A surge of getting it wrong

Discussion in 'Politics' started by visualalert, Sep 3, 2008.

  1. visualalert

    visualalert New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NC, USA
    The only real question about the planned "surge" in Iraq — which is better described as a Vietnam-style escalation — is whether its proponents are cynical or delusional. -- Paul Krugman, NYT, 1/8/07


    There is nothing ahead but even greater disaster in Iraq. -- NYT Editorial, 1/11/07


    What anyone in Congress with half a brain knows is that the surge was sabotaged before it began. -- Frank Rich, NYT, 2/11/07


    Keeping troops in Iraq has steadily increased the risk of a bloodbath. The best way to reduce that risk is, I think, to announce a timetable for withdrawal and to begin a different kind of surge: of diplomacy. -- Nicholas Kristof, NYT, 2/13/07


    W. could have applied that to Iraq, where he has always done only enough to fail, including with the Surge -- Maureen Dowd, NYT, 2/17/07


    The senator supported a war that didn't need to be fought and is a cheerleader for a surge that won't work. -- Maureen Dowd, NYT, 2/24/07


    Now the ''surge'' that was supposed to show results by summer is creeping inexorably into an open-ended escalation, even as Moktada al-Sadr's militia ominously melts away, just as Iraq's army did after the invasion in 2003, lying in wait to spring a Tet-like surprise. -- Frank Rich, NYT, 3/11/07


    Victory is no longer an option in Iraq, if it ever was. The only rational objective left is to responsibly organize America’s inevitable exit. That is exactly what Mr. Bush is not doing and what the House and Senate bills try to do. -- NYT Editorial, 3/29/07


    There is no possible triumph in Iraq and very little hope left. -- NYT Editorial, 4/12/07


    ... the empty hope of the "surge" ... -- Frank Rich, NYT, 4/22/07


    Three months into Mr. Bush’s troop escalation, there is no real security in Baghdad and no measurable progress toward reconciliation, while American public support for this folly has all but run out. -- NYT Editorial, 5/11/07


    Now the Bush administration finds itself at that same hour of shame. It knows the surge is not working. -- Maureen Down, NYT, 5/27/07


    Mr. Bush does have a choice and a clear obligation to re-evaluate strategy when everything, but his own illusions, tells him that it is failing. -- NYT Editorial, 7/25/07


    The smart money, then, knows that the surge has failed, that the war is lost, and that Iraq is going the way of Yugoslavia. -- Paul Krugman, NYT, 9/14/07


    U.S. Hands Off Pacified Anbar, Once Heart of Iraq Insurgency. -- NYT, 9/1/08
     
  2. faceking

    faceking Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,443
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    23
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    Ummmm, I think you need to retitle your thread as "New York Times Columnists Opinions on Iraq".

    Laughable, a fact can't be found amongst all this rhetoric "Three months into Mr. Bush’s troop escalation, there is no real security in Baghdad and no measurable progress toward reconciliation".

    NYT is to Fox News, as left is to right. Yawn.

    Here's some facts for you:

    Military Deaths By Year/Month
    Period US UK Other Total DayCount Avg

    9-2008 1 0 0 1 3 0.33
    8-2008 23 0 0 23 31 0.74
    7-2008 13 0 0 13 31 0.42
    6-2008 29 0 2 31 30 1.03
    5-2008 19 0 2 21 31 0.68
    4-2008 52 0 0 52 30 1.73
    3-2008 39 1 0 40 31 1.29
    2-2008 29 1 0 30 29 1.03
    1-2008 40 0 0 40 31 1.29
    12-2007 23 1 1 25 31 0.81
    11-2007 37 2 1 40 30 1.33
    10-2007 38 1 1 40 31 1.29
    9-2007 66 2 2 70 30 2.33
    8-2007 84 4 0 88 31 2.84
    7-2007 80 8 1 89 31 2.87
    6-2007 101 7 0 108 30 3.6
    5-2007 126 3 2 131 31 4.23
    4-2007 104 12 1 117 30 3.9
    3-2007 81 1 0 82 31 2.65
     
  3. visualalert

    visualalert New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NC, USA
    Gosh, a military action with casualties! Who woulda thunk it??
     
