Surge or Surrender by Hero

Keep the Shiny side up

Surge against the Sunni militias in Baghdad to free up Iraqi forces to move on Shi'a militias as part of PM Maliki's plan to shut down all illegal armed groups. If, after a while, the Iraqi government can't, or won't, shut down the Shi'a, start removing US combat forces.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 7:01 AM

SHINYED

It's like trying to kill off cockroaches...they just hide deep inside the walls...you never get 'em all.

Surge...smurge...ain't really gonna matter.

All that really matters is preventing future American & coalition deaths.

Let's put the billions we're spending in Iraq into securing our own borders and strengthen our intelligence to root out sleeper cells & terror threats here in America.

Iraq's had their chance to be free....they've blown it .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 7:17 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Surge or surrender - another false dilemma. It's not as if a surge is going to 'win' the war. The choice is surge now then withdraw later, or withdraw now. Kinda changes the perspective.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 7:59 AM

So, the joint chief are apparently all for gay marraige and stem cells? Right Hero? Because they don't seem to be in support of the "Surge" either.

How long exactly does it take you to wash the taste of Bush out of your mouth?

I'm guessing you're totally in agreement with Kevin Klein's character in "A fish called Wanda".

"We didn't loose Vietnam! It was a tie!"

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 8:18 AM

DESKTOPHIPPIE

That's funny. I could have sworn the war ended back in 2003. Didn't bush declare victory some time in May that year?

Personal opinion of someone not in the US - you've already lost. You went looking for weapons that weren't there and didn't find them. You united every faction against you, soured relations with allies and adversaries, provided more material than your enemies know what to do with and lost more people than you lost when the twin towers fell. And worst of all, now you're in a mess you can't get out, so it's likely you'll lose more people than were lost during all the 9/11 attacks combined.

All this for a country that had nothing to do with those attacks in the first place.

On the plus side you did end the regime of a genocidal maniac.

You want to push? Go ahead and push. It won’t make a difference. You can’t colonize a country that hates you. It just means the targets are within walking distance.

Graphics available at www.desktophippie.com
Blog available at http://desktophippie.blogspot.com

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 9:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
So, the joint chief are apparently all for gay marraige and stem cells? Right Hero? Because they don't seem to be in support of the "Surge" either.

You'll notice I didn't take a position on the subject. I just outlined the three sides this seems to have. The Winners (cause they wanna win and this is how they do it), the Losers (because 'go-homers' gets confusing with the new Simpsons movie coming out), and the Whiners (because complaining is all they do...for example complaining that there isn't a draft, proposing a draft, and then complaining that we might have a draft).

Now me, I'm the real tiny minority, the War-Fighter faction (cause we favor fighting the war on terror like a real war meaning we attack the enemy, kill them, and destroy their means to respond without regard to political consideration or being nice and we use one guy if it takes one guy or a million if it takes a million, but either way we fight the fracking war already). Use the surge to cover a troop deployment with another objective...like launching a strike on Iran. I was going say it, then I saw the bombing of the AQ fellas in Somalia and thought...maybe not Iran.

I kinda liked the idea that, instead of bombing Iranian nuclear plants, we drop a division on them. Hole up for awhile and the engineer folks can dismantle, destroy, or remove everything safely, and then we fly away leaving behind a liberal dosing of salt. There's no piece of ground in Iran we can't take and hold for a few days with a unit like the 101st. After that we send them to Arizona to kick ass on those Mexican folk who made our National Guard unit retreat the other week. I say if Mexico wont get them, then we do it just like the old days with Black Jack...

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 9:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
So, the joint chief are apparently all for gay marraige and stem cells? Right Hero? Because they don't seem to be in support of the "Surge" either.

You'll notice I didn't take a position on the subject.
H

Bullshit. You're wording made it perfectly clear what your opinion was.

Not that we all didn't know it in the first place.

