PDA

View Full Version : Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost


JTShooter
07-26-2008, 11:03 PM
Wait, what? I thought the Dems, including Obama, said we had lost!? What? You mean to tell me the things I saw with my own eyes wasn't a farce? It wasn't all a lie by the evil Bush admin????? What?

And I'm sorry, but it seemed impossible only to the Dems, the MSM, and the sheep that follow their everyword...



Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost
Story Here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080726/ap_on_an/iraq_winning_the_war)

By ROBERT BURNS and ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writers
Sat Jul 26, 7:08 PM ET

BAGHDAD - The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost. Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace — a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.

Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.

That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy.

Scattered battles go on, especially against al-Qaida holdouts north of Baghdad. But organized resistance, with the steady drumbeat of bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and ambushes that once rocked the capital daily, has all but ceased.

This amounts to more than a lull in the violence. It reflects a fundamental shift in the outlook for the Sunni minority, which held power under Saddam Hussein. They launched the insurgency five years ago. They now are either sidelined or have switched sides to cooperate with the Americans in return for money and political support.

Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told The Associated Press this past week there are early indications that senior leaders of al-Qaida may be considering shifting their main focus from Iraq to the war in Afghanistan.

Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told the AP on Thursday that the insurgency as a whole has withered to the point where it is no longer a threat to Iraq's future.

"Very clearly, the insurgency is in no position to overthrow the government or, really, even to challenge it," Crocker said. "It's actually almost in no position to try to confront it. By and large, what's left of the insurgency is just trying to hang on."

Shiite militias, notably the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, have lost their power bases in Baghdad, Basra and other major cities. An important step was the routing of Shiite extremists in the Sadr City slums of eastern Baghdad this spring — now a quiet though not fully secure district.

Al-Sadr and top lieutenants are now in Iran. Still talking of a comeback, they are facing major obstacles, including a loss of support among a Shiite population weary of war and no longer as terrified of Sunni extremists as they were two years ago.

Despite the favorable signs, U.S. commanders are leery of proclaiming victory or promising that the calm will last.

The premature declaration by the Bush administration of "Mission Accomplished" in May 2003 convinced commanders that the best public relations strategy is to promise little, and couple all good news with the warning that "security is fragile" and that the improvements, while encouraging, are "not irreversible."

Iraq still faces a mountain of problems: sectarian rivalries, power struggles within the Sunni and Shiite communities, Kurdish-Arab tensions, corruption. Any one of those could rekindle widespread fighting.

But the underlying dynamics in Iraqi society that blew up the U.S. military's hopes for an early exit, shortly after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, have changed in important ways in recent months.

Systematic sectarian killings have all but ended in the capital, in large part because of tight security and a strategy of walling off neighborhoods purged of minorities in 2006.

That has helped establish a sense of normalcy in the streets of the capital. People are expressing a new confidence in their own security forces, which in turn are exhibiting a newfound assertiveness with the insurgency largely in retreat.

Statistics show violence at a four-year low. The monthly American death toll appears to be at its lowest of the war — four killed in action so far this month as of Friday, compared with 66 in July a year ago. From a daily average of 160 insurgent attacks in July 2007, the average has plummeted to about two dozen a day this month. On Wednesday the nationwide total was 13.

Beyond that, there is something in the air in Iraq this summer.

In Baghdad, parks are filled every weekend with families playing and picnicking with their children. That was unthinkable only a year ago, when the first, barely visible signs of a turnaround emerged.

Now a moment has arrived for the Iraqis to try to take those positive threads and weave them into a lasting stability.

The questions facing both Americans and Iraqis are: What kinds of help will the country need from the U.S. military, and for how long? The questions will take on greater importance as the U.S. presidential election nears, with one candidate pledging a troop withdrawal and the other insisting on staying.

Iraqi authorities have grown dependent on the U.S. military after more than five years of war. While they are aiming for full sovereignty with no foreign troops on their soil, they do not want to rush. In a similar sense, the Americans fear that after losing more than 4,100 troops, the sacrifice could be squandered.

