PDA

View Full Version : "Surge Working?" Yeah, right!



Gayle in MD
08-30-2008, 10:15 AM
BAGHDAD (AFP) - Dozens of Shiite radicals scrambled on Friday to sign blood oaths to continue their fight against US forces in Iraq despite an order from their leader Moqtada al-Sadr for them to lay down their arms.

Children as young as 10 were among those seen cutting their thumbs with scalpels and putting a bloodied fingerprint to a document circulated by members of the Sadr movement in the cleric's eastern Baghdad bastion of Sadr City.

All vowed to fight on, despite orders by Sadr on Thursday to his 60,000-strong Mahdi Army militia to suspend their armed operations indefinitely.

The order followed two six-month periods in which he had ordered his followers to hold their fire.

"I will follow the orders of Moqtada al-Sadr but I prefer to fight," said Adnan Habib, a 22-year-old labourer who attended Friday prayers in Sadr City.

"I want to sacrifice my soul, my family, for Sadr. I want to resist the occupier," said Habib, who was among those signing blood oaths.

Another Sadr supporter, Ali Abdel, a 19-year-old high school student, said he had been wanting to join the ranks of the Mahdi Army since the death of his mother in an attack targeting a police patrol a year ago.

"My entire family has signed to fight, including my father. If my mother was alive, she would also have signed."

When asked if he knows how to fight, Ali replied with a broad smile: "Which Iraqi does not know how to use a weapon?"

A Sadr official, who asked not to be named, said Sadrists had begun signing oaths in blood 16 days ago and would continue doing so until the end of the Muslim holy fasting month of Ramadan, due to start next week.

"This morning hundreds signed the pledge," the official said. "Blood is most valuable and so we want to show our loyalty to Moqtada with it."

The cleric's latest order came at a time when Washington and Baghdad are negotiating a crucial security agreement to decide the future of US forces in Iraq.

"The Mahdi Army suspension will be valid indefinitely and anyone who does not follow this order will not be considered a member of this group," Sadr said in a statement issued by his office in the Shiite shrine city of Najaf.

Sadr said he wants to create a special unit of fighters who would continue the armed resistance against coalition forces, while the Mahdi Army in general would be transformed into a cultural and social organisation.

Falah Hassan Shanshal, a lawmaker from the Sadr bloc in parliament, said the cleric wanted to serve society.

"The philosophy of Moqtada al-Sadr is the same as that of his father Mohammed. Like his father, he wants to serve society and build society," Shanshal told AFP.

He said the movement would organise literacy drives for young men and women although it did accept that most "young men want to resist" the US occupation of Iraq.

Many young Sadr loyalists told AFP they did not see any role for themselves except as fighters.

"I prefer to resist by force using arms, this is the only thing I am capable of doing," said Mohammed Mussa, a baker for the past 18 years.

The militia, created after the 2003 US-led invasion to fight invading American troops, became the most active and feared armed Shiite group in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, accused of operating death squads blamed for the killings of thousands.

In 2006, at the height of Iraq's communal bloodletting, a Pentagon report said the Mahdi Army was the greatest threat to the country's security, even greater than Al-Qaeda.

Sadr ordered a six-month freeze of Mahdi Army activities in August last year after allegations his fighters had been involved in clashes with security forces in the shrine city of Karbala.

He extended the freeze for a further six months in February and on Thursday ordered an indefinite suspension of the militia's activities.

Sadr led two uprisings against US-led forces in 2004 and had repeatedly vowed to fight on until US troops leave Iraq.


<span style="color: #000066">As we were told by Michael Ware, their intentions are clearly to continue their fight for power once it is possible, and once we leave.

As I have stated all along, it doesn not matter how long we stay in the middle of a civil war, the fight will continue. It isn't our fight to win. There is no winning for America, in Iraq, only more pointless loss of treasure and blood. </span>

sack316
08-30-2008, 10:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
"My entire family has signed to fight, including my father. If my mother was alive, she would also have signed."

When asked if he knows how to fight, Ali replied with a broad smile: "Which Iraqi does not know how to use a weapon?"
</div></div>

Not to take away from the rest of the article or from your point... but what "civilian" casualties would this make me feel bad about?

