America winning in War in Iraq

A senior US military officer yesterday predicted that al-Qaida fighters in Iraq will move to the "vast ungoverned spaces" of the Horn of Africa once conditions in the country get too tough for them.

The warning came from Major General Douglas Lute, director of operations at the US' Central Command. "There will come a time when Zarqawi will face too much resistance in Iraq and will move on," he predicted, referring to the head of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born Islamist who has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks, kidnappings and beheadings.

Looking ahead to a time when he said Iraq would be "stabilised", Gen Lute predicted that Zarqawi would take the "path of least resistance" and leave for such countries as Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia.

But before that, he suggested, Zarqawi would make a show of force in the run-up to the Iraqi constitutional referendum and subsequent elections. "He has to go down fighting," he said.

Gen Lute said 90% of what he called the "enemy" in Iraq was domestic. There was only a "slither" of foreign fighters "sponsored from outside."

He declined to put a figure on his estimate. Earlier this year, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies said there were between 12,000 and 20,000 hardcore insurgents in Iraq.

In Iraq yesterday, insurgents armed with rocket-propelled grenades and assault rifles attacked police checkpoints in western Baghdad in some of the heaviest street fighting in the capital for months.

Explosions shook the Hay al-Jamia district and at least six police vehicles were set ablaze as about 40 insurgents, some with faces masked, launched a daylight assault, witnesses told Reuters. A police source said 13 people had been killed and 31 wounded.


Last night 21 Iraqi MPs and three senior government officials allied with the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr refused to carry out their duties after fighting broke out between rival Shia militias. At least eight people were killed and dozens wounded in street battles in Najaf and Baghdad between members of the pro-government Badr organisation and supporters of Sadr.

Gen Lute said in London yesterday that the dependency of Iraqi security forces on foreign, notably US, troops had to be broken. "Ultimately, the solution has got to be a local solution, not one imposed from outside."

But he refused to be drawn on a timetable for a reduction in US forces - now about 138,000 - in Iraq. He said only that if the training of Iraqi forces continued at its present rate by this time next year the US would be "in a position to make adjustments."

He said the US would not "leave a vacuum" in Iraq and would continue to deploy 10-man "coalition assistant teams" to provide air support, artillery and medical evacuation for Iraqi forces. The US suffered from an intelligence gap, however, and had to rely on Iraqis to tell the difference, for example, between people from different Arab countries, and between Iraqi Sunnis, Shias and Kurds.

Britain will be under heavy pressure to cut back its forces in southern Iraq, now numbering about 9,000, before it takes over control of NATO forces in Afghanistan in April next year. Britain will command Nato's allied rapid reaction force, to be based in southern Afghanistan. Nato will later set up another headquarters to the east of the country.

"Then all of Afghanistan will be under the NATO flag," Gen Lute said.

Britain has also taken on the responsibility for eradicating the country's opium poppy crop. Gen. Lute said US forces would work alongside the British only when they were available.

There were historic restrictions on the role of the US in law enforcement activities, he said, adding that there was no hard intelligence linking the narcotics trade with "extremists". But he also said there was evidence that the Taliban were still recruiting supporters.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international ... 06,00.html

America is pushing the resistence out of the middle east, which was the whole idea of invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, co-op missions are and will be happening Iran to try and overthrow their corrupt government as well. Isreal plans on attacking Iran nuclear program sites and many think America should lead the charge instead of Isreal.

But this just proves the point, terrorists and jihadists are seeing that America's influence on the region will stop them from doing what they want to do, plan against the free world (America). Retreating to Africa would be a success.

If we are fighting in northern Africa in 5-7 years then the war in the middle was a success.

But then it's another country being ravaged by war; true success would be defeat of the terrorist "armies". It's an example of progress, I suppose.

I never said we "won" the war. I said we are "winning" which is another way of saying we are making progress.

Of course, it will never be right until they are all gone but the fact that we have them on the run and out of the middle east is encourgaging.

It's still moving the same conflict to a new continent though. There may be progress in Iraq but it looks as though the cycle will continue. War is one show that doesn't really need to go on the road for a world tour.

