TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Progess in Iraq
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Progess in Iraq

I am really surprised that nobody made a thread about the military progress in Iraq. The NY Times article yesterday as well as the Joint Chief today announcing the progress that the military has done.

Actually I am not really surprised by the media. John Roberts got more news time that these two events. I think liberals just want to lose this war.

Re: Progess in Iraq

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedan I am really surprised that nobody made a thread about the military progress in Iraq. The NY Times article yesterday as well as the Joint Chief today announcing the progress that the military has done. Actually I am not really surprised by the media. John Roberts got more news time that these two events. I think liberals just want to lose this war.

Well go ahead and post them then, instead of just whining.

What progress?

ny times article

Wow, this coming from the New York Times too. The war should haave never been undertaken, but with today's situation, I don't think we should leave just yet.

Re: Progess in Iraq

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedan I am really surprised that nobody made a thread about the military progress in Iraq. The NY Times article yesterday as well as the Joint Chief today announcing the progress that the military has done.

I'll get into the article in a minute. I want to address your snipe at "libruls" wanting to lose this war below:

quote:

Actually I am not really surprised by the media. John Roberts got more news time that these two events.

You're quite wrong about that, which I'll explain in a minute.

quote:

I think liberals just want to lose this war.

Because I just haven't clapped loud enough for you? I'm truly sorry I have not supported this fiasco as much as you would want me to. Gosh, I guess the broad majority of us (i.e. at least 2/3 of the country now) seem to think that it was both unbelievably stupid for us to be there and/or understand just how fucking horrible it was for our Administration to not have any viable post-war plan of any sort. Not one of the neocon predictions have come to fruition, but yet I get the distinct impression from you that for some odd reason, I should embrace this Fred Kagan American Enterprise Institute Think Tank idea of a "Surge" against the original advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and against the advice of the actual generals and leaders on the ground (which have been strangely replaced since then, funny that).

I'll tell you what, champ, if you tell me why YOUR GOP Administration and Congress continues to send military men and women who are either mentally unfit:

http://www.courant.com/news/special...0,6150281.story

or injured:

http://www.salon.com/news/2007/03/1...ning/index.html

and

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/...charge_070419w/

I mean, what's a little spinal fusion surgery and traumatic brain injury gonna hurt? What pussies! Gear up, bitches!

(let alone give them proper care once they come off the battlefield:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7021701172.html)

let alone the strain on our troops and the complete lack of proper downtime between tours:

quote:

�the strains placed on troops in Iraq are in some ways more severe than those borne by the combat forces of World War II. �A considerable number of Soldiers and Marines are conducting combat operations everyday of the week, 10-12 hours per day seven days a week for months on end,� wrote Col. Carl Castro and Maj. Dennis McGurk, both psychologists. �At no time in our military history have Soldiers or Marines been required to serve on the front line in any war for a period of 6-7 months.�� http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...ml?hpid=topnews

and extending the tours from 12 to 15 months:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...l?nav=rss_world

and

quote:

Members of the 1st Armored Division�s 1st Battalion, 6th Infantry, Company A, learned Tuesday that they are scheduled to head back to Iraq in November, just nine months after the 150-soldier company left the combat zone in February after a 13-month deployment. http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?...4&article=45750

then I'll tell you why us gosh darn libruls want to lose this war so badly.

If you can tell me why our Patriotic and Determined Administration has failed to properly equip and protect our troops during this whole debacle of a war, I'll tell you why us libruls want Saddam back and want him to build WMDs. Such determination by our Administration like this back in January:

quote:

The Inspector General found that the Pentagon hasn�t been able to properly equip the soldiers it already has. Many have gone without enough guns, ammunition, and other necessary supplies to �effectively complete their missions� and have had to cancel or postpone some assignments while waiting for the proper gear, according to the report from auditors with the Defense Dept. Inspector General�s office. Soldiers have also found themselves short on body armor, armored vehicles, and communications equipment, among other things, auditors found. �As a result, service members performed missions without the proper equipment, used informal procedures to obtain equipment and sustainment support, and canceled or postponed missions while waiting to receive equipment,� reads the executive summary dated Jan. 25. Service members often borrowed or traded with each other to get the needed supplies, according to the summary. http://www.businessweek.com/print/b...0130_624241.htm

That's the Pentagon's Inspector General, BTW.

Also in January:

quote:

�The thousands of troops that President Bush is expected to order to Iraq will join the fight largely without the protection of the latest armored vehicles that withstand bomb blasts far better than the Humvees in wide use, military officers said.� http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/na...-iraq-headlines

In February, that darn silly General Pace (who's now replaced, thank goodness!):

quote:

�U.S. Marine Gen. Peter Pace admitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday equipment will be a problem when U.S. forces in Iraq are increased. � Pace said the military has about 41,000 armored vehicles in Iraq � fewer than will be needed �to cover all of the troops that are deploying.� Pace said it will be July before enough equipment is in place.� http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_Ne...06-023207-5140r

And then we find out that our Patriotic and Troop Supporting Administration sat on a request to send blast-resistant MRAP armored vehicles to Iraq:

quote:

The Marine Corps waited over a year before acting on an "priority 1 urgent" request to send blast-resistant vehicles to Iraq, DANGER ROOM has learned. According to a Marine Corps document provided to DANGER ROOM, the request for over 1,000 Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles came in February, 2005. A formal call to fulfill that order did not emerge until November, 2006. "There is an immediate need for an MRAP vehicle capability to increase survivability and mobility of Marines operating in a hazardous fire area against known threats," the 2005 "universal need statement" notes. http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/...ary_dragge.html

Only just a year later did they feel a "priority 1 urgent" message to send these vehicles was needed. Doesn't that make you feel all rosy inside about this Administration that wants to "win" this war so badly?

But you see, it's not about the $, because we all know fully well that our $ is being spent wisely by our Administration and their no-bid contracts. Nope, definitely not about the $:

quote:

Brig. Gen. Robert Milstead, chief of Marine Corps public affairs, said cost was not a factor in choosing the Humvee. "This was not a budgetary decision," Milstead said Wednesday. "You can take that to the bank." The internal document, however, states that the cost of building new vehicles was a primary reason the request was denied by the Marine Corps Combat Development Command in Quantico, Va. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...EMPLATE=DEFAULT

And for God's sakes, please don't accuse our Marine Corps of lying about it either.

But like I said, thank Gawd for our Administration's accountability for the money being wisely spent in Iraq:

quote:

The Defense Department put U.S. troops in Iraq at risk by awarding contracts for badly needed armored vehicles to companies that failed to deliver them on schedule, according to a review by the Pentagon's inspector general. http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007.../ap3904443.html

Yes, sir. You can just continue to blindly trust our fearless leader since he and his Party are the True Patriots that Truly want to "win" this war, because us "libruls" are just not to be trusted.

So just keep clapping, sir. I'll let you do the clapping for me since my hands to clap for these neocon dreams are a bit tired now.

This post went longer than I anticipated, so I'll get to the NYTimes article in a following post.

Now about that article, we see you fully embrace the words of that darn librul media leader, the NYTimes which thanks be it to such fearless libruls like Judy Miller and Michael Gordon have successfully gotten us into this fucking fiasco, and continue with that trend still by Gordon and now various op-eds by these guys you link - O'Hanlon and Pollack from that Soros-like ultra-uber crazy Lefty institute like the Brookings Institute.

Before I begin ripping these "librul" boys from Brookings to shreds, just note a very common theme amongst all those aforementioned authors - they have quite a strange propensity to cite anonymous sources, which strangely all seem rather glowing of this Administration and/or come directly from this Administration.

But since we're talking about the fucking "librul" media like the NYTimes, I guess that's perfectly okay to do. Afterall, we wouldn't expect nor would I suggest that Administration officials would post glowing reviews of themselves and their policies to "libruls" like the NYTimes. To think of such a thing is just damnation!

But I think you need to allay your fears about how these librul "expert" commentators didn't get enough press time, especially versus Roberts' seizure. There was quite enough appearances both on the TV networks:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/30...hanlon-pollack/

Cable news channels:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/30...rical-bloggers/

And even radio programs:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/gr...a94031303c.html

To go around for everyone.

Plus you had your favorite war cheerleaders utilize their "librul" words as gospel, like John McCain:

quote:

I cannot guarantee success. But I do guarantee that, should Congress fail to sustain the effort, and should it pay no heed to the lessons drawn by Mr. Pollack and Mr. O�Hanlon, then America will face a historic and terrible defeat. Such a defeat, with its enormous human and strategic costs, will unfold unless we do all in our power to prevent it. I, for one, will continue to do just that. http://article.nationalreview.com/?...2EyMjQ1N2ZmMWQ=

And, of course, our fair-minded and true fearless leader, Dick Cheney:

quote:

Look at the piece that appeared yesterday in The New York Times � not exactly a friendly publication � but a piece by Mr. O�Hanlon and Mr. Pollack on the situation in Iraq. They�re just back from visiting over there. They both have been strong critics of the war, both worked in the prior administration; but now saying that they think there�s a possibility, indeed, that we could be successful. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20070731-2.html

And out of all those appearances on TV, only 1 - Hardball gave an opposing viewpoint with a debate against one of the authors, which you can watch here:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/...ust-might-lose/

Let alone the typical wingnut bloggers like Hugh Hewitt:

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/10...84-14ffcbdc5534

Powerline:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...7/07/018075.php

And Malkin:

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/...just-might-win/
So you can calm your fears that the world did not hear our librul cheerleaders of this war effort. Those vicious boys who "opposed the war" all along who are now saying how wonderful things are going are truly getting all the attention and more they and your fearless leader deserves.

But since we're on the subject of our librul anti-war writers who seemingly had such a change of heart as of late about things in Iraq, let's do what pretty much NO ONE IN THE FUCKING LIBRUL MEDIA DOES and take a little investigative trip down memory lane. Let's take a look at these harsh critics of Bush, those two authors that ID themselves as "as two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq," and play a game of "Who the fuck said that?!?", shall we?

