Patraeus Predictable

[Hard Driver]

Actually

So, still no proof I take it. Did you see his report, he gave alot of evidence and proof to back up what he said, just read the report, the evidence is there. To disprove his presentation, that burden is on you.

He gave lots of pretty graphs and charts.. However, But what I understand, he gave no details of the methology used to create these statistics. He claimed the CIA said his stats were "the best", but also said they had been only collecting them for a year, yet had statistics presented for many years.

Here are a few relative points:
http://democrats.senate.gov/journal/entry.cfm?id=282187&

General Petraeus Claimed the Number of Ethno-Sectarian Deaths Has Come Down By Over 55 Percent. In his prepared remarks, General Petraeus argued, “The number of ethno-sectarian deaths, an important subset of the overall civilian casualty figures, has also declined significantly since the height of the sectarian violence in December. Iraq-wide, as shown by the top line on this chart, the number of ethno-sectarian deaths has come down by over 55%” [LINK]

However, The Overall Death Toll in Iraq Has Risen. According to Iraq’s Interior Ministry, which provided figures to The New York Times 2,318 civilians died violently in the country in August, compared with 1,980 in July. Statistics compiled from Iraqi government sources by Reuters and The Associated Press also showed significant increases, although the precise figures varied. [New York Times, 9/2/07]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091107J.shtml

A chart displayed by Army Gen. David Petraeus that purported to show the decline in sectarian violence in Baghdad between December and August made no effort to show that the ethnic character of many of the neighborhoods had changed in that same period from majority Sunni Muslim or mixed to majority Shiite Muslim.

So there are many many questions that need to be answered, other than just some pretty charts...

Like.... What are the criteria for "Victory" in Iraq?

When is the Iraqi government going to take charge?

When will US forces leave? Under what circumstances?

 

[BigRob]

He gave lots of pretty graphs and charts.. However, But what I understand, he gave no details of the methology used to create these statistics. He claimed the CIA said his stats were "the best", but also said they had been only collecting them for a year, yet had statistics presented for many years.

Here are a few relative points:
http://democrats.senate.gov/journal/entry.cfm?id=282187&




http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091107J.shtml


So there are many many questions that need to be answered, other than just some pretty charts...

Like.... What are the criteria for "Victory" in Iraq?

When is the Iraqi government going to take charge?

When will US forces leave? Under what circumstances?

Thank God, a logical response.

Collecting stats will always be a problem in a war zone I suppose. I agree with you that perhaps there could be some small discrepancies here, but I doubt they would be something to major.

I take his word on the CIA stats being the best, there were stats before this time, so a comparison can still be made to the pre-surge time.

I do think that Ethno-sectarian violence can decrease and still have a high number of deaths, but in every situation I suppose statistics can always be put under question, confirmed even by your own quotes saying that they varied greatly.

I agree with you 100% on your last few question, I have been asking that all along (not on here, but in real life). These are big questions which do need to be answered. Agree or disagree with the Generals report, these questions remain and even after the surge is over there will still be 130,000 troops in Iraq with no idea when they will be able to leave.

 

[BigRob]

Also, from what I understand, I thought the General added the sunni on sunni and shia on shia violence in his overall civilian death stats, he seemed to be adamant about that fact when presenting from what I saw.

 

[Hard Driver]

That's the $100,000 question

Agree or disagree with the Generals report, these questions remain and even after the surge is over there will still be 130,000 troops in Iraq with no idea when they will be able to leave.

IMO, it really doesn't matter what degree of good or bad the military is achieving in Iraq. You could put 3,000,000 troops on the ground and squash all the violence, but what would that prove? All that would prove is that a massive force can freeze an insurgancy and a civil war.

The real question is when can we acheive "victory" and leave? And if the situation is such that if put in 170,000 troops (or 3,000,000) and then pay a huge price in lost lives and money, and then when we withdraw the situation is exactly the same, what is the point of all those lost lives and money.

So the report that matters is not the military one, but political and diplomatic one.

I personally believe that the way to move Iraq forward is to put a fire under their ass, not to coddle them supporting the government with our blood and money. Put a fire under their ass by withdrawing our troops and forcing them to take responsibility for themselves.

All the doom and gloom about Al Qaida taking over is just plain wrong. Al Qaida is about the only thing in Iraq hated more than us.. Even the Sunni's have turned against them, and they are a Sunni organization. SO if we leave, I believe about the only thing that is certain is that Al Qaida will NOT take over the country.

So has the surge led to significant diplomatic/political progress? If the answer is no, then the surge is a failure. And this is the real reason why the surge is a failure.

 

[berreal]

IMO, it really doesn't matter what degree of good or bad the military is achieving in Iraq. You could put 3,000,000 troops on the ground and squash all the violence, but what would that prove? All that would prove is that a massive force can freeze an insurgancy and a civil war.

The real question is when can we acheive "victory" and leave? And if the situation is such that if put in 170,000 troops (or 3,000,000) and then pay a huge price in lost lives and money, and then when we withdraw the situation is exactly the same, what is the point of all those lost lives and money.

So the report that matters is not the military one, but political and diplomatic one.

I personally believe that the way to move Iraq forward is to put a fire under their ass, not to coddle them supporting the government with our blood and money. Put a fire under their ass by withdrawing our troops and forcing them to take responsibility for themselves.

All the doom and gloom about Al Qaida taking over is just plain wrong. Al Qaida is about the only thing in Iraq hated more than us.. Even the Sunni's have turned against them, and they are a Sunni organization. SO if we leave, I believe about the only thing that is certain is that Al Qaida will NOT take over the country.

So has the surge led to significant diplomatic/political progress? If the answer is no, then the surge is a failure. And this is the real reason why the surge is a failure.

What difference does it make now? What bush says and thinks is what the millitary and US congress react to ...so whats the point? Remember when Pelosi was supposed to fix things.... where is she now?

LOL ..today Obama was complaining about the date the report was provided by Petraues ..siting it keeps on sending the misguided message by bush that the Iraq war was is tied to 9/11! Well guess who decided to provide
the report on 9/10-9/11 ...yep you guessed it ...DEMOCRATS!!

The democrats are a bunch of spine-less wussy's!! And to that end ..despite my not liking the republicans ...they must be allowed to fail!!

The party needs new blood!!

In '00 instead of helping Al Gore fight for the whitehouse the chickens ran away and allowed Gore to fail!! Since then thats all we've seen from democrats. The are curs, ..spineless career politicians with absolutely no conviction on anything but furthering their careers!

Zero approval ratings for bush means nothing because in the end democrats will roll over to his wishes. Get rid of the mistake that is Reed and Pelosi ..... unless your an illegal immigrant those people have no intention to help you!!

The Iraq debate is a mute point now. Game over ...bush has his way to prolong the war as he bathed the morons on the left with classic bait and switch! Face it ..they are literally afraid of bush ..and to that end not derserving to lead!

 

[Hard Driver]

Well, I agree that the Democrats are not arguing with passion. I also agree that even if they don't have the votes to override a presidential veto, they should be sending up bills to the president to veto, just on principle.

But the fact of the matter is that the President is the Commander in Chief. The only way the congress can force the military to do anything is to cut off their funding. And cutting off funding while troops are in danger is NOT the right way to handle Iraq, support the troops and change policy.

And the Democrats may be the majority, but the margin is as slim as possible and that means that there is not enough power to force anything over a veto unless the republicans show some spine and split with the President.

And when you say "the debate is mute, game over" then in the next sentence you seem to bash the democrats for being afraid of Bush. SO is the game over, or should the democrats pass bills that everyone knows will never become law over a veto? These are the two options, there is no option to force the Commander in Chief to change policy that is available.

 

[berreal]

Well, I agree that the Democrats are not arguing with passion. I also agree that even if they don't have the votes to override a presidential veto, they should be sending up bills to the president to veto, just on principle.

But the fact of the matter is that the President is the Commander in Chief. The only way the congress can force the military to do anything is to cut off their funding. And cutting off funding while troops are in danger is NOT the right way to handle Iraq, support the troops and change policy.

And the Democrats may be the majority, but the margin is as slim as possible and that means that there is not enough power to force anything over a veto unless the republicans show some spine and split with the President.

And when you say "the debate is mute, game over" then in the next sentence you seem to bash the democrats for being afraid of Bush. SO is the game over, or should the democrats pass bills that everyone knows will never become law over a veto? These are the two options, there is no option to force the Commander in Chief to change policy that is available.

Oh man ...this way of thinking is such a defeatist mindset! This is really what surrender is all about!! Here's a better strategy ...sit back and hope bush will do what they want!!

Send the bill over and over to bush with a ultimatums for him to sign ....thats it!! And let the American people understand as you do ...that thats all they can do!! Whats the fear in this? The idea of not funding the troops is ...old fart drummed up from the WW2 days when the country was unified in fighting a war!! Thats not the case now.... this war is ill gotten from the start.

But the spine-less wuss allow bush to say ..."forget how we got into Iraq" ... and the cowards obey!

They allow bush to tell them what they can and cannot do ..what their limitations are ...despite some 70% of the country thinking Iraq was a mistake and its time for us to cut our losses!! Thats the fear bush injected in them. I maybe could understand it were this 2001, 2002 fresh off the heels of 9/11 ....but not now!!

Its time for them to get out their holes ...get out of their shells ...but I am convinced these democrats are fearfull of the right and their fear and scare tactic!! And its for this reason why Gulliani and company still thinks this is a tactic that can work ...and they are right!!


If you agree with them ...then your part of the problem ..and the republicans are in fact right ..you are cowards un-willing to stand up for what you believe in ..and as such have no business leading!!

Its that simple!

 

[Hard Driver]

Well bereal, I agree. If you read my first paragraph, I agree that the democrats should be sending bills up for Bush to veto. Lay the blame for failure to change course in Iraq on his doorstep.

I also think that the democrats are being cowed with the "cut and run" and "surrender" talk. The democrats should be talking about how to move forward, not just about withdrawl. But how withdraw is the solution to force change in Iraq. How the idea of the Iraqi's standing up is not happening if we keep providing the chair for them to sit on. That we need to remove the chair and then they will stand up. The domocrats need to point out the failure OF THE EXISTING POLICIES, and not be cowed with republican threats that it is the democrats embracing failure. The democrats need to push that their platform is the best way to grasp success out of the mess that administration made with the full support of the republicans.

 

[berreal]

Well bereal, I agree. If you read my first paragraph, I agree that the democrats should be sending bills up for Bush to veto. Lay the blame for failure to change course in Iraq on his doorstep.

I also think that the democrats are being cowed with the "cut and run" and "surrender" talk. The democrats should be talking about how to move forward, not just about withdrawl. But how withdraw is the solution to force change in Iraq. How the idea of the Iraqi's standing up is not happening if we keep providing the chair for them to sit on. That we need to remove the chair and then they will stand up. The domocrats need to point out the failure OF THE EXISTING POLICIES, and not be cowed with republican threats that it is the democrats embracing failure. The democrats need to push that their platform is the best way to grasp success out of the mess that administration made with the full support of the republicans.

Why do people do jail time? How many crimminals get to say ...ok I robbed a bank I was wrong ...can we now look ahead (and not in the past) and move on? If this happens then what transpires are more people willing to commit crimes ...right?

Thats where bush is whipping the crap out of democrats!

The republicans literally told democrats what they can and cannot do and they obeyed!!

They told democrats:

1) "It doesn't matter how we got into Iraq ...lets not go back there"

2) Democrats don't want to even consider impeachment or any kind of
censurship moves...its counter-productive.

They said that ...and DEMOCRATS OBEYED!!

By obeying ..by complying ...by Pelosi's actually saying impeachment ...is not even an option worth considering they help to make the war more ligitimate than it is!

Hey ..if your not even going to consider giving the bank robber jail time .....maybe there was no crime!!

Now ..the more the war becomes ligitimate ... then the more the option of staying becomes valid!!

And if we have a ligitimate war ...then ofcourse its unreasonable to pull the funding!

And the republicans get to call democrats "surrenderers, defeatists etc. ..and they get to do so ...with no response from the whining democrats!!


And since bush showed his successors how great this works ...here they come lining up behind the same tactic!!


Now watch as bush address the country ..and gives another one of his ..."look what I've found" speeches.

Watch as bush acts as if Petraus findings...100% inline with his plans ... are mere coincidences!

And watch ...for the upteenth time ....as democrats remain a bunch of ranting morons in the background unable to do anything!!

The don't deserve to lead ...period!!

 

[jb_1430]

I consider ourselves fortunate in that whiney left wing moonbats have no spine.

 

[berreal]

I consider ourselves fortunate in that whiney left wing moonbats have no spine.

Here's the difference between the 2 of us ....your hooked on ideology and no longer think for yourself! Bush reckless actions to you ..is like some game you play on your nintendo machine .... thats not my perspective.

So take your partisan crap and go find some hill-billy and yee-haaww among yourselves!

 

[palerider]

Spoken like a true ideologue.

 

[berreal]

Why don't you 2 hypocrites get together and yee-haaww among yourselves tonight over bush's upteenth "mission-accomplish" speech?

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Why don't you 2 hypocrites get together and yee-haaww among yourselves tonight over bush's upteenth "mission-accomplish" speech?

The "go yee-haw" line is getting a little old.

 

[palerider]

Why don't you 2 hypocrites get together and yee-haaww among yourselves tonight over bush's upteenth "mission-accomplish" speech?

Is this the best you can do? CLearly you are talking like an unthinking ideologue. Exactly how many "mission accomplished" speeches has Bush given?

To the best of my knowledge, there has been one and the stated mission was accomplished. The stated mission was to remove saddam from power. Saddam was removed from power, ergo, mission accomplished. There were no thinking people who thought that he was, in any way, stating that the war was over and we could all go back to our normal lives. In fact, in the speech, he stated clearly that we have a long way to go.

The only people who made a big deal about the mission accomplished statement and the only people who still make a big deal about it are unthinking liberal ideologues.

The one true thing about liberalism is that it is always doomed to become the very thing that it claims to despise. You seem to hate ideologues, but are completely unable to see that you are one. You can't defend any of your statements on an intellecutal level. They are no more than liberal soundbytes and you repeat them as if by pavlovian response to conservative stimuli.