Is the Surge Working?

Even Al Jazeera quoted McCain

From: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/82E9CCF7-D4FD-4491-8B3D-BA161760154E.htm

 

Yet while McCain was in Iraq demonstrating how safe it was to stroll through the markets of Baghdad , 100 soldies were there to protect him and his entourage.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/01/mccain-iraq-stroll/
Yeah, I'd feel safe too.

 

Only a fool would believe McCain. I guess that counts you in alright.

 

So, we're back to name-calling, eh ?

Terry, you can dish it out, but you cannot take it. Perhaps you should find a blog where you don't get challenged so much.

 

Then do your own research, dude. For every left wing blog that sez it ain't working, I can't find one that sez it is. I ain't there, and neither are you, so I guess niether one of us know for sure, and we probably won't know, because the dems have decided to not let it work. You believe who you want to. You asked for some proof, all you will ever get is opinion, so yer question really isn't fair, is it ?

It should be, "Who thinks the surge is working .?"

 

Why, so you can say something stupid about the source ? No thanx. I'd rather you think I'm a liar.

 

I'm just not interested in putting up blog entries that dispute your opinion, because the source will be the issue. I'm not going to play. Look for yourself, you will find people who are actually over there saying it's working. You don't have to believe them, just like I don't have to believe yours.

Do you have relatives over there ?

 

I find this quote very interesting, and I know what you are trying to say. However, if this were true there are other places infinitely worse than Saddam or Iraq. Why does this "moral justification" apply for Iraq, but not some other place like Sudan? If we can morally justify intervening in another country's affairs under the guise of protecting the innocent then we need to intervene in all countries where the innocent need protection.

 

I don't think I've ever dismissed one of your sources.

I don't care what you think of them, there ARE article, blogs, first-hand accounts that say it is working. I'm not going to post one up just so you can laugh. You can find one or two, I'm sure, all by yourself, and decide if you believe it, or not.

That's what Aslanspal used to say. The service men & women I meet tell me different, and most of them can't wait to go back. So this argument ain't gonna get solved, and we should probably just stop.

 

because the conflict in Irag started in 1991 and never ended until this day. all these years we have only been under a cease fire until Saddam had proven he no longer had WMD's. since he refused to do so after 12 years of cat and mouse we have moved back in under the original conflict. Now if you disagree with the original reasons for going in in 1991 then that is another issue. As far as Sudan is concerned why hasnt the UN made any attmept to step up to the plate. The sole responsibility is not on the US.

 

Yes, the surge is working.

Meanwhile, Al-Quaida in Iraq is killing Sunni
who ban together to expell foreign fighters
from their territory.

AP Press 5 Apr 2007:

 

Same here, Bro. Curtis, both verbally and in writing.

 

Earlier you said that you would rather BIR think you were a liar. Well, this statement confirms that I think you are, at best, twisting the truth.

 

Here are excerpts from a column in the Washington Post confused: ) on the subject -

"The nonexistent troops are flowing into Iraq. And though it is still early and horrible acts of violence continue, there is substantial evidence that the new counterinsurgency strategy, backed by the infusion of new forces, is having a significant effect....

"Some observers are reporting the shift. Iraqi bloggers Mohammed and Omar Fadhil, widely respected for their straight talk, say that "early signs are encouraging." The first impact of the "surge," they write, was psychological. Both friends and foes in Iraq had been convinced, in no small part by the American media, that the United States was preparing to pull out. When the opposite occurred, this alone shifted the dynamic.

"A greater sense of confidence produces many benefits. The number of security tips about insurgents that Iraqi civilians provide has jumped sharply. Stores and marketplaces are reopening in Baghdad, increasing the sense of community. People dislocated by sectarian violence are returning to their homes. As a result, "many Baghdadis feel hopeful again about the future, and the fear of civil war is slowly being replaced by optimism that peace might one day return to this city," the Fadhils report. "This change in mood is something huge by itself."

"There is still violence, as Sunni insurgents and al-Qaeda seek to prove that the surge is not working. However, they are striking at more vulnerable targets in the provinces. Violence is down in Baghdad.

 

I think you missed my point. It has nothing to do with when conflicts started, nor with the UN. I was specifically asking about the idea of some idealistic moral justification to protect the innocent. We cannot pick and choose which innocent are more deserving of our protection if we truly believe in our supposed moral justification. If our leaders were really following a moral code we would not have supported and financed mass murder and torture of innocents in Latin America in the 80's. If any ideology or justification existed then it was supress comunism at the expense of all others innocent or not. I used Sudan as a current example, but I could have substituted any number of countries. Besides even the conflict in the Sudan did not begin overnight. The current mess began in early 2003, but the country itself has been riddled with problems for decades, as have many of the African nations following decolonization. Like I said I understand why the assertion was made, but it was inconsistent and idealistic from the start. It sounds all warm and fuzzy but it does not, nor will it ever, be applicable to the decisions of our government in terms of war. Unless of course one were to argue that our government suddenely developed this overwhelming moral justification when the Iraqui war began, but even then it does not hold water. War is war there is no need to sugar coat the reality of war with some nonexistent moral justification for protecting the majority of the innocent by the "collateral damage" of those innocent in the wrong place at the worng time.