Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war.

[Heracles 417]

I never knew wars could be illegal.

Maybe you should try and do a bit of reading then.

Um it's a war. Who should they ask permission from to engage in a war? Maybe my history books are different to those of others here but I have never heard of a country asking for permission to start a war. The US congress approved the war. So in terms of the United States government the war is legal.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I never knew wars could be illegal.

Maybe you should try and do a bit of reading then.

Um it's a war. Who should they ask permission from to engage in a war? Maybe my history books are different to those of others here but I have never heard of a country asking for permission to start a war. The US congress approved the war. So in terms of the United States government the war is legal.

There's a body that has been created to decide such measures. It's not the US Congress - that body's jurisdiction doesn't reach beyond the US borders. Obviously, the Iraq war is not fought within the US Congress' jurisdiction. Keep reading.

[GaryC 7]

I never knew wars could be illegal.

Maybe you should try and do a bit of reading then.

Um it's a war. Who should they ask permission from to engage in a war? Maybe my history books are different to those of others here but I have never heard of a country asking for permission to start a war. The US congress approved the war. So in terms of the United States government the war is legal.

There's a body that has been created to decide such measures. It's not the US Congress - that body's jurisdiction doesn't reach beyond the US borders. Obviously, the Iraq war is not fought within the US Congress' jurisdiction. Keep reading.

If your referring to the UN then try again. They have no authority over us. Congress is the only body with authority to declare war. You need to read a little also.

[Heracles 417]

I never knew wars could be illegal.

Maybe you should try and do a bit of reading then.

Um it's a war. Who should they ask permission from to engage in a war? Maybe my history books are different to those of others here but I have never heard of a country asking for permission to start a war. The US congress approved the war. So in terms of the United States government the war is legal.

There's a body that has been created to decide such measures. It's not the US Congress - that body's jurisdiction doesn't reach beyond the US borders. Obviously, the Iraq war is not fought within the US Congress' jurisdiction. Keep reading.

The US government answers to the citizens of the United States. It is as simple as that. No country should need the consensus of others to make decisions.

The UN is powerless to step in and fix complex issues like the daily butchering in Sudan. Therefore it takes a country like America to put their own ### on the line to get the job done.

Edited June 3, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Will someone explain to me what is meant by "winning" or "losing" the war in Iraq?

winning:

losing:

[Heracles 417]

losing:

What is sad is how the wankers who where so vocal and against that war went all quite after the retreat. No Fondas and co around to record the atrocities committed against the Southern Vietnamese as the NVA moved in and butchered thousands.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There was a draft in Vietnam which (let alone the questionable justification for that war) is what galavanised public opinion against it. Its one thing to go it alone with a volunteer army, another to force people to fight for a questionable cause.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I never knew wars could be illegal.

Maybe you should try and do a bit of reading then.

Um it's a war. Who should they ask permission from to engage in a war? Maybe my history books are different to those of others here but I have never heard of a country asking for permission to start a war. The US congress approved the war. So in terms of the United States government the war is legal.

There's a body that has been created to decide such measures. It's not the US Congress - that body's jurisdiction doesn't reach beyond the US borders. Obviously, the Iraq war is not fought within the US Congress' jurisdiction. Keep reading.

If your referring to the UN then try again. They have no authority over us. Congress is the only body with authority to declare war. You need to read a little also.

Gary,he's coming from the Barack Oblahma philosophy, where we need to ask the U.N. for permission to do anything. Just keep that in mind.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

He is right to point out that the US is part of an international community of (supposedly) like-minded countries; and we are party to international treaties that we have signed.

[HAL 9000 96]

"It truly is a blessing to have the power to be able to bend factual intelligence information to the will of whom occupies the Oval office."

Military intelligence is never a certainty and the policymakers got the same flawed info. It also ignores Saddam pretended to have WMDs to deter the U.S. and Iran. Unfortunately, he was a gambler and he lost it all. Funny how no one recalls Clinton bombed Iraq for 8 years especially in 1998. Belief that HUMINT isn't needed when you have satellites is wrong.

Precisely why we need to provide proper leadership that instills not just an intelligent way of leaving that theater, but honors the troops it leads by actually valuating their contribution to the scope of following standing orders. Soldiering is not necessarily a top-down universe- that would be henceforward be identified as being cannon-fodder. Clinton, yeah. 8 years of aerial bombardment in order to preserve the no-fly zones established, right?

"I want us to leave because we don't belong there under the actual argument to have gone there in the first place."

Great policy for 2003 but that's not a policy for 2009.

"Given the excellent military preparation Iraqi soldiers are already receiving, their government can now pay for it without our assistance and police themselves. Thereby reducing even more so the frequency of violence aimed at our presence directly and indirectly in causing more resentment of our occupation."

Laughable to believe without the billions spent in U.S. aid, suddenly they won't need a single dollar now. The frequency of attacks on U.S. forces has dropped because of the surge drawing the troop levels down will probably energize the insurgents. Resentment with the locals is building? Why are more of them snitching on the insurgents?

They just recently "increased" their oil output to match our demands. Their government has been mired in corruption up the hilt and you want to continue sustaining them? No. They can sustain themselves with more nominal foreign aid as we are known to give our allies. Easy enough. If you have a corrupt government that does not help the majority of its population- either on purpose or by tragedy, in areas where insurgent activity is prevalent, then having money sources for insurgency snitches IS a way of earning cash, right?

"I think Obama won't do something rash in leaving O/N as Bush did invading in a similar fashion. Time tables with actual benchmarks to follow with consequences are one way of getting out in a more accelerated fashion than just saying it and then hoping the American public would forget about it."

The reality Obama is could care less about Iraq since he thinks he can wash his hands of the matter. He's running on getting out of Iraq and going back in if necessary. Yeah, right. Once the radical Al Qaeda Sunnis or Iranian Shiite puppet government runs the show. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or maybe Israel can expect the jihad road show. Obama will have no support form his own party to march back into the Middle East.

Well that is conjecture for you to believe. Which is pretty much in line with what the scare mongers want to do to keep the "defense budget" readily thick.

[HAL 9000 96]

I'm not being a jerk. I really do want to know what people mean when they say "winning" or "losing" this war.

What are the deciding factors in this matter to those who consider it to be a war won or lost?

Is it autonomy for Iraq and freedom from the oppression they've experienced or is it something else?

Winning is defined as being able to pull our troops out of daily combat and have the Iraq army capable of dealing with any threat internal or external. Also, to have a stable government able to keep the country together and to support itself.

I'm going to ask a stupid question. Who exactly are we at war with? Because, we defeated the Iraqi army like 5 years ago and now we actually are fighting with them. Would it be fair to say that we won the 2nd Iraq war 5 years ago and now we playing policemen, or is there an actual organization we can put our finger on to say- we are at war with them?

Because that would require the simple (and rather unpalatable answer) that we're fighting the Iraqi population. Specifically - Al Qaeda who showed up after Saddam's Regime was deposed (and because the Shia were killing the Sunnis), the Iraqi Shia groups that aren't affiliated with Iran; and the ones that are. In short its a bloody mess.

I'd say that was about right. This is no longer a war but more so an exercise of building a nation that is amenable to our criteria.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"It truly is a blessing to have the power to be able to bend factual intelligence information to the will of whom occupies the Oval office."

Military intelligence is never a certainty and the policymakers got the same flawed info. It also ignores Saddam pretended to have WMDs to deter the U.S. and Iran. Unfortunately, he was a gambler and he lost it all. Funny how no one recalls Clinton bombed Iraq for 8 years especially in 1998. Belief that HUMINT isn't needed when you have satellites is wrong.

Precisely why we need to provide proper leadership that instills not just an intelligent way of leaving that theater, but honors the troops it leads by actually valuating their contribution to the scope of following standing orders. Soldiering is not necessarily a top-down universe- that would be henceforward be identified as being cannon-fodder. Clinton, yeah. 8 years of aerial bombardment in order to preserve the no-fly zones established, right?

"I want us to leave because we don't belong there under the actual argument to have gone there in the first place."

Great policy for 2003 but that's not a policy for 2009.

"Given the excellent military preparation Iraqi soldiers are already receiving, their government can now pay for it without our assistance and police themselves. Thereby reducing even more so the frequency of violence aimed at our presence directly and indirectly in causing more resentment of our occupation."

Laughable to believe without the billions spent in U.S. aid, suddenly they won't need a single dollar now. The frequency of attacks on U.S. forces has dropped because of the surge drawing the troop levels down will probably energize the insurgents. Resentment with the locals is building? Why are more of them snitching on the insurgents?

They just recently "increased" their oil output to match our demands. Their government has been mired in corruption up the hilt and you want to continue sustaining them? No. They can sustain themselves with more nominal foreign aid as we are known to give our allies. Easy enough. If you have a corrupt government that does not help the majority of its population- either on purpose or by tragedy, in areas where insurgent activity is prevalent, then having money sources for insurgency snitches IS a way of earning cash, right?

"I think Obama won't do something rash in leaving O/N as Bush did invading in a similar fashion. Time tables with actual benchmarks to follow with consequences are one way of getting out in a more accelerated fashion than just saying it and then hoping the American public would forget about it."

The reality Obama is could care less about Iraq since he thinks he can wash his hands of the matter. He's running on getting out of Iraq and going back in if necessary. Yeah, right. Once the radical Al Qaeda Sunnis or Iranian Shiite puppet government runs the show. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or maybe Israel can expect the jihad road show. Obama will have no support form his own party to march back into the Middle East.

Well that is conjecture for you to believe. Which is pretty much in line with what the scare mongers want to do to keep the "defense budget" readily thick.

Yeah - I was quite aware of the US bombing Iraq in the 90's. Outside of the US - there was a lot of criticism of the Clinton adminsitration for that, not that many people here would be aware of that if they weren't party to those conversations.

I don't really buy the idea of Bush as a gambler - on this issue at least - unless the analogy is extended to him rigging the table before playing

[HAL 9000 96]

I never knew wars could be illegal.

Maybe you should try and do a bit of reading then.

That may be an impossible request to fulfill.

HINT: Lie to invade, lie to maintain.

[HAL 9000 96]

I never knew wars could be illegal.

Maybe you should try and do a bit of reading then.

Um it's a war. Who should they ask permission from to engage in a war? Maybe my history books are different to those of others here but I have never heard of a country asking for permission to start a war. The US congress approved the war. So in terms of the United States government the war is legal.

There's a body that has been created to decide such measures. It's not the US Congress - that body's jurisdiction doesn't reach beyond the US borders. Obviously, the Iraq war is not fought within the US Congress' jurisdiction. Keep reading.

The US government answers to the citizens of the United States. It is as simple as that. No country should need the consensus of others to make decisions.

The UN is powerless to step in and fix complex issues like the daily butchering in Sudan. Therefore it takes a country like America to put their own ### on the line to get the job done.

Strangely I find a grain of reason here.

1. We do deserve our elected officials. This could not be clearer with the Iraq fiasco.

2. Our efforts at intervention, if we are to believe that we actually fight injustice and evil in the world, should be directed at places like Sudan. Where real proof of evil in genocide exists. Unlike other places where a lie can create mirages in the sand.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I never knew wars could be illegal.

Maybe you should try and do a bit of reading then.

Um it's a war. Who should they ask permission from to engage in a war? Maybe my history books are different to those of others here but I have never heard of a country asking for permission to start a war. The US congress approved the war. So in terms of the United States government the war is legal.

There's a body that has been created to decide such measures. It's not the US Congress - that body's jurisdiction doesn't reach beyond the US borders. Obviously, the Iraq war is not fought within the US Congress' jurisdiction. Keep reading.

The US government answers to the citizens of the United States. It is as simple as that. No country should need the consensus of others to make decisions.

The UN is powerless to step in and fix complex issues like the daily butchering in Sudan. Therefore it takes a country like America to put their own ### on the line to get the job done.

Strangely I find a grain of reason here.

1. We do deserve our elected officials. This could not be clearer with the Iraq fiasco.

2. Our efforts at intervention, if we are to believe that we actually fight injustice and evil in the world, should be directed at places like Sudan. Where real proof of evil in genocide exists. Unlike other places where a lie can create mirages in the sand.

Indeed - the conceit that we are in Iraq to liberate the oppressed population is pretty offensive to me. It may be a secondary goal - but its pretty far down the list. We went there for geopolitical, rather than humanitarian reasons. Oil is part of that equation, that and installing a beach-head in the ME to ensure our influence prevails there rather than that of Russia or China.

Edited June 3, 2008 by Number 6