And for those still interested in the actual merits of the op-ed, and not its authors, source, or politics, this is a pretty thorough examination:
[quote]JeffR wrote:
How many front page covers of abu ghraib could one paper possibly print? THIRTY TWO sound about right?[/quote]
Do you think it should have been kept quiet?
I’m curious. Do you think American troops should stay in Iraq indefinitely? If not, when should they leave? Because last I checked, Bush was talking about a couple of months. It’s been over four years.
[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
How many front page covers of abu ghraib could one paper possibly print? THIRTY TWO sound about right?
Do you think it should have been kept quiet?
In fact, we’ve had (and continue to have ) many bumps in this journey called democracy.
I’m curious. Do you think American troops should stay in Iraq indefinitely? If not, when should they leave? Because last I checked, Bush was talking about a couple of months. It’s been over four years.[/quote]
As soon as your brothers stop massacring people we can bring our troops home.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
How many front page covers of abu ghraib could one paper possibly print? THIRTY TWO sound about right?
Do you think it should have been kept quiet?
In fact, we’ve had (and continue to have ) many bumps in this journey called democracy.
I’m curious. Do you think American troops should stay in Iraq indefinitely? If not, when should they leave? Because last I checked, Bush was talking about a couple of months. It’s been over four years.
As soon as your brothers stop massacring people we can bring our troops home.[/quote]
As soon as you run out of money or soldiers you`ll go home.
No way you stay the next 300 years.
[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
How many front page covers of abu ghraib could one paper possibly print? THIRTY TWO sound about right?
Do you think it should have been kept quiet?[/quote]
No.
However, 32 front page covers is them “making up” for supporting the initial invasion.
Excessive.
[quote]In fact, we’ve had (and continue to have ) many bumps in this journey called democracy.
I’m curious. Do you think American troops should stay in Iraq indefinitely? If not, when should they leave? Because last I checked, Bush was talking about a couple of months. It’s been over four years.[/quote]
You didn’t check and he never said that.
If the duly elected government of Iraq requests and supports our presence, I agree with a long term committment of some forces.
It is a great deterrant.
If they ask us to leave, then the U.S. shall exit.
JeffR
[quote]lixy wrote:
More importantly, they’re Shi’ites not Sunnis. Their name should have tipped you off if you knew anything at all about the Shi’a.[/quote]
Dude, I know who the hell they are. Are you the only one who can allude to things outside of the general conversation like you seem to do all of the time and get away with it?
My point was: the shites dropped out of the government and are now back in. The sunnis will probably do the same thing. What’s the benefit of being excluded from the political process? They’ll be back. Just wait and see…
What’s next, more talk about Vietnam?
[quote]lixy wrote:
"What’s funny to me is when I was complaining about all the terrorist violence in Iraq in another thread, I said car bombs kill an estimated 75 people a day. And Lixy said MY estimate was way too HIGH. When it’s convenient, he now claims an even higher death toll.
You obviously used the term NOW to refer to this thread, so please, don’t try to pull that crap on me. There’s nothing wrong with making a mistake. However, refusing to acknowledge a blatant inconsitency…[/quote]
Ok, you were wrong. I admit it.
Forget about what was said in one of many, many other boring anti-american tirade threads. I say, right here and now, that during the last huge out break of insurgent violence, the terrorists were killing an estimated 75 people a day.
Would you say that is a high or low estimate?
That’s all I want to know. Because last time, in another thread, you said it was a high estimate and that the insurgents were killing less people.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
However, 32 front page covers is them “making up” for supporting the initial invasion. [/quote]
You mean they shouldn’t make up for the blunder?
What I consider to be America’s greatest asset, is the ability to acknowledge errors and evolve accordingly. But, that’s just me…
Well, his administration did.
[…]top officials, including Cheney and Rumsfeld, said the war would last “weeks, not months.”
And also
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm
I see it as a catalyst.
Why do you think they’ve been building all those shiny bases for? To leave them to the Iraqis? Somehow, I doubt that…
[quote]lixy wrote:
Why do you think they’ve been building all those shiny bases for? To leave them to the Iraqis? Somehow, I doubt that…[/quote]
I can see how that would be a bad thing to someone who equates having a base in a country with ruling the country.
[quote]lixy wrote:
JeffR wrote:
However, 32 front page covers is them “making up” for supporting the initial invasion.
You mean they shouldn’t make up for the blunder?
What I consider to be America’s greatest asset, is the ability to acknowledge errors and evolve accordingly. But, that’s just me…
You didn’t check and he never said that.
Well, his administration did.
[…]top officials, including Cheney and Rumsfeld, said the war would last “weeks, not months.”
And also
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm
It is a great deterrant.
I see it as a catalyst.
If they ask us to leave, then the U.S. shall exit.
Why do you think they’ve been building all those shiny bases for? To leave them to the Iraqis? Somehow, I doubt that…[/quote]
lixy,
Just for kicks, please say something along the lines of “You are right, Bush never said that.”
I’m challenging you.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Just for kicks, please say something along the lines of “You are right, Bush never said that.”
I’m challenging you.
[/quote]
Perhaps the day Lixy says that you’ll acknowledge that it doesn’t really matter which knucklehead said it, as it was coming from senior administration officials?
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Just for kicks, please say something along the lines of “You are right, Bush never said that.”
JeffR
[/quote]
Jeff, abandon all hope of resurrecting the Bush-abomination. He has been taken from you.
The only task remaining to you is the dismantling of the insurgency he created.
lol.
Nice.
Ah yes, I sense “imminent victory” due to the “enormous” strides we’ve taken.
“The people are fed up. There is no water, no electricity, there is nothing, but death.”
Excellent article.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/perceptions_of_iraq_war_are_st.html
JeffR
[quote]vroom wrote:
Perhaps the day Lixy says that you’ll acknowledge that it doesn’t really matter which knucklehead said it, as it was coming from senior administration officials?[/quote]
Thanks for all the help, Canada.
Uh, oh.
Oh, dems/lixy/malignant Canadians and anyone else rooting for failure in Iraq:
Now the ASSOCIATED PRESS.
Going to hard for the peanut gallery to call them Conservative.
The new york times and the A.P. within approximately a week.
I never would have guessed it.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Oh, dems/lixy/malignant Canadians and anyone else rooting for failure in Iraq:
Going to hard for the peanut gallery to call them Conservative.
JeffR[/quote]
Sounded to me like an article describing what happens when logistics clash, “insurgent” logistics and American logistics.
See, already you complete the task of dismantling the Bush insurgency.
I have to agree with Lixy about the US death toll it has no bearing on progression in Iraq. In fact, don’t quote me but I think the ratio is roughly 13to1 13 Iraqis killed to every 1 American. I don’t wanna see one more soldier killed but wether it happens or not really doesn’t portray our success. The only thing our body-count signifies is our dedication to our occupation…
A far more important “metric” than bodycounts, the fact that the country’s infrastructure is falling apart:
I wanted to call out all the defeatists.
That includes gdol, bradley, lixy, tme.
From: Breitbart News Network
I have to post some of this:
[quote]WASHINGTON (AP) - One senator said U.S. troops are routing out al-Qaida in parts of Iraq. Another insisted President Bush’s plan to increase troops has caused tactical momentum.
One even went so far on Wednesday as to say the argument could be made that U.S. troops are winning.
These are not Bush-backing GOP die-hards, but Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin, Bob Casey and Jack Reed. Even Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, said progress was being made by soldiers.
The suggestions by them and other Democrats in recent days that at least a portion of Bush’s strategy in Iraq is working is somewhat surprising, considering the bitter exchanges on Capitol Hill between the Democratic majority and Republicans and Bush. Democrats have long said Bush’s policies have been nothing more than a complete failure.
The Democrats’ choice to acknowledge the military’s progress in Iraq signals support for the troops, a message that voters want to hear. But they still heap criticism on Bush and his Iraq strategy, which promises to be a prominent issue in next year’s presidential election.
All of Washington is waiting for the September assessment from Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker about the Bush administration strategy. Bush has called the plan a “surge” because it poured thousands more troops into the country.
A key component of the January plan was that there be political progress in Iraq. Last week, the chief lawmaking body in Iraq went into recess until September without accomplishing much of what U.S. leaders had hoped they would.
Levin, while saying military progress was being made, said the troop build-up could not be considered a success because its purpose was to make way for political reconciliation, and that hasn’t happened.
“The only hope is if they take the responsibility onto themselves and we end the open-ended military commitment,” Levin, of Michigan, said Sunday on CNN’s “Late Edition.”
Reed, a Rhode Island senator who visited Iraq last month, said there’s been tactical momentum, but it “has yet to translate itself into real political momentum, which is the key, I think, to progress.”
Durbin, an Illinois senator who is traveling this week with Pennsylvania Sen. Casey, told CNN on Wednesday that “naturally” troops are routing out al-Qaida in parts of Iraq, but then explained there’s no evidence of the government in the areas.
In a conference call with reporters, Casey said one could make a good argument that U.S. troops have won the war, then accused Iraqi politicians and the Bush administration of not matching the intensity of the troops.
“The troops have met every assignment, they’ve beaten the odds time and again, they’ve done everything we’ve asked them to,” Casey said[/quote]
This makes me incredibly happy.
Let’s get the defeatists squirming.
JeffR