THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

...

Petraeus is cooking the books; the experienced commanders at the Pentagon know this, and want out much quicker then he recommends.

I've been really surprised at how many lies Petraeus as put forward.

He holds up the success in Anbar as a success of the escalation; in fact, it has little to nothing to do with the 'surge' at all and predates it by several months. What more, it represents about 5% of the country and is not an indicator of overall progress.

Petraeus refuses to release his methodology for counting casualties, which renders his statistics useless.

He claims that success will allow us to draw down 'some forces'; naturally, these forces were scheduled to be drawn down already. Their rotations are up; it has nothing to do with successes on the field.

It's just more of the same crap. We do well in places we can go in strength, not so well when we don't have strength, and things fall apart when we leave. We don't have the troops to cover the whole place, so, eventually we will lose with this strategy. Petraeus and Bush are merely delaying making the tough decision, trying to run out the clock and turn it over to the next Dem president, who they will promptly blame for the problems caused by themselves

Cycloptichorn

True enough. We do not have overall progress in Iraq. But we do have progress in Iraq, your malarkey not withstanding.

FACTS ABOUT THE MONTH OF AUGUST:

Number of multiple fatality suicide bombings:
2006 = 52
2007 = 30

Number of daily attacks by insurgents and malitias:
2006 = 160
2007 = 120

Number of prisoners being held by the U.S. and Iraq:
2006 = 27,000
2007 = 60,000

Number of of Iraqi security forces:
2006 = 298,000
2007 = 360,000


By the way, what's your source for this malarkey? You wrote:
"Petraeus refuses to release his methodology for counting casualties, which renders his statistics useless."

Please provide attribution for your statistics.

These statistics assembled by Michael O'Hanlon and Jason Campbell
Brookings Institute
Published Tuesday, September 4, 2007
New York Times Op-ed

These statistics republished in the Wall Street Journal editorial, The Measure of Progress
Friday, September 7, 2007


For the answer to your question, I refer you to the testimony given by Petraeus and Crocker over the last two days; when questioned about their numbers, they refuse to supply raw data or methodology.

I listened to their testimony. I didn't hear Petraeus and Crocker, when questioned about their numbers, refuse to supply raw data or methodology. Perhaps that happened when I went to the frig for a gingerale.

Their numbers conflict with each and every other source I've seen, sources who DO include their raw data and methodology. This is a sure sign of manipulation.

Which of your other sources match IBC's well documented for methodology numbers? If there be none, that would be a surer sign of the manipulation of your source's numbers. Petraeus's June numbers are about the same as IBC's. Based on my extrapolation of IBC's July 21 numbers, it looks like Petraeus's July numbers are also close to IBC's July numbers. When we see what IBC's numbers are for the rest of July and for August, we'll be in a better position to evaluate the accuracy of Petraeus's numbers.
Cycloptichorn

ican, You are a big joke on a2k; all you can provide is one of the most obvious objective of Bushco; to overthrow Saddam. You forget all the bravado rhetoric of Bushco before he initiated his illegal war against Iraq; that was almost five years ago. You see, that's one of the BIG promises from Bush. The overthrow of Saddam is a joke in most circles.

We are fighting a war. These are the reasons why:

(1) We Americans probably face a sizeable risk of being murdered by Terrorist Malignancy, if we decide to limit the defense of ourselves against Terrorist Malignancy to only here in America;
http://www.mideastweb.org/osambinladen1.htm

(2) The state of Afghanistan harbored (i.e., allowed sanctuary to) al-Qaeda Terrorist Malignancy from May 1996 to October 2001, when the USA invaded Afghanistan seeking to end their sanctuary in Afghanistan;
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

(3) The state of Iraq harbored (i.e., allowed sanctuary to) al-Qaeda Terrorist Malignancy from December 2001 to March 2003, when the USA invaded Iraq to end their sanctuary in Iraq;
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

(4) Tuesday night, September 11, 2001, the President broadcast to the nation:
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.

(5) Friday, September 14, 2001
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/joint-resolution_9-14.html
The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(6) Thursday, September 20, 2001, President Bush addressed the nation before a joint session of Congress:
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
Tonight we are a country awakened to danger. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.

(7) Wednesday, October 16, 2002, Congress passed a joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq and gave two primary and sufficient reasons for doing so, that were subsequently verified by the USA military:

www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

ican: You appear to me to be the big a2k joke.

You read a Dow drop of 249.97 to be a 2500 drop. Then you read entering the US by foot as flying in to the US.

That was a simple typo, and you make it into a mountain. Yet, you fail to see the mountain created by Bush, and make it into a molehill. You are the joke. Get a life.

(4) Tuesday night, September 11, 2001, the President broadcast to the nation:
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.

Bush didn't 'identify' ****. There's nothing new about terrorism or foreign policy. What he decided to do, was to make terrorism the center of our foreign policy. This was both a strategic and tactical error.

Cycloptichorn

ican posted: (4) Tuesday night, September 11, 2001, the President broadcast to the nation:
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.[/b]


Here's another Bush rhetoric that is full of ignorance and nonsense. Almost all countries today "harobr terrorists" including the US and the UK. So, how does Bush make the distinction? As you have claimed, terrorists just walk into the US; how will Bush handle this problem? Why don't you call Bush and ask him?

Round-up of daily violence - Tuesday 11 September 2007


Baghdad

- Around 1.20 p.m., mortars hit Bayaa neighborhood ( south west Baghdad) injuring 7 people .

- Around 3.20 p.m., a planted bomb was put inside a sedan car exploded in front of the fine arts institution at Mansour neighborhood ( west Baghdad) killing one person and injuring 5 others.

