Uh-Oh, are the politicans fibbing again(RE:Iraq)?

[faust9]

This just worked its way into CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/23/rumsfeld.iraq.ap/index.html

I find it odd how the inhabitants of the ivory tower (1600 Pennsylvania ave) can keep on preaching how well things are going when the evidence is quite the contrary. There was a report yesterday or the day before that the Guerrillas are getting better at making bombs---bombs used to kill or maim American GI's. The more advanced the "insurgents" become the harder it becomes for us to leave. We are training an effective military unit, by proxy because we have stayed long enough for those with a lesser talent for war to be rooted out while the truly adroit killers have honed their skills.

This is a conundrum that a lot of pro-conflict people don't understand. For every 1000 bad guys killed one escapes and learns from his experience thus making him a harder target the next time. The now better warrior can impart his little bit of knowledge to the next would-be killer and in so doing create a new breed of insurgent. The US military training program is very structured with only a relative handful of special forces. The majority of or soldiers have been taught to do things a certain way---almost programmed---which allows an opposing force to probe for weaknesses and exploit any weaknesses found.

I can go on. I can give examples of the pavlovian responses GI's have (black man sized and shaped shooting targets are like that for a reason and boot camp is not there to make soldiers learn how to fold cloths) but in the end the bad guys will get worse, and or soldiers will still continue to become names mentioned on some late night news program.

I wish Dick and Bonzo would would simply tell the truth for once. I wish they would stop misleading the public with grand stories of Kool-Aid rivers and gum drop trees when the stark reality is the insurgency is growing. The insurgents are become better. The insurgents are building better bombs. The insurgents are producing better snipers. The longer we stay the better the insurgents get, and the more likely a military coup upon or departure becomes.

My 2 cents.

 

[faust9]

This is why we have, and will continue to have, more of the same:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/i...&en=a5c2f4e54df38e53&ei=5094&partner=homepage

After pausing to take a breath, Mr. Rumsfeld said, "Senator, I've offered my resignation to the president twice." President Bush did not accept the resignations, the defense secretary said.

Keep a loyal barrier around you at all times no matter what the cost I guess. To heck with competence when you have loyalty(from the look of things the two are mutually exclusive to Bush).

 

[Hurkyl]

It's easy to think things are going badly when you only look at the negative and completely ignore the positive.


You claim that the insurgency is growing stronger, but even your reference doesn't suggest that.


Have you considered what will happen if we left? I don't think I've ever seen someone advocating getting out of Iraq give any sort of serious thought as to what would happen there if we left.


You also make it sound like that the insurgents are the only ones gaining experience from conflict. What about Iraqi security forces, and the US armed forces? Do you think the Iraqi security forces would have fared better if we never helped at all?

 

[SOS2008]

To quote my earlier post in the thread on the Downing Street Memo:

If you want to talk about all the good things that are resulting from the invasion, feel free to start a new thread on this topic. But don't forget the price that has been paid, including a divided nation and alienation of the majority of the world.

In the meantime insurgent attacks are now daily, and are killing larger numbers of people (just read the news--MSNBC, CNN, etc.) Also, just reported on the news, Iraq has become the #1 training ground for terrorists from around the world. Uh, if you recall, people who were against the war said the invasion would only cause an increase in terrorists. Yes, good job indeed.

We know we are in a mess--at least acknowledge this. Can we just leave? No, but we should set clearer bench marks and time tables. These don't have to be carved in stone, but I wouldn't run a company without a solid business plan, and certainly not a war in which people are losing lives every day.

 

[Hurkyl]

I never said I want to talk about the positive. I'm saying that you can't argue the negatives outweigh the positives without talking about the positives.

 

[Informal Logic]

The OP is about the need for truth about Iraq from the Bush administration, and as with everything else he has great difficulty with truth. Positive things? Only one--it is nice to know Saddam is not in power anymore. Has it been worth it? Not remotely. Furthermore, since regime change is illegal, particularly via invasion without "clear and present danger," Saddam could have been dealt with in a different way. It is time for everyone to face the dismal reality of this war, and for Bush to face the music.

 

[False Prophet]

Hooray for the war! Let's give the terrorists some targets! Before it used to be they would have to save up, sneak into U.S.A, get pilot licenses, etc. and go through all this hassle. Now there's a buffet right here at home! The war on terror is a great idea. Let's give them homefield advantage! Hello?? The war on terror could have been fought on United States' terms. Not anymore. Before where was the closest good place to blow yourself up in a blaze of glory to Allah? Israel?

 

[False Prophet]

If these are indeed "terrorist" attacks that have already taken more than 1700 American lives then the terrorists have already claimed more than half the toll from 9/11. So even if we prevent any more attacks on the magnitude of 9/11, we are still giving them a bountiful and endless supply of little freebies to add up to far more. I say "endless" because even after Coalition troops withdraw, the new government will always be revolted against, not to mention even more hatred and justification against America.

 

[1123581321]

It's easy to think things are going badly when you only look at the negative and completely ignore the positive.


You claim that the insurgency is growing stronger, but even your reference doesn't suggest that.


Have you considered what will happen if we left? I don't think I've ever seen someone advocating getting out of Iraq give any sort of serious thought as to what would happen there if we left.


You also make it sound like that the insurgents are the only ones gaining experience from conflict. What about Iraqi security forces, and the US armed forces? Do you think the Iraqi security forces would have fared better if we never helped at all?

i didn't get to say it first, darn.

fibonacci

 

[SOS2008]

i didn't get to say it first, darn.

fibonacci

What positive accomplishment is being ignored (evidence please)? Do you feel the insurgency is in it's last throes as Cheney claims (evidence please)? What will happen if we leave--now or later, and how much later--years from now? If only you folks had to pay the bill, and it was only you or your son/daughter fighting in Iraq...if only. Because the rest of us don't want to.

 

[1123581321]

Hooray for the war! Let's give the terrorists some targets! Before it used to be they would have to save up, sneak into U.S.A, get pilot licenses, etc. and go through all this hassle. Now there's a buffet right here at home! The war on terror is a great idea. Let's give them homefield advantage! Hello?? The war on terror could have been fought on United States' terms. Not anymore. Before where was the closest good place to blow yourself up in a blaze of glory to Allah? Israel?

the arab terrorists think that america is the root of all evil. they will never stop. what is a millitary for, may i ask? if you said, to protect the citizens of their nation, you are correct. what is the us millitary doing in iraq? that's right, they are protecting americans, but are also paving the way for democracy in the middle east. usually, where ever there is a strong democratic government, there is peace. do you want a war that will be bloody (which this is far from, think about this fact: duering a test run of the normandy invasion, 3000, yes three thousand soldiers were killed in one day in an accident! right now, we are up to 1700.) yes, one man killed is too many, but its not like its a blood bath over there. oh yeah, this is on the US's terms, when they come to us, innocent people die. do you want to die? i don't, and i don't think you do. you are a lot safer. of course, the borders could be a lot tighter, and until that happens, you are not truly safe. sure they will hate us, but they hate us anyway, so i say screw them. they want to kill me, so what should i care what they think about me. what about the americans? we were pretty pissed off when 3000 of our people were killed, how come no body thinks that we have a right to fight back? they can attack us, but we can't attack them? that's a double standard, and it needs to stop. if someone hates you, and wants to kill you, would you feel safe with them roaming the streets? would you do something about it, or would you curl up under your bed and hope for the best? the liberal news media never reports about the thousands of terrorists killed, why not. we are winning, it is getting better, but we can't quit now, or the new iraq will crumble, and we will be back in square one. the attention span of the american public is short. after a war lasts for more than three months, its time to get out. if you get a song that lasts more than four minutes, many people turn it off because they can't focus. so many americans give up on things if it is too hard, and hire someone else to do it for them. that needs to stop.
i could keep going, but i will stop at that, and continue if you need further convinsing.

fibonacci

 

[Pengwuino]

I guess AGAIN, i must inform the uninformed here such as SOS as to the good going on in Iraq that people ignore.

95% of children attend school, up 60% from before the war (UNICEF, April 2004)
The port of Umm Qasar is up and running again for the first time in 20 years ( Andrew Natsios, US Agency for International Development)
Over 3.5 million children immunized (UNICEF, 2003)
Electrical energy production was slightly greater hten pre-war levels in October of 2003 (USAID, October 2003)

But I am sure its just selective memory right SOS? :) gimme a hug :D

 

[1123581321]

What positive accomplishment is being ignored (evidence please)? Do you feel the insurgency is in it's last throes as Cheney claims (evidence please)? What will happen if we leave--now or later, and how much later--years from now? If only you folks had to pay the bill, and it was only you or your son/daughter fighting in Iraq...if only. Because the rest of us don't want to.

the way i see it, the insurgency is not in its "last throes", mainly because of the unwillingness of the american public to fight. war is bad, i know that, but sometimes you need it. look at the democratic elections. iraq has a government. sure, it is unstable, but that's why we need to stay. their security forces are being trained. i watched a press confrince a while back that showed the numbers of iraqi security forces, and they are growing. i don't feel like doing research, but i think their numbers are in the 100000 neighborhood. there are 30 (50?) some regiments, where as in 2 years ago there were 2 or 3. again, don't quote me, but those are close enough. i plan to enlist, hopefully enter west point. i am willing to fight, and die. i don't want to, but if my country needs me, i will. i am not gung-ho, and i am not some punk that thinks rambo movies are an accurite discription of war. i think war is like that first part of saving privat ryan. remember that, it looked like hell. i am not excited about it, but i want to do something to make the world a better place. if you have a son/daughter fighting in Iraq, then i wish him/her well and hope he/she gets back safely. remember, they were not drafted, it is an all voulnteer army. if they didn't want to fight, they have that choice. i am glad that soldiers choose to be soldiers, because someone needs to do it, until the end of time.
again, i will stop because i tend to ramble.

fibonacci

 

[Pengwuino]

That 100,000 number isn't very accurate. As of a few months ago, only like, 5,000 people had more hten 6 months of experience or training and about 20,000 with 3 months. I read it, as i said, a few months ago so i can't remember very well.

The OP is funny because he's saying the admin. is lieing when he's listening to a bunch of liars himself. The NYTimes doesn't get subscriptions by reporting the newest school to open or the latest batch of immunizations :-/.

I think we alllllllllll need to realize we just can't leave. Compare it to Rwanda and what happened to the UN. The UN "couldnt take it"... and this is what happened. There should be no doubt in anyone elses mind as to what will happen if we do the liberal thing and chicken out.

 

[SOS2008]

I guess AGAIN, i must inform the uninformed here such as SOS as to the good going on in Iraq that people ignore.

95% of children attend school, up 60% from before the war (UNICEF, April 2004)
The port of Umm Qasar is up and running again for the first time in 20 years ( Andrew Natsios, US Agency for International Development)
Over 3.5 million children immunized (UNICEF, 2003)
Electrical energy production was slightly greater hten pre-war levels in October of 2003 (USAID, October 2003)

But I am sure its just selective memory right SOS? :) gimme a hug :D

Hey, that's the kind of thing I was asking for (though a link would be good, and your info. should be shown as a verbatim paste inside quotation--to keep us all honest). Now, if only we didn't have record deficit spending in Iraq so we could increase our own education statistics, energy production, etc. here in the good ole U.S. And if only these wonderful things were worth it all--resulting in wining the war on terrorism and the hearts and minds of the people. Ah, nation building--isn't it great?!

 

[Pengwuino]

I gave you the website on another thread where we talked about this. It was one of those 'is this a lie' website like factcheck.org or snopes or snoopers or whatever its called.

Check that, here's the url. http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/r/rayreynolds.htm

And i don't really think we can put much of a price tag on 25 million people freed... and your post is confusing, how do you win the war on terrorism by increasing our own education statistics? We don't win by being narcassitic...

Now wheres my penguin hug :D

Dang, I am in that big reply box but there's no spell check... gigidygigidygoo!

 

[False Prophet]

the arab terrorists think that america is the root of all evil. they will never stop.

We're not going to change their minds. What I meant was why make it easy? I want to be a millionaire but I'm not likely winning the lottery. It's like we handed the terrorists the ticket to make it easy to realize their ambitions.

 

[False Prophet]

What does the war on terror have to do with democracy?

I have heard people talk about communism saying "it sounds good on paper but it doesn't work in real life"

Not to compare democracy to communism but the idea "a democratic society won't have terrorists/as many terrorists" is still only an idea, we have not yet seen it applied in this region successfully. So far not good...

 

[Pengwuino]

We're not going to change their minds. What I meant was why make it easy? I want to be a millionaire but I'm not likely winning the lottery. It's like we handed the terrorists the ticket to make it easy to realize their ambitions.

And we're killing huuuuugely disproportionate amounts of insurgents whereas on 9/11, we were being killed in huuuugely disproportionate amounts. And exactly how did they need to "realize their ambitions"? Two skyscrapers falling sure looked like someones ambitions being realized... or every other thing western countries have done in the middle east...

 

[SOS2008]

the way i see it, the insurgency is not in its "last throes", mainly because of the unwillingness of the american public to fight. war is bad, i know that, but sometimes you need it. look at the democratic elections. iraq has a government. sure, it is unstable, but that's why we need to stay. their security forces are being trained. i watched a press confrince a while back that showed the numbers of iraqi security forces, and they are growing. i don't feel like doing research, but i think their numbers are in the 100000 neighborhood. there are 30 (50?) some regiments, where as in 2 years ago there were 2 or 3. again, don't quote me, but those are close enough. i plan to enlist, hopefully enter west point. i am willing to fight, and die. i don't want to, but if my country needs me, i will. i am not gung-ho, and i am not some punk that thinks rambo movies are an accurite discription of war. i think war is like that first part of saving privat ryan. remember that, it looked like hell. i am not excited about it, but i want to do something to make the world a better place. if you have a son/daughter fighting in Iraq, then i wish him/her well and hope he/she gets back safely. remember, they were not drafted, it is an all voulnteer army. if they didn't want to fight, they have that choice. i am glad that soldiers choose to be soldiers, because someone needs to do it, until the end of time.
again, i will stop because i tend to ramble.

fibonacci

Fibster, what you posted was heart felt and touching. I am glad soldiers choose to be soldiers too. However, in gratitude we should not squander their lives--we should not send them to fight except as necessary to defend our country. I am standing up for them, as are other Americans. And when our country is against war, politicians should take heed of this.

 

[False Prophet]

Would a terrorist say "you know, I'm in a democracy. Screw the bomb, I'm throwing it away. I'm going to college!"

Right!

The government type could change but the PEOPLE there in the region won't...

 

[False Prophet]

And we're killing huuuuugely disproportionate amounts of insurgents whereas on 9/11, we were being killed in huuuugely disproportionate amounts.

If we weren't there would there be many "insurgents" to kill? How many of these disproportianate amount that we slaughtered needed to be slaughtered? How many rose up agains America because they were there rather than because they had an inveterate animosity towards USA AND would have attacked and carried it out successfully. Not many. So USA is killing who needs to be killed BECAUSE USA is there

 

[Pengwuino]

You seem to have a very narrow minded view of the world. The government of Iraq was like, say, teh Russian government of the past (Soviet Union). They controlled everything and all information was filtered or simply created. If people knew the REAL west, as through a democracy, they might stand down. They will then realize that the lies they were fed that made them hate hte US so much were in fact that, lies.

