Political Punch

Well, Well... Propaganda assumes many forms and "antiwar" propaganda is the worst.

Its only antiwar when its against America.

Al Qaeda is in full retreat, Saddam Hussein in his grave with the Baathist Party dismantled and Al-Sadr is facing permanent exile...

Our allies, the Iraqi government, are growing stronger every day, but over five years ago they were our sworn enemies. The Baathist support base, the Sunni Arabs, are now firmly in our corner. A Shiite Prime Minister is also in our corner and so is the Kurdish President.

Reality doesnt match up to the misconceptions that are encouraged by the Democratic Party.

Food for thought:

A Republican adminstration initiated active U.S. military engagement in Viet Nam.

Two Democratic administrations escalated the conflict in Viet Nam.

A Republican administration ended U.S. military involvment in Viet Nam.

A Republican adminstration initiated active U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq.

A Democratic administration...

As the saying goes, history repeats itself.

NBC poll announced on Meet the Press from this morning gave the same percentage, 53%, for Americans who believe we should complete the mission in Iraq and not withdraw immediately.

Not my opinion, but one that seems to be emerging as a steady shift of tone regarding the war in Iraq.

not-a-surge! | Mar 15, 2008 10:53:38 AM

you make an excellent point about an escalation of American involvement in Iraq being mislabeled as a mere 'surge'.

Americans are being suckered into thinking of the additional troops and so ignore the many tens of thousands of Americans who are being used as security guards for Iraq's sunnis and shias, who have been battling each other for 1400 years.

Americans are selling themselves short when they allow themselves to focus on TINY AREAS OF THE IRAQ WAR and ignore the fact that THE INVASION OF IRAQ HAS OFFERED NO BENEFITS TO AMERICANS!

The Iraqi war ONLY COSTS Americans in many ways -- many thousands of lives, limbs, mental health, and an emptying of the national treasury!

Jackt51, first of all the resolution giving President Bush the authorization to send the armed forces into Iraq states: "Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;" Yes, al Qaeda was in Iraq long before Oct 2002 (the passing of the resolution), months before we invaded Iraq. They even had a training camp in northern Iraq.

And yes you are correct that Bush 43 did go into Iraq to finish the job that his father started. That's because there was never an end to the Gulf War. There was only a cease fire based on the agreement that Saddam Hussein would meet certain conditions, including proof that he no longer had WMDs. After 12 years of failing to meet ANY of the conditions, the UN Security Council gave its final ultimatum. But when it became clear that the UN would not follow through on its ultimatum, President Bush gave his own ultimatum to Saddam Hussein. When Saddam Hussein failed to meet the conditions, President Bush ordered the invasion.

You ask, "...how long shall this go on?" As long as it takes. (NOTE: Our Revolutionary War took EIGHT years!) We cannot allow al Qaeda to have even a symbolic or moral victory. That will only embolden them. And we certainly cannot cut-and-run and just hand al Qaeda a military victory as that will embolden them even more.

We are not ignoring the hunt for Usama bin Laden. He is being protected by the warlords in Pakistan. If we get solid intelligence as to his exact location, we will take him out. This is a far different war than we have ever fought. This war is even more global than WWII. Al Qaeda and al Qaeda wannabes are in every country. They are determined to destroy Western Civilization. There are only two options: We die or we defeat them! We need to fight al Qaeda wherever they are. That means we are already in the middle of WWIII. Once the whole world comes to that realization and takes the threat seriously the sooner Western Civilization can defeat these terrorists.

Finally, you have not given up a single constitutional right -- unless you have been corresponding with and/or supporting the terrorists.

I don't think most people relies how many people we have over their. With troops and private contractors it is close to a million and we still can't win. We can not do this forever. I don't blame the Iraq people, it's not their fault. I don't know how we are going to get out of this mess.

To fair minded people, surge has improved the situation. But, a key question is "can we afford to keep the troop at the present level"? My answer is a fat no! Then, next question is what happens when the troop level goes back to pre-surge level? Has there been sufficient political progress to ensure a trend toward a peaceful Iraq? I am skeptical on this part.

The objective of surge was to reduce the violence so that political reconciliation can take place. As far as I know, violence has gone down but political reconciliation has not happened just yet.

Will Iraqis ever be able to make peace among themself? I seriously doubt it. Iraq will probably remain a hot bed for extremeists for long time to come, no matter how many troops we keep there.

BENEFIT OF WAR TO AMERICANS?

MINUS COST OF WAR TO AMERICANS?

NET EFFECT OF WAR TO AMERICANS?

A BIG FAT NEGATIVE!

How a certified idiot was able to REPEATEDLY mislead a nation of 300 million into the Iraqi abyss, will go down in history as one of the biggest farce in the history of the modern world.

NO!

The 'surge is working' to DESTROY THE US TREASURY!

How many times have the warmongers ALREADY DECLARED VICTORY?

The UNPROVOKED war is STILL COSTING Americans 3 BILLION DOLLARS A WEEK!

This is money that working families and homeowners could badly use to combat the Bush giveaway so that rich people can gamble in the interest and financial markets!

There HAS NEVER been any benefit to the Iraq war!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes

Americans who would claim that the 'surge' is working DESPITE THE COST AND NO BENEFITS OF THE WAR, are like the 'wise men' who were afraid of looking stupid BY ADMITTING THAT THE KIND IS INDEED NAKED!

Doesn't really matter. Once we are gone Iraq will fracture along tribal lines. An analogy would be if the Chinese sent half a billion people with guns to suppress the US populace we would probably bide our time, but once they left we probably wouldn't become communist.

To Ken: Polls, polls, polls. So CNN says 53% of "the people" think the surge is working? And where do you supposed that 53% get their info?? Right back to your statement that it "depends upon where." I watch CNN all the time and polls depend upon HOW the questions are framed and WHO is being polled.

Whether the surge is working or not depends on who you get your information from.

However, this week a CNN poll showed that 53% of those polled felt we should not withdraw immediately from Iraq.

Apparently, some people think the surge is working.

No to the surge working. Many military commanders, scholars, and other notable folks have said that it's al-Sadr's cease fire that's really at work here, not the surge. Also, in some places, ethnic-cleansing of the Shias by the Sunnis has resulted in the lessening of violence; and in other places, ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis by the Shias.

But I'm sure that the Bushies would all agree that it's the surge.

It never ceases to amaze me how shortsighted most of you are! You only see the present and dwell on the past! I thank God for President Bush's long term vision for defeating the Islamic terrorists in their jihad against Western Civilization. The first step is for Iraq and Afghanistan to become thriving democracies, and role models for their neighbors. The second step is the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With both countries also being thriving democracies, and additional role models for their neighbors, then hopefully these neighbors will demand that their countries turn to democracy. The third step is for the Islamic world to end their hate-filled, anti-Western Civilization curricula throughout their education systems. This three-step process is the only way to defeat the terrorists. It will not be easy and will require great sacrifice and patience. It is going to take decades to come to fruition, if ever.

The Democratic and Liberal answer is to just cut and run and hand a military victory over to al Qaeda in Iraq. Sen. Obama has already said that once we leave, should al Qaeda form a base in Iraq that he would not hesitate to go back into Iraq. Yet, al Qaeda is already there and we have them on the run right now.

You can deny it all you want, but the truth is al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations are at war with Western Civilization. Their ultimate goal is to turn the entire world into their own Islamic caliphate. They are in this for the long haul. And we should be as well.

Chan,

I think Hillary summed it up best when she told the American public that there is NO MILITARY solution to the Iraq war.

We need to get all factions to the table and find a diplomatic solution.

It was supposed to be "temporary" but it seems not.

Aynway, I don't see a strategy here, just a stopgap measure.

So what is the point of the surge other than holding violence down? And how many decades will we have to tamp down violence and for what purpose???

I guess my problem with the surge is I don't see a big strategy, just a tactic.

How many people dies in the "surge" and how much money went out the window if it fails?

So the answer to the title question is exactly ...no.

...and that is sad...

At least the amount of casualties has slowed ...of course until we run out of soldiers and Afghanistan falls back into the arms of some very bad people.

