Even the French admit that security is improving in Iraq

[NeoV]

leave it to TLC to assume - which is pretty much his specialty - that anyone here said things were great under Saddam.

I'll be completely honest - if we had said, at any point between 1995 and when we did actually invade Iraq, that "you know what, Saddam is a POS, look at what he's done, we are taking him out" - I'd have been completely fine with things - but using that as a 'fallback' reason doesn't cut it - we put on this big dog and pony show - we know where the WMD's are, listen to this taped conversation, "radio signals that it's ok for Rep Guard units to fire their chemical weapons", the Niger crap, the tubes lie, etc, etc, etc, etc.

There are about 10 other countires, mostly in Africa, that have people under far worse rule than Saddam's was - if we want to be in the business of creating democracies or freeing people from oppression - that's a different category than why we went into Iraq.

I'll be we can create a list like your little hit-list there of people that have been killed in Russia, and I'm certain their recent elections are no more valid than Iraq's have been - so should be take Putin out as well?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I didnt say it was great I said it was better under any metric ruled by Saddam.

If it was better "under any metric" then why were such a large majority of Iraqis glad Saddam was removed from power?

[/quote]And you don't want democracy in the Arab world... talk about two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner- Osama types win as has happened in Algeria and Palestine. not to mention democratic peace theory does not apply since islam overrides all.[/quote]
Osama types didn't win in Iraq. Osama types didn't win in Pakistan. I'd be willing to bet that if the Palestinians could have a do-over, knowing what they know now, that the Osama types wouldn't have won in Palestine either.

Islam and Democracy can co-exist just as Democracy and Christianity co-exists in the west. Democracy was painful for our own country in the beginning and its implementation will be painful in the ME as well. Expecting insant sunshine and blue skies is a bit ridiculous. This is not an MTV moment.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: NeoV
There are about 10 other countires, mostly in Africa, that have people under far worse rule than Saddam's was - if we want to be in the business of creating democracies or freeing people from oppression - that's a different category than why we went into Iraq.

Please name for me these 10 counties in which the national leader was responsible for the deaths of between 500,000 and a million citizens.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234
Something I think is disgusting is to use numbers of casualties when they're on a large scale as a metric to imply the violence is justified if the trend is downward.

The lie the practice uses is making it look like some innocent business statistic, like how many widgets were made. 'Hey, the number is better this month, so it's good!'

Numbers of people killed are people killed. You don't say '1,000 then, 100 now, so good!' as the whole picture. You ask if the 1,000 then or the 100 now are 'justified'.

If some kids started a hobby in a city of going to the mall and shooting people, and the first months the numbers were higher and trickled much lower, you wouldn't conclude that their 'policy' was 'proven right'. The fallacy you can see coming far away here is to equate the violence decreasing with validating the war itself. Low casualties 'prove' the war was good.

No, it doesn't prove any such thing. The trends in violence are a very separate issue from the validity of the war. High casualties can be 'justified' in some wars.

Do you think it is a good thing that less people are dying now than a year ago???

Jan-May 07 = 10,640 deaths
Jan-May 08 = 2895 deaths

Wouldn't 8000 less deaths mean that there is LESS violence?

The whole point of the surge was to have LESS violence, not to create more violence.

The whole point of the surge was to regain some semblance of control so that Iraq could "stand up."

the whole point of the surge was NOT to "have LESS violence"

edit: This is why I will never trust GWB, his team (and by extension his supporters) to make the right decision. They can't keep the goal posts in the same place from month to month...and they expect us to just blindly accept their reasonings and propoganda.

F that man.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: NeoV
There are about 10 other countires, mostly in Africa, that have people under far worse rule than Saddam's was - if we want to be in the business of creating democracies or freeing people from oppression - that's a different category than why we went into Iraq.

Please name for me these 10 counties in which the national leader was responsible for the deaths of between 500,000 and a million citizens.

Dang it. I thought after seeing that you were posting here again that you were going to admit that the Dems have conceded that security has improved despite your claims in the thread subtitle and OP.

Silly me thinking that you would ever admit to being wrong about anything that the Dems have done or didn't do in this case.

Oh, and for the record, even though less people are dying, the movement on the political front has about as much momentum as the Colorado Rockies:

Colorado is 18 games under .500 for the first time since finishing the 2005 season 67-95. The Rockies have lost 19 of their last 21 away from Coors Field.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Expecting instant sunshine and blue skies is a bit ridiculous. This is not an MTV moment.

:thumbsup:

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Expecting instant sunshine and blue skies is a bit ridiculous. This is not an MTV moment.

:thumbsup:

And thinking that after 5 years that the bare minimum being accomplished on the political front, our citizens still being killed and billions of our assets being drained monthly is acceptable is even more ridiculous.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Oh, and for the record, even though less people are dying, the movement on the political front has about as much momentum as the Colorado Rockies

oh ya? I believe the point the French Foreign Minister made in the OP was this:

"The Iraqis themselves, with their army, their administration, are taking charge of their own problems," Kouchner said.

That kinda flies in the face of your Rockies analogy, eh? hmm...

Nobody -- not even PJ -- has ever claimed that things are perfect in Iraq... only that they're better, and that the situation there is improving every day.

IOW, we do have positive momentum, and we're truly headed in the right direction both militarily and politically. Hopefully, the effects begin to snowball, and the nightmare will all be over "soon"... as in, 3-5 more years.

 

[Stoneburner]

1. Assuming Iraq does stabilize and becomes capable of sustaining itself, what does the U.S. gain? A nice stable addition to the Iran bloc, and what is in essence a theocracy? Somebody who helped draft the iraqi constitution wrote a book on this topic.

2. Iraq will never be unified and will eventually become 3 separate de facto states. Sunnis will be left out of the oil equation.

3. Assuming that the violence has dropped off permanently is stupid. I've been hearing mission accomplished for too many years now. The people who make all these claims about Iraq hardly seem to know anything about the region. Several hundred years of religious strife combined with several decades of tribal strife will not get wiped out any time soon.

4. Every foreign policy expert on both sides of the political divide calls the war a blunder. That's what it is. BeholdApalehorse and ProfessorJohan consistently confuse any low level progress with long term strategic success. As stated above, we're just strengthening Iran and others who'll bite us down the line. We've created what will be a full blown theocracy.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: NeoV
leave it to TLC to assume - which is pretty much his specialty - that anyone here said things were great under Saddam.

That seems to be the implication.

I'll be completely honest - if we had said, at any point between 1995 and when we did actually invade Iraq, that "you know what, Saddam is a POS, look at what he's done, we are taking him out" - I'd have been completely fine with things - but using that as a 'fallback' reason doesn't cut it - we put on this big dog and pony show - we know where the WMD's are, listen to this taped conversation, "radio signals that it's ok for Rep Guard units to fire their chemical weapons", the Niger crap, the tubes lie, etc, etc, etc, etc.

When will people learn that the past cannot be changed? Gripe about WMDs all you want but that's all water under the bridge now. Bellyaching about it makes no more sense than chiding ourselves for not going up against Hitler sooner and shutting him down before hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their lives and millions of Europeans did the same. Get over the past and focus on the present and future.

There are about 10 other countires, mostly in Africa, that have people under far worse rule than Saddam's was - if we want to be in the business of creating democracies or freeing people from oppression - that's a different category than why we went into Iraq.

Right. Let's pretend that going into Iraq was only about oppression. And you talk about people assuming and their specialities? That's rich.

I'll be we can create a list like your little hit-list there of people that have been killed in Russia, and I'm certain their recent elections are no more valid than Iraq's have been - so should be take Putin out as well?

You have some proof to back up your assertion that Iraq's elections were not valid?

 

[kedlav]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
So, you're going to pop back in here every month in which violence is down, ignoring all the months violence is up?

Besides that, the prognosis of the Iraq Study group still stands. This is what you blind yourself to, the reality that iraq is not stabilizing and there is no long term solution in place to the problem.

Aren't you embarrassed of being wrong on this Iraq stuff for so many years? At what point will you admit you know nothing and start listening to people who actually have an understanding of the region free of partisan jaundice?

Apparently, if every third month in iraq has a lower level of violence than a particular month in a particular year, it's mission accomplished for Profjohn. Jeebus knows even the meanest intellect could figure out violence is inconsistent in Iraq.

link
Month Civ deaths
May-08 396
Apr-08 631
Mar-08 819
Feb-08 564
Jan-08 485
Dec-07 476
Nov-07 471
Oct-07 565
Sep-07 752
Aug-07 1598
Jul-07 1458
Jun-07 1148
May-07 1782
Apr-07 1521
Mar-07 2762
Feb-07 2864
Jan-07 1711
Dec-06 1629
Nov-06 1741
Oct-06 1315
Sep-06 3389
Aug-06 2733
Jul-06 1063

There are the figures going to back to highest level of violence since the war started.

From July 06 to Aug 07 we had 14 straight months with over a thousand civilian deaths.
Since then we have had 9 months with less than 819 deaths, nearly half of those had less than 500 deaths.

Coincidently, the drop in the violence happened to start the month the surge went into full effect... wow, imagine that.

The numbers are better, yes. To claim it is all an effect of the surge is just plain idiocy (though its certainly an element). The surge truly kicked off in March of 2007, with the arrival of 20,000+ additionally combat troops. It continued to ramp up in April, and on June 15, the Pentagon & White House reported the surge was in full effect. A month an a half later, al-Sadr declared his first truce on August 29, 2007. Additionally, you have the spread of the so-called 'Sons of Iraq' program, which truly began in Anbar in summer 2006. By spring 2007, most Sunni areas followed the pattern set by Anbar province, essentially having Americans equipping and training Sunni militias and buying/training them to turn on external groups like al Qaeda in Iraq. The combination of these three things have lowered the number of murders, yet violence remains at levels that would astound any first-world country.

Make no bones about it, the death figures have dropped. Crime statistics are still ridiculous, no political progress has been seen (oh yes, Maliki blundered his way through his Southern offensive - leading to another cease-fire with al Sadr, naught more), the Iraqi army is still a mess of sects, and the Kurds still run their own country, blatantly violating the constitution of Iraq. Yep, but things are reeeeaaaaaaaal peachy over there, only ~500 people are dying per month to violence, there's no power, schools, infrastructure with having, etc. Getting closed to Mission Accomplished, Part Deux indeed.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: kedlav

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
So, you're going to pop back in here every month in which violence is down, ignoring all the months violence is up?

Besides that, the prognosis of the Iraq Study group still stands. This is what you blind yourself to, the reality that iraq is not stabilizing and there is no long term solution in place to the problem.

Aren't you embarrassed of being wrong on this Iraq stuff for so many years? At what point will you admit you know nothing and start listening to people who actually have an understanding of the region free of partisan jaundice?

Apparently, if every third month in iraq has a lower level of violence than a particular month in a particular year, it's mission accomplished for Profjohn. Jeebus knows even the meanest intellect could figure out violence is inconsistent in Iraq.

link
Month Civ deaths
May-08 396
Apr-08 631
Mar-08 819
Feb-08 564
Jan-08 485
Dec-07 476
Nov-07 471
Oct-07 565
Sep-07 752
Aug-07 1598
Jul-07 1458
Jun-07 1148
May-07 1782
Apr-07 1521
Mar-07 2762
Feb-07 2864
Jan-07 1711
Dec-06 1629
Nov-06 1741
Oct-06 1315
Sep-06 3389
Aug-06 2733
Jul-06 1063

There are the figures going to back to highest level of violence since the war started.

From July 06 to Aug 07 we had 14 straight months with over a thousand civilian deaths.
Since then we have had 9 months with less than 819 deaths, nearly half of those had less than 500 deaths.

Coincidently, the drop in the violence happened to start the month the surge went into full effect... wow, imagine that.

The numbers are better, yes. To claim it is all an effect of the surge is just plain idiocy (though its certainly an element). The surge truly kicked off in March of 2007, with the arrival of 20,000+ additionally combat troops. It continued to ramp up in April, and on June 15, the Pentagon & White House reported the surge was in full effect. A month an a half later, al-Sadr declared his first truce on August 29, 2007. Additionally, you have the spread of the so-called 'Sons of Iraq' program, which truly began in Anbar in summer 2006. By spring 2007, most Sunni areas followed the pattern set by Anbar province, essentially having Americans equipping and training Sunni militias and buying/training them to turn on external groups like al Qaeda in Iraq. The combination of these three things have lowered the number of murders, yet violence remains at levels that would astound any first-world country.

Make no bones about it, the death figures have dropped. Crime statistics are still ridiculous, no political progress has been seen (oh yes, Maliki blundered his way through his Southern offensive - leading to another cease-fire with al Sadr, naught more), the Iraqi army is still a mess of sects, and the Kurds still run their own country, blatantly violating the constitution of Iraq. Yep, but things are reeeeaaaaaaaal peachy over there, only ~500 people are dying per month to violence, there's no power, schools, infrastructure with having, etc. Getting closed to Mission Accomplished, Part Deux indeed.

It gets worse. Some time ago one of the cheerleaders said that the sunnis were politically reconciled. Completely wrong. The largest sunni bloc in the govt is still boycotting. There is no agreement over oil despite some people insisting otherwise.

Reality will never catch up with people.

And still, at the end of the day, if iraq becomes a strong nation it will be against our national interest.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
So, you're going to pop back in here every month in which violence is down, ignoring all the months violence is up?

Besides that, the prognosis of the Iraq Study group still stands. This is what you blind yourself to, the reality that iraq is not stabilizing and there is no long term solution in place to the problem.

Aren't you embarrassed of being wrong on this Iraq stuff for so many years? At what point will you admit you know nothing and start listening to people who actually have an understanding of the region free of partisan jaundice?

Apparently, if every third month in iraq has a lower level of violence than a particular month in a particular year, it's mission accomplished for Profjohn. Jeebus knows even the meanest intellect could figure out violence is inconsistent in Iraq.

link
Month Civ deaths
May-08 396
Apr-08 631
Mar-08 819
Feb-08 564
Jan-08 485
Dec-07 476
Nov-07 471
Oct-07 565
Sep-07 752
Aug-07 1598
Jul-07 1458
Jun-07 1148
May-07 1782
Apr-07 1521
Mar-07 2762
Feb-07 2864
Jan-07 1711
Dec-06 1629
Nov-06 1741
Oct-06 1315
Sep-06 3389
Aug-06 2733
Jul-06 1063

There are the figures going to back to highest level of violence since the war started.

From July 06 to Aug 07 we had 14 straight months with over a thousand civilian deaths.
Since then we have had 9 months with less than 819 deaths, nearly half of those had less than 500 deaths.

Coincidently, the drop in the violence happened to start the month the surge went into full effect... wow, imagine that.

Yeah, imagine that, you toss around death counts like it's an online game. The big difference being all these dead people don't get to respawn with full health. I am sure your local recruiter would welcome an able bodied, war cheerleader like yourself :thumbsup: