|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Member |
RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,155297,00.html
"Does focus on one set of numbers tell you that the country is moving toward stability, security and political accommodation?" Cordesman said. "The answer is no." Please back off Mr. Cordesman. We need to build up the figleaf so that we can bring most of our troops home. |
||
|
|
I have a hard time following instructions. |
Violence Ebbing in Iraq will not be good for the Democrats in there bid for the White House.
After trashing Gen. David Petraeus, after his report of progress, they might just view this as flawed reporting. |
|||
|
New Member |
It will only look bad for them, if a candidate has the fortitude (or foolishness?) to use this information. Personally, I'd use the facts presented here like a sledgehammer and absolutely crush the entire party. But... Thank goodness for cooler heads than mine, prevailing. It's too dangerous to use this as political fodder. The attacks could, literally overnight, quadruple; we could be back to day-zero. Then where would the republicans be? I pray it doesn't come up in a debate. I don't want any candidate, of either party, using the blood of our dead to oil their political machinery. |
|||
|
Member |
"I assume it's happening because the surge is working..."
Assumptions, no real analysis. And 875 deaths is supposed to be a good thing? It still sucks for them, regardless of the numbers from the month or year before. |
|||
|
|
Member |
It's not flawed reporting. It's flawed analysis, combined with questionable statistics. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Let's see, when the death toll was high it was bad news.
When the death toll is lower, it's bad news. The majority of this article is telling us that a lower death toll doesn't mean anything. Seems like strange reasoning to me. |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
Hmmmm....War:1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
2. a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other. Combat: Military. active, armed fighting with enemy forces. These are definitions of what we are doing in Iraq! For some here, I think that ya'll are thinking this is a "play station or X-box"! Hello? There is no "reset" button! One soldiers' life is one American life, that is hard on that soldier's family, other soldiers and the country, however, this is what we do! We fight to ensure that another 911 doesn't happen again! Remember, America didn't start this freaking war! They, the terrorists, islamo-fascists, started it! I have served over there in Iraq, I can honestly tell you that it sucked! However, I can honestly tell you that while it sucked, it was worth the effort because that has helped our country from being attacked again! While the numbers are decreasing, a dead American soldier is still horrible, but remember this...we volunteered! My endstate; stay focused and determnine to see this war in Iraq come to a successful end! Pulling out for the sake of saving soldiers lives, and not stablize Iraq, isn't what we sacrificed for! We sacrificed to finish the mission in hopes of not being attacked again, in America! |
|||
|
|
Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Airborneinfantry:
Remember, America didn't start this freaking war! They, the terrorists, islamo-fascists, started it! C'mon Airborne, you gotta know that Iraq DID NOT attack us on 9/11. I have served over there in Iraq, I can honestly tell you that it sucked! However, I can honestly tell you that while it sucked, it was worth the effort because that has helped our country from being attacked again! Circular reasoning Airborne, it is a logical fallacy to assume that our presence in Iraq has any connection with our not being attacked again. AQ has been plenty busy elsewhere (London, Spain, Etc.) |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Weak rebuttal! Your reply/rebuttal is not well thought out!
Retry again!
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
More U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq this year than last year.
2007 will end up being the deadliest year for US troops since the war began. http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx What does it mean? Probably not much. That being said, the recent numbers regarding overall violence are encouraging. What we need to see is a few more months of this current TREND before we start celebrating. We have seen "dips" before and they have been followed by "surges" in violence. If the violence continues to subside through the rest of 2007, we might have something to celebrate. Either way, there will be tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq for decades to come. This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dublin1916, |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Britain and Spain were both attacked by terrorists while they had troops fighting in Iraq so that whole theory ("we are fighting over there to prevent an attack here") is BS. |
|||
|
|
10 DAYS SUSPENSION TOS 6 NEMESIS |
With at least 39 reported deaths in October, U.S. military deaths in Iraq hit a 20-month low. But, because of heavy fighting earlier this year, 2007 remains on pace to be the deadliest year for U.S. troops since the war began.
 A picture is worth a thousand words. Figures don't LIE..... |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
This news is good. Now we need to proceed ASAP to the next phase of the Iraq surge: nation-building and peace-making.
"Failure is not an option" when it comes to nation-building and peace-making, because unless we succeed, the plain fact is, the violence will resume. So yes our troops can win. But victory won't be easy, or cheap, or quick. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Ah yes, my logic classes! Circular Reasoning and Logical Fallacy: As in A plus B does not necessarily equal C. Nope looks like that was well thought out too. How about you actually BACK UP your shiz, instead of claiming a "weak" argument on my part Airborne? |
|||
|
|
suspended 90 days as of 5/19/09 |
The last time US casualties were so low a Marine officer was quoted as saying dead were only 1.3 per day and at that rate sustainable indefinitely. The daily rate is approximating that, but then 10 percent of October's dead were casualties on the first day of November. We should wait to see. This may have something to do with the 'Afghan tactic' of standing-off and bombing which seems to have become more prevalent in Iraq this past 60 days. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
Grandjester, pull your head out of your rear and quit drinking from the anti-american crowds kool-aid. NO ONE ever claimed that Iraq attacked us. But the fact is they were a major funder of terrorism, the 9-11 hijackers recieved there training on how to take control of a plane there, and when we were kicking AQ's *** in Afghanistan tons of them were high-tailing it for Iraq. All of this info and so much more is available for those who have the desire to research things for themselves instead of regurgitating nonesense.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
We are not responsible for those countries! So your rebuttal is not genuine
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
And you are one who is regurgitating the CNN, MSNBC and DNC defeatest talking points....
so what's your excuse? 
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Yes, the violence is ebbing. This is good news.
From Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno's Operational Update for Nov. 1, 2007:  Now the challenge to the MNF forces is to ASAP engineer a matching *up-trend* in medical services, electrical power, jobs for Iraqi families, and a functioning Iraq justice system. Otherwise, the violence resumes, and we lose. That is the simple truth of it. If we achieve these nation-building and peace-making objectives, we win. Semper Fi! To all those who work for victory. |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
