The Surge isn't Working! The War is Lost!

[SD Jarhead]

What? You mean it is? Now what?

 

Surge meets purge

 

The McCain camaign is poking fun at Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for a report in today's New York Daily News that he had cleansed BarackObama.com of past criticism of the surge strategy in Iraq.

 

"BARACK OBAMA "REFINING" IRAQ POSITION ON OWN WEBSITE," blares the McCain release, which helpfully links to the former versions of the site.

 

The Daily News report by James Gordon Meek says: "Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop ‘surge’ in Iraq, the Daily News has learned. The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a ‘problem’ that had barely reduced violence. ‘The surge is not working,’ Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province. …

 

"Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an "improved security situation" paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007. It praises G.I.s' ‘hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.’ Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is ‘not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.’ ”

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmart...eets_purge.html

[pBills]

Surge seemed to be working in Iraq. Let's pull troops from there and place them in Afghanistan!!!

[elegantelliotoffen]

The surge has reduced the violence but I don't think it has gotten us any closer to getting out of there.

[SilverNRed]

What? You mean it is? Now what?

 

Surge meets purge

 

The McCain camaign is poking fun at Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for a report in today's New York Daily News that he had cleansed BarackObama.com of past criticism of the surge strategy in Iraq.

 

"BARACK OBAMA "REFINING" IRAQ POSITION ON OWN WEBSITE," blares the McCain release, which helpfully links to the former versions of the site.

 

The Daily News report by James Gordon Meek says: "Barack Obama's campaign scrubbed his presidential Web site over the weekend to remove criticism of the U.S. troop ‘surge’ in Iraq, the Daily News has learned. The presumed Democratic nominee replaced his Iraq issue Web page, which had described the surge as a ‘problem’ that had barely reduced violence. ‘The surge is not working,’ Obama's old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks - not U.S. military muscle - for quelling violence in Anbar Province. …

 

"Obama's campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an "improved security situation" paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007. It praises G.I.s' ‘hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.’ Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is ‘not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.’ ”

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmart...eets_purge.html

Yeah, but don't you dare imply that this was a flip-flop.

 

Here's a little more on the the Obama website scrub-down: Link

 

And, thanks to the magic of the internets and all those tubes, here's the original plan:

 

THE SURGE IS NOT WORKING

 

"The stated purpose of the surge was to enable Iraq's political leaders to reconcile. They have not done so. . . .

 

Our troops fight and die in the 120 degree heat to give Iraq's leaders space to agree, but they are not filling it. .

 

. . The bar for success is so low that it is almost buried in the sand."

 

Iraqi Government Not Stepping Up: The goal of the troop surge was to create space for Iraq’s political leaders to reach agreement to end Iraq’s civil war. In January 2007, President Bush said the goal of the surge was to contain violence so that "Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas." Since then, more than 700 American troops have died, but the Iraqi government has not stepped up. In early September, the United States Government Accountability Office found the Iraqi government has not enacted legislation to meet critical benchmarks on de-Ba'athification, oil revenue sharing, provincial elections, amnesty, and militia disarmament that are key tobeginning national reconciliation.

 

There's no way he can spin this as just being taken out of context or something. He was flat out wrong about the Surge. Scrubbing the website down and pretending this is just a shift due to new information isn't going to cut it.

[Nanker]

Historical US Battlefield Casualties.

The iRaq war surpasses the Philippine War, the Mexican-American War and the War of 1812.

 

More food for though when you want to discuss the cost of war.

The Netherlands lost more in combat in WWII than we have in iRaq.

 

The US lost over 9,000 Merchant Marine in WWII - over twice as many as have given their lives for this country in iRaq.

 

Check out page 14 if you want to talk about numbers. In particular look at June 1944 through June 1945.

 

The Brits lost over 1,400 when the Bismarck sank a single battleship - the Hood.

Of course, the Brits got revenge when the sank the Bismarck along with 2,000 of Admiral Lüdjens' finest.

 

We lost about 6,000 in 35 days on Iwo Jima - which is more than the ~ 5,000 lost on D-Day.

About 20,000 Americans lost their lives in the six week Battle of the Bulge.

 

Over 56,000 Americans died in Jack Kennedy's Viet Nam war.

[elegantelliotoffen]

Historical US Battlefield Casualties.

The iRaq war surpasses the Philippine War, the Mexican-American War and the War of 1812.

 

More food for though when you want to discuss the cost of war.

The Netherlands lost more in combat in WWII than we have in iRaq.

 

The US lost over 9,000 Merchant Marine in WWII - over twice as many as have given their lives for this country in iRaq.

 

Check out page 14 if you want to talk about numbers. In particular look at June 1944 through June 1945.

 

The Brits lost over 1,400 when the Bismarck sank a single battleship - the Hood.

Of course, the Brits got revenge when the sank the Bismarck along with 2,000 of Admiral Lüdjens' finest.

 

We lost about 6,000 in 35 days on Iwo Jima - which is more than the ~ 5,000 lost on D-Day.

About 20,000 Americans lost their lives in the six week Battle of the Bulge.

 

Over 56,000 Americans died in Jack Kennedy's Viet Nam war.

 

I hate when people try to compare saving the free world from Nazis and Fascists to nation building for a bunch of backwards morons.

[Wacka]

I hate it when morons can't see that we are fighting Islamofascists to preserve our way of life.

[elegantelliotoffen]

I hate it when morons can't see that we are fighting Islamofascists to preserve our way of life.

 

That's Afghanistan/Pakistan, not Iraq.

[OCinBuffalo]

That's Afghanistan/Pakistan, not Iraq.

OMG! Normally I don't like name calling but I'll make an exception in this case.

 

MORON –noun 1. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.

 

So I guess Sadam WASN'T paying $20,000 to the families of suicide bombers? Do you simply consider that "foreign aid"? I suppose he would've done the same for Katrina victims, and that religion would have nothing to do with it, huh? He didn't try to build a hidden cannon to attack Israel, and he didn't try on multiple occasions to acquire nuclear weapons?(Hint: the facts say otherwise) This kind of thinking is tired, wrong, dangerous, ill-informed, and is directly due to deferring to one's ideology over one's common sense and reason. So we have two choices: you are either notably ignorant of these facts, or you are being notably stupid here(and stupidity, just like terrorism, is a choice). I'm betting the second, so that covers half the definition.

 

What's it gonna take for you to wake up and realize that we are fighting this Terror War in 30+ countries? Wtf difference does one or two more make? The islamic terror campaign is being waged wherever Muslim "holy men" start bastardizing their religion into a political/warfare tool, rather than a spiritual one as it was intended. Right now these guys have one thing in common: they all claim that their excuse for killing civilians on a grand scale is granted them by Islam. That's nuts, and that means we need to neutralize them, wherever they are, right now.

 

That said, it's time for you to do a reality check. Look, I don't like it any better than anyone else, but we are in a fight here and now it's about winning, not pussying around whining about the consequences of war. War is what it is, and sure as hell wasn't invented by George W. Bush. These terrorist have chosen to declare war on us, and most of the rest of the world, and that's not Bush's fault, nor was it Clinton's fault, nor will it be the next 3 President's fault either.

 

You might as well blame my dog for all the crap in the world. Crap has been around long before my dog, and will be here long after. Unfortunately, right now, my dog's crap is something I have to deal with because I am a responsible, sensible person. I can't simply pretend that my dog's crap is going to deal with itself, or that if I feed him better, that he won't crap, or if I let the crap build up, that I don't stand a chance of getting sick and even dying. I can protest against crap, go on MSNBC and scream how crappy it is, but, at the end of all my irrational ranting, I will still have to deal with the crap. A terrorist, by their own choice, has made themselves a piece of human crap and needs to be disposed of in the same manner I would my dog's.

 

Abject poverty, lack of education, whatever else, may contribute to terrorism(just like they contribute to gang membership), but they aren't the real cause. Azzholes are the real cause of terrorism(and gangs, The Bloods or the KKK) and unfortunately this world has no shortage of Islam-twisting azzholes right now. Terrorist Azzholes are azzholes because they choose to be, and will stop being azzholes the minute they choose not to be. We need to free ourselves from them, or compel them to choose not to be azzholes, wherever in the world they are, and that's that.

 

Pretending that we aren't fighting a real war, all over the world, or that we can "protest" it away, shows a lack of good judgment...and so there's the other half of the definition. I feel I have clearly demonstrated both parts of the definition. I don't know you so I'll have to hold off on calling you a MORON and limit my good judgment to only calling your position in this thread what it is, by definition: MORONIC.

[Adam]

What? You mean it is? Now what?

 

Surge meets purge

 

The McCain camaign is poking fun at Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for a report in today's New York Daily News that he had cleansed BarackObama.com of past criticism of the surge strategy in Iraq.

A politician changing there view....who has ever heard of that. At least his is right that the surge is working.

 

To be honest, there never should have been a surge, because if we had to make the mistake of going in there, this is what we should have done to start with. Unfortunately, we have a "misunderestimated" idiot calling the shots! McCain was right- the original strategy was a complete debacle, orchestrated by the master of the debacle!

[X. Benedict]

I hate it when morons can't see that we are fighting Islamofascists to preserve our way of life.

 

I hate it when morons think that our way of life was threatened by 7th century revivalists in pajamas.

[elegantelliotoffen]

OMG! Normally I don't like name calling but I'll make an exception in this case.

 

MORON –noun 1. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment.

 

So I guess Sadam WASN'T paying $20,000 to the families of suicide bombers? Do you simply consider that "foreign aid"? I suppose he would've done the same for Katrina victims, and that religion would have nothing to do with it, huh?

 

So does every other Muslim nation in the Middle East, should we invade them all?

 

He didn't try to build a hidden cannon to attack Israel, and he didn't try on multiple occasions to acquire nuclear weapons?(Hint: the facts say otherwise) This kind of thinking is tired, wrong, dangerous, ill-informed, and is directly due to deferring to one's ideology over one's common sense and reason. So we have two choices: you are either notably ignorant of these facts, or you are being notably stupid here(and stupidity, just like terrorism, is a choice). I'm betting the second, so that covers half the definition.

 

So now we invaded because Saddam was trying to get nuclear weapons?

 

What's it gonna take for you to wake up and realize that we are fighting this Terror War in 30+ countries? Wtf difference does one or two more make? The islamic terror campaign is being waged wherever Muslim "holy men" start bastardizing their religion into a political/warfare tool, rather than a spiritual one as it was intended. Right now these guys have one thing in common: they all claim that their excuse for killing civilians on a grand scale is granted them by Islam. That's nuts, and that means we need to neutralize them, wherever they are, right now.

 

And how many Al Qaeda members were in Iraq before our invasion?

 

Abject poverty, lack of education, whatever else, may contribute to terrorism(just like they contribute to gang membership), but they aren't the real cause. Azzholes are the real cause of terrorism(and gangs, The Bloods or the KKK) and unfortunately this world has no shortage of Islam-twisting azzholes right now. Terrorist Azzholes are azzholes because they choose to be, and will stop being azzholes the minute they choose not to be. We need to free ourselves from them, or compel them to choose not to be azzholes, wherever in the world they are, and that's that.

 

That is the most braindead paragraph ever written! Al Qaeda brought down the WTC because......."They are Azzholes".

 

Pretending that we aren't fighting a real war, all over the world, or that we can "protest" it away, shows a lack of good judgment...and so there's the other half of the definition. I feel I have clearly demonstrated both parts of the definition. I don't know you so I'll have to hold off on calling you a MORON and limit my good judgment to only calling your position in this thread what it is, by definition: MORONIC.

 

Bottom line- GWB and his chickenhawk buddies little experiment in democratizing a stone age, backwards country at the barrel of a gun has only created more Islamic terrorists. But hey, at least these crazy Muslims dont hold grudges.........

[chicot]

I hate when people try to compare saving the free world from Nazis and Fascists to nation building for a bunch of backwards morons.

 

I hate when ignorant morons label an entire nation that they know next to nothing about "backwards morons".

[elegantelliotoffen]

I hate when ignorant morons label an entire nation that they know next to nothing about "backwards morons".

 

You don't think Iraq is backwards?

[X. Benedict]

You don't think Iraq is backwards?

 

Careful.....Cuniform and the ziggurat didn't invent themselves.

[SilverNRed]

I hate it when morons think that our way of life was threatened by 7th century revivalists in pajamas.

When the 7th century revivalists in pajamas are using 20th/21st century weapons, I feel fairly threatened.

[/dev/null]

I hate it when morons can't see that we are fighting Islamofascists to preserve our way of life.

 

I hate it when morons think that our way of life was threatened by 7th century revivalists in pajamas.

 

I hate when ignorant morons label an entire nation that they know next to nothing about "backwards morons".

 

I hate when one moron posts something stupid and 2 morons reply in kind

[/dev/null]

When the 7th century revivalists in pajamas are using 20th/21st century weapons, I feel fairly threatened.

 

As opposed to 23rd century Klingons running amok on the Enterprise with 7th century weapons

[X. Benedict]

When the 7th century revivalists in pajamas are using 20th/21st century weapons, I feel fairly threatened.

 

Terrorists are a real threat and may one day kill you.

 

However, our way of life is a hell of a lot more resilient than any several thousand of us.

Once 7th century revivalists take over a small state, let's say Vermont or Delaware, I'll promote that slogan from

refrigerator magnet myself.

[chicot]

I hate when one moron posts something stupid and 2 morons reply in kind

 

Three now