Insurgent attacks down

[Navy Pride]

Nobody really thinks he should remain in power. We who are against the war don't like the fact that we were lied to in front of our faces for the sake of oil. We think there are better ways to spend tax payers money then on bullshit wars.

Well if GWB lied so di Clinton, Kerry, Reid and Pelosi because they all said tha Saddam had WOMD.........

 

[LeftyHenry]

Well if GWB lied so di Clinton, Kerry, Reid and Pelosi because they all said tha Saddam had WOMD.........

I'm not a republican or a democrat. I think the repubs are a bunch of heartless robots, while the dems are busy flopping around the room. I tend to side with the dems more often since they are more left leaning but I don't really like either party. I don't give a **** what Clinton or Kerry said because they, like Bush, are partisan politicians.

 

[Navy Pride]

I'm not a republican or a democrat. I think the repubs are a bunch of heartless robots, while the dems are busy flopping around the room. I tend to side with the dems more often since they are more left leaning but I don't really like either party. I don't give a **** what Clinton or Kerry said because they, like Bush, are partisan politicians.

I have a flash for you.....Every politician is partisan.......

 

[LeftyHenry]

I have a flash for you.....Every politician is partisan.......

Yeah but I don't support their party.

 

[Navy Pride]

Yeah but I don't support their party.

You said you support dems over republicans...

 

[LeftyHenry]

You said you support dems over republicans...

just there ideals. I don't like there politicians.

 

[Navy Pride]

just there ideals. I don't like there politicians.

Huh?????

 

[Stinger]

No. But at the time, I did not support this war at that time.

Well at what time were you planning to support it, it had been 12 years. So you didn't support leaving him in power but you didn't support removing him from power. Do you understand how a reasonable mind can see a conflict there?

That does not mean I was or ever have been "pro-Saddam."

OK why weren't you then?

And for good measure, now that we are in Iraq, I support our staying there until the job is done. Just because I don't agree with the war, doesn't mean I am against any US intervention in the interest of a healthier ME society.

Well if you supported him being in power then what would you have done about him.

 

[Stinger]

Nobody really thinks he should remain in power.

So you wanted him removed from power you just didn't want him removed?

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Well I just wanted to prove that you data doen't prove anything.

Those are from the official numbers from our military, they prove EXACTLY what they say, you just can't stand the fact that it's getting better over there and we just might be successful.

A drop of over 40% and it just "can be.."

BUT MONKEY WARNING BUT MONKEY WARNING

Sorry just tried to be scientific about the issue, but it seem to hard to understand a basic scientific argument. But I will make one last try for the fun of it.

"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."

That are the formula for level of violence?

number of atacks against military forces*average wounded and killed in every atack+number of atacks against civilians*average wounded and killed in every atack

Variables presented in your text 1 of 4

How can you then make any real conclusions from that the violence have droped?

Sorry but it's fun to be a pain in the ass ecpecially if you can be it with science.

 

[Stinger]

Me>> Did you support his remaining in power.

No.

Why not?

 

[Stinger]

Sorry just tried to be scientific about the issue, but it seem to hard to understand a basic scientific argument. But I will make one last try for the fun of it.



That are the formula for level of violence?

number of atacks against military forces*average wounded and killed in every atack+number of atacks against civilians*average wounded and killed in every atack

Variables presented in your text 1 of 4

How can you then make any real conclusions from that the violence have droped?

Sorry but it's fun to be a pain in the ass ecpecially if you can be it with science.

So if I look back in the archives I will find you also saying that when the attacks surged from 400 up to 700 that was not evidence that things were getting worse? In fact you were probably trying to make the case against the anti-war side that an almost doubling of attacks could mean things were getting better.

Yeah right. Yes a fall of almost half in the number of attacks over a three month period the insurgence can muster is a sign they are being hurt. You just can't stand it.

 

[mixedmedia]

Well at what time were you planning to support it, it had been 12 years. So you didn't support leaving him in power but you didn't support removing him from power. Do you understand how a reasonable mind can see a conflict there?

Do you understand how a reasonable mind can see brutality all over the world in the form of dictatorships and mindless slaughter by rogue militia factions and thus not share an absolute conviction that Iraq was the right war at the right time?

OK why weren't you then?

The same way I am not pro-Kim Jong Il or pro-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Are you?

Well if you supported him being in power then what would you have done about him.

The question is not what I would have done. It is what we might have done differently. We were under no compulsion to wage this war at that time. And you know it.
Try not denying a reasonable person their reasonable doubts. It's just not nice, dammit.

 

[Stinger]

Nobody really thinks he should remain in power.

Why didn't you think he should remain in power?

We who are against the war don't like the fact that we were lied to in front of our faces for the sake of oil. We think there are better ways to spend tax payers money then on bullshit wars.

You weren't lied to at all, the reasons were clearly stated in 1998 when it became the official policy of the United States that he be removed by force if necessary, when the UN voted to remove him and when the Congress reaffirmed our policy. So at that point it was time to choose sides.

We wanted him removed, Saddam wanted to stay.

Did you support the US or did you support Saddam.

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
Well at what time were you planning to support it, it had been 12 years. So you didn't support leaving him in power but you didn't support removing him from power. Do you understand how a reasonable mind can see a conflict there?

Do you understand .............?

Your attempt to answer my question with a question fails, try again.

The same way I am not pro-Kim Jong Il or pro-Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Are you?

We do not have Causus Belli against them do we, it is not the official policy of the United States to remove them is it, the UN hasn't voted to remove them have they, they haven't violated a cease-fire agreement have they.
They are not serving at our pleasure are they. Apples and oranges.

The question is not what I would have done.

Yes it is and I note no answer.

It is what we might have done differently.

And I note you suggest nothing.

We were under no compulsion to wage this war at that time. And you know it.

Yes we were we had reached the precipice. It was either we act or else his plan, as fully documented by Kay and Duelfer, to get the sanctions lifted and his ability to act as he pleased would have happened. It took over 400,000 troops and 3 Carrier Battlegroups JUST to get the inspectors back in for one more failed attempt. He STILL would not cooperate even with that force pointing straight at him. We know he had bribed the French, the Germans and the Russians into supporting the lifting of the sanctions which would have happened. And then what?

Try not denying a reasonable person their reasonable doubts. It's just not nice, dammit.

You have not expressed reasonable doubts only the lack of will. Fortuniately out leaders had it.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

So if I look back in the archives I will find you also saying that when the attacks surged from 400 up to 700 that was not evidence that things were getting worse? In fact you were probably trying to make the case against the anti-war side that an almost doubling of attacks could mean things were getting better.

Yeah right. Yes a fall of almost half in the number of attacks over a three month period the insurgence can muster is a sign they are being hurt. You just can't stand it.

Yes I could have been more objective in my arguments. That I could say that a drop from 700 atacks to 400 could both mean that the violence have droped with 80 % as it could mean that the violence have increased with 20 %. Because frankly number of atacks in itsefl doesn't mean anything. That can you also see if you look in the archives that I focus on the consequences of the atacks not the numbers of them. Even if I stand with my statement in this thread that 400 atacks three years after the "war end" is an indication that things isn't exactly is going as planed before the war. Also as you know it's more to fun to find faulty logic in the arguements of the opposit side. Or can you honestly say that you bash both side equale then it come to faulty arguments?

 

[Stinger]

Yes I could have been more objective in my arguments. That I could say that a drop from 700 atacks to 400 could both mean that the violence have droped with 80 % as it could mean that the violence have increased with 20 %. Because frankly number of atacks in itsefl doesn't mean anything. That can you also see if you look in the archives that I focus on the consequences of the atacks not the numbers of them. Even if I stand with my statement in this thread that 400 atacks three years after the "war end" is an indication that things isn't exactly is going as planed before the war. Also as you know it's more to fun to find faulty logic in the arguements of the opposit side. Or can you honestly say that you bash both side equale then it come to faulty arguments?

