The Surge is not Working
-
INITCOMMONCONTROLSEX wrote:
Or could it be that I don't care enough about what you write to google it?
And yet it would have taken less time for you to google "corky" than to respond with your question about who he was.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
John Carson wrote:
The reason why you have to go back that far to get a lower figure is because in every prior month for 2007, the military casualties were higher than in 2006. Higher in January 2007 than January 2006, higher in February 2007 than February 2006, higher in March 2007 than March 2006...all the way through to August. Thus the case for progress rests on a single month in which the figures were better.
Yup. Clearly the insurgents (you know...Those guys you're rooting for) were making progress...Progress which was rolled back by the surge. The question is whether or not that progress is sustainable. Perhaps an even larger surge would push the insurgency into oblivion. Note that one criticism of Rumsfeld was that he did not initially commit enough troops to the battlefield. Maybe that mistake can be rectified.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Red Stateler wrote:
Clearly the insurgents (you know...Those guys you're rooting for) were making progress...Progress which was rolled back by the surge.
You can't draw such a conclusion from one month's figures. You have learnt nothing from the last 4 years of failure.
Red Stateler wrote:
Note that one criticism of Rumsfeld was that he did not initially commit enough troops to the battlefield. Maybe that mistake can be rectified.
If you had a clue or had any chance of getting one, it might be worthwhile answering you on that point.
John Carson
-
INITCOMMONCONTROLSEX wrote:
You are trying as hard as you can to sound like Ann Coulter aren't you.
You are trying as hard as you can to sound like Corky aren't you.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Red Stateler wrote:
Corky
The guy with down syndrome from Life Goes On? I loved that show!
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Corky
The guy with down syndrome from Life Goes On? I loved that show!
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Clearly the insurgents (you know...Those guys you're rooting for) were making progress...Progress which was rolled back by the surge.
You can't draw such a conclusion from one month's figures. You have learnt nothing from the last 4 years of failure.
Red Stateler wrote:
Note that one criticism of Rumsfeld was that he did not initially commit enough troops to the battlefield. Maybe that mistake can be rectified.
If you had a clue or had any chance of getting one, it might be worthwhile answering you on that point.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
You can't draw such a conclusion from one month's figures. You have learnt nothing from the last 4 years of failure.
I have learned that insurgent attacks are fairly regular and frequent, which makes this one month's figures relevant. However, sustaining the progress is certainly important. The difference between you and me is that I want progress and signs of improvement make me happy. When you see signs of improvement, you are eager to dismiss them since you don't want progress.
John Carson wrote:
If you had a clue or had any chance of getting one, it might be worthwhile answering you on that point.
If you ever tell me that I have a clue, then I will carefully reexamine whatever I just said.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
I bet Red loves that show too if there is a guy with downs syndrome on it. That would be a character he could actually relate with!
Why do you think I get along so well with your mom?
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Why do you think I get along so well with your mom?
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Your mom thinks I'm pretty mature.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Your mom thinks I'm pretty mature.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
INITCOMMONCONTROLSEX wrote:
You are just making fun of yourself with your elementary school jokes.
You know how your mom makes fun of herself? She tells people that she's your mom.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
INITCOMMONCONTROLSEX wrote:
You are just making fun of yourself with your elementary school jokes.
You know how your mom makes fun of herself? She tells people that she's your mom.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
Phew, then I guess those at MoveOn, while a bit misguided, at least aren't traitors.
Sure they are. You don't think that the enemy found "General Betray-Us" to be comforting? And the fact that they paid for it constitutes "aid".
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.... now that there is a clever bit of sophistry. Too bad its a bunch of bull. I bet the enemy finds Bush's actions comforting as well. Not to mention the arms that they seem to be able to acquire from the "contractors" over there. The more I think about it, the more I like your definition of traitor.
This statement was never false.
-
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.... now that there is a clever bit of sophistry. Too bad its a bunch of bull. I bet the enemy finds Bush's actions comforting as well. Not to mention the arms that they seem to be able to acquire from the "contractors" over there. The more I think about it, the more I like your definition of traitor.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.... now that there is a clever bit of sophistry. Too bad its a bunch of bull. I bet the enemy finds Bush's actions comforting as well. Not to mention the arms that they seem to be able to acquire from the "contractors" over there. The more I think about it, the more I like your definition of traitor.
That isn't sophistry unless you're just very easily confused. MoveOn.org has begun a campaign designed to specifically undermine our military forces through propaganda they fund. If Bush intentionally undermined American soldiers, then it could be considered treason. If contractors intentionally provided weapons to insurgents, then it could be considered treason. Your examples, which are heavy in politics and light in substance, are examples of missteps and not willful acts to undermine the American armed forces. Even if one were to take your accusations seriously, they would be akin to friendly fire (which, of course, is not treason). Moveon.org, however, is now actively and intentionally creating propaganda designed to provide aid and comfort to the enemy. That IS treason.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha.... now that there is a clever bit of sophistry. Too bad its a bunch of bull. I bet the enemy finds Bush's actions comforting as well. Not to mention the arms that they seem to be able to acquire from the "contractors" over there. The more I think about it, the more I like your definition of traitor.
That isn't sophistry unless you're just very easily confused. MoveOn.org has begun a campaign designed to specifically undermine our military forces through propaganda they fund. If Bush intentionally undermined American soldiers, then it could be considered treason. If contractors intentionally provided weapons to insurgents, then it could be considered treason. Your examples, which are heavy in politics and light in substance, are examples of missteps and not willful acts to undermine the American armed forces. Even if one were to take your accusations seriously, they would be akin to friendly fire (which, of course, is not treason). Moveon.org, however, is now actively and intentionally creating propaganda designed to provide aid and comfort to the enemy. That IS treason.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
That is certainly your interpretation of the data. But it is speculation at best. Really you are spouting a conspiracy theory and I'm wondering about the warranty on your tinfoil hat. I would speculate that while their views are extreme they aren't intent on providing aid to terrorists but more transparency and accountability for politicising our military. Essentially calling the general a political representative rather than a military one when he gave his report. I don't agree with that viewpoint, but that is how I view their actions. Whilst you attribute it to treason and aiding terrorism instead. Tinfoil territory. You're no better than Faithfull at this point.
This statement was never false.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
Phew, then I guess those at MoveOn, while a bit misguided, at least aren't traitors.
Sure they are. You don't think that the enemy found "General Betray-Us" to be comforting? And the fact that they paid for it constitutes "aid".
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Red Stateler wrote:
Sure they are. You don't think that the enemy found "General Betray-Us" to be comforting? And the fact that they paid for it constitutes "aid".
They can disagree with you as long as they keep it to themselves? So you support freedom of thought (how liberal of you), but are actually opposed to freedom of speech.
-
INITCOMMONCONTROLSEX wrote:
Wow, a "your mom" joke.
Red has now taking it to a whole new level, just not sure which way. Up or Down.:laugh:
God Bless, Jason
I am not perfect but I try to be better than those before me. So those who come after me will be better than I am.