Nah I am not saying that DTG is right I am just saying that it is quite common in wars that civilians of villages attack each other.   I don't know nothing who set up that bomb but it would not be strange that someone from the west/east/north/south of Iraq thinks that all people in Bagdad are working with the US military and  punish the civilians in Bagdad because of that;..

i havent heard about that in a while!

hmmm......!!

I say split the differnce.  Stay in iraq till the Iraqis can handle it themselves AND put Bush on trial for war crimes.

That way everyone can be happy and we can mimize violent genocide.

Dude it's a LOT simpler then that... and goes back a lot farther. Its just racial violence... the same racial violence that's been going on in iraq for a LONG LONG time.

That stuff used to happen all the time in iraq under all the governments. A lot of the time it was state supported no less.

The fact that it started a racial riot should tell you all you need to know.  That stuff was going on before we got there and will continue after... and will as long as all the races live there together really.  That's why the US can't get rid of "all" the violence.  Hell the US (or any country) can't stop all the violence in it's own borders.

There is another group of people who believe the war is illegal and oppose it on principle but realise that what is done cannot be undone. I think that the war was a terrible idea and should never have happened but that the USA honestly cannot just abandon the mess it has made now, the government of Iraq may eventually gain enough power to be able to exert control of the use of force within its borders - if the US leaves then Iraq will in all likelihood become a failed state.

However the answer isn't just to move on and ignore the war, personally I think that protesting the war and highlighting its lack of popularity is important in preventing politicians from making the same mistake for a third time.

@Rath,

Anyone who thinks the war is illegal falls into that last category I was referring to. The US is a sovereign nation and does not need permission from other nations to declare war. To be honest I don't even consider this an argument worth discussing, its in the same category as faked lunar landings, and 9/11 conspiracies.

I'm really not concerned with people's reasons for disliking the war, be it principle or partisanship. The point I am making is that regardless of your position or reasoning we need to focus on winning the war, everything else is secondary right now.

This is a war of opinions, and the more uncertainty and strife there is about the US and its presence in Iraq the easier it is for the insurgents to continue their efforts. Would you even deny that?

I'm honestly really disturbed that a thread with positive news about the war makes people feel the need to post as much negativity as they can. What is it about positive news for the US in Iraq that is so terrible that you guys have to attack it?

(Sorry for typos, I'm at work)

Since this is my undergraduate major, I'm going to try not to make my answer too complex.

1. The U.S. has signed a whole bunch of international treaties, along with pretty much every other nation on the planet, to not commits unprovoked acts of aggression against one another or threatening the sovereignty or independence of another nation with out the unanimous backing of the UNSC veto powers and the majority vote of the general assembly or UNSC (with the GA transferring the power to the UNSC on a case to case basis).

(U.N. Charter, Articles 1, 2.4, 33, and 39; the GAR 3314; also covered by NATO Charter, WTO, et.al. for behavior of membership to the respective international organization.  While nations are sovereign they are subject to Sanctions, Military Retaliation, or loss of trade, perks, membership, etc.)

2. While in this case I agree, I have to ask: what is winning?  The definition has changed over time (which is perfectly fine) but it is never really clear.  My idea of winning would be getting out of there as soon as possible with out the new Iraqi government collapsing or losing regional control to terrorist groups (like the U.S. and U.K. caused in every other Middle Eastern nation it occupied or controlled through puppet governments).

3. The war is really only a minor conflict in military terms.  The state of the economy and the archaic infrastructure of the U.S. are higher priorities to me; Afghanistan is also higher.  Might sound cold to the thousands of brave soldiers fighting over there, but it isn't as important to the overall state of the Union.

4. Insurgents are not terrorists.  Insurgents are people who feel they are being left out of the governing of their own nation.  Yes they have a democracy, with provincial elections coming up, but they are still held to the whims of the U.S. governments and are forced to allow a foreign occupation force to ignore local laws.  Al Qaeda has been rejected by these militias.  To answer your question, yes.  I would.  We leave and stop interfering, they stop fighting.  The surge is not the only reason for reduction in violence (it's part), the main reason why violence went down was because the current party in power under al-Maliki has been standing up to the U.S. in recent months and flexing his own muscle providing a base for these "insurgents" to begin legitimate negotiation with him.

5.  I am not unhappy with the news, so I can't answer for those people.  The war is illegal, every time I read about it I get sick to my stomach that my country invaded another country causing the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and causing millions to live in poverty for years (far worse than the consequences of Hussein's actions; though not intentional nor evil).  The irresponsible behavior of not protecting civilian populations in Iraq is a violation of the fourth Geneva Convention (1949/1950). Now there is improvement, which I am happy with because we are redeeming ourselves and it is time to work on leaving.

Of course the USA needs permission to declare war, in the modern age there are all sorts of treaties and suchlike to try and prevent random acts of war, being a sovereign nation doesn't give you the right to do anything you want - hence the first gulf war. The thing is the USA arguably did have permission to declare war, very arguably, under certain resolutions passed by the UN security council.

This is what Lord Goldsmith wrote to Blair about the legality

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/28_04_05_attorney_general.pdf

Or in an easier to read form;

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2003/0307advice.htm

That is from a supporter of the war in Iraq.

Thanks for that link Rath, I was actually trying to recall that letter a few months ago. Now I know.

The war in Iraq was the worst decision made by President Bush. 5000 US soldiers and counting have already been sent to their death beds.