Attacks in Iraq at lowest level since 2003

[Onkel Neal]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28036313/

Eat that, terrorists and defeatists :lol:

[PeriscopeDepth]

Iraq does really seem to be going well. But what happens after we leave better be worth 4,000+ American soldiers KIA and another 30,000+ wounded.

PD

[Stealth Hunter]

Indeed. The Iraqis are in poor condition defense wise (haven't they always been?:lol: ).

[Skybird]

It needs no defeatists to see that the state of disorder still is way beyond that before the attack, and that distribution of electricity and water still is very bad, and that the rate of major crime still is at so high levels that there is no way to speak of a safe live in Bagdhad and many other places, not to mention he industry that has evolved around hijacking.

Also, Neal is completely ignoring the future prospects of Iraq, and after a phase of keeping a somewhat lower profile, Al Sadr is on the way to grow in influence again, this time more based on civilian-political bases and even more civil popularity, not so much on basis if his militias like before, while Iran now just waits and sits it out until the troops are gone in 2011, and then will have heydays in the Shia dominated areas again, and especially in the south.

Just giving a momentary decreasing bodycount statistics, is simply not good enough to make an argument about how it really is in Iraq, it says not more than that there has been slightly less fighting and bombing - why it is, for reasons of the other side deciding to do less so, or is forced to do so, it says not.

It's still a mess. Prospecst for Iraq becoming a failed state (if it already isn't) are excellent. I see that it becomes an internally torned apart state with a weak and corrupt central government like in Afghanistan, religious orthodox just waiting to go to the streets and push their demands like in Pakistan, and external powers (Iran) trying to get their bite of the cake, like Syria in Lebanon.

On the streets, the SOFA agreement gets a relative majority of approval only, but no absolute. And the general mood about crime rate, unemployment, future perspectives, is as pessimistic as it was reported to be one year ago and two years ago.

So don't smirk, Neal, there is no reason for that. :nope: Most Iraqi people's life is far worse than before the attack.

[CaptainHaplo]

People got so used to the mess in Iraq that now 50 violent dead a month is a country "doing good" :rotfl:

Hmm - your right - its not good. So when a single US city has an average of 1 person a day killed (Philly - April 2007) (New Orleans 2006&2007) or more then why doesn't it make the news?

New Orleans as a city had a murder rate of 406 people in 2006, and 392 in 2007. That is more than 1 person per day. In a single city.... You take the single day death toll from the top 10 murder rate cities of the US and you get a higher number than we are losing per day in Iraq. Thats 10 CITIES - and its crime against "our own" - yet we sure don't hear the daily death toll in the US do we? But because the media loves to bash the war, and has done its utmost to help the defeatists, we get a daily death count in Iraq. Funny how the death toll in 10 cities is MORE than it is in 14 provinces in Iraq, but Iraq gets all the news. Try some new logic there Mikayl.

Skybird - nobody that I know of has said the country is perfect. But you sit and say its gone to hell in a handbasket - yet look at what has been done. You have 3 distinct groups that are - at least in part - cooperating in forming a functioning government. The Kurds and Shi'a both have real reason to not want to involve the Sunni, yet all three have made some real progress on co-habitating. Its not perfect. Read your history, when Germany surrendered in WW2 there was not instant peace, it took years for the insurgency to be wiped out. Right now - the Iraqi people are making great strides in trying to rid themselves of internal issues. The Kurds in the north don't have any problems stability wise. There is no roadside bombs and such going on there - they wont tolerate it. In the areas where the Shi'a are predominant, there is little trouble. It is where the Sunni and Shi'a are in equal numbers that the majority of problems are - and this is no suprise since history shows that they have been that way for millenia. Were it not for the external forces coming in from out of country (Iran and Syria primarily) then the issues would be substantially lower.

Question - why is it that when all but what - 4 provinces out of 14 are having issues, we only hear about that? Why don't we hear about how the biggest challenge right now facing the government of Iraq is how they will share their oil profits? The Sunni leadership is fighting tooth and nail to keep an agreement from happening - because once they do - the people will start to share the countries wealth, and the insurgency will truly die. No reason to go blow yourself up if life is good is there?

Skybird - you said "Most Iraqi people's life is far worse than before the attack." Mind backing that statement up with some facts? 10 of 14 provinces are stable, with no fear of the midnight raids, torture and rape cells, death from any direction. Those 10 have a growing and rebuilding infrastructure.

Sure - if you listen to "SEE BS Tel Lie Vision" you don't get the full story. Not one "report" I have yet seen ever goes into those stable areas and asks "are you better off now?" No - they go to the scene of a recent attack and ask the store owners or shoppers there. Thats called selective journalism - and its downright dishonest.

Your right about one thing though - the SOFA will pass - with a very large majority. The reason is those 10 stable areas. In the "hot areas" you will get about a 55/45 vote for - in the uncontested areas expect to see it be 70/30 or higher. The reason is because the majority of people see the good we have done - and appreciate it greatly. So sorry your major media doesnt report it, but I have been in the middle east, I know others who have also seen firsthand the societies that are rebuilding due to the old dictatorship being gone.

Isn't it odd how the "Big Picture" and the "Little Pictures" that show success never get reported? If you want to believe the major media - go ahead. But I can point to the real indicators - the number of people living securely - the number of attacks on the US (that would be 0) - the retention numbers of those who are deployed. A perfect example - the retention numbers in the military are much higher than normal for those deployed - why? Becuase just like the 2 times that the US had to come save Europes a$$ - the see that the people there are just like us in many ways. They love their family, their country, and they want a chance to succeed. I honor those who are willing to lay their lives on the line to give them that chance. We did it twice for you - do you somehow think your better than they are - that after total chaos you could rebuild over years but somehow they cant?
We are giving them a chance - lets not try and deny it to them due to defeatism.

[goldorak]

People got so used to the mess in Iraq that now 50 violent dead a month is a country "doing good" :rotfl:

Lets put things in perspective yes ?
How may people die each year in france because of car incidents. If I'm not mistaken it is way up of several thousands.




En France métropolitaine, pour l'année 2005, il a été dénombré 4 990 tués et 105 006 blessés selon le bilan provisoire de la Sécurité routière, soit respectivement une baisse de -4,6 % et de -3,4 % par rapport à 2004. En 2007, 4 620 tués et 103 201 blessés ont été comptabilisés pour 81 272 accidents corporels


Source : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_de_la_route

5000 dead and 105000 wounded in 2005 only in car accidents.

In the US in 2005, 48000 dead and 2.4 million wounded.

[Skybird]

CaptainHaplo,

we talk again some time after the US troops are gone. Two to four years later the consequences of the pespectives I outlined, will probably have had enough time to become so evident that even optimists can no longer evade to realise them.

That is no "bad wishing" and "hoping for the worst" by me. It's just that if you bring out dead seeds on a poisened field, I do not wait to see no harvest coming from it. the whole ME is a mess to artificial nation-building and arbitrary drawing of border and putting together ethnic variables that do nbot work out to well with each other. Iraq before was like that, and it is like that right now, too, even if the new lines are not set by the British, but the americans. Problem is the west has no sense of patience and no feeling for thinking in longe rperiods of time, it always thinks it can rush thinks and manage problems and solve issues and is omnipotent in handling crisis. But things emerge over time, and develoepments cnsume time - and bad things and bad developements will cause their negative consequence slaso not necessarily within the extremely short time frames Wetsern planners set up, but again over long time only. And while this perspective is ignored in western culture so immensely, we mess up things in foreign places so very often. even more so when dealin with Islam, which has a "feeling of time" that more thinks in centuries, than just months and years, like we do.

And as substantial the record of European media is to focus on the bad side of things in Iraq, as solid is the record of American medias to hang on the lips of the government officials and repeating the nice talking by them.

[UnderseaLcpl]

It's a good thing no one gives a crap about all the Kurds that Saddam massacred or we might have a just cause on our hands. "Never Again" my a$$. :roll:

I'm an isolationist for a number of reasons, and I'm the first to admit that I was not always so. I was swept up in the pro-american warhawk movement after the Sept 11th attack and I was ready to visit ruination upon every Islamic state in the world.

Still, I support the war because it's too late to do anything about it now, and the Iraqi people deserve a chance to govern themselves for once. I wouldn't support another one, because quite frankly, from a political standpoint, I don't give a damn about third-world hellholes and their problems. It's not nice, but it's the truth.

So, I would appreciate a little truth from the peacemongering left that stabs our troops in the back everytime they say "I support our troops but I don't approve of what they are doing and I like to give hope to nutjobs that blow up innocent people and hate my country." If you don't care about Kurds being massacred or people living in fear of a maniacal tyrant, just say so, but don't feed me all this bleeding heart crap about peace and saving the ocean and free Tibet and whatever. That's all I want. Admit that you just don't care about people enough to ever use military force and also, tell the Jews that if you could do it over again, you'd have left them in the concentration camps because war is wrong.

Obviously, this does not include our friends from other nations, to whom we owe a thanks for the times they stood beside us, and a "sorry" for the times we messed up or made them mad. The general sentiment seems to be that we should mind our own business, and believe me, I'd love it if we did.
So, please, tell my leftist colleagues that you would like the return of the isolationist America and the accompanying political system so that we can do a societal about-face and march straight back to the days when we were the U.S. of by-God A. and not the limp-wristed nanny-state it's becoming.



In my own defense, I'm not quite so heartless as my political beliefs would make me seem. I try to be a good Christian, and there's a set of values which comes with that, including tolerance (including towards gays and everyone else for that matter) and charity. While I wouldn't cast a vote to help another nation or even many Americans, militarily or financially, I would, and do, donate time and money to such efforts. Also, I'd have the fecking common courtesy not to force other people to do the same through legislation.

So, Liberals and I-told-you-this-war-was-badists, please recall that when we started this war, you didn't say anything, and your representatives certainly didn't, unless you live in Ron Paul's district, and we're commited now, so please try to bite your toungue, pat our troops on the back, and reach deep down in those big liberal hearts full of love and pretend that you give a s*** about oppressed people and massacred families in another country for a few years, whaddya say?

[Skybird]

It's a good thing no one gives a crap about all the Kurds that Saddam massacred or we might have a just cause on our hands. "Never Again" my a$$. :roll:
Not to mention the many thousands of Shia people that got massacred after America betrayed them by first encouraging them to rebel after the war 1991, and then letting them down and just watching how theiy got massacred.

Maybe you want to be not so eager to remember of such things, then. The interests of the Iraqi people played no role back then, and they do not play a role now. It is pure national self-interest dictating US action in Iraq. And in 2003, that self-interest was extremely incompetently defined. If america would see a way to disembark from Iraq witho9ut losing its face right now, no doubt it would be done before bush leaves office, to try to repair his broken historic reputation.

[kurtz]

Perhaps Al Qaida are having a xmas truce?

[quote=CaptainHaplo
Read your history, when Germany surrendered in WW2 there was not instant peace, it took years for the insurgency to be wiped out. [/quote]
I don't mean to divert the thread but this is badly documented any pointers?

(It is a serious request, for once I'm not being sarcastic)

[Skybird]

Perhaps Al Qaida are having a xmas truce?


Read your history, when Germany surrendered in WW2 there was not instant peace, it took years for the insurgency to be wiped out.
I don't mean to divert the thread but this is badly documented any pointers?

I was straining my brain what he meant, but to no use - at least as long as he does not think that Germany already capitulated in 1942, after the German subs were sunk during the battle at Midway. :D

[August]

Seems that some here have selective memories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf

[UnderseaLcpl]

Not to mention the many thousands of Shia people that got massacred after America betrayed them by first encouraging them to rebel after the war 1991, and then letting them down and just watching how theiy got massacred.
Maybe you want to be not so eager to remember of such things, then. The interests of the Iraqi people played no role back then, and they do not play a role now. It is pure national self-interest dictating US action in Iraq. And in 2003, that self-interest was extremely incompetently defined. If america would see a way to disembark from Iraq without losing its face right now, no doubt it would be done before bush leaves office, to try to repair his broken historic reputation.

We agree on more than you realize, Sky. The entire point of my previous post was to point out that our anti-war liberals, who supposedly care about people, are not only making our troops' jobs more dangerous, but are turning a blind eye to genocide. I don't like this, or any other foreign war. Personally, I don't think this country has had a necessary war since the revolution.
What I object to is the liberals' use of the war as a means to further their political agenda, in direct conflict with beliefs they supposedly hold dear.

Secondly, pointing out that a nation is waging a war for self-interest is like pointing out that people go to work to get paid. Pretty much every war that has ever been fought was for political and/or economic reasons. But that doesn't mean that some good can't come of it.

Thirdly, the American people went to war because they thought there was a threat and because they thought they could bring freedom to an oppressed people. I did, to be sure. Whatever the motivations of my government (which I detest, to be sure) it was worth it to be able to stand my post on election day and watch as Iraqis were allowed to vote for the first time. Many thanked me, profusely, in their fashion (which incuded kisses on the cheek from men, which is not something I revel in remembering), for giving them a voice. I would challenge any Democrat to stand where I stood, and tell those people that it was all a mistake, and we should leave.

Finally, why do you even care? I would think that you would be dancing with glee at the prospect of the destruction of an Islamic theocracy, the more brutal the better.

What if you could decide a course of action in such a situation? What would it be? How would Germany deal with Sadaam? Or not, as you choose.

[Digital_Trucker]

Seems that some here have selective memories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf

So Skybird can see this and not strain his brain anymore:D

[AntEater]

Ahem, August

From the Wikipedia Article you linked:

the total number of post-conflict American combat casualties in Germany was zero
:rotfl:

One of the myths spread by the american right in the bad years of the Iraq war.
There were a few Werwolf attacks (on germans, not on allied troops) during wartime, but close to zero after the war.
In the east, accidents were blamed on Werwolf by Poles and Czechs as a justification for attrocities against germans, like in Aussig (Usti nad Labem).
An organized german underground army like the soviet partisans or the Sadr army only existed in the fantasy of Goebbels.

With regards to traffic deaths and ordinary crime:
These occur in Baghdad as well.
I don't know if anyone here ever had the pleasure of driving a car in the middle east.
I only did that in Israel, which is quite western but unfortunately took over the traffic habits of their arab neighbours.
The number of traffic deaths in the arab world must be quite high.
And ordinary crime like robbery or such occur everywhere, even in Baghdad.
You have to add those 50 deaths to all those other factors.
Also, AFAIK the main reason for the cessation of violence was that the US basically paid off or institutionalized most of the Sunni armed groups.
So the "get all terrorists" method in Iraq meant "get all terrorists and put them in Uniform"
:rotfl:

[UnderseaLcpl]

Seems that some here have selective memories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf

I just thought you might be interested in August's reply. I've never heard of such a thing myself.

[August]

Ahem, August

From the Wikipedia Article you linked:

the total number of post-conflict American combat casualties in Germany was zero :rotfl:

One of the myths spread by the american right in the bad years of the Iraq war.
There were a few Werwolf attacks (on germans, not on allied troops) during wartime, but close to zero after the war.
In the east, accidents were blamed on Werwolf by Poles and Czechs as a justification for attrocities against germans, like in Aussig (Usti nad Labem).
An organized german underground army like the soviet partisans or the Sadr army only existed in the fantasy of Goebbels.

Their effectiveness or lack thereof is not at issue here. They existed contrary to your claims otherwise.

[Tchocky]

He never claimed they didn't exist.

Also, the claim that "it took years to wipe them out" is clearly in error.

[AntEater]

C'mon, thats a sophistic response.
A resistance that causes no damage is no resistance.
There are still neo nazi groups in Germany who consider themselves Werwolf members, but mostly they just drink beer.
So by your definition, the "insurgency" in Germany is still ongoing?
It is like I would say the american civil war never ended because some rednecks are still armed and wave confederade flags.
That's by your definition a resistance group in an occupied country, even if they do not march into Pennsylvania.

[August]

C'mon, thats a sophistic response.
A resistance that causes no damage is no resistance.
There are still neo nazi groups in Germany who consider themselves Werwolf members, but mostly they just drink beer.
So by your definition, the "insurgency" in Germany is still ongoing?
It is like I would say the american civil war never ended because some rednecks are still armed and wave confederade flags.
That's by your definition a resistance group in an occupied country, even if they do not march into Pennsylvania.

