Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see how the surge is working. Reports that document the violence in Iraq are deliberately excluding so much, the facts being presented to the public are tainted. Just one specific example would be that the road side bombs aren't included in the numbers.
I don't see how the surge is working. Reports that document the violence in Iraq are deliberately excluding so much, the facts being presented to the public are tainted. Just one specific example would be that the road side bombs aren't included in the numbers.
Here's a good thread on the topic of the Surge is working
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkeye48
I don't see how the surge is working. Reports that document the violence in Iraq are deliberately excluding so much, the facts being presented to the public are tainted. Just one specific example would be that the road side bombs aren't included in the numbers.
Working to what? In the end, Iraq will still be a Shia-dominated state next to Iran, with a Sunni minority in the west. I don't think the surge fundamentally changes any of the basic facts on the ground. The lack of political progress says to me the Iraqis are thinking "Hey, we're not going to reconcile - we'll just wait you silly Americans out, and then settle this amongst ourselves. A unified Iraq is a western fantasy at best."
Unfortunately, we've seen this thing before. In February 2004, US troop fatalities for the entire month were only 20, and it seemed like the insurgency was dying out. Commentators at the time hailed the coming victory. I recall the Weekly Standard citing it as a vindication of Rumsfeld's war strategies.
I think it is America that deliberately pitted the different sects against each other. it's a classic tactic of divide and conquer, the way use by western colonialist to divert the conquered population from fighting the invaders to fighting among themselves.
Pull out now, we've done enough damage to ourselves and to the world.
Ok, the title of this thread made me think of the song "Should I stay or should I go?" by The Clash. So I have to make my small insignificant opinion.
I think America needs to slowly hand over power to the government in Iraq and slowly allow the Iraqi police and military to do their jobs.
We've spent enough money and wasted enough resources on this country. Money and resources that could and should have been better spent on the internal problems of America.
Violence doesn't seem to be going down significantly (August was one of the year's bloodiest months), I say have an election and let the Iraqi people decide whether they want us there or not. From all the polls I've read, apparently they don't. I don't think we know what's good for them more than they do.
The way our government is supposed to work, if Congress makes the decision to pull out, then it would be done. It certainly shouldn't be left up to either the Pentagon or the White House to make the decision. I think the Pentagon thinks it's like a giant game of chess except they seem to feel that they have an unlimited number of men and women to put on the board.
And we all know the chances of George admitting that he may have goofed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please don't forget to vote.
