Who Won Iraq's "Decisive" Battle?

[Lemon law]

To TLC,

I have never tried to make the case that Sadr is 100% of the Shia insurgency or even close to that. But I will agree with your final sentence of--It's not nearly that cut and dried.

And your assertion of---I am not cheerleading is something I will leave to others to judge.

There is a huge range of opinion, even in the journalistic community, and to say the facts being cited by all sides except your side, must be beaten down as phony is somewhat cheerleading on the face of it.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
To TLC,

I have never tried to make the case that Sadr is 100% of the Shia insurgency or even close to that. But I will agree with your final sentence of--It's not nearly that cut and dried.

And your assertion of---I am not cheerleading is something I will leave to others to judge.

There is a huge range of opinion, even in the journalistic community, and to say the facts being cited by all sides except your side, must be beaten down as phony is somewhat cheerleading on the face of it.

I was referring to the following comment, taken in context with other similar comments you've made regarding this situation:

But on the plus side Maliki now picks up many Sunni and Kurdish supporters who now short term want him to remain football team coach. But thats somewhat a losing strategy in an Iraq that is 40% Sunni and Kurd and more like 55% Shia.

How many of that "55% Shia" support Sadr? Can you actually show that Sadr has lost any significant Shia support since this incident?

As to cheerleading, is it only cheerleading if my side does it? If not, why aren't you calling out Sadr's cheerleading squad as well? Besides that, true facts don't get beaten down. Lies, half-truths, and distortions disguised as fact do though. So why does one side in-particular of this issue feel the need to resort to those lies, half-truths, and distortions to make their case?

 

[Fern]

Wow, lot of conflicting info on this subject.

LINKY

A summary of info abiut the subject O. North says he has received from US military in Basra:

- The Iraqis planned and executed the operation with little U.S. involvement and managed to commit more than 40,000 troops in high-intensity combat against well-armed, militia-terrorists in six cities ? a feat that would have been impossible just six months ago.

? Conventional Iraqi Army and police units operated effectively together in multiple large-scale, simultaneous urban combat for the first time. Though there were inevitable "SNAFUs," most of the problems were logistical, not operational. All commended the courage and tenacity of the Iraqi soldiers.

? The Iraqi Special Operations Forces (ISOF) and Hillah SWAT units, with which we were embedded in December, killed or captured more than 200 "high profile criminals" for which they had arrest warrants. Most of those apprehended or killed were renegade members of Muqtada al-Sadr's Jaish al Mahdi ? the Mahdi Army.

? Intelligence collected during the operation confirms that Iranian Quds Force fighters have heavily infiltrated southern Iraq and that Iranian weapons, explosives and equipment continue to be delivered to areas previously controlled by the Mahdi Army.

? Though the ISF lacks the sophisticated casualty evacuation and medical treatment available to U.S. troops, their compassion toward wounded and injured non-combatants rallied civilians to the side of the Iraqi government.

One U.S. commander summed it up this way: "This was a necessary operation ? and it couldn't have happened without 'the surge.' By going after the Shiite militias, Maliki has proven to the Sunnis that he intends to be even-handed in the process of bringing law and order to Iraq. The Iraqi troops fought well in both day and night operations. Their officers and NCOs are leading from the front. The militias ? and their Iranian sponsors ? got their butts kicked."

On Tuesday, General Petreaus and Ambassador Crocker will likely use less colorful language to describe the increasing effectiveness and challenges facing our Iraqi allies. The only question: Are the administration's critics willing to listen?

I'm interested to hear what Petreaus & Crocker have to say about it.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern
Wow, lot of conflicting info on this subject.

LINKY

A summary of info abiut the subject O. North says he has received from US military in Basra:

- The Iraqis planned and executed the operation with little U.S. involvement and managed to commit more than 40,000 troops in high-intensity combat against well-armed, militia-terrorists in six cities ? a feat that would have been impossible just six months ago.

? Conventional Iraqi Army and police units operated effectively together in multiple large-scale, simultaneous urban combat for the first time. Though there were inevitable "SNAFUs," most of the problems were logistical, not operational. All commended the courage and tenacity of the Iraqi soldiers.

? The Iraqi Special Operations Forces (ISOF) and Hillah SWAT units, with which we were embedded in December, killed or captured more than 200 "high profile criminals" for which they had arrest warrants. Most of those apprehended or killed were renegade members of Muqtada al-Sadr's Jaish al Mahdi ? the Mahdi Army.

? Intelligence collected during the operation confirms that Iranian Quds Force fighters have heavily infiltrated southern Iraq and that Iranian weapons, explosives and equipment continue to be delivered to areas previously controlled by the Mahdi Army.

? Though the ISF lacks the sophisticated casualty evacuation and medical treatment available to U.S. troops, their compassion toward wounded and injured non-combatants rallied civilians to the side of the Iraqi government.

One U.S. commander summed it up this way: "This was a necessary operation ? and it couldn't have happened without 'the surge.' By going after the Shiite militias, Maliki has proven to the Sunnis that he intends to be even-handed in the process of bringing law and order to Iraq. The Iraqi troops fought well in both day and night operations. Their officers and NCOs are leading from the front. The militias ? and their Iranian sponsors ? got their butts kicked."

On Tuesday, General Petreaus and Ambassador Crocker will likely use less colorful language to describe the increasing effectiveness and challenges facing our Iraqi allies. The only question: Are the administration's critics willing to listen?

I'm interested to hear what Petreaus & Crocker have to say about it.

Fern

You'll have to forgive me if I don't take the venerable Oliver North at his word... hahaha. I went and read through some of his archives on there, and he's a ridiculous war cheerleader. According to him we've been steadily winning for 5 years now... if only the critics would admit it.

 

[Lemon law]

TLC comes back with---I was referring to the following comment, taken in context with other similar comments you've made regarding this situation:

But on the plus side Maliki now picks up many Sunni and Kurdish supporters who now short term want him to remain football team coach. But thats somewhat a losing strategy in an Iraq that is 40% Sunni and Kurd and more like 55% Shia.

But in a previous post I had said--The semi immediate question is who will be the coach of the Iraqi government team? Maliki was and was somewhat put into the job by various Shia factions including the faction of Al Sadr.

So a clear in in context picture is that I never said all the Shia were united under Al Sadr nor does my former statement say so.

But you do somewhat pose an interesting question TLC. And that question is how united are ALL the Iraqi insurgencies. We can talk about the three main groups, the Sunnis, the Shias, and the Kurds and ask how united or divided are they as single blocks. But somewhat what started all this, at least in my mind, is that two Shia factions were squabbling among themselves over who got the lions share of the oil that could be looted in Basra. And in once sense, Maliki won, and both Shia factions lost equally because each had to leave the field. Leaving the question hanging on if Maliki can long term keep what he won hanging, what we saw was both the Kurds and Sunnis somewhat jumping for joy because Maliki was smiting those not of their factions.

And if we assume the importance of this operation is the fact the Iraqi government is finally getting around to breaking the power of the insurgencies, its thus a possible sign that the Iraqi civilian government can assert control. And lets even assume that Maliki can now beat all the various divided Shia insurgencies, the next step is, you guessed it,
is to take on the Sunni and the Kurdish insurgencies. And after all the insurgencies are beaten to a pulp, the Iraqi democracy can flower, the US can sail home mission accomplished, and everyone will live happily ever after is the best case scenario.

The weed in that garden of Eden may be the coming realization by all the insurgencies that Maliki is the rascal who has now become a threat to the collective them. It was the current insurgents that had no power under Saddam, the anarchy resulting from the occupation allowed many to seize power, and they may be reluctant to give that power up.
So I have to somewhat conclude that the Sunni and Kurds that are cheering Maliki now, may wake up, smell the coffee, and start to see the long term threat this poses to their power. In which case, the natural inclination by all may be to force the fall of Maliki.

I bring that as another possibility and not a certainty. TLC, as you say, it may not be all that cut and dried.

 

[tweaker2]

Originally posted by: Fern
Wow, lot of conflicting info on this subject.

LINKY

A summary of info abiut the subject O. North says he has received from US military in Basra:

- The Iraqis planned and executed the operation with little U.S. involvement and managed to commit more than 40,000 troops in high-intensity combat against well-armed, militia-terrorists in six cities ? a feat that would have been impossible just six months ago.

? Conventional Iraqi Army and police units operated effectively together in multiple large-scale, simultaneous urban combat for the first time. Though there were inevitable "SNAFUs," most of the problems were logistical, not operational. All commended the courage and tenacity of the Iraqi soldiers.

