• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the USA ready for a shock?

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ready for a shock? Below is an article from the London Times about our military. Interesting, it is! Our media coverage is shameful!

Winning Isn't News

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Iraq: What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn't tell the American public? Apparently, we have to rely on a British newspaper for the news that we've defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq .



London's Sunday Times called it "the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror." A terrorist force that once numbered more than 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions of Iraq, has over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200 fighters, backed against the wall in the northern city of Mosul.



The destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) is one of the most unlikely and unforeseen events in the long history of American warfare. We can thank President Bush's surge strategy, in which he bucked both Republican and Democratic leaders in Washington by increasing our forces there instead of surrendering.



We can also thank the leadership of the new general he placed in charge there, David Petraeus, who may be the foremost expert in the world on counter-insurgency warfare. And we can thank those serving in our military in Iraq who engaged local Iraqi tribal leaders and convinced them America was their friend and AQI their enemy.



Al-Qaida's loss of the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis began in Anbar Province , which had been written off as a basket case, and spread out from there.



Now, in Operation Lion's Roar the Iraqi army and the U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment is destroying the fraction of terrorists who are left. More than 1,000 AQI operatives have already been apprehended.



Sunday Times reporter Marie Colvin, traveling with Iraqi forces in Mosul, found little AQI presence even in bullet-ridden residential areas that were once insurgency strongholds, and reported that the terrorists have lost control of its Mosul urban base, with what is left of the organization having fled south into the countryside.



Meanwhile, the State Department reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has achieved "satisfactory" progress on 15 of the 18 political benchmarks "a big change for the better from a year ago."



Things are going so well that Maliki has even for the first time floated the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. He did so while visiting the United Arab Emirates , which over the weekend announced that it was forgiving almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad, an impressive vote of confidence from a fellow Arab state in the future of a free Iraq.



But where are the headlines and the front-page stories about all this good news? As the Media Research Center pointed out last week, "the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 were silent Tuesday night about the benchmarks "that signaled political progress."



The war in Iraq has been turned around180 degrees both militarily and politically because the president stuck to his guns. Yet apart from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don't seem to consider this historic event a big story.



Copyright 2008 Investor's Business Daily. All Rights Reserved.



Addendum: The reason you haven't seen this on American television or read about it in the American press is simple--journalism is "dead" in this country. They are controlled by Liberal Democrats who would rather see our troops defeated than recognize a successful Republican initiated response to 9:11

Now you might wonder why you do not hear this news widely broadcast here in the USA.
Allegedly the home of Democracy?
 
More likely the reason you don't hear about it is that not so many people are dying in Iraq, but every one is scared to death of the economy here.

It's great news that AQ in Iraq has been substantially reduced. But considering AQ wasn't in Hussein's Iraq before we invaded, I'm not sure how much of a victory that is to report.
 
More likely the reason you don't hear about it is that not so many people are dying in Iraq, but every one is scared to death of the economy here.

It's great news that AQ in Iraq has been substantially reduced. But considering AQ wasn't in Hussein's Iraq before we invaded, I'm not sure how much of a victory that is to report.

No, AQ was blowing up American ships, buildings and embassies. Remember those attacks?

Yeah, notice they haven't done that since?

Nope, no victory at all... :roll:
 
The lib media - 95% of the US mass media, was only interested in covering iraq when we were losing. The current conditions there make their previous reporting look foolish.

They are merely following Lib Media Rule #1:

"If you can possibly avoid it, don't cover anything which would tend to hold up liberalism or any liberal in disrepute."
 
A fair measure of the dropoff in Iraqi violence can be attributed to Iran. They now control the entire Shia south (and 90% of Iraqi oil) by proxy. Since there is nothing more to be gained by bleeding US forces, Iran is quite content to allow the surge to work which facilitates a timely US withdrawal.
 
The lib media - 95% of the US mass media, was only interested in covering iraq when we were losing. The current conditions there make their previous reporting look foolish.

They are merely following Lib Media Rule #1:

"If you can possibly avoid it, don't cover anything which would tend to hold up liberalism or any liberal in disrepute."
The War in Iraq was the most liberal move of Bush's entire administration. Interventionism is liberal, not conservative. Isolationism is conservative. The only other thing Bush might have done that was more liberal was nationalizing the banks. On both issues, he's to the left of every President since at least Kennedy.
 
Iraq: What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn't tell the American public? Apparently, we have to rely on a British newspaper for the news that we've defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq .

That's good, we can pull the troops out and no civil war or sectarian violence or terrorist attacks will happen, nobody has to complain about Obama pulling the troops out the day he's elected--right??? Oh, that's right, most of those insurgents aren't Al Qaida anyway. yawn...

YouTube - The Iraq War
 
A fair measure of the dropoff in Iraqi violence can be attributed to Iran. They now control the entire Shia south (and 90% of Iraqi oil) by proxy. Since there is nothing more to be gained by bleeding US forces, Iran is quite content to allow the surge to work which facilitates a timely US withdrawal.
This is something that certainly warrant more awareness/discussion than it gets. We did do Iran a 'good turn' with our invasion of Iraq.
There's a reason why the guys who were feeding the questionable intel to the GWB admin went into hiding in Iran after they were caught passing secrets from "senior administration officials" to the Iranians.
 
More likely the reason you don't hear about it is that not so many people are dying in Iraq, but every one is scared to death of the economy here.

It's great news that AQ in Iraq has been substantially reduced. But considering AQ wasn't in Hussein's Iraq before we invaded, I'm not sure how much of a victory that is to report.

I agree with the first paragraph.

Since Al Qaeda is in Iraq and there obviously there before the invasion (the 9/11 mastermind is/was a member or at least had direct ties to Al Qaeda) I would say that there was a terrorist presence in Iraq.

Now that presence is almost gone ... and Iran knows it and is standing by with baited breath to invade Iraq as soon as the coalition forces withdraw.
 
Since Al Qaeda is in Iraq and there obviously there before the invasion (the 9/11 mastermind is/was a member or at least had direct ties to Al Qaeda) I would say that there was a terrorist presence in Iraq.
From context, it would seem as if the stuff in parentheses was supposed to be a supporting, linking statement between the 1st part and the last part.
... Iran ... is standing by with [bated] breath to invade Iraq as soon as the coalition forces withdraw.
Fyi, Iran has already invaded. Iran has already deployed massive amounts of soft power. Major Iraqi political parties spent their formative years in Iran. They receive various forms of support from Iran. There's no need for Iranian troops. Iran already wields considerable influence in the current power structure. It's not prudent or profitable for Iran to do anything violent or destabilizing to Iraq atm.
There will be no "invasion" from Iran in a military sense.
 
It's not prudent or profitable for Iran to do anything violent or destabilizing to Iraq atm.
There will be no "invasion" from Iran in a military sense.

IF Iran was to attack Iraq, the USA would be called on to bomb the bejesus out of the Iranian troops. Surely the Iranians know we would be just looking for an excuse....
 
Back
Top Bottom