Anti-war Democrat Murtha Says the Surge is Working

reply to post by Dr Love


That was due to Turkey's refusal to allow a northern front during the initial assault, resulting in a smaller footprint than the Generals wanted(not because they wanted that size element, or felt it optimal).

Originally posted by BlueRaja
The American Revolution didn't happen over night neither...

That's true.

Maybe it would have been quicker if another country invaded and blew up our cities, occupied the colonies and demanded we change everything we knew immediately to their superior system. They could even draw up the plans for the future States. We could even have used the profits made from our own natural resources to help cover the cost of the damage they did. Pick up the pieces and "step to the plate".

Would have been better than the gradual understanding of what we needed to become as a unified nation for ourselves. The time to fully appreciate the changes needed and the solidarity of the people that would come with that.

The American revolution, microwaved.

A real time saver.

reply to post by lee anoma


The point I was making was that prior to the Revolution, America had never tried it's system of government(nor had any other country), and had to make it up as it went(i.e. learning curve). The Iraqis will have a learning curve too.

THIS JUST IN: Reid says sure NOT working.

Reid pushes back on Iraq optimism

Democrats are increasingly bailing on their previously held view that the troop surge in Iraq has been a "failure," but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid isn't ready to jump on the bandwagon with other Democrats who say the surge has worked.

(snip)

"The surge hasn't accomplished its goals," "... We're involved, still, in an intractable civil war."
Politico.com

You quote a group you label as "flip-flopper's" to prove a point about achievements in Iraq? What was the point of this then exactly if you yourself devalue their statements?

You proved nothing.

To say the quell in violence is %100 down to the Surge is quite ridiculous. The reason the violence has dramatically fallen is down to the mahdi army ceasefire. The Surge has helped but the reason for the stability is that the people of Iraq are beginning to help themselves.

I find my picture replaced
Maybe that is the American style of "liberty of speech".

Originally posted by paul76
To say the quell in violence is %100 down to the Surge is quite ridiculous. The reason the violence has dramatically fallen is down to the mahdi army ceasefire. The Surge has helped but the reason for the stability is that the people of Iraq are beginning to help themselves.

And did the surge contribute to the mahdi army wanting a ceasefire (to avoid all being killed)? And did the surge induced drop in violence help the iraqi people come out and start helping themselves?

Many think that's exactly what has happened - in cluding leading democrat critics of the war.

reply to post by BlueRaja


...there aren't more positive stories than negative.
there are millions of negative stories
1 for each death
1 for each maiming
1 for each person that has to see refuge abroad
1 for each case of malnutrition
1 for each child that can't get access to good water
etc etc

and then there are the straight up breaches of international law...
like when we attacked a hospital in fallujah (it's illegal to attack hospitals under international law).. and then we PRAISED THE ATTACK IN THE MEDIA
...or reducing fallujah to rubble, that's wanton destruction.
or the singular act of aggression...

it's odd. we think ourselves great for spreading "democracy"
how can you spread democracy?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


You need to read up on the laws of land warfare with regards to the hospital comment. Protected sites only keep their status if they're being used for their intended purpose. If a hospital ceases to function as a hospital, and becomes a base for insurgents to operate from, it becomes a legitimate target, as do schools, religious and historic sites, etc... It's just like you can't use ambulances to transport combatants, as that's against the laws of warfare. They become military targets at that point. By the way, I was in Fallujah when it was retaken, so spare me the commentary from you've read about the assault. You're also mistaken with regards to positive stories going on in Iraq. You never hear about them, because they aren't sensational or sexy to report about, not because they aren't occurring.

It is working... Also the media is finally stepping aside and things are starting to calm down over there. Is it still bad? Yes, but not like it was.

reply to post by gs001


Ten to one odds that scene you posted is not somethig "our guys" did... Wanna take me up on that one?



[edit on 5-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

reply to post by BlueRaja


the hospital was still functioning as a hospital, civilians were still being treated there, many from wounds inflicted by the wanton destruction the US took part in with fallujah.

how about this, read "failed states" by noam chomsky, and open up your little world view a bit.

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth


i could post you plenty of things that "our guys" did if you want...

like the death of pat tillman, a great example of a brave anti-war atheist still in the foxhole.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


With all due respect to the esteemed Mr. Chomsky, he wasn't there. Extraordinary lengths were gone to in preventing collateral damage, while limiting friendly casualties. There were countless instances where Iraqis were confounded at these lengths we'd go to, when in some cases it would've been simple to simply blow the crap out of something and be done with it.

By the way, was it a western source for that info, or was it Al Jazeera reporting this info?

[edit on 5-12-2007 by BlueRaja]

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

With all due respect to the esteemed Mr. Chomsky, he wasn't there.

the old "he wasn't there" argument...
still a matter of international law, whether or not he was there.

Extraordinary lengths were gone to in preventing collateral damage, while limiting friendly casualties. There were countless instances where Iraqis were confounded at these lengths we'd go to, when in some cases it would've been simple to simply blow the crap out of something and be done with it.

this is irrelevant, we still breached international law...
as a side note, this breach caused the death of one of the patients there (he died under a collapsed portion of the building)
now, under US law, a breach of international law that results in the death of a civilian would be punished by the execution of the highest commanding officer...since bush gave fallujah the go ahead, he's the one that would be punished (i believe by hanging)

also... we're not going to the lengths just to be nice, think of the nature of this war. we're going to these lengths so we have as many people to interrogate as possible.

By the way, was it a western source for that info, or was it Al Jazeera reporting this info?

oh, the trite (and idiotic) argument about whether or not the source was al jazeera
actually, the source was an embedded reporter who had no idea about international law... so the article praised the capture of the hospital. i believe the praise was in a little paper known as the new york times...

and al jazeera is actually a credible news source. could you show me an instance of al jazeera being otherwise?

as i said in my first post, i am happy to admit that since the installation of the surge in iraq there have been improvements; however i think it is dubious, at least, for people to come out and make the claim that the war is no longer an issue and that the nay sayer dems will have to find another issue with which to dupe the American people.

should there not have been order YEARS ago? am i mistaken or were we told we would be "greeted as liberators"? i am mistaken or did dick cheney say in 2005 that the insurgents were in their last throws? you all do realize we have been at war with iraq longer than we were in WWII, you all do remember hitler dont you?

sure we have seen improvements since the surge, no one can contest that based on the information the Military gives us. but that does not mean the war is no longer an issue. saying so is willfully ignorant. besides this "calm" has not lasted long enough for us to be sure it will stick.

iraq is a fiasco that extends beyond petty politics. it has ruined thousands of lives, bankrupt our country, adn diminished our stature in the world. yee haw politics suck....

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


The point is- I was there. The go ahead was given by the Iraqis-

www.commondreams.org...

US marine officers say the full-scale attack will go ahead only once Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has given the order.

"The window really is closing for a peaceful settlement," Mr Allawi said on Friday after meeting EU leaders in Brussels.

In a letter to the leaders of the US, UK and Iraq, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan warned that the use of force risked alienating Iraqis when their support for elections was vital.

But Mr Allawi called the letter "confused". He said if Mr Annan thought he could prevent insurgents in Falluja from "inflicting damage and killing", he was welcome to try.


Additionally, you're misinterpreting the laws of land warfare. The standard with regards to collateral damage is not 0%, with regards to military necessity. The standard is to take as many precautions as possible, and not inflict unnecessary casualties, and still complete the mission. The hospital in Fallujah had been taken over by Al Qaeda/Zarqawi's forces, as they knew it was a protected site. They were storing weapons, planning and staging attacks, living, etc.. at the hospital. This made the hospital a legitimate target, and if there were others there, that's regrettable.

en.wikipedia.org...

Military necessity, along with distinction, and proportionality, are three important principles of international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict.

Military necessity is governed by several constraints: An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective,[1] and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[1] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).



Furthermore, if you accept Al Jazeera as anything other than a propaganda mouth piece for any number of anti-west, anti-Israel, proterror writers, then I don't think we're ever gonna be able to come to an agreement.

Further info supporting the OP:

MSNBC Article

The past several election campaigns have largely played out in reaction to the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the war in Iraq. But now, said Democratic pollster Pete Brodnitz, “the war seems more stable, and in the meantime the economic situation seems less stable.”


He added that unlike the war, domestic issues are areas “where a candidate can really be responsible for concrete solutions.”

As I said originally, like it or not, the surge is helping take away the Iraq war as a campaign issue from the democrats.



[edit on 12/12/2007 by centurion1211]

hmmm...

One thing is certain about the Iraq war: It has cost a lot more than advertised. In fact, the tab grows by at least $200 million each and every day.

link

don't you think this will be part of the discussion of our economic woes?

we will see, you could e right, but i dont think that the iraq war is going to go away. the american people are sick and tired of the war and want it to end. although the violence is down we are still loosing soldiers, we are still loosing money, we are still loosing respect. sure, the war may not be the central issue of the election, but there is no ignoring the elephant in the room.

U.S. paid $32M for Iraqi base that wasn't built link

Pelosi: Republicans 'Like' Iraq War link

Majority Of Military Families Disapprove Of Bush, Handling Of War link

just a few stories from the last few weeks.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
[

like the death of pat tillman, a great example of a brave anti-war atheist still in the foxhole.

You see, that's the bull# I'm talking about, Madness, you always have to bring your atheism into every #ing topic. Why? You piss me off, to be honest..

[edit on 15-12-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]