94)This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
birddog54
mcarpentry
Codi6934
icono1
MichaelRhodente
Wolfie2007
Teagen
BoBo in Texas
Klarissa
tanglang
CactusAnnie
aniokly
Nixie
pc25
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Obama's and Democrats' worst nightmare: More good news from Iraq and Afghanistan. How can this be? A year ago Reid, Pelosi and the liberals on Propeller/Netscape swore the war was lost! Now they just grumble and swear.
They aren't known as the Retreat & Surrender Caucus for nothing.
I've been saying this for the last year or so but whenever I have the left always called me a liar or worse. It's nice to see I'm proven correct.
"I've been saying this for the last year or so but whenever I have the left always called me a liar or worse. It's nice to see I'm proven correct."
Now their line of illogic says they just will show up elsewhere. If you capture or kill an al Qaeda leader, they say it was a waste of time because another on will take his place. But they still whine about catching Bin Laden.
If you uproot them from a former stronghold, lefties will tell you it was a waste of time because they will go elsewhere. In the meantime, Obama said he would take military action in Pakistan to uproot al Qaeda.
I like what the story here suggests about the need to get Pakistan more involved as Afghanis and Iraqis have. Makes more sense than the Obama approach.
libsrfunny
When I read the article, I got the distinct impression that the reason for less friction with Al-Queda was due to the alliance with groups who are not Al-Queda. And as I recall this alliance is actually a "put them on the payroll" type peace. I'm not sure that is any different from using Mercenaries. At any event, the peace lasts only as long as the money.
By the way. Osama Bin Laden didn't arrive in Afghanistan in 1996, he went there in the 80's as an ally of the United States. We armed the Mujjhedean ( which included OBL ) in the proxy fight against the USSR. Actually OBL was a hero to the U S until we placed a base in Saudi Arabia. He warned before we did it that he would take the placing of the base as a declaration of War. Guess he meant it.
"He warned before we did it that he would take the placing of the base as a declaration of War. Guess he meant it."
Too bad for him the Saudi government turned him down and invited the U.S. to come in and kick Saddam's hind end back to Iraq. Sure, the CIA helped Muslims defeat the Soviet empire with weapons and specialist support. Bin Laden was all for it then. There was a time when Ho Chi Minh accepted U.S. support to help fight the Japanese.
But Bin laden lost his head and lost his nation and family in the process. Now if he is alive, he's holed up in some cave with no family, no nation and no life.
The article said nothing of paying groups - mercenaries, you called them. But you are going to believe what you want. That is your right - no matter how wrong you are.
The war in Iraq is obviously over. We won big time! Al Qaida is vanquished. George Bush will be remembered as the greatest president in history. No argument there.
As for Bin Laden? ...."Now if he is alive, he's holed up in some cave with no family, no nation and no life...."
Dont think so. He's roughing it out on the ranch in Crawford. Bo Peep looks after the girlfriends he shares with Dumbya.
On January 21, 2008, they'll all turn up in South America for a well earned "victory" vacation. That will finally be Mission Accomplished!
I have yet to see any reliable estimates of al-qaeda-iraq strength. I have asked repeatedly here, but nobody seems to be able to be able to provide even a ball park number.
If the numbers are so hard to come by, how can a person judge the significance of a decrease?
---I wonder since the U.S. has no plans to reduce it's troop size.
---I wonder since the U.S. has no plans to reduce the dollars spent.
Does this mean that al-qaeda-iraq was not that important to begin with?
Read the article. It says former al Qaeda strongholds now are quiet with no terrorists in site. Also, 3,500 U.S. troops are scheduled to come home from Iraq.
So, it is possible to tell, and there are plans to reduce troop size.
As far as "reliable estimates," how would you suggest we get them? Go door to door conducting a census: "Is any member of your household a member of al Qaeda? If so, how many and what ages?"
Based on the Commander-in-chief's comments, "al-qaeda-iraq" seems to be a primary enemy of the U.S.
Even I have read about the first rule of war: KNOW YOUR ENEMY
If the commander in chief has dispached 160,000 troops and is spending billions of dollars a month to conquer an enemy or unknown strength there is a real problem..
LOL
Let al Queada send them there and they can die there. I like that better than them sending them here and we kill them here.
This is NOT a nightmare, it is GREAT news.
I am only puzzled by Mr. Bush's plans to keep u.S. troop levels constant.
I am only puzzled by Mr. Bush's plans to keep war funding constant.
I am only puzzled as to why the Iraqis can't, after five-plus years, take over a greater share of policing Iraq.
There are no plans to keep troop levels constant. The plan is to withdraw troops soon.
Bush does not handle war funding. Congress does.
Iraqis are taking over a greater share of policing Iraq.
You might have read the story yesterday about an Iraqi force raiding an al Qaeda stronghold and saying they caught the top al Qaeda leader in Iraq. The U.S. military says it's mistaken identity. But the point is, Iraqis ARE policing more and more of their own nation. In time, they will police all of it.
Bush has said CLEARLY that troop levels will remain constant.
Bush proposed funding, congress approves or disapproves his requests.
Based on U.S. participation remaining relatively constant, I question the assertion of greater Iraqi involvement
One story is great news, but let's see the bottom line.
You have no idea how government works lol. Presidents do not request funding.
And, try reading the papers: 3,500 troops to be pulled out if Iraq in the next few weeks.
David Ignatius!!!! Another of the "american" zionist traitors that has been feeding americans this kind of lies for years now. Interesting to see which people here are either still suckers for these lies and/or are active traitors to america.
Yes thats right hyper, just go ahead and label everyone who you disagree with as Zionist traitors! If you say it enough, it will become true!
He is a true conspiracy buff. His conspiracy is Zionism. Alive and well in his own mind.
If we're going to depend solely on numbers then we have to look at the long picture. What it comes down to is that not only are the numbers of al-Quaeda much higher than they were before Bush invaded Iraq (i.e. higher than ZERO), but they're given daily boosts for recruitment through the actions of American soldiers commanded by (ostensibly) BushCo.
Whos to say those numbers would not be at the same level now even if we had not gone into Iraq
where is the evidence to prove that the AQ numbers have gone up because we are in Iraq