If these neo nazi groups are so harmless then why does your government continue to outlaw them? And BTW "redneck" is a racist term. You wouldn't want us to start referring to Germans as "Krauts" or "Squareheads" do you?

[Onkel Neal]

Not to mention the many thousands of Shia people that got massacred after America betrayed them by first encouraging them to rebel after the war 1991, and then letting them down and just watching how theiy got massacred.
Maybe you want to be not so eager to remember of such things, then. The interests of the Iraqi people played no role back then, and they do not play a role now. It is pure national self-interest dictating US action in Iraq. And in 2003, that self-interest was extremely incompetently defined. If america would see a way to disembark from Iraq without losing its face right now, no doubt it would be done before bush leaves office, to try to repair his broken historic reputation.

....The entire point of my previous post was to point out that our anti-war liberals, who supposedly care about people, are not only making our troops' jobs more dangerous, but are turning a blind eye to genocide....
What I object to is the liberals' use of the war as a means to further their political agenda, in direct conflict with beliefs they supposedly hold dear.



I agree. You will never find an anti-war liberal who will admit this, because that requires honesty.

Skybird, there is a lot of "bad wishing" involved in your position. At every turn, you post topics that reinforce the view that the war will fail to achieve its objectives: find WMDs (or insure there are none), overthrow a dictator, establish an Islamic democracy in the heart of the ME. You post topics that reinforce the position that the war is failing, America will fail, America is corrupt, America is wrong. There were a lot of people like you, in the US and outside, who were adamantly predicting the Gulf War would fail to achieve its objectives, and you were not shy about "predicting" this. You never post anything positive, that's why I stand by my claim you do a lot of bad wishing. That's your bias.

Not to mention the many thousands of Shia people that got massacred after America betrayed them by first encouraging them to rebel after the war 1991, and then letting them down and just watching how theiy got massacred.


Let's see, that first Gulf War was fought against the wishes of the anti-war faction, it was "all about oil", and the whole scope of the war was constricted by the screaming and protesting of the anti-war faction. Bush Sr. pulled back and halted operations quickly, partially because he did not want to be criticized as a warmonger by the anti-war faction, and because we were constantly being reminded by our friends and allies that the UN mandate did not allow the US to toppled Saddam--or support a movement by the Shias to overthrow Saddam. And you want to remind us that America betrayed them? Ha, that's like accusing me of not defending you against muggers while you were holding my arms behind my back. ;)

It needs no defeatists to see that the state of disorder still is way beyond that before the attack, and that distribution of electricity and water still is very bad, and that the rate of major crime still is at so high levels that there is no way to speak of a safe live in Bagdhad and many other places, not to mention he industry that has evolved around hijacking.

Also, Neal is completely ignoring the future prospects of Iraq, and after a phase of keeping a somewhat lower profile, Al Sadr is on the way to grow in influence again, this time more based on civilian-political bases and even more civil popularity, not so much on basis if his militias like before, while Iran now just waits and sits it out until the troops are gone in 2011, and then will have heydays in the Shia dominated areas again, and especially in the south.

I do not deny for a second that my posts and positions involve a lot of wishful thinking, too ("good wishing"?:hmm: or naive thinking? :hmm: ). I think the US will help Iraq grow its democracy and bring their standard of living up, and that's my wish as well. I may be wrong, but that's what I believe. I won't argue that there are a lot of problems in Iraq now. And I am not ignoring the future prospects of Iraq, I just did not address that in my post about attacks being at an all time low. Instead of countering the post with bad wishing about Iraq's future, I'm surprised you did not say, "Wow, that's great, there's some hope for this venture". (No, wait, I'm not really surprised :)).

I plainly admit my bias, no problem there. Like you, I could not hide my bias if I tried.


.

[kurtz]

Well they can hardly unban them now (neo nazis) with extreme politics on the rise thoughout europe. What sort of message would that send?


Thanks for the link it does seem a little self contradictory within the article. Useful first reading though, I'm sure more will pop along.

Edit parenthetical addition to clarify what I was on about

[Enigma]

BTW "redneck" is a racist term.

:rotfl:

There goes Jeff Foxworthy's career...

[Digital_Trucker]

BTW "redneck" is a racist term.
:rotfl:

There goes Jeff Foxworthy's career...
:rotfl:His career is already gone. He's stuck in a silly "reality show" that only demonstrates that the average fifth grader in the US is smarter than the average adult:doh:

[Enigma]

His career is already gone. He's stuck in a silly "reality show" that only demonstrates that the average fifth grader in the US is smarter than the average adult:doh:

What a rip off. Everyone knows that some of our community members here at Subsim have been proving that one for years! :lol:

[subchaser12]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28036313/

Eat that, terrorists and defeatists :lol:

I have some problems with this. First, I won't touch on the Iraq issue as a whole. If you believe at this stage in the game it's "going well" there is nothing anyone can say to change your mind.

The problem with the article is the fact that it may be 100% true, however the military has been lying its ass off for the past 5+ years over the war. This administration and pentagon has lied too much and they have zero credibility. Frankly I am like the Germans in world war 2, I know my own press can't be trusted. We absolutely have no reason to believe a word this administration says, period.

For example if a soldier gets blown up in Iraq and gets flown to Germany only to die a week later, he isn't counted in the official bodycount. That goes for anyone who dies in the San Antonio burn unit. They aren't counted. You have to die on the ground in Iraq to be counted in that 4,000+ and counting number. Wounded go in that 30,000+ number called evacuations. All 30,000+ don't live. Then there are the suicides, the pentagon won't be honest about that either. A soldier blows his brains out and it's a "non-hostile" death or some such BS. Then there are the contractors. They are estimated at at least 1,000+ dead and unknown wounded. A truck driver gets killed along with a few Triple Canopy escorts, it's isn't reported and we don't know about it.

Then there are the Iraqi dead that the pentagon 100% ignores. Respected and valid institutions put Iraqi dead at 600,000 give or take and Bush Inc. brushed this off as "terrorist propaganda" of course. So dead Iraqi's is just a non issue for this administration.

The pentagon also got cought getting creative with its math with the sectarian violence. They decided it was only an "execution" if they were shot in the back of the head, anything else wasn't an "execution".

Sorry to say, but any news about Iraq will have to come from the new administration, no one believes a word this one says. Why should we?

[AVGWarhawk]

Sorry to say, but any news about Iraq will have to come from the new administration, no one believes a word this one says. Why should we?

The new administration refuses to acknowledge the surge worked. So, I do not think we will see the real picture either from the new administration. The guy heading it up does not like to be wrong.

[Onkel Neal]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28036313/

Eat that, terrorists and defeatists :lol:

I have some problems with this. First, I won't touch on the Iraq issue as a whole. If you believe at this stage in the game it's "going well" there is nothing anyone can say to change your mind.

The problem with the article is the fact that it may be 100% true, however the military has been lying its ass off for the past 5+ years over the war. This administration and pentagon has lied too much and they have zero credibility. Frankly I am like the Germans in world war 2, I know my own press can't be trusted. We absolutely have no reason to believe a word this administration says, period.

For example if a soldier gets blown up in Iraq and gets flown to Germany only to die a week later, he isn't counted in the official bodycount. That goes for anyone who dies in the San Antonio burn unit. They aren't counted. You have to die on the ground in Iraq to be counted in that 4,000+ and counting number. Wounded go in that 30,000+ number called evacuations. All 30,000+ don't live. Then there are the suicides, the pentagon won't be honest about that either. A soldier blows his brains out and it's a "non-hostile" death or some such BS. Then there are the contractors. They are estimated at at least 1,000+ dead and unknown wounded. A truck driver gets killed along with a few Triple Canopy escorts, it's isn't reported and we don't know about it.

Then there are the Iraqi dead that the pentagon 100% ignores. Respected and valid institutions put Iraqi dead at 600,000 give or take and Bush Inc. brushed this off as "terrorist propaganda" of course. So dead Iraqi's is just a non issue for this administration.

The pentagon also got cought getting creative with its math with the sectarian violence. They decided it was only an "execution" if they were shot in the back of the head, anything else wasn't an "execution".

Sorry to say, but any news about Iraq will have to come from the new administration, no one believes a word this one says. Why should we?

I hear what you're saying, I won't contend the claim is unalterable fact. However, just by gauging the lack of MSM media coverage, it suggests the level of violence is down. They would be bombarding us with news if attack levels were up.

"Going well" is a very subjective term, though. Going well as compared to what? It certainly seems to be going better than 3 years ago.

[subchaser12]

However, just by gauging the lack of MSM media coverage, it suggests the level of violence is down. They would be bombarding us with news if attack levels were up.



The thing is what does violence "up or down" even mean anymore? To me it's as meaningless as the whole color coded threat level. I don't exactly say "honey, no shopping trip today, the forecast is threat level orange".

Well it looks like Obama wants to shift to Afghanistan. It's a good move politically because he doesn't want to hear calls of cowardice over the next 4 years. I think that is silly because there is nothing left in Afghanistan at this point but rocks and lizards. It will make Americans happy though because they think the "terrorists" are all huddled around a campfire chanting "death to America". What "terrorists" have really been able to stick out 6 years of occupation in Afghanistan?

Well the sooner they pull out of Iraq the better. Al Sadr will take over as soon as they go is my assesment. Well not mine, but it's the one I agree with as being the most likely scenario. He has been laying off the America with his Madi Army saving his resources for the real fight for the top as soon as America leaves. People will still act shocked when a guy wearing a western suit with a portrait of Thompas Jefferson tucked under his arm doesn't appear and take over. I want to shake people and tell them "hello, you all do realize this is a muslim country that is as advanced as we were back in the dark ages!?".

[AVGWarhawk]

However, just by gauging the lack of MSM media coverage, it suggests the level of violence is down. They would be bombarding us with news if attack levels were up.


The thing is what does violence "up or down" even mean anymore? To me it's as meaningless as the whole color coded threat level. I don't exactly say "honey, no shopping trip today, the forecast is threat level orange".

Well it looks like Obama wants to shift to Afghanistan. It's a good move politically because he doesn't want to hear calls of cowardice over the next 4 years. I think that is silly because there is nothing left in Afghanistan at this point but rocks and lizards. It will make Americans happy though because they think the "terrorists" are all huddled around a campfire chanting "death to America". What "terrorists" have really been able to stick out 6 years of occupation in Afghanistan?

Well the sooner they pull out of Iraq the better. Al Sadr will take over as soon as they go is my assesment. Well not mine, but it's the one I agree with as being the most likely scenario. He has been laying off the America with his Madi Army saving his resources for the real fight for the top as soon as America leaves. People will still act shocked when a guy wearing a western suit with a portrait of Thompas Jefferson tucked under his arm doesn't appear and take over. I want to shake people and tell them "hello, you all do realize this is a muslim country that is as advanced as we were back in the dark ages!?".

