JMS Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Civilian casualties down , Surge appears to be working Thank you. It's kind of hard to understand civilians casualties is as their metric since the pentigon doesn't keep figures on civilian deaths. Likewise many civilians die due to American actions. Anyway lets check out your theory. Civilian deaths.. here is the disclaimer on the Iraqi Coalition Casualties Count Web site with regard to Civilian numbers.. This is not a complete list, nor can we verify these totals. This is simply a compilation of deaths reported by news agencies. Actual totals for Iraqi deaths are much higher than the numbers recorded on this site. Remember the Pentagon does not collect numbers on Civilian deaths, nor have they been consistant in collecting Vietnam style body count numbers on insurgents. The reason for this is that Vietnam body counts were notoriously inflated... OK having said that here are the best numbers I could find... Civilian Casualites for May, June, July, August, Sept, Oct 2005 572, 469, 518, 1524, 640, 1315 2006 969, 738, 1063, 2733, 3389, 1315 2007 1782, 1148, 1458, 1598, 752, N/A , and as the title of the thread says , Al - Qaeda in Iraq crippled. There's your explanation. Now if only the Sunni and Shi'a could hold hands and sing "Kumbaya"...Honestly I have seen nothing but good news recently in the news , esp. the turnaround of Al-Anbar province , a province that used to be one of the most dangerous in Iraq. Al-Quada in Iraq is crippled? How long ago did the inteligence comunity tell us that Al-Quada was back up to pre-911 strength? What was it five weeks ago? As for Iraq specifically Al Quada never had a significant presence in Iraq. they have always been the third wheel of those attacking us there. We don't know how many guys they've had or have; how exactly do we decide they are on their heals. Certainly not by the casualty numbers which are up over 2005 numbers, and only slightly behind 2006 numbers for the innaccurate numbers we do have.(*) Didn't we hear Al Quada globally were on their heals for years before we heard they were "suddenly" back up to pre 911 strength? (*)2007 numbers top 2006 numbers for what 3 out of the last 5 months. I hope all this good news can continue when the US pulls out. Pull out? Nobody except Oboma and Kissinich are talking about pulling out. The front runners of both parties are talking about keeping troops there for years into the future. This "good news" is manufactured for gullible domestic consumption. Come on we know this administration manufactures news. How can you possible take these claims at face value without looking into the numbers!!. The reality of the situation is Iraq is a very dangerous place which continues to get more dangerous not less dangerous. That is what the CIA and Army inteligence said only two months ago. General Patreaus said there was no military option there; and the political progress was zilch during the surge. Hell the Iraqi parlement took a six week vacation from July to August. As for Al-Anbar province... you have a point.... Fatalities for May, June, July, Aug, Sept 2003 4, 4, 2, 5, 5 2004 30, 10, 24, 29, 27 2005 28, 41, 11, 33, 19 2006 27, 31, 23, 36, 26 2007 15, 4, 18, 13, 9 But we are occupying Iraq not Al Anbar province. So you must also consider by consolidating troops in Al-Anbar we've left Bagdhad, Salah ad Din, and Diyala Provinces with smaller US forces. The increase in casualties in these three provinces more than make up for the fewer fatalities in Anbar. The net casualties in Iraq are up, not down. John McCain a big war supporter called this strategy "Whack a Mole", because we are robbing troops from peter to pay paul. The insurgents simple go to the provinces were we don't have the build up. For example...... US Casualties in Diyala May, June, July, Aug, Sept. 2003 2, 0, 6, 3, 0 2004 5, 4, 1, 0, 1 2005 6, 2, 2, 1, 1 2006 0, 1, 1, 0, 1 2007 22, 9, 4, 7, 13 Bagdhad 2003 2, 10, 18, 11, 9 2004 18, 17, 4, 11, 19 2005 16, 19, 28, 13, 18 2006 23, 15, 12, 20, 29 2007 59, 59, 45, 38, 31 It's true Anbar is a success story. But Iraq is not. At least not from what I can tell.. http://icasualties.org/oif/Province.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zuck Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Declaring victory would be a very stupid move. All Al Qaida would have to do is stage one successful semi-large attack and they'd get a huge boost. It would be a gigantic moral boost for them. If they are crippled good but don't go out and declare victory. pointless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrumanB Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 We've gained plenty. About 20,000 more *******s that were either terrorists or wannabe terrorist have ceased to exist. We have Iran surrounded with military bases that weren't there prior to 2002. AQ apparently has spent their wad in Iraq. That is a good thing Too bad so many people can't seem to find it in them to feel happy about that :doh: It has never been just about Iraq. As much as people want to bash Bush (and rightfully so for many screw ups), he really has a long term vision for the Middle East. If anyone thinks our troops are coming home any time soon, you're not seeing the big picture. Even if the Democrats win in 2008, whether it's Hillary or someone else, a large part of our troops will remain in Iraq for a long time. As long as Iran and Syria continue to sponsor terrorism and as long as Al Qaeda remains a fighting force, we're going to be there for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helptheSKINS Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Declaring victory would be a very stupid move. All Al Qaida would have to do is stage one successful semi-large attack and they'd get a huge boost.It would be a gigantic moral boost for them. If they are crippled good but don't go out and declare victory. pointless x2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 It has never been just about Iraq. As much as people want to bash Bush (and rightfully so for many screw ups), he really has a long term vision for the Middle East. If anyone thinks our troops are coming home any time soon, you're not seeing the big picture. Even if the Democrats win in 2008, whether it's Hillary or someone else, a large part of our troops will remain in Iraq for a long time. As long as Iran and Syria continue to sponsor terrorism and as long as Al Qaeda remains a fighting force, we're going to be there for a while. We are spending what 4 billion a week? How can anybody believe we are going to build a crusader fortress in the green zone in Iraq and man it for any significant time? It is true that Hillary stated that she would not commit to brining troops home on a specific time frame during the debates. Now we know the Clintons. Why do you think she would say that? (a) Because the means it. ( Because the statement alone moves her closer to the middle. © Because the anti war folks have nobody to vote for except Hillary, why should she rub up to them? (d) Because the Clintons don't have an ideological bone in their collective bodies, They are political creatures who will tell you what you want to hear to gain your support and then do whatever the hell they want on the back end when you can't hurt them. Bill showed us that only about 100 times!! The era of big government is over... please.. Answer... B. C. D. Bush leading us into Iraq in response to 911 was the largest strategic mistake in American history. So says General William Odom Ronald Reagan's head of the National Security Agency. We are years closer to the end in Iraq than we are from the beginning. One day we will declair victory and leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Because the Clintons don't have an ideological bone in their collective bodies, They are political creatures who will tell you what you want to hear to gain your support and then do whatever the hell they want on the back end when you can't hurt them. Bill showed us that only about 100 times!! The era of big government is over... please.. Oooh...I like this option. :laugh: We didn't go in reaction to 9/11 , we went for the whole WMD thing , remember? Otherwise good post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 We didn't go in reaction to 9/11 , we went for the whole WMD thing , remember? According to Bush, we went in for both reasons. Not that either claim was true. But, whatever. It's just a little war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tizzod Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 :munchout: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Oooh...I like this option. We didn't go in reaction to 9/11 , we went for the whole WMD thing , remember? Otherwise good post. Actually 70% of the country believed that Iraq had meaningful ties to Al Quada on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. Bush's legal justification to invade Iraq was tied to Iraq's fictitious ties to Al Quada and terrorism in general. Why would the American people overwhelmingly believe this. Because the President and administration lied to us, and knowingly concocted the connection in the minds of the American people. A connection they knew did not exist. Re read Colin Powel’s speech to the UN. It's an eye opener in the light of what we know now. Also read what Colin Powel says about the speech today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 says different about the reasons for invading Iraq , the Al - Qaeda reason was given but there were also other reasons given such as WMD , so we went in for both reasons. I was never a big believer of that whole "Al Qaeda" excuse thing , they pulled out some crazy excuses such as the uranium excuse back then ...Anyways , according to "Dead Certain" I think it was more of a miscalculation by the intelligence , in that book a senior official refers to Saddam having WMD's as a "slam dunk" , and 3 Iraqi refuges went to visit Bush and said that his invasion would liberate Iraq and Iraqis would be very thankful of Americans , something that was grossly exaggerated. I don't buy any of the silly "War for Oil" excuses that other people have claimed , it was just an error on intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tizzod Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 there were also other reasons given such as WMD , so we went in for both reasons. I was never a big believer of that whole "Al Qaeda" excuse thing , they pulled out some crazy excuses such as the uranium excuse back then ... Saddam bought aluminum tubes. Do I have to tell you...what the **** you can do with aluminum tubes? ALUMINUM! Black Bush is the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Lol...don't forget the Family Guy when Lois runs for mayor and makes the most outrageous claims to obtain money. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Family_Guy/Season_5#It_Takes_a_Village_Idiot.2C_and_I_Married_One_.5B5.17.5D Lois Griffin: We have intelligence that suggests that... Hitler... is plotting with... with the Legion of Doom... to take over the world & kill Jesus... using the lake as a base. [crowd at the town hall meeting murmurs]Lois Griffin: And we also have evidence that... Darth Vader... tried to buy Yellow Cake Uranium... from unwed teenage mothers!Guy in Crowd: Those things all sound scary!Guy in Crowd 2: How much money before we can feel safe again?Lois Griffin: Um... a hundred thousand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tizzod Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Lol...don't forget the Family Guy when Lois runs for mayor and makes the most outrageous claims to obtain money.http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Family_Guy/Season_5#It_Takes_a_Village_Idiot.2C_and_I_Married_One_.5B5.17.5D I remember that. That was good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.