Wipe your chin, Hero, still got some president left on you.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 9:59 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I say kick some ass. Lets mobilize a million fracking soldiers and fracking colonize Iraq.

Yeah, if nothing else the rest of the world can watch you turn it in to Vietnam 2: A failiure too far.

Quote:
Now me, I'm the real tiny minority, the War-Fighter faction (cause we favor fighting the war on terror like a real war meaning we attack the enemy, kill them, and destroy their means to respond without regard to political consideration or being nice and we use one guy if it takes one guy or a million if it takes a million, but either way we fight the fracking war already).

Just not 'doing it yourself'

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 10:18 AM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I say kick some ass. Lets mobilize a million fracking soldiers and fracking colonize Iraq.

Pick a side. I like to call the two sides the: Winners (in favor of winning the war) and the Losers (in favor of losing the war).

Hero- this is the poisonous flaw in your logic that prevents you from freeing your mind from years of subconscious conditioning, which may have unwittingly turned you into a closet neoNazi. for starters THERE IS NO WAR ON TERROR! if you mean Osama bin laden.. the FBI doesnt have evidence that links him to 9/11. if you mean Alqaeda.. no one can prove that its a physical organisation, and they most certainly had no ties to 9/11 or Saddam. if it were not for the CIAs boogeyman Alqaeda, and the governments OWN orchestration of 9.11, the public would never have supported a war on terror, or rather any pretenses to have gone into Iraq.

when you talk about "winning", you mean the American military completing its mission or agenda successfully- but you wrongly assume that a political or military success is a benefit to everyday americans; im not sure you understand the nature of government, but you need to realize that the 'agenda' is a wholly homogeonized global government, with the elite masters atop a fascist plantation of indentured servants. this provocation with the middle east was predestined, read the CFR and PNAC documents.. its there in print-google them.

i get the impression that your one of these people like Rush and Hannity and Beck, who essentially believe what the CIA and pentagon and white house neocons tell them.. because they are part of the establishment, it sounds official and so it makes the news. (the irony is when Fox does a segment on conspiracy theorists, they claim we're in it for the money). look some of us know better, anyone who has actually looked at the scientific facts of 9/11 for instance...and we know not to put faith in any idealogy or plan hatched in the bowels the the most satanic building in AMerica- the Pentagon. you take the side of the globalists and internationalists who are literally subjugating and murdering a world populace into global monetary submission and regulation and an eventual global government.. and like the patriotic germans of the 30's you goosestep right alongside skull and bones Bush and his ss officers... right into WW3 and an AMerican union. ultimately you must share the same mindset as these people, using all means neccessary to establish as Bush sr stated forthrightly, a "NEW WORLD ORDER". well youre getting it.. but its not what they promised us is it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 10:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Now me, I'm the real tiny minority, the War-Fighter faction (cause we favor fighting the war on terror like a real war meaning we attack the enemy, kill them, and destroy their means to respond without regard to political consideration or being nice and we use one guy if it takes one guy or a million if it takes a million, but either way we fight the fracking war already).
Just not 'doing it yourself'

Ha!

One of the sterling members of the 101st Fightin' Keyboardist Division!

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 10:29 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
One of the sterling members of the 101st Fightin' Keyboardist Division!

HEY ! I was gonna say that !

So I'll just have to say: Zero, girlfriend - you go girl !!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 10:57 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Pick a side. I like to call the two sides the: Winners (in favor of winning the war) and the Losers (in favor of losing the war).

Hey, " Are you with us or are you with the terrorists?" worked for a couple of weeks after
Sep 11, 2001. FIVE years later, it's gotten kinda stale.

If this is the great clash of civilizations, why doesn't the Prez advocate putting the nation on an absolute war footing, and going all out?
Why aren't we reinstating the draft?
Why are we sending only 20,000 GI's back to Iraq? or 35,000, which seems to be about the total available capacity?
Why are we gonna grow the Army by only about 7,000 the next few years?
Why aren't we raising taxes ,and cutting discretionary spending to pay for all this?
Why aren't business executives lining up to volunteer as " dollar-a-year" men to lend their expertise to the struggle?
Why isn't the Prez making EVERY speech about this, and using those words?

OH, yeah, he's thinking. He's gonna make a speech tomorrow night. Betcha a bottle of mudder's milk he doesn't really commit to that idea.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 11:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Pick a side. I like to call the two sides the: Winners (in favor of winning the war) and the Losers (in favor of losing the war).

Hey, " Are you with us or are you with the terrorists?" worked for a couple of weeks after
Sep 11, 2001. FIVE years later, it's gotten kinda stale.

If this is the great clash of civilizations, why doesn't the Prez advocate putting the nation on an absolute war footing, and going all out?
Why aren't we reinstating the draft?
Why are we sending only 20,000 GI's back to Iraq? or 35,000, which seems to be about the total available capacity?
Why are we gonna grow the Army by only about 7,000 the next few years?
Why aren't we raising taxes ,and cutting discretionary spending to pay for all this?
Why aren't business executives lining up to volunteer as " dollar-a-year" men to lend their expertise to the struggle?
Why isn't the Prez making EVERY speech about this, and using those words?

OH, yeah, he's thinking. He's gonna make a speech tomorrow night. Betcha a bottle of mudder's milk he doesn't really commit to that idea.

All he's gonna do it draw the whole damn thing out long enough that the next President has to clean it up, so he doesn't have to admit what a massive clusterfuc# the entire war has been.

The buck stops... anywhere but with Dubya.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 12:29 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You'll notice I didn't take a position on the subject

Whoa! Just how stupid do you think we are??? This may work in your jurisdiction, but it doesn't cut the mustard here! Please, maintain SOME dignity, will ya?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 12:59 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Whoa! Just how stupid do you think we are???

Must....Be....Strong. Musn't....Answer....That....Question.

NO....No....

Damn!

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 1:23 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

I say we have enough soldiers there to do the job. A 'surge' isn't so much required, imo, unless it's a surge in ammo and supplies for a large scale ( nation wide ) campaign against terrorist and those who supply them, Iran/ Syria. Stop the supply lines from crossing the border, and tcb , baby.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 9, 2007 3:14 PM

FLETCH2

Ignoring the false choice presented by the thread title, "to surge or not to surge" essentially depends on your point of view of the political process in Iraq. If you truely believe that the Iraqi military is improving rapidly(and that has been the party line for a while) then a surge is largely too late. If you think that Iraq's government is actually unable or unwilling to ensure its own security then a surge is too little too late.

As I see it we don't have any good options. Pull out and let the place slip into civil war and 1) the "Arab street" will still blame the west for any further deaths even if it's Shia or Sunni's that actually pull the trigger and b) there is the risk of a regional war with the Saudi's backing the Sunni's and the Iranians the Shia.

Stay there with no cohessive plan and it will become a meat grinder for civilians and the allied forces alike.

Back one faction over another and the loosing side will end up being ethnically cleansed to some degree. That's always assuming that the various interested neighbours dont become involved.

The current US position, the hope that a unified government can rein in the various factions has a very slim chance of succeeding. However it is probably the only chance that has some posibility of minimal bloodshed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 4:30 AM

Looks like we have our answer after last night's address.

Surge or Surrender? We're going to try both.

The President is going to surge the troops to try and win the war.

Meanwhile the Democratic Congress is scheduling votes on surrender.

Nice to know both ends are covered.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 4:38 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Surge or Surrender? We're going to try both.

Oh, and we've started with Iran too now, finally, that's good.

First their consulates, then their

country. Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 5:00 AM

SHINYED

Real bad move for America

I hope Congress cuts off all the funding

Iraq has had too much time already to embrace freedom & democracy...

