The 'Troop Surge' is working and working great so far . Civilian casualties from sectarian violence and Al Quada has dropped dramatically . Out of over 500 regions , there's less than 20 which still have significant troubles. . . . and those are improving as we speak . Less troops are getting killed and injured despite cries from the left that said "More troops , more deaths' . Even the left-wing media outlets have stopped denying the progress for fear of losing what little credibility they have left . It's working and there's not a damm thing anyone can say to dispute that fact .
If you are honest , yet haven't found the right opportunity to display that honesty , well here's your big chance .. . . . . or are you willing to lose whatever little credibility that YOU have left ?
2007-10-01 05:11:09 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Ducky - You might gain some much needed credibility if you would just answer the posted question .
2007-10-01 05:28:28 · update #1
Thats a riot, you said "Politically" and "Honest" together.
Seriously, we should have had more troops there to enforce the peace from the get go.
2007-10-01 05:16:00 · answer #1 · answered by midnyteryder1961 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I have to be politically honest because I am held to a higher authority.
I knew betting against our troops was a bad idea.
With the surge going well and MoveOn had to smear the general and Hillary calling him a liar.
Is not going to go well with the public.
They seem to forget polls change like the wind and being on record like the left has been.
Is not going to help them in Nov.
2007-10-01 07:02:25 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Credibility? that doesn't make sense to me Earnest sorry, politics is a dirty word, and a complicated mine field, personally I just wade through the $hit day in and day out, on a quest for the truth and nothing but the truth, I agree that our troops are making progress I never doubted them for a nano second, the thing that pees me off severely is the FACT that they shouldn't have been sent to Iraq in the first place, they are pawns being used as a buffer zone for the filthy rich Arabs/Saudis/Sunni and the Iranian/Shi'ite, and there's little old Israel who have openly admitted to the world and her granny that they STOLE land from the Palestinians, and I could go on and on for the rest of the day explaining the hatered that the whole entire middle east have for you and me, they hate us Earnest and they do not want us there, and by us I mean America and Britain, I couldn't give a rats @$$ what they do in their own back yard, point being Earnest it's just that THEIR BACK YARD, and who are we to be telling them how to live, they want us out and the rest of the world wants us out, so why stay?
2007-10-01 05:36:26 · answer #3 · answered by ~Celtic~Saltire~ 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Perhaps you are politically honest, but you are quoting dishonestly derived figure. The number of civilian Iraqi deaths are down because the Pentagon is no longer counting people who die in car bombings and people who are shot in the front of the head. 63 troops were killed in September, which is better than last month. However, this may be a record year for the number of American military killed. Last year 822 were killed and in the first 9 months of this year 801 have been killed.
2007-10-01 05:34:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
I'm as honest as all hell.
That sometimes gets me into trouble.
hee hee hee
The troop escalation, oh I'm sorry,"surge" is "working" because we are running out of bodies to kill and pile up.
Working so well we'el only be in Iraq another say, 10 to 15 years?
Gnl. Casey's report last Friday says otherwise.
"Frightful" some Republican lawmakers called it.
2007-10-01 05:52:52 · answer #5 · answered by Jim W 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, I am. But you aren't. You obviously are radically conservative. If you are going to post stats, then do so from both points of view. To some, we wouldn't need a surge if we weren't there in the first place, so to some any American death is unnecessary. If I truly believed that making Iraq a democracy is making us safer, or is attainable, I might support us being over there. And your last sentence makes you an arrogant idiot.
2007-10-01 05:27:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
Oh yes!
I point out how many of our RINO's sell us out and maybe they will get the message before the left wins any more.
2007-10-01 09:37:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where Iraq is concerned SNAFU and FUBAR come to mind immediately. If your idea of success is attacking a hated foe of Iran and toppling their government, tying up U.S. troops on a police mission, creating 2 million Iraqi refugees that fled to enemy states, destabilizing oil pricing around the globe, losing foreign policy initiatives, and justifying unilateral war decisions without the cooperation of the U.N., then, YES, IRAQ IS A SUCCESS! Praise the Lord!
2007-10-01 05:20:16 · answer #8 · answered by alphabetsoup2 5 · 2⤊ 4⤋
You claim the Surge is working based on what evidence? less killings? I agree in some areas. But as a whole? Come on and quite being such a butt-kisser to the corrupt lying whore Bush.
You say I cannot dispute your facts on the surge working yet present no facts.
Sorry pal you are as weak as the President trying to explain his premise for war with Iraq.
2007-10-01 05:21:53 · answer #9 · answered by kenny J 6 · 6⤊ 5⤋
Our President said at the beginning of the war that this was going to be a long drawn out war. The liberals deny that this speech ever happened and even lie stating he said it would only take weeks.
The surge is working. Our military is stronger than ever. God Bless the USA!!!!
2007-10-01 05:20:31 · answer #10 · answered by TRUE PATRIOT 6 · 6⤊ 4⤋