We are putting more troops on hte ground. Then they will hold the places they got. Then they will root out the evil-doers. Then they will stay there to resotre peace and civilivation to those places. If we keep going to thier neighborhoodswhere the evildoers lives, we can win this thing.

Well, the corner was some what of a wide turn. Maybe he was referring to the World War that bailed FDR out from failing in his efforts to make communism improve the economy.

WHY? Note the US put an extra 15,000 men into Baghdad this past summer, aiming to crush the guerrillas and stop the violence in the capital, and the number of attacks actually increased.

This result comes about in part because the guerrillas are not outsiders who come in and then are forced out. The Sunni Arabs of Ghazaliya and Dora districts in the capital are the "insurgents." The US military cannot defeat the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement or "insurgency" with less than 500,000 troops, based on what we have seen in the Balkans and other such conflict situations.

The US destroyed Falluja, and even it and other cities of al-Anbar province are not now safe! The US military leaders on the ground have spoken of the desirability of just withdrawing from al-Anbar to Baghdad and giving up on it. In 2003, 14 percent of Sunni Arabs thought it legitimate to attack US personnel and facilities. In August, 2006, over 70 percent did. How long before it is 100%?

Winning guerrilla wars requires two victories, a military victory over the guerrillas and a winning of the hearts and minds of the general public, thus denying the guerrillas support. The US has not and is unlikely to be able to repress the guerrillas, and it is losing hearts and minds at an increasing and alarming rate.

They hate us, folks. They don't want us there.

-- Modified on 1/29/2007 7:49:24 AM

Which got him Four More Years...
well... not quite four years as it turned out.

All things are "at hand" to on degree or another, but few have the patience [or lengths of years] to see them brought to pass....

This could go on seemingly forever, and thus waste every shred of evidence that we ever accomplished anything by the time it's "in hand"...   (My 2¢)

Nixon wasn't in office in 1968 and the comment "peace is at hand" didn't come from Nixon; it came Kissinger in announcing the peace agreement with North Vietnam one week before the 1972 election.

Or how about this classic: "the insurgency is in it's last throes."
Dick Cheney, 2005

"With confidence in our armed forces, with the un-bounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph. So help us God."

Oh... Sorry... At first I thought that fit here, but now I see we are only quoting men WITHOUT balls in this exercise... Sorry, My bad... I retract the quote...

The networks are still portraying the the skirmish where 250 plus insurgents succeeded in meeting alah as a sign of how bad things are in Iraq.  THE NETWORKS ARE INSINUATNG THAT THE SUNNI INSURGENTS/TERRORISTS ARE INNOCENT CIVILIANS!!!!!!  TREASON  TREASON TREASON!  ABC, NBC, CBS AND CNN ARE ALL GUILTY OF TREASON.  THEY HATE BUSH SO MUCH THAT THEY WANT THE TERRORISTS TO WIN AND TEAR UP IRAQ TO THE POINT THAT CAMBODIA UNDER POL POT WITH 3,000,000 SLAUGHTERED LOOKS LIKE-- AN APPETIZER.  THE MEDIA HAS BLOODLUST.  THEY WANT TO SEE 10,000,000 DEAD IRAQS SO THEY CAN BLAME IT ON BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS.

One COULD argue that it was Bush's bloodlust that got us into Iraq in the first place (he was having a tantrum because mean ol' Saddam had wanted to go after his little poppy-poo (GHWB, that is).  Did the Democrats alone send our troops into Iraq? (NO).  Do they want to send more and more troops into Iraq to fight and die in what has clearly become a hopeless "war"?  (NO).  The list of crimes of the Bush goon squad against the people of this country is long and growing longer every day.  The democrats want to END this war, it would seem; most supporters of the ongoing slaugher and sacrifice of American and Iraq lives are republicans.  In case you haven't noticed.

Hysterical name-calling and claims of treason are stock-in-trade of you right wing extremists.  In particular, you all seem to think that any body who doesn't march in lockstep with your extreme views is guilty of treason.  Given that this is a free country where the people are free to speak their minds, it is the type of rant that you love to indulge in that is truly damaging to this country.

No Ben, I beg to differ  -- I think we're trying to quote [or at least paraphrase] those famous utterances which, alas, did not/have not come to fruition.

It's the Islamodfascists who hate us.  [Remember, that's a falback position for this disaster.]

And freedom.

And democracy.

And political liberalism.

And representative gov't.

And secularism/moderity.

And...

Sorry, NOT the exact quote, but you've gotten the point.

That's when the real tragedy began to unfold.

But apparently no one has had the heart to break it to him?

It's no wonder no one is scrambling to claim authorship for this gem, but it's belived to have been first uttered by Richard Perl  --  making it a Richard Perl of NeoCon wisdom [yes, it's sarcasm].

Success has a 100 fathers; failure is an orphan.  Or something like that.

If we get out-- bad situation,  Stay, bad situation--but-- we're gonna have to stay.  And we're gonna have to smack those bastards good and hard.  That's the only thing they understand but it's no fun seeing seeing little kids get slaughtered.  We have to trick them into coming out of their ratholes.  It's like a game of chess.  If the US hunkers down in kurdland, we could let the rats go at each other and then smack the one we don't like.  Maybe bombing those ratf*ckers into the stone age might bring 10 years plus of peace.  Cold-cocking Syria would be awesome.  Reagan cold-cocked Lybia. That put that dragqueen f*cker in his place to this very day.  He peed in his dress when Bush invaded Iraq.

And he kept in secret until very late in 1972.

I have yet to read the other replies to your post.  But I'd like to remind you of something.

We have surged our troops in Baghdad at least three times so far.  For example, Operations "Forward Together" and "Together Forward" were troop surges in Baghdad.  They obviously didn't work.

This "surge" will bring our troop levels all the way up to where they were in August.  Obviously that was not enough troops then, and still won't be enough troops tomorrow.

The sad truth is that the war was lost in 2002, when the neocons who never served in uniform overruled the Generals.  Everything since then has been a horrific waste of lives and money.  Bush is 4 years too late to avert the disaster he keeps warning us about.

Btw, my predictions from 2002:
1. We won't find WMDs (true)

2. We'll defeat Saddam's army (true)

3. Street-to-street fighting in Baghdad will be bloody (false- the Iraqis gave up faster than I expected.  Thank god.)

4. The Bush administration will totally botch the aftermath and reconstruction (true)

5. By invading Iraq, we'll ignore Afghanistan and the terrorists who are an actual threat to us (true-the Taliban is poised to re-take most of Afghanistan)

So really this is an example of the trite definition of insanity:  You want us to do the same thing again, and expect different results.

But that's ok!  We'll be invading Iran soon, and we'll be greeted as liberators!

-- Modified on 1/29/2007 10:34:38 PM