It is obviously working according to Bush/McCain logic. The US solution to everything is to throw a lot of money at the problem. By paying (bribing) both the Sunni's and the Shia we have not cut down the violence. We forget that Iraq is about 1/15 of our population; so if 60 Iraqi's got killed by a terrorist bomb, the would be like 900 of us getting killed.
Oh, an we have the pop-a-mole effect of Turkey invading Iraq whenever they feel like it.
In my opinion, the surge is a baloney word that has changed nothing; obviously made things worse-- and was designed as a political trick to avoid the real problem!

It is obviously working according to Bush/McCain logic. The US solution to everything is to throw a lot of money at the problem. By paying (bribing) both the Sunni's and the Shia we have not cut down the violence. We forget that Iraq is about 1/15 of our population; so if 60 Iraqi's got killed by a terrorist bomb, the would be like 900 of us getting killed.
Oh, an we have the pop-a-mole effect of Turkey invading Iraq whenever they feel like it.
In my opinion, the surge is a baloney word that has changed nothing; obviously made things worse-- and was designed as a political trick to avoid the real problem!

Does a band aid work on a gangrene?

We, some of us, have been fooling ourselves into believing that throwing more troops into the Iraq disaster is just what was needed to "win". That it was worth it. That, maybe, this way the original mistake would be erased?

How in @#$%^ are the American people supposed to REALLY know if the alleged "surge" is working? By the words of our president? By the words of Gen. Petraeus? By our brave troops who risk their lives and health to defend a square block in Baghdad? To CHAN who wrote: There are plenty of citizens who deeply care and have seen their concerns go down the Bush rat hole. I believe one candidate has a chance to help return the people's power, Barack Obama. Until GWB skips back to Crawford,
we MUST work for a new face.

Only 6 people have commented in almost 20mins. I can see that everyone is interested in attacking Hillary and Obama. No one wants to discuss issues that affect the American people. I guess we should be ready for another 4 years of Bush-McCain ticket.

The surge was working because the American forces bribed the Al- Mahdi Militia to support them. A lot of the money that changed hands can't be accounted for(CNN said billion of American dollars) and last week the our main headache, Al Sadr, had his city raided by our forces. Remember this is the guy that works for Iran in Iraq, the result is the increase in the number of suicide bombings and American deaths last week. Before this Al Sadr had declared a 6 month truce. I guess after the president of Iran visited three weeks ago, he offered more money and weapons for business as usual. The surge won't work any more.

If we want to stay there forever (the British gave up on that) and if Maqta el Sadr (excuse spelling) never gives up on his ceasefire, then of course you could say it would work. Although wasn't the whole point of this escalation (It is not a surge) to give the Iraqis breathing room to get their act together politically? As they have not done so and appear to be completely corrupt, the escalation has not worked.

Once we leave (and at some point we will leave), bloodshed and violence will break out again. The one thing that you have to give to Saddam is that while ruthless, he kept a lid on it. The British couldn't fix the hundreds of years of enmity and there is something wrong with our thinking to believe that we can quell this.

All I can say is that as usual, it will take others to clean up the mess that Bush has left. It will take diplomacy and great minds, sorely lacking in this administration.

Working for what? Everyone knows that the reason Iraq has been seen as a huge mess is because of the violence -- specifically the terrorist attacks and what almost all were calling a civil war between Sunni and Shia Arabs. The fact that Democrats have begun defining the success of the surge in terms of Iraqi legislative action is a pretty good sign that the surge has worked SO FAR in its main objective of quelling the violence and averting, in fact stopping, civil war. A big part of this, by the way, is the fact that the US is playing the role of peace broker between Iraqi factions. It goes way beyond military action. The "no military solution" line is banal. It should be "no MERELY military solution." It must be BOTH - military and political.

Why is this still being called a "surge"? A surge is when you go in and get out quickly. This should be called exactly what it alway was; an ESCALATION!

Jake, you know that there is no military solution in Irak. The surge cannot work because it has been missing the political component it was supposed to support. Yes, when you put 100 of 1000 of soldiers anywhere you will reduce violence, but the real solution is a political one and nobody on earth can reconciliate Shia, Sunni and Kurds, but themselves, US should not continue to pay 12 billion per month to bankroll Irak, that is very stupid because it has brought economic recession, inflation and hate against the US at international level. So Obama's solution is the real one, do not give to Irak the impression that US will be there for 100 years as the militarist McCain has said. They have to have their house in order while the US is leaving.