Looks like we need another "surge"

[billvon 2,991]

. . . but I'm sure that this time it will work great.

---------------------------------
U.S. general wants more troops for bloody Iraq province
POSTED: 1:32 p.m. EDT, May 11, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military commander in charge of northern Iraqi operations on Friday said more troops are needed to stem rising insurgent violence in Diyala province.

"I do not have enough soldiers right now in Diyala province to get that security situation moving," said Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, commander of the 25th Infantry Division.
------------------------------

[rushmc 23]

Quote

. . . but I'm sure that this time it will work great.

---------------------------------
U.S. general wants more troops for bloody Iraq province
POSTED: 1:32 p.m. EDT, May 11, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military commander in charge of northern Iraqi operations on Friday said more troops are needed to stem rising insurgent violence in Diyala province.

"I do not have enough soldiers right now in Diyala province to get that security situation moving," said Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, commander of the 25th Infantry Division.
------------------------------

Ah yes, billvons implying posts.

Point is, it is working where they are. They move to where they are not.
Many on this site posted we did not send enough troops. Now we send them and that is wrong too

Oh well, being so invested in defeat requires one to keep up the presure. If the troops are there too long then progress may become so aparent that even the drive by media will not be able to ignore it.

Thanks for the update. It is an eye opener.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Point is, it is working where they are. They move to where they are not.
Many on this site posted we did not send enough troops. Now we send them and that is wrong too

Point is.. they should have been sent at the outset... like the generals who told him that was what was needed( and then they were forced to retire when he and his buddies disagreed).

We won the battles again but with such genius at the helm that are too fucking stupid once again to win the peace.

[billvon 2,991]

>Point is, it is working where they are.

In Baghdad? US soldier deaths have doubled there since the surge began. That's "working?" What would be "complete victory?" Every US soldier killed?

>Thanks for the update. It is an eye opener.

My friend, at this point there could be another 9/11 and you'd spin it as "our war on terror is succeeding! It's driving them out of Iraq."

[MDMA 0]

they need more troops because too many are being killed

how many American troops have now been killed? and how many do people think will have to lose their lives before "dubya" pulls out in defeat and then claims victory?

oh, one last question..... how many civilians have lost their lives since the start of this wonderful illegal war?

One deffinate last question..... If another country (lets say America shall we) starts a war against another country, a war which is illegal by the rules it agreed to abide by with the United Nations, why isn't the leader of that country (lets say America again shall we) put on trial for war crimes against all the innocent civilians it then kills due to the illegal war?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Point is, it is working where they are.

In Baghdad? US soldier deaths have doubled there since the surge began. That's "working?" What would be "complete victory?" Every US soldier killed?

>Thanks for the update. It is an eye opener.

My friend, at this point there could be another 9/11 and you'd spin it as "our war on terror is succeeding! It's driving them out of Iraq."

I aint spinning shit. I never said things are good but one dam thing is for sure, the perspective you use will never show anything good or progress of any kind. Why, cause your political side can't afford it.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

>I aint spinning shit.

Of course. You are the only honest man here; everyone ELSE is spinning.

>I never said things are good . . .

"then progress may become so aparent that even the drive by media will not be able to ignore it."

A flip-flop in less than three posts! I think that might be a new record.

> but one dam thing is for sure, the
>perspective you use will never show anything good or progress of any kind.

?? There are good things happening in Iraq. Kurdistan is doing quite well, and if we left them alone would probably become a fairly stable state in its own right. (Minus their problems with Turkey.)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I aint spinning shit.

Of course. You are the only honest man here; everyone ELSE is spinning.

>I never said things are good . . .

"then progress may become so aparent that even the drive by media will not be able to ignore it."

A flip-flop in less than three posts! I think that might be a new record.

> but one dam thing is for sure, the
>perspective you use will never show anything good or progress of any kind.

?? There are good things happening in Iraq. Kurdistan is doing quite well, and if we left them alone would probably become a fairly stable state in its own right. (Minus their problems with Turkey.)

Wow, and now you go and prove mulitple points made recently. thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,446]

Quote

You are the only honest man here; everyone ELSE is spinning

And the rest of the 8-way went up

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

. . . but I'm sure that this time it will work great.

---------------------------------
U.S. general wants more troops for bloody Iraq province
POSTED: 1:32 p.m. EDT, May 11, 2007

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military commander in charge of northern Iraqi operations on Friday said more troops are needed to stem rising insurgent violence in Diyala province.

"I do not have enough soldiers right now in Diyala province to get that security situation moving," said Army Maj. Gen. Benjamin R. Mixon, commander of the 25th Infantry Division.
------------------------------

Ah yes, billvons implying posts.

Point is, it is working where they are. They move to where they are not.
Many on this site posted we did not send enough troops. Now we send them and that is wrong too

Oh well, being so invested in defeat requires one to keep up the presure. If the troops are there too long then progress may become so aparent that even the drive by media will not be able to ignore it.

Thanks for the update. It is an eye opener.

"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."
Dick Cheney, May 2005, on Larry King Live.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Royd 0]

Quote

What would be "complete victory?" Every US soldier killed?

Only if Pelosi and Ried had the choice.

[Channman 2]

> Thanks for the update. It is an eye opener.

Why do you even bother to respond to some of these post?

Invested in defeat is a true statement when it comes to liberals and any war since Viet Nam.

We entered into a war with Japan, over less than 3,000 killed in a deliberate attack. That war cost the lives of over 90,000 American service members.

Is there any threat to our Nation Liberals would risk the lives of our great fighting men and women? A threat that would surely cost the lives of thousands and a conflict that could go beyond 4 year? A purpose that would bring them together for the common good.

I'm beginning to think not, unless of course it had something to do with the elimination of Christians, but even then they could'nt muster up the courage unless it was in a court room.

[MDMA 0]

I'll ask again

Quote

One deffinate last question..... If another country (lets say America shall we) starts a war against another country, a war which is illegal by the rules it agreed to abide by with the United Nations, why isn't the leader of that country (lets say America again shall we) put on trial for war crimes against all the innocent civilians it then kills due to the illegal war?

[shropshire 0]

Because might is right and winners write the rules. Stinks, but thems the breaks.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[MDMA 0]

Quote

Because might is right and winners write the rules. Stinks, but thems the breaks.

so, the United Nations is a joke? something to be complied with only if you want to and if you don't want to, you don't have to because you believe you're right?

[narcimund 0]

Quote

...and if you don't want to, you don't have to because you believe you're right?

No, you misread shropshire. You don't have to if you believe you're big and powerful.

"Right and Wrong" is for sheep.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[shropshire 0]

Cheers

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[MDMA 0]

Quote

Quote

...and if you don't want to, you don't have to because you believe you're right?

No, you misread shropshire. You don't have to if you believe you're big and powerful.

"Right and Wrong" is for sheep.

I get you now !!!
I presume the average American will be shitting themselves in 15 years time when China is the new worlds superpower ?

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I get you now !!!
I presume the average American will be shitting themselves in 15 years time when China is the new worlds superpower ?

You've got the idea.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[GQ_jumper 4]

Quote

I'll ask again

Quote

One deffinate last question..... If another country (lets say America shall we) starts a war against another country, a war which is illegal by the rules it agreed to abide by with the United Nations, why isn't the leader of that country (lets say America again shall we) put on trial for war crimes against all the innocent civilians it then kills due to the illegal war?

I see your point but "war crimes" against innocent civilians, any civilian death is always a tragedy, but unless someone intended to kill them(ie. Haditha) it's not a war crime. Whether the war is legal or not holding the CinC responsible because a guided missile had a software problem and hit the wrong building(just an example), is BS.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

Quote

I'll ask again

Quote

One deffinate last question..... If another country (lets say America shall we) starts a war against another country, a war which is illegal by the rules it agreed to abide by with the United Nations, why isn't the leader of that country (lets say America again shall we) put on trial for war crimes against all the innocent civilians it then kills due to the illegal war?

I see your point but "war crimes" against innocent civilians, any civilian death is always a tragedy, but unless someone intended to kill them(ie. Haditha) it's not a war crime. Whether the war is legal or not holding the CinC responsible because a guided missile had a software problem and hit the wrong building(just an example), is BS.

You really need to start looking up international law.

Yes the CinC and all others in command are responsible for everything that happens in a war they instigate, including all deaths.