The half-won, half-lost war

[red states rule]

Depsite what the left and liberal media would have you believe, progress has been made in Iraq

There is still alot to do in Iraq, but the US is winning the fight


The half-won, half-lost war
By Victor Davis Hanson
May 3, 2008

The gloomy election-year refrain is that America is mired in Iraq, took its eye off Afghanistan, empowered Iran and is losing the war on terror. But how accurate is that pessimistic diagnosis?

First, the good news. For all the talk of a recent Tet-like offensive in Basra, the Mahdi Army of radical Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr suffered an ignominious setback when his gunmen were routed from their enclaves.

This rout helped the constitutional — and Shi'ite-dominated — government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki renew its authority, and has encouraged Sunnis to re-enter government. Two great threats to Iraqi autonomy — Iranian-backed Shi'ite militiamen and Sunni-supported al-Qaeda terrorists — have both now been repulsed by an elected government and its supporters.

Our armed forces are stretched, but Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and his colonels are quietly transforming a top-heavy conventional colossus into more mobile counterinsurgency forces.

Gen. Petraeus' recent nomination to CentCom commander suggests that, like the growing influence of Gens. U.S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman in 1863, or of George Marshall when he reconfigured the Army in 1940, we at last are beginning to get the right officers in the right places at the right time.


for the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080503/COMMENTARY/762448682/1012/commentary

[April15]

Half won or half lost, the war should never have been engaged!

[red states rule]

Half won or half lost, the war should never have been engaged!

Ah, another voice from the surrender and appeasement crowd

[Pale Rider]

Half won or half lost, the war should never have been engaged!

I agree.

[red states rule]

I agree.

Well as we have in the past Pale, we agree to disagree

I for one am vey happy over the succeses our troops are making, and how many terrorists have gone on to meet Allah

[Pale Rider]

Well as we have in the past Pale, we agree to disagree

I for one am vey happy over the succeses our troops are making, and how many terrorists have gone on to meet Allah

Yes... we do agree to disagree. Not only is it unconstitutional, but when all the multinational support pulled out, so should we have.

bush lied when he said, "no nation building." This whole Iraq fiasco is all for bush's big oil buddies.

[red states rule]

Yes... we do agree to disagree. Not only is it unconstitutional, but when all the multinational support pulled out, so should we have.

bush lied when he said, "no nation building." This whole Iraq fiasco is all for bush's big oil buddies.

Well Pale, 9-11 xhaged all the rules of the game. I am no problem with the US hunting down terrorists, and going after them in their back yard.

While I would rather see Iraq paying their expenses out of their oil revenue, I do not want the US to leave until Iraq is ready to stand on her own

Iran is hoping we leave early, so Little Adolph can step in and take over

Pale you are way to smart to think this war was for oil

[Pale Rider]

Well Pale, 9-11 xhaged all the rules of the game. I am no problem with the US hunting down terrorists, and going after them in their back yard.

While I would rather see Iraq paying their expenses out of their oil revenue, I do not want the US to leave until Iraq is ready to stand on her own

Iran is hoping we leave early, so Little Adolph can step in and take over

Pale you are way to smart to think this war was for oil

This war is for oil.

But, I'm all for hunting down the terrorist and kicking butt. I'm just not for us spending my tax dollars for occupying and nation building in another country. The President alone does not have the authority to declare war. It's unconstitutional, illegal. This war is bleeding our economy. It's wearing out our equipment and troops and it's not being replaced. We can't keep this up. We need to back up and regroup. A new strategy is needed, and I say it should be one of shock and awe or nothing. We either fight like devils on crack, or not at all. This occupying, nation building and playing mamby, pamby patty cake games with insurgents, terrorists, whatever you want to call them is bull shit. WE SHOULD NOT BE DOING THAT! Just wait brother... it's going to get worse before it gets better... top military advisers have been warning for a couple YEARS now that our military is worn out. Equipment is busted, troops are worn out, and the cost of the war is already in the YOU'VE GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME amounts... so tell me... what are we going to do... what do we do when we run out of equipment? What do we do when we run out of troops? Draft? What do we do?

[gabosaurus]

RSR, why do you continually quote The Moonie Times? It's not exactly an objective source.

But there is logic to the "half and half" argument. Take, for example, when the subject of war casualties are brought up in the media and other such conversations.
The thinking side (Dems and such) come out with "we need to find a way to stop the carnage.
The braindead side (RSR and his conservative ilk) come out with "hey hey, he sure did blew up good!"

[April15]

Ah, another voice from the surrender and appeasement crowdTake your mantra of cut and run or surrender and appease and place it firmly between your buttocks where it emanated from! Rove has pulled many an idea from that orifice and they all stink. If your hand is in the cookie jar it is not appeasement or surrender to admit you were wrong. But apparently by your misuse of logic it is!
This nation should not be involved with Iraq!

[red states rule]

RSR, why do you continually quote The Moonie Times? It's not exactly an objective source.

But there is logic to the "half and half" argument. Take, for example, when the subject of war casualties are brought up in the media and other such conversations.
The thinking side (Dems and such) come out with "we need to find a way to stop the carnage.
The braindead side (RSR and his conservative ilk) come out with "hey hey, he sure did blew up good!"

Dems are for surredner and appeasement. They want to offer understanding and therapy to the terrorists

Republicans (for the most part) see the threat and will either capture or kill the terrorists

Libs like Gabby are happy to bend over, and grab the ankles as a gesture of friendship to the terrorists

[mundame]

Republicans (for the most part) see the threat and will either capture or kill the terrorists



Or lose the war. So far all they've done is lose the war. Two of them, in fact. That's why I'm no longer a Republican.

[red states rule]

Or lose the war. So far all they've done is lose the war. Two of them, in fact. That's why I'm no longer a Republican.

Considering you ignore all the positive news, no wonder you have the fantasy the terrorists have won

[mundame]

Considering you ignore all the positive news


There never is any positive news that last more than three months. Look at the current upsurge in violence in Iraq now.

And Afghanistan is going down the tubes.


In general, I will not support a party that gets us into lots of wars ------------- and loses them all.

And I'm in the majority on that issue.

[red states rule]

There never is any positive news that last more than three months. Look at the current upsurge in violence in Iraq now.

And Afghanistan is going down the tubes.