So off we go. Who the fuck said this on Sept. 28th, 2003 fresh back from a trip in Iraq?:

quote:

LIANE HANSEN: Michael O'Hanlon is a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution. He just returned from a Pentagon-sponsored visit to Iraq and he's in the studio. Welcome back, Michael. What's it like in Iraq? MICHAEL O'HANLON: Well, it's obviously tough. It's a little better, however, than I thought for a couple of reasons. One is I think the counterinsurgency effort is going fairly well. Now obviously, you mention the number of attacks per day that continue; it's a real concern. We're still losing troops. Everyone's aware of that. The truck bombings in August were tragic. The assassination of the Governing Council member was tragic, but overall, the counterinsurgency mission seems to be going well in that we are taking out a lot more people than we're losing and I believe we're using force fairly selectively and carefully on balance. ... There is obviously violence. There was violence in some of the regions that we visited on the days we were there. But you're talking about specific, isolated acts just like you would get in an American city. I'm not trying to say that this is a country at peace, but overall, we really do run most of the country together with our Iraqi partners and the resistance forces are very small pockets who operate only at a given moment here or there. . . . HANSEN: The Defense Department this past week announced the mobilization of 10,000 soldiers from the Army National Guard. The Bush administration has been trying to get countries�actually, mainly trying to get countries to sign up for peacekeeping responsibilities. Is the contingent, do you think, of the 160,000 American and British troops in and around Iraq sufficient? O'HANLON: My impression is it's roughly sufficient. I would probably go a little higher. But the bigger problem is just sustaining that number is going to be very hard, and that's the reason we have to call up more National Guardsmen. ...HANSEN: Final question. Your visit was sponsored by the Defense Department. Are you concerned that you perhaps were given a rather narrow view of the country by your hosts? O'HANLON: There's no doubt. But we only had a couple days there. We talked primarily to American officials. However, we could be quite prying and we could really push them. And I think overall, nonetheless, I was reassured. We didn't meet a lot of Iraqis who could tell us how things were going, but on balance, I think we had some access. http://www.brook.edu/views/intervie...on/20030928.htm

I know, the name kinda gives it away. Sorry.

Who the fuck said this in September of 2003 also?:

quote:

How can we really determine if the Iraq mission is going well? . . . To convince a skeptical public about progress in Iraq, the Bush administration would do well to provide more systematic information on all of these and other measurable metrics routinely -- even when certain trends do not support the story it wants to sell. The administration should want to do this, because on balance the Iraq mission is going fairly well . . . But most indicators are now favorable in Iraq . . . . As for Baathist remnants of Saddam's regime, they are diminishing with time as coalition forces detain and arrest them. For example, in the region north of Baghdad now run by General Ray Odierno's 4th infantry division, some 600 fighters have been killed and 2,500 arrested over recent months.. . . . Around Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, and other parts of the northern "Sunni triangle," for example, former regime loyalists have been sufficiently weakened that they need reinforcements from other parts of Iraq to continue many of their efforts. Most Baathists from the famous "deck of cards" are now off the street; many second tier loyalists of the former regime are also being arrested or killed on a daily basis. . . . In these counterinsurgency operations, American troops are following much better practices than they did in Vietnam . . . . Coalition forces and other parties were slow at times to anticipate such tactics, resulting in excessive vulnerability to the kinds of truck bombings witnessed in August and the kinds of assassination attempts that just took the life of a member of the Governing Council, Akila al-Hashimi. But these mistakes are being corrected, and future such attacks are unlikely to be as devastating. http://www.brook.edu/views/intervie...on/20030928.htm

Pretty harsh critical words of our strategery in Iraq, ain't it?

Who the fuck said this in October of 2003 to the House Armed Services Committee?:

quote:

In my judgment the administration is basically correct that the overall effort in Iraq is succeeding. By the standards of counterinsurgency warfare, most factors, though admittedly not all, appear to be working to our advantage. While one would be mistaken to assume rapid or easy victory, Mr. Rumsfeld's leaked memo last week probably had it about right when he described the war as a "long, hard slog" that we are nonetheless quite likely to win. . . . That said, on the prognosis of Iraq's future, the Bush administration is at least partly and perhaps even mostly right. Negative headlines need to be quickly countered with good news, of which there is an abundance. . . Most of Iraq is now generally stable . . . . [T]he state of affairs in Iraq and recent trends in that country do not look so disconcerting. Things are getting gradually better even as we progress towards an exit strategy that could further diffuse extremist sentiment. http://www.brook.edu/views/testimon...on/20031029.pdf

Who the fuck published this piece in April of 2003 in the Brooking Daily War Report entitled, "Was the Strategy Brilliant?":

quote:

Three weeks into the war, with the conflict's outcome increasingly clear, it is a good time to ask if General Myers was right. Will war colleges around the world be teaching the basic coalition strategy to their students decades from now, or will the conflict be seen as a case in which overwhelming military capability prevailed over a mediocre army from a mid-sized developing country? On balance, this victory will be primarily due to the men and women and technology of today's U.S. and U.K. armed forces. Our military is so good that it probably could win this war even with a poor strategy�though many more people on all sides might die in such a hypothetical case. That said, there have been major elements of military creativity in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Whether the overall concept deserves to be called brilliant is debatable. But it does appear to have been clever in several specific ways, most notably in the special operations campaign of the war's early days and in the recent battles for Basra, Baghdad, and other cities. . . . None of this is to claim that the war is over just yet. And of course, victory is coming at a significant human cost; largely for that reason, the broader strategic benefits of this war may be less clear-cut than the battlefield successes. But military historians are already getting ready to put pen to paper, especially to discuss the role of coalition special forces as well as the coalition's urban-warfare techniques. On balance, Secretary Rumsfeld's description of the overall war plan may be more judicious than General Myers. But it has indeed been a very good plan. http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20030409.htm

Who the fuck said this in the Baltimore Sun about Cheney being able to mock those ex-general war critics because Cheney was just so gosh darn vindicated?:

quote:

Much of the controversy centered on whether the Army was perhaps a division or division and a half short of the force that it should have had. In my judgment, it was a bit short -- but the problem never threatened the basic integrity of the war plan. As such, former military officers such as retired Gen. Barry M. McCaffrey may have overstated their points when criticizing the war plan. At times they sounded as if they thought the sky was falling. . . . Vice President Dick Cheney had a nice rebuttal to the retired officers when he understandably, and humorously, took a moment to gloat shortly after Baghdad fell. Teasing the pundits "embedded in TV studios," he took his fair shot at them during a speech to newspaper editors and then moved on. That would have been the right thing for Mr. Rumsfeld and General Myers to do, too. http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20030430.htm

Who the fuck said this in Japan Times in June of '03?:

quote:

Tip your cap, at least halfway, to Rumsfeld; despite his initial ideological blinders on the subject, he is keeping the postwar U.S. presence strong enough to get the job done as it becomes clear that the job will be hard. http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20021231.htm

We can even back up even further and wonder who the fuck said this in December 2002, seemingly beating the war drum just as loud as any proud neocon in the Washington Times op-ed:

quote:

While the President decides whether to march to Baghdad, Saddam Hussein may be poised to bring the battle to American cities via terrorism. Yet Washington's focus on creating a new Department of Homeland Security has left America's cities not much better protected than they were sixteen months ago. http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20021231.htm Who the fuck continued to beat that war drum in February of '02, still in the Moonie Times?: [QUOTE]Yet, the president was still convincing on his central point that the time for war is near. Even those of us who have questioned the case for war over the last year, and who do not buy all of the Bush administration's arguments for invasion even today, need to face the fact that there soon will be no other plausible option. Since his U.N. speech of Sept. 12, 2002, Mr. Bush has adopted a firm but patient Iraq policy. Overruling hardliners in his administration who favored war without further inspections or U.N. debate, Mr. Bush also elected to use multilateral channels to insist that Saddam disarm or be disarmed. Alas, Saddam is not eliminating his banned weapons of mass destruction voluntarily, and hence we soon will need to lead a military coalition to do the job ourselves. The case is that simple. In taking this basic approach, Mr. Bush heeded the counsel of multilateralists, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, the elder President Bush, Brent Scowcroft, James Baker, Tony Blair and many Democrats. It is now time for multilateralists to support the president. http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20030205.htm

Who the fuck said this in February of 2004:

quote:

"Coalition and Iraqi security forces will ultimately defeat the rejectionist remnants of the Ba'ath Party, as well as foreign terrorists who have entered the country. These dead-enders are few in number and have little ability to inspire a broader following among the Iraqi people." http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20040217.htm

Who the fuck said this in March of 2004:

quote:

That said, there is plenty of reason for hope, and much going right today in Iraq as well. . . . Central Command now estimates the number of hardened insurgents at 3,000 to 5,000. It has also suggested coalition forces are killing or arresting more than 50 insurgents a day, a total up considerably since Mr. Hussein's capture in December. (Indeed, only 10 individuals from the original 55 on the famous "deck of cards" remain at large). At that pace, one might think the war should be won by summer. . . .Overall, the glass in Iraq is probably about three-fifths full. Considering the growing strength of Iraqi security services and the fact that $18 billion in American money (as well as a few billion more from other foreign donors) is beginning to flow into Iraq, it is likely to get somewhat fuller soon. http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20040217.htm

Who the fuck said this in May of 2004:

quote:

While the overall situation is disconcerting, there is still hope -- especially if the standard for success is defined realistically as an absence of civil war, a gradually improving economy, and slowly declining rates of political and criminal violence. The scheduled transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi caretaker government on June 30 may at least begin to defuse the growing anti-American anger that is helping fuel the insurgency. And most American assistance, tied up in bureaucratic red tape until now, should begin to jump-start Iraq's economy in the coming months, with a likely beneficial effect on security as well. http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20040516.htm

And strangely, oh so strangely, all these views by the "librul" editors in the NYTimes from the uber Lefty Brookings institution seemingly contradict their own institution's "index" for measuring success in Iraq:

http://www3.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

Strange how such librul commentators in the librul NYTimes seemingly contradict their own librul Think Tank's assessments of measuring success.

But hey, these librul anti-war critics sure hold some serious credibility because, well, they're both so gosh darn anti-war and anti-Bush, aren't they?

(ripped almost entirely from Glenn Greenwald:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenw...ings/index.html)


Added in Edit: More on how this librul commentary seemingly contradicts the index by their own institution in detail here:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/30/ohanlons-research/

Oh so strange how that happens......

Now wait a second, how could a "librul" writer from the uber-librul Brookings Institution write an article in the Soros-loving uber-Lefty NYTimes somehow manage to have his name on a letter from, of all places, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) in March of 2003?:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20030328.htm

Or how about his name somehow ending up with AEI's leader and Surge architect, Fred Kagan?:

http://www3.brookings.edu/views/art...april_kagan.pdf

Or an uber-librul like O'Hanlon writing for the uber-Wingnut WSJ op-ed pages in February of '07 telling us how wrong us libruls and Democrats were for not supporting Kagan's "Surge" plan:

http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20070301.htm

Or this fierce, fierce, uber-lefty anti-Bush, anti-war critic write an op-ed in the War Friendly Op-Ed pages of the WaPost titled, "A Skeptic's Case for the Surge" back in January:

http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20070114.htm

And wait a second here - how the fuck did O'Hanlon and Pollack, those two anti-war, anti-Bush uber-lefty supporters somehow get mixed up with Fred Kagan (Surge architect) again?:

quote:

On December 21, 2006 the [Brooking Institution's] Saban Center for Middle East Policy hosted a policy discussion during which Frederick Kagan presented the views of the AEI team. . . . [A] group led by Frederick Kagan, under the auspices of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), has recently released a study proposing a new approach for stabilizing Iraq, entitled Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq. The report proposes shifting the focus of the U.S. military deployed in Iraq from training the Iraqi armed forces to securing the Iraqi population and containing the escalating violence. To achieve this, Kagan and his colleagues propose increasing U.S. combat forces in Iraq by roughly 30,000 effectives. .....Following Kagan's presentation, Michael O'Hanlon provided commentary. O'Hanlon supported the overall strategy elaborated by the AEI team. http://www.brook.edu/fp/saban/events/20061221.htm

How could these fierce anti-war, anti-Bush supporters invite a pro-war, pro-Bush, Surge architect to speak for them and their cause?

It's truly mind-numbing and shocking. Must have been a severe case of amnesia by our darn librul media not to pick these past events up by these guys.

Oh, BTW, you might want to enjoy a bit more realistic view of what's occurring in Iraq:



It's what we've been saying all along - playing both sides of the field may yield short-term gains, but long-term ideals are fucking ridiculous to think of when we're arming and supporting the very same people who've targeted and killed us over the past 4 1/2 years.

But if you just clap louder, it will all be fine.

ZOMGPwnt!

holy crap thats a lot of spin Opus.

we know you don't care enough about the effort to see any side whether they be conservatives who have supported it all along or liberals who have been there extensively and criticized it all along and now see true change in the effort and it's goals, we know this.

do you believe there is progress or not? whether you believe in the effort or not. simple objectivity, thats all thats being asked.

is it too painfull for your objectivity given all you have invested in this efforts failure?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo holy crap thats a lot of spin Opus.

Sorry. Just can't help it when those durn "librul" anti-war folks like those printed in the NYTimes seemingly have a bit of a credential problem.

quote:

so do you believe there is progress or not?

How are we measuring it? Those quantitative measures need to be defined first. In sweeping generalization terms - no I don't think there's progress when we are arming the folks who have no qualms about attacking us once we turn around, or dividing up an area by factions and then claim "success" as we turn around and they start fighting again with even more blood spilled.

Nor do I think that 2 million people fleeing Iraq already with 50,000 more every month hauling ass out can somehow be depicted as progress. Again I would direct you to Michael Ware's report as well as the Hardball debate I posted that gives a bit of the underlyings of this "success" so far.

And this isn't that terribly good news either:

quote:

Three bomb attacks in Baghdad today killed more than 65 people, as sectarian and militant violence continued to rage in Iraq. ... a fuel tanker truck packed with explosives rammed a line of waiting cars at a filling station in Mansour. The resulting explosion sent a sheet of flames and black smoke 50 feet in the air, and could be heard miles away. At least 50 people were killed and 60 more were wounded in the attack, news agencies reported. ... One of the bombs detonated in Baghdad today was in a car outside a popular ice cream shop in the central district of Karrada. The explosion killed at least 15 people and injured more than 35. Another attack in the neighborhood last week killed 60 ... a suicide car bombing Wednesday in Karada, a Shiite section of Baghdad, killed at least 17 people, police said. ... In the southern Baghdad district of Doura, a parked-car bomb killed three people and wounded five, Reuters reported, citing the police. ... On Tuesday in Salahaddin Province, 18 men from Balad were abducted by gunmen, who had established fake checkpoints, the police said today. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/w...baghdadcnd.html

Nor is this (from same article):

quote:

The Shiite-led government that is trying to cope with the violence, meanwhile, suffered a political setback today, when the largest Sunni Arab political bloc in the parliament followed through on a threat to walk out of the coalition cabinet that is trying to unify the country.

Coupled with al-Sadr's members already leaving their cabinet positions and his endless threats of withdrawing entirely from the coalition government. Not to mention the strain relationship between Petraeus and al-Maliki, where al-Maliki is wanting him out:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/new...smaliki_070727/

So not only do I question the "progress" given, but I also question why little to nothing has been said about the major issues with the Iraqi government, which decided now would be a good time for a vacation as well.

Didnt want to interfere, and dont want to take sides or criticize anyone here, but I gotta say that MisterOpus1 really nailed his case on this one ;-) thats a lot of links, lot of information. I'll spend a good hour reading all that.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Didnt want to interfere, and dont want to take sides or criticize anyone here, but I gotta say that MisterOpus1 really nailed his case on this one ;-) thats a lot of links, lot of information. I'll spend a good hour reading all that.

you can tell he prepared for this one. he had to, he has a lot to lose.

really though, it's just spin.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo we know you don't care enough about the effort to see any side whether they be conservatives who have supported it all along or liberals who have been there extensively and criticized it all along and now see true change in the effort and it's goals, we know this.

So tell me, sir, given these two "librul" authors' own words that I have extensively quoted that directly undermines their anti-war, anti-Bush credentials, how exactly am I supposed to interpret their drastic change of heart by oh-so-suddenly cheerleading the Surge effort now?

Perhaps with a healthy sense of incredulity, given their actual true pro-neocon, pro-war positions even before this war was underway? Or is that just too darn anti-Bush of me?

quote:

do you believe there is progress or not? whether you believe in the effort or not. simple objectivity, thats all thats being asked.

I think I've objectively examined the situation as best as possible. One might conclude that it's not folks like myself who've had difficulties examining this debacle with objectivity, but perhaps the unquestionable war supporters who've rarely ever questioned the complete ineptitude and lack of foresight of this Administration with it's invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 or al Qaeda and absolutely no viable post-war plan.

But then again, I guess the ones that would conclude such heresy are us crazy (albeit majority of Americans and majority of the world) uber-lefties.

quote:

is it too painfull for your objectivity given all you have invested in this efforts failure?

What efforts have I truly invested, sir? Could you perhaps just once in your life pin the blame on the failures of this war not on the press, not on the libruls, not on everyone else surrounding the jack-ass and crew in office, and instead pin the fucking tail on the jack-ass himself?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo you can tell he prepared for this one. he had to, he has a lot to lose.

Q, we all have a lot to lose - this is EXACTLY why this war was a mistake from the getgo. I'm sorry that the actual reality of the situation in Iraq is unpleasant. There's simply not enough purple fingers and boots on the ground that can sustain this neocon fantasy much longer.

But I've given up on the dreams and ideological world police-state and endless war mantra of the neocons long ago. Their heads are somewhere lost between their collective asscracks, and I simply cannot support anymore of their dreams without understanding reality by any measure.

Sorry.

quote:

really though, it's just spin.

Seems to be a reoccurring thought from you every time I post something with evidence to support. So are you denying that these two so-called "librul" authors are not as anti-war and anti-Bush as I have demonstrated BY THEIR OWN WORDS? If so, please present your evidence now.

Cover your eyes, folks. You mustn't see more "spin" from me:

quote:

The main Sunni Arab political bloc quit the Iraqi cabinet on Wednesday, plunging the government into crisis on a day when suicide bombers killed more than 70 people with massive strikes in the capital. The Sunni Accordance Front said its five cabinet members and Deputy Prime Minister Salam al-Zobaie would resign from Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government. "This is probably the most serious political crisis we have faced since the passage of the constitution. If unresolved the implications are grave," the remaining deputy prime minister, Barhim Salih, a Kurd, told Reuters. Maliki spoke to U.S. President George W. Bush by video link and reassured him "dialogue with our brothers in the Accordance Front will not stop" despite the boycott, Maliki's office said. White House spokesman Tony Snow said after the call: "The president emphasized that the Iraqi people and the American people need to see action, not just words ... on the political front," Snow told reporters in Washington. The Iraqi government said 1,653 civilians were killed in July, a third more than the previous month, despite a fall in the number of deaths among U.S. troops [...] Those standing down include the ministers of culture, women, planning, and higher education, and the junior foreign affairs minister. Their withdrawal may have little practical effect on a government already paralyzed by infighting. The Shi'ite bloc of radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr withdrew in April. But the withdrawal was a blow to reconciliation efforts: luring the large Sunni bloc into government had been hailed as a major achievement when Maliki took power last year. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070801...X_z8ugIdk8E1vAI

So much progress to go around.......

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Didnt want to interfere, and dont want to take sides or criticize anyone here, but I gotta say that MisterOpus1 really nailed his case on this one ;-) thats a lot of links, lot of information. I'll spend a good hour reading all that.

For the record, Opus always utterly destroys all the Republicans and Neocons on this board on a fairly regular basis, so this is nothing new to me.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z For the record, Opus always utterly destroys all the Republicans and Neocons on this board on a fairly regular basis, so this is nothing new to me.

Neocons? There are no neocons here. Opus always does his homework. I wish I had all time to come back with all that information. Believe me, even if I came here with articles, its hard to persuade a TA crowd. Just wanted to share the article. :]

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedan Neocons? There are no neocons here. Opus always does his homework. I wish I had all time to come back with all that information. Believe me, even if I came here with articles, its hard to persuade a TA crowd. Just wanted to share the article. :]

It isn't hard to persuade my friend, those holding opposite views to Opus' just never come around with hard data. It's hard to believe in a rebuttal when it's mostly based in ad hominems and opinion.

Re: Progess in Iraq

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedan I am really surprised that nobody made a thread about the military progress in Iraq.

Go back a page- here

Two older articles I just came across today when I got a little curious as to the stance on this "surge" idea. I'm sure there's others that are a bit more to the point about the philosophy on the "surge", but this following article was one I ran across not too long ago and wanted to track down. It exemplifies my point I was making earlier about the dire political problems in Iraq and how that can directly undermine the whole "surge" operation completely. This was from back in April:

quote:

The Pentagon is laying the groundwork to extend the U.S. troop buildup in Iraq. At the same time, the administration is warning Iraqi leaders that the boost in forces could be reversed if political reconciliation is not evident by summer. This approach underscores the central difficulty facing President Bush. If political progress is not possible in the relatively short term, then the justification for sending thousands more U.S. troops to Baghdad � and accepting the rising U.S. combat death toll that has resulted � will disappear. That in turn would put even more pressure on Bush to yield to the Democratic-led push to wind down the war in coming months. If the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki does manage to achieve the political milestones demanded by Washington, then the U.S. military probably will be told to sustain the troop buildup much longer than originally foreseen � possibly well into 2008. Thus the early planning for keeping it up beyond late summer. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11233385/

Unfortunately in today's NYTimes article, Defense Secretary Robert Gates (whom I actually met when I was kid - aren't 'cha just jealous?) has quite a knack for understatement:

quote:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said today that he was discouraged by the departure of the major Sunni Arab bloc from Iraq�s coalition government, and noted that the Bush administration may have misjudged the difficulty of achieving reconciliation among Iraq�s sectarian factions. In one of his bluntest assessments of the progress of the administration�s Iraq strategy, Mr. Gates said: "I think the developments on political side are somewhat discouraging at the national level. And clearly the withdrawal of the Sunnis from the government is discouraging. My hope is that it can all be patched back together." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/w...&hp&oref=slogin

Can't say I blame him for showing a bit of reservation over this clear "oh shit" moment. But this is the whole problem with the "surge" philosophy - it can't last on its own merits alone. The whole point of the surge was to calm shit down in areas SO THE POLITICAL PROCESS CAN SUCCESSFULLY UNFOLD AND HOPEFULLY START MEETING ITS BENCHMARKS, period. Quelling violence here and there is all well and good, but that is not the means to the end of why we increased forces by any wild stretch of the imagination. More, much much more had to take place consecutively.

And what are we seeing instead? - Political mayhem. No benchmarks of any sort being met. Fucking vacation time by the Iraqi government.

What the fuck?

The second article ties in to the first article I quoted. Again from the last paragraph above:

quote:

If the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki does manage to achieve the political milestones demanded by Washington, then the U.S. military probably will be told to sustain the troop buildup much longer than originally foreseen � possibly well into 2008.

That's worst case scenario supposedly, if things aren't going right politically - we could be sitting ducks "well into 2008." I know most of you have read that Bush/Cheney have indicated this surge lasting as long as it takes or something along those lines. But putting aside the political pressure and public outcry of being there too long for a moment, understand that we simply cannot sustain the numbers for the surge even with our newly extended 15 month tours. So how long can we sustain these numbers just on the tour length alone?:

quote:

By extending troop deployments in Iraq from 12 months to 15 months, the Army has made it possible for Bush to maintain the troop buildup until about April 2008. But if he wanted to go beyond that it would require some even more painful moves by the Army, at the risk of reaching a breaking point. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/...raqreport_N.htm

One might argue that given the number of mental and physical health issues mentioned previously, we're way past the breaking point with our military. But my point is with the current numbers and the likelihood that Bush will not push this military any further, we can only go to April of next year.

I would say that for those remaining 1/4-1/3 Iraqi war supporters out there, this is a terrific opportunity for you to put your money where your mouth is and go enlist. I cannot fathom how anyone who supports this cause of endless battles in the Middle East should not rise to this moment of April 2008 and fully support your war and your president. I know there are a few here like Q5 who are already serving their country, and for those select few war supporters like Q. I applaud and give respects to you for doing so.

As for the rest, I see no reason why you should back down now. There's more to fighting this war than just your keyboard, just your vote, and just your good strong supporting voice. Join the fight you truly believe in now!:

(in reference to the video above posted by Opus)

Holy shit! What a bunch of brainwashed retarded chickenhawk turds!

LOL, I loved his bumper sticker btw.

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedan I wish I had all time to come back with all that information. Believe me, even if I came here with articles, its hard to persuade a TA crowd. Just wanted to share the article. :]

quote:

I think liberals just want to lose this war.

And no doubt share with us some of your more retarded sentiments. Way to adopt a "winning" strategy espoused by "liberals" since 2004. Of course now it's not so winning anymore because you've endorsed incompetance for so long that we've "turned another corner". Seriously, do you really think you have anything to be proud of? Here's a homework assignment, why don't you describe the political situation in Iraq given recent events? What's the trend in Iraqi civilian deaths the past couple months?

There are now no longer any Sunnis in Nouri al-Maliki's cabinet. This progress is phenominal.

quote:

Iraqi Crisis Deepens as 5 More Ministers Quit Cabinet Meetings U.S. Announces Deaths of Nine Soldiers, Four Killed on Monday in Diyala Province By Sudarsan Raghavan Washington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, August 7, 2007; 6:20 AM BAGHDAD, Aug. 7 -- Iraq's political crisis deepened Monday as five more ministers withdrew from cabinet meetings, delivering a major blow to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's fractured unity government and efforts to reconcile Iraq's warring parties. Hours earlier, a truck bomb in a Shiite village near the northern city of Tall Afar killed 31 people and wounded scores more, striking an area that was once hailed by President Bush and U.S. military commanders as an oasis of stability, following U.S. operations against insurgents there. Six children were among the dead, police said. The U.S. military also announced the deaths of nine American soldiers, including four killed in an explosion Monday in volatile Diyala province, where U.S. forces are engaged in a major offensive against Sunni insurgents. The blast injured 12 other U.S. soldiers, the military said in a statement. One soldier was killed by a sophisticated roadside bomb in west Baghdad on Monday, and another was killed during combat in eastern Baghdad on Sunday, the military said. Three soldiers were killed Saturday when a roadside bomb struck their convoy south of Baghdad, the military announced Tuesday. The names of the slain soldiers were not released. Meanwhile, U.S. and Iranian diplomats met in Baghdad to launch a new security committee in an attempt to bring stability to Iraq. The committee is a product of face-to-face talks the two sides have had in recent months, following nearly 30 years of diplomatic freeze. "It is an established channel of communication, and we will see in the future as to whether or not it is a useful channel of communication," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters in Washington. The latest boycott by the five ministers, a mix of Sunnis and Shiites loyal to former Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi, followed last week's decision by the top Sunni political bloc to pull its six ministers from the cabinet. Monday's action left the government, at least for the time being, without any politicians from Sunni factions in the Shiite-dominated cabinet. Legislators loyal to Allawi said the ministers would continue to run their ministries but not attend any cabinet meetings. They cited as reasons for their action a lack of progress on issues such as the status of Iraqi detainees, the repatriation of displaced Iraqis and the return of former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party to government jobs. "This act is not an escalation, but it is an objection to what the government is doing," Alia Nusaiyef Jasim, a legislator in Allawi's secular Shiite al-Iraqiyah bloc, told the al-Jazeera television network. "The Iraqiyah bloc participated in the government on the basis of sharing in the decision-making, but the bloc is marginalized in the government" In Qabak, 15 miles north of Tall Afar, police officials said the suicide bomber drove an explosives-laden truck carrying ice blocks into the village center and detonated it near a crowd that included women and children. The small village, which has no police station or military barracks, was targeted because of its vulnerability, said Brig Gen. Najim Abdullah, Tall Afar's mayor. "The perpetrator of this act was aiming at raising the sectarian tension among the citizens since Tall Afar is known for its sectarian and ethnic diversity," said Abdullah. "There isn't a single house in the village which does not have someone killed or wounded in the bombing, because it took place in the center of the village," said Salih al-Qaddo, director of Tall Afar's main hospital. Hours later, another suicide truck bomb targeted an Iraqi army patrol in the northern city of Mosul, wounding 12 soldiers, Maj. Khursheed Ahmad said. South of Baghdad, a roadside bomb exploded in a bus station, killing 8 people and wounding 10, police said. In Baqubah, about 35 miles northeast of Baghdad, Iraqi security forces found 60 unidentified bodies in a mass grave. Most had been shot and handcuffed, and they showed signs of torture, police said. In Baghdad, police found ten corpses Monday. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...ml?hpid=topnews

Oh, Shiite .... well, then, so much for progress in Iraq then.

You know, this whole war in Iraq reminds of me of the one in Vietnam, except with no jungles. Back then, as well, the goal was not to destroy the enemy, but to maintain the conflict, and the same is seen here.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.