In America. (We’ve been winning in Iraq for quite some time). Bonus: Angelina Jolie thinks so too now!
……

By a significant margin, Americans now believe we are going to succeed.

And even Hollywood is getting on board; Angel……

ChenZhen you sound suspiciously like an old CQ poster named whippoorwill who said Iraq would never ever, ever, ever, ever, ever get better.

-Domino on February 29, 2008 at 12:17 AM

No not me. Whenever I can help it, I post using the same handle.

jimbo2008 on February 29, 2008 at 7:46 AM

The sad thing is, the “war is lost” in America, while the battles are won by our bravest.

You are so right.

It always pains me to the point of tears that the Left in this country doesn’t understand a simple fact:

If we unify behind achieving victory after deploying, leaving the political infighting for before and after only, then the Sate Department could do its f’n job in between any potential conflicts, and the risk of actually needing to use the military would be closer to zero.

Idiots.

Saltysam on February 29, 2008 at 8:46 AM

Naw, we may have to go thru a re-education period like the Carter-days, but I have faith (hope with an expectation)that the American people will learn from their mistakes (Reagan years) and eventually do the right thing.

As the situation in Iraq continues to improve, the strategy of running away will become even more irrational…

I have only been here a month and look how hopey and changey the situation is. Should my state’s junior senator win, I will make myself available as SecArmy, hah hah…

The sad thing is, the “war is lost” in America, while the battles are won by our bravest.

You are so right.

It always pains me to the point of tears that the Left in this country doesn’t understand a simple fact:

If we unify behind achieving victory after deploying, leaving the political infighting for before and after only, then the Sate Department could do its f’n job in between any potential conflicts, and the risk of actually needing to use the military would be closer to zero.

Idiots.

ChenZhen on February 28, 2008 at 10:41 PM”

Riggghhhht.

If Sadr ever popped his head out of his hole, it’d get blown off like some varmint’s in a cornfield.

Every act of terrorism creates more and more people willing to work with the US. Which, ironically, is the exact opposite of the reactionary leftist meme that the US was creating more terrorists.

I love the smell of irony i the morning.

In head-to-head matchups with McCain (1,240 RV, MoE +/- 3.5%), Pew finds both Democratic candidates would win.

Clinton 50 – McCain 45
Obama 50 – McCain 43

From the links and your subtle insinuation, am I to infer that the Mighty O studied and acted on these documents and along with his skill and expertise in middle east policy, military tactics and world diplomacy he decided to disregard the arguments posed by the Bush administration, the UN and our allies. Really, all that from a newly elected jr. Senator. Obama certainly is selling his “I was against the war” as if he did. I find this rhetoric insulting; it is defeatist platitudes and disingenuous, just slick enough to fool the fools!

The odd thing is that 53% also say we should pull troops out. Huh? 50% of Angelina Jolie’s breasts (the right one, natch) also seem in favor of continuing the Iraq mission on humanitarian grounds…….

In other words he is hoping someone else’s plan, that he voted against, works so he looks good when he starts to withdraw troops. That might work with the Democrats, but it won’t fool most of the rest of us. And who says 11 months is the right number of months? Other than al-Qaeda and Iran that is. This guy is just shooting from the hip and hoping beyond hope that somehow it works out OK, or everyone forgives him when he has to make changes when reality hits him in the face.

By the way, you withdraw all troops in 2 years and your going to have a mess on your hands in Iraq. Their forces will need our backup for awhile even after they take over the country completely, and they haven’t been able to do that yet. Maybe in a year from now, maybe longer they will be ready. They haven’t even accomplished one major battle without US forces alongside and in the battle with them so far, and it is now 2/08

-bnelson44 on February 28, 2008 at 9:57 PM

There are quite a few scenarios that could play out in the next year, actually. For example, Sadr could end the cease-fire, which would probably pull critical cards out of the house, and we’d find ourselves back at square one.

I think the bottom line here is that we simply cannot sustain an open-ended commitment at a cost of $3 billion a week, hoping (speaking of hope) that the Iraqis get their ducks in a row eventually…someday. The adventure has already cost exponentially more than the administration originally predicted, and the majority of the Iraqis themselves support a timetable and are against permanent bases. By the time that the 27 months would arrive, we’d had been in there for well over 7 years and had spent a trillion dollars on this thing. One has to draw the line somewhere.

What’s the mission now? Resolving whether Mohammed’s
rightful successor was Umar or Ali?

That’s an easy one. We flip a coin and find out whether Umar or Ali elects to receive. Shouldn’t take much time or money.

I keep forgetting he is the Messiah and as such can see the future….what a load of crap!

-dmann on February 28, 2008 at 9:19 PM

Well,

not

exactly.

The government of Iraq is an ally. People who don’t believe that an ally is worth defending will just as soon throw their neighbors and themselves to the enemy. Not wanting to believe that they have thrown the people who trusted them to the tender mercies of the enemy out of convenience, they convince themselves that it was for principle, and extend that principle to their countrymen.

Speaking of that, what many people are forgetting is the 11 months part. If the gains we’re seeing in Iraq over the last year are as significant as the various pundits are proclaiming, then it’s reasonable to think that perhaps we’d have gotten to the point that less troops would be needed by the time that Obama took office anyway. If we hadn’t, it’s probably just as reasonable to assume that we aren’t going to get the outcome we desire no matter what we do.

ChenZhen on February 28, 2008 at 9:44 PM

In other words he is hoping someone else’s plan, that he voted against, works so he looks good when he starts to withdraw troops. That might work with the Democrats, but it won’t fool most of the rest of us. And who says 11 months is the right number of months? Other than al-Qaeda and Iran that is. This guy is just shooting from the hip and hoping beyond hope that somehow it works out OK, or everyone forgives him when he has to make changes when reality hits him in the face.

By the way, you withdraw all troops in 2 years and your going to have a mess on your hands in Iraq. Their forces will need our backup for awhile even after they take over the country completely, and they haven’t been able to do that yet. Maybe in a year from now, maybe longer they will be ready. They haven’t even accomplished one major battle without US forces alongside and in the battle with them so far, and it is now 2/08

Your savior Obama is starting to waffle already.

-bnelson44 on February 28, 2008 at 9:25 PM

I don’t see how. His plan was to have the troops out in 16 months after taking office, and he would presumably take office 11 months from now.

11+16=27 months.

Speaking of that, what many people are forgetting is the 11 months part. If the gains we’re seeing in Iraq over the last year are as significant as the various pundits are proclaiming, then it’s reasonable to think that perhaps we’d have gotten to the point that less troops would be needed by the time that Obama took office anyway. If we hadn’t, it’s probably just as reasonable to assume that we aren’t going to get the outcome we desire no matter what we do.

The media will provide plenty of cover, saying that these changes in position are example of his maturity and leadership, his ability to adapt to changing situations…all hail the Messiah!!!

ChenZhen on February 28, 2008 at 9:04 PM

Your savior Obama is starting to waffle already.

Obama also contested the notion that he advocates an overly quick withdrawal from Iraq.

“If we are maintaining the timetable that I’m talking about , we’re talking two years from now before we would have combat troops out of Iraq,” he said. “The notion that this is somehow a precipitous withdrawal that I’m proposing just isn’t borne out by facts.”

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obama_Remember_New_Hampshire.html