Five Years, Four Thousand Dead.... What is Winning Now ?

[LoungeMachine]

Seems about this time every year we get a new crowd of Neo-Con ChickenHawks who come home to roost.

They spout their rhetoric.....

We can't cut and run !!

It will evolve into Chaos!!!!

We can't let them win!!!

We can't surrender!!!


Many, if not most of us thought we "won" this thing in 2003, when we ousted our old friend Saddam.

Since then it's been an occupation, which of course you can't "win"


So, if we didn't "win" this thing 5 years ago, what is wining now?

An official "surrender" of Al Qaeda in Iraq????

An end to violence all together?

Signing the Oil Law?



Please, Neo-Con porpoenents of this continued occupation, enlighten us.

WHAT IS CONSIDERED "WINNING" at this point?

[kwame k]

People have mentioned that Bush’s war on terror is successful because there hasn’t been another attack in America. There have been numerous attacks abroad but since that’s outside of the American Bubble most people don’t see or care about that.

What if the reason terrorist haven’t attacked us is because they’ve achieved their objective. We have not had economic prosperity for any sustainable length of time after 9/11. We are bogged down in Iraq with no end in sight. We are fighting wars or occupations on several fronts with no foreseeable end. Terrorist are able to do what they want and gain new recruits through our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. We are spending ourselves into an enormous debt that will have lasting effects on our economy for years to come.

Thousands of Americans have died, been wounded or are physically/mentally scared for life. Civil war and chaos rein supreme in the Iraq. That’s basically the terrorist’s playground and much easier to blend and move about more freely there than here in America. Logistically it’s easier for the terrorists to strike at us in Iraq or to recruit more terrorists from there.

So why do the terrorist have to do anything else to America?

[kwame k]

Oh, you wanted arguements from the other side!!!!
Sorry!!!

[Deklon]

kwame, you seem to make the most coherent points on here for your side of this issue. I also respect your intelligence and your research. And as I've said before I'm done trying to make my points on the Iraq/terrorism issue becasue I can't even get anyone to agree that the potential threat of terrorism here is real. But to say "We have not had economic prosperity for any sustainable length of time after 9/11". Respectfully, the 5 years after 9/11 saw non-stop economic growth, incredible and historicly low unemployment, and millions upon millions of Americans saw their 401(k)'s and IRA's grow dramatically as a result of a five year bull market. Now, I know the negatives you will likely present back to me, but you can't honestly believe there was NO economic prosperity.

[kwame k]

"We have not had economic prosperity for any sustainable length of time after 9/11".
I dropped the ball on that one. I didn't bring any links or quotes to the table. I'm the one who bitches about that, too. Got me!!!

Really that was an opinion post!! Looking at a different angle as to why we haven't been attacked, again. I still don't think the war on terror has been a success. I think the war on terror was an excuse to invade Iraq.

You're wrong about anyone not agreeing that there is a potential for another terrorist attack. I think it’s entirely plausible we could be attacked again. Terrorism is not over. Will it be another “homegrown” terrorist or will it be a suicide bomber running into a shopping mall? I think a major event like 9/11 will not be as likely as small random attacks.

I agreed with others here that the actual level of the terrorist threat was exaggerated post 9/11. Still is. We may get attacked again. I never said that we wouldn't.

Anyways, Deklon I enjoy debating with ya!

[LoungeMachine]

What Deklon meant to say was.....

I dont know.

[hideyoursheep]

You're obviously pointing to Iraq here, LM.



Which had NOTHING to do with any so-called "war on terror".


Nonetheless, I'll try to define "winning".

Regardless of what LIES took us in,(see Colin Powell stating in Feb. 01 that Saddam Hussein was NOT a threat, even to his neighbors, then get marched out to spread the fabricated lie of WMD's to the UN by BushCo., resulting in his resignation out of disgust),
it is now our responsibility to leave Iraq with a managable situation security wise, since we caused the disturbance.

That is "winning"
everything else has been done.
Saddam=gone.
Sons=dead.
WMD's=not there.
Al-Qaeda= NOT popular in Iraq.
The sectarian violence will continue after our departure.
The US needs to get out of that one and let them deal.

[bueno bob]

There is no winner in any war. The only thing any side is left with are broken families, broken bodies, and broken minds.

George W. has one upped that to include a broken federal reserve, but the point remains...

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Deklon
Now, I know the negatives you will likely present back to me, but you can't honestly believe there was NO economic prosperity.

