:clap: PRICELESS.. THE ONLY GOOD WAS TWO NEW SCHOOLS. THIS IS THE KIND OF LIBERAL OPPOSITION AMERICA IS DEALING WITH. :mj07:
I LOVE IT :clap:
DJV STATES THE GOOD IN IRAQ
- Thread starter spibble spab
- Start date
:clap: PRICELESS.. THE ONLY GOOD WAS TWO NEW SCHOOLS. THIS IS THE KIND OF LIBERAL OPPOSITION AMERICA IS DEALING WITH. :mj07:
I LOVE IT :clap:
im sure your bored. why dont you go into a chatroom and find ay boyfriend or a girlfriend to hang out with, that way you wont have to spew mindless rhetoric and dodge facts?
:clap: only 2 schools?????? DJV lets debate the below FACTS one by one are you game???? :clap:
IRAQ UPDATE
1. More than 120 Iraqi army and police combat battalions, comprised of between 250 and 800 Iraqi forces, are in fighting terrorists; of these, about 80 battalions are fighting with coalition forces, and about 40 are taking the lead.
2. More than 30 Iraqi army battalions have assumed primary control of their own areas of responsibility; Iraqi battalions in Baghdad have "taken over major sectors of the capital, including some of the city's toughest neighborhoods." One of those, Bush said, includes Haifa Street, which last year was nicknamed "Purple Heart Boulevard."
3. About 90 square miles of Baghdad province is under the control of Iraqi security forces. In addition, in south-central Iraq, sectors of southeast Iraq, sectors of western Iraq, and sectors of north-central Iraq are being controlled by Iraqi forces.
4. With coalition help, Iraqis have established schools for Iraqi military services: an Iraqi military academy, a noncommissioned officer academy, a military police school, a bomb disposal school, and NATO has established an Iraqi joint staff college. Professional development courses for Iraqi squad leaders, platoon sergeants, warrant officers and sergeants major are also offered.
5. The country now has six basic police academies and one in Jordan that produce over 3,500 new police officers every 10 weeks. At the Baghdad police academy, simulation models allow Iraqis to train to stop improvised explosive device attacks and operate roadblocks. They're also getting live-fire training with AK-47s.
6. Iraqis now have a small air force that recently conducted its first combat airlift operations, bringing Iraqi troops to the front in Tal Afar.
7. The Iraqi navy is helping protect the ports of Basra and Umm Qasr.
8. A national depot has been built north of Baghdad to supply logistical needs for 10 divisions of the Iraqi army. In addition, regional support units and base support units have been created to supply Iraqi war-fighters.
9. An Iraqi military intelligence school has been established to produce Iraqi intelligence analysts and collectors.
I have a feeling DJV will vanish now that Uncle Charlie is here.........
IRAQ UPDATE
1. More than 120 Iraqi army and police combat battalions, comprised of between 250 and 800 Iraqi forces, are in fighting terrorists; of these, about 80 battalions are fighting with coalition forces, and about 40 are taking the lead.
2. More than 30 Iraqi army battalions have assumed primary control of their own areas of responsibility; Iraqi battalions in Baghdad have "taken over major sectors of the capital, including some of the city's toughest neighborhoods." One of those, Bush said, includes Haifa Street, which last year was nicknamed "Purple Heart Boulevard."
3. About 90 square miles of Baghdad province is under the control of Iraqi security forces. In addition, in south-central Iraq, sectors of southeast Iraq, sectors of western Iraq, and sectors of north-central Iraq are being controlled by Iraqi forces.
4. With coalition help, Iraqis have established schools for Iraqi military services: an Iraqi military academy, a noncommissioned officer academy, a military police school, a bomb disposal school, and NATO has established an Iraqi joint staff college. Professional development courses for Iraqi squad leaders, platoon sergeants, warrant officers and sergeants major are also offered.
5. The country now has six basic police academies and one in Jordan that produce over 3,500 new police officers every 10 weeks. At the Baghdad police academy, simulation models allow Iraqis to train to stop improvised explosive device attacks and operate roadblocks. They're also getting live-fire training with AK-47s.
6. Iraqis now have a small air force that recently conducted its first combat airlift operations, bringing Iraqi troops to the front in Tal Afar.
