Petraeus is a LIAR!!

[Guernicaa]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070909/us-iraq/

WASHINGTON — President Bush's war strategy is failing and the top military commander in Iraq is "dead flat wrong" for warning against major changes, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday.

Ahead of two days of crucial testimony by Bush's leading military and political advisers on Iraq, Sen. Joseph Biden indicated that he and other Democrats would persist in efforts to set target dates for bringing troops home.

"The reality is that, although there has been some mild progress on the security front, there is, in fact, no real security in Baghdad or Anbar province, where I was dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence," said Biden, a 2008 presidential candidate who recently returned from Iraq.

Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were scheduled to testify before four congressional committees, including Biden's, on Monday and Tuesday. Lawmakers will hear how the commander and the diplomat assess progress in Iraq and offer recommendations about the course of war strategy.

[stephanie]

:poke:,,,,,,,,,

[jimnyc]

I'm not sure how you backup the claim that he is a liar? Are you basing this in Biden's "disagreement" on the assessment? And if so, are we to take the word of a senator over a General in the armed forces regarding the military?

[tim_duncan2000]

Fuck Biden. Petraeus is actually on the ground and sees what's going on day after day. What does Biden do? It disgusts me to see them smear smear Petraeus like that. Here's another story about this from the assholes at moveon.org:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/091rhesh.asp

[5stringJeff]

Disagreeing with a Democrat's opinion does not make one a liar. In fact, it makes one smart.

[glockmail]

Wow. We've seen the liberal definition of "liar" to now include anyone who disagrees with an opinion.

[Dilloduck]

At least they're not pre-judging the testimony nor his answers to questions that they haven't even asked yet. :laugh2:

[Sitarro]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070909/us-iraq/

I see your problem now, you are actually taking anything you read on Huffington's sight seriously.

[avatar4321]

If the Democrats think attacking Petreous is going to help them, they are in for some problems.

[Kathianne]

Called a 'liar' before testifying, on Monday or Tuesday. :rolleyes: No agenda here, right.

[stephanie]

Called a 'liar' before testifying, on Monday or Tuesday. :rolleyes: No agenda here, right.

Yeah well....You have to consider the source who is calling him a liar..:coffee:

[Psychoblues]

But,,,,,,the fact remains that he is a liar? It's obvious to me.

[stephanie]

But,,,,,,the fact remains that he is a liar? It's obvious to me.

As I said earlier......

LOOK AT THE SOURCE.......:alcoholic:

[Psychoblues]

I dunno?!?!?!?!?




As I said earlier......

LOOK AT THE SOURCE.......:alcoholic:

Faux News isn't real happy with the truth either!!!!!!!!!!! Have you had your 6th Cape Cod yet, ,,,,,,,,,tonight?

[stephanie]

I dunno?!?!?!?!?





Faux News isn't real happy with the truth either!!!!!!!!!!! Have you had your 6th Cape Cod yet, ,,,,,,,,,tonight?

Nope...only on my second, about to make my third...

How bout you....are you still working on your first case of Busch or your second??:coffee:

[Psychoblues]

I ain't doing the Busch thing, Staphy.




Nope...only on my second, about to make my third...

How bout you....are you still working on your first case of Busch or your second??:coffee:

I switched over to Shaffeurs. I understand they are part of the Miller Beer complex and their workers are represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worders. I'll support organized labor anyday and anytime. You can support those that organize to screw you over anytime you like.

[stephanie]

I ain't doing the Busch thing, Staphy.





I switched over to Shaffeurs. I understand they are part of the Miller Beer complex and their workers are represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worders. I'll support organized labor anyday and anytime. You can support those that organize to screw you over anytime you like.

Wow......what a switch...
In the four or so yrs. I've known you..you always drank Busch..

When did you have this light bulb moment.....

In the last month or two...?:poke:

[Psychoblues]

Damn, Staphy, I ran out of Shaffuers and I just recently, like in the last 20 or so minutes, had to switch back over to Busch!!!!!!!!!!!!!




Wow......what a switch...
In the four or so yrs. I've known you..you always drank Busch..

When did you have this light bulb moment.....

In the last month or two...?:poke:

But I still want to support the IAM whenever I can but I really don't care for Miller Beer.

[stephanie]

Damn, Staphy, I ran out of Shaffuers and I just recently, like in the last 20 or so minutes, had to switch back over to Busch!!!!!!!!!!!!!





But I still want to support the IAM whenever I can but I really don't care for Miller Beer.

:laugh2:You're not very loyal there my friend...

Now me...I'm DAMN loyal...
I always stick with vodka...Wouldn't want to put them tatter farmers out of work...:alcoholic:

[avatar4321]

But,,,,,,the fact remains that he is a liar? It's obvious to me.

he is a liar before he says a thing. typical lib.

[stephanie]

he is a liar before he says a thing. typical lib.

well...that's why I said...consider the source...:cheers2:

[JohnDoe]

he is a liar before he says a thing. typical lib.

BUT didn't the whitehouse LEAK what petraus was going to say? How can you say he has said nothing when we ALL KNOW ALREADY that he is going to say the surge is working...

that's what you think right....that the surge is working and we are going to stay in Iraq even though 3/4's of the benchmarks put in for us to stay WERE NOT MET?

How do YOU know this if the information of what was going to be said, was not leaked already? huh?


jd

[avatar4321]

BUT didn't the whitehouse LEAK what petraus was going to say? How can you say he has said nothing when we ALL KNOW ALREADY that he is going to say the surge is working...

that's what you think right....that the surge is working and we are going to stay in Iraq even though 3/4's of the benchmarks put in for us to stay WERE NOT MET?

How do YOU know this if the information of what was going to be said, was not leaked already? huh?


jd

This is the information the media has been telling us for weeks.

[JohnDoe]

This is the information the media has been telling us for weeks.yes, and it was leaked from the whitehouse so that when it was made official, we would not be surprised.... that's how it appears... and it is a common tactic used by them....

[jimnyc]

Let's see if I have this straight...

If a military official reports good news and/or progress in Iraq, he/she is a liar.

If a military official reports bad news from Iraq, he/she is a true patriot.

Senators are now more knowledgeable about war efforts than military Generals.

Sound about right?

[avatar4321]

Let's see if I have this straight...

If a military official reports good news and/or progress in Iraq, he/she is a liar.

If a military official reports bad news from Iraq, he/she is a true patriot.

Senators are now more knowledgeable about war efforts than military Generals.

Sound about right?

yeah pretty much. especially when their presidential campaign will fall apart if the generals are correct.

[Psychoblues]

Nope.



Let's see if I have this straight...

If a military official reports good news and/or progress in Iraq, he/she is a liar.

If a military official reports bad news from Iraq, he/she is a true patriot.

Senators are now more knowledgeable about war efforts than military Generals.

Sound about right?

Exxagerating the implications diminish your cred, jimnyc. Would you care to offer the question in a more truthful way?

[PostmodernProphet]

Exxagerating the implications diminish your cred, jimnyc

well, at least you have admitted those were the implications......

[jimnyc]

Nope.




Exxagerating the implications diminish your cred, jimnyc. Would you care to offer the question in a more truthful way?

Not sure how I exaggerated. General Petraeus is called a liar for reporting progress in Iraq. I've seen quite a few liberals here in the past state that the military officials (mostly retired) who spoke of negative aspects were true patriots for speaking out. Senator Biden makes comments and many liberals believe his comments over that of the leading General in the war.

I'm confused how the facts seem like exaggerations?

[JohnDoe]

Patraeus said in his testimony that the reason his figures differ with the report from the non partisan GAO, is that he had 5 more weeks of data, where some more progress was showing.

As far as violence being down....they changed the rules, MID STREAM and the way they are reporting it, does not show the actual FACTS of the WHOLE picture...

for instance, the 500 kurds that were killed in a bombing in Iraq just a few weeks agao was not included, if a person was shot in the head in the front of the head it was included but if shot in the back of the head, it was NOT included....

all kinds of crapola like that was going on with their counts of violent deaths....

I tell ya, THAT is a bunch of CRAP and NO ONE can defend it.... gees, not including the Kurd attack is just fricking UNBELIEVABLE!

Tell the TRUTH damnit....TRUTH is with God, deceiving is with Satan! God above political shennanigans...

And I am not talking petraeus, he did not change the rules on how deaths of Iraqis are calculated NOW verses before....

[jimnyc]

As far as violence being down....they changed the rules, MID STREAM and the way they are reporting it, does not show the actual FACTS of the WHOLE picture...

for instance, the 500 kurds that were killed in a bombing in Iraq just a few weeks agao was not included, if a person was shot in the head in the front of the head it was included but if shot in the back of the head, it was NOT included....

all kinds of crapola like that was going on with their counts of violent deaths....

I tell ya, THAT is a bunch of CRAP and NO ONE can defend it.... gees, not including the Kurd attack is just fricking UNBELIEVABLE!

Tell the TRUTH damnit....TRUTH is with God, deceiving is with Satan! God above political shennanigans...

And I am not talking petraeus, he did not change the rules on how deaths of Iraqis are calculated NOW verses before....

JD, can you please link me to where you get your stats regarding the violence taking place in Iraq, and these said rules.

[AFbombloader]

I see your problem now, you are actually taking anything you read on Huffington's sight seriously.

You beat me to the punch. Lets look at the source before we make any judgements. Personally I would believe a decorated General before a senator or representative with no military experience.

[glockmail]

Let's see if I have this straight...

If a military official reports good news and/or progress in Iraq, he/she is a liar.

If a military official reports bad news from Iraq, he/she is a true patriot.

Senators are now more knowledgeable about war efforts than military Generals.

Sound about right? Bingo. Makes sense doesn't it? :rolleyes:

[Monkeybone]

Patraeus said in his testimony that the reason his figures differ with the report from the non partisan GAO, is that he had 5 more weeks of data, where some more progress was showing.

As far as violence being down....they changed the rules, MID STREAM and the way they are reporting it, does not show the actual FACTS of the WHOLE picture...

for instance, the 500 kurds that were killed in a bombing in Iraq just a few weeks agao was not included, if a person was shot in the head in the front of the head it was included but if shot in the back of the head, it was NOT included....

all kinds of crapola like that was going on with their counts of violent deaths....

I tell ya, THAT is a bunch of CRAP and NO ONE can defend it.... gees, not including the Kurd attack is just fricking UNBELIEVABLE!

Tell the TRUTH damnit....TRUTH is with God, deceiving is with Satan! God above political shennanigans...

And I am not talking petraeus, he did not change the rules on how deaths of Iraqis are calculated NOW verses before....

if you're going off the info that i think you are, they count car bombs and IED, things that of that nature and it has to fit into that. you know, things that were happening becasue the terrorist were running loose.

and where you got shot, it ain't that they weren't counting them, they were trying classify as : front, you were fighting and the bullett hit you in the head. the back of the heads they were counting as assinanations depending on the situation. go for the whole story and truth before you just pick things out like that or check where you were getting that info.

they aren't changing the rules, they are trying to see what kind of a difference they are making with how they classify the violence. to think that they are excluding things to make the viloence dissapear is just retarded (not calling you that) and looking for reasons to call him a Liar. how long was biden over there and how close to the front line was he? i can go to a shit city and say, wow, look at this hell hole and leave from one or two things and not experince the whole picture. personally i don't exactly like them trying to classify everything differently, but i can understand where they are coing from and what they are looking for with it.

[JohnDoe]

if you're going off the info that i think you are, they count car bombs and IED, things that of that nature and it has to fit into that. you know, things that were happening becasue the terrorist were running loose.

and where you got shot, it ain't that they weren't counting them, they were trying classify as : front, you were fighting and the bullett hit you in the head. the back of the heads they were counting as assinanations depending on the situation. go for the whole story and truth before you just pick things out like that or check where you were getting that info.

they aren't changing the rules, they are trying to see what kind of a difference they are making with how they classify the violence. to think that they are excluding things to make the viloence dissapear is just retarded (not calling you that) and looking for reasons to call him a Liar. how long was biden over there and how close to the front line was he? i can go to a shit city and say, wow, look at this hell hole and leave from one or two things and not experince the whole picture. personally i don't exactly like them trying to classify everything differently, but i can understand where they are coing from and what they are looking for with it.

Monkey, I can understand clarrifying the kind of deaths that occur, but IF YOU DON'T CLARIFY last year's figures in the same manner, of which you compared the violence this yearwith, then it is NOTHING but a deceiving report. Apples must be compared with apples, not oranges....

And THIS is what I am afraid, they have done and what is being reported that they have done. I ran a business for over 20 years, and the only way to analize this is with comparable numbers....not with a 2nd set of books....

jd

[JohnDoe]

and monkey, HOW did the the 500 deaths in the Kurdish area last month not count as deaths from acts of terrorism? That is what is being reported.....?

[JohnDoe]

Bingo. Makes sense doesn't it? :rolleyes:

The bottom line of what I got out of the hearings with Patraeus is that he said that staying is the only way we as a country can accomplish our goals in Iraq...(Which I still have NO IDEA EXACTLY what those goals are....)

And he said he has no clue that his mission in Iraq will make us safer... that making us safer in the usa WAS NOT HIS GOAL in Iraq....basically... and that made me wonder what the soldiers over there listening to his testimony felt...that they were dying, but not dying for their own country's safety....!!!!!!!!! They must feel like crap, when he answered that...and it was Senator Warner that pushed the question with Patraeus, not even a Dem!

and that floored me and confirmed that we should NOT have gone in to Iraq....no soldier should be forced to die or be mamed in a war that IS NOT FOR OUR OWN SAFETY, HIS COUNTRY'S SAFETY! It is immoral to send these guys off unless it is for our own security and safety, imho!!!!

And yes, I feel this way about any unjustified war, whether started by a Dem of started by a Con..... :)

[JohnDoe]

JD, can you please link me to where you get your stats regarding the violence taking place in Iraq, and these said rules. Just caught this request/post Jim, I heard it on the 24/7... let me see if I can find an article on it and get it for you in a bit... jd

[Monkeybone]

understandable JD. that is a thing about War...it suck. and then when you get to many players involves in the controlling and such it just goes down the drain even fatser.

[darin]

Interesting how Media is so out of touch:


According to the Sept. 7-8 poll, the public has more trust in Petraeus' recommendations for what to do next in Iraq than it does in other key leaders involved in developing U.S. policy toward Iraq. Sixty-three percent of Americans say they have a great deal (27%) or a fair amount (36%) of confidence in Petraeus' recommendations. Fifty-eight percent have confidence in what the "Joint Chiefs of Staff and other military leaders at the Pentagon" would recommend.

Americans have far less trust in political leaders than in military leaders when it comes to Iraq policy. Only 38% have at least a fair amount of confidence in President Bush's recommendations for the future course of action in Iraq. Congress fares slightly better than Bush on this measure, with 44% saying they are confident in congressional Democrats' recommendations, and 41% saying the same about those of congressional Republicans.

