As Democrats See Security Gains in Iraq, Tone Shifts

[81artmonk]

As violence declines in Baghdad, the leading Democratic presidential candidates are undertaking a new and challenging balancing act on Iraq (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo): acknowledging that success, trying to shift the focus to the lack of political progress there, and highlighting more domestic concerns like health care and the economy.


(javascript:pop_me_up2('http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/11/25/us/25dems_CA0.ready.html', '25dems_CA0_ready', 'width=720,height=600,scrollbars=yes,toolbars=no,r esizable=yes'))



Advisers to Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Barack Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) say that the candidates have watched security conditions improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that it would be folly not to acknowledge those gains. At the same time, they are arguing that American casualties are still too high, that a quick withdrawal is the only way to end the war and that the so-called surge in additional troops has not paid off in political progress in Iraq.

But the changing situation suggests for the first time that the politics of the war could shift in the general election next year, particularly if the gains continue. While the Democratic candidates are continuing to assail the war — a popular position with many of the party’s primary voters — they run the risk that Republicans will use those critiques to attack the party’s nominee in the election as defeatist and lacking faith in the American military.



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25dems.html?_r=1&em&ex=1196053200&en=7a51d9bcd58b99dc&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin


It will be interesting to see how they are going to dig themselves out of this hole of we can't win, when it appears that things are quit different.
I predict that they will avoid the Iraq debate and talk about other issues. I have always thought that they weren't interested in pulling out for the sake of the country, but to make Bush look like an idiot and be able to point a finger and mare his doing. Now that isn't going to happen while he is President, they don't want to see the presidential win and than have to be labled the party that lost the war. IMO

[Sarge]

Wait. You mean the war isn't lost?

But, but, but..............

Harry Reid said it was lost

Mutha said we can't win:doh:

[Air Force Cane]

nice work 81 :applause:

"Oh the quagmire!! it is vietnam!! We can't win! The war is lost!!"

guess not...

IRAQI HOMECOMING http://www.nypost.com/seven/11262007/postopinion/editorials/iraqi_homecoming_284122.htm (http://www.nypost.com/seven/11262007/postopinion/editorials/iraqi_homecoming_284122.htm)

November 26, 2007 -- They're coming home. Iraqis who fled their country for Syria and Jordan in the wake of roadside bombs and terrorist attacks are coming back to Baghdad in dramatic numbers, reports The Times of London. A spokesman for the United Nations' High Commission on Refugees confirms that "there is a large movement of people going back to Iraq," adding: "We are doing rapid research on this." But research isn't really needed. It's pretty obvious what's going on: The surge - ordered by President Bush and executed by Gen. David Petraeus - is working. US military casualties have dropped drastically, as have terrorist incidents - down 55 percent since the surge reached full strength. And Iraqi civilian casualties fell 60 percent in that same period. That translates into a newfound sense of security for Iraqis and Americans alike. Even The New York Times had to admit it in a front-page headline last week: "Baghdad Starts to Exhale as Security Improves."

Clearly the word has gotten out - especially to Syria, which has been a haven for many of the 4 million Iraqis who fled their homeland. The Iraqi embassy in Damascus has even begun organizing mass convoys back to Baghdad. The director of the Iraqi National Theater, who has been staging plays for refugees in Damascus, told The Times of London that his nightly audience of 400 has now dwindled to less than 50. "In the last month," he said, "60 percent of the Iraqis I know have returned." The reason is simple: As Maj. Gen. (ret.) Robert Scales, former director of the Army War College, wrote in The Wall Street Journal, Petraeus' soldiers and Marines have essentially ejected al Qaeda from both Baghdad and the urban center to which it relocated, Baquba. Scales, who recently returned from Iraq, says the surge has "achieved success on the ground at an unprecedented speed in the history of counterinsurgency warfare." To be sure, there are signs of other trouble ahead. Iran has temporarily pulled back, but its proxy army of Shiite militias may be regrouping. And it would be foolish to underestimate al Qaeda's ability to adapt, even to major setbacks. But the lesson here is that Iraqis are feeling safer for a reason - they are safer. And they're giving US-led forces a vote of confidence in the most demonstrable way possible: with their feet. As Gen. Scales writes, we may now be reaching a "culminating point" in Iraq - the moment when the advantage shifts and the outcome becomes irreversible. All the more reason why Congress must not put these gains at risk by mandating a premature withdrawal of forces.

[TMK9973]

You guys are idiots.

Seriously. It's not like you have ever actually listen to democrats.

Lets see -MOST wanted more troops there from the get go. Hillary has always been in favor of the surge and has NEVER said there should be a quick withdrawl. Reid said it was unwinnable before the surge and said that there needed to be a change in policy (There was).

The question was NEVER "If we send enought troops, can we make gains". Of COURSE.

The question was "How do we get out". When can we reduce troops? What is "Winning". There is less death, but no closer to a long term political solution. Is the plan now to stay there at the current levels forever? None of the political goals have been meet yet.

WHAT IS THE LONG TERM PLAN AND HOW TO WE LEAVE?

[alexey]

1) Numbers from Iraq were not looking well.
2) This administration has a track record for gross incompetence and a history of misrepresenting reality.

I think those two made it fairly reasonable for people to be sceptical about claims of progress in Iraq at that time.

[stevenaa]

You guys are idiots.

Seriously. It's not like you have ever actually listen to democrats.

Lets see -MOST wanted more troops there from the get go. Hillary has always been in favor of the surge and has NEVER said there should be a quick withdrawl. Reid said it was unwinnable before the surge and said that there needed to be a change in policy (There was).

The question was NEVER "If we send enought troops, can we make gains". Of COURSE.

The question was "How do we get out". When can we reduce troops? What is "Winning". There is less death, but no closer to a long term political solution. Is the plan now to stay there at the current levels forever? None of the political goals have been meet yet.

WHAT IS THE LONG TERM PLAN AND HOW TO WE LEAVE?

Then their criticism should have been put out along with a plan for success, instead of all the talk of pulling the troops out. They should have led with a plan to actually achieve victory. Dems are about one thing in regards to the war, pull out as quickly as possible.

[81artmonk]

You guys are idiots.

Seriously. It's not like you have ever actually listen to democrats.

Lets see -MOST wanted more troops there from the get go. Hillary has always been in favor of the surge and has NEVER said there should be a quick withdrawl. Reid said it was unwinnable before the surge and said that there needed to be a change in policy (There was).

The question was NEVER "If we send enought troops, can we make gains". Of COURSE.

The question was "How do we get out". When can we reduce troops? What is "Winning". There is less death, but no closer to a long term political solution. Is the plan now to stay there at the current levels forever? None of the political goals have been meet yet.

WHAT IS THE LONG TERM PLAN AND HOW TO WE LEAVE?

I'm not sure what planet you have been living on, but the majority of the democratic leadership has been against this and wanting troop pull out now.
With, might I add, no other plan than withdrawl.

Other than when they voted for the war, and were convinced of WMD's name another time they have NOT wanted troop pullout??

[Burgold]

That's a strange line. The most powerful reason for entering into a war against Iraq was its potential to harm us, especially through the use of WMD. What you're suggesting is that once the possibility of them harming us was removed, the Democrats were in favor of a pull-out.

There are a number of reasons to believe we should stay in Iraq. Fix our messes. Stability is better for the long haul. Launching point against our terror supporting enemies. But our reasons for being there, our definitions for how long or what constitutes winning is pretty sketchy.

I don't support an immediate pull-out, because I think that if we do it will be disasterous for us medium and short term, but I would like to know what our goals are and how we hope to achieve them or if the plan is just to leave our folks there forever trying to hold Iraq together.

[headexplode]

I'm not sure what planet you have been living on, but the majority of the democratic leadership has been against this and wanting troop pull out now.
With, might I add, no other plan than withdrawl.

Other than when they voted for the war, and were convinced of WMD's name another time they have NOT wanted troop pullout??

Wait, weren't they for it before they were against it? Or something like that?

I know it's weird to say, but TMK is the voice of reason in this thread. Most of the democrats criticized (and continue to criticize) the lack of a coherent plan after the successful invasion, not necessarily the invasion itself (which most of them supported and continue to support), not to mention the apparent dishonesty (and incompetence) of the Bush Administration leading up to war and extending for several years after it began.

Now, we know that these folks are politicians, and by definition, are lying corrupt scumbags, but it has nothing to do with the D or the R after their names, a fact which many of the partisan apologists here can't seem to wrap their brains around (or at least what parts of their brains haven't been rotted away from too much indignant radio programming and too many third-rate conjecture-ridden blogs).

I will add that I'm not in favor of troop withdrawl, though I was totally against the war from the get-go. The one good thing that came from the democrats regaining Congress is that it forced the Bush Administration to replace Donald Rumsfeld and listen to those in military leadership positions who knew better, and to seriously alter their strategy for Iraq (which, by many accounts, seems to be having a positive effect). I hope the democratic leadership has the foresight, and the patience, to try to see this thing through to an outcome that will be desireable to all parties involved. Further, I hope the republican leadership has the humility and the awareness to refrain from chest-bumping and "I-told-you-sos," as if this is how they planned it to go all along, and as if they didn't make some serious mistakes along the way, costing much in lives and money. (I know, though, that neither of these hopes will probably be realized, considering the tendency of most people to think with their "guts" rather than their brains, and for politicians to be concerned with little more than surviving the next election cycle.)

[KAOSkins]

Tell me if Rummy won't go down as possibly the worst Sec. of Defense that we've ever had? I'll echo other comments that while we were against the war to begin with, once we're there leaving would be negligent. We can't do that and I won't vote for anyone who proposes that. I do hope the next admin comes up with something akin to winning so we don't have stay at these level forever.

[Kilmer17]

Can anyone give a definitve answer on what the Dem platform is for Iraq?

It's an impossible debate to have with a Dem because most of them dont know what they stand for in the first place.

[Burgold]

Can anyone give a definitve answer on what the Dem platform is for Iraq?

It's an impossible debate to have with a Dem because most of them dont know what they stand for in the first place.

Can anyone give me a definitive answer on what the Repub platform is for Iraq?

Oh, and winning and finishing the job is not a platform. It's a soundbite.

[The_cavalierman]

Democrats know the difference between tactical and strategic success...


1. The surge is a limited tactical success thus far which is not saying very much after 4-5 years. When you consider how long it took , how much money and lives were lost in due to piss poor leadership prior to the surge then the surge amounts to a hiccup in a hurricane.

2. The surge is NOT a strategic success because strategic success requires massive infastructure improvement to the point where Iraq is self sustainable, dramatic security improvements everywhere in Iraq and diplomatic success.

After 5 years, thousands of deaths and trillions of dollars spent the American people are smart enough to know the difference a limited success and a strategic victory.

[KAOSkins]

As opposed to the current plan? Yeah, it's safer now and I'm glad because I'm an American, but where are we going with it? I have yet to see the right come up with a definition of winning either. So it's not the left or right who's floundering it's all of 'em. Maybe this mass exodus from congress we're seeing will bring some people who aren't afraid to take some risk and provide some legitimate leadership. I don't care if they're on your side or mine, Kilmer, I just want someone to tell me what we're going to accomplish and how we're going to do it.

[Kilmer17]

It just drives you guys crazy that things are getting better.

What a sad position to have to defend.

[Burgold]

What is the Republicans definitive answer on Iraq, Kilmer?

[headexplode]

It just drives you guys crazy that things are getting better.

What a sad position to have to defend.

I, for one, hate it when things get better. It makes me want to cry--then laugh---then cry---then laugh-----then cry-----then laugh-----then put lipstick all over my body and a paperbag over my genitals and walk through the streets pissing and ****ting all over myself. (Now that's a sad position to defend.)

[Midnight Judges]

What is the Republicans definitive answer on Iraq, Kilmer?

To buy time to pass this mess onto the Dems in '08 and then blame them for everything. Basically, it's the political equivalent of "cut and run." :silly:

[Burgold]

I, for one, hate it when things get better. It makes me want to cry--then laugh---then cry---then laugh-----then cry-----then laugh-----then put lipstick all over my body and a paperbag over my genitals and walk through the streets pissing and ****ting all over myself. (Now that's a sad position to defend.)

Damn! Being a bleeding heart liberal, I now see that you are part of a fringe minority and have to defend everything you say or do.

[alexey]

To buy time to pass this mess onto the Dems in '08 and then blame them for everything. Basically, it's the political equivalent of "cut and run." :silly:This may have been the plan before, but now there is tangible progress in Iraq. It looks like there is a chance things may actually turn around. I'm very curious to see what happens... Hopefully this progress is real.

[The_cavalierman]

Can anyone give a definitve answer on what the Dem platform is for Iraq?

It's an impossible debate to have with a Dem because most of them dont know what they stand for in the first place.

Well a smart democrat would tell you that they cannot speak for all democrats.

My position on Iraq is as follows:


1. History Lesson - History shows that democracy cannot be forced. Democracy has to be earned and it is obvious that the Bush Administration skipped history class. The US can no more build a democracy in Iraq than we can build a faster than light spaceship tomorrow. History shows that when you try to spread your beliefs with force the barbarians eventually show up at your gates.

2. What is victory in Iraq to liberals/democrats? - Giving the Iraqis back their country and allowing them to decide their own fate. Unlike some republicans that believe force solves all problems, democrats know that the war on terror will be won with a combination of law enforcement, diplomacy and the PRUDENT use of force.

3. Withdrawal from Iraq is not a failure - As a Iraqi combat veteran I believe all of the military objectives in Iraq have been accomplished. Consider the following military objectives:

Topple Saddam's regime - Done
Find WMDs - We only found the chemicals the CIA (under Reagan/Bush-41) gave Iraq in the 80's
Provide Security - Although the surge has worked, it was 4-5 years late and not large enough to cover the entire country
The military has done a splendid job despite piss-poor leadership at both the Whitehouse and the Pentagon. As General Patreus has said on many occasions, The surge needs to be accompanied by infastructure and diplomatic progress in order to be considered a real success. The Surge is simply a military operation which is tactical in nature. Progress in Iraq needs to be on a strategic level in order to make a real dent in the war on terror.

This Democrat understands that the war on terror is bigger than Iraq.

[Kilmer17]

They're doing it now B.

The surge is working. Violence is dropping. We're building infrastructure. Securing the country. Creating normalcy.

Only a fool thought that this would be a simple task. It took us years to rebuild Germany, and decades to completely unite it. We're still in Korea.

We made mistakes. Most obvious was trying to win a war without fighting a war. We tried to win a PR battle first. Wrong choice.

But things ARE improving. Including public perception, which is the biggest problems the Dems will have if it continues to improve.

[Burgold]

The surge is their platform? Their long term plan? Seems a bit sketchy for a platform.

Fair's fair though. This is what I think that the Dems major platform for Iraq seems to boil down to.

As a series of benchmarks or objectives are met, the United States will draw down troop levels in Iraq. Contingent upon this, is demonstrable signs of effort and progress that the Iraqi government needs to make. If they fail to do their part entirely, it is not deemed a requirement of the US government to prop up their government. Basically, if everyone does their job, we start phasing out. If no one does their job, we start phasing out. If there is progress, the phase out is much slower.

In the end, and that may be three years or 20 years, the goal is to get us out of there or be set in a stable base and not beset by constant attacks.

[headexplode]

Damn! Being a bleeding heart liberal, I now see that you are part of a fringe minority and have to defend everything you say or do.

Did I mention I'm also transgendered, black, gay, jewish, and I hate America? I'd like my welfare check now, please.

[The_cavalierman]

It just drives you guys crazy that things are getting better.

What a sad position to have to defend.

What should drive all of us insane is that General Patreus is begging President Bush to light a fire under US contractors and the State department to supplement the limited tactical success of the surge with infastructure and diplomatic progress to no avail.

It is truly a shame that any progress from the surge will be lost if the other important missions are not addressed (infastructure/diplomacy).

This is not a liberal or a conservative thing....this is something that should make all of us angry enough put pressure on both Bush and congress in order to help the troops.

Playing the political blame game is dumb and pointless...

[Kilmer17]

Not sure why you ignore all but the Surge, but okay.

Your ideas boil down to "were leaving" regardless of what you do.

That's fine, I just wish the Dems would have the stones to say that. But instead, they speak in vague generalities so they can always have the ability to say "we're for something else" without ever getting tied to it.

I respect Biden for that much, at least I know where he stands at all times.

[Burgold]

Headexplode,

Oh... why did you have to mention Jewish. Trust me, we get no minority support in the U.S. Now, you are back to anonymous status.

[Burgold]

Your ideas boil down to "were leaving" regardless of what you do.

I respect Biden for that much, at least I know where he stands at all times.

Politicians never speak in anything but riddles, because when they say what they think they always have to pay for it later. Except in the very rare instance that they are right.

I think that "we're leaving" is the Dem's plan. Now, "we're leaving" could take up to 20 years depending on various factors, but I think most of us hope for a "we're leaving" that's much quicker. Especially, as an occupying force that is under constant threat.

[headexplode]

Oh... why did you have to mention Jewish. Trust me, we get no minority support in the U.S. Now, you are back to anonymous status.

I just converted to Islam. The real violent kind.

[Burgold]

I just converted to Islam. The real violent kind.

Better. Much better. You have already been offered three jobs at Homeland Security as a translater dependent on a Hillary victory.

[81artmonk]

Wait, weren't they for it before they were against it? Or something like that?

I know it's weird to say, but TMK is the voice of reason in this thread. Most of the democrats criticized (and continue to criticize) the lack of a coherent plan after the successful invasion, not necessarily the invasion itself (which most of them supported and continue to support), not to mention the apparent dishonesty (and incompetence) of the Bush Administration leading up to war and extending for several years after it began.

Now, we know that these folks are politicians, and by definition, are lying corrupt scumbags, but it has nothing to do with the D or the R after their names, a fact which many of the partisan apologists here can't seem to wrap their brains around (or at least what parts of their brains haven't been rotted away from too much indignant radio programming and too many third-rate conjecture-ridden blogs).

I will add that I'm not in favor of troop withdrawl, though I was totally against the war from the get-go. The one good thing that came from the democrats regaining Congress is that it forced the Bush Administration to replace Donald Rumsfeld and listen to those in military leadership positions who knew better, and to seriously alter their strategy for Iraq (which, by many accounts, seems to be having a positive effect). I hope the democratic leadership has the foresight, and the patience, to try to see this thing through to an outcome that will be desireable to all parties involved. Further, I hope the republican leadership has the humility and the awareness to refrain from chest-bumping and "I-told-you-sos," as if this is how they planned it to go all along, and as if they didn't make some serious mistakes along the way, costing much in lives and money. (I know, though, that neither of these hopes will probably be realized, considering the tendency of most people to think with their "guts" rather than their brains, and for politicians to be concerned with little more than surviving the next election cycle.)




The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid said, on the same day US President George W. Bush was giving a speech at an Ohio town hall meeting defending the war on terror.





Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/r000146/) yesterday endorsed the Senate's toughest antiwar bill yet, a bid to cut off funding within a year


"The American people, I repeat, have to understand what is happening. It is not worth another drop of American blood in Iraq. It is not worth another damaged brain." Harry Reid



“The point is this isn’t a war to win, it’s a situation to solve
nancy pelosi



"The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home," said Murtha, a former Marine intelligence officer in Vietnam and the senior Democrat on the House appropriations subcommittee that oversees military spending.





"The Congress should make absolutely clear that they are going to stand their ground, supporting the troops and reflecting the will of the American people to end this war john edwards


The Edwards Iraq Plan (http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070214-iraq-plan/index.html) (from 14 February 2007; the link also discusses his support for non-funding the escalation):


Cap funding for the troops in Iraq at 100,000 troops to stop the surge and implement an immediate drawdown of 40-50,000 combat troops. Any troops beyond that level should be redeployed immediately.



The former senator from North Carolina told reporters America should "make it clear (to Iraqis) we are leaving, and the best way is to start leaving. We should take 40,000 combat troops out now."





As you know I'm not leading a campaign for the presidency in 2008. Instead I have chosen to campaign to end the war in Iraq and protect America.john kerry




That's why I am introducing legislation that will again set a firm one-year deadline for the redeployment of most American troops from Iraq. john kerry



care to still stand by your point that they don't support troop pullout??

[Kilmer17]

Politicians never speak in anything but riddles, because when they say what they think they always have to pay for it later. Except in the very rare instance that they are right.

I think that "we're leaving" is the Dem's plan. Now, "we're leaving" could take up to 20 years depending on various factors, but I think most of us hope for a "we're leaving" that's much quicker. Especially, as an occupying force that is under constant threat.


I think we should finish our business in Korea before we start to think about leaving Iraq.

My point is that I dont think we will, or should, ever leave Iraq. I think bases in Iraq is precicely what we need. Unless we're advocating not having bases ANYWHERE other than the US. A great idea IMO, but only feasible if we have the stomach to fight wars the right way going forward. IE- massive airstrikes with little regard for collateral damage or PR. And since that's never going to happen, we need bases throughout the world.

Other than the "leaving regardless" part, I think your idea is exactly what Bush is saying and what we're doing.

[The_cavalierman]

They're doing it now B.

The surge is working. Violence is dropping. We're building infrastructure. Securing the country. Creating normalcy.

Only a fool thought that this would be a simple task. It took us years to rebuild Germany, and decades to completely unite it. We're still in Korea.

We made mistakes. Most obvious was trying to win a war without fighting a war. We tried to win a PR battle first. Wrong choice.

But things ARE improving. Including public perception, which is the biggest problems the Dems will have if it continues to improve.

The American people were sold a false bill of goods because the original reason for invading Iraq was

1. WMDs
2. Toppling an evil regime

Bush and friends never said anything about nation building in their original speeches/interviews about Iraq. Only an idiot would believe that nation building with an occupying force works. History has shown that it only delays the evolution of the people being occupied.

Judging by Bush/Congress ratings the American people do not want to stay in Iraq and spend trillions of dollars and keep our troops in harm's way unecessarily when we have problems of our own that need addressing right here.

[Kilmer17]

Those were TWO of the reasons given. But go back into the board archives and you will massive arguemtns from Leftys complaining that Bush is talking about too many reasons to go into Iraq before the war began.

[headexplode]

The Edwards Iraq Plan (http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070214-iraq-plan/index.html) (from 14 February 2007; the link also discusses his support for non-funding the escalation):

Cap funding for the troops in Iraq at 100,000 troops to stop the surge and implement an immediate drawdown of 40-50,000 combat troops. Any troops beyond that level should be redeployed immediately.






care to still stand by your point that they don't support troop pullout??

"They" don't all support a troop pullout. Many of "they" supported the invasion (or the threat of one, anyway) to begin with. The "they" who may just win the democratic nomination does not support withdrawl.

Perhaps you missed this statement in my post: "I hope the democratic leadership has the foresight, and the patience, to try to see this thing through to an outcome that will be desireable to all parties involved." Meaning, I hope that rather than make decisions based on short-term political considerations, they actually practice what they preach by listening to the experts on the ground to try to help stabilize the country and help with the reconstruction (because we, like, owe it to the Iraqis and ourselves).

The point of my post is not to defend the democrats, necessarily, but to not allow you and other partisan apologists on this board to blame the "other" party on the mistakes and give "your" party credit for any successes. Because, simply, it ain't that simple. Or accurate.

[The_cavalierman]

Those were TWO of the reasons given. But go back into the board archives and you will massive arguemtns from Leftys complaining that Bush is talking about too many reasons to go into Iraq before the war began.

Again....

Had Bush told Congress and the American people that he was going to stay in Iraq to nation build after our military objectives were accomplished then he would not recieved the authorization to start this war.

Bush sold the American people a false bill of goods

You said only an idiot would think this would be over quickly but Bush sold going to war on the two main points of finding WMDs and toppling Saddam. Unless you can find me a pre-war video clip or anything where he said something about nation-building in Iraq.

[Kilmer17]

Again....

Had Bush told Congress and the American people that he was going to stay in Iraq to nation build after our military objectives were accomplished then he would not recieved the authorization to start this war.

Bush sold the American people a false bill of goods

You said only an idiot would think this would be over quickly but Bush sold going to war on the two main points of finding WMDs and toppling Saddam. Unless you can find me a pre-war video clip or anything where he said something about nation-building in Iraq.


Show me a statement from Bush saying we would leave right after we toppled Saddam and found WMDs.

Dems are trying to rewrite history with that kind of nonsense.

[The_cavalierman]

Show me a statement from Bush saying we would leave right after we toppled Saddam and found WMDs.

Dems are trying to rewrite history with that kind of nonsense.

So in your bizarro world when Bush got authorization the American people were giving a thumbs up to the following:


A 10 year commitment or more in Iraq
Billions of Tax payer money missing (about 12 billion to be precise)
Trillions of dollars spent with few tangible results
The only rewriting of history that took place to my knowledge was Cheney knowing that an Iraq invasion-occupation in 1991 would have been a "quagmire" to Cheney saying we would in fact be greeted as liberators in 2003.

The American people answered your question about what they thought was gonna happen the only way they could (with their vote).


Bush has low approval ratings that are not improving
The American people elected the democrats in a congressional majority
If the American people were aware of and approved GW's plan then how do you explain the obvious rejection now?

The fact is we should have went "wheels up" the moment we captured Saddam because our military objectives were officially over at that point.

[Burgold]

This is a dishonest path. The primary and most important reasons stated to go to war in Iraq were: 1) WMD 2) Getting rid of Sadam 3) Al Qaeda connection to Iraq. Everything else was garnish. Those three were the main course.

It turned out at the 2 of them were highly exaggerated or false, but at this point rehashing that seems fruitless.

[The_cavalierman]

Show me a statement from Bush saying we would leave right after we toppled Saddam and found WMDs.

Dems are trying to rewrite history with that kind of nonsense.

As you can clearly see...the American people are rejecting the stay in Iraq plan.

[Kilmer17]

As you can clearly see...the American people are rejecting the stay in Iraq plan.


As opposed to the 11 percent approval rating for Congress?


But please, show me where Bush said we'd be done in a couple of years.


Or show me where he said that we should leave before the country was secured?

In fact, show me a DEM statement that says they supported the fall of Saddam and search for WMDs and fighting Al Queda, but that they DIDNT support rebuilding?

[The_cavalierman]

As opposed to the 11 percent approval rating for Congress?


But please, show me where Bush said we'd be done in a couple of years.


Or show me where he said that we should leave before the country was secured?

In fact, show me a DEM statement that says they supported the fall of Saddam and search for WMDs and fighting Al Queda, but that they DIDNT support rebuilding?

Obviously you are either not reading or not comprehending very easy posts.

I never said Bush said the war would be done in a couple of years.
I also never said that Bush said we should leave before the country is secured.
What I did say was the military portion of operation Iraqi Freedom should have been completed when the military objectives were completed. Capturing Saddam was the last military objective.

The fact is the Bush administration wasted billions of dollars in tax payer money trying to train a capable Iraqi police force. Infact the US tried and failed to do this twice.

We should have been able to turn this country over to the Iraqi government anda capable Iraqi or UN force once Saddam and sons were captured/killed.

I said that had bush vocalized the fact that he want to stay and nation build in Iraq to the American people/Congress prior to invasion he would not have gotten a free hand in Iraq.

Before the Iraq Invasion the only thing coming out of the whitehouse as justifications were WMDs and toppling Saddam. I never heard bush or anyone else from the whitehouse saying anything about building a democracy in Iraq.

Unless you have some proof that he did mention this prior to invading Iraq.


Please stick to the points and stop trying to MSU (make **** up)

[Sarge]

You know we almost ALWAYS stick around to re-build what we crush.

[Predicto]

Has there ever been any subject ever better than this one for allowing people to fudge their own side's views while at the same time putting words in mouths of their ideological opponents?

Republicans favor "victory" and "finishing the job" while the evil democrats are for "defeat" and "appeasement" and "betraying our brave troops!!!"

Democrats favor "The Iraqi people standing up for themselves" and "long term stability" and "a political solution" while the evil republicans are for "endless war" and "more senseless waste" and "the deaths of more of our brave troops!"

Blah blah blah - talking points Ahoy!

Fact is, this is a totally messed up situation and NO ONE knows what to do now. The surge is helping, but it isn't a long term solution. Staying in Iraq has plusses and minuses, leaving Iraq has plusses and minuses, but NEITHER approach is guaranteed not to blow up in our face. In fact, it probably is going to blow up in our face whatever we do.

If there was an easy answer to this mess, you would have heard about it by now. You haven't.

Of course, admitting this is not a good way to get elected. So expect to hear another years' worth of yelling about "defeatists" and "warmongers" and "appeasers" and "Halliburton" and how the other side doesn't care about our brave, brave troops.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

We haven't had three honest Iraq discussions on this board in the past 5 years. I'm done with the subject. No one even tries to discuss the subject fairly. :mad:

[Sarge]

Has there ever been any subject ever better than this one for allowing people to fudge their own side's views while at the same time putting words in mouths of their ideological opponents?

Republicans favor "victory" and "finishing the job" while the evil democrats are for "defeat" and "appeasement" and "betraying our brave troops!!!"

Democrats favor "The Iraqi people standing up for themselves" and "long term stability" and "a political solution" while the evil republicans are for "endless war" and "more senseless waste" and "the deaths of more of our brave troops!"

Blah blah blah - talking points Ahoy!

Fact is, this is a totally messed up situation and NO ONE knows what to do now. The surge is helping, but it isn't a long term solution. Staying in Iraq has plusses and minuses, leaving Iraq has plusses and minuses, but NEITHER approach is guaranteed not to blow up in our face. In fact, it probably is going to blow up in our face whatever we do.

If there was an easy answer to this mess, you would have heard about it by now. You haven't.

Of course, admitting this is not a good way to get elected. So expect to hear another years' worth of yelling about "defeatists" and "warmongers" and "appeasers" and "Halliburton" and how the other side doesn't care about our brave, brave troops.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

We haven't had three honest Iraq discussions on this board in the past 5 years. I'm done with the subject. No one even tries to discuss the subject fairly. :mad:

And despite all that, the one constant remains.

The Dems came to power by promising to "Change Course" or leave altogether. They've done nothing but try to follow up on that promsie time and time again. Much like Gus banging his noodle into the stadium wall, Dems offered bill after bill after bill to pull out, even though they know they didn't have the votes.

Hell, it's the only thing they've been persistant at this year. Now success has come about and it makes them look like the defeatist asses they are

THey made their bed. They sided with the terrorists. Now they have to lay in it

[Predicto]

And despite all that, the one constant remains.

The Dems came to power by promising to "Change Course" or leave altogether. They've done nothing but try to follow up on that promsie time and time again. Much like Gus banging his noodle into the stadium wall, Dems offered bill after bill after bill to pull out, even though they know they didn't have the votes.

Hell, it's the only thing they've been persistant at this year. Now success has come about and it makes them look like the defeatist asses they are

THey made their bed. They sided with the terrorists. Now they have to lay in it


You can't help yourself can you?

NO ONE "sided with the terrorists." I guess I shouldn't have left that particular talking point out of my list. I'll put it back in, right next to "Bush lied, people died!" Both are equally useless.

Of course the Democrats are playing politics, trying to keep their base happy and thinking that they are solving the problem. So are the Republicans, in the EXACT same way. Neither has a clue what to do except point fingers at the other side, because soundbites are easy - real solutions to a mess like this are not easy.

[Sarge]

You can't help yourself can you?

NO ONE "sided with the terrorists." I guess I shouldn't have left that particular talking point out of my list. I'll put it back in, right next to "Bush lied, people died!" Both are equally useless.

Of course the Democrats are playing politics, trying to keep their base happy and thinking that they are solving the problem. So are the Republicans, in the EXACT same way. Neither has a clue what to do except point fingers at the other side, because soundbites are easy - real solutions to a mess like this are not easy.

Of course Dems don't think that they sided with terrorists. THey never do

It's just that terrorists want to see us out of Iraq

So do Dems

Terrorists want laws that allow surveillance of bad guys kept soft

So do Dems

Terrorists want to have their day in US courts instead of a CIA camp

Dems want this as well


Shall I keep going?

[Predicto]

Shall I keep going?

No, because those points are just as empty and pointless as they were the last 30 times you said them.

Look, if the terrorists say they want to continue breathing oxygen, are you going to stop breathing yourself just to spite them?

Your concerns about terrorists and security are genuine. My concerns about civil liberties and the rule of law in this country just as genuine.

However, your talking points about my concerns are not genuine. And I could do the same to you, just as easily.

But I'm tired of doing it.

[Larry]

Of course Dems don't think that they sided with terrorists. THey never do

It's just that terrorists want to see us out of Iraq

So do Dems

Terrorists want laws that allow surveillance of bad guys kept soft

So do Dems

Terrorists want to have their day in US courts instead of a CIA camp

Dems want this as well


Shall I keep going?


"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and so do we." George W. Bush - Washington, DC - Aug. 5, 2004

Sorry. Had to. :)

[Sarge]

No, because those points are just as empty and pointless as they were the last 30 times you said them.

Look, if the terrorists say they want to continue breathing oxygen, are you going to stop breathing yourself just to spite them?

Your concerns about terrorists and security are genuine. My concerns about civil liberties and the rule of law in this country just as genuine.

However, your talking points about my concerns are not genuine. And I could do the same to you, just as easily.

But I'm tired of doing it.

So name a bill that any Republican has brought up this year, or hell, the past six years, that weakens our security or coincides with the goals of the bad guys

Border slackers aside

Look, I'm sure the Dems don't think that the stuff they are doing is helping terrorists. They probably do it to either appease their loony base or to (In their feeble minds), save the country and all it's institutions from disappearing under the evil Bush/Hitler/ Cheney regieme

THe problem I have with the Dems, aside from being commie socialist leftists, is that they cannot seem to see that no matter the reason behind thier actions, the results of those action if carried out, are beneficial to terrorists and further their goals

[Predicto]

So name a bill that any Republican has brought up this year, or hell, the past six years, that weakens our security or coincides with the goals of the bad guys



And show me any bill any Democrat has brought up to weaken our civil liberties and the rule of law in this country.... blah blah blah




THe problem I have with the Dems, aside from being commie socialist leftists, is that they cannot seem to see that no matter the reason behind thier actions, the results of those action if carried out, are beneficial to terrorists and further their goals

And the problem I have with this is that it presumes that what is best for America can be defined solely by defying the talking points from terrorists, not by making sober judgments about what is best for America itself, to preserve our own greatness and security and place in the world.

Of course the freaking terrorists say they want us out of Iraq - what the hell else are they going to say? "Oh we were wrong, the Americans are not imperialist Crusaders after all? They should stay and occupy this Muslim country forever???"

Maybe my last example was not clear enough. How about this? If a terrorist told you NOT to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, would you decide that the best strategy must be to jump, right away?

You are letting a terrorist tell you what to do.

[Larry]

So name a bill that any Republican has brought up this year, or hell, the past six years, that weakens our security or coincides with the goals of the bad guys

They hate our freedoms. They want to destroy our system of government. They want to destroy the Constitution.

See how easy it is, when your entire portfolio consists of creating vague sound bites and claiming that they are your opponent's position?

:)

[81artmonk]

Again....

Had Bush told Congress and the American people that he was going to stay in Iraq to nation build after our military objectives were accomplished then he would not recieved the authorization to start this war.

Bush sold the American people a false bill of goods

You said only an idiot would think this would be over quickly but Bush sold going to war on the two main points of finding WMDs and toppling Saddam. Unless you can find me a pre-war video clip or anything where he said something about nation-building in Iraq.


That's such a crock. So are you saying that you and the other democrats think that we would go in, topple the regime, get saddam and than leave immediately??

Of course we are nation building. We waged war on thier government and region. Removed their regime and now are rebuilding their government, infrastucture and security forces.

[81artmonk]

You know we almost ALWAYS stick around to re-build what we crush.


Sarge, you're the man, but trying to convince Cavalierman or others who think like him is pointless. It's Bushes fault, he's one step away away from Hitler or may even be there already.

Bush is to blame for pretty much every ill facing America today. Sarge, how does one argue with that?? You don't. If they can't blame Bush, they will try to find a way.

Even now, with the article, they look at it and excuse it as "well, we may be making positive steps but we still aren't winning and it's been too long so we need to get out".

Pointless I tell Sarge, pointless!!

[Ancalagon the Black]

It's nice to hear some good news coming out of Iraq at last.

[The_cavalierman]

That's such a crock. So are you saying that you and the other democrats think that we would go in, topple the regime, get saddam and than leave immediately??

Of course we are nation building. We waged war on thier government and region. Removed their regime and now are rebuilding their government, infrastucture and security forces.

That is exactly what I am saying...(but I cannot speak for all democrats)

Freedom in this particular case is allowing the Iraqi people to decide their own fate. America was a mess after our own revolution. We had patriots taking revenge against loyalist etc. Infact our internal problems after the revolution led to the civil war.

My point is America had to struggle mightily to earn the democracy we have today and we had to do it on our own. Iraq needs to go through the same process on their own. Any The measurement of success for the United States is providing the Iraqi people with the opportunity to pass or fail. They have that right now and we should be getting out of their way.

To the rest of the world and many Iraqis the united states is nation building with an occupying military force which never works. Ask the British, Ask the French, Ask the Chinese, Ask the Russians....History is pretty clear on the results. Basically all we are doing is delaying the Iraqis from either succeeding or failing on their own.

If you think that the United States Military can nation build you obviously are ignorant of world history.

[alexey]

That's such a crock. So are you saying that you and the other democrats think that we would go in, topple the regime, get saddam and than leave immediately??

Of course we are nation building. We waged war on thier government and region. Removed their regime and now are rebuilding their government, infrastucture and security forces.
Of course people were expecting some nation building to occur, but the question is actually more fundamental. People expected us to have a freaking PLAN for what happens after we invade :whoknows: (unfortunately instead of being based on reality the post-invasion plan was based on pre-invasion disinformation campaign)

[Burgold]

Of course people were expecting some nation building to occur, but the question is actually more fundamental. People expected us to have a freaking PLAN for what happens after we invade :whoknows:

Especially since this was a war of choice and not necessity. We didn't have to invade until we were ready. There was no immediate threat.

[alexey]

Especially since this was a war of choice and not necessity. We didn't have to invade until we were ready. There was no immediate threat.
Saddam was starting to cooperate. The window of opportunity was closing.

[The_cavalierman]

Sarge, you're the man, but trying to convince Cavalierman or others who think like him is pointless. It's Bushes fault, he's one step away away from Hitler or may even be there already.

If Sarge is your hero then that speaks volumes....:laugh:


Bush is to blame for pretty much every ill facing America today. Sarge, how does one argue with that?? You don't. If they can't blame Bush, they will try to find a way.

This from the same people that claimed the sky was falling when Clinton was president. If Bush is the Commander in Chief then he cannot avoid blame for the mismanagement of Iraq. He certainly took credit when the invasion was successful and Saddam was captured so Bush cannot duck the blame for the massive failures like:


12 billion dollars in tax payer money missing
The only WMDs found were chemicals the CIA gave Iraq in the 80's
Disbanding the Iraqi Army and putting thousands of angry and armed men out of work making them easy Al Queda recruits.
Failing twice to train a capable Iraqi police force at the cost of billions of tax payer money
Stupid statements like "bring it on" which made life harder for the troops actually doing the hard work.
Please explain these things away....if you can (I'll wait)


Even now, with the article, they look at it and excuse it as "well, we may be making positive steps but we still aren't winning and it's been too long so we need to get out". Pointless I tell Sarge, pointless!!

If you are trying to win over democrats with your fact challenged articles then you are correct in your "pointless" sentiments.

The fact is the surge is a tactical security operation that has experienced limited success. Republicans looking to justify their support of this occupation point to this limited success of a small military operation as justification for 4-5 years of very little to no progress.

What some Republicans are ignoring is the fact that the Iraqi mission is in desperate need of strategic successes that have little to do with the surge. Things like massive infastructure improvements as well as productive diplomatic gains are key to supplement the surge but they are not taking place.

General Patreus continues to say that without serious infastructure improvements and diplomatic progress the surge will amount to nothing. Unfortunately. The American people have spoken clearly and they do not want to continue to finance an open ended nation building project in Iraq. That is why the democrats control congress now and are likely to pick up more seats and the whitehouse in order to do the people's will.

The fact is if the people still agreed with the Bush/Republican plan for Iraq they would still have a majority in congress and Bush's approval ratings would not be in the tiolet. The only reason Congress approval ratings are so low is because their efforts to develop a withdrawal plan have been blocked at every turn by republicans.

The American people can see what is happening and who is actually trying to do what the people want.

[The_cavalierman]

Of course Dems don't think that they sided with terrorists. THey never do

Lookie...more talking points from the Ann Coulter school of labeling democrats.



It's just that terrorists want to see us out of Iraq

So do Dems

And now that we've heard from the peanut factory....The Facts:

The terrorists do not care if we stay in Iraq or not. As FBI Director Mueller has stated on many occassions, A determined attacker can not be stopped no matter what we do. It is absolutely comical to listen to republican fear mongers equate Iraq to national security as if they are the slightest bit connected. If anything, the terrorists are overjoyed that we are in Iraq because it only helps their public relations and recruiting efforts.

The Democrats want the Iraqis to take control of their own country and determine their own fate. The Democrats are will to take the risk of allowing Iraq to either succeed or fail (which has to happen at some point). Democrats actualy listened in history class and they know what happens when you try to nation build at the point of a sword. The republicans want to delay the process of giving the Iraqis their country back at the cost of more US troops, and more mtax payer money. The terrorist actually like the fact that we are burning resources and aiding in their propaganda campaign in Iraq.


Terrorists want laws that allow surveillance of bad guys kept soft

So do Dems

This just in...the republicans have been spying on Americans already and are no closer to stopping any potential terrorist threat.

The Democrats know that you can enforce the law and catch terrorists without trampling the US Constitution. The only people that support this intrusive surveillance on Americans are lazy law enforcement officials who do not understand thier own constitution. It is a shame that some republicans are so busy trying to play politics that they are willing to trash the the very document that separates us from the terrorists in the process. The republicans just want to take away your rights to give Americans a false sense of security. What the republicans won't tell you is even if they listened to every conversation/email in America that still does not guarantee they will prevent the next attack. Another case of Republican fear mongering with no real basis in fact.

Democrats want to protect the people of America which also means protecting their rights as Americans in addition to keeping them safe.


Terrorists want to have their day in US courts instead of a CIA camp

Dems want this as well


Democrats understand that if you become a terrorist in pursuit of terrorists then you have lost the war you are fighting before it began.

In order to defeat terrorism we are gonna have to win the hearts and minds of young men and women who are easily influenced by the radicals. We cannot do that if we do not present to the world a clear difference between US and the radicals. Unfortunately republicans cannot see the bigger picture because they are too busy trying to become the very terrorists they claim to hate.

Contrary to short-sighted republican beliefs you can be tough on terrorists even if you provide them a day in court.


Shall I keep going?

Yes....Please :D

[Air Force Cane]

US public opinion shifts on Iraq ‘surge’

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/22b3594a-9d47-11dc-af03-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1 (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/22b3594a-9d47-11dc-af03-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1)
By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington

Published: November 28 2007 01:51 | Last updated: November 28 2007 01:51

US public opinion on military progress in Iraq has improved sharply since the troops “surge” started in February but a majority of Americans still want soldiers brought home, according to a new poll. Some 48 per cent of Americans now believe that the US ­military effort in Iraq is going well, compared with 30 per cent in February, according to the latest poll (http://people-press.org/)by the Pew Research Center. But the poll found that the “rosier view of the military situation in Iraq has not translated into increased support for maintaining US forces in Iraq”. Some 54 per cent of Americans want the Pentagon to bring troops home, compared with 53 per cent in February. The improved public perception coincides with the military’s reporting of a significant decline in attacks against it, particularly since June when the five combat brigades that made up the surge had arrived. While 575 US soldiers lost their lives in the first half of 2007, the total since the beginning of July is fewer than 300. The number of Iraqi deaths has also dropped ­significantly, although some critics suggest the data do not take into account violence in the south, where the US does not have a large military presence.The military argues that improved security, which has been helped by local groups opposing insurgents across Iraq, has paved the way for a decrease in US forces, which has just started as part of a winding down of the surge over the next seven months.The Pentagon has not decided whether it will continue to reduce numbers beyond the 130,000 or so troops who will remain after the surge. But the Pew poll shows the improvement in Iraq has not increased the domestic appetite for the war. The number of respondents who believe the US will succeed in Iraq has risen from 47 per cent in February to 48 per cent now.

● About 800 Iraqis left Syria for Baghdad on Tuesday on an Iraqi government-sponsored convoy amid a media ­fanfare as the regime sought to draw attention to improving security at home. During the past month more Iraqis have returned than fled. It is the first time that has happened since the war began in 2003. Baghdad announced that 46,000 refugees returned last month because of improved security following the US troops surge. Syrian immigration sources say 60,000 Iraqis have gone back since October. While the government claimed that improved security was drawing refugees home, many Iraqis said they were returning because they had no more money and their visas had expired.

Security claim as 800 Iraqis go home (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d62221dc-9d3d-11dc-af03-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=17aab8bc-6e47-11da-9544-0000779e2340.html) - Nov-28

US reports ‘phenomenal’ drop in Iraq violence (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ca653412-97b4-11dc-9e08-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=17aab8bc-6e47-11da-9544-0000779e2340.html)- Nov-20

Troop surge and Iraq factors curb bloodshed (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/6926d8f6-97a3-11dc-9e08-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=17aab8bc-6e47-11da-9544-0000779e2340.html) - Nov-20

[The_cavalierman]

US public opinion shifts on Iraq ‘surge’

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/22b3594a-9d47-11dc-af03-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1 (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/22b3594a-9d47-11dc-af03-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1)
By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington

Published: November 28 2007 01:51 | Last updated: November 28 2007 01:51

US public opinion on military progress in Iraq has improved sharply since the troops “surge” started in February but a majority of Americans still want soldiers brought home, according to a new poll. Some 48 per cent of Americans now believe that the US ­military effort in Iraq is going well, compared with 30 per cent in February, according to the latest poll (http://people-press.org/)by the Pew Research Center. But the poll found that the “rosier view of the military situation in Iraq has not translated into increased support for maintaining US forces in Iraq”. Some 54 per cent of Americans want the Pentagon to bring troops home, compared with 53 per cent in February. The improved public perception coincides with the military’s reporting of a significant decline in attacks against it, particularly since June when the five combat brigades that made up the surge had arrived. While 575 US soldiers lost their lives in the first half of 2007, the total since the beginning of July is fewer than 300. The number of Iraqi deaths has also dropped ­significantly, although some critics suggest the data do not take into account violence in the south, where the US does not have a large military presence.The military argues that improved security, which has been helped by local groups opposing insurgents across Iraq, has paved the way for a decrease in US forces, which has just started as part of a winding down of the surge over the next seven months.The Pentagon has not decided whether it will continue to reduce numbers beyond the 130,000 or so troops who will remain after the surge. But the Pew poll shows the improvement in Iraq has not increased the domestic appetite for the war. The number of respondents who believe the US will succeed in Iraq has risen from 47 per cent in February to 48 per cent now.

● About 800 Iraqis left Syria for Baghdad on Tuesday on an Iraqi government-sponsored convoy amid a media ­fanfare as the regime sought to draw attention to improving security at home. During the past month more Iraqis have returned than fled. It is the first time that has happened since the war began in 2003. Baghdad announced that 46,000 refugees returned last month because of improved security following the US troops surge. Syrian immigration sources say 60,000 Iraqis have gone back since October. While the government claimed that improved security was drawing refugees home, many Iraqis said they were returning because they had no more money and their visas had expired.

Security claim as 800 Iraqis go home (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d62221dc-9d3d-11dc-af03-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=17aab8bc-6e47-11da-9544-0000779e2340.html) - Nov-28

US reports ‘phenomenal’ drop in Iraq violence (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ca653412-97b4-11dc-9e08-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=17aab8bc-6e47-11da-9544-0000779e2340.html)- Nov-20

Troop surge and Iraq factors curb bloodshed (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/6926d8f6-97a3-11dc-9e08-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=17aab8bc-6e47-11da-9544-0000779e2340.html) - Nov-20


Great news on the limited tactical success of the surge but.....

If this success is not complimented with massive infastructure and diplomatic successes the surge is nothing more than a fart in a hurricane.

After 4-5 years in Iraq Strategic level successes like Iraqis having more than 2 hours of electricity, reliable water supplies and other essentials are required in order to claim success. Diplomatic successes that General patreus has been begging for have not taken place at all.

Not trying to be a total kill joy here but Pew research is not an unbiased source. If Pew's research were so accurate then the president's poll numbers would be improving since they are tied to Iraq.

The bottom line...

1. The surge is working (only where it is)
2. Their needs to be a infastructure and diplomatic surge which ain't happening
3. After 5 years in Iraq and trillions spent you cannot expect one limited tactical security success to cover years of little to no progress.

Comical...Simply Comical

[81artmonk]

If Sarge is your hero then that speaks volumes....:laugh:




This from the same people that claimed the sky was falling when Clinton was president.

Well, let's see, under Clinton we were attacked numerous times by terrorists and nothing was done. Under clinton, most of the intelligence gathered on Al Queda and 9/11 was done and nothing was done to subvert it or prepare for it.


Under Clinton, had Iraq happened like with Bush, we wouldn't have had the force to even think about going over there, since you wouldn't be able to find a tank with a metal detector, from all the military cuts he made.

Under Clinton, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was enacted with his approval, for which Republicans get blamed for and called out on, when it was clintons idea and policy.


If Bush is the Commander in Chief then he cannot avoid blame for the mismanagement of Iraq.

Bush may have not admitted blame, but he has assesed the situation, fired people who weren't getting things done, and hired others, put others in charge who could get things done and changed how things get done, based on generals recommendations. The only reason Democrats are angry or frustrated is he hasn't resorted to, "hell, we've lost, nothing can be done, it isn't getting any better, better scram" mentality.


He certainly took credit when the invasion was successful and Saddam was captured so Bush cannot duck the blame for the massive failures like:

[QUOTE]12 billion dollars in tax payer money missing (Don't know enough about to comment.)

The only WMDs found were chemicals the CIA gave Iraq in the 80's
Just because they haven't been found, doesn't mean they were never there? Just becuase O.J. wasn't convicted doesn't mean he didn't do it!

Disbanding the Iraqi Army and putting thousands of angry and armed men out of work making them easy Al Queda recruits.
I really love this one. Based on this question or comment, you would have us topple Saddams regime and than turn to his personal army which carried out his murderous orders and say," hey, wanna have power back and protect Iraq?" That would be like defeating Hitler and than enlisting the SS to regroup and be germanys sercurity force.


Failing twice to train a capable Iraqi police force at the cost of billions of tax payer money
From what I've read, that opinion is flawed and just that.


Stupid statements like "bring it on" which made life harder for the troops actually doing the hard work.
WOW, we are going to blame bush for talking tough. I'm sure you would hold Ike responsible for talking tough during the war huh??

Please explain these things away....if you can (I'll wait)




If you are trying to win over democrats with your fact challenged articles then you are correct in your "pointless" sentiments.

Not so much win over, but more like point out that they were wrong.


The fact is the surge is a tactical security operation that has experienced limited success. Republicans looking to justify their support of this occupation point to this limited success of a small military operation as justification for 4-5 years of very little to no progress.

So one is too assume that since it's taken so long to achieve success at all in any aspect that it really doesn't matter and is a mute point.....interesting.


What some Republicans are ignoring is the fact that the Iraqi mission is in desperate need of strategic successes that have little to do with the surge. Things like massive infastructure improvements as well as productive diplomatic gains are key to supplement the surge but they are not taking place.

Very true, but the gains we have made are significant and your downplaying them is irresponsible. You have a country with 3 factions. One being loyal or used to be loyal to the regime which once was in power. So to expect nirvana in 5 years is crazy. IMO, what has been accomplished already is pretty good. Not perfect and not where it needs to be, by any stretch, but a good step.


General Patreus continues to say that without serious infastructure improvements and diplomatic progress the surge will amount to nothing. Unfortunately. The American people have spoken clearly and they do not want to continue to finance an open ended nation building project in Iraq. That is why the democrats control congress now and are likely to pick up more seats and the whitehouse in order to do the people's will.

I think you, like the Democrats mistake losing and not being happy with negative news and reports as wanting us out. The American people aren't happy, yet they don't want to lose or appear to have lost this endevor.


The fact is if the people still agreed with the Bush/Republican plan for Iraq they would still have a majority in congress and Bush's approval ratings would not be in the tiolet. The only reason Congress approval ratings are so low is because their efforts to develop a withdrawal plan have been blocked at every turn by republicans.


You are wrong there too. again, like the democrats you assume that this past election was a mandate which is wasn't. It was Republicans frustrated with their party not doing what they were elected to do. It also wasn't the American people saying "we are voting in Democrats to get us out of Iraq". If that is the case than republicans should win next election since not only Democrats, but the candidates have stated that won't happen anytime soon, and since in power, have yet done anything at all to get it done!



The American people can see what is happening and who is actually trying to do what the people want


Yeah, that would be no one!! Neither party is doing diddly squat!

[Air Force Cane]

Media Whiplash on Iraq

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=23643 (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=23643)

by Monica Crowley (http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Monica%20Crowley) (more by this author) (http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=Monica+Crowley)

Posted 11/28/2007 ET If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, then the Democrats in Congress are certifiable.
The party of surrender tried to surrender AGAIN last week. For the 40th time, the Democrats introduced legislation to force a troop withdrawal from Iraq, only to have it go down in flames. They can’t even humiliate their country right. Thanks to the hard work, courage, and sacrifice of the U.S. military, the progress in Iraq has been stunning. Roadside attacks are down by over 50%. American and Iraqi casualties are way down. The number of terrorists and weapons coming in from Iran and Syria has fallen dramatically. Iraqis are moving back to Baghdad by the thousands. Businesses are re-opening by the hundreds. The country is beginning to stabilize. So what do the Democrats do with this evidence? Ignore it. Pretend like it doesn’t exist. Revert to their comfort zone of waving the white flag from the cozy confines of Capitol Hill. It’s so 2004. You know it’s bad for the Democrats when even their house media organ, The New York Times, makes fun of them. On November 19, the Times reported this: “Democrats in Congress failed once again on Friday to shift President Bush’s war strategy in Iraq, but insisted that they would not let up. Their explanation for their latest foiled effort seemed to boil down to a simple question: ‘What else are we supposed to do?’” What else are they supposed to do?! How about SUPPORT the war effort? How about support the progress being made in Iraq? How about ACTUALLY supporting the troops instead of trying to pass legislation to pull the rug out from under them?

For Democrats, this is out of the question. Support the war?! You must be crazy.
The piece went on: “All signs indicate that Democrats will continue proposing such measures as long as Mr. Bush remains in office and troops remain in Iraq. “We are going to keep plugging away,” said Senator Carl Levin. In other words, the Democrats intend to continue wasting our time and money on harassing the Commander-in-Chief in the middle of a war. Whomever came up with this gem of a strategy deserves a raise. Meanwhile, on the same day the Times ran that story about the Keystone Kops of the Democratic Party, they ran another story that reported this: “The American military said Sunday that the weekly number of attacks in Iraq had fallen to the lowest level since just before…February 2006.” (The Times then went through three paragraphs of conditions about the reliability of statistics coming from Iraq, how hard it is to identify trends there, etc. In other words, any good news they are forced to report from Iraq must be diluted first. When there was only bad news every day, there were no such conditions.)

Five paragraphs into the piece, they wrote that, “the violence had diminished significantly since the United States reinforced troop levels in Iraq and adopted a new counterinsurgency strategy.” In other words, it’s working really well. The following day, November 20, the Times ran another front page story beneath a breathtaking photo of a bride and groom in Baghdad. The piece opened with an Iraqi woman saying, “I feel happy.” Happiness?! In Baghdad?! Reported by the New York Times?! The piece went on to describe the many ways in which Baghdad is flourishing: the freedom with which people now move through the city, how they are “defiantly optimistic,” and “willing themselves to normalcy.” The same week, Newsweek had a major story titled, “Baghdad Comes Alive!” (A clever allusion to Peter Frampton’s 1976 classic album, “Frampton Comes Alive!”) I can’t help but think there is a backstory to all of these cover stories. After four years of pounding the war in Iraq as a failure, the editors of the New York Times, Newsweek, and every other left-leaning publication are now tripping over themselves reporting “happiness” in Iraq. So what’s really going on? Two things: 1) Things actually are improving there, and as much as the Times and others have tried to ignore it---as the Democrats in Congress still are---they have to report at least some of the news in order to retain even a modicum of credibility. 2) The Times and Newsweek and the others don’t actually want the American involvement in Iraq to succeed, so stories like these might be something of a set-up. After years of relentlessly reporting how incredibly bad things were, maybe now they are going in the opposite direction. Maybe now they are running stories about how incredibly good things are, so when there is another violent setback or two, they can say, “Here we go again. Another reversal for Bush. See. We were right all along. It’s a failure after all.” The Times and Newsweek aren’t going to publish positive stories about Iraq for their health. The ease and willingness with which they have been able to move from “everything is grim” to “things are happy” is suspicious. They went from winter to summer without spring. It’s a form of ideological global warming. And congressional Democrats are still wearing their winter coats.

[Air Force Cane]

Every day that goes by- more and more progress is being made in Iraq. Today Geraldo Rivera was reporting from Rashid District in Baghdad, WITH NO HELMET OR KEVLAR. Rashid used to be a dumping ground for the bodies of Sunnis killed by Shia squads. Now there are houses selling for 250,000 dollars.

And every day- the liberals on here look stupider and more divorced from reality. For the last year those who support the mission have been battling with the defeatists- and which side has been proven correct?!

Iraq Combat Deaths Down 50 Percent in November http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200711/NAT20071129b.html (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200711/NAT20071129b.html)

By Kevin Mooney CNSNews.com Staff Writer November 29, 2007 (CNSNews.com) - Combat-related casualties for U.S. military personnel in Iraq have been reduced by half in the first 28 days of November compared to the same timeframe for last year, a Cybercast News Service analysis of Pentagon reports shows. There have been 24 combat-related deaths in Iraq reported in the current month thus far in comparison with the 48 combat-related deaths reported in the first 28 days of November last year. This reflects a 50 percent drop. Total casualties (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200711/NAT20071129a.html), which include non-combat deaths, are down about 45 percent from where they were in the same 28-day period a year ago. There have been 29 casualties reported in Iraq so far this month versus 53 causalities for the same period in 2006.

There is often a delay between the time a casualty occurs and when the Defense Department releases its final casualty numbers. Nevertheless, a Cybercast News Service analysis shows there has been a consistent decline in the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq since the 30,000 U.S. troop surge went into effect in June. Although more U.S. troops have been killed in 2007 than in any other previous year, the spike in casualties occurred before the surge went into effect. Recent figures show a correlation between the influx of new troops and declining casualty rates. November marks the sixth consecutive month that military deaths have declined in Iraq. The casualty rate has reached its lowest level since March of 2006.For the full month of September 2006 versus September 2007 the drop in combat-related casualties fell by almost 40 percent, the analysis of Pentagon data shows. There were 41 such casualties in September 2007, down from 57 combat-related casualties for September 2006. However, the decline in the total causality rate for September 2007 was just 5 percent compared to a year ago. The decline in causalities for the full month of October was steeper. In October 2006, the Pentagon reported 96 casualties of which 91 were combat-related, compared with 37 total casualties for October 2007 of which 31 were combat-related. This amounts to almost a 66 percent drop in combat-related casualties in the year-to-year monthly comparison. There are other factors beyond the troop surge that figure into military progress on the ground, Jay Carafano told Cybercast News Service in an interview. Although additional equipment and resources are helpful, U.S. tactics are primarily responsible for the reduction in casualties, said Carafano, a senior research fellow specializing in defense and homeland security at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank."This has less to do with equipment and more to do with the headspace between the eyes and ears," he said. "It's about fighting smarter, and this is what always wins wars. This is about Americans being creative, innovative and brave." Members of Congress from both parties have credited Gen. David Petraeus for employing an effective counter-insurgency strategy - Petraeus is in charge of the coalition forces in Iraq. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), for instance, recently described the decline in casualties as "a positive sign." However, Hoyer remains critical of the Bush administration for its management of the war. Hoyer has also said the stated goal of political reconciliation in Iraq appears beyond reach at the moment. The number of combat-related causalities reported in November has also declined somewhat from combat-related casualties in the prior month. These numbers are down by about 23 percent. However, the number of U.S. troops who died in combat this month versus the number of combat causalities reported this past September has fallen by almost 60 percent, according to the Cybercast News Service analysis.

[The_cavalierman]

[QUOTE=The_cavalierman]If Sarge is your hero then that speaks volumes....:laugh:





Well, let's see, under Clinton we were attacked numerous times by terrorists and nothing was done. Under clinton, most of the intelligence gathered on Al Queda and 9/11 was done and nothing was done to subvert it or prepare for it.


Under Clinton, had Iraq happened like with Bush, we wouldn't have had the force to even think about going over there, since you wouldn't be able to find a tank with a metal detector, from all the military cuts he made.

Under Clinton, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was enacted with his approval, for which Republicans get blamed for and called out on, when it was clintons idea and policy.



Bush may have not admitted blame, but he has assesed the situation, fired people who weren't getting things done, and hired others, put others in charge who could get things done and changed how things get done, based on generals recommendations. The only reason Democrats are angry or frustrated is he hasn't resorted to, "hell, we've lost, nothing can be done, it isn't getting any better, better scram" mentality.


He certainly took credit when the invasion was successful and Saddam was captured so Bush cannot duck the blame for the massive failures like:

(Don't know enough about to comment.)
Just because they haven't been found, doesn't mean they were never there? Just becuase O.J. wasn't convicted doesn't mean he didn't do it!
I really love this one. Based on this question or comment, you would have us topple Saddams regime and than turn to his personal army which carried out his murderous orders and say," hey, wanna have power back and protect Iraq?" That would be like defeating Hitler and than enlisting the SS to regroup and be germanys sercurity force.


From what I've read, that opinion is flawed and just that.


WOW, we are going to blame bush for talking tough. I'm sure you would hold Ike responsible for talking tough during the war huh??

Please explain these things away....if you can (I'll wait)





Not so much win over, but more like point out that they were wrong.



So one is too assume that since it's taken so long to achieve success at all in any aspect that it really doesn't matter and is a mute point.....interesting.



Very true, but the gains we have made are significant and your downplaying them is irresponsible. You have a country with 3 factions. One being loyal or used to be loyal to the regime which once was in power. So to expect nirvana in 5 years is crazy. IMO, what has been accomplished already is pretty good. Not perfect and not where it needs to be, by any stretch, but a good step.



I think you, like the Democrats mistake losing and not being happy with negative news and reports as wanting us out. The American people aren't happy, yet they don't want to lose or appear to have lost this endevor.




You are wrong there too. again, like the democrats you assume that this past election was a mandate which is wasn't. It was Republicans frustrated with their party not doing what they were elected to do. It also wasn't the American people saying "we are voting in Democrats to get us out of Iraq". If that is the case than republicans should win next election since not only Democrats, but the candidates have stated that won't happen anytime soon, and since in power, have yet done anything at all to get it done!



Yeah, that would be no one!! Neither party is doing diddly squat!



You said a lot of nonsense so I will sum up my thoughts and make your life easier. Iraq is not a war that can be won or lost....it is an occupation.

The only way you can judge an occupation is by what happens after you leave. If the occupied people stay within your framework then you succeeded. If they don't, you failed.

The part you republicans don't get is that the Iraqi people are the ones that have to decide this...not the US military. The only people that are in a win or lose struggle in Iraq are Iraqis. The military mission for the US in Iraq is over.

1. Check for WMDs - done
2. Topple Saddam - done
3. Give the Iraq people freedom to decide their own fate - Done

Victory in Iraq is allowing the Iraqi people to decide their own fate. It is not staying there forever while wasting more American lives and money on a decision that ultimately is not ours to make.

Wake up buddy

[The_cavalierman]

Every day that goes by- more and more progress is being made in Iraq. Today Geraldo Rivera was reporting from Rashid District in Baghdad, WITH NO HELMET OR KEVLAR. Rashid used to be a dumping ground for the bodies of Sunnis killed by Shia squads. Now there are houses selling for 250,000 dollars.

And every day- the liberals on here look stupider and more divorced from reality. For the last year those who support the mission have been battling with the defeatists- and which side has been proven correct?!

Iraq Combat Deaths Down 50 Percent in November http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200711/NAT20071129b.html (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200711/NAT20071129b.html)

By Kevin Mooney CNSNews.com Staff Writer November 29, 2007 (CNSNews.com) - Combat-related casualties for U.S. military personnel in Iraq have been reduced by half in the first 28 days of November compared to the same timeframe for last year, a Cybercast News Service analysis of Pentagon reports shows. There have been 24 combat-related deaths in Iraq reported in the current month thus far in comparison with the 48 combat-related deaths reported in the first 28 days of November last year. This reflects a 50 percent drop. Total casualties (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200711/NAT20071129a.html), which include non-combat deaths, are down about 45 percent from where they were in the same 28-day period a year ago. There have been 29 casualties reported in Iraq so far this month versus 53 causalities for the same period in 2006.

There is often a delay between the time a casualty occurs and when the Defense Department releases its final casualty numbers. Nevertheless, a Cybercast News Service analysis shows there has been a consistent decline in the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq since the 30,000 U.S. troop surge went into effect in June. Although more U.S. troops have been killed in 2007 than in any other previous year, the spike in casualties occurred before the surge went into effect. Recent figures show a correlation between the influx of new troops and declining casualty rates. November marks the sixth consecutive month that military deaths have declined in Iraq. The casualty rate has reached its lowest level since March of 2006.For the full month of September 2006 versus September 2007 the drop in combat-related casualties fell by almost 40 percent, the analysis of Pentagon data shows. There were 41 such casualties in September 2007, down from 57 combat-related casualties for September 2006. However, the decline in the total causality rate for September 2007 was just 5 percent compared to a year ago. The decline in causalities for the full month of October was steeper. In October 2006, the Pentagon reported 96 casualties of which 91 were combat-related, compared with 37 total casualties for October 2007 of which 31 were combat-related. This amounts to almost a 66 percent drop in combat-related casualties in the year-to-year monthly comparison. There are other factors beyond the troop surge that figure into military progress on the ground, Jay Carafano told Cybercast News Service in an interview. Although additional equipment and resources are helpful, U.S. tactics are primarily responsible for the reduction in casualties, said Carafano, a senior research fellow specializing in defense and homeland security at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank."This has less to do with equipment and more to do with the headspace between the eyes and ears," he said. "It's about fighting smarter, and this is what always wins wars. This is about Americans being creative, innovative and brave." Members of Congress from both parties have credited Gen. David Petraeus for employing an effective counter-insurgency strategy - Petraeus is in charge of the coalition forces in Iraq. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), for instance, recently described the decline in casualties as "a positive sign." However, Hoyer remains critical of the Bush administration for its management of the war. Hoyer has also said the stated goal of political reconciliation in Iraq appears beyond reach at the moment. The number of combat-related causalities reported in November has also declined somewhat from combat-related casualties in the prior month. These numbers are down by about 23 percent. However, the number of U.S. troops who died in combat this month versus the number of combat causalities reported this past September has fallen by almost 60 percent, according to the Cybercast News Service analysis.

If you withdraw our troops and give the Iraqis their country back then we can drop the death toll by 100%

Imagine that...:rolleyes:

[Air Force Cane]

Whatever happened to that "Civil War" which we were in the middle of? You know, the Murtha/Pelosi/Reid talking point about how all Iraqis wanted to butcher each other and we were in an endless losing sectarian conflict?

Hmm, haven't seen too many articles about THAT talking point lately have we?

Iraq’s Top Shiite Cleric Tells Shiites To Protect Sunnis (http://patdollard.com/2007/11/27/iraqs-top-shiite-cleric-tells-shiites-to-protect-sunnis/)

http://patdollard.com/2007/11/27/iraqs-top-shiite-cleric-tells-shiites-to-protect-sunnis/ (http://patdollard.com/2007/11/27/iraqs-top-shiite-cleric-tells-shiites-to-protect-sunnis/)

Najaf, Nov 27, (Voice Of Iraq)- Top Shiite Cleric Ali al-Sistani urged Shiites to protect their Sunni brothers and defend them, head of south Iraq’s scholars body said on Tuesday. Shiekh Khaled al-Mulla said at a press conference held in Najaf after the visit made by a delegation of Sunni and Shiite clerics to al-Sistani, “The top cleric asserted on the sanctity of Iraq’s blood, urging Shiites to protect and defend Sunnis.” Sistani said in the two-hour meeting “I’m a servant for all Iraqis and there is no difference between Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, or Christians.” “Sistani also warned Iraq’s clerics of enemies’ plots to differentiate between Iraqis,” Sheikh Mulla said. Preparations are currently underway to hold the first national meeting between Shiite and Sunni clerics in the city of Najaf. The delegation consisted of clerics from Iraq’s Kurdistan, Basra, al-Nasriyah, and Falluja. Najaf lies 180 km south of Baghdad.

[Air Force Cane]

And another liberal talking point bites the dust. Here is the WASHINGTON POST reporting on the tremendous progress taking place in Baghdad.

How can you liberals who have been preaching defeat live with yourselves? Not only did you want your own country to lose a war- you still can't admit that we are winning now. Anyone who can't see that amazing progress has been achieved throughout Iraq is a total ignoramus unwilling to accept reality. I have another 27 positive news stories from this week I can post if you would like to continue the debate..

Iraqi Cabbies, Though Still Wary, Find a Wider Comfort Zone

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/27/AR2007112702645_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/27/AR2007112702645_pf.html)

By Amit R. Paley Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, November 28, 2007; A01

BAGHDAD -- Haider Abbas, a 36-year-old taxi driver, had only a few moments to answer what is often a life-or-death question in this city: Would he drive a passenger home? The home, on that scorching afternoon last month, happened to be in Adhamiyah (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Adhamiya?tid=informline), a notoriously dangerous neighborhood where several cabbies had been gunned down. Abbas hadn't been there in two years. But the fare pleaded that it had become safer, so the cabbie reluctantly agreed to go. "To tell you the truth, I thought I had just traded my life for 5,000 dinars," or $4, said Abbas, who was shocked when he arrived in the traffic-jammed streets of Adhamiyah to see shops open and people strolling in the road. "Then I suddenly realized that security really is returning to Baghdad (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Baghdad?tid=informline)."


In a city where few residents believe official statements on declining violence, whether from the U.S. military (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Armed+Forces?tid=informline) or the Iraqi government, some of the most reliable figures on security improvements can be found on the odometers of Baghdad's taxi drivers. After years of sectarian warfare whittled down the list of neighborhoods where they could safely work, cabbies are once again crisscrossing nearly all of Baghdad.

[The_cavalierman]

orginally posted by 81artmonk
I really love this one. Based on this question or comment, you would have us topple Saddams regime and than turn to his personal army which carried out his murderous orders and say," hey, wanna have power back and protect Iraq?" That would be like defeating Hitler and than enlisting the SS to regroup and be germanys sercurity force.


Perhaps you should pickup a history book before you post because Gen Patton in his role as governor employed Nazis to keep the infastructure going after WWII in order to keep the German people from freezing to death in the winter following the German surrender.

Here is the problem with disbanding a Iraqi standing army. You just gave the insurgency (which we knew was there) a giant pool of recruits who are now motivated to fight against you.

Had Bush kept the Army intact we could have kept most of them out of the hands of the insurgents and used them to train a competent Iraqi police force. Keep in mind we tried twice and failed to train a competent Iraqi police force.

The other factor is normalcy...As bad as those guys were they were a symbol of law and order. The fact was the regular Iraqi army was mostly conscript so they were not nutjobs like the republican guards ad could have been used to great effect by a smarter commander and chief.

Once again you have revealed yourself to be lacking the facts and common knowledge of historical events to support your flawed views.

Thanks for flogging yourself harder than anything I could have done...

:nutkick:

[The_cavalierman]

And another liberal talking point bites the dust. Here is the WASHINGTON POST reporting on the tremendous progress taking place in Baghdad.

How can you liberals who have been preaching defeat live with yourselves? Not only did you want your own country to lose a war- you still can't admit that we are winning now. Anyone who can't see that amazing progress has been achieved throughout Iraq is a total ignoramus unwilling to accept reality. I have another 27 positive news stories from this week I can post if you would like to continue the debate..

Iraqi Cabbies, Though Still Wary, Find a Wider Comfort Zone

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/27/AR2007112702645_pf.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/27/AR2007112702645_pf.html)

By Amit R. Paley Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, November 28, 2007; A01

BAGHDAD -- Haider Abbas, a 36-year-old taxi driver, had only a few moments to answer what is often a life-or-death question in this city: Would he drive a passenger home? The home, on that scorching afternoon last month, happened to be in Adhamiyah (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Adhamiya?tid=informline), a notoriously dangerous neighborhood where several cabbies had been gunned down. Abbas hadn't been there in two years. But the fare pleaded that it had become safer, so the cabbie reluctantly agreed to go. "To tell you the truth, I thought I had just traded my life for 5,000 dinars," or $4, said Abbas, who was shocked when he arrived in the traffic-jammed streets of Adhamiyah to see shops open and people strolling in the road. "Then I suddenly realized that security really is returning to Baghdad (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Baghdad?tid=informline)."


In a city where few residents believe official statements on declining violence, whether from the U.S. military (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Armed+Forces?tid=informline) or the Iraqi government, some of the most reliable figures on security improvements can be found on the odometers of Baghdad's taxi drivers. After years of sectarian warfare whittled down the list of neighborhoods where they could safely work, cabbies are once again crisscrossing nearly all of Baghdad.



Just like an Air Farce desk jockey....taking everything out of context in a vain attempt to justify a flawed opinion.

After 5 years, 4000 US Deaths and 1 trillion dollars

The cabbies are a little safer!

Someone break out the champaigne!!!!

Victory!!!!:rolleyes:

[Air Force Cane]

Cavalierman is the same kind of lib who in the 1980s whined about how Reagan was going to lead to World War III, how the Soviet Union could never be defeated, and how it was a disaster to build up our military and deploy short range cruise missiles in Europe.

Now, he is Al Qaeda's best friend- until three years from now when everyone realizes the extent of our victory- then his new tune will be "oh I always supported the war I just wanted it to be run more efficiently".

We know your game defeatists- you are not only immoral but stupid politically as well. Americans don't like losers...

Security is claimed as 800 Iraqis go home

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d62221dc-9d3d-11dc-af03-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=17aab8bc-6e47-11da-9544-0000779e2340.html (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d62221dc-9d3d-11dc-af03-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=17aab8bc-6e47-11da-9544-0000779e2340.html)

Financial Times By Julien Barnes-Dacey in Damascus Published: November 28 2007 About 800 Iraqis left Damascus for Baghdad on Tuesday on an Iraqi government-sponsored convoy, amid a media fanfare as the regime sought to draw attention to the improving security situation at home. During the past month more Iraqis have returned than fled for the first time since the war began in 2003.The Iraqi government announced recently that 46,000 refugees returned last month because of an improved security situation following the US military “surge”. Syrian immigration sources say 60,000 Iraqis have gone back since the beginning of October.Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister, plans to meet the military-escorted convoy when it arrives in Baghdad on Wednesday. “Some people are still afraid but even they are noticing that the situation is improving,” said Hassan Sawady, head of the mission at the Iraqi embassy in Syria.As the buses prepared to leave, some refugees expressed a cautious belief that Iraq was stabilising. “I’m going back because the security situation is getting better,” said Kholut Kadr, who fled 16 months ago.

[The_cavalierman]

Cavalierman is the same kind of lib who in the 1980s whined about how Reagan was going to lead to World War III, how the Soviet Union could never be defeated, and how it was a disaster to build up our military and deploy short range cruise missiles in Europe.

Now, he is Al Qaeda's best friend- until three years from now when everyone realizes the extent of our victory- then his new tune will be "oh I always supported the war I just wanted it to be run more efficiently".

We know your game defeatists- you are not only immoral but stupid politically as well. Americans don't like losers...

No Air Farce Sham-job,

I am the type of liberal that actually served in combat and did not sit behind a desk posting neocon articles all day. Boy that really makes you sound tough on terror. I'm sure the insurgents are real afraid of a tough desk-jockey like you.:laugh:

The real comedy is you using words like defeatist and and pronouns like "we" when referring to a war you are not involved in.

Do yourself a favor and get in the fight before you attempt to call out someone else cupcake.

[Sarge]

Cavalierman is the same kind of lib who in the 1980s whined about how Reagan was going to lead to World War III, how the Soviet Union could never be defeated, and how it was a disaster to build up our military and deploy short range cruise missiles in Europe.



Wasn't that Teddy Kennedy?

[Sarge]

No Air Farce Sham-job,

I am the type of liberal that actually served in combat and did not sit behind a desk posting neocon articles all day. Boy that really makes you sound tough on terror. I'm sure the insurgents are real afraid of a tough desk-jockey like you.:laugh:

The real comedy is you using words like defeatist and and pronouns like "we" when referring to a war you are not involved in.

Do yourself a favor and get in the fight before you attempt to call out someone else cupcake.

But like Army cannon fodder, with only a door to kick in in front of them and no concept of the big picture at all, knows what's up :rolleyes:

[Air Force Cane]

Just like a total moron- "well it has been 4 years of war, it has cost the entire Treasury, there have been 745,000 dead Americans, and STILL WE HAVEN'T CAPTURED RICHMOND!!" Cavalierman's great great grandfather in February 1865

Face it, you are now so ideologically committed to defeat- that no matter how many positive news stories come out of Baghdad you can never conceptually admit that you were so wrong. People like you are psychologically predisposed to be so haughty and arrogant that once you commit yourself to a liberal position- to admit your error would destroy your entire worldview. That's okay though- we are winning despite your kind. And history will treat your kind just like they do the Copperheads of the Civil War- there were defeatists and traitors back in the North throughout 1861-1864 as well. And who remembers them now?!

Mosul airport to reopen soon, first flights for pilgrims

http://66.111.34.180/look/english/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=4&NrArticle=61325&NrIssue=2&NrSection=4 (http://66.111.34.180/look/english/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=4&NrArticle=61325&NrIssue=2&NrSection=4)

Voices of IraqMonday , 26 /11 /2007 Ninewa, Nov 26, (VOI) – Four years after being converted into a U.S. military base, Mosul International Airport will soon reopen for civilian flights and will launch its first flight for pilgrims traveling to the holy land in Saudi Arabia. Ninewa Governor Darid Muhammad Kashmola told the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI) that preparations are underway to reopen Mosul airport and indicated that the inaugural flight will carry pilgrims to Saudi Arabia on Sunday. In a phone call with VOI, Nour al-Din al-Hayali, a member of parliament from the Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front (IAF), said that he had committed himself to raising the issue of the Mosul airport in the Iraqi parliament. "This structure is Mosul's lungs and vital artery for local resident who are willing to travel to Baghdad and abroad, especially given the current difficult circumstances facing road transport," al-Hayali indicated. Meanwhile, the media director in Mosul said that preparation work on the road leading to the airport and the terminals will soon be completed. "Work includes a project to line the road with trees, which we embarked upon on Saturday," the director added. An official source from the Iraqi Airways, the national airline of Iraq, said that preparations are in their final stages. "Extra electricity lines and X-ray scanners have been installed, and a new staff has been appointed," according to the source. Moreover, several meetings were held between the Hajj (Pilgrimage) Authority and Iraqi Airways to coordinate pilgrimage flights, scheduled to start on December 2, 2007. Iraqi Airways is currently updating the airport's construction and equipment, including the terminals, watchtowers and other facilities, the source added. Established in the 1950s in southern Mosul, the airport operated civilian flights until 2003, when the Multi-National Force (MNF) turned it into a military base. Only recently has the U.S. forces made the decision to hand it over to Iraqi authorities. Mosul, the capital city of Ninewa province, lies 405 north of the Iraqi capital Baghdad.

[The_cavalierman]

Just like a total moron- "well it has been 4 years of war, it has cost the entire Treasury, there have been 745,000 dead Americans, and STILL WE HAVEN'T CAPTURED RICHMOND!!" Cavalierman's great great grandfather in February 1865

Face it, you are now so ideologically committed to defeat- that no matter how many positive news stories come out of Baghdad you can never conceptually admit that you were so wrong. People like you are psychologically predisposed to be so haughty and arrogant that once you commit yourself to a liberal position- to admit your error would destroy your entire worldview. That's okay though- we are winning despite your kind. And history will treat your kind just like they do the Copperheads of the Civil War- there were defeatists and traitors back in the North throughout 1861-1864 as well. And who remembers them now?!


You sure talk a lot crap for a non-combantant REMF sitting in the pentagon picking drapes.

Do yourself a favor and get into the fight...perhaps then you can put impressive stuff on that empty uniform of yours.

Oh yeah...and stop using "we" when referring to combat...Makes you sound like a liar. Just a tip.

:laugh:

[81artmonk]

[QUOTE=81artmonk]



You said a lot of nonsense so I will sum up my thoughts and make your life easier. Iraq is not a war that can be won or lost....it is an occupation.

The only way you can judge an occupation is by what happens after you leave. If the occupied people stay within your framework then you succeeded. If they don't, you failed.

The part you republicans don't get is that the Iraqi people are the ones that have to decide this...not the US military. The only people that are in a win or lose struggle in Iraq are Iraqis. The military mission for the US in Iraq is over.

1. Check for WMDs - done
2. Topple Saddam - done
3. Give the Iraq people freedom to decide their own fate - Done

Victory in Iraq is allowing the Iraqi people to decide their own fate. It is not staying there forever while wasting more American lives and money on a decision that ultimately is not ours to make.

Wake up buddy

:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

[The_cavalierman]

But like Army cannon fodder, with only a door to kick in in front of them and no concept of the big picture at all, knows what's up :rolleyes:

Since you mentioned the big picture then please explain the surge...

1. The surge is a small tactical security operation that without significant Infastructure and diplomatic successes will amount to nothing. General Patreus said that....so please provide us with the strategic level infastructure and diplomatic successes that need to accompany the success of the surge.

Wait.....their aren't any...besides the cabbies feeling a little safer :laugh: as zoomie Cane pointed out.

You are right...you are missing the big picture if after 4 years, 4000 deaths and 1 trillion dollars spent you are hanging your hat on a small success.

If we apply this small victory to WWII that would be like claiming victory over the Germans after a successful D-Day landing. If it took you 4 years to capture a beach then the people paying the bills have the right to ask what the **** is going on.

Please come back when you have some major infastructure and diplomatic successes to bragg about. Until then....you are a fart in a hurricane.

:laugh:

[81artmonk]

Perhaps you should pickup a history book before you post because Gen Patton in his role as governor employed Nazis to keep the infastructure going after WWII in order to keep the German people from freezing to death in the winter following the German surrender.

Here is the problem with disbanding a Iraqi standing army. You just gave the insurgency (which we knew was there) a giant pool of recruits who are now motivated to fight against you.

Had Bush kept the Army intact we could have kept most of them out of the hands of the insurgents and used them to train a competent Iraqi police force. Keep in mind we tried twice and failed to train a competent Iraqi police force.

The other factor is normalcy...As bad as those guys were they were a symbol of law and order. The fact was the regular Iraqi army was mostly conscript so they were not nutjobs like the republican guards ad could have been used to great effect by a smarter commander and chief.

Once again you have revealed yourself to be lacking the facts and common knowledge of historical events to support your flawed views.

Thanks for flogging yourself harder than anything I could have done...

:nutkick:


Cool, not everyone knows everything like you do, doesn't mean you still have flawed views too :nana:

[The_cavalierman]

Cool, not everyone knows everything like you do, doesn't mean you still have flawed views too :nana:

I spoke to God this morning and God told me you needed to be brought out of darkness and in to the light...

:allhail:


LOL

[headexplode]

But like Army cannon fodder, with only a door to kick in in front of them and no concept of the big picture at all, knows what's up :rolleyes:


Just like a total moron- "well it has been 4 years of war, it has cost the entire Treasury, there have been 745,000 dead Americans, and STILL WE HAVEN'T CAPTURED RICHMOND!!" Cavalierman's great great grandfather in February 1865

Face it, you are now so ideologically committed to defeat- that no matter how many positive news stories come out of Baghdad you can never conceptually admit that you were so wrong. People like you are psychologically predisposed to be so haughty and arrogant that once you commit yourself to a liberal position- to admit your error would destroy your entire worldview. That's okay though- we are winning despite your kind. And history will treat your kind just like they do the Copperheads of the Civil War- there were defeatists and traitors back in the North throughout 1861-1864 as well. And who remembers them now?!




You sure talk a lot crap for a non-combantant REMF sitting in the pentagon picking drapes.

Do yourself a favor and get into the fight...perhaps then you can put impressive stuff on that empty uniform of yours.

Oh yeah...and stop using "we" when referring to combat...Makes you sound like a liar. Just a tip.

:laugh:

With guys like this protecting us, I don't know what could go wrong.

"The Military: The Best and the Brightest."

[The_cavalierman]

With guys like this protecting us, I don't know what could go wrong.

"The Military: The Best and the Brightest."


You're right Headexplode....

I should simply ignore our two resident Air Farce REMFs on this subject.

;)

[Sarge]

Since you mentioned the big picture then please explain the surge...

1. The surge is a small tactical security operation that without significant Infastructure and diplomatic successes will amount to nothing. General Patreus said that....so please provide us with the strategic level infastructure and diplomatic successes that need to accompany the success of the surge.



I hate to tell you this, but Iraq was a Turd World country before we got there. Knocking it down probably improved the place.

As for infrastructure improvements, I'm for that to a limited degree. But my experience there showed me that as soon as we build it, it's either stolen or blown up. It took all of three days for the playground we built some kiddies to be stripped bare.

Upgrade the power grid in Baghdad and get the water running. Put the Iraqi army, not the police guarding the main parts.

Tell the government to play nice with everyone or we'll take over the whole show like we should have done to begin with.

Deploy out to our new base and keep a rapid reaction force in place to get rid of *******s when they pop up

Start sucking the oil out of the ground immediately to head off $4.00 gas this summer

There

[Air Force Cane]

It is hilarious watching liberals trying to put words into the mouth of the Supreme Allied Commander in Iraq. The counter-insurgency operation he began last January is STRATEGIC and not tactical- I would try and explain it to you but it is over your heads and you will simply put your fingers and your ears and whine "I can't hear you"..

Hey, remember THIS GUY?! He is only the third ranking DEMOCRAT IN THE CONGRESS and earlier he stated the war was lost just like Losers Reid and Pelosi. but you libs keep living in your defeatist fantasy world...

John Murtha: Surge is working
But he says Iraqis must play a larger role in security
Friday, November 30, 2007
By Jerome L. Sherman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Rep. John Murtha, one of the most outspoken congressional critics of the Iraq war, yesterday said he saw signs of significant military progress during a brief trip to the Middle East last week. But he warned that Iraqis need to play a larger role in providing their own security and the Bush administration must develop an exit strategy.

"I think the 'surge' is working," Mr. Murtha, a Democrat, said in a video conference from his Johnstown office, describing the president's decision to commit nearly 30,000 additional troops at the beginning of the year. "But the thing that has to happen is the Iraqis have to do this themselves. We can't win it for them."Mr. Murtha has been a strong critic of the White House war policy and has been calling for a troop withdrawal plan.

He said violence has dropped significantly in recent months, with a dramatic decline in civilian deaths. About 711 Iraqi civilians have been killed or found dead in November, according to statistics compiled by The Associated Press. That figure compares with 2,155 deaths in May.

U.S. forces also have seen a major decline in casualties. The military yesterday reported its 35th death in November, the lowest monthly number since March 2006. More than 120 troops died in May of this year, just as the troop surge was reaching its height. Mr. Murtha, a Vietnam veteran who chairs the powerful House panel on defense spending, said the latest military successes aren't a surprise. During the war's early stages, he sent a letter to President Bush, warning that the United States needed a much larger ground force to pacify Iraq. He described the most promising signs of progress as the turnaround in the once-volatile Anbar province, where Sunnis frustrated by the violent excesses of insurgent groups have started working closely with the United States. Iraqis need to duplicate that success at the national level, but the central government in Baghdad is "dysfunctional," Mr. Murtha said. He spoke of the frustrations expressed by the top American military and civilian commanders in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who have been pushing Iraqi leaders to use the lull in violence to make political progress, especially in relations between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. Mr. Murtha also met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who told him that Iraqi forces likely would take a much a greater security role in 2008. The Pennsylvania lawmaker said he had heard similar promises from the prime minister before.

"The American people are impatient," Mr. Murtha said. "He's got to do something to move forward." "They only have six legislative days left in the session. Their focus should be on funding the troops, making sure the intelligence gap remains firmly closed, and by passing a budget, which is something that our country, our democracy, should be able to do," Dana Perino said during a press briefing. "They complain about Iraq; the Iraqis were able to pass a budget. It's almost completed. Ours is nowhere near completed." Mr. Murtha said such language is "the kind of stuff that makes it very difficult to come to an agreement because it just alienates people in our party." He noted that Congress has already approved a $459 billion defense appropriations bill for 2008, and, this month, the House approved $50 billion in temporary spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although Democrats attached a timeline that would pull U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of next year. The bill has stalled in the Senate, and President Bush has said he would veto it. In Kuwait, he met with troops from Pennsylvania. Their morale is good, he said. "They want to finish the job," he said. "But, on the other hand, they want to get home."

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

It's a shame Bush didn't listen to the Dem and put more troops on the ground earlier.

[NoCalMike]

The valid question that still remains is: What do we do while the violence is down? If the goal is simply to quell the violence, then what is the solution, to stay in Iraq forever until all Iraqis decide they want to live in peace? We were told that the surge's purpose was to stop the violence in order for the political process to take place, is there any evidence of this taking place? Right now our military is over there trying to police the situation. They are being asked to act as a buffer between two sides that have been feuding before any of us were born, that the majority of us, including myself can't even comprehend and for good measure. They will probably still be feuding over the same things after we die. So what exactly is the solution, stay there with a strong military presence forever? How silly is it to think that Iraqi citizens can't outlast a foreign occupier until they eventually they leave. Sure, we might set up a puppet government, with all sorts of sweetheart deals and backdoor handshake-agreements, but eventually we will have to leave.

[The_cavalierman]

It is hilarious watching liberals trying to put words into the mouth of the Supreme Allied Commander in Iraq. The counter-insurgency operation he began last January is STRATEGIC and not tactical- I would try and explain it to you but it is over your heads and you will simply put your fingers and your ears and whine "I can't hear you"..

Hey, remember THIS GUY?! He is only the third ranking DEMOCRAT IN THE CONGRESS and earlier he stated the war was lost just like Losers Reid and Pelosi. but you libs keep living in your defeatist fantasy world...

John Murtha: Surge is working
But he says Iraqis must play a larger role in security
Friday, November 30, 2007
By Jerome L. Sherman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Rep. John Murtha, one of the most outspoken congressional critics of the Iraq war, yesterday said he saw signs of significant military progress during a brief trip to the Middle East last week. But he warned that Iraqis need to play a larger role in providing their own security and the Bush administration must develop an exit strategy.

"I think the 'surge' is working," Mr. Murtha, a Democrat, said in a video conference from his Johnstown office, describing the president's decision to commit nearly 30,000 additional troops at the beginning of the year. "But the thing that has to happen is the Iraqis have to do this themselves. We can't win it for them."Mr. Murtha has been a strong critic of the White House war policy and has been calling for a troop withdrawal plan.

He said violence has dropped significantly in recent months, with a dramatic decline in civilian deaths. About 711 Iraqi civilians have been killed or found dead in November, according to statistics compiled by The Associated Press. That figure compares with 2,155 deaths in May.

U.S. forces also have seen a major decline in casualties. The military yesterday reported its 35th death in November, the lowest monthly number since March 2006. More than 120 troops died in May of this year, just as the troop surge was reaching its height. Mr. Murtha, a Vietnam veteran who chairs the powerful House panel on defense spending, said the latest military successes aren't a surprise. During the war's early stages, he sent a letter to President Bush, warning that the United States needed a much larger ground force to pacify Iraq. He described the most promising signs of progress as the turnaround in the once-volatile Anbar province, where Sunnis frustrated by the violent excesses of insurgent groups have started working closely with the United States. Iraqis need to duplicate that success at the national level, but the central government in Baghdad is "dysfunctional," Mr. Murtha said. He spoke of the frustrations expressed by the top American military and civilian commanders in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who have been pushing Iraqi leaders to use the lull in violence to make political progress, especially in relations between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. Mr. Murtha also met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who told him that Iraqi forces likely would take a much a greater security role in 2008. The Pennsylvania lawmaker said he had heard similar promises from the prime minister before.

"The American people are impatient," Mr. Murtha said. "He's got to do something to move forward." "They only have six legislative days left in the session. Their focus should be on funding the troops, making sure the intelligence gap remains firmly closed, and by passing a budget, which is something that our country, our democracy, should be able to do," Dana Perino said during a press briefing. "They complain about Iraq; the Iraqis were able to pass a budget. It's almost completed. Ours is nowhere near completed." Mr. Murtha said such language is "the kind of stuff that makes it very difficult to come to an agreement because it just alienates people in our party." He noted that Congress has already approved a $459 billion defense appropriations bill for 2008, and, this month, the House approved $50 billion in temporary spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, although Democrats attached a timeline that would pull U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of next year. The bill has stalled in the Senate, and President Bush has said he would veto it. In Kuwait, he met with troops from Pennsylvania. Their morale is good, he said. "They want to finish the job," he said. "But, on the other hand, they want to get home."


If you are sitting in the Pentagon picking out drapes and coordinating parties all day then we cannot expect anything but the party line.


The surge is working but to what end?

No infastructure progress
No diplomatic progress

General Patreus has stated that without significant gains in infastructure and diplomacy the surge will fail. So the pro-war faction keeps touting the surge but they stop there because that is all they have to gloat about after 4 years, 4000 lives and 1 trillion dollars spent.

So now that violence is down (in the surged protected areas) what now?

I am all for giving the troops on the ground the credit they deserve but this amounts to a hiccup in a tornado without follow up.

[The_cavalierman]

I hate to tell you this, but Iraq was a Turd World country before we got there. Knocking it down probably improved the place.

As for infrastructure improvements, I'm for that to a limited degree. But my experience there showed me that as soon as we build it, it's either stolen or blown up. It took all of three days for the playground we built some kiddies to be stripped bare.

Upgrade the power grid in Baghdad and get the water running. Put the Iraqi army, not the police guarding the main parts.

Tell the government to play nice with everyone or we'll take over the whole show like we should have done to begin with.

Deploy out to our new base and keep a rapid reaction force in place to get rid of *******s when they pop up

Start sucking the oil out of the ground immediately to head off $4.00 gas this summer

There


I was actually in Iraq and they are no where near a third world country. check out the CIA factbook on Iraq prior to the invasion. We tried to turn Iraq into a third world country when we targeted their infastructure during the invasion. If you are comparing Iraq to America then yes but Iraq with some infastructure improvements is far from third world. Not sure where you got that bogus information from.

If the Iraqi infastructure is repaired and you can get all three factions to sit down and do what is best for a unified Iraq then the surge you keep bragging about will not be a galactic waste of time and energy. If this effort is to succeed the US military cannot lead the way as they have done their job. Substantial progress now is the realm of the state department which has failed miserably in Iraq thus far.

The state department and DOD are responsible for:

1. Bad contractors hired by the state department and DOD that are not getting stuff done

2. Diplomats who are not making any progress in bringing the Iraqis together


The bottom line is the surge is indeed working but it needs help. The State department needs to get the Iraqi people doing what is best for Iraq. The State department also needs to put a foot in the @ss of the contractors responsible for building the infastructure.

Since the surge has proven itself successful perhaps Patreus can protect the guys/gals responsible for rebuilding the infastructure.

They gotta make progress in those other areas or the surge means nothing..

[Sarge]

I was actually in Iraq and they are no where near a third world country. check out the CIA factbook on Iraq prior to the invasion. We tried to turn Iraq into a third world country when we targeted their infastructure during the invasion. If you are comparing Iraq to America then yes but Iraq with some infastructure improvements is far from third world. Not sure where you got that bogus information from.



Sorry, but it looked like a Turd World country when we came from Turkey to parts south before the invasion

Looked like a Turd World country from Balad AB


Two Turd World sightings in two years

MAkes it the Turd World in my book


As to the second part of your statement, for once you and I agree

[The_cavalierman]

Sorry, but it looked like a Turd World country when we came from Turkey to parts south before the invasion

Looked like a Turd World country from Balad AB


Two Turd World sightings in two years

MAkes it the Turd World in my book


As to the second part of your statement, for once you and I agree


Hold one....my legs got whoozy...

We agree on something?

Better check the sky folks...it could be falling