The NY Times reports that democrats say that pulling our troops will take years. Why cant they admit and start pulling behind our troops and report our victories, and admit that the surge is starting to work.
2007-08-14 10:38:11 · 20 answers · asked by Go Blue 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Liberals run the media and most of them want us to lose in Iraq so they can say that they're right. When you get tired of them just reporting on death turn to FOXNews, they report the truth (good and bad).
2007-08-14 10:43:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
The surge is working in the areas covered by the surge and I have no doubt that the Iraqi people in those areas are very relieved and grateful. This has been reported. The violence is just moving to other areas though. 150 to 175 killed today in northern Iraq from 5 bombs.
Their government has also all but disbanded. This is because the members of parliament do not really want a united central government. The Shia want a Shiite government and the Sunni want a Sunni led government. The Kurds want their own country. How are we going to change that?
I would not be surprised in September that the surge will be expanded. It would take another 50 to 100 thousand troops to really make this work. Then, when they redeploy, it would start all over again. Iraq is going to have to decide the outcome of this in the end.
2007-08-14 11:25:48 · answer #2 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bad news, such as violence, has been shown to always attract more viewers (and listeners). More people equals more money, so it is in the financial interests of the large media companies to play up negative news over positive news. Occasionally they throw in a heartwarming story, but it has to be pretty unique to be considered interesting enough to make national news.
2016-05-17 22:53:18 · answer #3 · answered by macie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I heard Dennis Miller interviewing a democrat supporter on the show and he said the surge is succeeding but has not yet succeeded. As if it would be an overnight success. Especially after having waited for so long to increase troops.
Regardless, I did hear someone state that it is succeeding so, that answers your question. But, you know, it was on the radio so, hopefully nobody heard it is what some people are thinking I'm sure.
2007-08-14 10:44:18 · answer #4 · answered by eldude 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
When hell freezes over, because that's what it will take for America to start winning in Iraq.
You have not got the slightest clue how to deal with local populations in a terrorism situation.
You do not make friends in the community by booting in doors of absolutely everyone. Ask the British Army if you want to know how to do it properly. We've had the experience of Belfast, which, as I recall, was at least in part aggravated by the actions of Americans who funded a little terrorist sympathising organisation called NORAID.
Thanks for the useful military experience.
How long would it take the US to fall out with a nation sympathising with al Qaeda?
Wouldn't trust you f*ckers as far as I could throw a fat @ss Texan.
2007-08-14 10:50:44 · answer #5 · answered by Beastie 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
uh, when we actually start to succeed in iraq.
the surge is NOT working as is evidenced by the same facts that you wish were reported in the news.
iraqi oil production has not made it to pre-war levels, and this is how bush and cheney said that the war would be paid for - a trillion dollars later, we can't even get the oil out of the world's second largest oil reserve.
most industries, businesses, shops and schools have LESS electical power then they had in the pre-war era.
a recent congressional delegation reported the extremely depressing news that there were no iraqi soldiers with american soldiers engaging in the surge in baghdad.
amazingly, about half of the weapons that we sent to be used in the iraqi army can't be accounted for - odds are - they are being used to kill our guys.
this is all very depressing, and that, sadly, is the reality of the situation in iraq.
you joining the chorus of liars who 'say' that the surge is working will have no impact, especially when people see that the opposite is the TRUTH.
2007-08-14 10:43:45 · answer #6 · answered by nostradamus02012 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
Never. It's not in there or the democrats best interests. Of course neither is the democratic course to surrender, but they're too short sighted and self interested to realize that.
2007-08-14 10:47:56 · answer #7 · answered by The emperor has no clothes 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
They'll only do it if a Dem takes the White House or if the Democrat party leaders say they support the war.
2007-08-14 10:44:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
When the media becomes a conservative media instead of a liberal media or in other words, never.
2007-08-14 10:59:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
erm...you do realize that we are *not* succeeding in Iraq, right? In fact, we cannot succeed--Iraq doesn't want us there, period.
It is time to call things like they are and quit wasting money, time, and personnel in a pointless endeavor.
Sun Tzu would have advised against going into Iraq.
2007-08-14 10:45:49 · answer #10 · answered by Mathsorcerer 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