  4. faceking

    faceking Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,443
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    23
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL

    It is what it is, and will say Patreaus strategy(ies) have worked out quite well (reason I know that, is the mainstream liberal media is quiet about it and it's become a low priority on the election). McCain by the way, pushed for this pretty much before most (even Bush).

    Seemed Iraq was issue #1, #2, #3 and #4 in the presidential race circa late last year (about when the surge started to kick in).
     
  5. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,279
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    I don't think the war in Iraq has worked out too well for the servicepeople who died and their families. ONE life was TOO many to lose in this misguided war that has served to do nothing less than make the USA more safe and grow an entire generation of Islamic extremists.
     
  6. faceking

    faceking Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,443
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    23
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    Well, we are beyond this at this point. Whether you vehemently agree or disagree with it, it's a question of handling it going forward. Curious why Obama isn't making it a penultimate issue... since he is planning (I think he is... has anyone even asked him in the last X months) on pulling everyone out in 60 days, or whatever ridiculous figure he pulled out of his fanny. Ah... I recall he actually went out to Iraq and met and talked with the command... me thinks he learned something.... awfully quiet and not fired up.
     
  7. transformer_99

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,466
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    I find it ironic that the NY Times is writing a story on the potential for deaths of Americans in Iraq in a pro pullout perspective. See the point of Iraq & Afghanistan is so that periodically we don't wake up to another 9/11/2001. There's the irony of it all, NY Times = NYC. At this point it's accepted as generally true that more Americans have died in the war on terrorism abroad in Iraq & Afghanistan than on 9/11/2001, but they're classified as miltary war deaths and not innocent civilians sitting in their offices at white collar jobs in a single strike/event ?

    Any way you slice it, those that plot against the USA will attack. It happened under Clinton and anyone else in terms of terrorism. It's just a matter of where you want to engage your enemy.

    And reading your NYT link, Anbar was turned back over to the Iraq govt. and army to manage after being secured ? That sounds like "mission finally accomplished" and not a premature declaration of it. What happens down the road is up to Iraq to keep in order, but at this stage, at least the Iraq army and govt can take control of something. Weeks after crushing Hussein's version of the Iraq army, this was not the case/possible.
     
    #7 transformer_99, Sep 3, 2008
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2008
  8. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,279
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    No, we are NOT beyond "this". It still is unclear whether President bush lied to the American People to garner support for the INVASION of Iraq. If he did, there should be consequences.
     
  9. SteveHd

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,849
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Daytona
    For the most part, the mass media greatly overstated how bad things were in Iraq and they did so month after month year after year. I'm not surprised about that, unfortunately.

    Based on their past performance, what can we project about their future performance? [Rhetorical question, no reply needed.]

    NYT is pathetic and has been for a long time.
     
  10. thirteenbyseven

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,487
    Likes Received:
    109
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, SoCal
    In this run-up to the November elections the real strategy for the Republicans (of which I am a token card-carrying member) can be summed up as "It's a miracle! Everything is all-better!!" The surge has worked, gas prices are down despite hurricanes in the gulf and no supply or refinery infrastructure improvements and happy days are here again- the economy notwithstanding. Politicians on both sides want us to take our eye off the ball and think of the Presidential elections and even the war in Iraq as a deadly sporting event. Rah-rah for our side.

    Watching Joe Leiberman-(I) Tel Aviv last night gives a glimpse into what is in store for us in a McCain administration. The same bunch who planned this Iraq war want to continue sucking tax dollars and using America's underclass as expendable gerbils to sign up for the Army. Once the November elections are over, gas prices will go up and suddenly an American/Israeli puppet like Saakashvili will become an idispensable ally to "Democracy" and worth going to war over. Note: the word Demoncracy is defined as BP and Chevron along with every Russian Jewish oligarch that has escaped to Israel.

    The surge is an incidental bit of PR in a larger picture. General Petraeus, the little guy with the big nose who is a much a politician as combat genius has been rewarded by being booted up the food chain to Central Command in Tampa, Florida. Now he can go to Tampa Bay Buccaneer games and dine at the Capitol Grille instead of eating MRE's. Meanwhile, Tyrone and Manuel will be sent back to who-knows-where on their 5th and 6th Army deployment, satisfied in the knowledge that the surge worked.
     
  11. transformer_99

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,466
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Never forget !

    YouTube - ABC on the Morning of 9/11/2001

    Bush such a horrible man ? Truman would've nuked them as difficult a decision as it was for him in 1945 ? And Truman made that call/decision twice.
     
  12. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,581
    Likes Received:
    872
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    There are three levels of lie
    Lies, Damned lies, and statistics.

    The Surge isn't working because of the Surge ( even tho areas with increased troop strength are somewhat more secure )
    The Surge is "working" because the Bush administration is BRIBING the bad guys.
    Paying them CASH to not attack us.


    THis is equivalent to PAYING Bin Laden to not attack us.
    Equivalent to paying tribute.

    Equivalent to stopping the smuggling of cocaine by simply giving the cartels the same amount they could make from selling cocaine.



    The primary lesson is that the Republicans are too shit ignorant to run a military. Let's not even go into how they have depleted US forces, run down inventories, and put us in the most militarily precarious position we have been in since 1921...Let's not discuss the cutting of medical and G.I. bill support for returning troops... the substandard care and the privatizing of VA hospitals so that some moneyed fucks can PROFIT off the treatment of US soldiers...

    Let's not even discuss the hiring of mercenaries at 8 times the pay of US soldiers, and then giving the mercenaries not only money, but better armor, and total immunity from any form of justice.

    Let's just talk about the obvious incompetence....

    They were told by Shinseki, the CJS, that they would need a LOT more troops to hold iraq - told the same thing by a dozen high ranking military experts and all those qualified men were fired in favor of the idiotic notions of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld as to the nature of battle and occupation.

    THe man in charge on the ground, and EVERY SINGLE EXPERT they flew over to Iraq warned the administration that de-baathification, and Disbanding the military would result in an overwhelming insurrection. They were basically throwing 300,000 well armed men out of work, and rendering them unemployable...
    But Bremer did it anyway, because wolfy and rummey told him to......and the "experts" who warned that it would be disasterous were fired.


    The bottom line is this... we STILL have inadequate forces to pacify Iraq.
    If we stop the payolla tomorrow, the bombings and attacks will resume.

    And the Republicans are simply too driven by baseless ideology to hire and trust the people who might know what the fuck they are doing...

    They have this absolutist mindset that is inflexible and disconnected with reality.

    They think teen sex is wrong, so they only teach abstinence and offer no info on birth control. The result? higher rates of teen pregnancy across the board. ( and higher rates of teen abortion)

    They institute a no child left behind policy that offers ZERO aid to schools, but ties funding to test results in 3 subjects.
    Result? Schools are forced to shift focus to TESTING only in 3 subjects... Science, Art, American History, physical education and every other subject that makes school less of a chore is nixed... and pressure applied to students to test well...
    Drop out rates are higher than ever before...( but that's okay- kids that drop out are no longer being tested and so the school's scores go up, and their funding is increased... this forces the school to FAVOR rather than combat student's dropping out.)

    They "de-regulate" everything from electricity to banking in favor of the "invisible hand" of the market...
    Result? Graft and corruption on EPIC scales... hundreds of Billions of dollars pocketed by speculators at the expense of the citizens... 40 billion from California alone, going into the pockets of the board members of ENRON- a company that STILL managed to fail despite record margins... and that not only did Bush refuse to do anything about... he Hired Enrons' lawyer as his Attorney General... who then set about violating the law in every possible way.
    Oil speculation that has driven the price of gas to a record high world wide, and the utter collapse of the mortgage lending business....

