Chef Jim Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 No jerk off, just typed to fast. Can't read? Typed to fast what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Interesting things about if we are winning or not and you decide. I'd heard yesterday that the US troops are now only on standby on the bases and have not verntured off in over a month. The Iraqi Army and police have taken over completely and US ground troops are only on alert if the Iraqis call in for support. Air support is available still from the US, but ground troops have been out of the game for a while. To me thats a huge win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Interesting things about if we are winning or not and you decide. I'd heard yesterday that the US troops are now only on standby on the bases and have not verntured off in over a month. The Iraqi Army and police have taken over completely and US ground troops are only on alert if the Iraqis call in for support. Air support is available still from the US, but ground troops have been out of the game for a while. To me thats a huge win. That's a lie. CNN hasn't reported anything like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Interesting things about if we are winning or not and you decide. I'd heard yesterday that the US troops are now only on standby on the bases and have not verntured off in over a month. The Iraqi Army and police have taken over completely and US ground troops are only on alert if the Iraqis call in for support. Air support is available still from the US, but ground troops have been out of the game for a while. To me thats a huge win. You were misinformed about US troops, they're still leading raids. And it looks like things might be heating up again soon. BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is establishing a new fighting force to battle U.S.-led troops in Iraq, he said in a letter read in some Iraqi mosques Friday. Muqtada al-Sadr says his new group will focus exclusively on battling U.S.-led forces in Iraq. Al-Sadr's letter said that "the resistance will be exclusively conducted by only one group. This new group will be defined soon by me." Al-Sadr's longtime militia, the Mehdi Army, has a strong presence in Shiite cities, towns and neighborhoods. Since last summer, the mainstream Mehdi Army has been in cease-fire mode, which dramatically reduced violence in Iraq. During that time, however, some Mehdi Army members have fought with U.S. and Iraqi troops, with much of the battles this spring in the southern city of Basra and Baghdad's Sadr City neighborhood. The U.S. says it is fighting Iranian-backed "Special Groups," or rogue Mehdi Army members who flout the cease-fire and conduct insurgent acts. Those Mehdi Army members say their military activities are in reaction to the Iraqi government or American aggression. Sources familiar with the issue said they believe al-Sadr's move is an embrace of the Special Groups. In the latest fighting overnight, American-led coalition forces killed five and arrested two Special Groups members near Hilla, south of Baghdad, the U.S. military said. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/06/13/...sadr/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 We have won when they have a stable government that won't be toppled when we leave. We are not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 We have won when they have a stable government that won't be toppled when we leave. We are not even close. Hell, they had that before we came in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 You were misinformed about US troops, they're still leading raids. And it looks like things might be heating up again soon. BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr is establishing a new fighting force to battle U.S.-led troops in Iraq, he said in a letter read in some Iraqi mosques Friday. Muqtada al-Sadr says his new group will focus exclusively on battling U.S.-led forces in Iraq. Al-Sadr's letter said that "the resistance will be exclusively conducted by only one group. This new group will be defined soon by me." Al-Sadr's longtime militia, the Mehdi Army, has a strong presence in Shiite cities, towns and neighborhoods. Muqtada al-Sadr is to warfare as the Washington Generals are to basketball. Ignore 17 months of progress because Muqtada is running his mouth again and this time he swears it'll be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Not saying that you blame the media... just that is all I hear all of the time. Because it's an accurate representation. Another example: which celebrity "news" are you more likely to hear reported: that Lindsey Lohan entered rehab again, or that Paul Newman gave his entire stake in his "Newman's Own" brand to charity (which he did this week - $120M). Or look back at every protest you've seen reported: the violent ones get FAR more coverage than peaceful ones. Or another one: when the US and EU togther make diplomatic overtures to Iran and President Bush makes a statement to the effect that "Military force isn't ruled out, but we prefer to engage Iran with diplomacy"...do you hear "West Desires Talks With Iran", or "US Threatens Iran With Military