There never has been a "Retreat & Surrender Caucus" except in some tiny corner of little Texas in the mind of one individual who has a limited capacity to envision anything except in oppositional and confrontational terms.
The fact that signs on the ground look "better" does nothing to change the fact that this illegal and illegitimate so-called war has been and remains a moral and physical catastrophe which will have negative repercussions for the US for the next 100 years at least and has cost it all moral standing throughout the world.
If you had suggested to people BEFORE this war that 5 years later there would still be the daily toll that there is even now how many people would have cheered that prospect?
It was all meant to be dealt with by a couple of days of shock and awe and Iraq's oil would be "ours", remember?
Perhaps you'd like to make some positive suggestions about how to heal your polarised nation, for a change?
** Foreign insurgent flow into Iraq down by more than 50%
** Suicide bombings down 70% since March.
** Foreign Terrorist flow into Iraq down by 50%.
** Diala Province violence down by 68%."
Every good Democrat knows that each and every one of these statistics would immediately drop to 0% as soon as all US soldiers are removed from Iraq. It's really that simple.
"How soon before the Retreat & Surrender Caucus retreats from calling for retreat and surrender?"
Petraeus ought to be congratulated for gains in security, but since when has fewer fatalities been a metric for success in war? A withdrawal could lower the fatality rate to 0.
Also, in 2006, there were 822 fatalities according to the DoD. This year, there have already been 878 fatalities.
"Rand Beers, a counterterrorism adviser to both Bush presidents and President Clinton, says he believes Gen. Petraeus has selectively focused on trends beginning in December 2006 to enhance the perception of military progress. Beers also suspects the military of inflating pre-December 2006 violence numbers to paint its surge efforts in a more positive light. Lawrence J. Korb, a former Reagan Pentagon official, is equally skeptical: 'It's a selective use of statistics to buttress his case,' Korb says."
The "Retreat and Surrender Caucus" is an invention of BoBo's which has apparently been flogged to death since only you and BoBo seem to be aware of its existence..
Obviously you had the kind of teachers who believed that the way of education involved repeating the same phrase ad nauseam and are keen to perpetuate this style of parrotting information, most commonly used in the "real world" in equal measure by the Nazis and the Communists.
Godwins Law (Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, especially fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form) rears it's ugly head.
And you falsely accuse me of hate speech. Reductio ad Hitlerum indeed.
But since you quote Godwin's law why don't you follow it?
In my personal experience of NS and propeller you are the individual who is responsible for the greatest number of offensive and hate-filled remarks, apart from one or two people who are clinically crazed.
That is an opinion; if you take it as a judgment that's your problem.
One particular VOTE of yours for a comment in the Sudan thread a couple of days ago, that was so over the top, astounded me. I would like to HOPE that it was a mistake.
"The toll of US soldiers killed in Iraq reached 853 this week, making 2007 the deadliest year for US forces since the 2003 invasion. With nearly two months remaining in 2007, US troop deaths in Iraq are set to far exceed the 850 killed in 2004, the highest previous annual total. While attacks on US troops and sectarian killings may have fallen in recent months, the decline appears to be mainly limited to the Baghdad area, where US troop concentrations are the highest. Outside Baghdad conditions have improved little. Violence in Northern Iraq is increasing. Once the quietest region in the country, tensions are on the rise as Turkey threatens to attack Kurdish insurgents."
"Despite stepped-up training, the readiness of the Iraqi military to operate independently of U.S. forces has DECREASED since President Bush's new strategy was launched in January, according to the White House progress report released yesterday."
"Experts told the subcommittee there is likely less progress in training capable Iraqi forces than the Bush administration and U.S. military officials have portrayed. Anthony Cordesman believes Iraqi forces, military and police, are years away from being able to take over primary security responsibilities, much less by 2008."
According to Cordesman, "Much of the official reporting on Iraqi force readiness and progress in Iraqi force development is the same tissue of lies, spin, distortion and omission I saw in Vietnam. There is no integrity in the reporting on manpower and in the number of [Iraqi] units in the lead."
"Officials point to the persistent lack of readiness of the Iraqi Army and national police, as well as the fear that many members of the Iraqi forces are more loyal to their sectarian factions than to their own central government. The number of Iraqi Army and police battalions considered ready to conduct combat operations without help from the United States has declined from 15 at the beginning of the year to 12 this month, according to data that Petraeus provided to Congress last week. At the same time, Pentagon assessments show that the number of Iraqi battalions considered 'not ready' increased from 13 in November 2006 to 43 this past summer."
"The Brookings' data shows the Iraqi death rate cited by Petraeus for 2007 remains well above levels in 2004, 2005, and early 2006. Independent reports paint a bleaker picture than the military's assessment. The GAO and NIE concluded in August 2007 the average number of daily attacks remained static—at ~170. A third report concludes the country's soldiers and police are incapable of protecting its citizens. Nongovernmental analysis of civilian attacks and casualties has been even more critical and contradicts military numbers. An AP analysis concluded "at least 1,809 civilians" were killed in August 2007, the second-highest monthly level in 2007. A Ministry of Interior official told McClatchy Newspapers that the number of Iraqis killed by violence soared in August 2007—to 2,890—nearly double the number cited by Petraeus. The actual numbers may be even higher. The Iraq Study Group report noted in 2006 violence is significantly underreported."
"The "retreat and surrender" reporters seem to be missing the point - objectives are being met"
Is that so? Then tell me exactly which of the political benchmarks set by the administration have been met--the oil sharing legislation? national reconciliation? the debate over 3 autonomous regions or 1 united Iraq? EVERY single article I've posted has admitted that political progress has been nonexistent, and unless political progress and national reconciliation is made, the security gains will not last.
DAVIDHALKO:
"People who deny progress always like to change the benchmarks and deny progress."
Which political benchmarks were met? Go ahead. I'll wait for your post.
While there have been some gains in security, there have been no gains in politics and reconciliation. If that doesn't happen, the security will mean NOTHING as troops will continue to die in Iraq--albeit at a slightly slower rate.
"The Iraqi government has made little progress toward political reconciliation, and U.S. policy in Iraq would require a 'strategic reassessment.' Adm. Michael Mullen, Bush's choice to replace Gen. Peter Pace, said there had been improvement in security following the recent buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq, but 'there does not appear to be much political progress.'"
"The Associated Press has learned that the GAO report was on track to conclude that at least 13 of the 18 benchmarks set to judge the Iraqi government's performance in the political and security arenas haven't been met."
"While the legislation has not been completed yet, it has been worked on - and this is an important gain."
Unpassed legislation is a gain? You sound so sure that it will pass, despite the fact that the Shiite and the Kurdish blocks in parliament have voiced opposition to such legislation.
DAVIDHALKO:
"This is also a matter of opinion and not hard fact. The fact that they are being worked on is a very important point which is omitted."
It's a very simple question. Have ANY benchmarks been met or not? "I'm working on it" doesn't inspire much confidence. They've been "working on it" for SEVERAL YEARS now.
DAVIDHALKO:
"Where there are hard facts, it seems benchmarks have been met."
Which ones? Go ahead. Which ones have been "met"?
DAVIDHALKO:
"you don't tell the child to "drop out" - you help to tutor the child."
War is NOT analogous to tutoring. No one dies if the child answers incorrectly.
"U.S. commanders and many Iraqis fear the relative quiet won't last without substantial political agreements among the country's sectarian leaders. The fear: Sunni and Shiite extremist groups responsible for the carnage are still around - bloodied but not destroyed. And many of the key power-sharing issues that fueled the conflict remain unresolved. Without agreements to resolve them, the conflict could flare up again, as it did after previous lulls. And some of the measures that have helped ease the violence could backfire, triggering new bloodshed."
"Four members of an Iranian-backed Shiite cell confessed to bombing a public market in central Baghdad...He also blamed Shiites for recent attacks on US bases, raising fears that a three-month truce by the most feared Shiite militia may be at an end."
This is a laughable charge coming from the party who exploited the public's fear post-9/11 to initiate war in Iraq. This coming from the party of Rudy "9/11" Giuliani. LOL.
DAVIDHALKO:
"The "retreat and surrender" supporters do not want success - they want to drum up fear."
Chickenhawks don't want to enlist and deploy themselves. They're more comfortable sending others to die in Iraq in their place.
DAVIDHALKO:
"So, when will Iran problem be resolved?"
Iran denies involvement. While Iran's involvement is suspected, it is not known for sure.
DAVIDHALKO:
"Will the "retreat and surrender" supporters help to fix the issue?"
Will the chickenhawks? Tell us again when are you and the other chickenhawks deploying to Iraq? Make sure to ask for front line duty. While you're there, you can lead the charge into Iran. YOU can stand right in FRONT.
"John Negroponte said political progress must quickly follow the security gains from the influx of American troops in Iraq, warning Sunday that the country risks 'falling back to the more violent patterns of the past.' But progress toward political reconciliation among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds has lagged behind improvements in security, raising concern that any momentum toward peace may be lost."
"That is a good thing, instead of them taking up arms and shooting other lawmakers."
This is NOT a good thing. Parliament is supposed to be a "deliberative body." No deliberation can occur, no political benchmarks can be met, no national reconciliation can be made achieved when large blocks of lawmakers are absent.
Muqtada al Sadr ordered a ceasefire, NOT a surrender. Whenever diplomacy breaks down like this, there is ALWAYS the danger of Muqtada becoming frustrated with the political process and calling off the ceasefire.
DAVIDHALKO:
"Once again, only an opinion."
"Only" an opinion shared by the GAO, NIE, former military commanders, present military commanders, and congressmen on BOTH sides of the aisle.
DAVIDHALKO:
"Progress continues."
Really? Which political benchmarks have been met? When are you and the other chickenhawks deploying to Iraq to help these ethnic groups reconcile?
But going down from a record high that is not progress. 2007 was already a banner year for bloodshed in Iraq.
It's just like if I were to charge double for something and then give you a 40% discount. Yes, the price is low, but it's coming down from a much inflated rate.
I'm not sure I'd trust ANY statistics coming from a government with a proven track record of LYING to its people. Mighty convenient, this sudden "downturn" in violence just in time for elections....things that make you go, hummmmmm...
My first proposal to heal the polarization is for those on the Left to quit making false and provocative statements such as "this illegal and illegitimate so-called war", "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything" and "Sending young men and young women, sons and daughters from America, to murder people in other nations is an act of terror."
"My first proposal to heal the polarization is for those on the Left to quit making false and provocative statements"
My first proposal would be to have you stop referring to Democrats as the "retreat and surrender" crowd. Unless you haven't noticed, the sentiment for withdrawal runs wide and deep.
"72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year--[of which] 29% said the U.S. should leave Iraq "immediately"...[compare that with] only 23% saying they should stay 'as long as they are needed.'"
Buckie again seriously are you an idiot or do you think we are?
This poll is 1 year and 10 months old! Out of date!. Do you know why polls are taken on annual basis? Its because polls CHANGE on an annual basis, be it daily weekly monthly yearly or whatever
"This poll is 1 year and 10 months old! Out of date!. Do you know why polls are taken on annual basis? Its because polls CHANGE on an annual basis, be it daily weekly monthly yearly or whatever"
Nothing has changed. If you have evidence, then POST IT.
The reason you have no evidence is because the majority remain opposed to a long-term stay in Iraq.
"Opposition to the Iraq war is at an all-time high despite reports of a reduction of violence in the country. 68% of poll respondents opposed the war, setting a record."
"Nearly 60% of readers who participated in a recent Military.com poll said the United States should withdraw its troops from Iraq now or by the end of 2008. More than 40% of the respondents agreed the pullout should begin immediately because 'we're wasting lives and resources there.'"
"A lot has changed... recently posted to propeller:"
You need a lesson in context. The comment "Nothing has changed" was made with respect to the soldiers' opposition to a long-term military presence in Iraq.
A majority of troops still oppose a long-term military presence.
An increasing number of troops are donating to Democratic presidential candidate campaigns to show their support for a change in administration.
Ron Paul, the only antiwar Republican candidate, received more donations from the military than ANY of his Republican rivals, including veteran John McCain and Rudy "9/11" Giuliani.
You have presented ZERO DOCUMENTATION that suggests the troops support Bush's plan for a long-term military presence in Iraq.
"One does not run a war according to polls - this is idiocy."
One does not run a war by ignoring the advice of both present and former military commanders--THAT is idiocy.
And this is NOT a war, as there was NO congressional declaration of war. This is an occupation of a country whose ethnic groups are fighting among themselves, acting out a centuries-old conflict.
DAVIDHALKO:
"This is the honorable thing to do."
If you support Bush's foreign policy in Iraq, then the "honorable thing to do" would be to enlist and deploy yourself. Tell us all again when your deployment date to Iraq is set? Make sure you ask for front line duty.
It's so easy to send other people's children to die in a war while you hide comfortably behind your keyboard, isn't it?
"Only 35% of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42% said they disapproved...only 41% of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place."
"A sharp increase in contributions from the military to Democrats suggests the Republican party is losing the troops' support. 'People are saying now enough is enough," said Lt. Col. Joyce Griggs. 'If you're a soldier, you're going to do your job, do what you're commanded to do. But that sentiment is wide and deep.' Donations may be a way to protest, while still following orders. The drop in contributions to Republicans suggests there are people in the armed services to express their opinion."
If you truly support the troops, I don't see how you could dishonor their desire to leave Iraq.
"Only 35% of the military members polled this year..."
YBDO, are you an idiot or do you think we are.
Down on the war
Poll: More troops unhappy with Bush's course in Iraq
Dec. 29, 2006 according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.
This poll is not from this year Buckie, clearly the DATE stated on the poll is Dec. 29, 2006, News flash today's date is Dec. 3 2007
The next part about this poll that has been a centerpiece of the Anti-Bush crowd is that it is NOT a scientific poll. In fact,if you read the poll it states clearly
"The mail survey, conducted Nov. 13 through Dec. 22,.... The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole; the survey's respondents are on aver age older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population."
It's laughable that someone who presents ZERO documentation for his own would criticize my sources. Yes, the Military.Com poll was 1 year old, but you've neglected to mention a number of sources have indicated that there is NO CHANGE in the opposition to a long-term stay in Iraq. Here's a Military.com poll taken within the last few months of this year that proves this:
"Nearly 60% of readers who participated in a recent Military.com poll said the United States should withdraw its troops from Iraq now or by the end of 2008. More than 40% of the respondents agreed the pullout should begin immediately because 'we're wasting lives and resources there.'"
By the way, the CapitalEye report of troops giving increasingly to Democratic presidential candidates was written in September 2007 of this year. Nice job ignoring THAT source.
Post your own sources. Something tells me I shouldn't hold my breath.
LOL. This is laughable coming from someone who presents ZERO documentation of his own.
Let's see your sources.
My SOURCE for my comments on YOUR post was the SOURCE you GAVE!
If your shocked at my comments it can only mean that you did not read the SOURCES YOU provided or you do not understand what is said in the SOURCES YOU provided.
Your FULL claim year and all, that this poll represents the ENTIRE Military is false. The SOURCE, that proves this claim false, is the SOURCE YOU PROVIDED! Its called the "DISCLAIMER"
"Only 35% of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42% said they disapproved...only 41% of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place."
This IS the "DISCLAIMER" from the SOURCE YOU PROVIDED!
"The mail survey, conducted Nov. 13 through Dec. 22, is the fourth annual gauge of active-duty military subscribers to the Military Times newspapers. The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole; the survey's respondents are on aver age older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population."
"The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole"
Do you understand what this means? It says this poll IS NOT a reflection of the ENTIRE Military. And that DISPROVES YOUR Claim that this poll DOES reflect the entire military.
Obviously you have never been in the Military so I will give you some inside info.
The military is to be Apolitical. You will not find a real poll that reflects the "Entire" military on anything that is POLITICAL. It is not allowed, it has been this way for over 200 years. Get a clue. If you see a poll that DOES claim to represent the Entire military you should know, as I do, its BOGUS.
182)
It's just too bad that Democrats cannot celebrate this good news for Iraq and America.
How soon before the Retreat & Surrender Caucus retreats from calling for retreat and surrender?
There never has been a "Retreat & Surrender Caucus" except in some tiny corner of little Texas in the mind of one individual who has a limited capacity to envision anything except in oppositional and confrontational terms.
The fact that signs on the ground look "better" does nothing to change the fact that this illegal and illegitimate so-called war has been and remains a moral and physical catastrophe which will have negative repercussions for the US for the next 100 years at least and has cost it all moral standing throughout the world.
If you had suggested to people BEFORE this war that 5 years later there would still be the daily toll that there is even now how many people would have cheered that prospect?
It was all meant to be dealt with by a couple of days of shock and awe and Iraq's oil would be "ours", remember?
Perhaps you'd like to make some positive suggestions about how to heal your polarised nation, for a change?
From the sad story:
"** Violence in Iraq is down by 50%.
** Civilian casualties in Iraq are down by 60%.
** Baghdad casualties are down by 75%.
** Basra violence is down by 90%.
** Terrorist attacks in Iraq are down by 80%.
** IED attacks down by 55%.
** Average daily attacks down by 42%.
** Foreign insurgent flow into Iraq down by more than 50%
** Suicide bombings down 70% since March.
** Foreign Terrorist flow into Iraq down by 50%.
** Diala Province violence down by 68%."
Every good Democrat knows that each and every one of these statistics would immediately drop to 0% as soon as all US soldiers are removed from Iraq. It's really that simple.
Spoken like a true retreat & surrenderista.
BOBO:
"How soon before the Retreat & Surrender Caucus retreats from calling for retreat and surrender?"
Petraeus ought to be congratulated for gains in security, but since when has fewer fatalities been a metric for success in war? A withdrawal could lower the fatality rate to 0.
Also, in 2006, there were 822 fatalities according to the DoD. This year, there have already been 878 fatalities.
http://icasualties.org/oif/
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14196/
"Rand Beers, a counterterrorism adviser to both Bush presidents and President Clinton, says he believes Gen. Petraeus has selectively focused on trends beginning in December 2006 to enhance the perception of military progress. Beers also suspects the military of inflating pre-December 2006 violence numbers to paint its surge efforts in a more positive light. Lawrence J. Korb, a former Reagan Pentagon official, is equally skeptical: 'It's a selective use of statistics to buttress his case,' Korb says."
The "Retreat and Surrender Caucus" is an invention of BoBo's which has apparently been flogged to death since only you and BoBo seem to be aware of its existence..
Obviously you had the kind of teachers who believed that the way of education involved repeating the same phrase ad nauseam and are keen to perpetuate this style of parrotting information, most commonly used in the "real world" in equal measure by the Nazis and the Communists.
So I'm like a Nazi, eh?
Godwins Law (Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, especially fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form) rears it's ugly head.
And you falsely accuse me of hate speech. Reductio ad Hitlerum indeed.
Your reductio, not mine.
But since you quote Godwin's law why don't you follow it?
In my personal experience of NS and propeller you are the individual who is responsible for the greatest number of offensive and hate-filled remarks, apart from one or two people who are clinically crazed.
That is an opinion; if you take it as a judgment that's your problem.
One particular VOTE of yours for a comment in the Sudan thread a couple of days ago, that was so over the top, astounded me. I would like to HOPE that it was a mistake.
http://www.ncgolfers.com
http://www.mbgolfers.com
http://www.zgolfer.com
http://www.ncgolfers.com/nc-golf-packages/
http://www.ncgolfers.com/north-carolina/tee-tim...
http://www.ncgolfers.com/north-carolina/golf-ha...
http://www.ncgolfers.com/north-carolina-golf/
http://www.ncgolfers.com/nc-golf-courses/
http://www.ncgolfers.com/nc-golf-communities/
http://www.ncgolfers.com/north-carolina/golf-sp...
http://www.ncgolfers.com/north-carolina-golf-to...
http://www.ncgolfers.com/north-carolina/golf/
http://www.ncgolfers.com/north-carolina/golf-to...
http://croupiercucc.blogspot.com
http://electroelopp.blogspot.com
http://gadoadgamv.blogspot.com
http://declaratitex.blogspot.com
http://exportwheet.blogspot.com
http://dallleddukea.blogspot.com
http://empiiicalencomw.blogspot.com
http://ginggamgraf.blogspot.com
http://nentnesultoy.blogspot.com
http://decretieedo.blogspot.com
http://ru-t.com/about antimaulnetizm
http://shroveshuffley.blogspot.com
http://scarificasionsg.blogspot.com
http://bightbitet.blogspot.com
http://soutanestatem.blogspot.com
http://bomrdroome.blogspot.com
http://significativeso.blogspot.com
http://ppinepplintr.blogspot.com
http://ricketypoccibx.blogspot.com
http://prognnitrw.blogspot.com
http://stsgmatastos.blogspot.com
http://stuffingstsxc.blogspot.com
http://tomtittratx.blogspot.com
http://herdddd.blogspot.com
http://mubmermemubordg.blogspot.com
http://sliooedsmothee.blogspot.com
http://minutesrrieo.blogspot.com
http://allegroyoerl.blogspot.com
http://redbrickrivarrq.blogspot.com
http://ichthyhis.blogspot.com
http://datastationdavi.blogspot.com
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/nov2007/iraq-...">hhttp://ww...">http://ww...">http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007...
"The toll of US soldiers killed in Iraq reached 853 this week, making 2007 the deadliest year for US forces since the 2003 invasion. With nearly two months remaining in 2007, US troop deaths in Iraq are set to far exceed the 850 killed in 2004, the highest previous annual total. While attacks on US troops and sectarian killings may have fallen in recent months, the decline appears to be mainly limited to the Baghdad area, where US troop concentrations are the highest. Outside Baghdad conditions have improved little. Violence in Northern Iraq is increasing. Once the quietest region in the country, tensions are on the rise as Turkey threatens to attack Kurdish insurgents."
Actually, handing over control will be difficult because the readiness of Iraqi forces has DECREASED.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
"Despite stepped-up training, the readiness of the Iraqi military to operate independently of U.S. forces has DECREASED since President Bush's new strategy was launched in January, according to the White House progress report released yesterday."
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-03/...
"Experts told the subcommittee there is likely less progress in training capable Iraqi forces than the Bush administration and U.S. military officials have portrayed. Anthony Cordesman believes Iraqi forces, military and police, are years away from being able to take over primary security responsibilities, much less by 2008."
According to Cordesman, "Much of the official reporting on Iraqi force readiness and progress in Iraqi force development is the same tissue of lies, spin, distortion and omission I saw in Vietnam. There is no integrity in the reporting on manpower and in the number of [Iraqi] units in the lead."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007...
"Officials point to the persistent lack of readiness of the Iraqi Army and national police, as well as the fear that many members of the Iraqi forces are more loyal to their sectarian factions than to their own central government. The number of Iraqi Army and police battalions considered ready to conduct combat operations without help from the United States has declined from 15 at the beginning of the year to 12 this month, according to data that Petraeus provided to Congress last week. At the same time, Pentagon assessments show that the number of Iraqi battalions considered 'not ready' increased from 13 in November 2006 to 43 this past summer."
http://www.cfr.org/publication/14196/
"The Brookings' data shows the Iraqi death rate cited by Petraeus for 2007 remains well above levels in 2004, 2005, and early 2006. Independent reports paint a bleaker picture than the military's assessment. The GAO and NIE concluded in August 2007 the average number of daily attacks remained static—at ~170. A third report concludes the country's soldiers and police are incapable of protecting its citizens. Nongovernmental analysis of civilian attacks and casualties has been even more critical and contradicts military numbers. An AP analysis concluded "at least 1,809 civilians" were killed in August 2007, the second-highest monthly level in 2007. A Ministry of Interior official told McClatchy Newspapers that the number of Iraqis killed by violence soared in August 2007—to 2,890—nearly double the number cited by Petraeus. The actual numbers may be even higher. The Iraq Study Group report noted in 2006 violence is significantly underreported."
DAVIDHALKO:
"But it has come down since 2006 and is continuing to drop."
Actually, the number of Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths in 2007 was roughly equal to the number in 2006. Check your math.
http://icasualties.org/oif/
2006: 18655
2007: 18425
DAVIDHALKO:
"The "retreat and surrender" reporters seem to be missing the point - objectives are being met"
Is that so? Then tell me exactly which of the political benchmarks set by the administration have been met--the oil sharing legislation? national reconciliation? the debate over 3 autonomous regions or 1 united Iraq? EVERY single article I've posted has admitted that political progress has been nonexistent, and unless political progress and national reconciliation is made, the security gains will not last.
DAVIDHALKO:
"People who deny progress always like to change the benchmarks and deny progress."
Which political benchmarks were met? Go ahead. I'll wait for your post.
While there have been some gains in security, there have been no gains in politics and reconciliation. If that doesn't happen, the security will mean NOTHING as troops will continue to die in Iraq--albeit at a slightly slower rate.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-07...
"The Iraqi government has made little progress toward political reconciliation, and U.S. policy in Iraq would require a 'strategic reassessment.' Adm. Michael Mullen, Bush's choice to replace Gen. Peter Pace, said there had been improvement in security following the recent buildup of U.S. troops in Iraq, but 'there does not appear to be much political progress.'"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-08...
"The Associated Press has learned that the GAO report was on track to conclude that at least 13 of the 18 benchmarks set to judge the Iraqi government's performance in the political and security arenas haven't been met."
DAVIDHALKO:
"While the legislation has not been completed yet, it has been worked on - and this is an important gain."
Unpassed legislation is a gain? You sound so sure that it will pass, despite the fact that the Shiite and the Kurdish blocks in parliament have voiced opposition to such legislation.
DAVIDHALKO:
"This is also a matter of opinion and not hard fact. The fact that they are being worked on is a very important point which is omitted."
It's a very simple question. Have ANY benchmarks been met or not? "I'm working on it" doesn't inspire much confidence. They've been "working on it" for SEVERAL YEARS now.
DAVIDHALKO:
"Where there are hard facts, it seems benchmarks have been met."
Which ones? Go ahead. Which ones have been "met"?
DAVIDHALKO:
"you don't tell the child to "drop out" - you help to tutor the child."
War is NOT analogous to tutoring. No one dies if the child answers incorrectly.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_MUL...
"U.S. commanders and many Iraqis fear the relative quiet won't last without substantial political agreements among the country's sectarian leaders. The fear: Sunni and Shiite extremist groups responsible for the carnage are still around - bloodied but not destroyed. And many of the key power-sharing issues that fueled the conflict remain unresolved. Without agreements to resolve them, the conflict could flare up again, as it did after previous lulls. And some of the measures that have helped ease the violence could backfire, triggering new bloodshed."
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/...
"Four members of an Iranian-backed Shiite cell confessed to bombing a public market in central Baghdad...He also blamed Shiites for recent attacks on US bases, raising fears that a three-month truce by the most feared Shiite militia may be at an end."
DAVIDHALKO:
"Democrats living by fear again."
This is a laughable charge coming from the party who exploited the public's fear post-9/11 to initiate war in Iraq. This coming from the party of Rudy "9/11" Giuliani. LOL.
DAVIDHALKO:
"The "retreat and surrender" supporters do not want success - they want to drum up fear."
Chickenhawks don't want to enlist and deploy themselves. They're more comfortable sending others to die in Iraq in their place.
DAVIDHALKO:
"So, when will Iran problem be resolved?"
Iran denies involvement. While Iran's involvement is suspected, it is not known for sure.
DAVIDHALKO:
"Will the "retreat and surrender" supporters help to fix the issue?"
Will the chickenhawks? Tell us again when are you and the other chickenhawks deploying to Iraq? Make sure to ask for front line duty. While you're there, you can lead the charge into Iran. YOU can stand right in FRONT.
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2007/12/01/...
"Sunni lawmakers walk out of Iraqi parliament."
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-usiraq5sep05,...
"The GAO is skeptical that Iraq security can last."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SIT...
"John Negroponte said political progress must quickly follow the security gains from the influx of American troops in Iraq, warning Sunday that the country risks 'falling back to the more violent patterns of the past.' But progress toward political reconciliation among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds has lagged behind improvements in security, raising concern that any momentum toward peace may be lost."
Thank you for putting this spinfest in its proper perspective.
DAVIDHALKO:
"That is a good thing, instead of them taking up arms and shooting other lawmakers."
This is NOT a good thing. Parliament is supposed to be a "deliberative body." No deliberation can occur, no political benchmarks can be met, no national reconciliation can be made achieved when large blocks of lawmakers are absent.
Muqtada al Sadr ordered a ceasefire, NOT a surrender. Whenever diplomacy breaks down like this, there is ALWAYS the danger of Muqtada becoming frustrated with the political process and calling off the ceasefire.
DAVIDHALKO:
"Once again, only an opinion."
"Only" an opinion shared by the GAO, NIE, former military commanders, present military commanders, and congressmen on BOTH sides of the aisle.
DAVIDHALKO:
"Progress continues."
Really? Which political benchmarks have been met? When are you and the other chickenhawks deploying to Iraq to help these ethnic groups reconcile?
It was all meant to be dealt with by a couple of days of shock
Wow. Does this makes Iraq war not wasteful?
Death are down. Repukes re joys. Worthless war and a biggest waste of money in US history now have somewhat positive news this month.
Never mind, mostly because AlSadr tells his militia to cool for a while. It will not last.
Saddam offered to go to exile, nah instead crooked repukes decided to waste 2 trillions. Mission accomplished.
Don't worry, I'm sure the Dems will show us the dark cloud behind the silver lining.
But going down from a record high that is not progress. 2007 was already a banner year for bloodshed in Iraq.
It's just like if I were to charge double for something and then give you a 40% discount. Yes, the price is low, but it's coming down from a much inflated rate.
See?
And no sign of political progress by Iraqis. Sunnji b;oc wals out of parliment (AGAIN!!!).
How long do you want to BORROW $3 billion/month from the Chinese to pay for Iraqi pacification, moron?
I'm not sure I'd trust ANY statistics coming from a government with a proven track record of LYING to its people. Mighty convenient, this sudden "downturn" in violence just in time for elections....things that make you go, hummmmmm...
iraq is the danger place
My first proposal to heal the polarization is for those on the Left to quit making false and provocative statements such as "this illegal and illegitimate so-called war", "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything" and "Sending young men and young women, sons and daughters from America, to murder people in other nations is an act of terror."
I don't know if it is legal war...
I know it is clearly UNJUST war. There is no question about it.
It is clearly wasteful war.
It is clearly corporate welfare war.
There is no end in sight unless new president orders to wind it down.
And it's an illegal war too.
BOBO:
"My first proposal to heal the polarization is for those on the Left to quit making false and provocative statements"
My first proposal would be to have you stop referring to Democrats as the "retreat and surrender" crowd. Unless you haven't noticed, the sentiment for withdrawal runs wide and deep.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?Re...
59% favor a withdrawal timeline according to a Pew Research Poll.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?Re...
A CNN poll measured 53%--still a clear majority.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
"72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year--[of which] 29% said the U.S. should leave Iraq "immediately"...[compare that with] only 23% saying they should stay 'as long as they are needed.'"
ybdogsct
Released: February 28, 2006
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006
Buckie again seriously are you an idiot or do you think we are?
This poll is 1 year and 10 months old! Out of date!. Do you know why polls are taken on annual basis? Its because polls CHANGE on an annual basis, be it daily weekly monthly yearly or whatever
INJEST:
"This poll is 1 year and 10 months old! Out of date!. Do you know why polls are taken on annual basis? Its because polls CHANGE on an annual basis, be it daily weekly monthly yearly or whatever"
Nothing has changed. If you have evidence, then POST IT.
The reason you have no evidence is because the majority remain opposed to a long-term stay in Iraq.
NOVEMBER 8, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/08/war.poll/
"Opposition to the Iraq war is at an all-time high despite reports of a reduction of violence in the country. 68% of poll respondents opposed the war, setting a record."
JULY 2007
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,142...
"Nearly 60% of readers who participated in a recent Military.com poll said the United States should withdraw its troops from Iraq now or by the end of 2008. More than 40% of the respondents agreed the pullout should begin immediately because 'we're wasting lives and resources there.'"
DAVIDHALKO:
"A lot has changed... recently posted to propeller:"
You need a lesson in context. The comment "Nothing has changed" was made with respect to the soldiers' opposition to a long-term military presence in Iraq.
A majority of troops still oppose a long-term military presence.
An increasing number of troops are donating to Democratic presidential candidate campaigns to show their support for a change in administration.
Ron Paul, the only antiwar Republican candidate, received more donations from the military than ANY of his Republican rivals, including veteran John McCain and Rudy "9/11" Giuliani.
