# No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working



## red states rule

MIL-IRAQ-US SOLDIERS 
Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers

BAGHDAD, March 14 (KUNA) -- The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre.

Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13; the rate was on the decline during the first month of the security crackdown, compared to a month before.

Two of the 17 soldiers died at US Baghdad camps of non-combat causes.

The remarkable decrease in killings among the US troops came at a time when more of these troops were deployed in the Iraqi capital, especially in districts previously regarded as extremely hazardous for them such as Al-Sadr City, Al-Azamiyah, and Al-Doura.

Meanwhile, US attacks on insurgent strongholds north of Baghdad curbed attacks against helicopters. Before the new security plan, many such craft were downed leaving 20 soldiers dead.

The US army in Iraq had earlier said that sectarian fighting and violence in Baghdad had dropped sharply, by about 80 percent, since the launch of the plan.

The statistics excluded US troops killed in other governorates such as Al-Anbar, Diyala, and Salahiddin.

As to the latest human losses, the US army announced Wednesday that two American soldiers had been killed, one in southern Baghdad and the other northeast of the capital.(end) ahh.

http://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/Story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=961365


----------



## Paul Revere

So 17 US troops killed is cause for you to cheer?

I have a link to a yahoo photo that seems to dispute your claim, but I am not yet privileged to post links on this forum.

Now that you make the claim that the surge is working in your educated opinion, then I expect that you will not see any need to escalate beyond this point. I expect that you will oppose all future calls for more escalations, surges,  piling on the cannon fodder, etc. Any future increases should be met by calling back the coalition members (such as the British) that have pulled out, right?

You quote a Kuwati source, weren't they the ones that gave us the "Iraqi soldiers were throwing babies on the floor to steal the incubators" story?


----------



## red states rule

Paul Revere said:


> So 17 US troops killed is cause for you to cheer?
> 
> I have a link to a yahoo photo that seems to dispute your claim, but I am not yet privileged to post links on this forum.
> 
> Now that you make the claim that the surge is working in your educated opinion, then I expect that you will not see any need to escalate beyond this point. I expect that you will oppose all future calls for more escalations, surges,  piling on the cannon fodder, etc. Any future increases should be met by calling back the coalition members (such as the British) that have pulled out, right?
> 
> You quote a Kuwati source, weren't they the ones that gave us the "Iraqi soldiers were throwing babies on the floor to steal the incubators" story?





Even NBC's Brian Williams reported on the NBC News the surge is working and prgress is being made, even though the area is still dangerous

If the Dems get their way, how will handing Iarq over to the terroists make the US safer and help the US win the war on terror?


----------



## ErikViking

Paul Revere said:


> So 17 US troops killed is cause for you to cheer?
> 
> I have a link to a yahoo photo that seems to dispute your claim, but I am not yet privileged to post links on this forum.
> 
> Now that you make the claim that the surge is working in your educated opinion, then I expect that you will not see any need to escalate beyond this point. I expect that you will oppose all future calls for more escalations, surges,  piling on the cannon fodder, etc. Any future increases should be met by calling back the coalition members (such as the British) that have pulled out, right?
> 
> You quote a Kuwati source, weren't they the ones that gave us the "Iraqi soldiers were throwing babies on the floor to steal the incubators" story?



Hi, would you mind commenting on this?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=46577
I started the thread but it didn't draw much attention.


----------



## red states rule

ErikViking said:


> Hi, would you mind commenting on this?
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=46577
> I started the thread but it didn't draw much attention.




9-11 changed the rules. There was no doubt Saddam had WMD's and was a threat. He ignored the libs beloved UN and continued to fund terrorist groups

To the Bush haters, Saddam was worth having around, and no matter what Pres Bush supports the moonbats oppose


----------



## ErikViking

red states rule said:


> 9-11 changed the rules. There was no doubt Saddam had WMD's and was a threat. He ignored the libs beloved UN and continued to fund terrorist groups
> 
> To the Bush haters, Saddam was worth having around, and no matter what Pres Bush supports the moonbats oppose



The bottom line is:
The debate about troops in Iraq is bothersome. USA has a job to finish there. The glamourous victory might be won, but leaving now would be very disappointing.


----------



## red states rule

ErikViking said:


> The bottom line is:
> The debate about troops in Iraq is bothersome. USA has a job to finish there. The glamourous victory might be won, but leaving now would be very disappointing.



Oh boy, now the moonbats will target you and call you a lapdog for Pres Bush


Even the liberal media is starting to report some of the good news from Iraq


Williams in Baghdad: New Pockets of Peace, Iraqis Don't Want to See Americans Go
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on March 6, 2007 - 12:14. 
 Talk about your inconvenient truth . . . 

Reporting from Baghdad this morning, and continuing a theme that MRC's Brent Baker spotted last evening, NBC Nightly News host Brian Williams let a cat out of the bag that could leave some serious scratch marks on MSM/DNC calls for stopping the surge and withdrawing US troops from Iraq. Williams said that US troops: 

"are also aware, especially in the outposts, that it's the Iraqi people who are very reluctant to see the Americans go, because in many cases that's what's keeping the peace in town."
View video here.

Earlier, and even on a day in which he reported on nine American troops having been killed in two separate explosions, Williams also suggested that the security situation in Iraq is improving in some aspects:

"Six [US troops killed] in Salahuddin province and three in Diyala province. But note what we're not reporting this morning. We are not reporting another car bomb or suicide bomber, IED has gone off in central Baghdad or in Sadr City, the usual locations where the sad drumbeat of news on morning's like this one normally comes from. This conflict is changing . . . We have a conflict where the tempo may be changing and we have pockets of new peace, but it is still a very dangerous war."

Whoops! Will Williams' observations make it out of NBC, into the MSM at large and onto Capitol Hill?


http://newsbusters.org/node/11217


----------



## ErikViking

red states rule said:


> Oh boy, now the moonbats will target you and call you a lapdog for Pres Bush


Why? I mean, it isn't about liking war. It is about fullfilling comittments. The cost in lives would be a complete waste if things are left like this. And I talk about the hunderedthousand innocent civilians. 

I actually get a bit upset thinking about it.

If USA pulls out of Iraq without stability in the country I suggest you hand over the armed forces to a nation with a higher feeling of responsabillity too.


----------



## red states rule

ErikViking said:


> Why? I mean, it isn't about liking war. It is about fullfilling comittments. The cost in lives would be a complete waste if things are left like this. And I talk about the hunderedthousand innocent civilians.
> 
> I actually get a bit upset thinking about it.
> 
> If USA pulls out of Iraq without stability in the country I suggest you hand over the armed forces to a nation with a higher feeling of responsabillity too.





The moonbat libs will never join and fight the war on terror - they are to engaged with their war on Bush

Where was all the liberal compassion when Saddam was filling the mass graves, firing on US jets in the NFZ during the cease fire, funding terrorist groups, and stealing hundreds of million from the UN's Oil for Food Program?

Libs have a very rigid set of rules of engagment. If Pres Bush is for it - they will be against it. logic, truth, and facts be damned


----------



## red states rule

Pelosi hears boos at AIPAC  
By Ian Swanson  
March 13, 2007  
Members of the main pro-Israel lobbying group offered scattered boos to a statement by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that the Iraq war has been a failure on several scores. 

The boos, mixed with some polite applause, stood in stark contrast to the reception House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) received minutes earlier. Most of the crowd of 5,000 to 6,000 stood and loudly applauded Boehner when he said the U.S. had no choice but to win in Iraq. 

Pelosi and Boehner were speaking at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual meeting. AIPAC has not taken a position on the war in Iraq or the supplemental spending bill to be considered this week by the House Appropriations Committee, but much of Boehners speech was about the future of the Iraq conflict. 

Boehner sought to link the fight in Iraq to the future of Israel, as he said a failure in Iraq would pose a direct threat to Israel. 

Pelosi said the U.S. military campaign in Iraq had to be judged on three accounts: whether it makes the U.S. safer, the U.S. military stronger and the region more stable. 

The war in Iraq fails on all three counts, Pelosi said. Some of the crowd applauded before catcalls and boos could be heard. A spokesman for AIPAC argued the boos were in response to those clapping for Pelosi. 

AIPAC leaders have said about 6,000 of their members are in town for this weeks annual meeting, which ends today. Members are set to lobby individual lawmakers on the Hill for the rest of today. A priority for the group is to convince Congress to approve tougher sanctions on Iran, which is seen as a growing threat to Israel.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-hears-boos-at-aipac-2007-03-13.html


----------



## deaddude

What exactly do you want to see happen in Iraq? What do you see as a reasonable measure of "victory" required before withdrawal is (in you oppinion) acceptable?


----------



## red states rule

There is progress being made in Iraq. Sometimes the liberal media will actually report the positive events happening in Iraq


Ted Koppel Tells Shocking Truth About Iraq and War on Terror (Updated w-videos)
Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 11, 2007 - 13:55. 
Former Nightline anchor Ted Koppel was one of Tim Russerts guests on Sundays Meet the Press. As amazing as it might seem, he made some truly shocking and compelling statements about the Iraq war and the war on terror that virtually no Democrat or media member is willing to accept or report:

First, Koppel made it clear that Americas premature departure from Iraq would turn the entire Persian Gulf region into a battlefield between Sunnis and Shia, something the United States cannot allow to happen 
Second, he said the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are part of the war on terror that has been going on for the past 24 years starting when the precursors of Hezbollah blew up the U.S. marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983  
Finally, he stated that Americas departure from Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of when it occurs, will not represent the end of this battle, but, instead, that it is just going to be a different war after that point.  
Here are the shocking excerpts in chronological order (MSN video available here with segment 1 at minute 14:10, segment 2 at minute 19:00, and segment 3 here. Update: Dan Riehl has all three quotes edited together in one video here): 

Koppel: I made a little note here of something that Ambassador Khalilzad said to you a moment ago. He said, The region will not be stable until Iraq is stabilized. Its the one thing nobody talks about. Everyone is concerned about the United States being in the middle of a civil war inside Iraq. But they forget about the fact that if U.S. troops were to pull out of Iraq, that civil war could become a regional war between Sunnis and Shia. And the region, just in case anyone has forgotten, is the Persian Gulf, where we get most of our oil, and, Ive talked about this before, natural gas. So, the idea of pulling out of there and letting the region, letting the national civil war expand into a regional civil war, something the United States cannot allow to happen.   

Amazing. For those interested, I wrote an article about this very subject in November. I must say I find it extraordinary that any major media figure is coming out so strongly and making such a declaration, especially on such a popular Sunday talk show.

Yet, the best was still to come, as a little later on in the discussion, Russert asked Koppel a very telling question:

Ted Koppel, you are tonight airing on the Discovery Channel a special called Our Childrens Childrens War, the long war as you call it repeatedly, that this war on terror is much more than just Iraq, and its going to go on for a long time.

Amazing. Did Tim Russert just accidentally admit that the war in Iraq is indeed a part of the war on terror? Shocking. Yet, not close to as shocking as Koppels answer:

It could go on, I mean, Gen. Abizaid with whom I spoke talked into terms of generations. And, if you think about two things, thats not so hard to imagine. Number one, the Cold War after all, lasted 50 years. Uh, we didnt know it when we began it. We didnt know it, we didnt know how long it was going to be when we were in the middle of it. But, it lasted half a century. 

If you look back at the elements of the war against terrorism, that war was going on, and has been going on for the past 24 years. We just didnt connect the dots. 24 years ago, the precursors of Hezbollah blew up the U.S. marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. That was 1983, 241 Americans killed. In the interim between then and now you had two attacks on the World Trade Center, you had the blowing up of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, you had the attempt to blow up the U.S.S. Cole, you had the bombing of the two U.S. embassies in East Africa. This wars already been going on for 24 years; we were just a little bit slow to recognize it.   

Amazing. How many members of the Democrat Party or their media minions are willing to make such a claim? While you ponder that question, here was the third extraordinary statement by Koppel:

I see a lot of wishful thinking going on here in Washington right now. I mean when Congress talks about, first of all, setting these these milestones. And, the irony is if the Iraqis successfully meet the milestones, the implication is we stay. If they fail to meet the milestones we leave. That doesnt make any sense at all. It ought to be the other way around. If they fail, we stay because they need us. If they succeed, we can start to pull out again. 

So, I, I have this feeling that on the one hand, the Democrats are making a great deal of hay out of saying we have to get out of Iraq, and indeed we do at some point or another. But the notion that the war will be over when we pull out of Iraq, and even when we pull out of Afghanistan, you heard what Gen. Abizaid had to say, its not going to be over. Its going to be a different war, but the war continues. 

Wow. Shocking stuff that you wont hear from most of the left, and virtually all of the media who are calling for troop withdrawals.

Bravo, Ted. Nicely done.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11343


----------



## CSM

ErikViking said:


> Why? I mean, it isn't about liking war. It is about fullfilling comittments. The cost in lives would be a complete waste if things are left like this. And I talk about the hunderedthousand innocent civilians.
> 
> I actually get a bit upset thinking about it.
> 
> If USA pulls out of Iraq without stability in the country I suggest you hand over the armed forces to a nation with a higher feeling of responsabillity too.



Good points, but rather than handing over our military over our armed forces to any other country we should then just disband it. That is what most other countries have done and thus the US ends up trying to be the world's policemen. That is one thankless job; it's about time some other country take that burden...I vote for China in that role.


----------



## ErikViking

deaddude said:


> What exactly do you want to see happen in Iraq? What do you see as a reasonable measure of "victory" required before withdrawal is (in you oppinion) acceptable?



I would say that when the level of stability makes the use of American precense not needed. The victory is a soverign state standing for itself. It will enjoy our respect and we will respect it. I can't see that happening if civil war-like condintions put people into power. All that bloodshed... The nation emerging from that could possibly be a whole lot worse than the nation before.

Is that going to be hard? Most probably, - but that could serve as a good lesson too. You have promised the world not to abandon Iraq. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040524-10.html


			
				Your president said:
			
		

> The second step in the plan for Iraqi democracy is to help establish the stability and security that democracy requires. Coalition forces and the Iraqi people have the same enemies -- the terrorists, illegal militia, and Saddam loyalists who stand between the Iraqi people and their future as a free nation. Working as allies, we will defend Iraq and defeat these enemies.
> 
> America will provide forces and support necessary for achieving these goals. Our commanders had estimated that a troop level below 115,000 would be sufficient at this point in the conflict. Given the recent increase in violence, we'll maintain our troop level at the current 138,000 as long as necessary. This has required extended duty for the 1st Armored Division and the 2nd Light Cavalry Regiment -- 20,000 men and women who were scheduled to leave Iraq in April. Our nation appreciates their hard work and sacrifice, and they can know that they will be heading home soon. General Abizaid and other commanders in Iraq are constantly assessing the level of troops they need to fulfill the mission. If they need more troops, I will send them. The mission of our forces in Iraq is demanding and dangerous. Our troops are showing exceptional skill and courage. I thank them for their sacrifices and their duty. (Applause.)


----------



## ErikViking

CSM said:


> Good points, but rather than handing over our military over our armed forces to any other country we should then just disband it. That is what most other countries have done and thus the US ends up trying to be the world's policemen. That is one thankless job; it's about time some other country take that burden...I vote for China in that role.



Yeah.. well it got a bit upset, I didn't mean that seriously... sorry.

China, by the way is a bit worrying ...


----------



## red states rule

CNN Reporter: Artificial Iraq Deadline 'Serves Only America's Enemies'
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on March 8, 2007 - 17:08. 
Something is happening on the ground in Iraq. Something that even certain representatives of the MSM can't deny. Earlier this week, as NewsBusters noted here and here, NBC's Brian Williams, reporting from Iraq, offered some unusually positive observations. Now comes this eye-opening exchange from earlier this afternoon on CNN International between host Jim Clancy and correspondent Michael Ware, also reporting from Iraq:

JIM CLANCY: "The Democrats are pressing for a deadline, be it at the end of 2007, 2008 to bring all U.S. troops home. How is that going to affect General Petraeus, the Iraqi government and the Iraqis themselves?"

MICHAEL WARE: "Well, Jim, certainly in terms of the Iraqis and the war that's being fought in the streets and the deserts of this country, I mean, what's happening over there, what the Democrats are saying about timetables may as well be happening on the planet Pluto for all that it counts, to the bloodshed and endless combat that we're seeing day in, day out. All that it does, anyone setting time frames like that without real pre-conditions, anyone trying to put artificial deadlines upon this conflict is only aiding the enemies, so-called, of America, al Qaeda and Iran. It allows them some leverage to know when to put the pressure on, to know that the clock is ticking and to know where the pressure points are. 

WARE: "So, in terms of the battle, day-to-day here, General Petraeus isn't looking more forward than five or six months. He's trying to make this surge work. But in terms of the broader strategic framework, it serves only America's enemies."

Nancy & Harry, are you listening?

Aside: Speaking of positive reports on Iraq come from unexpected sources, as I reported here for NB's sister operation Cybercast News Service, on Wednesday an al Jazeera reporter based in Baghdad told MFN spokesman MAJ GEN William Caldwell that residents of the city are experiencing positive changes.

UPDATE: mention by Rush -- Rush Limbaugh cited NewsBusters and me and read excerpts from this item during the 12:30 ET half-hour of his show of 03-08. Thanks, Rush!

http://newsbusters.org/node/11288


----------



## CTRLALTDEL

red states rule said:


> If the Dems get their way, how will handing Iarq over to the terroists make the US safer and help the US win the war on terror?





Are you telling me the Iraqis are gonna hand over their country to Al Qaida??  If so why THE HELL ARE WE DEFENDING THEM??

 So according to Redstatesrules the SUNNIS AND SHIITES are allied with Al Qaida.  How else do you explain the handing of Iraq over to terrorists??


----------



## red states rule

CTRLALTDEL said:


> Are you telling me the Iraqis are gonna hand over their country to Al Qaida??  If so why THE HELL ARE WE DEFENDING THEM??
> 
> So according to Redstatesrules the SUNNIS AND SHIITES are allied with Al Qaida.  How else do you explain the handing of Iraq over to terrorists??



If libs cut off the funding and the US leaves, al Qaida and Iran will take over

The tens of thousands will be slaughtered - much like what happened in Viet Nam


----------



## maineman

CTRLALTDEL said:


> Are you telling me the Iraqis are gonna hand over their country to Al Qaida??  If so why THE HELL ARE WE DEFENDING THEM??
> 
> So according to Redstatesrules the SUNNIS AND SHIITES are allied with Al Qaida.  How else do you explain the handing of Iraq over to terrorists??



Al Qaeda is a minor irritant in Iraq whose job is to keep stirring the pot.  The real fight is between sunnis and shiites.  The real fight is a civil war that saw 34K Iraqi civilians killed last year alone.

If America suffered 260 THOUSAND dead civilians** last year due to sectarian violence, who wouldn't call THAT a civil war?

And why are we in the middle of a civil war where both sides consider us intruding enemies?


**(do the math:  34K dead in a population of 26M extrapolated to a US population of 301M)


----------



## red states rule

minor?  Hardly


Gregory Ignores Pelosi's Flub, Treats Retort to Bush on al-Qaeda in Iraq as Credible
Posted by Brent Baker on November 28, 2006 - 22:29. 
Asked by a reporter about how President Bush today blamed the surge of violence in Iraq on al Qaeda, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded with a disjointed answer about how the 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the President is resorting to it again." Though al-Qaeda is clearly in Iraq and responsible for deadly bombings, and the 9/11 Commission conclusion was about links before September 11th, on Tuesday's NBC Nightly News reporter David Gregory treated Pelosi's off-base retort as credible and relevant. Without suggesting any miscue by her, Gregory segued to Pelosi's soundbite with a bewildering set up of his own about how incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi disagreed, warning that such rhetoric about al Qaeda will make it harder for Democrats to work with the White House."

On FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, after panelist Mara Liasson characterized Pelosi as confused and Morton Kondracke suggested she was just mixed up, Fred Barnes maintained that she clearly screwed up here. The question was absolutely clear. 'President Bush today blamed the surge in violence in Iraq.' Barnes argued the media wouldn't let a Republican get away with such a flub, telling Kondrake: If some Republican had done this, if Bush had done this at a press conference, if Newt Gingrich had said it, if John Boehner had said it, if Roy Blunt had said it, you'd have been all over it. It would be inexcusable." 

Neither ABC's World News or the CBS Evening News played the Pelosi soundbite.

The relevant portion of the story from David Gregory, who filed from Riga, Latvia, on the November 28 NBC Nightly News:

David Gregory: Iraq's worsening civil war will dominate the President's meeting with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Concluding his visit to Estonia earlier today, Mr. Bush blamed the violence not on civil war but on Sunni terrorists.

President Bush at a press conference in Estonia: There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place, fomented in my opinion because of these attacks by al Qaeda, causing people to seek reprisal. And we will work with the Maliki government to defeat these elements.

Gregory: Back in Washington, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi disagreed, warning that such rhetoric about al Qaeda will make it harder for Democrats to work with the White House.

Incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi: The 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the President is resorting to it again.

FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, but anchored by Jim Angle, led its panel segment with Pelosi's exchange with the reporter, identified on-screen as Thomas Ferraro: President Bush today blamed the surge of violence in Iraq on al-Qaeda and denied the country is in the midst of a civil war. 

After Liasson and Kondracke tried to explain Pelosi as confused and mixed up, Fred Barnes, Executive Editor of the Weekly Standard, retorted: 


She clearly screwed up here. The question was absolutely clear. 'President Bush today blamed the surge in violence in Iraq.' This is not -- the question is what about al Qaeda back before 9/11 or before we invaded or was there a link. The question was clear. She gave an answer that was about something else. She doesn't seem to think that al Qaeda is active there in Iraq, which it is. According to her answer. Now, if some Republican had done this, if Bush had done this at a press conference, if Newt Gingrich had said it, if John Boehner had said it, if Roy Blunt had said it, you'd have been all over it. It would be inexcusable. 

Morton Kondracke: Oh, please, oh that's nonsense. 

Barnes: Look, Nancy Pelosi is now going to be the Speaker of the House. Her party won. She did a tough job leading them in the last two years and we shouldn't go around just excusing the things she says, when you don't know what really happened.

http://newsbusters.org/node/9314


----------



## CTRLALTDEL

maineman said:


> Al Qaeda is a minor irritant in Iraq whose job is to keep stirring the pot.  The real fight is between sunnis and shiites.  The real fight is a civil war that saw 34K Iraqi civilians killed last year alone.
> 
> If America suffered 260 THOUSAND dead civilians** last year due to sectarian violence, who wouldn't call THAT a civil war?
> 
> And why are we in the middle of a civil war where both sides consider us intruding enemies?
> 
> 
> **(do the math:  34K dead in a population of 26M extrapolated to a US population of 301M)





True.  Al Qaida is just taking advantage of the Sunni/Shiite hatred.  And I'm sure they are the ones attacking one side in hoping the other would retaliate in a deadly manner.  DIVIDE AND CONQUER.


----------



## red states rule

CTRLALTDEL said:


> True.  Al Qaida is just taking advantage of the Sunni/Shiite hatred.  And I'm sure they are the ones attacking one side in hoping the other would retaliate in a deadly manner.  DIVIDE AND CONQUER.



You might want to tell Sn Fran Nan and the 9-11 Commission they are minor (see post # 20)

You must have better information then they have - or is just more moonbat talking points?


----------



## red states rule

CTRLALTDEL said:


> True.  Al Qaida is just taking advantage of the Sunni/Shiite hatred.  And I'm sure they are the ones attacking one side in hoping the other would retaliate in a deadly manner.  DIVIDE AND CONQUER.




Divide and conquer seems to be what libs want to do with America

Libs are starting to stake out their anti war and anti military platform for the 08 election



Democrats in '08 race battle over anti-war vote
By Donald Lambro

The race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination has turned almost entirely into a contest over who has the toughest and most credible plan to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq. 
Now, the front-runners are adjusting their positions and escalating their rhetoric in an all-out battle for support among anti-war Democratic voters in January's early caucus and primary states. 
"Basically, the race is on for the hearts and minds of the majority of Democratic primary voters who oppose the war, and that's what you see happening now," said campaign consultant Bud Jackson, who produces TV ads for Democratic candidates. 
In Iowa, for example, where the nation's first presidential caucuses take place, "it's the major issue with core Democrats," said Rob Tully, the state's former Democratic chairman. 
Among the top contenders, no one has had more political difficulty with the issue than Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who until recently has opposed proposals from within her party to set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq. She opposed President Bush's plan to send additional troops to Iraq, and instead favored keeping the current level of forces there. 
But with her presidential-preference polls in decline, she abruptly adjusted her position last week, deciding to support legislation the Senate approved Thursday that would begin phased troop withdrawals within four months, "with the goal" of pulling all combat forces out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. 
Mrs. Clinton's strategists said she concluded the term "goal" did not set an absolute deadline for troop withdrawal, a move that she has said was "not smart strategy" to defeat insurgents in Iraq. 
Her midcourse correction also came after her chief rival for the nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, escalated his opposition to the war during a campaign stop in Iowa. 
"We're in the midst of a war that should never have been authorized," Mr. Obama said in Dubuque. During the campaign stop, his staff distributed the text of a speech Mr. Obama gave in 2002 as a state senator denouncing the U.S.-led war. 
"I think it's a contrast between me and the other candidates," he told the Des Moines Register. "I have consistently believed this war was not just a problem of execution, but was a problem of conception." 
His remarks were seen as stepped-up criticism of Mrs. Clinton and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, the party's 2004 vice presidential nominee, both of whom voted for the Senate resolution authorizing the war. Mrs. Clinton has refused calls to admit her vote was a mistake or to apologize for it, while Mr. Edwards has renounced his vote and called it the worst vote he cast in the Senate. 
Mr. Tully, who is backing Mr. Edwards, said Mr. Obama's decision to fire up his anti-war attacks on his rivals "is a very smart move." 

"That's a challenge for Hillary to overcome that," he said. 
Mrs. Clinton held a narrow lead in the national polls last week, but in Iowa, Mr. Edwards was leading the pack with his calls for a withdrawal of all troops within 12 months -- a position that receives standing ovations from Democratic audiences. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama were in a virtual dead heat for second place. 
"In a multi-candidate field, you try to differentiate your position from the others. This is one issue where Obama feels he has a better record," said Mr. Jackson, the campaign consultant. 
"He's trying to stake out the claim that he is the true anti-war Democrat and has never wavered. He's trying to drive a wedge between his position on the war and Hillary's," he said. 

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...4643-9437r.htm


----------



## red states rule

Veterans, Others Denounce Marchers
Counter-Demonstrators Number in Thousands

By Brigid Schulte
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 18, 2007; Page A12

As war protesters marched toward Arlington Memorial Bridge en route to the Pentagon yesterday, they were flanked by long lines of military veterans and others who stood in solidarity with U.S. troops and the Bush administration's cause in Iraq. Many booed loudly as the protesters passed, turned their backs to them or yelled, "If you don't like America, get out!"

Several thousand vets, some of whom came by bus from New Jersey, car caravans from California or flights from Seattle or Michigan, lined the route from the bridge and down 23rd Street, waving signs such as "War There Or War Here." Their lines snaked around the corner and down several blocks of Constitution Avenue in what organizers called the largest gathering of pro-administration counter-demonstrators since the war began four years ago.

The vets turned both sides of Constitution into a bitter, charged gantlet for the war protesters. "Jihadists!" some vets screamed. "You're brain-dead!" Others chanted, "Workers World traitors must hang!" -- a reference to the Communist newspaper. Some broke into "The Star-Spangled Banner" as war protesters sought to hand out pamphlets.

"Bunch of hooligans in motorcycle jackets!" one war protester shot back.

The large turnout surprised even some counter-demonstrators. Polls show public opinion turning against the war in Iraq, and the November election was widely seen as a repudiation of the administration's policy.

"I've never been to a war rally. I hoped I'd never have to," said Jim Wilson, 62, a Vietnam vet from New Hampshire. "We're like what they used to call the silent majority."

In some past antiwar rallies, the number of counter-demonstrators has ranged from a handful to a few hundred. "Our side got apathetic," said Debby Lee, whose son Marc, a Navy SEAL, was killed in Iraq and who came to the rally from Phoenix in a caravan organized by MoveAmericaForward.org.

But the war protesters have gone too far, Lee and others said. At a Jan. 27 antiwar rally, some protesters spray-painted the pavement on a Capitol terrace. Others crowned the Lone Sailor statue at the Navy Memorial on Pennsylvania Avenue with a pink tiara that had "Women for Peace" written across it.

Word of those incidents ricocheted around the Internet.

"That was the real catalyst, right there," said Navy veteran Larry Bailey. "They showed they were willing to desecrate something that's sacred to the American soul."

Well before 7 a.m., hundreds of people milled about near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in an effort to, they said, "occupy the ground" and keep any disrespectful war protesters away.

"This is sacred ground to us," said Rick De Marco, 62, a Vietnam veteran from Cleveland.

K.C. O'Brien, 65, a Vietnam vet from Fairfield, Calif., said: "We believe in freedom of speech. We're here to defend the right of people to say whatever they want. But we will not allow any desecration."

Within days of the spray-painting, people were using he Web to organize, making it their mission to protect the monuments, support the troops and accept nothing less than victory in Iraq.

Gathering of Eagles, the group that organized the protest, was so worried about threats to the monuments that it hired private security to guard the Wall, said Harry Riley, 69, a retired Army colonel from Florida. Other vets patrolled the area through the night and early morning, he said.

By early morning, the National Park Service had installed two metal detectors and carefully controlled entry along the path leading to the Wall. Blue-helmeted riot police were stationed along the length of the Wall. For a time, a handful of vets paraded back and forth with American flags waving in the stiff, cold breeze.

By 2 p.m., with the war protesters across the Potomac River, the metal detectors had come down. The path along the Wall was quiet as the occasional veteran paused at the name of someone remembered.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031701280.html?sub=new


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> Al Qaeda is a minor irritant in Iraq whose job is to keep stirring the pot.  The real fight is between sunnis and shiites.  The real fight is a civil war that saw 34K Iraqi civilians killed last year alone.
> 
> If America suffered 260 THOUSAND dead civilians** last year due to sectarian violence, who wouldn't call THAT a civil war?
> 
> And why are we in the middle of a civil war where both sides consider us intruding enemies?
> 
> 
> **(do the math:  34K dead in a population of 26M extrapolated to a US population of 301M)





Dismissing Signs of Progress, ABC, NBC Paint Dismal Portrait of Iraq
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on March 18, 2007 - 09:12. 
Keying off the fourth anniversary of the Iraq war this Tuesday, the networks will be running overviews of the situation there all week. Judging by the opening salvos this morning on ABC and NBC, you might when tuning in want to hide the sharp objects and keep the Zoloft handy. The picture painted is ceaselessly dismal, with any bright spots ignored or explained away.

Take the report by ABC's Terry McCarthy on today's Good Morning America. After citing weekend casualty statistics, he began by claiming that "now more than ever" Iraqis are nervous about the future of their country. According to McCarthy, "the sound of bombings and gunfire are constant backdrops to everyday life." Constant? Really? I daresay that in the great majority of the country, people rarely hear either. Even in hotspots like Baghdad, while such sounds are not unusual, neither are they "constant" by any means. 

One challenge for the MSM is explaining away the largely peaceful and prosperous Kurdish north. McCarthy did his unlevel best: "even in northern Iraq's Kurdish region, which is relatively peaceful, the fight to keep terrorists out takes up a lot of time and energy. The Kurds dug a six-foot ditch all around the largest city, Irbil, to stop car bombs from entering."

After a bleak assessment of the Iraqi economy, and more on the security situation, McCarthy concluded: "Iraqis are learning how to survive like this. But it is eating away at their souls." ABC News: your official surveyor of souls.

Note that McCarthy excluded reference to the encouraging developments in recent weeks, or to the progress toward democracy Iraq has made. Over on "Today" this morning, reporter Tom Aspell, doing a similar overview, did mention the steps toward democracy -- but only for purposes of dismissing them. After reciting a litany of woe compararable to McCarthy's, he continued: 

"There have been two nation-wide elections, and a constitutional referendum. The country now has a free press, and dozens of political parties. But it means little to Iraqis when there's no security; two-thirds of them believe the situation is worsening." 

It's not clear what poll Aspell was relying on, but when GMA cited similar findings, it acknowledged that the poll had been taken before the current surge, which has been yielding hopeful, if still early, signs of success. 

Compare and contrast with the poll cited in this Times of London article today, Iraqis: life is getting better, which found that "most Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today. The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week." H/t reader paulnashtn.

Predictably, neither McCarthy nor Aspell cited that poll or its findings.

The situation in Iraq is difficult and too-often deadly. But much of the country is largely peaceful and there are indications the new policies may be yielding positive results. But since that doesn't fit the MSM script, it is ignored or explained away. Moreover, does not Aspell insult Iraqis in suggesting they don't believe freedom and democracy are worth sacrificing for?

Mark was in Iraq in November. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net 

http://newsbusters.org/node/11486


----------



## CTRLALTDEL

red states rule said:


> You might want to tell Sn Fran Nan and the 9-11 Commission they are minor (see post # 20)
> 
> You must have better information then they have - or is just more moonbat talking points?





SADDAM HAD AL QAIDA UNDER CONTROL IN IRAQ UNTIL WE OPENED UP THE FLOODGATES WITH OUR MACHO GUNGHO YAHOO MONKEY INVASION.


----------



## red states rule

CTRLALTDEL said:


> SADDAM HAD AL QAIDA UNDER CONTROL IN IRAQ UNTIL WE OPENED UP THE FLOODGATES WITH OUR MACHO GUNGHO YAHOO MONKEY INVASION.




so now Saddam was a good dictator? he had many ties to terrorist groups and was funding terrorists activities


----------



## CTRLALTDEL

red states rule said:


> so now Saddam was a good dictator? he had many ties to terrorist groups and was funding terrorists activities



Nobody said he was a good/nice dictator.  But we had one thing in common with him.....HATRED FOR RADICAL ISLAMIC MILITANTS (he was secular after all).  He was also an enemy of Iran and OSAMA.  Someone on this board once said that the reasons for keeping Saddam in power was greater than the number of reasons to remove him.

Yes he may have funded PALESTINIAN families for thier suicide bombings.  But he was just pissed at the way the Jews were treating the Palestinians.


----------



## red states rule

CTRLALTDEL said:


> Nobody said he was a good/nice dictator.  But we had one thing in common with him.....HATRED FOR RADICAL ISLAMIC MILITANTS (he was secular after all).  He was also an enemy of Iran and OSAMA.  Someone on this board once said that the reasons for keeping Saddam in power was greater than the number of reasons to remove him.
> 
> Yes he may have funded PALESTINIAN families for thier suicide bombings.  But he was just pissed at the way the Jews were treating the Palestinians.





So if he "hated" radical Islamic militants, why are there so many links between Saddam, his Secet Police, and al Qaeda?


----------



## LuvRPgrl

Paul Revere said:


> So 17 US troops killed is cause for you to cheer??



Typical liberal. Distort the opposistions posistion then attack. RSR isnt happy 17 died, he is happy the number is declining.



Paul Revere said:


> I have a link to a yahoo photo that seems to dispute your claim, but I am not yet privileged to post links on this forum.
> 
> Now that you make the claim that the surge is working in your educated opinion, then I expect that you will not see any need to escalate beyond this point. I expect that you will oppose all future calls for more escalations, surges,  piling on the cannon fodder, etc. Any future increases should be met by calling back the coalition members (such as the British) that have pulled out, right?
> 
> You quote a Kuwati source, weren't they the ones that gave us the "Iraqi soldiers were throwing babies on the floor to steal the incubators" story?




No more troops if it works? hahhaha, well, if it doesnt work, then you would be calling for the same thing. So you are trying to corner us.
BUTTTTTTTTTTTT, why would sucess mean not doing more of the same that is succesful. Hey, yea, brilliant. I invested money in real estate, it didnt do so well, so I doulbed my investment and it took off. I guess to you that means to not increase my investment any more


----------



## red states rule

The Poll Youll Never Hear about: Only 27% of Iraqis Believe its a Civil War
Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 19, 2007 - 00:34. 
There were two Iraq polls released on Sunday. One is guaranteed to be headline news. The other will likely be totally ignored.

In fact, one of the polls was already referenced by George Stephanopoulos on ABCs This Week, as well as reported by USA Today and CNN. 

Know what the difference is between these surveys, both of which rather compelling as they asked questions of Iraqi citizens? Well, one painted a rather dire picture of conditions in the embattled country, while the other found a very optimistic people who dont believe their nation is in a civil war.

As the American media will likely focus all of its attention on the more pessimistic survey, here is the contrary view nobody other than Fox News is likely to cover as reported by the Sunday Times (emphasis added throughout):

DESPITE sectarian slaughter, ethnic cleansing and suicide bombs, an opinion poll conducted on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq has found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants. 

The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Husseins regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services. 

The survey, published today, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war. 

Is it becoming clear why you are unlikely to hear anything about this poll? Yet, that was only the beginning of the startling findings:

The 400 interviewers who fanned out across Iraq last month found that the sense of security felt by Baghdad residents had significantly improved since polling carried out before the US announced in January that it was sending in a surge of more than 20,000 extra troops. 

[]

49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddams era, while 16% said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer. 

And, there was even more good news:

The poll suggests a significant increase in support for Maliki. A survey conducted by ORB in September last year found that only 29% of Iraqis had a favourable opinion of the prime minister. 

Another surprise was that only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war. Again, that number divided along religious lines, with 41% of Sunnis believing Iraq was in a civil war, compared with only 15% of Shiites. 

[]

One question showed the sharp divide in attitudes towards the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq. Some 53% of Iraqis nationwide agree that the security situation will improve in the weeks after a withdrawal by international forces, while only 26% think it will get worse. 

Weve been polling in Iraq since 2005 and the finding that most surprised us was how many Iraqis expressed support for the present government, said Johnny Heald, managing director of ORB. Given the level of violence in Iraq, it shows an unexpected level of optimism. 

Despite the sectarian divide, 64% of Iraqis still want to see a united Iraq under a central national government. 

Rather unfortunate that Americans will likely hear very little about this survey, wouldnt you agree?

What a disgrace.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11497


----------



## red states rule

CTRLALTDEL said:


> Are you telling me the Iraqis are gonna hand over their country to Al Qaida??  If so why THE HELL ARE WE DEFENDING THEM??
> 
> So according to Redstatesrules the SUNNIS AND SHIITES are allied with Al Qaida.  How else do you explain the handing of Iraq over to terrorists??





March 18, 2007 
Are we winning in Iraq?
Greg Richards
Nibras Kazimi thinks so. In a piece posted this week called "Jihadist Meltdown" he all but declares victory:

There is always a moment during a raging battle when one side realizes that the field has been won, and the other side collapses in retreat and confusion. The curious thing about the Iraqi insurgency is that this moment has arrived, yet both the victors, in this case the Americans and the Iraqi government, and the losers, Al Qaeda and the other jihadist groups, are reluctant to acknowledge it.

But make no mistake, the battle has been turned and we are witnessing the beginning of a jihadist meltdown.
He develops this argument in some detail in the post.  


Let's review the course of events in Iraq over the last nine months very briefly:

Jun 8, 2006:  Zarkawi killed.  It appears he may have been given up by the Sunnis as part of a settlement.


Jul - Aug, 2006  Violence explodes in Baghdad - operation Together Forward formed to combat it.  If there was a settlement, it collapsed.  


Sep - Oct, 2006  Operation Together Forward fails - U.S. casualties spike in October.


Nov 7, 2006   Democrats take control of Congress


Nov 8, 2006   Donald Rumsfeld resigns


Nov - present  Iraqi dinar and the Iraq Stock Exchange Index begin sustained advances from early November lows


Jan 10, 2007  Bush announces surge strategy


Jan 15, 2007  General Petraeus is appointed commander in Iraq


Mar 8, 2007   General Petraeus' first press conference in Iraq after being there for a month - cautiously optimistic
So far as we can tell, it appears that the opposition undertook its Tet Offensive in the months following Zarkawi's death in an effort to crack American will in the lead-up to the election.  Recall that Tet occurred in the election year of 1968, albeit much earlier in that year. Kazimi has a detailed analysis of the players in the opposition and the forces working on them.  His piece is well worth reading in its entirety.


Is it a coincidence that the Iraqi dinar began its advance just at the time that the United States reorganized its war effort?  I suspect not.  President Bush very likely overdelegated all aspects of the war - planning, strategy and execution - to people who turned out, quite surprisingly, not to be up to their tasks.  It is not to his credit that it took so long for him to see this.  But, then great affairs of state tend not to go smoothly.  How was it possible, for instance, for the powers-that-be to permit the Pacific Fleet to be sunk at anchor when the entire purpose of its being in Pearl Harbor was to protect the country during a period when war raged in both Europe and Asia?  And yet it happened.  And we recovered.


President Bush is very resilient.  If he was slow in seeing the problem, he remained undismayed and he reenergized our strategy with new plans and particularly new leadership.  In General Petraeus he seems to have found someone who believes in the mission and is willing to undertake the effort to succeed at it, something that had - surprisingly - been lacking in our effort up to this time.  It appears that up to now, those in whom Bush had placed confidence saw it as their job to educate him on the virtues of defeat.  He has rejected that education.


The Iraq Stock Exchange Index (ISX) continues to advance, and now, at 27.049 is as high as it has been since early November (27.040), mirroring the advance of the Iraqi dinar.  Why is this significant?  The Iraq Stock Exchange is small and illiquid.  It appears to trade about twice per week.  But it is an open market and gives people an opportunity to vote with their pocketbooks.  The ISX is well below its levels of a year ago, but the trend in recent months, following the worst violence of the war in Baghdad, is up.  What does that tell you?  


It is said that Iraq is the only country in the Middle East with all three great resources - water, oil and arable land.  And a vigorous population.  Quite a combination if the bad guys can be defeated.  And the locals are betting on that outcome, as can be seen in the dinar and the ISX.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/03/are_we_winning_in_iraq.html


----------



## glockmail

CTRLALTDEL said:


> Nobody said he was a good/nice dictator.  But we had one thing in common with him.....HATRED FOR RADICAL ISLAMIC MILITANTS (he was secular after all).  He was also an enemy of Iran and OSAMA.  .....


  Incorrect. Saddam was supporting bin Laden.


----------



## red states rule

The Al Qaeda Connection 

by Stephen F. Hayes 



OOPS. In what could go down as the Mother of All Copyediting Errors, Babil, the official newspaper of Saddam Hussein's government, run by his oldest son Uday, last fall published information that appears to confirm U.S. allegations of links between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. It adds one more piece to the small pile of evidence emerging from Iraq that, when added to the jigsaw puzzle we already had, makes obsolete the question of whether Saddam and Osama bin Laden were in league and leaves in doubt only the extent of the connection. 

In its November 16, 2002, edition, Babil identified one Abd-al-Karim Muhammad Aswad as an "intelligence officer," describing him as the "official in charge of regime's contacts with Osama bin Laden's group and currently the regime's representative in Pakistan." A man of this name was indeed the Iraqi ambassador to Pakistan from the fall of 1999 until the fall of the regime. 

Aswad's name was included in something Babil called an "honor list." Below that heading, in boldface type, came a straightforward introductory comment: "We publish this list of great men for the sons of our great people to see." Directly beneath that declaration came a cryptic addendum--included by accident?--in regular type: "This is a list of the henchmen of the regime. Our hands will reach them sooner or later. Woe unto them. A list of the leaders of Saddam's regime, as well as their present and previous posts." 

Then comes the list of regime officials. It is in alphabetical order  
until, halfway down the page, it starts over with officials whose names begin with the letter "A." It includes Baath party leaders, military heroes, ambassadors, intelligence chiefs, the commander of the "Saddam Cubs Training Center," governors of Iraqi provinces, chemical and biological weapons experts, and so on. 

U.S. intelligence experts have not conclusively determined what the list means. One possible explanation they have entertained is that part of the list came from an opposition source, and that Babil republished it as a gesture of defiance. This would account for the reference to "henchmen of the regime" whom "our hands will reach"--to say nothing of the candid description of Aswad's duties. 

Sounds plausible. But that explanation leaves unanswered one important question: Why would the regime, at a time when it was publicly denying any link to al Qaeda, publish anything admitting such a link? 

Even if the identification of Aswad in the Babil list was nothing more than an embarrassing editorial oversight, several recent developments have bolstered the Bush administration's case that Saddam Hussein had connections to the al Qaeda leader. 

On April 28, senior administration officials announced that the United States had captured an al Qaeda terrorist operating in Baghdad. The operative is believed to have been an associate of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a top al Qaeda figure who plotted the assassination of Laurence Foley, an American diplomat gunned down in Jordan last fall. Zarqawi is also believed to have received medical treatment in Baghdad after he was wounded fighting U.S. troops in Afghanistan. 

That arrest came shortly after U.S. troops patrolling the Syrian border captured Farouk Hijazi, long believed to have been an outreach coordinator of sorts between the Iraqi government and al Qaeda. Hijazi, formerly a high-ranking Iraqi intelligence official, has confirmed to U.S. officials that he met Osama bin Laden in Sudan in 1994. He denies meeting with al Qaeda officials in 1998, but U.S. officials don't believe him. At that time, a leading newspaper in Rome reported that Hijazi traveled to Afghanistan on December 21, 1998, to offer asylum to bin Laden. The Corriere della Sera described Hijazi as "the person who has been responsible for nurturing Iraq's ties with the fundamentalist warriors since 1994." 
Back then, reports about a budding Hussein-bin Laden partnership were not limited to the foreign press. Newsweek magazine, in its January 11, 1999, issue, ran the headline "Saddam + Bin Laden." The subhead declared, "America's two enemies are courting." The article was written by Christopher Dickey, Gregory Vistica, Russell Watson, and Joseph Contreras. The authors cited reports from an "Arab intelligence source" about the alliance. 

According to this source, Saddam expected last month's American and British bombing campaign to go on much longer than it did. The dictator believed that as the attacks continued, indignation would grow in the Muslim world, making his terrorism offensive both harder to trace and more effective. With acts of terror contributing to chaos in the region, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait might feel less inclined to support Washington. Saddam's long-term strategy,  
according to several sources, is to bully or cajole Muslim countries into breaking the embargo against Iraq, without waiting for the United Nations to lift it formally. 

(Interestingly, after Colin Powell's presentation last month to the U.N. Security Council linking Hussein and al Qaeda, Dickey reversed course and referred to the evidence of these links as "egregious smokescreens.") 

The timing here is critical. Operation "Desert Fox" began on December 16, 1998, and ended after just 70 hours, on December 19, 1998. Two days later, Hijazi was dispatched to meet with al Qaeda leaders. And the Newsweek report detailing the increased collaboration appeared shortly thereafter. And it wasn't just Newsweek. 

In fact, Time magazine, in an issue also out January 11, 1999, one-upped its competitor by quoting bin Laden himself on the Iraq issue. "There is no doubt that the treacherous attack has confirmed that Britain and America are acting on behalf of Israel and the Jews, paving the way for the Jews to divide the Muslim world once again, enslave it and loot the rest of its wealth. A great part of the force that carried out the attack came from certain Gulf countries that have lost their sovereignty." 

U.S. intelligence officials who have expressed skepticism about a Hussein-bin Laden relationship often point to religious differences as the reason for their doubts. Hussein was secular, they say, bin Laden a fundamentalist. True enough. But, as bin Laden's comments suggest, there were bigger concerns--that America and "the Jews" might "divide the Muslim world once again"--that would trump these differences and unite the two men against a common enemy. 

The Hijazi meeting wasn't the only Iraq-al Qaeda around that time. Eleven months before bin Laden spoke to Time, then-President Bill Clinton traveled to the Pentagon, where he gave a speech preparing the nation for war with Iraq. Clinton told the world that Saddam Hussein would work with an "unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals." His warning was stern. 

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. . . . They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein. 

The timing, once again, is critical. Clinton's speech came on February 18, 1998. The next day, according to documents uncovered earlier this week in Baghdad, Saddam Hussein reached out to bin Laden. A document dated February 19, 1998, and labeled "Top Secret and Urgent" tells of a plan for an al Qaeda operative to travel from Sudan to Iraq for talks with Iraqi intelligence. The memo focused on Saudi Arabia, another common bin Laden and Hussein foe, and declared that the Mukhabarat would pick up "all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden." The document further explained that the message "would relate to the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." The document also held open the possibility that the al Qaeda representative could be "a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden." 

There is certainly much more to learn about the "contacts with bin Laden" after this meeting. What is clear, though, is that it is no longer defensible to claim there were no contacts. The skeptics, including many at the CIA, who argued that previous evidence of such links was not compelling, ought to be convinced now. They may well argue that, given the timing of the contacts, Saddam reached out to al Qaeda only when he felt threatened. The facts as we know them today are consistent with such a conclusion. But as journalists continue to pore over documents, and military analysts begin to do the same, it would be hasty to imagine that we've already uncovered everything there is to find on the bin Laden-Saddam tie. 

Whatever the differences between al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime, the two shared a hatred of America. One Iraqi official, some weeks after the September 11 attacks, publicly criticized the United States for rooting out al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The official was quoted in a report in broken English carried on The Pakistan Newswire of October 29, 2001, which said: "He stressed the US to stop bombardment on Afghanistan resulting in death of innocent children, women and elderly people." The official, who had been in his job since 1999, also expressed doubt that bin Laden was even a terrorist and responsible for 9/11. He "said the US President Bush should knock the door of international court of justice to address the situation because only court had authority to declare Prime suspect of September 11 tragedy 'Osama Bin Laden' terrorist or not.'" 

You might recognize the official's name. It was published in Babil last fall: Abd-al-Karim Muhammad Aswad, "intelligence officer, official in charge of regime's contacts with Osama bin Laden's group and currently the regime's representative in Pakistan." 


Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/628wqxma.asp?pg=2


----------



## glockmail

red states rule said:


> The Al Qaeda Connection
> 
> by Stephen F. Hayes
> 
> 
> 
> OOPS. In what could go down as the Mother of All Copyediting Errors, Babil, the official newspaper of Saddam Hussein's government, run by his oldest son Uday, last fall published information that appears to confirm U.S. allegations of links between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. It adds one more piece to the small pile of evidence emerging from Iraq that, when added to the jigsaw puzzle we already had, makes obsolete the question of whether Saddam and Osama bin Laden were in league and leaves in doubt only the extent of the connection. ....


----------



## red states rule

Saddam's al Qaeda Connection 
From the September 1 / September 8, 2003 issue: The evidence mounts, but the administration says surprisingly little. 
by Stephen F. Hayes 



In interviews conducted over the past six weeks with uniformed officers on the ground in Iraq, intelligence officials, and senior security strategists, several things became clear. Contrary to the claims of its critics, the Bush administration has consistently underplayed the connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Evidence of these links existed before the war. In making its public case against the Iraq regime, the Bush administration used only a fraction of the intelligence it had accumulated documenting such collaboration. The intelligence has, in most cases, gotten stronger since the end of the war. And through interrogations of high-ranking Iraqi officials, documents from the regime, and further interrogation of al Qaeda detainees, a clearer picture of the links between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein is emerging. 



WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION ALLEGED
TOP U.S. OFFICIALS linked Iraq and al Qaeda in newspaper op-eds, on talk shows, and in speeches. But the most detailed of their allegations came in an October 7, 2002, letter from CIA director George Tenet to Senate Intelligence chairman Bob Graham and in Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5, 2003, presentation to the United Nations Security Council. 

The Tenet letter declassified CIA reporting on weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's links to al Qaeda. Two sentences on WMD garnered most media attention, but the intelligence chief's comments on al Qaeda deserved notice. "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qa'ida going back a decade," Tenet wrote. "Credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom [in Afghanistan], we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that al Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." In sum, the letter said, "Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with  
growing indications of a relationship with al Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent US military actions." 

That this assessment came from the CIA--with its history of institutional skepticism about the links--was significant. CIA analysts had long contended that Saddam Hussein's secular regime would not collaborate with Islamic fundamentalists like bin Laden--even though the Baathists had exploited Islam for years, whenever it suited their purposes. Critics of the administration insist the CIA was "pressured" by an extensive and aggressive intelligence operation set up by the Pentagon to find ties where none existed. But the Pentagon team consisted of two people, at times assisted by two others. Their assignment was not to collect new intelligence but to evaluate existing intelligence gathered by the CIA, with particular attention to any possible Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration. A CIA counterterrorism team was given a similar task, and while many agency analysts remained skeptical about links, the counterterrorism experts came away convinced that there had been cooperation. 

For one thing, they cross-referenced old intelligence with new information provided by high-level al Qaeda detainees. Reports of collaboration grew in number and specificity. The case grew stronger. Throughout the summer and fall of 2002, al Qaeda operatives held in Guantanamo corroborated previously sketchy reports of a series of meetings in Khartoum, Sudan, home to al Qaeda during the mid-90s. U.S. officials learned more about the activities of Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi, an al Qaeda WMD specialist sent by bin Laden to seek WMD training, and possibly weapons, from the Iraqi regime. Intelligence specialists also heard increasingly detailed reports about meetings in Baghdad between al Qaeda leaders and Uday Hussein in April 1998, at a birthday celebration for Saddam. 

In December 2002, as the Bush administration prepared its public case for war with Iraq, White House officials sifted through reams of these intelligence reports on ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and al Qaeda. Some of the reporting was solid, some circumstantial. The White House identified those elements of the reports it wanted to use publicly and asked the CIA to declassify them. The Agency agreed to declassify some 75 percent of the requested intelligence. 

According to administration sources, Colin Powell, in his presentation before the U.N. Security Council, used only 10 or 15 percent of the newly declassified material. He relied heavily on the intelligence in Tenet's letter. Press reports about preparations for the Powell presentation have suggested that Powell refused to use the abundance of CIA documents because he found them thin and unpersuasive. This is only half right. Powell was certainly the most skeptical senior administration official about Iraq-al Qaeda ties. But several administration officials involved in preparing his U.N. presentation say that his reluctance to focus on those links had more to do with the forum for his speech--the Security Council--than with concerns about the reliability of the information. 

Powell's presentation sought to do two things: make a compelling case to the world, and to the American public, about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein; and more immediately, win approval for a second U.N. resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force. The second of these objectives, these officials say, required Powell to focus the presentation on Hussein's repeated violations of Security Council resolutions. (Even in the brief portion of Powell's talk focused on Iraq-al Qaeda links, he internationalized the case, pointing out that the bin Laden network had targeted "France, Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Russia.") Others in the administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney, favored using more of the declassified information about Hussein's support of international terrorism and al Qaeda. 

Powell spent just 10 minutes of a 90-minute presentation on the "sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network." He mentioned intelligence showing that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a known al Qaeda associate injured in Afghanistan, had traveled to Baghdad for medical treatment. Powell linked Zarqawi to Ansar al-Islam, an al Qaeda cell operating in a Kurdish region "outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq." Powell told the Security Council that the United States had approached an unnamed "friendly security service"--Jordan's--"to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi," providing information and details "that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi." Iraq did nothing. Finally, Powell asserted that al Qaeda leaders and senior Iraqi officials had "met at least eight times" since the early 1990s. 

These claims, the critics maintain, were "hyped" and "exaggerated." 



WHAT THE ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T USE
IF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION had been out to hype the threat from an al Qaeda-Saddam link, it stands to reason that it would have used every shred of incriminating evidence at its disposal. Instead, the administration was restrained in its use of available intelligence. What the Bush administration left out is in some ways as revealing as what it included. 

* Iraqi defectors had been saying for years that Saddam's regime trained "non-Iraqi Arab terrorists" at a camp in Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. U.N. inspectors had confirmed the camp's existence, including the presence of a Boeing 707. Defectors say the plane was used to train hijackers; the Iraqi regime said it was used in counterterrorism training. Sabah Khodada, a captain in the Iraqi Army, worked at Salman Pak. In October 2001, he told PBS's "Frontline" about what went on there. "Training is majorly on terrorism. They would be trained on assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking of airplanes, hijacking of buses, public buses, hijacking of trains and all other kinds of operations related to terrorism. . . . All this training is directly toward attacking American targets, and American interests." 

But the Bush administration said little about Salman Pak as it demonstrated links between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to administration sources, some detainees who provided credible evidence of other links between Iraq and al Qaeda, including training in terrorism and WMD, insist they have no knowledge of Salman Pak. Khodada, the Iraqi army captain, also professed ignorance of whether the trainees were members of al Qaeda. "Nobody came and told us, 'This is al Qaeda people,'" he explained, "but I know there were some Saudis, there were some Afghanis. There were some other people from other countries getting trained." 

* On February 13, 2003, the government of the Philippines asked Hisham al Hussein, the second secretary of the Iraqi embassy in Manila, to leave the country. According to telephone records obtained by Philippine intelligence, Hussein had been in frequent contact with two leaders of Abu Sayyaf, an al Qaeda affiliate in South Asia, immediately before and immediately after they detonated a bomb in Zamboanga City. That attack killed two Filipinos and an American Special Forces soldier and injured several others. Hussein left the Philippines for Iraq after he was "PNG'd"--declared persona non grata--by the Philippine government and has not been heard from since. 

According to a report in the Christian Science Monitor, an Abu Sayyaf leader who planned the attack bragged on television a month after the bombing that Iraq had contacted him about conducting joint operations. Philippine intelligence officials were initially skeptical of his boasting, but after finding the telephone records they believed him. 

* No fewer than five high-ranking Czech officials have publicly confirmed that Mohammed Atta, the lead September 11 hijacker, met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer working at the Iraqi embassy, in Prague five months before the hijacking. Media leaks here and in the Czech Republic have called into question whether Atta was in Prague on the key dates--between April 4 and April 11, 2001. And several high-ranking administration officials are "agnostic" as to whether the meeting took place. Still, the public position of the Czech government to this day is that it did. 

That assertion should be seen in the context of Atta's curious stop-off in Prague the previous spring, as he traveled to the United States. Atta flew to Prague from Germany on May 30, 2000, but did not have a valid visa and was denied entry. He returned to Germany, obtained the proper paperwork, and took a bus back to Prague. One day later, he left for the United States. 

Despite the Czech government's confirmation of the Atta-al Ani meeting, the Bush administration dropped it as evidence of an al Qaeda-Iraq connection in September 2002. Far from hyping this episode, administration officials refrained from citing it as the debate over the Iraq war heated up in Congress, in the country, and at the U.N. 



WHAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS LEARNED SINCE THE WAR
THE ADMINISTRATION'S CRITICS, including several of the Democratic presidential candidates, have alluded to new "evidence" they say confirms Iraq and al Qaeda had no relationship before the war. They have not shared that evidence. 

Even as the critics withhold the basis for their allegations, evidence on the other side is piling up. Ansar al-Islam--the al Qaeda cell formed in June 2001 that operated out of northern Iraq before the war, notably attacking Kurdish enemies of Saddam--has stepped up its activities elsewhere in the country. In some cases, say national security officials, Ansar is joining with remnants of Saddam's regime to attack Americans and nongovernmental organizations working in Iraq. There is some reporting, unconfirmed at this point, that the recent bombing of the U.N. headquarters was the result of a joint operation between Baathists and Ansar al-Islam. 

And there are reports of more direct links between the Iraqi regime and bin Laden. Farouk Hijazi, former Iraqi ambassador to Turkey and Saddam's longtime outreach agent to Islamic fundamentalists, has been captured. In his initial interrogations, Hijazi admitted meeting with senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam's behest in 1994. According to administration officials familiar with his questioning, he has subsequently admitted additional contacts, including a meeting in late 1997. Hijazi continues to deny that he met with bin Laden on December 21, 1998, to offer the al Qaeda leader safe haven in Iraq. U.S. officials don't believe his denial. 

For one thing, the meeting was reported in the press at the time. It also fits a pattern of contacts surrounding Operation Desert Fox, the series of missile strikes the Clinton administration launched at Iraq beginning December 16, 1998. The bombing ended 70 hours later, on December 19, 1998. Administration officials now believe Hijazi left for Afghanistan as the bombing ended and met with bin Laden two days later. 

Earlier that year, at another point of increased tension between the United States and Iraq, Hussein sought to step up contacts with al Qaeda. On February 18, 1998, after the Iraqis repeatedly refused to permit U.N. weapons inspectors into sensitive sites, President Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon and delivered a hawkish speech about Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and his links to "an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers, and organized international criminals." Said Clinton: "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. . . . They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein." 

The following day, February 19, 1998, according to documents unearthed in Baghdad after the recent war by journalists Mitch Potter and Inigo Gilmore, Hussein's intelligence service wrote a memo detailing upcoming meetings with a bin Laden representative traveling to Baghdad. Each reference to bin Laden had been covered with Liquid Paper. The memo laid out a plan to step up contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. The Mukhabarat, one of Saddam's security forces, agreed to pay for "all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden." The document set as the goal for the meeting a discussion of "the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." The al Qaeda representative, the document went on to suggest, might be "a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden." 

I emailed Potter, a Jerusalem-based correspondent for the Toronto Star, about his findings last month. He was circumspect about the meaning of the document. "So did we find the tip of the iceberg, or the whole iceberg? Did bin Laden and Saddam agree to disagree and that was the end of it? I still don't know." Still, he wrote, "I have no doubt that what we found is the real thing. We plucked it out of a building that had been J-DAMed and was three-quarters gone. Beyond the pale to think that the CIA or someone else planted false evidence in such a dangerous location, where only lunatics would bother to tread. And then to cover over the incriminating name Osama bin Laden with Liquid Paper, so that only the most stubborn and dogged of translators would fluke into spotting it?" 

Four days after that memo was written, on February 23, 1998, bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, issued a famous fatwa about the plight of Iraq. Published that day in al Quds al-Arabi, it reads in part: 

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. . . . The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, still they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million . . . despite all this, the Americans are once again trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation. 

The Americans, bin Laden says, are working on behalf of Israel. 

The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula. 

Bin Laden urges his followers to act. "The ruling to kill all Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it." It was around this time, U.S. officials say, that Hussein paid the $300,000 to bin Laden's deputy, Zawahiri. 


ACCORDING TO U.S. officials, soldiers in Iraq have discovered additional documentary evidence like the memo Potter found. This despite the fact that there is no team on the ground assigned to track down these contacts--no equivalent to the Iraq Survey Group looking for evidence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Interviews with detained senior Iraqi intelligence officials are rounding out the picture. 

The Bush administration has thus far chosen to keep the results of its postwar findings to itself; much of the information presented here comes from public sources. The administration, spooked by the media feeding frenzy surrounding yellowcake from Niger, is exercising extreme caution in rolling out the growing evidence of collaboration between al Qaeda and Baathist Iraq. As the critics continue their assault on a prewar "pattern of deception," the administration remains silent. 



Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.


----------



## glockmail

red states rule said:


> Saddam's al Qaeda Connection
> From the September 1 / September 8, 2003 issue: The evidence mounts, but the administration says surprisingly little.
> by Stephen F. Hayes ......
> 
> The Bush administration has thus far chosen to keep the results of its postwar findings to itself; much of the information presented here comes from public sources. The administration, spooked by the media feeding frenzy surrounding yellowcake from Niger, is exercising extreme caution in rolling out the growing evidence of collaboration between al Qaeda and Baathist Iraq. As the critics continue their assault on a prewar "pattern of deception," the administration remains silent.
> .......



Looks like ol' Karl Rove is preparing his war chest for 2008!


----------



## red states rule

glockmail said:


> Looks like ol' Karl Rove is preparing his war chest for 2008!



The Defeatocrats are doing what they do best - fuck over America and the US military


----------



## glockmail

red states rule said:


> The Defeatocrats are doing what they do best - fuck over America and the US military


 Its going to come back to haunt them when things in Iraq start to really shine, bin Laden is paraded through Gitmo, and the huge pile of evidence about the whole democrats-binladed saddam connection is laid out in perfect detail.


----------



## red states rule

glockmail said:


> Its going to come back to haunt them when things in Iraq start to really shine, bin Laden is paraded through Gitmo, and the huge pile of evidence about the whole democrats-binladed saddam connection is laid out in perfect detail.



If that happens the ACLU will file papers to have him released because his Miranda rights were not read to him, the war was illegal, and the US has no cause to arrest him

Sen Kennedy, Kerry, and Clinton will lead a delagation to make sure he is givin a copy of the Koran, he is given a prayer mat, and his TV does not have Fox News as a channel selection (that is torture you know to libs)


----------



## red states rule

Antiwar Media Ignore Israel Related Consequences of Iraq War Retreat
Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 19, 2007 - 08:51. 
As NewsBusters reported about the March 11 installment of Meet the Press, former Nightline anchor Ted Koppel made some almost verboten observations concerning the dangers of a premature withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Amongst other things, Koppel claimed the battle between Sunnis and Shia currently taking place there would become a much larger religious conflict throughout the entire Persian Gulf region.

With that as pretext, another side of this issue ignored by the media is how Hizbullah and Iran are licking their respective chops at the thought of such a troop withdrawal and the opportunity it would present for the total annihilation of Israel.

Consider for example some recent comments made by Abdallah Safialdeen, Hizbullahs representative in Iran. A few weeks ago, he gave an interview on Irani television, and made statements that if ever broadcast in America would radically change how U.S. citizens viewed the war (video available here courtesy of Memri TV): 

Do you know what an American withdrawal from Iraq will mean? It will mean that Israel will lose its support. It will mean that the Lebanese Hizbullah will not need a large-scale war in order to enter Palestine. Hizbullah will be able to simply walk into Palestine. Rest assured that the day the American forces leave Iraq, the Israelis will leave the region along with them. 

Scary stuff, yes? But Safialdeen wasnt finished:

What was one of the reasons for Olmerts recent visit to America? He went there in order to say to the Democrats: Dont say that the American army will leave Iraq, because this would mean the annihilation of the Zionist regime. This is because the annihilation of the Zionist regime has begun. Like some of our friends say, Palestine is no longer a problem for us, because the Americans will be forced to leave Iraq. With or without a war against Iran, they will be forced to do so. The moment they leave Iraq, you, the Muslims of the world, can walk into Palestine, because Israel will no longer exist. It will be over and done with. Even with Americas [help], Israel could not do a thing. The Americans will be kicked out of the region, without accomplishing anything. The American forces will be kicked out of the region, in disgrace, humiliation, and defeat. Therefore, this victory was very important. It was a landmark in the history of the Islamic world and the entire region.

Any questions as to why such sentiments can never be shared with Americas citizens by our antiwar press?

What follows is a full transcript of this video.

ABDALLAH SAFIALDEEN (Hizbullahs representative in Iran): The day that Hizbullah won the war shaped the future of the region. It led to what we are witnessing today: Americas actions, the domestic problems of the Zionist regime, the confusion of Europe The Europeans are very confused now, and dont know what to do. The horse that they put their money on  Israel  can no longer fulfill the role it played in the past. America has not had any success anywhere in the region. In our opinion, the harbinger of this lack of success was the victory of Hizbullah, the bitter defeat of the Zionist regime, and its incompetence in the region. You should know that Do you know what an American withdrawal from Iraq will mean? It will mean that Israel will lose its support. It will mean that the Lebanese Hizbullah will not need a large-scale war in order to enter Palestine. Hizbullah will be able to simply walk into Palestine. Rest assured that the day the American forces leave Iraq, the Israelis will leave the region along with them. What was one of the reasons for Olmerts recent visit to America? He went there in order to say to the Democrats: Dont say that the American army will leave Iraq, because this would mean the annihilation of the Zionist regime. This is because the annihilation of the Zionist regime has begun. Like some of our friends say, Palestine is no longer a problem for us, because the Americans will be forced to leave Iraq. With or without a war against Iran, they will be forced to do so. The moment they leave Iraq, you, the Muslims of the world, can walk into Palestine, because Israel will no longer exist. It will be over and done with. Even with Americas [help], Israel could not do a thing. The Americans will be kicked out of the region, without accomplishing anything. The American forces will be kicked out of the region, in disgrace, humiliation, and defeat. Therefore, this victory was very important. It was a landmark in the history of the Islamic world and the entire region.


http://newsbusters.org/node/11502


----------



## glockmail

red states rule said:


> If that happens the ACLU will file papers to have him released because his Miranda rights were not read to him, the war was illegal, and the US has no cause to arrest him
> 
> Sen Kennedy, Kerry, and Clinton will lead a delagation to make sure he is givin a copy of the Koran, he is given a prayer mat, and his TV does not have Fox News as a channel selection (that is torture you know to libs)


  I can't wait to see bin Stinkin's reaction when that fat lesbian Rosie O'Donell gives him a great big ol' bear hug.


----------



## red states rule

glockmail said:


> I can't wait to see bin Stinkin's reaction when that fat lesbian Rosie O'Donell gives him a great big ol' bear hug.



As long as she pops some Tik Tacs in her big mouth before she walks up to him

The ACLU would charge the US with not protecting OBL enough


----------



## glockmail

red states rule said:


> As long as she pops some Tik Tacs in her big mouth before she walks up to him
> 
> The ACLU would charge the US with not protecting OBL enough



She's gonna need more than tic tacs. Imagine her big sagging titties covering his sorry ass face.


----------



## Vintij

I have interviewed several soldiers on leave from iraq, basically they dont care about civilian support because they are there to do a job not make people like them. All they want is for one of the following things to happend

either we

1. Pull every single last troop out and end the war due to lack of iraqi help and the guerilla "style" fighting tactics in which we dont know who our enemy is and get no help from the iraqi civilians. 

2. Surge every last troop we got, put a soldier on every corner of every street in bagdahd. Put troops everywhere and create a military lockdown type environment so the iraqis and get to work with taking over.


Every single troop i spoke with told me we should either make a supersurge or get the hell out of iraq, because there is no point waiting around for the governemnt to show up if we are not going to slow the violence. An American troop told me - "We are shooting at people who might not be the enemy, getting blown up with no civilian iraqis seeing any bomb planting or any information at all when it just happend 20 yards from your house". 

Why surge 20,000 troops?  Will that make a difference, we had more troops over there post 9-11. It looks like bush is TRYING to prolong this war!?

Its not rocket science, either we get the hell out and give up on the hopless iraqis, or we put every single troop we got on every single corner of every city to allow iraqis breathing room for creating democracy. 

Nobody would disagree with at least deciding between those two, rather than stick around iraq till the troops are old enough to retire and buy homes in kuwait. Ready to be on call incase another idiot takes office like chelsea bush. Thank god he didnt have a boy.

Please theodore roosevelt, come back. Too bad the republican party cant produce more presidents like teddy jr.


----------



## T-Bor

Umm there is no winning the WOT.  You cannot defeat a state of mind. Its not like the nazis and they are all in Germany.  Terrorists dont all exist in IRAQ. They are everywhere, and 20 years from now there will new terrorists and so on and so on. Its not winnable.  Although idiots like you think it is, when really its just an excuse to establish an american presence in IRAQ for oil.



red states rule said:


> Even NBC's Brian Williams reported on the NBC News the surge is working and prgress is being made, even though the area is still dangerous
> 
> If the Dems get their way, how will handing Iarq over to the terroists make the US safer and help the US win the war on terror?


----------



## GeeWhiz

Increasing troops in Iraq won't do squat. The rivals have their minds made up. 

The Sunnis have nothing to lose by continuing their bombing tactics. They are screwed and this current administration made sure of that. The only way the Sunnis can get a fair shake in this regime change if they have a say on the oil resources in Iraq. 

Bush will not allow the Sunnis to have a say because Bush wants to privatize the oil resources. Privatized oil resources will do zero for the Sunnis in fact it will do zero for the People of Iraq.

Bush even created a law in Iraq that was kept a secret from the People of Iraq, so much for democracy. The law was designed by a law firm that Bush hired. The law puts into the hands of foriegners almost 90 percent of Iraq's oil resources and all the profits will go into the hands of the foriegners.

There is going to be some hopping mad Iraqis when they find out how screwed they are and they will not stop the bombing unless several condition are made such as USA get out and USA get your greedy grubby hands off the oil.


----------



## CTRLALTDEL

glockmail said:


> Incorrect. Saddam was supporting bin Laden.



I'm sure Saddam would support a man (Osama) who calls for his ouster from Iraq.  LOL!!!!!!!!!  More right wing fantasy.


----------



## glockmail

CTRLALTDEL said:


> I'm sure Saddam would support a man (Osama) who calls for his ouster from Iraq.  LOL!!!!!!!!!  More right wing fantasy.


 Fantasy supported by facts.


----------



## red states rule

GeeWhiz said:


> Increasing troops in Iraq won't do squat. The rivals have their minds made up.
> 
> The Sunnis have nothing to lose by continuing their bombing tactics. They are screwed and this current administration made sure of that. The only way the Sunnis can get a fair shake in this regime change if they have a say on the oil resources in Iraq.
> 
> Bush will not allow the Sunnis to have a say because Bush wants to privatize the oil resources. Privatized oil resources will do zero for the Sunnis in fact it will do zero for the People of Iraq.
> 
> Bush even created a law in Iraq that was kept a secret from the People of Iraq, so much for democracy. The law was designed by a law firm that Bush hired. The law puts into the hands of foriegners almost 90 percent of Iraq's oil resources and all the profits will go into the hands of the foriegners.
> 
> There is going to be some hopping mad Iraqis when they find out how screwed they are and they will not stop the bombing unless several condition are made such as USA get out and USA get your greedy grubby hands off the oil.




So the people who live in Iraq say their lives are better, they want the US to stay and defeat the terrorists, and our troops want to fish the job - yet libs continue to say all is lost

Then libs whine when their patriotism is questioned


----------



## LuvRPgrl

T-Bor said:


> Umm there is no winning the WOT.  You cannot defeat a state of mind. Its not like the nazis and they are all in Germany.  Terrorists dont all exist in IRAQ. They are everywhere, and 20 years from now there will new terrorists and so on and so on. Its not winnable.  Although idiots like you think it is, when really its just an excuse to establish an american presence in IRAQ for oil.



You're a whack job  if you think we went in for oil.
Another michael moore sixth grade mentality drone lemming statement.

And there is a winning of this war. Your words were spoken about communism also. Yet, it fell. Is there still communism, yes, is there still nazism, yes, but we won those wars. Of course terrorism will continue, but not in the way it is being waged upon us by the people who are waging it.


----------



## red states rule

On War Anniversary, Nets Stress Dire Views of Iraqis, Skip How Iraqis Don't See Civil War
Posted by Brent Baker on March 19, 2007 - 21:55. 
ABC anchor Charles Gibson led on Monday night, the fourth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, with the results of a door-to-door survey of more than 2,000 Iraqis conducted for ABC News (and USA Today). Gibson started the sobering report with how fewer than half the Iraqis, just 42 percent, said life was better now than it was under Saddam Hussein. Gibson, however, failed to explain that when asked, compared to the time before the war in spring 2003, are things overall in your life much better now, somewhat better, about the same, somewhat worse or much worse?, fewer than 42 percent -- 36 percent -- said worse and 22 thought things are the same. A poll of 5,000 Iraqis reported in the Times of London discovered, as highlighted by FNC's Brit Hume, that 49 percent said life is better under the current Iraqi government and just 26 percent preferred life under Saddam Hussein.

NBC anchor Brian Williams opened by emphasizing the length and cost of the war: U.S. involvement in this war is now longer in duration than the Korean War, longer than World War I or World War II. And here are the numbers of great importance to all Americans. So far, at least 3,218 Americans have died. At least 24,000 have been wounded. Estimates of Iraqi dead are close to 60,000... CBS's Katie Couric began with how the war goes on, there is no end or victory in sight, thousands of Americans are dead, but the President says victory is still possible. Reporter Allen Pizzey, who on The Early Show had insisted that Iraqis have very little to be thankful for, also delivered a dire assessment on the Evening News: And so four weary and blood-soaked years on, the so-called coalition of the willing has become the coalition of those who are stuck with it.

The ABC survey found that 56 percent of Iraqis don't believe there is a civil war, with 42 percent thinking there is, but ABC's World News skipped that finding. The British poll determined 61 percent don't believe they're in a civil war compared to 27 percent who think they are in a civil war, yet Couric asserted the nation is in the midst of one:


There seems to be no end to the misery for Iraqi civilians caught in the middle of what even the Pentagon now calls a 'civil war.' From suicide bombings to murders by death squads, Iraqi civilians have paid a terrible price for four years of war. Estimates of the dead range from thirty thousand to as high as six-hundred thousand...
The PDF with the full results of the ABC survey. Scroll down to page 14 for the better/worse question, to page 36 for the civil war one.

Hume's March 19 Grapevine item on FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume:


On this fourth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war a new survey, based on an unusually large sample of Iraqis, indicates that contrary to many Western analysts most Iraqis do not believe their country is embroiled in a civil war. The poll of more than 5,000 Iraqi adults was conducted by the British market research firm Opinion Research Business and reported in our sister publication, the Times of London. 61 percent of the respondents did not think the situation qualifies as a civil war there. 49 percent said life is better under the current Iraqi government. Just 26 percent preferred life under Saddam Hussein. And 64 percent want to see a united Iraq under a central national government.
The Times of London's summary of the poll: Iraqis: life is getting better."
The same paper's March 18 article about the civil war question: Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?

A version of the combined articles as posted by The Australian: It's better than Saddam, say hopeful Iraqis.

Noel Sheppard's earlier NewsBusters take on the poll.

The MRC's Brad Wilmouth helped gather transcripts of how the broadcast networks led their March 19 evening newscasts:

ABC's World News. Charles Gibson led: 


"Good evening. Four years ago, on this day, the war in Iraq began. In four years, so much has changed. And we believe that if you watch World News this evening and through the week, you will come to have a better understanding of where things stand in Iraq, the good and the bad from the Iraq perspective. There is a popular belief that you cannot talk to Iraqis, that you can't get around the country because of the danger, and there is truth to that.

But ABC's Terry McCarthy traveled throughout Iraq for a series of reports you will see this week. And ABC News has conducted a poll, more than 2,000 interviews of Iraqis in more than 400 towns and cities. It is a sobering report of a nation. Fewer than half the Iraqis, just 42 percent, said life was better now than it was under Saddam Hussein. Why? The answer is the violence -- 80 percent of Iraqis tell us they have experienced attacks nearby. In November 2005 when last we polled, 63 percent of Iraqis said they felt safe in their neighborhoods. Today, that is 26 percent. In November 2005, 71 percent said their own lives were going well. Today, that is down to 39 percent. And perhaps the most chilling questions for Americans and the American military, we asked Iraqis if it is acceptable, in their minds, to attack Americans. In early 2004, 17 percent said yes. Now, more than half, 51 percent, say it is acceptable to attack Americans. And among Sunni Muslims, the number is 94 percent."


CBS Evening News. Katie Couric teased:

"I'm Katie Couric. Tonight, the United States enters a fifth year of war in Iraq. And the President insists it can still be won."

George W. Bush: "It will be won if we have the courage and resolve to see it through."

Couric: "We'll look tonight at the costs, the accomplishments and the search for a way out after four years of war."

Couric began the newscast: 

"Hello, everyone. Four years ago tonight, this broadcast began with the news that the United States was about to invade Iraq. The White House was telling Americans to prepare for what it hoped would be a short conflict, but also for loss of life. The President said, quote, 'We will accept no outcome but victory.' Tonight, the war goes on, there is no end or victory in sight, thousands of Americans are dead, but the President says victory is still possible. Jim Axelrod begins our coverage of Iraq: Four Years of War."
Allen Pizzey later ended a piece from Iraq: 

And so four weary and blood-soaked years on, the so-called coalition of the willing has become the coalition of those who are stuck with it: American troops who can't go home yet and Iraqi forces who have to learn to take their place. The shock and awe invasion has become slow surge and even the White House admits there's no end in sight.

NBC Nightly News. Brian Williams, in opening teaser: 

"On the fourth anniversary of the Iraq War, President Bush says more time and patience are needed as Democrats protest the war without end."
Williams led: 

"Good evening. The war that started with the sharp, blinding impact of precision-guided weapons hitting their targets in Baghdad in the middle of the night has now gone on for four years. The fifth year of combat in Iraq starts now. U.S. involvement in this war is now longer in duration than the Korean War, longer than World War I or World War II. And here are the numbers of great importance to all Americans. So far, at least 3,218 Americans have died. At least 24,000 have been wounded. Estimates of Iraqi dead are close to 60,000. And so far, over 2 million Americans have cycled through Iraq at least once. Earlier, on this anniversary day, before a live national television audience, the President talked about the fight so far and the stakes ahead. We begin here tonight with NBC's David Gregory at the White House. David, good evening."

http://newsbusters.org/node/11521


----------



## red states rule

T-Bor said:


> Umm there is no winning the WOT.  You cannot defeat a state of mind. Its not like the nazis and they are all in Germany.  Terrorists dont all exist in IRAQ. They are everywhere, and 20 years from now there will new terrorists and so on and so on. Its not winnable.  Although idiots like you think it is, when really its just an excuse to establish an american presence in IRAQ for oil.


Veteran resolve
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
March 20, 2007 


Over the weekend, several thousand military veterans and their supporters who back President Bush's war effort in Iraq turned out from around the country for the "Gathering of Eagles," so named by its organizers. They waved flags. They bore "spit shields." They carried banners of support for Iraq's fledgling government. In the current domestic political climate, that's a story. It's a countercultural story -- counter-media narrative, counter-opinion poll and certainly counter-climate for much of today's debate in Washington. 
    We can't know the crowd numbers for certain, and the conflicting numbers and reports show it. Private police estimates obtained by this newspaper figured on 10,000 to 20,000 anti-war protesters answered by counterprotesters numbering in the thousands -- "a large group of war supporters and military veterans waving American flags," wrote our reporter. The Washington Post counted "several thousand vets" in car caravans and buses. The New York Times called them "an unusually large contingent" -- although "large" for the NYT is "several hundred," sourced to anti-war regulars. The counterprotesters claim that they numbered 30,000. And, as is the norm, the National Park Service won't touch this one with a ten-foot pole. "The National Park Service never gives any estimate. It cannot be attributed to us. It is made up," said spokesman Bill Line. Into the numbers do protesters of every stripe pour their hopes and desires. 
    Forget the numbers game for a moment. Consider the substance. These military-vet counterprotesters are now swimming directly against the tides of public opinion and against the Democratic congressional leadership. Convinced of withdrawal's wrongness, they don't care that the latest CNN poll numbers show that only 35 percent of respondents support the Iraq war. Their banners bore messages like these: "Peace Through Superior Firepower" and "Marked for Death if We Cut and Run Now," over the once-famous, now-neglected photo of a purple-fingered Iraqi voter. Or the familiar and harder-edged statement: "Vietnam Vets Against Kerry." These messages were wildly popular four years ago. Today they are decidedly countercultural. 
    If a man's or woman's political measure is to be taken by constancy and resolve in service of heartfelt conviction (and we certainly think so), then the actions of these veterans and their supporters -- and countless others like them -- speak for themselves. 


http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070319-092046-3236r.htm


----------



## red states rule

glockmail said:


> Incorrect. Saddam was supporting bin Laden.







Libs will be in mourning today as another victim of Bush's war in Iraq claimed another innocent bystander



Saddam's Former Deputy Hanged in Iraq
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer
1 hour ago


Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan listens to a ... 
BAGHDAD - Saddam Hussein's former deputy was hanged before dawn Tuesday, the fourth man to be executed in the killings of 148 Shiites following a 1982 assassination attempt against the former leader in the town of Dujail.

Taha Yassin Ramadan, who was Saddam's vice president when the regime was ousted, went to the gallows on the fourth anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq.

Bassam al-Hassani, an adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, said the execution went smoothly, although Ramadan appeared frightened and recited the two shahadahs _ a declaration of faith repeated by Muslims _ "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his Prophet."

Al-Hassani said precautions were taken to prevent a repeat of what happened to Saddam's half brother and co-defendant Barzan Ibrahim, who was inadvertently decapitated on the gallows during his January execution.

Ramadan, who was nearly 70, was weighed before the hanging and the rope was chosen accordingly, al-Hassani said.

The execution took place at 3:05 a.m. at a prison at an Iraqi army and police base, which had been the headquarters of Saddam's military intelligence, in a predominantly Shiite district in northern Baghdad. Ramadan had been in U.S. custody but was handed over to the Iraqis about an hour before the hanging, according to al-Hassani, who witnessed the hanging.

Al-Maliki has not attended any of the executions, but representatives from his office, a judge and a prosecutor attended the hanging, along with members of the justice and interior ministries and a physician.

The prosecutor read out the court verdict upholding the death sentence and al-Maliki's decision to carry it out, the adviser said, adding that a defense lawyer who attended the execution received Ramadan's written will.

The contents were not revealed, although a Sunni cleric later said Ramadan had asked to be buried near Saddam.

Yahya Ibrahim, a member of the Association of Muslim Scholars, said Ramadan's body will be received by members of Saddam's tribe later Tuesday and will be buried near co-defendants Ibrahim and Awad Hamed al-Bandar in Ouja, on the outskirts of Tikrit.

The graves, along with those of Saddam's sons Odai and Qusai and a grandson Mustafa, are in the courtyard of the building in which the former leader is buried. Ibrahim also said three days of mourning would be held for Ramadan.

His sister, Khadija Ramadan, a professor at San'a University, was reached by The Associated Press in Yemen and said their 85-year-old mother was in deep mourning for her son.

In violence Tuesday, a parked car bomb exploded near a main bus station in central Baghdad, killing five civilians and wounding 18, police said.

A suicide car bomber drove his vehicle into an Iraq army checkpoint in a predominantly Sunni neighborhood in western Baghdad, killing one soldier and wounding another, police said. A roadside bomb struck the area about five minutes later but caused no casualties.

At noon, a car bomb exploded in a tunnel in downtown Baghdad, killing three civilians and wounding seven others, police said.

Seven civilians also were wounded in two separate attacks in southeastern Baghdad as the war entered its fifth year. The U.S.-led invasion began in the early morning in Baghdad, when it was still March 19 in the United States.

Late Monday, U.S. and Iraqi troops also engaged in a major operation as part of a security crackdown in the volatile Hurriyah neighborhood in northern Baghdad, state television said. Witnesses said many people were reported holed up in two Shiite mosques, surrounded by U.S. forces.

The state-run Iraqiya network said six civilians had been killed. The U.S. military did not comment on the reports.

Badee Izzat Aref, a lawyer representing several former regime members, told The Associated Press by telephone that he was with Ramadan's lawyer when the condemned man called to report that he would be hanged.

"He told the lawyer that he was not afraid and asked him to not to appeal to anybody to stop the execution," Aref said.

Ramadan also called family members living abroad to tell them he was to be hanged and ask for their prayers, Aref said. "He told his family that he is going to face death with courage."

Ramadan was convicted in November of murder, forced deportation and torture and sentenced to life in prison, but an appeals court ruled that was too lenient and he was sentenced to death. Besides the four executed, three other defendants were sentenced to 15 years in jail in the case, while one was acquitted.

One of the highest-profile figures remaining to be tried for Saddam-era atrocities is Ali Hassan al-Majid, one of six defendants facing charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity stemming from Baghdad's military campaign in which more than 100,000 Kurds were killed. Al-Majid, who is Saddam's cousin, also is known as "Chemical Ali" for allegedly ordering poison gas attacks.

Ramadan, who became vice president in March 1991 and was a Revolutionary Command Council member _ Iraq's highest political body under Saddam _ maintained his innocence, saying his duties were limited to economic affairs, not security issues.

Human Rights Watch and the International Center for Transitional Justice have said the evidence against him was insufficient for the death penalty. U.N. human rights chief Louise Arbour also filed an unprecedented legal challenge last month with the Iraqi High Tribunal against imposing the death sentence on Ramadan, saying she recognized "the desire for justice of victims" but the trial had "failed to meet the standards of due process."

Saddam was executed on Dec. 30 for his role in the killings. Two of his co-defendants in the Dujail case _ his half brother Ibrahim who was former intelligence chief, and al-Bandar, former head of Iraq's Revolutionary Court _ were executed in January.

Ibrahim plunged through the trap door and was beheaded by the jerk of the thick rope at the end of his fall, causing a furor; the Iraqi government said the decapitation was an accident.

Saddam's Dec. 30 execution drew international outrage after a clandestine video showed the former president being taunted on the gallows. Another leaked video showed Saddam's corpse with a gaping neck wound.

Saddam's regime was predominantly Sunni and many members of the sect have protested the executions on the grounds they were politically motivated by the newly empowered Shiite majority in Iraq.

Ramadan was No. 20 on the U.S. most-wanted list issued shortly after the invasion began. He was captured on Aug. 20, 2003.

Born in 1938 in the northern city of Mosul, Ramadan joined the underground Baath Party in 1956 and became close to Saddam. After the 1968 coup by the party, he held several ministerial posts and became a member of the regional command in 1969.

During the 1980s, he was deputy prime minister and was for a time considered the second-most powerful man in Iraq after Saddam.

He was said to have presided over many purges carried out by Saddam to eliminate rivals and strengthen his political control.

He once described the U.S. Congress as little more than an extension of Israel's Knesset, or parliament.

At the height of the standoff leading up to the war, Ramadan also suggested in 2002 that Saddam and President Bush fight a duel to settle their differences and spare their people the ravages of war.

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.js...itn_saddamaide


----------



## glockmail

Can't wait to hear how the hanging was inhumane.


----------



## red states rule

glockmail said:


> Can't wait to hear how the hanging was inhumane.




That is exactly what the moonbats said when Saddam was hanged. Libs whined how it a rush to judgement and a mockery of justice

No wonder the terrorists are hoping for Dems to win the debate in DC


----------



## red states rule

glockmail said:


> Can't wait to hear how the hanging was inhumane.





The libs are already defending the admitted terrorist Khalid Sheik Mohammed


Tortured Credibility

By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, March 20, 2007; Page A19

Back in 2003, when U.S. forces first took custody of the notorious al-Qaeda mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, there was much speculation about what his capture might signify. Some thought he might possess information about other planned operations, some predicted his loss would fatally damage al-Qaeda, some guessed his arrest would lead to additional arrests. Others, among them Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, used his capture to float interesting theories about torture: when and how it might legitimately be used, for example, given a candidate who might seem so clearly deserving of it.

Here is one thing nobody predicted back in 2003: that when the notorious Mohammed eventually stood before a Guantanamo Bay military tribunal and took responsibility not only for the Sept. 11 attacks, the deadliest crime ever carried out on American soil, but also for the horrific death of the journalist Daniel Pearl and some two dozen other operations, the world would greet the confessions with skepticism and indifference.

The Daily Telegraph, normally the most pro-American newspaper in Britain, wrote that it hardly mattered whether Mohammed was guilty, since whatever conclusion is drawn by the military tribunal that will try him, "the world will condemn the procedures by which the verdicts were reached." Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung concluded that "the Bush administration has nobody but itself to blame for the fact that the actions and motives of the perpetrator are now playing second fiddle to the practices used by the Americans in fighting terrorism." In many places, the confessions, which took place nearly a week ago, still have hardly attracted attention.

A small part of this international indifference perhaps derives from the transcript of the confessions, which seem boastful and exaggerated. (What else will he confess to? The murder of JFK?) Most of it, though, surely comes from the widespread, indeed practically universal, assumption that Mohammed was tortured, not in theory but in practice.

Certainly during his hearing at Guantanamo Bay, there are references to "certain treatment [he] claimed to have received," though the relevant parts of the official transcript remain classified. But the assumption that Mohammed was tortured comes from the fact that, as we all now know, the White House, the Pentagon and the Justice Department were also debating the merits of torture about the time of Mohammed's capture. Alberto Gonzales, then White House counsel, now better known for his disastrous performance as attorney general, had advised the president as early as 2002 that torture might be permissible under certain circumstances. And all of us have seen the pictures from Abu Ghraib.

It is true that the administration has now stated clearly that torture, at least by the administration's definition, was not used in Mohammed's interrogation. ("We don't do torture" is how the White House press secretary cavalierly put it.) But even if we were to give the administration the benefit of the doubt, which hardly anyone will, the circumstances of Mohammed's detention have been unacceptable by American standards. Even if he was not tortured, he was held in secret, extralegal and completely unregulated conditions, possibly in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, certainly under nothing resembling what we in the United States normally consider the rule of law, either international or domestic. The mystery surrounding his interrogation -- when it was carried out, how and by whom -- renders any confession he makes completely null, either in a court of law or in the court of international public opinion.

This is concrete proof, as if more were needed, that it is not merely immoral to operate outside the rule of law; it is also ineffective and in fact profoundly counterproductive: There is no proof that it produces better information but plenty of evidence that it has discredited the United States. Indeed, there could be no more eloquent condemnation of the Bush administration's torture and detention policies than the deafening silence that followed Mohammed's confession: Who could have imagined, in September of 2001, that one of the deadliest terrorists in history would admit to the destruction of the World Trade Center -- and that the world would shrug its shoulders?

applebaumanne@yahoo.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031901637.html


----------



## glockmail

Anne Applebaum said:
			
		

> ....it is not merely immoral to operate outside the rule of law...



What law girl? This is war!


----------



## red states rule

glockmail said:


> What law girl? This is war!



Libs want to to fight a war the John kerry way - a more sensitive war


----------



## red states rule

T-Bor said:


> Umm there is no winning the WOT.  You cannot defeat a state of mind. Its not like the nazis and they are all in Germany.  Terrorists dont all exist in IRAQ. They are everywhere, and 20 years from now there will new terrorists and so on and so on. Its not winnable.  Although idiots like you think it is, when really its just an excuse to establish an american presence in IRAQ for oil.





U.S. Action in Iraq Matters
By Rich Lowry

When President Bush announced a surge of troops into Baghdad in January, Democrats pounded him for the folly of putting U.S. troops in the middle of a civil war. Two months later, the question is, What happens to a civil war if only one side shows up to fight it?

The Shia militias that had become the main driver of violence in Baghdad are ducking and covering. Mlitia leader Moqtada al-Sadr is in hiding, perhaps in Iran. His fighters arent resisting U.S. troops who have begun conducting patrols in his stronghold of Sadr City. According to Gen. Dave Petraeus, 700 members of Sadrs Mahdi Army have been detained in recent months.

This hardly means that peace and harmony reign in Baghdad, but it has reduced the killing significantly. If at the beginning of the year anyone had predicted such progress from the addition of just two U.S. combat brigades in Bagdad (six brigades eventually will be part of the surge), he would have been derided as a delusional optimist.

This progress might be transitory, but it illustrates the falsity of a key assumption of Democrats. They prefer to talk of Iraq in terms of a civil war because it suggests that nothing can be done about the violence, that it is running its own hermetic course. Well, it clearly isnt. What the U.S. does matters. If we hadnt surged, Baghdad already might have descended into the genocidal fury toward which it was headed earlier in the year.

The other side of the Iraqi civil war  the car-bombing Sunni terrorists  hasnt stood down, of course. But these are the people that Democrats express a notional interest in fighting. In a January letter to President Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said counterterror should be one of the principal missions of U.S. troops. Sen. Carl Levin wants to restrict U.S. troops to an anti-terrorist mission to go after al-Qaida in Iraq.

According to a U.S. intelligence report quoted by the New York Times, captured materials from al Qaeda in Iraq say that the group sees the sectarian war for Baghdad as the necessary main focus of its operations. So the Democrats profess to want to fight terrorists in Iraq, and al Qaeda in Iraq is making Baghdad its focus. It would stand to reason, then, that the Democrats wouldnt want to undermine our effort to control Baghdad. Our counterinsurgency mission there is a counterterrorism mission. It aims to squeeze out terrorists, neighborhood by neighborhood.

Nonetheless, Democrats in the House and Senate are attempting to force our troops from Baghdad, exactly as al Qaeda in Iraq wants. There is an essential symmetry to the goals of Sunni militants and Democrats here at home with regard to the disposition of our forces  the fewer, the farther away from Baghdad, the better (needless to say, for vastly different reasons). In reporting on al Qaeda in Iraqs strategy, the New York Times notes, American forces, instead of withdrawing from the capital as the Sunni insurgents had hoped, prepared plans to reinforce their troops there. Over the strenuous objections of Democrats.

Each side of the domestic debate concerning the Iraq War tends to get stuck in its own self-reinforcing narratives. For Bush and supporters of the war, it was a narrative of success. Negative developments were chalked up as the inevitable difficulties of any war, amplified by the liberal media. Bush broke out of that narrative to order the change of strategy that is the surge.

For Democrats, it is the narrative of defeat. Even as the civil war has deescalated somewhat in Iraq weakening the force of the Democrats favorite middle of a civil war sound bite  and even as the surge has elevated the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq  the enemy that Democrats say they want to defeat  Democratic opposition to the surge has only intensified. Will they oppose it even more if it continues to work?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...q_matters.html


----------



## glockmail

red states rule said:


> Libs want to to fight a war the John kerry way - a more sensitive war


 The Kerry way is to fake at least two injuries, and grap a 3-purple heart pass out in 4 months or less!


----------



## red states rule

glockmail said:


> The Kerry way is to fake at least two injuries, and grap a 3-purple heart pass out in 4 months or less!



and before making a decsion to fight back make sure the situation passes his global test


----------



## glockmail

red states rule said:


> and before making a decsion to fight back make sure the situation passes his global test


 I remember when he said that. What a loser.


----------



## red states rule

glockmail said:


> I remember when he said that. What a loser.



so did alot of people - that is why he lost the election


----------



## glockmail

red states rule said:


> so did alot of people - that is why he lost the election


That's one reason. Another is that felons can't vote.


----------



## red states rule

glockmail said:


> That's one reason. Another is that felons can't vote.



Libs want to change that

They do need to increase their base. Felons would feel right at home with the Dems


----------



## glockmail

red states rule said:


> Libs want to change that
> 
> They do need to increase their base. Felons would feel right at home with the Dems


 There was a recent study that proves that is in fact true.


----------



## red states rule

glockmail said:


> There was a recent study that proves that is in fact true.



Not to menition libs want to give illegals voting rights, SS benefits, drivers licenses, and in state college tuition


----------



## red states rule

Paula Zahn Worries U.S. Interrogators at Gitmo Cant Be Trusted
Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 21, 2007 - 11:07. 
There was quite a kangaroo court put together on CNN Tuesday evening largely designed to discredit recent confessions by al Qaeda terrorists Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Waleed Bin Attash while pointing accusatory fingers of blame at American interrogation methods (video available here). 

Joining the host on Paula Zahn Now was Air America Radios Rachel Maddow, Republican strategist Amy Holmes, and CNN contributor Roland Martin. 

As the panel was nicely stocked with only one view from the right, the views expressed were clearly sympathetic to our enemy, and suggestive that not only is America using inappropriate interrogation techniques, but also that any information we obtain almost gets comical.

After introducing some of the pertinent facts about the recent confessions, Zahn skeptically asked:

But can we believe these confessions? Some people say no, pointing to details they say don't match known facts. Others question whether Mohammed is exaggerating when he claims to have been a key player in so many plots.

Zahn then showed the statement of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearls parents, and asked Maddow: Clearly, they have reason to be skeptical. Shouldn't we? 

Maddow was the perfect guest to ask such a question:

The Pakistani government certainly is skeptical. They have got somebody else on death row for having done that. 

The litany of things that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to almost gets comical, when you start getting to the number of things that he said he was involving in working at. He maybe -- he maybe was Superman, but, I mean, even before we got this confession, his -- the people who had been interrogating him had said, he is prone to self- aggrandizement. 

I wish that we had a system for bringing these suspects to justice where we can trust what they're saying. Instead, what we have got is the kangaroo court system that is set up at Guantanamo, allegations of torture that seem quite credible, given what we know about waterboarding and other things in this administration. And we can't believe a word he said. It's a shame. And we will never be able to recover from it. 

After a little side chatter, Maddow punctuated her accusations:

And we can't believe a word he said and there's nothing about the system that leads us to any credible information. And the military justice system is an absolute failure for us. 

After Martin offered his opinion on the subject, Zahn skeptically asked: But can you trust the way our government is handling the interrogations at Guantanamo now?"

Yet, maybe the most delicious hypocrisy came from Maddow. After making the case that we cant trust anything Khalid said, she used statements by the terrorist mastermind to accuse America of shameful behavior:

One of the things he said happened to him was not only torture, he says his 7-year-old son and his 9-year-old sons were abducted and mistreated as a means of the United States government getting to him. 

So, Rachel, if we cant believe anything he says, and nothing but lies emanate from torture and waterboarding, why should we believe this?

Sadly, Zahn didnt ask such an obviously logical question. What follows is a partial transcript of this segment.

PAULA ZAHN (voice-over): Khalid Sheikh Mohammed says he was responsible, in his words, from A to Z, for the terror attacks 9/11.

He also takes responsibility for the 1993 truck bombing of the World Trade Center, the beheading of kidnapped journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002, that same year's bombings that killed some 200 people in Bali, Indonesia, and shoe bomber Richard Reid's 2001 attempt to blow up a transatlantic airliner. 

In all, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed claims to have been part of 31 terror plots, including many that were never even carried out, like assassinating Pope John Paul II, President Bill Clinton, and former President Jimmy Carter, plus plots to bomb Chicago's Sears Tower, New York's Empire State Building, and the Library Tower in Los Angeles, and the Panama Canal. 

The source for all of this is the Pentagon's transcript of what it says is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession before a secret military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

According to the Pentagon, another accused terrorist, Waleed Bin Attash, also told a Guantanamo Bay tribunal that he was part of successful plots to bomb two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 and the suicide bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. 

But can we believe these confessions? Some people say no, pointing to details they say don't match known facts. Others question whether Mohammed is exaggerating when he claims to have been a key player in so many plots. 

But, to some, the bigger concern is Mohammed's accusation that his initial confessions were obtained through torture. The CIA denies using torture. And the Pentagon isn't describing how either man was interrogated. 

But, according to the transcript, Mohammed told the tribunal he had been tortured, though there are no authoritative accounts of his treatment. 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAHN: Back to our "Out in the Open" panel right now, Amy Holmes, Republican Party political strategist, CNN contributor Roland Martin, and Air America radio host Rachel Maddow. 

Let's get straight to some of these confessions Mohammed made, particularly about his role in the murder of Daniel Pearl. He said: "I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl."

This is even hard to read out loud.

"There are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head."

But Pearl's own parents have expressed doubts about his so-called confession, saying, "It is impossible to know at this point whether Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's boast about killing our son has any bearing in truth."

Clearly, they have reason to be skeptical. Shouldn't we? 

RACHEL MADDOW, AIR AMERICA RADIO HOST: The Pakistani government certainly is skeptical. They have got somebody else on death row for having done that. 

The litany of things that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to almost gets comical, when you start getting to the number of things that he said he was involving in working at. He maybe -- he maybe was Superman, but, I mean, even before we got this confession, his -- the people who had been interrogating him had said, he is prone to self- aggrandizement. 

I wish that we had a system for bringing these suspects to justice where we can trust what they're saying. Instead, what we have got is the kangaroo court system that is set up at Guantanamo, allegations of torture that seem quite credible, given what we know about waterboarding and other things in this administration. And we can't believe a word he said. It's a shame. And we will never be able to recover from it. 

ZAHN: Do you have reason to believe torture was involved in getting, extracting any of this information about him -- from him, whether true or not?

(CROSSTALK) 

MADDOW: What we do know is that CIA did say that he did undergo waterboarding, and that he lasted longer than any of the top 12 al Qaeda suspects that had been waterboarded, two-and-a-half minutes.

ZAHN: We should explain what waterboarding is. 

AMY HOLMES, REPUBLICAN PARTY STRATEGIST: Right, which is to give the detainee the sensation of being drowned. And, so, a piece of cellophane is put over their mouth and water is put over the face to give that frightening, you know, sensation. It was very controversial. It is no longer used as an interrogation technique. 

But when you ask the question, is he mastermind, master liar, I think we know that he's both, that we do have information from electronic records, other al Qaeda operatives, that he was very much a mastermind of the 9/11 plan. 

Is he also a liar? Yes. He has a lot of reason to be a liar, because he started confessing very early, giving our authorities information that led to, as Peter Bergen, your own CNN expert said, led to al Qaeda being on the ropes by 2003. 

So his interest in claiming torture and claiming responsibility for all of this is to enlarge himself within the al Qaeda organization. 

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: And we can't believe a word he said and there's nothing about the system that leads us to any credible information. And the military justice system is an absolute failure for us. 

ROLAND MARTIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: And, Paula, this fundamental issue when you have torture. If I wanted to bring this back to the states, in Chicago there was Burge incident where Lieutenant Commander Jon Burge was over a particular unit, area 2 (ph) in Chicago where allegations that he tortured up to 200 individuals. These folks were sent to jail. They were prosecuted, some served 18 to 20 years. 

The problem is we want to believe our military, we want to believe our justice system, but when you do have someone who has been tortured or there have been allegations, it casts doubt. The facts that we're sitting here having a conversation is part of the problem. 

Now he admitted to 31 different plots. Let's say, OK, he was involved with 20 of them, but the fact of the matter is, people are questioning it, and when you begin to question, that is what casts doubt. That's why as Americans we want to be above board, be above torture so we can believe when we're getting information from our own government. 

ZAHN: Yes. But can you trust the way our government is handling the interrogations at Guantanamo now? 

HOLMES: I trust they're trying to do the best job they can do get good information. Because remember, at the end of the day...

ZAHN: You weren't in favor of waterboarding though, right? 

HOLMES: No. But at the end of the day, what they're trying to do is get to the bottom of the al Qaeda terrorist plots. He confessed methods, ways to do this that are ongoing, 12 different -- a dozen terrorist plots at one time. What we do know is that it was successful, that we were able to apprehend other al Qaeda operatives. And that we were able to get this organization...

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: We don't know who we got. We don't know if it was successful. We don't know about the success. And the question of the ends and means is important. Lindsey Graham and Carl Levin went to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's hearing, after they went to it, they said, we want an investigation of what he said happened to him. 

One of the things he said happened to him was not only torture, he says his 7-year-old son and his 9-year-old sons were abducted and mistreated as a means of the United States government getting to him. 

HOLMES: And I agree we should get...

MADDOW: Wait, wait. If we're picking up...

HOLMES: ... to the bottom of this. But the very point that our own military... 

(CROSSTALK)

MADDOW: ... is it OK, because we're going al Qaeda? 

HOLMES: Our own military is saying that we can't believe everything he has to say, which means, that they are not trying to trump up confession charges. 

MADDOW: You can't say that it doesn't matter what we're doing because we're trying to get al Qaeda. It matters what we do. We're America, that's more important than al Qaeda.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11555


----------



## Vintij

red states rule said:


> Not to menition libs want to give illegals voting rights, SS benefits, drivers licenses, and in state college tuition





Is there a problem with that? We have been doing that since the 13 colony's. Infact the only reason your here, is because we did that, we allowed your great great great grampa and grama to become citizens.  I dont see anything wrong with giving imigrants an opportunity, ofcourse we should filter out the idiot ones who wont do anything, we could set up a worker program and after a year they would be eligable for temp residency, after a year of that they would be eligable for permanent residency, after a year of that they would be up for Citizenship totaling 3 years. Dont forget, our govenator was an imigrant.


----------



## glockmail

Vintij said:


> Is there a problem with that? We have been doing that since the 13 colony's. Infact the only reason your here, is because we did that, we allowed your great great great grampa and grama to become citizens.  I dont see anything wrong with giving imigrants an opportunity, ofcourse we should filter out the idiot ones who wont do anything, we could set up a worker program and after a year they would be eligable for temp residency, after a year of that they would be eligable for permanent residency, after a year of that they would be up for Citizenship totaling 3 years. Dont forget, our govenator was an imigrant.



You seem to confusing the words "imigrant" with "illegals".


----------



## Vintij

glockmail said:


> You seem to confusing the words "imigrant" with "illegals".




Same thing, immigration means moving of people from one nation to another where they are not citizens. Which is illegal in America. Mexicans dont have visa's.


----------



## red states rule

Vintij said:


> Same thing, immigration means moving of people from one nation to another where they are not citizens. Which is illegal in America. Mexicans dont have visa's.



So why the hell have boarders and a military to protect them?

If libs have their way Taco Bell will be the nations phone company in two years


----------



## Vintij

If the phone service is as good as the grilled stuffed burritos, then we have nothing to worry about.


----------



## red states rule

Vintij said:


> If the phone service is as good as the grilled stuffed burritos, then we have nothing to worry about.



You did not answer the question? Why have borders since libs have no problems granting rights that ONLY US CITIZENS should have to illegals?


----------



## Vintij

red states rule said:


> You did not answer the question? Why have borders since libs have no problems granting rights that ONLY US CITIZENS should have to illegals?




Illegals dont have rights, i said they should have "workers programs" similar to a temporary visa. Ofcourse the boarder patrol needs to be there, to kick out the people who dont have the temporary visa. Make sense? I know what your going to ask, why not give everyone a temporary visa right? Well wrong, you give temporary visa's to people over the age of 18, enrolled in some kind of american school BEFORE they start working, and they must know at least basic english. A criminal background check, no felons allowed on the program. The military must be there to enforce this obviously. Nobody said get rid of the boarder patrol. Infact im saying make it tighter, BUT make it possible for an immigrant to work here and eventually in time, become a citizen if he reaches his/her educational goals. Basically the goal is to have all immigrants working with high school diplomas, and going for higher education as well. Do you get it?


----------



## red states rule

Vintij said:


> Illegals dont have rights, i said they should have "workers programs" similar to a temporary visa. Ofcourse the boarder patrol needs to be there, to kick out the people who dont have the temporary visa. Make sense? I know what your going to ask, why not give everyone a temporary visa right? Well wrong, you give temporary visa's to people over the age of 18, enrolled in some kind of american school BEFORE they start working, and they must know at least basic english. A criminal background check, no felons allowed on the program. The military must be there to enforce this obviously. Nobody said get rid of the boarder patrol. Infact im saying make it tighter, BUT make it possible for an immigrant to work here and eventually in time, become a citizen if he reaches his/her educational goals. Basically the goal is to have all immigrants working with high school diplomas, and going for higher education as well. Do you get it?




IF they wait in line, obey the law, then I do not have a problem

However, libs and some RINO's want to give illegals voting rights, SS benefits, drivers licenses, and in state college tuition.

You are rewarding those who have already broken the law. It is a slap in the face of those who are STILL waiting in line by obeying the law


----------



## Vintij

red states rule said:


> IF they wait in line, obey the law, then I do not have a problem
> 
> However, libs and some RINO's want to give illegals voting rights, SS benefits, drivers licenses, and in state college tuition.
> 
> You are rewarding those who have already broken the law. It is a slap in the face of those who are STILL waiting in line by obeying the law




I agree, only when they become citizens should they have those benefits. But the benefits should be very rewarding because they waited for years and followed the rules to become citizens. And the americans should not complain, they didnt have to sell mangos on the street to support a house of 12 people. If you dont have a job in America your lazy, if you dont have one in Mexico, your fucked.


----------



## red states rule

Vintij said:


> I agree, only when they become citizens should they have those benefits. But the benefits should be very rewarding because they waited for years and followed the rules to become citizens. And the americans should not complain, they didnt have to sell mangos on the street to support a house of 12 people. If you dont have a job in America your lazy, if you dont have one in Mexico, your fucked.



That is the problem - illeagles are getting them now

That is what fucked up a Dem in the runoff election to replace Duke Cunningham. The liberal bimbo bellowed to a Spanish crowd how "you do not need papers to vote" and she lost the election


----------



## glockmail

Vintij said:


> Same thing, immigration means moving of people from one nation to another where they are not citizens. Which is illegal in America. Mexicans dont have visa's.


----------



## red states rule

Can the Democrats get their House in order? 

The current House Democratic angst over Iraq seems to have been scripted by Aaron Sorkin. One can almost hear his zippy dialogue, straight out of West Wing, transported this time to Capitol Hill, where the Democratic lawmakers no doubt would be speed-walking down the cavernous corridors, all the while debating in Tracy-Hepburn fashion the tradeoffs of purity versus pragmatism, ends versus means, ideals versus compromise.

But it would appear that the House Democrats are not in the mood for cheeky wit, given the fact that they have already spent most of this week acting the way Democrats tend to act when forced to make a national security decision. They have been speaking with a multiplicity of voices about Iraq ever since President Bush launched his fact-challenged push for war nearly five years ago, and theyre still doing it today  even as they are preparing for their first substantive war vote since taking control of Congress.

One might argue that its a sign of strength that the House Democrats are such a diverse bunch, ranging from the antiwar purists who occupy safe seats in deep-blue districts to the blue dog conservatives whose jobs hang by a thread in red districts. But in the end, only results matter. Voters essentially decreed last November that the Democrats should be given a chance to clean up Bushs disaster and chart a rational course correction, yet here we are, on the eve of the first big House vote, and its not even clear that Nancy Pelosi and her deputies can pass their own bill.

This is where those aforementioned tradeoffs - purity versus pragmatism - come into play.

The Democratic leaders compromise would sustain funding for the war, but with a crucial caveat. If the Iraqi government doesnt shape up by October (by meeting some mandatory benchmarks), then U.S. troops would begin to ship out next April; and even if the Iraqis do shape up, then U.S. troops will stick around only until the autumn of 08. The problem, however, is that many lawmakers in the antiwar camp view this compromise as a copout, since it gives Bush the war funding that he wants. So theyre not going to vote for it, on the grounds that Pelosis plan doesnt go far enough. (True to their ideals, they want to totally cut off the war money - somehow overlooking the fact such a measure has no change of passage.)

And this is critical, because the Democrats only control the House by 15 votes. Pelosi can ill afford many defections, especially since virtually all Republicans  supine to the bitter end - are still maintaining their lockstep discipline in support of their commander-in-chief. And further complicating the Democratic scenario is the fact that many newly-elected Democrats hail from traditionally red districts (for instance: three in Indiana, one in Texas, one in North Carolina), and they are reportedly tempted to vote No  because their constituents might see the Pelosi measure as going too far. As political analyst Michael Tomasky has noted, 62 House Democrats currently represent districts that Bush carried in 2004. And even though Bushs popularity has since waned in many of those locales, there are probably lingering concerns about Congress micro-managing the war in ways that might encumber commanders in the field. 

I suspect there is one other factor that might be prompting Democratic skittishness, and this can arguably apply to party lawmakers at all points on the ideological spectrum: The notion that if Democrats pass something substantive, they will for the first time be claiming partial ownership of this war  thereby providing GOP apparatchiks with the opportunity to hyperbolically blame General Pelosi and her micro-managers for any eventual defeat. 

Thus, given all these rank and file Democratic grievances, we have the current spectacle of Pelosi working overtime to round up 218 votes (the bare minimum for victory), by applying both carrot and stick. She has shaken the stick at fence-straddling colleagues, implying that if they dont vote for her compromise, she will yank their coveted committee assignments; and she has been dangling the carrot, offering all kinds of pork-laden goodies, essentially trying to buy off some of the fence-straddlers by promising to pump money into their districts. (This is where Sorkin would write some of the best dialogue.)

But clearly shes having a tough time. The big House vote was supposed to happen today; now its going to be tonight at the earliest  an obvious indication that the leaders have yet to nail down a majority. And the antiwar liberal lawmakers are really the key factor; theyre a bigger swing group than the red-state conservatives, roughly twice as big, by some reliable estimates. Their choice is to either accept half a loaf (the traditional political calculation), or to hold out for the whole loaf and get nothing.

Its noteworthy that a number of liberal bloggers are urging the out now faction to park their ideals and get real. Chris Bowers, one of the key players at myDD.com, wrote this the other day: If, in the House, this bill goes down to defeat because Democrats are divided, not only will we get an even worse bill, but we will also get a national (media) narrative on how we dont have our own House in order on Iraq. Referring to the liberals who are refusing to compromise, he added: I cant help but think at this point that continued progressive opposition, while principled, has become politically blind belligerence.

Bowers and others are arguing that at least Pelosis strategy would move the ball forward, and signal to Bush (and to Democratic voters) that Congress is prepared to keep pushing for a new direction in Iraq, albeit incrementally. And while its true that Democrats are traditionally nervous about asserting themselves on national security issues, fearing that they will be tagged anew as wimps, the truth is that, in the current debate over the wars future, there are few viable options. And the blame for that rests with Bush.

Consider this new assessment: On Iraq, Bush seemed to be practically the last man in America to realize his military strategy was failingIraq is in a category of its own. More than anything else, it colors the Bush presidency, giving every charge of incompetency extra resonance. A successful chief executive sets achievable goals, puts in place the right people to achieve them, and establishes a decision-making process that makes their job easier. Bush arguably did none of these in Iraqthe administration (could) be run perfectly until January 2009, and the charge of incompetence will still bite.

That must be Paul Krugman, right? Frank Rich? No, thats conservative commentator Rich Lowry, writing in the new issue of National Review.

So thanks to a record of ineptitude that is likely to stain his legacy for generations, Bush has driven the family car to the edge of a slippery cliff, with two wheels dangling over the precipice. Extrication will be an exceedingly complex and delicate process. Is it any wonder that Democrats are fighting over how to best salvage what he has wrought?

-------

http://dickpolman.blogspot.com/2007/03/can-democrats-get-their-house-in-order.html


----------



## red states rule

Thanks to the pork for votes policy by the libs in Congress, today's vote on the Iraq funding bill should pass. It should make it to the desk of the president where it will be DOA. 

Word will come from the WH, that the pres. vetoed the bill due to pork, blah,blah,blah and fighting a war on a time clock, blah,blah. The military must have money now blah,blah,blah

Back to the congress. This will put them in the position of sending up a bill without a time table and pork, or not giving the military the money it needs. The moon bat libs will explode.

It gets better by the day.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Thanks to the pork for votes policy by the libs in Congress, today's vote on the Iraq funding bill should pass. It should make it to the desk of the president where it will be DOA.
> 
> Word will come from the WH, that the pres. vetoed the bill due to pork, blah,blah,blah and fighting a war on a time clock, blah,blah. The military must have money now blah,blah,blah
> 
> Back to the congress. This will put them in the position of sending up a bill without a time table and pork, or not giving the military the money it needs. The moon bat libs will explode.
> 
> It gets better by the day.



I am curious.  why do you feel compelled to post identical posts in two different threads?   Are you that devoid of intellectual input that you reduced to not only cutting and pasting others words but even copying your own meager efforts?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I am curious.  why do you feel compelled to post identical posts in two different threads?   Are you that devoid of intellectual input that you reduced to not only cutting and pasting others words but even copying your own meager efforts?



Why not address the point?

Libs are diging themselfs in a huge hole, and Pelosi just brought in the backhoe


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Why not address the point?
> 
> Libs are diging themselfs in a huge hole, and Pelosi just brought in the backhoe




I disagree.... there is a vibrant debate going on in congress and in the country as to how long we should throw good money after bad, how many more dead americans we should pile up before we let Iraq fight and settle theri own civil war.  Now I realize that, just saying that, will send you scurrying to find yet another overly long right wing editorial that opines that there is not a civil war...but spare us... I am aware that you disagree.... and that is certainly your right...but you need to know that the question is still being debated.... and in congress, making laws is still a lot like making sausage.... the process is not all that pretty, but sometimes the end result is indeed palatable.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I disagree.... there is a vibrant debate going on in congress and in the country as to how long we should throw good money after bad, how many more dead americans we should pile up before we let Iraq fight and settle theri own civil war.  Now I realize that, just saying that, will send you scurrying to find yet another overly long right wing editorial that opines that there is not a civil war...but spare us... I am aware that you disagree.... and that is certainly your right...but you need to know that the question is still being debated.... and in congress, making laws is still a lot like making sausage.... the process is not all that pretty, but sometimes the end result is indeed palatable.



Libs voted to surrender today - that should make you very happy

Of course the bill will go nowhere since the House does not have a veto proof majority

I also love how Dems loaded the bill with such vital military spending like

$283 million for milk subsidies

$180 million for fishing subsidies

$100 million for citrus subsidies

$74 million for peanut storage


yes, libs continue to show their support for the troops


----------



## Rosotar

It's kind of odd that Bush says he's going to veto the Dem's war spending proposal because it contains a caveat that says troops would begin deploying out of there by the fall of 2008.

When Bush first proposed his "surge" crap the consensus among the commanders in the field was that we would know within the first six months whether it was going to "work" or not.

Now, according to the Conservative spin machine it's already working.

Given that (if it's even true) the fall of 2008 is plenty of time to wrap this operation up.

I think Congress is being very generous in their timeline.

I don't see what all the fuss is about. I think Bush just chafes at the idea of having to answer to anyone or of having to account for his decisions.

The president answers to Congress. That's the way it's always been done. I know it's a shock to Bush, this late in the game, to find Congress actually exercising some semblance of it's constitutional duty. He's not used to that. He's used to the good old boy system where he runs the government, including Congress, like his own little, family mafia.

That all changed last November and I'm not sure he's totally grocked it yet.

He'd better get used to it.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

Rosotar said:


> It's kind of odd that Bush says he's going to veto the Dem's war spending proposal because it contains a caveat that says troops would begin deploying out of there by the fall of 2008.
> 
> When Bush first proposed his "surge" crap the consensus among the commanders in the field was that we would know within the first six months whether it was going to "work" or not.
> 
> Now, according to the Conservative spin machine it's already working.
> 
> Given that (if it's even true) the fall of 2008 is plenty of time to wrap this operation up.
> 
> I think Congress is being very generous in their timeline.
> 
> I don't see what all the fuss is about. I think Bush just chafes at the idea of having to answer to anyone or of having to account for his decisions.
> 
> The president answers to Congress. That's the way it's always been done. I know it's a shock to Bush, this late in the game, to find Congress actually exercising some semblance of it's constitutional duty. He's not used to that. He's used to the good old boy system where he runs the government, including Congress, like his own little, family mafia.
> 
> That all changed last November and I'm not sure he's totally grocked it yet.
> 
> He'd better get used to it.


I see, another hate Bush tirade (and that from the "compassionate" party) based only on fiction and not fact.

Grow up little boy, change your diapers and quit whining.


----------



## maineman

LuvRPgrl said:


> I see, another hate Bush tirade (and that from the "compassionate" party) based only on fiction and not fact.
> 
> Grow up little boy, change your diapers and quit whining.




I think he laid out facts pretty neatly.  What is fictional in his statement?

And we democrats aren't whining at all anymore.  America has shown just how pissed off at republicans they are.... in a little less than two years, we'll have both the executive and the legislative branches in our control and the little republican uprising that marked the end of the 20th century will be dead and buried.  Me, whine?  Hell no.... I am grinning like a the cat that just swallowed the canary!


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I think he laid out facts pretty neatly.  What is fictional in his statement?
> 
> And we democrats aren't whining at all anymore.  America has shown just how pissed off at republicans they are.... in a little less than two years, we'll have both the executive and the legislative branches in our control and the little republican uprising that marked the end of the 20th century will be dead and buried.  Me, whine?  Hell no.... I am grinning like a the cat that just swallowed the canary!



and so are the Dems biggest supporters - the terrorists

However, your party is not winning over the voters by surrendering


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> The moonbat libs will never join and fight the war on terror - they are to engaged with their war on Bush
> 
> Where was all the liberal compassion when Saddam was filling the mass graves, firing on US jets in the NFZ during the cease fire, funding terrorist groups, and stealing hundreds of million from the UN's Oil for Food Program?
> 
> Libs have a very rigid set of rules of engagment. If Pres Bush is for it - they will be against it. logic, truth, and facts be damned



According to the last two NIE's and the conclusions of the Iraq Survey Group the current U.S. strategy and policies in Iraq are fueling terrorism and making the U.S. less safe. I know we haven't had an attack since 2001 but our own intelligence agencies say it's no longer a question of "if" but when.

It's not "libs" saying this. They are just quoting the official reports.

I just don't understand how Cons can still be trying to rationalize Bush's war in Iraq in the context of fighting terrorism. There is too much information out there to the contrary and it wasn't just "made up" by liberals.


----------



## Rosotar

LuvRPgrl said:


> I see, another hate Bush tirade (and that from the "compassionate" party) based only on fiction and not fact.
> 
> Grow up little boy, change your diapers and quit whining.



Could you tell me what, specifically it is in my post that you take issue with LuvRPgrl?


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> and so are the Dems biggest supporters - the terrorists



Feeling a little Limbaughesque are we red states?

Don't you think that little talking point has worn a little thin?



red states rule said:


> However, your party is not winning over the voters by surrendering



Actually voters just demonstrated last November that they know the difference between Democrats holding a rogue president accountable for his failed policy and Republican propaganda like accusing anyone who dares question that policy of being a traitor, wanting to "surrender," or "cutting and running."

Speaking of that what happened to that phrase?

Cons were really stuck on it for a while but I don't think I've heard it lately.


----------



## eots

know your enemy, know yourself
that's the politic
george bush is way worse than bin laden is
know your enemy, know yourself
that's the politic
f.b.i., c.i.a., the real terrorists
know your enemy, know yourself
that's the politic
george bush is way worse than bin laden is
know your enemy, know yourself
that's the politic
c.i.a., f.b.i. the real terrorists
[stic.man]
you got to watch what you say in these days and times
It's a touchy situation, lotta fear and emotion
september 11th
televised world-wide
suicide planes fallin like bombs from out the sky
they wasn't aimin at us
not at my house
they hit the world trade, the pentagon, and almost got the white house
now everybody walkin round patriotic
how we gon' fight to keep freedom when we ain't got it?
you wanna stop terrorists?
start with the u.s. imperalists
ain't no track record like america's, see
bin laden was trained by the c.i.a
but I guess if you a terrorist for the u.s
then it's okay

they try to make us think we crazy
but I know what they doin, they tryna put us back in slavery
check it, to get on welfare you gotta get your fingerprints
soon ya gotta do eyescans to get your benefits
now they got them cards to swipe, ain't no more foodstamps
shoulda seen it comin, now it's too late to get amped
and everything got a barcode
so they know what you got, when you got it, and what you still owe
you seen them projects, lately you better watch it
why they got us surrounded if money is the object?
why they use satellites to keep track of the criminals?
why they puttin jails in schools, is it subliminal?
cameras everywhere to protect us from one another
or is it the undercover, disguised as big brother
and even freedom of speech is limited
mad leaders done spoke up, and look at what these crackas did

and you ain't got to believe me
go 'head and listen to bush
the dope pusher on the t.v
what you think the war is for?
cause the greedy wantin more and more
we be hustlin the corridor
I would never join the military
one soldier to another, nigga holla if ya hear me
goin out to the best sons and daughters
don't be a lamb gettin led to the slaughter
I'ma keep ridin when my momma released
cause ain't no stoppin us now, dawg
freedom before peace

they got a plan for us?
we got a plan for them
and this time we gon' win
who in? you out? you in?
no doubt, we men
ain't no ridin the fence
It's called self-defense
It makes sense
when they tell us we gotta shackles on our brains (say what?)
I'll be damned if I sit here and let them put us back in chains


----------



## red states rule

NYTimes Waited Full Week to Correct Military Rape Story - One Tale a Total Fabrication
Posted by Warner Todd Huston on March 27, 2007 - 04:11. 

On March 18th, the New York Times published a piece titled "The Women's War". It was a feature of great length (18 pages on the Internet) centered around the plight of several female Veterans of the war in Iraq. It detailed the mistreatment they suffered by the US Military, sexual harassment they received at the hands of army officers, and their PTSDs (post traumatic distress disorders). A shocking expose is what the Times was going for, it is sure. These women certainly deserved better treatment and the story should be well publicized, of course. It might have had more impact but for the fact that the Times knew that one of the subjects featured in the article wasn't even in Iraq and that her story was a complete lie.

Worse yet, the Times published the story knowing full well that one of their subjects had lied to them. Finally, a whole week after their initial story was published on the 18th, on March 25th, the Times published a mae culpa, correcting the story.

The cover article in The Times Magazine on March 18 reported on women who served in Iraq, the sexual abuse that some of them endured and the struggle for all of them to reclaim their prewar lives. One of the servicewomen, Amorita Randall, a former naval construction worker, told The Times that she was in combat in Iraq in 2004 and that in one incident an explosive device blew up a Humvee she was riding in, killing the driver and leaving her with a brain injury. She also said she was raped twice while she was in the Navy.

...Based on the information that came to light after the article was printed, it is now clear that Ms. Randall did not serve in Iraq 

According to Fox New's Rick Leventhal the Times knew far in advance that one of their highlighted subjects was a fraud.

The newspaper knew about the mistakes on March 12, six days before the magazine was distributed, and 13 days before it published the correction.The magazine was printed on March 9  three days before the lies were discovered  but there was still plenty of time to reprint it. The cost might've been huge, but wouldn't it be worth it for a paper whose masthead proclaims "All the News That's Fit to Print?" 

For the Times' part, they claimed there wasn't enough time to correct the story in advance of the publication date.

On March 6, three days before the article went to press, a Times researcher contacted the Navy to confirm Ms. Randalls account. There was preliminary back and forth but no detailed reply until hours before the deadline. 

Leventhal claims the Times knew about it 6 days before press and the Times admits to three. Regardless if it was six or three, there was more than enough time for the Times to print a correction between March 18th and March 25th.

Why did the Times wait an entire week to print this correction when even by their own admission they knew the truth before they printed the original story?

We know what the Times knew and when they knew it (to steal the oft repeated Democrat Party phrase used against GOP administrations), but what we don't know is why it took them so long to admit to it all? 

Was there no time at all that they could have published this correction over the course of a whole week? Did they want to wait far enough into the future until they thought no one would notice?

What ever the reason, it is interesting how long they waited in light of how they treat others who "know" things but wait too long in the Time's estimation to admit it all, isn't it?

Imagine if this were Bush waiting to get all the facts straight before coming to the fore with all he knew? Wait, we don't have to imagine it. All we have to do is look to see how the Times is treating the faux scandal of the Gonzales Attorneys General firings.

As John Gibson said of the story:

Does it cost a lot to reprint an entire four-color glossy paper Sunday magazine? Yes. Does it cost a lot in reputation for the newspaper of record to knowingly publish false information and figure it can be fixed with a schedule correction a week later? Yes and yes.

The Times has a political point of view these days it has no problem pushing in its news and editorial pages. OK, it gives up some points in objectivity when it does that, but the publisher has a right to do so. But when The Times knowingly publishes phony information because it costs too much to reprint and thinks a correction a week later will fix things, that suggests something different than just editorial point of view. It suggests a willingness to lie for money. If you'll lie for money, doesn't it follow you would find it much easier to lie for the much higher calling of ideology?

The Times has some explaining to do. 

I couldn't agree more.

I actually read that story a few Sundays ago myself. The very first thought I had was a curiosity if the Times fact checked any of the aggrieved women they highlighted. I guess I got my answer!

There is one more thing that should be considered in this mess the Times has made. There were some real stories of women vets that will now be overshadowed by the Times' sloppy work. All the focus will be on the fraudulent claims and the real problems faced by the other women could easily fade into the background.

And now I have to say one more thing. Liberals had for years been trying to break down the roadblocks to women being able to serve in the military and in field positions. Now they have that in many ways, if not full combat. And now we have women getting PTSD because of their harrowing service to the country.

Am I the only one to think that this should not surprise anyone? Military men having been coming home from wars with PTSD since the first clashes of humans. Why are we all upset and surprised that, now that we are putting women in a position to see the same sorts of service, women are finding themselves faced with troubled lives afterward?

I am not saying, of course, that we should just brush off these women's troubles, but can we really justify sensational stories about their troubles as if it is somehow shocking? Shouldn't we just expect the problem and make moves to face it and help these women?

http://newsbusters.org/node/11653


----------



## jasendorf

I for one am glad the surge is working.  That will mean that we can be out of Iraq by March 31, 2008.


----------



## red states rule

jasendorf said:


> I for one am glad the surge is working.  That will mean that we can be out of Iraq by March 31, 2008.



so now telling our enemies will bring a speedy end to the war? Why didn't  Ike tell Hitler when the US would pull out of Europe?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> so now telling our enemies will bring a speedy end to the war? Why didn't  Ike tell Hitler when the US would pull out of Europe?





if the surge is working, we should have it all wrapped up long before the deadline.

That IS what Petraeus said, isn't it?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> if the surge is working, we should have it all wrapped up long before the deadline.
> 
> That IS what Petraeus said, isn't it?



The surge is working an dthat is what libs are scared about. For years, they have said we are losing the war - if the US wins they will look worse then they already do


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The surge is working an dthat is what libs are scared about. For years, they have said we are losing the war - if the US wins they will look worse then they already do



that's an incorrect statement.  I would LOVE for the surge to work...I would LOVE for us to "win" this war.  I think America would look good if we won and that is good for everyone who calls themselves an American.


But answer my question:  Petraeus did say that the surge should be done by this summer, right?


----------



## jasendorf

maineman said:


> that's an incorrect statement.  I would LOVE for the surge to work...I would LOVE for us to "win" this war.  I think America would look good if we won and that is good for everyone who calls themselves an American.
> 
> 
> But answer my question:  Petraeus did say that the surge should be done by this summer, right?



That gives us like 4 months to close up shop and be home with months to spare before March 31, 2008.

The only reason Republicans would be opposed to a deadline is if they are lying about the surge working.

So, which is it Republicans?  Is the surge not working or are you just making politics out of the deadline?


----------



## boedicca

All a deadline accomplishes is to signal to the enemy when we will be gone.

Our objective should be to leave when the job is done.

I'm not surprised that you are a Clock Watcher.  There are two kinds of people in the world:  Those who commit to and do get the job done regardless of what time it is; and those who punch the time clock, and then sit around twiddling their thumbs until is it "Quittin' Time".


----------



## maineman

boedicca said:


> All a deadline accomplishes is to signal to the enemy when we will be gone.
> 
> Our objective should be to leave when the job is done.
> 
> I'm not surprised that you are a Clock Watcher.  There are two kinds of people in the world:  Those who commit to and do get the job done regardless of what time it is; and those who punch the time clock, and then sit around twiddling their thumbs until is it "Quittin' Time".




and no matter when we leave, we may think that the "job" will be "done", but the sunnis and the shiites will come out of the weeds and start killing one another again....

Does anyone REALLY believe that after centuries of hating one another, after 30 years of majority shiites getting stomped on by baathist sunnis, that some form of "coalition" government is going to make everyone want to have a big group hug?  Does anyone think that, after we leave, the Iraqi army will not rapidly dissolve into two armed and equipped militias fighting one another? And will those of you who believe those fucking fairytales agree to give up your right to have anything to say about our foreign policy for at least a half a century when they are proven to be fictional?

all we accomplish by waiting is a bigger body count.....but pouring more dead Americans on top of the ones who have already bravely given their last full measure of devotion for a stupid inane counterproductive foreign policy debacle is what conservatives call "supporting the troops".


----------



## maineman

if the surge is working so well, why was this week one of the deadliest in the war in terms of Iraqis?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17883992/

and we have lost 37% MORE more Americans in the last six months (530) than we did in the six months before that (386).

http://icasualties.org/oif/

if this is what it looks like when the surge IS working, can you imagine how bloody Iraq would be if it were not?


----------



## red states rule

SHERMAN FREDERICK: Harry Reid's doublespeak 

Hightailing it to victory? 


Am I missing something, or is this just another example of political doublespeak?

The U.S. Senate passed a war-funding bill last week. According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., this will "change the course in Iraq" by giving our troops "an effective, successful strategy for victory in Iraq." Why, just reading that you'd think that Sen. Reid is giving American soldiers a green light to kick some major butt in Baghdad.


You'd be wrong. What Harry is really saying is that "victory" means hightailing it out of Iraq.

Whoever taught Harry critical thinking skills back at Basic High School in the 1950s can't be happy. His creative writing teacher, however, must be ecstatic, because calling what the Senate did last week "an effective, successful strategy for victory in Iraq" is about as far from reality as one can get. 

What the Senate did under the umbrella of a troop funding bill was vote for removing most forces from Iraq in 365 days. Think about that -- one year. 

No one with an ounce of intellectual integrity can seriously call the Senate's action a blueprint for military success in Iraq. Arizona Sen. John McCain may not be my favorite political cup of tea, but he called it right on this one: "This bill should be named the Date Certain for Surrender Act. A second-year cadet at West Point could tell you that if you announce when the end will be, it's a recipe for defeat."

Now look, unlike Senate Democrats, I want to be clear and plainly understood about this. Americans can have at least two very legitimate points of view on U.S. involvement in Iraq. There are those who think we can create a better Middle East via a stable and democratic Iraq by supplying more troops, money and good old American resolve. And there are those who hold there is no military solution in Iraq, we ought to come to grips with that, cut our losses and get the hell out. 

I happen to be in the "we-can-still-win" camp. And you won't catch me calling the "get-the-hell-out" folks cowards or un-American. But I will say I have increasingly little patience for politicians who try to have it both ways.

In that regard, Harry Reid's deliberately evasive position on Iraq wears extremely thin. When the war began, Harry was gung-ho and voted so. Even now, in hindsight, he says he was right to vote for the war. Yet, now that things have gotten tough, Harry (if I comprehend his doublespeak correctly) wants out. 

That's fine. He's entitled to that view. But why not just say so? 

Calling withdrawal an "effective, successful strategy for Iraq" is like Karl Rove calling for Sen. Hillary Clinton to bow out of the presidential race one year from now as an "effective, successful strategy" for Democrats to win the White House in 2008.

It makes no sense. Just in case you think I might be overstating things, here's the news release from Sen. Reid -- verbatim: 

"Today was a significant step forward in our efforts to change course in Iraq and make America more secure. With this vote the Senate is giving our troops the resources they need in combat -- including a strategy in Iraq worthy of their sacrifices. It is my hope that with this vote now complete, Senate Republicans will not stand in the way of finishing this bill so that we may get these vital funds to our men and women as soon as possible.

"The president must change course, and this legislation gives him a chance to do that. It gives him the chance to more effectively fight terrorism and redeploy our troops from a civil war. This bill also gives the president the chance to address some of our country's most urgent needs -- long-ignored priorities including veterans health care; port, mass transit and airport security; and rebuilding the Gulf Coast.

"The American people have asked us to give our troops an effective, successful strategy for victory in Iraq. Both houses of Congress have listened. It is now up to the president to do the same."

OK, now that you've read his news release in its entirety and you know that I'm righteous on this, take a deep breath through your nose and read the following aloud in your best Robert Duval impersonation: "Thank you, Sen. Reid. I love the smell of horse apples in the morning." 


http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2007/Apr-01-Sun-2007/opinion/13481820.html


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> if the surge is working so well, why was this week one of the deadliest in the war in terms of Iraqis?
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17883992/
> 
> and we have lost 37% MORE more Americans in the last six months (530) than we did in the six months before that (386).
> 
> http://icasualties.org/oif/
> 
> if this is what it looks like when the surge IS working, can you imagine how bloody Iraq would be if it were not?




RSR...can you answer my questions?  If the surge is working, why are we losing more Americans and why are there more Iraqis dying?

Don't cut and paste another oped piece.... just answer my questions with your own words.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> RSR...can you answer my questions?  If the surge is working, why are we losing more Americans and why are there more Iraqis dying?
> 
> Don't cut and paste another oped piece.... just answer my questions with your own words.


The terrorists know the more attacks they launch and the more people they kill - the more libs will want to complete their surrender at all costs agenda


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The terrorists know the more attacks they launch and the more people they kill - the more libs will want to complete their surrender at all costs agenda



Can you answer my question?  You have said that the surge is working.  By what measure?  More Iraqis are dying and more Americans are dying.  What would those statistics be doing if the surge WEREN'T working?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> Can you answer my question?  You have said that the surge is working.  By what measure?  More Iraqis are dying and more Americans are dying.  What would those statistics be doing if the surge WEREN'T working?



I did - try reading my previous post

I know you enjoy reading about the deaths of our troops and the civilians. You cannot wait for the US to be pull out and the terrorists take over Iraq - then watch the slaughter as it did in Viet Nam after the US left


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I did - try reading my previous post
> 
> I know you enjoy reading about the deaths of our troops and the civilians. You cannot wait for the US to be pull out and the terrorists take over Iraq - then watch the slaughter as it did in Viet Nam after the US left



your previous post says:

_"The terrorists know the more attacks they launch and the more people they kill - the more libs will want to complete their surrender at all costs agenda."_

how does that answer my question in the least?

Here again is MY question:

You have said that the surge is working. By what measure? More Iraqis are dying and more Americans are dying. What would those statistics be doing if the surge WEREN'T working?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> your previous post says:
> 
> _"The terrorists know the more attacks they launch and the more people they kill - the more libs will want to complete their surrender at all costs agenda."_
> 
> how does that answer my question in the least?
> 
> Here again is MY question:
> 
> You have said that the surge is working. By what measure? More Iraqis are dying and more Americans are dying. What would those statistics be doing if the surge WEREN'T working?



THE IRAQ SURGE:
WHY IT'S WORKING ...

By GORDON CUCULLU
 Petraeus: "People realize they're not going to just leave them like we did in the past."March 20, 2007 -- 'I WALKED down the streets of Ramadi a few days ago, in a soft cap eating an ice cream with the mayor on one side of me and the police chief on the other, having a conversation." This simple act, Gen. David Petraeus told me, would have been "unthinkable" just a few months ago. "And nobody shot at us," he added. 

Petraeus, the new commander managing the "surge" of troops in Iraq, will be the first to caution realism. "Sure we see improvements - major improvements," he said in our interview, "but we still have a long way to go." 

What tactics are working? "We got down at the people level and are staying," he said flatly. "Once the people know we are going to be around, then all kinds of things start to happen." 

More intelligence, for example. Where once tactical units were "scraping" for intelligence information, they now have "information overload," the general said. "After our guys are in the neighborhood for four or five days, the people realize they're not going to just leave them like we did in the past. Then they begin to come in with so much information on the enemy that we can't process it fast enough." 

In intelligence work - the key to fighting irregular wars - commanders love excess. 

And the tribal leaders in Sunni al Anbar Province, the general reports, "have had enough." Not only are the al Qaeda fighters causing civil disruption by fomenting sectarian violence and killing civilians, but on a more prosaic but practical side, al Qaeda is bad for business. "All of the sheiks up there are businessmen," Petraeus said. "They are entrepreneurial and involved in scores of different businesses. The presence of the foreign fighters is hitting them hard in the pocketbook and they are tired of it." 

A large hospital project - meant to be one of the largest in the Sunni Triangle - had been put on hold by terrorist attacks when al Qaeda had control of the area. Now it's back on track. So are similar infrastructure projects. 

The sheiks have seen that the al Qaeda delivers only violence and misery. They are throwing their lot in with the new government - for example, encouraging their young men to join the Iraqi police force and army. (They are responding in droves.) 

Petraeus has his troops applying a similar formula in Baghdad's Sadr City: "We're clearing it neighborhood by neighborhood." Troops move in - mainly U.S. soldiers and Marines supported by Iraqi forces, although that ratio is reversed in some areas - and stay. They are not transiting back to large, remote bases but are now living with the people they have come to protect. The results, Petraeus says, have been "dramatic." 

"We're using 'soft knock' clearing procedures and bringing the locals in on our side," he notes. By being in the neighborhoods, getting to know the people and winning their trust, the soldiers have allowed the people to turn against the al Qaeda terrorists, whom they fear and loathe. Petraeus says his goal is to pull al Qaeda out "by its roots, wherever it tries to take hold." 

Another change: an emphasis on protecting of gathering places like mosques and marketplaces. "We initiated Operation Safe Markets," Petraeus said, "and have placed ordinary concrete highway barriers around the vulnerable targets." Car bombings have dropped precipitately - the limited access thwarts them. 

As a result, "The marketplaces, including the book market that was targeted for an especially vicious attack, are rebuilding and doing great business. It is helping the local economy enormously to have this kind of protection in place." With jobs plentiful and demand growing, the appeal of militia armies declines proportionally. 

Nor is the Iraqi government simply standing aside and allowing U.S. and Coalition forces to do their work. The Shia prime minister walked the Sunni streets of Ramadi recently, meeting and greeting the people - "acting like a politician," Petraeus said, without malice. "He is making the point with them that he intends to represent all sectors of Iraqi society, not just his sectarian roots." 

Rules of engagement (ROE), highly criticized as being too restrictive and sometimes endangering our troops, have been "clarified." "There were unintended consequences with ROE for too long," Petraeus acknowledged. Because of what junior leaders perceived as too harsh punishment meted out to troops acting in the heat of battle, the ROE issued from the top commanders were second-guessed and made more restrictive by some on the ground. The end result was unnecessary - even harmful - restrictions placed on the troops in contact with the enemy. 

"I've made two things clear," Petraeus emphasized: "My ROE may not be modified with supplemental guidance lower down. And I've written a letter to all Coalition forces saying 'your chain-of-command will stay with you.' I think that solved the issue." 

Are the policies paying off? "King David" as Petraeus is known from his previous tour of duty up near the Syrian border, is cautiously optimistic. "Less than half the al Qaeda leaders who were in Baghdad when this [surge] campaign began are still in the city," he said. "They have fled or are being killed or captured. We are attriting them at a fearsome rate." 

Virtually everyone who knows him says that David Petraeus is one of the brightest, most capable officers in today's Army. "He is the perfect person for the job," retired Major Gen. Paul Vallely noted. 

Early signs are positive; early indicators say that we're winning. As Petraeus cautiously concluded, "We'll be able to evaluate the situation for sure by late summer." That's his job. Our job? We need to give him the time and space needed to win this war. 

Gordon Cucullu is a retired U.S. Army officer and a member of Benador Associates. His book on Guantanamo is due out this fall. 
http://www.nypost.com/seven/0320200..._____opedcolumnists_gordon_cucullu.htm?page=0


----------



## maineman

you are truly amazing.  you are incapable of forming thoughts into sentences, aren't you?

How many times do I have to tell you that I have no desire to read oped pieces written by conservative journalists on this site.... I asked YOU a question...why can't YOU answer it?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you are truly amazing.  you are incapable of forming thoughts into sentences, aren't you?
> 
> How many times do I have to tell you that I have no desire to read oped pieces written by conservative journalists on this site.... I asked YOU a question...why can't YOU answer it?



I knew that would be your reaction to a fellow military officer who has been to Iraq and walked the streets

You have the usual open mind I have come to expect from libs


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I knew that would be your reaction to a fellow military officer who has been to Iraq and walked the streets
> 
> You have the usual open mind I have come to expect from libs




that is not my reaction to Colonel Cucullu...it is my reaction to YOU.

Why are you incapable of forming thoughts into sentences?

and why, if the surge really IS working are we losing more Iraqis civilians AND more Americans?

What would those statistics look like if the surge WEREN'T working?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> that is not my reaction to Colonel Cucullu...it is my reaction to YOU.
> 
> Why are you incapable of forming thoughts into sentences?
> 
> and why, if the surge really IS working are we losing more Iraqis civilians AND more Americans?
> 
> What would those statistics look like if the surge WEREN'T working?



Oh, thats right - you hate to read anything that goes against your predetermined views on how things are

The last thing you really want to read is HOW the surge is WORKING


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Oh, thats right - you hate to read anything that goes against your predetermined views on how things are
> 
> The last thing you really want to read is HOW the surge is WORKING



Please answer my questions...if the surge is working, how come we are losing mre Iraqi civilians and more Americans?  What would those statistics look like if the surge WEREN'T working?

American casualties are up nearly 40% in the last six months versus the six months before that.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> Please answer my questions...if the surge is working, how come we are losing mre Iraqi civilians and more Americans?  What would those statistics look like if the surge WEREN'T working?
> 
> American casualties are up nearly 40% in the last six months versus the six months before that.



US Deaths in Iraq Down 60% Since Surge Began 

And Democrats continue efforts to stop the surge.


BAGHDAD, March 14 (KUNA) -- The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre.
Suporting the troops means supporting the surge. Blocking the surge means the deaths of more Americans.

Meanwhile, when Matt Drudge posted the link above, he received death threats. It seems some "peace" activists are prepared to kill for their cause.


You might want to get updated talking points MM


----------



## maineman

I posted the link that shows the american casualty figures....yours are inaccurate...

In january, we lost 83 Americans.
In february, we lost 80 Americans
In march, we lost 81 Americans

and we have already lost 5 Americans today, the first of April

Please explain how you get a decrease of "60%" from those figures?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I posted the link that shows the american casualty figures....yours are inaccurate...
> 
> In january, we lost 83 Americans.
> In february, we lost 80 Americans
> In march, we lost 81 Americans
> 
> and we have already lost 5 Americans today, the first of April
> 
> Please explain how you get a decrease of "60%" from those figures?



http://icasualties.org/oif/


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> http://icasualties.org/oif/



that is exactly where I got my figures...can you please explain how those figures show a 60% decrease???


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> http://icasualties.org/oif/



RSR... can you please show me the numbers from THIS SITE THAT YOU HAVE POSTED that would prove your allegation that we have seen a 60% decrease in American casualties?

Or will you either run away with your tail between your legs, or come back blasting with yet another op-ed piece that talks about how well the surge is working?


----------



## Paul Revere

red states rule said:


> Oh, thats right - you hate to read anything that goes against your predetermined views on how things are
> 
> The last thing you really want to read is HOW the surge is WORKING




McCain says Iraq crackdown working

BAGHDAD - After a heavily guarded trip to a Baghdad market, Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) insisted Sunday that a U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown in the capital was working and said Americans lacked a "full picture" of the progress. The U.S. military later reported six soldiers were killed in roadside bombings southwest of Baghdad
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070401/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq


----------



## Emmett

maineman said:


> I posted the link that shows the american casualty figures....yours are inaccurate...
> 
> In january, we lost 83 Americans.
> In february, we lost 80 Americans
> In march, we lost 81 Americans
> 
> and we have already lost 5 Americans today, the first of April
> 
> Please explain how you get a decrease of "60%" from those figures?




The figures showing how many Americans have been killed in action is not a clear indicator of rather the "surge" is working yet. A more accurate way to depict this will be to look at June's numbers. Military strategy is not like monopoly Maineman, it takes time and support. "Support" being the key word here. For those who have distaste for the war, which any rational minded person should, understand that effective military strategy takes time. 

I can tell you how to end it tomorrow but you would not like what I have to say. I don't like what I would say but I know how to end it.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

maineman said:


> I think he laid out facts pretty neatly.  What is fictional in his statement?!


Yea, you are right, you libs consider the following type of stuff to be "FACTS": "The president answers to Congress. That's the way it's always been done. I know it's a shock to Bush, this late in the game, to find Congress actually exercising some semblance of it's constitutional duty. He's not used to that. He's used to the good old boy system where he runs the government, including Congress, like his own little, family mafia."



maineman said:


> And we democrats aren't whining at all anymore. !


hahhahahha, well, so you admit the dems have been whining their asses off !



maineman said:


> America has shown just how pissed off at republicans they are.... in a little less than two years, we'll have both the executive and the legislative branches in our control and the little republican uprising that marked the end of the 20th century will be dead and buried.  Me, whine?  Hell no.... I am grinning like a the cat that just swallowed the canary!



And yet it hasnt even happened yet.

MEMO:

Dems cant sustain victories. And its impossible for the better party to constantly win, we have to have a lull in the Republican victories occasionally, and historically, the off presidental year elections do not go well for the incumbent party,,hmmm, look at that a little historical FACTS, look it up,


----------



## LuvRPgrl

Rosotar said:


> Could you tell me what, specifically it is in my post that you take issue with LuvRPgrl?



"The president answers to Congress. That's the way it's always been done. I know it's a shock to Bush, this late in the game, to find Congress actually exercising some semblance of it's constitutional duty. He's not used to that. He's used to the good old boy system where he runs the government, including Congress, like his own little, family mafia."

Your statement above is a joke and sounds like the tirade of a three year old who just had his pacifier taken away.

And your next post you mention the OPINION of the ISG (Iraq Survey Group) about the Bush's latest Iraq war policies, yet the ISG has been disbanded for how many years???


----------



## LuvRPgrl

Rosotar said:


> Feeling a little Limbaughesque are we red states?
> 
> Don't you think that little talking point has worn a little thin?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually voters just demonstrated last November that they know the difference between Democrats holding a rogue president accountable for his failed policy and Republican propaganda like accusing anyone who dares question that policy of being a traitor, wanting to "surrender," or "cutting and running."
> 
> Speaking of that what happened to that phrase?
> 
> Cons were really stuck on it for a while but I don't think I've heard it lately.



ahhh, I see, more michael moore bed wetting whining,,,why dont you try throwing in a few ACCURATE FACTS, once in a while????


----------



## LuvRPgrl

So I see you hate America eh?




eots said:


> know your enemy, know yourself
> that's the politic
> george bush is way worse than bin laden is
> know your enemy, know yourself
> that's the politic
> f.b.i., c.i.a., the real terrorists
> know your enemy, know yourself
> that's the politic
> george bush is way worse than bin laden is
> know your enemy, know yourself
> that's the politic
> c.i.a., f.b.i. the real terrorists
> [stic.man]
> you got to watch what you say in these days and times
> It's a touchy situation, lotta fear and emotion
> september 11th
> televised world-wide
> suicide planes fallin like bombs from out the sky
> they wasn't aimin at us
> not at my house
> they hit the world trade, the pentagon, and almost got the white house
> now everybody walkin round patriotic
> how we gon' fight to keep freedom when we ain't got it?
> you wanna stop terrorists?
> start with the u.s. imperalists
> ain't no track record like america's, see
> bin laden was trained by the c.i.a
> but I guess if you a terrorist for the u.s
> then it's okay
> 
> they try to make us think we crazy
> but I know what they doin, they tryna put us back in slavery
> check it, to get on welfare you gotta get your fingerprints
> soon ya gotta do eyescans to get your benefits
> now they got them cards to swipe, ain't no more foodstamps
> shoulda seen it comin, now it's too late to get amped
> and everything got a barcode
> so they know what you got, when you got it, and what you still owe
> you seen them projects, lately you better watch it
> why they got us surrounded if money is the object?
> why they use satellites to keep track of the criminals?
> why they puttin jails in schools, is it subliminal?
> cameras everywhere to protect us from one another
> or is it the undercover, disguised as big brother
> and even freedom of speech is limited
> mad leaders done spoke up, and look at what these crackas did
> 
> and you ain't got to believe me
> go 'head and listen to bush
> the dope pusher on the t.v
> what you think the war is for?
> cause the greedy wantin more and more
> we be hustlin the corridor
> I would never join the military
> one soldier to another, nigga holla if ya hear me
> goin out to the best sons and daughters
> don't be a lamb gettin led to the slaughter
> I'ma keep ridin when my momma released
> cause ain't no stoppin us now, dawg
> freedom before peace
> 
> they got a plan for us?
> we got a plan for them
> and this time we gon' win
> who in? you out? you in?
> no doubt, we men
> ain't no ridin the fence
> It's called self-defense
> It makes sense
> when they tell us we gotta shackles on our brains (say what?)
> I'll be damned if I sit here and let them put us back in chains


----------



## LuvRPgrl

jasendorf said:


> That gives us like 4 months to close up shop and be home with months to spare before March 31, 2008.
> 
> The only reason Republicans would be opposed to a deadline is if they are lying about the surge working.
> 
> So, which is it Republicans?  Is the surge not working or are you just making politics out of the deadline?



Ok Mr Hate America.

I hate to tell you this, but the answer requires more than a third grade michael moore mentality.

What is being attempted in the BIG picture, is to let the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED, by the Iraqis themselves, (But I know you snobbish elitist liberals know whats better for the Iraqis than the Iraqis do, so their electing their own officials is irrlevant to you, and besides, you guys read 8 newspapers a day, so you probably know more about Iraq and the war than the Iraqi's themeselves, eh?) get to a point where they can maintain a civil order to defend themselves from terrorists who are trying to destroy the democracy that has been allowed to be instituted.
    Or do you think it would be wise to take new born babies and toss them out the hospital door and say, "you're on your own now"?

"the surge" is about gaining control of certain aspects of the war while the training of Iraqi security forces goes on.

I know that requires handling two concepts at once, but I think if you tune out your hatred of PRESIDENT BUSH for a few minutes, you will have enough brain cells to multifuncion for a minute or so.


----------



## maineman

LuvRPgrl said:


> Ok Mr Hate America.
> 
> I hate to tell you this, but the answer requires more than a third grade michael moore mentality.
> 
> What is being attempted in the BIG picture, is to let the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED, by the Iraqis themselves, (But I know you snobbish elitist liberals know whats better for the Iraqis than the Iraqis do, so their electing their own officials is irrlevant to you, and besides, you guys read 8 newspapers a day, so you probably know more about Iraq and the war than the Iraqi's themeselves, eh?) get to a point where they can maintain a civil order to defend themselves from terrorists who are trying to destroy the democracy that has been allowed to be instituted.
> Or do you think it would be wise to take new born babies and toss them out the hospital door and say, "you're on your own now"?
> 
> "the surge" is about gaining control of certain aspects of the war while the training of Iraqi security forces goes on.
> 
> I know that requires handling two concepts at once, but I think if you tune out your hatred of PRESIDENT BUSH for a few minutes, you will have enough brain cells to multifuncion for a minute or so.




and what will you say if the benefits from the surge are shortlived and, as many have predicted, the Iraqi security forces will quickly devolve into two well trained fighting forces - sunnis vs. shiite - when the experiment in governing fails?  What will you say to the parents of the dead Americans?  *"We didn't really have a fucking CLUE about the dynamics between sects of Islam when we invaded Iraq looking for Saddam's cache of weapons of mass destruction.... we really didn't have a fucking CLUE how deep the enmity was between Iraqi sunnis and shiites.... we really didn't have any sort of plan whatsoever for dealing with an insurgency of that magnitude and that intensity, but we plugged away at it for a good long time because we certainly didn't want those first two or three thousand Americans we tossed into the bottomless pit to have died in vain, so we stuck around and tossed another X thousand right on top of them to honor their sacrifice" ?????* 

I tell you what... I know that wouldn't work for ME, and I doubt very seriously if it will work for many other parents or wives or sons or daughters either.


----------



## jillian

maineman said:


> and what will you say if the benefits from the surge are shortlived and, as many have predicted, the Iraqi security forces will quickly devolve into two well trained fighting forces - sunnis vs. shiite - when the experiment in governing fails?  What will you say to the parents of the dead Americans?  *"We didn't really have a fucking CLUE about the dynamics between sects of Islam when we invaded Iraq looking for Saddam's cache of weapons of mass destruction.... we really didn't have a fucking CLUE how deep the enmity was between Iraqi sunnis and shiites.... we really didn't have any sort of plan whatsoever for dealing with an insurgency of that magnitude and that intensity, but we plugged away at it for a good long time because we certainly didn't want those first two or three thousand Americans we tossed into the bottomless pit to have died in vain, so we stuck around and tossed another X thousand right on top of them to honor their sacrifice" ?????*
> 
> I tell you what... I know that wouldn't work for ME, and I doubt very seriously if it will work for many other parents or wives or sons or daughters either.



It's a game of whack-a-mole... we put troops in one place and things quiet down there, but the violence moves elsewhere. Then we move the troops there and it quiets down, but moves again... etc, etc, etc.


----------



## maineman

and we don't have enough bodies in the department of defense to be everywhere the mole is going to pop up in Iraq.... this was a stupid war and arrogance and pride on the part of republicans is doing nothing but running up the body count....as if they give a shit.


----------



## Paul Revere

maineman said:


> and we don't have enough bodies in the department of defense to be everywhere the mole is going to pop up in Iraq.... this was a stupid war and arrogance and pride on the part of republicans is doing nothing but running up the body count....as if they give a shit.



Correct........
http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=47955

These guys would give a shit if they still could. They died in Iraq for Bush's lies.














Now the Lying Neo-Con Bastards want more of our brave troops to die in Iran for their bank balances.

Wake up you plastic patriots. Just because the assholes wrap their lies in the flag, is no reason to follow them to hell. More people are waking up to what is going on every day. You won't know shit if you depend on the TV news.


----------



## red states rule

Paul, what do you do at home to relax? You probably watch home movies of US troops getting killed with a laugh track

You are one sick left wing wacko


----------



## red states rule

We must win in Iraq


TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By David R. Hanke
April 2, 2007 



    Without question, mistakes have been made in Iraq; nobody can deny that. However, that is no excuse for exiting Iraq before the job is done, which can only lead to further unrest and instability in the region, and, ultimately, a higher cost to the United States down the road. Our new commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, has formulated a comprehensive, inventive new strategy to bring stability there. Our troops have set about implementing it, and early indications are that they are meeting with success. 
    The deployment of additional U.S. troops to reinforce and help those already in Iraq is an integral part of the new plan. Yet, the left -- including many members of the new Democratic majority in Congress -- and other Bush-haters have chosen to describe the new strategy as just another "escalation" and have doomed it to failure. In so doing, the congressional Democrats seem guided not by what is best for our nation and its security, but by what will best position them to maintain their newfound congressional majority, advance individual political ambitions, and satisfy left-wing groups like MoveOn.org. 
    Our congressional leaders and 2008 presidential candidates should be giving every measure of their support to the new strategy for Iraq and especially those implementing it on the ground, instead of taking political cheap shots at President Bush. Then they should hope and pray for the new strategy to work, for it likely represents our last chance to fully succeed in Iraq. 
    Undoubtedly, the war in Iraq will continue to carry a hefty price tag, both in American lives and dollars, but a stable Iraq is the only acceptable outcome. Those who advocate prompt withdrawal or downsizing of our combat forces there are disappointingly shortsighted. They think only in terms of immediate gratification, not the long-term security of our nation. Clearly, our job in Iraq is not yet done. If we withdraw our military forces prematurely, we may save American lives and dollars in the short run, but the long-term consequences could be disastrous for our nation. 
    The stakes are high. If we leave Iraq in a state of instability and disarray, the situation will likely devolve into utter chaos. The resulting power vacuum would probably be filled by any one of a number of familiar enemies of the United States: Syria, Iran or Islamic extremists from Saudi Arabia (of the same fanatical Wahhabi sect that produced Osama bin Laden). Just as Afghanistan served as a fertile breeding ground and safe haven for al Qaeda during the 1990s, Iraq could well become a new incubator for radical Islamic terrorists. Moreover, an unstable Iraq could potentially spawn future regional conflicts in which the United States would be forced to commit even larger numbers of troops and funding. As such, premature troop withdrawal is the wrong answer. 
    The new approach is far from guaranteed to work, but surely it is worth trying. Give this new and carefully designed strategy a chance. If for no other reason, do so for the troops implementing it on the ground in Iraq. They deserve every ounce of our support. Second-guessing our troops' mission is demoralizing to them -- this soldier can personally attest to that. While in Iraq last year, I attentively watched the television news in the mess hall and listened as the voices of the anti-war left sounded retreat, day after day. My heart sank as they continually undercut our troops' mission in Iraq and readied the white flag. 
    I greatly feared that a major goal of our enemy -- deflating U.S. public opinion on the war -- was slowly being achieved, which would only help the insurgency build momentum. For our troops, living in a dusty, hostile place for months on end, away from friends and family (let alone dodging sniper rounds and roadside bombs, as some do every day) is difficult enough without having to hear that some think your mission there is a complete waste of time. 
    The new strategy in Iraq has a decent chance for success; its chances would be greatly improved if the new Democratic majority in Congress set its sights on victory in Iraq, instead of forcing our troops out before their mission is completed. Let's not clip the wings on the new strategy in Iraq -- which may be our last chance for true success there -- before it even gets off the ground. 

    David R. Hanke, a former active-duty officer in the U.S. Army, served in Iraq as an attorney and captain with the 101st Airborne Division in 2005-2006. 
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070401-101450-1390r.htm


----------



## maineman

RSR...

you have yet to explain to me how the Iraq casualty website YOU posted shows a 60% drop in US casualties as you have erroneously suggested...

are you gonna retract that anytime soon?



maineman said:


> and what will you say if the benefits from the surge are shortlived and, as many have predicted, the Iraqi security forces will quickly devolve into two well trained fighting forces - sunnis vs. shiite - when the experiment in governing fails?  What will you say to the parents of the dead Americans?  *"We didn't really have a fucking CLUE about the dynamics between sects of Islam when we invaded Iraq looking for Saddam's cache of weapons of mass destruction.... we really didn't have a fucking CLUE how deep the enmity was between Iraqi sunnis and shiites.... we really didn't have any sort of plan whatsoever for dealing with an insurgency of that magnitude and that intensity, but we plugged away at it for a good long time because we certainly didn't want those first two or three thousand Americans we tossed into the bottomless pit to have died in vain, so we stuck around and tossed another X thousand right on top of them to honor their sacrifice" ?????*
> 
> I tell you what... I know that wouldn't work for ME, and I doubt very seriously if it will work for many other parents or wives or sons or daughters either.


----------



## maineman

RSR:



maineman said:


> RSR...
> 
> you have yet to explain to me how the Iraq casualty website YOU posted shows a 60% drop in US casualties as you have erroneously suggested...
> 
> are you gonna retract that anytime soon?


----------



## Rosotar

LuvRPgrl said:


> Yea, you are right, you libs consider the following type of stuff to be "FACTS": "The president answers to Congress. That's the way it's always been done. I know it's a shock to Bush, this late in the game, to find Congress actually exercising some semblance of it's constitutional duty. He's not used to that. He's used to the good old boy system where he runs the government, including Congress, like his own little, family mafia."



You're still not making yourself clear.

Do you disagree that Congress has the power of oversight?

Do you disagree that until Dems took Control of Congress the legislative branch was little more than an echo chamber that rubber stamped every bone-headed idea that this administration came up with?

If you do disagree with these statements how about some intelligent *RATIONALE* for your opinions?

Just because you say that something is "bullshit" doesn't make it so. You need to defend your positions!



LuvRPgrl said:


> hahhahahha, well, so you admit the dems have been whining their asses off !



See, this is what I'm talking about.

Show where Dems have been whining.

If you want an example of *real* whining check this out.

"Now, some of them believe that by delaying funding for our troops, they can force me to accept restrictions on our commanders that I believe would make withdrawal and defeat more likely ... That's not going to happen. If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible ... We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we've got a troop in harm's way, we expect that troop to be fully funded."

That's your president whining because he's just realized that he's got to work with Congress to get what he wants. Some people might call it a tantrum from a spoiled brat. The first time in his life he's not handed exactly what he wants on a silver platter and predictably his reaction is ......

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!





LuvRPgrl said:


> Dems cant sustain victories. And its impossible for the better party to constantly win, we have to have a lull in the Republican victories occasionally, and historically, the off presidental year elections do not go well for the incumbent party,,hmmm, look at that a little historical FACTS, look it up,



Why don't you look up the historical "facts" on presidents who'se administrations have been wracked with numerous scandals and who have led our nation through long, protracted, losing wars.

That will give you a clearer picture on what's in store for Republicans.


----------



## maineman

RSR:  let's review, shall we?

Here is what I said:



maineman said:


> I posted the link that shows the american casualty figures....yours are inaccurate...
> 
> In january, we lost 83 Americans.
> In february, we lost 80 Americans
> In march, we lost 81 Americans
> 
> and we have already lost 5 Americans today, the first of April
> 
> Please explain how you get a decrease of "60%" from those figures?



and here is your reply:



red states rule said:


> http://icasualties.org/oif/



*Let me ask again:  since I got my numbers from that very website, can you please post those numbers from that site that would prove your allegation that the surge has caused a 60% reduction in US casualties????  The way I look at it, we are holding steady on our casualty rate over the last three months, and I also see that our casualty rates for the last six months are nearly 40% HIGHER than they were the six months preceding that.  Please explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS how the surge is working given those figures*


----------



## Rosotar

Was there ever any doubt that cons were going to hype this "surge" as much as they can for as long as they can?

That's been their MO through every sad development of this war.

Their president tells them that "progress" is being made here or something is "working" there. They get all excited and distracted and start their mantra of the MSM only reporting the bad news and ignoring the "good" news.

Then months go by and the facts trickle in proving that the MSM has been right all along and the White House press releases have been well.....a little less than accurate.

Before it can even register to these people that they've been lied to, the administration sends them off on another carnival ride of false hope and it starts all over.

The fact that Bush is rejecting Congress' timeline for withdrawal is proof that there's really nothing to this "surge" business. If he really believed his own rhetoric then he should be grateful to Congress for even giving him that much time for his latest "strategy" to work.

Remember, when they started with this surge crap the commanders in the field said we should know within six months whether it was going to work or not.

Congress has given him even more time than that so what's the problem?


----------



## Annie

Rosotar said:


> Was there ever any doubt that cons were going to hype this "surge" as much as they can for as long as they can?
> 
> That's been their MO through every sad development of this war.
> 
> Their president tells them that "progress" is being made here or something is "working" there. They get all excited and distracted and start their mantra of the MSM only reporting the bad news and ignoring the "good" news.
> 
> Then months go by and the facts trickle in proving that the MSM has been right all along and the White House press releases have been well.....a little less than accurate.
> 
> Before it can even register to these people that they've been lied to, the administration sends them off on another carnival ride of false hope and it starts all over.
> 
> The fact that Bush is rejecting Congress' timeline for withdrawal is proof that there's really nothing to this "surge" business. If he really believed his own rhetoric then he should be grateful to Congress for even giving him that much time for his latest "strategy" to work.
> 
> Remember, when they started with this surge crap the commanders in the field said we should know within six months whether it was going to work or not.
> 
> Congress has given him even more time than that so what's the problem?



Was there any doubt that the Democrats would ignore/downplay any successes along the way?


----------



## maineman

Kathianne said:


> Was there any doubt that the Democrats would ignore/downplay any successes along the way?



more Iraqis are dying...more Americans are dying.... how does that spell success for our side?


----------



## Annie

maineman said:


> more Iraqis are dying...more Americans are dying.... how does that spell success for our side?



How about the MSM reports what's going on? Good and bad? Using comparisons that are relevant?


----------



## maineman

Kathianne said:


> How about the MSM reports what's going on? Good and bad? Using comparisons that are relevant?



the point is: in the MSM, if it bleeds, it leads...it has ALWAYS been that way  ...deal with it.

the FACT is, more Americans are dying and more Iraqis are dying (gosh...does that sound like exactly what I predicted would be happening?) and that is not success by anyone's measure, except, of course, Osama


----------



## Annie

maineman said:


> the point is: in the MSM, if it bleeds, it leads...it has ALWAYS been that way  ...deal with it.
> 
> the FACT is, more Americans are dying and more Iraqis are dying (gosh...does that sound like exactly what I predicted would be happening?) and that is not success by anyone's measure, except, of course, Osama



More, meaning like 1? Less than before, but at least 1? That is what you are saying? 


While saying you HOPE it works, if fewer are dying, that isn't what you meant by success, right? You meant perhaps that there should be somehow a surge in spontaneously resurrected dead military? That is how we could measure 'success'? What are you referring to?


----------



## maineman

Kathianne said:


> More, meaning like 1? Less than before, but at least 1? That is what you are saying?
> 
> 
> While saying you HOPE it works, if fewer are dying, that isn't what you meant by success, right? You meant perhaps that there should be somehow a surge in spontaneously resurrected dead military? That is how we could measure 'success'? What are you referring to?




I am saying that if the "surge" was working we should see a decrease in sectarian violence which we have not seen, and American casaulties are just as high as they were before.... so there is no success there.

the place is a bucket of bloody shit.... people are killing each other in droves... Bush's vision for "victory" is a pipedream


----------



## Annie

maineman said:


> I am saying that if the "surge" was working we should see a decrease in sectarian violence which we have not seen, and American casaulties are just as high as they were before.... so there is no success there.
> 
> the place is a bucket of bloody shit.... people are killing each other in droves... Bush's vision for "victory" is a pipedream



It may come out as you are saying, but for now all I've seen is a decrease in violence for our troops and civilians. I've been watching Iraqi sites and milbloggers, not NYTimes.


----------



## RightOnRed

Kathianne said:


> More, meaning like 1? Less than before, but at least 1? That is what you are saying?
> 
> 
> While saying you HOPE it works, if fewer are dying, that isn't what you meant by success, right? You meant perhaps that there should be somehow a surge in spontaneously resurrected dead military? That is how we could measure 'success'? What are you referring to?




Actually, the resurrection IS the benchmark the Bushites are attuned to.


----------



## Annie

RightOnRed said:


> Actually, the resurrection IS the benchmark the Bushites are attuned to.



Please expound on this.


----------



## maineman

Kathianne said:


> It may come out as you are saying, but for now all I've seen is a decrease in violence for our troops and civilians. I've been watching Iraqi sites and milbloggers, not NYTimes.



red states rule posted a site that lists American casualty figures.

Here is the facts:

our death toll has not decreased measureably in the last six months.

our death toll over the last six months is nearly 40&#37; higher than it was for the six months before that.

Iraq just had their boodiest day ever last week - at a shiite marketplace - and protecting marketplaces was one of the things Petraeus said was a focus of the "surge".

I would suggest that you not read blogs but confine yourself to facts.


----------



## Annie

maineman said:


> red states rule posted a site that lists American casualty figures.
> 
> Here is the facts:
> 
> our death toll has not decreased measureably in the last six months.
> 
> our death toll over the last six months is nearly 40% higher than it was for the six months before that.
> 
> Iraq just had their boodiest day ever last week - at a shiite marketplace - and protecting marketplaces was one of the things Petraeus said was a focus of the "surge".
> 
> I would suggest that you not read blogs but confine yourself to facts.


and I'm saying that I'll not confine myself to your 'facts' but those on the ground and their peace of mind. What RSR or yourself posts as far as facts, Pffft, I no more trust the right wing sites than the left wing like NY times, LA times, ect.

I'll take my chances with those there, on 'their' side or 'ours'...


----------



## RightOnRed

Kathianne said:


> Please expound on this.



 Christians and Jews both believe in a resurrection from death during the final judgement.  Many believe it is the duty of men to bring about worldly conditions that will precipitate the end times scenario, namely the reconsitution of israel, and the reconstruction of the temple at jerusalem.  This is a priority for the Bush Regime and their Zionist controllers, and it's the only benchmark that matters, for them.  So,  it's funny you mentioned resurrection.  Get it?


----------



## Paul Revere

RSR, "No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working"

As Photo OP McCain visits a Baghdad market right outside the Green Zone wearing body armor and accompanied By 100 Soldiers, 3 Blackhawks, and 2 Apache Gunships. 

Yet Saddam Huussein could walk about the streets of Baghdad with just a few bodyguards.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

maineman said:


> and what will you say if the benefits from the surge are shortlived and, as many have predicted, the Iraqi security forces will quickly devolve into two well trained fighting forces - sunnis vs. shiite - when the experiment in governing fails?  What will you say to the parents of the dead Americans?  *"We didn't really have a fucking CLUE about the dynamics between sects of Islam when we invaded Iraq looking for Saddam's cache of weapons of mass destruction.... we really didn't have a fucking CLUE how deep the enmity was between Iraqi sunnis and shiites.... we really didn't have any sort of plan whatsoever for dealing with an insurgency of that magnitude and that intensity, but we plugged away at it for a good long time because we certainly didn't want those first two or three thousand Americans we tossed into the bottomless pit to have died in vain, so we stuck around and tossed another X thousand right on top of them to honor their sacrifice" ?????*
> 
> I tell you what... I know that wouldn't work for ME, and I doubt very seriously if it will work for many other parents or wives or sons or daughters either.



Kinda sounds like the same thing we would have had to tell the mothers of the dead union soldiers after the civil war if the south had won that one. You would have voted for not trying to fight that war too I presume. 

Freedom is NOT FOR PUSSIES.

By the way, over 31,000 dead and wounded from ONE battle (Gettysburg) in the civil war, kinda puts two thousand deaths over 4 years or so, into perspective.

Besides, bottom line is: The soldiers want to be there, the Iraqis want them there, so who are you to fucking say otherwise.


----------



## red states rule

Paul Revere said:


> RSR, "No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working"
> 
> As Photo OP McCain visits a Baghdad market right outside the Green Zone wearing body armor and accompanied By 100 Soldiers, 3 Blackhawks, and 2 Apache Gunships.
> 
> Yet Saddam Huussein could walk about the streets of Baghdad with just a few bodyguards.



and Saddam would murder anyone (and their families) who would look at him in the wrong way

Why does the kook left always side against America?


----------



## red states rule

Democrats Playing With Fire
By Thomas Sowell

Congressman Tom Lantos, who is a member of the delegation that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leading to Syria, put the mission clearly when he said: "We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy."

Democrats can have any foreign policy they want -- if and when they are elected to the White House.

Until Nancy Pelosi came along, it was understood by all that we had only one president at a time and -- like him or not -- he alone had the Constitutional authority to speak for this country to foreign nations, especially in wartime.

All that Pelosi's trip can accomplish is to advertise American disunity to a terrorist-sponsoring nation in the Middle East while we are in a war there. That in turn can only embolden the Syrians to exploit the lack of unified resolve in Washington by stepping up their efforts to destabilize Iraq and the Middle East in general.

Members of the opposition party, whichever party that might be at a given time, knew that their role was not to intervene abroad themselves to undermine this country's foreign policy, however much they might criticize it at home.

During the Second World War, the defeated Republican presidential candidate, Wendell Wilkie, even acted as President Roosevelt's personal envoy to British Prime Minister Churchill.

He understood that we were all in this together, however we might disagree among ourselves about the best course to follow.

Today, Nancy Pelosi and the Congressional Democrats are stepping in to carry out their own foreign policy and even their own military policy on troop deployment -- all the while denying that they are intruding on the president's authority.

They are doing the same thing domestically by making a big media circus over the fact that the Bush administration fired eight U.S. attorneys. These attorneys are among the many officials who serve at the pleasure of the president -- which means that they can be fired at any time for any reason or for no reason.

That is why there was no big hullabaloo in the media when Bill Clinton fired all the U.S. attorneys across the country -- even though that got rid of the U.S. attorneys who were conducting an on-going investigation into corruption in Clinton's own administration as governor of Arkansas.

So much hate has been hyped against George W. Bush that anything that is done against him is unlikely to be questioned in most of the media.

But whatever passing damage is being done to George W. Bush is a relatively minor concern compared to the lasting damage that is being done to the presidency as an institution that will still be here when George W. Bush is gone.

Once it becomes accepted that it is all right to violate both the laws and the traditions of this nation, and to undermine the ability of the United States to speak to other nations of the world with one voice, we will have taken another fateful step downward into the degeneration of this society.

Such a drastic and irresponsible step should remove any lingering doubt that the Democrats' political strategy is to ensure that there is an American defeat in Iraq, in order to ensure their own political victory in 2008.

That these political games are being played while Iran keeps advancing relentlessly toward acquiring nuclear weapons is a fateful sign of the utter unreality of politicians preoccupied with scoring points and a media obsessed with celebrity bimbos, living and dead.

Once Iran has nuclear weapons, that will be an irreversible change that will mark a defining moment in the history of the United States and of Western civilization, which will forever after live at the mercy of hate-filled suicidal fanatics and sadists.

Yet among too many politicians in Washington, it is business as usual. Indeed, it is monkey business as usual, as Congressional Democrats revel in the power of their new and narrow election victory last year to drag people before committee hearings and posture for the television cameras.

It has been said that the world ends not with a bang but with a whimper. But who would have thought that it could end with political clowning in the shadow of a mushroom cloud
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/democrats_playing_with_fire.html


----------



## red states rule

Paul Revere said:


> RSR, "No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working"
> 
> As Photo OP McCain visits a Baghdad market right outside the Green Zone wearing body armor and accompanied By 100 Soldiers, 3 Blackhawks, and 2 Apache Gunships.
> 
> Yet Saddam Huussein could walk about the streets of Baghdad with just a few bodyguards.



Stalemate Over Funds for War Would Hurt Troops and Politicians
By Mort Kondracke

In light of current goings-on, it's almost laughable -- and also dispiriting -- to recall how President Bush and incoming Democratic Congressional leaders vowed just months ago to heed the voters' 2006 call for bipartisan cooperation.

In his State of the Union address, Bush said -- can anyone remember this? -- that "our citizens don't care which side of the aisle we sit on, as long as we are willing to cross that aisle when there is work to be done."

And, in his final press conference of 2006, he said, "The American people are sick of partisanship and name-calling." We heard the same sort of sentiments from Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). 

Well look where we are now: Democrats are using Bush's firing of eight U.S. attorneys to conduct a scalp-hunting expedition to oust Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and, if they can, cost Bush the services of his top political aide, Karl Rove.

And, much worse, Bush and the Democratic Congress are playing a game of chicken over Iraq and Afghanistan war funding -- with the lives of American soldiers potentially becoming collateral damage.

Each side is betting it can win the face-off that will ensue when Bush vetoes the final war supplemental because it contains either a "hard" or "soft" deadline for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and billions in extraneous pork-barrel spending.

On the merits, I think Bush is absolutely right to veto any bill that contains a fixed timeline for troop withdrawals, but he also should be meeting on an urgent basis with Democrats to work out a no-timeline bill (if he can) instead of meeting only with Republicans and making defiant speeches.

Both sides are likening the current conflict to -- or differentiating it from -- the 1995 budget face-off between President Bill Clinton and Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), which led to two government shutdowns and which Clinton indubitably won.

Though badly battered in the 1994 Congressional elections, Clinton had recouped during 1995 to a Gallup approval rating of 53 percent as he dueled with Gingrich's new GOP majority in Congress. In November, Clinton vetoed a GOP funding bill that contained cuts in the growth of Medicare, triggering the government-wide shutdowns.

In the memory of one current House GOP leader who lived through those times, "we resurrected Bill Clinton. I think President Bush has an opportunity to do the same for himself if he stands up and fights over the issue of winning in Iraq and bringing some fiscal discipline to this place.

"It is a way for him to win," he said. "And, of course, it will help if the Pentagon moans and groans and screams, although they do have the ability to move money around at least until Memorial Day or later."

In Republican thinking, Bush -- like Clinton in 1995 -- has the presidential "bully pulpit," especially with Congress in recess, and can mount a forceful public relations campaign, accusing Democrats of overreaching, micromanaging U.S. strategy in Iraq, and validating their party's stereotypes for being weak on national security and profligate in spending.

The White House will use the argument --persuasive to me -- that U.S. troop commander Gen. David Petraeus deserves a chance to pacify Iraq with his new counter-insurgency strategy, that there actually are signs that it's working, and that Democrats are guaranteeing defeat by insisting on early troop withdrawals and setting dates for full departure of combat troops.

Democrats have a totally different take on the 1995 parallel. As House Democratic Caucus Chairman and former Clinton White House aide Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) put it in an interview, "Let's compare. Bill Clinton, 53 percent. George W. Bush, 34 percent. Clinton, defending Medicare. Bush, defending the Iraq War.

"Bill Clinton, the first thing he did was say to the Republicans, 'Come down to the White House for a meeting.' First thing that Bush did was say, 'I'm vetoing. I'm vetoing.' What's more, Nancy is at 52 percent approval while Newt was at 50 percent disapproval.

"If we overreach, that's one thing. But right now Bush is starting where Gingrich was and we are starting where Clinton was." Emanuel would not define "overreaching" or predict what the endgame would be, but he denounced the president's motives.

"You can give him what he wants and he'll still veto. He wants a veto. That's all he wants. They are vetoing because they think it will give them political relevancy. He's down in the dumps and he thinks this makes him powerful. It's politics that's driving this."

To me, it's clear that it's not just politics. Bush has perhaps until the end of summer to wrest his Iraq policy from the jaws of catastrophe, and he genuinely believes that setting withdrawal deadlines will demoralize U.S. troops and the Iraqi government and encourage the enemy to bide its time until the U.S. is gone.

And the Democrats could overreach, especially if the party's left wing sees a stalemate on the war funding bill as an opportunity to stop the war and if moderates let their enmity for Bush and his war policy dig them into intransigence.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has declared that if funding isn't provided by May 15, replacement forces for Iraq won't be trained and equipped, tours in Iraq will have to be extended, and equipment needed there can't be supplied.

Gates undoubtedly can reprogram Pentagon funding to keep the troops supplied longer, but at some point the money will run out. There needs to be a deal. Arguably, Bush could accept a nonbinding, nonspecific statement of goals for eventual U.S. withdrawals and the memorializing of his own stated benchmarks for progress in Iraq.

Democrats have said that they will supply money for the troops and their budget contains all that Bush has asked for and more. They've also appealed to Bush to talk with them about compromises. What constitutes "pork" is a flexible matter if there ever was one.

So, it behooves both sides to begin acting like serious statesmen and stateswomen in this crucial matter and quit playing politics with the lives of U.S. soldiers.

Mort Kondracke is the Executive Editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill since 1955. © 2007 Roll Call, Inc. 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/stalemate_over_funds_for_war_w.html


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> http://icasualties.org/oif/




RSR...please cut and paste from this link the numbers that prove your suggestion that American casualties are down by 60%


----------



## maineman

because when I go to YOUR website, I think about the fact that the surge started in February.... so maybe February's American casualty rate would show it?

January '07 had  83 dead Americans in 31 days
February '07 had 80 dead Americans in only 28 days... no 60% reduction there!
March '07 had 81 dead Americans in 31 days... no 60% reduction there!

and we've already lost 10 in only three days in April... not looking like April is gonna be any better.... 

could you explain to me how those numbers indicate we've seen a 60% reduction in American casualties?  I think your calculations are.... how shall I say this? .... flawed?

Please explain why you gave us that link if it DISPROVES your point.


----------



## maineman

somehow, I imagine that RSR will avoid answering those very simple questions by either accusing me of loving terrorists, or cutting and pasting something from newsbusters that says the surge is working... 

and never bother to address why he posted the site about Iraq War casualties when it does not provide any verification of his claim.


----------



## Bullypulpit

Any 'progress' attributed to "The Surge" is fleeting and transitory at best. Case in point was Sen. John McCain's recent visit to an open air market in Baghdad. He went there, surrounded by some 100 combat troops and their fire support vehicles along with three Blackhawk and two Apache choppers orbiting overhead.

After all this fire-power and frightfulness packed up and left, this very same market was the target of a car bomb that killed a number of people. And that's how it has gone in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.


----------



## Bullypulpit

LuvRPgrl said:


> Kinda sounds like the same thing we would have had to tell the mothers of the dead union soldiers after the civil war if the south had won that one. You would have voted for not trying to fight that war to I presume.
> 
> Freedom is NOT FOR PUSSIES.
> 
> By the way, over 31,000 dead and wounded from ONE battle (Gettysburg) in the civil war, kinda puts two thousand deaths over 4 years or so, into perspective.
> 
> Besides, bottom line is: The soldiers want to be there, the Iraqis want them there, so who are you to fucking say otherwise.



And thanks once again for playing "Really Bad Analogies"! (Game-show music swells in background) 

Just what the hell does the Civil War have to do with the current situation? N...O...T...H...I...N...G.

But you are right, freedom is not for "pussies". It requires vigilance, perseverance, foresight and courage to protect and nurture freedom. Unfortunately, these are qualities sadly lacking Bush administration. Although some would consider Bush's rigid intransigence and unrealistic views to be an adequate substitute. Sorry, but they're not.

This poll in "<a href=http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=34538&archive=true>Stars and Stripes</a>" flatly contradicts your assertion that "...the soldiers want to be there", and I quote:

<blockquote>WASHINGTON &#8212; Seventy-two percent of troops on the ground in Iraq think U.S. military forces should get out of the country within a year, according to a Zogby poll released Tuesday. (March, 2006)</blockquote>

And a <a href=http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=hmpg1>poll of Iraqi citizens</a>, released on 1/31/06 shows that a majority of Iraqis want US forces to be withdrawn within six months to two years.

<center><img src=http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_grph3.GIF></center>

But don't let a few facts stand in the way of your delusions.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

Paul Revere said:


> RSR, "No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working"
> 
> As Photo OP McCain visits a Baghdad market right outside the Green Zone wearing body armor and accompanied By 100 Soldiers, 3 Blackhawks, and 2 Apache Gunships.
> 
> Yet Saddam Huussein could walk about the streets of Baghdad with just a few bodyguards.



Yes, and Im sure the relatives of the mother who was dug up from a mass grave cradling her 6 month old baby who in turn was holding his little teddy bear, the posistion they were in when saddam gassed tens of thousands of innocent people.

OH hell YEA! After all, he was soooo beloved, he even received 100% of the vote in the last "election" he ran in.

Oh, and dont bother with more of that 3rd grade michael moore mentality of "well, who supplied him with the lethal gas he used on his own people"

Funny how libs never want to put blame on the users of lethal weapons, but only blame the suppliers or the weapons themselves, i.e. "gun control"

DAMN, I could go on forever with examples of imbacilic liberal logic (ouch, liberal logic, yet another oxymoron)


----------



## LuvRPgrl

Bullypulpit said:


> Any 'progress' attributed to "The Surge" is fleeting and transitory at best. Case in point was Sen. John McCain's recent visit to an open air market in Baghdad. He went there, surrounded by some 100 combat troops and their fire support vehicles along with three Blackhawk and two Apache choppers orbiting overhead.
> 
> After all this fire-power and frightfulness packed up and left, this very same market was the target of a car bomb that killed a number of people. And that's how it has gone in Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq.




AHHHH yes, DEFEATIST mentality at its best.

When losing, its proof we will lose.

When winning, its "fleeting and transitory at best" and we will lose anyways.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

Bullypulpit said:


> And thanks once again for playing "Really Bad Analogies"! (Game-show music swells in background)
> 
> Just what the hell does the Civil War have to do with the current situation? N...O...T...H...I...N...G..




HAHAHHAHHA, Yea, from the kings of bad analogies  , those who dare to compare the civil rights battle of blacks to todays attempts of special rights for homos.




Bullypulpit said:


> But you are right, freedom is not for "pussies". It requires vigilance, perseverance, foresight and courage to protect and nurture freedom. Unfortunately, these are qualities sadly lacking Bush administration. Although some would consider Bush's rigid intransigence and unrealistic views to be an adequate substitute. Sorry, but they're not..


HAHHAHAHHAHAH, I see, typical liberal hypocracy. You say it requires perserverence, try going and reading what the definition of that term is. Pssssst, HINT: It DOESNT include "cut and run"



Bullypulpit said:


> This poll in "<a href=http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=34538&archive=true>Stars and Stripes</a>" flatly contradicts your assertion that "...the soldiers want to be there", and I quote:
> 
> <blockquote>WASHINGTON  Seventy-two percent of troops on the ground in Iraq think U.S. military forces should get out of the country within a year, according to a Zogby poll released Tuesday.</blockquote>
> 
> And a <a href=http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/165.php?nid=&id=&pnt=165&lb=hmpg1>poll of Iraqi citizens</a>, released on 1/31/06 shows that a majority of Iraqis want US forces to be withdrawn within six months to two years.
> 
> <center><img src=http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/images/jan06/Iraq_Jan06_grph3.GIF></center>
> 
> But don't let a few facts stand in the way of your delusions.



You are a LIAR.


----------



## maineman

LuvRPgrl said:


> Yes, and Im sure the relatives of the mother who was dug up from a mass grave cradling her 6 month old baby who in turn was holding his little teddy bear, the posistion they were in when saddam gassed tens of thousands of innocent people.
> 
> OH hell YEA! After all, he was soooo beloved, he even received 100% of the vote in the last "election" he ran in.
> 
> Oh, and dont bother with more of that 3rd grade michael moore mentality of "well, who supplied him with the lethal gas he used on his own people"
> 
> Funny how libs never want to put blame on the users of lethal weapons, but only blame the suppliers or the weapons themselves, i.e. "gun control"
> 
> DAMN, I could go on forever with examples of imbacilic liberal logic (ouch, liberal logic, yet another oxymoron)



no one ever said he was "beloved".  Saddam did three things well:  he kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another.  he kept islamic extremists out of his country, and he kept the regional hegemonic aspirations of Iran.  The world is full of assholes, but we don't commit troops and treasure to get rid of all of them.... if we had left this guy in place, he would have continued to do those three things well... and, right now, we would LOVE for somebody to do them well, because we are doing shitty at all three and the entire effort is counterproductive to our war against the folks who attacked us.


----------



## Bullypulpit

LuvRPgrl said:


> Yes, and Im sure the relatives of the mother who was dug up from a mass grave cradling her 6 month old baby who in turn was holding his little teddy bear, the posistion they were in when saddam gassed tens of thousands of innocent people.
> 
> OH hell YEA! After all, he was soooo beloved, he even received 100% of the vote in the last "election" he ran in.
> 
> Oh, and dont bother with more of that 3rd grade michael moore mentality of "well, who supplied him with the lethal gas he used on his own people"
> 
> Funny how libs never want to put blame on the users of lethal weapons, but only blame the suppliers or the weapons themselves, i.e. "gun control"
> 
> DAMN, I could go on forever with examples of imbacilic liberal logic (ouch, liberal logic, yet another oxymoron)



It WAS the Reagan that helped supply Saddam with the chemical weapons precursors in the guise of Donald Rumsfeld.

<center><img src=http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg></center>

Or would you just rather not be bothered with that inconvenient truth as you stated?

But the gassing of Kurds, was not why This Bush administration invaded Iraq now, was it? It was the, now proven non-existent, NBC weapons programs that Saddam was supposedly reconstituting. 

As for your gun/WMD analogy...doesn't so much work. Saddam received those chemical weapons precursors with full knowledge that they would likely be used...against Iranian troops. Given his personality, it was no stretch for him to turn them against his own people. You can be held responsible as an accessory for the consequences of giving a crazy person a hand-gun, or an AK-47 with full auto and a loaded 30 round clip.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

maineman said:


> no one ever said he was "beloved".  Saddam did three things well:  he kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another.  he kept islamic extremists out of his country, and he kept the regional hegemonic aspirations of Iran.  The world is full of assholes, but we don't commit troops and treasure to get rid of all of them.... if we had left this guy in place, he would have continued to do those three things well... and, right now, we would LOVE for somebody to do them well, because we are doing shitty at all three and the entire effort is counterproductive to our war against the folks who attacked us.



Nor did I ever say anyone said he was beloved.

So, are you willing to trade YOUR freedom for security and safety?

The rest of your post is the usual blah, blah, blah, that has been refuted over and over and over. Its obvious that you libs just keep repeating the lies, ala Goebbels circa 1937


----------



## LuvRPgrl

Bullypulpit said:


> It WAS the Reagan that helped supply Saddam with the chemical weapons precursors in the guise of Donald Rumsfeld..




HAHHAHAH, BWAHHAHAHHA, THAT WAS SOOOOO PREDICTABLE.



Bullypulpit said:


> <center><img src=http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82ke300.jpg></center>
> 
> Or would you just rather not be bothered with that inconvenient truth as you stated?.


I see, following the footsteps of another LIAR.



Bullypulpit said:


> But the gassing of Kurds, was not why This Bush administration invaded Iraq now, was it?
> It was the, now proven non-existent, NBC weapons programs that Saddam was supposedly reconstituting.
> 
> As for your gun/WMD analogy...doesn't so much work. Saddam received those chemical weapons precursors with full knowledge that they would likely be used...against Iranian troops. Given his personality, it was no stretch for him to turn them against his own people. You can be held responsible as an accessory for the consequences of giving a crazy person a hand-gun, or an AK-47 with full auto and a loaded 30 round clip.



and if the crazy guys starts shooting innocents, you simply ignore it because after all, "he got the gun from you" WHAT A FUCKING MORON YOU ARE, hahahhahahhahahah


----------



## LuvRPgrl

RightOnRed said:


> Christians and Jews both believe in a resurrection from death during the final judgement.  Many believe it is the duty of men to bring about worldly conditions that will precipitate the end times scenario, namely the reconsitution of israel, and the reconstruction of the temple at jerusalem.  This is a priority for the Bush Regime and their Zionist controllers, and it's the only benchmark that matters, for them.  So,  it's funny you mentioned resurrection.  Get it?



Your PROOF LIAR?


----------



## maineman

LuvRPgrl said:


> Nor did I ever say anyone said he was beloved.
> *OH hell YEA! After all, he was soooo beloved, he even received 100&#37; of the vote in the last "election" he ran in.
> *
> 
> So, are you willing to trade YOUR freedom for security and safety?
> 
> *what does MY freedom have to do with our invading Iraq?*
> 
> The rest of your post is the usual blah, blah, blah, that has been refuted over and over and over. Its obvious that you libs just keep repeating the lies, ala Goebbels circa 1937



what has been refuted?  That Saddam kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another?  that Iran has seen its stock rise since our invasion?  that AQ is now in Iraq and wasn't before?  none of that has EVER been refuted.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

Who would Jesus torture?

THE MONEY CHANGERS???

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit attrocities." - Voltaire

FROM WIKPEDIA: "When his father found him out, he again sent Voltaire to study law, this time in the provinces. Nevertheless, he continued to write, producing essays and historical studies not always noted for their accuracY.
      The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica comments that "If the English visit may be regarded as having finished Voltaire's education, the Cirey residence was the first stage of his literary manhood." Having learned from his previous brushes with the authorities, Voltaire began his future habit of keeping out of personal harm's way, and denying any awkward responsibility"
    VOLTAIRE, A LIAR AND A COWARD, NO WONDER HE IS YOUR HERO HAHHAHA

"The Rapture is not an exit strategy." - Unknown

TYPICAL LIBS, FOCUSED ON EXITING AND NOT ON WINNING (SOMETHING THEY HAVE COME QUITE ACCUSTOMED TO, EXITING AND NOT WINNING) HAHAHHAHA

No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country. - Alexis De Tocqueville

"ENDANGER" YES, SOMETHING YOU LIBS RUN FROM AT ALL COSTS.

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. - Sinclair Lewis
SOUNDS LIKE THE ACLU TO ME ))

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. - Mohandas Gandhi 
LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE (SO, GHANDI WALKED ON WATER?)


----------



## LuvRPgrl

Rosotar said:


> You're still not making yourself clear.
> 
> Do you disagree that Congress has the power of oversight?.


 YES



Rosotar said:


> Do you disagree that until Dems took Control of Congress the legislative branch was little more than an echo chamber that rubber stamped every bone-headed idea that this administration came up with?.


YES



Rosotar said:


> If you do disagree with these statements how about some intelligent *RATIONALE* for your opinions?.


MAYBE AS SOON as you stop using useless criticisms first.

Just because you say that something is "bullshit" doesn't make it so. You need to defend your positions!.[/QUOTE]my posistion is that your editiorializing is bullshit. You stick to the facts, I will respond in kind. You make personal attacks and accusations without basis in fact, then I will not respond with facts.





Rosotar said:


> See, this is what I'm talking about.
> 
> Show where Dems have been whining..


You already forgot what you posted? Go back and read what I quoted from you.



Rosotar said:


> If you want an example of *real* whining check this out.
> 
> "Now, some of them believe that by delaying funding for our troops, they can force me to accept restrictions on our commanders that I believe would make withdrawal and defeat more likely ... That's not going to happen. If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible ... We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we've got a troop in harm's way, we expect that troop to be fully funded."
> 
> That's your president whining because he's just realized that he's got to work with Congress to get what he wants. Some people might call it a tantrum from a spoiled brat. The first time in his life he's not handed exactly what he wants on a silver platter and predictably his reaction is ......
> 
> WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you look up the historical "facts" on presidents who'se administrations have been wracked with numerous scandals and who have led our nation through long, protracted, losing wars.
> 
> That will give you a clearer picture on what's in store for Republicans.



"numerous scandals", protraced, losing wars,,subjective concepts at best. Try again whiner.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

Rosotar said:


> Was there ever any doubt that cons were going to hype this "surge" as much as they can for as long as they can??






Ahhh, bringing doom and gloom, retreat and defeat, cut and run to its highest glory.

Already declaring the failure of an American war plan before it got started.

ANTI AMERICAN, TREASONOUS, COWARDLY LIAR.


----------



## maineman

you seemed to have avoided this one....



LuvRPgrl said:


> Nor did I ever say anyone said he was beloved.
> *ummmm as shown above...you certainly DID.  You said, "OH hell YEA! After all, he was soooo beloved, he even received 100% of the vote in the last "election" he ran in."
> *
> 
> So, are you willing to trade YOUR freedom for security and safety?
> 
> *again...what does MY freedom have to do with our fucked up invasion of Iraq? *
> 
> The rest of your post is the usual blah, blah, blah, that has been refuted over and over and over. Its obvious that you libs just keep repeating the lies, ala Goebbels circa 1937
> 
> *and again:what has been refuted? That Saddam kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another? that Iran has seen its stock rise since our invasion? that AQ is now in Iraq and wasn't before? none of that has EVER been refuted.*


----------



## maineman

RSR... you seem to be avoiding this.  Any reason why?



maineman said:


> because when I go to YOUR website, I think about the fact that the surge started in February.... so maybe February's American casualty rate would show it?
> 
> January '07 had  83 dead Americans in 31 days
> February '07 had 80 dead Americans in only 28 days... no 60% reduction there!
> March '07 had 81 dead Americans in 31 days... no 60% reduction there!
> 
> and we've already lost 10 in only three days in April... not looking like April is gonna be any better....
> 
> could you explain to me how those numbers indicate we've seen a 60% reduction in American casualties?  I think your calculations are.... how shall I say this? .... flawed?
> 
> Please explain why you gave us that link if it DISPROVES your point.


----------



## maineman

come on RSR...this is YOUR thread...it was YOUR link.... don't run away from it like a pussy!


----------



## Bullypulpit

LuvRPgrl said:


> HAHHAHAH, BWAHHAHAHHA, THAT WAS SOOOOO PREDICTABLE.



The truth usually is.




LuvRPgrl said:


> I see, following the footsteps of another LIAR.



Care to name names?





LuvRPgrl said:


> and if the crazy guys starts shooting innocents, you simply ignore it because after all, "he got the gun from you" WHAT A FUCKING MORON YOU ARE, hahahhahahhahahah



Uhhh...Not so much. I wouldn't be giving the nut-case a gun to begin with. Personally, I'd bust a cap in his ass as soon as he started shooting. 

But that's neither here nor there. You can't address the issues so you, like several others here and most of the right-wing noise machine, resort to baseless ad hominem attacks, puerile name-calling, and trying to change the subject. Your efforts in these arenas simply highlight your moral and intellectual bankruptcy. dismissed...


----------



## Paul Revere

maineman said:


> come on RSR...this is YOUR thread...it was YOUR link.... don't run away from it like a pussy!



He has ran away from threads on other forums.
Normal people would see that they were wrong and adjust their toughts to correct. Not RSR, he just pretends he did't see the truth and hides.


----------



## maineman

well...I fully intend to keep this thread on the first page until he answers me.


----------



## mattskramer

Can someone give an objective numeric clarification about when we will no longer be needed?  What is defeat and what is victory for us?  Is it when 2 months pass with no assault?  Is that when we can declare victory?  If so, what happens if an attack occurs on day 50.? Sean Hanity and other Bush apologists say that we need to stay there until we receive victory.  I don&#8217;t recall any of them defining victory in specific and objective terms.  Please explain in specific and clear detail, what must happen before we can leave Iraq.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

red states rule said:


> and Saddam would murder anyone (and their families) who would look at him in the wrong way?


Remember his human paper shredder?
Prison for kids?
Torture rooms?
His son would go to weddings and rape the bride and walk away immune.?



red states rule said:


> Why does the kook left always side against America?



They are truly delusional.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

maineman said:


> what has been refuted?  That Saddam kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another?  that Iran has seen its stock rise since our invasion?  that AQ is now in Iraq and wasn't before?  none of that has EVER been refuted.


Your statement indicates you think people are better off with security instead of safety.

I am not going to do your homework. ALL of that has been refuted. Do a search right here on US Message board.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

maineman said:


> what has been refuted?  That Saddam kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another?  that Iran has seen its stock rise since our invasion?  that AQ is now in Iraq and wasn't before?  none of that has EVER been refuted.


Your statement indicates you think people are better off with security instead of safety.

I am not going to do your homework. ALL of that has been refuted. Do a search right here on US Message board.


----------



## Annie

maineman said:


> what has been refuted?  That Saddam kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another?  that Iran has seen its stock rise since our invasion?  that AQ is now in Iraq and wasn't before?  none of that has EVER been refuted.



I'm assuming then you are in favor of minority being able to terrorize and threaten to annihilate the majority? I mean that is what the Sunnis were doing in Iraq, right?


----------



## LuvRPgrl

maineman said:


> you seemed to have avoided this one....


 My calling saddam beloved and the proof is he received 100% of the vote, is called SARCASM. NOBODY EVER receives even 90% of a vote if its a legitimate election, much less 99% and 100%, which is what saddam got in his last two elections.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

Bullypulpit said:


> The truth usually is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to name names?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh...Not so much. I wouldn't be giving the nut-case a gun to begin with. Personally, I'd bust a cap in his ass as soon as he started shooting.
> 
> But that's neither here nor there. You can't address the issues so you, like several others here and most of the right-wing noise machine, resort to baseless ad hominem attacks, puerile name-calling, and trying to change the subject. Your efforts in these arenas simply highlight your moral and intellectual bankruptcy. dismissed...



Hi POLLY, (want a cracker?),,,,

CLINTON, perjurer, impeached.

I put this really simple for you so your brain doesnt have to try and multitask.

The issue has been adressed over and over and over again. Dont you have anything new? We have already proven the logical fallacy of pointing out where saddam got  his WMD's. 
   You are a moron for saying that its not ok to disarm someone simply because you may have been the person to arm them in the firstplace.
  So, if saddam had gotten his WMD's from Russia, then it would be ok for us to disarm him, but since he got them from us, we have to stand aside and let him use them at will. WHAT a fucking moronic logic.


----------



## maineman

LuvRPgrl said:


> Your statement indicates you think people are better off with security instead of safety.
> 
> I am not going to do your homework. ALL of that has been refuted. Do a search right here on US Message board.



excuse me...but I really have yet to read anyone's reasonable justification why AMERICAN boys have to die to bring safety OR security to a bunch or arabs who don't particularly give a shit about US one way or the other.

And listen sister.... if you can't refute it, don't claim you can....


----------



## maineman

Kathianne said:


> I'm assuming then you are in favor of minority being able to terrorize and threaten to annihilate the majority? I mean that is what the Sunnis were doing in Iraq, right?



I am not in favor of American boys being policemen in an arab country half way around the world when we have real enemies who are out to get us and those boys are much better utilized fighting them.

If you think that the shiite majority is so damned grateful, why does the sadr army keep killing americans?  Why does Sadr himself call for our immediate departure?


----------



## LuvRPgrl

mattskramer said:


> Can someone give an objective numeric clarification about when we will no longer be needed?  What is defeat and what is victory for us?  Is it when 2 months pass with no assault?  Is that when we can declare victory?  If so, what happens if an attack occurs on day 50.? Sean Hanity and other Bush apologists say that we need to stay there until we receive victory.  I dont recall any of them defining victory in specific and objective terms.  Please explain in specific and clear detail, what must happen before we can leave Iraq.


Your ignorance is classic of liberals making demands, criticizing others and saying they have the answer when they dont even know what the goal is.

And it has been stated over and over and over. You cant hear to well though when your head is in the sand, eh? HELLOOOOO,,,HELLOOOOOOOOO,,,,HELLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO,  HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DOWN THERE,,,,,,,,,,HELLOOOOOOOOO

We will win unless the libs and their MSM cronies manage to get us to QUIT, GIVE UP, CRY UNCLE.....

VICTORY is getting the Iraqi security force to a   level where they can defend their country, thats the least we should give them, considering it was us who ousted their sadistic dictator.

:You a moderate moderate??? BWHAHHAHAHAHHAH, you libs are so delusional. At least us conservatives admit we are, you guys run from what you really are.

You cant be a moderate when over 7 out of 10 people in the country describe themselves as Christians, and yet you deride and deny the truth and accuracy of the Bible.

You cant be a moderate when over 6 out of 10 and more in some areas of the country, pass a law preventing same gender marriage, and yet you defend it.


----------



## maineman

LuvRPgrl said:


> My calling saddam beloved and the proof is he received 100% of the vote, is called SARCASM. NOBODY EVER receives even 90% of a vote if its a legitimate election, much less 99% and 100%, which is what saddam got in his last two elections.




Excuse me.... you were the one who said:

*"Nor did I ever say anyone said he was beloved."*

and I am the one who proved you are a fucking LIAR when I posted this quote:

*"OH hell YEA! After all, he was soooo beloved, he even received 100% of the vote in the last "election" he ran in."*


I could give a fuck if it was sarcasm or irony or iambic pentameter or a goddamn limerick or any other literary convention...you said it and then claimed you hadn't.

keep track of your own bullshit and this won't happen again.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

maineman said:


> excuse me...but I really have yet to read anyone's reasonable justification why AMERICAN boys have to die to bring safety OR security to a bunch or arabs who don't particularly give a shit about US one way or the other.
> 
> And listen sister.... if you can't refute it, don't claim you can....



ITs been refuted over and over and over and over,,,,you want to do the dance again? Its called the two step, we give you a factual answer, you respond with Polly want a cracker, liberal lemmings lies. We give another factual answer, you respond with more lies, disinformation and bullshit.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

maineman said:


> I am not in favor of American boys being policemen in an arab country half way around the world when we have real enemies who are out to get us and those boys are much better utilized fighting them.
> 
> If you think that the shiite majority is so damned grateful, why does the sadr army keep killing americans?  Why does Sadr himself call for our immediate departure?




Thats not your call to make, its the call of the duly elected President of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Get over it.

And as red states so aptly pointed out, in generations past, when our young liberals really had causes to support, and change was really badly needed in our govt, they still supported the elected administration in the war efforts, even if they disagreed with the administrations choices of strategy.

 They werent the snobbish elitist narcisists that we have today, people like you, Pollypulpit and Door Matts Kramer.


----------



## maineman

LuvRPgrl said:


> ITs been refuted over and over and over and over,,,,you want to do the dance again? Its called the two step, we give you a factual answer, you respond with Polly want a cracker, liberal lemmings lies. We give another factual answer, you respond with more lies, disinformation and bullshit.




factual answer?

I am saying that Saddam did not allow wahabbists in his turf... they were his enemy too.... no one has REFUTED that.

I am saying that sunnis and shiites weren't blowing themselves up killing scores of one another every day in the marketplaces of Iraq when Saddam was in power... there was NOT wholesale carnage going on between the sects of Islam in Iraq when Saddam was in power and NO ONE has REFUTED that.

I am saying that twenty years ago, the Iranians sent gun boats out to fuck with US Nvy ships and we decimated them...today... they take 15 british sailors hostage and we all are tapdancing around because NOW THEY are bigtime players in the middle east...NOW they have credibility in the region... as witnessed by the actions of Hezbollah in Lebanon last summer...and why have they got all this power and credibility and influence in the region?  because we took out the one guy who could do ANYTHING to keep them in check and NO ONE has REFUTED that EITHER!


----------



## maineman

LuvRPgrl said:


> Thats not your call to make, its the call of the duly elected President of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Get over it.
> 
> And as red states so aptly pointed out, in generations past, when our young liberals really had causes to support, and change was really badly needed in our govt, they still supported the elected administration in the war efforts, even if they disagreed with the administrations choices of strategy.
> 
> They werent the snobbish elitist narcisists that we have today, people like you, Pollypulpit and Door Matts Kramer.




listen ...I served my country for a long time ...don't you go disrespecting my service or the perspective it give me.... or I'll have to tell all those stories about my great times in Olongapo


----------



## maineman

LuvRPgrl said:


> Thats not your call to make, its the call of the duly elected President of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Get over it.



I can certainly criticize the call of the pResident... and I intend to ...YOU get over it!


----------



## mattskramer

LuvRPgrl said:


> Your ignorance is classic of liberals making demands, criticizing others and saying they have the answer when they dont even know what the goal is.



In what way did I show my ignorance?  I merely asked a question.  



> And it has been stated over and over and over. You cant hear to well though when your head is in the sand, eh? HELLOOOOO,,,HELLOOOOOOOOO,,,,HELLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO,  HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DOWN THERE,,,,,,,,,,HELLOOOOOOOOO



No.  To the best of my memory, it has not been clearly stated to me.



> We will win unless the libs and their MSM cronies manage to get us to QUIT, GIVE UP, CRY UNCLE.....
> 
> VICTORY is getting the Iraqi security force to a   level where they can defend their country, thats the least we should give them, considering it was us who ousted their sadistic dictator.



Again, what is the quantitative standard for that &#8211; less than 3 attacks per month?  



> :You a moderate moderate??? BWHAHHAHAHAHHAH, you libs are so delusional. At least us conservatives admit we are, you guys run from what you really are.



I am an individual and a moderate.  On some specific issues, I hold liberal views and on some issues I hold conservative views.  Anyway, your comment about my being a liberal does not answer my question.  Please stop attacking the person and please answer the question. 



> You cant be a moderate when over 7 out of 10 people in the country describe themselves as Christians, and yet you deride and deny the truth and accuracy of the Bible.
> 
> You cant be a moderate when over 6 out of 10 and more in some areas of the country, pass a law preventing same gender marriage, and yet you defend it.



So is it your position that if I support gay marriage and don&#8217;t believe the Bible, but hold conservative views on practically everything else, I would still be a liberal?  I disagree on what your requirements are for being a moderate. Anyway, that comments still does not answer my question.  Please quit the ad homonym attacks and answer my question.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I can certainly criticize the call of the pResident... and I intend to ...YOU get over it!



and offers no solutions - typical Bush hating and USA loathing liberal


----------



## red states rule

LuvRPgrl said:


> Your statement indicates you think people are better off with security instead of safety.
> 
> I am not going to do your homework. ALL of that has been refuted. Do a search right here on US Message board.



Dems have not changed since the Civil War


Copperheads, Then and Now
The Democratic legacy of undermining war efforts.

By Mackubin Thomas Owens

While recovering from surgery recently, I had the good fortune to read a fine new book about political dissent in the North during the Civil War. The book, Copperheads: The Rise an Fall of Lincoln&#8217;s Opponents in the North, by journalist-turned-academic-historian Jennifer Weber, shines the spotlight on the &#8220;Peace Democrats,&#8221; who did everything they could to obstruct the Union war effort during the Rebellion. In so doing, she corrects a number of claims that have become part of the conventional wisdom. The historical record aside, what struck me the most were the similarities between the rhetoric and actions of the Copperheads a century and a half ago and Democratic opponents of the Iraq war today.

In contradistinction to the claims of many earlier historians, Weber argues persuasively that the Northern anti-war movement was far from a peripheral phenomenon. Disaffection with the war in the North was widespread and the influence of the Peace Democrats on the Democratic party was substantial. During the election of 1864, the Copperheads wrote the platform of the Democratic party, and one of their own, Rep. George H. Pendleton of Ohio, was the party&#8217;s candidate for vice president. Until Farragut&#8217;s victory at Mobile Bay, Sherman&#8217;s capture of Atlanta, and Sheridan&#8217;s success in driving the Confederates from the Shenandoah Valley in the late summer and fall of 1864, hostility toward the war was so profound in the North that Lincoln believed he would lose the election. 

Weber demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that the actions of the Copperheads materially damaged the ability of the Lincoln administration to prosecute the war. Weber persuasively refutes the view of earlier historians such as the late Frank Klement, who argued that what Lincoln called the Copperhead &#8220;fire in the rear&#8221; was mostly &#8220;a fairy tale,&#8221; a &#8220;figment of Republican imagination,&#8221; made up of &#8220;lies, conjecture and political malignancy.&#8221; The fact is that Peace Democrats actively interfered with recruiting and encouraged desertion. Indeed, they generated so much opposition to conscription that the Army was forced to divert resources from the battlefield to the hotbeds of Copperhead activity in order to maintain order. Many Copperheads actively supported the Confederate cause, materially as well as rhetorically.

In the long run, the Democratic party was badly hurt by the Copperheads. Their actions radically politicized Union soldiers, turning into stalwart Republicans many who had strongly supported the Democratic party&#8217;s opposition to emancipation as a goal of the war. As the Democrats were reminded for many years after the war, the Copperheads had made a powerful enemy of the Union veterans.

The fact is that many Union soldiers came to despise the Copperheads more than they disdained the Rebels. In the words of an assistant surgeon of an Iowa regiment, &#8220;it is a common saying here that if we are whipped, it will be by Northern votes, not by Southern bullets. The army regard the result of the late [fall 1862] elections as at least prolonging the war.&#8221; 

Weber quotes the response of a group of Indiana soldiers to letters from Copperhead &#8220;friends&#8221; back home:

Your letter shows you to be a cowardly traitor. No traitor can be my friend; if you cannot renounce your allegiance to the Copperhead scoundrels and own your allegiance to the Government which has always protected you, you are my enemy, and I wish you were in the ranks of my open, avowed, and manly enemies, that I might put a ball through your black heart, and send your soul to the Arch Rebel himself.

It is certain that the Union soldiers tired of hearing from the Copperheads that the Rebels could not be defeated. They surely tired of being described by the Copperheads as instruments of a tyrannical administration trampling the legitimate rights of the Southern states. The soldiers seemed to understand fairly quickly that the Copperheads preferred Lincoln&#8217;s failure to the country&#8217;s success. They also recognized that the Copperheads offered no viable alternative to Lincoln&#8217;s policy except to stop the war. Does any of this sound familiar? 

Today, Democratic opponents of the Iraq war echo the rhetoric of the Copperheads. As Lincoln was a bloodthirsty tyrant, trampling the rights of Southerners and Northerners alike, President Bush is the world&#8217;s worst terrorist, comparable to Hitler.

These words of the La Crosse Democrat responding to Lincoln&#8217;s re-nomination could just as easily have been written about Bush: &#8220;May God Almighty forbid that we are to have two terms of the rottenest, most stinking, ruin working smallpox ever conceived by fiends or mortals&#8230;&#8221; The recent lament of left-wing bloggers that Vice President Dick Cheney was not killed in a suicide bombing attempt in Pakistan echoes the incendiary language of Copperhead editorialist Brick Pomeroy who hoped that if Lincoln were re-elected, &#8220;some bold hand will pierce his heart with dagger point for the public good.&#8221; 

Antiwar Democrats make a big deal of &#8220;supporting the troops.&#8221; But such expressions ring hollow in light of Democratic efforts to hamstring the ability of the United States to achieve its objectives in Iraq. And all too often, the mask of the antiwar politician or activist slips, revealing what opponents of the war really think about the American soldier.

For instance, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Rep. Charles Rangel have suggested that soldiers fighting in Iraq are there because they are not smart enough to do anything else. Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois has suggested a similarity between the conduct of U.S. troops in Iraq and that of Nazi soldiers in World War II. His Illinois colleagues, Sen. Barack Obama, claimed that the lives of soldiers lost in Iraq were &#8220;wasted.&#8221; And recently William Arkin, a military analyst writing online for the Washington Post, said of American soldiers that they are &#8220;mercenaries&#8221; who had little business taking critics of the war to task. 

The Copperheads often abandoned all decency in their pursuit of American defeat in the Civil War. One Connecticut Copperhead told his neighbors that he hoped that all the men who went to fight for the Union cause would &#8220;leave their Bones to Bleach on the soil&#8221; of the South. The heirs of the Copperheads in today&#8217;s Democratic party are animated by the same perverted spirit with regard to the war in Iraq. Nothing captures the essence of today&#8217;s depraved Copperhead perspective better than the following e-mail, which unfortunately is only one example of the sort of communication I have received all too often in response to articles of mine over the past few months.

Dear Mr. Owens

You write, "It is hard to conduct military operations when a chorus of eunuchs is describing every action we take as a violation of everything that America stands for, a quagmire in which we are doomed to failure, and a waste of American lives."

But Mr. Owens, I believe that those three beliefs are true. On what grounds can I be barred from speaking them in public? Because speaking them will undermine American goals in Iraq? Bless you, sir, that's what I want to do in the first place. I am confident that U.S. forces will be driven from Iraq, and for that reason I am rather enjoying the war.

But doesn't hoping that American forces are driven from Iraq necessarily mean hoping that Americans soldiers will be killed there? Yes it does. Your soldiers are just a bunch of poor, dumb suckers that have been swindled out of their right to choose between good and evil. Quite a few of them are or will be swindled out of their eyes, legs, arms and lives. I didn't swindle them. President Bush did. If you're going to blame me for cheering their misery, what must you do to President Bush, whose policies are the cause of that misery?

Union soldiers voted overwhelmingly for Lincoln in 1864, abandoning the once-beloved George McClellan because of the perception that he had become a tool of the Copperheads. After Vietnam, veterans left the Democratic party in droves. I was one of them. The Democratic party seems poised to repeat its experience in both the Civil War and Vietnam. 

The Democrats seem to believe that they are tapping into growing anti-Iraq War sentiment in the military. They might cite evidence of military antipathy towards the war reflected in, for example, the recent CBS Sixty Minutes segment entitled &#8220;Dissension in the Ranks.&#8221; But the Democrats are whistling past the graveyard. The Sixty Minutes segment was predicated on an unscientific Army Times poll, orchestrated by activists who now oppose the war. The fact remains that most active duty and National Guard personnel still support American objectives in Iraq. They may be frustrated by the perceived incompetence of higher-ups and disturbed by a lack of progress in the war, but it has always been thus among soldiers. The word &#8220;snafu&#8221; began as a World War II vintage acronym: &#8220;situation normal, all f****d up.&#8221; 

Union soldiers could support the goals of the war and criticize the incompetence of their leaders in the same breath. But today&#8217;s soldiers, like their Union counterparts a century and a half ago, are tired of hearing that everything is the fault of their own government from people who invoke Gitmo and Abu Ghraib but rarely censure the enemy, and who certainly offer no constructive alternative to the current course of action. 

The late nineteenth century Democratic party paid a high price for the influence of the Copperheads during the Civil War, permitting Republicans to &#8220;wave the bloody shirt&#8221; of rebellion and to vilify the party with the charge of disunion and treason. If its leaders are not careful, today&#8217;s Democratic party may well pay the same sort of price for the actions of its antiwar base, which is doing its best to continue the Copperhead legacy. 

&#8212; Mackubin Thomas Owens is an associate dean of academics and a professor of national-security affairs at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. He is writing a history of U.S. civil-military relations.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...QwZjgyOGFkZTU=


----------



## actsnoblemartin

I find something ironic, the liberals were complaining about not enough troops, and now their complaining about more troops.

I understand that iraq was not going well, and it may be too soon to tell if the surge is working, but... life under saddam was not utopia, and leaving now, hands one of the most oil rich over to al queda and iran. Does that sounds like a good idea to you?.

And besides, if iran and al queda gain more of a foothold by gaining all of iraq's oil wealth with no one to oppose them, then why couldnt they not only topple israel, but topple jordan and turkey, two moderate arab states, and then go after all the arabs states and set up sharia state laws, that are just as bad if not worse then the taliban

Just a thought


----------



## Bullypulpit

LuvRPgrl said:


> Who would Jesus torture?
> 
> THE MONEY CHANGERS???
> 
> "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit attrocities." - Voltaire
> 
> FROM WIKPEDIA: "When his father found him out, he again sent Voltaire to study law, this time in the provinces. Nevertheless, he continued to write, producing essays and historical studies not always noted for their accuracY.
> The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica comments that "If the English visit may be regarded as having finished Voltaire's education, the Cirey residence was the first stage of his literary manhood." Having learned from his previous brushes with the authorities, Voltaire began his future habit of keeping out of personal harm's way, and denying any awkward responsibility"
> VOLTAIRE, A LIAR AND A COWARD, NO WONDER HE IS YOUR HERO HAHHAHA
> 
> "The Rapture is not an exit strategy." - Unknown
> 
> TYPICAL LIBS, FOCUSED ON EXITING AND NOT ON WINNING (SOMETHING THEY HAVE COME QUITE ACCUSTOMED TO, EXITING AND NOT WINNING) HAHAHHAHA
> 
> No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country. - Alexis De Tocqueville
> 
> "ENDANGER" YES, SOMETHING YOU LIBS RUN FROM AT ALL COSTS.
> 
> When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. - Sinclair Lewis
> SOUNDS LIKE THE ACLU TO ME ))
> 
> I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. - Mohandas Gandhi
> LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE (SO, GHANDI WALKED ON WATER?)



You, and other supporters of the right-wing in America, have long since run out of intellectual ammunition. Poor boy...Your little brain must be working overtime to try and find something, anything, to disprove or gloss over the facts on the ground in Iraq and the corruption of the Administration which is now coming to light. Failing that, we have the result of posts such as what I've quoted above.

Ya got nothin'...old son.


----------



## red states rule

I am waiting for Reid and Pelosi to hold a ceremony at Ground Zero to celebrate their Surrender At All Costs bill. 

While they are there, they can have Peanut Carter hand out peanuts to the crowd in thanks for their millions of dollars of pork for peanut storage


----------



## Bullypulpit

LuvRPgrl said:


> Hi POLLY, (want a cracker?),,,,



Your insults are getting feebler...How much longer before you start resorting to armpit farts for responses, although such doesn't translate well to written word.



LuvRPgrl said:


> CLINTON, perjurer, impeached.



How have I lied in this matter? You and your fellow travelers have an almost pathological need to blame Goatboy for everything. The truth is that America is in the straights it is in because of the policies of this Administration over the last six years. An Administration which y'all have supported without question. Why are you so unhappy then? Why try to put the blame elsewhere?



LuvRPgrl said:


> I put this really simple for you so your brain doesnt have to try and multitask.
> 
> The issue has been adressed over and over and over again. Dont you have anything new? We have already proven the logical fallacy of pointing out where saddam got  his WMD's.
> You are a moron for saying that its not ok to disarm someone simply because you may have been the person to arm them in the firstplace.
> So, if saddam had gotten his WMD's from Russia, then it would be ok for us to disarm him, but since he got them from us, we have to stand aside and let him use them at will. WHAT a fucking moronic logic.



You really need to review your history. Saddam's ability to produce NBC weapons was shut down by Gulf War I and, contrary to claims by the Bush Lite Administration, was never successfully reconstituted. Now, please be so kind as to submit a formal proof of the "logical fallacy" you claimed above. But you can't since the fallacy you claim is no more than that..An empty claim.

As for the use of chemical weapons on his own people, our government , as well as the rest of the world ignored that act of barbarism, as it has ignored others in other nations since, much to our collective shame. Saddam more than demonstrated that he didn't need WMD's to use against his own people in his slaughter of ethnic Arabs in southern Iraq at the end of Gulf War I...You remember the ones Poppy Bush told to revolt against Saddam's rule and then left them swinging in the breeze. 

Your historical and grammatical errors aside, why don't you try rational discussion instead of hurling childish epithets...Or are you just trolling?


----------



## red states rule

Was your guy Kerry lying about Saddam and WMD's?


Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime  He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he is miscalculating Americas response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real. 
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> excuse me...but I really have yet to read anyone's reasonable justification why AMERICAN boys have to die to bring safety OR security to a bunch or arabs who don't particularly give a shit about US one way or the other.
> 
> And listen sister.... if you can't refute it, don't claim you can....





Rush sumed it up perfectly



Democrat Senate Majority Leader Dingy Harry Reid has finally abandoned all the pretense. He has directly threatened to leave our troops in Iraq without the money they need to complete their mission.

Reid's threat was described by Beltway pundits as a sign of "increasing frustration," but the truth is more insidious. Democrats are attacking the heart of presidential power because Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush is not caving in to Democrat demands that we surrender, that we quit -- that we give up. The Democrats' pro-defeat policy would allow Islamic extremists to create a terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East -- while Iran is nuking up.

Now, it's one thing to pander to your domestic political base, but this isn't pandering. I mean, this isn't even appeasing. This is telling the world that the Democrat party is willing to side with America's enemies. They actually seek defeat in a war by stripping our military of the resources to win that war -- in hopes of sustaining their own political power.

The long-term strategic risks to this nation don't matter a hill of beans to Senator Reid and his people. If Democrats succeed, they validate the strategery Osama bin Laden outlined before 9/11. If Democrats succeed, every enemy of this nation will view our defeat as an opening. The Democrat plan is nothing more than a mass death warrant for Americans.

So what Democrats have unmasked with this threat is not a political gamesmanship or move; it is their own blatant disregard for the security -- and survival -- of the United States. They just don't care, apparently.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_040307/content/01125101.member.html


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> what has been refuted?  That Saddam kept sunnis and shiites from slaughtering one another?  that Iran has seen its stock rise since our invasion?  that AQ is now in Iraq and wasn't before?  none of that has EVER been refuted.



ABC Highlights Safety Improvements in Baghdad
Posted by Brad Wilmouth on April 3, 2007 - 23:05. 
Tuesday's World News with Charles Gibson highlighted signs of improvement in parts of Baghdad in the aftermath of the U.S. troop surge. ABC's Gibson introduced the story relaying that correspondent Terry McCarthy, after traveling to several Baghdad neighborhoods, "has found definite improvement." Among other developments, McCarthy reported on families feeling safe enough to take their children to the city's largest amusement park: "People feel safe to bring their kids here and have fun on a Friday afternoon. For us, it's really great to see people in Baghdad having fun."

McCarthy introduced his story recounting that although there are still daily bombings in Baghdad, "a small area of relative calm is starting to grow," relaying his visit to several neighborhoods where residents reported that "life is slowly coming back to normal." (Transcript follows)

Among other areas, McCarthy discussed the once-infamous Haifa Street that is no longer as dangerous as it once was, where men at a tea shop asked McCarthy's crew to film them "to show things are getting better." After mentioning positive developments in other neighborhoods, the ABC correspondent pointed out the increased number of families visiting the amusement park in the Zawra area. McCarthy: "People feel safe to bring their kids here and have fun on a Friday afternoon. For us, it's really great to see people in Baghdad having fun." After wondering if the relative safety would continue, he concluded: "For the time being, though, people here are happy to enjoy a life that looks almost normal."

Below is a complete transcript of the story from the Tuesday April 3 World News with Charles Gibson:

Charles Gibson: "Meanwhile, Iraq's government announced today that the security situation in Baghdad has improved in recent weeks -- enough that the city's curfew can be relaxed. Until now, the curfew has been 8 PM till 5 AM. Now, Baghdad residents will be allowed on the street until 10 PM. ABC's Terry McCarthy has been checking out conditions in some of the city's neighborhoods, and has found definite improvement."

Terry McCarthy: "Children have come out to play again. Shoppers are back in markets. A few devout souls even venture past the barbed wire to pray. Baghdad is still rocked by car bombs every day. But right in the center of the city, a small area of relative calm is starting to grow, thanks to stepped up U.S. patrols and increased Iraqi checkpoints. Nowhere is safe for westerners to linger, but over the past week we visited five different neighborhoods where the locals told us life is slowly coming back to normal. We started in what used to be one of the most dangerous parts of the city. This is Haifa Street, otherwise known as 'Sniper Street,' until two months ago a major battleground between U.S. troops and insurgents. Today, people who live on Haifa Street tell us it's quiet, or at least quiet enough for them to venture back out onto the street. At a tea shop, these men actually asked us to film them to show things are getting better. In Babil, we stopped for ice cream -- 20 cents a scoop. The owner here, Mohammed Hassan, tells us security is improving in this part of Baghdad just in time for the summer, which is, of course, when they make most of their money. Hussein Jihad has a clothing store in Karada. 'When people heard that it was safe,' says Hussein, 'they started coming out and spending money again.' We found a mosque in Zayouna that had been fire-bombed. Now, open for prayer. And in Zawra, Baghdad's biggest amusement park is running again. People feel safe to bring their kids here and have fun on a Friday afternoon. For us, it's really great to see people in Baghdad having fun. 'It's safe here,' says 12-year-old Abdullah. 'There used to be some bullets, but not anymore.' Nobody knows if this small safe zone will expand or get swallowed up again by violence. For the time being, though, people here are happy to enjoy a life that looks almost normal. Terry McCarthy, ABC News, Baghdad."

http://newsbusters.org/node/11805


----------



## red states rule

Baghdad curfew eased as surge scores successes
By Sharon Behn
THE WASHINGTON TIMES



BAGHDAD -- American and Iraqi soldiers yesterday killed six terrorists and captured another 41 insurgents and death-squad suspects in operations in Baghdad and outside Fallujah, military officials said. 
    The raids were part of the ongoing enormous effort by U.S. and Iraqi security forces to break the backs of the various armed groups warring in Iraq. The Iraqi government cited the success of that operation yesterday in announcing that the nightly curfew will be pushed back by two hours. 
    In Baghdad, a U.S. Stryker battalion and an Iraqi battalion fanned out in east Mansour, an area of the city where Shi'ite death squads have been forcing Sunni families out of their homes and replacing them with followers of Muqtada al-Sadr's radical militia. 
    Directed by Iraqi and American intelligence sources, the soldiers of the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment of the Stryker Brigade Combat Team raided houses overnight, capturing nine members of what they said was a known death-squad cell. 
    "We think they are responsible for the deaths of 22 Sunnis in this area, as well as [rocket-propelled grenade] and small-arms attacks," said an intelligence officer involved in the operation who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 
    In separate operations, coalition forces killed six al Qaeda in Iraq terrorists and captured 13 other "facilitators" yesterday morning south of Fallujah and in al Qaim, on the border with Syria, the U.S. military said. 
    The men arrested in Baghdad were swiftly flex-cuffed, blindfolded and hauled off to one of the city's detention centers, where they sat with their backs against a wall waiting to be screened by U.S. medical personnel. 
    One man came in whimpering and limping on the arms of two American soldiers, his arm and leg bandaged after trying to escape the raid by jumping over several walls. Altogether, 28 detainees were brought into the holding center from raids across Baghdad. 
    The raids were part of the stepped-up U.S. security presence in Baghdad, but the significance is hard to judge. Although the military actions yesterday interrupted one death squad, the intelligence officer said, the long-term impact could be determined only by "going back to the neighbors and asking them if they feel safer now." 
    Iraqis say several neighborhoods have improved since the security plan went into operation almost eight weeks ago, an appraisal reflected in pushing back the start of the nightly curfew to 10 p.m. 
    Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, the spokesman for the Baghdad security operation, said the decision was made "because the security situation has improved and people needed more time to go shopping." 
    However, residents of other neighborhoods say they are seeing a return to sectarian executions
 A father of two girls said he was moving out of his area after he and his family listened from their house as a teenage neighbor pleaded in the street for a Shi'ite death squad to spare his father's life. They killed him anyway. 
    "The Shi'ite militia are making trouble," said Hassan, who asked that his full name not be used. "They are idiots, stupid." After almost four years of war and a week of finding corpses outside his door, Hassan said, he has to move. 
    American forces, such as the Stryker brigades operating across the capital and in Diyala province, are working 12- to 14-hour days to clear both Sunni and Shi'ite neighborhoods block by block and house by house. 
    They also are trying to work side by side with the Iraqi army and police in order for them to establish trust among the local population. Many Iraqis feel the Iraqi forces are corrupt and part of the death squads. 
    "I myself never trust any Iraqi police and army," said a young woman called Jenan, whose pregnant sister was killed in a terrorist bombing. 
    Staff Sgt. Brian Long, 31, a fire support specialist for Alpha Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment with the Stryker Brigade Combat Team, said it was still "too early to tell if the surge is working." 
    He thinks progress has been made. "Even coming to an agreement to not kill each other is a step in a positive direction; it has happened in some neighborhoods," he said. 
    Layla, a Kurdish woman who lives in Baghdad, said shops were beginning to reopen on the shell-pocked main street of her neighborhood, which once bustled with juice stands, coffee shops, hamburger restaurants and small kitchenware stores. 
    "They attacked [the Zayoona neighborhood] several times in the last three or four months, but now people feel safe enough to open their stores," she said. 
    It is "not exactly" safe to go to the market, she said. "You don't know who is going to kill you, or kidnap you." 
    While most Iraqis are withholding judgment on the security surge, a cross-section of women and men said the U.S. military was the only thing preventing complete chaos. 
    "If they retreat and leave everything to the Iraqis, at that time the civil war in Iraq will start," Hassan said. 

http://washingtontimes.com/world/20070404-121156-4055r.htm


----------



## maineman

one more time:



maineman said:


> RSR:  let's review, shall we?
> 
> Here is what I said:
> 
> _"I posted the link that shows the american casualty figures....yours are inaccurate...
> 
> In january, we lost 83 Americans.
> In february, we lost 80 Americans
> In march, we lost 81 Americans
> 
> and we have already lost 5 Americans today, the first of April
> 
> Please explain how you get a decrease of "60%" from those figures? _
> 
> and here is your reply:
> 
> 
> _http://icasualties.org/oif/ _
> 
> 
> 
> *Let me ask again:  since I got my numbers from that very website, can you please post those numbers from that site that would prove your allegation that the surge has caused a 60% reduction in US casualties????  The way I look at it, we are holding steady on our casualty rate over the last three months, and I also see that our casualty rates for the last six months are nearly 40% HIGHER than they were the six months preceding that.  Please explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS how the surge is working given those figures*


----------



## maineman

Please note all the cut and paste crap that red states retch has posted rather than answer my question... and then, look back to post #159 of this thread where I said:



maineman said:


> somehow, I imagine that RSR will avoid answering those very simple questions by either accusing me of loving terrorists,* or cutting and pasting something from newsbusters that says the surge is working...
> 
> and never bother to address why he posted the site about Iraq War casualties when it does not provide any verification of his claim.*



I think the record will show I called this one pretty accurately!


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> Please note all the cut and paste crap that red states retch has posted rather than answer my question... and then, look back to post #159 of this thread where I said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the record will show I called this one pretty accurately!



I have letting you dig your hole deeper. I know libs are happy with every death the US military takes in this war. They think they will gain mor epower over the dead bodies of US troops

However, the truth does get out in time


BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's military Wednesday reported significant reduction in violence a month after launching a coalition crackdown in the war-racked capital. 

The numbers of deadly attacks, assassination attempts, bombings, mortar strikes and kidnappings have dropped since the operation's mid-February launch, said Iraqi Brig. Gen. Qassim Atta.

The number of civilians killed in Baghdad in the past four weeks was 265, compared with 1,440 killings from mid-January to mid-February, said Atta, a spokesman for the operation. (Effects of crackdown)

Atta also reported that 94 terrorists were killed in the February-March period, compared with 19 in the January-February time frame.

Other figures released by Atta included:


102 roadside bombings in the February-March period; 163 in the January-February period;


36 car bombs in February-March; 56 in January-February


109 mortar attacks in February-March; 204 in January-February


22 assassination incidents in February-March; 519 in January-February


10 kidnapping incidents in February-March; 98 in January-February

Atta offered the statistics as key indications that the security crackdown is bearing fruit. 

The operation, known in Arabic as Fardh Al-Qanoon, involves about 80,000 U.S. and Iraqi security forces across the capital, while about two dozen joint security stations have been set up in neighborhoods throughout the city, according to the U.S. military. 

At a separate news conference Wednesday, U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said the security plan is showing "positive" signs of progress. U.S. military leaders expect to see a "discernible difference" in and around the city by a "fall time frame," Caldwell said.

"If the high-profile car bombs can be stopped or brought down to a much lower level, we'll just see an incredible difference in the city overall," Caldwell said. "The murders and executions have come down by over 50 percent."

Caldwell said two of five new brigades of American troops are in place conducting operations, and a third brigade is on the way.

Day's Iraqi death toll: At least 12
The updates came as authorities reported continued violence across Iraq on Wednesday. 

The attacks included a bombing at an outdoor market in Tuz Khurmatu that killed four people and wounded 10 others, according to a Salaheddin police official. Tuz Khurmatu, a predominantly Turkmen town, is in northeastern Salaheddin province -- north of Baghdad.

In Diwaniya, insurgents Wednesday dragged three Iraqi policemen and shot them. Two of them were killed and one was wounded. Police found the bodies and the injured officer near a canal. Diwaniya is the Shiite provincial capital of the southern Iraqi province of Qadisiya.

In western Baghdad's Yarmouk neighborhood, a suicide car bomb detonated near a police checkpoint, killing two civilians and wounding four others Wednesday.

Gunmen opened fire on a car in the northern Baghdad neighborhood of Adhamiya, a Sunni district. The deputy head of Adhamiya's city council and his three guards were killed.

And on Tuesday, 14 bullet-riddled bodies were found dumped across the capital, police said. The thousands of corpses found dumped in Baghdad over the last year are thought to be people killed in sectarian violence.

U.S.: We're tracking al-Sadr
Reduced violence in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood, Caldwell said, may be linked to the absence of anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who he said was located in neighboring Iran "as of 24 hours ago."

Also contributing to relative quiet in Sadr City, Caldwell said, is cooperation between neighborhood officials and Iraqi authorities. Caldwell said not one single incident was reported during U.S. and Iraqi military clearing operations in the sprawling district.

Twenty percent of the densely populated neighborhood has been cleared so far, Caldwell said, which means that area has been swept of insurgents and weaponry.

Despite the positive signs, Caldwell said Wednesday the U.S. military remains concerned about Iraq's Shiite Mehdi militia, which is loyal to al-Sadr.

Coalition forces have detained about 700 militia members in the past few months, he said.

The anti-American Shiite cleric represents a "very significant part" of Iraq's political machinery, according to Caldwell.

"We are in fact tracking his whereabouts," Caldwell said.

Members of al-Sadr's militia are thought to be involved in sectarian violence, and the security crackdown has been targeting such armed Shiite groups.

The cleric reportedly fled to predominantly Shiite Iran about the time U.S. and Iraqi forces launched the Baghdad crackdown.

Al-Sadr has been supportive of the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and helped al-Maliki's rise to power in 2006.

Al-Maliki has said that no lawbreaker will be immune to the security operations.

Debate heats up as U.S. toll rises
The U.S. Senate on Wednesday cleared a procedural roadblock, setting up a heated debate over a binding Democratic resolution to set a date for U.S. troops to leave Iraq.

After Republican Tuesday dropped their opposition to beginning debate on the proposal, the issue moved to the debate on a vote of 89-9. All nine no votes were Republicans. (Full story )

Why the Republicans decided to no longer block the vote depends on whom you ask. Democrats would say it's because Republicans no longer want to be labeled obstructionists. But Republicans realize the resolution is unlikely to pass.

The Democrats' resolution calls for phased redeployment to start four months after it becomes law, with a goal of March 31, 2008, for all combat troops to leave from Iraq. Remaining troops would focus on troop protection, training Iraqi forces and counterterrorism.

But even before the debate began, the legislation seemed doomed to fail. Moderate Republicans who had sided with Democrats last month in opposition to the president's troop increase dislike setting a deadline to leave, as do some Democrats. President Bush has threatened to veto any such measure.

The movement in the Senate debate came as three U.S. soldiers died Wednesday and nine were injured in Iraq's Diyala province, the U.S. military said.

Two of the soldiers died as a result of separate roadside bombings while they were conducting combat operations. A third died from small arms fire, the military said.

The military also reported the Tuesday deaths of a Marine and two U.S. soldiers.

The deaths bring to 3,192 the number of U.S. soldiers killed since the Iraq war began. Seven American civilian contractors of the military also have died in the contract.

Other developments

The sons of late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein have been reburied near their father, an Iraqi tribal leader said Wednesday. The bodies of Uday and Qusay Hussein, killed by U.S. forces in the northern city of Mosul in 2003, were exhumed from the old Awja cemetery north of Baghdad, according to Ali al-Nida, head of the Albu Nasir tribe. They have been reburied outside a hall where their father was buried after his hanging in December, al-Nida said. "We buried them according to their family's will," he said. 


Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, 73, returned home Wednesday to Sulaimaniya in Iraq's Kurdish region after more than two weeks in a Jordanian hospital. The reason for Talabani's hospitalization remains uncertain. At the time, a hospital source told CNN that doctors performed a catheterization procedure on his heart, but family aides denied that report, saying Talabani was suffering from exhaustion and lung inflammation.

CNN's Jennifer Deaton and Mohammed Tawfeeq contributed to this report.


----------



## maineman

hey... YOU were the one who claimed that the Iraq casualty website PROVED your assinine suggestion that American casualties are DOWN 60%.

I only asked you to show me how that site proves any such thing.

YOU have been unable to answer that and unable - as always - to string more than a sentence at a time of your own words together and continue to rely on cut and paste.

I say again:  please show me and express in your own words, how you come up with the 60% decrease in American casualties from the website YOU posted.


----------



## red states rule

Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers  

MIL-IRAQ-US SOLDIERS 
Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers

BAGHDAD, March 14 (KUNA) -- The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre.

Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13; the rate was on the decline during the first month of the security crackdown, compared to a month before.

Two of the 17 soldiers died at US Baghdad camps of non-combat causes.

The remarkable decrease in killings among the US troops came at a time when more of these troops were deployed in the Iraqi capital, especially in districts previously regarded as extremely hazardous for them such as Al-Sadr City, Al-Azamiyah, and Al-Doura.

Meanwhile, US attacks on insurgent strongholds north of Baghdad curbed attacks against helicopters. Before the new security plan, many such craft were downed leaving 20 soldiers dead.

The US army in Iraq had earlier said that sectarian fighting and violence in Baghdad had dropped sharply, by about 80 percent, since the launch of the plan.

The statistics excluded US troops killed in other governorates such as Al-Anbar, Diyala, and Salahiddin.

As to the latest human losses, the US army announced Wednesday that two American soldiers had been killed, one in southern Baghdad and the other northeast of the capital.(end) ahh.

http://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/print.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=961365


----------



## maineman

still running away from your own links?

why are you such a cowardly pussy?

Just show me the numbers from the Iraq casualty website that prove your 60% decrease allegation and we'll be all set.... or have the balls to admit you fucked up.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> still running away from your own links?
> 
> why are you such a cowardly pussy?
> 
> Just show me the numbers from the Iraq casualty website that prove your 60&#37; decrease allegation and we'll be all set.... or have the balls to admit you fucked up.




I guess you will have to cancel your party over the graves of the troops...........

Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers  

Military and Secuity    3/14/2007 11:30:00 AM 



KUN0014 4 GEN 0266 KUWAIT /KUNA-QVN0 MIL-IRAQ-US SOLDIERS Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers BAGHDAD, March 14 (KUNA) -- The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre. Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13; the rate was on the decline during the first month of the security crackdown, compared to a month before. Two of the 17 soldiers died at US Baghdad camps of non-combat causes. The remarkable decrease in killings among the US troops came at a time when more of these troops were deployed in the Iraqi capital, especially in districts previously regarded as extremely hazardous for them such as Al-Sadr City, Al-Azamiyah, and Al-Doura. Meanwhile, US attacks on insurgent strongholds north of Baghdad curbed attacks against helicopters. Before the new security plan, many such craft were downed leaving 20 soldiers dead. The US army in Iraq had earlier said that sectarian fighting and violence in Baghdad had dropped sharply, by about 80 percent, since the launch of the plan. The statistics excluded US troops killed in other governorates such as Al-Anbar, Diyala, and Salahiddin. As to the latest human losses, the US army announced Wednesday that two American soldiers had been killed, one in southern Baghdad and the other northeast of the capital.(end) ahh.msa KUNA 141130 Mar 07NNNN


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I guess you will have to cancel your party over the graves of the troops...........
> 
> Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers
> 
> Military and Secuity    3/14/2007 11:30:00 AM
> 
> 
> 
> KUN0014 4 GEN 0266 KUWAIT /KUNA-QVN0 MIL-IRAQ-US SOLDIERS Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers BAGHDAD, March 14 (KUNA) -- The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre. Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13; the rate was on the decline during the first month of the security crackdown, compared to a month before. Two of the 17 soldiers died at US Baghdad camps of non-combat causes. The remarkable decrease in killings among the US troops came at a time when more of these troops were deployed in the Iraqi capital, especially in districts previously regarded as extremely hazardous for them such as Al-Sadr City, Al-Azamiyah, and Al-Doura. Meanwhile, US attacks on insurgent strongholds north of Baghdad curbed attacks against helicopters. Before the new security plan, many such craft were downed leaving 20 soldiers dead. The US army in Iraq had earlier said that sectarian fighting and violence in Baghdad had dropped sharply, by about 80 percent, since the launch of the plan. The statistics excluded US troops killed in other governorates such as Al-Anbar, Diyala, and Salahiddin. As to the latest human losses, the US army announced Wednesday that two American soldiers had been killed, one in southern Baghdad and the other northeast of the capital.(end) ahh.msa KUNA 141130 Mar 07NNNN



And shut the fuck up about me throwing a party on soldier's graves you worthless piece of shit..... when are you going to admit that American deaths are not down by 60%?


----------



## maineman

this was YOUR link:

http://icasualties.org/oif/

please show me from that link where American deaths are down by 60%

I'll wait.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> And shut the fuck up about me throwing a party on soldier's graves you worthless piece of shit..... when are you going to admit that American deaths are not down by 60%?



maybe you missed the good news

The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre

please cancel the cake and the band - yoour party is now cancelled


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> maybe you missed the good news
> 
> The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre
> 
> please cancel the cake and the band - yoour party is now cancelled



maybe you missed the FACTS that our boys are dying in the war in Iraq at exactly the same rate they were before the surge.

your own link proves that...why do you run away from that fact?


83 in January
80 in February
81 in March
10 already in April

Where is the 60% decrease in those figures?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> maybe you missed the FACTS that our boys are dying in the war in Iraq at exactly the same rate they were before the surge.
> 
> your own link proves that...why do you run away from that fact?
> 
> 
> 83 in January
> 80 in February
> 81 in March
> 10 already in April
> 
> Where is the 60% decrease in those figures?





Damn, your are set on having your death watch party

To bad the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre deos not agree with you


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Damn, your are set on having your death watch party
> 
> To bad the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre deos not agree with you




are you suggesting that those numbers of Americans have NOT died?

Those numbers are from the website that YOU posted here.

what's up with that?


----------



## maineman

http://icasualties.org/oif/

those numbers are all verified by the Department of Defense....

do you believe them or not?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> http://icasualties.org/oif/
> 
> those numbers are all verified by the Department of Defense....
> 
> do you believe them or not?



Try asking for your deposit back from the caterer, and hope the war takes a turn for the worse and you can have your party at a laetr date

The numbers are from Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre and they show a saharp decline since the surge started

At least try to somewhat conceal your disappointment over the good news, please?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Try asking for your deposit back from the caterer, and hope the war takes a turn for the worse and you can have your party at a laetr date
> 
> The numbers are from Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre and they show a saharp decline since the surge started
> 
> At least try to somewhat conceal your disappointment over the good news, please?



why did you post this site?

http://icasualties.org/oif/

what am I supposed to see on that site that proves your case?

Are the numbers on that site that YOU posted inaccurate?

Is the DoD not giving out the correct casualty figures?

quit spinning and running away from your own link.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> why did you post this site?
> 
> http://icasualties.org/oif/
> 
> what am I supposed to see on that site that proves your case?
> 
> Are the numbers on that site that YOU posted inaccurate?
> 
> Is the DoD not giving out the correct casualty figures?
> 
> quit spinning and running away from your own link.



I see libs still hate to see any goond news on the war

After all, libs have placed their political future in the failure of the US military and a loss in Iraq

They want to use their dead bodies as stepping stones to more political power


----------



## maineman

can you answer these questions?



maineman said:


> why did you post this site?
> 
> http://icasualties.org/oif/
> 
> what am I supposed to see on that site that proves your case?
> 
> Are the numbers on that site that YOU posted inaccurate?
> 
> Is the DoD not giving out the correct casualty figures?
> 
> quit spinning and running away from your own link.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> can you answer these questions?



I set you up knowing you would run to the first site listed on google. I knew you would leap at any link showing the surge was a failure without doing the reasearch needed to sift out the truth

I have posted several links showing the surge is working, and I can tell by your anger you hate to see any progress being made in Iraq


----------



## red states rule

Guaranteeing Defeat
BY DONALD KIRK
April 4, 2007
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/51793




Cries for a deadline for withdrawal of American troops from Iraq conjure bitter memories.

I was a young reporter in Vietnam on April 30, 1970, when President Nixon ordered American troops across the border into Cambodia. I jumped into a helicopter for a low-level ride from a base on an old French rubber plantation to Cambodia on the first day, then flew back on the same helicopter an hour or so later  enough to justify the dateline, "The Fishhook, Cambodia," for the story that I filed from the U.S. military press center for the next day's edition of the old Washington Star.

The next day, I rode with American troops on an armored personnel carrier, then made my way on the backseat of a motorcycle to the capital of Cambodia, Phnom Penh.

Those were heady days. I remember vividly what some of the GI's were saying  "about time" was a comment I heard more than once. The tide of the war was turning, and American forces were no longer hamstrung by bureaucratic nonsense from Washington that had kept them from overrunning North Vietnamese base areas just across the border.

We saw the stacks of Soviet arms inside the border, and we walked out with souvenirs  evidence of Soviet support of the North Vietnamese, who were still denying any role in South Vietnam. A U.S. military policeman confiscated the Soviet-made SKS rifle that I was carrying the moment he saw me. But the story was not over.

So great was anti-war pressure across America that Nixon, soon after announcing the foray into the communist base areas, placed a strict limit on the presence of American troops in Cambodia  no more than 60 days. Nor would they go down much beyond the Ho Chi Minh trail network which Hanoi had been sending supplies to for years.

That wasn't all. Just to pin down American forces still more tightly, the next January, our Congress passed the Cooper-Church amendment barring military operations inside Cambodia as a condition for the military budget.

The North Vietnamese suffered devastating blows while American troops were there but had plenty of time to regroup and mount a full-scale invasion of South Vietnam two years later  the Easter offensive  in which they were again thrown back, only to recover and return one last time in the winter and spring of 1975 when all American troops had gone.

Now Congress is playing the same game. Forgetting the lesson of 1970, the House and Senate want to set a limit on the duration of U.S. military operations inside Iraq.

The voting on this maneuver has broken down largely along party lines  the Democrats shouting down the Republicans, but you don't have to be a card-carrying conservative or a Republican to recognize this bid for legislative command of the armed forces as a betrayal of our troops.

We are not going to win a war, or get out with any semblance of honor, by telling our enemy to just lie low for a while and next month or next year we'll be gone. America lost in Vietnam as a result of anti-war opposition at home.

We had to fight a "limited war" in which American troops were largely barred from going into North Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia. Members of Congress  and an overwhelmingly anti-war press  bayed in unison when American forces were revealed to have conducted "secret" bombing missions over the jungles of Laos and Cambodia.

The bombing of base areas and supply routes through North Vietnam was carefully manipulated by bomb "halts" in which the North Vietnamese were supposed to sigh in gratitude and come to terms, knowing the horrific fate that awaited them if the bombing resumed. There was no way this strategy could work, of course, no way to win that war, or any war, without going into the enemy heartland with infantry troops on the ground.

Those who think, "fine, but now Vietnam is a peaceful place," should remember the aftermath of America's defeat  the flight of hundreds of thousands of refugees who had placed their faith in the American commitment and the deaths of thousands more all in "re-education" camps, not to mention the killing of two million people under the Khmer Rouge rule in Cambodia.

American commanders in Iraq no doubt miscalculated what was needed to win in the current long run after the defeat of Saddam Hussein's regime four years ago.

Nonetheless, Senator McCain is right when he says it's elementary not to place a deadline on our military commitment in that tortured land of Iraq, just as it was foolish to pull out of Cambodia by the 60-day deadline or to call bombing halts in negotiations that could only end in failure.

If we think the war in Iraq is bad now, there's no telling how much worse it will get if Congress is free to hamstring our armed forces.

The most likely scenario in the event of a premature withdrawal dictated by politicians and pundits in Washington is that Sunnis, Shiites, and others will go on killing each other in ever rising numbers until another bloodthirsty strongman rises and imposes his own cruel peace.

If the critics think that's okay, as long as the slaughter is confined to Iraq, what about the consequences for the whole Middle East?

The critics, in their eagerness to thrash the Bush administration, forget the dangers of an artificial time limit that will guarantee defeat  and much greater dangers for those we leave behind.

Mr. Kirk spent nearly a decade as a correspondent in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, covered the first Gulf War from Baghdad, and reported again from Baghdad in 2004.

http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=51793


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I set you up knowing you would run to the first site listed on google. I knew you would leap at any link showing the surge was a failure without doing the reasearch needed to sift out the truth
> 
> I have posted several links showing the surge is working, and I can tell by your anger you hate to see any progress being made in Iraq




I went to the link that YOU suggested I go to.  It shows that the actual casualty figures from the department of defense for every month of the war.  We have NOT experienced a 60% decrease in American casualties because of the surge.... American casualties remain constant.  American casualties for the last six months - according to DoD figures - are nearly 40% HIGHER than they were in the six months before that.  How can you say that such a death toll is good news?


----------



## maineman

http://icasualties.org/oif/

this was YOUR link.  Please show me where we have seen a 60&#37; DECREASE in American casualties.... these are the numbers verified by the DoD.  Show me from your own link where we are decreasing our casualties.  PLEASE.

83 dead in January
80 dead in February
81 dead in March
10 dead already in four days of April

Where IS this 60% reduction?  

If you say  "Baghdad", I ask you...do  Americans killed in Iraq outside Baghdad city limits not matter?


----------



## LuvRPgrl

maineman said:


> excuse me...but I really have yet to read anyone's reasonable justification why AMERICAN boys have to die to bring safety OR security to a bunch or arabs who don't particularly give a shit about US one way or the other.
> 
> And listen sister.... if you can't refute it, don't claim you can....


 Like I said, do a US Message Board search. The topic has been beaten to death. And tons of excellent, intelligent, logical explanations have been given. Im not going to do your homework. After you, there will be another ignorant, and I mean that in the classic sense, lib who will ask me the same question, then use the same old tired worn out, stupid, illogical responses.
  Do a search, find the threads, and you can read what you and I would go through if we continued this, with you on the losing end,


----------



## maineman

LuvRPgrl said:


> Like I said, do a US Message Board search. The topic has been beaten to death. And tons of excellent, intelligent, logical explanations have been given. Im not going to do your homework. After you, there will be another ignorant, and I mean that in the classic sense, lib who will ask me the same question, then use the same old tired worn out, stupid, illogical responses.
> Do a search, find the threads, and you can read what you and I would go through if we continued this, with you on the losing end,




whatever.... you have shown me zip... and I have countered every one of your ridiculous RNC talking points.

If you wanna refute me, go for it...if not, shut your piehole.  OK?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> whatever.... you have shown me zip... and I have countered every one of your ridiculous RNC talking points.
> 
> If you wanna refute me, go for it...if not, shut your piehole.  OK?



Still want to have your party, eh

Oh well, the US military will get the job done without any help from the left - and you bitch and moan about the poor terrorists bening denied their rights


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Still want to have your party, eh
> 
> Oh well, the US military will get the job done without any help from the left - and you bitch and moan about the poor terrorists bening denied their rights



I mourn every death of an American...and it infuriates me when koolaid drinking illiterate Bush toadies like YOU try to minimize the extent of their sacrifice for cheap political gain.  

YOU were the one who posted this website:

http://icasualties.org/oif/

SHOW ME from that website where we have had 60&#37; less casualties in Iraq because of the SURGE.

Show me!

Just because fewer Americans are dying on one side of the street does not mean that fewer Americans are dying.

The surge is "working" in Baghdad because the insurgents have taken their fight against one another and against US to places were there are NOT 28K more of us than there were.... AMERICANS are dying at the same rate as they were BEFORE THE SURGE STARTED.  And in the last six months - FROM YOUR OWN WEBSITE - our casualties are up almost 40% from the previous six months... but YOU would rather minimize the numbers of our dead and LIE about the number of OUR dead decreasing by 60% when that is clearly NOT the case... but you don't care for the truth as long as you have Bush jism dripping from your chin.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> Imourn every death of an American...and it infuriates me when koolaid drinking illiterate Bush toadies try to minimize the extent of their sacrifice for cheap political gain.
> 
> YOU were the one who posted this website:
> 
> http://icasualties.org/oif/
> 
> SHOW ME from that website where we have had 60&#37; less casualties in Iraq because of the SURGE.
> 
> Show me!
> 
> Just because fewer Americans are dying on one side of the street does not mean that fewer Americans are dying.
> 
> The surge is "working" in Baghdad because the insurgents have taken their fight against one another and against US to places were there are NOT 28K more of us than there were.... AMERICANS are dying at the same rate as they were BEFORE THE SURGE STARTED.  And in the last six months - FROM YOUR OWN WEBSITE - our casualties are up almost 40% from the previous six months... but YOU would rather minimize the numbers of our dead and LIE about the number of OUR dead decreasing by 60% when that is clearly NOT the case... but you don't care for the truth as long as you have Bush jism dripping from your chin.




Like Dickie Gepheart said smiling "every 100 point drop in the Dow is another House seas for Democrats"

To libs, every dead body of a US soldier is another political point for the Dems.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Like Dickie Gepheart said smiling "every 100 point drop in the Dow is another House seas for Democrats"
> 
> To libs, every dead body of a US soldier is another political point for the Dems.



will you EVER show us why you posted the website showing DoD casualty figures when the page clearly shows that YOU are LYING when you say the surge has brought American casualties down by 60&#37;?

http://icasualties.org/oif/

show me.

go to YOUR website...cut and paste the numbers from YOUR website that show a 60% decrease.

I'll wait.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> will you EVER show us why you posted the website showing DoD casualty figures when the page clearly shows that YOU are LYING when you say the surge has brought American casualties down by 60%?
> 
> http://icasualties.org/oif/
> 
> show me.
> 
> go to YOUR website...cut and paste the numbers from YOUR website that show a 60% decrease.
> 
> I'll wait.



Not that you care..................


KUN0014 4 GEN 0266 KUWAIT /KUNA-QVN0 MIL-IRAQ-US SOLDIERS Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers BAGHDAD, March 14 (KUNA) -- The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre. Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13; the rate was on the decline during the first month of the security crackdown, compared to a month before. Two of the 17 soldiers died at US Baghdad camps of non-combat causes. The remarkable decrease in killings among the US troops came at a time when more of these troops were deployed in the Iraqi capital, especially in districts previously regarded as extremely hazardous for them such as Al-Sadr City, Al-Azamiyah, and Al-Doura. Meanwhile, US attacks on insurgent strongholds north of Baghdad curbed attacks against helicopters. Before the new security plan, many such craft were downed leaving 20 soldiers dead. The US army in Iraq had earlier said that sectarian fighting and violence in Baghdad had dropped sharply, by about 80 percent, since the launch of the plan. The statistics excluded US troops killed in other governorates such as Al-Anbar, Diyala, and Salahiddin. As to the latest human losses, the US army announced Wednesday that two American soldiers had been killed, one in southern Baghdad and the other northeast of the capital.(end) ahh.msa KUNA 141130 Mar 07NNNN


----------



## maineman

do you understand that that press release was talking about Baghdad?

Do you realize that, throughout the rest of Iraq, things are worse...such that we still are losing as many men throughout the country even with a decrease in one city?

Did you even bother to LOOK at the website that YOU posted?

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Go look at it.  Go look at the monthly dead....
March 81
February 80
January 83
December 112
November 70
October 106

the previous six months before that:

September 72
August 65
July 43
June 61
May 69
April 76


SHOW ME WHERE THIS WORKING SURGE IS REFLECTED  IN OUR CASUALTY FIGURES!


----------



## red states rule

It is the same post since this morning MM

Please take your blood pressure meds - you are on the verge of a stroke

I never knew such good news about US casualities would put a lib over the deep end like this.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> It is the same post since this morning MM
> 
> Please take your blood pressure meds - you are on the verge of a stroke
> 
> I never knew such good news about US casualities would put a lib over the deep end like this.



it is the same post...and it deals with Baghdad and Baghdad alone.  Do you understand that the casualty figures that YOU provided prove you are a liar?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> it is the same post...and it deals with Baghdad and Baghdad alone.  Do you understand that the casualty figures that YOU provided prove you are a liar?



The surge is IN Baghdad you twit - and the people in Baghdad are happy to see the troops there.

Not that any good news or support form the people mean anything to you


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The surge is IN Baghdad you twit - and the people in Baghdad are happy to see the troops there.
> 
> Not that any good news or support form the people mean anything to you



I realize the surge is in Baghdad...and I realize that when we pumped 28K more troops into Baghdad, the insurgents took their fight to other areas of Iraq where we were not reinforced... our death rate is unchanged.

Just because the insurgents have left baghdad while our surge is there does not mean that the violence throughout the country is lessening any.  We do not have the assets to be everywhere we need to be and the bad guys will just keep moving to where we are not... 

you are the twit and your understanding of the middle east and the military is laughable.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I realize the surge is in Baghdad...and I realize that when we pumped 28K more troops into Baghdad, the insurgents took their fight to other areas of Iraq where we were not reinforced... our death rate is unchanged.
> 
> Just because the insurgents have left baghdad while our surge is there does not mean that the violence throughout the country is lessening any.  We do not have the assets to be everywhere we need to be and the bad guys will just keep moving to where we are not...
> 
> you are the twit and your understanding of the middle east and the military is laughable.



It looks like you will have to put your party and dancing over the bodies of the troops for a little while longer MM

The troops are doing their job by killing terrorists and you are doing your job by wanting to have them come home losers and scoring political points for your treasonous party


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> It looks like you will have to put your party and dancing over the bodies of the troops for a little while longer MM
> 
> The troops are doing their job by killing terrorists and you are doing your job by wanting to have them come home losers and scoring political points for your treasonous party




why won't you show me on YOUR website 

http://icasualties.org/oif/

where we have had a 60% decrease in casualties


----------



## maineman

are you ever gonna show me on your website the 60% decrease?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> are you ever gonna show me on your website the 60% decrease?



You claim to be so damn smart - find it


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> You claim to be so damn smart - find it




it was YOUR website.

I showed you the casualty figures from YOUR website that show that we have had a 37% INCREASE in our casualties over the last six months over the previous six months.  I showed you the casualty figures from YOUR website that show we have not seen a decrease at all since the surge began.

Do you admit that YOUR website shows exactly that?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> it was YOUR website.
> 
> I showed you the casualty figures from YOUR website that show that we have had a 37% INCREASE in our casualties over the last six months over the previous six months.  I showed you the casualty figures from YOUR website that show we have not seen a decrease at all since the surge began.
> 
> Do you admit that YOUR website shows exactly that?



So does that mean your party is back on?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> So does that mean your party is back on?



As I said...I mourn every American death in Iraq.  Will YOU admit that this bullshit about our seeing a 60% decrease in casualties is a lie?  Will you admit that I am right?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> As I said...I mourn every American death in Iraq.  Will YOU admit that this bullshit about our seeing a 60% decrease in casualties is a lie?  Will you admit that I am right?



Sorry to burst your bubble but the surge is working and libs like you are in mourning over the progress - nothing else


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble but the surge is working and libs like you are in mourning over the progress - nothing else



why have we lost the same number of troops since the surge?

why won't you address my point about the insurgents merely moving to a place where we are not in force?


----------



## maineman

YOU were the one who posted this website

http://icasualties.org/oif/

and claimed it proved your contention that we had seen a 60% decrease.

I am still waiting for you to show me.


----------



## red states rule

Take your remedial reading course then reread my post that clearly shows the 60% decrease


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> why have we lost the same number of troops since the surge?
> 
> why won't you address my point about the insurgents merely moving to a place where we are not in force?



The liberal media is scared the surge is working...............


Bush success vs. al Qaeda breeds long-term worries

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's administration has crippled al Qaeda's ability to carry out major attacks on U.S. soil but at a political and economic cost that could leave the country more vulnerable in years to come, experts say.

Even as al Qaeda tries to rebuild operations in Pakistan, experts including current and former intelligence officials believe the group would have a hard time staging another September 11 because of U.S. success at killing or capturing senior members whose skills and experience have not been replaced.

"If the question is why al Qaeda hasn't carried out another 9/11 attack, the answer I think is that if they could have, they would have," said a former senior U.S. intelligence official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Tighter U.S. airport security, greater scrutiny of people entering the United States and better coordination between the CIA, FBI and Department of Homeland Security also have made it harder for extremists to enter the country, experts said.

Home-grown extremists in the United States are believed to be isolated and lacking the will or ability to carry out large-scale operations.

"Make no mistake about it, however, our enemy is resilient and determined to strike us again," said Charles Allen, chief intelligence officer at the Department of Homeland Security.

Some experts warn that the successes of Bush's war on terrorism have been undercut by huge security costs, strains on the U.S. military from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and resentment of the United States abroad. 

"Look at al Qaeda's plans," said Michael Scheuer, who once led the CIA team devoted to finding al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. "They're very simply defined in two phrases: spread out America's forces and bleed the United States to bankruptcy. I'd argue America has been under attack successfully every day since 9/11 from that perspective.

"If you're looking at it from the cave, or wherever al Qaeda is hiding at the moment, you have to be pretty happy with the way the world is moving," he said.

ATTACKS WANE

The Iraq war has been described by U.S. intelligence as both a cause celebre for new al Qaeda recruits and a militant training ground in explosives and urban guerrilla tactics.

"There may be individuals they've been able to recruit in Iraq who might have the credentials and capabilities to deploy elsewhere, even though the core al Qaeda has been damaged," said John Brennan, former acting director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

U.S. intelligence believes that bin Laden and his second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri, driven from Afghanistan when U.S.-led forces ended Taliban rule there in 2001, are now trying to reestablish operations in remote, semi-autonomous tribal areas in Pakistan.

But experts view recent attacks in Europe such as the July 2005 London transport bombings as evidence that al Qaeda-linked groups, while dangerous, lack the advanced skills and organization of militant groups like Hezbollah.

"What al Qaeda's left with is a bunch of Sunni radicals in various capitals who get their orders and technology on the Internet. But their contact with home base is not very strong and they're not very disciplined," said former CIA official Robert Baer

Islamist groups have killed about 1,600 people in 53 attacks overseas since 2001, according to IntelCenter, an Alexandria, Virginia-based intelligence contractor.

The number and lethality of the attacks have fallen off since 2004. Last year, there were five attacks and 28 deaths, according to IntelCenter statistics, which do not include attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan or other war zones.

But IntelCenter chief executive Ben Venzke said the chance of an al Qaeda attack on U.S. soil has grown based on the militant network's increasing references to the American homeland in public messages.

"Our leading thinking is that we are closer now to an attempt at a major attack in the United States than at any point since 9/11," Venzke said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsO...3?pageNumber=1


----------



## actsnoblemartin

this is not helpful to the discussion...

You, and other supporters of the right-wing in America, have long since run out of intellectual ammunition. Poor boy...Your little brain must be working overtime to try and find something, anything, to disprove or gloss over the facts on the ground in Iraq and the corruption of the Administration which is now coming to light. Failing that, we have the result of posts such as what I've quoted above.


----------



## red states rule

actsnoblemartin said:


> this is not helpful to the discussion...
> 
> You, and other supporters of the right-wing in America, have long since run out of intellectual ammunition. Poor boy...Your little brain must be working overtime to try and find something, anything, to disprove or gloss over the facts on the ground in Iraq and the corruption of the Administration which is now coming to light. Failing that, we have the result of posts such as what I've quoted above.



This is how libs end the war on terror - by removing the word terror from all documents

What is wrong with posting what libs actually do?


----------



## actsnoblemartin

this is a good point.

You remember the ones Poppy Bush told to revolt against Saddam's rule and then left them swinging in the breeze. 

I am not a bush bot, I criticize my party, and bush , when he does wrong, and praise him when he does bad, and im learning to praise democrats when they do good, and criticize when they do bad, my questions to the liberals on this board is, have you ever praised bush or a conservative for any good they have done, or are you stuck in republican/bush evil, liberals/democrats saints like i was, but the opposite way a while ago?


----------



## red states rule

actsnoblemartin said:


> this is a good point.
> 
> You remember the ones Poppy Bush told to revolt against Saddam's rule and then left them swinging in the breeze.
> 
> I am not a bush bot, I criticize my party, and bush , when he does wrong, and praise him when he does bad, and im learning to praise democrats when they do good, and criticize when they do bad, my questions to the liberals on this board is, have you ever praised bush or a conservative for any good they have done, or are you stuck in republican/bush evil, liberals/democrats saints like i was, but the opposite way a while ago?



I have posted many times when Pres Bush was wrong. He is wrong on not securing the boarders, not vetoing the pork rich spending bills, and going along with the myth of global warming


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Maineman and red states rule, Please calm down. I know we're in a fierce debate, but please calm down.

Thank You


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Maineman. You're behavior is inappropriate. Calling red states a pussy, and using other vulgar words. And, you seem like you would rather be right, for the sake of more american men dying, then wrong for the sake of less american men dying.

To be fair, red states, I do think you should talk more in your own words.

And damit, too both of you, this is not about proving the other one wrong, so if both of you could tone it down a bit with the insults.

Liberals are not evil, conservatives are not evil.

Thank You.

anyone else want to chime in on this?


----------



## red states rule

actsnoblemartin said:


> Maineman. You're behavior is inappropriate. Calling red states a pussy, and using other vulgar words. And, you seem like you would rather be right, for the sake of more american men dying, then wrong for the sake of less american men dying.
> 
> To be fair, red states, I do think you should talk more in your own words.
> 
> And damit, too both of you, this is not about proving the other one wrong, so if both of you could tone it down a bit with the insults.
> 
> Liberals are not evil, conservatives are not evil.
> 
> Thank You.
> 
> anyone else want to chime in on this?



I do believe most liberals actually want the US to lose the war in the US. Everyday the liberal media goes out of its way to undermine the war, the troops, and Pres Bush

Liberals have a long history of not wanting to confront evil. Elected Dems have a history of insulting and smearing the troops

I never said they were evil - but they are only interested in gaining more political power - and our enemies are wishing them luck


----------



## actsnoblemartin

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=is+the+surge+working&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...oop+surge+working&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&x=wrt

http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...n+baghdad+working&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&x=wrt

You know, red state, and maine, you both can be right and you both can be wrong. Let me explain.

You both can have good points, and you both can be full of crap. The truth is not owned by one individual person or party, and i ask that you both be a bit more civil, and try to acknowledge each others views and intellegence, nobody said you have to holds hands and sing kumbaya or agree, but dont be so mean to each other.


----------



## red states rule

actsnoblemartin said:


> http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=is+the+surge+working&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8
> 
> http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...oop+surge+working&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&x=wrt
> 
> http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt...n+baghdad+working&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&x=wrt
> 
> You know, red state, and maine, you both can be right and you both can be wrong. Let me explain.
> 
> You both can have good points, and you both can be full of crap. The truth is not owned by one individual person or party, and i ask that you both be a bit more civil, and try to acknowledge each others views and intellegence, nobody said you have to holds hands and sing kumbaya or agree, but dont be so mean to each other.



Please explain to me how the Dems "Surrender At All Costs" bill will make Amercia safer?

How will pulling the troops out of Iraq make the US safer?

How will handing over the country of Iraq to terrorists, with the oil revenues to finance their terrorist operations, will make America safer?

How will tring to talk with people whose only goal is to kill Americans, make Amercia safer?


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Now this is absolutely perfect. 

Please explain to me how the Dems "Surrender At All Costs" bill will make Amercia safer?

(The dems bill is an absolute disgrace and every democrat and republican who vote for it, should be embarassed because this the big is a big fat porky pig, and a a disgrace!)

How will pulling the troops out of Iraq make the US safer?

(It wont but it will oppose the left wing democrats), (which runs the democratic party, and which is the base of the democratic party)

How will handing over the country of Iraq to terrorists, with the oil revenues to finance their terrorist operations, will make America safer?

(It wont, but most liberals, dont understand that, some do, but they dont run, or in my opinion even make up the majority of liberals in america, or in the democratic party in washington or the u.s.a.)

How will tring to talk with people whose only goal is to kill Americans, make Amercia safer?

It wont, all it will do, is confirm what we already know, the radical islamist terrorist want to kill americans and conquer the west, including europe, with uncontrolled immigration.

So much for maine's challenge. You just kicked his butt , with 4 sentences of common sentence which sadly, LIBERAL-democrats lack in my judgment.
__________________
Vote Democrat - It Is Easier Than Working


----------



## red states rule

actsnoblemartin said:


> Now this is absolutely perfect.
> 
> Please explain to me how the Dems "Surrender At All Costs" bill will make Amercia safer?
> 
> How will pulling the troops out of Iraq make the US safer?
> 
> How will handing over the country of Iraq to terrorists, with the oil revenues to finance their terrorist operations, will make America safer?
> 
> How will tring to talk with people whose only goal is to kill Americans, make Amercia safer?
> __________________
> Vote Democrat - It Is Easier Than Working





are you asking me a question or do you agree with me?


----------



## actsnoblemartin

oh sorry, i made a correction, to try and explain.

I am not asking you a question. I am agreeing with you. 
infact, not only agreeing with you, but agreeing with you wholeheartedly


----------



## red states rule

actsnoblemartin said:


> oh sorry, i made a correction, to try and explain.
> 
> I am not asking you a question. I am agreeing with you.
> infact, not only agreeing with you, but agreeing with you wholeheartedly



No, I did not see your correction. I stand corrected


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Take your remedial reading course then reread my post that clearly shows the 60% decrease



three simple yes or no questions for you:


do you understand that the 60% decrease is for the Baghdad area alone?

yes or no

Do you understand that the insurgents merely figured out where we were sending our 28K additional troops and moved their offensive operations to places outside of Baghdad where our reinforcements were NOT?

yes or no

Do you understand that the death toll for Americans in Iraq - as per the website that you posted - has not diminished AT ALL?

yes or no


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> three simple yes or no questions for you:
> 
> 
> do you understand that the 60% decrease is for the Baghdad area alone?
> 
> yes or no
> 
> Do you understand that the insurgents merely figured out where we were sending our 28K additional troops and moved their offensive operations to places outside of Baghdad where our reinforcements were NOT?
> 
> yes or no
> 
> Do you understand that the death toll for Americans in Iraq - as per the website that you posted - has not diminished AT ALL?
> 
> yes or no




I understand you are a loyal liberal and you are a symbol of your party - a jackass


----------



## Annie

maineman said:


> three simple yes or no questions for you:
> 
> 
> 
> do you understand that the 60&#37; decrease is for the Baghdad area alone?
> 
> yes or no So now you are implying that the 60% figure is correct?
> 
> Do you understand that the insurgents merely figured out where we were sending our 28K additional troops and moved their offensive operations to places outside of Baghdad where our reinforcements were NOT? Are you saying that you think that the US military is not able to react, but the insurgents are?
> 
> yes or no
> 
> Do you understand that the death toll for Americans in Iraq - as per the website that you posted - has not diminished AT ALL?are you saying this is the only measure of success? Considering you said you 'hoped' if would work?
> 
> yes or no



no yes or no, just questions.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Please explain to me how the Dems "Surrender At All Costs" bill will make Amercia safer?
> 
> How will pulling the troops out of Iraq make the US safer?
> 
> How will handing over the country of Iraq to terrorists, with the oil revenues to finance their terrorist operations, will make America safer?
> 
> How will tring to talk with people whose only goal is to kill Americans, make Amercia safer?




1.  Asked and answered...often
2.  Asked and answered...often
3.  No one is suggesting that we hand Iraq over to terrorists.  For YOU to think that the shiite majority in Iraq will allow foreign SUNNI Al Qaeda terrorists to control IRAQI oil revenue is patently ridiculous
4.  I do not suggest that anyone try to talk to AQ.... I do think that talking to islamic regimes who do have other goals than simply our death, is a wise thing to do.  I firmly believe that if we really want to somehow get arabs and muslims to stop killing us and the ONLY method we ever intend to use is to kill arabs and muslims, we need to be prepared to kill them ALL.  We have to employ talking with the more reasonable elements in the Islamic world to prevent having to take such a draconian step.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> 1.  Asked and answered...often
> 2.  Asked and answered...often
> 3.  No one is suggesting that we hand Iraq over to terrorists.  For YOU to think that the shiite majority in Iraq will allow foreign SUNNI Al Qaeda terrorists to control IRAQI oil revenue is patently ridiculous
> 4.  I do not suggest that anyone try to talk to AQ.... I do think that talking to islamic regimes who do have other goals than simply our death, is a wise thing to do.  I firmly believe that if we really want to somehow get arabs and muslims to stop killing us and the ONLY method we ever intend to use is to kill arabs and muslims, we need to be prepared to kill them ALL.  We have to employ talking with the more reasonable elements in the Islamic world to prevent having to take such a draconian step.



In other words try the Clinton approach and treat terrorism as a criminal act and not an act of war

If we be nice to terrorists they will lay down the guns and bombs and become model citizens


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> In other words try the Clinton approach and treat terrorism as a criminal act and not an act of war
> 
> If we be nice to terrorists they will lay down the guns and bombs and become model citizens


no... you are not smart enough to try to put MY words into "other words" when you are incapable of putting your OWN words into words.  

Answer my questions:


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no... you are not smart enough to try to put MY words into "other words" when you are incapable of putting your OWN words into words.
> 
> Answer my questions:



Translation - never speak the truth about me and my liberalism


----------



## maineman

So now you are implying that the 60% figure is correct?

*not at all.  I am saying that the Baghdad area may have seen a 60% decrease but that was counterbalanced by more deaths in other areas of Iraq so that the overall American death toll was nearly unchanged.  No 60% decrease*

Are you saying that you think that the US military is not able to react, but the insurgents are?

*I am sure that we are ABLE to react, but not as rapidly as they are...and we certainly have shown that to be the case in the last month where we have suffered as many casualties, when Iraqis outside of Baghdad have suffered more casualties, yet the 26K troops remain in Baghdad.*

are you saying this is the only measure of success? Considering you said you 'hoped' if would work?

*no.  I merely am pointing out that when RSR touts a 60% decrease in American casualties as a measure of success, that it is bullshit*


----------



## T-Bor

Translation - Im too fucking stupid to answer the questions so I will just bash you.




red states rule said:


> Translation - never speak the truth about me and my liberalism


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Translation - never speak the truth about me and my liberalism



no...translation:  I am sick and fucking tired of you tapdancing... YOU were the guy who posted this website:

http://icasualties.org/oif/

and YOU touted it as proof that we had seen a 60% reduction in casualties in Iraq.... I called you on it and you have been running away like a scared fucking girlieman ever since.  Do you HAVE a set of balls or not?  Can you stand up and admit that you misspoke or not?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> So now you are implying that the 60% figure is correct?
> 
> *not at all.  I am saying that the Baghdad area may have seen a 60% decrease but that was counterbalanced by more deaths in other areas of Iraq so that the overall American death toll was nearly unchanged.  No 60% decrease*
> 
> Are you saying that you think that the US military is not able to react, but the insurgents are?
> 
> *I am sure that we are ABLE to react, but not as rapidly as they are...and we certainly have shown that to be the case in the last month where we have suffered as many casualties, when Iraqis outside of Baghdad have suffered more casualties, yet the 26K troops remain in Baghdad.*
> 
> are you saying this is the only measure of success? Considering you said you 'hoped' if would work?
> 
> *no.  I merely am pointing out that when RSR touts a 60% decrease in American casualties as a measure of success, that it is bullshit*




What MM really means is that while, damnit, the casualities are down in Baghdad, deaths are up in other regions - so we need to get the hell out of there before the military starts to make progress

The only way to react is with kind words and suggestions to the terrorists to listen to what Dems have to say. Dems are for the US losing this war and if they let us handle things, we will give Iraq to them on a silver platter. Then we can work on the really important things like impeaching Bush 

And please stop pointing out the 60% decrease in American casualities- it depresses the hell out of liberals


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> What MM really means is that while, damnit, the casualities are down in Baghdad, deaths are up in other regions - so we need to get the hell out of there before the military starts to make progress
> 
> The only way to react is with kind words and suggestions to the terrorists to listen to what Dems have to say. Dems are for the US losing this war and if they let us handle things, we will give Iraq to them on a silver platter. Then we can work on the really important things like impeaching Bush
> 
> And please stop pointing out the 60% decrease in American casualities- it depresses the hell out of liberals



again...for someone who has proven incapable of putting his OWN thoughts into words, I would suggest you work on that angle before you start trying to paraphrase mine.  The casualties are down in Baghdad because the insurgents realize that we sent 26K more troops into the city.  They moved out of town.  Unfortunately, the 26K did not follow them, nor can we follow them everywhere because we do not have the size of force on the ground necessary to do that...we do not have that many troops AVAILABLE to do that mission.

I have never suggested that we use kind words for terrorists.

I say again that your suggestion that Al Qaeda - a bunch of sunnis from outside Iraq - is somehow going to waltz in and take control of Iraq away from the shia majority is ridiculous.  When you parrot that Rush talking point, you merely highlight how little either of you understands about Islam or the middle east.

I was mediating crises between UNIFIL troops and terrorist groups of all different stripes when you were shitting in your diapers.  I have forgotten more about the middle east and the intracacies of Islam than you have ever known.


----------



## red states rule

I am pointing out your defeatest attitude, your support of the Dems and their "Surrender At All Costs" bill, your dismay over the progress being made in Iraq, and how you dismiss the support of the people of Iarq when they say the troops are making a positive impact in their towns


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I am pointing out your defeatest attitude, your support of the Dems and their "Surrender At All Costs" bill, your dismay over the progress being made in Iraq, and how you dismiss the support of the people of Iarq when they say the troops are making a positive impact in their towns




I do not think that redeploying our troops to actually fight our enemies instead of remaining in the middle of a civil war that does not do anything to defeat the islamic extremists who attacke us is surrendering at all...i think it is wisely redepoying so we can win the war we should be fighting.  I am not dismayed at progress at all... I just do not claim major progress, where little exists, like YOU do.  ANd no doubt the folks in Baghdad are glad we are there... but the folks throughout the rest of Iraq are sucking hind tit....


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I do not think that redeploying our troops to actually fight our enemies instead of remaining in the middle of a civil war that does not do anything to defeat the islamic extremists who attacke us is surrendering at all...i think it is wisely redepoying so we can win the war we should be fighting.  I am not dismayed at progress at all... I just do not claim major progress, where little exists, like YOU do.  ANd no doubt the folks in Baghdad are glad we are there... but the folks throughout the rest of Iraq are sucking hind tit....



Yes, redeploy troops to where the real terrorists are

Like Okinawa, as Motor Mouth Murtha said on Meet the Press?


----------



## maineman

but it's all about PR anyway for you guys...McCain and his gang wearing flak jacketrs with 100 armed troops surrounding them and the sky filled with attack helicopters overhead walks through a Baghdad marketplace and he reports back that everything is totally normal...one of his butt buddies even compared it to a farmer's market back in America!  (except, of course, that no farmer's market in America has a hundred soldiers guarding it.. the sky filled with helicopters protecting it..and all the shoppers wearing body armor)...but hey, other than that, it might as well have been in Omaha!


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> but it's all about PR anyway for you guys...McCain and his gang wearing flak jacketrs with 100 armed troops surrounding them and the sky filled with attack helicopters overhead walks through a Baghdad marketplace and he reports back that everything is totally normal...one of his butt buddies even compared it to a farmer's market back in America!  (except, of course, that no farmer's market in America has a hundred soldiers guarding it.. the sky filled with helicopters protecting it..and all the shoppers wearing body armor)...but hey, other than that, it might as well have been in Omaha!



So lets pull the troops and let a terrorist blow the market up - after all the more dead bodies thier are the better it is for liberals


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Yes, redeploy troops to where the real terrorists are
> 
> Like Okinawa, as Motor Mouth Murtha said on Meet the Press?




no...like Paksitan...or Afghanistan.... 

and you are aware, are you not, that AQ has a major presence in the muslim countries of the far east.

and you are aware, are you not, that marine brigades can move from placed to place pretty instantaneously?  (well...being a chickenhawk who only knows about the military from watching TV, you probably don't know that!)


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no...like Paksitan...or Afghanistan....
> 
> and you are aware, are you not, that AQ has a major presence in the muslim countries of the far east.
> 
> and you are aware, are you not, that marine brigades can move from placed to place pretty instantaneously?  (well...being a chickenhawk who only knows about the military from watching TV, you probably don't know that!)



unless the NY Times or ABC report the redeployment days before


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> So lets pull the troops and let a terrorist blow the market up - after all the more dead bodies thier are the better it is for liberals



no...but let's not say that the market place is normal and that things are much better when such is clearly not the case.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no...but let's not say that the market place is normal and that things are much better when such is clearly not the case.



Libs prefer the dead bodies - it is a better photo op for the liberal media


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> unless the NY Times or ABC report the redeployment days before



what does that mean?  Are you suggesting that the media would prevent the rapid deployment of our forces?  what is your point, or do you even have one?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Libs prefer the dead bodies - it is a better photo op for the liberal media




try arguing your case and not just relying on tired old bullshit.

It was McCain who was getting the photo op, or did you forget that part?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> what does that mean?  Are you suggesting that the media would prevent the rapid deployment of our forces?  what is your point, or do you even have one?



They have published/broadcast classified material before - why should they stop now?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> They have published/broadcast classified material before - why should they stop now?




answer my question:  are you suggesting that the media would somehow PREVENT rapid deployment forces stationed in Okinawa or Diego Garcia or Germany from rapidly deploying to the area of operation?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> answer my question:  are you suggesting that the media would somehow PREVENT rapid deployment forces stationed in Okinawa or Diego Garcia or Germany from rapidly deploying to the area of operation?



Since the liberal media wants failure as much as the Dems - they would report the deployment in a heart beat


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Since the liberal media wants failure as much as the Dems - they would report the deployment in a heart beat



answer the question: would the media PREVENT rapid deployment forces stationed in Okinawa or Diego Garcia or Germany from rapidly deploying to the area of operation?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> answer the question: would the media PREVENT rapid deployment forces stationed in Okinawa or Diego Garcia or Germany from rapidly deploying to the area of operation?



Look stupid, if they reported it before the deployment they would be preventing it

Of course if they did not find out about it, they would slant the story as another feeble attemot by Pres Bush to win an unwinnable war


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Look stupid, if they reported it before the deployment they would be preventing it
> 
> Of course if they did not find out about it, they would slant the story as another feeble attemot by Pres Bush to win an unwinnable war



so if they reported it, the rapid deployment would all of a sudden STOP?

Please explain how that would work?  A battalion of Marines are ordered to fly from their base in Okinawa to the mountains of Pakistan.... the media reports on the intended movement, and magically, the airplanes scheduled to fly the marines to the area of operation...just won't fly for some reason..... they are prevented from deploying simply because the media reported that they were planning to move?  Have I got that right?  Is that your theory?

Is that using the same logic that holds that losing 81 troops in Iraq in March and 80 in February is a 60 % decrease?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> so if they reported it, the rapid deployment would all of a sudden STOP?
> 
> Please explain how that would work?  A battalion of Marines are ordered to fly from their base in Okinawa to the mountains of Pakistan.... the media reports on the intended movement, and magically, the airplanes scheduled to fly the marines to the area of operation...just won't fly for some reason..... they are prevented from deploying simply because the media reported that they were planning to move?  Have I got that right?  Is that your theory?
> 
> Is that using the same logic that holds that losing 81 troops in Iraq in March and 80 in February is a 60 &#37; decrease?



This tells me what a great military man you are - if the liberal media reports what the US is going to do - go ahead and stick with the plan anyway

Do your country a favor - go work forthe terrorists

Oh, you are already - sorry


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> This tells me what a great military man you are - if the liberal media reports what the US is going to do - go ahead and stick with the plan anyway
> 
> Do your country a favor - go work forthe terrorists
> 
> Oh, you are already - sorry



so...you are saying that if a situation were to crop up in...say.. Pakistan...if AQ and the Taliban were mounting a major offensive against the Musharref regime and he asked for our help, and we decided to send a marine force from - Okinawa - for example - and the media reported that the pentagon was getting ready to send marines from Okinawa to pakistan to help quell the AQ/taliban offensive...that, because the media reported it, we should just call it off and let the Taliban win its offensive against Musharref?  That the media reporting the planned deployment of troops would PREVENT us from deploying them?  Is that your position?

Your skill in military planning and operations is about as extensive as your english composition skills!


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> so...you are saying that if a situation were to crop up in...say.. Pakistan...if AQ and the Taliban were mounting a major offensive against the Musharref regime and he asked for our help, and we decided to send a marine force from - Okinawa - for example - and the media reported that the pentagon was getting ready to send marines from Okinawa to pakistan to help quell the AQ/taliban offensive...taht. because the media reported it, we should just call it off and let the Taliban win its offensive against Musharref?  That the media reporting the planned deployment of troops would PREVENT us from deploying them?  Is that your position?
> 
> Your skill in military planning and operations is about as extensive as your english composition skills!



The military would have to alter their plans - that takes time

If we had the same liberla media in WWII and the NY Times published the D Day plans would you go through with the invasion


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The military would have to alter their plans - that takes time
> 
> If we had the same liberla media in WWII and the NY Times published the D Day plans would you go through with the invasion




The military would STOP the deployment of a rapid deployment force to come to the aid of an ally because the deployment was reported in the media?

really?

Do you really think that you want to get into an argument about military planning and movements with me?


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Maineman, you are so pushy and combative. I dont even want to deal with you, and i might agree with you on some things, but you shut me out. As the evil conservative... hahaha. By the way, I sent red state a similar email, asking him to be nice, I was trying to be a peace maker. But anyone who disagrees with you is the enemy and must be destroyed.

To be honest, im not entirely happy with how red states is reacting to you, but you have a foul mouth, and your a jerk.


----------



## red states rule

actsnoblemartin said:


> Maineman, you are so pushy and combative. I dont even want to deal with you, and i might agree with you on some things, but you shut me out. As the evil conservative. You know, I sent red state a similar email, asking him to be nice, I was trying to be a peace maker. But anyone who disagrees with you is the enemy and must be destroyed.
> 
> To be honest, im not entirely happy with how red states is reacting to you, but you have a foul mouth, and your a jerk.



I would say you have a very accurate picture of MM


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Im sorry, but it is a bad idea for the media to report on deployments of our troops, does al queda not have people watching the news?.


----------



## maineman

hey marty..when have I ever asked you do DEAL with me?

go call the waaaaaambulance, but PUHLEEZE don't bore me with your whining.

If you did indeed sent RSR a similar PM, why aren't you on HIS case for failing to heed your pleas for civility?


----------



## actsnoblemartin

I have and will continue to get on him for it.


----------



## maineman

actsnoblemartin said:


> Im sorry, but it is a bad idea for the media to report on deployments of our troops, does al queda not have people watching the news?.




no one is saying that reporting troop movements in advance is a good thing.

RSR suggested that the media would "PREVENT" the rapid deployment of forces.  I told him he was full of shit.  He is.


----------



## maineman

actsnoblemartin said:


> I love how maineman assumes, just because i agree with you on most things, that we will never disagree, and if we disagree on even one thing, we must fight to death. With swords
> 
> we're like brothers in the conservatives cause, not boot lickers who cant disagree peacefully




I don't ASSUME anything.  You sent me a whiny PM and now claim to have sent RSR a similar PM... you then came on here and castigated me for not playing nice in the wake of your smarmy entreaty.... yet RSR has played no less nicely and you haven't castigated him.

It is what it is.


----------



## maineman

actsnoblemartin said:


> I have and will continue to get on him for it.



whatever.... talk is cheap.  I have seen you jump in my shit in public.  I haven't seen you say DICK to him


----------



## actsnoblemartin

I need you to stop being rude and mean to maineman. Please it is imperative, you stop. Be the bigger man, and dont engage in personal attacks.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

ask him how much i have said to him privately...


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Please, im begging you, please be civil. I know he can be annoying but please, I have to be fair, even if i agree with you most the time, i cant simply take your side, because of it. I have to call it as i see it. So please I beg you, as one friend to another, please be respectful of him.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

actsnoblemartin said:


> this is not helpful to the discussion...
> 
> You, and other supporters of the right-wing in America, have long since run out of intellectual ammunition. Poor boy...Your little brain must be working overtime to try and find something, anything, to disprove or gloss over the facts on the ground in Iraq and the corruption of the Administration which is now coming to light. Failing that, we have the result of posts such as what I've quoted above.



The left never had any intellectual ammunition. At least we can reload.

SPeaking of factless posts, re read yours.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

maineman said:


> 1.  Asked and answered...often
> 2.  Asked and answered...often
> .



Oh GEEEE, and when I was telling you the same thing a while back, you bitched and moaned and complained.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Im sorry but comments like these are not helpful.

Oh GEEEE, and when I was telling you the same thing a while back, you bitched and moaned and complained.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Maineman, Im asking everybody to be civil. 

Ironically, you telling me to go fuck myself, and then telling me how im a hypocrite for not asking red state to be nice, is very hypocritical of you.

Do me one favor, if your not gonna be nice, then atleast dont say vile things like that in a pm, say it in the open, so everybody can see   how rude, and mean you are to people who disagree with you.


----------



## red states rule

The Democrats' Surge on Iraq
By Daniel Henninger

Carried aloft on the gassy fumes of politics, the congressional Democrats may be overshooting on Iraq. Six months from now, they may wish they had been more temperate. Helped finally by the right U.S. military strategy, the Iraq nightmare might be ebbing. Then what?

No such thought intrudes today on Democratic politics. Buoyed by President Bush's 30-something approval and with disaffection over the war at 60%, Senate Majority Leader Reid can promise to sign on to Russ Feingold's pull-the-plug bill; and House Speaker Pelosi, as if making foie gras, can cram an Iraq-withdrawal bill down the gullets of her chamber's membership. The polls are with Harry and Nancy. What can go wrong?

 What could go wrong is that the U.S. military's "surge" could go right. The surge, led by Gen. David Petraeus and formally known as the Baghdad Security Plan, is a real strategy being executed by real people on the ground in Iraq. For the past several months, since President Bush announced the plan, the Democratic leadership has acted as if this effort were so irrelevant as to not exist. Why bother? The House leadership has its own "surge" up and running in Washington against the enemy in the White House.

The Democrats' D.C. surge began in February when Rep. John Murtha announced plans to shut off the war. What followed was a six-week push by the Pelosi team toward a March vote on a date-certain pullout. Across those weeks, this domestic offensive has been the big story in our politics. Add in as well the theater of operations opened by Democratic Lt. Gen. Chuck Schumer's siege of the Justice Department.

This is heady stuff, rolling a president off the field, so heady the Democrats may be allowing their compulsions to make them the one force thwarting a much longed-for military success in Iraq. This in turn could leave the Democratic Party on the wrong side of the most revered institution in American life--the U.S. military. That is, back where they were when Bill Clinton was president. The "we support the troops" mantra will ring hollow if the Democrats are pulling out Army and Marine personnel just as they're gaining on the killers of their comrades.

The timelines for the Iraq surge announced on Jan. 10 and the Democrats' surge to shut it down have run in tandem.

On Jan. 23 Gen. Petraeus offered the Senate Armed Services Committee an outline of the surge. By Feb. 8, U.S. paratroopers and engineers in Baghdad had quickly put together 10 Joint Security Stations, the new command centers to be operated with Iraq's security forces. (The material for the surge timeline here comes from the excellent "Iraq Report" compiled by Kimberly Kagan, director of the Institute for the Study of War and published biweekly on the Web site of the Weekly Standard.)

On Feb. 10, Gen. Petraeus arrived to take command of these forces in Baghdad. In the second week of February, U.S. troops conducted 20,000 patrols compared to 7,400 the week before.

On Feb. 16, the House of Representatives passed a resolution, 246-182, to oppose the mission. Nancy Pelosi: "The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success." That might not be true. It might indeed succeed.

Through February and into March, the U.S.-Iraqi forces moved into neighborhoods on the edge of Sadr City, stronghold of Shiite militias. "While the house-to-house operations continued," Ms. Kagan writes, "U.S. and Iraqi forces also interdicted the flow of fighters and supplies through those neighborhoods into Sadr City."

Meanwhile, House Democrats worked on a bill to force the withdrawal of U.S. troops by fall 2008.

On March 4, 600 U.S. and 550 Iraqi forces commenced house-to-house searches in Sadr City's Jamil neighborhood. Also in early March, with little fanfare, U.S. and Iraqi forces arrested 16 individuals connected with the Jaysh al-Mahdi cell, suspected of sectarian kidnappings and killings.

On March 23, the House voted 218-212 to remove these U.S. forces by August's end, 2008.

It's not quite three months since the surge began in Iraq, and some early assessments of the operation have emerged. They are positive. Keep in mind that this strategy emerged from military reassessment over the past year, led largely by Gen. Petraeus; this isn't a pick-up team.

Testifying last Wednesday to a House Armed Services subcommittee, military historian Fred Kagan, who has criticized administration policies, noted that the Iraqi army is "now larger than the standing armies of France and Great Britain." The nine Iraqi army battalions called for in the surge have arrived, at over 90% of programmed strength. "They are taking casualties, inflicting casualties on the enemy and helping to maintain and establish peace for the people of Baghdad," said Mr. Kagan.

A report filed last week by retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey gets the political-military dynamic just right. He notes that we are "in a position of strategic peril there. But he then describes in detail how since early February the situation on the ground has "measurably improved." Thus the conclusion: "We now need a last powerful effort to provide to U.S. leaders on the ground the political support . . . and military strength it requires to succeed."

Gen. Petraeus himself in recent interviews has been careful not to oversell this early success. But it is difficult to imagine that the American public would want to hang its military with a failure if a better outcome is in reach. Failed wars exact a price. During Vietnam, between 1966 and 1973 support for the U.S. military dropped from 62% to 32%. We're not there, yet. From 2002 till now polls have found a combined favorable view toward the military of around 85%. But withdrawing these American troops on the cusp of a reasonable success could do long-term damage.

No one can simply assume that we would avoid a decline in faith in the army as an effective American institution deserving financial support, as happened with the post-Vietnam defense cuts. As bad, it could force a failed military class--officers to grunts--to rebuild, again, the ethos and esprit necessary to defend us from the next threat. That takes time. We don't have time.

If the Iraq surge is succeeding, the Democrats' surge should stand down. If a year from now the Petraeus plan is foundering, the Democrats will have plenty of time to hang it around the GOP's neck by demanding a legitimate withdrawal date--November 2008. But not now. 

Daniel Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/will_dems_thwart_success_in_ir.html


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I don't ASSUME anything.  You sent me a whiny PM and now claim to have sent RSR a similar PM... you then came on here and castigated me for not playing nice in the wake of your smarmy entreaty.... yet RSR has played no less nicely and you haven't castigated him.
> 
> It is what it is.



This is about as nice as MM can be

Now, another example of how the liberal media looks at terrorists


CBS: American Taliban 'Victim of Timing' in 'Harsh Atmosphere'
Posted by Brad Wilmouth on April 5, 2007 - 00:27. 
Wednesday's CBS Evening News, anchored by Russ Mitchell, provided a sympathetic look at efforts to win an early release for John Walker Lindh, the American citizen who was convicted of giving aid to the Taliban during the war in Afghanistan. Mitchell and correspondent John Blackstone, who only displayed soundbites sympathetic to Lindh, relayed the argument of Lindh's parents that his 20-year sentence was "not fair considering Australian David Hicks was sentenced to just nine months for his terror conviction," without considering whether Hicks' sentence was too light. CBS legal analyst Andrew Cohen further contended that because Lindh was tried relatively soon after the 9/11 attacks, that he was a "victim of timing" in a "harsh atmosphere." Andrew Cohen: "He was the first person to go through the legal system after 9/11 in federal court, and the atmosphere at that time was so intense and harsh that he is essentially a victim of timing." (Transcript follows)

Mitchell brought up Hicks' nine-month sentence as he introduced the story: "The family of the American Taliban appealed to President Bush today to set him free. John Walker Lindh, who is 26 years old, is serving 20 years in prison. His family says that's not fair considering Australian David Hicks was sentenced to just nine months for his terror conviction."

Blackstone's report showed clips of both Lindh's parents making their case, including soundbites of his father Frank Lindh contending that his son "is not anti-American" and does not have "sympathy" for terrorism. After recounting the story of CIA agent Mike Spann, who was killed in a prison uprising by Taliban prisoners soon after interrogating Lindh, after which an "angry nation [America] saw Spann and Lindh as opposites," Blackstone played a clip of Frank Lindh complaining that his son was treated unfairly. Frank Lindh: "The good American and the bad American. It was completely unfair. John was wounded and nearly killed in the same uprising where Mike Spann was killed."

CBS News legal analyst Cohen soon labeled John Walker Lindh a "victim." Cohen: "He was the first person to go through the legal system after 9/11 in federal court, and the atmosphere at that time was so intense and harsh that he is essentially a victim of timing."

Blackstone concluded the piece by relaying the complaint that Lindh's sentence was much harsher than that of Australian David Hicks: "Lindh's parents point to Australian David Hicks, who will be allowed to leave Guantanamo, though he pleaded guilty to aiding al-Qaeda. Still, the Lindh family knows it's a long shot that their son will be freed before finishing his 20-year sentence in America's highest security prison."

Below is a complete transcript of the story from the Wednesday April 4 CBS Evening News:

Russ Mitchell: "The family of the American Taliban appealed to President Bush today to set him free. John Walker Lindh, who is 26 years old, is serving 20 years in prison. His family says that's not fair considering Australian David Hicks was sentenced to just nine months for his terror conviction. John Blackstone spoke exclusively today with Lindh's parents."

John Blackstone: "When he was captured in Afghanistan in November, 2001, John Walker Lindh, who converted to Islam, was labeled a traitor."

George W. Bush, dated September 28, 2001: "He's working with the enemy, and we'll see how the courts deal with that."

Blackstone: "Now, Frank Lindh and Marilyn Walker are asking the President to commute their son's 20-year sentence."

Marilyn Walker, Mother of John Walker Lindh: "I believe that, you know, that everyone has a capacity for the compassion."

Blackstone: "After years of staying largely silent about their son, Lindh and Walker spoke exclusively to CBS News."

Frank Lindh, Father of John Walker Lindh: "We know that he's not anti-American. We know he doesn't have any sympathy for terrorism. And yet here he stood accused of these things in the public eye."

Blackstone: "When Lindh was captured, he was videotaped being interrogated by CIA officer Mike Spann. Soon after, span was killed in an uprising, and an angry nation saw Spann and Lindh as opposites."

Frank Lindh: "The good American and the bad American. It was completely unfair. John was wounded and nearly killed in the same uprising where Mike Spann was killed."

Blackstone: "Walker hadn't seen her son in two years when she saw photos of him bound to a stretcher."

Marilyn Walker: "You could see the terror in his eyes. I mean, I've looked at those photographs over and over again, and there's terror in his eyes."

Blackstone: "Even though Lindh never took part in terrorism or fought against America, there were calls for him to get the death penalty."

Andrew Cohen, CBS News Legal Analyst: "He was the first person to go through the legal system after 9/11 in federal court, and the atmosphere at that time was so intense and harsh that he is essentially a victim of timing."

Blackstone: "Lindh took a plea bargain, a 20-year sentence not for terrorism, but for supplying services to the Taliban. Lindh's parents point to Australian David Hicks, who will be allowed to leave Guantanamo, though he pleaded guilty to aiding al-Qaeda. Still, the Lindh family knows it's a long shot that their son will be freed before finishing his 20-year sentence in America's highest security prison. John Blackstone, CBS News, San Francisco."

http://newsbusters.org/node/11832


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> but it's all about PR anyway for you guys...McCain and his gang wearing flak jacketrs with 100 armed troops surrounding them and the sky filled with attack helicopters overhead walks through a Baghdad marketplace and he reports back that everything is totally normal...one of his butt buddies even compared it to a farmer's market back in America!  (except, of course, that no farmer's market in America has a hundred soldiers guarding it.. the sky filled with helicopters protecting it..and all the shoppers wearing body armor)...but hey, other than that, it might as well have been in Omaha!



Does MM work for CBS?

'Early Show' Implies McCain has Skewed Sense of Reality on Iraq
Posted by Justin McCarthy on April 4, 2007 - 16:14. 
The April 4 edition of CBSs "The Early Show" covered Republican Senator and presidential candidate John McCains visit to Iraq implying he has a skewed sense of reality. Anchor Russ Mitchell introduced the segment that the Arizona Senator "seems to be stumbling a bit of late" because he "went to Iraq" and "said he saw some progress." 

Before playing McCains optimistic sound bite, correspondent Martin Seemungal reported that McCain had been in Baghdad for "just a few hours." After playing another positive word from Congressman Mike Pence (R-Ind), Seemungal responded that "the reality on the ground is anything but peaceful" and some residents claimed "it took a massive military operation to give the congressmen that sense of security." 

After implying McCain sees the situation in Iraq in a warped fashion, perhaps Seemungal missed the report that violence has dropped significantly since President Bush announced the surge, which ABC even picked up. Additionally, the soldiers themselves claim that the media does not tell the whole story. The entire transcript is below.

RUSS MITCHELL: The campaign of presidential hopeful John McCain seems to be stumbling a bit of late. The Senator went to Iraq over the weekend and said he saw progress, starting with being able to move around on foot in Baghdad, but some Iraqis have a different take on McCain's visit. CBS' Martin Seemungal has more.

MARTIN SEEMUNGAL: After just a few hours in Baghdad, Republican Senator John McCain was eager to share his first impressions.

SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ): Things are getting better in Iraq and I am pleased at the progress that has been made. 

SEEMUNGAL: Leading a congressional delegation to Baghdad's oldest market over the weekend, Senator McCain crowed about the safety of the city since the American troop surge.

MCCAIN: Never have I been able to go out into the city as I was today. 

SEEMUNGAL: Representative Mike Pence said Baghdad central souq was

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE PENCE (R-IN): like a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime. 

SEEMUNGAL: If you look at it from this side of the river it actually does look pretty serene. But the reality on the ground is anything but peaceful. People live in constant fear of suicide bombers and snipers. Across the river, shopkeepers say that it took a massive military operation to give the congressmen that sense of security. "McCain was not alone when he came here and walked around," he says. "The military had sealed off the area for a mile in every direction." Although soldiers are gone now, the market is back to normal. But business is slow. People are afraid to come back to the market that's been attacked so many times. "McCain came with a whole army" Ayad Hassan said. "They asked a few questions and left, but we're no safer." For safety to stick, there is only one real solution. Those soldiers would have to spend more than just a few hours on this street. Martin Seemungal, for CBS News, Baghdad.

Update: ABC video on improved Iraqi situation here

http://newsbusters.org/node/11823


----------



## maineman

LuvRPgrl said:


> Oh GEEEE, and when I was telling you the same thing a while back, you bitched and moaned and complained.



subtle difference:  In this case, the person who is asking the questions of ME in this case is the same person who has asked ME those same questions in the past, and I ahve answered THOSE SAME questions posed by HIM in the past.  

You, on the other hand, claim that somewhere in the annals of USMB, something has been discussed by someone else sometime before therefore you do not need to refute anything I say...

do you catch the distinction? 

you're thick as a brick, so probably not.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> subtle difference:  In this case, the person who is asking the questions of ME in this case is the same person who has asked ME those same questions in the past, and I ahve answered THOSE SAME questions posed by HIM in the past.
> 
> You, on the other hand, claim that somewhere in the annals of USMB, something has been discussed by someone else sometime before therefore you do not need to refute anything I say...
> 
> do you catch the distinction?
> 
> you're thick as a brick, so probably not.





Of course he bitches and moans and complaines - he is a liberal


----------



## maineman

and again.... the reason I am hanging around this particular thread is to TRY to get RSR to explain to me how the DoD can report a steady stream of American casualties but HE can claim that we have seen a 60% reduction because of the surge.

I understand that pumping a bunch of troops into Baghdad has caused the insurgents to take their killing outside of town, but that does not mean that it "went away"  it just meant that the insurgents figured out where our troop concentrations WEREN'T and took the fight to us there.  

RSR was the one who posted this website:

http://icasualties.org/oif/

THAT website shows the DoD confirmed casualty figures for the Iraq war.

THAT website shows the following monthly casualty figures for the past year:

4/06  76
5/06  69
6/06  61
7/06  43
8/06  65
9/06  72
10/06  106
11/06  70
12/06  112
1/07  83
2/07  80
3/07  81 
4/07  18 already this month in only five days!

PLEASE SHOW ME THE 60% reduction in American casualties that RSR keeps touting.  That is all I am asking.

The way I see it, we have seen a steady stream of carnage...and the last six months are nearly 40% WORSE than the previous six months.  

Why would anyone think that was GOOD NEWS?  I think it is horrible that so many Americans keep dying for a cause that does NOT make us any safer and does NOT advance the war against islamic extremists one iota...and PLEASE remember that it was islamic extremists who attacked US on 9/11 and not one of them was an Iraqi.


----------



## red states rule

The problem for libs and the Bush haters is the troops are not dying fast enough, so now they actually have to come out in public and try to cut off funding


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The problem for libs and the Bush haters is the troops are not dying fast enough, so now they actually have to come out in public and try to cut off funding



why do you avoid answering the question?  I do not want any more troops to die and strongly resent your suggestions to the contrary.  

YOU were the one who posted this website:

http://icasualties.org/oif/

I listed the data from it...please show me where the 60% reduction of American casualties is indicated.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The problem for libs and the Bush haters is the troops are not dying fast enough, so now they actually have to come out in public and try to cut off funding



and please explain how cutting funding for this war will make our troops die at a faster rate.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> why do you avoid answering the question?  I do not want any more troops to die and strongly resent your suggestions to the contrary.
> 
> YOU were the one who posted this website:
> 
> http://icasualties.org/oif/
> 
> I listed the data from it...please show me where the 60% reduction of American casualties is indicated.





The Dems are boxed in a corner. While the voters were not happy the war has gone, they do not want the US to lose. Dems, on the other hand, want the US to lose - so now they have no choice but to either fund the war or stop the funds.

Sorry if you resent the truth


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The Dems are boxed in a corner. While the voters were not happy the war has gone, they do not want the US to lose. Dems, on the other hand, want the US to lose - so now they have no choice but to either fund the war or stop the funds.
> 
> Sorry if you resent the truth



are you EVER gonna quit tap dancing and just answer my question?

YOU were the one who posted this website:

http://icasualties.org/oif/

I listed the data from it...please show me where the 60% reduction of American casualties is indicated.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> are you EVER gonna quit tap dancing and just answer my question?
> 
> YOU were the one who posted this website:
> 
> http://icasualties.org/oif/
> 
> I listed the data from it...please show me where the 60% reduction of American casualties is indicated.



see post # 225


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> see post # 225



which said:

_"I set you up knowing you would run to the first site listed on google. I knew you would leap at any link showing the surge was a failure without doing the reasearch needed to sift out the truth

I have posted several links showing the surge is working, and I can tell by your anger you hate to see any progress being made in Iraq"_

*that's funny.  Except you didn't send me to google to have me run to the first site listed...YOU posted a site.... THIS site:

http://icasualties.org/oif/

It has official data from the Department of Defense.

I listed the data from it above...please show me where the 60&#37; reduction of American casualties is indicated.

Quit tap dancing and spinning and wiggling and just answer the question.*


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> which said:
> 
> _"I set you up knowing you would run to the first site listed on google. I knew you would leap at any link showing the surge was a failure without doing the reasearch needed to sift out the truth
> 
> I have posted several links showing the surge is working, and I can tell by your anger you hate to see any progress being made in Iraq"_
> 
> *that's funny.  Except you didn't send me to google to have me run to the first site listed...YOU posted a site.... THIS site:
> 
> http://icasualties.org/oif/
> 
> It has official data from the Department of Defense.
> 
> I listed the data from it above...please show me where the 60% reduction of American casualties is indicated.
> 
> Quit tap dancing and spinning and wiggling and just answer the question.*



Libs jsut can't take good news can they?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Libs jsut can't take good news can they?



why can't you answer the question?  are you embarrassed?

I love good news...I just hate it when koolaid soaked morons try to package mediocre news as good news.... and the death figures from YOUR website - which relies on the Department of Defense figures - indicates that we have NOT seen a 60% reduction in American casualties.... ergo...you are a fucking liar.

surprise surprise


now go to YOUR website and show me where I have misconstrued anything...or admit that you fucked up and that there has NOT been a 60% reduction in American casualties.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> why can't you answer the question?  are you embarrassed?
> 
> I love good news...I just hate it when koolaid soaked morons try to package mediocre news as good news.... and the death figures from YOUR website - which relies on the Department of Defense figures - indicates that we have NOT seen a 60% reduction in American casualties.... ergo...you are a fucking liar.
> 
> surprise surprise
> 
> 
> now go to YOUR website and show me where I have misconstrued anything...or admit that you fucked up and that there has NOT been a 60% reduction in American casualties.




To you good news is watching the CNN video of US troops being shot by snipers

I have posted the article that shows US casualities in Baghdad are down 60% and you don't like it

To bad


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> To you good news is watching the CNN video of US troops being shot by snipers
> 
> I have posted the article that shows US casualities in Baghdad are down 60% and you don't like it
> 
> To bad



in order:

fuck you...quit insulting my patriotism you little worm

You have posted an article that shows that US casualties in the Baghdad area are down by 60%.  I have shown you official DoD figures which show that even though casualties in Baghdad are down, casualties throughout the war zone remain steady - which means, or course, that casualties in other areas went UP to balance the fact that Baghdad's went down.

Now... could you please go to your website and show me where I have misconstued the casualty figures or just admit that American casualties in Iraq have not decreased one single bit.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> in order:
> 
> fuck you...quit insulting my patriotism you little worm
> 
> You have posted an article that shows that US casualties in the Baghdad area are down by 60%.  I have shown you official DoD figures which show that even though casualties in Baghdad are down, casualties throughout the war zone remain steady - which means, or course, that casualties in other areas went UP to balance the fact that Baghdad's went down.
> 
> Now... could you please go to your website and show me where I have misconstued the casualty figures or just admit that American casualties in Iraq have not decreased one single bit.



What patriotism?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> What patriotism?




like I said... you really are quite a supporter of our military and veterans.... only those that agree with YOU, however.

I served my country proudly and bravely.... I AM a patriot.

Now...will you quit tap dancing and answer a very simple question?

Show me where the DoD casualty figures from the war in Iraq indicate that we have seen a 60 % reduction.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> like I said... you really are quite a supporter of our military and veterans.... only those that agree with YOU, however.
> 
> I served my country proudly and bravely.... I AM a patriot.
> 
> Now...will you quit tap dancing and answer a very simple question?
> 
> Show me where the DoD casualty figures from the war in Iraq indicate that we have seen a 60 % reduction.



Yea, but whose country?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Yea, but whose country?



quit tap dancing and answer the question.

I served.  a quarter of a century.

you NEVER served...because you are a coward... and you have the cyberballs to question my service and my patriotism.... what a fucking pussy.

You are really close to getting back on my ignore list..... I would cease and desist your attacks against my patriotism and my service immediately, if you would like to continue our discussions.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> quit tap dancing and answer the question.
> 
> I served.  a quarter of a century.
> 
> you NEVER served...because you are a coward... and you have the cyberballs to question my service and my patriotism.... what a fucking pussy.
> 
> You are really close to getting back on my ignore list..... I would cease and desist your attacks against my patriotism and my service immediately, if you would like to continue our discussions.



so you served for 25 years - do they tip well in the galley?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> so you served for 25 years - do they tip well in the galley?



Last chance.  Do you want to continue our dialog or not?

It is up to you.

make up your mind.


----------



## maineman

make up your mind.


----------



## maineman

I would also point out that, from YOUR website:


http://icasualties.org/oif/

after only five days this month, we have already lost 24 coalition troops, of which 18 are Americans.  April is on track to be THE bloodiest month of the entire war.

Is that how "surges" are SUPPOSED to "work"?

How much MORE American blood would we be spilling onto the sands of Iraq if this fucking "surge" were NOT "working"?

I would also point out that I am patiently awaiting your reply to the previous question regarding the tone of our debate.


----------



## eots

red states rule said:


> so you served for 25 years - do they tip well in the galley?



red state the arm chair solider


----------



## maineman

eots said:


> red state the arm chair solider



exactly... he routinely is disrespectful to veterans merely because they do not share his political philosophy.

I'd love to have him spend an evening in the parking lot outside MY American Legion Post.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Frankly, Ive had just about enough of the insults, the name-calling and the personal attacks from both of you Red State and maineman. I would love to be both your friends, But if you both do not immediately KNOCK IT OFF. I am going to block both of you. You are both acting like 5 year olds.

Im sorry I have to be so harsh but this is ridiculous

Your both wrong.

Maineman is a patriot for serving, Red state is NOT a coward for not serving, its a personal choices.

All democrats are not evil, all republicans are not evil

Would you too Please grow up!


----------



## maineman

he has made some rather outlandish allegations.  He has suggested that American casualties are down by 60% because of the surge....yet he posts a website showing DoD casualty figures which clearly show that the rate of Americans dying in Iraq has remained unchanged throughout the "surge"  and is, in fact, over the past 6 months, 37% higher than the previous 6 months.

He continues to avoid that simple fact which disproves the very essence of this thread.  He NEVER writes anything himself of ANY substance beyond a sentence or two...He NEVER answers questions posed to him.

He continues to post the same tired old press release from a british media centre in baghdad which shows that casualties in the baghdad area are down by 60% and IGNORES the fact that American casualties throughout the country remain at the same rate they have been for several months.  He completely refuses to accept the logical conclusion of those two pieces of information:  that while the deaths in baghdad proper are down, they are UP in other areas showing that the insurgents have just moved their carnage to where we do not have heavy troop concentrations.

AND he insults my service continually.  I have only started pointing out that his membership in the fabled 101st Fighting Keyboardist's Brigade is really not SERVICE per se...and that his pompom waving for this war while braver Americans die in it repulses me


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Red State. I ask you to do the following. Please re-frain from long-winded newspaper articles, and please answer questions that are posted to you. Please stop attacking maineman, You do not have the right to attack any service man or woman, They put their lives on the line, so that we all have the right to post on message boards like this. While I do not agree with some of the colorful language used maineman, I understand his anger, because you have frankly been very mean to him as well. Before you are a conservative, and him a liberal, you are both americans, and should both be civil to each other.

Please make a conserted effort, to speak more from your heart, and less from a newspaper article.


----------



## Dr Grump

maineman said:


> h
> He continues to avoid that simple fact which disproves the very essence of this thread.  He NEVER writes anything himself of ANY substance beyond a sentence or two...He NEVER answers questions posed to him.



Which is why I refuse to engage him. Why don't you guys try it too. He might go away.

Actsnoble, although hats off for your last post to Reds, we've all made similar posts. He doesn't listen. He is a bona fide whackjob...


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Maineman, if red state answers your questions, or admits he was wrong about his figure, will you cut him some slack, forgive him, move on and be nice to him?

I ask nothing of you that i wont ask him

And red state, if you provide the sources, speak more from your heart, answer the questions, and maineman is still mean to you, then do NOT tit for tat, and continue to engage in personal attacks.

I am not taking sides here.

I am doing my best to be fair and call it as i see it.

And red state, no matter what, stop questioning mainemans patriatism, he served for god sakes. And maineman, please do not cuss or be-little him

Thank you gentleman


----------



## maineman

actsnoblemartin said:


> Maineman, if red state answers your questions, or admits he was wrong about his figure, will you cut him some slack, forgive him, move on and be nice to him?



if pigs had wings, away they'd fly.

RSR will NEVER admit he is wrong about ANYTHING. EVER.

mark my words.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Hello Mr Grump.

I understand, that I have not been here long, and maybe it is not my place to speak up, since i do not have the history that you and others have with each other. But I know i am flawed, biased, and sometimes a jerk. I wish to be friends with all of you, and I hope through dialogue, and time, not just i, but all of us, can learn to understand each other, and realize, we dont have to hate each other.

" A house divided cannot stand"

I really believe with all my heart, that every republican, must be able to criticize republicans as much as they do democrats, and give praise to democrats when they do good, as much as they would, if a democrat does wrong, and vice versa for a democratic person.

I just want to be a fair person, and i know its a nearly impossible goal, but maybe you can help me be a better person, and we can all help each other grow as human beings.

Thank for your time


----------



## actsnoblemartin

but if he was nicer to you, would you be nicer to him, if when he was wrong, he admitted it, would u admit when you were wrong.

i may be asking for miracles, in this forum, from all of us, including me, but we must start somewhere.

I want to make it clear, I do NOT give good reputations only to those i agree with, I give them to people i think are smart, regardless of your politics.


----------



## maineman

actsnoblemartin said:


> but if he was nicer to you, would you be nicer to him, if when he was wrong, he admitted it, would u admit when you were wrong.
> 
> i may be asking for miracles, in this forum, from all of us, including me, but we must start somewhere.
> 
> I want to make it clear, I do NOT give good reputations only to those i agree with, I give them to people i think are smart, regardless of your politics.




I would not care if RSR were NICER to me, if he merely engaged in a dialog with me using his own words...if he asked questions and I would answer...and then ask questions and he would answer.. it would be grand.

But listen....I am telling you right now....mark my words...that will NEVER happen.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

I may be completely wrong here, but it seems with maineman and red state, that each of them, considers the other, hopeless of change.

So i will ask these questions

Red state, is it possible for you to be nicer, to answer questions posed to you honestly and directly, without personal attacks

Maineman, is it possible for you to be nicer, and not to curse and give up on red state?.

I think your both intelligent men, and I think, this can be resolved.

Red state, ego goeth before the fall. Its time to be nicer

Maineman, Its time to not let red state get under your skin

Anyone else have any comments?


----------



## maineman

when RSR starts using his words to ask questions and answer questions that are asked of him..when he uses his own words to make his own arguments...I will be there to engage him in that debate...and we can both have our first back and forth discussion as to the possible reasons that Hell just froze over.


----------



## maineman

and RSR slinks away because he KNOWS he is dead wrong about how great this surge is...and he KNOWS that the carnage ain't gonna stop no matter what we do.... but he will NEVER admit that his butt buddy Bush is not the greatest president ever.  his love of party over country is really pathetic.


----------



## red states rule

... And optimism in Iraq


Anyone remotely familiar with the analysis provided by retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey since the Iraq war began four years ago knows that he has been sharply critical of the Bush administration's diplomatic/military management of the Iraq war. Gen. McCaffrey (whose long, distinguished resume in the military and public service includes a stint as Bill Clinton's drug czar), visited Iraq last month, where he conducted "a strategic and operational assessment" of the security situation that provides ammunition for both sides of the U.S. debate. The first section of the report detailing the general's stark descriptions of the problems in Iraq have received extensive coverage in the press -- a report in The Washington Post, for example, was titled "McCaffrey Paints Gloomy Picture of Iraq." But the fact that Gen. McCaffrey also provides readers with reasons for optimism in Iraq (and said in a separate interview that it would be a military mistake for the Democrats to impose a binding deadline for withdrawal) tends to get overlooked. 
    Although only a fraction of the scheduled U.S. reinforcements had arrived in Baghdad when Gen. McCaffrey visited last month, he found that in the Iraqi capital "the murder rate has plummeted. IED attacks on U.S. forces during their formerly vulnerable daily transits from huge U.S. bases on the periphery of Baghdad are down -- since these forces are now permanently based in their operational area." 
    Some of the best news comes from Anbar Province in western Iraq, home to Sunni insurgents aligned with al Qaeda. "There is a real and growing ground swell of Sunni tribal opposition to the Al Qaeda-in-Iraq [AQI] terror formations," Gen. McCaffrey wrote. "This counter-Al Qaeda movement in Anbar Province was fostered by brilliant U.S. Marine leadership. There is now unmistakable evidence that the western Sunni tribes are increasingly convinced that they blundered badly by sitting out the political process. They are also keenly aware of the fragility of the continued U.S. military presence that stands between them and a vengeful and overwhelming Shia-Kurdish majority class -- which was brutally treated by Saddam and his cruel regime." 
    The Anbar Sunnis, Gen. McCaffrey said, are taking up arms to defeat al Qaeda and are cooperating with Iraqi security forces: "There is now active combat between Sunni tribal leadership and AQI terrorists. Of even greater importance, the Sunni tribes are now supplying their young men as drafts for the Iraqi police." Al Qaeda has responded with stepped-up violence aimed at intimidating the Sunni tribesmen -- further alienating them. While this has been occurring, critical improvements are being made in the Iraqi security forces. "The equipment and resources for the Iraqi security forces [ISF] has increased dramatically," he wrote. "The ISF training system is beginning to work effectively with their own trainers." 
    As Gen. McCaffrey made clear, a major reason why this has been going so well has been the performance of U.S. armed forces. American combat forces "are simply superb. The Army and Marine brigade, battalion and company commanders are the most experienced and talented leaders in our history. Re-enlistment rates are simply astonishing," he wrote. "The command and control technology, training, contractor support and flexibility of Marine and Army combat formations are magnificent." 
    This is not to say that success in Iraq is by any means assured. But Gen. McCaffrey's analysis shows that there is another side to the story in Iraq -- beyond all of the grim television footage and dire predictions about Iraq's future. 


http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070405-085905-8723r.htm


----------



## maineman

the opposition to AQ in Iraq from the sunnis in Anbar province is great news.... but the overriding issues of long standing that continue to spawn sunni-shiite sectarian violence are not addressed by such opposition.

Again...RSR neglects to engage in any sort of dialog, but continues to obfuscate and spin and avoid the tough questions by his standard method:  cutting and pasting articles that do not address the questions he has been asked but seems afraid to answer.


----------



## maineman

actsnoblemartin said:


> Red state, is it possible for you to be nicer, *to answer questions posed to you honestly and directly*, without personal attacks?



actsnoblemartin.... wouldn't you agree that red states rule has, in fact, "answered" your question by not answering it?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> the opposition to AQ in Iraq from the sunnis in Anbar province is great news.... but the overriding issues of long standing that continue to spawn sunni-shiite sectarian violence are not addressed by such opposition.
> 
> Again...RSR neglects to engage in any sort of dialog, but continues to obfuscate and spin and avoid the tough questions by his standard method:  cutting and pasting articles that do not address the questions he has been asked but seems afraid to answer.



The Future in Iraq
Eventually, Iraq will have a good future. Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri sums up the situation really well in his piece here: "With a combination of intelligence, patience and determination, General Petraeus can win in Baghdad. The battleground where his chances do not appear as good is Washington. The United States today has become home to a veritable industry of defeat - producing books, TV documentaries, research papers, intelligence analyses and feature movies destined for a growing market. Almost every day, some article assuming that the United States has already been defeated in Iraq, and recommend measures to deal with the consequences of defeat. And when the United States does something, it does it Big: The defeat industry is assuming a bewildering scale." Eventually, the pessimistic paper publishing will end. And peace and happiness for Iraq will emerge. 
http://www.kmax.ws/b/goodnewsiniraq.htm


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> actsnoblemartin.... wouldn't you agree that red states rule has, in fact, "answered" your question by not answering it?



actsnoblemartin:  do you need any MORE "proof"?


----------



## maineman

RSR...rather than cut and paste some article from somewhere...why not take each of these paragraphs and address their content in your own words?



maineman said:


> he has made some rather outlandish allegations.  He has suggested that American casualties are down by 60% because of the surge....yet he posts a website showing DoD casualty figures which clearly show that the rate of Americans dying in Iraq has remained unchanged throughout the "surge"  and is, in fact, over the past 6 months, 37% higher than the previous 6 months.
> 
> He continues to avoid that simple fact which disproves the very essence of this thread.  He NEVER writes anything himself of ANY substance beyond a sentence or two...He NEVER answers questions posed to him.
> 
> He continues to post the same tired old press release from a british media centre in baghdad which shows that casualties in the baghdad area are down by 60% and IGNORES the fact that American casualties throughout the country remain at the same rate they have been for several months.  He completely refuses to accept the logical conclusion of those two pieces of information:  that while the deaths in baghdad proper are down, they are UP in other areas showing that the insurgents have just moved their carnage to where we do not have heavy troop concentrations.
> 
> AND he insults my service continually.  I have only started pointing out that his membership in the fabled 101st Fighting Keyboardist's Brigade is really not SERVICE per se...and that his pompom waving for this war while braver Americans die in it repulses me


----------



## red states rule

CBS's Pizzey Calls McCain's Bright Take on Iraq 'Disgraceful,' Dismisses Bias Charges
Posted by Justin McCarthy on April 5, 2007 - 14:20. 
CBSs websites feature "The Public Eye Chat" interviewed correspondent Allen Pizzey, who completely ignored some positive signs in Iraq in his grim report last month. Interviewer Brian Montopoli asked if John McCains optimistic statements on Iraqi progress "really sort of bothered reporters." Pizzey scuffed: "Its disgraceful for a man seeking highest office, I think to talk utter rubbish." Pizzey claimed, that "no one in his right mind who has been to Baghdad believes that story," but he must not have checked the recent ABC story citing some improvement.

Montopoli followed up with a question of liberal bias, and quickly added that, that charge "has died down a little bit of late." Pizzey, of course denied that charge and accused the Bush administration of thinking "that anything that doesnt wholly support everything they say is against them." The transcript of the relevant portion is below.

BRIAN MONTOPOLI: It seems that some reporters, including yourself and CNN's Michael Ware, have really taken umbrage at John McCain's recent comments, essentially saying that there are a lot of neighborhoods where you can walk around relatively safely. Is it fair to say that that really sort of bothered reporters? 

ALLEN PIZZEY: Yes. It's disgraceful for a man seeking highest office, I think, to talk utter rubbish. And that is utter rubbish. It's electoral propaganda. It is simply not true. No one in his right mind who has been to Baghdad believes that story. Now, McCain and some other senators were there on Sunday, and they claimed, "Oh, we walked around for a whole hourand we drove in from the airport. Gosh, aren't we great, we drove in from the airport." Excuse me, Mr. McCain, you drove in in a large convoy of heavily armed vehicles. The last one had a sign on it saying "Keep back 100 yards. Deadly force authorized." Every single car that they approached or passed pulled over and stopped, because that's the way it is. When one of those security details goes by, every ordinary person gets the hell out of the way, in case they get shot. If he did walk around that market, and I didn't see him do it, and he didn't announce he was going to do it, you can bet your life there were an awful lot of soldiers deployed to make sure that nobody came near that place. He's talking rubbish. And he should not get away with it. 

MONTOPOLI: There used to be a pretty vigorous debate about whether the media is reporting the war through an anti-administration liberal bias lens, though that has died down a little bit of late. How do you feel about that argument? 

PIZZEY: I dismiss that. Because I think the Bush administration in particular thinks that anything that doesn't wholly support everything they say is against them. And you don't have to support one side or the other. If the administration makes idiotic claims, or claims that are patently, to us on the ground, wrong, why should we not report that they're wrong? All we're doing is reporting what we can see and understand. Now, no reporter is as objective as we'd like to be. Objectivity is a principle to which we strive to adhere, but we all have our own little biases  our upbringing, our personal political beliefs, whatever touches us in a human way. All of that affects our reporting. But I don't think that we have a particular administration bias. I don't care one way or another. I'm not even American. I just happen to work for Americans. I just do my job.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11848


----------



## maineman

you really can't do it, can you?

wow.

what a moron.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you really can't do it, can you?
> 
> wow.
> 
> what a moron.



The good news is being ignored while the liberal media show their bias

This is only one of the things that bugs MM


----------



## maineman

*RSR...rather than cut and paste some article from somewhere...why not take each of these paragraphs and address their content in your own words?*


Quote:
Originally Posted by maineman  
he has made some rather outlandish allegations. He has suggested that American casualties are down by 60% because of the surge....yet he posts a website showing DoD casualty figures which clearly show that the rate of Americans dying in Iraq has remained unchanged throughout the "surge" and is, in fact, over the past 6 months, 37% higher than the previous 6 months.

He continues to avoid that simple fact which disproves the very essence of this thread. He NEVER writes anything himself of ANY substance beyond a sentence or two...He NEVER answers questions posed to him.

He continues to post the same tired old press release from a british media centre in baghdad which shows that casualties in the baghdad area are down by 60% and IGNORES the fact that American casualties throughout the country remain at the same rate they have been for several months. He completely refuses to accept the logical conclusion of those two pieces of information: that while the deaths in baghdad proper are down, they are UP in other areas showing that the insurgents have just moved their carnage to where we do not have heavy troop concentrations.

AND he insults my service continually. I have only started pointing out that his membership in the fabled 101st Fighting Keyboardist's Brigade is really not SERVICE per se...and that his pompom waving for this war while braver Americans die in it repulses me


----------



## actsnoblemartin

My understanding, without getting into politics is...

There are four provences that are giving us problems, out of a total of 18. Now, how long has this surge been going on?, how long should we give the surge before a fair, and non-biased assesment can be made of whether it is working or not, what adjustments can be made, etc.

Secondly, how does everybody see the surge so far, the numbers of one provence (baghdad), civilian deaths caused by americans, insurgent terrorists vs the total number of deaths in the four provences vs the total number of peaceful provences (14)

Now let me make clear, I dont mind if im proven to be wrong here, I just want some peaceful discussion (not angry debate) for a change.

Also, while i dont want our soldiers being used for target practice, and i understand, we cant just blow up iraq, I dont think we can hand iran, an oil rich country, that could help them take over the middle east.

Your opinions, your thoughts, your feelings

Where am i RIGHT, where am i WRONG?

Love y'all

so please be nice, when you rebuke me, or critique this.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Maineman, where did you find this website. It seems very reliable, may i ask if you know who created it , im curious.

By the way, when did the surge start?

and i know this next question is stupid, but basically, how do we accurately, honestly, and un-biasedly, judge if the surge is working?

Can you tell us about your first hand knowledge about the military?

I'd like to know what you think

OH and before i forgot, if based on what ive heard, and i could be wrong, that 4 provences are giving us trouble, shouldnt we have a surge of troops in all 4 provences.

Why do you believe a surge, would or would NOT work?

If you were president of the u.s.a. what would you do?

do you still keep in touch with former military buddies?

are you privey to certain intelligence, that you can or can NOT share with us.

Thank you again for you service, if you dont mind me saying, god bless you, and thank you so much for your service.

Any veteran, regardless of politics deserve a thank you, and our respect.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Maineman, I do not believe the u.s. media is fairly reporting the war. The only part they report is the negative. Ironically, their reports whether they mean to or not, fuel, the far left, who in my judgment want america to lose the war the war on terrorism, the war with iraq, the war with afghanistan, and israel to be destroyed by the palestinians, yes, I have been to an anti war protest, with those far left lunatics, and their were communists socialists, and those chanting for the destruction of israel. I think the far left makes up between 5-20% of the democrats in america, but sadly, I think the far left runs the democratic party.


Redstate: I agree with this statement.

RSR...rather than cut and paste some article from somewhere...why not take each of these paragraphs and address their content in your own words?


----------



## actsnoblemartin

I think two things have to happen to improves relations between red states, and mainemen.

Red state: must answer questions like this: directly, honestly, civlilly

mainemen: stop retaliating

Red state, I hate to say this, but you are the instegator here. Every time you are asked a question, you're answer is: liberals are "fill in blank"

that is not how to answer a question

and mainemen, everytime, you respond in a negative way, i.e. calling him a moron, you are giving him what he wants. He is trying to piss you off, he gets joy off it.

I think relations can be re-built

if

red state: drop your ego, god is not gonna come down from the sky, and take you to hell if your wrong, or people dont agree with you

mainemen: Dont worry so much about being right, and proving him in wrong, cause in the end, you can only convince yourself what is right and you cant control other people

Im trying to be an honest broker here, but in-evitably, one or both of you will think im being un-fair.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

I think adding news articles that agree with your point of view, can be a good tool, and using news articles to counter someones point of view can also be a good tool

But using it all the time is a bad idea, because people tire of trying to read long articles. They want to know what you think. On the other hand though, short articles, or links, provide the reader the option, not forcement of reading the article.

Its a give and take.

Shouldnt use articles all the time about 10-30% of time is fine, but shouldnt be forced to not use them, because others dont like them.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

actsnoblemartin.... wouldn't you agree that red states rule has, in fact, "answered" your question by not answering it?

I havent read all the posts yet, so i cant comment, but if you want to give me any evidence. As i hope i have proven, I will do my absolute best to be fair to you, as i consider both you and red state a friend. 

I will continue reading posts, and get back to you

is that alright?

what do you think of this website, i havent read it yet, but im watching cnn, and their talking about missile defense, and who better to talk to about missle defense then a 25 year veteran of the navy. 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/


----------



## actsnoblemartin

red state, are you stop using an article everytime you speak. You cant let others speak for you 100% of the time, as i said 10-30% of the time, news articles are a good tool, but your over doing it. People want to know what YOU think and feel, and you have no chance of convincing anyone of anything with these long, tedious news articles, while you have a much greater chance, if you just speak from your heart OR atleast use the articles in conjunction with summerizing your thoughts and feeling with them so we dont feel lectured too.

Mainemen, do you see the questions i left for you ?


----------



## maineman

actsnoblemartin said:


> Maineman, where did you find this website. It seems very reliable, may i ask if you know who created it , im curious.
> 
> By the way, when did the surge start?
> 
> and i know this next question is stupid, but basically, how do we accurately, honestly, and un-biasedly, judge if the surge is working?
> 
> Can you tell us about your first hand knowledge about the military?
> 
> I'd like to know what you think
> 
> OH and before i forgot, if based on what ive heard, and i could be wrong, that 4 provences are giving us trouble, shouldnt we have a surge of troops in all 4 provences.
> 
> Why do you believe a surge, would or would NOT work?
> 
> If you were president of the u.s.a. what would you do?
> 
> do you still keep in touch with former military buddies?
> 
> are you privey to certain intelligence, that you can or can NOT share with us.
> 
> Thank you again for you service, if you dont mind me saying, god bless you, and thank you so much for your service.
> 
> Any veteran, regardless of politics deserve a thank you, and our respect.



In order:

1. the surge began in mid February
2.  we would judge the effectiveness of the "surge by a decrease in OVERALL violence and carnage
3.  I was a surface line officer with areas of specialization in anti-submarine warfare and steam propulsion.  Of note to the subject at hand, however, was my tour of duty as a United nations Military Observer and Crisis Mediator in Lebanon where I worked closely with members of the Iraqi ba'ath party, AMAL, the PLO, the Lebanese National movement, the Druze, the Christian Phalange, and a host of minor arab militias as well as the Israeli Defense Force.  I gained an appreciation and an understanding of the middle east and of the incredibly intricate and fluid dynamic between those various sunni- shiite-druze-christian-jewish groups.
4.I believe that we should NOT be in Iraq.  period.  But if we are going to be there, we should have enough troops to be everywhere there is violence simultaneously.... but alas...that is not possible.
5.  If I were President, I would tell Maliki that he has some extremely finite period of time (months as opposed to years) to either get his security in order or reconvene the constitutional convention and consider ways of partitioning Iraq into three separate autonomous nation states because we are THROUGH dying from both sides of a civil war that, in the final analysis, ought not to be any of our business.
6. Yes.  I keep in touch with them.  I see them.  I email them.  I go to their weddings.  I go to their funerals.
7.  I can't say.  I doubt that anything I was once privy to is still classified, but I do not know for certain that it is not.
8.  You're welcome. It was always my joy and my privilege.


----------



## maineman

any chance of you doing something other than running away from this, rsr?



maineman said:


> *RSR...rather than cut and paste some article from somewhere...why not take each of these paragraphs and address their content in your own words?*
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by maineman
> he has made some rather outlandish allegations. He has suggested that American casualties are down by 60% because of the surge....yet he posts a website showing DoD casualty figures which clearly show that the rate of Americans dying in Iraq has remained unchanged throughout the "surge" and is, in fact, over the past 6 months, 37% higher than the previous 6 months.
> 
> He continues to avoid that simple fact which disproves the very essence of this thread. He NEVER writes anything himself of ANY substance beyond a sentence or two...He NEVER answers questions posed to him.
> 
> He continues to post the same tired old press release from a british media centre in baghdad which shows that casualties in the baghdad area are down by 60% and IGNORES the fact that American casualties throughout the country remain at the same rate they have been for several months. He completely refuses to accept the logical conclusion of those two pieces of information: that while the deaths in baghdad proper are down, they are UP in other areas showing that the insurgents have just moved their carnage to where we do not have heavy troop concentrations.
> 
> AND he insults my service continually. I have only started pointing out that his membership in the fabled 101st Fighting Keyboardist's Brigade is really not SERVICE per se...and that his pompom waving for this war while braver Americans die in it repulses me


----------



## maineman

come ON RSR.... prove to the board that you are not some poorly programmed newsbot... take each of the paragraphs below and try to respond to it with intellectual honesty



maineman said:


> *RSR...rather than cut and paste some article from somewhere...why not take each of these paragraphs and address their content in your own words?*
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by maineman
> he has made some rather outlandish allegations. He has suggested that American casualties are down by 60% because of the surge....yet he posts a website showing DoD casualty figures which clearly show that the rate of Americans dying in Iraq has remained unchanged throughout the "surge" and is, in fact, over the past 6 months, 37% higher than the previous 6 months.
> 
> He continues to avoid that simple fact which disproves the very essence of this thread. He NEVER writes anything himself of ANY substance beyond a sentence or two...He NEVER answers questions posed to him.
> 
> He continues to post the same tired old press release from a british media centre in baghdad which shows that casualties in the baghdad area are down by 60% and IGNORES the fact that American casualties throughout the country remain at the same rate they have been for several months. He completely refuses to accept the logical conclusion of those two pieces of information: that while the deaths in baghdad proper are down, they are UP in other areas showing that the insurgents have just moved their carnage to where we do not have heavy troop concentrations.
> 
> AND he insults my service continually. I have only started pointing out that his membership in the fabled 101st Fighting Keyboardist's Brigade is really not SERVICE per se...and that his pompom waving for this war while braver Americans die in it repulses me


----------



## maineman

RSR....really...no cutting ...no pasting...just YOU...addressing each of these paragraphs below...can you do it or can't you?


maineman said:


> *RSR...rather than cut and paste some article from somewhere...why not take each of these paragraphs and address their content in your own words?*
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by maineman
> he has made some rather outlandish allegations. He has suggested that American casualties are down by 60% because of the surge....yet he posts a website showing DoD casualty figures which clearly show that the rate of Americans dying in Iraq has remained unchanged throughout the "surge" and is, in fact, over the past 6 months, 37% higher than the previous 6 months.
> 
> He continues to avoid that simple fact which disproves the very essence of this thread. He NEVER writes anything himself of ANY substance beyond a sentence or two...He NEVER answers questions posed to him.
> 
> He continues to post the same tired old press release from a british media centre in baghdad which shows that casualties in the baghdad area are down by 60% and IGNORES the fact that American casualties throughout the country remain at the same rate they have been for several months. He completely refuses to accept the logical conclusion of those two pieces of information: that while the deaths in baghdad proper are down, they are UP in other areas showing that the insurgents have just moved their carnage to where we do not have heavy troop concentrations.
> 
> AND he insults my service continually. I have only started pointing out that his membership in the fabled 101st Fighting Keyboardist's Brigade is really not SERVICE per se...and that his pompom waving for this war while braver Americans die in it repulses me


----------



## maineman

this shouldn't be rocket science, RSR... just read the paragraphs below and respond to them


maineman said:


> *RSR...rather than cut and paste some article from somewhere...why not take each of these paragraphs and address their content in your own words?*
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by maineman
> he has made some rather outlandish allegations. He has suggested that American casualties are down by 60% because of the surge....yet he posts a website showing DoD casualty figures which clearly show that the rate of Americans dying in Iraq has remained unchanged throughout the "surge" and is, in fact, over the past 6 months, 37% higher than the previous 6 months.
> 
> He continues to avoid that simple fact which disproves the very essence of this thread. He NEVER writes anything himself of ANY substance beyond a sentence or two...He NEVER answers questions posed to him.
> 
> He continues to post the same tired old press release from a british media centre in baghdad which shows that casualties in the baghdad area are down by 60% and IGNORES the fact that American casualties throughout the country remain at the same rate they have been for several months. He completely refuses to accept the logical conclusion of those two pieces of information: that while the deaths in baghdad proper are down, they are UP in other areas showing that the insurgents have just moved their carnage to where we do not have heavy troop concentrations.
> 
> AND he insults my service continually. I have only started pointing out that his membership in the fabled 101st Fighting Keyboardist's Brigade is really not SERVICE per se...and that his pompom waving for this war while braver Americans die in it repulses me


----------



## maineman

hey!  RSR...here kitty kitty


----------



## maineman

bump


----------



## maineman

come ON RSR.... this is your thread...don't run away like a PUSSY!


----------



## maineman

and answer THIS one while you are at it!


----------



## maineman

why are you so afraid of actually carrying on a CONVERSATION?  WHy must you ALWAYS rely on the editorial writing of others to serve as your replies to every situation?  WHy can't you just go above.... look at my post...and address the points that I have made, point by point?


----------



## maineman

RSR...you ever gonna get back to this thread?

ever gonna explain how the surge is working so well that we are losing Americans in April at the highest rate of any month in the war?

23 dead already this month and it's only a week old.

Wow...that surge sure is something!

Imagine how shitty it would be if the surge WEREN'T "working"????


----------



## maineman

RSR... when will you quit running?


----------



## maineman

Come on RSR...show me in the link you posted how the American death toll is 60% less because of the surge.

http://icasualties.org/oif/


----------



## Superlative

Youve been posting this long and you havent noticed that RSR wont respond when he cant call you names and label you? backing it up with Right wing propaganda.


----------



## maineman

I just love to keep the thread he started and now runs away from up on the first page of the leaderboard!


----------



## actsnoblemartin

where did you find that page?. It seems preety accurate to me, and im not supposed to agree with you   lol. 

So president maineman, can u refresh my memory about what u would do about iraq, and then, since you are a military veteran.

Any thought on china?, they could be threat to us right?, and north korea, and any other political ideas, you'd like to share with the group


----------



## maineman

actsnoblemartin said:


> where did you find that page?. It seems preety accurate to me, and im not supposed to agree with you   lol.
> 
> So president maineman, can u refresh my memory about what u would do about iraq, and then, since you are a military veteran.
> 
> Any thought on china?, they could be threat to us right?, and north korea, and any other political ideas, you'd like to share with the group



where did I find that page?  I asked RSR to provide me some proof that our casualties had dropped by 60% because of the surge and HE posted it.  He's been running away from it ever since.

I would give the Iraqis a date certain when America would be gone...and between now and then I would redeploy to trade routes along the border to help interdict the flow of munitions and men into the fight....

I would then start fighting the war against islamic extremists that we abandoned at Tora Bora years ago.

China?  We should continue to encourage their movement toward capitalism... and we should continue to trade with them.... 

North Korea?  I think we need to continue to apply as much pressure as we can through as many different diplomatic channels as possible to get them to behave....

When you think of it:  Bush used to rail about the axis of evil - Iraq, Iran and Norht Korea...and then he picked the one who was the LEAST threat to America and invaded it....and in so doing allowed the other two to get even more threatening.... another reason why the Iraq war is the most idiotic, dangerous, and counterproductive foreign policy blunder in our country's history.


----------



## red states rule

Is surge working? US commanders hail fall in Baghdad killings 
Six weeks on, and America's bid to quell the insurgency in the capital is showing signs of success. But violence throughout Iraq is as bad as ever. Raymond Whitaker and Rupert Cornwell report 
Published: 01 April 2007 
US military commanders in Iraq have accused insurgents of using children in suicide bombings and staging poison gas attacks in a campaign to undermine the month-old security "surge" in Baghdad and Anbar province. 

The clampdown in the capital is credited with bringing a sharp reduction in civilian deaths in recent weeks, even though the number of attacks has remained fairly constant. "There are tanks and Humvees on every street corner," said an independent observer who returned from Baghdad last week. "There is a real change of atmosphere from earlier this year, before the operation began." According to David Kilcullen, senior counter-insurgency adviser to General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, heightened security has forced suicide bombers to detonate their devices at checkpoints well away from targets such as markets and other public gatherings, "killing far fewer people than intended, and far fewer than in similar attacks last year".

Colonel Kilcullen, an Australian former special forces officer, added that several bombs failed to explode, "showing a loss of skill as key bomb-makers are taken off the streets". Other reports show a steep decline in the number of bodies found dumped overnight, indicating that the "surge" is curbing the activities of death squads.

Civilian deaths in Baghdad were at record levels in the final months of last year, and remained high in January. Then, the start of the "surge" around 20 February saw the number of deaths fall in that month by more than two thirds, to 446. But the difficulty of maintaining the improvement was shown by events in March. Another reduction in deaths seemed on the cards until last Thursday, when two suicide attackers wearing explosives vests blew themselves up in a market in the mainly Shia Shaab district, killing nearly 80 people.

Though counter-insurgency officials point out that suicide bombers are increasingly being forced by the security measures to attack their targets on foot rather than in vehicles, and that it will never be possible to prevent all bombings until the populace has been won over by follow-up measures, the dramatic loss of life is still a setback. Yesterday a car bomb killed another five people outside the Sadrayn hospital in the sensitive area of Sadr City, the Shia stronghold in Baghdad.

So far directors of the "surge" have managed to steer a course between Shia and Sunni suspicions. The operation began with heavy fighting in Doura, a heavily Sunni area in the south of the city, followed by clashes in the mixed Haifa Street district. Early this month, American and Iraqi forces moved into Sadr City without resistance from the Mehdi Army of the radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The onus is now on them, however, to show that they can prevent attacks by Sunni insurgents.

On Friday Nasser al-Rubaie, parliamentary spokesman for Mr Sadr's bloc, gave crucial support for the operation, saying "there is no alternative ... except anarchy". But those seeking to provoke anarchy are hitting back. The crackdown in Baghdad is driving violence into other areas, with the US military admitting last week that suicide and car bomb attacks in the whole of Iraq had jumped 30 per cent since the operation began.

Al-Qa'ida in Iraq is accused of involvement in a spate of bombings around Ramadi and Fallujah which have released chlorine gas, while a Pentagon spokesman, Major General Michael Barbero, pointed to two recent suicide attacks using children. In one, a car was allowed through a checkpoint because there were two small children on the back seat. The attackers later abandoned the car, allowing it to blow up with the children still inside.

More recently, an Iraqi police convoy was pursuing a suspicious vehicle in Anbar province. As they passed a 12-to-14 year old boy riding a bicycle, a bomb in his backpack exploded. "These acts - the use of poison gas and the use of children as weapons - are unacceptable in any civilised society and demonstrate the truly dishonourable nature of this enemy," Gen Barbero said.

Col Kilcullen argued that attacks by Sunnis against members of their own community, including the first use of poison gas in Iraq since Saddam Hussein killed thousands of Kurds in Halabja in 1988, showed "an incredible level of desperation". They were "own goals" which had contributed to a major shift in Anbar province, where he said only one out of 18 major tribes supported the Iraqi government a year ago. "Today 14 out of the 18 tribes are actively securing their people, providing recruits to the Iraqi police and hunting down al-Qa'ida."

But Gen Petraeus and his advisers emphasise that their strategy, with the troop "surge" only due to be complete by the end of June, will take time - possibly years - to achieve results. President George Bush's beleaguered administration in Washington needs dramatic success much more quickly.

TV news bulletins show daily rocket attacks on the supposedly secure Green Zone in Baghdad, and daily mass suicide bombings. While the capital may be getting marginally safer, all viewers in the US know is that slaughter is continuing on a daily basis in Iraq.

The Senate and House of Representatives have both voted for withdrawal next year as part of a military spending bill. All they have to agree on before sending the bill to Mr Bush is which month. The stage is set for a battle over hearts and minds in Washington which will rival any in Iraq for its influence on what happens to American forces on the ground. Unless the security operation in Baghdad can rescue Mr Bush, those conducting it are unlikely to be given the time they say they need. 
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2411393.ece#2007-04-01T00:00:04-00:00


----------



## maineman

you've posted those same words written by others already in this thread but continue to avoid addressing the questions that I posed IN MY OWN WORDS, with answers IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

will you be doing that any time soon?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you've posted those same words written by others already in this thread but continue to avoid addressing the questions that I posed ION MY OWN WORDS, with answers IN YOUR OWN WORDS.
> 
> will you be doing that any time soon?



You do hate any facts that destroy your rants - don't you?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> You do hate any facts that destroy your rants - don't you?



I posted numbers from the DoD that show that we have not seen a 60% decrease in casualties.

Those numbers came from the webpage YOU posted when asked to provide proof of your claims that we had seen such a decrease.  Your own webpage disproves your own case.

And you post WORDS from other people...I POST FACTUAL NUMBERS verified by the Department of Defense.  It seems to me that you are the one who HATES to deal with your own webpage!


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I posted numbers from the DoD that show that we have not seen a 60% decrease in casualties.
> 
> Those numbers came from the webpage YOU posted when asked to provide proof of your claims that we had seen such a decrease.  Your own webpage disproves your own case.
> 
> And you post WORDS from other people...I POST FACTUAL NUMBERS verified by the Department of Defense.  It seems to me that you are the one who HATES to deal with your own webpage!



This from the man who tries to say libs are not raising taxes despite all the sources I post to the contrary


----------



## maineman

here are the FACTS.... PLEASE address them!



maineman said:


> and again.... the reason I am hanging around this particular thread is to TRY to get RSR to explain to me how the DoD can report a steady stream of American casualties but HE can claim that we have seen a 60% reduction because of the surge.
> 
> I understand that pumping a bunch of troops into Baghdad has caused the insurgents to take their killing outside of town, but that does not mean that it "went away"  it just meant that the insurgents figured out where our troop concentrations WEREN'T and took the fight to us there.
> 
> RSR was the one who posted this website:
> 
> http://icasualties.org/oif/
> 
> THAT website shows the DoD confirmed casualty figures for the Iraq war.
> 
> THAT website shows the following monthly casualty figures for the past year:
> 
> 4/06  76
> 5/06  69
> 6/06  61
> 7/06  43
> 8/06  65
> 9/06  72
> 10/06  106
> 11/06  70
> 12/06  112
> 1/07  83
> 2/07  80
> 3/07  81
> 4/07  18 already this month in only five days!
> 
> PLEASE SHOW ME THE 60% reduction in American casualties that RSR keeps touting.  That is all I am asking.
> 
> The way I see it, we have seen a steady stream of carnage...and the last six months are nearly 40% WORSE than the previous six months.
> 
> Why would anyone think that was GOOD NEWS?  I think it is horrible that so many Americans keep dying for a cause that does NOT make us any safer and does NOT advance the war against islamic extremists one iota...and PLEASE remember that it was islamic extremists who attacked US on 9/11 and not one of them was an Iraqi.


----------



## red states rule

Baghdad curfew eased as surge scores successes
By Sharon Behn
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 4, 2007 

BAGHDAD -- American and Iraqi soldiers yesterday killed six terrorists and captured another 41 insurgents and death-squad suspects in operations in Baghdad and outside Fallujah, military officials said. 
    The raids were part of the ongoing enormous effort by U.S. and Iraqi security forces to break the backs of the various armed groups warring in Iraq. The Iraqi government cited the success of that operation yesterday in announcing that the nightly curfew will be pushed back by two hours. 
    In Baghdad, a U.S. Stryker battalion and an Iraqi battalion fanned out in east Mansour, an area of the city where Shi'ite death squads have been forcing Sunni families out of their homes and replacing them with followers of Muqtada al-Sadr's radical militia. 
    Directed by Iraqi and American intelligence sources, the soldiers of the 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment of the Stryker Brigade Combat Team raided houses overnight, capturing nine members of what they said was a known death-squad cell. 
    "We think they are responsible for the deaths of 22 Sunnis in this area, as well as [rocket-propelled grenade] and small-arms attacks," said an intelligence officer involved in the operation who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 
    In separate operations, coalition forces killed six al Qaeda in Iraq terrorists and captured 13 other "facilitators" yesterday morning south of Fallujah and in al Qaim, on the border with Syria, the U.S. military said. 
    The men arrested in Baghdad were swiftly flex-cuffed, blindfolded and hauled off to one of the city's detention centers, where they sat with their backs against a wall waiting to be screened by U.S. medical personnel. 
    One man came in whimpering and limping on the arms of two American soldiers, his arm and leg bandaged after trying to escape the raid by jumping over several walls. Altogether, 28 detainees were brought into the holding center from raids across Baghdad. 
    The raids were part of the stepped-up U.S. security presence in Baghdad, but the significance is hard to judge. Although the military actions yesterday interrupted one death squad, the intelligence officer said, the long-term impact could be determined only by "going back to the neighbors and asking them if they feel safer now." 
    Iraqis say several neighborhoods have improved since the security plan went into operation almost eight weeks ago, an appraisal reflected in pushing back the start of the nightly curfew to 10 p.m. 
    Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, the spokesman for the Baghdad security operation, said the decision was made "because the security situation has improved and people needed more time to go shopping." 
    However, residents of other neighborhoods say they are seeing a return to sectarian executions. 

A father of two girls said he was moving out of his area after he and his family listened from their house as a teenage neighbor pleaded in the street for a Shi'ite death squad to spare his father's life. They killed him anyway. 
    "The Shi'ite militia are making trouble," said Hassan, who asked that his full name not be used. "They are idiots, stupid." After almost four years of war and a week of finding corpses outside his door, Hassan said, he has to move. 
    American forces, such as the Stryker brigades operating across the capital and in Diyala province, are working 12- to 14-hour days to clear both Sunni and Shi'ite neighborhoods block by block and house by house. 
    They also are trying to work side by side with the Iraqi army and police in order for them to establish trust among the local population. Many Iraqis feel the Iraqi forces are corrupt and part of the death squads. 
    "I myself never trust any Iraqi police and army," said a young woman called Jenan, whose pregnant sister was killed in a terrorist bombing. 
    Staff Sgt. Brian Long, 31, a fire support specialist for Alpha Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Infantry Regiment with the Stryker Brigade Combat Team, said it was still "too early to tell if the surge is working." 
    He thinks progress has been made. "Even coming to an agreement to not kill each other is a step in a positive direction; it has happened in some neighborhoods," he said. 
    Layla, a Kurdish woman who lives in Baghdad, said shops were beginning to reopen on the shell-pocked main street of her neighborhood, which once bustled with juice stands, coffee shops, hamburger restaurants and small kitchenware stores. 
    "They attacked [the Zayoona neighborhood] several times in the last three or four months, but now people feel safe enough to open their stores," she said. 
    It is "not exactly" safe to go to the market, she said. "You don't know who is going to kill you, or kidnap you." 
    While most Iraqis are withholding judgment on the security surge, a cross-section of women and men said the U.S. military was the only thing preventing complete chaos. 
    "If they retreat and leave everything to the Iraqis, at that time the civil war in Iraq will start," Hassan said. 

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20070404-121156-4055r_page2.htm


----------



## red states rule

Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?

DESPITE sectarian slaughter, ethnic cleansing and suicide bombs, an opinion poll conducted on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq has found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants. 

The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Husseins regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services. 

The survey, published today, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war. 

Officials in Washington and London are likely to be buoyed by the poll conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB), a respected British market research company that funded its own survey of 5,019 Iraqis over the age of 18. 
The 400 interviewers who fanned out across Iraq last month found that the sense of security felt by Baghdad residents had significantly improved since polling carried out before the US announced in January that it was sending in a surge of more than 20,000 extra troops. 

The poll highlights the impact the sectarian violence has had. Some 26% of Iraqis - 15% of Sunnis and 34% of Shiites - have suffered the murder of a family member. Kidnapping has also played a terrifying role: 14% have had a relative, friend or colleague abducted, rising to 33% in Baghdad. 

Yet 49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddams era, while 16% said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer. 

Not surprisingly, the divisions in Iraqi society were reflected in statistics  Sunnis were more likely to back the previous Baathist regime (51%) while the Shiites (66%) preferred the Maliki government. 

Maliki, who derives a significant element of his support from Moqtada al-Sadr, the hardline Shiite militant, and his Mahdi army, has begun trying to overcome criticism that his government favours the Shiites, going out of his way to be seen with Sunni tribal leaders. He is also under pressure from the US to include more Sunnis in an expected government reshuffle. 

The poll suggests a significant increase in support for Maliki. A survey conducted by ORB in September last year found that only 29% of Iraqis had a favourable opinion of the prime minister. 

Another surprise was that only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war. Again, that number divided along religious lines, with 41% of Sunnis believing Iraq was in a civil war, compared with only 15% of Shiites. 

The survey is a rare snapshot of Iraqi opinion because of the difficulty of working in the country, with the exception of Kurdish areas which are run as an essentially autonomous province. 

Most international organisations have pulled out of Iraq and diplomats are mostly holed-up in the Green Zone. The unexpected degree of optimism may signal a groundswell of hope at signs the American surge is starting to take effect. 

This weekend comments from Baghdad residents reflected the polls findings. Many said they were starting to feel more secure on the streets, although horrific bombings have continued. The Americans have checkpoints and the most important thing is they dont ask for ID, whether you are Sunni or Shiite, said one resident. There are no more fake checkpoints so you dont need to be scared. 

The inhabitants of a northern Baghdad district were heartened to see on the concrete blocks protecting an Iraqi army checkpoint the lettering: Down, down with the militias, we are fighting for the sake of Iraq. 

It would have been unthinkable just a few weeks ago. Residents said they noted that armed militias were off the streets. 

One question showed the sharp divide in attitudes towards the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq. Some 53% of Iraqis nationwide agree that the security situation will improve in the weeks after a withdrawal by international forces, while only 26% think it will get worse. 

Weve been polling in Iraq since 2005 and the finding that most surprised us was how many Iraqis expressed support for the present government, said Johnny Heald, managing director of ORB. Given the level of violence in Iraq, it shows an unexpected level of optimism. 

Despite the sectarian divide, 64% of Iraqis still want to see a united Iraq under a central national government. 

One statistic that bodes ill for Iraqs future is the number who have fled the country, many of them middle-class professionals. Baghdad has been hard hit by the brain drain  35% said a family member had left the country. 

Additional reporting: Ali Rifat

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1530526.e


----------



## Bullypulpit

Ya know, both the Johnson and Nixon administrations had the Pentagon publish inflated body counts during the Vietnam war to try and paint a rosier picture of the situation than it actually was. The current body counts, absent independent verification, are a similar attempt by the Bush administration to try and put a shine on the turd that is the occupation of Iraq.


----------



## maineman

I post cold hard facts....

RSR ignores those facts and  posts other people's words.

we report.  you decide.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I post cold hard facts....
> 
> RSR ignores those facts and  posts other people's words.
> 
> we report.  you decide.



I knew you would ignore the poll showing the people of Iraq did not believe they were in a civil war


----------



## red states rule

Another example of the biased reporting from Iraq - this time exposed


America's Broken-Down Media
By Ray Robison

According to Mark Thompson, writer for Time magazine, America's army is broken. While it can not be argued that the military can possibly maintain the same state of readiness in war time as it does in peace time, broken has a certain specific ring to it: incapable, demoralized and poorly trained.

Mr. Thompson begins the article, - featured on the Drudge Report - with the story of Private Matthew Zeimer. Brave PVT Zeimer died within hours of his arrival at a Forward Operating Base in Iraq. Thompson describes PVT Zeimer's training before going on to make the case that the surge cut the young Private's training short. In Mr. Thompson's recounting of PVT Zeimer's tale, he essentially was killed because he had insufficient training.

If Zeimer's combat career was brief, so was his training. He enlisted last June at age 17, three weeks after graduating from Dawson County High School in eastern Montana. After finishing nine weeks of basic training and additional preparation in infantry tactics in Oklahoma, he arrived at Fort Stewart, Ga., in early December. But Zeimer had missed the intense four-week pre-Iraq training-a taste of what troops will face in combat-that his 1st Brigade comrades got at their home post in October. Instead, Zeimer and about 140 other members of the 4,000-strong brigade got a cut-rate, 10-day course on weapon use, first aid and Iraqi culture. That's the same length as the course that teaches soldiers assigned to generals' household staffs the finer points of table service.
Mr. Thompson finds confirmation from Congressman Murtha:


The truncated training-the rush to get underprepared troops to the war zone-"is absolutely unacceptable," says Representative John Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat and opponent of the war who chairs the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. A decorated Marine veteran of Vietnam, Murtha is experiencing a sense of déjà vu. "The readiness of the Army's ground forces is as bad as it was right after Vietnam."

Sounds like a pretty solid case doesn't it? But something just didn't sit right with me. I immediately knew this wasn't the full story. So I used a journalistic research tool, possibly unavailable to Time, called Google.

You see, this article makes the brave young Matthew Zeimer sound like an infantry soldier. Infantry soldiers go to the Infantry Training Brigade for 14 weeks of intense training after completing basic training. How can it be he didn't go? Is the army so bad off infantry soldiers don't go to Advanced Infantry Training anymore?

In my research, I found this article "Soldier's last days at home memorable" at the Billings Gazette. The article tells the story of the brave Private's short military career as told by his family and friends.

Matthew had come home on leave Nov. 8, after more than five months of basic training
Five months of basic training? What this article means is that he did nine weeks of Basic Training, which every soldier does, and then went for three more months of Advanced Individual Training in which a soldier trains on their MOS (Military Occupational Skill). About.com explains the process well:


Individuals who enlist under the 13X Infantry option attend Field Artillery OSUT (One Station Unit Training), which combines Army Basic Training and Field Artillery AIT (Advanced Individual Training), all in one course.

But most civilians just think of it all as basic training. The point being, this is three more months of a 24 hour a day resident course, tough as nails training that Mr. Thompson has neglected to mention. Three months is a significant amount of training.

And it doesn't stop there. According to the Billings Gazette:


Staff Sgt. Thad Rule, with the U.S. Army Recruiting Office in Glendive, said Matt joined the Future Soldier Program at the start of his senior year of high school, shortly after he turned 17. He spent nearly 10 months learning some of the basics about the Army, preparing him for his training.

Rule said Matt "wanted to do a combat job" and couldn't wait to join the Army. To speed things up, he opted to undergo artillery support training rather than going into the infantry, a move that got him into the Army a month earlier.


Not only did PVT Zeimer do three more months of training than Thompson lets on, he spent ten months of training before he even went in the army. While this certainly does not equate to training in an active duty setting, it is a training opportunity that most soldiers don't get. In real terms, this brave young man was ahead of the training that a typical artillery junior enlisted soldier received when I was an artillery officer in the mid-90s under President Clinton.

So was this truncated training as Murtha called it effective? Was he really ready? The Gazette goes on:


Matt was 5 feet, 7 inches tall and weighed maybe 175 pounds when he went in for basic training.

"The kid came back and he was fit," Rule said. "I'd say his confidence was the big thing."

Tessa Hopper, Matt's former girlfriend, noted the same thing when she spoke Sunday evening during a wake service for Matt.

"He was proud as a peacock when he came home for the holidays," she said.
Damon noticed it, too. Matt had always liked to exercise, he said, but he got in excellent shape during basic training.

"He loved the way he looked when he came home from basic," Damon said.


So according to PVT Zeimer's loved ones, he was fit, proud, motivated and anything but broken-down. He was a soldier damn it! Not a victim. Not a political talking point.

Mr. Thompson also tells us:


The Army and the White House insist the abbreviated training was adequate. "They can get desert training elsewhere," spokesman Tony Snow said Feb. 28, "like in Iraq." But outside military experts and Zeimer's mother disagree. The Army's rush to carry out President George W. Bush's order to send thousands of additional troops more quickly to Iraq is forcing two of the five new brigades bound for the war to skip standard training at Fort Irwin, Calif. These soldiers aren't getting the benefit of participating in war games on the wide Mojave Desert, where gun-jamming sand and faux insurgents closely resemble conditions in Iraq.

Thompson tells us that the army callously failed to train the young private in desert warfare (which is not a deployment requirement for US Army soldiers anyway). His writing certainly makes Tony Snow appear flippant about the issue. But we learn this from the Billings Gazette:


After leaving the U.S. on Jan. 13, Damon said, Matt went to Kuwait for additional training before shipping out to Iraq on Jan. 25.

Yet more training? Yes, and it was in the desert just like Tony Snow indicated. But what about that training in Fort Irwin at the National Training Center (NTC) that Mr. Thompson referred to in his article? Would that have helped the brave Private? You bet. More training is always better. But at some point the training stops when the fighting starts (actually, it continues even in combat, but not at a training facility). And a better understanding of what the NTC training mission is makes this clear:


NTC MISSION 

Provide tough, realistic joint and combined arms training

Focus at the battalion task force and brigade levels

Assist commanders in developing trained, competent leaders and soldiers

Identify unit training deficiencies, provide feedback to improve the force and prepare for success on the future joint battlefield

Provide a venue for transformation

Take care of soldiers, civilians, and family members 


Joint, combined, battalion, brigade, these are all keywords which mean that the NTC is first and foremost a unit trainer. The individual soldier goes to NTC more by providence than by design. Nobody keeps track of your NTC rotations. It is not a training requirement for individual readiness. An individual unit may not be scheduled for rotation to the NTC for as long as two years. It is one facility and there are many brigades. The NTC is not and has never been a requirement for individual deployment.

What happens at NTC? A unit rotation lasts four weeks. The unit typically spends the first week in preparation and the last week in recovery. That means that the unit spends two weeks "in the box". While the training is valuable, and is the best two weeks of training a unit can get in the army, it is only two weeks after all.

While it certainly increases the skills of the individual soldier, you don't have to send a soldier to brigade level training to learn how to clean the sand out of your weapon as Mr. Thompson laments. And dealing with civilians on the battlefield can be taught anywhere.

Mr. Thompson's article also states:


Under cover of darkness, Sunni insurgents were attacking his new post from nearby buildings. Amid the smoke, noise and confusion, a blast suddenly ripped through the 3-ft. concrete wall shielding Zeimer and a fellow soldier, killing them both.

What Mr. Thompson doesn't tell the reader is than the soldier that was killed with PVT Zeimer was "Spc. Alan E. McPeek, a 20-year-old who had been in Iraq for 14 months" according to the Gazette. Of course, it's difficult to make a soldier appear to have died due to lack of training when the soldier who died next to him was a 14 month combat veteran, isn't it?

As disgusted as I am by the absolutely misleading nature of Mr. Thompson's article and how it affects the general public's perceptions, I am far more sickened by these vultures not explaining to the families of men like PVT Zeimer that their son was a hero, not a victim to be used in creating a political talking point for shoddy journalists and opportunist politicians. Army officials should explain what the standards of deployment training are to the families of our brave soldiers before rotten tomatoes like these convince them that heroes like Matthew died for lack of training.

God bless you Private Zeimer.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/americas_brokendown_media_1.html


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I knew you would ignore the poll showing the people of Iraq did not believe they were in a civil war



when will you show me the link that backs up your claim that the "citizens of Baghdad" were the ones being polled?

When will you ever address the fact that the casualty figures from the DoD - which are in a link that YOU provided - clearly show that we have not seen a 60&#37; reduction in American casualties because of the "surge" as you incorrectly claim?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> when will you show me the link that backs up your claim that the "citizens of Baghdad" were the ones being polled?
> 
> When will you ever address the fact that the casualty figures from the DoD - which are in a link that YOU provided - clearly show that we have not seen a 60% reduction in American casualties because of the surge?



Much like on the tax increase thread - you will ignore the good news and postive news from Iraq

Libs are not only consumed with doom ad gloom but also hate and rage for outlets that report the good news


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Much like on the tax increase thread - you will ignore the good news and postive news from Iraq
> 
> Libs are not only consumed with doom ad gloom but also hate and rage for outlets that report the good news



you were the one who claimed that American casualties are down 60% fromthe surge.  I have merely been trying to get you to either address that claim or retract it.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you were the one who claimed that American casualties are down 60% fromthe surge.  I have merely been trying to get you to either address that claim or retract it.



I have posted many articles showing the surge is working, but like the poll showing people in Iraq do not belive the country is in a civil war - it goes over your pointy head

You are going to belive what the Dems and liberal media say - no matter how many facts prove them wrong


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I have posted many articles showing the surge is working, but like the poll showing people in Iraq do not belive the country is in a civil war - it goes over your pointy head
> 
> You are going to belive what the Dems and liberal media say - no matter how many facts prove them wrong



you said our casualties are down 60%.  I proved you wrong.  Just admit it and we'll move on.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you said our casualties are down 60%.  I proved you wrong.  Just admit it and we'll move on.



I have shown many articles of bias reporting and how the surge is working

When you admit it - it will snow in Miami


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I have shown many articles of bias reporting and how the surge is working
> 
> When you admit it - it will snow in Miami




the surge is working "in baghdad".  I have never denied that.

the surge is not working throughout Iraq...because as deaths have dropped in baghdad they have risen elsewhere... the insurgents have taken their show on the road and are now conducting their insurgency in areas where we do NOT have the sorts of "surge" induced troop concentrations.

When will you admit that the surge has not caused a 60% drop in American casualties as you have falsely claimed?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> the surge is working "in baghdad".  I have never denied that.
> 
> the surge is not working throughout Iraq...because as deaths have dropped in baghdad they have risen elsewhere... the insurgents have taken their show on the road and are now conducting their insurgency in areas where we do NOT have the sorts of "surge" induced troop concentrations.
> 
> When will you admit that the surge has not caused a 60% drop in American casualties as you have falsely claimed?



still stuck on stupid I see


----------



## red states rule

In Baghdad, there are a few signs of improvement, but they tend to be offset by worrisome indications elsewhere in Iraq. Sectarian killings are down about 50 percent since the new strategy began, according to U.S military spokesmen. Car bombings are up, but so are tips from Iraqis. It is impossible to know how much of the decrease in violence is attributable to the biggest Shiite militia -- radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army -- deciding to lie low. In addition, noted a U.S. Army officer preparing for his third Iraq tour, when one side in a war alters its tactics, the other side usually will take time to study the shift and assess vulnerabilities before renewing attacks. Also, in Anbar province, there are solid indications of tribal leaders turning against al-Qaeda extremists.

But, reported one Special Forces veteran who has worked in Iraq in the military and as a civilian, "the surge in Baghdad is pushing the sectarian violence to other parts of Iraq." That is one reason for the increased fighting in nearby Diyala province that led U.S. commanders to send in a Stryker battalion that was part of the troop buildup. Likewise, the Marine Corps' new success in Anbar appears to have forced some al-Qaeda fighters to shift to Mosul, Baqubah and Tall Afar, which in 2006 was hailed as a U.S. success story but in the past month has been the scene of a horrific truck bombing and revenge killings by Shiite police. Also, a military intelligence officer warned of other troubling signs outside Baghdad: Kirkuk edging closer to explosion, the Turks increasingly unhappy with Kurdish activity, and an impending British drawdown in the south that could make U.S. supply lines from Kuwait more vulnerable.

Another military intelligence veteran of Iraq said he thinks the Petraeus approach is getting some results, but he predicted that violence will spike this summer, in part as an attempt by Iraqi factions to influence the U.S. political debate. The bottom line, said Jeffrey White, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst, is that by this fall the picture may be mixed. "Things could look substantially brighter in Baghdad but much worse elsewhere," said White, who is now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...4/07/AR2007040701368.html?hpid=topnews&sub=AR


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> the surge is working "in baghdad".  I have never denied that.
> 
> the surge is not working throughout Iraq...because as deaths have dropped in baghdad they have risen elsewhere... the insurgents have taken their show on the road and are now conducting their insurgency in areas where we do NOT have the sorts of "surge" induced troop concentrations.
> 
> When will you admit that the surge has not caused a 60% drop in American casualties as you have falsely claimed?



The War You're Not Reading About

By John McCain
Sunday, April 8, 2007; Page B07

I just returned from my fifth visit to Iraq since 2003 -- and my first since Gen. David Petraeus's new strategy has started taking effect. For the first time, our delegation was able to drive, not use helicopters, from the airport to downtown Baghdad. For the first time, we met with Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province who are working with American and Iraqi forces to combat al-Qaeda. For the first time, we visited Iraqi and American forces deployed in a joint security station in Baghdad -- an integral part of the new strategy. We held a news conference to discuss what we saw: positive signs, underreported in the United States, that are reason for cautious optimism.

I observed that our delegation "stopped at a local market, where we spent well over an hour, shopping and talking with the local people, getting their views and ideas about different issues of the day." Markets in Baghdad have faced devastating terrorist attacks. A car bombing at Shorja in February, for example, killed 137 people. Today the market still faces occasional sniper attacks, but it is safer than it used to be. One innovation of the new strategy is closing markets to vehicles, thereby precluding car bombs that kill so many and garner so much media attention. Petraeus understandably wanted us to see this development.

I went to Iraq to gain a firsthand view of the progress in this difficult war, not to celebrate any victories. No one has been more critical of sunny progress reports that defied realities in Iraq. In 2003, after my first visit, I argued for more troops to provide the security necessary for political development. I disagreed with statements characterizing the insurgency as a "few dead-enders" or being in its "last throes." I repeatedly criticized the previous search-and-destroy strategy and argued for a counterinsurgency approach: separating the reconcilable population from the irreconcilable and creating enough security to facilitate the political and economic solutions that are the only way to defeat insurgents. This is exactly the course that Petraeus and the brave men and women of the American military are pursuing.

The new political-military strategy is beginning to show results. But most Americans are not aware because much of the media are not reporting it or devote far more attention to car bombs and mortar attacks that reveal little about the strategic direction of the war. I am not saying that bad news should not be reported or that horrific terrorist attacks are not newsworthy. But news coverage should also include evidence of progress. Whether Americans choose to support or oppose our efforts in Iraq, I hope they could make their decision based on as complete a picture of the situation in Iraq as is possible to report. A few examples:


· Sunni sheikhs in Anbar are now fighting al-Qaeda. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki visited Anbar's capital, Ramadi, to meet with Sunni tribal leaders. The newly proposed de-Baathification legislation grew out of that meeting. Police recruitment in Ramadi has increased dramatically over the past four months.


· More than 50 joint U.S.-Iraqi stations have been established in Baghdad. Regular patrols establish connections with the surrounding neighborhood, resulting in a significant increase in security and actionable intelligence.


· Extremist Shiite militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr is in hiding, his followers are not contesting American forces, sectarian violence has dropped in Baghdad and we are working with the Shiite mayor of Sadr City.


· Iraqi army and police forces are increasingly fighting on their own and with American forces, and their size and capability are growing. Iraqi army and police casualties have increased because they are fighting more.

Despite these welcome developments, we should have no illusions. This progress is not determinative. It is simply encouraging. We have a long, tough road ahead in Iraq. But for the first time since 2003, we have the right strategy. In Petraeus, we have a military professional who literally wrote the book on fighting this kind of war. And we will have the right mix and number of forces.

There is no guarantee that we will succeed, but we must try. As every sensible observer has concluded, the consequences of failure in Iraq are so grave and so threatening for the region, and to the security of the United States, that to refuse to give Petraeus's plan a chance to succeed would constitute a tragic failure of American resolve. I hope those who cite the Iraq Study Group's conclusions note that James Baker wrote on this page last week that we must have bipartisan support for giving the new strategy time to succeed. This is not a moment for partisan gamesmanship or for one-sided reporting. The stakes are just too high.

The writer is a Republican senator from Arizona and a candidate for president.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040601781.html


----------



## red states rule

Bullypulpit said:


> Ya know, both the Johnson and Nixon administrations had the Pentagon publish inflated body counts during the Vietnam war to try and paint a rosier picture of the situation than it actually was. The current body counts, absent independent verification, are a similar attempt by the Bush administration to try and put a shine on the turd that is the occupation of Iraq.



I do have to give credit where credit is due

Cindy Crackpot Sheehan gets one right - Dems have betrayed the voters. 


Sheehan, whose soldier son Casey was killed in Iraq, planned to lead dozens of protesters to a security checkpoint near Bush's Texas ranch and read out names of US dead in Iraq using a bullhorn. 
"Our message is: Today is Good Friday, when Jesus Christ was killed by the Roman Empire. He rose again on Sunday, came back to life. But our loved ones won't be coming home" from Iraq, she told reporters. 
The protesters will tell Bush "to end this madness for our families," said Sheehan, who took a tough line against Democrats who harnessed anger at the Iraq war to recapture the US Congress in November. 
"They got there and they betrayed the grass roots that put them back there," she said. "We can't depend on the Democrats." 


D U P E D 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> I do have to give credit where credit is due
> 
> Cindy Crackpot Sheehan gets one right - Dems have betrayed the voters.



Sheehan feels betrayed because she and a lot of those on the far left have grown impatient with the slow pace of American politics.

The elections last fall were a mandate for Dems to step up and change the direction of Bush's disasterous polilicies. The left actually expected them to use that mandate to make radical changes. So far Dems have tried too hard to be diplomatic and work with rather than against congressional Republicans. I think many on the left just forgot that at the end of the day even Democrats are still politicians.

What voters will remember in 08 is that Dems couldn't get anything done mainly because they didn't have strong enough majorities in either house to ram through any kind of radical agenda.

If Republicans keep up this obstructionism, ignoring the will of the majority, we can look for more Republican losses in 08.


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> Sheehan feels betrayed because she and a lot of those on the far left have grown impatient with the slow pace of American politics.
> 
> The elections last fall were a mandate for Dems to step up and change the direction of Bush's disasterous polilicies. The left actually expected them to use that mandate to make radical changes. So far Dems have tried too hard to be diplomatic and work with rather than against congressional Republicans. I think many on the left just forgot that at the end of the day even Democrats are still politicians.
> 
> What voters will remember in 08 is that Dems couldn't get anything done mainly because they didn't have strong enough majorities in either house to ram through any kind of radical agenda.
> 
> If Republicans keep up this obstructionism, ignoring the will of the majority, we can look for more Republican losses in 08.




obstructionism?

Try the gutless Dems who are trying a back door way of cutting of funding.
Libs are now trying to take the powers of the CIC from Presidnet Bush which they know they cannot do

Dems passed their "Surrender At All CostS" bill desite they know it will go nowhere

Then they passed a $400 billion tax increase on 3/29

I look forward to Dems tryng to explain to workers in the lowest tax bracket why they raised their tax rate by 33%


----------



## maineman

RSR.... just stop the cut and paste barrage for a moment and answer just a few of my questions in your own words:

*WHY do the official DoD casualty figures NOT show this 60% decrease in American casualties that you keep claiming, but instead show a nearly steady rate of American casualties in Iraq from before the surge began up to the present?

Why do the official DoD casualty figures show that April is on track to be the bloodiest month of the war so far?

Why do the official DoD casualty figures show that the rate of casualties for Americans over the last six months is 37% higher than the six months before that?*

Just answer those questions and then you can get back to cutting and pasting the same tired old stories over and over and over again.


----------



## red states rule

First you say the surge is not working - I post atricles that show it is

Then you ask for the poll that shows the people in Iraq do not believe they are not in a Civil War - I have

Why not admit you are beat and move on?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> First you say the surge is not working - I post atricles that show it is
> 
> Then you ask for the poll that shows the people in Iraq do not believe they are not in a Civil War - I have
> 
> Why not admit you are beat and move on?



why can't YOU just answer a few simple questions?

YOu post articles that claim the surge is working...I post offical DoD casualty figures which clearly show NO 60% decrease in casualties as you have suggersted.

Why not answer my questions and then I'll leave you alone.


----------



## red states rule

Illegal Diplomacy?
Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?
 House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad. 
The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1813324/posts


----------



## maineman

and I asked you to show me this poll of baghdad citizens... you have yet to provide that....

not that I think you ever will, or can.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Illegal Diplomacy?
> Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?
> House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad.
> The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1813324/posts



would you like to wager...say $1000 that she is never even indicted?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> would you like to wager...say $1000 that she is never even indicted?



Libs do give each other a pass - after all, when have libs ever let a little thing like the law get in their way?

I would like to see her charged, even some in the liberal media are saying she was foolish


----------



## maineman

don't run away from these questions:



maineman said:


> RSR.... just stop the cut and paste barrage for a moment and answer just a few of my questions in your own words:
> 
> *WHY do the official DoD casualty figures NOT show this 60% decrease in American casualties that you keep claiming, but instead show a nearly steady rate of American casualties in Iraq from before the surge began up to the present?
> 
> Why do the official DoD casualty figures show that April is on track to be the bloodiest month of the war so far?
> 
> Why do the official DoD casualty figures show that the rate of casualties for Americans over the last six months is 37% higher than the six months before that?*
> 
> Just answer those questions and then you can get back to cutting and pasting the same tired old stories over and over and over again.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Libs do give each other a pass - after all, when have libs ever let a little thing like the law get in their way?
> 
> I would like to see her charged, even some in the liberal media are saying she was foolish



the republicans are running the justice department.  If they think she commited a crime, you should tell them to indict her...absolutely.  If someone breaks the law, they should pay.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> don't run away from these questions:



I have and you are still coming back for more


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> obstructionism?
> 
> Try the gutless Dems who are trying a back door way of cutting of funding.
> Libs are now trying to take the powers of the CIC from Presidnet Bush which they know they cannot do



My..... things have changed in the past few weeks!

Just yesterday Cons were chanting the mantra "Dems don't have tha balls to cut funding so they've resorted to non-binding resolutions....if they're really serious about "walking their talk" they should use the only power they actually have and go ahead and cut funding!"

Now Dems have put Bush in the position of having to be the only one to "cut" funding and all Cons can say is

WAAAAAAAAH!



red states rule said:


> Dems passed their "Surrender At All CostS" bill desite they know it will go nowhere



Only if the president chooses to cut funding for the troops.




red states rule said:


> Then they passed a $400 billion tax increase on 3/29
> 
> I look forward to Dems tryng to explain to workers in the lowest tax bracket why they raised their tax rate by 33&#37;



It's not a tax increase. It's just a more equitable and practical system of taxation.

Your reliance on these Limbaughesque talking points proves your statement to be little more than Conservative propaganda.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I have and you are still coming back for more



you have NEVER answered those questions.  Why lie about that?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you have NEVER answered those questions.  Why lie about that?



The same way I never proved how the Dems raised taxes?


----------



## maineman

here:  there are just three questions.... use your own words and answer them...it really ought not to be that hard.



maineman said:


> RSR.... just stop the cut and paste barrage for a moment and answer just a few of my questions in your own words:
> 
> *WHY do the official DoD casualty figures NOT show this 60% decrease in American casualties that you keep claiming, but instead show a nearly steady rate of American casualties in Iraq from before the surge began up to the present?
> 
> Why do the official DoD casualty figures show that April is on track to be the bloodiest month of the war so far?
> 
> Why do the official DoD casualty figures show that the rate of casualties for Americans over the last six months is 37% higher than the six months before that?*
> 
> Just answer those questions and then you can get back to cutting and pasting the same tired old stories over and over and over again.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> here:  there are just three questions.... use your own words and answer them...it really ought not to be that hard.



Go back and read my posts - this is getting very boring MM


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Go back and read my posts - this is getting very boring MM




I have read every one of your posts that you have written.... and you have never addressed those questions in your own words.

You would save a lot of time by just doing it rather than continue to waste time running away from them.

go ahead...there are just three.

Give it a try ...use your own words.  

I dare you.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I have read every one of your posts that you have written.... and you have never addressed those questions in your own words.
> 
> You would save a lot of time by just doing it rather than continue to waste time running away from them.
> 
> go ahead...there are just three.
> 
> Give it a try ...use your own words.
> 
> I dare you.[/QUOTE
> 
> Acept the fact you lost, move on, and find something else to whine about


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> maineman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read every one of your posts that you have written.... and you have never addressed those questions in your own words.
> 
> You would save a lot of time by just doing it rather than continue to waste time running away from them.
> 
> go ahead...there are just three.
> 
> Give it a try ...use your own words.
> 
> I dare you.[/QUOTE
> 
> Acept the fact you lost, move on, and find something else to whine about
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not lost.... you are wrong about the casualties decreasing by 60% and you do not have the balls to admit it.
> 
> Answer my three simple questions in your own words. If you dare.
Click to expand...


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> red states rule said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not lost.... you are wrong about the casualties decreasing by 60% and you do not have the balls to admit it.
> 
> Answer my three simple questions in your own words. If you dare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must getting dizzy from all your spinning
> 
> That does explain alot
Click to expand...


----------



## maineman

I am not "spinning"  I am using the DoD figures that are contained on the website that YOU provided that show clearly that we have not seen ANY decrease in American casualties in Iraq since the surge began, let alone the ridiculous 60% claimed by you.  I am using the DoD figures which show that the last six months has seen American casualties 37% higher than the previous six months.  The same DoD figures show April as one of the bloodiest months of all!

And you cannot answer that.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I am not "spinning"  I am using the DoD figures that are contained on the website that YOU provided that show clearly that we have not seen ANY decrease in American casualties in Iraq since the surge began, let alone the ridiculous 60% claimed by you.  I am using the DoD figures which show that the last six months has seen American casualties 37% higher than the previous six months.  The same DoD figures show April as one of the bloodiest months of all!
> 
> And you cannot answer that.



Ingnoring what I post is nothing new - same old same old


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Ingnoring what I post is nothing new - same old same old



why are you refusing to answer three easy questions?

The numbers used all come from the DoD.... and they all come from YOUR website.

Why are you running away from them?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> why are you refusing to answer three easy questions?
> 
> The numbers used all come from the DoD.... and they all come from YOUR website.
> 
> Why are you running away from them?



Why are you still denying the surge is making progress? Much like you are ignoring how the people are in Iraq say they are not in a civil war?

My is must be difficult for you to keep sprewing the DNC talking points in the face of so much evidence to the contray


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Why are you still denying the surge is making progress? Much like you are ignoring how the people are in Iraq say they are not in a civil war?
> 
> My is must be difficult for you to keep sprewing the DNC talking points in the face of so much evidence to the contray




I said that the surge of troops has caused less violence in baghdad...but that the insurgents merely took their fight on the road to places where our troop concentrations are not as overwhelming...just like I predicted they would do.  And the overall result is NO decrease in American casualties in Iraq.... the surge has only changed the location where Americans are dying.  It has not caused fewer Americans to die in Iraq..and it has not caused fewer Iraqis to die in Iraq.  It has only changed the location of the carnage.

The DoD casualty figures clearly support that analysis...and they do NOT support your bullshit claim of 60% decrease in American casualties....

and you do not have the balls to just admit that you misspoke.


----------



## Superlative

maineman said:


> and you do not have the balls to just admit that you misspoke.



Good luck with this, the only thing you can count on is good old republican ignorance, they have perfected the "Grunt and Dismissal" Its one of the most difficult things in the world for some people to admit a mistake, when the leaders wont do it, dont expect their minions too.


----------



## maineman

RSR's unique combination of ignorance and spinelessness is becoming well known.


----------



## maineman

come on RSR.... explain how we can have as many soldiers die in January and February and March and even MORE dying in April and there still be this magical 60% reduction in deaths.

Can you explain that or retract that?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> RSR's unique combination of ignorance and spinelessness is becoming well known.



and your ability to duck, dodge, spin, lie, divert, and ignore are lengendary

In other words, the perfcet liberal Democrat


----------



## maineman

simple question:  why are you so deathly afraid of answering it?



maineman said:


> come on RSR.... explain how we can have as many soldiers die in January and February and March and even MORE dying in April and there still be this magical 60% reduction in deaths.
> 
> Can you explain that or retract that?


----------



## maineman

RSR.... come on.. show me in the DoD casualty figures where we experienced a 60% decrease in casualties in Iraq.

I'm waiting.



maineman said:


> come on RSR.... explain how we can have as many soldiers die in January and February and March and even MORE dying in April and there still be this magical 60% reduction in deaths.
> 
> Can you explain that or retract that?


----------



## maineman

you would gain a great deal of respect from me if you could just admit when you have made a mistake.  For example, when I read up on the democrat's tax proposals to let the republican sunset clause kick in, I agree that the marginal tax rate for the lowest tax bracket will rise from 10 to 15%  and, as I said, I personally do not support any increase with the exception of that on the highest tax bracket.  If you could just admit that your statement regarding the 60% decrease in US casualties had to do with Baghdad alone and did not account for the fact that casualties outside of Baghdad increased to the level that the overall American death toll remained unchanged, and that the overall american death toll for the last six months is 37% higher than the previous six months.


----------



## maineman

RSR..you ever gonna come back and face the music?


----------



## Annie

maineman said:


> RSR..you ever gonna come back and face the music?



I can't speak for RSR, he seems stilled. I've not a clue to where he got his 60% figure, but it certainly doesn't seem to me to reflect US military deaths. 

On the other hand, more cautiously, there seems evidence that the surge is having a positive effect. I'm hoping it's true and continues and strengthens:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040501453.html



> Defense Secretary Sees Encouraging Signs in Baghdad
> 
> By Josh White
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Friday, April 6, 2007; A16
> 
> Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday that he believes the military's operation to secure Baghdad is showing "positive" early signs but that he is reluctant to use "happy talk" to describe the situation in Iraq because it remains violent.
> 
> Gates told reporters at the Pentagon that it is still too early to tell whether the "surge" into Baghdad is working and said top commanders probably will not know until midsummer whether their efforts at clearing out Iraq's largest city are making significant progress.
> 
> Displaying a sense of caution, as he often has in his first months at the Pentagon's helm, Gates said predictions that the U.S. security plan would elicit a rise in large-scale bombings and other attacks to derail the effort have so far come true.
> 
> "I think that there is a great reluctance to engage in happy talk about this," Gates said. "It's a tough environment. . . . And I think we'll just have to wait several more months before we're in a position to make any real evaluation."
> 
> ...



http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3008554



> Curfew Eased in Baghdad as Safety Improves
> Residents Return to Tea Shop and Amusement Park as Safe Zone Emerges
> 
> April 4, 2007  - It's the question many people are asking -- is the troop surge in Iraq succeeding? It depends whom you ask. Sen. John McCain believes it is. He flew to Baghdad over the weekend, spent an hour in a market in the city center surrounded by heavy U.S. security, and then rushed to a press conference to announce that things are getting better.
> 
> "I believe we have a new strategy that is making progress," McCain said.
> 
> For the Republican senator from Arizona, there is a lot riding on the new Baghdad security plan. His presidential ambitions are more closely tied to the success of the U.S. surge than any other candidate's. For the citizens of Baghdad, the stakes are even higher -- for many, it is a matter of life or death.
> 
> One thing is certain: The security situation in Baghdad has improved enough that the Iraqi government is going to shorten the capital's imposed curfew.
> 
> Residents will be allowed on the streets until 10 p.m., which adds two hours to the cutoff time that existed when U.S. and Iraqi troops began neighborhood sweeps in February.
> 
> While Baghdad is still rocked by car bombs every day, a small area of relative calm has emerged in the city center, thanks to the stepped-up U.S. patrols and increased Iraqi checkpoints.
> 
> While it remains dangerous for Westerners to travel out of doors in the city, ABC's Terry McCarthy has spent the past week visiting five Baghdad neighborhoods where the locals said life is slowly coming back to normal.
> 
> Tea, Clothing and an Amusement Park
> 
> McCarthy visited Haifa Street, otherwise known as "Sniper Street," as it has long been considered one of the most dangerous parts of the city.
> 
> Now, people who live on Haifa Street say the violence is subdued enough that they can venture back onto the street. At one tea shop a group of men actually asked the ABC News crew to film them to show life as it returns to normal.
> 
> And the improved conditions are already starting to benefit business, according to one shop owner. "When people heard that it was safe they started coming out and spending money again," said Baghdad store owner Hussein Jihad.
> 
> Other signs of improvements: a mosque in Zayouna that was fire-bombed is now open for prayer, and Baghdad's biggest amusement park in Zawra is open again.
> 
> "It's safe here," said 12-year-old Abdullah. "There used to be some bullets, but not anymore."
> 
> Nobody knows if the small safe zone will expand or get swallowed up again by violence. But for the time being, people here are happy to enjoy a life that looks almost normal.
> 
> Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures


----------



## maineman

are you aware that we have already lost 35 Americans in the first eight days of April?  That is the highest casualty rate of the entire war.  If that is what it looks like when the surge is "working", what the hell would it look like if it WEREN'T working?

Like I have said over and over again...if you put 28K additional US troops in one city, one would HOPE that the casualties for both our side and the Iraqis go down in that city... but the "surge" is clearly too little too late and the insurgency is adept enough to just move their area of operation out of Baghdad where the US troop concentration IS to other places where it ISN'T.  We do not have enough troops available to be everywhere we need to be, and the insurgency - who knows Iraq a hell of a lot better than WE do, will continue to move their areas of operation to adjust for American troop presence.  The "surge" may very well be working in Baghdad, but clearly, it is failing miserably everywhere else.


----------



## Annie

maineman said:


> are you aware that we have already lost 35 Americans in the first eight days of April?  That is the highest casualty rate of the entire war.  If that is what it looks like when the surge is "working", what the hell would it look like if it WEREN'T working?
> 
> Like I have said over and over again...if you put 28K additional US troops in one city, one would HOPE that the casualties for both our side and the Iraqis go down in that city... but the "surge" is clearly too little too late and the insurgency is adept enough to just move their area of operation out of Baghdad where the US troop concentration IS to other places where it ISN'T.  We do not have enough troops available to be everywhere we need to be, and the insurgency - who knows Iraq a hell of a lot better than WE do, will continue to move their areas of operation to adjust for American troop presence.  The "surge" may very well be working in Baghdad, but clearly, it is failing miserably everywhere else.


And you, a military person should be aware that nothing changes overnight. In fact, Gates and generals all said at the onset that they believed that with the announcement that an uptick in violence could be presumed. I believe the link included that? 

The measures would be on the types of attacks, where the 'fronts' of the insurgency are moved to, civilian deaths, etc.


----------



## maineman

Kathianne said:


> And you, a military person should be aware that nothing changes overnight. In fact, Gates and generals all said at the onset that they believed that with the announcement that an uptick in violence could be presumed. I believe the link included that?
> 
> The measures would be on the types of attacks, where the 'fronts' of the insurgency are moved to, civilian deaths, etc.




I have never suggested that things would or could change overnight.  Please note the initial post in this thread and its premise:  that, not only is the surge "working", not only have american casualties DECREASED by 60&#37;, but that Liberals are UNHAPPY with that.  

As a veteran and a retiree and a liberal, I find such gross misrepresentation of the FACTS, not to mention the slanderous misrepresentation of my thoughts about such "success" to be repugnant.  Red States Rules should apologize to every liberal and every veteran for such a gross misrepresentation of not only the facts but our reaction to them.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

maineman said:


> factual answer?
> 
> I am saying that Saddam did not allow wahabbists in his turf... they were his enemy too.... no one has REFUTED that.
> 
> I am saying that sunnis and shiites weren't blowing themselves up killing scores of one another every day in the marketplaces of Iraq when Saddam was in power... there was NOT wholesale carnage going on between the sects of Islam in Iraq when Saddam was in power and NO ONE has REFUTED that.
> 
> I am saying that twenty years ago, the Iranians sent gun boats out to fuck with US Nvy ships and we decimated them...today... they take 15 british sailors hostage and we all are tapdancing around because NOW THEY are bigtime players in the middle east...NOW they have credibility in the region... as witnessed by the actions of Hezbollah in Lebanon last summer...and why have they got all this power and credibility and influence in the region?  because we took out the one guy who could do ANYTHING to keep them in check and NO ONE has REFUTED that EITHER!



Because those things were going on doesnt prove that OTHER types of carnage we going on with saddam in power, you havent refuted those response, but just keep repeating yours, squaaaaak, polly want a cracker


----------



## LuvRPgrl

maineman said:


> listen ...I served my country for a long time ...don't you go disrespecting my service or the perspective it give me.... or I'll have to tell all those stories about my great times in Olongapo



I have not disparaged your service. But because one serves, doesnt make him right about his opinion.
Olongapo? I dont think you saw any action there, unless you are 80 years or older.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

maineman said:


> I can certainly criticize the call of the pResident... and I intend to ...YOU get over it!


I didnt claiim you dont have a right to criticize. Liberals are always screaming its an illegal war, but it isnt. Its the Presidents posistion to send the troops or not. Get over it.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

maineman said:


> whatever.... you have shown me zip... and I have countered every one of your ridiculous RNC talking points.
> 
> If you wanna refute me, go for it...if not, shut your piehole.  OK?



Like I said, do your own US Message board search. WHy havent you? Afraid?


And BUllyshithead. FIrst, the mistakes in my postings are typos for the most part, get over it.
And you accuse ME of name calling???
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
BWAHAHAHHAHA      BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA


----------



## LuvRPgrl

maineman said:


> are you aware that we have already lost 35 Americans in the first eight days of April?  That is the highest casualty rate of the entire war.  If that is what it looks like when the surge is "working", what the hell would it look like if it WEREN'T working?
> 
> Like I have said over and over again...if you put 28K additional US troops in one city, one would HOPE that the casualties for both our side and the Iraqis go down in that city... but the "surge" is clearly too little too late and the insurgency is adept enough to just move their area of operation out of Baghdad where the US troop concentration IS to other places where it ISN'T.  We do not have enough troops available to be everywhere we need to be, and the insurgency - who knows Iraq a hell of a lot better than WE do, will continue to move their areas of operation to adjust for American troop presence.  The "surge" may very well be working in Baghdad, but clearly, it is failing miserably everywhere else.



We had one of the highest fatality numbers on D DAY, Normandie. DId that show it was/did fail? Your logic is stupid at best.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

maineman said:


> I have never suggested that things would or could change overnight.  Please note the initial post in this thread and its premise:  that, not only is the surge "working", not only have american casualties DECREASED by 60%, but that Liberals are UNHAPPY with that.
> 
> As a veteran and a retiree and a liberal, I find such gross misrepresentation of the FACTS, not to mention the slanderous misrepresentation of my thoughts about such "success" to be repugnant.  Red States Rules should apologize to every liberal and every veteran for such a gross misrepresentation of not only the facts but our reaction to them.



uh dude, RSR DIDNT MAKE THE CLAIMS


----------



## eots

LuvRPgrl said:


> We had one of the highest fatality numbers on D DAY, Normandie. DId that show it was/did fail? Your logic is stupid at best.



the rebels in Iraq wont stop fighting until the occupying forces leave ,its that simple,there may well be civil war as America had a civil war
but it will eventually lead them to their own destiny and sovereignty whatever form that may take , America would not tolerate the occupation of there nation and the middle east wont either it would be a war without end


----------



## red states rule

LuvRPgrl said:


> We had one of the highest fatality numbers on D DAY, Normandie. DId that show it was/did fail? Your logic is stupid at best.



If we had patriots like MM on D-Day he would have been screaming to stop the slaughter and talk to Hitler


----------



## Rosotar

LuvRPgrl said:


> We had one of the highest fatality numbers on D DAY, Normandie. DId that show it was/did fail? Your logic is stupid at best.



It's interesting how Cons, everytime they want to put spin on why this war is such a disaster for the U.S., say that "we are fighting an enemy unlike any we have fought before." In other words, it is a mistake to compare this "war on terror" to any other war.

And when they want to justify any of this administration's illegal actions such as domestic wiretapping, prisoner torture, pre-emptive attacks, or anything else that never occured during past wars, they are fond of saying that 9-11 "changed the rules." Things in this conflict are "unlike" anything we've ever seen.

But when it's convenient for them they'll throw out casualty statistics from WWII to justify the deaths of our soldiers in this conflict.

Which is it LUVRPgrl?

Is this "war on terror" just like WWII or not?


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> It's interesting how Cons, everytime they want to put spin on why this war is such a disaster for the U.S., say that "we are fighting an enemy unlike any we have fought before." In other words, it is a mistake to compare this "war on terror" to any other war.
> 
> And when they want to justify any of this administration's illegal actions such as domestic wiretapping, prisoner torture, pre-emptive attacks, or anything else that never occured during past wars, they are fond of saying that 9-11 "changed the rules." Things in this conflict are "unlike" anything we've ever seen.
> 
> But when it's convenient for them they'll throw out casualty statistics from WWII to justify the deaths of our soldiers in this conflict.
> 
> Which is it LUVRPgrl?
> 
> Is this "war on terror" just like WWII or not?




Clinton ran away from terrorists and we got 9-11

For some reason, libs think if the US leaves Iarq the terrorists will become law abiding citizens of the world


----------



## maineman

LuvRPgrl said:


> uh dude, RSR DIDNT MAKE THE CLAIMS



Post #1.  First sentence.


----------



## red states rule

The surge must be working, or the voters do not want the libs to give up.....

Senate Democrats say they won't halt funding for troops

By Eric Pfeiffer
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 9, 2007 


Two leading Senate Democrats said their party will not cut off funding for U.S. troops in Iraq, distancing themselves from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, who now says he supports doing so. 
"We're not going to vote to cut funding, period," said Sen. Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat and Armed Services Committee chairman. 
Mr. Levin said he and other Democrats would continue to pressure President Bush on enforcing benchmarks for progress in Iraq, but ultimately most of his colleagues will support funding because they do not have the votes to override Mr. Bush's veto. 
"What we're going to try to do, a majority, I believe, of Democrats and most of the Republicans, is to vote for a bill that funds the troops, period," he said during an appearance on ABC's "This Week." "We're going to fund the troops. We always have." 
President Bush has said he will veto either the House-passed or Senate-passed supplemental war-spending bills, which both call for a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq by next year. In addition to opposing any timeline for withdrawal or redeployment, Mr. Bush and other Republicans have criticized the billions of pork-barrel spending included in both the House and Senate bills. 
Mr. Reid announced his own legislation, which would cut off funding for the troops next March. Democratic Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin agreed to co-sponsor the bill, which Mr. Reid says he plans to put forward if Mr. Bush vetoes the current war supplemental-funding bill. But Mr. Levin said the majority leader spoke only for himself, not the party as a whole. 
"Even Harry Reid acknowledged that that's not going to happen," Mr. Levin said in reference to cutting off funding. "He has a personal position, which he said was not the caucus position." 
Meanwhile, Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, echoed Mr. Levin's comments on troop funding, telling "Fox News Sunday" that "We are not going to leave the troops high and dry, plain and simple. Senator Reid has said that. I've said that. Every leader of the Democratic Party has said that." 
Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, said he would continue to oppose a Democratic supplemental bill that removed a timetable but contained specific benchmarks, calling it unfair to Iraqis. 
"First of all, it's premised on the notion that the Iraqis aren't listening to us," he said. "They are cooperating with us. So that's old news that they're not cooperating. That's one of the reasons this new surge strategy is working." 
Although Mr. Reid recently changed his position to favor a withdrawal timetable, some Senate moderates said they continue to oppose what Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, called "micromanaging" the president and generals. 
"I'm not prepared to withdraw funding at this time. But my patience, like many others, is growing very thin," Mr. Specter told CNN's "Late Edition." 
Mr. Kyl also said withholding money to send a message to Iraqis would send other messages. 
"You're also sending a message to our troops and to our enemies, who know that all they have to do is wait the conflict out. This is not the way to try to micromanage a war from the U.S. Senate," he said. 
Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, also disagreed with timelines during an appearance on CNN. 
"Putting a timeline on is always a mistake in war because it says that a bunch of political people in Washington know better than the generals in the field what's going to be happening four months, six months, a year from now," he said, "unless you are prepared to say we have lost in Iraq, we have no chance and we're prepared to accept the consequences of withdrawal, which I think would be terrible for American security." 


http://washingtontimes.com/national/...2617-4964r.htm
__________________


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Clinton ran away from terrorists and we got 9-11
> 
> For some reason, libs think if the US leaves Iarq the terrorists will become law abiding citizens of the world



again...why do you continue to run away from the fact that Bush STOPPED the very overflights that were LOOKING for OBL in the spring of '01?

why do you continue to run away from the fact that the attorney general cut $52M from the DOJ anti-terrorism task force the very day before 9/11?

and why in the world do you think that indiginous Iraqis are going to hand over Iraq to a handful of deadenders from outside?

Whoever ends up eventually controlling Iraq will be Iraqi.... most likely shiite....most likely affiliated with Sadr.  If you think HE is a "terrorist", then I wonder who you think ISN'T a terrorist in Iraq?  He is the most influential shiite cleric in a country where 80% of the population is shiite.


If you think that he is going to give over control of Iraq's oil to a handful of foreign sunnis from Al Qaeda you are mistaken.


----------



## red states rule

The surge must be working - why would the flip flopping Dems now say they will not cut off funding?

You must be very upset with that news this morning


----------



## maineman

The news this morning that I am upset about is the reports of 10 more Americans dead this weekend.... when will you ever admit that this idiocy about us seeing a 60% reduction in casualties is wrong?


----------



## maineman

april is shaping up to be the bloodiest month of the entire war, and you want to sell that snake oil bullshit that the surge has brought our casualties DOWN by 60%????


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> The news this morning that I am upset about is the reports of 10 more Americans dead this weekend.... when will you ever admit that this idiocy about us seeing a 60% reduction in casualties is wrong?



If things are sooooo bad in Iraq, why are your beloved Dems flip flopping?

Could it be the surge is working, and Dems are seeing the people do not want the Dems to surrender?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> If things are sooooo bad in Iraq, why are your beloved Dems flip flopping?
> 
> Could it be the surge is working, and Dems are seeing the people do not want the Dems to surrender?




quit tap dancing and try to explain why you haven't retracted the idiotic nonsense about our casualties decreasing by 60%


----------



## maineman

RSR:  you have said that our casualties have decreased by 60% and that is proof that the surge is working.  Is that true or not?  and if so...please show the casualty figures that would support such an assertion.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> quit tap dancing and try to explain why you haven't retracted the idiotic nonsense about our casualties decreasing by 60%



If there is not progress being made, why are libs flip flopping?

You were so pround over the "Surrender At All Costs" bill - now your Dems are leaving you high and dry


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> If there is not progress being made, why are libs flip flopping?
> 
> You were so pround over the "Surrender At All Costs" bill - now your Dems are leaving you high and dry



why can't you answer a simple question?

I do not see any flip flopping going on at all.... and as I said earler, the bill to tie continued funding to a date to start withdrawing troops is not a surrender at all.  And why won't you explain to me how you think a handful of sunnis from outside Iraq is going to take away control of Iraq's oil industry from the 80% shiite majority?


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> RSR:  you have said that our casualties have decreased by 60% and that is proof that the surge is working.  Is that true or not?  and if so...please show the casualty figures that would support such an assertion.



have we really seen a 60% drop in casualties?  Are  you still sticking with that line of shit?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> why can't you answer a simple question?
> 
> I do not see any flip flopping going on at all.... and as I said earler, the bill to tie continued funding to a date to start withdrawing troops is not a surrender at all.  And why won't you explain to me how you think a handful of sunnis from outside Iraq is going to take away control of Iraq's oil industry from the 80% shiite majority?



The same way you did not "see" any tax increases

The liberal media are doing all they can to help the Dems

AP Suggests It's The Fourth Anniversary of Deposing City of Baghdad, Not Saddam
Posted by Tim Graham on April 9, 2007 - 06:09. 
The Associated Press reported rallies celebrating the fourth anniversary of the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein -- without ever mentioning Saddam Hussein. Lauren Frayer's article makes it sound like the American forces deposed a city, not a dictator: "Tens of thousands marched through the streets of two Shiite holy cities Monday to mark the fourth anniversary of Baghdad's fall." Nowhere in the article is Saddam even mentioned. The headline was also "Rally marks anniversary of Baghdad's fall."

The reader quickly learns the rallies were organized by Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army as an anti-American event, which would explain why it broke through the media's resistance to hopeful-sounding news: 

"The enemy that is occupying our country is now targeting the dignity of the Iraqi people," said lawmaker Nassar al-Rubaie, head of al-Sadr's bloc in parliament, as he marched. "After four years of occupation, we have hundreds of thousands of people dead and wounded."

A senior official in al-Sadr's organization in Najaf, Salah al-Obaydi, called the rally a "call for liberation."

"We're hoping that by next year's anniversary, we will be an independent and liberated Iraq with full sovereignty," he said...

Monday's demonstration marks four years since U.S. Marines and the Army's 3rd Infantry Division swept into the Iraqi capital 20 days into the American invasion.

In a statement distributed in Najaf on Sunday, al-Sadr called on Iraqi forces to stop cooperating with America.

"You, the Iraqi army and police forces, don't walk alongside the occupiers, because they are your archenemy," the statement said.

He urged his followers not to attack fellow Iraqis but to turn all their efforts on American forces.

"God has ordered you to be patient in front of your enemy, and unify your efforts against them  not against the sons of Iraq," it said.

Al-Sadr had reportedly ordered his militia to disarm and stay off the streets during a Baghdad security crackdown that began Feb. 14, though he has nevertheless issued a series of sharp anti-American statements, demanding the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. 

U.S. officials have said al-Sadr left Iraq for neighboring Iran after the start of the crackdown, but his followers say he is in Iraq. 

One sign this article is truly a press release for Moqtada is that the BBC video posted next to it on Yahoo! has more balance, noting the Americans feel Moqtada is the greatest threat to Iraq's stability and is assisted by Iran. That's right, the BBC is fairer and more balanced than AP on this anniversary. That ought to make AP crumple up the story and start over. 

http://newsbusters.org/node/11916


----------



## maineman

you really are testing my patience....you are absolutely INCAPABLE of just answering a question in your own words!

Here:  Are you going to retract your assertion that the surge has caused American casualties to drop by 60%  yes or no?

Are you going to continue to suggest that things are getting better when we are on track for the bloodiest month of the war?  yes or no?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you really are testing my patience....you are absolutely INCAPABLE of just answering a question in your own words!
> 
> Here:  Are you going to retract your assertion that the surge has caused American casualties to drop by 60%  yes or no?
> 
> Are you going to continue to suggest that things are getting better when we are on track for the bloodiest month of the war?  yes or no?



I believe the Dems you worship are testing your patience. They run on not cuuting off funding, then they say they are, not they say they won't

Dems played their voters for chumps - and you were one of them

The sutge is working - if not why are the Dems filp flopping?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I believe the Dems you worship are testing your patience. They run on not cuuting off funding, then they say they are, not they say they won't
> 
> Dems played their voters for chumps - and you were one of them
> 
> The sutge is working - if not why are the Dems filp flopping?



answer the question:  will you back up your claims that the surge has seen a 60&#37; reduction in american casualties or will you kindly retract it?


----------



## red states rule

The surge must be working since Dems are running away from their promises

All most as fast as they wanted to run out of Iraq

Send a nasty email to your Congressmen and Senators MM - I did not make them flip flop


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The surge must be working since Dems are running away from their promises
> 
> All most as fast as they wanted to run out of Iraq
> 
> Send a nasty email to your Congressmen and Senators MM - I did not make them flip flop



why won't you answer a simple question?

this board should be a place where people converse with each other, not merely rant PAST each other.  I am asking YOU a question.  Can you please be courteous enough to answer it?

Will you retract your claim that the surge has caused a 60% reduction in US casualties?

will you explain why american casualties over the past six months are 37% higher than the previous six months?

will you explain why this april so far is the bloodiest month of the entire Iraq war?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> why won't you answer a simple question?
> 
> this board should be a place where people converse with each other, not merely rant PAST each other.  I am asking YOU a question.  Can you please be courteous enough to answer it?
> 
> Will you retract your claim that the surge has caused a 60% reduction in US casualties?
> 
> will you explain why american casualties over the past six months are 37% higher than the previous six months?
> 
> will you explain why this april so far is the bloodiest month of the entire Iraq war?



I have posted many articles and links showing the surge is working

The Dems must have seen the same good news - they are now changing positions again

Dems have more positions on the war then a Bill Clinton intern


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I have posted many articles and links showing the surge is working
> 
> The Dems must have seen the same good news - they are now changing positions again
> 
> Dems have more positions on the war then a Bill Clinton intern



I am not asking you for LINKS...I am asking you to use your own words and acknowledge the fact that the claims you made about a 60% reduction in American casualties were incorrect.


----------



## red states rule

Links are facts so I understand why you don't want them


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Links are facts so I understand why you don't want them



why not use THIS link that you provided to make your case that we have seen a 60% decrease in American casualties...

http://icasualties.org/oif/

either prove that assertion or kindly retract it.


----------



## maineman

it really is that simple:  just show me where we have seen a 60% reduction in American casualties in Iraq or retract the claim.


----------



## red states rule

guess you will have to cancel your party over the graves of the troops...........

Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers 

Military and Secuity 3/14/2007 11:30:00 AM 



KUN0014 4 GEN 0266 KUWAIT /KUNA-QVN0 MIL-IRAQ-US SOLDIERS Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers BAGHDAD, March 14 (KUNA) -- The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre. Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13; the rate was on the decline during the first month of the security crackdown, compared to a month before. Two of the 17 soldiers died at US Baghdad camps of non-combat causes. The remarkable decrease in killings among the US troops came at a time when more of these troops were deployed in the Iraqi capital, especially in districts previously regarded as extremely hazardous for them such as Al-Sadr City, Al-Azamiyah, and Al-Doura. Meanwhile, US attacks on insurgent strongholds north of Baghdad curbed attacks against helicopters. Before the new security plan, many such craft were downed leaving 20 soldiers dead. The US army in Iraq had earlier said that sectarian fighting and violence in Baghdad had dropped sharply, by about 80 percent, since the launch of the plan. The statistics excluded US troops killed in other governorates such as Al-Anbar, Diyala, and Salahiddin. As to the latest human losses, the US army announced Wednesday that two American soldiers had been killed, one in southern Baghdad and the other northeast of the capital.(end) ahh.msa KUNA 141130 Mar 07NNNN


----------



## maineman

Same tired old press release that is not only 4 weeks old, but contains factual inaccuracies as well.

Here are the DoD casualty figures:

1/07:  83
2/07:  80
3/07:  81
4/07:  35 in nine days

PLEASE use those DoD confirmed casualty figures and show me where this supposed 60% DECREASE is????


----------



## red states rule

If things are so bad in Iraq, why are your dems changing talking pints this morning?

Things must be going well, or Dems would be cutting off funding today

Perhaps they understand not all Americans want the US to lose in Iraq - like you seem to want


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> If things are so bad in Iraq, why are your dems changing talking pints this morning?
> 
> Things must be going well, or Dems would be cutting off funding today
> 
> Perhaps they understand not all Americans want the US to lose in Iraq - like you seem to want




are you really incapable of answering a simple question?

Dems do not want to cut off funding for today's operations...they want to impose benchmarks for our withdrawal.  Bush will veto the present bill, and then we will strip the benchmarks out and pass it again.  Bush will be on record as vetoeing troop funding and vetoeing a plan to get America out of Iraq.

Now...please address your claim that we have had a 60% reduction in casualties.  Please address the fact that all you have to back that up is a month old press release that does not agree with the DoD confirmed casualty figures


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> are you really incapable of answering a simple question?
> 
> Dems do not want to cut off funding for today's operations...they want to impose benchmarks for our withdrawal.  Bush will veto the present bill, and then we will strip the benchmarks out and pass it again.  Bush will be on record as vetoeing troop funding and vetoeing a plan to get America out of Iraq.
> 
> Now...please address your claim that we have had a 60% reduction in casualties.  Please address the fact that all you have to back that up is a month old press release that does not agree with the DoD confirmed casualty figures




TODAY, Dems do not want to cut off funding, but that is not what Reid said a few days ago

I wonder what they will say tomorrow or next week


----------



## maineman

again....you look like such a fool by continuing to run away from this very simple request of mine.

You are beaten and beaten badly on this point and your refusal to acknowledge that speaks volumes.


----------



## maineman

Now...please address your claim that we have had a 60% reduction in casualties. Please address the fact that all you have to back that up is a month old press release that does not agree with the DoD confirmed casualty figures


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> again....you look like such a fool by continuing to run away from this very simple request of mine.
> 
> You are beaten and beaten badly on this point and your refusal to acknowledge that speaks volumes.



What were you saying Dems do not want to cut off funding?

Reid Says He'll Try to Cut Off War Funds 

Apr 2 05:16 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE FLAHERTY
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday he will try to cut off funding for the Iraq war if President Bush rejects Congress' proposal to set a deadline for ending combat. 
The move is likely to intensify the Democrats' rift with the administration, which already contends Democrats are putting troops at risk by setting deadlines. 

In recent weeks, the House and Senate voted separately to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but set an end date for combat in Iraq. The House proposal orders all combat troops as of Aug. 31, 2008, whereas the Senate orders some troops to leave right away with the nonbinding goal of ending combat by March 31, 2008. 

The House and Senate are working on a final proposal that can be sent to the president by the end of the month. 

Bush has said several times he would veto the measure, and Republicans say they'll back him. On Monday, 154 House Republicans sent Bush a letter promising to stick with him in opposition to the legislation. 

Mindful that they hold a shaky majority in Congress and that neither chamber has enough votes to override a presidential veto, Democrats are already thinking about the next step after Bush rejects their legislation. 

Reid said Monday that if that happens, he will join forces with Sen. Russ Feingold, one of the party's most liberal members who has long called to end the war by denying funding for it. Reid and others have previously been reluctant to propose cutting funding out of fear it would leave troops in the lurch. 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O8N5PO0&show_article=1


----------



## maineman

democrats are not some monolithic group of automatons.

Do you remember the great Will Rogers quote, "I do not belong to an organized political party...I am a democrat"

There is not unanimity in our caucus about how to best pressure Bush to end this stupid war.  Some want to cut funding...most do not.  Fiengold and Reid are in the minority in the caucus... they will not prevail.

so...now... I answered your question.  WIll you please answer mine concerning your claim that we have seen a 60% reduction in American casualties that is ONLY supported by a month old press release that you keep reposting and reposting...and is clearly disproven by DoD casualty figures.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> democrats are not some monolithic group of automatons.
> 
> Do you remember the great Will Rogers quote, "I do not belong to an organized political party...I am a democrat"
> 
> There is not unanimity in our caucus about how to best pressure Bush to end this stupid war.  Some want to cut funding...most do not.  Fiengold and Reid are in the minority in the caucus... they will not prevail.
> 
> so...now... I answered your question.  WIll you please answer mine concerning your claim that we have seen a 60% reduction in American casualties that is ONLY supported by a month old press release that you keep reposting and reposting...and is clearly disproven by DoD casualty figures.



I thought Dems were going to clean up all the messes in the world - they cannot even agree on what to do in Iraq

My it must be hard on you this morning to see all the directions your party is going in


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I thought Dems were going to clean up all the messes in the world - they cannot even agree on what to do in Iraq
> 
> My it must be hard on you this morning to see all the directions your party is going in



not at all...I am pleased with the vibrant debate within my party.... and now..will you please answer my question about your claims of 60% reductions in american casualties?


----------



## maineman

*again*

so...now... I answered your question. WIll you please answer mine concerning your claim that we have seen a 60&#37; reduction in American casualties that is ONLY supported by a month old press release that you keep reposting and reposting...and is clearly disproven by DoD casualty figures??


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> not at all...I am pleased with the vibrant debate within my party.... and now..will you please answer my question about your claims of 60% reductions in american casualties?



Is that why you said Dems did NOT want to cut off funding? Or did you miss Reid's comments on Friday?


----------



## maineman

asked and answered above.

Now please answer my question:

so...now... I answered your question. Will you please answer mine concerning your claim that we have seen a 60% reduction in American casualties that is ONLY supported by a month old press release that you keep reposting and reposting...and is clearly disproven by DoD casualty figures??


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Is that why you said Dems did NOT want to cut off funding? Or did you miss Reid's comments on Friday?



There is not unanimity in our caucus about how to best pressure Bush to end this stupid war. Some want to cut funding...*most* do not. Fiengold and Reid are in the minority in the caucus... *they will not prevail.*


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> asked and answered above.
> 
> Now please answer my question:
> 
> so...now... I answered your question. Will you please answer mine concerning your claim that we have seen a 60% reduction in American casualties that is ONLY supported by a month old press release that you keep reposting and reposting...and is clearly disproven by DoD casualty figures??



ditto - asked and answered

Go whine to your elected Dems - their offices are open now


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> ditto - asked and answered
> 
> Go whine to your elected Dems - their offices are open now



that is not so....please either use the DoD casualty figures to show me the 60% decrease in American casualties that your month old press release - that you just reposted again today - indicates, or retract it.

If we did, in fact, have a 60% decrease in American casualties, you should be able to prove that using the verified casualty figures from our own department of defense.


----------



## maineman

RSR....still waiting for you to use actual casualty figures to prove your statement that American casualties have decreased by 60% and stop relying on a month old press release.


try to use your own words to rebut my assertions that:

1. we have NOT seen a 60% decrease,
2. the past six months have had casualty rates 37% HIGHER than the previous six months
3.  April '07 is shaping up to be the bloodiest, deadliest month of the war so far.

don't cut and paste...just start typing and use your own words to reply to those three points.


----------



## T-Bor

RSR = The Cut and 









KING !!!!!


----------



## Gunny

red states rule said:


> ditto - asked and answered
> 
> Go whine to your elected Dems - their offices are open now



Ever think of changing your ID to "the Artful Dodger?"  

You fucked yourself.  Man up and answer the questions.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> Ever think of changing your ID to "the Artful Dodger?"
> 
> You fucked yourself.  Man up and answer the questions.



I would agree..but must say that, from my perspective, there is nothing "artful" about his dodging!  RSR is as "artful" as the guy who paints the white lines on the interstate.


----------



## Gunny

red states rule said:


> What were you saying Dems do not want to cut off funding?
> 
> Reid Says He'll Try to Cut Off War Funds
> 
> Apr 2 05:16 PM US/Eastern
> By ANNE FLAHERTY
> Associated Press Writer
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday he will try to cut off funding for the Iraq war if President Bush rejects Congress' proposal to set a deadline for ending combat.
> The move is likely to intensify the Democrats' rift with the administration, which already contends Democrats are putting troops at risk by setting deadlines.
> 
> In recent weeks, the House and Senate voted separately to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but set an end date for combat in Iraq. The House proposal orders all combat troops as of Aug. 31, 2008, whereas the Senate orders some troops to leave right away with the nonbinding goal of ending combat by March 31, 2008.
> 
> The House and Senate are working on a final proposal that can be sent to the president by the end of the month.
> 
> Bush has said several times he would veto the measure, and Republicans say they'll back him. On Monday, 154 House Republicans sent Bush a letter promising to stick with him in opposition to the legislation.
> 
> Mindful that they hold a shaky majority in Congress and that neither chamber has enough votes to override a presidential veto, Democrats are already thinking about the next step after Bush rejects their legislation.
> 
> Reid said Monday that if that happens, he will join forces with Sen. Russ Feingold, one of the party's most liberal members who has long called to end the war by denying funding for it. Reid and others have previously been reluctant to propose cutting funding out of fear it would leave troops in the lurch.
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8O8N5PO0&show_article=1



Now, let's try to not let our mouthes flat outrun our minds here ....

1.  The Democrats pass legislation and submit it to the President.

2.  The President vetoes it.

3.  It goes back to Congress for change and resubmission or discard, in which case, repeat Steps 1&2.

OR, Congress -- not the majority party -- can override the President's veto.

Do you think the Democrat Congressfolk can get enough Republicritters to cross the aisle and vote with them to override the President's veto?

You're hyping nothing.


----------



## Gunny

red states rule said:


> I thought Dems were going to clean up all the messes in the world - they cannot even agree on what to do in Iraq
> 
> My it must be hard on you this morning to see all the directions your party is going in



And what monumentous conclusion have the Republicans come to in regard to "what to do with Iraq"?  I must've missed that in teh morning news, not to mention that it was that very issue that cost Republicans control of Congress last November -- not knowing what to do in Iraq.


----------



## red states rule

GunnyL said:


> And what monumentous conclusion have the Republicans come to in regard to "what to do with Iraq"?  I must've missed that in teh morning news, not to mention that it was that very issue that cost Republicans control of Congress last November -- not knowing what to do in Iraq.



The American people did not vote to lose in Iraq. Libs said they would not cut off funding, nor would they cut and run

For over a year, Dems siad more troops were needed in Iraq - Pres Bush proposes the surge - Dems are then against it

What is the Dems plan? Surrender At All Costs


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> that is not so....please either use the DoD casualty figures to show me the 60% decrease in American casualties that your month old press release - that you just reposted again today - indicates, or retract it.
> 
> If we did, in fact, have a 60% decrease in American casualties, you should be able to prove that using the verified casualty figures from our own department of defense.



One can always count on the liberal media to show their "support" pf the troops



ABC and CBS Use 4th Anniversary of Hussein Statue Toppling to Relay Iraqi's Regret
Posted by Brent Baker on April 9, 2007 - 21:39. 
Both ABC and CBS on Monday night used the fourth anniversary of the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad as a chance to highlight the regret of a man who used a sledgehammer to destroy the pedestal. After starting her story with anti-U.S. protests inspired by Moqtada al-Sadr, ABC's Hilary Brown, presumably referring to ABC's March poll of Iraqis, asserted that the appalling bloodshed has turned most Iraqis -- 78 percent -- against the occupation. Thirty-six percent now say that life is worse than it ever was under the dictator. She proceeded to focus on how one Iraqi in particular remembers, and now regrets, that iconic moment four years ago when the huge statute of Saddam Hussein was toppled. Brown relayed how Khadim Yabani says 'but now I just feel regret because nothing has improved.' That's why he says it would have been better that Saddam had never been overthrown. On the CBS Evening News, Martin Seemungal, before he highlighted Yabani, at least acknowledged that in some places, like in the southern city of Basra, people were out celebrating the anniversary. 

Meanwhile, ABC's World News led with Diane Sawyer in Afghanistan where she suggested misplaced priorities as she pointed out that on this anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, the leaders here note the U.S. has spent some four-times the amount in Iraq, per person, as in the place the fight against terrorism started. Sawyer reminded Afghan President Hamid Karzai of how you have said if the U.S. had given Afghanistan what it spent in Iraq, it would be like 'heaven' here. Did the U.S. give too little? In your view?" Karzai refused to take Sawyer's bait, responding: We are grateful to the American people, to the taxpayers, for having helped Afghanistan, in a big way.

Sawyer's exchange with Karzai as played on the April 9 World News:


Diane Sawyer: On this anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, the leaders here note the U.S. has spent some four-times the amount in Iraq, per person, as in the place the fight against terrorism started.

Sawyer to Hamid Karzai: You have said if the U.S. had given Afghanistan what it spent in Iraq, it would be like 'heaven' here. Did the U.S. give too little? In your view?

Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan: The world as a whole -- other crises [probably meant 'countries'] in the world pay us little. We are grateful to the American people, to the taxpayers, for having helped Afghanistan, in a big way.

Sawyer: Do you have enough American and NATO troops?

Karzai: No. We don't have enough manpower or enough equipment or air power.

Last September on Meet the Press Karzai had asserted: Three hundred billion dollars? You give that to Afghanistan and we will be heaven in less than a year. 

CBS Evening News. After starting with the anti-U.S. protests, and noting how there was celebration in Basra, Martin Seemungal concluded his piece with the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue: 


Remember the loan Iraqi battering it with a sledge hammer?

Khadim Yabani, through translator: It was my wish in life to destroy the statue. 

Seemungal: That was Khadim Yabani. He remembers that moment as if it were yesterday.

Yabani, through translator: We were so happy we had got rid of the tyrant.

Seemungal: Now he spends most of his time in his shop working on old motorcycles. But business is slow. There's more demand for heavily armored vehicles in Baghdad than for Harley-Davidsons.

Yabani, through translator: We are going into the fifth year and we are suffering from problems more than we used to suffer in Saddam's time. 

Seemungal concluded: The memory of that triumphant moment is fading fast. Martin Seemungal for CBS News, Baghdad. 


ABC's World News. Charles Gibson set up the anniversary story, which followed Sawyer's lead report from Afghanistan:

Next, to Iraq. This is a major anniversary there. It was four years ago today that Saddam Hussein's statue came down in Baghdad's Fardus Square. There were many in the streets that day. There were many in the streets today. But for a different reason. ABC's Hilary Brown is in Baghdad."

Hilary Brown: "Tens of thousands of protesters converged on the holy city of Najaf in a sea of Iraqi flags to demand an immediate end to the U.S. occupation. A cleric on stage shouted, 'Get out, get out, occupier!' as the mainly Shiite crowd roared in assent. The protest was ordered by the powerful Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr, believed by U.S. officials to be in Iran. But in a statement, he called on Iraqis to stop fighting each other and unite against American troops. Authorities imposed a ban on cars, trucks, even motorcycles, in both Baghdad and Najaf. The fear was that the rally could become a target for bombers. The 24-hour traffic ban before and after the demonstration seems to have worked. 

There was little violence today. And that is rare in a country where ordinary people are being shot or blown up at the rate of 100 a day. The appalling bloodshed has turned most Iraqis -- 78 percent -- against the occupation. Thirty-six percent now say that life is worse than it ever was under the dictator. 

One Iraqi in particular remembers, and now regrets, that iconic moment four years ago when the huge statute of Saddam Hussein was toppled in Fardus Square. Khadim Yabani is a former weightlifter whose great strength helped bring the statue down. 'At the time, I was proud,' he says, 'but now I just feel regret because nothing has improved.' That's why he says it would have been better that Saddam had never been overthrown. The U.S. military said today that if Saddam were still in power, a protest like this one would not have been possible. Hilary Brown, ABC News, Baghdad."

Just last week, ABC's World News uniquely featured a report from Terry McCarthy on improvements in security and living conditions for the people of Iraq. Brad Wilmouth's NewsBusters item on that April 3 story. 

http://newsbusters.org/node/11934


----------



## maineman

one can always count on RSR to run away from his own misstatements like a fucking girlieman.

what a pathetic loser!

He posts a month old press release and refuses to acknowledge that the information was limited and out of date.  He claims that Americans experienced a 60% decrease in casaulties, but cannot back it up with any real numbers...just flatulent partisan bullshit.


----------



## red states rule

ABC and CBS Use 4th Anniversary of Hussein Statue Toppling to Relay Iraqi's Regret
Posted by Brent Baker on April 9, 2007 - 21:39. 
Both ABC and CBS on Monday night used the fourth anniversary of the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad as a chance to highlight the regret of a man who used a sledgehammer to destroy the pedestal. After starting her story with anti-U.S. protests inspired by Moqtada al-Sadr, ABC's Hilary Brown, presumably referring to ABC's March poll of Iraqis, asserted that the appalling bloodshed has turned most Iraqis -- 78 percent -- against the occupation. Thirty-six percent now say that life is worse than it ever was under the dictator. She proceeded to focus on how one Iraqi in particular remembers, and now regrets, that iconic moment four years ago when the huge statute of Saddam Hussein was toppled. Brown relayed how Khadim Yabani says 'but now I just feel regret because nothing has improved.' That's why he says it would have been better that Saddam had never been overthrown. On the CBS Evening News, Martin Seemungal, before he highlighted Yabani, at least acknowledged that in some places, like in the southern city of Basra, people were out celebrating the anniversary. 

Meanwhile, ABC's World News led with Diane Sawyer in Afghanistan where she suggested misplaced priorities as she pointed out that on this anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, the leaders here note the U.S. has spent some four-times the amount in Iraq, per person, as in the place the fight against terrorism started. Sawyer reminded Afghan President Hamid Karzai of how you have said if the U.S. had given Afghanistan what it spent in Iraq, it would be like 'heaven' here. Did the U.S. give too little? In your view?" Karzai refused to take Sawyer's bait, responding: We are grateful to the American people, to the taxpayers, for having helped Afghanistan, in a big way.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11934


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> The American people did not vote to lose in Iraq. Libs said they would not cut off funding, nor would they cut and run



That's a clever twist of propaganda RSR. Of course most Americans, if asked, would say no....they didn't vote to "loose" in Iraq. What they voted for was a change from the stagnant, dead end policies that have been in place thus far.

Our loss in Iraq is the result of misguided policies on the part of the Bush administration. They invaded with no clear strategy for winning the peace or for stabilizing Iraq after Saddam Hussein was deposed. People like Colin Powell warned the Bushies that if they invaded Iraq the very thing they're dealing with now would happen. Why didn't they listen? Now they're willing to throw more good after bad in order to postpone the day of reckoning which will be when they have to admit to the American people and to the world that they made a terrible mistake in invading Iraq in the first place.

The American people voted last fall to begin putting an end to this quagmire. Call that what you will but we're not going to "win" in Iraq. The writing is on the wall. Refusing to see it just harms our national security further and kills more American troops for George Bush's ego.



red states rule said:


> For over a year, Dems siad more troops were needed in Iraq - Pres Bush proposes the surge - Dems are then against it



Eric Shenseki told Bush more troops would be needed at the very beginning of the invasion. He was fired for his candor. Why do you suppose Bush flip-flopped on the number of troops needed?

Dems know it's too late for any "surge" to work now. Bush missed that opportunity four years ago.



red states rule said:


> What is the Dems plan? Surrender At All Costs



Parroting Rush Limbaugh talking points doesn't lend credibility to your arguments RSR.


----------



## red states rule

Since Dems know their "Surrender At All Costs" bill will never get past Pres Bush's desk - what will they do?

Dems cannot agree. Reid say the Senate will cut off funds - Levin say it won't


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> ABC and CBS Use 4th Anniversary of Hussein Statue Toppling to Relay Iraqi's Regret
> Posted by Brent Baker on April 9, 2007 - 21:39.
> Both ABC and CBS on Monday night used the fourth anniversary of the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad as a chance to highlight the regret of a man who used a sledgehammer to destroy the pedestal. After starting her story with anti-U.S. protests inspired by Moqtada al-Sadr, ABC's Hilary Brown, presumably referring to ABC's March poll of Iraqis, asserted that the appalling bloodshed has turned most Iraqis -- 78 percent -- against the occupation. Thirty-six percent now say that life is worse than it ever was under the dictator. She proceeded to focus on how one Iraqi in particular remembers, and now regrets, that iconic moment four years ago when the huge statute of Saddam Hussein was toppled. Brown relayed how Khadim Yabani says 'but now I just feel regret because nothing has improved.' That's why he says it would have been better that Saddam had never been overthrown. On the CBS Evening News, Martin Seemungal, before he highlighted Yabani, at least acknowledged that in some places, like in the southern city of Basra, people were out celebrating the anniversary.
> 
> Meanwhile, ABC's World News led with Diane Sawyer in Afghanistan where she suggested misplaced priorities as she pointed out that on this anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, the leaders here note the U.S. has spent some four-times the amount in Iraq, per person, as in the place the fight against terrorism started. Sawyer reminded Afghan President Hamid Karzai of how you have said if the U.S. had given Afghanistan what it spent in Iraq, it would be like 'heaven' here. Did the U.S. give too little? In your view?" Karzai refused to take Sawyer's bait, responding: We are grateful to the American people, to the taxpayers, for having helped Afghanistan, in a big way.
> 
> http://newsbusters.org/node/11934



How is this reporting "not supporting" the troops?

What's the deal....if you report facts you don't support the troops?

Maybe you're confused RSR. Maybe you haven't learned that there's a *BIG* difference between supporting the troops and stubbornly supporting your president and his failed policies that have in reality, abandoned our troops.


----------



## red states rule

The liberal media will always look for bad news and will usually ignore the good news


----------



## maineman

hey...RSR..will you EVER admit that your assertions that AMericans have seen a 60% reductions in casualties is a lie?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> hey...RSR..will you EVER admit that your assertions that AMericans have seen a 60% reductions in casualties is a lie?



The surge is working. Why else would Dems now retract their threat to cut off funding?

Bad news for you and the terrorists - good news for the troops


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> hey...RSR..will you EVER admit that your assertions that AMericans have seen a 60% reductions in casualties is a lie?



keep running, you pussy.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> keep running, you pussy.



keep sprewing insults - that is all you can really do when you lose


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> keep sprewing insults - that is all you can really do when you lose



LOSE???? WHat the fuck are you talking about?  I have handed you your ASS on this silly 60% decrease in casualties and I will continue to rub your nose in it until you have the grace to just admit that you've misspoken.

The "SURGE" is "working" in Baghdad because we have pumped a bunch of troops into a confined urban area.  If one were to flood NYC with 28THOUSAND more policemen, it would not be unexpected that crime would drop within that area.  The FACT is, that the insurgents have merely taken their show on the road and the killing of Iraqis and Americans has not decreased one bit when one steps back and looks at the entire country.

April is shaping up to be the bloodiest and deadliest month of the entire war for Americans and you continue to avoid retracting your idiotic statement that Americans have seen a 60& decrease in casualties.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> LOSE???? WHat the fuck are you talking about?  I have handed you your ASS on this silly 60% decrease in casualties and I will continue to rub your nose in it until you have the grace to just admit that you've misspoken.
> 
> The "SURGE" is "working" in Baghdad because we have pumped a bunch of troops into a confined urban area.  If one were to flood NYC with 28THOUSAND more policemen, it would not be unexpected that crime would drop within that area.  The FACT is, that the insurgents have merely taken their show on the road and the killing of Iraqis and Americans has not decreased one bit when one steps back and looks at the entire country.
> 
> April is shaping up to be the bloodiest and deadliest month of the entire war for Americans and you continue to avoid retracting your idiotic statement that Americans have seen a 60& decrease in casualties.



Only in your mind


----------



## maineman

so...are you standing by your statement that America has experienced a 60%decrease in casualties in Iraq because of the surge?

can you provide any proof of that beyond the one single month old news release?


----------



## red states rule

NBC Hypes 'Tough Times' for GOP With Out-of-Touch Analysis of McCain's War Stance
Posted by Geoffrey Dickens on April 9, 2007 - 10:56. 
Whatever Andrea Mitchell has it seems to be catching. Repeatedly, NBC's Mitchell has claimed John McCain's declining support in the polls has to do with his pro-war stance, a stance that quite frankly isn't unpopular within the GOP base. Well on this morning's 'Today' show her colleague David Gregory, in a piece about low Republican morale, claimed the very same thing. Gregory claimed: "John McCain has lost ground in the polls because of his support for the Iraq war."

Now any GOP insider could tell them McCain's support for the war is one of the key stances that is keeping McCain afloat with the base of the party. One has to wonder if Mitchell and Gregory are just having the same conversation with themselves and coming to the same inaccurate conclusions. 

The following is the full segment as it aired on the April 9th Today show: 

Matt Lauer: "Now to Decision 2008. The Republicans call their party the GOP, it stands for the Grand Old Party but many of the faithful are not feeling too grand these days. NBC's chief White House correspondent David Gregory has more on that story. David, good morning to you."

[On screen headline: "Curbed Enthusiasm, Tough Times For the GOP."]

David Gregory: "Good morning, Matt. It's true. From the White House to the campaign trail this is a difficult time to be a Republican, even as the '08 candidates jockey for advantage one GOP operative says of the party faithful, there is a quote, 'morale deficit.' With the country at war in Iraq, an unpopular president and a GOP presidential field outperformed by the Democrats in the money primary Republicans are in desperate search of a turnaround."

Byron York, The National Review: "With the exception of two successful Supreme Court nominations, for Republicans things have been all downhill since the 2004 election. Katrina and then Iraq, Iraq, Iraq."

Gregory: "The party's top contenders for the White House in '08 have been knocked off their stride with polls showing a majority of Republicans dissatisfied with their choices for president. John McCain has lost ground in the polls because of his support for the Iraq war. He made matters worse during a recent trip to Iraq suggesting that Baghdad had become safe enough to walk around, a claim undermined by pictures of heavy security accompanying the Arizona senator to a local market. In an interview with 60 Minutes, Sunday, McCain admitted it was an overstatement."

Sen. John McCain: "Of course I'm gonna, I'm gonna misspeak and I've done it on numerous occasions and I probably will in the future. I regret that."

Rudolph Giuliani: "I feel I made a mistake in recommending Bernie Kerik to the President."

Gregory: "Though still the frontrunner Rudy Giuliani has seen questions about his relationship to embattled former New York police chief Bernard Kerik as well as criticism about his views on social issues affect his standing. Mitt Romney had a strong showing in the money primary hauling in $20 million only to see that overshadowed by a campaign claim-"

Mitt Romney: "I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter, pretty much all my life."

Gregory: "-that turned out to be untrue."

Romney: "I'm not a big game hunter."

Gregory: "His campaign said he had been hunting only twice."

Gregory: "For months Republicans have been in foul mood. A poll from the Pew Research Center found that only 35 percent of Americans consider themselves Republicans while 50 percent identify with the Democrats. Five years ago the parties were even with 43 percent. And in campaign '08's first quarter fundraising drive Democrats out-raised Republicans $80 million to $50 million."

Rich Galen, Republican strategist: "Well I think the fundraising reports, as one indication, show clearly that Democrats are more excited about what's coming down the pike than Republicans seem to be at this exact moment."

Gregory: "If there is a chance for GOP unity White House officials hope it will come around the issue of funding for the war in Iraq. The President has said that Democrats who want to end the war with a deadline for troop withdrawal are short-changing U.S. forces. Matt."

http://newsbusters.org/node/11922


----------



## maineman

American casualties:

Jan 07  83
Feb 07  80
Mar 07  81
Apr 07  45 in nine days


1.  Are those figures, as verified by the DoD accurate?

2.  If not, please post the accurate ones and show your source

3.  If they are accurate, please explain your math that leads to a 60% decrease.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> American casualties:
> 
> Jan 07  83
> Feb 07  80
> Mar 07  81
> Apr 07  45 in nine days
> 
> 
> 1.  Are those figures, as verified by the DoD accurate?
> 
> 2.  If not, please post the accurate ones and show your source
> 
> 3.  If they are accurate, please explain your math that leads to a 60% decrease.




Still beating a dead horse  (or a dead jackass in your case)

If things are so bad - why are your beloved Dems not cutting off funding?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Still beating a dead horse  (or a dead jackass in your case)
> 
> If things are so bad - why are your beloved Dems not cutting off funding?



the horse is not dead.  You made a claim and you have yet to prove it or retract it.


----------



## maineman

American casualties:

Jan 07 83
Feb 07 80
Mar 07 81
Apr 07 45 in nine days


1. Are those figures, as verified by the DoD accurate?

2. If not, please post the accurate ones and show your source

3. If they are accurate, please explain your math that leads to a 60% decrease.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> the horse is not dead.  You made a claim and you have yet to prove it or retract it.



WASHINGTON   The Pentagon is considering a plan to extend the tours of duty for up to 15,000 U.S. troops serving in Iraq, a defense official said Monday.

The idea is among options being considered in response to a request in the last couple of weeks by Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq, said the official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the idea has not been approved.

Because Petraeus believes the troop increase President Bush announced in January has produced some momentum in fighting violence in Iraq, Petraeus wants to maintain troops at that level past the summer, the official said.

Defense officials are looking at the idea of a maximum 120-day extension for five active duty brigades that would otherwise come home in the coming months  four ground units and one aviation combat brigade totaling roughly 15,000 troops, the official said. The plan would have to be approved by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264997,00.html


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> The surge is working. Why else would Dems now retract their threat to cut off funding?
> 
> Bad news for you and the terrorists - good news for the troops



You'll continue with this spin as long as you can just like you've done all along throughout this four year fiasco.

Eack fake benchmark is "good news" until it isn't.

Then you'll move on to the next FOX NEWS talking point.

Meanwhile more US troops will pass through the meat grinder of your mindless propaganda.

Why don't you have the guts to stand up for our troops RSR?


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> You'll continue with this spin as long as you can just like you've done all along throughout this four year fiasco.
> 
> Eack fake benchmark is "good news" until it isn't.
> 
> Then you'll move on to the next FOX NEWS talking point.
> 
> Meanwhile more US troops will pass through the meat grinder of your mindless propaganda.
> 
> Why don't you have the guts to stand up for our troops RSR?



I do, I want them to win

Libs want them lose thinking it would only be a defeat for Pres Bush

Libs are to full of hate to see it would be a defeat for America and a win for the terrorists


----------



## maineman

*don't run away RSR... just answer these questions

*American casualties:

Jan 07 83
Feb 07 80
Mar 07 81
Apr 07 45 in nine days


1. Are those figures, as verified by the DoD accurate?

2. If not, please post the accurate ones and show your source

3. If they are accurate, please explain your math that leads to a 60% decrease.


----------



## maineman

come on RSR... show me where you get your 60% decrease in American casualties.


----------



## maineman

http://today.reuters.com/misc/Print...10T135926Z_01_PAR340730_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ.xml

from that article:

_"The U.S. military acknowledges the Baghdad security plan has increased the likelihood of more troop deaths.

"With more troops on the streets, there is more chance of casualties," said Lieutenant-Colonel Josslyn Aberle, another spokeswoman for U.S. forces in Iraq."_

*please explain why you continue to say that the US has seen a 60% decrease in casualties when the DoD casualty figures do not show any such decrease and LTC Aberle clearly states that we should expect MORE casualties.   

Do you think you can answer that question sometime soon?*


----------



## Gunny

red states rule said:


> The American people did not vote to lose in Iraq. Libs said they would not cut off funding, nor would they cut and run
> 
> For over a year, Dems siad more troops were needed in Iraq - Pres Bush proposes the surge - Dems are then against it
> 
> What is the Dems plan? Surrender At All Costs



Does my post say the American public voted to lose in Iraq?  No.

Does anything in this post address the question posed to you?  No.

Talking points noted.

The fact is, many conservatives abstained from voting last November due to their dissatisfaction with the conduct of the war.  Congress fell to the Democrats by default, since Democrats DID vote.

Now, I will ask again, what is the Republican's plan for Iraq?  So far, I haven't seen anything that makes sense within the context of the political, strategic and/or tactical realities faced on the ground.

And I DON'T CARE about your political gibberish.  That's a nonpartisan assessment of a battlefield situation.  

Please answer the question.


----------



## Gunny

red states rule said:


> One can always count on the liberal media to show their "support" pf the troops
> 
> 
> 
> ABC and CBS Use 4th Anniversary of Hussein Statue Toppling to Relay Iraqi's Regret
> Posted by Brent Baker on April 9, 2007 - 21:39.
> Both ABC and CBS on Monday night used the fourth anniversary of the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad as a chance to highlight the regret of a man who used a sledgehammer to destroy the pedestal. After starting her story with anti-U.S. protests inspired by Moqtada al-Sadr, ABC's Hilary Brown, presumably referring to ABC's March poll of Iraqis, asserted that the appalling bloodshed has turned most Iraqis -- 78 percent -- against the occupation. Thirty-six percent now say that life is worse than it ever was under the dictator. She proceeded to focus on how one Iraqi in particular remembers, and now regrets, that iconic moment four years ago when the huge statute of Saddam Hussein was toppled. Brown relayed how Khadim Yabani says 'but now I just feel regret because nothing has improved.' That's why he says it would have been better that Saddam had never been overthrown. On the CBS Evening News, Martin Seemungal, before he highlighted Yabani, at least acknowledged that in some places, like in the southern city of Basra, people were out celebrating the anniversary.
> 
> Meanwhile, ABC's World News led with Diane Sawyer in Afghanistan where she suggested misplaced priorities as she pointed out that on this anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, the leaders here note the U.S. has spent some four-times the amount in Iraq, per person, as in the place the fight against terrorism started. Sawyer reminded Afghan President Hamid Karzai of how you have said if the U.S. had given Afghanistan what it spent in Iraq, it would be like 'heaven' here. Did the U.S. give too little? In your view?" Karzai refused to take Sawyer's bait, responding: We are grateful to the American people, to the taxpayers, for having helped Afghanistan, in a big way.
> 
> Sawyer's exchange with Karzai as played on the April 9 World News:
> 
> 
> Diane Sawyer: On this anniversary of the fall of Baghdad, the leaders here note the U.S. has spent some four-times the amount in Iraq, per person, as in the place the fight against terrorism started.
> 
> Sawyer to Hamid Karzai: You have said if the U.S. had given Afghanistan what it spent in Iraq, it would be like 'heaven' here. Did the U.S. give too little? In your view?
> 
> Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan: The world as a whole -- other crises [probably meant 'countries'] in the world pay us little. We are grateful to the American people, to the taxpayers, for having helped Afghanistan, in a big way.
> 
> Sawyer: Do you have enough American and NATO troops?
> 
> Karzai: No. We don't have enough manpower or enough equipment or air power.
> 
> Last September on Meet the Press Karzai had asserted: Three hundred billion dollars? You give that to Afghanistan and we will be heaven in less than a year.
> 
> CBS Evening News. After starting with the anti-U.S. protests, and noting how there was celebration in Basra, Martin Seemungal concluded his piece with the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue:
> 
> 
> Remember the loan Iraqi battering it with a sledge hammer?
> 
> Khadim Yabani, through translator: It was my wish in life to destroy the statue.
> 
> Seemungal: That was Khadim Yabani. He remembers that moment as if it were yesterday.
> 
> Yabani, through translator: We were so happy we had got rid of the tyrant.
> 
> Seemungal: Now he spends most of his time in his shop working on old motorcycles. But business is slow. There's more demand for heavily armored vehicles in Baghdad than for Harley-Davidsons.
> 
> Yabani, through translator: We are going into the fifth year and we are suffering from problems more than we used to suffer in Saddam's time.
> 
> Seemungal concluded: The memory of that triumphant moment is fading fast. Martin Seemungal for CBS News, Baghdad.
> 
> 
> ABC's World News. Charles Gibson set up the anniversary story, which followed Sawyer's lead report from Afghanistan:
> 
> Next, to Iraq. This is a major anniversary there. It was four years ago today that Saddam Hussein's statue came down in Baghdad's Fardus Square. There were many in the streets that day. There were many in the streets today. But for a different reason. ABC's Hilary Brown is in Baghdad."
> 
> Hilary Brown: "Tens of thousands of protesters converged on the holy city of Najaf in a sea of Iraqi flags to demand an immediate end to the U.S. occupation. A cleric on stage shouted, 'Get out, get out, occupier!' as the mainly Shiite crowd roared in assent. The protest was ordered by the powerful Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr, believed by U.S. officials to be in Iran. But in a statement, he called on Iraqis to stop fighting each other and unite against American troops. Authorities imposed a ban on cars, trucks, even motorcycles, in both Baghdad and Najaf. The fear was that the rally could become a target for bombers. The 24-hour traffic ban before and after the demonstration seems to have worked.
> 
> There was little violence today. And that is rare in a country where ordinary people are being shot or blown up at the rate of 100 a day. The appalling bloodshed has turned most Iraqis -- 78 percent -- against the occupation. Thirty-six percent now say that life is worse than it ever was under the dictator.
> 
> One Iraqi in particular remembers, and now regrets, that iconic moment four years ago when the huge statute of Saddam Hussein was toppled in Fardus Square. Khadim Yabani is a former weightlifter whose great strength helped bring the statue down. 'At the time, I was proud,' he says, 'but now I just feel regret because nothing has improved.' That's why he says it would have been better that Saddam had never been overthrown. The U.S. military said today that if Saddam were still in power, a protest like this one would not have been possible. Hilary Brown, ABC News, Baghdad."
> 
> Just last week, ABC's World News uniquely featured a report from Terry McCarthy on improvements in security and living conditions for the people of Iraq. Brad Wilmouth's NewsBusters item on that April 3 story.
> 
> http://newsbusters.org/node/11934



Please explain what exactly it is that you do to "support the troops," RSR.


----------



## maineman

Hey  RSR..when are you gonna retract the bullshit about the surge causing a 60% decrease in American casualties in Iraq?

We've lost 45 in the first ten days of April.  That makes April the bloodiest month of the war...how is that a decrease?


----------



## red states rule

GunnyL said:


> Does my post say the American public voted to lose in Iraq?  No.
> 
> Does anything in this post address the question posed to you?  No.
> 
> Talking points noted.
> 
> The fact is, many conservatives abstained from voting last November due to their dissatisfaction with the conduct of the war.  Congress fell to the Democrats by default, since Democrats DID vote.
> 
> Now, I will ask again, what is the Republican's plan for Iraq?  So far, I haven't seen anything that makes sense within the context of the political, strategic and/or tactical realities faced on the ground.
> 
> And I DON'T CARE about your political gibberish.  That's a nonpartisan assessment of a battlefield situation.
> 
> Please answer the question.



First to kill/capture terrorists

Help train Iraq Police and Military to fight back

Get the government stable so they can handle their own affairs. When they tell us to leave - we leave

If we leave now, as the Dems want, the terrorists and Iran move in and take over.


----------



## red states rule

GunnyL said:


> Please explain what exactly it is that you do to "support the troops," RSR.



Lets see, first I send ten CARE packages to month to some Marines. A friend of a friend of mine is in Iraq and we both ship packages each month to him and his buddies.

I also do not call them Nazi's, terrorists, and killers as some other do


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> Lets see, first I send ten CARE packages to month to some Marines. A friend of a friend of mine is in Iraq and we both ship packages each month to him and his buddies.
> 
> I also do not call them Nazi's, terrorists, and killers as some other do



No....

You just mindlessly use RNC propaganda to support failed policies that get them killed unnecessarily.

You're the worst kind of liar and phony RSR.

You don't "support" the troops. You support George Bush and the Republican party period.

Now I suppose this is where you try to tell me you're not even a Republican?


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> First to kill/capture terrorists.



Well that's pretty open ended isn't it?

With our policies creating more terrorists than we can capture/kill how will we ever know when this objective is accomplished?



red states rule said:


> Help train Iraq Police and Military to fight back.



Been trying to do this for years. It's not working. What's different now? Do we have any new strategies in place for accomplishing this or is Bush simply continuing with more of the same strategies that have failed so far?




red states rule said:


> Get the government stable so they can handle their own affairs. When they tell us to leave - we leave



Weren't we told the government would be "stable" and the situation and the violence should settle down once "free" elections were held and a constitution put in place?

BTW they have asked us to leave....several times. Bush is not having any of it.



red states rule said:


> If we leave now, as the Dems want, the terrorists and Iran move in and take over.



I guess Bush should have considered this back before he invaded.

At least you're finally admitting that Bush's policies have turned Iraq into a sanctuary and a training ground for future terrorists.

There may be hope for you yet!


----------



## maineman

sometime soon?



maineman said:


> Hey  RSR..when are you gonna retract the bullshit about the surge causing a 60% decrease in American casualties in Iraq?
> 
> We've lost 45 in the first ten days of April.  That makes April the bloodiest month of the war...how is that a decrease?


----------



## red states rule

Rosotar said:


> No....
> 
> You just mindlessly use RNC propaganda to support failed policies that get them killed unnecessarily.
> 
> You're the worst kind of liar and phony RSR.
> 
> You don't "support" the troops. You support George Bush and the Republican party period.
> 
> Now I suppose this is where you try to tell me you're not even a Republican?



So what do you do to support the troops besides calling for them to surrender?


----------



## maineman

here kitty kitty....

come on over and take your medicine.

be a good little pussy and own up to the fact that your claims of a 60% reduction in American casualties come from a month old press release which was only dealing with one small area of Iraq and did not account for the concurrent increases in casualties elsewhere in Iraq..... 

just admit you fucked up...it will feel better if you do.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> here kitty kitty....
> 
> come on over and take your medicine.
> 
> be a good little pussy and own up to the fact that your claims of a 60% reduction in American casualties come from a month old press release which was only dealing with one small area of Iraq and did not account for the concurrent increases in casualties elsewhere in Iraq.....
> 
> just admit you fucked up...it will feel better if you do.



Calm down MM - go burn a flag - it will make you feel better


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Calm down MM - go burn a flag - it will make you feel better



I am quite calm... 

when will you ever admit that you fucked up?

When will you admit that we have seen NO decrease in American casualties since the surge?

when will you admit that the last six months are 37% deadlier for Americans than the previous six?

when will you admit that April 07 is shaping up to be the deadliest month of the entire war?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I am quite calm...
> 
> when will you ever admit that you fucked up?
> 
> When will you admit that we have seen NO decrease in American casualties since the surge?
> 
> when will you admit that the last six months are 37% deadlier for Americans than the previous six?
> 
> when will you admit that April 07 is shaping up to be the deadliest month of the entire war?



Will you ever admit the surge is working since Dems are nowing coming up with yet another plan to fund or not to fund the war?


----------



## maineman

and to be quite honest.... the only time I have EVER burned an American Flag was in the ceremony at my American legion post....

I will admit, however, that watching YOU burst into flames would give me a great deal of pleasure.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> and to be quite honest.... the only time I have EVER burned an American Flag was in the ceremony at my American legion post....
> 
> I will admit, however, that watching YOU burst into flames would give me a great deal of pleasure.




I know that is the usual reaction libs have towards those who disagree with them

I am used to the liberal version of love and tolerance


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Will you ever admit the surge is working since Dems are nowing coming up with yet another plan to fund or not to fund the war?




I have yet to see any evidence that the surge is actually working on a national scale in Iraq...I do not think that the surge of troops has any direct connection to the democrats and their development of ways of effectively providing oversight to an inept administration as they bungle the execution of a failed foreign policy that america wants changed.

when will YOU ever admit that your statements concerning a 60% reduction in american casualties are contradicted by the facts?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I have yet to see any evidence that the surge is actually working on a national scale in Iraq...I do not think that the surge of troops has any direct connection to the democrats and their development of ways of effectively providing oversight to an inept administration as they bungle the execution of a failed foreign policy that america wants changed.
> 
> when will YOU ever admit that your statements concerning a 60% reduction in american casualties are contradicted by the facts?



Still hoping for defeat?

The terrorists thank you for your continued and dedicated support


----------



## maineman

when will you ever admit that you fucked up?

When will you admit that we have seen NO decrease in American casualties since the surge?

when will you admit that the last six months are 37% deadlier for Americans than the previous six?

when will you admit that April 07 is shaping up to be the deadliest month of the entire war?

* come clean.  admit you were wrong.  there IS no 60% reduction in American casualties.  I called you on it and you have done nothing but run away like a pussy.  Everyone knows it.... everyone is laughing at you. *


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Still hoping for defeat?
> 
> The terrorists thank you for your continued and dedicated support



The fact that I tell the truth about the death toll does not mean that I hope for defeat.... the fact thay you continue to LIE about the death toll makes you a despicable subhuman.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> The fact that I tell the truth about the death toll does not mean that I hope for defeat.... the fact thay you continue to LIE about the death toll makes you a despicable subhuman.



and you smile everytime you make your "report"


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> and you smile everytime you make your "report"



I don't smile at all.... do you smile when you lie about it?


----------



## maineman

simple questions.  quit running away from them:



maineman said:


> when will you ever admit that you fucked up?
> 
> When will you admit that we have seen NO decrease in American casualties since the surge?
> 
> when will you admit that the last six months are 37% deadlier for Americans than the previous six?
> 
> when will you admit that April 07 is shaping up to be the deadliest month of the entire war?
> 
> * come clean.  admit you were wrong.  there IS no 60% reduction in American casualties.  I called you on it and you have done nothing but run away like a pussy.  Everyone knows it.... everyone is laughing at you. *


----------



## maineman

areyou ever gonna address this lie of yours?


----------



## maineman

still waiting RSR.  Still waiting for you to explain how we can experience a 60% decrease in casualties while having the same number of soldiers killed.


----------



## maineman

anytime...RSR.... anytime.

Just show me how we can lose the same number of troops in January, February and March and be losing even MORE in April and that somehow translates to a 60% reduction.

Just show me how the surge is working when our death toll and the death toll among Iraqis continues to rise.

Don't cut and paste month old press releases....just have the intellectual integrity to actually formulate your own thoughts and answer those questions for me.

Can you do that?


----------



## maineman

still waiting


----------



## maineman

and STILL waiting...


----------



## Paul Revere

maineman said:


> still waiting



Don't hold your breath..... Rash Limpballs and FAUX NEWS haven't told him what to think on this subject yet. RSR is researching an answer.


----------



## Superlative

AWESOME. seriously.


----------



## maineman

come on RSR...show me how we have a 60% DECREASE in American casualties!


----------



## maineman

RSR.....here kitty kitty.....


----------



## red states rule

BBC Cancels TV Movie On Iraq War Hero As 'Too Positive,' Would 'Alienate' War Opponents
Posted by Lynn Davidson on April 11, 2007 - 21:08. 

The UKs Telegraph reported that the BBC cancelled a 90-minute drama about the youngest surviving winner of the UKs highest award for valor because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq. The BBC blocked the project that would have honored the incredible bravery and resilience of Private Johnson Beharry, a man who didnt hesitate to risk his own life two separate times for his fellow soldiers. His Victoria Cross citation reads like a blockbuster Hollywood action script, but instead, its the real deal. Sounds uplifting and encouraging, and it could even be a real morale booster, right? Well, for the Beeb, thats the problem (emphasis mine throughout): 


For the BBC, however, his story is "too positive" about the conflict.

The corporation has cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.

The BBC's retreat from the project, which had the working title Victoria Cross, has sparked accusations of cowardice and will reignite the debate about the broadcaster's alleged lack of patriotism.


A project insider exposed what many people have suspected about the BBC, which notoriously refuses to use the term terrorist to avoid making value judgments:

"The BBC has behaved in a cowardly fashion by pulling the plug on the project altogether," said a source close to the project. "It began to have second thoughts last year as the war in Iraq deteriorated. It felt it couldn't show anything with a degree of positivity about the conflict.

"It needed to tell stories about Iraq which reflected the fact that some members of the audience didn't approve of what was going on. Obviously a story about Johnson Beharry could never do that. You couldn't have a scene where he suddenly turned around and denounced the war because he just wouldn't do that.

"The film is now on hold and it will only make it to the screen if another broadcaster picks it up."

The BBC wouldnt even show a positive story about a soldier because it interfered with the political message they wanted to send. They are clearly defining what they value, and it shows they are willing to give up good entertainment simply because it goes against their world view. The article then touched on the growing belief that the BBC only cares about negative stories about Iraq:

The BBC's decision to pull out will only confirm the fears of critics that television drama is only interested in telling bad news stories about the war.

The Ministry of Defence recently expressed concern about Channel 4's The Mark of Cain which showed British troops brutalising Iraqi detainees. That programme was temporarily pulled from the schedules after Iran detained 15 British troops


So, positive stories about Iraq are out and negative stories are in. Sounds like the US. There is social power in the entertainment side of the TV business, and the industry and the activists know it. The power of imagination and good writing can subtly influence in ways that lectures and screaming cannot.

If there is any doubt that Pte. Beharrys story should be told, read his citation in a BBC article that describes his amazing heroism (back when the BBC wasnt worried about the wrong message that a positive story about Iraq could send), or read a less detailed summary in this Telegraph article.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11982


----------



## maineman

funny...I don't see anything in your latest cut and paste that talks at all about your assertion that America has seen a 60% decrease in casualties.  Are you ever going to retract that?


----------



## red states rule

Any good news must be ignored at all costs

It does not fit the liberal medias agenda


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Any good news must be ignored at all costs
> 
> It does not fit the liberal medias agenda



I love good news.

I am just asking you to retract your inaccurate statement about American casualties decreasing by 60%

are you going to continue to stand by that clearly inaccurate assertion?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I love good news.
> 
> I am just asking you to retract your inaccurate statement about American casualties decreasing by 60%
> 
> are you going to continue to stand by that clearly inaccurate assertion?



maybe you do, but the liberal media does not 

they show that everyday


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> maybe you do, but the liberal media does not
> 
> they show that everyday



this is a conversation between you and me...not you and the liberal media.

I am telling you that I rejoice at any and all good news that comes out of Iraq.

I am asking you to explain or retract your assertion that American casualties have decreased by 60%.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> this is a conversation between you and me...not you and the liberal media.
> 
> I am telling you that I rejoice at any and all good news that comes out of Iraq.
> 
> I am asking you to explain or retract your assertion that American casualties have decreased by 60%.



NYT Hypes 'Huge' Death-to-America Protest In Iraq; Military Offered Lower Estimate
Posted by Tim Graham on April 11, 2007 - 08:59. 
Tuesdays New York Times played up the big Monday rally against America in Najaf. The online headline hyped: Huge Protest In Iraq Demands America Withdraw. The front page of Tuesdays Times was milder: Protest In Iraq, Called By Cleric, Demands U.S. Go, and that Thousands Support Sadr. 

Reporter Edward Wong began: Tens of thousands of protesters loyal to Moktada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric, took to the streets of the holy city of Najaf on Monday in an extraordinarily disciplined rally to demand an end to the American military presence in Iraq, burning American flags and chanting Death to America!

Redstate.com reported the U.S. military estimated a crowd of 5,000 to 7,000, but media accounts routinely stated tens of thousands rallied, which would imply at least two tens, or 20,000 protesters. Wong mentioned the various estimates in paragraph 20, but disagreed with the military estimate: 

Estimates of the crowds size varied wildly. A police commander in Najaf, Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim al-Mayahi, said there were at least half a million people. Colonel Garver said that military reports had estimates of 5,000 to 7,000. Residents and other Iraqi officials said there were tens of thousands, and television images of the rally seemed to support their estimates.

Did Wong check out the aerial photo before laying out such a wild range of estimates? While a subheadline mentioned the protest took place 4 Years After Baghdads Fall and a front-page caption also mentioned it was merely the fourth anniversary of Baghdads fall, the name of the deposed dictator Saddam Hussein did not emerge until paragraph 19, when his name was invoked against America: 


An Interior Ministry employee in a flowing tan robe, Haider Abdul Rahim Mustafa, 23, said that he had come from Basra to demand the withdrawal of the occupier.

The occupier supported Saddam and helped him to become stronger, then removed him because his cards were burned, he said, using an Arabic expression to note that Saddam Hussein was no longer useful to the United States. The fall of Saddam means nothing to us as long as the alternative is the American occupation.

P.S. on the Huge headline: When tens of thousands of Americans showed up in Washington in January  the Washington Post readers advocate downplayed the crowd as fewer than 50,000"  the Times dispatch (not on the front page, of course) by Sarah Abruzzese was simply headlined Thousands of Abortion Opponents Rally on Mall. No huge rally there, despite the fact it was probably larger than the "huge" radical Shi'ite protest against America. Pro-lifers were also not extraordinarily disciplined. 

http://newsbusters.org/node/11966


----------



## maineman

where in that particular cut and paste does it address your assertion that we have seen a 60% decrease in American casualties?


----------



## maineman

try having a discussion with me.


----------



## red states rule

I am showing another example of the biased reporting from the liberal media


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I am showing another example of the biased reporting from the liberal media




that is not what we were discussing....we were discussing the fact that I disagree with your assertion that America has seen a 60% decrease in casualties since the start of the surge.

Are you ever going to address that?

are you ever going to even TRY to have a discussion with ME about anything?


----------



## maineman

Here is a very well articulated and reasoned article from Joe Biden about the surge:

I suggest you read it and give me your comments, RSR..... 

after you retract the idiocy about the 60% decrease in US casualties, that is.....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../04/11/AR2007041102119.html?hpid=opinionsbox1


----------



## maineman

*that editorial ends as follows:*


If the president's plan won't work, what will? History suggests only four other ways to keep together a country riven by sectarian strife:

We allow or help one side to win, which would require years of horrific bloodletting.

We perpetuate the occupation, which is impossible politically and practically.

We promote the return of a dictator, who is not on the horizon but whose emergence would be the cruelest of ironies.

Or we help Iraq make the transition to a decentralized, federal system, as called for in its constitution, where each major group has local control over the fabric of its daily life, including security, education, religion and marriage.

Making federalism work for all Iraqis is a strategy that can still succeed and allow our troops to leave responsibly. It's a strategy I have been promoting for a year.

I cannot guarantee that my plan for Iraq (detailed at http://www.planforiraq.com) will work. But I can guarantee that the course we're on -- the course that a man I admire, John McCain, urges us to continue -- is a road to nowhere.


*that is not "cut and run"  that is not "surrender at all costs" that is a voice of reason and wisdom.... he should not be denigrated or shouted down or blythely dismissed.*


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> *that editorial ends as follows:*
> 
> 
> If the president's plan won't work, what will? History suggests only four other ways to keep together a country riven by sectarian strife:
> 
> We allow or help one side to win, which would require years of horrific bloodletting.
> 
> We perpetuate the occupation, which is impossible politically and practically.
> 
> We promote the return of a dictator, who is not on the horizon but whose emergence would be the cruelest of ironies.
> 
> Or we help Iraq make the transition to a decentralized, federal system, as called for in its constitution, where each major group has local control over the fabric of its daily life, including security, education, religion and marriage.
> 
> Making federalism work for all Iraqis is a strategy that can still succeed and allow our troops to leave responsibly. It's a strategy I have been promoting for a year.
> 
> I cannot guarantee that my plan for Iraq (detailed at http://www.planforiraq.com) will work. But I can guarantee that the course we're on -- the course that a man I admire, John McCain, urges us to continue -- is a road to nowhere.
> 
> 
> *that is not "cut and run"  that is not "surrender at all costs" that is a voice of reason and wisdom.... he should not be denigrated or shouted down or blythely dismissed.*



Surge Results are Visible
By Charles Krauthammer

By the day, the debate at home about Iraq becomes increasingly disconnected from the realities of the actual war on the ground. The Democrats in Congress are so consumed with negotiating among their factions the most clever linguistic device to legislatively ensure the failure of the administration's current military strategy -- while not appearing to do so -- that they speak almost not at all about the first visible results of that strategy. 

And preliminary results are visible. The landscape is shifting in the two fronts of the current troop surge: Anbar province and Baghdad.

The news from Anbar is the most promising. Only last fall, the Marines' leading intelligence officer there concluded that the U.S. had essentially lost the fight to al-Qaeda. Yet, just this week, the marine commandant, Gen. James Conway, returned from a four-day visit to the province and reported that we "have turned the corner.'' 


Why? Because, as Lt. Col. David Kilcullen, the Australian counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus, has written, 14 of the 18 tribal leaders in Anbar have turned against al-Qaeda. As a result, thousands of Sunni recruits are turning up at police stations where none could be seen before. For the first time, former insurgent strongholds such as Ramadi have a Sunni police force fighting essentially on our side. 

Retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a major critic of the Bush war policy, now reports that in Anbar, al-Qaeda is facing "a real and growing groundswell of Sunni tribal opposition.'' And that "this is a crucial struggle and it is going our way -- for now.''

The situation in Baghdad is more mixed. Thursday's bridge and Green Zone attacks show the insurgents' ability to bomb sensitive sites. On the other hand, pacification is proceeding. "Nowhere is safe for Westerners to linger,'' reported ABC's Terry McCarthy on April 3, "but over the past week we visited five different neighborhoods where the locals told us life is slowly coming back to normal.'' He reported from Jadriyah, Karrada, Zayouna, Zawra Park and the notorious Haifa Street, previously known as "sniper alley.'' He found that "children have come out to play again. Shoppers are back in markets,'' and concluded that "nobody knows if this small safe zone will expand or get swallowed up again by violence. For the time being though, people here are happy to enjoy a life that looks almost normal.''

Fouad Ajami, just returned from his seventh trip to Iraq, is similarly guardedly optimistic and explains the change this way: Fundamentally, the Sunnis have lost the battle of Baghdad. They initiated it with their indiscriminate terror campaign that they assumed would cow the Shiites, whom they view with contempt as congenitally quiescent, lower-class former subjects. They learned otherwise after the Samarra bombing (February 2006) kindled Shiite fury -- a savage militia campaign of kidnapping, indiscriminate murder and ethnic cleansing that has made Baghdad a largely Shiite city.

Petraeus is trying now to complete the defeat of the Sunni insurgents in Baghdad -- without the barbarism of the Shiite militias, whom his forces are simultaneously pursuing and suppressing. 

How at this point -- with only about half of the additional surge troops yet deployed -- can Democrats be trying to force the U.S. to give up? The Democrats say they are carrying out their electoral mandate from the November election. But winning a single-vote Senate majority as a result of razor-thin victories in Montana and Virginia is hardly a landslide.

Second, if the electorate was sending an unconflicted message about withdrawal, how did the most uncompromising supporter of the war, Sen. Joe Lieberman, win handily in one of the most liberal states in the country? 

And third, where was the mandate for withdrawal? Almost no Democratic candidates campaigned on that. They campaigned for changing the course the administration was on last November.

Which the president has done. He changed the civilian leadership at the Department of Defense, replaced the head of Central Command and, most critically, replaced the Iraq commander with Petraeus -- unanimously approved by the Democratic Senate -- to implement a new counterinsurgency strategy.

John McCain has had no illusions about the difficulty of this war. Nor does he now. In his bold and courageous speech at the Virginia Military Institute defending the war effort, he described the improvements on the ground while acknowledging the enormous difficulties ahead. Insisting that success in Iraq is both possible and necessary, McCain made clear that he is willing to stake his presidential ambitions, indeed his entire political career, on a war policy that is unpopular but that he believes must be pursued for the sake of the country. How many other presidential candidates -- beginning with, say, Hillary Clinton -- do you think are acting in the same spirit?

letters@charleskrauthammer.com 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/surge_results_are_visible.html


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> Here is a very well articulated and reasoned article from Joe Biden about the surge:
> 
> I suggest you read it and give me your comments, RSR.....
> 
> after you retract the idiocy about the 60% decrease in US casualties, that is.....
> 
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../04/11/AR2007041102119.html?hpid=opinionsbox1



Here's one that is better..............


Learning from George McGovern and Earl Browder
By Andrew Walden


Do we sit on the sidelines and watch a population slaughtered, or do we marshal military force and put an end to it?"  -- Senator George McGovern, August 21, 1978
The "it" McGovern wanted US troops to put an end to was the killing of millions of Cambodians in the late 1970s by the communist Pol Pot dictatorship.  Three and a half years after congressional Democrats made that slaughter possible by cutting off all US aid to anti-communist forces with their so-called December, 1974 "Foreign Assistance Act", their leader McGovern had made a complete reversal and was suddenly calling for a new US war in Southeast Asia.


Why is this little-remembered footnote in history relevant today?  Congressional Democrats' March vote for phased withdrawal from Iraq is a replay of McGovern's treacherous thirty-five year old script with McGovern consulting from the sidelines.  Last November, the sixty-two members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, led by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) sat down with McGovern to work out a strategy for withdrawal from Iraq.  Those discussions led to the mis-named "Iraq Accountability Act", now heading for a veto from President Bush after passing the House and the Senate in March.   


With Congressional Democrats, and a few Republicans, dancing to McGovern's tune, it might behoove them to break out of their December, 1974 mind frame and take a look to August of 1978-forty-four months down McGovern's Southeast Asia timeline.  


Passage of the December, 1974 "Foreign Assistance Act", had lead quickly to the collapse of anti-communist forces in Cambodia on April 17, 1975, and in South Vietnam on April 30, 1975.  This marked the end of the US war, but the killing was just beginning.  The communist forces controlling Vietnam are credited with the killing of 1.8 million people (not counting war casualties) as they warred to take power from 1945 to 1987.  In Cambodia anybody appearing educated' was killed and the cities were emptied.  Thousands starved or were beaten to death in slave labor camps.  Pol Pot's death toll is estimated at 2 to 3 million killed between 1975 and 1978.


Needless to say, McGovern's August, 1978 turnabout raised many eyebrows.  The Wall Street Journal wrote August 23 of that year: 

"There is a truly mind-boggling quality to a statement like this.  Nearly 20 years ago, American liberals came to power in this country exhorting us to take a more vigorous and expansive view of our role as leader of the free world.  They came complete with a theory of counterinsurgency, winning the hearts and minds of the people.'  When the then-existing government of South Vietnam failed to fully adopt this prescription, they blithely arranged its overthrow.  Upon discovering the price of the commitment thereby sealed, they set about toppling the American President, who inherited the aftermath of the coup.  Not content when American troops were finally withdrawn, they set about slashing, on the grounds that the South Vietnamese government was immoral,' the aid funds it needed to maintain any pro-Western presence in Indochina.  Now, having finished the task of destroying that presence, they are shocked and dismayed by the news of the grim and brutal world that resulted."
It would be pleasing to write about an anti-American war Senator who finally saw the light.  But McGovern was not actually flip-flopping.  He was consistently representing the interests of what he described in an August 25, 1978 speech on the Senate floor as, "Ho Chi Minh's popularly-based revolution for independence in Vietnam."  


Pol Pot's genocidal brutality was well-known.  The New York Times had denounced the new Cambodian dictatorship as early as July, 1975.  McGovern's call for US-led international military intervention against Pol Pot did not come at the beginning or even in the middle of the genocide, it only came as his comrades in Hanoi prepared to capture Phnom Penh and replace Pol Pot with communists loyal to Vietnam and the Soviet Union.


Dripping with sarcasm, the Washington Star editorialized on August 23, 1978: 


"Presumably the senator's theory is that except for American influence, Cambodia might have been controlled by the kind of popularly supported revolution' that is now rearranging things in Vietnam.  If boatloads of refugees fleeing Cambodia can be found floating side by side with boatloads of refugees fleeing Vietnam, that's a coincidence.  Naturally there would be former lackeys of the Americans who would try to get out of doing their share in building the new Vietnam.  

"The senator's faith in the Hanoi regime is central to his thinking about the rest of Southeast Asia.  ...To have Cambodians fighting Vietnamese makes people of the McGovern point of view readier to wax indignant about human rights in Cambodia.

"... (This) just shows how well Senator McGovern knows the difference between repressive totalitarian communists and popularly supported people's democracies that may have to slap a wrist once in a while.

"We hope this clears up any misunderstandings about Senator McGovern's consistency as a thinker in the foreign policy area.  And we are glad he noticed what's been going on in Cambodia." 


In 1974 it was easy for Democrats to serve America's enemies.  Vietnamese communists had limited territorial ambitions and no matter what happened on Southeast Asian battlefields, their Soviet overlords were kept in stalemate by American nuclear weapons.  Their physical combat operations never reached American soil.     


This is not 1974.  Democrat gains in the November, 2006 elections were called,  "...an obvious victory for the Iranian nation" by Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.  As the Progressive Caucus prepared to sit down with McGovern, al-Qaeda in Iraq promised, "We will not rest from our Jihad until we are under the olive trees of Rumieh and we have destroyed the dirty black house -- which is called the White House."   


These threats are underlined by the ongoing jihadi war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and over a dozen other countries, the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the September 11, 2001 attacks, and numerous terror attacks claiming hundreds of lives going back to the Iranian hostage crisis which began November 4, 1979-just over a year after McGovern called for the US to lead an invasion of Cambodia.


McGovern's parroting of the Hanoi line echoes that of a less-well-known servant of foreign communism, Earl Browder.  As General Secretary and Chairman of the Communist Party, USA (CPUSA) from 1932 to 1945 Browder led his socialist slaves in a series of "mind-boggling" reversals.  The CPUSA's intense anti-fascist propaganda activity focused on the events in Europe suddenly became anti-war agitation on August 23, 1939--the day the Hitler-Stalin pact was signed.  


Browder again whipsawed his party on June 22, 1941 as Hitler broke his pact and invaded the Soviet Union.  Communists who, for the last 22 months, had been fervent anti-war activists suddenly supported US entry into the war.  They joined the military and the diplomatic corps and worked within the unions to maximize war production by blocking strikes.  The CPUSA even dissolved itself in 1944 into the Communist Political Association.  As a result of communist support of the war effort, World War Two did not face significant organized domestic anti-war propaganda or agitation.  The party again sharply reversed, reverting to true pro-Soviet, anti-American form after the Soviet capture of Berlin on April 30, 1945. At each reversal of policy, hundreds of communists resigned from the party, many of whom eventually made their way into the American cultural elites.  Browder himself was stripped of all party position in 1945 and soon tossed out of the then-re-founded CPUSA.


It is neither useful nor accurate to label as communist McGovern, or his modern-day allies in the Congressional Progressive Caucus.  Nonetheless, his life contains many parallels to the political life of the CPUSA.  McGovern volunteered for the Air Force serving with distinction in North Africa and Italy.  His first entry into politics was to campaign for the pro-Soviet Progressive Party ticket in 1948.  The CPUSA endorsed Progressive Party presidential candidate Henry A. Wallace and communists were thick in the ranks and leadership of the campaign which garnered only 3% of the vote.  McGovern was elected delegate to the Progressives' first national convention.  Four years later McGovern joined the Democrat Party where he eventually made his mark as a US senator serving, "Ho Chi Minh's popularly-based revolution...."  McGovern and his ilk are better understood as favoring an America submissive to "progressive," "enlightened" foreign powers with which they share a utopian ideological affinity.


What will it take for those opposed to American victory in Iraq to wake up?  The jihadis are not a progressive force.  Today's anti-war leftists are motivated not to strengthen jihad but to weaken America in order that "progressives" around the world might once again have their day.  This key element of the "progressive' value system must be recognized by writers working to defeat them.  The examples of McGovern and Browder provide an answer: a reversal will require the jihadi threat to "progressivism" to outweigh the American threat.  


Jihadis have a long history of co-opting allies and then turning around to eat them alive.  Somewhere-perhaps, as in the 1930s, in the streets of Europe-"progressives" may come to see the Islamic fascists as more threatening than America.  As that point arrives, even without a centralized CPUSA or Soviet Union to lead them, many anti-war leftists can be led to change their tune, declare a truce with America and, as in WW2, join the war against the fascists.  Until then, Americans will need to continue rhetorical combat in a domestic political war with those "progressives" amongst us who believe that America is more dangerous than jihad. 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/learning_from_george_mcgovern.html


----------



## maineman

are you EVER going to explain how America's Iraq war casualties decreased by 60% because the surge is working yet the casualty numbers somehow stayed the same?

yes or no?


----------



## Paul Revere

maineman said:


> are you EVER going to explain how America's Iraq war casualties decreased by 60% because the surge is working yet the casualty numbers somehow stayed the same?
> 
> yes or no?



Come on RSR you told the locals over here in 







that you were at the USMESSAGEBOARD.com debating with the "Big Boys."



So far I have only witnessed you verbal masturbate with your keyboard.


----------



## maineman

here is the thread where you claim that we have seen a 60% decrease in US casualties.  Here is the thread where you claim that you have somehow explained that assertion in light of the US DoD casualty figures that clearly show that no such decrease has occured.  Please give me the post  number from this thread that contains that explanation.


----------



## maineman

All you need to do is type the post number from this thread where you explain how we can see a 60% reduction in American casualties in Iraq while seeing the monthly casualty figures stay relatively identical.

And maybe the post number of where you explain why the last six months of American casualties are nearly 40% higher than the previous six months.

and why our casualties for April are on track to be the bloodiest month of the whole war.


----------



## maineman

any day now


----------



## Creek_George

red states rule said:


> MIL-IRAQ-US SOLDIERS
> Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers
> 
> BAGHDAD, March 14 (KUNA) -- The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre.
> 
> Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13; the rate was on the decline during the first month of the security crackdown, compared to a month before.
> 
> Two of the 17 soldiers died at US Baghdad camps of non-combat causes.
> 
> The remarkable decrease in killings among the US troops came at a time when more of these troops were deployed in the Iraqi capital, especially in districts previously regarded as extremely hazardous for them such as Al-Sadr City, Al-Azamiyah, and Al-Doura.
> 
> Meanwhile, US attacks on insurgent strongholds north of Baghdad curbed attacks against helicopters. Before the new security plan, many such craft were downed leaving 20 soldiers dead.
> 
> The US army in Iraq had earlier said that sectarian fighting and violence in Baghdad had dropped sharply, by about 80 percent, since the launch of the plan.
> 
> The statistics excluded US troops killed in other governorates such as Al-Anbar, Diyala, and Salahiddin.
> 
> As to the latest human losses, the US army announced Wednesday that two American soldiers had been killed, one in southern Baghdad and the other northeast of the capital.(end) ahh.
> 
> http://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/Story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=961365



4 bombs..and 160 people killed yesterday?

It sure is working...(Not).

BAGHDAD - Four large bombs exploded in mostly Shiite areas of Baghdad on Wednesday, killing at least 160 people and wounding scores as violence climbed toward levels seen before the U.S.-Iraqi campaign to pacify the capital began two months ago.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

eots said:


> the rebels in Iraq wont stop fighting until the occupying forces leave ,its that simple,there may well be civil war as America had a civil war


Which does not equate into a lost war for the US. Our goal is to stay until the democratically elected official government has the military ability to fight off a terrorist minority group who want to impose a dictatorship on them. 


eots said:


> but it will eventually lead them to their own destiny and sovereignty whatever form that may take , America would not tolerate the occupation of there nation and the middle east wont either it would be a war without end



You show your ignorance of American history and the revolutionary war, as do most all libs.
First, if you are going to make an analogy with the two wars, the current govt in Iraq would be the insurgents.
Second, we did tolerate, in fact WELCOMED the French forces during and after 1780.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

maineman said:


> *that editorial ends as follows:*
> 
> 
> If the president's plan won't work, what will? History suggests only four other ways to keep together a country riven by sectarian strife:
> 
> We allow or help one side to win, which would require years of horrific bloodletting.
> 
> We perpetuate the occupation, which is impossible politically and practically.
> 
> We promote the return of a dictator, who is not on the horizon but whose emergence would be the cruelest of ironies.
> 
> Or we help Iraq make the transition to a decentralized, federal system, as called for in its constitution, where each major group has local control over the fabric of its daily life, including security, education, religion and marriage.
> 
> Making federalism work for all Iraqis is a strategy that can still succeed and allow our troops to leave responsibly. It's a strategy I have been promoting for a year.
> 
> I cannot guarantee that my plan for Iraq (detailed at http://www.planforiraq.com) will work. But I can guarantee that the course we're on -- the course that a man I admire, John McCain, urges us to continue -- is a road to nowhere.
> 
> 
> *that is not "cut and run"  that is not "surrender at all costs" that is a voice of reason and wisdom.... he should not be denigrated or shouted down or blythely dismissed.*



Yea, Iraqi officials, under the guidance of the BUsh administration, divided up their oil resources amongst the various groups in Iraq, and of course the libs leveled  criticism at the Bush administration.
  That project completed,  in light of this statement in your "plan for Iraq" by Biden:
"The plan would maintain a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis local control over their daily lives - as provided for in the Iraqi constitution. The central government would be responsible for common interests, like border security and the distribution of oil revenues. We would secure support from the Sunnis - who have no oil -- by guaranteeing them a proportionate share (about 20 percent) of oil revenues ",,,AND, the Constitution it refers to, who exactly is responsable for that being in existence. Had the dems been in cotrol, would they have that constitution? Of course you are going to reply by citing a lot of the current negatives going on in Iraq right now (standard typical liberal fare, look at the negative)

The Bush plan called for ousting saddam, accomplished, setting up a temp official govt, accomplished, creating and signing into law a national Constitution, accomplished, and having a nation wide democratic election to put into place govt officials wanted and voted in by the Iraqi people. ACCOMPLISHED.
Now, just as France helped us to stabilize after the revolutionary war ( and make no mistake about it, the English majority thought the colonies would crumble into oblivion, after all, they were basically a bunch of misfits and the Brits didnt even believe the yanks actually wanted a democracy, they only fought to get the Brits off their backs, but since the colonists knew nothing but being ruled by another, it would be natural for them to go back to a form of that once they realize they cannot govern themselves in this new experimental thing called a democracy, of the people and for the people, with God given rights--sounds familiar eh? )
we need to stay in Iraq until they can fully stabalize also.


----------



## LuvRPgrl

Paul Revere said:


> Come on RSR you told the locals over here in
> 
> 
> 
> that you were at the USMESSAGEBOARD.com debating with the "Big Boys."
> 
> 
> 
> So far I have only witnessed you verbal masturbate with your keyboard.



Have you reached kindergarten yet? Sperm is not an individual living organism, it is part of the mans body, UNLIKE the fetus, so, as usual, you fucking idiotic bitter liberals have it backwards, kill the innocent children, let convicted murderers live, and ,,, the fetus which is an individual living organism, you consider it a part of the womans body, even though it doesnt meet any of the requirements of the definition of "part of the womans body" and then in the same breath, you claim that which is in fact a part of the mans body, is an individual living organism, even though it meets virtually NONE of the characteristics required to be defined as such.
  Thats a very strange claim anyways, whether its sarcasm or not.


----------



## maineman

LuvRPgrl said:


> Of course you are going to reply by citing a lot of the current negatives going on in Iraq right now (standard typical liberal fare, look at the negative)



in case you missed it, this thread was about whether or not the "surge" was working.  It has always been MY standard fare to point out that the fucking emporer isn't wearing any fucking clothes! That is all I am doing in this case.   I point out that the surge is not working.  I point out that moronic conservatives on this site are lying their asses off when they make such ridiculous statements as "America has seen a 60% decrease in casualties because of the success of the surge" when we have seen ZERO decrease in casualties and April is shaping up to be the bloodiest month for Americans in well over a year.

I point out that the Bush plan to shock, awe, invade, conquer and occupy Iraq and then to somehow watch a peaceful multucultural jeffersonian democracy blossom on the banks of the euphrates was ALWAYS fatally flawed and I have said so since day one.

When we finally do muster the political will to admit we fucked up and finally leave Iraq to the Iraqis to figure out, when all the bloodletting on all sides spawned by centuries of sectarian hatred finally becomes more than folks over there can stomach, what will emerge is some political solution...and it will most definitely have, as one of its components, a theocratic shiite majority ruling Iraq or some portion of what was once Iraq and that large component will undoubtedly be much more closely aligned and friendly with Iran and much less friendly with America than we could have possibly thought was a good ending when we started this bloody mess.

And throughout it all, we will have done little to nothing to truly address and confront the evil forces that attacked us and seek to do so again.... and we will will be LESS prepared to repel and foil that next attack than we were when Dubya went golfing in August of '01 immediately after being told that Osama was determined to strike within our borders and our enemies were training in our midst.


----------



## jillian

If the "surge" (as opposed to more "stay the course" which is what it really is) is working so well, why are we building a wall in Baghdad?



> BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Criticism mounted Saturday over a wall U.S. troops are building around a Sunni enclave surrounded by Shiite areas in Baghdad, with residents calling it "collective punishment" and the local council leader saying the community did not approve the project before construction began.
> 
> Violence continued Saturday, with at least three people killed when a bomb left on a bus exploded in Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood, police said. The minibus was gutted by flames and its windows shattered.
> 
> Gunmen stormed a house in Kirkuk, 290 kilometers (180 miles) north of Baghdad, killing a mother, father and their two teenage daughters, police said. The victims were Kurds who had received death threats from al Qaeda-linked militants operating in the area, witnesses said.
> 
> A U.S. soldier was also killed Saturday by a roadside bomb southwest of the capital, the military said.
> 
> The U.S. military says the wall in the minority Sunni community of Azamiyah is meant to secure the neighborhood, which "has been trapped in a spiral of sectarian violence and retaliation."



MORE

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/21/iraq.wall.ap/


----------



## Superlative

jillian said:


> If the "surge" (as opposed to more "stay the course" which is what it really is) is working so well, why are we building a wall in Baghdad?



A surge so successful its being spilled everywhere. 

It needs to be contained. 

within a wall.


----------



## Creek_George

I love the bunker we are building there..I guess it started 3 years ago...Ms.Rice said it will serve our interests for years to come.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070519/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/world_s_largest_embassy

Anyways..as far as the surge working...From what I have read as of late..That is far from the case as a fact to state.

Another thing I'd like to add..Is it's not just so called.."Libs" that want us out of Iraq...It's a majority of the American population that wants us out..Libs & Cons alike are sick of this shit..and of a bottomless hole of a problem that in my opinion will be impossible to fix..(With our American Interest).

Bush created this blunder..I personaly don't blame the Republican Party for this F-ing mess...It was..and is Bush's War...Please speak up..if he's not the man responsible for this mess...

The American people are sick of this fairy tale of a war..and the just reason that started it..and what's behind it as I write.

We made a terrorist DisneyLand...and some of the so called worlds most respected thinkers are telling the truth...Generals are speaking up...Crap is worse by the day...

What's amazing is...under Saddam none of these nut case muslim freaks were running amok over in Iraq...We're creating a situation..we started this.

Can anybody tell me what we have accomplished?....Most importantly..what we can accomplish?

How long will our little puppet government hold?....We are prolonging this war...Things are out of our control...

To say Libs only are crying about this?...The Republican Party..The Dems...the American People...The world.....Everybody is bumbed..

This Iraq War Crap..and why it started is beyond a political party belief now...The stupidity of this war is known to all.


----------



## maineman

If you put 20K more police into Los Angeles, do you think that crime would drop? 

If you have a country who is involved in a civil war, and the metropolitan area that had been the main battle ground is all of a sudden inundated with 20K more combat troops aimed at stopping the civil war, do you think that the protagonists would continue to fight in that battlegound?  Or do you think they might take their battles elsewhere?  And do you think that the enmity and rivalry which was behind that civil war had been going on for a millenium, do you think that six months or one year or five years with those combat troops in the middle of everything would make that milennium enmity and hatred go away?


----------



## red states rule

The liberal media has a very short memory when it comes to what Dems said about Saddam, WMD's, and the war



AP Article on Edwards and War on Terror Ignores Candidates Past
Posted by Noel Sheppard on May 23, 2007 - 18:09. 
The Associated Press ran a story Wednesday entitled Edwards Calls War on Terror an Ideological Doctrine (h/t LGF). 

Unfortunately, the author chose not to look into former Sen. John Edwards (D-North Carolina) past to see whether the presidential candidate had either referred to or supported this ideological doctrine himself.

Had the AP done some homework, it would have found that not only did the former senator tell Fox News Bill OReilly in October 2001, I think that we will be united with the President throughout this war on terrorism," (Allah has video here), but also that he and Sen. John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) both referred to this war in their respective acceptance speeches at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

To set this up, Wednesdays AP piece began (emphasis added):

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Wednesday repudiated the notion that there is a "global war on terror," calling it an ideological doctrine advanced by the Bush administration that has strained American military resources and emboldened terrorists.

In a defense policy speech he planned to deliver at the Council on Foreign Relations, Edwards called the war on terror a "bumper sticker" slogan President George W. Bush has used to justify everything from abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad to the invasion of Iraq.

Hmmm. So, if this phrase is just a bumper sticker slogan, why was it in John Kerrys acceptance speech for presidential nomination at the 2004 DNC:

We will double our Special Forces to conduct terrorist operations, anti-terrorist operations, and we will provide our troops with the newest weapons and technology to save their lives and win the battle. And we will end the backdoor draft of the National Guard and reservists. 

[]

As president, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror. 

The AP must have forgotten this, or certainly it would have reported the apparent hypocrisy. And how about what Edwards said the night before when he accepted the Democrats nomination for vice president: 

None of us will ever forget where we were on September the 11th. We all share the same terrible images, the towers falling in New York, the Pentagon in flames, a smoldering field in Pennsylvania. We share a profound sadness for the nearly 3,000 lives that were lost. 

And as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I know that we have to do more to fight the war on terrorism and keep the American people safe. We can do that. 

[]

We will always use our military might to keep the American people safe. 

And we, John and I, we will have one clear unmistakable message for Al Qaida and these terrorists: You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you. 

Sounds like Edwards was behind this ideological doctrine when he was a Senator and a vice presidential candidate, doesnt it? Yet, now that hes a presidential candidate, are the press just going to let him make statements today which contradict those he made in the past?

Of course, that last question was rhetorical, although you probably guessed that.

http://newsbusters.org/node/12962




Will libs say Pretty Boy's quotes were taken out of context?

If it isn't doom and gloom the liberal media is not interested


----------



## maineman

how's that 60% reduction in American casualties because of the success of the surge workin' out for ya, RSR?  I haven't seen that press release in some time.  Isn't it time to trot that out again?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> how's that 60% reduction in American casualties because of the success of the surge workin' out for ya, RSR?  I haven't seen that press release in some time.  Isn't it time to trot that out again?



Since the terrorists know how badly Dems want to surrender they increased the attacks

Every member pf the US military the terrorists kill, Dems use as a stepping stone to press for surrender

To bad for rerrorists, Dems watched their poll numbers tanking, so they surrendered to Pres Bush

I see you ignored Pretty Boys previous statements - not surprised by that at all


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Since the terrorists know how badly Dems want to surrender they increased the attacks
> 
> Every member pf the US military the terrorists kill, Dems use as a stepping stone to press for surrender
> 
> To bad for rerrorists, Dems watched their poll numbers tanking, so they surrendered to Pres Bush
> 
> I see you ignored Pretty Boys previous statements - not surprised by that at all



I ignore nothing.... I just happen to be focusing on one of YOUR statements right now..... one you have yet to retract and admit was bullshit. Are you ready to make such an admission now?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I ignore nothing.... I just happen to be focusing on one of YOUR statements right now..... one you have yet to retract and admit was bullshit. Are you ready to make such an admission now?



The deaths were down, much to the dismay of the left

The terrorists wanted the Dems surrender bill to pass so they increased their attacks

The more dead troops, the better for the anti war left

To bad the voters sent a message to the Dems not to surredner - sinking poll numbers


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The deaths were down, much to the dismay of the left
> 
> The terrorists wanted the Dems surrender bill to pass so they increased their attacks
> 
> The more dead troops, the better for the anti war left
> 
> To bad the voters sent a message to the Dems not to surredner - sinking poll numbers




the sinking poll numbers for congress were because congress failed to pass the democrat's funding bill and voted to sustain Bush's veto of it.

and the "deaths were NOT down".  if we lose five GI's today and only 2 tomorrow, that does not mean that the casualty rate has dropped by 60% due to the success of the surge...especially when we lose 8 the day after that and 6 the day after that and 10 the day after that.  YOur statement about there being a 60% reduction is american casualties was BULLSHIT and you know it.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> the sinking poll numbers for congress were because congress failed to pass the democrat's funding bill and voted to sustain Bush's veto of it.
> 
> and the "deaths were NOT down".  if we lose five GI's today and only 2 tomorrow, that does not mean that the casualty rate has dropped by 60% due to the success of the surge...especially when we lose 8 the day after that and 6 the day after that and 10 the day after that.  YOur statement about there being a 60% reduction is american casualties was BULLSHIT and you know it.



The poll numbers are a result of the surrender bill and many broken promises

Liberals always let their arrogrance get in their way of accomplishing things


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The poll numbers are a result of the surrender bill and many broken promises
> 
> Liberals always let their arrogrance get in their way of accomplishing things



the "surrender bill" , as you intentionally mischaracterize it,  had the solid support of 57% of the people.  FAILING to pass it with a strong veto proof majority, and SUSTAINING the veto of it drove congressional numbers down.

the people wanted that bill...the democrats tried to deliver it, but the republicans thwarted the will of the people.  No WONDER they're pissed at congress!


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> the "surrender bill" , as you intentionally mischaracterize it,  had the solid support of 57% of the people.  FAILING to pass it with a strong veto proof majority, and SUSTAINING the veto of it drove congressional numbers down.
> 
> the people wanted that bill...the democrats tried to deliver it, but the republicans thwarted the will of the people.  No WONDER they're pissed at congress!



So the people wanted to surrendner yet they give the Dems a lower number then the President who vetoed it?


Liberal logic is something to behold


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> So the people wanted to surrendner yet they give the Dems a lower number then the President who vetoed it?
> 
> 
> Liberal logic is something to behold



the people wanted the democrat's bill and they gave CONGRESS a lower number for sustaining that veto.

conservative ignorance and bullheadedness is nauseating to behold.

you really are a fucking tarbaby.....


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> the people wanted the democrat's bill and they gave CONGRESS a lower number for sustaining that veto.
> 
> conservative ignorance and bullheadedness is nauseating to behold.
> 
> you really are a fucking tarbaby.....



The Dems are getting what they deserve

Rotten polling numbers for doing a rotten job

They lied to get elected and then people like you try to duck the facts


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The Dems are getting what they deserve
> 
> Rotten polling numbers for doing a rotten job
> 
> They lied to get elected and then people like you try to duck the facts



how do you duck the fact that congressional republicans poll 13% lower than congressional democrats?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> how do you duck the fact that congressional republicans poll 13% lower than congressional democrats?



In your month old poll?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> In your month old poll?



it is the most current harris poll. Would you like to make a wager as to which party is on top the NEXT time the harris poll is released?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> it is the most current harris poll. Would you like to make a wager as to which party is on top the NEXT time the harris poll is released?



from a month ago


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> from a month ago



so do we bet on the next one or not?  or are you all hat and no cattle?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> so do we bet on the next one or not?  or are you all hat and no cattle?



You are already in to me for $500


Besides I go by the average of all poll to get a clearer picture of what is going on. One poll does not tell the entire story

That is why you are so testy lately - all the polls recently show the same direction for your party


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> You are already in to me for $500
> 
> 
> Besides I go by the average of all poll to get a clearer picture of what is going on. One poll does not tell the entire story
> 
> That is why you are so testy lately - all the polls recently show the same direction for your party




all the polls that differentiate between democrats and republicans give the democrats the edge..... 

so...I take it that you are, in fact, going to weasel away from your assertions about the invalidity of the harris poll.

I really didn't expect anything else.

and why won't you comment on the quinnipiac poll?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> all the polls that differentiate between democrats and republicans give the democrats the edge.....
> 
> so...I take it that you are, in fact, going to weasel away from your assertions about the invalidity of the harris poll.
> 
> I really didn't expect anything else.
> 
> and why won't you comment on the quinnipiac poll?





Keep saying it MM - maybe you will even believe it one day


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Keep saying it MM - maybe you will even believe it one day



run away.... it is what you do best.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> run away.... it is what you do best.



Who is running?

I am pushing you over the edge with curent polls and you keep goong back to month old polls to counter


----------



## maineman

if you are confident that the people's opinions about congress are because of their opinions about democrats, then bet me that the next harris poll will reflect that.  

I showed you, however, how since 2005, the BEST month the for congressional approval under the republican leadership is equal to the worst month the democrats have had so far.

you really are not in a very powerful position to crow about congressional approval ratings


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> if you are confident that the people's opinions about congress are because of their opinions about democrats, then bet me that the next harris poll will reflect that.
> 
> I showed you, however, how since 2005, the BEST month the for congressional approval under the republican leadership is equal to the worst month the democrats have had so far.
> 
> you really are not in a very powerful position to crow about congressional approval ratings



Month old polls are just that - a month old

Dems have screwed up greatly in the last month

I am happy to take the $500 from you and hand it over to the shelter MM

Unless you lie and you don't pay off - which will not surprise me in the least


----------



## maineman

spin away from the wager if you like..... it's not like I need the money!


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> spin away from the wager if you like..... it's not like I need the money!



Good - the shelter will enjoy it

If you pay off - which is a big question


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> if you are confident that the people's opinions about congress are because of their opinions about democrats, then bet me that the next harris poll will reflect that.
> 
> I showed you, however, how since 2005, the BEST month the for congressional approval under the republican leadership is equal to the worst month the democrats have had so far.
> 
> you really are not in a very powerful position to crow about congressional approval ratings





Another liberal talk show hosts is pissed at the Dems

It is fun to watch MM

Olbermann Compares Dem Deal with Bush to Chamberlain Deal with Hitler
Posted by Brad Wilmouth on May 24, 2007 - 11:28. 
On Wednesday's Countdown, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann attacked Congressional Democrats for their "betrayal" of the voters for making a deal with President Bush on funding this "war of lies," and even found it insightful to compare their deal with Bush to the deal that Neville Chamberlain made with Adolf Hitler before World War II. Olbermann: "That's what this is for the Democrats, isn't it? Their 'Neville Chamberlain moment' before the Second World War. All that's missing is the landing at the airport, with the blinkered leader waving a piece of paper which he naively thought would guarantee 'peace in our time,' but which his opponent would ignore with deceit. The Democrats have merely streamlined the process. Their piece of paper already says Mr. Bush can ignore it with impugnity." (Transcript follows)
Olbermann further charged that a "monomanical" President, and "the most selfish in our history," is "blackmailing his own people" as he holds American troops as "hostages" to get funding for the war, and accused Bush of "holding his breath and threatening to do so until innocent and patriotic Americans in harm's way are bled white."
Video is available at RealClearPolitics.com. Below is a complete transcript of Olbermann's "Special Comment" from the Wednesday May 23 Countdown:
KEITH OLBERMANN: And lastly, as promised, a "Special Comment" about the Democrats' deal with President Bush to continue financing this unspeakable war in Iraq, and to do so on his terms. It is, in fact, a comment about betrayal. Few men or women elected in our history -- whether executive or legislative, state or national -- have been sent into office with a mandate more obvious, nor instructions more clear: Get us out of Iraq.
Yet after six months of preparation and execution, half a year gathering the strands of public support translating into action, the collective will of the nearly 70 percent of Americans who reject this War of Lies, the Democrats have managed only this: The Democratic leadership has surrendered to a president -- if not the worst president, then easily the most selfish, in our history -- who happily blackmails his own people, and uses his own military personnel as hostages to his asinine demand that the Democrats "give the troops their money."
The Democratic leadership has agreed to finance the deaths of Americans in a war that has only reduced the security of Americans. The Democratic leadership has given Mr. Bush all that he wanted, with the only caveat being, not merely meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government, but optional meaningless symbolism about benchmarks for the Iraqi government. The Democratic leadership has, in sum, claimed a compromise with the Administration, in which the only things truly compromised, are the trust of the voters, the ethics of the Democrats, and the lives of our brave, and doomed, friends, and family, in Iraq.
You, the men and women elected with the simplest of directions -- "Stop the war" -- have traded your strength, your bargaining position, and the uniform support of those who elected you for a handful of magic beans. You may trot out every political cliché from the soft-soap, inside-the-beltway dictionary of boilerplate soundbites, about how this is the "beginning of the end" of Mr. Bushs "carte blanche" in Iraq, about how this is a "first step." Well, Senator Reid, the only end at its beginning is our collective hope that you and your colleagues would do what is right, what is essential, what you were each elected or re-elected to do. Because this "first step" is a step right off a cliff.
And this President. How shameful it would be to watch an adult hold his breath and threaten to continue to do so until he turned blue. But how horrifying it is to watch a President hold his breath and threaten to continue to do so until innocent and patriotic Americans in harms way are bled white. You lead this country, sir? You claim to defend it? And yet when faced with the prospect of someone calling you on your stubbornness -- your stubbornness which has cost 3,431 Americans their lives and thousands more their limbs -- you, Mr. Bush, imply that if the Democrats dont give you the money and give it to you entirely on your terms, the troops in Iraq will be stranded, or forced to serve longer, or, what, have to throw bullets at the enemy with their bare hands. It is moronic. We have defunded wars before, sir, and this isn't even close to a true defunding. No harm has come to our troops.
How transcendentally, how historically, pathetic. Any other president from any other moment in a panorama of our history would have, at the outset of this tawdry game of political chicken, declared that no matter what the other political side did, he would insure personally -- first, last and always -- that the troops would not suffer. A President, Mr. Bush, uses the carte blanche he already has, not to manipulate an overlap of arriving and departing Brigades into a "second surge," but to say in unequivocal terms that if it takes every last dime of the monies already allocated, if it takes reneging on government contracts with Halliburton, he will make sure the troops are safe -- even if the only safety to be found is in getting them the hell out of there. Well, any true President would have done that, sir. You instead used our troops as political pawns, then blamed the Democrats when you did so.
Not that these Democrats, who had this country's support and sympathy up until 48 hours ago, have not earned all the blame they can carry home. "We seem to be very near the bleak choice between war and shame," Winston Churchill wrote to Lord Moyne in the days after the British signed the Munich accords with Germany in 1938. "My feeling is that we shall choose shame, and then have war thrown in a little later." That's what this is for the Democrats, isn't it? Their "Neville Chamberlain moment" before the Second World War. All that's missing is the landing at the airport, with the blinkered leader waving a piece of paper which he naively thought would guarantee "peace in our time," but which his opponent would ignore with deceit. The Democrats have merely streamlined the process. Their piece of paper already says Mr. Bush can ignore it with impugnity.
And where are the Democratic presidential hopefuls this evening? See they not that to which the Senate and House leadership has blinded itself? Judging these candidates based on how they voted on the original Iraq authorization, or waiting for apologies for those votes, that is ancient history now. The Democratic nomination is likely to be decided tomorrow.
The talk of practical politics, the buying into of the President's dishonest construction "fund the troops or they will be in jeopardy," the promise of tougher action in September, is falling not on deaf ears, but rather falling on Americans who already told you what to do, and now perceive your ears as deaf, as closed to practical politics. Those who seek the Democratic nomination need to, for their own political futures and, with a thousand times more solemnity and importance, for the individual futures of our troops, denounce this betrayal, vote against it, and, if need be, unseat Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi if they continue down this path of guilty, fatal acquiescence to the tragically misguided will of a monomaniacal President.
For, ultimately, at this hour, the entire government has failed us. Mr. Reid, Mr. Hoyer, and the other Democrats have failed us. They negotiated away that which they did not own, but had only been entrusted by us to protect: our collective will as the citizens of this country, that this brazen war of lies be ended as rapidly and safely as possible. Mr. Bush and his government have failed us. They have behaved venomously and without dignity, of course. That is all at which Mr. Bush is gifted. We are the ones providing any element of surprise or shock here. With the exception of Senator Dodd and Senator Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidates have, so far at least, failed us. They must now speak, and make plain how they view what has been given away to Mr. Bush, and what is yet to be given away tomorrow, and in the thousand tomorrows to come.
Because for the next fourteen months, the Democratic nominating process, indeed the whole of our political discourse until further notice, has, with the stroke of a cursed pen, become about one thing, and one thing alone. The electorate figured this out six months ago. The President and the Republicans have not, doubtless will not. The Democrats will figure it out during the Memorial Day recess when they go home and many of those who elected them will politely suggest they stay there, and permanently. Because on the subject of Iraq, the people have been ahead of the media, ahead of the government, ahead of the politicians. For the last year, or two years, or maybe three. 
Our politics is now about the answer to one briefly-worded question. Mr. Bush has failed. Mr. Warner has failed. Mr. Reid has failed. So who among us will stop this war, this war of lies? To he or she fall the figurative keys to the nation. To all the others, presidents and majority leaders and candidates and rank-and-file Congressmen and Senators of either party, there is only blame for this shameful and bipartisan betrayal. Good night and good luck.
http://newsbusters.org/node/12969


----------



## maineman

another day, another newsbusters cut and paste from RSR in another feeble attempt to avoid the discussion at hand.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> another day, another newsbusters cut and paste from RSR in another feeble attempt to avoid the discussion at hand.



and MM STILL IGNORES the reaction from his base

MM, your party is in deep trouble

Falling poll numbers, pissed off voters, and you still keep saying all is well in Liberalville


----------



## maineman

I mean, seriously..what does Keith Olberman's rant about democrats and their vote on the funding bill have to do with the surge working?  You just find articles that bash democrats and paste them...where ever.... and often.... if you really are a newsbot, could you send me some sort of signal so I can stop trying to get through to you?  Put the first sentence of your next post in bold if you are a newsbot.  thank you.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I mean, seriously..what does Keith Olberman's rant about democrats and their vote on the funding bill have to do with the surge working?  You just find articles that bash democrats and paste them...where ever.... and often.... if you really are a newsbot, could you send me some sort of signal so I can stop trying to get through to you?  Put the first sentence of your next post in bold if you are a newsbot.  thank you.



Being one of your loyal supporters MM, Keith is pissed how the Dems threw him under the bus


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Being one of your loyal supporters MM, Keith is pissed how the Dems threw him under the bus



what does that have to do with the surge working?  quit spamming the board with cut and paste shotgun blasts and try to stay on topic.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> what does that have to do with the surge working?  quit spamming the board with cut and paste shotgun blasts and try to stay on topic.



The surge is working, and the last thing libs want is to give the US military more time to make more progress


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The surge is working, and the last thing libs want is to give the US military more time to make more progress



how's that 60% reduction in American casualties workin' out for ya?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> how's that 60% reduction in American casualties workin' out for ya?



Keep trying to change the subject MM

The last thing you want to do on a discussion board is talk about current events. Everywhere you look there is bad news for the Dems


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Keep trying to change the subject MM
> 
> The last thing you want to do on a discussion board is talk about current events. Everywhere you look there is bad news for the Dems



the subject of this thread is "No wonder libs are upset - the surge is working"

The thread was started by you.  I am speaking of the subject of the thread..... it would seem to even the most casual observer that it is YOU who keeps trying to change the subject.  Try to concentrate and stay on topic!


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> the subject of this thread is "No wonder libs are upset - the surge is working"
> 
> The thread was started by you.  I am speaking of the subject of the thread..... it would seem to even the most casual observer that it is YOU who keeps trying to change the subject.  Try to concentrate and stay on topic!



as I pointed out, the last thing libs want is progress in Iraq

a recent poll proves it


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> as I pointed out, the last thing libs want is progress in Iraq
> 
> a recent poll proves it



and I asked you again to explain how American casualties were supposedly decreased by 60% because of the success of the poll?

Would you agree that your previous statement on that issue was premature?

For example.... if yesterday five US soldiers were killed in Baghdad, and today only two.... it is premature to say that casualties are down by 60% due to the success of the surge, and then spend weeks tap dancing away from that statement when tomorrow eight soldiers die.

And again, I ask you....if there were a problem with gang violence in Los Angeles, and we put 28 thousand more policemen on the street, do you think that the violence might go away?  I would.  Do you think that the presence of those 28K policemen will magically make the enmity between those gangs disappear so that, one month or on year or one decade later, when the police leave, the gangs will not want to pick back up where they left off?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> and I asked you again to explain how American casualties were supposedly decreased by 60% because of the success of the poll?
> 
> Would you agree that your previous statement on that issue was premature?
> 
> For example.... if yesterday five US soldiers were killed in Baghdad, and today only two.... it is premature to say that casualties are down by 60% due to the success of the surge, and then spend weeks tap dancing away from that statement when tomorrow eight soldiers die.
> 
> And again, I ask you....if there were a problem with gang violence in Los Angeles, and we put 28 thousand more policemen on the street, do you think that the violence might go away?  I would.  Do you think that the presence of those 28K policemen will magically make the enmity between those gangs disappear so that, one month or on year or one decade later, when the police leave, the gangs will not want to pick back up where they left off?



I have already posted (several time) the terrorists increased their attacks - hoping the Dems would get their surrender bill passed

The last thing the left wants is progress in Iraq

The poll I posted yeaterdays PROVES Dems do not want to win in Iraq.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I have already posted (several time) the terrorists increased their attacks - hoping the Dems would get their surrender bill passed
> 
> The last thing the left wants is progress in Iraq
> 
> The poll I posted yeaterdays PROVES Dems do not want to win in Iraq.




so...are you admitting that your claims that American casualties had decreased by 60% was inaccurate and premature?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> so...are you admitting that your claims that American casualties had decreased by 60% was inaccurate and premature?



when I posted it the numbers were correct

The surge is working and that is hwy Dems wanted to push through their surrender bill


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> when I posted it the numbers were correct
> 
> The surge is working and that is hwy Dems wanted to push through their surrender bill



like I said, if we lost 5 guys yesterday and 2 guys today, saying that casualties are down by 60% due to the success of the surge is premature and inaccurate, especially when we lose eight tomorrow.  your numbers were never correct


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> like I said, if we lost 5 guys yesterday and 2 guys today, saying that casualties are down by 60% due to the success of the surge is premature and inaccurate, especially when we lose eight tomorrow.  your numbers were never correct



Keep hoping for failure MM

Were you one the Dems counted in the poll that PROVES Dems do not want victory in Iraq?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Keep hoping for failure MM
> 
> Were you one the Dems counted in the poll that PROVES Dems do not want victory in Iraq?



I have never hoped for failure and have asked you quite nicely in the past to not insult me - a veteran and a retiree - by suggesting that I hoped for anything other than success and safety for our troops.


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> Were you one the Dems counted in *the poll that PROVES* Dems do not want victory in Iraq?



I dont think ANYONE but *YOU* would use those words together.

Which goes toward your credibility.


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> I dont think ANYONE but *YOU* would use those words together.
> 
> Which goes toward your credibility.



The poll clearly shows the party breakdown

It is not my fault Dems are the party of defeatests and appeasers


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The poll clearly shows the party breakdown
> 
> It is not my fault Dems are the party of defeatests and appeasers



his point was:  polls don't PROVE anything.  you fucking moron.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> his point was:  polls don't PROVE anything.  you fucking moron.



With the past actions of Dems - the poll nailed Dems perfectly


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> With the past actions of Dems - the poll nailed Dems perfectly



that is your opinion.... but it is not proof of anything. that was his point.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> that is your opinion.... but it is not proof of anything. that was his point.



No facts

The surredner bill, undermining of every attempt capture/kill terrorists, the constant sliming of the troops, ect, ect


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> No facts



exactly.  no facts.  just opinions.  that is all you got.

and guess what?  opinions are like assholes....everybody's got one and the majority of them smell.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> exactly.  no facts.  just opinions.  that is all you got.
> 
> and guess what?  opinions are like assholes....everybody's got one and the majority of them smell.



No, facts

Being a typical arrogrant lib, you will never admit when you are wrong or that is is possible the contry does not support liberal Dems

As with reagan in 84 - libs said they did not lose

They said the country bought into slick marketing 

Reagan won 49 states


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> No, facts
> 
> Being a typical arrogrant lib, you will never admit when you are wrong or that is is possible the contry does not support liberal Dems
> 
> As with reagan in 84 - libs said they did not lose
> 
> They said the country bought into slick marketing
> 
> Reagan won 49 states



no facts.... you have opinions and polls.... and you ignore the polls that paint your boy and your party in a bad light.... you cannot string twenty words together that mean anything coherent.  all you are is a collection of cut and paste op ed pieces and Rush Limbaugh one liners.


----------



## maineman

and you refuse to admit or accept the fact that 57% of Americans supported the democrat's plan to fund the troops with withdrawal deadlines, and that they were pissed at Bush for vetoing it.


----------



## zadie be

I never want to see any of our troops killed or innocent civilians. However, I know that if we do not keep the war on terror overseas we will fight it over here. We as Americans will not even vote to put a fence up to stop illegal person from crossing our boarders so we are wide open to all kinds of dangerous problem and keeping some of them over there protect us in some way here.

I am more worried about the lack of security in Ameica since I moved to San Diego and have seen the illegals just come and come. Please let us keep the fight out of the USA or we will have the dismay of children running for thier lives because war is on our soil.

I know no one wants to stand up and put a fence at our boarders and I cannot alone do this. But, let us keep fighting the terrorist over there until we feel that our safety if assured.


----------



## maineman

Do you really think that Al Qaeda cannot walk and chew gum at the same time?  

Do you really think they don't have nineteen or twenty guys who are NOT part of that "handful of deadenders in their final throes" in Iraq (that we can't quite seem to eliminate) that might be able to.... I dunno....slip across the border with Mexico and poison the water supply of Los Angeles or San Diego?  

Do you really think that fighting in Iraq is keeping America safer from terrorist attack when you yourself bemoan the lack of security at our borders.  You say you live in San Diego?  How many ships tie up at the docks in your city and unload containers that have NEVER been scanned for radioactive material?  Don't you think that the money we are FLUSHING DOWN THE SHITTER in Iraq MIGHT be better spent in making our borders AND PORTS safer from enemy incursion?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> Do you really think that Al Qaeda cannot walk and chew gum at the same time?
> 
> Do you really think they don't have nineteen or twenty guys who are NOT part of that "handful of deadenders in their final throes" in Iraq (that we can't quite seem to eliminate) that might be able to.... I dunno....slip across the border with Mexico and poison the water supply of Los Angeles or San Diego?
> 
> Do you really think that fighting in Iraq is keeping America safer from terrorist attack when you yourself bemoan the lack of security at our borders.  You say you live in San Diego?  How many ships tie up at the docks in your city and unload containers that have NEVER been scanned for radioactive material?  Don't you think that the money we are FLUSHING DOWN THE SHITTER in Iraq MIGHT be better spent in making our borders AND PORTS safer from enemy incursion?



Then why do you support surrender to them if they are there and a threat

As far as the boarders I agree Pres Bush should do more

But dems are doing worse and ready to welcome them all with open arms


----------



## Birdzeye

maineman said:


> Do you really think that Al Qaeda cannot walk and chew gum at the same time?
> 
> Do you really think they don't have nineteen or twenty guys who are NOT part of that "handful of deadenders in their final throes" in Iraq (that we can't quite seem to eliminate) that might be able to.... I dunno....slip across the border with Mexico and poison the water supply of Los Angeles or San Diego?
> 
> Do you really think that fighting in Iraq is keeping America safer from terrorist attack when you yourself bemoan the lack of security at our borders.  You say you live in San Diego?  How many ships tie up at the docks in your city and unload containers that have NEVER been scanned for radioactive material?  Don't you think that the money we are FLUSHING DOWN THE SHITTER in Iraq MIGHT be better spent in making our borders AND PORTS safer from enemy incursion?



Yeah, it just doesn't make sense to believe that as long as we have troops in Iraq, we won't be attacked here.


----------



## Gunny

Birdzeye said:


> Yeah, it just doesn't make sense to believe that as long as we have troops in Iraq, we won't be attacked here.



IMO, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  IF in fact, the fighting in Iraq is keeping many terrorists otherwise occupied there, it stands to reason they aren't able to be there and here at the same time.

However, that does not necessarily preclude some of them breaking away to come here, nor am I convinced that those doing the fighting in Iraq are the ones who would do the attacking here.

IMO, a couple of factors have kept them from attacking again to this point.  One would be limited resources.  Two would be the need to outdo their last attack as anything less could be considered anticlimactic.  

It sure as Hell isn't because of Homeland Security and/or that bandaid on an artery the Patriot Act.


----------



## Gunny

zadie be said:


> I never want to see any of our troops killed or innocent civilians. However, I know that if we do not keep the war on terror overseas we will fight it over here. We as Americans will not even vote to put a fence up to stop illegal person from crossing our boarders so we are wide open to all kinds of dangerous problem and keeping some of them over there protect us in some way here.
> 
> I am more worried about the lack of security in Ameica since I moved to San Diego and have seen the illegals just come and come. Please let us keep the fight out of the USA or we will have the dismay of children running for thier lives because war is on our soil.
> 
> I know no one wants to stand up and put a fence at our boarders and I cannot alone do this. But, let us keep fighting the terrorist over there until we feel that our safety if assured.



What I would point out is that the "war" being fought overseas is currently between to Islamic sects for control of a patch of ground, with us sitting in the middle.  Those sects may or may not have ties to the ones that attacked us, but it was not Iraqi sunnis and/or shia that attacked us on 9/11.  I don't recall the exact number, but the overwhelming majority of 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian wahabbis.

The only way the correlation works is you use the premise "all Muslims are terrorists."


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> IMO, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  IF in fact, the fighting in Iraq is keeping many terrorists otherwise occupied there, it stands to reason they aren't able to be there and here at the same time.
> 
> However, that does not necessarily preclude some of them breaking away to come here, nor am I convinced that those doing the fighting in Iraq are the ones who would do the attacking here.
> 
> IMO, a couple of factors have kept them from attacking again to this point.  One would be limited resources.  Two would be the need to outdo their last attack as anything less could be considered anticlimactic.
> 
> It sure as Hell isn't because of Homeland Security and/or that bandaid on an artery the Patriot Act.


I do not believe for a moment that the numbers of Al Qaeda fighters presently in Iraq represents anything more than a small percentage of their total available human assets.

And in a point I made in another thread, I think another reason that it seems so long since they have attacked us (and thus this feeling of "security" that many Americans gain from that lengthening time frame) is that Islamic extremists do not eat fast food, or use the drive up window, or the express lane at the supermarket...or microwave their food for quick consumption.  They are very patient and have a much longer view of this conflict than we do.  They do not expect immediate and repetitive gratification.   I don't think that anyone in AQ leadership is worried one tiny bit that it has been too long since they have attacked the USA.  In any case, 150K troops in Iraq are really "low hanging fruit" for them.... 

so I guess, if we kept shipping planeloads of cannon fodder TO Iraq and planeloads of caskets back FROM Iraq, AQ might very well be content to kill us there for as long as we continued such an insane policy.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> his point was:  polls don't PROVE anything.  you fucking moron.



but the words and actions of Dems do

that is what the poll shows - and why libs are angry the poll was published


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> but the words and actions of Dems do
> 
> that is what the poll shows - and why libs are angry the poll was published




I say again:  when RSR posts polls, his polls are, somehow, PROOF of something.  WHen I post polls, RSR won't even acknowledge their validity or the fact that they might INDICATE something.

Let's talk polls again when you start showing me that you are willing to look at polls other than the ones YOU want to post.  mmmmkay?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I say again:  when RSR posts polls, his polls are, somehow, PROOF of something.  WHen I post polls, RSR won't even acknowledge their validity or the fact that they might INDICATE something.
> 
> Let's talk polls again when you start showing me that you are willing to look at polls other than the ones YOU want to post.  mmmmkay?



Libs have swoed their true intentions by what they say and do

The polls are reflecting how the public views those actions

They disapprove of them


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Libs have swoed their true intentions by what they say and do
> 
> The polls are reflecting how the public views those actions
> 
> They disapprove of them



interesting.  the polls reflect how the public views the actions of the democrats?  Like when the democrats passed a funding bill that included deadlines for troop withdrawals and 57% of America supported them? IS that what you are talking about?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> interesting.  the polls reflect how the public views the actions of the democrats?  Like when the democrats passed a funding bill that included deadlines for troop withdrawals and 57% of America supported them? IS that what you are talking about?



You must not be up on current events MM

Dems surrendered to Pres Bush on their surrender bill


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> You must not be up on current events MM
> 
> Dems surrendered to Pres Bush on their surrender bill



what does the fact that we did not have a veto proof majority have to do with the fact that 57% of America supported a bill that included withdrawal deadlines?  How do you explain America's support for that bill that the president vetoed?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> what does the fact that we did not have a veto proof majority have to do with the fact that 57% of America supported a bill that included withdrawal deadlines?  How do you explain America's support for that bill that the president vetoed?



Keep making excuses - your base is not buying it either


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Keep making excuses - your base is not buying it either




I am not making excuses.  I am waiting for you to answer a simple question.

are you ever going to do that or are you going to keep running away from answering it?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I am not making excuses.  I am waiting for you to answer a simple question.
> 
> are you ever going to do that or are you going to keep running away from answering it?



You are making excuses

Dems are running things, broke all their promises - and it is still not their fault


----------



## maineman

simple questions, RSR:

*what does the fact that we did not have a veto proof majority have to do with the fact that 57% of America supported a bill that included withdrawal deadlines? How do you explain America's support for that bill that the president vetoed?*

and..

*how can you say that the surge is working and that American casualties have decreased because of the surge when, in fact, they have gone up every single month since the start of the surge?*


answer them or for a change and quit trying to spin away from them.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> simple questions, RSR:
> 
> *what does the fact that we did not have a veto proof majority have to do with the fact that 57% of America supported a bill that included withdrawal deadlines? How do you explain America's support for that bill that the president vetoed?*
> 
> and..
> 
> *how can you say that the surge is working and that American casualties have decreased because of the surge when, in fact, they have gone up every single month since the start of the surge?*
> 
> 
> answer them or for a change and quit trying to spin away from them.



Don't explain your failurs to me  - I like watching the Dems fall apart

Lecture to your base - they are one who are angry, not me


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> simple questions, RSR:
> 
> *what does the fact that we did not have a veto proof majority have to do with the fact that 57% of America supported a bill that included withdrawal deadlines? How do you explain America's support for that bill that the president vetoed?*
> 
> and..
> 
> *how can you say that the surge is working and that American casualties have decreased because of the surge when, in fact, they have gone up every single month since the start of the surge?*
> 
> 
> answer them or for a change and quit trying to spin away from them.



I suggest you get a better source... No one claimed the surge would lower troop deaths, in fact the General pointed out it would likely increase them since MORE troops would be actively fighting. But do continue to make crap up.

Ohh wait I remember now, the democrats were to busy to get a brief from the general.


----------



## red states rule

RetiredGySgt said:


> I suggest you get a better source... No one claimed the surge would lower troop deaths, in fact the General pointed out it would likely increase them since MORE troops would be actively fighting. But do continue to make crap up.
> 
> Ohh wait I remember now, the democrats were to busy to get a brief from the general.



Yea, they were busy voting for their surrender bill

Murtha called him (Gen Petrious) a political hack


----------



## Care4all

RetiredGySgt said:


> I suggest you get a better source... No one claimed the surge would lower troop deaths, in fact the General pointed out it would likely increase them since MORE troops would be actively fighting. But do continue to make crap up.
> 
> Ohh wait I remember now, the democrats were to busy to get a brief from the general.




Oh, how so convenient that up is down, and right is wrong, 

AND KILLING MORE AMERICANS IS WINNING...

you are so messed up to follow these masters of deceit...

---------------------------

Bush set it up good huh?

If less soldiers get killed, "the surge is working"

If more soldiers get killed "the surge is working"

Where is the LOGIC in this?

He set himself up for a win....IF MORE SOLDERS ARE KILLED AND DEAD.

What a scumbag president....and an insenstitive, deceitful, idiot.

Care


----------



## red states rule

Care4all said:


> Oh, how so convenient that up is down, and right is wrong,
> 
> AND KILLING MORE AMERICANS IS WINNING...
> 
> you are so messed up to follow these masters of deceit...
> 
> ---------------------------
> 
> Bush set it up good huh?
> 
> If less soldiers get killed, "the surge is working"
> 
> If more soldiers get killed "the surge is working"
> 
> Where is the LOGIC in this?
> 
> He set himself up for a win....IF MORE SOLDERS ARE KILLED AND DEAD.
> 
> What a scumbag president....and an insenstitive, deceitful, idiot.
> 
> Care



and how will the Dems surrender bill solve the problem?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Care4all said:


> Oh, how so convenient that up is down, and right is wrong,
> 
> AND KILLING MORE AMERICANS IS WINNING...
> 
> you are so messed up to follow these masters of deceit...
> 
> ---------------------------
> 
> Bush set it up good huh?
> 
> If less soldiers get killed, "the surge is working"
> 
> If more soldiers get killed "the surge is working"
> 
> Where is the LOGIC in this?
> 
> He set himself up for a win....IF MORE SOLDERS ARE KILLED AND DEAD.
> 
> What a scumbag president....and an insenstitive, deceitful, idiot.
> 
> Care



You are the poster child for why civilians should NOT run military missions.


----------



## Care4all

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are the poster child for why civilians should NOT run military missions.



hahaha!  Well, yes, you are probably right on that!    No denial here!

Care


----------



## red states rule

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are the poster child for why civilians should NOT run military missions.



Using her logic, the US never would have bombed Berlin in WWII, or used the A - bomb to defeat Japan


----------



## Care4all

red states rule said:


> and how will the Dems surrender bill solve the problem?



Less Americans killed is a win to me!

and good morning Rsr!

Care


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Care4all said:


> Less Americans killed is a win to me!
> 
> and good morning Rsr!
> 
> Care



And there is your problem. Using your logic we might as well disband our military and surrender to the first tinpot that demands it.


----------



## Care4all

red states rule said:


> Using her logic, the US never would have bombed Berlin in WWII, or used the A - bomb to defeat Japan



That is NOT true at all...  Japan attacked us, Iraq DID NOT.

Germany declared WAR against us, Iraq DID NOT.

This is a war of choice in Iraq.

The war in Iraq had and has nothing to do with us being attacked on 911.



Why after 6 years and $500,000,000,000 BILLION DOLLARS has Bush and Co. not captured Bin Laden?

Care


----------



## red states rule

Care4all said:


> That is NOT true at all...  Japan attacked us, Iraq DID NOT.
> 
> Germany declared WAR against us, Iraq DID NOT.
> 
> This is a war of choice in Iraq.
> 
> The war in Iraq had and has nothing to do with us being attacked on 911.
> 
> 
> 
> Why after 6 years and $500,000,000,000 BILLION DOLLARS has Bush and Co. not captured Bin Laden?
> 
> Care



Terrorists have declared war on the US

Clinton ignored terrorists for 8 years - and we got 9-11

OBL is on the run and he will get his someday


----------



## mattskramer

red states rule said:


> Terrorists have declared war on the US
> 
> Clinton ignored terrorists for 8 years - and we got 9-11
> 
> OBL is on the run and he will get his someday




Wrong again.  Will you pay attention?  I already corrected you before.  

See http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=566989&postcount=87

http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/Clinton_and_Terrorism.html

http://www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/ClintonAndTerrorism.htm

Here is another article:

http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_sabotaged_Clintons_Anti-Terror_Efforts.shtml

Now, dont change the subject again.  You said that _Clinton ignored terrorists for 8 years._  There is no way around it. That statement is simply false.


----------



## red states rule

mattskramer said:


> Wrong again.  Will you pay attention?  I already corrected you before.
> 
> See http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=566989&postcount=87
> 
> http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/Clinton_and_Terrorism.html
> 
> http://www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/ClintonAndTerrorism.htm
> 
> Here is another article:
> 
> http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_sabotaged_Clintons_Anti-Terror_Efforts.shtml
> 
> Now, dont change the subject again.  You said that _Clinton ignored terrorists for 8 years._  There is no way around it. That statement is simply false.



Libs never stop trying to rewrite history


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> I suggest you get a better source... No one claimed the surge would lower troop deaths, in fact the General pointed out it would likely increase them since MORE troops would be actively fighting. But do continue to make crap up.
> 
> Ohh wait I remember now, the democrats were to busy to get a brief from the general.



I suggest you not hop into the middle of a discussion and pretend to have a fucking clue what has gone before.

RSR made the clear claim that "American casualties had decreased by 60% due to the success of the surge" and has YET to admit that was an idiotic and incorrect statement.  If I love 10 Americans today, and 4 tomorrow, you can say "lookee!  A 60% decrease in American casualties due to the success of the surge", but we all know it is bullshit, especially when the very NEXT day we lose a dozen.... all, except RSR - and apparently you - of course.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I suggest you not hop into the middle of a discussion and pretend to have a fucking clue what has gone before.
> 
> RSR made the clear claim that "American casualties had decreased by 60% due to the success of the surge" and has YET to admit that was an idiotic and incorrect statement.  If I love 10 Americans today, and 4 tomorrow, you can say "lookee!  A 60% decrease in American casualties due to the success of the surge", but we all know it is bullshit, especially when the very NEXT day we lose a dozen.... all, except RSR - and apparently you - of course.



at the time the number were true

Terrorists increased their attacks knowing Dems would push for surrender

They were correct. Dems did exactly what the terrorists wanted them to do


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> at the time the number were true
> 
> Terrorists increased their attacks knowing Dems would push for surrender
> 
> They were correct. Dems did exactly what the terrorists wanted them to do



Like I said, if you lose 10 Americans on Tuesday and 4 Americans on Wednesday, you CAN make the claim that "American casualties have decreased by 60% due to the success of the surge", but it really is a ridiculous statement.... and when we lose 9 on Thursday and 12 on Friday and 8 on Saturday and 7 on Sunday, the 60% figure becomes an inaccurate one day snapshot that never really had any validity when considering the rate of American casualties.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> Like I said, if you lose 10 Americans on Tuesday and 4 Americans on Wednesday, you CAN make the claim that "American casualties have decreased by 60% due to the success of the surge", but it really is a ridiculous statement.... and when we lose 9 on Thursday and 12 on Friday and 8 on Saturday and 7 on Sunday, the 60% figure becomes an inaccurate one day snapshot that never really had any validity when considering the rate of American casualties.



Terrorists keep attacking

Dems keep wanting to surrender

The terrorists game plan is working


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Terrorists keep attacking
> 
> Dems keep wanting to surrender
> 
> The terrorists game plan is working



your statement that we saw a 60% decrease in American casualties due to the success of the surge remains bullshit...and always was bullshit.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> your statement that we saw a 60% decrease in American casualties due to the success of the surge remains bullshit...and always was bullshit.



It was correct at the time - until the terrorists saw a way to help the Dems push for surrender


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> It was correct at the time - until the terrorists saw a way to help the Dems push for surrender



no....it was never correct....only if you compare days.... one *day* might have had 60% less casualties than the previous *day* - and that has always been the case....we do not lose American troops on a totally constant daily rate, but NEVER has the monthly casualty figure reflected ANY decrease due to the success of the surge.  The statement has been false since the minute you posted it.  I asked you to provide some proof of it and all you can do is give me a british press office release.... and NO American DoD casualty figures have EVER backed up your silly assertion...and you have never retracted it. which makes you a liar...or a moron...or both.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no....it was never correct....only if you compare days.... one *day* might have had 60% less casualties than the previous *day* - and that has always been the case....we do not lose American troops on a totally constant daily rate, but NEVER has the monthly casualty figure reflected ANY decrease due to the success of the surge.  The statement has been false since the minute you posted it.  I asked you to provide some proof of it and all you can do is give me a british press office release.... and NO American DoD casualty figures have EVER backed up your silly assertion...and you have never retracted it. which makes you a liar...or a moron...or both.



Whatever MM

Facts never did mean anything to you - since they usually go against you


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Whatever MM
> 
> Facts never did mean anything to you - since they usually go against you



I rely on facts.  you rely on british press releases.

go figure.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I rely on facts.  you rely on british press releases.
> 
> go figure.



you rely on the doom and gloom talking points and that is giving aid and comfort to the enemy


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> you rely on the doom and gloom talking points and that is giving aid and comfort to the enemy



like I said:  I rely on DoD casualty figures ....you rely on ONE British press release.  The facts I rely on show that there has NEVER been a decrease due to the success of the surge.  when will you ever admit you got that wrong?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> like I said:  I rely on DoD casualty figures ....you rely on ONE British press release.  The facts I rely on show that there has NEVER been a decrease due to the success of the surge.  when will you ever admit you got that wrong?



I know you hate to admit it - but the release was correct


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I know you hate to admit it - but the release was correct



prove it.  

post some DoD casualty figures that prove the correctness of that press release.

I'll wait.


----------



## Rosotar

red states rule said:


> you rely on the doom and gloom talking points and that is giving aid and comfort to the enemy



And you rely on the simple fantasy that all you have to do is believe we are winning and that makes it so.  War doesn't work like that. Optimism is a good thing but it isn't a war strategy.

Tell me rsr....how does continually keeping your head up your ass and refusing to aknowledge the FACTS help our soldiers?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Rosotar said:


> And you rely on the simple fantasy that all you have to do is believe we are winning and that makes it so.  War doesn't work like that. Optimism is a good thing but it isn't a war strategy.
> 
> Tell me rsr....how does continually keeping your head up your ass and refusing to aknowledge the FACTS help our soldiers?



You mean the fact there is no civil war? the fact that something like 90 percent of Iraq is relatively peaceful? The fact that the tribal leaders are helping the Government now? Those facts?


----------



## maineman

sectarian violence dipped slightly when we applied 28K more "cops" on the mean streets of Baghdad (even though the casualty rate amongst the "cops" continued to rise) now....even though the "cops" are still there, the sectarian death toll has started to rise again.

Tell me:  how much of America was violence free between 1861 and 1865?

I can tell you, for example, that there was not one battle EVER in Connecticut or Rhode Island or Massachusetts or New Hampshire or Maine or Wisconsin or Iowa.... does that mean, because a major portion of the USA was COMPLETELY peaceful (as opposed to your wiggly "relatively peaceful) that American did NOT have a civil war between those years?


----------



## TheStripey1

maineman said:


> sectarian violence dipped slightly when we applied 28K more "cops" on the mean streets of Baghdad (even though the casualty rate amongst the "cops" continued to rise) now....even though the "cops" are still there, the sectarian death toll has started to rise again.
> 
> *Tell me:  how much of America was violence free between 1861 and 1865?
> 
> I can tell you, for example, that there was not one battle EVER in Connecticut or Rhode Island or Massachusetts or New Hampshire or Maine or Wisconsin or Iowa.... does that mean, because a major portion of the USA was COMPLETELY peaceful (as opposed to your wiggly "relatively peaceful) that American did NOT have a civil war between those years?*



Now there you go again, mm, using logic on someone without a clue on how it works.

 

good job...


----------



## CSM

TheStripey1 said:


> Now there you go again, mm, using logic on someone without a clue on how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> good job...



Are you one of those people who get kicks out of beating up little old ladies? and then brag about it?


----------



## TheStripey1

RetiredGySgt said:


> You mean the fact there is no civil war? the fact that something like 90 percent of Iraq is relatively peaceful? The fact that the tribal leaders are helping the Government now? Those facts?



Link?


ever play *whack a mole*, RGS? you know... the mole pops up out of a hole and you try to hit it before it pops back down. That's what you have in Iraq now... the insurgents/terrorists/AQs pop up in one province and when the troops all go there to try and eradicate them, they leave and go to another province... so when the troopers go there and try to eradicate them there, they have moved on to another location...

whack a mole...

it's not going to work, RGS... so how long do you think we should stay in Iraq trying to whack that elusive mole? until your grandkids are there?


----------



## TheStripey1

CSM said:


> Are you one of those people who get kicks out of beating up little old ladies? and then brag about it?




no... are you one of those people that sticks up for blithering idiots when you yourself don't like them either, sarrrrrrrrrrge?


----------



## CSM

TheStripey1 said:


> no... are you one of those people that sticks up for blithering idiots when you yourself don't like them either, sarrrrrrrrrrge?



ya that's me...pussy


----------



## TheStripey1

CSM said:


> ya that's me...pussy


you are? why I thought all CSM's were strong men... but I guess in your case, all that so called strength emanates from your armpits and your drawers...


----------



## CSM

TheStripey1 said:


> you are? why I thought all CSM's were strong men... but I guess in your case, all that so called strength emanates from your armpits and your drawers...



naw...its all in the breath....though it is a good thing to have a back up and armpits and drawers fill the bill.

SO I guess you do whup on old ladies and brag about it....silence is guilt ...right?


----------



## TheStripey1

CSM said:


> naw...its all in the breath....though it is a good thing to have a back up and armpits and drawers fill the bill.
> 
> SO I guess you do whup on old ladies and brag about it....silence is guilt ...right?



I already said no, are you blind as well as smelly?


----------



## TheStripey1

How many americans have to die in a month before you admit that the surge isn't working?


----------



## mattskramer

red states rule said:


> Libs never stop trying to rewrite history



I posted multiple links to web sites that, themselves, provide links to web sites that provide proof that Clinton did not ignore terrorists for 8 years.  RSR replies with _Libs never stop trying to rewrite history_.  Look at all of this information.  There are so many sites and so much information on each of the sites.  Is it your contention that these examples of Clinton doing things about terrorism are lies?  Is it still your claim that Clinton totally ignored terrorists?  Who is trying to rewrite history?  You are unbelievable.


----------



## Care4all

> Two would be the need to outdo their last attack as anything less could be considered anticlimactic.



that scares the pajesus out of me!    and seems like their ammo.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Care4all said:


> that scares the pajesus out of me!    and seems like their ammo.



Yet you don't want us to do anything about it.


----------



## TheStripey1

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yet you don't want us to do anything about it.



War on Al Qaeda... sure no problem... as they were the group that attacked us on 9/11, remember RGS? you DO remember that it was Al Qaeda that attacked us, right? And do you also recall that bush claimed he was going to hunt down Osama Been Forgotten and bring him to justice? It's been almost 6 years since he made that claim... how come he hasn't caught him yet? Is it because he uses bin laden to scare the american sheeple along this path or that?


It sure works on rsr... does it work on you too?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Last I checked the ONLY place we ARE fighting AQ is IN IRAQ.  But hey nice try.


----------



## TheStripey1

RetiredGySgt said:


> Last I checked the ONLY place we ARE fighting AQ is IN IRAQ.  But hey nice try.




you need to start taking your ginko RGS... OR up your dosage... have you forgotten *all* about Afghanistan?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Last I checked the ONLY place we ARE fighting AQ is IN IRAQ.  But hey nice try.



AQ is IN Iraq only because we are... and they have a hell of a lot fewer than 150K fighters occupying the time and energy of our forces.  

Do you honestly think that AQ does not LOVE the fact that we have 150K troops tied up in Iraq, have already suffered nearly 30K dead and wounded and have flushed a trillion dollars down the shitter?  And all this at the hands of "a handful of deadenders in their final throes"?????


----------



## RetiredGySgt

TheStripey1 said:


> you need to start taking your ginko RGS... OR up your dosage... have you forgotten *all* about Afghanistan?



AQ has no presence , or virtually none , in Afghanistan. We are fighting the Taliban there. They don't even like AQ, they only helped him for his money. Maybe you should get some of those herbs?


----------



## Care4all

RetiredGySgt said:


> AQ has no presence , or virtually none , in Afghanistan. We are fighting the Taliban there. They don't even like AQ, they only helped him for his money. Maybe you should get some of those herbs?



Is this a joke...  we are not in Afghanistan to fight Alqaeda?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Care4all said:


> Is this a joke...  we are not in Afghanistan to fight Alqaeda?



We went to punish the Taliban for protecting him and to try and capture him. Once the Taliban were no longer in power Afghanistan ceased to have a purpose for AQ.

I suggest you google up some reports from Afghanistan and show me where in the last 3 years or so anyone has been fighting AQ there. We have blown up a few safehouses in Pakistan that killed a few leaders of AQ, but no one in AQ is fighting the NATO forces in Afghanistan.


----------



## maineman

Hey RGS (you are becoming so much like RSR, it seems logical to reduce your screen name similarly) did you MISS this one?



maineman said:


> AQ is IN Iraq only because we are... and they have a hell of a lot fewer than 150K fighters occupying the time and energy of our forces.
> 
> Do you honestly think that AQ does not LOVE the fact that we have 150K troops tied up in Iraq, have already suffered nearly 30K dead and wounded and have flushed a trillion dollars down the shitter?  And all this at the hands of "a handful of deadenders in their final throes"?????


----------



## Care4all

RetiredGySgt said:


> We went to punish the Taliban for protecting him and to try and capture him. Once the Taliban were no longer in power Afghanistan ceased to have a purpose for AQ.
> 
> I suggest you google up some reports from Afghanistan and show me where in the last 3 years or so anyone has been fighting AQ there. We have blown up a few safehouses in Pakistan that killed a few leaders of AQ, but no one in AQ is fighting the NATO forces in Afghanistan.



then why in God's name would we keep forces in afghanistan and allow our soldiers to get killed for just fighting taliban and NOT alqaeda?

what the hell are we still there for?  another 5 killed today i think?


----------



## Gunny

Care4all said:


> then why in God's name would we keep forces in afghanistan and allow our soldiers to get killed for just fighting taliban and NOT alqaeda?
> 
> what the hell are we still there for?  another 5 killed today i think?



Gotta' love it.  We're at war with the Taliban.  Have been since we invaded Afghanistan.  Where've ya' been the past 6+ years?


----------



## Care4all

GunnyL said:


> Gotta' love it.  We're at war with the Taliban.  Have been since we invaded Afghanistan.  Where've ya' been the past 6+ years?




don't be silly...  of course we were fighting the taliban, on the premiss that the taliban was harboring alqaeda/bin laden...

but if we are in afghanistan fighting the taliban WITH NO ALQAEDA BEING HARBORED or no alqaeda there in afghanistan as RGS STATED, then please tell me why in heaven's name are we still there?

i contend that alqaeda still has major involvement there on the afghan / pakistani border....?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Actually we aren't in charge of Afghanistan, NATO is. And your right AQ is still in the border region, BUT they are not bombing or fighting in Afghanistan.  The Taliban doesn't like them, trust them or want them around. AQ used afghanistan as a training area, a safe haven. Osama Bin Laden paid for that to happen. And in fact the Taliban restricted his movements and kept a close watch on him before we invaded.


----------



## Care4all

RetiredGySgt said:


> Actually we aren't in charge of Afghanistan, NATO is. And your right AQ is still in the border region, BUT they are not bombing or fighting in Afghanistan.  The Taliban doesn't like them, trust them or want them around. AQ used afghanistan as a training area, a safe haven. Osama Bin Laden paid for that to happen. And in fact the Taliban restricted his movements and kept a close watch on him before we invaded.



My Father was USAF, he worked for NATO on a USAF Air Station in Italy for a 3 year tour...

NATO is still primarily united states ruled and run/directed.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> AQ is IN Iraq only because we are... and they have a hell of a lot fewer than 150K fighters occupying the time and energy of our forces.
> 
> Do you honestly think that AQ does not LOVE the fact that we have 150K troops tied up in Iraq, have already suffered nearly 30K dead and wounded and have flushed a trillion dollars down the shitter?  And all this at the hands of "a handful of deadenders in their final throes"?????



So if we surrender in Iraq (like the Dems want to do) will AQ leave Iraq?

Wil they stop attacking US targets?

I know the anti war left loves the casualities - it makes great political talking points


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> interesting.  the polls reflect how the public views the actions of the democrats?  Like when the democrats passed a funding bill that included deadlines for troop withdrawals and 57% of America supported them? IS that what you are talking about?



Dems have accomplished a few things MM.......


    At one level, the Democrats' central problem is one of over-promising and under-delivering. For example, of the 27 measures signed into law as of earlier this week, about half are bills naming federal buildings or roads. The other half already had passed last year under a Republican Congress or are smaller non-controversial measures enacted without any opposition. 
    Many of the items in the House "Six for '06" agenda also seem like a bit of an overreach given the Democrats' narrow majority. The slogan produced more interesting January press releases than substantive change on issues like lower prescription-drug prices, college-tuition relief, stem-cell research and implementation of the September 11 Commission recommendations. The minimum wage hike only passed because the package included bipartisan tax relief for smallbusinesses spearheaded by Republicans. 
    Democrats also came up short fulfilling campaign promises with respect to procedural reforms. Instead of loosening up the process in the House and allowing Republicans to offer alternative policies, Democrats routinely shut down Republicans' ability to offer alternative policies through House floor amendments. Now Democrats threaten to further clamp down on Republicans' ability to offer motions to recommit legislation, one of the few arrows in the minority's parliamentary quiver. A move sure to generate howls of Republican protest and one that will further erode slumping congressional approval. 

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070530-094047-6531r.htm


----------



## CSM

Care4all said:


> My Father was USAF, he worked for NATO on a USAF Air Station in Italy for a 3 year tour...
> 
> NATO is still primarily united states ruled and run/directed.



I really am amazed at some peoples lack of education. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

*The meetings of the North Atlantic Council are chaired by the Secretary General of NATO and, when decisions have to be made, action is agreed upon on the basis of unanimity and common accord. There is no voting or decision by majority. Each nation represented at the Council table or on any of its subordinate committees retains complete sovereignty and responsibility for its own decisions.*

Care, you truly need to stop yanking stuff like this out of thin air. It is difficult to take you seriously when you do.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> Hey RGS (you are becoming so much like RSR, it seems logical to reduce your screen name similarly) did you MISS this one?



He knows what is going on and calls them as he sees them

You should try it sometime MM


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> So if we surrender in Iraq (like the Dems want to do) will AQ leave Iraq?
> 
> Wil they stop attacking US targets?
> 
> I know the anti war left loves the casualities - it makes great political talking points



no one wants to surrender to anyone in Iraq.  Democrats want to leave the fighting to the Iraqis where it belongs.

AQ will not stop attacking US targets, but what they will hopefully find is that we are taking the battle to them instead of them picking us off in a shooting gallery where sunnis insurgents, shiite insurgents, and the handful of deadenders in their final throes known as AQ in Iraq are all shooting at us.

I of course we don't love american casualties.  We hate how folks like you want to downplay them and claim they are decreasing and that things are getting much better when those are all lies.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no one wants to surrender to anyone in Iraq.  Democrats want to leave the fighting to the Iraqis where it belongs.
> 
> AQ will not stop attacking US targets, but what they will hopefully find is that we are taking the battle to them instead of them picking us off in a shooting gallery where sunnis insurgents, shiite insurgents, and the handful of deadenders in their final throes known as AQ in Iraq are all shooting at us.
> 
> I of course we don't love american casualties.  We hate how folks like you want to downplay them and claim they are decreasing and that things are getting much better when those are all lies.



Dems want to surrender - but they gave up on that demand

AQ will kill millions if Dems get their way, and team up with Iran. That will make things even worse on the Middle East and for the US

Libs are giddy over the casualties - it provides them with more anti war talking points

On Memorial Day. Edwards wanted libs to protest the war instead of remembering the day is for the troops


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Dems want to surrender - but they gave up on that demand
> 
> AQ will kill millions if Dems get their way, and team up with Iran. That will make things even worse on the Middle East and for the US
> 
> Libs are giddy over the casualties - it provides them with more anti war talking points
> 
> On Memorial Day. Edwards wanted libs to protest the war instead of remembering the day is for the troops




blah blah blah....more bullshit talking points and one liners.

Democrats do not want to surrender, nor did they.  They wanted to set deadlines for troop withdrawal - *AND 57&#37; OF AMERICANS AGREE WITH THEM!!!!* (a fact you continue to ignore!)

You idiotic suggestion that AQ will "team up with Iran" is just more proof of your stubborn ignorance about the middle east.  You have become a parody of yourself.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> blah blah blah....more bullshit talking points and one liners.
> 
> Democrats do not want to surrender, nor did they.  They wanted to set deadlines for troop withdrawal - *AND 57% OF AMERICANS AGREE WITH THEM!!!!* (a fact you continue to ignore!)
> 
> You idiotic suggestion that AQ will "team up with Iran" is just more proof of your stubborn ignorance about the middle east.  You have become a parody of yourself.



and that is why their approval number is 29% - they have so much support of the voters?????


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> and that is why their approval number is 29% - they have so much support of the voters?????



Again.... I disagree that the 29% refers to democrats.  I think it refers to congress in general, and much of that negativity has been brought on by the republicans NOT supporting the popular democratic troop funding bill

the 57% refers to VOTERS who agree with the democratic funding plan for the war..... I don't care, for purposes of this discussion, what else they like or don't like about your party's legislative plan or my party's legislative plan.  When asked if they supported a troop funding plan that included withdrawal deadlines, 57% of Americans said YES.  How do you explain that?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> Again.... I disagree that the 29% refers to democrats.  I think it refers to congress in general, and much of that negativity has been brought on by the republicans NOT supporting the popular democratic troop funding bill
> 
> the 57% refers to VOTERS who agree with the democratic funding plan for the war..... I don't care, for purposes of this discussion, what else they like or don't like about your party's legislative plan or my party's legislative plan.  When asked if they supported a troop funding plan that included withdrawal deadlines, 57% of Americans said YES.  How do you explain that?



Now that the Dems are shwoing their true colors the numbers will continue to go down

The surrender bill is dead for now - and I hope the Dems continue to fight for defeat in Iraq


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Now that the Dems are shwoing their true colors the numbers will continue to go down
> 
> The surrender bill is dead for now - and I hope the Dems continue to fight for defeat in Iraq


 but once again, you don't answer my question.  I asked you a question.... you have asked me many questions in the past and I have answered many of them.  your turn.  start answering my questions.  please.  I have no desire to sit here while you talk past me all the time.... talk to me.  ask questions... answer questions...make points...let me refute your points in my own words....I'll make points...you refute my points with your own words...that is what a debate is really all about.  that is what a conversation is really all about.  Let's try it, you and me.  OK?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> but once again, you don't answer my question.  I asked you a question.... you have asked me many questions in the past and I have answered many of them.  your turn.  start answering my questions.  please.  I have no desire to sit here while you talk past me all the time.... talk to me.  ask questions... answer questions...make points...let me refute your points in my own words....I'll make points...you refute my points with your own words...that is what a debate is really all about.  that is what a conversation is really all about.  Let's try it, you and me.  OK?



Dems voted for surrender and defeat in Irag

They want to hike taxes

They want to attack corprorations because they deem their profts to high

They want government run health care

and then you can't understand why their approval numbers are going down?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Dems voted for surrender and defeat in Irag
> 
> They want to hike taxes
> 
> They want to attack corprorations because they deem their profts to high
> 
> They want government run health care
> 
> and then you can't understand why their approval numbers are going down?



and.... on yet another thread, maineman grows weary of the futility of attempting to engage him in any sort of intelligent conversation or two-way dialog, extricates himself from the tarbaby.... shakes his head... and walks away.


and minutes later, on an empty stage, the tarbaby raises his stick arms and declares "victory"!

and so it goes....


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> and.... on yet another thread, maineman grows weary of the futility of attempting to engage him in any sort of intelligent conversation or two-way dialog, extricates himself from the tarbaby.... shakes his head... and walks away.
> 
> 
> and minutes later, on an empty stage, the tarbaby raises his stick arms and declares "victory"!
> 
> and so it goes....



and in the face of facts - MM walks away


----------



## TheStripey1

rsr:
Facts on the ground in Iraq says that 123 americans died last month. That's an increase of about 20&#37; over the month before... How does that constitute the surge is working in your mind?

More americans dying doesn't sound like it's working to me but then I have the troops best interests in heart... I want them home with their families and out of that hell hole... you want them there in harms' way... 

why do you hate our troops?


----------



## red states rule

TheStripey1 said:


> rsr:
> Facts on the ground in Iraq says that 123 americans died last month. That's an increase of about 20% over the month before... How does that constitute the surge is working in your mind?
> 
> More americans dying doesn't sound like it's working to me but then I have the troops best interests in heart... I want them home with their families and out of that hell hole... you want them there in harms' way...
> 
> why do you hate our troops?



Here is one good thing going on in Iraq

BAGHDAD, May 31 -- Sunni residents of a west Baghdad neighborhood used assault rifles and a roadside bomb to battle the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq this week, leaving at least 28 people dead and six injured, residents said Thursday.

The mayor of the Amiriyah neighborhood, Mohammed Abdul Khaliq, said in a telephone interview that residents were rising up to try to expel al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has alienated other Sunnis with its indiscriminate violence and attacks on members of its own sect.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...53100455.html?hpid=moreheadlines?hpid=topnews


I know this goes against libs like you who already believe the war is lost and there nothing good happening in Iraq


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Here is one good thing going on in Iraq
> 
> BAGHDAD, May 31 -- Sunni residents of a west Baghdad neighborhood used assault rifles and a roadside bomb to battle the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq this week, leaving at least 28 people dead and six injured, residents said Thursday.
> 
> The mayor of the Amiriyah neighborhood, Mohammed Abdul Khaliq, said in a telephone interview that residents were rising up to try to expel al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has alienated other Sunnis with its indiscriminate violence and attacks on members of its own sect.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...53100455.html?hpid=moreheadlines?hpid=topnews





I applaud this effort.  Now tell me how Iran and Sadr fit into that issue?

tell me how the surge is successful if more Americans are dying?

I understand that indigenous Iraqi sunnis are fighting al qaeda sunnis.... and that is a good thing.  how do the shiites fit into that?  how does that make the issues between the two rival sects of Islam disappear?

Why would anyone expect the sunnis and shiites sitting on the cusp of Arabia and Persia who have NEVER gotten along, start getting along inside an artificial country whose boundaries were drawn by Europeans who didn't even understand that there were such things as sunnis and shiites?

I know this goes against libs like you who already believe the war is lost and there nothing good happening in Iraq


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I applaud this effort.  Now tell me how Iran and Sadr fit into that issue?
> 
> tell me how the surge is successful if more Americans are dying?
> 
> I understand that indigenous Iraqi sunnis are fighting al qaeda sunnis.... and that is a good thing.  how do the shiites fit into that?  how does that make the issues between the two rival sects of Islam disappear?
> 
> Why would anyone expect the sunnis and shiites sitting on the cusp of Arabia and Persia who have NEVER gotten along, start getting along inside an artificial country whose boundaries were drawn by Europeans who didn't even understand that there were such things as sunnis and shiites?
> 
> I know this goes against libs like you who already believe the war is lost and there nothing good happening in Iraq



The terrorists are very upset

The Dems caved on surrender and the terrorists lost their best allies in DC

White Flag Harry and San Fran Nan


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> I applaud this effort.  Now tell me how Iran and Sadr fit into that issue?
> 
> tell me how the surge is successful if more Americans are dying?
> 
> I understand that indigenous Iraqi sunnis are fighting al qaeda sunnis.... and that is a good thing.  how do the shiites fit into that?  how does that make the issues between the two rival sects of Islam disappear?
> 
> Why would anyone expect the sunnis and shiites sitting on the cusp of Arabia and Persia who have NEVER gotten along, start getting along inside an artificial country whose boundaries were drawn by Europeans who didn't even understand that there were such things as sunnis and shiites?



can you answer these questions?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> can you answer these questions?



I have on three different threads


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I have on three different threads



your answer is that the relatively small force of AQ fighters in Iraq will defeat the indigenous sunni population and then, either accept a few "crumbs from the table" from the invading persians or die..and if they do accept the crumbs, they will jointly rule over the Iraqi people against their will.  Is that your final answer?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> your answer is that the relatively small force of AQ fighters in Iraq will defeat the indigenous sunni population and then, either accept a few "crumbs from the table" from the invading persians or die..and if they do accept the crumbs, they will jointly rule over the Iraqi people against their will.  Is that your final answer?



It is not my fault you can't accept the truth


----------



## Annie

Like MM, I've long wondered what RSR read or heard that made him post that 60% number, perhaps it was earlier related to the information found in this article? Dealing with a particular province:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18881803/site/newsweek/



> ...
> 
> The Pentagon is praying that its new allies will reconfigure the war. The success of the Ramadi experiment has given rise to hopes that the model can be applied elsewhere in Iraq. A year ago insurgents were launching nearly 30 attacks a day in the city; now the daily average is less than one. Anbar province as a whole is showing similar improvements. Brig. Gen. John R. Allen, deputy commanding general of the Second Marine Expeditionary Force in Anbar and a tribal-affairs expert, describes the province as "a laboratory for counterinsurgency." *From roughly 500 attacks a week, the rate has sunk to barely a third of that figure.* Weapons-cache discoveries, based largely on tips from sympathetic Iraqis in Ramadi, have skyrocketed nearly 190 percent. The fledgling local police force could muster only 20 recruits a year ago; today, with local sheiks encouraging tribe members to sign up, it has 8,000.
> 
> But even as the Americans rejoice in Ramadi's transformation, they worry that it may not last. Some townspeople are already losing patience as they seek Baghdad's help in rebuilding their community. At the same time, the Shia-dominated central government in Baghdad is in no hurry to do favors for Anbar's overwhelmingly Sunni population. Col. John Charlton, commander of the nearly 6,000 U.S. troops in central Anbar, warns of political trouble ahead if reconstruction falters. "Now that the shooting's stopped, people's expectations have risen wildly," Charlton says. "They want electricity back. They want things fixed now. The question is, can the government step up and deliver the goods?" The danger is that the government will allow Ramadi to languish while America's newfound allies drift back into the jihadists' orbit.
> 
> ...


----------



## red states rule

Kathianne said:


> Like MM, I've long wondered what RSR read or heard that made him post that 60% number, perhaps it was earlier related to the information found in this article? Dealing with a particular province:
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18881803/site/newsweek/



Here are 2 sources I used

US troop deaths down by 60% after month-long security operation in Baghdad 

March 18, 2007, 11:07 AM (GMT+02:00)

The Multi-National Force-Iraq Combined Press Center states that from Feb. 14 to March 13, 17 US military personnel were killed, compared with 42 in the previous month-period although larger numbers were deployed in the capital. District outposts now function in formerly hazardous neighborhoods such as the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City, Azamiyah and Doura. The US army in Iraq earlier reported an 80% drop in sectarian clashes and violence in Baghdad since the operation was launched. These statistics exclude other Iraqi governates such as the al Qaeda stronghold of Anbar, Diyala and Salahiddin. 
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3933'



MIL-IRAQ-US SOLDIERS 
Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers

BAGHDAD, March 14 (KUNA) -- The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad, according to statistics revealed by the Multi-National Force -Iraq Combined Press Information Centre.

Only 17 members of the US military in Iraq have been killed since February 14 till March 13, compared to 42 from January 13 to February 13; the rate was on the decline during the first month of the security crackdown, compared to a month before.

Two of the 17 soldiers died at US Baghdad camps of non-combat causes.

The remarkable decrease in killings among the US troops came at a time when more of these troops were deployed in the Iraqi capital, especially in districts previously regarded as extremely hazardous for them such as Al-Sadr City, Al-Azamiyah, and Al-Doura.

Meanwhile, US attacks on insurgent strongholds north of Baghdad curbed attacks against helicopters. Before the new security plan, many such craft were downed leaving 20 soldiers dead.

The US army in Iraq had earlier said that sectarian fighting and violence in Baghdad had dropped sharply, by about 80 percent, since the launch of the plan.

The statistics excluded US troops killed in other governorates such as Al-Anbar, Diyala, and Salahiddin.

As to the latest human losses, the US army announced Wednesday that two American soldiers had been killed, one in southern Baghdad and the other northeast of the capital.(end) ahh.

http://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/print.as...en&DSNO=961365


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> It is not my fault you can't accept the truth




"truth" seems to be defined by you as "anything you believe"

Have I got that right?


----------



## maineman

Kathianne said:


> Like MM, I've long wondered what RSR read or heard that made him post that 60% number, perhaps it was earlier related to the information found in this article? Dealing with a particular province:
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18881803/site/newsweek/


and regardless of where he got his 60% figure, he cannot make it fit with any REAL casualty figures as posted by the DoD.  He will continue to hang his hat on one press release from the coalition forced press centre and ignore the real numbers which tell the real story of our increasing carnage.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> "truth" seems to be defined by you as "anything you believe"
> 
> Have I got that right?



As opposed to your "reasoned" intellectual belief in Man made Global warming?


----------



## maineman

this thread is not about global warming.  can you even TRY to stay on topic?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070603/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> As opposed to your "reasoned" intellectual belief in Man made Global warming?



but as I have said.... I am not a scientist, are you?  I listen to reports, I watch documentaries, I read magazines, I try to understand global warming as best as I can.  I understand full well that man is not the only possible cause for global warming.  I also understand that, the preponderance of all I have read and heard and seen leads me to believe that man is having an adverse impact on the environment.  

Your "reasoned intellectual belief" that man does not have a fucking thing to do with global warming must, I imagine, be as a result of your own exhaustive research and experimentation conducted over a long span of time.  Could you be so kind as to maybe link me to the scientific journal that has published the results of your study?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Being dishonest again I see. Remind me of your answer when I asked you 2 specific questions?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Being dishonest again I see. Remind me of your answer when I asked you 2 specific questions?



answered in the appropriate thread.  I am not dishonest....by the very essence of my nature.... since I accepted the honor system at my school.  It is part of my character.. obviously not part of yours.

I would ask that you go to the global warming thread..and answer THIS:

*Your "reasoned intellectual belief" that man does not have a fucking thing to do with global warming must, I imagine, be as a result of your own exhaustive research and experimentation conducted over a long span of time. Could you be so kind as to maybe link me to the scientific journal that has published the results of your study? 
*

and in THIS thread, tell me again how great the fucking SURGE is working when we lost 127 Americans last month and June is already on track (with 16 dead in only 3 days) to being the bloodiest and deadliest month EVER in this war.  Yeah.... in the fucking Alice in Wonderland world where Bush-lickers live and up is down and down is up... the fucking SURGE has just been a rousing success!  Your uncritical support for this moron in the white house borders on treason.


----------



## maineman

Kathianne said:


> Like MM, I've long wondered what RSR read or heard that made him post that 60% number, perhaps it was earlier related to the information found in this article? Dealing with a particular province:
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18881803/site/newsweek/



I read your link with interest....

I don't think anyone finds anything surprising about the fact that crime goes down in a town when you dump 20K more cops on the street.

Iraq, in total, remains a bloody place where sunnis continue to hate shi'ites.  Do we really think that putting 150K "policemen" in the midst of the Hatfields and the McCoys will mean that whenever we take the "policemen" away, that the Hatfields will miraculously love the McCoys and vice versa?


----------



## Annie

maineman said:


> I read your link with interest....
> 
> I don't think anyone finds anything surprising about the fact that crime goes down in a town when you dump 20K more cops on the street.
> 
> Iraq, in total, remains a bloody place where sunnis continue to hate shi'ites.  Do we really think that putting 150K "policemen" in the midst of the Hatfields and the McCoys will mean that whenever we take the "policemen" away, that the Hatfields will miraculously love the McCoys and vice versa?



I'm not going to argue that with you, seems you have a point. But I did wonder where he came up with that particular number. This might be a hint. See, while I might agree that he just spins, he does have something usually to back him up. In this case, I think he 'heard' something, but couldn't find the link.

Thinking about that, it puts RSR ahead of many on both the right and left at the boards, his links can nearly always be checked. His ad libs, well...


----------



## maineman

Kathianne said:


> I'm not going to argue that with you, seems you have a point. But I did wonder where he came up with that particular number. This might be a hint. See, while I might agree that he just spins, he does have something usually to back him up. In this case, I think he 'heard' something, but couldn't find the link.
> 
> Thinking about that, it puts RSR ahead of many on both the right and left at the boards, his links can nearly always be checked. His ad libs, well...




It is interesting to consider, that this supposed 60% reduction occurs from the middle of february through the middle of march, yet America lost 80 soldiers in february and 81 in march.


----------



## Annie

maineman said:


> It is interesting to consider, that this supposed 60% reduction occurs from the middle of february through the middle of march, yet America lost 80 soldiers in february and 81 in march.



But the link I provided was for a particular area. My guess, he heard something related to this and ran with it.


----------



## red states rule

There is progress being made in Iraq. It would seem the people are fed up with the terrorists and are starting to fight back



An al-Qaida-linked suicide bomber struck a safehouse occupied by an insurgent group that has turned against the terror network. Friday's attack northeast of Baghdad killed two other militants, police said, the latest sign that an internal Sunni power struggle is spreading. 
The explosion in Baqouba came as Iraqi and U.S. troops fanned out in the Sunni stronghold of Amariyah in the capital, enforcing an indefinite curfew after heavily armed residents clashed with al-Qaida in Iraq fighters, apparently fed up with the group's brutal tactics.

"Al-Qaida fighters and leaders have completely destroyed Amariyah," said Abu Ahmed, a 40-year-old Sunni father of four who said he joined in the clashes. "No one can venture out, and all the businesses are closed. They kill everyone who criticizes them and is against their acts even if they are Sunnis."

Other residents, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they feared retribution, said the clashes began after al-Qaida militants abducted and tortured Sunnis from the area. That prompted a large number of residents, including many members of the rival Islamic Army armed with guns and rocket-propelled grenades, to rise up against the terror network. U.S. forces joined them in the fighting Wednesday and Thursday.

Al Qaeda is on the retreat in Anbar, as well, as local Sunnis have joined forces with American soldiers. It's impossible to say how important this will turn out to be, but any time terrorists are being killed, it's a good thing.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PGAKE80&show_article=1&cat=0


----------



## maineman

and June is shaping up to the the single deadliest month of the war for American forces....who were supposed to be standing down so that the Iraqis could stand up. The single deadliest month of the war is not my definition of progress.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> and June is shaping up to the the single deadliest month of the war for American forces....who were supposed to be standing down so that the Iraqis could stand up. The single deadliest month of the war is not my definition of progress.



and and the anti war left could not be happier. They will keep pushing for surrender and doing exactly what the terrorists want them to do


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> and and the anti war left could not be happier. They will keep pushing for surrender and doing exactly what the terrorists want them to do



I am a member of the "anti-war left" and I am far from happy.  And trust me:  Bush is and has been doing exactly what the terrorists want him to do since he invaded Iraq.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I am a member of the "anti-war left" and I am far from happy.  And trust me:  Bush is and has been doing exactly what the terrorists want him to do since he invaded Iraq.



How? By killing them?

Dems have opposed every method used to capture/kill them sicne day one


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> How? By killing them?
> 
> Dems have opposed every method used to capture/kill them sicne day one




no...by tying up 150K of our troops fighting a handful of them.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no...by tying up 150K of our troops fighting a handful of them.



those 150k have been killing them and doing their job - despite all the opposition from the left


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> those 150k have been killing them and doing their job - despite all the opposition from the left



of course they have....150K have been tied down in Iraq killing a handful of deadenders in their final throes at a cost of nearly 30K dead and wounded Americans and a trillion dollars flushed down the shitter that could have been spent in nearly an infinite number of ways that would have made America safer and more effectively advanced the war against islamic extremism.

American troops are killing the bad guys.  150K americans are being used to try to kill a handful of bad guys.  I think that is bad strategy.


----------



## red states rule

28-MAY-2007: A young boy seeks shelter behind a soldier with the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne division after gunshots rang out at the scene where just a few minutes earlier a suicide car bomber blew himself up in a busy commercial district in central Baghdad on Monday, May 28, 2007, killing at least 21 people and wounding 66, police and hospital officials said. (AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed ) [Photo copyright 2007 by AP]
http://news.usti.net/home/news/cn/email/?/news.front_page/2/wed/br/Airaq-violence.RJzk_HyS.html


If Dems get their way, and the US surrenders, who will protect the innocent cilivians from the coming slaughter?


----------



## maineman

if we leave in ten years, do you think that the sunnis and the shiites in Iraq will then love each other and forget about 1200 years of hatred and enmity and NOT want to slaughter each other the minute we finally DO leave?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> if we leave in ten years, do you think that the sunnis and the shiites in Iraq will then love each other and forget about 1200 years of hatred and enmity and NOT want to slaughter each other the minute we finally DO leave?



The Iraq government says they can handle things - we leave

That has always been the standard


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The Iraq government says they can handle things - we leave
> 
> That has always been the standard




that isn't what I asked.  answer my question.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> that isn't what I asked.  answer my question.



I should have know common sense, and a straight answer, would not register with you


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I should have know common sense, and a straight answer, would not register with you



"red states rule" and "straight answer" do not belong in the same sentence unless separated by a negative modifier.

Can you please please pretty please just try to answer a simple question for me?

I am not asking you about what the Iraqi government says they are or are not capable of handling....I ask you, regardless of what the Iraq government claims:

*if we leave in ten years, do you think that the sunnis and the shiites in Iraq will then love each other and forget about 1200 years of hatred and enmity and NOT want to slaughter each other the minute we finally DO leave?*


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> "red states rule" and "straight answer" do not belong in the same sentence unless separated by a negative modifier.
> 
> Can you please please pretty please just try to answer a simple question for me?
> 
> I am not asking you about what the Iraqi government says they are or are not capable of handling....I ask you, regardless of what the Iraq government claims:
> 
> *if we leave in ten years, do you think that the sunnis and the shiites in Iraq will then love each other and forget about 1200 years of hatred and enmity and NOT want to slaughter each other the minute we finally DO leave?*



Your question is irrelevent as if we succeed in making the Government strong enough to defend the country inside and out it doesn't matter.

It is another of your red herrings.

I bet you ask people questions like " So have you quit beating your wife? Yes or no please."


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your question is irrelevent as if we succeed in making the Government strong enough to defend the country inside and out it doesn't matter.
> 
> It is another of your red herrings.
> 
> I bet you ask people questions like " So have you quit beating your wife? Yes or no please."



so you think that a democratic government can keep two sects of Islam from fighting?

so you think that the more we train the Iraqi Army the more loyal they will be to the Iraqi government and not to their particular sect?

Robert E. Lee, USMA '29


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> so you think that a democratic government can keep two sects of Islam from fighting?
> 
> so you think that the more we train the Iraqi Army the more loyal they will be to the Iraqi government and not to their particular sect?
> 
> Robert E. Lee, USMA '29



As I have pointed out, I don't give a rats ass if Iraq is Democratic or not. But why is MY assuming the Government can work wrong and your assuming it can not right?

Last I checked Iraq has not had each side killing each other in great numbers in the past either, even when a dictator wasn't running the country. Your OPINION is just that, an opinion.Please provide examples of civil war from 1960 to 2002 in Iraq. Of large scale Sunni versus Shiite violance.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> As I have pointed out, I don't give a rats ass if Iraq is Democratic or not. But why is MY assuming the Government can work wrong and your assuming it can not right?
> 
> Last I checked Iraq has not had each side killing each other in great numbers in the past either, even when a dictator wasn't running the country. Your OPINION is just that, an opinion.Please provide examples of civil war from 1960 to 2002 in Iraq. Of large scale Sunni versus Shiite violance.



there has never been democracy in Iraq and certainly none between the years you mention.  I have no doubt that a strong man with a loyal army can keep sunnis and shiites from killing one another...and wouldn't that be a great solution to our problem now?  Odd thing:  that is exactly what we had before we fucked up and tipped over the apple cart by invading in the first place!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> there has never been democracy in Iraq and certainly none between the years you mention.  I have no doubt that a strong man with a loyal army can keep sunnis and shiites from killing one another...and wouldn't that be a great solution to our problem now?  Odd thing:  that is exactly what we had before we fucked up and tipped over the apple cart by invading in the first place!



Ya, I see your point, because there was no limited democracy before, it can not possibly work now. Got ya.


----------



## Shogun

Commanders Say Push in Baghdad Is Short of Goal

*BAGHDAD, June 3  Three months after the start of the Baghdad security plan that has added thousands of American and Iraqi troops to the capital, they control fewer than one-third of the citys neighborhoods, far short of the initial goal for the operation, according to some commanders and an internal military assessment.*

The American assessment, completed in late May, found that American and Iraqi forces were able to protect the population and maintain physical influence over only 146 of the 457 Baghdad neighborhoods.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/w...en=ee19d05a11461240&ei=5099&partner=TOPIXNEWS

*
"No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working"*


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ya, I see your point, because there was no limited democracy before, it can not possibly work now. Got ya.



you keep spinning like a fucking top.

My POINT is that Iraq, as a country, is an artificial construct of Europeans dividing up the Ottoman Empire as spoils of war.  They had no clue who sunnis and shiites or kurd were...they were all just rag headed brown skinned monkeys to the brits.  there has NEVER been an democratic government in Iraq..there is no reason to believe that these two groups of people  - who fucking hate each other - have any desire to ever form a vibrant multicultural jeffersonian democracy with one another.  it has always been a fantasy held forth by neocons with as much understanding of the ethnic divides in Iraq as the Europeans who created it in the first place.  When you take away the american presence, the Iraqi army will devolve into sunni and shiite camps quicker than it took Robert E. Lee to resign HIS commission in the US Army once OUR civil war started.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> you keep spinning like a fucking top.
> 
> My POINT is that Iraq, as a country, is an artificial construct of Europeans dividing up the Ottoman Empire as spoils of war.  They had no clue who sunnis and shiites or kurd were...they were all just rag headed brown skinned monkeys to the brits.  there has NEVER been an democratic government in Iraq..there is no reason to believe that these two groups of people  - who fucking hate each other - have any desire to ever form a vibrant multicultural jeffersonian democracy with one another.  it has always been a fantasy held forth by neocons with as much understanding of the ethnic divides in Iraq as the Europeans who created it in the first place.  When you take away the american presence, the Iraqi army will devolve into sunni and shiite camps quicker than it took Robert E. Lee to resign HIS commission in the US Army once OUR civil war started.



Your opinion.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your opinion.



wow.  no kidding?  imagine that... a guy posting his opinions on a political bulletin board where the motto is "where your voices count".  

And normally.... when people post an opinion that I disagree with, my approach is to dissect their opinion and offer points in rebuttal.

your approach seems to be to post really inane responses like THIS one.

good job sarge.  fucking brilliant!  really.


----------



## Shogun

*The operation is at a difficult point right now, to be sure, said Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, the deputy commander of the First Cavalry Division, which has responsibility for Baghdad.*


another opinion...  but, thankfully, this brig. gen.'s opinon is just a left wing hype from mediamatters and george soros...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> wow.  no kidding?  imagine that... a guy posting his opinions on a political bulletin board where the motto is "where your voices count".
> 
> And normally.... when people post an opinion that I disagree with, my approach is to dissect their opinion and offer points in rebuttal.
> 
> your approach seems to be to post really inane responses like THIS one.
> 
> good job sarge.  fucking brilliant!  really.



No, my experience with you is you play word games, you throw up Red herrings and you resort to name calling if we disagree with you and don't follow your instructions on how we are allowed to respond.


----------



## Shogun

RetiredGySgt said:


> No, my experience with you is you play word games, you throw up Red herrings and you resort to name calling if we disagree with you and don't follow your instructions on how we are allowed to respond.



HAHAHA!

now THAT is rich!


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> No, my experience with you is you play word games, you throw up Red herrings and you resort to name calling if we disagree with you and don't follow your instructions on how we are allowed to respond.




your "experience" is not the issue here.  I stated my opinion about why I felt that attempting to squeeze Iraq into some cookie cutter mold of democracy was an exercise in futility...and I provided some well thought out rationale to support my opinion.

and your brilliant retort was "your opinion"

no shit.... what gave you your first clue, Sherlock?


----------



## midcan5

Assuming the surge is working, does that then mean this administration has failed until now to develop a plan to end this and bring the troops home? This is a long time coming for Bush apologists to claim success, especially given the state of Iraq after all this time.


----------



## Care4all

midcan5 said:


> Assuming the surge is working, does that then mean this administration has failed until now to develop a plan to end this and bring the troops home? This is a long time coming for Bush apologists to claim success, especially given the state of Iraq after all this time.



Welcome Midcan!

Care


----------



## TheStripey1

maineman said:


> I read your link with interest....
> 
> I don't think anyone finds anything surprising about the fact that crime goes down in a town when you dump 20K more cops on the street.
> 
> Iraq, in total, remains a bloody place where sunnis continue to hate shi'ites.  Do we really think that putting 150K "policemen" in the midst of the Hatfields and the McCoys will mean that whenever we take the "policemen" away, that the Hatfields will miraculously love the McCoys and vice versa?




they will in the bush bot reality... problem is tho, that that reality isn't in touch with the REAL reality...


----------



## TheStripey1

Kathianne said:


> I'm not going to argue that with you, seems you have a point. But I did wonder where he came up with that particular number. This might be a hint. See, while I might agree that he just spins, he does have something usually to back him up. In this case, I think he 'heard' something, but couldn't find the link.
> 
> Thinking about that, it puts RSR ahead of many on both the right and left at the boards, his links can nearly always be checked. His ad libs, well...



His links? I've asked him and asked him and asked him to provide links for the garbage he spews... but alas, rsr doesn't DO links... unless of course, they are MONTHS old... do you, Kathianne, think it is wise for rsr to use out dated information to try to prove his case?


----------



## TheStripey1

red states rule said:


> Here are 2 sources I used
> 
> US troop deaths down by 60% after month-long security operation in Baghdad
> 
> March 18, 2007, 11:07 AM (GMT+02:00)
> 
> 
> 
> BAGHDAD, March 14 (KUNA) --



yo rsr... these two links of yours are 3 months old... surely you can find something a little more timely... unless of course, since the recent news belies your premise, you choose to ignore them. 

Here's one from *TODAY*:



> Commanders Say Push in Baghdad Is Short of Goal
> 
> By DAVID S. CLOUD and DAMIEN CAVE
> Published: June 4, 2007
> 
> 
> BAGHDAD, June 3  Three months after the start of the Baghdad security plan that has added thousands of American and Iraqi troops to the capital, they control fewer than one-third of the citys neighborhoods, far short of the initial goal for the operation, according to some commanders and an internal military assessment.
> 
> ...snip
> 
> In an interview, he said that while military planners had expected to make greater gains by now, *that has not been possible in large part because Iraqi police and army units, which were expected to handle basic security tasks, like manning checkpoints and conducting patrols, have not provided all the forces promised, and in some cases have performed poorly.*
> 
> That is forcing American commanders to conduct operations to remove insurgents from some areas multiple times. The heavily Shiite security forces have also repeatedly failed to intervene in some areas when fighters, who fled or laid low when the American troops arrived, resumed sectarian killings.
> 
> ...snip
> 
> When planners devised the Baghdad security plan late last year, they had assumed most Baghdad neighborhoods would be under control around July, according to a senior American military officer, so the emphasis could shift into restoring services and rebuilding the neighborhoods as the summer progressed.
> 
> We were way too optimistic, said the officer, adding that September is now the goal for establishing basic security in most neighborhoods, the same month that Bush administration officials have said they plan to review the progress of the plan.
> 
> ...snip



Commanders on the ground IN IRAQ today say the surge isn't working as they thought it would be by now... yet... you still claim it is... why?

Are you out of touch with reality?


----------



## TheStripey1

maineman said:


> It is interesting to consider, that this supposed 60% reduction occurs from the middle of february through the middle of march, yet America lost 80 soldiers in february and 81 in march.



obviously, math is not rsr's strong suit...


----------



## TheStripey1

Kathianne said:


> But the link I provided was for a particular area. My guess, he heard something related to this and ran with it.



there is more than one area of unrest in Iraq, Kathianne... ever play *whack a mole*?


----------



## TheStripey1

red states rule said:


> and and the anti war left could not be happier. They will keep pushing for surrender and doing exactly what the terrorists want them to do



the democrats want the troops home alive, you want them in Iraq and in harm's way...

*when will your insatiable blood lust end?*

when it's your turn to go?


----------



## TheStripey1

red states rule said:


> Dems have opposed every method used to capture/kill them sicne day one



Link? or are you just passing gas again?


----------



## TheStripey1

red states rule said:


> those 150k have been killing them and doing their job - despite all the opposition from the left



*If winning in Iraq is so important to you, when will you be taking an active part in the fight?*


----------



## TheStripey1

red states rule said:


> 28-MAY-2007: A young boy seeks shelter behind a soldier with the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne division after gunshots rang out at the scene where just a few minutes earlier a suicide car bomber blew himself up in a busy commercial district in central Baghdad on Monday, May 28, 2007, killing at least 21 people and wounding 66, police and hospital officials said. (AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed ) [Photo copyright 2007 by AP]
> http://news.usti.net/home/news/cn/email/?/news.front_page/2/wed/br/Airaq-violence.RJzk_HyS.html
> 
> 
> If Dems get their way, and the US surrenders, who will protect the innocent cilivians from the coming slaughter?



How about the Iraqis protect themselves?


----------



## TheStripey1

maineman said:


> wow.  no kidding?  imagine that... a guy posting his opinions on a political bulletin board where the motto is "where your voices count".
> 
> And normally.... when people post an opinion that I disagree with, my approach is to dissect their opinion and offer points in rebuttal.
> 
> your approach seems to be to post really inane responses like THIS one.
> 
> good job sarge.  fucking brilliant!  really.



fortunately, most NCOs aren't as obtuse as RGS apparently is...


----------



## red states rule

TheStripey1 said:


> yo rsr... these two links of yours are 3 months old... surely you can find something a little more timely... unless of course, since the recent news belies your premise, you choose to ignore them.
> 
> Here's one from *TODAY*:
> 
> 
> 
> Commanders on the ground IN IRAQ today say the surge isn't working as they thought it would be by now... yet... you still claim it is... why?
> 
> Are you out of touch with reality?



At the time they were current

Keep waving that white flag and let the terrorists they have your support


----------



## red states rule

TheStripey1 said:


> the democrats want the troops home alive, you want them in Iraq and in harm's way...
> 
> *when will your insatiable blood lust end?*
> 
> when it's your turn to go?



Dems want to lose the war since they see it as a defeat for Pres Bush


----------



## red states rule

TheStripey1 said:


> How about the Iraqis protect themselves?



The why have a Police department - let people protect themselves


----------



## red states rule

TheStripey1 said:


> yo rsr... these two links of yours are 3 months old... surely you can find something a little more timely... unless of course, since the recent news belies your premise, you choose to ignore them.
> 
> Here's one from *TODAY*:
> 
> 
> 
> Commanders on the ground IN IRAQ today say the surge isn't working as they thought it would be by now... yet... you still claim it is... why?
> 
> Are you out of touch with reality?



Consider Brent Scowcroft, dean of the Realist School, who openly opposed the war from the outset and was a lead skeptic of the president's democracy-building agenda. In a recent Financial Times interview, he succinctly summed up the implication of withdrawal: "The costs of staying are visible; the costs of getting out are almost never discussed. If we get out before Iraq is stable, the entire Middle East region might start to resemble Iraq today. Getting out is not a solution."

And here is retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Centcom Commander and a vociferous critic of the what he sees as the administration's naive and one-sided policy in Iraq and the broader Middle East: "When we are in Iraq we are in many ways containing the violence. If we back off we give it more room to breathe, and it may metastasize in some way and become a regional problem. We don't have to be there at the same force level, but it is a five- to seven-year process to get any reasonable stability in Iraq."

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010168


----------



## maineman

RSR...see if you can carry on an intellligent conversation.  I'll start:



maineman said:


> Iraq, as a country, is an artificial construct of Europeans dividing up the Ottoman Empire as spoils of war.  They had no clue who sunnis and shiites or kurds were...they were all just rag headed brown skinned monkeys to the brits.  there has NEVER been an democratic government in Iraq..there is no reason to believe that these two groups of people  - who fucking hate each other - have any desire to ever form a vibrant multicultural jeffersonian democracy with one another.  it has always been a fantasy held forth by neocons with as much understanding of the ethnic divides in Iraq as the Europeans who created it in the first place.  When you take away the american presence, the Iraqi army will devolve into sunni and shiite camps quicker than it took Robert E. Lee to resign HIS commission in the US Army once OUR civil war started.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> RSR...see if you can carry on an intellligent conversation.  I'll start:



Your insistance that we ONLY discuss YOUR talking points and ONLY if we have read your required reading list are old.


----------



## red states rule

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your insistance that we ONLY discuss YOUR talking points and ONLY if we have read your required reading list are old.



How else is MM going to have a chance to win a debate?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your insistance that we ONLY discuss YOUR talking points and ONLY if we have read your required reading list are old.



I didn't insist that you only discuss my talking points.... I asked RSR a question specifically.  

don't be rude.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> How else is MM going to have a chance to win a debate?



tell me again how it is a fact that AQ and Iran are going to team up to rule Iraq against the will of the Iraqi people.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> tell me again how it is a fact that AQ and Iran are going to team up to rule Iraq against the will of the Iraqi people.



Your demento twisting of reality is old and tiresome.... Tell us, Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no please.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> tell me again how it is a fact that AQ and Iran are going to team up to rule Iraq against the will of the Iraqi people.



Sadam has no trouble for over 30 years


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your demento twisting of reality is old and tiresome.... Tell us, Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes or no please.




are you suggesting that RSR has not stated that it is a fact that Iran and Al Qaeda will jointly rule Iraq against the will of the Iraqi people?

and look...sarge.... if reading my stuff makes you tired.... drink a glass of warm milk and take a nap..... you old stooge.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Sadam has no trouble for over 30 years




Saddam had the assistance of the indiginous ba'ath party.  Who will support Iran and AQ's joint rule over Iraq?  

And why, again, are radical arab wahabbists who seek to end the existence of different nation states going to join with their natural enemies, the persian shiiites to get into the business of managing a nation state?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> Saddam had the assistance of the indiginous ba'ath party.  Who will support Iran and AQ's joint rule over Iraq?
> 
> And why, again, are radical arab wahabbists who seek to end the existence of different nation states going to join with their natural enemies, the persian shiiites to get into the business of managing a nation state?



Iran will have the backup as well

If the US surrenders like the Dems want, Iraq will be handed over to Iran and the terrorists on a silver platter


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Iran will have the backup as well
> 
> If the US surrenders like the Dems want, Iraq will be handed over to Iran and the terrorists on a silver platter



who will provide the "backup" for Iran?  

and are you again suggesting that this impending Iran-Al Qaeda alliance is a FACT?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> who will provide the "backup" for Iran?
> 
> and are you again suggesting that this impending Iran-Al Qaeda alliance is a FACT?



Without the US, Iran will be free to cross into the country and do as they wish


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Without the US, Iran will be free to cross into the country and do as they wish



that is another statement in response to a question that does not even attempt to answer the question!


*who will provide the "backup" for Iran? 

and are you again suggesting that this impending Iran-Al Qaeda alliance is a FACT?*


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Your claim Maineman that if we leave there will be no chaos, no terrorists controlling oil, no control of Iraq by Iran are patently ridiculous. Your insistance that since Iran wont just possibly walk in and take over means no danger, your insistance that leaving won't result in areas controlled by terrorists is also ridiculous.

It doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing, BUT you know that and would rather play your disengenous word games and hope you fool enough people.


----------



## maineman

Your claim Maineman that if we leave there will be no chaos,
*never made that claim* 
no terrorists controlling oil, 
*it depends upon your definition of "terrorist", I guess.  I claim that outside non-Iraqis SUCH AS AL QAEDA will not control Iraqi oil.  Iraqis will control Iraqi oil*
no control of Iraq by Iran 
*Iran will "control" Iraq only by the fact that it holds powerful sway and influence over Iraqi shi'ites.  I do not believe that there will be Iranian officials in control of Iraq.  Iraqi shiites will willingly defer to the judgment of Tehran, however*
are patently ridiculous
*just because something is ridiculous to YOU, does not make it wrong*. 

Your insistance that since Iran wont just possibly walk in and take over means no danger,
*never insisted anything of the kind. * 
your insistance that leaving won't result in areas controlled by terrorists
*I never said that "areas" would not be controlled by terrorists.  Shit...today there are areas controlled by terrorists.  I said that "Iraq" would not be controlled by terrorists, and I said that RSR's infantile theory that AQ and Iran would join forces to rule Iraq against the will of the Iraqi people was stupid.... and your support for that stupid idea is not that rational, I would suggest.* 
is also ridiculous.
*see comment above about your opinions*

It doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing, BUT you know that and would rather play your disengenous word games and hope you fool enough people.

*I am not playing any word games.  I fully believe that Iraq will devolve into chaos for some period of time when we leave.  I think that will happen if we leave in 2008 or if we leave in 2028. Iraq is destined by a millenium of enmity and religious differences to remain incapable of multicultural jeffersonian democracy...and they will not be one iota closer to that capability after 20 more years of American occupation*


----------



## Shogun

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your claim Maineman that if we leave there will be no chaos, no terrorists controlling oil, no control of Iraq by Iran are patently ridiculous. Your insistance that since Iran wont just possibly walk in and take over means no danger, your insistance that leaving won't result in areas controlled by terrorists is also ridiculous.
> 
> It doesn't have to be an all or nothing thing, BUT you know that and would rather play your disengenous word games and hope you fool enough people.





thank god your concern seems to be CHAOS (whatever that means for you in America), CONTROLLING OIL and what you think Iran is doing...

nice to know that the humanity of your rationalized "deaths happen during wars" didnt make your top three..


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Shogun said:


> thank god your concern seems to be CHAOS (whatever that means for you in America), CONTROLLING OIL and what you think Iran is doing...
> 
> nice to know that the humanity of your rationalized "deaths happen during wars" didnt make your top three..



Are you an idiot? This war has cost less lives then any other war EVER in American history that lasted as long, this INCLUDES civilians. A reason to leave should not be " damn a couple soldiers died".

You are aware that the deaths in Iraq are on par with the deaths suffered across the entire military every year due to accidents?

Are you suggesting we should disband our military and simply surrender to the next country that blinks at us?

Further are you aware that when our elected officials and Press tell our enemies " if you kill enough Americans, we will cut and run" that ENCOURAGES attacks on Americans?


----------



## Shogun

RetiredGySgt said:


> Are you an idiot? This war has cost less lives then any other war EVER in American history that lasted as long, this INCLUDES civilians. A reason to leave should not be " damn a couple soldiers died".
> You are aware that the deaths in Iraq are on par with the deaths suffered across the entire military every year due to accidents?
> Are you suggesting we should disband our military and simply surrender to the next country that blinks at us?
> Further are you aware that when our elected officials and Press tell our enemies " if you kill enough Americans, we will cut and run" that ENCOURAGES attacks on Americans?





*yawn*

rationalize however much death you think makes a good quota, dude..  If the CAUSE for the violence is not justified (like Iraq is not) then even one death, or shrugged off dead muslim civilian, is too many.  Im sure it is hard for a keyboard trooper such as yourself to swallow such a concept but I dont really give a damn about how you ease your concious every night knowing that your ability to accept civilian death is dependant upon who it is that gets to die.


did I even REMOTELY say anything about DISBANDING THE MILITARY?  for fucks sake why dont you jump ANOTHER shark?

you bitches crying about "cut and running" might take a second to figure out how your very stubborn BLIND attitude towards social conflict is, in fact, ENABLING the very type of violence you think you are solving.  I would remind you how YOU would feel if you cared to walk a mile in an muslims shoes but..

youve got that oil to be all concerned about so..


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Shogun said:


> *yawn*
> 
> rationalize however much death you think makes a good quota, dude..  If the CAUSE for the violence is not justified (like Iraq is not) then even one death, or shrugged off dead muslim civilian, is too many.  Im sure it is hard for a keyboard trooper such as yourself to swallow such a concept but I dont really give a damn about how you ease your concious every night knowing that your ability to accept civilian death is dependant upon who it is that gets to die.
> 
> 
> did I even REMOTELY say anything about DISBANDING THE MILITARY?  for fucks sake why dont you jump ANOTHER shark?
> 
> you bitches crying about "cut and running" might take a second to figure out how your very stubborn BLIND attitude towards social conflict is, in fact, ENABLING the very type of violence you think you are solving.  I would remind you how YOU would feel if you cared to walk a mile in an muslims shoes but..
> 
> youve got that oil to be all concerned about so..



Ok, tell me , what service are you in or been in? How long have you or did you serve? Just curious how many years you spent serving and available at a moments notice to fight for your country?

I spent a year and a half in the army/National Guard and 16 years in the Marine Corps. You want to denigrate my service, belly up and let us know your's.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

As to Quotes, that would be you and your buddies.


----------



## Shogun

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ok, tell me , what service are you in or been in? How long have you or did you serve? Just curious how many years you spent serving and available at a moments notice to fight for your country?
> 
> I spent a year and a half in the army/National Guard and 16 years in the Marine Corps. You want to denigrate my service, belly up and let us know your's.




Are you expecting a cookie or is this where im supposed to feed your ego as if your military history validates you idiot rantings on this messageboard?

Please answer.. *does your previous service give you a blank check to act as if, somehow, your retired rhetoric means anything more than the diarrhea of the keyboard that it is?* 

Sorry to burst that bubble, dude.  Last I read this isnt a fucking Robert Heinlein book where only ex-military gets to be critical of opinons..  
notice, no where in my post did you see the word babykiller so you can spare me that label too while you sit there trying to have a pissing contest with military service that doesnt validate your stupid ass opinions then just like it doesnt today in 2007.


now, did you find where I even REMOTELY said anything about disbanding the military or is that what your lame fucking red herring was all about?

when the going gets tough scream "he spit in my face", right buddy? 

does that work on every other thread where you cant seem to follow through with the topic of the thread?


----------



## Superlative

RetiredGySgt said:


> Are you an idiot? *This war has cost less lives then any other war EVER in American history that lasted as long*, this INCLUDES civilians. A reason to leave should not be " damn a couple soldiers died".
> 
> 
> Im sure there would be more civilian casualties if we carpet bombed the areas like we have in wars past. _"the US has carried out one of the most sustained bombing campaigns in history against essentially civilian targets in northeastern Laos"_
> 
> Yes a couple soldiers died, you obviously think they matter very little.
> You can say its not that bad of a war compared to others, you could also say more people die every year from Aids, Alcohol, Driving, Smoking, and on and on and on and on.
> But then id be doing the very same thing you are, StrawMan.
> 
> 
> 
> *You are aware that the deaths in Iraq are on par with the deaths suffered across the entire military every year due to accidents?*
> 
> So, we would lose those soldiers any way? they are expendable?
> 
> *Are you suggesting we should disband our military and simply surrender to the next country that blinks at us?*
> 
> Maybe we should follow a more diplomatic approach next time, or else were going to war with Iran and Russia next.
> 
> Further are you aware that when our elected officials and Press tell our enemies " if you kill enough Americans, we will cut and run" that ENCOURAGES attacks on Americans?




For someone who throws around the term enough, i would figure you knew the definition.

"A *straw man* argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" *is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.* A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."


Who gives a shit how long the war has gone on? 

If the war was 2 weeks and that many people died, would that make a difference?

They're still dead.

Any death during an unwarranted occupation is an unnecessary death.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Superlative said:


> For someone who throws around the term enough, i would figure you knew the definition.
> 
> "A *straw man* argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" *is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.* A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."
> 
> 
> Who gives a shit how long the war has gone on?
> 
> If the war was 2 weeks and that many people died, would that make a difference?
> 
> They're still dead.
> 
> Any death during an unwarranted occupation is an unnecessary death.



You should know all about strawman arguements, your a walking poster child for the movement.  I notice you didnt respond to the last sentence, I wonder why?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Shogun said:


> Are you expecting a cookie or is this where im supposed to feed your ego as if your military history validates you idiot rantings on this messageboard?
> 
> Please answer.. *does your previous service give you a blank check to act as if, somehow, your retired rhetoric means anything more than the diarrhea of the keyboard that it is?*
> 
> Sorry to burst that bubble, dude.  Last I read this isnt a fucking Robert Heinlein book where only ex-military gets to be critical of opinons..
> notice, no where in my post did you see the word babykiller so you can spare me that label too while you sit there trying to have a pissing contest with military service that doesnt validate your stupid ass opinions then just like it doesnt today in 2007.
> 
> 
> now, did you find where I even REMOTELY said anything about disbanding the military or is that what your lame fucking red herring was all about?
> 
> when the going gets tough scream "he spit in my face", right buddy?
> 
> does that work on every other thread where you cant seem to follow through with the topic of the thread?



If 3000 deaths over 4 years is to high a price to pay for our security, and our allies, for meeting our commitments and fighting terrorism, you have indeed stated we should disband our military. You just aren't brave enough to use those words.

I would venture any prior service has more knowledge on whats a reasonable sacrifice then a whining crying liberal civilian that probably thinks anyone joining the military is stupid. To continue trying to smear me.


----------



## Shogun

RetiredGySgt said:


> If 3000 deaths over 4 years is to high a price to pay for our security, and our allies, for meeting our commitments and fighting terrorism, you have indeed stated we should disband our military. You just aren't brave enough to use those words.
> 
> I would venture any prior service has more knowledge on whats a reasonable sacrifice then a whining crying liberal civilian that probably thinks anyone joining the military is stupid. To continue trying to smear me.




ahh.. I see.. 

so youve got to resort to putting words in my mouth and pretending that a dialog in your head is actually anything close to my opinion..

gotcha..


coming from the giant pussy who needs to hide behind the word babykiller i guess it doesnt really suprise me that you have to make shit up in order for your ego to feel validated.  Now run along and pretend that you live in the book Starship Troopers...  If you can't even quote my actual words while making bullshit accusations why should anyone pretend that your military history validates your stupid opinions?


better yet... why dont you explain why you hate muslims in general?  (see, we can both play this game)


----------



## Superlative

RetiredGySgt said:


> Further are you aware that when our elected officials and Press tell our enemies " if you kill enough Americans, we will cut and run" that ENCOURAGES attacks on Americans?



I didnt respond, because its partisan bullshit.


----------



## maineman

I would further suggest that our presence in Iraq severely limits the depth of assistance that can be provided to us by countries such as Pakistan, Jordan and Egypt (to name a few) in the war on islamic extremism.  Our presence has so alienated their citizenry, that the leaders of those nations -who may themselves see an enlightened self interest to be furthered by helping us defeat our enemies - are constrained from doing so too vigorously for fear of enflaming their populations against them.

_"if you kill enough Americans, we will cut and run" that ENCOURAGES attacks on Americans?" _is something we, of course, would NEVER tell our enemies.  And if we follow a departure from Iraq with a focused, effective offensive against islamic extremists worldwide, instead of fighting them - and everyone else - in Iraq with an occupying army, our enemies would never have time to consider our actions as "cutting and running" or as retreating, but rather they would see us actually coming to get them.  We would be taking the battle to them instead of sitting static in Iraq and letting them pin down a large force with a relatively small force.


----------



## Annie

maineman said:


> I would further suggest that our presence in Iraq severely limits the depth of assistance that can be provided to us by countries such as *Pakistan, Jordan and Egypt* (to name a few) in the war on islamic extremism.  Our presence has so alienated their citizenry, that the leaders of those nations -who may themselves see an enlightened self interest to be furthered by helping us defeat our enemies - are constrained from doing so too vigorously for fear of enflaming their populations against them.
> 
> _"if you kill enough Americans, we will cut and run" that ENCOURAGES attacks on Americans?" _is something we, of course, would NEVER tell our enemies.  And if we follow a departure from Iraq with a focused, effective offensive against islamic extremists worldwide, instead of fighting them - and everyone else - in Iraq with an occupying army, our enemies would never have time to consider our actions as "cutting and running" or as retreating, but rather they would see us actually coming to get them.  We would be taking the battle to them instead of sitting static in Iraq and letting them pin down a large force with a relatively small force.


Which of the bolded countries do you think we should send our troops to? In what capacity? Egypt could collapse at any time. Jordan seems to be keeping a lid on stuff, for now. Pakistan, a tinderbox. Iraq seems easier than 2 out of 3.


----------



## maineman

Kathianne said:


> Which of the bolded countries do you think we should send our troops to? In what capacity? Egypt could collapse at any time. Jordan seems to be keeping a lid on stuff, for now. Pakistan, a tinderbox. Iraq seems easier than 2 out of 3.



where do you get the idea that I suggest that we should "send our troops" to any of those countries?  I suggested that the leaders of those countries would have an easier time of being tougher on Islamic extremists and working much more closely with America in joint intelligence and other operations against Islamic extremism if we were not in Iraq inflaming the passions of THEIR citizenry against America.


----------



## Annie

maineman said:


> where do you get the idea that I suggest that we should "send our troops" to any of those countries?  I suggested that the leaders of those countries would have an easier time of being tougher on Islamic extremists and working much more closely with America in joint intelligence and other operations against Islamic extremism if we were not in Iraq inflaming the passions of THEIR citizenry against America.



Point taken and sorry for misunderstanding. So, is that a reason NOT to unleash our military? Because it makes it more difficult for our allies or hope to be be allies?


----------



## maineman

Kathianne said:


> Point taken and sorry for misunderstanding. So, is that a reason NOT to unleash our military? Because it makes it more difficult for our allies or hope to be be allies?



no...I have absolutely no problem "unleashing" our military when doing so provides the optimal outcome.  I, for one, would love for us to be much more aggressive along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.... but, as I said, our involvment in Iraq makes that even more problematic for Musharref than it would otherwise be. 

I, for one, am not at all convinced that conventional military force -  brigades of ground troops occupying territory with the incumbent supply chain and support groups encamped along with them - provides the optimal outcome in ANY arab/Islamic country now.  I think our enemy is simply too mobile, too adaptive and too invisible to deal with using such conventional military methods.

I think special ops combined with a massive HUMINT effort, major efforts at freezing financial assets, getting help from the aforementioned arab leaders (provided out of their own enlightened self-interest), combined with some real long term efforts at reducing the socio-economic inequities that spawn extremism in the Islamic world would yield much more valuable results.


----------



## Annie

maineman said:


> no...I have absolutely no problem "unleashing" our military when doing so provides the optimal outcome.  I, for one, would love for us to be much more aggressive along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.... but, as I said, our involvment in Iraq makes that even more problematic for Musharref than it would otherwise be.
> 
> I, for one, am not at all convinced that conventional military force -  brigades of ground troops occupying territory with the incumbent supply chain and support groups encamped along with them - provides the optimal outcome in ANY arab/Islamic country now.  I think our enemy is simply too mobile, too adaptive and too invisible to deal with using such conventional military methods.
> 
> I think special ops combined with a massive HUMINT effort, major efforts at freezing financial assets, getting help from the aforementioned arab leaders (provided out of their own enlightened self-interest), combined with some real long term efforts at reducing the socio-economic inequities that spawn extremism in the Islamic world would yield much more valuable results.


Do you really think that will work? If so, which of the democratic contenders is most likely to do this? I know Bush won't. I doubt you would think any GOP contender would, so whom?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> no...I have absolutely no problem "unleashing" our military when doing so provides the optimal outcome.  I, for one, would love for us to be much more aggressive along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.... but, as I said, our involvment in Iraq makes that even more problematic for Musharref than it would otherwise be.
> 
> I, for one, am not at all convinced that conventional military force -  brigades of ground troops occupying territory with the incumbent supply chain and support groups encamped along with them - provides the optimal outcome in ANY arab/Islamic country now.  I think our enemy is simply too mobile, too adaptive and too invisible to deal with using such conventional military methods.
> 
> I think special ops combined with a massive HUMINT effort, major efforts at freezing financial assets, getting help from the aforementioned arab leaders (provided out of their own enlightened self-interest), combined with some real long term efforts at reducing the socio-economic inequities that spawn extremism in the Islamic world would yield much more valuable results.



So whats your stance on the wire taps and all the Humintel that a lot of libs are crying is violating civil rights and the Constitution?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> So whats your stance on the wire taps and all the Humintel that a lot of libs are crying is violating civil rights and the Constitution?




I think the minute that our government violates our Bill of Rights, we have started down a slippery slope.

I paraphrase Ben Franklin who said something like: "He who would give up liberty for security deserves neither"

I think that FISA gives plenty of latitude for the government to wiretap now and take up to 36 hours to justify the tap and get a post-dated court order from the FISA judge who is "on call" 24/7.

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with undercover agents gathering as much intelligence on terrorist groups as possible as long as they don't violate the rights of citizens.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

The wire taps do not violate any rights. They can not be used in a court of law. And wire taps is a misnomer. We are talking about new technology that our laws have not caught up with. Foreigners FROM foreign countries are NOT protected by our Bill of Rights, the taps are specific and only used on foreign calls.

What about " profiling"? How about rules about random searches rather than focused searches at Airports and other areas in danger? What was your opinion on the Imans on that Airplane and their demands to be able to sue people after their antics?

Since your opinion is that Sunni and Shiite can never live together peacefully, whats your position on allowing either of these groups to immigrate to the US?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> The wire taps do not violate any rights. They can not be used in a court of law. And wire taps is a misnomer. We are talking about new technology that our laws have not caught up with. Foreigners FROM foreign countries are NOT protected by our Bill of Rights, the taps are specific and only used on foreign calls.
> 
> What about " profiling"? How about rules about random searches rather than focused searches at Airports and other areas in danger? What was your opinion on the Imans on that Airplane and their demands to be able to sue people after their antics?
> 
> Since your opinion is that Sunni and Shiite can never live together peacefully, whats your position on allowing either of these groups to immigrate to the US?




if the government listens in on the conversations of citizens without a court order - even a postdated FISA court order - I am philosophically opposed to it.

I am not as opposed to profiling as I am to unwarranted wiretapping, that is for sure.  Strip searching little old ladies at airports in order to avoid the appearance of profiling is stupid... but we ought not to be too surprised when a non-arabic, non-threatening looking terrorist slips past while we are searching every arab.

And I think we should allow everyone, except criminals, to immigate to the US.  Irishmen hate Englishmen.... so what.  They don't have to live in the same neighborhood, the same town or the same state, for that matter, once they get here.  Iraqi sunnis and shiites are forced together by reason of lines drawn on a map by Europeans who had no idea of the ramifications.


----------



## red states rule

Shogun said:


> Are you expecting a cookie or is this where im supposed to feed your ego as if your military history validates you idiot rantings on this messageboard?
> 
> Please answer.. *does your previous service give you a blank check to act as if, somehow, your retired rhetoric means anything more than the diarrhea of the keyboard that it is?*
> 
> Sorry to burst that bubble, dude.  Last I read this isnt a fucking Robert Heinlein book where only ex-military gets to be critical of opinons..
> notice, no where in my post did you see the word babykiller so you can spare me that label too while you sit there trying to have a pissing contest with military service that doesnt validate your stupid ass opinions then just like it doesnt today in 2007.
> 
> 
> now, did you find where I even REMOTELY said anything about disbanding the military or is that what your lame fucking red herring was all about?
> 
> when the going gets tough scream "he spit in my face", right buddy?
> 
> does that work on every other thread where you cant seem to follow through with the topic of the thread?



MM seems to take out his prior service and use it as a shield - and libs do not have a problem with it


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> if the government listens in on the conversations of citizens without a court order - even a postdated FISA court order - I am philosophically opposed to it.
> 
> I am not as opposed to profiling as I am to unwarranted wiretapping, that is for sure.  Strip searching little old ladies at airports in order to avoid the appearance of profiling is stupid... but we ought not to be too surprised when a non-arabic, non-threatening looking terrorist slips past while we are searching every arab.
> 
> And I think we should allow everyone, except criminals, to immigate to the US.  Irishmen hate Englishmen.... so what.  They don't have to live in the same neighborhood, the same town or the same state, for that matter, once they get here.  Iraqi sunnis and shiites are forced together by reason of lines drawn on a map by Europeans who had no idea of the ramifications.



So do terrorists have US Constitutional rights?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> So do terrorists have US Constitutional rights?




that depends on whether they are American citizens or not.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> that depends on whether they are American citizens or not.



The why are libs wanting to give foreign terrorists US Constitutional rights?

The residents of Club GITMO come to mind


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The why are libs wanting to give foreign terrorists US Constitutional rights?
> 
> The residents of Club GITMO come to mind



I believe we are talking about warrantless wiretaps here.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I believe we are talking about warrantless wiretaps here.



Strange how libs demand terrorists be allowed to plan their attacks in private without their rights being violated


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Strange how libs demand terrorists be allowed to plan their attacks in private without their rights being violated



I demand nothing of the sort.  I only demand that constitutional rights of *citizens* not be violated.

Franklin said:  he who would give up liberty for security deserves neither.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I demand nothing of the sort.  I only demand that constitutional rights of *citizens* not be violated.
> 
> Franklin said:  he who would give up liberty for security deserves neither.



Then please tell the Dems in Congress, and the ACLU terrorists are not entitled to US Constitutional rights


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Then please tell the Dems in Congress, and the ACLU terrorists are not entitled to US Constitutional rights



*citizens* who are suspected to be terrorists *ARE* entitled to US constitutional rights...  and my congressman knows how I feel about that.

Have you communicated with YOURS, or do you just confine your bitching to message boards?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> *citizens* who are suspected to be terrorists *ARE* entitled to US constitutional rights...  and my congressman knows how I feel about that.
> 
> Have you communicated with YOURS, or do you just confine your bitching to message boards?



I have sent my thoughts to my elected officals and to many of the local papers

Dems have done their best to undermine the war, the troops, and the President


----------



## maineman

red states rule sez:

"I have sent my thoughts to my elected officals and to many of the local papers"

*bully for you*

Dems have done their best to undermine the war, the troops, and the President

*thanks for your opinion.  I do not agree with it.*


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> I demand nothing of the sort.  I only demand that constitutional rights of *citizens* not be violated.
> 
> Franklin said:  he who would give up liberty for security deserves neither.



I would point out that "liberty" is subjective, and I disagree with Franklin's statement.  

There are times when for the safety of the whole, the individual must sacrifice.  

I have absolutely NO problem with warantless wiretaps so long as they are confined to what they are supposedly confined to ... overseas clls between known or suspected terrorists/terrorist organizations and a person in the US.  I WANT law enforcement to know who they are and when they are using our rights to attack the very system that grants those rights, then something has to give.

Since I don't talk to terrorists/terrorist organizations overseas, I don't see that I, or anyone else who doesn't, should have anything to worry about.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> red states rule sez:
> 
> "I have sent my thoughts to my elected officals and to many of the local papers"
> 
> *bully for you*
> 
> Dems have done their best to undermine the war, the troops, and the President
> 
> *thanks for your opinion.  I do not agree with it.*



My, I answer your question and you act insulted

Your anger is really getting the best of you


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> *citizens* who are suspected to be terrorists *ARE* entitled to US constitutional rights...  and my congressman knows how I feel about that.
> 
> Have you communicated with YOURS, or do you just confine your bitching to message boards?



Is that why the Dems want to grant those rights to Club GITMO terrorists?


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> *citizens* who are suspected to be terrorists *ARE* entitled to US constitutional rights...  and my congressman knows how I feel about that.
> 
> Have you communicated with YOURS, or do you just confine your bitching to message boards?



Therein lies the dilemna ... should the Constitution protect those who wish to destroy it?

I believe We, the People have a responsibility to preserve those ideals the Constitution embodies.  If that includes determining that those who wish to destroy those ideals are not worthy of its protection, I have no problem with it.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Is that why the Dems want to grant those rights to Club GITMO terrorists?



I don't.  As I said, I that we should extend basic human rights to all people and constitutional rights to those who they apply to.


----------



## red states rule

GunnyL said:


> Therein lies the dilemna ... should the Constitution protect those who wish to destroy it?
> 
> I believe We, the People have a responsibility to preserve those ideals the Constitution embodies.  If that includes determining that those who wish to destroy those ideals are not worthy of its protection, I have no problem with it.



Acts of treason should cause you to lose your Constitutional rights


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> Therein lies the dilemna ... should the Constitution protect those who wish to destroy it?
> 
> I believe We, the People have a responsibility to preserve those ideals the Constitution embodies.  If that includes determining that those who wish to destroy those ideals are not worthy of its protection, I have no problem with it.



are not all citizens innocent until proven guilty?

if suspected terrorists can be summarily stripped of constitutional protections before a finding of guilt in a court of law, why not suspected murderers, or suspected pedophiles, or suspected forgers, or suspected parking ban violators?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> My, I answer your question and you act insulted
> 
> Your anger is really getting the best of you




anger? what anger?  I thanked you for your opinion and I stated I didn't agree with it.

Your continual misuse of the word "anger" is matched only by your continual misuse of the word "surrender".


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Acts of treason should cause you to lose your Constitutional rights



PROVEN acts of treason?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> anger? what anger?  I thanked you for your opinion and I stated I didn't agree with it.
> 
> Your continual misuse of the word "anger" is matched only by your continual misuse of the word "surrender".



I call em as I see em

You are a pissed off liberal because the Dem surrender bill failed (and the Dems poll numbers are going south)


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> are not all citizens innocent until proven guilty?
> 
> if suspected terrorists can be summarily stripped of constitutional protections before a finding of guilt in a court of law, why not suspected murderers, or suspected pedophiles, or suspected forgers, or suspected parking ban violators?



It's not as cut and dried as "stripping then of constituional protections."  

When you are suspected of a crime, you can be jailed and searched, and your possessions and property searched while you are still supposedly "innocent until proven guilty."  

In the specific instance of terrorism, preemption is crucial; especially, in suicide attacks.  These people are not fearing any legal consequence because they don't intent to survive their attack.

As I stated on the previous page and I guess you missed it, I have ZERO problem with law enforcement wiretapping calls of persons/suspected terrorists making calls to suspected terrorists/terrorist organizations.  I'm not talking to them.

If I see this being abused, I will of course change my position to suit the events.  Until then, I see the possible good for the whole superceding the individual's wants.


----------



## Gunny

red states rule said:


> Acts of treason should cause you to lose your Constitutional rights



Meeting the charge of treason is a pretty high bar.  Even then, I don't think individual's should lose their constitutional rights.  

I'm more advocating amending and defining those rights to meet the current threat, and not allowing those rights to be used to destroy themselves.

If the ideals which embody the US Constitution are destroyed, then NOBODY has ANY rights.  The US Constitution, IMO, must be preserved even if it inconveniences the individual.


----------



## red states rule

GunnyL said:


> Meeting the charge of treason is a pretty high bar.  Even then, I don't think individual's should lose their constitutional rights.
> 
> I'm more advocating amending and defining those rights to meet the current threat, and not allowing those rights to be used to destroy themselves.
> 
> If the ideals which embody the US Constitution are destroyed, then NOBODY has ANY rights.  The US Constitution, IMO, must be preserved even if it inconveniences the individual.



If you commit an act of treason - I feel you should lose those rights


----------



## Gunny

red states rule said:


> If you commit an act of treason - I feel you should lose those rights



If you commit a proven act of treason, you have ALREADY used all of the rights you will actually need since the penalty for treason is death.  In order for it to be proven, you have to go through the trial process.

I don't agree at all that anyone suspected of treason should lose their rights, as your statements imply.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I call em as I see em



glad you admit that you are only voicing your opinion.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> glad you admit that you are only voicing your opinion.



Based on what Dems say and do

I understand why you consider that an unfair debate tactic - but get over it


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> It's not as cut and dried as "stripping then of constituional protections."
> 
> When you are suspected of a crime, you can be jailed and searched, and your possessions and property searched while you are still supposedly "innocent until proven guilty."
> *no problem with that*
> 
> In the specific instance of terrorism, preemption is crucial; especially, in suicide attacks.  These people are not fearing any legal consequence because they don't intent to survive their attack.*terrorists and people suspected of terrorism are not synonymous.  Again...if you suggest that people suspected of terrorism can be denied their constitutional rights, why not people suspected of any other crime.... like, say, conspiracy to commit arson.  It is a slippery slope.*
> 
> As I stated on the previous page and I guess you missed it, I have ZERO problem with law enforcement wiretapping calls of persons/suspected terrorists making calls to suspected terrorists/terrorist organizations.  I'm not talking to them.
> 
> If I see this being abused, I will of course change my position to suit the events.  Until then, I see the possible good for the whole superceding the individual's wants.



"he who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither"


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> "he who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither"



I am sure the terrorists agree with you


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I am sure the terrorists agree with you



that is your opinion.  I KNOW Ben Franklin would.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> that is your opinion.  I KNOW Ben Franklin would.



Terrorists were giddy over the Dems win in November, and they openly hoped their surrender bill would be passed

Nice to see the REAL Dem base showing their support


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Terrorists were giddy over the Dems win in November, and they openly hoped their surrender bill would be passed
> 
> Nice to see the REAL Dem base showing their support



so...do you disagree with Ben Franklin?  Do you think that the guy so important we put his picture on money would be a terrorist coddler?


----------



## Superlative

maineman said:


> so...do you disagree with Ben Franklin?  Do you think that the guy so important we put his picture on money would be a terrorist coddler?



Anyone that disagrees with RSR is a "terrorist appeaser"


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> Terrorists were giddy over the Dems win in November, and they openly hoped their surrender bill would be passed
> 
> Nice to see the REAL Dem base showing their support



how would you know that terrorists were celebrating?


did a memo come down from your president's butt buddies in Saudi Arabia?  Did a Haliburton exec take you to dinner on the government dime and fill you in?  Did Karl Rove whisper it to you in the dark morning light of his master bedroom?


----------



## red states rule

Shogun said:


> how would you know that terrorists were celebrating?
> 
> 
> did a memo come down from your president's butt buddies in Saudi Arabia?  Did a Haliburton exec take you to dinner on the government dime and fill you in?  Did Karl Rove whisper it to you in the dark morning light of his master bedroom?



NBC news and Al Jazeera


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> NBC news and Al Jazeera



so you believe Al Jazeera when it suits you?


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> NBC news and Al Jazeera



Show me. 

Give me the link that directly correlates "terrorist" celebrations regarding the Dems win in Nov.


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> Show me.
> 
> Give me the link that directly correlates "terrorist" celebrations regarding the Dems win in Nov.



The day after the 06 election Al Jazeera was giddy

NBC news reoported the terrorists were watching the Dems and were hoping they succeeded

You would like the source - it was Newsbusters


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> You would like the source - it was Newsbusters



why am I not surprised???


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> why am I not surprised???



Yea, NBC is a right wing news source

It was one of the few time they actually showed how the Dems were helping the terrorists


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> so...do you disagree with Ben Franklin?  Do you think that the guy so important we put his picture on money would be a terrorist coddler?




did you miss this one, RSR?


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> The day after the 06 election Al Jazeera was giddy
> 
> NBC news reoported the terrorists were watching the Dems and were hoping they succeeded
> 
> You would like the source - it was Newsbusters




oh you mean like how that vampire Brit Hume was acting like someone kicked his dog and set it on fire that night?  SHOCKING that muslims would celebrate that muslim hating conservatives lost power to massacre wantonly in the mid east...

indeed, it takes a REAL racist to attribute the news organization of the mid east with terrorists justbecause the anchors are muslim..

but, RSR is a conservative and we all know how conservatives would rather kill off all the non-white people than admit their hindsight mistakes...


----------



## red states rule

Shogun said:


> oh you mean like how that vampire Brit Hume was acting like someone kicked his dog and set it on fire that night?  SHOCKING that muslims would celebrate that muslim hating conservatives lost power to massacre wantonly in the mid east...
> 
> indeed, it takes a REAL racist to attribute the news organization of the mid east with terrorists justbecause the anchors are muslim..
> 
> but, RSR is a conservative and we all know how conservatives would rather kill off all the non-white people than admit their hindsight mistakes...



What are you babbling about now?


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> What are you babbling about now?




im reminding you that facts like Conservative hatred of non-whites and especially muslims probably wont keep you from looking any less racist when you assume that a mid eastern news source are terrorists just because of the color of their skin and their message that conflicts with your typical conservative white power agenda..


put that in your child's bubble pipe and smoke it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Shogun said:


> im reminding you that facts like Conservative hatred of non-whites and especially muslims probably wont keep you from looking any less racist when you assume that a mid eastern news source are terrorists just because of the color of their skin and their message that conflicts with your typical conservative white power agenda..
> 
> 
> put that in your child's bubble pipe and smoke it.



Ohh so Conservatives are all white racists? Gotta. You are an idiot.


----------



## Shogun

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ohh so Conservatives are all white racists? Gotta. You are an idiot.



I would imagine that an ironic response to RSR's usual tripe would fly right over your head like a hawk in the night.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Shogun said:


> I would imagine that an ironic response to RSR's usual tripe would fly right over your head like a hawk in the night.



Thats bullshit and you know it.


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> so...do you disagree with Ben Franklin?  Do you think that the guy so important we put his picture on money would be a terrorist coddler?



RSR?


----------



## Shogun

RetiredGySgt said:


> Thats bullshit and you know it.



no, sir.. it is not bullshit and YOU know it.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> RSR?



Ben would not be trying to undermine the efforts of the government to defeat terrorists


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Ben would not be trying to undermine the efforts of the government to defeat terrorists



Ben said that he who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither.  When I said that, you indicated that terrorists would agree.  Is Franklin a terrorist?  Those are his words, not mine.


----------



## Shogun

maineman said:


> Ben said that he who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither.  When I said that, you indicated that terrorists would agree.  Is Franklin a terrorist?  Those are his words, not mine.




shit... RSR would be calling Franklin a trator just because he was quite popular in Europe at the time....


in fact, people like RSR are why Franklin was pretty much shit on in the states after the war...


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> Ben said that he who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither.  When I said that, you indicated that terrorists would agree.  Is Franklin a terrorist?  Those are his words, not mine.



Once again you are wording the question to get the answer you want

Ben would want to wint his fight - not lose it as Dems want to do for political gain


----------



## red states rule

Shogun said:


> shit... RSR would be calling Franklin a trator just because he was quite popular in Europe at the time....
> 
> 
> in fact, people like RSR are why Franklin was pretty much shit on in the states after the war...



only in your hate filled liberal "mind"


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> Once again you are wording the question to get the answer you want
> 
> Ben would want to wint his fight - *not lose it as Dems want to do for **political gain*



And your not wording it to get the answer you want?


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> And your not wording it to get the answer you want?



They are

The only thing that matters to Dems is their power

MM proved that point for me many times


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> They are
> 
> *The only thing that matters to Dems is their power*
> 
> MM proved that point for me many times



And Conservatives are concerned about.....oh I cant wait for this.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Once again you are wording the question to get the answer you want
> 
> Ben would want to wint his fight - not lose it as Dems want to do for political gain



like I said...I quoted Franklin.... you replied that terrorists would agree with me... were you implying that terrorists would agree with Ben, or that Ben would agree with terrorists, or both?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> like I said...I quoted Franklin.... you replied that terrorists would agree with me... were you implying that terrorists would agree with Ben, or that Ben would agree with terrorists, or both?



Ben would not want to lose the war - he would want to win

Dems want to lose for poltical gain

Is that to hard for you to understand?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Ben would not want to lose the war - he would want to win
> 
> Dems want to lose for poltical gain
> 
> Is that to hard for you to understand?



why can't you answer the question?

I quoted Franklin.  YOU quoted my post in which that was ALL I said....and YOU said that the terrorists would agree with me.... which clearly means that the terrorists would agree with Ben Franklin, according to you.

defend that assertion.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Dems want to lose for poltical gain
> 
> Is that to hard for you to understand?



and why should I be able to "understand" when YOU incorrectly tell ME what I supposedly want?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> why can't you answer the question?
> 
> I quoted Franklin.  YOU quoted my post in which that was ALL I said....and YOU said that the terrorists would agree with me.... which clearly means that the terrorists would agree with Ben Franklin, according to you.
> 
> defend that assertion.



Ben would not be trying to undermine the efforts of the government to defeat terrorists

That was my response to your question


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Ben would not be trying to undermine the efforts of the government to defeat terrorists
> 
> That was my response to your question



why did you say that terrorists would agree with Ben Franklin?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> why did you say that terrorists would agree with Ben Franklin?



Only if Ben was acting like a modern day liberal appeaser and trying to undermine the efforts of the US government to win the war


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Only if Ben was acting like a modern day liberal appeaser and trying to undermine the efforts of the US government to win the war





why did you say that terrorists would agree with a direct quote from Ben Franklin?  You have failed to explain that.


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> Ben would not want to lose the war - he would want to win
> 
> *Dems want to lose for poltical gain*
> 
> Is that to hard for you to understand?



Spin Spin Spin, its all you ever dooo. 

Dems want goals achieved, in succession to end a costly occupation (both monetary, and human) and that is a loss to you. 

Staying and spening billions of dollars and human lives for as long as possible, with no goal in sight is ok with you. 

Having a goal to achieve some kind of stability and democratic structure in Iraq, to you, somehow means the terrorists will rise up and kill every one once we leave.


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> Spin Spin Spin, its all you ever dooo.
> 
> Dems want goals achieved, in succession to end a costly occupation (both monetary, and human) and that is a loss to you.
> 
> Staying and spening billions of dollars and human lives for as long as possible, with no goal in sight is ok with you.
> 
> Having a goal to achieve some kind of stability and democratic structure in Iraq, to you, somehow means the terrorists will rise up and kill every one once we leave.



Sure Dems want their goals achieved

Surrender in Iraq to them is a loss for Pres Bush and more political points for the Dems


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> Sure Dems want their goals achieved
> 
> Surrender in Iraq to them is *a loss for Pres Bush* and more political points for the Dems



Bush is doing just fine losing without the Dems help.


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> Bush is doing just fine losing without the Dems help.



More support for the troops form the patriotic left


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> More support for the troops form the patriotic left




peeeewwwm!
peeeewwwm!
peeeewwwm!

Ya got me! 

Partisan quickdraw you are. 

Your ability to respond to every reasonable statement with references from your "bullshit rolodex" is remarkable.


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> peeeewwwm!
> peeeewwwm!
> peeeewwwm!
> 
> Ya got me!
> 
> Partisan quickdraw you are.
> 
> Your ability to respond to every reasonable statement with references from your "bullshit rolodex" is remarkable.



You are not the first lib to call the troops losers - and you will not be the last


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> You are not the first lib to call the troops losers - and you will not be the last



I never called anyone losers, 

That how you debate, by running around in circles with partisan rhetoric. 

Yer a hack. 

This is what I said. 

*Dems want goals achieved, in succession to end a costly occupation (both monetary, and human) and that is a loss to you. 

Staying and spening billions of dollars and human lives for as long as possible, with no goal in sight is ok with you. 

Having a goal to achieve some kind of stability and democratic structure in Iraq, to you, somehow means the terrorists will rise up and kill every one once we leave.*


NO REFERRAL TO THE TROOPS. 

but thanks. 



Basically Dems want peace in Iraq, and Bush hasnt secured the right man to lead yet, and hasnt gotten all of the Oil contracts lined up, so its surrender until the Conservatives  are ready for peace.


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> only in your hate filled liberal "mind"




Yea... in my mind AND in this book...









books, RSR.. remember those?  it's what conservatives think should be burned every time one conflicts with their opinon!


I invite you to order this one and read it...  you might learn something besides how to hide behind jeff gannons nutsack.


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> You are not the first lib to call the troops losers - and you will not be the last



here.. let me have a psychic moment....



what is...   RSR Will totally hide like a bitch when challenged to quote him calling  troops losers...


----------



## red states rule

Shogun said:


> Yea... in my mind AND in this book...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> books, RSR.. remember those?  it's what conservatives think should be burned every time one conflicts with their opinon!
> 
> 
> I invite you to order this one and read it...  you might learn something besides how to hide behind jeff gannons nutsack.



It is libs who want to take the Hugo Chavez approach to silence critics - they call it the Fariness Doctrine


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> It is libs who want to take the Hugo Chavez approach to silence critics - they call it the Fariness Doctrine




oh im sure you are all about the FARIness doctine.. 


didnt care to take my challenge to actually read a BOOK on the subject of Ben Franklin since you seem to think talking shit on liberals is a primary source?


doesnt suprise me... and then throw out some FAIRNESS doctrine crap hoping to deflect my direct challenge, no less...


indeed, you are really scoring points today!


for real... go read a book, dude... you might start to grow a bit of self esteem that you seem to be missing.


----------



## red states rule

Shogun said:


> oh im sure you are all about the FARIness doctine..
> 
> 
> didnt care to take my challenge to actually read a BOOK on the subject of Ben Franklin since you seem to think talking shit on liberals is a primary source?
> 
> 
> doesnt suprise me... and then throw out some FAIRNESS doctrine crap hoping to deflect my direct challenge, no less...
> 
> 
> indeed, you are really scoring points today!
> 
> 
> for real... go read a book, dude... you might start to grow a bit of self esteem that you seem to be missing.




Looking at my rep points - I do not need any self esteem

It would seem alot of people on the board do agree with me

Keep ducking the topics at hand - you must be filling in for MM while he is away


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> Looking at my rep points - I do not need any self esteem
> 
> It would seem alot of people on the board do agree with me
> 
> Keep ducking the topics at hand - you must be filling in for MM while he is away



dude...

hehehehe...


if you are pulling your self esteem from rep points that you collected back when this forum was a bastion of dittohead conservatives..  hehehehehe..


in fact, if you compile your self worth from a messageboard in general...

hehehehehehehehehehehehe...


oh man...

do you REALLY know how pathetic that is?  for real, dude.. mano y mano.. 


it's pretty fucking sad.


----------



## red states rule

Shogun said:


> dude...
> 
> hehehehe...
> 
> 
> if you are pulling your self esteem from rep points that you collected back when this forum was a bastion of dittohead conservatives..  hehehehehe..
> 
> 
> in fact, if you compile your self worth from a messageboard in general...
> 
> hehehehehehehehehehehehe...
> 
> 
> oh man...
> 
> do you REALLY know how pathetic that is?  for real, dude.. mano y mano..
> 
> 
> it's pretty fucking sad.



a bastion of dittohead conservatives?

Hardly with all the liberal love I have experienced as well as all the threads about me started by libs


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> a bastion of dittohead conservatives?
> 
> Hardly with all the liberal love I have experienced as well as all the threads about me started by libs



riiight right..

there was not usmessageboard meltdown that caused a bunch of the usualls to exodus to another messageboard..


nope..

not in RSRs world!

it's just a liberal conspiracy!


yes, BASTION of dittohead conservatives.


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> why did you say that terrorists would agree with a direct quote from Ben Franklin?  You have failed to explain that.



are you ever going to explain why you said that terrorists would agree with Ben Franklin?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> are you ever going to explain why you said that terrorists would agree with Ben Franklin?



I did - you keep ignoring the answer you tried to twist


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I did - you keep ignoring the answer you tried to twist



no.... you never explained why you said that terrorists would agree with Ben Franklin. 

pretty disrespectful of a founding father, if you ask me!


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no.... you never explained why you said that terrorists would agree with Ben Franklin.
> 
> pretty disrespectful of a founding father, if you ask me!



Quote:
Originally Posted by maineman  
RSR? 

Ben would not be trying to undermine the efforts of the government to defeat terrorists
__________________


----------



## maineman

I am not either.  I merely quoted Ben Franklin and you said that terrorists would agree with me.

pretty tough to explain that away...but please....do keep trying!


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I am not either.  I merely quoted Ben Franklin and you said that terrorists would agree with me.
> 
> pretty tough to explain that away...but please....do keep trying!



I do not have to. You always try and twist things to fit your agenda

Dems are trying to lose the war and surrender - Ben would not be in your camp


----------



## Shogun

red states rule said:


> I do not have to. You always try and twist things to fit your agenda
> 
> Dems are trying to lose the war and surrender - Ben would not be in your camp



POINT IN CASE...

hey dude...


can you tell me the title of the last book about Ben Franklin that you've read to make you so sure about his motivations and opinions?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I do not have to. You always try and twist things to fit your agenda
> 
> Dems are trying to lose the war and surrender - Ben would not be in your camp



again... I never "twisted" anything.  The record is clear and unambiguous.  I wrote a post in which my ONLY words were a direct quote from Benjamin Franklin.  You quoted that post and stated that the terrorists would agree with me.

What part of that is "twisted" in any way, other than the fact that your bizarre loyalty to this president and to the republican party is so "twisted" that you would suggest that terrorists would agree with Ben Franklin?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> again... I never "twisted" anything.  The record is clear and unambiguous.  I wrote a post in which my ONLY words were a direct quote from Benjamin Franklin.  You quoted that post and stated that the terrorists would agree with me.
> 
> What part of that is "twisted" in any way, other than the fact that your bizarre loyalty to this president and to the republican party is so "twisted" that you would suggest that terrorists would agree with Ben Franklin?



and I posted your question and my answer - and you say I call Ben a terrorist

Go figure


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> and I posted your question and my answer - and you say I call Ben a terrorist
> 
> Go figure


your "answer" was no answer at all, but only a sick and twisted attempt to wriggle away from the fact that you said that terrorists would agree with Ben Franklin.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> your "answer" was no answer at all, but only a sick and twisted attempt to wriggle away from the fact that you said that terrorists would agree with Ben Franklin.



only if Ben was like the modern day Dem party who wants the US to lose - I added Ben would not be with the Dems

You left that part out


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> only if Ben was like the modern day Dem party who wants the US to lose - I added Ben would not be with the Dems
> 
> You left that part out



who cares what excuses you made, you said that terrorists would agree with Ben Franklin.  Just admit it.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> who cares what excuses you made, you said that terrorists would agree with Ben Franklin.  Just admit it.



Who cares you left out part of my answer?

MM's way of trying to prove his lies as truth


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Who cares you left out part of my answer?
> 
> MM's way of trying to prove his lies as truth



you never answered at all...you only attempted to spin away from the fact that you clearly and unambiguously claimed that terrorists would agree with Ben Franklin.... now I understand that you cute little soundbite snap at me was dashed off so quickly you failed to realize that you quoted me -quoting Franklin - and said only that terrorists would agree.  you did say it, however, and when your fingers engage the keyboard before your feeble brain engages and has time to think about what you are typing, you get yourself in trouble like that.  pity.

still owned.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Who cares you left out part of my answer?
> 
> MM's way of trying to prove his lies as truth



and am I LYING when I say that you replied to a quote from Ben Franklin that "terrorists would agree"?

Is that a lie???


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you never answered at all...you only attempted to spin away from the fact that you clearly and unambiguously claimed that terrorists would agree with Ben Franklin.... now I understand that you cute little soundbite snap at me was dashed off so quickly you failed to realize that you quoted me -quoting Franklin - and said only that terrorists would agree.  you did say it, however, and when your fingers engage the keyboard before your feeble brain engages and has time to think about what you are typing, you get yourself in trouble like that.  pity.
> 
> still owned.



I did no such thing. I pointed out how Ben would have nothing to do with the kook left

You are still lying

Nothing new for you


----------



## Alpha1

Hey Maine...why don't you just take a fuckin' trip top to the ME and join up...you 're a fuckin' traitor anyway.......go for it...!


----------



## red states rule

Alpha1 said:


> Hey Maine...why don't you just take a fuckin' trip top to the ME and join up...you 're a fuckin' traitor anyway.......go for it...!



I would not call him a traitor - just a power hungry Dem who sees a loss in Iraq as a defeat for Pres Bush

You will learn quickly, the ONLY thing MM worries about is the Dems gaining more political power


----------



## maineman

total content of two consecutive posts: 





maineman said:


> "he who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither"



which, as most intelligent people know, is a quote from Ben Franklin, to which you replied:



red states rule said:


> I am sure the terrorists agree with you




not anything about how Ben would not be a dem if he were alive today or anything about how he would want to "win" the war in Iraq..... just simply: *I am sure the terrorists agree with you*  nothing else.

you are sure that terrorists would agree with Ben Franklin.  the record is clear.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> total content of two consecutive posts:
> 
> which, as most intelligent people know, is a quote from Ben Franklin, to which you replied:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not anything about how Ben would not be a dem if he were alive today or anything about how he would want to "win" the war in Iraq..... just simply: *I am sure the terrorists agree with you*  nothing else.
> 
> you are sure that terrorists would agree with Ben Franklin.  the record is clear.



The terrorists would agree with you MM - next to San Fran Nan and White Flag Harry - you have been one of their strongest allies


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The terrorists would agree with you MM - next to San Fran Nan and White Flag Harry - you have been one of their strongest allies



your opinion...but don't forget Ben Franklin.... you think the terrorists would agree with him too.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> your opinion...but don't forget Ben Franklin.... you think the terrorists would agree with him too.



Only if he sided with the kook left - you know, people like you


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Only if he sided with the kook left - you know, people like you



no...he would agree with me: *he who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither*... and, according to you, the terrorists would agree with both Ben and me on that opinion of ours.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no...he would agree with me: *he who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither*... and, according to you, the terrorists would agree with both Ben and me on that opinion of ours.



Ben would want to win the war - he would have nothing to do with appeasers like you


----------



## RetiredGySgt

red states rule said:


> Ben would want to win the war - he would have nothing to do with appeasers like you



Several things.... There were no suicide Bombers when Franklin was around, no weapons of mass destruction , no manufactured chemical or biological weapons ( other than using infected animals or people OR preventing the other side from disposing of their dead). While nations might stir up Indians they understood it was an act of war and didn't pretend they were innocent.

The only "hijacking" was done by pirates and the militaries of Countries. Everyone knew who seized what and who to blame for it.

The only way plans could be transferred from foreign countries to any other country was by mail or sending someone to pass the word. Both taking considerable time and being subject to interception. When a spy or enemy of the State was captured there was no ACLU to claim the Government was railroading him, making the charges up, or violating rights he never had to begin with. The Courts did not create from thin air new meanings to laws passed by the legislatures or fabricate from their wish list new "rights" not actually written or easily seen as implied by the Constitution. 

The press was not busy NOT reporting information or only reporting enemy information. And it was LOCAL for the most part. 

Ben was MORE than willing to give up reasonable power to the State, both local and federal.


----------



## red states rule

To libersal like MM. patriots are those who agree with him and who wants to surrender to the terrorists

Former Presidents like FDR, Truman, and JFK would not be pushing for appeasement and surrender like the modern day Democrat party, let alone Ben Franklin


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Ben would want to win the war - he would have nothing to do with appeasers like you



actually, when cowards like you started advocating the removal of constitutional rights from citizens without due process, Ben would undoubtedly denounce such actions... 

and Ben, I am sure, would see right past your Rush Limbaugh labels and silly talking points and correctly surmise your true nature... and then he would puke.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ben was MORE than willing to give up reasonable power to the State, both local and federal.



this is not a question of local jurisdictions giving reasonable power to the state or federal governments, it is about the TAKING of constitutional rights from CITIZENS.  There is absolutely NO WAY that Ben Franklin would approve of such actions.  His oft quoted comment on liberty and security make that abundantly clear.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> actually, when cowards like you started advocating the removal of constitutional rights from citizens without due process, Ben would undoubtedly denounce such actions...
> 
> and Ben, I am sure, would see right past your Rush Limbaugh labels and silly talking points and correctly surmise your true nature... and then he would puke.



Yea, Dems have been trying to push for a Terrorist Bill Of Rights - another real winner the voters wil support


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Yea, Dems have been trying to push for a Terrorist Bill Of Rights - another real winner the voters wil support



not me.  If you are going to argue with me, argue with ME and not with Dems or libs..... just me.  You have NEVER seen me push for a terrorist bill of rights.  

On the other hand I have seen YOU continue to push for the removal of the constitutional rights of citizens.... Ben would NOT be too pleased with you..that is for sure!


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> not me.  If you are going to argue with me, argue with ME and not with Dems or libs..... just me.  You have NEVER seen me push for a terrorist bill of rights.
> 
> On the other hand I have seen YOU continue to push for the removal of the constitutional rights of citizens.... Ben would NOT be too pleased with you..that is for sure!



Perhaps you do not want a terrorists bill of rights

You do want to appease and surrender to terrorists


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Perhaps you do not want a terrorists bill of rights
> 
> You do want to appease and surrender to terrorists



no.  I don't. that is a lie and you, of course, know it is. 

and YOU do still want to remove constitutional rights from citizens.  pretty fucking sad.


----------



## Shogun

since no one wants to read a book while being convinced about their own opinon about Ben Franklin's motives........




*"If an Indian injures me," he asked, "does it follow that I may revenge that Injury on all Indians?"*


A Narrative of the Late Massacres,
in Lancaster County, of a Number of Indians, Friends of this Province, by Persons Unknown
With Some Observations on the Same

***edited....do not post the entire contents of the page you link to.... -Scooter***
http://www.historycarper.com/resources/twobf3/massacre.htm


----------



## Shogun

Proof that Franklin used paper media to push an agenda that he identified with.


----------



## Annie

Shogun said:


> Proof that Franklin used paper media to push an agenda that he identified with.



You do know that was used unsuccessfully as an argument for the Albany Congress and not anything else?


----------



## Shogun

Kathianne said:


> You do know that was used unsuccessfully as an argument for the Albany Congress and not anything else?



the point being made was that he used his NEWS MEDIA to push his political agenda.  You might figure out why that is significant instead of trying to one up someone.


----------



## Annie

Shogun said:


> the point being made was that he used his NEWS MEDIA to push his political agenda.  You might figure out why that is significant instead of trying to one up someone.



So your point being his was an innovator? D'oh. What would you base a grammar school report on Ben Franklin on if not that he was an innovator?


----------



## Shogun

Kathianne said:


> So your point being his was an innovator? D'oh. What would you base a grammar school report on Ben Franklin on if not that he was an innovator?



you obviously didnt read this thread.


Ill go ahead and wait for you to catch up instead of whipping out the paddle.


----------



## Annie

Shogun said:


> you obviously didnt read this thread.
> 
> 
> Ill go ahead and wait for you to catch up instead of whipping out the paddle.



Clue me in, spank me, I love it. I'm not going back to see wtf you are referring to.


----------



## Shogun

Kathianne said:


> Clue me in, spank me, I love it. I'm not going back to see wtf you are referring to.




then feel free to make irrelevant comments about a thread you refuse to read up on....


and check out the above writing by ole Ben.. you might enjoy it.


----------



## Annie

Shogun said:


> then feel free to make irrelevant comments about a thread you refuse to read up on....
> 
> 
> and check out the above writing by ole Ben.. you might enjoy it.



I've read plenty of ole Ben in Europe and colonies. I doubt you have done as much fuktard.


----------



## Shogun

Kathianne said:


> I've read plenty of ole Ben in Europe and colonies. I doubt you have done as much fuktard.



now have I resorted to name calling, cocksheeth?


I dont really care what you doubt considering your stunted input to THIS thread..


----------



## Annie

Shogun said:


> now have I resorted to name calling, cocksheeth?
> 
> 
> I dont really care what you doubt considering your stunted input to THIS thread..



You challenged my reading on Ben and thought you got more understanding. In any case, let it go, on both our parts.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no.  I don't. that is a lie and you, of course, know it is.
> 
> and YOU do still want to remove constitutional rights from citizens.  pretty fucking sad.



You do support surrender and appeasement

If you commit an act of treason against the US - I do believe you should lose your US Constitutional rights


----------



## maineman

You do support surrender and appeasement

*quit lying.  I most certainly do NOT.*

If you commit an act of treason against the US - I do believe you should lose your US Constitutional rights.

*and you don't think that the government ever needs to prove in a court of law that a citizen committed an act of treason?  *


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> You do support surrender and appeasement
> 
> *quit lying.  I most certainly do NOT.*
> 
> If you commit an act of treason against the US - I do believe you should lose your US Constitutional rights.
> 
> *and you don't think that the government ever needs to prove in a court of law that a citizen committed an act of treason?  *



The only option for the Dems is surrender. They have said for so long all is lost in Iraq, the last thing they want is for the US military to win the fight in Iraq

Once proven, the traitor loses his/her rights. Why should they keep them?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Once proven, the traitor loses his/her rights. Why should they keep them?



Once proven to be a traitor in a court of law, citizens do lose rights.  

You, on the other hand would give up liberty for a little safety.  You would let the government take the rights of citizens away BEFORE they have been found guilty of a crime.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> Once proven to be a traitor in a court of law, citizens do lose rights.
> 
> You, on the other hand would give up liberty for a little safety.  You would let the government take the rights of citizens away BEFORE they have been found guilty of a crime.



by all means, lets protect the terrorists rights


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> by all means, lets protect the terrorists rights



you are too dumb to talk to.

by all means, let's always protect the rights of citizens....that is MY position.

You would deny citizens their constitutional rights before they have ever been found to have done anything wrong.  Sounds a lot like the soviet union to me.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you are too dumb to talk to.
> 
> by all means, let's always protect the rights of citizens....that is MY position.
> 
> You would deny citizens their constitutional rights before they have ever been found to have done anything wrong.  Sounds a lot like the soviet union to me.



I sound a lot like the soviet union? 

Who said I was voting for Hillary or Obama?

I know it bothers you to see someone telling the truth about Dems plan to combat terrorism, but the truth is the truth


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I sound a lot like the soviet union?




when you support the denial of constitutional rights for citizens.... yes you do.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> when you support the denial of constitutional rights for citizens.... yes you do.



I want to deny US Constitutionla right to terrorists

You want to surrender to them and appease them

Big difference


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I want to deny US Constitutionla right to terrorists




you want to deny constitutional rights to citizens.  you are already on record as supporting that.  Just like the gulags.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you want to deny constitutional rights to citizens.  you are already on record as supporting that.  Just like the gulags.



When unable to counter an argument you fall back on lies and distortions


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> When unable to counter an argument you fall back on lies and distortions



you most certainly do.  there is no lie there.  you support denying constitutional rights to citizens.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you most certainly do.  there is no lie there.  you support denying constitutional rights to citizens.



I want to lock terrorists up - you want to appease and surrender to them


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I want to lock terrorists up - you want to appease and surrender to them



I most certainly do want to lock up the bad guys.  

you, on the other hand, want to deny constitutional rights to citizens.  Ben Franklin would be disappointed with your willingness to give up liberty for security.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> I most certainly do want to lock up the bad guys.
> 
> you, on the other hand, want to deny constitutional rights to citizens.  Ben Franklin would be disappointed with your willingness to give up liberty for security.



Already covered. When Ben was around there were no WMD, no suicide bombers, no phones and internet and radios and satalites to instantly communicate to some on the other side of the world. There were no world wide terror organizations bent on the destruction through terror of the United States. There were no Countries hiding behind terrorists to attack the US, the closest to that would be England using Indians and England seizing Americans off ships at sea. BOTH were open knowledge that England was doing it.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Already covered. When Ben was around there were no WMD, no suicide bombers, no phones and internet and radios and satalites to instantly communicate to some on the other side of the world. There were no world wide terror organizations bent on the destruction through terror of the United States. There were no Countries hiding behind terrorists to attack the US, the closest to that would be England using Indians and England seizing Americans off ships at sea. BOTH were open knowledge that England was doing it.




so...let me get this straight:  you ARE supportive of denying constitutional rights to citizens?  you ARE supportive of giving up liberty for security?  Have I got that right?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> so...let me get this straight:  you ARE supportive of denying constitutional rights to citizens?  you ARE supportive of giving up liberty for security?  Have I got that right?



Now YOUR putting words in people's mouths. I neither said that nor implied it. I am pointing out that your constant quoting of a MAN dead for over 200 ( or close at least if not) years would not necassarily agree with HOW your using his quote. He could not even begin to fathom the situation of today.

He DID how ever agree that Governments HAD the right to make laws and create reasonable restrictions on freedoms ( or are you now going to argue he thought the first amendment had no limits?) And THAT would be the whole point of this issue.

RSR is guilty of several errors, BUT that doesn't equate to me supporting his whole position nor of me supporting the idea that laws passed and acted on against this threat, are violations of our rights under the Constitution. IT also means I DO NOT agree your quote has any meaning in this argument.


----------



## Shogun

did you read the very words of Ben Franklin above?


im not sure that it is accurate to assume that colonial americans were ignorant of violent threats in accordance with how we feel about terrorism just because they didnt have cell phones and airplanes..


also, if youve ever given the NYTimes gruff about their choice to push a particular agenda Ill remind you of how Ben, in fact, used his..


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Now YOUR putting words in people's mouths. I neither said that nor implied it. I am pointing out that your constant quoting of a MAN dead for over 200 ( or close at least if not) years would not necassarily agree with HOW your using his quote. He could not even begin to fathom the situation of today.
> 
> He DID how ever agree that Governments HAD the right to make laws and create reasonable restrictions on freedoms ( or are you now going to argue he thought the first amendment had no limits?) And THAT would be the whole point of this issue.
> 
> RSR is guilty of several errors, BUT that doesn't equate to me supporting his whole position nor of me supporting the idea that laws passed and acted on against this threat, are violations of our rights under the Constitution. IT also means I DO NOT agree your quote has any meaning in this argument.






so...let me get this straight.  Even though FISA gives government the right to eavesdrop on foreign and domestic phone conversations without having to get a warrant before the fact, and even though FISA gives the government 36 hours AFTER THE FACT to make their case for why a citizen's phone conversations ought to be eavesdropped upon, you are supportive of ignoring FISA and ignoring the rights of citizens and allowing government to eavesdrop on any and all foreign and domestic conversations WITHOUT EVER HAVING TO EXPLAIN TO THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM WHY THEY ARE DOING SO?  Because if you allow Big Brother to listen in to phone conversations and all Big Brother has to do is "promise" that they will only listen in to conversations that originate overseas from telephones that they know belong to terrorists, you are giving tacit approval for government to listen to anybody talk to anybody because there will be NO oversight...no checks and balances.... and that is a reduction of our liberties as citizens.  But you are all for that..... have I gotten that right?


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> so...let me get this straight.  Even though FISA gives government the right to eavesdrop on foreign and domestic phone conversations without having to get a warrant before the fact, and even though FISA gives the government 36 hours AFTER THE FACT to make their case for why a citizen's phone conversations ought to be eavesdropped upon, you are supportive of ignoring FISA and ignoring the rights of citizens and allowing government to eavesdrop on any and all foreign and domestic conversations WITHOUT EVER HAVING TO EXPLAIN TO THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM WHY THEY ARE DOING SO?  Because if you allow Big Brother to listen in to phone conversations and all Big Brother has to do is "promise" that they will only listen in to conversations that originate overseas from telephones that they know belong to terrorists, you are giving tacit approval for government to listen to anybody talk to anybody because there will be NO oversight...no checks and balances.... and that is a reduction of our liberties as citizens.  But you are all for that..... have I gotten that right?



I'm actually surprised that as a vet, this bothers you.  The three of us spent entire careers knowing our phone conversations were monitored.  I've always treated the phone and/or internet as if someone else was listening/reading.

IMO, it's just not that big a deal.  If they want to listen to me get the "honey-do" list from mamma, power to them.  I'd say they must be completely devoid of all other forms of entertainment. 

IMO, those who aren't doing anything wrong have nothing to fear.  If and when I see or hear otherwise, THEN I will be concerned.  As it stands now, I think stopping a possible terrorist attack against the society trumps my individual right to privacy.


----------



## Care4all

WISE QUOTES to ponder!



> *The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
> 
> the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.
> 
> Benjamin Franklin
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791. ME 8:276
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp
> Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> What county can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The true barriers of our liberty in this country are our state governments...
> 
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
> 
> Thomas Jefferson
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce: with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
> 
> Publius (Madison)
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much ... to forget it.
> 
> James Madison
> *


----------



## RetiredGySgt

The listening without a judges order can NOT be used in a  court of law. And as was pointed out, the only people that would need to worry are those engaged in illegal activities. The Government has a responsibility to protect the public, these "wiretaps" are nothing more than a tool to ensure our safety.

Get back to me when or if someone is charged with or prosecuted with one of these taps.

How many agents shall we hire who will have the sole duty of running tap requests to Judges? How many Judges shall we hire who have the sole duty of hearing those requests?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

I do love this one...

 The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce: with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

Publius (Madison) 

Democrats have been stretching the implied powers and the "enumerated" powers and rights of this document so far past its intent it is unrecognizable in some instances.

As to the 4th Amendment, it does not apply since no legal action can be taken by information gained solely by these taps. So the rights granted still are preserved.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ahh yes and then there is this GEM....

I find it telling you would use it to DEFEND your LAWS you like.


 Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

Thomas Jefferson 

I would submit the "Equal rights" of others applies. We have a RIGHT to be protected from terrorist attacks against self and property. All the taps do is allow the Government to possibly find a threat. The taps are NOT admissable in a court so can not be used on their own against anyone, thus no violation of the 4th Amendment.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I most certainly do want to lock up the bad guys.
> 
> you, on the other hand, want to deny constitutional rights to citizens.  Ben Franklin would be disappointed with your willingness to give up liberty for security.



You and your party are now the party of appeasement and surrender.  The voters know it and so do our enemies

Libs have always been soft on crime - you are continuing to live down to everything I expect from the left


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> I'm actually surprised that as a vet, this bothers you.  The three of us spent entire careers knowing our phone conversations were monitored.  I've always treated the phone and/or internet as if someone else was listening/reading.
> 
> IMO, it's just not that big a deal.  If they want to listen to me get the "honey-do" list from mamma, power to them.  I'd say they must be completely devoid of all other forms of entertainment.
> 
> IMO, those who aren't doing anything wrong have nothing to fear.  If and when I see or hear otherwise, THEN I will be concerned.  As it stands now, I think stopping a possible terrorist attack against the society trumps my individual right to privacy.



I may be a vet, but my Dad was a trial defense lawyer who instilled in me a real fondness for the Bill of Rights.  The point is "if and when you see or hear otherwise", will be long after the rights of citizens have been routinely and repeatedly violated.. and without any oversight from the courts, you may NEVER be made aware of what the administration is doing vis a vis monitoring the lives of citizens.  Please tell me why following FISA is such an onerous burden.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I may be a vet, but my Dad was a trial defense lawyer who instilled in me a real fondness for the Bill of Rights.  The point is "if and when you see or hear otherwise", will be long after the rights of citizens have been routinely and repeatedly violated.. and without any oversight from the courts, you may NEVER be made aware of what the administration is doing vis a vis monitoring the lives of citizens.  Please tell me why following FISA is such an onerous burden.



It sop funny

Libs will bend over backwards to spre the life of a convicted murderer; give other criminals every benefit of every doubt, but fight like hell for a women to murder her unborn baby


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> You and your party are now the party of appeasement and surrender.  The voters know it and so do our enemies
> 
> Libs have always been soft on crime - you are continuing to live down to everything I expect from the left




you are like a broken record.  this "appease and surrender" shit is old and lame.  How do you account for the fact that, in the most recent Rasmussen poll, the public trust the democrats more than republicans with all ten of the key issues of governing:  *Nat'l Security*, Taxes, Abortion, Economy, Ethics & Corruption, *War in Iraq *, Immigration, Education, Soc. Security, and Healthcare?  *ALL TEN!*  YOUR party *loses* in ALL TEN... and you keep saying you know what the voters know?  gimme a break!


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> It sop funny
> 
> Libs will bend over backwards to spre the life of a convicted murderer; give other criminals every benefit of every doubt, but fight like hell for a women to murder her unborn baby



and that RSR soundbite has WHAT, exactly, do to with FISA?


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> It sop funny
> 
> Libs will bend over backwards to spre the life of a convicted murderer; give other criminals every benefit of every doubt, but fight like hell for a women to murder her unborn baby



Well lets spare the babies, and kill the criminals. 

Let the babies grow up IMO with a more than likely unbalanced life, and the people who are already alive,  fuck em. They blew their chance, kill them.

This cycle of thought, would give you more adults to kill in the future. so it works doubly good for you.


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> Well lets spare the babies, and kill the criminals.
> 
> Let the babies grow up IMO with a more than likely unbalanced life, and the people who are already alive,  fuck em. They blew their chance, kill them.
> 
> This cycle of thought, would give you more adults to kill in the future. so it works doubly good for you.



As I said, libs have no problem murdering the innocent unborn babies- but will fight like hell for convicted criminals

Only a lib would believe it is a US Constitutional right to suck a babies brain out of its head and then dispose of the body in the trash

Then libs wonder why they are sinking in the polls


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> As I said, libs have no problem murdering the innocent unborn babies- but will fight like hell for convicted criminals
> 
> Only a lib would believe it is a US Constitutional right to suck a babies brain out of its head and then dispose of the body in the trash
> 
> Then libs wonder why they are sinking in the polls



 NeoCon's have no problem killing a mentally retarded man.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Superlative said:


> NeoCon's have no problem killing a mentally retarded man.



I will assume that your referring to someone convicted of a crime and put to death for it. Isn't it telling that Liberals can equate a single person put to death by the Courts of our land as equal to MILLIONS of dead babies?

But they do have that equation down in all manner of things. McVey is some how equivalent to possibly millions of Muslim terrorists as proof Christians are JUST like them. It is a tap dance Liberals pull all the time.


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> I may be a vet, but my Dad was a trial defense lawyer who instilled in me a real fondness for the Bill of Rights.  The point is "if and when you see or hear otherwise", will be long after the rights of citizens have been routinely and repeatedly violated.. and without any oversight from the courts, you may NEVER be made aware of what the administration is doing vis a vis monitoring the lives of citizens.  Please tell me why following FISA is such an onerous burden.



I'm quite sure I have an equal fondness for the Bill of Rights.  I do try to use common sense and logic though where the individual's rights are counter to the needs of society.  It always bring up a question with no simple answer ...

Do you alter those rights in order to ensure their existence?  Or do you stand on those rights above the need to defend them and watch them be destroyed?

In the event of the former, you at least maintain most of your rights, and when the threat is gone, all rights can be restored.

In the case of the latter, no one has ANY rights becuse they were allowed to be destroyed.

I personally have NO PROBLEM with following FISA.  In reality though it's just an after-the-fact admin procedure not worth the ink and paper and notoriety it has enjoyed.


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> NeoCon's have no problem killing a mentally retarded man.



It was Bill Clnton who left the campaign trail to sight the death warrent of a mentally retarded killer - the left was rather silent on that one

He was smart enough to kill - he should pay the price


----------



## Gunny

Superlative said:


> NeoCon's have no problem killing a mentally retarded man.




Start your thread.  We can discuss this issue.


----------



## Gunny

red states rule said:


> It was Bill Clnton who left the campaign trail to sight the death warrent of a mentally retarded killer - the left was rather silent on that one
> 
> He was smart enough to kill - he should pay the price



Did you read this before you hit "submit."

"Smart enough to kill?"  We'll let superlative start a thread on the topic, or you can, and I'll want you to defend that statement.


----------



## maineman

GunnyL said:


> I personally have NO PROBLEM with following FISA.  In reality though it's just an after-the-fact admin procedure not worth the ink and paper and notoriety it has enjoyed.



In fact, as flawed as FISA is, it AT LEAST gives the judicial system a chance to weigh in on the appropriateness of eavesdropping on citizens.  Without FISA, a corrupt administration could listen in on anyone at anytime for any reason and no one would be the wiser.


----------



## mattskramer

red states rule said:


> It sop funny
> 
> Libs will bend over backwards to spre the life of a convicted murderer; give other criminals every benefit of every doubt, but fight like hell for a women to murder her unborn baby





As governor of Texas, Bush signed off on 152 executions. As president, he has maintained his support for the death penalty.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0404872.htm


But look at this small list of innocent people who managed to barely avoid execution.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6

I guess that you can call me pro-life on both issues.  I&#8217;m against abortion except to save the mother&#8217;s life and perhaps in cases of rape and incest.  I&#8217;m against the death penalty.  I&#8217;d rather have 1000000 murderers spend life in prison than take the risk of executing an innocent person.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> As governor of Texas, Bush signed off on 152 executions. As president, he has maintained his support for the death penalty.
> 
> http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0404872.htm
> 
> 
> But look at this small list of innocent people who managed to barely avoid execution.
> 
> http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6
> 
> I guess that you can call me pro-life on both issues.  Im against abortion except to save the mothers life and perhaps in cases of rape and incest.  Im against the death penalty.  Id rather have 1000000 murderers spend life in prison than take the risk of executing an innocent person.



Then there is this....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence

Society has a right AND a responsibility to protect its members.


----------



## red states rule

RetiredGySgt said:


> Then there is this....
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence
> 
> Society has a right AND a responsibility to protect its members.



The left has a long history of being soft on crime - no it is carrying over to the war on terror

Libs 08 slogan can be

Hard on Bush - Soft on Terrorists


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Then there is this....
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_re_us/death_penalty_deterrence
> 
> Society has a right AND a responsibility to protect its members.



I agree that society has a right AND a responsibility to protect its members.  I think that life in prison should be life in prison  put him away and throw away the key - unless irrefutable proof surfaces that the convict did not commit the crime.  I think that criminals should serve hard time.  I also think that the wrongfully convicted should be compensated  perhaps minimum wage (minus room and board expense) for the unwarranted time that he spent in prison.


----------



## maineman

mattskramer said:


> I agree that society has a right AND a responsibility to protect its members.  I think that life in prison should be life in prison  put him away and throw away the key - unless irrefutable proof surfaces that the convict did not commit the crime.  I think that criminals should serve hard time.  *I also think that the wrongfully convicted should be compensated  perhaps minimum wage (minus room and board expense) for the unwarranted time that he spent in prison*.



or the wage he or she was making at the time of the unwarranted incarceration - whichever amount is greater


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> I agree that society has a right AND a responsibility to protect its members.  I think that life in prison should be life in prison  put him away and throw away the key - unless irrefutable proof surfaces that the convict did not commit the crime.  I think that criminals should serve hard time.  I also think that the wrongfully convicted should be compensated  perhaps minimum wage (minus room and board expense) for the unwarranted time that he spent in prison.



Someone that kills and has no reason to fear dieing would have little reason NOT to murder guards or other inmates in prison.


----------



## red states rule

RetiredGySgt said:


> Someone that kills and has no reason to fear dieing would have little reason NOT to murder guards or other inmates in prison.



The death penalty assures that wil not happen


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Someone that kills and has no reason to fear dieing would have little reason NOT to murder guards or other inmates in prison.



I would recommend that those inmates that kill while in prison receive harsher physical punishment such as caning, AND loss of any and all privileges, AND harsh physical labor without any financial compensation, AND solitary confinement in a very small cell when he is not working his a** off.  The very fact that if one kills someone he might face a killer in prison might serve as a deterrent.  In addition, if one realizes that if he causes trouble while in prison, he will face all of the above punishments, combined, for the rest of his life, he may think twice about killing again.  I am tough on crime but I am still opposed to the death penalty.


----------



## mattskramer

red states rule said:


> The death penalty assures that wil not happen



There is no 100 percent guarantee that no would-be murderer would ever commit murder.  On the down side there is a high probability that someone who did not actually commit murder would be executed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> I would recommend that those inmates that kill while in prison receive harsher physical punishment such as caning, AND loss of any and all privileges, AND harsh physical labor without any financial compensation, AND solitary confinement in a very small cell when he is not working his a** off.  The very fact that if one kills someone he might face a killer in prison might serve as a deterrent.  In addition, if one realizes that if he causes trouble while in prison, he will face all of the above punishments, combined, for the rest of his life, he may think twice about killing again.  I am tough on crime but I am still opposed to the death penalty.



Wait? You mean you DO think death is a deterrent?


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wait? You mean you DO think death is a deterrent?



Yes.

The fear of any negative outcome for your body, including death, serves as a deterrent.  The thought that if you go to jail, you might be mistreated, abused, assaulted, and even killed might deter people from engaging in activity that may result in going to jail.  

That still does not alter my opposition to capital punishment.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> Yes.
> 
> The fear of any negative outcome for your body, including death, serves as a deterrent.  The thought that if you go to jail, you might be mistreated, abused, assaulted, and even killed might deter people from engaging in activity that may result in going to jail.
> 
> That still does not alter my opposition to capital punishment.



Which makes absolutely zero sense. As for your claim that innocent people are put to death in large numbers, show me the proof.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Which makes absolutely zero sense. As for your claim that innocent people are put to death in large numbers, show me the proof.



It makes perfectly logical sense.

Here is a good link showing that over 100 people were freed from death row. 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...did=412&scid=6

Large numbers or small numbers are relative terms.  I would rather have 1000000 killers suffer harsh life sentences than to execute an innocent person. 

Just look at the story of Frank Lee smith:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=2340#90

and 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/smith/


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> It makes perfectly logical sense.
> 
> Here is a good link showing that over 100 people were freed from death row.
> 
> http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...did=412&scid=6
> 
> Large numbers or small numbers are relative terms.  I would rather have 1000000 killers suffer harsh life sentences than to execute an innocent person.
> 
> Just look at the story of Frank Lee smith:
> 
> http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=2340#90
> 
> and
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/smith/



And you can not provide a compelling reason. Thanks for playing.


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> And you can not provide a compelling reason. Thanks for playing.



how ridiculous.... since the advent of DNA, socres of death row inmates have been exonerated, and you want to believe, that in all the years that we have been hanging, electrocuting, gassing and injecting people, that NONE of them were innocent?  

PROVE to me the sun will come up tomorrow.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> how ridiculous.... since the advent of DNA, socres of death row inmates have been exonerated, and you want to believe, that in all the years that we have been hanging, electrocuting, gassing and injecting people, that NONE of them were innocent?
> 
> PROVE to me the sun will come up tomorrow.



With DNA evidence, how can an innocent person be wrongly executed?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> With DNA evidence, how can an innocent person be wrongly executed?



the question had to do with whether we had executed innocent people in the past, not whether we will execute innocent people in the future.... and consider that, in the past, everyone was convicted and sentenced to death without DNA evidence.  Why would anyone think that the error rate for crimes with NO DNA evidence either way would be any different now than then?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> the question had to do with whether we had executed innocent people in the past, not whether we will execute innocent people in the future.... and consider that, in the past, everyone was convicted and sentenced to death without DNA evidence.  Why would anyone think that the error rate for crimes with NO DNA evidence either way would be any different now than then?



It is a safe bet innocent people have been executed in our nations history. The same will every other country - but with DNA only the guilty will be executed

I have no problem with capital punishment with DNA backing up the case


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> It is a safe bet innocent people have been executed in our nations history. The same will every other country - but with DNA only the guilty will be executed
> 
> I have no problem with capital punishment with DNA backing up the case



Are you supporting a law that says only those criminals with DNA evidence proving their guilt should be executed?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> Are you supporting a law that says only those criminals with DNA evidence proving their guilt should be executed?



If there is no other solid evidence - surveillance tapes, video of the crime, eye witnesses accounts, the bodies found in the accused home, or a confession

In order for me to vote for the death penalty there must be hard evidence


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> Are you supporting a law that says only those criminals with DNA evidence proving their guilt should be executed?



I do not. Unless you feel our Legal and justice system is unfair or corrupt in some manner I do not see how you can support such a requirement.

Apply it across the board and see how well THAT flys.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> If there is no other solid evidence - surveillance tapes, video of the crime, eye witnesses accounts, the bodies found in the accused home, or a confession
> 
> In order for me to vote for the death penalty there must be hard evidence




eye witness accounts?  do you have any idea how many death row inmates convicted on eyewitness testimony have been exonerated by DNA?

Every single death row inmate was convicted on what District Attorneys felt stongly was "solid evidence".  Can you imagine asking a jury to sentence someone to death on anything other than "solid evidence"?  Can you imagine sitting on a jury and voting for the death penalty on anything other than "solid evidence"?  Yet the proof is there that lots and lots of men were sentenced to death on what was certainly "solid evidence" who were, in fact, innocent.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> eye witness accounts?  do you have any idea how many death row inmates convicted on eyewitness testimony have been exonerated by DNA?
> 
> Every single death row inmate was convicted on what District Attorneys felt stongly was "solid evidence".  Can you imagine asking a jury to sentence someone to death on anything other than "solid evidence"?  Can you imagine sitting on a jury and voting for the death penalty on anything other than "solid evidence"?  Yet the proof is there that lots and lots of men were sentenced to death on what was certainly "solid evidence" who were, in fact, innocent.




Eye witness accounts was only ONE factor

Even when the cases are solid, the left still protests the death sentence - which is amazing


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> eye witness accounts?  do you have any idea how many death row inmates convicted on eyewitness testimony have been exonerated by DNA?
> 
> Every single death row inmate was convicted on what District Attorneys felt stongly was "solid evidence".  Can you imagine asking a jury to sentence someone to death on anything other than "solid evidence"?  Can you imagine sitting on a jury and voting for the death penalty on anything other than "solid evidence"?  Yet the proof is there that lots and lots of men were sentenced to death on what was certainly "solid evidence" who were, in fact, innocent.



Why limit conviction on DNA JUST to Death cases? If it is the be all, end all, only sure bet, why not EVERY case?


----------



## red states rule

RetiredGySgt said:


> Why limit conviction on DNA JUST to Death cases? If it is the be all, end all, only sure bet, why not EVERY case?



If only the DA would have went with the DNA evidence in the Duke case

Now he is on trial


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Why limit conviction on DNA JUST to Death cases? If it is the be all, end all, only sure bet, why not EVERY case?




that is a silly question.  the difference, of course, is there is no ability to say "OOPS"  "we fucked up"  "do over" after you have executed someone.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

maineman said:


> that is a silly question.  the difference, of course, is there is no ability to say "OOPS"  "we fucked up"  "do over" after you have executed someone.



Ohh, I see, it is ok to send to prison for life with no parole an "innocent" person BUT not to use the same system to execute someone. It is ok to deny them their rights as long as we just don't kill them in the process.

Either the system is acceptable or it is not. Create a law that says what you propose and it is going to lead to what I have said, every Lawyer will be pointing to the law and saying, THIS proves the system doesn't work, without DNA, my client is unable to be proven guilty by a flawed system.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ohh, I see, it is ok to send to prison for life with no parole an "innocent" person BUT not to use the same system to execute someone. It is ok to deny them their rights as long as we just don't kill them in the process.
> 
> Either the system is acceptable or it is not. Create a law that says what you propose and it is going to lead to what I have said, every Lawyer will be pointing to the law and saying, THIS proves the system doesn't work, without DNA, my client is unable to be proven guilty by a flawed system.



There is a term called compromise.  Just because something is not absolutely perfect is not a reason to totally discard it.  Everyone knows that the system is not perfect but it is the best that we have. We cant do without jails and prisons for convicts.  It is likely that many convicts did commit the crimes for which they were sent to prison.  Yet, for those who might not have committed the crime isnt it best to let people live in jail and be released if and when proof surfaces to show that he did not commit the crime?


----------



## maineman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ohh, I see, it is ok to send to prison for life with no parole an "innocent" person BUT not to use the same system to execute someone. It is ok to deny them their rights as long as we just don't kill them in the process.
> 
> Either the system is acceptable or it is not. Create a law that says what you propose and it is going to lead to what I have said, every Lawyer will be pointing to the law and saying, THIS proves the system doesn't work, without DNA, my client is unable to be proven guilty by a flawed system.




justice is less than perfect.  I have never said, nor even implied that it was OK to send an innocent person to prison for life with no parole.  I think that is absolutely heinous.  The significant difference, of course, is that is NOT irreversible.  If you execute someone today and then find out tomorrow that you screwed up - if an eye witness recants, or a new piece of exculpatory evidence is found after being misplaced in the evidence locker, or if someone is caught in the act of committing a similar crime and has, in their possession the murder weapon from the former case that had never been found, or any other of a host of events that might happen to cast doubt on the guilt of a defendant, "ooops" probably will not fly as an acceptable excuse for their family.  If, on the other hand,  any of those things happen and the formerly convicted person is serving life instead of becoming worm food, the state car reverse its error.  Is that really so hard to understand?


----------



## mattskramer

maineman said:


> justice is less than perfect.  I have never said, nor even implied that it was OK to send an innocent person to prison for life with no parole.  I think that is absolutely heinous.  The significant difference, of course, is that is NOT irreversible.  If you execute someone today and then find out tomorrow that you screwed up - if an eye witness recants, or a new piece of exculpatory evidence is found after being misplaced in the evidence locker, or if someone is caught in the act of committing a similar crime and has, in their possession the murder weapon from the former case that had never been found, or any other of a host of events that might happen to cast doubt on the guilt of a defendant, "ooops" probably will not fly as an acceptable excuse for their family.  If, on the other hand,  any of those things happen and the formerly convicted person is serving life instead of becoming worm food, the state car reverse its error.  Is that really so hard to understand?



I thought that, all issues considered in detail, I was a moderate moderate  very close to the socio-political middle.  Yet, based on reading posts from different people, I think that I may be a moderate Democrat thanks to your intellectual honesty and sensible responses.  

Unfortunately, I still trust Rudi more than I trust Hillary to be a good sensible president.  Oh well.  I guess that I am not perfect.  At least Rudi is not an ultra-Right wing Republican.


----------



## DeadCanDance

_"No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working"_



> *"Pentagon: Iraqi violence still rising"*
> 
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- Violence in Iraq, as measured by casualties among troops and civilians, has edged higher despite the U.S.-led security push in Baghdad, the Pentagon told Congress on Wednesday.
> 
> In its required quarterly report on security, political and economic developments in Iraq, covering the February-May period, the Pentagon also raised questions about Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's ability to fulfill a pledge made in January to prohibit political interference in security operations and to allow no safe havens for sectarian militias.
> 
> Overall, however, the report said it was too soon to judge whether the security crackdown was working.
> 
> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_PENTAGON_REPORT?SITE=CTDAN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


----------



## maineman

mattskramer said:


> I thought that, all issues considered in detail, I was a moderate moderate  very close to the socio-political middle.  Yet, based on reading posts from different people, I think that I may be a moderate Democrat thanks to your intellectual honesty and sensible responses.
> 
> Unfortunately, I still trust Rudi more than I trust Hillary to be a good sensible president.  Oh well.  I guess that I am not perfect.  At least Rudi is not an ultra-Right wing Republican.



thank you again for the compliment.

If, in 2008, America's choices are between a  pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control moderate from New York, and a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control moderate from New York, I would suggest that the republican party's conservative revolution had officially flat-lined.


----------



## chrsimage

maineman said:


> eye witness accounts?  do you have any idea how many death row inmates convicted on eyewitness testimony have been exonerated by DNA?
> 
> Every single death row inmate was convicted on what District Attorneys felt stongly was "solid evidence".  Can you imagine asking a jury to sentence someone to death on anything other than "solid evidence"?  Can you imagine sitting on a jury and voting for the death penalty on anything other than "solid evidence"?  Yet the proof is there that lots and lots of men were sentenced to death on what was certainly "solid evidence" who were, in fact, innocent.



More importantly, do YOU know how many people have been convicted on eyewitness testimony and been exonerated by DNA?  Show me the overwhelming statistics before making information up, please.


----------



## chrsimage

Thank you for that link.  I hope that the "surge" works as much as anyone, but there is no way of telling this soon, especially when the last of the additional troops havent  even arrived yet.  Even as a supporter for the war, I am extremely disappointed and frustrated as to the handling of the aftermath.


----------



## Gunny

maineman said:


> Are you supporting a law that says only those criminals with DNA evidence proving their guilt should be executed?



I support a law that says there has to be overwhelming evidence of guilt that leaves no doubt before anyone should be sentenced to death.  It migh tput more people in prison and less on death row, but it virtually rules out accidental execution of the innocent.

You can free an innocent man.  You cannot bring him back to life.

So, I agree with the death penalty.  I do not agree with how it is currently applied in this country.


----------



## maineman

chrsimage said:


> More importantly, do YOU know how many people have been convicted on eyewitness testimony and been exonerated by DNA?  Show me the overwhelming statistics before making information up, please.




excuse me:  please show me where I ever suggested that there were "overwhelming statistics" before putting words in my mouth.  Are you suggesting that there have not been convicts sentenced to death on the basis of eye-witness testimony?  Are you suggesting that none of the twenty-some death row inmates whose sentences were commuted _en masse_ by the governor of Illinois were on the basis of eye-witness testimony?


----------



## chrsimage

maineman said:


> excuse me:  please show me where I ever suggested that there were "overwhelming statistics" before putting words in my mouth.  Are you suggesting that there have not been convicts sentenced to death on the basis of eye-witness testimony?  Are you suggesting that none of the twenty-some death row inmates whose sentences were commuted _en masse_ by the governor of Illinois were on the basis of eye-witness testimony?



You asked a rhetorical question without answering it.  You are suggesting that there are a large amounts of people put to death based on eye-witness testimony alone, yet base it on nothing.  I would like to know how many people have been put to death and later exonerated since you use it in your argument you should know how many...even a ballpark figure would be acceptable, citing a reliable source, of course.  Please link the source for the twenty-something death row inmates whose sentences were communted.  It sounds very interesting.


----------



## maineman

http://www.caught.net/cases/eyewit.htm

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Accuracy-of-Eye-Witness-Testimony-and-Its-Flaws&id=328261

http://digg.com/politics/DNA_Shows_Courts_Right_To_Suspect_Eyewitness_Testimony_Wrong_77_Of_Time

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/documents/eyewitness_attachA.pdf

http://www.capitalpunishmentincontext.org/issues/innocence

*do I need to go on?  Was this really necessary?*


----------



## maineman

chrsimage said:


> You asked a rhetorical question without answering it.  *You are suggesting that there are a large amounts of people put to death based on eye-witness testimony alone*, yet base it on nothing.  I would like to know how many people have been put to death and later exonerated since you use it in your argument you should know how many...even a ballpark figure would be acceptable, citing a reliable source, of course.  Please link the source for the twenty-something death row inmates whose sentences were communted.  It sounds very interesting.




*bullshit.  Don't fucking put words in MY mouth, asshole.*


----------



## maineman

:: crickets chirping::


----------



## chrsimage

maineman said:


> :: crickets chirping::



sorry i was posting on another thread and am now reading what you posted...quite contentious arent you?  i will deal with you and your confrontational attitude later, after I have read your news articles.


----------



## chrsimage

maineman said:


> eye witness accounts?  do you have any idea how many death row inmates convicted on eyewitness testimony have been exonerated by DNA?.



That's your quote...you said nothing *other* then eye witness account.  i am not putting words in your mouth.  If you mean say something else then say it.  Looks like you are the asshole.


----------



## maineman

chrsimage said:


> sorry i was posting on another thread and am now reading what you posted...quite contentious arent you?  i will deal with you and your confrontational attitude later, after I have read your news articles.




I do not idly allow anyone to put words in my mouth.

If that translates to "contentious" in your world, I guess I can understand that when suggesting aht *death row inmates have convicted on eyewitness testimony *  somehow equates to *suggesting that there are a large amounts of people put to death based on eye-witness testimony alone*.  I guess, in that case, I am one contentious motherfucker.


----------



## maineman

crickets redux


----------



## maineman

the title of the article in my fourth link:

*Summaries of 46 Cases in Which Mistaken or Perjured
Eyewitness Testimony Put Innocent Persons on Death Row*


----------



## maineman

You will excuse my tone...it was all predicated on your understanding the difference between "sentenced to death" and "put to death".  If that was an incorrect assumption, I apologize.


----------



## chrsimage

1st article says that 553 people have been executed since 1973 and 80 people have been exonerated, it does not say how many innocents people were executed.

2nd article does not give any numbers as to how many innocent people have been executed.

did you even read the 3rd article?  It has nothing to do with the death penalty or related convictions.  Mostly about rape.

4th article - 46 people wrongly convicted since 1977!  Thats not too bad.  Still no evidence that innocent people were put to death and only a few were exonerated by DNA.

5th article starts out with justification by anecdote, which proves nothing, ever, and does not give statistics on how many innocent people were put to death.

Ok,  so you have no actual evidence that innocent people have been put to death.  Its funny.  You are surmising and suggesting that innocent people are put to death yet you have no proof.  I don't doubt that innocent people have been put to death.  I do believe that in the last 10 years, since DNA testing has become increasingly used The percentage is very UNDERWHELMING.  So make your argument contemporary.  Very, very few innocent people, if any have been put to death in recent years.


----------



## maineman

in light of your last post, I do apologize.  You really are too fucking stupid to understand the difference between being sentenced to death and being put to death.  I really have no business losing my temper at a retarded man.


----------



## chrsimage

maineman said:


> You will excuse my tone...it was all predicated on your understanding the difference between "sentenced to death" and "put to death".  If that was an incorrect assumption, I apologize.



My assumption was incorrect.  I apologize.  I look forward to debating you on many issues.  I am sure we disagree on the war and politics in general.  Although I am new to the forum, I assure you I am not under informed and my presence will make you a better debater.


----------



## chrsimage

maineman said:


> in light of your last post, I do apologize.  You really are too fucking stupid to understand the difference between being sentenced to death and being put to death.  I really have no business losing my temper at a retarded man.



Wow, i am being punished for lack of speed in my posts.


----------



## maineman

chrsimage said:


> My assumption was incorrect.  I apologize.  I look forward to debating you on many issues.  I am sure we disagree on the war and politics in general.  Although I am new to the forum, I assure you I am not under informed and my presence will make you a better debater.



apology accepted.  please accept mine.


----------



## chrsimage

maineman said:


> in light of your last post, I do apologize.  You really are too fucking stupid to understand the difference between being sentenced to death and being put to death.  I really have no business losing my temper at a retarded man.



Are you really this much of a jerk?  This post was unneccessary but after 15 post i can post urls.


----------



## red states rule

chrsimage said:


> Are you really this much of a jerk?  This post was unneccessary but after 15 post i can post urls.



Yes, he is a jerk

You will get use to his arrogrant and hate filled rants


----------



## actsnoblemartin

With all due respect to maineman and rsr. 

Maineman: Shouldnt we wait until september, when according to a cnn report, the generals on the ground, need that time to see if it worked.

rsr: Should we stay, if the surge didnt work?



red states rule said:


> Yes, he is a jerk
> 
> You will get use to his arrogrant and hate filled rants


----------



## actsnoblemartin

I think maineman just lost his temper, and we should cut him a bit of slack, I just hope maineman will apologize and try to control his anger.

The point is, I could be nominated for biggest asshole on this board, and i act like a moron at times, I really wish we as a board could be more forgiving, and less attacking of each other and our view points.



chrsimage said:


> Are you really this much of a jerk?  This post was unneccessary but after 15 post i can post urls.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Damit RSR. This was just as useless as his post.

Honestly RSR,  dont provoke people its childish, and

maineman 

Maineman, take a deep breath brother. Dont be so mean -, that doesnt help anyone. You need to control your anger...

Its really sad, because I like you both, I think your both intelligent and i see you both as friends 

rsr and maineman.





red states rule said:


> Yes, he is a jerk
> 
> You will get use to his arrogrant and hate filled rants


----------



## red states rule

actsnoblemartin said:


> With all due respect to maineman and rsr.
> 
> Maineman: Shouldnt we wait until september, when according to a cnn report, the generals on the ground, need that time to see if it worked.
> 
> rsr: Should we stay, if the surge didnt work?



The last thing the left wants is to give the US militray the time to win this fight. 

Dems have invested their politcal future in the US's failure in Iraq. Victory is not important to them


----------



## red states rule

actsnoblemartin said:


> Damit RSR. This was just as useless as his post.
> 
> Honestly RSR,  dont provoke people its childish, and
> 
> maineman
> 
> Maineman, take a deep breath brother. Dont be so mean -, that doesnt help anyone. You need to control your anger...
> 
> Its really sad, because I like you both, I think your both intelligent and i see you both as friends
> 
> rsr and maineman.




Hey, I am speaking the truth. Sorry if it offends you


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The last thing the left wants is to give the US militray the time to win this fight.
> 
> Dems have invested their politcal future in the US's failure in Iraq. Victory is not important to them




this thread was started on March 16th. after the "surge" had been employed for a little over a month.  Here is is, almost three months later.... 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/14/iraq.main/index.html

_Also on Wednesday, the Pentagon released a report saying *that violence in Iraq has NOT decreased because of the Bush administration's increase in U.S. troops there, but violence has merely moved locations.*
"Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq" covers February to early May 2007, roughly from the beginning of the troop increase to the time when the last group of U.S. troops entered the country, the Pentagon said.

While attacks on Iraqi forces continue from al Qaeda, local Sunni tribes have banded together to fight off al Qaeda and are showing efforts to take back control of their regions, according to the report. 

Since the last quarterly report, attacks on U.S. and Iraqi troops and civilians rose 2 percent, and high-profile attacks by al Qaeda fighters, such as bombings of mosques and markets, *have produced more casualties in Baghdad *than murders by militias or other armed groups, the report says. 

*The number of suicide attacks across Iraq increased from 26 in January to 58 in March and continued at that level into April,* it says. Additionally, attacks using armor-piercing explosively formed projectiles, (EFPs) were at an all-time high in April. U.S. commanders have said that EFPs are provided by Iranian paramilitary forces operating inside Iraq. Tehran has denied the accusation.

The report does not give an assessment on how well the troop buildup is working, saying only, "It is too early to assess the impact of the new approach." 
_

I think it is safe to conclude that RSR's unbridled optimism back in March was premature, and really nothing more than another example of Bush dick sucking by the master of it.


----------



## red states rule

More support for the troops and the war from White Flag MM


----------



## maineman

that's all you got?  one liner insults?  No independent analysis of the surge?  

You cannot go back to March and see where I was saying THEN that pumping 20K more cops on the beat in Baghdad might slow the carnage in that town but that it was bound to spread to other areas...JUST LIKE the pentagon reported this week?

Is it really so hard for you to say:  "maineman, you were right on this one"??


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> that's all you got?  one liner insults?  No independent analysis of the surge?
> 
> You cannot go back to March and see where I was saying THEN that pumping 20K more cops on the beat in Baghdad might slow the carnage in that town but that it was bound to spread to other areas...JUST LIKE the pentagon reported this week?
> 
> Is it really so hard for you to say:  "maineman, you were right on this one"??



I understand the last thing libs like you want is any good news coming out of Iraq. As long as the US is losing you are happy

Dems want to surrender to the terrorists and bring the troops home - we all know that is the Dems plan for Iraq


----------



## maineman

more one liner insults devoid of intellectual content.  

Discuss the latest report from the pentagon.  discuss the fact that I totally predicted a shifting of violence away from baghdad.... discuss this subject instead of just insulting me and "libs" and "dems" with oneliner Rush inspired soundbites.  can you?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> more one liner insults devoid of intellectual content.
> 
> Discuss the latest report from the pentagon.  discuss the fact that I totally predicted a shifting of violence away from baghdad.... discuss this subject instead of just insulting me and "libs" and "dems" with oneliner Rush inspired soundbites.  can you?



Sorry if the truth rubs you the wrong way

Libs have only one goal for Iraq - surrender


----------



## maineman

your refusal to discuss anything with any thoughts that originate in your own brain is the only thing that bothers me, RSR.  Discuss the pentagon report.  show me how that report comports with the title of this thread.  and use your own words to do it.... in sentences and paragraphs of your own creation.  just try it once.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> your refusal to discuss anything with any thoughts that originate in your own brain is the only thing that bothers me, RSR.  Discuss the pentagon report.  show me how that report comports with the title of this thread.  and use your own words to do it.... in sentences and paragraphs of your own creation.  just try it once.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

the numbers here are what really bugs you


----------



## maineman

no.  your refusal to carry on an intelligent discussion is the only thing that bugs me.... and your refusal to accept news that is bad for your side.  Your willfully ignoring anything that doesn't fit in with your view of the world is disheartening and pathetic.


----------



## mattskramer

chrsimage said:


> &#8230; I don't doubt that innocent people have been put to death.  I do believe that in the last 10 years, since DNA testing has become increasingly used The percentage is very UNDERWHELMING.  Very, very few innocent people, if any have been put to death in recent years.



It is too much for me to have just one innocent person executed out of one million.

How many innocent people would have to be wrongly executed before you oppose capital punishment - 10 percent, 30 percent?

http://www.stateaction.org/issues/issue.cfm/issue/DeathPenaltyReform.xml

At least 23 innocent people were executed in the United States during the 20th century.
There were more than 400 known cases of wrongful conviction for capital offenses in the U.S. between 1900 and 1991, according to Amnesty International. Most were upheld on appeal, and evidence that proved defendants&#8217; innocence emerged years after sentencing. At least 23 individuals were executed before exonerating evidence surfaced.


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=2238

There is no way to tell how many of the over 1,000 people executed since 1976 may also have been innocent. Courts do not generally entertain claims of innocence when the defendant is dead. Defense attorneys move on to other cases where clients' lives can still be saved. See cases with strong evidence at the above site.


http://www.nmrepeal.org/DPF1.htm

Researchers Radelet and Bedau found 23 cases since 1900 where innocent people were executed (In Spite of Innocence, Northeastern University Press, 1992).


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Its really sad, because I truly believe rsr, can debate without the name calling, and intellectually devoid one liners, I think he is simply too stubborn. And i honestly wish he would try to speak from his heart, instead of his newspapers.



maineman said:


> more one liner insults devoid of intellectual content.
> 
> Discuss the latest report from the pentagon.  discuss the fact that I totally predicted a shifting of violence away from baghdad.... discuss this subject instead of just insulting me and "libs" and "dems" with oneliner Rush inspired soundbites.  can you?


----------



## maineman

actsnoblemartin said:


> Its really sad, because I truly believe rsr, can debate without the name calling, and intellectually devoid one liners, I think he is simply too stubborn. And i honestly wish he would try to speak from his heart, instead of his newspapers.



I'll bet, if you lost a tooth, you'd put it under your pillow.

I dare you to go and find ONE POST by RSR where he EVER debating ANYTHING without perjorative one liner attacks at "libs" or "dems" or ignored what his adversary wrote and strung his own words intoanything longer than three sentences with any intellectual content.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

I dont think he is stupid. Quite the contrary, but as humans, we tend to stay with what is safe, and what works for us, and unfortunently, that is what works for him. 



maineman said:


> I'll bet, if you lost a tooth, you'd put it under your pillow.
> 
> I dare you to go and find ONE POST by RSR where he EVER debating ANYTHING without perjorative one liner attacks at "libs" or "dems" or ignored what his adversary wrote and strung his own words intoanything longer than three sentences with any intellectual content.


----------



## maineman

and if you DO happen to find one or even ten.... when that is out of ELEVEN FUCKING THOUSAND POSTS...is that REALLY someone who has demonstrated the ability to DEBATE????? get real.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

He hasnt proven he cant, he has proven he is unwilling. He does it because, he likes making you angry, and everytime you cuss at him, he gets high off that, and will not stop doing it, until you ignore it.



maineman said:


> and if you DO happen to find one or even ten.... when that is out of ELEVEN FUCKING THOUSAND POSTS...is that REALLY someone who has demonstrated the ability to DEBATE????? get real.


----------



## maineman

actsnoblemartin said:


> I dont think he is stupid. Quite the contrary, but as humans, we tend to stay with what is safe, and what works for us, and unfortunently, that is what works for him.



and you are certainly entitled to that warm and big hearted opinion.  I merely suggest that you have derived that opinion from something OTHER than RSR's posts herein.


----------



## maineman

actsnoblemartin said:


> He hasnt proven he can't.




He hasn't given any indication that he CAN.  Conversely, I have and do every day.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

I appreciate your kindness, because I know, you probably want to ring my neck for saying it lol. I would ask you to consider that ive been very hard on rsr, both in public and in private.



maineman said:


> and you are certainly entitled to that warm and big hearted opinion.  I merely suggest that you have derived that opinion from something OTHER than RSR's posts herein.


----------



## maineman

actsnoblemartin said:


> I appreciate your kindness, because I know, you probably want to ring my neck for saying it lol. I would ask you to consider that ive been very hard on rsr, both in public and in private.



I would have no idea what you say to him in private, and your idea of very hard and my idea of very hard are like the difference between a snowcone and an icecube


----------



## actsnoblemartin

That is completely true, I am very frustrated with him. And i do give you credit and praise for your positive contributions to this board every single day. I think rsr, needs to change immediatly, and his actions are harming the board, because we need discourse, not attacks.



maineman said:


> He hasn't given any indication that he CAN.  Conversely, I have and do every day.


----------



## maineman

which begs the question:  how then, do you come to the opinion that he can debate?


----------



## actsnoblemartin

because he has not proven, he cannot. he has not chosen to do so yet. maybe he cant, but thats for him to say not me.



maineman said:


> which begs the question:  how then, do you come to the opinion that he can debate?


----------



## maineman

actsnoblemartin said:


> because he has not proven, he cannot. he has not chosen to do so yet. maybe he cant, but thats for him to say not me.




because I have not proven that I cannot kill innocent children, for example, or set office buildings on fire for a fee, or have sex with barnyard animals, does that mean you think I can?

I understand that it is for him to say and not you...but your saying that he CAN debate is saying it in the affirmative - and with ZERO evidence to make such a claim.  When you have no evidence to make such a claim, I would suggest you not make it in the first place.  Remaining silent about RSR's debating skills is not synonymous with claiming he has none.  I'll do that for both of us.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

You make a good point, I hope he proves he can do it.



maineman said:


> because I have not proven that I cannot kill innocent children, for example, or set office buildings on fire for a fee, or have sex with barnyard animals, does that mean you think I can?
> 
> I understand that it is for him to say and not you...but your saying that he CAN debate is saying it in the affirmative - and with ZERO evidence to make such a claim.  When you have no evidence to make such a claim, I would suggest you not make it in the first place.  Remaining silent about RSR's debating skills is not synonymous with claiming he has none.  I'll do that for both of us.


----------



## red states rule

actsnoblemartin said:


> I dont think he is stupid. Quite the contrary, but as humans, we tend to stay with what is safe, and what works for us, and unfortunently, that is what works for him.



another temper tantrum from a morally and intellectually superior liberal


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> He hasn't given any indication that he CAN.  Conversely, I have and do every day.



You always do have an inflated opinion of yourself


----------



## maineman

actsnoblemartin said:


> You make a good point, I hope he proves he can do it.



Oh...trust me...so do I.  I  would LOVE to kick his ass in a real debate instead of punching the tarbaby.  If it hasn't happened in ELEVEN THOUSAND POSTS, however, I certainly am not holding my breath.


----------



## Gunny

How many different topics do you suppose has been discussed in this thread?


----------



## red states rule

actsnoblemartin said:


> I appreciate your kindness, because I know, you probably want to ring my neck for saying it lol. I would ask you to consider that ive been very hard on rsr, both in public and in private.



Just wait until you disagree with them - the attacks will resume instantly


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Just wait until you disagree with them - the attacks will resume instantly



I only attack your inability to speak for yourself in anything other than singular sentences made up primarily of single sylabble words.  If, as actsnoblemartin suggests, you are capable of intelligent debate, I have never seen it - nor has anyone else, including actsnoblemartin!  I would suggest that, in reality, you have absolutely no idea what real debate is even all about.  To you, this is a place to post conservative op-ed pieces and bash "libs" and "dems"..it is not now, nor has it ever BEEN for you, a place where ideas are discussed and debated.  I truly believe you have no concept of the process of actually forming thoughts and arguments with words and countering arguments with persuasive thoughts.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I only attack your inability to speak for yourself in anything other than singular sentences made up primarily of single sylabble words.  If, as actsnoblemartin suggests, you are capable of intelligent debate, I have never seen it - nor has anyone else, including actsnoblemartin!  I would suggest that, in reality, you have absolutely no idea what real debate is even all about.  To you, this is a place to post conservative op-ed pieces and bash "libs" and "dems"..it is not now, nor has it ever BEEN for you, a place where ideas are discussed and debated.  I truly believe you have no concept of the process of actually forming thoughts and arguments with words and countering arguments with persuasive thoughts.



Facts and truth does have a severe negative effect on you


----------



## maineman

I rest my case:

only eleven words, grammatically incorrect, nine of which are monosylabbic.... and repetitive to boot.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I rest my case:
> 
> only eleven words, grammatically incorrect, nine of which are monosylabbic.... and repetitive to boot.



Rest your case MM - we all know you have a problem with any facts that go against your liberal view of the world

In 08, alot of Dems on Capital Hill will be on the unemployment line in Jan 09


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Rest your case MM


I have.  you lose.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I have.  you lose.



Only in your "mind"


----------



## Superlative

GunnyL said:


> How many different topics do you suppose has been discussed in this thread?



Enough to end the thread.


----------



## Shogun

Pentagon: Iraqi violence still rising

hu Jun 14, 1:51 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Violence in
Iraq, as measured by casualties among troops and civilians, has edged higher despite the U.S.-led security push in Baghdad, the
Pentagon told Congress on Wednesday. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070614/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_pentagon_report_11


----------



## red states rule

Petraeus says security crackdown working

By César G. Soriano, USA TODAY
BAGHDAD  When Gen. David Petraeus drives through the streets of Iraq's capital, he sees "astonishing signs of normalcy" in half, perhaps two-thirds of Baghdad.
"I'm talking about professional soccer leagues with real grass field stadiums, several amusement parks  big ones, markets that are very vibrant," says Petraeus, commander of the roughly 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The scenes provide a sign that the new strategy in Iraq is working, although many problems remain, he told USA TODAY in an interview Wednesday.

Five months after President Bush ordered an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, data suggest that sectarian violence in Baghdad has declined. Other tentative signs of progress have included a rise in Iraqi army enlistments and some quality-of-life improvements such as fewer electricity blackouts in the capital.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-06-13-petraeus-security_N.htm


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Petraeus says security crackdown working
> 
> By César G. Soriano, USA TODAY
> BAGHDAD  When Gen. David Petraeus drives through the streets of Iraq's capital, he sees "astonishing signs of normalcy" in half, perhaps two-thirds of Baghdad.
> "I'm talking about professional soccer leagues with real grass field stadiums, several amusement parks  big ones, markets that are very vibrant," says Petraeus, commander of the roughly 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The scenes provide a sign that the new strategy in Iraq is working, although many problems remain, he told USA TODAY in an interview Wednesday.
> 
> Five months after President Bush ordered an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, data suggest that sectarian violence in Baghdad has declined. Other tentative signs of progress have included a rise in Iraqi army enlistments and some quality-of-life improvements such as fewer electricity blackouts in the capital.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-06-13-petraeus-security_N.htm




you obviously refuse to understand that, while Baghdad itself may be safer - any city would be safer if you put twenty THOUSAND more cops on the street - the Pentagon itself has said that, throughout Iraq overall, the level of violence has NOT decreased.  The Pentagon itself has said that the level of American casualties has NOT decreased.  

But you want to hang on an op-ed from Liebereman and an assessment of the situation in Baghdad by Petraeus and ignore the fact that the Pentagon itself has said that the violence in Iraq has merely changed venue - AS I PREDICTED IT WOULD.  

I realize it is probably hard to think clearly with Bush's DICK so deep down your throat.


----------



## DeadCanDance

RSR:

Bush fans have been assuring me for *four* years that things are getting better; that the insurgents are on the run; and that bush policies are working well. 

What assurances can you give me that you'll finally be right this time?


----------



## DeadCanDance

red states rule said:


> Petraeus says security crackdown working
> 
> By C&#233;sar G. Soriano, USA TODAY
> BAGHDAD &#8212; When Gen. David Petraeus drives through the streets of Iraq's capital, he sees "astonishing signs of normalcy" in half, perhaps two-thirds of Baghdad.
> "I'm talking about professional soccer leagues with real grass field stadiums, several amusement parks &#8212; big ones, markets that are very vibrant," says Petraeus, commander of the roughly 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The scenes provide a sign that the new strategy in Iraq is working, although many problems remain, he told USA TODAY in an interview Wednesday.
> 
> Five months after President Bush ordered an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, data suggest that sectarian violence in Baghdad has declined. Other tentative signs of progress have included a rise in Iraqi army enlistments and some quality-of-life improvements such as fewer electricity blackouts in the capital.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-06-13-petraeus-security_N.htm




Overall, the number of violent attacks in Iraq in the last four months, is the highest it's been, for the entire war:

http://bp2.blogger.com/_1xQeOPE9ePU/RnLHcEhC1cI/AAAAAAAAAa0/BLKvsfbhNxI/s1600-h/unabaedviolence.jpg


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DeadCanDance said:


> Overall, the number of violent attacks in Iraq in the last four months, is the highest it's been, for the entire war:
> 
> http://bp2.blogger.com/_1xQeOPE9ePU/RnLHcEhC1cI/AAAAAAAAAa0/BLKvsfbhNxI/s1600-h/unabaedviolence.jpg



You are aware of course that the TeT offensive in 1968 during the Vietnam war had the highest number of attacks and casualties for both sides? It was hailed by the press as the turning point, that we had lost. The truth of course was that the North had lost and only the US loss of will turned a military victory into a political defeat.


----------



## DeadCanDance

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are aware of course that the TeT offensive in 1968 during the Vietnam war had the highest number of attacks and casualties for both sides? It was hailed by the press as the turning point, that we had lost. The truth of course was that the North had lost and only the US loss of will turned a military victory into a political defeat.




It kind of scares me that you're making Iraq-Vietnam comparisons.   


BTW:  Your point about a tactical US military victory at Tet is immaterial.   No third-world army is ever going to defeat the US army on the field of battle.  "Military victory" at this point is not only meaningless, but impossible.   You won't find a commander in Iraq, who will say that we can "win" this militarily.  Everyone from the Defense Secretary to General Patreus has said we can't win militarily.    It's beyond the US to militarily win this thing.  It's up to the Iraqis to get along with each other.


----------



## red states rule

DeadCanDance said:


> Overall, the number of violent attacks in Iraq in the last four months, is the highest it's been, for the entire war:
> 
> http://bp2.blogger.com/_1xQeOPE9ePU/RnLHcEhC1cI/AAAAAAAAAa0/BLKvsfbhNxI/s1600-h/unabaedviolence.jpg



Terrorists are doing what Dem want them to do - keep up the attacks and they will keep pushing for surrender

Dems are the best allies the terrorists have


----------



## DeadCanDance

red states rule said:


> Terrorists are doing what Dem want them to do - keep up the attacks and they will keep pushing for surrender
> 
> Dems are the best allies the terrorists have




Well done.  A thoughtful, sober, and mature come-back. 

How old did you say you were?


----------



## red states rule

DeadCanDance said:


> Well done.  A thoughtful, sober, and mature come-back.
> 
> How old did you say you were?



Another lib who has a problem with what realy is going on

Dems have done all they can to undermine the war - they have no desire to win the war - and to a majority of Dems victory in Iraq is NOT important


----------



## DeadCanDance

red states rule said:


> Terrorists are doing what Dem want them to do - keep up the attacks and they will keep pushing for surrender
> 
> Dems are the best allies the terrorists have
> 
> Dems have done all they can to undermine the war - they have no desire to win the war - and to a majority of Dems victory in Iraq is NOT important




Seriously, how old are you?


----------



## red states rule

DeadCanDance said:


> Seriously, how old are you?



Hard for you to counter the facts? When libs can't they fall back on changing the subject

Lets save time, lets say you have commented on my age, educational level, weight, race, and where I live

Now, do you want to get back to the topic at now or continue to do the Liberal Two Step?


----------



## DeadCanDance

Well, rsr, if you can't form a coherent post beyond _"Democrats are terrorist-lovers!"_, then I suggest you write to every republican representative and presidential candidate you can, and demand that they continue escalating the war and spending tens of billions more tax dollars on iraq. 

Then, we'll sort in in 2008, which party the country wants to deliver the congress and the presidency to.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Hard for you to counter the facts? When libs can't they fall back on *changing the subject*
> 
> Now, do you want to get back to the topic at now or continue to do the Liberal Two Step?



good idea.  let's DO get back to the topic at hand.  Why do you continue to ignore posts that blow holes in your rosy scenario?



maineman said:


> you obviously refuse to understand that, while Baghdad itself may be safer - any city would be safer if you put twenty THOUSAND more cops on the street - the Pentagon itself has said that, throughout Iraq overall, the level of violence has NOT decreased.  The Pentagon itself has said that the level of American casualties has NOT decreased.
> 
> But you want to hang on an op-ed from Liebereman and an assessment of the situation in Baghdad by Petraeus and ignore the fact that the Pentagon itself has said that the violence in Iraq has merely changed venue - AS I PREDICTED IT WOULD.



now...will you address that point with something more reasoned than "terrorists love libs"?

I'll wait, but I certainly won't hold my breath.


----------



## red states rule

DeadCanDance said:


> Well, rsr, if you can't form a coherent post beyond _"Democrats are terrorist-lovers!"_, then I suggest you write to every republican representative and presidential candidate you can, and demand that they continue escalating the war and spending tens of billions more tax dollars on iraq.
> 
> Then, we'll sort in in 2008, which party the country wants to deliver the congress and the presidency to.



Libs do have a problem being reminded of their own words and actions. Dems have done nothing but undermine the war, and oppose every method used to combat the terrorists

In 08 it would seem your party is going with yet another Northeastern liberal - libs never do learn form history or their past mistakes


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> good idea.  let's DO get back to the topic at hand.  Why do you continue to ignore posts that blow holes in your rosy scenario?
> 
> 
> 
> now...will you address that point with something more reasoned than "terrorists love libs"?
> 
> I'll wait, but I certainly won't hold my breath.



Keep smiling over the bad news MM - your way of showing support of the troops


----------



## red states rule

1st Cavalry Division Public Affairs Multi-National Division  Baghdad

CAMP LIBERTY, Iraq, June 5, 2007  Improved security in some areas of Baghdad has allowed life to flourish for some residents. Temporary barriers erected throughout the city have created what military officials call safe markets and safe neighborhoods.
Now we have a thriving market area that is starting to grow and a revitalization process that will make the Iraqis really proud and recognize that things have improved.
U.S. Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks . Lt. Col. John Rudolph, the assistant chief of staff of civil military operations for Multi-National Division  Baghdad, said the market areas have benefited from the temporary barriers, keeping suicide car bombers at bay while allowing commerce to continue. The marketplace in the Rusafa District in what is known as Old Baghdad on the east side of the Tigris River is one of those success stories. Shoppers feel much safer going into the market now and theyve actually seen an increase in the number of local citizens using that market, Rudolph said. Its a perception, an attitude that the stigma of the random violence has lessened. The Doura Market is often a stop for visiting dignitaries to Baghdad in the southern Rashid District. The 1st Cavalry Divisions 2nd Black Jack Brigade Combat Team from Fort Hood, Texas, conducted the initial assessment of the area and started the revitalization project there. Doura Market, Rudolph said, went from an unorganized street market of only a few dozen vendors to a thriving market place with more than 200 sellers now. He said the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division from Fort Riley, Kan., now operates in Rashid, and even more improvements are under way.

http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com/2007/06/more-good-news-from-iraq.html


----------



## red states rule

This just came in a few hours ago...

BAQOUBA, Iraq  Attack helicopters engaged and destroyed an ambush site, killing eight insurgents south of Khanan, June 9. 

The gunmen at the ambush site engaged a Coalition Forces helicopter, who then called for additional reinforcements. 

Attack helicopters, already operating nearby, moved into the area where they observed several insurgents occupying fighting positions, armed with rocket propelled grenade launchers and a mounted heavy machine gun. 

The attack helicopters engaged the ambush site, killing eight and destroying the fighting positions.

More bad guys done with the extra-crispy recipe...



Comments
Comment below written by: ArmyWife 
The terrorist blow up a bridge and it's breaking news for MSM. 
The U.S. Military achieves something and not even a whisper.
I'm so sick of the bias. Christ, if they could they'd be giving us the bombers name, his family tree and therapists would be telling us all the things the U.S. did to him over the years to justify his act. 
Or guys just saved lives and they get nada.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/06/more_good_news_.html


----------



## maineman

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PQ52V80&show_article=1

_BAGHDAD (AP) - Security forces in Baghdad have full control in only 40 percent of the city five months into the pacification campaign, a top American general said Saturday as U.S. troops began an offensive against two al-Qaida strongholds on the capital's southern outskirts. _

*After we pump 20 thousand more "cops" into Baghdad and five months later 60% of the city remains out of control.  Imagine an insurrection that engulfed NYC.  Imagine pumping 20K cops into Manhattan and five months later, everything above 42nd Street is still totally lawless.

If that is the definition of "the surge is working" what would be the definition of "the surge is NOT working"?*


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PQ52V80&show_article=1
> 
> _BAGHDAD (AP) - Security forces in Baghdad have full control in only 40 percent of the city five months into the pacification campaign, a top American general said Saturday as U.S. troops began an offensive against two al-Qaida strongholds on the capital's southern outskirts. _
> 
> *After we pump 20 thousand more "cops" into Baghdad and five months later 60% of the city remains out of control.  Imagine an insurrection that engulfed NYC.  Imagine pumping 20K cops into Manhattan and five months later, everything above 42nd Street is still totally lawless.
> 
> If that is the definition of "the surge is working" what would be the definition of "the surge is NOT working"?*



There are parts of many cities the Police do have control over

Meanwhile, the troops keep doing their jobs - to win the war

and libs keep doing theirs - trying to lose the war


36 Killed in Fierce Battle in Iraq  

Jun 18 04:40 AM US/Eastern
By SINAN SALAHEDDIN
Associated Press Writer 

BAGHDAD (AP) - Iraqi and British forces fought a fierce battle with Shiite militiamen while conducting house-to-house searches early Monday south of Baghdad, and Iraqi police and hospital officials said 36 people were killed in the violence. 
More than 100 people were injured in the fighting in Amarah, the officials said. At least three of those killed were Iraqi policemen, they said. 

A doctor at Amarah's general hospital said 36 bodies had been taken to his facility, though he could not determine how many were militiamen and how many were civilians. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to media. 

The British military in Iraq could not immediately comment on the reports, but a Ministry of Defense spokeswoman in London said details of the fighting were still "quite sketchy" but that there were no British casualties.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PR4AS82&show_article=1&catnum=2


----------



## maineman

tell me a part of NYC that the police do not control

and, in a thread where you claim the surges is working, you discount the pentagon's own assessments that it isn't and post more stories of folks getting killed outside of Baghdad.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> tell me a part of NYC that the police do not control
> 
> and, in a thread where you claim the surges is working, you discount the pentagon's own assessments that it isn't and post more stories of folks getting killed outside of Baghdad.



The story did not say US troops were killed - hopefully it was terrorists who are now on their way to Allah


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The story did not say US troops were killed - hopefully it was terrorists who are now on their way to Allah



the DoD casualty figures for US troops tell the grizzly sotry that your self serving news release did not.


and the issue is not whether or not insurgents are dying, it is that the violence is not abating.


----------



## maineman

you missed this:



maineman said:


> tell me a part of NYC that the police do not control


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you missed this:



NY, I do not know

But there are several areas in LA where gangs are in charge - and the cops do not like to go into those sections


Now do all you can to change the topic MM


----------



## maineman

the subject is:  your optimistic claims that the surge is working when juxtaposed against Pentagon reports to the contrary.

You would rather believe Joe Lieberman than the pentagon because he tells you what you want to hear.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> NY, I do not know
> 
> But there are several areas in LA where gangs are in charge - and the cops do not like to go into those sections
> 
> 
> Now do all you can to change the topic MM



have you ever been in LA?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> have you ever been in LA?



Yep, MM is changing the subject


----------



## red states rule

Who to believe, the guy facing the enemy 24/7 or the congressional allies of the enemy? 



Petraeus says security crackdown working

Possible signs of progress 

Iraq's army. The Iraqi army currently has 152,500 trained and equipped soldiers, nearly 20,000 more troops than were on the rosters in January, according to the U.S. State Department. Another 20,000 soldiers will be added to the ranks this year, the U.S. military says.

The Army now has its own Iraqi-run basic training and leadership schools. "The Iraqi army has, in general, done quite well in the face of some really serious challenges," Petraeus says. "In certain areas it really is very heartening to see what it has done."

Anbar province. This area in the heart of the Sunni Triangle has been held up by the U.S. military as a model for Iraq. "The progress in Anbar has actually been breathtaking," Petraeus says.

Commanders credit much of the success to the U.S. military's decision to arm, train and organize Sunni provincial militias that have turned against al-Qaeda militants operating in the area. 

"If you've got folks who say, 'Hey, this is my hometown, and I'm tired of the violence and if you simply train and equip me, I'll protect my hometown.' We ought to jump on that like a duck on a June bug," says Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division. 

Commanders elsewhere in Iraq are studying lessons that can be learned from Anbar, although Petraeus said that each area of Iraq has "unique circumstances." Anbar is mostly Sunni and does not have the volatile sectarian mix that stokes violence in other parts of the country.

Sectarian violence. The number of unidentified bodies found in Baghdad  an indicator of sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims  dropped from a high of 1,782 in October to 411 in April, according to an Interior Ministry official who declined to be named because he is not authorized to speak to the media.

The body count spiked to 726 in May. So far this month, the numbers are again on a "downward trend," Petraeus says. Although the bombing Wednesday of a major Shiite shrine in Samarra raises the risk of a new outbreak of sectarian violence, he says.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-06-13-petraeus-security_N.htm


----------



## maineman

What Petraeus says *(which, you will note, is almost entirely focused on Baghdad and Anbar)*:

_Possible signs of progress 

Iraq's army. The Iraqi army currently has 152,500 trained and equipped soldiers, nearly 20,000 more troops than were on the rosters in January, according to the U.S. State Department. Another 20,000 soldiers will be added to the ranks this year, the U.S. military says.

The Army now has its own Iraqi-run basic training and leadership schools. "The Iraqi army has, in general, done quite well in the face of some really serious challenges," Petraeus says. "In certain areas it really is very heartening to see what it has done."

Anbar province. This area in the heart of the Sunni Triangle has been held up by the U.S. military as a model for Iraq. "The progress in Anbar has actually been breathtaking," Petraeus says.

Commanders credit much of the success to the U.S. military's decision to arm, train and organize Sunni provincial militias that have turned against al-Qaeda militants operating in the area. 

"If you've got folks who say, 'Hey, this is my hometown, and I'm tired of the violence and if you simply train and equip me, I'll protect my hometown.' We ought to jump on that like a duck on a June bug," says Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division. 

Commanders elsewhere in Iraq are studying lessons that can be learned from Anbar, although Petraeus said that each area of Iraq has "unique circumstances." Anbar is mostly Sunni and does not have the volatile sectarian mix that stokes violence in other parts of the country.
Sectarian violence. The number of unidentified bodies found in Baghdad &#8212; an indicator of sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims &#8212; dropped from a high of 1,782 in October to 411 in April, according to an Interior Ministry official who declined to be named because he is not authorized to speak to the media.

The body count spiked to 726 in May. So far this month, the numbers are again on a "downward trend," Petraeus says. Although the bombing Wednesday of a major Shiite shrine in Samarra raises the risk of a new outbreak of sectarian violence, he says_.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-06-13-petraeus-security_N.htm

What the PENTAGON says:

_WASHINGTON - *Violence in Iraq, as measured by casualties among troops and civilians, has edged higher despite the U.S.-led security push in Baghdad, the Pentagon told Congress on Wednesday*.

The required quarterly report, which surveyed violence from Feb. 10 to May 7, found that the average number of Iraqi civilians killed or wounded each day was more than 100, nearly *double the daily toll *from the same period one year ago. The number of daily U.S. casualties was about 25, slightly *higher than a year ago*.

The average weekly number of attacks across Iraq for the reporting period surpassed *1,000, compared to about 600 weekly attacks for the same period one year ago.* More than 75 percent of the attacks were aimed at U.S. forces, according to the report, which also examined political and economic developments in Iraq._
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19213666/

What I said:
*you obviously refuse to understand that, while Baghdad itself may be marginally safer - any city would be safer if you put twenty THOUSAND more cops on the street - the Pentagon itself has said that, throughout Iraq overall, the level of violence has NOT decreased. The Pentagon itself has said that the level of American casualties has NOT decreased. 

But you want to hang on an op-ed from Lieberman and an assessment of the situation in Baghdad and Anbar by Petraeus and ignore the fact that the Pentagon itself has said that the violence in Iraq has merely changed venue - AS I PREDICTED IT WOULD - and is worse than it was last year.  The surge is not working, it is merely spreading the death around the country to areas outside of Baghdad and Anbar... and American casualties have INCREASED...which seems to me to be precisely what you are willing to live with to avoid admitting you fucked up.*


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> What Petraeus says *(which, you will note, is almost entirely focused on Baghdad and Anbar)*:
> 
> _Possible signs of progress
> 
> Iraq's army. The Iraqi army currently has 152,500 trained and equipped soldiers, nearly 20,000 more troops than were on the rosters in January, according to the U.S. State Department. Another 20,000 soldiers will be added to the ranks this year, the U.S. military says.
> 
> The Army now has its own Iraqi-run basic training and leadership schools. "The Iraqi army has, in general, done quite well in the face of some really serious challenges," Petraeus says. "In certain areas it really is very heartening to see what it has done."
> 
> Anbar province. This area in the heart of the Sunni Triangle has been held up by the U.S. military as a model for Iraq. "The progress in Anbar has actually been breathtaking," Petraeus says.
> 
> Commanders credit much of the success to the U.S. military's decision to arm, train and organize Sunni provincial militias that have turned against al-Qaeda militants operating in the area.
> 
> "If you've got folks who say, 'Hey, this is my hometown, and I'm tired of the violence and if you simply train and equip me, I'll protect my hometown.' We ought to jump on that like a duck on a June bug," says Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division.
> 
> Commanders elsewhere in Iraq are studying lessons that can be learned from Anbar, although Petraeus said that each area of Iraq has "unique circumstances." Anbar is mostly Sunni and does not have the volatile sectarian mix that stokes violence in other parts of the country.
> Sectarian violence. The number of unidentified bodies found in Baghdad  an indicator of sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims  dropped from a high of 1,782 in October to 411 in April, according to an Interior Ministry official who declined to be named because he is not authorized to speak to the media.
> 
> The body count spiked to 726 in May. So far this month, the numbers are again on a "downward trend," Petraeus says. Although the bombing Wednesday of a major Shiite shrine in Samarra raises the risk of a new outbreak of sectarian violence, he says_.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-06-13-petraeus-security_N.htm
> 
> What the PENTAGON says:
> 
> _WASHINGTON - *Violence in Iraq, as measured by casualties among troops and civilians, has edged higher despite the U.S.-led security push in Baghdad, the Pentagon told Congress on Wednesday*.
> 
> The required quarterly report, which surveyed violence from Feb. 10 to May 7, found that the average number of Iraqi civilians killed or wounded each day was more than 100, nearly *double the daily toll *from the same period one year ago. The number of daily U.S. casualties was about 25, slightly *higher than a year ago*.
> 
> The average weekly number of attacks across Iraq for the reporting period surpassed *1,000, compared to about 600 weekly attacks for the same period one year ago.* More than 75 percent of the attacks were aimed at U.S. forces, according to the report, which also examined political and economic developments in Iraq._
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19213666/
> 
> What I said:
> *you obviously refuse to understand that, while Baghdad itself may be marginally safer - any city would be safer if you put twenty THOUSAND more cops on the street - the Pentagon itself has said that, throughout Iraq overall, the level of violence has NOT decreased. The Pentagon itself has said that the level of American casualties has NOT decreased.
> 
> But you want to hang on an op-ed from Lieberman and an assessment of the situation in Baghdad and Anbar by Petraeus and ignore the fact that the Pentagon itself has said that the violence in Iraq has merely changed venue - AS I PREDICTED IT WOULD - and is worse than it was last year.  The surge is not working, it is merely spreading the death around the country to areas outside of Baghdad and Anbar... and American casualties have INCREASED...which seems to me to be precisely what you are willing to live with to avoid admitting you fucked up.*



Predicted MM - or hoped?


----------



## red states rule

CNNs Amanpour Exemplifies Bias, Even With Honor For Services to Journalism 
Posted by Matthew Balan on June 18, 2007 - 12:35. 

Christiane Amanpour is a leading example of biased mainstream media journalism, particularly with regard to the Iraq war. She appeared on Monday's "American Morning" program on CNN with co-host John Roberts, and repeated the platitude that mainstream media reports "without fear nor favor... giving voice to those who don't have a voice, and just simply trying to tell the truth..." As she continued, she revealed her own bias. "...[W]e must always remember that our job is not to be part of the propaganda campaign, but to report without fear nor favor, because if we don't, we can get really into a big disaster. And I, as you know, feel strongly that that's what happened in the lead-up to the Iraq war."

Amanpour is repeating the revisionist claim that the media did not pursue the Bush administration and other proponents of action against Iraq aggressively in the run-up to the war, a claim that the MRC refuted in May. Also, in using the word "disaster," she points to her own view of not just the run-up to the Iraq war, but the entire war itself.

Christiane Amanpour was actually ahead of many of her mainstream media peers in this view. On September 10, 2003, during an appearance on CNBC, Amanpour slammed the media's supposed cowtowing to the Bush administration on Iraq. 

I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did....The entire body politic...did not ask enough questions, for instance, about weapons of mass destruction. I mean, it looks like this was disinformation at the highest levels. 

http://newsbusters.org/node/13543


----------



## red states rule

I do hope Pres Bush and the Commanders are ready to unleash the dogs


U.S. Sends 10,000 Troops Into Diyala to Take on Al Qaeda in Iraq


BAGHDAD   About 10,000 U.S. soldiers launched an offensive against Al Qaeda in Iraq northeast of Baghdad early Tuesday, killing at least 22 insurgents, the U.S. military said.

The raids, dubbed "Operation Arrowhead Ripper," took place in Baqouba, the capital of Diyala province, and involved air assaults under the cover of darkness, the military said in a statement. The operation was still in its opening stages, it said.

Ten thousand U.S. soldiers were accompanied by attack helicopters, Strykers and Bradley Fighting Vehicles, the statement said.

The operation was part of new U.S. and Iraqi attacks on Baghdad's northern and southern flanks, aimed at clearing out Sunni insurgents, Al Qaeda fighters and Shiite militiamen who had fled the capital and Anbar during a four-month-old security operation, military officials said.

A top U.S. military official said Monday that American forces were taking advantage of the arrival of the final brigade of 30,000 additional U.S. troops to open the concerted attacks.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,284233,00.html?sPage=fnc.world/iraq


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Predicted MM - or hoped?



predicted.  Now, why don't you see if you can find a few brain cells to put together an actual response to the points I made?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> predicted.  Now, why don't you see if you can find a few brain cells to put together an actual response to the points I made?



I call them as I see them

You did not even with the troops luck in the new offensive. Are you limiting the number of lies to post per day?


----------



## maineman

how do you know I did not wish the troops luck?  In fact, I wish them luck via email nearly every week.

now quit running, hiding avoiding and blathering and answer my points made in post #1113.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> how do you know I did not wish the troops luck?  In fact, I wish them luck via email nearly every week.
> 
> now quit running, hiding avoiding and blathering and answer my points made in post #1113.



Given how you daily push for surredner - is that your way of showing support and wishing them luck?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Given how you daily push for surredner - is that your way of showing support and wishing them luck?



quit spinning and address the points made in #1113.  The content of my emails to friends and sons and daughters of friends in Maine National Guard units deployed to Iraq is my business, but I can assure you that they are well received as are the phone cards and care packages they get routinely from my place of business and my church.  

now....post #1113.  address it or run away.  your choice.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> quit spinning and address the points made in #1113.  The content of my emails to friends and sons and daughters of friends in Maine National Guard units deployed to Iraq is my business, but I can assure you that they are well received as are the phone cards and care packages they get routinely from my place of business and my church.
> 
> now....post #1113.  address it or run away.  your choice.



Have you told them you support the Dems surrender bill and the US losing in Iraq?


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> quit spinning and address the points made in #1113.  *The content of my emails to friends and sons and daughters of friends in Maine National Guard units deployed to Iraq is my business*, but I can assure you that they are well received as are the phone cards and care packages they get routinely from my place of business and my church.
> 
> now....post #1113.  address it or run away.  your choice.


what part of that did you NOT understand the first time I typed it?  Now, quit spinning and bullshitting and answer my post #1113.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> what part of that did you NOT understand the first time I typed it?  Now, quit spinning and bullshitting and answer my post #1113.



Your non answer is telling


----------



## maineman

speaking of "non-answers", quit spinning and bullshitting and answer my post #1113


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> speaking of "non-answers", quit spinning and bullshitting and answer my post #1113



Have you sent white flags to the troops in your CARE packages yet. If you need more, contact your local Dem office


----------



## maineman

post #1113.

answer it or run away.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> post #1113.
> 
> answer it or run away.



Out of white flags, eh?


----------



## Annie

Maybe this will help bring some perspective? Much of what he's written in the past 2 years has echoed much of what Maineman has written. At the same time, there have been changes for many of them appear to be the better. The ongoing violence is addressed:

http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/be-not-afraid.htm



> ...
> 
> Political solutions only work with people interested in a resolution where all parties can move forward. Al Qaeda is more interested in an outcome where they dominate through anachronistic anarchy. Our philosophies are so fundamentally different that fighting is inevitable. They want to go backwards and are willing to kill us to do so. We are unwilling to go backwards, and so they started killing us. Finally, we started killing back, but only seriously so after they rammed jets into our buildings, by which they hoped to cause the same chaos and collapse in America (where they failed) that they are fomenting in Iraq (where they are succeeding).
> 
> The doctor has made a decision: Al Qaeda must be excised. That means a large scale attack, and what appears to be the most widespread combat operations since the end of the ground war are now unfolding. A small part of that larger battle will be the Battle for Baquba. For those involved, it will be a very large battle, but in context, it will be only one of numerous similar battles now unfolding. Just as this sentence was written, we began dropping bombs south of Baghdad and our troops are in contact.
> 
> Northeast of Baghdad, innocent civilians are being asked to leave Baquba. More than 1,000 AQI fighters are there, with perhaps another thousand adjuncts. Baquba alone might be as intense as Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah in late 2004. They are ready for us. Giant bombs are buried in the roads. Snipersreal snipershave chiseled holes in walls so that they can shoot not from roofs or windows, but from deep inside buildings, where we cannot see the flash or hear the shots. They will shoot for our faces and necks. Car bombs are already assembled. Suicide vests are prepared.
> 
> The enemy will try to herd us into their traps, and likely many of us will be killed before it ends. Already, they have been blowing up bridges, apparently to restrict our movements. Entire buildings are rigged with explosives. They have rockets, mortars, and bombs hidden in places they know we are likely to cross, or places we might seek cover. They will use human shields and force people to drive bombs at us. They will use cameras and make it look like we are ravaging the city and that they are defeating us. By the time you read this, we will be inside Baquba, and we will be killing them. No secrets are spilling here.
> 
> ....


----------



## red states rule

Kathianne said:


> Maybe this will help bring some perspective? Much of what he's written in the past 2 years has echoed much of what Maineman has written. At the same time, there have been changes for many of them appear to be the better. The ongoing violence is addressed:
> 
> http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/be-not-afraid.htm



The US is mounting a major offensive - perhaps they are finally taking the handcuffs off the troops and tunring them loose

I hop so


----------



## Annie

red states rule said:


> The US is mounting a major offensive - perhaps they are finally taking the handcuffs off the troops and tunring them loose
> 
> I hop so



You didn't read all of that, c'mon.


----------



## maineman

Kathianne:

I wish them all the success in the world.  you know that.


----------



## maineman

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/19/iraq.main/index.html

and then, shit like this happens right in Baghdad which begs the question:  how can anyone really say the "surge is working" when the carnage goes on unabated?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/19/iraq.main/index.html
> 
> and then, shit like this happens right in Baghdad which begs the question:  how can anyone really say the "surge is working" when the carnage goes on unabated?



We must be doing something right

They are trying to come here

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=49117


----------



## Annie

maineman said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/06/19/iraq.main/index.html
> 
> and then, shit like this happens right in Baghdad which begs the question:  how can anyone really say the "surge is working" when the carnage goes on unabated?



Once again I'll admit to being mostly ignorant on military strategy, though I do know a bit of history. When the 'enemy' is reduced to attacking those that might have been a support to them, something is going better? It seems that even the 'civil war' has failed the insurgents in the sense that rather than temporarily joining together to get rid of the 'occupiers' there seems to be a growing body, at least in some areas, where the sunnis and shi'a are actually turning on AQI?


----------



## maineman

Yon's comments about Petraeus are quite heartening!

Let's all pray for his success.


----------



## red states rule

Kathianne said:


> Once again I'll admit to being mostly ignorant on military strategy, though I do know a bit of history. When the 'enemy' is reduced to attacking those that might have been a support to them, something is going better? It seems that even the 'civil war' has failed the insurgents in the sense that rather than temporarily joining together to get rid of the 'occupiers' there seems to be a growing body, at least in some areas, where the sunnis and shi'a are actually turning on AQI?



Things are not going well for the terrorists. They are lashing out in different directions and sending more suicide bombers


----------



## maineman

Kathianne said:


> Once again I'll admit to being mostly ignorant on military strategy, though I do know a bit of history. When the 'enemy' is reduced to attacking those that might have been a support to them, something is going better? It seems that even the 'civil war' has failed the insurgents in the sense that rather than temporarily joining together to get rid of the 'occupiers' there seems to be a growing body, at least in some areas, where the sunnis and shi'a are actually turning on AQI?



I agree that sunnis are turning on AQ, and that is good news for America.  I also think that shiites are still viewing Iraqi and AQ sunnis as sunnis and enemies and Americans as enemies.  We may be arming the sunnis insurgents in their fight against AQ, but why do we think that those munitions will not later be used on us and on the shiites?  What did we think that AQ was going to do with the munitions and training we gave them when they were fighting the soviets in afghanistan?


----------



## Annie

maineman said:


> I agree that sunnis are turning on AQ, and that is good news for America.  I also think that shiites are still viewing Iraqi and AQ sunnis as sunnis and enemies and Americans as enemies.  We may be arming the sunnis insurgents in their fight against AQ, but why do we think that those munitions will not later be used on us and on the shiites?  What did we think that AQ was going to do with the munitions and training we gave them when they were fighting the soviets in afghanistan?



I agree about the arms, I'm not sure how that can be avoided. In an earlier time, "Kosovo" I was for arming the Muslims to defend themselves, but before we sent our own troops there. Most definitely a mistake in the long run, we've done before. 

On the other hand, if we are to get out of there eventually, a force needs to be there. No simple answers here.


----------



## maineman

Kathianne said:


> I agree about the arms, I'm not sure how that can be avoided. In an earlier time, "Kosovo" I was for arming the Muslims to defend themselves, but before we sent our own troops there. Most definitely a mistake in the long run, we've done before.
> 
> On the other hand, if we are to get out of there eventually, a force needs to be there. No simple answers here.



absolutely.... we are trying to solve this problem while in a fog of war and a fog of ignorance about the players and the enmity that swirls around them - and us.


----------



## Annie

From someone that has spent a lot of time in Iraq. Lots of links:

http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/06/the_battle_of_baquba.php



> The Battle of Baqubah II
> 
> The Baqubah region. Click map to view.
> 
> Major offensive in al Qaeda's so-called capital of the Islamic State of Iraq
> 
> The Diyala Campaign is underway. As part of major offensive operations throughout the belts regions of Baghdad, Iraqi and U.S. forces have launched a large scale operation in the city of Baqubah, the provincial capital of Diyala. Dubbed Operation Arrowhead Ripper, the offensive is massive in scale. This is a division sized operation of "approximately 10,000 Soldiers, with a full complement of attack helicopters, close air support, Strykers and Bradley Fighting Vehicles." Over 30 al Qaeda operatives have been killed since the 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division kicked off the operation with a "quick-strike nighttime air assault."
> 
> ...
> 
> The Diyala Campaign has been a long time coming. The 10,000 U.S. troops and supporting Iraqi units won't sit pat in Baqubah, but will reach out to strike at other al Qaeda bases in the troubled province. These areas include Khalis, Muqdadiyah and a host of small towns up and down the Diyala River Valley and along the Iranian border where al Qaeda has established bases, training camps and logistical nodes.
> 
> By Bill Roggio on June 19, 2007 9:38 AM


----------



## maineman

I have never doubted the capacity of the US Armed Forces to root out and scatter/destroy the AQ fighters presently in Iraq.  I do, however, doubt anyone's capacity to keep more from streaming in, or, more importantly, to keep indigenous sunnis and shiites from turning on one another once AQ's presence and immediate impact is diminished.


----------



## maineman

so.... who are you gonna stick with here, RSR? Petraeus and his comments about the positive effects of putting 20K more "cops" in one area, or the Pentagon's own quarterly assessment of the entire war which says that the violence throughout Iraq has gone up?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> so.... who are you gonna stick with here, RSR? Petraeus and his comments about the positive effects of putting 20K more "cops" in one area, or the Pentagon's own quarterly assessment of the entire war which says that the violence throughout Iraq has gone up?



So are you gonna keep pushing for surrender and let the terrorists win?


----------



## maineman

no.  are you going to keep avoiding answering any questions?

Simple one:  who are you gonna believe in your efforts to make the war in Iraq a winning deal?  Petraeus or the Pentagon?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no.  are you going to keep avoiding answering any questions?
> 
> Simple one:  who are you gonna believe in your efforts to make the war in Iraq a winning deal?  Petraeus or the Pentagon?



Petraeus was the man who was picked to win the fight


----------



## red states rule

Great article here

In battle for hearts and minds, Iraqi insurgents are doing well
They have coupled terror tactics with a sophisticated use of modern media.
By John Hughes
Provo, Utah - In 2005 Al Qaeda's No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, wrote a letter to the then top insurgent leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "[M]ore than half of this battle," he wrote, "is taking place in the battlefield of the media.... [W]e are in a media battle, in a race for the hearts and minds of our umma [people]." 

As the struggle in Iraq between the insurgents on the one hand and US military and Iraqi security forces on the other reaches a climactic phase, it is clear that the insurgents, far from being a band of crude guerilla fighters, have taken the Al Qaeda leader's injunction to heart and have coupled the tactics of terror with a sophisticated knowledge and use of modern media. 

Their command of the Internet, their use of television, their release and timing of material calculated to be picked up and used by Arab and Western TV outlets and news agencies, indicates a high degree of planning and professionalism. 

In the aftermath of the war, fewer US correspondents were embedded with US military units, and the story took a different direction. The focus was on attempts to build a democratic political system and repair an infrastructure both neglected by Hussein and then damaged even more during the fighting. Then came more negative stories of US mistakes and the Pentagon's unpreparedness for the enormity of problems in the postwar occupation. Finally, Iraq lapsed into violence, with car bombings and assassinations and hostage-taking providing a daily litany of horror. The occupying US soldiers began to take ever more casualties as did US and other foreign civilian workers and journalists, whose fatalities soon numbered more than in any other war. 

They included brave Iraqi journalists and cameramen working for the Americans at great peril. 

Critics in the Bush administration charged that images of chaos and violence were overshadowing stories of a more positive nature: of schools that were being opened, hospitals that were being rebuilt, and Iraqis who were coming forward to be policemen. 

Now some US military officers, too, charge that a clever enemy media campaign is gaining traction and that the US is losing the war in information about battlefield operations. 

A Marine officer whose credibility I trust cites an operation of success in the Fallujah region earlier this month that was reported as a disaster by US and British media companies. His unit had established a new precinct headquarters for Iraqi police, Army troops, and US Marines to patrol and protect a dedicated area. It was well received by the local populace and almost 200 Iraqis volunteered for police recruitment. Insurgents sought to disrupt it but were routed. 

for the complete article:


http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0620/p09s01-cojh.html


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Petraeus was the man who was picked to win the fight



what do Petraeus's comments about Baghdad and Anbar have to do with the *FACT* that the Pentagon, itself, has reported that violence *ACROSS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY OF IRAQ* has INCREASED, AND THAT *AMERICAN CASUALTIES HAVE INCREASED*??????


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> what do Petraeus's comments about Baghdad and Anbar have to do with the *FACT* that the Pentagon, itself, has reported that violence *ACROSS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY OF IRAQ* has INCREASED, AND THAT *AMERICAN CASUALTIES HAVE INCREASED*??????



Keep pulling for failure MM - and keep that white flag handy for all your social functions


----------



## maineman

keep running from the facts, RSR.... keep running.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> keep running from the facts, RSR.... keep running.



Keep running from the terrorists and tell White Flag harry to keep pushing for surrender - that is what you really want


----------



## maineman

I just want you to tell me why the Pentagon says that the carnage across Iraq is increasing and that American casualties are increasing if the surge is working.

We aren't talking about DU or Moveon or Buzzflash saying that the carnage is increasing, we are talking about the pentagon itself.  Can you explain that?

Here is what the Pentagon says:

"Violence has decreased" in Baghdad and in Anbar Province, which have long been the country&#8217;s most violent areas, *&#8220;but has increased in most provinces, particularly in outlying areas around Baghdad and in Nineva and Diyala Provinces.&#8221; Attacks have also increased in Basra Province in the south, because of fighting between rival Shiite militants, some of whom fled Baghdad because of the security crackdown"*, it added.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/washington/14military.html

*can you explain that??*


----------



## maineman

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19324875/


if you listen closely, you can hear the strains of _"Kumbaya"_ being sung by a giant bunch of sunnis and shiites while giving one another a big group hug.


----------



## red states rule

WINNING ON OFFENSE
REAL PLAN TO DEFEAT IRAQ FOES

June 21, 2007 -- HALLELUJAH! For the first time since Baghdad fell, our military in Iraq has a comprehensive, integrated plan to defeat our enemies. 

Until now, our efforts have always been piecemeal, stop-start affairs. Even our success in the Second Battle of Fallujah in 2004 went unexploited. 

Things have changed. And terrorists, not just Iraqi civilians, are dying. 

The 10,000-man operation reported in the Baquba area is only one part of a broader effort. In the words of a well-placed officer in Baghdad, "Operations like that are going on around Fallujah, Salman Pak, in Eastern Anbar, the belts around Baghdad, in Arab Jabour, outside of Taji and throughout the Diyala River Valley." 

This widespread offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorists is part of a carefully developed, phased plan. The first step as the troop surge proceeded was to establish livable conditions in key neighborhoods of the capital. 

That step was vital, but insufficient in itself. Terrorists fled, but they didn't disappear. They just sought refuge elsewhere. And while neighborhood pacification involved aggressive tactical actions, it ultimately put our forces in a defensive posture. 

And you can't win solely by playing defense, either in the NFL or in war. 


for the complete article

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0621200...ng_on_offense_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> WINNING ON OFFENSE
> REAL PLAN TO DEFEAT IRAQ FOES
> 
> June 21, 2007 -- HALLELUJAH! For the first time since Baghdad fell, our military in Iraq has a comprehensive, integrated plan to defeat our enemies.
> 
> Until now, our efforts have always been piecemeal, stop-start affairs. Even our success in the Second Battle of Fallujah in 2004 went unexploited.
> 
> Things have changed. And terrorists, not just Iraqi civilians, are dying.
> 
> The 10,000-man operation reported in the Baquba area is only one part of a broader effort. In the words of a well-placed officer in Baghdad, "Operations like that are going on around Fallujah, Salman Pak, in Eastern Anbar, the belts around Baghdad, in Arab Jabour, outside of Taji and throughout the Diyala River Valley."
> 
> This widespread offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorists is part of a carefully developed, phased plan. The first step as the troop surge proceeded was to establish livable conditions in key neighborhoods of the capital.
> 
> That step was vital, but insufficient in itself. Terrorists fled, but they didn't disappear. They just sought refuge elsewhere. And while neighborhood pacification involved aggressive tactical actions, it ultimately put our forces in a defensive posture.
> 
> And you can't win solely by playing defense, either in the NFL or in war.
> 
> 
> for the complete article
> 
> http://www.nypost.com/seven/0621200...ng_on_offense_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm




another rant from the hate democrats crowd.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> another rant from the hate democrats crowd.



Truth hurts, eh?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Truth hurts, eh?



no truth here...just more rants.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no truth here...just more rants.



After four lost years, we need to have realistic expectations - unless we intend to throw the game for domestic political reasons. Gen. Petraeus is playing a bad hand with greater skill than we had any right to expect. He's making meaningful tactical progress. We don't yet know if that will translate into a strategic turnaround - but, for God's sake, let's give him a chance. 

And let's not lose sight of our own national-security priority, which is defeating al Qaeda. Terror International is having a really bad time in Iraq these days: More and more Sunni Arabs are breaking with al Qaeda and its affiliates over their insufferable brutality. The Baquba-area operations involve former enemies now fighting on our side against the foreign terrorists. That's not just good news for Iraq. It's good news for America. 

Much could still go wrong. We don't know if those Sunni Arabs will keep faith with us over the longer term - and now the Shias who control the government are bewailing our new local alliances. Sunni Arabs have realized at last that they've got to "cooperate to graduate." Now the Shia are the ones who insist on playing a zero-sum game. 

And, of course, we never eliminated Muqtada al-Sadr. For which we're going to be even sorrier than we are now. 

Still, there's reason for sober optimism at the moment: We've finally got a coherent approach to defeating our enemies, not just parrying them. It looks like our military leaders have gotten serious at last. 

God help us, it almost looks like we want to win. 

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0621200...ffense_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm?page=2


----------



## red states rule

Turning on al-Qaeda in Baquba

By JOE KLEIN 

I helicoptered today into Baquba, the centerpiece of the current U.S. offensive in Iraq, with Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno and then drove via Stryker brigade into the center of the fight for a briefing. It was midday, and the sun was so hot that both sides in the battle seemed to be taking a siesta. Only a few small explosions could be heard in the distance; there was no small arms fire. Odiernoa supertanker of a man with a shaved head who looks like ancient turtlemet with a group of battalion commanders in the ruins of a medical center that had been blasted, by someone, several years earlier. Situation maps were leaned against a white ceramic tile wall; the officers sat in campaign chairs, hunched in a tight semi-circle; bottles of cold water were passed around. 

The news from the battle was good. That was no surprise: in a guerrilla war like Iraq, every engagement that can be described as a "battle" is inevitably won by the superior force, which is part of the frustration. Baquba, the capital of Diyala province just northeast of Baghdad, had been infiltrated by al-Qaeda over the past yearbetween 400 and 500 al-Qaeda fighters were estimated to be in the city when the U.S. forces attacked on Monday, and now those who remain are surrounded, in a slowly tightening cordon. These sorts of operations have taken place multiple times in multiple cities during this war, to little effectusually the terrorists slip away, as they did in Falluja in 2004, only to turn up elsewhere. That may well happen again this time. But there is one promising development in Baquba. 

A lieutenant colonel named Bruce Antonia told Odierno about preparing to attack the Buhritz neighborhood a few nights earlier when he was approached by local Sunni inusurgentsmembers, they said, of the 1920 Revolutionary Brigadeswho were streaming out of the neighborhood. "They said they'd been fighting al-Qaeda but had run out of ammunition and asked us to supply them. We told them, 'Show us where AQ is and we'll fight them.'" The insurgents did and the neighborhood was cleared.

A second lieutenant colonel named Avanulis Smiley picked up the story from there, "Sir, they've also showed us seven buried IED sites. They gave us specific informationdescription of the houses, gate color, tree trunks." 

for the complete article

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1635614,00.html


----------



## maineman

another day, more cut and paste spam from RSR.....


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> another day, more cut and paste spam from RSR.....



Any good news from Iraq does sadden you


----------



## red states rule

Fred Thompson on Harry Reid
Posted on June 18th, 2007
By Michael in Commentaries


Excerpts from commentary aired on ABCRadio.com on June 18, 2007:

First, Harry Reid voted for the war, like a majority of our legislators. America decided as a nation to free Iraq and the region from Saddam Husseins tyranny.

Harry Reid, though, has taken a different route. He made his statement about General Pace on a conference call with fringe elements of the blogosphere who think were the bad guys. This is a place where even those who think the 9/11 attacks were an inside job find a home.

And why shouldnt they think that? Reid has led the attack on the administration, with Nancy Pelosi, charging it lied and tricked America into supporting the war. Ignoring multiple hearings and investigations into pre-war intelligence findings that have debunked this paranoid myth, they accuse an entire administration of conspiracy to trick us into a war.

I suppose thats easier for some than admitting that theyve flip flopped  but the fact that Reid says this sinister Republican plot is going to help him elect more Democrats ought to be raising a few flags. Saying General Pace is incompetent doesnt even rank near the top of his bizarre statements.

The problem is that every one of Reids comments Ive noted here has also been reported gleefully by Al Jazeera and other anti-American media.
http://abcradionetworks.com/article.asp?id=425306&SPID=15663


----------



## red states rule

CBS's Lara Logan Follows Up on U.S. Soldier Orphanage Rescue
Posted by Justin McCarthy on June 21, 2007 - 13:23. 
After reporting on the compassionate U.S. soldier rescue of abused Iraqi orphans, CBSs Lara Logan ran a follow up story on the June 21 edition of "The Early Show." To her credit, Logan continued to defend the soldiers. She noted that an Army captain went "back to check on the 24 boys he and his soldiers rescued" and "thanks to these soldiers...the boys lives were saved."

Upon reporting that the Iraqi labor and social affairs minister accused Lara Logan of reporting a "lie" and that the U.S. soldiers that rescued these emaciated boys "have no compassion," Logan played a gracious remark from an unidentified U.S. soldier.

"We'll leave here and he'll never be able to tell us thanks, but he doesn't need to." 

When questioned by host Harry Smith, Logan clearly sided with the U.S. soldiers against the denying Iraqi government official.

"Well, what's upsetting about the controversy, Harry, is that the plight of these boys is actually being lost in all of this. But incredibly, the Iraqi ministry is trying to make the U.S. the bad guys. They're blaming them, America as Iraq's enemy, we're being told, instead of acknowledging what was done by the soldiers who rescued these boys. And -- and, in fact, it's important to know that they were local Iraqi leaders who helped the U.S. rescue the boys that night. And when I spoke to them a week later, Harry, they were still in shock about what they'd seen. They wept constantly, throughout the interview as they recounted the horror. And that horror is now being denied by the ministry."

http://newsbusters.org/node/13638


----------



## maineman

and the cut and paste spam just keeps on coming from RSR, the RNC newsbot!


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> and the cut and paste spam just keeps on coming from RSR, the RNC newsbot!



Sorry to post the good news from Iraq - you would rather read the bad news that fits the left view the war is lost


----------



## maineman

I love to read good news from Iraq.  I just prefer to read it on actual news sites and not as spam from a mindless republican drone cut and pasted onto a political discussion site where most folks actually formulate and express their OWN opinions.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I love to read good news from Iraq.  I just prefer to read it on actual news sites and not as spam from a mindless republican drone cut and pasted onto a political discussion site where most folks actually formulate and express their OWN opinions.



Translation - I will ignore any good news from Iraq - there is none according to my political party


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Translation - I will ignore any good news from Iraq - there is none according to my political party



not so...I applauded the initiatives in Anbar recently.  I am not sure I agree with giving munitions to guys who have killed americans, but the Iraqi sunni-AQ fued is a good development, for sure.  

It is YOU who refuse to acknowledge any bad news.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> not so...I applauded the initiatives in Anbar recently.  I am not sure I agree with giving munitions to guys who have killed americans, but the Iraqi sunni-AQ fued is a good development, for sure.
> 
> It is YOU who refuse to acknowledge any bad news.



Lame attempt at spin MM - very lame


----------



## maineman

what do you mean, lame?  You have consistently run away from the Pentagon's own quarterly report which shows American casualties rising and civilian carnage in Iraq increasing in all the areas where we are not surging... just like I predicted it would.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> what do you mean, lame?  You have consistently run away from the Pentagon's own quarterly report which shows American casualties rising and civilian carnage in Iraq increasing in all the areas where we are not surging... just like I predicted it would.



Gee, casualities in a war - what a shocker!


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Gee, casualities in a war - what a shocker!




now THAT is what I call, LAME.

so who is right about Iraq, RSR?  is the pentagon right or is Joe LIEberman right?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> now THAT is what I call, LAME.
> 
> so who is right about Iraq, RSR?  is the pentagon right or is Joe LIEberman right?



Who am I to take away your pleasure to post all the bad news from Iraq

Without concentrating on the bad news - libs would be unable to continue to push for surender


----------



## maineman

so the pentagon is lying?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> so the pentagon is lying?



Now libs want to take the word of the Pentagon?

Oh, only when they can use what they say to push for surrender


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Now libs want to take the word of the Pentagon?
> 
> Oh, only when they can use what they say to push for surrender



so...let me get this straight.  you are saying that the pentagon quarterly report on Iraq is untrue?


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> *Who am I to take away your pleasure to post all the bad news from Iraq
> *
> Without concentrating on the bad news - libs would be unable to continue to push for surender



Please show us one shred of good news that outweighs all the death.


----------



## Annie

Superlative said:


> Please show us one shred of good news that outweighs all the death.



Would this be _possible_, for you I mean?


----------



## Superlative

Kathianne said:


> Would this be _possible_, for you I mean?



I really dont thinks so. 

14 Americans Are Killed in Combat in 2 Days

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/world/middleeast/22iraq.html


----------



## Annie

Superlative said:


> I really dont thinks so.
> 
> 14 Americans Are Killed in Combat in 2 Days
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/world/middleeast/22iraq.html



and as Maineman pointed out elsewhere, he and Patreus both predicted an upsurge in the violence would accompany the surge. For some 'good news' check out this, oh, there is some 'bad news' too, which is not surprising:

from yesterday:
http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=49159 

from today:
http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=49184


----------



## Superlative

On the other side of the Tigris river on Tuesday, *87 people were killed by a lorry bomb which also partly demolished a Shia mosque.*

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/98762AD4-37EC-4F4D-BE22-E283F5CE7026.htm

At least two things are the same in Iraq, people are dying at a steady rate, and RSR still thinks everything is hunkey dorey.


----------



## Superlative

Kathianne said:


> and as Maineman pointed out elsewhere, he and Patreus both predicted an upsurge in the violence would accompany the surge. For some 'good news' check out this, oh, there is some 'bad news' too, which is not surprising:
> 
> from yesterday:
> http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=49159
> 
> from today:
> http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=49184




Good news and bad news. 

We have to wait until september for the surge to show signs of progress.

What does that equal? at the current rate, about 300 more american deaths, and god knows how many more Iraqi deaths.

Where is the progress?

What are they "clearing" "holding" and "building"?

Thats the best plan Ive heard since 2003. 

and to successfully accomplish that, there needs to be something like 150,000 more troops, not 25,000+.


----------



## Annie

Superlative said:


> Good news and bad news.
> 
> We have to wait until september for the surge to show signs of progress.
> 
> What does that equal? about 300 more american deaths, and god knows how many more Iraqi deaths.
> 
> Where is the progress?
> 
> What are they "clearing" "holding" and "building"?
> 
> Thats the best plan Ive heard since 2003.
> 
> and to successfully accomplish that, there needs to be something like 150,000 more troops, not 25,000+.



Do you _really think_ September is going to bring all the answers?


----------



## Superlative

Kathianne said:


> Do you _really think_ September is going to bring all the answers?



Of course not. 

But thats the time frame that was handed out. 


War is messy, but there are two kinds of messy, 

A messy War with a plan. 

And a messy War without a plan. 

There has been no clearly defined plan of action from the start, and there is no real guarantee that operation "Arrowhead Ripper" will be any different.

Everyone is expected to sit back and be patient while people die. 

You cant fault someone for demanding progress, its been long enough.


----------



## Annie

Superlative said:


> Of course not.
> 
> But thats the time frame that was handed out.
> 
> 
> War is messy, but there are two kinds of messy,
> 
> A messy War with a plan.
> 
> And a messy War without a plan.
> 
> There has been no clearly defined plan of action from the start, and there is no real guarantee that operation "Arrowhead Ripper" will be any different.
> 
> Everyone is expected to sit back and be patient while people die.
> 
> You cant fault someone for demanding progress, its been long enough.



Is there ever a real guarantee in war? If not, is any purpose worth a war? Any ideal?


----------



## hjmick

No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy. - Field Marshall Helmuth Carl Bernard von Moltke


----------



## Superlative

Kathianne said:


> Is there ever a real guarantee in war? If not, is any purpose worth a war? Any ideal?



Yes, but in this case, the purpose, and ideal, should not  be the US's




> The US defence secretary met Iraqi leaders on Saturday to tell them that Washington was disappointed with their efforts to reconcile warring factions.
> 
> Robert Gates, who flew into Baghdad on Friday night, was briefed by US commanders on a US troop build-up intended to buy time for the mainly Shia Iraqi government to reach a political accommodation with Sunni Arabs.
> 
> Gates said he would deliver a simple message "that our troops are buying them time to pursue reconciliation, that frankly we are disappointed with the progress so far"



http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D4BC13FF-C18D-4836-82FC-E8871C6AC422.htm



Are the defenders of this occupation ready to be in Iraq for another 5 years?


----------



## Annie

Superlative said:


> Yes, but in this case, the purpose, and ideal, should not  be the US's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D4BC13FF-C18D-4836-82FC-E8871C6AC422.htm
> 
> 
> 
> Are the defenders of this occupation ready to be in Iraq for another 5 years?



I'd like to know what ideals or purposes you feel would justify the US taking action. If it's 'an attack on the US', does the response mean only against a state? If it's something like al Qaida, should the attack be an 'all out response', using all technological capabilities, with no or minimum ground troops, but civilian casualties be damned?


----------



## mattskramer

Kathianne said:


> Is there ever a real guarantee in war? If not, is any purpose worth a war? Any ideal?



Who, in government, said that September would be a good time in which to check on supposed progress from the surge?  What if there has been no progress  Do we check back in January 1008?  If there has been no improvement then, do we send in 20000 more soldiers and check on them in a few months?  When does the gambler stop sending good money after bad?  Some day he should get up from the table and cut his losses.


----------



## Care4all

Kathianne said:


> Is there ever a real guarantee in war? If not, is any purpose worth a war? Any ideal?



according to *Just* War Theory, you don't start a war unless you know you can win, and *know* with certainty you can win very quickly, with overwhelming force if necessary, which would actually reduce casualties over the long term, and ''collateral'' damage too.  

also, immediately following battle, borders are supposed to be secured for the safety of the citizens, and the occupiers are fully responsible for the safety and security of this nation's citizens and the occupiers are responsible for repairing their infrastructure...

so that THEIR lives after the war, are BETTER OFF than what they were before you went to war with them, to remove a despot.

otherwise, the war of choice that you started is considered an *Unjust* War.

There are a few other steps in Just War Theory that makes a war considered *just*, like....there can be NO MONETARY GAIN or any underlying gain for the aggressor...the occupier, 

other than going to war with this despot, so that all the lives of the countrymen can be better than what they were with their despot/gvt...

and they must be better off, you must know that your plan for war will make these people immediately better off following the military action.

many of these steps seem rudimentary to me, simple steps to follow and contemplate before going in to a war of CHOICE.

so, although just a novice at best, when it comes to war, i don't understand what the heck this administration was thinking when it came to their decision to invade this sovereign country, and if they even once thought about just war theory?

the powell doctrine coincides with just war theory....they clearly did not follow his way of dealing with war.

care


----------



## Superlative

Kathianne said:


> I'd like to know what ideals or purposes you feel would justify the US taking action.
> 
> Lets see, the US took action in Iraq, because of the future threat of WMD's.
> 
> But has yet to take action when a country exhibits REAL signs of a threat.
> 
> We have yet to invade Iran, and they have been persuing Nuclear capabilities for how long?
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4031603.stm
> 
> The North Korean Nuclear weapons issue? Diplomatic resolutions showing results?
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2340405.stm
> 
> And now Russia is arming itself in response to US missile defence.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6729751.stm
> 
> Why havent we invaded these countries?
> 
> If it's 'an attack on the US', does the response mean only against a state?
> 
> The perpetrators of the crime should be pursued, captured, and held to account.
> Invading an entire country in response to a terrorist attack is over reaching.
> Especially when the original mission in Afghanistan "Operation Enduring Freedom" to locate and eliminate al Qaeda was executed with positive results.
> 
> If it's something like al Qaida, should the attack be an 'all out response',
> 
> See "Operation Enduring Freedom"
> 
> Using all technological capabilities, with no or minimum ground troops, but civilian casualties be damned?
> 
> All casualties will be significantly reduced when diplomatic means are pursued; As opposed to invasion and occupation with a large scale military force.(eg Iraq, North Korea, Russia)
> Civilian casualties will be reduced, When strategic targets are attacked, AFTER intensive intelligence operations are executed. (Operation Enduring Freedom)



When a proper plan of action is created and enacted, the need for invasion,  is minimal, ultimately reducing all casualties. (Not what has happened in Iraq)


----------



## Superlative

mattskramer said:


> *Who, in government, said that September would be a good time in which to check on supposed progress from the surge?*  What if there has been no progress  Do we check back in January 1008?  If there has been no improvement then, do we send in 20000 more soldiers and check on them in a few months?  When does the gambler stop sending good money after bad?  Some day he should get up from the table and cut his losses.





> "I think we have to wait and see where we are in September to see what follows the report that the ambassador and the General turn in."
> 
> The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and US ambassador Ryan Crocker are supposed to report to a sceptical Congress in September on whether the surge is working or whether an alternative strategy is needed.



http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200706/s1953354.htm

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-06-17-voa16.cfm



> The US military is due to report on the success of the build-up in September, against a backdrop of pressure from the Democrat-led Congress to end the war.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6757329.stm


----------



## hjmick

Superlative said:


> When a proper plan of action is created and enacted, the need for invasion,  is minimal, ultimately reducing all casualties. (Not what has happened in Iraq)



There was a proper plan of action created and enacted on June 6, 1944. Over 5,000 men died on *one* day. Or are you of the opinion it was not a proper plan?


----------



## Superlative

hjmick said:


> There was a proper plan of action created and enacted on June 6, 1944. Over 5,000 men died on *one* day. Or are you of the opinion it was not a proper plan?



I think our level of technology gives us a little more of an advantage in reducing casualties now, than it did 70 years ago.


----------



## maineman

hjmick said:


> There was a proper plan of action created and enacted on June 6, 1944. Over 5,000 men died on *one* day. Or are you of the opinion it was not a proper plan?




I must admit that the argument _"Hey, it's not as bloody as World War II"_ as some sort of a valid justification for the unnecessary, unwarranted, counter-productive carnage in Iraq does not impress me all that much.


----------



## hjmick

maineman said:


> I must admit that the argument _"Hey, it's not as bloody as World War II"_ as some sort of a valid justification for the unnecessary, unwarranted, counter-productive carnage in Iraq does not impress me all that much.



And I agree with you. The discussion had turned to the plan or lack there of and my point is simply this: In war, no plan goes as well as you would hope.

When the plan to go into Iraq was first announced, I thought it was a bad idea, I still do. We hadn't finished our work in Afghanistan, and still haven't. Opening another front struck me as a bad idea. Unfortunately, I was unable to convince the powers that be to cancel their plans.

Our initial entry into Iraq went well, it's not the war we're losing, it's the peace. The war plan was executed damn near flawlessly, it's the aftermath that the U.S. has failed to adequately plan for.

I think Sadam needed to go, but not for the reasons spoonfed to the American public. I think we should have waited. I know we could have waited.


----------



## hjmick

Superlative said:


> I think our level of technology gives us a little more of an advantage in reducing casualties now, than it did 70 years ago.



You have a good point there.

As I stated in my previous post, the only point I was trying to convey is the same in the quote I posted earlier, "No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy." The best laid plans more often than not go awry in war, and the more we learn, the more many of us are starting to think that the plans they've had for managing the aftermath weren't too good to begin with.


----------



## Superlative

hjmick said:


> You have a good point there.
> 
> As I stated in my previous post, the only point I was trying to convey is the same in the quote I posted earlier, "No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy." *The best laid plans more often than not go awry in war*, and the more we learn, the more many of us are starting to think that the plans they've had for managing the aftermath weren't too good to begin with.



Understandable. 

But what happens when the best laid plans aren't the best,  in fact they arent really a plan at all?


Have you heard of Clear, Hold, Build?

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/55303.htm


Condoleezza Rice


> "In short, with the Iraqi Government, our political-military strategy has to be to clear, hold, and build: to clear areas from insurgent control, to hold them securely, and to build durable, national Iraqi institutions."


----------



## hjmick

Superlative said:


> Understandable.
> 
> But what happens when the best laid plans aren't the best,  in fact they arent really a plan at all?
> 
> 
> Have you heard of Clear, Hold, Build?
> 
> http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/55303.htm
> 
> 
> Condoleezza Rice



CHB isn't going well. That much is obvious. I don't pretend to know what the answers are. At this point I think it might be best to pull our troops back to one easily defensible location, help rebuild the infrastructure, help train Iraqi forces, and let them handle security. Not enough Iraqis are ready to step up for their country, that has got to change.


----------



## Superlative

hjmick said:


> CHB isn't going well. That much is obvious. I don't pretend to know what the answers are. *At this point I think it might be best to pull our troops back to one easily defensible location, help rebuild the infrastructure, help train Iraqi forces, and let them handle security.* Not enough Iraqis are ready to step up for their country, that has got to change.



We tried that, it elicites more insurgent aggression. 

We become what ive heard called "War Tourists"

Condoleezza had a plan based on the success of Tal Afar. 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060320-6.html

But in order to accomplish Clear Hold Build, the US would need a troop surge of 150,000. 

Its the best plan the US has seen so far, (sans 150,000) and Rumsfeld shot it down. Citing it as the responsibility of the Iraqis.


----------



## Annie

Care4all said:


> according to *Just* War Theory, you don't start a war unless you know you can win, and *know* with certainty you can win very quickly, with overwhelming force if necessary, which would actually reduce casualties over the long term, and ''collateral'' damage too.
> 
> also, immediately following battle, borders are supposed to be secured for the safety of the citizens, and the occupiers are fully responsible for the safety and security of this nation's citizens and the occupiers are responsible for repairing their infrastructure...
> 
> so that THEIR lives after the war, are BETTER OFF than what they were before you went to war with them, to remove a despot.
> 
> otherwise, the war of choice that you started is considered an *Unjust* War.
> 
> There are a few other steps in Just War Theory that makes a war considered *just*, like....there can be NO MONETARY GAIN or any underlying gain for the aggressor...the occupier,
> 
> other than going to war with this despot, so that all the lives of the countrymen can be better than what they were with their despot/gvt...
> 
> and they must be better off, you must know that your plan for war will make these people immediately better off following the military action.
> 
> many of these steps seem rudimentary to me, simple steps to follow and contemplate before going in to a war of CHOICE.
> 
> so, although just a novice at best, when it comes to war, i don't understand what the heck this administration was thinking when it came to their decision to invade this sovereign country, and if they even once thought about just war theory?
> 
> the powell doctrine coincides with just war theory....they clearly did not follow his way of dealing with war.
> 
> care



Just War Theory, has nothing to do with the Powell Doctrine. Just War Theory is an religious philosophy or rather concept posited by Thomas Aquinas that has evolved over time-it's a religious concept. 

http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS/SS040.html

http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS/SS040.html


----------



## Annie

maineman said:


> I must admit that the argument _"Hey, it's not as bloody as World War II"_ as some sort of a valid justification for the unnecessary, unwarranted, counter-productive carnage in Iraq does not impress me all that much.



I do not disagree. On the other hand arguing the idea of war is possible without casualties and guarantees of success is equally unwise.


----------



## maineman

Kathianne said:


> I do not disagree. On the other hand arguing the idea of war is possible without casualties and guarantees of success is equally unwise.



I will go to my grave (hopefully not anytime soon) believing that the Iraq war was unnecessary.  I completely support America's right to fight wars of necessity. I completely disagree with starting wars that are not necessary.  

If a war is necessary, no number of casualties is too high....and if a war is unnecessary, any number of casualties is too many.


----------



## Annie

maineman said:


> I will go to my grave (hopefully not anytime soon) believing that the Iraq war was unnecessary.  I completely support America's right to fight wars of necessity. I completely disagree with starting wars that are not necessary.
> 
> If a war is necessary, no number of casualties is too high....and if a war is unnecessary, any number of casualties is too many.



I respect your pov. In all honesty, whoever wrote that we could have waited longer, had a better plan, had a valid argument. I think deposing Saddam was a good idea, though 'winning the people over to our side' is more important in the long run. I don't think Iraq is the cause of problems in the Middle East. The possibility of Iraq being less than hostile of the US in and of itself would make the venture viable.


----------



## Care4all

Kathianne said:


> Just War Theory, has nothing to do with the Powell Doctrine. Just War Theory is an religious philosophy or rather concept posited by Thomas Aquinas that has evolved over time-it's a religious concept.
> 
> http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS/SS040.html
> 
> http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS/SS040.html



Yes Kathianne, there is a religious aspect to just war theory, but it does NOT stop there....



> Just War Theory
> 
> Just-war theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. The justification can be either theoretical or historical. The theoretical aspect is concerned with ethically justifying war and forms of warfare. *The historical aspect, or the just war tradition deals with the historical body of rules or agreements applied (or at least existing) in various wars across the ages. For instance international agreements such as the Geneva and Hague conventions are historical rules aimed at limiting certain kinds of warfare.* It is the role of ethics to examine these institutional agreements for their philosophical coherence as well as to inquire into whether aspects of the conventions ought to be changed.
> 
> http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm



The Powel Doctrine meets certain aspects of just war theory...


----------



## red states rule

Army anticipates intense resistance in Iraq's north
By Alister Bull
REUTERS NEWS AGENCY
June 23, 2007 
BAQOUBA, Iraq  Thousands of U.S. soldiers on the offensive north of Baghdad are facing fierce resistance from hundreds of al Qaeda militants who are ready to fight to the death, a U.S. general said yesterday.

The militants are making their stand in and around the Iraq city of Baqouba, 40 miles north of Baghdad, where the U.S. military Tuesday launched one of its biggest operations since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

"It is house to house, block to block, street to street, sewer to sewer," said Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek, commander of Operation Arrowhead Ripper in Iraq's Diyala province.

Not far from Baqouba, U.S. attack helicopters killed 17 suspected al Qaeda gunmen on the outskirts of the town of Khalis early yesterday, the U.S. military said.

The military said those killed were armed and had been acting suspiciously around an Iraqi police patrol. That brings to 68 the number of militants killed so far in the operation

A top U.S. commander suggested it could be spring before Iraqi forces are ready to take responsibility for areas cleared by U.S. troops in Arrowhead Ripper and other operations taking place around Baghdad as part of a broader offensive.

"I think if everything goes the way it's going now, there's a potential that by the spring we would be able to reduce forces and Iraqi security forces could take over," Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno said.

Gen. Odierno, the top commander for day-to-day operations in Iraq, told Pentagon reporters by video link that Iraqi forces might be ready sooner, but it was hard to predict exactly when.


for the complete article
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070623/FOREIGN/106230036/1001


----------



## Annie

Care4all said:


> Yes Kathianne, there is a religious aspect to just war theory, but it does NOT stop there....
> 
> 
> 
> The Powel Doctrine meets certain aspects of just war theory...



The historical part was also dealt with in the links, your original post though, mixed the Powell Doctrine in, which is wrong:



> *according to Just War Theory, you don't start a war unless you know you can win, and know with certainty you can win very quickly, with overwhelming force if necessary, which would actually reduce casualties over the long term, and ''collateral'' damage too.*
> 
> also, immediately following battle, borders are supposed to be secured for the safety of the citizens, and the occupiers are fully responsible for the safety and security of this nation's citizens and the occupiers are responsible for repairing their infrastructure...
> 
> so that THEIR lives after the war, are BETTER OFF than what they were before you went to war with them, to remove a despot.
> 
> otherwise, the war of choice that you started is considered an Unjust War.
> 
> There are a few other steps in Just War Theory that makes a war considered just, like....there can be NO MONETARY GAIN or any underlying gain for the aggressor...the occupier,
> 
> other than going to war with this despot, so that all the lives of the countrymen can be better than what they were with their despot/gvt...
> 
> and they must be better off, you must know that your plan for war will make these people immediately better off following the military action.
> 
> many of these steps seem rudimentary to me, simple steps to follow and contemplate before going in to a war of CHOICE.
> 
> so, although just a novice at best, when it comes to war, i don't understand what the heck this administration was thinking when it came to their decision to invade this sovereign country, and if they even once thought about just war theory?
> 
> the powell doctrine coincides with just war theory....they clearly did not follow his way of dealing with war.
> 
> care


----------



## Care4all

Kathianne said:


> The historical part was also dealt with in the links, your original post though, mixed the Powell Doctrine in, which is wrong:


you are right, the powell doctrine, the overwhelming force part, is considered not fitting in Just war, but i have read articles that suggest the overwhelming force, done quickly is just war.

i personally am not for any war, and even just war seems like a man made excuse to justify warring by giving it some moral standards...

i don't know if i posted this link yet, but it is a good read on this kathianne.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0405&article=040520

ok, that link didn't work, so try this.

http://tinyurl.com/yufx6m

darnit!  that doesn't work either....i never had to register to get the article?  why is it making us now?


----------



## Annie

Care4all said:


> you are right, the powell doctrine, the overwhelming force part, is considered not fitting in Just war, but i have read articles that suggest the overwhelming force, done quickly is just war.
> 
> i personally am not for any war, and even just war seems like a man made excuse to justify warring by giving it some moral standards...
> 
> i don't know if i posted this link yet, but it is a good read on this kathianne.
> 
> http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0405&article=040520



That was a good link. Here's another:

http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/justwar/

It's not what you might think, from me.


----------



## Care4all

Kathianne said:


> That was a good link. Here's another:
> 
> http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/justwar/
> 
> It's not what you might think, from me.




oh good, the link was ok.

i am reading your link now, and yes, i am a little surprised, but not really...no one wants war...everyone is really happier when there isn't one...and you seem well read and catholic to me, so the link was a surprise, not because you have contemplated what it says because i believe you have, but surprised because you chose to share it with me.

ty

care


----------



## red states rule

Iraq assault kills 90 linked to al Qaeda
REUTERS NEWS AGENCY

BAQOUBA, Iraq  U.S. and Iraqi forces have killed 90 al Qaeda fighters across Baghdad in the past five days during one of the biggest combined offensives against the Sunni Islamist group since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, U.S. officials said yesterday.

U.S. air strikes yesterday killed seven fighters suspected of belonging to al Qaeda in Tikrit in Salahuddin province and near the city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, the U.S. military said.

The U.S. military also announced yesterday that roadside bombs killed seven American troops in Iraq, including four in a single incident outside Baghdad.

U.S. and Iraqi security forces are on alert as an Iraqi court is scheduled to deliver its verdict today for six former high-ranking officials during Saddam Hussein's rule accused of leading a military campaign against ethnic Kurds in the 1980s that killed tens of thousands.

The most prominent defendant is Saddam's cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as "Chemical Ali" for his reported use of poison gas against opponents. Charges against Saddam, originally the seventh defendant, lapsed when he was executed in December in a separate case.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for al-Majid and four others, and the release of a sixth, the former governor of Mosul province in northern Iraq, for lack of evidence.

In the latest military action, thousands of U.S. and Iraqi soldiers are taking part in simultaneous offensives in provinces across Baghdad to deny al Qaeda militants sanctuary in farmlands and towns from which they launch car bomb attacks and other violence.

U.S. officials say al Qaeda is trying to spark all-out sectarian civil war in Iraq. A key plank of the combined offensives is Operation Arrowhead Ripper, which began Tuesday in and around the city of Baqouba in Diyala province.

for the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070624/FOREIGN/106240037/1001


----------



## Creek_George

I did not even bother reading though "all" the replies...to this post..SO FAR OFF BASE!

I admit I have a few replies in this original article.

You have headlines from a conservative respective..."US and Iraqi soldiers found 24 severely malnourished children in a Baghdad orphanage "...

That's the best news that came out of there(In 4 years)...at the same f_cking time 24 beheaded bodies are found.....And you tell me the "SURGE IS WORKING"?...Do you want me to use U.S. Casualties?...What kinda example do your kind need?

How many checkers you need to lose buddy?

You jumped the gun months even before this ..so called surge even took place.....and posted here..No wonder why the libs are pissed..the surge is working.....Hahahahaha..

I'm just siting here watching the wheels go round & round bro.

We should all pray...for what?...This was a mistake?..A war on terror?.....This was bad.....Some fu_ck heads knew this was gona happen.

This war..is also showing us..what an elected man can do...AND what little power we have to stop it....Vote our asses off...Look where it got us.


----------



## maineman

US casualties Jan-Mar 07:  244
US casualties Apr-Jun 07:  330

THAT IS A 47% INCREASE!!!!!  

If this is what it looks like when the "surge is working", just how horrific would it be if it WEREN'T working????


----------



## mattskramer

maineman said:


> US casualties Jan-Mar 07:  244
> US casualties Apr-Jun 07:  330
> 
> THAT IS A 47% INCREASE!!!!!
> 
> If this is what it looks like when the "surge is working", just how horrific would it be if it WEREN'T working????



Im inclined to agree with you but those statistics seem high.  

Do you have a source or can you explain how you arrived at those figures?


----------



## Superlative

mattskramer said:


> I&#8217;m inclined to agree with you but those statistics seem high.
> 
> Do you have a source or can you explain how you arrived at those figures?




http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

http://icasualties.org/oif/


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> US casualties Jan-Mar 07:  244
> US casualties Apr-Jun 07:  330
> 
> THAT IS A 47% INCREASE!!!!!
> 
> If this is what it looks like when the "surge is working", just how horrific would it be if it WEREN'T working????



330 casualties in three months of a ground war - and you consider that reason to surrender in Iraq?


----------



## maineman

mattskramer said:


> Im inclined to agree with you but those statistics seem high.
> 
> Do you have a source or can you explain how you arrived at those figures?




http://icasualties.org/oif/

DoD confirmed statistics.

but hey...to guys like RSR with Bush jism dripping from their lips and from their assholes, who wave pom poms for a war they are to afraid to fight in themselves....those sorts of numbers prove the "surge is working"!


----------



## actsnoblemartin

you realize im eating right  




maineman said:


> http://icasualties.org/oif/
> 
> DoD confirmed statistics.
> 
> but hey...to guys like RSR with Bush jism dripping from their lips and from their assholes, who wave pom poms for a war they are to afraid to fight in themselves....those sorts of numbers prove the "surge is working"!


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> http://icasualties.org/oif/
> 
> DoD confirmed statistics.
> 
> but hey...to guys like RSR with Bush jism dripping from their lips and from their assholes, who wave pom poms for a war they are to afraid to fight in themselves....those sorts of numbers prove the "surge is working"!



I see you are still being a royal asshole tonight

Keep waving the surredner flag - your party can't run on their national security ideas


----------



## maineman

according to you, the surge is working.  according to you, an increase in American casualties is a reason to wave your pom poms more vigorously.  Why aren't you in Iraq laying down YOUR life for this war you so enthusiastically cheer for?


----------



## actsnoblemartin

maineman, why are you so angry lately. It seems like youre going after gunny, rsr, any anyone who gets in your way. Calm down brother.

Talk to me, whats the problem?



maineman said:


> according to you, the surge is working.  according to you, an increase in American casualties is a reason to wave your pom poms more vigorously.  Why aren't you in Iraq laying down YOUR life for this war you so enthusiastically cheer for?


----------



## actsnoblemartin

rsr, im gonna take out a whacking stick, and beat you  . Stop antagonizing people. 



red states rule said:


> I see you are still being a royal asshole tonight
> 
> Keep waving the surredner flag - your party can't run on their national security ideas


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Last I checked, we wont know until septemer if the surge worked or not, so please calm down. Youre going to pop a veing in your neck lol.



maineman said:


> http://icasualties.org/oif/
> 
> DoD confirmed statistics.
> 
> but hey...to guys like RSR with Bush jism dripping from their lips and from their assholes, who wave pom poms for a war they are to afraid to fight in themselves....those sorts of numbers prove the "surge is working"!


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> according to you, the surge is working.  according to you, an increase in American casualties is a reason to wave your pom poms more vigorously.  Why aren't you in Iraq laying down YOUR life for this war you so enthusiastically cheer for?



As I said, your party has to celebrate the casualties - you do have anything else to offer for a war plan, except surrender


----------



## red states rule

actsnoblemartin said:


> maineman, why are you so angry lately. It seems like youre going after gunny, rsr, any anyone who gets in your way. Calm down brother.
> 
> Talk to me, whats the problem?



What is his problem?

How about he is a typical arrogant liberal?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> As I said, your party has to celebrate the casualties - you do have anything else to offer for a war plan, except surrender



there is no celebration here.

when will you ever be willing to lay down YOUR life like the GI's you wave pompoms for?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> there is no celebration here.
> 
> when will you ever be willing to lay down YOUR life like the GI's you wave pompoms for?



No celebration?  Could have fooled me

You act like you are the verge of throwing a party when you make those posts


----------



## actsnoblemartin

You both are spiteful, mean people. One maybe more then the other, i dont know.

Frankly, im tired of maineman pmsing at gunny, and im tired of you trying to piss him off.

Im frustrated.



maineman said:


> there is no celebration here.
> 
> when will you ever be willing to lay down YOUR life like the GI's you wave pompoms for?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> No celebration?  Could have fooled me
> 
> You act like you are the verge of throwing a party when you make those posts



I mourn every death.  you wave pom poms about them. 

when will you ever volunteer to serve in this war that you so avidly support?


----------



## red states rule

actsnoblemartin said:


> You both are spiteful, mean people. One maybe more then the other, i dont know.
> 
> Frankly, im tired of maineman pmsing at gunny, and im tired of you trying to piss him off.
> 
> Im frustrated.



He threw the first insult tonight, and I had not even posted on the tread yet

BUt that is MM being MM


----------



## red states rule

actsnoblemartin said:


> and everybody stop ganging up on rsr, if you dont like him fine, you can ignore him, but stop with the cheap stuff. My gosh, im so annoyed with this board.



MM has puit me on his ignore list - for about the 6th time


----------



## Creek_George

This post has goton way outa hand..and lost it's oringinal concept.

Surge is working..no wonder why libs are upset..etc.

Remember?

We all know that it's not paying off...The generals..soldiers on the ground..and the info that comes outa that place,clearly says otherwise.

With all the weird crap happening...Such as Bush Senior & Bush Junior on a fishing boat with Putin..at the same time?...It don't make sense..when one thinks so hard on each ones approach,to Middle East Affairs.

A big distraction from Iraq...and I remember clearly Bush saying what close friends they were..before he went into Iraq.

Now to talk about ties...and things in common...Iran was the news out of it......Any news on Iraq??

I'm tired of bitching about it..because this president opened a hole...he can't fill back up.....Not fix...not a solution.

The worst thing we did..was removing Saddam from power...We can easily detain small countries/governments....but this SOB really showed his stupidity.

I personaly feel all you cons should hold some of the responsibility....Most Americans do....I have nothing to add to this..that voters won't be expressing come this November.

You cons want to bitch about taxes when it comes to all the goat study programs that will come into effect...So be it...All these minimum wage folks..will remember your WMD's..and your billions more you'll need for this cat & mouse game.

As far as being pissed the surge is..or not working...will be the bottom line,why there will be a Lib President next time......

Cons will be pissed in the end..because it could be a woman..(with 10 times more brains)..or a black dude for the first time...There will be a surge in voting...never like this time in history of mankind.

Yes..you got one part right...Libs are pissed..cons..the whole lot buddy..


----------



## Creek_George

I spent time to respond..then the post was closed??

Next time I come here to hand out my point of view...put on my panties??

This was to red states....and ya can delete the SOB if ya feel it's to close to the front lines..of reality....(shaking my head).

My reply...

####################


This original post you should apologize for guy...

What kind of spew you expect from a ...total bologna post buddy?

It's so far off base...that only arguements can become of it....You throw news out...like grain for the geese....and hay for the horse...Check for mold buddy...The shit you post here..and avoiding head on debate,is as moldy as the undies of a pervert.

More people here digest the crap you post...and that's exactly what it is...Falsehoods..(crap).

Full time propoganda is what you do.....Somebody say otherwise...Because this guy it a full time garbage,propoganda,distracting the true debate,...down right rubish..crap...So far off base...that his only audience must be the spammers here....Valuable poster ...compared to myself....(smile)

I take this board..about as serious as the trash I read here...mutliple times...


----------



## Gunny

Creek_George said:


> I spent time to respond..then the post was closed??
> 
> Next time I come here to hand out my point of view...put on my panties??
> 
> This was to red states....and ya can delete the SOB if ya feel it's to close to the front lines..of reality....(shaking my head).
> 
> My reply...
> 
> ####################
> 
> 
> This original post you should apologize for guy...
> 
> What kind of spew you expect from a ...total bologna post buddy?
> 
> It's so far off base...that only arguements can become of it....You throw news out...like grain for the geese....and hay for the horse...Check for mold buddy...The shit you post here..and avoiding head on debate,is as moldy as the undies of a pervert.
> 
> More people here digest the crap you post...and that's exactly what it is...Falsehoods..(crap).
> 
> Full time propoganda is what you do.....Somebody say otherwise...Because this guy it a full time garbage,propoganda,distracting the true debate,...down right rubish..crap...So far off base...that his only audience must be the spammers here....Valuable poster ...compared to myself....(smile)
> 
> I take this board..about as serious as the trash I read here...mutliple times...



The thread being closed had absolutely nothing to do with you.  It will be reopened shortly.

Answer your question to your satisfaction?


----------



## Creek_George

GunnyL said:


> The thread being closed had absolutely nothing to do with you.  It will be reopened shortly.
> 
> Answer your question to your satisfaction?



I'm afraid to answer..being off topic..and all.

What are ya up to now?...Doing the trench thing?...Tanks..or worried about the members & visitors giving ya a bad time.

I'm not holding your midnite smooch with shattered against ya.

You have not come close to pissing me off yet....As far as satisfaction goes....It's obvious you are using old intelligence,in/with your encounters with me...By this winter...maybe you'll want to be paid for for this job...

Cute come back though..


----------



## Gunny

Creek_George said:


> I'm afraid to answer..being off topic..and all.
> 
> What are ya up to now?...Doing the trench thing?...Tanks..or worried about the members & visitors giving ya a bad time.
> 
> I'm not holding your midnite smooch with shattered against ya.
> 
> You have not come close to pissing me off yet....As far as satisfaction goes....It's obvious you are using old intelligence,in/with your encounters with me...By this winter...maybe you'll want to be paid for for this job...
> 
> Cute come back though..



At least it doesn't require and interpreter.

Now, you wanted to argue the topic, argue the topic and don't worry about what I'm doing.


----------



## DeadCanDance

_RedStateRules, March 16 2007: "No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working!"_




> Reuters, July 21, 2007
> 
> *Iraq attacks hit new high*
> 
> The average number of daily attacks in Iraq hit a new high in June, as the final US troop deployments for President George Bush's "surge" strategy arrived in the country.
> 
> Attack statistics obtained by Reuters from the Defense Department showed a June average of 177.8 attacks per day on coalition and Iraqi forces, civilians and infrastructure.
> 
> That surpassed a previous daily peak of 176.5 attacks in October 2006 and made June's daily total the highest since Bush declared major combat operations at an end in May 2003.
> 
> http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/1249374


----------



## red states rule

DeadCanDance said:


> _RedStateRules, March 16 2007: "No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working!"_



The terrorists know they can count on the Dems to surrender if they keep up the attacks

You seem to be proving them right


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The terrorists know they can count on the Dems to surrender if they keep up the attacks
> 
> You seem to be proving them right



but how is the surge working?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> but how is the surge working?



More dead terrorists and Dems are pushing hard for surrender


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> More dead terrorists and Dems are pushing hard for surrender



terrorist attacks up. 

civilian deaths across Iraq up.

US military deaths up.

Democrats ARE upset....as are most Americans...because the surge is NOT working.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> terrorist attacks up.
> 
> civilian deaths across Iraq up.
> 
> US military deaths up.
> 
> Democrats ARE upset....as are most Americans...because the surge is NOT working.



Since the terrorists know the more they attack - the harder the Dems will puch for surredner 

Dems are doing exactly what the terrorists want them to do - and so are you


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Since the terrorists know the more they attack - the harder the Dems will puch for surredner
> 
> Dems are doing exactly what the terrorists want them to do - and so are you




answer my question.  HOw does all that increeased carnage equate to the "surge working"?

I am pretty sure that the surge was designed to reduce carnage and spread order and calm.  It is doing exactly the opposite.  How is it working?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> answer my question.  HOw does all that increeased carnage equate to the "surge working"?
> 
> I am pretty sure that the surge was designed to reduce carnage and spread order and calm.  It is doing exactly the opposite.  How is it working?



The more they attack - the more Dems will fight for surrender


----------



## red states rule

As far as US deaths in Iarq

These were the casualty totals for other wars the US fought in:

Vietnam 58,219

Korean War 54,246

World War Two 408,306

World War One 116,708

Civil War, North 363,020

Civil War, South 119,110

Mexican War 13,283

Indian Wars 6125

Revolutionary War 25,324

Operation Iraqi Freedom 2,439

Despite this staggering statistical success, liberals continue to barrage the president with negatavism about casualties in Iraq.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The more they attack - the more Dems will fight for surrender



that is a stock one-liner answer.  It does not explain how the surge is working?

Are you trying to suggest that Bush was expecting the surge to cause MORE death and MORE destruction?  Why then, would he embark on such a counter-prodcutive stratgegy?

The fact remains:  American casualties are INCREASING as this war continues.  Iraqi civilian casualties are increasing.  The surge is not working thus far, and it's been nearly half a year.


----------



## Annie

maineman said:


> that is a stock one-liner answer.  It does not explain how the surge is working?
> 
> Are you trying to suggest that Bush was expecting the surge to cause MORE death and MORE destruction?  Why then, would he embark on such a counter-prodcutive stratgegy?
> 
> The fact remains:  American casualties are INCREASING as this war continues.  Iraqi civilian casualties are increasing.  The surge is not working thus far, and it's been nearly half a year.



I've posted many times from those in Iraq regarding the surge. You and others have been quiet in those threads. 

If not for political reasons, why do you pick on the weakest links?


----------



## maineman

Kathianne said:


> I've posted many times from those in Iraq regarding the surge. You and others have been quiet in those threads.
> 
> If not for political reasons, why do you pick on the weakest links?



I have no doubt that the folks serving in Iraq think that they are serving a noble cause.  I have no doubt that they truly believe that they are making a difference.

I also know that folks in uniform do NOT make foreign policy, nor have they ever made foreign policy.

I also think it is a bit humorous that straightforward casualty figures would be referred to as the "weakest link".


----------



## Annie

maineman said:


> I have no doubt that the folks serving in Iraq think that they are serving a noble cause.  I have no doubt that they truly believe that they are making a difference.
> 
> I also know that folks in uniform do NOT make foreign policy, nor have they ever made foreign policy.
> 
> I also think it is a bit humorous that straightforward casualty figures would be referred to as the "weakest link".



and there is the answer.


----------



## red states rule

Well I think any casualties are bad, but the number of American troops killed in Iraq are historically lower than any previous deaths in any war in American history.

I would also like to remind eveyone that historically speaking, America over 3 years freed two countries of 60 million Muslims with fewer deaths than any previous American led war except for the first Gulf war.


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Well I think any casualties are bad, but the number of American troops killed in Iraq are historically lower than any previous deaths in any war in American history.
> 
> I would also like to remind eveyone that historically speaking, America over 3 years freed two countries of 60 million Muslims with fewer deaths than any previous American led war except for the first Gulf war.



the point of this thread is, that if the surge is, in fact, "working", why are civilian casualties on the rise and american casualties on the rise as well?  The surge was sold to the public as a short term increase in troops that would reduce the carnage. If that was it's purpose, it is not working at all.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> the point of this thread is, that if the surge is, in fact, "working", why are civilian casualties on the rise and american casualties on the rise as well?  The surge was sold to the public as a short term increase in troops that would reduce the carnage. If that was it's purpose, it is not working at all.



given the spped at which your party wants to surredner, it is amazing the Dems have nopt tried to simply cut opff funding if they actually believe things are so rotten in Iraq

The US deaths are at record lows for a ground war - Defeatocrats seem to wnat to ignore that fact


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> given the spped at which your party wants to surredner, it is amazing the Dems have nopt tried to simply cut opff funding if they actually believe things are so rotten in Iraq
> 
> The US deaths are at record lows for a ground war - Defeatocrats seem to wnat to ignore that fact



quit changing the subject.  The surge is not working.  carnage is increasing and Bush told us the surge would cause it to decrease.

Clearly, your side does not have a fucking clue how to get us out of this hole you have gotten us into except to blindly keep digging, all the while castigating and denigrating those of us who question the wisdom of that "plan".


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> quit changing the subject.  The surge is not working.  carnage is increasing and Bush told us the surge would cause it to decrease.
> 
> Clearly, your side does not have a fucking clue how to get us out of this hole you have gotten us into except to blindly keep digging, all the while castigating and denigrating those of us who question the wisdom of that "plan".



and your answer is to wave the white flag and hope the terrorists will stop hating us?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> and your answer is to wave the white flag and hope the terrorists will stop hating us?



no.  that is not my answer at all.  

And you mischaracterizing MY answer does not change the fact that your side has not come up with one that has any chance of success.

The first rule when you find yourself in a hole:  QUIT DIGGING!


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no.  that is not my answer at all.
> 
> And you mischaracterizing MY answer does not change the fact that your side has not come up with one that has any chance of success.
> 
> The first rule when you find yourself in a hole:  QUIT DIGGING!



instead of fighting back you want to suirrender

good way to tell the terrorists we do have the will to fight - then what MM?


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> instead of fighting back you want to suirrender
> 
> good way to tell the terrorists we do have the will to fight - then what MM?




I have never suggested surrendering.  I have suggested that we focus our worldwide military/intelligence/law enforcement/diplomatic efforts at crushing islamic extremism and fostering economic and social climates where that ideology will havbe a difficult time expanding.

As I have said over and over again...the fact that the Taliban can hold a graduation ceremony for 300 suicide bombers and have it televised in the local media in Afghanistan is pathetic.  That is where our true enemies have been since 9/11.  Our shifted attention to Iraq has done nothing but divert our attention and our abilities away from the real enemy.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I have never suggested surrendering.  I have suggested that we focus our worldwide military/intelligence/law enforcement/diplomatic efforts at crushing islamic extremism and fostering economic and social climates where that ideology will havbe a difficult time expanding.
> 
> As I have said over and over again...the fact that the Taliban can hold a graduation ceremony for 300 suicide bombers and have it televised in the local media in Afghanistan is pathetic.  That is where our true enemies have been since 9/11.  Our shifted attention to Iraq has done nothing but divert our attention and our abilities away from the real enemy.



So running away from the terrorists is not surrender? Oh, that is right - libs call it a redeployment


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> So running away from the terrorists is not surrender? Oh, that is right - libs call it a redeployment




no.  allowing the Iraqis to solve their own political/sectarian squabbles is NOT surrender.  that is correct.

next point?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no.  allowing the Iraqis to solve their own political/sectarian squabbles is NOT surrender.  that is correct.
> 
> next point?



Iraqi tribes reach security accord
By David Enders
July 23, 2007 

TAJI, Iraq  U.S. forces have brokered an agreement between Sunni and Shi'ite tribal leaders to join forces against al Qaeda and other extremists, extending a policy that has transformed the security situation in western Anbar province to this area north of the capital.

The extremists struck back yesterday with a suicide car bomb aimed at one of the Sunni tribes involved in the deal, killing three militiamen and wounding 14.

Members of the First Calvary Division based at nearby Camp Taji helped broker the deal on Saturday with the tribal leaders, who agreed to use members of more than 25 local tribes to protect the area around Taji from both Sunni and Shi'ite extremists.

Yesterday's suicide attack took place at a checkpoint that was set up under the security plan and run by members of the al-Zobaie tribal militia, nicknamed "Freedom Fighters" by the U.S. troops. The Americans say they were attacked daily in the area 12 miles north of Baghdad before Saturday's deal.

"We want to protect innocent civilians from killing and kidnapping," said Nadeem al-Tamimi, a Shi'ite tribal leader. "We have been working against al Qaeda for two years and paying for it from our own pocket. But we're not just against al Qaeda. We're against all murderers and thieves."

Shortly after that meeting, Mr. al-Tamimi received a call saying one of his relatives had been assassinated in what was described as a "warning" from the Mahdi Army, a Shi'ite militia nominally loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

The Mahdi Army fought U.S. troops openly in 2004 when Sheik al-Sadr openly opposed participation in the U.S.-backed Iraqi government. But the militia splintered as sectarian violence increased, and Sheik al-Sadr allowed his followers to participate in the government as an opposition party.

Despite yesterday's attack, U.S. troops believe they are making headway.

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070723/FOREIGN/107230051/1001


----------



## red states rule

Al-Qaeda faces rebellion from the ranks
Sickened by the groups barbarity, Iraqi insurgents are giving information to coalition forces

Deborah Haynes in Doura 
Fed up with being part of a group that cuts off a persons face with piano wire to teach others a lesson, dozens of low-level members of al-Qaeda in Iraq are daring to become informants for the US military in a hostile Baghdad neighbourhood. 

The ground-breaking move in Doura is part of a wider trend that has started in other al-Qaeda hotspots across the country and in which Sunni insurgent groups and tribal sheikhs have stood together with the coalition against the extremist movement. 

They are turning. We are talking to people who we believe have worked for al-Qaeda in Iraq and want to reconcile and have peace, said Colonel Ricky Gibbs, commander of the 4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, which oversees the area. 

The sewage-filled streets of Doura, a Sunni Arab enclave in south Baghdad, provide an ugly setting for what US commanders say is al-Qaedas last stronghold in the city. The secretive group, however, appears to be losing its grip as a surge of US troops in the neighbourhood  part of the latest effort by President Bush to end the chaos in Iraq  has resulted in scores of fighters being killed, captured or forced to flee. 

Al-Qaedas days are numbered and right now he is scrambling, said Lieutenant-Colonel Stephen Michael, who commands a battalion of 700 troops in Doura. 

A key factor is that local people and members of al-Qaeda itself have become sickened by the violence and are starting to rebel, Lieutenant-Colonel Michael said. The people have got to deny them sanctuary and that is exactly what is happening. 

Al-Qaeda informants comprise largely members of the Doura network who found themselves either working with the group after the US-led invasion in March 2003, or signed up to earn extra cash because there were no other jobs going. Disgusted at the attacks and intimidation techniques used on friends, neighbours and even relatives, they are now increasingly looking for a way out, US officers say. 

It is only after al-Qaeda has become truly barbaric and done things like, to teach lessons to people, cut their face off with piano wire in front of their family and then murdered everybody except one child who told the tale afterwards . . . that people realise how much of a mess they are in, Lieutenant James Danly, 31, who works on military intelligence in Doura, said. 

It is impossible to corroborate the claims, but he said that scores of junior al-Qaeda in Iraq members there had become informants since May, including one low-level cell leader who gave vital information after his arrest. 

He gave us dates, places and names and who did what, Lieutenant Danly said. When asked why he was being so forthcoming, the man said: Because I am sick of it and I hate them, and I am done. 

Working with insurgents  even those who claim to have switched sides  is a leap of faith for both sides. Every informant who visits Forward Operating Base Falcon, a vast military camp on the southern outskirts of Baghdad, is blindfolded when brought in and out to avoid gleaning any information about his surroundings. 

The risk sometimes pays off. A recent tip-off led to the fatal shooting of Abu Kaldoun, one of three senior al-Qaeda leaders in Doura, during a US raid last week. He was turned in by one of his own, Colonel Michael said. 

for the complete article

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2121006.ece


----------



## maineman

"Despite yesterday's attack, U.S. troops *believe* they are making headway."

Here is a fact: saying that you "believe" something has always been anathema in the military.  When I was a plebe at Annapolis and I, or any other plebe, used the phrase "I believe...." we had to stand up on our chairs in the middle of the messhall and sing "I Believe" at the top of our lungs.  What someone "believes" has little bearing to what is happening on the ground.  What do you KNOW...what do the facts indicate.  period.

And I applaud our efforts at getting sunnis and shiites to go after AQ.... I have never thought that AQ in Iraq would be able to prevail against either of the major blocs of population, and certainly not against both.  

Having said that, I still see no reason why sunnis and shiites will want to hold hands and form a democracy upon our departure, whenever that is.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> "Despite yesterday's attack, U.S. troops *believe* they are making headway."
> 
> Here is a fact: saying that you "believe" something has always been anathema in the military.  When I was a plebe at Annapolis and I, or any other plebe, used the phrase "I believe...." we had to stand up on our chairs in the middle of the messhall and sing "I Believe" at the top of our lungs.  What someone "believes" has little bearing to what is happening on the ground.  What do you KNOW...what do the facts indicate.  period.
> 
> And I applaud our efforts at getting sunnis and shiites to go after AQ.... I have never thought that AQ in Iraq would be able to prevail against either of the major blocs of population, and certainly not against both.
> 
> Having said that, I still see no reason why sunnis and shiites will want to hold hands and form a democracy upon our departure, whenever that is.



Now if a member of the US military saud all is lost - you would be screaming for the people to pay attention

Any good news from iraq is bad news for the Defeatocrats


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Now if a member of the US military saud all is lost - you would be screaming for the people to pay attention
> 
> Any good news from iraq is bad news for the Defeatocrats



not so.  If a member of the US military expressed his opinion to the press as to how he thought his mission was going, I would think that:

1.  expressing such an opinion is inappropriate and unprofessional

2.  such an opinion should always be irrelevant to the determination of our country's foreign policy


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> not so.  If a member of the US military expressed his opinion to the press as to how he thought his mission was going, I would think that:
> 
> 1.  expressing such an opinion is inappropriate and unprofessional
> 
> 2.  such an opinion should always be irrelevant to the determination of our country's foreign policy



http://www.wtop.com/?nid=116&sid=1190097


----------



## maineman

_"Security has improved in *parts* of Iraq in the past few months _ since the increase in U.S. troops in Baghdad and as some Sunni tribes and armed insurgents have turned against al-Qaida.

*But there are fears that these Sunni groups may not remain loyal to the Shiite-led Iraqi government, which has a deep distrust of them. Also, there are concerns that Iraqi police and the army won't be able to maintain security and consolidate areas retaken from insurgents."*_

carnage is up across Iraq.  American casualties are increasing across Iraq.  the insurgents are doing exactly what I said they would do:  move their attacks to areas outside of the area where surge forces are located.

It isn't rocket science.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> _"Security has improved in *parts* of Iraq in the past few months _ since the increase in U.S. troops in Baghdad and as some Sunni tribes and armed insurgents have turned against al-Qaida.
> 
> *But there are fears that these Sunni groups may not remain loyal to the Shiite-led Iraqi government, which has a deep distrust of them. Also, there are concerns that Iraqi police and the army won't be able to maintain security and consolidate areas retaken from insurgents."*_
> 
> carnage is up across Iraq.  American casualties are increasing across Iraq.  the insurgents are doing exactly what I said they would do:  move their attacks to areas outside of the area where surge forces are located.
> 
> It isn't rocket science.



It is not rocket science to understand libs would rather surrender then fight


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> It is not rocket science to understand libs would rather surrender then fight



around you go.

taking troops and going after places in Afghanistan/Pakistan, for example, where our actual enemies are training and garrisoning the forces that will attack us in not surrendering to anyone.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> around you go.
> 
> taking troops and going after places in Afghanistan/Pakistan, for example, where our actual enemies are training and garrisoning the forces that will attack us in not surrendering to anyone.



our enemies are in Iraq as well - but you want to run away from them


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> our enemies are in Iraq as well - but you want to run away from them



they are a handful of deadenders in their final throes.

or is Cheney a liar?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> they are a handful of deadenders in their final throes.
> 
> or is Cheney a liar?



As libs call for surrender the terrorists step up the attacks - knowing the libs will get louder and louder


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> As libs call for surrender the terrorists step up the attacks - knowing the libs will get louder and louder



they still are a tiny force when compared to the Iraqi army or the Mahdi army or the sunni insurgency.  Why do you think that all those Iraqis will allow a small group of foreigners to take over their government?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> they still are a tiny force when compared to the Iraqi army or the Mahdi army or the sunni insurgency.  Why do you think that all those Iraqis will allow a small group of foreigners to take over their government?



With more and more terrorists coming from Iran - and being captured - the help is coming in


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> With more and more terrorists coming from Iran - and being captured - the help is coming in



so... the persian shiites from Iran and not there to help the shiite mahdi army, but to help the foreign sunni arab AQ?  is that right?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> so... the persian shiites from Iran and not there to help the shiite mahdi army, but to help the foreign sunni arab AQ?  is that right?



Libs want to surrender to the terrorists in Iraq and let the country fall into the hands of the terrorists


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> so... the persian shiites from Iran and not there to help the shiite mahdi army, but to help the foreign sunni arab AQ?  is that right?



can you ANSWER this question?


----------



## Creek_George

The truth is...911 gave the support in backbone belief to the American people,to support the thrust into Iraq,to put an end to terror type activity...and WMD's that could be used next..because Bush put Saddam on the high throne to being the most threat to world peace..our safety..the next deathly attack by means similar to 911....Can anybody question otherwise??

In reality Bush knew dam well..and so did our intelligence..This administration when it came to facts...could make pizza taste like French Toast.

That fake alien autopsy film...had better unbelievable proof a reason existed to go into Iraq..Even doctored up photos Iraq was in the process of building a moon base launch pad..to launch there imaginary WMDs from...was better reason.(right?)

The WMD's were not there....And all of you have forgot.."Operation Iraqi Freedom"...afterwards...Things were going most horrible back then..to claim such a thing...Not to mention..none of this for Iraqi Freedom to begin with...Am I wrong??

Great headlines from the begining...that all happened to be bullshit...It was all lies from the start.

The American People have listened to the stories come first hand from the young men & women serving over there...RECENT!!..Not to mention the experienced..Vets our speaking up from previous wars as well.....I need not say that..to justify my claim...Never served...but come from a family so big...that we did our part..We say it proud.

How many f-ing years has this been going on now??

Our whole country is against this Iraq crap..because it is/was crap from a group of certain individuals who started this & are responsible for it..from the getco.

Anyone who spoke against an Iraqi Invasion at that particular time at the begining..was considered a traitor,after the 911 attacks especialy,war on terrorism,and possible future attacks that were terror related...

Then Bush was re-elected..and every dam vote for him..had nothing to do with the Iraq War....In other words.."Blunder".

Bush said he talked to God..and also that Putin was his friend also...at the begining of all this...Let's get with it people.....We've been stuffed is a better word..to describe the crap this administration has shoved at the American people for so many years....

We hanged Saddam Hussein...let them hang him..Not to mention in a shit style....Should of been a world court...Because I see no justice,shit being worked out..or solutions from my end, by reading the morning newspaper since our demise of the dictator.

Casualties...fishting on soil that will always mean nothing to us.

At the same time..I do believe in fighting the enemy on there own soil...Such as Afghanistan & Pakistan....

Those that had the most to do with 911...are in those two residing countries.

Now we are told outside influence has a serious impact on Iraq...It was not there before...That happens to be one of the serious factors..after the door way was opened to a civil war soon as our asses pull out.

When all this is over...even Britney Spears knows at this moment..this is bullshit.

I'd bet my left nut..that even Paris Hilton could fix this mess...before the Bush Team.

As far as Libs being pissed..once again in you claiming the surge is working...Is a reminder to all..that you are "crying wolf".


----------



## Nevadamedic

You have no clue on what your talking about, every vet I have taled to have supported this war.


----------



## Creek_George

Nevadamedic said:


> You have no clue on what your talking about, every vet I have taled to have supported this war.




NO CLUE!!

Oooh man.....(laughing).....Ok...I'll let this one ride...Because it's to dam silly to respond to.


----------



## red states rule

Nevadamedic said:


> You have no clue on what your talking about, every vet I have taled to have supported this war.



He could run for Congress as a Dem - talks just like then


----------



## maineman

maineman said:


> so... the persian shiites from Iran and not there to help the shiite mahdi army, but to help the foreign sunni arab AQ?  is that right?



ever gonna defend this goofy scenario of yours, RSR?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> ever gonna defend this goofy scenario of yours, RSR?



The only goofy thing here is your rabid obsession with surrender and defeat in Iraq


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The only goofy thing here is your rabid obsession with surrender and defeat in Iraq



no.  I have no such obsession.

I wonder how you can untie yourself from the knots you have created with your goofy stories.  Here is a synopsis of your idiocy:

_Persian shiites from Iran supporting foreign sunni arabs (AQ) in their efforts to overpower Iraqi shiites.

Foreign sunnis terrorists (AQ) somehow being able to wrest control of the government of Iraq away from 22 million well armed indigenous shiites (and the mahdi army specifically) and 7 million indigenous sunnis (including the sunni insurgents now armed with American weapons who have been beating them in Anbar for weeks now) AND the 150K strong American trained Iraqi Army.

Iran sweeping in after the AQ victory to take the reins of government and relegate AQ to minor bureaucratic positions or killing them if they resist._

and you can never seem to be able to explain how or why such things would or could take place.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no.  I have no such obsession.
> 
> I wonder how you can untie yourself from the knots you have created with your goofy stories.  Here is a synopsis of your idiocy:
> 
> _Persian shiites from Iran supporting foreign sunni arabs (AQ) in their efforts to overpower Iraqi shiites.
> 
> Foreign sunnis terrorists (AQ) somehow being able to wrest control of the government of Iraq away from 22 million well armed indigenous shiites (and the mahdi army specifically) and 7 million indigenous sunnis (including the sunni insurgents now armed with American weapons who have been beating them in Anbar for weeks now) AND the 150K strong American trained Iraqi Army.
> 
> Iran sweeping in after the AQ victory to take the reins of government and relegate AQ to minor bureaucratic positions or killing them if they resist._
> 
> and you can never seem to be able to explain how or why such things would or could take place.



Meanwhile, while we have troops fighting the war, libs push for appeasement and surrender

No wonder the Dems numbers are tanking and Dems are on the ropes


----------



## maineman

can't seem to back up your ridiculous notions, can you?

Why not just say so?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> can't seem to back up your ridiculous notions, can you?
> 
> Why not just say so?



and we see how the kook left supports the troops


Disgraceful Anti-Military Blog at Daily Kos: Armed Forces Creating Serial Killers
By Noel Sheppard | July 23, 2007 - 00:43 ET 

The hatred for America's military emanating from the left in this nation reached a new low on Thursday when a blog was posted at Daily Kos entitled "KILLITARY: Are America's Armed Forces Creating Serial Killers and Mass Murderers? 

In it, Corey Mitchell, a crime author and editor of In Cold Blog, addressed the "list of serial killers and mass murderers who have spent time in the military" while making the case that "a seemingly normal, everyday, All-American soldier [can] turn into a brain scooping cell phone camera posing beast." 

Or, even Son of Sam or Jeffrey Dahmer. "It's all about the training."

According to Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs:

The leftist blogosphere went out of their way to cover this one up as quickly as possible.

It was posted at Daily Kos, as Ace relates. But the Kidz are on edge about their credibility, so it was deleted within hours. Just doesn't look right to be dissing the military when Kos is trying so hard to be the voice of the Democratic Party.

I actually had a window open to that page, and was going to write about it, but when I refreshed I saw it had been disappeared.

It was also posted at a "crime blog" called "In Cold Blog," and again it was deleted, when they realized it was being noticed.

Those that are interested in actually reading this unbelievable piece of detritus can either view the Google-cached version here, or the In Cold Blog version that Johnson has placed in an HTML version here.

However, please be forewarned. This is really disgusting stuff that will make you much angrier than you likely already are.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...y-blog-daily-kos-armed-forces-creating-serial


----------



## maineman

RSR's scenario:

*Persian shiites from Iran are supporting foreign sunni arabs (AQ) in their efforts to overpower Iraqi shiites.

Foreign sunnis terrorists (AQ) somehow will be able to wrest control of the government of Iraq away from 22 million well armed indigenous shiites (and the mahdi army specifically) and 7 million indigenous sunnis (including the sunni insurgents now armed with American weapons who have been beating them in Anbar for weeks now) AND the 150K strong American trained Iraqi Army.

Iran will then sweep in after the AQ victory to take the reins of government and relegate AQ to minor bureaucratic positions or killing them if they resist.*


no explanation ever offered to back that weird shit up!

He's as numb as the chimp in the white house!


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> RSR's scenario:
> 
> *Persian shiites from Iran are supporting foreign sunni arabs (AQ) in their efforts to overpower Iraqi shiites.
> 
> Foreign sunnis terrorists (AQ) somehow will be able to wrest control of the government of Iraq away from 22 million well armed indigenous shiites (and the mahdi army specifically) and 7 million indigenous sunnis (including the sunni insurgents now armed with American weapons who have been beating them in Anbar for weeks now) AND the 150K strong American trained Iraqi Army.
> 
> Iran will then sweep in after the AQ victory to take the reins of government and relegate AQ to minor bureaucratic positions or killing them if they resist.*
> 
> 
> no explanation ever offered to back that weird shit up!
> 
> He's as numb as the chimp in the white house!



and you are a liberal moonbat who only wants defeat in Iraq so it will help your party in the next election


----------



## maineman

that is not so...

and why are you incapable of explaining your hairbrained theories?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> that is not so...
> 
> and why are you incapable of explaining your hairbrained theories?



I find the theory of libs wanting defeat and surrender in Iraq to be a solid fact


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I find the theory of libs wanting defeat and surrender in Iraq to be a solid fact



I have never advocated defeat or surrender.  You have, however, suggested that 

*Persian shiites from Iran are supporting foreign sunni arabs (AQ) in their efforts to overpower Iraqi shiites.

Foreign sunnis terrorists (AQ) somehow will be able to wrest control of the government of Iraq away from 22 million well armed indigenous shiites (and the mahdi army specifically) and 7 million indigenous sunnis (including the sunni insurgents now armed with American weapons who have been beating them in Anbar for weeks now) AND the 150K strong American trained Iraqi Army.

Iran will then sweep in after the AQ victory to take the reins of government and relegate AQ to minor bureaucratic positions or killing them if they resist.

*

will you ever explain that?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I have never advocated defeat or surrender.  You have, however, suggested that
> 
> *Persian shiites from Iran are supporting foreign sunni arabs (AQ) in their efforts to overpower Iraqi shiites.
> 
> Foreign sunnis terrorists (AQ) somehow will be able to wrest control of the government of Iraq away from 22 million well armed indigenous shiites (and the mahdi army specifically) and 7 million indigenous sunnis (including the sunni insurgents now armed with American weapons who have been beating them in Anbar for weeks now) AND the 150K strong American trained Iraqi Army.
> 
> Iran will then sweep in after the AQ victory to take the reins of government and relegate AQ to minor bureaucratic positions or killing them if they resist.
> 
> *
> 
> will you ever explain that?



With Dems pushing for surrender, the terrorists are looking forward to killing tens of thousands - and libs will look the other way or blame Bush


----------



## maineman

still just oneliner talking points and no explanation for your hairbrained scenarios.

Why IS that?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> still just oneliner talking points and no explanation for your hairbrained scenarios.
> 
> Why IS that?



Libs said the same thing when people said the killing would be worse in Viet Nam after Dems surrendered there


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Libs said the same thing when people said the killing would be worse in Viet Nam after Dems surrendered there



I am saying that your hairbrained scenarios with Iran helping AQ kill Iraqi shiites and all the rest of that weirdness is crazy.  and you have yet to explain it.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I am saying that your hairbrained scenarios with Iran helping AQ kill Iraqi shiites and all the rest of that weirdness is crazy.  and you have yet to explain it.



Shame how the Dem party has put political gains ahead of their country


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Shame how the Dem party has put political gains ahead of their country



I haven't.  It is really a shame that you are unable to intelligently defend your assertions in any sort of debate.  When do you think you'll be able to do that?  Again...I think your predictions as to what will transpire in Iraq are completely ridiculous and without any intellectual merit.  When asked to defend them, you run away from them.  all the time.

why IS that?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I haven't.  It is really a shame that you are unable to intelligently defend your assertions in any sort of debate.  When do you think you'll be able to do that?  Again...I think your predictions as to what will transpire in Iraq are completely ridiculous and without any intellectual merit.  When asked to defend them, you run away from them.  all the time.
> 
> why IS that?



No debate here

Dems are now the party of surrender and appeasement


----------



## red states rule

Bush Iraq troop surge working, U.S. Army says




By Staff

(AXcess News) Washington - The U.S. Army credited President Bush's troop surge in Iraq with the capture of 46 Islamic militants Saturday where 5 more militants were killed in fighting in a new joint forces operation in eastern Diyala.

U.S. and Iraqi forces have stepped up efforts in recent weeks against the violence in Diyala, particularly in the provincial capital, Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of Baghdad. Sunni and Shiite extremists fled to the area as U.S. and Iraqi forces began an offensive in the capital.

The Iraqi army said the operation launched Wednesday in several areas and villages in eastern Diyala, which is near the Iranian border, also led to the freeing of a kidnap victim and the discovery of two car bombs and six other explosive devices, as well as the capture of 46 suspects and the killing of five others.

U.S. and Iraqi forces were continuing operations to clear Sunni extremists from Baqouba as well. U.S. troops regained control of the western half of the city last month and launched operations into the rest of Baqouba on Tuesday. The Iraqi army statement said 13 insurgents were killed and 16 detained in the city.

A U.S. military spokesperson said earlier this week that they have killed at least 67 al-Qaida operatives in Baqouba, arrested 253, seized 63 weapons caches and have destroyed 151 roadside bombs since last month.

In Washington, President Bush has faced strong resistence from Democrats over his administration's troop surge in Iraq and last week in a rare all-night debate, Democratic majority Senators attempted to keep alive an initiative to force the Bush White House to withdraw U.S. troops, but Republicans managed to head off the number of votes needed.

Democrats are trying to stall funding the war in an effort to move the Bush White House into not only producing a timetable to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq but to come up an alternative plan, saying the military has been unable to root out Islamic terrorists and that the benchmarks given the Maliki-led Iraqi government have not been met.

Friday, President Bush urged Congress to pass a defense spending bill before starting its August recess.

Bush charged that debate about withdrawing from Iraq has overshadowed focus on passing a spending bill to support them.

"Like all wars, the fight in Iraq has had frustrating setbacks," the President acknowledged. But he also cited important successes.

The President pointed out that there was a "dramatic turnaround" in Anwar province and that with the capture of al-Mashhadani, a top al-Qaeda leader had fallen.

"These successes demonstrate the gains our troops are making in Iraq, and the importance of giving our military the time they need to give their new strategy a chance to work," the President said.

http://www.axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/11693


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> No debate here
> 
> Dems are now the party of surrender and appeasement



I understand, RSR....if I had claimed that Iran was in cahoots with Al Qaeda to kill Iraqi shiites, I wouldn't want to "debate" it either!


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I understand, RSR....if I had claimed that Iran was in cahoots with Al Qaeda to kill Iraqi shiites, I wouldn't want to "debate" it either!



Surge Success Posted 2007-07-24 




Occasionally, the first few paragraphs of a news story can act like cold water being thrown in the face of a reader.

These cold water paragraphs come from the London Times  not known as a radical rightwing newspaper: "Fed up with being part of a group that cuts off a persons face with piano wire to teach others a lesson, dozens of low-level members of al-Qaida in Iraq are daring to become informants for the U.S. military in a hostile Baghdad neighborhood. 

"The ground-breaking move in Doura is part of a wider trend that has started in other al-Qaida hotspots across the country and in which Sunni insurgent groups and tribal sheiks have stood together with the coalition against the extremist movement."

The Times story backs up other reports from Iraq that indicate the surge is working. Provinces that were once al-Qaida strongholds are slowly  and bloodily  being pacified.

The Times story also quotes Lieutenant-Colonel Stephen Michael, who commands a battalion of 700 troops in Doura, as saying that al-Qaidas days are numbered.

A key factor is that local people and members of al-Qaida itself have become sickened by the violence and are starting to rebel.

"The people have got to deny them sanctuary and that is exactly what is happening," according to Lt. Col. Michael.

Wholesale slaughter should turn off a population, and the terrorists have never been too choosy about their choice of victims. The story notes that there is a hardcore group of al-Qaida fanatics who will fight on no matter what, but that group is seeing diminishing support  and even hostility  among area groups and tribal leaders.

As noted, this is not the first story to detail such progress in Iraq. Hopefully, it will not be the last

http://www.dnronline.com/opinion_details.php?AID=11316&sub=Editorial


----------



## maineman

what does that link have to do with you debating your claim that the Iranians are in cahoots with Al Qaeda in their efforts against Iraqi shiites?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> what does that link have to do with you debating your claim that the Iranians are in cahoots with Al Qaeda in their efforts against Iraqi shiites?



Shhhh... The Surge is Working
By Patrick Ruffini
Saturday, February 24, 2007


A gloomy haze has settled over the nation's prosecution of the War on Terror as of late. It seems like we can only watch helplessly as Nancy Pelosi and Jack Murtha size up new angles of attack for undermining the war effort. The media is chomping at the bit the tell the story of an America, bruised and humbled and exhausted, heading for the exits in Iraq.

But something interesting is happening on the way to the "new direction." Early indications are that the troop surge into Baghdad is working. It hasn't been reported on widely, but murders in Baghdad are down 70%, attacks are down 80%, Mahdi Army chief Moqtada al-Sadr has reportedly made off for Iran, and many Baghdadis who had fled the violence now feel it's safe enough to return. The strategy that Congress is busy denouncing is proving to be our best hope for victory.

In Iraq, there's a sense that change is in the air -- literally. Omar of Iraq the Model spots a B-1 Bomber in the skies of Baghdad for the first time since the end of the major combat. On the ground, Omar writes that the signs that Iraqis are getting serious about security are more palbable. With the help of Compstat-like technology, security forces are cracking down at checkpoints (even ambulances are getting stopped) and getting nimbler about locating them strategically so the terrorists don't know what to expect. 

This turnaround in Baghdad is confirmed at home by the media's near-deafening silence. If it seems like you've heard less about how Iraq is spiraling into civil war in the weeks since the surge was announced, this is why. Even some discordant voices in the media are starting to wonder what's happening. Time magazine worries that it's "Quiet in Baghdad. Too quiet." That's right -- a dramatic reduction in violence is actually bad news.

It's too early to claim victory just yet; the operation is just two weeks old. But U.S. troops have been able to accomplish all of this with just one more brigade in-country, with four more on the way by May. These encouraging early returns show the potential for success when we apply concentrated military force to the security problem. When the Army and Marine Corps are on offense, carrying out combat operations and clearing out insurgent strongholds, we win. When we lay back, carrying out routine patrols and playing Baghdad beat cop, we lose.

The key to success is staying power. The always incisive Daffyd ab-Hugh has a good read on this dynamic. Counterinsurgency in Iraq has often been compared to a game of whack-a-mole -- secure an area, only to have the insurgents pop up somewhere else. But if we slammed a mallet into the hole, and kept it there, then picked up a new one... and did the same?

This is a new game called Seal-a-Hole , and it has a very different dynamic from Whack-a-Mole: the normal game is one of futility; the game continues until the player gets tired and quits or he runs out of money. But Seal-a-Hole actually has a victory point: when all the holes are sealed, the game is over -- and the player, America, has won.

Even though Seal-a-Hole is not futile, it nevertheless requires a great deal of patience; there are many, many holes, and each hole has a mole who must be whacked. Some of the holes, such as Sadr City, are very big and will require many mallets to properly seal. But if we have the courage and fortitude of our American forebears, we will seal those holes... and we will win.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickRuffini/2007/02/24/shhhh_the_surge_is_working


----------



## maineman

and agasin....





maineman said:


> what does *THAT* link have to do with you debating your claim that the Iranians are in cahoots with Al Qaeda in their efforts against Iraqi shiites?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> and agasin....



More bad news for Dems - the surge is working


Iraq surge working, reductions possible in north
by John J. Kruzel, American Forces Press Service
Published: Friday, July 20, 2007 2:01 PM CDT
E-mail this story | Print this page


WASHINGTON, D.C. - Now at full strength, the U.S. troop surge in Iraq is showing "definitive progress" and the number of forces serving in Iraq's Multinational Division North could be halved by summer 2009, U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon said July 13.

A reduction of U.S. forces under the general's command could begin as early as January 2008, he told Pentagon reporters via videoconference.

Mixon, commander of both Multi-National Division North and the U.S. Army's 25th Infantry Division, is responsible for six Iraqi provinces in northern Iraq, including the city of Baqubah - site of the ongoing Operation Arrowhead Ripper.

He said he has given Army Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander, Multi-National Corps - Iraq, a plan indicated a possible reduction of force in Multi-National Division North during 2008.

Mixon said the current debate over troop withdrawal should revolve around reaching a strategic "end state."

"It seems to me that we should first decide what we want the end state to be in Iraq, and how is that end state important to the United States of America, to this region and to the world, and then determine how we can reach that end state, and how much time that will take," he said. "To me, that seems to be the most important thing, because there will be consequences of a rapid withdrawal from Iraq.

"It cannot be a strategy based on, 'Well, we need to leave,'" he added. "That's not a strategy, that's a withdrawal."

U.S. forces that remain in the region after a reduction could focus on training and assisting their Iraqi counterparts as needed, Mixon said.

"Over time, in a very methodical and well thought out way," he said, Multi-National Division North could be drawn down to "a minimum force that would continue to work with the Iraqi forces in a training and assistance mode, have the capability to react and assist the Iraqi if required, and provide them those capabilities that they don't have, like attack aviation, Air Force fixed-wing support, and medical support," he said.

http://www.ftleavenworthlamp.com/articles/2007/07/20/dod_news/dod2.txt


----------



## maineman

spam spam spam.  

I asked you a simple question...and it was only to get you to clarify something you said previously.  

you cannot - obviously - answer it.

Let me know when you can.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> spam spam spam.
> 
> I asked you a simple question...and it was only to get you to clarify something you said previously.
> 
> you cannot - obviously - answer it.
> 
> Let me know when you can.



Articles showing the surge is working

and MM is whining

All the good news is to much for MM to take


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Articles showing the surge is working
> 
> and MM is whining
> 
> All the good news is to much for MM to take



no...I am sure you have got plenty of articles that show the surge is working.

unfortunately, the numbers do not agree with the words.  more Iraqi deaths across the country.  more american deaths across the country.

and I just want you to explain your goofy predictions.  will you ever try to do that?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> no...I am sure you have got plenty of articles that show the surge is working.
> 
> unfortunately, the numbers do not agree with the words.  more Iraqi deaths across the country.  more american deaths across the country.
> 
> and I just want you to explain your goofy predictions.  will you ever try to do that?



any good news from Iraq must be dismissed by the kook left (of which you are a proud member)

If the US troops are winning there goesa ny chance of appeasement and surrender

and that would hamper any gains in 08

Libs do have their priorities


----------



## maineman

let me know when you will defend your assertions.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> let me know when you will defend your assertions.



More bad news is coming MM

The surge is working and you will be growling


----------



## maineman

like I said...just let me know.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> like I said...just let me know.



The good news really must depress you


----------



## maineman

good news never depresses me...especially good news about our troops.

what does depress me is your continued refusal to ever carry on a conversation and to ever back up your assertions like a normal adult.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> good news never depresses me...especially good news about our troops.
> 
> what does depress me is your continued refusal to ever carry on a conversation and to ever back up your assertions like a normal adult.



Seems you dismiss any good news - that would get in the way of your surrender wishes


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Seems you dismiss any good news - that would get in the way of your surrender wishes



I am not dismissing anything.  I only ask that you defend your assertions. or retract them.  that's all.

any chance of either one of those happening here?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I am not dismissing anything.  I only ask that you defend your assertions. or retract them.  that's all.
> 
> any chance of either one of those happening here?



I have and the surge is showing signs of progress

Time for White Flag Harry to have another all nighter


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> I have



_you say you have explained how Iran is helping AQ fight against Iraqi shiites?_

*no you haven't.*

_you say you have explained how all the sunni insurgents and all the shiite militias and all the members of the Iraqi army will lose to AQ in Iraq and let a handful of foreigners control their government and their oil?_

*no.  you haven't.*

_you say you have explained how Iran will sweep in after AQ's victory and take over the government of Iraq against the will of the Iraqis and will give minor jobs to AQ members or, if they complain, kill them?_

*no. you haven't.  AND YOU CAN'T*


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> _you say you have explained how Iran is helping AQ fight against Iraqi shiites?_
> 
> *no you haven't.*
> 
> _you say you have explained how all the sunni insurgents and all the shiite militias and all the members of the Iraqi army will lose to AQ in Iraq and let a handful of foreigners control their government and their oil?_
> 
> *no.  you haven't.*
> 
> _you say you have explained how Iran will sweep in after AQ's victory and take over the government of Iraq against the will of the Iraqis and will give minor jobs to AQ members or, if they complain, kill them?_
> 
> *no. you haven't.  AND YOU CAN'T*



and as the good news comes out of Iraq - MM foams at the mouth in diebelief


----------



## maineman

you gonna answer my last post or not?

just let me know one way or the other.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> you gonna answer my last post or not?
> 
> just let me know one way or the other.



MM says we need to quiet this good news


----------



## maineman

don't waste our time putting words in MY mouth.  just try to explain your own.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> don't waste our time putting words in MY mouth.  just try to explain your own.



I can't put words in your mouth

Your foot gets in the way


----------



## maineman

so..that's about it, then?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> so..that's about it, then?



Your desire for defeat is being slowed by the successes in Iraq


----------



## maineman

that's deep.





and nonsensical!


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> that's deep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and nonsensical!



Why else would you and the Dems be so hyper to push for surrender?

Not because you actually care about the troops


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> Why else would you and the Dems be so hyper to push for surrender?
> 
> Not because you actually care about the troops



I am not pushing for surrender.  I am only pushing for you to give me a straight answer.

duh.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I am not pushing for surrender.  I am only pushing for you to give me a straight answer.
> 
> duh.



If you and the rest of yur party are so worried about the troops - cut off funding

Unless, you are your party do not care about the troops - and would rather have the issue


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> If you and the rest of yur party are so worried about the troops - cut off funding
> 
> Unless, you are your party do not care about the troops - and would rather have the issue



I am worried about the troops. and I do not want to have 150K troops in Iraq and not have adaquate funding for them.  It takes a long time to bring that many troops home.  precipitously cutting off funding is irresponsible.  providing limited funding for current operations but requiring a deadline for withdrawal IS responsible.


----------



## maineman

you gonna explain yourself now?


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I am worried about the troops. and I do not want to have 150K troops in Iraq and not have adaquate funding for them.  It takes a long time to bring that many troops home.  precipitously cutting off funding is irresponsible.  providing limited funding for current operations but requiring a deadline for withdrawal IS responsible.



But your guys said the war is lost. Why keep the troops there if all hope if gone

Oh, being a liberal you really do not want to solve the problem - you would rather have the issue to run on


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> But your guys said the war is lost. Why keep the troops there if all hope if gone
> 
> Oh, being a liberal you really do not want to solve the problem - you would rather have the issue to run on



I don't think we should KEEP the troops there.  I think we should start redeploying them to the borders and then on to Afghanistan/Pakistan.  That is why I do not favor precipitously cutting off funding.  We have troops in harm's way and it takes lots of time to move them about...but we should set some deadlines for doing that.... and fund them during the process.

Now look....once again you have asked me a question and once again I have answered it.  will you ever get around to answering mine?

Will you ever explain how and why Iranian shiites,  who the administration says are helping Sadr's mahdi army, would - according to you - actually help Al Qaeda in their efforts against Iraqi shiites?

Will you ever explain how a much smaller foreign Al Qaeda force would prevail over the Iraqi sunnis and the Iraqi shiites AND the Iraqi military?

Will you ever explain why Iraqis would, after allowing that smaller force of foreigners to subjegate them, then allow the Iranians to sweep into their country and take over from Al Qaeda?

These are all assertions you have made in the past.  I think it is pretty clear that you really don't know what the hell you are talking about, but I have given you every opportunity to explain those positions and prove me wrong.

Please take that opportunity and try to prove me wrong.  Please hold up your end of the discussion and answer questions sometimes instead of just asking them.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> I don't think we should KEEP the troops there.  I think we should start redeploying them to the borders and then on to Afghanistan/Pakistan.  That is why I do not favor precipitously cutting off funding.  We have troops in harm's way and it takes lots of time to move them about...but we should set some deadlines for doing that.... and fund them during the process.
> 
> Now look....once again you have asked me a question and once again I have answered it.  will you ever get around to answering mine?
> 
> Will you ever explain how and why Iranian shiites,  who the administration says are helping Sadr's mahdi army, would - according to you - actually help Al Qaeda in their efforts against Iraqi shiites?
> 
> Will you ever explain how a much smaller foreign Al Qaeda force would prevail over the Iraqi sunnis and the Iraqi shiites AND the Iraqi military?
> 
> Will you ever explain why Iraqis would, after allowing that smaller force of foreigners to subjegate them, then allow the Iranians to sweep into their country and take over from Al Qaeda?
> 
> These are all assertions you have made in the past.  I think it is pretty clear that you really don't know what the hell you are talking about, but I have given you every opportunity to explain those positions and prove me wrong.
> 
> Please take that opportunity and try to prove me wrong.  Please hold up your end of the discussion and answer questions sometimes instead of just asking them.



The new code word for retreat is now redeployment among libs


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> With *Dems pushing for surrender*, the terrorists are looking forward to killing tens of thousands - and libs will look the other way or blame Bush





red states rule said:


> Libs said the same thing when people said the killing would be worse in Viet Nam after *Dems surrendered there*





red states rule said:


> No debate here
> 
> *Dems are now the party of surrender* and appeasement





red states rule said:


> any good news from Iraq must be dismissed by the kook left (of which you are a proud member)
> 
> If the US troops are winning there goesa ny chance of *appeasement and surrender*
> 
> and that would hamper any gains in 08
> 
> Libs do have their priorities





red states rule said:


> Seems you dismiss any good news - that would get in the way of your *surrender *wishes





red states rule said:


> Why else would you and the *Dems be so hyper to push for surrender*?
> 
> Not because you actually care about the troops




You were wrong, you ruin threads for *EVERYONE*

Say something *NEW*.


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> You ruin threads for EVERYONE
> 
> Say something *NEW*.



If Dems would not be pushing for surrender I would say something different


----------



## Superlative

red states rule said:


> If Dems would not be pushing for surrender I would say something different



Parrot, Hack.


----------



## red states rule

Superlative said:


> Parrot, Hack.



Surrender monkey


----------



## maineman

red states rule said:


> The new code word for retreat is now redeployment among libs



can't you do better than that?  I write several paragraphs and attempt to honestly answer your questions, and this is quality of your reply?

pathetic.


----------



## red states rule

maineman said:


> can't you do better than that?  I write several paragraphs and attempt to honestly answer your questions, and this is quality of your reply?
> 
> pathetic.



Libs live by code words

They can;t come out and tell people what they actually want - they would never win another election


----------

