Does the anti-war crowd lose credibility when they deny that gains have been made on the ground in Iraq?

Question

While it is true that we have to wait to see if the reduction in violence is sustained after we start withdrawing troops, does the fact that many liberals deny ANY improvements have been made lead to a loss of their credibility?

http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2007/11/are_we_winning_in_iraq.html

"The refusal of the antiwar movement--or some sections of it--to recognize these developments isn't helping its credibility."

I cannot wait to see how many non-answers I get (ie Bush lost credibility….no WMDs….etc)

Crowded Walls: Non-answer #1. Where should I ship your prize?

Answer 1

Absolutely they lose credibility...It is obvious that significant progress has been made in a very short period of time. It just proves that their motivation is based solely on their misguided personal opinion of The President or a clouded perception of how serious these terrorists are. It's embarrassing to me that the aggressive liberal campaign to smear the credibility of the Bush Administration has actually worked to some degree. It says to me that our society has a difficult time forming their own opinions from anything but spoon-fed liberal compost.
President Bush made the ultimate decision to wage war on terror but bravely did so with compelling evidence. Evidence fully endorsed by the US Congress. An ounce of prevention in this case will cost us billions of $'s but just think of the mess we would have to clean up if we waited for terrorism to flourish and inspire more terror within their ranks. That being said, by the time the election rolls around, it will be painfully obvious to the libs that the war is making significant progress. They will have to find something else to lie about to this gullible growing demographic in America.

Answer 2

Sorry, i'm not an Obama Anti-conflict Crowd-er, yet I fairly have your answer. McCain would be elected and that's merely not a controversy. notwithstanding, to bypass alongside including your hallucination: Obama will spend 2 years being Black (he's not) and talking approximately "replace" (he won't). Then he will enter the subsequent election cycle and comprehend that he has not something to furnish as President. Plus, he will come decrease than further and further stress from terrorists communities (that view people of shade as slaves) to desert the middle East. he will then concede the "conflict" interior the middle East and abandon it and Israel. he will initiate returning the troops to the U. S.. to hurry issues up, terrorists will initiate working interior the U. S.. He and the entire UN will blame GWB. Hamas will sue for reparations. Israeli squaddies would be beheaded and raped publicly. Obama will hide from public view. In 2012 the U. S. would be scuffling with a shielding conflict interior the U. S. against each Revolutionary Organization 17 November that desires a bite people. US Diplomats, especially, individuals of the President's kin would be abducted with the intention to objective to stress added concessions. between 2012 and 2016 there'll be a thermonuclear launch (Atomic Bomb Explosion) in a substantial united states of america city (probably Washington DC) and calls for would be created from america government for long term concessions to terrorist companies. the size of the lively military will double, the draft would be reinstated and we are able to bypass to a wartime financial gadget, which would be good for the recession. are not you happy it is merely a bad dream? McCain in '08.

Answer 3

Right so getting rid of one despotic tyrant(America's words) and fighting a disastrous war/invasion then leaving the scene of the crime with thousands upon thousands dead and displaced.No proper electricity or running water(the ruddy basics for heaven's sake) More than likely with Muqtada al Sadr (Saddam Mk II) in power.That's a gain is it?
They'll pull out because they made a complete b0ll)0xs of it.Wait for Iran's first move anywhere near Iraq and that's all the excuse the Bushman will need to lead America in to the abyss.

Commanderbuckrogers:Being involved in any war doesn't validate it.For every vet that supported it there are plenty who didn't and plenty more soldiers who can't voice an opinion.
Ever heard of freedom of speech?

Edit:Loaded question by the way.

Answer 4

i think that the anti-war crowd has never had any credibility. The slogans they use are just laughable. They anti war crowd would like to see themselves as left wing, yet they are the same people who are saying to the removal of a tyrant who has committed ethnic cleansing. Sure they could oppose the way it was carried out, but is it right to oppose removing Saddam?

Answer 5

But they are gains to what end? People have realized that this is a war based on lies. This is a war that has served no purpose what soever except to cost the lives of 4,000 service members and maim severely 26,000. Not to mention killing 100,000 Iraqi civilians. and for what? yes there has been gains, but what is it all for? Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and has actually increased membership in Al-Qaeda. Iraqi's don't even have electricity or water, almost 5 years into our occupation, the young that are growing up see noting but death and destruction caused by us and are more pro-terrorist than pro-American. There was website-pics from MSN-they were Iraqi children. Two things stood out:
1. they all wanted to be doctors
2. The thing they hate the most: "AMERICANS for invading my country"
These are the future terrorist that we have created. And people are beginning to wake up a nd see this. So any gains are trumped by the loses that we see now and will see in the years to come.

Answer 6

Since the movement in Iraq is not a war but an invasion/occupation. It may be time to bring some troops out. But don't get too excited. It will just be to deploy them else where. Afghanistan and Iran possibly Pakistan. This ought to make the warmongers climatic.

Answer 7

Does the name "Vietnam" mean anything to you? I remember when that name pervaded news broadcasts, and I see that the similarities are striking and undeniable.
It was a "war" which accomplished NOTHING except to inter 58,000 Americans (and render many more thousands with emotional problems) and an untold number of Vietnamese civilans and troops. In the end, WHAT can you say that the war in Iraq will have accomplished, besides "getting rid" of Saddam Hussein (who was a fierce dictator but not what we would accurately refer to as a terrorist)? Take heed of the polls; the vast majority of the Iraqi people say they'd prefer life under Hussein than life as it is now. And there's no end in sight.
It's unfortunate that warmongers such as yourself want others to die for YOUR ideals. Isn't it nice and comfy sitting in front of your computer exhorting the horrors of war? Why aren't YOU in Iraq?

Answer 8

no.

consider this 1968 all over again.

everyone pretty much understands that this is the wrong war, wrong time, wrong motives.

i'm not willing to give it another 8 years and thousands of lives

simply so you can feel like you have a larger ... sense of pride.

as a homosexual, i take my pride to a parade once a year. perhaps you should consider the same for your ... pride. fewer people would have their lives destroyed because of it.

then we can return to the honest business of making money by doing good things for each other, rather than turbo-charging an otherwise fledgling economy on a war.

those who are continually supporting this failed, doomed and immoral (read: unChristian) effort

are those who suffer from the credibility gap.

and 70% of Americans agree.

as does the rest of the world.

get a parade.

Answer 9

To give you an answer, yes, they lose some credibility. However, this is true within any debate. Or even with most questions. Remember when you were in elementary and taking a multiple choice test? What answers usually werent correct? The choices that began with ALL or NONE of ALWAYS....Any argument that becomes that dogmatic is easy to poke holes in.

As a side note, my brothers and sisters that are fighting for us in the sandbox now will tell you a different story than what the media would have us believe. Its going as well as a war can and progress is being made. Even our former "insurgents" have been coming to help our soldiers.

No war is nice and easy and people die and people get wounded, but unfortunately, To get peace you must make war. Sucks doesnt it?

Answer 10

That we are there is the first place is the crux of the issue and to discuss "success" outside that context is a tacit admission of support for our presence in Iraq. This presence is the problem. The true reasons for the presence are the problems. There is no success in illegal invasion and occupation. only death, destruction and more of the same for all concerned