The Americans have been winning the war since day one. Lets face it, you're not fighting a global superpower you're fighting a bunch of militia and a half assed army. Go to some parts of Africa and you'd be meeting the same resistance. Go to one of those wacky Korean countries and you'd be dead.

Go to one of those wacky Korean countries and you'd be dead.

No way. Like Shaun said, we'd just bomb them and be done with it.

The main difference is that they could bomb you back, unlike Iraq who have "hidden" them all

Progress will never be made with Iran through armed functions. A state based on utter and complete belief (the same religion that, you know, americans demonize consequently) with their hands on en-riched uran. Yeah, let's try and bomb those fuckers! Aspecially positioning Iraq as a nation as the one "betraying" their neighbours will surely help stablilizing the nation. Yep.

And Israel is a dog-house, and has just recently been doing any kind of progress in Gaza, now USA wants to add to an already steaming cauldron of unstability? It's cliché, but fuck the goverment of the USA, and it's armed forces. And fuck all the dimwits who support them.

Now, all you who thinks that Fox relates to news in a unbiased manner and that Bush is a really neat head of state. Try and sway me.

Isreal wants to attack Iran's nuclear program, America is saying it would be better if we did instead of them.

Isreal wants to attack Iran's nuclear program, America is saying it would be better if we did instead of them.

And this would of course be based on such excellent arguments as "we're lready hated all over", "We have no geographic basis here, so we're reinforcing the image of us as World Police" and "We have really big gonnes".
Yeah, I'm not really buying it.

Riot you fuck, you've turned every thread into a political debate lol.. I've decided to stay out of the debates cuz I might get angry and do something I'll regret

Isreal wants to attack Iran's nuclear program, America is saying it would be better if we did instead of them.

And this would of course be based on such excellent arguments as "we're lready hated all over", "We have no geographic basis here, so we're reinforcing the image of us as World Police" and "We have really big gonnes".
Yeah, I'm not really buying it.

1. We are the world police. America does more good then you can even think of. A lot of it goes un-covered by the media but we have troops everywhere helping poor countries get back on their feet, giving kids vacanies, rebuilding schools, ect.

2. If Isreal decides to do we will have to provide aid to them so it would be better off we did it ourselves.

3. This isn't "starting a war with Iran". This is simply destroying their nuclear labs and programs. It would intitle bombings, co-ops and other special forces conduct. We would not invade Iran like we invaded Iraq. That would not be our goal. Our goal is the make sure Iran doesn't make nuclear weapons, for the sake of Isreal and other middle eastern countries and ourselves.

Iran's government is corrupt but the people there are intelligent and nice. We can't let the corrupt government get their hands on nuclear weapons, really we can't let anyone in the middle east do so.

Isreal wants to attack Iran's nuclear program, America is saying it would be better if we did instead of them.

And this would of course be based on such excellent arguments as "we're lready hated all over", "We have no geographic basis here, so we're reinforcing the image of us as World Police" and "We have really big gonnes".
Yeah, I'm not really buying it.

1. We are the world police. America does more good then you can even think of. A lot of it goes un-covered by the media but we have troops everywhere helping poor countries get back on their feet, giving kids vacanies, rebuilding schools, ect.

2. If Isreal decides to do we will have to provide aid to them so it would be better off we did it ourselves.

3. This isn't "starting a war with Iran". This is simply destroying their nuclear labs and programs. It would intitle bombings, co-ops and other special forces conduct. We would not invade Iran like we invaded Iraq. That would not be our goal. Our goal is the make sure Iran doesn't make nuclear weapons, for the sake of Isreal and other middle eastern countries and ourselves.

Iran's government is corrupt but the people there are intelligent and nice. We can't let the corrupt government get their hands on nuclear weapons, really we can't let anyone in the middle east do so.

1. Oh really? Would these nice deeds involve forcing the idea of your own democracy (that is without a doubt one of the weakest in the western world, it's outdated and poorly managed), or is it just the simple fact of deciding which totalitarian person gets to run which country. Now don't get me wrong, individuals from America can be great. The concept of America as a world police stinks, and only idiots (personal opinion) support it. The title of world police is not something asked of you, it's a mission you took upon yourself. To over and over again break the boundries between other nations internal, and external affairs is something America, and America alone does. The soverignity of any individual country is always more important than the decisions made by some Texan halfwit.