And your second opinion needs some factual backing. What statistic or fact can you cite that shows the US is killing people that don't need to be killed (and no, sending a mass emailing to an insurgent group shooting back at you doesn't cut it in Iraq)?

 

[SOS2008]

I gave you the website on another thread where we talked about this. It was one of those 'is this a lie' website like factcheck.org or snopes or snoopers or whatever its called.

Check that, here's the url. http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/r/rayreynolds.htm

And i don't really think we can put much of a price tag on 25 million people freed... and your post is confusing, how do you win the war on terrorism by increasing our own education statistics? We don't win by being narcassitic...

Now wheres my penguin hug :D

Dang, I am in that big reply box but there's no spell check... gigidygigidygoo!

25 million people freed? Don't you think this could have be done without paying such a high price, including many people who have died? Did we preserve freedom for Americans? No--that means we are not defending our country. And we won't win anything by shoving our beliefs down people's throats.

BTW, I know you've selected "advanced" to reply before, so you should know this gives you options to spell check, quote, etc. If you don't want to look like you're illiterate...

 

[False Prophet]

If people knew the REAL west, as through a democracy, they might stand down.

Haven't we made Iraq a democracy? Isn't that one of the nice accomplishements of this little war? Well it looks like some people aren't standing down...

And your second opinion needs some factual backing. What statistic or fact can you cite that shows the US is killing people that don't need to be killed (and no, sending a mass emailing to an insurgent group shooting back at you doesn't cut it in Iraq)?

You said it right there about what people : "insurgent group shooting back at you". Who would these be people be firing at if Saddam were in power?

Here's a whole page full of factual examples of some people who wouldn't need to be killed. Let me quote two:

"Foreign fighters

These are non-Iraqi Muslims, mostly Arabs from neighbouring countries, who have entered Iraq, primarily through the porous desert borders of Syria and Saudi Arabia, to assist the Iraqi insurgency. Many of these fighters are Wahabi fundamentalists who see Iraq as the new "field of jihad" in the battle against U.S. forces. It is generally believed that most are freelance fighters, but a few members of Al-Qaeda and the related group Ansar al-Islam, members of whom are suspected of infiltrating into the Sunni areas of Iraq through the mountainous northeastern border with Iran, may be involved..."

- These are people assisting the insurrection, taking advantage of the situation! These people weren't around the country at all when Saddam was around, let alone fighting coalition forces.

"Moqtada al-Sadr is suspected by the U.S. government to have ordered the assassination of the moderate Muslim Imam Abdul Majid al-Khoei, who returned from his exile in Britain and was stabbed to death in Najaf on April 12, 2003 by a group wielding knives and bayonets. Some members of the group claimed to have received their orders directly from al-Sadr. On March 29, 2004, the Coalition Provisional Authority shut down al-Sadr's daily newspaper, al-Hawza, claiming it was an incitement to violence, and on April 5, 2004, the coalition issued a warrant for al-Sadr's arrest in connection with al-Khoei's assassination. These acts, along with the arrest of one of Sadr's top aides and other motions to suppress the movement, resulted in thousands of people turning out to protest. The ensuing riots soon escalated into organized armed attacks by the Mahdi Army that initially led to the deaths of one Salvadoran and several American soldiers, as well as scores of insurgents and civilians."

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

 

[Art]

the arab terrorists think that america is the root of all evil. they will never stop. what is a millitary for, may i ask? if you said, to protect the citizens of their nation, you are correct. what is the us millitary doing in iraq? that's right, they are protecting americans, but are also paving the way for democracy in the middle east. usually, where ever there is a strong democratic government, there is peace. do you want a war that will be bloody (which this is far from, think about this fact: duering a test run of the normandy invasion, 3000, yes three thousand soldiers were killed in one day in an accident! right now, we are up to 1700.) yes, one man killed is too many, but its not like its a blood bath over there. oh yeah, this is on the US's terms, when they come to us, innocent people die. do you want to die? i don't, and i don't think you do. you are a lot safer. of course, the borders could be a lot tighter, and until that happens, you are not truly safe. sure they will hate us, but they hate us anyway, so i say screw them. they want to kill me, so what should i care what they think about me. what about the americans? we were pretty pissed off when 3000 of our people were killed, how come no body thinks that we have a right to fight back? they can attack us, but we can't attack them? that's a double standard, and it needs to stop. if someone hates you, and wants to kill you, would you feel safe with them roaming the streets? would you do something about it, or would you curl up under your bed and hope for the best? the liberal news media never reports about the thousands of terrorists killed, why not. we are winning, it is getting better, but we can't quit now, or the new iraq will crumble, and we will be back in square one. the attention span of the american public is short. after a war lasts for more than three months, its time to get out. if you get a song that lasts more than four minutes, many people turn it off because they can't focus. so many americans give up on things if it is too hard, and hire someone else to do it for them. that needs to stop.
i could keep going, but i will stop at that, and continue if you need further convinsing.

fibonacci

A few points in response to this ill-informed rubbish;

First and foremost get it through your head, Iraq did NOT attack America. Even the Bush gov't have given up trying to connect Iraq to 9/11.
People fighting against troops who invade THEIR country are NOT terrorists.
They are trying to kill you because you are killing them!
The US military PR inform the world daily of their kill tally. (Unfortunately to be classified as a terrorist in Iraq all you have to do is get killed by US forces as the military never admit to killing civilians.)
If so many people on this forum such as you Fibonacci believe so passionately in the righteousness of the war in Iraq why aren't YOU over there? Doesn't this smack of cowardice?
Seems to me it's very easy for some of these war zealots to be very cavalier with other people's lives such as Fibonacci's justification why in his mind 1700 dead US troops isn't so bad (in fact as he said, less than you'd expect in a decent accident). Not forgetting of course the 12,000 US forces wounded.

 

[Pengwuino]

25 million people freed? Don't you think this could have be done without paying such a high price, including many people who have died? Did we preserve freedom for Americans? No--that means we are not defending our country. And we won't win anything by shoving our beliefs down people's throats.

BTW, I know you've selected "advanced" to reply before, so you should know this gives you options to spell check, quote, etc. If you don't want to look like you're illiterate...

So exactly how were they to be freed? And how are American freedoms not being preserved? And if your going to bring up the patriot act, you better start quoting the actual act. And oh "shoving our beliefs down people's throat". Oh yah, I'm sure these people just hate our idea of having the government work for the people instead of killing them off by the thousands. I'm sure those people in the gulags of the Soviet Union might have seen American propaganda at one time or another and thought "oh don't try to shove that belief that being murdered for disagreeing with your government is a bad thing down my throat!" . I'm sure they hate the idea of not having their women and children raped by government sponsored criminals.

And i only have access to spellcheck when i quote people, like now. I never do the advanced thing because until now, i didnt know what it was for.

 

[Pengwuino]

A few points in response to this ill-informed rubbish;

First and foremost get it through your head, Iraq did NOT attack America. Even the Bush gov't have given up trying to connect Iraq to 9/11.
People fighting against troops who invade THEIR country are NOT terrorists.
They are trying to kill you because you are killing them!
The US military PR inform the world daily of their kill tally. (Unfortunately to be classified as a terrorist in Iraq all you have to do is get killed by US forces as the military never admit to killing civilians.)
If so many people on this forum such as you Fibonacci believe so passionately in the righteousness of the war in Iraq why aren't YOU over there? Doesn't this smack of cowardice?
Seems to me it's very easy for some of these war zealots to be very cavalier with other people's lives such as Fibonacci's justification why in his mind 1700 dead US troops isn't so bad (in fact as he said, less than you'd expect in a decent accident). Not forgetting of course the 12,000 US forces wounded.

Only a small % of the iraqi insurgents are actually iraqis. And then of course the US military reports civilian casualties, i have no idea where you get the idea that they don't (any proof? . And if you believe so passionately in how wrong this war is, why aren't you over there protesting? I didn't see any signs at any anti-war rallies in Iraq going "I hate this war, I'm Art from PF! www.physicsformus.com!"

And your argument actually doesn't stand up as anything more then childish rhetoric. The same thing that fib says has been repeated over and over by people serving in Iraq so please don't disrespect our military men.

 

[Art]

So exactly how were they to be freed?

I bet they'd have preferred to be freed in a different way than having their spirits liberated from their bodies by a 500lb bomb :rofl:

And oh "shoving our beliefs down people's throat". Oh yah, I'm sure these people just hate our idea of having the government work for the people instead of killing them off by the thousands.

America ranks only 13th in the list of the world's most democratic countries so perhaps Finland who rank No 1 should invade America to free you and teach you about democracy 'Physician heal thyself' springs to mind

I'm sure they hate the idea of not having their women and children raped by government sponsored criminals.

A harsh but accurate description of the US guards at Al Ghraib I guess.

And i only have access to spellcheck when i quote people, like now. I never do the advanced thing because until now, i didnt know what it was for.

Now all you need is a factcheck and you'll be flying

 

[Pengwuino]

Oh so you say i need a fact check when you bring up... let's see... 1 opinion... 1 unsubstantiated rumor... and 1 absolutely subjective concept without source... beautiful arguing! I guess its easy when you dodge the facts and dodge the issues. I wish i had your life :D

 

[Art]

Oh so you say i need a fact check when you bring up... let's see... 1 opinion... 1 unsubstantiated rumor... and 1 absolutely subjective concept without source... beautiful arguing! I guess its easy when you dodge the facts and dodge the issues. I wish i had your life :D

Here you go Penguino (sigh) Here's where your 13th placing comes from http://www.worldaudit.org/civillibs.htm
and here's where the insurgency figs. are from http://brookings.edu/dybdocroot/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf nb. I've already provided this before on another thread but just for you,

ESTIMATED STRENGTH OF INSURGENCY NATIONWIDE
Month Estimated strength of insurgency
nationwide
November 5,000
December 5,000
January 2004 3, 000-5,000
February N/A
March N/A
April 5,000
May 15,000
June 15,000
July 20,000
August 20,000
September 20,000
October 20,000
November 20,000
December “more than 20,000”
January 18,000
February 18,000
March 16,000
April 16,000
May 16,000
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FOREIGN FIGHTERS IN THE INSURGENCY
January 2004 300-500
July 2004 “Low hundreds”
September 2004 “Less than 1000”
November 2004 3,000
January 2005 “Fewer than 1,000”
February 2005 “Fewer than 1,000”
May 2005 1,000

And here's the civilian deaths

Iraq Body Count does not include casualty estimates or projections in its database. It only includes individual or cumulative deaths as directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals, morgues and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media. In other words, each entry in the Iraq Body Count data base represents deaths which have actually been recorded by appropriate witnesses - not "possible" or even "probable" deaths.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/

and here's another intreresting snippet
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/06/18/iraq8872.htm

And another that corroborates an earlier statement by another poster on this thread
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4122040.stm

I guess that covers everything apart from Al Grahib which I haven't bothered with as even you can't dispute that
Now will you please reciprocate by providing refs to back up all of your statements.

 

[Hurkyl]

Haven't we made Iraq a democracy? Isn't that one of the nice accomplishements of this little war? Well it looks like some people aren't standing down...

Gasp! There isn't 100% conversion?

People fighting against troops who invade THEIR country are NOT terrorists.

What about people fighting against troops who are helping to rebuilding their country? What about people fighting against troops who are aiding their own country's security forces? What about people fighting against their own country's security forces? What about people fighting against their own country's civilians?

What about people fighting against troops who invaded someone else's country? What about people fighting against troops who are helping to rebuild someone else's country? What about people fighting against troops assisting someone else's country's civilians? What about people fighting against someone else's country's security forces? What about people fighting against someone else's country's civilians?

It astonishes me that some people write as if they truly believe that the only target of the insurgency is Americans. Heck, judging from the media reports I've read, I'd be hard pressed to believe Americans are even the primary target.

I bet they'd have preferred to be freed in a different way than having their spirits liberated from their bodies by a 500lb bomb

You still haven't answered the question "So exactly how were they to be freed?"...

 

[Art]

What about people fighting against troops who are helping to rebuilding their country? What about people fighting against troops who are aiding their own country's security forces? What about people fighting against their own country's security forces? What about people fighting against their own country's civilians?

What about people fighting against troops who invaded someone else's country? What about people fighting against troops who are helping to rebuild someone else's country? What about people fighting against troops assisting someone else's country's civilians? What about people fighting against someone else's country's security forces? What about people fighting against someone else's country's civilians?

It astonishes me that some people write as if they truly believe that the only target of the insurgency is Americans. Heck, judging from the media reports I've read, I'd be hard pressed to believe Americans are even the primary target.

You seem to have misinterpreted my point so I'll try to explain it in 'Ladybird' terms for you. If you go to another country carrying weapons in order to conquer that country and the inhabitants shoot at you, they are not terrorists for doing so. I have not commented on any of the other scenarios you offered nor indeed on a few you missed such as Martian invasions etc...

You still haven't answered the question "So exactly how were they to be freed?"...

Are you honestly naive enough to suppose for one second that Bush's invasion of Iraq was motivated by a desire to free the Iraqi people?? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Here you go Hurkyl https://secure.military.com/leads/R...mc.kw&partner=1
Put your b*lls where your mouth is.

 

[1123581321]

Fibster, what you posted was heart felt and touching. I am glad soldiers choose to be soldiers too. However, in gratitude we should not squander their lives--we should not send them to fight except as necessary to defend our country. I am standing up for them, as are other Americans. And when our country is against war, politicians should take heed of this.

but when are they needed? are not they needed now? what can we do to stop the terrorists, if we do not fight them. can we rely on the UN? i think not. most of the UN hates the US to begin with, and i don't know why. as far as I know, the US is one of the nations that gives a lot to the UN and world as a whole, but they don't back us up. they are not to be trusted with our safety. so, if we can't use the UN, what next? close the borders, sure it would help, i think it needs to be done, but that is not enough. there is no way to keep 100% of terrorists out. stop immigration? we can't do that, and i need not explain why. close ports to prevent a ship with a nuclear bomb entering? we can't do that, or economy would die. i think that we need to take the war to them, until they quit. we are not squandering their lives, if you go and ask the soldiers themselves, most of them will probably say that we are there for a good reason. if you can find an alternative that will work better, tell me, but i think that i have disproven anything anyone could come up with. i wish that war was not needed, but it is.

fibonacci

 

[1123581321]

What does the war on terror have to do with democracy?

I have heard people talk about communism saying "it sounds good on paper but it doesn't work in real life"

Not to compare democracy to communism but the idea "a democratic society won't have terrorists/as many terrorists" is still only an idea, we have not yet seen it applied in this region successfully. So far not good...

so far not good? look at some numbers posted earlier, and you will see, yes good. a government ruled by the people for the people usually is a lot better for the people than a government ruled by the ruler, for the ruler. your average iraqi probably doesn't want a war, and if your average joe is participating in a free election, there won't be a war.

fibonacci