Surge Works, Dem's scramble to find ground to stand on

Forums: Politics, World Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

FOXNews.com - Petraeus: Drawdown to Pre-Surge Levels Could Come Next Summer - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

I think America will begin to rally behind the military, congress and the white house have terrible approval ratings, but we still love and trust our commander on the ground

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,882 • Replies: 110

No top replies

@Silverchild79,

More soldiers was bound to work, and I'm glad it did, the fewer dead people the better.

However, we have to formulate an exit strategy from that entire region. Reagan got out, so should we.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

The problem with the "Surge"™ is that it isn't about killing a bunch of Iraqis, it is about giving the Iraqi government, and people room to make their country better, which they are completely failing to do. Shall I reitterate? Iraqi will fail, because? Iraqis will fail.

1 Reply

@Silverchild79,

It will take more than a few years for Iraq to succeed, anyone who thought that we would go in blow some **** up kill Sadam, and then Iraq would be saved, should be mocked and ridiculed.

1 Reply

@Silverchild79,

With all the bold-faced lies being force fed to the American people, it's hard to believe anything they say at this point.

In any case, how are surges and drawdowns a good thing exactly? The objective should be to win and get out, not a never ending conflict that goes through up and down cycles. As Churchill said: "The only good that can come of war is a quick end".

1 Reply

@rugonnacry,

rugonnacry;36178 wrote:

It will take more than a few years for Iraq to succeed, anyone who thought that we would go in blow some **** up kill Sadam, and then Iraq would be saved, should be mocked and ridiculed.

You mean like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Horowitz, Rove, Fliescher?

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

I agree with the statement that Iraqi's will never be able to govern themselves democratically. Plus, a democratic system cannot be implemented by an oligarchy (U.S.) that would be like a vulture laying a swan egg, it's not going to happen.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;36170 wrote:

FOXNews.com - Petraeus: Drawdown to Pre-Surge Levels Could Come Next Summer - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

I think America will begin to rally behind the military, congress and the white house have terrible approval ratings, but we still love and trust our commander on the ground

Print Story: AP Poll: Most say Iraq war is failure on Yahoo! News

AP Poll: Most say Iraq war is failure

48 minutes ago

Most Americans see the Iraq war as a failure, despite a U.S. troop buildup of 30,000 troops that a majority says is not working, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Monday.

The survey was released as Gen. David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, told Congress that the surge of 30,000 troops had largely met its military goals and that he can see that by next summer, they would be gone. That would leave a force of about 130,000.

Just 36 percent in the AP poll said the troop increase has helped stabilize Iraq, only slightly more than the 32 percent who said they thought it would in February as the buildup began. Voicing that view were nearly two-thirds of Republicans, about one in seven Democrats and about a third of independents.

In addition, 59 percent said they believe history will judge the Iraq war as a failure, including 28 percent who said it would be viewed as a complete failure.

Asked if the U.S. made a mistake going to war in Iraq in 2003, 57 percent said yes, about the same number who said so in April.

Most Democrats and independents agreed with those assessments, along with about three in 10 Republicans.

The poll involved telephone interviews with 1,000 adults conducted Sept. 6 to 9. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

We just need to go ahead and do the inevitable and install another "US friendly" dictator. It's all they understand, and it will give us something to do in 12 years when we elect another republican after Hitlery destroys whats let of America.

2 Replies

@Silverchild79,

Saddam Hussein was elected democratically. Members of the Baath Party aren't allowed to run for office under the current non-representative puppet government.

1 Reply

@Crito,

Crito;36221 wrote:

Saddam Hussein was elected democratically. Members of the Baath Party aren't allowed to run for office under the current non-representative puppet government.

Actually, Saddam came to power in a bloodless coup as deputy to Ba'athist president Ahmmad Hassan al-Bakr, who he forced to resign in 1979.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

That's actually no different than removing a president by impeachment and the VP taking over. Point is the Iraqi people voted the Baathists into power and they kept voting to keep Saddam in power.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

A coup implies the government was somehow imposed on the people, generally though illegal means. So it was most definitely not a coup. Saddam was a democratically elected leader of a free and sovereign nation who was removed from power by illegal means.

Now if you want to talk about traitors refusing to pay their taxes and the Boston tea terrorism... that would be a coup.

1 Reply

@92b16vx,

92b16vx;36175 wrote:

But we can't fail. If Iraq completely collapses, we should invade the rest of the Middle East. Yeah....the answer, when all else fails, is total regional occupation. Every inch of oil-rich dirt-surface must be under US control, period. The Middle East is no longer a patchwork of independent countries. No....it's an international resource which America must own.

1 Reply

@Silverchild79,

Sounds good to me.

0 Replies

@Pinochet73,

Pinochet73;36249 wrote:

But we can't fail. If Iraq completely collapses, we should invade the rest of the Middle East. Yeah....the answer, when all else fails, is total regional occupation. Every inch of oil-rich dirt-surface must be under US control, period. The Middle East is no longer a patchwork of independent countries. No....it's an international resource which America must own.

Why? Kazakhstan, Russia, Canada, and Alaska all have vast oil reserves. Why don't we invest some capital in these areas so that we can get out of that horrible region?

1 Reply

@Crito,

Crito;36229 wrote:

A coup implies the government was somehow imposed on the people, generally though illegal means. So it was most definitely not a coup. Saddam was a democratically elected leader of a free and sovereign nation who was removed from power by illegal means.

Now if you want to talk about traitors refusing to pay their taxes and the Boston tea terrorism... that would be a coup.

"In 1963, a group of Baathist army officers tortured and assassinated General Qassim. This was done on Iraqi television. They also mutilated many of Qassim's devotees and showed their bodies (in close up) on the nightly news for more than one night. Saddam, hearing the news, quickly rushed back to Iraq to become involved in the revolution. And involved, he was, as both an interrogator and torturer at the infamous "Palace of the End", in the basement of the former palace of King Faisal.

According to reports by Hanna Batatu (a government reporter), Hussein rose quickly through the ranks, due to his extreme efficiency as a torturer. The Baathist party split in 1963 and Saddam had supported the "winner" in the latest party struggle. He was appointed by Michel Aflaq to be a member of the Baath Regional Command. In 1964, Hussein was jailed by some "rightist" military officers who opposed the Baathist takeover. Through other political influence provided by his older cousin, General Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr, Hussein became deputy Secretary-General of the Baathists in 1966. "
--http://www.emergency.com/hussein1.htm

Yup, coup.

0 Replies

@Freeman15,

Freeman15;36266 wrote:

Why? Kazakhstan, Russia, Canada, and Alaska all have vast oil reserves. Why don't we invest some capital in these areas so that we can get out of that horrible region?

Depend on Russia? Are you kidding? And no.....neither Canada nor Alaska have enough oil to keep the American Machine going for long. We need Saudi Arabia and IRAQ, the second-largest oil-producing country in the world.

1 Reply

@Crito,

Crito;36179 wrote:

With all the bold-faced lies being force fed to the American people, it's hard to believe anything they say at this point.

In any case, how are surges and drawdowns a good thing exactly? The objective should be to win and get out, not a never ending conflict that goes through up and down cycles. As Churchill said: "The only good that can come of war is a quick end".

The time has finally arrived when we must pay for our oil with more than money. Now the cost includes blood. We're lucky. It could've cost that from the beginning. If you want your American lifestyle to remain as is, vote to keep the Big Sandbox under US military control.

0 Replies

@Pinochet73,

Pinochet73;36276 wrote:

Depend on Russia? Are you kidding? And no.....neither Canada nor Alaska have enough oil to keep the American Machine going for long. We need Saudi Arabia and IRAQ, the second-largest oil-producing country in the world.

0 Replies

Surge Works, Dem's scramble to find ground to stand on

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know