Attacks in Iraq at lowest level since 2003

[Onkel Neal]

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

Eat that, terrorists and defeatists

[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? ).

[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. Most Iraqi people's life is far worse than before the attack.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

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]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

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$$.

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]

Originally Posted by 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$$.

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]

Originally Posted by kurtz

Perhaps Al Qaida are having a xmas truce?

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.

[August]

Seems that some here have selective memories:

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

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by August

Seems that some here have selective memories:

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

So Skybird can see this and not strain his brain anymore

[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: