5,000 troops coming home - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

dude1394 · 11-24-2007, 11:48 PM

Well the democrats won't applaud the ass-kicking that the surge and the Iraqi's are putting on AlQueda but they will applaud troops coming home.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...g-home-68.html

Quote:

The Multi-National Force-Iraq contines to rack up some amazing results including a 68% drop in violence in Diala Province:

** Violence in Iraq is down by 50%.
** Civilian casualties in Iraq are down by 60%.
** Baghdad casualties are down by 75%.
** Basra violence is down by 90%.
** Terrorist attacks in Iraq are down by 80%.
** IED attacks down by 55%.
** Average daily attacks down by 42%.
** Foreign insurgent flow into Iraq down by more than 50%
** Suicide bombings down 70% since March.
** Foreign Terrorist flow into Iraq down by 50%.
** Diala Province violence down by 68%.

(Figures were taken from Aljazeera, DefenseLink, Investor's Business Daily The New York Times and Aswat Aliraq)

5,000 US troops will head back home due to the overall improved security situation in Iraq. The troops stationed in Diala Province have seen a decline in violence by 68 percent since April of this year.
War in Iraq reported:

Around 5,000 American troops will head home later this month as part of a withdrawal plan announced by President George W. Bush, US military spokesman Rear Admiral Gregory Smith said Saturday.

"Current conditions allow for a withdrawal of the first unit, the Grey Wolf Brigade, starting on November 27th," Smith told reporters at a press conference in Baghdad, AFP reported.

The brigade will not be replaced, he said, adding the drawdown is an indication of "overall improved security within Iraq as well as the improved capabilities of the Iraqi security forces." The brigade has been deployed in restive Diyala province where a series of military crackdowns have been launched targeting Al-Qaeda militants.

Janett_Reno · 11-27-2007, 01:25 AM

Well it looks like it is almost time to kick two more conservative Republicans to the curd. You will hate this dude because Saxby Chambliss and Lindsey Graham are true conservative Republicans. I guess maybe the neocons can't get them to sell out and be quiet. Are you ready to put them on the swqiftboat also and kick them out of the Republican party? It sure is sad times in the grand old party. Dude, you should be the spokesman for Rumsfield and Cheney and that way you could bypass the Republicans and just do as you wanted and take your orders from Cheney and Rumsfield and maybe ever now and then Fox but never listen to people like Hagel, Warner, Lugar, Graham, Chambliss or a guy like Ron Paul because what does these guys know? You are much smarter than them.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Republicans threaten to cut aid to Iraq

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071127/..._iraq_congress

Two Republican senators said Monday that unless Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki makes more political progress by January, the U.S. should consider pulling political or financial support for his government.

The stern warnings, coming from Sens. Lindsey Graham and Saxby Chambliss, are an indication that while GOP patience on the war has greatly increased this fall because of security gains made by the military, it isn't bottomless.

"I do expect them to deliver," Graham, R-S.C., said in a phone interview upon returning from a Thanksgiving trip to Iraq. "What would happen for me if there's no progress on reconciliation after the first of the year, I would be looking at ways to invest our money into groups that can deliver."

Chambliss, R-Ga., who traveled with Graham as part of a larger congressional delegation, said lawmakers might even call for al-Maliki's ouster if Baghdad didn't reach agreement on at least some of the major issues seen as key to tamping down sectarian violence.

"If we don't see positive results by the end of the year I think you'll probably see a strong message coming out of Congress calling for a change in administration," he said in a conference call with reporters.

Republican support for the war is crucial, especially in the Senate where Democrats hold a narrow majority and routinely come up eight or so votes short when trying to pass anti-war legislation.

While GOP support stumbled this summer as voter opposition to the war grew, Republicans have since rallied behind President Bush's Iraq policies because of a sharp reduction in violence largely credited to a buildup of 30,000 additional troops. U.S. combat deaths in Iraq stood at 38 last month, down from 126 in May, 101 in June and 65 in September.

Congressional Democrats contend the troop buildup is only a temporary fix and that security will deteriorate again after the military reduces its force levels, which it plans to do this year.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has said he wants to withdraw the 30,000 additional forces by July 1.

Graham and Chambliss said the recent military gains are remarkable, but they agree with Democrats that the political progress has been disappointing. Graham, an early ally of Bush's troop buildup, said he would lose confidence in al-Maliki's government if it could not pass by January a law that would ease curbs on former Baathists from holding government jobs.

Noting the large amounts of reconstruction and other economic aid provided to the central government, Graham said that if progress remains stagnant U.S. might want to consider "putting our money into some of the provinces where they have reconciled."

"There are no more excuses as far as I'm concerned not to achieve some benchmark success," he said.

Both senators expressed optimism that Baghdad would rise to the challenge.

"Time will tell," Chambliss said. "They have committed to doing everything they can," he added.

On their trip to Iraq, Chambliss and Graham were joined by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., John Barrasso, R-Wyo., and Utah's Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman.

dude1394 · 11-27-2007, 10:09 AM

keep hoping for defeat janet...It sits well on you. I thought I could actually get a positive response from a liberal, but I should have known better.

dude1394 · 11-27-2007, 10:44 AM

This person has a very short and succinct message to those legislators who take this approach Janet.

http://www.dailynews-record.com/opin...s.php?LID=5595

Quote:

A Ridiculous Proposal

I think that politicians should stop sometimes and just listen to themselves talk. On Sunday, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., stated that he wanted the Senate to pass a “non-binding resolution that has as a goal with a timetable...” This non-binding resolution is designed to pressure politicians in Iraq to get to work and pass legislation that would help put the country on track to reconciliation.

Humm! This sounds serious — especially with a timetable. Let’s see how this works. After everyone has warned him incessantly for months, a father says to his son — “your mother and I, your grandparents, and all your aunts and uncles have unanimously passed a non-binding resolution that sets as a goal with a timetable to slowly reduce your allowance if you do not keep your room clean.” Wow, I’ll bet that will scare the dickens out of the boy and make him keep his room clean — forever.

I have a message to Congress. In November 2008, there will be a binding resolution, called an election, that will remove people from office if you don’t stop with the non-binding resolution bull and start getting to work doing the American people’s business.

You want the Iraq government to pass legislation toward reconciliation. Set a good example and practice what you preach. Get to work reconciling legislation that deals with illegal immigrants, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid. Then, maybe the Iraq government will follow your lead.

Non-binding resolutions that have a goal with a timetable .... ridiculous!

Gene Hauze
Massanutten

purplefrog · 11-27-2007, 11:06 AM

Good post dude. I have no idea as to the purpose of these nonbinding resolutions. I guess the Dems are just trying to appease what they view as the prevailing public opinion.

George Gervin · 11-27-2007, 11:28 AM

So at what point can we question the Iraqi govt.'s progress? When can we start putting their feet to the fire to make substantial and tangible progress? Or do you propose us just shutting up?

George Gervin · 11-27-2007, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dude1394

keep hoping for defeat janet...It sits well on you. I thought I could actually get a positive response from a liberal, but I should have known better.

what is it with people like you inferring that people want to lose because they don't agree with Bush? When people question strategies and tactics they don't want to be ridiculed. Let us know when we can question anything.. I'll wait until then. If you rtespond when we win please spell out what winning is and an idea as to how long that will take. Try and include the costs , including lives (iraqi's and US), and monetary value. Is that to much to ask for? Considering you will imply that people like me want to 'hope for defeat' I would at least like to klnow more about what responisbilities the Iraqi govt has.

Flacolaco · 11-27-2007, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by purplefrog

I guess the Dems are just trying to appease what they view as the prevailing public opinion.

That sir, is one hell of a sentence.

Mavdog · 11-27-2007, 12:35 PM

I hope that everyone of us can be happy and thankful these soldiers are coming back home.

there's been a positive turn for us in iraq it seems, there appears to be a genuine effort by the iraqis themselves to stop the violence, to take back their country from the jihadists who were trying to incite sunni/shia conflict.

however, the fact remains that this year saw the highest us troop casualties, and the iraqis are still not ready to take on the responsibilty of iraq security as planned when the troop surge was outlined. in fact, the news out yesterday says that there will be a continued us troop presence in iraq for close to a decade from now.

and that's not even mentioning the political impass that finds the iraqis not resolving the critical questions on how to manage the country and distribute its oil wealth.

yikes.

so, when we have finally arrived here at the end of 2007 and we get some good news from the war let's all be thankful. but at the same time let's not forget how we got here in the first place and that there are so many hurdles remaining...

dude1394 · 11-27-2007, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Gervin

what is it with people like you inferring that people want to lose because they don't agree with Bush? When people question strategies and tactics they don't want to be ridiculed. Let us know when we can question anything.. I'll wait until then. If you rtespond when we win please spell out what winning is and an idea as to how long that will take. Try and include the costs , including lives (iraqi's and US), and monetary value. Is that to much to ask for? Considering you will imply that people like me want to 'hope for defeat' I would at least like to klnow more about what responisbilities the Iraqi govt has.

I would take them at face value if they wouldn't do things like declare the surge a failure before it's even started, or declare the person who they, themselves approved unanimously(full well knowing the startegy) as a liar.

I have no problem with folks disagreeing and questioning tactics and startegy. But QUITTING is NOT A TACTIC or a STRATEGY, it is QUITTING. Wanting to pull out of iraq like the dems did is surrendering to Al Queda, end of story, it just is. They knew it, you knew it but they didn't care, they wanted to surrender. They didn't care how many more iraqi's had to die for it, they just didn't care. It was horrific and the democrat party is the party of limp-wristed foreign policy because of it.

One thing has been proven for sure..When something gets hard, the democrats will get quitting.

Winning is when Iraq can stand up, defend itself and hopefully be relatively calm and peaceful. We leave when that has occurred, it seems as though Dubya and Petraeus have accomplished that. We will be there as their allies to help them, but the heavy lifting will be done by them, as it has been done by their civilian population and the folks willing to put their lives on the line for their own democratic country.

Folks who do not see that as great news for america imo want us to fail there, how else could I read it.

dalmations202 · 11-27-2007, 09:38 PM

Just an opinion of mine,

These 5000 shouldn't be coming home, just relocating to Darfur.

dude1394 · 11-28-2007, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Gervin

what is it with people like you inferring that people want to lose because they don't agree with Bush? When people question strategies and tactics they don't want to be ridiculed. Let us know when we can question anything.. I'll wait until then. If you rtespond when we win please spell out what winning is and an idea as to how long that will take. Try and include the costs , including lives (iraqi's and US), and monetary value. Is that to much to ask for? Considering you will imply that people like me want to 'hope for defeat' I would at least like to klnow more about what responisbilities the Iraqi govt has.

Thought I would add another example of democratic politicians blatant attempt to not win this war but lose it.
http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/...ts-matter.html

Quote:

History will also record the callous and anti-humanitarian attitude of most Democrats when the carnage in Iraq was out of control. This story does a great job of reminding everyone where they once stood (and where many still stand). Behold what history will record about where the Democrats stood when innocent Iraqis were most in need of our help (because they were dying by the thousands every month):

Quote:

Even before the plan was announced to the public on January 10, 2007, Democrats launched their assault. Senator Christopher Dodd declared the plan useless: "A 'surge' of American troops will do nothing." Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the top Democrats in the new Congress, released an open letter to Bush on January 5, decrying his redoubled effort as futile: "Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried, and that has already failed." The surge was "a sad, ominous echo of something we've lived through in this country," according to Illinois senator Richard Durbin. "I'm confident it will not work," said John Kerry at a Senate hearing, a sentiment echoed by Barack Obama.

Senate Democrats joined the Republicans in late January in unanimously confirming the appointment of General David Petraeus, a counterinsurgency expert and coauthor of the new surge proposal, sending him off with godspeed and good wishes to the front. Then they began to try to kneecap his efforts, seeking to deny him troops and/or money in an ongoing series of votes of no confidence, coupled with predictions that he would not succeed. Lest anyone at home or abroad not get their message, they rapidly passed two resolutions declaring their profound lack of faith in his mission. One, from Carl Levin on February 5, declared the Senate's disagreement with the "plan to augment our forces"; the other, from Harry Reid two weeks later, declared it the sense of Congress that "Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq."
...
At the beginning, it had been made abundantly clear that the surge would take place in stages, that it would build gradually over a three- to five-month period, and would not begin to take full effect until June. This did not stop Reid from declaring in April that the surge had been tried, and had failed. "I believe myself that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense--and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows--know that this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything," he said April 19.

Others piled on. "The surge was supposed to bring stability.... It hasn't and it won't," Ted Kennedy said on May 1. "The evidence is clear it is not happening and it will not happen," Dodd said May 15 of a potential American victory. Durbin said the day after: "This Senate knows that the administration's policy in Iraq has failed." Senator Joseph Biden agreed. "The surge has not worked and will not work," he said on June 1. And in a joint letter to the president on June 13, Reid and Pelosi said, "As many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results."

Having ordered Petraeus to make a progress report in September, the plan had been to wait until then--and the bad news they seemed sure would be coming--to deliver the coup de grâce. In July, however, the congressional Democrats decided September wouldn't come fast enough. As Harry Reid put it on July 9, "Democrats and military experts and the American people know the president's current strategy is not working and we cannot wait until September to act." As Dianne Feinstein put it, "Today, a majority of the Senate sees that the surge is not working. ... Do we change course now or do we wait until September... I believe the answer is clear." James Webb, sponsoring an amendment that would cripple the surge, made it clear that whatever Petraeus said wouldn't matter to him. "I don't care what the report says next week. I don't care what the report says in September."
...
Fearful that Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker might report too much progress in their much-anticipated testimony to Congress in September, Democrats launched a preemptive assault on the duo. "Leading Democrats ... preemptively assailed the expected findings on Iraq due this week from Gen. David H. Petraeus as 'dead, flat wrong' and said President Bush's likely call for continued patience in the war would simply extend an 'unconscionable' and 'completely unacceptable' policy," reported the International Herald Tribune on September 9, two days before the hearing was scheduled. "The pointed comments from the Democrats ... seemed designed to undercut the impact of the much-awaited reports." Representative Ed Markey of Massachusetts referred to the general's testimony as a "Petraeus village ... a façade to hide from view the continuing failure of the Bush administration's strategy." Rahm Emanuel said, "We don't need a report that wins the Nobel Prize for creative statistics, or the Pulitzer for fiction." The testimony required the "willing suspension of disbelief," said Hillary Clinton (a past master at the skill, as she had suspended it often enough in regard to her husband). "By carefully manipulating the statistics, the Bush-Petraeus report will try to persuade us that the violence in Iraq is decreasing, and the surge is working," said Dick Durbin. In an unintentional echo of the New York Times's famous "fake but accurate" defense of Dan Rather's fictional documents about President Bush's presumed derelictions of duty in the Texas Air National Guard, Durbin said: "Even if the figures are right, the conclusion is wrong." In less than a year, the Democrats had gone from demanding a change in a policy that was failing, to demanding a change in a policy that hadn't been tried yet, to demanding a change in a policy that at the very least had forestalled disaster and was proving to have some success.

George Gervin · 11-28-2007, 11:20 AM

Harry reid and Nancy Pelosi are idiots. As a person who barely associates himself with democrats anymore I am PROFOUNDLY disapointed in the Democrat Congressional leadership.

bernardos70 · 11-28-2007, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Gervin

what is it with people like you inferring that people want to lose because they don't agree with Bush? When people question strategies and tactics they don't want to be ridiculed. Let us know when we can question anything.. I'll wait until then. If you rtespond when we win please spell out what winning is and an idea as to how long that will take. Try and include the costs , including lives (iraqi's and US), and monetary value. Is that to much to ask for? Considering you will imply that people like me want to 'hope for defeat' I would at least like to klnow more about what responisbilities the Iraqi govt has.

Isn't winning this war basically "making less and less young muslim men want to come to this country to blow us up?" Are we winning by that definition?

Janett_Reno · 11-28-2007, 07:45 PM

It wasn't young muslim men from Iraq that came blew us up. It was young muslim men from Saudi Arabia that came and blew us up. The same Saudi's and other extremeist that are comming into Iraq now to cause trouble.

We attacked Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction. When someone like dude tells you we went into Iraq because of Al Queda, this is far from the truth and is very false. Sadam hung and shot Al Queda and him and Al Queda did not get along and they was not allowed in his country. It was no Al Queda when we went in Iraq. None. It is others reasons why we went in and are still in.

dude1394 · 11-29-2007, 12:58 AM

Yes that's part of it, not giving al queda a place of sanctuary is another. Thinking it was JUST saudia arabian muslim men is silly. You are taking one isolated event. Who was the first wtc, who was the cole, khobar towers, etc.

The threat is not a static group of men, but a movement born out of a land that has stagnated while the rest of the world has modernized. Their curse as well as their blessing has been oil that has allowed them to not modernize.

So how do you beat a religious movement? Well some have said that you promote democracy in the muslim world. That freedom/prosperity will allow them to make peaceful choices instead of radical ones. That's the thinking. That was a "side-benefit" to Iraq, a muslim democracy in the heart of the muslim world.

With respect to Iraq proper, he was taken out because he was known to have WMDs and was an aggressive threat to his neighbors as well as having known terrorist sympathies. So the guvment after 9/11 didn't think they could wait to see what he did with said wmd.

dude1394 · 11-29-2007, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janett_Reno

It wasn't young muslim men from Iraq that came blew us up. It was young muslim men from Saudi Arabia that came and blew us up. The same Saudi's and other extremeist that are comming into Iraq now to cause trouble.

We attacked Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction. When someone like dude tells you we went into Iraq because of Al Queda, this is far from the truth and is very false. Sadam hung and shot Al Queda and him and Al Queda did not get along and they was not allowed in his country. It was no Al Queda when we went in Iraq. None. It is others reasons why we went in and are still in.

I've NEVER said that we went into iraq ONLY because of Al queda. Go read the memorandum of force if you want to know why we went in. All I've said is that Al Queda WAS in iraq before we invaded. I believe that to be true. Of course there was a heck of a lot MORE of them after we invaded, but I've never disputed that.