U.S. commanders say a substantial American military presence will be needed beyond 2009. But judging from the security gains that have been sustained over the first half of this year — as the Pentagon withdrew five Army brigades sent as reinforcements in 2007 — the remaining troops could be used as peacekeepers more than combatants.

As a measure of the transitioning U.S. role, Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond says that when he took command of American forces in the Baghdad area about seven months ago he was spending 80 percent of his time working on combat-related matters and about 20 percent on what the military calls "nonkinetic" issues, such as supporting the development of Iraqi government institutions and humanitarian aid.

Now Hammond estimates those percentage have been almost reversed. For several hours one recent day, for example, Hammond consulted on water projects with a Sunni sheik in the Radwaniyah area of southwest Baghdad, then spent time with an Iraqi physician/entrepreneur in the Dora district of southern Baghdad — an area, now calm, that in early 2007 was one of the capital's most violent zones.

"We're getting close to something that looks like an end to mass violence in Iraq," says Stephen Biddle, an analyst at the Council of Foreign Relations who has advised Petraeus on war strategy. Biddle is not ready to say it's over, but he sees the U.S. mission shifting from fighting the insurgents to keeping the peace.

Although Sunni and Shiite extremists are still around, they have surrendered the initiative and have lost the support of many ordinary Iraqis. That can be traced to an altered U.S. approach to countering the insurgency — a Petraeus-driven move to take more U.S. troops off their big bases and put them in Baghdad neighborhoods where they mixed with ordinary Iraqis and built a new level of trust.

Army Col. Tom James, a brigade commander who is on his third combat tour in Iraq, explains the new calm this way:

"We've put out the forest fire. Now we're dealing with pop-up fires."

It's not the end of fighting. It looks like the beginning of a perilous peace.

Maj. Gen. Ali Hadi Hussein al-Yaseri, the chief of patrol police in the capital, sees the changes.

"Even eight months ago, Baghdad was not today's Baghdad," he says.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE — Robert Burns is AP's chief military reporter, and Robert Reid is AP's chief of bureau in Baghdad. Reid has covered the war from his post in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. Burns, based in Washington, has made 21 reporting trips to Iraq; on his latest during July, Burns spent nearly three weeks in central and northern Iraq, observing military operations and interviewing both U.S. and Iraqi officers.

PB3021
07-26-2008, 11:15 PM
I hope this remains the case. I supported the surge and believed it to be, if not the cure to the insurgency, but at least relief to the soldiers stationed there. If we succeed, not only is this affirmation of the architects of this conflict but of the soldiers who have sacrifised (sp?) so much in this war.

GrndPnd0311
07-26-2008, 11:45 PM
I just hope its really is us winning and not just a lay low tactic. If I could see into the future it would help but they (insurgents, Iran, Syria) may be banking on other things more so than Iraq. Or that AQ just switched its focus to Afghanistan. I just hope our Generals and such have learned their lesson from Afghan the first time and not pull all out of one to go to the other. It will just result in an evil pendulum effect. You snuff out a rat hole, they just go to another.

Taylor13
07-27-2008, 12:49 AM
Two years ago seemed lost? If I recall, I saw videos that said when they found Saddam they won, now they're essentially cleaning up and routing out the bugs.

Stormy
07-27-2008, 12:53 AM
Yep, we're winning. Nice way to shift our troops to Afghanistan/Pakistan with new major military operations developing. :D:cool::D

JasperST4
07-27-2008, 08:02 AM
It's more evidence that the press is in the tank for the Democrats, only months ago they called it a losing battle, civil war, wasted effort, blah, blah, blah. An unbiased media would call them to task on it.

"Yep, we're winning. Nice way to shift our troops to Afghanistan/Pakistan with new major military operations developing."

Nice way to shift the argument.

JTShooter
07-27-2008, 10:20 AM
The lay low tactic doesn't work in an insurgency. When you're fighting a stronger force, you don't want to lay low and hope they forget about you. Because they won't but the PEOPLE will.... you lose your "support" from the locals, you lose your war.

Eclipse27
07-27-2008, 05:37 PM
Yes, victory will be official once the MASSIVE embassy is finally completed over there.

War on terrorism=endless, impossible to win. Some guy from Germany throws a rock at an American 200 years from now, then the war still isn't over.

DAL
07-27-2008, 05:55 PM
I do not think "winning" in Iraq has a clear definition. Obviously, the situation is much better than it was a year ago.

GrndPnd0311
07-27-2008, 06:54 PM
The lay low tactic doesn't work in an insurgency. When you're fighting a stronger force, you don't want to lay low and hope they forget about you. Because they won't but the PEOPLE will.... you lose your "support" from the locals, you lose your war.

Seemed to have worked fine in Afghanistan and Mogadishu.

equinox137
07-27-2008, 07:24 PM
Seemed to have worked fine in Afghanistan and Mogadishu.

I. Afghanistan is not over yet.

II. Mogadishu
a. Clinton gave up too quickly
b. the "insurgents" WERE the locals, which is not the case in Iraq.

JTShooter
07-27-2008, 09:42 PM
^ damn, beat me too it.

In the conflict with the soviets, the Afghani fighters weren't laying low. They were taking to the soviets every chance they got. Guerilla tactics (hit and run) is not laying low.

This time around in Afghanistan, the Taliban and AQ are simply using the winter months to train and resupply, considering we can't really get to them in the mountains during the winter.

As far as Somalia... I don't recall ever reading of the Somali's "laying low"... let alone it being an insurgency...

Stormy
07-27-2008, 10:28 PM
It's more evidence that the press is in the tank for the Democrats, only months ago they called it a losing battle, civil war, wasted effort, blah, blah, blah. An unbiased media would call them to task on it.

"Yep, we're winning. Nice way to shift our troops to Afghanistan/Pakistan with new major military operations developing."

Nice way to shift the argument.

Quote from Jasper's Article;
'...That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy...'

You're article clearly states the combat phase is ending; the situation in Pakistan is becoming more violent as we've read from other threads, along with the aggressiveness of the Taliban; the legitimate government clearly stated it wants US forces out. Can we put two + two and get four? The shift of military units to the Pakistan/Afghanistan region is a given.

You'll never understand the 'big picture' as long as you dwell on one-upmanship to my comments. Relax. I have no axe to grind with you.

DAL
07-27-2008, 11:05 PM
This time around in Afghanistan, the Taliban and AQ are simply using the winter months to train and resupply, considering we can't really get to them in the mountains during the winter.

We'll just have to wait for global warming to take care of it.:)

1042 Trooper
07-27-2008, 11:54 PM
We'll just have to wait for global warming to take care of it.:)
There it is. A solid answer.

And B Hussein Obama (not Osama) will lead us to the warmth.

God, I do love this country so. Where even a community organzier with 6 months of senate experience before his campaign began, can run for Leader of the Free World and claim he was right, the surge was wrong, it's all working, but he was right all along.

And the sheep eat it up as gospel.

God Bless America. :)

JasperST4
07-28-2008, 08:36 AM
Quote from Jasper's Article;I didn't post the article. It appears that accuracy is not your goal.
You're article clearly states the combat phase is ending; the situation in Pakistan is becoming more violent as we've read from other threads, along with the aggressiveness of the Taliban; the legitimate government clearly stated it wants US forces out. Can we put two + two and get four? The shift of military units to the Pakistan/Afghanistan region is a given.

You'll never understand the 'big picture' as long as you dwell on one-upmanship to my comments. Relax. I have no axe to grind with you.Then quit flailing away with it. Yes they want us out, we want out, al queda wants us out. The question is when and only al queda and leftwing extremists want us out now. Do you have any evidence that the insurgents in Iraq are moving to Pakistan and Afghanistan and joining the Taliban? I can do simple math but I question a conclusion based on numbers pulled out of a hat.

GrndPnd0311
07-28-2008, 08:54 AM
^ damn, beat me too it.

In the conflict with the soviets, the Afghani fighters weren't laying low. They were taking to the soviets every chance they got. Guerilla tactics (hit and run) is not laying low.

This time around in Afghanistan, the Taliban and AQ are simply using the winter months to train and resupply, considering we can't really get to them in the mountains during the winter.

As far as Somalia... I don't recall ever reading of the Somali's "laying low"... let alone it being an insurgency...

On Moug:

The Establishment of Training Camps for Somalia
In or about late 1992 and 1993, the defendant MUHAMMAD ATEF traveled to Somalia on several occasions for the purpose of determining how best to cause violence to the United States and United Nations military forces stationed there and reported back to the defendant USAMA BIN LADEN and other al Qaeda members at USAMA BIN LADENS's facilities located in Khartoum, the Sudan;

Beginning in or about early spring 1993, al Qaeda members, including the defendants MUHAMMAD ATEF, SAIF AL ADEL, ABDULLAH AHMED ABDULLAH, a/k/a/ "Abu Mohamed el Masry," ... along with "Abu Ubaidah al Banshiri," a co-conspirator not named herein as a defendant, provided military training and assistance to Somali tribes opposed to the United Nations' intervention in Somalia;

When the first assault took place in Dec of '92 nothing happend. They established the infrastructure and proceeded on. When the Army came in and began the "occupation" phase is when they were hit.

As far as Afghan goes...the lay low worked as we shifted focus to Iraq. They laid low in the Tribal areas of Pakistan and kept a watchful eye and began a slow creep back into Afghanistan disguised as workers, shop owners, etc.

Stormy
07-28-2008, 10:19 AM
:
Originally Posted by Stormy View Post
Quote from Jasper's Article;
I didn't post the article. It appears that accuracy is not your goal.

Yes, you posted the article. I know you didn't write it. Agreed? SHEESH! Stop with the personal attacks, will you? I posted an inaccurate post one time and apologized. Yet, in your vindictive nature, I'll pay for that mistake forever. Relax, get a life, and take a breathe of fresh air.You make mistakes also.....or don't you?

Stormy
:
You're article clearly states the combat phase is ending; the situation in Pakistan is becoming more violent as we've read from other threads, along with the aggressiveness of the Taliban; the legitimate government clearly stated it wants US forces out. Can we put two + two and get four? The shift of military units to the Pakistan/Afghanistan region is a given.

You'll never understand the 'big picture' as long as you dwell on one-upmanship to my comments. Relax. I have no axe to grind with you.

Then quit flailing away with it. Yes they want us out, we want out, al queda wants us out. The question is when and only al queda and leftwing extremists want us out now. Do you have any evidence that the insurgents in Iraq are moving to Pakistan and Afghanistan and joining the Taliban? I can do simple math but I question a conclusion based on numbers pulled out of a hat.

The situation in Pakistan/Afghanistan is another ball game altogether. Why do you insist that it is the same players? There are no rabbits to be pulled out of a hat to understand the volitility of that region. Read what is happening in that part of the world from any world daily media source. They'll bring you up to date.

JasperST4
07-28-2008, 10:44 AM
Yes, you posted the article. I know you didn't write it. Agreed?No I didn't post it. Is it that hard to figure out?
SHEESH! Stop with the personal attacks, will you? I posted an inaccurate post one time and apologized. Yet, in your vindictive nature, I'll pay for that mistake forever. Relax, get a life, and take a breathe of fresh air.You make mistakes also.....or don't you?Yep, but I try not to pile more on top of them or blame others for them.



The situation in Pakistan/Afghanistan is another ball game altogether. Why do you insist that it is the same players? There are no rabbits to be pulled out of a hat to understand the volitility of that region. Read what is happening in that part of the world from any world daily media source. They'll bring you up to date.[/QUOTE]

JTShooter
07-28-2008, 10:51 AM
Actually, I posted the article....

ray8285
07-28-2008, 10:53 AM
Yes, you posted the article. .

Justtohump ORIGINALLY posted the article. Pakistan/Afghan are two different issues. We have troops on the ground in Afghanistan and therefore can address aggression by TalibanAQ troops. Unless you wish to further the war effort we can do nothing openly to Taliban/AQ forces in Pakistan.

The taliban did not "lay low" causing us to shift focus. They were whipped soundly and went into hiding to regroup and rearm. After doing so they immediatley came out and attacked. If they were laying low they would do nothing, hastening our exit.

Stormy
07-28-2008, 11:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormy View Post
Yes, you posted the article. I know you didn't write it. Agreed?

No I didn't post it. Is it that hard to figure out?
Yep, but I try not to pile more on top of them or blame others for them.


You're correct, Jasper. I made another mistake in assuming you posted the article. We could've handled it with more civility, without the unnecessary personal attack? Ya think? ;)

GrndPnd0311
07-28-2008, 12:20 PM
Justtohump ORIGINALLY posted the article. Pakistan/Afghan are two different issues. We have troops on the ground in Afghanistan and therefore can address aggression by TalibanAQ troops. Unless you wish to further the war effort we can do nothing openly to Taliban/AQ forces in Pakistan.

The taliban did not "lay low" causing us to shift focus. They were whipped soundly and went into hiding to regroup and rearm. After doing so they immediatley came out and attacked. If they were laying low they would do nothing, hastening our exit.
Its six in one hand, half dozen in the other. It all boils down to how you define it I suppose. I define it as not directly making contact (offensively) with allied forces constantly. For instance this is laying low to me:

April 19, 2007
Taliban disguised as police attack Afghan civilians

"Over the last two weeks there have been multiple reports of Taliban fighters impersonating Afghan National Police officers and establishing illegal checkpoints to kidnap and terrorize local afghan civilians"

AFGHAN POLICE ARREST TWO NEO-TALIBAN DISGUISED AS WOMEN

31st Mar 2006, 16:44 GMT

Afghan authorities on March 30 arrested two suspected neo-Taliban fighters wearing burqas in eastern Afghanistan, AFP reported. They were caught after police, acting on a tip-off, followed them to a house in Khost.


IMO, "laying low" is a huge part of an insurgency. They are the weaker force therefore refrain from meeting head on with the other. They attempted to gain support or "coerce" it out of the local populace. Its support first then disruption second for the insurgents.

JasperST4
07-28-2008, 02:13 PM
You're correct, Jasper. I made another mistake in assuming you posted the article. We could've handled it with more civility, without the unnecessary personal attack? Ya think? ;)What personal attack? Aren't you being a bit sensitive? Is that another personal attack?

Stormy
07-28-2008, 05:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormy View Post
You're correct, Jasper. I made another mistake in assuming you posted the article. We could've handled it with more civility, without the unnecessary personal attack? Ya think?

What personal attack? Aren't you being a bit sensitive? Is that another personal attack?

You're like the old-fashioned neighborhood hurdy-gurdy man.:D You wouldn't remember those, you're too young. But it was an old timer who cranked a handle on a box which played the same tune, over, and over, and over again, as he walked the streets. And he had a little monkey who danced alongside of him collecting tips.

You have no concept of social dialogue, Jasper, as you replay the same crap over, and over, and over again. You're on a mission of some kind. Maybe you're insecure with a short mans syndrome. I don't know, nor do I care. You pick, pick, pick like an old wash woman at the local town scrub trough, dissecting words instead of dealing with the message in it's entirety. This forum is not the 'Spanish Inquistion' nor the 'Nuremberg Trials', where every word was analyzed by a team of lawyers, but only a friendly chat board.

Apologies mean nothing to you. They only stoke your egotism; a mark of a loser. I have no more to say to you, Jasper. I've got enough aggravation in my life than to be shadow boxing on the computer with a sorry-azz knit-picker.

ps. wash your stinkin' feet.

JasperST4
07-28-2008, 05:27 PM
Apologies mean nothing to you. They only stoke your egotism; a mark of a loser. I have no more to say to you, Jasper. I've got enough aggravation in my life than to be shadow boxing on the computer with a sorry-azz knit-picker.

ps. wash your stinkin' feet.
That should be nitpicker.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nitpicker
nitpicker
One entry found.

nitpick


Main Entry:
nit·pick Listen to the pronunciation of nitpick
Pronunciation:
\ˈnit-ˌpik\
Function:
verb
Etymology:
back-formation from nit-picking
Date:
1966

M-11
07-28-2008, 07:46 PM
Hey,

Quit being Nancies, We're talking about War and you two sound like my nephews arguing.

At least take the insults in an interesting direction. (Bringing feet into it is a good start)

M-11

JasperST4
07-28-2008, 08:55 PM
I just pointed out that his accusations are wrong. And I soak my feet in diesel fuel almost every single night (old Coast Guard trick) so they don't stink.

JTShooter
07-28-2008, 10:38 PM
Its six in one hand, half dozen in the other. It all boils down to how you define it I suppose. I define it as not directly making contact (offensively) with allied forces constantly. For instance this is laying low to me:




IMO, "laying low" is a huge part of an insurgency. They are the weaker force therefore refrain from meeting head on with the other. They attempted to gain support or "coerce" it out of the local populace. Its support first then disruption second for the insurgents.

I figured it was a matter of symantics.

Laying low to me is hiding out and not being in the spot light by not doing anything.

Therefore, by your personal definition, they are laying low, by mine, they are not.

Your definition sounds more like unconventional warfare, which IS a major part of fighting an insurgency.

Once again, symantics...

GrndPnd0311
07-28-2008, 10:41 PM
I figured it was a matter of symantics.

Laying low to me is hiding out and not being in the spot light by not doing anything.

Therefore, by your personal definition, they are laying low, by mine, they are not.

Your definition sounds more like unconventional warfare, which IS a major part of fighting an insurgency.

Once again, symantics...

Fair enough sir....fair enough.:cool:

Stormy
07-28-2008, 11:50 PM
Death toll climbs in Iraq bombings
Peter Walker, Anil Dawar and agencies
guardian.co.uk,
Monday July 28 2008

http://image.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/07/28/460bag.jpg


More than 55 people have been killed and nearly 300 injured in a wave of suicide bombings across Iraq. The explosions punctured a period of relative calm in which violence dropped to a four-year low.

Three suicide bombers, believed to have been women, struck in Baghdad as thousands of Shia Muslim pilgrims flooded into the city. The blasts killed at least 32 people and wounded 102, police and hospital staff said...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/28/iraq.terrorism

ray8285
07-29-2008, 08:27 AM
I figured it was a matter of symantics.

Laying low to me is hiding out and not being in the spot light by not doing anything.

Therefore, by your personal definition, they are laying low, by mine, they are not.

Your definition sounds more like unconventional warfare, which IS a major part of fighting an insurgency.

Once again, symantics...

Same here. Lying low to me is not engaging the enemy but rather waiting for them to leave and then re-emerging to fight again.

JTShooter
07-29-2008, 09:17 AM
Death toll climbs in Iraq bombings
Peter Walker, Anil Dawar and agencies
guardian.co.uk,
Monday July 28 2008

http://image.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/07/28/460bag.jpg


More than 55 people have been killed and nearly 300 injured in a wave of suicide bombings across Iraq. The explosions punctured a period of relative calm in which violence dropped to a four-year low.

Three suicide bombers, believed to have been women, struck in Baghdad as thousands of Shia Muslim pilgrims flooded into the city. The blasts killed at least 32 people and wounded 102, police and hospital staff said...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/28/iraq.terrorism


The most important part is bolded.

Last time I was there, you'd hear explosions, large and small, all day everyday. Towards the end of the trip it started to drop off... now I bet it's rarity...

1042 Trooper
07-29-2008, 11:12 PM
We are WINNING. What else needs to be said?

WHomever posted whatever - Stormy - WE ARE WINNING!

Celebrate. We have given freedom to an entire people - cowardly homicide bombings notwithstanding.

All of this, thanks to patriots like Justhomp, M-11, Jasper, Groundpounder and even FARWELLTONAVY and many others here.

God Bless America.

Stormy
07-30-2008, 02:18 AM
We are WINNING. What else needs to be said?

WHomever posted whatever - Stormy - WE ARE WINNING!

Celebrate. We have given freedom to an entire people - cowardly homicide bombings notwithstanding.

All of this, thanks to patriots like Justhomp, M-11, Jasper, Groundpounder and even FARWELLTONAVY and many others here.

God Bless America.

Yes! (standing up) God Bless America !!

M-11
07-30-2008, 06:17 AM
Patriots... Maybe...

We do get paid, and we get the best toys in the sandbox.

Iraq is looking pretty good, But there's a ways to go. It's almost time to take the training wheels off and see what happens.

You can only run alongside and hold the seat for so long...

M-11