M.Dancer Posted November 1, 2007 Report Posted November 1, 2007 I am not now nor have I been in the past a proponent of the Iraq war. That being said once Iraq decxended into chaos and violence I have never been a proponent of abandoning Iraq to the forces of evil. At this point (or any point in the last 3 years) it doesn't matter that the reaon for the plunge into the abyss was because of lies or incompetance, all that matters is the violence ends. To that end, withdrawing US troops from Iraq while insurgents and terrorists roamed and struck at will was never a moral option, nor was leaving them there at half strength. The question though was whether bolstering the troops levels and giving them an even more robust profile would have an effect on the violence. After a number of months it appears so The number of violent civilian and military deaths in Iraq has continued to drop, figures for October suggest. There is no single reliable source for statistics but a number agree on a marked improvement, correspondents say. They say this is generally attributed to the US and Iraqi troop surge in and around Baghdad that began in February. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7073160.stm Civilian Fatalities Oct. 565 Sept 752 Iraqi Secuity Fatalities Oct 114 Sept 96 US and Coalition Fatalities Oct. 41 Sept. 69 http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx To put that in perspective, the "normal" figure for civilian deaths has floated around 1400 per month where as the average coalition figure is over 75... This is a trend, and there is no way of knowing what the future holds, but for the sake of the Iraqi people who have been doing the bulk of the dying and the killing, I hope the surge continues to produce good results. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
White Doors Posted November 1, 2007 Report Posted November 1, 2007 One can only hope that this keeps going in this direction. Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
Shakeyhands Posted November 1, 2007 Report Posted November 1, 2007 I wonder what effect if any Ramadan had on this? Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
M.Dancer Posted November 1, 2007 Author Report Posted November 1, 2007 October 96...110 coalition killed, 1315 civilians, 224 iraqi security.... When was ramadan? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Guest trex Posted November 1, 2007 Report Posted November 1, 2007 October 96...110 coalition killed, 1315 civilians, 224 iraqi security.... The coalition numbers are probably more accurate than anything else, since as Tommy Franks boasted "we don't do civilian body counts". That is still more than 3 coalition per day. I wouldn't call it success but its probably about average for the course of the war. When I was watching these numbers closesly for a time last year it seemed to be around 3 a day. These figures do not include injuries, or those who are taken to hospitals out of country and die some time later. Everybody knows success will come from the political front, not just locking the city down with troops and police. That certainly cannot be sustained forever, nor is it a role the US military tends to do for long. What they really must do to find a way out is to get other countries to step in and take over the peace-keeping phase of the mission. But since bush gave most of the world "the finger" in his unilateral approach, the attitude amongst many nations will be that they must go it alone. You started it you finish it. But who is concerned first and foremost with the welfare of the people of Iraq? Shall we punish them for the sake of trying to punish the United States? Other countries should now step in and offer their help, its long overdue to ease the situation. Quote
Higgly Posted November 1, 2007 Report Posted November 1, 2007 (edited) All they've done is replace Saddam with Tommy Franks. Iraq is a looking glass country invented by the British to suit their own purposes. Sort of like Yugoslavia... So, who is going to keep it all together when the surge goes home? Or will the US dollar keep sinking forever? One of my favourite movies is "The Cincinnati Kid" where "The Kid" (Steve McQueen) gets gutted at stud poker by "The Man" (played by Edward G. Robinson). In the poker game of realpolitik, the US is the Kid right now and the man who is holding all the markers, excuse me, monetary instruments, is over in Asia somewhere. Ha so. Great movie though. Edward G. Robinson, Steve McQueen, Tuesday Weld, Ann Margaret, Rip Torn, and a whole host of really good character actors. Directed by Norman Jewison. The man is a genius. Edited November 1, 2007 by Higgly Quote "We have seen the enemy and he is us!". Pogo (Walt Kelly).
