Could it be.......the American are turning the corner in Iraq?

[HOZ]

Now I am one who has trumpetted a few too many good news items on the war in Iraq and have been burned. No doubt. Guilty as charged.

Now, I am saying this with a good portion of skepticism. BUT 2 Bush hating papers now....

NYT has published and article that the Americans maybe winning.

Now the German Spiegel is saying the same thing.

Could David Patraeus be a modern day Eisenhower?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

You know, some are going to take much pride in this, but the bottom line is that the Americans MUST win, MUST restore order, and MUST restore the country to at least the same level it was prior to the invasion. That is the bare minimum level that can be attained for this to be considered even remotely close to a success. Frankly, this war was lost the minute the insugency began. All the spin in the world is not going to change the fact that billions of dollars have been bled from the economy, countless lives have been unnecessarily lost on both sides, and the whole region has been destablized. What is worse is America has lost the moral high ground and the trust of nations around the world. America is worse off, the region is worse off, and the world is worse off. The only ones who benefitted from this mess was the terror organizations that were the target in the first place. It's great to claim victory, but the reality is that the opposite is true, regardless of the minor results of the surge.

[mykalberta]

The NYT article wasnt written by normal NYT lefties.

It was written by two individuals who have dubious records about the war. Heck KENNETH M. POLLACK actually gave reasons for the war before it happened.

Dont kid yourself, a left of centre newspaper isnt going to derial any Democratic Presidential victory. This is likely an op-ed piece written and printed so that the NYT can say they are unbiased. The only way the Reps save any face is if they produce Osama's head, no head, then the war is a failure.

Dont be fooled.

MYK

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

The NYT article wasnt written by normal NYT lefties.

It was written by two individuals who have dubious records about the war. Heck KENNETH M. POLLACK actually gave reasons for the war before it happened.

Dont kid yourself, a left of centre newspaper isnt going to derial any Democratic Presidential victory. This is likely an op-ed piece written and printed so that the NYT can say they are unbiased. The only way the Reps save any face is if they produce Osama's head, no head, then the war is a failure.

Dont be fooled.

MYK

Don't be fooled?

Why would they be trying to fool you? What would they be trying to achieve?

The NYT page is an OPINION page, and says, "OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR" right at the top. Where is the conspiracy?

[MarchHare]

What does "victory" in Iraq look like? A stable democratic government where all three major ethnic groups coexist peacefully with no insurgency? Is that even attainable at this point? And if not, what's the next closest thing that is attainable?

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Don't be fooled?

Why would they be trying to fool you? What would they be trying to achieve?

The NYT page is an OPINION page, and says, "OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR" right at the top. Where is the conspiracy?

The OP used the fact that it was printed in the NYT (the lefts media mouthpiece) to symbolize some sort of shift in the American mindset in regards to the war which just isnt true and will never happend unless they can produce the head.

MYK

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

The OP used the fact that it was printed in the NYT (the lefts media mouthpiece) to symbolize some sort of shift in the American mindset in regards to the war which just isnt true and will never happend unless they can produce the head.

MYK

So you were warning HOZ not to be fooled?

[nmhen]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What does "victory" in Iraq look like? A stable democratic government where all three major ethnic groups coexist peacefully with no insurgency? Is that even attainable at this point? And if not, what's the next closest thing that is attainable?

Thank you! This is THE salient point in this discussion. How do you define success, or even the point beyond which we (USA) should be pulling out? And once you complete that (purely academic) exercise how do you implement the parameters for measuring whether or not you've arrived at that point? And THEN, even if you can determine when you've arrived there, how do you exfiltrate??

There will be no white flag. There will be no laying down of arms by the vanquished. There is no vernacular for this war on which we can rely to understand it in our current reality. And yet, if we continue to stumble on, arrogantly believing that we can dictate what does and does not define success I fear we are going to be in for a long and frustrating campaign against an evolving enemy that is not operating under the same rules of definition or engagement that we are.

So ends my rant.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Dont kid yourself, a left of centre newspaper isnt going to derial any Democratic Presidential victory. This is likely an op-ed piece written and printed so that the NYT can say they are unbiased. The only way the Reps save any face is if they produce Osama's head, no head, then the war is a failure.

Is the New York Times liberal? Of course it is.

Your conspiracy has been conspired against, by the conspirers themselves. Or maybe you think they only admit to being liberal in an effort to seem right wing, by claiming the s at the New York Times are a bunch of liberals?

Osama doesn't live in Iraq, but I'd love to hear how his death would turn around this disaster. Do tell.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

The NYT article wasnt written by normal NYT lefties.

It was written by two individuals who have dubious records about the war. Heck KENNETH M. POLLACK actually gave reasons for the war before it happened.

Dont kid yourself, a left of centre newspaper isnt going to derial any Democratic Presidential victory. This is likely an op-ed piece written and printed so that the NYT can say they are unbiased. The only way the Reps save any face is if they produce Osama's head, no head, then the war is a failure.

Dont be fooled.

MYK

What does Osama and his head have to do with Iraq?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

What does Osama and his head have to do with Iraq?

A question that should've been asked 5 years ago.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

A question that should've been asked 5 years ago.

Yes, because the premise to invade Iraq was to find Osama bin Laden. Yeah, I remember that.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Yes, because the premise to invade Iraq was to find Osama bin Laden. Yeah, I remember that.

Easy there, big fella, I'm not harping on you, just that it was a rediculous linkage between terrorism and Iraq that went almost completely unopposed.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Easy there, big fella, I'm not harping on you, just that it was a rediculous linkage between terrorism and Iraq that went almost completely unopposed.

I wouldn't call it ridiculous. Only in the US. Everyone else did oppose it; if you recall, most UN countries were against it, which is why it was a US mission. The UN should step in now to clean it up, but they won't because the US owes them billions.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by FireFly

I wouldn't call it ridiculous. Only in the US. Everyone else did oppose it; if you recall, most UN countries were against it, which is why it was a US mission. The UN should step in now to clean it up, but they won't because the US owes them billions.

I didn't mean oppose the war, I meant oppose that as a justification for war.

If that's what you mean, then sorry, but I remember popular opinion here being of the same variety, saddam was a terrist.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I didn't mean oppose the war, I meant oppose that as a justification for war.

If that's what you mean, then sorry, but I remember popular opinion here being of the same variety, saddam was a terrist.

I think most nations realized that he needed to get out. He was a terrorist of his own people, and the nations around him. He was never terrorized by the terrorists, nor did he join their forces. But you can't say he was a good man. It was a convenient excuse, is what it was. For the US. I think most of the rest of the world agreed that it was just an excuse though. Otherwise they woulda joined in, I'm sure.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FireFly

But you can't say he was a good man.

I doubt anyone has ever said he was "a good man" around these parts.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I doubt anyone has ever said he was "a good man" around these parts.

So the question then is whether or not the end really justifies the means. Or whether or not that even matters. Up to you.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by FireFly

So the question then is whether or not the end really justifies the means. Or whether or not that even matters. Up to you.

Well, international law means something or it doesn't.

This isn't 'nam, there are rules.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Well, international law means something or it doesn't.

This isn't 'nam, there are rules.

Would you like to see the UN in there? What would you say to the US completely pulling out and the UN coming in to help? Do you think that would work? I would tell the US that they're going to pay to have the UN go in there and clean it up and at the same time, they're going to get out. Have them completely fund a UN mission as reparations for starting the war.