Is the Surge Working?

Strange, Dr. Doug Rokke does not show up in the Army data base where it shows even retired people. If he was on duty after Gulf War he would show up even if he retired ten or twenty years ago.

WE make all of the DOD ordinance training CD's along with radiation safety. I personally know the people who do this and there ain't no Doc Rokke in the bunch.

I happen to have the DOD ordinance training CD's for radiation safety on my lap and his name does not appear.

Finally, his article is basically from an uninformed person. A dirty bomb must have a "spreader" charge to spread radio active material. 30 MM DU bullets do not contain explosives whatsoever, nor do they spread dangerous substances. His mention that they are illegal is funny and so is his comparison with a dirty bomb.

Like I said, there are many more smoke alarms with more radioactive material thrown away each year in America than the rounds we fired from aircraft at tanks.

His article is also so generic it is not funny. All he does is quite the Army regulations which anybody can download from the Army's website. (No restrictions there.)

I would highly advise anybody worried about DU to get the smoke alarms out of their houses because they are getting about the same exposure level. I guess the fire marshals are now trying to put dirty bombs up on everybody's wall now.:BangHead:

 

Phillip: //In reply for Ed DU is you will smack your
head when I tell you because I'll bet you know exactly what DU is.//

AH! I remember now - DU is the first two letters of DUh

Phillip: //DU is depleted uranium.//

Thank you.

 

That's a good one, Ed!

 

What? You mean is it okay that Saddam butchered Shia? Absolutely not. You were wondering aloud as to how many American arms were used in said butchery, and I helpfully pointed out that only about 1% of his weapons came from us, so it's not likely that any were used.

Regards to you as well.

 

This is very true. The only arms given to Saddam were mostly in the form of vehicles to transport troops and equipment in an attempt to keep Iran from overrunning Iraq.

When the Shah was in power, we had a stronghold between the gulf and Russia (USSR). When the Shah was overthrown, we had to befriend second country and Iraq was the best we could do, but they were in danger of being overrun with children sent across mine-fields followed by thousands upon thousands of soldiers. Iraq's population is nothing compared to the Persian empire. We befriended Saddam.

This is somewhat like a wife and husband who split up. It will be a very mean fight because they once knew each others reactions, predicted responses and other secrets about the spouse. This is similar to us and Saddam. At the time, it was the right thing to do and no one could see the future; but, after it went sour it was important that we keep a straight line from the gulf to the former USSR states open for strategic advantage. Simple strategic advantage to prevent someone stronger from invading Iraq and Kuwaits oil.

Its really pretty plain and simple; whether you want to accept it or not much of our strategy is based on economic conditions and potential actions. This just happens to be one of them.

Also, keep remembering that television news often shows the fringe elements. If 1000 Arab people are protesting the war and burning American flags on this street corner and 20,000 are eating US provided food in a tent with gratitude; which one do you think CNN will cover? Which kicks up the ratings? News is all about ratings and money from advertisers; without "shock" value they get boring just covering the regular stories. Why do you think Shock-Jocks are making so much money?

Doesn't anybody see that Don Imus is pulling the same stunt as Howard Stern. Make such a commotion that they get fired and have to move to satellite and pull a nationwide audience over and not just a local market in NY or LA.

 

From today's news on the Internet:

I'd say the surge is not working and no amount of additional American troops there will make a difference in this god-forsaken land. (For the record: Babylon (present day Iraq) is the second most mentioned city in the Bible, after Jerusalem. And it usually isn't an upbeat message whenever it is mentioned.)

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3001578

It seems the surge is working.

 

Amen, Brother 2 Timothy2:1-4 -- Preach it! :thumbs:

 

So now you're story changes. Whatever Phillip. I can see why you were reluctant to answer now. See you in the archives.

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/du_denial.htm

 

Think again, the surge is not working and never will. We need to withdraw from Iraq, and from this illegal invasion!

 

Fouad Ajami, who has made several trips to Iraq believes that the battle for Bahgdad is over, that the Sunni resistance is defeated. All they have left in their bag of tricks is to plant bombs, a very difficult thing to defend against.

He says,"A traveler who moves between Baghdad and Washington is struck by the gloomy despair in Washington and the cautious sense of optimism in Baghdad. Baghdad has not been prettified; its streets remain a sore to the eye, its government still hunkered down in the Green Zone, and violence is never far. But the sense of deliverance, and the hopes invested in this new security plan, are palpable."

Ajami goes on to say, regarding American withdrawal, "The nightmare of this government is that of a precipitous American withdrawal. Six months ago, the British quit the southern city of Amarrah, the capital of the Maysan Province. It had been, by Iraqi accounts, a precipitous British decision, and the forces of Moqtada al-Sadr had rushed into the void; they had looted the barracks and overpowered the police. Amarrah haunts the Iraqis in the circle of power--the prospect of Americans leaving this government to fend for itself."

 

OVER THE ATLANTIC OCEAN (AP) - The long U.S. effort to stabilize western Iraq, a hotbed of the Sunni Arab insurgency, has reached a turning point with new prospects for success, the top Marine general said Monday. "I think, in that area, we have turned the corner," Gen. James T. Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, said in an Associated Press interview as he flew back to Washington after four days in Iraq.
....
His assessment of Anbar province marks a sharp departure from the view that prevailed for much of the past four years, a time of deadly battles with the Sunni insurgency and of local alienation from the Shiite-dominated national government in Baghdad.
...

On his visit Conway was told by numerous American commanders throughout Anbar that the tide had shifted against the extremist group al-Qaida in Iraq when Sunni tribal sheiks who previously opposed U.S. forces decided to start cooperating instead.
... The new cooperation has enabled U.S. forces in recent months to clear extremist elements from even the most violent areas, including Ramadi, and to put more Iraqi forces on the streets, Conway was told. Cooperation by the sheiks also has quickly created a Sunni police force in areas where none existed before.
...
The response now in places like Qaim, a Euphrates River town on the Syrian border, is to strike back against the extremists, to move toward local Iraqi control of policing duties and to work with U.S. forces.

LINK

 

You were doing fine with your opinion until you misrepresented your opinion that the invasion was illegal as fact.

You should know better by now.:BangHead:

 

Not enough time has elapsed to prove that the surge is working. I hope it does work but I don't see it being able to sustain itself but for only a short time.

 

Why should I know better? My entire earlier statement was my opinion, and in my opinion the war was illegal.

You don't have to agree.

 

A war carried out in full accordance with all applicable law can not be rightly called "illegal". Calling it that is a lie not worthy to be heard by those tasked to carry it out. Our warriors can rest assurd that what they're doing is not only completely legal but also completely just.

 

Congress was lied too, the American people were lied to and our warriors were lied too. And we're all still being lied too. There is no mention of regime change in the U.S. Constitution to my knowledge unless the neocons penciled it in like General Hayden (NSA) tried to erase the words probable cause from the fourth amendment.

No war is just when it takes outright lies and endless fearmongering propaganda to get the people to go along with it. But I do agree with you about one thing Dragoon, this war is just...just for Govcorp Inc. and no one else.



Bush’s supporters demand lock-step consensus that Bush is right. They regard truthful reports that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction and was not involved in the September 11 attack on the US—truths now firmly established by the Bush administration’s own reports—as treasonous America-bashing.
As well, Bovard is interpreted as throwing cold water on the feel-good, macho, Muslim butt-kicking that Bush’s invasion of Iraq has come to symbolize for his supporters. “People like you and Michael Moore,” one irate reader wrote, “is [sic] what brings down our country.”


<snip>

Bush’s conservative supporters want no debate. They want no facts, no analysis. They want to denounce and to demonize the enemies that the Hannitys, Limbaughs, and Savages of talk radio assure them are everywhere at work destroying their great and noble country.
I remember when conservatives favored restraint in foreign policy and wished to limit government power in order to protect civil liberties.
Today’s young conservatives are Jacobins determined to use government power to impose their will at home and abroad.
Where did such “conservatives” come from? SOURCE

 

There it is again! It's the infamous Bush et al lied argument. That, of course, is a separate issue than the legality of the war. Never the less, that accusation is also a lie. Further, there is nothing illegal about this war. To claim that is truly a lie. Our warriors deserve the truth on both counts. They can be certain that this war is legal and also was not based on lies.

 

No there sure isn't nor is there any other detailed list of just causes for a war defined in our Constitution. There is a requirement for Congress to declare war and that's exactly what they did by the Joint Resolution which did detail numerous reasons for the war. All that made it very much legal according to our Constitution. None of this has anything to do with the fourth amendment.