And way too much time to train their police and army

I don't care if Iran DOES go to war against Iraq after we leave...so what? We don't get anthing from either of those countries anyhow

Iran may become a nuclear renegade....whether we have ground troops in Iraq or not...so why be there?

The countries most threatened by a fascist nuclear Iran are Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordon, Turkey, and all of Europe.

I don't see that being America's concern at this point...Let those countries deal with Iran...for once, not America.

!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 5:53 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Surge or Surrender, eh?

It's good news either way.

No matter if the Reps or Dems have their way, we will have the troops home within the year. That's a far cry better than the last plan, which had them out there till whenever.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 5:53 AM

HKCAVALIER

"Surrender" is a pretty loaded word. Literally, "To give one's self over" to the enemy. But ya see, leaving Iraq is the only way for us to stop giving our lives over to the enemy. We are currently surrendering an American life to this war every day we continue. We Americans call pulling out of Iraq "surrender" out of pure ego, pure testosterone fueled hubris.

The truth is, America has never known surrender. The Union prevails. We've had to quit messing with things we shouldn't have been messing with in the first place, but when we did, we just went back to business as usual. That's not surrender.

Hero equates his surrender with losing--you know, like it's a game. But again, we are losing lives (more now than were lost on the morning of 9/11) and losing trillions of dollars as long as we persist in this war to keep our arrogance intact. Now we fight to keep the shame of this horrendously costly mistake at bay.

So really, to surge is to surrender--surrender to the lie, surrender to our delusion of omnipotence--but above all, we continue to surrender American lives, day after day, for exactly nothing.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
"Surrender" is a pretty loaded word. Literally, "To give one's self over" to the enemy. But ya see, leaving Iraq is the only way for us to stop giving our lives over to the enemy. We are currently surrendering an American life to this war every day we continue. We Americans call pulling out of Iraq "surrender" out of pure ego, pure testosterone fueled hubris.

Excellent point. The people who keep talking about a withdrawl as being equal to surrender(Hero being the poster child on this board), are the same ones who get hard at the idea of war.

They're also the ones who quite conspicuously don't sign-up themselves.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
So really, to surge is to surrender--surrender to the lie, surrender to our delusion of omnipotence--but above all, we continue to surrender American lives, day after day, for exactly nothing.

By your definition we surrendered hundreds of thousands of lives to the Nazis in World War II. By your definition we were losing the war on the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima.

Yours is a narrow vision of this war and ignores war's historical context.

A withdrawl would be an admission of defeat and a surrender of both the battlefield and the initiative to the enemy. It could invite a new enemy offensive against us and our allies and would place us in the position of being unwilling or unable to stop such an offensive.

History has taught us that one battle may or may not mean defeat in war. If we give up on Iraq then its not merely one battle its an entire campaign and lost campaigns do lead to total defeat. Ask Napoleon, Hitler, and any number of tyrants. You could even ask a fair number of Americans whose history includes total defeat. The American Civil war taught us that even Americans can be totally defeated, their lands occupied, and their elected governments thrown over.

3,000 dead Americans. So many. Every American death is a great tragedy. But historically its a fraction. If the world's greatest power can be so easily defeated by so few casualties what does this really say? Perhaps America is not the strongest. Most, if not all countries could and would sustain greater losses and yet 'carry on'. Then where are we? Last place. North Korea will know that if they can potentially bomb Seattle then we wont defend Seol. China will know that if they can promise us a few thousand dead then we wont defend Taiwan. Russia will know that American commitment to NATO is as hollow as our commitment to Iraq. Iran and Syria will know that Isreal truly stands alone. Venezuela will know that we talk loud, but our big stick is broken.

War means fighting and fighting means killing. You winning if its proportionatly more of them then you (especially if the fighting is taking place someplace other then your territory). Winning yes, but one side only "wins" when the other is unable or unwilling to continue. If we are unwilling then America loses...not George Bush (he merely fails his goal, writes a book, and builds a nice library). Is that what you liberals want for America? Are you so desperate to defeat the man that you'd sacrifice the good of the nation?

This nation was attacked on 9/11. Right or wrong the war has carried us to Iraq. Whatever you think of the invasion in 2003...we are fighting in Iraq today and we need a strategy to win today, not four years ago, or nine years ago, or sixteen years ago. If victory is not their goal then the Democrats are seeking defeat because in war you can't bet the future of your country on the unsure footing of the so-called middle ground of a 'draw'. Last 'draw' we accepted looked an awful lot like a defeat, just ask the Republic of South Vietnam...if you can find it on a map.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hero, let's get practical:

"A withdrawl would be an admission of defeat and a surrender of both the battlefield and the initiative to the enemy. It could invite a new enemy offensive against us and our allies and would place us in the position of being unwilling or unable to stop such an offensive."
A new enemy offensive against "us"? Where? In the USA? If not, where else do you consider to be "our" country?

"3,000 dead Americans. So many. Every American death is a great tragedy. But historically its a fraction. If the world's greatest power can be so easily defeated by so few casualties what does this really say? Perhaps America is not the strongest. Most, if not all countries could and would sustain greater losses and yet 'carry on'. Then where are we? Last place. North Korea will know that if they can potentially bomb Seattle then we wont defend Seol. China will know that if they can promise us a few thousand dead then we wont defend Taiwan."
It shouldn't be about winning every battle. We have to evaluate the cost and the benefit. I think that if we were truly threatened, people would defend this nation with a fervor that would surprise you. But they don't consider Iraq to be "us", with good reason.

"This nation was attacked on 9/11. Right or wrong the war has carried us to Iraq. Whatever you think of the invasion in 2003...we are fighting in Iraq today and we need a strategy to win today, not four years ago, or nine years ago, or sixteen years ago."
Now you've confused me. This must reflect your own confusion. Are we fighting Iraq? Are we fighting FOR Iraq?

--------------------
For those of you who like to pick bones, here is George Bush's speech:

Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror — and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror.

When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together — and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops.

But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq — particularly in Baghdad — overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause, and they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam — the Golden Mosque of Samarra — in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me.

It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group — a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.

The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it.

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents, and there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.

Let me explain the main elements of this effort.

The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad’s nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort — along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations — conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents.

This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them — five brigades — will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: To help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents — but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods — and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people — and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace — and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws — and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.

America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units — and partner a Coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division.

We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army — and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.

Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders — and protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. As a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to step up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan — and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity — and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing — and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists — and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors — and they must step up their support for Iraq's unity government. We endorse the Iraqi government's call to finalize an International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region — to build support for Iraq and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy — by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East.

From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists — or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?

The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security. Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue — and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will.

Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them — and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.

Our new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq. Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States — and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq's borders and hunting down al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America's efforts in Baghdad or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.

In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. If members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust. Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed.

Acting on the good advice of Sen. Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my administration, and it will help strengthen our relationship with Congress. We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the armed forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas — where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.

In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary — and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. We mourn the loss of every fallen American, and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice.

Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom. Yet times of testing reveal the character of a nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.

We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you, and good night.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Now you've confused me. This must reflect your own confusion. Are we fighting Iraq? Are we fighting FOR Iraq?

Doesn't really matter to his ilk. Just as long as there is fighting.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 12:56 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

The funniest ( and saddest ) line so far is that by Ted Kennedy , 'accusing' Bush of being obssessed with victory.

Umm.....shouldn't we all be ?

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 1:16 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The funniest ( and saddest ) line so far is that by Ted Kennedy , 'accusing' Bush of being obssessed with victory. Umm.....shouldn't we all be ?

Umm... in a word... no.

let's decide what we're fighting for first, before we decide to get obsessed over it.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 1:27 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Yet times of testing reveal the character of a nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.

What abject horseshit. As usual.

