No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working

[maineman]

More dead terrorists and Dems are pushing hard for surrender

terrorist attacks up.

civilian deaths across Iraq up.

US military deaths up.

Democrats ARE upset....as are most Americans...because the surge is NOT working.

 

[red states rule]

terrorist attacks up.

civilian deaths across Iraq up.

US military deaths up.

Democrats ARE upset....as are most Americans...because the surge is NOT working.

Since the terrorists know the more they attack - the harder the Dems will puch for surredner

Dems are doing exactly what the terrorists want them to do - and so are you

 

[maineman]

Since the terrorists know the more they attack - the harder the Dems will puch for surredner

Dems are doing exactly what the terrorists want them to do - and so are you

answer my question. HOw does all that increeased carnage equate to the "surge working"?

I am pretty sure that the surge was designed to reduce carnage and spread order and calm. It is doing exactly the opposite. How is it working?

 

[red states rule]

answer my question. HOw does all that increeased carnage equate to the "surge working"?

I am pretty sure that the surge was designed to reduce carnage and spread order and calm. It is doing exactly the opposite. How is it working?

The more they attack - the more Dems will fight for surrender

 

[red states rule]

As far as US deaths in Iarq

These were the casualty totals for other wars the US fought in:

Vietnam 58,219

Korean War 54,246

World War Two 408,306

World War One 116,708

Civil War, North 363,020

Civil War, South 119,110

Mexican War 13,283

Indian Wars 6125

Revolutionary War 25,324

Operation Iraqi Freedom 2,439

Despite this staggering statistical success, liberals continue to barrage the president with negatavism about casualties in Iraq.

 

[maineman]

The more they attack - the more Dems will fight for surrender

that is a stock one-liner answer. It does not explain how the surge is working?

Are you trying to suggest that Bush was expecting the surge to cause MORE death and MORE destruction? Why then, would he embark on such a counter-prodcutive stratgegy?

The fact remains: American casualties are INCREASING as this war continues. Iraqi civilian casualties are increasing. The surge is not working thus far, and it's been nearly half a year.

 

[Annie]

that is a stock one-liner answer. It does not explain how the surge is working?

Are you trying to suggest that Bush was expecting the surge to cause MORE death and MORE destruction? Why then, would he embark on such a counter-prodcutive stratgegy?

The fact remains: American casualties are INCREASING as this war continues. Iraqi civilian casualties are increasing. The surge is not working thus far, and it's been nearly half a year.

I've posted many times from those in Iraq regarding the surge. You and others have been quiet in those threads.

If not for political reasons, why do you pick on the weakest links?

 

[maineman]

I've posted many times from those in Iraq regarding the surge. You and others have been quiet in those threads.

If not for political reasons, why do you pick on the weakest links?

I have no doubt that the folks serving in Iraq think that they are serving a noble cause. I have no doubt that they truly believe that they are making a difference.

I also know that folks in uniform do NOT make foreign policy, nor have they ever made foreign policy.

I also think it is a bit humorous that straightforward casualty figures would be referred to as the "weakest link".

 

[Annie]

I have no doubt that the folks serving in Iraq think that they are serving a noble cause. I have no doubt that they truly believe that they are making a difference.

I also know that folks in uniform do NOT make foreign policy, nor have they ever made foreign policy.

I also think it is a bit humorous that straightforward casualty figures would be referred to as the "weakest link".

and there is the answer.

 

[red states rule]

Well I think any casualties are bad, but the number of American troops killed in Iraq are historically lower than any previous deaths in any war in American history.

I would also like to remind eveyone that historically speaking, America over 3 years freed two countries of 60 million Muslims with fewer deaths than any previous American led war except for the first Gulf war.

 

[maineman]

Well I think any casualties are bad, but the number of American troops killed in Iraq are historically lower than any previous deaths in any war in American history.

I would also like to remind eveyone that historically speaking, America over 3 years freed two countries of 60 million Muslims with fewer deaths than any previous American led war except for the first Gulf war.

the point of this thread is, that if the surge is, in fact, "working", why are civilian casualties on the rise and american casualties on the rise as well? The surge was sold to the public as a short term increase in troops that would reduce the carnage. If that was it's purpose, it is not working at all.

 

[red states rule]

the point of this thread is, that if the surge is, in fact, "working", why are civilian casualties on the rise and american casualties on the rise as well? The surge was sold to the public as a short term increase in troops that would reduce the carnage. If that was it's purpose, it is not working at all.

given the spped at which your party wants to surredner, it is amazing the Dems have nopt tried to simply cut opff funding if they actually believe things are so rotten in Iraq

The US deaths are at record lows for a ground war - Defeatocrats seem to wnat to ignore that fact

 

[maineman]

given the spped at which your party wants to surredner, it is amazing the Dems have nopt tried to simply cut opff funding if they actually believe things are so rotten in Iraq

The US deaths are at record lows for a ground war - Defeatocrats seem to wnat to ignore that fact

quit changing the subject. The surge is not working. carnage is increasing and Bush told us the surge would cause it to decrease.

Clearly, your side does not have a fucking clue how to get us out of this hole you have gotten us into except to blindly keep digging, all the while castigating and denigrating those of us who question the wisdom of that "plan".

 

[red states rule]

quit changing the subject. The surge is not working. carnage is increasing and Bush told us the surge would cause it to decrease.

Clearly, your side does not have a fucking clue how to get us out of this hole you have gotten us into except to blindly keep digging, all the while castigating and denigrating those of us who question the wisdom of that "plan".

and your answer is to wave the white flag and hope the terrorists will stop hating us?

 

[maineman]

and your answer is to wave the white flag and hope the terrorists will stop hating us?

no. that is not my answer at all.

And you mischaracterizing MY answer does not change the fact that your side has not come up with one that has any chance of success.

The first rule when you find yourself in a hole: QUIT DIGGING!

 

[red states rule]

no. that is not my answer at all.

And you mischaracterizing MY answer does not change the fact that your side has not come up with one that has any chance of success.

The first rule when you find yourself in a hole: QUIT DIGGING!

instead of fighting back you want to suirrender

good way to tell the terrorists we do have the will to fight - then what MM?

 

[maineman]

instead of fighting back you want to suirrender

good way to tell the terrorists we do have the will to fight - then what MM?

I have never suggested surrendering. I have suggested that we focus our worldwide military/intelligence/law enforcement/diplomatic efforts at crushing islamic extremism and fostering economic and social climates where that ideology will havbe a difficult time expanding.

As I have said over and over again...the fact that the Taliban can hold a graduation ceremony for 300 suicide bombers and have it televised in the local media in Afghanistan is pathetic. That is where our true enemies have been since 9/11. Our shifted attention to Iraq has done nothing but divert our attention and our abilities away from the real enemy.

 

[red states rule]

I have never suggested surrendering. I have suggested that we focus our worldwide military/intelligence/law enforcement/diplomatic efforts at crushing islamic extremism and fostering economic and social climates where that ideology will havbe a difficult time expanding.

As I have said over and over again...the fact that the Taliban can hold a graduation ceremony for 300 suicide bombers and have it televised in the local media in Afghanistan is pathetic. That is where our true enemies have been since 9/11. Our shifted attention to Iraq has done nothing but divert our attention and our abilities away from the real enemy.

So running away from the terrorists is not surrender? Oh, that is right - libs call it a redeployment

 

[maineman]

So running away from the terrorists is not surrender? Oh, that is right - libs call it a redeployment

no. allowing the Iraqis to solve their own political/sectarian squabbles is NOT surrender. that is correct.

next point?

 

[red states rule]

no. allowing the Iraqis to solve their own political/sectarian squabbles is NOT surrender. that is correct.

next point?

Iraqi tribes reach security accord
By David Enders
July 23, 2007

TAJI, Iraq — U.S. forces have brokered an agreement between Sunni and Shi'ite tribal leaders to join forces against al Qaeda and other extremists, extending a policy that has transformed the security situation in western Anbar province to this area north of the capital.

The extremists struck back yesterday with a suicide car bomb aimed at one of the Sunni tribes involved in the deal, killing three militiamen and wounding 14.

Members of the First Calvary Division based at nearby Camp Taji helped broker the deal on Saturday with the tribal leaders, who agreed to use members of more than 25 local tribes to protect the area around Taji from both Sunni and Shi'ite extremists.

Yesterday's suicide attack took place at a checkpoint that was set up under the security plan and run by members of the al-Zobaie tribal militia, nicknamed "Freedom Fighters" by the U.S. troops. The Americans say they were attacked daily in the area 12 miles north of Baghdad before Saturday's deal.

"We want to protect innocent civilians from killing and kidnapping," said Nadeem al-Tamimi, a Shi'ite tribal leader. "We have been working against al Qaeda for two years and paying for it from our own pocket. But we're not just against al Qaeda. We're against all murderers and thieves."

Shortly after that meeting, Mr. al-Tamimi received a call saying one of his relatives had been assassinated in what was described as a "warning" from the Mahdi Army, a Shi'ite militia nominally loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

The Mahdi Army fought U.S. troops openly in 2004 when Sheik al-Sadr openly opposed participation in the U.S.-backed Iraqi government. But the militia splintered as sectarian violence increased, and Sheik al-Sadr allowed his followers to participate in the government as an opposition party.

Despite yesterday's attack, U.S. troops believe they are making headway.

http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070723/FOREIGN/107230051/1001