9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 12:21 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
hamburger wrote:
the BBC has detailed reports and statistics from iraq for the weekly periods from june 20 to august 15 on their website - please see link .
hbg

from one of the reports :
Quote:
During the seven days from 9-15 August 540 people were killed in violent incidents across Iraq.
The number of civilian deaths rose by nearly a hundred on last week's total, up from 343 to 434. This represents the second highest number of civilian casualties recorded since this series monitoring the Iraq surge began.
The death toll of over 250 is still rising from Tuesday's bombing of two Yazidi villages near Mosul. The attack is one of the worst in more than four years of war in Iraq.

Deaths of Iraqi police and soldiers also rose this week, while the number of US soldiers killed fell slightly.



IRAQ : MOST RECENT REPORTS AND STATS

Hamburger, your source's Iraq statistics do not contradict these Baghdad statistics:
Quote:
Sectarian murders in Baghdad have gone down by more than 50 percent in a few months, reaching their lowest levels since the Samarra mosque bombing.


What is the source of that Baghdad statistic?

Cycloptichorn

Quote:
A Season of Hope in Iraq
By Michael Gerson
Washington Post
Friday, August 31, 2007; Page A15

...

"Total attacks," he said, "are at their lowest levels since August of 2006." Some of the most violent and lawless regions of Iraq, such as Anbar and Diyala, have been stabilized with the cooperation of local Sunni leaders who have turned against al-Qaeda thuggery. Insurgents are being pushed out of population centers and then targeted in further operations. Sectarian murders in Baghdad have gone down by more than 50 percent in a few months, reaching their lowest levels since the Samarra mosque bombing. And new sectarian provocations -- such as the al-Qaeda bombings in Nineveh -- have not resulted in the usual spiral of revenge murders.


Yes, I read that the first time you posted it. But, that's a claim, not evidence; upon what evidence do they base this claim? Where is the proof that this is true? I submit, there is none.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 01:11 pm
Cycloptichorn, you asked: What is the source of that Baghdad statistic?
I answered: A Season of Hope in Iraq, By Michael Gerson, Washington Post, Friday, August 31, 2007; Page A15 ...

Now, Cycloptichorn, you ask: Upon what evidence do they (i.e., Gerson's sources) base this claim?
I now respond: Upon what evidence does the BBC base its claim?

You first!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 02:24 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn, you asked: What is the source of that Baghdad statistic?
I answered: A Season of Hope in Iraq, By Michael Gerson, Washington Post, Friday, August 31, 2007; Page A15 ...

Now, Cycloptichorn, you ask: Upon what evidence do they (i.e., Gerson's sources) base this claim?
I now respond: Upon what evidence does the BBC base its claim?

You first!


Sorry, but you can't answer a question with a question. I have the information at hand, but I won't support your attempt to avoid admitting that you have no information to back up Gerson's claims.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 02:56 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Sectarian murders in Baghdad have gone down by more than 50 percent in a few months, reaching their lowest levels since the Samarra mosque bombing.


To the best of my ability to research, this is a flat-out lie. The US military has not provided any statistics to back up this claim, and the Iraqi government has been barred from reporting on civilian casualties, so it becomes that much more difficult to independently assess the situation.

Cycloptichorn

What is your evidence "this is a flat-out lie?"

What is your evidence that "the Iraqi government has been barred from reporting civilian casualties?"

I recommend that you use the following search argument to test the truth of these assertions of yours:

"Iraq July and August 2007 Violent Deaths"

Of the many contradicting sources this search argument obtained, I'll arbitrarily (i.e., I cannot prove it right or wrong) go with this one from the UN:

http://www.uniraq.org/documents/HR%20Report%20July%20August%202006%20EN.pdf
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 04:04 pm
I did google it. The search did not provide me with any data that would help your case.

On the other hand,

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2007/08/more-fuzziness.html

Quote:
More Fuzziness
Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Hat tip to Brian Katulis at CAP who clued me on to this issue and Spencer Ackerman has already got a great post on this.

