Originally posted by SleepyguySo what happens when we leave? You don't think there is any chance that the Iraqi insurgents are just biding their time??
The surge was a success because before it we were losing and Iraq was on a downward spiral toward civil war. Now, because of the change in strategy called "the surge", violence has plummeted, and we have been able to withdraw US troops from 13 of the 18 Iraqi provinces, even including AQ's former stronghold of Anbar.
We have not left because there is s ...[text shortened]... are you just bummed that the only Democrat who can claim any credit for it is Joe Lieberman?
Originally posted by SleepyguyFirst off, I don't remember the Bush administration or you right wingers saying at the time "we" were losing. Perhaps you have some citations to back that up.
The surge was a success because before it we were losing and Iraq was on a downward spiral toward civil war. Now, because of the change in strategy called "the surge", violence has plummeted, and we have been able to withdraw US troops from 13 of the 18 Iraqi provinces, even including AQ's former stronghold of Anbar.
We have not left because there is s are you just bummed that the only Democrat who can claim any credit for it is Joe Lieberman?
The "surge" produced no lessening of violence; "surge" proponents always start with December 2006 which was the high water point of sectarian clashes. But the "surge" itself brought no new troops into Iraq before about May 2007 when violence levels had already significantly receded from the levels of December 2006. This obvious fact is ignored by right wingers.
Almost two years of the "surge" strategy have produced no change in the basic dynamics in Iraq; the vast majority of Iraqis want the US troops out NOW and the government that will eventually arise in Iraq will want no part of permanent US bases and will, in all probability, be quite friendly to Iran. Ten of thousands of Iraqis and close to a thousand US troops have died since the "surge" began for no ultimate gain. The right wing insistence that the "surge" has brought "victory" within sight (repeated in Palin's unoriginal speech last night) is another fairy tale. The majority of Americans believe the war was a mistake to begin with and support a fixed date for withdrawal; positions which are anathema to Republicans who still dream of victory parades and surrender ceremonies on battleships but are in tune with Obama's position.
Originally posted by no1marauderThere is a video of her speaking at her church where she tells the audience that we are doing God's will in Iraq. I sure do wish it would get as much play as Jeremiah Wrights's "God Damn America" sermon got.
First off, I don't remember the Bush administration or you right wingers saying at the time "we" were losing. Perhaps you have some citations to back that up.
The "surge" produced no lessening of violence; "surge" proponents always start with December 2006 which was the high water point of sectarian clashes. But the "surge" itself brought ...[text shortened]... nd surrender ceremonies on battleships but are in tune with Obama's position.
Originally posted by kirksey957"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God, ......"
There is a video of her speaking at her church where she tells the audience that we are doing God's will in Iraq. I sure do wish it would get as much play as Jeremiah Wrights's "God Damn America" sermon got.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html
Originally posted by zeeblebotyou can spin it was much as you want, its independents (people who dont like biased opinions, or theyd be on a side already) who will decide the election.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/09/03/foreign_policy_experience
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Foreign Policy "Experience"
by Thomas Sowell
Now that the Democrats have recovered from the shock of Governor Sarah Palin's nomination as the Republican's candidate for vice president, they have suddenly discovered that her lack of exp ...[text shortened]... perience or expertise about crime unless you have been a criminal or a policeman.
...
Originally posted by irontigranHow on earth can enough Americans be so delusional as to give McCain even a ghost of a chance?
you can spin it was much as you want, its independents (people who dont like biased opinions, or theyd be on a side already) who will decide the election.
Originally posted by treetalkis that the average high IQ family has 1.5 kids.
How on earth can enough Americans be so delusional as to give McCain even a ghost of a chance?
the average low IQ family has 5. all people can relate better to someone close to them, hence GWB.
ive been studing the numbers and yes. obama will win by a nice electoral amount, but by accumulation of states won my medium-small amounts.
and to prove the IQ thing a mccain supporter is going to post below saying "midgets count has a full person, 1.5 is impossible!!"
(i know you were thinking of it DSR)
Originally posted by Sleepyguyyeah, as for iraq the job is done. a lot of countries have terrible police enforcement, why do we have to wait for them to be pefect. a certain someone is dead. time to leave, good riddance. we could get crushed by china or russia or korea as were depleted.
I have no crystal ball. But I hope that the Iraqi military and police will have progressed to a point to be able to handle it. Don't you?
iraq will help us next 😛
Originally posted by no1marauder
First off, I don't remember the Bush administration or you right wingers saying at the time "we" were losing. Perhaps you have some citations to back that up.
If you mean standing up in the senate and giving the enemy comfort by declaring the war lost, no. But perhaps you remember Bush's address to the nation in January of 2007 where he said the following...
When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together, and that as we trained Iraqi security forces we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.
But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq -- particularly in Baghdad -- overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause, and they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam -- the Golden Mosque of Samarra -- in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.
The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people -- and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.
So, clearly there was real concern over the progress of the war.
The "surge" produced no lessening of violence; "surge" proponents always start with December 2006 which was the high water point of sectarian clashes. But the "surge" itself brought no new troops into Iraq before about May 2007 when violence levels had already significantly receded from the levels of December 2006. This obvious fact is ignored by right wingers.
You are conveniently oversimplifying, and wrong to boot. There was more to the surge than just troop increases. It was a significant shift in strategy which began before the troop increases could take effect. There were a lot of elements to the plan, but one of the big shifts was to move away from a primary focus on transferring responsibility to Iraqis (with less focus on population security), toward a primary focus on helping Iraqis provide population security. They also decided to let the Iraqis conceive of and lead the security plan for Baghdad.
The first big operation to kick it off was called Fardh-al-Qanoon (Operation Rule of Law) in Feb of '07 long before any of the new Brigades arrived.
Also, I don't know where you get your numbers, but the weekly attacks tracked and reported by the Iraqi Multinational Force show a clear trend in rising attacks of all kinds (both thwarted and successful) from the bombing of the Samarra Mosque in Feb '06 clear through July '07. So your claim that violence had somehow spiked in December of '06 doesn't really stand up.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/images/weekly-attack-trends-12072007.php
Almost two years of the "surge" strategy have produced no change in the basic dynamics in Iraq;
Um, they were on the verge of civil war. Now they are not. AQ wanted to turn Iraq into a shiny new caliphate and was threatening to do so in some areas. Now AQ is hiding or dying. These are "basic dynamics", and your claim that the coinciding major shift in military strategy plus the addition of 5 combat brigades had nothing to do with changing them is just willful blindness.
the vast majority of Iraqis want the US troops out NOW and the government that will eventually arise in Iraq will want no part of permanent US bases and will, in all probability, be quite friendly to Iran. Ten of thousands of Iraqis and close to a thousand US troops have died since the "surge" began for no ultimate gain. The right wing insistence that the "surge" has brought "victory" within sight (repeated in Palin's unoriginal speech last night) is another fairy tale. The majority of Americans believe the war was a mistake to begin with and support a fixed date for withdrawal; positions which are anathema to Republicans who still dream of victory parades and surrender ceremonies on battleships but are in tune with Obama's position.
All us "right wingers" want is hopefully what the left wants as well, and what Bush has stated ad nauseum, i.e. a free nation that is an ally against Islamic totalitarianism. This is not a bad thing to have if you can get it, especially right between Syria and Iran, and I'll pass on the parade thanks. Whether it's possible remains to be seen, and I freely admit to some of the same reservations you have about that. But I believe that the possibility of it, along with the bonus of freeing 25 million people from Saddam's regime, were worth the effort. I also think that the efforts of many Democrats to undermine our ability to win the war once it began are disgraceful, and I honestly don't give a rat's a$$ what you think about that.
Originally posted by treetalkShe's governor of a state that is only a body of water away from Russia and shares a border with Canada. She has to negotiate international fishing, whaling and oil rights as well as river and timber rights with Canada. Many foreign-owned companies from as far away as Great Britain and even the Middle East come to her office to negotiate drilling and oil exploration in her state. But how does her experience stack up against Biden's? Sen. Joe Biden has hung around long enough to outlast his co-horts in the Senate and be awarded the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He gained the position through attrition and seniority, rather than merit.
And Palin's experience is?
Spin away, little boy, spin away.
You should read this:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13809