# News & Current Events > World News & Affairs >  The Surge really IS working!!!

## wv@SC

Read this article and you'll see that violence is better than ever!

Next time you punks better listen to McCain when he gives you straight talk that something is working and don't second guess!!

----------


## molly_pitcher

...and you are going immediately to my ignore list.

----------


## Dr.3D

Oh come on now, I just got my butt chewed out by a guy on these forums, who claims he is over there and says the surge is working and that I should get out of my mother's basement and go over there and see if I didn't believe it.

This all came about because I claimed the United States Government was paying the Iraqi militias not to fight with our troops.

BTW: It would be hard for me to get out of my mother's basement since she has been dead for quite some time now.

----------


## wv@SC

> Oh come on now, I just got my butt chewed out by a guy on these forums, who claims he is over there and says the surge is working and that I should get out of my mother's basement and go over there and see if I didn't believe it.


Really?

----------


## molly_pitcher

It wasn't whether or not it worked, it was the assumption that we should somehow now fall to McCain as some all powerful being.  Those fighting have more to do with the success of the surge than McBackstab.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Really?


Yes, here is where it happened:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...98#post1242398




> Probably few people really know why the "surge" is working.
> You see, the "surge" didn't work at all, so they decided to pay the Iraq people not to fight with our troops.  This is the truth in the situation over there and it seems the media is very quiet about what is really going on.


His reply:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...98#post1243606




> Oh you're over here too? If not, shut the hell up. You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm all for getting out of here too, many of us are, but the reason the surge is working is because the enemy is smothered and we are doing our jobs. It's pretty simple, but you sitting in your mother's basement stating God knows what as fact is pretty pathetic. Get over here and give a first hand account of what's going on on the ground here, you'll have a little credibility. If Ron Paul believed even 10% of what some of his supporters on here believed, he'd have no support, thank God he doesn't and thank God sane people can look past some of the loons that support him. People like you are a big reason why people are turned off to the man, you are a direct reflection of the man in many peoples eyes, right or wrong.

----------


## CountryboyRonPaul

Saddam's approach also worked to keep the peace.

Does that automatically make it a good thing?

----------


## wv@SC

> Yes, here is where it happened:
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...98#post1242398
> 
> 
> 
> His reply:
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...98#post1243606


Thanks.  I think the fellow showed himself/herself that they're not a true RP supporter anyway.

Let's hear some more speak up!  I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I don't want our troops to die or be hurt for anything that I wouldn't be willing to do myself.  

So somebody please show me that we're winning over there...if you can.

----------


## Give me liberty

winning what? the hearts and minds?     or winning the oil companies      

You should know that the only real reason the army is in iraq is because of oil. 

And another thing, people in Iraq  still don't have water nor power,  its one thing to  say we are fixing up  the place, well in reality your not why? do you really  think that the people  in iraq are that stupid to say thanks usa forces for fixing up there bulidings after they have  been bombed  

both by bush and bill clinton. 


The us gov (Outside leaders)   are  paying the resistance leaders with money $ and why is that they are doing it for? its for political reasons.

----------


## Naraku

You all realize he was being sarcastic right? That article is about a suicide bombing and he said "violence is better than ever," I kind of doubt he was being serious.

----------


## kyleAF

Of course the OP wasn't being serious... I don't know why anyone would ignore him.  That's what the  means.  It's "sarcasm".

The surge is "working" because there is currently a cease-fire under the direction of Al Sadr.  Those who violated the cease-fire when it was first called, were executed by Al Sadr's goons.  Now everyone in his insurgent organization is listening to Al Sadr and keeping the cease fire.  There is currently talk of the cease fire ending soon.  When it does, the surge will no longer "work".  Why was the cease-fire called in the first place??  I suspect it _does_ have something to do with being paid off.  They are mostly motivated by religious zealotry... the only thing that speaks louder than that in this world is money.

A small part of me suspects that everyone around the world is paying *FAR MORE* attention to our political process than most of us are, and have thus recognized that McCain is a great threat to them.  Destroying his "surge" platform would be bad for him... and perhaps for the neo-cons as a whole.

That's just my thought... I sincerely hope that the cease fire *does NOT* stop.  Any draw down in violence is a good thing in my book.

