Bad News For Libs - Progress In Baghdad Is Being Made

[CTRLALTDEL]

Why don't the libs try something new - like trying to help the US win the war?

Or that to much to ask of the Defeatocrats?

OK. So which side do we pick in this CIVIL WAR?? Sunni or Shiites??

 

[red states rule]

OK. So which side do we pick in this CIVIL WAR?? Sunni or Shiites??

who said there is a civil war? Terrorists are trying to start one, and libs seem to hope they succeed

 

[T-Bor]

Red States - how much are you willing to sacrifice to have control of IRAQ ? I would really like to know that. Are you willing to sacrifice, lets say, 5-10,000 American lives? HMMM? I would really like to know how far you are willing to go to "WIN" this so called "War".

How come you have not enlisted Red States? I know you are young because no one over 30 can be as stupid as you. But seriously how come YOU are not over there fighting? Or is your part of this war on terror to just post BULLSHIT on this website.

Why don't the libs try something new - like trying to help the US win the war?

Or that to much to ask of the Defeatocrats?

 

[red states rule]

Red States - how much are you willing to sacrifice to have control of IRAQ ? I would really like to know that. Are you willing to sacrifice, lets say, 5-10,000 American lives? HMMM? I would really like to know how far you are willing to go to "WIN" this so called "War".

How come you have not enlisted Red States? I know you are young because no one over 30 can be as stupid as you. But seriously how come YOU are not over there fighting? Or is your part of this war on terror to just post BULLSHIT on this website.

Before giving up (as libs already have) I am willing to sacrifice 300 million Americans in fighting terrorism

You are a prime example of the type of support terrorists are hoping for. If dems get their way, the terrorists will win in Iraq, and then they will come after us here in America

Typical of the moonbat left to personally insult anyone who disagrees with them. It is their debating style

 

[T-Bor]

Who said there was a civil war ? Jesus F-in christ man dont you read the news? Saddam was a Sunni, now the sunnis's are our of power. Now the shiites and the sunnis are fighting. But you are right, this is all the work of the big bad terrorists. There is no shiite and sunni civil war. In fact all the body parts that are found on a daily basis are just a product of good digital film editing. None of it is really happening. </Sarcasm.>

who said there is a civil war? Terrorists are trying to start one, and libs seem to hope they succeed

 

[red states rule]

Who said there was a civil war ? Jesus F-in christ man dont you read the news? Saddam was a Sunni, now the sunnis's are our of power. Now the shiites and the sunnis are fighting. But you are right, this is all the work of the big bad terrorists. There is no shiite and sunni civil war. In fact all the body parts that are found on a daily basis are just a product of good digital film editing. None of it is really happening. </Sarcasm.>

The terrorists and the liberal media are painting it as a civil war, but so far the surge is working.

I know this pisses off the left to here about the progress being made, but the good news is getting out

 

[T-Bor]

Thats nice...Now lets ask the 300 million what they think about that. Thats nice that YOU are willing to have so much blood on your hands. 300 million huh ? Wow what a patriot..I mean idiot YOU are. Seriously, I dont think I have EVER seen someone as brainwashed as you.

Before giving up (as libs already have) I am willing to sacrifice 300 million Americans in fighting terrorism

You are a prime example of the type of support terrorists are hoping for. If dems get their way, the terrorists will win in Iraq, and then they will come after us here in America

Typical of the moonbat left to personally insult anyone who disagrees with them. It is their debating style

 

[red states rule]

Thats nice...Now lets ask the 300 million what they think about that. Thats nice that YOU are willing to have so much blood on your hands. 300 million huh ? Wow what a patriot..I mean idiot YOU are. Seriously, I dont think I have EVER seen someone as brainwashed as you.

So I guess you are willing to turn tail and run away from the fight and hand over Iraq to the terrorists (with the oil revenue to finance their operations)

I am not

Again, libs fall back on persoanl attacks rather then debate. Typical

 

[red states rule]

Thats nice...Now lets ask the 300 million what they think about that. Thats nice that YOU are willing to have so much blood on your hands. 300 million huh ? Wow what a patriot..I mean idiot YOU are. Seriously, I dont think I have EVER seen someone as brainwashed as you.

BATTLING FOR BAGHDAD
By RALPH PETERS


March 1, 2007 -- WITH all of the mud-sling ing on Capitol Hill, you could almost forget the gun-slinging in Baghdad.
As Democrats, Iraqi insurgents and terrorists all struggle to prevent an American win, it's hard to get an accurate sense of Iraq nowadays.

When in doubt, ask a soldier.

My best source in Baghdad offered a soberly optimistic assessment at odds with the "Gotcha!" negativity in Washington. He doesn't claim that success is guaranteed. But he believes in his head, heart and soul that we've got a fighting chance.

And I believe him.

I took the temperature of other officers, as well. They agree unanimously that the administration made terrible mistakes from which we and the Iraqis are still recovering. But not one of these soldiers is ready to quit.

Here are the key points I've heard from those I trust:

* Of the five additional U.S. brigades headed for Baghdad, only one is in place, with the second starting to arrive. Yet the city is already quieter and safer. The terrorists continue to detonate their bombs - with suicidal fanatics targeting the innocent - but sectarian killings (death-squad hits) have dropped from over 50 each night down to single digits.

* The tactic of stationing U.S. units and their Iraqi counterparts down in the Baghdad 'hoods is already paying off. (It should have been used from the outset - instead of hunkering down on massive bases. But better late than never.) The effort has triggered a flood of intelligence tips: When citizens feel safe, they cooperate. And when they help us, our success compounds.

* U.S. commanders now have a lot of experience in Iraq. They're not wide-eyed kids at the circus anymore. They understand there are no uniform, easy answers to Iraq's violence and complex allegiances. As a senior officer put it, "Every neighborhood and city is unique, with their own challenges."

I'll leave it to The New York Times to betray our military secrets, and just say I'm very impressed by the insight shown by our brigade and battalion commanders these days.

* We hear the bad news from the rest of Iraq, such as this week's monstrous car bombing of children at play on a soccer field in Ramadi, but we don't hear that such attacks by al Qaeda operatives have infuriated mainstream Sunni sheiks and their tribes - who increasingly make common cause with us and their government. And winning over the Sunni "middle" is crucial to Iraq's future.

* We'll never stop all suicide bombers and car bombers, but our security crackdown has already taken out two major Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Device (VBIED) factories. And we took down a huge arms cache late last week.

* No one's getting any "Mission Accomplished" banners ready to go, but front-line leaders in Iraq are convinced the situation just isn't as hopeless as politicians back home insist. I don't know a single officer in-country who believes the reporting from Iraq gives an honest, balanced picture.

Of course, there are serious worries:

* Above all, senior leaders worry that, thanks to political shenanigans back home, they won't be given the time it would take to win. Even with improved tactics, this just isn't easy work.

Personally, I continue to believe that 2007 is the year of decision - when the Iraqi government and its security forces have to show their mettle. But 2007 has barely begun. Let's not declare defeat for April Fool's Day. The stakes are so high that Iraq merits this last chance.

* The sectarian violence between Sunni Arabs and the Shia that gathered strength after last year's Golden Mosque bombing has "damaged trust between the two sects enormously," as a U.S. official put it. It's possible that the damage is too deep to be repaired - we just don't know. At best, reconstructing a shared national identity is going to be hard. But many gruesome conflicts have ended in national reconciliation.

* There's one thing we know won't work: The nutty Pelosi-crat proposal to restrict the mission of U.S. troops to "training Iraqis and defeating al Qaeda." Would our troops have to wait to return fire until they checked the ID cards of their attackers? If they saw a massacre of women and children in progress, would we want them to stand by until they received a legal opinion as to whether the killers were bona fide foreign terrorists?

This ain't the NFL, where everybody wears a uniform and plays by the rules. Proposals to limit the freedom of action of our troops reflect domestic politics at their shabbiest - and you and I know it. Our troops need fewer restrictions, not more.

THERE are no guarantees of success. The president's troop surge may not be enough to make a decisive difference; in the end, Iraq may collapse all around us. A sectarian bloodbath could be inevitable.

But our brave men and women in uniform have new coaches and a new playbook for Iraq. They believe they've got a reasonable chance to cross the goal line - and they've got more at risk than a sports celebrity's salary.

Yes, the Iraqis have to pick up the ball - but it would be an immoral act of strategic madness to fumble the ball on purpose.

In the end, we may not win. But you can't win if you walk off the field while the game's still under way. The clock may run out on hope for Iraq. But it hasn't yet.

Ralph Peters' latest book is "Never Quit The Fight."


http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly...g_for_baghdad_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm

 

[red states rule]

Who said there was a civil war ? Jesus F-in christ man dont you read the news? Saddam was a Sunni, now the sunnis's are our of power. Now the shiites and the sunnis are fighting. But you are right, this is all the work of the big bad terrorists. There is no shiite and sunni civil war. In fact all the body parts that are found on a daily basis are just a product of good digital film editing. None of it is really happening. </Sarcasm.>

Another Times Reporter Goes on Rose Show and Says Bush's "Surge" May Work
Will the Times criticize Sabrina Tavernise for her comments on the Charlie Rose show, like it did those of military reporter Michael Gordon?

Posted by: Clay Waters
2/23/2007 2:41:23 PM



Does Public Editor Barney Calame know about this?

Another Times reporter has gone onto Charlie Rose and suggested that putting more U.S. troops in Iraq may have a "good effect."

Let's just hope she doesn't get into trouble like Michael Gordon did on the Rose show in January for saying that Bush's "surge" was worth trying. Tavernise not only said the surge might have a "good effect" in the region, but furthermore, that an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be an "unmitigated disaster."

Here's an excerpt from Sabrina Tavernise's lead-off interview with Charlie Rose (video available) Wednesday night :

"It's surprising, I know, because it seems like such -- you know, such an unmitigated sadness and tragedy for a lot of people -- you know, for the nation, for the people there, but, you know, it's really – it's really true that if you held an election tomorrow and you asked every single Iraqi, are you -- would you do it again? Would you have the U.S. do it again? You'd have close to 80 percent of the population, which is the Shiites and the Kurds, saying yes, they should.

"You know, there were mistakes and they'll make a lot of caveats, but I had a -- I went to cover the constitutional referendum, it was when Iraqis voted to accept the constitution that had been written by the politicians in Iraq, in Baghdad. And there were a bunch of Shiite sort of very poor fellows who had been brought out as election workers. They were running the polling stations, and they were in a very hostile Sunni area -- they were in Anbar.

"And I remember asking one fellow who was -- I don't know what his job was, I don't remember -- he was a janitor, something like that. I said, why did you come all the way out here? You know, you're leaving your family for a week. I think they were being paid 20 bucks or something -- it was very small -- to help run this -- this -- this election. What – what's in it for you? And he said, yes, it's dangerous, but now it's a useful danger, as opposed to under Saddam, when it was dangerous basically for no -- no hope for anything better. And I think for Shiites, that`s really true, that, yes, it's dangerous; yes, you can get blown up at a market; yes, there's all this violence, but at the end of the day, we're in power now and it's our show."

Charlie Rose: "Is there a sense that the surge will work or not work? Or that whatever happens will simply be temporary?"

Tavernise: "When you say work -- I think that the surge could definitely have an effect, a good effect, in the neighborhoods for bringing violence down. I think it could. I mean, I studied a number of different neighborhoods where the mere presence of American troops actually did bring down the murder rate. In one particular example, by about a third, which is significant, you know, significant. It's a lot of bodies that aren't turning up in sewers every morning. So that's not small.

"At the same time, I don't think that more American troops on the ground in Iraq is going to stop, you know, what is essentially kind of an historical process that has begun. I don't think that, you know, people are all of a sudden going to embrace each other and say, now we're brothers. It's just, you know, it's gone so far. And people, over the course of two years, essentially, having from saying, we are all brothers, how dare you even bring up the sect of my child and my wife, to we don't trust those people, they're Sunni. The Sunnis are responsible for all of these bombings. I mean, it's changed so much.

"That, I don't think, is something you can, you know, really have much effect on with setting up a roadblock or doing a sweep or -- you know, that –- that's going to be –- that's going to have to burn itself out. It really will.

"I think that American soldiers have a very important function in Iraq right now. I think that -- that if everyone left immediately, it would be an unmitigated disaster. Now, you know, there is some semblance of normal life that goes on."


http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2007/20070223132144.aspx

 

[T-Bor]

Are you willing to sacrifice your own life Red States for this terrorism fight since YOU are so willing to sacrifice 300 Million lives. Are you willing to die. And again, since you are so adamant about winning, how come YOU have not enlisted ? How come YOU arent fighting since you are so willing to sacrifice 300 million?

Oh, and I can find articles that support my viewpoint also. Its all too easy, I however choose not to play that game.

 

[red states rule]

Are you willing to sacrifice your own life Red States for this terrorism fight since YOU are so willing to sacrifice 300 Million lives. Are you willing to die. And again, since you are so adamant about winning, how come YOU have not enlisted ? How come YOU arent fighting since you are so willing to sacrifice 300 million?

Oh, and I can find articles that support my viewpoint also. Its all too easy, I however choose not to play that game.

When unable to counter facts libs will put out the old same tired worn out playbook talking points

So now, if you have never served you cannot express your views in the war and military

What is next, if you are not black you cannot speak out on issues regarding race?

The surge is working, and the troops want ot accomplishe the mission. Libs want the sirge to fail and for the US to lose the war - all for political gain

Some libs have put their party ahead of their country

 

[T-Bor]

What FACTS are you referring to ? If you are referring to the FACT that IRAQ is 1000 times worse than we got there...then yes that is a fact.. But you, like a typical republican..avoided the question. I never said you couldnt express your opinion, please point out where I said that. I doubt you can. However the question still remains red states that I posted above. You are afraid to answer it arent you?

When unable to counter facts libs will put out the old same tired worn out playbook talking points

So now, if you have never served you cannot express your views in the war and military

What is next, if you are not black you cannot speak out on issues regarding race?

The surge is working, and the troops want ot accomplishe the mission. Libs want the sirge to fail and for the US to lose the war - all for political gain

Some libs have put their party ahead of their country

 

[T-Bor]

Here was the question you avoided..

Are you willing to sacrifice your own life Red States for this terrorism fight since YOU are so willing to sacrifice 300 Million lives. Are you willing to die. And again, since you are so adamant about winning, how come YOU have not enlisted ? How come YOU arent fighting since you are so willing to sacrifice 300 million?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Here was the question you avoided..

Are you willing to sacrifice your own life Red States for this terrorism fight since YOU are so willing to sacrifice 300 Million lives. Are you willing to die. And again, since you are so adamant about winning, how come YOU have not enlisted ? How come YOU arent fighting since you are so willing to sacrifice 300 million?

Thats a red herring question and you should know that. If you dont then you are very ignorant. The COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES is a CIVILIAN, and that was by design.
And I presume you dont argue the abortion debate or death penalty?

Your claim about Iraq being worse is bullshit.

 

[red states rule]

The Poll You’ll Never Hear About: Only 27% of Iraqis Believe it’s a Civil War
Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 19, 2007 - 00:34.
There were two Iraq polls released on Sunday. One is guaranteed to be headline news. The other will likely be totally ignored.

In fact, one of the polls was already referenced by George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week,” as well as reported by USA Today and CNN.

Know what the difference is between these surveys, both of which rather compelling as they asked questions of Iraqi citizens? Well, one painted a rather dire picture of conditions in the embattled country, while the other found a very optimistic people who don’t believe their nation is in a civil war.

As the American media will likely focus all of its attention on the more pessimistic survey, here is the contrary view nobody other than Fox News is likely to cover as reported by the Sunday Times (emphasis added throughout):

DESPITE sectarian slaughter, ethnic cleansing and suicide bombs, an opinion poll conducted on the eve of the fourth anniversary of the US-led invasion of Iraq has found a striking resilience and optimism among the inhabitants.

The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services.

The survey, published today, also reveals that contrary to the views of many western analysts, most Iraqis do not believe they are embroiled in a civil war.

Is it becoming clear why you are unlikely to hear anything about this poll? Yet, that was only the beginning of the startling findings:

The 400 interviewers who fanned out across Iraq last month found that the sense of security felt by Baghdad residents had significantly improved since polling carried out before the US announced in January that it was sending in a “surge” of more than 20,000 extra troops.

[…]

49% of those questioned preferred life under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, to living under Saddam. Only 26% said things had been better in Saddam’s era, while 16% said the two leaders were as bad as each other and the rest did not know or refused to answer.

And, there was even more good news:

The poll suggests a significant increase in support for Maliki. A survey conducted by ORB in September last year found that only 29% of Iraqis had a favourable opinion of the prime minister.

Another surprise was that only 27% believed they were caught up in a civil war. Again, that number divided along religious lines, with 41% of Sunnis believing Iraq was in a civil war, compared with only 15% of Shi’ites.

[…]

One question showed the sharp divide in attitudes towards the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq. Some 53% of Iraqis nationwide agree that the security situation will improve in the weeks after a withdrawal by international forces, while only 26% think it will get worse.

“We’ve been polling in Iraq since 2005 and the finding that most surprised us was how many Iraqis expressed support for the present government,” said Johnny Heald, managing director of ORB. “Given the level of violence in Iraq, it shows an unexpected level of optimism.”

Despite the sectarian divide, 64% of Iraqis still want to see a united Iraq under a central national government.

Rather unfortunate that Americans will likely hear very little about this survey, wouldn’t you agree?

What a disgrace.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11497

 

[red states rule]

Antiwar Media Ignore Israel Related Consequences of Iraq War Retreat
Posted by Noel Sheppard on March 19, 2007 - 08:51.
As NewsBusters reported about the March 11 installment of “Meet the Press,” former “Nightline” anchor Ted Koppel made some almost verboten observations concerning the dangers of a premature withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Amongst other things, Koppel claimed the battle between Sunnis and Shia currently taking place there would become a much larger religious conflict throughout the entire Persian Gulf region.

With that as pretext, another side of this issue ignored by the media is how Hizbullah and Iran are licking their respective chops at the thought of such a troop withdrawal and the opportunity it would present for the total annihilation of Israel.

Consider for example some recent comments made by Abdallah Safialdeen, Hizbullah’s representative in Iran. A few weeks ago, he gave an interview on Irani television, and made statements that if ever broadcast in America would radically change how U.S. citizens viewed the war (video available here courtesy of Memri TV):

Do you know what an American withdrawal from Iraq will mean? It will mean that Israel will lose its support. It will mean that the Lebanese Hizbullah will not need a large-scale war in order to enter Palestine. Hizbullah will be able to simply walk into Palestine. Rest assured that the day the American forces leave Iraq, the Israelis will leave the region along with them.

Scary stuff, yes? But Safialdeen wasn’t finished:

What was one of the reasons for Olmert’s recent visit to America? He went there in order to say to the Democrats: “Don’t say that the American army will leave Iraq, because this would mean the annihilation of the Zionist regime.” This is because the annihilation of the Zionist regime has begun. Like some of our friends say, Palestine is no longer a problem for us, because the Americans will be forced to leave Iraq. With or without a war against Iran, they will be forced to do so. The moment they leave Iraq, you, the Muslims of the world, can walk into Palestine, because Israel will no longer exist. It will be over and done with. Even with America’s [help], Israel could not do a thing. The Americans will be kicked out of the region, without accomplishing anything. The American forces will be kicked out of the region, in disgrace, humiliation, and defeat. Therefore, this victory was very important. It was a landmark in the history of the Islamic world and the entire region.

Any questions as to why such sentiments can never be shared with America’s citizens by our antiwar press?

What follows is a full transcript of this video.

ABDALLAH SAFIALDEEN (Hizbullah’s representative in Iran): The day that Hizbullah won the war shaped the future of the region. It led to what we are witnessing today: America’s actions, the domestic problems of the Zionist regime, the confusion of Europe… The Europeans are very confused now, and don’t know what to do. The horse that they put their money on – Israel – can no longer fulfill the role it played in the past. America has not had any success anywhere in the region. In our opinion, the harbinger of this lack of success was the victory of Hizbullah, the bitter defeat of the Zionist regime, and its incompetence in the region. You should know that… Do you know what an American withdrawal from Iraq will mean? It will mean that Israel will lose its support. It will mean that the Lebanese Hizbullah will not need a large-scale war in order to enter Palestine. Hizbullah will be able to simply walk into Palestine. Rest assured that the day the American forces leave Iraq, the Israelis will leave the region along with them. What was one of the reasons for Olmert’s recent visit to America? He went there in order to say to the Democrats: “Don’t say that the American army will leave Iraq, because this would mean the annihilation of the Zionist regime.” This is because the annihilation of the Zionist regime has begun. Like some of our friends say, Palestine is no longer a problem for us, because the Americans will be forced to leave Iraq. With or without a war against Iran, they will be forced to do so. The moment they leave Iraq, you, the Muslims of the world, can walk into Palestine, because Israel will no longer exist. It will be over and done with. Even with America’s [help], Israel could not do a thing. The Americans will be kicked out of the region, without accomplishing anything. The American forces will be kicked out of the region, in disgrace, humiliation, and defeat. Therefore, this victory was very important. It was a landmark in the history of the Islamic world and the entire region.


http://newsbusters.org/node/11502
__________________

 

[CTRLALTDEL]

When unable to counter facts libs will put out the old same tired worn out playbook talking points

So now, if you have never served you cannot express your views in the war and military

What is next, if you are not black you cannot speak out on issues regarding race?

The surge is working, and the troops want ot accomplishe the mission. Libs want the sirge to fail and for the US to lose the war - all for political gain

Some libs have put their party ahead of their country

Nice DODGE OF THE QUESTION RED STATES. LOL!!!!!!!!

 

[T-Bor]

Really ? You tell me how it is better. The entire region is chaos and the sunnis and shiites are spilling blood left and right ever day. You tell me how IRAQ NOT BAGHDAD is better NOW than it was before ? My claim is bullshit? Have you ever seen or heard of this much bloodsheed in IRAQ before we got there ? Saddam was an asshole but he kept the region was semi stable when he was there. Even Gunny agrees with me on this point which I never thought I would hear but IRAQ would be much better off if Saddam were just left alone. And my question to Red States is totally valid and he wont answer it obviously.

And no shit the commander in chief is a civilian by design. What do you think we are going to do send him to war so he can be killed and elect a new president every 30 days when the next one gets killed? Dont be so freaking stupid. Red States said ABOVE that he would sacrifice 300 million lives...So I asked him how come he isnt serving and is he willing to sacrifice his own life? Its a valid question and I baited him earlier and he fell for it, now I pose the question. He is a coward who is willing to sacrifice everyones life but his own. He is a POS Coward !!!!!

Thats a red herring question and you should know that. If you dont then you are very ignorant. The COMMANDER IN CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES is a CIVILIAN, and that was by design.
And I presume you dont argue the abortion debate or death penalty?

Your claim about Iraq being worse is bullshit.

 

[T-Bor]

I know...he got totally owned. I freaking love it.

Nice DODGE OF THE QUESTION RED STATES. LOL!!!!!!!!