7. The Iraqi navy is helping protect the ports of Basra and Umm Qasr.
8. A national depot has been built north of Baghdad to supply logistical needs for 10 divisions of the Iraqi army. In addition, regional support units and base support units have been created to supply Iraqi war-fighters.
9. An Iraqi military intelligence school has been established to produce Iraqi intelligence analysts and collectors.
I have a feeling DJV will vanish now that Uncle Charlie is here.........
Last edited:
Those 9 points are great but you still need an armed convoy just to go around the block to get a donut.... :mj07:
For all the numbers you guys drag up about how many roses are being thrown, the place is going to fall apart like a card house when the mortars are chasing your ride out of the country.
And then you're only one coup away from another Saddam type.
Oops.
For all the numbers you guys drag up about how many roses are being thrown, the place is going to fall apart like a card house when the mortars are chasing your ride out of the country.
And then you're only one coup away from another Saddam type.
Oops.
Look at the history books and see how these guerilla wars have turned out, and then add to the equation that we're both talking about the middle east, a place where the Koran gets placed in stale air and riots ensue where people die.
It's really not that tough to figure this one out.
It's really not that tough to figure this one out.
(grl?) (KEY) [Span.,=little war], fighting by groups of irregular troops (guerrillas) within areas occupied by the enemy.
I see we have went from freedom fighters to querrilas? I would agree they are fighting with querrila tactics but since they target civlians and come from terrorists network for most part I think terrorists would define them more accurately.
--would agree the relgious factor is primary obstacle and is no secret that where ever muslims exist in Eastern counties there are etrocities--however I don't think taking the French approach ever got anything accomplished.
--and you might want to check your history on success of guerilla warefare---
P.S. Note how the French always seem to pop up on these--
History
In the American Revolution and the Nineteenth Century
Large-scale guerrilla fighting accompanied the American Revolution, and the development of guerrilla tactics under such partisan leaders as Francis Marion, Andrew Pickens, and Thomas Sumter has been called the great contribution of the American Revolution to the development of warfare. The term guerrilla itself was coined during the Peninsular War (1808?14), when Spanish partisans, under such leaders as Francisco Mina, proved unconquerable even by the armies of Napoleon I. From Spain the use of the term spread to Latin America and then to the United States. 2
During the U.S. Civil War, William C. Quantrill, who operated in Missouri and Kansas, was the most notorious of the Confederate guerrilla leaders, but John S. Mosby, in Virginia, was undoubtedly the most effective. During the Franco-Prussian War (1870?71) the Germans suffered so much from French partisans, or francs-tireurs, that Field Marshall von Moltke ordered the shooting of all prisoners not fully uniformed and led by regular officers. In the Philippines after the Spanish-American War, the U.S. Army conducted a long campaign against Filipino guerrillas, such as Emilio Aguinaldo, and Moro bands. There has been frequent guerrilla warfare in Latin America. Notable among early 20th-century Latin American guerrillas are Francisco (Pancho) Villa, Emiliano Zapata, and Augusto C. Sandino. 3
World War I to World War II
In World War I the most spectacular theater of guerrilla operations was the Arabian peninsula, where, under the leadership of T. E. Lawrence and Faisal al-Husayn (later Faisal I), various Arab guerrilla bands fought superior Turkish forces. In the late 1920s and 30s the Chinese Communists under the leadership of Mao Zedong, perhaps the world?s leading theorist of modern guerrilla warfare, conducted a large-scale guerrilla war, along with mobile and positional warfare, against both the Kuomintang and the Japanese in N China. Mao saw the People?s War, as he called it, progressing from minor skirmishing to a conventional conflict as he led the Communists to victory. 4
Guerrilla tactics, aided by the development of the long-range portable radio and the use of aircraft as a means of supply, reached new heights in World War II. The Germans failed to establish a complete hold on Yugoslavia because of the guerrilla resistance, which was led by the Communist partisan leader Tito and supplied in part by Allied airdrops. In the Soviet Union guerrilla warfare was included in instruction at the military academy; in the field it was so brilliantly organized that it constituted a continual threat to the German rear and contributed greatly to the German disaster on the Eastern Front. 5