Basically there are more serious questions about the violence numbers that are being reported out of Iraq. The Pentagon is congressionally mandated to produce a quarterly progress report to Congress measuring stability in Iraq. Each of these reports has a graphic measuring sectarian violence. The last four reports were August, 29 2006 (pg 35), November 30, 2006 (pg 24), March 2, 2007 (pg 17) and June 7, 2007 (pg 17).

I graphed the levels of sectarian violence from these various reports and found some confusing trends. The abnormalities have been labeled A, B and C. (There is no difference between the November report and the March report and thus they overlap).

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/images/2007/08/31/image003_2.png

Abnormality A: Between August and November 2006, DOD started reclassifying "casualties" as "deaths by execution" and suddenly you see a dramatic drop in killings. For example, in March 2006 right after the Samarra Mosque bombings you go from 1,750 "casualties" to 750 "deaths by execution." Between November 2006 and March 2007 "Deaths by Execution" becomes "Sectarian Murders" but the numbers remain the same.

Abnormality B: Between the March 2007 report and the June 2007 report there was a dramatic change in the number of killings that were reported for the second half of 2006. In both cases the numbers were described as "sectarian murders." The impact here is that it makes the "pre surge" situation look extraordinarily dire and therefore signals progress thereafter.

Abnormality C: Somehow the reclassification that occurred between the March and June 2007 reports caused the violence numbers in April and May of 2006 to drop dramatically. This was in the months following the Sammara bombings in February 2006 when sectarian violence was escalating.

I really have no idea why these numbers are so inconsistent, but it does lead me to call into question the violence numbers that are being reported by the Administration, when it touts progress. Clearly certain types of violence have been taken out and others have been added. What we need is some transparency. Congress needs to take a very careful look at the numbers that come before it in September


It is plainly obvious that the Administration is choosing the numbers which make its' case look best, and ignoring reality.

Quote:
AP Count: Deaths in Iraq Nearly Double Pre-Surge Level

By Steve Hurst, The Associated Press

Published: August 25, 2007 11:20 PM ET

BAGHDAD This year's U.S. troop buildup has succeeded in bringing violence in Baghdad down from peak levels, but the death toll from sectarian attacks around the country is running nearly double the pace from a year ago.

Some of the recent bloodshed appears the result of militant fighters drifting into parts of northern Iraq, where they have fled after U.S.-led offensives. Baghdad, however, still accounts for slightly more than half of all war-related killings - the same percentage as a year ago, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press.

The tallies and trends offer a sobering snapshot after an additional 30,000 U.S. troops began campaigns in February to regain control of the Baghdad area. It also highlights one of the major themes expected in next month's Iraq progress report to Congress: some military headway, but extremist factions are far from broken.

In street-level terms, it means life for average Iraqis appears to be even more perilous and unpredictable.

The AP tracking includes Iraqi civilians, government officials, police and security forces killed in attacks such as gunfights and bombings, which are frequently blamed on Sunni suicide strikes. It also includes execution-style killings - largely the work of Shiite death squads.

The figures are considered a minimum based on AP reporting. The actual numbers are likely higher, as many killings go unreported or uncounted. Insurgent deaths are not a part of the Iraqi count.

The findings include:

- Iraq is suffering about double the number of war-related deaths throughout the country compared with last year - an average daily toll of 33 in 2006, and 62 so far this year.

- Nearly 1,000 more people have been killed in violence across Iraq in the first eight months of this year than in all of 2006. So far this year, about 14,800 people have died in war-related attacks and sectarian murders. AP reporting accounted for 13,811 deaths in 2006. The United Nations and other sources placed the 2006 toll far higher.

- Baghdad has gone from representing 76 percent of all civilian and police war-related deaths in Iraq in January to 52 percent in July, bringing it back to the same spot it was roughly a year ago.

-According to the Iraqi Red Crescent Organization, the number of displaced Iraqis has more than doubled since the start of the year, from 447,337 on Jan. 1 to 1.14 million on July 31.

However, Brig. Gen. Richard Sherlock, deputy director for operational planning for the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said violence in Iraq ``has continued to decline and is at the lowest level since June 2006.''

He offered no statistics to back his claim, but in a briefing with reporters at the Pentagon on Friday he warned insurgents might try intensify attacks in Iraq to coincide with three milestones: the sixth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks in the U.S., the beginning of Ramadan and the report to Congress.

The U.S. military did not get all the additional American forces into Iraq until June 15, so it would be premature to draw a final statistical picture of the effect of the added troops.

But initial calculations validate fears that the Baghdad crackdown would push militants into districts north of the capital, including Diyala province where U.S. force and Iraqi soldiers have conducted major operation to clear its main city, Baqouba, of al-Qaida in Iraq fighters.

In July, the AP figures show 35 percent of all war-related killings occurred in northern provinces. The figure one year ago was 22 percent.

The final death count for August also will likely be further oriented to the north after the savage Aug. 14 attack by suspected al-Qaida truck bombers near the Syrian border in Ninevah province. At least 500 villagers from the Yazidi sect were killed in the deadliest civilian attack of the war.

In the first months of this year, many extremists fled to Baghdad and regions to the north after Sunni tribesmen in Anbar, the sprawling desert province west of the capital, turned on their erstwhile al-Qaida allies.


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003631296

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 05:13 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I did google it. The search did not provide me with any data that would help your case.

On the other hand,

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2007/08/more-fuzziness.html

Quote:
More Fuzziness
Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

...


It is plainly obvious that the Administration is choosing the numbers which make its' case look best, and ignoring reality.

Quote:
AP Count: Deaths in Iraq Nearly Double Pre-Surge Level

By Steve Hurst, The Associated Press

Published: August 25, 2007 11:20 PM ET

...


...

Cycloptichorn

First, you have not provided any evidence that Michael Gerson's, Washington Post, Friday, August 31, 2007 article, that I posted, is less, more, or equally valid compared to the articles you posted.

Second, your first quoted article says nothing about violent civilian death statistics in Iraq for July and August 2007.

Third, you have not provided any evidence that your second quoted article is any more valid than the UN report for which I provided a link. Here's that link again:

http://www.uniraq.org/documents/HR%20Report%20July%20August%202006%20EN.pdf

Fourth, you did not provide any evidence that your prior claims were true:
"this is a flat-out lie?" (i.e., Gerson's article's claim there was a 50% reduction in civilian murders in Iraq from July to August.)

"the Iraqi government has been barred from reporting civilian casualties?"


By the way, when or after I posted Gerson's article, I made no assertion regarding its validity. Truth is I cannot provide any evidence whether any of the articles on this topic--including the one's you posted are valid or invalid.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 05:19 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I did google it. The search did not provide me with any data that would help your case.

On the other hand,

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2007/08/more-fuzziness.html

Quote:
More Fuzziness
Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

...


It is plainly obvious that the Administration is choosing the numbers which make its' case look best, and ignoring reality.

Quote:
AP Count: Deaths in Iraq Nearly Double Pre-Surge Level

By Steve Hurst, The Associated Press

Published: August 25, 2007 11:20 PM ET

...


...

Cycloptichorn

First, you have not provided any evidence that Michael Gerson's, Washington Post, Friday, August 31, 2007 article, that I posted, is less, more, or equally valid compared to the articles you posted.

Second, your first quoted article says nothing about violent civilian death statistics in Iraq for July and August 2007.

Third, you have not provided any evidence that your second quoted article is any more valid than the UN report for which I provided a link. Here's that link again:

http://www.uniraq.org/documents/HR%20Report%20July%20August%202006%20EN.pdf

Fourth, you did not provide any evidence that your prior claims were true:
"this is a flat-out lie?" (i.e., Gerson's article's claim there was a 50% reduction in civilian murders in Iraq from July to August.)

"the Iraqi government has been barred from reporting civilian casualties?"


By the way, when or after I posted Gerson's article, I made no assertion regarding its validity. Truth is I cannot provide any evidence whether any of the articles on this topic--including the one's you posted are valid or invalid.


Thank you for the candid admission at the end. I understand that it is often difficult to track down sources for figures like this. I merely have not seen any actual data presented, at all, that supports the various claims of dropping casualties in Iraq. So I am not inclined to believe it, barring actual data being presented.

As for the UN document, I would point out to you that it's for the period ending in August 2006 - a year ago - and therefore, it is not immediately obvious how that document would be helpful to your or anyone else's argument that the casualty figures are declining.

