Another reason for the Baghdad turn-around

[bj229r]

Originally posted by kamilyun
Where is that quote from?  I completely empathize with the author.

Ever since I started drinking coffee (maybe 10 years now...I'm somewhat young), I've had my blood pressure  raised about 10 points from standing in line behind some yupster coffee drinking poser ordering a 2000 calorie coffee drink when all I want is a freaking "small to go".  People like this would be much better served by just going to Ben & Jerry's or Dairy Queen and getting some coffee powder sprinkled in their milkshake.

Anyway, sorry for the hijack... carry on

Took me a bit to remember...was a Mark Steyn column that was posted in National Review, I think (lol the guy is Canadian, but has an interesting take on all things American)

link

[Arlo]

Originally posted by bj229r
link

*cough cough* The opinion piece didn't even try to back LS's assertion.

Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

This is not "the Democrats want to lose the war to win votes."

Back to the drawing board, hyperbole. Though I'm sure LS at least appreciates your effort when he was at a loss to provide anything, whatsoever.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by Arlo
*cough cough* The opinion piece didn't even try to back LS's assertion. Not even a quote remotely resembling it. Back to the drawing board, hyperbole.

The OPINION piece points to this article
link

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

Clyburn's comments came as House and Senate Democrats try to figure out their next steps in the legislative battle. Clyburn said he could foresee a circumstance in which House Democrats approve a measure without a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces, which has been the consistent goal of the party throughout the months-long debate. But he said he could just as easily see Democrats continue to include a timetable.

 I made a thread about some REAL, VERIFIABLE good news in Iraq, and it's back to the same tired cliches the Move-On crowd has been putting up for 4 years. Just accept a LITTLE BIT of good news for ONCE for what it is. Tomorrow you may go back to your regularly-scheduled Iraq-sucks-it's-a-quagmire-Vietnam-blood-for-oil-Rummy-screwed-the-pooch-bush-is-an-idiot-Cheney-halliburton-trying-make-money-no-wmd-Iraq-can't-exist-fake-country-US-imperialistic-neocon.....

[Dago]

Originally posted by midnight Target
So the enemy that wasn't there before we invaded is now being swept from the country by people fed up with the interlopers. I'm glad things are going well. But calling this a victory or even the start of one is like breaking a dish while cooking dinner and then declaring dinner ready when the shards are cleaned up.

Try to stay engaged in the actual conversation without making up stuff that doesn't exist in the conversation.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by bj229r
The OPINION piece points to this article
link

The article I quoted? Not understanding the "real problem" is the desire to bring the boys home, which is what brought about the mid-term election results (whether it takes a year or two or more) and not a complaint over winning votes? Go figure. Cause "tired cliche" only applies to the other guy. Try again. Please try again. Hyperbole amuses me.



p.s. Dago offers a free course in remedial reading. I'd take him up on it while he's feelin' generous.

[bj229r]

Originally posted by Arlo
The article I quoted? Not understanding the "real problem" is the desire to bring the boys home, which is what brought about the mid-term election results (whether it takes a year or two or more) and not a complaint over winning votes? Go figure. Try again. Please try again. Hyperbole amuses me.

Obviously, the Dems want us out, irregardless of the conditions, which is certainly their right, but Clyburn actually came out and stated that good news in the Petraeus report would be "a real big problem for us."-- towards reaching the afore-mentioned goal of 'redeploying' out of Iraq. Even in the context of good news foiling their 'exit' strategy, it doesn't look good to passers-by

[Arlo]

Originally posted by bj229r
Obviously, the Dems want us out, irregardless of the conditions, which is certainly their right, but Clyburn actually came out and stated that good news in the Petraeus report would be "a real big problem for us."-- towards reaching the afore-mentioned goal of 'redeploying' out of Iraq. Even in the context of good news foiling their 'exit' strategy, it doesn't look good to passers-by

"Irregardless of the conditions" .... "actually came out and stated" ....

..... not what LS claimed. Tired cliche. Remedial reading. Dago. Remember.

[lasersailor184]

It is what I claimed.  But now you're just reeling from being proven wrong again.  Do you even start to feel bad from being embarrassed time and time again?

[Arlo]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
It is what I claimed.  But now you're just reeling from being proven wrong again.  Do you even start to feel bad from being embarrassed time and time again?

Sorry, LS, you puffing out your chest and doing the knock-kneed strut over being proud of not understanding an article isn't much for me to be embarrassed about. I've just taken to accepting you as you are.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Dago
Try to stay engaged in the actual conversation without making up stuff that doesn't exist in the conversation.

I'm sorry. Did you want me to use smaller words?

[crockett]

Originally posted by LTCClark
Want Real news about Iraq, Simply read
http://estripes.osd.mil/ and click on middle east edition.

or also see http://www.debka.org  there you will find stories before they break on the news.

CNN doesnt cover what the stars and stripes covers, nor does it cover what debka.org covers.

As for me.  I have been in Talil Iraq for the past 6 months and am midway through my tour of duty there.

We are working 7 days a week, and run covoys where we still have IED's or roadside bombs, and still get sniper and mortar fire occasionally,  however in southern iraq it is alot better than northern iraq.

However also one aspect to look at is IRAN and its part in the war in iraq. Most of all of the insurgents are led by Iranian Republican Guard and have also been on our hitlist, however we do nothing about it. No ultimatums, no bombing campaign, or invasion of IRAN.

If we are to keep Iraq and Afghanistan, we are going to have to have IRAN back out, or bomb them until they do.

We are never going to leave IRAQ, or Afghanistan, and never are going to leave the middle east, the interest of oil, and other things that are keeping us there and are vital to our economy as well as the worlds economy will not allow us to leave.  As we have an interest in that region.

I've always said Iran should have been the target. We should have never invaded Iraq, it should have always been Iran. However I'd never support another war under Bush and co.

The problem is, Iraq has over stressed our military and we are no longer in a good position to attack Iran. If we needed too.

Bush and co made the biggest mistake I can even think of with Iraq. Saddam was contained and he was going no where. The Bush doctrine thought that by attacking Iraq it would make Iran behave. Any moron should have seen that wasn't gonna happen.

We should have hit Iran just like we hit Iraq in DS1 then put blockades on them for the next 10 years. Now it's really too late to actually do anything with Iran as Bush and co has totally screwed up the chance we had.

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by crockett
I've always said Iran should have been the target. We should have never invaded Iraq, it should have always been Iran. However I'd never support another war under Bush and co.

The problem is, Iraq has over stressed our military and we are no longer in a good position to attack Iran. If we needed too.

Bush and co made the biggest mistake I can even think of with Iraq. Saddam was contained and he was going no where. The Bush doctrine thought that by attacking Iraq it would make Iran behave. Any moron should have seen that wasn't gonna happen.

We should have hit Iran just like we hit Iraq in DS1 then put blockades on them for the next 10 years. Now it's really too late to actually do anything with Iran as Bush and co has totally screwed up the chance we had.

And what would've been the reasoning behind hitting Iran instead of Iraq?

It seems the Iranians stopped their nuclear weapon program in 2003 - and with no Iraq invasion, the Iranians could never then support the Iraqi insurgency

 Tronsky