0
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 12:14 pm
Meanwhile many that have seen the complete report are saying the Bush administration sanitized it to leave out the most damaging parts. (Something they have done repeatedly with just about every other report they released.)
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 01:08 pm
UPDATE OF IRAQ'S VIOLENT NON-COMBATANT DEATHS

January 2006 .... = 1267; Total since January 1st 03 = 1267 + 36,859 = 38126;
Feb 2006 .......... = 1287; Total since January 1st 03 = 1287 + 38126 = 39413;
March 2006 ....... = 1538; Total since January 1st 03 = 1538 + 39413 = 40951;
April 2006 ......... = 1287; Total since January 1st 03 = 1287 + 40951 = 42238;
May 2006 .......... = 1417; Total since January 1st 03 = 1417 + 42238 = 43655;
June 2006 ......... = 2089; Total since January 1st 03 = 2089 + 43655 = 45744;
July 2006 ........... = 1166; Total since January 1st 03 = 1166 + 45744 = 46910;
August 2006 ...... = 1132; Total since January 1st 03 = 1132 + 46910 = 48042;
September 2006 = 1032 = (275/8) x 30; Total since January 1st 2003 = 1032 + 48042 = 49074.


Estimates of Future Morgue Counts:
July = 1166 + 900 = 2066 .............. 46910 + 900 = 47810;
August = 1132 + 800 = 1932 ......... 48042 + 900 + 800 = 49742;
September = 1032 + 800 = 1832 ... 49074 + 900 + 800 + 800 = 51574.


MONTHLY AND TOTAL VIOLENT NON-COMBATANT DEATHS IN IRAQ

1,146 per month;.. 51,574 in 45 months 01/01/2003 to 09/30/2006.

4,738 per month; 625,424 in 132 months 01/01/1992 to 12/31/2002.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 01:19 pm
parados wrote:
Meanwhile many that have seen the complete report are saying the Bush administration sanitized it to leave out the most damaging parts. (Something they have done repeatedly with just about every other report they released.)

Meanwhile many OF THE DEMOCRATS WHO SAW THIS COMPLETE REPORT SEVERAL MONTHS AGO AND SAID NOTHING ABOUT IT OR ABOUT THE RECENT NEW YORK TIMES PUBLISHED DISTORTION OF THIS REPORT are saying the Bush administration sanitized it to leave out the most damaging parts. (Something SOME DEMOCRATS have done repeatedly with just about every other report THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION released.

Those same Democrats are either frauds or fools.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 01:34 pm
ican711nm wrote:
parados wrote:
Meanwhile many that have seen the complete report are saying the Bush administration sanitized it to leave out the most damaging parts. (Something they have done repeatedly with just about every other report they released.)

Meanwhile many OF THE DEMOCRATS WHO SAW THIS COMPLETE REPORT SEVERAL MONTHS AGO AND SAID NOTHING ABOUT IT OR ABOUT THE RECENT NEW YORK TIMES PUBLISHED DISTORTION OF THIS REPORT are saying the Bush administration sanitized it to leave out the most damaging parts. (Something SOME DEMOCRATS have done repeatedly with just about every other report THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION released.

Those same Democrats are either frauds or fools.


dear nincompoop

They couldn't say anything about it. It was classified. It was classified so that they couldn't say anything about it.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 01:46 pm
CORRECTION

Those same Democrats are frauds AND/OR fools.


Without violating security, those same Democrats could have declared, along with President Bush, that the NYT article was a distortion of the report.


Dear dingdong, Laughing

They COULD say SOMETHING about it, EVEN THOUGH it was classified. THEY COULD SAY THE NYT ARTICLE WAS A DISTORTION OF THE REPORT.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 02:00 pm
ican711nm wrote:
THEY COULD SAY THE NYT ARTICLE WAS A DISTORTION OF THE REPORT.


Yes, the report is even worse than what was reported in advance.
And the next one is said to be even more negative.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 02:02 pm
ican

It really ain't gonna matter what reports might be released or what information might come to light or with whom it might originate. Your volunteered role is to wipe george's bum and to swear there are absolutely no smells involved and that the task is an honorable one.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 02:38 pm
Yup, ican is Bush's ass wipe. Be interesting to see what the Bush administration didn't want us to see in that report.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 02:46 pm
xingu wrote:
Be interesting to see what the Bush administration didn't want us to see in that report.



"We believe that the more we inform our American citizens, the better
our government will be," Bush said Tuesday.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 03:04 pm
revel wrote:
xingu, Juan Cole does a pretty good piece on the NIE report.

http://www.juancole.com/


Your right it is good. To help keep our poor ican informed of what's happening in the real world I thought I would provide some excerpts.

Quote:
1) The real scandal is that the NIE was classified at all. This is the best judgment of the 16 intelligence units of the US government. Even senators and congressmen had been denied access to it by the secrecy-obsessed Bush administration. How can our democratic system work if the legislature cannot get access to such key documents? And, why shouldn't the whole public have seen this estimate? Doesn't terrorism affect us all?

Larry Johnson and Ray Close,, retired CIA officers, make these points.


Quote:
2) The NIE clearly says that the Iraq War is now the main generator of terrorism against the US and its allies. It certainly caused the Madrid train bombings of March, 2004 and the London subway bombings of July 2005. The reaction against the US attack on and occupation of a major Arab Muslim country like Iraq has been anger throughout the Muslim world.

You can see the rise of anti-US sentiments under Bush most starkly in non-Arab countries such as Turkey and Indonesia which used to like us, believe it or not. In 2002, 52 percent of Turks had a favorable view of the US. In 2006, 12 percent of Turks have a favorable view of the US. In 2000, 75 percent of Indonesians had a favorable view of the US. In 2006, 30 percent of Indonesians have a favorable view of the US.


http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/252-1.gif

Quote:
3) Critics have pointed out that although the NIE said that Bush's Iraq War has generated more terror against the US and its allies, not less, it also does not urge an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Indeed, the text says hopefully that defeating the terrorists in Iraq would have a good effect in discouraging the movement worldwide.

But the NIE does not in fact urge "staying the course" as Bush and others imply. It says that the Salafi Jihadis in Iraq should ideally be defeated. Bush is not defeating them with his current policies. The Pentagon's polling has revealed that between 2003 and summer 2006 the percentage of Sunni Arabs in Iraq who support attacks on US forces has gone from 14 percent to 70 percent. Bush's policies are making things worse, not better. There is no early prospect that his imposition of search and destroy tactics on 5 million Sunni Arabs will reduce the amount of terrorism.


Quote:
4) Bush repeated at the news conference his statement that the US was not in Iraq in the 1990s when the US embassies in Africa and the USS Cole were hit by al-Qaeda or in 2001 when al-Qaeda hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

This meme is so stupid and even Bush should be ashamed for trotting it out. First of all, al-Qaeda had other grievances at that time, including the US military presence in Saudi Arabia and the Israeli occupation of the Muslim holy city of Jerusalem and its mistreatment of Muslim Palestinians. They were also angry about the US propping up the governments they were trying to overthrow, including Egypt and Algeria.


Quote:
Larry Johnson writes,

' # 2004 marked the single, largest increase in terrorist activity ever recorded since the CIA started keeping records dating back to 1968.
# The four fold increase in significant terrorist incidents (attacks in which people were killed and wounded) was a direct consequence of the war in Iraq. All you have to do is look at the attacks recorded and the people killed and wounded in those attacks. Iraq and India were the big targets in 2004. '
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 03:16 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
xingu wrote:
Be interesting to see what the Bush administration didn't want us to see in that report.



"We believe that the more we inform our American citizens, the better
our government will be," Bush said Tuesday.


Jesus christ! Did he really say that?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 06:04 pm
parados wrote:
Meanwhile many that have seen the complete report are saying the Bush administration sanitized it to leave out the most damaging parts. (Something they have done repeatedly with just about every other report they released.)


But here again,we have the dems being okay ith the release of classified information,without regards to who it might hurt or how it might affect security.
Why is it that the dems seem to approve of these leaks?

Dont use the argument that its ok to release classified info because it was an illegal activity,the left has used that excuse before.
This report was not an illegal act,so why do those of you on the left like the fact that it was leaked??
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 06:07 pm
ICT are evil enemies of humanity.

ICT = Islama Caliphate Totalitarians (e.g., al-Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda, Taliban, Baathists, et al).

ICT are waging war against non-combatants. Protectors of non-combatants are waging war against ICT to end ICT's war against non-combatants.

ICT are waging war against Israeli, Iraqi and Afghan non-combatants. Israeli, Iraqi, and Afghan protectors of non-combatants are waging war against ICT to end ICT's war against Israeli, Iraqi, and Afghan non-combatants.

ICT are waging war against American non-combatants. American protectors of Israeli, Iraqi, Afghan, and American non-combatants are waging war against ICT to end ICT's war against Israeli, Iraqi, Afghan, and American non-combatants.

ICT's evil is not negotiable and ICT must be exterminated.

ICT are evil enemies of humanity.


Smile Oh, by the way, thank you all for blatantly conceding the truth of my arguments.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 06:24 pm
The leflibs allege that the USA caused and/or causes the development and expansion of ICT by defending itself and others against ICT. The leflibs imply that the development and expansion of ICT would have been less or non-existent if the USA had not defended itself and others against ICT.

The leflibs are fools and/or frauds.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 06:55 pm
xingu wrote:

...
...
Quote:
4) Bush repeated at the news conference his statement that the US was not in Iraq in the 1990s when the US embassies in Africa and the USS Cole were hit by al-Qaeda or in 2001 when al-Qaeda hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

This meme is so stupid and even Bush should be ashamed for trotting it out. First of all, al-Qaeda had other grievances at that time, including the US military presence in Saudi Arabia and the Israeli occupation of the Muslim holy city of Jerusalem and its mistreatment of Muslim Palestinians. They were also angry about the US propping up the governments they were trying to overthrow, including Egypt and Algeria.


...

Rolling Eyes The point of Bush's memo was that al-Qaeda grew rapidly before the USA invaded Iraq. Those other grievances against the USA that you mentioned were themselves clearly sufficient in the minds of al-Qaeda leadership to justify escalating "killing Americans wherever you find them." Saying that the USA invasion of Iraq caused the rapid growth of al-Qaeda subsequent to our invasion of Iraq is what is stupid. That growth would have obviously occurred regardless. Without USA interference of that growth in Iraq, that growth would have been much greater.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Sep, 2006 07:51 pm
mysteryman wrote:
parados wrote:
Meanwhile many that have seen the complete report are saying the Bush administration sanitized it to leave out the most damaging parts. (Something they have done repeatedly with just about every other report they released.)


But here again,we have the dems being okay ith the release of classified information,without regards to who it might hurt or how it might affect security.
Why is it that the dems seem to approve of these leaks?

Dont use the argument that its ok to release classified info because it was an illegal activity,the left has used that excuse before.
This report was not an illegal act,so why do those of you on the left like the fact that it was leaked??


Why is it a good thing for a government to operate with maximal transparency?

Why is it a good thing for citizens in a democracy to be kept appraised of government policies and reasons for policies and consequences of policies?

Why was it a good thing for the SC to order the release of Nixon's tapes?

The reason this leak, and many others, work to the advantage of American citizens and democracy is because of WHY this report and others (not all, obviously) were classified. Those reasons do not relate to national security. They relate to the deceitful control of information for political ends, specifically, for PR reasons with electoral consequences.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 06:40 am
Quote:
The reason this leak, and many others, work to the advantage of American citizens and democracy is because of WHY this report and others (not all, obviously) were classified. Those reasons do not relate to national security. They relate to the deceitful control of information for political ends, specifically, for PR reasons with electoral consequences.


Exactly
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 06:53 am
So, three years into this, how are we in the winning of hearts and minds in Iraq.

Poll: Iraqis back attacks on U.S. troops
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 06:59 am
The PM of Iraq says security is getting better.

40 men found tortured, shot dead in Iraq

Quote:
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Sep, 2006 08:01 am
Quote:
Saying that the USA invasion of Iraq caused the rapid growth of al-Qaeda subsequent to our invasion of Iraq is what is stupid.
I agree with you there Ican, that is one stupid sentence.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/17/2025 at 09:41:45