I have shown, through my first link in the above post, that the army itself can't get the story straight on the level of casualties in Iraq....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 06:09 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
As for the UN document, I would point out to you that it's for the period ending in August 2006 - a year ago - and therefore, it is not immediately obvious how that document would be helpful to your or anyone else's argument that the casualty figures are declining.
...
Cycloptichorn

Embarrassed Well, I'll make up a rationale to cover my mistake.

How about the fact that it showed a decrease in violent deaths July thru August 2006?

Razz

I cannot provide evidence that is true, either. Smile
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 08:44 pm
Quote:
Friday, August 31, 2007
Arguments over Night of the Living Dead in Iraq

A Government Accounting Office report has found that the Iraqi government has not met 13 of 18 benchmarks set by the US Congress. The report was leaked before it could be doctored by the Bush administration, which promptly denounced it and pledged to . . . doctor it.

Another thing that could be said is that of the 18 congressional benchmarks some are frankly trivial. The trivial ones are the only ones met.

I personally find the controversy about Iraq in Washington to be bizarre. Are they really arguing about whether the situation is improving? I mean, you have the Night of the Living Dead over there. People lack potable water, cholera has broken out even in the good areas, a third of people are hungry, a doubling of the internally displaced to at least 1.1 million, and a million pilgrims dispersed just this week by militia infighting in a supposedly safe all-Shiite area. The government has all but collapsed, with even the formerly cooperative sections of the Sunni Arab political class withdrawing in a snit (much less more Sunni Arabs being brought in from the cold). The parliament hasn't actually passed any legislation to speak of and often cannot get a quorum. Corruption is endemic. The weapons we give the Iraqi army are often sold off to the insurgency. Some of our development aid goes to them, too.

The average number of Iraqis killed in 2007 per day exceeds those killed in 2006. Independent counts by news organizations do not agree with Pentagon estimates about drops in civilian deaths over-all. Nation-wide attacks in June reached a daily all-time high of 177.5. True, violence in Baghdad has been wrestled back down to the levels of summer, 2006 (hint: it wasn't paradise), but violence levels are up in the rest of the country. If you compare each month in 2006 with each month in 2007 with regard to US military deaths, the 2007 picture is dreadful.

I saw on CNN this smarmy Bush administration official come and and say that US troop deaths had fallen because of the surge, which is why we should support it. Just read the following chart bottom to top and compare 2006 month by month to 2007. US troop deaths haven't fallen. They are way up. Besides, they would be zero if the US were not occupying Iraq militarily, so if we should support a policy that leads to fewer troop deaths, that is the better policy.

Here are the US troop death via Icasualties.org.

8-2007 77 8-2006 65
7-2007 79 7-2006 43
6-2007 101 6-2006 61
5-2007 126 5-2006 69
4-2007 104 4-2006 76
3-2007 81 3-2006 31
2-2007 81 2-2006 55
1-2007 83 1-2006 62


I mean, how brain dead do the Bushies think we are, peddling this horse manure that US troop deaths have fallen? (There are always seasonal variations because in the summer it is 120 F. in the shade and guerrillas are too heat-exhausted to fight; but the summer 2007 numbers are much greater than those for summer 2006; that isn't progress.) And why does our corporate media keep repeating this Goebbels-like propaganda? Do we really live in an Orwellian state?

I'm at a conference. I would make a chart to illustrate the above if I had the time. Somebody else please do it. Maybe we bloggers can unite to keep the debate from being conducted on false premises for once.

(Thanks just a million to Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly and all the others who responded to my call for a graph here. It is striking when you see it that way. Look in comments for more such links.)

Repeat: US troop deaths in Iraq have not fallen and that is not a reason to support the troop escalation. And, violence in Iraq has not fallen because of the surge. Violence is way up this year.


http://www.juancole.com/2007/08/arguments-over-night-of-living-dead-in.html
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 31 Aug, 2007 08:52 pm
The sad fact of this surge is that more Iraqis are also getting killed and maimed at double the rate, and more children are being left as orphans and starving.

Bush may claim "every life is precious," but he makes a mockery of both his religion and his hypocrisy. If he's such a "good man," how does he sleep so well being responsible for all this killing of innocent people?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 04:05 am
Iran is getting more and more involved.

