The Surge

[Boogahz]

So much for the September deadline. And no Boogahz, the surge didn't just start, it started months and months ago.

Aha, I guess I was right. You were unaware that the requested "surge troops" did not all arrive until weeks ago. It's not like you're going through a fast food drive through where you place an order for troops and have them magically appear when you reach the second window.

Huh? The "troop surge" started about 6 months ago. Do a Google search. Here's one of a million articles that reference it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266663,00.html

Suspected Sunni insurgents penetrated the Baghdad security net Wednesday, hitting Shiite targets with four bomb attacks that killed 183 people — the bloodiest day since the U.S. troop surge began nine weeks ago.

That article was from April 18, 2007. Do just a tiny bit of research before posting. What you are arguing against is basic knowledge. If you do not know the basics, how on earth can you discuss the more complex issues and expect anyone to take your seriously?

Where did I say it STARTED weeks ago? Do you really think all of the troops just appeared there at the same time with all necessary support waiting?

While you want to play google wars, check out:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/BUL522174.htm

BAGHDAD, June 15 (Reuters) - All U.S. troop reinforcements heading to Iraq to help restore security have now arrived, but it could take several more months before their weight is fully felt, the U.S. military said on Friday.

June 15th was just under two months ago...7-8 weeks. This was not in January or February. The same article also quotes expectations for the troops to not actually be effective in the area for 30-60 days after arrival as they are getting prepared for the job they will perform there.

That means troops might not be operating at full capacity until August. The top U.S. military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker are due to report on the success of the security build-up in September.

[Fairweather Pure]

You should work for the government, Wordsworth.

All the doublespeak and obfuscation is amazing. If people with your mindset are in charge, we can stay in Iraq for another year or so before the "troop surge" officially begins. The US will be in a constant state of "getting ready" for the real troopsurge. What about the simple fact that the requested troops have been sitting over there for months and months already, which they have, and ain't shit changed.

Where are the results? When do you expect to see results?

I'm sure it will happen within the next six months though. I hear that time is critical to success in Iraq.

In the meantime, I'm not giving this administration another inch. They fucked up more than words can describe. One of the biggest fuck ups in modern history, and definately in the history of America. They killed a goddamn shit ton of people, blew and lost billions of dollars, and I'm ready to see an end to this fiasco. I never once bought their song and dance, and I'll be damned if I'm going to do it now that everything I believed turned out to be true from the very start. I'm angry and dissappointed, and it's not at Iraq.

[Boogahz]

You do realize that this is not a video game, right? That things do not happen simply by clicking on a location?

It's not all spouting government lines. What about news like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opini ... ef&ei=5070

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

The authors are not exactly the people I would expect to buy into the normal Bush administration song and dance either.

[Fairweather Pure]

You do realize that this is not a video game, right? That things do not happen simply by clicking on a location?

It's not all spouting government lines. What about news like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opini ... ef&ei=5070

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.

The authors are not exactly the people I would expect to buy into the normal Bush administration song and dance either.

Really, this isn't a video game? I can only hope that you use your keen and powerful sense of observation for good, Professor.

Look. You posted an article that says we're making progess. Awesome stuff.

Except I do not believe it one bit. I have no faith or trust in this government when it comes to any and everything about Iraq. If you believe what everyone else tells you, you'd think the "mission was accomplished" when GW set down on that aircraft carrier at the beginning of this war.

There were newspapers and talking heads saying Vietnam was going swimmingly well right up until we pulled up stakes and got the fuck out of Dodge. People believed them too.

Lay it all out in front of you. It's all gone wrong, from start to it's inevitable forgone conclusion. Nothing is going to make it better or right, no matter how much you want it to, or other people believe it to be. We lost this war the momment we initiated it, compromising everything that this country suppossedly stands for. There will never be a happy ending to the war in Iraq. Get out now.

[Boogahz]

So, you admit that you have become so jaded that you would not believe anything positive regardless of the source. At least I am willing to admit that my own friends and family which have been/are in Iraq gave me negative news, it would really exist. I am not looking at successes and thinking that everything is going perfectly over there either. It is funny watching people start foaming at the mouth against something that they believe in so much that they cannot see any hope. Why do those people bother with living?

[Sueven]

The number of truck bombs and other large al-Qaeda-style attacks in Iraq have declined nearly 50% since the United States started increasing troop levels in Iraq about six months ago, according to the U.S. military command in Iraq.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq ... de13_N.htm

[Fairweather Pure]

So, you admit that you have become so jaded that you would not believe anything positive regardless of the source. At least I am willing to admit that my own friends and family which have been/are in Iraq gave me negative news, it would really exist. I am not looking at successes and thinking that everything is going perfectly over there either. It is funny watching people start foaming at the mouth against something that they believe in so much that they cannot see any hope. Why do those people bother with living?

Well, you go right on ahead and keep trying to change the facts with your hugs and happy thoughts. You're goddamn right that I'm extremely jaded. Why the fuck aren't you? Does George Bush need to rape your sister and shit in your mouth before you actually get upset? What else can they do wrong that would make you think "Gee, this whole thing isn't going to work"? How many more people need to die or money needs to be shoveled into the fire? Where is your point of no return, and why in the fuck don't you believe we reached it long ago?

You keep hinting that I should live in reality. I think you should heed your own advice.

[Fash]

I think you're a dumb ass anti-war cock sucker.

Heed my advice, kill yourself.

[Fairweather Pure]

The number of truck bombs and other large al-Qaeda-style attacks in Iraq have declined nearly 50% since the United States started increasing troop levels in Iraq about six months ago, according to the U.S. military command in Iraq.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq ... de13_N.htm

There's that "6 months ago" figure again. I think they forgot to get Boogahz's newsflash that they're not living in a video game and that the troop surge hasn't started yet.

Furthermore, the number of bombings may have decreased overall, but the attacks themselves have been deadlier than ever. The guerillas are getting better and better at their jobs. That's what they do. The explosives they're using are getting more complicated and packing more punch. We've created some of the best and most experianced guerillas in the world.

[Fairweather Pure]

I think you're a dumb ass anti-war cock sucker.

Heed my advice, kill yourself.

If you don't have anything to add to this discussion, take a seat and let the adults talk about grown up things.

[Boogahz]

The number of truck bombs and other large al-Qaeda-style attacks in Iraq have declined nearly 50% since the United States started increasing troop levels in Iraq about six months ago, according to the U.S. military command in Iraq.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq ... de13_N.htm

There's that "6 months ago" figure again. I think they forgot to get Boogahz's newsflash that they're not living in a video game and that the troop surge hasn't started yet.

Furthermore, the number of bombings may have decreased overall, but the attacks themselves have been deadlier than ever. The guerillas are getting better and better at their jobs. That's what they do. The explosives they're using are getting more complicated and packing more punch. We've created some of the best and most experianced guerillas in the world.

I added a little bold type to the part you might have missed in the quoted text

[Nick]

I think Miir summed up the idiocy of Hammerstalker's post so there's little point in me repeating those points. Let's just let that embarassment of a post fade into the ether so we can all concentrate on the topic without laughing too much.

Boogahz, I know you think you're making a really awesome point, but you aren't, everyone knows its not a fucking video game. The reality is, the surge strategy started months ago, it hasn't worked. It's in no way relevant that your government is so inept that it takes them the guts of a year to do anything and its not helping you prove your point by highlighting this either. The time has long since come and gone for "just another 6 months and everything will be fine". If you honestly believe everything is fine and dandy in Iraq then no amount of anyone proving otherwise is going to help. It's failed, get over it.

I think you're a dumb ass anti-war cock sucker.

Heed my advice, kill yourself.

And you're a fucking idiot.

[Fash]

I think you're a dumb ass anti-war cock sucker.

Heed my advice, kill yourself.

If you don't have anything to add to this discussion, take a seat and let the adults talk about grown up things.

You've already stated pretty clearly that you'll ignore any information that goes against your entirely negative viewpoint.

That leaves me only with vitriol for your retardation. Oh and go fuck yourself too.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I think you're a dumb ass anti-war cock sucker.

Heed my advice, kill yourself.

If you don't have anything to add to this discussion, take a seat and let the adults talk about grown up things.

When you exhibit the maturity level and intellect of an adult, you might.....might, be just in making such a bold statement. You are so filled with hate and bile, you are incapable of having an adult conversation. An adult conversation has give and take and compromise. Your inability to see past your nose shows in your damning words of the "war against terror". You have no idea what the long term affects of this war will be. You are a cynical little twit. Have a nice day. See ya in Rappelz, pumpkin tits.

[Nick]

Thank God Midnyte has come down from on high to point out how everyone should think without actually contributing a single thing to yet another thread.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Thank God Midnyte has come down from on high to point out how everyone should think without actually contributing a single thing to yet another thread.

Give me a break. You're limey ass is just happy you're getting backing this week. Your douche bag fantactical coherts must have been on vacation last week.

[Nick]

You are a troll. You haven't actually said anything of value in CE since you came back. I sent you the message asking you to post again, all you've done is troll. It's fucking lame and you know it. Get over yourself sunshine.

Limeys = English (You can't even get your fucking xenophobia right).

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

You are a troll. You haven't actually said anything of value in CE since you came back. I sent you the message asking you to post again, all you've done is troll. It's fucking lame and you know it. Get over yourself sunshine.

Limeys = English (You can't even get your fucking xenophobia right).

In your opinion, I have posted nothing of value. You don't agree with anything I have to say, so why would you think anything I contribute has any value. You are a miserable young man. The fact you devalue everything you do not like, is sad. I think every one on the board contributes. A discussion is great only when you hear all the different points of view. It's interesting. I'm sorry you only like to hear one side on an issue or that you only like other sides when delivered in a concise manner you find acceptable.

Oh, and to post something on topic, what do you want me to say? The government has spun every which way but loose on this issue and every other issue. It is what governments do. I don't know what this latest version of surge will do. I sure hope in the long term, it does some good. I hope the lives lost will equal something good down the road. I don't expect instant results and I think anyone expecting instant results is a short-sighted fool.

[Fairweather Pure]

The number of truck bombs and other large al-Qaeda-style attacks in Iraq have declined nearly 50% since the United States started increasing troop levels in Iraq about six months ago, according to the U.S. military command in Iraq.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq ... de13_N.htm

There's that "6 months ago" figure again. I think they forgot to get Boogahz's newsflash that they're not living in a video game and that the troop surge hasn't started yet.

Furthermore, the number of bombings may have decreased overall, but the attacks themselves have been deadlier than ever. The guerillas are getting better and better at their jobs. That's what they do. The explosives they're using are getting more complicated and packing more punch. We've created some of the best and most experianced guerillas in the world.

I added a little bold type to the part you might have missed in the quoted text

I bolded, underlined, italicized, and made red the part in my post where I make reference to the fact you believe I somehow missed.

EDIT TO SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU: You're whole point is that the surge only started weeks ago. See how I made a littel joke about that (HINT: It's bolded, underlined, italicized, and made red). You still cling to that, even though you are completely incorrect. That is the point of this entire thread. The surge, which has been in place for months and months, not weeks, is not changing the situation in Iraq. The war is still a lost cause no matter how many young Americans you throw into the mess. Withdrawl is a forgone conclussion. It's only a matter of time.

[Fairweather Pure]

I think you're a dumb ass anti-war cock sucker.

Heed my advice, kill yourself.

If you don't have anything to add to this discussion, take a seat and let the adults talk about grown up things.

You've already stated pretty clearly that you'll ignore any information that goes against your entirely negative viewpoint.

That leaves me only with vitriol for your retardation. Oh and go fuck yourself too.

Great, you believe I'm retarded. Fantastic.

If that's all you have to keep saying, over and over, then I believe you're one of the reasons people do not post on this particular forum. You contribute nothing except vapid insults.

[Fairweather Pure]

I think you're a dumb ass anti-war cock sucker.

Heed my advice, kill yourself.

If you don't have anything to add to this discussion, take a seat and let the adults talk about grown up things.

When you exhibit the maturity level and intellect of an adult, you might.....might, be just in making such a bold statement. You are so filled with hate and bile, you are incapable of having an adult conversation. An adult conversation has give and take and compromise. Your inability to see past your nose shows in your damning words of the "war against terror". You have no idea what the long term affects of this war will be. You are a cynical little twit. Have a nice day. See ya in Rappelz, pumpkin tits.

Midnight, you talking to anyone about maturity level and intellect is just about the most hypocritical thing possible on this planet.

There is a reason I hate this administration. For the life of me, I can't figure out why you and others still love it so much you continue to not only excuse it's failures, but encourage it to make more.

[Fash]

OH NOES FASH RUINED THE CE FORUM!!11

oh please, it's a total fucking rarity for me to shit on a thread instead of explaining my thoughts on it. Go ahead and keep saying it though...

Armchair politicians, we all are. Now lets sit back and watch what happens. None of us has the qualifications or clearance to say what is factually happening in the grand scheme of things.

[Funkmasterr]

You are a troll. You haven't actually said anything of value in CE since you came back. I sent you the message asking you to post again, all you've done is troll. It's fucking lame and you know it. Get over yourself sunshine.

Limeys = English (You can't even get your fucking xenophobia right).

Nick, you really are far too high and mighty, and truly the one that needs to get over yourself.

You are completely unable to even humor the idea that anything you say might be wrong. You post things in CE supposedly looking for other opinions, then when someone replies (no matter who it is) you just tell them how stupid they are instead of continuing the conversation - THEN (this is the best part) when someone calls you out on it, you come up with some other bullshit excuse/response (generally blaming someone else.)

Maybe you should take your own advice and allow yourself to debate things with people instead of immediately resorting to insults and derailing YOUR OWN FUCKING THREAD - but I don't think you can, you will just respond to this with some comment about how I'm an idiot or how far off base I obviously am.

[Nick]

In your opinion, I have posted nothing of value.

Funk, you haven't actually said anything apart from that I can't take on board what you say. Until you bother to remain on topic yourself don't expect anyone to take what you say about their input seriously.

[Sueven]

The surge, which has been in place for months and months, not weeks, is not changing the situation in Iraq. The war is still a lost cause no matter how many young Americans you throw into the mess. Withdrawl is a forgone conclussion. It's only a matter of time.

I posted links to a variety of sources which claim that the surge is changing the situation in Iraq. Some of these sources have a conservative bias and others do not. There are a variety of other sources which I could post (or which could be easily located with a little googling) which say similar things. The statements that the surge is working come from soldiers, officers, generals, democratic senators and reporters from liberal news organizations in Iraq. Obviously all of these people have biases of one sort or another, but that's a fairly decent cross section. Not so overwhelming that we should automatically accept what they say, but certainly broad enough that making a statement like "the surge... is not changing the situation in Iraq" is intellectually dishonest, especially given the breadth and authority of the sources you've cited to support your statement (hint: virtually none).

And of course withdrawal is a foregone conclusion. We're not trying to add a 51st state here.

Edit: To clarify my point about authority: You linked to IVAW's website. While they are obviously biased, there certainly is value in what they say. Of course, you linked to this site only to demonstrate that some troops oppose the war. I'm happy to concede that point. You didn't link it to provide any evidence of the surge's failure. You also linked to polls showing that many people are opposed to the war. Fine. Again, this has nothing to do with the efficacy of the surge. I have no idea how you've reached a definitive conclusion that the surge isn't working unless you have other sources that you're not providing for some unknown reason.

Additionally, please don't lump me and Boogahz together for the purposes of making your point about when the surge started. Is it possible-- just MAYBE-- that it started 6 months ago, and has been escalating until it reached full strength several weeks ago?

[Funkmasterr]

That's because I'm not debating the topic at hand, I am also not just referring to your activity in this thread exclusively. So keeping that in mind, my point is completely valid.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Well Fairweather obviously was not strong in history in school. Civilian deaths in Iraq are listing at anywhere from 50k to 120k depending on who you believe. Civilian casualties from WW 2 are anywhere from 25 MILLION and up. Hell, there were 618,000 deaths from the US Civil War. This Iraq shindig looks like a slapfight gone wrong compared to real wars. With the firepower of today as compared to the 100 years prior, one could imagine much higher numbers. The real problem is that with the internet and news coverage of things in this era magnifies everything.

As a Vietnam reference, the Vietnamese government in 1995 estimated total civilian casulaties were over 5 MILLION throughout that conflict. By your retarded measures, Bush is one of the greatest leaders in history.

[Fairweather Pure]

The surge, which has been in place for months and months, not weeks, is not changing the situation in Iraq. The war is still a lost cause no matter how many young Americans you throw into the mess. Withdrawl is a forgone conclussion. It's only a matter of time.

I posted links to a variety of sources which claim that the surge is changing the situation in Iraq. Some of these sources have a conservative bias and others do not. There are a variety of other sources which I could post (or which could be easily located with a little googling) which say similar things. The statements that the surge is working come from soldiers, officers, generals, democratic senators and reporters from liberal news organizations in Iraq. Obviously all of these people have biases of one sort or another, but that's a fairly decent cross section. Not so overwhelming that we should automatically accept what they say, but certainly broad enough that making a statement like "the surge... is not changing the situation in Iraq" is intellectually dishonest, especially given the breadth and authority of the sources you've cited to support your statement (hint: virtually none).

And of course withdrawl is a foregone conclusion. We're not trying to add a 51st state here.

The situation is still the same. It's not difficult to spin the fact that we're currently not stuck at rock bottom, where we're been dewlling for far too long. It dosen't change the fact that America is still stuck between a rock and a hard place. Sunnies are still killing Shiites. IEDs are still killing Americans. There is no sort of real government in place. If we left tomarrow, the entire place would collapse and be back to square one. That's the problem. Even if we left in 10 years, Iraq would collapse again. All of Boogahz and his ilk's joyful idea of a peaceful Iraq is just rubbish. It will never happen with a foreign invader standing on every street corner wearing body armour and sporting a machine gun. The sooner we get out, the sooner Iraq can stabalize itself. In the entire decade that follows, with all the horrors the people will have to endure, I bet they don't rack up half the body count or cause as much damage to their infrastructure that we did while "freeing" them. The best case scenerio is that another Saddam takes over and chills that country the fuck out. In fact, I bet we're training another one right now.

All you pro-war people need to answer the question I asked earlier:

Where is your point of no return, and why in the fuck don't you believe we reached it long ago?

[Fairweather Pure]

Well Fairweather obviously was not strong in history in school. Civilian deaths in Iraq are listing at anywhere from 50k to 120k depending on who you believe. Civilian casualties from WW 2 are anywhere from 25 MILLION and up. Hell, there were 618,000 deaths from the US Civil War. This Iraq shindig looks like a slapfight gone wrong compared to real wars. With the firepower of today as compared to the 100 years prior, one could imagine much higher numbers. The real problem is that with the internet and news coverage of things in this era magnifies everything.

As a Vietnam reference, the Vietnamese government in 1995 estimated total civilian casulaties were over 5 MILLION throughout that conflict. By your retarded measures, Bush is one of the greatest leaders in history.

Jesus Christ, are you actually making a comparision? Is this a peek into how you actually process data and form your opinions? /shudder

Speaking of school, how many occupations of a foreign land have worked out throughout recorded military history? How would this knowledge have helped before invading Iraq?

[Fairweather Pure]

oh please, it's a total fucking rarity for me to shit on a thread instead of explaining my thoughts on it.

Well, you sure shit on this one. Grats. I guess it's ok to be twat some of the time, just not all the time, like he who shall not be named.

[Nick]

The surge, which has been in place for months and months, not weeks, is not changing the situation in Iraq. The war is still a lost cause no matter how many young Americans you throw into the mess. Withdrawl is a forgone conclussion. It's only a matter of time.

I posted links to a variety of sources which claim that the surge is changing the situation in Iraq. Some of these sources have a conservative bias and others do not. There are a variety of other sources which I could post (or which could be easily located with a little googling) which say similar things. The statements that the surge is working come from soldiers, officers, generals, democratic senators and reporters from liberal news organizations in Iraq. Obviously all of these people have biases of one sort or another, but that's a fairly decent cross section. Not so overwhelming that we should automatically accept what they say, but certainly broad enough that making a statement like "the surge... is not changing the situation in Iraq" is intellectually dishonest, especially given the breadth and authority of the sources you've cited to support your statement (hint: virtually none).

And of course withdrawal is a foregone conclusion. We're not trying to add a 51st state here.

Edit: To clarify my point about authority: You linked to IVAW's website. While they are obviously biased, there certainly is value in what they say. Of course, you linked to this site only to demonstrate that some troops oppose the war. I'm happy to concede that point. You didn't link it to provide any evidence of the surge's failure. You also linked to polls showing that many people are opposed to the war. Fine. Again, this has nothing to do with the efficacy of the surge. I have no idea how you've reached a definitive conclusion that the surge isn't working unless you have other sources that you're not providing for some unknown reason.

Additionally, please don't lump me and Boogahz together for the purposes of making your point about when the surge started. Is it possible-- just MAYBE-- that it started 6 months ago, and has been escalating until it reached full strength several weeks ago?

The sources you cited were virtually all right wing Sueven.

Skepticism, with knowledge of past US actions (ie virtually every foreign excursion since ww2) is hardly biased. People need to learn what bias actually means here instead of just discounting opinions they don't like to hear because they are "biased." Its a typically American right wing invention, to just attack and attack, never actually taking on board unprejudiced views. It doesn't fly elsewhere.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... =rss-world
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 273378.stm
http://wizbangblue.com/2007/03/08/petra ... t-work.php

I am about to head out here so don't have as much time as I'd like but those were just the first few articles that came up.

For substantially more real evidence than nicely made website !"biased"! opinions that the surge isn't working, check CNN or BBC every day for the continued updates of "50 dead here" or "80 dead there". The numbers speak for themselves. Admittedly, there has been a slight drop in the last month (and we are talking relatively here so dont get your hopes up), yet as anyone who has actually been looking at the trends throughout the war, the numbers go up and down all the time. The point is, the numbers have not dramatically dropped with the surge because the Surge plan was fucking retarded from the get go, which you appear to have forgotten. It's not me lumping you and Boogahz into the apologists camp, it's you.

And funk, try again buddy, that was a shambolic attempt to justify your own trolling.

Where is your point of no return, and why in the fuck don't you believe we reached it long ago?

[Sueven]

If we left tomarrow, the entire place would collapse and be back to square one. That's the problem. Even if we left in 10 years, Iraq would collapse again.

There is an argument which makes perfect sense to me. The next thing I'd like is a justification. Why do you think that this is necessarily so? Just on the sort of abstract level where arguments like "Iraqis will never accept foreigners on street corners" reside?

I'll try to answer the question you posed earlier.

Where is your point of no return, and why in the fuck don't you believe we reached it long ago?

Unfortunately, it's a tricky question because I'm not sure what "the point of no return" means. Personally, I think we reached the point of no return when we toppled the existing regime-- at this point, we were in Iraq, and we acquired an obligation to do our best to bring the situation to the best possible resolution. But that's clearly not what you're asking. I think, by point of no return, you mean "the point where things got so bad that there is no possibility of future American action improving the situation." To me, that point is when everything that we do in Iraq has obviously negative consequences. I don't believe we've gotten to that point because some things we're doing in Iraq have obviously positive consequences. For instance, there are more areas in major Iraqi cities that are nonviolent now than was the case a year ago. The numbers, training, and professionalism of Iraqi security forces is improving (slowly, but improving). And so on. Now clearly we're doing things that have negative consequences as well. I see no reason to simply inherently believe (in absence of any argument for WHY I should believe) that it's impossible for us to manipulate our actions such that the positive consequences of what we're doing outweigh the negative. That's the argument that's missing from this whole discussion, and it's why your statement that Iraq will collapse whenever we leave, no matter what we do, is nothing more than an assertion of uninformed opinion.

[Nick]

For instance, there are more areas in major Iraqi cities that are nonviolent now than was the case a year ago. The numbers, training, and professionalism of Iraqi security forces is improving (slowly, but improving)

Any sources to back those claims up?

[Boogahz]

For instance, there are more areas in major Iraqi cities that are nonviolent now than was the case a year ago. The numbers, training, and professionalism of Iraqi security forces is improving (slowly, but improving)

Any sources to back those claims up?

I believe the New York Times article I liked earlier had information on that as well. If you don't want to register for the website, there is still a valid login and password in the sticky in this forum.

[Fash]

??... the point of no return was as soon as we invaded. There's no proper way out except finishing the job...

Of course, we could cut our dicks off and leave prematurely... If you don't think that would be a mistake, I feel bad for you.

Reality strikes... No major candidate will order an immediate pullout. Not one, regardless of what they may say now.

[Boogahz]

All of Boogahz and his ilk's joyful idea of a peaceful Iraq is just rubbish.

What fucking group do you think I am a part of? I am a registered democrat (even if I don't vote straight democrat tickets), and I never voted for Bush even when he ran for gov of Texas. I want him gone as much as the next person, but I acknowledge that he IS the President until then. I NEVER claimed that Iraq is peaceful. I even posted about a friend I lost there just under two weeks ago. My whole point which you STILL failed to miss when I put the text in bold above, but that Sueven apparently understands, is that the troop surge STARTED six months ago, but the troops were not all in place until less than TWO months ago. If you go back and look at your stance based on that fact rather than the troops all appearing as if by magic six months ago, you might (probably not, but might) see what I mean about the video game comments. Since then, reports have been showing that things are still improving. Improving is the key word. That implies that it is getting better, but still is not perfect.

[Sueven]

Nick:

The sources you cited were virtually all right wing Sueven.

The first 3 are. The last 2 are not. 60%.

People need to learn what bias actually means here instead of just discounting opinions they don't like to hear because they are "biased."

I think that "bias" means that you have an opinion, attitude, tendency, etc, which causes you to filter a particular situation through that opinion or set of opinions and affects the way you frame the issue. It is possible to suppress bias. Most "non-biased" news sources are made up entirely of biased reporters, but these reporters work hard to present the news in a fairly non-biased way and often do a pretty decent job. However, some organizations-- such as IVAW-- actually EMBRACE their bias. They INTENTIONALLY DISPLAY it. This does not mean that they are bad or valueless-- it simply means they are BIASED.

Speaking of your "unbiased" sources, did you know that the BBC recently conducted an internal review and concluded that it, itself, was biased? The review was mostly in reference to global warming / climate change issues, but still.

You linked me to:

A Time Magazine article which discusses a report made by the Pentagon which concludes that:

Overall, however, the report said it was too soon to judge whether the security crackdown was working.

A BBC article which looks at a two-week snapshot in Iraq, provides a number of numbers (some generally hopeful and some not) and makes no conclusions whatsoever. Especially irrelevant given your later (true) contention that "the numbers go up and down all the time."

And piece of trash article where Petraus says that the surge isn't a magic-bullet cure as actually fixing Iraq will involve political engagement, and the writer decides that even Petraus thinks the surge will fail because it won't "bring an end to the war in Iraq." Well, no shit. I think most reasonable people have more modest goals.

Other than that, you urge me to look at irrelevant anecdotal evidence.

The sources you cite reference only two entities who have first-hand "on the ground" knowledge. One is "the pentagon," which concludes that it's too early to have any idea if the surge is working. The second is General Petraus, who makes a totally noncontroversial assertion that a troop buildup can't fix everything. This does not support your stridently held position.

Much anti-war journalism consists of elementary-school level statistics analysis based on woefully inadequate data. This is understandable, since it's very difficult to get reporters in Iraq gathering real, good stories and getting a first-hand feel for the situation. Most decent news sources therefore shy away from making bold proclamations about the meaning of their shitty statistics. The BBC is an example: In the article you linked, they make no attempt to interpret the data they provide, because they know that any such interpretation would be largely meaningless.

[Funkmasterr]

The surge, which has been in place for months and months, not weeks, is not changing the situation in Iraq. The war is still a lost cause no matter how many young Americans you throw into the mess. Withdrawl is a forgone conclussion. It's only a matter of time.

I posted links to a variety of sources which claim that the surge is changing the situation in Iraq. Some of these sources have a conservative bias and others do not. There are a variety of other sources which I could post (or which could be easily located with a little googling) which say similar things. The statements that the surge is working come from soldiers, officers, generals, democratic senators and reporters from liberal news organizations in Iraq. Obviously all of these people have biases of one sort or another, but that's a fairly decent cross section. Not so overwhelming that we should automatically accept what they say, but certainly broad enough that making a statement like "the surge... is not changing the situation in Iraq" is intellectually dishonest, especially given the breadth and authority of the sources you've cited to support your statement (hint: virtually none).

And of course withdrawal is a foregone conclusion. We're not trying to add a 51st state here.

Edit: To clarify my point about authority: You linked to IVAW's website. While they are obviously biased, there certainly is value in what they say. Of course, you linked to this site only to demonstrate that some troops oppose the war. I'm happy to concede that point. You didn't link it to provide any evidence of the surge's failure. You also linked to polls showing that many people are opposed to the war. Fine. Again, this has nothing to do with the efficacy of the surge. I have no idea how you've reached a definitive conclusion that the surge isn't working unless you have other sources that you're not providing for some unknown reason.

Additionally, please don't lump me and Boogahz together for the purposes of making your point about when the surge started. Is it possible-- just MAYBE-- that it started 6 months ago, and has been escalating until it reached full strength several weeks ago?

The sources you cited were virtually all right wing Sueven.

Skepticism, with knowledge of past US actions (ie virtually every foreign excursion since ww2) is hardly biased. People need to learn what bias actually means here instead of just discounting opinions they don't like to hear because they are "biased." Its a typically American right wing invention, to just attack and attack, never actually taking on board unprejudiced views. It doesn't fly elsewhere.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... =rss-world
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 273378.stm
http://wizbangblue.com/2007/03/08/petra ... t-work.php

I am about to head out here so don't have as much time as I'd like but those were just the first few articles that came up.

For substantially more real evidence than nicely made website !"biased"! opinions that the surge isn't working, check CNN or BBC every day for the continued updates of "50 dead here" or "80 dead there". The numbers speak for themselves. Admittedly, there has been a slight drop in the last month (and we are talking relatively here so dont get your hopes up), yet as anyone who has actually been looking at the trends throughout the war, the numbers go up and down all the time. The point is, the numbers have not dramatically dropped with the surge because the Surge plan was fucking retarded from the get go, which you appear to have forgotten. It's not me lumping you and Boogahz into the apologists camp, it's you.

And funk, try again buddy, that was a shambolic attempt to justify your own trolling.

Where is your point of no return, and why in the fuck don't you believe we reached it long ago?

Nick, can you at least try, just this once - to actually address something I say/ask you instead of worming your way out of it and not responding to me. I made a completely valid observance of how you have been acting, and all you can say is that I'm wrong and I'm trolling.

I am NOT trolling. I am NOT saying what I am saying just to get a reaction out of you, I am NOT saying this because of what I think of you. It is a valid point, and I am not the first to point it out to you recently. But you won't answer any of them either.

Seriously, if you can never admit that you are even a tiny bit wrong - why bother even posting in the CE forum? Just talk to the mirror like I suggested to you previously.

[miir]

There's no proper way out except finishing the job...

What exactly is the job that needs finishing?

[Fash]

There's no proper way out except finishing the job...

What exactly is the job that needs finishing?

Setting up a free democratic Iraq capable of sustaining and protecting itself.

[Fairweather Pure]

If we left tomarrow, the entire place would collapse and be back to square one. That's the problem. Even if we left in 10 years, Iraq would collapse again.

There is an argument which makes perfect sense to me. The next thing I'd like is a justification. Why do you think that this is necessarily so? Just on the sort of abstract level where arguments like "Iraqis will never accept foreigners on street corners" reside?

I'll try to answer the question you posed earlier.

Where is your point of no return, and why in the fuck don't you believe we reached it long ago?

Unfortunately, it's a tricky question because I'm not sure what "the point of no return" means. Personally, I think we reached the point of no return when we toppled the existing regime-- at this point, we were in Iraq, and we acquired an obligation to do our best to bring the situation to the best possible resolution. But that's clearly not what you're asking. I think, by point of no return, you mean "the point where things got so bad that there is no possibility of future American action improving the situation." To me, that point is when everything that we do in Iraq has obviously negative consequences. I don't believe we've gotten to that point because some things we're doing in Iraq have obviously positive consequences. For instance, there are more areas in major Iraqi cities that are nonviolent now than was the case a year ago. The numbers, training, and professionalism of Iraqi security forces is improving (slowly, but improving). And so on. Now clearly we're doing things that have negative consequences as well. I see no reason to simply inherently believe (in absence of any argument for WHY I should believe) that it's impossible for us to manipulate our actions such that the positive consequences of what we're doing outweigh the negative. That's the argument that's missing from this whole discussion, and it's why your statement that Iraq will collapse whenever we leave, no matter what we do, is nothing more than an assertion of uninformed opinion.

Yes, point of no return will vary depending on the individual. It begs to see what a particular person's views would be for the situation to get so bad, there's no other option other than leaving.

I think we reached the point of no return when we toppled the existing regime

Ah, now we get to the root of the problem, and the true focus of my angst. The one issue that has yet to truely be addressed by America. And that is the administration that put us in our current situation.

For someone such as myself, who never bought into a single shred of the propaganda leading up to the war and never once thumped my chest along with the beating of the war drums, why on earth would I suddenly support it now?

At which point does my mindset change from "WTF ARE WE DOING?!" to "well, we're in there now, let's stay until everything's ok". In my mind, that is exactly what Bush and company are counting on. Afterall, it is the right thing to do.

I'm not denying it is the right thing to do btw. But, I feel as though my personal feelings of justice and my basic sense of what is right and wrong is being used against me. I hate that the current government has turned this disaster into "my fault". If I vote to pull the troops out and Iraq goes stright to genocide campaigns, it's my fault, not the people who blindsided a nation, took us to the bank, then walked away at the end of their term.

So fuck em. I'm not playing their games. I was never for the war and I'm not changing my mind because we're already there. A mistake is a mistake, no matter what else people tell you. The situation will never get to the point that it's ok for us to leave. Even if we did magically stabalize Iraq, I do not feel that the ends justify the means. America has been compromised.

[Nick]

Funk, obviously everyone can be wrong, only an idiot thinks they are right 100% of the time (See Midnyte/Kilmoll). I am not worming out of answering your question, I just didn't answer it because its not worth answering and was absolutely fucking retarded and irrelevant, much like everything you have posted in this thread. I'll answer and speak with people like Sueven and not you, because Sueven isn't an idiot, like you.

Fuck off and troll somewhere else or start contributing something other than this crap you moronic little dipshit.

[Sueven]

Well I actually agree entirely with what you said. Especially this part:

I'm not denying it is the right thing to do btw. But, I feel as though my personal feelings of justice and my basic sense of what is right and wrong is being used against me. I hate that the current government has turned this disaster into "my fault". If I vote to pull the troops out and Iraq goes stright to genocide campaigns, it's my fault, not the people who blindsided a nation, took us to the bank, then walked away at the end of their term.

Sometimes being right sucks.

[Funkmasterr]

Wow nick, you have stunned me with your superior intelligence and well articulated presentation of the facts.

It's pretty obvious that you are incapable of doing many of the things you demand of me. And I have tried debating with you since I started posting again, but just got the same reaction from you there I get in every other thread we both post in, so why should I do my part when you won't do yours?

P.S. I like how you edited your post to not be quite such a prick, unfortunately it was a wasted effort.

[Sueven]

Nick: If I have time later, I'll try to find specific sources for you. Maybe Boog's NYT article has something decent. In general, I form large portions of my opinions on Iraq from independent journalists who travel to Iraq to self-report. Obviously these guys have biases too (not the least of which is that they count on U.S. troops for protection). But at least they give first-hand accounts of what is being done in Iraq, and it lets you get a bit better feel for the situation. Two that I can think of off the top of my head are Michael Yon and Michael Totten.

[Fash]

I am not worming out of answering your question.... wait, Yes I am.. whatever it was.

FYP

[Nick]

The "question" was actually an accusation that "you cant accept when you're wrong." I stated pretty fucking clearly to anyone but the most inbred of fuckwits that obviously no one is right 100% of the time.

You two really are some sorry motherfuckers.

[Funkmasterr]

The "question" was actually an accusation that "you cant accept when you're wrong." I stated pretty fucking clearly to anyone but the most inbred of fuckwits that obviously no one is right 100% of the time.

You two really are some sorry motherfuckers.

Prove it then, find me a post where you have conceded a point to someone that had an opposing view, there must be an abundance of them if what you say is true.

[miir]

There's no proper way out except finishing the job...

What exactly is the job that needs finishing?

Setting up a free democratic Iraq capable of sustaining and protecting itself.

edit: After thinking about that for a bit... that seems to be a pretty bizzare reason to invade and occupy a soverign nation.

[Nick]

The "question" was actually an accusation that "you cant accept when you're wrong." I stated pretty fucking clearly to anyone but the most inbred of fuckwits that obviously no one is right 100% of the time.

You two really are some sorry motherfuckers.

Prove it then, find me a post where you have conceded a point to someone that had an opposing view, there must be an abundance of them if what you say is true.

Hahaha, fuck off.