It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Iraq war was won Oct. 13, 2005

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   
That’s right, and our history books will record it this way. But you and I won’t hear about this victory as it should be heard about in the media however. Buts it’s real and no less important. Why aren’t we seeing headlines reading: “WAR WON!” and such? Because the media is too stupid to pick up on it, and the ones that aren’t are simply ignoring it because doom and gloom sells more papers than victory. Heaven forbid the war “cash cow” goes away.

Don’t get me wrong, the fighting is still going on and will continue. Soldiers on both sides will continue to die for a while longer, but the war has already been won, on 10/13/2005. The insurgency has been fundamentally defeated and is in its final death throes.

What am I talking about?
Andrew Longman explains…



…Reports are in that the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni group, and the Sunni Endowment, an Iraqi government related Sunni group, have publicly endorsed the new Iraqi constitution and urged their followers to vote "Yes" on the upcoming constitutional referendum. In the catalog of big facts that will certainly go in almanacs all round with bold type and a list of important players, but it is not the reason the Iraq war ended Thursday. The reason the Iraq war ended Thursday is the motivations that moved these groups to decide that

It is a constant bafflement to some in the West why the insurgent nations, full of former fascists and religious fanatics, often refuse democratic principles. After all, we think, why not just vote in the crazies you love so much? Why be against majority rule if you can just legitimize your madness with votes?

The answer is, of course, that the people who love to machine-gun other people for reasons regarding only the afterlife are, on the whole, a substantial minority. They are the people who would rather rave and fire machine guns than get jobs. Hence they are always opposed to democracy because they know they are not in the majority; they know that they do not speak for the heart of the common man. Average Joe, Average Abdul is not filled with bloodlust all day long…


And the most important observation Andrew has made:



And now here is a new oddity. This week, a group of Sunnis became democrats. By accepting the constitution, you ask? No. Not quite. That's not what I mean. A group of Sunnis became democrats because they believed they would gain influence, numbers and real representation by going to the polls and being voted into office by their people!

Notice the dramatic turn of events: the Sunni block has, for the first time, equated democratic participation with real political power. Remember how furiously they denounced democracy as a farce, as unreal, as something that did not transmit real authority? But today they have decided that it does, and they want in on it. Democracy has gained the mantle, ahead of the barrel of a gun, of transmitting real political power to all factions. The most major faction in the insurgency now thinks that it's in their best interest to participate – this is shocking.


What’s that? The main faction behind the insurgency is split and the majority of them see Democracy as real political power and the only way to achieve their goals? You know what that is folks? That’s a HUGE victory for a democratic Iraq.

And the only way the remaining insurgency can hold on any longer is through foreign support via Syria and Iran. The Iraqis don’t want an insurgency, they never did. And now they have shown the world this by overwhelmingly voting for democracy. Soon the borders will be locked down and support coming from Iran and Syria will dwindle to all but a trickle.

The war has been won decisively, even though battles are still lingering. Remember this story people, as October 13, 2005 will go in the history books as the day Iraq won the war with the help of its coalition friends…





[edit on 20-10-2005 by skippytjc]




posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Your close Skippy but I think it will be in December when they elect officals that the U.N. will declare a sovereign government. That will be the final victory in this war. This is the "Normandy Beach" of this war for Iraq. Great post nontheless, I can't wait till Iraq is operating independently and protecting itself. I wonder if some of these posters will still have a purpose in life once their propagandizing of the U.S. has been taken from them?



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   
I think the highlight victory here is that the Sunni's have figured out that using Democracy is the way to go. This is the victory that will (has) won the war.

The insurgency has two sources of fuel: Sunni participation and foreign influence, the Sunni involvement being the major part. Now that the Sunnis have climbed on and embraced the new democracy, it’s all but over.

I will simplify the point: The war could not be won without Sunni involvement in the new government, the whole thing pivoted on this very point. They got that on October 13th.

Sorry to use this analogy, but I cannot think of a better one: This is like Hiroshima in WWII. The bomb itself didnt end the fighting that day, but it was at the very moment the war was basically won.


[edit on 20-10-2005 by skippytjc]



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   
More or Less Indefinitely!



US ready to stay 10 years in Iraq: Rice

Washington, Oct. 20. (AP): Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday refused to rule out U.S. troops still being in Iraq in 10 years or the possibility that the United States could use military force against neighboring Syria and Iran.

Rice deferred to the decisions of President George W. Bush and military commanders as Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee pressed her for more specifics on the U.S. strategy in Iraq.

Asked specifically whether the United States would have troops in Iraq in five or 10 years, Rice said: "I think that even to try and speculate on how many years from now there will be a certain number of American forces is not appropriate.''

Lawmakers also pressed her on strategy for dealing with Iran and Syria. U.S. officials have accused Syria of allowing foreign fighters to flow across its borders into Iraq and Iran of supporting the insurgency.

www.hindu.com...

Yep - I am sure that US Troops will leave "Soon".



The US Air Force’s senior officer, Gen. John Jumper, stated US warplanes would remain in Iraq to fight resistance forces and protect the American-installed regime "more or less indefinitely."

Gen. Jumper let the cat out of the bag. While President George Bush hints at eventual troop withdrawals, the Pentagon is busy building four major, permanent air bases in Iraq that will require heavy infantry protection.

www.ericmargolis.com...

More or Less Indefinitely?

Hmmmmmmmmmm....



Administration's Tone Signals a Longer, Broader Iraq Conflict

Over time, President Bush told troops at Fort Bragg, N.C., this spring, "the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits, and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world."

But inside the administration, that belief provides less solace than it once did. Senior officials say the intelligence reports flowing over their desks in recent months argue that even if democratic institutions take hold, the insurgency may strengthen. And that possibility has created a quandary for an administration that desperately wants to equate democracy-building with winning the war, but so far has not been able to match the two.

That internal struggle was evident this weekend, as Mr. Bush returned to Washington sounding less celebratory about Iraq's constitutional referendum - whose outcome is suspected but still unknown - than he did after Iraq's elections last January. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking from London on "Fox News Sunday," was somewhat more definitive: "The Sunnis are joining the base of this broad political process," she said. "That will ultimately undo this insurgency. But of course, they can still pull off violent and spectacular attacks."

Mr. Bush's own way of talking about the future, in Iraq and beyond, has undergone a subtle but significant change in recent weeks. In several speeches, he has begun warning that the insurgency is already metastasizing into a far broader struggle to "establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia." While he still predicts victory, he appears to be preparing the country for a struggle of cold war proportions.

It is a very different tone than administration officials sounded in the heady days after Saddam Hussein's fall, and then his capture.

www.nytimes.com...

Yes I am sure that US Forces will pull out from the Middle East...

...sometime in the early 2050...

[edit on 20/10/05 by Souljah]



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Well, wasn't expecting that kind of reaction. Thought you would like to read about what's happening in Afghanistanand the implementation of a democracy they all apparently really want also.


Guess I will "unhijack"..

[edit on 20-10-2005 by andpau66]

[edit on 20-10-2005 by andpau66]



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Mmmm...My post doesn’t seem to mention length of stay or Afghanistan. I’m sorry guys, please stick to the topic. This post is about the Iraqi's victory this past week and the implementation of a democracy they all apparently really want.

Go hijack another thread please.


cjf

posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
More or Less Indefinitely!


I have attempted to verify the source as displayed, “The Hindu”…..

None of what is quoted/stated can be traced back to an AP subscriber to my knowledge……please read as follows, correct accordingly:

Your source (excerpt):



Washington, Oct. 20. (AP): Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday refused to rule out U.S. troops still being in Iraq in 10 years or the possibility that the United States could use military force against neighboring Syria and Iran.

Rice deferred to the decisions of President George W. Bush and military commanders as Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee pressed her for more specifics on the U.S. strategy in Iraq.


Linkable authorized AP article:



WASHINGTON (AP) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declined on Wednesday to rule out American forces still being needed in Iraq a decade from now. Senators warned that the Bush administration must play it straight with the public or risk losing public support for the war.

