The Surge is Working!

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: JD50
WTF does this have to do with the surge?

We shouldn't have been a "surge" is my point. These soldiers died for nothing and yet idiots scream out "the surge" like its some kind of gods gift to life.

You're a fucking retard and it's people like you that give Ron Paul a bad name. I'm not even going to get into this with you, PH and others have already made the relevant points that I was going to make.

Thank you for your concern. Paul represents himself and I me. If you need direction in that I'm sorry. Your disdain for me is noted. Good be on you.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
You may have fought next to them, you may very well be a brave soldier, but nevertheless, we went to war for nothing. Bravery is not lost, the value of each soldier is not degraded, the reason for their bravery was the love of America and they are commended for it, even you. But those men that lost their lives next to you, your friends and yourself could still be here today if it were not for lies. I know that its hard for you to think about, I know its not something you want to think about, but we must find a way out. Stop the bloodshed, stop the innocent loss of life, civilians or soldiers. I commend you for being brave, you are honorable and noble, staring in the face of death no matter the odds and having the steel heart that it requires to carry out those acts of war. You only did what you thought was best for this country, you are not to blame. Now that we know those were lies that took thousands of lives, its time to come home. Hate me and despise me if you like, but I have just as much care for you as each and every one of those that died. Not one above another and each in his own order. Come home.

Did you write that?

Yes.

Specially who are you talking to? (honest question)

Specifically?

To those that accept it.

I took your 'statement' as more direct. I'm guessing others here did as well and FWIW I do not include me.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Invading Iraq was the biggest blunder in US history for so many reasons, it is simply ridiculous.

Get real.

Vietnam lasted 10 years and sucked up 10% of GDP during this time.

Compared to that Iraq is a walk in the park. Defense spending is half of what it was during the Vietnam years and our death toll is 10 times smaller

For FY 2009 we will spend $3 trillion of which $100 billion will go to Iraq or about 3% of our budget. During the same time period we will spend close to $1 trillion to take care of and support our elderly.

Now I think it would be great to not spend that $100 billion, but let?s be realistic and not act as if that $100 billion is the end of the world. As for deaths we are on pace to have less than 500 fatalities this year, although it is hard to project the trend out that far. If that rate hold out then the number of military fatalities in Iraq will be about equal to the number of murders in New York City. Too many? Yes, end of the world? Not by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Robor]

NM... Totally screwed the formatting...

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: bamacre
Invading Iraq was the biggest blunder in US history for so many reasons, it is simply ridiculous.

Get real.

Vietnam lasted 10 years and sucked up 10% of GDP during this time.

Compared to that Iraq is a walk in the park. Defense spending is half of what it was during the Vietnam years and our death toll is 10 times smaller

For FY 2009 we will spend $3 trillion of which $100 billion will go to Iraq or about 3% of our budget. During the same time period we will spend close to $1 trillion to take care of and support our elderly.

Now I think it would be great to not spend that $100 billion, but let?s be realistic and not act as if that $100 billion is the end of the world. As for deaths we are on pace to have less than 500 fatalities this year, although it is hard to project the trend out that far. If that rate hold out then the number of military fatalities in Iraq will be about equal to the number of murders in New York City. Too many? Yes, end of the world? Not by any stretch of the imagination.

PJ you are *really* reaching here. I don't agree with a lot of what you say but you usually make a better defense/argument.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: bamacre
Invading Iraq was the biggest blunder in US history for so many reasons, it is simply ridiculous.

Get real.

Vietnam lasted 10 years and sucked up 10% of GDP during this time.

Compared to that Iraq is a walk in the park. Defense spending is half of what it was during the Vietnam years and our death toll is 10 times smaller

For FY 2009 we will spend $3 trillion of which $100 billion will go to Iraq or about 3% of our budget. During the same time period we will spend close to $1 trillion to take care of and support our elderly.

Now I think it would be great to not spend that $100 billion, but let?s be realistic and not act as if that $100 billion is the end of the world. As for deaths we are on pace to have less than 500 fatalities this year, although it is hard to project the trend out that far. If that rate hold out then the number of military fatalities in Iraq will be about equal to the number of murders in New York City. Too many? Yes, end of the world? Not by any stretch of the imagination.

