Just because it seems to be working doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

Define "working".

The willful ignorance of some war supporters is absolutely staggering.

So subby, you wouldn't be mad at me if I broke into your house and stole all your sh*t because I thought it was "the right thing to do" as long as I was successful?

Working for whom exactly subby?

It's working for KBR, for sure.

/looks at the headline
//looks at the article
///looks back at the headline
////facepalm

He's funneling money out of the treasury and straight to Halliburton.... -It's "working".

It's working out pretty well for Iran (Shia influence in Iraq and more oil $) and Bush's buddy Ahmed Chalabi was an Iranian spy so he's probably pretty happy with their success. The oppressive theocratic neighboring states are probably pleased to be rid of a secular dictator next door so they can spread Sharia law which is nice for them.

Honestly, you'd think the folks who really hate us would be happier with us by now.

"working"?

We found the Weapons of Mass Destruction Saddam was going to us on the US?

Everyone seems to reject the fascist submissions - who is submitting them and who keeps greenlighting them?

If Bush's goal was to bankrupt the US, strengthen Iran, and foment hatred of America across the world, well, then its working!

Some people point to the recent reductions in violence and suggest that President Bush's war strategy is working.

Personally, I think it just shows that his strategy to lower our standards of success is working.

The War in Iraq has accomplished nothing that is positive. I acknowledge the possibility that long-term benefits may arise, but there is no prospect of any positive outcome at the current time.

I like that the fark admins greenlight headlines that are absolutely retarded. Makes for funny talking points.

I guess Americans dying, a 10 year old Iraqi girl being killed by soldiers and countless amounts of money down the tube is working though. Sure, why not?

We are paying the enemy $10 a day, each, not to attack US troops. It's welfare, for terrorists.

Corvus
"working"?

We found the Weapons of Mass Destruction Saddam was going to us on the US?

You don't remember that? It was right after Jack Bauer beat that prisoner with a garden hose because THERE'S NO TIME!!

Cowboy Spencer

Personally, I think it just shows that his strategy to lower our standards of success is working.

No way! Acceptable levels of violence? It's no different in America, I have to watch out for roadside bombs on my way to work every day in Dallas. Not to mention we are down to like 2 suicide bombers a day. More than acceptable.

Gregory F. Stuart: Are you saying that we'd be better off today if we'd just left Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and never invaded in the first place?

Yes. We wouldn't have taken our eyes off of Afghanistan, we might actually have captured or killed Bin Laden by now, our military wouldn't be worn out, and we wouldn't have wasted a farkton of cash on a lie.

I'm not saying that Saddam was a good guy in any sense of the word, but he was contained. Us being in Iraq is a huge recruiting tool for terrorists.

Rev.K: The willful ignorance of some war supporters is absolutely staggering.

So subby, you wouldn't be mad at me if I broke into your house and stole all your sh*t because I thought it was "the right thing to do" as long as I was successful?

If I were killing my family members,and gassing my neighbors.Yes come stop me and bring all the help you can get.

Philip J. Fry: We are paying the enemy $10 a day, each, not to attack US troops. It's welfare, for terrorists.

You are? Really?? Really really?

/ You are pulling my leg, aren't you?
// Hey wait, I've never attacked US troops, where's my damn check!

So the Saudi terrorists have been captured?

zymosan: Just because it seems to be working doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.

This. Just because you can do something that's immoral doesn't mean you should, right? Oh that's right, now our own rules don't apply to us. We can invade countries without provocation, under false pretenses, and torture people now with methods we've hanged other people for using. All in the names of God and Country.

Gwendolyn: Working for whom exactly subby?

Right now? Pretty well for the militias that are re-arming themselves with our money. Coming soon to a GI you know, bullets bought and paid for with US money used to buy temporary peace.

Marshall must be pounding his fist in the afterlife at this ineptitude that's costing US lives.

/disgusted
//round up war supporters, train them, and let them be bullet sponges

LOL. That's like me borrowing your car, totally wrecking it beyond repair and buying you a new stereo system open box from Best buy and calling it even.

Hell if that's the right thing to do, I would like to invite submitters sister or daughter out on a date.

The surge isn't working. The "Sunni Awakening" is.

Gregory F. Stuart:

Are you saying that we'd be better off today if we'd just left Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and never invaded in the first place?

Is that a trick question?

Gregory F. Stuart: Are you saying that we'd be better off today if we'd just left Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and never invaded in the first place?

Our budget would be more balanced, our relations with the rest of the world would be more amiable, our military would be stronger, Afghanistan would be in far better shape, yup, I'd say we'd have been better off not invading Iraq.

In a couple of weeks we will see the 4000th solider killed in action.


So...no, its not working worth a flying fark at all.

It was "working" before we invaded.

Just because we weren't able to determine that and Bush was a bit uncomfortable in his new role as war president and Saddam knew how to push Bush's buttons doesn't mean it wasn't working.

We're like a 14 year old who wanted to take his car apart because it needed an oil change. We put it back together and gave it new oil but now the radio doesn't work, the brakes squeal badly, and the engine stops if you put it in gear. But hey, it's working...and that's what we set out to do by taking it apart in the first place, right?

Gregory F. Stuart: Are you saying that we'd be better off today if we'd just left Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and never invaded in the first place?

Hard to argue about things that didn't happen, but at least at this stage it sure seams like we would. I know there are a few thousand of our troops and many thousands of Iraqis that would.

Who knows what the future will hold? Time goes on (as they say). As some point in the future there will be some sort of normalcy again in Iraq. But, the question was more about what was meant by "working".

If by working you mean giving guns and money to the people who were shooting at us a month ago, then yes, things are going swimmingly. Success in Iraq doesn't mean crushing the civilians with a military surge, it means letting Iraq stand on it's own feet. We blown billions of dollars and helped create a government. If that government can't control the country, we've failed. When you hear the "stay in Iraq for 100 years" plan keep in mind that it's exactly that plan that indicates a total failure.

So if you don't have a clever, humorous or shocking headline, is being retarded and/or lying the best way to get a greenlight?

/4+ years
//no greens

Odd no one points out author is a "religious nut-bag".

/not doin it, just sayin it

Bush is a hot dog eating asshole. fark him, fark his family, fark his friends and a huge fark THEM to his existing supporters.

But most importantly, I would like to fark myself, and fark everyone else in this country, because essentially as citizens we have done nothing to stop him.

We're too farking lazy, most are too old to remember or too young to know of a time when we actually had to fight for our way of life.

Do you have a victory garden? I sure as hell don't.

We have failed our nation by allowing crooks and con-men to abuse our power for their own wealth and personal goals. And watch out, because they might play on your emotions and religious beliefs in order to keep doing it.

Republicans argument for "succeeding" in the war on terrer in a nutshell:

This kid called Osama Bin Laden beat me up at school and took my lunch money. I would go after him but I am afraid of his friends, that I am buddies with. So instead I am going to kick my dog, Saddam Hussein. Look I kicked my dogs ass!!! That really showed him!

Bush is on the news right now talking about the economy. I would normally not believe the balls on him based on what he's saying but really, what does he have to lose at this point? He can say anything. Christ, what an arrogant prick.

/Bush is the arrogant prick, not Christ

TFA "Citing Faith, Bush Defends War Actions,"

Was there anything after that line worth reading?

This administration is taking credit for Al Qaeda's mistakes. It is such a joke.

If you consider $12 Billion a month a "working" solution. Ya sure. This poster is a 'moran'.

Attacks are down, U.S. casualties are down and in other news, the media stopped reporting on it. That's what they mean by "it's working".

Of course, the point of war is not to minimize casualties. The easiest way to minimize casualties is to not pre-emptively start a war in the first place.

So, what's the point of a war? It's to take military action (risking casualties) to achieve a political goal. So what's the political goal?

That, detective, is the right question. Program terminated.

TheNewJesus: We're too farking lazy, most are too old to remember or too young to know of a time when we actually had to fight for our way of life.

We are ran by chicken-hawks who believe war is easy and should be used for politics.

Many wars in the past they would actually bring in members of the other party so it would not be political at all.

Could you ever imagine the Bush administration doing this?

and if by working you mean that american troops successfully found iraq crossed the border and killed directly and indirectly a million or so brown people all the while destroying it's(iraq's) infrastructure with no end in sight, then yeah, i guess you got a point

/didn't read article

dragonchild: Attacks are down, U.S. casualties are down and in other news, the media stopped reporting on it. That's what they mean by "it's working".

They also stopped reporting that we are actually paying many of groups to stop fighting us and they are using this money to buy more weapons.

Are we calling bribing the enemy not to shoot at us for the time being "working" now?

for good or for awesome: Are you saying that we'd be better off today if we'd just left Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and never invaded in the first place?

Yes.

This must be some strange new definition of "working" that I'm not familiar with.

Gregory F. Stuart: Are you saying that we'd be better off today if we'd just left Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq and never invaded in the first place?

Yes. Next question.

I'm really not seeing all of this "working" stuff. I mean, we hear that it's working from the Pentagon, but as far as journalism goes the international journalism community is still too afraid to leave the green zone to report on what's going on. That's not a good sign.

So you can say it's "working" all you like, but you're going to have to prove it this time around.

douch?

Oh, and according to the goals laid out by the administration in November, 2005, is anything "working" as we here in the real world know the word to mean?

VICTORY IN IRAQ DEFINED

As the central front in the global war on terror, success in Iraq is an essential element in the long war against the ideology that breeds international terrorism. Unlike past wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come in the form of an enemy's surrender, or be signaled by a single particular event -- there will be no Battleship Missouri, no Appomattox. The ultimate victory will be achieved in stages, and we expect:

* In the short term:
o An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.
* In the medium term:
o An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.
* In the longer term:
o An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutralized the insurgency.
o An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.
o An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.

C&P from whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html