Some good news in Iraq

The completion of 600 reconstruction projects goes unnoticed. The testimony of countless politicians, soldiers and Iraqis as to the improvement in Iraq goes unnoticed. The encouraging pictures of Iraqis and Americans, Muslims and Christians, all working together are not shown.

Negative reporting sells the best, but it has taken over what we're learning about the war. I cannot make a better point of this than asking readers to do a search on the Internet for testimonies of soldiers and politicians going to Iraq and seeing the difference. Rather than rephrase those testimonies, let me give another look at what's going on.

A brutal dictator and a state sponsor of terrorism (including al-Qaida) has been removed. Demonstrations for democracy and freedom are becoming the norm in countries like Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Saudi Arabia. (Of course, I only know about that because I read the Arab press; no American papers are reporting it.)

Syria, surrounded by pro-West states, is making moves to pull out of Lebanon and has never felt such pressure to stop supporting terrorism. Reforms are occurring in that Baathist country, including banning the law that everyone in government must be a Baathist.

Iran is at its weakest point ever, as was clearly demonstrated in late June when mass demonstrations went on for weeks. The call for reforms there are getting louder and louder, and the regime is in its final days. Iran, too, finds itself surrounded by allies in the war on terror.

Saudi Arabia is even being forced to act against terrorism and is also engaging in reforms. The country's first municipal elections are being set up. Over 600 terrorists have been arrested in the past six months, and 3,500 preachers have been "re-taught," while the ones unwilling to change their pledges to incite Muslims have been fired. New restrictions on charities are being implemented, and countless terrorist attacks have been foiled.

Almost every war in history has a guerilla-war element. Time and patience are the cures for this disease. Sure, some mistakes were made in Iraq – borders were not secured, there aren't enough troops and the Iraqi army was dissolved instead of used for security. But the fact that the war is going into its seventh month, the fact that 600 reconstruction projects have been finished, the fact that most of the Saddam regime leadership has been killed or captured, are all ignored because American troops are being killed.

About 330 troops have been killed, but Iraq is huge, and we are being attacked by five powerful forces. Before the war, I remember warning that although Saddam's regime would collapse, this would be the hardest and most critical battle in the war on terror.

Geographically, the U.S. is situated in a spot where victory will permanently change the tide in the war on terror and result in less bloodshed in the future. Non-combat warfare could be waged that would be more successful than any military campaign could hope for.

But I also warned that this would be the hardest battle, because we'd fight several forces. In World War II, we fought Japan, Italy and Germany. In this one battle, we'll be fighting the Baathist resistance forces, terrorist volunteers and forces fully backed by Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. They are using all their resources to fight us, because a victory in Iraq means their days of sponsoring terror (which their regimes were founded upon) are numbered.

But we have the upper hand. Anyone with knowledge of the forces we would fight would not have expected a mere 330 troops to be killed about seven months into the conflict. As progress is made, the sharp and sudden increase we saw by the appearance of foreign fighters (which likely would have traveled to the West if Iraq had not been such a nearby battlefield) will be matched by an even sharper and more sudden decrease in the attacks. Soon after that, the light of democracy in Iraq will give even more hope to the freedom fighters in the region.

This is a psychological war, and we can only win it by being steadfast. As progress is made, foreign fighters will be unable to hide. This is the most dangerous time in the Iraq war, and the progress being made is unmistakable – if you choose to see. And so I conclude with a message to the media: The Iraqis are cheerfully watching the progress being made, and we, too, should be seeing it.

[Adam D]

[bfp]

the media of today is no different than the socialist propoganda machine that hitler used in germany, with the help of dr. geobbels. there are multiple parallel's between the two. im amazed at what the media has been getting away with as of late. it's discusting that this is happening in america.

mind you i do not study the christian faith, but i notice the media is also doing everything in their will to banish christianity from the public arena, but they have no problem preaching the positives of every religious denomination except for christianity in the daily news programs, especially islam. be sympathetic to the islamic traditions, but let's do everything we can to take christmas off of every calendar in america, and do away with christianity within public discussion.

The United States will continue its war on terrorism, we will continue to support Israel directly and endirectly, we will rebuild Iraq, and Afghanistan, spending billions, we made a promise to Iraq and Afghanistan and we will not turn our backs to them again like in the past. And Adam...the only thing you can do is voice your oppistion and roll your eyes. Our foreign policy will not change, if you don't like it feel free to leave.

the media of today is no different than the socialist propoganda machine that hitler used in germany

Our media is not feeling our heads full of bull shit like the nazi's did with the German people about the aryian race, the master race of the world.

well - opposing points of view are those things that keep the balls from rolling off of the table - and as such - they are quite important.

However, having said that - I agree that support and determination in our efforts in Iraq and Afganistan will have long term beneficial results. Those results in the short term are hampered by reporting that does focus on the bad and ignores the progress made - which is becoming a story itself - thus getting some of the success stories into peoples' living rooms.

Debating why we are there and describing why you think our invasion was right or wrong is intersting - - but quite pointless now.

The current debate should focus on how to best acheive the goal of stablizing Iraq and helping it elect a representative government which serves the needs of its people.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by JohnDavid
if you don't like it feel free to leave.

Thanks for being so anti-american.

[johnny861]

You have a point.. my coworker's mother came back from Baghdad about a month ago...

They even went shopping in the local markets and eateries...


They weren't bombed or attacked or assaulted or shouted at...

They were part of congressional envoy to investigate the CPA and monitor progress, but she wasn't allowed to give any more info about their mission there.

Originally posted by bfp
the media of today is no different than the socialist propoganda machine that hitler used in germany there are multiple parallel's between the two.

actually that would be facist. and im not to shure of the parallels. I mean if there are, they would be the suppression and manipulation of facts disseminated by the government pertaining to the war.

mind you i do not study the christian faith, but i notice the media is also doing everything in their will to banish christianity from the public arena, but they have no problem preaching the positives of every religious denomination except for christianity in the daily news programs, especially islam. be sympathetic to the islamic traditions, but let's do everything we can to take christmas off of every calendar in america, and do away with christianity within public discussion.

well, i dont think the christians exactly need anymore press time on the national news. I mean, theyve got like four networks alone on my cable system. and the positives of christianity can be touted everyday from the public works you see them do. Christianitys positives are around us everyday, so its like bitching about why they dont put the traffic ticket violations in the paper. its when the christians we trust, like priests that do wrong that they get bad press. i can honestly say i have never seen an anti-christian article or news segment that didnt have to do with scandal. and taking away christianity from the public view....never happen. enven the holiday christians would oppose that.

Originally posted by Dropzone
actually that would be facist. and im not to shure of the parallels. I mean if there are, they would be the suppression and manipulation of facts disseminated by the government pertaining to the war.





well, i dont think the christians exactly need anymore press time on the national news. I mean, theyve got like four networks alone on my cable system. and the positives of christianity can be touted everyday from the public works you see them do. Christianitys positives are around us everyday, so its like bitching about why they dont put the traffic ticket violations in the paper. its when the christians we trust, like priests that do wrong that they get bad press. i can honestly say i have never seen an anti-christian article or news segment that didnt have to do with scandal. and taking away christianity from the public view....never happen. enven the holiday christians would oppose that.

I think bfp is close to the mark and I think you are as well DropZone

What I see is not an attempt by the media or other usual suspects to eliminate Christianity or to discredit it. Certainly the Catholic church recently did that all by itself.

DropZone is right that positive examples are all around us - just take a look.

I believe that at the end of the day - on balance - the net effect of organized religion on our society is not only good but difficult to sufficiently estimate (in developing moral people, charity, education etc) That comment may garner a few negative responses abut religion - but that is to be expected.

But - back to the point at hand - what I see happening is not an attempt to run religion out of our lives but an attempt to eliminate it from public life. Meaning, politicians are increasingly discouraged and criticized for ackowledging the influence of religion in their lives.

Personally, the thought that our leaders believe in a god is comforting - if for no other reason that you can't have the fear of god without a belief in god.

Originally posted by xiannaix


Personally, the thought that our leaders believe in a god is comforting - if for no other reason that you can't have the fear of god without a belief in god.

oh there is nothing at all wrong with having faith when youre a leader. Truman was a devout christian.
I just think that its wrong to base your political policy that affects the entire on your belief structure. When you try to use your power to force religon on people is when youre abusing your position and faith.

Originally posted by Dropzone
oh there is nothing at all wrong with having faith when youre a leader. Truman was a devout christian.
I just think that its wrong to base your political policy that affects the entire on your belief structure. When you try to use your power to force religon on people is when youre abusing your position and faith.

certainly agree with you that it is improper and in fact unconstitutional for an elected official to use that position to further religious agenda - religion helps many have strong foundations when deciding between rigt and wrong

belief structures are not usually single-minded. Meaning I doubt Truman used only "Christian" principals to direct his policy. I do not doubt that those principals got tossed into the pot and stirred in when creating his policy though - and - again - I think that it as good thing

[Adam D]

A devout Christian who dropped nuclear weapons on civilians in 2 cities after Japan had agreed to surrender.

Originally posted by Adam D
A devout Christian who dropped nuclear weapons on civilians in 2 cities after Japan had agreed to surrender.

there is a lot of scholarship available on this issue - I doubt either of us wish to debate it - so I'll simply disagree with a brief explanation.....

I doubt Japan would have welcomed American (Allied) troops into either city.

I believe both cities would have been vigorously defended and taken only at the cost of much life - to both sides.

I do not believe Truman had a third option of peacefully occupying any part of Japan prior to the bombs and the fire bombing of Tokyo.

Truman's decision must have been a horrible one to make - but given the option of huge numbers of casualties to both sides or huge numbers to the other side only - I know which option I'm taking everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

Please recall - they started the war.

Originally posted by Adam D
A devout Christian who dropped nuclear weapons on civilians in 2 cities after Japan had agreed to surrender.

im sorry adam but that is totally false. while the emperor who had only figurehead power along with the prime minister who had also lost all his power to the military leadership wished a surrender, they had no ability to implement it. the military with thier bushido code of ethics fundamentally refused to surrender.
there is absolutely no proof that shows that the military state that rulled japan was going to surrender even with the firebombing of all the cities.

truman said that the use of the bombs was the worst decision he ever made in his life and wished in retrospect that he didnt have to make it. but he recognised that 300k dead in those cities was a far cry better than another 5 to 7 million dead during operation olympic (the planned invasion of japan)

i know this has nothing really to do with this thread, but i always like to debate history........