    You would think that republicans would have learned a thing or two from their de-regulation of the Savings and Loan industry... remember that huge bailout?
    But, of course, the truth is they DID learn from it. They learned that, without government oversight, their wealthy and unscrupulous friends could gut their own businesses for every dollar... and then make the US taxpayer have to pay to shore up the company... And their entire staff can get Board positions, or lobbyist jobs, with these corporations after leaving office...

    So here we are... shoring up another lending fiasco... without realizing that it happened because the republicans are far more interested ing getting theirs than in the long term health of the nation... nor the livvlihoods of its citizenry.

    They run government like a ponsi scheme... And the republican faithful are like the second lowest tier on the chain letter.

    You want statistics... over the past 60 years, economic growth has been greater during Democratic administrations than during republican administrations.
    The "tax and spend" democrats actually show much lower deficits across the board.
    "smaller government"? Every increase in the number of government agencies and employees since 1968 has occurred under republican leadership...
    The ony sector that does better under republicans are the top 2% of the wealthy ( not even ALL the wealthy- just the top 2% )

    Talk about elitists.


    The republicans are liars and thieves.
    If you aren't in the top 2% of income, and you support the republican party...
    You're a tool, a rube, and sheep.
     
    #12 Phil Ayesho, Sep 3, 2008
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2008
  13. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,369
    Likes Received:
    2,099
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    It's obvious he and his administration lied over and over and over again. There are SO many books out there wriitten by former Bush Administration officials with Scott McCleen being the latest. It's only after they leave they tell the truth with a lucrative book deal.

    Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan writes in a surprisingly scathing memoir to be published next week that President Bush “veered terribly off course,” was not “open and forthright on Iraq,” and took a “permanent campaign approach” to governing at the expense of candor and competence.

    People believe what they want to believe and ignore those that disagree. Not very good decision making process but when idealogy trumps reality disaster will surely follow.

    Uncovered:The whole truth about the Iraq war (note around 3:30 all the lies we have already forgetten Bush told, every sentence is a lie)
     
    #13 sargon20, Sep 3, 2008
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2008
  14. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,279
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    OH MY!.......the people who invaded our country on 9/11 had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with IRAQ!ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!......it was Osama bin Laden who was based in AFGHANISTAN!.....get your history correct before you use the events of 9/11 to justify our INVASION of Iraq.
     
  15. transformer_99

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,466
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    That's not the point, but since you want history here's the quiz:

    Q- What other super power invaded Afghanistan and failed at it's objectives ?

    A- Russia, so history lesson # 1 is where others have failed, why repeat mistakes of the past ?

    Q- What super power was involved in the Korean War and Vietnam War that ultimately had to pull out and failed at it's objectives ?

    A- USA, so history lesson # 2 is where others have failed, why repeat mistakes of the past ?

    Q- What super power successfully liberated Kuwait from Iraq in the first Gulf War, which primarily was fought in the deserts of the Middle East, yet stopped short of removing Saddam Hussein the first time ?

    A- USA, so history lesson # 3 is where relative success has been achieved, logic follows that minimally a three week war in the desert that was successful had to be taken a step further.

    I totally agree with you on the fact the world isn't a safer place. But I will say it's quite a bit safer in American soil. While I don't like the collateral damage/casualties any more than the next person. These nations harbor Al Qaeda and terrorism. Fighting them in the desert where we have a clear advantage is only logical in fighting terrorism. And trust me, we went to Iraq and sure enough Al Qaeda showed up ! Maybe you'd prefer we reciprocate and pull out and let the next engagement happen Somewhere, USA ? If this were a football game, there'd be no problem with piling up the score. Well, on 9/11/2001, the losses were 16 for Al Qaeda, 3,000 for the USA. They blew us out that day. Things have changed since. And if there is this core of hatred for the USA that the war has created, there was that same core of hatred long before 9/11/2001.

    Any war doesn't ever work out for families and their dead, but it's a simple numbers calculation, look at how many Americans and Iraqi's are alive today for it. It's clear that Al Qaeda and the USA will NEVER get along. Do you actually think Al Qaeda is going to sign a cease fire or peace treaty along these lines ? So they hate us, glad they told us in no uncertain terms, it makes destroying them to extinction that much easier and less of something to stomach. For the most part this was live and let live prior to 9/11. Clinton realized a need for handling the situation.

    Put yet another way, If anyone told you they were going to kill you and your family in the name of Allah or anything else for that matter, what would you do when they showed up at your doorstep ? Welcome them in for a pot luck supper and hope that after breaking bread with you they had a change of heart ? Well, when Al Qaeda makes and takes credit for this activity, I have to step back and take them seriously. This isn't an eye for eye and it certainly doesn't call for turning the other cheek. I don't like seeing war pics, they aren't pretty, but I sure as heck don't want to step out into my own neighborhood and see it firsthand. The solution isn't a fun one, but it has to be done, because like every act of terrorism abroad and at home, it's coming and hoping they'll get tired of doing such heinous acts isn't going to happen. These factions are simply going to stockpile arms and plan, much like a child saves their allowance for the next video game or gadget and when they do finally get it, they will use that on us.

    I respect your opinion on the matter, but I refuse to take the chance/risk that Al Qaeda does it to me instead of you. Should it happen to you, I respect your choice in having whatever change of heart you have that day. Personally, I'd just assume not wait until someone brings the problem to me and that is what we expect of a President when making decisions, whether his name be Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush or Obama/McCain. It comes with the $ 400,000 paycheck.
     
  16. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,279
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    Al Qaeda and Iraq are NOT synonymous. As you yourself said, Al Qaeda showed up in Iraq AFTER us........Al Qaeda exists in 60 countries, including the USA..........do we attack them all?
     
  17. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,581
    Likes Received:
    872
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    We do not attack Al Queda at all.

    Bush and his crew LOVE Al Queda, as they love ANY boogieman who is not really any kind of serious national threat... but that they can parley into a fear response that gets timid chickenshits to vote republican.

    They LOVE illegal immigrants... because no matter what they do, or don't do about illegal immigrants... it has ZERO effect. But they can sure whip up a frenzy of American dolts who will make a lot of noise about them...


    The REAL Republicans, the ones in or seeking power, do not give a rat's ass about America, Americans, terrorism or anything else.
    They are in it for the money...

    And they are happy as Amway salesmen to recruit decent Americans into the cult with their fictions of patriotism and threats.

    The Bush administration overthrew their first terrorism conviction, and let the culprits go scott free, just so they could ruin the life of THEIR OWN prosecutor, who they didn't think was following the party line well enough.... just as an abject threat to everyone else in the justice department that you DO NOT QUESTION ADMINISTRATION POLICIES... OR ELSE.

    Just as they did with Valerie Plame... dismantling an entire arm of CIA anti-terrorism activity just to show everyone else what happens to people who dare tell the truth about administration actions.


    They would rather terrorize their own staff into supporting their spin, than track the underground trade in fissionable material...

    That is the truth of the rube-publican party.

    They are like scientologists in the way they manipulate their own people and threaten everyone else.

    The Cult of Ronald Reagan... only so disfigured by greed as to be unrecognizable to Reagan himself.
     
  18. transformer_99

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2006
    Messages:
    2,466
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Really, Are you so sure of that ? Perhaps they were already represented heavily in Iraq and reinforcements didn't just happen to cross into Iraq thru an unsecured border ? How many Al Qaeda leaders and terrorist soldiers have we destroyed in Iraq ?
     
  19. Elmer Gantry

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,503
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    546
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne (VIC, AU)
    Well said.

    You forgot to add extorting the press by refusing admission and access to the journalists that don't toe the party line.
     
  20. Industrialsize

    Staff Member Moderator Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2006
    Messages:
    24,279
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    2,113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    United States
    It's a well documented fact that Al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq until after our occupation......So we're attacking Al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why are we letting them go unfttered and not attacking the 58 OTHER countries in which Al Qaeda exists?(including the USA)
     
Draft saved Draft deleted