Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Baghdad, Five Years On: Desperate Life And Failed Surge

page: 6
44
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by audas
 



One other MAJOR ISSUE which you [DarthAmerica] have simply been unable to comprehend which every other observer on the planet knows - it is IRAN who has called for calm in IRAQ and subdued the Shiite Militias - it is ABSOLUTELY NOT the surge.


REVIEW.
I have posted elsewhere my theory that the SURGE was a clever if not ingenious ploy by Bush43 to distract the public and divert the newly elected Democratic controlled Congress away from investigating the mis-conduct of so many of his appointees. His man on the street followers including mid-level GOPs, were unaware of his REAL motive and in all likelihood were completely honest when they begged for enough TIME to see if his SURGE would produce the result promised.

THE PROMISE.
Bush43 instituted the SURGE - his name - for the purpose of provided a safe place and enough time for the various Iraqi to iron out their internal differences, mainly how to distribute the oil revenues. The Sunni area has few or no producing wells. Yet they make up a very important 20% of the population. The Kurds - 15% - have all but separated from Iraq and want to be very careful how much they are to be involved with Iraq in the near future. Turkey has proved it will not permit an independent Kurdistan. The majority Shia - 65% - have more than half of the producing wells.

THE PROBLEM.
Within those 3 major ethnic groups there are many sub-groups. The CIA World Factbook names 19 political parties in the Iraq Parliament. So it is not just 3 parties at the table, it is at least 19 parties and that is not easy. In fact, they may never reach an agreement all can sign-on to. But we cannot wait for them to end the American involvement in Iraq. We have lost Bush43's unrealistic gamble of establishing a knock-off US democracy in the Middle East. Let’s accept that and get the heck out of there before MORE Americans (and others) die for naught! US KIA 4,134, Coalition Forces total 4,448. icasualties.org...

THE HOUSE.
The November ‘06 voters thought if the Dems gained control of Congress it, Congress, could end the war. Unfortunately that was not the case. A majority in the House is 218. (435 total members). The Dems had 233 members. To override a veto by the president requires a 2/3s vote or a super-majority. 290. To override a veto, the Dems would have to HOLD fast all their 233 votes - not a dead-chinch certainty - and gain 57 GOP votes out of their 202 members. Very unlikely over an issue not all that clear cut.

THE SENATE.
The Senate was even worse for the peace advocates. The Dems had a 51-49 majority. A good show from the prior GOP's 55-45 split. Then Senator Johnson of SD had a stroke. That dropped the Dem majority to 50-49. Control cannot get thinner than that. There are 2 or 3 Dems who have indicated in the past they might “cross-over” to the GOP side. Sen. Joe Lieberman is one. Unlike the House where a simple majority (218) prevails, the Senate has traditional rules allowing unlimited debate. Sometimes called a “filibuster.”

Before the Civil Rights era of the 1960s, Senate rules required a 2/3s vote to shut off debate. Called "cloture." That was changed to a 3/5s vote, or 60 votes needed to proceed on important issues. That in turn would require 10 GOP senators to defect to the Dems. That is very very unlikely to happen except on a life-death issue. The Senate veto override requirement is 67 votes. The final result of the ‘06 election was to STOP Bush43 from initiating anything he wanted; OTOH the Congress could not do anything he would not accept.

CONGRESS.
The only option open to the Dems would have been to make NO appropriations for Iraq and Afghan. That desperate act in turn would have made it all too easy for Bush43 to paint the Dems as UNPATRIOTIC. And not supporting the troops already at war. A political no-no. So Bush43 had it his way. He got past the end of the ‘07 Fiscal Year and he got money enough to run the war past his next date with destiny, January 20, 2009.

RECAP.
The Dems gave him the money. The amount of money needed to run the War for 15 months. When you cannot control an issue, it is sometimes better to AVOID it. By giving Bush43 enough money to run HIS War until January 20, 2009, when the next president will be sworn into office, Bush43 has been neutered. If you can’t have it all, you take what you can get.


