• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The Surge gets Purged

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: cwjerome
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: jpeyton
12 US bodies in the last 3 days...4 per day...that is how messy.

I think the insurgents hit a second-wind on the home stretch to 4000.
Uncalled for.

This is not a baseball game. I'm lowering my head in remembrance of the fallen. Though I distinctly and vehemently oppose the politicians that enabled this Iraqi debacle, I bear no grudge, indeed I am honored that our country is served by so many brave men and women.
Uncalled for? :confused: Do you not know jpeyton?

This kid has been posting anti-military venom for years... and it's all very well documented. He actually disappeared for a good while on P&N after some especially disgusting hate comments. He has re-emerged, spamming the forum the past few months... I guess it's his second wind.

I will say he has toned down the hate rhetoric slightly though to merely distasteful.
Heh, right. You're one to talk about disgusting hate comments. I just had an image of a white supremacist bitching about equal rights violations flash through my head.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
The insurgent strategy isn't to defeat the US military. They're not stupid.

Their goal is to inflict as much cost as possible (in lives and money) to the US, so a war-weary public will re-evaluate their [bad] decision to invade Iraq and pull out.
If you?re right about their strategy then wouldn?t you be a willing pawn?

Don?t your endless threads covering every bombing and death just play into their hands by reminding people of our casualties?

In fact the only way their strategy can work is if people like you can convince the American people to give up on Iraq and end the war.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
5
0
Six months of falling death counts isn?t a sign that the surge worked, but a few weeks of raising death counts is a sign that it failed? :confused:
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Six months of falling death counts isn?t a sign that the surge worked, but a few weeks of raising death counts is a sign that it failed? :confused:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can grant that Non Prof John makes a semi valid point. The fact is that the surge has neither succeeded or failed at this point in time.

This thread is simply a reminder that, at any time, and for any reason, the violence can resume and even greatly exceed pre or mid surge levels. Especially if the three times larger Shia insurgencies become fully engaged.

Thus far the resumption of violence amounts to only a slight bump, but because the surge has not resulted in any political progress or the disarming of the various Iraqi insurgencies, why should we assume the surge has succeeded? Or that a temporary reduction in violence will EVER become permanent?

Like Vietnam, the if we doubt our leadership question, will be used as a smokescreen justification for the enemy winning. And mean that we cannot think of better ways to solve a perpetual quagmire or question the totally inept way the occupation has been run.

But if the violence resumes to exceed pre or mid surge levels, at least we will know that the surge, like 99.9% of all GWB&co. plans has been a miserable flop and over hyped. And that Shinseki was right in 2002, its going to take 500,000 plus troops to run an occupation and no mere slogan will ever suffice.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
As Palehorse74 now bitterly complains about the following---I really wish you'd stop pretending to kiss datalink's ass after spending most of the last year insulting every other service-member in this forum on a daily basis.

You completely missed his point about all the good we ARE doing in Iraq, and all of the progress we ARE making over there every day; and then you went on to blow smoke up his ass by praising his efforts and proclaiming his word greater than everyone else' -- all the while snickering to yourself about what you honestly consider pointless and worthless efforts.

Do you really think he's dumb enough to fall for that bullsh*t? You're talking out of both sides of your mouth - again - and it's fvcking nauseating...

bah... maybe I'm speaking out of turn... or maybe datalink doesnt care...

but I do.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does it ever occur to you palehorse74, that there is a world of difference between your posts and those of datalinks7's. Datalink7's posts shows he is thinking about what the Iraqi people
are thinking about and what motivates THEM. Something totally missing in your posts where its all about you and your military service showing the savages how to live. And how they should be properly grateful.

And in terms of the wonderful progress that is happening everyday, with luck, it will take eighty or more years to get them back to where they were before we came. You flat out don't seem to care and seem to show no ability to put your selves in anyone else's shoes. And your knee jerk idea always seems to be to kill ideas and anyone who does not agree with you.

Get a clue, datalink7 and his command deserves the praise and you do not. They have the right stuff and the right way to conduct an occupation. And you clearly don't. And thats also seeming accounts for why, given our vast resources, we are making so little progress.
LOL.. you're such a joke. If you only knew...
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,655
1,159
126
Lemon Law, I'm going to take the Shinseki estimate perspective one step further.

Shinseki's comments were related to the logistics of protecting the infrastructure, securing the vast military assets (bases and inventory) of the Iraqi regime, the suppression of sectarian bloodshed, and the establishment of a credible allied authority in the country.

Because the initial stages were so bungled, we had the following occur :

(1)- Large stockpiles of weapons and explosives went unprotected, and were seized by terrorists/insurgents.

(2)- Critical damage was done to much of the Iraqi civilian infrastructure (power/water/gas/phone)

(3)- Looting and theft were rampant.

(4)- Sectarian strife flared up with ease, re-igniting millennia-old rivalries and blood fueds.

(5)- The porous security allowed scores of foreign fighters to join the resistance against the allied objectives, and to further add fire to the sectarian hate.

There are many more problems, but due to these events occurring, the genie was out of the bottle so to speak. Bringing 500,000 troops to bear on the situation would likely have many benefits, but the results might not even then be satisfactory, due to the possibly irrevocable damage to our credibility and to the mission itself. As is painfully obvious, unless a unified political structure can provide stability and economic opportunity for an acceptable existence for the average Iraqi citizen, we're going nowhere in a real hurry. Our soldiers can protect people, kill bad guys, and do a respectable amount of engineering and logistical support, but without the wide support of the Iraqi people in these ventures towards unification, there's not much more we can expect of them.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,119
498
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Six months of falling death counts isn?t a sign that the surge worked, but a few weeks of raising death counts is a sign that it failed? :confused:
Yea, strange isn't it? For the past six months we have been told by the left that the death toll doesn't matter, it is not a sign of success. Now, that death tolls might be rising again, we are being told that that is a sure sign of failure.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
As JD50 totally misses the point by saying---Yea, strange isn't it? For the past six months we have been told by the left that the death toll doesn't matter, it is not a sign of success. Now, that death tolls might be rising again, we are being told that that is a sure sign of failure.

And for the same time we have been told by pro military types that the surge has turned the corner in Iraq when in fact the surge has little to do with it why the violence has at least temporarily been reduced.

And neither of the two fundamental statement are either true or false at this time because the jury is still out and only time will tell.

Of course the overall death count matters. But it still will amount to nothing is if the death toll returns and the cessation of violence ends. The point being, the potential is there because the surge never addressed any of the essential Iraqi problems that still need to be addressed.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
I give palehorse74 some detailed reasons and all he can come back with is----LOL.. you're such a joke. If you only knew...

The point being, the real sad joke is your evident failure as you and your type of thinking deliver negative progress year after year after year.

And all you can blame is others aand never seem to stop and think about being smarter or understand other viewpoints.

Which is not a joke, its a damn stupidity.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,164
24,757
136
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Six months of falling death counts isn?t a sign that the surge worked, but a few weeks of raising death counts is a sign that it failed? :confused:
Yea, strange isn't it? For the past six months we have been told by the left that the death toll doesn't matter, it is not a sign of success. Now, that death tolls might be rising again, we are being told that that is a sure sign of failure.
God people, this has been spelled out time and time again. The reduction in the death toll did NOT mean that the surge was successful, as the surge's ENTIRE PURPOSE was to create political progress that would enable Iraq to stick together long term. Progress that never happened. That is why the surge was a failure even though the violence went down.

There was a silver lining though, which was that even in yet another failure, at least fewer people were dying and that's something good. Now that trend seems to be turning back around as well.

Get it? This has been spelled out in probably 5 dozen posts over the last 6 months.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
1
61
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: jpeyton
The insurgent strategy isn't to defeat the US military. They're not stupid.

