No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working

[maineman]

RSR.... come on.. show me in the DoD casualty figures where we experienced a 60% decrease in casualties in Iraq.

I'm waiting.

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]

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]

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]

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%, 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.