Excerpt:

Quote:


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g6eoOaW6jT7tTxObv2lu2OmJ_TfQ

Excerpt:

Quote:


http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/me_iraq_08_22.asp
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 05:15 am
BrandX wrote:
Iran is getting more and more involved.



Do you think that's good or bad?

Do you think Iran has a right to get more involved?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 06:20 am
It has the same right to run over a territory as any other power has when it perceives it has the strength to do so. History proves that the will to do so exists whenever that condition is met.

Do you not agree?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 06:37 am
xingu wrote:
BrandX wrote:
Iran is getting more and more involved.



Do you think that's good or bad?

Do you think Iran has a right to get more involved?


How can it possibly be a good thing? If they escalate the whole US/Iran/Iraq situation will. It could be they're only interested in this one faction of people and area, but still it is Iraqi soil.

No, they don't have a 'right' to, Iraq is a sovereign country.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 07:41 am
You must be a very popular person Brand telling people naive stuff like that just because it makes them feel better about themselves.

Of course they have the right. They might even have a duty if the coalition pulled out.

This stuff isn't suitable for wide ranging coffee mornings discussion.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 08:16 am
Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths
Period Total
Aug-07 1574
Jul-07 1690
Jun-07 1345
May-07 1980
Apr-07 1821
Mar-07 2977
Feb-07 3014
Jan-07 1802
Dec-06 1752
Nov-06 1864
Oct-06 1539
Sep-06 3539
Aug-06 2966
Jul-06 1280
Jun-06 870
May-06 1119
Apr-06 1009
Mar-06 1092
Feb-06 846
Jan-06 779
Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths Details
Note: Iraqi deaths based on news reports . This is not a definitive count. Actual totals for Iraqi deaths are higher than the numbers recorded on this site.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 08:33 am
More than 1,800 Iraqis killed in August

By DAVID RISING, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 33 minutes ago



BAGHDAD - Civilian deaths rose slightly in August as a huge suicide attack in the north two weeks ago offset security gains elsewhere, making it the second deadliest month for Iraqis since the U.S. troop buildup began, according to figures compiled Saturday by The Associated Press.



That's over 58 deaths per day. How can this even be viewed as "progress?"
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 09:23 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
The sad fact of this surge is that more Iraqis are also getting killed and maimed at double the rate, and more children are being left as orphans and starving.

Bush may claim "every life is precious," but he makes a mockery of both his religion and his hypocrisy. If he's such a "good man," how does he sleep so well being responsible for all this killing of innocent people?

Bush is not responsible for the mass murdering perpetrated by mass murderers. The mass murderers perpetratrating the mass murders are responsible for those mass murders.

In other words, the guy who murders is responsible for murdering, not the guy who fails to stop the guy who murders.

The guy who fails to stop the guy who murders is at worst incompetent. The guy who claims otherwise is a damn fool.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 09:36 am
ican, You are just like Bush; don't know how to take responsibility for something you start. When Saddam was in "control" of Iraq, they had more peace, less dead, more electricity, and more food. Bush destroyed all that!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 Sep, 2007 10:02 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, You are just like Bush; don't know how to take responsibility for something you start. When Saddam was in "control" of Iraq, they had more peace, less dead, more electricity, and more food. Bush destroyed all that!

Malarkey!

VIOLENT DEATHS OF
IRAQ CIVILIANS

(calculated from Britannica Books of the Year data)
2002 15,025
2001 19,272
2000 23,265
1999 45,437
1998 65,731
1997 89,453
1996 107,667
1995 96,472
1994 87,940
1993 53,951
TOTAL = 604,213
Avg./yr Avg./month
50,351 4,196



(obtained from http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/ )
July 2006 2,336
Aug. 2006 1,195
Sep. 2006 1,407
Oct. 2006 2,546
Nov. 2006 3,894
Dec. 2006 3,219
Jan. 2007 2,557
Feb. 2007 2,514
Mar. 2007 2,720
Apr. 2007 2,359
May. 2007 3,755
June. 2007 2,386
TOTAL = 30,888
Avg./yr Avg./month
30,888 2,574
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 07/24/2025 at 09:06:26