2. Israel woudn't decide shit without USA's approval, as well you know.

3. Once again, it's not up to you to decide which goverment that should be in place or not. USA is full of itself since 9/11. Sure it's a teocracy (still, can you see the linkage between the demonization of islam, and now this? I doubt it), and sure there's no real prrof of them using the enriched uran for actual weapons. But yeah, their president is a dangerous person. Still not enough. Ever. Do you really expect Iran to have less fundamentalist assholes who wants to bomb American troops? Or that fundamentalists in surrounding countries will stand idly by as their safe haven gets bomb to shit? Are you really that naïve?

What "you" can, and can't do isn't the question. You shouldn't even be in a position to ask yourself that. It's not up to you. Get it sometime. You cannot run around doing as you (and your christian goverment) sees fit, just because you can. If China would do the same, Bush would shit himself in anger. But when the proud americans does it, it's allright. Why? Because some idiots drove a plane into a building. No. Not at all. Stop trying to image yourself as a saviour, when you're actually making the climate in the world harsher.

Iran will have nuclear weapons in the very near future. We all know that, we have intelligence (not just America) and they have admitted that they will make weapons.

America is the world police because they took on the role. You are being fed liberal propaganda. You don't realize the good America is doing as they take on the role of "World Police". It's a title that has a lot of responiblity and it's a title that not a lot of people like but it's something the world simply can't live without.

The world is a dangerous place and in general it's a very poor place. Without some large country helping out the smaller countries they would be crushed and killed. You know it just as well as I know it. The United Nations is a joke, they have policies but they refuse to enforce them. Without some kind of world police the world would be a bigger mess than it is and the taliban would be still be in control in Afghanistan and other parts of the middle east.

America believes taking out the corrupt governments (the governments that refuse to spend the money on it's people instead of themselves, the governments that house and support terrorists and the governments that go against UN's nuclear weapon policy) is the right thing to do. Not only for the safety of America but for the safety of the world. You may not agree with that, but atleast someone is taking a stand on the terrorism in the middle east.

You say since 9/11 America is full of itself? I wouldn't say that, I would say the country is out looking for a fight though. We got a black eye on that day and we vowed to get those responsible for it someday. We will not rest until all the terrorists are out of this world, it's a noble mission and an improbable mission but damn it it's a worthy mission.

America has already shut down hundreds of terrorist camps, captured hundreds of terrorist leaders and has caught a lot of terrorist funders. That is progress, my friend and I don't really care if you support it or not. I don't want another 9/11 to happen to America, Canada, UK or where ever. I hate terrorists and America is trying to make a stand against them.

Why did we pick the middle east? Because the middle east as a lot of corrupt governments that either A. house and fund terrorists or B. don't care about terrorists. Saddam's regime was one of those governments. Iran is also one of those governments. America is pushing the terrorists out of the middle east because slowly but surely the governments are cracking down on the terrorists and recruitment and terrorists are find it's harder to recruit and hold camps in the middle east now that the America influence is there. To me and to millions of other people, that is a success.

America isn't trying to force OUR government down their throats. If you read through what America actually wants to do in Iraq you'll find that the democracy in Iraq will be different than the democracy in America. We know the American democracy can't survive in Iraq with a strict muslim population. However, a democracy is better than anything else they had and atleast they are finally starting to get clean water, better schools, more shots for children, health treatment, food and supplies and other things that Saddam wouldn't give them or give them enough.

Like I said, if you don't support the War on Terror or the War in Iraq, I frankly don't give a rat's ass. I believe in the mission all the way through my bones and veins. You won't convince me that getting rid of evil terrorists isn't a good thing for the world and future generations, so don't even try. And if this is a lost cause, which I think it is, we would be better off not even discussing this any further.

Iran will have nuclear weapons in the very near future. We all know that, we have intelligence (not just America) and they have admitted that they will make weapons.

You have intelligence? Ok, I'm not going to do that one. Too easy, and unjustified. But it would have been semi-fun.