----------


## Agora

> Read this article and you'll see that violence is better than ever!
> 
> Next time you punks better listen to McCain when he gives you straight talk that something is working and don't second guess!!


yes, and more news HERE It's not time to flip flop now. 

:rolleyes :

----------


## jmdrake

> It wasn't whether or not it worked, it was the assumption that we should somehow now fall to McCain as some all powerful being.  Those fighting have more to do with the success of the surge than McBackstab.


Ummm...the original poster was being sarcastic.  He posted a link to an article talking about a recent surge of violence in Iraq to show the surge is NOT working.  It was hard to get unless you clicked on the link.  Frankly I think the surge is a mixed bag.  It wouldn't be working if not for the Mahdi army standing down.  And the Mahdi army stood down because Al Sadr's soldiers were out of control.  (They got into a firefight with Iraqi forces that led to the deaths of 50 Shiite pilgrims.  By killing the people Al Sadr had sworn to protect his army cause him a serious loss of face.)  Now we have Turkey invading what was once the only stable part of Iraq.  And the Iraqi politicians are no closer to an agreement.

Regards,

John M. Drake

----------


## AmericaFyeah92

Al-Sadr didn't call a ceasefire because his militia was out of control. He called it because he actually has the ability to plan ahead. With his Mahdi Army standing down, Iraq now has Americans killing sunnis and sunnis killing sunnis. That means they (sunnis) are going to be much weaker when we withdraw, and the Shia will have a massive advantage.

----------


## colecrowe

*It is a bald faced lie that we are in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda:*

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq

 	Quote:
 	 	 		 AQI is among Iraq's most feared militant organisations[11] and many experts regard it as the United States' most formidable enemy in Iraq.[8] Others suggest that the threat posed by AQI is exaggerated;[12] some scholars claim that a "heavy focus on al-Qaeda obscures a much more complicated situation on the ground."[13]

According to a 2006 U.S. government report, this group is most clearly associated with foreign terrorist cells operating in Iraq and has specifically targeted international forces and Iraqi citizens. Most of AQI's operatives are not Iraqi, but instead come through a series of safe houses, the largest of which is on the Iraq-Syrian border. AQI's operations are predominately Iraq-based, but the United States Department of State alleges that the group maintains an extensive logistical network throughout the Middle East, North Africa, Iran, South Asia, and Europe.[6] Over a three-month period in 2005, al-Zarqawi's (now deceased) affiliates were reportedly responsible for more than 1,700 attacks on Coalition and Iraqi forces in the city of Mosul alone.[6] Many of these were suicide attacks and improvised explosive device (IED) attacks, typically using cars and other motor vehicles. (In March 2007 the U.S.-sponsored Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty analyzed al-Qaeda in Iraq attacks for that month. Al-Qaeda in Iraq had taken credit for 43 out of 439 attacks on Iraqi security forces and Shiite militias, and 17 out of 357 attacks on U.S. troops.)

Estimates for AQI numbers range from 850 – *about 3 to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency* – to several thousand.[1][14] In 2006 the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research estimated that AQI’s membership was in a range of "more than 1,000," *putting AQI’s forces at less than 1 percent of the insurgency*. In 2007 the State Department dropped its base-level estimate, because, as an official explained, "the information is too disparate to come up with a consensus number".

According to both the July 2007 National Intelligence Estimate and the Defense Intelligence Agency reports AQI accounted for 15 percent of attacks in Iraq. However,* the Congressional Research Service noted in its September 2007 report that attacks from al-Qaeda are less than two percent of the violence in Iraq* and criticized the administration’s statistics, noting that its false reporting of insurgency attacks as AQI attacks has increased since the "surge" operations began.[15][16]




> AARRGH! I remember seeing a blurb about this cease fire when it happened, and I searched for it a few times since to see how it corresponded to the decrease in violence that lead to claims that the surge was working.
> 
> Pretty interesting how the timelines add up.


