AP: Troop and Civilain casualties contiue to fall!

@Freeman15,

Freeman15;44925 wrote:

Ok, so this brings us back to my original question: WHEN?

the date is as yet uncertian. Wars are ended when they are won, not won when they are ended. It's been that way for 10,000 years and it's not going to change now so you can circle a date on your calander

but, sings such as these are signs that the day is drawing nearer. It's imperitive we continue doing the things that will yield result so that day continues to draw near. But if we leave today we aren't leaving, just defering finishing the job to a later date.

1 Reply

@Silverchild79,

I think that this whole war is about Force and dealing with a culture that is at a different level of understanding, so l think if they illegally entered Iraq, that is just what they had to do...we are dealing with people who just have a different view of the world, and their version of honesty is "how quickly can we change our minds" as taught by Mohammad who was constantly making peace deals only to slaughter those who had agreed and trusted his word.

So to act civilized and trust these people is not going to work...however l am not advocating violence, l am supporting helping these people to find a peaceful resolution, and to understand that a handful are just a bunch of Mafia-like Low Life Criminals.

I think to attack and counter attack within, as in attacking what is right and what is wrong after the fact of doing what at the time seemed necessary, is totally counter-productive, and doesn't do anything to help establish even a smidgine of peace. That's were politics really hinder any forward movement towards peace.

It is human nature to be at war, look at history, mankind have been at war 95% of the time, the ONLY time that their has been a lack of war has been when Mankind has been dealing with disease. In otherwords, conflict, fighting, death and destruction is the way of mankind to get a message...and the message is just like in a school yard, when the teacher breaks up a fight..to learn how to establish and maintain lasting significant profound peace.

So, in order to stop the killing we have to establish the framework of peace, and whether an action in the past was illegal or legal is totally irrelevant to the fact that people are continuing to die...this all started because a bunch of delussional criminals decided to hate.

0 Replies

@rugonnacry,

rugonnacry;44928 wrote:

That needs to end... UN res 1440, 678, and 687 say it was legal on an INTERNATIONAL stanspoint...

And a Joint house agreement (US LAW) signed authorization to invade Iraq on Octber 16th 2002...

Just because we dont like what is happening does NOT make it illegal

I already demonstrated statements like yours to be outright lies.

http://www.conflictingviews.com/t2455/

You fled the scene when I posted legal research. The UN keeps all resolutions on file, and I've already demonstrated that the Congress didn't declare war. DO SOME RESEARCH, READ THE RESOLUTIONS YOU'RE CITING.

1 Reply

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;44929 wrote:

the date is as yet uncertian. Wars are ended when they are won, not won when they are ended. It's been that way for 10,000 years and it's not going to change now so you can circle a date on your calander

but, sings such as these are signs that the day is drawing nearer. It's imperitive we continue doing the things that will yield result so that day continues to draw near. But if we leave today we aren't leaving, just defering finishing the job to a later date.

You didn't answer my questions.

How do we measure when Iraq is "ready"? Numerically, what level of violence do we deem an "Iraqi problem"? How many incidents per month, etc?

You have no benchmark for victory. In WW2 is was the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers, and we achieved it. Wars like this NEVER END because there isn't a cut and dry GOAL. So tell me, what is "victory"?

I think we should declare victory and leave. We killed Saddam and made sure he wasn't a threat, mission accomplished. If you won't define victory, I will.

1 Reply

@Freeman15,

Freeman15;44947 wrote:

How do we measure when Iraq is "ready"? Numerically, what level of violence do we deem an "Iraqi problem"? How many incidents per month, etc?

as we train more and more Iraqi's we're replacing our units on the ground with them.. It's already happening but as troops level in theatre have went up due to the surge we haven't seen the benefit yet.

success is when Iraq's military is well enough trained to handle it's own country. When that happens, and it's coming; there are sections of Iraq almost entirely secured by Iraqi's now. That and the Iraqi government meeting the benchmarks we've set will be the signal. We should start seeing soldiers return home as they won't be needed post surge (due again to higher levels of trained and tested Iraqi's). From their our presence in Iraq should continue to decline if things keep going how they're going...

all that is available news information, Bush and Petraeus have already said that the plan. And on the military level we're right on schedule. iraqi's government isn't keeping pace, but what do you want out of a government we helped set up? Progress? we can't even do that here!

1 Reply

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;44948 wrote:

as we train more and more Iraqi's we're replacing our units on the ground with them.. It's already happening but as troops level in theatre have went up due to the surge we haven't seen the benefit yet.

success is when Iraq's military is well enough trained to handle it's own country. When that happens, and it's coming; there are sections of Iraq almost entirely secured by Iraqi's now. That and the Iraqi government meeting the benchmarks we've set will be the signal. We should start seeing soldiers return home as they won't be needed post surge (due again to higher levels of trained and tested Iraqi's). From their our presence in Iraq should continue to decline if things keep going how they're going...

all that is available news information, Bush and Petraeus have already said that the plan. And on the military level we're right on schedule. iraqi's government isn't keeping pace, but what do you want out of a government we helped set up? Progress? we can't even do that here!

Again, you failed to answer my question.

Numerically, how do we determine when Iraq is "ready"?

You've also ignored another question:
Are you willing to sacrifice American prosperity for Iraqi democracy?

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

no I answered it pretty clearly actually, you just don't like my answer because it follows the logical path of though yet doesn't come to your conclusion

and without security and stability in the Middle East American will have no prosperity. Not until we're off oil which won't be happening before Jan 09

1 Reply

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;44962 wrote:

no I answered it pretty clearly actually, you just don't like my answer because it follows the logical path of though yet doesn't come to your conclusion

and without security and stability in the Middle East American will have no prosperity. Not until we're off oil which won't be happening before Jan 09

You used the same vague language the administration uses. "When they're ready". Ok, well assuming violence continues to fall, how many incidents per week, per year, etc, are the Iraqis trained and ready to handle? Once the incidents reach that level, time to leave right? So what's the magic number? How do we measure their readiness? Neither you nor the administration have been able to answer this question.

The Middle East was more stable before we got there, so using your argument the sooner we leave the better. We only take in 18% of our oil imports from Saudi Arabia, the rest comes from other, mostly non-OPEC nations, so we don't need Mid East security at all. However, if we insist on ignoring empirical political analysis, and contend that a stable middle east is essential to US prosperity, then the conclusion is that America needs to leave the region. Saddam headed one of the most stable governments in the Middle East, we topple him but support Musharaf? Come on man.

This is a simple yes or no question. Are you willing to sacrifice American prosperity for Iraqi democracy? Yes or No?

1 Reply

@Freeman15,

Freeman15;44965 wrote:

You used the same vague language the administration uses. "When they're ready". Ok, well assuming violence continues to fall, how many incidents per week, per year, etc, are the Iraqis trained and ready to handle? Once the incidents reach that level, time to leave right? So what's the magic number? How do we measure their readiness? Neither you nor the administration have been able to answer this question.

the answer is simple, when we can step off the field of play and act soley in a supporting role and they can handle the load, there's no set date for it. You can't logically set a date for it, even a goal would simply be that. Why do you want a date? Are you going to make a paper chain and cut a loop off every morning?

1 Reply

@Silverchild79,

We must be prepared for a permanent occupation. That's a very realistic scenario.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

Quote:

The Middle East was more stable before we got there

friedman

Don't you mean repressed, angry, violent...cruel to women and children, into peophilia, building the bank accounts of those who buy their way into positions of power, while others are coerced into working and living into poverty...where a child would have acid thrown on their face for daring to go to school, where women were beaten daily and told to submit to her husband even if it means that she stop cooking the family diner????
hmmmm.....................sounds like a ticking time bomb to me.

1 Reply

@Tulip cv,

Tulip;44992 wrote:

friedman

Don't you mean repressed, angry, violent...cruel to women and children, into peophilia, building the bank accounts of those who buy their way into positions of power, while others are coerced into working and living into poverty...where a child would have acid thrown on their face for daring to go to school, where women were beaten daily and told to submit to her husband even if it means that she stop cooking the family diner????
hmmmm.....................sounds like a ticking time bomb to me.

Nope. The authoritarian regimes of the area were very good at stifling dissent and paid their soldiers well. Had we not thrown in our lot, the Middle East would still suck, but it would suck under stable conditions.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;44970 wrote:

the answer is simple, when we can step off the field of play and act soley in a supporting role and they can handle the load, there's no set date for it. You can't logically set a date for it, even a goal would simply be that. Why do you want a date? Are you going to make a paper chain and cut a loop off every morning?

I want a GOAL, something tangible to achieve. "When they can handle it" is entirely SUBJECTIVE, whereas a numeric and concrete goal is OBJECTIVE.

Example:

Peacekeeping Operations fail because they lack tangible benchmarks.

World War II on the other hand had the tangible and indentifiable goal of unconditional surrender.

We won WWII decisively, whereas we're STILL in the former Yugoslavia and Somalia sent us running home. You need OBJECTIVES, otherwise history has shown us that we lose and we lose big.

We used the same thought process of "when they can do it themselves" in Vietnam. That didn't work out to well did it?

Yes or no, are you willing to sacrifice American prosperity for Iraqi democracy?

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

Huh, the USA invades another country to theoretically correct the country's social problems, shouldn't it focus on its own?

1 Reply

@Silverchild79,

Quote:

Nope. The authoritarian regimes of the area were very good at stifling dissent and paid their soldiers well. Had we not thrown in our lot, the Middle East would still suck, but it would suck under stable conditions.

friedman

I see your point...

however some view it as a seething situation, like a pressure cooker and they see the agressive actions of 9/11 as part of the release of a rising hatred,

while others see the situation as a handful of crazie wackos in a situation ripe for crime, the resultant action being the attack "in the name of God" against what they viewed to be wealth and corruption...

the world responds in the name of God, against what they view as wealth [from oil monies given by us} and corruption...

... and instead of seeking out criminals and making it a criminal pathology, the victimized country collectively rises and go after an entire series of countries some of which are composed of one corrupt leader and a handful of woefully misguided, horridly poor, repressed ignorant people...

From the point of view of those who are observers {fortunately}, it is pretty mucky.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

hi Mark!

0 Replies

@Freeman15,

Freeman15;44945 wrote:

I already demonstrated statements like yours to be outright lies.

http://www.conflictingviews.com/t2455/

You fled the scene when I posted legal research. The UN keeps all resolutions on file, and I've already demonstrated that the Congress didn't declare war. DO SOME RESEARCH, READ THE RESOLUTIONS YOU'RE CITING.

I am not on this site 24 hours a day seven days a week... take your legal search and email it to me. I assure you you have NO information that I would run away from.

That goes for anyone. IF you think I have run away from an argument there is an EMIAL function on here... send it to me.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

Hey Tulip how you been?

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

Hey Mark! I have been groovy...I thought l would pop in...that was about twenty posts ago...

I think the UN is all about reporting resolutions and those who do naughty things, because they are experts! What a bunch of corrupt nit-whits...

as for Iran, as long as they have the monkey faced Ah-am-a mad-jihad...oops did l spell wrong again...let's see Amadpeopiliaticjihad...anyway {yes l am amused by myself!},

anyway, as long as they have the current dictators it is exactly the same as Hitler before the rounding up of all jewish people...exactly same mentality...

it is not the people, the individuals who have come down through generations of poverty and brainwashing about God being a vengeful, jealous, nasty, woman-hating, child-abusing deity, those people who work hard to feed their children and pray for an end to the bloodshed, who have been wrongly led to understanding that the hatred is the ONLY way.

in fact the people of Iran, and in fact the other middleeastern countries that are part of the chain of events that define the unrest and war...these people are the only source of peace.

It is like the Nazi's, the children grew up exactly like ours, with pride for their country and joining everyone else in sing-alongs, and campfires, and being a part of the community, it was done in innocence, in not knowing another way, and what it lead to was horrifying, but do you think an option was to just opt out?

The ones who THOUGHT that was an option were killed, murdered...

and so here we are again, in a world war, with puppet-masters that are into power and gaining wealth...and the people are following WHAT THEY KNOW.

It is the corrupt people who are power, and those who influence through manipultative religion warped to suit their personal pathology, that are the criminals.

They profit from unrest, from murder, from fear, and so they can never be trusted...

They don't truly represent either the people or God. They simply represent a mental condition.

They have been found throughout history as Ghangis Chan, and Hitler...and with a different name we can see that history simply repeats itself, with leaders of the innocent, and they simply will not change,

So the current leaders of these places laugh at agreements, for their version of religion has taught them to follow Mohammad, and in this version of there God they believe the part of the Koran where Mo. teaches about how to dupe people in, sign treaties, and then how to slaughter them for the reward of their material wealth, which in the people's eyes is a security...

Yep, that is how l connect the dots, and Iran's leaders are not pretty, however it is the people who are the ONLY path to peace...

0 Replies

@markx15,

markx15;45035 wrote:

Huh, the USA invades another country to theoretically correct the country's social problems, shouldn't it focus on its own?

It isn't about ideals, but interests. Our interests are oil and Israel. Bottom line.:jail:

2 Replies

AP: Troop and Civilain casualties contiue to fall!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know