Even the French admit that security is improving in Iraq

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
This topic generates a lot of passions and becomes heated. Please try to keep the forums rules in mind and avoid crossing the lines as far as personal insults:

1) No trolling, flaming or personally attacking members. Deftly attacking ideas and backing up arguments with facts is acceptable and encouraged. Attacking other members personally and purposefully causing trouble with no motive other than to upset the crowd is not allowed.

T.I.A.

Fern
AnandTech P&N Moderator
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Iraq has become the political cyanide pill of our decade.

I'm happy to hand it out to as many conservatives that want it.

The less of you in elected office, the better.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
I would encourage everyone to check out Dahr Jamail, both his website and his book "Beyond the Green Zone." Dahr Jamail is an American hero who risked his life to bring us all the story of the American occupation through Iraqi eyes.

Maybe the security situation "has" improved somewhat...How many reports on the MSM about the Iraqi refugees, the Iraqi dead

But we have in no way even begun to fix the damage we've done and the vast majority of Iraqis are in much, much worse shape than during the genocidal sanctions. Look up the report issued in 2007 by the well-respected NGO OxFam. It reported that 43% of Iraqis are in absolute poverty, which means they're lacking one or more of the essentials for human existance - such as food, water, shelter, and sanitation. 70% don't have access to safe drinking water, 80% do not have effective santitation. The fact of the matter is that the whole reconstruction was nothing more than a huge transfer of wealth from American taxpayers directly into the pockets of political donors.

For the people in Iraq who face a literally life & death scenario each day, struggle to feed their family, and watch their children's future wither away, it is indeed a HUGE improvement.

After all they should be happy that their doors are not kicked in at nights, their families and wives being dragged out by soldiers at random, and living entirely in fear of when their lives would be forfeit.

-In 2007, the [bipartisan] Iraq Study Group described the situation in Iraq as ?grave and deteriorating?.
pssst... the Iraq Study Group released its FINAL report on December 6 2006.

Before the surge and before the drastic drop in violence.

You, like so many other Democrats, are still live in the past it seems.

BTW in December of 2006 112 Americans died, in May of 2008 19 died. Seems like a big improvement.

The drop in civilian deaths is even more dramatic. 1629 in 12/06 to 396 in May.
 

punchkin

Banned
Dec 13, 2007
852
0
0
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I guess you'll also go with international opinion on the question of Ariel Sharon, Israel in general, the U.S. invasion of Panama, the U.S invasion of Iraq, the U.S. detention in Gitmo.

Apparently you aren't far enough along with the right wing indoctrination sessions if you quote international tribunes for anything. Unless you're so far along that you've graduated to selective and self serving references.

Try again.

Done with your little diversionary tactic now? Saddam Hussein engaged in ethnic cleansing. End of story.

He did? That's like saying if racial group X gets in a war with racial group y, and group x wins, that's ethnic cleansing. That's also like saying any crime involving two different races is presumed to be racially motivated. That's simply false. Saddam was not racially motivated as a hitler nor was he as thorough as say a Pol Pot or Stalin. I've already said he was a stupid thug, but to place him on a pedestal with the true assholes of the 20th century is a historical fiction. I'm growing a bit tired of the hyperbolization of Saddam as a stupid roundabout way of justifying the strategic blunder that is the Iraq War.

No, it's not. It's like saying that when one engages in ethnic cleansing, it's ethnic cleansing. Get with the program, genius. I invite you to read up on what ethnic cleansing is.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"Even the French"? You mean the Sarkozy govt, who've been sucking up to their fellow "conservatives" in the Bush admin most satisfactorily?

So, uhh, how does the "security situation" compare to what it was for the average Iraqi prior to the Invasion? Or is that a metric nobody wants to reference? Yeh, sure, Iraq was a dictatorship, a totalitarian state, but there were rules, and order. People could go to work, or the mosque, or wherever w/o fear of being killed by some random militia whackjobs, didn't live in fear of their children being kidnapped and held for ransom by thugs and bandits... didn't have to fear being blown to bits in the market by suicide bombers drawn into the country by the presence of the great Satan's troops...

First, destroy the govt, hand out small arms and ammo like candy on Halloween, throw open the borders, encourage and create bloody chaos. next, claim progress when the murdering abates somewhat...

Can we leave yet, or will there ever be enough "progress" to justify that? probably not...

This is what's so mindfuckingly bizarre about the ProfJohn type neocon assholes. THey think 4000 american soldiers plus a trillion dollars is a worthwhile price to pay to get Iraq to roughly the same position it was in before the invasion.

Really?

No it's way worse. Racial and religious minorities were potected by Saddams regime. Secularism was allowed. Bars and barber shops were allowed to exist. Women could be educated even along side men!

Yes the security situation has improved mainly due to ethic cleansing and ethnic partitioning, a more Fundamentalist less free IRAQ and a million plus dead bodies. Good job!!!

Wait till we leave ....there are scores yet to be settled.
 

punchkin

Banned
Dec 13, 2007
852
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"Even the French"? You mean the Sarkozy govt, who've been sucking up to their fellow "conservatives" in the Bush admin most satisfactorily?

So, uhh, how does the "security situation" compare to what it was for the average Iraqi prior to the Invasion? Or is that a metric nobody wants to reference? Yeh, sure, Iraq was a dictatorship, a totalitarian state, but there were rules, and order. People could go to work, or the mosque, or wherever w/o fear of being killed by some random militia whackjobs, didn't live in fear of their children being kidnapped and held for ransom by thugs and bandits... didn't have to fear being blown to bits in the market by suicide bombers drawn into the country by the presence of the great Satan's troops...

First, destroy the govt, hand out small arms and ammo like candy on Halloween, throw open the borders, encourage and create bloody chaos. next, claim progress when the murdering abates somewhat...

Can we leave yet, or will there ever be enough "progress" to justify that? probably not...

This is what's so mindfuckingly bizarre about the ProfJohn type neocon assholes. THey think 4000 american soldiers plus a trillion dollars is a worthwhile price to pay to get Iraq to roughly the same position it was in before the invasion.

Really?

No it's way worse. Racial and religious minorities were potected by Saddams regime. Secularism was allowed. Bars and barber shops were allowed to exist. Women could be educated even along side men!

Yes the security situation has improved mainly due to ethic cleansing and ethnic partitioning, a more Fundamentalist less free IRAQ and a million plus dead bodies. Good job!!!

Wait till we leave ....there are scores yet to be settled.

My sarcasm meter just exploded.
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I guess you'll also go with international opinion on the question of Ariel Sharon, Israel in general, the U.S. invasion of Panama, the U.S invasion of Iraq, the U.S. detention in Gitmo.

Apparently you aren't far enough along with the right wing indoctrination sessions if you quote international tribunes for anything. Unless you're so far along that you've graduated to selective and self serving references.

Try again.

Done with your little diversionary tactic now? Saddam Hussein engaged in ethnic cleansing. End of story.

He did? That's like saying if racial group X gets in a war with racial group y, and group x wins, that's ethnic cleansing. That's also like saying any crime involving two different races is presumed to be racially motivated. That's simply false. Saddam was not racially motivated as a hitler nor was he as thorough as say a Pol Pot or Stalin. I've already said he was a stupid thug, but to place him on a pedestal with the true assholes of the 20th century is a historical fiction. I'm growing a bit tired of the hyperbolization of Saddam as a stupid roundabout way of justifying the strategic blunder that is the Iraq War.

No, it's not. It's like saying that when one engages in ethnic cleansing, it's ethnic cleansing. Get with the program, genius. I invite you to read up on what ethnic cleansing is.

I invite you to describe the difference between ethnic cleansing and regular warfare between two ethnic groups. Mere conclusory language is not going to be sufficient.
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
I would encourage everyone to check out Dahr Jamail, both his website and his book "Beyond the Green Zone." Dahr Jamail is an American hero who risked his life to bring us all the story of the American occupation through Iraqi eyes.

Maybe the security situation "has" improved somewhat...How many reports on the MSM about the Iraqi refugees, the Iraqi dead

But we have in no way even begun to fix the damage we've done and the vast majority of Iraqis are in much, much worse shape than during the genocidal sanctions. Look up the report issued in 2007 by the well-respected NGO OxFam. It reported that 43% of Iraqis are in absolute poverty, which means they're lacking one or more of the essentials for human existance - such as food, water, shelter, and sanitation. 70% don't have access to safe drinking water, 80% do not have effective santitation. The fact of the matter is that the whole reconstruction was nothing more than a huge transfer of wealth from American taxpayers directly into the pockets of political donors.

For the people in Iraq who face a literally life & death scenario each day, struggle to feed their family, and watch their children's future wither away, it is indeed a HUGE improvement.

After all they should be happy that their doors are not kicked in at nights, their families and wives being dragged out by soldiers at random, and living entirely in fear of when their lives would be forfeit.

-In 2007, the [bipartisan] Iraq Study Group described the situation in Iraq as ?grave and deteriorating?.
pssst... the Iraq Study Group released its FINAL report on December 6 2006.

Before the surge and before the drastic drop in violence.

You, like so many other Democrats, are still live in the past it seems.

BTW in December of 2006 112 Americans died, in May of 2008 19 died. Seems like a big improvement.

The drop in civilian deaths is even more dramatic. 1629 in 12/06 to 396 in May.

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.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,960
140
106
..secular progressives have invested in defeat. all this flies in the face of the media action lines by the media willing accomplices.
 

Kappo

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2000
2,381
0
0
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.

This isn't McDonald's. You dont drive through and get your instant gratification. It may be a generation (which isnt that long considering they tend to strap bombs onto any kid they can get their hands on) or even two before we see any REAL progress.

Ill say that I see no clear drive towards anything in the long term either, but in this particular situation to much can change so you have to keep it VERY general. Im not very satisfied with "freedom by democracy" as a long term goal, either.



 

punchkin

Banned
Dec 13, 2007
852
0
0
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I invite you to describe the difference between ethnic cleansing and regular warfare between two ethnic groups. Mere conclusory language is not going to be sufficient.

I invite you to hit the local community college, and/or use a search engine.
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Originally posted by: Kappo
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.

This isn't McDonald's. You dont drive through and get your instant gratification. It may be a generation (which isnt that long considering they tend to strap bombs onto any kid they can get their hands on) or even two before we see any REAL progress.

Ill say that I see no clear drive towards anything in the long term either, but in this particular situation to much can change so you have to keep it VERY general. Im not very satisfied with "freedom by democracy" as a long term goal, either.

yeah but exactly how do you extrapolate delayed gratification from the current mid east situation? Let's look at this entire picture for a minute. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan by supporting the N.A. The NA is a russian front group. Afghanistan is a weak central government surrounded by chaotic warlords, and if the government were stronger it's be a russian pawn.

Russia itself is becoming more bellicose and anti-american. It's gained newfound power through its resources AND it may have a direct link to new sources of oil because of the U.S. invasion of afghanistan.

China has been pursuing economic relationships with all nations. China is a major creditor of ours, They work with Iran, various african regimes, helped pakistan develop their nukes. They are a long term competitor for the U.S. We have allowed them to buy our future. WHy? because of wasted resources in other wars.

The Mid East Bloc... We've helped weaken israel by allowing them to do stupid things like the 2006 invasion of Lebanon. failed to help solve the palestinian crisis. We've undermined our friends in the region like Turkey and Saudia Arabia, even though they really should not be our friends. DEMOCRACY HAS TAKEN A HIT. Egypt continues to be a undemocratic as it gets. Lebanon? What happened to the birth pangs of a new democracy? Stilborn maybe? Syria? Ignored every attempt by their govt to create peace with israel SO we pushed them towards Iran. Iraq we know is a mess which will result in autonomous regions. Autonomy could work except for the fact one group has no oil that way. This will blow over.

Furthermore, we've screwed our SUNNI allies by helping perpetuate SHIA control. Syria is iran's satelite, and Lebanon is pretty much there as well. IRAQ WILL BE THERE. We feed into ahmenijad's propaganda by giving him so much attention which makes him more popular among all muslims.

Where in this fine world wide mess do you see delayed gratification? Democracy in the mid east is dead. Look at what happened in the palestinian territories. Look at what's happened in iraq... it's in essence a religious state.

 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
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.
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I invite you to describe the difference between ethnic cleansing and regular warfare between two ethnic groups. Mere conclusory language is not going to be sufficient.

I invite you to hit the local community college.

I'd love to teach at your school. Somebody has to :)
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
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.

So now you set arbitrary standards for determining how to measure variation in violence? You remind me of hillary. I also love how you insist correlation = causation. Did it ever occur to you that other factors were at work here? Such as the Sunnis realizing the americans leaving would be worse for them than the shia? Has it occurred to you that they may play a waiting game? Has it occurred to you that the actual surge actually brought troop levels to levels they had been at times where violence was rampant?

Do you know anything beyond blindly cheerleading using selective arguments? Violence also seemed to fall at EXACTLY the same time the sunnis were being bought off. Violence also seemed to fall at EXACTLY the same time Duncan Hunter began running for president.
 

cliftonite

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2001
6,899
63
91
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.

Do you expect those numbers to stay at those levels once the surge ends? If not how long do you see us staying there?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Zebo
No it's way worse. Racial and religious minorities were potected by Saddams regime. Secularism was allowed. Bars and barber shops were allowed to exist. Women could be educated even along side men!

Yes the security situation has improved mainly due to ethic cleansing and ethnic partitioning, a more Fundamentalist less free IRAQ and a million plus dead bodies. Good job!!!

Wait till we leave ....there are scores yet to be settled.
Yeah, it was great under Saddam. All kites and butterflies. Well, unless you were a Shi'ite Marsh Arab.

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

Even Sunni leaders weren't exempt from Saddam's wrath, when they threatened his power. Here are a few Sunni leaders he killed over the years:

Abdul Aziz Al Badri

Al Shaikh Nadhum Al Asi

Al Shaikh Umar Shaqlawa

Al Shiakh Rami Al Kirkukly

Al Shiakh Mohamad Shafeeq Al Badri

Abdul Ghani Shindala

Then there was the torture and executions of Qasim Shubbar and Qasim Al Mubarqaa.

Another torture and execution of Ayatollah Mohamad baqir Al Sadr and his sister Amina Al Sadr.

The arrest and execution of 16 al Hakim family members.

Of course, Saddam was such a popular guy that in the last election where he ran absolutely nobody ran against him. And he received 99+ % of the vote.

Pfffft. Democracy, shamocracy. Who needs it?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Do you expect those numbers to stay at those levels once the surge ends? If not how long do you see us staying there?
I believe our current troop level is lower than its peak during the height of the surge. Despite this drop in troops we are seeing a continued reduction in violence. So at this point I see no reason why the violence will return to its previous level as our troops leave.

Beyond just adding troops we really changed the ground situation in Iraq in the last year.
AQ is on the run and facing defeat. Sadr is hiding in Iran while his militia is laying low.

It is not like we added a bunch of troops who are keeping the violence level low by patrolling the streets, we made changes that have made the streets safer AFTER our troops have left an area. In addition we have had another year to train more Iraqi military and police officers.

While it is possible that the bad guys are just laying low an waiting for the surge to end, I doubt that is the case.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
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.
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Zebo
No it's way worse. Racial and religious minorities were potected by Saddams regime. Secularism was allowed. Bars and barber shops were allowed to exist. Women could be educated even along side men!

Yes the security situation has improved mainly due to ethic cleansing and ethnic partitioning, a more Fundamentalist less free IRAQ and a million plus dead bodies. Good job!!!

Wait till we leave ....there are scores yet to be settled.
Yeah, it was great under Saddam. All kites and butterflies. Well, unless you were a Shi'ite Marsh Arab.

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

Even Sunni leaders weren't exempt from Saddam's wrath, when they threatened his power. Here are a few Sunni leaders he killed over the years:

?


Exactly. Saddam was a top notch asshole but nowhere near Pol Pot status. Shit he barely touched Pinochet :)
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: cliftonite
Do you expect those numbers to stay at those levels once the surge ends? If not how long do you see us staying there?
I believe our current troop level is lower than its peak during the height of the surge. Despite this drop in troops we are seeing a continued reduction in violence. So at this point I see no reason why the violence will return to its previous level as our troops leave.

You are hilarious sometimes.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,277
0
0
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.
I find it callous and distressing also. These armchair quarterbacks should have someone close in danger and see if they spout death statistics so effortlessly.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
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.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Zebo
No it's way worse. Racial and religious minorities were potected by Saddams regime. Secularism was allowed. Bars and barber shops were allowed to exist. Women could be educated even along side men!

Yes the security situation has improved mainly due to ethic cleansing and ethnic partitioning, a more Fundamentalist less free IRAQ and a million plus dead bodies. Good job!!!

Wait till we leave ....there are scores yet to be settled.
Yeah, it was great under Saddam. All kites and butterflies. Well, unless you were a Shi'ite Marsh Arab.

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

Even Sunni leaders weren't exempt from Saddam's wrath, when they threatened his power. Here are a few Sunni leaders he killed over the years:

Abdul Aziz Al Badri

Al Shaikh Nadhum Al Asi

Al Shaikh Umar Shaqlawa

Al Shiakh Rami Al Kirkukly

Al Shiakh Mohamad Shafeeq Al Badri

Abdul Ghani Shindala

Then there was the torture and executions of Qasim Shubbar and Qasim Al Mubarqaa.

Another torture and execution of Ayatollah Mohamad baqir Al Sadr and his sister Amina Al Sadr.

The arrest and execution of 16 al Hakim family members.

Of course, Saddam was such a popular guy that in the last election where he ran absolutely nobody ran against him. And he received 99+ % of the vote.

Pfffft. Democracy, shamocracy. Who needs it?

I didnt say it was great I said it was better under any metric ruled by Saddam.

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.