Action"? War, drunken sluts, fighting, and more war sell better than cooperation, decent people, peaceful dialog, and diplomacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Muqtada al-Sadr is to warfare as the Washington Generals are to basketball. Ignore 17 months of progress because Muqtada is running his mouth again and this time he swears it'll be different. you can write him off if you chose, but General Petraeus thinks he's a bit more influential Petraeus acknowledged, though almost in passing, that the clash between the Iraqi government and militias loyal to Sadr and other Shiite leaders — known as "Special Groups" — is one of the biggest threats to Iraqi stability. "Unchecked, the Special Groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq," he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Because it's an accurate representation. Another example: which celebrity "news" are you more likely to hear reported: that Lindsey Lohan entered rehab again, or that Paul Newman gave his entire stake in his "Newman's Own" brand to charity (which he did this week - $120M). Or look back at every protest you've seen reported: the violent ones get FAR more coverage than peaceful ones. Or another one: when the US and EU togther make diplomatic overtures to Iran and President Bush makes a statement to the effect that "Military force isn't ruled out, but we prefer to engage Iran with diplomacy"...do you hear "West Desires Talks With Iran", or "US Threatens Iran With Military Action"? War, drunken sluts, fighting, and more war sell better than cooperation, decent people, peaceful dialog, and diplomacy. I wouldn't ignore the political idealogy behind most reporters either. They're only going to report what makes sense to them (i.e. what fits their world view). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 you can write him off if you chose, but General Petraeus thinks he's a bit more influential So because long term threats to stability exist we can't note important achievements or admit that things have improved significantly over the last year and a half and are still improving. Sadr is a threat we (and the Iraqis) can deal with. His power now is less than what it was a few years ago. How could it not be? He gets his ass kicked every time he decides he wants to fight and Iraqi security forces keep getting stronger. And it seems like every country on earth has some long term threats to stability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 So because long term threats to stability exist we can't note important achievements or admit that things have improved significantly over the last year and a half and are still improving. Sadr is a threat we (and the Iraqis) can deal with. His power now is less than what it was a few years ago. How could it not be? He gets his ass kicked every time he decides he wants to fight and Iraqi security forces keep getting stronger. And it seems like every country on earth has some long term threats to stability. As soon as al-Sadr gives the word to resume attacks, it will hit the fan and the stablility will be gone. Which points out that he and the Iraq gov't have to come to a political resolution to resolve the issue, which was the purpose of the surge. So if the political resolutions don't take place, then the surge will have failed in its goal, and the U.S. military will be stuck with their fingers in the dike, just holding back the eventual flood. If that's the case, then we need to get out and let the Iraqis deal with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 As soon as al-Sadr gives the word to resume attacks, it will hit the fan and the stablility will be gone. Because that worked out so awesome for him last time. I know our press spins everything he does as a huge success for him, but he's never achieved anything other than getting what's left of his militia slaughtered. His influence is decreasing, not the other way around. People notice when you're a failure. It's kinda sad that you have to pin your hopes for U.S. humiliation on someone like al-Sadr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 It's kinda sad that you have to pin your hopes for U.S. humiliation on someone like al-Sadr. What a stupid thing to say, that anybody who disagrees with your opinion wants failure. The military's done what it could, they won't be humiliated no matter what happens politically. The Bush administration is already humiliated, that ship has sailed. Now we have to decide how best to move forward, and select the best of only bad options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 I wouldn't ignore the political idealogy behind most reporters either. They're only going to report what makes sense to them (i.e. what fits their world view). Personally...although I think it exists, I also think it's overstated. It's implicit, rather than explicit. First off, the nature of news reporting (where controversial stories are jucier stories) attracts people with an already-established bias towards being anti-establishment, which means they'll far more often vote Democrat than Republican. Second...when everyone around you shares pretty much the same perspective as you do, it's really easy to forget there's other perspectives. Like Patriots fans insisting that ESPN hates their team and the refs are against them, because the only other people they ever talk to are other Pats fans. They don't have other perspectives for comparison. And that's just human nature. There's nothing sinister about it, there's no great liberal media conspiracy (except for the NYT, and the McCain story they're sitting on until October ). It's one of the reasons that, while I LOATHE FoxSnooze, I at least respect them more...they're perfectly open and honest about being completely and consciously biased, so at least you know what axes they're grinding before they grind them. There's a certain honesty and integrity in saying upfront "I'm completely lacking in honesty and integrity." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 What a stupid thing to say, that anybody who disagrees with your opinion wants failure. The military's done what it could, they won't be humiliated no matter what happens politically. The Bush administration is already humiliated, that ship has sailed. Now we have to decide how best to move forward, and select the best of only bad options. Of course you want failure in Iraq or, at least, the appearance of failure. That's a huge talking point for your political party. Basically, military humiliation in Iraq helps you get your guys elected and you think that helps the country long term. I won't say you hate America, but you do think that losing now helps us later. (Like the Bills fans who think losing now helps later because it gets us a better draft pick.) There's no way in hell you're hoping for enormous success in Iraq due to the surge. If that happens and it gets reported, McCain probably gets elected in November. You just spent months on this board finding any ridiculous rationale you could to support Hillary over Obama. You're clearly capable of finding any rationale to downplay U.S. success in Iraq to help your party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 So because long term threats to stability exist we can't note important achievements or admit that things have improved significantly over the last year and a half and are still improving. Sadr is a threat we (and the Iraqis) can deal with. His power now is less than what it was a few years ago. How could it not be? He gets his ass kicked every time he decides he wants to fight and Iraqi security forces keep getting stronger. And it seems like every country on earth has some long term threats to stability. lol, you said with respect to warfare, he's the Washington Generals. That infers he's a joke to Iraqi stability and he has very little influence over what happens there. The fact is he's a huge threat. Nobody said we couldn't deal with him and statements that his power has been reduced or that every time he fights, he gets his ass kicked... are very subjective and seems to contradict General Petraeus. The man lives in Iran and his militia is backed by the Quds Force! That alone should cause us to take him seriously. Sure, lots of countries have threats to stability, but when the General says militias like Sadr's are one of the greatest long term threats to Iraq, that's some heavy shyt. It doesn't mean we can't note important achievements or admit improvement in some areas. I like Crocker's and Petraeus's description of improved conditions in Iraq: it's fragile and reversible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 Obama in 04 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 I wouldn't ignore the political idealogy behind most reporters either. They're only going to report what makes sense to them (i.e. what fits their world view). Come on, if reporters only broadcast what made sense to them, there would be no ratings. The only way to avoid the garbage on most of the channels is to tune into CSPAN. Everyplace else just soundbites what is said to fit that agenda. Did McCain say "There will be more wars!" Sure he did- does that sum up what he said? I highly doubt it. Same is done with Obama. The 24-hour media sucks and has no accountability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted June 13, 2008 Share Posted June 13, 2008 lol, you said with respect to warfare, he's the Washington Generals. That infers he's a joke to Iraqi stability and he has very little influence over what happens there. The fact is he's a huge threat. Nobody said we couldn't deal with him and statements that his power has been reduced or that every time he fights, he gets his ass kicked... are very subjective and seems to contradict General Petraeus. The man lives in Iran and his militia is backed by the Quds Force! That alone should cause us to take him seriously. Sure, lots of countries have threats to stability, but when the General says militias like Sadr's are one of the greatest long term threats to Iraq, that's some heavy shyt. It doesn't mean we can't note important achievements or admit improvement in some areas. I like Crocker's and Petraeus's description of improved conditions in Iraq: it's fragile and reversible Al-Sadr does not live in Iran and his links to Iran are somewhat less than the so-called Iraqi government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts