Killing of US soldiers down 60%

[stazy]

This is great news, but disasterous for the Democrats if the trend continues.

Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers

The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad,

[jdobbin]

This is great news, but disasterous for the Democrats if the trend continues.

Baghdad security crackdown seriously curbs killings of US soldiers

The rate of killings of US troops in Iraq has been on the decline, down by 60 percent, since the launch of the new security measures in Baghdad,

It still amounts to two soldiers killed a day in Iraq. Americans are grown tired of a war that has ebbs and flows but just continues to go on.

Two more died today, by the way.

A majority of Americans now think the war can't be won.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/iraq.poll/

[stazy]

A majority of Americans now think the war can't be won.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/iraq.poll/

They haven't been shown any evidence that suggests success is a possibility.

A decreasing death toll is not a victory in itself, but rather an indicator of increased stability and improved troop effectiveness. If positive news continues to make its way back home, that might be enough to give America the staying power it needs to finish off the job, as opposed to an untimely withdrawl.

As per your poll, the 1% difference is certainly within the statistical margin of error.

[jdobbin]

They haven't been shown any evidence that suggests success is a possibility.

A decreasing death toll is not a victory in itself, but rather an indicator of increased stability and improved troop effectiveness. If positive news continues to make its way back home, that might be enough to give America the staying power it needs to finish off the job, as opposed to an untimely withdrawl.

As per your poll, the 1% difference is certainly within the statistical margin of error.

I don't know what you consider stable but Iraq is certainly not a stable place. The U.S. can only maintain the surge for four months before reaching the breaking point. This was confirmed by the Pentagon. As spring turns to summer, expect violence to continue. Iraq is a country itching for civil war.

No matter how much Bush cheerleading you do, it won't change the fact that Iraq is not likely to get safer with more and more U.S. soldiers.

[Canadian Blue]

What about all those bombs that are going off, I'm sure that must be kind of, you know, demoralizing.

[stazy]

I don't know what you consider stable but Iraq is certainly not a stable place. The U.S. can only maintain the surge for four months before reaching the breaking point. This was confirmed by the Pentagon. As spring turns to summer, expect violence to continue. Iraq is a country itching for civil war.

No matter how much Bush cheerleading you do, it won't change the fact that Iraq is not likely to get safer with more and more U.S. soldiers.

I never said Iraq was stable. I said decreased troop fatalities suggests increased stability. I view stability as a continuum, not a black and white state of being.

I was not aware of the "breaking point" analysis. I'll be paying attention to see how that plays out. Can you provide me with a link on this?

I am not "Bush cheerleading", I'm reporting good news and providing my input on it. Viewing it as anything else is to confuse modest optimism with blind political affiliation.

[jenny]

So 2 American kids dieing each day in Iraq is considered good news?

This is not a war in Iraq, or even Afghanistan.

It was an invasion that is now an occupation.

Anyone who cant tell the diff is a fool

3197 American kids have died in Iraq, for nothing

[jdobbin]

I never said Iraq was stable. I said decreased troop fatalities suggests increased stability. I view stability as a continuum, not a black and white state of being.

I was not aware of the "breaking point" analysis. I'll be paying attention to see how that plays out. Can you provide me with a link on this?

I am not "Bush cheerleading", I'm reporting good news and providing my input on it. Viewing it as anything else is to confuse modest optimism with blind political affiliation.

Actually, you said it would cause problems for Democrats. I take this to be cheerleading. Whether it is for the Republicans or Bush, I don't know.

Associated Press in January reported the U.S. was at the breaking point. The surge can only be sustained for four months.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../w133017S88.DTL

[stazy]

So 2 American kids dieing each day in Iraq is considered good news?

Is this really the best you can do?

The trend is the good news, not the number of deaths. Obviously any casualty is unfortunate, no one is debating that.

This is not a war in Iraq, or even Afghanistan.

It was an invasion that is now an occupation.

Anyone who cant tell the diff is a fool

The term "occupation" suggests the offending party (in this case, America) has control over the region in which they are present (militarily and politically). This is certainly not the case in Iraq. Make no mistake about it, they are fighting a war.

Nazis occupied Poland. America is not occupying Iraq.

3197 American kids have died in Iraq, for nothing

This statement is intelectually sluggish. Firstly, American soldiers are not kids. They are adults who have made a career choice to join the US Army. What's is more, they have not died for "nothing". Wether you believe they are bringing democracy to Iraq or are securing America's energy needs, their deaths are not in vain.

According to this blog, the average age of soldiers who die in Iraq is around 30 years of age.

[jenny]

America is not occupying Iraq.

Now that has to be one of the most absurd statements I have ever read on this forum

But hey, how is this to shoot down your argument..Last March 2006, 31 Americans were killed in Iraq. So far this March 33 are dead

Feb 2004, 20 were killed

Average so far this month is 2.27 American kids killed in Iraq each day.

In 2006 only 2 months , Oct, and Dec had a higher averge daily death total.Every other month , were below the current death rate you are bragging about.In some months it was as low as 2.07

Hey that was last March a year ago.

Now what were you saying about good news?

[newbie]

Wether you believe they are bringing democracy to Iraq or are securing America's energy needs, their deaths are not in vain.

So what in your opinion have these young people really died for? Defending American freedom? Not. Creating a stable middle east? Not. To line the pockets of warmongers? Definitely.

[stazy]

Actually, you said it would cause problems for Democrats. I take this to be cheerleading. Whether it is for the Republicans or Bush, I don't know.

Associated Press in January reported the U.S. was at the breaking point. The surge can only be sustained for four months.

Thank you for the link.

Regardless of one's political persuasion, I think most everyone would agree that a stable Iraq would benefit the Republicans more than the Democrats going into the election.

America is not occupying Iraq.

Now that has to be one of the most absurd statements I have ever read on this forum

Jenny, I think the way in which I've characterized an occupation and how I've applied my definition is reasonably fair. Please show me where I'm wrong.

So what in your opinion have these young people really died for? Defending American freedom? Not. Creating a stable middle east? Not. To line the pockets of warmongers? Definitely.

Impressive. You ask for my opinion and then you answer your own question. At any rate, we all have something to gain from a stable Iraq, and at this point, I think that is what America is trying to accomplish. I'm not denying the fact that some American corporations will benefit financially from a democratic Iraq, but I doubt that was their original reason for going to war in the first place.

[daniel]

America is not occupying Iraq.

Now that has to be one of the most absurd statements I have ever read on this forum...

I had a futile discussion with someone on another forum who utterly denied that Bush linked Iraq to 911 and Al Qaeda.

[jdobbin]

Thank you for the link.

Regardless of one's political persuasion, I think most everyone would agree that a stable Iraq would benefit the Republicans more than the Democrats going into the election.

The U.S. has been burned several times by overly optimistic forecasts.

I think the thing that would benefit Republicans is to not have Iraq as an issue any more.

The people who have been instigating violence could be laying low simply because they know that the U.S. cannot sustain their force for three more months.

[stazy]

America is not occupying Iraq.

Now that has to be one of the most absurd statements I have ever read on this forum...

I had a futile discussion with someone on another forum who utterly denied that Bush linked Iraq to 911 and Al Qaeda.

If you want to read absurd statements, I suggest you check out the 911 is an insider job thread...

[moderateamericain]

America is not occupying Iraq.

Now that has to be one of the most absurd statements I have ever read on this forum...

I had a futile discussion with someone on another forum who utterly denied that Bush linked Iraq to 911 and Al Qaeda.

If you want to read absurd statements, I suggest you check out the 911 is an insider job thread...

Heres my issue with the way the war is being fought. Instead of fighting to win it, were fighting not to lose it, and because of fighting with one hand tied around are male parts, we might not actually win it. Apparently those in charge have forgotten the way Vietnam was fought. Had we gone into Iraq in overwhelming numbers and just blitzkrieg the country we would have had far less guerrilla warfare. I also believe it would have caused less damage to Iraqi infrastructure and civilians. If any of you ever end up being Canadian Generals (absurd, but hey you never know) when you go to war do so with overwhelming force. In other words when you need to hammer a nail down, dont do anything fancy just hit the sun of a bitch hard.

[jenny]

At any rate, we all have something to gain from a stable Iraq, and at this point, I think that is what America is trying to accomplish.

Now that is laughable. ( not really though)

Iraq was quite stable and were no threat to anyone, especially the United States or Canada before bush decided to invade to impress his daddy

Now the whole middle east is becoming unstable and is a major threat to everyone, thanks to bush.

And you say what the Americans are trying to accomplish is to stabalize Iraq.

3200 young American have died so far in case you missed it in this disaster. Who knows how many lives have been ruined.

Boys at home now with no dicks or balls.They are not included in the dead.

But yea, they are

America have a long history of meddling .

Just look how Iran was a pal.America convinced them to go nuclear, selling them the equipment needed.And now that same equipment, according to the Americans is being used to create a bomb so now we have the very real possibility of America invading Iran.

[bush_cheney2004]

Iraq was quite stable and were no threat to anyone, especially the United States or Canada before bush decided to invade to impress his daddy

Then I wonder why Canada supported and enforced crippling UN sanctions against Iraq to the tune of 500,000 dead according to identical bleeding hearts. Or why the United States Congress made regime change in Iraq a matter of public law in 1998 (Iraq Liberation Act). Or why Blair/Clinton bombed the hell out of 100 sites in Decemebr 1998 (Desert Fox).

President Bush was inaugerated in January, 2001.

[jdobbin]

Then I wonder why Canada supported and enforced crippling UN sanctions against Iraq to the tune of 500,000 dead according to identical bleeding hearts. Or why the United States Congress made regime change in Iraq a matter of public law in 1998 (Iraq Liberation Act). Or why Blair/Clinton bombed the hell out of 100 sites in Decemebr 1998 (Desert Fox).

President Bush was inaugerated in January, 2001.

It is probably because all of those efforts were sanctioned by the U.N. whereas the invasion wasn't able to get that final approval.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is probably because all of those efforts were sanctioned by the U.N. whereas the invasion wasn't able to get that final approval.

No....Desert Fox and No-Fly zones were not sanctioned by the UNSC. Hell, neither was NATO's Allied Force in 1999, but that didn't stop Canadian CF-18s from raining death on Serbs.

[jenny]

Then I wonder why Canada supported and enforced crippling UN sanctions against Iraq to the tune of 500,000 dead according to identical bleeding hearts. Or why the United States Congress made regime change in Iraq a matter of public law in 1998 (Iraq Liberation Act). Or why Blair/Clinton bombed the hell out of 100 sites in Decemebr 1998 (Desert Fox).

President Bush was inaugerated in January, 2001.

You are absoloutly correct. Those crippling sanctions that were killing hundreds of thousands of children made Iraq no threat to anyone....as I said they were not.

There was no reason to invade and make a mess of the whole region

As I keep saying, America has a long history of meddling which have created many more problems than it has solved.

I dont Care if it were Daddy bush, Moron bush, or Clinton, the American government are a threat to the world

[bush_cheney2004]

You are absoloutly correct. Those crippling sanctions that were killing hundreds of thousands of children made Iraq no threat to anyone....as I said they were not.

There was no reason to invade and make a mess of the whole region

As I keep saying, America has a long history of meddling which have created many more problems than it has solved.

I dont Care if it were Daddy bush, Moron bush, or Clinton, the American government are a threat to the world

Then why did Canada help to "kill" all those Iraqis.....then and going back to the Gulf War in 1991? Now it is killing children and their parents in Afghanistan.....oh the humanity! (sobbing)

[jdobbin]

No....Desert Fox and No-Fly zones were not sanctioned by the UNSC. Hell, neither was NATO's Allied Force in 1999, but that didn't stop Canadian CF-18s from raining death on Serbs.

The no fly zones and Desert Fox fell under U.N. resolutions. We've been over this territory before in these forums with well linked source material.

As for the bombing of Serbia, the former Yugoslavia was not a member of the U.N. at the time of the war in 1999.

This is the resolution that came up on the issue in the U.N.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_NATO_bom...c_of_Yugoslavia

The United Nations Charter does not allow military interventions in other sovereign countries with few exceptions which in general need to be decided upon by the United Nations Security Council. The issue was brought before the UN Security Council by Russia, in a draft resolution which - inter alia - would affirm "that such unilateral use of force constitutes a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter". China, Namibia and Russia voted for the resolution, the other members against, thus it failed to pass.

[jenny]

Then why did Canada help to "kill" all those Iraqis.....then and going back to the Gulf War in 1991? Now it is killing children and their parents in Afghanistan.....oh the humanity! (sobbing)

You are right.

That is a very good question

[bush_cheney2004]

The no fly zones and Desert Fox fell under U.N. resolutions. We've been over this territory before in these forums with well linked source material.

Nonsense...the UNSC never sanctioned such military action in 1998, unless you believe that 1991 surrender instruments apply...the same justifications used by Blair/Bush for invading Iraq. Clinton's Desert Fox speech reads almost identically to Bush's invasion speech (WMDs / inspections).

NATO's Allied Force against Serbia was illegal for those who worship at the UN alter.

If you have been over this territory before with "well linked" sources, you would already know this.

NATO's war in Kosovo was conducted without the approval of the United Nations Security Council. It was a violation of international law, the United Nations charter and its own article 1, which requires NATO to settle any international disputes by peaceful means and not to threaten or use force, "in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." - James Bisset, Former Canadian Amb. to Yugoslavia

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/bisset/bisset.htm