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

[red states rule]

you have previously said that Iran is supporting Al Qaeda. If that is the case, why did John McCain feel it necessary to quickly correct himself when he said the same thing last week? Why do YOU think that persian shiites would help sunni arabs take oil revenues away from other shiites?

Iran has been caught shipping weapons to terrorists in Iraq. Iran has a vested interest in the Us loing in Iraq

Like the Dems, they are power hungry, and want to see the US humilated

You would get along fine with Little Adolph MFM

[retiredman]

Iran has been caught shipping weapons to terrorists in Iraq. Iran has a vested interest in the Us loing in Iraq

Like the Dems, they are power hungry, and want to see the US humilated

You would get along fine with Little Adolph MFM

Do you understand that all terrorists do not belong to Al Qaeda? Are you aware that the term Al Qaeda refers to a specific group of sunnis arabs?

Can you explain, if Iran, a persian shiite nation, is indeed aiding Al Qaeda, this group of sunni arabs, as you have said, why John McCain felt the need to correct himself and was strongly castigated for showing apparent ignorance of the political realities of the region, when he said exactly the same thing?

[red states rule]

Do you understand that all terrorists do not belong to Al Qaeda? Are you aware that the term Al Qaeda refers to a specific group of sunnis arabs?

Can you explain, if Iran, a persian shiite nation, is indeed aiding Al Qaeda, this group of sunni arabs, as you have said, why John McCain felt the need to correct himself and was strongly castigated for showing apparent ignorance of the political realities of the region, when he said exactly the same thing?

Given your blind loyality to the oarty of surrender and appesement, if Obama does when you would be the perfect guy for the Cabinet position of Sec of Surrender

[retiredman]

Given your blind loyality to the oarty of surrender and appesement, if Obama does when you would be the perfect guy for the Cabinet position of Sec of Surrender


So...I take it that you are running away from your previous assertions that Iran is aiding Al Qaeda???

why not just be a man and say so?

[red states rule]

So...I take it that you are running away from your previous assertions that Iran is aiding Al Qaeda???

why not just be a man and say so?

I guess you ignored the fact where Iran has been caught sending weapons into Iraq

Have your ink pen ready to sign the surrender papers on behalf of the Dems?

[retiredman]

I guess you ignored the fact where Iran has been caught sending weapons into Iraq

Have your ink pen ready to sign the surrender papers on behalf of the Dems?

Of course I understand that Iran sends weapons into Iraq.

Please explain to me what that has to do with Al Qaeda.

YOu really ARE continuing to blather on about this supposed Iran-Al Qaeda connection even in the wake of McCain's inept faux pas on the same subject!

incredible!

[retiredman]

crickets chirping

[red states rule]

Of course I understand that Iran sends weapons into Iraq.

Please explain to me what that has to do with Al Qaeda.

YOu really ARE continuing to blather on about this supposed Iran-Al Qaeda connection even in the wake of McCain's inept faux pas on the same subject!

incredible!

If anyone knows blather it is you. It is the entire conyents of your posts

[actsnoblemartin]

funny i heard a jackass talking (mainey)


crickets chirping

[red states rule]

funny i heard a jackass talking (mainey)

Yea, but from which end?

[retiredman]

If anyone knows blather it is you. It is the entire conyents of your posts


so... even thoiugh McCain said it, and then, when Joey whispered in his ear, he quickly recanted it, YOU are still of the belief that Iran is supplying Al Qaeda?

Is that correct?

Or is it that, to you, "Al Qaeda" is just another name for "ragheads who don't like us" and you really have no idea what the difference between a sunni and a shiite is?

[actsnoblemartin]

the one he poops with, he has diarrhea of the mouth :laugh2:


Yea, but from which end?

[retiredman]

the one he poops with, he has diarrhea of the mouth :laugh2:


are you trying to provide "humorous" cover so that your butt buddy, RSR does not have to face up to the fact that he doesn't know what he is talking about regarding Al Qaeda?

I don't think you need to worry. He won't ever admit he's made a mistake even if there IS no cover of any kind. He completely ignores his own ignorance!

[actsnoblemartin]

I simply dont like you :dance:, youre personality is like snake venom, poisonous.


are you trying to provide "humorous" cover so that your butt buddy, RSR does not have to face up to the fact that he doesn't know what he is talking about regarding Al Qaeda?

I don't think you need to worry. He won't ever admit he's made a mistake even if there IS no cover of any kind. He completely ignores his own ignorance!

[retiredman]

I simply dont like you :dance:, youre personality is like snake venom, poisonous.


so therefore you provide cover for your "pal"?

how sweet.

He's wrong on this issue and you are too for trying to obscure that fact with your comedy routine.

[red states rule]

so therefore you provide cover for your "pal"?

how sweet.

He's wrong on this issue and you are too for trying to obscure that fact with your comedy routine.

To you, he wrong side is being on the side of our troops, on the side of our President, wanting to defeat the terrorists, and win the war in Iraq

[retiredman]

To tyou, he wrong side is being on the side of our troops, on the side of our President, wanting to defeat the terrorists, and win the war in Iraq


nice dodge. I want to defeat islamic extremism. I have no interest in refereeing a civil war in Iraq. The two are not connected except by OUR actions.

YOU still will not admit that you are dead wrong about Al Qaeda and Iran having ties. Even McCain admits that such an idea is malarky...but not you.

You are the worst kind of Bush supporter: one who does so out of willful ignorance.

[actsnoblemartin]

exactly...

Fighting islamo-nazi's whether they are is good.

Giving a victory to the islamo-nazi's is not only bad for our immediate security and that of our allies, but future security as well, not to mention emboldening new terrorist attacks and a new 1990's aghanistan inside iraq, potentially controlled by, you guessed it,the iranian hitler. isnt that sweet?

I think rsr is right, and iran and al queda have the same goal, killing all non muslims

Yes, the iranian government you p.c. thug and 30% of their population


To tyou, he wrong side is being on the side of our troops, on the side of our President, wanting to defeat the terrorists, and win the war in Iraq

[actsnoblemartin]

I fail to see how giving them a victory in iraq, and a safe haven there is a victory?

Iran and al queda in iraq have the same goals, death to america and israel.

they dont need a pact like germany and italy, to be on the same team, they are by default on the same team, doing different missions, to get to the same goal. like having a company, one department does accounting, the other clerical, theyre different, but both work towards the same goal.


nice dodge. I want to defeat islamic extremism. I have no interest in refereeing a civil war in Iraq. The two are not connected except by OUR actions.

YOU still will not admit that you are dead wrong about Al Qaeda and Iran having ties. Even McCain admits that such an idea is malarky...but not you.

You are the worst kind of Bush supporter: one who does so out of willful ignorance.

[actsnoblemartin]

i bet if i ran a poll of the board, they would agree with my assesment of your personality.


so therefore you provide cover for your "pal"?

how sweet.

He's wrong on this issue and you are too for trying to obscure that fact with your comedy routine.

[red states rule]

nice dodge. I want to defeat islamic extremism. I have no interest in refereeing a civil war in Iraq. The two are not connected except by OUR actions.

YOU still will not admit that you are dead wrong about Al Qaeda and Iran having ties. Even McCain admits that such an idea is malarky...but not you.

You are the worst kind of Bush supporter: one who does so out of willful ignorance.

You have no desire to win in Iraq, to support the troops, or take the fight to our enemies. You would rather have dead US troops, lose this war, and undermine the Presidents efforts all for political gain for your party

You are a top Dem supporter - the troops can go to hell we have to win an election

[retiredman]

exactly...

Fighting islamo-nazi's whether they are is good.

Giving a victory to the islamo-nazi's is not only bad for our immediate security and that of our allies, but future security as well, not to mention emboldening new terrorist attacks and a new 1990's aghanistan inside iraq, potentially controlled by, you guessed it,the iranian hitler. isnt that sweet?

I think rsr is right, and iran and al queda have the same goal, killing all non muslims

Yes, the iranian government you p.c. thug and 30% of their population

well...on the question as to whether Iran the persian shiite nation is supplying Al Qaeda, the arab sunni terrorst group, we've got manfrommaine and John McCain on one side of the issue, and RSR and the blithering, porn addicted idiot on the other.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

well...on the question as to whether Iran the persian shiite nation is supplying Al Qaeda, the arab sunni terrorst group, we've got manfrommaine and John McCain on one side of the issue, and RSR and the blithering, porn addicted idiot on the other.:laugh2:

another articulate post from the Merchant of Venom

[retiredman]

You have no desire to win in Iraq, to support the troops, or take the fight to our enemies. You would rather have dead US troops, lose this war, and undermine the Presidents efforts all for political gain for your party

You are a top Dem supporter - the troops can go to hell we have to win an election

you still can't quite admit that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about regarding Iran supplying Al Qaeda, can you?


I want very much to take the fight to the folks who attacked us. I think stopping our involvement in Iraq's civil war is the first step in that process.

[actsnoblemartin]

wow, way to skew the issue. :laugh2:

it has already been established that iran is sending weapons, and im sorry i doubt iraqs vast military :laugh2: can stop iran.




well...on the question as to whether Iran the persian shiite nation is supplying Al Qaeda, the arab sunni terrorst group, we've got manfrommaine and John McCain on one side of the issue, and RSR and the blithering, porn addicted idiot on the other.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

wow, way to skew the issue. :laugh2:

it has already been established that iran is sending weapons, and im sorry i doubt iraqs vast military :laugh2: can stop iran.

Stop with the facts, MFM will meltdown even further

[actsnoblemartin]

if there is a civil war it is because of al queda, all the more reason we should STAY and fight al queda in iraq.


you still can't quite admit that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about regarding Iran supplying Al Qaeda, can you?


I want very much to take the fight to the folks who attacked us. I think stopping our involvement in Iraq's civil war is the first step in that process.

[retiredman]

another articulate post from the Merchant of Venom

it may be cruel, but is IS articulate. McCain is right on this issue. YOU are wrong. Iran may very well send weapons into Iraq, but it most certainly does NOT send them to Al Qaeda.

[retiredman]

if there is a civil war it is because of al queda, all the more reason we should STAY and fight al queda in iraq.

no martin.., there is a civil war because sunnis and shiites don't get along and haven't lived under any governmental system that allowed them to express their enmity until we toppled the dictator who had kept the lid on it.

[red states rule]

it may be cruel, but is IS articulate. McCain is right on this issue. YOU are wrong. Iran may very well send weapons into Iraq, but it most certainly does NOT send them to Al Qaeda.

Not cruel -just DNC talking points from a moonbat surrender monkey

[actsnoblemartin]

thats pastor moonbat surrender monkey :laugh2:


Not cruel -just DNC talking points from a moonbat surrender monkey

[red states rule]

thats pastor moonbat surrender monkey :laugh2:

Thanks. I stand corrected

I wonder if he does Muslim services?

You know a simple beheading of a Bush supporter? Nothing fancy

[retiredman]

wow, way to skew the issue. :laugh2:

it has already been established that iran is sending weapons, and im sorry i doubt iraqs vast military :laugh2: can stop iran.


Iran sends weapons to shiites in Iraq.... the same shiites that will eventually run Iraq and form a strategic alliance with Iran. There is ZERO we can to to stop that from happening short of remaining as an occupying force from now until the end of time. The shiites in Iraq - who make up the majority of the population - are FRIENDLY with Iran. Where do you think that Muqtada al Sadr hangs out when he is not is Iraq? He hangs out in Iran. Where do you think that Maliki had to send his representatives to negotiate the cease fire with the Mahdi Army? Iran. You just don't get it.

[retiredman]

Not cruel -just DNC talking points from a moonbat surrender monkey


The fact that Iran does not supply Al Qaeda is a DNC talking point?:lol:

tell that to the republican presidential nominee!

[red states rule]

The fact that Iran does not supply Al Qaeda is a DNC talking point?:lol:

tell that to the republican presidential nominee!

Keep telling yourself that MM - maube one day you might really believe it

[retiredman]

Keep telling yourself that MM - maube one day you might really believe it

why did John McCain quickly correct himself when he mistakenly said that Iran was helping Al Qaeda? why did he point out that iranians were shiites and al qaeda was sunni? and that Iran would not help them? why?

[actsnoblemartin]

mccain is a politician. Iran is helping al queda in iraq. by sending weapons.

saudi arabia is sending the most foreign fighters to aid the jihad.

they are not insurgents in iraq, they are terrorists


why did John McCain quickly correct himself when he mistakenly said that Iran was helping Al Qaeda? why did he point out that iranians were shiites and al qaeda was sunni? and that Iran would not help them? why?

[red states rule]

mccain is a politician. Iran is helping al queda in iraq. by sending weapons.

saudi arabia is sending the most foreign fighters to aid the jihad.

they are not insurgents in iraq, they are terrorists

Does Pastor surrender monkey make terrorist training camp house calls?

[actsnoblemartin]

he can apologize for islam, after all the islamo nazi's say we should get out of iraq too


Does Pastor surrender monkey make terrorist training camp house calls?

[retiredman]

mccain is a politician. Iran is helping al queda in iraq. by sending weapons.

saudi arabia is sending the most foreign fighters to aid the jihad.

they are not insurgents in iraq, they are terrorists

martin. you don't know what you are talking about. You claim to have been to Israel and don't even know where Gaza is. Iran is a persian shiite nation. fact. Al Qaeda is a sunni arab organization. fact. Persian shiites HATE sunni arabs. fact. Iran is assisting shiite Iraqi groups in Iraq, not Al Qaeda. fact. Al Qaeda is not even capable of prevailing against relatively unorganized sunni neighborhood militias in Iraq. fact. It will not be able to prevail against the majority shiite sect. fact. You shouldn't let your "affection" for RSR let you parrot his mistakes.

YOu probably should stick to your "what's the most romantic thing you've ever done" genre of threads and leave middle eastern politics to folks who know something about the subject.

[red states rule]

YOu probably should stick to your "what's the most romantic thing you've ever done" genre of threads and leave middle eastern politics to folks who know something about the subject.

Then why are you talking about it?

[retiredman]

Then why are you talking about it?

because I lived there and served our country over there and my mission was to get to know and understand the various sects and political organizations in the Islamic world and I have forgotten more about the middle east than you have ever known or will ever know.

That is why.

YOU are such a stupid and stubborn moron that you don't even know the difference between a sunni and a shiite or have any concept of the depth of the enmity that exists between them.

The obvious question is, why are YOU talking about it?

[avatar4321]

I can see a scenario where Democrats will admit that the troops won. If there is a Democrat President. Then about 6 months to a year in he/she will be like, "now due to my leadership and changing us away from the Bush tactics Iraq is a better place"

[retiredman]

I can see a scenario where Democrats will admit that the troops won. If there is a Democrat President. Then about 6 months to a year in he/she will be like, "now due to my leadership and changing us away from the Bush tactics Iraq is a better place"


I will go on record right now, before the Obama victory, and say that, while I think that our troops will ALWAYS win every battle, Iraq will NOT become a stable, multicultural, jeffersonian democracy no matter how long our troops stay there, no matter how many more thousands of troops we lose, no matter how many more billions of dollars we flush down the shitter, or no matter who is in the white house, IMHO.

[actsnoblemartin]

hello


martin. you don't know what you are talking about. You claim to have been to Israel and don't even know where Gaza is.

ME: i know where gaza is

Iran is a persian shiite nation. fact. Al Qaeda is a sunni arab organization.

ME: yeah i know, but both hate america, right?

fact. Persian shiites HATE sunni arabs. fact. Iran is assisting shiite Iraqi groups in Iraq, not Al Qaeda.

ME: but youre telling me al queda can defeat the iranian army, i doubt it.

fact. Al Qaeda is not even capable of prevailing against relatively unorganized sunni neighborhood militias in Iraq.

ME: they are having trouble yes

fact. It will not be able to prevail against the majority shiite sect.

ME: theyre not dead yet

fact. You shouldn't let your "affection" for RSR let you parrot his mistakes.

ME: im not :P

YOu probably should stick to your "what's the most romantic thing you've ever done" genre of threads and leave middle eastern politics to folks who know something about the subject.

[actsnoblemartin]

why do you believe that?


I will go on record right now, before the Obama victory, and say that, while I think that our troops will ALWAYS win every battle, Iraq will NOT become a stable, multicultural, jeffersonian democracy no matter how long our troops stay there, no matter how many more thousands of troops we lose, no matter how many more billions of dollars we flush down the shitter, or no matter who is in the white house, IMHO.

[actsnoblemartin]

I still wanna know mfm, you think... arabs are incapable of being peaceful, democracy loving people?

just wondering, answer this however you wish, or not at all, i dont care

[red states rule]

I can see a scenario where Democrats will admit that the troops won. If there is a Democrat President. Then about 6 months to a year in he/she will be like, "now due to my leadership and changing us away from the Bush tactics Iraq is a better place"

On the other hand, Dems complete their surrender, pull all troops from Iraq, all hell breaks loose, and tens of thousands are killed by the terroroists

Libs will chant the blame Bush ralking points

[retiredman]

where have I EVER said that Al Qaeda could defeat the Iranian army?

[red states rule]

why do you believe that?

Because he is a racist. Libs like MFM think they are to stupid to embrace freedom. He sees them as uncivilized savages

Also, the last thing he wants is any progress at all. Remember, this is Bush' war, and defeat is the only goal of the left

[retiredman]

I still wanna know mfm, you think... arabs are incapable of being peaceful, democracy loving people?

just wondering, answer this however you wish, or not at all, i dont care


they might very well be able to be THREE different democracy loving countries, but the artificial construction of the "country" of "Iraq" at the end of the first world war by the victorious European powers forced Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds together in a "country" that has NEVER had a tradition of multicultural democracy. To the contrary, Iraq sits, with a population weighted towards shiites, but containing significant percentages of Sunni Arabs and Kurds... straddling the cusp between Arabia and Persia... and it is irrational to expect those three groups of folks to coalesce around a unified governmental model simply because western powers WANT them to.

[red states rule]

they might very well be able to be THREE different democracy loving countries, but the artificial construction of the "country" of "Iraq" at the end of the first world war by the victorious European powers forced Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds together in a "country" that has NEVER had a tradition of multicultural democracy. To the contrary, Iraq sits, with a population weighted towards shiites, but containing significant percentages of Sunni Arabs and Kurds... straddling the cusp between Arabia and Persia... and it is irrational to expect those three groups of folks to coalesce around a unified governmental model simply because western powers WANT them to.

Translation -they are to stupid to know what os best for them. Only a Democrat President can solve this by surrender and letting them kill each other

Meanwhile we will blame Bush and Republicans for our decision to cut and run. With our allies in the liberal media we will be able to push this story and the gullible masses that voted for us wil buy it

[retiredman]

Translation -they are to stupid to know what os best for them. Only a Democrat President can solve this by surrender and letting them kill each other

Meanwhile we will blame Bush and Republicans for our decision to cut and run. With our allies in the liberal media we will be able to push this story and the gullible masses that voted for us wil buy it


why can't you actually address my comments and debate them?

This stupid "translation" bullshit of yours is silly.

Why do you think that YOU know what is best for the sunnis and shiites in Iraq?

How fucking presumptuous is THAT????

[red states rule]

why can't you actually address my comments and debate them?

This stupid "translation" bullshit of yours is silly.

Why do you think that YOU know what is best for the sunnis and shiites in Iraq?

How fucking presumptuous is THAT????

The truth does bother the hell out of you

Your "sermons:" must be based on Grimm MFM's Fairy Tales

[retiredman]

The truth does bother the hell out of you

Your "sermons:" must be based on Grimm MFM's Fairy Tales


are you suggesting that it is not the truth that the country of Iraq is an artificially constructed country that was drawn on a map by Europeans with no understanding of the sectarian differences contained within their drawn boundaries?

[red states rule]

are you suggesting that it is not the truth that the country of Iraq is an artificially constructed country that was drawn on a map by Europeans with no understanding of the sectarian differences contained within their drawn boundaries?

I am suggesting you are still stuck on surrender at all costs

[retiredman]

Is it not the truth that the country of Iraq is an artificially constructed country that was drawn on a map by Europeans with no understanding of the sectarian differences contained within their drawn boundaries?

[red states rule]

Is it not the truth that the country of Iraq is an artificially constructed country that was drawn on a map by Europeans with no understanding of the sectarian differences contained within their drawn boundaries?

Keep waving the white flag MM - the terrosist are very grateful to you for your support

[retiredman]

Keep waving the white flag MM - the terrosist are very grateful to you for your support

can't you answer a simple question? Can't we at least TRY to have a dialog?

Why do you think that YOU know what is best for the sunnis and shiites in Iraq?

[red states rule]

Here MFM -this should put a smile on your face

12 Suicide Bombers Murdered by U.S. Troops
In the early morning hours of Sunday, March 23, twelve Muslim men met quietly at a mosque in the Iraqi province of Diyala, perhaps to bid their final farewells to friends and family. Their nose hairs trimmed, monobrows plucked, and testicles cleanly shaven in accordance with Holy Quran, they had prepared themselves to make a dignified journey into the afterlife. Suddenly, and without even reading them their rights, Coalition Forces stormed the building and gunned them down in cold blood.

Where is the outrage?

Most of us would be appalled if U.S. soldiers burst in and mowed down our ailing grandmother just as Dr. Kevrokian was hooking her up to his wonderful gizmo. Yet no one bats an eye when it happens to TWELVE innocent - and let's not forget suicidal men. If the gung-ho, trigger-happy, baby-killing fascists had just practiced a little self-restraint and waited another hour or two, they could've saved themselves a lot of time and valuable ammo. But thanks to our troops, twelve members of the Muslim community were denied Death With Dignity, and 876 virgins are now standing in the unemployment line.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2008/03/12-suicide-bomb.html

[retiredman]

address my points, RSR.

Is it not the truth that the country of Iraq is an artificially constructed country that was drawn on a map by Europeans with no understanding of the sectarian differences contained within their drawn boundaries?

Why do you think that YOU know what is best for the sunnis and shiites in Iraq?

[red states rule]

address my points, RSR.

Is it not the truth that the country of Iraq is an artificially constructed country that was drawn on a map by Europeans with no understanding of the sectarian differences contained within their drawn boundaries?

Why do you think that YOU know what is best for the sunnis and shiites in Iraq?

I thought you would love an article that cast the troops as cold blooded kilers

Reminds me of Moter Mouth Murtha and how you view the troops

[retiredman]

I thought you would love an article that cast the troops as cold blooded kilers

Reminds me of Moter Mouth Murtha and how you view the troops

I would LOVE for you to answer my questions.

Any chance of that EVER happening?

[red states rule]

I would LOVE for you to answer my questions.

Any chance of that EVER happening?

I have

You are stuck on stupid and surredner. Facts mean nothing to liberal moonbats like you

[retiredman]

I have

You are stuck on stupid and surredner. Facts mean nothing to liberal moonbats like you


I asked you two questions here. you have not answered them. Please try. And then I can respond to your repliles.

[actsnoblemartin]

they might very well be able to be THREE different democracy loving countries, but the artificial construction of the "country" of "Iraq" at the end of the first world war by the victorious European powers forced Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds together in a "country" that has NEVER had a tradition of multicultural democracy.

ME: that is very true, do you think the iraqis would accept a 3 state solution ?

ME: do you think it would ever be possible for iraqis to live together peacefully if we dont push for a three state solution or they reject a 3 state solution?

ME: if we leave will there be a blood bath?

To the contrary, Iraq sits, with a population weighted towards shiites, but containing significant percentages of Sunni Arabs and Kurds... straddling the cusp between Arabia and Persia... and it is irrational to expect those three groups of folks to coalesce around a unified governmental model simply because western powers WANT them to.

[retiredman]

they might very well be able to be THREE different democracy loving countries, but the artificial construction of the "country" of "Iraq" at the end of the first world war by the victorious European powers forced Sunnis and Shiites and Kurds together in a "country" that has NEVER had a tradition of multicultural democracy.

ME: that is very true, do you think the iraqis would accept a 3 state solution ?

ME: do you think it would ever be possible for iraqis to live together peacefully if we dont push for a three state solution or they reject a 3 state solution?

ME: if we leave will there be a blood bath?

To the contrary, Iraq sits, with a population weighted towards shiites, but containing significant percentages of Sunni Arabs and Kurds... straddling the cusp between Arabia and Persia... and it is irrational to expect those three groups of folks to coalesce around a unified governmental model simply because western powers WANT them to.


I have no idea what the population of Iraq would accept. Why should that be any of OUR concern regardless? Iraq needs to figure out their own way in this world...they have to figure out how they want to live, or die together or separately. It is none of our fucking business. We removed the dictator that was preventing them from making up their own minds - and I think that removing him might very well have been in THEIR best interests, but it certainly was not in OURS. It is time for THEM to decide how to live together or live apart.

[trobinett]

Lets go back to the original post, shall we?


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

NEVER!

So we've had, what, over 120 posts, and the premise of the thread is still valid.

The liberals, read DEMOCRATES will never admit to the FACT that we are winning the war in Iraq.

This thread should be LOCKED, and the lock stepped liberals should try to find a fucking life.

[retiredman]

Lets go back to the original post, shall we?



NEVER!

So we've had, what, over 120 posts, and the premise of the thread is still valid.

The liberals, read DEMOCRATES will never admit to the FACT that we are winning the war in Iraq.

This thread should be LOCKED, and the lock stepped liberals should try to find a fucking life.


fuck you, you stupid twit. I have stated probably a dozen fucking times in this very thread that American troops are winning every single battle.

Can you fucking read, moron?

[Yurt]

I have no idea what the population of Iraq would accept. Why should that be any of OUR concern regardless? Iraq needs to figure out their own way in this world...they have to figure out how they want to live, or die together or separately. It is none of our fucking business. We removed the dictator that was preventing them from making up their own minds - and I think that removing him might very well have been in THEIR best interests, but it certainly was not in OURS. It is time for THEM to decide how to live together or live apart.

for you, what is the difference between iraq - german/japan? if you have already said in this thread, don't go ape on me, theres what 1800 plus posts.....

[retiredman]

japan attacked us.

germany declared war on us.

plus BOTH countries were natually formed and had centuries of history as organic nationstates which made the odds of success for our attempts to reestablish normalcy be in our favor.

[Yurt]

japan attacked us.

germany declared war on us.

plus BOTH countries were natually formed and had centuries of history as organic nationstates which made the odds of success for our attempts to reestablish normalcy be in our favor.

thanks. this could be a good thread if you want... our so-called nation building... based (i believe) predominantly on those two models. you make the thread, i'll be there and debate, think it would be good

[retiredman]

go right ahead.

[Yurt]

go right ahead.

i asked you first

[retiredman]

i asked you first

you asked me to start a thread. I have no plans on doing so.

but feel free.

[Yurt]

you asked me to start a thread. I have no plans on doing so.

but feel free.

wimp

[retiredman]

wimp

nerd

[Yurt]

nerd

sissy

[actsnoblemartin]

part of me says let the sand n***ers kill each other. I dont give a shit.

the other part says, well its noble to kill islamo-nazi's.

Torn between, those arabs are like two fighting 5 years olds that will never get along and

if we give up now, we will be back later

well you get my point, its easy to be completely for or against something, and for the record, i dont think being against any war makes you a traitor, surrenderer, or bad person.

Just wanted to put that out there.

[gabosaurus]

Yep, our invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a 100 percent success.

<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/f87_1175714145"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/f87_1175714145" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>

<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/016_1176580214"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/016_1176580214" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>

[gabosaurus]

part of me says let the sand n***ers kill each other. I dont give a shit.

the other part says, well its noble to kill islamo-nazi's.

Isn't it also noble to kill the Israeli sand n****rs?
I don't give a shit.

[red states rule]

thanks. this could be a good thread if you want... our so-called nation building... based (i believe) predominantly on those two models. you make the thread, i'll be there and debate, think it would be good

Don't hold your breath.

[red states rule]

Joe Lieberman is one of the few on the left who get it


Iraq and Its Costs
By JOE LIEBERMAN and LINDSEY GRAHAM
April 7, 2008; Page A13

When Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress tomorrow, he will step into an American political landscape dramatically different from the one he faced when he last spoke on Capitol Hill seven months ago.

This time Gen. Petraeus returns to Washington having led one of the most remarkably successful military operations in American history. His antiwar critics, meanwhile, face a crisis of credibility – having confidently predicted the failure of the surge, and been proven decidedly wrong.


As late as last September, advocates of retreat insisted that the surge would fail to bring about any meaningful reduction in violence in Iraq. MoveOn.org accused Gen. Petraeus of "cooking the books," while others claimed that his testimony, offering evidence of early progress, required "the willing suspension of disbelief."

Gen. Petraeus will be the first to acknowledge that the gains in Iraq have come at a heavy price in blood and treasure. We mourn the loss and pain of the civilians and service members who have been killed and wounded in Iraq, but adamantly believe these losses have served a noble cause.

No one can deny the dramatic improvements in security in Iraq achieved by Gen. Petraeus, the brave troops under his command, and the Iraqi Security Forces. From June 2007 through February 2008, deaths from ethno-sectarian violence in Baghdad have fallen approximately 90%. American casualties have also fallen sharply, down by 70%.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has been swept from its former strongholds in Anbar province and Baghdad. The liberation of these areas was made possible by the surge, which empowered Iraqi Muslims to reject the Islamist extremists who had previously terrorized them into submission. Any time Muslims take up arms against Osama bin Laden, his agents and sympathizers, the world is a safer place.

In the past seven months, the other main argument offered by critics of the Petraeus strategy has also begun to collapse: namely, the alleged lack of Iraqi political progress.

Antiwar forces last September latched onto the Iraqi government's failure to pass "benchmark" legislation, relentlessly hammering Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as hopelessly sectarian and unwilling to confront Iranian-backed Shiite militias. Here as well, however, the critics in Washington have been proven wrong.

In recent months, the Iraqi government, encouraged by our Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has passed benchmark legislation on such politically difficult issues as de-Baathification, amnesty, the budget and provincial elections. After boycotting the last round of elections, Sunnis now stand ready to vote by the millions in the provincial elections this autumn. The Iraqi economy is growing at a brisk 7% and inflation is down dramatically.

And, in launching the recent offensive in Basra, Mr. Maliki has demonstrated that he has the political will to take on the Shiite militias and criminal gangs, which he recently condemned as "worse than al Qaeda."

Of course, while the gains we have achieved in Iraq are meaningful and undeniable, so are the challenges ahead. Iraqi Security Forces have grown in number and shown significant improvement, but the Basra operation showed they still have a way to go. Al Qaeda has been badly weakened by the surge, but it still retains a significant foothold in the northern city of Mosul, where Iraqi and coalition forces are involved in a campaign to destroy it.

Most importantly, Iran also continues to wage a vicious and escalating proxy war against the Iraqi government and the U.S. military. The Iranians have American blood on their hands. They are responsible, through the extremist agents they have trained and equipped, for the deaths of hundreds of our men and women in uniform. Increasingly, our fight in Iraq cannot be separated from our larger struggle to prevent the emergence of an Iranian-dominated Middle East.

These continuing threats from Iran and al Qaeda underscore why we believe that decisions about the next steps in Iraq should be determined by the recommendations of Gen. Petraeus, based on conditions on the ground.

It is also why it is imperative to be cautious about the speed and scope of any troop withdrawals in the months ahead, rather than imposing a political timeline for troop withdrawal against the recommendation of our military.

Unable to make the case that the surge has failed, antiwar forces have adopted a new set of talking points, emphasizing the "costs" of our involvement in Iraq, hoping to exploit Americans' current economic anxieties.

for the complete article

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120752308688293493.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries

[retiredman]

Don't hold your breath.


why would you say that?

If I made such a thread, would YOU be there to actually debate the topic and discuss the issues surrounding the artificial formation of Iraq and how the sectarian tension that was unintentionally created in that formation continues to negatively manifest itself?

Or would you just use that thread, like you use all other threads, to spam the board with oped pieces that have marginal relevance to the topic and prove, each and every time, your own inability to construct any meaningful arguments on your own?

[red states rule]

why would you say that?

If I made such a thread, would YOU be there to actually debate the topic and discuss the issues surrounding the artificial formation of Iraq and how the sectarian tension that was unintentionally created in that formation continues to negatively manifest itself?

Or would you just use that thread, like you use all other threads, to spam the board with oped pieces that have marginal relevance to the topic and prove, each and every time, your own inability to construct any meaningful arguments on your own?

I see you ignored the great op-ed from Joe Lieberman

The man you once voted for for VP

[retiredman]

I see you ignored the great op-ed from Joe Lieberman

The man you once voted for for VP

I ignore all the opeds you spam the board with. I get my opeds first hand by reading them at the newsites where they originate.


I see you ignored my response to your "don't hold your breath" post...

probably because you knew that you would never be able to actually debate that issue because of your lack of understanding about Islam and WWI and the Ottoman empire and all the other sub-issues that add complexity to the subject. For you, if it goes beyond "democrats= bad...republicans=good.... Kerry=bad....Bush=god....9/11..... Obama=racist" you really are at a total loss for words.

[red states rule]

I ignore all the opeds you spam the board with. I get my opeds first hand by reading them at the newsites where they originate.


I see you ignored my response to your "don't hold your breath" post...

probably because you knew that you would never be able to actually debate that issue because of your lack of understanding about Islam and WWI and the Ottoman empire and all the other sub-issues that add complexity to the subject. For you, if it goes beyond "democrats= bad...republicans=good.... Kerry=bad....Bush=god....9/11..... Obama=racist" you really are at a total loss for words.

You ignore anything that goes againist your predetermined view of things

You never allow facts to enter into the discussion

[retiredman]

You ignore anything that goes againist your predetermined view of things

You never allow facts to enter into the discussion


Like I said, I read lots of opeds from lots of sources every day. I just don't read them when you spam a political discussion board with other people's words instead of your own.

So go back and answer my question about a thread concerning the differences between American occupation of Germany/Japan after WWII and Iraq after Bush's preemptive invasion/conquest.

Would you actually participate in such a thread? Do you have any independent intellectual contributions you could make to such a discussion?

[red states rule]

Like I said, I read lots of opeds from lots of sources every day. I just don't read them when you spam a political discussion board with other people's words instead of your own.

So go back and answer my question about a thread concerning the differences between American occupation of Germany/Japan after WWII and Iraq after Bush's preemptive invasion/conquest.

Would you actually participate in such a thread? Do you have any independent intellectual contributions you could make to such a discussion?

Yes, the man you suported for VP, and screamed how he was cheated out of the office of VP - is now ignored by you

Of course, he made many valid points about the surrender wing of the Dem party you are a proud member of - that may be why you want to ignore his op-ed

[retiredman]

Yes, the man you suported for VP, and screamed how he was cheated out of the office of VP - is now ignored by you

Of course, he made many valid points about the surrender wing of the Dem party you are a proud member of - that may be why you want to ignore his op-ed

I didn't ignore his oped. I read it in its entirely at the WSJ website. I actually agree with much of what he had to say. I agree that it is bad for Osama that nationalist Iraqis are fed up with AQ... I disagree with Joe and think that Maliki will be nothing but an ineffective pawn and that Iraqi shiites will become increasingly allied with Iran.

Now...answer my question about the thread that yurt wants me to start. Would you be able to participate in that discussion? What do you know about the subject matter?

[red states rule]

I didn't ignore his oped. I read it in its entirely at the WSJ website. I actually agree with much of what he had to say. I agree that it is bad for Osama that nationalist Iraqis are fed up with AQ... I disagree with Joe and think that Maliki will be nothing but an ineffective pawn and that Iraqi shiites will become increasingly allied with Iran.

Now...answer my question about the thread that yurt wants me to start. Would you be able to participate in that discussion? What do you know about the subject matter?

You are constantly ignoring the good news, then trying to move the goal posts further back as progress is made

All you care about is losing the war and scoring political points at the expense of your country and the US military

[mundame]

So go back and answer my question about a thread concerning the differences between American occupation of Germany/Japan after WWII and Iraq after Bush's preemptive invasion/conquest.


This is the crucial question(s) -- both for the current problem and why John McCain's "hundred years" quote is such weasel words.

The bottom line fact is that to occupy a country you have to first defeat them ----- conclusively, persuasively, definitely, and the population has to utterly agree they are defeated.

Otherwise, what you've got is not an occupation: it's a war.

A war was what we had in Iraq AFTER the hurried entry into Baghdad, never an occupation.

To occupy Germany and Japan we had to war for years all out, invade, firebomb their cities, destroy all their troops, and even nuke Japan. Nothing less would have worked, everyone agrees.

But Iraq we were supposed to be able to dominate on the quick and cheap? Didn't work, of course.

McCain says he wants to OCCUPY Iraq for a hundred years, like our 65 years occupying Germany and Japan. What McCain does NOT say is how to get there -------- another 17 years like this? Maybe 45 years more war like this?

We're not close to winning any war --- this is no war, we don't have the troops, we aren't actually warring, just policing occasionally in a few limited places --- so we can't ever hope to occupy Iraq. Until a people are defeated, they can't be occupied, and boy, are these Iraqis ever not defeated.

[red states rule]

This is the crucial question(s) -- both for the current problem and why John McCain's "hundred years" quote is such weasel words.

The bottom line fact is that to occupy a country you have to first defeat them ----- conclusively, persuasively, definitely, and the population has to utterly agree they are defeated.

Otherwise, what you've got is not an occupation: it's a war.

A war was what we had in Iraq AFTER the hurried entry into Baghdad, never an occupation.

To occupy Germany and Japan we had to war for years all out, invade, firebomb their cities, destroy all their troops, and even nuke Japan. Nothing less would have worked, everyone agrees.

But Iraq we were supposed to be able to dominate on the quick and cheap? Didn't work, of course.

McCain says he wants to OCCUPY Iraq for a hundred years, like our 65 years occupying Germany and Japan. What McCain does NOT say is how to get there -------- another 17 years like this? Maybe 45 years more war like this?

We're not close to winning any war --- this is no war, we don't have the troops, we aren't actually warring, just policing occasionally in a few limited places --- so we can't ever hope to occupy Iraq. Until a people are defeated, they can't be occupied, and boy, are these Iraqis ever not defeated.

So the US is occupying Germany and Japan?

That is news for the Germany and Japan

Keep pushing the lie McCain wants the US in Iraq for 100 years - you can;t talk about the postivie things happeneing. it would take away from the call of surrender and appeasement

[retiredman]

You are constantly ignoring the good news, then trying to move the goal posts further back as progress is made

All you care about is losing the war and scoring political points at the expense of your country and the US military


I said that I agreed with Joe on one of his key points and disagreed with him on another. Can you discuss those points or are you really only capable of soundbites?

[retiredman]

This is the crucial question(s) -- both for the current problem and why John McCain's "hundred years" quote is such weasel words.

The bottom line fact is that to occupy a country you have to first defeat them ----- conclusively, persuasively, definitely, and the population has to utterly agree they are defeated.

Otherwise, what you've got is not an occupation: it's a war.

A war was what we had in Iraq AFTER the hurried entry into Baghdad, never an occupation.

To occupy Germany and Japan we had to war for years all out, invade, firebomb their cities, destroy all their troops, and even nuke Japan. Nothing less would have worked, everyone agrees.

But Iraq we were supposed to be able to dominate on the quick and cheap? Didn't work, of course.

McCain says he wants to OCCUPY Iraq for a hundred years, like our 65 years occupying Germany and Japan. What McCain does NOT say is how to get there -------- another 17 years like this? Maybe 45 years more war like this?

We're not close to winning any war --- this is no war, we don't have the troops, we aren't actually warring, just policing occasionally in a few limited places --- so we can't ever hope to occupy Iraq. Until a people are defeated, they can't be occupied, and boy, are these Iraqis ever not defeated.

good post.
I agree that our peaceful mutually beneficial troop presence in Japan and Germany is predicated on our prior total military defeat of those countries and that our victory in Iraq will never be as complete or comprehensive, and, therefore, our troop presence will never be seen by Iraqis as mutually beneficial and will never be "peaceful".

[glockmail]

This is the crucial question(s) -- both for the current problem and why John McCain's "hundred years" quote is such weasel words.

The bottom line fact is that to occupy a country you have to first defeat them ----- conclusively, persuasively, definitely, and the population has to utterly agree they are defeated.

Otherwise, what you've got is not an occupation: it's a war.

A war was what we had in Iraq AFTER the hurried entry into Baghdad, never an occupation.

To occupy Germany and Japan we had to war for years all out, invade, firebomb their cities, destroy all their troops, and even nuke Japan. Nothing less would have worked, everyone agrees.

But Iraq we were supposed to be able to dominate on the quick and cheap? Didn't work, of course.

McCain says he wants to OCCUPY Iraq for a hundred years, like our 65 years occupying Germany and Japan. What McCain does NOT say is how to get there -------- another 17 years like this? Maybe 45 years more war like this?

We're not close to winning any war --- this is no war, we don't have the troops, we aren't actually warring, just policing occasionally in a few limited places --- so we can't ever hope to occupy Iraq. Until a people are defeated, they can't be occupied, and boy, are these Iraqis ever not defeated.By that measure Britain didn't totally defeat the Catholics in Northern Ireland.

[mundame]

So the US is occupying Germany and Japan?

That is news for the Germany and Japan

Interesting comment. You are saying that it isn't actually an occupation.

Welllllllllllll..................................w ould we go if they told us to? Questionable. Certainly it was an occupation for a couple decades; and note, if you think it's just a friendly trade, where are the Japanese and German bases in this country?

There aren't any.

It's forward power projection, yes. But I have read over and over that it is only our occupation of Germany that makes the European Union possible. Only we can keep Germany down. And I agree. It's advanced foreign policy, but if we HAD to, we could readily throw the cat among the pigeons by pulling our troops out of Germany, thus reinitiating the conditions that led to WWI and WWII: Germany faced by "enemies" on both sides, which somehow never works out..... That would occupy Europe with itself for some time if it were making mischief against our interests, and is a good reason by itself to hold onto Germany.





Keep pushing the lie McCain wants the US in Iraq for 100 years


Well, he did say he did, after all. I mean, darn. If he says it, I get to, surely?

And to get to an occupation when American troops are NOT being shot at, first he has to win a war in which American troops ARE being shot at, which has gone on 5 years and apparently he wants to go on however many more decades of getting shot at it takes. So the heck with him, I'm not voting for that.



you can;t talk about the postivie things happeneing. it would take away from the call of surrender and appeasement


Nothing positive is happening; just more and more devastation and loss.

There is nothing here about surrender. We hardly have to surrender!! Even if we are in Kut now. (WWI reference: the British troops had to surrender after a couple years siege in Kut and were trekked into the desert where some 4000 died.)

There is surrender, and then there is simply leaving, not being able to achieve our war aims but at least not losing bigtime.

I can't see Iraq is worth actually winning in the sense we did in Germany or Japan, firebombing everything to the ground, killing millions, and so on. I mean, why? We've already devastated their infrastructure, thrown their whole society into chaos, given the world a reason not to attack us.

I think we've achieved all we reasonably can, might as well go home.

[mundame]

good post.
I agree that our peaceful mutually beneficial troop presence in Japan and Germany is predicated on our prior total military defeat of those countries and that our victory in Iraq will never be as complete or comprehensive, and, therefore, our troop presence will never be seen by Iraqis as mutually beneficial and will never be "peaceful".


It could be a complete and comprehensive defeat, presumably: that is exactly what Bush and Rumsfeld decided NOT to do, to firebomb, nuke, level the whole country and sow it with salt. We could; but why?

Germany and Japan were major, dangerous powers which were attempting hegemony; they were maybe worth it, or they would have gone after us, certainly Germany would have. Neither the Kaiser nor Hitler was real vague about that: first Europe, then the world.

But Iraq isn't any kind of power, just a desert oil source. It's simply not worth the cost to us of scaring the world, as really winning would. It's not good to scare the world: that's what Germany did, twice, and suffered from it. That's what we did when we defeated Serbia with never a casualty nor a boot on the ground: Europe was amazed and aghast and never forgave us, and it cost us their support in Iraq, in my opinion. I fear the world coming to hate us.

As for mutual benefit, I doubt that is occurring. If Japan and Germany could, would they get us out of their country? I know that the "mutual benefit" is our forward power projection against China and Russia, respectively. At any rate, mutual benefit, if it exists, comes long, long after the total devastation of being firebombed, every city flattened, and much of the population killed. So I don't think being defeated and occupied is a mutual benefit to any country that has it happen to them.

[mundame]

By that measure Britain didn't totally defeat the Catholics in Northern Ireland.

Do you consider the Brits are OCCUPYING Northern Ireland at present?

[theHawk]

Well, he did say he did, after all. I mean, darn. If he says it, I get to, surely?

And to get to an occupation when American troops are NOT being shot at, first he has to win a war in which American troops ARE being shot at, which has gone on 5 years and apparently he wants to go on however many more decades of getting shot at it takes. So the heck with him, I'm not voting for that.



Nice spin, thats is not what he said. He made it quite clear that he wouldn't have a problem with a US presence in Iraq for 50 to 100 years, as he cited Japan and Korea. He made it quite clear that he would support it only if our troops weren't in any danger.

But, like a typical shitbag liberal, you only subscribe to the liberal talking points which cry out that McCain wants a hundred year war to win in Iraq.

[glockmail]

Do you consider the Brits are OCCUPYING Northern Ireland at present? Sure. And they and the US should occupy Iraq the same way.

[mundame]

Sure. And they and the US should occupy Iraq the same way.


Given that the British started their struggle to occupy and dominate Ireland about 800 AD, I am wishing it wouldn't take quite that long with Iraq, and not voting for McCain, who seems perfectly comfortable with however many centuries or millennia of war it would take to subdue Iraq so we can start to "occupy" it.

[glockmail]

Given that the British started their struggle to occupy and dominate Ireland about 800 AD, I am wishing it wouldn't take quite that long with Iraq, and not voting for McCain, who seems perfectly comfortable with however many centuries or millennia of war it would take to subdue Iraq so we can start to "occupy" it. If you're going to go back that far with Britain then you should also consider Islam's attacks on Europe prior to them fighting back with The Crusades. That may be more effective in your obvious goal to avoid confronting the real issue.

[mundame]

If you're going to go back that far with Britain then you should also consider Islam's attacks on Europe prior to them fighting back with The Crusades. That may be more effective in your obvious goal to avoid confronting the real issue.

I suspect your issues may be more obvious to you than they are to me: you are saying I have an "obvious" goal, but I don't know what that is supposed to be.

??

[glockmail]

I suspect your issues may be more obvious to you than they are to me: you are saying I have an "obvious" goal, but I don't know what that is supposed to be.

?? The real issue is your using some BS argument to bash McCain, as I pointed out in post 1846.

[red states rule]

More on the progres the libs want to ignore


THE IRAQIS STEP UP
WHY PETRAEUS SEES GAINS

snip

"Overall, civilian deaths remain substantially below those at the height of the sectarian violence. Security incidents were [down to] levels not seen since early 2005. Thanks to help from local civilians [in] former al-Qaeda-in-Iraq safe havens, we've found more arms caches so far this year than were found in all of 2006."

My old comrade went on to lay out the beating that al Qaeda's getting up in Mosul - the last major city where the terrorists have much influence. "There has been a significant chipping away at the leadership and operators of al Qaeda . . . at their safe havens and caches. In the past week, special-operations forces detained one of the top al Qaeda leaders in the city, along with a number of his subordinates and fighters.

"The Coalition and Iraqi forces are also putting considerable pressure on the networks that support the foreign-fighter flow . . . Helping in all this are tens of thousands of so-called 'Sons of Iraq,' who secure their local areas to keep al Qaeda out. The progress against al Qaeda is a key reason for the significant reduction in civilian deaths."

But what about the recent fighting in Basra, portrayed as a disaster by the media? "The Iraqi Security Forces conducted a number of targeted operations, took over the ports [key prizes that had been funding the militias] and are in the process of reestablishing checkpoints and security positions in the city.

"The Iraqi operation did reflect a willingness to take tough decisions about tough problems. It also displayed the Iraqi capability to deploy two brigades' worth of conventional and special-operations forces on less than 48-hours' notice, with another brigade following. That would not have been possible a year ago."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04072008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_iraqis_step_up_105417.htm?page=0

[treasonous republicans]

how can we surrender? who would we surrender to? leaving isn't the same as surrendering.
we never had enemies that could hurt us in iraq until bush overthrew hussein (who didn't have wmd's and the world knew it). us leaving wouldn't be surrendering, it would be fighting the war on terror.
where is osama bin laden?:salute:
i love my country and hate to see it ruined. it is time to take it back.:salute:

[red states rule]

how can we surrender? who would we surrender to? leaving isn't the same as surrendering.
we never had enemies that could hurt us in iraq until bush overthrew hussein (who didn't have wmd's and the world knew it). us leaving wouldn't be surrendering, it would be fighting the war on terror.
where is osama bin laden?:salute:
i love my country and hate to see it ruined. it is time to take it back.:salute:

When you tell the enemy when we are leaving, you are telling them all they have to do is lay low and then they can take over after we leave

It is surrender and appeasement

[retiredman]

When you tell the enemy when we are leaving, you are telling them all they have to do is lay low and then they can take over after we leave

It is surrender and appeasement

Did Britain surrender in Palestine in 1948?

[red states rule]

Did Britain surrender in Palestine in 1948?

Changing the subject again I see

This from the top white flag waver on the board

[retiredman]

Changing the subject again I see

This from the top white flag waver on the board

I am not changing the subject. I am testing the consistency of your definition of surrender. DId Britain surrender Palestine in 1948?

[glockmail]

Leaving it to your allies does not constitute surrender. Maineman would surrender Iraq to Al Sadr.

[retiredman]

Leaving it to your allies does not constitute surrender. Maineman would surrender Iraq to Al Sadr.


Arabs were the "allies" of Britain? the Jews of Palestine in '48 were the "allies" of Britain?

I would suggest when we turn over our military emplacements to the legitimately constituted Iraq government and their armed forces, we would be leaving Iraq to our "allies" just as you said and, therefore, by YOUR own admission, it would not be surrender.

[red states rule]

Leaving it to your allies does not constitute surrender. Maineman would surrender Iraq to Al Sadr.

He would be proud to sign the surrender papers, and lead the troops in a withdrawal (or as he calls it a redeployment)

[treasonous republicans]

did reagan surrender to lebanon? if so, what were the terms of the surrender? what are the terms of the "surrender" you say i advocate in the occupied area of the middle east once called iraq.?
moving from iraq to afghanistan isn't a surrender in the war on terror.
and you never answered my question- why isn't bin laden at least in our custody?
here is another question for you- why are you willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to build iraqs infrastructure but won't fund public schools for children here at home?:salute::salute:

[retiredman]

He would be proud to sign the surrender papers, and lead the troops in a withdrawal (or as he calls it a redeployment)


can't quite bring yourself to discuss issues with me, can you RSR?:laugh2:

[red states rule]

can't quite bring yourself to discuss issues with me, can you RSR?:laugh2:

I have, and you are retreating by trying to change the subject

[retiredman]

I have, and you are retreating by trying to change the subject


as I said...I am attempting to explore the consistency of your definition of surrender. Did Britain surrender Palestine in 1948? yes or no. A Simple question that will help me understand how you apply your definition.

[red states rule]

as I said...I am attempting to explore the consistency of your definition of surrender. Did Britain surrender Palestine in 1948? yes or no. A Simple question that will help me understand how you apply your definition.

Simple answer

If you tell the enemy in advance when you are leaving, before the job is done, before you have defeated the enemey - it is surrender

Do you get it now?

[treasonous republicans]

are you not going to answer my questions? it's ok, everyone knows the answer anyway.
do you have you surrender papers ready? since your surrendering from this topic?
:salute::salute::salute:

[red states rule]

are you not going to answer my questions? it's ok, everyone knows the answer anyway.
do you have you surrender papers ready? since your surrendering from this topic?
:salute::salute::salute:

How is waving the white flag in Iraq going to defeat the terrorists?

[treasonous republicans]

How is waving the white flag in Iraq going to defeat the terrorists?

the "terrorists" (i'm going with the ones that attacked us on 9/11) are in afghanistan and pakistan.
again, where is bin laden?
why don't you care about our national treasury and armed forces?
:salute::salute::salute:

[red states rule]

the "terrorists" (i'm going with the ones that attacked us on 9/11) are in afghanistan and pakistan.
again, where is bin laden?
why don't you care about our national treasury and armed forces?
:salute::salute::salute:

Saddam had links to AQ

Saddam was a terrorist himself

AQ is in Iraq and we are killing them

You would rather lose the war and try and score some cheap political points like MFM does

[Classact]

did reagan surrender to lebanon? if so, what were the terms of the surrender? Did Reagan surrender in Lebanon?
U.S. President Ronald Reagan called the attack a "despicable act" and pledged to keep a military force in Lebanon. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, who had privately advised the administration against ever having stationed U.S. Marines in Lebanon,[9] said there would be no change in the U.S.'s Lebanon policy. On October 24 French President François Mitterrand visited the French bomb site. It was not an official visit, and he only stayed for a few hours, but he did declare: "We will stay." U.S. Vice President George Bush toured the Marine bombing site on October 26 and said the U.S. "would not be cowed by terrorists."

In retaliation for the attacks, France launched an air strike in the Beqaa Valley against alleged Islamic Revolutionary Guards positions. President Reagan assembled his national security team and planned to target the Sheik Abdullah barracks in Baalbek, Lebanon, which housed Iranian Revolutionary Guards believed to be training Hezbollah fighters.[10] Defense Secretary Weinberger lobbied successfully against the mission, because he was not certain that Iran was to blame for the attacks.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

what are the terms of the "surrender" you say i advocate in the occupied area of the middle east once called iraq.? Leaving Iraq vulnerable to chaos and terrorists is surrender to terrorism.

moving from iraq to afghanistan isn't a surrender in the war on terror.We are already in Afghanistan.

and you never answered my question- why isn't bin laden at least in our custody?We haven't captured him yet.

here is another question for you- why are you willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to build iraqs infrastructure but won't fund public schools for children here at home?:salute::salute:War is a federal responsibility and schools and children are state issues.

[red states rule]

and the liberal media is joing the Dems in their quest for surrender and appeasement

CBS’s Smith Uses Democratic Talking Points on Iraq
By Kyle Drennen | April 8, 2008 - 12:43 ET

In an interview with Hillary Clinton on Tuesday’s CBS "Early Show," about the upcoming congressional testimony of General David Petraeus on the Iraq war, co-host Harry Smith began by asking a question that perfectly towed the Democratic Party line: "David Petraeus is going to come before this committee this morning. He's going to say in more -- you know, more elaborate words than I will right now, that the surge is working. The number of attacks in Baghdad have more than doubled in the last two months. About a dozen U.S. servicemen have been killed there in just the last several days. Do you think the surge is working?" Clinton was very appreciative of Smith’s softball and let him know: "Well Harry, I think you just made a summary argument against the position that it's working."

Smith’s claim that attacks in Baghdad "more than doubled" recently was accurate according to an April 8 New York Times article. However, what Smith failed to also point out was the dramatic decline of attacks during the surge, which preceded the latest round of violence.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2008/04/08/cbs-s-smith-uses-democratic-talking-points-iraq

[treasonous republicans]

Saddam had links to AQ

Saddam was a terrorist himself

AQ is in Iraq and we are killing them

You would rather lose the war and try and score some cheap political points like MFM does


saddam had no links to aq- even bush and cheney admit that now. saddam was a power hungry secularist. aq is an extremely religious organization. saddam saw them as a threat to his own power in the region.

saddam was not a terrorist we needed to worry about. he may have gave money to families of suicide bombers in israel but who cares? they are their own country and can take care of themselves.

"aq" is not in iraq, "aq in iraq" is in iraq. don't be confused by the similar names. they are different people.

i don't want to "lose" a "war". i want to end an occupation that is unwinnable and is costing us blood and fortune.:coffee::salute::salute::salute:

[retiredman]

Simple answer

If you tell the enemy in advance when you are leaving, before the job is done, before you have defeated the enemey - it is surrender

Do you get it now?

so....even though Britain transferred control of its military encampments and assets to the local palestinian and jewish authorities in the area, you are saying that they did, in fact, surrender Palestine in 1948. Have I got that right?

[red states rule]

so....even though Britain transferred control of its military encampments and assets to the local palestinian and jewish authorities in the area, you are saying that they did, in fact, surrender Palestine in 1948. Have I got that right?

Keep changing the subject when those pasky facts get in your way MFM - it is one of your strong points

[retiredman]

Keep changing the subject when those pasky facts get in your way MFM - it is one of your strong points

keep spinning and wriggling away from your own indefensible definitions.

By your definition of surrender, you must agree that Britain surrendered Palestine in 1948.

Why can't you come out and just admit that?

[red states rule]

keep spinning and wriggling away from your own indefensible definitions.

By your definition of surrender, you must agree that Britain surrendered Palestine in 1948.

Why can't you come out and just admit that?

Who is spinning? You are foaming at the mouth for the US to lose "Bush's war", screw the troops and the progress they are making

You long ago made your wants and desires clear - defeat for the US for political reasons

[retiredman]

[QUOTE=red states rule;228146]Who is spinning? /QUOTE]


you are spinning. you have stated a clear and unambiguous definition of "surrender". I am asking you to apply your own definition to the actions of Britain as they exited Palestine in 1948 and see if you feel you definition works there as well, or is it merely one you have devised exclusively for our situation in Iraq. Did Britain surrender Palestine in 1948? yes or no.

[Classact]

saddam had no links to aq- even bush and cheney admit that now. saddam was a power hungry secularist. aq is an extremely religious organization. saddam saw them as a threat to his own power in the region. Why do you suppose Iraq hadn't complied with the ceasefire agreement signed at the end of the Gulf War? All he had to do was destroy WMD's and pay damages to Kuwait... he could have done that in less than six months.

Senator Kerry and an overwhelming majority of congress agreed that Iraq was a threat to the neighbors and the US. Senator Kerry mentioned in a speech leading up to his vote in support of the restart of hostilities that Saddam could load WMD's on UAV's and use them as weapons to destroy neighbors. News channels immediately had scenarios where these UAV's could be launched from cargo ships off shore of the US and fly in under radar and spray Boston, NY and all coastal cities.

The US congress, under the Clinton administration deemed Saddam must be toppled regardless if he lived up to the UN ceasefire or not. Saddam had reason to think the US was his enemy.



saddam was not a terrorist we needed to worry about. he may have gave money to families of suicide bombers in israel but who cares? they are their own country and can take care of themselves.And congress and the American people thought that Saddam my just as well give WMD's to the enemy of his enemy.


"aq" is not in iraq, "aq in iraq" is in iraq. don't be confused by the similar names. they are different people.You are full of shit... even OBL has stated Iraq is the center of the WOT.


i don't want to "lose" a "war". i want to end an occupation that is unwinnable and is costing us blood and fortune.:coffee::salute::salute::salute:Please explain how it would be advantageous to leave Iraq and have Al Qaeda or Iran in control of the region? Terrorist in caves good... terrorists in oceans of oil a bad thing.

Define unwinnable.

[red states rule]

[QUOTE=red states rule;228146]Who is spinning? /QUOTE]


you are spinning. you have stated a clear and unambiguous definition of "surrender". I am asking you to apply your own definition to the actions of Britain as they exited Palestine in 1948 and see if you feel you definition works there as well, or is it merely one you have devised exclusively for our situation in Iraq. Did Britain surrender Palestine in 1948? yes or no.

Once again MFM, and please read slowly - I do not want to have to explain it to you again

If you tell the enemy in advance when you are leaving, before the job is done, before you have defeated the enemey - it is surrender

Do you get it now?

[retiredman]

Why do you suppose Iraq hadn't complied with the ceasefire agreement signed at the end of the Gulf War? All he had to do was destroy WMD's and pay damages to Kuwait... he could have done that in less than six months.
he would lose his reputation in the region as the tough guy who wouldn't roll over for America
Senator Kerry and an overwhelming majority of congress agreed that Iraq was a threat to the neighbors and the US. Senator Kerry mentioned in a speech leading up to his vote in support of the restart of hostilities that Saddam could load WMD's on UAV's and use them as weapons to destroy neighbors. News channels immediately had scenarios where these UAV's could be launched from cargo ships off shore of the US and fly in under radar and spray Boston, NY and all coastal cities.

two points: 1. a majority of congressional democrats voted AGAINST the use of force. 2. I do not believe that it was Kerry who mentioned UAV deployment to our coasts

Please explain how it would be advantageous to leave Iraq and have Al Qaeda or Iran in control of the region? Terrorist in caves good... terrorists in oceans of oil a bad thing.

AQ does not have the capability to control a shiite nation. And Iran having increased influence in the region was a foregone conclusion the day we overthrew the sunni dictator who was keeping his thumb on a shiite majority in Iraq that was - and remains - closely aligned with the ruling shiites in Iran.

[retiredman]

[QUOTE=manfrommaine;228151]

Once again MFM, and please read slowly - I do not want to have to explain it to you again

If you tell the enemy in advance when you are leaving, before the job is done, before you have defeated the enemey - it is surrender

Do you get it now?

that is your defnition. Does that definition apply to any military occupation situation, or just Iraq? ANd if it does apply to any military occupation, does it therefore apply to Britain and Palestine in 1948? Why are you SO fucking scared to answer that simple question??????:laugh2:

[red states rule]

[QUOTE=red states rule;228156]

that is your defnition. Does that definition apply to any military occupation situation, or just Iraq? ANd if it does apply to any military occupation, does it therefore apply to Britain and Palestine in 1948? Why are you SO fucking scared to answer that simple question??????:laugh2:

Busted and trying to change the subject. Your game plan is so lame and so well known

You are the one so scared to admit you are for surrender to terrorists

Party ahead of country as usual

[glockmail]

I would suggest when we turn over our military emplacements to the legitimately constituted Iraq government and their armed forces, we would be leaving Iraq to our "allies" just as you said and, therefore, by YOUR own admission, it would not be surrender. When our allies can handle the terrorist situation over there then we'll hand it over to them. Right now its the front line of the WOT and I'd rather us fight it there than in NYC or LA. But that's just me.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

When our allies can handle the terrorist situation over there then we'll hand it over to them. Right now its the front line of the WOT and I'd rather us fight it there than in NYC or LA. But that's just me.:laugh2:

MFMF would rather have the terrorists attack us here in the US. Then he could blame Pres Bush for not protecting us

The more bad news the happier MFM is

[retiredman]

Busted and trying to change the subject. Your game plan is so lame and so well known

You are the one so scared to admit you are for surrender to terrorists

Party ahead of country as usual

look. You have stated the definition for surrender, I am asking you to defend that definition and am asking you whether that definition applies to military occupations in general, or is it a definition that you have created specifically for our situation in Iraq. Can you answer that?

[red states rule]

look. You have stated the definition for surrender, I am asking you to defend that definition and am asking you whether that definition applies to military occupations in general, or is it a definition that you have created specifically for our situation in Iraq. Can you answer that?

It is clear it is the objective of Dems - and you

Surrender at all costs is your game plan

[retiredman]

When our allies can handle the terrorist situation over there then we'll hand it over to them.

do you think that nationalist sectarian struggle in Iraq is part of our war on terror?

Do YOU think that Britain surrendered Palestine in 1948?

[treasonous republicans]

spare me the "saddam fooled everybody" crap. i didn't think he had wmd's and i was right. i believed what the iaea said before bush kicked them out of iraq.
it is important for bin laden to keep us in iraq, that's why he would "concede" it is the center of the war on terror. of course he has never been there. his plan is to bleed us dry in iraq like he bled the soviets in afghanistan during the eighties, thus ending the ussr and allowing assholes like yourself to claim that ronald "puddinghead" reagan did it.
and your little wikipedia cut and paste doesn't help the fact that under yours and red states current definition reagan surrendered to lebanon.
you loser:fu:

[retiredman]

It is clear it is the objective of Dems - and you

Surrender at all costs is your game plan


why can't you answer my simple question?

you are such a coward....you really have become almost a parody

[red states rule]

why can't you answer my simple question?

you are such a coward....you really have become almost a parody

I did tell you why the Dems "plan" is surrender

You are a picture of the modern day Dem party. Wanting total defeat and humilation of the US military, so you can appease your kook base and the terrrorists

[retiredman]

I did tell you why the Dems "plan" is surrender

You are a picture of the modern day Dem party. Wanting total defeat and humilation of the US military, so you can appease your kook base and the terrrorists

keep running away. pussy:laugh2:

you cannot even defend your own definitions!

[Classact]

Why do you suppose Iraq hadn't complied with the ceasefire agreement signed at the end of the Gulf War? All he had to do was destroy WMD's and pay damages to Kuwait... he could have done that in less than six months.
he would lose his reputation in the region as the tough guy who wouldn't roll over for AmericaDuh, that was the reason for the Gulf War... we and the Arab neighbors thught it was a bad idea for Iraq to be a neighborhood bully.

Senator Kerry and an overwhelming majority of congress agreed that Iraq was a threat to the neighbors and the US. Senator Kerry mentioned in a speech leading up to his vote in support of the restart of hostilities that Saddam could load WMD's on UAV's and use them as weapons to destroy neighbors. News channels immediately had scenarios where these UAV's could be launched from cargo ships off shore of the US and fly in under radar and spray Boston, NY and all coastal cities.

two points: 1. a majority of congressional democrats voted AGAINST the use of force. 2. I do not believe that it was Kerry who mentioned UAV deployment to our coasts1. The vote for the restart of hostilities had more Democrat votes than the Gulf War. In fact it seems a majority of dems did support it.
The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/
2. Go look up Senator Kerry's speech, he said many things in support the restart of hostilities.... I think the speech was given on 8 or 9th and can be found on CSPAN.org... to be clear he was speeking for hours and spoke to both sides of the issue but if you lived in Boston he scared the shit out of you in over half the speech.

Please explain how it would be advantageous to leave Iraq and have Al Qaeda or Iran in control of the region? Terrorist in caves good... terrorists in oceans of oil a bad thing.

AQ does not have the capability to control a shiite nation. And Iran having increased influence in the region was a foregone conclusion the day we overthrew the sunni dictator who was keeping his thumb on a shiite majority in Iraq that was - and remains - closely aligned with the ruling shiites in Iran.How do you know that? I think it was and is our intention to also do Iran before leaving the region.. Axis of evil... Iraq, Iran and N. Korea... Iran needs to go down and I would guess the days are numbered before it goes down. If we leave Kuwait and Saudi Arabia Sunnis will defeat the Shiites and Iran in one of the bloodiest battlefields you have ever seen. Big oil dollars buys big bangs...

[retiredman]

you are wrong. a majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution.

and if you had any proof of Kerry making that statement, you would have linked to it.

AQ is getting their asses kicked by the MINORITY sunnis faction in Iraq. There is no way they can prevail against the shiites who will be supported by Iran.

And our invasion of Iraq was NEVER stated as the prelude to attacking Iran.

[red states rule]

keep running away. pussy:laugh2:

you cannot even defend your own definitions!

I clearly pointed out how you and your party wants to surrender

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill

[theHawk]

you are wrong. a majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution.


No, he is RIGHT. Yes, a majority of the Democrats in the House voted against it(81-126), but their vote wasn't important. It came down to the Senate where Dems had 50 seats, they voted YES 29-21. They could of stopped the resolution compeltely. But when push came to shove, the Dems PASSED it in the Senate. Simply put, the Democrats had the power to stop it, but they didn't. So stop acting like it was all just pushed through by Republicans while the minority Democrats were helpless agaisnt it.

[Classact]

you are wrong. a majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution.CNN lied on my link or not?
The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/


and if you had any proof of Kerry making that statement, you would have linked to it.http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0212-01.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/politics/campaign/27journey.html

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Forbes_Kerry

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mostert/040816
I will find the transcript tomorrow. I have to get off the computer.

AQ is getting their asses kicked by the MINORITY sunnis faction in Iraq. There is no way they can prevail against the shiites who will be supported by Iran. Sunni's will welcome terrorists if the US departs too fast. And, yes all Sunni's in the hood will send them things that go boom.


And our invasion of Iraq was NEVER stated as the prelude to attacking Iran.Iran can either surrender or be overpowered as it helps the enemy in Iraq.

[glockmail]

do you think that nationalist sectarian struggle in Iraq is part of our war on terror?

Do YOU think that Britain surrendered Palestine in 1948?
I'm really not interested in discussing what the Brits did in 1948.

The WOT is currently being fought with a front line against Al Queada in Iraq. :pee:

[retiredman]

No, he is RIGHT. Yes, a majority of the Democrats in the House voted against it(81-126), but their vote wasn't important. It came down to the Senate where Dems had 50 seats, they voted YES 29-21. They could of stopped the resolution compeltely. But when push came to shove, the Dems PASSED it in the Senate. Simply put, the Democrats had the power to stop it, but they didn't. So stop acting like it was all just pushed through by Republicans while the minority Democrats were helpless agaisnt it.

my statement is correct. a majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution, whereas the republicans were nearly unanimous in their support thereof.

[theHawk]

my statement is correct. a majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution, whereas the republicans were nearly unanimous in their support thereof.

It doesn't matter if a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the war than Democrats. The bill would not had passed if it wasn't for both parties. BOTH, meaning Republican and Democrat. But a partisan political hack like yourself chooses to ignore that fact. Dems are just as guilty as Republicans for starting this war. To this day the Democrat controlled Congress chooses to continue to fund the war. Yet, you ignore that.

[Kathianne]

No, he is RIGHT. Yes, a majority of the Democrats in the House voted against it(81-126), but their vote wasn't important. It came down to the Senate where Dems had 50 seats, they voted YES 29-21. They could of stopped the resolution compeltely. But when push came to shove, the Dems PASSED it in the Senate. Simply put, the Democrats had the power to stop it, but they didn't. So stop acting like it was all just pushed through by Republicans while the minority Democrats were helpless agaisnt it.

What MM is consoling himself is that about 10 less than 1/2 the total number of Democratic congressional members voted against it. YOU are correct though, if they wanted to stop it, they could have, they didn't.

[gabosaurus]

"Surrender" is not the same as admitting that you fucked up. Dubya fucked up by invading Iraq. He gain "support" through lies and deceit, then covered it up with more lies and deceit.
Bush will always be remembered as the first U.S. president to be an international terrorist while openly condoning torture and mass murder.

[red states rule]

"Surrender" is not the same as admitting that you fucked up. Dubya fucked up by invading Iraq. He gain "support" through lies and deceit, then covered it up with more lies and deceit.
Bush will always be remembered as the first U.S. president to be an international terrorist while openly condoning torture and mass murder.

The previous post brought to you by the Crazy Friends of George Soros and Nancy Pelosi

[LuvRPgrl]

It doesn't matter if a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the war than Democrats. The bill would not had passed if it wasn't for both parties. BOTH, meaning Republican and Democrat. But a partisan political hack like yourself chooses to ignore that fact. Dems are just as guilty as Republicans for starting this war. To this day the Democrat controlled Congress chooses to continue to fund the war. Yet, you ignore that.

They have to be myoptic and delusional to continue with their half baked beliefs.

[LuvRPgrl]

"Surrender" is not the same as admitting that you fucked up. Dubya fucked up by invading Iraq. He gain "support" through lies and deceit, then covered it up with more lies and deceit. .

You still harping on that crap?
Talk about lies,
HAHAHHA, give it up dude.

"Bush will always be remembered as the first U.S. president to be an international terrorist while openly condoning torture and mass murder.

Sorry, but most people, and historians, which is how President will be "remembered" dont view him from your distorted bitter, angry point of view.

And your democratic senate/house will be remembered as having the lowest approval ratings in history, and lower than the Presidents.....OUCH !!!

[red states rule]

Iran is still gettting involved in the war in Iraq

snip

The latest Iranian-made weapons cache was seized by US and Iraqi soldiers during a routine operation in Mahmudiyah on March 28. The soldiers found 15 EFPs, more than 100 EFP components, detonation cord, fuses, a bag of homemade explosives, hundreds of rounds, and Iraqi National Police uniforms and rifles.

Iran established the Ramazan Corps in western Iran to manage the covert war inside Iraq in early 2003. The Ramazan Corps is an arm of Qods Force, the special operations branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps. The Ramazan Corps is responsible for smuggling weapons and cash into the Mahdi Army and the Special Groups terror cells, as well as recruiting and training Iraqi operatives.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/03/in_pictures_iranian.php

[retiredman]

Iran is still gettting involved in the war in Iraq

snip

The latest Iranian-made weapons cache was seized by US and Iraqi soldiers during a routine operation in Mahmudiyah on March 28. The soldiers found 15 EFPs, more than 100 EFP components, detonation cord, fuses, a bag of homemade explosives, hundreds of rounds, and Iraqi National Police uniforms and rifles.

Iran established the Ramazan Corps in western Iran to manage the covert war inside Iraq in early 2003. The Ramazan Corps is an arm of Qods Force, the special operations branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps. The Ramazan Corps is responsible for smuggling weapons and cash into the Mahdi Army and the Special Groups terror cells, as well as recruiting and training Iraqi operatives.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/03/in_pictures_iranian.php

no one has ever doubted the fact that Iran is aligning itself with shiite militias in Iraq. It is your ignorant conflating of shiite and al qaeda which is in question.:laugh2:

[red states rule]

no one has ever doubted the fact that Iran is aligning itself with shiite militias in Iraq. It is your ignorant conflating of shiite and al qaeda which is in question.:laugh2:

Yet libs like you say there is no problem with Iran, even while they are develping nukes

Keep ducking the truth about the war and keep waving the white flag MFM

[retiredman]

Yet libs like you say there is no problem with Iran, even while they are develping nukes

Keep ducking the truth about the war and keep waving the white flag MFM

I have enormous problems with Iran. I think Iran is a much bigger problem now than it was before we invaded. Their influence has grown significantly in the arab world since our occupation of Iraq. Just look at the resurgence of Hezbollah in Lebanon....

and you need a new line. YOu keep talking about a white flag as a way of trying to duck actual substantive discussions about these issues.

grow up.

[red states rule]

and Dems keep wanting to ignore Iran and run out of Iraq



Iran At the Heart of Iraq
By David Ignatius

WASHINGTON -- The language that Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker used Tuesday to describe the Iranian role in Iraq was extreme -- and telling. They spoke of Tehran's "nefarious activities," its "malign influence" and how it posed "the greatest long-term threat to the viability" of the Baghdad government

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/iran_at_the_heart_of_iraq_matt.html

[retiredman]

and Dems keep wanting to ignore Iran and run out of Iraq



Iran At the Heart of Iraq
By David Ignatius

WASHINGTON -- The language that Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker used Tuesday to describe the Iranian role in Iraq was extreme -- and telling. They spoke of Tehran's "nefarious activities," its "malign influence" and how it posed "the greatest long-term threat to the viability" of the Baghdad government

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/iran_at_the_heart_of_iraq_matt.html

Did you even READ the article????:laugh2:

"Somehow, the next president will have to fuse U.S. military and diplomatic power to both engage Iran and set limits on its activities. A U.S.-Iranian dialogue is a necessary condition for future stability in the Middle East. But the wrong deal, negotiated by a weak America with a cocky Iran that thinks it's on a roll, would be a disaster.

Crocker has it right when he says, "Almost everything about Iraq is hard." That's especially true of the Iran problem. Petraeus and Crocker were taking the hard questions Tuesday, but soon enough it will be one of the presidential candidates who were dispensing sound bites Tuesday: John McCain, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton."

[red states rule]

Did you even READ the article????:laugh2:

"Somehow, the next president will have to fuse U.S. military and diplomatic power to both engage Iran and set limits on its activities. A U.S.-Iranian dialogue is a necessary condition for future stability in the Middle East. But the wrong deal, negotiated by a weak America with a cocky Iran that thinks it's on a roll, would be a disaster.

Crocker has it right when he says, "Almost everything about Iraq is hard." That's especially true of the Iran problem. Petraeus and Crocker were taking the hard questions Tuesday, but soon enough it will be one of the presidential candidates who were dispensing sound bites Tuesday: John McCain, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton."

I did read it

Talking seems to be the only option with libs, but not using the military

There track record on talking with terrorists is not one I would want to repeat

Clinton did a great job of talking to North Korea

[Classact]

"Surrender" is not the same as admitting that you fucked up. Dubya fucked up by invading Iraq. He gain "support" through lies and deceit, then covered it up with more lies and deceit.
Bush will always be remembered as the first U.S. president to be an international terrorist while openly condoning torture and mass murder.
Good morning gaby, you have no idea what you are talking about. Please take some time to look at facts. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

[red states rule]

Good morning gaby, you have no idea what you are talking about. Please take some time to look at facts. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Gabby and MFM have to be related somehow

[retiredman]

read the paragraph entitled "Origins:" immediately after the quotes.

[Classact]

you are wrong. a majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution.

and if you had any proof of Kerry making that statement, you would have linked to it.

AQ is getting their asses kicked by the MINORITY sunnis faction in Iraq. There is no way they can prevail against the shiites who will be supported by Iran.

And our invasion of Iraq was NEVER stated as the prelude to attacking Iran.Yesterday I told you I'd get back to you on senator Kerry's speech, well I've been unable to locate the entire speech but this link has some of the information that you should see. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp Please take time to look through the article to see clearly Senator Kerry's fears about Iraq and how he passed it along to those he represents.

[retiredman]

Yesterday I told you I'd get back to you on senator Kerry's speech, well I've been unable to locate the entire speech but this link has some of the information that you should see. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp Please take time to look through the article to see clearly Senator Kerry's fears about Iraq and how he passed it along to those he represents.

did you read beyond the blue quotes to the discussion below which contained more extensive quotes?

[Classact]

did you read beyond the blue quotes to the discussion below which contained more extensive quotes?Yes, and I pointed out earlier that Kerry spoke to two sides of the issue. I'll have to continue to look for his entire senate speech that clearly points this out.

The reason democrats do this is because only 20% of the eligible voting population put them in office and leading up to the war 100% was watching what they would do. They cover their asses, they have all bases covered, if it goes bad then they have quotes and if it goes good they have quotes with qualifiers.

I pointed out that in his senate speech he concerned himself with UAV's and WMD's not because of them being used against the US mainland but neighboring countries... The 24-7 news picked up on this...CNN and FOX news had talking heads with graphics the next day showing how these UAV's could be launched off the top of container ships on the east coast striking major US cities. His speech encouraged support for the Iraq War more than anything that President Bush or his State Department did.

[retiredman]

Yes, and I pointed out earlier that Kerry spoke to two sides of the issue. I'll have to continue to look for his entire senate speech that clearly points this out.

The reason democrats do this is because only 20% of the eligible voting population put them in office and leading up to the war 100% was watching what they would do. They cover their asses, they have all bases covered, if it goes bad then they have quotes and if it goes good they have quotes with qualifiers.

I pointed out that in his senate speech he concerned himself with UAV's and WMD's not because of them being used against the US mainland but neighboring countries... The 24-7 news picked up on this...CNN and FOX news had talking heads with graphics the next day showing how these UAV's could be launched off the top of container ships on the east coast striking major US cities. His speech encouraged support for the Iraq War more than anything that President Bush or his State Department did.

again...you continue to say that Kerry brought up the UAV attacks, yet can offer no proof of such a statement.

I'll wait.

[Classact]

again...you continue to say that Kerry brought up the UAV attacks, yet can offer no proof of such a statement.

I'll wait.Well check this out while you wait...


SEN. KERRY: Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing of a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which would bring them to the United States itself.

In addition, we know they are developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.

According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.

In the wake of September 11, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that the weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater, a nuclear weapon?

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/034897.php

[retiredman]

spam. don't bother with spam...just find me the Kerry quote about UAV's attacking America with WMD's

[Classact]

spam. don't bother with spam...just find me the Kerry quote about UAV's attacking America with WMD'sPerhaps you would prefer a left wing link so here you go... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080246/

[retiredman]

I am developing the capability to travel through time!

yes or no....

can I travel through time today?

[Classact]

I am developing the capability to travel through time!

yes or no....

can I travel through time today?Does this mean you accept that those words escaped Senator Kerry's mouth or do I need to find his senate speech?

[retiredman]

Does this mean you accept that those words escaped Senator Kerry's mouth or do I need to find his senate speech?


that he said that UAV's were being developed? certainly. I do not accept your statement that Kerry stated that Saddam could launch UAV's laden with WMD's against our coastline... I do not believe your assertions that his speeches scared half of Boston. I live pretty close to Boston and I know of NO ONE who was scared. My son went to college in Boston... neither he, nor any of his college friends were scared by any speech by Kerry.

[Classact]

that he said that UAV's were being developed? certainly. I do not accept your statement that Kerry stated that Saddam could launch UAV's laden with WMD's against our coastline... I do not believe your assertions that his speeches scared half of Boston. I live pretty close to Boston and I know of NO ONE who was scared. My son went to college in Boston... neither he, nor any of his college friends were scared by any speech by Kerry.Then you dismiss the link in post 1925 that quotes his words. Here is the speech he gave on the senate floor... like I said it supports both sides of the issue. http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/kerryspeech.asp

The UAV stories in the previous link (post 1925) prompted the fear in the American majority of WMD's because it was logically linked to the use of biological agent used to shut down the US Senate earlier along with killing several US Postal workers. You can make excuses all you like for Kerry but he promoted the war equal or greater than the administration.

[retiredman]

Then you dismiss the link in post 1925 that quotes his words. Here is the speech he gave on the senate floor... like I said it supports both sides of the issue. http://www.c-span.org/vote2004/kerryspeech.asp

The UAV stories in the previous link (post 1925) prompted the fear in the American majority of WMD's because it was logically linked to the use of biological agent used to shut down the US Senate earlier along with killing several US Postal workers. You can make excuses all you like for Kerry but he promoted the war equal or greater than the administration.

that speech does not mention UAV delivered WMD attacks on our shores.

[Classact]

that speech does not mention UAV delivered WMD attacks on our shores.I told you that fact on my first post on this thread yesterday, yet in the interview with Mr. Russet he clearly states to the American public his concerns. My point was that he spoke out of both sides of his mouth and then dismissed his original position when it was politically expedient.

[retiredman]

I told you that fact on my first post on this thread yesterday, yet in the interview with Mr. Russet he clearly states to the American public his concerns. My point was that he spoke out of both sides of his mouth and then dismissed his original position when it was politically expedient.


I think he admitted he had been hoodwinked by the administration's intelligence reports.

plus... I need to disabuse you of the belief that I am or ever was a fawning John Kerry fanclub member. I am a democrat. Kerry was not my first second or third choice for our nomination in '04. I wanted Wes Clark. Given the choice between Kerry and Bush, I chose Kerry.

[Classact]

I think he admitted he had been hoodwinked by the administration's intelligence reports.

plus... I need to disabuse you of the belief that I am or ever was a fawning John Kerry fanclub member. I am a democrat. Kerry was not my first second or third choice for our nomination in '04. I wanted Wes Clark. Given the choice between Kerry and Bush, I chose Kerry.Pick up all the Democrats that voted in support of the war and put them in a bag and shake them and let them fall out one at a time and each and every one of them have the same story as Kerry... I was tricked... if a US Senator admits being tricked then he/she should resign on the spot for being dumb in public.

No one was tricked, the situation changed so they could run to the left and use "tricked" as a political tool... every story is the same as Kerry... they should hold their heads in shame.

Voting for war is a serious vote and should require a through investigation equal to that of jurors in a murder trial... not one of them should take the prosecuting attorney's word but should individually ask questions before voting guilty.

Winning wars requires everyone on the team to want to win and with the situation in Congress now we have the enemy and almost half of Congress to defeat along with the press. All the crap passed on by the democrats and the press loading responsibility back to the prosecutor is just that, crap. Went to war without proper equipment, bullshit... Bush's war, bullshit... it is America's war authorized by the jury... Bush doesn't have a checkbook to go to war or stay there.

The Democratic Party find themselves painted into a corner on this war because now they are left with money as the only tool left to them... it was the one tool they had to prevent war but now they sell defeat using the money spent on war that could be given to hurting unfortunate self serving American citizens as the troops fight the enemy, the press and the Democratic suck scum left.

Democrats are lower than whale shit on this war using the troops and bad economy as political tools.

[retiredman]

Pick up all the Democrats that voted in support of the war and put them in a bag and shake them and let them fall out one at a time and each and every one of them have the same story as Kerry... I was tricked... if a US Senator admits being tricked then he/she should resign on the spot for being dumb in public.

No one was tricked, the situation changed so they could run to the left and use "tricked" as a political tool... every story is the same as Kerry... they should hold their heads in shame.

Voting for war is a serious vote and should require a through investigation equal to that of jurors in a murder trial... not one of them should take the prosecuting attorney's word but should individually ask questions before voting guilty.

Winning wars requires everyone on the team to want to win and with the situation in Congress now we have the enemy and almost half of Congress to defeat along with the press. All the crap passed on by the democrats and the press loading responsibility back to the prosecutor is just that, crap. Went to war without proper equipment, bullshit... Bush's war, bullshit... it is America's war authorized by the jury... Bush doesn't have a checkbook to go to war or stay there.

The Democratic Party find themselves painted into a corner on this war because now they are left with money as the only tool left to them... it was the one tool they had to prevent war but now they sell defeat using the money spent on war that could be given to hurting unfortunate self serving American citizens as the troops fight the enemy, the press and the Democratic suck scum left.

Democrats are lower than whale shit on this war using the troops and bad economy as political tools.

so none of the republicans who voted for the war did so out of political expediency? They all had thoroughly researched the intelligence and had come to their YES vote with all due seriousness, gravity and diligence?

[Classact]

so none of the republicans who voted for the war did so out of political expediency? They all had thoroughly researched the intelligence and had come to their YES vote with all due seriousness, gravity and diligence?That isn't the point, the point is if you support something as final as war then you are in it for the long run good or bad. If you have a problem within you keep it to your damned self and you do not play politics with it.

The authority for war was that voted on for the Gulf War, the situation was a ceasefire and the violation of that ceasefire that met justification for a re-start of hostilities. The president and his administration addressed the nation
as to why he felt the intransigence of the Iraqi government was creating a threat to the ME and the US population. The president had authority to re-start hostilities and didn't need congress to re-start hostilities... he needed money to fund the effort that he deemed necessary and that was why congress met and gave speeches and voted in support of the re-start of hostilities... it was a vote of CONFIDENCE, the congress was stating through their vote that they were confident that there was justification to re-start hostilities... it was up to congress and a decision was theirs as to support funding or not support funding. The congress could have voted in support of re-starting hostilities for one simple violation of the ceasefire agreement but they were offered numerous sources of reasons to support the president from domestic and foreign agencies alike.

I remember clearly Senator Byrd asking the senators of both parties to re-think their decision to support the re-start of hostilities, he asked that they walk to the Vietnam Memorial and reflect... All refused, they were confident in their minds that the action should be supported without further discussion or investigation.

When tens of thousands of US soldiers weren't gassed during the invasion those on the left lost their confidence in their decision and looked for a political way to come out smelling like a rose.

[red states rule]

I am willing to come forward with information

CIA Destroys Hillary's Campaign Commercials
Republicans and dirty tricks go hand in hand, but the amount of dirty tricks they've pulled in this election cycle alone could fill a whole new blog category. Now it seems that the CIA has destroyed hundreds of hours worth of video tapes documenting the brutal torture of innocent Muslim prisoners, thus depriving Hillary Clinton and other Democrat candidates of valuable material for their campaign commercials. The videos, taken deep inside secret CIA torture chambers scattered across Europe, are purported to show agents moistening two so-called "Terrorist suspects" and, in all likelihood, mishandling their Qurans in an attempt to extract useless information about non-events. The footage would have gone a long way towards demonstrating how low Republicans will go just to save a few thousand American lives.

Poof! Gone!

With the Bush Junta still stubbornly refusing to parade flag-draped coffins before the TV cameras for our viewing pleasure, and Mike Huckabee's crudely photoshopped images of Joseph Smith buggering a goat on the altar of Satan having been recently debunked, it's a wonder Democrats have anything left to run on at all.

Convenient, isn't it?
http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2007/12/cia-destroys-hi.html

[retiredman]

That isn't the point, the point is if you support something as final as war then you are in it for the long run good or bad. If you have a problem within you keep it to your damned self and you do not play politics with it.



bullshit. If I support something at one point in time, and then more facts are revealed that point to theretofore unseen dangerous consequences of continuing on my previously chosen course, I reserve the right to rethink my decision.

I would hope all our national leaders feel the same.

If I decide to take route X to get from point A to point B and, along the way, I see that a bridge has washed out, I reserve the right to turn around and not drive my car into the raging river. Same with foreign policy.

[Gaffer]

bullshit. If I support something at one point in time, and then more facts are revealed that point to theretofore unseen dangerous consequences of continuing on my previously chosen course, I reserve the right to rethink my decision.

I would hope all our national leaders feel the same.

If I decide to take route X to get from point A to point B and, along the way, I see that a bridge has washed out, I reserve the right to turn around and not drive my car into the raging river. Same with foreign policy.

But if its vitally important to get to point B you reroute and continue on. You don't just go home because you can't get there by the first route.

[retiredman]

But if its vitally important to get to point B you reroute and continue on. You don't just go home because you can't get there by the first route.

point B should never be a multicultural jeffersonian democracy blossoming on the banks of the Euphrates....

point B should be the defeat of state-less islamic extremism.

the shortest trip to point B does not run through Iraq, IMHO

nobody ever said anything about going home.

[Dilloduck]

point B should never be a multicultural jeffersonian democracy blossoming on the banks of the Euphrates....

point B should be the defeat of state-less islamic extremism.

the shortest trip to point B does not run through Iraq, IMHO

nobody ever said anything about going home.

Islamic extremism is okie dokie if it is state supported ?

[Gaffer]

point B should never be a multicultural jeffersonian democracy blossoming on the banks of the Euphrates....

point B should be the defeat of state-less islamic extremism.

the shortest trip to point B does not run through Iraq, IMHO

nobody ever said anything about going home.

So what's wrong with a Jeffersonian democracy blossoming on the banks of the Euphrates?

Point B should also include not allowing the state-less islamics to get control of a state.

The shortest way to point B is across the river that you said the bridge was out on. The next shortest way might well be through iraq.

You have many times said we should pack up and go home. Since we are already on the route we need to continue until we reach our objective. Making changes in the route as necessary.

And I will not go looking for all the posts that you said we should pack up and go home. But you can wait.

[retiredman]

So what's wrong with a Jeffersonian democracy blossoming on the banks of the Euphrates?

Point B should also include not allowing the state-less islamics to get control of a state.

The shortest way to point B is across the river that you said the bridge was out on. The next shortest way might well be through iraq.

You have many times said we should pack up and go home. Since we are already on the route we need to continue until we reach our objective. Making changes in the route as necessary.

And I will not go looking for all the posts that you said we should pack up and go home. But you can wait.

I have never said we should go home. I have said we should go after our real enemies and quit making new ones.

There is NOTHING wrong with a multicultural jeffersonian democracy in Iraq....it just is nothing we need to waste five years, 32K dead and wounded soldiers, and a trillion dollars to create, especially when we need to get to point B.

And this fantasy about a sunni extremist group like AQ taking over the shiite territory of Iraq is laughable. The can't even prevail against the sunni warlords in Anbar.... Sadr's boys would mop the floor with them.

Iraq will undoubtedly end up a client state of Iran, but there's not a damned thing we can do about that now. We screwed that pooch the day we toppled Saddam.

We need to deal with AQ in a multiple of different ways.... and none of them include tying up our military in Iraq. The Chair of the Joint Chiefs just said last week that our involvement in Iraq was precluding us from sending the troops we needed to Afghanistan. That's fucked up.

[TheStripey1]

:dance:
point B should never be a multicultural jeffersonian democracy blossoming on the banks of the Euphrates....

point B should be the defeat of state-less islamic extremism.

the shortest trip to point B does not run through Iraq, IMHO

nobody ever said anything about going home.

excellent point... the only ones I've seen do that are the righties trying to saddle that dog on the lefties... as a lefty, I have been against the war on iraq since bush took his eye off the real enemy... al qaeda in afghanistan and that rat, osama been forgotten.

Nevertheless, I will always encourage those who so ardently support bush's war on Iraq to enlist and help out with their cause du jour what ever it may be.

[TheStripey1]

Islamic extremism is okie dokie if it is state supported ?

you mean like they do in saudi arabia or pakistan? or somewhere else?

[TheStripey1]

1) So what's wrong with a Jeffersonian democracy blossoming on the banks of the Euphrates?

2) Point B should also include not allowing the state-less islamics to get control of a state.

3) The shortest way to point B is across the river that you said the bridge was out on. The next shortest way might well be through iraq.

You have many times said we should pack up and go home. Since we are already on the route we need to continue until we reach our objective. Making changes in the route as necessary.

And I will not go looking for all the posts that you said we should pack up and go home. But you can wait.

1) nothing as long as it doesn't come at our expense, be it national treasure or more importantly, our sons' and daughters' blood...
2) as I recall... bush invited al qaeda to Iraq back in July of '03 to try... are you now saying that "Bring em on!" was NOT the best course of action?
3) see 1)

[retiredman]

Islamic extremism is okie dokie if it is state supported ?
state-less extremism has, as its goal, the disruption of the entire region... Much more damaging to world order than nationalists.

[red states rule]

More examples of the lefts dissain for the military


DEMOCRAT DISDAIN FOR THE MILITARY


West Virginia Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller was being interviewed the editorial board of the Charleston Gazette. During that interview he uttered this gem:

"McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they (the missiles) get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."

First of all ... I rather seriously doubt that our military was using laser-guided bombs during the Vietnam War. Also, the aircraft that McCain was flying in Vietnam was not to drop bombs from 35,000 feet. It would seem that Senator Rockefeller has a rather limited understanding of our military's mission, tactics or capabilities ... but that's beside the point.

The real point here is what we witnessed is just another in a long string of statements and actions that vividly illustrate the disdain (if not outright hatred) that so many Democrats feel toward our military. There's Hillary using the Marine Corps to serve canapés at White House functions – then scrambling to get on the Senate Armed Forces Committee as soon as she's sworn in. Why? To mend fences – to show how much she loves our men and women in uniform.

http://boortz.com/nuze/200804/04092008.html

[red states rule]

The liberal media is following in the footsteps of Moveon.org in smearing Gen Petraeus


LAT Op-ed Writer Compares Petraeus' Ribbons to Chotchkie's Flair
By Ken Shepherd | April 9, 2008 - 18:40 ET

"Memo to Petraeus: When you're making the case for more patriotic gore, go easy on the glitter."


That's how Los Angeles-based writer Matthew DeBord concluded his LA Times op-ed entitled "Petraeus' 'ribbon creep.'"

So DeBord apparently thinks ribbons worn on the service dress uniform are the equivalent of "flair" that Chotchkie's waiters wore in the comedy classic "Office Space"? Here's how DeBord began his screed against Petraeus being decked out in "martial bling":

Gen. David H. Petraeus may be as impressive a military professional as the United States has developed in recent years, but he could use some strategic advice on how to manage his sartorial PR. Witness his congressional testimony on the state of the war in Iraq. There he sits in elaborate Army regalia, four stars glistening on each shoulder, nine rows of colorful ribbons on his left breast, and various other medallions, brooches and patches scattered across the rest of the available real estate on his uniform. He even wears his name tag, a lone and incongruous hunk of cheap plastic in a region of pristine gilt, just in case the politicians aren't sure who he is.

That's a lot of martial bling, especially for an officer who hadn't seen combat until five years ago. Unfortunately, brazen preening and "ribbon creep" among the Army's modern-day upper crust have trumped the time-honored military virtues of humility, duty and personal reserve.

Of course, aside from being loopy and insulting to American servicemen and women, DeBord's sartorial advice conveniently throws out two things: 1) the green service dress uniform Petraeus wore is perfectly suitable for appearing before a congressional committee 2) the U.S. Army has felled forests to write regulations about the proper wear of uniforms.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/04/09/lat-op-ed-writer-compares-petraeus-ribbons-chotchkies-flair

[actsnoblemartin]

I simply dont believe one has to become a soldier, simply to a support a war.

I dont believe in making a political disagreement personal.

So, if someone supports illegal immigration, should i say, hey why dont you get off your lazy ass, and become a coyote?

Im just not buying it.

Making any decision is a personal one, and none of our business.

Unless its a political official.


:dance:

excellent point... the only ones I've seen do that are the righties trying to saddle that dog on the lefties... as a lefty, I have been against the war on iraq since bush took his eye off the real enemy... al qaeda in afghanistan and that rat, osama been forgotten.

Nevertheless, I will always encourage those who so ardently support bush's war on Iraq to enlist and help out with their cause du jour what ever it may be.

[LuvRPgrl]

I think he admitted he had been hoodwinked by the administration's intelligence reports.

plus... I need to disabuse you of the belief that I am or ever was a fawning John Kerry fanclub member. I am a democrat. Kerry was not my first second or third choice for our nomination in '04. I wanted Wes Clark. Given the choice between Kerry and Bush, I chose Kerry.

It wasnt THE ADMINISTRATIONS intelligence reports.

Nobody claimed you were a fanclub member, just that you support him as opposed to supporting our side.

[LuvRPgrl]

I have never said we should go home. I have said we should go after our real enemies and quit making new ones.

There is NOTHING wrong with a multicultural jeffersonian democracy in Iraq....it just is nothing we need to waste five years, 32K dead and wounded soldiers, and a trillion dollars to create, especially when we need to get to point B.

And this fantasy about a sunni extremist group like AQ taking over the shiite territory of Iraq is laughable. The can't even prevail against the sunni warlords in Anbar.... Sadr's boys would mop the floor with them.

Iraq will undoubtedly end up a client state of Iran, but there's not a damned thing we can do about that now. We screwed that pooch the day we toppled Saddam.

We need to deal with AQ in a multiple of different ways.... and none of them include tying up our military in Iraq. The Chair of the Joint Chiefs just said last week that our involvement in Iraq was precluding us from sending the troops we needed to Afghanistan. That's fucked up.

We havent made any new enemies.

If we took on Japan and Germany, Italy in WWll, we certainly can handle Afghanastan and Iraq.

As for only servicemen being able to vote to go to war, then it would require only servicemen can run for President.

If our troops were soley in Afghanastan, then the terrorists in Iraq would be there also.

[retiredman]

We havent made any new enemies.
bullshit.

If we took on Japan and Germany, Italy in WWll, we certainly can handle Afghanastan and Iraq.
tell that to the Chair of the Joint Chiefs... I'm sure he'll change his mind because you say so.

As for only servicemen being able to vote to go to war, then it would require only servicemen can run for President.who ever said anything about only servicement being able to vote?

If our troops were soley in Afghanastan, then the terrorists in Iraq would be there also.
prove it. most of "AQ in Iraq" are homegrown Iraqis that formed their little franchise in response to our invasion. They are a nationalist movement that seeks to rid Iraq of US influence, which is a diffferent strategic goal than Al Qaeda

[red states rule]

MFMis still showing his unyielding support for the terrorists, his desire for the US to lose in Iraq, and his thirst to soore political points at the expense of his country and the troops

IOW, he is a typical modern day liberal

[trobinett]

fuck you, you stupid twit. I have stated probably a dozen fucking times in this very thread that American troops are winning every single battle.

Can you fucking read, moron?

Your a fucking hoot.:fu:

The only one I see that can't read ass wipe is you.:slap:

EVERY time you say American troops are winning, there is always a "but", you can't support a puppet without "but". Grow the fuck up, either support something or DON'T, this riding the fence shit of yours is tiresome, and quite telling to those that follow along.

:lame2:

[retiredman]

Your a fucking hoot.:fu:

The only one I see that can't read ass wipe is you.:slap:

EVERY time you say American troops are winning, there is always a "but", you can't support a puppet without "but". Grow the fuck up, either support something or DON'T, this riding the fence shit of yours is tiresome, and quite telling to those that follow along.

:lame2:

I have supported our troops from day one and willingly and enthusiastically "admit" that they are winning every battle in Iraq.

where is the "but"?

[red states rule]

I have supported our troops from day one and willingly and enthusiastically "admit" that they are winning every battle in Iraq.

where is the "but"?

Your "support" leaves a alot to be desired. You support the US losing, and surrendering to the terrorists

[retiredman]

Your "support" leaves a alot to be desired. You support the US losing, and surrendering to the terrorists


I support none of those things.

[red states rule]

I support none of those things.

Another lie from the Lyin' King :lol:

[retiredman]

Another lie from the Lyin' King :lol:

:link:

show me a link to any post where I have EVER supported the US losing or surrendering to terrorists.

fuckin' liar.

[red states rule]

:link:

show me a link to any post where I have EVER supported the US losing or surrendering to terrorists.

fuckin' liar.

You bow before the Dems who are pushing for surrender, and have smeared the troops

You want the US to lose, and cut and run

Sorry if the truth hurts




OK, I am not sorry :lol:

[retiredman]

You bow before the Dems who are pushing for surrender, and have smeared the troops

You want the US to lose, and cut and run

Sorry if the truth hurts




OK, I am not sorry :lol:

I bow before no one. I do not want the US to lose anything, you lying sack of shit.

[red states rule]

I bow before no one. I do not want the US to lose anything, you lying sack of shit.

You bow before any Dem, and kiss their ass on a dialy basis

You have no honor. It is always party before country

[retiredman]

You bow before any Dem, and kiss their ass on a dialy basis

You have no honor. It is always party before country

that is not true.

Don't EVER complain about my insulting you ever again.

[red states rule]

that is not true.

Don't EVER complain about my insulting you ever again.

When the hell have you ever stopped insulting me? :lol:

You are the one who whines, and plays the offended liberal

[Kathianne]

You bow before any Dem, and kiss their ass on a dialy basis

You have no honor. It is always party before country

Considering how he employs words, this is over the top. Unfair, he does care about country, I'll assume above party, though because of words, it's difficult to discern.

[red states rule]

Considering how he employs words, this is over the top. Unfair, he does care about country, I'll assume above party, though because of words, it's difficult to discern.

Discern?

Try impossible

He cares about the coutry only when it helps Democrats

[Kathianne]

Discern?

Try impossible

He cares about the coutry only when it helps Democrats
My take, anyone who gives 20 years to their country, deserves the assumption they care deeply for the country.

[red states rule]

My take, anyone who gives 20 years to their country, deserves the assumption they care deeply for the country.

Times do change, and I believe he has to

On the torture thread, he would rather have a successful terrorist attack, then waterboard them to prevent the attack

[retiredman]

Times do change, and I believe he has to

On the torture thread, he would rather have a successful terrorist attack, then waterboard them to prevent the attack


I support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, like I pledged to do 40 year ago. that has never changed.

[red states rule]

I support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, like I pledged to do 40 year ago. that has never changed.

and you would rather have a successful terrorist attack, with many dead people, then stopping the attack

Party before country once again

[retiredman]

Discern?

Try impossible

He cares about the coutry only when it helps Democrats

again...you can NEVER complain about me insulting you ever again after this.

[retiredman]

and you would rather have a successful terrorist attack, with many dead people, then stopping the attack

Party before country once again


no..constitution before everything. it is what everyone in the military is sworn to defend.

[red states rule]

again...you can NEVER complain about me insulting you ever again after this.

I am not the whiner - you are

Insulting people is part of your "outgoing personality"

[retiredman]

I am not the whiner - you are

Insulting people is part of your "outgoing personality"
I am not whining...and you are insulting...so, like I said....quit bitchin'

[red states rule]

I am not whining...and you are insulting...so, like I said....quit bitchin'

You are alwsy whining. You cryed over all the conservatives in the top 10, and how your are picked on

Go play somewhere else if you can't stand people calling you on your crap

"Redeploy" to another board with more liberal moonbats

[retiredman]

You are alwsy whining. You cryed over all the conservatives in the top 10, and how your are picked on

Go play somewhere else if you can't stand people calling you on your crap

"Redeploy" to another board with more liberal moonbats


I'm not whining in the least. I was LAUGHING at the moronic conservative circle jerk rep circle... and still am. I know this is a conservative board.... and it doesn't bother me in the least. I enjoy kicking your ass so much that I really don't mind the tilted odds.:laugh2:

but again....I would LOVE it if you would ever stop this silly cut and paste "all libs are evil" bullshit game you play and actually debate me on issues surrounding the war on islamic extremism.... but you won't...because you can't. You don't know very much about that part of the world and all you can do is parrot the words of others. If you'd ever like to change that, and simultaneously change the tone of our interaction, I'd be glad to.

[red states rule]

I'm not whining in the least. I was LAUGHING at the moronic conservative circle jerk rep circle... and still am. I know this is a conservative board.... and it doesn't bother me in the least. I enjoy kicking your ass so much that I really don't mind the tilted odds.:laugh2:

but again....I would LOVE it if you would ever stop this silly cut and paste "all libs are evil" bullshit game you play and actually debate me on issues surrounding the war on islamic extremism.... but you won't...because you can't. You don't know very much about that part of the world and all you can do is parrot the words of others. If you'd ever like to change that, and simultaneously change the tone of our interaction, I'd be glad to.

You are toughest talking blowhard I have ever seen. First you bellow how you do not care being on a conervative board - then you cry like a baby over getting neg rep, and how everyone gangs up on you

[red states rule]

Ack to the topic at hand, and more bad news for the libs who still want to surrender in the face of victory

This from one of the few reporters who are still in Iraq covering events first hand on on the front lines



Let's 'Surge' Some More
By MICHAEL YON
April 11, 2008; Page A17

It is said that generals always fight the last war. But when David Petraeus came to town it was senators – on both sides of the aisle – who battled over the Iraq war of 2004-2006. That war has little in common with the war we are fighting today.

I may well have spent more time embedded with combat units in Iraq than any other journalist alive. I have seen this war – and our part in it – at its brutal worst. And I say the transformation over the last 14 months is little short of miraculous.

The change goes far beyond the statistical decline in casualties or incidents of violence. A young Iraqi translator, wounded in battle and fearing death, asked an American commander to bury his heart in America. Iraqi special forces units took to the streets to track down terrorists who killed American soldiers. The U.S. military is the most respected institution in Iraq, and many Iraqi boys dream of becoming American soldiers. Yes, young Iraqi boys know about "GoArmy.com."

As the outrages of Abu Ghraib faded in memory – and paled in comparison to al Qaeda's brutalities – and our soldiers under the Petraeus strategy got off their big bases and out of their tanks and deeper into the neighborhoods, American values began to win the war.

Iraqis came to respect American soldiers as warriors who would protect them from terror gangs. But Iraqis also discovered that these great warriors are even happier helping rebuild a clinic, school or a neighborhood. They learned that the American soldier is not only the most dangerous enemy in the world, but one of the best friends a neighborhood can have.

Some people charge that we have merely "rented" the Sunni tribesmen, the former insurgents who now fight by our side. This implies that because we pay these people, their loyalty must be for sale to the highest bidder. But as Gen. Petraeus demonstrated in Nineveh province in 2003 to 2004, many of the Iraqis who filled the ranks of the Sunni insurgency from 2003 into 2007 could have been working with us all along, had we treated them intelligently and respectfully. In Nineveh in 2003, under then Maj. Gen. Petraeus's leadership, these men – many of them veterans of the Iraqi army – played a crucial role in restoring civil order. Yet due to excessive de-Baathification and the administration's attempt to marginalize powerful tribal sheiks in Anbar and other provinces – including men even Saddam dared not ignore – we transformed potential partners into dreaded enemies in less than a year.

Then al Qaeda in Iraq, which helped fund and tried to control the Sunni insurgency for its own ends, raped too many women and boys, cut off too many heads, and brought drugs into too many neighborhoods. By outraging the tribes, it gave birth to the Sunni "awakening." We – and Iraq – got a second chance. Powerful tribes in Anbar province cooperate with us now because they came to see al Qaeda for what it is – and to see Americans for what we truly are.

for the complete article

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120787343563306609.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries

[retiredman]

You are toughest talking blowhard I have ever seen. First you bellow how you do not care being on a conervative board - then you cry like a baby over getting neg rep, and how everyone gangs up on you

again...pointing out the "conservative gay boy's club" nature of this board is not the same as "whining" about it...I am merely observing. I have never expected to get any positive rep from you and your posse. I do like to watch you run away from your own assertions though. That is always fun for me.

[retiredman]

Ack to the topic at hand, and more bad news for the libs who still want to surrender in the face of victory

This from one of the few reporters who are still in Iraq covering events first hand on on the front lines



Let's 'Surge' Some More
By MICHAEL YON
April 11, 2008; Page A17

It is said that generals always fight the last war. But when David Petraeus came to town it was senators – on both sides of the aisle – who battled over the Iraq war of 2004-2006. That war has little in common with the war we are fighting today.

I may well have spent more time embedded with combat units in Iraq than any other journalist alive. I have seen this war – and our part in it – at its brutal worst. And I say the transformation over the last 14 months is little short of miraculous.

The change goes far beyond the statistical decline in casualties or incidents of violence. A young Iraqi translator, wounded in battle and fearing death, asked an American commander to bury his heart in America. Iraqi special forces units took to the streets to track down terrorists who killed American soldiers. The U.S. military is the most respected institution in Iraq, and many Iraqi boys dream of becoming American soldiers. Yes, young Iraqi boys know about "GoArmy.com."

As the outrages of Abu Ghraib faded in memory – and paled in comparison to al Qaeda's brutalities – and our soldiers under the Petraeus strategy got off their big bases and out of their tanks and deeper into the neighborhoods, American values began to win the war.

Iraqis came to respect American soldiers as warriors who would protect them from terror gangs. But Iraqis also discovered that these great warriors are even happier helping rebuild a clinic, school or a neighborhood. They learned that the American soldier is not only the most dangerous enemy in the world, but one of the best friends a neighborhood can have.

Some people charge that we have merely "rented" the Sunni tribesmen, the former insurgents who now fight by our side. This implies that because we pay these people, their loyalty must be for sale to the highest bidder. But as Gen. Petraeus demonstrated in Nineveh province in 2003 to 2004, many of the Iraqis who filled the ranks of the Sunni insurgency from 2003 into 2007 could have been working with us all along, had we treated them intelligently and respectfully. In Nineveh in 2003, under then Maj. Gen. Petraeus's leadership, these men – many of them veterans of the Iraqi army – played a crucial role in restoring civil order. Yet due to excessive de-Baathification and the administration's attempt to marginalize powerful tribal sheiks in Anbar and other provinces – including men even Saddam dared not ignore – we transformed potential partners into dreaded enemies in less than a year.

Then al Qaeda in Iraq, which helped fund and tried to control the Sunni insurgency for its own ends, raped too many women and boys, cut off too many heads, and brought drugs into too many neighborhoods. By outraging the tribes, it gave birth to the Sunni "awakening." We – and Iraq – got a second chance. Powerful tribes in Anbar province cooperate with us now because they came to see al Qaeda for what it is – and to see Americans for what we truly are.

for the complete article

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120787343563306609.html?mod=opinion_main_comment aries


the fact that we have armed the guys who used to attack us so that they can attack their fellow sunnis in Anbar is fine. No one is denying that is good news. Let's just hope, after they kick "AQ in Iraq" that they don't revert back to hating our presence there again. And... It still does not solve the problem of sunni v. shiite enmity, or the power of Sadr, or the influence of Iran.

[Gaffer]

the fact that we have armed the guys who used to attack us so that they can attack their fellow sunnis in Anbar is fine. No one is denying that is good news. Let's just hope, after they kick "AQ in Iraq" that they don't revert back to hating our presence there again. And... It still does not solve the problem of sunni v. shiite enmity, or the power of Sadr, or the influence of Iran.

The muslim brotherhood has proclaimed the shea to be true muslims and can be worked with. Which means more supplies from iran.

[retiredman]

The muslim brotherhood has proclaimed the shea to be true muslims and can be worked with. Which means more supplies from iran.

so because some islamists in Cairo say something about shiites in Iraq, you think that will lead to Iran giving them supplies?

that's a stretch.

[Gaffer]

so because some islamists in Cairo say something about shiites in Iraq, you think that will lead to Iran giving them supplies?

that's a stretch.

All the terror groups, hezbo, hamas, aq, and all the others stem from the muslim brotherhood. It's the umbrella organization for all of them. What they say carries a lot of weight among all of them. And iran is already supplying them, this just adds more credence to them allying. But you just keep your head buried and don't look at what's taking place mr middle east expert. It's not the same middle east it was when you were there.

[retiredman]

All the terror groups, hezbo, hamas, aq, and all the others stem from the muslim brotherhood. It's the umbrella organization for all of them. What they say carries a lot of weight among all of them. And iran is already supplying them, this just adds more credence to them allying. But you just keep your head buried and don't look at what's taking place mr middle east expert. It's not the same middle east it was when you were there.

hezbollah has ZERO connection to the muslim brotherhood. It is solely a regional manifestation of the Iranian revolutionary guard.

Iran is already supplying shiite nationalists in Iraq...it is NOT supplying any sunni extremist groups. period.

I may not have been in the middle east for a while, but I was there a lot longer and a lot more recently than YOU. And I still have many many friends in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt AND Israel with whom I carry on regular discussions regarding that portion of the world...

and your knowledge of it is based upon...???:fu:

[red states rule]

hezbollah has ZERO connection to the muslim brotherhood. It is solely a regional manifestation of the Iranian revolutionary guard.

Iran is already supplying shiite nationalists in Iraq...it is NOT supplying any sunni extremist groups. period.

I may not have been in the middle east for a while, but I was there a lot longer and a lot more recently than YOU. And I still have many many friends in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt AND Israel with whom I carry on regular discussions regarding that portion of the world...

and your knowledge of it is based upon...???:fu:

Your knowledge is based on your inflated resume, and distant memories

[actsnoblemartin]

and what does iran wanna do?

answer: kill jews, destory west

who owns hezbollah?

Iran

what does muslim brotherhood wanna do

answer: kill jews, destory west

an islamo-nazi no matter where he is in the world, would like to see death to the west, israel, and a muslim caliphate.

so youre point here about iran not supplying a different group, with the same islamo-nazi goals, is like saying, well this guy hates us, but there's another guy who hates us, but they dont like each other.

so what?, they both wanna kill us


hezbollah has ZERO connection to the muslim brotherhood. It is solely a regional manifestation of the Iranian revolutionary guard.

Iran is already supplying shiite nationalists in Iraq...it is NOT supplying any sunni extremist groups. period.

I may not have been in the middle east for a while, but I was there a lot longer and a lot more recently than YOU. And I still have many many friends in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt AND Israel with whom I carry on regular discussions regarding that portion of the world...

and your knowledge of it is based upon...???:fu:

[actsnoblemartin]

you are very arrogant


hezbollah has ZERO connection to the muslim brotherhood. It is solely a regional manifestation of the Iranian revolutionary guard.

Iran is already supplying shiite nationalists in Iraq...it is NOT supplying any sunni extremist groups. period.

I may not have been in the middle east for a while, but I was there a lot longer and a lot more recently than YOU. And I still have many many friends in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt AND Israel with whom I carry on regular discussions regarding that portion of the world...

and your knowledge of it is based upon...???:fu:

[actsnoblemartin]

you must really think youre always right


Your knowledge is based on your inflated resume, and distant memories

[red states rule]

But rememebr Martin, according to the libs and Barry Obama, all we ned to do is sit down and talk to them - they will then love us and become respectful citizens of the world

(Do not pay attention to the large mushroom cliud that was once Israel, Iran is not developing nukes. They told us so, What more proof do we need that that?)

[trobinett]

hezbollah has ZERO connection to the muslim brotherhood. It is solely a regional manifestation of the Iranian revolutionary guard.

Iran is already supplying shiite nationalists in Iraq...it is NOT supplying any sunni extremist groups. period.

I may not have been in the middle east for a while, but I was there a lot longer and a lot more recently than YOU. And I still have many many friends in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt AND Israel with whom I carry on regular discussions regarding that portion of the world...

and your knowledge of it is based upon...???:fu:

I say have them come to your place for dogs, and burgers, you could always suck their cocks, maybe it would save your sorry ass, though I doubt it.

You sorry ass liberals deserve everything you get, OPEN WIDE........:pee:

[Kathianne]

the fact that we have armed the guys who used to attack us so that they can attack their fellow sunnis in Anbar is fine. No one is denying that is good news. Let's just hope, after they kick "AQ in Iraq" that they don't revert back to hating our presence there again. And... It still does not solve the problem of sunni v. shiite enmity, or the power of Sadr, or the influence of Iran.

Substantial progress on these fronts seems to be more than underway:

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/04/thoughts-on-ira.html



Thoughts on Iraq
Posted By Grim

Since we're discussing what Yon has said, let me offer some observations of my own. I have just returned from Iraq, where I was a civilian advisor. This is not intended to be in any way the official word of anyone; it's just what I think, having given it rather more than "full time" attention for the last months.

Iraq has essentially three problems to "solve" to become a stable country. These are the Sunni problem, the Shia problem, and the Kurdish problem. By "problem" I mean not that the people are a problem, but that each of the main subsets of the population has a particular challenge that has to be resolved before it can integrate into a successful state. (This is, of course, at a high degree of abstraction -- at the ground level, Shiites and Sunnis may be intermarried, etc.)

The Sunni problem was rejectionism. The Surge has solved the Sunni problem.

That's a fundamental shift in the situation on the ground from a year ago. The gains are -- as Petraeus said -- reversable; that is, it is possible by neglect or malice to create a new Sunni problem. This is chiefly a political responsibility: Congress, State, and the Government of Iraq must ensure they do their part here. (A purely personal opinion: State's operations have improved as much as US military operations have, though they are on a smaller scale as State is on a smaller scale. The PRTs have been a tremendous help, and the current Ambassadors seem to me to be of the first water. The GoI we'll discuss presently. Congress is shameful.)

The Shia problem is armed factionalism. The current violence of this last month and going forward represents the start of the solution to that problem. People alarmed by the violence have missed the story.

The GoI and the JAM are both disaggregating their bad elements. Mickey Kaus deserves credit for noticing, at least as far as the GoI goes:


Whether it was an incremental success or a humiliating fizzle, hasn't the Maliki government's assault on Sadr-linked Shiite militias operated, de facto, as a highly efficient purge of the Iraqi army? According to Juan Cole, those who heeded calls for defection or who otherwise refused to fight have been fired. ... P.S.: Meanwhile, some 10,000 militia members who did fight on the government's side have reportedly been inducted into the security forces.

What people have not noticed is that JAM is doing essentially the same thing. For quite some time Sadr has been purging JAM of elements that do not obey him. Sadr has said that he will disown members who violate the ceasefire, excepting in self-defense. His proposed truce calls for patience from his members, and comes "after receiving assurances" that his membership will not be targetted if he has them stand down. ...

Who is "Grim"? You'll have to figure that out:

http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/

[red states rule]

It is not all that hard to figure out Kathianne

[Kathianne]

As if more proof that Sadr's 'victory' wasn't:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/04/sadr_admits_he_called_for_iraq.asp


Sadr Admits He Called for Iraqi Troops to Rebel

We are continually told how the Iraqi government was beaten and humiliated in Basra after it launched an offensive to clear the Mahdi Army and other Iranian-backed Shia militias from the city. Yet when the Iraqi Army announced it was going to dismiss the approximately 1,300 soldiers and police who either failed to carry out their duty or openly defected to the Mahdi Army, Muqtada al Sadr pleaded that they be allowed to keep their jobs and even be "rewarded for their loyalty."

In the process of asking for his infiltrators' jobs back--men who disobeyed their chain of command and either deserted or fought government forces--Sadr proves that he in fact ordered Iraqi soldiers and police to turn on their government. Sadr said these men "were only obeying their grand religious leaders" and "were driven by their religious duties."

Sadr clearly believes a soldier's loyalties should be to his militia, party, and cleric first, and the state second. The Iraqi military and government should squash this mindset immediately, and prosecute those who defected or abandoned their posts to the fullest extent of the law. The officers specifically should be made examples.

Posted by Bill Roggio on April 14, 2008 03:51 PM

[red states rule]

more good news


Iraq Political Progress Benchmarks
James Joyner | Monday, March 10, 2008

Jason Campbell, Michael O’Hanlon and Amy Unikewicz say that Brookings has come up with some metrics to measure political progress in Iraq and that, contrary to conventional wisdom, there actually has been some.

The most intriguing area of late is the sphere of politics. To track progress, we have established “Brookings benchmarks” — a set of goals on the political front similar to the broader benchmarks set for Baghdad by Congress last year. Our 11 benchmarks include establishing provincial election laws, reaching an oil-revenue sharing accord, enacting pension and amnesty laws, passing annual federal budgets, hiring Sunni volunteers into the security forces, holding a fair referendum on the disputed northern oil city of Kirkuk, and purging extremists from government ministries and security forces.

At the moment, we give the Iraqis a score of 5 out of 11 (our system allows a score of 0, 0.5, or 1 for each category, and is dynamic, meaning we can subtract points for backsliding). It is far too soon to predict that Iraq is headed for stability or sectarian reconciliation. But it is also clear that those who assert that its politics are totally broken have not kept up with the news.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/03/iraq_political_progress_benchmarks/

[Gaffer]

As if more proof that Sadr's 'victory' wasn't:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/04/sadr_admits_he_called_for_iraq.asp

Seems he's openly declaring himself an enemy of the state.

[retiredman]

Seems he's openly declaring himself an enemy of the state.

and he is so powerful among Iraqi shiites that the "state" i.e. Maliki, can't do much about it. Maliki demanded that the Mehdi Army give up their weapons as part of the Basra ceasefire, and Sadr just laughed at him. They all have all their arms and will start hostilities again when it suits them.

[red states rule]

and he is so powerful among Iraqi shiites that the "state" i.e. Maliki, can't do much about it. Maliki demanded that the Mehdi Army give up their weapons as part of the Basra ceasefire, and Sadr just laughed at him. They all have all their arms and will start hostilities again when it suits them.

Sadr waved the white flag when he was losing, and I know you can;t wait for him to start hostilies again

It makes another reason for you guys to push for surrender in Iraq

[retiredman]

Sadr waved the white flag when he was losing, and I know you can;t wait for him to start hostilies again

It makes another reason for you guys to push for surrender in Iraq

there was a ceasefire brokered in Tehran. Maliki wanted the Mehdi Army to give up their guns. Sadr laughed and his men just stopped shooting, took their weapons and blended right back into the population where they are ready to create mayhem again at a moment's notice, and there is NOTHING that Maliki can do to stop them.

And you are wrong if you think any of this pleases me in any way.

And no one wants to surrender in Iraq... you are a broken record who keeps repeating that same stupid line and it ain't so.

Again...did Britain surrender Palestine in 1948? yes or no

[red states rule]

there was a ceasefire brokered in Tehran. Maliki wanted the Mehdi Army to give up their guns. Sadr laughed and his men just stopped shooting, took their weapons and blended right back into the population where they are ready to create mayhem again at a moment's notice, and there is NOTHING that Maliki can do to stop them.

And you are wrong if you think any of this pleases me in any way.

And no one wants to surrender in Iraq... you are a broken record who keeps repeating that same stupid line and it ain't so.

Again...did Britain surrender Palestine in 1948? yes or no

Dis Sadr borrow your white flag or did he get his from the DNC?

[retiredman]

Dis Sadr borrow your white flag or did he get his from the DNC?

it would seem that you really are incapable of carrying on an intelligent conversation. If you'd like to address my points, please do. If you think you can answer my questions, please give it a try. If not, take the humor to a different forum. It's lame, and shopworn, and sophomoric.