The surge is working!

[rwarn17588]

Cut the crap, iplaw. The anecdotes are relevant because it makes clear that the "surge," or whatever you call it, isn't working. Just because you "say" they're not relevant doesn't make it so. Instead, you don't want to face up to the reality that the occupation is a failure. Instead, you want to stay the course on what's a failure and keep digging for a pony.

Again, you're ignoring that genocide and a civil war are already happening in Iraq, and have been for some time. And that's with us there.

I swear, you're like Baghdad Bob -- sticking to your empty slogans even when reality is on your doorstep.

[Conan71]

I really don't get where loss of American soldiers equates to us losing the war.  

I would never discount the value of a single soldier's life, but every single person who enlists in the U.S. Armed Forces realizes, they may have to make the ultimate sacrifice someday protecting people in a foreign land or carrying out our own national security.

Virtually every war victory in human history has come with a loss of life to the victor.

Trying to compare Iraq to Viet Nam is ludicrous, but that is the only war that the present Democratic leadership can remember, and most of them were protestors of that conflict as well when they were pot-smoking hippies in the 1960's.

The troops in Viet Nam were largely reluctant draftee's.  The troops in Iraq have volunteered their time and lives.

As far as troops killed in Iraq vs. Viet Nam, the numbers speak for themselves.

You can shrug off the notion that taking the war to the ME keeps terrorists busy there instead of plotting attacks on U.S. soil, but the plan seems to have worked so far.

The administration screwed up by not listening to the generals before we went in as to how many troops we needed to make this a successful mission.  Why not let those trained in military leadership determine what is needed there and what constitutes a victory instead of Harry Reid.

[rwarn17588]

<Conan wrote:

Why not let those trained in military leadership determine what is needed there and what constitutes a victory instead of Harry Reid.

<end clip>

Patreaus (don't remember how to spell his name) pretty much is the only one who thought anything is remotely salvagable, and even he has toned down his optimism in recent weeks. The other generals won't take charge because the administration can't or won't commit to the number of troops to do the job, or the generals think it's a lost cause.

As far as saying that only peaceniks are comparing Iraq to Vietnam, that's not true. Look at this report, with video from CNN:

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/apr/23/a_soldier_in_iraq_says_war_cant_be_won_his_comrades_call_it_our_vietnam

[iplaw]

quote:Cut the crap, iplaw. The anecdotes are relevant because it makes clear that the "surge," or whatever you call it, isn't working. Just because you "say" they're not relevant doesn't make it so. Instead, you don't want to face up to the reality that the occupation is a failure. Instead, you want to stay the course on what's a failure and keep digging for a pony.

You couldn't be more wrong, surprise, surprise...What really counts is what the troops on the gound are saying first and foremost, secondly a solid statistical analysis of the situation but such a comprehensive evaluation will be difficult to obtain as the surge is in its infancy relatively speaking.

Yahoos like you were ready to call the surge a failure before boots hit the ground, and I can recycle your posts if you'd like to read your own words.

You're doing nothing more than using these stories and thereby the troops as political footballs.

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

<Conan wrote:

Why not let those trained in military leadership determine what is needed there and what constitutes a victory instead of Harry Reid.

<end clip>

Patreaus (don't remember how to spell his name) pretty much is the only one who thought anything is remotely salvagable, and even he has toned down his optimism in recent weeks. The other generals won't take charge because the administration can't or won't commit to the number of troops to do the job, or the generals think it's a lost cause.

As far as saying that only peaceniks are comparing Iraq to Vietnam, that's not true. Look at this report, with video from CNN:

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/apr/23/a_soldier_in_iraq_says_war_cant_be_won_his_comrades_call_it_our_vietnam

Lol...CNN you make me laugh.....

[iplaw]

Also, comparisons to Vietnam are absurd and uneducated, no matter who makes them.  I don't recall him giving any analysis as to why he thinks that it's true.  If you'd like to give us your argument as to why you think it's like Vietnam, go ahead, as I said before, we can have a discussion on the Iraq/Vietnam issue, but please start another thread.

More to the point, I could post 10 links to stories of soldiers that would disagree with this guy.  So what?  Does that prove anything?  Not damn thing.  It simply shows that soldiers, like everyone else, have opinions.  They are NOT machines that operate in the world of automata.

For every story you or swake post, someone else can post one that discredits it.  Where is that going to get us?  Nowhere.

This is exactly what CF was getting at.  These stories are just that, stories and opinion.  But to treat these as gospel truth just because the story or the soldier happens to agree with you is ignorant.

[rwarn17588]

I didn't treat it as gospel truth; it's just another anecdote to add to the discussion.

And, again, name-calling shows that you've lost the argument.

[Conan71]

RW, some liberal blogger's interpretation of the comments is hardly swaying me.  

One Sgt. and his unit out of how many troops?  Wonder if he's comparing it to Viet Nam because of a bunch of less-educated people on the matters of war and national security back home are spitting on what accomplishments they have made?  

Doubts if we can win it?  Let's hear that from a high ranking officer not an enlisted man.

What about these comments:

"In fairness, he does say that we are the "buffer" right now and that he fears a pullout may be disastrous. But he also adds that in the event of withdrawal...
The people that were against us, and they're the majority, they're gonna I believe ultimately win. And that's unfortunate"

And here's another diff.  Viet Nam never sent operatives to destroy American buildings and kill American people on our turf.  Extremist Muslims did.  Who are we fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan?  Extremist Muslims.

[iplaw]

Yep.  Booo hooo, I'm a big meanie-poopoo head...I get it already...

And did I call you a name?

Even if I did, if I was to tell you 2+2=4 and called you a moron for thinking 2+2=5, would I still be wrong?  Just think about it.

[rwarn17588]

That's not all:

Good friends of ours have a son who is seving in Iraq.  Fortunately, he is okay so far and will be coming home in a few months.  Through the miracle of modern communications he talks to his parents a couple of times a week.  Here is what his parents say their son and other soldiers think about the extension of tours of duty recently foisted upon them by the Bush Administration.

"No one knows why we are here, we're not doing any good."

"How can we win when the Iraqi people don't seem to care."

and my favorite,
"We are ready to lynch Republicans."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/83414/5303

[iplaw]

One last question.  It is now indisputable that Al-Qaeda elements from Afghanistan are working inside Iraq, as they have claimed responsibilty for the 9 death yesterday.

Those who say that we are abdicating our duty to go after those who perpetrated 9/11 also say that Iraq was a distraction from fighting Al-Qaeda.

Now that Al-Qaeda is clearly in Iraq, as it was immediately following the war in Afghanistan as Saddam accepted Taliban rejects with open arms, should we not be fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq?  Would we not be abdicating our duty to fight those who perpetrated 9/11 yet again by leaving Al-Qaeda uncontested in Iraq?

[rwarn17588]

From the "Daily Show"

   George W. Bush, January 2006: "There's progress. And it's important progress and it's an important part of our strategy to win in Iraq."

   Bush, November 2005: "Iraq is making incredible political progress."

   Bush, October 2005: "Iraqis are making inspiring progress."

   Bush, September 2005: "Iraq has made incredible political progress."

   Bush, April 2005: "I believe we're making good progress in Iraq."

   Bush, March 2005: "We're making progress."

   Bush, September 2004: "We're making steady progress."

   Bush, July 2003: "We're making progress. It's slowly but surely making progress."

   Actually, y'know what I think the president's problem is? Perhaps his definition of the word "progress." I have the reference book he uses when he doesn't know what a word means: Mistaken P. Wrongingston's Diktionary of English. Let's see...ah, here we are. "Progress: Chaos caused by one's own incompetence that's portrayed as the result of others' malfeasance."

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

That's not all:

Good friends of ours have a son who is seving in Iraq.  Fortunately, he is okay so far and will be coming home in a few months.  Through the miracle of modern communications he talks to his parents a couple of times a week.  Here is what his parents say their son and other soldiers think about the extension of tours of duty recently foisted upon them by the Bush Administration.

"No one knows why we are here, we're not doing any good."

"How can we win when the Iraqi people don't seem to care."

and my favorite,
"We are ready to lynch Republicans."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/83414/5303

OMG, you can't possibly be this DENSE.  How many more stories are you going to post dear Rwarn?

Also, I thought you didn't read the dailykos?

Oh boy, and the Daily Show too!!  You're too much!

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

I didn't treat it as gospel truth; it's just another anecdote to add to the discussion.

And, again, name-calling shows that you've lost the argument.

Your starting to sound like Alt...Any relation there....

[rwarn17588]

Answer to iplaw's question:

You can fight al-Qaida with quick-strike attacks, plus Iraqis in general don't like al-Qaida very much. Most of the violence in Iraq is sectarian, not terrorist.

Besides, starting a war that didn't have anything to do with 9/11 *helped* al-Qaida at a time when it was reeling.