I made the following graphic (well, I labeled the graph from http://icasualties.org) on Jan 29th--so it doesn't include these deaths:

01/31/08Straughter, Matthew F.DoD ConfirmationHostile - hostile fire - RPG attackBaghdad
01/31/08Schultz, David E.DoD ConfirmationHostile - hostile fire - indirect fireScania
01/31/08Norman, Michael A.DoD ConfirmationHostile - hostile fire - IED attackBaghdad
01/28/08Craig, James E.DoD ConfirmationHostile - hostile fire - IED attackMosul
01/28/08Jeffries, Gary W.DoD ConfirmationHostile - hostile fire - IED attackMosul
01/28/08Marshall, Evan A.DoD ConfirmationHostile - hostile fire - IED attackMosul
01/28/08Meyer, Brandon A.DoD ConfirmationHostile - hostile fire - IED attackMosul
01/28/08Young, Joshua A. R.DoD ConfirmationHostile - hostile fire - IED attackMosul

which made the Jan08 line go above the Dec07 line (graph here: http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx).

Link to graph (there is a zoom button to the top-right of the image here): http://picasaweb.google.com/croweswe...18197652832050

----------


## colecrowe

Hey to the guy over there, a disclaimer: I was there (Army infantry) in 2004. My brother in law was there in 2006 (he called home and told his wife "take the Bush stickers off my truck"--he is now a Ron Paul supporter--because of the war issue, and Paul's obvious non-slimy, typical-politician character--and I have NEVER talked to him about RP--my wife just mentioned RP to him once, and it took him less than a week to decide). We are going back together in August. All my army and marine buddies (the ones that were there in 2007 included think we need to end it now, and that we are really stupid to be supporting the Sunnis.

But the worse number than the deaths, is the amount of people displaced, externally and internally (2.5 million out-of-country refugees and 1.5 million in-country refugees)--4 million people out of their homes due to our invasion.

Plus the ethnic cleansing, the roadblocks on every street corner (practically), and the walls around every neighborhood and market square.

Sunnis used to be like 20% of the population and now they're 15% (DON'T quote me on that--I'm going to research it NOW; I'll edit this with the real numbers in a minute).

But the cleasnsing, the displacement, and the walls, combined, with the al-Sadr ceasefire, is really what helped the surge drop violence rates.

And NEVER call the surge a "success". Success would be LOWERING our troop levels, and then having a drop or no rise in violence. Raising troops and lowering violence is EXPECTED, it is a tactic, not a good result, not a proof of success. If that is the definition of success, then adding a million more troops would prove a complete success, I guess. Plus the GAO said that only 3 of the 18 benchmarks have been met.

----------


## colecrowe

2007 was the deadliest year for troops and civilians in IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, and PAKISTAN.  And Afghanistan and Pakistan seem to be blowing up real good. If Bush et al. had spent half the blood and treasure he did in Iraq on getting al Queda and Osama, think how much the world would love us and how much safer the entire world would be...

SUNDAY: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/wo...in&oref=slogin
At Least 80 Are Killed in Afghan Suicide Bombing

Ismail Sameem/Reuters
An Afghan police officer looked at photographs that he found at the site of a suicide bomb attack in Kandahar on Sunday.


By TAIMOOR SHAH and CARLOTTA GALL
Published: February 18, 2008

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — A suicide bomber blew himself up in a large crowd gathered at a dogfighting event just outside this city in southern Afghanistan, killing about 80 people and wounding more than 90 others in the country’s worst single bombing since 2001....

MONDAY:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/wo...afghan.html?hp
Suicide Attack Kills 36 in Afghanistan

Ismail Sameem/Reuters
Policemen carried the body of a victim of a suicide bombing for burial in the southern Afghan province of Kandahar on Monday.

By TAIMOOR SHAH and CARLOTTA GALL
Published: February 19, 2008
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — In the second serious attack in southern Afghanistan in two days, a suicide bomber set off an explosion on Monday as he drove his car near a convoy of Canadian troops on a crowded border town street, killing 36 civilians and wounding 38....

* * * * *
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...BWLVQD8USTHE80

140 Afghans Killed in 2 Days of Bombings
By ALLAUDDIN KHAN and NOOR KHAN – 4 hours ago
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (AP) — A suicide car bomber killed 38 Afghans at a crowded market Monday, pushing the death toll from two days of militant bombings to about 140.