It would be easy to say that the past 5 years have shown economic growth and you are right on several of your points. Short term economic growth not sustained economic growth. I liken the economy to the current situation a lot of Americans are now facing. Our spending and over extending ourselves with credit and mortgages has come back to haunt us. So is the Iraq war. So is corporate greed. Maybe my dislike for the current administration only causes me to focus on the negatives and I can not give Bush, Inc. any credit on his few successes. We are paying for the failures of this administration right now. Whether we had economic growth in the past is a moot point.

As with Bush’s shortsightedness and lack of a post-war rebuilding plan with Iraq we have nothing but unpaid loans to foreign countries that is crippling the US economy and by default the World’s economy.

We will be paying for this war and the failed policies of this administration for years to come. A Democratic President will not be able to stop paying for this war whether they decide to pull all of our troops out or not. We are saddled with enormous debts and a crippled US economy as a result of an Administration who‘s only interest is in serving the Corporate sponsors who put them in office.

“……Of course, there are also causes such as the subprime scandal, derivatives madness that has led to irresponsible leveraging and raging commodity prices.
But the Iraq war is monstrously expensive and, unlike Vietnam, not simulative economically speaking.
That is because, like Wall Street, Washington has put the cost entirely on the tab. It is a war paid for on credit obtained from foreigners. This means tens of billions of dollars flow out of the currency and economy to outside creditors and will do so for decades if warmongering Republicans keep getting elected.
The war, and its reckless execution, affects the world by hurting the economy, trade flows, fragile credit markets and currency values.
The war, and America's foreign indebtedness, is contributing to soaring gold and other commodities' prices, the U.S. dollar's demise, scary credit markets, consumption drops, lower economic growth among trading partners who buy American goods, and, most likely, a guarantee that a Democrat will occupy the White House come the fall.

Washington is borrowing US$15-billion a month for Iraq and Afghanistan, a burn rate that will likely total US$3-trillion by 2017, according to the latest book by Joseph Stiglitz, a Columbia University professor and winner of the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001.
He estimates that for one-sixth of the cost of the war the United States could fully fund social security for 50 years without benefits being lowered or contributions raised.
The war will represent a bigger number than Vietnam (US$670-billion) by the end of 2008, even if the Democrats get in and start pulling out troops.”

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=999e7591-f0af-49f4-bb45-d550623b3001&k=14322

We’ve already covered the Bears S&L scandal ‘08 but here’s even more of our money going out to bail out the sub-prime fiasco.

“Last Wednesday, Federal regulators agreed to let Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac take on another $200 billion in subprime mortgage debt. The two government-sponsored enterprises (GSE) would buy mortgages from banks, a process known as buying on the secondary market. They then package these into mortgage-backed securities, and resell them to investors on Wall Street. All will go well if the mortgages are good, but if they turn south, then the two GSE's would be liable for the debt. (Source: Washington Post, More Cash for Mortgages, March 21, 2008)
This is in addition to the $200 billion in Treasury notes the Federal Reserve announced it will loan to bail out bond dealers who are stuck with mortgage-backed securities and other collateralized debt obligations (CDO's) that they can't resell on the secondary market. (See Fed $200 Billion Loan Probably Won't Help)
What It Means to You
If Fannie, Freddie and the Fed get stuck with the $400 billion in bad debt, then this will cost three times as much as the Savings and Loan Crisis, which "only" cost the taxpayers $124 billion.
In all likelihood, however, last week's actions have avoided a financial meltdown. Although it is possible that the economy is already headed for a recession, it will be less painful than if the government had done nothing. The worst case scenario is that this debt would get added to the $9 trillion national debt, which is a chronic situation that continues to depress the dollar and raise the price of imports.”

http://useconomy.about.com/

So the economy is now being effected by the 5 years of war in Iraq and Oil prices that are at an all time high. The point that a lot of people miss is when gas prices soar all our consumer goods soar.
The majority of all consumer goods are shipped by truck and with fuel prices soaring the natural effect is that consumer goods have to increase or adjust accordingly.

“Nearly 90% of all freight is carried by trucks, hauling everything from hazardous waste to ice cream.
"Over 75% of communities in the US get their freight only by truck," Mr Costello told BBC News Online. "No other mode of freight transportation goes there."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1399618.stm

So not only are our daily goods increasing in price but our wages are not adjusting to keep up with the changes.

http://stats.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#b00-0000

I can’t really say we have any sustained economic growth in this country. All of the economic indicators I have looked at say that any growth we have seen in the last five years has been negated by the enormous amount of debt we are incurring now. Also we have been sliding slowly into the mess we are now facing and the Bush Administration has done nothing to correct or sustain long term economic growth. They have done the opposite.

[kwame k]

Here is what our commander and chief has to say as far as winning the war.

By the administration's own measures, then, victory in Iraq is not in sight, nor is there much evidence that the road we are treading will lead us toward that destiny.
And yet our president still seems to have little comprehension of what the war that he has spawned is all about.
A White House "fact sheet" titled "Five Years Later: New Strategy Improving Security in Iraq," posted on the occasion of the invasion's fifth anniversary, states:
Defeating the enemy in Iraq will make it less likely we will face this enemy here at home. The terrorists who murder the innocent in the streets of Baghdad also want to murder the innocent in the streets of American cities.
And so, once again, President Bush tries to link the war in Iraq to the attacks of Sept. 11. Once again, he pretends (or does he somehow believe?) that al-Qaida is "the enemy in Iraq." Would that things there were so clear-cut. One big difficulty about fighting in Iraq is that there is no single enemy. The overarching problems are disorder, sectarian strife, a weak central authority, and the absence of legitimate politics in the provinces. AQI is a menacing force, but it is also a small one. If it were destroyed tomorrow, Iraq would be only slightly less messy. (In one way, it might be more messy, at least in the short-run, as the Sunni insurgents who are now our allies would be expected to resume their fight against us after our common enemy is vanquished.)
Just as Bush mistakenly treats Iraq's myriad insurgencies as if they were one—thus making them appear (and perhaps making their warriors feel) mightier than they really are—so he also elevates the stakes of the war, and the requirements of victory, above and beyond any prospect that's feasible.
In his speech at the State Department on Monday, where he restated his goal of achieving "victory," he also said of the fallen soldiers in Iraq that "one day people will look back at this moment in history and say, 'Thank God there were courageous people willing to serve because they laid the foundations for peace for generations to come.' "
A wartime president who has no real allies and whose own military is too small to achieve such lofty goals should begin to scale back his rhetoric so that it has at least a patina of plausibility. By defining victory in Iraq as an outcome that lays "the foundations for peace for generations to come," George W. Bush ensures that defeat is nearly inevitable.

http://www.slate.com/id/2187386/pagenum/all/#page_start

Here's the slide show from our administration as to the key to victory.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/iraq/2007/iraq-strategy011007.pdf

I honestly believe Bush thinks that Iraq is the Rosetta Stone in the war on terror. I’m starting to think this guy actually believes what he is doing is prudent and necessary for our safety. Thank God this fucker is almost outta here.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Deklon
kwame, you seem to make the most coherent points on here for your side of this issue. I also respect your intelligence and your research. And as I've said before I'm done trying to make my points on the Iraq/terrorism issue becasue I can't even get anyone to agree that the potential threat of terrorism here is real. But to say "We have not had economic prosperity for any sustainable length of time after 9/11". Respectfully, the 5 years after 9/11 saw non-stop economic growth, incredible and historicly low unemployment, and millions upon millions of Americans saw their 401(k)'s and IRA's grow dramatically as a result of a five year bull market. Now, I know the negatives you will likely present back to me, but you can't honestly believe there was NO economic prosperity.

The US is in worse shape now economically than when the 1930s depression happened. You're fucked and it's not good for everyone else either.

When are you going to get that? It's not that complicated I know the numbers are big but still. Pissing away 3 trillion dollars on fuck all. If Jeffrey Dahmer was the Democrat candidiate you should vote for them on pure principle.

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
The US is in worse shape now economically than when the 1930s depression happened. You're fucked and it's not good for everyone else either.

When are you going to get that? It's not that complicated I know the numbers are big but still. Pissing away 3 trillion dollars on fuck all. If Jeffrey Dahmer was the Democrat candidiate you should vote for them on pure principle.

I'd vote for Betty the bouncing bear rather than McCain. Yeah, we're fucked!
He could win this election! Then we'll be crying for the good old days!

Remember back in '08, man life was good

[scamper]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
The US is in worse shape now economically than when the 1930s depression happened. You're fucked and it's not good for everyone else either.

Show me the numbers.....

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by scamper
Show me the numbers.....

How about answering the thread question first?

What is considered "winning" in Iraq at this point int time to you?

Peace?

Surrender?

Never going to happen. Never.

Have we learned NOTHING from history?

Imperialism and / or Democracy at Gunpoint doesnt work.

We've personally overthrown Democraticly Elected Leaders in the region in the past and installed dictators.

What kind of credibilty do you think we have there?

TELL US WHAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER A WIN AT THIS POINT, SCAMP.

[LoungeMachine]

Read this if you DARE, chickenhawks.