Sack

Bobbyrx
08-30-2008, 03:41 PM
What does this have to do with the surge?

nAz
08-30-2008, 04:29 PM
Gayle why do you hate America?

Kerbouchard
08-31-2008, 11:20 AM
Gayle, I spent 14 months in Iraq. I can ensure you, the surge is working.

Just because there is a group of people that chooses to continue to resist, does not mean it is a total failure. If that is where you draw the line, then I submit to you that American cities do not work. If American cities were working, we wouldn't have crime, drugs, and murders.

We would never have to lock up any criminals because everybody would be happy with the way things are, and nobody would go against the laws, right?

Gayle in MD
08-31-2008, 11:42 AM
A reduction in violence was not the point of the surge. The surge was supposed to bring about political reconciliation. It hasn't. Iraq is a mistake, and nothing is ever going to change that. WE made a huge mess over there, which has worsened our circumstances, and emboldened our enemies. It is a no win war, which has brought absolutely nothing of value to this country.

Gayle in Md.
I appreciate your service to our country.

Gayle in MD
08-31-2008, 11:43 AM
LMAO... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

hey, wazzup!

Gayle in MD
08-31-2008, 11:45 AM
What was the point of the surge?

Waiting for you to get this wrong...

Kerbouchard
08-31-2008, 11:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What was the point of the surge?

Waiting for you to get this wrong... </div></div>

The point of the surge was to reduce violence in an effort to increase stability resulting in the Iraqi government being able to take control and reach a point where they were able to govern their own nation.

Gayle in MD
08-31-2008, 12:23 PM
The point of the Surge was to give breathing room to the Iraqis, in order that they could settle their political differences and agree to the political decisions that must be made in order to have a functioning government.

No political reconsiliation has been settled, and any agreements reached, were opposed by the Kurds.

The varrying factions in Iraq, intend to continue their civil war.

Again, you cannot force democracy on unwilling, fractured, warring people, of ages old political, ethnic and religious differences, and with a corrupt government.

Iraq, was a mistake. The worst foreign policy decision in our history, rivaled only by Viewnam, also a mistake.

This war has enhanced our enemies, increased their numbers, and hurt America.

Mc-insane, Bush and Palin, all refuse to admit that.

Kerbouchard
08-31-2008, 12:34 PM
And what foreign policy experience do you have Gayle? I assume by how well you speak on the conditions of Iraq, that you have been there? Have you ever been thanked by a crying grand parent for having liberated them from the man who had killed their children? Bush did not do it right. I will agree with that. He should have given the real reasons for going over. He should have said it was about oil and about a very, very bad man who needed to be taken from power. Saddam Hussain was not a good man. He was responsible for more atrocities than you can imagine.

We ended the first Iraq war because Iraq agreed to conditions which it did not uphold. While Clinton ignored the fact that Iraq was ignoring the conditions of its surrender, Bush remedied that.

It has nothing to do with 9/11. It had to do with a very large oil reserve and an oppressive, anti-American Government. The war was just. The war was right. Our Commander in Chief lying about the reasons for that war is unforgivable.

But I can say, unequivocally, that the surge DID work, and that the citizens are better off then they were 2 years ago or 8 years ago.

My only regret is that he allowed Iraq to overshadow Afghanistan and he did not finish the job.

Gayle in MD
08-31-2008, 12:51 PM
If you think that Iraqis with over a million refugees, gone, and a country in rubble, without dependable electricity and clean water, IED's going off every other day, and some estimates, (the best and most accurate one) stating that over 600,000 Iraqis have been killed, and many many moore wounded, is a situation that Iraqis are happy about, You're dreaming.


You are in no position to speak for the Iraqis, nor am I. Saddam could have been taken care of quite easily, without illegally invading and occupying a country which never was an immediate threat.

There is no justification for what we have done to those people. This war was, and is a mistake. It has brought nothing but death and destruction to all concerned, and further exacerbated our probelms in the middle east, and has allowed the urgent issue, terrorism, to expand, not only al Qaeda, but Iran, Hezbollah, the Taliban, Hammas, all stronger, and Russia, realizing our position of weakness, also acting up.

