Violence in Iraq has dropped by 70 percent

[FBBone]

Originally posted by chancevought
The key words are" the Interior Ministry said"....

the Interior Ministry drops more lies than anyone here can count....all they release is misinformation...

Funny, if they had said that "violence has increased by 70%", you'd likely have quoted it as the gospel truth.

[Coach]

I laugh at the civilians 'smarter' than the pro's looking at ALL of the intel.  Please give me the facts you have that would overide the pro's.  I am very open minded and will agree with anyone that has the most compelling arguments.  However, you must have the hard core facts....not some bs reported by a network.

[bj229r]

What do the 'pros' think?

[Arlo]

Originally posted by FBBone
Funny, if they had said that "violence has increased by 70%", you'd likely have quoted it as the gospel truth.

This is called "projection." Just sayin'.

[LEADPIG]

Iraq= shooting yourself in the foot, jumping on bike with no seat, Asking a woman "why" she's mad, jumping off a bridge, beating your head into a wall and hoping one day it will feel good.

I knew that in the begining

Wanting to continue doing such things i just don't understand.

[LEADPIG]

Originally posted by Coach
I laugh at the civilians 'smarter' than the pro's looking at ALL of the intel.  Please give me the facts you have that would overide the pro's.  I am very open minded and will agree with anyone that has the most compelling arguments.  However, you must have the hard core facts....not some bs reported by a network.

Just because your a "pro" doesn't nessecarily mean anything.

[lazs2]

angus said...

Just my cents, but I belive:

1: Motive for Invasion was crap at the time.
2: Motive would have manifested itself later when Saddam finally had WMD's
3: There were lots of Iraqi casualties under Saddam.
4: There were lots of casualties as a chain reaction of restraining Saddam (UN, - business blockages etc)
5: The world is better without him.
6: The military campaign was a stunning victory to the US/UK
7: The aftermath and lot of the logistics are a screw up.
8: The aftermath was grossly underestimated.
9: If USA leaves tattered Iraq just like that, it is like repeating Vietnam, or worse."

I find that I agree with angus on this but would add..

10:  we had to do it sooner or later somewhere and this is as good a time and place as any.

perhaps angus is saying that anyway tho in number 2

anyway.. good post and to the point.

lazs

[Dago]

Originally posted by DYNAMITE
Iron... you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

I think he was dead-on.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Dago
I think he was dead-on.

Curly thought Moe was.

[Angus]

Originally posted by lazs2
angus said...

Just my cents, but I belive:

1: Motive for Invasion was crap at the time.
2: Motive would have manifested itself later when Saddam finally had WMD's
3: There were lots of Iraqi casualties under Saddam.
4: There were lots of casualties as a chain reaction of restraining Saddam (UN, - business blockages etc)
5: The world is better without him.
6: The military campaign was a stunning victory to the US/UK
7: The aftermath and lot of the logistics are a screw up.
8: The aftermath was grossly underestimated.
9: If USA leaves tattered Iraq just like that, it is like repeating Vietnam, or worse."

I find that I agree with angus on this but would add..

10:  we had to do it sooner or later somewhere and this is as good a time and place as any.

perhaps angus is saying that anyway tho in number 2

anyway.. good post and to the point.

lazs

LOL, I don't belive we finally (mostly) agree on anything

I should have added that IMHO the victors should linger on a little longer, or rather meet any agression with more force. While the press is so full about the horrible things in Iraq, it seems to be forgotten that the deal is a fight with old bullies and nutheads of the Saddam regime as well as outside supporters that pour petrol on the fire. When civilians are dead in the market place it's mostly because of another Iraqi. The majority of civilian casualties in Iraq after the victory is because of other Iraqis.
And here is a little bit of a refining to the list:
3b. Saddam had the ropes on the money when the UN was putting the thumscrew on, and chose to channel those on his funds, his palaces, and his WMD projects.
3c The result which was largely starvation and death of infants as well as the sick was systematically used as an anti-West propoganda.