The marketplace blast, which targeted a Canadian army convoy, came a day after the country's deadliest insurgent attack since a U.S. invasion defeated the Taliban regime in late 2001. The toll from that bombing in a crowd watching a dog fight rose to more than 100.

The back-to-back blasts in the southern province of Kandahar could be a sign insurgents are now willing to risk high civilian casualties while attacking security forces. Though their attacks occasionally have killed dozens, militants in Afghanistan have generally sought to avoid targeting civilians, unlike insurgents in Iraq's war.

"The attacks show that the enemies of Afghanistan are changing their tactics. Now they are not thinking about civilians at all," said Nasrullah Stanikzai, a professor of political science at Kabul University.

"They wanted to cause such big casualties in these attacks to weaken the morale of the government and the international community, to show the world the Afghan government is too weak to prevent them," he said.

The Taliban denied it carried out Sunday's attack, but immediately claimed responsibility for the market bombing, which took place in the town of Spin Boldak about 100 yards from the border with Pakistan.

The bombings come amid warnings that Afghanistan could see even more violence this year than in 2007, when a record 6,500 people — most of them militants — were killed. The U.S., with a record high 28,000 soldiers already in the country, is sending 3,200 more Marines in April.

Hours before the marketplace bombing, Kandahar Gov. Asadullah Khalid raised the toll from Sunday's attack from about 80 to more than 100, saying some of the dozens who suffered wounds had died.

Khalid said 38 people died in Monday's bombing and 28 were wounded. Three Canadian soldiers also had wounds, NATO's International Security Assistance Force said.

The governor complained that Canadian troops had failed to heed government warnings to stay away from the border with Pakistan.

"We informed the Canadian forces to avoid patrolling the border areas because our intelligence units had information that suicide attackers were in the areas and wanted to target Canadian or government forces," he said. "Despite informing the Canadians, they went to those areas anyway."

A Canadian military spokesman, Lt. Cmdr. Pierre Babinsky, said threats of attacks would not deter troops from their missions.

"We regularly receive threat warnings and obviously we go where we want to, when we want to, in our area of operation," Babinsky said. "We obviously take notice of these warnings but our aim is to operate freely within our area of operation despite those."

Though the Afghan-Pakistan border was closed Monday because of national elections in Pakistan, some of the wounded were taken to a hospital in Chaman, Pakistan, just across the border.

One of them, Abdul Hakim, lay in a hospital bed, his clothes caked with dust and splattered with blood.

"A white Toyota Corolla car rammed the second vehicle in the convoy as it passed through the bazaar," said Hakim, who witnessed the attack from his grocery store. "Then there was a huge explosion. It was dust. I do not know what happened to me."

One of the Canadian military vehicles was heavily damaged by the blast as were several shops and civilian vehicles, said Abdul Razeq, the Spin Boldak border police chief.

When asked about the large number of civilian deaths, Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi claimed 10 foreign soldiers and "a large number of police" were killed. The Taliban often make false or exaggerated claims that their attacks kill NATO or U.S. troops.

Meanwhile, Afghans buried relatives and friends who died in Sunday's attack. Officials said the attacker targeted an anti-Taliban militia leader, Abdul Hakim Jan, who died along with 35 of his men, who served on a government auxiliary police force.

Khalid, the Kandahar governor, told mourners at a mosque he had warned Jan about three weeks ago that militant suicide bombers were trying to kill him. Government officials haven't identified any suspects in the attack.

Antonio Giustozzi, an Afghanistan expert at the London School of Economics, said it couldn't be ruled out that the attack was carried out by one of Jan's tribal rivals.

Kandahar province, the Taliban's former stronghold, has been the scene of fierce battles between NATO forces and Taliban fighters the last two years.

The province, one of the country's largest opium-producing regions, could again be a flash point in the increasingly violent Afghan conflict this year.

The previous deadliest bombing in Afghanistan killed about 70 people — mostly students — in November, part of a record year of violence in 2007 that included more than 140 suicide attacks.

Associated Press writers Allauddin Khan reported this story from Kandahar, Afghanistan, and Noor Khan from Quetta, Pakistan. AP writers Matiullah Achakzai in Chaman, Pakistan, and Rahim Faiez in Kabul contributed to this report.




* * * * *
http://www.pr-inside.com/toll-passes...an-r442751.htm


Toll passes 100 dead in Afghan bomb attack; target warned of suicide bombers
© AP
2008-02-18 11:50:03 -

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (AP) - An Afghan governor said Monday he had warned the man targeted in the country's deadliest suicide attack that militant bombers were trying to kill him, while the death toll from the bombing rose to more than 100.
Afghans buried relatives and friends in the southern city of Kandahar a day after
the bomber blew himself up Sunday in a crowd of men and boys watching a dog fighting competition.
Kandahar Gov. Asadullah Khalid told The Associated Press the death toll had risen to more than 100, up from 80 reported earlier. Most were killed immediately and some of the scores of wounded had died, Khalid said. He did not give a precise toll.
The bombing was Afghanistan's deadliest since the Taliban's ouster from power in 2001. It followed a year of record violence and predictions that 2008 could turn even deadlier.
Officials said the suicide attacker targeted and killed prominent militia commander and anti-Taliban leader Abdul Hakim Jan and at least 35 of his men.
Several hundred people had been watching the dog fighting competition in a barren dirt field on Kandahar city's western edge. The bombing stained the field a bloody red.
«The contrast between those who take innocent lives so brutally and senselessly and those working with Afghanistan's government and people to build a better future, could not be more stark,» a statement from the office of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Monday.
Relatives and members of Jan's tribe buried him Sunday night and other victims were buried Monday, said Talib Agha, one of Jan's brothers.
Khalid, the Kandahar governor, told mourners he had warned Jan around three weeks ago that militant suicide bombers were trying to target him.
Khalid blamed the attack on «the enemy of Afghanistan,» which officials often call the Taliban.
A Taliban spokesman denied the militia was behind the attack, which it usually does when many civilians are killed. Antonio Giustozzi, a London School of Economics researcher and Afghanistan expert, said it could not be ruled out the attack was carried out by one of Jan's tribal rivals in Kandahar province's Arghandab district.
Separately, a NATO soldier was killed and another wounded when an explosion struck their patrol Sunday in southern Afghanistan, a NATO statement said. The nationalities of the dead and wounded soldier were not released.
Over the past two years, Kandahar _ the Taliban's former stronghold and Afghanistan's second-largest city _ has been the scene of fierce battles between Taliban fighters and NATO forces, primarily from Canada and the United States.

The province, one of Afghanistan's largest opium producing regions, could be a flash point in the increasingly violent Afghan conflict again this year.
Canada has 2,500 troops in Kandahar and has threatened to end its combat role in Afghanistan unless NATO countries provide 1,000 more troops to help the anti-Taliban drive there.
The U.S., which already has some 28,000 forces in the country, is sending an additional 3,200 Marines in April. Most of them are expected to be stationed in Kandahar during their seven-month tour.
The previous deadliest bombing in Afghanistan killed about 70 people _ mostly students _ in November, part of a record year of violence in 2007 that included more than 140 suicide attacks.
Associated Press reporter Noor Khan contributed to this report from Quetta, Pakistan.



* * * * *
http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ory?id=3847781

2007 Deadliest Year for US [and civillians] in Afghanistan


By JASON STRAZIUSO Associated Press Writer
KABUL, Afghanistan Nov 10, 2007 (AP)
Six U.S. troops were killed when insurgents ambushed their foot patrol in the high mountains of eastern Afghanistan, officials said Saturday. The attack, the most lethal against American forces this year, made 2007 the deadliest for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion.
...

Overall violence in Afghanistan this year has been the deadliest since the Taliban's ouster. More than 5,800 people, mostly militants, have died in insurgency-related violence, according to an AP count based on figures from Afghan and Western officials.



* * * * *
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=48915

More NATO Troops Needed in Afghanistan, Gates Says
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

MUNICH, Germany, Feb. 9, 2008 – Numbers do matter, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said at a press roundtable here today.

The counterinsurgency lessons of Iraq and the experiences of the U.S. surge into that country last year, proved to the secretary that not only the quality, but the number of troops involved in operations are important.

With that in mind, he has been particularly active in asking NATO allies to dig deep for more troops for the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

Gates is attending the 44th Munich Conference on Security Policy. He said U.S. policy in Afghanistan boils down to, “anything more (that) anyone can do in Afghanistan.”

While the alliance has not suffered any military defeats in the country, there are not enough troops to allow the alliance to make progress in all parts of the country, Gates said. There are about 43,250 international troops in ISAF, according to the NATO Web site.

In the “clear, hold, build” counterinsurgency strategy, the forces are able to clear, but are too few to hold, Gates said, which makes it close to impossible to reach the build section of the strategy.

“So we need to have enough troops there, that once these areas are cleared we can hold them, so economic development and civil development can proceed,” the secretary said. “Ideally, those that hold the territory will be Afghan police and Afghan army,” but they are not ready yet.

As the troops and police train, a short-term solution is a larger NATO-led ISAF. “Any additional numbers from any country are most appreciated,” Gates said.

The secretary pointed out to the European reporters that the alliance had a very successful year in 2007 in terms of military operations. He said the press made a big thing, this time last year, about a Taliban spring offensive. “The offensive in the spring was NATO’s offensive,” he said. “There was no Taliban offensive.”

He said one of the reasons he is sending 3,200 more Marines in Regional Command—South is to hold the military advantage in that area. “One of the reasons in seeking more troops is not because I worried that we may have setbacks or that we’re not doing well, it’s because I believe we need more troops in order to accelerate our progress and lock in our gains, and to make them permanent,” he said.

Gates wants to remind Europeans what is at stake for them in Afghanistan. He said one reason why more Europeans are not supporting operations there is because many people cannot separate the fights in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Europeans who are opposed to what the United States has been doing in Iraq, have projected that to the operation in Afghanistan. So there probably has been some spillover in that respect,” he said.

But he also believes there hasn’t been enough discussion in Europe over the danger al Qaeda and extremists groups in the area pose to Europeans.

“I think we need to remind Europeans of the attacks that have taken place here, but also the attacks that have been thwarted and what the targets were,” Gates said.

“There is a direct threat to Europe out of (Afghanistan),” he said. “I believe the governments of Europe understand this fully and so I hope to add my voice to the number of political leaders to be more explicit to the threat to Europe itself.”

Defense officials have estimated that NATO forces in Afghanistan are roughly 7,000 to 8,000 soldiers short. U.S. Army Gen. Dan McNeill, the ISAF commander, said he needs three maneuver battalions, helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, and trainers – especially trainers for the Afghan police.

----------


## Chirosupporter

Here you go Dr.3D

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=13993

----------


## Dr.3D

> Here you go Dr.3D
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=13993


Do you mean this post?




> Im a part time waiter/server at a restaurant and this past weekend I waited on a soldier who was back from Iraq. I talked to him for several minutes while thanking him for serving our country. I then asked him what he thought about the war. He laughed and said, "there is no reason for it other then oil and power." I then asked him his job  in Iraq and he said "Iam an officer and said, as he shook his head and kind of laughed out of disgust, my unit pays off insurgents so they won't attack and ambush us." 
> If this isn't the most sickening thing ever I don't know what is.


Thanks for verifying what I was saying.

----------


## Mach

At least one of the reasons that there was less violence is because we have pulled out or backed off of the most violent areas, kind of giving them their land back and not messing with them anymore....... maybe we should try that with the whole country!

Inside Views....... Mercenaries101.... get to close to that regular ole vehicle and die!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...61534471592594

KBR Contractor...........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxx1Lo8fZwQ

----------


## Lois

*The reasons "The Surge is Working" is because the US is paying the Sunni not to fight --*

**************

*A Bush / Sunni Alliance Against the Shia?
Paying Insurgents Not to Fight*

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02192008.html

----------


## Give me liberty

> *The reasons "The Surge is Working" is because the US is paying the Sunni not to fight --*
> 
> **************
> 
> *A Bush / Sunni Alliance Against the Shia?
> Paying Insurgents Not to Fight*
> 
> http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02192008.html


yup bingo.

To bad the guys over at sean hannity dont want to hear the truth.

----------


## kyleAF

> Inside Views....... Mercenaries101.... get to close to that regular ole vehicle and die!
> 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...61534471592594


That's f***in ridiculous!!  If that really is an American mercenary team randomly shooting at vehicles, then those involved should be strung up immediately.

----------