George had his war. Obama will have his in Afghanistan. Apparently, this is were Obama thinks the ball went. As far as Iraq, a cleric will take over. I do not think a democratic nation is in the cards for Iraq.

[baggygreen]

*snip*


George had his war. Obama will have his in Afghanistan. Apparently, this is were Obama thinks the ball went. As far as Iraq, a cleric will take over. I do not think a democratic nation is in the cards for Iraq.Who has bets on an Ayatollah??:hmm:

[PeriscopeDepth]

We are headed for a "Peace With Honor II". Except this Peace With Honor will not be punctuated with Communist black lists, imprisonments, and a bunch of executions as was the case with Vietnam. It will be punctuated with a full on genocide that is waiting to boil over as soon as we declare we've done our part in destabilizing the country and get the hell out. As much as I'd like to optimistic/hopeful/well wishing, I just can't when I look at what's happened and happening now.

And as for Obama and Afghanistan, I think it's a political play on polls that showed him people felt Afghanistan had been forgotten.

Frankly, neither of those countries "democratic futures" is worth a single American life.

PD

[Skybird]

Not to mention the many thousands of Shia people that got massacred after America betrayed them by first encouraging them to rebel after the war 1991, and then letting them down and just watching how theiy got massacred.
Maybe you want to be not so eager to remember of such things, then. The interests of the Iraqi people played no role back then, and they do not play a role now. It is pure national self-interest dictating US action in Iraq. And in 2003, that self-interest was extremely incompetently defined. If america would see a way to disembark from Iraq without losing its face right now, no doubt it would be done before bush leaves office, to try to repair his broken historic reputation.

....The entire point of my previous post was to point out that our anti-war liberals, who supposedly care about people, are not only making our troops' jobs more dangerous, but are turning a blind eye to genocide....
What I object to is the liberals' use of the war as a means to further their political agenda, in direct conflict with beliefs they supposedly hold dear.



I agree. You will never find an anti-war liberal who will admit this, because that requires honesty.

Skybird, there is a lot of "bad wishing" involved in your position. At every turn, you post topics that reinforce the view that the war will fail to achieve its objectives: find WMDs (or insure there are none), overthrow a dictator, establish an Islamic democracy in the heart of the ME. You post topics that reinforce the position that the war is failing, America will fail, America is corrupt, America is wrong. There were a lot of people like you, in the US and outside, who were adamantly predicting the Gulf War would fail to achieve its objectives, and you were not shy about "predicting" this. You never post anything positive, that's why I stand by my claim you do a lot of bad wishing. That's your bias.

Not to mention the many thousands of Shia people that got massacred after America betrayed them by first encouraging them to rebel after the war 1991, and then letting them down and just watching how theiy got massacred.


Let's see, that first Gulf War was fought against the wishes of the anti-war faction, it was "all about oil", and the whole scope of the war was constricted by the screaming and protesting of the anti-war faction. Bush Sr. pulled back and halted operations quickly, partially because he did not want to be criticized as a warmonger by the anti-war faction, and because we were constantly being reminded by our friends and allies that the UN mandate did not allow the US to toppled Saddam--or support a movement by the Shias to overthrow Saddam. And you want to remind us that America betrayed them? Ha, that's like accusing me of not defending you against muggers while you were holding my arms behind my back. ;)

It needs no defeatists to see that the state of disorder still is way beyond that before the attack, and that distribution of electricity and water still is very bad, and that the rate of major crime still is at so high levels that there is no way to speak of a safe live in Bagdhad and many other places, not to mention he industry that has evolved around hijacking.

Also, Neal is completely ignoring the future prospects of Iraq, and after a phase of keeping a somewhat lower profile, Al Sadr is on the way to grow in influence again, this time more based on civilian-political bases and even more civil popularity, not so much on basis if his militias like before, while Iran now just waits and sits it out until the troops are gone in 2011, and then will have heydays in the Shia dominated areas again, and especially in the south.

I do not deny for a second that my posts and positions involve a lot of wishful thinking, too ("good wishing"?:hmm: or naive thinking? :hmm: ). I think the US will help Iraq grow its democracy and bring their standard of living up, and that's my wish as well. I may be wrong, but that's what I believe. I won't argue that there are a lot of problems in Iraq now. And I am not ignoring the future prospects of Iraq, I just did not address that in my post about attacks being at an all time low. Instead of countering the post with bad wishing about Iraq's future, I'm surprised you did not say, "Wow, that's great, there's some hope for this venture". (No, wait, I'm not really surprised :)).

I plainly admit my bias, no problem there. Like you, I could not hide my bias if I tried.


.

Quatsch und Geschwätz, from A to Z .

[subchaser12]

We are headed for a "Peace With Honor II".

Peace with Honor? You can put any PR spin you want on it but either way Iraq has been a big flop. The liberals are just going "I told you so".

The only winners in this war were the profiteers. Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater USA etc. Apparently Bush never read The Prince by Machiavelli. He warned against using mercenaries because they care only for their own riches and glory and not the "cause". That's evident by the way Blackwater laughs on videos on the internet while they shoot up the place.

[PeriscopeDepth]

I guess my sarcastic tone doesn't come across well over text... that's why I put in quotes the first time around. :)

My reference to Peace With Honor was meant to acknowledge that the first one was a sham and this one will be as well. OF COURSE it's PR spin.

I don't think anybody really believes Peace With Honor actually was with honor, then or now.

PD

[subchaser12]

I guess my sarcastic tone doesn't come across well over text... that's why I put in quotes the first time around. :)

My reference to Peace With Honor was meant to acknowledge that the first one was a sham and this one will be as well. OF COURSE it's PR spin.

I don't think anybody really believes Peace With Honor actually was with honor, then or now.

PD

My bad, I missed the tongue in cheek. Yeah I was wondering what you were on about because all the abductions, lists, imprisonment and executions are all going on as I write this.

[Sea Demon]

Indeed. The Iraqis are in poor condition defense wise (haven't they always been?:lol: ).

They are now. But the Iranian armed forces you were a part of couldn't do much but come to stalemate with them after 8 years of pain. They did plenty of damage to Iranian forces.

[Skybird]

Just for Neal, and don't complain that it is wikipedia - the facts are correct. I had porint editions of Time and Newsweek reporting them the same way at the time of action, and in analysis half a year later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq

Any more desire to score by self-rightously excusing America by saying that you wished for the better, and making it appear as if positive wishful thinking is any better than realism of mine? Becasue that'S what I'm about, and if I can take the present and look further into the future than you do, then that is not my fault, but yours. That was an extremely confused posting of yours, not only the part on the Shia rebellion, but on the UN ,and "bias" etc as well. I'll be away for x-mas visits until late sunday, and your posting made me feeling thankful for that leave.
:nope:

[OneToughHerring]

Just because the US troops are pulling out of the streets and the Iraqis are beginning to take their place it's pretty obvious that less US troops will die. Too bad more Iraqis will die. Although as long as the US troops are in Iraq they will stay as the target, and long after. Considering what came out of the first Persian Gulf War we haven't even yet seen what will be the final outcome of this unjust and cruel war.

Afghanistan is another case altogether, more unrest there by the day. Plus it's a huge country, and has lot less troops. What troops will Obama send there? The ones coming home from Iraq?

[CaptainHaplo]

Too bad Iraqi's will die? Gee - like they were not doing that with an insane dictator in power..... People are so quick to forget.

Yes they will - but at least many of them are willing to do so for their country's sake. They are like us when we stood up to England - and while I don't wish them dead - I honor their courage in fighting for their freedom.

Unjust war? Ok - you can holler all you like about "Bush lied about WMD's" - and disregard the tanker convoy to Syria that left less than 48 hours before the war started, you can disregard the SANITIZED dual purpose labs that were buried in the ground (why were they sanitized if they were not being used for illegal purposes), you can pretend we didn't find old chemical warheads that were NOT supposed to exist (More than enough to kill 100,000 people in a shelling - which qualifies under UN terms as "weapons of mass destruction") - go ahead - pretend all that didnt exist. Doesn't matter.... it was still a LEGAL war.

Know why? Because at the end of Gulf War I, Saddam signed a cease fire that stated what the no-fly zone was, and that he would not fire upon our forces enforcing it. The fact is he violated that agreement multiple times by firing SAMs at our aircraft.

The fact is the majority of people in the country are safer. Most of the provinces are stable. No one seems to want to address that.

Doomsday staters - let me remind you of ONE thing. Many have tasted freedom in Iraq, and they show up in droves (and are sadly sometimes killed) at the police stations and military recruiting stations because they are willing to fight for their country. You think the Northern Kurds will easily bow to a Mullah that wants to ostracize them now they have tasted having a hand in the say? Think again. This is what so many fail to realize - the taste of freedom is a truly powerful thing.

And why is it that no one wants to talk about who is terrorizing and killing the Iraqi's? Is it a bunch of Iraqis? No - the vast majority are foreign fighters - and its the Iraqi's who line up and sometimes die to keep these foreigners from taking over. More power to them.

I hold them high for their courage. Let freedom ring.

[Skybird]

Let freedom ring.
And if freedom rang for just one day, so it still had rang nevertheless.

The fact is the majority of people in the country are safer. Most of the provinces are stable. No one seems to want to address that.
Maybe that is because crime rate in significantly higher, murder and hijacking happens far more often, and your claim that the country is safer than before 2003 simply is not true. ;)

And one thing you guys simply do not wish to see. The american troops will leave in 2011. But Iran still will be there afterwards, so will be Al Sadr.

After 1989, you lost interest in Afghanistan, and focussed elsewhere. See what happened with Afghanistan. In 2002, you shifted focus fromAfghansitan, to Iraq, and see where Afghnaistan is today. One should assume that one can learn by these two exmaple to think ahead in time a bit. But obviously that is not possiblpe without being called "wishing for the worst". The US will leave Iraq in 2011 , becasue it is the best chance it has gotten so far to get out of a quagmire of displeasant political and strategical failures without loosing too much of it'S face. I said from 2003 on that it would come like that. And I now tell you that Iraq will slip off your list of strategic projects like you let Afghnaistan slip away twice.

that'S not called "bad wishing". That is simple realism in assessing probable future trends on the basis of what is evident in the present.

[baggygreen]

As much as I agree with you re the courage etc, Capt Haplo, I don't see Iraq being stable for a while longer yet.

Following the US departure, we'll find that sectarian violence will rise again. Perpetrated by a few, sure, but affecting the majority. The benevolent Iranian Shiites can't stand by while the naughty Sunnis are killing their brethren, and will move in on humanitarian grounds to stop the killings - with precedent, following Russia/Georgia. They will succeed in stopping the killings in Iraq (sure it might be by wiping out the Sunnis, but thats ok, they're inferior anyways.. and hey, they started it:roll: )

What will follow will be an immense state in the ME, theologically driven, and very very opposed to western interests. The beginning of the Caliphate. not good.

[subchaser12]

And why is it that no one wants to talk about who is terrorizing and killing the Iraqi's? Is it a bunch of Iraqis?

I want to talk about it, let me get the ball rolling. Here are two British SAS men caught in Basra terrorizing the place. This was obviously a black operation but they got caught. Oops. Embarassing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RBXerP0p3Q

The biggest group of people fighting the Americans in Iraq are Iraqis. No one wants to admit that. Sure Al Queada and foreign fighters are there, but largely it's everyday Iraqi's who want the US gone. The insurgency started AFTER Paul Bremer the master strategist disbanded the entire Iraqi army. They were standing by waiting for orders from the US and a paycheck. What did Paul Bremer do? He told them to go piss off and they were now unemplyed. That was the start of the insurgency, the timing is no coinsidence.

The US won't admit this. Afterall according to US propaganda the Iraqi people greet us like liberators? Right? Yeah whatever. We killed way to many people that shouldn't have been killed and now they are all fighting the US.

If we got invaded by Mexico to oust George Bush would we be greeting them as liberators? Hell no, I would be out at night with half of you here planting bombs in the road.

[AVGWarhawk]

What, no democracy in Iraq ? Who would have thought! :rotfl:

It was a pipe dream Mikhayl, just a pipe dream.

[August]

What, no democracy in Iraq ? Who would have thought! :rotfl:

Oh that's just hilarious Mik. You going to guffaw at crippled children next?

[Onkel Neal]

Not to mention the many thousands of Shia people that got massacred after America betrayed them by first encouraging them to rebel after the war 1991, and then letting them down and just watching how theiy got massacred.
Maybe you want to be not so eager to remember of such things, then. The interests of the Iraqi people played no role back then, and they do not play a role now. It is pure national self-interest dictating US action in Iraq. And in 2003, that self-interest was extremely incompetently defined. If america would see a way to disembark from Iraq without losing its face right now, no doubt it would be done before bush leaves office, to try to repair his broken historic reputation.

....The entire point of my previous post was to point out that our anti-war liberals, who supposedly care about people, are not only making our troops' jobs more dangerous, but are turning a blind eye to genocide....
What I object to is the liberals' use of the war as a means to further their political agenda, in direct conflict with beliefs they supposedly hold dear.



I agree. You will never find an anti-war liberal who will admit this, because that requires honesty.

Skybird, there is a lot of "bad wishing" involved in your position. At every turn, you post topics that reinforce the view that the war will fail to achieve its objectives: find WMDs (or insure there are none), overthrow a dictator, establish an Islamic democracy in the heart of the ME. You post topics that reinforce the position that the war is failing, America will fail, America is corrupt, America is wrong. There were a lot of people like you, in the US and outside, who were adamantly predicting the Gulf War would fail to achieve its objectives, and you were not shy about "predicting" this. You never post anything positive, that's why I stand by my claim you do a lot of bad wishing. That's your bias.

Not to mention the many thousands of Shia people that got massacred after America betrayed them by first encouraging them to rebel after the war 1991, and then letting them down and just watching how theiy got massacred.


Let's see, that first Gulf War was fought against the wishes of the anti-war faction, it was "all about oil", and the whole scope of the war was constricted by the screaming and protesting of the anti-war faction. Bush Sr. pulled back and halted operations quickly, partially because he did not want to be criticized as a warmonger by the anti-war faction, and because we were constantly being reminded by our friends and allies that the UN mandate did not allow the US to toppled Saddam--or support a movement by the Shias to overthrow Saddam. And you want to remind us that America betrayed them? Ha, that's like accusing me of not defending you against muggers while you were holding my arms behind my back. ;)

It needs no defeatists to see that the state of disorder still is way beyond that before the attack, and that distribution of electricity and water still is very bad, and that the rate of major crime still is at so high levels that there is no way to speak of a safe live in Bagdhad and many other places, not to mention he industry that has evolved around hijacking.

Also, Neal is completely ignoring the future prospects of Iraq, and after a phase of keeping a somewhat lower profile, Al Sadr is on the way to grow in influence again, this time more based on civilian-political bases and even more civil popularity, not so much on basis if his militias like before, while Iran now just waits and sits it out until the troops are gone in 2011, and then will have heydays in the Shia dominated areas again, and especially in the south.

I do not deny for a second that my posts and positions involve a lot of wishful thinking, too ("good wishing"?:hmm: or naive thinking? :hmm: ). I think the US will help Iraq grow its democracy and bring their standard of living up, and that's my wish as well. I may be wrong, but that's what I believe. I won't argue that there are a lot of problems in Iraq now. And I am not ignoring the future prospects of Iraq, I just did not address that in my post about attacks being at an all time low. Instead of countering the post with bad wishing about Iraq's future, I'm surprised you did not say, "Wow, that's great, there's some hope for this venture". (No, wait, I'm not really surprised :)).

I plainly admit my bias, no problem there. Like you, I could not hide my bias if I tried.


.

Quatsch und Geschwätz, from A to Z .


Well, that makes a lot of sense. Good thing I don't speak German.

[Onkel Neal]

....and if I can take the present and look further into the future than you do, then that is not my fault, but yours.



But. You. Can't. You just convince yourself you can.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Quatsch und Geschwätz, from A to Z .


Well, that makes a lot of sense. Good thing I don't speak German.

It means nonsense and gossip, so says google translate.