Surge this!

[Diuretic]

But if so, if they can do the job quite nicely, then your job is done isn't it? There will be no civil war?

Civil war has been happening for some time now.

 

[maineman]

But if so, if they can do the job quite nicely, then your job is done isn't it? There will be no civil war?

oh...there will be a civil war.... regardless of when we leave, there will be bloodshed.... if we wait three years instead of three months. the only real substantive difference will be in our body count.

 

[maineman]

and since when was it America's responsibility to prevent Iraqis from fighting a civil war? We deposed their dictator... we helped them write a constitution and hold elections. Now...it's their turn. It will never get any easier.... sunnis will not all of a sudden stop hating shiites if we stay a bit longer.....

Iraqis need to solve their own problems.

 

[ErikViking]

and since when was it America's responsibility to prevent Iraqis from fighting a civil war? We deposed their dictator... we helped them write a constitution and hold elections. Now...it's their turn. It will never get any easier.... sunnis will not all of a sudden stop hating shiites if we stay a bit longer.....

Iraqis need to solve their own problems.

Enlightning

 

[actsnoblemartin]

what are we arguing (not listening to each other ) about, what are we fighting )needing to be right) over?

Just my humble opinion .

 

[maineman]

Enlightning

is that some special form of lightning?

and do you have anything to add of any substance to my post other than one misspelled word?

 

[red states rule]

is that some special form of lightning?

and do you have anything to add of any substance to my post other than one misspelled word?

Burns of NYT: Insurgents Know U.S. Politics Moving in Direction Favorable to Them
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on April 24, 2007 - 08:05.
Does it give the Dem leaders of Congress pause to realize that the enemies of the United States in Iraq, the people killing our troops, are banking on their political success? Reid and Pelosi might be tempted to dismiss this as the raving of a right-wing blogger. They shouldn't. It is in fact the considered view of someone they surely see as a respected, nay, an authoritative source: no less than the Baghdad bureau chief of the New York Times, John Burns.

Burns was a guest on this morning's "Today." In the set-up piece, NBC White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell rolled a clip of precisely the kind of politics to which Burns later alluded, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] fumed: "No more will the Congress turn a blind eye to the Bush administration's incompetence and dishonesty." When's the last time Reid spoke with such vitriol about al-Qaeda? Just wondering.

View video here.

Moments later, Matt Lauer asked Burns: "By its very nature a surge is a temporary dynamic. What is the biggest factor in your opinion as to whether they can have success in the near term and the longer term?"

NYT BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF JOHN BURNS: Well, the number of troops, that's finite. The amount of time they can stay, we think that's probably finite, too. And the calculations of the insurgents, who, as one military officer said to me, will always trade territory for time. That's to say, they will move out, they will wait. Because they know the political dynamic in the United States is moving in a direction that is probably going to be favorable to them.
The Dem party is often described as a coalition of interest groups: racial/ethnic minorities, Big Labor, gays, pro-choice activists, etc. Shall we add the Iraqi insurgents to the mix?
http://newsbusters.org/node/12261

 

[Edward]

no...I have just been trying to get you to back up a claim you have made about the surge...and you seem intent on avoiding it.... you are the one running from your own words here.

you are the one who claimed that american casualties had decreased by 60% because of the success of the surge.... and you refuse to back that bullshit up with any facts.... it is clearly YOU that are losing and losing badly. and nto very gracefully either.

The fucking idiot can't back up his claim. Your patience with this moron is commendable and you should be congratulated for your patience. I on the other hand will tell the fucking loser to shut the fuck up and to go to hell. Facts mean nothing to these retards. They have led this country into a war and a lot of innocen Americans and Iraqi's have died for their opinion even though they do not share it. These patriots joined the military to defend this country and instead are sent to die by Republican voters who care more about their opinions than about the lives of our young men and women in uniform.

 

[Edward]

I think because he's a troll MM.

I've been away for a while but when I got back I started reading this thread and it occured to me that RSR hasn't really "said" anything. He just comes back over and over with these childish insults and one-liners that aren't really relevant to any points that are made.