Pushed by senators from both parties to define the limits of U.S. involvement in Iraq and the Middle East, Rice also declined to rule out the use of military force in Iran or Syria, although she said the administration prefers diplomacy.

"I don't think the president ever takes any of his options off the table concerning anything to do with military force," Rice said.
(Link via AP site)


Quite different, Hmmmmmm.....comapair the entire two articles, what is 'different'? Perhaps an update?

I am also trying to understand why certain “individuals” would even chance to believe Iraq would be a swift occupation and transiion while in fact the US as a nation has been told many, many times and fully understands this is going to be a lengthy campaign.

If not, please explain why would the Iraq campaign and transition be a simple one?

Eric Margolis, well, he has an opinion (many) and one which can be often differed to non-fact and exageration fairly easily.

As for David E. Sanger’s opinion as quoted, inside the NY Times in 2002 and 2003 he was singing an entirely different tune and must have forgotten his op/ed with Shanker, “Why War?” and the difficulties therein.
(Link)


Originally posted by Souljah
...sometime in the early 2050...


Another exaggeration, eh?......or is it just another 'intended' stretch?

A change turning in tide toward commitment in federalism/democracy in Iraq, even the scent of a possible coalition minor political victory is enough to begin the reeling of so many postured individuals/governments/schools of thought. Too soon to judge so swiftly, perhaps.


.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Good post, Skippy.
I can't argue with any of it.

Many will deny this, but I'm certain that the consistent message that has come from the administration irt staying the course and not pulling out of Iraq, has shown the insurgency that car bombs and beheadings will not stop us. They finally realized the truth that was laying there all along, that they could gain power by playing the political game.

Hopefully our own politicians will get the picture now!



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Great post


The fact is, the Iraq and her ally the US are winning the war. This doesn't mean the US will have a withdraw anytime soon - to the contrary. Everyone has know, and been told, that this will be a multi decade endevor, with a very gradual withdraw.

Using the war analogy, I would compare this to the Russian front in WWII. We are now marching to Berlin



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Lets not forget that even after the Allies took Berlin, there were "insurgent" like activities going on. Yes, we stayed. We had too. Russia, at the time, had a nasty habit of Annexing nations. We stayed to prevent that.

If you think we will pull out you are wrong. You need to look at the bigger picture, every country we liberated in WWII we rebuilt. We also put in place democratic societies.

This is a War, a war on Terrorism. Don't buy what the media feeds you. I'm not talking about the average sheep farmer with an AK, I am talking about Governments that employ Terrorism to stay in power.

Syria is next.

We've liberated three countries people, Lebannon (peacefully), Afghanistan and now Iraq. We didn't go it alone, it took the spirit and resiliance of the citizens in those countries, our allies as well as American sacrifices. Germany & France kicked and screamed the whole way, eventually proving that they are selfish. But this is good. This shows that these Governments, which we helped found, are not American puppets.

Syria cannot be left to her own devices; she assasinates those who wish to persue freedom and has attempted to undermine the Iraqi people.

Our job isn't done yet.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 06:28 AM
link   
"democracy" and "liberation" seem to be a popular words for colonization these days


Im not worried, my country has been peacefully asimilated by the dark side and its capitalistic machinery....people are getting dumber and dumber each day...fells like im living in USAs 5x state.


There will never be peace in Iraq, becouse your leaders dont want peace in Iraq. The business is just too good. Billions of $ of your money dissapears there. Take that to the bank.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   
"The war is won" ?


Are you familiar with the concept of a quagmire?

The US is going no better in Iraq than it did in Vietnam (a war they lost, just to remind everyone).

The only way US troops are to come back from Iraq, is in boxes.
Either that or a "tactical withdrawl" of all US forces from the entire country.

[edit on 21-10-2005 by Manincloak]



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manincloak
"The war is won" ?


Are you familiar with the concept of a quagmire?

The US is going no better in Iraq than it did in Vietnam (a war they lost, just to remind everyone).

The only way US troops are to come back from Iraq, is in boxes.
Either that or a "tactical withdrawl" of all US forces from the entire country.

