So... the Bombers are in the air then are they? Didn't think so...
If you don't like being linked to people who lie about the war, don't repeat a lie they tell about the war.
Now it is YOU that is lying. Didn't you just state that Bush's statement was an "end of major military operations"? But that now we needed a "troop surge"? You can spin with the best of them... that is for sure. However, my point isn't that we SHOULDN'T be fighting the War, but that we never should have had and "end" to major combat operations as there were STILL serious high value targets to take out. That you ignore this either means you are just another idiotic shill, or you aren't paying attention. I'm betting the latter...
In WWII we didn't give up and sulk in the corner after losing troops. We made the enemy sorry they had ever messed with us.
No... we aren't. Did we carpet bomb Fallujah? Do we have Al Sadr's head on a platter? Are we crossing the Parallel into Iran? Or are we treating them like Cambodia?
Again, your willful ignorance is astounding. Iran and Syria are complicit in what is happening in Iraq. We should be bombing the dog snot out of them RIGHT NOW. We never should have let up in Iraq and should annihilate any are the "insurgents" are attacking us from. I'm not calling for an END to the war, but an escalation before our Enemies get even stronger or political attrition kills support altogether in Congress.
Man, you're a military genius!
Compared to you, I'm friggin Sun Tzu And Alexander combined.
Also, since you didn't bother to click the Google link correcting my low ball "guestimate"... the GAO is estimating 250k-300k rounds have been expended PER insugent estimated killed. Read the Reason magazine article since it links to the GAO report.
It also isn't about the money, dumbass... It's about fighting effectively. Since we haven't stopped the insurgency in Iraq, I'd say your estimation on the current effectiveness is sorely mistaken. WWII only took 6 years from the time the Germans invaded Poland. We're going on what, five years now in ONE pissant Country and we STILL can't say the area is pacified.
So yeah, drop your opinion in the toilet 'cause you don't know sh*t...
OK...you want to ignore the facts on the ground and consider us successful only if we do what you prefer for us to do. So basically, you're Dick Durbin with bombers. Bravo.
Now it is YOU that is lying.
Aw, that's so cute! Let's see what you've come up with to "prove" that.
Didn't you just state that Bush's statement was an "end of major military operations"? But that now we needed a "troop surge"? You can spin with the best of them... that is for sure.
Oh...well then, please go ahead and prove that I lied: Show me where I said that no major military action was needed. Not where I said what Bush said, but where I said it.
Man, just quit digging. In May of 2003 there was hardly an insurgency and the President expected the "dead-enders" to be cleaned up. That didn't happen, and later on a new offensive was needed. So...Bush didn't lie, I didn't lie, you are still clueless.
However, my point isn't that we SHOULDN'T be fighting the War, but that we never should have had and "end" to major combat operations as there were STILL serious high value targets to take out. That you ignore this either means you are just another idiotic shill, or you aren't paying attention. I'm betting the latter...
Aw, that's cute too! Hey...how many guys in the deck of cards were still at large six months after the President declared "major combat operations" were over. And also, can you provide a list of targets we should have bombed with B-52s. Because you know, if you're paying so much more attention than me, you should know what we should have carpet bombed in May and June of '03. Serve it up.
No... we aren't. Did we carpet bomb Fallujah? Do we have Al Sadr's head on a platter? Are we crossing the Parallel into Iran? Or are we treating them like Cambodia?
Let's take Fallujah as an example. Read the section on Fallujah in America's Victories by Larry Schweikart and then get back to me about how we didn't make anyone in Fallujah sorry.
Al Sadr recently agreed to disarm his militias. I know he hasn't done that yet in the summer of '06, but he will, so place a bet somewhere and send me my 20% cut. I believe if he's lying about it he will be dead within a month.
No, the surge is about solving these problems, and it's working.
Again, your willful ignorance is astounding. Iran and Syria are complicit in what is happening in Iraq. We should be bombing the dog snot out of them RIGHT NOW.
I'd like to see that too and have said so on FR more than once, but there's a difference between recognizing and criticizing imperfect strategy and blindly ignoring successes. You're doing the latter.
Compared to you, I'm friggin Sun Tzu And Alexander combined.
Ah yes...I'm sure the maxim that "Military success depends entirely on how many rounds are expended and how much money we spent" will go down in history as pure greatness.
Also, since you didn't bother to click the Google link correcting my low ball "guestimate"...
Actually, I did.
It also isn't about the money, dumbass... It's about fighting effectively.
Sure. That's why you mentioned millions of dollars inn the next post. That's why you're ignoring the successes, because it's so much about fighting effectively that you can't be bothered to pay any attention to effective fighting.
Since we haven't stopped the insurgency in Iraq, I'd say your estimation on the current effectiveness is sorely mistaken.
Yep, the surge is only two months old, so it's obviously a massive failure. You know, when American troops are taking 35 attacks a day in an operating area and that area experiences 0 or 1 attacks per day 2 months later, that really goes to show that we aren't getting anything done. I thought killing the enemy, destroying his ability to mount attacks and getting the population on our side was a good thing, but fortunately you've shown me the error of my ways. Truly, you are a great warrior.
WWII only took 6 years from the time the Germans invaded Poland. We're going on what, five years now in ONE pissant Country and we STILL can't say the area is pacified.
Another empty-suit lib talking point, for two reasons.
1. WWII was the highest intensity conflict ever on the planet, and it killed about 70 million people. While some tactical examples (the Kasserine Pass, for instance) are useful for illustration when discussing Iraq, comparing the timeline of the two is like asking why a can't haul reach high branches with its trunk.
2. Actually, it's 1,400 years and counting.