<p>i am not sure who to believe, the warhawks or democrats. i heard that the recent surge has reduced violence in iraq but its purpose was not fulfilled. i am hearing so much crap from both sides that i dont know whats going on.</p>
<p>if you want credible news, watch the BBC. Then you'll get an accurate idea of what's going on. But in my own humble opinion, I think both are losing. The Iraqi people are unsatisfied with the current situation, and see the American troops as occupants. They are too afraid to leave their houses, and the thousands upon thousands who die every day aren't helping either. The Americans are losing because they're fighting for what is certainly a lost cause. There are no WMDs there as it has been made abundantly clear, and the country poses no threat to America's safety. The soldiers are being taken away fro their families and enduring all that pain for nothing. I say it should just end. But that's me...</p>
<p>Well, the US has won the war for quite a while in terms of our strategic objectives in the region. Obviously, we didn't invade because we were intent on creating a democracy or because we believed that Saddam posed a threat and sponsored terrorism. Consequently, by any conceivable metric, the Iraqi people have lost -- over a million Iraqis have been killed, countless more displaced, and their country has been torn to shreds. The latest talk is about the US-sponsored government overcoming its sectarian and political rivals; this has resulted in a protracted conflict in which the faction receiving US aid is finding itself victorious. Pretty soon, all opposition will be quashed and the US will be able to exert full control over Iraq. The question isn't whether we're winning or not; clearly, we are. The question is whether you find having hegemonic power over sovereign nations to be something that we should pursue or not.</p>
<p>This isn't a game of Starcraft, and you don't get a "Victory!" sign at the end of the battle. </p>
<p>The U.S. will never "win" the war in Iraq. By staying, they're only worsening the situation by creating new generations of Middle Easterners that will grow up under the rule of Halliburton and Blackwater.</p>
<p>Even if it were a Starcraft game, the Iraqi terrorists would never "gg." It's like the Torasque: you can keep on killing it, but unless you destroy something else, it'll keep coming back.</p>
<p>I think the Americans got dropped back in 03.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's like the Torasque: you can keep on killing it, but unless you destroy something else, it'll keep coming back.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If they're more like the cerebrates, then we've got more of a chance, provided that we can retrain some CIA agents to become Dark Templar.</p>
<p>The U.S. will "win", and the U.S. is "winning" the global War on Terror. But of course (and sadly), those who depend exclusively on CNN for news would like to think otherwise. We live in sad times unfortunately.</p>
<p>Last time I checked, Halliburton.</p>
<p>ok so military the us is winning but politically it is about the same.</p>
<p>The winner: whoever is getting all of the money we're spending.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The U.S. will "win", and the U.S. is "winning" the global War on Terror.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You can't win a war against terror. Terrorism is a tactic used by every ideology in existence. The United States declaring war on terror after 9/11 is like the Romans declaring war against flanking maneuvers after the Battle of Cannae.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The winner: whoever is getting all of the money we're spending.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So China?</p>
<p>If the actual purpose of the war was to rid Iraq of terror, which I doubt it was, then I think the objective has been accomplished. The terrorists they're fighting right now are only violent because the American troops are there (if they left, the violence would stop - at least inside Iraq)
There's no way to make sure that an attack won't be made on any given country, so the American troops are fighting for a lost cause. Their presence in Iraq is just giving people a reason to hate them even more.</p>
<p>Militarily--the US, by an unquestionable majority.
Politically--(if your goal is the elimination of terrorist violence) not us. The various factions (of which there are many) have differing goals and differing levels of success.</p>
<p>Russia :)</p>
<p>Not China - they don't produce any of the high-tech stuff that's being used in the war. If anything, they are suffering from our recession and the recent market plunges.</p>
<p>easy: no one cares :)</p>
<p>out in 100 yrs or 3 months...no one really wants the US to win the war</p>
<p>
[quote]
The U.S. will "win", and the U.S. is "winning" the global War on Terror. But of course (and sadly), those who depend exclusively on CNN for news would like to think otherwise. We live in sad times unfortunately.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Really, the last time I checked, the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Pakistan has seen a resurgence, and there weren't any Islamic radical terrorists blowing up people in Iraq prior to the invasion.</p>
<p>shut the hell up. overall the war has been successful. what does Halliburton have to do with the recent successes of the surge in troops. Nothing! Violence has been reduced greatly, Hussein is dead, and we are on the road to success in the war on terror.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not China - they don't produce any of the high-tech stuff that's being used in the war. If anything, they are suffering from our recession and the recent market plunges.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Uhh, who, exactly in Iraq, is buying the high-tech Russian stuff (btw, China has progressed immensely in military tech).</p>
<p>Actually, most of the AK-47s, ammo and low-grade weaponry comes from China.</p>
<p>Anyway, both of those countries are benefiting.</p>
<p>While we are spending billions and are overly focused on Iraq - China and Russia have been building their capital reserves and have been flexing their muscles and spreading their influence throughout Asia and Africa.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hussein is dead, and we are on the road to success in the war on terror.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Praytell what Saddam had to do w/ "the war on terror"?</p>
<p>Were there any Iraqi suicide bombers attacking the US, Europe or Asia?</p>
<p>After all, he was a sworn enemy of both Al Qaeda and Iran (funny how we did both of them a huge favor).</p>
<p>Btw, the sthu comment is so indicative of your "intelligence" or knowledge of this subject matter.</p>