Reading what this idiot has to say makes me laugh. He doesn't say anything and never has. This is why I don't even bother giving a serious response to what the retard has said instead I tell him to fuck off and vote for some retard who agrees with his silly ass. I am sure he wishes Georgie Bush could run again so he could vote for him and I am sure Laurie Bush would like that because she gets off being fucked in the White House like the whore that she is.

 

[Edward]

that is wrong. I do not think our troops are losers in any way. I think that the suits that direct them are losers... and no...not everyone who disagrees with me is a traitor...only those who clearly and distinctly place the interests of their party and their president OVER those of their country.

Here are a few words to consider, "No decision a leader makes is more important than the decision to put American men and women in harm’s way...Right now our troops are serving in Iraq without a clear mission, without benchmarks to determine success or failure and without a clear timeline for either coming home or redeploying to fight Al Qaeda in Afghanistan."

Red State Rule's response would be to call the person who said this a liberal and would suggest that they are undermining the troops by their comment.

If the same person said, "I saw how President Bush had shortchanged our troops...I saw how our continued military presence in Iraq can inflame sectarian strife...I saw how our failure to implement a timeline for withdrawal left the Iraqis with no incentive to stand up and fight for their own democracy" he would probably insult this person for making the comment.

Who is this person? He is Representative Patrick Murphy who has served in Iraq and who is an outspoken critic of the President and the way the war is being handled. This Democrat is taking a stand against those who have "shortchanged our troops" and who continue to place them in harm's way. I agree with Representative Murphy and other members of Congress and most importantly with our soldiers who oppose the retarded plan of George Bush and those who voted for him. Bush has undermined our troops, has degraded their sacrifices and has insulted them long enough. It is time for us to stand up and to support our troops and to ask Bush to apologize for undermining our troops with his decisions which have led to the deaths of many innocent men and women who signed up to defend their country but are called upon to fight for the opinion of George Bush of Crawford, Texas. We are all grateful that Representative Murphy lived through Iraq so he could be elected to fight the imbecile in the White House.

 

[ErikViking]

is that some special form of lightning?

and do you have anything to add of any substance to my post other than one misspelled word?

I do:

• Ignoring a world opinion and the UN, America with a few allies decide to invade Iraq. The reason and the timing was Saddam Husseins access to WMD.
  
  
• A very effective invasion was carried out. In just a few weeks the war was won. The search for WMD however gave no result and frustration grew.
  
  
• The label for the war was changed to be about more than WMD. An extension of the war on terror and freeing the people of Iraq.
  
  
• America makes a promise to the world and the people of Iraq that they will not be abandoned. The whole effort is now called "Iraq freedom".
  "if we stop fighting the terrorists in Iraq, they would be free to plot and plan attacks elsewhere, in America and other free nations. To retreat now would betray our mission, our word and our friends."
  
• Time passes and the struggle for stability renders thousands of deaths. American casualties are low, but opinion at home starts to shift.
  
  
• Democrats try to win votes domestically by using the shift in opinions. To get the support of people who do support this effort the democrats now claim the war has to be faught elsewhere.
  
  
• Again the effort gets a new label. This time it is "stupid". Promises are easy to break and they can now ask the question of how civil war in Iraq can be of their business. They "want out".
  
  
• The cynisism and arrogance of the democrats lifts to new heights. Suddenly It is up to the Iraqs themselves, but while the betrayed and innocent people die they can at least take some comfort in this:
  
  1. A piece of paper the Americans left behind is called "Constitution".
  2. There are no substancial deaths since all American soldiers have left.

So.
And what was enlightened was the true nature of the democrats wish for departing from Iraq. The weak and cowardly approach on responsability and fullfillment. Also the short-sighted perspective of the outcome.
You will leave hundered of thousands of reasons behind for new terror actions.

Being a democrat myself I totally would support the sitting government in their ambition.

