Life just gets worse in Iraq - Page 25 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-19-2006, 10:07 AM   #361
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 02:30 PM
and let's remember, that only 50%+ of attacks are happening in Baghadad/Al-Anbar, not 90%, and let's also remember that there are 5m people in Baghdad out of a country of 20m, and we have 1.6 million Iraqi refugees to deal with as well.

devastating.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-19-2006, 03:39 PM   #362
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511





and then we have this ...



[q]White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops
By Robin Wright and Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, December 19, 2006; A01

The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.

Sending 15,000 to 30,000 more troops for a mission of possibly six to eight months is one of the central proposals on the table of the White House policy review to reverse the steady deterioration in Iraq. The option is being discussed as an element in a range of bigger packages, the officials said.

But the Joint Chiefs think the White House, after a month of talks, still does not have a defined mission and is latching on to the surge idea in part because of limited alternatives, despite warnings about the potential disadvantages for the military, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the White House review is not public.

The chiefs have taken a firm stand, the sources say, because they believe the strategy review will be the most important decision on Iraq to be made since the March 2003 invasion.

At regular interagency meetings and in briefing President Bush last week, the Pentagon has warned that any short-term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. The service chiefs have warned that a short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq -- including al-Qaeda's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- without giving an enduring boost to the U.S military mission or to the Iraqi army, the officials said.

The Pentagon has cautioned that a modest surge could lead to more attacks by al-Qaeda, provide more targets for Sunni insurgents and fuel the jihadist appeal for more foreign fighters to flock to Iraq to attack U.S. troops, the officials said.

The informal but well-armed Shiite militias, the Joint Chiefs have also warned, may simply melt back into society during a U.S. surge and wait until the troops are withdrawn -- then reemerge and retake the streets of Baghdad and other cities.

Even the announcement of a time frame and mission -- such as for six months to try to secure volatile Baghdad -- could play to armed factions by allowing them to game out the new U.S. strategy, the chiefs have warned the White House.

The idea of a much larger military deployment for a longer mission is virtually off the table, at least so far, mainly for logistics reasons, say officials familiar with the debate. Any deployment of 40,000 to 50,000 would force the Pentagon to redeploy troops who were scheduled to go home.[/q]
General John Abazaid never said he wanted to add troops. He is against the short term surge of troops as are many others, because its not really an increase in troops at all. All that would happen is that forces in Iraq getting ready to leave would stay several months longer, while those getting ready to go to Iraq, would go several months sooner than planned, producing a several month increase in the number of forces on the ground in Iraq. Such a plan is unlikely to have any significant effect.

For any troop increase to have a serious impact, it has to be a troop increase that can be sustained for YEARS, not months, and must be achieved by deploying new brigades to Iraq, not through manipulating the rotation of troops in and out of Iraq. Right now, the active duty Army and Marines do not have any more forces to send to Iraq. For every one active brigade deployed on a mission overseas, there is only one active brigade resting to take its place when it leaves to come home.

The only way to achieve a sustained increase in force levels in Iraq is to fully mobilize the National Guard so its brigades can be used as often as any active Army or Marine combat brigade.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-19-2006, 03:46 PM   #363
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
and let's remember, that only 50%+ of attacks are happening in Baghadad/Al-Anbar, not 90%, and let's also remember that there are 5m people in Baghdad out of a country of 20m, and we have 1.6 million Iraqi refugees to deal with as well.

devastating.
As far as sectarian attacks are concerned, that is incorrect. 90% of sectarian violence in Iraq takes place within 30 miles of Baghdad. There are 5 million people in Baghdad out of a total population of TWENTY SEVEN MILLION in IRAQ. Most war racked countries experiences decreases in population, but in Iraq the population has continued to grow year after year.

I also find it interesting how no one mentioned the fact that US casualties declined by 40% in November from what they were in October.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-19-2006, 04:25 PM   #364
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 02:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The only way to achieve a sustained increase in force levels in Iraq is to fully mobilize the National Guard so its brigades can be used as often as any active Army or Marine combat brigade.


so just come out and say you want a draft.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-19-2006, 04:34 PM   #365
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 02:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
As far as sectarian attacks are concerned, that is incorrect. 90% of sectarian violence in Iraq takes place within 30 miles of Baghdad. There are 5 million people in Baghdad out of a total population of TWENTY SEVEN MILLION in IRAQ. Most war racked countries experiences decreases in population, but in Iraq the population has continued to grow year after year.


it's interesting how you conflate, and then separate, sectarian violence and violence against US troops when it serves your interests.

[q]The Pentagon report, released on the same day Robert M. Gates was sworn-in to succeed Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, paints a bleak picture of a nation on the edge of chaos with 959 attacks a week attributed to militias, death squads and insurgents. According to the report, attacks increased 22 percent between August and November with more than half taking place in the major population centers of Baghdad and Anbar provinces. The high attack rate resulted in an average of 93 civilian deaths a day.[/q]

moreover, only about half of Iraq's provinces aren't consumed by violence, far more than the hugely distorted 90% picture you often present, and you're presenting the fact that widespread sectarian bloodshed hasn't broken out in Basra, Kirkuk, or Mosul as some kind of accomplishment.



Quote:
I also find it interesting how no one mentioned the fact that US casualties declined by 40% in November from what they were in October.
November (77) was an improvement over October (110), but about equal to September (76) and August (70) of this year. so instead of fabricating some distorting innuendo that we're seeing some sort of downward trend in casualties, why don't you say that casualties spiked dramatically in October before returning to normal levels? why do you use the very same techniques of distortion you accuse the WP and NYT of using?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ties_nov06.htm

again, US casualties are a poor indication of what is going on in the Iraqi Civil War.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-19-2006, 05:05 PM   #366
Blue Crack Addict
 
Varitek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 02:30 PM
Yup I think I read that October was the 2nd deadliest month since the invasion. You can try to lie with statistics, but we'll catch you.
__________________
Varitek is offline  
Old 12-19-2006, 05:22 PM   #367
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,501
Local Time: 02:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
here are 5 million people in Baghdad out of a total population of TWENTY SEVEN MILLION in IRAQ.


actually, we're both wrong.

there are 26 million in Iraq.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../2119rank.html

Baghdad has approximately 20% of the entire population of Baghdad. there is no US city that can even approximate such a massive percentage of the whole population. baghdad is to Iraq as nearly 2 Californias (33 million) are to the US.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-19-2006, 09:14 PM   #368
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




so just come out and say you want a draft.
Mobilizing the National Guard which is trained and equipped for these missions is nothing compared to what a draft would entail. Whether you increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corp through a draft or expansion of the current volunteer military force, it would take several years to expand the force and properly equip and train new brigades. By contrast, the National Guard already has 34 ground combat brigades, nearly 40% of the total number of ground combat brigades that the US military has in the total force.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-19-2006, 09:47 PM   #369
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


it's interesting how you conflate, and then separate, sectarian violence and violence against US troops when it serves your interests.

[q]The Pentagon report, released on the same day Robert M. Gates was sworn-in to succeed Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense, paints a bleak picture of a nation on the edge of chaos with 959 attacks a week attributed to militias, death squads and insurgents. According to the report, attacks increased 22 percent between August and November with more than half taking place in the major population centers of Baghdad and Anbar provinces. The high attack rate resulted in an average of 93 civilian deaths a day.[/q]

moreover, only about half of Iraq's provinces aren't consumed by violence, far more than the hugely distorted 90% picture you often present, and you're presenting the fact that widespread sectarian bloodshed hasn't broken out in Basra, Kirkuk, or Mosul as some kind of accomplishment.





November (77) was an improvement over October (110), but about equal to September (76) and August (70) of this year. so instead of fabricating some distorting innuendo that we're seeing some sort of downward trend in casualties, why don't you say that casualties spiked dramatically in October before returning to normal levels? why do you use the very same techniques of distortion you accuse the WP and NYT of using?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ties_nov06.htm

again, US casualties are a poor indication of what is going on in the Iraqi Civil War.
Deaths are sometimes reported multiple times on globalsecurity.org. Its only weeks later that the figures are corrected. icasualties.org has the more precise count and avoids these discrepencies because they only report persons who have been identified by name. Sometimes, the same person is reported twice prior to the names being released.

In any event, the correct figure for November is 69, October 106, September 72, and August 65. The number of wounded, the figure you like to site the most dropped by 30% from the figure in October. It was at its lowest since July. Yet, NO one has mentioned this, but if the figures were reversed, it would be reported every hour on the hour.

I've not distorted anything, just reported the facts, something that the Washington Post and New York Times often fail to do when reporting about the military and the war.

The only 100% accurate figure in regards to casualties in Iraq are the coalition casualties. This makes it far and away the best metric for gauging the level of violence in the country. The reports on civilian casualties do not have anywhere near the same level of accuracy, although its probably better now than it was in the first couple of years of the war. Still, its not nearly what it should be in order to make accurate comparisons on levels of violence. Lets not forget what happened in Jenin in the summer of 2002 when it was reported that the IDF had murdered 7,000 civilians and then it was found by UN forensic teams that only 49 civilians had died, all from accidents during the fighting.

As military commanders on the ground have repeatedly said time and again, there are 5 out of 18 provinces in Iraq where violence is a serious issue. Polls have also shown that Kurdish and Shia majority provinces do not consider security to be the most important issue.

Once again, as General John Abazaid testified in August, 90% of the sectarian violence in Iraq takes place within 30 miles of Baghdad. Given the long history of Mosul, Kirkuk, and Basra, as well as what has happened in Baghdad, it is indeed an accomplishment that there is no major sectarian violence in these area's. Its about time some people start to recognize that Iraq is a bigger country than just Baghdad and that there have been accomplishments and achievements over the past 4 years in Iraq.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-19-2006, 09:51 PM   #370
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Varitek
Yup I think I read that October was the 2nd deadliest month since the invasion. You can try to lie with statistics, but we'll catch you.
Actually it was the fourth deadliest month, and still not at the level of April 2004. The only mis-information going on about statistics are those that don't aknowledge the statistics from other time periods, like 2004, when the US death rate was higher and the number of wounded significantly higher.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-19-2006, 09:54 PM   #371
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




actually, we're both wrong.

there are 26 million in Iraq.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../2119rank.html

Baghdad has approximately 20% of the entire population of Baghdad. there is no US city that can even approximate such a massive percentage of the whole population. baghdad is to Iraq as nearly 2 Californias (33 million) are to the US.
Yep, which shows that the vast majority of people in Iraq don't experience what goes on in Baghdad. Most people in Iraq do not live in the 5 majority Sunni provinces. Oh, and if you want to get technical about the population figure, your source shows that I was correct "26,783,383 (July 2006 est.)" Iraq has a population growth rate of 2.66%! By next July, Iraq will have added another 700,000 people.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-20-2006, 04:55 AM   #372
Blue Crack Addict
 
Varitek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 02:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Mobilizing the National Guard which is trained and equipped for these missions is nothing compared to what a draft would entail. Whether you increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corp through a draft or expansion of the current volunteer military force, it would take several years to expand the force and properly equip and train new brigades. By contrast, the National Guard already has 34 ground combat brigades, nearly 40% of the total number of ground combat brigades that the US military has in the total force.
Yes, marvelous idea, send the whole guard away. The National Guard is supposed to be a HOMELAND security force. Sending more and more guard troops only leaves the general population more vulnerable to disaster, natural or terrorist-made.
__________________
Varitek is offline  
Old 12-20-2006, 04:56 AM   #373
Blue Crack Addict
 
Varitek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 02:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Actually it was the fourth deadliest month, and still not at the level of April 2004. The only mis-information going on about statistics are those that don't aknowledge the statistics from other time periods, like 2004, when the US death rate was higher and the number of wounded significantly higher.
OOooooh 4th. Well pat on the back we're doing sooooooo good.


Sting even Bush says we're not winning:

WaPo

Quote:
U.S. Not Winning War in Iraq, Bush Says for 1st Time
President Plans to Expand Army, Marine Corps To Cope With Strain of Multiple Deployments

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 20, 2006; Page A01

President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and said he plans to expand the overall size of the "stressed" U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists.

As he searches for a new strategy for Iraq, Bush has now adopted the formula advanced by his top military adviser to describe the situation. "We're not winning, we're not losing," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. The assessment was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, "Absolutely, we're winning."
Oh what a little distance (6 weeks!) from the election can do.

LIAR
__________________
Varitek is offline  
Old 12-20-2006, 05:20 AM   #374
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 05:30 AM
I don't see how a rise in troop numbers will do anything other than put more targets on the ground. It seems more a question of tactics.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-20-2006, 07:25 AM   #375
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

I also find it interesting how no one mentioned the fact that US casualties declined by 40% in November from what they were in October.


Nobody is going to mention that, at least none of us anti-war people. We might mention that soldiers are continuing to die in November, be won't mention that there is a 40% decline.

You are saying as if there is a positive side to this. But there is NO positive side. Even if only 10 U.S. Soldiers die per month, it still doesn't make it worth it!

So therfore, regardless of the 40% decline, soldiers and civilians continue to DIE!

When will the radicals get that through their heads????
__________________

__________________
Infinity is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com