If this is progress...

[red states rule]

oped pieces versus casualty figures.

bullshit versus facts

Showing your suport for one of your fellow vets again?

He lists alot of facts that you seem to want to ignore

 

[Mariner]

I haven't posted on this forum since before you joined last summer, so I don't know you, and I was curious about your point of view on a couple of things:

1. General Patraeus requested a surge of 80,000 troops. If Bush truly supports the troops, why did he request fewer than the actual amount that his current top general wanted? To me, this rings a bell... remember before the invasion, when the top general suggested that 300,000 to 400,000 troops would be needed to pacify Iraq, and Bush responded by a. firing the general, and b. sending fewer than half the requested number? Does Bush really want to win this "war on terror"? Why would he twice ignore his own generals' advice?

2. I'm all for fighting terrorists, and better we fight them on foreign soil than at home. But, as someone put it recently, the Shi'ites and the Sunnis were killing each other for 1000 years before the Mayflower landed in Massachusetts. Do you believe that we can successfully stabilize the relations between these two warring denominations? I can only think about the European wars between various Christian factions, which dragged on for several centuries, and fizzle still in Northern Ireland. It seems clear to me that we're fighting several wars at once over there (and I said so repeatedly in my many posts here and elsewhere from 2003-2006). I'm sure we can defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq and elsewhere, but I'm not convinced we can force a multicultural, multiethnic peace on peoples who don't want it. Is it perhaps foolhardy to try? Why does giving up on resolving a civil war between two branches of Islam equal "waving a white flag" in your rhetoric? Maybe it's more like leaving a dinner party when the husband and wife start throwing plates at one another?

3. After Wednesday's carnage in Baghdad, do you still feel the surge is working/workable? (The first report of it I saw suggested that it was the worst day in Baghdad since the invasion began: http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/20070418.WWW000000381_bain_de_sang_a_bagdad.html)

Thanks for your thoughts,

2Mariner3 (fiscal conservative, social liberal from Cambridge, Mass.)

 

[red states rule]

Glad to meet you sir

The terrorists are fighting for the control of Iraq, the oil revenue, and they are getting help from Iran

If the Dems get their way and the US loese this war - the terrorists will have more power and more money

Then they come after us again



08 March 2007

Coalition Commander Says U.S. Military Surge Will Peak in June
General David Petraeus says joint effort will stimulate Iraqi recovery

By Jacquelyn S. Porth
USINFO Staff Writer

U.S. General David Petraeus told reporters in Baghdad, Iraq, March 8 that the strength of U.S. and Iraqi forces in support of the security operation for Baghdad and beyond is increasing steadily and the numbers likely will peak by early June.

Although still in its preliminary stage of implementation, Petraeus pointed to some encouraging signs of the effects of “Operation Fard al-Qanun,” including the destruction of two car-bomb manufacturing facilities in the outskirts of the capital. “We clearly have to find as many of those as we can” and destroy them, he said, as well as disrupt any new ones.

The commander also said he is heartened by reports that some Iraqi tribesmen are joining forces with Iraqi police to stand and fight against al-Qaida in Iraq. And, citing another positive development, Petraeus said a local police station in Nineveh province was rebuilt in a day -- across the street from its former location -- after being destroyed by a car bomb.

Petraeus said a recent decline in Sunni-Shiite sectarian killings has prompted some families to return to certain Baghdad neighborhoods where Iraqi and U.S. forces are moving in, clearing out insurgents and maintaining a visible continuous presence through more than 40 joint security stations.

“We and our Iraqi partners recognize that improving security for the Iraqi people is the first step in rekindling hope,” Petraeus said. The new strategy includes making some market areas pedestrian-only zones, stepping up foot patrols and opening new checkpoints to help residents “realize aspirations beyond survival,” he said.

Security improvements will promote the resumption of commerce and local economic growth, Petraeus said, “thereby providing an opportunity for the energies of a resilient and talented people to be expended in increasingly productive endeavors.”

He said the joint security operation seeks to protect all ethnicities even as “some sensational attacks inevitably … take place” against targets including millions of Shiite pilgrims en route to Karbala, Iraq, and government officials such as Iraqi Vice President Adil Abd al-Mahdi.

The operation sets out to build momentum so that the Iraqi government ultimately will succeed in gaining “the population’s confidence and support by demonstrating the capability to deliver” services, the commander said. As an example of progress, he cited the Iraqi government’s recent earmarking of more then $7 billion for security and $10 billion for capital investment.

Petraeus, who has served as commander in Iraq since early February, is scheduled to receive an additional 2,200 U.S. military police. They will mentor Iraqi police as part of the goal to promote rule of law, provide convoy security and help guard detention centers in the wake of President Bush’s decision announced January 10 to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq to help quell violence. (See related article.)

Petraeus said it would be typical to send a division headquarters to provide command and control support for the combat troops. Operational planners anticipated the need to send additional military police and intelligence officers, and aviation assets, he said.

“We’ve just started,” Petraeus said in response to reporters’ questions for his assessment of the effects of the unfolding multiphased deployment. He said the second of five U.S. Army combat brigades now is arriving as part of the surge that includes 4,000 Marines to tighten security in Baghdad and provincial hot spots like Anbar province.

Petraeus said U.S. brigades are arriving at a rate of about one per month, just as Iraqi forces are growing in number so that they can secure transportation routes and facilitate the work of joint Defense and State department provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs).

“These PRTs will draw on civilian and military expertise to help the Iraqis build capacity in the provinces and support local initiatives,” Petraeus said.

This effort is complemented by an Iraqi government effort to push more than $2 billion in provincial reconstruction.

Petraeus also said Australia is sending 70 additional professional trainers to work with the Iraqi Ministry of Defense; Georgia is sending another combat brigade.

For more information, see Iraq Update.

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/d...2007&m=March&x=20070308151844sjhtrop0.5251734

 

[maineman]

Showing your suport for one of your fellow vets again?

He lists alot of facts that you seem to want to ignore

and you seem to ignore the carnage that is going in Iraq...you seem to ignore the fact that you lied your ass off about American casualties being down 60%. you seem to ignore the fact that the surge is not really working all that well after all.

 

[red states rule]

Postive news will always upset the Bush haters

 

[maineman]

why do you continue to ignore what is happening in Iraq? Why do you continue to lie about the 60% decrease in American casualties?

 

[red states rule]

why do you continue to ignore what is happening in Iraq? Why do you continue to lie about the 60% decrease in American casualties?

I know we are in a war -and I want Amecia to win

You on the other hand...........

 

[maineman]

I know we are in a war -and I want Amecia to win

You on the other hand...........

answer the question: why do you continue to lie about American casualties decreasing by 60%?

 

[red states rule]

answer the question: why do you continue to lie about American casualties decreasing by 60%?

MM we all know you are hoping for defeat in Iraq and any good news from Iraq causes your BP to increase

 

[maineman]

MM we all know you are hoping for defeat in Iraq and any good news from Iraq causes your BP to increase

I want America to prosper in all things. Now.... quit running away....do you still stick to your statement that American casualties have decreased by 60%? a simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[red states rule]

I want America to prosper in all things. Now.... quit running away....do you still stick to your statement that American casualties have decreased by 60%? a simple yes or no will suffice.

Prosper as long as the benefits the Dems

Good news while Bush is in office is bad news for your party

 

[maineman]

I want America to prosper in all things. Now.... quit running away....do you still stick to your statement that American casualties have decreased by 60%? a simple yes or no will suffice.

yes or no...quit running away.

 

[Mariner]

into anonymity, since it seems that RSR is not dealing with actual facts or questions, but simply enjoying blaming "Dems" and "libs" for all the wrongs of the world. He made no attempt to address the specifics of my questions, MaineMan, and he's obviously made no attempt to address the specifics of yours--even a simple yes or no answer is not possible.

So I'd suggest you give up too. No point arguing with someone who can't engage the facts. I'm perfectly ready to have a discussion with people who disagree with me--that's what makes message boards fun--but you can't discuss with someone stuck in right-wing radio catch phrases.

Mariner

 

[Superlative]

Postive news will always upset the Bush haters

Another suicide car bomber killed 10 more people in a religiously mixed neighborhood today, the day after attacks killed 171.

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/world/index.html



You are a fool.

 

[red states rule]

Another suicide car bomber killed 10 more people in a religiously mixed neighborhood today, the day after attacks killed 171.

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/world/index.html



You are a fool.

and Dems continue to "support" the troops


How Pelosi 'supports the troops'
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
April 20, 2007


It's doubtful that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will become any less obstructionist in the wake of Wednesday's White House talks with President Bush on the Iraq/Afghanistan war supplemental funding bill. For all their eloquence about how they "support the troops," Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Reid and their Democratic colleagues have embarked on a course that will inevitably delay much-needed reinforcement for the men and women on the ground in Iraq.
As of yesterday morning, Mrs. Pelosi had refused to even appoint House conferees to negotiate with the Senate over the Iraq. As we previously noted, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and eight of his Republican colleagues sent Mrs. Pelosi a letter criticizing her failure to appoint conferees to work on the legislation. The letter quoted Defense Secretary Robert Gates warning that continued delay would damage readiness and "impose hardships on our soldiers." Noting that the Senate had already returned from vacation, Mr. McConnell and his colleagues asked Mrs. Pelosi to cancel the remainder of the House vacation in order to return to Washington and "work in good faith" to pass a supplemental bill the president could sign. Mrs. Pelosi ignored them.
As Mrs. Pelosi continued to delay appointing conferees (the Senate made its appointments last month), the military warns of a fiscal squeeze that left unaddressed, could undermine the ability of troops in the field to do their job. "I am also frustrated that we don't get our appropriations on time," Gen. Richard Cody, Army vice chief of staff, told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense (chaired by Rep. John Murtha, a Pelosi confidante) on Tuesday. "Our troops deserve better. We're throttle-back, and the last place we want to scale back is Afghanistan and Iraq." The delay also jeopardizes funding for weapons, and a spending slowdown would hurt the readiness of units that are not deployed, he said.
In response to these concerns, the Democrats cite a report by the Congressional Research Service which suggests that under certain scenarios, the Army has enough money to make it through July. But as the Weekly Standard demonstrates on its blog, the same report says the Army "may very well" decide to to take actions such as "limiting facility maintenance and repairs" and "delaying equipment overhauls" and "perhaps slowing down training." This is hardly reassuring. Some House Democrats are even suggesting they would only agree to provide money in two-month increments, which would disrupt the Defense Department's ability to plan long-term operations.
In sum, for all their professed regard for the troops on the ground, Democrats appear perfectly willing to see combat operations disrupted and troops going without needed supplies in order to score some political points against the president.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070...3406-9614r.htm

 

[maineman]

democrats support the troops, we just don't supoprt morons who send them into the breach on fool's missions. This "surge" is not working....and we have not seen our casualty figures decrease by 60% as a result of any surge success. you are a shameless bush apologist who puts the good of party and president above country.... that is traitorous, in my view.

 

[red states rule]

democrats support the troops, we just don't supoprt morons who send them into the breach on fool's missions. This "surge" is not working....and we have not seen our casualty figures decrease by 60% as a result of any surge success. you are a shameless bush apologist who puts the good of party and president above country.... that is traitorous, in my view.

So the Dem game plan - surrender and let the terrorists and Iran take over

That will make America safer

 

[maineman]

So the Dem game plan - surrender and let the terrorists and Iran take over

That will make America safer

terrorists will not take over Iraq...Iraqis will take over Iraq.

and nothing about Iraq will ever make America safer...that train left the station the minute Bush decided to invade.

 

[red states rule]

terrorists will not take over Iraq...Iraqis will take over Iraq.

and nothing about Iraq will ever make America safer...that train left the station the minute Bush decided to invade.

Tell that to little Adolf who is providing weapons to the terrorists

 

[maineman]

Tell that to little Adolf who is providing weapons to the terrorists

Iran is helping the shiites.... Syria is helping the sunnis....anybody with any sense was predicting exactly that sort of outcome....

but in the end, we will probably end up with a shiite theocracy in Iraq that is much closer allied with Iran than it ever will be with us.

that is the Bush legacy - a failure.