Obama stated " The Surge would not work"! Well, the Surge did, in fact work. Obama voted against the surge from day one! Now, Obama and the vast majority of the media are trying give credit to Obama because he made a logical statement regarding the pullout of Iraq in 16 months. However, the only reason why, such a suggestion is feasible, is solely due to the success of the Surge, which he was dead set against!!!

If Mr Obama had it his way, America would have failed in Iraq!!!

Cheerio


Subject: Obama: "Surge will not work"

http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...JkYmMxNzcyZjdkNDZhODUxMTNmYWY2YzM=


Great video about how David Axelrod this week says: "of course Obama believed the surge would work" and then a clip of Obama saying 8 months ago "of course the surge will NOT work"...

[Edited 2008-07-28 14:44:21]

Obama needs to admit that the surge, by and large, worked. There seem to be some arguments regarding the timing of the surge vs. the suni uprising. But if dodo-head had put adequate troops in there at the beginning........





"I'll will restore dignity and honor to the White House"

GW Bush 2000

WRONG!

who's the surge working for? US troops or the Iraqi people? because at the end of the day its the Iraqi people that have to live there...


civilian/Iraqi security forces death toll since the surge commenced...if that's indicative of working then its party time...consider it mission accomplished!

Period Total
Jul-08 332
Jun-08 450
May-08 506
Apr-08 744
Mar-08 980
Feb-08 674
Jan-08 554
Dec-07 548
Nov-07 560
Oct-07 679
Sep-07 848
Aug-07 1,674
Jul-07 1,690
Jun-07 1,345
May-07 1,980
Apr-07 1,821
Mar-07 2,977
Feb-07 3,014

[Edited 2008-07-28 15:13:06]

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 1): Obama needs to admit that the surge, by and large, worked.

Lower level of troops + lower level of violence = progress
Lower level of troops + same level of violence = progress
Same level of troops + less violence = progress
Same level of troops + same violence = stagnation
More troops + same level of violence = no progress
More troops + increased level of violence = no progress
More troops + reduced level of violence = not necessarily progress

Success must be measured by the ability of Iraq to hold itself together for every coalition soldier removed from the country. The surge isn't successful, nor practical, if it needs to last forever.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 3): The surge isn't successful, nor practical, if it needs to last forever.

I agree completely! THe continued security, will enable the Iraqi forces to mature, then stand on their own.

Cheerio

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 1): "I'll will restore dignity and honor to the White House" GW Bush 2000 WRONG!

Again, you can't bring up facts to Platypus. He's off in a neo-conservative dreamworld, where anyone who says they're liberal is the enemy, and a conservative never did anything wrong.

It doesn't matter anymore who was for/against the surge, Platy. The surge is over. It worked to a large degree, and tha is good. Now, we have to start thinking about a timetable for withdrawl.

Your party is reluctant to withdrawl, even with improved conditions. The Democrats, despite all their imperfections, realize we can't stay in Iraq forever, nor should we. And, despite your hysteria, beginning in February of 2009, President Obama will begin the process of bringing our troops out of Iraq, and concentrating the troops strength on the REAL war on terrorism, in Afghanistan.

Did the surge work? By what standard are you using?

The tactical goal of this surge was the reduction of sectarian violence and terrorist attacks in Iraq. By every measure this happened. Iraq is a far safer place do to the addition of US forces. No one can deny that there is a tactical success in Iraq.

This being said, the strategic goal of the surge was to provide breathing room for political reconciliation. During the year and few months of this surge, there has been no legislation passed by the Iraqi government regarding political inclusion. This supposed breathing room failed to resolve the biggest issue of national oil revenues. As long as the central government of Iraq does not take responsibility for all factions within their country, there will be no lasting peace. This is why the surge has been a strategic failure.

Two other comments, if the surge worked why isn't our force been reduced to a level smaller than the pre-surge level? The effects on troop rotations and how the Army handles it as yet to be seen.

One other point, has OBL been captured yet? Wasn't he the one that the government blamed for 9/11?

[Edited 2008-07-28 15:25:25]

Quoting Platypus (Reply 5): THe continued security, will enable the Iraqi forces to mature, then stand on their own.

We've been hearing that line since 2004. It's only since Gen. Petraus got in there that things have started to improve. He's one sharp guy, that General. He's the reason why the situation in Iraq is finally getting better.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4): It worked to a large degree, and tha is good.

Not according to your boy Obama! He was for failure in Iraq! Is that what you wanted, failure?

Cheerio

http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_9998957

Obama was wrong about the surge

Obama voted against the surge, he said then, because he was convinced that inserting 20,000 more troops into Iraq was likely to make things worse, not better. Now trying to justify that miscall, he says he couldn't have anticipated the Sunni Awakening.

He could anticipate that the surge wouldn't work. But he couldn't anticipate that the Sunnis would turn on al-Qaeda? Actually, Obama had more information at his fingertips in assessing the probability of the surge's success than he did for any of his other predictions, including assurance from commanders on the ground that local tribal leaders were showing a willingness to take on al-Qaeda.

Quoting Platypus (Thread starter): If Mr Obama had it his way, America would have failed in Iraq!!!

Am I missing something here? If Obama had had his way, there never would have been an Iraq war, no need for a surge, and 4000 US soldiers probably still alive.

Having said that, I hope the surge did work and Obama's prediction was wrong. But it's way too soon to tell for sure, Check again in about 5 years, or maybe 12 months after the last American solder has departed the country. The state of the nation of Iraq post-US occupation will be the right measure for success of the surge.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 8): Quoting Platypus (Thread starter): If Mr Obama had it his way, America would have failed in Iraq!!! Am I missing something here? If Obama had had his way, there never would have been an Iraq war, no need for a surge, and 4000 US soldiers probably still alive.

Thank you! The man wins the General Petraus Action Figure!!

You see, Platy, no matter what happens from here on out, we've already failed in so many ways. We extended terrorism; we sacrificed 4100 of our finest young men and women, not to mention thousands of Iraqi's, which means nothng to you anyway; we threw away all the good will we had after 9/11 because of this damn fool of a war.

Quoting Platypus (Reply 9): Is that what you wanted, failure?

I was the first one on this board to come out in favor of the Surge. Sen. Obama was wrong on it. So what? I know it's difficult for you to believe that people actually do vote for someone they may disagree with on some issues-I say that, because it seems Mr. Bush has never made a decision you didn't agree with.

That says more about you than it does him.

"The Surge Will Not Work"! Wrong Mr Obama! "

No, and any buffoon who runs around insulting the intelligence of 'thinking minds' by screaming 'The Surge Worked'... is clueless about this short sighted, smoke n' mirrors act.

Let's put things in proper perspective about this Surge nonsense for once and for all...

(let alone TODAY, 57 people were killed by suicide bombers in Iraq).

First off what is 'the surge'? (Don't forget, also 'paying off' some of the militias to keep it down)

A build-up of massive troop strength/presence to quell escalating violence.

In terms that the every-man can relate..

Take any violent/crime-riddled area in any US city (or the world for that matter)..
..crime is out of control. Now the police brings in a massive show of force, SWAT, the entire kitchen sink. RESULT: Of course the crime is going to subside! The criminals aren't stupid!!! Without question they are going to lie low... go underground or even go hangout with their cousins/relatives/distant gangsters.

Now did the surge work? Of course it did... now.. BUT for how long.

The criminals know that .. THAT particular police presence CAN'T stay there forever, it cannot be maintained without exorbitant cost. So what do they do? They wait it out in many cases..but in other instances..they set up shop elsewhere (another side of town - as the has Iraqi violence). And now the Cop Surge has start all over again the cops relocate and go to where the new criminal activity has erupted. No city budget could sustain such an ongoing operation.

Which takes us back to the Surge (Iraqi-style), if any of you 'Surge-Happy Cheerleaders' think for a minute that the warring factions of Baghdad, Fallujah, Sadr City and the other explosive spots

..have been eliminated, you're dangerously mistaken.

..if you think they retired, you're dangerously mistaken.

..if you think they've had new found attacks of conscience/religion..wrong again..

And who knows this better than any of us as we type from the safety of our keyboards?

..the Iraq citizens themselves, they know with dead on accuracy that as soon as the 'Surge Forces' withdraw (thinking everything is cool and calm)..

..that the sh*t will hit the fan immediately after the last humvee rolls off into the sunset. The locals know that they cannot leave like US troops, they must live there, raise their kids there, no matter what city they travel to in Iraq, Sunni vs Shia vs Kurds vs whomever is going to be an dangerous concern. This is a much bigger problem than the singular dimension the Bush Admin ever entertained when they sought out this escapde!

So if the goal of 'the Surge' was to put a lid on some of the violence (chiefly in Baghdad)..then it did just that.

Sooooo... what was the point? Really, what was the point in the bigger picture of things?

Because in the real world, it is simply 'Violence Delayed'... these people are going sort this out (violently) unfortunately, whether we like it not. Make no mistake, the Surge is going to end..and when it does, just what do think is going to happen? You're right back at square one! It's going to happen anyway, whether you know it or not, even Iraqi Security Forces, trained (and those being trained) have already chosen sides for the Post-Surge landscape. ..but this time there will be no 'Surge II' in sight.

What was the cost? 100s of millions of US dollars and 100s of US lives (Surge only).. just so some people can round around saying 'Look, look, look...it's quiet there now, just 10-15 killings a day instead of 100s! Are you F*N kidding me? Do you people balance your checkbooks with this kind of make-believe outlook?


So..was it worth it?

...not one red cent.

Quoting Platypus (Thread starter): If Mr Obama had it his way, America would have failed in Iraq!!!

It has failed. Victory American style can only be achieved in a area where 'American termed Victories' can be interpreted and supported. Our definition of victory is not what the local Iraqi thinks of as a victory..thus the insurgents. No matter how you slice it, this wrong headed idea of going to Iraq cannot be 'prettied up' and called a 'win or a victory'. Putting lipstick on a pig won't make it any prettier (at least not in Blue States)... it's still a pig.

..and Iraq is killing the US Piggy Bank because some of you want to beat your chest that US won ... one bad and costly endeavor, 'a place a it had no business being' in the 1st place. WHO on earth wants that kind of a 'win'? Usually it's people who've never been in a fight of any kind or people who have no sense of 'Right and Wrong'.

Mr Obama (and many others) possess the foresight to see it 'as it is', a very very bad and costly situation that has cost us 4000+ of our young people (and untold Iraqi Tragedies). Another George, whose last name was Washington ...would not have supported this AT ALL, nor Lincoln, nor Roosevelt, nor Truman anyone else who sat in that chair. How so many Americans got suckered into this trap..I will never know. But what's scary is they setting for creating the same conditions are being staged again..and they same eerily large numbers of Americans are lining up to walk down that path again as if it's something new and they've never ever seen it before-


BN747

[Edited 2008-07-28 16:25:02]

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 10): ve already failed in so many ways

Are you a Liberal!   

What you and many others must accept is, regardless if the war was the proper thing to do or not, which BTW, the vast majority of dems in Congress voted for, and stressed the removal of Saddam in 98', what was the best thing to do when we were knee deep in this war?

Should we have done what Obama wanted, and pick up and run, in essence admit defeat? Or, think of a better plan and win the war, which was McCain's goal? I'd say the latter! The Iraqi people are far better off, and the nation as a whole should be able to stand up against Iran!

Cheerio



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080726/ap_on_an/iraq_winning_the_war

Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost

That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy.

Quoting Platypus (Reply 12): Are you a Liberal!

Boy, how long did it take you to figure that one out, Sherlock! I mean, you're on top of your game tonight.  

Sadly, that's the only way you see the world, in the light of "liberal/conservative". I wouldn't matter if Satan himself ran as a Republican. Because if he did, you'd give him two thumbs up, simply because he says he's "conservative".

Maybe, just maybe, if you let yourself out of that confined little box, that sees the world in such a limited scope, you might learn a few things. But I doubt you'll do that. Ignorance is so much more comforting.

-Falcon84

If you look in reply 12, you will see some criticism of GW! However, it is obvious, too many liberals see America in a negative light.

Would the Iraqi people been better off if the US pulled out when Obama wanted?

Cheerio

Quoting Platypus (Reply 14): If you look in reply 12, you will see some criticism of GW!

  

Not from you, you hypocrite! Those are SOMEONE ELSE'S words, not yours!

YOU-you know, the "me, myself and I" person-you are unable to critisize him with your own words. You're incapable of it.

Quoting Platypus (Reply 14): Would the Iraqi people been better off if the US pulled out when Obama wanted?

The Iraqi people would have been better off had we never stepped foot inside their country. So would have we, for that matter.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 4): Your party is reluctant to withdrawl, even with improved conditions.

I guess that is why the administration and the Pentagon are working on expediting withdrawls given a good report from the ground in Iraq in September?

Quoting AirCop (Reply 6): This being said, the strategic goal of the surge was to provide breathing room for political reconciliation. During the year and few months of this surge, there has been no legislation passed by the Iraqi government regarding political inclusion

Hmmmm.....
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.op.ed/index.html

"Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that "our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence." But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.
Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, "Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress."

Which is probably a better percentage of getting things done than our Congress has accomplished in the past two years.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 6): This supposed breathing room failed to resolve the biggest issue of national oil revenues.

The provinces are getting shares of the oil revenues. In the mean time that a permanent agreement has not been worked out does not mean they are not trying. Our Congress can't sort out medicare increases on a permanent basis and how many years has that been going on?

Quoting AirCop (Reply 6): Two other comments, if the surge worked why isn't our force been reduced to a level smaller than the pre-surge level?

That was explained to you in another thread with a link to the story. Two brigades are overlappig and the one coming in has more troops in their TO&E than the one departing.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 6): One other point, has OBL been captured yet?

No, because he is not in Iaq and no one has said he is.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 6): Wasn't he the one that the government blamed for 9/11?

Yes and no one blamed Iraq for 9/11.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 10): I was the first one on this board to come out in favor of the Surge.

            Wait, let me read that again.....

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 10): I was the first one on this board to come out in favor of the Surge.

           
With support like yours who needs detractors?

I'm certainly no big fan of Sen. McCain but he hit the nail on the head when it comes to Iraq and Sen. Obama in this speech.


http://www.nysun.com/national/mccain...-legislating-defeat-in-iraq/82653/

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 16): The Iraqi people would have been better off had we never stepped foot inside their country. So would have we, for that matter.

I'm sure those poor souls lying in some un-found, unmarked, mass grave agree completely with you. Especially the ones that actually thought that Bush 41 would come to their aid during their uprising. And what's a couple of thousand gassed Kurds to worry about? I mean we let Rwandans get hacked to death by the tens of thousands and didn't lift a finger to try and stop it.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 17): I'm sure those poor souls lying in some un-found, unmarked, mass grave agree completely with you.

I guess it's better to die by our deeds than his? Either way, thousands of Iraqi's are still dead, RJ, and so are 4100 Americans. But hey, I guess that doesn't mean much to you. Personally, a 4100 to 1 ratio doesn't strike me as a good deal.

Maybe you should tell those who have lost their loved ones in this war, how great it is that they died.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 18): I guess it's better to die by our deeds than his?

How many would have continued to die by his hand? Guess the fact that we stopped that means nothing to you.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 18): Either way, thousands of Iraqi's are still dead, RJ, and so are 4100 Americans. But hey, I guess that doesn't mean much to you.

And thousands more would still be ending up in those unmarked graves had we not intervened not only for the Iraqis but for our own security needs which is why those 4100 soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen gave their lives but you don't, and won't, ever get that because you don't know what it is to serve.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 18): Personally, a 4100 to 1 ratio doesn't strike me as a good deal.

Then neither was the ratio of losses to get rid of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 15): http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.op.ed/index.html

This link is worthless..its a McCain op-ed piece so of course it's going to be slanted. Besides the benchmarks are quite subjective. The real question is the future: can Iraq get a government that can keep things going in the right direction?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 15): Yes and no one blamed Iraq for 9/11.

Again why did we go to war with Iraq, when Afghanistan is where the mess began. Last time I check our progress in Afghanistan has been going backwards.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 15): The provinces are getting shares of the oil revenues.

Didn't the Bush administration tell the Congress that the oil revenue was going to pay for the war?

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 16): The Iraqi people would have been better off had we never stepped foot inside their country. So would have we, for that matter.

   Been saying this for nearly seven years, it's Afghanistan..What ever RJ wants to say about Iraqi, at least the country was a stabilizing influence over Iran.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 15): I guess that is why the administration and the Pentagon are working on expediting withdrawls given a good report from the ground in Iraq in September?

Finally since when are airline dispatchers are kept in the loop by the White House?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 19): How many would have continued to die by his hand?

And since when is the internal politics of ANY NATION our business? There are dictators all over the world killing like Saddam did. Where is our invasion of those places? Answer: Saddam wasn't an old enemy.

The fact is the WMD was just a ploy, and we all know that now. If we're so righteous, then we should be going after all dictators. We're not. So toss that one out the window.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 20): The real question is the future: can Iraq get a government that can keep things going in the right direction?

According to the U.S. Embassy in Iraq they are but ignore their assessment of how the Iraqi's are meeting the benchmarks.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 20): Again why did we go to war with Iraq, when Afghanistan is where the mess began

Why is it so hard for liberals to wrap their heads around a two front war?

Quoting AirCop (Reply 20): Last time I check our progress in Afghanistan has been going backwards.

So was our progress in Europe in December 1944, glad Falcon wasn't around then or he would have been pushing an evacuation back to Britain.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 20): Didn't the Bush administration tell the Congress that the oil revenue was going to pay for the war?

Yes, and they still can.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 20): What ever RJ wants to say about Iraqi, at least the country was a stabilizing influence over Iran.

Really, so Hezbollah really didn't get any funds from Iran? Iran wasn't developing long range missiles when Saddam was in charge or buying silkworm missiles from China and pointing them out into the Straight of Hormuz?

Quoting AirCop (Reply 20): Finally since when are airline dispatchers are kept in the loop by the White House?

They don't have to be. All an airline dispatcher has to do to comment on what I have said is read the news. Try it sometime.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 21): The fact is the WMD was just a ploy, and we all know that now. If we're so righteous, then we should be going after all dictators. We're not. So toss that one out the window.

Again, why is it so difficult for liberals to wrap their heads around more than one idea at once? Perhaps because it takes intellect and all liberals have is emotion?

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 22): liberals

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 22): liberals

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 22): liberals

Obsessed much? I think there's an underlying problem here RJ. In your other posts all you seem to do is paint liberals all the same. Your clairvoyance is astounding.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 22): Perhaps because it takes intellect and all liberals have is emotion?

   This is hilarious. Some of the most brilliant minds in the world would consider themselves liberals. But I guess to be a doctor, or a scientist one mustn't rely on intellect, only emotion can get you to those professions. See, statements like the ones you just made are reasons why I can't take you seriously. You see yourself to be superior to liberals. Which, isn't true by a long shot.

Learn to enjoy your fellow American, not see those who disagree with you as the enemy. I'd venture that you would learn a lot more that way.

Dave

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 23): Obsessed much? I think there's an underlying problem here RJ. In your other posts all you seem to do is paint liberals all the same. Your clairvoyance is astounding.

When you're ready dispute the assertion with some facts bring it on.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 23): But I guess to be a doctor, or a scientist one mustn't rely on intellect, only emotion can get you to those professions.

Are those professions political? Because that is the underlying topic of this thread, politics.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 23): You see yourself to be superior to liberals. Which, isn't true by a long shot.

I see the conservative political opinion, as it applies to fiscal and foreign policy, as being far superior to the liberal political opinion. And IMO it is true by a long shot.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 23): Learn to enjoy your fellow American, not see those who disagree with you as the enemy.

I don't see them as the enemy, I just see them as wrong.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 23): I'd venture that you would learn a lot more that way.

I've been wrong enough in the past to know that it's not the place I want to be. You'll figure that out as you grow up.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 10): people actually do vote for someone they may disagree with on some issues

Bingo. Senator Obama had possibly underestimated the results another 20,000 soldiers contributed to safety, but at the same time it always baffles me to read that some Americans, including large parts of your press, consider the "surge" the only contributing factor to the - comparatively - low rates of sectarian violence. As if 20,000 soldiers alone could put Iraq's complicated sociological structures upside down or homogenize them.

As I see it, there are at least four factors that contributed the the relative peace in Iraq:

- 20,000 additional soldiers ("the surge")
- different tribes teaming up with the American forces for tactical reasons
- Syria and Iran are now willing to pull the country back on track - likewise for tactical reasons
- Internal displacement: Sunni, Shiites, Christians and other groups have either fled the country or live separated from each others.

Further readings:
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/alabayachi1
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/benami16
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/yamani15

Quoting Platypus (Reply 14): too many liberals see America in a negative light.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 22): Again, why is it so difficult for liberals to wrap their heads around more than one idea at once? Perhaps because it takes intellect and all liberals have is emotion?

Jesus Christ, what's with you people?!?!?!

First off, I'm sorry if I view America's actions (actions, mind you... not the United States itself) that have led to the worst humanitarian crisis in recent history, the creation of a failed state out of a rogue one, and the precarious position that the U.S. currently finds itself on the global stage. The Iraq War is the cornucopia from hell, and that's wholly on George W. Bush and his cabinet of thugs. Senator Obama had nothing to do with the creation of the hellstorm that is the war.

And I'm sorry if you feel that liberalism is code word for "unpatriotic defeatist", but this mentality is just asinine. Open your eyes! Get out of your rut and see this war for what it is. Mind you, I am supporting Barack Obama for the presidency, but I'll be the first one to hold his feet to the fire if he doesn't execute the presidency to the best of his abilities. It would serve you well to have the same mentality towards your party's politicians.

Sometimes you've just got to say, "What the f*ck". Stop and think before you go right back to bashing the left for the mess we've created...

Quoting BN747 (Reply 11): Because in the real world, it is simply 'Violence Delayed'

Spot on.

Quoting Platypus (Thread starter): Obama stated " The Surge would not work"! Well, the Surge did, in fact work. Obama voted against the surge from day one! Now, Obama and the vast majority of the media are trying give credit to Obama because he made a logical statement regarding the pullout of Iraq in 16 months. However, the only reason why, such a suggestion is feasible, is solely due to the success of the Surge, which he was dead set against!!! If Mr Obama had it his way, America would have failed in Iraq!!!

As said there would have been no Iraq of Obama had his way. Also he said we would have never known had what Obama was advocating in January 2007 had actually happened. Which was to put more pressure on the Iraqi forces to be independent of the US military, which needs to be done anyway.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 3): Success must be measured by the ability of Iraq to hold itself together for every coalition soldier removed from the country. The surge isn't successful, nor practical, if it needs to last forever.

In the eyes of Iraq war supporters the US leaving means losing, remember up until the surge the GOP and the people who planned this war had be wrong on pretty much every prediction they had made since this war started. Also have their been any reports of anything besides stability which was well achieved under Saddam and even though he was a brutal man he knew how to prevent a civil war in Iraq

Also it can be said and i'm quoting what Bill Maher said when this first started, which was. "The violence is decreased yes, but its the same situation when daddy stops hitting mommy when Mr. Police Officer is outside the front door.

Is a country that needs the mass amount of US forces to maintain stability with no significant reported progress of an independent Iraq really worth it. And if it getting better politically why not get out ASAP or in 16 months.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 24): When you're ready dispute the assertion with some facts bring it on.

I don't have to dispute anything. You make a blanket statement about all liberals. Until you can prove you've interviewed all liberals in the US (I'm assuming you're talking about American liberals) you aren't correct in your statements. Not every liberal is the same, much like every conservative isn't the same. You are lumping them all together, which is wrong.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 24): Are those professions political? Because that is the underlying topic of this thread, politics.

Lame excuse. You never qualified your statement. You said this:

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 22): Again, why is it so difficult for liberals to wrap their heads around more than one idea at once? Perhaps because it takes intellect and all liberals have is emotion?

You didn't say "Why is is so difficult for liberals to wrap their heads around more than one POLITICAL idea at once?" Political wasn't in your original statement. Words mean something. You can't magically assume people will know what you are talking about if you leave a void in your sentences. It just doesn't work like that. Feelings and emotions don't translate well over the internets. But, just like clockwork, now you are tyring to wiggle your way out of admitting your statement might have been wrong. No, you can't do that, you have to come up with some lame excuse. I could tell you would do that before you even replied.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 24): I see the conservative political opinion, as it applies to fiscal and foreign policy, as being far superior to the liberal political opinion. And IMO it is true by a long shot.

Again, not what you implied. I'm only going on what you say.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 24): I've been wrong enough in the past to know that it's not the place I want to be. You'll figure that out as you grow up.

Figure what out?? I've learned a great deal from conservatives. I don't see their opinions and political philosophy as that of coming from the enemy. I can't say you share that philosophy. Maybe you should try it.

Dave

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 28): I don't have to dispute anything. You make a blanket statement about all liberals. Until you can prove you've interviewed all liberals in the US (I'm assuming you're talking about American liberals) you aren't correct in your statements. Not every liberal is the same, much like every conservative isn't the same. You are lumping them all together, which is wrong.

If the right wingers think that you have a hard time with the American left then Canada really needs to send you Bob Rae, Jack Layton (considered left in Canada), or Stephane Dion (who represents the centrists) and see how you deal then them. Hell i'll take the bet some of you would call Stephen Harper a conservative a pinko commie if he was a US politician.

Quoting Greggarious (Reply 26): that have led to the worst humanitarian crisis in recent history, the creation of a failed state out of a rogue one

  

That's not the case anymore. The only way America could have failed was if Obama had his way, and pull out prematurely.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 27): Also he said we would have never known had what Obama was advocating in January 2007 had actually happened. Which was to put more pressure on the Iraqi forces to be independent of the US military, which needs to be done anyway.

Pure speculation and conjecture. The successful McCain Surge is reality! Obama was wrong on the premise of the surge! Now he's spinning it.

Cheerio

Quoting Greggarious (Reply 26): First off, I'm sorry if I view America's actions (actions, mind you... not the United States itself) that have led to the worst humanitarian crisis in recent history, the creation of a failed state out of a rogue one,

And that is the worst position of all, one of continuing to say "all is lost" when it clearly is not. It's why Sen. Obama was wrong in 2003 and in 2007, and why you are wrong now.

Quoting Greggarious (Reply 26): The Iraq War is the cornucopia from hell, and that's wholly on George W. Bush and his cabinet of thugs.

I would have loved to hear your opinion of the civil war in July of 1863.

Quoting Greggarious (Reply 26): Senator Obama had nothing to do with the creation of the hellstorm that is the war.

Yes because he was a little know n State Senator at the time. Had he had his way the situation would have seriously worse now than now but that's inexperience showing.

Quoting Greggarious (Reply 26): And I'm sorry if you feel that liberalism is code word for "unpatriotic defeatist", but this mentality is just asinine.

Not necessarily unpatriotic although it comforts the enemy, but definitely defeatist.

Quoting Greggarious (Reply 26): Open your eyes!

They've been open, unfortunately liberals just want to ignore the obvious.

Quoting Greggarious (Reply 26): Mind you, I am supporting Barack Obama for the presidency, but I'll be the first one to hold his feet to the fire if he doesn't execute the presidency to the best of his abilities.

I'll remember that. But just because he doesn't meet your personal expectations will not mean he is doing a poor job since you have no idea of all the details at any one time.

Quoting Greggarious (Reply 26): It would serve you well to have the same mentality towards your party's politicians.

I have criticized this President on issues of finance and immigration so your argument is wasted.

Quoting Greggarious (Reply 26): Stop and think before you go right back to bashing the left for the mess we've created...

It's not the mess you have created since you haven't. It's the mess you may create that worries me.

Quoting Platypus (Reply 30): The successful McCain Surge

What? This is written by LT General Robert Gard - USA (Ret)
Since the beginning of this year, military experts that I've talked to argue that the fall-off in violence in Iraq had almost nothing to do with the increase in American troop levels -- and everything to do with actually talking with and supporting the previous insurgents. Recent published reports confirm that talks with the insurgents began all the way back in December of 2003, when military officers met with Sunni insurgent leaders in Amman, Jordan. Not only that, but when those talks were actually opposed by the administration, the military went ahead with the talks anyway.

But don't take my word for it, go back and read what General David Petraeus told the Congress in April of 2007, before the surge was actually in place. Back then, Patraeus told the Congress that the levels of violence in Iraq were down significantly and that "the tribes" were the key to that transformation. Let me repeat that: recruiting the Sunni tribes (and not the surge) has been the key to success in Iraq, along with the stand-down of the Mahdi Army. Patraeus is not alone in his thinking. The tribes of Anbar joined U.S. forces, according to U.S. Captain Jay McGee -- an intelligence officer with the 69th Armored Regiment -- because "everyone is convinced Coalition forces are going to leave and they are saying, 'We do not want Al Qaeda to take control of the area when that happens."

http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1599 - Has the complete article.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 32):

Again, don't let facts get in the way of Platypus' "triumphant" war, led by the "McCain Surge".

How it became the "McCain Surge", I'm still trying to figure out.

Good morning Falcon84 and Aircop,   

Sorry to burst your bubble regarding vetvoice, but it's obvious it has a left wing bias! I'm sure it does many positive things for vets. However, it's pro Wesley K Clark/Obama! Hope you're enjoying your Koolaid with your breakfast!

Nice try!

Cheerio

Thanks for not taking time to read the article Platypus. Perhaps you should have read the mission statement: VetVoice is the online home of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans. It is for Active Duty, Reserve, and National Guard members, as well as for veterans, their families, and their supporters. And another disclaimer posted on the home page: Diaries and comments at VetVoice do not necessarily represent the views of VoteVets.org.

Your continuing statements regarding every item that doesn't fit in your world is automatically liberal, makes you look immature and why no one can take you seriously.

Mr Aircop,

I read all that!!!

I find it curious that they're bashing McCain, yet not having an issue with Obama neglecting to visit wounded troops in Germany, in fact they're defending Obama's pitiful excuse not to see them. What's more, the first photo I see is of Wesley Clark, a partisan, who's backing Obama. It's no coincidence!

I'm not falling for it!

Cheerio

Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 2): Period Total Jul-08 332

And counting at 30 July 2008.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 3): More troops reduced level of violence = not necessarily progress Success must be measured by the ability of Iraq to hold itself together for every coalition soldier removed from the country. The surge isn't successful, nor practical, if it needs to last forever.

And as others point out, even successful is a moot description.

Quoting BN747 (Reply 11): BN747

Super post BN747 if I may say so and well argued and in at least that respect what a contrast with the bald and unconvincing assertions with which you are opposed.

Quoting Platypus (Reply 14): Would the Iraqi people been better off if the US pulled out when Obama wanted?

We will never know, but when the US does pull out there will almost certainly be an upsurge in violence. What you need to do (and never get close to) is to demonstrate that:

Negatives during prolonged US occupation MINUS benefits of US occupation PLUS negative effects in (say) the two years after the US evacuation

ARE LESS COMPARED WITH

Negatives in the two years following an evacuation whenever it was Obama wanted, MINUS whatever progress that Iraq manages to make in that time

That is rather more litotes in style than I prefer, but it is really difficult to express the options in Iraq in positive terms while it is in a state of civil war, albeit possibly at a lower level than last year.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 25): - Internal displacement: Sunni, Shiites, Christians and other groups have either fled the country or live separated from each others.

Yes, well it will prove a difficult bit of spin proving it to have a benefit, so best not to admit it has happened NoUFO!

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 28): Quoting RJdxer (Reply 24): I see the conservative political opinion, as it applies to fiscal and foreign policy, as being far superior to the liberal political opinion. And IMO it is true by a long shot. Again, not what you implied. I'm only going on what you say.

Gosh Dave, can you imagine how bad it would have been with Al G (no not Al Q, although some on here might think Al Q preferable to Al G I dare to say!) or Kerry in charge, more disastrous wars, bigger national debt, a loan crisis that would make losing a quantity of largish banks and FM squared seem like a stroll in the park. How could the POSSIBLY have done worse one has to ask?

Well we lefties, fellow travellers, socialists and worst of all liberals, will just have to take a crash course in "Liberty and Licence in the thoughts of Genghis Khan" so we can appreciate the finer points of the arguments being put.

Quoting Platypus (Reply 36): yet not having an issue with Obama neglecting to visit wounded troops in Germany,

And I wonder why Obama doesn't get any credit for an unannounced visit with no press of injured troops at a hospital in the Green Zone in Baghdad?

Quoting Platypus (Reply 36): What's more, the first photo I see is of Wesley Clark, a partisan, who's backing Obama.

If you looked closely, it was an ad for a book. Apparently you didn't see what Generals wrote comments about the book did you?

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 3): The surge isn't successful, nor practical, if it needs to last forever.

  

Quoting Platypus (Reply 5): THe continued security, will enable the Iraqi forces to mature, then stand on their own.

In how long?

"I think 16 months is about right." - McCain.

At least Platypus is admitting that the surge wasn't successful, at least not yet.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 38): If you looked closely, it was an ad for a book

Ah yah, dah! And what does that tell you?

Quoting AirCop (Reply 38): And I wonder why Obama doesn't get any credit for an unannounced visit with no press of injured troops at a hospital in the Green Zone in Baghdad?

He got the same amount of credit as McCain! But, that's not the issue, what is, is Obama's priorities! Apparently, the wounded troops in Germany were not high on his list, but promoting himself, while defaming America in the Europe was on the top of his list!

Cheerio

Quoting Platypus (Reply 40): Apparently, the wounded troops in Germany were not high on his list, but promoting himself, while defaming America in the Europe was on the top of his list!

Again this is why no one takes you seriously..What did Obama do to deserved your comment "about defaming America"?

Quoting AirCop (Reply 38): AirCop

Mr AirCop,

How could that article be so misrepresented by the monotreme?!!! But yet again there was no analysis of the propositions in the article so referred to - just a series of denials and oblique possibly irrelevant comments.

I could not help noticing the signature line of one of those commenting on the article:

"The wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy" - General Omar Bradley

Hardly surprising it has been revisited so often in relation to Iraq, but frequency of use does not make it any less relevant.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 28): I don't have to dispute anything.

Again, if you have facts that dispute what I am saying, present them for debate. Let's start with something easy, name one liberal leader that isn't has not been for defeat in Iraq over the past 5 years. If you remember correctly, it's what the Democratic party ran on 2 years ago.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 28): Lame excuse. You never qualified your statement

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 28): You didn't say "Why is is so difficult for liberals to wrap their heads around more than one POLITICAL idea at once?"

I figured the smart people would be able to read and comprehend the underlying basis of the thread which is politics. If we have to spell out the basics for you, then perhaps you're in over your head?

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 28): Again, not what you implied. I'm only going on what you say.

You're only going by what you assume and what you think you can score cheap points on. If you are truly going to hold to this line then there are a couple of people who might respond to you but I won't be one of them.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 41): What did Obama do to deserved your comment "about defaming America"?

He talked to them as equals-something Platy's hero that currently occupies the WH is incapable of doing.

How dare he.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 43): Again, if you have facts that dispute what I am saying, present them for debate.

Wake up. You paint liberals as all the same. That's factually wrong. You're wrong. Too bad you can't man up and admit you made a mistake.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 43): Let's start with something easy, name one liberal leader that isn't has not been for defeat in Iraq over the past 5 years.

?? Um. Isn't has not been? Me speaka english good no? Please oh wise one watch your sentence structure. It doesn't not not make isn't good sense, okay.

I'm only saying that because you think I'm not intelligent. Pretty ironic you would say that while constructing such a poor sentence.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 43): I figured the smart people would be able to read and comprehend the underlying basis of the thread which is politics

   You sir, are a piece of work. You imply I am not intelligent because you made a mistake and you are trying to cover it up. Sorry, you can't weasel your way out of this one. It's plain as day what you implied. You were wrong, I called you out on your partisan BS, and now you try and insult me to cover up your mistake. What a big man you are.

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 43): If we have to spell out the basics for you, then perhaps you're in over your head?

Actually, I'm over your head, because your head is, well, let's just say some place dark and unpleasant.  .

Quoting RJdxer (Reply 43): You're only going by what you assume and what you think you can score cheap points on.

Not exactly, oracle. I'm simply pointing out your rubbish as usual.

Have a nice day.

Dave

Quoting Platypus (Reply 30): Pure speculation and conjecture. The successful McCain Surge is reality! Obama was wrong on the premise of the surge! Now he's spinning it.

This completely depends on what you wanted from it.

John McCain wanted (and he has said this) a reduction or elimination of American casualties and violence which has happened. He is content leaving US forces there for 100 years as he said unless they aren't getting injured or killed. Which he as also said "The amount of troops doesn't matter the number of casualties does."

From this goal it has succeeded and Obama has admitted that part of it.

Now Obama wants to get the coalition forces out of there as fast as logistically possible and in order to do that they need to ensure that the Iraqi forces can operate on their own.
From the fact that the Generals on the ground nor President Bush are not coming up with a timetable for withdrawal or even talking about it to the public (why wouldn't they, it makes them look good) means that IMO Iraq can't be left alone yet.

So if you wanted stability with the surge it worked, if you wanted out of Iraq anytime soon the current plan has failed up to this point.

Quoting Platypus (Reply 40): while defaming America in the Europe

I'd like you to post the relevant section of the Berlin speech where America was "defamed". If you can't, then never post on this topic again.

Quoting DavestanKSAN (Reply 45): Dave

Of course in all of that dribble you weren't able to answer even one of my questions. Just one cheap and easy shot after another. Why am I not surprised?
Have a nice day.

What do people here consider "the surge"? To me it implies the troop increase while it was all the other initiatives that were implemented along with the surge that lead to the situation we are now seeing.

So I want to disconnect "the success", "the surge", and the ancillary efforts and see what really has worked. Some may say they can't be separated but I am trying to see which parts are really helping moving things in the most positive direction.

I found and interesting article that broke out the "other" actions that are making life in Iraq better. I think it sums it up well:
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20080102.aspx

Quote: The question then becomes, "Why did the Surge work?" There are numerous factors that contributed to the success of Gen. Petreaus' Surge plan. The quick and simple answer is that it was the right plan at the right time. The new 2006 Counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine was a key piece to the success of the Surge. The COIN doctrine showed a well-developed understanding of the causes of insurgencies, their make-up, and the best method for defeating them. The plan used an effective "clear, hold, build" tactic for improving local conditions. The net result of this has been reconciliation through most of the country. Another contributing factor was that Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) were ready. The majority of the Iraqi military is under the control of Iraqi elected leadership and is nearly fully manned and equipped. With additional forces in the area, it was possible to remove corrupt elements from the Iraqi Police in Baghdad. Without the three-fold contribution of ISF, cleared areas would have again fallen back into instability. The people of Iraq were significant factor in stabilizing Iraq. They had become tired of both Al Qaeda and Jaysh al Mahdi (JAM) and the violence that came with both of them. The Iraqi people developed trust in security forces and began providing tips. The tips then led to the discovery of caches and arrests of insurgents. Again, without the support of the Iraqi people, the plan would have failed. Iraq is also a democratic nation. The local citizens turned out in 2005 to elect their government with 80 percent voter turnout. This makes the government in Baghdad more accountable. The citizens expected and will continue to expect results from their leaders. AQI had also seriously blundered in Iraq. In areas they controlled, they imposed their strict version of Islamic law. Within months, the local populations turned against them. These locals, and the support of Coalition Forces, gave rise to the Awakening (Sahawa) Movements and Concerned Local Citizens programs. AQI had gone so far as to help create their own undoing. With the failure of al Qaeda and increasing stability, steps toward reconciliation continued. The two largest insurgent groups, the 1920 Revolutionary Brigades and Jaysh al Mahdi (JAM), ceased their attacks on security forces and began working toward stabilizing the country. Before reconciliation, the 1920 Revolutionary Brigade was in discussions with the Iraqi government. The assassination of a key leader by AQI resulted in the group turning on and attacking AQI. During the Battle of Baqoubah, the first initial cooperation between 1920 and Coalition Forces exploded into full-scale reconciliation and the creation of Fursan al Rifadayn (FAR- Knights between the Two Rivers). JAM also reconciled after it came under severe criticism for fighting in Karbala. By August, Muqtada al Sadr called for a ceasefire and has continued to call for longer extensions and increased cooperation. As stability increases and violence drops, U.S. forces are returning victorious. They have tamed the streets of Baghdad and Anbar, put AQI on the run, and reconciled the largest insurgent groups. Lessons learned from the Surge include having a well-developed and evaluated plan, a understanding of the battlespace, and political trust in military leadership. As violence continues in Afghanistan, Algeria, Lebanon, Palestine, and elsewhere, allies and other key players worldwide should adopt this doctrine to defeat the global Islamist movement. -- Jonathan Henry [email protected]

Tugg