No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working

[red states rule]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

three simple yes or no questions for you:



do you understand that the 60% 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Translation - never speak the truth about me and my liberalism

 

[maineman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?