In Western Europe the Allies organized guerrilla forces in France, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Italy, and Greece. These forces (known collectively as the ?underground? and, in France, as the maquis) were supplied by Allied airdrops and coordinated from London by radio. The resistance forces in Western Europe, led mainly by British- and American-trained officers, conducted not only guerrilla operations but also industrial sabotage, espionage, propaganda campaigns, and the organization of escape routes for Allied prisoners of war. 6
By the end of World War II resistance forces had played a major role in the defeat of Germany. Throughout the war the United States and Britain also carried on guerrilla warfare in the Philippines and Southeast Asia, and in China large-scale guerrilla operations were conducted against the Japanese by both Communists and Nationalists. 7
Since World War II
Since World War II guerrilla warfare has been employed by nationalist groups to overthrow colonialism, by dissidents to launch civil wars, and by Communist and Western powers in the cold war. There have been dozens of such conflicts. 8
Just after World War II large-scale guerrilla warfare broke out in Indochina between the French and the Communist Viet Minh, led by Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap. After the French defeat at Dienbienphu (1945), France withdrew from the conflict; but the 1954 Geneva Conference brought no permanent peace, and Communist guerrilla activity continued in Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam. In the subsequent Vietnam War the United States fought in support of the South Vietnamese government against local guerrillas (Viet Cong) aided by North Vietnamese troops. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge waged guerrilla warfare to win control of the nation and, after being ousted by the Vietnamese army, again resorted to it until the group?s disintegration (1999). 9
In Algeria guerrilla warfare against the French was begun by the nationalists in 1954 and conducted with ever-increasing violence until Algeria won its independence in 1961. Greek nationalists in Cyprus carried on guerrilla warfare against the British from 1954 until that country gained independence in 1959. Fidel Castro and Ernesto (Che) Guevara in 1956 launched a guerrilla war in Cuba against the government of Fulgencio Batista; in 1959, Batista fled the country and Castro assumed control. This success gave encouragement to rebel guerrilla bands throughout Latin America. In 1967, Guevara was killed by the Bolivian army while leading such a rebel band in the jungles of Bolivia. 10
In the late 1960s, Palestinian Arab guerrillas intensified their activities against the state of Israel. In 1971, after a full-scale war with the Jordanian army, they were ousted from their bases in Jordan. However, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and other groups continued their raids on Israel from other Arab countries. After the PLO was forced to leave Lebanon (1982, 1991) its fighters were again dispersed, but it continued to mount attacks until peace negotiations in the early 1990s. 11
The United States has sponsored guerrillas, most notably anti-Castro Cuban forces and Nicaraguan contras. Modern ?urban guerrilla? activities such as hijacking and kidnapping are frequently inspired by ideology rather than patriotism and are often tinged with elements of terrorism. The Irish Republican Army (late 1960s to mid-1990s) and Peru?s Shining Path engaged in both attacks on government forces and various forms of terrorism. In the 1990s many nations experienced some degree of ongoing societal disruption due to persistent guerrilla warfare, among them Algeria, Burundi, Cambodia, Colombia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Turkey (in Kurdish areas).
I see we have went from freedom fighters to querrilas? I would agree they are fighting with querrila tactics but since they target civlians and come from terrorists network for most part I think terrorists would define them more accurately.
--would agree the relgious factor is primary obstacle and is no secret that where ever muslims exist in Eastern counties there are etrocities--however I don't think taking the French approach ever got anything accomplished.
--and you might want to check your history on success of guerilla warefare---
P.S. Note how the French always seem to pop up on these--
History
In the American Revolution and the Nineteenth Century
Large-scale guerrilla fighting accompanied the American Revolution, and the development of guerrilla tactics under such partisan leaders as Francis Marion, Andrew Pickens, and Thomas Sumter has been called the great contribution of the American Revolution to the development of warfare. The term guerrilla itself was coined during the Peninsular War (1808?14), when Spanish partisans, under such leaders as Francisco Mina, proved unconquerable even by the armies of Napoleon I. From Spain the use of the term spread to Latin America and then to the United States. 2
During the U.S. Civil War, William C. Quantrill, who operated in Missouri and Kansas, was the most notorious of the Confederate guerrilla leaders, but John S. Mosby, in Virginia, was undoubtedly the most effective. During the Franco-Prussian War (1870?71) the Germans suffered so much from French partisans, or francs-tireurs, that Field Marshall von Moltke ordered the shooting of all prisoners not fully uniformed and led by regular officers. In the Philippines after the Spanish-American War, the U.S. Army conducted a long campaign against Filipino guerrillas, such as Emilio Aguinaldo, and Moro bands. There has been frequent guerrilla warfare in Latin America. Notable among early 20th-century Latin American guerrillas are Francisco (Pancho) Villa, Emiliano Zapata, and Augusto C. Sandino. 3
World War I to World War II
In World War I the most spectacular theater of guerrilla operations was the Arabian peninsula, where, under the leadership of T. E. Lawrence and Faisal al-Husayn (later Faisal I), various Arab guerrilla bands fought superior Turkish forces. In the late 1920s and 30s the Chinese Communists under the leadership of Mao Zedong, perhaps the world?s leading theorist of modern guerrilla warfare, conducted a large-scale guerrilla war, along with mobile and positional warfare, against both the Kuomintang and the Japanese in N China. Mao saw the People?s War, as he called it, progressing from minor skirmishing to a conventional conflict as he led the Communists to victory. 4
Guerrilla tactics, aided by the development of the long-range portable radio and the use of aircraft as a means of supply, reached new heights in World War II. The Germans failed to establish a complete hold on Yugoslavia because of the guerrilla resistance, which was led by the Communist partisan leader Tito and supplied in part by Allied airdrops. In the Soviet Union guerrilla warfare was included in instruction at the military academy; in the field it was so brilliantly organized that it constituted a continual threat to the German rear and contributed greatly to the German disaster on the Eastern Front. 5
In Western Europe the Allies organized guerrilla forces in France, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Italy, and Greece. These forces (known collectively as the ?underground? and, in France, as the maquis) were supplied by Allied airdrops and coordinated from London by radio. The resistance forces in Western Europe, led mainly by British- and American-trained officers, conducted not only guerrilla operations but also industrial sabotage, espionage, propaganda campaigns, and the organization of escape routes for Allied prisoners of war. 6
By the end of World War II resistance forces had played a major role in the defeat of Germany. Throughout the war the United States and Britain also carried on guerrilla warfare in the Philippines and Southeast Asia, and in China large-scale guerrilla operations were conducted against the Japanese by both Communists and Nationalists. 7
Since World War II
Since World War II guerrilla warfare has been employed by nationalist groups to overthrow colonialism, by dissidents to launch civil wars, and by Communist and Western powers in the cold war. There have been dozens of such conflicts. 8
Just after World War II large-scale guerrilla warfare broke out in Indochina between the French and the Communist Viet Minh, led by Ho Chi Minh and Vo Nguyen Giap. After the French defeat at Dienbienphu (1945), France withdrew from the conflict; but the 1954 Geneva Conference brought no permanent peace, and Communist guerrilla activity continued in Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam. In the subsequent Vietnam War the United States fought in support of the South Vietnamese government against local guerrillas (Viet Cong) aided by North Vietnamese troops. In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge waged guerrilla warfare to win control of the nation and, after being ousted by the Vietnamese army, again resorted to it until the group?s disintegration (1999). 9
In Algeria guerrilla warfare against the French was begun by the nationalists in 1954 and conducted with ever-increasing violence until Algeria won its independence in 1961. Greek nationalists in Cyprus carried on guerrilla warfare against the British from 1954 until that country gained independence in 1959. Fidel Castro and Ernesto (Che) Guevara in 1956 launched a guerrilla war in Cuba against the government of Fulgencio Batista; in 1959, Batista fled the country and Castro assumed control. This success gave encouragement to rebel guerrilla bands throughout Latin America. In 1967, Guevara was killed by the Bolivian army while leading such a rebel band in the jungles of Bolivia. 10
In the late 1960s, Palestinian Arab guerrillas intensified their activities against the state of Israel. In 1971, after a full-scale war with the Jordanian army, they were ousted from their bases in Jordan. However, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and other groups continued their raids on Israel from other Arab countries. After the PLO was forced to leave Lebanon (1982, 1991) its fighters were again dispersed, but it continued to mount attacks until peace negotiations in the early 1990s. 11
The United States has sponsored guerrillas, most notably anti-Castro Cuban forces and Nicaraguan contras. Modern ?urban guerrilla? activities such as hijacking and kidnapping are frequently inspired by ideology rather than patriotism and are often tinged with elements of terrorism. The Irish Republican Army (late 1960s to mid-1990s) and Peru?s Shining Path engaged in both attacks on government forces and various forms of terrorism. In the 1990s many nations experienced some degree of ongoing societal disruption due to persistent guerrilla warfare, among them Algeria, Burundi, Cambodia, Colombia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, and Turkey (in Kurdish areas).
Last edited:
Yes DTB, you are fighting a guerilla war over there....you are not fighting some uniformed army whose generals will sue for peace if you bomb them enough....
And yes, there is a difference between a terrorist and an insurgent...the insurgents are fighting us because we are there, and when we leave, they will go back to their five prayer a day life while the other group, namely the terrorists, will plot more attacks and as opposed to insurgents, will actually bother to leave the country to carry them out.
And thank you for posting that bit on guerilla warfare....I forgot about Napolean getting his a$$ kicked as well as the French before we decided to bend over and take it in the jungles of Vietnam..
If someone here doesn't think this is a guerilla war we're fighting over there then please tell me if you think this everyday occurance of suicide bombers and roadside bombs will ever end as long as we are over there......and also tell me if the American public is going to stand for letting this war go on for 3 or 5 or ten more years with these daily conditions and the fact that hundreds of billions more dollars will have to be thrown into the bonfire and thousands of more troops will die during that timeframe.
And yes, there is a difference between a terrorist and an insurgent...the insurgents are fighting us because we are there, and when we leave, they will go back to their five prayer a day life while the other group, namely the terrorists, will plot more attacks and as opposed to insurgents, will actually bother to leave the country to carry them out.
And thank you for posting that bit on guerilla warfare....I forgot about Napolean getting his a$$ kicked as well as the French before we decided to bend over and take it in the jungles of Vietnam..
If someone here doesn't think this is a guerilla war we're fighting over there then please tell me if you think this everyday occurance of suicide bombers and roadside bombs will ever end as long as we are over there......and also tell me if the American public is going to stand for letting this war go on for 3 or 5 or ten more years with these daily conditions and the fact that hundreds of billions more dollars will have to be thrown into the bonfire and thousands of more troops will die during that timeframe.
Can't add anything article didn't have Matt.
Marco I think the terrorist will use guerilla tactics even after we leave. Muslims been using same tatics everywhere (kill by bombs) for decades. Its their mode of fighting. I'd say part of fighting would come from true guerilla (the Sunni) as they do have agenda as a minority in power going to minority out of power.
but much of this is from Alqaida(spl)/terrorists which brings me to a question.
If invasion of Iraq was not threat to Alqaida/terrorist WHY did they abandon all out war on their birth place in Afgan to put such a fight in Iraq?? Wonder if those that profess that invasion of Iraq had 0 to do with fight on terror ever asked themselves that question. Apparently AlQaida feels much differently.
Marco I think the terrorist will use guerilla tactics even after we leave. Muslims been using same tatics everywhere (kill by bombs) for decades. Its their mode of fighting. I'd say part of fighting would come from true guerilla (the Sunni) as they do have agenda as a minority in power going to minority out of power.
but much of this is from Alqaida(spl)/terrorists which brings me to a question.
If invasion of Iraq was not threat to Alqaida/terrorist WHY did they abandon all out war on their birth place in Afgan to put such a fight in Iraq?? Wonder if those that profess that invasion of Iraq had 0 to do with fight on terror ever asked themselves that question. Apparently AlQaida feels much differently.
We do not need to worry how things are improving in Iraq. Fox News Sunday just said at least 70% of country Is doing well and improving every day. Funny thing is they must have missed the pentagon briefing Thursday. They stated we were at least up to 50%. I'll give them that because just the Kurd area alone about 30% is doing well. And in the South Iraq is moving forward. Not much was ever done in the South anyway. So there should not be to much there. What progress is real we will find out by 06 election. If some of our boys come home no matter what, say 40000 things maybe looking up.
Maybe I missed it in one of the other threads, I know Kosar and I asked before but never saw a response. Charles, where is that "update" from and by whom?
Again, did I miss it? Did Charles ever provide a link to his report? Or did you just write it yourself, Charles?
Again??????
I find it odd when these liberals seem so out of the loop, yet they try to come off like they keep up with current facts and events. Chadman don't you follow Washington??
The facts I pointed out were announced to the world. What rock do you live under?
I already asked you guys to dispute my facts and as usual, you failed badly.
9 POINTS I LISTED - I DARE YOU TO PROVE ANY OF THOSE FACTS WRONG OK??
Here's the link...the President gets his info from military commanders on the ground in Iraq.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051130-2.html
I find it odd when these liberals seem so out of the loop, yet they try to come off like they keep up with current facts and events. Chadman don't you follow Washington??
The facts I pointed out were announced to the world. What rock do you live under?
I already asked you guys to dispute my facts and as usual, you failed badly.
9 POINTS I LISTED - I DARE YOU TO PROVE ANY OF THOSE FACTS WRONG OK??
Here's the link...the President gets his info from military commanders on the ground in Iraq.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051130-2.html
Last edited:
Ok, first of all, thank you for the link. Even you have to admit it's difficult to keep up with all the posts, questions and responses around here. Especially in the multiple post/same point threads you start, Charles.
So, you dare me to prove any of these "facts" wrong. You say these "facts" are based on military commanders on the ground in Iraq. These "facts" evidently are gathered by you from this DECLASSIFIED report that was posted on the whitehouse.gov Web site. Therefore, you state that all of this info is factual, and that I have to prove it wrong.
How could I possibly do this, Charles? Especially to a point that you would admit the info to be wrong? Will it be good enough to post differing published reports from military sources? Will it be good enough to post published reports from other sources who have been to Iraq and have a different opinion? Or, is this info pure gospel and irrefutable proof and beyond possibly being wrong?
We know - ALL of us know - that intelligence reports provided by this administration have been proven false previously. We know - ALL of us know - that information disputing provided intelligence was hidden from declassified reports to intelligence officials, legislators and all Americans. We know this.
You are now quoting from an approved and declassified document provided by this administration for public dissemination. Are we to now ASSUME all (or ANY) of it is actually true? Especially your rendition of it?!? And it is based on - we are told by you - commanders on the ground. The nine items you highlight above don't seem to referenced to ANY ONE COMMANDER specifically. None of them. Unless I missed it. I'm sure you'll point it out if I did. The items seemed to be things George is telling us is the way it is. There were some general quotes by military personnel and Iraqi military. Here they are:
>>>
An Iraqi first lieutenant named Shoqutt describes the transformation of his unit this way: "I really think we've turned the corner here. At first, the whole country didn't take us seriously. Now things are different. Our guys are hungry to demonstrate their skill and to show the world."
Our troops in Iraq see the gains that Iraqis are making. Lieutenant Colonel Todd Wood of Richmond Hill, Georgia, is training Iraqi forces in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit. He says this about the Iraqi units he is working with: "They're pretty much ready to go it on their own ... What they're doing now would have been impossible a year ago ... These guys are patriots, willing to go out knowing the insurgents would like nothing better than to kill them and their families ... They're getting better, and they'll keep getting better."
Our commanders on the ground see the gains the Iraqis are making. General Marty Dempsey is the commander of the Multinational Security Transition Command. Here's what he says about the transformation of the Iraqi security forces: "It's beyond description. They are far better equipped, far better trained" than they once were. The Iraqis, General Dempsey says, are "increasingly in control of their future and their own security _ the Iraqi security forces are regaining control of the country."
An Iraqi Army Sergeant named Abbass Abdul Jabar puts it this way: "We have to help the coalition forces as much as we can to give them a chance to go home. These guys have been helping us. [Now] we have to protect our own families." America will help the Iraqis so they can protect their families and secure their free nation. We will stay as long as necessary to complete the mission. If our military leaders tell me we need more troops, I will send them.
<<<
Nothing specific, measurable in those comments. Just rah-rah stuff. Nothing you mentioned was referenced by anyone specific. Kind of hard to refute those things, isn't it?
But, I'm sure I can find some differing reports from Iraq. Not sure why I would post them, as I'm sure you'll say they are not valid, but I will.
Just wanted to point out your "facts" for what they were. Essentially unreferenced, undocumented comments from our President. I think we all have learned a lot about how complete the picture he paints is.
So, you dare me to prove any of these "facts" wrong. You say these "facts" are based on military commanders on the ground in Iraq. These "facts" evidently are gathered by you from this DECLASSIFIED report that was posted on the whitehouse.gov Web site. Therefore, you state that all of this info is factual, and that I have to prove it wrong.
How could I possibly do this, Charles? Especially to a point that you would admit the info to be wrong? Will it be good enough to post differing published reports from military sources? Will it be good enough to post published reports from other sources who have been to Iraq and have a different opinion? Or, is this info pure gospel and irrefutable proof and beyond possibly being wrong?
We know - ALL of us know - that intelligence reports provided by this administration have been proven false previously. We know - ALL of us know - that information disputing provided intelligence was hidden from declassified reports to intelligence officials, legislators and all Americans. We know this.
You are now quoting from an approved and declassified document provided by this administration for public dissemination. Are we to now ASSUME all (or ANY) of it is actually true? Especially your rendition of it?!? And it is based on - we are told by you - commanders on the ground. The nine items you highlight above don't seem to referenced to ANY ONE COMMANDER specifically. None of them. Unless I missed it. I'm sure you'll point it out if I did. The items seemed to be things George is telling us is the way it is. There were some general quotes by military personnel and Iraqi military. Here they are:
>>>
An Iraqi first lieutenant named Shoqutt describes the transformation of his unit this way: "I really think we've turned the corner here. At first, the whole country didn't take us seriously. Now things are different. Our guys are hungry to demonstrate their skill and to show the world."
Our troops in Iraq see the gains that Iraqis are making. Lieutenant Colonel Todd Wood of Richmond Hill, Georgia, is training Iraqi forces in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit. He says this about the Iraqi units he is working with: "They're pretty much ready to go it on their own ... What they're doing now would have been impossible a year ago ... These guys are patriots, willing to go out knowing the insurgents would like nothing better than to kill them and their families ... They're getting better, and they'll keep getting better."
Our commanders on the ground see the gains the Iraqis are making. General Marty Dempsey is the commander of the Multinational Security Transition Command. Here's what he says about the transformation of the Iraqi security forces: "It's beyond description. They are far better equipped, far better trained" than they once were. The Iraqis, General Dempsey says, are "increasingly in control of their future and their own security _ the Iraqi security forces are regaining control of the country."
An Iraqi Army Sergeant named Abbass Abdul Jabar puts it this way: "We have to help the coalition forces as much as we can to give them a chance to go home. These guys have been helping us. [Now] we have to protect our own families." America will help the Iraqis so they can protect their families and secure their free nation. We will stay as long as necessary to complete the mission. If our military leaders tell me we need more troops, I will send them.
<<<
Nothing specific, measurable in those comments. Just rah-rah stuff. Nothing you mentioned was referenced by anyone specific. Kind of hard to refute those things, isn't it?
But, I'm sure I can find some differing reports from Iraq. Not sure why I would post them, as I'm sure you'll say they are not valid, but I will.
Just wanted to point out your "facts" for what they were. Essentially unreferenced, undocumented comments from our President. I think we all have learned a lot about how complete the picture he paints is.
I rest my case. You can post all the "differing opinions" all you want. I provided facts, not opinions so we are talking aplles and oranges here.
You even solidified things even more. Thanks. You could prove none of those facts wrong. These facts were announced to the world and nobody can dispute them - BECAUSE THEY ARE TRUE!!
If you think they are fabricated then that's your problem. Keep your head in the sand. Let me know if you want to debate facts....if you want to debate opinion it's kinda boring.
You even solidified things even more. Thanks. You could prove none of those facts wrong. These facts were announced to the world and nobody can dispute them - BECAUSE THEY ARE TRUE!!
If you think they are fabricated then that's your problem. Keep your head in the sand. Let me know if you want to debate facts....if you want to debate opinion it's kinda boring.
Last edited:
