Insurgent attacks down (1 Viewer)

[Stinger]

In a very noteworthy developement, but seemingly ignored by the mainstream media, the attacks by insurgents are on a very steep downward trend.

As Neal Boortz notes, and also found on other news sites.

"In case you don't already know it, insurgent attacks on our troops and security forces in Iraq are on the decline. In the 1st week of October of last year there were 700 such attacks. By mid-December that figure had dropped to 500. Just last week the number had dropped to 400. That's a 43% drop in about three months. At the same time our forces in Iraq are turning over more and more of the Iraqi territory to the Iraqi defense forces to handle. Just last week military control of two large provinces in Iraq were turned over to Iraqi security forces."

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

I guess the left will be upset that there is even more good news coming out of Iraq.

 

[scottyz]

That's good news if true. In the past it has died down and then ramped up again once the insurgents regroup.

 

[Stinger]

That's good news if true.

It's the official numbers. So it's good isn't it.

In the past it has died down and then ramped up again once the insurgents regroup.

Just had to through that it didn't you, can't let any good news stand on it's own gotta counter it with something bad.

 

[Navy Pride]

In a very noteworthy developement, but seemingly ignored by the mainstream media, the attacks by insurgents are on a very steep downward trend.

As Neal Boortz notes, and also found on other news sites.

"In case you don't already know it, insurgent attacks on our troops and security forces in Iraq are on the decline. In the 1st week of October of last year there were 700 such attacks. By mid-December that figure had dropped to 500. Just last week the number had dropped to 400. That's a 43% drop in about three months. At the same time our forces in Iraq are turning over more and more of the Iraqi territory to the Iraqi defense forces to handle. Just last week military control of two large provinces in Iraq were turned over to Iraqi security forces."

http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

I guess the left will be upset that there is even more good news coming out of Iraq.

Sadly this is news you will never see in our left wing media......They get their jollys posting bad news...........

 

[Stinger]

Sadly this is news you will never see in our left wing media......They get their jollys posting bad news...........

I note the pro-Saddam faction here is also very quiet about it. It's really a great developement, shows we continue to move towards the goals and nothing. The left has staked it's ground and it's defeat in Iraq so they can take back power.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I note the pro-Saddam faction here is also very quiet about it. It's really a great developement, shows we continue to move towards the goals and nothing. The left has staked it's ground and it's defeat in Iraq so they can take back power.

Ok I will bite.

First your sources doesn't work anymore so I can only go from the data that you provided in your post. But say that it's true then first of all scottyz is right you can't know if it's a trend that will last. Second it's just an indication that violence have droped it's not a conclusion. Because for it to be a conclusion you need more data then you provided, like for example the results of the atacks. One example: the atacks can drop to 50 but if on avarage 20 american or iraqie soldiers dies in the atacks it's instead a increase of violence. Also you don't know anything from the data that you presented about the other atacks. Maybee there started to atack more civilians is that then a good thing? That I meant, is that you can't draw any conclusion from your data that it's just an indication that the violence maybee is getting lower.

Second is it really a sucess that after three years there are still 400 atacks (even as I mention earlier I don't know the degree of violence and the effect) and that just against the american military and security forces? Especially sens USA have the by far most powerful military in the world and that the Iraqies supposely would welcome the americans with open arms. That did the pro war people say and that did anti war people say? Can you show any data there the pro war people before the war said that it will be a long period of violence?

Third do you think that USA will be able to kill all the foreign fighters that are part of the insurgence? How will they be able to do that? Or will some survive and go home batle trained and still pissed of on west. That consevences will it have if they go back home? There home can be both middle eastern countries as it can be Europe or even USA.

 

[Stinger]

You guys just can't stand it can you. You are so invested in failure that your whole political agenda depends on it. You can't even bring yourself to say, wow that's really good, but must prostitute reason to come up with anything, ANYTHING, to miminalize the good news. It's very clear news and your post is filled with "maybes" and "ifs" so you can denigrate the good news. Amazing.

 

[oldreliable67]

Or will some survive and go home batle trained and still pissed of on west. That consevences will it have if they go back home? There home can be both middle eastern countries as it can be Europe or even USA.

No doubt some will survive and return to their home countries. No matter. We would rather fight them in their home countries rather than our home countries, but we do have to fight them somewhere.

 

[The Real McCoy]

There's an article in last week's Newsweek (Feb 6, 2006) about negotiations between U.S. military officers and top insurgency officials. Apparently they're teaming up to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq. This coming from the same magazine who just recently pictured the president in a bubble on the cover.

 

[LeftyHenry]

The thing is, they may be down officially but 25 marines have died so far this month which is 25 too many.

 

[LeftyHenry]

There's an article in last week's Newsweek (Feb 6, 2006) about negotiations between U.S. military officers and top insurgency officials. Apparently they're teaming up to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq. This coming from the same magazine who just recently pictured the president in a bubble on the cover.

I read about that somewhere else but I don't think they're actually teaming up. I think they were meeting or a truce or something.

 

[The Real McCoy]

I read about that somewhere else but I don't think they're actually teaming up. I think they were meeting or a truce or something.

They've got a common enemy in both Zarqawi and Iranian jihadists.

 

[Stinger]

The thing is, they may be down officially but 25 marines have died so far this month which is 25 too many.

Well how many would not be to many in the fight against the terrorist who want to kill us and establish a Iraq where the people are free to elect their government and have the freedoms we do? And can you admit that an over 40% decrease in the insurgent attacks against mostly Iraqi citizens is a good thing?

 

[mixedmedia]

I note the pro-Saddam faction here is also very quiet about it. It's really a great developement, shows we continue to move towards the goals and nothing. The left has staked it's ground and it's defeat in Iraq so they can take back power.

Who exactly are the pro-Saddam faction here?

 

[LeftyHenry]

Well how many would not be to many in the fight against the terrorist who want to kill us and establish a Iraq where the people are free to elect their government and have the freedoms we do? And can you admit that an over 40% decrease in the insurgent attacks against mostly Iraqi citizens is a good thing?

Wait the terrrorists want to esablish a free Iraq?? That's weird


Anyhow, 40% decrease is good but think of it like this. There weren't car bombings before we went in right? And there weren't Marines dying either. So we have to make it so it's like before. We're not running this war well so let's fix it.

 

[Stinger]

Who exactly are the pro-Saddam faction here?

Those who opposed his removal.

 

[mixedmedia]

Those who opposed his removal.

Hmmmmm.....so following that logic you are pro-Hugo Chavez? I mean, unless of course you support invading Venezuela.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Those who opposed his removal.

No those people who you are refering to are the ones who didn't think starting a war in Iraq was nessecary at the time. Those people wanted to catch Bin Laden, not get sidetracked. I mean did we really have to kill 2000+ marines?

BTW why start with Iraq? why not Nuclear N. Korea? Why not Cuba? Why not Sudan? Why oil rich Iraq?

 

[LeftyHenry]

They've got a common enemy in both Zarqawi and Iranian jihadists.

True. I read an article by the AP online about Shiites attacking Al Quedas.

 

[Stinger]

Wait the terrrorists want to esablish a free Iraq?? That's weird


Originally Posted by Stinger
Well how many would not be to many in the fight against the terrorist who want to kill us and establish a Iraq where the people are free to elect their government and have the freedoms we do? And can you admit that an over 40% decrease in the insurgent attacks against mostly Iraqi citizens is a good thing?

Hmmmm let's edit to make more clearer to you

Originally Posted by Stinger
Well how many would not be to many in the fight against the terrorist who want to kill us. Well how many would not be to many to establish a Iraq where the people are free to elect their government and have the freedoms we do? And can you admit that an over 40% decrease in the insurgent attacks against mostly Iraqi citizens is a good thing?

Clearer now?

Anyhow, 40% decrease is good but think of it like this. There weren't car bombings before we went in right?

Nope just mass murder by the hundreds of thousands and threat for much much more.

And there weren't Marines dying either.

Well yes there were, in Afghanistan. How many are too many in Afgahnistan? How about training accidents how many Marines killed in training accidents are too many?

So we have to make it so it's like before. We're not running this war well so let's fix it.

You don't think our military is trying?

 

[LeftyHenry]

Nope just mass murder by the hundreds of thousands and threat for much much more.

Sure but why start in oil rich Iraq? Why not Sudan? Why not Niger where little kids are dying? Why not Cuba a mile away from us. Why not N. Korea with Nuclear weapons. There are far worse killings in other countries. Oil is the reason we chose Iraq. It's the only difference in between Iraq and those other countries where people are starving. For me, oil is not a good reason to put 2000+ American soldiers lives on the line.

Well yes there were, in Afghanistan. How many are too many in Afgahnistan? How about training accidents how many Marines killed in training accidents are too many?

Afghanistan we were actually fighting for something. We were trying to find he terrorist who killed 1000's of Americans. Then we decided to be like a kid with ADD and run after someone else letting him plot in peace.

You don't think our military is trying?

Nope. Pulling out troops isn't going to solve anything because more marines are dying.

 

[The Real McCoy]

No those people who you are refering to are the ones who didn't think starting a war in Iraq was nessecary at the time. Those people wanted to catch Bin Laden, not get sidetracked.

Um... we're still in Afghanistan looking for bin Laden, Zawahiri et al. in that area. Even if we catch them, then what?

I mean did we really have to kill 2000+ marines?

WE didn't kill 2000+ soldiers (not just Marines) any more than WE killed over 100,000 of our own in WW2 of 50,000 in Korea or hundreds of thousands of American soldiers who've died for a noble cause throughout our nation's history.

BTW why start with Iraq? why not Nuclear N. Korea? Why not Cuba? Why not Sudan? Why oil rich Iraq?

N. Korea is much more China's problem/responsibility than it is ours. They also have a military of over a million strong, not exactly a walk in the park invasion.

Cuba... Castro's almost done for and in terms of National Security, they pose no serious threat to us.

Sudan... you may have a case there but the bigger picture in Iraq is ME reform and Sudan (like Afghanistan) is too remote in attaining that goal.

Why oil rich Iraq? Besides Hussein's regime, it's in the heart of the Middle East. Being much more secular than most of it's neighbors, it was the ideal country to free and plant the seeds of democracy.

 

[Stinger]

Hmmmmm.....so following that logic you are pro-Hugo Chavez? I mean, unless of course you support invading Venezuela.

No, we didn't engage in his removal did we. And last I checked it's not the official policy of this country as it was with Saddam nor has the UN issued resolutions authorizing it. Now if he does invade his neighbors, use WMD against his neighbors and his own citizens, and the UN and our government issues resolutions authorizing his removal and I don't support them, then yes I would be pro-Chavez.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Oh Great Here we go again.

Um... we're still in Afghanistan looking for bin Laden, Zawahiri et al. in that area. Even if we catch them, then what?

We have as many soldiers there as there are cops in manahattan

WE didn't kill 2000+ soldiers (not just Marines) any more than WE killed over 100,000 of our own in WW2 of 50,000 in Korea or hundreds of thousands of American soldiers who've died for a noble cause throughout our nation's history.

How Dare you compare WWII to Iraq! In WWII and Korea we put OUR men on the line for a cause. Here we're putting them on the line based on a lie and propaganda and oil.

N. Korea is much more China's problem/responsibility than it is ours. They also have a military of over a million strong, not exactly a walk in the park invasion.

Yes let's seek the easy route then shall we? Since GOP is so big on National Security and China is really going to save our asses

Cuba... Castro's almost done for and in terms of National Security, they pose no serious threat to us.

Castro done and then another Castro party leader comes like his brother or cousin.

AND anyway I thought we were going after dictators since those famed WMDs in Iraq haven't showed up.

Sudan... you may have a case there but the bigger picture in Iraq is ME reform and Sudan (like Afghanistan) is too remote in attaining that goal.

Why oil rich Iraq? Besides Hussein's regime, it's in the heart of the Middle East. Being much more secular than most of it's neighbors, it was the ideal country to free and plant the seeds of democracy.

We're not a Democrazy. We're a Representative Republic.

And So what? All those countries I stated are ideal to plant your seeds. Besides what business ,besides catching Osama and putting a McDonalds in Every Oil Rich country, do we really have in the Middle East. We're not team America. We have enough problems on the homefront ,in case you forgot, like SS and Healthcare crisises.

 

[Stinger]

No those people who you are refering to are the ones who didn't think starting a war in Iraq was nessecary at the time.

We were already at war with Iraq, just under a cease fire and no those people supported him staying in powerm they were pro-Saddam.

Those people wanted to catch Bin Laden,

They were not mutually exclusive.

not get sidetracked.

We aren't. And we didn't invade Iraq for 14 months after we had already run the Taliban out and OBL into hiding. Are you making the case that our entire foriegn policy hinges on OBL'sw capture?

I mean did we really have to kill 2000+ marines?

"We" didn't kill them.

BTW why start with Iraq? why not Nuclear N. Korea? Why not Cuba? Why not Sudan? Why oil rich Iraq?

You believe we should have invaded N. Korea first or Cuba at all?