OMG: NYTimes reports that Baghdad is getting back to normal

So Hackers hijacked the NY Times Web site.  They go after anyone these days.

And thank God for it. No matter which side of the political fence you sit on, you should be happy things are improving in Iraq. Let's pray it continues. As for the NYT's, I LOVE their crosswords. PEN BABY!

So Hackers hijacked the NY Times Web site. They go after anyone these days

I missed that upon the first reading. LMAO. Now, if we can just make some "arrangement" for Michael Savage.

Oh My G-D someone must have gotten a brain aneurysm writing this article about good news from Iraq. anyone look at the obits to see if any NYT writers died from a stroke?

It's really good to hear things are getting better there. After all, it only took 4 years and thousands of dead. A job well done, people!

unlike world war two which took 4 years and hundreds of thousands of dead. not counting the millions of civilian deaths.

And a well written, even handed article too! Will wonders never cease?

Apparently it is bad news for the likes of Cikomyr.

Cikomyr said:

It's really good to hear things are getting better there. After all, it only took 4 years and thousands of dead. A job well done, people!

danielost said:

unlike world war two which took 4 years and hundreds of thousands of dead. not counting the millions of civilian deaths.

Considering that we were supposed to be facing the mother of all wars, and tens of thousands of deaths were expected by some people, the number of deaths we have had in Iraq is well under what most reasonable individuals should have expected.  Don't get me wrong, even a single death there is a tragedy, and mistakes were made that have cost more lives than we should have lost, but things are improving, security is improving, and hopefully will continue to improve for the benefit of all Iraqi citizens and to the point that we can eventually bring our troops home and leave a thriving, friendly (allied) country behind.

I do not say it's bad news. How could it be bad news for anyone, save the terrorists?

What I say, the whole business was a mistake from the start. And simply because people stopped killing each other doesn't make the whole slaughter we saw in the last 4 year any more "right".



Wait. Are you comparing:
1) A global conflict that involved the 8 major powers of the time (I count Canada & France in) into an all-out war that was about to RADICALLY change the geopolitical situation worldwide forever.
2) A conflict between the World's superpower and a third-world country, that has resulted simply in a destabilizing the region. I still need to see what GOOD has come out of the whole conflict.

how do you destabilize a region that was already destabilized.

Cykomyr:

Except for the numbers, that describes WWII and the war in Iraq pretty well.

What I say, the whole business was a mistake from the start.

just for clarification.  You opposed the war to begin with.  You now say that the news is good.  Accepting those at face value (and I have found you to be truthful and honorable).......

Do you now support the stabilization of the current Iraqi regime before everyone goes home?

yes.

However, I don'T think that America, or NATO, or any foreign power can really enfore stabilization of any regime in the region. Well, it's not that I think they CANNOT do it, I think that long-term success is really, really improbably (I'd say 5%).

The largest problems come from both Saudi Arabia & Iran.. They seem to try to fight a proxy war in Iraq, while the American want everybody to stop fighting..

Great! Ok, so we agree on the ends. So what are the means? And again I am asking this just for clarification. (I hold no hope for the opposition in this country to come up with anything constructive).

And while I have slight disagreement on the current situation (I dont think SA has any bearing - altough a lot of interest - in this matter), perhaps we can find a solution that current politics in the US never will due to politics.

Oh God.. (why does people put G-d?)

We have agreed on a general, far-stretched end.. We should now ask ourselves:

"What are these ends really consist of?", specifically. Meaning we should pinpoint objectives.

Those I can find so far:

1- Make ethnical fighting stop in Baghdad.
2- Manage to get back the refugees back in their own homes
3- Unarm militias, or manage to get them all in one general army
4- Make it so that the Sunni minority looses any interest in terrorism.

Ok, easier said than done. I just don't have any idea how achieve those..

Nor I really. But we appear to at least agree on the ends, and I agree with your stated objectives. And if that does not give you nightmares, I dont know what will.

now, do you understand why I expect the USA to fail?

Not that I want to.
Not that it will make me happy
Not that I think that's the good thing for the people over there

It's juste that.. Well, invasion was handled so.. badly, the situation already deteriorated to a so-low, I don't think victory can be achieve anytime soon.

Yes, i can understand it. I do disagree with you on that point. I know we can fail, but I hold out hope (not with the mental midget dwarves running for president now - but none of them have been elected yet).

The invasion was not handled badly. The occupation initially was. That is changing, and hopefully for the better.

yes but rumsfield was in charge of this part too