? The Iraqi Special Operations Forces (ISOF) and Hillah SWAT units, with which we were embedded in December, killed or captured more than 200 "high profile criminals" for which they had arrest warrants. Most of those apprehended or killed were renegade members of Muqtada al-Sadr's Jaish al Mahdi ? the Mahdi Army.

? Intelligence collected during the operation confirms that Iranian Quds Force fighters have heavily infiltrated southern Iraq and that Iranian weapons, explosives and equipment continue to be delivered to areas previously controlled by the Mahdi Army.

? Though the ISF lacks the sophisticated casualty evacuation and medical treatment available to U.S. troops, their compassion toward wounded and injured non-combatants rallied civilians to the side of the Iraqi government.

One U.S. commander summed it up this way: "This was a necessary operation ? and it couldn't have happened without 'the surge.' By going after the Shiite militias, Maliki has proven to the Sunnis that he intends to be even-handed in the process of bringing law and order to Iraq. The Iraqi troops fought well in both day and night operations. Their officers and NCOs are leading from the front. The militias ? and their Iranian sponsors ? got their butts kicked."

On Tuesday, General Petreaus and Ambassador Crocker will likely use less colorful language to describe the increasing effectiveness and challenges facing our Iraqi allies. The only question: Are the administration's critics willing to listen?

I'm interested to hear what Petreaus & Crocker have to say about it.

Fern

i agree that would be interesting, though imho, whatever patraeus and crocker have to say about it all will either have come directly out of bush's and cheney's mouth or washed and spun by bush and cheney to advance their agenda. still, watching the two of them make their case and viewing it from an objective point of view would be entertaining to say the least.

nation building in the name of freedom and democracy is not the ultimate goal of bush and cheney. especially in the case of what was once the nation of iraq. stabilizing that area to exploit it's resources is more in line with the continuation of the principles of mainfest destiny that bush and cheney seems to have championed and resurrected in accordance with their pnac philosophy.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
i agree that would be interesting, though imho, whatever patraeus and crocker have to say about it all will either have come directly out of bush's and cheney's mouth or washed and spun by bush and cheney to advance their agenda. still, watching the two of them make their case and viewing it from an objective point of view would be entertaining to say the least.

nation building in the name of freedom and democracy is not the ultimate goal of bush and cheney. especially in the case of what was once the nation of iraq. stabilizing that area to exploit it's resources is more in line with the continuation of the principles of mainfest destiny that bush and cheney seems to have championed and resurrected in accordance with their pnac philosophy.

I wonder if there'll be a Betray-us ad this time around? The tactics of the anti-victory crew didn't work the last time that Patraeus came to the table. Will they lose more ground this time with their ugly rhetoric and stupid hyperbole too?

 

[Lemon law]

Fern asks----I'm interested to hear what Petreaus & Crocker have to say about it.

While Petraeus is going to be on the congressional hot seat come April 8, Crocker has weighed in with an contention that Maliki rushed in too fast from all the links I have read.

The hanging question may be if Al Sadr can deliver his million man march? It a possibility that various insurgent groups in Iraq may cause problems just to embarrass Petraeus
when he testifies before congress.

Only time will tell is my position.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: tweaker2
i agree that would be interesting, though imho, whatever patraeus and crocker have to say about it all will either have come directly out of bush's and cheney's mouth or washed and spun by bush and cheney to advance their agenda. still, watching the two of them make their case and viewing it from an objective point of view would be entertaining to say the least.

nation building in the name of freedom and democracy is not the ultimate goal of bush and cheney. especially in the case of what was once the nation of iraq. stabilizing that area to exploit it's resources is more in line with the continuation of the principles of mainfest destiny that bush and cheney seems to have championed and resurrected in accordance with their pnac philosophy.

I wonder if there'll be a Betray-us ad this time around? The tactics of the anti-victory crew didn't work the last time that Patraeus came to the table. Will they lose more ground this time with their ugly rhetoric and stupid hyperbole too?

I like your new term "anti-victory". It's especially great in a post where you complain about stupid hyperbole.

 

[Lemon law]

Naw, I think even all the dimocrats learned their previous lesson. No one will call Petraeus betrayus this time around. This time around Petraeus must rise or fall on his own mouth. Heaven help him if his spin don't square with the events on the ground.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: tweaker2
i agree that would be interesting, though imho, whatever patraeus and crocker have to say about it all will either have come directly out of bush's and cheney's mouth or washed and spun by bush and cheney to advance their agenda. still, watching the two of them make their case and viewing it from an objective point of view would be entertaining to say the least.

nation building in the name of freedom and democracy is not the ultimate goal of bush and cheney. especially in the case of what was once the nation of iraq. stabilizing that area to exploit it's resources is more in line with the continuation of the principles of mainfest destiny that bush and cheney seems to have championed and resurrected in accordance with their pnac philosophy.

I wonder if there'll be a Betray-us ad this time around? The tactics of the anti-victory crew didn't work the last time that Patraeus came to the table. Will they lose more ground this time with their ugly rhetoric and stupid hyperbole too?

I like your new term "anti-victory". It's especially great in a post where you complain about stupid hyperbole.

It was a test. I wasn't sure some people could actually recognize hyperbole in here.

Congrats. You passed.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: tweaker2
i agree that would be interesting, though imho, whatever patraeus and crocker have to say about it all will either have come directly out of bush's and cheney's mouth or washed and spun by bush and cheney to advance their agenda. still, watching the two of them make their case and viewing it from an objective point of view would be entertaining to say the least.

nation building in the name of freedom and democracy is not the ultimate goal of bush and cheney. especially in the case of what was once the nation of iraq. stabilizing that area to exploit it's resources is more in line with the continuation of the principles of mainfest destiny that bush and cheney seems to have championed and resurrected in accordance with their pnac philosophy.

I wonder if there'll be a Betray-us ad this time around? The tactics of the anti-victory crew didn't work the last time that Patraeus came to the table. Will they lose more ground this time with their ugly rhetoric and stupid hyperbole too?

I like your new term "anti-victory". It's especially great in a post where you complain about stupid hyperbole.

It was a test. I wasn't sure some people could actually recognize hyperbole in here.

Congrats. You passed.

The usual TLC "Let's say something stupid and pretend like it was intentional" routine

Anyway, are you done proclaiming mission accomplished again? Every source I've read has stated Maliki's govt was all too eager to take the ceasefire. You can go on pretending like up is down and left is also down.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: tweaker2
i agree that would be interesting, though imho, whatever patraeus and crocker have to say about it all will either have come directly out of bush's and cheney's mouth or washed and spun by bush and cheney to advance their agenda. still, watching the two of them make their case and viewing it from an objective point of view would be entertaining to say the least.

nation building in the name of freedom and democracy is not the ultimate goal of bush and cheney. especially in the case of what was once the nation of iraq. stabilizing that area to exploit it's resources is more in line with the continuation of the principles of mainfest destiny that bush and cheney seems to have championed and resurrected in accordance with their pnac philosophy.

I wonder if there'll be a Betray-us ad this time around? The tactics of the anti-victory crew didn't work the last time that Patraeus came to the table. Will they lose more ground this time with their ugly rhetoric and stupid hyperbole too?

I like your new term "anti-victory". It's especially great in a post where you complain about stupid hyperbole.

It was a test. I wasn't sure some people could actually recognize hyperbole in here.

Congrats. You passed.

The usual TLC "Let's say something stupid and pretend like it was intentional" routine

Anyway, are you done proclaiming mission accomplished again? Every source I've read has stated Maliki's govt was all too eager to take the ceasefire. You can go on pretending like up is down and left is also down.

lol.

"Mission Accomplished."

The fact that the anti-victory crew are stuck resorting to nearly 5 year old rhetoric has never been more telling.

 

[Lemon law]

Now the ever inventive TLC comes up with---lol.

"Mission Accomplished."

The fact that the anti-victory crew are stuck resorting to nearly 5 year old rhetoric has never been more telling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, TLC, I might be ready to buy into your argument.

So lets divide the US occupation of Iraq into three eras--maybe epochs if we want to refer to geological time and grandiose fifty dollar word verbiage.

1. Epoch #1. The age of Dumsfeld. In the beginning starting in 2003. In which every antivictory argument was true and proved by the truly inspiring stupidity of that other Donald. And that end of the era inspiration was when the democrats won control of congress in 11/06 and GWB finally fired Rummy.

2. Epoch #2. The age of the surge and Petraeus. Finally some semblance of brains. Initially it led to more causalities on both sides, but by 8/07, the causalities on all sides reduced without an iota of political progress. A lower butcher bill than Dummy, but the cost in money was the at the same unsustainable level. The antivictory dead enders were underwhelmed.

3. Epoch #3, the age of Malaki, a chapter whose history has yet to be written. But take TLC's word for it, third time is a charm. And if you don't believe me, just ask TLC. Finally the anti victory forces shall be routed, as Charlton Heston dies,
all of his charisma shall become Maliki's. First the plague of frogs, then the Tigris shall run red, and can any number of biblical miracles be far behind. Fall down and worship Maliki before its too late.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: tweaker2
i agree that would be interesting, though imho, whatever patraeus and crocker have to say about it all will either have come directly out of bush's and cheney's mouth or washed and spun by bush and cheney to advance their agenda. still, watching the two of them make their case and viewing it from an objective point of view would be entertaining to say the least.

nation building in the name of freedom and democracy is not the ultimate goal of bush and cheney. especially in the case of what was once the nation of iraq. stabilizing that area to exploit it's resources is more in line with the continuation of the principles of mainfest destiny that bush and cheney seems to have championed and resurrected in accordance with their pnac philosophy.

I wonder if there'll be a Betray-us ad this time around? The tactics of the anti-victory crew didn't work the last time that Patraeus came to the table. Will they lose more ground this time with their ugly rhetoric and stupid hyperbole too?

I like your new term "anti-victory". It's especially great in a post where you complain about stupid hyperbole.

"Anti Victory Crew" "Anti Victorians" :roll: Sounds like "Rush Speak"

 

[Lemon law]

This just in from Yahoo news, Maliki seeks to politically isolate Al Sadr by preventing him from running a militia and participating in politics.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...xqDa3vyxwQQcmxAVWs0NUE

So in that sense, it does look like its going to be a battle to the death between Al Sadr and Maliki at least in the political sense. And only one can remain standing. And it may be heading towards a shoot out between the Iraqi army and Al Sadr. Again, I make no predictions, but Iraq could turn very violent very soon.

As it is, Maliki seems to be asserting powers not constitutionally his, and there is the matter of the million man march for Wednesday. And Petraeus in testifying before congress, may be as clueless as everyone else as events unfold. I tend to think Maliki may be over reaching, but no one can say he is passive. And if Al Sadr has to disband his militia or leave the political arena, I would think it would also apply to many other Iraqi political figures.

 

[dmcowen674]

Our presumptive President to be insists Iraq is a win:

4-7-2008 McCain insists Iraq buildup is working

Republican John McCain insists last year's U.S. troop buildup in Iraq brought a glimmer of "something approaching normal" there, despite a recent outbreak of heavy fighting and an American death toll that has surpassed 4,000.

"We are no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success," McCain said in a speech prepared for delivery Monday.

The presidential nominee-in-waiting is closely tied to the unpopular, 5-year-old war. McCain was a vocal advocate of the troop increase strategy eventually adopted by President Bush, and is seeking to convince people the strategy is working.

"If we are honest about the opportunities and the risks, I believe they will have the patience to allow us the time necessary to obtain our objectives," McCain said.

Iraq also will need more money and aid for reconstruction, he said, and will need international aid to spur its economy.
==============================================
Apparently we are not throwing enough money at Iraq either :roll:

 

[Lemon law]

Am I the only one to spot the disconnect between the dmcowen674 statement and what McCain said with--Iraq also will need more money and aid for reconstruction, he (McCain) said, and will need international aid to spur its economy.
==============================================
Apparently we are not throwing enough money at Iraq either (dmcowen674)

The way I read it is that its the McCain position that the US is responsible for the the military money part, its the international communities responsibility the rebuild the place after not a brick is left standing on a brick. Or better put, its our job to break things and its someone else responsibility to fix what we broke. Kinda neatly sums up the last five years in Iraq.

After all, breaking things is expensive and we will be broke by the time we finish breaking things.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Now the ever inventive TLC comes up with---lol.

"Mission Accomplished."

The fact that the anti-victory crew are stuck resorting to nearly 5 year old rhetoric has never been more telling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, TLC, I might be ready to buy into your argument.

So lets divide the US occupation of Iraq into three eras--maybe epochs if we want to refer to geological time and grandiose fifty dollar word verbiage.

1. Epoch #1. The age of Dumsfeld. In the beginning starting in 2003. In which every antivictory argument was true and proved by the truly inspiring stupidity of that other Donald. And that end of the era inspiration was when the democrats won control of congress in 11/06 and GWB finally fired Rummy.

2. Epoch #2. The age of the surge and Petraeus. Finally some semblance of brains. Initially it led to more causalities on both sides, but by 8/07, the causalities on all sides reduced without an iota of political progress. A lower butcher bill than Dummy, but the cost in money was the at the same unsustainable level. The antivictory dead enders were underwhelmed.

3. Epoch #3, the age of Malaki, a chapter whose history has yet to be written. But take TLC's word for it, third time is a charm. And if you don't believe me, just ask TLC. Finally the anti victory forces shall be routed, as Charlton Heston dies,
all of his charisma shall become Maliki's. First the plague of frogs, then the Tigris shall run red, and can any number of biblical miracles be far behind. Fall down and worship Maliki before its too late.

No, take LL's word for it instead.

Despite 5 years of clinging to the notion that's things are going to go completely to hell for the US in Iraq any day now, and continually being wrong about that, he still claims this to be true. Any...day...now.

But, you see, LL is not making any predictions.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Am I the only one to spot the disconnect between the dmcowen674 statement and what McCain said with--Iraq also will need more money and aid for reconstruction, he (McCain) said, and will need international aid to spur its economy.
==============================================
Apparently we are not throwing enough money at Iraq either (dmcowen674)

The way I read it is that its the McCain position that the US is responsible for the the military money part, its the international communities responsibility the rebuild the place after not a brick is left standing on a brick. Or better put, its our job to break things and its someone else responsibility to fix what we broke. Kinda neatly sums up the last five years in Iraq.

After all, breaking things is expensive and we will be broke by the time we finish breaking things.

I noticed the same thing. But then again, it's modus operandi for him to take some random story and make conclusions that have nothing to do with the actual story. *shrug* It makes for a good laugh though!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Now the ever inventive TLC comes up with---lol.

"Mission Accomplished."

The fact that the anti-victory crew are stuck resorting to nearly 5 year old rhetoric has never been more telling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, TLC, I might be ready to buy into your argument.

So lets divide the US occupation of Iraq into three eras--maybe epochs if we want to refer to geological time and grandiose fifty dollar word verbiage.

1. Epoch #1. The age of Dumsfeld. In the beginning starting in 2003. In which every antivictory argument was true and proved by the truly inspiring stupidity of that other Donald. And that end of the era inspiration was when the democrats won control of congress in 11/06 and GWB finally fired Rummy.

2. Epoch #2. The age of the surge and Petraeus. Finally some semblance of brains. Initially it led to more causalities on both sides, but by 8/07, the causalities on all sides reduced without an iota of political progress. A lower butcher bill than Dummy, but the cost in money was the at the same unsustainable level. The antivictory dead enders were underwhelmed.

3. Epoch #3, the age of Malaki, a chapter whose history has yet to be written. But take TLC's word for it, third time is a charm. And if you don't believe me, just ask TLC. Finally the anti victory forces shall be routed, as Charlton Heston dies,
all of his charisma shall become Maliki's. First the plague of frogs, then the Tigris shall run red, and can any number of biblical miracles be far behind. Fall down and worship Maliki before its too late.

No, take LL's word for it instead.

Despite 5 years of clinging to the notion that's things are going to go completely to hell for the US in Iraq any day now, and continually being wrong about that, he still claims this to be true. Any...day...now.

But, you see, LL is not making any predictions.

Where have you been the last 5 years?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Now the ever inventive TLC comes up with---lol.

"Mission Accomplished."

The fact that the anti-victory crew are stuck resorting to nearly 5 year old rhetoric has never been more telling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, TLC, I might be ready to buy into your argument.

So lets divide the US occupation of Iraq into three eras--maybe epochs if we want to refer to geological time and grandiose fifty dollar word verbiage.

1. Epoch #1. The age of Dumsfeld. In the beginning starting in 2003. In which every antivictory argument was true and proved by the truly inspiring stupidity of that other Donald. And that end of the era inspiration was when the democrats won control of congress in 11/06 and GWB finally fired Rummy.

2. Epoch #2. The age of the surge and Petraeus. Finally some semblance of brains. Initially it led to more causalities on both sides, but by 8/07, the causalities on all sides reduced without an iota of political progress. A lower butcher bill than Dummy, but the cost in money was the at the same unsustainable level. The antivictory dead enders were underwhelmed.

3. Epoch #3, the age of Malaki, a chapter whose history has yet to be written. But take TLC's word for it, third time is a charm. And if you don't believe me, just ask TLC. Finally the anti victory forces shall be routed, as Charlton Heston dies,
all of his charisma shall become Maliki's. First the plague of frogs, then the Tigris shall run red, and can any number of biblical miracles be far behind. Fall down and worship Maliki before its too late.

No, take LL's word for it instead.

Despite 5 years of clinging to the notion that's things are going to go completely to hell for the US in Iraq any day now, and continually being wrong about that, he still claims this to be true. Any...day...now.

But, you see, LL is not making any predictions.

Where have you been the last 5 years?

Watching you guys become incensed over the fact that Iraq somehow keeps slowly chugging forward despite your predictions and insistence to the contrary. It's been 5 years of pure entertainment observing the ranting frustrations over the fact that Iraq hasn't fallen apart. Must be terrible for you? That's a long time to be focused on pure negativity and pessimism.

 

[Lemon law]

As TLC comes back with---But, you see, LL is not making any predictions.

In case you missed the subtle point TLC, satire and sarcasm is not the usual platform from which actual predictions are made.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Lets hear them all - "Anti-victory", "doom&gloom", "libby", "lefty", "whacko" - yadda-yadda...

They cannot think of any realistic definition of "win" that is achievable by military force. Until such a definition is given. Requesting such should be the primary argument against this continuing war in this manner. Make them state specific goals that will constitute winning, and steps toward those goals that are demonstrably achievable and demonstrably being achieved.

"Winning" in Iraq is simply not one of the alternatives at this point. A military occupation cannot be "won", unless you define it as extending the occupation for one more day.

We "won" the invasion of Iraq years ago when we defeated Saddam's army, but once the occupation began, "winning" became a meaningless meme that our political leaders and their media enablers keep coming back to as a way of confusing and misleading America.

The other great irony here is that the only way a free and democratic society can emerge in Iraq (which I assume is their definition of "winning") is for us to leave. It just boggles my mind how myopic and narrow-minded these people are in this regard.

"Victory" is, of course, undefined, except for John McCain's "until they're happy with being a 100-year occupied state." Leaving "victory" undefined, it should be noted, violates one element of the Powell doctrine.

The theme that ?America wants to win? underlies the entire McCain campaign. Evidence of this can be seen in his ?Never Surrender? ad.

JOHN MCCAIN: "Stand up. We're Americans, we're Americans and we'll never surrender, they will."

The ?they? is of course the majority of Americans that oppose neo-con policies, which is a position that this ad describes as ?surrender? while at the same time also excludes them from being ?Americans? ? or at least ?real? Americans.

So if you define an ?American? as someone who won?t ?surrender? ? that is, someone who supports their failed policies - then by that definition it?s true that most ?Americans? want to win.

This foreign policy is now the ?establishment position? and it relies on this sort of dishonest rhetoric to flourish. They also have claimed exclusive rights to ?patriotism.?

As a member of the ?establishment press? it is their job to promote the ?establishment position? and that is precisely what they are doing.

They didn't define the "victory" the American people were waiting for because the objective they and her fellow war boosters are pursuing - a vassal state that serves American interests only - is not one which the American people want. "Victory", some vague, undefined, indescribable "victory", is a generic enough term that they can get away with saying it's something the American people want. I want "victory", but then I think we've already achieved victory according to the military objectives set out before the war. If the Administration - and its war boosters in the press - were not up front with the American people about the objectives the had in mind before the war, that's their problem, not mine.

Why is it no one can define "Victory"? Could it be that a military victory is not possible? This is only further proof that the Bush administration's commitment to "Democracy" and "Self Determination" is a fraud.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
As TLC comes back with---But, you see, LL is not making any predictions.

In case you missed the subtle point TLC, satire and sarcasm is not the usual platform from which actual predictions are made.

Obviously. For actual predictions apparently bad numbers and lousy math are a necessary component.