I don't believe it

[SmokinDVM]

You say that my flawed premise is that we are not fighting terrorists in Iraq. You say that 99% of the population wants us out. 99%? Why not just round it to 100%? I understand that you exaggerated the number for effect., which is just what the opponents of Bush are doing. I don’t know what the real number is, but, thinking it through, I believe if it were very high, the “insurgents” would be attacking and killing more of us instead of their own people. They keep killing themselves, yet the democrats and news pendants want us to believe that they are fighting in a concertred and united effort to get us out. How does what we are seeing and what they are saying make any sense?

Yes, you’re probably right, it’s probably closer to 100%. I was using the same premise as “4 out of 5 Dentists say brushing helps prevent cavities”. There’s always someone that just has to be contrary.
Who said it was a concerted and united effort? It’s a loosely, if even that much, connected group of people who are fighting an urban guerilla type of war. Just because they don’t have the firepower to engage us in direct combat doesn’t mean they don’t want us out. I believe the count of dead U.S. Soldiers in Iraq, in the first 13 days of Aug. 2006, is at 23, with more than 110 wounded. I’d have to say they’re still trying to kill our boys.

So, let’s reason something else out for a minute. On one hand democratic spin tells us that there are no terrorist strongholds in Iraq, only insurgents fighting a civil war, and on the other they tell us that American presence in Iraq is only making things worse by increasing the number of terrorists operating out of Iraq due to Bush’s failed policies. Which is it? The fact is that we continue to root out terrorist leaders in Iraq, not the least being Al Zarquai himself. Opinions continue to dribble in that terrorists are flocking to Iraq to fight the Americans and that the Bush policy is making things worse, but that seems to be losing its punch. So now we are being told that they are fighting a civil war and that the vast majority of Iraqi’s don’t want us there. Well, my conclusion is that as long as we continue to find, capture and kill the high level members of terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda in Iraq, then they must still be there.

We’re not talking about terrorists operating out of Iraq, we’re talking about the terrorists being created/recruited in the entire Middle East. Al Zarqawi wasn’t even considered a part of Al Qaeda until the war in Iraq started. Al Qaeda considered him a threat to Bin Laden and other leaders of their group. It’s even been considered by the Intelligence Agencies of some Countries, not the US of course, that Al Zarqawi was given up by Al Qaeda. So the huge number of terrorist leaders we’ve killed or captured in Iraq equals exactly ½.
The real terrorists aren’t “flocking” into Iraq to fight the US, they’re plotting attacks on London and Madrid.

Do I believe that “stay the course” is working? Think it out. Evidence so far says that it is. The presence in Iraq is only one part of it, and as stated above, I believe we still need to be there in force. We haven't been successfully attacked since 9/11 despite attempts by our enemies, and there have been several cells rounded up in this and other countries due to intelligence from the CIA, FBI and Homeland Security. Are they talking to each other? Yes. Is it working? It sure seems to be. I don’t know, and I don't know if anybody knows, how many attacks were thwarted in this country because these cells were broken up, but common sense and logic dictates that it must have been a few.

If there were ANY REAL terrorist cells or plots broken up in the U.S. the neocons would be crowing about them endlessly. There isn’t any evidence that anything the neocons have done is working. Could you please provide evidence of these attempted attacks? I’ve only seen a couple reports that were quickly shown to be nothing more than continued neocon bullshit.
Common sense and logic dictate no such thing. I think it much more likely that we haven’t had a major attack in the U.S. because no ones made a serious attempt.

I do not confuse the “war” in Iraq with the war on terrorism. Iraq has a fledgling government elected by the majority of the people of Iraq through legal elections which we helped along after Saddam’s downfall. We most certainly have an interest in having that new government succeed. We are not at war with Iraq. We are defending their government until they get to the point where they can defend themselves. Concurrently, we are rooting out the terrorist strongholds that still exist in Iraq intent on defeating the newly elected government for the purpose of keeping democracy out of the Middle East. I keep hearing that there is a “civil war” going on in Iraq, but I don’t see it. I don’t see factions breaking off and seceding from the government, nor do I see separate governments or borders forming. I see terrorists (or insurgents if you prefer) trying to overturn the will and the resolve of the people of Iraq with suicide bombings, car bombs, kidnappings and brutal murders. And as I said before, until their government is strong enough to continue weeding out terrorists (insurgents) we need to keep our presence there or risk the newly elected (by the Iraqi people, not the Bush administration) government being defeated by our enemies. How long can we maintain our presence? Given that the government would more than likely crumble if we left too soon, I would say as long as we have to.

They’ve had 3 years to develop a security force to protect themselves. How many units of Iraqi’s are ready to assume control of security in any section of Iraq? Exactly NONE. Why is it that it takes 13 weeks to prepare a U.S. Army trainee for combat, but we can’t train a single unit of Iraqi’s for such in 3 years?
I do see a civil war breaking out in Iraq, maybe not along strictly political lines, but definitely along religious ones. Sunni-Shiite violence is a common and ever increasing occurrence in Iraq.
We’re not “weeding” out anybody by being in Iraq. Our continued presence only serves to fuel the violence.
The U.S. Government doesn’t give 2 shits about democracy in the Middle East. If they did care, they wouldn’t have sat on their hands concerning Lebanon. They were a functioning, however young, Democracy, even without our presence there.

Do I think we are winning friends in Iraq and around the world because of our presence in Iraq? Well, it seems to me that no matter what we do, there will be those in the world who are going to hate us anyway. It’s kind of like hating the rich because they are rich. The WTC was attacked long before we went into Iraq, and not by those who loved us. And frankly, I really don’t give a shit about the French. They are still pissed off over the fact that their special contracts with Iraq to obtain cheap oil has been destroyed. We are at war. I won’t minimize the fact that there are those who have attacked and killed us in the past and will persist in their efforts far into the future just so we can be popular in a world that depends on US soldiers and US lives for their protection.

It’s called DIPLOMACY. Most Countries practice it, as we did prior to our present chickenhawk administration, and it really works. And don’t start about stupid contracts with Iraq for oil. Darth Cheney himself had been dealing illegally with Iraq through French based holdings of the Carlyl Group, and Haliburton.
What you’re doing is minimizing the value of U.S. Soldiers lives, by linking terrorist activities with military action in a country that was NEVER a threat to the U.S. in any way. When you repeat stupid neocon drivel, like linking Iraq with the WTC attack, you’re insulting my intelligence, and insulting every single person who has lost their life in both the WTC, and the conflict in Iraq.
One last time, I hope. Our presence in Iraq does NOTHING to deter terrorist activity anywhere else in the World.

Am I willing to “sacrifice” the next generation? That’s one of those very difficult questions asked on polls and in political speeches that turn you into a heartless ogre if you don’t answer it in a particular way. So let me rephrase it. Are you willing to sit back and let our country be attacked so that our military remains safe and sound? The military fight wars, and people die in wars. That's what war is about. Past generations have paid the ultimate sacrifice to preserve and protect our freedoms and way of life. As long as our country needs to be protected, our soldiers will risk paying the ultimate sacrifice. Is there another way? If so, enlighten me.

Those two questions have nothing in common. Terrorist attacks on the U.S. have nothing to do with our Military. If a Country attacks us, our Military should be involved. Terrorists are not Countries, they are criminals, and should be treated as such. Our Intelligence Services and Law Enforcement, should be used to hunt and eliminate these criminals, not the Military.
Are you trying to compare what’s going on in Iraq with WWII or similar? Iraq has nothing to do with protecting our freedoms or our way of life. If you were really concerned with our freedoms and way of life, you might actual realize that this admins response to 9/11 has allowed the terrorists to win already. Our way of life is changing. Our freedoms are being rolled back. Our rights are being trampled on. The terrorists have accomplished at least part of their mission, and are laughing at us now.