US Troops Are Winning in Iraq - When Will Dems Admit It?

[red states rule]

every democrat applauds the actions and the successes of our troops on the ground.

It is a pity that it seems as if their sacrifice is for naught given the inability of "the Iraqi government to pass laws demonstrating the reconciliation of Shia, Sunni and Kurdish factions."

there were some of us warning that such reconciliation might not be possible.

Bullshit. Dems are pissed off over the success. That is why they are not funding the troops - they have to find a way to lose this war after telling us for 4 years the war is all but lost

[retiredman]

Bullshit. Dems are pissed off over the success. That is why they are not funding the troops - they have to find a way to lose this war after telling us for 4 years the war is all but lost

that is not true. no one is upset that our troops are doing well. we are upset that the iraqi politicians are not doing anything, and that is exactly what this surge was supposed to engender.

[red states rule]

that is not true. no one is upset that our troops are doing well. we are upset that the iraqi politicians are not doing anything, and that is exactly what this surge was supposed to engender.

Dems still refuse to acknowledge the progress

According to The Associated Press: "Twilight brings traffic jams to the main shopping district of this once-affluent corner of Baghdad, and hundreds of people stroll past well-stocked vegetable stands, bakeries and butcher shops. To many in America, it seems little short of a miracle."

Wrote The Washington Post: "The number of attacks against U.S. Soldiers has fallen to levels not seen since before the February 2006 bombing of a Shi'ite shrine in Samarra that touched off waves of sectarian killing . . . The death toll for American troops in October fell to 39, the lowest level since March 2006."

Finally, The New York Times, of all newspapers, noted: "American forces have routed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the Iraqi militant network, from every neighborhood in Baghdad, a top American general said today, allowing American troops involved in the 'surge' to depart as planned."
http://www.newsmax.com/reagan/progress_in_iraq/2007/11/16/50022.html

Your Dems do not want to see the progrees because they said there is no progress being made. They continue to use the troops as political pawns, but they will cave - as they have on other issues

Dems will not like it, but they will fund the troops and cut the pork down in the bills. Pres Bush will win over them once again

That should play will with their base

[retiredman]

like I said, I am pleased and proud of the efforts and successes of our military personnel. I have always hoped and prayed that every round they fire hits its target and every one fired at them misses. I want them to prevail in every skirmish and I celebrate when they do.

I remain profoundly skeptical about the abilities of the iragi politicians to form any sort of peaceful coalition in the "space" our military successes are providing them.

[red states rule]

like I said, I am pleased and proud of the efforts and successes of our military personnel. I have always hoped and prayed that every round they fire hits its target and every one fired at them misses. I want them to prevail in every skirmish and I celebrate when they do.

I remain profoundly skeptical about the abilities of the iragi politicians to form any sort of peaceful coalition in the "space" our military successes are providing them.

You may want to tell your elected leaders that

Murtha screamed at a reporter who asked him about the progress "You believe the Pentagon?"

Pelosi commenting on the Washington Times article on the progress was to announce what The Washington Times rightly called “her newest legislative strategy to damage the war effort.” Her House Democrats will “try to enact a bill calling for immediately beginning to withdraw U.S. Troops from Iraq, with a goal of completing the pullout in one year,” according to the Times.

Yes, your beloved Dems ignored the good news for as long as they could (until their poll numbers hit a record low) but now they have to acknowledge it

[retiredman]

You may want to tell your elected leaders that



I do so routinely.

[red states rule]

I do so routinely.

You once posted Reid and Pelosi were not you reps so you did not have to communicate with them

[retiredman]

You once posted Reid and Pelosi were not you reps so you did not have to communicate with them

I don't. I express my concerns to my democratic congressman in writing, and in person. that is how the system is supposed to work.

[red states rule]

I don't. I express my concerns to my democratic congressman in writing, and in person. that is how the system is supposed to work.

So you say you support the troops - but you don't tell that to the top Dems in DC

So much for "supporting" the troops - you do support surrender

[retiredman]

So you say you support the troops - but you don't tell that to the top Dems in DC

So much for "supporting" the troops - you do support surrender

I tell it to MY Dem in DC and request that he echo my concerns to the leadership.

I do NOT support surrender. Neither does anyone else.

Will you EVER tell me who exactly you think America would surrender TO when we turned over our encampments and hardware to the legitimate government and armed forces of Iraq?

[red states rule]

I tell it to MY Dem in DC and request that he echo my concerns to the leadership.

I do NOT support surrender. Neither does anyone else.

Will you EVER tell me who exactly you think America would surrender TO when we turned over our encampments and hardware to the legitimate government and armed forces of Iraq?

You do offer the most lame excuses to cover the asses of your fellow surrender monkeys

Anytime Dems force the US troops to leave Iraq before the job is done opens the door to AQ to return and take over

It is surrender - if if your party loyalty prevents you from admitting it

[retiredman]

You do offer the most lame excuses to cover the asses of your fellow surrender monkeys

Anytime Dems force the US troops to leave Iraq before the job is done opens the door to AQ to return and take over

It is surrender - if if your party loyalty prevents you from admitting it


AQ in Iraq...a tiny franchise operation started after we arrived and getting their asses kicked in Anbar TODAY by SUNNIS who are the MINORITY of the Iraqi population...will somehow TAKE OVER Iraq from the Iraqi people, the majority of whom are SHIITES? Muqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army.... Iran....and all the Iraqi people are going to allow AL QAEDA to TAKE OVER after our departure????? Is that really your story?????:laugh2:

[red states rule]

AQ in Iraq...a tiny franchise operation started after we arrived and getting their asses kicked in Anbar TODAY by SUNNIS who are the MINORITY of the Iraqi population...will somehow TAKE OVER Iraq from the Iraqi people, the majority of whom are SHIITES? Muqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army.... Iran....and all the Iraqi people are going to allow AL QAEDA to TAKE OVER after our departure????? Is that really your story?????:laugh2:

Lame attempt at ducking the facts MM

Dems are backed into the corner and so are you

[red states rule]

BTW, San Fran Nan is so desperate she said "republicans like war"

Nearly as lame as some of your comments

[retiredman]

Lame attempt at ducking the facts MM

Dems are backed into the corner and so are you

those ARE the facts. YOU cannot explain who we would "surrender" to....you cannot explain how in the world AQ would somehow overcome both Sunni and Shiite opposition and "take over" Iraq.

YOur scenario is filled with holes....it is laughable. But DO try to answer my questions and prvoe me wrong! (as if!)

[red states rule]

those ARE the facts. YOU cannot explain who we would "surrender" to....you cannot explain how in the world AQ would somehow overcome both Sunni and Shiite opposition and "take over" Iraq.

YOur scenario is filled with holes....it is laughable. But DO try to answer my questions and prvoe me wrong! (as if!)

The only hole is the one in your head. Your party loyality prevents you from seeing the facts, and the fact the terrorists are hoping your Dems can hand then a win in Iraq they can't get on their own

[red states rule]

The good news is getting out - much to the dismay of the left


snip

Yet none of this should detract from what has been achieved in Iraq so unexpectedly this year. First, the country will now have the time to establish itself. A year ago it seemed as if American forces would have been withdrawn in ignominious fashion either well before the end of the Bush Administration or, at best, days after the next president came to office. This will not now happen. The self-evident success of the surge has obliged the Democrats to start talking about almost anything else and the calls to cut and run have abated. If the US Army remains in Iraq in strength, continuing on its present path, then deals on a constitution and the division of oil revenues between provinces will be realised.

Secondly, the aspiration that Iraq could be some sort of “beacon” in the region is no longer ridiculous. It will never be Sweden with beards, but there has been the development of a vibrant capitalist class and a media of a diversity that is unique in the region. Were Iraq to emerge with a federal political structure, regular local and national elections and an economic dynamism in which the many, not the few, could share, then it would be a model.

Finally, Iraq in 2007 has illustrated that the words “intelligent American policy” are not an oxymoron. The tragedy is that the approach of General David Petraeus could and should have been adopted four years ago in the aftermath of Saddam Hussein's enforced departure. One prominent American politician alone has spent that time publicly demanding the extra soldiers which, in 2007, have been Iraq's salvation. That statesman is John McCain. Is it too much to hope (let alone predict) that he will reap his reward at the polls in 2008?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/tim_hames/article3059926.ece

[retiredman]

The only hole is the one in your head. Your party loyality prevents you from seeing the facts, and the fact the terrorists are hoping your Dems can hand then a win in Iraq they can't get on their own

is it ever going to be poosible to carry on a dialog with you?

Can you please explain to me your theory for how Al Qaeda, who is getting beaten badly by a small segment of the Iraqi civilian population, is going to take over Iraq? Can you please explain how and why all those shiites with Iran sitting right next door, would allow a small sunni wahabbist group of insurgents to "take over" the nation of Iraq?

[red states rule]

is it ever going to be poosible to carry on a dialog with you?

Can you please explain to me your theory for how Al Qaeda, who is getting beaten badly by a small segment of the Iraqi civilian population, is going to take over Iraq? Can you please explain how and why all those shiites with Iran sitting right next door, would allow a small sunni wahabbist group of insurgents to "take over" the nation of Iraq?

According to your side AQ was never in Iraq. Then you have Iran sending weapons to the terrorists to kill US troops

Yes, victory on Iraq is a real downer to the left - and to you

[retiredman]

One prominent American politician alone has spent that time publicly demanding the extra soldiers which, in 2007, have been Iraq's salvation. That statesman is John McCain. Is it too much to hope (let alone predict) that he will reap his reward at the polls in 2008?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/tim_hames/article3059926.ece


and here I thought you were a Rudy supporter!

[red states rule]

and here I thought you were a Rudy supporter!

McDone will never get the nod - his stance on giving ammesty to illegals shot him down

I knew you would zero in on the last sentence - and not the good news on the US winning in Iraq

[retiredman]

According to your side AQ was never in Iraq. Then you have Iran sending weapons to the terrorists to kill US troops

Yes, victory on Iraq is a real downer to the left - and to you


AQ wasn't in Iraq until after we invaded. Then, a group of insurgents took out an Al Qaeda franchise and started calling themselves AlQaeda in Iraq.

And are you suggesting that Iran is sending arms to shiite militias or to Al Qaeda? Because the shiite militias will certainly use those arms to fight against Al Qaeda if they, as you claim, try to "take over" Iraq. You seem to be getting twisted up here. If Iran is supplying weapons to shiites, and AQ is sunni, then won't that be a good thing in the effort to repell AQ? Please explain.

[red states rule]

AQ wasn't in Iraq until after we invaded. Then, a group of insurgents took out an Al Qaeda franchise and started calling themselves AlQaeda in Iraq.

And are you suggesting that Iran is sending arms to shiite militias or to Al Qaeda? Because the shiite militias will certainly use those arms to fight against Al Qaeda if they, as you claim, try to "take over" Iraq. You seem to be getting twisted up here. If Iran is supplying weapons to shiites, and AQ is sunni, then won't that be a good thing in the effort to repell AQ? Please explain.

AQ was in Iarq before the war. Training camps in the north and AQ members got medical treatment in Iraq

You can try and downplay what needs to be finished and make excuse for your lame party - but you guys blew it by siding against the troops and doing all you could to undermine the troops

[retiredman]

McDone will never get the nod - his stance on giving ammesty to illegals shot him down

I knew you would zero in on the last sentence - and not the good news on the US winning in Iraq


As I have said over and over and over again. I am pleased as punch that America is prevailing militarily in Iraq. I never had any doubt that we could do so. The issue that you seem to be avoiding is: the ENTIRE purpose of the SURGE was to provide breathing space for the Iraqi politicians to settle their differences and form a working government that would not self-combust.

The SURGE has been a success MILITARILY, but the political results that the surge was intended to bring about have not happened.

[retiredman]

AQ was in Iarq before the war. Training camps in the north and AQ members got medical treatment in Iraq

You can try and downplay what needs to be finished and make excuse for your lame party - but you guys blew it by siding against the troops and doing all you could to undermine the troops

no. Saddam considered AQ to be an enemy. and it was....

but please explain to me how AQ can take over Iraq when it cannot even defeat the civilian sunnis in Anbar? And please explain to me who you think Iran is arming?

[red states rule]

no. Saddam considered AQ to be an enemy. and it was....

but please explain to me how AQ can take over Iraq when it cannot even defeat the civilian sunnis in Anbar? And please explain to me who you think Iran is arming?

It that why AQ training camps were in the north and top leaders got medical treatments in Saddams hospital (run by one og his sons)

Arms made in Iran have been recovered. I have posted the links - which you dismissed as more cut and paste

[retiredman]

It that why AQ training camps were in the north and top leaders got medical treatments in Saddams hospital (run by one og his sons)

Arms made in Iran have been recovered. I have posted the links - which you dismissed as more cut and paste


All the intelligence services have debunked the AQ in Iraq before the war claims, and in any case, that is not the issue here.

My question to you was how will AQ in Iraq, who is getting their asses kicked by the civilian sunni tribal chieftans in Anbar, ever be able to "take over" Iraq? AQ is a sunni organization and they are getting whipped by a small segment of a small segment of the country's population. The vast majority of Iraqis are shiite and they are not about to let a band of sunni insurgents take over their country.
And I am not questioning that Iran is sending arms into Iraq. My question to you was: do you honestly think that they are arming AQ in Iraq - a bunch of sunnis - or are they arming the shiite militias which are standing against AQ?

[red states rule]

All the intelligence services have debunked the AQ in Iraq before the war claims, and in any case, that is not the issue here.

My question to you was how will AQ in Iraq, who is getting their asses kicked by the civilian sunni tribal chieftans in Anbar, ever be able to "take over" Iraq? AQ is a sunni organization and they are getting whipped by a small segment of a small segment of the country's population. The vast majority of Iraqis are shiite and they are not about to let a band of sunni insurgents take over their country.
And I am not questioning that Iran is sending arms into Iraq. My question to you was: do you honestly think that they are arming AQ in Iraq - a bunch of sunnis - or are they arming the shiite militias which are standing against AQ?

With the US troops gone before Iraq can defend itself - they will be sitting ducks for whoever wants to take over

The terrorists will have wealth from oil sales and a country to call its base.

Libs like you want the US to lose - or for Iraq to fall to terrorists - so you can blame Pres Bush - and not your own actions to ensure defeat for the US

[glockmail]

what ever is your point?
There is none. HFM is trying to justify his bigotry by claiming he read that its OK in some book. Maybe he should read Mien Kampf.

[red states rule]

There is none. HFM is trying to justify his bigotry by claiming he read that its OK in some book. Maybe he should read Mien Kampf.

Given his posts, he probably has it on the nightstand next to his bed

[glockmail]

Given his posts, he probably has it on the nightstand next to his bed Right alonside the vaseline and tissues.

[red states rule]

Right alonside the vaseline and tissues.

the convoy took a direct hit

[retiredman]

With the US troops gone before Iraq can defend itself - they will be sitting ducks for whoever wants to take over

The terrorists will have wealth from oil sales and a country to call its base.

Libs like you want the US to lose - or for Iraq to fall to terrorists - so you can blame Pres Bush - and not your own actions to ensure defeat for the US


"whoever wants to take over"? I thought you said that Al Qaeda would "take over". Have you changed your tune?

Is Muqtada al Sadr a "terrorist"? Sistani??? Are the sunni chieftans in Anbar province "terrorists"? Who exactly will acquire this oil wealth from the Iraqi people?

You parrot that same old line over and over and over and over again about terrorists and oil revenues and a country to call base...but you don't really have a fuckkng clue how that would possibly play out.

[red states rule]

"whoever wants to take over"? I thought you said that Al Qaeda would "take over". Have you changed your tune?

Is Muqtada al Sadr a "terrorist"? Sistani??? Are the sunni chieftans in Anbar province "terrorists"? Who exactly will acquire this oil wealth from the Iraqi people?

You parrot that same old line over and over and over and over again about terrorists and oil revenues and a country to call base...but you don't really have a fuckkng clue how that would possibly play out.

I post the facts, while you parrot the defeatest talking points of liberal surrender monkeys

[glockmail]

"whoever wants to take over"? I thought you said that Al Qaeda would "take over". Have you changed your tune?

Is Muqtada al Sadr a "terrorist"? Sistani??? Are the sunni chieftans in Anbar province "terrorists"? Who exactly will acquire this oil wealth from the Iraqi people?

You parrot that same old line over and over and over and over again about terrorists and oil revenues and a country to call base...but you don't really have a fuckkng clue how that would possibly play out.

And you parrot me. :lol: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=168078&postcount=360

[red states rule]

And you parrot me. :lol: http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=168078&postcount=360

That looks like a case of plagiarism

[glockmail]

He's a big fan. :laugh2:

[red states rule]

He's a big fan. :laugh2:

He is a big one alright - but I would not use the word "fan"

[red states rule]

In case any liberal is wondering how the hell Iraq became such a huge problem for them, I hope this helps them



How Petraeus Turned Around Iraq
By Trudy Rubin

On Thursday, Gen. David Petraeus addressed a gathering of hundreds of Sunni sheikhs in flowing robes, including some who were attacking his soldiers around the capital not long ago.

This is the new Baghdad, where security has improved as tens of thousands of former Sunni insurgents have recently turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq and smashed it with U.S. help. Many of these Sunnis are now on the U.S. payroll. But no one is certain whether these security gains will hold after the extra U.S. "surge" troops are withdrawn as scheduled by next July, or whether Iraq will slip back into brutal sectarian warfare.

So I asked Petraeus how he assessed the current situation and the post-surge future. We spoke in his Baghdad office, in Saddam Hussein's garish former palace with its marble floors (and marble bathrooms) and grandiose reception rooms now housing U.S. government offices.

"I think it is going the way we wanted in Baghdad and the belts around Baghdad," he replied. "We have done considerable damage to al-Qaeda in Iraq. Anbar is transformed," he added, referring to the Sunni province once home to the toughest insurgents and a base for al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Then he paused. "Tenuous is the right word to describe the situation," he said, "and you won't find any military commanders doing victory dances in the end zone. We are all guarded in our assessments, with a great deal of wariness about the what-might-be's."

Petraeus is right to be both confident and wary.

The security progress of recent months results largely from a new military and political strategy that reverses the haphazard, incoherent U.S. Iraq policies of the last four tragic years.

for the complete article

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/how_petraeus_turned_around_ira.html

[retiredman]

With the US troops gone before Iraq can defend itself - they will be sitting ducks for whoever wants to take over

The terrorists will have wealth from oil sales and a country to call its base.



simple questions in response to that post:


"whoever wants to take over"? I thought you said that Al Qaeda would "take over". Have you changed your tune?

Is Muqtada al Sadr a "terrorist"? Sistani??? Are the sunni chieftans in Anbar province "terrorists"? Who exactly will acquire this oil wealth from the Iraqi people?



could you possibly answer those questions? I really don't see you being able to justify your claims that AlQaeda could possibly "take over" Iraq given their inability to prevail over a small segment of the sunni population in one province. Can you please shed some light on that assertion of yours?

[red states rule]

simple questions in response to that post:



could you possibly answer those questions? I really don't see you being able to justify your claims that AlQaeda could possibly "take over" Iraq given their inability to prevail over a small segment of the sunni population in one province. Can you please shed some light on that assertion of yours?

You do not "see" anything that does not fit your predetermined liberal outlook

[retiredman]

You do not "see" anything that does not fit your predetermined liberal outlook


they really are simple questions. YOu are the one who stated that if we left, Al Qaeda would take over and have all the oil revenues. I merely asked you to defend that assertion with an explanation as to how they could possibly do that given their failures in Anbar.

It seems to me that you use the word terrorist to mean anyone who is not fighting on OUR side. Do you think that Al Sadr and his mahdi army are "terrorists"? He is one of the most influential political and religious leaders in the country. If the shiites do prevail in the formation of the Iraqi government - as they almost certainly will - are you then calling that a takeover by terrorists? And where does Al Qaeda fit in?

I really am trying to understand your scenario here and you have offered nothing in the way of amplifying explanation.

[gabosaurus]

You do not "see" anything that does not fit your predetermined liberal outlook

Can I have some spam without so much rat in it?

[red states rule]

Can I have some spam without so much rat in it?

You must be attending the MM school of posting - you post alot but seldom makes a relevent point

[red states rule]

The liberal media really hate to report the good news - so they try and slant it


Outlets Twist Good News on Iraq Into Bad, Except ABC & LA Times

By Brent Baker | December 19, 2007 - 05:52 ET
Viewers of ABC's World News on Tuesday night learned of good news in the Pentagon's latest quarterly report on conditions in Iraq, but the positive developments went unnoted on CBS while NBC, the New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, AP and McClatchy all stressed the negatives in the status report. ABC anchor Charles Gibson pointed out that “in the past, these reports have offered a brutally negative assessment” but the new one “shows real progress, across the board. On security, the report says weekly IED attacks have dropped 68 percent since June. The number of U.S. troop deaths from IEDs fell to the lowest level since January 2006.” Gibson proceeded to cite lower inflation and a boost in electricity production.

Wednesday's New York Times turned that into: “Pentagon Says Services in Iraq Are Stagnant.” USA Today headlined an AP dispatch in Wednesday's edition, “Pentagon: Transition to Iraqi security forces lags.” The Washington Post's story: “Iran Continues to Support Shiite Militias in Iraq, Pentagon Says.” The Washington bureau of McClatchy Newspapers, which infamously headlined an October story, “As Violence Falls in Iraq, Cemetery Workers Feel the Pinch,” headlined a Tuesday story: “Despite drop in violence, Pentagon finds little long-term progress in Iraq.” The Los Angeles Times provided an exception to the downbeat spin with an article which echoed what ABC stressed: “Pentagon reports security gains in Iraq.”

Jim Miklaszewski gave the Pentagon report a sentence on the NBC Nightly News as he noted that “the Pentagon's quarterly report on Iraq, released today, warned that any progress” on political reconciliation “remains slow.”

ABC has consistently stood apart over the past few months in being willing to report improvements in Iraq. The MRC's study on ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscast coverage from September through November, “Good News = Less News on Iraq War,” discovered: “Of the three evening newscasts, ABC’s World News was the first to take serious note of the improving situation (back on October 1), and has offered the most stories (9 field reports, 7 from Iraq) detailing the progress.”

Indeed, on Friday, Gibson uniquely noticed the lack of any violence in Baghdad that day and used it as a hook for a look at life returning to normal. Gibson set up the December 14 story:

Overseas, this has been a remarkable day in Iraq. Our Baghdad bureau says there were no reports of any major outbreaks of violence anywhere in the country today. This is the first time we can recall that happening since the insurgency began. The improving conditions are having visible effects. Communities that had been under siege are coming alive again. Our Terry McCarthy in Baghdad found many examples.

for the complete article
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/12/19/outlets-twist-good-news-iraq-bad-except-abc-la-times

[retiredman]

simple questions, RSR....why are you capable of carrying on a conversation about this?


they really are simple questions. YOu are the one who stated that if we left, Al Qaeda would take over and have all the oil revenues. I merely asked you to defend that assertion with an explanation as to how they could possibly do that given their failures in Anbar.

It seems to me that you use the word terrorist to mean anyone who is not fighting on OUR side. Do you think that Al Sadr and his mahdi army are "terrorists"? He is one of the most influential political and religious leaders in the country. If the shiites do prevail in the formation of the Iraqi government - as they almost certainly will - are you then calling that a takeover by terrorists? And where does Al Qaeda fit in?

I really am trying to understand your scenario here and you have offered nothing in the way of amplifying explanation.

[red states rule]

simple questions, RSR....why are you capable of carrying on a conversation about this?

answered many times - your thick skull and party loyality blockes them from getting to your pea brain

[retiredman]

answered many times - your thick skull and party loyality blockes them from getting to your pea brain

I would assert that you have never answered them...and if you had, you could easily link to the post(s) where you claim to have done so.

YOu were the one who said, just the other day, that when we leave, Al Qaeda will take over. I have merely asked you to explain how that will be possible given the fact that a handful of sunni warlords in Anbar province are kicking AQ's ass. And you have never told me who these terrorists will be that will control the oil revenues. Why won't you answer those questions?

[red states rule]

I would assert that you have never answered them...and if you had, you could easily link to the post(s) where you claim to have done so.

YOu were the one who said, just the other day, that when we leave, Al Qaeda will take over. I have merely asked you to explain how that will be possible given the fact that a handful of sunni warlords in Anbar province are kicking AQ's ass. And you have never told me who these terrorists will be that will control the oil revenues. Why won't you answer those questions?

For 6 moths you have asked those questions and they have been answred. You are your party are boxed in a corner (Dems caved and are now funding the troops without their surrender date) and you must try and change the subject or muddle the issue with lame questions and distortions

[retiredman]

For 6 moths you have asked those questions and they have been answred. You are your party are boxed in a corner (Dems caved and are now funding the troops without their surrender date) and you must try and change the subject or muddle the issue with lame questions and distortions

That is not true. plain and simple. you have never answered them. ever.

Please explain how AQ can take over Iraq given its inablity to even prevail in one province populated by the minority sect.

Please explain what terrorists will control the oil supply.

Is Sadr a "terrorist"?

[red states rule]

That is not true. plain and simple. you have never answered them. ever.

Please explain how AQ can take over Iraq given its inablity to even prevail in one province populated by the minority sect.

Please explain what terrorists will control the oil supply.

Is Sadr a "terrorist"?

MM yiou just cant take the truth can you? Your lame questions have been answered over and over again

I bet you are pissed off your beloved did surrender to Pres Bush on their lame attempts to screw the troops

Even the terrorists are pissed their bses allies have left high and dry again - much like libs like you that make up the kook base of the Dem party

[retiredman]

I tried, in a civil manner, to carry on a discussion with you. I have asked you some reasonable questions. You refuse to answer them.

Your refusal is a clear white flag. I accept your tacit admission that you are too frightened to answer and have run away from the debate.

YOu are running. That is enough for me. I certainly have no intention of chasing you!:lol:

[retiredman]

some of RSR's aficionados have complained to me that he has, indeed answered my questions. I would ask any of those sycophants to link me to a post from him where those answers are contained.:laugh2:

[waterrescuedude2000]

MM yiou just cant take the truth can you? Your lame questions have been answered over and over again

I bet you are pissed off your beloved did surrender to Pres Bush on their lame attempts to screw the troops

Even the terrorists are pissed their bses allies have left high and dry again - much like libs like you that make up the kook base of the Dem party

And he tried saying I was gay?????? I got 2 kids thanks I think its Mainefag that is not out of the closet yet!!!!!!!!!!!

[waterrescuedude2000]

I tried, in a civil manner, to carry on a discussion with you. I have asked you some reasonable questions. You refuse to answer them.

Your refusal is a clear white flag. I accept your tacit admission that you are too frightened to answer and have run away from the debate.

YOu are running. That is enough for me. I certainly have no intention of chasing you!:lol:

YOU HAVE BEEN CIVIL to RSR????? Thats just sets off the bull shit meter, as a matter of fact I think you just broke the bull shit meter!!! You said that he deserved cancer or something to that effect.... You are nothing but a shit bag. Why don't you just go and FUQ yourself??????? You are lower than whale shit!!!!!

[red states rule]

YOU HAVE BEEN CIVIL to RSR????? Thats just sets off the bull shit meter, as a matter of fact I think you just broke the bull shit meter!!! You said that he deserved cancer or something to that effect.... You are nothing but a shit bag. Why don't you just go and FUQ yourself??????? You are lower than whale shit!!!!!



To MM that is being civil

Here is one of MM's greatest hits for the thread "Terrorists Endorse Hilary"

you have, in fact, attacked my patriotism. I just wanted that out in the open so you would stop YOUR whining when I suggested that I would make a special trip to the potter's field near your trailer park to piss on your grave after cancer sends you to hell not one minute too soon.

Insult me...I insult you.


In MM's world that is about as nice as he can get.

[retiredman]

To MM that is being civil

Here is one of MM's greatest hits for the thread "Terrorists Endorse Hilary"

you have, in fact, attacked my patriotism. I just wanted that out in the open so you would stop YOUR whining when I suggested that I would make a special trip to the potter's field near your trailer park to piss on your grave after cancer sends you to hell not one minute too soon.

Insult me...I insult you.


In MM's world that is about as nice as he can get.


which was in response to an insult from you which, no doubt was in response to an insult from me which was in response to an insult from you...but either way...it is old news and I apologized for it.... it is really poor form for you to continue to bring it up.

Look. You claim to be able to predict with some degree of certainty what would happen in Iraq upon our departure. I have questions about that claim.

You have claimed that Al Qaeda would - in your words - TAKE OVER the country and would immediately turn Iraq into a giant training ground for Al Qaeda terrorists and get their hands on all the Iraqi oil revenues to fund their nefarious plans. That is YOUR position.

I have only asked you to stop reciting memorized Rush-rhetoric and actually participate in a back and forth discussion about that prediction of yours.

now.... either you can carry on a discussion or you can't. either you are capable of moving beyond quoting someone else's rhetoric or you are not. If you can't....if you won't... it is perfectly reasonable for me to see that as you running away waving a white flag. As I said, I don't intend to chase you too far.

[red states rule]

which was in response to an insult from you which, no doubt was in response to an insult from me which was in response to an insult from you...but either way...it is old news and I apologized for it.... it is really poor form for you to continue to bring it up.

Look. You claim to be able to predict with some degree of certainty what would happen in Iraq upon our departure. I have questions about that claim.

You have claimed that Al Qaeda would - in your words - TAKE OVER the country and would immediately turn Iraq into a giant training ground for Al Qaeda terrorists and get their hands on all the Iraqi oil revenues to fund their nefarious plans. That is YOUR position.

I have only asked you to stop reciting memorized Rush-rhetoric and actually participate in a back and forth discussion about that prediction of yours.

now.... either you can carry on a discussion or you can't. either you are capable of moving beyond quoting someone else's rhetoric or you are not. If you can't....if you won't... it is perfectly reasonable for me to see that as you running away waving a white flag. As I said, I don't intend to chase you too far.

Sorry if reminding how "civil" you have been to me bothers you

Once again MM - if you and your fellow Dems get your desired surrender in Iraq the following will happen

Those who helped the US will be killed - probably along with their familes

Terror groups will enter Iraq and start their operations. They will have oil money to fianace their operations, and a country as a base of operations

Iran will assist them - possibly giving them nukes to unleash on the US

AQ will once again try to start a civil war between the factions in Iraq - they have tried and failed for the last 4 years

[retiredman]

Sorry if reminding how "civil" you have been to me bothers you

Once again MM - if you and your fellow Dems get your desired surrender in Iraq the following will happen

Those who helped the US will be killed - probably along with their familes

Terror groups will enter Iraq and start their operations. They will have oil money to fianace their operations, and a country as a base of operations

Iran will assist them - possibly giving them nukes to unleash on the US

AQ will once again try to start a civil war between the factions in Iraq - they have tried and failed for the last 4 years

1. I apologized. bringing up something someone has repeatedly apologized for is poor form. period.
2. YOu have suggested that Al Qaeda will "take over" Iraq. I asked you how that would be possible when the sunnis in Anbar are kicking their asses.
3. Your suggestion that Iran will help them shows your continued and almost willful ignorance of the schisms existing in Islam.
4. Again... is Sadr a "terrorists"? Sistani?
5. Who do YOU think that the shiite dominated Iraqi government will align itself with? Iran or the United States?

[red states rule]

1. I apologized. bringing up something someone has repeatedly apologized for is poor form. period.
2. YOu have suggested that Al Qaeda will "take over" Iraq. I asked you how that would be possible when the sunnis in Anbar are kicking their asses.
3. Your suggestion that Iran will help them shows your continued and almost willful ignorance of the schisms existing in Islam.
4. Again... is Sadr a "terrorists"? Sistani?
5. Who do YOU think that the shiite dominated Iraqi government will align itself with? Iran or the United States?

you are the one who has made several comments about my cancer - again yur true colors are showing thru

AQ will do all they can to start a civil war and they can take over using their usual tactics - killing, terror, and fear

Iran wil step in and give assistance - they have been caught doing it already

Libs are trying to get away from their record of hoping for failure in Iraq - now they are trying to run for cover - or change the subject to domestic issues

What happened to the libs making Oraq the #1 issue in 08?

[retiredman]

you are the one who has made several comments about my cancer - again yur true colors are showing thru

AQ will do all they can to start a civil war and they can take over using their usual tactics - killing, terror, and fear

Iran wil step in and give assistance - they have been caught doing it already

Libs are trying to get away from their record of hoping for failure in Iraq - now they are trying to run for cover - or change the subject to domestic issues

What happened to the libs making Oraq the #1 issue in 08?

I apologized for those comments on multiple occasions. your bringing them up shows poor form and upbringing.

AQ is getting their asses kicked in Anbar by sunnis. how are they going to prevail over the well armed shiites?

And Iran certainly has not given any assistance to AQ.... they have undoubtedly given assistance to the mahdi army of muqtada al sadr, and will continue to do so. Is sadr a terrorist?

and AGAIN... I have never questioned the ability of the US military to succeed militarily on the battlefield. The sole purpose for the surge was to provide space for political reconciliation and coalition building. The surge is a success - militarily - but its purpose has not been realized....and when those surge troops go home - and they will - even our top generals are saying that the security gains in Baghdad will be difficult to maintain unless there is political progress.

My guess is, if when the surge troops come home, the Iraqi politicians still have not made any progress, and the violence starts to increase again, you'll see the Iraq war back on everyone's minds and in every democrat's campaign speeches.

[actsnoblemartin]

I believe,,,

board members should not be so antagonistic

board members should not allow themselves to be munipulated into a fight

and finally

board members should answer all questions, as they are put to them.

rsr, you cant keep bringing up old shit

maineman, you cant let rsr bait you into a fight.

too much ego on both your parts

[retiredman]

I believe,,,

board members should not be so antagonistic

board members should not allow themselves to be munipulated into a fight

and finally

board members should answer all questions, as they are put to them.

rsr, you cant keep bringing up old shit

maineman, you cant let rsr bait you into a fight.

too much ego on both your parts

I have been completely calm throughout this thread.

RSR made an assertion, and I have been trying to get him to explain it ever since.

He said that Al Qaeda would "take over" Iraq if we left and I cannot get him to explain how that could happen given the fact that they are being whipped and whipped badly by a small portion of the minority sect in Iraq.

He says "terrorists" will gain control of Iraq's oil revenue but does not explain how that will happen either... unless he thinks that shiite clerics and their followers in Iraq are terrorists.

He says that Iran will exert influence, but that was a foregone conclusion the day we toppled the secular sunni dictator. That eventuality has nothing to do with when we leave... it will happen sooner or later no matter what. All of the Iraqi shiite leaders have friendly relationships, if not long standing ties to Iran and Iranian clerics.

RSR can only repeat basic talking points and is clearly lost when it comes to discussing them or defending them. And when he gets boxed into a corner, he invariably claims he has answered my questions before - which even YOU, martin, know is not true - and he then brings up the fact that I had ridiculed him about his medical condition. Both smoke screens to hide the fact that he has not answered and cannot answer my questions.

I am not "fighting"...I am discussing, or at least trying to.

[actsnoblemartin]

Fair enough, excellent point.


I have been completely calm throughout this thread.

RSR made an assertion, and I have been trying to get him to explain it ever since.

He said that Al Qaeda would "take over" Iraq if we left and I cannot get him to explain how that could happen given the fact that they are being whipped and whipped badly by a small portion of the minority sect in Iraq.

He says "terrorists" will gain control of Iraq's oil revenue but does not explain how that will happen either... unless he thinks that shiite clerics and their followers in Iraq are terrorists.

He says that Iran will exert influence, but that was a foregone conclusion the day we toppled the secular sunni dictator. That eventuality has nothing to do with when we leave... it will happen sooner or later no matter what. All of the Iraqi shiite leaders have friendly relationships, if not long standing ties to Iran and Iranian clerics.

RSR can only repeat basic talking points and is clearly lost when it comes to discussing them or defending them. And when he gets boxed into a corner, he invariably claims he has answered my questions before - which even YOU, martin, know is not true - and he then brings up the fact that I had ridiculed him about his medical condition. Both smoke screens to hide the fact that he has not answered and cannot answer my questions.

I am not "fighting"...I am discussing, or at least trying to.

[red states rule]

I believe,,,

board members should not be so antagonistic

board members should not allow themselves to be munipulated into a fight

and finally

board members should answer all questions, as they are put to them.

rsr, you cant keep bringing up old shit

maineman, you cant let rsr bait you into a fight.

too much ego on both your parts

Martin, I did not bring up MM's past examples of civility - I was responding to someone lese who did. For MM to say he is civil, is like Bill Clinton saying he has always been loyal to Hillary

I have answered those questions many times and on many threads. MM uses the same old, tired, worn out, and lame questions to try and duck the main issue - the US is winning in Iraq

[glockmail]

..... MM uses the same old, tired, worn out, and lame questions to try and duck the main issue - the US is winning in Iraq Exactly the point of this thread: Dem's can't admit. They have too much invested in defeat. Now the game is to constantly move the goal posts, or come up with a win criteria that is impossible. Heck, MM has even resorted to racism to bolster his case.

[retiredman]

simple questions, RSR.... you spend more time claiming you've answered them than it would take to just answer them the first time and be done with it. The fact is: your arguments are wafer thin...once you get past your set talking point one liners, you don't have a clue what to say.


I have been completely calm throughout this thread.

RSR made an assertion, and I have been trying to get him to explain it ever since.

He said that Al Qaeda would "take over" Iraq if we left and I cannot get him to explain how that could happen given the fact that they are being whipped and whipped badly by a small portion of the minority sect in Iraq.

He says "terrorists" will gain control of Iraq's oil revenue but does not explain how that will happen either... unless he thinks that shiite clerics and their followers in Iraq are terrorists.

He says that Iran will exert influence, but that was a foregone conclusion the day we toppled the secular sunni dictator. That eventuality has nothing to do with when we leave... it will happen sooner or later no matter what. All of the Iraqi shiite leaders have friendly relationships, if not long standing ties to Iran and Iranian clerics.

RSR can only repeat basic talking points and is clearly lost when it comes to discussing them or defending them. And when he gets boxed into a corner, he invariably claims he has answered my questions before - which even YOU, martin, know is not true - and he then brings up the fact that I had ridiculed him about his medical condition. Both smoke screens to hide the fact that he has not answered and cannot answer my questions.

I am not "fighting"...I am discussing, or at least trying to.

[retiredman]

Exactly the point of this thread: Dem's can't admit. They have too much invested in defeat. Now the game is to constantly move the goal posts, or come up with a win criteria that is impossible. Heck, MM has even resorted to racism to bolster his case.

I have never failed to admit that America is winning militarily in Iraq. I have stated, time and time again, that it is MY belief that, regardless of our military success, there will not be the required political success in Iraq surrounding reconciliation and governance that is necessary for us to leave Iraq any better than we found it. Before we invaded, a toothless tinhorn total asshole dictator was doing a great job at keeping Islamic extremists out of Iraq, he was doing a great job of keeping sunnis and shiites from killing one another, he was doing a great job in keeping a lid on Iranian regional aspirations. Now, AQ IS operating in Iraq, albeit not all that successfully... Shiites and sunnis are at each other's throats and have no apparent inclination to turn their swords into plowshares anytime in the foreseeable future, and Iraq is poised to become a staunch shiite ally of Iran.

We can win military skirmishes every day of the week, those realities will not change because of our military presence...and those realities will make Iraq more problematic for us WHEN we leave, than it was before we invaded.

[Kathianne]

I have never failed to admit that America is winning militarily in Iraq. I have stated, time and time again, that it is MY belief that, regardless of our military success, there will not be the required political success in Iraq surrounding reconciliation and governance that is necessary for us to leave Iraq any better than we found it. Before we invaded, a toothless tinhorn total asshole dictator was doing a great job at keeping Islamic extremists out of Iraq, he was doing a great job of keeping sunnis and shiites from killing one another, he was doing a great job in keeping a lid on Iranian regional aspirations. Now, AQ IS operating in Iraq, albeit not all that successfully... Shiites and sunnis are at each other's throats and have no apparent inclination to turn their swords into plowshares anytime in the foreseeable future, and Iraq is poised to become a staunch shiite ally of Iran.

We can win military skirmishes every day of the week, those realities will not change because of our military presence...and those realities will make Iraq more problematic for us WHEN we leave, than it was before we invaded.

Actually, it's a mixed bag regarding the Sunnis and Shia. I posted this earlier, perhaps you missed it?

http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/general-barry-r-mccaffrey-report.htm

[gabosaurus]

Same way we are "winning" the war on drugs, the war on terror, the war on crime and the war on teen pregnancy. Just make up whatever you want to say.

[glockmail]

....[Saddam] was doing a great job of keeping sunnis and shiites from killing one another.....

Your hero Saddam is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Some "great job".

Military victory involves the goal of a stable democracy in Iraq. It's getting there, and the Democrat Party hopes for the opposite.

[retiredman]

Your hero Saddam is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Some "great job".

Military victory involves the goal of a stable democracy in Iraq. It's getting there, and the Democrat Party hopes for the opposite.

He's hardly my hero....did you miss the part where I referred to him as a "toothless tinhorn asshole dictator"???

Now, I can well imagine that your heroes may, in fact be toothless tinhorn assholes, but not mine. And can you deny that Saddam did what I said he did?

I'll wait.:lol:

And military victory -as those of us who have been in the military know - has ZERO to do with politics. A stable democracy is Iraq is not an appropriate mission for the US military.
:fu:

[Sir Evil]

as those of us who have been in the military know

Those of us? how many combat mission have you actually been in? Don't you think maybe some people get tired of the higher standard?

Shut the fuck up private pile!

[retiredman]

so..with all your combat missions under your belt, are you telling me that you think that political stability in Iraq is a valid mission for the US Military to be tasked with accomplishing? yes or no, GI Joe?:fu:

[Sir Evil]

so..with all your combat missions under your belt, are you telling me that you think that political stability in Iraq is a valid mission for the US Military to be tasked with accomplishing? yes or no, GI Joe?:fu:

How about just answering the question buttwad, How many actual combat missions has it been that gives you such the upper hand?

Also the question you ask hasn't anything to do with what I said but I guess that is just standard with you, makes it a bit easier to avoid the questions of condescension you are always tossing around.

Ultimately I guess it really doesn't matter though, I wouldn't believe jack shit coming from you, I think you would seriously hurt yourself trying to shoot a gun anyway.

[retiredman]

How about just answering the question buttwad, How many actual combat missions has it been that gives you such the upper hand?

Also the question you ask hasn't anything to do with what I said but I guess that is just standard with you, makes it a bit easier to avoid the questions of condescension you are always tossing around.

Ultimately I guess it really doesn't matter though, I wouldn't believe jack shit coming from you, I think you would seriously hurt yourself trying to shoot a gun anyway.

your question is a deflection away from my point. But I will answer it in any case: I have never been on a combat mission. The only combat experience I have had was two years in Lebanon where I served with the UN as an unarmed crisis mediator. In that capacity, I routinely drove into the middle of combat situations with the sole mission of getting the combatants to stop shooting at one another and killing innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.

Now answer mine:

with all your combat missions under your belt, are you telling me that you think that political stability in Iraq is a valid mission for the US Military to be tasked with accomplishing? yes or no, GI Joe? :fu:

...I wish they had a "yawn" smilie.

[OCA]

Those of us? how many combat mission have you actually been in? Don't you think maybe some people get tired of the higher standard?

Shut the fuck up private pile!

Shit, although I seriously doubt he served even if he did all the Navy is nowadays is a friggin taxi service.

[retiredman]

Shit, although I seriously doubt he served even if he did all the Navy is nowadays is a friggin taxi service.

three hots and a cot

[Sir Evil]

your question is a deflection away from my point. But I will answer it in any case: I have never been on a combat mission. The only combat experience I have had was two years in Lebanon where I served with the UN as an unarmed crisis mediator. In that capacity, I routinely drove into the middle of combat situations with the sole mission of getting the combatants to stop shooting at one another and killing innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.

So essentially you are just better than everyone else because you served yet never seen any real combat? Precisely the point I was making, and to be honest I find it a lousy excuse to use for thinking your opinion is any more valid than the person who didn't serve.



Now answer mine:

with all your combat missions under your belt, are you telling me that you think that political stability in Iraq is a valid mission for the US Military to be tasked with accomplishing? yes or no, GI Joe? :fu:

...I wish they had a "yawn" smilie.

So pile, where was it I mentioned anything about having served let alone any combat missions? Oh I see, I didn't so therefore anything I might say wouldn't have no validity with a big time war hero like yourself...:rolleyes:
Your attitude sucks all the way around but I kind of knew that already.

Now, the US Military was there to remove Saddam from power so why the hell not have them there while the government is forming, and still not able to do for themselves?

Yeah I know, we should of left that swell guy Saddam in charge because he did a good job of it himself. Well he is dead, and gone now so who else should be helping provide this political stability?

[retiredman]

So essentially you are just better than everyone else because you served yet never seen any real combat? Precisely the point I was making, and to be honest I find it a lousy excuse to use for thinking your opinion is any more valid than the person who didn't serve.



So pile, where was it I mentioned anything about having served let alone any combat missions? Oh I see, I didn't so therefore anything I might say wouldn't have no validity with a big time war hero like yourself...:rolleyes:
Your attitude sucks all the way around but I kind of knew that already.

Now, the US Military was there to remove Saddam from power so why the hell not have them there while the government is forming, and still not able to do for themselves?

Yeah I know, we should of left that swell guy Saddam in charge because he did a good job of it himself. Well he is dead, and gone now so who else should be helping provide this political stability?

answer the question you fucking moron: is political stability in Iraq a legitimate objective for the US military to attempt to accomplish? YES or fucking NO? Quit tapdancing and either type three letters or two.

[mrg666]

answer the question you fucking moron: is political stability in Iraq a legitimate objective for the US military to attempt to accomplish? YES or fucking NO? Quit tapdancing and either type three letters or two.

so what do you want mfm anarchy in iraq

[retiredman]

so what do you want mfm anarchy in iraq

I think it is quite funny that people rountinely try to answer a question with a question.

[mrg666]

I think it is quite funny that people rountinely try to answer a question with a question.
you never gave me a question , so i am not answering with a question.
So answer the question it is a straight forward question

[retiredman]

you never gave me a question , so i am not answering with a question.
So answer the question it is a straight forward question

you quoted a question of mine and, rather than answer it, you posed one of your own.

I will answer yours: no.

now answer mine

[actsnoblemartin]

will both of you two knuckle heads just answer the question :laugh2:

[mrg666]

you quoted a question of mine and, rather than answer it, you posed one of your own.

I will answer yours: no.

now answer mine

you never gave me a question i quoted you for the idiocracy and posed you a valid question

[retiredman]

and I answered yours.

since you don't seem inclined to answer mine, maybe we share lottery numbers, wot?:lol:

[actsnoblemartin]

why dont u both just ask me, and i'll be the idiot ok

:laugh2:


you never gave me a question i quoted you for the idiocracy and posed you a valid question

[mrg666]

and I answered yours.

since you don't seem inclined to answer mine, maybe we share lottery numbers, wot?:lol:

you never asked me a question , its impossible to answer because of that.
ask me the question ill answer

[red states rule]

so what do you want mfm anarchy in iraq

you have a firm grasp on the obvious

[red states rule]

Things are looking good - and some of the troops may be coming home soon


40,000 troops may be home by July
By Sara A. Carter
December 22, 2007

The Pentagon expects that more than 40,000 U.S. troops will be home by July if the situation in Iraq remains stable, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday.

Declining to cite exact troop numbers, Mr. Gates told reporters that five brigade combat teams are scheduled to be home by July. Defense officials said there are nearly 4,000 front-line troops for each plus about that number of support personnel, who are expected to redeploy as well.

"The situation on the ground, I think, makes it likely that General [David H.] Petraeus will be able to decide and bring out the first five [brigades] by July, as he indicated in September," Mr. Gates said, referring to the U.S. commander in Iraq. "We obviously want to sustain the gains that we have already made."

Gen. Petraeus' assessment of the mission in Iraq will be a determining factor in troop reduction, said Mr. Gates, who was joined by Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The Defense Department estimates that the current 20 combat brigades could be reduced to 15 by next year, leaving roughly 130,000 troops in Iraq. Some redeployments are set to begin next week.

If the security situation in Iraq continues to improve, Mr. Gates said troops could be reduced to roughly "10 brigade combat teams" by the end of the administration. Mr. Gates, who was celebrating his first year as defense secretary, did not specify how many troops will remain, but 10 brigades can be as much as 100,000.

"We've disrupted, particularly in Iraq, the al Qaeda activities — their ability to organize, their ability to reinforce, move logistics, move people around and do training. But not enough," Gen. Cartwright said.

The secretary also cautioned Congress that funding only half of what the president requested for the military could put at risk the progress made during the past year.

for the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071222/NATION/272848914/1001

[Sir Evil]

answer the question you fucking moron: is political stability in Iraq a legitimate objective for the US military to attempt to accomplish? YES or fucking NO? Quit tapdancing and either type three letters or two.

Still having comprehension problems retard? Read my reply SLOWLY, and perhaps it will bypass the shit cluttering the cranium. :fu:

[red states rule]

Still having comprehension problems retard? Read my reply SLOWLY, and perhaps it will bypass the shit cluttering the cranium. :fu:

Hope you have alot of time to wait for that to happen

[Sir Evil]

Hope you have alot of time to wait for that to happen

What, expect a legitimate response of simplicity from the war hero? :laugh2:

This turd just can't accept the fact that others have opinions that are different than his, when they do they are just wrong as far as he is concerned.

Must be tough to be such a decorated vet like Pile, and then coming here to read such wrong opinions as ours. :rolleyes:

[red states rule]

What, expect a legitimate response of simplicity from the war hero? :laugh2:

This turd just can't accept the fact that others have opinions that are different than his, when they do they are just wrong as far as he is concerned.

Must be tough to be such a decorated vet like Pile, and then coming here to read such wrong opinions as ours. :rolleyes:

Of course he can't accept the fact that others have opinions that are different than his - he is a true blue liberal

That is fine - I expect that

What I can;t stand is MM will not speak out against the insults and slander his party leaders have tossed at the troops. He defends them when they call our troops terrorists, cold blooded killers, uneducated, and compares them to Pol Pot and Nazis.

On the Gen Betray Us ad - he danced around the meaning of "betray"

To MM, the only thing that matters is power for his party.

[Sir Evil]

Of course he can't accept the fact that others have opinions that are different than his - he is a true blue liberal

That is fine - I expect that

What I can;t stand is MM will not speak out against the insults and slander his party leaders have tossed at the troops. He defends them when they call our troops terrorists, cold blooded killers, uneducated, and compares them to Pol Pot and Nazis.

On the Gen Betray Us ad - he danced around the meaning of "betray"

To MM, the only thing that matters is power for his party.

Like any true armchair fan he refers to the dems as his party so I guess it' somewhat admirable to have that kind of loyalty even if it requires denying reality on occasion.

[red states rule]

Like any true armchair fan he refers to the dems as his party so I guess it' somewhat admirable to have that kind of loyalty even if it requires denying reality on occasion.

With people like MM, the hate and rage he has inside of him has taken over. He refuses to say anyhting bad about HIS party

They have failed miserably in the 11 months they have been in charge - but it is the Rpublicans fault

They have caved to pres Bush on many issues - but the Dems are not to blame. They do not have the votes needed to override the veto. So instead of not passing a bill that breaks their promises made to the voters - they give in. To MM that is fine

The bottom line with libs like MM is, so what if the Dems have accomplished nothing in 11 months - just vote more Dems into power and ignore the facts

[red states rule]

Reid and Pelosi still do not get it, and they are still playing their base for suckers

However, some Dems are starting to see the truth and are breaking away from the kook left that has taken over their party



Dem leaders pressured to alter war strategy

By: John Bresnahan and Martin Kady II
Dec 21, 2007 05:48 AM EST

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, despite their pledges to continue pushing to end the war in Iraq, face growing pressure from their rank-and-file Democrats to focus more attention on domestic, “pocketbook” issues in the upcoming election year.

Junior Democrats describe an “Iraq fatigue” setting in among some members after dozens of successful withdrawal votes failed to drive a wedge between Republicans and President Bush on the war strategy.

The restless Democrats acknowledge the war issue remains critically important for the country, but they would like to see their leaders tone down the rhetoric and avoid showdowns with Bush over the war, wherever possible.

Still, heading into 2008, Democrats have not articulated as clear a game plan on how to handle the political debate on the war as they had heading into 2007.

"My hope would be we start looking at real solutions instead of the dichotomy of cut funding versus stay forever," said Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.), who had a change of heart this fall after visiting Iraq and realizing the military surge was working.

for the complete article

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7498.html

[retiredman]

Of course he can't accept the fact that others have opinions that are different than his - he is a true blue liberal

That is fine - I expect that

What I can;t stand is MM will not speak out against the insults and slander his party leaders have tossed at the troops. He defends them when they call our troops terrorists, cold blooded killers, uneducated, and compares them to Pol Pot and Nazis.

On the Gen Betray Us ad - he danced around the meaning of "betray"

To MM, the only thing that matters is power for his party.

I fully understand the fact that others have different opinions than mine. What I do not understand is why you, RSR, have such a profound inability to articulate yours beyond the one liner talking points that you keep repeating.

Again...it was YOU that said that, if we left Iraq, Al Qaeda would -quote- TAKE OVER - unquote. You cannot explain how that could happen. You cannot explain who these "terrorists" are that are somehow going to get control of Iraq's economy and real estate and not only use Iraq as a training ground, but fund their operations using the revenue from Iraq's oil industy. You clearly seem unable to distinguish between sunnis and shiites and recognize their different sponsors.

And no democrats have ever called our troops terrorists. I publicly stated my belief that Murtha should retract his claims that the marines at Haditha had committed murder. If I thought that Durbin meant that our troops were like Nazis or Pol Pot, I would denounce that belief. I believe that his words were aimed at the policy makers, not the soldiers implementing that policy. I do not think that the Betray Us ad was appropriate and I also quite certain that Moveon.org does not represent the base of the democratic party.

[red states rule]

I fully understand the fact that others have different opinions than mine. What I do not understand is why you, RSR, have such a profound inability to articulate yours beyond the one liner talking points that you keep repeating.

Again...it was YOU that said that, if we left Iraq, Al Qaeda would -quote- TAKE OVER - unquote. You cannot explain how that could happen. You cannot explain who these "terrorists" are that are somehow going to get control of Iraq's economy and real estate and not only use Iraq as a training ground, but fund their operations using the revenue from Iraq's oil industy. You clearly seem unable to distinguish between sunnis and shiites and recognize their different sponsors.

And no democrats have ever called our troops terrorists. I publicly stated my belief that Murtha should retract his claims that the marines at Haditha had committed murder. If I thought that Durbin meant that our troops were like Nazis or Pol Pot, I would denounce that belief. I believe that his words were aimed at the policy makers, not the soldiers implementing that policy. I do not think that the Betray Us ad was appropriate and I also quite certain that Moveon.org does not represent the base of the democratic party.


For the 100th (or more) time - Kerry called the troops terrorists and uneducated

Kennedy said they were now operating Saddam's torture chambers

Durbin did compare the troops to Nazi's and Pol Pot

Murtha did say the troops killed in cold blood

You would think the Moveon.org was fine. Moveon.org bought your party lock, stock, and barrel

[retiredman]

Like any true armchair fan he refers to the dems as his party so I guess it' somewhat admirable to have that kind of loyalty even if it requires denying reality on occasion.

and you still have not answered my simple yes or no question.

Is achieving and maintaining political stability in Iraq a valid mission for the United States military?

go ahead...humor me... just answer it. Yes? No?

[red states rule]

and you still have not answered my simple yes or no question.

Is achieving and maintaining political stability in Iraq a valid mission for the United States military?

go ahead...humor me... just answer it. Yes? No?

Why are you so hot for the US to surrender in Iraq?

[Dilloduck]

and you still have not answered my simple yes or no question.

Is achieving and maintaining political stability in Iraq a valid mission for the United States military?

go ahead...humor me... just answer it. Yes? No?

no---thier job is now to create an atomosphere for the politicians to settle up----they have done an awesome job considering what politicians have done to them. :salute:

[red states rule]

no---thier job is now to create an atomosphere for the politicians to settle up----they have done an awesome job considering what politicians have done to them. :salute:

and we can thank Gen. David Petraeus fot it

[BoogyMan]

I fully understand the fact that others have different opinions than mine. What I do not understand is why you, RSR, have such a profound inability to articulate yours beyond the one liner talking points that you keep repeating.

Again...it was YOU that said that, if we left Iraq, Al Qaeda would -quote- TAKE OVER - unquote. You cannot explain how that could happen. You cannot explain who these "terrorists" are that are somehow going to get control of Iraq's economy and real estate and not only use Iraq as a training ground, but fund their operations using the revenue from Iraq's oil industy. You clearly seem unable to distinguish between sunnis and shiites and recognize their different sponsors.

And no democrats have ever called our troops terrorists. I publicly stated my belief that Murtha should retract his claims that the marines at Haditha had committed murder. If I thought that Durbin meant that our troops were like Nazis or Pol Pot, I would denounce that belief. I believe that his words were aimed at the policy makers, not the soldiers implementing that policy. I do not think that the Betray Us ad was appropriate and I also quite certain that Moveon.org does not represent the base of the democratic party.

Yet the base of the democratic party has repeatedly defended the moveon.org tactics, all the while trying to maintain a Clintonesque denial of having done so MFM.

The democratic position has consistently been to cheer for failure in Iraq as Harry Reid has done with the surge and is now backtracking those comments.

"this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything" (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/washington/20cong.html) -- Sen. Harry Reid, 4/19/07

and now....

"the surge certainly hasn't hurt. It's helped. I recognize that" (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/reid_12-21.html) -- Sen. Harry Reid, 12/21/07

[retiredman]

For the 100th (or more) time - Kerry called the troops terrorists and uneducated

Kennedy said they were now operating Saddam's torture chambers

Durbin did compare the troops to Nazi's and Pol Pot

Murtha did say the troops killed in cold blood

You would think the Moveon.org was fine. Moveon.org bought your party lock, stock, and barrel


NO. Kerry did not call our troops terrorists. Your knowledge of the english language is infantile. Have you ever heard of a gang of teenagers terrorizing a neighborhood before? Do us both a big favor and go look up the word "terrorize" and then use it with precision from now on.

We were, in fact, operating Saddam's prisons and we did, in fact, treat our detainees there in ways that inflamed the arab world because we were stupid enough to take and publish pictures of it. Kennedy is known for hyperbole. I rarely agree with him.

I disagree with your claims about Durbin. I stated my belief that he was speaking of our leaders and not those following their guidance.

I told you what I thought of Murtha's comments.

What you know about the base of the democratic party could fit in a shot glass and their would still be room for a healthy belt. If any groups "owned" the democratic party - and none do - it would be teachers unions and trial lawyers....certainly NOT moveon.org.:laugh2:

[retiredman]

Why are you so hot for the US to surrender in Iraq?


why do you always avoid answering questions and ask new ones instead?
I have no desire for America to surrender anywhere to anyone.

all you are in a talking point spewing machine.... why can't you carry on a normal discussion?

[retiredman]

no---thier job is now to create an atomosphere for the politicians to settle up----they have done an awesome job considering what politicians have done to them. :salute:


and what will we do when the Iraqi politicians continually refuse to avail themselves of the opportunities such an atmosphere presents?

[retiredman]

Yet the base of the democratic party has repeatedly defended the moveon.org tactics, all the while trying to maintain a Clintonesque denial of having done so MFM.

The democratic position has consistently been to cheer for failure in Iraq as Harry Reid has done with the surge and is now backtracking those comments.

"this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything" (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/20/washington/20cong.html) -- Sen. Harry Reid, 4/19/07

and now....

"the surge certainly hasn't hurt. It's helped. I recognize that" (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/reid_12-21.html) -- Sen. Harry Reid, 12/21/07

so...you admit that Reid has acknowledged the success of the surge?

Now..will YOU acknowledge the complete failure of the Iraqi politicians to do anything constructive with the "space" our successful surge has created?

[red states rule]

NO. Kerry did not call our troops terrorists. Your knowledge of the english language is infantile. Have you ever heard of a gang of teenagers terrorizing a neighborhood before? Do us both a big favor and go look up the word "terrorize" and then use it with precision from now on.

We were, in fact, operating Saddam's prisons and we did, in fact, treat our detainees there in ways that inflamed the arab world because we were stupid enough to take and publish pictures of it. Kennedy is known for hyperbole. I rarely agree with him.

I disagree with your claims about Durbin. I stated my belief that he was speaking of our leaders and not those following their guidance.

I told you what I thought of Murtha's comments.

What you know about the base of the democratic party could fit in a shot glass and their would still be room for a healthy belt. If any groups "owned" the democratic party - and none do - it would be teachers unions and trial lawyers....certainly NOT moveon.org.:laugh2:

MM now begins his liberal 2 step once again. Defending the smears of our troops by his floow Dems

Party before country is his #1 priority

[BoogyMan]

so...you admit that Reid has acknowledged the success of the surge?

Now..will YOU acknowledge the complete failure of the Iraqi politicians to do anything constructive with the "space" our successful surge has created?

Reid has not acknowledged it, he has had to begrudgingly rescind his cheering for failure as our forces have begun to turn things around.

You wish to claim the government of Iraq is a failure. I am not sure that is the case nor am I sure that it is an honest appraisal. I am sure that it is going to take them a good while to get their heads around a democratic form of government and there will be failures as well as successes.

[red states rule]

Reid has not acknowledged it, he has had to begrudgingly rescind his cheering for failure as our forces have begun to turn things around.

You wish to claim the government of Iraq is a failure. I am not sure that is the case nor am I sure that it is an honest appraisal. I am sure that it is going to take them a good while to get their heads around a democratic form of government and there will be failures as well as successes.

and San Fran Nan refuses to admit the success in Iraq. She is so desperate she said recently 'Republicans love war'

[retiredman]

MM now begins his liberal 2 step once again. Defending the smears of our troops by his floow Dems

Party before country is his #1 priority


are you ever going to try to carry on an intelligent discussion or will you continue to rely on the same old stock insults?

I posed several questions to you, based upon your own statements. Are you ever going to answer them or will you just admit that you don't have the depth of understanding necessary to do so?

[Dilloduck]

and what will we do when the Iraqi politicians continually refuse to avail themselves of the opportunities such an atmosphere presents?

We ? Who the hell is "we" ?

[red states rule]

are you ever going to try to carry on an intelligent discussion or will you continue to rely on the same old stock insults?

I posed several questions to you, based upon your own statements. Are you ever going to answer them or will you just admit that you don't have the depth of understanding necessary to do so?

I have, many times

You continue to defend your party at the expense of the troops.

[retiredman]

Reid has not acknowledged it, he has had to begrudgingly rescind his cheering for failure as our forces have begun to turn things around.

You wish to claim the government of Iraq is a failure. I am not sure that is the case nor am I sure that it is an honest appraisal. I am sure that it is going to take them a good while to get their heads around a democratic form of government and there will be failures as well as successes.


Didn't you just quote him as saying: "the surge certainly hasn't hurt. It's helped. I recognize that" ????

I wish to claim that the Iraqi govenment is not making use of the "space" our surge has produced for them. And how long is a "good while" from your perspective, when it comes to continuing to occupy their country with our troops?

[red states rule]

Didn't you just quote him as saying: "the surge certainly hasn't hurt. It's helped. I recognize that" ????

I wish to claim that the Iraqi govenment is not making use of the "space" our surge has produced for them. And how long is a "good while" from your perspective, when it comes to continuing to occupy their country with our troops?

Now we are an occupying force?

I am sure the troops love to be called that

[retiredman]

I have, many times

You continue to defend your party at the expense of the troops.

even your biggest fan, Actsnoblemartin, acknowledges that you have NOT answered any questions I have posed to you.... that is your standard MO....when boxed into a corner by your own words, you blythely claim that you have explained yourself in the past and move on.

I do NOTHING at the expense of the troops. Their safety and success is my first priority...and it always has been.

now again.... how is it that Al Qaeda will be able to "take over" Iraq upon our departure if they cannot even prevail over a few sunni warlords in ONE Iraqi province? Who is Iran supporting in this fight? And WHO are the "terrorists" that will control Iraq and their oil industry upon our departure?

[Dilloduck]

Didn't you just quote him as saying: "the surge certainly hasn't hurt. It's helped. I recognize that" ????

I wish to claim that the Iraqi govenment is not making use of the "space" our surge has produced for them. And how long is a "good while" from your perspective, when it comes to continuing to occupy their country with our troops?

I guess that would depend on politicians again---how hard is Congress as a whole trying to resolve the diplomatic impasse. Simply stating that its SNAFU doesn't count in my book.

[retiredman]

Now we are an occupying force?

I am sure the troops love to be called that


Quit spinning and answer some questions.

What place are our troops occupying if not Iraq? Are they back home occupying base housing with their families?

[red states rule]

even your biggest fan, Actsnoblemartin, acknowledges that you have NOT answered any questions I have posed to you.... that is your standard MO....when boxed into a corner by your own words, you blythely claim that you have explained yourself in the past and move on.

I do NOTHING at the expense of the troops. Their safety and success is my first priority...and it always has been.

now again.... how is it that Al Qaeda will be able to "take over" Iraq upon our departure if they cannot even prevail over a few sunni warlords in ONE Iraqi province? Who is Iran supporting in this fight? And WHO are the "terrorists" that will control Iraq and their oil industry upon our departure?

He also thought I brought up your "civility" as well

You do alot at the expense of the troops. You put your party ahead of them and your country

Go back and read the answers, and stop trying to shift the conversation away from the Dems failure to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

[red states rule]

Quit spinning and answer some questions.

What place are our troops occupying if not Iraq? Are they back home occupying base housing with their families?

Another example of how libs view and support the troops

[retiredman]

He also thought I brought up your "civility" as well

You do alot at the expense of the troops. You put your party ahead of them and your country

Go back and read the answers, and stop trying to shift the conversation away from the Dems failure to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

The fact is: you have not answered my questions. YOu make statement and then invariably cannot defend them. It is a well traveled path, RSR...whenever you stray from the cut and paste world and try to write anything on your own, you can NEVER defend it.

Democrats all acknowledge the success of the surge. I have asked you to tell me what that success was supposed to allow and has that occurred?

[retiredman]

Another example of how libs view and support the troops

like I have said a dozen times, I do more tangible things to actually support our troops each and every week than you have EVER done.:lol:

[retiredman]

We ? Who the hell is "we" ?

America

[red states rule]

The fact is: you have not answered my questions. YOu make statement and then invariably cannot defend them. It is a well traveled path, RSR...whenever you stray from the cut and paste world and try to write anything on your own, you can NEVER defend it.

Democrats all acknowledge the success of the surge. I have asked you to tell me what that success was supposed to allow and has that occurred?

Oh I do defend my posts. You on the other hand tap dance around the smears and insults your party levels at the troops

Dems are not praising the troops or General David Pertaus - or as Murtha called him - a political hack

[retiredman]

I guess that would depend on politicians again---how hard is Congress as a whole trying to resolve the diplomatic impasse. Simply stating that its SNAFU doesn't count in my book.

so you DO want congress to get involved in diplomacy with foreign countries?

really?

[Dilloduck]

America

That "we" has already done all they can. It ain't up to them anymore.

[red states rule]

like I have said a dozen times, I do more tangible things to actually support our troops each and every week than you have EVER done.:lol:

Yes do support the party that is out undrermine and smear them on a daily basis

[retiredman]

Oh I do defend my posts. You on the other hand tap dance around the smears and insults your party levels at the troops

Dems are not praising the troops or General David Pertaus - or as Murtha called him - a political hack

I do not think that Petraeus is a hack and I disagree with anyone who says so.

When will you EVER explain how AQ is going to "take over" Irag if they cannot even prevail against the sunnis in Anbar?

[red states rule]

so you DO want congress to get involved in diplomacy with foreign countries?

really?

They are trying to hijack the duties of the CIC, they probably want those duties as well

[red states rule]

I do not think that Petraeus is a hack and I disagree with anyone who says so.

When will you EVER explain how AQ is going to "take over" Irag if they cannot even prevail against the sunnis in Anbar?

Took you long enough to say you disagree with Murtha

[retiredman]

Yes do support the party that is out undrermine and smear them on a daily basis


I support the troops every week in many ways. It is part of my weekly routine. But you have a made in china bumper magnet so that is good enough for you, eh? :lol:

[retiredman]

They are trying to hijack the duties of the CIC, they probably want those duties as well

the question wasn't even posed to you.

[red states rule]

I support the troops every week in many ways. It is part of my weekly routine. But you have a made in china bumper magnet so that is good enough for you, eh? :lol:

You do support the insults, the smears, the numerous attempts to insert surrender dates, the Dems taking their time to fund them, and the liberal media leaking classified info

Yes, you are busy "supporting" the troops

I am sure they would like you to stop supporting them MM

[red states rule]

the question wasn't even posed to you.

Your point is - if you have one

[Dilloduck]

so you DO want congress to get involved in diplomacy with foreign countries?

really?

Not really but since they constantly stick their noses in it they may as well try to to something constuctive rather than do things that encourage conflict.

[retiredman]

You do support the insults, the smears, the numerous attempts to insert surrender dates, the Dems taking their time to fund them, and the liberal media leaking classified info

Yes, you are busy "supporting" the troops

I am sure they would like you to stop supporting them MM

actually, the troops that my church supports routinely write us back to thank us. How's that bumper magnet?

now when will you defend your assertion about AQ's take over?

[retiredman]

Not really but since they constantly stick their noses in it they may as well try to to something constuctive rather than do things that encourage conflict.

politics in a democracy IS an exercise in conflict. I will always encourage the vigorous debate over policy...

[red states rule]

actually, the troops that my church supports routinely write us back to thank us. How's that bumper magnet?

I would say you can post anything here - your true support shows through here

[red states rule]

politics in a democracy IS an exercise in conflict. I will always encourage the vigorous debate over policy...

You mean you encourage surrender and as much undermining of the troops as the Dems can muster

[retiredman]

You mean you encourage surrender and as much undermining of the troops as the Dems can muster

please refrain from gratuitous insults, RSR...

I have stated unequivocally, that I do not support America surrendering anywhere to anybody and I do a great deal to support our troops. Please quit stalling and just explain your assertion that Al Qaeda will TAKE OVER Iraq if we leave given their inability to prevail even against one province's sunni warlords.

[Dilloduck]

politics in a democracy IS an exercise in conflict. I will always encourage the vigorous debate over policy...

How about honest vigorous debate as opposed to debate that's SOLE purpose is to grab power?

[red states rule]

please refrain from gratuitous insults, RSR...

I have stated unequivocally, that I do not support America surrendering anywhere to anybody and I do a great deal to support our troops. Please quit stalling and just explain your assertion that Al Qaeda will TAKE OVER Iraq if we leave given their inability to prevail even against one province's sunni warlords.

Not insults - just the truth. You have been waving the white flag for nearly a year on this board

[retiredman]

I would say you can post anything here - your true support shows through here

my true support is felt, tangibly, by deployed troops each and every week.

I have said over and over again that I applaud our military successes in Iraq. I have asked you over and over again to explain what those successes were supposed to accomplish and whether or not they have been successful in allowing those things to be accomplished.

[retiredman]

Not insults - just the truth. You have been waving the white flag for nearly a year on this board

No white flags from me.

Now will you defend your assertion about an AQ take over?

[red states rule]

my true support is felt, tangibly, by deployed troops each and every week.

I have said over and over again that I applaud our military successes in Iraq. I have asked you over and over again to explain what those successes were supposed to accomplish and whether or not they have been successful in allowing those things to be accomplished.

The troops look at your "support" the same way they look at the support Harry 'the war is lost' Reid shows them

[retiredman]

How about honest vigorous debate as opposed to debate that's SOLE purpose is to grab power?

your opinion as to the purpose of the debate is purely partisan in nature. I disagree with it.

[red states rule]

No white flags from me.

Now will you defend your assertion about an AQ take over?

What else would you call your support for the Dems surrender date

Already answered MM - keep trying to change the subject as you are losing once again

[retiredman]

The troops look at your "support" the same way they look at the support Harry 'the war is lost' Reid shows them

As I have said, that is not the case. The troops routinely send thank you's to my congregation for our constant tangible support.

Now please answer the question about AQ taking over.

[red states rule]

your opinion as to the purpose of the debate is purely partisan in nature. I disagree with it.

All that does matter to9the Dems, and you, is POWER

Nothing else crosses your minds

[retiredman]

What else would you call your support for the Dems surrender date

Already answered MM - keep trying to change the subject as you are losing once again

never answered. this is what you do: when you get boxed into a corner by your own misstatements, you blythely claim that you have already explained it and run away.

You have spent more time claiming that you have already answered it than it would take to simply state your answer....but we both know that you are incapable of doing so.... there just isn't a talking point in your library that covers it.

[red states rule]

As I have said, that is not the case. The troops routinely send thank you's to my congregation for our constant tangible support.

Now please answer the question about AQ taking over.

Thank you to those who actually support them - to you, well...........

[red states rule]

never answered. this is what you do: when you get boxed into a corner by your own misstatements, you blythely claim that you have already explained it and run away.

You have spent more time claiming that you have already answered it than it would take to simply state your answer....but we both know that you are incapable of doing so.... there just isn't a talking point in your library that covers it.

No matter how many times I answer the question you post I have not. You can't counter them so you ignore them

Much like your Dems ignore the progress in Iraq

Both of you have this ongoing war with reality

[retiredman]

All that does matter to9the Dems, and you, is POWER

Nothing else crosses your minds

just please explain how Al Qaeda will be able to take over Iraq if they cannot even take over one province from a handful of warlords from the MINORITY sect in Iraq?

[retiredman]

No matter how many times I answer the question you post I have not. You can't counter them so you ignore them

Much like your Dems ignore the progress in Iraq

Both of you have this ongoing war with reality

you have NEVER answered the question, and you know it.

let me know when you intend to.

[red states rule]

just please explain how Al Qaeda will be able to take over Iraq if they cannot even take over one province from a handful of warlords from the MINORITY sect in Iraq?

MM the quick change artist strike again

Already answered long ago on this thread and many others

[JohnDoe]

The fact is: you have not answered my questions. YOu make statement and then invariably cannot defend them. It is a well traveled path, RSR...whenever you stray from the cut and paste world and try to write anything on your own, you can NEVER defend it.

Democrats all acknowledge the success of the surge. I have asked you to tell me what that success was supposed to allow and has that occurred?
it was suppose to allow time for the political differences among the Iraqi parliament to be resolved, instead we have had abandonment of parliament members, and allow time for them to agree on the oil contracts and dispersement to the different sects of Iraq, which has fallen by the wayside with the kurds signing their own oil contract with Hunt oil company of texas... I believe?

jd

[retiredman]

MM the quick change artist strike again

Already answered long ago on this thread and many others

which post number provided the answer in this thread, please?

[red states rule]

it was suppose to allow time for the political differences among the Iraqi parliament to be resolved, instead we have had abandonment or parliament members, and allow time for them to agree on the oil contracts and dispersement to the different sects of Iraq, which has fallen by the wayside with the kurds signing their own oil contract with Hunt oil company of texas... I believe?

jd

Progress is being made in Iraq

This man should have been Time's Man of the Year

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/518ffvyn.asp

[red states rule]

which post number provided the answer in this thread, please?

check out www.hop.com

and reread my posts

[JohnDoe]

Progress is being made in Iraq

This man should have been Time's Man of the Year

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/518ffvyn.aspour troops have made a great deal of progress, noooooooo question about that!!!

but the resolve amongst the iraqi parliament is still lacking imo...

and Merry Cristmas to you and your family RSR!

jd

[red states rule]

our troops have made a great deal of progress, noooooooo question about that!!!

but the resolve amongst the iraqi parliament is still lacking imo...

and Merry Cristmas to you and your family RSR!

jd

The Iraq government is slowly aking progress. It took out government awhile to get with the program as well JD

at least one liberal can see the progress - now if your elected leaders would do the same

Merry Christmas to you and your family as well JD

[retiredman]

check out www.hop.com

and reread my posts

you claim you have answered my question in this thread. I am suggesting that, if you cannot provide the post number where your answer is, you must be lying. Why, if you DID answer it, wouldn't you just provide the post number and prove me wrong?

[red states rule]

you claim you have answered my question in this thread. I am suggesting that, if you cannot provide the post number where your answer is, you must be lying. Why, if you DID answer it, wouldn't you just provide the post number and prove me wrong?

Do you ever get tired of lying MM - or has it become a habit after doing it so much?

[retiredman]

Do you ever get tired of lying MM - or has it become a habit after doing it so much?

what is the post number that contains your answer to my question?

You claim you answered me in this thread. Prove it.

[red states rule]

what is the post number that contains your answer to my question?

You claim you answered me in this thread. Prove it.

Do your own reasearch - I am not going through 20 pages to appease you

[retiredman]

you ought not to make claims you cannot back up.

[red states rule]

you ought not to make claims you cannot back up.

try #308 for starters. I did answer your lame questions

You are serial liar

[retiredman]

Sorry if reminding how "civil" you have been to me bothers you

Once again MM - if you and your fellow Dems get your desired surrender in Iraq the following will happen

Those who helped the US will be killed - probably along with their familes

Terror groups will enter Iraq and start their operations. They will have oil money to fianace their operations, and a country as a base of operations

Iran will assist them - possibly giving them nukes to unleash on the US

AQ will once again try to start a civil war between the factions in Iraq - they have tried and failed for the last 4 years

are you suggesting that THIS post contains the explanation of your assertion that Al Qaeda will take over Iraq when we leave? :laugh2:

You make no mention of the fact that AQ is getting their asses kicked in Anbar by a handful of sunni warlords. Why IS that?

Are you really standing by the statement that Iran - a shiite nation - will assist Al Qaeda - a sunni organization - in their efforts to take over Iraq against the efforts of the shiite majority in Iraq?

[red states rule]

are you suggesting that THIS post contains the explanation of your assertion that Al Qaeda will take over Iraq when we leave? :laugh2:

You make no mention of the fact that AQ is getting their asses kicked in Anbar by a handful of sunni warlords. Why IS that?

Are you really standing by the statement that Iran - a shiite nation - will assist Al Qaeda - a sunni organization - in their efforts to take over Iraq against the efforts of the shiite majority in Iraq?

Since the US has killed so many AQ -their ranks have diminished

Iran will move in with weapons and people to take what they can. If Dems gets their wish for surrender before Iran can defend itself - the door is wide open

Which is what Dems want to happen

[retiredman]

Since the US has killed so many AQ -their ranks have diminished

Iran will move in with weapons and people to take what they can. If Dems gets their wish for surrender before Iran can defend itself - the door is wide open

Which is what Dems want to happen


Are you suggesting that Iran is in cahoots with AQ? In this thread just the other day you said that AQ would "take over". Are you retracting that statement?

Who do you EXPECT a shiite government dominated by religious parties to align themselves with? Iran or America?

Iran isn't going to have to "move in with weapons and people to take what they can", they will be welcomed in Iraq... that was a foregone conclusion from the moment we overthrew the secular sunni dictator who was keeping them out of his country. All of the shiite leaders in Iraq have close ties with Iranian clerics. When the shiites are in control and we are gone, Iraq's relationship with America will be cursory and perfunctory at best...and their relationship with Iran will be close... and that will happen no matter when we leave. AQ is a non-player in Iraq...they can't even put up a good fight against a few sunnis warlords in Anbar..they would get their asses kicked by the Mahdi Army who is, no doubt, being supported by Iran... but the leader of that army is one of THE most popular shiite leaders in the country. Again...are you suggesting that Sadr is a "terrorist"?

[retiredman]

so...RSR...have you made up your mind? Is AQ poised to "take over" Iraq the moment we leave, or have we thinned their ranks to the point where they are not a major player? You seem to have argued both points in the same thread.

[red states rule]

so...RSR...have you made up your mind? Is AQ poised to "take over" Iraq the moment we leave, or have we thinned their ranks to the point where they are not a major player? You seem to have argued both points in the same thread.

Well Dems have said the US is helping AQ recruit more terrorists - so after we leave they will send them in

So is Aq stronger then ever and laying back waiting for Dems to surrender Iraq to them - or were they lying again?

[retiredman]

Well Dems have said the US is helping AQ recruit more terrorists - so after we leave they will send them in

So is Aq stronger then ever and laying back waiting for Dems to surrender Iraq to them - or were they lying again?

:lame2:
Why can't you answer a basic question? You have said two completely different things in the same thread. Can you tell me which one is the one your going with?

[red states rule]

:lame2:
Why can't you answer a basic question? You have said two completely different things in the same thread. Can you tell me which one is the one your going with?

Please take your www.hop.com course and get back to me later

[actsnoblemartin]

if the u.s. leaves iraq, wont there be a power vacuum?

second, wouldnt their be a civil war between the pre-dominant shiite vs al queda and the sunni's?

third, how do you know iran wouldnt get involved?

fourth, even if iran is persian arent muslims muslim first, country second?

This is not an attack, just want to hear your thoughts sir.

:salute:

patriot

[red states rule]

if the u.s. leaves iraq, wont there be a power vacuum?

second, wouldnt their be a civil war between the pre-dominant shiite vs al queda and the sunni's?

third, how do you know iran wouldnt get involved?

fourth, even if iran is persian arent muslims muslim first, country second?

This is not an attack, just want to hear your thoughts sir.

:salute:

patriot


Don't you know - he is an expert in all those areas. Just ask him and he will tell you so :lol:

[retiredman]

if the u.s. leaves iraq, wont there be a power vacuum?

second, wouldnt their be a civil war between the pre-dominant shiite vs al queda and the sunni's?

third, how do you know iran wouldnt get involved?

fourth, even if iran is persian arent muslims muslim first, country second?

This is not an attack, just want to hear your thoughts sir.

:salute:

patriot

1. are you suggesting that we annex Iraq and just set up permanent residence?

2. there may very well be continued sectarian violence between sunni and shiite but the sunnis will hardly side with AQ.... even today it is the sunnis in Anbar who have grown so upset with AQ's methods that they have stopped fighting US and started fighting - and winning - against AQ.

3. Iran is involved. Iran is closely linked to all the major players amongst the shiites. many of them lived in Iran for years while in exile during Saddam's reign. Iran's close involvement with the new government of Iraq has been a foregone conclusion since the day we toppled Saddam and set the wheels in motion for the shiite majority to gain power.

4. The ties between shiites in the region are much stronger than any loyalty to a country with little to no long term national identification. Remember that Iraq was drawn on a map by the triumphant europeans as they divided the spoils of the defeated ottoman empire in the wake of WWI. Iraqi national pride takes a back seat to sect.

reasonable questions. I hope I answered them to your satisfaction.

[actsnoblemartin]

1. are you suggesting that we annex Iraq and just set up permanent residence?

me: you mean make it part of america?

2. there may very well be continued sectarian violence between sunni and shiite but the sunnis will hardly side with AQ.... even today it is the sunnis in Anbar who have grown so upset with AQ's methods that they have stopped fighting US and started fighting - and winning - against AQ.

me: excellent point

3. Iran is involved. Iran is closely linked to all the major players amongst the shiites. many of them lived in Iran for years while in exile during Saddam's reign. Iran's close involvement with the new government of Iraq has been a foregone conclusion since the day we toppled Saddam and set the wheels in motion for the shiite majority to gain power.

me: excellent point

4. The ties between shiites in the region are much stronger than any loyalty to a country with little to no long term national identification. Remember that Iraq was drawn on a map by the triumphant europeans as they divided the spoils of the defeated ottoman empire in the wake of WWI. Iraqi national pride takes a back seat to sect.

me: i agree with all of except im confused on what this last line means. Iraqi national pride takes a back seat to sect.


reasonable questions. I hope I answered them to your satisfaction.

You answered my questions 100% to my satisfaction, and i ask rsr to give you the same courtesy.

[retiredman]

You answered my questions 100% to my satisfaction, and i ask rsr to give you the same courtesy.


1. there will be a power vacuum whenever we leave, was my point.

2. thank you

3. thank you.

4. it means that the idea of Iraqi national pride is a myth... a fictional construct. Iraq, as a country, was thrown together by Europeans who had little idea about sunnis and shiites and kurds...to them, then were all brown skinned rag headed primitives who were living in the remnants of the defeated ottoman empire. Kinda like unwittingly putting the Bloods and the Crips together in the school gymnasium and expecting them to have a cordial game of volleyball. sunnis and shiites have been at each other's throats in that region for more than a millennium.... that enmity takes priority.

And...you can ask rsr for intellectual honesty in one hand and shit in the other.... then you tell me which one fills up faster. ;)

[actsnoblemartin]

I may be conservative, but i see a kinda individual push, to attack and personally criticize anyone who isnt a war supporter/conservative.

Im not saying this is cordinated, im not saying it is intentional, but I think the board as a whole, needs to relax a bit.

point #4 is genius


1. there will be a power vacuum whenever we leave, was my point.

2. thank you

3. thank you.

4. it means that the idea of Iraqi national pride is a myth... a fictional construct. Iraq, as a country, was thrown together by Europeans who had little idea about sunnis and shiites and kurds...to them, then were all brown skinned rag headed primitives who were living in the remnants of the defeated ottoman empire. Kinda like unwittingly putting the Bloods and the Crips together in the school gymnasium and expecting them to have a cordial game of volleyball. sunnis and shiites have been at each other's throats in that region for more than a millennium.... that enmity takes priority.

And...you can ask rsr for intellectual honesty in one hand and shit in the other.... then you tell me which one fills up faster. ;)

[retiredman]

I am not trying to attack RSR...I am trying to get him to debate with even a modicum of intellectual honesty. He makes idiotic statements that he cannot back up and never defends them. He doesn't really understand the conflict in the middle east...he really only understands how to cut and paste op-ed pieces and parrot one liners from conservative talk radio. Go back and look and tell me I have EVER not stood my ground and defended my positions.

[actsnoblemartin]

I am not saying you are, i am saying that some on this board, seem to want to punish or silence anyone with a difference of opinion or dissenting view

I have numerous times asked rsr, to cut and paste less, and to answer your questions directly and without provocation


I am not trying to attack RSR...I am trying to get him to debate with even a modicum of intellectual honesty. He makes idiotic statements that he cannot back up and never defends them. He doesn't really understand the conflict in the middle east...he really only understands how to cut and paste op-ed pieces and parrot one liners from conservative talk radio. Go back and look and tell me I have EVER not stood my ground and defended my positions.

[OCA]

I have numerous times asked rsr, to cut and paste less, and to answer your questions directly and without provocation


You think you are the right person to dictate to anyone, even a moron like RSR, how they should post?

Are you seriously trying to bullshit us?

[actsnoblemartin]

I think your opinion is about as meaningful as united nations resolution.


You think you are the right person to dictate to anyone, even a moron like RSR, how they should post?

Are you seriously trying to bullshit us?

[BoogyMan]

Didn't you just quote him as saying: "the surge certainly hasn't hurt. It's helped. I recognize that" ????

I wish to claim that the Iraqi govenment is not making use of the "space" our surge has produced for them. And how long is a "good while" from your perspective, when it comes to continuing to occupy their country with our troops?

Note the begrudged tenor of the commentary. Reid was backed into a corner and had to admit his "fail at all costs" reasoning was faulty.

I can agree that the government of Iraq is not making the best use of the slack that has been given them by the surge, but you MUST realize that this type of governance is a completely new idea for Iraq and it will certainly take a while for them to get their heads around how to operate as a team based government. For that matter OUR government can barely manage it in 2007 and we have been at it for 100s of years!

[OCA]

I think your opinion is about as meaningful as united nations resolution.

My opinion carries serious weight Raymond, my nickname here is Mr. Juice.

You were suckling at your momma's tit still when I was posting here Raymond.

[actsnoblemartin]

astounding how you can get away with talking about my mother is such a derogatory way.


My opinion carries serious weight Raymond, my nickname here is Mr. Juice.

You were suckling at your momma's tit still when I was posting here Raymond.

[OCA]

astounding how you can get away with talking about my mother is such a derogatory way.

Why? Your mother doesn't have breasts? She didn't breast feed you? Just how in the fuck is that derogatory about your mother?

[actsnoblemartin]

I didnt give your permission to bring up her name, let alone talk about her in anyway.


Why? Your mother doesn't have breasts? She didn't breast feed you? Just how in the fuck is that derogatory about your mother?

[OCA]

I didnt give your permission to bring up her name, let alone talk about her in anyway.

You think I need your permission?:lol:

Quit your crying, it ain't derogatory little boy.

[actsnoblemartin]

if it aint derogatory, this board has no standards


You think I need your permission?:lol:

Quit your crying, it ain't derogatory little boy.

[mrg666]

You think I need your permission?:lol:

Quit your crying, it ain't derogatory little boy.

doods
ba fukin humbug

[OCA]

if it aint derogatory, this board has no standards

No, it means you don't know what is derogatory and what is not.

Its not your fault though.

[actsnoblemartin]

Dont you dare say one word about my mother!


No, it means you don't know what is derogatory and what is not.

Its not your fault though.

[actsnoblemartin]

you dont get to decide what is derogatory for other people, especially when you talk about family members of someone's family

Incase it isnt clear, i dont want you saying one word about my family, or my mental disabilities.

you are nothing but derogatory.


No, it means you don't know what is derogatory and what is not.

Its not your fault though.

[LiberalNation]

So what exactly have we won again?

[Dilloduck]

So what exactly have we won again?

The offensive avatar of the year award I think !! :laugh2:

[hjmick]

So what exactly have we won again?

Off topic:

I see you have decided to go with the "Santa died for your MasterCard" avatar, LN.


We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread topic...

[LiberalNation]

lol thought ya'll we would like it but back to Iraq. Create an avatar thread if ya wana fight about my avatar.

[Dilloduck]

lol thought ya'll we would like it but back to Iraq. Create an avatar thread if ya wana fight about my avatar.

boring---if your really wanna be a fly in the ointment, come up with something new like your avatar.

[LiberalNation]

Nah not that creative.

[Dilloduck]

Nah not that creative.

Guess that leaves us with your new attempt to piss people off then !:laugh2:

[LiberalNation]

Guess, tho I thought the attempt was a rather good one and look already 2 different people commenting on it.

Santa died for your mastercard, love it. Don't see why people are so offended.

[Dilloduck]

Guess, tho I thought the attempt was a rather good one and look already 2 different people commenting on it.

Santa died for your mastercard, love it. Don't see why people are so offended.

LOL you already wore out your shock value. Can't even pull off a good "dumb" act.

[LiberalNation]

Nothing ever seems to get old with this crowd, I've used the burning flag so many times and each time I get fresh shock and outrage. Same with some of my other avis and "beliefs".

[82Marine89]

Considering Santa is non-secular, who cares if he dies for Mastercard? He is about gift giving, not a religious event, so if people use Mastercard. Visa, or whatever to buy gifts, then so be it. Your attempt at being offensive only proved your ignorance.

[LiberalNation]

Just because you don't mind it doesn't mean it isn't causing outrage. I think some people must think it's sacrelgious or somethin. Comparing jesus to santa by crucifying him.

[Dilloduck]

Nothing ever seems to get old with this crowd, I've used the burning flag so many times and each time I get fresh shock and outrage. Same with some of my other avis and "beliefs".

Having to fight it out with TM to see who can be the biggest irritant must be tough. :laugh2:

[Kathianne]

Well if the Surge is not working, it's doing a damned good imitation of doing so. There are links here, it's fun watching Harry implode. There are also some great photos:


http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/12/harry-reid-weve-accomplished-quite-bit.html


Saturday, December 22, 2007
Harry Reid: "We've Accomplished Quite a Bit But Not Very Much"

"We've Accomplished Quite a Bit But Not Very Much."
That was one sentence.
Harry Reid needs a break.
Thank God it's Christmas.

Harry Reid even admitted that he would agree that Congress is not doing very well on Friday.
The poor senator sounds tired- confused.
Senator Harry Reid was on the The Newshour with Jim Lehrer on Friday and talked about his miserable year as Democrat Majority Leader.
W-Zip was not impressed with the Majority Leader's performance.
Here are a few of his better lines:

SEN. HARRY REID on Democratic Congress: Well, we've been able to accomplish quite a bit, but not very much, certainly not as much as I wanted to. I'm kind of frustrated.

SEN. HARRY REID on the Approval Rating of this Congress: Well, Ray, if I were one of those people in one of those polls that said "What do you think of Congress?" I would vote with the people who said we're not doing very well.

SEN. HARRY REID on Iraq: We've got to start bringing our troops home. ...The surge certainly hasn't hurt. It's helped. I recognize that... Ethnic cleansing has taken place all over Iraq. There is not the conflict because there is separation. There's segregation in effect.


...

[Dilloduck]

Just because you don't mind it doesn't mean it isn't causing outrage. I think some people must think it's sacrelgious or somethin. Comparing jesus to santa by crucifying him.

Naaaaaaa it looks to me like he's fixin to do a big belly flop in a pool. :laugh2:

[LiberalNation]

Yep it's quite a competitive race but I think i can beat him.

[82Marine89]

Just because you don't mind it doesn't mean it isn't causing outrage. I think some people must think it's sacrelgious or somethin. Comparing jesus to santa by crucifying him.

Jesus wasn't the only person to be crucified in those days. He just happened to be the Son of God.

[Dilloduck]

Yep it's quite a competitive race but I think i can beat him.

Its a her---that little factoid might help you
:laugh2:

[LiberalNation]

Well if the Surge is not working, it's doing a damned good imitation of doing so. There are links here, it's fun watching Harry implode. There are also some great photos
WHo said the surge wasn't "working". I still don't know what we are winning or have won tho.

[LiberalNation]

Ooops, I was thinkin typo when you wrote tm. TM, hmmm, didn't she leave.

[Dilloduck]

Ooops, I was thinkin typo when you wrote tm. TM, hmmm, didn't she leave.

who knows--people threaten stuff all the time.

[Kathianne]

Links at site, Iraq war has improved immensely:

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/milblogs/archives/2007/12/21/#009801


Turning Point
[Lex]

Everything that you need to know about the way that the press covered the war in Iraq over the last year may be found in three articles by Time magazine's Joe Klein. The first was from April of 2007 and entitled, "An Administration's Epic Collapse." By September, the administration was "Hiding Behind the General" and by December the administration had vanished entirely from the portait of the magazine's Person of the Year Runner-Up: General David Petraeus.

Consistency is not required of those who only report on reality. It is a signal virtue however, in those who would shape it.

[OCA]

Dont you dare say one word about my mother!

Your mom might be a MILF.

[OCA]

you dont get to decide what is derogatory for other people, especially when you talk about family members of someone's family

Incase it isnt clear, i dont want you saying one word about my family, or my mental disabilities.

you are nothing but derogatory.

Mental gimp.

Your mom handles a spatula like nobody's business.

[actsnoblemartin]

you clearly have no respect for the board, or its rules.

youre an absolute disgrace


Your mom might be a MILF.

[actsnoblemartin]

No class, no morals, no stardards, no decency.

You are quite a terrible person


Mental gimp.

Your mom handles a spatula like nobody's business.

[BoogyMan]

WHo said the surge wasn't "working". I still don't know what we are winning or have won tho.

Reid did, Murtha did, Pelosi did. So far Reid and Murtha have eaten crow, Pelosi is too stupid to realize or care that we ARE making progress.

[red states rule]

Reid did, Murtha did, Pelosi did. So far Reid and Murtha have eaten crow, Pelosi is too stupid to realize or care that we ARE making progress.

Dems are to consumed with their thirst for failure in Iraq. They think a loss in Iraq will be a loss for Pres Bush and not a loss for America

[red states rule]

Merry Christmas Harry "the war is lost" Reid and San Fran Nan

Here is a Christmas gift form our troops in Iraq to you. Hope you enjoy it!!!!



A gift from troops in Iraq
By Oliver North
December 23, 2007
BAQOUBA, Iraq.


It is nearly Christmas and most of the young Americans with whom we have spent this month of December will miss the holiday with their families. For many, it is their third Nativity season away from home since Operation Iraqi Freedom began in 2003.

Though you may not have noticed it beneath your tree, the troops here have sent you a gift that is far more valuable than a new hand tool or iPod. It's a present they made by hand, with extraordinary care so you can use it every day for the rest of your life — and that your children can use after you are gone.

Haven't heard about this gift? It's no wonder. As things turned around here in the "land between the rivers" — Iraq disappeared from America's televisions and dropped off the front pages of our newspapers.

When our Fox News team was here in Iraq exactly a year ago, Sheik Abdul Sattar — the chief instigator of the Sunni "Awakening" — was still alive and the citizens of Al Anbar Province were just beginning to cooperate with Coalition Forces.

Last December, the city of Ramadi had a well-deserved reputation as the most violent place on the planet. The streets were full of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and there were daily attacks against U.S. soldiers and Marines by snipers, mortars, rockets and roadside bombs. At home, Republicans had taken a drubbing in the congressional elections and the "experts" had decided Iraq was descending into an abyss of sectarian conflict.

The masters of the mainstream media contended that the campaign in Iraq was "lost." The Associated Press, in a piece headlined, "Many U.S. troops in Iraq oppose escalation," baldly stated we were "embroiled in civil warfare between majority Shi'ite Muslims and Sunni Arabs that no number of American troops can stop." America's newspapers and television screens were full of stories about U.S. and Iraqi casualties and liberal partisans were demanding that President Bush "bring the troops home — now."

Then, in February, the first U.S. "surge" troops arrived in Iraq. Within weeks, U.S. casualties spiked — and the potentates of the press proclaimed the additional troops were "too little, too late." Radical Islamic Web sites agreed — and predicted the toll of dead and wounded would force the Americans to abandon Iraq just as they quit Vietnam, Beirut and Somalia. Osama bin Laden declared the "American infidels" were being "driven from Mesopotamia."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071223/COMMENTARY06/503324767/1012/COMMENTARY

[retiredman]

still waiting for you to clarify your position on AQ and on Sadr. Is that ever gonna happen, RSR, or will you continue to run away like a girlie man?:lol:

[red states rule]

still waiting for you to clarify your position on AQ and on Sadr. Is that ever gonna happen, RSR, or will you continue to run away like a girlie man?:lol:

still have not visted www.hop.com I see

[retiredman]

one day you say that AQ is going to take over Iraq, and then you say that we have killed so many AQ that they are no longer a potent force. which is it?

I think it is really hilarious when I am just trying to get you to reconcile two of your own statements that you neg rep me as a form of retribution:lol:

you still can't debate your way out of a wet paper bag and can't seem to get yourself out of the knots you've tied yourself in!

And what "terrorist group" is Iran arming?

Do you think that Sadr's Mahdi Army is a terrorist group?

[red states rule]

one day you say that AQ is going to take over Iraq, and then you say that we have killed so many AQ that they are no longer a potent force. which is it?

I think it is really hilarious when I am just trying to get you to reconcile two of your own statements that you neg rep me as a form of retribution:lol:

you still can't debate your way out of a wet paper bag and can't seem to get yourself out of the knots you've tied yourself in!

And what "terrorist group" is Iran arming?

Do you think that Sadr's Mahdi Army is a terrorist group?



Still trying to deflect, dodge, and hide MM?

All the facts I have posted you stil have your head stuck in the sand - or somewhere else I will not mention

[Kathianne]

Still trying to deflect, dodge, and hide MM?

All the facts I have posted you stil have your head stuck in the sand - or somewhere else I will not mention

Did you really neg him, RSR?

[retiredman]

Still trying to deflect, dodge, and hide MM?

All the facts I have posted you stil have your head stuck in the sand - or somewhere else I will not mention


why can't you simply justify your positions?

YOu have said two different things about AQ....you have never answered my simple questions about who you think is being supported by Iran.... I am not tryin gto deflect dodge or hid from anything. Just quit stalling...please?

[retiredman]

Did you really neg him, RSR?

he negs me every other day like clockwork, but can never seem to carry on any sort of conversation.

[red states rule]

The kook left is at it again. Now our troops are like Hamas homicide bombers. Not smear and insult crooses the line



Netroots Equate Religious US Soldiers to Hamas Homicide Bombers

How much do you have to hate your country, Christianity, and the military to actually believe that religious United States soldiers are similar to Hamas homicide bombers?

Regardless of the answer, such was the case made by Truthout Senior Editor Jason Leopold Friday, as well as in a recommended diary at the liberal website Daily Kos Sunday.

Readers are warned to proceed with caution, for the following contains pictures and text that will certainly be offensive to many

Bibles and guns. Copies of the Koran and guns...

Could it be any plainer ?

You might call the image, to the right, the ghost of Christmas future. Let me suggest a productive frame for the picture which depicts a parallel that is both real but which has not yet fully emerged as a dominant dynamic.

The dynamic is that of religious war, a phenomenon that has an old and evil history especially in the Middle East.

But, that future - religious war - does not have to prevail. It is a danger as long as there are US troops in Iraq, because US troops in basic training, as detailed in a new Military Religious Freedom Foundation report, are being indoctrinated in the ideology of religious war and the cultivation of the mentality of religious war, between Christianity and Islam, is exactly what many leaders on the American Christian right and Islamic religious extremists including those of Al Qaeda want more than anything - to provoke a full blown religious war between Islam and Christianity.

for the complete article

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/23/netroots-equate-religious-us-soldiers-hamas-homicide-bombers

[red states rule]

Reid did, Murtha did, Pelosi did. So far Reid and Murtha have eaten crow, Pelosi is too stupid to realize or care that we ARE making progress.

You know damn well things in Iraq are getting better when the liberal media stops reporting on Iraq

What we all Know about Press Coverage in Iraq: Confirmed
Rick Moran
The Pew Research Center runs the Project for Excellence in Journalism which examines the press in a statistical and scientific way.

What they found about coverage of the Iraq War surprises no one who has been closely following that conflict in the newspapers and on the cable nets - that as the situation has improved, press coverage has dropped to next to nothing:


Through the first 10 months of the year, the picture of Iraq that Americans received from the news media was, in considerable measure, a grim one. Roughly half of the reporting has consisted of accounts of daily violence. And stories that explicitly assessed the direction of the war have tended toward pessimism, according to a new study of press coverage of events on the ground in Iraq from January through October of 2007.

In what Defense Department statistics show to be the deadliest year so far for U.S. forces in Iraq, journalists have responded to the challenge of covering the continuing violence by keeping many of the accounts of these attacks brief and limiting the interpretation they contain.

As the year went on, the narrative from Iraq brightened in some ways. The drumbeat of reports about daily attacks declined in late summer and fall, and with that came a decline in the amount of coverage from Iraq overall. This shift in coverage beginning in June, in turn, coincided with a rising sense among the American public that military efforts in Iraq were going "very" or "fairly well."

for the complete article

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/what_we_all_know_about_press_c.html

[retiredman]

more spam...op-eds and blogs...why can't you defend your own assertions?

Why can't you explain your obvious contradiction concerning AQ?

[Kathianne]

Thought you might find this interesting:

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16005&Itemid=1

Granted one area in a large country, but you have asked for examples:


BAGHDAD — Approximately 1,000 Iraqi citizens, of both Shia and Sunni religions, joined together on the sectarian fault line in Rawaniyah, the Karkh District of Baghdad, to march with one another in what they called a “Peace March”, Dec. 19.

It was an Iraqi initiative to ease sectarian tensions, solely driven by Iraqi Neighborhood Council (NAC) and District Advisory Council (DAC) leaders and Sheiks from both religious sects in the area, said Capt. Marcus Melton, commander of Pale Horse Troop, 4th Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, attached to the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault).

With Iraqi Army and Iraqi policemen maintaining the security on the streets and within the crowd during the event, they were able to successfully complete the march for united peace among all Iraqis.

Drums beat, children ran, silly string littered the air and one man nearly wept. It was an exciting, yet emotional day for the Iraqis who participated.

A local Sheik came over a loud speaker during the march to talk with his local comrades. He expressed his joy for their wanted peace, but nearly wept in the thought of those who have lost their lives in the battle for sectarian dominance. Many families, friends and sons have lost their lives during this time.

“But dominance by one religious group is just a mindset, filed in the heads of the Iraqis”, said Melton, a native of Atlanta, Ga.

This area is relatively calm today, but in January of this year violence raged through the streets, especially on Haifa.

“The mindset that Shias stay on this side of the fence and Sunnis stay on the other carried over from the violence which once plagued the area,” Melton said. “There is only a street, Sheik Murah Street, which separates these men. To the west of this street is a Shia neighborhood. To the east is a Sunni neighborhood.

“So it’s a sectarian line dividing the two,” he said. “They are working really hard within themselves to kind of get over this (sectarian mindset).”

...

[red states rule]

more spam...op-eds and blogs...why can't you defend your own assertions?

Why can't you explain your obvious contradiction concerning AQ?

Good news from Iraq does rub you and other libs the wrong way. You don't want to read it, hear it, and you do your best to ignore it

[manu1959]

Good news from Iraq does rub you and other libs the wrong way. You don't want to read it, hear it, and you do your best to ignore it

i live in a little twon call lafayette....the have crosses on a hillside.....to celebrate the deaths of american soliders.....they have been bummed out recently that they don't get to put up more crosses.....

[red states rule]

i live in a little twon call lafayette....the have crosses on a hillside.....to celebrate the deaths of american soliders.....they have been bummed out recently that they don't get to put up more crosses.....


so is the liberal media. They are so sad they do not have more video of dead troops to broadcast

That is why stories about Iraq are all but gone off the nightly news

[red states rule]

Someone at NBC will be fired for this one

NBC's General McCaffrey Sees Progress in Iraq
By Brad Wilmouth | December 24, 2007 - 10:23 ET
Sunday's "NBC Nightly News" featured retired General Barry McCaffrey, NBC News military analyst and "one-time war critic," as he voiced his "surprising new assessment" that conditions in Iraq have improved "dramatically" since the surge. McCaffrey, former Drug Czar of the Clinton administration, remarked: "A year ago, I thought the thing was going over the edge of a cliff. That has changed dramatically in a very short period of time."

Anchor Lester Holt played up McCaffrey's history of being a war critic as he teased the December 23 show: "Reality Check: New progress in Iraq, and a surprising new assessment from a four-star general and one-time war critic, just back from Baghdad." (Transcript follows)

After the show led with two reports regarding the holiday weekend, one on the travel situation and one on last-minute shoppers, Holt introduced the story on Iraq as he touted "measurable progress" and "a dramatic drop" in violence. Holt: "This will be the fifth Christmas American troops have marked the holiday inside Iraq, but this year, for the first time, they will also be celebrating measurable progress on the ground: a dramatic drop in the level of violence. And as NBC's Stephanie Gosk reports, that progress is also changing the lives of the people who live there."

Correspondent Stephanie Gosk began her report by relaying that "improved security in Baghdad means the quality of life for many is turning around" as she showed an Iraqi family having a picnic. She remarked that "the progress has surprised many," and then showed a clip of McCaffrey's comments. McCaffrey: "A year ago, I thought the thing was going over the edge of a cliff. That has changed dramatically in a very short period of time."

Gosk further mentioned that "attacks throughout the country are down 62 percent since March," before focusing on potential problems that could arise in the future. Holt then brought aboard McCaffrey for further discussion. The NBC anchor opened the discussion by again mentioning the retired general's history of being a war critic: "You have been certainly critical of American efforts in Iraq before, but you returned from this trip with an upbeat assessment. How real and how sustainable is this drop in violence we're seeing?"

Before turning the discussion to potential problems in the future, such as the Kurds becoming "possibly the next entrant to this civil war," McCaffrey summarized the improvements in Iraq's security. McCaffrey: "The objective numbers, Lester, are dramatically different. Violence is down, abductions, assassinations, truck bombings. Baghdad, the principal day I was in the city, had two violent incidents in a city of six million people. I was out in Anbar province and drove around Ramadi, which was the Wild West a year ago. And now it's relatively secure."

McCaffrey also complimented "this new Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, and General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker" as "an unbelievable leadership team."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/12/24/nbcs-general-mccaffrey-sees-progress-iraq

[retiredman]

Good news from Iraq does rub you and other libs the wrong way. You don't want to read it, hear it, and you do your best to ignore it


you are the one who not only cannot read, but cannot even defend what little you independently write. I have stated, on many occasions, that I am pleased, and not at all surprised, by American military victories. I have also stated that the surge was started for one purpose, and that purpose has NOT been realized. Iraqi politicians have failed to make any lasting progress in solving the sectarian issues that prevent a lasting peace in Iraq. In April of next year, the "surge" will HAVE to end because of our requirement to rotate troops home. If Iraqi politicians have not solved the problems that beset them between now and then, do you really think they will be able to when our presence is forcibly reduced?

And when will you EVER explain your contradictory statements about Al Qaeda? And when will you EVER explain who these "terrorists" are that Iran is arming?

[Yurt]

you are the one who not only cannot read, but cannot even defend what little you independently write. I have stated, on many occasions, that I am pleased, and not at all surprised, by American military victories. I have also stated that the surge was started for one purpose, and that purpose has NOT been realized. Iraqi politicians have failed to make any lasting progress in solving the sectarian issues that prevent a lasting peace in Iraq. In April of next year, the "surge" will HAVE to end because of our requirement to rotate troops home. If Iraqi politicians have not solved the problems that beset them between now and then, do you really think they will be able to when our presence is forcibly reduced?

And when will you EVER explain your contradictory statements about Al Qaeda? And when will you EVER explain who these "terrorists" are that Iran is arming?

pray tell, what then is YOUR suggestion? here is your armchair....

[retiredman]

pray tell, what then is YOUR suggestion? here is your armchair....

I have offered my opinions on that issue on numerous occasions. Methinks that you really have no desire to hear them again, only to run interference for your pal, RSR.

Suffice it to say that my suggestion would start with ceasing to follow blindly the foreign policy decisions of the man who has gotten us into this mess. If you really would like to discuss follow on suggestions, I would be willing to enter into such a discussion if "armchair" sarcasm was missing.

[red states rule]

I have offered my opinions on that issue on numerous occasions. Methinks that you really have no desire to hear them again, only to run interference for your pal, RSR.

Suffice it to say that my suggestion would start with ceasing to follow blindly the foreign policy decisions of the man who has gotten us into this mess. If you really would like to discuss follow on suggestions, I would be willing to enter into such a discussion if "armchair" sarcasm was missing.

Still calling for the US to surrender in Iraq?

Nothing new for you MM

[actsnoblemartin]

I prefer the whole chair (joke)

:lol:


I have offered my opinions on that issue on numerous occasions. Methinks that you really have no desire to hear them again, only to run interference for your pal, RSR.

Suffice it to say that my suggestion would start with ceasing to follow blindly the foreign policy decisions of the man who has gotten us into this mess. If you really would like to discuss follow on suggestions, I would be willing to enter into such a discussion if "armchair" sarcasm was missing.

[actsnoblemartin]

I can certainly vouch for that, I have had plenty of discussions with you and you are always forthcoming as to your feelings on this issue.

I am a very big fan of yurt, he is one of the best posters we have.

so a toe to toe discussion between the honest maineman and the passionate yurt would be welcome


I have offered my opinions on that issue on numerous occasions. Methinks that you really have no desire to hear them again, only to run interference for your pal, RSR.

Suffice it to say that my suggestion would start with ceasing to follow blindly the foreign policy decisions of the man who has gotten us into this mess. If you really would like to discuss follow on suggestions, I would be willing to enter into such a discussion if "armchair" sarcasm was missing.

[red states rule]

I can certainly vouch for that, I have had plenty of discussions with you and you are always forthcoming as to your feelings on this issue.

I am a very big fan of yurt, he is one of the best posters we have.

so a toe to toe discussion between the honest maineman and the passionate yurt would be welcome

MM is still in the surrender at all costs camp. He sees this as Bush's war and a defeat in Iraq would be a defeat for Pres Bush

MM is to much a loyal liberal to see it would be a defeat for the US

[retiredman]

rather than tossing out the same inaccurate insults, RSR, why don't you suprise the hell out of all of us by actually answering some questions and defending your contradictory assertions?

[red states rule]

rather than tossing out the same inaccurate insults, RSR, why don't you suprise the hell out of all of us by actually answering some questions and defending your contradictory assertions?

Been there and done that

Now if you would put your contry ahead of your politcal party you will cause many of us to have a heart attack due to shock to our systems