No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working

[maineman]

http://icasualties.org/oif/

RSR... can you please show me the numbers from THIS SITE THAT YOU HAVE POSTED that would prove your allegation that we have seen a 60% decrease in American casualties?

Or will you either run away with your tail between your legs, or come back blasting with yet another op-ed piece that talks about how well the surge is working?

 

[Paul Revere]

Oh, thats right - you hate to read anything that goes against your predetermined views on how things are

The last thing you really want to read is HOW the surge is WORKING

McCain says Iraq crackdown working

BAGHDAD - After a heavily guarded trip to a Baghdad market, Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) insisted Sunday that a U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown in the capital was working and said Americans lacked a "full picture" of the progress. The U.S. military later reported six soldiers were killed in roadside bombings southwest of Baghdad
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070401/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

 

[Emmett]

I posted the link that shows the american casualty figures....yours are inaccurate...

In january, we lost 83 Americans.
In february, we lost 80 Americans
In march, we lost 81 Americans

and we have already lost 5 Americans today, the first of April

Please explain how you get a decrease of "60%" from those figures?

The figures showing how many Americans have been killed in action is not a clear indicator of rather the "surge" is working yet. A more accurate way to depict this will be to look at June's numbers. Military strategy is not like monopoly Maineman, it takes time and support. "Support" being the key word here. For those who have distaste for the war, which any rational minded person should, understand that effective military strategy takes time.

I can tell you how to end it tomorrow but you would not like what I have to say. I don't like what I would say but I know how to end it.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I think he laid out facts pretty neatly. What is fictional in his statement?!

Yea, you are right, you libs consider the following type of stuff to be "FACTS": "The president answers to Congress. That's the way it's always been done. I know it's a shock to Bush, this late in the game, to find Congress actually exercising some semblance of it's constitutional duty. He's not used to that. He's used to the good old boy system where he runs the government, including Congress, like his own little, family mafia."

And we democrats aren't whining at all anymore. !

hahhahahha, well, so you admit the dems have been whining their asses off !

America has shown just how pissed off at republicans they are.... in a little less than two years, we'll have both the executive and the legislative branches in our control and the little republican uprising that marked the end of the 20th century will be dead and buried. Me, whine? Hell no.... I am grinning like a the cat that just swallowed the canary!

And yet it hasnt even happened yet.

MEMO:

Dems cant sustain victories. And its impossible for the better party to constantly win, we have to have a lull in the Republican victories occasionally, and historically, the off presidental year elections do not go well for the incumbent party,,hmmm, look at that a little historical FACTS, look it up,

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Could you tell me what, specifically it is in my post that you take issue with LuvRPgrl?

"The president answers to Congress. That's the way it's always been done. I know it's a shock to Bush, this late in the game, to find Congress actually exercising some semblance of it's constitutional duty. He's not used to that. He's used to the good old boy system where he runs the government, including Congress, like his own little, family mafia."

Your statement above is a joke and sounds like the tirade of a three year old who just had his pacifier taken away.

And your next post you mention the OPINION of the ISG (Iraq Survey Group) about the Bush's latest Iraq war policies, yet the ISG has been disbanded for how many years???

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Feeling a little Limbaughesque are we red states?

Don't you think that little talking point has worn a little thin?



Actually voters just demonstrated last November that they know the difference between Democrats holding a rogue president accountable for his failed policy and Republican propaganda like accusing anyone who dares question that policy of being a traitor, wanting to "surrender," or "cutting and running."

Speaking of that what happened to that phrase?

Cons were really stuck on it for a while but I don't think I've heard it lately.

ahhh, I see, more michael moore bed wetting whining,,,why dont you try throwing in a few ACCURATE FACTS, once in a while????

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So I see you hate America eh?

know your enemy, know yourself
that's the politic
george bush is way worse than bin laden is
know your enemy, know yourself
that's the politic
f.b.i., c.i.a., the real terrorists
know your enemy, know yourself
that's the politic
george bush is way worse than bin laden is
know your enemy, know yourself
that's the politic
c.i.a., f.b.i. the real terrorists
[stic.man]
you got to watch what you say in these days and times
It's a touchy situation, lotta fear and emotion
september 11th
televised world-wide
suicide planes fallin like bombs from out the sky
they wasn't aimin at us
not at my house
they hit the world trade, the pentagon, and almost got the white house
now everybody walkin round patriotic
how we gon' fight to keep freedom when we ain't got it?
you wanna stop terrorists?
start with the u.s. imperalists
ain't no track record like america's, see
bin laden was trained by the c.i.a
but I guess if you a terrorist for the u.s
then it's okay

they try to make us think we crazy
but I know what they doin, they tryna put us back in slavery
check it, to get on welfare you gotta get your fingerprints
soon ya gotta do eyescans to get your benefits
now they got them cards to swipe, ain't no more foodstamps
shoulda seen it comin, now it's too late to get amped
and everything got a barcode
so they know what you got, when you got it, and what you still owe
you seen them projects, lately you better watch it
why they got us surrounded if money is the object?
why they use satellites to keep track of the criminals?
why they puttin jails in schools, is it subliminal?
cameras everywhere to protect us from one another
or is it the undercover, disguised as big brother
and even freedom of speech is limited
mad leaders done spoke up, and look at what these crackas did

and you ain't got to believe me
go 'head and listen to bush
the dope pusher on the t.v
what you think the war is for?
cause the greedy wantin more and more
we be hustlin the corridor
I would never join the military
one soldier to another, nigga holla if ya hear me
goin out to the best sons and daughters
don't be a lamb gettin led to the slaughter
I'ma keep ridin when my momma released
cause ain't no stoppin us now, dawg
freedom before peace

they got a plan for us?
we got a plan for them
and this time we gon' win
who in? you out? you in?
no doubt, we men
ain't no ridin the fence
It's called self-defense
It makes sense
when they tell us we gotta shackles on our brains (say what?)
I'll be damned if I sit here and let them put us back in chains

 

[LuvRPgrl]

That gives us like 4 months to close up shop and be home with months to spare before March 31, 2008.

The only reason Republicans would be opposed to a deadline is if they are lying about the surge working.

So, which is it Republicans? Is the surge not working or are you just making politics out of the deadline?

Ok Mr Hate America.

I hate to tell you this, but the answer requires more than a third grade michael moore mentality.

What is being attempted in the BIG picture, is to let the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED, by the Iraqis themselves, (But I know you snobbish elitist liberals know whats better for the Iraqis than the Iraqis do, so their electing their own officials is irrlevant to you, and besides, you guys read 8 newspapers a day, so you probably know more about Iraq and the war than the Iraqi's themeselves, eh?) get to a point where they can maintain a civil order to defend themselves from terrorists who are trying to destroy the democracy that has been allowed to be instituted.
Or do you think it would be wise to take new born babies and toss them out the hospital door and say, "you're on your own now"?

"the surge" is about gaining control of certain aspects of the war while the training of Iraqi security forces goes on.

I know that requires handling two concepts at once, but I think if you tune out your hatred of PRESIDENT BUSH for a few minutes, you will have enough brain cells to multifuncion for a minute or so.

 

[maineman]

Ok Mr Hate America.

I hate to tell you this, but the answer requires more than a third grade michael moore mentality.

What is being attempted in the BIG picture, is to let the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED, by the Iraqis themselves, (But I know you snobbish elitist liberals know whats better for the Iraqis than the Iraqis do, so their electing their own officials is irrlevant to you, and besides, you guys read 8 newspapers a day, so you probably know more about Iraq and the war than the Iraqi's themeselves, eh?) get to a point where they can maintain a civil order to defend themselves from terrorists who are trying to destroy the democracy that has been allowed to be instituted.
Or do you think it would be wise to take new born babies and toss them out the hospital door and say, "you're on your own now"?

"the surge" is about gaining control of certain aspects of the war while the training of Iraqi security forces goes on.

I know that requires handling two concepts at once, but I think if you tune out your hatred of PRESIDENT BUSH for a few minutes, you will have enough brain cells to multifuncion for a minute or so.

and what will you say if the benefits from the surge are shortlived and, as many have predicted, the Iraqi security forces will quickly devolve into two well trained fighting forces - sunnis vs. shiite - when the experiment in governing fails? What will you say to the parents of the dead Americans? "We didn't really have a fucking CLUE about the dynamics between sects of Islam when we invaded Iraq looking for Saddam's cache of weapons of mass destruction.... we really didn't have a fucking CLUE how deep the enmity was between Iraqi sunnis and shiites.... we really didn't have any sort of plan whatsoever for dealing with an insurgency of that magnitude and that intensity, but we plugged away at it for a good long time because we certainly didn't want those first two or three thousand Americans we tossed into the bottomless pit to have died in vain, so we stuck around and tossed another X thousand right on top of them to honor their sacrifice" ?????

I tell you what... I know that wouldn't work for ME, and I doubt very seriously if it will work for many other parents or wives or sons or daughters either.

 

[jillian]

and what will you say if the benefits from the surge are shortlived and, as many have predicted, the Iraqi security forces will quickly devolve into two well trained fighting forces - sunnis vs. shiite - when the experiment in governing fails? What will you say to the parents of the dead Americans? "We didn't really have a fucking CLUE about the dynamics between sects of Islam when we invaded Iraq looking for Saddam's cache of weapons of mass destruction.... we really didn't have a fucking CLUE how deep the enmity was between Iraqi sunnis and shiites.... we really didn't have any sort of plan whatsoever for dealing with an insurgency of that magnitude and that intensity, but we plugged away at it for a good long time because we certainly didn't want those first two or three thousand Americans we tossed into the bottomless pit to have died in vain, so we stuck around and tossed another X thousand right on top of them to honor their sacrifice" ?????

I tell you what... I know that wouldn't work for ME, and I doubt very seriously if it will work for many other parents or wives or sons or daughters either.

It's a game of whack-a-mole... we put troops in one place and things quiet down there, but the violence moves elsewhere. Then we move the troops there and it quiets down, but moves again... etc, etc, etc.

 

[maineman]

and we don't have enough bodies in the department of defense to be everywhere the mole is going to pop up in Iraq.... this was a stupid war and arrogance and pride on the part of republicans is doing nothing but running up the body count....as if they give a shit.

 

[Paul Revere]

and we don't have enough bodies in the department of defense to be everywhere the mole is going to pop up in Iraq.... this was a stupid war and arrogance and pride on the part of republicans is doing nothing but running up the body count....as if they give a shit.

Correct........
http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=47955

These guys would give a shit if they still could. They died in Iraq for Bush's lies.

Now the Lying Neo-Con Bastards want more of our brave troops to die in Iran for their bank balances.

Wake up you plastic patriots. Just because the assholes wrap their lies in the flag, is no reason to follow them to hell. More people are waking up to what is going on every day. You won't know shit if you depend on the TV news.

 

[red states rule]

Paul, what do you do at home to relax? You probably watch home movies of US troops getting killed with a laugh track

You are one sick left wing wacko

 

[red states rule]

We must win in Iraq


TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By David R. Hanke
April 2, 2007



Without question, mistakes have been made in Iraq; nobody can deny that. However, that is no excuse for exiting Iraq before the job is done, which can only lead to further unrest and instability in the region, and, ultimately, a higher cost to the United States down the road. Our new commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, has formulated a comprehensive, inventive new strategy to bring stability there. Our troops have set about implementing it, and early indications are that they are meeting with success.
The deployment of additional U.S. troops to reinforce and help those already in Iraq is an integral part of the new plan. Yet, the left -- including many members of the new Democratic majority in Congress -- and other Bush-haters have chosen to describe the new strategy as just another "escalation" and have doomed it to failure. In so doing, the congressional Democrats seem guided not by what is best for our nation and its security, but by what will best position them to maintain their newfound congressional majority, advance individual political ambitions, and satisfy left-wing groups like MoveOn.org.
Our congressional leaders and 2008 presidential candidates should be giving every measure of their support to the new strategy for Iraq and especially those implementing it on the ground, instead of taking political cheap shots at President Bush. Then they should hope and pray for the new strategy to work, for it likely represents our last chance to fully succeed in Iraq.
Undoubtedly, the war in Iraq will continue to carry a hefty price tag, both in American lives and dollars, but a stable Iraq is the only acceptable outcome. Those who advocate prompt withdrawal or downsizing of our combat forces there are disappointingly shortsighted. They think only in terms of immediate gratification, not the long-term security of our nation. Clearly, our job in Iraq is not yet done. If we withdraw our military forces prematurely, we may save American lives and dollars in the short run, but the long-term consequences could be disastrous for our nation.
The stakes are high. If we leave Iraq in a state of instability and disarray, the situation will likely devolve into utter chaos. The resulting power vacuum would probably be filled by any one of a number of familiar enemies of the United States: Syria, Iran or Islamic extremists from Saudi Arabia (of the same fanatical Wahhabi sect that produced Osama bin Laden). Just as Afghanistan served as a fertile breeding ground and safe haven for al Qaeda during the 1990s, Iraq could well become a new incubator for radical Islamic terrorists. Moreover, an unstable Iraq could potentially spawn future regional conflicts in which the United States would be forced to commit even larger numbers of troops and funding. As such, premature troop withdrawal is the wrong answer.
The new approach is far from guaranteed to work, but surely it is worth trying. Give this new and carefully designed strategy a chance. If for no other reason, do so for the troops implementing it on the ground in Iraq. They deserve every ounce of our support. Second-guessing our troops' mission is demoralizing to them -- this soldier can personally attest to that. While in Iraq last year, I attentively watched the television news in the mess hall and listened as the voices of the anti-war left sounded retreat, day after day. My heart sank as they continually undercut our troops' mission in Iraq and readied the white flag.
I greatly feared that a major goal of our enemy -- deflating U.S. public opinion on the war -- was slowly being achieved, which would only help the insurgency build momentum. For our troops, living in a dusty, hostile place for months on end, away from friends and family (let alone dodging sniper rounds and roadside bombs, as some do every day) is difficult enough without having to hear that some think your mission there is a complete waste of time.
The new strategy in Iraq has a decent chance for success; its chances would be greatly improved if the new Democratic majority in Congress set its sights on victory in Iraq, instead of forcing our troops out before their mission is completed. Let's not clip the wings on the new strategy in Iraq -- which may be our last chance for true success there -- before it even gets off the ground.

David R. Hanke, a former active-duty officer in the U.S. Army, served in Iraq as an attorney and captain with the 101st Airborne Division in 2005-2006.
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070401-101450-1390r.htm

 

[maineman]

RSR...

you have yet to explain to me how the Iraq casualty website YOU posted shows a 60% drop in US casualties as you have erroneously suggested...

are you gonna retract that anytime soon?

and what will you say if the benefits from the surge are shortlived and, as many have predicted, the Iraqi security forces will quickly devolve into two well trained fighting forces - sunnis vs. shiite - when the experiment in governing fails? What will you say to the parents of the dead Americans? "We didn't really have a fucking CLUE about the dynamics between sects of Islam when we invaded Iraq looking for Saddam's cache of weapons of mass destruction.... we really didn't have a fucking CLUE how deep the enmity was between Iraqi sunnis and shiites.... we really didn't have any sort of plan whatsoever for dealing with an insurgency of that magnitude and that intensity, but we plugged away at it for a good long time because we certainly didn't want those first two or three thousand Americans we tossed into the bottomless pit to have died in vain, so we stuck around and tossed another X thousand right on top of them to honor their sacrifice" ?????

I tell you what... I know that wouldn't work for ME, and I doubt very seriously if it will work for many other parents or wives or sons or daughters either.

 

[maineman]

RSR:

RSR...

you have yet to explain to me how the Iraq casualty website YOU posted shows a 60% drop in US casualties as you have erroneously suggested...

are you gonna retract that anytime soon?

 

[Rosotar]

Yea, you are right, you libs consider the following type of stuff to be "FACTS": "The president answers to Congress. That's the way it's always been done. I know it's a shock to Bush, this late in the game, to find Congress actually exercising some semblance of it's constitutional duty. He's not used to that. He's used to the good old boy system where he runs the government, including Congress, like his own little, family mafia."

You're still not making yourself clear.

Do you disagree that Congress has the power of oversight?

Do you disagree that until Dems took Control of Congress the legislative branch was little more than an echo chamber that rubber stamped every bone-headed idea that this administration came up with?

If you do disagree with these statements how about some intelligent RATIONALE for your opinions?

Just because you say that something is "bullshit" doesn't make it so. You need to defend your positions!

hahhahahha, well, so you admit the dems have been whining their asses off !

See, this is what I'm talking about.

Show where Dems have been whining.

If you want an example of real whining check this out.

"Now, some of them believe that by delaying funding for our troops, they can force me to accept restrictions on our commanders that I believe would make withdrawal and defeat more likely ... That's not going to happen. If Congress fails to pass a bill to fund our troops on the front lines, the American people will know who to hold responsible ... We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we've got a troop in harm's way, we expect that troop to be fully funded."

That's your president whining because he's just realized that he's got to work with Congress to get what he wants. Some people might call it a tantrum from a spoiled brat. The first time in his life he's not handed exactly what he wants on a silver platter and predictably his reaction is ......

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

Dems cant sustain victories. And its impossible for the better party to constantly win, we have to have a lull in the Republican victories occasionally, and historically, the off presidental year elections do not go well for the incumbent party,,hmmm, look at that a little historical FACTS, look it up,

Why don't you look up the historical "facts" on presidents who'se administrations have been wracked with numerous scandals and who have led our nation through long, protracted, losing wars.

That will give you a clearer picture on what's in store for Republicans.

 

[maineman]

RSR: let's review, shall we?

Here is what I said:

I posted the link that shows the american casualty figures....yours are inaccurate...

In january, we lost 83 Americans.
In february, we lost 80 Americans
In march, we lost 81 Americans

and we have already lost 5 Americans today, the first of April

Please explain how you get a decrease of "60%" from those figures?

and here is your reply:

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Let me ask again: since I got my numbers from that very website, can you please post those numbers from that site that would prove your allegation that the surge has caused a 60% reduction in US casualties???? The way I look at it, we are holding steady on our casualty rate over the last three months, and I also see that our casualty rates for the last six months are nearly 40% HIGHER than they were the six months preceding that. Please explain IN YOUR OWN WORDS how the surge is working given those figures

 

[Rosotar]

Was there ever any doubt that cons were going to hype this "surge" as much as they can for as long as they can?

That's been their MO through every sad development of this war.

Their president tells them that "progress" is being made here or something is "working" there. They get all excited and distracted and start their mantra of the MSM only reporting the bad news and ignoring the "good" news.

Then months go by and the facts trickle in proving that the MSM has been right all along and the White House press releases have been well.....a little less than accurate.

Before it can even register to these people that they've been lied to, the administration sends them off on another carnival ride of false hope and it starts all over.

The fact that Bush is rejecting Congress' timeline for withdrawal is proof that there's really nothing to this "surge" business. If he really believed his own rhetoric then he should be grateful to Congress for even giving him that much time for his latest "strategy" to work.

Remember, when they started with this surge crap the commanders in the field said we should know within six months whether it was going to work or not.

Congress has given him even more time than that so what's the problem?

 

[Annie]

Was there ever any doubt that cons were going to hype this "surge" as much as they can for as long as they can?

That's been their MO through every sad development of this war.

Their president tells them that "progress" is being made here or something is "working" there. They get all excited and distracted and start their mantra of the MSM only reporting the bad news and ignoring the "good" news.

Then months go by and the facts trickle in proving that the MSM has been right all along and the White House press releases have been well.....a little less than accurate.

Before it can even register to these people that they've been lied to, the administration sends them off on another carnival ride of false hope and it starts all over.

The fact that Bush is rejecting Congress' timeline for withdrawal is proof that there's really nothing to this "surge" business. If he really believed his own rhetoric then he should be grateful to Congress for even giving him that much time for his latest "strategy" to work.

Remember, when they started with this surge crap the commanders in the field said we should know within six months whether it was going to work or not.

Congress has given him even more time than that so what's the problem?

Was there any doubt that the Democrats would ignore/downplay any successes along the way?