9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 03:59 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:


...
mysteryman wrote:

...

A question for you, to see if you grasp the situation correctly: what is the goal of the 'surge?'

Cycloptichorn

Laughing
Mysteryman, I recommend you don't tell Cyclo the answer! Make him guess. That way we can see if Cyclo grasps the situation correctly.


Well, I know the answer; at least, the official reason given. Do you, Ican?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 04:00 pm
General David Petraeus is scheduled to deliver his report on the status in Iraq somewhere around Sept 12.
But this this evening from NPR's All Things Considered:

"The White House has indicated that it will write the report Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker deliver to Congress - even though, just a few weeks ago, the president said that he himself was awaiting its conclusions.
"I'm going to wait to see what David has to say," President Bush said in August. "I'm not going to prejudge what he may say..."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 04:11 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:


...
mysteryman wrote:

...

A question for you, to see if you grasp the situation correctly: what is the goal of the 'surge?'

Cycloptichorn

Laughing
Mysteryman, I recommend you don't tell Cyclo the answer! Make him guess. That way we can see if Cyclo grasps the situation correctly.


Well, I know the answer; at least, the official reason given. Do you, Ican?

Cycloptichorn

Two offficial reasons were given. I know them both. :wink:
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 04:20 pm
realjohnboy wrote:
General David Petraeus is scheduled to deliver his report on the status in Iraq somewhere around Sept 12.
But this this evening from NPR's All Things Considered:

"The White House has indicated that it will write the report Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker deliver to Congress - even though, just a few weeks ago, the president said that he himself was awaiting its conclusions.
"I'm going to wait to see what David has to say," President Bush said in August. "I'm not going to prejudge what he may say..."

When Congress approved the surge, one of its conditions was that President Bush make periodic status reports to Congress.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 04:51 pm
You are correct about the president making periodic reports to Congress. I was talking about Genereal Petraeus' report to Congress. HIS report in mid-Sept. The one the president says he is waiting for but now appears to be going to be written by the White House and the Pentagon brass in D.C.
From the NPR story:
"Paul Hughes, a retired Army colonel now at the U.S. Institute of Peace, argues that a report penned by the White House will only undermine its credibility.
'For them to be writing this report is going to diminish whatever ground truth that Gen Petraeus or Ambassador Crocker have put into the reports,' he says."
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 05:10 pm
Congress May 24, 2007 approved the surge, after establishing several conditions.
Quote:

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/070525/afp/070525072951top.html

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Congress approved a multi-billion dollar Iraq war budget Thursday, after bowing to US President George W. Bush's demands to rip out troop withdrawal timelines that prompted a previous veto.

After a day of anguished debate reflecting sharp divisions over the unpopular war, the House of Representatives voted 280-142 to fund the war through September, and the Senate concurred by 80 votes to 14.
The votes left many anti-war Democrats with a sour taste but acknowledging they lack the power to thwart Bush's war strategy, despite controlling Congress, and Republicans crowing they had beaten Democratic "surrender dates."

When Bush signs the bill, he will end, temporarily at least, a bitter constitutional tug-of-war between Congress and the White House.
Democrats nevertheless vowed to renew efforts to handcuff him over a war which has dragged on four years and killed 3,442 US troops and untold thousands of Iraqis.

"The days of blank checks and green lights for his failed policy are over," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who reluctantly backed the bill.
"Senate Democrats will never give in, never, never, never, never," Reid said, paraphrasing former wartime British prime minister Winston Churchill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and several other top Democrats, were in the unusual position of voting against a deal they had spent days negotiating with the White House. "This is like a fig leaf, this is a token, this is a small step forward, instead we should have a giant step forward into a new direction," she said.

Top Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both voted no, reflecting anti-war fervor they face on the campaign trail.
"With my vote today, I am saying to the president that enough is enough," Obama said later in a written statement.

Clinton said in her own statement: "I believe that the President should begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq and abandon this escalation."

Another Democratic presidential hope, Senator Joseph Biden grudgingly voted to pass the bill.

The White House expressed satisfaction at the passage of what it described as a roadmap for security [of] Iraq."Congress is to be congratulated for successfully providing our troops with the funding and flexibility they need to protect our country, rather than mandating arbitrary timetables for military operations," said Alex Conant, a White House spokesman.

Several times, raw angst over the war erupted onto the floor of the House.

