Then you wouldn't have a problem pointing it out then? But you seem to fail every time. The reason, of course, is because you know I did not say such. Let's make it a dozen +1 times now. I'm not holding my breath. I wonder why you won't post it? Perhaps because you know it would prove that I never said such? Would prove that you are dishonest? Gee, not even a $100 bounty for where I said such words seems to entice anyone. Your disappointment continues to shine. In fact, below, you even go on to talk about "your side" and "my side." What side? Success seems to have you very upset. No one has made more out of the success then there truly is. However, you have gone to great lengths to make less out of it then there is. Distorting numbers, taking one month out of four months, attempting to post other unverified sources, etc. Classic projectionism. [ Which is it? Wrong, or possibly wrong. Were you leaving in an option for yourself there? Actually what you posted didn't do any such thing. In fact, it really illustrates the point I made just above, that you have gone out of your way to make the success less than it really is. I do thank you for helping me illustrate this point. That wouldn't be disappointment, would it? I already took you as wrong. Me taking you as wrong isn't you taking responsibility for your twisting of facts to paint the surge less successful than it is. What side? Aren't we both for America? Aren't you happy the surge is working. You are not disappointed the surge is working? That would put "us" on the same "side." Obviously, for *some reason* we are not. Gee, I can't imagine what that would be? It's not like anyone has gone to great lengths to portray the surge as less successful than it really is. You haven't seen anyone like that, have you GRIM? All five excuses are the truth? This ties directly into the point I made about letting an islamist tear our country down. When I pointed this out, your multiple excuses were: I went on with: And finally to the comment that I made: Which is a spot on observation. There's nothing in that even remotely suggesting you are anti-American. What it suggests is what it says. That I would not label you a Bush supporter for standing up for your country. In this case, an islamist was attacking our country. Instead of standing up to it, you let it slide. When observed, you had the exuses of "truthfully didn't read them," to "I didn't get what he was saying," to "I was not not on for the most part during that time," to "I wasn't around." Then I pointed out how you actually did respond to it, but only to point out that someone else wasn't an American. That someone actually stood up for America, btw. Since then, you've gone on to completely prove my point and observation was in fact correct. You claim you didn't see it, then you claim you didn't understand it, then you claim you were not on during that time (but obviously on enough to respond to part of it as we learned), then you were not around. Well. You certainly had plenty of time to respond to "my" posts. You've certainly had the time to drag this out and portray success in the worst possible light you could, while simultaneously NOT being disappointed. You've certainly had time to skew numbers, misrepresent numbers, focus on one month instead of four. You've certainly had time to accuse me (as a defense mechanism and deflection) of saying things I have not said. Apparently your have time and excuses. What you didn't have was backbone. You let attacks on our country slide, but take great issue with successes in Iraq, as you've demonstrated. That's your choice. You have that right to be selectively outraged. So you admit that you were trying to take one month's numbers and misrepresent them to make the surge seem less successful than it was? Thank you. I've been making this point time and time again. I had no anticipated you would help me verify it though. Nice job! What did the articles and subsequent articles I posted say about it? Are you trying to take credit away from the soldiers that are fighting on your behalf, that they are not doing the job being reported and are not responsible for the success they've worked so hard for? Are you trying to give the success of those soldiers over to the enemy? Do you have evidence of a six month cease fire? Have you talked with insurgents that are still being killed while our soldiers are taking them out? Have you read the other reports I've posted that clearly show why the surge is working? Apparently not. Really sad that you would attempt to take away the credit of soldiers giving their lives and kicking ass in Iraq. Just steal their success right out from under them. Is that a plank I see in your eye? I'm discussing. I've put a great deal of effort in here. In fact, you've put a great deal of effort in to prove the surge isn't working. But that's not disappointment though. Yes, I'm happy the surge is working. I have no problem saying that. I'm also proud of our military who is laying their lives down day in and day out for these successes. I'm not going to try and diminish their efforts or make their efforts and successes seem less then they are. I'll leave that up to you. I'm sure you have *some* reason why, but apparently its *not* disappointment. I covered that above. Care to prove such? These are observations. If you do not wish others to note how you did not stand up for America, how you are not disappointed, how you are not lying by misrepresenting numbers and claiming I've said things I have not, you might consider an alternative approach. I continue to discuss the issue. I've spent time standing behind the reports I posted, you've spent time trying to tear down that success. Not a peep when someone was tearing our country down. Nothing but peeps in tearing down the success of the surge. What an interesting observation, eh? I'm game. I've commented on your last post. We're back to square one again. Now, do you want to follow through with your words of getting back to the issue? In fact, if you need to, you can go ahead and blast me one more time with a response to this post, then (if you really want to), we can get back to whatever you believe is the issue at hand. Fair enough? I always get a kick out of guerilla's campaign to put anyone on ignore he doesn't agree with. This is quite typical of a Ron Paul supporter who claims to stand behind the Constitution. The same Constitution that talks about free speech. Nothing like standing behind what you believe in It would seem that guerilla doesn't want to see any posts of anyone standing behind America. He only wants to see those who tear down America. Given his past, I couldn't possibly see why??? Pretty lame. Those "big bad moslems" that you are attempting to trivialize have killed thousands of our soldiers and even more innocent Iraqis. Men and women are laying down their lives fighting them so that others can be free. Good point, pizzaman. Really good point you made there.
No you are underestimating our resolve and capabilities in dealing with the danger posed by the terrorists and that is why you are more scared than rest or us and are willing to sacrifice our freedoms and the way of life to feel more secure.
GTech: Thanks for defending me from being called a Nazi sometime last year. I had actually forgotten about that. Had to look through the post, the thread, etc. And to think I was branded as Nazi-like by someone I would tend to agree with on most issues. I have tried to stay out of discussions about conspiracy theories about 9/11. I didn't then. They are amongst the stupidest discussions anywhere on the web or anywhere else. That sort of fortifies my point. Why bother attacking people when they don't agree with the minutia of your major points. Why not look for the areas of agreement. I would think that those who most ardently support the war in Iraq and the other important anti-terrorist anti-fundamentalist nations like Iran would look for more support. As to your comments and question of me. I didn't bother to look through the detail of the thread but I have seen that repetitive theme from you in so many threads it gets boring, and annoying and incredibly repetitive. Further, why bother spending endless time going through the minutia of he said/she said teeny points from every thread. Your main point from the OP was that the "surge" is working. Over the course of the thread you supported your point with the commentary of others. Grim and I believe it is too early to put big weight on any current phenomena. Why don't you comment on some of the other aspects of the "surge" for instance: 1. Enormous increase in patrols by American soldiers as compared to before the announcement of the "surge" strategy. I think it is the impact of more patrols that has increased the amount of interactivity between Americans and Iraqis. I think this is one of the reasons the number of "leads" has increased. The "surge" strategy had 2 parts, an increase in number of soldiers and a huge increase in number of patrols. There has been little newspress or government reporting on the impact on the number of patrols. I suspect going forward Bush will draw down troops but he and Petraeous like the results from the increase in patrols. I bet they will maintain that going forward even as the number of troops is drawn down to the pre "surge" totals. It was also the increase on the number of patrols that was the reasoning behind the comments Bush made in the early stages of this effort that predicted more American deaths and injuries. The fact that American deaths are somewhat lower now than the summer months might be very surprising to members of the Pentagon. Or maybe the military is cutting back on patrols. Or maybe the volume of patrols and soldiers is having an effect in reducing violence from various enemies. I frankly don't know. Why don't you comment on conditions in Baghdad. How is life there? Better, worse, more dangerous, less dangerous, more areas where the city is strictly Sunni or strictly Shiite and less places where there are mixed populations. What is the US doing with the surge in areas South of Baghdad? I don't know. Its a primarily shiite area. Remember in the early part of the war years, shiite followers of Al-Sadr attacked Americans and then hid in a Mosque. We surrounded them....and ultimately we let them go. We didn't blow up the Mosque. Instead of commenting on itty bitty tiresome stuff comment on big stuff. Again thanks for telling some other fellow from the left that I may be a big Bush critic but I'm not a Nazi. I guess that is some level of support, huh?
earl, I posted that as an example of what I was talking about. I did not appreciate you claiming that I called anyone who didn't agree with me a terrorist. Now, we both know there are *some* terrorist supporters here. There's no question. Some of those terrorist supporters actually have their favorite terrorist as their current avatar. I did not say such a thing about you, GRIM or anyone else in this thread. If I do point out someone is such, it's because they've taken the time to inform everyone on a public forum that they in fact support them. As for the rest of your post, duly noted. From what I read of your post, it was directed at me only. This would indicated that I'm held to a higher standard than others in this "debate." I'm flattered that you hold me to a higher standard. As such, I'll work a little hard to meet or exceed your expectations.
the bottom line is that we have to make our decisions based on logic and sound judgment not out of fear. i am not disagreeing with you about the fact that we have a problem with radical and violent moslems but on how to fight them
Good point, pizzaman. The logic behind the surge indicates (thus far) that sound judgment was used and that it seems to be working quite well. I always appreciate when we can agree on things.
Do not misrepresent me as holding you to a higher standard....or in any complementing you. Geez. I'll get a terrible reputation. But do the work anyways. You research stuff. You do it within DP and elsewhere. Frankly, I read most of 4 days of the washingtonpost reporting on the efforts to combat IED's and other types of what the Pentagon likens to "artillary" that is carried on some b@stard's body or in some truck or car. It was amazing. There is an extraordinary amount of effort to overcome these problems. A solution would work a little. The b@stards would counter it. New solutions were and are being tried. The Americans recruited assistance from Brits and Israelis who have dealt with this stuff in Northern Ireland and Israel. I learned a lot. I learned stuff that is not partisan and neither pro dem or pro rep. It was neither pro the war in Iraq or anti the war in Iraq. I learned that this stuff going forward is very dangerous. It challenges the way the US military and bureaucracy works. There are existing and on-going projects to combat it and defeat it. In many cases it is very expensive for us to confront it. In one case we overcame instances of this problem by buying some people a volleyball net. All I can say is research the "surge". Then you will know more about it than the rest of us. If someone has Abahabihoobi's picture in their avatar, I couldn't care less. Your reactions and mine are different. Of final interest, reading the stuff about the effort to combat IED's made me think of something and then read up on that topic. I'm going to post on it. I don't consider it political at all but sort of thought provoking. But who knows maybe others will see it differently.
My purpose was not to misrepresent. Since you singled me and only me out, it was a natural conclusion. It was either that, or assume your comments were representative of another partisan attack. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. That's nice. This is nice too. I always enjoy these. I'm glad you are learning new things. I have researched it. I have posted at least half a dozen articles that went ignored. I do not claim to know more than anyone. I've simply quoted articles that reference any number of reports that show it's working, why it's working and some from military members itself. What could possibly wrong with that? That doesn't discount that particular member's repeated support of terrorists. Nor does prove that I've said any such thing about you, GRIM or anyone else in this thread. As of yet, no one has posted those accusations made towards me. Maybe you have some insight to why certain people have made these claims, but cannot go back in the thread and find them? Wonderful. I have quite a few more stories about how the surge in Iraq is working. Do you think anyone will get upset if I post them?
I will be doing just that, especially from his latest response. Articles that show the death count going up is now going out of my way to show the surge not working instead of simply trying to know all the facts 'according to him'. Wow he trully needs to get a grip. He has shown himself to be a joke, nothing more, nothing less.
I've not seen any articles that show death tolls going up over the last four months. I'm not surprised someone would claim that, to trivialize the success in Iraq though. Apparently that olive branch was a thorny rose.
Glad to see the surge is working. So we can get out of the iraq and save more American Lives. For a unpopular war.
Several articles I have read use the 2 links, both figures show August death toll going up from July. Not all 4 months, never said all 4 months. I am not looking for ways to discredit the surge working, I am looking at the entire picture. Accurately and logically, not hopping on a false train, to me that's like supporting a false profit The response these numbers got.
I'll stick with the numbers released by the DoD. Just because you can find an independent site that has inflated numbers, does not mean they are accurate. Again, using your own source above, or the real numbers that were reported in my OP, over the four month period the casualties have gone from 121 in May down to 62 in September. This is nearly a 50% decrease. I have no idea why you are trying to find higher numbers, or trying to take one month out of the four, to show the surge in a less than desirable view. Only you can answer that. 50% reduction. You say you are wanting to look at the entire picture. Can we not agree that a 50% reduction over four months is significant? That is success, no matter how one tries to change the reality of it. http://www.cfr.org/publication/14364/drawdown_will_force_training_adjustments.html?breadcrumb=/ More overall picture: http://www.nypost.com/seven/10022007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/saved_by_the_surge.htm I've posted over a dozen articles that confirm, in various ways, success in Iraq. You can chose to focus on one month, if you wish. A smarter, intelligent man might look at that overall picture he say's he's after and see that over a four month period, a 50% reduction in casualties and nearly as much in civilian casualties might suggest that our good soldiers over there are kicking some ass and deserve a little credit for their efforts.
Well thanks for that bogart. I didn't believe it at all from General "Betray Us" but now that you have personally confirmed that it is working I feel much more assured now.
Yep only choose to look at numbers that are on your side, disreguard all other information. Sounds like a grand plan. Hey isn't that how we got into this mess in the first place and the same reason you Gtech and all other war supporters were so wrong? Yeah keep looking at that tiny little picture, it's kept you wrong for years, might as well continue the saga BTW articles can say both things, both show the surge is working and both question it. Show statistics either way, but I'm sure you'll do nothing but jump on the bits that show it working, disreguard all other. Some things that dont' add up and still no answer, 6 month cease fire, insurgents waiting for the surge to end, how about the fact that the military death toll is still more than last year? All signs I see so far point to a temporary bandaide and not a solution, show me otherwise. Nothing shows it's an end all, everything shows it's temporary. How about when the surge is over? Do you trully think the insurgents are going to stay hidden? Read the entire following article, there are points that point to good things as well. However like you love to do I'm going to copy and paste and bold only certain things. These certain things I am not jumping up and down on like you though, these are things that make me question how effective this so called surge will be in the long term. But yeah lets not worry about that, damnit the surge is 'cough' working, how dare we question anything! http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/31/iraq.main/index.html You are right though, when it's our brave Men and Women in uniform over there. We should act the same way that got us into this mess and only take the goods, looking at the full picture might somehow save some of them, we dont' want that now do we? --edit BTW the first link I provided does use the DOD for fatality numbers. http://icasualties.org/oif/Methodology.aspx
Many of these arguments and discussions rapidly drift away from the core issues. The reduction in American troop fatalities and/or injuries is great news. However the purpose of the surge was to establish the opportunity for a political solution. By all accounts, including those of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, political progress has not been evident or swift under the surge. I think most Americans and Iraqis would agree that the surge is serving the short term, but it's not a long term solution.