Life just gets worse in Iraq - Page 27 - 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 12-20-2006, 03:48 PM   #391
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 12:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


The only thing that is radical is suggesting that a falling death rate is not a good thing in any way.
First of all, the death rate has gone down only for a month. Secondly, its gone down after the deadliest month ever, so its not saying much. Thirdly, its not even the month with the least amount of deaths. And lastly, as I said before, since to the anti-war people, this war is not worth it, even ONE soldier dying is bad news and not good. To me personally, I would rather have 10 soldiers die for a cause rather than 1 soldier die for no cause at all.

So a falling death rate is still a death rate and not a good thing.

Let me give you a second explanation. Imagine a serial killer who kills hundreds of people every month for 5 years. And imagine last October he killed the most people out of any month before. Say he killed 100 in October, and in November say he killed 80.

Now WHO WOULD SAY THAT IS A GOOD THING? Who would praise a "falling death rate?" I think most normal people would look at the fact that he is killing more people and he hasn't been stopped.

So there was nothing radical in what I said. It is you and your few fellow Bushists who are radical.
__________________

__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 12-20-2006, 05:32 PM   #392
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

it's also amazing how you're managing to disagree with both Bush -- that we're winning, when not even Bush says that
Actually Bush just said "we're not winning."

But he's always wrong so I guess STING is just ignoring him.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 12-20-2006, 05:41 PM   #393
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
randhail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Outside Providence
Posts: 3,557
Local Time: 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Actually Bush just said "we're not winning."

which doesn't mean that we're losing though
__________________
randhail is offline  
Old 12-20-2006, 06:09 PM   #394
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 02:49 PM
just so we're all on the same page, here's the breakdown in US casualties (which, again, isn't a good indicator of the level of violence in Iraq, just the portion of violence aimed at US troops):

YEAR DEATH WOUNDED
2003 486 2408
2004 848 8001
2005 846 5947
2006 774 5676
Total 2954 22032

what this shows is that there is a very small difference in the number of deaths between 2004 and 2006, and that 2004 and 2005 were exactly the same when it comes to deaths.

and this is quite worrisome for two reasons:

1. we've been battling "the insurgency" for 3 years with virtually no progress
2. US troops are increasingly "in the way" as opposed to being the primary targets in 2006; yet the numbers of dead are easily comparable to 2004 and 2005, when US troops were much more the primary targets than they are today.

and all the while, the US Army has failed at their primary role in the conflict: to protect Iraqi civilians so they may participate in a democratic society.

the insurgency has succeeded in that it has derailed the political process. according to Pentagon reports, since the bombing of the mosque in Samara, there ahs been a sharp incrase in sectarian attacks and Iraqi civilian casualties, especially in Baghdad and despite the increase in US troop presence and the supposedly growing abilities of the Iraqi army.

the Iraqi government has failed in its primary mission: to protect innocent Iraqis. Maliki has failed to convince factional leaders to reign in the death squads and militas; the kidnapping, torture, and executions continue apace not just in Baghdad but in any part of the country where Sunnis and Shiites live close together.

the Baker report is correct: Iraq is deteriorating.

we must find a new approach.

i think everyone agrees that allwoing insurgents and militias to take over Iraq would be a disaster not just for the country, but for the entire Middle East.

the biggest problem is the total lack of ideas about how to deal with the situation. there are no good options.

and this leads us all back to the incontravertable fact that the war was a mistake. it was justified on falsehoods, distortion, and fear using deliberately obfuscated and cherry-picked intelligence in order to fufill an academic, fanciful notion of "democratizing" a region poorly understood by the West.

what is to be done?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-20-2006, 08:34 PM   #395
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



the biggest problem is the total lack of ideas about how to deal with the situation.
The problem is that you guys (Americans) have absolutely no credibility as an objective third party in the Arab world. Nobody there has any respect for you anymore, and Bush has made it plainly obvious that he will shit over diplomacy twice before breakfast.

I wonder if better ideas would get you anywhere at this point because the actions of Bush et al. have so much worsened your image not only on the Arab street, but let's face it, in every other corner of the planet, that at this point, it's questionable whether a workable idea by the US government would be received at all.

What a tragedy, really.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 12-20-2006, 09:54 PM   #396
Blue Crack Addict
 
Varitek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: on borderland we run
Posts: 16,861
Local Time: 02:49 PM
Irvine he's an irrational lost cause, I commend you for trying so long and hard but in my drunken state I say give up and move on to more worthy causes of your intelligence.
__________________
Varitek is offline  
Old 12-20-2006, 10:51 PM   #397
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




if you want to understand the level of violence in Iraq you need to understand what the targets of the violence are -- they are NOT americans, they are everyday iraqis. simply because one number is more verifiable than the other doesn't mean that the verifiable number is an accurate metric to use when gauging the overall level of violence in the country. tell me, what pecentage of the nearly 100 attacks a day are aimed at US troops? or do we discard the 100 attacks a day and only record and use the attacks that specifically happen against American troops? do we only count my dead friend, and not the 2 dozen iraqis who wash ashore with holes drilled in the back of their heads?

in 2004 the insurgency was targeting American troops, not so in 2006, where "the insurgency" has taken a backseat to the sectarian violence. and yet we still see figures of American deaths in 2006 that are comparable to 2004 despite the fact that American troops are no longer the primary targets of violence in Iraq!
It is grossly inaccurate to say that American troops are no longer the target of the Sunni insurgency. In addition, this is a rather simplistic way of looking at the violence. Sunni insurgents also spend much of their time hiding, avoiding, and engaging US troops at times that are not of their choosing. In addition, US forces engaged in stopping sectarian violence in Baghdad are just as much targets of the violence there as civilians. You can't always tell a Sunni Arab from a Shia Arab, but you can always distinguish them from US troops and US troops are there to stop those engaged in such actions.

There is no metric that can accurately show that civilian deaths in Iraq in 2006 are worse than 2004. NONE. One can accurately compare US deaths in 2004 to US deaths in 2006. US troops are heavily engaged in all the provinces where violence has occured in Iraq since the invasion. The recording of US deaths is the only accurate measure of any group of people being killed inside Iraq. Insurgent activity against unarmed civilians is not a resource intensive action compared to what it takes to operate against the best military force in the world. The US military still remains the largest obstacle to the Sunni insurgents in re-establishing their power. Sectarian violence in Iraq is primarily limited to the Baghdad area. Generals on the ground said that much of the increases in US casualty rates in late summer and early fall were do to US engagement in the violence in and around Baghdad. So its incorrect to say that such violence does not impact US casualties.

While the US casualty rate is far from being a perfect metric for overall violence in Iraq, it is the only accurate one available that allows for 100% accurate comparisons between any of the various time periods during the conflict. No such metric exist for other types of casualties. Even if your claims about what the insurgency is doing now as opposed to another time period was true, and despite the fact that civilians casualties are obviously higher than military ones, the only accurate casualty metric that exist for Iraq today is the one for US military casualties. Because US forces are engaged at some level in all of the violence that occurs, whether it be, insurgent on US forces, US forces on insurgents, or US forces on both Sunni insurgents and Shia militia's engaged in sectarian violence, the US forces are engaged in every part of the conflict on a level that makes the US casualty metric relevant for estimating levels of violence in the country, primarily in terms of increases and decreases in the level. Dispute it all you want, but the US casualty figure is the only accurate casualty figure in Iraq for the past four years.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-20-2006, 11:28 PM   #398
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




continue to worry about "the insurgency."

the rest of us will deal with the sectarian violence.

my position in October was that violence against US troops was increasing. which was certainly the case. the decline in November does not "totally rebut that contention" -- it means that October was deadlier than November, and it also means that you can't hide behind your smokescreen of decontextualized percentage comparisons (something the military does very, very well, and often) that violence is decreasing overall. it is not, despite the fact that Americans are less and less and less the direct targets of the violence like they were in 2004.

look at overall instances of violence in Iraq in 2006 -- about 100 a day. over 3,000 Iraqis killed, on average, a month.

what were those numbers in 2004?

as for Baghdad, it is far more important to Iraq than any comparable city in the US. 20% of Iraqis live there. 20%!!! and the city is in total chaos. and what's worse is that the provinces of Diyala and Salahuddin and Anbar all have higher death rates.

of course the Shiite provinces see less violence -- because the violence in Iraq is SECTARIAN!!! there are no Sunnis to kill there! they've already been killed, or have fled. hence, this is a CIVIL WAR! you have an ineffectual central government and one ethnic group attempting to seize power while eliminating another rival ethnic group. the places consumed in an orgy of violence are the places where Shiites and Sunnis live together.

but, hey, if you want all of Iraq to be just like those peaceful Shia provinces, then start funding the Shia like Dick Cheney wants; then all the Sunnis will be cleansed and then the violence will stop and i'm sure you'll tout that as another accomplishement.

but that will be hard, seeing as how the Saudis are going to start funding the Sunnis, as they've publically stated.
Well, you just said in the above thread that the insurgency was now targeting civilians and not the US military anymore, but now your saying the insurgency is not something to worry about. Which is it?

Your position was that the insurgency was growing and getting worse, which of course if false. Again, the insurgency peaked in 2004. The US military continues to be just as engaged as it was in 2004 in any part of Iraq where there is significant levels of violence regardless of what type of violence it is.

Take a sectarian conflict like Northern Ireland. Even if you had no metric for civilian casualties, casualty figures for British military and police forces have the similar rates for overall casualties in most time periods. You'll find the largest number of deaths in the country in the early 1970s. You will also find the largest number of British military deaths in the conflict from that time period as well, even though British military deaths only represent a small fraction of all deaths.

How many of the Iraqi's who are said to have died last month can you name? How many were properly identified and cause of death accurately determined? Now do the same for US troops. Then go back two years to 2004 and do the same. Your only accurate metric is the one listing US casualties.

Sunni's live all across Iraq. If you actually read the ISG report, you would see that there is no way to easily divide Iraq into ethnically homogenous regions. All along the border of Saudi Arabia as far south as Basra, Sunni's live there in numbers equal to Shia Arabs. In fact, only half of Iraq is composed of area's where there is a clear majority of either Kurdish, Sunni Arab, or Shia Arab groups. Area's normally considered to be majority Sunni Arab like Fallujah and Ramadi actually have equal numbers of Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-20-2006, 11:36 PM   #399
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98


First of all, the death rate has gone down only for a month. Secondly, its gone down after the deadliest month ever, so its not saying much. Thirdly, its not even the month with the least amount of deaths. And lastly, as I said before, since to the anti-war people, this war is not worth it, even ONE soldier dying is bad news and not good. To me personally, I would rather have 10 soldiers die for a cause rather than 1 soldier die for no cause at all.

So a falling death rate is still a death rate and not a good thing.

Let me give you a second explanation. Imagine a serial killer who kills hundreds of people every month for 5 years. And imagine last October he killed the most people out of any month before. Say he killed 100 in October, and in November say he killed 80.

Now WHO WOULD SAY THAT IS A GOOD THING? Who would praise a "falling death rate?" I think most normal people would look at the fact that he is killing more people and he hasn't been stopped.

So there was nothing radical in what I said. It is you and your few fellow Bushists who are radical.
First, while its true the death rate has increased in December over November, looking back over the entire course of the war, you will find many downward trends lasting for months in regards to the death rate. Second, October was not the highest month for deaths. Third, it does not have to be the month with the smallest amount of deaths to make the point.

No one considers the death of any soldier to be good news at all. But most people do consider it good news when a death rate declines whether it be from terrorism, a serial killer, the general crime rate, insurgents in Iraq, etc to be good news.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-21-2006, 12:16 AM   #400
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
just so we're all on the same page, here's the breakdown in US casualties (which, again, isn't a good indicator of the level of violence in Iraq, just the portion of violence aimed at US troops):

YEAR DEATH WOUNDED
2003 486 2408
2004 848 8001
2005 846 5947
2006 774 5676
Total 2954 22032

what this shows is that there is a very small difference in the number of deaths between 2004 and 2006, and that 2004 and 2005 were exactly the same when it comes to deaths.

and this is quite worrisome for two reasons:

1. we've been battling "the insurgency" for 3 years with virtually no progress
2. US troops are increasingly "in the way" as opposed to being the primary targets in 2006; yet the numbers of dead are easily comparable to 2004 and 2005, when US troops were much more the primary targets than they are today.

and all the while, the US Army has failed at their primary role in the conflict: to protect Iraqi civilians so they may participate in a democratic society.

the insurgency has succeeded in that it has derailed the political process. according to Pentagon reports, since the bombing of the mosque in Samara, there ahs been a sharp incrase in sectarian attacks and Iraqi civilian casualties, especially in Baghdad and despite the increase in US troop presence and the supposedly growing abilities of the Iraqi army.

the Iraqi government has failed in its primary mission: to protect innocent Iraqis. Maliki has failed to convince factional leaders to reign in the death squads and militas; the kidnapping, torture, and executions continue apace not just in Baghdad but in any part of the country where Sunnis and Shiites live close together.

the Baker report is correct: Iraq is deteriorating.

we must find a new approach.

i think everyone agrees that allwoing insurgents and militias to take over Iraq would be a disaster not just for the country, but for the entire Middle East.

the biggest problem is the total lack of ideas about how to deal with the situation. there are no good options.

and this leads us all back to the incontravertable fact that the war was a mistake. it was justified on falsehoods, distortion, and fear using deliberately obfuscated and cherry-picked intelligence in order to fufill an academic, fanciful notion of "democratizing" a region poorly understood by the West.

what is to be done?
US troops are just as much engaged in the violence that occurs in Iraq as they were in 2004. The United States has not pulled back its forces, stopped patrolling or engaging in any of the important counter insurgency and security operations that it did in 2004.

For years now, we have been told that the insurgency is constantly getting worse in Iraq, with each year worse than the one before. The figures clearly show that is simply false. In fact the reverse appears to be true. The number of wounded, sited by yourself as the most relevant casualty statistic has declined by 29% from the level in 2004. The death rate is 8% below that of 2004. Rising insurgency? The figures don't support that claim.

If the US military failed in its primary role to protect Iraqi participation in a democracy, the two elections in which over 12 million people participated in would not have been possible. In fact none of the below would have been able to happen:

1. two successful democratic elections in which the majority of the population participated.
2. the passing of a constitution
3. Iraq's first elected government coming into office.
4. Over 300,000 military and police forces in training.
5. compromises between the various ethnic groups of Iraq including Sunni acceptence of Maliki as the new leader of the government when Jafferi was seen as unacceptable.
6. Iraqi military units that have performed very well in combat in various operations in Anbar province with little or no support from the US military.
7. The continued professionalism of the Iraqi military and non-sectarianism compared with police forces which have sometimes been caught in engaging in sectarian violence. The problems in the police forces are not seen anywhere near to that degree in the military.
8. Substantial GDP growth across the country.
9. Relative calm and peace in 13 of the 18 provinces of Iraq.
10. Polls in those provinces showing that "security" is not a top concern for the people that live there.
11. The distribution of humanitarian aid, electricity, and other services to many parts of Iraq that had often been denied such items for decades.
12. The standard of living of the average Iraqi in Shia and Kurdish area's of Iraq has improved since the removal of Saddam. Iraq, despite all the violence, still has a standard of living much higher than countries without any such violence, which is unusual historically.


All of them significant but ignored by those who want to pretend that nothing has been accomplished in Iraq.

The Sectarian violence in the country is primarily confined to the Baghdad area, despite the fact that Sunni's live all over Iraq, and form an equal demographic number to Shia in many area's of the south including the entire border Iraq has with Saudi Arabia. The Maliki government has only been in office for 6 months, yet people have this unrealistic expectation that all violence in Iraq was supposed to stopped by the end of the year. This is a long term nation building and counter insurgency effort that typically require 10+ years to complete in terms of getting the country to the point where it can handle its own problems without massive foreign intervention.

The US military and other US agencies are already engaged in an effort that will if given the necessary amount of time and resources, produce a stable Iraq that will be able to handle its own problems without massive levels of foreign intervention. The ISG offers many important idea's many of which have already been started, but it is asurdly foolish in its contention that all US combat Brigades could be withdrawn by early 2008. That position is in direct contradiction to its assessment of conditions on the ground in Iraq as well as the capability of the Iraqi military which would have to take over responsibility for departing US troops. 2011 is the earliest date you could seriously contemplate withdrawing all US combat Brigades.


For those that understand fundamental US and global Security concerns in the Persian Gulf Region, why the United States had to send over a half a million troops to the region in 1991 and go to war, as well as what actually took place during the 1990s in the region following that war, they will realize that the removal of Saddam was not a mistake and has boosted the security of the planets critical energy resources in the region. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are safer today from hostile foreign invasion than they have been for decades. But those that get lost in the debate about intelligence which has never had any sort of consistent accuracy on an issue as difficult to detect like WMD, don't realize the more important issue of the failure of Saddams regime to verifiably disarm, how that is consistent with past behavior and an indication of future behavior, and the inability of future intelligence efforts to know when or if a particular WMD program was started or not. Were talking at most a couple of years if not months before certain stockpiles could be created, probably without the knowledge of foreign intelligence. Saddam did not have WMD when he came to power in 1979, but he had significant stockpiles by the start of 1982. All that combined with the fact that Saddam's regime never accounted for over a 1,000 liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of mustard gas, 500 pounds of sarin gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells as required by the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-21-2006, 12:23 AM   #401
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


The problem is that you guys (Americans) have absolutely no credibility as an objective third party in the Arab world. Nobody there has any respect for you anymore, and Bush has made it plainly obvious that he will shit over diplomacy twice before breakfast.

I wonder if better ideas would get you anywhere at this point because the actions of Bush et al. have so much worsened your image not only on the Arab street, but let's face it, in every other corner of the planet, that at this point, it's questionable whether a workable idea by the US government would be received at all.

What a tragedy, really.
Can you name an "objective third party" that has the resources to actually accomplish something in the region other than the United States? There is a hell of a lot of respect for the United States around the world, perhaps not in what people say, but in what they actually do.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-21-2006, 12:53 AM   #402
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 07:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Varitek


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.
You wouldn't be sending the whole Guard away, because for every National Guard combat brigade deployed, there has to be one back in the USA to replace it as it rotates home to rest and refit at a minimum for a sustained longterm deployment. The National Guard is NOT a "Homeland Security Force"! It is equipped to perform the same warfighting missions that the Active Army engages in. A National Guard Armored Brigade has the same equipment and receives the same training that an active Army Armored Brigade recieves.

Many US National Guard combat brigades have already done a full tour in Iraq, typically in the 2004 period. They were used in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s as well.

The above is just Combat Brigades. The Active US Army cannot actually deploy without the mobilization of key US Army reserve and US National Guard logistical units. These units have been mobilized and serving overseas ever since the US Army was restructed in the early 1970s putting many of the key logistical and support units exclusively into the Army Guard and Reserve meaning that any deployment of the active army would require their mobilization on some level. The point here is that the Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve are all actually one force, but there are restrictions on the rate of use of National Guard ground combat brigades. Restrictions that many in the military want to lift in order to relieve the stress on the active component and to increase troop levels anywhere in the world if needed.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 12-21-2006, 09:29 AM   #403
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 02:49 PM
Huffington Post

Bush's Holiday Poem

Culled verbatim from President Bush's Press Conference on December 20, 2006

This war on terror
Calling of a new generation.
Calling of our generation.
Success is essential

I believe that we're going to win.
I believe that
That's what you've got to know.
We're going to succeed.
We will succeed in Iraq

I am willing to follow a path that leads to victory.

Victory in Iraq is achievable.
And so it's been a tough period for the American people.
They want to see success.

To put a plan in place that achieves that success.
I'm going to work to achieve success.

It is important for us
To be successful going forward
To analyze that which went wrong.*

*The only time Bush mentioned the word "wrong'". This candid admission is an improvement from all prior Press Conferences.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 12-22-2006, 12:54 AM   #404
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 12:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


First, while its true the death rate has increased in December over November, looking back over the entire course of the war, you will find many downward trends lasting for months in regards to the death rate. Second, October was not the highest month for deaths. Third, it does not have to be the month with the smallest amount of deaths to make the point.

No one considers the death of any soldier to be good news at all. But most people do consider it good news when a death rate declines whether it be from terrorism, a serial killer, the general crime rate, insurgents in Iraq, etc to be good news.
For a falling death rate, in this situation, to be seen as a good thing, there must be a long trend because it seems like the death rate goes down and then up again while A) Nothing is being accomplished and B) The death rate is still there, whether up or down, it is still there.

Even if there is a month with 0 deaths, what is the point of praising it if the very next month there are deaths? So there has to be a long term trend in order for it to be a "good" thing. And "good" in this case doesn't actually mean "good," it means "not as horrible."
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 12-22-2006, 08:47 AM   #405
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 02:49 PM
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen 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 02:49 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