ScottSA Posted November 2, 2007 Report Posted November 2, 2007 What a strange way of looking at things. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted November 2, 2007 Report Posted November 2, 2007 I am not now nor have I been in the past a proponent of the Iraq war. That being said once Iraq decxended into chaos and violence I have never been a proponent of abandoning Iraq to the forces of evil.At this point (or any point in the last 3 years) it doesn't matter that the reaon for the plunge into the abyss was because of lies or incompetance, all that matters is the violence ends. To that end, withdrawing US troops from Iraq while insurgents and terrorists roamed and struck at will was never a moral option, nor was leaving them there at half strength. The question though was whether bolstering the troops levels and giving them an even more robust profile would have an effect on the violence. After a number of months it appears so I agree, Morris. I feel that the Democratic party is sacrificing the people of Iraq by pushing for withdrawal too early. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
M.Dancer Posted November 2, 2007 Author Report Posted November 2, 2007 The coalition numbers are probably more accurate than anything else, since as Tommy Franks boasted "we don't do civilian body counts". That is still more than 3 coalition per day. \ Those are from a year ago and tghe numbers are collected not by the coalition, but from independant sources. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Shakeyhands Posted November 2, 2007 Report Posted November 2, 2007 October 96...110 coalition killed, 1315 civilians, 224 iraqi security....When was ramadan? 13th of September until Friday, the 12th of October... Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
M.Dancer Posted November 2, 2007 Author Report Posted November 2, 2007 13th of September until Friday, the 12th of October... Okay, september last year........ 77 coalition deaths 3389 civilians 150 Iraqi security...... http://icasualties.org Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Moxie Posted November 2, 2007 Report Posted November 2, 2007 Over time and with trial and error Iraq can be free to be what ever she chooses to be, but the left and far left want the mission to fail. They hail our losses, demean our troops and belittle our accomplishments. There is not a shread of doubt in my mind that the left ,will over time, ensure that the missions are a failure. They care not for loss of life, encluding our troops. A few mewlers pretend to support the troops but they give away their true feelings with words like we Invaded Afghanistan. Our occupation of Afghanistan, they have desensitized their cult followers to believe the above is true. The left want to be able to say "I told you you'd lose" this is far more important to them. The media is also hell bent on reporting only the negatives of the missions, both the left and the media have ensured visa vie public support that the missions are doomed to fail. Quote Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy
Higgly Posted November 2, 2007 Report Posted November 2, 2007 There is not a shread of doubt in my mind that the left ,will over time, ensure that the missions are a failure. The left (in Congress) voted in favour of this whole dumb adventure because they believed what they were told. Now they know they were lied to and they see the result. This mission was failure the day it started. You cannot occupy forcefully a country of 35 million people unless a very large majority of them want you to. The US lost its invitation after Desert Storm. Voice of America called out for the Shia to rise up and rebel against Saddam. Schwartzkopf let Saddam's Generals keep their helicopters. They used those helicopters to gas and gun down entire villages of Shias and Kurds. People in the west may have forgotten, but you can be damned sure the Shias never did. Quote "We have seen the enemy and he is us!". Pogo (Walt Kelly).
jbg Posted November 11, 2007 Report Posted November 11, 2007 It seems that the Left is touchingly eager for the US to fail. Many of them are aging hippies from the 1960's who want to experience the feelings of hormones, youth and rebellion that fueled the "Woodstock Generation". They are latter-day Peter Pans trying to return to their childhood on the backs of their own countries and the helpless victims living in terror-dominated countries. Viet Nam is quite different from Iraq. The West had no vital interests in Viet Nam, or anywhere nearby. The West needs Mideast oil, and needs to protect a Western country in the midst of the Arab World, that is, Israel. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jdobbin Posted November 11, 2007 Report Posted November 11, 2007 It seems that the Left is touchingly eager for the US to fail. Many of them are aging hippies from the 1960's who want to experience the feelings of hormones, youth and rebellion that fueled the "Woodstock Generation". They are latter-day Peter Pans trying to return to their childhood on the backs of their own countries and the helpless victims living in terror-dominated countries.Viet Nam is quite different from Iraq. The West had no vital interests in Viet Nam, or anywhere nearby. The West needs Mideast oil, and needs to protect a Western country in the midst of the Arab World, that is, Israel. It seems to me that the right underestimated the cost in terms of time, effort, money and lives in being involved in Iraq. Most had no military combat experience and many had not even travelled to foreign countries before. They had no problems developing unworkable solutions based on wish fulfillment. As for Vietnam, you forget the reason some gave for fighting there was to keep Communists from taking all of southeast Asia and the Pacific including American allies in Korea and Japan. The Iraq situation continues to be an unstable one and the Iraqi government is a fractious as ever. The north, once considered to be the stable part of the country is now at terrible risk of war from Turkey who are sick of the terrorism coming across the border. Quote
jbg Posted November 11, 2007 Report Posted November 11, 2007 As for Vietnam, you forget the reason some gave for fighting there was to keep Communists from taking all of southeast Asia and the Pacific including American allies in Korea and Japan.Good arguments, but as often we don't agree. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
DogOnPorch Posted November 11, 2007 Report Posted November 11, 2007 (edited) As for Vietnam, you forget the reason some gave for fighting there was to keep Communists from taking all of southeast Asia and the Pacific including American allies in Korea and Japan. Things went very poorly in the area after tha Americans pulled out of SEA. South Viet-nam fell (very hard)...Cambodia had the Killing Fields (3+ million killed)...Laos became communist, too. Guess the domino theory wasn't that far off the mark. -------------------------------------------------- Sydney Schanberg: You forgive me? Dith Pran: Nothing to forgive Sydney. Nothing. ---The Killing Fields Edited November 11, 2007 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
jbg Posted November 11, 2007 Report Posted November 11, 2007 Things went very poorly in the area after tha Americans pulled out of SEA. South Viet-nam fell (very hard)...Cambodia had the Killing Fields (3+ million killed)...Laos became communist, too. Guess the domino theory wasn't that far off the mark.I don't doubt the validity of the "domino theory" to some extent. The balance has to be struck in favor of withdrawal in situations where the land being contested has limited strategic value and the people don't seem to care one way or another what happens. Maybe that nonchalance isn't well-founded, but it made transitioning the war effort to locals (called Vietnamization in back i the day).Iraq and Afghanistan are different. Long after withdrawal of most troops, the English-speaking countries will need to keep bases or forts of some kind on the ground there. Indeed, those will wind up being in many strategically or economically vital (for the West) failed states. Israel itself serves as one giant forward base, but internal presence in the Arab world is required. Would one leave a zoo under the control of its inhabitants? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jdobbin Posted November 11, 2007 Report Posted November 11, 2007 Good arguments, but as often we don't agree. You don't agree that the argument wasn't made or that the Communists had intentions of taking other countries in Asia? Quote
jbg Posted November 11, 2007 Report Posted November 11, 2007 You don't agree that the argument wasn't made or that the Communists had intentions of taking other countries in Asia?Oh the argument was made. The issue was, how many, and which ones? Japan or SK is a far cry from Laos, for example Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Higgly Posted November 11, 2007 Report Posted November 11, 2007 As for Vietnam, you forget the reason some gave for fighting there was to keep Communists from taking all of southeast Asia ... Exackly. I watched an interview with Robert McNamara on PBS a while back and he said "We did not understand that the war in Vietnam was a civil war..." The "We did not understand" part should sound familiar. Quote "We have seen the enemy and he is us!". Pogo (Walt Kelly).
M.Dancer Posted November 12, 2007 Author Report Posted November 12, 2007 Another indicator that the surge is working. The US military said such attacks in October fell to 369, half the level during October 2006. This is the third month running of reduced rocket fire. Mortar and rocket attacks in Baghdad showed a similar pattern, falling to 53 in October from more than 200 in June. US officials said this was in part due to the US troop surge for the capital launched in February. Other reasons for the reduction were the discovery of arms caches following tip-offs from Iraqis, the killing of more insurgents and successful reconciliation campaigns, US military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel James Rikard said. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7090535.stm Big question now is whether they have the gumption to continue the presence and pressure? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
ScottSA Posted November 13, 2007 Report Posted November 13, 2007 No, no, it can't be! It's spiralling into civil war! It's Vietnam! It must be a bank holiday! The US is beaten, remember? This can't be happening! Quote
M.Dancer Posted November 13, 2007 Author Report Posted November 13, 2007 No, no, it can't be! It's spiralling into civil war! It's Vietnam! It must be a bank holiday! The US is beaten, remember? This can't be happening! Never good to be flippant. It is still a quagmire that will take many more lives, both Iraqi and American before the US can extricate themselves. It is only by increasing their forces that the violence has abated.....and a resumption could happen at anytime and probably will as soon as the US starts lowering their presence. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
jdobbin Posted November 13, 2007 Report Posted November 13, 2007 Oh the argument was made. The issue was, how many, and which ones? Japan or SK is a far cry from Laos, for example I'm afraid that your alarmist view of leaving Iraq should be taken as as seriously as the alarming view of the Vietnam was. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.