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.
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.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."
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 .
This is something that certainly warrant more awareness/discussion than it gets. We did do Iran a 'good turn' with our invasion of Iraq.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.
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.
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.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.
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.... Iran ... is standing by with [bated] breath to invade Iraq as soon as the coalition forces withdraw.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?