Republican leader John Boehner dissolved in tears, as he warned America needed to take the battle to Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Democrat John Murtha, a heavyweight opponent of the war, could barely contain his fury as he shouted hoarsely across the chamber: "I feel a direction change in the air."

Thursday's votes came hours after Bush forecast a bloody and difficult few months in Iraq.

"We're going to expect heavy fighting in the weeks and months" to come, Bush told a White House news conference.
"We can expect more American and Iraqi casualties," he said. At least 94 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq this month alone.

Democrats had demanded troop withdrawal timetables for months, and included them in a 124 billion dollar budget vetoed by Bush earlier this month.

But they finally conceded to political logic, unwilling to be seen as unsupportive of troops stuck in battle, knowing that they lack the two-thirds majority needed to block a presidential veto.

"It is a political reality, it is not what we want to pass," said House Majority leader Steny Hoyer.

The compromise between Democrats and the White House contains the first congressionally-imposed political and security "benchmarks" the Iraqi government must meet or risk losing economic aid.

The 18 requirements include demands for a crackdown on militias, the need to train Iraqi troops, the launch of constitutional review processes, and ensuring fair distribution of Iraq's hydrocarbon riches.

The bill requires Bush to report to Congress on Iraq in July and September.

Bush earlier predicted a torrent of violence as the top US general in Iraq, David Petraeus, prepares to report in September on progress of the surge.

He also said he would have no option but to order a withdrawal if it was demanded by the Iraqi government.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 09:39 am
AN EXAMPLE OF SINGLE CULTURALISM
Quote:
Subject: Fw: Muslims in Australia
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/australia.asp

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you", he said on National Television
"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia: one the Australian law and another Islamic law that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option", Costello said.

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off. Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want, to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off", he said.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques. Quote: "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians."

"However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia." "However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand." "This idea of Australia being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle."

"This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom"
"We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society .. Learn the language!"

"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture."

"We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us."
"If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like "A Fair Go", then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others.

"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,
'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'."

"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 09:45 am
What "Progress" in Iraq Really Means

Quote:
Here, then, is escalation in Iraq by the numbers -- almost all of them continue to "surge" -- as of mid-August 2008:

Number of American troops stationed in Iraq: 162,000 (plus at least several thousand government employees), an all-time high.

Estimated number of U.S.-(taxpayer)-paid private contractors in Iraq: More than 180,000, again undoubtedly an all-time high. That figure includes approximately 21,000 Americans, 43,000 non-Iraqi foreign contractors (including Chileans, Nepalese, Colombians, Indians, Fijians, El Salvadorans, and Filipinos among others), and 118,000 Iraqis, but does not include a complete count of "private security contractors who protect government officials and buildings," according to State Department and Pentagon figures obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

Percentage of private contractors in total U.S. forces deployed in World War II and the Korean War: 3-5%, according to the Congressional testimony of human rights lawyer Scott Horton. In Vietnam and the first Gulf War, that figure reached 10%. Now, it is at least near parity.

Number of private companies working in Iraq on contract for the U.S. government: 630, with personnel from more than 100 countries, according to Jeremy Scahill, author of the bestselling Blackwater, The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.

Typical pay of a former U.S. Special Forces soldier working for a private-security company in Iraq: $650 a day, according to Scahill, "after the company takes its cut." That rate, however, can hit $1,000 a day.

Number of trucks on the road each day as part of the U.S. resupply operation in Iraq: 3,000.

Number of attacks from June 2006 through May 2007 on U.S. supply convoys guarded by private-security contractors: 869, a near tripling from the previous twelve months.

Number of private contractors who have died in Iraq: Over 1,000, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, based on partial figures because private companies do not have to declare their war dead.

Predicted cost of a surge of 21,500 American troops into Iraq, according to White House calculations in January 2007: $5.6 billion, a figure offered the month the President's surge strategy was announced.

Predicted cost of a one-year surge of 30,000-40,000 troops, according to Robert Sunshine, assistant director for budget analysis of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office: $22 billion (two years for a cut-rate $40 billion). These figures were offered in testimony to Congress five months after the President's surge was officially launched.

Percentage of dollars annually appropriated by the U.S. government and spent on Iraq-related activities: More than 10%, or one dollar out of every 10, according to the CBO's Sunshine.

Estimated monthly cost of the Iraq (and Afghan) Wars: $12 billion -- $10 billion for Iraq -- a third higher than in 2006, according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.

Estimated total cost of the Iraq War, if Robert Sunshine's "optimistic scenario" -- 30,000 U.S. troops left in Iraq by 2010 -- plays out: Over $1 trillion. (If his less optimistic scenario proves accurate -- 75,000 troops in 2010 -- closer to $1.5 trillion.)

Number of Iraqis estimated to have fled their country: Between 2 million and 2.5 million. An estimated 750,000 to Jordan; 1.5 million to Syria; 200,000 to Egypt and Lebanon -- with another 40,000-50,000 fleeing each month, 2,000 a day, according to UN figures. Officials at the central travel office in Baghdad are deluged by up to 3,000 passport applications a week. In addition, though it's anyone's guess, more than two million Iraqis may now be internal refugees, uprooted from their homes largely by sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing. Approximately 70% of these are women and children, according to UNICEF.

Number of Iraqi refugees admitted to the United States in July: 57; only 133 for the year to date.

Number of Iraqis held in American prisons in Iraq: Approximately 22,500, according to U.S. military officials, a leap to an all-time high from 16,000 in February when the surge began. (American prisons in Iraq also continue to undergo expansion.)

Number of Iraqis released from American incarceration in the last month: 224.

Number of foreign fighters (jihadis) held by the U.S. military in Iraq: 135 (nearly half are Saudis).

Estimated number of bullets fired by U.S. troops for every insurgent killed in Iraq (or Afghanistan): 250,000, according to John Pike, director of the Washington military-research group GlobalSecurity.org. This comes out to 1.8 billion rounds of small-arms ammunition yearly. With U.S. munitions factories unable to meet the demand, 313 million rounds of such munitions were purchased from Israel last year for $10 million more than if produced domestically.

Percentage of amputations performed on U.S. war-wounded in Iraq: An estimated 6%. The average in earlier U.S. conflicts, where the equivalents of IEDs and car bombings did not play such a role, was 3%.

Estimated replacement limbs needed yearly for Iraqis in northern Iraq alone: 3,000, according to the Red Crescent Society and the director general for health services in Mosul. (Unlike American soldiers, Iraqis who have lost limbs have access only to limited numbers of outdated prostheses.)

Cost of a coffin in Baghdad: $50-75. Cost of a coffin in Saddam Hussein's time, $5-10.

Number of Iraqi civilians who died in July 2007: 1,652, according to figures compiled by the Iraqi Health, Defense, and Interior Ministries; 2,024, according to the tally of the Associated Press; 1,539 according to the Washington Post. All but the Post claim this as a "spike" in casualties. All such figures are, for a variety of reasons, surely significant undercounts.

Approximate number of American civilians who would have died in July if a similar level of killings were underway in the United States: 18,000, according to Middle East scholar Juan Cole.

Estimated number of Iraqi deaths from the invasion of 2003 through June 2007, if the Lancet study's median figure of 655,000 deaths was accurate and similar death rates held true for the year since it was published: Just over one million, according to Just Foreign Policy. (The Lancet study has been the single, on-the-ground, scientific report on Iraqi casualties in these years.)

Number of Iraqi civilians killed in July in mass-casualty bomb attacks: 378, a sharp rise over June, according to the Washington Post. The five-month U.S. surge has caused "no appreciable change" in vehicle-bomb attacks, according to figures collected by reporters from the McClatchy Newspapers.

Number of unidentified bodies, assumedly murdered by death squads, found on the streets of Baghdad in June 2007: 453, a rise of 41% over January 2007, the month before surge operations began, according to unofficial Iraqi Health Ministry statistics taken from morgue counts.

Number of Iraqi civilians killed or wounded in "escalation of force" incidents at American checkpoints or near American patrols and convoys in the past year: 429, according to U.S. military statistics obtained by the McClatchy Newspapers. These statistics, which "spiked" during the recent escalation months, don't include civilian deaths during raids on homes or in the midst of battle (and are considered incomplete in any case, since an unknown number of escalation-of-force deaths go unreported by U.S. units).

Total number of attacks against U.S. and coalition forces, Iraq security forces, Iraqi civilians, and infrastructure targets in June 2007: 5,335. This works out to a daily average of 177.8, an all-time high since May 2003, according to the Pentagon, and 46% more than in June 2006; more than 68% of these attacks -- 3,671 to be exact -- were launched against U.S. troops, up 7% from May 2007.

Number of attacks in July 2007 using the most powerful type of roadside bomb: 99, an all-time high, according to Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, U.S. second-in-command in Iraq, accounting for one-third of American casualties that month.

Number of American military deaths in the surge months, February-July 2007: 572, according to the Iraq Coalition Casualties website. This represents 189 more American deaths than in the same set of months in 2004, 215 more than in 2005, 237 more than in 2006.

Average daytime summer temperature in Baghdad: 110-120 degrees, though 130 degrees is not uncommon. It rarely drops below 100 degrees even at night.

Number of megawatts of electricity produced daily in Iraq: Less than 4,000 megawatts, below pre-invasion levels in a country where daily demand is now in the 8,500 to 9,500 range.

Hours of electricity normally delivered to Baghdadis by the national electricity grid: 1-2 hours a day. The only recourse, according to French reporter Anne Nivat, who lived in "red zone" Baghdad for two weeks recently, is electricity produced by small local generators, which consume up to 20 gallons of gasoline a day.

Number of nationwide blackouts in just two days in July 2007: 4. The Shiite Holy city of Karbala was without any power for at least 3 consecutive days in July, during which its water mains "went dry." ("'We no longer need television documentaries about the Stone Age. We are actually living in it. We are in constant danger because of the filthy water and rotten food we are having,' said Hazim Obeid, who sells clothing at a stall in the Karbala market.")

Cost of a bottle of purified water during the present water shortages: $1.60 for a 10-liter bottle, a rise of 33%. (Many Iraqis can't afford to buy bottled water in a country where, according to a recent Oxfam summary study of the Iraqi humanitarian crisis, 43% of Iraqis live in "absolute poverty," earning less than a dollar a day.)

Percentage of water engineers who have left Iraq: 40%, according to Oxfam's report. Similar percentages of middle-class professionals -- doctors, teachers, lawyers -- have evidently fled as well. According to Oxfam, some universities and hospitals in Baghdad have lost up to 80% of their staffs.

Number of Iraqis who have access to clean drinking water: 1 in 3, according to UN figures. (In 2007, waterborne diseases, including diarrhea, "the most prolific killer of children under 5," are up in some areas by 70% over the previous year.)

Of the 3.5 million cubic meters of water Baghdad's six million people are estimated to need, amount actually delivered: 2.1 million cubic meters.

Number of high-tension lines running into Baghdad that are in operation: 2 of 17, thanks to insurgent sabotage, according to an Electricity Ministry spokesman. These are contributing to the worst electricity shortages since the invasion summer of 2003. The country's power grid is reportedly nearing collapse.

Number of ministers still in the cabinet of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki: 20.

Number of ministers who have walked out: 17.

Number of senior officers who have recently resigned from the Iraqi Army in protest over the Maliki government: 9, including Chief of Staff Maj. Gen. Babaker Zebari.

Number of countries for which Iraq's parliamentarians, who adjourned for a month-long August vacation, have departed: At least six, according to the New York Times, including Jordan, Syria, Dubai, Iran, Great Britain, and Egypt as well as "a resort in Iraq's safest region, autonomous Kurdistan."

Estimated cost of that vacation time to the U.S. per minute for ongoing operations in Iraq: $200,000, according to Bob Schieffer of CBS News.

Amount of oil Iraq possesses: 115 billion barrels in proven oil reserves, the third largest reserves in the world (after neighboring Saudi Arabia and Iran). Estimates of possible oil deposits still to be discovered range from 45 billion additional barrels up to 400 billion additional barrels.

Price of 40 gallons of gas under Saddam Hussein: 50 cents.

Price of 40 gallons of gas in July 2007: $75 on the black market; $35 if a motorist is willing to spend hours, or even days, in line at a gas station.

Percentage of Iraq's revenues that come from the export of oil: More than 90%, though oil production remains below that of the worst days of Saddam Hussein's rule.

Amount the Iraqi Oil Ministry budgeted for capital expenses to bolster the oil industry last year: $3.5 billion, according to the latest report by the U.S. Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

Amount the Iraqi Oil Ministry actually spent: $90 million.

Percentage of allocated capital funds spent by the Iraqi government on oil, electricity, and education projects in 2006: 22%.

Amount of money missing due to governmental corruption, as uncovered in investigations by Iraq's top anti-corruption investigator, Judge Rahdi al Rahdi: $11 billion.

Number of U.S. dollars invested in "standing up" (training) the Iraqi military and police: $19.2 billion. This works out to $55,000 per Iraqi recruit, according to a bipartisan U.S. Congressional investigation.

