BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 02:00 PM

McCain is the Surge Protector

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: pdq
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 02:22 PM

Let's go back and get a few facts here.

The Senate Resolution for the War on Terrorism was passed 14 SEP 2001 by a unanimous vote: 98 to 0, with two Republicans voting "present". All Democrats voted for it.

The Senate vote authorizating the eviction of Saddam Hussein's government was in OCT 2002. The vote was 77 "yes" and 23 "no".

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 02:37 PM

The fact that Democrats voted for something doesn't make it right, anymore than Republicans voting for it. Declaring a "War" on Terrorism--a "war" with no firm conclusion possible--merely surrenders civil rights to a "war-time" government.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 02:45 PM

pdq,

You seem to be defining these votes with your own words.

I don't remember any vote authorizating the eviction of Saddam Hussein's government. Wasn't it more like giving the President to use good judgement in dealing with a threat?

If Bush and Cheney had honestly laid all their cards on the table and caled for an up or down vote on ousting Hussein. It would have been at least 77-23 the other way.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: pdq
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 03:12 PM

I am just trying to keep the facts out there for an honest discussion.

I have no intentions of doing the heavy lifting that Teribus does. He was a military officer and an historian.

For people to claim that there was no reason for the US actions in Iraq, or the the US military was not given a mandate by Congress is factually incorrect.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 as it is correctly called, most certainly calls for just what we did.

It should be looked upon as an attack on Suddam Hussein and his government, not an attack on Iraq or it's people.

Only 15% of Iraq was Suni / Arab and they were Saddam's only supporters. Half of them wanted him gone.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 03:35 PM

Here is the resolution.

There is nothing in it about the eviction of Saddam Hussein


SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by
the President to—
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to—
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that—
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and ter-
rorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the ter-
rorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WARPOWERSRESOLUTIONREQUIREMENTS.—
(1) SPECIFICSTATUTORYAUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statu-
tory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHERREQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 03:48 PM

pdq - There was not adequate reason for a US attack on Iraq in 2003. Most of the world felt there was not adequate reason, and that was reflected in the fact that the Security Council did not give their support to that attack, nor did the General Assembly, nor did most people in the world.

The USA and Britain went ahead anyway without U.N. approval. By doing so, they were in fact in defiance of the U.N. and of a majority of the British populace too, and certainly of a majority of the populace in almost every other country in the world.

To claim earlier U.N. resolutions against Iraq as justification for a later act of aggression not endorsed by the U.N. is the height of hypocrisy and insincerity, but when you have to justify unprovoked aggression to your own people at home, well, you say whatever you can come up with, right?

The war may have officially been against Saddam and his government, but it impacted the entire society and it has caused that whole society to suffer immeasurable loss. That loss is the responsibility of those who started the war, meaning the USA and Great Britain.

They started it (supposedly) over something that didn't exist. WMDs in Iraq.

It was a war justified by lies about WMDs. It was a war of choice, launched without provocation, and without Iraq posing any real danger to any other nations at the time. It was really about regime change and establishing an American presence in Iraq. Those aims have been accomplished...at, however, what may prove in the long run to be an unacceptable cost.

The new Iraqi Shiite regime, if left alone to do as it wishes, will be a natural ally of Iran. ;-) How inconvenient for the USA! Thus do the best laid plans of scoundrels go astray.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 04:45 PM

"The new Iraqi Shiite regime, if left alone to do as it wishes, will be a natural ally of Iran. ;-)" - Little Hawk

Wanna bet? Ever had a look at the make up of Iran LH?

The main ethnic groups are Persians (51%), Azeris (24%), Gilaki and Mazandarani (8%), Kurds (7%), Arabs (3%), Baluchi (2%), Lurs (2%), Turkmens (2%), Laks, Qashqai, Armenians, Persian Jews, Georgians, Assyrians, Circassians, Tats, Mandaeans, Gypsies, Brahuis, Hazara, Kazakhs and others (1%).

Not much of an Shia Arab population is there LH?

Having looked up the make up of Iran LH, take a look where their oil is concentrated - Khuzestan in the South West corner of Iran. Have a guess where the 3% population of Iran's Arabs live LH?

Now look into how well the Arabs and the Persians get along Little Hawk - Hint, not at all.

Natural ally of Iran eh? In that part of the world I would not take anything for granted.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 04:53 PM

GUEST,Jack the Sailor (22 Jul 08 - 03:35 PM)

Link ****Here is the resolution.****

"There is nothing in it about the eviction of Saddam Hussein"

Really Jack? Open and read your own link, try Page 4 second paragraph down, where it mentions the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: pdq
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 05:05 PM

"There was not adequate reason for a US attack on Iraq in 2003."

That decision is above LH's pay grade, as they say in the US Army

Besides, look at a map of Iraq's No-Fly Zones. The northern one was to protect Kurds from more of Saddam's nerve gas attacks. The southern one protected Shiites who despised him. Together the comprise 70% if Iraq's territory.

The No-Fly Zones were under control of the US and it's allies and they were mandated by UN resolution.

No reasonable person can claim that the 2003 use of military force against the Iraqi government was an invasion when we already controlled 70% of the country and had UN mandates to do so.

Kofi Anan is one of the most corrupt people in history. He stole more money in the mis-named Oil For Food program than Yasser Arafat stole from his aid programs. They last thing Kofi Anan wanted was for Saddam to go away. That would have ended his biggest cash cow. What Anan says about the UN authorization is junk. Good thing he was not head of the UN during the other important events in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 05:32 PM

Did the US Senate legally declare war on "terror"? Are we legally at war with terrorism? Is there a formal declaration of war against terror or terrorism?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: TIA
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 05:38 PM

"No reasonable person can claim that the 2003 use of military force against the Iraqi government was an invasion..."



So, this quote is clearly from an unreasonable person:
"From the moment we invaded Iraq in '03 the argument the Democrats have launched has been, "What are we doing there?"










Rush Limbaugh, July 30, 2007.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 05:51 PM

I'm sorry, there wasn't nothing. There was almost nothing, mentioned not as an instruction, (I posted the instruction) but as one of the justifications in the "whereas" section.

You speak of it as if the expressed purpose of the document was the Bush Administration asking specifically for permission for regime change. It was not. No reasonable person voting for the document would think that.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 05:54 PM

That's an interesting response, Teribus. No, I definitely wouldn't take anything for granted, as you say. There are many complex factors that could come into play. I am simply echoing the general thing that has been said in the US media itself for quite some time now, that the Shiites are the dominant group in Iraqi civilian politics since the Sunnis were dethroned by the invasion, and Iran is also Shia. But those other factors that you have mentioned would play a part. I suspect it would work this way: when the Iranians and Iraqis find themselves worried about a common threat to both, they'll join forces. When they don't have a common threat on their minds, they'll find things to disagree about. That's how it usually goes with traditional neighbours in a region... ;-)

China and North Vietnam, for instance, got along fine as long as the USA was fighting a war in Southeast Asia...but once the Americans were good and gone it didn't take long for the Chinese and Vietnamese to resume their ancient hostilities along their mutual border region.

pdq - "That decision is above LH's pay grade"

Yeah. ;-) Way above. But it isn't above my common sense grade.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: pdq
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 06:13 PM

approx. what Wiki sez:

"The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists was enacted 18 SEP 2001 authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all 'necessary and appropriate force' against those whom he determined 'planned, authorized, committed or aided' the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups."

There surely were al-Qaeda in Iraq on Sept. 11, but they were not directly responsible for the attacks and nobody authorized to speak for the US government ever said they were. That twisting of histiory comes directly from the imaginations of the New York Times editors and writers. It was intended to damage President George W. Bush.

Text of this Joint Resolution is easily found at several websites.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 06:15 PM

General Motors is moving to Abu Dabe.
Don't say that the terrorists won or that Arabs now build your Buick.
IT was bad enough when someone said that Bush sold control of our ports to the Arab Emerites.

Lets just say they needed the capital and they didn't care where it came from.



7+ years ago I stared a thread that said the USA Loses the War!

Nothing says loser like watching the big three go down one after another.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 06:18 PM

Authorizations for the use of military force are not legally declarations of war. They're basically a way for Congress to weasel their way out of having to take responsibility for either declaring war or not declaring war.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: pdq
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 06:27 PM

"So, this quote is clearly from an unreasonable person: Rush Limbaugh, July 30, 2007." ~ TIA

Limbaugh does not claim to be a journalist or even reasonable. He is a political spokesman and an entertainer.

"They're basically a way for Congress to weasel their way out of having to take responsibility..." ~ CarolC

Nothing new there!

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 09:48 PM

"Limbaugh does not claim to be a journalist or even reasonable. He is a political spokesman and an entertainer."


                      On top of that, he can't hear and he's addicted to opiates.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 Jul 08 - 09:55 PM

Gee, I wonder who was going to "leave the interim government to its fate".   Let's try this:

"The end of December 2006 marks the end of the UN Mandate for MNF troops to be stationed in Iraq. The Iraqis should be given notice that that is a dead line (sic), by which time they should be looking after their own affairs, and if that has to be resolved by sectarian militias, then so be it; let them get on with it..."

Sounds like the author was willing to leave the Iraqis to their fate even before Maliki took over---i.e. Maliki would never have been elected.

And as for the Sunnis:   "Unlike Ron Davies, I don't believe that the Sunni population of Iraq deserve anything, they are the equivalent of the hard-line Nazis in Germany, in 1945".

The sentiment regarding the Sunnis was wrong then (21 Nov 2006), and has remained wrong ever since. And it's the total rejection of this absurd----(did I say stupid?, no, not I)---- attitude especially by Petraeus and now gradually by Maliki, which has accounted for most of the progress in Iraq. (The rest of it is accounted for the viciously barbaric and unbelievably idiotic behavior of al-Qaeda in Iraq, who fancy themselves latter day Inquisitors, and by Petraeus' insistence that the US forces get out of their own encampments and live with--and fight by the side of--Iraqis.

Neither has anything to do with the "Surge"--since neither one is dependent on an increase in US troops.   It is Petraeus' intelligence--in contrast to the totally counterproductive attitude by Teribus--, and al-Qaeda's stupidity which have made the difference. As I said, the "Surge" is irrelevant. Unless of course Teribus does not know what the word "surge" means.


So, Teribus, the only question now appears to be: would you like to eat your words with HP sauce, marmite, or do you prefer some other condiment?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 03:28 AM

Trip down memory lane for you Ron:

Subject: RE: BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
From: Teribus - PM
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 03:32 AM

Ron, I know that you like putting words into my mouth and then quoting ad nauseum that they did in fact originate from me, and I have drawn your attention before to what I believe to be your extremely poor skills when it comes comprehension of the english language.

Now as to the three historical parallels that you claim I hold so dear, lets take a look at those:

1) ALL Iraqi Sunnis are like hardcore Nazis in 1945.

What I actually said was:
"Unlike Ron Davies I don't believe that the Sunni population of Iraq deserve anything, they are the equivalent of the hard-line Nazis in Germany, in 1945. From 1933 to 1945 they had milked every advantage out of their political allegiance as they could get, let them run to Ba'athist Syria for whatever hand-outs may come their way, those will be damn few and far between, but no less than what they richly deserve."

2) The US attacking Iraq is like Japan attacking the US in 1941.

Eh?? I think that you had better go back and read those posts again - I have argued exactly the opposite.

3) The Iraq insurgency/civil war is like the Malaysian situation in the late 1940's.

My references to what was known as "The War of the Running Dogs" in respect to Iraq relate to two aspects of post war Iraq:
A) The possible time frame for involvement - 15 to 20 years
B) How it should be handled, that the problem cannot be solved by military means alone, the tremendous importance of "Hearts and Minds", also pointed out my belief that US armed forces have never been very good at this.

But at no time at all did I ever say that "The Iraq insurgency/civil war is like the Malaysian situation in the late 1940's."

You see Ron you tend to read only what you want to read, only what backs your arguement. For a change try reading and trying to understand what is actually said.

Also read the explanation on Point 1) above given by me on 29th November - Don't know why I mention it, you didn't pay any attention to it then, you won't now, but it does serve as an excellent example of what is stated in the paragraph immediately above.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 07:00 AM

Teribus,

Its understandable that Ron may be misinterpreting you. Its hardy his fault though. You don't write clearly at all. For instance I have no clue what you were trying to say in the previous post. You seem angry and have some opinion on the Iraq war and Nazis. What it is I have no clue.

You don't think the Sunnis deserve anything but they should get what they deserve? OK!

Perhaps you should try calmly writing paragraphs, you know, complete, mature, well reasoned thoughts.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 09:26 AM

Blackwater leaves Iraq, Halliburton stock DOWN 67% from one year ago, TITAN torture systems Inc is going out of business...

Yep it all looks like it is winding down in a flood of shredded documents, pictures and files.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 11:12 AM

That's a good point, Donuel. The way to buck the failing economy at this point is to invest heavily in firms who make shredders. The Bush administration is going to be buying tons of them, and they'll work overtime from now until January, 20.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 06:11 PM

Dear Rig

Storage facilities for Corporate Clients is doing very well in this economy. Up 20%

It seems what they can't sell they put in storage.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: DougR
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 07:31 PM

JTS: You don't understand what Teribus wrote? Seems pretty clear to me, JTS. It's in English. You do read English, right?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Mike789
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 07:32 PM

Folks, I came across this unbiased analysis of the Surge today. It is comprehenive and enlightening. Enjoy.

http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blogitics/21211/what-mccain-gets-wrong-about-the-surge-and-iraq/

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 07:32 PM

Oddly enough Jack the Sailor the post regarding the Sunni Arabs being perceived as the Nazi's were after the Second World War was a direct reply in the same thread to a post by Guest petr, who had no problem at all with the point that I was trying to make - In fact he actually commented upon it as did Wolfgang, as did MGOH. Only Ron Davies took it up and has been waving it as a flag ever since.

Without any shadow of a doubt "The Surge" has succeeded. I do not give a flying fuck if people wish to attribute it to Al-Sadr, or Sunni Tribal Leaders or whatever. That is all purely conjecture, the fact of the matter is that additional US forces were required, they were supplied and desired result was obtained - That folks was "The Surge" and it damn well worked, be honest enough to admit it, every statistic available supports that, please be honest enough to give credit where credit is due.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 08:51 PM

The German surge worked when the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto rose too, Teribus. To paraphrase what you said, "Additional forces were required, they were supplied and the desired result was obtained." (from the German point of view) So "let's give credit where credit is due", right?

The only question is, who was really the injured party in that circumstance? (obviously the Jews were) Who is the injured party in the invasion and occupation of Iraq? (the people of Iraq are) How you see that, though, for most persons, depends strictly on where their instinctive loyalties lie. Most persons never think beyond their instinctive loyalties which they have inherited through birth and cultural background, and those loyalties are usually based on national identity, party membership, or religion.

All people in a war are "the good guys" from their own point of view, whatever it may be. Depending on how many others involved in the conflict see it their way, they will either win or lose their cause in the end.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 09:09 PM

Yes, the surge of American tax dollars to pay people not to shoot at Us has indded worked... Problem is that it is bankrupting the US Treasury... How many thugs are there out there who want on Unclle Sam's payroll not to shoot at US???

This is the dumbest thing that has ever occured in our history and it sets a very bad precedence... Purdy soon we'll be payin' our own people not to shoot at US... Then it will be the little old ladies who volunteer at the local hospital... And the Boy Scouts... And, and...

This is such a load of crap it isn't hardly worth discussin'...

T... You outta be ashamed of yerself...

Oh, I forgot... You aren't an American taxpayer... Well, I am and I hate the fact that I work hard to pay these friggin' taxes which are in turn turned over to aq bunch of Iraqi thugs... Screw them... Let them got out and work half as hard as I work... We have done nothin' but establish a new Iraqi "welfare class"...

No, we ain't got no money for our own poor but, by golly, we gotta give my tax dollars to Iraqi mobsters????

Beam my ass up, Scotty... There is no intellegent life left here...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 09:14 PM

Sorry, but I can no longer resist:

The war it is over, the surge has succeeded
Al Qaida is covered with sadness and gloom,
They were defeated and miserably treated
And Sidi al-Masir is awaiting his doom.

To the tune of "Bold Robert Emmett"....

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 10:02 PM

Teribus,

The surge can't be said to have succeeded until the Iraqi government is a peaceful ally against Iran. That's the Bush/McCain definition of victory over there. When it happens, feel free to gloat. Until then, you are just blowing smoke.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Jul 08 - 11:23 PM

"...additional US forces were needed". Not established. Al-Qaeda's stupidity and Petraeus' intelligence--especially in rejecting Teribus' idea that the Iraqi Sunnis deserved nothing--they were like Nazis at the end of World War II--were enough in themselves--especially combined with Petraeus' realization that he had to get the US forces out of their heavily fortified comfort zones--to actually fight side by side with Iraqis.

I realize I was wrong in saying that Maliki had not taken over in November 2006. He took over earlier in the year.   It doesn't bother me to admit my errors.

Some people however, prefer lashing themselves to the mast of a sinking ship, rather than admit error. Case in point: the delightful discussion we had about the Bush Iraq propaganda campaign. As I recall the same poster who sees the Sunnis as 5th columnists went down with his ship, still protesting there was no propaganda campaign.

So sorry, Teribus, that you don't like your words quoted.   By the way, quoting you is not "putting words into your mouth". Perhaps you want to review the meaning of that rather simple English expression.

But there is an option, if you don't really like your words repeated to you. All you have to do actually proofread your contributions, and decide if you really are saying what you want to. And possibly even think--before hitting send.

You don't need to thank me. I'm happy to offer advice, and I hope you take it in the spirit it was intended.

As always, looking forward to your next calm, well-reasoned posting.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Kent Davis
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 12:23 AM

In February, 2007, there were an estimated 3,014 deaths among Iraqi security forces and civilians. In May, 2007, there were 1,980. In June, 2008, there were 450. In July, so far, 282.

In February, 2007, there were 81 deaths among the U.S. military in Iraq. In May, 2007, there were 126. In June, 2008, there were 29. In July, so far, 12.

From iCasualties http://icasualties.org/oif/Default.aspx

Kent Davis

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 02:33 AM

"The surge can't be said to have succeeded until the Iraqi government is a peaceful ally against Iran."

Where on earthe did you get that tripe from Jack the Sailor? Did you just make it up? Because I most certainly have now heard, or read anything remotely like that. But no matter, you will no doubt, from this point forward, quote it as being the fact that it isn't just because it suits your purpose.

Most I suppose will skip over Kent Davis post, after all we don't want actual facts too interfere with such dearly held myths.

For all the Obama-mania folks, "The Surge" in Iraq was so effective he apparently wishes to propose more of the same in Afghanistan. Let's hear how and why that won't work there.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 09:02 AM

The "Surge" wouldn't have been and wouldn't BE needed if enough force was used in the first place...as the military told the US President before anyone went into Iraq. The US generals were, rightly, concerned about fighting two "wars" at the same time and their fears turned out to be justified.

You can argue historical "what-ifs" all you want, but we live and deal with the here-and-now.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 09:42 AM

Teribus,

While you are bringing up tripe, which part do you not agree with?

You don't think McSame wants peace?
You don't think that they want Iraq to be against iran?

Give us a real laugh. Define "victory" over there that does not include both of those things.

Give us a bigger laugh. Tell us how it could possible be accomplished.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 10:15 AM

"The US generals were, rightly, concerned about fighting two "wars" at the same time and their fears turned out to be justified."

What fears were they? That they were going to gain the upperhand and initiative in both?

Afghanistan:
The number of foreign troops allowed into Afghanistan was controlled not by the USA, or by the UN, but by the Interim Afghan Government led by Hamid Karzai and the Loya Girga of tribal leaders. The first "foreign troops" to arrive in any sort of numbers were Royal Marines Commandos of the Special Boat Service and "Bravo" and "Charlie" Companies from 40 Commando, permission for them to land at Bagram Air Base was granted by the Afghan delegates to a summit conference held at Königswinter in Germany. Their mission was to make the Base secure so that Hamid Karzai and the members of the Interim Goverment could return to Afghanistan. Additional negotiations had to be undertaken to allow the men of 40 Commando to make sure that the route in from the Air Base to Kabul was secure. Later the Commandos were joined by detatchments of troops from US 10th Mountain Division and 82nd Airborne

Iraq:
Numbers on the ground would not have mattered a damn in Iraq in the initial period after Saddam's forces had been defeated.

Numbers on the ground would not have prevented the mass desertion of the Iraqi Armed Forces and Republican Guards/Special Republican Guard Units.

Numbers on the ground would not have swayed the decision by Arab Sunni religious and tribal leaders to boycott the political process that resulted in the formation of the Interim Government of Iraq.

Numbers on the ground would not have swayed the decision by Arab Sunni religious and tribal leaders to initially support the foreign Jihadists and Ba'athist insurgents.

Numbers on the ground would not have prevented but might possibly have accelerated Zarqawi's attacks on Iraqi Shia civilians. Zarqawi and the Ba'athist insurgents discovered at Fallujah that they could not take on US/MNF troops in provinces like Anbar and win.

Numbers on the ground would not necessarily have accelerated training of Iraqi Army and Police Units in any significant way and may well have diluted the impression on the local population that Iraqi Forces were in the forefront of the efforts being made to quell Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq, the Ba'athist insurgents and the Shia militias.

Numbers on the ground would not have accelerated the realisation on the part of Arab Sunni religious and tribal leaders that their best interests would be served by joining the political process.

Once that realisation dawned then and only then could the US/MNF troops assisted by newly formed Iraqi Army and Police Units start hitting "hot spots" - That was "The Surge" - And it worked remarkably well.

"The "Surge" wouldn't have been and wouldn't BE needed if enough force was used in the first place...as the military told the US President before anyone went into Iraq."

The military said no such thing, some retired generals might have said that, but General Tommy Franks was specifically asked very early on if he had sufficient troops and he answered in the affirmative. As he was the man in command anything said by anybody else is purely subjective opinion and irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 10:28 AM

Be a man Teribus. Don't just say other people are wrong. Stand for something. tell us what is right.

If the surge is a success or troops can come home now. Right?

If no when can they come home? Tell us what victory would look like over there.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 10:34 AM

According to CNN "The Surge" troops are already all home. General Petraeus and GWB have already stated that there will be a draw down of US troops depending upon conditions on the ground and recommendations of field commanders.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 10:36 AM

And, BTW, what surge other than money...

Troop levels have been at the same level before "The Dumb Surge" (TDS) and things were a mess so don't give me this crap that the TDS has been this great miliatry accomplishment when it hasn't... The TDS has been a business deal and nothin' more and as long as the US taxpayers are willing to funnel their tax dollars to Iraqi thugs thru the TDS then this little arrangement will hold up... But tell the thugs to get off their butts and get a job and the TDS will go down faster than a whale's turd in the ocean...

And you can take that to the bank...

(No, Bobert, bad idea... The banks are crappin' out faster than you can count 'um... Probably safer just "stayin' the course" for another 100 years and let the Iraqis spend our money...)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 10:40 AM

There are a bout twenty thousand more now than when the "surge" began. So obviously they got that wrong.

Teribus. You are claiming that the surge worked. If the surge was not supposed to end the war, what was the point? You and the other Bush worshipers have been saying "when conditions permit." for five years. It doesn't mean anything.

Now tell us. What defines a victory in Iraq? What would satisfy you? How can it be accomplished?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 10:53 AM

The strategy of taking the ground and holding it have made some difference. But obviously the two largest factions, the Sunnis and the Sadr army, deciding not to fight made a much much larger difference.

Coincidental with the "surge" was the idea that the US would leave if things became peaceful. Remember the loss of Congress by the war party in 2006? The Iraqis could read the writing on the wall. To say the least it is difficult to sort out the influence of "the surge" from other factors. It is also impossible to claim that there has been any real progress until the militias have been disarmed.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 12:14 PM

You won't get a definition of victory from any of these folks, JtS, other and some generalized definition that allows them to claim victory when they feel like it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: pdq
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 02:11 PM

"Now tell us. What defines a victory in Iraq?" ~ JtS

Well, perhaps we can all try that one after you answer the following questions:

                What defines a victory in the "War on Drugs"?

                What defines a victory in the "War on Terrorism"?
      
                What defines a victory in the "War on Crime"?   

                What defines a victory in the "War on Poverty"?

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: DougR
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 02:28 PM

JTS: The purpose of the surge was NOT to end the war. It was designed to drastically reduce the violence with the hope that the Iraqi Parliament would get better organized and that the Sunnis might join Iraqi and coalition forces against al-Qaida. The surge was successful and the Iraqi Parliament has met all but three of the 18 original benchmarks set by the U.S. Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress. The fact that the Sunnis turning against al-Qaida contributed greatly to the success of the surge is history.

The Arizona Republic, in it's Thursday edition, carried the New York Times Op-Ed written by Obama last week, and today the one they rejected written by Senator McCain. It's too bad the "Times" chose to show it's true colors (left-wing)and rejected McCain's article. It deserves to be read by anyone who wishes to read it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 03:28 PM

You can read the article Doug. So can anyone who wishes to read it. But it is plain to see that it not up to the standards of the New York Times. But McCain's attack on Obama, which contains nothing new and no viewpoint other than "Obama is bad", is available on the Drudge website, where it belongs.

Doug, I am not interested in those phony wars. I'm interested in the real shooting war in the middle east and and getting us out of it.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Teribus
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 08:09 PM

"There are a bout twenty thousand more now than when the "surge" began. So obviously they got that wrong."

Well let's take that one first. Easily explained as some units rotating into Iraq are larger than those formations that they are replacing. That rational enough for you?

"Teribus. You are claiming that the surge worked."

Yes it most assuredly did, please provide me with any evidence to the contrary.

"If the surge was not supposed to end the war, what was the point?"

This coupled with the following shows that you are either extremely naive or have the attention span of Goldfish:

"You and the other Bush worshipers have been saying "when conditions permit." for five years. It doesn't mean anything."

Eh No Jack "The Surge" was not supposed to end the war. And "when conditions permit" means exactly what it says. Get out of thinking that what your country is engaged in is some sort of reality TV show, it isn't. While the USA was getting its ass kicked in Vietnam the UK actually defeated a communist inspired and backed insurrection in Malaya, Oman and in Borneo. That took time Jack the Sailor and the UK withdrew "when conditions permitted". In the case of Malaya that was after seventeen years.

By the Bye Jack the Sailor, I know that you are Canadian, but it took the US military about twenty years to get over Vietnam, and that was with a conscript Army. Follow Obama's lead with regard to Iraq and the "professional" Armed Forces of the USA will never trust another administration.

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 08:43 PM

You are living in a dream world, T...

There were lots of military folks who said "No" to invading Iraq way back in '02... The trust is lost because of Bush...

You folks are a scream... You spent 6 years blamin' all of Bush's mstakes on Clinton and now we are down to you guys blaming his current mistakes on Obama...

Do you folks ever admit that it is possioble that yer guy, BUsh, screwed up all by himself???

(What a rediculous question, Boberdz...)

Oh yeah, I forgot for one minute that you folks have the ability to think independently... My bad...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: War is over. The surge has succeeded!
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jul 08 - 09:08 PM

>>, but it took the US military about twenty years to get over Vietnam, and that was with a conscript Army. Follow Obama's lead with regard to Iraq and the "professional" Armed Forces of the USA will never trust another administration.

They'll get over it in five minutes. They'll place the blame where it belongs, on Bush and Cheney.