Americans are least confident in what Iraq's political leaders might recommend -- just 27% have confidence in their plans. (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=28675)

[JohnDoe]

jim, for u my dear, you ask, and ye shall receive! ;)

anyway, i heard it on various 24/7's. i found this from the latimes with a quip of it....


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-surge4sep04,0,2280359,full.story?coll=la-home-center

Civilian toll Determining accurate civilian death tolls is virtually impossible in Iraq, where the government has no single source for reporting deaths related to the war. Whichever numbers one uses, however, it is clear that thousands of Iraqis continue to be slain or driven from their homes.

According to U.S. military figures, an average of 1,000 Iraqis have died each month since March in sectarian violence. That compares with about 1,200 a month at the start of the security plan, the military said in an e-mailed response to queries. This does not include deaths from car bombings, which the military said have numbered more than 2,600 this year.

Figures from Iraqi government ministries point to far higher casualty numbers and show that this year, an average of 1,724 civilians a month have died in sectarian attacks, bombings and other war-related violence.


In February, the civilian death toll was 1,646. Last month, it was 1,773, according to numbers from officials in the ministries of Defense, Interior and Health, who cite morgue, hospital and police reports. It was the second straight month that casualties have increased since the security plan began.

Dana Graber-Ladek of the International Organization for Migration said internal displacement had escalated since the troop buildup began. The increase is partly because of people fleeing military offensives, and partly because of better record-keeping by the Ministry for Displacement and Migration, Graber-Ladek said.

But 63% of those displaced this year said they had moved because of threats to their security, according to the International Organization for Migration. One-fourth said they were forced from their homes.

The organization also said that 69% of newly displaced Iraqis had left homes in Baghdad, a sign that sectarian cleansing continues in the capital. These people had either moved to new neighborhoods in the capital or had left Baghdad altogether.

"Basically, Iraqis are fleeing because they flee for their lives," Graber-Ladek said. "As long as the violence continues, displacement will continue."


this article is long, but probably worth the read....

[jimnyc]

jim, for u my dear, you ask, and ye shall receive! ;)

anyway, i heard it on various 24/7's. i found this from the latimes with a quip of it....



this article is long, but probably worth the read....

Not sure the LA Times is the best place for getting accurate figures and analysis. It would appear that figures vary depending on where you look. I also don't see anything in there about what you mentioned about "rules".

[avatar4321]

understandable JD. that is a thing about War...it suck. and then when you get to many players involves in the controlling and such it just goes down the drain even fatser.

Wait, War sucks??? Since when? I thought it was all lollipops and bubbles.

[darin]

Ya know what sucks? MOST Of you focks never even had HEARD of this General before week or so ago, and now you and your liberal whack-job Media types act like 'experts' on his Character.

Idiots.

[BoogyMan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070909/us-iraq/

So you post a rant by one of the more partisan sanity vacuums on the left, a man whose political aspirations were nuked in 1998 because he plagiarized work at law school, and hold it up to be believed over the general who is in charge of our forces on the ground in Iraq.

Egads, who dispatches you people to go from forum to forum and post garbage like this?

What is just precious about this is that the article in question is from the Huffington Post, a well known cesspool and hangout for those who have turned their ability for rational thought over to the DNC for destruction in favor of the collective idiocy mob rule.

[JohnDoe]

Not sure the LA Times is the best place for getting accurate figures and analysis. It would appear that figures vary depending on where you look. I also don't see anything in there about what you mentioned about "rules".then find a link of your own approving, yourself jim....:D

i ain't your slave... and you did not give me a list of who you don't approve of in the mainstream media before i searched for a link for you... hahaha! otherwise, i would have oblidged that too for u... but man, i am on dial up only here in the boondocks, and it is pure, unadulterated, torture to do any kind of googling on dial up unless i have a day or two!

it mentioned a quip.. about suicide bomb deaths not being in the count jim?

[JohnDoe]

Ya know what sucks? MOST Of you focks never even had HEARD of this General before week or so ago, and now you and your liberal whack-job Media types act like 'experts' on his Character.

Idiots. uhhhhh.... NOT!

not if you watch c-span, his confirmation hearing was live.

and not if you watch ANY of the main stream media, who mentioned petraeus's hearings earlier in theyear....

and also, if you watched ANY news at all, you would have heard of him when the dems were trying to get a withdrawl resolution passed but failed because repubs would not join them, because they were waiting for the ''patraeus reprt'' to come out in september...

and so on and so forth!

His character is strong, but he takes his orders and his tasks from the president only. the president does not work for patraeus, but like i said, pataeus does get his direction from the president.

the most important thing that came out of this hearing was that Pataeus had no clue and had not even thought about, whether the war in iraq made us safer here in the united states or not. He said basically, it was not his mission, his mission was iraq.

this is astounding, that our soldiers are dying, and it is NOT EVEN FOR US, for our safety and security!!!!

blowing ''we are fighting them over there so that they don't fight us here'', right out of the water, don't u think?

[Gaffer]

uhhhhh.... NOT!

not if you watch c-span, his confirmation hearing was live.

and not if you watch ANY of the main stream media, who mentioned petraeus's hearings earlier in theyear....

and also, if you watched ANY news at all, you would have heard of him when the dems were trying to get a withdrawl resolution passed but failed because repubs would not join them, because they were waiting for the ''patraeus reprt'' to come out in september...

and so on and so forth!

His character is strong, but he takes his orders and his tasks from the president only. the president does not work for patraeus, but like i said, pataeus does get his direction from the president.

the most important thing that came out of this hearing was that Pataeus had no clue and had not even thought about, whether the war in iraq made us safer here in the united states or not. He said basically, it was not his mission, his mission was iraq.

this is astounding, that our soldiers are dying, and it is NOT EVEN FOR US, for our safety and security!!!!

blowing ''we are fighting them over there so that they don't fight us here'', right out of the water, don't u think?

He is right. His job is commanding in iraq. Not worrying about the security here or anywhere else. The military are given missions. Those missions don't include worrying about whatever else is going on. There are others assigned to our safety and security. We are fighting them over there so the ones whose mission is our safety and security don't have to fight them for us here.

[jimnyc]

then find a link of your own approving, yourself jim....:D

i ain't your slave... and you did not give me a list of who you don't approve of in the mainstream media before i searched for a link for you... hahaha! otherwise, i would have oblidged that too for u... but man, i am on dial up only here in the boondocks, and it is pure, unadulterated, torture to do any kind of googling on dial up unless i have a day or two!

it mentioned a quip.. about suicide bomb deaths not being in the count jim?

That's just it, I read news stories every day but I tend to go to government and military related sites more often. I'm not going to go nuts looking for a link stating there's been a change in "reporting rules about deaths" as I don't recall there ever being such an official policy, or any change. That's why I asked YOU to backup that claim! I just think it's a bit unfair for people to demand the "truth" and full facts as you stated when it's MORE likely you're being mislead by the media. They WANT to sell their news. While I'm not saying they post lies daily, I'm not sold on the fact they're 100% reliable either. At any rate, I wouldn't go as far as to call into question a 4 star General's testimony about things based on what I read in the local papers. You can read 5 different stories on 5 different websites/newspapers and get 5 different versions and 5 different counts.

The US Military has an official website outlining current operations with tons of stats available. Hell, I won't even take that as 100% as I'm sure they have more important things to do than make sure their site is updated.

But I still don't think Petraeus is a liar, nor have I read anything about these rules and their supposed changes.

[jimnyc]

BTW - you have my deepest sympathies for your dial-up connection. My connection is 15000/3000 :)

[Kathianne]

Petraeus doesn't need defending. His record, his academics, his willingness to put not only troops, but his son's life on the line, more than answer the likes of Moveon.

[Dilloduck]

uhhhhh.... NOT!

not if you watch c-span, his confirmation hearing was live.

and not if you watch ANY of the main stream media, who mentioned petraeus's hearings earlier in theyear....

and also, if you watched ANY news at all, you would have heard of him when the dems were trying to get a withdrawl resolution passed but failed because repubs would not join them, because they were waiting for the ''patraeus reprt'' to come out in september...

and so on and so forth!

His character is strong, but he takes his orders and his tasks from the president only. the president does not work for patraeus, but like i said, pataeus does get his direction from the president.

the most important thing that came out of this hearing was that Pataeus had no clue and had not even thought about, whether the war in iraq made us safer here in the united states or not. He said basically, it was not his mission, his mission was iraq.

this is astounding, that our soldiers are dying, and it is NOT EVEN FOR US, for our safety and security!!!!

blowing ''we are fighting them over there so that they don't fight us here'', right out of the water, don't u think?

Wrong---his mission was to be in command for the surge in Iraq and report back on the status. That's exactly what he did. He said things were better--democrats voted unanimously so I assume that either meant they thought he was trustworthy or they never intended to believe him no matter what he said.

[darin]

uhhhhh.... NOT!

not if you watch c-span, his confirmation hearing was live.

and not if you watch ANY of the main stream media, who mentioned petraeus's hearings earlier in theyear....

and also, if you watched ANY news at all, you would have heard of him when the dems were trying to get a withdrawl resolution passed but failed because repubs would not join them, because they were waiting for the ''patraeus reprt'' to come out in september...

Are you trying my familiarity with GEN Petraeus? Are you saying "You watched CSPAN, thus you're qualified to judge his character?




and so on and so forth!

His character is strong, but he takes his orders and his tasks from the president only. the president does not work for patraeus, but like i said, pataeus does get his direction from the president.

That's military chain of command and has little to do w/ GEN's report.


the most important thing that came out of this hearing was that Pataeus had no clue and had not even thought about, whether the war in iraq made us safer here in the united states or not. He said basically, it was not his mission, his mission was iraq.

this is astounding, that our soldiers are dying, and it is NOT EVEN FOR US, for our safety and security!!!!

blowing ''we are fighting them over there so that they don't fight us here'', right out of the water, don't u think?

But what he said is true - your 'spin' on his comments speaks volumes about your lack of understanding about how to run and secure a country...or fight a war.

[JohnDoe]

Wrong---his mission was to be in command for the surge in Iraq and report back on the status. That's exactly what he did. He said things were better--democrats voted unanimously so I assume that either meant they thought he was trustworthy or they never intended to believe him no matter what he said.he said his mission WAS NOT to make us safer, here in the United States....senator warner(r) was very direct in asking this question!

that's enough for me to say, our soldiers should not be sent to die, unless they are protecting us from imminent danger, or trying to make us more secure.

THAT is not pataeus's mission, even though the president has told us more times than i can count, that ''we were fighting them in iraq, so that they would not be fighting us here''.

I do believe Patraeus was given a mission, that he has made some progress with, but greatly short of what he or anyone supporting the surge expected....because there has been virtually no progress in the diplomatic arena....that was to bring the tribes together and oil contracts signed and in to the hands of american companies or friends.

we got another 20 years there before accomplishing real progress with this country and we don't have the doe or manpower to do it....

since THIS IS THE CASE, why should one more American, die for it?

[Dilloduck]

he said his mission WAS NOT to make us safer, here in the United States....senator warner(r) was very direct in asking this question!

that's enough for me to say, our soldiers should not be sent to die, unless they are protecting us from imminent danger, or trying to make us more secure.

THAT is not pataeus's mission, even though the president has told us more times than i can count, that ''we were fighting them in iraq, so that they would not be fighting us here''.

I do believe Patraeus was given a mission, that he has made some progress with, but greatly short of what he or anyone supporting the surge expected....because there has been virtually no progress in the diplomatic arena....that was to bring the tribes together and oil contracts signed and in to the hands of american companies or friends.

we got another 20 years there before accomplishing real progress with this country and we don't have the doe or manpower to do it....

since THIS IS THE CASE, why should one more American, die for it?

Doe ? :laugh2:

[JohnDoe]

Are you trying my familiarity with GEN Petraeus? Are you saying "You watched CSPAN, thus you're qualified to judge his character?



That's military chain of command and has little to do w/ GEN's report.



But what he said is true - your 'spin' on his comments speaks volumes about your lack of understanding about how to run and secure a country...or fight a war.

FIRST....i WAS ANSWERING your comment, THAT NO ONE EVEN KNEW PATRAEUS a week ago.

i ''owned you'' :D and proved that you were wrong, at least regarding me and my knowledge of who Patraeus was before just a week ago!!!

:laugh2:

jd

[darin]

FIRST....i WAS ANSWERING your comment, THAT NO ONE EVEN KNEW PATRAEUS a week ago.

i ''owned you'' :D and proved that you were wrong, at least regarding me and my knowledge of who Patraeus was before just a week ago!!!

:laugh2:

jd

Why weren't you bitching about him more than a week ago? You didn't know him...at least the people who control your thoughts (liberals) didn't tell you get mad at him.

[Gaffer]

Lets say we pull out of iraq. What happens then.

iran and al queda rush in to fill the vacuum created by our leaving. The iraq government will be overwhelmed and immediately go into exile. A real sectarian civil war will break out engulfing the entire country with millions slaughtered. This doesn't particularly bother me. However, whoever comes out on top now controls iraq and its oil. This will most likely be iran as they have the most resources and people. They are now in position to directly threaten syria, jordan and saudi arabia. They can now control the entire gulf. They can begin easier infiltration of the neighboring countries and cause those governments to collapse. All mideast oil is now controlled by iran.

They will, at the same time, continue their infiltration of the US with qod force agents through South America into mexico and then the US. It's going on right now. If unmolested they will have their nukes in about two years. During all this al queda will still be active.


Alternative fuel sources are still 20 years away. Providing the environment wackos can be stifled. Oil is the life blood of the world and will be for most of the next century. irans finger will be on the pulse. Once they have their caliphate and nukes they will be eyeing Israel and southern europe.

Think any of this is not a threat to our security?

[JohnDoe]

Why weren't you bitching about him more than a week ago? You didn't know him...at least the people who control your thoughts (liberals) didn't tell you get mad at him.

I am not bitching about him? I think he has a mission to do and he reported on it honestly regarding his duties...his mission is to make Iraq safe, so that diplomatic agreements and strides in that arena can be made, which is the ONLY way to come out looking like we won, in this occupation....and the only way it won't be a sectarian mess when we leave (we already won the war against saddam)

There still will be the rebuilding of Iraq costs and toils to come after we can pull them together as a country without them killing eachother ....if we ever get there.

And if we are not going to be there for the next 20 years to accomplish all of this then I think we should leave now....no one else needs to die for people that are not willing to defend themselves and make a country out of themselves, or for any cause other than giving us, the usa protection....imho.

jd

[Dilloduck]

I am not bitching about him? I think he has a mission to do and he reported on it honestly regarding his duties...his mission is to make Iraq safe, so that diplomatic agreements and strides in that arena can be made, which is the ONLY way to come out looking like we won, in this occupation....and the only way it won't be a sectarian mess when we leave (we already won the war against saddam)

There still will be the rebuilding of Iraq costs and toils to come after we can pull them together as a country without them killing eachother ....if we ever get there.

And if we are not going to be there for the next 20 years to accomplish all of this then I think we should leave now....no one else needs to die for people that are not willing to defend themselves and make a country out of themselves, or for any cause other than giving us, the usa protection....imho.

jd

20 years is probably the best guess i've seen. We ain't just playing tiddly winks here.

[Gaffer]

we want to be able to keep bases in iraq even after we pull out the combat troops. It's a great staging area for that part of the world.

[Dilloduck]

we want to be able to keep bases in iraq even after we pull out the combat troops. It's a great staging area for that part of the world.

Hell yes and we're building em as we speak. The democrats know that. Maybe they should be honest with their constituents and tell em we are there to stay.

[KarlMarx]

But,,,,,,the fact remains that he is a liar? It's obvious to me.
Psycho, you have to stop this. The Democrats are using Joe McCarthy style tactics to smear people that they see as a threat and you're being their stooge.

You are being manipulated by a bunch of liberal elitists who believe you're stupid and easily led. So far, you haven't given them any reason to think otherwise.

[JohnDoe]

Lets say we pull out of iraq. What happens then.

iran and al queda rush in to fill the vacuum created by our leaving. The iraq government will be overwhelmed and immediately go into exile. A real sectarian civil war will break out engulfing the entire country with millions slaughtered. This doesn't particularly bother me. However, whoever comes out on top now controls iraq and its oil. This will most likely be iran as they have the most resources and people. They are now in position to directly threaten syria, jordan and saudi arabia. They can now control the entire gulf. They can begin easier infiltration of the neighboring countries and cause those governments to collapse. All mideast oil is now controlled by iran.

They will, at the same time, continue their infiltration of the US with qod force agents through South America into mexico and then the US. It's going on right now. If unmolested they will have their nukes in about two years. During all this al queda will still be active.


Alternative fuel sources are still 20 years away. Providing the environment wackos can be stifled. Oil is the life blood of the world and will be for most of the next century. irans finger will be on the pulse. Once they have their caliphate and nukes they will be eyeing Israel and southern europe.

Think any of this is not a threat to our security?

But oil is fungible.

And even if we did not control where Iraq's oil went, whoever it went to, will not be getting oil from the other countries, leaving Saudi oil and Canadian oil to us...why do we have to have Iraq's oil...doesn't it go on to the free market for all to pick from to buy? Where does OPEC fit in?

And why couldn't we just get our oil from Canada?

We are not trying to get the oil CHEAPER because we are in Iraq and control their oil? The price per barrel of oil is controlled by Opec, right?

I guess I do not understand why Iraqi oil is the only oil important to us, IF WE ARE NOT GOING TO STEAL IT? And I do not believe for one second that it will be stolen by us!

Please explain to me why Iraqi oil over Saudi oil or Canadian oil or South American oil or Mexican oil is important to us as a country?

Simply ....WHY do we have to stay there with bases to "protect" the Iraqi oil?
I guess, I don't really understand how the whole oil market or whatever it is called, works?
And good morning Gaffer

jd

[jimnyc]

Jd, have you found any legit information you can share me regarding the "rules" of reporting casualties in Iraq? I spent an hour or so this morning on various military and government related sites and can't find what you were referencing. I'll keep looking...

[Gaffer]

But oil is fungible.

And even if we did not control where Iraq's oil went, whoever it went to, will not be getting oil from the other countries, leaving Saudi oil and Canadian oil to us...why do we have to have Iraq's oil...doesn't it go on to the free market for all to pick from to buy? Where does OPEC fit in?

And why couldn't we just get our oil from Canada?

We are not trying to get the oil CHEAPER because we are in Iraq and control their oil? The price per barrel of oil is controlled by Opec, right?

I guess I do not understand why Iraqi oil is the only oil important to us, IF WE ARE NOT GOING TO STEAL IT? And I do not believe for one second that it will be stolen by us!

Please explain to me why Iraqi oil over Saudi oil or Canadian oil or South American oil or Mexican oil is important to us as a country?

Simply ....WHY do we have to stay there with bases to "protect" the Iraqi oil?
I guess, I don't really understand how the whole oil market or whatever it is called, works?
And good morning Gaffer

jd

I'm not an economist nor an oil expert. But my understanding is that OPEC controls the price of oil based on the world market. The oil at a source, such as iraq, is fed into the system through tankers that pick it up at a port and then take it to another countries port. This oil is taken to specific countries named in the contract and they in turn pay iraq in whatever way they agree on, based on the price set by OPEC.

The war in iraq has never been about oil as far as we are concerned. That is just what the iraq economy is based on. The war was about removing saddam from power and eliminating what was thought to be a major threat to us and the world. He was thought to have WMD's by every country in the world. He ignored ALL the un resolutions and cheated on the sanctions. He was getting and expected to get support from russia, germany and france because they were in his pocket. He blatantly thumbed his nose at everyone while continuing his murderous regime. The un proved it was absolutely useless and wasn't going to do anything because major members had been bought off. Bush acted to put an end to it.

clinton could have acted back in 98 when ALL of the dems were crying for saddam to be taken out. But he chose to let the next president handle it. Inaction is a dem trademark.

Bush took the right action in taking down saddam. He fumbled in the occupation, but hindsight is 20/20. He is rectifying that fumble now. In order to establish a safe and civilized society in iraq we are going to have to be there for another 20 years at least. And it does present an excellent location for based to cover the rest of the middle east as a war with iran is very likely in the not too distant future.

The whole regions is full (millions) of al queda types. They are pouring into iraq from all over. They are part of the war with the islamists. Just like Afghanistan is. We are doing the same things in Afghanistan that we are doing in iraq. The war there has been going on for 6 years instead of 4. NATO is involved there because it was part of the 911 attack. Treaties have to be honored. iraq was a US led action and didn't involve treaties.

iraq started as a simple invade and take down a dictator operation. It has evolved into a front in the war with the islomists, which is worldwide and fought by many countries on many fronts. Most of this war will never make the news and most likely never be heard about for a hundred years due to the clandestine operations. It's much bigger in scope than most people can comprehend.

[JohnDoe]

Jd, have you found any legit information you can share me regarding the "rules" of reporting casualties in Iraq? I spent an hour or so this morning on various military and government related sites and can't find what you were referencing. I'll keep looking...

HERE YA GO jim....it took a bit to find it, but I DID!





Experts Doubt Drop In Violence in Iraq
Military Statistics Called Into Question

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 6, 2007; A16



The U.S. military's claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from many experts within and outside the government, who contend that some of the underlying statistics are questionable and selectively ignore negative trends.

Reductions in violence form the centerpiece of the Bush administration's claim that its war strategy is working. In congressional testimony Monday, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is expected to cite a 75 percent decrease in sectarian attacks. According to senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad, overall attacks in Iraq were down to 960 a week in August, compared with 1,700 a week in June, and civilian casualties had fallen 17 percent between December 2006 and last month. Unofficial Iraqi figures show a similar decrease.

Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers -- most of which are classified -- are often confusing and contradictory. "Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree," Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq.

Senior U.S. officers in Baghdad disputed the accuracy and conclusions of the largely negative GAO report, which they said had adopted a flawed counting methodology used by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Many of those conclusions were also reflected in last month's pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

The intelligence community has its own problems with military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."

