Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on July 22, 2008, 10:23:11 AM
-
And why the biased media coverage? Good discussion about this last night on Larry King. Small excerpt about media coverage:
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT," ADVISED NIXON, FORD, REAGAN, CLINTON: Absolutely. I do think the coverage has been unbalanced. "The Tyndall Report," which measures these things, he finds that the network news programs have devoted far more time to Obama than they have to McCain.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/21/lkl.01.html
Regarding the surge, I agree with Beck:
BECK: Peter, I have never seen -- I've never anything like it. For one, here we have Barack Obama -- a guy who was dead wrong on the surge, said that violence would not be reduced. He said if we did the surge, it would actually increase. In 2004, everybody was saying that you couldn't vote for a man who wouldn't at least admit his mistakes. And I'm a conservative. I think Bush bungled this war for two years. It was a nightmare. And I was at least honest enough to say Bush, you've got to recognize your mistake and maybe it was a mistake for me to vote for you if you can't recognize your mistake.
Should Barack Obama acknowledge his mistake?
And shouldn't the media hold his feet to the fire and say you made a colossal misjudgment on the surge?
-
And why the biased media coverage? Good discussion about this last night on Larry King. Small excerpt about media coverage:
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT," ADVISED NIXON, FORD, REAGAN, CLINTON: Absolutely. I do think the coverage has been unbalanced. "The Tyndall Report," which measures these things, he finds that the network news programs have devoted far more time to Obama than they have to McCain.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/21/lkl.01.html
Regarding the surge, I agree with Beck:
BECK: Peter, I have never seen -- I've never anything like it. For one, here we have Barack Obama -- a guy who was dead wrong on the surge, said that violence would not be reduced. He said if we did the surge, it would actually increase. In 2004, everybody was saying that you couldn't vote for a man who wouldn't at least admit his mistakes. And I'm a conservative. I think Bush bungled this war for two years. It was a nightmare. And I was at least honest enough to say Bush, you've got to recognize your mistake and maybe it was a mistake for me to vote for you if you can't recognize your mistake.
Should Barack Obama acknowledge his mistake?
And shouldn't the media hold his feet to the fire and say you made a colossal misjudgment on the surge?
Barack Obama doesn't have to acknowledge any mistakes he's made. When Barack speaks we should all listen. ::)
-
So says the Obamessiah, so it must be done.
-
Barack Obama doesn't have to acknowledge any mistakes he's made. When Barack speaks we should all listen. ::)
Basically.
-
I just heard a BBC World News guy making fun of Obama's American press pack, saying they're "starting to feel a little manipulated." Ya don't say
-
I just heard a BBC World News guy making fun of Obama's American press pack, saying they're "starting to feel a little manipulated." Ya don't say
LOL!
-
good question and good point as well another good question is why ppl continue to buy into his iraq exit strategy without questioning or acknowledging this fact is beyond me(see some of the threads started today)
-
Obama cannot say the Surge is a success at any time.
If he did, then his enemies would pounce on that as some sort of vindication for the single worst foreign policy blunder in American history, namely the conquering of Iraq.
-
Obama cannot say the Surge is a success at any time.
If he did, then his enemies would pounce on that as some sort of vindication for the single worst foreign policy blunder in American history, namely the conquering of Iraq.
Welcome back. :)
The fact is he said the surge would increase violence. He was wrong. Huge error in judgment. McCain was right. The media should be all over him. Instead, they're treating him like the Messiah.
-
Welcome back. :)
The fact is he said the surge would increase violence. He was wrong. Huge error in judgment. McCain was right. The media should be all over him. Instead, they're treating him like the Messiah.
Hey Bud. Thanks.
The Surge did increase violence. Look at the pre and post surge numbers. Only after the occupation of Iraq had been escalated for a year or so and the US paid off the insurgents that were attacking us and after several million Iraqis fled Iraq did some of the violence curb.
And still we have this:
But civilian deaths have dropped from a peak of nearly 4,000 a month from December 2006 to January 2007 to about 500 a month as of May, and U.S. troop deaths have dropped from 126 in May 2007 to an all-time low of 19 in May 2008.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/23/iraq.security/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Civilian deaths down to 500 a month?