Their goal is to inflict as much cost as possible (in lives and money) to the US, so a war-weary public will re-evaluate their [bad] decision to invade Iraq and pull out.
If you?re right about their strategy then wouldn?t you be a willing pawn?

Don?t your endless threads covering every bombing and death just play into their hands by reminding people of our casualties?

In fact the only way their strategy can work is if people like you can convince the American people to give up on Iraq and end the war.
Translation: "I don't care if 100K troops die and the USA goes bankrupt, we cannot afford to look bad by surrendering."

Edit: And BTW, PJ, that strategy would not work if this war was justified.
 

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,784
43
91
www.bing.com
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Six months of falling death counts isn?t a sign that the surge worked, but a few weeks of raising death counts is a sign that it failed? :confused:
Yea, strange isn't it? For the past six months we have been told by the left that the death toll doesn't matter, it is not a sign of success. Now, that death tolls might be rising again, we are being told that that is a sure sign of failure.
Reminds me of how the Dow, S&P, and the Nasdaq are not economic indicators... until they go down.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,119
498
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Six months of falling death counts isn?t a sign that the surge worked, but a few weeks of raising death counts is a sign that it failed? :confused:
Yea, strange isn't it? For the past six months we have been told by the left that the death toll doesn't matter, it is not a sign of success. Now, that death tolls might be rising again, we are being told that that is a sure sign of failure.
God people, this has been spelled out time and time again. The reduction in the death toll did NOT mean that the surge was successful, as the surge's ENTIRE PURPOSE was to create political progress that would enable Iraq to stick together long term. Progress that never happened. That is why the surge was a failure even though the violence went down.

There was a silver lining though, which was that even in yet another failure, at least fewer people were dying and that's something good. Now that trend seems to be turning back around as well.

Get it? This has been spelled out in probably 5 dozen posts over the last 6 months.
Wow, you completely missed my point. I didn't say that the surge was successful because of the low body count. Here, I'll try and make it as simple as possible

The left says -

high body count = Iraq war is a failure and we are losing
low body count = body count is not an indication of our progress in Iraq

Get it?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
This was unexpected? Only ProfJohn was dumb enough to believe otherwise.
Now that Sadr has called off his cease-fire, well see who was wrong in here and who wasn't. Though I suspect that if it doesn't go Sadr's way a few in here will argue that "Technically, Sadr didn't call off the cease-fire."

We'll see what happens though. imo, Sadr doesn't have nearly the cache in Iraq that some in here allot him.
More Chicken Scat.

1) Sadr has not called off his ceasefire. He extended the ceasefire for another 6 months in Febuary.

2) One year after the invasion of Iraq the DoD estimated the Mahdi Army troop strength at 3k lightly armed soldiers. Six months later the estimate tripled.

3) Projections now estimate Mahdi Army militias 'conseratively' above 50k. It is feared that significant numbers of Muqtada al-Sadr's supporters are now members of Iraq's facility protection forces.

4) The DoD has declared that the Mahdi Army "has replaced Al Qaeda in Iraq as the most dangerous accelerant of potentially self-sustaining sectarian violence in Iraq."

5) For those keeping score:

Mahdi Army - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50k
"Concerned Local" Sunnis - - - - - 85k
Kurdish Armies- - - - - - - - - - - -100k
Iraq Army - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 120k
US - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 150k

6) There are an estimated 34,500 US troops in Gaghbad. There is a current drawdown of 2k - a combat brigade from the 82nd returning home after their 15-month tour.

7) Drawdowns are expected to reduce the overall US force in Iraq by 20k by the end of the summer - troops ending their 15-month tours.
See. Told ya so.

:laugh:
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,119
498
126
Originally posted by: Lemon law
I give palehorse74 some detailed reasons and all he can come back with is----LOL.. you're such a joke. If you only knew...

The point being, the real sad joke is your evident failure as you and your type of thinking deliver negative progress year after year after year.

And all you can blame is others aand never seem to stop and think about being smarter or understand other viewpoints.

Which is not a joke, its a damn stupidity.
You repeat this BS repeatedly, if you are so much smarter and have a better way of handling the war, then do something about it besides posting on an internet forum.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,164
24,757
136
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Six months of falling death counts isn?t a sign that the surge worked, but a few weeks of raising death counts is a sign that it failed? :confused:
Yea, strange isn't it? For the past six months we have been told by the left that the death toll doesn't matter, it is not a sign of success. Now, that death tolls might be rising again, we are being told that that is a sure sign of failure.
God people, this has been spelled out time and time again. The reduction in the death toll did NOT mean that the surge was successful, as the surge's ENTIRE PURPOSE was to create political progress that would enable Iraq to stick together long term. Progress that never happened. That is why the surge was a failure even though the violence went down.

There was a silver lining though, which was that even in yet another failure, at least fewer people were dying and that's something good. Now that trend seems to be turning back around as well.

Get it? This has been spelled out in probably 5 dozen posts over the last 6 months.
Wow, you completely missed my point. I didn't say that the surge was successful because of the low body count. Here, I'll try and make it as simple as possible

The left says -

high body count = Iraq war is a failure and we are losing
low body count = body count is not an indication of our progress in Iraq

Get it?
No, not at all. How about:

High body count and zero progress towards a stable state = Iraq war is a failure, we're blowing huge loads of cash, and huge amounts of people are dying.
Low body count and zero progress towards a stable state = Iraq war is a failure, we're blowing huge loads of cash, but a smaller amount of people are dying.

Iraq's failure has never been specifically rooted in body counts, those are just a symptom of the larger catastrophe. This has also been told to you dozens of times, but you continue to willfully misrepresent the anti war position. Iraq is a failure because the war was illegal, our rationale for it was a lie, the geopolitical situation that has come out of it is significantly to our detriment, it's costing us shed loads of cash, and people are dying. Fewer people dying sadly changes very little in the equation.
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
This was unexpected? Only ProfJohn was dumb enough to believe otherwise.
Now that Sadr has called off his cease-fire, well see who was wrong in here and who wasn't. Though I suspect that if it doesn't go Sadr's way a few in here will argue that "Technically, Sadr didn't call off the cease-fire."

We'll see what happens though. imo, Sadr doesn't have nearly the cache in Iraq that some in here allot him.


Thanks for creating a strawman. I was referring only to the increase in violence as proof the situation was not stabilized by the surge. I never considered the ceasefire a stabilization you see.

 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,119
498
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Six months of falling death counts isn?t a sign that the surge worked, but a few weeks of raising death counts is a sign that it failed? :confused:
Yea, strange isn't it? For the past six months we have been told by the left that the death toll doesn't matter, it is not a sign of success. Now, that death tolls might be rising again, we are being told that that is a sure sign of failure.
God people, this has been spelled out time and time again. The reduction in the death toll did NOT mean that the surge was successful, as the surge's ENTIRE PURPOSE was to create political progress that would enable Iraq to stick together long term. Progress that never happened. That is why the surge was a failure even though the violence went down.

There was a silver lining though, which was that even in yet another failure, at least fewer people were dying and that's something good. Now that trend seems to be turning back around as well.

Get it? This has been spelled out in probably 5 dozen posts over the last 6 months.
Wow, you completely missed my point. I didn't say that the surge was successful because of the low body count. Here, I'll try and make it as simple as possible

The left says -

high body count = Iraq war is a failure and we are losing
low body count = body count is not an indication of our progress in Iraq

Get it?
No, not at all. How about:

High body count and zero progress towards a stable state = Iraq war is a failure, we're blowing huge loads of cash, and huge amounts of people are dying.
Low body count and zero progress towards a stable state = Iraq war is a failure, we're blowing huge loads of cash, but a smaller amount of people are dying.

Iraq's failure has never been specifically rooted in body counts, those are just a symptom of the larger catastrophe. This has also been told to you dozens of times, but you continue to willfully misrepresent the anti war position. Iraq is a failure because the war was illegal, our rationale for it was a lie, the geopolitical situation that has come out of it is significantly to our detriment, it's costing us shed loads of cash, and people are dying. Fewer people dying sadly changes very little in the equation.
Maybe that is not your position, but there are plenty here that were going on and on about the high body count and how that proves that the Iraq war is a failure. Are you seriously saying that people here were not doing that?

And please don't start with the whole "war of lies" bullshit, I always assumed that you were above that because I never really saw you go down that road.

I agree with you btw that the number of dead in Iraq does not prove either success or failure.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,164
24,757
136
Originally posted by: JD50

Maybe that is not your position, but there are plenty here that were going on and on about the high body count and how that proves that the Iraq war is a failure. Are you seriously saying that people here were not doing that?

And please don't start with the whole "war of lies" bullshit, I always assumed that you were above that because I never really saw you go down that road.

I agree with you btw that the number of dead in Iraq does not prove either success or failure.
I do believe that our reason for going into Iraq was a lie, but I don't think that Bush lied us into war. (if that makes any sense). Sadly I think he got us into this war through incompetence and wishful thinking. Sometimes I almost wish he had lied, because that would at least imply he had a plan.

As far as the body count thing goes, I can't really remember. I tend to think that people in the back of their minds are against this war because they know it's a disaster, but they have trouble articulating exactly what it is. So... they latch onto things like body counts. I think that's an important distinction.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: JD50

Maybe that is not your position, but there are plenty here that were going on and on about the high body count and how that proves that the Iraq war is a failure. Are you seriously saying that people here were not doing that?

And please don't start with the whole "war of lies" bullshit, I always assumed that you were above that because I never really saw you go down that road.

I agree with you btw that the number of dead in Iraq does not prove either success or failure.
I do believe that our reason for going into Iraq was a lie, but I don't think that Bush lied us into war. (if that makes any sense). Sadly I think he got us into this war through incompetence and wishful thinking. Sometimes I almost wish he had lied, because that would at least imply he had a plan.

As far as the body count thing goes, I can't really remember. I tend to think that people in the back of their minds are against this war because they know it's a disaster, but they have trouble articulating exactly what it is. So... they latch onto things like body counts. I think that's an important distinction.
Of course he had a plan. There are plenty of reasons for the invasion.
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Six months of falling death counts isn?t a sign that the surge worked, but a few weeks of raising death counts is a sign that it failed? :confused:
Yea, strange isn't it? For the past six months we have been told by the left that the death toll doesn't matter, it is not a sign of success. Now, that death tolls might be rising again, we are being told that that is a sure sign of failure.
God people, this has been spelled out time and time again. The reduction in the death toll did NOT mean that the surge was successful, as the surge's ENTIRE PURPOSE was to create political progress that would enable Iraq to stick together long term. Progress that never happened. That is why the surge was a failure even though the violence went down.

There was a silver lining though, which was that even in yet another failure, at least fewer people were dying and that's something good. Now that trend seems to be turning back around as well.

Get it? This has been spelled out in probably 5 dozen posts over the last 6 months.
Wow, you completely missed my point. I didn't say that the surge was successful because of the low body count. Here, I'll try and make it as simple as possible

The left says -

high body count = Iraq war is a failure and we are losing
low body count = body count is not an indication of our progress in Iraq

Get it?
No, not at all. How about:

High body count and zero progress towards a stable state = Iraq war is a failure, we're blowing huge loads of cash, and huge amounts of people are dying.
Low body count and zero progress towards a stable state = Iraq war is a failure, we're blowing huge loads of cash, but a smaller amount of people are dying.

Iraq's failure has never been specifically rooted in body counts, those are just a symptom of the larger catastrophe. This has also been told to you dozens of times, but you continue to willfully misrepresent the anti war position. Iraq is a failure because the war was illegal, our rationale for it was a lie, the geopolitical situation that has come out of it is significantly to our detriment, it's costing us shed loads of cash, and people are dying. Fewer people dying sadly changes very little in the equation.
Maybe that is not your position, but there are plenty here that were going on and on about the high body count and how that proves that the Iraq war is a failure. Are you seriously saying that people here were not doing that?

And please don't start with the whole "war of lies" bullshit, I always assumed that you were above that because I never really saw you go down that road.

I agree with you btw that the number of dead in Iraq does not prove either success or failure.
The dead in Iraq proves that the US is morally bankrupt.



 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: jpeyton
12 US bodies in the last 3 days...4 per day...that is how messy.

I think the insurgents hit a second-wind on the home stretch to 4000.
You can disagree with the politics, but do not denigrate or make light of the men and women who have died. An ignorant comment.
He's a numbers guy!

:disgust:

Truly in bad taste libby. Please don't revel in our loses we know if Iraq goes bad the Dems lock up the white house but our fallen soldiers bodies should not be stepping stones for Barak's trip to the white house.

I have two cousins in country right now and I do not appreciate you referring to them as numbers or possible statistics.

And to people saying the Mahdi army peace deal was the most important ingredient
in our succes of late are reaching. Important yes very but not all important. The iraqi villiage groups of local anti-insurgant miltias, I forgot the name of them, was just as or more so important than the peace deal. Those 2 aspects are regarded as the most important reasons along with the surge why we have done so well lately.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: jpeyton
The insurgent strategy isn't to defeat the US military. They're not stupid.

Their goal is to inflict as much cost as possible (in lives and money) to the US, so a war-weary public will re-evaluate their [bad] decision to invade Iraq and pull out.
If you?re right about their strategy then wouldn?t you be a willing pawn?

Don?t your endless threads covering every bombing and death just play into their hands by reminding people of our casualties?

In fact the only way their strategy can work is if people like you can convince the American people to give up on Iraq and end the war.
Translation: "I don't care if 100K troops die and the USA goes bankrupt, we cannot afford to look bad by surrendering."

Edit: And BTW, PJ, that strategy would not work if this war was justified.

My translation of you and many like you:

"We need to turn tail and leave that country to implode F them. It's all Bush's fault F him! We owe it nothing F them iraqis. It's all Bush's fault F him! We need to leave now and waste the 3500ish lives we sacraficed on this a cause they believed in. F them our military is stupid! Failure is our only option! It's all Bush's fault F him! Surge smerge i deny that it is working at all whatever we do there means nothing F them they have always hated us and want us gone. The U.S. is evil it's our fault muslims hate us and attack us. We've done more harm than good there. It's all Bush's fault F him! we've killed so much more than saddam did. We are evil! There will be no power vacuum and if there is who cares F them. It's all Bush's fault F him! Anything that makes Bush a faluire I support whole heartedly! It's all Bush's fault F him! I don't mind paying $7 a gallon of gas as long as we get out of Iraq now! It's all Bush's fault F him! Our lost are not worth anything more than the butt of jpaytons jokes and the the means they get an ultra liberal socialist into the white house! Yehaaawwww </Dean voice off> "
Now now I'm just using you as an example don't take it as a personal attack please. I am taking it a step further and I am embelishing some but, that is how you libbies come off. Whiney pussies bent on taking down our president (which I have lost most respect for as well) and any byproducts of taking him down like $7 a gallon gas, our lives and iraqi lives don't matter. And that worries me.


As A true conservative I must admit,

Reagan would not have invaded Iraq.
President Bush didn't do the right thing and that is obvious.
It is very dabatable what the this all means to Iraq 20 years from now. Democracy or totalitarian rule similar to the other 4,000 years before that.
Short term is hard too, in some ways it is better but in many ways it must SUCK to live there.
President Bush is pretty lousy.

But I think quitting Iraq cold turkey would be a short term and long term disaster gobally.

I could be wrong :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY