PDA

View Full Version : US ambassador: Al-Qaida close to defeat in Iraq



actsnoblemartin
05-24-2008, 10:11 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080524/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

By LEE KEATH, Associated Press Writer Sat May 24, 4:08 PM ET

BAGHDAD - The U.S. ambassador to Iraq said Saturday that al-Qaida's network in the country has never been closer to defeat, and he praised Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for his moves to rein in Shiite and Sunni militant groups.

Ryan Crocker's comments came as Iraqi forces have been conducting crackdowns on al-Qaida militants in the northern city of Mosul and on Shiite militiamen in the southern city of Basra. Thousands of Iraqi forces also moved into the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City in Baghdad last week imposing control for the first time in years.

retiredman
05-24-2008, 10:38 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080524/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

By LEE KEATH, Associated Press Writer Sat May 24, 4:08 PM ET

BAGHDAD - The U.S. ambassador to Iraq said Saturday that al-Qaida's network in the country has never been closer to defeat, and he praised Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for his moves to rein in Shiite and Sunni militant groups.

Ryan Crocker's comments came as Iraqi forces have been conducting crackdowns on al-Qaida militants in the northern city of Mosul and on Shiite militiamen in the southern city of Basra. Thousands of Iraqi forces also moved into the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City in Baghdad last week imposing control for the first time in years.

you realize, of course (or perhaps, of course not) that the problem of AQI and the problem of Muqtada al Sadr and shiites who have no intention of swallowing the multicultural democracy we are trying to force feed them are two completely separate and distinct issues?

actsnoblemartin
05-24-2008, 10:42 PM
as opposed to al queda and al sadr force feeding tyranny, and authoritarian rule over iraqis. Unless you somehow believe they will try for a democratic iraq.


you realize, of course (or perhaps, of course not) that the problem of AQI and the problem of Muqtada al Sadr and shiites who have no intention of swallowing the multicultural democracy we are trying to force feed them are two completely separate and distinct issues?

Kathianne
05-24-2008, 10:44 PM
AQI and Sadr seem to have been addressed this week. MFM wishes to pretend it's one or the other, but it's been both. I believe this is the reason Patreaus thinks he may be able to recommend removing a brigade from Iraq by fall.

retiredman
05-24-2008, 10:51 PM
as opposed to al queda and al sadr force feeding tyranny, and authoritarian rule over iraqis. Unless you somehow believe they will try for a democratic iraq.

the former is a minor irritant at this point..the latter is an endemic problem which we seem to want to conflate with the former.

AQI could NEVER be a major issue in Iraq... if the sunni warlords did not whip their asses, the shiite militias certainly would

Sadr's military might is something he controls and we cannot.

retiredman
05-24-2008, 10:53 PM
AQI and Sadr seem to have been addressed this week. MFM wishes to pretend it's one or the other, but it's been both. I believe this is the reason Patreaus thinks he may be able to recommend removing a brigade from Iraq by fall.

I am sure. Sadr has been "addressed this week"???? How??? Has his militia disarmed? Has he pledged to support and defend the constitution of Iraq against all enemies foreign and domestic? Have we "defeated" him?

Kathianne
05-24-2008, 10:58 PM
I am sure. Sadr has been "addressed this week"???? How??? Has his militia disarmed? Has he pledged to support and defend the constitution of Iraq against all enemies foreign and domestic? Have we "defeated" him?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/world/5795582.html

First step. Where is al Sadr, oh yeah, Iran. Oh my.

retiredman
05-24-2008, 11:03 PM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/world/5795582.html

First step. Where is al Sadr, oh yeah, Iran. Oh my.

what is your point? he is solid with Iran? we knew that. His troops melting back into the background without giving up any weaponry? that is what they have done in the past. Sadr is playing Maliki like a violin? no shit.

Kathianne
05-24-2008, 11:05 PM
what is your point? he is solid with Iran? we knew that. His troops melting back into the background without giving up any weaponry? that is what they have done in the past. Sadr is playing Maliki like a violin? no shit.

Read the freaking article. Sadr City is getting in line, regardless of rhetoric. Bad thing for your hopes of failure.

retiredman
05-24-2008, 11:10 PM
Read the freaking article. Sadr City is getting in line, regardless of rhetoric. Bad thing for your hopes of failure.


the article said that Sadr's militia melted back into the general population. Is that some NEW development from your perspective???
and don't INSULT me by suggesting that I hope for failure. I find that profoundly insulting and infuriating.

Kathianne
05-24-2008, 11:14 PM
the article said that Sadr's militia melted back into the general population. Is that some NEW development from your perspective???
and don't INSULT me by suggesting that I hope for failure. I find that profoundly insulting and infuriating.

Well that just spoiled my evening. Of course they 'melted', the difference is they are now being persued and you understand that. Well I think you do.

retiredman
05-24-2008, 11:18 PM
Well that just spoiled my evening. Of course they 'melted', the difference is they are now being persued and you understand that. Well I think you do.

how do you pursue militiamen who melt into the populace and remain fully armed? Do you honestly think that the surge forces have a handle on the Mehdi army? do you honestly think that they cannot stir up mayhem whenever al Sadr decides it is politically expedient for them to do so?

PostmodernProphet
05-25-2008, 05:08 AM
the former is a minor irritant at this point..the latter is an endemic problem which we seem to want to conflate with the former.

AQI could NEVER be a major issue in Iraq... if the sunni warlords did not whip their asses, the shiite militias certainly would

Sadr's military might is something he controls and we cannot.

amazing then that the Dems thought that minor irritant had defeated us less than a year ago......

ranger
05-25-2008, 09:40 AM
amazing then that the Dems thought that minor irritant had defeated us less than a year ago......

What do you mean a year ago? They're still saying that we've lost in Iraq and that it was a disaster and should have never happened and that the entire fate of the western civilization has been destroyed by our rash actions in Iraq.

My response to them :finger3:

retiredman
05-25-2008, 11:12 AM
amazing then that the Dems thought that minor irritant had defeated us less than a year ago......

I don't know who you are talking about...certainly not me. I never had any doubts that our military could prevail over extremist sunnis in Iraq.

Gaffer
05-25-2008, 11:16 AM
how do you pursue militiamen who melt into the populace and remain fully armed? Do you honestly think that the surge forces have a handle on the Mehdi army? do you honestly think that they cannot stir up mayhem whenever al Sadr decides it is politically expedient for them to do so?

Easy, you go in and search all the houses. When the locals see the thugs being taken down and security restored to their areas they begin to assist by pointing out where the thugs are hiding.

The surge forces have a good handle on things. sadr is hiding in iran and his troops are not listening to him. The mehadi army is being lead by iranians. sadr has no vote in parliament since he refused to lay down his arms. That's the new iraqi law, no armed militia has a vote in parliament.

sadr will remain in exile and continue to try to stir up revolt among the shites, but he is in effect neutralized.

You want to see failure in iraq because of your own ego. You want to be proven right. And like all libs you look for every negative report to wave proudly to say "see I told you so."

Kathianne
05-25-2008, 11:20 AM
Easy, you go in and search all the houses. When the locals see the thugs being taken down and security restored to their areas they begin to assist by pointing out where the thugs are hiding.

The surge forces have a good handle on things. sadr is hiding in iran and his troops are not listening to him. The mehadi army is being lead by iranians. sadr has no vote in parliament since he refused to lay down his arms. That's the new iraqi law, no armed militia has a vote in parliament.

sadr will remain in exile and continue to try to stir up revolt among the shites, but he is in effect neutralized.

You want to see failure in iraq because of your own ego. You want to be proven right. And like all libs you look for every negative report to wave proudly to say "see I told you so."And that is what the Iraqis have been doing, backed up by US. They are pursuing and not setting up 'safe havens' that are off-limits.

semi liberal girl
05-25-2008, 12:01 PM
the article said that Sadr's militia melted back into the general population. Is that some NEW development from your perspective???
and don't INSULT me by suggesting that I hope for failure. I find that profoundly insulting and infuriating.

You live for failure, you crave for surrender, and you thirst for defeat. Stop playing the role of the offended and insulted liberal - that play acting is getting boring and people are on to your BS tactics

PostmodernProphet
05-25-2008, 12:26 PM
I don't know who you are talking about....

then you're the only one who doesn't......

semi liberal girl
05-25-2008, 12:27 PM
then you're the only one who doesn't......

Oh he knows. It is a classic liberal debate trick

Play dumb when you can;t counter the facts

Of course it is hard to figure out if MFM is playing dumb or is really dumb

retiredman
05-25-2008, 07:24 PM
Easy, you go in and search all the houses. When the locals see the thugs being taken down and security restored to their areas they begin to assist by pointing out where the thugs are hiding.do you think that shiites believe that the mehdi army are "thugs"?

The surge forces have a good handle on things. sadr is hiding in iran and his troops are not listening to him. Really? Do you have a :link:?
The mehadi army is being lead by iranians. sadr has no vote in parliament since he refused to lay down his arms. That's the new iraqi law, no armed militia has a vote in parliament. I am aware that such a law had been proposed, but am not aware that it had been passed. Do you have a :link:?

sadr will remain in exile and continue to try to stir up revolt among the shites, but he is in effect neutralized.that is your opinion...

You want to see failure in iraq because of your own ego. You want to be proven right. And like all libs you look for every negative report to wave proudly to say "see I told you so."
that is incorrect. I don't WANT to see failure in Iraq. I want to see success in the war against islamic extremism and I firmly believe that our adventure in Iraq is counterproductive to that larger initiative.

semi liberal girl
05-26-2008, 05:49 AM
EDITED by 5stringJeff: "quote doctoring" is not allowed. Please refrain from such posting in the future. Thank you.

Gaffer
05-26-2008, 07:48 AM
do you think that shiites believe that the mehdi army are "thugs"?

If they lived in basra or sadr city.


Really? Do you have a (link) ?

You don't believe links, remember? Makes it hard to have a "debate" but, hey, your the one that refuses to look at them. They might taint your liberal mind with lots of real facts.


"That's the new iraqi law, no armed militia has a vote in parliament." I am aware that such a law had been proposed, but am not aware that it had been passed. Do you have a (link) ? The law musta passed while you were vacationing in mexico. You musta missed it. You don't believe links, so I'll let you do your own searching. Of course, iraqi's passing important laws isn't big news here, it might interfere with all the negative reporting that must be done.

The only failure concerning iraq is the libs attempts to undermine it. I know you will keep trying and any set back will be gleefully reported by you with and "I told you so". You got on the wrong train five years ago and it's killing your ego to admit it.

retiredman
05-26-2008, 09:48 AM
If they lived in basra or sadr city.



You don't believe links, remember? Makes it hard to have a "debate" but, hey, your the one that refuses to look at them. They might taint your liberal mind with lots of real facts.

The law musta passed while you were vacationing in mexico. You musta missed it. You don't believe links, so I'll let you do your own searching. Of course, iraqi's passing important laws isn't big news here, it might interfere with all the negative reporting that must be done.

The only failure concerning iraq is the libs attempts to undermine it. I know you will keep trying and any set back will be gleefully reported by you with and "I told you so". You got on the wrong train five years ago and it's killing your ego to admit it.


So... I take it you have no links that would support your inane positions?

Why didn't you just say so?

semi liberal girl
05-26-2008, 09:52 AM
So... I take it you have no links that would support your inane positions?

Why didn't you just say so?

Democrats like you hate any good news from Iraq. It destroys your confidence in getting a surender date, and makes it much harder to push your appeasement plan

At least one Dem has the balls to admit what a pack of liars my party has become. No wonder you feel right at home with them

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=14646

retiredman
05-26-2008, 09:54 AM
Democrats like you hate any good news from Iraq. It destroys your confidence in getting a surender date, and makes it much harder to push your appeasement plan

At least one Dem has the balls to admit what a pack of liars my party has become. No wonder you feel right at home with them

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=14646

do YOU have any links that would show that Sadr's party cannot run in any regional elections?

semi liberal girl
05-26-2008, 09:56 AM
do YOU have any links that would show that Sadr's party cannot run in any regional elections?

Typical - duck the facts in my post and try to change the subject

Liars like you always get caught sooner or later - as with my link

retiredman
05-26-2008, 11:47 AM
Typical - duck the facts in my post and try to change the subject

Liars like you always get caught sooner or later - as with my link


As I said previously, if we had won enough seats in congress, and especially the senate, we COULD have ended the war. We needed to have 60 seats in the senate to avoid republican filibusters... we really needed 67 so that we could override Bush's vetoes. Unfortunately, there were enough safe seats in the hands of the GOP to prevent us from gaining that level of control. But that doesn't change the fact that if we had gotten that level of control in the legislature, we could have - and would have - promptly ended the war in Iraq and forced the president to more intelligently fight the war against our real enemies. Hopefully, in 2008, we'll get a solid democratic majority in the senate AND a democrat in the white house so we can finally accomplish that.

Now.... do YOU have a link that shows the supposedly new Iraqi law that prevents Sadr's party from running in regional elections? yes or no?

retiredman
05-27-2008, 09:07 AM
The law musta passed while you were vacationing in mexico. You musta missed it. You don't believe links, so I'll let you do your own searching.

so I did:

"We were promised that the law would finish on April 15, and that didn't happen, then promised May 15, and that didn't happen. Now we're promised June 1. This is an embarrassing delay, and we hope it will be passed this week," said Qassim al-Aboudi, the commission's executive director."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gFrAeDnwRmhu0qNxNT2aZdFr01TAD90TGUC81

looks like you were full of bullshit. Why am I not surprised?

red states rule
05-27-2008, 06:50 PM
The liberal media is in step with the party of surrender and appeasement. Dems and the liberal media were giddy when things were looking bad in Iraq - now they ignore or downplay the good news and progress being made



CBS’s Mitchell to Joint Chiefs Chairman: Do Americans Have ‘Right to be Pessimistic’?
By Kyle Drennen | May 27, 2008 - 17:43 ET

On Monday’s CBS "Early Show," co-host Russ Mitchell interviewed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen, and asked about Iraq: "When you look at April, last month, 50 American soldiers were killed in Iraq. And a lot of Americans look at that and they're pessimistic, despite what you say about morale and how things are going in Iraq--in Iraq. Does the American public have a right to be pessimistic, in your mind?"

While suggesting Americans are ‘pessimistic’ about the war in Iraq is justified, Mitchell forgets to mention the role CBS News has played in promoting some of that pessimism with its own coverage of the war. In addition, using the phrase ‘right to be pessimistic’ leaves little room for disagreement, as Admiral Mullen pointed out: "The American public obviously gets to choose whether they're optimistic or pessimistic."

Mullen went on to explain: "I think clearly, over the last many months, things have improved fairly dramatically. We always need to be reminded of the sacrifice that these young men and women generate in terms supporting the overall mission."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2008/05/27/cbs-s-mitchell-joint-chiefs-chairman-do-americans-have-right-be-pessim

bullypulpit
05-28-2008, 04:52 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080524/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

By LEE KEATH, Associated Press Writer Sat May 24, 4:08 PM ET

BAGHDAD - The U.S. ambassador to Iraq said Saturday that al-Qaida's network in the country has never been closer to defeat, and he praised Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for his moves to rein in Shiite and Sunni militant groups.

Ryan Crocker's comments came as Iraqi forces have been conducting crackdowns on al-Qaida militants in the northern city of Mosul and on Shiite militiamen in the southern city of Basra. Thousands of Iraqi forces also moved into the Shiite militia stronghold of Sadr City in Baghdad last week imposing control for the first time in years.

Hmmm...How long have they been saying that now? About 5 years? <img src=http://macg.net/emoticons/rolleyes4.gif>

red states rule
05-28-2008, 05:32 AM
Hmmm...How long have they been saying that now? About 5 years? <img src=http://macg.net/emoticons/rolleyes4.gif>

Given how Dems have undermined the troops, and done all they can to help the terrorists - I am surprised things are going so well in Iraq

On the other hand, libs are depressed and hoping something goes wrong in time for the November election

glockmail
05-28-2008, 06:07 AM
Hmmm...How long have they been saying that now? About 5 years? <img src=http://macg.net/emoticons/rolleyes4.gif> That's the first time I've heard it, and I've been playing fairly close attention.

red states rule
05-28-2008, 11:06 AM
The liberal media still refuses to cover the progress being made, and keeps pushing the DNC approved talking points


CBS’s Couric: Iraq War Coverage ‘One of the Most Embarrassing Chapters in American Journalism’
By Kyle Drennen | May 28, 2008 - 11:37 ET

On Wednesday’s CBS "Early Show" evening news anchors, ABC’S Charles Gibson, NBC’s Brian Williams, and CBS’s Katie Couric, were all on to promote an upcoming cancer research telethon, but near the end of segment, co-host Harry Smith asked about former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s new book in which McClellan claims the media did not ask tough questions leading up to the Iraq war and Couric agreed:

I think it's a very legitimate allegation. I think it's one of the most embarrassing chapters in American journalism. And I think there was a sense of pressure from corporations who own where we work and from the government itself to really squash any kinds of dissent or any kind of questioning of it. I think it was extremely subtle but very, very effective. And I think Scott McClellan has a really good point.

Perhaps a better example of "one of the most embarrassing chapters in American journalism" would be Couric’s predecessor, Dan Rather, using fraudulent National Guard memos to attempt to smear President Bush just prior to the 2004 election.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2008/05/28/cbs-s-couric-iraq-war-coverage-one-most-embarrassing-chapters-american

bullypulpit
05-28-2008, 08:12 PM
Given how Dems have undermined the troops, and done all they can to help the terrorists - I am surprised things are going so well in Iraq

On the other hand, libs are depressed and hoping something goes wrong in time for the November election

Please do provide specific instances where this has occurred and the detail surrounding each occurrence. And provide links please.

As for something going wrong...that started the day the Bush administration invaded Iraq.

mundame
05-28-2008, 09:54 PM
Hmmm...How long have they been saying that now? About 5 years? http://macg.net/emoticons/rolleyes4.gif

Well over 5 years --- we were supposed to have "won" 3 1/2 weeks after the invasion started.

Whoops, guess not.

Okay, so now for the 168th time, we've "won" in Iraq? Oh, so does that mean we can bring the troops HOME now since we've "won"????

No, as usual, we can't? Because although we've "won," there are some 300 attacks a week going on? And our headquarters constantly being shelled and troop carriers blown up by remote control if soldiers ever leave their bases. But nobody should think any of that's a problem or anything?

See, here's how it is ---------------------------- we've "won" but we have to keep fighting more than ever and we have to have a "pause" in bringing troops home.


There's never any pause in all the lies we hear about this war from the administration and Betrayus, however.

retiredman
05-28-2008, 10:55 PM
Well over 5 years --- we were supposed to have "won" 3 1/2 weeks after the invasion started.

Whoops, guess not.

Okay, so now for the 168th time, we've "won" in Iraq? Oh, so does that mean we can bring the troops HOME now since we've "won"????

No, as usual, we can't? Because although we've "won," there are some 300 attacks a week going on? And our headquarters constantly being shelled and troop carriers blown up by remote control if soldiers ever leave their bases. But nobody should think any of that's a problem or anything?

See, here's how it is ---------------------------- we've "won" but we have to keep fighting more than ever and we have to have a "pause" in bringing troops home.


There's never any pause in all the lies we hear about this war from the administration and Betrayus, however.


suck a big load of that up your nostrils....that is what Team Bush has tried to convince the sheeple smells like victory.

actsnoblemartin
05-28-2008, 11:14 PM
Yes, for roughly 5 years we have been saying that, my question is, is it true now, yes or no?

we cant do anything about 5 years ago, but we need a realistic look at the war, instead of, were gonna win, no matter the cost, vs we cant win, no matter the consequences.

its a war, its complicated, both sides dont seem to understand this, and would rather call each other names.


Hmmm...How long have they been saying that now? About 5 years? <img src=http://macg.net/emoticons/rolleyes4.gif>

red states rule
05-29-2008, 06:25 AM
Please do provide specific instances where this has occurred and the detail surrounding each occurrence. And provide links please.

As for something going wrong...that started the day the Bush administration invaded Iraq.

Why? Everytime I provide proof you tuck your tail betweeen your legs and run away

Oh well, lets see:

Kerry called the troops terrorists and uneducated

Durbin compared them to Nazi's and Pol Pot

Kennedy said they were now operating Saddam's torture chambers

Murtha called them cold blooded killers

Libs leaked classified documents to the liberal media (who published them) telling terrorists how they and their money is being traced

Dems refused to extend the wire tapping of terrorist phone calls - now the can plot their attacks in private

Dems were in a tizzy over terrorists rights when it came to waterbording. Despite the fact they saw the video, and the poor terrorists was not harmed. They also knew it had been used only 3 times, and each time the terrorists cracked and gave up info that stopped attacks and saved lives

Despite all the progress being made, Dems and the liberal media ignore it and still push for surrender and appeasement

Need more, or have you had enough?

bullypulpit
05-29-2008, 06:59 AM
Why? Everytime I provide proof you tuck your tail betweeen your legs and run away

Oh well, lets see:

Kerry called the troops terrorists and uneducated

Durbin compared them to Nazi's and Pol Pot

Kennedy said they were now operating Saddam's torture chambers

Murtha called them cold blooded killers

Libs leaked classified documents to the liberal media (who published them) telling terrorists how they and their money is being traced

Dems refused to extend the wire tapping of terrorist phone calls - now the can plot their attacks in private

Dems were in a tizzy over terrorists rights when it came to waterbording. Despite the fact they saw the video, and the poor terrorists was not harmed. They also knew it had been used only 3 times, and each time the terrorists cracked and gave up info that stopped attacks and saved lives

Despite all the progress being made, Dems and the liberal media ignore it and still push for surrender and appeasement

Need more, or have you had enough?

:link:

I knew you couldn't do it... :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

red states rule
05-29-2008, 07:03 AM
:link:

I knew you couldn't do it... :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

All of the facts I posted are common knowldege

Are you playing dumb, or are you really that dumb? :laugh2:

mundame
05-29-2008, 01:31 PM
Kerry called the troops terrorists and uneducated

Durbin compared them to Nazi's and Pol Pot

Kennedy said they were now operating Saddam's torture chambers

Murtha called them cold blooded killers

Alll accurate. So much for anyone wanting to join the U.S. military for the next 30 years. Oh, and post-traumatic stress disorder is up 50% this year in our troops --- isn't it supposed to be up on the OTHER side?? So maybe we're losing. Oh, and U.S. soldier suicides are up, too, 115 is the total today. Can't be because we're winning..................



Libs leaked classified documents to the liberal media (who published them) telling terrorists how they and their money is being traced

Dems refused to extend the wire tapping of terrorist phone calls - now the can plot their attacks in private



Who cares? There haven't BEEN any more attacks, so none of this matters at all.



Dems were in a tizzy over terrorists rights when it came to waterbording. Despite the fact they saw the video, and the poor terrorists was not harmed. They also knew it had been used only 3 times, and each time the terrorists cracked and gave up info that stopped attacks and saved lives

Torture is the worst thing in the world, and Bush promoted state torture and secret dungeons with torture chambers all over the world. So much for Reagan's "shining city on a hill." Now it's Bush's dungeon.


Despite all the progress being made, Dems and the liberal media ignore it and still push for surrender and appeasement

There hasn't been any progress. We're still enmeshed and enmired in that long five-year losing war. We're well on our way to the ten-year Vietnam score of time wasted and lives lost. All those young men with all their skin and faces burned off because our troops don't fight the enemy: they just drive around Iraq getting blown up day after day after day. I have no idea what the point of this is, except to promote the building of lots of new burn units in VAs all over America.


Need more, or have you had enough?

I had enough as of 2004. We should have got out then, after Abu Ghraib was discovered and exposed, and all the Bush White House promotion of torture. That was the end right there, after all.

red states rule
05-29-2008, 01:36 PM
Mundame, you are such a typical anti war appeaser, No matter how many facts are presented to you that progress is being made - you will never give up on your predetermined defeatest view

mundame
05-29-2008, 01:40 PM
Mundame, you are such a typical anti war appeaser, No matter how many facts are presented to you that progress is being made - you will never give up on your predetermined defeatest view


You need to present correct facts, not dead-wrong facts.

red states rule
05-29-2008, 01:42 PM
You need to present correct facts, not dead-wrong facts.

So the NY Times, Newsweek, Univ of Md, and others are wrong - but you are right

It that what you are saying?

mundame
05-29-2008, 01:46 PM
It that what you are saying?


What I am saying is that the country is hungry, starving to get out of this war. And as soon as we get out of Iraq, we'll want out of Afghanistan, too, since that one is equally futile and useless.

red states rule
05-29-2008, 01:48 PM
What I am saying is that the country is hungry, starving to get out of this war. And as soon as we get out of Iraq, we'll want out of Afghanistan, too, since that one is equally futile and useless.

I did not know you kenw more then the troops on the ground, the commanders, and and the US Pentagom

So if we surrender to and appease to the terrorists, you think they will not come after us here in the US?

mundame
05-29-2008, 01:51 PM
So if we surrender to and appease to the terrorisyts, you think they will not come after us here in the US?


They haven't so far, even though we've been losing steadily in both Iraq and Afghanistan for five-six years.

So no, I don't think so. Five/six years is a pretty long time to be waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting for some Saudi idiot's terror attack that never comes.


Ol' Bin Laden is developing quite a video and audiotape career, though. I guess it pays the bills.

red states rule
05-29-2008, 01:56 PM
They haven't so far, even though we've been losing steadily in both Iraq and Afghanistan for five-six years.

So no, I don't think so. Five/six years is a pretty long time to be waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting for some Saudi idiot's terror attack that never comes.


Ol' Bin Laden is developing quite a video and audiotape career, though. I guess it pays the bills.

So the 2 WTC bombings were not terrorts attacks?

So when terrorists declare war on the US we should do nothing?

Keep telling yourself we are losing - you are the female version of Baghdad Bob Mundam

Yurt
05-29-2008, 02:06 PM
They haven't so far, even though we've been losing steadily in both Iraq and Afghanistan for five-six years.

So no, I don't think so. Five/six years is a pretty long time to be waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting for some Saudi idiot's terror attack that never comes.


Ol' Bin Laden is developing quite a video and audiotape career, though. I guess it pays the bills.

that is not true....and thats why obama is scared to go to iraq, to see the reality of how much progress is being made.

red states rule
05-29-2008, 02:08 PM
that is not true....and thats why obama is scared to go to iraq, to see the reality of how much progress is being made.

Like Obama, Mundame gets her news from Iraq from the likes of Chris Matthews, Keith Overbite, and Michael Moore