Oh boy, talk about reading comprehension. I didn't put a timeline on when Al Qaeda would rear their head. I said they can't be removed from Iraq with a temporary surge of X months. What is certain is they will always be in Iraq, wreaking havoc whether we stay or go. Since our invasion has opened the floodgates, you now can't root Al Qaeda out of Iraq any more than you can root the white out of rice. Comprenez vous?
like what? in the big picture, what exactly is different now than last year, 2 years ago, 3 years ago or 4 years ago? at the pace we are going is it going to be any different next year or 5 years from now? 15 troops were killed yesterday as well as 50 police officers. theres your "progress". more of the same.
Yep! Progress is on the march! US Military Deaths in Iraq Average Deaths Per Month By Year 2007 95.8 2006 68.5 2005 69.6 2004 70.5 2003 48.6
I disagree with your topical assessment. Sunnis are now fighting fiercely against Al Qaeda and this is a big step in the right direction. Your reasoning is highly spurious in this regard.
You do realize we are arming a potential army that could turn on the US at any time and is against the Maliki government right?
This thread, and similar threads, which attempt to undermine the factual effectiveness of the surge (and the efforts of our courageous troops) is the best evidence I need to know that the surge is working. Man, this is burning the liberals up! Their worst nightmare is coming true -- success in Iraq which will ultimately damage their political clout. Pretty sad when those incentives are lined up like that, huh?
I think the Maliki gov't is a failure. At this stage, getting rid of Al Qaeda is priority number one.
Right-Wing Operatives Plot To Overthrow Maliki, Replace Him With Reliable Collaborator Allawi The powerful Republican lobbying group of Barbour Griffith & Rogers is plotting an effort to displace Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and supplant him with former interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. IraqSlogger reported: BGR’s work for Allawi includes the August 17 purchase of the Web site domain Allawi-for-Iraq.com. In recent days, BGR sent hundreds of e-mail messages in Allawi’s name from the e-mail address DrAyadAllawi@Allawi-for-Iraq.com. BGR’s staff is stacked with conservative operatives with extremely close ties to the White House. Its president is Bush’s former envoy to Iraq, Ambassador Robert Blackwill. Philip Zelikow, a former Counselor to Condoleezza Rice, serves as a senior adviser to the firm. Lanny Griffith, chief executive officer, is a Bush Ranger having raised at least $200,000 for Bush in the 2004 presidential election. And Ed Rogers, chairman and founder of the firm, has been a reliable political ally for the Bush White House. The right-wing has long had a fascination with Allawi, largely because he has proved to be compliant with the Bush administration’s agenda. Allawi was ceremonially anointed Iraq’s leader in June 2004 by then-Coalition Provisional Authority chief administrator Paul Bremer. While serving as interim Prime Minister, Allawi repeatedly rejected calls for U.S. troop withdrawals. During the height of the 2004 presidential election campaign, Allawi delivered a strong defense of Bush’s “stay the course” strategy in much-hyped Rose Garden appearance. Later, media reports revealed that Allawi had been “coached” by the administration prior to his appearance: Allawi has been described as “Saddam lite.” In 2004, he handcuffed and blindfolded suspected terrorists and shot them in the head with a pistol. Now, with frustrations mounting against current prime minister Maliki, the administration may be using that as an opportunity to usher in its reliable ally Allawi. In a Washington Post op-ed last week, Allawi wrote a piece that seemed to be an effort to curry favor with the White House. After long claiming Maliki was “the right guy for Iraq,” Bush this week said, “If the government doesn’t respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government.” Despite Bush’s assurance that it’s “up to the Iraqis to make that decision, not American politicians,” it appears conservative operatives are plotting to override the will of Iraqis and institute their own. http://thinkprogress.org/
This is the kind of thinking that created Al Queda in the first place. Focus on one objective, nevermind the collateral damage you create in the process. Good job. Besides, Al-Queda is a tiny fraction of the problem in Iraq and their operations in Iraq are a tiny fraction of the overall organization. Given that they can choose their battlefields, have you ever considered that they are there because they'd rather fight us there than elsewhere?
You guys have already declared the war a failure and demanded an immediate withdrawal, and now you want us not to even go after Al Qaeda? What objective(s) do you want us to focus on? Running away? Doing whatever it takes to make republicans look bad?
No, most people had advocated for a responsible redeployment, not an "immediate withdrawal." We can (and should) go after AQ, but that does not necessarily mean that we have 160,000 troops in Iraq. In fact, we would have far more success fighting AQ if we redeployed many of the troops in Iraq to Afghanistan, where the Taliban and AQ have reconstituted. 1. Saving American lives 2. Remove AQ's reason to be in Iraq (Americans to attack) 3. Secure Afghanistan and finish the job we started there Those would be the main objectives if I were in charge.
Let's see what you're really saying. 1. Leave Iraq 2. Leave Iraq 3. Leave Iraq I only count one objective.
How about fighting Al Queda on the battlefield of *our* choosing instead of theirs? It's funny because your kind of thinking is exactly what Al Queda thrives on - the inability to re-think strategy and the need for bravado. If you're a terrorist organization, that kind of thinking by your opponent is your best friend. If your goal is to fight/defeat Al Queda (which I assume it is), fighting them in Iraq is virtually the single stupidest strategy you could pick.
How naive. How about create a safe haven for Islamic extremists to threaten Western interests over years to come. Your perspective is so incredibly short-term, and not even accurate in that respect. Leaving Iraq would expose America to a significantly increased threat of terror in the future.
You think that up on your own or did Rush tell you? A new NIE has been released today (very convenient) assessing Iraq over the next 6 to 12 months. some key findings... NIE: Violence To ‘Remain High’ In Iraq Over Next ‘Six To Twelve Months’ Decrease in Baghdad violence due to sectarian cleansing: The polarization of communities is most evident in Baghdad, where the Shia are a clear majority in more than half of all neighborhoods and Sunni areas have become surrounded by predominately Shia districts. Where population displacements have led to significant sectarian separation, conflict levels have diminished to some extent because warring communities find it more difficult to penetrate communal enclaves. Violence to remain high over next six to 12 months: [L]evels of insurgent and sectarian violence will remain high [over next six to 12 months] and the Iraqi Government will continue to struggle to achieve national-level political reconciliation and improved governance. National government to become more “precarious” over next six to 12 months: The Iraqi Government will become more precarious over the next six to 12 months because of criticism by other members of the major Shia coalition, Grand Ayatollah Sistani, and other Sunni and Kurdish parties. … The strains of the security situation and absence of key leaders have stalled internal political debates, slowed national decisionmaking, and increased Maliki’s vulnerability to alternative coalitions Refugee crisis will continue to spill over during “next six to 12 months”: Population displacement resulting from sectarian violence continues, imposing burdens on provincial governments and some neighboring states and increasing the danger of destabilizing influences spreading across Iraq’s borders over the next six to 12 months. The full report (or at least what we're allowed to see)
Ah yes, the fear card yet again. It proved so accurate the last time you played it with our need to invade Iraq to stop Saddam's massive nuke program.
Typical non-constructive argument advanced by the libs. Look backwards and cast blame (which by the way, is shared by both parties and many world leaders who all felt the same way) instead of using reason to assess the situation on a go-forward basis. Totally politically driven answers from the liberals (many of which, like Obama's stance, aren't even feasible from a logistics standpoint) which instead of being focused on the future, look backwards to identify political targets to blame for purely selfish reasons. Major, how do we deal with Iraq on a go forward basis? How do we provide stability for the country and the region to protect our interests and diminish the terror threat? Is this accomplished by fleeing the country as fast as possible and leaving a hotbed of unrest and a safe haven for extremism? Answer that for me, ol' chap. Did RM95 log into your account this morning, Major?
you have some sort of right-wing rhetoric talking points generator you fire up or do you just have these little snippets of wisdom saved on your computer waiting to be used in threads such as these?