A good look from the viewopoint of The Middle east

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/890/sc1.htm

27 March - 2 April 2008
Issue No. 890

Who's winning in Iraq?
Having handed Iraq to Iran, the US faces a strategic dilemma of enormous proportions, writes Mustafa El-Labbad



Up to 1.2 million Iraqis may have been killed since the invasion of Iraq five years ago and many more have been displaced or have left the country. The US invaded Iraq to seize its oil, and what it did altered the balance of power in the region for years to come. Iraq, being a neighbour to six countries all with considerable weight in the region, is a major geopolitical asset.

Since the Bush administration declared itself victorious in Iraq in summer 2003, resistance operations have not abated. Many inside and outside the region may agree today that the war was a big mistake and that the political process that followed was disastrous. But no one wants to see the Americans out yet -- no one, that is, except Iran.

The invasion of Iraq has undermined the region's moderates, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, while boosting the fortunes of Tehran. Now the Americans cannot get out of Iraq without reaching some understanding with Iran. It is almost a classical standoff. The Americans have troops all over Iraq, but it is the Iranians who are running the show. Neither has managed to edge the other out of the picture. Tehran doesn't have the military wherewithal to expel the Americans, and Washington cannot remove Iran's allies from power. The latter not only control the country's politics, but also run their own militia inside the interior and foreign ministries. Shia organisations such as the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Al-Daawa Party, Al-Fadila Party and the Sadr current have one thing in common -- they are all loyal to Tehran.

Throughout history, Iran measured its external clout by its ability to control Iraq. The Safavids and Qajars signed treaties with the Ottomans, in which the provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra featured highly. These treaties gave Iran, among other things, the right to supervise holy Shia shrines in Najaf and Karbala. In the early 16th century, Iran's Safavid ruler, Shah Abbas, travelled from his capital Asfahan to Najaf on foot, where he swept the tomb of the prophet's cousin, Ali. Returning home, Abbas had himself declared on the official currency as the "Dog of Ali's Threshold", turning an act of piety into a political claim. Within the span of three centuries, Iran signed with the Ottomans 14 treaties all tackling the issue of Iraqi borders.

The US occupation of Iraq gave Iran a rare opportunity to spread its influence inside Iraq. Through its Shia connections and military and financial means, Tehran has more influence today in Iraq than it ever had in Ottoman times.

The Iraq-Iran war, started by Saddam Hussein, while fomenting divisions within Iraqi society, gave Iran the incentive to forge strong alliances within Iraq. Iran was hoping for an opportunity to turn things around in Iraq; the Americans provided it.

For all their differences, the Americans and the Iranians had to sit down and talk about Iraq. Washington was pushing the Iranians on the nuclear front in order to make them give way in Iraq. But Iran, aware of its advantage, wanted a serious quid pro quo. Iran also talked to Germany, France and the UK, but the talks failed. This is because Iran wanted international recognition of its regional role. This was something the Europeans couldn't promise; only the Americans could do that.

Iran has infiltrated Iraqi politics under the very nose of the US occupation. In Iraq, the Iranians need no help from the Americans. But in the region, they do. The Iranians cannot have international recognition of their regional role without a green light from the US. Until then, Iran will keep obstructing the US every step of the way, from Iraq to Palestine.

Iran has its ambitions, but it is not unaware of its limitations. The Iranians know that they can frustrate the Americans in the region, but they need the Americans for their regional role to be officially recognised. This is the nature of the current standoff in Iraq. Iran is not going to allow a US-backed, Sunni-dominated, anti-Iranian regime in Baghdad. And the Americans are not going to allow Iraq to fall under Iran's control. For the time being, the Americans are still hoping to leave Iraq in the hands of a government that would keep the Iranians at bay. And the Iranians want the Americans to turn around and run.

Over the past few months, the Bush administration has adapted its negotiating tactics to some extent. But because of its lack of political imagination and poor knowledge of the region, it isn't making much headway. The Americans have had some success, however, with Sunni resistance battling pro-Iranian groups. And for now Washington is keeping a truce of sorts with Tehran, promising not to strike Iran without UN approval.

The occupation of Iraq has adjusted the outcome of the Iraq-Iran war, turning it from a draw into a victory. The Iraq-Iran war may have ended 20 years ago, but the Iranians are reaping the fruits -- without having to fire a shot.

Washington started a war that it doesn't know how to end. At one point, the Americans will have to recognise that the Iranians are not going to turn tail and run. Tehran is not only spearheading resistance to US-Zionist schemes in Lebanon and Palestine. It is the ultimate hand behind Iraq's politicians.