|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
The "surge"...: Still Working!!! (not)
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| The "surge"...: Still Working!!! (not)
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Fdubya247 |
Hey, Vacate(theTurd)...why don't you go fuck yourself? Thank you.
Ramadi suicide bombing 'kills 35'
Published: 2007/04/06 16:57:42 GMT
A suicide truck bombing in the restive Iraqi city of Ramadi has killed at least 35 people, police say.
A police commander in Ramadi said a police checkpoint had been targeted.
Elsewhere, police said clashes had erupted between US and Iraqi forces and fighters from the Shia Mehdi Army militia in the city of Diwaniya.
A ban on vehicles has been imposed on the city following a raid by security forces at about 0500 (0100 GMT), police sources in the southern city said.
Police and Shia militia sources in Diwaniya said a large American force had launched an offensive in areas in the centre of the city where there is a strong presence of the Mehdi Army, the militia loyal to the radical cleric, Moqtada Sadr.
Heavy fighting was reported, with casualties among civilians as well as combatants.
A number of American vehicles have been destroyed in the fighting, police sources told the BBC.
There have been a series of sectarian killings in Diwaniya - which is 180km (110 miles) south of Baghdad - in recent days, a source in the governor's office said.
'Gas attack'
Meanwhile, a police commander in Ramadi said the lorry had been driven into a police checkpoint in the western part of the city and the bomb detonated.
Many of the dead were women and children, a police officer told the AFP news agency.
"The truck contained many tons of chlorine and TNT which were covered by sacks full of fertiliser," he said.
There are reports that several policemen were killed. Fifty people were reportedly injured in the blast.
The bombing was in a densely populated district and there are fears many of the casualties are civilians.
Some reports said the bomb had released chlorine gas and that 20 other people were treated for chlorine poisoning. The Associated Press (AP) news agency said most were discharged after 30 minutes.
There have been 10 bombings in Anbar province this year using chlorine gas as a weapon.
Ramadi has been a centre of the Sunni-led insurgency against coalition forces and the Iraqi government.
Two bombs were founds on a road frequently travelled by US and British diplomats near the southern city of Basra, AP reported.
It followed the deaths of four British soldiers in a roadside bomb blast in Basra on Thursday.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6532271.stm |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Going by your standards, the surge would be a success if violence was completely eradicated. I don't think you'll find one general who would tell you that they would be able to stop the bombings completely. The goal here is to bring the level of violence down to a minimum - it was never said nor promised that violence would be stopped entirely.
So you can keep posting your articles from the liberal media about a bombing here or there - it does not in any way show that the surge has failed. Nevertheless, the least you could do is wait until the surge is at 100% before making any judgements. I won't hold my breath, however.
Answer this - do you want America to fail in Iraq? |
|
|
| otherone4life |
| But John McCain went to a souk in Baghdad with 100 armored troops and 5 gunships covering him and said everything was fine. Rep. Pence said it was like a day at the Indiana Fair ...were they lying? |
|
|
| otherone4life |
| Vacate ... I thought major combat operations were declared over on 5/1/03 by your leader? And then the puppet master aka Cheney said the insurgency was in its last throes in 2005. Why was the advice of Army Chief of Staff Shinseki ignored? Why did Bremer "de-Baathify" the army? Why oh why Vacate should anything uttered by your feckless president be taken seriously when he has been wrong every step of the way? |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by otherone4life
But John McCain went to a souk in Baghdad with 100 armored troops and 5 gunships covering him and said everything was fine. Rep. Pence said it was like a day at the Indiana Fair ...were they lying? |
Senator McCain has said that, in retrospect, he gave the wrong impression. That being said, he never once claimed that "everything was fine."
 |
|
|
| Stonewall |
This thread is perfect...
CELEBRATION OF A SUPPOSED DEFEAT....
 |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
This thread is perfect...
CELEBRATION OF A SUPPOSED DEFEAT....
|
Stonewall - is it just me or do you also get the impression that the Democrats think that the war is lost and want to turn the deed of the land over to the terrorists? It sounds absurd, but by their actions I swear they have no interest in victory. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Stonewall - is it just me or do you also get the impression that the Democrats think that the war is lost and want to turn the deed of the land over to the terrorists? It sounds absurd, but by their actions I swear they have no interest in victory. |
They just hate Bush. If defeat is what it takes to destroy Bush, then thats what it takes. They care not about the troops or no WMD or the U.S., Clinton lied into invading Serbia...not a peep to this day.
We are helping cleanse Kosovo of Serbs. Not a peep. No opinion needed. None broadcast.
The Left are unthinking idiots. They believe anything about Bush, say anything. But they will fight a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Not because of any belief they have, but instead with the instinct of a Muslim defending Satanic Palestinians.
These are Morons pasting opinions while unable to defend beyond the paste. How could they when the paste is only meant to impress them and not defend anything? So, they resort to other leftist teaching...racism. Thats it post lies and defend those lies with personal attacks. There is no defense otherwise.
Unless you have a soiled dress... nothing matters. They complain of bringing up Clinton, who sold them that position? It does not make sense...but who cares? |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by StoneTroll
They just hate Bush. If defeat is what it takes to destroy Bush, then thats what it takes. They care not about the troops or no WMD or the U.S., Clinton lied into invading Serbia...not a peep to this day. |
1. Its Bush's fault all thinking citizens (of the U.S. AND the World) hate him and his party. :hitler:
2. Defeat occurred at conception.
3. All evidence points to the grim fact that the Bush Admin. has betrayed "the troops" on EVERY level. Pointing that out (and making them pay for it) is the duty of all thinking human beings of conscious.
4. You obviously don't know a goddamn thing about the Bosnian War. What else is new? Lying piece of shit.
Quote: Originally posted by StoneTroll
The Left are unthinking idiots. They believe anything about Bush, say anything. But they will fight a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Not because of any belief they have, but instead with the instinct of a Muslim defending Satanic Palestinians. |
1. Your beef is with the Pentagon, not the "Left". They are the ones who released the DEFINITIVE report denying a link. :opps:
2. Its the ignorant conservative cockroaches and members of the brainwashed GOP Borg "collective" that instinctively goose-step to what ever "tired tune" der Furher farts out, no matter how misguided, evil, self-defeating, or insane. If you weren't an emotionally unhealthy schizo, you would be aware of this. Too bad.
:rdf:
"...I like singing the SAME OL' TIRED COCKROACH TUNE...!":
"...and I whistle while I work, and I whistle while I work...!": :whistle:
"I like whistling out my ass to defend the Bush Crime Family, over and over again..."
________________________________________
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
Stonewall Jackson was a traitor to his country and Constitution. Just like Bush, everyone in his administration, and all the cockroaches who follow them. Believe me, I know why you admire him!:
You are a duped sucker, who, much like the inbred hillbilly's of 1860 who fought so loyally for the rich Plantation owners who told them to, and the poor, dumb Bavarian farmboys who joined the SS for love of Hitler, you are so desperate for "Daddy's" love, you'll excuse any crime or treachery. How pathetic.
You are weak. You are scared. You are ignorant. You are mentally unhealthy.
Thus, you are a Conservative. |
|
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
They just hate Bush. If defeat is what it takes to destroy Bush, then thats what it takes. They care not about the troops or no WMD or the U.S., Clinton lied into invading Serbia...not a peep to this day.
We are helping cleanse Kosovo of Serbs. Not a peep. No opinion needed. None broadcast.
The Left are unthinking idiots. They believe anything about Bush, say anything. But they will fight a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Not because of any belief they have, but instead with the instinct of a Muslim defending Satanic Palestinians.
These are Morons pasting opinions while unable to defend beyond the paste. How could they when the paste is only meant to impress them and not defend anything? So, they resort to other leftist teaching...racism. Thats it post lies and defend those lies with personal attacks. There is no defense otherwise.
Unless you have a soiled dress... nothing matters. They complain of bringing up Clinton, who sold them that position? It does not make sense...but who cares? |
Well said. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
They just hate Bush. If defeat is what it takes to destroy Bush, then thats what it takes. They care not about the troops or no WMD or the U.S., Clinton lied into invading Serbia...not a peep to this day.
We are helping cleanse Kosovo of Serbs. Not a peep. No opinion needed. None broadcast.
The Left are unthinking idiots. They believe anything about Bush, say anything. But they will fight a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Not because of any belief they have, but instead with the instinct of a Muslim defending Satanic Palestinians.
These are Morons pasting opinions while unable to defend beyond the paste. How could they when the paste is only meant to impress them and not defend anything? So, they resort to other leftist teaching...racism. Thats it post lies and defend those lies with personal attacks. There is no defense otherwise.
Unless you have a soiled dress... nothing matters. They complain of bringing up Clinton, who sold them that position? It does not make sense...but who cares? |
Escalation: Strategy That Has Failed Before
Over the past four years, the Bush Administration has on numerous occasions sanctioned troop increases. In every case this strategy has had little long-term impact.
"Operation Together Forward" (June-October 2006): In June the Bush administration announced a new plan for securing Baghdad by increasing the presence of Iraqi Security Forces. That plan failed, so in July the White House announced that additional American troops would be sent into Baghdad. By October, a U.S. military spokesman, Gen. William Caldwell, acknowledged that the operation and troop increase was a failure and had "not met our overall expectations of sustaining a reduction in the levels of violence." [CNN, 12/19/06. Washington Post, 7/26/06. Brookings Institution, 12/21/06.]
Elections and Constitutional Referendum (September-December 2005): In fall of 2005, the Bush administration increased troop levels by 22,000, making a total of 160,000 American troops in Iraq around Iraq's constitutional referendum and parliamentary elections. While the elections went off without major violence these escalations had little long-term impact on quelling sectarian violence or attacks on American troops. [Brookings Institution, 12/21/06. www.icasualties.org]
Constitutional Elections and Fallujah (November 2004-March 2005): As part of an effort to improve counterinsurgency operations after the Fallujah offensive in November 2004 and to increase security before the January 2005 constitutional elections, U.S. forces were increased by 12,000 to a total of 150,000. Again there was no long-term security benefit. [Brookings Institution, 12/21/06. New York Times, 12/2/04.]
Massive Troop Rotations (December 2003-April 2004): As part of a massive rotation of 250,000 troops in the winter and spring of 2004, troop levels in Iraq were raised from 122,000 to 137,000. Yet the increase did nothing to prevent Muqtada al-Sadr's Najaf uprising and April of 2004 was the second deadliest month for Americans. [Brookings Institution, 12/21/06. www.icasualties.org. USA Today, 3/4/04]
 |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Vacate(TheTurd)
Well said. |
Jerking yourself off again Stumpy?
Stupid prick.
:rdf: |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Escalation: Strategy That Has Failed Before
Over the past four years, the Bush Administration has on numerous occasions sanctioned troop increases. In every case this strategy has had little long-term impact.
"Operation Together Forward" (June-October 2006): In June the Bush administration announced a new plan for securing Baghdad by increasing the presence of Iraqi Security Forces. That plan failed, so in July the White House announced that additional American troops would be sent into Baghdad. By October, a U.S. military spokesman, Gen. William Caldwell, acknowledged that the operation and troop increase was a failure and had "not met our overall expectations of sustaining a reduction in the levels of violence." [CNN, 12/19/06. Washington Post, 7/26/06. Brookings Institution, 12/21/06.]
Elections and Constitutional Referendum (September-December 2005): In fall of 2005, the Bush administration increased troop levels by 22,000, making a total of 160,000 American troops in Iraq around Iraq's constitutional referendum and parliamentary elections. While the elections went off without major violence these escalations had little long-term impact on quelling sectarian violence or attacks on American troops. [Brookings Institution, 12/21/06. www.icasualties.org]
Constitutional Elections and Fallujah (November 2004-March 2005): As part of an effort to improve counterinsurgency operations after the Fallujah offensive in November 2004 and to increase security before the January 2005 constitutional elections, U.S. forces were increased by 12,000 to a total of 150,000. Again there was no long-term security benefit. [Brookings Institution, 12/21/06. New York Times, 12/2/04.]
Massive Troop Rotations (December 2003-April 2004): As part of a massive rotation of 250,000 troops in the winter and spring of 2004, troop levels in Iraq were raised from 122,000 to 137,000. Yet the increase did nothing to prevent Muqtada al-Sadr's Najaf uprising and April of 2004 was the second deadliest month for Americans. [Brookings Institution, 12/21/06. www.icasualties.org. USA Today, 3/4/04]
|
:lol:
Conveniently leaving out the change in tactics and strategy. Back then were we actively going after the Mahdi Army? Did we have Iraq troops with imbedded coalition forces staying in neighborhoods once they were secured?
The answer to both questions is "NO."
Next. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
:lol:
Conveniently leaving out the change in tactics and strategy. Back then were we actively going after the Mahdi Army? Did we have Iraq troops with imbedded coalition forces staying in neighborhoods once they were secured?
The answer to both questions is "NO."
Next. |
You dumbass. Are you seriously saying ALL the other "surges" were to attack the Mahdi Army? I want you to commit to that, because that is without a doubt one of the lamest defenses of this strategy I have ever seen.
The latest Bush plan is not called "change in strategy and tactics". It's called a "surge" by Republican idiots like yourself. More sane people know it is nothing more than a standard escalation.
If that is your best reply to proof the exact same "strategy" failed several times before, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
LOL |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
You dumbass. Are you seriously saying ALL the other "surges" were to attack the Mahdi Army? I want you to commit to that, because that is without a doubt one of the lamest defenses of this strategy I have ever seen.
The latest Bush plan is not called "change in strategy and tactics". It's called a "surge" by Republican idiots like yourself. More sane people know it is nothing more than a standard escalation.
If that is your best reply to proof the exact same "strategy" failed several times before, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
LOL |
The term "surge" was a component of what the President called "the new way forward" in Iraq. The President's plan is not called that? You missed his national televised speech, eh?
No, "dumbass" I'm not saying all the other surges were to attack the Mahdi Army. We weren't allowed to go after Al-Sadr's terrorist group because were were placating Maliki. That is over.
We also were not "holding" the areas we had cleared. We are now. It's a different strategy with changed tactics.
You seem like an honest, however misguided, person. Let me ask you something. Do you want the coalition forces to win in Iraq? |
|
|
| ChaseDC |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
Stonewall - is it just me or do you also get the impression that the Democrats think that the war is lost and want to turn the deed of the land over to the terrorists? It sounds absurd, but by their actions I swear they have no interest in victory. |
It is NOT our land to turn over, you asshole. |
|
|
| ChaseDC |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
They just hate Bush. If defeat is what it takes to destroy Bush, then thats what it takes. They care not about the troops or no WMD or the U.S., Clinton lied into invading Serbia...not a peep to this day.
We are helping cleanse Kosovo of Serbs. Not a peep. No opinion needed. None broadcast.
The Left are unthinking idiots. They believe anything about Bush, say anything. But they will fight a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Not because of any belief they have, but instead with the instinct of a Muslim defending Satanic Palestinians.
These are Morons pasting opinions while unable to defend beyond the paste. How could they when the paste is only meant to impress them and not defend anything? So, they resort to other leftist teaching...racism. Thats it post lies and defend those lies with personal attacks. There is no defense otherwise.
Unless you have a soiled dress... nothing matters. They complain of bringing up Clinton, who sold them that position? It does not make sense...but who cares? |
Keep spewing the propanda sheep. Drink your kool-aid like a good bitch. |
|
|
| ChaseDC |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
The term "surge" was a component of what the President called "the new way forward" in Iraq. The President's plan is not called that? You missed his national televised speech, eh?
No, "dumbass" I'm not saying all the other surges were to attack the Mahdi Army. We weren't allowed to go after Al-Sadr's terrorist group because were were placating Maliki. That is over.
We also were not "holding" the areas we had cleared. We are now. It's a different strategy with changed tactics.
You seem like an honest, however misguided, person. Let me ask you something. Do you want the coalition forces to win in Iraq? |
What's his "plan" dummy? If you know it, then you must be privvy to UNKNOWN information. Stay the course and troop surge isn't a PLAN. Coward. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Vacate(TheTurd)
No, "dumbass" I'm not saying all the other surges were to attack the Mahdi Army. We weren't allowed to go after Al-Sadr's terrorist group because were were placating Maliki. That is over. |
:lol:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Quote: Originally posted by Vacate(TheTurd)
We also were not "holding" the areas we had cleared. We are now. It's a different strategy with changed tactics. |
:lol:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Vacate The :shit: : simply exposing his own ignorance to the board again (and again, and again...).
Congrats asshole!
:rdf:
_____________________
Quote: Originally posted by Fdub
Quote: Originally posted by Vacate(TheTurd)
Simple - a nation that can govern, defend and sustain itself and is an ally in the war on terror. |
You mean like Saddam's Iraq, pre-Bush invasion and occupation?!?!? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Thanks for exposing your own ignorance yet again, cockroach!!!
*FLUSH*
:crapper:
|
Vacated Turd :shit: ----------> :love: <--------- MCDikey-Dike 69K :hitler: |
|
|
| harley-davidson |
| Quote: The term "surge" was a component of what the President called "the new way forward" in Iraq. The President's plan is not called that? You missed his national televised speech, eh? |
the new way forward"
A new way forward huh ?.............> |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord
The term "surge" was a component of what the President called "the new way forward" in Iraq. The President's plan is not called that? You missed his national televised speech, eh?
No, "dumbass" I'm not saying all the other surges were to attack the Mahdi Army. We weren't allowed to go after Al-Sadr's terrorist group because were were placating Maliki. That is over.
We also were not "holding" the areas we had cleared. We are now. It's a different strategy with changed tactics.
You seem like an honest, however misguided, person. Let me ask you something. Do you want the coalition forces to win in Iraq? |
So according to you, the administration needed a NEW "plan" to tell them to hold areas they had cleared? Are you serious? That is without a doubt the dumbest thing I have ever read. Where can we go to read this amazing new "plan"? Does it include NEW strategies like "load your gun"?
And I'll answer your question as soon as you define "win in Iraq". And by define I mean specifics, not the vague, idiotic talking points spoonfed to you by those who have failed to this point.
There was no "winning" the situation in Iraq. Our troops are targets in a civil war. How do you "win" in that situation..... |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
Lets invade Japan since we didn't do it in 45! What the fuck is wrong with this administration?
Does anybody have any brains? |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
So according to you, the administration needed a NEW "plan" to tell them to hold areas they had cleared? Are you serious? That is without a doubt the dumbest thing I have ever read. Where can we go to read this amazing new "plan"? Does it include NEW strategies like "load your gun"?
And I'll answer your question as soon as you define "win in Iraq". And by define I mean specifics, not the vague, idiotic talking points spoonfed to you by those who have failed to this point.
There was no "winning" the situation in Iraq. Our troops are targets in a civil war. How do you "win" in that situation..... |
First of all, you are looking for specifics in regards to the New Way Forward in Iraq. Sorry, but a responsible government will not make such information public, lest the enemy be informed of what to expect.
Then again, check the New York Times - they have a history of spilling State secrets.
Second, I cannot give you my own specifics because I'm not a general. I leave that up to the commanders on the ground. I have already given you the broadstrokes of what I think is necessary to achieve and how to achieve it in Iraq - go look it up if you forgot.
You, on the other hand, have not provided any sort of alternative to what is currently being done. So I will assume you are with the Retreat & Defeat crowd and want to pull all troops out as fast as possible.
Finally, if you can't wrap your brain around what would constitute a "win" in Iraq, then there is no use in trying to explain how this could end beneficially for both US interests and the Iraqi people. No, you're content to pull the troops out and let genocide take place. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by ChaseDC
It is NOT our land to turn over, you asshole. |
No, but we are occupying the country and by pulling out the troops now we would essentially be turning control over to the terrorists because the Maliki government is not able to defend itself at this point.
I know this is a difficult concept to grasp - write a Democratic member of congress and tell them to let the grown-ups handle National Security and go back to trying to end poverty or whatever fairy tale mission they are working on. |
|
|
|
|
|
