Rebuilding Iraq: More Democrat Stupidity

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

I report, you decide.

WASHINGTON - A Democratic senator on Saturday accused President Bush and congressional Republicans of hindering his party’s attempts to chart a new course in Iraq even though U.S. troops are fighting violence “they cannot possibly resolve.”

Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., said increased troop levels ordered earlier this year to give Iraqi politicians breathing space to meet political and diplomatic goals have not had the intended result.

“That means our troops are fighting for a peace that we seem more interested in achieving than the Iraqi politicians do themselves,” Casey said while delivering the Democrats’ weekly radio address.

Senator: U.S. can't fix Iraq violence - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

BAGHDAD — Violence is down 55 percent in Iraq since a U.S.-Iraqi security operation began this summer, U.S. officials said Sunday, even as at least 15 Iraqis were reported killed in bombings and shootings.

The dead included three children who were killed as they gathered around American troops who were handing out toys and sports equipment.

The officials cautioned it was too early to credit Tehran with the recent lull in overall violence, despite recent optimism that Iran was stemming its support for Shiite militia fighters.

The Associated Press: US Says Iraq Attacks Down 55 Percent

It looks like the Surge is working to me. :shrug:

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

I report, you decide.

Senator: U.S. can't fix Iraq violence - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

The Associated Press: US Says Iraq Attacks Down 55 Percent

It looks like the Surge is working to me. :shrug:

The Iraq violence increased with the surge and as the surge winds down then the violence comes down accordingly.

Under the "surge" the USA sent in a surge of force to kill and destroy and now the US caused increase of violence is withdrawing.

The surge "worked" in killing more Iraqis and more US soldiers being killed and wounded, but it fixed nothing.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

The Iraq violence increased with the surge and as the surge winds down then the violence comes down accordingly.

Under the "surge" the USA sent in a surge of force to kill and destroy and now the US caused increase of violence is withdrawing.

The surge "worked" in killing more Iraqis and more US soldiers being killed and wounded, but it fixed nothing.

Apparently not. :shrug:

The commanders, who are on the ground in Iraq, say the violence has decreased ever since the surge started. I take their word, since they're on the ground. I take their word because Brian Williams, Richard Engel, Anderson Cooper and anyone else in Iraq says they're right and things are improving.

But, I guess we should all belive Jimmy on this because he's got cameras focused on Baghdad on 16 32" LCD TVs in his 1 bedroom apartment in Lexington Park.

I guess Jimmy knows all about Iraq.

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

Apparently not. :shrug:

The commanders, who are on the ground in Iraq, say the violence has decreased ever since the surge started. I take their word, since they're on the ground. I take their word because Brian Williams, Richard Engel, Anderson Cooper and anyone else in Iraq says they're right and things are improving.

But, I guess we should all belive Jimmy on this because he's got cameras focused on Baghdad on 16 32" LCD TVs in his 1 bedroom apartment in Lexington Park.

I guess Jimmy knows all about Iraq.

I suppose one can make claims about "violence" in general,

but I was using a more specific scale.

As in US soldiers being killed in Irag had surged with the surge in April, May, June, and now decined because the soldiers have withdrawn.

See monthly death toll for "2007" about a third way down page link HERE.

So if the USA comes surging to fight again then that violence will increase again.

And if the USA pulls all of our soldiers out then that violence will completely end.

 

[This_person]

I suppose one can make claims about "violence" in general,

but I was using a more specific scale.

As in US soldiers being killed in Irag had surged with the surge in April, May, June, and now decined because the soldiers have withdrawn.

See monthly death toll for "2007" about a third way down page link HERE.

So if the USA comes surging to fight again then that violence will increase again.

And if the USA pulls all of our soldiers out then that violence will completely end.

Can you link this data with the population of soldiers in the field? That would give us a good clue as to the shere numbers, and when the casualties were high/low compared to the actual "surge" of troops.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Can you link this data with the population of soldiers in the field? That would give us a good clue as to the shere numbers, and when the casualties were high/low compared to the actual "surge" of troops.

No he can't, because (ironically) the surge peaked last month.

World Tribune — Troop surge to peak at 172,000 in mid-October
FOXNews.com - Gen. David Petraeus Tells Paper He'd Like Iraq Troop Surge to Continue Until Spring - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum
Record high troop level in Iraq - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

Amazing, isn't it.

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

No he can't, because (ironically) the surge peaked last month.

World Tribune — Troop surge to peak at 172,000 in mid-October
FOXNews.com - Gen. David Petraeus Tells Paper He'd Like Iraq Troop Surge to Continue Until Spring - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum
Record high troop level in Iraq - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

Amazing, isn't it.

These guys making jokes on top of dead soldiers but not me.

It is the same scenerio as Bush saying "major combat had ended" on the air craft carrier, and no one else got his message.

The troop numbers and the actual "surge" are different in that the agressive action involved in the "surge" has ended and now the troops wait for drawdown.

If the troops again "surge" into combat then the violence will increase.

The fact that the troop surge has many troops still there doing no combat is a reflection that the combat "surge" failed.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

These guys making jokes on top of dead soldiers but not me.

It is the same scenerio as Bush saying "major combat had ended" on the air craft carrier, and no one else got his message.

The troop numbers and the actual "surge" are different in that the agressive action involved in the "surge" has ended and now the troops wait for drawdown.

If the troops again "surge" into combat then the violence will increase.

The fact that the troop surge has many troops still there doing no combat is a reflection that the combat "surge" failed.

The "Surge" had nothing to do with "combat," dum dum. It has to do with security. SECURING Iraq. But if a couple of towe.......terrorists attack us, they'll end up dead. Yeah, the violence goes up because we killed 400 terrorists, but it has a positive long term effect.

Bombings down 55%. Security situation is better than it was 9 months ago. Sounds like the "Surge" is working to me.

The terrorists aren't trying to attack our troops. They're attacking EVERYBODY. The insurgency is desperate, and they'll take whatever they can get. If they kill 20 Iraqis, great. If they get an American soldier, even better (for them). They're desperate, and they're sick of running.

 

[Go G-Men]

:

If the troops again "surge" into combat then the violence will increase.

The fact that the troop surge has many troops still there doing no combat is a reflection that the combat "surge" failed.

I am not normally into name calling, but you are a freaking idiot...

Due to the nature of "Surge" operations, if you conduct surge ops you will likely see an initial increase in casualties (or as you say violence), but as has happened in this case the surge ops over time have led to a decrease in casualties.

Secondly, how the hell do you come up with your logic on how the success or failure of surge ops is determined by how many troops are there "doing no combat". If you increase troops, and conduct operations, which bring about a decline in attacks and casualties then it would stand that said troops would than have to conduct a lesser amount of operations.

I can safely assume you never served and as a veteran I am thankful for that.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

I am not normally into name calling, but you are a freaking idiot...

Due to the nature of "Surge" operations, if you conduct surge ops you will likely see an initial increase in casualties (or as you say violence), but as has happened in this case the surge ops over time have led to a decrease in casualties.

Secondly, how the hell do you come up with your logic on how the success or failure of surge ops is determined by how many troops are there "doing no combat". If you increase troops, and conduct operations, which bring about a decline in attacks and casualties then it would stand that said troops would than have to conduct a lesser amount of operations.

I can safely assume you never served and as a veteran I am thankful for that.

 

[This_person]

No he can't, because (ironically) the surge peaked last month.

World Tribune — Troop surge to peak at 172,000 in mid-October
FOXNews.com - Gen. David Petraeus Tells Paper He'd Like Iraq Troop Surge to Continue Until Spring - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum
Record high troop level in Iraq - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

Amazing, isn't it.

I knew he couldn't because he was backwards, but that's Jimmy! Thanks for straightening him out.

 

[aps45819]

I am not normally into name calling, but you are a freaking idiot...

Secondly, how the hell do you come up with your logic.

If you know the answer, why ask the question

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

If you know the answer, why ask the question

That is funny.

I did not see that.

Some how I do not believe he meant the question literally to be answered.

 

[smcop]

The Iraq violence increased with the surge and as the surge winds down then the violence comes down accordingly.

Under the "surge" the USA sent in a surge of force to kill and destroy and now the US caused increase of violence is withdrawing.

The surge "worked" in killing more Iraqis and more US soldiers being killed and wounded, but it fixed nothing.

Do you think the Iraqis are more violent now because their fathers abandon them and made them fend for themselves. He chose not to support them and didn't give them life lessons so now they know nothing but breaking the law?

 

[Purplefox]

Do you think the Iraqis are more violent now because their fathers abandon them and made them fend for themselves. He chose not to support them and didn't give them life lessons so now they know nothing but breaking the law?

 

[ImnoMensa]

The Senator should look at the rate of violence and killings in Philadelphia.

Maybe they could use a surge there.

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

Do you think the Iraqis are more violent now because their fathers abandon them and made them fend for themselves. He chose not to support them and didn't give them life lessons so now they know nothing but breaking the law?

It was President Bush that did all that to the Iraqi population.