[edit on 21-10-2005 by Manincloak]


Awesome! Your complete ignorance of the reality of the situation is incredible!

It is hardly a "quagmire", what with all the new infrastructure being built and improved. More electricity, more clean water, more medical facilities and medical personnel, and personal freedoms never before known in Iraq.

But let you compare it to Vietnam, and all is lost....of course, if you would bother researching the global impact of our efforts in Vietnam, you would see that we set back, stalled, and eventually defeated Soviet style Communism from expanding at a near unstoppable rate.

Unless, of course, liberal hate-monger rhetoric is easier for you.


Skippy! As usual, a great post
I do believe I shall cast my very first vote for you....because you "get it".



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManincloakAre you familiar with the concept of a quagmire?


....are you?

difficulty dont equal loss last i saw, and its much better than vietnam, i dont see units being slaughtered regularly, bases being destroyed or any aircraft being shot down in large numbers or our forces resorting to pillaging in desperation.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   
yea apparently iraq doesnt know how messed up democracy really is. they will figure it out eventually though when their politicians are gettings rich off them then they realize "now instead of one man in control and getting rich, weve got a bunch of them and dont know whos good or bad" because in the democratic system, you can slip by unnoticed, since there are so many government officials. democracy was never really a sucess, it was just a temporary solution to the problem of other ways of governing that werent working.

anyway dont believe everything the media says because unless your over there how do you know they arent just blatently lying to your face. o they want democracy...(well that small percent of them anyway) and look the people who hated democracy say "democracy isnt bad, we thought wrong!" and hey i bet next iran will say "you know what US, your right, we are wrong for wanting to have any military power. i think that you guys should come over and install your wonderful ways in our country as well!"



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   
This is merely a start, but a good start. I'm hopeful that Iraq will be able to pull itself together and face the terrorists. Also, if the constitution is ratified, by a majority of Iraqis, it will show that the insurgency really stands for nothing and they will most likely lose support.

[edit on 21-10-2005 by RK_Pr0t0c0l]



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Yep - I am sure that US Troops will leave "Soon".

Yes I am sure that US Forces will pull out from the Middle East...

...sometime in the early 2050...



Most likely that will be the case. But let's not forget that US has had troops in Japan since WII. The number of troops will definitely decrease, leaving only a couple thousand to help out the Iraqis.

The US won't also be stupid enough to simply take off and make appear like nothing has happened. The US I'm very sure will build bases in Iraq to have a very important foothold in the region.

And sorry about the double post. I wish I could merge the two posts, but I don't know how.


[edit on 21-10-2005 by RK_Pr0t0c0l]



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
I wish I could share your optimism about events in Iraq, but I can't because the Sunnis are not represented properly yet. The ratification of the constitution--which appears imminent--will not change the fundamental political realities. The elections to come in December will be the first time that democracy will have a fighting chance there. If the country starts coming together after those elections then democracy will have won, if not, civil war may ensue. The Sunni concerns about the southern Shiites is not a case of paranoia, the Iranians really do have more influence there than is healthy for the country and I don't really think anyone really questions that the Kurds would love to split off and form their own country. If the Sunnis and the central Shiites can come together then a viable country, nay, a very successful country, is possible because the Kurds will go along with it as long as they feel they are part of it.

There is indeed reason for optimism just now, but much hard political wrangling still remains to be done before democracy can truely say it won.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 01:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Army
It is hardly a "quagmire", what with all the new infrastructure being built and improved. More electricity, more clean water, more medical facilities and medical personnel, and personal freedoms never before known in Iraq.


That has nothing to do with anything.
And if infrastructure didn't get destroyed in the first place, there wouldn't be any need to replace it...


Originally posted by Army
But let you compare it to Vietnam, and all is lost....of course, if you would bother researching the global impact of our efforts in Vietnam, you would see that we set back, stalled, and eventually defeated Soviet style Communism from expanding at a near unstoppable rate.


Load of rubbish.



By April, the weakened South Vietnamese Army had collapsed on all fronts. The powerful PAVN offensive forced South Vietnamese troops on a bloody retreat that ended up as a hopeless siege at Xuan-loc, a city 40 miles from Saigon, and the last South Vietnamese defense line before Saigon. On April 21, the defense of Xuan-loc collapsed and PAVN troops and tanks rapidly advanced to Saigon. On April 27, 100,000 PAVN troops encircled Saigon, which was to be defended by 30,000 ARVN troops. On April 29, the U.S. launched Option IV, the largest helicopter evacuation in history. Chaos, unrest, and panic ensued as hectic Vietnamese scrambled to leave Saigon before it was too late. Helicopters began evacuating from the U.S. embassy and the airport. Evacuations were held to the last minute because U.S. Ambassador Martin thought Saigon could be held and defended. The operation began in an atmosphere of desperation as hysterical mobs of South Vietnamese raced to takeoff spots designated to evacuate, many yelling to be saved. Martin had pleaded to the U.S. government to send $700 million in emergency aid to South Vietnam in order to bolster the Saigon regime's ability to fight and to mobilize fresh South Vietnamese units. But the plea was rejected. Many Americans felt the Saigon government would meet certain collapse. President Ford gave a speech on April 23, declaring the end of the Vietnam War and the end of all American aid to the Saigon regime. The helicopter evacuation continued all day and night while PAVN tanks reached the outskirts of Saigon. In the early hours of April 30, the last U.S. Marines left the embassy as hectic Vietnamese breached the embassy perimeter and raided the place. PAVN T-54 tanks moved into Saigon. The South Vietnamese resistance was light. Tank skirmishes began as ARVN M-41 tanks attacked the heavily armored Soviet T-34 tanks. PAVN troops soon dashed to capture the U.S. embassy, the government army garrison, the police headquarters, radio station, presidential palace, and other vital targets. The PAVN encountered greater than expected resistance as small pockets of ARVN resistance continued. By now, the helicopter evacuations that had evacuated 7,000 American and Vietnamese had ended. The presidential palace was captured and the Vietcong flag waved victoriously over it. President Duong Van Minh surrendered Saigon to PAVN colonel Bui Tin. The surrender came over the radio as Minh ordered South Vietnamese forces to lay down their weapons. Columns of South Vietnamese troops came out of defensive positions and surrendered. Saigon fell on April 30, 1975. As for the Americans, many stayed in South Vietnam but by May 1, 1975 most Americans had fled, leaving the city of Saigon forever. Finally, despite the fact that the United States military had decisively won most major engagements, and had withdrawn troops from the country two years earlier following a peace accord, the Vietnam War is popularly considered America's most humiliating defeat, with over 58,000 dead and many left severely injured. As for the people of South Vietnam, over a million ARVN soldiers died in the 30-year conflict.


USA lost the Vietnam war and removed all that was left of their forces there, because they lost, and if they didn't leave they would die. Or surrender and be PoW.

The only thing USA acheived in Vietnam was the murder of countless civilians with napalm.

As for Iraq, the only person ignorant here is you.
Outside the "green zone" (which isn't all that safe in itself) there is constant crime, theft, murder, constant shootouts and such.

The media are only allowed to go in certain places, and only allowed to report on certain things, and that's why so many americans and the rest of the world are brainwashed by what's really happening in iraq.

They don't report on thousands of children and civilians dieing, they don't report on coalition troops committing crimes of war, they don't report on the fierce battles that happen in iraq all the time between the coalition and saddam loyalists.

Iraq is extremely unsafe, US troops just as those from other countries involved die all the time, and little if any progress is being made to deal with the situation, and frankly I don't see how this conflict can ever result in victory, unless US brings 1 million troops to iraq and takes over the whole country.

And even then.....

[edit on 22-10-2005 by Manincloak]

[edit on 22-10-2005 by Manincloak]



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 02:47 AM
link   
So the violence is coming to an end? If only the numbers showed that.

icasualties.org...


There was a dip in the coalition casualty rate last month, but its up again in October. Once the rate goes WAY down, and stays down, then claims of the violence coming to an end can be made.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join