There is no foreign policy expert, past or present, save the neocons from the American Enterprise Institute, who thinks that this war was the right thing to do. It has been disasterous for us, and for the Iraqis. It has been good for al Qaeda, and has emboldened their cause.

Gayle in Md.

Kerbouchard
08-31-2008, 12:56 PM
Well, Gayle, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I've been there.

You have the media to base your opinion off of, and I have only my personal experience.

That hardly seems the ideal circumstance for an objective discourse.

Gayle in MD
08-31-2008, 01:08 PM
I respect your opinion, but it does not sound like an opinion derived from a study of the underlying issues.

I don't deny that our soldiers have done a fabulous job, and that we all owe them every kind of gratitude and support imaginzable. The underlying justifications for this misadventure, are false. This was a mistake. If you care to read our own National Intelligence Estimate, which supports everything I have written, you might understand why I think as I do about the entire mistake of invading, and occupying Iraq.

If a thing is correct, one does not have to lie about it in order to convince others that it is correct.

I agree to disagree with you, and I respect and appreciate everything you did over there.

Gayle in Md.

sack316
08-31-2008, 01:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A reduction in violence was not the point of the surge. The surge was supposed to bring about political reconciliation. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What was the point of the surge?

Waiting for you to get this wrong... </div></div>

Well I suppose I could simply give your answer and not get it "wrong". /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif But at any rate, how do you suppose political reconciliation would be achieved in this circumstance? By not attempting to reduce violence? I mean, wouldn't it be logical, that even by your point of the surge, that a reduction in violence would be part of that, and hence part of the point of the surge?

Anyway, you know I try to respect your views and listen to you as best I can. But please excuse me if I grant a little more weight to the likes of Kerbouchard and dozens of my personal friends who... I dunno... have actually been there doing this whole thing over your opinion from reading Huffington and your Washington insiders/political figures who we all talk about over and over with their agendas and misrepresentations (both sides, mind you).

You know, I'm sure you do get a lot of valuable information from all the things you read, and I do respect you for that and your diligent research. But from time to time I copy and paste a lot of this stuff in personal emails back and forth to friends in Iraq right now, just to get another perspective outside of our little CCB world, our journalists, our pundits, and our representatives. You know, kinda one of those things where, for example, I feel I can learn a lot about Albert Pujols from Peter Gammons, but could learn a lot more about Pujols from Pujols himself and his teammates. And one thing that inevitably gets said in some way, shape, or form is this:

"i think she has heard a few things she likes on one side and a few things she doesn't from the other. it also sounds like she hasn't taken the time or made the effort to research both the good and the bad. i wouldn't worry about her too much if i were you."

So while I respect your opinions, please forgive me for not accepting it as the gospel. I'll glady listen to you anytime... but just many times there are more enlightened sources, believe it or not. This doesn't mean I think it's all candy and rainbows... just that I know it's not all hellfire and brimstone, either. There are people proudly busting their asses to do some good... and even they know this thing hasn't exactly been a rousing success over all these years (nor has it bene an abysmal failure). And you discount them everytime there is a post such as this in which you seemingly try to paint a picture of failure and do so in somewhat of a celebratory tone because it better suits your political views. And saying "I appreciate your service" doesn't undo that

Sack

Gayle in MD
08-31-2008, 01:32 PM
I don't have to apologize for my opinions, forst off, Sack. I contribute in every way that I possibly can to our servicemen and woemn, and I think I have had the pleasure and opportunity, to talk to them when there is no purpose in trying to keep a stiff upper lip for the sake of their fellow soldiers, or for "The Cause."

My opinions on this war are not political. My opinions are culled from the results of our own foreign policy experts, our National Intelligence Estimates, journalists who have remained in Iraq throughout, and who have been right about everything, so far, such as Michael Ware, who has been right on the money, everytime.

I have read several hundred books since the invasion, and recorded and watched live Senate Testimony throughout this fiasco. I am not trying to force my opinions on others, just trying to keep some of the truth out there, and trying in everyway that I can think of to get our soldiers out of Iraq, and out of the middle east, before it's too late, for them, and for all of us.

What you, or anyone else here, thinks of me personally, is completely irrelevant to me. The Republican spin machine has seriously damaged my country. It is my duty, and my obligation as an American citizen, to speak out against more devastation, lies, and corruption. Nothing can stop me from doing so as long as I think that our soldiers are sacrificing their lives, and health, for corporate fascist pigs like George Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, his wife, and his VP candiddate, all of whom are working to discredit the facts about oil, about iraq, and about their mess in the middle east.

While every soldier I have talked with has said that they feel good about their service, and that they are glad that Saddam is gone, and that they would go back for the sake of their companions who fought with them, not one of them thinks that this course of action was the correct move for our country at this time. Not one of them stated that there was anything of value to America as a result of this war. Not one of them believes that Iraq will ever be a peaceful country. Not a single one.

It is easy to paint all those who have seen this fiasco for what it is as politicos, partisans, liberals, whatever, but my opinions are not gleaned from any talking points, pundits, or party. My library, which is extensive, is filled with the writings of foreign policy experts, and operatives, from the military, the CIA, and the FBI. All agree that military intervention is not the way to win the war on terror. Just as all agree that torture is not effective. What is so frustrating with some on this site, is that none of those from the right present feasible arguments, which are gleaned from study. None of you seem to be spending your time trying to sfit through to find the truth. And frankly, none of you seem interested in knowing or learning whether or not any of this is really provably worthy of the losses we are taking, in blood, treasure and loss of power and respect in the world.

I find that pretty alarming.

The principles work. Emotions do not. It does not matter that you don't believe in them. They are still working.

sack316
08-31-2008, 02:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't have to apologize for my opinions, forst off, Sack. </div></div>

Who asked you to?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
My opinions on this war are not political. </div></div>

Well, you've certainly done a fine job of being clear about that in all of your posts /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif You manage to tie it all in quite well.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am not trying to force my opinions on others, just trying to keep some of the truth out there, </div></div>

Very well. Now go back and count how many threads you've started such as this one, and how many posts you have crediting a good job by a military unit over there. Or are any of the good things that may have happened not part of "truth" for some reason? You'll post about a radical group over there carrying out an attack somewhere and tout it as a failure of operation, but nowhere do I see a thread about a unit securing an area over there successfully from you. But I imagine you don't see that difference. Feel free to expose all the truths you can... but don't just show off the ones that you see fit if that's the role you chose to give yourself

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
What you, or anyone else here, thinks of me personally, is completely irrelevant to me. </div></div>

Well and good. But whether it means anything to you or not, I think you do know that I do think very highly of you and have a great respect for you as a person. Our opinionated differences have never wavered that fact in the past, nor do they now, or will they ever IMO

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Republican spin machine has seriously damaged my country. It is my duty, and my obligation as an American citizen, to speak out against more devastation, lies, and corruption.Nothing can stop me from doing so as long as I think that our soldiers are sacrificing their lives, and health, for corporate fascist pigs like George Bush, Dick Cheney, John McCain, his wife, and his VP candiddate, all of whom are working to discredit the facts about oil, about iraq, and about their mess in the middle east.
</div></div>

And I think that is excellent, and I actually do agree with you believe it or not. But also I hope you understand that I not only see the spin and lies you point out so well from those that you mentioned... but I am wide eyed enough to see the opposing side will embellish what the right will try to discredit. That for every right mistruth spoken on the matter will be an equally mispoken "fact" from the left to attempt to further their agenda. I happen to realize that the truth is out there somewhere, and more likely in the middle somewhere. So when I watch CSPAN listening to the same things you are, I'll listen to the guy with the "R" and I'll listen to the guy with the "D" and know enough to realize that each has his or her own (or their party's) interest in mind while speaking. And somewhere in the middle of that muck is reality... not on one side or the other.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not one of them stated that there was anything of value to America as a result of this war. </div></div>

Perhaps my young ignorance will show here, but I still don't see why there must be. I mean, why can't we just take solice in trying to give freedom to an oppressed people with no personal gain? I'm not so blind to know that it wasn't the point in the first place, of course... but really why can't that be a good thing? Of course I feel we meddle in too much of the world's business anyway and would rather us not be there... but at the same time I don't feel personal gain is a requium for success or failure.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Not one of them believes that Iraq will ever be a peaceful country. Not a single one.
</div></div>

Neither are we... in case you never noticed. As far as the big picture goes, we ourselves are not even that far removed from our own civil war. Not to mention just the general violence in society itself

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> All agree that military intervention is not the way to win the war on terror. </div></div>

Now this I can't pass opinion on. Simply don't have the study on that to know enough to talk about that exactly. So just out of personal curiosity, what is the way then? Serious question there, no agenda or argument at the moment, just simply curious as to what they said the way is. If it strays too far off the topic of this thread, feel free to email or PM me about it

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is so frustrating with some on this site, is that none of those from the right present feasible arguments, which are gleaned from study. None of you seem to be spending your time trying to sift through to find the truth.</div></div>

Unfortunately I don't have the time to delve into it as I'd like to... but I'd say I do the best I can and do a pretty fair job of it.

Sack

Gayle in MD
08-31-2008, 02:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Very well. Now go back and count how many threads you've started such as this one, and how many posts you have crediting a good job by a military unit over there. <span style="color: #000066"> I think I have always called our troops heroes, and honored their service, with personal actions enough of my own.</span> Or are any of the good things that may have happened not part of "truth" for some reason? <span style="color: #000066">Actually, no, they are not part of the truth about this war. When they are used to try to promote a justification for failed policy, that does not address the fact that the policy is wrong. </span> You'll post about a radical group over there carrying out an attack somewhere and tout it as a failure of operation, <span style="color: #000066">No I do not. I say it is a failure of policy. </span> but nowhere do I see a thread about a unit securing an area over there successfully from you. <span style="color: #000066">When an area is successfully cleared, perrhaps I will write about it. As long as there are IED's in Baghdad, and around baghdad, and we are paying people everywhere else not to shoot us, regardless of how honorable, partiotic, or excellent our soldiers are, the operation, which is called the surge, but is really an escalation of our ilegal occupation, cannot be successful. As I said, the principles are at work, overthere, and thinking and experiencing this misadventure through the looking glass of principles, requires that one consider the unintended consequences involved. Iraq is still a quagmire, as far as I'm concerned. That says nothing bad about our troops, only about Bush, the Neocons, and the Republican Party, which continues to lie about the war in Iraq, over and over again. </span> But I imagine you don't see that difference. Feel free to expose all the truths you can... but don't just show off the ones that you see fit if that's the role you chose to give yourself
</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">I don't recall your having posted much on here about singular operations, Sack, but I have praised our troops time and again. My wish is to see them out of Iraq, for good. That means not going back, regardless of what happens when we leave, and in fact, we should make it perfectly clear, that we are NOT coming back, no matter what happens.

While Republicans say they believe in no nation building, they defend nation building, when it is their party's policy. the want their gun rights, but wish to take away a woman's right to make her own personal choices about her own personal life.

Republicans want a blalnced budget, but they don't like it when anyone mentions that their presidents NEVER balance the budget.

They say they want small government, and government to stay out of their lives, but they ALWAYS GROW the government, and try to use it to interfere in the lives of others.

Republican say they can best protect this country, but they have put us in a trikc bas, and McCain has fully supported that trick bag.

They say they don't want high taxes, yet they want to fight un-necessary illegal wars, and pass on the costs to their kids, without paying higher taxes.

They basically live in a dream world, where they think a government, representing a country the size of AMerica, the citizens of which pay among the third cheapest taxes in the world, should continue nation building, and warring, and posturing for warring, and yet they are outraged if they are expected to make any personal sacrifices to pay for all their rah rah war policies, which they completely support, regardless of the unconstitutionality, or illegality or deception involved in those wars.

Frankly, I am in no mood when it comes to the illegal War In Iraq, to spend my time trying to promote the false idea that any particular operation, regardless of how well it has been prosecuted by our brave heroes, is cause for celebration, when I know damned well, that atleast three to ten of our kids are going to die there that week, and that the Iraqis are going to go right back to their killing and fighting eventually anyway. Now that might not be thrilling to hear when you're over there fighting this mess, but I'm not sending my policy opinions to Iraq. I also don't discuss my opinions publically, or with any of the soldiers that I meet. It isn't my place to do so. I do have a few close friends who have spent time there and none of them think this idea was a good one. All of them tell me that they know the IRaqis, the ones who are young men, and religious fanatics, are hot to get back to it. I see no justifiable reason for more young Americans to sacrifice their lives for Iraqis who won't stop killing them, unless we pay them to stop!

It is pure insanity, and only an insane neocon hawk, like John McCain, would continue to support such a totally failed illogical campaign in those unforgiving desert sands.

History, is worth noting, and the only way that the ideology of the right can sound at all feasible, is if we completely throw out decades of historical factual information about Sunni, Shiia, the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Israel, Iran, you name it, it's all out there, and it is impossible to make a study of it, and believe that this course of action is correct, justifiable, or worthwhile.</span>

Bobbyrx
08-31-2008, 08:08 PM
Quote Gayle "The surge was supposed to bring about <span style="color: #FF0000">political reconciliation" </span>

Quote Nancy Pelosi “The purpose of the surge was to create a secure period of time so the government of Iraq would have political room to take actions that would bring <span style="color: #FF0000"> political reconciliation </span> to Iraq,”

Quote GWB "As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad.

Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders, and they are protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. And as a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to keep up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan -- and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq."

Wikipedia "The "troop surge" is a phrase commonly used to describe U.S. President George W. Bush's plan to increase the number of American troops deployed to the Iraq War to provide security to Baghdad and Al Anbar Province.

The surge had been developed under the working title "The New Way Forward." It was announced by Bush on January 10, 2007 during a national television speech. Bush ordered the deployment of five additional U.S brigades to Iraq, mainly to the capital Baghdad, and extended the tour of 4,000 Marines already in Iraq.

The surge was opposed by the U.S. Congress, which tried to pass a number of pieces of legislation opposing the plan and calling for troop withdrawals. Most of these failed to pass. However, in February, the House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution criticizing the plan.[1][2]"

Gayle in MD
08-31-2008, 10:33 PM
Like I said, the Surge isn't working. Thanks for posting the link, old as it is, it proves my original statement.

Pissing off more Arabs and Persians and terrorists is a fine foreign policy. I'm sure it will conquer evil.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/tired.gifzzzzzzzzz

mike60
09-01-2008, 02:16 PM
Screw all you dipshit wingbats. You voted for Cheney-Bush and you deserve the onus you've earned by your failed WAR PROFITEERING scumbaggery.

Keep up the noise because that's all you've got you pathetic losers. Surge? Surge this you fools. Never question the patriotism of the thieves at the top and accept all the bullshit coming from the White House. There is no trickle down anything coming from the administration except debt for many years too come. Idiots.

miguel james kopp doing forever as some guy's bitch

nAz
09-01-2008, 02:25 PM
lol Mike that was very succently put.

pooltchr
09-01-2008, 02:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Screw all you dipshit wingbats. You voted for Cheney-Bush and you deserve the onus you've earned by your failed WAR PROFITEERING scumbaggery.

Keep up the noise because that's all you've got you pathetic losers. Surge? Surge this you fools. Never question the patriotism of the thieves at the top and accept all the bullshit coming from the White House. There is no trickle down anything coming from the administration except debt for many years too come. Idiots.

miguel james kopp doing forever as some guy's bitch </div></div>

It's so nice to see that someone from the left can articulate their thoughts in such an intelligent way. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif
Steve

wolfdancer
09-01-2008, 02:48 PM
Mike's got to learn to speak his mind and not hold back for the sake of propriety.

Gayle in MD
09-01-2008, 05:58 PM
Bravo Mike!

Way to go friend. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif