Has U.S. Politics

[M.Dancer]

Sometime around January 15th, the 3000th US fatality will be listed. Someone in the penatgon will announce that if everything goes well, we could see troop reductions within the year. A army reserve unit will be mobleized along with a marine unit. A major offense will have been finished and CENTCOM will announce that the insurgents abilities will have been halved. Confirmed fatalities will have topped 1400 in Baghada for December...........

Iraq's Health Ministry says more than 1,500 people were killed in Baghdad last month, down by only 14 per cent from July, despite US claims a security operation had halved that number.

The figures fly in the face of Thursday's statement by the US-led forces chief spokesman Major General William Caldwell that August's "murder rate in Baghdad dropped 52 per cent from the daily rate for July".

However, another coalition spokesman said on Friday the US military figure did not include those killed in Baghdad's daily suicide bombings and mortar attacks in crowded civilian areas.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1736871.htm

[rover1]

Here is a BBC report relating to current doings in Iraq:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5371394.stm

[GostHacked]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5375064.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/24/...main/index.html

So yes, it is contributing to the problem they are trying to erradicate? Hindsight is 20/20 my friends. The US Policy has failed. Actually it is not the Policy, but the crew that is behind it. I wish you right wingers would wake up on this one. If the problem was to be addresed, Saudia Arabia should have been on the list. Even Afghanistan was a more correct invasion compared to the failings that is the New Iraq. Osama was the target, but Saddam was linked to 9/11 and well, he pissed everyone off before right? Well I agree the invasion of Kuwait was generaly not a very smart move. This also gave the US to beat the oil out of him in the 90s, and sanctioned said oil throughout the 90s in part with the UN and the Oil for Food program. We know how that turned out.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/oil...d_timeline.html

So yes the Policies have failed. They will keep failing until they understand what the hell they are getting into in the first place. Terrorism was to have gone down with the invasion of Iraq, but now they say it will go up, it's been going up for a few months now, or is it years. Either our leaders are incompitent at their posts, or there is another agenda here. I am starting to think that they cannot go through the next agenda without a another catalyst.

[KrustyKidd]

If the problem was to be addresed, Saudia Arabia should have been on the list.

Invading Saudi Arabia without doubt, would have galvanized the entire Islamic world under radical Islam.

Removing US troops from SA removed one of radical Islam's contentions and invading Iraq alowed them to place US troops in a position where they could place pressure on the Royal family to take action on their Jihadist infestation. And also took care of the nagging problem of Saddam Hussein.

So yes the Policies have failed. They will keep failing until they understand what the hell they are getting into in the first place. Terrorism was to have gone down with the invasion of Iraq, but now they say it will go up, it's been going up for a few months now, or is it years.

Logic dictates that when a terrorist entity is in danger of becomming irrelevent they will react. In the case of terrorists, they can only react one way - with terrorism. Hence, it is no surprise that terrorism has gone up and really has no reflection on whether we are winning or losing

But White House spokesman Peter Watkins hit back at the newspaper's report, saying: "Their [terrorists'] hatred for freedom and liberty did not develop overnight, those seeds were planted decades ago.

"Instead of waiting while they plot and plan attacks to kill innocent Americans, the United States has taken the initiative to fight back."

So your solution would have been to wait for another attack much like 911? Negotiate with Osama? Prop up dictators like Sadam rather than take him out (which incidently is one of the Jihadists main issues with America) or, the moronic idea of invading Saudi Arabia.

[jdobbin]

Latest poll on the mid-terms is out.

The Foley scandal is less important in swaying votes as Iraq.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/061015/...ics_election_dc

"An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 57 percent of registered voters did not believe America's safety from terrorism depended on success in Iraq -- a direct refutation of Bush's argument for staying the course."

[sharkman]

Or is it because staying the course has paid off and Americans are safer? Giving the wacko terrorists an Arab place to fight the US (Iraq) is waaaay better than not and having them come here to blow up people. I know it's not the stated reason for going there, but it's a pretty good side effect.

[Riverwind]

Or is it because staying the course has paid off and Americans are safer? Giving the wacko terrorists an Arab place to fight the US (Iraq) is waaaay better than not and having them come here to blow up people. I know it's not the stated reason for going there, but it's a pretty good side effect.

You, of course, are assuming that there was actually a real possibility that the 'terrorists' would be coming to the US in droves after Al Queda's bases in Afghanistan were taken out. I believe there was no real threat and claiming that there was one in some perverse attempt to justify the war in Iraq is an exercise in self-delusion.

[jdobbin]

Or is it because staying the course has paid off and Americans are safer? Giving the wacko terrorists an Arab place to fight the US (Iraq) is waaaay better than not and having them come here to blow up people. I know it's not the stated reason for going there, but it's a pretty good side effect.

The Pentagon and the British Defence Department have said it has not made the world safer. The terrorists are in Pakistan and if word is correct, Somalia planning the next attack while the U.S. is bogged down in Iraq fighting a civil war.

[sharkman]

Riverwind, no real threat? How about the foiled attempt to blow up 10 planes headed to the U.S. They were going to use liquid in water and toiletry containers. Ring a bell?

I know, I know, it doesn't ring anything for you. Whatever.

[sharkman]

Or is it because staying the course has paid off and Americans are safer? Giving the wacko terrorists an Arab place to fight the US (Iraq) is waaaay better than not and having them come here to blow up people. I know it's not the stated reason for going there, but it's a pretty good side effect.

The Pentagon and the British Defence Department have said it has not made the world safer. The terrorists are in Pakistan and if word is correct, Somalia planning the next attack while the U.S. is bogged down in Iraq fighting a civil war.

If you'll reread my quote I never said it would make the world safer. I said Americans are safer. It was in the first sentense.

[Riverwind]

Riverwind, no real threat? How about the foiled attempt to blow up 10 planes headed to the U.S. They were going to use liquid in water and toiletry containers. Ring a bell?

Those terrorists and the London bombers are examples of attacks that were caused by the invasion of Iraq. If Britain had stayed out of Iraq neither incident would have happened. The invasion of Iraq turned most of the world against the US and created an environment that is much more conducive to recruiting suicide bombers willing to attack the US and allies. You can deny it as much as you want but I suspect the invasion in Iraq will go down in history as one of the worst foreign policy failures for the US.

[jdobbin]

If you'll reread my quote I never said it would make the world safer. I said Americans are safer. It was in the first sentense.

The Pentagon has said that the U.S. is not safer at home or anywhere abroad. The threat level has increased as a result of Iraq.

There may not have been a successful attack since 2001 but it doesn't mean the U.S. is safer.