Amount the Pentagon has requested for continued training and equipping of Iraqi security forces: $2 billion.

Percentage of equipment the Pentagon has issued to Iraqi security forces since 2003 that cannot be accounted for: 30%. That includes at least "110,000 AK-47 rifles, 80,000 pistols, 135,000 items of body armor and 115,000 helmets," according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). According to the Washington Post, "One senior Pentagon official acknowledged that some of the weapons probably are being used against U.S. forces."

Number of U.S. steel-shipping containers in Iraq and Afghanistan now considered "lost": 54,390 or one-third of them, according to the GAO.

Estimated cost of training Iraqi (and Afghan) security forces over the next decade, if present course continues: At least 50 billion dollars, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Number of major U.S. bases in Iraq: More than 75, according to the New York Times.

Cost of U.S. bases in Iraq (which Congress has mandated as not "permanent") and in Afghanistan (which the Pentagon refers to as "enduring"): Unknown. In a prestigious engineering magazine in late 2003, Lt. Col. David Holt, the Army engineer "tasked with facilities development" in Iraq, was already speaking proudly of "several billion dollars" being sunk into base construction. According to the Washington Post, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) claims $2 billion went into "military construction" in Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004-2006; another $1.7 billion was approved by Congress for 2007. And the Pentagon is still building. For fiscal 2008, $738.8 million was requested "for 33 critical construction projects for Iraq and Afghanistan." (When it comes to base construction, these figures are undoubtedly undercounts.)

Amount that former Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown, and Root (now known as KBR) has received so far for a prewar contract to supply the American military with food, fuel, housing, and other necessities: At least $20 billion. A Pentagon audit of $16.2 billion worth of KBR's work "found that $3.2 billion in KBR billing was either questionable or unsupported by documentation."

Percentage of Iraqis who cannot afford to buy enough to eat: 15%, according Oxfam.

Percentage of Iraqi children who are malnourished: 28% (compared to 19% before the invasion); Percentage of babies born underweight, 11% (compared to 3% before the invasion).

Percentage of Iraqi children now considered to suffer from learning "impediments": 92%, according to one study cited by Oxfam.

The cost of a single Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), armed with two Hellfire missiles: More than $3 million. (At least 5 Predators have crashed or been shot down in the last year in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

Cost of the latest UAV, the "hunter-killer" MQ-9 Reaper, now being deployed to Afghanistan and soon to be deployed to Iraq: $7 million. The Reaper is four times as heavy as the Predator and can be armed with 14 Hellfire missiles, or four Hellfires and two 500-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions. It is considered equivalent in firepower to the F-16. According to Associated Press reporter Charles Hanley, "Its pilot, as it bombs targets in Iraq, will sit at a video console 7,000 miles away in Nevada."

Number of American planes in Iraqi air space at any moment: 100, according to Hanley.

Increase in bombs dropped in Iraq in the first six months of 2007 compared to the first six months of 2006: Fivefold.

Percentage of Iraqi oil resources around Basra in Shiite southern Iraq, where, in September 2006, the British launched their own unsuccessful version of the present American "clear, hold and reconstruct" escalation operation in Baghdad: 66%.

Number of doctors assassinated by "unidentified gunmen" in "peaceful" Basra since 2003: 12.

Number of times the airport base outside Basra, which houses a well-barricaded regional U.S. Embassy office and the last 5,500 of the 40,000 troops England dispatched to Iraq, has been attacked by mortars or rockets over the past four months: 600.

Effect of Iraq War spending on the profits of major weapons corporations: Northrop Grumman has just announced a 15% second-quarter increase in sales over 2006 for its information and services division, 7% for its electronics division; General Dynamics' combat systems unit just recorded a 19% rise in sales. Lockheed Martin's profits went up 34% to $778 million, according to Eli Clifton of Inter Press Service.

Estimated cost of deploying an American soldier to Iraq for one year: $390,000, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Cost of flying a soldier home from the war zone: $627.80. That's the price the Pentagon pays FedEx and UPS, among other companies, for each soldier brought back to the U.S.

Estimated tonnage of U.S. equipment that might be driven out of Iraq and shipped home from Kuwait in case of a decision to withdraw: One million tons.

Percentage of Americans in the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll who had served in Iraq or "had a close friend or relative who served in Iraq," who approve of the President's handling of the Iraq conflict: 38%. In a May New York Times/CBS News poll, fewer than half of military families and military members agreed that "the United States did the right thing in invading Iraq."


Links in the article at the source also at the bottom and through out explantions on how the author arrived at the numbers.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 10:28 am
This says it all, but even they are not aware of the true cost of this war.

"...fewer than half of military families and military members agreed that "the United States did the right thing in invading Iraq."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 10:47 am
Bush fails to see the irony of equating Vietnam to Iraq, but what can we expect from a cic who doesn't really know history.


Bush warns of new Vietnam in Iraq

Mr Bush once again called for more time to complete the task in Iraq


Bush speaks on Iraq
President George W Bush has warned a US withdrawal from Iraq could trigger the kind of upheaval seen in South East Asia after US forces quit Vietnam.
"The price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens," he told war veterans in Missouri.

Mr Bush said the Vietnam War had taught the need for US patience over Iraq.

His speech comes amid an apparent rift with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, but Mr Bush said Mr Maliki was a "good man with a difficult job".
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 10:56 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
Bush fails to see the irony of equating Vietnam to Iraq, but what can we expect from a cic who doesn't really know history.


Bush warns of new Vietnam in Iraq

Mr Bush once again called for more time to complete the task in Iraq


Bush speaks on Iraq
President George W Bush has warned a US withdrawal from Iraq could trigger the kind of upheaval seen in South East Asia after US forces quit Vietnam.
"The price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens," he told war veterans in Missouri.

Mr Bush said the Vietnam War had taught the need for US patience over Iraq.

His speech comes amid an apparent rift with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, but Mr Bush said Mr Maliki was a "good man with a difficult job".


Bush has a real penchant for saying things, without ever delving into the deeper meaning of his words. Here's Josh Marshall on this:

Quote:
08.22.07 -- 1:39AM // link
Osama is My Shepherd I Shall Not Want

According to advance reports, President Bush will tomorrow invoke the specter of Vietnam in defense of his failed Iraq policy.

But isn't this quite possibly the worst argument for his Iraq policy?

Going forty years on, it is not too much to say that virtually none of the predicted negative repercussions of our departure from Vietnam ever came to pass.

Asia didn't go Communist. Our Asian allies didn't abandon us. Rather, the Vietnamese began to fall out with her Communist allies. With the Cold War over, in strategic terms at least, it's almost hard to remember what the whole fight was about. If anything, the clearest lesson of Vietnam would seem to be that there can be a vast hue and cry about the catastrophic effects of disengagement from a failed policy and it can turn out that none of them are true.

Even more interesting is another argument President Bush is poised to make: namely, that Vietnam is more than just an analogy. He will argue that the terrorist threat we face today is in some measure the result of our withdrawal from Vietnam, as it emboldened the terrorists to attack us.

The president will also make the argument that withdrawing from Vietnam emboldened today's terrorists by compromising U.S. credibility, citing a quote from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden that the American people would rise against the Iraq war the same way they rose against the war in Vietnam, according to the excerpts.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a better example of President Bush's comically inept strategic thinking. Actually, lack of strategic thinking. I'm sure you've noticed how, as the president's policies go further and further down the drain, he more and more often cites the authority of Osama bin Laden as the rationale for his policies. In this case, we must stay in Iraq forever wasting money and lives and destroying our position in the world because if we don't we'll have proved Osama bin Laden right.

It's like a very sad version of a sixty year old falling for that dingbat head fake ten year olds used to play when I was a kid in elementary school in which Kid A says he wants the football, Kid B says, 'Fine, but if you take the football, you're gay.' And then Kid A stalks off hopelessly bamboozled and unable to parry this paralyzing riddle.

Apparently we have permanently ceded our foreign policy to the whim of Osama bin Laden's taunts.

And finally there's more.

"Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields,' " the president will say.

The story of the 'boat people' is unquestionably tragic. And there's little doubt that there are many Iraqis who will pay either with their lives or nationality for aiding us in various ways during our occupation of the country. But to govern our policy on this basis is simply to buy into a classic sunk cost fallacy. A far better -- and really quite necessary -- policy would be to give asylum to a lot of these people rather than continuing to get more of them into the same position in advance of our inevitable departure.

More concretely though, didn't the killing fields happen in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge rather than Vietnam? So doesn't that complicate the analogy a bit? And didn't that genocide actually come to an end when the Communist Vietnamese invaded in 1979 and overthrow the Khmer Rouge regime? The Vietnamese Communists may have been no great shakes. But can we get through one of these boneheaded historical analogies while keeping at least some of the facts intact?

Please?

--Josh Marshall


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 11:14 am
Yeah, Josh Marshall is a regular beacon of hope...

It almost like he has no knowledge of Vietnam at all beyond what he could find in KOS.

The end of U.S. involvement in Vietnam
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 11:18 am
McGentrix wrote:
Yeah, Josh Marshall is a regular beacon of hope...

It almost like he has no knowledge of Vietnam at all beyond what he could find in KOS.

The end of U.S. involvement in Vietnam


What, specifically, was he wrong about?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 11:46 am
Cyclo: What, specifically, was he wrong about?


Yes I'm curious about that too, because I've read Daniel Ellsburg's book on Vietnam. Both wars were started on fraud.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 12:35 pm
08.22.07 -- 1:39AM // link
Osama is My Shepherd I Shall Not Want

According to advance reports, President Bush will tomorrow invoke the specter of Vietnam in defense of his failed Iraq policy.

But isn't this quite possibly the worst argument for his Iraq policy?

Going forty years on, it is not too much to say that virtually none of the predicted negative repercussions of our departure from Vietnam ever came to pass.

Asia didn't go Communist. Vietnam did. Was there a prediction all of Asia would? Does Russia and China count? They seem to take up a lot of room in Asia. Our Asian allies didn't abandon us. Rather, the Vietnamese began to fall out with her Communist allies. With the Cold War over, in strategic terms at least, it's almost hard to remember what the whole fight was about. Really? I bet any Veteran of the war could tell you. Most history books as well. If anything, the clearest lesson of Vietnam would seem to be that there can be a vast hue and cry about the catastrophic effects of disengagement from a failed policy and it can turn out that none of them are true.That's just BS.

Even more interesting is another argument President Bush is poised to make: namely, that Vietnam is more than just an analogy. He will argue that the terrorist threat we face today is in some measure the result of our withdrawal from Vietnam, as it emboldened the terrorists to attack us. No he won't. That's just more BS.

The president will also make the argument that withdrawing from Vietnam emboldened today's terrorists by compromising U.S. credibility, citing a quote from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden that the American people would rise against the Iraq war the same way they rose against the war in Vietnam, according to the excerpts. Did he call a psychic hotline for this BS? Most experts agree with the national intelligence estimate, an assessment by America's 16 intelligence agencies, that leaving Iraq in turmoil would embolden Islamic terrorists, giving them a foothold and a victory in the short run.

I'm not sure I've ever seen a better example of President Bush's comically inept strategic thinking. I am sure that draws a chuckle from his intended audience, the gullible liberals that believe this crap. Actually, lack of strategic thinking. I'm sure you've noticed how, as the president's policies go further and further down the drain, he more and more often cites the authority of Osama bin Laden as the rationale for his policies. In this case, we must stay in Iraq forever wasting money and lives and destroying our position in the world because if we don't we'll have proved Osama bin Laden right. More and more? Huh, haven't seen that, have you? More BS.

It's like a very sad version of a sixty year old falling for that dingbat head fake ten year olds used to play when I was a kid in elementary school in which Kid A says he wants the football, Kid B says, 'Fine, but if you take the football, you're gay.' And then Kid A stalks off hopelessly bamboozled and unable to parry this paralyzing riddle. yep, a regular beacon of light... Rolling Eyes

Apparently we have permanently ceded our foreign policy to the whim of Osama bin Laden's taunts.According to him, and his gullible, weak readers.

And finally there's more.

"Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields,' " the president will say. Huh, a sentence of truth in this morass of BS.

The story of the 'boat people' is unquestionably tragic. And there's little doubt that there are many Iraqis who will pay either with their lives or nationality for aiding us in various ways during our occupation of the country. But to govern our policy on this basis is simply to buy into a classic sunk cost fallacy. A far better -- and really quite necessary -- policy would be to give asylum to a lot of these people rather than continuing to get more of them into the same position in advance of our inevitable departure. So he seems to actually realize that leaving Iraq will cost many, many lives, yet he sees this as no problem what so ever. Especially when this does not govern our policy. Oh, I know he says it does, but in actuality, it doesn't. That's just more pablum for his audience to feed on

More concretely though, didn't the killing fields happen in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge rather than Vietnam? as a result of America leaving Viet Nam, yeah. So doesn't that complicate the analogy a bit? No. And didn't that genocide actually come to an end when the Communist Vietnamese invaded in 1979 and overthrow the Khmer Rouge regime? The Vietnamese Communists may have been no great shakes. But can we get through one of these boneheaded historical analogies while keeping at least some of the facts intact? Obviously he can't. He hasn't stated any facts.

Please?

--Josh Marshall
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 12:56 pm
Quote:

Even more interesting is another argument President Bush is poised to make: namely, that Vietnam is more than just an analogy. He will argue that the terrorist threat we face today is in some measure the result of our withdrawal from Vietnam, as it emboldened the terrorists to attack us. No he won't. That's just more BS.


Um, did you even listen to his speech?

From the advances provided by the WH -

Quote:
Terrorists cited Vietnam to predict the United States would run from the Iraq war, he was to say.


Russia and China can't 'go communist' when they already were communist, McG. C'mon.

Bush has been quoting OBL more and more to justify his policies. The fact that you say 'BS' doesn't change this.

You're factually incorrect about the vast majority of what you've written, McG. Not that I am shocked by this, as you don't display intelligence on a regular basis.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 01:06 pm
Bush Announces Iraq Exit Strategy: 'We'll Go Through Iran'"I'm pleased to announce that the Department of Defense and I have formulated a plan for a speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq," Bush announced Monday morning. "We'll just go through Iran."

Bush said the U.S. Army, which deposed Iran's longtime enemy Saddam Hussein, should be welcomed with open arms by the Islamic-fundamentalist state.

"And Iran's so nearby," Bush said. "It's only a hop, skip, and a jump to the east."

According to White House officials, coalition air units will leave forward air bases in Iraq and transport munitions to undisclosed locations in Iran. After 72 to 96 hours of aerial-bomb retreats, armored-cavalry units will retreat across the Zagros mountains in tanks, armored personnel carriers, and strike helicopters. The balance of the 120,000 troops will exit into the oil-rich borderlands around the Shatt-al-Arab region within 30 days.

Pentagon sources said U.S. Central Command has been formulating the exit plan under guidelines set by Bush.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 01:26 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

Even more interesting is another argument President Bush is poised to make: namely, that Vietnam is more than just an analogy. He will argue that the terrorist threat we face today is in some measure the result of our withdrawal from Vietnam, as it emboldened the terrorists to attack us. No he won't. That's just more BS.


Um, did you even listen to his speech?

From the advances provided by the WH -

Quote:
Terrorists cited Vietnam to predict the United States would run from the Iraq war, he was to say.


Russia and China can't 'go communist' when they already were communist, McG. C'mon.

Bush has been quoting OBL more and more to justify his policies. The fact that you say 'BS' doesn't change this.

You're factually incorrect about the vast majority of what you've written, McG. Not that I am shocked by this, as you don't display intelligence on a regular basis.

Cycloptichorn


This is why I rarely bother with answering your requests. You are a one trick chimp. When someone shows one of your ideologues to be an idiot, you sling the feces.

How about instead, you demonstrate where "Bush has been quoting OBL more and more to justify his policies."
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 01:31 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

Even more interesting is another argument President Bush is poised to make: namely, that Vietnam is more than just an analogy. He will argue that the terrorist threat we face today is in some measure the result of our withdrawal from Vietnam, as it emboldened the terrorists to attack us. No he won't. That's just more BS.


Um, did you even listen to his speech?

From the advances provided by the WH -

Quote:
Terrorists cited Vietnam to predict the United States would run from the Iraq war, he was to say.


Russia and China can't 'go communist' when they already were communist, McG. C'mon.

Bush has been quoting OBL more and more to justify his policies. The fact that you say 'BS' doesn't change this.

You're factually incorrect about the vast majority of what you've written, McG. Not that I am shocked by this, as you don't display intelligence on a regular basis.

Cycloptichorn


This is why I rarely bother with answering your requests. You are a one trick chimp. When someone shows one of your ideologues to be an idiot, you sling the feces.

How about instead, you demonstrate where "Bush has been quoting OBL more and more to justify his policies."


You didn't show him to be an idiot. The entire concept of such a thing - that is, you showing anyone else to be an idiot - happening is laughable Laughing

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 01:55 pm
Cycloptichorn working away...

http://www.weblogsinc.com/common/images/6561335245723223.JPG
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 0.06 seconds on 07/19/2025 at 03:07:34