Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
AQ came into Iraq after we invaded looking for a fight, which instantly tied Iraq to international terrorism. They got a fight too. They've been routed and along the way lost boatloads of respect and support among the Muslim world.

Couldn't we have just fought them in Afghanistan without having to invade Iraq, losing 4000+ soldiers and tens of thousands soldiers maimed, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives lost, a couple of trillion dollars spent and making Iran stronger?

We can't begin to understand TLC's reasoning and logic. He is light years ahead in terms of intellect and comprehension.

Obviously Iraq needed to be blown to sh!t in order for us to fight AlQ. For reasons only TLC and his kind will ever know...

<que 'Twillight Zone' theme>

Just say "Nine-eleven" a few dozen times and then it makes sense. Throw some other words in there, too.

Or if your on the anti-war side you can repeat "MIssion Accomplished" or "Stay the Course" because that's a familiar response in here.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: shira
**cut**

Dude, there is no point with this guy. All you're really giving him is what he wants, something to yell about. He is so personally caught up in the defense of the war at this point that it's not really possible for him to think rationally on the issue.

Uh huh, there's no use trying to convince me that your fucked up arguments are correct or that you saw these improvements in Iraq coming.

Rational? lol. You guys are so far detached from reality and rational thought, and so caught up in your partisan knee-jerking, it's not even funny anymore.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
AQ came into Iraq after we invaded looking for a fight, which instantly tied Iraq to international terrorism. They got a fight too. They've been routed and along the way lost boatloads of respect and support among the Muslim world.

Couldn't we have just fought them in Afghanistan without having to invade Iraq, losing 4000+ soldiers and tens of thousands soldiers maimed, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives lost, a couple of trillion dollars spent and making Iran stronger?

We can't begin to understand TLC's reasoning and logic. He is light years ahead in terms of intellect and comprehension.

Obviously Iraq needed to be blown to sh!t in order for us to fight AlQ. For reasons only TLC and his kind will ever know...

<que 'Twillight Zone' theme>

Just say "Nine-eleven" a few dozen times and then it makes sense. Throw some other words in there, too.

Or if your on the anti-war side you can repeat "MIssion Accomplished" or "Stay the Course" because that's a familiar response in here.

Mission accomplished!
Stay the course. 😎

 

[Lemon law]

Yes TLC is right, the pro war crowd has something remotely positive to point to as they claim to be not total failures. Just never bring up the subject of Afghanistan which the pro war crowd tries to hide like a red headed step child.

But we still lose the larger picture, if we realize that the end may well be near for TLC and similar pro war types. They have 100% of their capital invested in Iraq staying rosy, and while I hope the pro war crowd is right and Iraq stays rosy because the alternative is not good for anyone, chances are, the pro war crowd is going to be totally discredited by events.

And if the world can lose the pro war crowd stinking thinking thereafter, we will have a subsequent basis to build world peace thereafter.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
American's opinions on Iraq and the success with which it has been waged are unchanged since 1 year ago when violence was significantly higher. It's pretty clear that not only do Americans not believe the surge has been a huge success, but also that they're not highly interested given the current piss poor economic conditions.

Really? The recent polls disagree with that assertion.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

"Who do you think is currently winning the war in Iraq: the U.S. and its allies, the insurgents in Iraq, or neither side?" N=527, MoE ± 4.5 (Form A)

It's gone from a low of 21% last year to 37% this year who believe the US and Allies are winning.

Despite your assertion, which you clearly didn't even bother to fact check, it's changed quite significantly from a year ago.

 

[DealMonkey]

It seems clear that if our goal was to take the fight to AQ, we would have invaded the autonomous tribal zones of Northern Pakistan immediately following the military victory in Afghanistan. And if Mushie objected, we'd have Cheney tell him to go fuck himself.

Instead, a certain someone went off like a drunken cowboy dipshit and invaded the wrong country. And as others have pointed out, AQ is operationally just as strong following their routing in Iraq as they were before, if not more so.

I've said it before, it seems disingenuous at best to fuck up the occupation of Iraq for 5 long years, allow AQ and the Taliban to regroup in Pakistan and Aghanistan while you're dealing with the insurgency in Iraq, allow Iran to gain power by removing its one and only enemy in the region, and then sit around crowing about our supposed "success" ... in fact it's beyond disingenuous, it's downright dangerous.

Frankly, I don't think we've yet begun to see the blowback from this little misadventure.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It seems clear that if our goal was to take the fight to AQ, we would have invaded the autonomous tribal zones of Northern Pakistan immediately following the military victory in Afghanistan. And if Mushie objected, we'd have Cheney tell him to go fuck himself.

Instead, a certain someone went off like a drunken cowboy dipshit and invaded the wrong country. And as others have pointed out, AQ is operationally just as strong following their routing in Iraq as they were before, if not more so.

I've said it before, it seems disingenuous at best to fuck up the occupation of Iraq for 5 long years, allow AQ and the Taliban to regroup in Pakistan and Aghanistan while you're dealing with the insurgency in Iraq, allow Iran to gain power by removing its one and only enemy in the region, and then sit around crowing about our supposed "success" ... in fact it's beyond disingenuous, it's downright dangerous.

Frankly, I don't think we've yet begun to see the blowback from this little misadventure.

AQ is regrouping in Pakistan because we routed them in Afghanistan and that's where they slunk off to hide, the brave holy warriors that they are. Iraq has NOTHING to do with that at all. The attempts to conflate the two is patently ridiculous because you have zero proof that we could possibly have wiped AQ in Afghanistan using our entire military without them regrouping in a safe haven next door.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey


I've said it before, it seems disingenuous at best to fuck up the occupation of Iraq for 5 long years, allow AQ and the Taliban to regroup in Pakistan and Aghanistan while you're dealing with the insurgency in Iraq, allow Iran to gain power by removing its one and only enemy in the region, and then sit around crowing about our supposed "success" ... in fact it's beyond disingenuous, it's downright dangerous.

What are you talking about!?

Thats what you call VICTORY son! You are too unintelligent to understand!! :laugh:

The surge is winning!

Mission Accomplished!

Stay the Course!!

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It seems clear that if our goal was to take the fight to AQ, we would have invaded the autonomous tribal zones of Northern Pakistan immediately following the military victory in Afghanistan. And if Mushie objected, we'd have Cheney tell him to go fuck himself.

Instead, a certain someone went off like a drunken cowboy dipshit and invaded the wrong country. And as others have pointed out, AQ is operationally just as strong following their routing in Iraq as they were before, if not more so.

I've said it before, it seems disingenuous at best to fuck up the occupation of Iraq for 5 long years, allow AQ and the Taliban to regroup in Pakistan and Aghanistan while you're dealing with the insurgency in Iraq, allow Iran to gain power by removing its one and only enemy in the region, and then sit around crowing about our supposed "success" ... in fact it's beyond disingenuous, it's downright dangerous.

Frankly, I don't think we've yet begun to see the blowback from this little misadventure.

AQ is regrouping in Pakistan because we routed them in Afghanistan and that's where they slunk off to hide, the brave holy warriors that they are. Iraq has NOTHING to do with that at all. The attempts to conflate the two is patently ridiculous because you have zero proof that we could possibly have wiped AQ in Afghanistan using our entire military without them regrouping in a safe haven next door.

You should learn to read, I'm not conflating anything. I merely suggested that instead of invading Iraq, we should have invaded Northern Pakistan immediately following Afghanistan. I realize there's a cost involved in doing so, however if taking on AQ was really priority number one, it would have been worth it. Instead, we've made a tactical blunder by getting tied down in Iraq for 5 years and allowing Pakistan's autonomous zone to replace Afghanistan in terms of being a safe haven for AQ.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
American's opinions on Iraq and the success with which it has been waged are unchanged since 1 year ago when violence was significantly higher. It's pretty clear that not only do Americans not believe the surge has been a huge success, but also that they're not highly interested given the current piss poor economic conditions.

Really? The recent polls disagree with that assertion.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

"Who do you think is currently winning the war in Iraq: the U.S. and its allies, the insurgents in Iraq, or neither side?" N=527, MoE ± 4.5 (Form A)

It's gone from a low of 21% last year to 37% this year who believe the US and Allies are winning.

Despite your assertion, which you clearly didn't even bother to fact check, it's changed quite significantly from a year ago.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TLC delusion is wholly in the idea that US public opinion is any proper metric.

Try the 90% public approval opinion the Iraq war used to have.

End results, end results, and end results at this stage of the game can make any set backs for the pro war crowd into a giant negative public mood swings and drive public approval of you pro war types under the belly of snakes.

The prowar crowd is now only gradually rebuilding its credibility in only one of two US quagmires, pro war types will be toast if any set backs occur in Iraq.

Sis rum Bah cheerleading does no good if the opposition team steals the balls and runs it back for a TD.

In the end TLC, its still going to be end results that decide. But go ahead, derive all the cheer you want in poll results placing US public opinion two to one against you.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
American's opinions on Iraq and the success with which it has been waged are unchanged since 1 year ago when violence was significantly higher. It's pretty clear that not only do Americans not believe the surge has been a huge success, but also that they're not highly interested given the current piss poor economic conditions.

Really? The recent polls disagree with that assertion.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

"Who do you think is currently winning the war in Iraq: the U.S. and its allies, the insurgents in Iraq, or neither side?" N=527, MoE ± 4.5 (Form A)

It's gone from a low of 21% last year to 37% this year who believe the US and Allies are winning.

Despite your assertion, which you clearly didn't even bother to fact check, it's changed quite significantly from a year ago.

If you actually read what I wrote, I said opinions on the war right now have not changed compared to one year ago, not your arbitrary BS about troughs of 21%. I posted the relevant stats on this on page 5 yesterday, reposted here for your education:

"When it comes to the situation in Iraq, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?" If "mixed feelings" or not sure: "If you had to choose, do you lean more toward approve or disapprove?"

Approve: 34%
Disapprove: 62%

This same question one year ago:

Approve: 32%
Disapprove: 66%

"Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?"

Favor: 33%
Oppose: 66%

This same question one year ago:

Favor: 33%
Oppose: 64%

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

And if you knew the first damn thing about statistics or mathematics generally, you wouldn't be so far gone from reality to only cite the low of 21% last year. The average is far more relevant than any particular peak or trough, and is highly dependent on the events surrounding the date of polling. But again, that assumes you knew anything about statistics, did your own research, went to school, etc. Clearly a poor assertion when it comes to your background on topics of this nature, which is entirely non-existent.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You should learn to read, I'm not conflating anything. I merely suggested that instead of invading Iraq, we should have invaded Northern Pakistan immediately following Afghanistan. I realize there's a cost involved in doing so, however if taking on AQ was really priority number one, it would have been worth it. Instead, we've made a tactical blunder by getting tied down in Iraq for 5 years and allowing Pakistan's autonomous zone to replace Afghanistan in terms of being a safe haven for AQ.

Here's exactly what you said:

"I've said it before, it seems disingenuous at best to fuck up the occupation of Iraq for 5 long years, allow AQ and the Taliban to regroup in Pakistan and Aghanistan while you're dealing with the insurgency in Iraq, allow Iran to gain power by removing its one and only enemy in the region, and then sit around crowing about our supposed "success" ... in fact it's beyond disingenuous, it's downright dangerous. "

Prove that not going into Iraq would have prevented AQ from hiding and "regrouping" in Pakistan.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
American's opinions on Iraq and the success with which it has been waged are unchanged since 1 year ago when violence was significantly higher. It's pretty clear that not only do Americans not believe the surge has been a huge success, but also that they're not highly interested given the current piss poor economic conditions.

Really? The recent polls disagree with that assertion.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

"Who do you think is currently winning the war in Iraq: the U.S. and its allies, the insurgents in Iraq, or neither side?" N=527, MoE ± 4.5 (Form A)

It's gone from a low of 21% last year to 37% this year who believe the US and Allies are winning.

Despite your assertion, which you clearly didn't even bother to fact check, it's changed quite significantly from a year ago.

If you actually read what I wrote, I said opinions on the war right now have not changed compared to one year ago, not your arbitrary BS about troughs of 21%. I posted the relevant stats on this on page 5 yesterday, reposted here for your education:

"When it comes to the situation in Iraq, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?" If "mixed feelings" or not sure: "If you had to choose, do you lean more toward approve or disapprove?"

Approve: 34%
Disapprove: 62%

This same question one year ago:

Approve: 32%
Disapprove: 66%

"Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?"

Favor: 33%
Oppose: 66%

This same question one year ago:

Favor: 33%
Oppose: 64%

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

And if you knew the first damn thing about statistics or mathematics generally, you wouldn't be so far gone from reality to only cite the low of 21% last year. The average is far more relevant than any particular peak or trough, and is highly dependent on the events surrounding the date of polling. But again, that assumes you knew anything about statistics, did your own research, went to school, etc. Clearly a poor assertion when it comes to your background on topics of this nature, which is entirely non-existent.

I read exactly what you wrote. In fact, I'll requote it for you:

"American's opinions on Iraq and the success with which it has been waged are unchanged since 1 year ago when violence was significantly higher."

The recent poll I linked to shows that claim to be pure horseshit. And plopping in a quote about the approval of Bush's handling of the war is hilarious. That comes nowhere NEAR your claim. So screw your reality. You clearly have none since you can't even get your own quotes right or back up your spurious statements.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
American's opinions on Iraq and the success with which it has been waged are unchanged since 1 year ago when violence was significantly higher. It's pretty clear that not only do Americans not believe the surge has been a huge success, but also that they're not highly interested given the current piss poor economic conditions.

Really? The recent polls disagree with that assertion.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

"Who do you think is currently winning the war in Iraq: the U.S. and its allies, the insurgents in Iraq, or neither side?" N=527, MoE ± 4.5 (Form A)

It's gone from a low of 21% last year to 37% this year who believe the US and Allies are winning.

Despite your assertion, which you clearly didn't even bother to fact check, it's changed quite significantly from a year ago.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TLC delusion is wholly in the idea that US public opinion is any proper metric.

Try the 90% public approval opinion the Iraq war used to have.

End results, end results, and end results at this stage of the game can make any set backs for the pro war crowd into a giant negative public mood swings and drive public approval of you pro war types under the belly of snakes.

The prowar crowd is now only gradually rebuilding its credibility in only one of two US quagmires, pro war types will be toast if any set backs occur in Iraq.

Sis rum Bah cheerleading does no good if the opposition team steals the balls and runs it back for a TD.

In the end TLC, its still going to be end results that decide. But go ahead, derive all the cheer you want in poll results placing US public opinion two to one against you.

That's my delusion, eh?

Well isn't that interesting, because there are constantly people in this place reminding everyone how much of the public is against the war. Why haven't you explained to them about their own delusion, LL? Slip your mind?

Additionally, once again you confuse my own support of Iraq with "Bush cheerleading" as well. It's no surprise that certain people in here can't quite figure out that supporting the war doesn't mean supporting Bush; just like being anti-war doesn't mean you don't support the troops.

Right, LL?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
American's opinions on Iraq and the success with which it has been waged are unchanged since 1 year ago when violence was significantly higher. It's pretty clear that not only do Americans not believe the surge has been a huge success, but also that they're not highly interested given the current piss poor economic conditions.

Really? The recent polls disagree with that assertion.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

"Who do you think is currently winning the war in Iraq: the U.S. and its allies, the insurgents in Iraq, or neither side?" N=527, MoE ± 4.5 (Form A)

It's gone from a low of 21% last year to 37% this year who believe the US and Allies are winning.

Despite your assertion, which you clearly didn't even bother to fact check, it's changed quite significantly from a year ago.

If you actually read what I wrote, I said opinions on the war right now have not changed compared to one year ago, not your arbitrary BS about troughs of 21%. I posted the relevant stats on this on page 5 yesterday, reposted here for your education:

"When it comes to the situation in Iraq, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?" If "mixed feelings" or not sure: "If you had to choose, do you lean more toward approve or disapprove?"

Approve: 34%
Disapprove: 62%

This same question one year ago:

Approve: 32%
Disapprove: 66%

"Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war in Iraq?"

Favor: 33%
Oppose: 66%

This same question one year ago:

Favor: 33%
Oppose: 64%

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

And if you knew the first damn thing about statistics or mathematics generally, you wouldn't be so far gone from reality to only cite the low of 21% last year. The average is far more relevant than any particular peak or trough, and is highly dependent on the events surrounding the date of polling. But again, that assumes you knew anything about statistics, did your own research, went to school, etc. Clearly a poor assertion when it comes to your background on topics of this nature, which is entirely non-existent.

I read exactly what you wrote. In fact, I'll requote it for you:

"American's opinions on Iraq and the success with which it has been waged are unchanged since 1 year ago when violence was significantly higher."

The recent poll I linked to shows that claim to be pure horseshit. And plopping in a quote about the approval of Bush's handling of the war is hilarious. That comes nowhere NEAR your claim. So screw your reality. You clearly have none since you can't even get your own quotes right or back up your spurious statements.

Again, I cannot help that you are poorly educated, did not read the thread or my posts carefully, and continue to backpeddle when proven utterly wrong. All you had to do was a 1 minute search, but failed to do even that much. You'd be funny if you weren't so sad and transparent. The numbers speak loud and clearly, so to equate who is winning the war in Iraq with my original statement of "the success with which the war has been waged" is merely a grade-school version of jumping to a false conclusion. But again, no one here expects otherwise from you.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Again, I cannot help that you are poorly educated, did not read the thread or my posts carefully, and continue to backpeddle when proven utterly wrong. All you had to do was a 1 minute search, but failed to do even that much. You'd be funny if you weren't so sad and transparent. The numbers speak loud and clearly, so to equate who is winning the war in Iraq with my original statement of "the success with which the war has been waged" is merely a grade-school version of jumping to a false conclusion. But again, no one here expects otherwise from you.

How pathetic you are. Can't even back up your own words. Must suck that my poor education can so thoroughly own the awesome education you had?

:roll:

 

[Lemon law]

Nothing has slipped my mind TLC, I was opposed to the occupation of Iraq from the start.

Now that we are in due to the general stupidity of GWB&co., we must all realize that getting out is not as easy as getting in.

Sadly TLC, once the pooch is screwed, it can't be unscrewed.

But if you think I buy an iota of your bullshit that its now the original GWB plan or bust, think again.

Unlike you, I look many moves ahead, and see nothing but disaster if we try to simply stay a failed course.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Again, I cannot help that you are poorly educated, did not read the thread or my posts carefully, and continue to backpeddle when proven utterly wrong. All you had to do was a 1 minute search, but failed to do even that much. You'd be funny if you weren't so sad and transparent. The numbers speak loud and clearly, so to equate who is winning the war in Iraq with my original statement of "the success with which the war has been waged" is merely a grade-school version of jumping to a false conclusion. But again, no one here expects otherwise from you.

How pathetic you are. Can't even back up your own words. Must suck that my poor education can so thoroughly own the awesome education you had?

:roll:

Yet you wouldn't be able to explain, if your life depended on it, why you jumped to the conclusion that my statement "success in Iraq" automatically means I was speaking about the specific poll question you referred to about "winning" the war in Iraq. Nor can you explain away the undeniable reality that Americans are opposed to the war and disapprove of the administration's handling of Iraq in the same numbers as they did a year ago, before the surge went into full swing. You can't do any of these things because you aren't intellectually capable. Again, sad and transparent.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Nothing has slipped my mind TLC, I was opposed to the occupation of Iraq from the start.

Now that we are in due to the general stupidity of GWB&co., we must all realize that getting out is not as easy as getting in.

Sadly TLC, once the pooch is screwed, it can't be unscrewed.

But if you think I buy an iota of your bullshit that its now the original GWB plan or bust, think again.

Unlike you, I look many moves ahead, and see nothing but disaster if we try to simply stay a failed course.

Nothing but disaster? While you also admit that you don't really know what's going to happen there while continually claiming it's going to bite us in the ass any day now?

But, right, I forgot. You don't actually make any prognositications when it comes to Iraq.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Again, I cannot help that you are poorly educated, did not read the thread or my posts carefully, and continue to backpeddle when proven utterly wrong. All you had to do was a 1 minute search, but failed to do even that much. You'd be funny if you weren't so sad and transparent. The numbers speak loud and clearly, so to equate who is winning the war in Iraq with my original statement of "the success with which the war has been waged" is merely a grade-school version of jumping to a false conclusion. But again, no one here expects otherwise from you.

How pathetic you are. Can't even back up your own words. Must suck that my poor education can so thoroughly own the awesome education you had?

:roll:

Yet you wouldn't be able to explain, if your life depended on it, why you jumped to the conclusion that my statement "success in Iraq" automatically means I was speaking about the specific poll question you referred to about "winning" the war in Iraq. Nor can you explain away the undeniable reality that Americans are opposed to the war and disapprove of the administration's handling of Iraq in the same numbers as they did a year ago, before the surge went into full swing. You can't do any of these things because you aren't intellectually capable. Again, sad and transparent.

Stop wasting my time with your bs. You got spanked. Deal with it and move on.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's some of the most convoluted prose ever written, TLC. If support for the war varies from dismal to near non-existent, so what?

It means that the public wants out, that's what. That's the result LL refers to. Real changes in that are extremely unlikely. And it means the pro-occupation forces are caught in a dilemma. If the surge worked, fine. Congratulations to the stumblebums who finally figured it out. Now what?

When do we leave? If the surge doesn't facilitate that, then what's the point? The answer to that question is the crux of the matter, because the public wants out, and the pro-occupation forces want to stay, regardless. If the admin continues to define victory as staying, as having permanent bases in Iraq (and they do, face it) that's in direct contradiction to the public's version of victory, which is to leave... and in direct contradiction to the desires of the Iraqis... which is for us to leave. The less strife in Iraq, the more the pressure mounts for us to get out... w/o the kind of victory the admin seeks so desperately.

Can't have it both ways, no matter how hard we try. The real test of whether or not one supports Bush is in which version of victory they support- the public's, and the Iraqis', or Bush's.

Well? Which one is it, TLC?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
That's some of the most convoluted prose ever written, TLC. If support for the war varies from dismal to near non-existent, so what?

In your world, 1/3 is dismal or non-existent? A 50+% increase ( odd how no MSM source picked up on that percentage) in americans who think we're now winning doesn't mean a thing?

Sorry Jhhnn, but I have to question the honesty in your assessment concerning this matter. I don't belive you're actually being realistic.

It means that the public wants out, that's what. That's the result LL refers to. Real changes in that are extremely unlikely. And it means the pro-occupation forces are caught in a dilemma. If the surge worked, fine. Congratulations to the stumblebums who finally figured it out. Now what?

When do we leave? If the surge doesn't facilitate that, then what's the point? The answer to that question is the crux of the matter, because the public wants out, and the pro-occupation forces want to stay, regardless. If the admin continues to define victory as staying, as having permanent bases in Iraq (and they do, face it) that's in direct contradiction to the public's version of victory, which is to leave... and in direct contradiction to the desires of the Iraqis... which is for us to leave. The less strife in Iraq, the more the pressure mounts for us to get out... w/o the kind of victory the admin seeks so desperately.

Can't have it both ways, no matter how hard we try. The real test of whether or not one supports Bush is in which version of victory they support- the public's, and the Iraqis', or Bush's.

Well? Which one is it, TLC?

Yeah. The public. :roll:

The public doesn't want to allow gay marriage either. The public probably disagrees with many more things that you believe in compared to what I beleive in too. So what the public believes ultimately becomes meaningless.

No doubt you'd completely agree with that assertion when discussing a subject where public opinion is NOT on your side.

 

[OrByte]

I'd also like to point out that the numbers of the "surge" werent as important as the fundamental military change in approach brought about by Patraeus. No longer were military men sitting in HMVees pointing guns at Iraqi's....our military started to interact and engage the community. Efforts were made to relate to the people in Iraq. And suddenly the American military men and women didnt seem so scary and fearsome to Iraqis.

Props to Patreaus....dispite the bungling of Iraq from the Administration.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: OrByte
I'd also like to point out that the numbers of the "surge" werent as important as the fundamental military change in approach brought about by Patraeus. No longer were military men sitting in HMVees pointing guns at Iraqi's....our military started to interact and engage the community. Efforts were made to relate to the people in Iraq. And suddenly the American military men and women didnt seem so scary and fearsome to Iraqis.

Props to Patreaus....dispite the bungling of Iraq from the Administration.

Thanks to Patraeus for being such a renegade and patently ignoring admin mandates too.

😕

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, well, TLC, 50% increase of doodly-squat is still doodly-squat... and it's highly convenient for you to pick the lowest point of approval, ever, as your reference point. Approval has hovered around 1/3 for some time now, with occasional dips downward...

Gay marriage? Please, your desperation is showing. Stick to the subject at hand- explain how the admin isn't caught in a bind by their own success and how your support of their version of winning (not the public's, not the Iraqis') isn't support for Bush and the neocon vision.

If "freeing the Iraqi people" means they're only free to do what we want, then they're not free, at all... If what the admin describes as a stable, democratic and legitimate govt of a sovereign Iraq can't get us to tell them when we'll leave, then they're not sovereign, at all...

Again, can't have it both ways...