Author Topic: Why has the Iraq war taken a backseat?  (Read 2357 times)

Camel Jockey

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16711
  • Mel Gibson and Bob Sly World Domination
Why has the Iraq war taken a backseat?
« on: February 11, 2008, 11:42:58 AM »
Anyone notice how the media coverage of Iraq has been toned down a bit? I mean 6 months ago it was all the rage, but these days a car bombing is just reported casually as though it were just a relugar thing.

Now the economy seems to be all the rage. But far as I'm concern, Iraq is still a huge deal when you consider how much money we're dropping everyday.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63878
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Why has the Iraq war taken a backseat?
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2008, 12:38:38 PM »
As headhunter will tell you, the surge worked.  The media doesn't like reporting good news about Iraq. 

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Why has the Iraq war taken a backseat?
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2008, 01:10:08 PM »
The liberal media insulates the general public from seeing the devastation the US invasion caused in Iraq--the deaths are numbers and not images.

Hell, we couldn't even see the coffins of dead US soldiers arrive in the US from Iraq.

We've only been asked by the authors of this crime to shop more to contribute to the 'war effort'.

The net effect is to keep the public dumb yet participating in meaningless activities like shopping or the SuperBowl--you know you can vote via text messaging for the MVP!

We've become disengaged stewards of our own country.

Livewire

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3134
  • I call Nasser.
Re: Why has the Iraq war taken a backseat?
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2008, 01:25:36 PM »
The surge worked pretty well.

But taking 4 years to start it was unacceptable.

I don't applaud the sniper when he hits the target after 32 attempts.

I mourn the pile of dead hostages on that floor who died because the sniper took that long to, um, do his fucking job.

Remember - we're the most powerful military in the world.  And we're gloating that it only took 5+ years to minimize violence in a poor shithole like Iraq.  Morons.
Nasser called Palumbo an acromegalion

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Why has the Iraq war taken a backseat?
« Reply #4 on: February 11, 2008, 01:28:03 PM »
As headhunter will tell you, the surge worked.  The media doesn't like reporting good news about Iraq. 
Really?

How did the Surge work?  Today it was announced that US soldiers are going to be held over b/c the Surge worked so well. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23105474

From what I understand, the US's occupation has surged so that the full blown civil war killings are now just guerilla attacks.

I also understand that the Iraqi government is no nearer to independent management of the country than it was two years ago.

Read the president's policy speech on the Surge here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html

Look at how Bush repeatedly lies about the character of the "insurgency"--they are Al Qaeda terrorists according to that lying POTUS.  No they are not.  


Livewire

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3134
  • I call Nasser.
Re: Why has the Iraq war taken a backseat?
« Reply #5 on: February 11, 2008, 01:30:25 PM »
the surge reduced violence.

but it failed in its goal - enough of a reduction in violence so that the iraqi govt could get their shit together.

so yes, there is less violence.  But we've had full air control, full ground control, and full govt control for 5 years now, and we still cannot stop

Nasser called Palumbo an acromegalion

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: Why has the Iraq war taken a backseat?
« Reply #6 on: February 11, 2008, 01:51:38 PM »
the surge reduced violence.

but it failed in its goal - enough of a reduction in violence so that the iraqi govt could get their shit together.

so yes, there is less violence.  But we've had full air control, full ground control, and full govt control for 5 years now, and we still cannot stop
The Surge has dampened the violence in Baghdad.  No doubt.

That violence would not be happening if the US had not attacked Iraq in the first place.

Now we have a situation, where it is perfectly understandable for Iraqis to stand up and fight the occupying US force.

So the Bush administration conveniently calls all these people defending their homeland, "Al Qaeda".

How deceitful of the man.

As long as the US occupies Iraq, there will be bloodshed.

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Why has the Iraq war taken a backseat?
« Reply #7 on: February 11, 2008, 01:53:18 PM »
the surge reduced violence.

but it failed in its goal - enough of a reduction in violence so that the iraqi govt could get their shit together.

so yes, there is less violence.  But we've had full air control, full ground control, and full govt control for 5 years now, and we still cannot stop



AQ is all but finished..besides the American media cares more about American deaths..maybe this would be big news several years ago but many journalists from the big boys don't even leave the Green zone to get stories..they use stringers. There should be some big battles in Mosul in the coming months as we try and finish aq there.  I think the conditions are good enough for the Iraqi government to do their job, but I have little faith in any kind of Arab democracy over there.
L

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Why has the Iraq war taken a backseat?
« Reply #8 on: February 11, 2008, 01:54:43 PM »
We've cut deals with all the arab militia's..so they've stopped fighting us for the most part. Bush does lump in all foreign fighters as AQ...its easier.
L

Livewire

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3134
  • I call Nasser.
Re: Why has the Iraq war taken a backseat?
« Reply #9 on: February 11, 2008, 02:42:57 PM »
AQ is all but finished..besides the American media cares more about American deaths..maybe this would be big news several years ago but many journalists from the big boys don't even leave the Green zone to get stories..they use stringers. There should be some big battles in Mosul in the coming months as we try and finish aq there.  I think the conditions are good enough for the Iraqi government to do their job, but I have little faith in any kind of Arab democracy over there.

The problem is, in my opinion, it shouldn't have taken 5+ years to do this.

We dedicate 2 billion a week + 150k men + 150k contracters + all our top notch technology, for 5 years.

That's poor return on investment.  That makes me wonder is someone is running up the tab.  If someone owns those military companies (or its stock), then 5+ years of war makes them way richer than 6 months of war.

motive to drag it out?  I dunno.
Nasser called Palumbo an acromegalion

Bindare_Dundat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12227
  • KILL CENTRAL BANKS, BUY BITCOIN.
Re: Why has the Iraq war taken a backseat?
« Reply #10 on: February 11, 2008, 07:30:15 PM »
War tactics have changed. Iraq is getting trained men to come in from other countries.


Us deaths:US wounded

2003 486: 2,413
2004 849: 8,001
2005 846: 5,949
2006 822: 6,298
2007 901: 6,075
2008 56: 34

There have already been 56 US deaths this year in a little over a month, 56*9 months = 504 deaths for 2008 if things keep going the way they are. That's more deaths then 2003. Are things getting better?

Disturbing video of an Iraqi sniper, man I feel for the soilders that have to go through this shit.




Bindare_Dundat

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 12227
  • KILL CENTRAL BANKS, BUY BITCOIN.
Re: Why has the Iraq war taken a backseat?
« Reply #11 on: February 11, 2008, 07:35:46 PM »
We've cut deals with all the arab militia's..so they've stopped fighting us for the most part. Bush does lump in all foreign fighters as AQ...its easier.

America sold weapons to Saudi Arabia who happens to be in bed with Iran, who america says could be a problem. Sounds like a great deal.

Deicide

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22921
  • Reapers...
Re: Why has the Iraq war taken a backseat?
« Reply #12 on: February 11, 2008, 07:49:04 PM »
Anyone notice how the media coverage of Iraq has been toned down a bit? I mean 6 months ago it was all the rage, but these days a car bombing is just reported casually as though it were just a relugar thing.

Now the economy seems to be all the rage. But far as I'm concern, Iraq is still a huge deal when you consider how much money we're dropping everyday.

You have really good genetics.
I hate the State.

Camel Jockey

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16711
  • Mel Gibson and Bob Sly World Domination
Re: Why has the Iraq war taken a backseat?
« Reply #13 on: February 12, 2008, 09:06:10 AM »
So when will the violence cease enough for the US to set up some sort of puppet regime?

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Why has the Iraq war taken a backseat?
« Reply #14 on: February 12, 2008, 09:12:13 AM »
U have one now...thats the question though...how long before things are stable enough that we reach the point of no return as far as AQ and violence. If u have power and water and peace for 3-4 months...u won't tolerate any bullshit by AQ. If the Americans are off the streets and not around as much....We are seeing this on the small stage...it will be up to the Iraqi government to start plugging in oil reveneues back into the economy.
L