Is the Surge Working?

Of course it is working. That is why the stories are “The Military is Stretched to Thin” instead of “The Situation in Iraq is getting Worse.” Don’t expect to see much good news about Iraq in the mainstream press.

Of course those same people who want to complain that we “Can’t sustain this level of commitment,” want to forget that it was Bill Clinton’s administration that gutted the military to the current levels.

From: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=644

</SPAN>

Barry McCaffrey (quoted in the MSNBC link) was my CO during Desert Storm but he was a liberal democrat politician then and he still is today.

 

As ususal, it's all Clinton's fault. :laugh:

What a crock! NCT, at least tell the truth!

The problem with the military is the Commander in Chief, Bush!

 

Wait a min, are you saying that it is not the truth that Clinton cut 6 divisions from the Army? Are you saying that it is not the truth that the Army's manpower is stretched pretty thin right now?

I am not saying Bush is a great Commander in Cheif. We need to keep him and the rest of the politicians out of it and let the military do their job. The truth is that we would not have needed the surge if we would get rid of the idiotic rules of engagement and quit having a fit everytime an innocent gets killed. Innocents are going to get killed, don't forget Saddam was killing them before we got there.

Don't paint me as a big Bush supporter. If we win in Iraq it will be inspite of him not because of him. But at least he realizes there is a war going on and does not want us to loose. The Democratic leadership would destroy our nation in a second as long as they got to rule whatever was left.

 

One of the most precise descriptions of the left I have seen in a while.

 

Bush started the war with, as Rumsfield put it, the army he had. His constant blunders are the reason we are in the quagmire in Iraq that we are in, not because of the size of the army. Or, are you saying that, minus these six divisions, the U.S. is unable to defeat the Iraqi army?

So, the rules of engagement in Bush's war is Clinton's fault?

So, it's alright if we accidentally kill them instead of Saddam killing them on purpose?

As long as you post as a Bush supporter, which is what you seem to do on a regular basis, I will paint you as exactly that.

Pure male bovine manure! Nothing but opinion! After all, Bush has done such a good job in fighting this "war on terror," I don't see how you could have the guts to even post this garbage!

 

True. All one has to do is recall the 2004 election to tell that democrats believed that bad news for America was good news for them.

 

No that is not what I am saying. We can win in Iraq, with the army we have. What I was trying to do was stay on topic. Both stories linked to by BiR at the start of this thread conviently ignored the success we are having in Iraq at this time and instead focused on the shortage of active duty troops and I was attepting to address the cause of that shortage.

Not at all, they are 100% Bush's fault. He is the Commander in Chief and can set these. In his attempt to appease his political rivals he has put American Soldiers at risk and he should be held accoutable for that. The military is not a humanitarian organization. The only things they do really well is break stuff and kill people. We should let them do what they are good at or bring them home.

Them dying is bad but trying to save some is better than giving up on them all. Yes I would agree with your statement, it is preferable to kill a few accidentally while saving most then to let Saddam kill them on purpose.

 

Is the Surge Working?


Does a bear go into the woods to ... nevermind:flower:

 

Does the pope wear a funny hat ?

 

We should be having a fit every time an innocent gets killed for this is an abomination to our God. Just because Saddam was killing innocents does not give us the moral justification to do the same.

"These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief," - Proverbs 6:16-18​

 

Isn't that 'funny hat' something that would exactly
fit the EASTER BUNNY?

 

I will agree with your first point Rufus. It should obviously be upsetting for someone to be killed. The difference of course is some killed by accident and someone killed on purpose.

As far as your second point I would disagree. Protection of the innocent does give us the moral justification to intervene.

 

Did you not get the memo?

It is no longer fashionable for America to protect the innocent or promote democracy.

 

of course not. We should just leve people in bondage so victims can exist and socialism can flourish.

 

What is this? The kill the innocent to protect the innocent Janet Reno defense?

 

Janet Reno promised that someone would die because of
the Oklahoma City Bombing (by a white, home-grown
malcontent who blew up babies 'cause he could')
on 19 April 1995.
Some one died for that crime. Janet Reno delivered
what she promised.

 

The evidence is being withead by the DRIVE-BY PRESS.

 

McCain just got back, singing praises of the surge, and it was all over the news. I guess you guys don't like him, anymore.