Was Osama Right?

[red states rule]

Care to look at who started the thread and was reduced to agreeing with Osama Bin Laden?

Defeatist.

looking at how the Dem party is "standing up" to terrorists - they are living up to all of OBL's expectations

OBL is right - he is giving a very accurate description of the left

 

[red states rule]

Typical.

the anti war left resembles that remark

 

[red states rule]

de·feat·ist /dɪˈfitɪst/ a person who gives up too easily and is too easily discouraged.

Example: "Is Osama right? It is sad to say this - but maybe OBL was right....maybe OBL was correct when he said the US is weak. "

thanks to to the Surrendercrats on Capital Hill

 

[Dirt McGirt]

This would apply to the people that want our Military to tuck tail and run when they are winning in every quantifiable measure. For the sole reason that the wrong man is president. This would apply to people that would rather LOSE than have the wrong person or group get credit when we win or finish the job.

I'm not for cut and running but I think the Iraqis need to step up now. We should oversee Iraqi training, move to a support role for their national security forces, and provide security on the borders. I'm with you on the liberal bias on Iraq in the media, but the US military is not winning in "every quantifiable measure." The borders are porous. The insurgency grows. And there is chaos on the streets every day. The US casualty rate has been constant since the beginning of the war and there has been little to no progress with security. Reconstruction has been at a crawl. The mission over there isn't to kill as many of the insurgents as possible, the mission is to bring a stable, self-sustaining government to Iraq. How can you say that we're winning in every quantifiable measure when the CIA, the Generals on the ground, and the Secretary of Defense say otherwise? Which "quantifiable measurables" exactly do you think we are winning?

 

[red states rule]

I'm not for cut and running but I think the Iraqis need to step up now. We should oversee Iraqi training, move to a support role for their national security forces, and provide security on the borders. I'm with you on the liberal bias on Iraq in the media, but the US military is not winning in "every quantifiable measure." The borders are porous. The insurgency grows. And there is chaos on the streets every day. The US casualty rate has been constant since the beginning of the war and there has been little to no progress with security. Reconstruction has been at a crawl. The mission over there isn't to kill as many of the insurgents as possible, the mission is to bring a stable, self-sustaining government to Iraq. How can you say that we're winning in every quantifiable measure when the CIA, the Generals on the ground, and the Secretary of Defense say otherwise? Which quantifiable measurable exactly are we winning?

They are

Many Iraqis have been killed by the terrorists and they continue to enlist in the military and join the Police

They are fighting back and openly taking on the terrorists

They are providing more tips to the US military on where the terrorists are

They are stepping up - yet the Dems want to push for surredner anyway

 

[maineman]

Actually Traitor would apply to People that openly tell our enemies in a shooting war what they need to do to win... You know things like, kill more americans, hang in there long enough and we will force the US to pull out.... those kind of things are treason.

If those communications were private and made directly to representatives of our enemies, they might be treason. When, however, Americans voice their opinion that they have grown tired of seeing their young men and women killed for no apparently good reason, and we should, instead, stop fighting both sides of the Iraqi civil war and start fighting the war against islamic extremists, those opinions are NOT treason..... in fact, I think that a great republican president stated it best:

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

Teddy Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

It seems that Teddy would suggest that, if anyone was committing treason here, it would be YOU, RetiredGySgt!

 

[Rosotar]

thanks to to the Surrendercrats on Capital Hill

Are you talking about the eleven GOP congressmen who just told Bosh that if his "surge" is not showing dramatic results by September they're pulling the plug?

 

[Truthmatters]

They are

Many Iraqis have been killed by the terrorists and they continue to enlist in the military and join the Police

They are fighting back and openly taking on the terrorists

They are providing more tips to the US military on where the terrorists are

They are stepping up - yet the Dems want to push for surredner anyway

Got any proof of what you are claiming?

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/17104704.htm

 

[Truthmatters]

IRAQ
Training Iraqi troops no longer driving force in U.S. policy
By Nancy A. Youssef
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.


Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration's Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said.


No change has been announced, and a Pentagon spokesman, Col. Gary Keck, said training Iraqis remains important. "We are just adding another leg to our mission," Keck said, referring to the greater U.S. role in establishing security that new troops arriving in Iraq will undertake.


But evidence has been building for months that training Iraqi troops is no longer the focus of U.S. policy. Pentagon officials said they know of no new training resources that have been included in U.S. plans to dispatch 28,000 additional troops to Iraq. The officials spoke only on the condition of anonymity because they aren't authorized to discuss the policy shift publicly. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made no public mention of training Iraqi troops on Thursday during a visit to Iraq.

 

[JeffWartman]

They are

Many Iraqis have been killed by the terrorists and they continue to enlist in the military and join the Police

They are fighting back and openly taking on the terrorists

They are providing more tips to the US military on where the terrorists are

They are stepping up - yet the Dems want to push for surredner anyway

This statement shows just how out of touch with reality you truly are.

 

[Truthmatters]

Its amazing how many people on this board cling to the false impressions they are fed by their choice of media.

If they would seek the facts and embrace the truth which is so easy to come by they would not be constantly be making fools of themselfs here.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Got any proof of what you are claiming?

LOL, you claim to have knowledge on the war and ask this? You truly are clueless.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Its amazing how many people on this board cling to the false impressions they are fed by their choice of media.

If they would seek the facts and embrace the truth which is so easy to come by they would not be constantly be making fools of themselfs here.

Pot meet kettle.....

 

[red states rule]

Are you talking about the eleven GOP congressmen who just told Bosh that if his "surge" is not showing dramatic results by September they're pulling the plug?

You mean the 11 RINO's?

 

[red states rule]

Got any proof of what you are claiming?

Iraqi Security Force Deserves Support of its Countrymen, General Says
By John J. Kruzel
American Forces Press Service


WASHINGTON, April 23, 2007 – Iraqi civilians need to support security force members who sacrifice their own safety for their fellow Iraqis, a top U.S. military official said.
“Soldiers and police are suffering every day for the Iraqi people. In return, the people of Iraq must support their security forces.” Army Lt. Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, Multinational Security Transition Command Iraq commander, told reporters during a briefing yesterday.

In the past two years of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 8,123 Iraq soldiers and police have died, and 18,236 others were wounded in action. With “the right information and the right cooperation of the people,” Iraq’s military and police forces can defeat the terrorists who are trying to destroy the country, he said.

Dempsey, who is responsible for assisting the Iraqi government in developing, organizing, training, equipping and sustaining Iraqi security forces, said Iraq is developing new Army and police force units, replacing individual losses and fielding billions of dollars worth of equipment. “The security ministries have invested in modern weaponry through a foreign military sales agreement with the United States,” he said.

M-16 and M-4 assault rifles – U.S. military standard issue weapons – will soon replace the AK-47 assault rifles Iraq security forces currently use, and over the next 18 months, the United States will commit $5 billion toward “decreasing the dependence and increasing the self-reliance” of Iraq’s security forces, Dempsey said.

Additionally, hundreds of camps and stations are under construction, and communications, logistics, and intelligence architecture is being established, “all while fighting a brutal enemy who’s trying to destroy (the) country,” he said. “Considering all that, progress has been pretty remarkable,” the general added.

The Iraqi government has shown its dedication to security by committing 20 percent of the 2007 fiscal year budget to security forces. “Iraqi units from all over the country are deploying to Baghdad, to assist and support the government, and protect the people in a way that would not have been possible just one year ago,” he said.

This year, the Iraqi army plans to add about 25 battalions, enlist roughly 20,000 soldiers and build two division headquarters, Dempsey said. Iraq’s “small, but important” air force has a functioning fleet of C-130s the force uses to deliver equipment and medical supplies, and it is currently growing a helicopter fleet, he said.

“The Iraq air force, by the end of the year will have … a transportation capability, some surveillance and intelligence capability,” Dempsey said, “and helicopters which will allow the army to ferry soldiers around the country as needed on a more rapid basis.”

Iraq’s navy is serving the “vital purpose” of guarding the country’s 31-mile coastline and protecting its oil platforms, he added.

Dempsey said that many years ago, the U.S. Army taught black and white men to live and work together. “I think Iraq security forces have a chance to provide the same kind of example – an example where all Iraqis will learn to live and work together,” he said.

“That’s the dream of Iraq’s military and police leaders,” Dempsey said. “We will do everything possible to help them achieve that dream.”

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=32913