You have presented ZERO DOCUMENTATION that suggests the troops support Bush's plan for a long-term military presence in Iraq.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21975351/
"Bush on Monday signed a deal setting the foundation for a potential long-term U.S. troop presence in Iraq"
If you support the troops, don't ignore their desire to come home.
Polls of active military are scarce because published polls must be approved by the Pentagon
DAVIDHALKO:
"One does not run a war according to polls - this is idiocy."
One does not run a war by ignoring the advice of both present and former military commanders--THAT is idiocy.
And this is NOT a war, as there was NO congressional declaration of war. This is an occupation of a country whose ethnic groups are fighting among themselves, acting out a centuries-old conflict.
DAVIDHALKO:
"This is the honorable thing to do."
If you support Bush's foreign policy in Iraq, then the "honorable thing to do" would be to enlist and deploy yourself. Tell us all again when your deployment date to Iraq is set? Make sure you ask for front line duty.
It's so easy to send other people's children to die in a war while you hide comfortably behind your keyboard, isn't it?
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php
"Only 35% of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42% said they disapproved...only 41% of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place."
http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=300
"A sharp increase in contributions from the military to Democrats suggests the Republican party is losing the troops' support. 'People are saying now enough is enough," said Lt. Col. Joyce Griggs. 'If you're a soldier, you're going to do your job, do what you're commanded to do. But that sentiment is wide and deep.' Donations may be a way to protest, while still following orders. The drop in contributions to Republicans suggests there are people in the armed services to express their opinion."
If you truly support the troops, I don't see how you could dishonor their desire to leave Iraq.
ybdogsct
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php
"Only 35% of the military members polled this year..."
YBDO, are you an idiot or do you think we are.
Down on the war
Poll: More troops unhappy with Bush's course in Iraq
Dec. 29, 2006 according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.
This poll is not from this year Buckie, clearly the DATE stated on the poll is Dec. 29, 2006, News flash today's date is Dec. 3 2007
The next part about this poll that has been a centerpiece of the Anti-Bush crowd is that it is NOT a scientific poll. In fact,if you read the poll it states clearly
"The mail survey, conducted Nov. 13 through Dec. 22,.... The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole; the survey's respondents are on aver age older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population."
Do you understand what that means?
It's laughable that someone who presents ZERO documentation for his own would criticize my sources. Yes, the Military.Com poll was 1 year old, but you've neglected to mention a number of sources have indicated that there is NO CHANGE in the opposition to a long-term stay in Iraq. Here's a Military.com poll taken within the last few months of this year that proves this:
JULY 2007
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,142...
"Nearly 60% of readers who participated in a recent Military.com poll said the United States should withdraw its troops from Iraq now or by the end of 2008. More than 40% of the respondents agreed the pullout should begin immediately because 'we're wasting lives and resources there.'"
By the way, the CapitalEye report of troops giving increasingly to Democratic presidential candidates was written in September 2007 of this year. Nice job ignoring THAT source.
Post your own sources. Something tells me I shouldn't hold my breath.
Pathetic.
ybdogsct
LOL. This is laughable coming from someone who presents ZERO documentation of his own.
Let's see your sources.
My SOURCE for my comments on YOUR post was the SOURCE you GAVE!
If your shocked at my comments it can only mean that you did not read the SOURCES YOU provided or you do not understand what is said in the SOURCES YOU provided.
Example:
ybdogsct
http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php
this link is the one YOU provided. You claimed that this poll was from this YEAR. Below is YOUR Quote
"Only 35% of the military members polled this year..."
Do you need me to provide you with a SOURCE that proves the CURRENT year is 2007? Are you really that stupid?
Your FULL claim year and all, that this poll represents the ENTIRE Military is false. The SOURCE, that proves this claim false, is the SOURCE YOU PROVIDED! Its called the "DISCLAIMER"
"Only 35% of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42% said they disapproved...only 41% of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place."
This IS the "DISCLAIMER" from the SOURCE YOU PROVIDED!
"The mail survey, conducted Nov. 13 through Dec. 22, is the fourth annual gauge of active-duty military subscribers to the Military Times newspapers. The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole; the survey's respondents are on aver age older, more experienced, more likely to be officers and more career-oriented than the overall military population."
"The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole"
Do you understand what this means? It says this poll IS NOT a reflection of the ENTIRE Military. And that DISPROVES YOUR Claim that this poll DOES reflect the entire military.
Obviously you have never been in the Military so I will give you some inside info.
The military is to be Apolitical. You will not find a real poll that reflects the "Entire" military on anything that is POLITICAL. It is not allowed, it has been this way for over 200 years. Get a clue. If you see a poll that DOES claim to represent the Entire military you should know, as I do, its BOGUS.