right and wrong...look at the effectiveness of the Nuke bombing of Japan...that didn't take a long term to figure out. The surge is working, we can see that already on a month to month basis.
A bit to early to say flat out it's working Would be great if it does, however yet again who is to say the insurgents haven't simply stopped attacking ATM, laying low for us to leave? If that's the case the only way for the 'surge' to work is to stay there forever.. For one or 2 months for the body count to be down and come out and say it's working is very, very premature and dangerous.
That is an incredible stupid analogy. 4.5 years of fighting in Iraq doesn't seem to have nearly the same impact as one of the nukes in Japan. It is no wonder the believability factor of the Bush administration is so low. You should read up on the efforts of the US to fight IED's as detailed in the Washington Post. It is an extremely difficult effort, with effort, counter effort, effort, counter effort, effort, counter effort, etc. In fact there is a reference to the long term effort to fight IED's as compared to the Manhatten project (building the nukes during WWII-and military men said this is more difficult). The situation is an asymetric war. It is generally immune to this type of month to month analysis.
As long as d16man is happy that surge is working and he is fighting terrorists in a computer game everything is fine
Nice to know that!!... You are telling us that.. what USA did there is right.. So in a way you are justifying the war and there actions!!... Even if you are not a American.. the comment on UNO was ridiculous!!.. So why couldnt iraqi's got rid of saddam.. why America has to liberate (Invade) iraq!!.. So why not pakistan?? Have you ever thought why muslim's hate USA??? AQ killed thousands of innocent people... but what USA killed is in millions... so you probably now know the reason of hatred!... You will only understand this once you start believing the fact that yes many innocents lost there life's in this war on terrorism. But i think your eyes cant see behind the curtains.. Regarding this surge... i think its temporary.. there is a never ending supply of arab fighters in iraq ... so coming months will have more action for US soldiers. I am scared!!.. you think you run this site eh???? Get some sleep son.. if you cant come up with facts.. you better take your ass out of this thread.
Well, I do think it has to be a concern for the US Military that if they engage Iran as well as secure Iraq, they will be very thin, and very vulnerable to another Islamic country like Syria jumping in. This whole thing could go up faster than a pile of old driftwood. Another thing that concerns me is the lack of security at home on the border. The deeper we get, the weaker our national defense is. A Senator recently revealed that AQ is in over 20 countries, fighting in Iraq is by no means slowing them down. At best, it's stemming the tide.
heh! I'm flattered. webcracker used an old secondary account because he's pissed off the surge is working. Wow, there's something original. Just like a terrorist. Won't use their real identity, instead, hiding behind an old double account to attack in the dark. I see the usual buttheads are expressing their disappointment the surge is working too. So is this a flip, or a flop, from just a few weeks ago? You were so sure it wasn't working then, but now... No one will label you a bush supporter for standing up for your country. I just wish you, guerilla, grim and a few others were intelligent enough to see that.
You are really simplistic GTech. Similar to Bush supporters. Generally that is why the public has turned against Bush and the war. As you know, I'm unhappy with the war, wish it hadn't occurred, wished we had a better administration that was doing better fighting terrorism. My comments on the Bush speech were focused on his description and reasoning for why there would be a draw down on troops. Take everything he said and discount it. Bush is drawing down troops for next year ....because the US can't extend existing troop levels. All other reasons are bull sh!t. Even as there has been progress....the following has occurred..... leading tribal leader in Anbar who organized tribes against insurgents and with Americans-> killed by insurgents. group of tribal leaders in Diyala meeting with Police Chief to organize against insurgents-> bombed and many dead and injured. need I go on. I'll just repeat the examples of the Administration spreading "good news" on too preliminary a basis... Regardless of the fact that the Bush administration and the support of its most loyal....has been lost because of endless types of misleading PR...like the above....you guys continue to do the same thing. I guess all learning stopped before you guys ever got into school.
earlpearl, the red herrings still didn't address the flip flop. I know your strategy well. When confronted with truth, throw out as many distractors as possible to deflect. It's ok to get behind the surge when it's working. Your worst nightmare...being labeled a bush supporter...isn't going to happen. I would never insult you by suggesting you support bush, just because you stand behind your country. You're always talking about partisanship. How about setting that partisanship aside for once. Team player?
U.N.O. is a joke period. Because unlike Saddam, Pakistani leadership is not hostile to the US. Millions... millions... US killed millions.. blah blah blah.. Post the facts dude, back up your claim.. Please post some proofs that US bombing killed millions of Civilians. Because the stats and the facts say something different.. Many innocents lost 'THEIR' life, but most of them had died because of terrorists in car bombing, suicide attacks, terror attacks. Not from the bullets of US troops, or US bombing.. As I stated earlier, 68% of the non-combatant deaths are due to terrorists and only 9% of non-combatant deaths are from Ariel bombing. A.K.A. US/Allied bombs. Be honest here, do you 'think' or do you 'wish'??
Your against terrorism even those these terrorists are the victims? That's what your post screams to me
Yeah because it's so intelligent to jump on some good news and declare it working when it could simply be the calm before the storm. I hope it does work, to jump up and down and parade it's working so soon is simply dangerous and naive IMHO. Just as bad as those who proclaimed the US is not winning after one month, those who are pro war are willing to proclaim this surge is working after such a short time period, yet back then stated it was to soon to tell. Believing in something that could very well be false without reguard could be extremely dangerous to our troops.
So are the troops finally getting their roses, cake, chocolates and whatever else was promised upon liberating.
I've never claimed to be intelligent, but I appreciate being put in the same class as GRIM. Cheers GSpot.
There is no mystery why Bush's approval rating is so low. He isn't an honest leader to Americans. That is his own fault. I went and reread my post from mid September after the "Return on Success" speech. It was very much focused on the political bs element from Bush. Since the beginning of the year, the upper echelons of the Pentagon let it be known that the "surge" could only go on for a limited period due to manpower shortages. During the entirety of 2007 Bush has not made a comment on limitations on soldiers. Then he crafted the "return on success" speech. Again no mention of requisite troop shortages or the alternatives; extend soldiers stays/call up more reserves/ install a draft (that wouldn't solve immediate requirements in any case). So what does GTech do? Brand me a liar and a flip flopper. But before that speech...I asserted that there would be no way to determine the success of the "surge" for a long time. In that Bush can't articulate good strong reasons why America should be in Iraq, why he can't get the population behind him...his answer has been.... name calling call those who oppose him defeatists/terrorist lovers/etc. He brands the opposition. And so does GTech. The same stuff that the population turned against. Instead of being a mindless propagandist take a look at all elements of activity since the "surge" began. Take the military activity, the political activity, take the change in perspective from utilizing the "surge" to create Political Opportunity in Baghdad to creating political opportunity in the outlying regions. Then describe the "surge".
So you are asserting that you are unable and/or unwilling to stand behind your country because you believe you will be labeled a "bush supporter?" That's a rather odd position. I've never given you credit for being intelligent. Pessimist, yes. Intelligent, no. This isn't about Bush or his approval ratings. You just don't get it, earl. I'm not going to let you throw out red herrings to avoid the issue. I'll simply snip them right out of your post when responding and continue to point it out. Like I said earlier, it's clear who are disappointed in success. I couldn't have asked for any other group to prove my point better for me. Imagine if some treated this news in the same manner as news about how great it is that Ron Paul (Dr. No) just raised 250,000 and as a result, is surely on his way to winning
Wow talk about trying to put crap into someones words that were not there. Nothing to do with Bush, forget Bush exists for a second. Everything to do with not jumping up and down prematurely. Hoping it is working is one thing, to sit there and say w/o a doubt it's working and it's going to continue to work is a different story. Seriously if that's the best you can come up with there trully isn't a point, I'd have a better debate with my 8 year old son on why we should get a dog.
Actually, that's exactly what I was pointing out with your response. The very reason I bolded the line you snipped when offering a response. I'm so glad you noticed that, in fact, I was hoping you'd see it, so you could see how you did the very same thing. Nice job! Very observant!
Nope actually you put that line in there in a thread about the 'surge' Very observant. Yeah if I don't support Bush or how he did the war I don't support my country, basically what you said.
And that line had a very, very different meaning than how you chose to crop it out and respond. Thanks for proving my point again. Your disappointment is duly noted, as usual.