Analysis: US now winning Iraq war

A

Alan

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
62,474
Reaction score
2,588
The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost.

Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace — a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.

Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.

That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy.

Scattered battles go on, especially against al-Qaida holdouts north of Baghdad. But organized resistance, with the steady drumbeat of bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and ambushes that once rocked the capital daily, has all but ceased
Click to expand...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jzxqARN0Huv38n5pgDfdBRwuoiZgD925HT7G0


U.S. combat deaths in Iraq plunge in July

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The number of U.S. soldiers killed in combat in Iraq has dropped sharply in July and the monthly total is likely to be the lowest since the U.S.-led invasion of the country in 2003.

Five U.S. soldiers have been killed in combat in Iraq so far in July compared to 66 in the same month last year, according to the independent website icasualties.org, which keeps records of U.S. military losses in the conflict.

The drop underscores the dramatic fall in violence in Iraq to lows not seen since early 2004.

Seeking to build on those gains, tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and police launched a major operation against Sunni Islamist al Qaeda in northeastern Diyala province on Tuesday.

Al Qaeda has sought to stoke tensions in Diyala, its only haven close to Baghdad. A Reuters witness said forces had deployed throughout the provincial capital Baquba.

Security forces imposed a vehicle curfew and searched homes for weapons and wanted militants. Most shops were closed.

The U.S. combat death toll in July is down from 23 in June and 15 in May, the icasualties.org data showed.

The fall comes as Iraqi forces have taken the lead in major security operations. The U.S. military this month also withdrew the last of five extra combat brigades that were sent to Iraq last year to drag the country back from civil war
Click to expand...

Not won yet but I'm getting that "I told you so" feeling again :p
 
Winning?
No winners here. The Iraq War like The Vietnam War was only meant to be sustained so that the Captains of Industry can cash in.
 
BTTB said:
Winning?
No winners here. The Iraq War like The Vietnam War was only meant to be sustained so that the Captains of Industry can cash in.
Click to expand...

What about the 1st gulf war? Korean war?
 
alanf85 said:
What about the 1st gulf war? Korean war?
Click to expand...
The reason for the US Forces being in Iraq during the 1st Gulf War was the fact that Iraq had occupied Kuwait, unlike the 2nd Gulf War which hinged off 9/11.

The Korean War or the forgotten war. Don't know much about it.
Perhaps it was the signal that the Cold War was a reality for the US and Russia post WWII, which then catapulted the world into a massive arms race of countless Billions of Dollars over several decades.

Wherever there is a war someone is making money out of it.
Rockefeller made $200 Million out of WWI while the US Casualties amounted to more than 300 000 men, a similar number to the losses sustained during the Korean War.
 
Last edited:
hyperian said:
Can you call it victory when 100k civilians were killed?
Click to expand...

Agreed. And when you count the financial cost of the war, was it really a victory for the States?

As the total passed US$450 billion, the cost for the Iraq war reached approximately $1500 per person in the United States.[9] If the Iraq war were to wind up costing 1.9 trillion dollars, the cost would be over 4.2 times higher ($6,300 per United States citizen.) This would put the expense at $25,000 for an average family of four, or $32,000 per family if Afghanistan is included.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia

$6300 = R45 000 per person
$1500 = R9 345 per person

Somewhat of a pyrrhic victory if you ask me.
 
BTTB said:
Wherever there is a war someone is making money out of it.
Click to expand...

So?

There are also plenty losing money

Tassidar said:
Agreed. And when you count the financial cost of the war, was it really a victory for the States?
Click to expand...

Speaking of money now it's too expensive to get rid of a despot( good news for Mugabe). Interesting then that the 'oil companies' and military industrial complex' hold sway over the government yet there is an abundance of other major industries who will lose money and they have no say :o

hyperian said:
Can you call it victory when 100k civilians were killed?
Click to expand...

The same number of innocent South Africans murdered during the 5 years of 'uber human' Madiba's reign. So can you really call that a victory then :o
 
Last edited:
Frankie said:
And then you get the tinfoil hat brigade [conspiracy theorist nuts] claiming that they're in Iraq for the oil.
Click to expand...

Erm.. people don't think that the US government went to war to make AMERICA rich, they went to make themselves rich. They didn't pay for the war,but they get the money from the oil cause all of them and their friends own the companies involved. When there is war, they all get cash cause they own big stakes in the companies involved in war.

So in effect, they sold peoples lives for personal gain, including their own people.
 
Last edited:
Would the amount of civilians that died in Iraq be that high if the US was not involved? We, on the other hand, would have suffered the losses in live, regardless of invasion or not.
 
Tin Hat Week

alanf85 said:
So?

There are also plenty losing money
Click to expand...
Let me rephrase. Feeling a like a Conspiracy Theorist of late. :)

/Dons Tin Hat.

Think.

1. Sinking of the Lusitania
2. Pearl Harbour
3. Bay of Tonkin
4. 9/11

Each event propelled The USA into War.
War needs money. Central Bankers have money
 
Nod said:
Would the amount of civilians that died in Iraq be that high if the US was not involved? We, on the other hand, would have suffered the losses in live, regardless of invasion or not.
Click to expand...

And millions died in the Korean war. Had there been no intervention far less would have died over the same time span of the war. Except S.Korea today would be in the same position as the N.Korea. If everybody submitted to the Nazis far less people would have died over the same time period but today there wouldn't be a Jew, Gypsy or homosexual left alive :rolleyes:

BTTB said:
Let me rephrase. Feeling a like a Conspiracy Theorist of late. :)

/Dons Tin Hat.

Think.

1. Sinking of the Lusitania
2. Pearl Harbour
3. Bay of Tonkin
4. 9/11

Each event propelled The USA into War.
War needs money. Central Bankers have money
Click to expand...

Yeah I think you're going off the edge a bit here. So all of those incidents were 'false flag' :eek:. So nobody has ever attacked the U.S before
 
alanf85 said:
Yeah I think you're going off the edge a bit here. So all of those incidents were 'false flag' :eek:. So nobody has ever attacked the U.S before
Click to expand...
I don't think so.
Not to worry alanf85. Still got my marbles.

I have declared it Tinfoil Hat Week. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Deciding whether or not to call it a win is semantics. The fact is conditions on the ground are improving, I'm not sure why so many people seem to see this as a bad thing?

If the US went into Iraq for the oil then they didn't do a very good job, oil production hasn't exactly skyrocketed since the invasion.
 
Syndyre said:
Deciding whether or not to call it a win is semantics. The fact is conditions on the ground are improving, I'm not sure why so many people seem to see this as a bad thing?
Click to expand...

It's an ideological issue mixed in with a large dose of bigotry :o

If the US went into Iraq for the oil then they didn't do a very good job, oil production hasn't exactly skyrocketed since the invasion.
Click to expand...

Nobody has explained the logic of taking the chance of going to war for oil when you can get it for cheap through the totally corrupt 'oil for food' program :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X