PJ you are *really* reaching here. I don't agree with a lot of what you say but you usually make a better defense/argument.

Well trying to defend the war has become tiring. The reasons for the invasion were clearly laid out at the start. And even if the WMD thing turned out to be false there were many other reasons to go in. You may not agree with the reasons, but there were reasons.

Beyond that I am over the anti-war folks and their ?biggest mistake ever!? BS.
The war sucks, the management of the war sucks and to this point the outcome of the war has sucked. But to act as if Iraq is the biggest mistake in US history only shows a lack of understanding of history.

BTW it is highly likely that more American military personnel will die on US soil this year than in Iraq. In 2006 there were about 800 active duty deaths due to accidents, illness and suicides. A similar toll this year would most likely exceed the number of dead due to ?hostile action.?

 

[Jhhnn]

From PJ-

Vietnam lasted 10 years and sucked up 10% of GDP during this time.

Uhh, no, Major American involvement in Vietnam lasted 8 years, and the total military outlays for the time peaked at 9.4% of GDP. That figure is widely misrepresented as the cost of Vietnam, quite erroneously. Vietnam accounted for 1.5-2% of GDP, at least per a former Whitehouse economist, Lawrence Lindsay-

The Vietnam war cost between 1.5% and 2% of GDP each year during the eight years of major American commitment, or about $600 billion.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/1...omy/costofwar.fortune/

All of which, contrary to your assertions and Lindsay's, had a real negative effect on the economy, culminating in the whole stagflation scenario landing in Jimmy Carter's lap...

GDP figures of the time weren't fluffed up by a housing bubble, huge equity liquidations, and some other major financial shenanigans, either. And, uhh, taxes were actually raised at the time, while other attempts like Nixon's wage and price controls were employed to attempt to offset costs... they had more sense than to cut taxes, then start a war...

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: bamacre
Invading Iraq was the biggest blunder in US history for so many reasons, it is simply ridiculous.

Get real.

Vietnam lasted 10 years and sucked up 10% of GDP during this time.

Compared to that Iraq is a walk in the park. Defense spending is half of what it was during the Vietnam years and our death toll is 10 times smaller

For FY 2009 we will spend $3 trillion of which $100 billion will go to Iraq or about 3% of our budget. During the same time period we will spend close to $1 trillion to take care of and support our elderly.

Now I think it would be great to not spend that $100 billion, but let?s be realistic and not act as if that $100 billion is the end of the world. As for deaths we are on pace to have less than 500 fatalities this year, although it is hard to project the trend out that far. If that rate hold out then the number of military fatalities in Iraq will be about equal to the number of murders in New York City. Too many? Yes, end of the world? Not by any stretch of the imagination.

PJ you are *really* reaching here. I don't agree with a lot of what you say but you usually make a better defense/argument.

Well trying to defend the war has become tiring. The reasons for the invasion were clearly laid out at the start. And even if the WMD thing turned out to be false there were many other reasons to go in. You may not agree with the reasons, but there were reasons.

Beyond that I am over the anti-war folks and their ?biggest mistake ever!? BS.
The war sucks, the management of the war sucks and to this point the outcome of the war has sucked. But to act as if Iraq is the biggest mistake in US history only shows a lack of understanding of history.

BTW it is highly likely that more American military personnel will die on US soil this year than in Iraq. In 2006 there were about 800 active duty deaths due to accidents, illness and suicides. A similar toll this year would most likely exceed the number of dead due to ?hostile action.?

The reason defending the Iraq war is tiring is because it was a huge mistake and even the biggest pro war optimist wouldn't say with certainty the outcome is going to be in any way positive for the US or Iraq. FWIW, those American military person who will die on US soil in accidents, illness, and suicides don't have anything to do with those who die in the Iraq war.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: bamacre
Invading Iraq was the biggest blunder in US history for so many reasons, it is simply ridiculous.

Get real.

Vietnam lasted 10 years and sucked up 10% of GDP during this time.

Compared to that Iraq is a walk in the park. Defense spending is half of what it was during the Vietnam years and our death toll is 10 times smaller

For FY 2009 we will spend $3 trillion of which $100 billion will go to Iraq or about 3% of our budget. During the same time period we will spend close to $1 trillion to take care of and support our elderly.

Now I think it would be great to not spend that $100 billion, but let?s be realistic and not act as if that $100 billion is the end of the world. As for deaths we are on pace to have less than 500 fatalities this year, although it is hard to project the trend out that far. If that rate hold out then the number of military fatalities in Iraq will be about equal to the number of murders in New York City. Too many? Yes, end of the world? Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Comparing Iraq to Vietnam? Ultimately we failed there too.

Did the war in Vietnam also cause the price of oil to triple? How do you figure that into your cost equation?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: bamacre
Invading Iraq was the biggest blunder in US history for so many reasons, it is simply ridiculous.

Get real.

Vietnam lasted 10 years and sucked up 10% of GDP during this time.

Compared to that Iraq is a walk in the park. Defense spending is half of what it was during the Vietnam years and our death toll is 10 times smaller

For FY 2009 we will spend $3 trillion of which $100 billion will go to Iraq or about 3% of our budget. During the same time period we will spend close to $1 trillion to take care of and support our elderly.

Now I think it would be great to not spend that $100 billion, but let?s be realistic and not act as if that $100 billion is the end of the world. As for deaths we are on pace to have less than 500 fatalities this year, although it is hard to project the trend out that far. If that rate hold out then the number of military fatalities in Iraq will be about equal to the number of murders in New York City. Too many? Yes, end of the world? Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Comparing Iraq to Vietnam? Ultimately we failed there too.

Did the war in Vietnam also cause the price of oil to triple? How do you figure that into your cost equation?

Nah, the war in Vietnam caused hippies, LSD, and a president to be assasinated.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: bamacre
Invading Iraq was the biggest blunder in US history for so many reasons, it is simply ridiculous.

Get real.

Vietnam lasted 10 years and sucked up 10% of GDP during this time.

Compared to that Iraq is a walk in the park. Defense spending is half of what it was during the Vietnam years and our death toll is 10 times smaller

For FY 2009 we will spend $3 trillion of which $100 billion will go to Iraq or about 3% of our budget. During the same time period we will spend close to $1 trillion to take care of and support our elderly.

Now I think it would be great to not spend that $100 billion, but let?s be realistic and not act as if that $100 billion is the end of the world. As for deaths we are on pace to have less than 500 fatalities this year, although it is hard to project the trend out that far. If that rate hold out then the number of military fatalities in Iraq will be about equal to the number of murders in New York City. Too many? Yes, end of the world? Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Comparing Iraq to Vietnam? Ultimately we failed there too.

Did the war in Vietnam also cause the price of oil to triple? How do you figure that into your cost equation?

Nah, the war in Vietnam caused hippies, LSD, and a president to be assasinated.

You can't assassinate LSD.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: bamacre
Invading Iraq was the biggest blunder in US history for so many reasons, it is simply ridiculous.

Get real.

Vietnam lasted 10 years and sucked up 10% of GDP during this time.

Compared to that Iraq is a walk in the park. Defense spending is half of what it was during the Vietnam years and our death toll is 10 times smaller

For FY 2009 we will spend $3 trillion of which $100 billion will go to Iraq or about 3% of our budget. During the same time period we will spend close to $1 trillion to take care of and support our elderly.

Now I think it would be great to not spend that $100 billion, but let?s be realistic and not act as if that $100 billion is the end of the world. As for deaths we are on pace to have less than 500 fatalities this year, although it is hard to project the trend out that far. If that rate hold out then the number of military fatalities in Iraq will be about equal to the number of murders in New York City. Too many? Yes, end of the world? Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Comparing Iraq to Vietnam? Ultimately we failed there too.

Did the war in Vietnam also cause the price of oil to triple? How do you figure that into your cost equation?

Nah, the war in Vietnam caused hippies, LSD, and a president to be assasinated.

You can't assassinate LSD.

True. You're living proof of that.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Nah, the war in Vietnam caused hippies, LSD, and a president to be assasinated.

You can't assassinate LSD.

But apparently you can assissinate English grammer.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Nah, the war in Vietnam caused hippies, LSD, and a president to be assasinated.

You can't assassinate LSD.

But apparently you can assissinate English grammer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earth to Fern, earth to Fern, if you are going to be the grammar police, it would help if you learned how to spell assassinate. But its cheery to see TLC has similar failings. Them double
"ss" not followed by an A are always problematic.

But to get back to the thread topic, the surge has succeeded brilliantly as a slogan for stay the course. If you can't dazzle them with success, baffle them with bullshit slogans. At least non Prof John had the honesty to post that the augmented troop numbers in the surge would, of necessity, de-surge by the summer of 08 back to pre-surge numbers. When we scrape the bottom of the barrel, we often discover there is indeed a bottom of the barrel.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Nah, the war in Vietnam caused hippies, LSD, and a president to be assasinated.

You can't assassinate LSD.

But apparently you can assissinate English grammer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earth to Fern, earth to Fern, if you are going to be the grammar police, it would help if you learned how to spell assassinate. But its cheery to see TLC has similar failings. Them double
"ss" not followed by an A are always problematic.

But to get back to the thread topic, the surge has succeeded brilliantly as a slogan for stay the course. If you can't dazzle them with success, baffle them with bullshit slogans. At least non Prof John had the honesty to post that the augmented troop numbers in the surge would, of necessity, de-surge by the summer of 08 back to pre-surge numbers

Haven't been following along very closely about the whole grammar nanny thing, eh LL?

Well at least you didn't attempt a lame rebuttal starting with "Datalink 7's delusions are..."

Sucks when you get rebutted in another thread by someone who's actually there in Iraq and completely destroys your baseless speculations, doesn't it?

 

[Lemon law]

TLC, Datalink7 I respect as a realist. You are a GWB apologist with no standing in any reality.

And your argument carries no weight. Poor little me, I could not afford to be in that fateful stadium this recent past super bowl Sunday, but regardless if you were in the stadium when it was happening, saw it live on television, or just read about it later, the outcome was still the same.

Without the political progress that is not happening, the surge is not a success.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: bamacre
Invading Iraq was the biggest blunder in US history for so many reasons, it is simply ridiculous.

Get real.

Vietnam lasted 10 years and sucked up 10% of GDP during this time.

Compared to that Iraq is a walk in the park. Defense spending is half of what it was during the Vietnam years and our death toll is 10 times smaller

For FY 2009 we will spend $3 trillion of which $100 billion will go to Iraq or about 3% of our budget. During the same time period we will spend close to $1 trillion to take care of and support our elderly.

Now I think it would be great to not spend that $100 billion, but let?s be realistic and not act as if that $100 billion is the end of the world. As for deaths we are on pace to have less than 500 fatalities this year, although it is hard to project the trend out that far. If that rate hold out then the number of military fatalities in Iraq will be about equal to the number of murders in New York City. Too many? Yes, end of the world? Not by any stretch of the imagination.

PJ you are *really* reaching here. I don't agree with a lot of what you say but you usually make a better defense/argument.

Well trying to defend the war has become tiring. The reasons for the invasion were clearly laid out at the start. And even if the WMD thing turned out to be false there were many other reasons to go in. You may not agree with the reasons, but there were reasons.

Beyond that I am over the anti-war folks and their ?biggest mistake ever!? BS.
The war sucks, the management of the war sucks and to this point the outcome of the war has sucked. But to act as if Iraq is the biggest mistake in US history only shows a lack of understanding of history.

BTW it is highly likely that more American military personnel will die on US soil this year than in Iraq. In 2006 there were about 800 active duty deaths due to accidents, illness and suicides. A similar toll this year would most likely exceed the number of dead due to ?hostile action.?

The real reason that there was actually enough momentum to go into Iraq was because Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with Al-Qaeda and he had WMDs he was going to use in great effect.

If Bush had only raved about Saddam having WMDs, that would have been a piss-fucking-poor excuse to go into Iraq. You have to remember at the time that America's anger towards Al-Qaeda was immense, and it is only through the fabricated relationship between Al-Qaeda and Saddam that there was any leg for the invasion to stand on.

Simply stating that there were reasons is weak and delusional. There are just about any number of reasons we can make up or actually have in order to invade another country. Whether those reasons actually make sense or not is what matters.

The anger about the invasion into Iraq is comprised of the fact that the public was deliberately misled (what? Saddam actually hates Islamic radicals? Holy crap! what? There were no WMDs and the CIA was being pressured into releasing information more favorable to the Administration's case? What? The source about Saddam Hussein getting Uranium from an African country was off the fucking internet???) and that there has not even been a single honest-to-goodness admission by the administration that the entire thing was fucked up and that they are sorry to the public for wasting our fucking money and the lives of our young men and women.

I hate the invasion of Iraq, but I now recognize that with our resources committed and that a power vacuum would probably be detrimental to the entire region, if not the world, that we have a responsibility to see things to a close. I know logistics may make us leave sooner than we'd like, or may let us stay for a long long time. I don't know what course of action should be taken, because I'm not a policy maker.

But I'm fucking tired of the Bush Administration's bullshit and constant fucking run around. The American public is ADD and weakminded sometimes, but that does not give them the fucking 'reason' to lie to us, feed us bullshit when WE CANT GET INFORMATION ANYWHERE ELSE and then give us the run around when they should be admitting their grave mistake.

And great 'reason' ProfJohn. We're going to lose less men and women in Iraq than we do accidentally, so Iraq is 'a-okay'.

I fucking hate you hacks.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
TLC, Datalink7 I respect as a realist. You are a GWB apologist with no standing in any reality.

And your argument carries no weight. Poor little me, I could not afford to be in that fateful stadium this recent past super bowl Sunday, but regardless if you were in the stadium when it was happening, saw it live on television, or just read about it later, the outcome was still the same.

Without the political progress that is not happening, the surge is not a success.

Datalink 7 already demonstrated that you're full of hyperbole and delusions regarding the situation in Iraq. Seeing as you can't get the situation in Iraq anywhere close to correct and feel it necessary to completely distort what's happening, no doubt based on your severe BDS afflcition, would should anyone trust your evaluation of members of this forum either, unless those trusting you are just as deluded as you are?

 

[Lemon law]

Well TLC, you posted the bottom line---unless those trusting you are just as deluded as you are?

I shall leave it up to the judgment of this forum and to history on which of us are deluded.

After all, its you who is defending the deluder in chief. A serial liar among a pack of imported serial liars.

If you think history will vindicate GWB, you are delusion personified. And then to add injury to insult, you think
current actions like Turkish interventions will retrieve the situation.

Methinks you are a victim of GWB worship syndrome. The doctrine of fools.

 

[ericlp]

I'm still trying to figure out the motive here. I mean, everyone has gone off on the deep end as far as I can see...

What happened to staying on target? Granted Prof for mod was pretty funny....

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well TLC, you posted the bottom line---unless those trusting you are just as deluded as you are?

I shall leave it up to the judgment of this forum and to history on which of us are deluded.

After all, its you who is defending the deluder in chief. A serial liar among a pack of imported serial liars.

If you think history will vindicate GWB, you are delusion personified. And then to add injury to insult, you think
current actions like Turkish interventions will retrieve the situation.

Methinks you are a victim of GWB worship syndrome. The doctrine of fools.

Ahh, and that's your next delusion, LL - imagining this forum is representative of what's delsuion and what's not. Judging what's proper based on a majority opinion from this forum would be no different than asking for a similar judgement from Powerline or Free Republic. The opinion of a majority crowd of BDS tools, or its opposite, does not make for an unbiased opinion. It just makes for an opinion from a bunch of tools.