I don't understand what it's all about anyway; we won't give a rat's ass about the region once the wells are completely tapped out (25-40 yrs.).

Who do we invade for solar power, or fusion energy?

GRRRRR Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 2:28 PM

ANTIMASON

things are actually working just as the white house planned; apparently you guys have never heard of "order out of chaos" or "problem+ reaction= solution".. but as long as the Iraqis are busy fighting themsleves, sumberged in chaos and insecurity.. then it is only a matter of time until their collective will to resist breaks down and they accept a permanant UN authority in the region. there is no solution, thats the beauty, neverending war and chaos brings endless oppertunity for the globalists to fragment and influence society in the direction of a single centralized government

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 3:00 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
So really, to surge is to surrender--surrender to the lie, surrender to our delusion of omnipotence--but above all, we continue to surrender American lives, day after day, for exactly nothing.

By your definition we surrendered hundreds of thousands of lives to the Nazis in World War II. By your definition we were losing the war on the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima.

I knew this was coming. 'Scuse me folks, but I feel the need to answer our Hero point for point. Like this one. You see the trick is, when your opponant criticises a specific thing (in this case, our war in Iraq) the trick is to generalize their argument as much as you can (in this case, say I'm talking about all wars) and go for the jugular. If you can imply that your opponent is soft on Nazis, so much the better.

Unfortunately for Hero, I was talking about this useless war in Iraq, not all wars in general and certainly not the Second World War.

Quote:
Yours is a narrow vision of this war and ignores war's historical context.

Now you see what Hero's doing? He moved within one sentence from my vision of this specific war to "war's historical context." It's really important to him that I not be talking only about this embarrassing failure in front of us. I must just be anti-war, you see.

Quote:
A withdrawl would be an admission of defeat and a surrender of both the battlefield and the initiative to the enemy. It could invite a new enemy offensive against us and our allies and would place us in the position of being unwilling or unable to stop such an offensive.

Here's where Hero begins to rev up the paranoia because this pointless and wasteful war in Iraq is really just a battle in the larger war against our great unified enemy. You see, the folks we're slaughtering by the tens of thousands over there are all of them allies of "our enemy." Hero wants you to forget that Iraq had no ties to Osama, that this Iraqi adventure of ours was and is a detour in his beloved GWOT.

Quote:
History has taught us that one battle may or may not mean defeat in war. If we give up on Iraq then its not merely one battle its an entire campaign and lost campaigns do lead to total defeat. Ask Napoleon, Hitler, and any number of tyrants.

A troubling rhetorical flourish here. After the grammar school level lesson in statecraft, Hero compares our humiliation in Iraq to the defeats of Napoleon and Hitler. Hrm.

Quote:
You could even ask a fair number of Americans whose history includes total defeat. The American Civil war taught us that even Americans can be totally defeated, their lands occupied, and their elected governments thrown over.

Hero really wants to run for office. Total emotional appeal and non sequitur. Again, I was speaking specifically about the Iraq debackle, not all wars in all times.

Quote:
3,000 dead Americans. So many. Every American death is a great tragedy. But historically its a fraction. If the world's greatest power can be so easily defeated by so few casualties what does this really say?

Wowzers! Bet you all didn't realize that if we pull our troups out of Iraq (I'm guessing, ever) our nation will be defeated. What Hero doesn't want you to realize is that our Iraqi escapade is a fruitless, pointless clusterfuck.

By Hero's definition, America was surely defeated in Viet Nam, but did our withdrawal of troops from that sorry peninsula usher in a new dark age here at home? Did the dominos we were so fervently promised would fall, even jiggle?

Quote:
Perhaps America is not the strongest. Most, if not all countries could and would sustain greater losses and yet 'carry on'. Then where are we? Last place.

Oh my fricken god. Look at us now, "last place" among nations if we don't "stay the course." All because our projected capitalist utopia in the Middle East didn't pan out. Amazing.