 

[ErikViking]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040524-10.html
.
.
.
Our coalition has a clear goal, understood by all -- to see the Iraqi people in charge of Iraq for the first time in generations. America's task in Iraq is not only to defeat an enemy, it is to give strength to a friend - a free, representative government that serves its people and fights on their behalf. And the sooner this goal is achieved, the sooner our job will be done.
.
.
.
America will provide forces and support necessary for achieving these goals.
.
.
.
After June 30th, American and other forces will still have important duties. American military forces in Iraq will operate under American command as a part of a multinational force authorized by the United Nations. Iraq's new sovereign government will still face enormous security challenges, and our forces will be there to help.
.
.
.
The third step in the plan for Iraqi democracy is to continue rebuilding that nation's infrastructure, so that a free Iraq can quickly gain economic independence and a better quality of life.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/04/20030428-3.html
.
.
.
You and I both know that Iraq can realize those hopes. Iraq can be an example of peace and prosperity and freedom to the entire Middle East. It'll be a hard journey, but at every step of the way, Iraq will have a steady friend in the American people.

"Unless, of cource, we change our minds."

?

 

[Rosotar]

Burns of NYT: Insurgents Know U.S. Politics Moving in Direction Favorable to Them
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on April 24, 2007 - 08:05.
Does it give the Dem leaders of Congress pause to realize that the enemies of the United States in Iraq, the people killing our troops, are banking on their political success? Reid and Pelosi might be tempted to dismiss this as the raving of a right-wing blogger. They shouldn't. It is in fact the considered view of someone they surely see as a respected, nay, an authoritative source: no less than the Baghdad bureau chief of the New York Times, John Burns.

Burns was a guest on this morning's "Today." In the set-up piece, NBC White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell rolled a clip of precisely the kind of politics to which Burns later alluded, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid [D-NV] fumed: "No more will the Congress turn a blind eye to the Bush administration's incompetence and dishonesty." When's the last time Reid spoke with such vitriol about al-Qaeda? Just wondering.

View video here.

Moments later, Matt Lauer asked Burns: "By its very nature a surge is a temporary dynamic. What is the biggest factor in your opinion as to whether they can have success in the near term and the longer term?"

NYT BAGHDAD BUREAU CHIEF JOHN BURNS: Well, the number of troops, that's finite. The amount of time they can stay, we think that's probably finite, too. And the calculations of the insurgents, who, as one military officer said to me, will always trade territory for time. That's to say, they will move out, they will wait. Because they know the political dynamic in the United States is moving in a direction that is probably going to be favorable to them.
The Dem party is often described as a coalition of interest groups: racial/ethnic minorities, Big Labor, gays, pro-choice activists, etc. Shall we add the Iraqi insurgents to the mix?
http://newsbusters.org/node/12261

The "surge" and this entire war are not failing because of the way American politics are moving RSR.

It's the other way around.

Public opposition to this war is gaining momentum because people are finally beginning to realize that they've been lied to all along about supposed "progress" and benchmarks in this fiasco. The same thing happened to Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam.


http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1614091,00.html

 

[red states rule]

The "surge" and this entire war are not failing because of the way American politics are moving RSR.

It's the other way around.

Public opposition to this war is gaining momentum because people are finally beginning to realize that they've been lied to all along about supposed "progress" and benchmarks in this fiasco. The same thing happened to Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam.


http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1614091,00.html

So the reporter who is there does not know what is going on?

 

[Rosotar]

So the reporter who is there does not know what is going on?

According to you the only people who seem to know what's "going on" are the ones who have been spreading all the false DOD and White House propaganda for four years.

 

[red states rule]

According to you the only people who seem to know what's "going on" are the ones who have been spreading all the false DOD and White House propaganda for four years.

Nice spin

I knew libs would ignore this even from the NY Times

I do suspect the reporter will be looking for a new job since he actually reported the truth

Something new for the NY Times

 

[maineman]

so let me get this straight....NYT is now a trusted source of news, RSR, or only when it publishes articles that agree with your preconceived view. Which is it? Worthless liberal rag or trusted media outlet? Take your pick.

 

[red states rule]

so let me get this straight....NYT is now a trusted source of news, RSR, or only when it publishes articles that agree with your preconceived view. Which is it? Worthless liberal rag or trusted media outlet? Take your pick.

One lone reporter spoke out

This is not the first time he has

and the NY Times editors pubicly rebuked him for it

 

[maineman]

take your pick...if you quote NYT as a trusted source, I will too.

 

[red states rule]

take your pick...if you quote NYT as a trusted source, I will too.

You trust them when they ignore the facts and publish the daily DNC talking points