I already know what the conclusion will be. It can only go one of two possible ways:
The surge is working; Stay the course.
The surge isn’t working yet; Stay the course.
Bottom line: Stay the Course, run out the clock, avoid any tough decisions and hand off the mess to the next president.
Now can anyone explain how U.S. military force is supposed to unite the factions of Sunnis, Shi’ites and Kurds? Does that make any damn sense at all?
Hey, no fair, it’s not September yet…
maybe in September we can have 10/18 progress targets listed as “not-bad”, oh, wait, last I checked that is still an F.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
I already know what the conclusion will be. It can only go one of two possible ways:
The surge is working; Stay the course.
The surge isn’t working yet; Stay the course.
Bottom line: Stay the Course, run out the clock, avoid any tough decisions and hand off the mess to the next president.
[/quote]
I reserve judgement until september. If it does work I will be happy as that should shorten our time their. Anything that does that in a logical way, works for me.
[quote]
Now can anyone explain how U.S. military force is supposed to unite the factions of Sunnis, Shi’ites and Kurds? Does that make any damn sense at all?[/quote]
Is that a goal? I’d hope not. But it does get me thinking that spliting the country in to three isn’t a bad idea. The borders might look like a giant peace symbol.
Note to everyone:
bradley surrendered the second his party made it their goal to lose.
Therefore, his threads have no value.
I think everyone can agree that posting his moveon.org (he’s a member) bullet points, in rapid fire succession, does not improve this site.
I’ll reserve judgement until September.
Oh, if Patreus says that all is lost, anyone want to bet that he’ll be bradley’s new poster child?
JeffR
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Now can anyone explain how U.S. military force is supposed to unite the factions of Sunnis, Shi’ites and Kurds? Does that make any damn sense at all?
Is that a goal? I’d hope not. But it does get me thinking that spliting the country in to three isn’t a bad idea. The borders might look like a giant peace symbol.
[/quote]
Uh Pat, what do you think we’ve been doing in Iraq for the past four years? “Killing terrorists”? There were no terrorists there, until after we invaded.
We depose Saddam, check. Then what?
We install a democracy, or at least functional government, right? Okay, so America will unite Iraq at gunpoint? Does that strategy make ANY sense? No, it does not.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
bradley surrendered the second his party made it their goal to lose.[/quote]
Hey, Jerffy, when you say the above…
You kind of lose the right to complain about other people using politically spun bullet points.
Fuck, of all the people to complain about posting bullet points… what a retard.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Now can anyone explain how U.S. military force is supposed to unite the factions of Sunnis, Shi’ites and Kurds? Does that make any damn sense at all?
Is that a goal? I’d hope not. But it does get me thinking that spliting the country in to three isn’t a bad idea. The borders might look like a giant peace symbol.
Uh Pat, what do you think we’ve been doing in Iraq for the past four years? “Killing terrorists”? There were no terrorists there, until after we invaded.
We depose Saddam, check. Then what?
We install a democracy, or at least functional government, right? Okay, so America will unite Iraq at gunpoint? Does that strategy make ANY sense? No, it does not.[/quote]
Hello, bradley:
The United States won it’s Independence at gunpoint. Then it united at gunpoint in 1861-1865.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
The United States won it’s Independence at gunpoint. Then it united at gunpoint in 1861-1865.
[/quote]
Ah Jerffy, now you are arguing that the US should get out of the way and let the Iraqi people decide what they want to do… at gunpoint.
Good job!
[quote]JeffR wrote:
The United States won it’s Independence at gunpoint. Then it united at gunpoint in 1861-1865.[/quote]
Hmmm, lets see…
Germany invaded the US and drove out the British overlords, then demanded that America become a democracy???
France invaded the U.S. to stop the Civil War, and demanded that the Union and Confederacy should unite again?
You’re trying to draw a comparison between America’s role in the Iraq quagmire, and events in American history? If that was your intention, you failed.
[quote]bradley wrote:
JeffR wrote:
The United States won it’s Independence at gunpoint. Then it united at gunpoint in 1861-1865.
Hmmm, lets see…
Germany invaded the US and drove out the British overlords, then demanded that America become a democracy???
France invaded the U.S. to stop the Civil War, and demanded that the Union and Confederacy should unite again?
You’re trying to draw a comparison between America’s role in the Iraq quagmire, and events in American history? If that was your intention, you failed.
[/quote]
Good morning, bradley,
Remember the Iraqi’s asking for help against saddam? If not, look it up. Better yet, talk to people who lived under his regime. Just ask around. It isn’t hard.
I’ll bet you can come up with a 99.9% “I’m glad he’s gone.”
Further, remember the 70% election turnout?
No one from the U.S. coerced them or told them how to vote.
In summary, much like the U.S. asking France to help, the Iraqi’s needed some guns to make Democracy happen.
Unite at gunpoint.
JeffR
Saddam united at gunpoint…
[quote]JeffR wrote:
bradley wrote:
JeffR wrote:
The United States won it’s Independence at gunpoint. Then it united at gunpoint in 1861-1865.
Hmmm, lets see…
Germany invaded the US and drove out the British overlords, then demanded that America become a democracy???
France invaded the U.S. to stop the Civil War, and demanded that the Union and Confederacy should unite again?
You’re trying to draw a comparison between America’s role in the Iraq quagmire, and events in American history? If that was your intention, you failed.
Good morning, bradley,
Remember the Iraqi’s asking for help against saddam? If not, look it up. Better yet, talk to people who lived under his regime. Just ask around. It isn’t hard.
I’ll bet you can come up with a 99.9% “I’m glad he’s gone.”
Further, remember the 70% election turnout?
No one from the U.S. coerced them or told them how to vote.
In summary, much like the U.S. asking France to help, the Iraqi’s needed some guns to make Democracy happen.
Unite at gunpoint.
JeffR
[/quote]
Can we go make Democracy happen in Saudi Arabia at gunpoint too? Pretty please? Can I just start the list of non-democratic countries that we should start aiming our guns at?
Cos you know, they all need a little help.
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
I already know what the conclusion will be. It can only go one of two possible ways:
The surge is working; Stay the course.
The surge isn’t working yet; Stay the course.
Bottom line: Stay the Course, run out the clock, avoid any tough decisions and hand off the mess to the next president.
Now can anyone explain how U.S. military force is supposed to unite the factions of Sunnis, Shi’ites and Kurds? Does that make any damn sense at all?[/quote]
Let me guess. If the report states that the surge was working you’d say it was a lie and that Patraeus was a Bush flunkie, lying through his teeth in order to kill more “kids” in Bush’s un-holy war for oil. And you’d pretty much give the same rant for the ‘stay the course because it’s gonna work soon’ finding.
Why not just tell us all now that the only answer you will accept is that Iraq is a bust, the U.S. is losing, will continue to lose, Bush was behind 9/11, Iraqi civilians are being murdered by U.S. baby-killers, and that Cindy Sheehan was right all along?
[quote]DS 007 wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
I already know what the conclusion will be. It can only go one of two possible ways:
The surge is working; Stay the course.
The surge isn’t working yet; Stay the course.
Bottom line: Stay the Course, run out the clock, avoid any tough decisions and hand off the mess to the next president.
Now can anyone explain how U.S. military force is supposed to unite the factions of Sunnis, Shi’ites and Kurds? Does that make any damn sense at all?
Let me guess. If the report states that the surge was working you’d say it was a lie and that Patraeus was a Bush flunkie, lying through his teeth in order kill more “kids” in Bush’s un-holy war for oil. And you’d pretty much give the same rant for the ‘stay the course because it’s gonna work soon’ finding.
Why not just tell us all now that the only answer you will accept is that Iraq is a bust, the U.S. is losing, will continue to lose, Bush was behind 9/11, Iraqi civilians are being murdered by U.S. baby-killers, and that Cindy Sheehan was right all along?[/quote]
Great post.
As I indicated, if Patreus ends up saying “we lost” he’ll be bradley’s best friend.
See larry flynt in the vitter thread.
JeffR
If there weren’t so many hero worshipping brainless cheerleaders there probably wouldn’t be so many rabid anti-Bush people either…
[quote]vroom wrote:
If there weren’t so many hero worshipping brainless cheerleaders there probably wouldn’t be so many rabid anti-Bush people either…[/quote]
Who are the cheerleaders? I don’t see too many of them. I actually think the reverse is true. I think that I - and many others - would be a lot more critical of Bush on issues across the board if it were not for the irrational, out-of-control ranting from the anti-Bush crowd.
I find myself compelled to defend him when I otherwise would not simply because of the blind insistance of others that he should be impeached, put in jail for war crimes, on and on and on.
I thought I’d seen the apex of partisan ranting when Clinton was wrapping up his eight years. Most of that was from people on the right. Talk show hosts. Conservative columnists, etc. This stuff is coming from the “mainstream” media, actors, comedians, (liberal) pundits, musicians, and finally when his opinion has been fully influenced - the man on the street.
The reality is that anyone NOT protesting, screaming, crying, calling Bush a murderer is called a ‘cheerleader’ these days.
DS,
Think about it for a second. You are just arguing the same point but from the opposite side.
When people see blanket support they feel a need to criticize and inject some reality… blah blah blah.
It’s the same thing. I blame the polarized spun talking points which serve to eliminate thoughtful consideration of the real issues.
[quote]DS 007 wrote:
vroom wrote:
If there weren’t so many hero worshipping brainless cheerleaders there probably wouldn’t be so many rabid anti-Bush people either…
Who are the cheerleaders? I don’t see too many of them. I actually think the reverse is true. I think that I - and many others - would be a lot more critical of Bush on issues across the board if it were not for the irrational, out-of-control ranting from the anti-Bush crowd.
I find myself compelled to defend him when I otherwise would not simply because of the blind insistance of others that he should be impeached, put in jail for war crimes, on and on and on.
I thought I’d seen the apex of partisan ranting when Clinton was wrapping up his eight years. Most of that was from people on the right. Talk show hosts. Conservative columnists, etc. This stuff is coming from the “mainstream” media, actors, comedians, (liberal) pundits, musicians, and finally when his opinion has been fully influenced - the man on the street.
The reality is that anyone NOT protesting, screaming, crying, calling Bush a murderer is called a ‘cheerleader’ these days.[/quote]
Good post. There is plenty to criticize but the most heard criticisms have been ridiculous for years. It detracts from real political discussion.
If you care to speculate about what Petraeus will say, perhaps you should read what he has said:
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=484182dc-bf7c-42a7-ac74-9e270a9ef0f2