Is the Army losing the war in Iraq?

DiamondDave

Oh erudite with the continuous altering of articles and lies.... you are so pitiful and easy to expose.....

Let us compare the text from the REAL article (Linked to in my source section... something erudite will never do)....
"The Pentagon also announced that the 4th Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division will deploy to Iraq 30 days earlier than scheduled, starting in late October. The announcement did not say why the speedup was deemed necessary, but three officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said it is part of a plan to beef up forces in Baghdad, where U.S. and Iraqi troops are struggling to contain insurgent and sectarian violence."

With what the habitual liar, erudite, writes...
"The Pentagon also announced that the 4th Brigade, will deploy to Iraq 30 days earlier than scheduled, starting in late October. The announcement did not say why the speedup was deemed necessary, but three officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said it is part of a plan to beef up forces in Baghdad. The USA Military admits Iraq is having a hard time enforcing peace."

Now WHY would this habitual liar want to take out pertinent information and put in "The USA Military admits Iraq is having a hard time enforcing peace."..... Like most terrorist supporters or uber-libs, he is trying to 'prove' a point that cannot be proven, so he must resort to the corruption of data... To lies.... To the attempted fooling or tricking of others... for his stance holds absolutely no water.....

Nice try again.... but I will not allow you to skew the facts... I will expose you as a liar, every chance I get

masterjack_98

The US ground forces are indeed stretched thin with only 2 or 3 combat regiments in reserve.
I think it's time for the Draft! Yes i have served 5 years US Army. More American need the sting of war so that we never again are so easily duped with such transparent and ridiculous lies.

Joseph, II

No. The Army has LOST the war in Iraq. All we're doing there now- is covering our OWN backsides. -And all our guys are DYING to know- WHEN will they be coming home... And the answer to THAT is- in two years- when Bush leaves Office...

Geaux Ghoti

Yes... We are losing the war in Iraq. The ONLY hope for a positive outcome at this point is to withdraw. We need to leave a few there just to train the Iraqi forces, and completely withdraw from the war itself. We cannot win this.

din//

The earliest intention of Iraqi war is not the winning. There is a hidden agenda or I can say a different agenda for the war. I let you find out what that agenda is because it is well know world wide. I can call this war as unwinnable war that Americans ever waged. Just as Lebanon incursion by israel, it was unwinnable and unsuccessful. The physical intention of americans is to win the war in iraq and stop insurgents attacks. But what is happening now seems to be fuelling up the violence, sectarian crisis, more insurgency, etc. So as the mission of israeli invaiton of lebanon is to stop hezbollah from firing rockets and crossborder attacks into israel. What had happened is seen as the worst defeat received from the part of israel, being it the first incompleted mission to israel. Since from 1967, 1982, etc, israel made several successful attacks into the neighbouring Arabs countries. But this time the story is different, just a little Hezbollab foiled the incursion and defeated israel.

It is unfortunate.

frogspeaceflower

Well said sugar b.

rothsteady

Even if they loose, we'll never find out. Goverment is willling to sacrifice thousands of lives but not its proud! You choose wheather thats good or bad.

exchange

well lets look....
the american government whated a war so yes america is winning

will america get the result they want well no! so america will never win the war in iraq or afganistan

I Seek

It's not about a "war on terror". It's REALLY about THIS!...
http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_Strayreality/iraq.htm

Earl D

It's not a war, it's a police action.

In a war you have two sides. One side wears white hats and the other side wears black hats. You know who to shoot at.

In this action then enemy "soliders" look just like the civilian population.

In the Russian Revolutionary war the two sides wore distinct arm bands. The communists wore red ones and the defending side, the Monarchy side, wore white ones.

Red, shot at white.

White shot at red.

Neither side shot at anyone without an arm band, uness they were shooting at you.

This action is like trying to control a riot in your own city. 10-20,000 police trying to control a million people all of whom are angry, but only a few of whom are actually violently rioting.

icepapi

How can we tell whether the US army is winning or losing when we don't even have a clearcut enemy....?

Just saying "terrorists" are the enemy is so vague.

You should watch Clinton's interview on Fox News this past sunday as well as Keith Olberman's statement about his interview on MSNBC.

We've been duped...the war in Iraq is a farce...no WMD's, no nothing. We're just more unsafe now than we used to be.

makingapost

We lose one US soldier - which is more than the ppl of islam nations deserve - and it seems we are losing. But it is a war. It's gonna happen. I did my tour and I'm retired. I hate to accompany a 20-something to his home and hear his high school band play taps. It hurts!