[lazs2]

angus... so far.. I am not seeing where we disagree at all on this.

The lefties here talk about the three stooges and bikes without seats but I really fail to see that as being useful.. the best is the "I told you so"   like.. if we had done nothing everything would have been fine.

It is sorta like saying "I told you so" when the germans kicked our butt in north africa or when the japs were taking every island in the pacific.  

It is like telling us "I told you so" when the soviets were taking everything in sight and we were forced to fight em in places that were not of our choosing and not that good.. when we were pouring money down a seemingly endless rathole to defeat an evil empire... right up to the point of the colapse of the evil empire.

lazs

[Angus]

Hehe, you just have to look at another thread where I am jostling with Boroda on his empire. But in the case of Iraq (IMHO) there is this failiure of intelligence and then follow up. If I'd go into a "I told you so" mode, I'd say it was just a wee bit too early. There wasn't enough intelligence as well as evidence to start the deal. There was gambling involved from the US side, - faith in that you would find something there.
Then there is the screw-up of logistics as to follow up the "Blitzkrieg". Not securing depots (if finding them all), electricity, food, etc etc. This provokes resistance, and also provides the thugs with guns & ammo.
"I said so" would say that a heavier backup in the beginning would have paid up quickly. But of course you could not have known that! So while I am a tad frustrated with the USA starting off this mess, I feel sorry for the USA being stuck there and being spanked for it. And many frigging lefties don't even see the real thugs at all!!!!
There are news that the violence is dropping, and that the bandits are running lower on artillery and ammo, - that's good news. Had to happen some day. So, wondering if you agree on my opinion, which is that the USA should just stick around with growing force and confidence for a while. Some years. Make the buggers think that with every bomb they plant, therewill be more troops for a longer time.

[lazs2]

angus.. yes.. I would say that it is fair to say that I agree with you that we should stay a while... I don't really see that we have much choice.. it is both the benificial (to everyone) and the moral thing to do.

I do believe that so far as superpowers are.. and have been... The USA is probly the most moral one us bipeds have ever come up with.   I think we need to see it through even if it is difficult for us.

And yes... looking back... we should have had a bigger effort.. it would have helped too if we had gotten more world backing for what is still.. a good cause.

I am dissapointed but not surprised in what is,  most of the rest of the world in this.

With more backing.. this thing would be a lot better by now.    

lazs

[Angus]

Moral, yes, and

[LEADPIG]

Originally posted by lazs2
angus... so far.. I am not seeing where we disagree at all on this.

The lefties here talk about the three stooges and bikes without seats but I really fail to see that as being useful.. the best is the "I told you so"   like.. if we had done nothing everything would have been fine.

It is sorta like saying "I told you so" when the germans kicked our butt in north africa or when the japs were taking every island in the pacific.  

It is like telling us "I told you so" when the soviets were taking everything in sight and we were forced to fight em in places that were not of our choosing and not that good.. when we were pouring money down a seemingly endless rathole to defeat an evil empire... right up to the point of the colapse of the evil empire.

lazs

No it's like quit going down the same damn path and pick a new one. If you like seeing soldiers drive over bombs two days after some idiots set it, if you like people shooting soldiers while they are not aware and have the perpatrator dissapear, if you like seeing the governtment set goals for the troops and have them constantly change it in the middle of action, if like seeing troops fighting... i don't who the hell there supposed to be fighting when the terrorist wear no uniform, look the same as everone else in the region, and don't really reveal themselves untill after they start shooting, or run off afterwards into a crowd of, see no evils, hear no evils, and speak no evils.

By all means continue. I would think you're a masochist if you want to. It's not an effective use of army resources or army lives. The army needs a specific target in order to kill it, and a specific goal that doesn't change every five minutes when the people that employ them find out they don't know what they are doing. If you think that policy needs to be continued go ahead.