Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Red there were a LOT of people who would disagree with the notion that Iraq was not a threat to us.

Also, Iraq was one of the biggest and most open state supporters of terrorism in the world and if we truly wanted to have a 'war on terror' we had to deal with their open support for terrorism one way or another.

Going to war in Iraq wasn't the mistake. The mistake was what we did after we removed Saddam and everyone looked at each other and said "now what?"
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
One of the biggest problems with going to Iraq is that no one in power understood that we needed to draw a stricter line when it comes to our involvement. I would have been very satisfied if we pulled out after removing Saddam. That is basically the point where I stopped supporting the war.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Red there were a LOT of people who would disagree with the notion that Iraq was not a threat to us.

Also, Iraq was one of the biggest and most open state supporters of terrorism in the world and if we truly wanted to have a 'war on terror' we had to deal with their open support for terrorism one way or another.
Well we could have done what the Republican messiah Ronald Reagan did, buy them off. It would have been a lot cheaper.

Going to war in Iraq wasn't the mistake. The mistake was what we did after we removed Saddam and everyone looked at each other and said "now what?"
So what you are saying is that due to the Bush Administration failure to plan thousands of lives were lost, Billions of dollars were wasted, our standing in the world took a severe hit and the true war on terror in Afghanistan was put on the back burner. OK I can agree with that.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Don't worry. The anti-war crowd will never admit to being wrong about Iraq. They'll keep spouting the same old rhetoric and sound bytes instead and will deflect, dissemble, and cry over split milk as they always have.

Clearly any success in Iraq just galls them right down to the bone. Despite all their protestations of being labeled "defeatists," the proof of that claim is clear for all to see. They are defeatists, plain and simple, and continue to be even as Iraq moves well past their hyperbolic spewage.
As part of the so called Anti War crowd I'll admit that I was wrong about the surge. My reasoning is that everything else the Bush Administration had done regarding the occupation of Iraq had been so fucked up I had no reason to believe that they'd finally get something right.

So now that I admitted that I was wrong about the surge are you as a member of the Pro War Crowd going to admit that you were wrong about the war in the first place and also acknowledge about being wrong about so many others things regarding this war?


With regards to being wrong it seems the scoreboard is
Anti War Crowd -1
Pro War Crowd -100
The problem is that you assume that being pro-Iraq invasion means I stand behind Bush and back everything he's done. I don't. I have my own reasons for thinking that going into Iraq was the right move. For one, going into Afghanistan didn't mean squat in regard to 9/11 or the WoT, which were brought about by Arab extremists. Arab extremists attack the US, and had done so for years, and we invade a Persian country? Yeah, that'll really put the fear of god in them.

Nor did Bush screw up everything in regard to the invasion/occupation of Iraq. The problem is that the anti-war crowd focuses only on the screw-ups and disregards the rest. Sure, there were plenty of bad moves by BushCo. Many poor decisions along the way. Then again, I'm not sure anyone else could have pulled it off any better. Bush's big fault is his bumbling presentation and nearly complete lack of communication skills. If someone like Clinton had done this, and made all the same mistakes along the way, there wouldn't be nearly as much beefing about it because good ol' Bill knew how to blow sunshine up our collective asses. He could sell bad situations and turn those lemons into lemonade.

As far as the shoulda, woulda, coulda of going into Iraq in the first place, it had widespread support initially. We did what we thought was right at the time and that cannot be undone. So all the beefing about how it was wrong is ultimately meaningless except as a history lesson. It's like that old joke about the difference between a light bulb and a pregnant women. You can unscrew a light bulb. Well, Iraq was that pregnant woman and we have to deal with the baby we made, like it or not.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The problem is that you assume that being pro-Iraq invasion means I stand behind Bush and back everything he's done. I don't. I have my own reasons for thinking that going into Iraq was the right move. For one, going into Afghanistan didn't mean squat in regard to 9/11 or the WoT, which were brought about by Arab extremists. Arab extremists attack the US, and had done so for years, and we invade a Persian country? Yeah, that'll really put the fear of god in them.

Nor did Bush screw up everything in regard to the invasion/occupation of Iraq. The problem is that the anti-war crowd focuses only on the screw-ups and disregards the rest. Sure, there were plenty of bad moves by BushCo. Many poor decisions along the way. Then again, I'm not sure anyone else could have pulled it off any better. Bush's big fault is his bumbling presentation and nearly complete lack of communication skills. If someone like Clinton had done this, and made all the same mistakes along the way, there wouldn't be nearly as much beefing about it because good ol' Bill knew how to blow sunshine up our collective asses. He could sell bad situations and turn those lemons into lemonade.

As far as the shoulda, woulda, coulda of going into Iraq in the first place, it had widespread support initially. We did what we thought was right at the time and that cannot be undone. So all the beefing about how it was wrong is ultimately meaningless except as a history lesson. It's like that old joke about the difference between a light bulb and a pregnant women. You can unscrew a light bulb. Well, Iraq was that pregnant woman and we have to deal with the baby we made, like it or not.

A large part of the problem when it comes to us remaining in Iraq beyond removing Saddam is not only limited to the negative consequences that are a result of staying there. The problem is a really awful order of priorities. It is true that there is a lot of work that can be done in Iraq. It is true that progress can be made whether it is because of us or others (whether or not we are progressing is up for debate). However, what is also true is that a lot of Americans including myself believe that the juice just isn't/wasn't worth the squeeze after we got Saddam. We could have done a lot more for our country in a variety of ways with that money which would have benefited us a whole lot more than the benefits we are receiving by remaining in Iraq.

 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
As far as the shoulda, woulda, coulda of going into Iraq in the first place, it had widespread support initially.
Until it was discovered that the reason given was a bunch of bullshit

We did what we thought was right at the time and that cannot be undone. So all the beefing about how it was wrong is ultimately meaningless except as a history lesson. It's like that old joke about the difference between a light bulb and a pregnant women. You can unscrew a light bulb. Well, Iraq was that pregnant woman and we have to deal with the baby we made, like it or not.
True but that doesn't absolve Bush and his supporters and explains why so many felt that the Surge, like so many of the other things Bush and crew did, would be a fuck up.
 

GuitarDaddy

Lifer
Nov 9, 2004
11,465
1
0
Winning HA! There is no winning possible in this debauchery. The surge has quelled the violence for the time being, be we are not winning the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqis and instead have created a breeding ground of contempt for America that will haunt us for decades.

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Until it was discovered that the reason given was a bunch of bullshit
So you are saying that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism?

Or that Saddam had no plans to restart he WMD program the second he could?
 

digiram

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2004
3,991
172
106
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: jpeyton
And what happens when we decide to stop spending a half-billion dollars per day on foot patrols?

:laugh: I guess since our children are footing the bill, we can keep spending indefinitely to wallow in our victory.

Link to source?

Oh thats right, your pulling numbers out of thin air...... We spend more on people who want to sit around making babies then on the war. That should concern you far more then the war.

So you're saying Iraq's well-being is worth more than those of (some) Americans?

I dont know, do they have a job and are they a productive member of society, or do they sit around waiting for the next monthly check?

But seriously, the point is anyone who pisses and moans about the costs of the war (And it is frightfully high) cannot turn a blind eye to the even higher costs of social programs. To do so is borderline criminal when discussing the budget and expenditures.


If you neglect your own people another war will begin from with in.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Are we any closer to leaving now than we were 1 year ago? The answer is basically no.

The ONLY definition of winning is getting out.

The rest is just unquantifiable garbage.

You cheerleaders really make me sick, you would squander trillions more dollars and thousands more lives just to prove how "right" you are. Meanwhile, we're accomplishing nothing other than leveraging our future economic prosperity.

But it'll be totally worth it to stick it to those pussy libs, right?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: ayabe
Are we any closer to leaving now than we were 1 year ago? The answer is basically no.

The ONLY definition of winning is getting out.

The rest is just unquantifiable garbage.

You cheerleaders really make me sick, you would squander trillions more dollars and thousands more lives just to prove how "right" you are. Meanwhile, we're accomplishing nothing other than leveraging our future economic prosperity.

But it'll be totally worth it to stick it to those pussy libs, right?
In that case we lost WW 2.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Winning HA! There is no winning possible in this debauchery. The surge has quelled the violence for the time being, be we are not winning the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqis and instead have created a breeding ground of contempt for America that will haunt us for decades.
Yes, much like the Japanese hate our guts for nuking them.

I think this old chestnut of how we've breeded hate will be shown in the future to be little more than a fearmongering sort of rhetoric because as Iraq improves, and the lives of Iraqis with it, that will do wonders to soften any feelings of contempt. No pain, no gain.
 

digiram

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2004
3,991
172
106
Winning the Iraq war is like winning an item on ebay at over the retail price of an item. We should have stop bidding a long time ago.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Until it was discovered that the reason given was a bunch of bullshit
So you are saying that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism?

Or that Saddam had no plans to restart he WMD program the second he could?

I'd love to see the credible evidence that Saddam had something to due with 9/11.

I can guarantee you that the majority of Middle-Eastern nations in the region including our own "Allies" ( hint ! Pakistan, Saudi Arabia ) support "terrorism" in some form or fashion. Since you are trying to skew the argument to become an over generalization to better muddle the waters over the reasoning behind the Iraq war I see why you phrased your response in such a manner.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Winning HA! There is no winning possible in this debauchery. The surge has quelled the violence for the time being, be we are not winning the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqis and instead have created a breeding ground of contempt for America that will haunt us for decades.
Yes, much like the Japanese hate our guts for nuking them.

I think this old chestnut of how we've breeded hate will be shown in the future to be little more than a fearmongering sort of rhetoric because as Iraq improves, and the lives of Iraqis with it, that will do wonders to soften any feelings of contempt. No pain, no gain.

We certainly are spending a lot of money, time, and lives to do so. I see the potential benefits, but no matter how you slice it the juice is not worth the squeeze for our country.

 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Until it was discovered that the reason given was a bunch of bullshit
Sure it was. It was bullshit that Saddam himself copiously spread and fermented. It was completely within his power to stop the invasion before it began. In fact, Saddam could have prevented any potential talk of an invasion long before by cooperating with the UN, as he had pledged to do yet purposefully failed to follow through on. Apparently his own personal pride was more important than the lives of many of his people both before during and after this entire debacle began.

True but that doesn't absolve Bush and his supporters and explains why so many felt that the Surge, like so many of the other things Bush and crew did, would be a fuck up.
I doubt his supporters are looking for absolution or contrition anymore than you are in regard to your beliefs concerning the Surge.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: ayabe
Are we any closer to leaving now than we were 1 year ago? The answer is basically no.

The ONLY definition of winning is getting out.

The rest is just unquantifiable garbage.

You cheerleaders really make me sick, you would squander trillions more dollars and thousands more lives just to prove how "right" you are. Meanwhile, we're accomplishing nothing other than leveraging our future economic prosperity.

But it'll be totally worth it to stick it to those pussy libs, right?
In that case we lost WW 2.

Wow..what a nice way at flinging the BS.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Don't worry. The anti-war crowd will never admit to being wrong about Iraq. They'll keep spouting the same old rhetoric and sound bytes instead and will deflect, dissemble, and cry over split milk as they always have.

Clearly any success in Iraq just galls them right down to the bone. Despite all their protestations of being labeled "defeatists," the proof of that claim is clear for all to see. They are defeatists, plain and simple, and continue to be even as Iraq moves well past their hyperbolic spewage.
With all due respect, you're either a clueless fool or a dishonest partisan hack. You might have a point if you could show a significant portion of Iraq invasion opponents predicted violence would never drop, but I'm confident you can't. That's a straw man and you know it. The real question is what does "winning" mean with respect to Iraq? Taking the cluster-fsck BushCo spawned and getting it down to only 10 times worse than before we invaded rather than its peak of 100 times worse? Woot! Bully for us! Let's pull out the troops and look for a new country to ruin.

No, I'm afraid "winning" in Iraq would require that we somehow obtain something more valuable than the cost: hundreds of thousands of dead men, women, and children, tens of thousands of Americans killed and maimed, upwards of a trillion U.S. dollars borrowed from our kids, a serious blow to America's standing in the world, $4 gasoline (due in great part to the instability we created), and an inflammation of anti-American hatred that is sure to haunt us for decades. In return we got what, exactly? The head of Saddam Hussein and an unstable puppet democracy that could crumble without us. That's not even close to a "win" in my book, but YMMV. The Bush faithful have turned lowering expectations into a lifestyle.

I think it's fantastic things are getting better in Iraq. I hope they continue to improve and that the Iraqi people succeed in establishing a stable democracy. Most of all, I hope we can bring our people home before even one more of them dies. Unfortunately, even that will never make our attack on Iraq morally right, nor worth the awful toll. We lost in Iraq the moment we started destroying the place based on innuendo and lies. Whatever good we eventually salvage from thst won't change that shameful fact.

Well said, Bowfinger. :thumbsup:
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: ayabe
Are we any closer to leaving now than we were 1 year ago? The answer is basically no.

The ONLY definition of winning is getting out.

The rest is just unquantifiable garbage.

You cheerleaders really make me sick, you would squander trillions more dollars and thousands more lives just to prove how "right" you are. Meanwhile, we're accomplishing nothing other than leveraging our future economic prosperity.

But it'll be totally worth it to stick it to those pussy libs, right?
In that case we lost WW 2.

Wow what nice way at flinging the BS.