In general, I will not support a party that gets us into lots of wars ------------- and loses them all.

And I'm in the majority on that issue.

Bull

I have posted artcile from the NY tImes, and other liberal papers, and you dismissed them as "propaganda"

I can't force you to read and learn - you choose to remain ignorant on the facts and swallow the surrender talking points

[Gaffer]

There never is any positive news that last more than three months. Look at the current upsurge in violence in Iraq now.

And Afghanistan is going down the tubes.


In general, I will not support a party that gets us into lots of wars ------------- and loses them all.

And I'm in the majority on that issue.

In a war situation there are intense times and passive times. It changes daily and can be determined by other events. For instance if the enemy hears that the US is divided on feelings about how things are going with the war, they will step up their activities to try to influence that division. If they hear that the US is predominately behind the war effort they will back off.

The average mo on the street has no idea what is going on in the US. But his leaders do and they give him his orders based on that. The fighting in iraq is just small actions scattered about the country. The same holds true for afgan as well. Don't fool yourself into thinking the enemy doesn't monitor everything that goes on and is said in congress and the media. They probably have more information about our government than you do.

A war is only lost if you quit before its finished. And if you think pulling out of iraq will end the war, then you are being foolish once again. iraq is just a front in a much bigger war. A war that will be going on many years after everyone here is dead and gone. It's the long war, the endless war. The war with islam that will go on until islam is eradicated.

The administration and following administration are fighting a containment war. So the war will go on and on. To end the war is going to take drastic action that the administration is not willing to do. And following administrations won't be willing to do it either.

[red states rule]

The latest from Iraq, and Michael Yon who gives the best coverage


In Iraq, a storm before the calm
By Michael Yon

Monday, May 5th 2008, 4:00 AM

April saw 49 U.S. casualties in Iraq, the highest total in seven months. Does this mean, as some insist, that the enormous progress we have made since the start of the military surge is being lost?

As one who has spent nearly two years with American soldiers and Marines and British Army troops in Iraq - having returned from my last trip a month ago - here's my short answer: no.

We are taking more casualties now, just as we did in the first part of 2007, because we have taken up the next crucial challenge of this war: confronting the Shia militias.

In early 2007, under the leadership of Gen. David Petraeus, we began to wage an effective counterinsurgency campaign against the reign of terror Al Qaeda in Iraq had established over much of the midsection of the country. That campaign, which moved many of our troops off of big centralized bases and out into small neighborhood outposts, carried real risks.

In every one of the first eight months of 2007, we lost more soldiers than we had the previous year. Only as the campaign bore fruit - in the form of Iraqi citizens working with American soldiers on a daily basis, helping uncover terrorist hideouts together - did the casualty numbers begin to improve.

Now we are helping the Iraqis deal with a much different problem: the Shia militias, the most well-known of which is "Jaysh al-Mahdi," known as JAM, largely controlled by Moqtada al-Sadr.

To comprehend our strategy here, we need to understand the goals of these militias, which pundits, politicians and the press all too often gloss over. Al Qaeda's aim was to destroy Iraq in civil war. Allegedly devout Muslims, the terrorist savages were willing to rape, murder and pillage their own people just as long as they could catch America in the middle. One reason Al Qaeda in Iraq can regenerate so quickly, despite being hated by most Iraqis, is that, armed with generous funding from outside Iraq, they mostly recruit young men and boys from Iraqi street gangs, giving them money, guns and drugs.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/05/05/2008-05-05_in_iraq_a_storm_before_the_calm.html

[mundame]

if the enemy hears that the US is divided on feelings about how things are going with the war, they will step up their activities to try to influence that division. If they hear that the US is predominately behind the war effort they will back off.

In the Internet age? Sure, I agree. Information is widespread and inevitably part of the war.





The average mo on the street

Moe? Moke? Oh ----------------- Mo-hammed!! Okay. http://macg.net/emoticons/smile4.gif


Don't fool yourself into thinking the enemy doesn't monitor everything that goes on and is said in congress and the media. They probably have more information about our government than you do.

I shouldn't think it goes quite that far. But I agree, they are trying to wait us out.


A war is only lost if you quit before its finished.

No, it's lost if it's lost. The Germans lost WWI: but they were never defeated. Certainly they never surrendered! There was never any question of that in WWI, nor with us now.

Same deal is going on here, with fewer machine guns. We've lost, but we aren't defeated and certainly there is no question of surrender.

It's silly, with respect, to say a war is never lost unless you quit. If that were true, there would be thousands of ancient wars going on still! Wars are lost for various reasons, one of them being untenable stalemate, which is what we are in both in Iraq and Afghanistan.


And if you think pulling out of iraq will end the war, then you are being foolish once again.

No, I'm not. I suspect I know a lot more about military history than you do.



iraq is just a front in a much bigger war. A war that will be going on many years after everyone here is dead and gone.

Or not. Predicting the future? Can you tell me what LVLT will be at next...Thursday week? That will give me time to raise some serious money. No, I don't think you can tell the future, even on such a small matter as one equity price.



It's the long war, the endless war. The war with islam that will go on until islam is eradicated.

Or not. It didn't work last time, 1099 to 1453. They won, we lost. Only that time it was Jerusalem and Constantinople they bombed, not New York.


The administration and following administration are fighting a containment war. So the war will go on and on. To end the war is going to take drastic action that the administration is not willing to do. And following administrations won't be willing to do it either.

Sounds all pretty stupid to me, we're supposed to just go on losing and losing?? I'm with Ronald Reagan: my idea is, they lose, we win.

This is not how. I suggest we pull back, regroup, and rethink it. This is not working.

[red states rule]

The legacy of John Kerry lives on as another liberal shows what he really thinks about the US militray


Writer Stephen King: If You Can't Read, You'll End Up in the Army or Iraq
By Noel Sheppard | May 5, 2008 - 09:54 ET

Remember shortly before Election Day 2006 when Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) suggested that if you don't get a good education, "you get stuck in Iraq"

Well, last month, famed horror author Stephen King was speaking in front of a group of high school students at the Library of Congress, and he virtually made the exact same statement.

For those that can bear it, what follows is another in a long line of liberal media members bashing the military:

I don't want to sound like an ad, a public service ad on TV, but the fact is if you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don't, then you've got, the Army, Iraq, I don't know, something like that. It's, it's not as bright. So, that's my little commercial for that.