"Depending on which numbers you pick," he said, "you get a different outcome." Analysts found "trend lines . . . going in different directions" compared with previous years, when numbers in different categories varied widely but trended in the same direction. "It began to look like spaghetti."

Among the most worrisome trends cited by the NIE was escalating warfare between rival Shiite militias in southern Iraq that has consumed the port city of Basra and resulted last month in the assassination of two southern provincial governors. According to a spokesman for the Baghdad headquarters of the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I), those attacks are not included in the military's statistics. "Given a lack of capability to accurately track Shiite-on-Shiite and Sunni-on-Sunni violence, except in certain instances," the spokesman said, "we do not track this data to any significant degree."

Attacks by U.S.-allied Sunni tribesmen -- recruited to battle Iraqis allied with al-Qaeda -- are also excluded from the U.S. military's calculation of violence levels.

The administration has not given up trying to demonstrate that Iraq is moving toward political reconciliation. Testifying with Petraeus next week, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker is expected to report that top Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders agreed last month to work together on key legislation demanded by Congress. If all goes as U.S. officials hope, Crocker will also be able to point to a visit today to the Sunni stronghold of Anbar province by ministers in the Shiite-dominated government -- perhaps including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, according to a senior U.S. official involved in Iraq policy. The ministers plan to hand Anbar's governor $70 million in new development funds, the official said.

But most of the administration's case will rest on security data, according to military, intelligence and diplomatic officials who would not speak on the record before the Petraeus-Crocker testimony. Several Republican and Democratic lawmakers who were offered military statistics during Baghdad visits in August said they had been convinced that Bush's new strategy, and the 162,000 troops carrying it out, has produced enough results to merit more time.

Challenges to how military and intelligence statistics are tallied and used have been a staple of the Iraq war. In its December 2006 report, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group identified "significant underreporting of violence," noting that "a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the sources of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the data base." The report concluded that "good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals."

Recent estimates by the media, outside groups and some government agencies have called the military's findings into question. The Associated Press last week counted 1,809 civilian deaths in August, making it the highest monthly total this year, with 27,564 civilians killed overall since the AP began collecting data in April 2005.

The GAO report found that "average number of daily attacks against civilians have remained unchanged from February to July 2007," a conclusion that the military said was skewed because it did not include dramatic, up-to-date information from August.

Juan R.I. Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan who is critical of U.S. policy, said that most independent counts "do not agree with Pentagon estimates about drops in civilian deaths."

In a letter last week to the leadership of both parties, a group of influential academics and former Clinton administration officials called on Congress to examine "the exact nature and methodology that is being used to track the security situation in Iraq and specifically the assertions that sectarian violence is down."

The controversy centers as much on what is counted -- attacks on civilians vs. attacks on U.S. and Iraqi troops, numbers of attacks vs. numbers of casualties, sectarian vs. intra-sect battles, daily numbers vs. monthly averages -- as on the numbers themselves.

The military stopped releasing statistics on civilian deaths in late 2005, saying the news media were taking them out of context. In an e-mailed response to questions last weekend, an MNF-I spokesman said that while trends were favorable, "exact monthly figures cannot be provided" for attacks against civilians or other categories of violence in 2006 or 2007, either in Baghdad or for the country overall. "MNF-I makes every attempt to ensure it captures the most comprehensive, accurate, and valid data on civilian and sectarian deaths," the spokesman wrote. "However, there is not one central place for data or information. . . . This means there can be variations when different organizations examine this information."

In a follow-up message yesterday, the spokesman said that the non-release policy had been changed this week but that the numbers were still being put "in the right context."

Attacks labeled "sectarian" are among the few statistics the military has consistently published in recent years, although the totals are regularly recalculated. The number of monthly "sectarian murders and incidents" in the last six months of 2006, listed in the Pentagon's quarterly Iraq report published in June, was substantially higher each month than in the Pentagon's March report. MNF-I said that "reports from un-reported/not-yet-reported past incidences as well as clarification/corrections on reports already received" are "likely to contribute to changes."

When Petraeus told an Australian newspaper last week that sectarian attacks had decreased 75 percent "since last year," the statistic was quickly e-mailed to U.S. journalists in a White House fact sheet. Asked for detail, MNF-I said that "last year" referred to December 2006, when attacks spiked to more than 1,600.

By March, however -- before U.S. troop strength was increased under Bush's strategy -- the number had dropped to 600, only slightly less than in the same month last year. That is about where it has remained in 2007, with what MNF-I said was a slight increase in April and May "but trending back down in June-July."

Petraeus's spokesman, Col. Steven A. Boylan, said he was certain that Petraeus had made a comparison with December in the interview with the Australian paper, which did not publish a direct Petraeus quote. No qualifier appeared in the White House fact sheet.

When a member of the National Intelligence Council visited Baghdad this summer to review a draft of the intelligence estimate on Iraq, Petraeus argued that its negative judgments did not reflect recent improvements. At least one new sentence was added to the final version, noting that "overall attack levels across Iraq have fallen during seven of the last nine weeks."

A senior military intelligence official in Baghdad deemed it "odd" that "marginal" security improvements were reflected in an estimate assessing the previous seven months and projecting the next six to 12 months. He attributed the change to a desire to provide Petraeus with ammunition for his congressional testimony.

The intelligence official in Washington, however, described the Baghdad consultation as standard in the NIE drafting process and said that the "new information" did not change the estimate's conclusions. The overall assessment was that the security situation in Iraq since January "was still getting worse," he said, "but not as fast."

Staff writer Ann Scott Tyson contributed to this report.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company
WebHealthNews.info

[Dilloduck]

Several Republican and Democratic lawmakers who were offered military statistics during Baghdad visits in August said they had been convinced that Bush's new strategy, and the 162,000 troops carrying it out, has produced enough results to merit more time.


Hopefully you didn't miss this

[jimnyc]

HERE YA GO jim....it took a bit to find it, but I DID!

Hardly "rules" setup by our government. It's simply the way they classify casualties. And like the article states, depending on where you get your statistics from you get different results. I think it's completely honest to classify sectarian attacks separately and differently than direct attacks on our military. These attacks as well are recorded albeit in a different manner. To come to a conclusion that Patraeus "lied" because of the way casualties are classified is dishonest. Major attacks ARE down and by nearly 50% which shows, IMO, that Al Qaeda is suffering. You're seeing more sectarian violence which is to be somewhat expected as Al Qaeda is slowed down and cities are opened up. People are now fighting back and standing up to Al Qaeda more than ever. More people than ever are coming forward with tips.

[JohnDoe]

Hopefully you didn't miss thisOh, yeah, I read what these specific people said, but could you kindly explain to me their reasoning, or show VALID statistics or any diplomatic agreements that actually support that statement as TRUTH?

Even your reasoning on how this statement is true, with a little support of facts behind it?

I don't see it, and maybe it is because I have a mental block because of my DOVENESS, but I consider myself a fairly intelligent person, who absolutely LOVES numbers and analysis....banked my whole old career on it for over 20 years on it, and I do not see any progress with the numbers....and I have gone to at least 40 different links at this point trying to make hell or high water out of it, and it is nothing but COOKED BOOKS, that I can see.

And this has nothing to do with partisanship, it has to do with using my own brain and not seeing in the numbers what has been implied....

I did see improvement in Bagdhad in the numbers, but the violence outside of Bagdhad in Iraq are up 70%, from 2006 and more dead Iraqis have been killed this year through August of 2007 THAN THE ENTIRE YEAR LAST YEAR....

Now if the administration calls this progress, who are they trying to fool?

-------------------------------------------------------

And to answer the question that was asked, on the other thread....

As a DOVE how could I justify the 500k in troops?

And the Answer is, IF these 500k troops are what is NEEDED to STOP the KILLING, and make things "right" for the Iraqis, giving them the security it needs to make progress to diplomatically developing their sound government and putting back together their infrastructure, THEN LESS DEATHS WOULD OCCUR.

From my understanding on War, one of the first things to do when the war is over is give the people of the Occupied country security, to begin the rebuilding of what we destroyed as the victor. That is considered as part of "Just War Theory" too.... and LESS DIE.

I don't want our troops to stay in Iraq, because there is NOT a WIN at no cost plan or strategy and the TWIDDLING is not the soldiers as mentioned on the other thread, the twiddling is from their ORDERS...due to the strategy....

There isn't a damn thing the soldiers can do regarding the strategy they follow in Iraq and to try to PUT BLAME on them is utterly ridiculous, don't you think?

Basically, I want us OUT of Iraq because we are continuing the same old crap, leaving it up to the Iraqis and them coming to the "party" in order for us to have "success" with our occupation, and then allow us to leave....

I have a problem with that....leaving the DEATHS and MAMING of soldiers UP TO THE IRAQIS????? pajesus, g*d almighty!!!! They haven't done crap to help themselves and we are relying on THEM as to whether we bring OUR GUYS AND GALS home????

It is TIME to just get out and let them kill eachother or make amends if we are NOT going to try to change things with a new, powerful to no end, strategy....which would actually reduce the violence. 95% of all those killings in Iraq are Sectarian, NOT from alqaeda is what I have read? (And btw, telling them we are getting out soon and leaving it up to them to settle their differences might actually put a FIRE under their butts, I think...)

I know I differ with most dems on this...but I don't fit the mold, at least not in some respects.....

jd

PS, please use a darker color in your response.....I find the color or the type you use ...hard to read in my old age! ;)

[JohnDoe]

Hardly "rules" setup by our government. It's simply the way they classify casualties. And like the article states, depending on where you get your statistics from you get different results. I think it's completely honest to classify sectarian attacks separately and differently than direct attacks on our military. These attacks as well are recorded albeit in a different manner. To come to a conclusion that Patraeus "lied" because of the way casualties are classified is dishonest. Major attacks ARE down and by nearly 50% which shows, IMO, that Al Qaeda is suffering. You're seeing more sectarian violence which is to be somewhat expected as Al Qaeda is slowed down and cities are opened up. People are now fighting back and standing up to Al Qaeda more than ever. More people than ever are coming forward with tips.

i don't see a problem with clarrifying the deaths in Iraq either, I do see a problem with NOT reporting the WHOLE picture and pretending you did...

VIOLENCE IS UP around 70% outside of Bagdhad and more violent deaths have occured this year JUST thru aug 07 THAN THE ENTIRE LAST YEAR....do YOU personally call this PROGRESS?

the books are cooked.

Did YOU note that the CIA and the National Intelligence Agencies and the GAO, all say the military's numbers are basically ficticious? They couldn't figure out HOW the military came to their numbers?

and good afternoon Jim.

jd

[Dilloduck]

Oh, yeah, I read what these specific people said, but could you kindly explain to me their reasoning, or show VALID statistics or any diplomatic agreements that actually support that statement as TRUTH?

Even your reasoning on how this statement is true, with a little support of facts behind it?

I don't see it, and maybe it is because I have a mental block because of my DOVENESS, but I consider myself a fairly intelligent person, who absolutely LOVES numbers and analysis....banked my whole old career on it for over 20 years on it, and I do not see any progress with the numbers....and I have gone to at least 40 different links at this point trying to make hell or high water out of it, and it is nothing but COOKED BOOKS, that I can see.

And this has nothing to do with partisanship, it has to do with using my own brain and not seeing in the numbers what has been implied....

I did see improvement in Bagdhad in the numbers, but the violence outside of Bagdhad in Iraq are up 70%, from 2006 and more dead Iraqis have been killed this year through August of 2007 THAN THE ENTIRE YEAR LAST YEAR....

Now if the administration calls this progress, who are they trying to fool?

-------------------------------------------------------

And to answer the question that was asked, on the other thread....

As a DOVE how could I justify the 500k in troops?

And the Answer is, IF these 500k troops are what is NEEDED to STOP the KILLING, and make things "right" for the Iraqis, giving them the security it needs to make progress to diplomatically developing their sound government and putting back together their infrastructure, THEN LESS DEATHS WOULD OCCUR.

From my understanding on War, one of the first things to do when the war is over is give the people of the Occupied country security, to begin the rebuilding of what we destroyed as the victor. That is considered as part of "Just War Theory" too.... and LESS DIE.

I don't want our troops to stay in Iraq, because there is NOT a WIN at no cost plan or strategy and the TWIDDLING is not the soldiers as mentioned on the other thread, the twiddling is from their ORDERS...due to the strategy....

There isn't a damn thing the soldiers can do regarding the strategy they follow in Iraq and to try to PUT BLAME on them is utterly ridiculous, don't you think?

Basically, I want us OUT of Iraq because we are continuing the same old crap, leaving it up to the Iraqis and them coming to the "party" in order for us to have "success" with our occupation, and then allow us to leave....

I have a problem with that....leaving the DEATHS and MAMING of soldiers UP TO THE IRAQIS????? pajesus, g*d almighty!!!! They haven't done crap to help themselves and we are relying on THEM as to whether we bring OUR GUYS AND GALS home????

It is TIME to just get out and let them kill eachother or make amends if we are NOT going to try to change things with a new, powerful to no end, strategy....which would actually reduce the violence. 95% of all those killings in Iraq are Sectarian, NOT from alqaeda is what I have read? (And btw, telling them we are getting out soon and leaving it up to them to settle their differences might actually put a FIRE under their butts, I think...)

I know I differ with most dems on this...but I don't fit the mold, at least not in some respects.....

jd

PS, please use a darker color in your response.....I find the color or the type you use ...hard to read in my old age! ;)

I was SPECIFICALLY referring to the part the was placed in VERY LARGE FONT. Bush has tried new a new strategy. How about we try to just get that far. Is the surge a new strategy or not ?

[JohnDoe]

I was SPECIFICALLY referring to the part the was placed in VERY LARGE FONT. Bush has tried new a new strategy. How about we try to just get that far. Is the surge a new strategy or not ? I am uncertain that it is a new strategy...they have had surges 2-3 times with these troop levels?

And bringing violence down in Bagdhad because of the surge, while increasing the violence in the rest of Iraq by 70% is NOT what I would call a good plan....they are just shifting the violence but NOT squelching it.

Gaffer mentioned on the other thread about this..... that those enemies that retreat and go north or south of bagdhad are chased by our soldiers while we leave the police to take care of Bagdhad.... I don't see this happening AT ALL, with the increase in violence outside of Bagdhad....

And I actually think his idea of chasing them and catching or killing them is good, but I don't see it happening.....with this surge...at least the NUMBERS do not show this to be happening?

And IF the surge DID work in Bagdhad, then why not spread the plan to the 500k that I mentioned, and GET THE DAMN JOB DONE, in the whole country?
I just think allowing the Violence to increase outside of Bagdhad, while reducing it in Bagdhad, is not going to help, not in the long run....

jd


On a side bar:

And I am also worried sick about my friend that I told you about, no word in 10 days and he is still not home yet.... I pray he wasn't killed on his way out....jeez... :(

[Dilloduck]

I am uncertain that it is a new strategy...they have had surges 2-3 times with these troop levels?

And bringing violence down in Bagdhad because of the surge, while increasing the violence in the rest of Iraq by 70% is NOT what I would call a good plan....they are just shifting the violence but NOT squelching it.

Gaffer mentioned on the other thread about this..... that those enemies that retreat and go north or south of bagdhad are chased by our soldiers while we leave the police to take care of Bagdhad.... I don't see this happening AT ALL, with the increase in violence outside of Bagdhad....

And I actually think his idea of chasing them and catching or killing them is good, but I don't see it happening.....with this surge...at least the NUMBERS do not show this to be happening?

And IF the surge DID work in Bagdhad, then why not spread the plan to the 500k that I mentioned, and GET THE DAMN JOB DONE, in the whole country?
I just think allowing the Violence to increase outside of Bagdhad, while reducing it in Bagdhad, is not going to help, not in the long run....

jd


On a side bar:

And I am also worried sick about my friend that I told you about, no word in 10 days and he is still not home yet.... I pray he wasn't killed on his way out....jeez... :(

Can't help ya if you are going to deny the surge is a new strategy but Bagdhad is vital and it's not surprising they began there nor is it surprising that the violence increased in other areas as the enemy ran. The US is in essence "shaping" the battlefield and maintaining security in areas whereas before they were cleaning out an area and moving on. What you are seeing now is a methodical strategy to slowly force the enemy into retreating to new areas and eventually out of Iraq unless they are killed first.
With the democrats being so incredibly inconsistent in what they claim they want or don't want, I can see why the administration can't please them.
The anti-war faction needs to take a stance and stick with it if they are so sure of themselves and want anyone to take them seriously.
It's "yank all the troops home immediately" one day and 'send in 500k to finish the job" the next.

[Gaffer]

I am uncertain that it is a new strategy...they have had surges 2-3 times with these troop levels?

And bringing violence down in Bagdhad because of the surge, while increasing the violence in the rest of Iraq by 70% is NOT what I would call a good plan....they are just shifting the violence but NOT squelching it.

Gaffer mentioned on the other thread about this..... that those enemies that retreat and go north or south of bagdhad are chased by our soldiers while we leave the police to take care of Bagdhad.... I don't see this happening AT ALL, with the increase in violence outside of Bagdhad....

And I actually think his idea of chasing them and catching or killing them is good, but I don't see it happening.....with this surge...at least the NUMBERS do not show this to be happening?

And IF the surge DID work in Bagdhad, then why not spread the plan to the 500k that I mentioned, and GET THE DAMN JOB DONE, in the whole country?
I just think allowing the Violence to increase outside of Bagdhad, while reducing it in Bagdhad, is not going to help, not in the long run....

jd


On a side bar:

And I am also worried sick about my friend that I told you about, no word in 10 days and he is still not home yet.... I pray he wasn't killed on his way out....jeez... :(

Statistics can be used for anything you want to use them for. As for the combat out side of baghdad, that's a good thing. That indicates things are working. Another 500,000 troops would help but would not be necessary. Its going to take time to sweep the areas and secure them. And any point that al queda puts up a fight will go slower. The real facts and results won't be clear till next summer.

Hopefully your friend will show up soon. He could have had travel delays And been unable to contact anyone. If anything happened to him on his way out his family would hear about it from the military right away. He may be planning to pop up at your door unannounced as a surprise.

[JohnDoe]

Can't help ya if you are going to deny the surge is a new strategy but Bagdhad is vital and it's not surprising they began there nor is it surprising that the violence increased in other areas as the enemy ran. The US is in essence "shaping" the battlefield and maintaining security in areas whereas before they were cleaning out an area and moving on. What you are seeing now is a methodical strategy to slowly force the enemy into retreating to new areas and eventually out of Iraq unless they are killed first.

How can this come in to fruition, your opyimistic view, if they are pulling out 1 brigade by christmas that they are not replacing and the other 30k by july?

With the democrats being so incredibly inconsistent in what they claim they want or don't want, I can see why the administration can't please them.
The anti-war faction needs to take a stance and stick with it if they are so sure of themselves and want anyone to take them seriously.
It's "yank all the troops home immediately" one day and 'send in 500k to finish the job" the next.

I have never been part of ''that'' anti war crowd that you speak of, and it is me, asking you, the questions not the Democratic party, not the anti-war crowd, and not the moveon.org crowd, but me, a person, on this message board. :slap: :D

;) jd

[Dilloduck]

I have never been part of ''that'' anti war crowd that you speak of, and it is me, asking you, the questions not the Democratic party, not the anti-war crowd, and not the moveon.org crowd, but me, a person, on this message board. :slap: :D

;) jd

Me and You ? Sounds like the cage match that's been proposed.

and yes since no one can predict exactly what will happen, I prefer to be optimistic.
Do you have a problem with the withdrawal of some combat troops? I don't.

[JohnDoe]

Me and You ? Sounds like the cage match that's been proposed.

and yes since no one can predict exactly what will happen, I prefer to be optimistic.
Do you have a problem with the withdrawal of some combat troops? I don't.
JPP, one of the other sites that I used to frequent, has a "Cage Match" section, and all others are locked out....but it failed...

It failed because the two posters that were chosen for the match, or actually volunteered for it, were not on the board 24/7 and some of these individual matches went on for weeks and months with periods of days and days inbetween of NOTHING....

And all other posters on the site became bored with it, imo.

So, personally, I think it is better to match at free will and not contained, allowing others to contribute also.

The Cage won't work, unless scheduled where both parties are 100% free and also won't work where the match does not have a time limit....

I meant to add that info to dmp's thread, but forgot....

------------------------------------

Now to the 2nd part of your post...

I don't honestly know Dillo... :(

If we were being told that we are leaving Iraq, with only minimal troops left and the 412,000 contracters were leaving too with minimal civilians left behind then I would be FOR the withdrawl.

If we are just keeping everyone there, and bringing the surge people home only, then I think we are setting ourselves up for another disasterous situation...

I think this is how I am leaning...? I haven't solidified this stance yet, because I have alot more reading to do, before it becomes concrete in my head!

[bullypulpit]

I found it most revealing when Senator John Warner(R-VA) asked General Petraeus, "...If we continue what you have laid before the Congress here as a strategy, do you feel that that is making America Safer?", to which General Petraeus, after hemming and hawing, answered, "I don't know..."

"I don't know...", the Commander of "multi-national" forces in Iraq doesn't know if the strategy the Bush administration is pursuing with regard to Iraq is making America safer? Did we finally get an honest answer to that question from someone who damn well should know?

"I don't know..." Contrast that with Chimpy McPresident's assessment:

<blockquote>"[The terrorists] know that the success of a free Iraq, who can be a key ally in the war on terror and a symbol of success for others, will be a crushing blow to their strategy to dominate the region, and threaten America and the free world."</blockquote>

General Petraeus was, at least honest and realistic in saying, "I don't know...". Bush was simply dissembling in a feeble attempt to shore up sagging support for the war at home and provide some political cover to those Congressional Republicans who will still ask "How high?" when Bush says "Jump!".

[MtnBiker]

I wonder, for those that call General Petraues a liar, is he still a liar? If not, then why not? If he is still a liar then why would Obama put him in charge of the Afgahnistan surge that he ordered?

[Little-Acorn]

Written records of what they said before.... the mortal enemy of modern liberalism..... :eek: :eek: :eek:

[glockmail]

:popcorn:

[Trigg]

bump