Troop Surge

Just when you think this war couldn't get any worse it just has. Bush will most likely announce a troop SURGE next week. I got to tell ya that this man takes stupidity to a whole new level. His stupid damn lies get us in this mess and now he wants to send even more Americans to die for his stupid vision of a peaceful middle east. They haven't been peaceful for centuries yet this jackass thinks he can solve this. Now this happens with the surge. Doesn't he get it we won't win in Iraq and we certainly won't win this war with this idiot in office. This guy has told lie after lie about this war.

Lie #1-Saddam had WMD's. FALSE

Lie #2-Saddam had connections with Osama. FALSE

Lie #3(and my personal favorite)-we would be greeted as liberators- FALSE.

This troop surge won't a damn bit of good. We haven't succeded and we won't succeed especially when our own politicians have no clue as to who they are fighting.

 

"He lied to get us there now his pride is keeping us there" was a line that Olbermann said last night on his show.

 

How do you know?

How do you know? When did he say that? There WAS a senior Al Quaeda op being given refuge there. there WAS some terror training goign on.. not just in the border area, either.

How do you know? In fact, we were... except by the Baathists, of course.

There's where you have got some truth.... IU dont believe adding 30,000 will make much difference at this point.

Where the planning was screwed was in Bremer's handling of the after-war situation... we saw {those of us who were actually READING all sides of the situation} that almost every one of the community leaders wanted the coalition forces to mediate and oversee disputes once the pressure was off... but units were moved hither and yon... leaving power vacuums.

What SHOULD have happened was every Guard civil support unit available moved in for a six month period.

Other screw-ups:
Firing all the Saddam Civil service people.. or being too slow to bring them back.

Not vetting senior republican guard officers then bringing in the junior officer and enlisted corps for security work.

Keep drinking that kool aid.

 

Did we find any WMD's? The answer would be no. Also it was reported that Saddam feared Al Qaeda. There wasn't any serious terrorist activity going on in Iraq. The terrorist activity is in Iran, but we choose Iraq because it would bring us Oil. Iran is the danger and Iraq wasn't even a danger to their neighbors let alone the USA. Should we invade every country that has a dictator? There is only terrorists inside Iraq now because of Iran and the fact that we went into Iraq.

We have over 3,000 American soldiers dead which isn't what I would call "we would be greeted as liberators".

 

RE: Re: Troop Surge

I just disproved that WMD crap, your rebuttal is "we didnt find any" which is not true
Of course YOU dont know that BECAUSE YOUR sources find it inconvenient to say so

... as I can disprove the OIL part {because it doesnt make sense}

But you just KEEP on drinking that kool-Aid... it makes you feel better, after all.

 

So what WMDS did we find? Mustard gas? They have had that shite for years. This war was unjust and Bush is to blame. Also why did Halliburton get the big contracts in Iraq? Quit watching Fox News then maybe you will open your eyes to one of the worst Presidents the country has ever seen.

 

I have a problem with the troop surge for many reasons, but what is even more ridiculous in Bush's plan is the fact that he is banking on Al-Maliki and his people to actually disarm and take down Al-Sadr's Mahdi Army.

Since Al-Maliki and Al-Sadr are relatively close and since Al-Maliki has shown no evidence in the past six months of fighting the Mahdi army, I see no reason why we can could on him or any Iraqis to live up to the things Bush was preaching last night.

In essence, Bush banking the Iraqis to come good and step up to the plate is wrong. This is definitely not a winning strategy by Bush. It seems like a holding position or better yet, a losing one as more innocent Iraqis and coalition troops will die. That does not sound good to me.

Then again, I am in the 85% of the country that thinks a troop surge is wrong.

 

How do you know? In fact, we were... except by the Baathists, of course.

 

Good to know Tom has some knowledge on the subject! Kudo's!

Now if I can, momentarily, ignore Spencer's point while he has that rasperry stain on his lips... let me make a point here, using the Mainstream media to make it:

In the International Herald Tribune:

Headline: Iraq wants no part of more U.S. soldiers

uh-oh... doesnt look good... let's read the

Lede: BAGHDAD: As President George W. Bush challenges public opinion at home by committing more soldiers to Iraq, he is confronted by an essential paradox: An Iraqi government that does not really want them.

Well, no sense reading any further... that's all we need to know. Ah...but let's say 'We're bored" and the sports and entertainment sections are missing.

2nd para: The Shiite-led government here has not opposed more troops. Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki said as much in a videoconference with Bush on Saturday.
but...but... you JUST said....

But the government is skeptical of American intentions and is determined to push back the reach of Washington's authority to run the war the way it wants.

OH.... so THAT'S it. Dubya was giving Maliliki his marching orders!

Haidar al-Abadi, a member of Parliament who is a close associate of Maliki's, said: "The government believes there is no need for extra troops from the American side. The existing troops can do the job."

That opinion is broadly held throughout the ranks of the Shiite political elite, which after two years in power is stretching its wings and trying to stamp its authority on a chaotic capital. A long-oppressed majority, they are acting out of a deep-seated fear that power could be taken away at any moment.

? Does that mean by letting Al Sadr do their dirty work?

"You can't solve the problem by adding more troops," said Redha Jawad Tahi, a Shiite member of Parliament. "The security should be in the hands of the Iraqis. The U.S. should be in a supporting role."

Uh, no you cant... Yes it should...Isnt that what dubya said? Isnt that what we BEEN trying to do? I'm confused!
{Not really.. there's NO way some snot nose reporter can lay that spin on me .. might work on you guys though }

The central issue in the new plan is operation control. Iraqis insist that they be given full control of all operations within Baghdad, a control that U.S. commanders — concerned that Iraqi forces will serve as a tool on one side of a civil war — have been reluctant to hand over.

"Iraqi commanders will be in charge of all operations," Abadi said.

Now THAT sounds reasonable to me.... but Iraqi commanders ARE in full control in three other provinces. Wonder what the difference is... except for Sadr City.

Now, here is how the other side... meaning ME.. reads the news to find out what is REALLY going on.
You have to read to the bottom.
And we're near the bottom.. and HERE is the REAL news nugget... but how many of you would read this far?

Some of Iraq's most prominent Shiite leaders traveled to the southern city of Najaf on Wednesday to get a blessing for the plan from Iraq's highest Shiite cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
What plan, you say? Why would a Government plan need the Ayatollah's blessing?

"We are working on a major operation to clear the places the terrorists hang around, as you witnessed what happened in Haifa Street," said Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the national security adviser, who attended the Najaf meeting.

Rubaie was referring to an offensive in recent days by American and Iraqi Army troops against Sunni Arab militants in central Baghdad.

The Iraqi government wants the American military to help in areas of strong Sunni resistance but wants to handle Shiite stronghold areas itself.

Yes! NOW we see why Sistani would have to bless it! And guess what... IF Maliki DOES that, that is all anyone could want!

Of course, Sh%t-spin icing doesnt work unless everything is covered... so we give one last parting shot!

The Iraqi authorities, meanwhile, reported that 60 bodies were found in Baghdad on Wednesday.

In other violence, unidentified men opened fire on two buses of pilgrims returning to the Shiite city of Karbala from Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, killing 8 people and wounding 14, Reuters reported, citing police officials. Iraqiya state television said the attack killed 12 and wounded 18.


No more troops around that area needed, either.

Read for yourself

 

Ok petty thanks for the long winded post it was highly entertaining and informing. You think the media is biased. I'm shocked! Its not easy to defend this war and the media is as good a scape goat as you've got. Thats the impression I get anyway.

Its common knowledge around the whole world that the US hasn't found any WMD's in Iraq. You have said this isn't the case. Care to explain your position? Tell us what WMD's we've found, where we found them, when we found them. Since all the mainstream media in the world isn't going to tell me you might as well.

 

Let me line it out for you...

You are probably referring to this

So... Santorum inquired.. and Got this back

Sure enough.... the WMD's are degraded, right. So you win.

Ummm... except that... The 12 or 13 or 14 Security Council resolutions that saddam didnt comply with WERENT about NEW WMD's produced since the Gulf war ended, were they?

Werent those about the WMD's known to exist at the time of the war?

And the programs that were known to exist up to then?

And which resoltions Saddam wouldnt cooperate with by letting the inspection teams freely investigate?

Isnt that why Kerry and Clinton and Kennedy made all those speeches in the late nineties telling us how dangerous Saddam was?

So i guess what YOU have to prove, to justify charges that 'Bush Lied" is that there never were any WMD's. Because if there werent ever any, then it's unlikely that anyone would get it so wrong.
Thus it HAD to be made up.

Of course maybe there WERE before , just werent any AFTER Gulf War.

And the ones there were were on those inventory lists that UNSCUM had. So all Saddam had to do was prove they were destroyed or emptied.

Simple, no?

 

Acting as a voice of reason, we shouldn't be over there, but hindsight is always 20/20. America back in 2003, if you remember, was puting Saddam and Iraq under sanction after sanction and Saddam still was refusing to let the UN come into his country for weapons inspections. Saddam had done this before but there was a buzz in the media that Saddam had some type of WMD, after several more weeks of no inspections the US "found" evidence of WMDs and decided to go to war after the UN proved no help. We know now that that information was false but, unfortunately, we cannot just up and leave. If the US were to leave Iraq now the country would end up in a similar state as Somalia, being run by terrorists and militias rather than a central government, and that would bring even more criticism than staying. And believe me, even though soldiers are over there losing there lives, they know what they are getting themselves into, they are the worlds greatest military made up of some of the worlds best people.

 

I am by no means coming down on you, but in reading what you have said above, there is no solution to the problem in Iraq there. Are you simply suggesting that the troops need to stay there for years and years to come?

 

By no means do I mean we should stay there forever, matter of fact I would like the US to leave before the end of the calendar year, but I believe in order for Iraq to not become a governmental black hole we need the US to be there at minimum 1 more year. I believe our government should give somewhat of an ultimatum to PM Malaki and the Iraqi government that the US will not keep large amounts of troops in Iraq forever, and we should give a tentative timeline such as 12 to 18 months. I also believe American hopes for a total withdrawal of troops will never come to fruition, I believe we will have at least 2 brigades in Iraq much like we still have troops in Germany, Italy, and Korea.

 

Bumped for "New News"

1. The surge did indeed work, didnt it.
- obligatory caveat: YES, I know.. now it's up to the Iraqis to hold their government's feet to the fire. I am NOT sure this -meaning Maliki's bunch- can and will do that, but it's the tribes and Sheiks that are flexing their power, now and the Religious are being put in their proper place at the community level.

2. NOW we know what happened to the mysterious WMD's...
....and why Saddam wouldnt 'own up'!

In essence... massive but doomed attempt at 'triangulation' by Saddam. Abandon active chem/bio programs which could, after all, be used against him internally by his enemies, while making Iran think he still had them.

Saddam feared Iran more than he did the US... he thought he could manage what the US did, he knew he couldnt manage Iran.

I believe it will also come out that he ALSO managed his internal foes in the same way... have them think they could be gassed again

 

As a serving military member, this does not surprise in the slightest. We would definitely hear the rumors about any redeployments before the press probably would.

I seriously don't think we'll be out of there in any way before 2010. Even when a Democrat strolls in to the White House come January 2009, they'll have a transition period that comes with the territory. It's not like saying "okay let's leave" and everyone is out of the AOR in a week.

 

Errrr... could you lay out Number 1 for us? What is success? I mean, the administration gets to define it after the fact, like every other term they use. They never actually laid out milestones or needed accomplishments.

Have there been less civilian deaths? Less insurgents recruited? Less Al Queda recruited? (THEY ARE NOT THE SAME). Have we secured a police force yet? In any province? Have we secured Iraqi politicians and civil servants? How many (politicians) have died since the surge?

I'm open on this one.

Number 2? This gets in my head a little. Its sounds a bit like the early '80's. Either way, I have a hard time swallowing this one as OH!!! DUH!!!! Its was all a cover up!!! He really didnt have anything !!! SILLY US?!?!?

This is perhaps the 15th misdirection on the reasons how, why, and when we went to war.