First your premise that is is faulty logic is not proven. If traffic accidents fall 43% I think it is reasonable to assume that it is "getting better" on the roads since there is a 43% less chance I will get in an accident. If insurgent attacks fall 43% then there is a 43% less chance either our soldiers or an innocent Iraqi will be a victem of such an attack, in my view that is better. If you want to argue different then present evidence to support it not mere assertions.

You just can't stand it can you.

 

[mixedmedia]

Your attempt to answer my question with a question fails, try again.

In spite of your arrogance, I will try again. Here, does this sit better with you in the form of a statement?
Because I see brutality all over the world in the form of dictatorships and mindless slaughter by rogue militia factions and thus do not share an absolute conviction that Iraq was the right war at the right time.

We do not have Causus Belli against them do we, it is not the official policy of the United States to remove them is it, the UN hasn't voted to remove them have they, they haven't violated a cease-fire agreement have they.
They are not serving at our pleasure are they. Apples and oranges.

So until we embarked upon the mission to remove him from power you were pro-Saddam. During the first Gulf War you were pro-Saddam. Before we resolved to unseat the Taliban you were pro-Taliban. Since we have yet to go into Sudan, I take it you are also pro-Janjaweed militia. Okay, got ya. One little problem, this sort of "reasoning" is a ****-poor excuse for taunting people with the label "pro-Saddam" instead of recognizing they are simply against this war.

Yes it is and I note no answer.



And I note you suggest nothing.



Yes we were we had reached the precipice. It was either we act or else his plan, as fully documented by Kay and Duelfer, to get the sanctions lifted and his ability to act as he pleased would have happened. It took over 400,000 troops and 3 Carrier Battlegroups JUST to get the inspectors back in for one more failed attempt. He STILL would not cooperate even with that force pointing straight at him. We know he had bribed the French, the Germans and the Russians into supporting the lifting of the sanctions which would have happened. And then what?



You have not expressed reasonable doubts only the lack of will. Fortuniately out leaders had it.

The rest of this I really have no comment on as it is only diversion from the issue I took with your calling people like me, "pro-Saddamists." You want to know what I would have done. Give me a break. By taking exception to being called "pro-Saddam" I have offered no proof of my ability to make war or not decisions on the behalf of my government.

Your cursory assessment of my "lack of will" is duly noted. As is your tendency to talk down to anyone who doesn't agree with your perfunctory assumptions.

 

[Stinger]

In spite of your arrogance, I will try again.

Hmm asking that you respond to a direct inquiery with andanswer and not a question is arrogance? That's a new one.

Here, does this sit better with you in the form of a statement?
Because I see brutality all over the world in the form of dictatorships and mindless slaughter by rogue militia factions and thus do not share an absolute conviction that Iraq was the right war at the right time.

So if we can't remove EVERY dictator and EVERY threat then we should not remove any? An interesting new concept in foreign policy but one I don't think you'll find much support for. Saddam was sitting at our pleasure under a cease-fire agreement which he was routinely violating. This was a continuation of hostilities HE brought upon HIMSELF when he invaded Kuwait on top of what we had begun to learn about his WMD desires and ties to terrorist groups. The Unites States Congress had passed the Iraqi Liberation Act which called for his removal, by force if necessary. There were umpteen UN resolutions calling for the same. There was/is no other Dictator/Country that is comparable to that situation.

So until we embarked upon the mission to remove him from power you were pro-Saddam.

Until all of the above yes I pro-Saddam, he was the ruler and we had no reason to oppose or seek his removal. Once we did it became a matter are you for him or against him.

During the first Gulf War you were pro-Saddam.

Until he invaded Kuwait and we had to force his removal and we found out what he was up to and he began to violate the accords under which he remained in power which called for his removal. At that time it was time to decide who you supported Saddam or the coalition.

Before we resolved to unseat the Taliban you were pro-Taliban. Since we have yet to go into Sudan, I take it you are also pro-Janjaweed militia. Okay, got ya. One little problem, this sort of "reasoning" is a ****-poor excuse for taunting people with the label "pro-Saddam" instead of recognizing they are simply against this war.

Again you engage in equating these with the situation Saddam faced. Those governments were not under a formal cease fire with us, we had not resolved to remove them, the UN had not voted to remove them.

The rest of this I really have no comment on as it is only diversion from the issue I took with your calling people like me, "pro-Saddamists." You want to know what I would have done. Give me a break. By taking exception to being called "pro-Saddam" I have offered no proof of my ability to make war or not decisions on the behalf of my government.

Then why engage in the debate? If you can't make up your own mind..............? How can you say we were wrong to remove him, or that it was not the "right war at the right time" if you have no alternative and can't state your own position.

Your cursory assessment of my "lack of will" is duly noted. As is your tendency to talk down to anyone who doesn't agree with your perfunctory assumptions.

That's not talking down, it's exposing the reality of your position. It's very easy to say that you wanted him removed from power and then not take responsibilty for the cost of that with the big BUT I didn't want to do it. There comes a time when action has to be taken. I have asked you why not now and when would have been better, I get no response.

 

[MSgt]

Despite the risk of death, Iraqis of every background came out to vote on two separate significant occasions last year. Despite the fear and the grim picture being painted on the situation in Iraq, the terrorists proved powerless to halt the country's progress. Despite the murder and the terror to instill deep fear upon people who would be free, the Iraqi people continue to send a clear mission to Islam’s most perverted adherents and the Arab elite throughout the region. Never before in the Arab world have a country's citizens been permitted to vote on the laws that would govern them. Even if Iraq must endure further blood shed, this is a historic moment in the Middle East. One that will prove to be a turning point for the Arab and Persian future and one that will be a historical era for our future security. Our media's and individual response? "These votes don't matter." "The Iraqi government is a puppet government." "Their new constitution's flawed." "Iraq's Sunni Arabs will resort to civil war." The voices of doom are always in a hurry to turn any bit of light into the grimmest story line.


When the Marines took down Fallujah the second time after being halted by politicians just prior to mission accomplashment the first time, we began the strategically important process of interdicting the insurgents' infiltration routes from the Syrian border into the heart of Iraq. One ratline followed the Euphrates River corridor — running from Syria to Husayba on the Syrian border and then through Qaim, Rawa, Haditha, Asad, Hit, and Fallujah to Baghdad. The other follows the course of the Tigris — from the north through Mosul-Tel Afar to Tikrit and on to Baghdad. Operations followed throughout the spring and summer of 2005. While the earlier operations succeeded in keeping the pressure on the insurgents in Al-Anbar province we could not prevent the insurgents from abandoning one town and moving to another not threatened by allied forces.

That began to change around September 2005 and one of the reasons is that our forces are able to apply simultaneous force against the insurgent strongholds and, more important, to stay in the area because many Iraqi units are now able to conduct combat operations with minimal U.S. support. This kind of information is usually not a matter for public attention, because every time a soldier of “Allah” decides to get to heaven faster, he destroys civilian lives for the entertainment of media cameras.

This is the reason the insurgent attacks are lower. They simply have nowhere to hide and nowhere to run to once they are found.


By the way.......by contrast, it took 14 months to establish a police force in Germany and 10 years to begin training a new German army. I'd say we have come a long way in "just" three years. Perhaps some of you should get off your asses and throw on a uniform and show us how it is done.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

First your premise that is is faulty logic is not proven. If traffic accidents fall 43% I think it is reasonable to assume that it is "getting better" on the roads since there is a 43% less chance I will get in an accident. If insurgent attacks fall 43% then there is a 43% less chance either our soldiers or an innocent Iraqi will be a victem of such an attack, in my view that is better. If you want to argue different then present evidence to support it not mere assertions.

You just can't stand it can you.

Good you illustrated it perfectly why your reasoning is faulty. Because yes it can be good that trafic accidents drop with 43 %. But that if the cars accident drop but the bus accident increase?

As you can see it is really big diffrence between diffrent atacks:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/bodycount3.php?ts=1140122907#columnkey

Some only one person is killed in others 50 are killed exactly like my car/bus example.

But I will tell you that I can't stand is that still more and more people are added to that list. Three years after the most powerfull country in the world "liberated" Iraq.

 

[mixedmedia]

Hmm asking that you respond to a direct inquiery with andanswer and not a question is arrogance? That's a new one.

Avoiding the very clear point I am getting at with petty and condescending quibbling about whether my answer was in the form of a question is arrogant, yes. I notice that you refrained from commenting on my statement. Try again. :roll:

So if we can't remove EVERY dictator and EVERY threat then we should not remove any? An interesting new concept in foreign policy but one I don't think you'll find much support for. Saddam was sitting at our pleasure under a cease-fire agreement which he was routinely violating. This was a continuation of hostilities HE brought upon HIMSELF when he invaded Kuwait on top of what we had begun to learn about his WMD desires and ties to terrorist groups. The Unites States Congress had passed the Iraqi Liberation Act which called for his removal, by force if necessary. There were umpteen UN resolutions calling for the same. There was/is no other Dictator/Country that is comparable to that situation.

No what you are proposing is that I should consider myself pro-everything until my government decides to do something about it.

Until all of the above yes I pro-Saddam, he was the ruler and we had no reason to oppose or seek his removal. Once we did it became a matter are you for him or against him.

Nice to know.....it looks to me like you're stuck with it.

Until he invaded Kuwait and we had to force his removal and we found out what he was up to and he began to violate the accords under which he remained in power which called for his removal. At that time it was time to decide who you supported Saddam or the coalition.
Again you engage in equating these with the situation Saddam faced. Those governments were not under a formal cease fire with us, we had not resolved to remove them, the UN had not voted to remove them.

These are irrelevant to the issue of whether one is pro something. Can I assume that since abortion is legal in the states then you are pro-abortion and that anyone that calls themselves anti-abortion is only lying to themselves because it is not possible to be anti something that is not actively being modified or changed by our government?

Then why engage in the debate? If you can't make up your own mind..............? How can you say we were wrong to remove him, or that it was not the "right war at the right time" if you have no alternative and can't state your own position.

I am engaging in the debate of the issue of "pro-Saddamists" - nothing else. You are the one incessantly trying to steer the debate away from the reason I replied to your post in the first place.

That's not talking down, it's exposing the reality of your position. It's very easy to say that you wanted him removed from power and then not take responsibilty for the cost of that with the big BUT I didn't want to do it. There comes a time when action has to be taken. I have asked you why not now and when would have been better, I get no response.

You don't even know my position, dude, so don't flatter yourself. I didn't offer it and I don't intend to. Your manner of debate is oppressive.

 

[Navy Pride]

I guess the question that begs to be asked is why you hear very little in the mainstream media that attacks are down in Iraq..........They are very quick to tell us when attacks are up........

 

[MSgt]

I guess the question that begs to be asked is why you hear very little in the mainstream media that attacks are down in Iraq..........They are very quick to tell us when attacks are up........

Because it's not where the money is. Failure and tragedy is what people are interested in. For some, it is exciting. For others, it is mere exoneration for doing nothing while criticizing.

 

[Navy Pride]

Because it's not where the money is. Failure and tragedy is what people are interested in. For some, it is exciting. For others, it is mere exoneration for doing nothing while criticizing.

No question that is part of it but the bigger part is the hate of this president by the media and they would much rather publish things that damage him then anything that might help him...........