L E G A C Y.
These Machiavellian machinations were all about the Bush43 legacy. He has put the Iraq war out past his term of office. We will have 120,000 or more soldiers in Iraq when his successor takes office. The final outcome will be the next president’s to manage. But, if the Iraq War ends well in history, Bush43 will claim the credit. He will say he was prescient. That he had a vision, perhaps from Jesus. BUT, if history holds the war to have been a tragic miscalculation by a man endowed with too much hubris and not enough wisdom, Bush43 will say his successor LOST the War. A winner, it’s mine! A loser, it’s yours!

THE FUTURE.
And the Iraq War will join the JFK assassination and the Vietnam War as a “he said, she said” for as long as we can imagine. Forever to be debated: the missing WMDs and the role of the Iraq War in Bush43's so-called War on Terror.


[edit on 8/6/2008 by donwhite]




posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights

Originally posted by paxnatus
reply to post by noangels
 

How in the blue hell is the United States Military "defending our freedoms" by fighting in Iraq? HOW!

because by fighting in Iraq, we are creating the conditions that will prevent the kind of disenfranchisement that caused 9/11 directly protecting your right to life.


Are the Iraqi people going to come over to America and stick a gun up my ass and take away my freedom of speech? Are they going to come across the ocean and shove a IED under my bed?


you're very emotional! Calm down so that you can think more clearly. The Iraqi people are not going to come over to America and do anything. We've already taken care of that. However, if we hadn't, it would be very likely that Iraq would choose to strike back at America using asymmetric warfare. Prior to the start of the war, Iraq and America have been in a constant state of war since the end of Operation Desert Storm. Iraq did not have the military means to make a direct confrontation. However, they did have the means to strike back with terrorist tactics or by finding other terrorist. They were attacked preemptively to prevent that and also so that we can use the terrain to conduct further operations in the Middle East if need be. Particularly against the Saudi's and Iranians.


The Iraqi people are NOT, were NOT, and will NOT be a threat to the United States of America. Anyone saying they were, are, or will be is an absolute moron and knows NOTHING about the capabilities of Iraq, and obviously stupid beyond all belief to believe a civilization thousands of miles away in the middle of the desert could pose a threat to a the greatest militarized country on the planet.


I'm sorry, I don't recall reading any qualifications you have that would allow you to make credible assessments of Iraq's military capabilities. I also haven't read any terrain analysis from you that would suggest a better strategic position in the region. Until you do so, you are in no position to call anyone a moron. Moreover, since you haven't actually physically been here, correct me if I'm wrong, how are you even making a statement like this?

In your quote above, you're calling people obviously stupid to believe that the countries in the middle of the desert could threaten United States. The fact is, 19 men from an even weaker country, even more isolated and without official government sanction did just that. They struck the financial, military and almost the political capital of the United States. This happened live on television in case you weren't watching. So for you to make a statement like that clearly shows a bias, ignorant or perhaps both.

Think about what you said, whom you are saying it to and why BEFORE POSTING. I'm more than happy to debate this with you however you will have to start making some kind of sense. Otherwise, I'll just have to assume you're so biased as to make intelligent discussion impossible. In that case, regrettably, I'll have to click the ignore button. I really would rather not do that please consider your response.

Regards



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by paxnatus
Thank you DarthAmerica for giving of yourself so freely to insure that me and my family are just a little safer at night. Thank you also for doing the job that most of us would not want to do, nor could do.

"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends"
John 15:13




Thank you very much.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghofer

Originally posted by paxnatus
Thank you DarthAmerica for giving of yourself so freely to insure that me and my family are just a little safer at night. Thank you also for doing the job that most of us would not want to do, nor could do.


Yes, thanks for helping kill those thousands of bad Iraqis and making refugees out of millions more. This "war" has made you far less safe. How many terrorists do you think have been created from all of this? Again I support the troops, but certainly not our government. It's American foreign policy that is listed as the #1 reason why people across the planet hate the U.S.