America is the world police because they took on the role. You are being fed liberal propaganda. You don't realize the good America is doing as they take on the role of "World Police". It's a title that has a lot of responiblity and it's a title that not a lot of people like but it's something the world simply can't live without.

Let's respond to this in three points. Just because the immense amount of bullshit you have no basis to claim.

1. Liberal propaganda? Now what is that? The ability to read shit on your own and not trust everything on the news? Serious, I could easily counter this baseless argument with a similar one: "you only say this because of the Bush-propaganda through Fox".

2.America didn't take this role at all in the way you think. After Pear Harbor USA entered WWII, something that they did semi-successfully. But that gave an incentive for American politics and american buisnesses to expand their workings even more into the rest of the world. And being such a kapitalist-driven economy, the political procedure followed in the same steps. That of maximizing your resources for your own winnings. If you think that, oh say, South America during the 70's was for the better of the world - you're stupid. If you believe that the offensive into Iraq was justified by hidden weapons of mass-destruction... well... we all know there was no such thing. However the "American Way" got spread and both goverment and buissness grew from it.

That you would even stoop to the liberal propaganda idiocy just shows me that you disguise ineptitude and a lack of knowledge and real arguments behind the latest stuff you heard from FOX.

3. You're telling me the world would somehow end if you weren't there to spread flawed democracy? Please define your arguments.

The world is a dangerous place and in general it's a very poor place. (2)Without some large country helping out the smaller countries they would be crushed and killed. You know it just as well as I know it. The United Nations is a joke, they have policies but they refuse to enforce them. (4)Without some kind of world police the world would be a bigger mess than it is and the taliban would be still be in control in Afghanistan and other parts of the middle east.

1. The majority of people are not "very poor". About 20% are, that's not in general.

2. Oh? Please give me some source on this bullshit. Because I'm looking through ELIN and all my books on the subject or related ones. yet they fail to mention this.

3. The UN has many flaws, and I'm not happy about the way things look right now. But it's a hell of a lot better than nothing.

4. Once again you draw loose assumption without any real knowledge it seems to me. A world police does few things than inforce the image of that nation as the biggest and the best. And severly damaging international law in the process. Not to mention breaking something that have been regarded as holy for many centuries in the sovereignity of the nation state.

5. The talibans only ruled Afganistan. (minor factual error, but fuck it.)

America believes taking out the corrupt governments (the governments that refuse to spend the money on it's people instead of themselves, the governments that house and support terrorists and the governments that go against UN's nuclear weapon policy) is the right thing to do. Not only for the safety of America but for the safety of the world. You may not agree with that, but atleast someone is taking a stand on the terrorism in the middle east.

America? The same nation that installed more of those totalitarian dictatures? See how little you can trust such a fickle nation. Now, turn it around. Would you like it if omeone decided who should rule your nation? aspecially if that person did horrible things to your family? Would you not start, or participate (or try to) in some kind of movement against such a nation? Because that is what happend in many middle eastern nations when the USA decided who should rule them. Saddam being the best example. i don't justify what they did, but I can surely understand the hate against the USA. There's two sides to a coin.

You say since 9/11 America is full of itself? I wouldn't say that, I would say the country is out looking for a fight though. We got a black eye on that day and we vowed to get those responsible for it someday. We will not rest until all the terrorists are out of this world, it's a noble mission and an improbable mission but damn it it's a worthy mission.

By taking on this "mission", you create more terrorists, therefor further endangering the world. Now tell me how that is worthy.

America has already shut down hundreds of terrorist camps, captured hundreds of terrorist leaders and has caught a lot of terrorist funders. That is progress, my friend and I don't really care if you support it or not. I don't want another 9/11 to happen to America, Canada, UK or where ever. I hate terrorists and America is trying to make a stand against them.

That is true. And that is commendable.

America isn't trying to force OUR government down their throats. If you read through what America actually wants to do in Iraq you'll find that the democracy in Iraq will be different than the democracy in America. We know the American democracy can't survive in Iraq with a strict muslim population. However, a democracy is better than anything else they had and atleast they are finally starting to get clean water, better schools, more shots for children, health treatment, food and supplies and other things that Saddam wouldn't give them or give them enough.

The forcing your democracy upon other nation is the least vlid in Iraq. The problem is that you are deciding which type of goverment they should have, at what point, adn how to install it. The "I decide what you do" over another nations internal affairs is despicable.

When I said liberal propaganda, I meant you have been fed that America is only doing good in Iraq and the middle east and that everyone doesn't want America there. I have sources who have been in Iraq in the US Army who say the completely opposite of the news (CNN, FOX, ect).

Fox News doesn't spew out garbage. It doesn't praise Bush every 5 seconds. Have you ever watched Fox News? Most of it is completly unbiased. They bash Bush and they support Bush, it depends on the matter.

There are rumors that the Taliban could be in Iraq and other middle eastern countries as well. But you are right, their main influence and 99% of them are in Afghanistan.

You fail to reason with the circumstances. Saddam was a horrible man and he was oppressing his country. If you behaved badly he would stop food or oil shipments to your town. He would rape daughters and wives and he would torture fathers and husbands. He had no regard for his own people and for his neighbors. He was crazy. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a country come in and remove him and put anyone in there vs. having Saddam in there. And you know what? Most of the Iraqis appreciate what we are doing and are glad Saddam is out of power.

We are not "creating more terrorists". This is jihad. They will always take the battle to us until America dies. That's what they want. So the best thing is to take the battle to them and to get rid of the terrorist camps and funders and to capture leaders to learn of future plans for attacks. We are putting them on the run. Of course there are more attacks now than there were and that's because we are facing them in their own ground. We brought the fight to them and they are fighting harder and harder. That doesn't mean we aren't making progress, because we are and we will continue to make progress until we succeed in victory.

The UN has too many falts. They have all these policies and they never enforce them. Iraq was in violation of I believe 12 policies (don't quote me on the number) and the UN knew it and they even said that they were. Did the UN and the world do anything about it? Nope. But America and the other 48 countries part of the coalition took over and is enforcing those. What's the point in having laws if you won't enforce them?

Like I've said before, the government they will get now will be 200x times better than the government they had before. And this new government will not support terrorism in Iraq, which is what the mission is all about in the middle east.

When I said liberal propaganda, I meant you have been fed that America is only doing good in Iraq and the middle east and that everyone doesn't want America there. I have sources who have been in Iraq in the US Army who say the completely opposite of the news (CNN, FOX, ect).

Fox News doesn't spew out garbage. It doesn't praise Bush every 5 seconds. Have you ever watched Fox News? Most of it is completly unbiased. They bash Bush and they support Bush, it depends on the matter.

There are rumors that the Taliban could be in Iraq and other middle eastern countries as well. But you are right, their main influence and 99% of them are in Afghanistan.

You fail to reason with the circumstances. Saddam was a horrible man and he was oppressing his country. If you behaved badly he would stop food or oil shipments to your town. He would rape daughters and wives and he would torture fathers and husbands. He had no regard for his own people and for his neighbors. He was crazy. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have a country come in and remove him and put anyone in there vs. having Saddam in there. And you know what? Most of the Iraqis appreciate what we are doing and are glad Saddam is out of power.

We are not "creating more terrorists". This is jihad. They will always take the battle to us until America dies. That's what they want. So the best thing is to take the battle to them and to get rid of the terrorist camps and funders and to capture leaders to learn of future plans for attacks. We are putting them on the run. Of course there are more attacks now than there were and that's because we are facing them in their own ground. We brought the fight to them and they are fighting harder and harder. That doesn't mean we aren't making progress, because we are and we will continue to make progress until we succeed in victory.

The UN has too many falts. They have all these policies and they never enforce them. Iraq was in violation of I believe 12 policies (don't quote me on the number) and the UN knew it and they even said that they were. Did the UN and the world do anything about it? Nope. But America and the other 48 countries part of the coalition took over and is enforcing those. What's the point in having laws if you won't enforce them?

Like I've said before, the government they will get now will be 200x times better than the government they had before. And this new government will not support terrorism in Iraq, which is what the mission is all about in the middle east.

I can't be arsed to do the whole sectioning of your post. But it's clear that you lack basic education on the matter. And I'm not saying that to be an ass, but what you say clearly goes against somewhat more reliable sources ; foremost academic ones.

I have watched Fox News, alot. And it's biased bullshit for the most part, do a comparative study on their news on Iraq, and use CNN, BBC and TT as the comparisons and you will see. It's ridiculous. Every nouance from pictures to rethoric paints a more positive picture around Bush than the others. And yes, that is bias.

Those rumours about the talibans have no factual base. Which really disqualifies it as a part of any debate.

No, I understand the circumstances perfectly. And I do believe that it's better when Saddam is not in power. You however fail to see the reasons for why it was a horrible ay of completing a good deed.

1. Iraq is a sovereign country. This is a holy point in International Law. Only through UN can this be broken

2. UN said no to an intervention on good grounds when they wanted 2 more weeks of investigation.

3. Those 12 points is bad, yes. But every country in the world violates policys, including both USA and Sweden (these are our two nation, that's why I use them). But Do you find that reason enough for, say, China to decide that USA is dangerous with nuclear weapons? Didn't think so.

A jihad is a holy war where to motif is to convert the unbelievers through prayers and devout following of Quoran. Nowhere is it about bombing you or me. This is were the fundamentalist assholes comes in to play. They use the Quoran to justify their means, which is crap. But is not reflective of the whole religion.
I wouls still find it intresting if you respond to my "inverted scenario. Do you really think ll this hatred against the US is completely unfounded?

Any goverment that doesn't stem from the people is doomed to failure. The current goverment in Iraq doesn't have this support since it wasn't their idea. That's the basis for my critique, and my sceptism.

So Fox News is biased but CNN isn't?

You are right, if it isn't a fact it shouldn't be in a debate but the war in the middle east isn't clear cut facts/fiction. There is a lot of speculation and intelligence. I don't know what the fuck I'm trying to say.

The Iraqi government will be better for the people, for the region and yes, for America. They won't have to live in opression anymore which is great news for them! Sure, it's not their own government but what the hell are you going to do? Take Saddam out and then leave and let them fend for themselves and come up with their own government? That would be chaos, they would be overrun by a group similar to the Taliban (that has shown up in Iraq).

Jihadists (extreme) want America to suffer. Bin Laden wanted America to fight in the Middle East. That was his plan for 9/11, he wanted America to attack them in the Middle East and he was sitting there waiting for us. If you want to kill the terrorists, you must find the funders. Bin Laden funds terrorists groups all over the world.

You know what? I actually agree with you, this new government in Iraq probably won't be the best for the people. However, I feel it's 200,000x times better than what they had to endure before and that in itself is a victory for them. Hopefully, the new Iraq will encourage other governments to stand up to terrorism and discourage terrorists to have camps and recruitment inside the Iraqi borders.

This is good news!

i refuse to believe the Army.....they staged the Saddam capture for one (soldiers confess that he was caught the day before in a shoot out but the Army placed him in an unused well to make him look weak), and then theres other stuff they've staged.

I haven't heard anything about a staged capture of Saddam, but who cares?

If you don't believe them that's fine with me.

:Scrub: Scrub: Scrub: - GWB and his mind-brush go to work again...

How come the media doesn't tell the whole story about the War in Iraq? I don't think I've heard one thing about the cleaner water, more electric, rebuilding schools, girls allowed in school, ect. The media has done a horrible job covering the war and they are trying to make it look like Vietnam. It's not Vietnam.

Plus, America didn't lose Vietnam.

How come the media doesn't tell the whole story about the War in Iraq? I don't think I've heard one thing about the cleaner water, more electric, rebuilding schools, girls allowed in school, ect. The media has done a horrible job covering the war and they are trying to make it look like Vietnam. It's not Vietnam.

How did you find out about the water, electricity, schools, etc??? Media comes to mind. So it works both ways, friend.

How come the media doesn't tell the whole story about the War in Iraq? I don't think I've heard one thing about the cleaner water, more electric, rebuilding schools, girls allowed in school, ect. The media has done a horrible job covering the war and they are trying to make it look like Vietnam. It's not Vietnam.

Plus, America didn't lose Vietnam.

No, America won the shit out of those Vietcongs! The same way they are winning the shit out of terrorism.

So, how is dogmatic patriotism treating you?