Sounds like an ongoing disaster to me.
-
Hey Bud. Thanks.
The Surge did increase violence. Look at the pre and post surge numbers. Only after the occupation of Iraq had been escalated for a year or so and the US paid off the insurgents that were attacking us and after several million Iraqis fled Iraq did some of the violence curb.
And still we have this:
But civilian deaths have dropped from a peak of nearly 4,000 a month from December 2006 to January 2007 to about 500 a month as of May, and U.S. troop deaths have dropped from 126 in May 2007 to an all-time low of 19 in May 2008.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/23/iraq.security/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Civilian deaths down to 500 a month?
Sounds like an ongoing disaster to me.
Spin. The surge worked. Obama was wrong. He expressly said violence would increase. McCain was right. McCain took a very unpopular position in supporting the surge. Speaks volumes about their respective judgment, particularly on military matters.
I think it's appalling how the media refuses to hold Obama accountable for this. They are drinking the Kool-Aid.
-
Spin. The surge worked. Obama was wrong. He expressly said violence would increase. McCain was right. McCain took a very unpopular position in supporting the surge. Speaks volumes about their respective judgment, particularly on military matters.
I think it's appalling how the media refuses to hold Obama accountable for this. They are drinking the Kool-Aid.
500 dead a month is spin? Escalation of the occupation is not a success in his books apparently. Violence cannot escalate forever. Diminishing returns happens.
The words "success" and "Iraq occupation" should not be mixed. That would lend subtle credence to the claims that good things can come from naked, illegal aggression.
Pres. Bush lied all the time to start the war. Now Obama is trying to clean up Bush's profound mess and you chastise him for lying. If anything, a president has to be practical even if it means backtracking on prior beliefs. Is that applicable here? I don't know. I don't think Obama has done anything egregious.
And come on BB, the Surge was unpopular? Only if you don't count the entire Republican majority party..
-
Surge was a solution to a fvckup that Bush started.
Surge was coming up with a really witty way to clean up the bottle of wine you broke on your parents' ice carpet, before they get home.
You shouldn't have broken the bottle in the first place, dumbshit.
-
500 dead a month is spin? Escalation of the occupation is not a success in his books apparently. Violence cannot escalate forever. Diminishing returns happens.
The words "success" and "Iraq occupation" should not be mixed. That would lend subtle credence to the claims that good things can come from naked, illegal aggression.
Pres. Bush lied all the time to start the war. Now Obama is trying to clean up Bush's profound mess and you chastise him for lying. If anything, a president has to be practical even if it means backtracking on prior beliefs. Is that applicable here? I don't know. I don't think Obama has done anything egregious.
And come on BB, the Surge was unpopular? Only if you don't count the entire Republican majority party..
I'll need to check the media coverage, but my recollection is the surge was roundly criticized.
Also, Obama says he still wouldn't support the surge. :o And this man wants to be Commander in Chief? I don't think so.
-
Surge was a solution to a fvckup that Bush started.
Surge was coming up with a really witty way to clean up the bottle of wine you broke on your parents' ice carpet, before they get home.
You shouldn't have broken the bottle in the first place, dumbshit.
Did it work or not? That's the question. Not whether or not Bush fucked it up to start. Obama said it wouldn't. It worked superbly. Violence in Iraq is the lowest it's been in half a decade.
-
Surge was a solution to a fvckup that Bush started.
Surge was coming up with a really witty way to clean up the bottle of wine you broke on your parents' ice carpet, before they get home.
You shouldn't have broken the bottle in the first place, dumbshit.
what you seem to fail to realize with your other threads today is that we wouldnt be in a position to pull out or even consider pulling out anytime soon if we didnt have a surge...so obama who was against the surge who says he would pull out in 16 months would have left the country in termoil.
-
Earth to people who jump to conclusions...
We don't know if the surge worked yet.
We know violence has subsided. Is it because the 5000 jihadists doing all the damage were killed in the last 12 months? Or is it because the jihadists decided to cycle down their attacks until the large troop presence left, before opening back up shop with renewed violence?
We'll know about 6-12 months AFTER the surge ends. Not in July, as we're finally arriving at pre-surge levels.
Brutal counting chickens before they have hatched.
-
Earth to people who jump to conclusions...
We don't know if the surge worked yet.
We know violence has subsided. Is it because the 5000 jihadists doing all the damage were killed in the last 12 months? Or is it because the jihadists decided to cycle down their attacks until the large troop presence left, before opening back up shop with renewed violence?
We'll know about 6-12 months AFTER the surge ends. Not in July, as we're finally arriving at pre-surge levels.
Brutal counting chickens before they have hatched.
this coming from the king of polls :o ::)
LOL look at the causalties after and before the surge, look at the precious checkpoints you pointed out in another thread before and after the surge, your right i guess will have to wait and see.
so pulling out in 16 months would be bad then and drop the country back into tormoil...like i said...either way he was or is wrong.
-
Earth to people who jump to conclusions...
We don't know if the surge worked yet.
We know violence has subsided. Is it because the 5000 jihadists doing all the damage were killed in the last 12 months? Or is it because the jihadists decided to cycle down their attacks until the large troop presence left, before opening back up shop with renewed violence?
We'll know about 6-12 months AFTER the surge ends. Not in July, as we're finally arriving at pre-surge levels.
Brutal counting chickens before they have hatched.
Earth to people who don't get to sit in on with briefs by the guy running the war. Violence is down by 82%. Civil casulties have dropped off, way off. US casulties are way way down. The Madi army was crushed, and their leadership has fled to Iran. The foreign fighters coming in from Syria and elsewhere has dropped to a trickle. We've smashed the rings bringing them in. The money guys are getting rolled up. AQI is moving back to the tribal area's in Pakistan. Yes they can still pull off attacks, the "surge" is part of a larger stategy called COIN, developed by P4 at FT Leavenworth. He pulled in experts in all kinds of fields from military to shrinks....its not just for Iraq but anywhere we fight a low intensity fight. WE're winning, and we'll be mostly out by 20011.
-
Earth to people who don't get to sit in on with briefs by the guy running the war. Violence is down by 82%. Civil casulties have dropped off, way off. US casulties are way way down. The Madi army was crushed, and their leadership has fled to Iran. The foreign fighters coming in from Syria and elsewhere has dropped to a trickle. We've smashed the rings bringing them in. The money guys are getting rolled up. AQI is moving back to the tribal area's in Pakistan. Yes they can still pull off attacks, the "surge" is part of a larger stategy called COIN, developed by P4 at FT Leavenworth. He pulled in experts in all kinds of fields from military to shrinks....its not just for Iraq but anywhere we fight a low intensity fight. WE're winning, and we'll be mostly out by 20011.
Now don't go try introducing facts into this discussion. You'll just confuse some people.
-
Earth to people who don't get to sit in on with briefs by the guy running the war. Violence is down by 82%. Civil casulties have dropped off, way off. US casulties are way way down. The Madi army was crushed, and their leadership has fled to Iran. The foreign fighters coming in from Syria and elsewhere has dropped to a trickle. We've smashed the rings bringing them in. The money guys are getting rolled up. AQI is moving back to the tribal area's in Pakistan. Yes they can still pull off attacks, the "surge" is part of a larger stategy called COIN, developed by P4 at FT Leavenworth. He pulled in experts in all kinds of fields from military to shrinks....its not just for Iraq but anywhere we fight a low intensity fight. WE're winning, and we'll be mostly out by 20011.
This may all be true.
But it still doesn't tell us if it was successful. We'll know in 6 - 12 months. Their leadership is in Iran, you say. Once the USA leaves (which I don't think we shoudl do -fck what their leadership says), what is to stop them from coming back in and picking up where they left off?
You might be right. But to ASSUME that they won't be back to take on the unguarded streets once we leave is silly.
-
This may all be true.
But it still doesn't tell us if it was successful. We'll know in 6 - 12 months. Their leadership is in Iran, you say. Once the USA leaves (which I don't think we shoudl do -fck what their leadership says), what is to stop them from coming back in and picking up where they left off?
You might be right. But to ASSUME that they won't be back to take on the unguarded streets once we leave is silly.
That's the whole point of time horizons or basing policy on the military commanders.
Obama doesn't want to do that. Its not about winning in Iraq. Its about money for domestic policy.
"Not surprisingly he wants to retain as much flexibility as possible," Obama said of the general, with whom he met in recent days while touring Iraq and Afghanistan.
"I think he wants maximum flexibility to be able to — to do what he believes needs to be done inside of Iraq.
"But keep in mind, for example, one of General Petraeus' responsibilities is not to think about how could we be using some of that $10 billion a month to shore up a U.S. economy that is really hurting right now," Obama said.
-
Its almost a different debate.....if Obama would simply say well, we'd like to win but we're broke, then its different. He's saying we're sending 2 bde's more to Afghanistan. That will mean bigger bases, which we'd need. It would mean reworking contracts to feed em, house em and support em. Bagram can't support that, and the smaller FOBs can't either. Obama is just moving people, where its harder to support troops, then it is in Iraq.
-
And why the biased media coverage? Good discussion about this last night on Larry King. Small excerpt about media coverage:
DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, "U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT," ADVISED NIXON, FORD, REAGAN, CLINTON: Absolutely. I do think the coverage has been unbalanced. "The Tyndall Report," which measures these things, he finds that the network news programs have devoted far more time to Obama than they have to McCain.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/21/lkl.01.html
Regarding the surge, I agree with Beck:
BECK: Peter, I have never seen -- I've never anything like it. For one, here we have Barack Obama -- a guy who was dead wrong on the surge, said that violence would not be reduced. He said if we did the surge, it would actually increase. In 2004, everybody was saying that you couldn't vote for a man who wouldn't at least admit his mistakes. And I'm a conservative. I think Bush bungled this war for two years. It was a nightmare. And I was at least honest enough to say Bush, you've got to recognize your mistake and maybe it was a mistake for me to vote for you if you can't recognize your mistake.
Should Barack Obama acknowledge his mistake?
And shouldn't the media hold his feet to the fire and say you made a colossal misjudgment on the surge?
HAHAH... MAYBE AMERICA WOULD DO BETTER TO ACKNOWLEDGE ITS LIE AS TO WHY IT ILLEGALLY INVADED IRAQ TO BEGIN WITH...HMMM.. WAS IT OVER OIL??? DOESN'T TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST.
-
HAHAH... MAYBE AMERICA WOULD DO BETTER TO ACKNOWLEDGE ITS LIE AS TO WHY IT ILLEGALLY INVADED IRAQ TO BEGIN WITH...HMMM.. WAS IT OVER OIL??? DOESN'T TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST.
Oh brother, here is Samsonite, exploding with hate for America. Samson you must have a pending criminal or civil case against you or something, your a few clicks away from the nut house.
-
This may all be true.
But it still doesn't tell us if it was successful. We'll know in 6 - 12 months. Their leadership is in Iran, you say. Once the USA leaves (which I don't think we shoudl do -fck what their leadership says), what is to stop them from coming back in and picking up where they left off?
You might be right. But to ASSUME that they won't be back to take on the unguarded streets once we leave is silly.
LOLWTF just the other week you were argueing the opposite...either way if the surge didnt work then we shouldnt be setting a timeline to pull out in 16 months...SAVIOR OBAMA IS WRONG ADMIT IT!!!!!
-
Oh brother, here is Samsonite, exploding with hate for America. Samson you must have a pending criminal or civil case against you or something, your a few clicks away from the nut house.
don't attack him - attack what he wrote.
youandme, was the war about oil? yes, no, or maybe?
-
don't attack him - attack what he wrote.
youandme, was the war about oil? yes, no, or maybe?
No, I'll attack Somsonite all I want, the guy is bitter, racist, and has acknowledged that cops, and soldiers need to be harmed.
Most wars are based on economic reasoning, hopefully we see the end results.
-
this coming from the king of polls :o ::)
LOL look at the causalties after and before the surge, look at the precious checkpoints you pointed out in another thread before and after the surge, your right i guess will have to wait and see.
so pulling out in 16 months would be bad then and drop the country back into tormoil...like i said...either way he was or is wrong.
This may all be true.
But it still doesn't tell us if it was successful. We'll know in 6 - 12 months. Their leadership is in Iran, you say. Once the USA leaves (which I don't think we shoudl do -fck what their leadership says), what is to stop them from coming back in and picking up where they left off?
You might be right. But to ASSUME that they won't be back to take on the unguarded streets once we leave is silly.
LOLWTF just the other week you were argueing the opposite...either way if the surge didnt work then we shouldnt be setting a timeline to pull out in 16 months...SAVIOR OBAMA IS WRONG ADMIT IT!!!!!
bump for a response
-
No, I'll attack Somsonite all I want, the guy is bitter, racist, and has acknowledged that cops, and soldiers need to be harmed.
Most wars are based on economic reasoning, hopefully we see the end results.
Okay.
I'm asking you, was the war about oil? yes or now.
-
LOL dont answer YAM until he respondeds to my last three posts!!!
-
Obama's POV is that the surge was successful, but he believes his plan (which called for greater iraqi takeover to do all the surge wetwork and take the brunt of the surge allied force deaths) was the way to go.
Mccain wanted to use american boys to do the job, which spilled American blood in big numbers for those months.
obama wanted to use iraqi boys to do the job, which would have led to them being killed in greater numbers.
I guess mccain's way means he gets to claima victory. perhaps obama's way would have led to a victory as well, without destroying American families by losing their loved ones.
Look, I support both guys... they'll both do fine in office... but Mccain making the "surge worked, I rock!" platform isn't working with educated voters because they know Obama wanted a surge too - he just wanted Iraqis to be bleeding on the ground for it, not US soldiers.
-
Obama's POV is that the surge was successful, but he believes his plan (which called for greater iraqi takeover to do all the surge wetwork and take the brunt of the surge allied force deaths) was the way to go.
Mccain wanted to use american boys to do the job, which spilled American blood in big numbers for those months.
obama wanted to use iraqi boys to do the job, which would have led to them being killed in greater numbers.
I guess mccain's way means he gets to claima victory. perhaps obama's way would have led to a victory as well, without destroying American families by losing their loved ones.
Look, I support both guys... they'll both do fine in office... but Mccain making the "surge worked, I rock!" platform isn't working with educated voters because they know Obama wanted a surge too - he just wanted Iraqis to be bleeding on the ground for it, not US soldiers.
find me a quote or video where obama said the surge worked? plz i havent heard him say that once, im not saying he hasnt ive been busy the last few days and not on getbig or watching tv much so i may have missed it. Perhaps obamas way would have worked MAYBE, but for how long now has he been pushing for troops out of iraq...the simple fact is it is possible to talk about this b/c of the surge, the surge he didnt want. But he has been talking about pulling troops out soon before his trip to iraq and before he acknowledged(if he has) that the surge worked which means he would have left Iraq in tormoil.
Obama has said he would have put those troops in Afgahnistan so there would have causalties coming from there as well...which would have led to a worse iraq and likely a surge back into iraq to clean that up again.
plz post a quote reference or video for me.
-
We don't know if the surge worked yet.
The Council on Foreign Relations already conducted a study, which is old, and does not highlight the new and improved numbers.
"The analysis then examines statistics on Iraqi violence provided by the U.S. military, noting that the data provided by coalition forces in Iraq demonstrates a decline of over 45 percent in civilian casualties since the surge of additional American forces began early this year. According to the U.S. military, the decrease in civilian casualties was even greater in Baghdad, around 70 percent, which was one of the focus areas of the surge troops."
Also a recent article on Bloomberg, "Closure is what Obama seeks in Iraq. As he puts it, ``when I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war.''"
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_shlaes&sid=awZ8YTBD0KDU (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_shlaes&sid=awZ8YTBD0KDU)
Even after the surge shows it's positive results this guy does not care.
Obama wants and THINKS he can get other countries to fight, yet has no background in even setting up a foreign negotiation on such a scale, how does he think he can do it....
by bringing ``big sticks and big carrots'' to the table when he goes to talk to Iran's leaders.
-
by bringing ``big sticks and big carrots'' to the table when he goes to talk to Iran's leaders.
I wanted to puke when I heard that crap >:(
-
find me a quote or video where obama said the surge worked? plz i havent heard him say that once, im not saying he hasnt ive been busy the last few days and not on getbig or watching tv much so i may have missed it. Perhaps obamas way would have worked MAYBE, but for how long now has he been pushing for troops out of iraq...the simple fact is it is possible to talk about this b/c of the surge, the surge he didnt want. But he has been talking about pulling troops out soon before his trip to iraq and before he acknowledged(if he has) that the surge worked which means he would have left Iraq in tormoil.
Obama has said he would have put those troops in Afgahnistan so there would have causalties coming from there as well...which would have led to a worse iraq and likely a surge back into iraq to clean that up again.
plz post a quote reference or video for me.
Obama with Couric from iraq yesterday. MB, you have the youtube? He said obviously it worked, but his way would have produced smiliar results with less AMERICAN bloodshed.
I've been saying for the last 2 years that we should be letting iraqis die in the streets of baghdad to secure their peace - NOT AMERICANS. Obama said the same thing. Mccain said our boys and girls should be the ones taking the bullets, right? He used them for the surge, while Obama preferred to use their kids to do it.
Listen to that katie couric clip - anyone have it? aired yesterday.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Obama's plan was to leave.
How would have this brought success?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25573237/page/2/
Troops should be withdrawn, he said in 2006, but the president should “work with our military commanders” to figure out the best plan to do so.
“I am not suggesting this timetable be overly rigid,” he said. “We should be willing to adjust to the realties on the ground.” What Obama said last week echoes this.
And the withdrawal, Obama said in 2006, “could be suspended if at any point U.S. commanders believe that a further reduction would put American troops in danger.”
The Brits did this to a disastrous result in Basra.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601401_pf.html
As British forces pull back from Basra in southern Iraq, Shiite militias there have escalated a violent battle against each other for political supremacy and control over oil resources, deepening concerns among some U.S. officials in Baghdad that elements of Iraq's Shiite-dominated national government will turn on one another once U.S. troops begin to draw down.
Three major Shiite political groups are locked in a bloody conflict that has left the city in the hands of militias and criminal gangs, whose control extends to municipal offices and neighborhood streets. The city is plagued by "the systematic misuse of official institutions, political assassinations, tribal vendettas, neighborhood vigilantism and enforcement of social mores, together with the rise of criminal mafias that increasingly intermingle with political actors," a recent report by the International Crisis Group said.
The American military had to help the Iraq soldiers retake Basra while the Brits hungout at the airport.
His plan wouldn't of worked.
Another free pass.
-
The Surge's goal, according to its proponents, was to escalate the US occupation of Baghdad in order to dampen the violence interferring with the Iraqi government's ability to meet the benchmark recommendations set out by Bush's handpicked Iraq Study Group.
The monthly deaths are down from a high of 4,000 Iraqis a month to about 500 Iraqis per month.
Have those handpicked benchmarks been met yet? If yes, then it's a success. If no, then it is not.
In moral terms, I think that 500 dead Iraqis a month after 5+ years of occupation is a bloody crime.
I just don't see the utility in patting ourselves on the back for fixing the mess we created in the first place. 5 years and 600 billion dollars later, the US still can't adequately protect the green zone.
-
15 of the 18 benchmarks have been met.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j2KfQBk9ZhPhOJZ7biQo-IkmdJoAD91L6L407
The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory" — almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks — enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues — are unsatisfactory.
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/victory-in-iraq/82194/
Democrats, who have tried to frame the Iraq debate as one over troop levels and troop casualties, will see the coming draw downs in that theater as a political victory. But this is a half truth. The distinction between the two parties, and for that matter the two candidates on the Iraq debate, is that one of them sought to betray Iraq when most of its territory was controlled by Islamic supremacist gangs, while the other saw it as America's strategic and moral obligation to beat back those parties who deliberately sought a civil war. When President Bush and Senator McCain tried to prevent what Democrats said was inevitable defeat, the Democrats accused them of prolonging the war. Now that the surge strategy has succeeded so much that Senator Obama has removed language criticizing the strategy on his Web site, the Democrats seek to claim a political victory made possible by the military one they tried so hard to prevent.
-
15 of the 18 benchmarks have been met.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j2KfQBk9ZhPhOJZ7biQo-IkmdJoAD91L6L407
The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq's efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are "satisfactory" — almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks — enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues — are unsatisfactory.
...
I hope that's the case. I don't trust any report coming out of the White House. The Bush Administration cannot be trusted on matters concerning Iraq b/c it has lied incessantly about the matter.
Now if the Benchmarks are met (all 18), then we can declare victory and come home and put this terrible mistake behind us.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
LOL ;D
Good finds
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=225175.0;attach=264082;image)
;D
-
...
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/victory-in-iraq/82194/
Democrats, who have tried to frame the Iraq debate as one over troop levels and troop casualties, will see the coming draw downs in that theater as a political victory. But this is a half truth. The distinction between the two parties, and for that matter the two candidates on the Iraq debate, is that one of them sought to betray Iraq when most of its territory was controlled by Islamic supremacist gangs, while the other saw it as America's strategic and moral obligation to beat back those parties who deliberately sought a civil war. When President Bush and Senator McCain tried to prevent what Democrats said was inevitable defeat, the Democrats accused them of prolonging the war. Now that the surge strategy has succeeded so much that Senator Obama has removed language criticizing the strategy on his Web site, the Democrats seek to claim a political victory made possible by the military one they tried so hard to prevent.
The surge strategy can only be characterized as a success if you buy what the White House is selling--the benchmarks and the reduction in deaths in the runaway catastrophe that is Iraq.
I never accept what the white house pushes re Iraq b/c it's usually a disingenuous statement or lie.
500 Iraqis are dying monthly. That doesn't scream success.
Fine. The white house can characterize the Surge as a success but the IRaq invasion and occupation is a failure of epic proportion: The single worst foreign policy mistake in US history.
The Surge will never erase the error of Bush ordering the invasion in the first place.
-
The surge strategy can only be characterized as a success if you buy what the White House is selling--the benchmarks and the reduction in deaths in the runaway catastrophe that is Iraq.
I never accept what the white house pushes re Iraq b/c it's usually a disingenuous statement or lie.
500 Iraqis are dying monthly. That doesn't scream success.
Fine. The white house can characterize the Surge as a success but the IRaq invasion and occupation is a failure of epic proportion: The single worst foreign policy mistake in US history.
The Surge will never erase the error of Bush ordering the invasion in the first place.
I would think that would be Vietnam.
Very little was gained from that experience.
With larger casualties.
The point is Iraq isn't and should never be another Vietnam.
-
I would think that would be Vietnam.
Very little was gained from that experience.
With larger casualties.
The point is Iraq isn't and should never be another Vietnam.
Good point.
-
Which means we win and we leave....Decker winning means a stable Iraq able to defend itself internally and to some extent externally. The Iraqi's themselves, their military, feel that they won't be fully ready until 2015 for that and 2018 for the latter. That would mean 1 Divsion there until 2018 with all others pulled out by 2011/12 maybe...along with maybe a Bde sized training element. Thst what the current SOFA deal is working on, how long that last bit of force will be there for and what are we allowed to do.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Hahahaha! ;D
-
Which means we win and we leave....Decker winning means a stable Iraq able to defend itself internally and to some extent externally. The Iraqi's themselves, their military, feel that they won't be fully ready until 2015 for that and 2018 for the latter. That would mean 1 Divsion there until 2018 with all others pulled out by 2011/12 maybe...along with maybe a Bde sized training element. Thst what the current SOFA deal is working on, how long that last bit of force will be there for and what are we allowed to do.
The issue that divides the Iraqi people is thousands of years old: the division is an ETHNIC DIVISION...not political. As soon as the US leaves Iraq, the civil war will flare up like it did when the US overthrew the government.
This whole Iraq endeavor was not planned out and was executed poorly.
-
So u have said....if the military can keep things together then that won't happen. These people are sick of war.