Quote:
North Korea will know that if they can potentially bomb Seattle then we wont defend Seol. China will know that if they can promise us a few thousand dead then we wont defend Taiwan. Russia will know that American commitment to NATO is as hollow as our commitment to Iraq. Iran and Syria will know that Isreal truly stands alone. Venezuela will know that we talk loud, but our big stick is broken.

Do you not see the dark future in store for us, ladies and gentlemen? I knew I was gonna get a good Hero-ing for opening my mouth, but damn, this stuff is rich. So, when we lost the war in Viet Nam, all our enemies threw a big party ('cause they're all best pals united in hating our freedom) and now we Americans pledge allegiance to Comrade Lenin. Oops!

Quote:
War means fighting and fighting means killing. You winning if its proportionatly more of them then you (especially if the fighting is taking place someplace other then your territory). Winning yes, but one side only "wins" when the other is unable or unwilling to continue. If we are unwilling then America loses...not George Bush (he merely fails his goal, writes a book, and builds a nice library). Is that what you liberals want for America? Are you so desperate to defeat the man that you'd sacrifice the good of the nation?

More fourth grade pedagogy followed by the dirty "L" word followed with the favorite Rightwing Blogger meme. I feel a summation coming on, and that can mean only one thing from a Rightwing hack like Hero...

Quote:
This nation was attacked on 9/11.

Bingo!

Quote:
Right or wrong the war has carried us to Iraq.

No, that's exactly what it didn't do. The current Administration wrongfully and I think illegally carried this nation to Iraq.

Quote:
Whatever you think of the invasion in 2003...we are fighting in Iraq today and we need a strategy to win today, not four years ago, or nine years ago, or sixteen years ago. If victory is not their goal then the Democrats are seeking defeat because in war you can't bet the future of your country on the unsure footing of the so-called middle ground of a 'draw'. Last 'draw' we accepted looked an awful lot like a defeat, just ask the Republic of South Vietnam...if you can find it on a map.

All I gotta say to Hero's need for a winning strategy is that if wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 4:04 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

I give one solitary point to Hero...

The US has proven that a few thousand lives can move them. It can move them to declare war. It can move them to withdraw from war.

During World War II, there were campaigns where we sustained thousands of losses per day. I do occasionally wonder if we have the resolve to do that nowadays.

But if we are to find the resolve to see a war through to the end, through horrible loss and strife and suffering... I want it to be a better war than the one we find ourselves in within Iraq. Very little (if anything) has been 'right' about this conflict, and I feel we've paid a high price with little result. A madman is out of office in Iraq, but he will be replaced by new madmen as soon as we leave. And we can't stay there forever.

Anyway, what I said before, I reiterate. Whether we surge or not, the troops come home within the year. That's something to celebrate. The end to this debacle is in sight.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 4:05 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

global war on terror
fight against terror - blah blah
our safety here at home - indirect way of saying 9/11

We thought that these elections - who is this WE ? I never thought so.

But in 2006, the opposite happened - who'da thunk ? heckuva job though !

Al Qaeda terrorists - fig leaf blah blah blah

Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger - yep, their day of reckoning was at hand with a majority Shiite government

Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran - I see the big gun being cranked around to aim elsewhere

vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today - what, it's NOT al Qaeda?.

Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me - TL ^2 (too little, too late)

It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. Which I then ignored.

In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. Drop the word 'magic' and you get closer to the truth.

One message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States. And my legacy, of course. Heh heh heh heh

The consequences of failure are clear, though what constitutes success is still hazy.

On September the 11th, 2001 - AHHHHhhhh ! NOW I'm satisfied. It had to be in there somewhere.

The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad
It used to be Tikrit, then Fallujah, then western Iraq, but today it's Baghdad.

There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents - oh ! the Fallujha plan ! That worked so well, too.

But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. Actually what they say is TL^2.

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Good question !

This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. Not such a good answer.

Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated. What does that mean exactly? Winning hearts and minds by leveling neighborhoods ?

The Prime Minister told his people: "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of sectarian or political affiliation." OOOhhh yeah ! baby. I'm sure your militias ... I mean troops, will do just fine.

reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible - I thought hanging Hussein was supposed to do that.

-------------------

Anyone want to pick this up where I left off?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 4:37 PM

KANEMAN

Great speech, great plan, and great whinny assed reaction from the leftist browncoats. How the reality of this conflict escapes you apes is mind-boggling. I guessed where you all stood on this just from reading the thread title, so I shouldn't be surprised.....well, I am. You freaks never cease to amaze. How are you still bringing up the issue of WMDs, or US casualties? WMD's haven't been apart of the Iraq debate in over a year. As far as US casualties, the number is so small...its moot.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 5:01 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time.

Then why don't we approach it that way, Mr. President? 20,000 + troops doesn't show a lot of dedication to this "decisive ideological struggle"

Do you even pay attention to your approval ratings anymore? How about the dissenters within your own party?

Sheesh. At least if he's going to feed us crap, he should back it up with actions.

Oh, yes, and the "I listen to my military advisors" vs. "He's like Lincoln - he fires all the bad generals" is funny, too.

It's so funny, I forgot to laugh.

I really don't want us to still be in Iraq come 2063.

::sighs, then walks away::

P.S. Thank you SignyM for the transcript. I got bored of the wooden-ness after a minute or so.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 5:19 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Unfortunately, regardless of what we think about the war up to this point, the question right now is, do we leave the Iraqis hanging out to dry again? We crapped on them once at the end of Desert Storm when we urged the Shi'a to rebel agains Saddam, and then didn't support them. If we drop them in the shit and then leave them again, we might as well just seal the borders and watch the rest of the world go to hell in a handbasket. Not my preference for a future.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 5:38 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"If we drop them in the shit we might as well just watch the rest of the world go to hell in a handbasket." I know you don't believe that. There are whole areas of the world that have not much to do with the middle east. Why, just look at Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Venezuela ... everything there is going just fine ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 5:49 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"WMD's haven't been apart of the Iraq debate in over a year."

There is a saying about people who can't remember history. Now, what was it again....?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 7:26 PM

SERGEANTX

I'm in favor of losing the war in Iraq. And we should do it as quickly as possible. If we lose now, rather than extending the losing out over the next twenty years, we'll save billions of dollars and we can begin rebuilding our tarnished reputation that much sooner.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:36 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I'm with Sarge on this one, but lemme put it in the crudest possible way so the rightwing troglodytes comprehend it.

When you realize she's got the clap, you pull out, and go find a doctor, not keep humping away.

Capisce ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:45 PM

FLETCH2

The problem is that a more apt analogy is that you banged the girl up and now she's moody and difficult to deal with you decide it's better to run off and just leave her to her fate. If you do, she has an uncertain future and will probably hate you forever. In addition at least some of your friends will think you are a callous heal for getting her into that state and then abandoning her.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:45 PM

FLETCH2

duplicate

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 4:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
The problem is that a more apt analogy is that you banged the girl up and now she's moody and difficult to deal with you decide it's better to run off and just leave her to her fate. If you do, she has an uncertain future and will probably hate you forever. In addition at least some of your friends will think you are a callous heal for getting her into that state and then abandoning her.

Wow, you should write for the President.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 4:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I'm in favor of losing the war in Iraq.

Now if I accused you of being in favor of losing then you'd be all upset. After all just disagreeing with the President does not make a person unpatriotic or a traitor. Being in favor of losing the war however does make you unpatriotic or a traitor...so thanks, Traitor. Unless your a terrorist. If thats the case I apologize because your not a traitor...your a terrorist.

Be sure to foreward your posting to all the soldiers in Iraq and I suggest you include your home address so they can personally express their gratitude for your support.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 12, 2007 4:36 AM