The mere act of typing that and posting it in a public forum aligns you with Osama Bin Laden in the eyes of basso. You hate America now and love terrorists (just like half the troops and well over half of Americans). Welcome.
That article had nothing to do with the surge, and was rather about a change in strategy in Anbar province.
Actually from what I understand that strategy you are referring too is one of the main tenants of Petraeus' counter-insurgency tactics. Now it may have been implemented by MacFarland but it originated with Petraeus.
Like the pentagon itself? Stop being such a goddamned moron. If everything the so-called mainstream media really was wrong and biased over the last four years, we wouldn't be in the admittedly desperate situation of having to "surge" or quit. Pull head out of ass. TIA. Or else go debate the moon landing. Double TIA.
obviously you havent paid close attention to some of their past "sources" no need to be such a goddamned @sshole. prick
I have no clue what you are even talking about, you seem to be just ranting like an idiot. The fact is that the situation in Iraq is crappy overall - this is a simple fact according to anybody of any political orientation who has any comprehension of reality. Even the president, the denialiist in chief, acknowledges this, that his last few plans went to sh-t, that he made a lot of mistakes, and that thigns are desperate, hence the last-ditch "surge" we are now embarking on. So I'm not sure what the hell you are talking about as far as past "sources". As far as I can tell, you are referring to the moon landing here? Sorry but your point that it was filmed on a soundstage is simply not credible, ok? YWIA.
yet you still have no problem talking. thats a nice trait to show. i guess thats what non"idiots" do. "i dont know what you're talking about but i dont agree so you must be an idiot"...nice. you won that argument.
"Pentagon." "Retired generals." "James Baker, Colin Powell, Jack Murtha, Lawrence Eagleburger, Richard Lugar, John Warner." "Every major media outlet besides Fox." "Half the troops." "More than half of the country." "More than half the populations of every one of our allies." "The majority of the Iraqi people." "The vast majority of the world." You call those "objective" sources? Basso could say the same thing about Bush, Cheney and Fox News. Stupid libs. You guys only care about all those dead, dying and soon to die people cause you hate Bush so much. Sincerely, Ass Magic
I did win it - because you are fulfilling my "head up ass" predictions, having yet to make a coherent point. Another internet victory for me and another loss for you! You have about as much chance of winning one as the surge does of working.
Sam take your own advice. Don't wear smarty pants to a stupid party. The donkey is not the brightest beast of burden on the farm.
current ops is what the thread is about.... In some form or fashion the current ops is not much different than what I believe the future ops will be... It all boils down to disengagement with the war on terror...or engagement. I favor engagement with the war on terror because I feel that is what offers us the best protection against those that wish to do us harm related to terror tactics... Terrorists and those that contribute to the culture, mindset, and capabilities of the tactics is what we should target... There are those that feel it is wrong to do ANYTHING after 9/11...nevermind some good, intelligent liberals got vaporized...nevermind that there are some New York folks who still have clothings of ash...ash probably from innocent civilians... I know, I know...you don't condone doing NOTHING after 9/11, but Bush had a lot of information...He looked closer at the information that made Iraq (which was already a threat into a bigger threat...) http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html It was sound information and when taken on its own...there is cross reference support, facts, evidence and names cited which demonstrates undeniably (to me at least) that Bush did not lie... But yes, other information was out there...A better leader would have looked at all the information...no doubt... Sishir accurately pointed out in one of my award winning threads that terror is tactics. That is true...It is the tactics that do us harm and the effectiveness of said tactics... The enemy wants to kill you and doesn't care if you are a child, right-wing, left-wing...whatever. When the enemy turned on Carter did they care he was more friend than any President? Did they care he was bonafide left? The hostages were freed the day Reagan swore in...Why? The vindictive Iranians wanted to make Carter look bad, no... worse than he already did...mission accomplished! The twin towers first struck,..when? Make no mistake...the enemy could care less of the good people from the left... So thus my point...We should ALL be engaged in the war on terror with the enemy. I don't want to be destroyed...I believe in the bill of rights, and I have admitted when I was wrong on a stance when it comes to rights...I am urging the left to embrace the 2nd admendment as it relates to the American people ...Why? Because that fair stance puts me on your side when we talk about the fourth geneva convention, because I don't have legs to stand on when I argue,..."well it happened a long time ago, it is a different time.."...or "the actual intention of what was meant by civilian in the meaning or those that take up arms, blah, blah, blah, errr...dog sh#t..." The stance of embracing ALL 10 rights enables YOU to have greater integrity and capacity of your condemnation of infringments as it relates to the bill of rights...whether it be mailing your favorite dog sh#t as a protection of the 1st admendment or some other minor abuse from Bush... The point is lets drink the kool-aid and accept it all...Sure embracing all the bill of rights means innocent people may die in some sort of fashion...But think about it as a weakness and a strength... Not many countries have a bill of rights 1 thru 10...But if we did away with them...Think how tight fisted we could be against threats! We could have barb wire, machine guns at the mexican border, and there would be no stinky illegals...wire-tap all them ugly middle-easterners...suspected 5th columner?,...let's wire tap them and kill them slowly...Iraq?...you know what I would do...I'd just carpet bomb them all!...lol Iran too,...leave no stinking child behind!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Of course, by this time the whole world really would be against us...so the balance is understanding what we have to work around,...be willing to work around it, without crossing the line... That is the best way to keep us safe and secure...But it means an engaged mindset on the war on terror... If the next President is from the leftside...I will congratulate those that lean left on getting their side elected...I prefer the right side regarding ideology for reasons I feel traditionally make more sense... But let's get back to what I referred to as the engagement with the war on terror... #1. You must understand the concept the war on terror (those that either utilize or contribute to terror tactics against us) #2. You have to look for threats...If the ability to "look" needs improving...do it! #3. Look at ALL information... #4. When you see a threat consider all scenarios to counter the threat...and what will be involved before, during and after... #5. Realize neutralizing tactics may or may not involve termination of personnel... The question should not be when can we get out?!?...the question should be how can we do this better?!? I don't know If nancy pelosi will stand by her words or any democrat for that matter on some recommendations,...but to realize a drawdown makes more sense than a hysterical: "get out!" I feel...and this is me, not my party,...and certainly NOT influenced by some posters here is a drawdown is needed,...because it puts the squeeze on the iraqi government and the only way to win is to have them meet us halfway...It hasn't happened... September will be here...I don't think it will... So is a drawdown better? I believe so...I will explain why a drawdown makes better sense now, and furthermore why we should never "get out" completely...
i agree that to completely get out would not be the best strategy. There must be some presence there in some form, even if in the background. Regardless of dislike for the war, disagree with it, dislike for the admin,etc you have to deal with the current issues with a forward looking mentality. . i think you said it best... "have no clue what you are even talking about" and you clearly dont even care to discuss. i mean how can one win the fail safe argument of "Stop being such a goddamned moron". a truly class act. you win brother...you're the man!
Forget about "getting out" we went in with the intention to stay. I don't have to defend that position because we are going to stay. Stay, stay, stay, stay we will. There you have it. The whole country could be waving American flags, there could be a total cease fire and not another terrorist or insurgent bomb go off and we would STAY! We are building our bases, we are going to have the strongest military presence of anywhere in the world and all within a few hundred miles of the majority of the known oil reserves left on the planet. The mission is going just as planned. Like it, cause you aren't going to change it.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N29348333.htm [rquoter]Iraq militias turning against al Qaeda - US general 29 Jun 2007 Source: Reuters By Kristin Roberts WASHINGTON, June 29 (Reuters) - Sunni militias that once fought U.S. troops are now seeking to join them, frustrated by al Qaeda's influence in parts of Baghdad, a U.S. commander said on Friday. Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil, commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, said working with the militias compensates for insufficient Iraqi police presence in some neighborhoods. "Some of them who have previously been fighting us have come to us as we've spoken with them and they want to fight with us," Fil said. "They are tired of al Qaeda and the influence of al Qaeda in their tribes and in their neighborhoods and they want them cleaned out and they want to form an alliance in order to rid themselves of this blight." The decision to work with militias, which had previously been cited by Washington as major forces of instability inside Baghdad, follows efforts in Anbar province to help Sunni Arab sheikhs combat Sunni Islamist al Qaeda. "We think it's a very positive development, we're excited about it. But we are frankly being cautious." he said by videolink from Baghdad. The strategy of working with local sheikhs to develop tribal police to secure their own neighborhoods is being expanded to other areas of Iraq as well, U.S. generals say. "We'd like to do the same thing with some of the Shia groups as well," Fil said. U.S. President George W. Bush, in a speech on Thursday, said Iraqi citizens were forming "neighborhood watch groups" -- a reference that in the United States conjures images of loosely formed groups of neighbors that agree to keep an eye out for burglars and other petty criminals. Defense officials, however, said Bush was referring to the militias the military hopes to turn against al Qaeda. The United States added about 28,000 U.S. troops to Iraq this year, bringing the U.S. force to 157,000, under a security crackdown plan focused on Baghdad.[/rquoter]
Batman and SamFisher, I issue you both very strong warnings for your behavior. These are final warnings.
Your outraged bluster is so absurd that it isn't even annoying anymore. You are both the court jester and the village idiot. Reading this I genuinely laughed out loud at you.
