Iraq. How Bad?

[yeahwho]

I find it appalling we are still at war in Iraq. Now it is almost 2007 and we have rotated the same troops over twice, some three times. The backdoor draft is exhausting nerves. The reasoning behind this war has been distorted thrice since March of 2003. Here is a chart of events since the war began (http://thinkprogress.org/iraq-timeline) and here is an article from the 9/20/06 LATimes (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-letter20sep20,0,4188916.story?coll=la-home-headlines) that started the rage within me all over again today, the same rage that boils within millions of other Americans on a daily basis.

Just what the fuck are we still doing in Iraq? Does this administration truly believe we are making gains in democracy? This is nuts.

[Documad]

Bush knows it's over, but he can't say it. We're just going to sit in this long period where we do more harm than good and lose americans and non-americans in dribs and drabs until someone has the guts to say it's over.

The Republicans like to accuse the democrats of wanting to cut and run, but at the same time the president has been removing troops from areas of Iraq where they would be needed if we had any pretense of having a mission or plan there.

The whole thing was a disaster from start to finish, but I'll be damned if I know what we should do now. I don't know how we can just leave without helping rebuild what we broke, but the people in charge are stealing the money instead of rebuilding, and now our very presence is apparently causing death and destruction.

[Documad]

There are hundreds of books on the lead up to the war now. All of the ones written in the last few years seem to demonstrate really bad management, analysis, and decision making from start to finish. There was a time when Bob Woodward did a series of insider books that struck me as pro-Bush. Is anyone even trying to make that argument now? Because I'd like to see the argument, I really would. I'd like to see a book that tries to make the neo-con argument now -- even if it says that we tried and failed through extraordinary circumstances. And I'd read such a book if I could find it at the library rather than buy it.

[yeahwho]

I think everybody knows of someone involved with this war in one way or another, myself included. I know a guy who was having trouble finding work here so he now works in Iraq making premium pay via private goverment contract repairing oil well damage. He would rather be constructing something new, but new construction has been put on halt due to damage control (http://www.iags.org/iraqpipelinewatch.htm).

Priorities have been skewered in Iraq. I see no benefit here. We've fucked up. (http://costofwar.com/numbers.html)

[yeahwho]

Everyday a new more damning report comes out about the Iraq war. Over the weekend the LATimes did coverage on Rumsfield's poor decision making (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/09/25/national/w030031D77.DTL) while the last weeks death count climbed (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-wardead24sep24,1,4086576.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california), grim news that 4000 otherwise soldiers who would be coming home, will not be coming home (http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2488286).

Oh yeah BTW, the moneys running out Rummy (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military25sep25,0,5555967.story?coll=la-home-headlines).

And these stories are from just the past couple of days.............

This is a crisis to put it mildly. How much more are we as citizens going to let this mismanagement go on?

[cosmo105]

wow. that timeline's making me sick to my stomach.

[Echewta]

The L.A. Times is a totally liberal bleeding heart paper and I don't believe anything they say. Its probably the complete opposite. I'm booking my next vacation to Iraq.

[Drederick Tatum]

yous might have read this but apparantly the world is not a safer place with Saddam Hussein removed from power because THE WAR IN IRAQ IS CREATING MORE TERRORISTS. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5375064.stm)

never has "I told you so" been less satisfying.

[yeahwho]

bump*

Just because it's bad in Iraq, it doesn't mean it could not get worse, coming up this Sunday on 60 minutes (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/28/60minutes/main2047607.shtml) Oct. 1, veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward tells Mike Wallace that the Bush administration has not told the truth regarding the level of violence, especially against U.S. troops, in Iraq. He also reveals key intelligence that predicts the insurgency will grow worse next year.

Quote

"It's getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That's more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces."
Bob Woodward

Just trying to keep my eye on the ball

[Tone Capone]

yous might have read this but apparantly the world is not a safer place with Saddam Hussein removed from power because THE WAR IN IRAQ IS CREATING MORE TERRORISTS. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5375064.stm)

never has "I told you so" been less satisfying.

I don't think that's a correct thing to say. It should read "Terrorist Groups Are Using Iraq as Another Excuse to Kill". It's the same thing they do with the Palestinian cause. Anyone who doesn't think that the terrorist are great at propaganda isn't very bright.

[D_Raay]

Have you guys been watching any of the various pundit shows in the last two days?

This is being portrayed as the democrats fault for not agreeing with the president's failed policies on carrying out his "war on terror", and somehow this makes them weak on security.

How can they fly in the face of NIE report that is directly in line with what the Democrats have been saying?
I even heard one pundit say that the NIE report was a partisan attack.

This is what they are truly good at... Propaganda.

[Drederick Tatum]

It should read "Terrorist Groups Are Using Iraq as Another Excuse to Kill".

what the fuck. this isn't a try-out for Fox News. the point is that terrorist membership is not static. this is not just an excuse for another outing for a defined bunch of angry people. the Iraq war has increased Islamic radicalism and thus the number of people who are willing to resort to violent means. these people are commonly thought of as terrorists in the West.

[yeahwho]

Have you guys been watching any of the various pundit shows in the last two days?
One of my weak points is I sort of shy away from most television news, when I know I shouldn't. It is the way most Americans seem to get news. I'm completely engulfed in the internet. Having every major international newspaper in front of you at an instant rulz.

real news portrays the way it should be.

[sam i am]

real news portrays the way it should be.

I'm truly curious to see what you mean by the above statement...

Are you saying that the internet is somehow better at feeding the "news" to you than other sources?

Do you ever get input from other sources, like newspapers, talk radio, cable news, network news, etc.?

Just trying to ascertain if you have any kind of "fair and balanced" (just couldn't resist!) approach to your opinion-making or if it's single-sourced (i.e., the internet).

[Drederick Tatum]

that's just the thing. the internet is not a single source.

[sam i am]

that's just the thing. the internet is not a single source.

Agreed....but there is a certain "subset" of people who both rely on it and focus their energies on it exclusively versus those who go out into the world seeking additional sources.

Heck, I really do wonder sometimes how many people who are internet junkie news fiends ever read books, which are much more exhaustively researched and often peer-reviewed for accuracy.

The internet, as we are all aware, is subject to manipulation just as easily as other media sources.

Which is why I prefer to get information from multiple sources OUTSIDE the internet as well as employing the internet for what it's worth as well.

[yeahwho]

I'm not watching a lot of TV news shows of late, I use to watch everything Sunday morning. I read Google news and follow the links to stories. Usually any story they have will have 400-1000+ links which can help a slowpoke like me to ascertain WTF somebody did or didn't do. I'll hit the newsblogs on occaision purely for entertainment and opinions. Which is really why I think most of us post here. It's fun to read your skewered view of the world. :p

I sort of miss the Ace42X though, I think if EN[i]GMA called him out he would reappear. Because lets face it, Ace ran to get away from EN[i]GMA. :D

[yeahwho]

The internet, as we are all aware, is subject to manipulation just as easily as other media sources.

Which is why I prefer to get information from multiple sources OUTSIDE the internet as well as employing the internet for what it's worth as well.

Name one reliable source of news media be it TV, Radio or Newspaper that is not on the internet.

[yeahwho]

Today he called democrats cut and runners. He is defending his orders to stay in Iraq because of the tenacious insurgency in Iraq (which he neglects to point out we created)

This guy is stuck in a rowboat w/o any paddles up the creek of his own device.

Soon enough the elephant in the room is going to sit on him.

[Documad]

bump*

Just because it's bad in Iraq, it doesn't mean it could not get worse, coming up this Sunday on 60 minutes (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/28/60minutes/main2047607.shtml) Oct. 1, veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward tells Mike Wallace that the Bush administration has not told the truth regarding the level of violence, especially against U.S. troops, in Iraq. He also reveals key intelligence that predicts the insurgency will grow worse next year.

Quote

"It's getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That's more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces."
Bob Woodward

Just trying to keep my eye on the ball
Bob Woodward is such a creep. When Bush was popular, he was Bush's henchman. Bob helped Bush's image as a trade off for having all that access so that he could write all those sappy behind-the-scenes books. He's as bad as the imbeds who jacked off from being close to "action." Now that the wind has changed and Bush is unpopular, he's going to criticize him. Good lord I hate him.


The Bush administration has undercounted the US wounded in so many ways. They only report those hit in "battle" but most troops don't get hurt in battle. If Woodward wants to draw attention to that then good for him, but how is he cashing in on this? Does he have a new book? :rolleyes:

[DroppinScience]

Bob Woodward is such a creep. When Bush was popular, he was Bush's henchman. Bob helped Bush's image as a trade off for having all that access so that he could write all those sappy behind-the-scenes books. He's as bad as the imbeds who jacked off from being close to "action." Now that the wind has changed and Bush is unpopular, he's going to criticize him. Good lord I hate him.


The Bush administration has undercounted the US wounded in so many ways. They only report those hit in "battle" but most troops don't get hurt in battle. If Woodward wants to draw attention to that then good for him, but how is he cashing in on this? Does he have a new book? :rolleyes:

What's the matter, still mad that Woodward and his buddy Bernstein drove your boyfriend, Nixon, out of office? :p

(Sorry, sorry. I couldn't resist :D )

[D_Raay]

I'm not watching a lot of TV news shows of late, I use to watch everything Sunday morning. I read Google news and follow the links to stories. Usually any story they have will have 400-1000+ links which can help a slowpoke like me to ascertain WTF somebody did or didn't do. I'll hit the newsblogs on occaision purely for entertainment and opinions. Which is really why I think most of us post here. It's fun to read your skewered view of the world. :p

I sort of miss the Ace42X though, I think if EN[i]GMA called him out he would reappear. Because lets face it, Ace ran to get away from EN[i]GMA. :D
To be honest, I am very similar to you yeah. I get my serious intellectual news fix from the internet. However I find the pundit shows and radio (especially cable shows) quite comical. In a shaking- your- head, do they really think we are buying this, kind of way. The left included with a couple of notable exceptions.
And every once in a while you can get some insightful remarks from some unexpected places.

Oh and speaking of insightful remarks, Ace where the hell are you?!!!!

[yeahwho]

I just don't know what is happening but I'll tell you this, the whole Iraq war is really spinning out of control. I think Bush and some of his supporters had better come clean with the American public soon, the heat is definately on and it's not going to cool down.

This is a poll taken by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes. It is gruesome, I'm not one to go with polls and I hope this is wrong.....but unfortunately, it is more than likely pretty accurate.

About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, according to a poll in that country. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraqi_opinion;_ylt=AqK15PHCnfvxtunZp4imyT1I2ocA;_y lu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--)

[yeahwho]

Bob Woodward is such a creep. When Bush was popular, he was Bush's henchman. Bob helped Bush's image as a trade off for having all that access so that he could write all those sappy behind-the-scenes books. He's as bad as the imbeds who jacked off from being close to "action." Now that the wind has changed and Bush is unpopular, he's going to criticize him. Good lord I hate him.


The Bush administration has undercounted the US wounded in so many ways. They only report those hit in "battle" but most troops don't get hurt in battle. If Woodward wants to draw attention to that then good for him, but how is he cashing in on this? Does he have a new book? :rolleyes:


your right there is no defense, yet he'll be on americas most beloved and longest running TV show flopping on the rove propaganda machine. he's a gadfly mucky muck so and so. but your right, he cannot be trusted and I hope they ask him about his seemingly sudden lack of knowledge of the Plame case while writing Plan of Attack.

[Tone Capone]

what the fuck. this isn't a try-out for Fox News. the point is that terrorist membership is not static. this is not just an excuse for another outing for a defined bunch of angry people. the Iraq war has increased Islamic radicalism and thus the number of people who are willing to resort to violent means. these people are commonly thought of as terrorists in the West.

Oh please. Anyone who believes that is the fucked up the same as the conservative idiots at fox and the poeple who watch them. The bottom line is, if there really wasn't any terrorist already in the middle east, there wouldn't be any problems over there. You get these radical fuckers over there that brain wash the youth into thinking that the West is the mighty Satan and even though they hate Palestinians themselves they will pretend to fight for their cause. Then you got the right wing bastards over here spouting hella rhetoric which makes people like you kinda side with the terrorists because now you have "a cause" and the whole time people who can see both sides for what they are - are going WTF?!!??!?

[kaiser soze]

I know two girls whose friend's were killed in Iraq just weeks apart...

sad thing is, one of the soldiers was going to come home in two days before he was killed.

[sam i am]

I sort of miss the Ace42X though, I think if EN[i]GMA called him out he would reappear. Because lets face it, Ace ran to get away from EN[i]GMA. :D

If this is the way it went (and I'm quite glad I wasn't around at the time) then we are all forever in EN[i]GMA's debt. Way to go, son!

[yeahwho]

I know two girls whose friend's were killed in Iraq just weeks apart...

sad thing is, one of the soldiers was going to come home in two days before he was killed.

I'm sorry to hear this. I do support these troops and know the cards they've been dealt and the guy who dealt them. I hope this Iraq war can end with some sort of mutual respect soon, but thats not likely it just keeps getting....worse...

[yeahwho]

Bob Woodward is such a creep. If Woodward wants to draw attention to that then good for him, but how is he cashing in on this? Does he have a new book? :rolleyes:

Your one very sharp cookie Documad, the book is "State of Denial (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060929/29mediatakes.htm)" which got some NYTimes front page coverage today.