As a side, I think intracircumcordei brings up some interesting points. And lets not forget we didn't go there and bomb them! Perhaps we should have but we didn't.

Randy Newman says it best;

No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

I agree!

Sugar B

No we are not losing the war. Actually we won the war already once Saddam was captured. Granted they are having a hard time stopping the insurgents, but if you think about the mission now it's more or less a political mission. We are a police force over there now. But at least for every casualty we suffer they are losing more people. But with every person they lose more rise up, which is exactly why we send more troops over there.

nau

Yes because they are not paying attention to wards the ground realities, but to to send more and more troops to Iraq is not going to solve the problem.

greg j.

No, the Army is not losing the war. They won the war, and are now stuck there by Politicians who want them to be the Policemen for a country that kills each other due to religious differences.

mrcricket1932

Why not ask the army.. no one in here knows.

Julian

The only way to properly judge another man's actions is to see if his proposed goals have been accomplished. To not lay opinions on his wants or desires, but to evaulate his performance with his executed tasks.

A suicide bomber wants to instill widespread fear in order to gain in military power. If they are using terror against a government that they can not efficiently or morally stand up to, is it the United States that is in terror or the terrorists? which side is in more fear, the ones subject to the severity of the attacks, or the ones willing to engage in suicidal bombings? And if there is any noble spiritual conquest in its efforts, it is to abandon a world filled with terror, though exiting with an act of terror is not producing any good effects but perpetuating the disasters to the ones they love.

Are the suicide bombers and their organization gaining in military power? A gain in military power is an illustrious government in the world, one that compensates for its committment and produces an attractive loyalty for its services. For the suicide bombers It seems quite the opposite; their military operations are in further seclusion and their followings are deliberately anti-life to their enemies and their own.

There is widespead fear and terror in the mindâ€™s of the terrorists, making them dangerous to everyone including themselves.

Is there any day to day peace that their actions will or have brought about? Suicide bombings are not directed at their enemy but at reigious institutions in order to damage the faith and hope of innocent people. If innocent lives are being subjugated due to vile ethical standards there exists no boundaries for proper definitions of peace and prosperity to either their military operations or their spiritual endeavors.

The suicide bombers and their faction are detrimental to their own progress and should be halted. I do not believe it is a proper question to ask if we are winning the war on terror when the terrorists have already lost as a result of their own actions. What is there to win? We have nothing to gain other than the peace that existed prior to their attacks. The only solution is a complete and total eradication of their movement and policies.

Gary F

There was never anything to be won. Removing Hussein meant unleashing a civil was and everyone with any knowledge of the region predicted it.

In fact, the entire world, including Iraq's neighbors Saudi Arabia and Kuwait - except for Bush and Blair - knew there was no upside - at all.

Iraq, like Afghanistan, is lost. But, how can the military lose something that never existed.

The bigger problem is that we are losing the war on terror. We can afford to lose in Iraq, but losing the war on terror will destroy America and probably western Europe as well.

**************************
mrcricket1932 -

The Founding Fathers were wise enough to place the military under secular civilian authority. Therefore, it is not there call. It is not their expertise, it is not what they are trained in or trained for.

intracircumcordei

What was the reason for the war again?

If it is transition of the Bathist Government to a new government it is underway, however the "reason" for this seems questionable, at the least it gave an identity change and lifted sanctions.

Now they are there too.... stave off a dramatically deadly civil war, instead cause a somewhat disfunctional government and slow decline until a democractic majority of shiite always is reached until there is enough of a split in the shiite vote to allow a sunni / bathist government into power again?

Or is it something else.
With afghanistan set for taking "20 years" until the mission is accomplished, how long would it be for Iraq "40 years? 100 years?"

Anyway 2008 is the end of Bush's presidency.. what happens after that is anyones geuss.

when is peak oil set to be done again?
right
global warming 20
peak oil 40
--- then what ?

As long as there is a reason for the missions they will happen. What is the reason though.. is it oil? Or is it something else? What about Afghanistan, what is that about?

Is it about government change by force, commodities a combination.. is mission accomplished.. will it ever be accomplished...?

Why are people against the war.. why were they for the war? Is it all just a reaction to propaganda.. and now that that propaganda is saying the war is bad.. are the people listening.. is it all some mindless PR game?

goliathntime

Armies don't lose wars, politicians lose wars. So the answer is "no".

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: