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

[retiredman]

After putting up with your dodging my question three times it has become quite clear that a rational discussion is beyond your understanding.

I answered your question. answer mine.

[LuvRPgrl]

so..when he said "I can agree with that"...you think i meant that he DIDN'T back the quote he posted????

What the fuck do you think that:
"We've given them the chance to form their own democracy, whether or not they can sustain it is up to them".
means???

The premise is not false at all...you all just refuse to discuss how long you will beat the dead horse of a Iraqi multicultural pipedream. You have refused to acknowledge that you might be wrong and the Iraqis might never WANT to have a big group hug and sing Kumbaya no matter how many years we spend teaching them the words.

Your premise includes the statement that "IF slaughter does occur, it will happen in one year from now, or 10 years from now...so on and so forth"

Since no one can predict the future, that is a hypothetical at best, and a false premise at worst.

[LuvRPgrl]

oh... the polite squad has shown up. how cute. how droll. Where exactly am I showing "desperation", counselor?

HE JUST TOLD YOU, YOU DUMB FUCK.

"BY USING THE TERM FUCK, OVER AND OVER"

And his complaint isnt that you use it(which would make him part of the polite squad-not that there is anything wrong with that), but that you use it over and over....

[LuvRPgrl]

pointless insult

to a pointless statement

[retiredman]

Your premise includes the statement that "IF slaughter does occur, it will happen in one year from now, or 10 years from now...so on and so forth"

Since no one can predict the future, that is a hypothetical at best, and a false premise at worst.

and my point, and I think that Hawk concurs, is that I really don't care WHEN OR IF Iraqis start slaughtering one another. If they want democracy, let them fight for it. If they want to slaughter one another instead, let them do so without spilling gallons on American blood in the process.

[retiredman]

HE JUST TOLD YOU, YOU DUMB FUCK.

"BY USING THE TERM FUCK, OVER AND OVER"

And his complaint isnt that you use it(which would make him part of the polite squad-not that there is anything wrong with that), but that you use it over and over....

and yet, I can honestly say that my using "fuck" is not brought on on heightened by any sense of desperation whatsoever. Hence my question.

[jimnyc]

Offensive posts split into their own thread and left in the cage. Original thread placed back where it belongs.

[stang56k]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080430/...q_080428200059


BAGHDAD - The killings of three U.S. soldiers in separate attacks in Baghdad pushed the American death toll for April up to 47, making it the deadliest month since September.

[LuvRPgrl]

Offensive posts split into their own thread and left in the cage. Original thread placed back where it belongs.

test

[Roomy]

What are you winning exactly?Serious question.

[actsnoblemartin]

The longest thread!

What are you winning exactly?Serious question.

[semi liberal girl]

What are you winning exactly?Serious question.

Our troops are killing and capturing the terrorists who want all of us dead

Even the ones who are pushing for surrender and appeasement. As a reward,they will kill you guys last

[actsnoblemartin]

because they're scared

For years the left bellowed how the US was losing in Iraq, it was mess, our troops were being slaughtered, and Harry Reid sneered "the war was lost"

Now, the troops are winning, the liberal media is not reporting the good news, and Dems are ducking any questions about the success

Will the Dems admit we are winning in Iraq, or still keep fighting their war on reality?



American troops are winning
By Pete Hegseth
December 11, 2007

In May and June, overall attacks in Iraq were at their highest levels since the war began, monthly coalition deaths were near an all-time high, and violence against civilians was still at staggering levels. To most observers, the war in Iraq was not going well.

At the same time, members of Congress were already declaring the "surge" a failure and stepping up their "timeline for withdrawal" rhetoric. Anti-war Democrats, and a few Republicans, cited "realities on the ground" as compelling evidence to call for an immediate, or more nuanced "phased," end to the war.

These same "realities," also emboldening anti-war groups to declare an "Iraq Summer," during which they would finally crush domestic support for the war and force Congress to de-fund the mission there. MoveOn.org and others dispatched operatives around the country and harassed members of Congress.

Truthfully, as we now know, these "realities" on the ground were the unfortunate birth pangs of the new counter-insurgency strategy being implemented by Gen. David Petraeus. Some on Capitol Hill understood this fact in June, and their courage in those dark days kept Congress from prematurely declaring defeat in Iraq.

In June, the full compliment of surge forces had just arrived, hence the violence levels hadn't yet ebbed; by June, American forces had moved off of large bases and defensive positions, and into an offensive posture among the population, hence the initially high casualty rate; and in June, al Qaeda had yet to felt the full shock of the surge, hence their continue brutality.

But that was then, and this is now; and Iraq in December 2007 is a drastically different place than Iraq in June 2007. Overall attack levels are now at the lowest levels since 2005, monthly coalition deaths are nearing an all-time low, and violence against Iraqi civilians has been reduced by more than 60 percent, according to the anti-war site icasualties.org

However, the more things change in Iraq, the more they stay the same on Capitol Hill. For the past month, with a few off-handed exceptions, Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill has largely refused to acknowledge success. They are stuck in the talking points of June, and stuck on a narrative of failure.

Despite the incredible progress made by our military — which has opened the door for real and sustainable political progress in Iraq — the Democratic leadership continues to insist that we de-fund the war and bring the troops home no matter what. Beholden to entrenched and noisy anti-war interest groups, the Democrat leadership in Washington seems willing to cut-off much needed funding, placing our brave troops in harms way.

For the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/artic...112110007/1013

[kywul]

What's your definition of success? The fact that the Iraqis themselves were extremely upset with our troops occupying their country doesn't seem like success to me, in relation to the stated goal of bringing democracy to their country. But imperial powers rarely consider the opinions of the natives.

[Gunny]

What's your definition of success? The fact that the Iraqis themselves were extremely upset with our troops occupying their country doesn't seem like success to me, in relation to the stated goal of bringing democracy to their country. But imperial powers rarely consider the opinions of the natives.

What's your point? Seems to me they wren't too upset until AFTER we relieved them of their asshole (Saddam). Seems to me it's a perfect case of biting the hand that feeds you. That's not our REAL problem. The enemy without. Our real problem is the enemy WITHIN. Which you represent rather well.