AQ Says We're Winning... (1 Viewer)

[oldreliable67]

CENTCOM announced that they had captured al-Qaeda correspondence in Iraq that discusses the state of the insurgency, especially around Baghdad but also around the entire country. The documents captured in an April 16th raid reveal frustration and desperation, as the terrorists acknowledge the superior position of American and free Iraqi forces and their ability to quickly adapt to new tactics.

From a captured document:

"[T]he Americans and the Government were able to absorb our painful blows, sustain them, compensate their losses with new replacements, and follow strategic plans which allowed them in the past few years to take control of Baghdad as well as other areas one after the other. That is why every year is worse than the previous year as far as the Mujahidin’s control and influence over Baghdad."

So the terrorists say we're winning in Iraq. Why is this fact so little recognized in America? Because the terrorists have been successful in one sphere only:

"The policy followed by the brothers in Baghdad is a media oriented policy without a clear comprehensive plan to capture an area or an enemy center. Other words, the significance of the strategy of their work is to show in the media that the Americans and the government do not control the situation and there is resistance against them. This policy dragged us to the type of operations that are attracted to the media, and we go to the streets from time to time for more possible noisy operations which follow the same direction."
[...]
"Al Qaida in Iraq attacks Mosques and other public places to draw media attention and is having difficulty recruiting members because the people of Iraq do not support its cause."

Source.

So, put it all together: al Qaeda in Iraq is failing. It has little military strength, and the Iraqi people "do not support its cause." It has succeeded in one arena only: the American media. Yet, despite the despair manifested by the authors of the captured documents, that one success may be all that al Qaeda needs. Because the perverse negativity of the American press is the only view that most Americans get of the conflict's progress. And, because of their shoddy coverage of the war, our reporters and editors provide the terrorists with their only gleam of hope.

 

[Goobieman]

So, put it all together: al Qaeda in Iraq is failing. It has little military strength, and the Iraqi people "do not support its cause." It has succeeded in one arena only: the American media. Yet, despite the despair manifested by the authors of the captured documents, that one success may be all that al Qaeda needs. Because the perverse negativity of the American press is the only view that most Americans get of the conflict's progress. And, because of their shoddy coverage of the war, our reporters and editors provide the terrorists with their only gleam of hope.

Because... the liberal left and their media operatives want us to lose?
Nah. That -can't- be.
Right?

 

[Iriemon]

CENTCOM announced that they had captured al-Qaeda correspondence in Iraq that discusses the state of the insurgency, especially around Baghdad but also around the entire country. The documents captured in an April 16th raid reveal frustration and desperation, as the terrorists acknowledge the superior position of American and free Iraqi forces and their ability to quickly adapt to new tactics.

From a captured document:

"[T]he Americans and the Government were able to absorb our painful blows, sustain them, compensate their losses with new replacements, and follow strategic plans which allowed them in the past few years to take control of Baghdad as well as other areas one after the other. That is why every year is worse than the previous year as far as the Mujahidin’s control and influence over Baghdad."

So the terrorists say we're winning in Iraq. Why is this fact so little recognized in America? Because the terrorists have been successful in one sphere only:

"The policy followed by the brothers in Baghdad is a media oriented policy without a clear comprehensive plan to capture an area or an enemy center. Other words, the significance of the strategy of their work is to show in the media that the Americans and the government do not control the situation and there is resistance against them. This policy dragged us to the type of operations that are attracted to the media, and we go to the streets from time to time for more possible noisy operations which follow the same direction."
[...]
"Al Qaida in Iraq attacks Mosques and other public places to draw media attention and is having difficulty recruiting members because the people of Iraq do not support its cause."

Source.

So, put it all together: al Qaeda in Iraq is failing. It has little military strength, and the Iraqi people "do not support its cause." It has succeeded in one arena only: the American media. Yet, despite the despair manifested by the authors of the captured documents, that one success may be all that al Qaeda needs. Because the perverse negativity of the American press is the only view that most Americans get of the conflict's progress. And, because of their shoddy coverage of the war, our reporters and editors provide the terrorists with their only gleam of hope.

This seems inconsistent with other posts (GySgt) claiming the resistance in Iraq is not local Sunni drive but based upon foreign fighters like Al-Queda.

If Al-Queda is weak and losing, who is doing the fighting in Iraq?

 

[Davo The Mavo]

CENTCOM announced that they had captured al-Qaeda correspondence in Iraq that discusses the state of the insurgency, especially around Baghdad but also around the entire country. The documents captured in an April 16th raid reveal frustration and desperation, as the terrorists acknowledge the superior position of American and free Iraqi forces and their ability to quickly adapt to new tactics.

From a captured document:

"The Americans and the Government were able to absorb our painful blows, sustain them, compensate their losses with new replacements, and follow strategic plans which allowed them in the past few years to take control of Baghdad as well as other areas one after the other. That is why every year is worse than the previous year as far as the Mujahidin’s control and influence over Baghdad."

So the terrorists say we're winning in Iraq. Why is this fact so little recognized in America? Because the terrorists have been successful in one sphere only:

"The policy followed by the brothers in Baghdad is a media oriented policy without a clear comprehensive plan to capture an area or an enemy center. Other words, the significance of the strategy of their work is to show in the media that the Americans and the government do not control the situation and there is resistance against them. This policy dragged us to the type of operations that are attracted to the media, and we go to the streets from time to time for more possible noisy operations which follow the same direction."

According to the Administration, we took control of Baghdad in April of 2003, it did not happen over a period of years. Terrorist attacks against Iraqi citizens had not taken place yet----they came later, along with all the foreign fighters who used our invasion as a recruiting tool. Why is it not perceived by the American populace that we are winning in Iraq? Because, despite this alleged document, bombs go off everyday with absolutely no sign that it will end. Dozens of Iraqi citizens die daily because of these terrorist attacks. They use these terror attacks in the same way the Taliban and Al Qaeda used them in Afghanistan, to create the fear needed to peddle their eventual influence in getting the attacks to stop. You give me a 30-day period with no terrorist or insurgent activity, and I will start seeing progress.

"Al Qaida in Iraq attacks Mosques and other public places to draw media attention and is having difficulty recruiting members because the people of Iraq do not support its cause."[/I]

Source.

So, put it all together: al Qaeda in Iraq is failing. It has little military strength, and the Iraqi people "do not support its cause." It has succeeded in one arena only: the American media. Yet, despite the despair manifested by the authors of the captured documents, that one success may be all that al Qaeda needs. Because the perverse negativity of the American press is the only view that most Americans get of the conflict's progress. And, because of their shoddy coverage of the war, our reporters and editors provide the terrorists with their only gleam of hope.

Yes, because it is not necessary to have the Media inform us of these attacks-----it creates a sense of Bad News. If the media is so biased, how come the last time Iraqis cast ballots, and there were a dozen bombings with approximately 25-civilians killed, then why was the coverage so positive? It was a "Historic Day" as the media claimed. Successful, even with the bombings which were mentioned as a side note. Imagine that happening in any other country during an election----it sure would not be called a success, historic maybe, successful no way.

It is about perception-----everyone is different. Many have come to distrust anything the Administration claims, secondary to a perceived "Boy Cries Wolf" operational plan. You see a Liberal Media trying to bring a President down and I see a Corporate controlled entity that gave GW and the Administration a free ride for almost 5-years secondary to patriotic, and in some cases, nationalistic rhetoric.

I almost forgot, Al Qeada and the Insurgents do not have to defeat us militarily, they just have to wait us out. And they are on their home turf.

 

[Goobieman]

Why is it not perceived by the American populace that we are winning in Iraq? Because, despite this alleged document, bombs go off everyday with absolutely no sign that it will end.

That the enemy retains the ability to fight in no way means that we arent winning. In December 1944, when we were -clearly- winning, the Germans mounted a major offensive. Had people like you been around back then, surely you would have claimed that said offensive proves that we have lost the war.

 

[Davo The Mavo]

That the enemy retains the ability to fight in no way means that we arent winning. In December 1944, when we were -clearly- winning, the Germans mounted a major offensive. Had people like you been around back then, surely you would have claimed that said offensive proves that we have lost the war.

Is that what you get out of my writing? I am a surrender monkey? Why is it, that when a realistic assessment of the conditions in Iraq are brought up, the person bringing it up is a defeatest? It is no wonder we are polarized when we cannot even be honest about the violence occuring daily in the streets of Iraq.

Do you really want to compare WWII to Iraq? Are you sure? Cuz we can do that.

December 16, 1944 - A German surprise attack begins the Battle of the Bulge.
December 24, 1944 - Allied forces push the German troops past the German border.
January 12, 1945 - American forces liberate the Philippines.

You may wonder why I bring these dates into the question, so, in case you are (wondering ), here is the reason I posted them; but first I ask you to understand that the numbers are rounded and approximates, but close enough to get my point across----at least I hope.

Our official involvement in WWII started on December 7th, 1941. We had a stripped down Military and were not logistically ready to fight the two front war we eventually won.

We are approximately 1139 days into the so-called War on Terror in Iraq.

At the approximate same number of days in WWII, the above dates reveal THE PROGRESS made despite setbacks. Approximately 884 days after the attack on Pearl Harbor we were landing in Normandy. Do you see any figurative equivalent in the battle for Peace in Iraq? 195 days after D-Day (approx), we were in Germany. Progress was measurable. It is measurable in Iraq by the lack of it showing up in the results of our "Boots on the Ground".

Again, who ya gonna believe, your lyin' eyes or the "Good News"?

 

[Goobieman]

Is that what you get out of my writing? I am a surrender monkey? Why is it, that when a realistic assessment of the conditions in Iraq are brought up, the person bringing it up is a defeatest? It is no wonder we are polarized when we cannot even be honest about the violence occuring daily in the streets of Iraq.

You're the one arguing that AQs assessment of the state of affairs - that we're winning - is wrong.
If we arent winning, then we must be losing. Right?

December 16, 1944 - A German surprise attack begins the Battle of the Bulge.
December 24, 1944 - Allied forces push the German troops past the German border.

December 24 Bastogne was relived. The Germans were not pushed back to their start lines until Jan.

But the point is, again, that because the enemy can still fight you dont mean the enemy is not losing. Look at the Japanese on Okinawa and Iwo Jima. Japan had clearly lost the war by then, and yet they kept fighting.

And so, your argument that we arent winning because the enemy can still blow up buildings in terrorist attacks against civilians really doesnt hold any water.

 

[Captain America]

So far, what have we won?

Beyond the rhetoric, how are you and I better off? The moms and dads who have lost their children to this cause are winners too I suppose?

Gosh, I thought winning would feel MUCH different than this.:roll:

There are no winners.

 

[Davo The Mavo]

You're the one arguing that AQs assessment of the state of affairs - that we're winning - is wrong.
If we arent winning, then we must be losing. Right?


December 24 Bastogne was relived. The Germans were not pushed back to their start lines until Jan.

But the point is, again, that because the enemy can still fight you dont mean the enemy is not losing. Look at the Japanese on Okinawa and Iwo Jima. Japan had clearly lost the war by then, and yet they kept fighting.

And so, your argument that we arent winning because the enemy can still blow up buildings in terrorist attacks against civilians really doesnt hold any water.

AHHHH, let's see, I am a surrender monkey, and I do not say we are "winning", therefore we must be losing? Man, The Black and White world of politics. I got an idea, let's get in a semantic argument over the point I was making regarding progress. I don't google this stuff, it comes from memory, and I guess my asking for a little room on the numbers does not count.

Again what is the figurative equivalent to D-Day in the War in Iraq? If progress cannot be measured by the number of daily bombings and attacks which cause casualties, then it has to be measured in the words that are relayed to us. Words verses the facts, I know which of these two I believe, and it seems apparent that many who support the President believe words trump facts. Terrorist attacks occurring daily and the casualties produced by these attacks are not barometers of success?

I must remind you, that success is our exit strategy, as per Rumsfeld. So, I ask this question; if these attacks and bombings continue, how are we going to know when we are successful, you know, so we can leave?

As far as the Japanese, and the Germans for that matter, how did that fighting to the Death thing work out for them? Two Atomic Bombs and the Bombing of Dresden seemed to have a big Giant role in ending that war, as was the progress displayed throughout the war driving both the Japanese and the Germans back to their Homelands. Who is not in their Home as it concerns the Iraq war? Do you think we are ever going to use the power at our behest to really commit to the needed effort to squash the terrorists? If we really took the war to the Insurgents and the Terrorists we would have to bring the entire nation to its knees, I just do not see that happening.

Can the Insurgents or Terrorists beat us Militarily? Hell NO, but they are NOT fighting that way-----so it is moot.

 

[Captain America]

They say a picture is worth a thousand words....

This is victory.......

(Sorry about the huge photo. I don't really know how that happened.)


This is not.......

Any questions?

 

[Goobieman]

AHHHH, let's see, I am a surrender monkey, and I do not say we are "winning", therefore we must be losing?

Again:
You are arguing against our opponents' assessment that we are winning.
if we are not winning, according to them, then what are we doing?

Again what is the figurative equivalent to D-Day in the War in Iraq?

What makes you think thred needs to be one?

YOU are arguing that because the enemy still blows up civilians, they are still able to fight, and because they can still fight, we are not winning

My point, from the beginning, was that because the enemy can still fight, tgat in no way means they arent losing - and I cited examples of where a clearly losing enemy was still able to fight us and hurt us.

Your argument isnt sound.

Terrorist attacks occurring daily and the casualties produced by these attacks are not barometers of success?

No more than the Japanese ability to kill 12,000 marines on Okinawa was a baranoter of their success.

As far as the Japanese, and the Germans for that matter, how did that fighting to the Death thing work out for them?

It didnt. Welcome to my point.

Two Atomic Bombs and the Bombing of Dresden seemed to have a big Giant role in ending that war, as was the progress displayed throughout the war driving both the Japanese and the Germans back to their Homelands.

The war was decided long before the nukes were dropped and Dresden bombed.

If we really took the war to the Insurgents and the Terrorists we would have to bring the entire nation to its knees, I just do not see that happening.

Why? Only a small part of Iraq is violentand only a small partof the Iraqi people support the insugency. Why would we need to devastate the Kurdish north and Shia south?

 

[Davo The Mavo]

Goobster,

I enjoy your attempt to cherry pick my post an not address anything pertinent.

My argument is not sound? Welcome to YOUR point?

OK, I'll play. The War was over with Japan before the Atomic Bombs? The war with Germany was over before Dresden? BTW, you missed the entire point, in that we used extreme force and did not care about human rights, democracy, or world opinion-----we dealt with that after we won. Again, you see that coming anytime soon?

Now, I am sure you are aware of the projected casualties that would have occurred had we invaded Mainland Japan----right? Oh yeah, and when the Germans started using BOYs to man their Army, did it appear they were going to give up? The point was you have to bring the people and your enemies to their knees. They must fear us more than they fear the other option.

My argument would appear to be sound for the approximate 2 GI's killed everyday on average, and the countless Iraqi civilians (let's not forget them Human Rights). This is just a slow bleeding, sucking chest wound with no dressing. It seems that by your logic we could still be fighting the Japanese in Okinawa, Iwo Jima, and Guadal Canal all the way into 1957, but we still would have won the war in 1945. When the killing stops it is over. You see that coming anytime soon either?

Seriously, if the killing goes on like it is and has been, when will we know we have won? And you sure do take the alleged claim that they are losing awful seriously. I hope you are right, I do hope they take their ball and go home, because it is just useless to oppose us----it sure don't look like it, but I guess stranger things have happened------not in history, but somewhere I am sure-----Like Bizzaro world.

 

[Iriemon]

Again:
You are arguing against our opponents' assessment that we are winning.
if we are not winning, according to them, then what are we doing?

We were winning in Vietnam too. And would could have stayed there another 5 years with another 50,000 dead and still be winning. It's not always about winning or losing like its some game. The question is whether what we are trying to achieve is a realistic goal and whether it is worth the cost and consequences.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

We were winning in Vietnam too. And would could have stayed there another 5 years with another 50,000 dead and still be winning. It's not always about winning or losing like its some game. The question is whether what we are trying to achieve is a realistic goal and whether it is worth the cost and consequences.

Freeing 27-million Iraqis from a brutal tyrant and ending a genocide? Ya I'd say that is certainly worth the costs.

 

[Goobieman]

Goobster,
I enjoy your attempt to cherry pick my post an not address anything pertinent.

Not sure how you get that.

Your entire premise is based on the idea that the enemy iss till able to fight; as the enemy is still able to fight, we must not winning.

As I said, there are numerous examples of an enemy being able to fight right up to the very end of a conflict, a conflict that they lost and that they were doomed to lose long before the actual end of said conflict.

Given that, your standard in judging victory isn;t sound. Period.

If you don't get that, then I cannot help you any further.

OK, I'll play. The War was over with Japan before the Atomic Bombs? The war with Germany was over before Dresden?

The outcome, by that point, had clearly been decided. The only issue yet to determine was exactly when the war would be over.

Now, I am sure you are aware of the projected casualties that would have occurred had we invaded Mainland Japan----right?

Doesn't this support my point?

 

[ProudAmerican]

who would have ever thought that Americas "supporters", you know, people that want us to win. people that support our troops.......would come in a thread and argue that we are winning, even when there is documentation from the enemy that they believe we are doing so.

you guys could have at least made the claim it was a fabrication and a lie made up by Bush.

 

[ProudAmerican]

We were winning in Vietnam too. And would could have stayed there another 5 years with another 50,000 dead and still be winning. It's not always about winning or losing like its some game. The question is whether what we are trying to achieve is a realistic goal and whether it is worth the cost and consequences.

I would say defeating the people that killed 3000 civilians is a worthy cause. you can argue they werent there before the invasion (and you would still be wrong) but you cant argue that they are there now.

I guess all that stuff about supporting Americas effore agains the people that commited 9-11 really is nonsense.

Some never supported ANY ACTION period.

I have often said that the people that claim they supported Afghanistan only did so because they thought it lent them some sort of credibility on the Iraq issue.

I dont see how you could possibly not support our involvement in Iraq now that we are CLEARLY FIGHTING AL QUEDA there.

You can argue the reasons we went in were false all you like, but the fact of the matter is, NOW WE ARE FIGHTING THE VERY SAME PEOPLE THAT KILLED 3000 OF YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS.

if you dont support that, then something is wrong with you.

 

[Davo The Mavo]

Goobster,

You don't know how I "get" the Cherry Picking reference? OK, let me see if I can elaborate so as to be more clear. When you extract one sentence of a post and ignore the context and the sentences surrounding that one sentence you extracted----you cherry pick. When you avoid particularly pertinent questions, you cherry pick.

When you answer in one liners (Essentially), other than you supporting the war in Iraq, you do not express enough of a opinion to make a real point----except jumping on my bandwagon and claim it as your own. I am being sincere and do not wish to insult you, so please, do not take this wrong. I just feel at this time, if I said the sky was blue you would say it isn't.

How many times has information come out of Iraq and later turned out to be false? At what point do we get to start looking at the Administration's past claims that have not come to fruition before we are allowed to question their prosecution of the war? Should all past mistakes be discounted? If so, can we criticize or question competence if we hear or see something that looks like a mistake from today forward? Or, do I have to wait 7-years until after GW leaves office? If allowed to have accountability standards from today forward, I promise never to bring up the fact that there was no contingency plan for either the terrorists OR the insurgents. I promise to act like no one warned the Administration that there was going to be a fight "After the War".

If you were to tell me just 6-years ago that I would be debating with someone that after more than 3-years of fighting, an enemy's continued attacks on our Military and Civilians, which show absolutely no signs of decreasing, and are conducted daily, WERE NOT indicative of either progress or the lack thereof-----I would have said you were nuts.