And in regards to someones comment about how U.S. military intervention has made the world a better place, tell me how life in Iraq is better. I don't see it.


What are your qualifications to assess safety or threats to national security? Also there is no way to assess how many Iraqis would choose to become terrorist at this point. What is certain however, it'll be a lot more if we abandon them rather than helping them to create a future worth living for. Something we certainly doing. You must be patient, this is a decades long process not unlike the Cold War Germany. A country that we defeated brutally and then single-handedly financed and built up into the thriving productive society that it is today. We could do the same thing in Iraq.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ownification
reply to post by DarthAmerica
 

I guess you already have too many people to discuss issues with, just ignore my giganourmouse post, I don't mind


I apologize, is there a specific question I can answer?



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthAmericabecause by fighting in Iraq, we are creating the conditions that will prevent the kind of disenfranchisement that caused 9/11 directly protecting your right to life.


I'm sorry, but how is killing innocent Iraqi civilians "preventing disenfranchisement?" You do realise the entire world basically hates America, correct? Our invasion of Iraq CREATED terrorsts, simply because we went over to a soverign nation, completely free from any terrorist ties, and destroyed their country - killed their countrymen - murdered their women and children - and turned millions of Iraqi's into refugees.


you're very emotional! Calm down so that you can think more clearly. The Iraqi people are not going to come over to America and do anything. We've already taken care of that. However, if we hadn't, it would be very likely that Iraq would choose to strike back at America using asymmetric warfare. Prior to the start of the war, Iraq and America have been in a constant state of war since the end of Operation Desert Storm. Iraq did not have the military means to make a direct confrontation. However, they did have the means to strike back with terrorist tactics or by finding other terrorist. They were attacked preemptively to prevent that and also so that we can use the terrain to conduct further operations in the Middle East if need be. Particularly against the Saudi's and Iranians.


Strike back at America? What would their purpose of striking America be in the first place? Constant state of war since Desert Storm? I was unaware we kept bombing Iraq after DS, I thought we only started again when we invaded in 2003 (Note that we invaded a day before the timeline we gave Saddam expired. An act of aggression, which makes us the enemy in Iraq.. Also note that this attack killed zero military soldiers nor Saddam henchmen...only civilians.)

I also love how you say we had a right to invade a soverign nation, so we could have better terrain operations. So, you'd be fine with China invading America...as they'd be closer to Canada, and it'd help them conduct military operations against the Canadians? Or is it only okay when we do it?


In your quote above, you're calling people obviously stupid to believe that the countries in the middle of the desert could threaten United States. The fact is, 19 men from an even weaker country, even more isolated and without official government sanction did just that. They struck the financial, military and almost the political capital of the United States. This happened live on television in case you weren't watching. So for you to make a statement like that clearly shows a bias, ignorant or perhaps both


Except your missing the point. Not one of the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq, nor where there any al-qaeda ties to Iraq prior to our invasion. In fact, Saddam HATED terrorists and killed them on the spot.

I think it's apparent that you do not know who you are fighting against, nor do you know what you are fighting for.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Double Eights
I'm sorry, but how is killing innocent Iraqi civilians "preventing disenfranchisement?" You do realise the entire world basically hates America, correct? Our invasion of Iraq CREATED terrorsts, simply because we went over to a soverign nation, completely free from any terrorist ties, and destroyed their country - killed their countrymen - murdered their women and children - and turned millions of Iraqi's into refugees.


Okay, if your debate style is to throw unsubstantiated allegations, this discussion is over. We are not over here "killing innocent Iraqi civilians". If you are so biased and propagandized by the anti-war movement to discuss this reasonably, I'm hitting ignore. Now, I realize in war innocent people do get killed no matter how precise the weapons or how careful we are. However, the United States Military does not purposely kill non-combatants and actually arrest and jails soldiers if they do and for much lesser offenses. Our invasion has not created terrorist. AT ALL. The "terrorist" are immigrants, former Iraqi Army Soldiers and in a few cases Iraqi Patriots. I also work with soldiers and civilians from all over the world. You are grossly mistaken if you think America is HATED around the world. I don't know who or what is filling your head with such nonsense but you need to get out more and open your mind. The reality is far different.


Strike back at America? What would their purpose of striking America be in the first place? Constant state of war since Desert Storm? I was unaware we kept bombing Iraq after DS, I thought we only started again when we invaded in 2003 (Note that we invaded a day before the timeline we gave Saddam expired. An act of aggression, which makes us the enemy in Iraq.. Also note that this attack killed zero military soldiers nor Saddam henchmen...only civilians.)


Wrong again Mr. Propaganda. Between 1991 and 2003 here is a list of combat operations against Iraq.
Operation Northern Watch
Operation Southern Watch
Operation Southern Focus
Operation Provide Comfort
Operation Desert Fox
Bombing of Iraq in 1993


I also love how you say we had a right to invade a soverign nation, so we could have better terrain operations. So, you'd be fine with China invading America...as they'd be closer to Canada, and it'd help them conduct military operations against the Canadians? Or is it only okay when we do it?


Stupidity! If the PRC and Canada were at war and the USA was also an enemy of China AND if China had the ability to physically invade America that would make sense! It has nothing to do with being "Okay with it". YOU HAVE NO CONCEPT OF STRATEGY.


Except your missing the point. Not one of the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq, nor where there any al-qaeda ties to Iraq prior to our invasion. In fact, Saddam HATED terrorists and killed them on the spot.


So what? That wasn't the point of the invasion to go after those 19 men. Iraq and the USA were enemies in a state of war. The point was to stop any more men from the entire region! By changing Iraq and from Iraq changing other nations in the region, we wont be doing this again at some point in the future. Why do you think we don't fight wars in Europe


I think it's apparent that you do not know who you are fighting against, nor do you know what you are fighting for.


No it's apparent the you have exactly no idea what you are talking about and your opinions are baseless. You have childlike understanding of the world and no understanding of the concept of strategic interest. This is almost childsplay to debunk and totally make irrelevant your post.

If you hate America, The American Military and are generally Anti-War due to ideological reasons, say so. Then we do not need to talk further because you aren't a rational person. If you have other reasons for disagreeing then you haven't articulated any valid criticism whatsoeve



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   
The more important question is who cares?

I mean seriously we can debate about why's and what if's all day every day but it still won't change the fact that whats done is done. The fact is the surge worked because we packed Iraq with more soldiers. More soldiers ran more combat operations clearing insurgents from more houses in more towns. Al-qaeda is losing any way you cut it.

Iran is biding their time until we move, i don't care how peaceful you think they are or what you think you might have heard from your brother's best friend's roomate's cousin.

who in all honesty cares what some guys said about us on a forum on the internet?



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by DarthAmerica
 


No worries you already got your hands filled up, don't want to put you under more pressure.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthAmerica

Originally posted by noangels
Yeahh lets ignore the vids above and take your word for it
Things were a lot better there before your lot arrived there sunshine.
You can talk BS all day long,your not wanted there by the population by large, your just wanted there by the puppet goverment to protect them as they rape Iraq of its natural wealth


Yeah because you saw it on YouTube right? What a joke. Why don't you come over here and see for yourself. Ah the wisdom of armchair generals. Gotta love it. You know, the population "at large" more than anything wants us here BTW. All your assertions are BS. They know if we were to leave too early the bloodletting would be unrivaled. They need us here and the vast majority of Iragis go out of their way to help us. When you climb down out of your ivory tower and have dozens of cups of tea by invitation from Iraqis, you will know what I'm talking about. My life is on the line directly, I have no interest in telling anything other than the truth. It's people like me who die first if Iraq isn't stable. So if it was as bad as you think, you would hear from people like me in much more public venues how bad it is if that were the case. Quit trying to make Iraq into Viet Nam because it's not. Your post is absolute foolishness and propaganda.