Nice sentiment when the nation is at war, Stephen


for the video on the slur

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/05/05/writer-stephen-king-if-you-cant-read-youll-end-army-or-iraq

[mundame]

I don't want to sound like an ad, a public service ad on TV, but the fact is if you can read, you can walk into a job later on. If you don't, then you've got, the Army, Iraq, I don't know, something like that. It's, it's not as bright. So, that's my little commercial for that.

Nice sentiment when the nation is at war, Stephen




And it's perfectly correct. Good for King, a great favorite of mine.

Bright people definitely stay out of Iraq, just as years ago Vietnam eventually turned into an IQ test: how to keep out of it.

This is why the Army is taking so many criminals now; it's all they've got to draw from. Everyone else has better sense.

[red states rule]

And it's perfectly correct. Good for King, a great favorite of mine.

Bright people definitely stay out of Iraq, just as years ago Vietnam eventually turned into an IQ test: how to keep out of it.

This is why the Army is taking so many criminals now; it's all they've got to draw from. Everyone else has better sense.

With your attitude, it should not come as a shock the military votes in huge numbers for Republican

The US military knows how Dems feels about them - and the feelings are mutual

[mundame]

You realize, RSR, that sentiments like mine and Stephen King's are what happened after Vietnam? The military was disrespected; military service in general was gravely disrespected for a long, long time -------- about 30 years.

When people say Bush ruined the military, that's a lot of it right there: he ruined the idea of military service, made it stupid and pointless to serve in the Army.

We may very well regret that one day, if we actually ever need a military.

[red states rule]

You realize, RSR, that sentiments like mine and Stephen King's are what happened after Vietnam? The military was disrespected; military service in general was gravely disrespected for a long, long time -------- about 30 years.

When people say Bush ruined the military, that's a lot of it right there: he ruined the idea of military service, made it stupid and pointless to serve in the Army.

We may very well regret that one day, if we actually ever need a military.

I understand you are calling them stupid and uneducated. You insult the very people who put their lives on the line to keep you free

[mundame]

You insult the very people who put their lives on the line to keep you free

They aren't keeping me free.

I'm already free.

They are piddling around pointlessly in some hellhole sandpit on the other side of Planet Earth because Bush is desperate about his legacy and doesn't care how many American legs get blown off while he tries fruitlessly to improve it.

We'd all be better off if they were back here, except they can leave the criminals, we've got plenty of them here already.

[red states rule]

They aren't keeping me free.

I'm already free.

They are piddling around pointlessly in some hellhole sandpit on the other side of Planet Earth because Bush is desperate about his legacy and doesn't care how many American legs get blown off while he tries fruitlessly to improve it.

We'd all be better off if they were back here, except they can leave the criminals, we've got plenty of them here already.

Who the hell do you think keeps you free? Who do you think is on guard in the air, sea, and on the borders?

You are one strange women. You smear the troops that keep your ass safe, and then expect them to go to war with Iran because Hillary says so

[Gaffer]

Well king just went down a bunch of notches in my book. I thought he was smarter than that. If you can't read you won't get in the army. Or any other branch of the service. But you would qualify as a hack for the democrat party.

[red states rule]

Well king just went down a bunch of notches in my book. I thought he was smarter than that. If you can't read you won't get in the army. Or any other branch of the service. But you would qualify as a hack for the democrat party.

He is typical of libs here on the board, in Congress, and on the streets

They claim they support the troops, but they do not hesitate to smear and insult them

[mundame]

Who the hell do you think keeps you free? Who do you think is on guard in the air, sea, and on the borders?



Not nearly enough men are on guard to keep out the drugs floating and flying in constantly, and the Mexicans from flooding across the border day and night.

Oh, right, I guess the missing men are all wasting time in Iraq instead of defending the United States.

[Gaffer]

If they built that fence they have promised for years and increased patrols and beefed up the Coast Guard we wouldn't have to deal with drugs and illegals coming across the border.

As for an invasion. Short of illegals coming in, no one could invade the US. The logistics are just too great for that.

The national guard and reserves are fully functional in this country. Only a few specialty units are used over seas. And the regular military has plenty right here to repulse any kind of attempt to invade this country. It's silly to think we could not defend ourselves.

Do you actually believe our road system was built for people to drive across country at their leisure? It was built for military transport. To be able to move large convoys of military equipment across the country.

We might have to deal with insurgent activity and terrorists but no country can invade us.

[mundame]

Do you actually believe our road system was built for people to drive across country at their leisure? It was built for military transport. To be able to move large convoys of military equipment across the country.
.

Are you recalling I claim to be good at military history? The Eisenhower highway system was built to allow movement of tanks and troops across country at need, as well as to further commerce and travel by citizens. It is modeled on the German system that was moving troops rapidly by rails and highway in World War I. The Russians had a similar rail system, but they made sure to make the rails a different gauge so the Germans couldn't capture it and use it to invade Russia. Whoops, that didn't work: the Germans used Russian prisoners to rip up the rails and replace them at the right width.




As for an invasion. Short of illegals coming in, no one could invade the US. The logistics are just too great for that.


China, via Mexico, I sometimes think. They have a LOT of spare men, and they do have a plan to invade Taiwan over water.

Mexico is the most obvious way: the Germans promised to help the Mexicans invade us in WWI and take back the whole Southwest. Of course, coming in through Canada is another route. Not the Aleutians, obviously; that was tried in WWII.

Invading where I live worked actually quite well --- the British, held off at Baltimore, sailed further up the Chesapeake and burned Havre de Grace out of sheer annoyance.

Of course the U.S. can be invaded; it has been. The last lot burned the White House, in fact!



Besides, invading by illegals is actually the problem: I think that's how invasions work now. Huge populations of millions of Muslims or Mexicans simply move in, flooding the country, and then they consolidate and take over.

Our government won't bother to protect us from this; it likes it. Here's John McCain with a Web site in Spanish for illegal Mexicans to read!

[Gaffer]

Are you recalling I claim to be good at military history? The Eisenhower highway system was built to allow movement of tanks and troops across country at need, as well as to further commerce and travel by citizens. It is modeled on the German system that was moving troops rapidly by rails and highway in World War I. The Russians had a similar rail system, but they made sure to make the rails a different gauge so the Germans couldn't capture it and use it to invade Russia. Whoops, that didn't work: the Germans used Russian prisoners to rip up the rails and replace them at the right width.



China, via Mexico, I sometimes think. They have a LOT of spare men, and they do have a plan to invade Taiwan over water.

Mexico is the most obvious way: the Germans promised to help the Mexicans invade us in WWI and take back the whole Southwest. Of course, coming in through Canada is another route. Not the Aleutians, obviously; that was tried in WWII.

Invading where I live worked actually quite well --- the British, held off at Baltimore, sailed further up the Chesapeake and burned Havre de Grace out of sheer annoyance.

Of course the U.S. can be invaded; it has been. The last lot burned the White House, in fact!



Besides, invading by illegals is actually the problem: I think that's how invasions work now. Huge populations of millions of Muslims or Mexicans simply move in, flooding the country, and then they consolidate and take over.

Our government won't bother to protect us from this; it likes it. Here's John McCain with a Web site in Spanish for illegal Mexicans to read!

Like I said, no one can invade us except through illegal immigration. And there is a good possibility of insurrectionists in the US. Both muslim and mexican. And our government won't do a thing about it until after the slaughter.

China might have the people but they don't have the means to transport them, even if mexico allowed it. Mexico would literally have to be conquered first. And the US isn't going to let that happen.

The US was invaded in Baltimore and from Canada and the Gulf of Mexico during the war of 1812. It can't happen now. A military invasion, with todays technology, is just not logistically possible. There are already cells and moles here. But all they can do is disrupt our way of life, not conquer anything.

[April15]

Like I said, no one can invade us except through illegal immigration. And there is a good possibility of insurrectionists in the US. Both muslim and mexican. And our government won't do a thing about it until after the slaughter.

China might have the people but they don't have the means to transport them, even if mexico allowed it. Mexico would literally have to be conquered first. And the US isn't going to let that happen.

The US was invaded in Baltimore and from Canada and the Gulf of Mexico during the war of 1812. It can't happen now. A military invasion, with todays technology, is just not logistically possible. There are already cells and moles here. But all they can do is disrupt our way of life, not conquer anything.

Very true. Although I am more concerned with the the conservatives usurping the constitution.

[red states rule]

More good news from Iraq

More good news from Iraq - Basra
A city relaxes. Hat tip to Wretchard at The Belmont Club for the link to this item at The London Times:

The men in black vanish and Basra comes to life
Young women are daring to wear jeans, soldiers listen to pop music on their mobile phones and bands are performing at wedding parties again.

All across Iraq’s second city life is improving, a month after Iraqi troops began a surprise crackdown on the black-clad gangs who were allowed to flourish under the British military. The gunmen’s reign had enforced a strict set of religious codes.

Yet after three years of being terrified of kidnap, rape and murder – a fate that befell scores of other women – Nadyia Ahmed, 22, is among those enjoying a sense of normality, happy for the first time to attend her science course at Basra University. “I now have the university life that I heard of at high school before the war and always dreamt about,” she told The Times. “It was a nightmare because of these militiamen. I only attended class three days a week but now I look forward to going every day.”

She also no longer has to wear a headscarf. Under the strict Islamic rules imposed by the militias, women had to cover their hair, could not wear jeans or bright clothes and were strictly forbidden from sitting next to male colleagues on pain of death.

“All these men in black [who imposed the laws] just vanished from the university after this operation,” said Ms Ahmed. “Things have completely changed over the past week.”

http://www.synthstuff.com/mt/archives/individual/2008/04/more_good_news_from_iraq_basra.html

[mundame]

Like I said, no one can invade us except through illegal immigration.

I think that's short sighted, if you'll excuse me for saying so. My error to say that the last invasion burned the White House -----------------------


Actually, the LAST invasion by a foreign power got all the way north to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania before being repelled.

The way the United States will be invaded and conquered most likely is the way every large nation or empire gets it --------- first it will be divided, THEN conquered. That's what all the alternate histories by Turtledove, Stirling, and others are showing, because it's the most plausible. Every large body of land constantly is reorganized under various governments: the USSR just broke up recently, and before that the German Reich twice, the Hapsburgs, the Ottomans, the British Empire.

Actually, we've had an unusually long run as one country. It can't continue, as bad as things are getting now, that's what I think. I figure the U.S. will split into three to six sections, within the next 20 - 25 years.

And then we'll be invaded indeed, piecemeal.

Britain and France were CRAZY, geopolitically, not to have helped the South in the Civil War!! If they had, they wouldn't have had us as a superpower today, which they just hate. Be sure, next time they see a way to help us split, they'll aid the weaker side.



And there is a good possibility of insurrectionists in the US. Both muslim and mexican. And our government won't do a thing about it until after the slaughter.

I doubt the Muslims: they are desperate to consolidate, they're too weak here. The Mexicans? Sure. They are already over 50% in California. They'll move within the next few years to take over the Southwest. And they didn't even NEED German help......................................just Bush not caring if they are flooding north illegally, or any other Republican caring.

Though with Germans now reunited (that's an uh-oh), it wouldn't surprise me if they got it. Breaking up the U.S. has to be the goal of a lot of world powers at this point.



China might have the people but they don't have the means to transport them, even if mexico allowed it. Mexico would literally have to be conquered first. And the US isn't going to let that happen.

They'll just use boats. If the U.S. is broken up, shouldn't be much of a problem. They have a million-man standing army now and far too many unmarriageable men and a population problem. They need Lebensraum: if we are split up and weak, they'll build the boats. Take the less-populated Mexicanized Southwest "nation" first and just keep expanding.


The US was invaded in Baltimore and from Canada and the Gulf of Mexico during the war of 1812. It can't happen now. A military invasion, with todays technology, is just not logistically possible. There are already cells and moles here. But all they can do is disrupt our way of life, not conquer anything.

You are making a rash assumption that never lasts anywhere for long: that we'll stay intact as a nation. It's plenty possible to invade if we split ---- that happens everywhere, everywhen.

[red states rule]

and more good news from Iraq. News the liberal media is not reporting

This is will not make the surrender monkys and appeaswers happy


In the last week of October 2007, there were 30 attacks on U.S. soldiers in the Anbar province of Iraq, just one-tenth as many as the previous year, according to U.S. Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, who spoke at a conference on the war on Wednesday.

He further noted that civilian deaths in Iraq have fallen by 70 percent in less than a year, and by November 2007, the number of insurgent attacks in Iraq had dropped to their lowest level since 2004.

Attacks on United States soldiers are only one tenth of the number that they were one year ago, and civilian deaths are down 70%, and insurgence attacks are at their lowest levels in a few years. All of this SHOULD be reported by the media but none of it is. The general then goes on to say that the sectarian violence is all but over also.

Obviously, it’s too early to declare victory and go home, but I think it’s safe to say that the surge of coalition forces - but just as important, how we employed those forces - has broken the cycle of sectarian violence in Iraq

As the war in Iraq continues to improve it will proportionately be removed from the every day news cycle. It will also disappear from the political campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, McCain may still use it as an issue because he was in favor of the surge. This can only be described by me as being sad. I can’t get over the fact that all the good things that America is doing in Iraq gets buried, while all the media needs is one suicide bomber and the Iraq war is back on the front page. When I say that I can’t get over this fact, I don’t mean that I am astonished that the media would ignore what is happening over there, I expect that, I just can’t get over the fact that the media is so blatant in their anti-war, anti-American victory coverage that they don’t even try to be unbiased anymore. I am also astonished that so many Americans are swayed by this type of “reporting” and fall for it hook, line, and sinker without even questioning it.

http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/more-good-news-from-iraq-goes-unreported/

[mundame]

She also no longer has to wear a headscarf.


Weasel words. She DOES wear a headscarf, though, because otherwise someone will quickly kill her, doing sex tortures all the while because it's the only sex they can ever hope to experience.

This girl is unlikely to live long. Basra is now rife with sex killings supposed to be based on women not obeying the ha-ha so-called "religious" rules.

[red states rule]

Weasel words. She DOES wear a headscarf, though, because otherwise someone will quickly kill her, doing sex tortures all the while because it's the only sex they can ever hope to experience.

This girl is unlikely to live long. Basra is now rife with sex killings supposed to be based on women not obeying the ha-ha so-called "religious" rules.

Like most appeasers, you pick and choose what you will comment on

as the women said

“All these men in black [who imposed the laws] just vanished from the university after this operation,” said Ms Ahmed. “Things have completely changed over the past week.”

[mundame]

and more good news from Iraq. News the liberal media is not reporting

This is will not make the surrender monkys and appeaswers happy


In the last week of October 2007, there were 30 attacks on U.S. soldiers in the Anbar province of Iraq, just one-tenth as many as the previous year, according to U.S. Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, who spoke at a conference on the war on Wednesday.

He further noted that civilian deaths in Iraq have fallen by 70 percent in less than a year, and by November 2007, the number of insurgent attacks in Iraq had dropped to their lowest level since 2004.

Attacks on United States soldiers are only one tenth of the number that they were one year ago, and civilian deaths are down 70%, and insurgence attacks are at their lowest levels in a few years. All of this SHOULD be reported by the media but none of it is. The general then goes on to say that the sectarian violence is all but over also.

Obviously, it’s too early to declare victory and go home, but I think it’s safe to say that the surge of coalition forces - but just as important, how we employed those forces - has broken the cycle of sectarian violence in Iraq

As the war in Iraq continues to improve it will proportionately be removed from the every day news cycle. It will also disappear from the political campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, McCain may still use it as an issue because he was in favor of the surge. This can only be described by me as being sad. I can’t get over the fact that all the good things that America is doing in Iraq gets buried, while all the media needs is one suicide bomber and the Iraq war is back on the front page. When I say that I can’t get over this fact, I don’t mean that I am astonished that the media would ignore what is happening over there, I expect that, I just can’t get over the fact that the media is so blatant in their anti-war, anti-American victory coverage that they don’t even try to be unbiased anymore. I am also astonished that so many Americans are swayed by this type of “reporting” and fall for it hook, line, and sinker without even questioning it.

http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2008/03/08/more-good-news-from-iraq-goes-unreported/




Actually, the American death rate is the highest since last September, because the situation is going down the tubes again.

This stuff above is all lies and propaganda, but very few people are taken in by it anymore. I'm surprised you keep trying to hold the tide back, RSR. It's over. We lost. Time to go. Nearly everybody realizes this.


You'd better hope Obama gets the nomination, because then McCain will win and he can keep the wars going on and on losing for years.

Maybe, if the people don't revolt entirely against this nonsense.

[red states rule]

Actually, the American death rate is the highest since last September, because the situation is going down the tubes again.

This stuff above is all lies and propaganda, but very few people are taken in by it anymore. I'm surprised you keep trying to hold the tide back, RSR. It's over. We lost. Time to go. Nearly everybody realizes this.


You'd better hope Obama gets the nomination, because then McCain will win and he can keep the wars going on and on losing for years.

Maybe, if the people don't revolt entirely against this nonsense.

It is amazing how defeatests will ignore facts and keep sprewing the Harry Reid "the war is lost" talking points

I guess to you the US did not defeat Germany in WWII, Amercian troops just got bored and went home

[mundame]

It is amazing how defeatests will ignore facts and keep sprewing the Harry Reid "the war is lost" talking points.

I don't know Harry Reid; that's MY talking points.



I guess to you the US did not defeat Germany in WWII, Amercian troops just got bored and went home


I had the impression we fought the Germans hard and won....................

Unlike what we are doing in Iraq.

[red states rule]

I don't know Harry Reid; that's MY talking points.





I had the impression we fought the Germans hard and won....................

Unlike what we are doing in Iraq.

You somehow have Harry's talking points down pat

You did post Germany did not surrender - how you arrived at that is strange

[mundame]

You somehow have Harry's talking points down pat

Great minds work alike, I suppose.




You did post Germany did not surrender - how you arrived at that is strange


Well, you do have to be on the right WAR, RSR.

Try World War One.

[red states rule]

Great minds work alike, I suppose.





Well, you do have to be on the right WAR, RSR.

Try World War One.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste on a liberal

So Germany did not lose WWI as well?

[mundame]

So Germany did not lose WWI as well?

Well, they sure didn't surrender. And they weren't ever defeated.

Ludendorf concluded the economics of the situation were unsupportable, and the Americans could send over far too many fresh troops for an exhausted German army to win against in the long run.

So he asked for an armistice, which took well into 1919 to get negotiated and signed.

The Germans climbed out of their excellent fortifications in good order, and marched home to the Rhineland in good order, with no one shooting at them.

Same thing that we will eventually do. I guess there's no reason not to leave a lot of American men over there getting their legs blown off for several months in the meantime, though, right?

[red states rule]

Well, they sure didn't surrender. And they weren't ever defeated.

Ludendorf concluded the economics of the situation were unsupportable, and the Americans could send over far too many fresh troops for an exhausted German army to win against in the long run.

So he asked for an armistice, which took well into 1919 to get negotiated and signed.

The Germans climbed out of their excellent fortifications in good order, and marched home to the Rhineland in good order, with no one shooting at them.

Same thing that we will eventually do. I guess there's no reason not to leave a lot of American men over there getting their legs blown off for several months in the meantime, though, right?


No wonder you think we are losing in Iraq. Your knowledge on the what is real and what is fantasy is something to behold



Why Did Germany Surrendered At The End Of WWI?

I think one of the most important factor that made Germany decide to surrender was the fact that Germany got off to a bad start when the Schlieffen plan failed. The Schlieffen plan was a plan devised by Alfred Graf von Schlieffen.The plan was to invade France and take over Paris in only two weeks. He went over and over it on paper and it worked over and over again but when he pu itinto real life, it wasn't quite as successful.

The first part of the plan that failed was going through Belgium. The Belgium's forces retaliated more than von Schlieffen expected. He thought it would be easy to get through Belgium. Once he did get to France, the British came in to lend a Hand to their ally's, the French. Von Schlieffen hadn't expected this either. After a while, the two sides got into a stalemate position. They started building trenches and then, The Schlieffen plan, had turned into a war.

To start off, the Germans were right in the middle of French territory so it was hard for the German troops to get food. The Schlieffen plan had stranded the German troops from supplies. Without the food and supplies, the Germans cant do very much. On top of this, the new general, general Kaiser, orders a full on attack using all the artillery. This is good for the British and French because all they have to do is hide until the attack is over. The Germans support lines were destroyed so the kaiser had no Idea his plan was failing. The kaiser then fleed to Holland, leaving his troops destroyed.


http://www.socyberty.com/History/Why-Did-Germany-Surrendered-At-The-End-Of--WWI.26459

[mundame]

Why Did Germany Surrendered At The End Of WWI?

Once he did get to France, the British came in to lend a Hand to their ally's, the French.

They started building trenches and then, The Schlieffen plan, had turned into a war.

The Schlieffen plan had stranded the German troops from supplies. Without the food and supplies, the Germans cant do very much.

The kaiser then fleed to Holland, leaving his troops destroyed.


I've studied World War One for years. You answer me with a badly spelled, grade-F high school history paper?


Darn, RSR.

[theHawk]

Depsite what the left and liberal media would have you believe, progress has been made in Iraq

There is still alot to do in Iraq, but the US is winning the fight


The half-won, half-lost war
By Victor Davis Hanson
May 3, 2008

The gloomy election-year refrain is that America is mired in Iraq, took its eye off Afghanistan, empowered Iran and is losing the war on terror. But how accurate is that pessimistic diagnosis?

First, the good news. For all the talk of a recent Tet-like offensive in Basra, the Mahdi Army of radical Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr suffered an ignominious setback when his gunmen were routed from their enclaves.

This rout helped the constitutional — and Shi'ite-dominated — government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki renew its authority, and has encouraged Sunnis to re-enter government. Two great threats to Iraqi autonomy — Iranian-backed Shi'ite militiamen and Sunni-supported al-Qaeda terrorists — have both now been repulsed by an elected government and its supporters.

Our armed forces are stretched, but Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and his colonels are quietly transforming a top-heavy conventional colossus into more mobile counterinsurgency forces.

Gen. Petraeus' recent nomination to CentCom commander suggests that, like the growing influence of Gens. U.S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman in 1863, or of George Marshall when he reconfigured the Army in 1940, we at last are beginning to get the right officers in the right places at the right time.


for the complete article

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080503/COMMENTARY/762448682/1012/commentary

The war is being won on the battlefield by the heros serving over there.

The war is being lost by the shitbag liberals stateside giving our enemies all the motiviation they need to continue fighting our troops.

[red states rule]

The war is being won on the battlefield by the heros serving over there.

The war is being lost by the shitbag liberals stateside giving our enemies all the motiviation they need to continue fighting our troops.

It is a fact the terrorists are backing Hillary and Obama. They are openly hoping Dems win in November

It is not because the Dems will deal more harshly with them then the Bush administration

Libs want to bend over, and grab the ankles in a gesture of good will to the terrorists

[Gaffer]

Using the civil war as a example of invasion of this country is really grabbing. It was a war in which Americans fought Americans. That's the reason it was so bloody. And an invasion from within is the only way the US can be invaded. Though the south seceded from the union it was still considered a part of the US.

On to WW1. The Germans were defeated. They knew they could no longer sustain their war effort with the US now involved. They agreed to the armistice and surrendered. They were made to pay restitution and give up territory. It bankrupt the country which allowed hitler to come to power. France was determine to crush Germany financially and prevent it from ever becoming a viable power again. It didn't work because France didn't back up their rhetoric. Neither did anyone else. hitler snubbed his nose at the world and went on to rebuild the German war machine.

As for an invasion of the US and your theory of the US breaking up. There are a lot of factors you leave out. States would have to secede from the union first. And this would not be allowed to happen. The president would declare marshal law in that state and move troops in to secure it. Any attempted break up would be mexican inspired and the mexican born population would pay a heavy price for that. Not to mention Mexico itself would potentially be invaded, again.

I think Britain is very greatful our country became the super power it did. If we hadn't they would be speaking German now. In fact a lot of countries have the sovereignty because America is a super power.

As I said before it is logistically not possible for this country to be invaded. The oceans are too vast and our technology is too high. You can't hide a 5000 ship fleet from spy satellites and a nuclear missile. Infiltration and insurgency is the only way to do it, and that brings a crack down from law enforcement and the military. And I do expect that to happen in the near future.

[mundame]

Using the civil war as a example of invasion of this country is really grabbing.

I doubt the people Lee's army marched through thought at the time that it wasn't important, it was just the South invading ----------------- Barbara Fritchie was pretty annoyed, as I recall.



Though the south seceded from the union it was still considered a part of the US.

Not by the South, it wasn't.



On to WW1. The Germans were defeated. They knew they could no longer sustain their war effort with the US now involved. They agreed to the armistice and surrendered.

No, they never surrendered. An armistice by definition is not surrendering: see Korea. An armistice means both sides stop fighting, and then negotiate the terms, such as the DMZ.



They were made to pay restitution and give up territory. It bankrupt the country which allowed hitler to come to power. France was determine to crush Germany financially and prevent it from ever becoming a viable power again. It didn't work because France didn't back up their rhetoric. Neither did anyone else. hitler snubbed his nose at the world and went on to rebuild the German war machine.


Okay. Except that it didn't bankrupt Germany at all: that's how Hitler was able to rebuild their powerful war machine better than ever. Germany recovered quickly from WWI, relative to the other countries (Britain and the U.S. suffered more heavily from the Great Depression than Germany did).

I think the main factor was that the Germans KNEW they hadn't been defeated, and they stayed mad for 20 years, blaming Jews and Communists and everyone but themselves for losing WWI. The armistice required Germany to agree they had started the war (which of course they had!!!), but German propaganda had convinced Germans they had a right to goosestep into Belgium, and all the rest. So they resented the terms of the armistice and as soon as they could, they started the war again.


As for an invasion of the US and your theory of the US breaking up. There are a lot of factors you leave out. States would have to secede from the union first. And this would not be allowed to happen.

Well, no, but it might happen anyway! The Confederacy wasn't allowed to secede either, after all, but they did.



Any attempted break up would be mexican inspired and the mexican born population would pay a heavy price for that. Not to mention Mexico itself would potentially be invaded, again.

If our entire Southwest, Mexican-controlled, served as a buffer zone (like Poland) between the rest of the country and Mexico proper.......It would be harder to invade Mexico.


I think Britain is very greatful our country became the super power it did. If we hadn't they would be speaking German now. In fact a lot of countries have the sovereignty because America is a super power.

The nationals of every country in the world seem to hate us now, so I think those days are over. Because they hate and fear us and our war-making capacity (though why they should given our lamentable military performance, I don't know) I would expect any cracks in our structure to be riven wide by foreign interference from every direction.


As I said before it is logistically not possible for this country to be invaded. The oceans are too vast and our technology is too high. You can't hide a 5000 ship fleet from spy satellites and a nuclear missile.

And as I said before, it's happened a number of times already, so it could happen again: though only if we split up into regions, I think.



Infiltration and insurgency is the only way to do it, and that brings a crack down from law enforcement and the military. And I do expect that to happen in the near future.

I think we'll drift aimlessly like Europe until the illegals and Muslims take us over, and the United States will become a nation of impoverished stupid people until it splits into regions. I see no interest whatsoever on the part of the government in defending what actually makes America great.

[Gaffer]

An armistice is a succession of hostilities while terms of surrender are worked out. The Korean War was purely a cease fire just like the Gulf War. The DMZ was establish as a separation point. A cease fire is the first step, and armistice is the second step followed by the terms of surrender.

The civil war was a war to hold the union together. The Confederates may have considered themselves a separate nation, but they weren't. No one recognized them as such. Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation to keep other countries from interfering and recognizing the confederate states. It worked as all the major powers in the world at that time had renounced slavery.

The Confederacy was not a country but an alliance of states.

As far as a war with Mexico and an invasion of the US. While you are well versed in history your lacking in strategy and tactics. You don't comprehend the US military and it's capabilities. Nor the logistics involved in any invasion. (This isn't meant as an insult) Mexico would stand up to the US about as long as iraq did. There would be no buffer zone as any state that secedes would be occupied militarily. The coasts of Mexico would be blockaded and no other country would be allowed to get through.

Other than missile attacks the only way we can be attacked is from within. Muslims are working hard on that. And when we finally go to actual war with iran you will see them expose themselves.

With all that said with a obama presidency and a democrat controlled congress you could be proven right.

[red states rule]

In tribute to Mr King


Wednesday Funnies: 'Halp Us Stevin Kenk'
By Noel Sheppard | May 7, 2008 - 19:35 ET

For Stephen King's benefit, our friends at Are We Lumberjacks have updated an hysterical picture from November 2006 which humorously mocked John Kerry's offensive anti-military remark:

[mundame]

An armistice is a succession of hostilities while terms of surrender are worked out.


No, that's quite incorrect. If you type "define: armistice" into Google you get these definitions:

************************************************** *
An agreement by belligerents to suspend military operations. For example, World War I Armistice.
www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1451.html (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1451.html)

a suspension of hostilities agreed upon by warring forces; a truce.
www.lib.mq.edu.au/digital/lema/glossaries/militaryterms.html (http://www.lib.mq.edu.au/digital/lema/glossaries/militaryterms.html)

a state of peace agreed to between opponents so they can discuss peace terms
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

An armistice is the effective end of a war, when the warring parties agree to stop fighting. It is derived from the Latin arma, meaning weapons and statium, meaning a stopping.
************************************************** *

It does not mean surrender; an armistice is an agreement to stop fighting that does not assume a military defeat or a surrender, since neither happened.




The Korean War was purely a cease fire just like the Gulf War. The DMZ was establish as a separation point. A cease fire is the first step, and armistice is the second step followed by the terms of surrender.



No, the Korean War was ended by a formal Armistice and there was no surrender on either side. Here is the data on it:

Agreement for the Restoration of the (http://www.historicaldocuments.com/KoreanWarArmistice.htmArmistice)
South Korean State (1953) (http://www.historicaldocuments.com/KoreanWarArmistice.htmArmistice)

This armistice signed on July 27, 1953 formally ended the war in Korea. North and South Korea remain separate and occupy almost the same territory they had when the war began.

The Korean War , which began on June 25, 1950, when the North Koreans invaded South Korea, officially ended on July 27, 1953. At 10 a.m., in Panmunjom, scarcely acknowledging each other, U.S. Army Lt. Gen. William K. Harrison, Jr., senior delegate, United Nations Command Delegation; North Korean Gen. Nam Il, senior delegate, Delegation of the Korean People's Army and the Chinese People's Volunteers, signed 18 official copies of the tri-language Korean Armistice Agreement.

It was the end of the longest negotiated armistice in history: 158 meetings spread over two years and 17 days. That evening at 10 p.m. the truce went into effect. The Korean Armistice Agreement is somewhat exceptional in that it is purely a military document; no nation is a signatory to the agreement.

Specifically, the Armistice Agreement:

suspended open hostilities;

withdrew all military forces and equipment from a 4,000-meter-wide zone, establishing the Demilitarized Zone as a buffer between the forces;

prevented both sides from entering the air, ground, or sea areas under control of the other;

arranged release and repatriation of prisoners of war and displaced persons; and

established the Military Armistice Commission (MAC) and other agencies to discuss any violations and to ensure adherence to the truce terms.

The armistice, while it stopped hostilities, was not a permanent peace treaty between nations.
************************************************** ***

You note that there is no mention of any "surrender" by either party. The Korean Armistice continues to this day and is to the disadvantage of the United States, pretty clearly.



As far as a war with Mexico and an invasion of the US. While you are well versed in history your lacking in strategy and tactics. You don't comprehend the US military and it's capabilities.

Oh, does the U.S. military HAVE capabilities? Are you sure? I haven't noticed any capabilities that result in winning any wars for quite some decades now. Men wearing nightshirts and driving donkey carts can beat us in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I suppose any bunch of sombrero-wearing Mexicans driving donkeys can also beat our decidedly useless military.

You know, Gaffer, if a military is to be considered any good, it has to occasionally actually WIN a war. We're rapidly becoming like the French: all uniforms and moustaches, no victories.



Nor the logistics involved in any invasion. (This isn't meant as an insult) Mexico would stand up to the US about as long as iraq did. There would be no buffer zone as any state that secedes would be occupied militarily. The coasts of Mexico would be blockaded and no other country would be allowed to get through.

Remember I am assuming we have split up into regions. I agree that the United States at this point, united, is a match for Mexico. Once we have split up, as all empires and large nations do, everybody will attack us, perhaps via Mexico, and maybe Mexico itself will attack. I view Mexico as more of a venue for attack on this continent, but they have of course attacked us before (Alamo, Brownsville).

There is no use saying things can't possibly happen here, when they already did happen.


Other than missile attacks the only way we can be attacked is from within. Muslims are working hard on that. And when we finally go to actual war with iran you will see them expose themselves.

Presumably we'll just lose yet another war when we attack Iran. Losing is pretty much all we have done the last forty years. Sooner or later some power we are at war with will attack here; I'm amazed they haven't yet. (Not counting bin Laden, who isn't exactly "a power.") Well, I suppose we agree about that. You expect that also. It would be a good tactic against us, but these impoverished and not-very-able enemies we have right now can't seem to get that together, thank goodness.

[red states rule]

Another example of why liberals can;t be trusted with national defense, and leading the war on terror

Libs have ranted against GITMO, and screamed how the terrorists rights are being violated

Dividends

With very little Drive-By coverage, liberal Democrats have scored a major success in their unrelenting opposition to the war on terror that has paid huge dividends.

Enemy combatant Abdallah Salih al-Ajmi was released from Guantanamo Bay in 2006, during the height of the Democrats' antiwar, anti-Gitmo campaign. His release to Kuwait came despite his promises "to kill as many Americans" as he could. The freed combatant wound up in Iraq, where he recently carried out a suicide car bombing; he was part of an operation that killed at least seven people.

But that's not the whole story. At least 36 former Gitmo detainees have resumed war against America since they were freed. A few have been killed or recaptured.

Now, folks, this is a true Democrat Party success story. Pictures of every freed terrorist -- and the people they killed -- should be plastered front and center at every Democrat campaign rally. MoveOn.org should hold fundraisers in their honor. Congressional Democrats should have suicide bomber Abdallah's framed photo on their office walls because he obviously is a Democrat hero.

Democrats want Gitmo closed. They want all the terrorists released or transferred here to US shores. And they won't rest until they win that fight, and until even more Americans -- and our allies -- are dead; that's the end result of their actions.

When the phone rings at 3 a.m., it's to families of those killed by terrorists that liberals got released from Gitmo, and neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama care about that phone call at 3 a.m. Don't doubt me.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050808/content/01125101.member.html

[mundame]

I want Gitmo closed, too, forthwith.

If this is a WAR, darn it, why don't they just KILL the enemies like normal soldiers?

Taking them across several oceans to do foul and disgusting tortures on them?

Not the American Way. It's terrible. They should just kill them. That's what our enemies do to American soldiers, be sure.

[red states rule]

I want Gitmo closed, too, forthwith.

If this is a WAR, darn it, why don't they just KILL the enemies like normal soldiers?

Taking them across several oceans to do foul and disgusting tortures on them?

Not the American Way. It's terrible. They should just kill them. That's what our enemies do to American soldiers, be sure.

How many terrorists from GITMO will you put up in your home?

[Gaffer]

I want Gitmo closed, too, forthwith.

If this is a WAR, darn it, why don't they just KILL the enemies like normal soldiers?

Taking them across several oceans to do foul and disgusting tortures on them?

Not the American Way. It's terrible. They should just kill them. That's what our enemies do to American soldiers, be sure.

They don't do foul tortures on them. They question them for information that they use to round up terrorists in your neighborhood. They also keep them there to prevent them from going out and killing people again. They were captured on the battlefield, not snatched off the street.And only special cases and high ranking guys get to go to gitmo. The average mo sits in a prison in iraq or afgan and is dealt with by the local government. Gitmo is a pleasant experience compared to those hell holes.

I think after they are no longer useful they should be executed.

[red states rule]

They don't do foul tortures on them. They question them for information that they use to round up terrorists in your neighborhood. They also keep them there to prevent them from going out and killing people again. They were captured on the battlefield, not snatched off the street.And only special cases and high ranking guys get to go to gitmo. The average mo sits in a prison in iraq or afgan and is dealt with by the local government. Gitmo is a pleasant experience compared to those hell holes.

I think after they are no longer useful they should be executed.

It is a tropical retreat for the terrorits. Free check in. Free Korans. Free prayer rugs. Muslim approved foods

All terrorists need to do to get their free room is to ask any member of the US military, and before they know it, they are enjoying the tropical sun and the smell of the ocean