I know you have me confused with a Peace-Nick, Commie, Left-Wing, Nut Job, but I assure you, that is not the case. Personally I do not think Liberal is a dirty word, but I don't know just how liberal I am. Did I agree with going into Iraq? No, but as an American, and a Medically Retired 2-Service Veteran, I understand that me and the government are not always going to see eye to eye. Here's my thing; IF WE are going to commit out Troops to this kind of environment, then it should be done right----or at least have some contingency plans for in case things do not turn out like you originally planned. Being stuck on stupid goes against everything I believe.

If we were going to invade Iraq, or IF we are going to honor the Ends Justifies the Means rationale for being there, don't we owe it to the guys and gals we are suppose to be supporting to let them win in the first place? And if we do not let them win or give the the logistical support to win, should we not reconsider our being there?

Imagine this; you are standing on a berm looking north east at the horizon. As far as the eye can see there are tanks, buses, car, pickup trucks, and any other kind of motor vehicle burning or showing the effects of some kind of high explosive. Further out on the surrounding horizon oil wells burn and cough up a churning cloud of what smells like burning ****. Copper smells are in the air, blood in mass quantities smells similar to copper, and there is lots of blood, and body parts, and bodies----even some of them are burning. Imagine that some thirty miles to the west bulldozers are burying thousands of bodies in the sand-----casualties in the effort to stop our military.

This happened in 1991, and we were being told we were to rough on the Iraqis. You cannot fight a war with P.C. Police on your back. Now, many may be happy with us entrenching ourselves in fortified compounds and letting Iraq be the wild west, which happens to be costing us a couple of Troops per day, I just happen to be against it.

 

[Goobieman]

Goobster,

You don't know how I "get" the Cherry Picking reference? OK, let me see if I can elaborate so as to be more clear. When you extract one sentence of a post and ignore the context and the sentences surrounding that one sentence you extracted----you cherry pick. When you avoid particularly pertinent questions, you cherry pick.

I addressed the fundamental basis for your argument.
Addressing the fluff wastes time. No offense.

Have I mischaracterized your argument? No.
Have I provided enough counter-argument to negate your argument? Yes.

If you were to tell me just 6-years ago that I would be debating with someone that after more than 3-years of fighting, an enemy's continued attacks on our Military and Civilians, which show absolutely no signs of decreasing, and are conducted daily, WERE NOT indicative of either progress or the lack thereof-----I would have said you were nuts.

Ah.
See, this is a common problem today.
Your expectations aren't realistic - possibly through no fault of your own, mind you. There is and was no reason for anyone to believe that this war would be as 'easy' as the last war. Desert Storm poisoned the general public's perception of war and has led to very dangerous preconceptions as to how wars are fought and what happens during the fighting.

This is especally the case when the war you're fighting is not the war the public expected that you would fight, for the reasons mentioned above.

If we were going to invade Iraq, or IF we are going to honor the Ends Justifies the Means rationale for being there, don't we owe it to the guys and gals we are suppose to be supporting to let them win in the first place? And if we do not let them win or give the the logistical support to win, should we not reconsider our being there?

Not sure how this isnt being done.

This happened in 1991, and we were being told we were to rough on the Iraqis. You cannot fight a war with P.C. Police on your back.

This is correct.
This is why the liberal left should never, ever, be allowed to make decisions regarding national defense.

 

[Iriemon]

Freeing 27-million Iraqis from a brutal tyrant and ending a genocide? Ya I'd say that is certainly worth the costs.

There was never genocide in Iraq, at least in the sense of systematic elimination of a race or group. And certainly not in 2003 that justified an invasion.

But at least this is the right question to ask. Not "are we winning?" but "is it worth it"?

And, let's use your reasoning from the SS thread: if you support it then you can go over and volunteer to fight it and send money to support it. Why should I have to pay money to support an illegitimate war?

 

[Davo The Mavo]

Goob,

Respectfully, I believe you know exactly what I am talking about as it regards Cherry Picking, and if it makes debate easier for you to avoid certain issues or even acknowledge just one fa-paw committed by the Administration throughout the prosecution of the war, then you go for it.

No, Grenada, Panama, and Desert Storm effected the public visions in how we would be fighting this century. Even the Rummyhead, Wolfy, Pearly original plan called for this to be a fast moving, quick reactionary force type invasion. On April 28th, 2003 Rumsfeld clearly stated that it was almost over, and Troops would be returning home soon. Here are his paraphrased claims, feel free to Google it.

1. Troops would decrease in the region because no more troops were needed for the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones.
2. Troops would decrease in Iraq and Kuwait because the invasion was over, and we wouldn't need that many troops on the ground any longer.

And, just like the Saddam being directly connected to the 9/11 attacks confusion, if the public was confused about how long the effort in Iraq was going to take, whose fault is that? I wasn't confused, back when the President landed on the USS Lincoln I was trying to tell everyone that the War was just getting started. And I was called a everything from a sympathizer to collaborator. You would not happen to be one of those kind of folks would you? Can you honestly say you expected Iraq to be like it is back when you saw GW land on the flight deck? Be honest.

And if you think everything is being done to stop the violence, for us to win the War, and allow for our guys to even take a 3-day pass in any city over there without getting killed----then you are seeing something I am not seeing. I do not know, perhaps it was when the main reason for the invasion morphed into Human Rights, plus Freedom and Democracy. You can't very well go in and turn half of every major city into a parking lot and then claim you are there for Human Rights. You can't very well send in a true coalition of 500,000 men in order to bring security to the streets, because you pissed off half the world. Not you personally mind you, America collectively, all of us, no matter what side of this argument you are on. I say, if we are gonna be there we should be kicking major arse, if not, get them out of there.

When I post, I make a complete effort to address the person I am corresponding with point by point. I use my own words, and I do not stand in alliance with any one party or organization. I like to explain why I feel the way I do----I like to explain my stances. I understand that you think it is fluff, but it cannot be said that I do not try to make my point clear, although I appreciate the criticism.

 

[Davo The Mavo]

Dup, please delete

 

[Goobieman]

Respectfully, I believe you know exactly what I am talking about as it regards Cherry Picking, and if it makes debate easier for you to avoid certain issues or even acknowledge just one fa-paw committed by the Administration throughout the prosecution of the war, then you go for it.

It appears your definition of Cherry Picking and mine differ.

No, Grenada, Panama, and Desert Storm effected the public visions in how we would be fighting this century.

I used Desert Storm as the most recent and most prominent example. Compared to DS, both of the other examples were rather small and limited in both time and scope.

Even the Rummyhead, Wolfy, Pearly original plan called for this to be a fast moving, quick reactionary force type invasion. On April 28th, 2003 Rumsfeld clearly stated that it was almost over, and Troops would be returning home soon. Here are his paraphrased claims, feel free to Google it.

Seems to me that's exactly what it was -- and troops did come home immediately afterwards. THAT part of the war went exactly as planned.

1. Troops would decrease in the region because no more troops were needed for the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones.
2. Troops would decrease in Iraq and Kuwait because the invasion was over, and we wouldn't need that many troops on the ground any longer.

Once the war is over. Right. The war isnt over.

And, just like the Saddam being directly connected to the 9/11 attacks confusion,

There's confusion here?
I've NEVER been confused on this -- the administration never linked Saddam and 9/11.
Maybe I dont let the media or the Democrats provide focus for me.

if the public was confused about how long the effort in Iraq was going to take, whose fault is that?

Certainly not the administration. If you want to Google it, you can find numerous examples of the administration telling us it would not be a quick and easy victory.

I wasn't confused, back when the President landed on the USS Lincoln I was trying to tell everyone that the War was just getting started.

You were right -- and it should be clear by now that I thought the same thing.

Can you honestly say you expected Iraq to be like it is back when you saw GW land on the flight deck? Be honest.

I may have thought things would be more or less over by now, but not because of anything the administration said or did.

And if you think everything is being done to stop the violence, for us to win the War, and allow for our guys to even take a 3-day pass in any city over there without getting killed----then you are seeing something I am not seeing.

What, exactly, do you think neds to be done that's not being done?

I do not know, perhaps it was when the main reason for the invasion morphed into Human Rights, plus Freedom and Democracy.

That's becauyse you werent listening. Theese issues were all brought up before the war and were all partof the argument for the war. You al.lowed the media to provide focus for you, and didnt listen to what was actually said.

You can't very well go in and turn half of every major city into a parking lot and then claim you are there for Human Rights.

We havent done that - so how is this relevant?

You can't very well send in a true coalition of 500,000 men in order to bring security to the streets, because you pissed off half the world.

A "true" coalition. I love that.
Tell me how the 40+ nations that have troops or other assets there now do not constitute a "true" coalition?

Not you personally mind you, America collectively, all of us, no matter what side of this argument you are on. I say, if we are gonna be there we should be kicking major arse, if not, get them out of there.

And by what standard do you judge that we are not kicking major ***?
The AQ leadership seems to disagree with you...

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

There was never genocide in Iraq, at least in the sense of systematic elimination of a race or group.

Oh really? Haven't you ever heard of the Kurds or the Shi'ites? Again this just goes to your M.O. of being a Saddam apologist and a denier of the Iraqi holocaust though mass graves are being found throughout Iraq constantly.

And, let's use your reasoning from the SS thread: if you support it then you can go over and volunteer to fight it and send money to support it. Why should I have to pay money to support an illegitimate war?

a) I never used that reasoning that was Scarecrow,
b) If you live here and you are afforded the protection by the U.S. military by which you can obtain wealth and the great benefits of this nation then you are damn sure going to pay for their food, if you don't like it get the hell out.

 

[Iriemon]

My statement: There was never genocide in Iraq, at least in the sense of systematic elimination of a race or group. And certainly not in 2003 that justified an invasion.

Oh really? Haven't you ever heard of the Kurds or the Shi'ites?

Genocide: "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." http://www.answers.com/topic/genocide.

Hussein brutually suppressed the Bush encouraged Kurdish and Shiite insurgencies in 1991 that killed thousands. Kind of like what many cons here want us to do now. But I haven't seen evidence of a "systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."

What is the evidence he was committing genocide in 2003?

Again this just goes to your M.O. of being a Saddam apologist and a denier of the Iraqi holocaust though mass graves are being found throughout Iraq constantly

When we discussed Iraqi murders by Hussein, I agreed there were pre-war estimates that put Iraqi deaths from Hussein at quarter million.

Since you made the assertion, how many deaths have been confirmed from the mass graves being found constantly throughout Iraq.

Saddam apologist? Holocaust denier? ... wait ... I think I hear a song coming on ...

I'm a Saddam Apologist
[Sung to the tune of "Secret Agent Man"]

I'm a, Saddam Apologist!
Yes a, Saddam Apologist!
I questioned the murder numbers,
So "holocaust denier" is my name!

[007ish guitar riff]

If you question old Trajan's numbers or facts
You must be denying truth cus all white and black
And whatever statement you make
A distorted version he will take,
Odds are you'll be spun until tomorrow.

I'm a, Saddam Apologist!
Yes a, Saddam Apologist!
I questioned the murder numbers,
So "holocaust denier" is my name!

[007ish guitar riff]

Now if you think ol' Shrub is a no-brainer
He'll say you must support a terror-reigner
And if you ask for proof,
That means your Hussein's spoof
Odds are you'll be spun until tomorrow

I'm a, Saddam Apologist!
Yes a, Saddam Apologist!
I questioned the murder numbers,
So "holocaust denier" is my name!

[007ish guitar riff]

There is no statement he can't turn around
If you say it's up he'll say your anti-down
And if you dare challenge neocons
A head wrap turbin you must have on.
Odds are you'll be spun until tomorrow

I'm a, Saddam Apologist!
Yes a, Saddam Apologist!
I questioned the murder numbers,
So "holocaust denier" is my name!

[007ish guitar riff]

a) I never used that reasoning that was Scarecrow,

My apologies. I retract the statement.

b) If you live here and you are afforded the protection by the U.S. military by which you can obtain wealth and the great benefits of this nation then you are damn sure going to pay for their food, if you don't like it get the hell out.

That is always an option, but for the time I'll just stay and hope America gets back on the right course.