting Thomas".

Exactly where you are going! If that doubt would have been present during the " fabrication " of the reasons to go to war ( We know that ..., The Intelligence informed us ..., Saddam is related to 9/11, ... ) and that questions and proof would have been required by the Congress and the US population, well there would be near 900 US citizens still alive, 5000 not injured in a permanent way, 170 billion $ available to better the US life.. and I will not even touch the positive side for the Iraqi ....

You got played by a con man and now you are ashamed of admitting it.

Simple!

UN, France, Germany, Canada, Russia, China were right, USA and UK were wrong.

What "intelligence" stated that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? They are right about what? France...and German intelligence concurred with our 14 intel Agencies...in that Iraq possessed WMD's/WMD materials. The DCI testified to this fact in open hearings before the Senate Intelligence committee whom has been investigating the matter for the past year or so. In addition he testified that British and Israeli intel concurred.

The members of the House and the Senate that were members of the intel Committees received the same intel that was provided to the Administration and to a man/woman they voted to provide the President the power to use our military as "he deems necessary". FYI the policy of regime change in Iraq was approved by our Congress during President Clinton's administration.

The US and UK were wrong about WMD. Yes. So were many of the world's leading intelligence services and the prior US administration too. So was I.

Now, if you believe Bush was a conman as a result, then you also believe that Tony Blair, the Clintons, Al Gore, John Kerry, and John Howard were all cons too. I'm curious. How do you think all this happened? Why did so many of the world's intelligence services, world leaders and leading politicians come to believe that Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction"?

What is it you think? That Bush somewhow convinced Clinton in 1998 that Iraq had WMD programs? Not to say that I blame any of those people either. In fact, no one is to blame but Saddam himself.

Maybe you should research some more. Get back to me on that.

The king,

Directfiesta is blinded by his "partisan" politics. He doesn't care about facts.

What facts????
The one used to invade a sovereign country????
Bush used 9/11 and the shock and fear of the american population to get a massive approval in his country to go to war against ... the wrong ennemy.
It was unpatriotic at the least ( and often viewed as being a traitor) not to back all those false thruth spewed by this administration....
Even foreign countries, such as France and Germany, tough opposed to the war, weren't having the balls to take a stronger stand against this act of war and fell into the " yes, we think he has WMD "....

And the US position is nothing new: TheKing often stated that the US will do whatever is in it's own interest, including " regime change "... Didn't the US try lately in Venezuela by backing " a coup d'etat " against Chavez ???

The whole world is blind, aside from the US and UK....

Correction...what is "percieved" to be in it's interest.

http://www.findadeath.com/Deceased/t...m/portrait.jpg

What about Australia, Poland, Kuwait, Qatar, Spain, Portugal, or Saudi Arabia? What about any of the 30 countries which openly supported the US position and the 15 which didn't publicly but provided basing rights, overflight rights, and so on?

For the record, I don't think there was enough evidence to justify an invasion of Iraq on the WMD issue. That is with hindsight though. I agreed then with the 45 countries - mostly based on Saddam's actions in the past - admittedly a dangerous game.

Just the UK and US? You just ignored 43 countries. Are you a liar, or a conman or is it just "faulty intelligence"? I expect an honest answer.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Yes, your right. We attacked, invaded, and kicked the ass of a sovereign country.

The same sovereign country who surrendered in 1991 during the Gulf war, then broke every term of the peace treaty.

A defacto state of war existed between the US and Iraq for a decade. In the no fly zone, they shot at our planes nearly every day, and in return we bombed them back. And this went on for years.

It was bullshit. Every day they shot at us, and we caused a little pin prick. How about this - The next time a country shoots at a US war plane we BOMB THEM INTO SUBMISSION.

That will teach them.

War? I thought they were on a peace mission there.

Anyway, the only thing they are doing in Iraq is fighting Iraqi's. Something went a little wrong with Bush his plan.

I think its not so much losing a war as fighting a war that is unwinnable.

You hit the nail in the head there :thumbsup :thumbsup

What defines a "win"?

This is not a war, it's an occupation. The general public has unrealistic expectations here. This isn't gonna happen overnight.

During WWII in Germany a small group of dedicated Nazis continued to fight and harress US troops during the occupation. They called themselves the Wolverines. This is no different.

I had it with your " no-fly zone"....

Research to see if that was part of any treaty ( or cease fire), and then talk about it.

Maybe they shot at your planes because you bombed their installations, not the other way round... After all, who droipped the first bomb in 2003 ???

Now, go liberate another country....

we lost it on 911

Dammit you beat me to it, I was just about to post that

:(

The idiot is now on TV with a bunch of military as a background.

he just said that he attacked Iraq because they were a threat ...????

And that it was a regime based on torture... Amazing how you can bring sheeps to the slaughterhouse....

Direct Fiesta. Why are you ignoring a good question?

I hear you ...

@directfiesta

A lot of contries besides US and UK do have troops in Iraq (we do for sure), so let's get away from the US/UK vs the WORLD perspective. Also, I don't see anyone who's by Saddam's side in this issue.

Having Breakfast....

Lets not kid ourselves with the " coalition of the willing " ....The best way to measure the success of that coalition ( or its legitimacy) is to evaluate:

- from which countries come the soldiers
- from which countries comes the money

We all know that the soldiers are 90% US, 7% Britts and 3% for the rest of the 40 or so countries. Already, countries have pulled out their troops. Other countries ( such as Australia, Italy) are under heavy pressure to do so from their population. Most of the EX-Soviet countries ( Hungary, Poland, etc...) are there on paper mainly, in exchange for commercial benefit, such as US aid of various sort... I already posted links to that effect, but I really don't think you need them as I consider you as an educated person.

On the money subject, we saw couintries balking out one after the other when it was time to steup up to the plate... The first Gulf War cost was paid at 90% by other countries, 10% by the US.
10% only of 60 billion : 8 billion....

I can go today on the streets here to get a petition signed that we will invade Mars.... I can get most homeless to sign it for a dime, and most intellectually challenged to do so with a nice compliment such as " you are so bright"...

The coalition countries represents a minority of the world population and of the economic power.

Ifg Bush could say l;ike you that he made a mistake or misjudged the situation, there would be hope. But at this very instant, he is again spitting out the same lies as he did yesterday and the day before... Very sad.



:2 cents:

And if this happens in the Straights of Taiwan?

from a few minutes ago:

Lies from Dick Cheney, repeated and repeated till the americans beleive it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3812351.stm


These are the lies that TheKing can't understand.

I think China is the one most in need of liberating.......

no comments needed.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...afp203body.jpg

45 countries supported the US position before the war. So let me get this right, you think a country like Romania shouldn't count because it has a small population and is not an economic power? What you are saying essentially is that "might is right"? France matters more than Poland?
Germany matters more than Hungary? Interesting.

Stupid position, right???

That is why the UN permanent security council includes Romania, Latvia, Kurdistan, Shithole and dontblinkcauseyouwontseeme....

Please, get real. The coalition, aside from a few anglo-saxon countries, looks like a list of beggars!