Don't the libs just hate it that McCain was 100% right on the surge? And obama was, uh, wrong?? ?

Question

I keep reading their posts...half are in denial and half don't even know enough of the facts to even make sense...lol...kool aid...lol

Answer 1

Yes the surge of U.S. tax dollars to pay the enemy not to shoot at our guys was a stroke of genius.

Answer 2

Really? I guess you'll be booking your next vacation in Baghdad then.  You cons have a bizarre definition of success to say the least.

Answer 3

I dont

Of course if you add more troops to Iraq, the violence would go down. Thats just an excercise in common sense and judgment, a 8 year old coulda figured it out.

What liberals were fighting against is putting troops in Iraq at the expense of AFGHANISTAN. We've all but lost control of Afghanistan by now, even the Taliban has reformed and Osama will probably be back to plottin his next move. Afghanistan was the cradle from which Islamic extremism against the US was born, and we ignored a place that IS CONFIRMED TO HAVE AN AL QAEDA PRESENCE in order to stabilise Iraq, a country we had no buisness being in.  

Answer 4

That all depends.  Didn't the U.S. payoff the warring factions to not fight, therefore giving the appearence of the surge working?

Ha! ha! that one!

Answer 5

don't the cons just hate it that obama was 100% right on diplomacy, and McSame was wrong again and again.  poor old guy.  still he wants to "fight, fight, fight"".  ahhh, poor old guy.

Answer 6

The libs will never understand that we are strong because we are willing to go to war when necessary, and citizens are not qualified to judge the actions taken by the government. The military is not a democratic body, it is the governments property during a term of enlistment, and our troops are loyal volunteers to the state.Those brave few go to war so kool aid drinkers can enjoy the right to call them bad names.Freedom is not a right so much as a privilege thanks to us war monger people on the right.

Answer 7

Judging from the answers, you are absolutely correct - the libs have been cheering from the wrong sidelines for so long, they really hate hearing anything about the surge, our successes or the war on terror in general.

They've changed the subject to the economy, global warming and gas prices - and if they're proved wrong on any of these issues, they'll change the subject again!

Answer 8

You mean the plan to temporarily move the insurgents away from the areas with journalists until we pull out?

Yeah, that worked great.

Why are militarists so short sighted?

Answer 9

Obama was wrong about that timeline on Iraq too wasn't he?  Hmmm...

Answer 10

Tell me again what the "surge" accomplished that wasn't already in play. We are still being attacked, still losing soldiers, the playing field has shifted and the beat goes on. The "surge is another great Bush Farce.

Answer 11

If you consider a successful surge less troops dieing than the month before, God help us all.

Answer 12

Great question. They will deny it , of course.

Hey ONE don't speak for all the soldiers. Many of them agree the surge is working. They all voluntarily signed up to fight and are raedy and willing. Please don't act like you are their defender. My husband did sign up and he knows first hand from being in Iraq how well the surge worked and how it was the right thing to do. Why don't you sign up and check it out. My cousin also agrees the surge worked , he is going to Iraq shortly and is prepared to reenlist. Mty brother just joined up. HOOAH!

Answer 13

it's not about the surge , it never has been..........

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who served as the chief prosecutor of the major n**i war criminals, called starting a war without cause the "supreme war crime" because all other war crimes flow from it.

Under the United Nations Charter, which is a binding international treaty ratified by the United States, it is illegal to attack another nation except: 1) when authorized by the Security Council; or 2) when necessary for self-defense and then only for as long as necessary to get the matter to the Security Council.

The Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441 that found Iraq in material breach of prior resolutions and warned of "severe consequences" if Iraq didn't conform. But that resolution also explicitly stated that the Security Council remained seized of the issue and the United States assured the other members that Resolution 1441 did not authorize it to attack Iraq; the U.S. would have to return to the Security Council for another resolution before it could attack Iraq. In early 2003, the United States did return to the Security Council with a resolution authorizing an attack on Iraq. When it became clear that the proposed resolution could not muster a majority, the United States withdrew the resolution and attacked Iraq anyway. There is no crime more serious than illegally starting a war.

what flavor kool aid did you say you were drinking.... guessing "red"

Answer 14

The Surge has proven that John McCain is the best candidate for the President of the United States because he wanted a victory instead of another defeat and surrender to terrorists like Hussein wanted.

Answer 15

LOL. When McCain was ever right on anything ?

'Surge' is a complete nonsense if the war is lost even before it started

Answer 16

What was he or anyone else right about with regards to the surge?

We still refuse to setup a timetable for withdrawal, even when the Iraqi govt wants it, we still have troops and civilians dying, but progress is being made....

The only way to sustain the progress is to maintain the surge troop levels....it'll descend right back to how it was pre-surge once the troop numbers are drawn down again.

You, and others like you, make me think of how the last battle of the civil war ended...."texas confederacy: we won the last battle!  How did we lose the war?  Umm, we lost a lot of other battles, this was just one."

Thats what your surge is in the scope of the entire war......one front.  Unless it is sustained we'll be right back where we were 18 months ago.

And don't look now, but Afghanistan is descending back into chaos too....I distinctly remember people from both parties openly wondering why we left there so quickly....

Answer 17

I can admit that Obama could be wrong.  Does that mean that we can leave Iraq now?  C'mon, we were wrong, time to withdraw!  

Seriously, if the Surge worked why are we still maintaining a troop presence?

Answer 18

Yeah, you don't hear them talk much about it any more because it has been a success.

They feed off of the negative, and even if it's positive, as long as it's a Republican policiy, they will try to smear it into a negative thing just to fit their agenda.

Answer 19

Well, Bush has changed his definition of success a lot.  At first, he started saying that success would be a country of Iraq that could defend itself and had a government that it elected.  Then, a few months later, suddenly success was "fewer car bombings."  Quite a jump.  So, if by success you mean a smaller percentage of people dying a day, then good on ya!  So I'm guessing you also believe it's a "success" to keep spending 10 billion dollars a month funding this war?  Wouldn't surprise me.  I mean, who cared about the economy and the ridiculous debt we have now.  It'll affect our grandkids way more than it will affect us.  s***w them!

Answer 20

My question is, how do we end it?  A surge worked for a while in Viet Nam too.

Food for thought on the surge.

Published on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 by The Independent/UK

Iraq: Divided and Disintegrating

by Patrick Cockburn

One of the most extraordinary developments in the Iraqi war has been the success with which the White House has been able to persuade so much of the political and media establishment in the US that, by means of "the Surge", an extra 30,000 US troops, it is on the verge of political and military success in Iraq. All that is needed now, argue US generals, is political reconciliation between the Iraqi communities.

Few demands could be more hypocritical. American success in reducing the level of violence over the last year has happened precisely because Iraqis are so divided. The Sunni Arabs of Iraq were the heart of the rebellion against the American occupation. In fighting the US forces, they were highly successful. But in 2006, after the bombing of the Shia shrine at Samarra, Baghdad and central Iraq was wracked by a savage civil war between Shia and Sunni. In some months the bodies of 3,000 civilians were found, and many others lie buried in the desert or disappeared into the river. I do not know an Iraqi family that did not lose a relative, and usually more than one.

The Shia won this civil war. By the end of 2006 they held three quarters of Baghdad. The Sunni rebels, fighting the Mehdi Army Shia militia and the Shia, dominated the Iraqi army and police, and also under pressure from al Qa'ida, decided to end their war with US forces. They formed al-Sahwa, the Awakening movement, which is now allied to and paid for by the US.

In effect Iraq now has an 80,000 strong Sunni militia which does not hide its contempt for the Iraqi government, which it claims is dominated by Iranian controlled militias. The former anti-American guerrillas have largely joined al-Sahwa. The Shia majority, for its part, is determined not to let the Sunni win back their control of the Iraqi state. Power is more fragmented than ever.

This all may sound like good news for America. For the moment its casualties are down. Fewer Iraqi civilians are being slaughtered. But the Sunni have not fallen in love with the occupation. The fundamental weakness of the US position in Iraq remains its lack of reliable allies outside Kurdistan.

This lack of allies may not be so immediately obvious in Baghdad and central Iraq because both Shia and Sunni are willing and at times eager to make tactical alliances with US forces. But in the long term neither Sunni nor Shia Arab want the Americans to stay in Iraq. Hitherto the only reliable American allies have been the Kurds, who are now discovering that Washington is not going to protect them against Turkey.

Very little is holding Iraq together. The government is marooned in the Green Zone. Having declared the Surge a great success, the US military commanders need just as many troops to maintain a semblance of control now as they did before the Surge. The mainly Shia police force regards al-Sahwa as anti-government guerrillas wearing new uniforms.

The surge one year on:

The troop surge in Iraq is not nearly as successful as the media portrays it to be, a Middle East historian said in a lecture Monday in Giffels Auditorium.

In "The Iraq Surge One Year On," Chris Toensing, editor of the Middle East Report, disputed assertions by neoconservatives in the media concerning the "apparent success of the surge." He said the war in Iraq is far from over.

The claims of success are correctly based on two figures - the decrease in the number of violent deaths in Iraq and the increase in Sunnis cooperating with American forces to fight al-Qaida, he said.

Although American and Iraqi casualties have decreased by about half from a year ago, Toensing said the number of violent attacks is still high, and the current number of 500 civilian deaths a month is very violent by any standard.

The second factor - that Sunni Arabs are turning against al-Qaida fighters - is a phenomenon that began before the surge of American troops. The "Anbar Awakening" and other similar movements have about 72,000 "armed, concerned local citizens," Toensing said. The U.S. military is paying about 60,000 of them $300 per month, in addition to arming and training them to fight, he said.

The "awakenings" of Sunni leaders allying with the U.S. has a strong "mercenary" aspect to it, Toensing said. Tribal bands are helping quell violence in their areas, but are setting up independent fiefdoms to take over the lucrative black market, which is being used to finance al-Qaida attacks, he said.

There has been a localization of politics, and many Iraqis feel the U.S. invaded to replace one Saddam with 50 Saddams - ruthless local leaders that often act independently of the central government, Toensing said. Overall, the U.S. invasion of Iraq has created a political and economic fragmenta

Answer 21

The denial will grow but they can't walk away from the fact that Obama wants to take the surge idea and apply it to Afghanistan.

Which begs the questions:

1) If they surge didn't work why could Obama walk around Baghdad?

2) So why is Obama a fan of another surge?

Answer 22

Reading and comprehending what you have read are not the same.

Answer 23

So when are you signing up to go die in Iraq? Come on, coward. It's time for you to die for this cause. Otherwise shut up because people's friends and family are dying for NO REASON.