i can't wait to hear the apologists spin this one into saying the surge is working*

*we have redefined the goals again

The goalposts have moved so far that I think we're scoring in our own net at this point.

cameroncrazy1984: The goalposts have moved so far that I think we're scoring in our own net at this point.

i'm waiting for the announcement that the fact that iraq still technically exists is proof of our resounding success

You mean paying the terrorists not to attack us while we pretend the surge is working is working, right?

Subby: "Somehow I figure this is irony."

Anyway, I have to say that the candidates' stances on the war is a big factor in my voting decision. We should have never been in Iraq, and I have no idea what our current goal is. But Rummy and Cheney were able to fark the place up royally when they disbanded the Iraqi military and plunged the place into pure chaos. We shouldn't enable the Iraqis, but we are pretty much responsible for the state it is in. Seems kind of cold to go into a place, fark it up, then leave. Then again, our troops being there may not be helping much.

The goal in Iraq should be stability. I haven't seen a good argument one way or the other for how to achieve that and how we can help.

John McCain: "Vote for me. The Surge is working." General Petraeus, architect of the surge: "The surge is not showing sufficient progress."

Too bad you made up the quote from Petraeus.
He says, "Iraqis Not Making "Sufficient Progress" in reference to a national reconciliation not the surge.

Get your shiat straight.

I suspect that McCain "likes" the surge about as much as a prison inmate "likes" what his cellmate does to him every night; yeah...that's what he says...to survive.

McCain is telling people what the RNC thinks they want to hear.

Vote for Ron Paul. He tells the truth whether you like it or not. If you want bedtime stories, call your mom to the top of the basement stairs.

We wouldn't be in the financial, or foreign policy messes we're in now if Paul had been elected in 1988. Before you refute that statement, you better check first.

tonesskin: The goal in Iraq should be stability. I haven't seen a good argument one way or the other for how to achieve that and how we can help.

not the answer americans want to hear, but if the only goal is stability, i'd say the best option on the table is to get the fark out of there and let iran stabilize it. iranian leadership is accepted there, and actually has a chance of accomplishing this goal.

if the goal is american-friendly stabilization... i'm not really sure there is a solution.

BFgarner: John McCain: "Vote for me. The Surge is working." General Petraeus, architect of the surge: "The surge is not showing sufficient progress."

Too bad you made up the quote from Petraeus.
He says, "Iraqis Not Making "Sufficient Progress" in reference to a national reconciliation not the surge.

Get your shiat straight.


Well, you may remember, that the whole point of the "Surge" was for the Iraqis to make sufficient progress on national and political reconciliation...so if there hasn't been sufficient progress, it stands to reason that the "Surge" is not working as it was suppose to.

Unless, of course, the real point was to pay off "concerned citizens" indefinitely, so they won't blow the shiat out of each other...

Is anyone else starting to think that *gasp* this war was never meant to be won?

BFgarner: Get your shiat straight.

Agreed. The purpose of the surge was to cause a reduction of sectarian violence in and around Baghdad -- has it gone away totally? No. But have incidents of violence gone down since the beginning of the surge? I don't have the hard statistics but it appears that most observers say it has.

And, as pointed out above, Petraeus wasn't saying the surge wasn't reducing violence, but merely that the political leaders in Iraq haven't done the work needed to be done to find the political reconciliation hoped for.

Remember the benchmarks? Anyone? Anyone?


As of January 2008:

Government Benchmarks: 2 of 8 Accomplished

1. Perform constitutional review. Unmet

2. Enact de-Ba'athification reform. Partial

4. Form semi-autonomous regions. Unmet

5. Hold provincial elections. Unmet

6. Address amnesty. Unmet

8. Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan. Met

16. Ensure minority rights in Iraqi legislature. Met

18. Keep Iraqi Security Forces free from partisan interference. Unmet


Security Benchmarks: 1 of 8 Accomplished

7. Disarm militias. Unmet

9. Provide military support in Baghdad. Partial

10. Empower Iraqi Security Forces. Partial

11. Ensure impartial law enforcement. Unmet

12. Establist support for Baghdad Security Plan by Maliki government. Unmet

13. Reduce sectarian violence. Partial

14. Establish neighborhood security in Baghdad. Met

15. Increase independent Iraqi Security Focres. Unmet


Economic Benchmarks: 0 of 2 Accomplished

3. Implement oil legislation. Unmet

17. Distribute Iraqi resources equitably. Partial

(new window)

CHAZZZ: The purpose of the surge was to reduce violence and bring political change. Political change is the most important part. So yes, the surge has failed. How hard is that to understand?

Exactly. Regardless of the level of violence, it's all for nothing if the political situation doesn't change. Without a stable, functioning government, Iraq will always be farked up and there will always be violence.

CHAZZZ: The purpose of the surge was to reduce violence and bring political change. Political change is the most important part. So yes, the surge has failed. How hard is that to understand?

The "reduction of violence" part seems to have been met, it's the political change aspect that has failed. The US can exclusively control only the violence aspect and not the political aspect.

And I'd argue that the reduction of violence was the most important part, for without that there was no possibility whatsoever of political change.

This may hurt McCain, but what should hurt McCain the most is if violence increases in Iraq during "the pause" later this summer.

The Surge is working because people are being walled off into Ethnic enclaves. Much like the "Hamlet" program in Vietnam, trying to separate the "terrorist" from the good Iraqi people is impossible, and once the troops leave, thing will get nasty again. But this time, the ethic divisions will be exaserbated.

As long as Iraq is quiet, McCain is alright. (He doesn't improve, he just stays level) The moment the Wars become noticed again, McCain's numbers will drop.

PoliticallyPurple (new window)
Haven't done this in a while

CHAZZZ: KaponoFor3: BFgarner: Get your shiat straight.

Agreed. The purpose of the surge was to cause a reduction of sectarian violence in and around Baghdad -- has it gone away totally? No. But have incidents of violence gone down since the beginning of the surge? I don't have the hard statistics but it appears that most observers say it has.

And, as pointed out above, Petraeus wasn't saying the surge wasn't reducing violence, but merely that the political leaders in Iraq haven't done the work needed to be done to find the political reconciliation hoped for.

The purpose of the surge was to reduce violence and bring political change. Political change is the most important part. So yes, the surge has failed. How hard is that to understand?


The surge is not a pass/fail thing.
Its either working or not working.
It is in fact working. Although it is not fast enough for the libs to be happy, it is working. ONCE the war is over you can rate it a pass/fail. However, just like a child who won't eat vegetables the libs won't even acknowledge its greatness.

BFgarner: It is in fact working.

Government Benchmarks: 2 of 8 Accomplished

1. Perform constitutional review. Unmet

2. Enact de-Ba'athification reform. Partial

4. Form semi-autonomous regions. Unmet

5. Hold provincial elections. Unmet

6. Address amnesty. Unmet

8. Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan. Met

16. Ensure minority rights in Iraqi legislature. Met

18. Keep Iraqi Security Forces free from partisan interference. Unmet


Security Benchmarks: 1 of 8 Accomplished

7. Disarm militias. Unmet

9. Provide military support in Baghdad. Partial

10. Empower Iraqi Security Forces. Partial

11. Ensure impartial law enforcement. Unmet

12. Establist support for Baghdad Security Plan by Maliki government. Unmet

13. Reduce sectarian violence. Partial

14. Establish neighborhood security in Baghdad. Met

15. Increase independent Iraqi Security Focres. Unmet


Economic Benchmarks: 0 of 2 Accomplished

3. Implement oil legislation. Unmet

17. Distribute Iraqi resources equitably. Partial

BFgarner: CHAZZZ: KaponoFor3: BFgarner: Get your shiat straight.

Agreed. The purpose of the surge was to cause a reduction of sectarian violence in and around Baghdad -- has it gone away totally? No. But have incidents of violence gone down since the beginning of the surge? I don't have the hard statistics but it appears that most observers say it has.

And, as pointed out above, Petraeus wasn't saying the surge wasn't reducing violence, but merely that the political leaders in Iraq haven't done the work needed to be done to find the political reconciliation hoped for.

The purpose of the surge was to reduce violence and bring political change. Political change is the most important part. So yes, the surge has failed. How hard is that to understand?


The surge is not a pass/fail thing.
Its either working or not working.
It is in fact working. Although it is not fast enough for the libs to be happy, it is working. ONCE the war is over you can rate it a pass/fail. However, just like a child who won't eat vegetables the libs won't even acknowledge its greatness.

Man, you're a terrible troll. Not convincing at all.

Gah...too many Iraq threads at once. Sorry folks.

Subby: "I like to take quotes out of context."

The Iraq War sucks. It's like all wars--poor people dying so rich people can get more money and power.

BFgarner: The surge is not a pass/fail thing.
Its either working or not working.
It is in fact working. Although it is not fast enough for the libs to be happy, it is working. ONCE the war is over you can rate it a pass/fail. However, just like a child who won't eat vegetables the libs won't even acknowledge its greatness.

If you want to remove a torn bush from your yard...you don't trim the branches only tolet it grow back. You attack the roots. The root of the problem is the political instability in that country and the lack of real authority. All the surge has done is trim the hedges so that it all looks nice...but it's going to grow back unless you solve the real problem: a lack of government.

This is what the surge has failed to do.

BFgarner:
The surge is not a pass/fail thing.
Its either working or not working.
It is in fact working. Although it is not fast enough for the libs to be happy, it is working. ONCE the war is over you can rate it a pass/fail. However, just like a child who won't eat vegetables the libs won't even acknowledge its greatness.

I agree that there are degrees of sucess with The Surge, but the problem with it is that for this military operation to suceed, we need for people we cannot control, make political milestones that are definitely not within the purview of the Military. After a year of the Surge, which militarily, has been sucessful, the Political entity known as the Iraqi Government has failed to do anything of any significance.

There were three elections in 14 months, and since then... nothing. We have not heard anything on any consequence from Malaki or any Iraqi official. They are leaderless and there is nothing the US military can do to change that... and that is where it fails.

Headline is misleading.

/that is all

BFgarner: The surge is not a pass/fail thing.
Its either working or not working.

So it's a pass/fail thing, in other words.

It is in fact working. Although it is not fast enough for the libs to be happy, it is working. ONCE the war is over you can rate it a pass/fail. However, just like a child who won't eat vegetables the libs won't even acknowledge its greatness.

Nice troll.

3/10. Needs more "tards".

But in case you were not joking:
The war will never be over, dingus. And the Serge just replaced SOME of the troops that were previously removed.

AND...

The Medhi Army has been in a truce since the surge began

Shaggy_C: BFgarner: It is in fact working.

Government Benchmarks: 2 of 8 Accomplished

1. Perform constitutional review. Unmet

2. Enact de-Ba'athification reform. Partial

4. Form semi-autonomous regions. Unmet

5. Hold provincial elections. Unmet

6. Address amnesty. Unmet

8. Establish support for Baghdad Security Plan. Met

16. Ensure minority rights in Iraqi legislature. Met

18. Keep Iraqi Security Forces free from partisan interference. Unmet


Security Benchmarks: 1 of 8 Accomplished

7. Disarm militias. Unmet

9. Provide military support in Baghdad. Partial

10. Empower Iraqi Security Forces. Partial

11. Ensure impartial law enforcement. Unmet

12. Establist support for Baghdad Security Plan by Maliki government. Unmet

13. Reduce sectarian violence. Partial

14. Establish neighborhood security in Baghdad. Met

15. Increase independent Iraqi Security Focres. Unmet


Economic Benchmarks: 0 of 2 Accomplished

3. Implement oil legislation. Unmet

17. Distribute Iraqi resources equitably. Partial

Again, its the timeline you people dont get.
You cant walk into a country and win a war in 2 seconds. I know it is hard for the self-centered libs to realize, but the world is much greater than what is happening during your life. Wars take a LONG time.

However, I bet if we sent Obama over there to have a cup of tea with them they would join us in a nice version of kumbiya

/super-minor-threadjack-on

I'm doing a unit on 'argument analysis' in the Freshman Comp. class I teach. We're focusing on presidential politics, and I thought it'd be interesting to have the class take one of those "who is your presidential candidate' online survey quiz things. Anyone have a link or two handy?

/super-minor-threadjack-off

BFgarner: Again, its the timeline you people dont get.

The surge was supposed to be a one year process. There was a set timeline last year. I didn't hear you arguing against it then.

CalvinMorallis: Anyone have a link or two handy?

http://www.polldaddy.com/

Government Benchmarks: 2 of 8 Accomplished
Security Benchmarks: 1 of 8 Accomplished
Economic Benchmarks: 0 of 2 Accomplished

It's been how long? Five years?

Consulting thread!

BFgarner: Again, its the timeline you people dont get.
You cant walk into a country and win a war in 2 seconds. I know it is hard for the self-centered libs to realize, but the world is much greater than what is happening during your life. Wars take a LONG time.

However, I bet if we sent Obama over there to have a cup of tea with them they would join us in a nice version of kumbiya

Would beg to differ. (new window)

In all seriousness though, you seem to be missing that fact that a long time to achieve progress is one thing...a steady decline backwards is quite another.

BFgarner: You cant walk into a country and win a war in 2 seconds

No, but you'd think 3-plus years would do it...especially with all the roses, flowers and candy that accompanied our arrival.

Either way my first statement was correct. Misleading title.

cameroncrazy1984: BFgarner: CHAZZZ: KaponoFor3: BFgarner: Get your shiat straight.

Agreed. The purpose of the surge was to cause a reduction of sectarian violence in and around Baghdad -- has it gone away totally? No. But have incidents of violence gone down since the beginning of the surge? I don't have the hard statistics but it appears that most observers say it has.

And, as pointed out above, Petraeus wasn't saying the surge wasn't reducing violence, but merely that the political leaders in Iraq haven't done the work needed to be done to find the political reconciliation hoped for.

The purpose of the surge was to reduce violence and bring political change. Political change is the most important part. So yes, the surge has failed. How hard is that to understand?


The surge is not a pass/fail thing.
Its either working or not working.
It is in fact working. Although it is not fast enough for the libs to be happy, it is working. ONCE the war is over you can rate it a pass/fail. However, just like a child who won't eat vegetables the libs won't even acknowledge its greatness.

Man, you're a terrible troll. Not convincing at all.

I remember you from the Limbaugh thread where Limbaugh was taken out of context too. Gosh you libs are so eager to take things out of context, but thats cool.

Shaggy_C: http://www.polldaddy.com/

Thanks. If I can't find the specific one I'm looking for, I'll use that...though it would require more work on my part, which is exactly what I'm trying to avoid, at all costs.

Memes Ate My Balls: It's been how long? Five years?

The surge benchmarks came out with the announcement of the surge in January 2007. There was a preliminary report in June 2007 and then the Petreaus report on September 11th, 2007. The results of those reports were supposed to determine whether we would begin withdrawing or not, based on whether or not we met the benchmarks. The benchmarks were not mentioned in any report after June 2007.

Wow, now that's how you take a quote out of context

CalvinMorallis: Anyone have a link or two handy?

http://quiz.ontheissues.org/Quiz.htm

Here's a list of some quizses that might help.

I say we just pull all our troops out of Iraq and put them in Afghanistan. Let the Iraqi's deal with their own shiat. Yea we went in there and f*cked it all up and we might be more despised if we just leave, but who gives a shiat what other countries think? Right?
anyone?

I bet the libtards are just fuming that they didn't get their fair share of the flowers and liberator greetings.

ChopSueyKS: CalvinMorallis: Anyone have a link or two handy?

http://quiz.ontheissues.org/Quiz.htm

Here's a list of some quizses that might help.

Thanks!

burndtdan:

not the answer americans want to hear, but if the only goal is stability, i'd say the best option on the table is to get the fark out of there and let iran stabilize it. iranian leadership is accepted there, and actually has a chance of accomplishing this goal.

if the goal is american-friendly stabilization... i'm not really sure there is a solution.

I couldn't have said it better.

But Hillary and the Democrats have already told me Patraeus is a lying traitor.

Nemo's Brother: But Hillary and the Democrats have already told me Patraeus is a lying traitor

Cite please.

I bet the libtards are just fuming that they didn't get their fair share of the flowers and liberator greetings.

Yeah, but at least they'll get to share in shouldering the cost of this fiasco.

That should cheer them up. Seems to work for the non-libtards.

BFgarner: You cant walk into a country and -win a war a) turn a corner b) leave Al-Quida in their death throes c) replace an ideology with one you think is better- in 2 seconds.


I'll let you decide which "fixed it for you" is better.

KaponoFor3: CHAZZZ: The purpose of the surge was to reduce violence and bring political change. Political change is the most important part. So yes, the surge has failed. How hard is that to understand?

The "reduction of violence" part seems to have been met, it's the political change aspect that has failed. The US can exclusively control only the violence aspect and not the political aspect.

And I'd argue that the reduction of violence was the most important part, for without that there was no possibility whatsoever of political change.

Can you at least acknowledge that we are paying them not to shoot at us? That is why the surge is "working"? That is why there is less violence. We are spending money over there hand over fist and nobody can state what a "win" is and how we can achieve it. It's a false sense of hope.

Nemo's Brother: But Hillary and the Democrats have already told me Patraeus is a lying traitor.

Link please?

BFgarner: Either way my first statement was correct. Misleading title.

cameroncrazy1984: BFgarner: CHAZZZ: KaponoFor3: BFgarner: Get your shiat straight.

Agreed. The purpose of the surge was to cause a reduction of sectarian violence in and around Baghdad -- has it gone away totally? No. But have incidents of violence gone down since the beginning of the surge? I don't have the hard statistics but it appears that most observers say it has.

And, as pointed out above, Petraeus wasn't saying the surge wasn't reducing violence, but merely that the political leaders in Iraq haven't done the work needed to be done to find the political reconciliation hoped for.

The purpose of the surge was to reduce violence and bring political change. Political change is the most important part. So yes, the surge has failed. How hard is that to understand?


The surge is not a pass/fail thing.
Its either working or not working.
It is in fact working. Although it is not fast enough for the libs to be happy, it is working. ONCE the war is over you can rate it a pass/fail. However, just like a child who won't eat vegetables the libs won't even acknowledge its greatness.

Man, you're a terrible troll. Not convincing at all.

I remember you from the Limbaugh thread where Limbaugh was taken out of context too. Gosh you libs are so eager to take things out of context, but thats cool.

You've just noticed this about CameronCrazy1984? Like most farkers, if you disagree with a lib position, he calls you a troll. It's a pretty solid form of debate, I think.

"feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the provision of basic public services.

Well, the guy wasn't talking about if violence is down or not, why does the end-quote appear before the end of the sentence? The second part of the sentence that isn't in the quote makes a better case for things not going super-duper but did he actually say that?