I agree. Comparing WW2 to this war is ridiculous.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy
Winning HA! There is no winning possible in this debauchery. The surge has quelled the violence for the time being, be we are not winning the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqis and instead have created a breeding ground of contempt for America that will haunt us for decades.
Yes, much like the Japanese hate our guts for nuking them.

I think this old chestnut of how we've breeded hate will be shown in the future to be little more than a fearmongering sort of rhetoric because as Iraq improves, and the lives of Iraqis with it, that will do wonders to soften any feelings of contempt. No pain, no gain.

We certainly are spending a lot of money, time, and lives to do so. I see the potential benefits, but no matter how you slice it the juice is not worth the squeeze for our country.
I dunno. We're squeezing and entire orchard for juice to throw into that pit called Social Security and it's still a fruitless endeavor. Yet people complain when we pick one tree and redirect that juice elsewhere?

If Iraq has the ultimate long-term effect that I believe it will, which is to eventually quash all the little tin-pot dictators in the ME, it'll be worth every penny spent.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Originally posted by: bamacre
Whatever happens in Iraq, no matter what great "success" comes to Iraq in the coming years, it will never ever be enough to erase nor make up for the enormous mistake of invading in the first place.

As if losing more than 4000 of our best men and women in uniform isn't enough, there are countless reasons why the initial invasion was a mistake.

For one, we haven't began paying one cent for the war. With a national debt now approaching 10 trillion dollars, the predicted $3 trillion we have and will spend in Iraq certainly doesn't help. And while the Iraqi economy can end up a success, that is exactly what Americans don't see in their future here in the US.

Invading an Arab and mostly Muslim country, which never attacked us, so soon after the 9/11 attacks and the beginning of the "war on terror" says to the rest of the world one thing. We refuse to understand why we were attacked in the first place. And sure enough, instead of working to decrease the amount of resentment and hatred toward the US due to our foreign policies, we gave even more ammo to our enemies and aided their recruitment.

We all know now what some knew beforehand, the threat Iraq posed was greatly exaggerated by those in the administration. We were led to war on false pretenses. Bush and Cheney cried wolf. And so did Congress. And the next time there is a threat overseas, how can Americans trust that those in Washington aren't crying wolf again? What an impossible and dangerous situation to which our government has potentially put the American people. Shall they be fooled again, or protest against fighting an actual real threat?

In the end however, it is painfully ironic that those on the right, namely the Republicans, and even some left-leaning neo-cons, will proclaim over and over that the Iraqi's will end up seeing the day they awake as free people. All the while, here in the USA, our rights are no longer something respected, but rather they are seen as obstacles to those in power.

Another great post worthy of a :thumbsup:
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Until it was discovered that the reason given was a bunch of bullshit
Sure it was. It was bullshit that Saddam himself copiously spread and fermented. It was completely within his power to stop the invasion before it began. In fact, Saddam could have prevented any potential talk of an invasion long before by cooperating with the UN, as he had pledged to do yet purposefully failed to follow through on. Apparently his own personal pride was more important than the lives of many of his people both before during and after this entire debacle began.

True but that doesn't absolve Bush and his supporters and explains why so many felt that the Surge, like so many of the other things Bush and crew did, would be a fuck up.
I doubt his supporters are looking for absolution or contrition anymore than you are in regard to your beliefs concerning the Surge.

Hello this was a preemptive war from the start. Bush and the gang had this planned from the start. Bush didn't move Naval fleet assets and massive amounts of troops and supplies just so he could back down and not invade.

The truth is the UN inspectors were forced to leave due to our own preemptive invasion of Iraq. Hence forcing inspections which were ongoing and happening to come to a halt because we forced the issue. Prior to our pulling the trigger UN inspections were happening and on going in Iraq. They were cooperating even if they were doing so grudgingly. Nice revisionist attempt though.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Don't worry. The anti-war crowd will never admit to being wrong about Iraq. They'll keep spouting the same old rhetoric and sound bytes instead and will deflect, dissemble, and cry over split milk as they always have.

Clearly any success in Iraq just galls them right down to the bone. Despite all their protestations of being labeled "defeatists," the proof of that claim is clear for all to see. They are defeatists, plain and simple, and continue to be even as Iraq moves well past their hyperbolic spewage.
With all due respect, you're either a clueless fool or a dishonest partisan hack. You might have a point if you could show a significant portion of Iraq invasion opponents predicted violence would never drop, but I'm confident you can't. That's a straw man and you know it. The real question is what does "winning" mean with respect to Iraq? Taking the cluster-fsck BushCo spawned and getting it down to only 10 times worse than before we invaded rather than its peak of 100 times worse? Woot! Bully for us! Let's pull out the troops and look for a new country to ruin.

No, I'm afraid "winning" in Iraq would require that we somehow obtain something more valuable than the cost: hundreds of thousands of dead men, women, and children, tens of thousands of Americans killed and maimed, upwards of a trillion U.S. dollars borrowed from our kids, a serious blow to America's standing in the world, $4 gasoline (due in great part to the instability we created), and an inflammation of anti-American hatred that is sure to haunt us for decades. In return we got what, exactly? The head of Saddam Hussein and an unstable puppet democracy that could crumble without us. That's not even close to a "win" in my book, but YMMV. The Bush faithful have turned lowering expectations into a lifestyle.

I think it's fantastic things are getting better in Iraq. I hope they continue to improve and that the Iraqi people succeed in establishing a stable democracy. Most of all, I hope we can bring our people home before even one more of them dies. Unfortunately, even that will never make our attack on Iraq morally right, nor worth the awful toll. We lost in Iraq the moment we started destroying the place based on innuendo and lies. Whatever good we eventually salvage from thst won't change that shameful fact.

Well said, Bowfinger. :thumbsup:
Actually, Bowfinger's sour grapes rant pretty much proves my point about the defeatists. He just doesn't seem to realize it and neither do you.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I dunno. We're squeezing and entire orchard for juice to throw into that pit called Social Security and it's still a fruitless endeavor. Yet people complain when we pick one tree and redirect that juice elsewhere?

If Iraq has the ultimate long-term effect that I believe it will, which is to eventually quash all the little tin-pot dictators in the ME, it'll be worth every penny spent.

Bringing topics into this discussion such as SS and trying to use them to justify our expenses in Iraq is not very convincing.

Other than that, what you are hoping is going to happen will not happen. Even if it does to a degree, what you will see is that Iraq will tear itself apart again after we leave given enough time. However, if what you are hoping for actually happens I still do not believe it is worth it by any means. The daily lives of Americans will not notice any change, but we most certainly are being negatively effected now by quite a bit. What you are seeking is an unobtainable goal. Cultures + governments + religions just don't change that quickly. It won't happen.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Don't worry. The anti-war crowd will never admit to being wrong about Iraq. They'll keep spouting the same old rhetoric and sound bytes instead and will deflect, dissemble, and cry over split milk as they always have.

Clearly any success in Iraq just galls them right down to the bone. Despite all their protestations of being labeled "defeatists," the proof of that claim is clear for all to see. They are defeatists, plain and simple, and continue to be even as Iraq moves well past their hyperbolic spewage.
With all due respect, you're either a clueless fool or a dishonest partisan hack. You might have a point if you could show a significant portion of Iraq invasion opponents predicted violence would never drop, but I'm confident you can't. That's a straw man and you know it. The real question is what does "winning" mean with respect to Iraq? Taking the cluster-fsck BushCo spawned and getting it down to only 10 times worse than before we invaded rather than its peak of 100 times worse? Woot! Bully for us! Let's pull out the troops and look for a new country to ruin.

No, I'm afraid "winning" in Iraq would require that we somehow obtain something more valuable than the cost: hundreds of thousands of dead men, women, and children, tens of thousands of Americans killed and maimed, upwards of a trillion U.S. dollars borrowed from our kids, a serious blow to America's standing in the world, $4 gasoline (due in great part to the instability we created), and an inflammation of anti-American hatred that is sure to haunt us for decades. In return we got what, exactly? The head of Saddam Hussein and an unstable puppet democracy that could crumble without us. That's not even close to a "win" in my book, but YMMV. The Bush faithful have turned lowering expectations into a lifestyle.

I think it's fantastic things are getting better in Iraq. I hope they continue to improve and that the Iraqi people succeed in establishing a stable democracy. Most of all, I hope we can bring our people home before even one more of them dies. Unfortunately, even that will never make our attack on Iraq morally right, nor worth the awful toll. We lost in Iraq the moment we started destroying the place based on innuendo and lies. Whatever good we eventually salvage from thst won't change that shameful fact.

Well said, Bowfinger. :thumbsup:
Actually, Bowfinger's sour grapes rant pretty much proves my point about the defeatists. He just doesn't seem to realize it and neither do you.


I don't see success when we can't leave Iraq because it'll all go ape shit crazy. On top of that we have PM of Iraq and the biggest political parties in Iraq all being connected to the Iranian government in some way. WTF kind of success is this? Then we have Bin Laden in the gang living it up in Pakistan's border region.