Star for you. I find it absloutely hilarious when people post stuff about the war and how bad it is. They will go on and on AND on about random facts they probably learned off the internet. And when anyone steps in that actually HAS been there and has first hand experience. People will say something like "well my cousin who IS in the military says this." Does that mean I should reply with 'my cousin who develops super above the edge opions about the world says Baghdad is doing good.'

It's effing annoying.



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by audas
 



One other MAJOR ISSUE which you [DarthAmerica] have simply been unable to comprehend which every other observer on the planet knows - it is IRAN who has called for calm in IRAQ and subdued the Shiite Militias - it is ABSOLUTELY NOT the surge.


REVIEW.
I have posted elsewhere my theory that the SURGE was a clever if not ingenious ploy by Bush43 to distract the public and divert the newly elected Democratic controlled Congress away from investigating the mis-conduct of so many of his appointees. His man on the street followers including mid-level GOPs, were unaware of his REAL motive and in all likelihood were completely honest when they begged for enough TIME to see if his SURGE would produce the result promised.

THE PROMISE.
Bush43 instituted the SURGE - his name - for the purpose of provided a safe place and enough time for the various Iraqi to iron out their internal differences, mainly how to distribute the oil revenues. The Sunni area has few or no producing wells. Yet they make up a very important 20% of the population. The Kurds - 15% - have all but separated from Iraq and want to be very careful how much they are to be involved with Iraq in the near future. Turkey has proved it will not permit an independent Kurdistan. The majority Shia - 65% - have more than half of the producing wells.

THE PROBLEM.
Within those 3 major ethnic groups there are many sub-groups. The CIA World Factbook names 19 political parties in the Iraq Parliament. So it is not just 3 parties at the table, it is at least 19 parties and that is not easy. In fact, they may never reach an agreement all can sign-on to. But we cannot wait for them to end the American involvement in Iraq. We have lost Bush43's unrealistic gamble of establishing a knock-off US democracy in the Middle East. Let’s accept that and get the heck out of there before MORE Americans (and others) die for naught! US KIA 4,134, Coalition Forces total 4,448. icasualties.org...

THE HOUSE.
The November ‘06 voters thought if the Dems gained control of Congress it, Congress, could end the war. Unfortunately that was not the case. A majority in the House is 218. (435 total members). The Dems had 233 members. To override a veto by the president requires a 2/3s vote or a super-majority. 290. To override a veto, the Dems would have to HOLD fast all their 233 votes - not a dead-chinch certainty - and gain 57 GOP votes out of their 202 members. Very unlikely over an issue not all that clear cut.

THE SENATE.
The Senate was even worse for the peace advocates. The Dems had a 51-49 majority. A good show from the prior GOP's 55-45 split. Then Senator Johnson of SD had a stroke. That dropped the Dem majority to 50-49. Control cannot get thinner than that. There are 2 or 3 Dems who have indicated in the past they might “cross-over” to the GOP side. Sen. Joe Lieberman is one. Unlike the House where a simple majority (218) prevails, the Senate has traditional rules allowing unlimited debate. Sometimes called a “filibuster.”

Before the Civil Rights era of the 1960s, Senate rules required a 2/3s vote to shut off debate. Called "cloture." That was changed to a 3/5s vote, or 60 votes needed to proceed on important issues. That in turn would require 10 GOP senators to defect to the Dems. That is very very unlikely to happen except on a life-death issue. The Senate veto override requirement is 67 votes. The final result of the ‘06 election was to STOP Bush43 from initiating anything he wanted; OTOH the Congress could not do anything he would not accept.

CONGRESS.
The only option open to the Dems would have been to make NO appropriations for Iraq and Afghan. That desperate act in turn would have made it all too easy for Bush43 to paint the Dems as UNPATRIOTIC. And not supporting the troops already at war. A political no-no. So Bush43 had it his way. He got past the end of the ‘07 Fiscal Year and he got money enough to run the war past his next date with destiny, January 20, 2009.

RECAP.
The Dems gave him the money. The amount of money needed to run the War for 15 months. When you cannot control an issue, it is sometimes better to AVOID it. By giving Bush43 enough money to run HIS War until January 20, 2009, when the next president will be sworn into office, Bush43 has been neutered. If you can’t have it all, you take what you can get.


L E G A C Y.
These Machiavellian machinations were all about the Bush43 legacy. He has put the Iraq war out past his term of office. We will have 120,000 or more soldiers in Iraq when his successor takes office. The final outcome will be the next president’s to manage. But, if the Iraq War ends well in history, Bush43 will claim the credit. He will say he was prescient. That he had a vision, perhaps from Jesus. BUT, if history holds the war to have been a tragic miscalculation by a man endowed with too much hubris and not enough wisdom, Bush43 will say his successor LOST the War. A winner, it’s mine! A loser, it’s yours!

THE FUTURE.
And the Iraq War will join the JFK assassination and the Vietnam War as a “he said, she said” for as long as we can imagine. Forever to be debated: the missing WMDs and the role of the Iraq War in Bush43's so-called War on Terror.


[edit on 8/6/2008 by donwhite]


The entire premise of this post is that Bush wanted to continue the surge due to his "legacy" and then we have a break down of numbers ?

Sorry but the reality is that the UN mandate for troops in Iraq runs out - The US is DESPERATE to have the Iraqi government sign oil deals ("reconstruction") before this mandate runs out - they also want permanent bases in Iraq - BOTH of these are being resisted by the Iraqis and the US will not get their way -

The CIA fact book is about as useful as a tits on bull - yes there are many factions, including christians and jews - the reality is that the vast majority of those in the Iraqi government were exiled shiite nationals who were living in Iran - the situation is dripping with irony.

Iran has already won this war - the negotiations going on right now in regard to Iran and sanctions will include a great big chip from Iran called Iraq -

The surge in Iraq is NOT i repeat one more time NOT about bushes legacy this is ciompletely wrong.



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 04:12 AM
link   
CONTINUED -----


The surge is all about permanent bases in the country along with reconstruction and oil concessions - the same thing the war has always been about.

As for the other "soldiers" on this thread grandstanding about their unassailable right to supreme knowledge you are not only deluded, using profoundly spurious arguments but are quite simply totally wrong.

You don't know what you are talking about.

The idea that you can simply award yourself legitimacy in this argument not through logic, knowledge, understanding, insight, intellect or any other reasonable manner but rather through dismissing all other possible avenues of understanding as irrelevant which do not align themselves with your own experiences - what a mundanely ignorant position to take on such a significant issue.

The injustice you do to your own standing through such pontificating and intellectually flawed positions, not only humiliates yourselves but obfuscates the truth behind the horrors of Iraq.

Your position is disingenuous at best and attempting to create such a hermetic argument, to dictate the terms of assessment or provide such self serving qualifications is distasteful.

The nature of your arguments undermines any content you may present before one even has a chance to consider them.



posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by audas
CONTINUED -----


The surge is all about permanent bases in the country along with reconstruction and oil concessions - the same thing the war has always been about.

As for the other "soldiers" on this thread grandstanding about their unassailable right to supreme knowledge you are not only deluded, using profoundly spurious arguments but are quite simply totally wrong.

You don't know what you are talking about.

The idea that you can simply award yourself legitimacy in this argument not through logic, knowledge, understanding, insight, intellect or any other reasonable manner but rather through dismissing all other possible avenues of understanding as irrelevant which do not align themselves with your own experiences - what a mundanely ignorant position to take on such a significant issue.


This is so rich. So, actually being here, fighting here, watching the people change, watching Iraq develop, learning the culture and having your life depend on all of this to you means we don't know what we are talking about because it doesn't fit into your narrow biased and arrogant view of the world. OK....lol

It's interesting that those of you critics of the surge have you to cite a single valid fact to support your arguement. Not one. Even those who thing the surge worked largely don't understand the "why" and the brilliance behind it. Some of you sound like you are describing a movie to me I've seen that you haven't based on what you heard from other people. Oh well. It will all be obvious to you in 20 years time I assure you and you will remember how wrong you were in 2008.

[edit on 7-8-2008 by DarthAmerica]



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarthAmerica

Originally posted by audas
CONTINUED -----


The surge is all about permanent bases in the country along with reconstruction and oil concessions - the same thing the war has always been about.

As for the other "soldiers" on this thread grandstanding about their unassailable right to supreme knowledge you are not only deluded, using profoundly spurious arguments but are quite simply totally wrong.

You don't know what you are talking about.

The idea that you can simply award yourself legitimacy in this argument not through logic, knowledge, understanding, insight, intellect or any other reasonable manner but rather through dismissing all other possible avenues of understanding as irrelevant which do not align themselves with your own experiences - what a mundanely ignorant position to take on such a significant issue.


This is so rich. So, actually being here, fighting here, watching the people change, watching Iraq develop, learning the culture and having your life depend on all of this to you means we don't know what we are talking about because it doesn't fit into your narrow biased and arrogant view of the world. OK....lol

It's interesting that those of you critics of the surge have you to cite a single valid fact to support your arguement. Not one. Even those who thing the surge worked largely don't understand the "why" and the brilliance behind it. Some of you sound like you are describing a movie to me I've seen that you haven't based on what you heard from other people. Oh well. It will all be obvious to you in 20 years time I assure you and you will remember how wrong you were in 2008.

[edit on 7-8-2008 by DarthAmerica]


What ever ----- All you can say is the same boring trollop -

"Im here, Im a soldier, I know, no one else does"......ridiculous and ultimately profoundly unintelligent.

The facts are on the ground - pick up any analysis and it is clear as MUD - the calm has been caused by Iran influencing the insurgents - your own generals are acknowledging it.

Muqtada al-Sadr - has just laid down ALL HIS WEAPONS NOT as a response to the surge - but due to IRAN.

Your reasoning is profoundly flawed - incredibly self serving and totally lacking in anything of any substance beyond an empirical presence - it means nothing.

If you would care to discuss the reality of the politics involved, the consequences of Iran, Syria, Turkey, Russia and Chinas interests, if you would like to engage in the reality of Americas forced withdrawal due to the expiration of the UN mandate, the reality of their permanent bases being denied, the SHIITE led Iranian exile government, etc, etc, etc,etc then we are prepared to listen - but simply stating that you've been there and the Surge is brilliant is just intellectually mundane. Perhaps some ontological, epistemological and more than anything methodological approaches could be pursued rather than this myopic self assertion.

I have read books, analysis, upon analysis which all point to your version being just plain wrong - all from people who are there, are in control and are even Americans. Ok !



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by audas
What ever ----- All you can say is the same boring trollop -

"Im here, Im a soldier, I know, no one else does"......ridiculous and ultimately profoundly unintelligent.

The facts are on the ground - pick up any analysis and it is clear as MUD - the calm has been caused by Iran influencing the insurgents - your own generals are acknowledging it.

Muqtada al-Sadr - has just laid down ALL HIS WEAPONS NOT as a response to the surge - but due to IRAN.

Your reasoning is profoundly flawed - incredibly self serving and totally lacking in anything of any substance beyond an empirical presence - it means nothing.

If you would care to discuss the reality of the politics involved, the consequences of Iran, Syria, Turkey, Russia and Chinas interests, if you would like to engage in the reality of Americas forced withdrawal due to the expiration of the UN mandate, the reality of their permanent bases being denied, the SHIITE led Iranian exile government, etc, etc, etc,etc then we are prepared to listen - but simply stating that you've been there and the Surge is brilliant is just intellectually mundane. Perhaps some ontological, epistemological and more than anything methodological approaches could be pursued rather than this myopic self assertion.

I have read books, analysis, upon analysis which all point to your version being just plain wrong - all from people who are there, are in control and are even Americans. Ok !


Claiming the Surge had nothing to do with the calm here is so indicative of your ignorance. Or do you really believe that Iran out of it's benevolence and pleasure at making our stay here comfortable ordered all the violence to cease? Think about that. Until then I'll let you dwell in "intellectual" ignorance while I continue to be a direct part of whats happening. You will learn.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mister.old.school
This series of videos is gaining increased awareness and interest via sites like DIGG.COM and others. The videos highlight the reality that, among the people living in Baghdad, there is no such thing as a "surge" and life continues to become more and more desperate week by week.

If only western/mainstream media would provide reports on the reality represented by the actual people effected by the invasion and occupation.


Who cares? Why would you expect the American people to give a rip about the Iraqis? We've got our own problems to deal with.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by noangels
Yeahh lets ignore the vids above and take your word for it
Things were a lot better there before your lot arrived there sunshine.
You can talk BS all day long,your not wanted there by the population by large, your just wanted there by the puppet goverment to protect them as they rape Iraq of its natural wealth

Sure Saddam was ruthless,he killed those who stood in his way.At the end of the day he Loved his country,to the extent that he wanted to Duel with the draft Dodger Bush rather than allow his country to be torn apart by the mighty war machine getting ready to roll his direction.

edition.cnn.com...

At least there was honer in this man towards his country,something Bush never had and never will.

Can you imagine if this conflict was avoided with an old fashioned duel,the amount of people who would still be alive today rather than rotting away in their early graves all because Bush and Blair lied to the world

Of course Bush is a *Snip*,he showed the world that when he didnt go to Nam.

On a lighter note Cheeeny might have liked the idea of a duel,but even then I would expect friendly fire



Mod Note: Please Review The Following:



1b.) Profanity: You will not use profanity in our forums, and will neither post with language or content that is obscene, sexually oriented, or sexually suggestive nor link to sites that contain such content.
Terms and Conditions

[edit on 4-8-2008 by MemoryShock]


roflmao you must be very ill informed or dumb havent decided but to say things were better before we got there is folly.... last time i checked genocide wasnt a good thing and thats what was going on there b4 we arrived... more sickening anti-american rhetoric. Saddam loved his contry or his power? i think you are mistakin in saying that saddam gave two cents about his country. and one more question are u iraqi? because if not then shut up your only furthering some bs propaganda you found on the internet ive been there i know many others who have been there aswell and they iraqi people wanted american help they do want us to leave but not leave them to the dogs.... try aquiring knowledge first hand instead of forming biased opinions based on biased media representation.... the nerve of some of you anti american lefties is staggering



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Yes, those videos are terrible. The are also phoney, made up and false in their entirety. The people that filmed them were well aware that they were faking things, but their goal was to make the US look bad.

There is simply no truth to them at all.

The US Media hates the Bush administration, and would love to be able to show how terrible things "really are in Bagdad", if that were actually the case. But even the New York Times has had to admit that things are in fact much better.

You can always twist things, and that is exactly what the people behind these videos are doing. And those that believe in them are just plain fools.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Fast forward to the year 2010.

Now even democrats are admitting that the surge was actually a success.

article


Obama, Democrats, and the Surge
They were against it before it worked.
by Peter Wehner
07/28/2008, Volume 013, Issue 43
This is the week that the Democratic party ran up the white flag when it comes to the surge in Iraq. Leading the surrender was none other than Barack Obama, the Democratic party’s presumptive nominee for president and among the most vocal critics of the counterinsurgency plan that has transformed the Iraq war from a potentially catastrophic loss to what may turn out to be a historically significant victory.
On Monday, Obama wrote a New York Times op-ed in which he acknowledged the success of the surge. “In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge,” Obama wrote, “our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda–greatly weakening its effectiveness.” A day later, Obama gave a speech in which he declared for the first time that “true success” and “victory in Iraq” were possible. In addition, the Obama campaign scrubbed its presidential website to remove criticism of the surge.





new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join