How Do We Know That the War is Going Well?

[Ps104_33]

Because its casualties havent been splashed all over the front page of the main stream newspapers and cable news shows.

"The total number of enemy attacks has fallen for four consecutive months, and has now reached levels last seen before the February 2006 Samarra mosque bombing. IED explosions have plummeted to late-2004 levels. Iraqi civilian casualties, which peaked at 3,000 in the month of December 2006, are now below 1,000 for the second straight month. The number of coalition soldiers killed in action has fallen for five straight months and is now at the lowest level since February 2004."

http://townhall.com/Columnists/RichLowry/2007/11/12/quiet_victory

 

[Palatka51]

Because its casualties havent been splashed all over the front page of the main stream newspapers and cable news shows.

"The total number of enemy attacks has fallen for four consecutive months, and has now reached levels last seen before the February 2006 Samarra mosque bombing. IED explosions have plummeted to late-2004 levels. Iraqi civilian casualties, which peaked at 3,000 in the month of December 2006, are now below 1,000 for the second straight month. The number of coalition soldiers killed in action has fallen for five straight months and is now at the lowest level since February 2004."

http://townhall.com/Columnists/RichLowry/2007/11/12/quiet_victory

Could it be attributed to President Bush's rhetoric against Iran and it's supply of arms to insurgents? As well as the great job our brave troops are doing to assuage these these attacks?

 

[carpro]

Because its casualties havent been splashed all over the front page of the main stream newspapers and cable news shows.

"The total number of enemy attacks has fallen for four consecutive months, and has now reached levels last seen before the February 2006 Samarra mosque bombing. IED explosions have plummeted to late-2004 levels. Iraqi civilian casualties, which peaked at 3,000 in the month of December 2006, are now below 1,000 for the second straight month. The number of coalition soldiers killed in action has fallen for five straight months and is now at the lowest level since February 2004."

http://townhall.com/Columnists/RichLowry/2007/11/12/quiet_victory

Democrats consider this as evidence that it's time to surrender.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Regardless, we are stuck there, with no end in sight. Some Democrats would like for us to leave, but there is no way out. This is a quagmire that will bleed us dry economically.

 

[KenH]

Because its casualties havent been splashed all over the front page of the main stream newspapers and cable news shows.

This is true and good news.

 

[KenH]

This is a quagmire that will bleed us dry economically.

This is true and bad news.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Because its casualties havent been splashed all over the front page of the main stream newspapers and cable news shows.

The war is going better, not necessarily "well." As Baptist in Richmond aptly noted:

1) We're stuck.

2) We're running out or cash.

And I'd add three other points:

3) Even after the "surge" is recalled, we still have enormous pressure on our military . (Too few soldiers are doing too much work: strategically we're spread thin.)

4) Civil unrest related to our presence in Iraq is spilling over into other areas of the Middle East due to Iraqi refugees; plus Islamic rioting in Pakistan.

5) The war has served as the single most successful recruiting tool for terrorists in modern history.

 

[saturneptune]

What is going to be ironic is if a Democrat wins next year, they are going to find what Ivon said above to be true: there is no way out like they were promising in the campaign. Whoever is elected, we will be there a while, so we might as well be grateful when things so well, for the better things go, the better chance of departure.

The time to stay out of a prolonged war is before getting involved.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

From MSNBC:
The economic costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are estimated to total $1.6 trillion — roughly double the amount the White House has requested thus far, according to a new report by Democrats on Congress' Joint Economic Committee. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21766479/]

If you read further, you will notice:

Future economic costs would be even greater. The report estimated that both wars would cost $3.5 trillion between 2003 and 2017. Under that scenario, it would cost a family of four $46,400, the report said.

2017?
Sounds like the Democrats are learning that this is a quagmire.

 

[NiteShift]

Just bring the troops home from Korea & Germany and we are even.

 

[carpro]

If you read further, you will notice:

Quote:
Future economic costs would be even greater. The report estimated that both wars would cost $3.5 trillion between 2003 and 2017. Under that scenario, it would cost a family of four $46,400, the report said.

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

President John F. Kennedy

 

[JamieinNH]

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

President John F. Kennedy

Can you tell me what Nation are we fighting against?

Jamie

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

President John F. Kennedy

Nation or otherwise.

 

[JamieinNH]

Nation or otherwise.

That's not the quote... I just want to know what Nation we are fighting. Don't twist the quote to fit your needs...

Jamie

 

[saturneptune]

That's not the quote... I just want to know what Nation we are fighting. Don't twist the quote to fit your needs...

Jamie

He cannot tell you what nation we are fighting, because we are not fighting a nation.

 

[carpro]

He cannot tell you what nation we are fighting, because we are not fighting a nation.

Not only that.

As far as JFKs quote is concerned , it doesn't matter.

It's just a feeble attempt by Jamie at misdirection.

 

[JamieinNH]

As far as JFKs quote is concerned , it doesn't matter.

I am sorry, but it does matter. The quote you used does not apply unless you can tell me of a Nation we are fighting. I know you're the seeker of truth, so I am sure you won't mind answering the question.

It's just a feeble attempt by Jamie at misdirection.

It is not a feeble attempt at anything other than showing that your quote does not fit in this case.

We are not at war with any Nation. If you want to state we are at war against terrorism, then you may, but we are NOT fighting any Nation.

JFK's quote was clear in what it said and what it meant. We hadn't created the 'cool' slogan of "Fighting the War on Terrorism" when JFK was alive.

Now, would you care to tell me what Nation we are fighting or would you like to state that the quote you used doesn't fit in this case.

Jamie

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Just bring the troops home from Korea & Germany and we are even.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

 

[carpro]

I am sorry, but it does matter. The quote you used does not apply unless you can tell me of a Nation we are fighting. I know you're the seeker of truth, so I am sure you won't mind answering the question.

Jamie

Sorry Jamie. You need to read his words again and pay attention this time. "War" is not mentioned at all.

The quote applies perfectly except to democrats who like to put a dollar value on liberty.

 

[JamieinNH]

Sorry Jamie. You need to read his words again and pay attention this time. "War" is not mentioned at all.

Nice deflection... Well almost. It was YOU that brought this quote into a thread that was talking about the War, so you made it imply that it had something to do with the war.

I only asked a question to which you can't answer. Which Nation are we fighting? Maybe it's you who need to pay attention to the quotes you randomly use in a thread, where the quote don't match the content of the thread.

Want to try again and answer the question?

The quote applies perfectly except to democrats who like to put a dollar value on liberty.

Please explain how you think it applies to this war in Iraq.

Was JFK talking about a war per sec, or that very fact that we could now kill off an entire country or even the world with the new found power of the nuclear age?

You see, I think JFK was thinking on a bigger scale than you're wanting his quote to fit. He wanted peace, not war and yet you want it to apply to a war that was won already.

You can try to paint yourself out of this corner all you want, but you will never make that quote fit this thread.

Jamie