[Drederick Tatum]

Oh please. Anyone who believes that is the fucked up the same as the conservative idiots at fox and the poeple who watch them. The bottom line is, if there really wasn't any terrorist already in the middle east, there wouldn't be any problems over there. You get these radical fuckers over there that brain wash the youth into thinking that the West is the mighty Satan and even though they hate Palestinians themselves they will pretend to fight for their cause.Then you got the right wing bastards over here spouting hella rhetoric which makes people like you kinda side with the terrorists because now you have "a cause" and the whole time people who can see both sides for what they are - are going WTF?!!??!?

so you don't agree with the NIE report that Islamic radicalism has increased because of the Iraq war. you, some guy in Norfolk, has a better idea of what is going on in Iraq than professionals who spend their working lives analysing the situation?

and I side with the terrorists because I now have 'a cause'? wtf indeed.

[chrisd]

not that bad

[Schmeltz]

You get these radical fuckers over there that brain wash the youth into thinking that the West is the mighty Satan


Mmm hmm, and when "the West" sends its troops and tanks and bombers to blast their country into an anarchic Stone Age shithole, do you think that encourages them to think otherwise?


not that bad


Do you ever read the news?

[Drederick Tatum]

Mmm hmm, and when "the West" sends its troops and tanks and bombers to blast their country into an anarchic Stone Age shithole


couple that with a leader who emphasizes the fundamentally holy nature of his country and quest and you've got yourself some pissed off people.

[Tone Capone]

so you don't agree with the NIE report that Islamic radicalism has increased because of the Iraq war. you, some guy in Norfolk, has a better idea of what is going on in Iraq than professionals who spend their working lives analysing the situation?

and I side with the terrorists because I now have 'a cause'? wtf indeed.

Whatever, talking to folks like you is like talking to a brick wall. Terrorists have been looking for more fronts to attack civilized people for awhile. When the West booted Saddam the terrorists weren't saying "This is an outrage!" they said "how can we use this to our advantage and make people feel sorry for us and think this isn't our fault at all" and trust me, I'm not just "some guy from Norfolk". ;)

[Schmeltz]

When the West booted Saddam the terrorists weren't saying "This is an outrage!"


Why would radical religious fundamentalists be outraged at the removal of a secular dictator who took his cues from Stalin rather than the Koran? Osama bin Laden is an avowed enemy of secularist governments in the Middle East and the removal of Saddam - as well as any semblance of order and stability in Iraq - probably helped his goals more than anything, as the NIE report indicates.

I highly doubt that Islamic terrorists want anybody to feel sorry for them or are in any way concerned with their image in Western countries. You have a very odd position on these issues.

[yeahwho]

You have a very odd position on these issues.

He has the "I'm not just some guy from Norfolk" view.

[yeahwho]

The death rate in Iraq,

Here is a rational from the Global Business Network (http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242)from April of 2003,

excerpt:":Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

Of course, the violence included peaks and valleys. But the toll in the last two months is about 117 civilians a day. So we're back where we started. But now, the violence and torture is not directed by one tyrant, but by anyone, anywhere, in the anarchy Rumsfeld deliberately unleashed and deliberately ignored.

[sam i am]

^^^^

Interesting final line. Somehow it's all Rummy's fault. What an extrapolation without foundation.

You state the death rate under Sadaam, which was "Iraqis" killing "Iraqis," then cite the death rate since the US invasion, which remains, almost entirely, "Iraqis" killing "Iraqis."

At the rates they're going, there'll be not that many Sunnis left, leaving the Shiites and the Kurds to run the country as they see fit....

Survival of the fittest anyone?

[Echewta]

Didn't the U.S. help with the "needless" war with Iran? Or was that just all Saddam?

[sam i am]

Didn't the U.S. help with the "needless" war with Iran? Or was that just all Saddam?

OK. And the US should take responsibility for arming the Nazis pre-WWII too, eh?

How a genocidal homicidal maniac employs his weapons is not only our responsibility.

If that's the case, the French, Russians, and Chinese should fess up to the amount of Scuds, tanks, and financing they provided to Sadaam as well.

Plus, the freaking Iranians had it coming to them : they shouldn't have kept our people hostage for 444 days after their "revolution."

[Echewta]

Yes, the US and other countries should take the blame for arming those such as Saddam, etc. Especially if WE KNOW that the person we are allowing to have our and/or our alias weapons is a genocidal homicidal maniac. We encouraged him to attack the "freaking" Iranians who only revolted after we did such a stelar job with the Shah and Opertaion Ajax.

[sam i am]

Yes, the US and other countries should take the blame for arming those such as Saddam, etc. Especially if WE KNOW that the person we are allowing to have our and/or our alias weapons is a genocidal homicidal maniac. We encouraged him to attack the "freaking" Iranians who only revolted after we did such a stelar job with the Shah and Opertaion Ajax.

Supporting the Shah was a mistake, no doubt.

In context, the US administrations of the time (Carter, Ford, Nixon, etc.) sought to use the Shah as a bulwark against Soviet incursions into the Middle East (oil and all that, don't ya know old chap).

Talk about backing the wrong horse : Bautista and Castro / the Shah and Khomeini - take your pick you still end up a loser.

[yeahwho]

^^^^

Interesting final line. Somehow it's all Rummy's fault. What an extrapolation without foundation.

You state the death rate under Sadaam, which was "Iraqis" killing "Iraqis," then cite the death rate since the US invasion, which remains, almost entirely, "Iraqis" killing "Iraqis."

I could fill 3 pages of BBMB General Political Discussion very easily with why the majority of the failure in Iraq is "Rummy's" fault. Do you think the retired generals of various branches of the U.S. military are just bitter? They have such a need to be "quoted" in the media that they will openly criticise the Secretary of Defense during a war?

The intellingece leading up to this war was flawed, now that didn't stop "Rummy" from putting our military in harms way, it is his job as the Secretary of defense to protect our country, correct? What is he doing right now? Is this scenario in Iraq making you feel safer? We should of left a long, long time ago. We can now go back to the UN who managed to keep anarchy at a minimum.

[sam i am]

I could fill 3 pages of BBMB General Political Discussion very easily with why the majority of the failure in Iraq is "Rummy's" fault. Do you think the retired generals of various branches of the U.S. military are just bitter? They have such a need to be "quoted" in the media that they will openly criticise the Secretary of Defense during a war?

The intellingece leading up to this war was flawed, now that didn't stop "Rummy" from putting our military in harms way, it is his job as the Secretary of defense to protect our country, correct? What is he doing right now? Is this scenario in Iraq making you feel safer? We should of left a long, long time ago. We can now go back to the UN who managed to keep anarchy at a minimum.

I'll address the one part of what you wrote to me : yes, actually, I DO feel safer.

No attacks since 9/11 in the US.

You didn't address my concerns with the death rates, which YOU quoted, during Sadaam's reign and after Sadaam's reign. Why not?

[yeahwho]

I'll address the one part of what you wrote to me : yes, actually, I DO feel safer.

No attacks since 9/11 in the US.

You didn't address my concerns with the death rates, which YOU quoted, during Sadaam's reign and after Sadaam's reign. Why not?

So it is a wise investment (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182)in your opinion?

I do not understand what your asking about my iraqi death count, I'm making a point, the death rate in Iraq for Iraqi citizens is exactly the same per day as it was with Saddam in power. It is a daily rate of people being killed (I am not including U.S. soldier deaths). Nor am I including wounded.

I am criticizing openly what many others have too. A failed policy. I do not feel safer due to the Iraq war. It has exposed how much this administration exaggerated (http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/roadtowar.html) about the WMD situation in Iraq, that makes me feel very unsafe. This money being spent in Iraq can and should be put to better use.

[sam i am]

So it is a wise investment (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182)in your opinion?

I do not understand what your asking about my iraqi death count, I'm making a point, the death rate in Iraq for Iraqi citizens is exactly the same per day as it was with Saddam in power. It is a daily rate of people being killed (I am not including U.S. soldier deaths). Nor am I including wounded.

I am criticizing openly what many others have too. A failed policy. I do not feel safer due to the Iraq war. It has exposed how much this administration exaggerated (http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/roadtowar.html) about the WMD situation in Iraq, that makes me feel very unsafe. This money being spent in Iraq can and should be put to better use.

Ok. Yes, I do believe it to be a wise investment.

I know I'll hear all the same bromides about how we are "creating" more terrorists there, but the fact remains, despite all of the negative press and controversial calls on how to wage and finish the war in Iraq, not a single terrorist attack has occurred on US soil since 9/11.

I agree we can spread the blame for how badly things are perceived to be going now as much as we all want to, but by the same token, the accolades for what has gone RIGHT also belong to Rummy, Bush, etc.

[yeahwho]

Ok. Yes, I do believe it to be a wise investment.

I know I'll hear all the same bromides about how we are "creating" more terrorists there, but the fact remains, despite all of the negative press and controversial calls on how to wage and finish the war in Iraq, not a single terrorist attack has occurred on US soil since 9/11.

I agree we can spread the blame for how badly things are perceived to be going now as much as we all want to, but by the same token, the accolades for what has gone RIGHT also belong to Rummy, Bush, etc.

The same can be said for every preceding president and secretary of defense the country has had since it's inception.

[sam i am]

The same can be said for every preceding president and secretary of defense the country has had since it's inception.

What, that they deserve both the good and the bad news that occur on their watch?

[yeahwho]

What, that they deserve both the good and the bad news that occur on their watch?
I'm saying I put up links and facts while you just ask questions, then you type up a blanket statement. I don't understand how your opinion is bigger than factual documentation.

I'm not just dreaming up bullshit here.

[sam i am]

I'm saying I put up links and facts while you just ask questions, then you type up a blanket statement. I don't understand how your opinion is bigger than factual documentation.

I'm not just dreaming up bullshit here.

Dude, all you did was ask my opinion. You asked if I thought it to be a wise investment. My answer, as a taxpayer who contributes to the Federal Budget, is YES.

I never said my opinion was bigger than factual documentation : you asked me an opinion query.

You have reached conclusions and opinions based upon your interpretation of events that have transpired; I've done the same.

Your opinion is just as worthy as mine and we disgaree. That's it.

[sam i am]

So we're back where we started. But now, the violence and torture is not directed by one tyrant, but by anyone, anywhere, in the anarchy Rumsfeld deliberately unleashed and deliberately ignored.

I guess I'll use your own words against you.

Your point SEEMS to be that Rummy is somehow responsible for the "anarchy."

Seems to me that things may be no better or worse as far as the death tolls go, but at least we're ATTEMPTING to work towards a solution that will eventually make it better than it was.

People die in wars and revolutions, which is basically what is occurring in Iraq. Never has Iraq had a democratic society in it's history. Give it a chance and it COULD be much better for all involved.

[yeahwho]

I'm truly curious to see what you mean by the above statement...

Are you saying that the internet is somehow better at feeding the "news" to you than other sources?

Do you ever get input from other sources, like newspapers, talk radio, cable news, network news, etc.?

Just trying to ascertain if you have any kind of "fair and balanced" (just couldn't resist!) approach to your opinion-making or if it's single-sourced (i.e., the internet).

Your very first post in this thread is saying I have somehow got my facts wrong.

Your opinion doesn't mean anything to anybody without substantial facts to back it up, ie; a degree, experience, actual documentation.

Where I come form and my point of view, your a troll.

[sam i am]

Your very first post in this thread is saying I have somehow got my facts wrong.

Your opinion doesn't mean anything to anybody without substantial facts to back it up, ie; a degree, experience, actual documentation.

Where I come form and my point of view, your a troll.

yeahwho, we've been over this before.

I was not implying nor stating that you got your facts "wrong."

My post was in refernce to the ways you get and interpret the information you glean.

I was not attempting to argue your "facts," but rather to see if you look at differing opinions and where those differing opinions may have come from.

As for my being a "troll" : well, you are entitled to your opinion.

I have a degree in History from the University of California, Los Angeles, 1991.

My library includes volumes like Vietnam : A History by Stanley Karnow, 1983, A History of Russia, The Pacific War, The Rise and Fall of Third Reich, etc.

I took classes in Chinese History, Eastern European History, the History of Warfare, etc.

I went to a High School where I took the Advanced Placement classes and tests in European History, American History, and World Wars I & II.

I have specialized in studying WWII, Byzantine History, Roman History, and the history of warfare.

My qualifications do not come from reading what OTHERS have researched on the internet, but by reading textbooks, opinion pieces in the newspaper, listening to talk radio (and, yes, I include Air America in my repertoire), reading Time magazines published edition, looking up information on the internet, travelling the world to actually see and read and experience the places and times I comment about, etc.

What have you done besides sit behind your computer and, troll-like, "research" "articles" on the internet?

Let's see and read YOUR credentials, oh high and mighty one.

Elsewise, shut the hell up.

[yeahwho]

You figured me out! You are really smart dude. I will never post another FACT on the internet again.

[Schmeltz]

I have a degree in History from the University of California, Los Angeles, 1991.


Ah, so that's who to blame for your skewed interpretation of past and present global events. I guess I know where not to send my kids.

[yeahwho]

Tuesday Oct. 3, 2006

The American military reported today that a roadside bomb killed four soldiers on patrol here on Monday (Oct.2,2006), bringing the total number of American troops killed that day to at least eight, all in Baghdad or Anbar province, where fierce fighting continues between American soldiers and Sunni Arab insurgents, and casualties have been climbing.

According to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, an independent group that compiles casualty figures based on information provided by the American military, 74 soldiers were killed in Iraq in September, the highest number since 76 were killed in April.

All indications show that Bush is going to pass this war onto the next administration, it has now become another persons problem and a part of our daily fabric for the unforseeable future.

[sam i am]

You figured me out! You are really smart dude. I will never post another FACT on the internet again.

The real issue is you don't KNOW anything. It takes you looking up others' research to TRY and prove your preconceived notions.

You lack judgement, perspective, wisdom, and the ability to discern.

I'm guessing you never went to college and think that the whole world began when you were born.

Don't bother to go out and find your own way...just keep repeating what has been spoon-fed to you throughout your meager, pathetic, intellectually vacuous little life.

[sam i am]

Ah, so that's who to blame for your skewed interpretation of past and present global events. I guess I know where not to send my kids.

Funny.

They're only one of the mostly highly respected and touted History departments in the country.

[yeahwho]

The real issue is you don't KNOW anything. It takes you looking up others' research to TRY and prove your preconceived notions.

You lack judgement, perspective, wisdom, and the ability to discern.

I'm guessing you never went to college and think that the whole world began when you were born.

Don't bother to go out and find your own way...just keep repeating what has been spoon-fed to you throughout your meager, pathetic, intellectually vacuous little life.

LOL:D

[sam i am]

LOL:D

Glad to see you're so amused and that we agree on something:D

Have a nice day! :)

[yeahwho]

sam i am convinced you're just some sort of bot who has speaking points relegated from some pre-concieved idea the right-wing and faithbased can do no wrong.

You refuse to back up any argument with current data. It would be amazing if you could start a thread the polar opposite of my POV and get it off the ground.

I know of sites that are perfect for your POV, I think you do too, but for kicks you like to come here and (laughingly) talk about how Clinton is a bad man or why Bush and his administration are doing a superb job in Iraq.

If your going to use your opinion and library to opine on what is happening today, bring on some sort of documented facts.

Start with the reason we went into Iraq. Not your opinion but the facts.

Stop attacking the messenger and analyze the message. The message is 74 U.S. soldiers were KIA last *month.

[Drederick Tatum]

sam, one of the main parts of university is using the research of others to prove preconceived notions.

to back up viewpoints/theories/hypotheses/opinions with researched facts and opinions of other more authoritive people is one of the main skills you learn studying history. by ignoring this and claiming that the mere fact that you went to university makes you smarter, you're neglecting one of the key things you should have learnt.

[sam i am]

sam i am convinced you're just some sort of bot who has speaking points relegated from some pre-concieved idea the right-wing and faithbased can do no wrong.

You refuse to back up any argument with current data. It would be amazing if you could start a thread the polar opposite of my POV and get it off the ground.

I know of sites that are perfect for your POV, I think you do too, but for kicks you like to come here and (laughingly) talk about how Clinton is a bad man or why Bush and his administration are doing a superb job in Iraq.

If your going to use your opinion and library to opine on what is happening today, bring on some sort of documented facts.

Start with the reason we went into Iraq. Not your opinion but the facts.

Stop attacking the messenger and analyze the message. The message is 74 U.S. soldiers were KIA last *month.

*edit; mistakenly said week in original post


OK. Since the internet is the ONE and ONLY way you seem able to relate : here ya go....

The reason we went into Iraq :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2948068.stm

http://peacefuljustice.caltech.edu/0630/5.shtml

This one's good for the article and FACTS:rolleyes: , but the ads on the sides are hillarious! : http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/xyz.php

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2679

Happy now? Have I given you enough links to satisy your "need" for something "intellectual" and "facts?"

Now get the hell off my back.

[sam i am]

sam, one of the main parts of university is using the research of others to prove preconceived notions.

to back up viewpoints/theories/hypotheses/opinions with researched facts and opinions of other more authoritive people is one of the main skills you learn studying history. by ignoring this and claiming that the mere fact that you went to university makes you smarter, you're neglecting one of the key things you should have learnt.

I have been exposed to the "other side" and "revisionist" theories of history and the Iraq War. I understand that there are opposing viewpoints and ways to interpret what has occurred there.

My point of view is different than the vast majority here on these boards, I agree, but wouldn't you rather have a thoughtful, rational conservative to kick around occasionally?

Or, would you rather just listen to yourself talk all day : you've already convinced yourself of what you believe and that you are right and no one else can possibly be right or have anything to add to the conversation.

Pity your narrow-mindedness.

As for your take on "what university is supposed to do..." What qualifies you to speak on that topic? Are you a professor of human behavior as it relates specifically to college indoctrination?

For the rest who are reading this : UCLA is a LIBERAL university. During my time there, I was INDOCTRINATED by professors who preached the virtues of the Socialistic and liberal way of looking at the world.

In my own way, I have done exactly what Diederick thinks I haven't : i.e., I've found through my own studies and research that the world is far more complex and that the "right" way of looking at things better fits with reality.

I'm a freaking rebellious free-thinker and you're ATTACKING me....what a joke.

[yeahwho]

I'm a freaking rebellious free-thinker and you're ATTACKING me....what a joke.

You need to know that nobody is really attacking you sam i am, a real attack is happening 100 times a day on U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Once every fifteen minutes. The people in Iraq have recently taken a gloomy swing intheir way of thinking about this, the majority now encourage it.

This Iraq war is not making me feel any safer but somehow it makes you feel safer. Your not being attacked nor am I, they are. I think we're all in some sort of denial about this war but I can't deny what is factual. This is why I like to bring up documentation on reality today.

Whats up with this Foley chap anyway;

Former Congressman Mark Foley (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/new_foley_insta.html) (R-FL) interrupted a vote (The House voted that evening on HR 1559, Emergency War Time supplemental appropriations) on the floor of the House in 2003 to engage in Internet sex with a high school student?

[sam i am]

Thanks for finally engaging me instead of insulting me...I appreciate it.

As for Foley, there's a whole nother thread on him...

[Drederick Tatum]

I have been exposed to the "other side" and "revisionist" theories of history and the Iraq War. I understand that there are opposing viewpoints and ways to interpret what has occurred there.

My point of view is different than the vast majority here on these boards, I agree, but wouldn't you rather have a thoughtful, rational conservative to kick around occasionally?

Or, would you rather just listen to yourself talk all day : you've already convinced yourself of what you believe and that you are right and no one else can possibly be right or have anything to add to the conversation.

Pity your narrow-mindedness.

As for your take on "what university is supposed to do..." What qualifies you to speak on that topic? Are you a professor of human behavior as it relates specifically to college indoctrination?

For the rest who are reading this : UCLA is a LIBERAL university. During my time there, I was INDOCTRINATED by professors who preached the virtues of the Socialistic and liberal way of looking at the world.

In my own way, I have done exactly what Diederick thinks I haven't : i.e., I've found through my own studies and research that the world is far more complex and that the "right" way of looking at things better fits with reality.

I'm a freaking rebellious free-thinker and you're ATTACKING me....what a joke.

I'm not talking about the content of university or the 'indoctrination' at all. just the way to construct a reasonable and and articulate argument. but you seem to have missed out on that. instead you just constantly claim that through merely doing stuff all your opinions somehow carry more weight and are by default correct.

all I want is that when you claim/suggest/argue something, you try and back it up with something that supports your case. these are usually known as facts and there are a lot of them on the internet. just saying that you've been to university, read books and traveled isn't enough.

and I'm not attacking you. you're the one who's called me narrow minded.

[Schmeltz]

I really do have to agree with the others on the insubstantiality of your position, sam. You're obviously a thoughtful and educated person and I wouldn't describe you as a reactionary, but all you seem to have to offer is statements of faith and heavily ideologized principles rather than a serious consideration of contemporary reality. You never demonstrate how Iraq should make people feel safer, you merely offer that since you feel personally safer everybody else should too. You never provide any indication of how or why the War on Terror will swing dramatically in favour of the United States and its allies, you merely hold out personal hope that it will. In your most recent thread you do not detail how Bush has bettered the economy through implementation of his policies, you simply assert that since Bush is currently in power he must be responsible for an economic upswing.

Other posters here are much better at linking the reality of events with their interpretation of them. You offer an alternative position, but no reason to believe in it. It's nice to have someone to talk to, but it would be better to have someone to talk with.

[Echewta]

Cobra II has been a facinating read.

[sam i am]

Cobra II has been a facinating read.

Are you trying to hijack this thread and send them to Beastie-Free, echewta?:p

[Echewta]

ha, no. But seriously, it is a very interesting read. Man, was the intelligence lacking before the invasion and our government so didn't do its job to make sure the military was truly ready. I feel sorry for the troops/commanders.

[sam i am]

You're obviously a thoughtful and educated person and I wouldn't describe you as a reactionary

Thanks for the compliment. I do appreciate it.

but all you seem to have to offer is statements of faith and heavily ideologized principles rather than a serious consideration of contemporary reality

I tend to base my comments, opinions, and point of view on my background and what I have studied. I am not an internet-based information gatherer due to how I grew up. Reading the daily newspaper, watching the network (and now cable) news, reading magazines that are in-depth evaluations and expositions of issues, listening to talk radio (of both political bents), and, now, adding on internet research (when I have the time) are the ways I have grown up learning about issues and forming my point of view.

I understand that it's different (and, in the opinion of many on this board, outdated to say the least) than what younger people generally do to garner and analyze information nowadays. It doesn't NECESSARILY mean my way is wrong, just a different approach.

You never demonstrate how Iraq should make people feel safer, you merely offer that since you feel personally safer everybody else should too. You never provide any indication of how or why the War on Terror will swing dramatically in favour of the United States and its allies, you merely hold out personal hope that it will.

I agree with you that I do not go into as much depth as many of you would like to see me do. I, like most of you, probably tend to look for those tidbits of information that either reinforce or strengthen my preconceived notions on certain subjects and ideas. I believe, as a judge of human nature, that we all TEND to to do this, whether we cognitively recognize or it not.

I suppose, given time away from my family and friends, that I could spend hours at a time researching and divulging multiple web sites and sources for each and every opinion and fact that I bring to the table here, but the truth of the matter is that 1) I don't really have as much free time on my hands to do that as I'd like and y'all would prefer, and 2) I'm quite convinced that it wouldn't make a difference to those, especially like schmeltz, ali, yeahwho, etc., who already have ingrained preconceptions and ideologies behind the posts and replies you posit here on this board.

Given all that, I will agree to TRY to take some time and backup more of what I'm stating with links and references to facts within the forms that I listen to, read, and view so that you have some more reference points and ability to engage in a dialogue. Frankly, it has rarely been the case in the past that I have done so and had it make an iota of difference, but I'll make a good-faith effort as my sign of reaching out to those who are most diametrically opposed to my point of view. Fair enough?

In your most recent thread you do not detail how Bush has bettered the economy through implementation of his policies, you simply assert that since Bush is currently in power he must be responsible for an economic upswing.

OK. This one is a bit easier. Tax cuts give more spendable capital to those who then stimulate the economy through actual spending. What does spending of capital do? It pays sales taxes, gas taxes (every time an SUV is filled up, a large percentage of each gallon's cost goes to federal, state, and local gas taxes), etc. Capital also ensures jobs for those who manufacture, distribute, and sell the goods that are purchased. As a salesperson myself, my job relies on insurance companies paying for medical equipment that is both lifesaving and profitable. Patients who are in dire straits get products they need to live, each part of the supply chain gets a cut of profit, the insurance company pays for it, and premiums are spread throughout all those who have that insurance. Everybody wins.

Bush was responsible for pushing through the tax cuts. The Republicans enacted them over Democratic objections (http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2006-10-02-taxes-usat_x.htm). So, when the economy goes better, there is a link from tax cuts to the economy improving : http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/cea_growth_package_macroeconomic_effects.pdf#searc h=%22tax%20cuts%20linked%20economy%20improving%22, http://www.federalreserve.gov/BoardDocs/Testimony/2002/20021113/default.htm

Other posters here are much better at linking the reality of events with their interpretation of them. You offer an alternative position, but no reason to believe in it. It's nice to have someone to talk to, but it would be better to have someone to talk with.

Hopefully the above answers your concerns and we can engage in dialogue, rather than spitting at each other across the fence. I welcome the opportunity to do so.

[sam i am]

ha, no. But seriously, it is a very interesting read. Man, was the intelligence lacking before the invasion and our government so didn't do its job to make sure the military was truly ready. I feel sorry for the troops/commanders.

I agree with you that incontrivertible proof has been offered that the intelligence community failed on many levels in the preplanning for the aftermath of the Iraq War.

The actual battle to topple Sadaam went MUCH better than expected, I'm sure all would agree.

War is messy and, many times, the aftermath is not handled as efficiently and efficaciously as the aftermath of WWII was. Look at the history of WWI, where the Treaty of Versailles was signed, and punitive damages were imposed on Germany. The Weimar Republic, which followed the administration of Kaiser Wilhelm II, was unable to handle the drain on Germany's national resources, the Great Depression occurred, and that led invariably to a demagogue like Hitler.

Frightening to think that such an outcome could reoccur in Iraq, ain't it?

[Echewta]

Much better than expected? From what I've been reading so far, it doesn't seem that way according to the boots on the ground running the show. Not only were the american citizens expecting the Iraqis to welcome the troops with open arms but the commanders were told to expect it to. Seems like a lot of the intel of what was "suppose" to happen was completly wrong. Much of Franks/Rummy's push was on the Republican Guard and speeding through Iraq and not protecting the supply lines (Jessica Lynch) and dealing with the unexpected fayadeen resistance. Granted, I'm only 1/2 way done with the book but it seems like the generals who were actually doing the fighting, not armchairing, were pretty baffled about how it was all suppose to go down and how it was. And Franks wasn't interested in adapting to what was actually going down as much as sticking with the original plan.

[sam i am]

Much better than expected? From what I've been reading so far, it doesn't seem that way according to the boots on the ground running the show. Not only were the american citizens expecting the Iraqis to welcome the troops with open arms but the commanders were told to expect it to. Seems like a lot of the intel of what was "suppose" to happen was completly wrong. Much of Franks/Rummy's push was on the Republican Guard and speeding through Iraq and not protecting the supply lines (Jessica Lynch) and dealing with the unexpected fayadeen resistance. Granted, I'm only 1/2 way done with the book but it seems like the generals who were actually doing the fighting, not armchairing, were pretty baffled about how it was all suppose to go down and how it was. And Franks wasn't interested in adapting to what was actually going down as much as sticking with the original plan.

See this : http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/03/22/MN287891.DTL

This is what they "thought" would happen : http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/cmar/24_strikes.html, "We ought to be able to do it (take Baghdad)," he told the Newsnight Program on Britain's BBC Television late on Monday. "In the process if they (the Iraqis) actually fight, and that's one of the assumptions, clearly it's going to be brutal, dangerous work and we could take, bluntly, a couple to 3,000 casualties," said McCaffrey who became one of the most senior ranking members of the U.S. military following the 1991 war. Article fr! om March 24, 2003`

Here's what ACTUALLY happened : "...a total of thirteen deaths for in the period of April 5-7, 2003, when the young American soldiers and Marines fought and died in the Battle of Baghdad."

To me, a loss of 13 lives when the estimate was as high as 3,000 is "much better than expected."

[yeahwho]

I am much more concerned with today than I am with reminiscing about some theory of "How Great this is all going to turnout" because it isn't happening that way. "What is and What Should Be" do not meet in this war. For all the wisdom and great thought put into winning the Hearts and Minds of the middle east, this invasion and war in Iraq is by all factual documentation a failure beyond horrific.

The course were on is killing U.S. soldiers at an unacceptable rate. The wounded in action and casualties of the Iraqi citizens is climbing and escalating.

I would be fired yesterday if I managed a fucked up piece of work like this. It is unacceptable, the explanations, the reasons and the continued strategy.

[D_Raay]

I wish there were more sam's on this board. It's nice to be able to read intelligent, concise remarks from a conservative rather than knee-jerk reactionary comments.

[yeahwho]

Todays news,

Iraqi authorities have taken a brigade of up to 700 policemen out of service and put members under investigation for “possible complicity” with death squads following a mass kidnapping earlier this week, the U.S. military said Wednesday.

Meanwhile, a series of bombs went off in rapid succession in a shopping district in a mainly Christian neighbourhood of Baghdad, killing 16 people and wounding 87, police said. The dead were among 26 people killed in attacks across Iraq.

The U.S. military also announced the death of two soldiers — the latest in what has been one of the bloodiest stretches of days for U.S. troops this year. At least 17 have been killed in combat since Saturday, including eight soldiers who died in gun battles and bomb blasts on Monday in Baghdad – the most killed in a single day in the capital since July, 2005.

link (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4235227.html)

[Echewta]

Sam, you really should check out the book. Granted, the American military machine is superior when it comes to technology but when mistakes like putting on the wrong thermal shields, not being able to tell the friendlies, bad communication, etc. they were pretty lucky there were such few deaths. War is confusing, I understand, no matter how complicated or basic the fight may be.

13 deaths instead of 3000 may have been "better than expected" but the death toll afterwards I think leaves a bit to be stoked about.

[yeahwho]

Cobra II has been a facinating read.

Just checked and it's available at my local library, thanks for the tip. I went and read the review on the NYTimes site (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/books/review/30heilbrun.html?ex=1304049600&en=ffc80747ae84f966&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) and those underground leftwing weiner eaters loved it! (y)

[Echewta]

Its a very neutral book which is why I've been enjoying it. It seems to be just telling it like it was to those actually fighting the battle.

[yeahwho]

Even if they didn't plan the pre-war strategy so good, at least they're hearts are in it for post-war celebration.



Wednesday, October 4, 2006

Congress has already paid for the victory parade
All that's left to do is win the wars

bring on the parades! bring home the troops! (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/287464_parade04.html)

[Schmeltz]

I am not an internet-based information gatherer due to how I grew up.


Me neither. I grew up in a fairly restrictive environment and have only enjoyed completely unfettered access to the internet for about a year.


Given all that, I will agree to TRY to take some time and backup more of what I'm stating with links and references to facts within the forms that I listen to, read, and view


Of course that's fair enough - it would be good to have a better grasp of where you're coming from. If your backup continues to take the shape of the links you provided in the last couple of threads I've responded to, however, I'm probably still going to have major problems accepting your positions as well-informed, relevant, and valid.

[yeahwho]

Me neither. I grew up in a fairly restrictive environment and have only enjoyed completely unfettered access to the internet for about a year.

Maybe I'm just too cyber-minded, I've had subscriptions to as many as a dozen magazines and always 2 to 3 newspapers. I now subscribe to 2 magazines and NO newspapers. I do have a subscription to Consumer Reports online I hardly ever use. but it comes in handy for the relatives.

When I'm at work we always have 6 or 7 newspapers local, national and international laying around at all times. It is not only easier for me to find accurate news on the internet, it is also refreshing to finally have a tool that can keep me updated of world events within seconds.

I used to go to the library (and still do weekly just to checkout books) and do intense researching for various projects I become involved in, now that burden has been cut by at least 90% with high speed internet.

The internet has been amazing on it's coverage and communication of how the Iraq war is being fought. It's one for the history books in itself having this access during a war. If you research Vietnam to any degree, the internet is A+ hands down the easiest and fastest way to cut to the chase.

[sam i am]

Me neither. I grew up in a fairly restrictive environment and have only enjoyed completely unfettered access to the internet for about a year.



Of course that's fair enough - it would be good to have a better grasp of where you're coming from. If your backup continues to take the shape of the links you provided in the last couple of threads I've responded to, however, I'm probably still going to have major problems accepting your positions as well-informed, relevant, and valid.

Schmeltz - may I ask where you are from and what kind of education you received? It does seem that we have wildly divergent views on history and I'd be curious to know what kind of education you received to percieve and view history the way you do.

[yeahwho]

Here is a chilling discovery on Hospital death squads.

"No one can stop them. They are terrified... No one will be safe. There will be destruction. Complete destruction is what we are watching with our own eyes, and it's getting worse."

* Hospitals have become command and control centers for the Mahdi Army militia.

* Sunni patients are being murdered; some are dragged from their beds.

* The militia is keeping hostages inside some hospitals, where they are tortured and executed.

* They're using ambulances to transport hostages and illegal weapons, and even to help their fighters escape from U.S. forces.

CBSNews has story here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/04/eveningnews/main2064668.shtml)

Condoleeza also had a brief visit with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to offer support for efforts to bring stability to the country. I don't know what to make of it other than it's sort of a pep talk for rounding up 700-1200 bad police and staying the course, Condoleeza also said the U.S. will offer backup for the Prime Minister....gee, that would be a good idea since we started this war and seem to be encouraging every middle eastern terrorist and his family to take arms up against the U.S. military 100 times a day.

An interesting story from the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1006/p01s04-woiq.html) came in today about a letter from Al Qaeda leaders found in Iraq shows that the group sees the war as a boon for its cause.

"The most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness ... indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest," says the writer, who goes by the name Atiyah. The letter, released last week, was recovered in the rubble of the Iraqi house where Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, former leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, was killed by a US bomb in June.

If the letter is accurate, it provides a window into the group's strategic thinking on Iraq that differs starkly from the one the Bush administration has been expressing publicly - a view the president reiterated Wednesday when he said that Al Qaeda believes that "America is weak, and if they can kill enough innocent people we'll retreat. That's precisely what they want."

[Schmeltz]

Schmeltz - may I ask where you are from and what kind of education you received?


I am from this city (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina%2C_Saskatchewan) (in fact, you can see my apartment building in that first picture on the right) and I am currently working on my Honours degree in History at this institution. (www.uregina.ca) I took International Baccalaureate (pretty much the same as Advanced Placement, I guess) classes at this high school (http://campbellcollegiate.rbe.sk.ca/) and received a perfect 7 on my History exam. In other words, basically the same education available to most.

[yeahwho]

September 18th, 2006, one 24 hour period in Iraq.

Here in the capital, the bodies of eight young men were found chained together, stripped of identification papers, shot and dumped in a parking lot, the first of 20 corpses found in the city that day.

In northern Iraq, a man detonated a bomb vest amid a group of women, children and men lining up for cooking oil, killing himself and 21 others. In the south, police found the bullet-torn body of a senior anti-terrorism official. And in Al Anbar province, in the west, a car smashed into a line of police recruits and exploded, killing 13 by fire and shrapnel.

In all, at least 57 people died and 17 were injured in the violence that day, Sept. 18.

They were all killed in the same country, but not in the same war. The fighting in Iraq is not a single conflict, but an overlapping set of conflicts, fought on multiple battlegrounds, with different combatants. Increasingly, American troops are caught between the competing forces.

You can read about the rest of the day from the LATimes (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-map7oct07,1,6640174.story?page=3&track=crosspromo&coll=la-headlines-frontpage)

Also of import today is Republican Sen. John Warners statements about the direction we're going in Iraq,

Leading Republican offers dismal view of Iraq (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15155638/)

Growing misgivings among Republicans
While Warner has expressed grave worries about Iraq in the past, his description of a nation hobbled by violent ethnic killings and an ineffective government was his most pessimistic yet. It underscored growing misgivings among Republicans facing elections in November that will decide whether their party maintain control of Congress. All 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 33 of the 100 in the Senate are being decided, and Democrats could win the House with a pickup of 15 seats and the Senate by gaining six.

Facing dismal approval ratings for the Iraq effort in opinion polls, Republicans have become increasingly less reticent to suggest that President George W. Bush should change course. Most recently, House moderate Republican Chris Shays urged Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to resign.

It's refreshing to see some Republicans making some sort of sense rather than an unified lockstep to the Republican Party. It's about time to respect the people of the U.S. and not party line.

Today, Eleven people were killed in scattered violence around Iraq on Saturday, including eight who died when a suicide car bomber hit an Iraqi army checkpoint in the northern city of Tal Afar. It's very fucked up in Iraq to put it at a bare minimum.

[mikizee]

i have about 11 friends that have been in all facets of the australian defence forces, and have served overseas, etc. they all have the same saying for the american military.

'all the great gear, no idea!!!!'

[fucktopgirl]

Iraq.how bad you ask??

Check this out!
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1130731388742388243&q=DU++terror


Yep.....not a terrorist war but an OIL war!

[Drederick Tatum]

hot damn! new study estimates 655,000 Iraqis killed (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1892888,00.html). That's what they get for having WMDS, helping Al Qaeda, threatening the peace of the region and globe...oh, wait...

[yeahwho]

hot damn! new study estimates 655,000 Iraqis killed (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1892888,00.html). That's what they get for having WMDS, helping Al Qaeda, threatening the peace of the region and globe...oh, wait...

In a country with a population of 26,000,000. They had better hurry and grasp this democracy, before nobody's left to testify the benefits.

[fucktopgirl]

In a country with a population of 26,000,000. They had better hurry and grasp this democracy, before nobody's left to testify the benefits.

YEa, what a democracy they implanted there...No running water, no electricity, not much medical assistance. OH yea and too, they have gaz penury wich is pretty ironic because irak is like very rich in petrol.

Yep, great democracy is unfolding there , we gotta thank the USA once again!

[D_Raay]

http://snowe.senate.gov/public/

That's two...

[D_Raay]

hot damn! new study estimates 655,000 Iraqis killed (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1892888,00.html). That's what they get for having WMDS, helping Al Qaeda, threatening the peace of the region and globe...oh, wait...
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1904962.ece

Half of all deaths preventable, say country's medics
Reconstruction seen as disaster
More than 2,000 doctors and nurses are killed
18,000 more leave the nation
Even the most basic treatments are lacking

As many as half of the civilian deaths, calculated at 655,000 since the 2003 invasion, might have been avoided if proper medical care had been provided to the victims, they say.

[..]In the first 14 months after the 2003 invasion almost $20bn (£11bn) was spent on reconstruction by the British and American funds, including hundreds of millions on rebuilding and re-equipping the country's network of 180 hospitals and clinics.

But billions went missing because of a combination of criminal activity, corruption, and incompetence, leaving Iraqis without even the essentials for basic medical care.

[..]In March, the campaign group Medact said 18,000 physicians had left the country since 2003, an estimated 250 of those that remained had been kidnapped and, in 2005 alone, 65 killed.

Medact also said "easily treatable conditions such as diarrhoea and respiratory illness caused 70 per cent of all child deaths", and that " of the 180 health clinics the US hoped to build by the end of 2005, only four have been completed and none opened".

And here are some horrifying stats:

68 percent of Iraqis with no access to safe drinking water.

19 percent of Iraqis with sewerage access.

And yet, Dick Cheney can say with a straight face to Rush Limbaugh, "If you look at the general overall situation, they're doing remarkably well."

[yeahwho]

And yet, Dick Cheney can say with a straight face to Rush Limbaugh, "If you look at the general overall situation, they're doing remarkably well."

And since they're doing so well George has decided to stay the course against all conventional logic. The daily death counts don't look so bad as opposed to what? Let's face it, he does have a different vision for the Middle East and it started on a lie. Who will be the last soldier to die for President Bush and his overall remakably well situation in Iraq?

Things have become much darker since this thread began.

Here is a story I read this morning, it's has more to say than I could ever say.

A family says goodbye to their son.

Quietly accepting another Iraq death (http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-me-lopez22oct22,1,7791134,print.column?coll=la-news-columns&ctrack=1&cset=true)

October 22, 2006

[yeahwho]

that above link is sucky, here is the same story.

It's about how this war is really effecting the United States. At a gut level.

Quietly accepting another death in the Iraq war. (http://ktla.trb.com/news/la-me-lopez22oct22,0,5771401.column?coll=ktla-news-1)