U.S.: Yep, we lost the Iraqi War...

Well Kurds will not be with Sunnis nor shias, we'll create our own state in northern Iraq. 

I'll wait to see who the winners of this war is once the US is gone and the Iraqi's are on their own. And the US isn't leaving anytime soon. Until then, the last people I am going to listen to is the liberal media as they are more biased than even Fox News. 

We all know that this is the language of defeat. Didn't we Vietnamize the Vietnam War too?

These statements from U.S. officials run against all the talk of victory that Bush and his gang have talked about.

Just to remind people out there, Bush, Cheney, and other members of the administration said that the insurgency was desperate, on its last breath since 2003.

Several campaigns, like Fallujah, against insurgents had the goal of destroying the insurgency. After the attacks, the Pentagon declared victory in the newspapers by pointing out how the attacks had been reduced. Then the attacks would rise again.

Just last January, the Bush White House attributed the violence to the last desperate attempts of a dying insurgency.

For about a year now, the Bush White House have been saying that we went there to free Iraqis and to establish a model democracy for the Middle East. The U.S. government is also recognizing failure here.

Let's read what else U.S. officials--not the media, this is coming from the government, Illuminati--say about that goal:

The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad. The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say

The ferocious debate over a new constitution has particularly driven home the gap between the original U.S. goals and the realities after almost 28 months. The U.S. decision to invade Iraq was justified in part by the goal of establishing a secular and modern Iraq that honors human rights and unites disparate ethnic and religious communities. But whatever the outcome on specific disputes, the document on which Iraq's future is to be built will require laws to be compliant with Islam. Kurds and Shiites are expecting de facto long-term political privileges. And women's rights will not be as firmly entrenched as Washington has tried to insist, U.S. officials and Iraq analysts say.

America got another Vietnam: a war pushed by ideologues that failed to achieve its vague strategic and political goals, where the U.S. has to go back home in shame.

Originally posted by hugoestr Originally posted by Cent Well Kurds will not be with Sunnis nor shias, we'll create our own state in northern Iraq. I am sure that you will succeed, having now more than a decade of experience as an autonomous region.

The US started with less than that. Kurds seem to have enough experience and will to manage their own affairs for good or bad. Let's not be pretentious and assume that we know all others don't.

Originally posted by hugoestr For a desperate insurgency that was in its last breaths, they gave a surprising beating to the U.S.

Please, resist the urge to applaud the insurgency.

It is a shame that our President has lost his resolve and has let the radical left wing socialists in America hamstring him and the military into a a cage of political correctness.  If that hadn't have happened, the military could have done its job at the onset and could have possibly returned by now.  But nooooo...the leftists have encouraged the media and the lawyer groups to run wild, causing the soldiers to fear doing their job.  What a crying shame.   So, instead of using the airforce and the heavy weaponry that us taxpayers help pay for, the marines and the national guard footsoldiers will continue to be put through the meat-grinder in Iraq.  It disgusts me.

The national guard should not even be in Iraq.  They should be here in America patrolling the borders with Mexico and Canada, providing extra security and aiding the overstretched border patrol.  But, once again, our PC president calls concerned citizens who patrol the borders (in place of what should be the National Guard and a beefed-up border patrol) vigilantes.

I don't see anyone appaluding the insurgency from any previous posts lately. How have the US liberals hamstrung Bush? The US congress are on the bench, the Prez is and has been calling the plays. The footsoldiers that are doing their job now are part of a plan that was put into effect prior to take over of Iraq. The airwar and heavy bombing have mostly completed their goals. Your beef with the national guard being there is a US policy that extends back to post Vietnam recruiting methods. National and international policies are influenced by current events and our ability or inability to deal with them. 

Edited by Seko

Originally posted by hugoestr I see, from your post, what historical lessons some conservatives have gotten from Vietnam: avoid responsibility and blame someone else, especially the left. Bush ignores centrists; I doubt that any leftist has access to him. But you may know more than I do: please give me the names of those who influenced Bush to admit defeat. Maybe a little personal responsibility is due now: many conservatives can start admitting that Bush failed you guys in Iraq for listening to his right-wing advisors.

Um, first of all I am not a Republican, so don't put me in that crowd.  Secondly, I place blame on the do-nothing Republicans in Congress (they seem to be a bunch of Mr. Niceguys who spout a bunch of freedom-liberty rhetoric without any action) and the leftist socialists in Congress, the media, and in groups like the ACLU.  They leftists seem so preoccupied in hating the President and Republicans that they have no answers or any plans of actions that will actually help America - all they can do is yell and scream that Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied.  Well, the plain fact of the matter is that Bush IS President (the left lost the election), there IS a mess in Iraq and soldiers are dying unneccessarily, and something MUST be done besides what is presently being done.

As far as "accepting responsibility" goes, what can I do if my elected representatives do not do what I elected them to do?  You take a risk when you vote in a representative Republic; you hope your representatives will do what they said they would do and what you elected them for.  I admit that I voted for President Bush and for conservatives in the election.  However, I am VERY disappointed with the results and I would go as far as to say the people whom I voted for--including Bush--are not true Conservatives and do not represent my conservative ideals except in a few instances.

This is still jsut one report by one news source. I have read many inaccurate reports that claimed they got information from "U.S Officials, anonymous Pentagon Sources, un-named White House Officials, etc..........only to find that the report was nothing more as a pointless bash that led nowhere and contained inaccurate information

Want to blame someone? Blame the media for flooding the world with so many inaccurate and bogus reports that its hard to tell what actually has any truth to it anymore. Bush lied. We all know that. But I am not sure I would trust the liberal media much more than I would trust Bush. They are nothing more than liars who will say anything to get a headline.

I don't care for pre-mature evaluations. I refuse to jump up and say all hope is lost in iraq when they haven't even finsihed their constitution yet. I'll let time show me what the true outcome will be. Now, unfortunately the time-machine I bought on ebay last week doesn't work, so I guess the only thing any of us can do is sit back and let time tell the story.



Edited by Illuminati

Originally posted by Seko Chaos 101. Many proper predictions were made prior to the war, hype, and buildup of rhetoric. Hugo tends to make bold and accurate statements. My wonderments are: What the heck did we (US) gain by all of this? I am still trying to figure it out. Cheaper oil? Nope! Friendlier allies? No Sir! Winning the hearts and minds of Moslems? Hmmm... Nodda! Protecting our vital interests? Maybe, but that is a work in progress. Telling the world "our way or the highway!" Sure thing. Ali-Frazier; Rocky vs...; Bush vs Saddam? Fighting terrorism? Where? Who said that? Creating an uber Bush state? Hmm..go longhorns! No thanks! Go Blue!

When you really think about the war on Iraq - it really does defy all logic unless its aim was just to create more chaos in the world and specifically in the ME.

Are the planners of this war really as stupid as they subtly [and probably unintentionally] propagate themselves to be?

Edited by Zagros

Tharts very true and a very good point. 

Hugo, you know I am totally against this war and this sham president (who certainly is NOT a real conservative but a pallid mockery of the new breed neocon big government republicans) but I dont think we can judge anything yet.  We should hope that (as I have heard being discussed) plans to divide the insurgency based on nationalists and fundamentalists suceed.  The nationalists is given the choice, will not aid the insurgency if they can be convinced that the theocrats will take power.  That is a usefell wedge to drive and becasue of it I think the US still has an ace up its sleve. Will it compensate for all the poor planning and lack of intelligence (in all its forms)?  I have no idea, we will have to wait and see.