- Police found 12 unidentified dead bodies in the following neighborhoods in Baghdad : (9) were found in west Baghdad ( Karkh bank) ; 2 in Doura , 2 in Amil , 2 in Hurriyah, 1 in Jihad , 1 in Saidiyah . While (3) were found in east Baghdad ( Risafa bank) ; 1 in Sadr city , 1 in Ur and 1 in Shaab.

Diyala - Around mid-day , two police officers ( a major and a lieutenant ) were killed and 12 other policemen were injured while 10 gunmen were killed and 15 are in custody during clashes took place between a Kurdish police with the security forces and gunmen near Qara Taba village north of Baquba in Diyala province.

Kirkuk

- Around 7 p.m. of Monday , gunmen kidnapped a student at Al-Bashir village of Taza ( south Kirkuk) . Police had passed full information of the two vehicles which were used during the abduction to all police stations , patrols and check points to get the abductors.

- Around mid night of Monday , a roadside bomb targeted a police patrol of Serkran station at Mama village on Kikrkuk-Mosul route ( north Kirkuk ) injuring two policemen with some damage to the vehicle.

Mosul

-The deputy governor of Mosul said that the victims of the suicide car bomb which took place yesterday night at Kerkamish which is part of Zimmar ( north of Mosul) reached 80 (4 killed and 76 wounded) . Also this explosion destroyed 8 houses , 16 commercial shops and burned 9 cars .

Basra

- Around Monday night , gunmen killed The Imam and orator of Mahtta (station) mosque in front of his house at Jubaila neighborhood ( north Basra) .He is a member of the Islamic Iraqi Supreme Council .

Round-up of Daily Violence - Wednesday 12 September 2007

Baghdad

Around 10:00am, an IED targeted convoy of SUVs in Beirut Seq. two killed and 5 injured all of them were civilian

Kirkuk - Yesterday evening, gunmen riding a pick up vehicle shot an officer from the Third Battalion-Fifth brigade near by Al Safra village in Al Riyadh province west Kirkuk. Kirkuk policemen declared that the incident claimed the life of the officer immediately.

- Around 9:30am, An IED targeted the head's of the local council convoy of Al Haweeja province injured three of his bodyguards.

Salahuddin

Around 09:30am, gunmen assassinated Major khalid Jabur from Iraqi police in front of his house in Al Taameem neighborhood in Tikrit.

National Review: Don't. Ever. Leave.In its May 9, 2005 issue, the National Review featured a cover proclaiming, "We're Winning," accompanied by a breathless cover story by National Review editor Rich Lowry:

It is time to say it unequivocally: We are winning in Iraq.

If current trends continue, our counter-insurgent campaign in Iraq will be fit to be mentioned in the same breath as the British victory over a Communist insurgency in Malaysia in the 1950s, a textbook example of this form of war.

After two years of "winning," the National Review believes the war can still be won. From its new Sept. 24 issue:

This war can still be won, but only if we have the nerve and the patience to see it through. Recent events on the ground, strategic interest, and morality all point to only one imperative: Stay.

...
You know I would have so much more respect for those trying to force this war if they were more honest. If they would simply say something like, I know we have failed and made mistakes but we're in this now and if we left right now chances are ordinary Iraqis would suffer even more than they are right now. I don't even expect them to admit their lies in going in and their continued lies; that is over; just pick up where we are now and deal with it honestly.

...

Officials: Bush to announce troop cut
By MATTHEW LEE and ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writers
2 hours, 41 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush will tell the nation Thursday evening that he plans to reduce the American troop presence in Iraq by as many as 30,000 by next summer but will condition those and further cuts on continued progress, The Associated Press has learned.
...

revel wrote:

...
You know I would have so much more respect for those trying to force this war if they were more honest. If they would simply say something like, I know we have failed and made mistakes but we're in this now and if we left right now chances are ordinary Iraqis would suffer even more than they are right now. I don't even expect them to admit their lies in going in and their continued lies; that is over; just pick up where we are now and deal with it honestly.

I've heard them several times say the equivalent of this. Many articles posted here quoting the administration said the equivalent.

In proposing and subsequently adopting the Surge they said the equivalent.

I think its time for The DINOs and RINOs to get honest also and admit they cannot read minds and therefore cannot tell whether or not the Bush administration knew at the time they told falsities that those falsities were false.

ican711nm wrote:

revel wrote:

...
You know I would have so much more respect for those trying to force this war if they were more honest. If they would simply say something like, I know we have failed and made mistakes but we're in this now and if we left right now chances are ordinary Iraqis would suffer even more than they are right now. I don't even expect them to admit their lies in going in and their continued lies; that is over; just pick up where we are now and deal with it honestly.

I've heard them several times say the equivalent of this. Many articles posted here quoting the administration said the equivalent.

In proposing and subsequently adopting the Surge they said the equivalent.

I think its time for The DINOs and RINOs to get honest also and admit they cannot read minds and therefore cannot tell whether or not the Bush administration knew at the time they told falsities that those falsities were false.

Prove it.

I don't mean where they try to whitewash it with false and misleading success stories mixed in with their admitting of mistakes, just state out right that we are losing and have been losing but we got to stay because if we left the Iraqis would even be worse off than they are now which is already a nightmare. Don't try to pass this off as something to do for US security; but something that we have to do because we messed up Iraq going in and so we have to stay to manage it the best we can. That argument I would buy.

revel wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

revel wrote:

...
You know I would have so much more respect for those trying to force this war if they were more honest. If they would simply say something like, I know we have failed and made mistakes but we're in this now and if we left right now chances are ordinary Iraqis would suffer even more than they are right now. I don't even expect them to admit their lies in going in and their continued lies; that is over; just pick up where we are now and deal with it honestly.

I've heard them several times say the equivalent of this. Many articles posted here quoting the administration said the equivalent.

In proposing and subsequently adopting the Surge they said the equivalent.

I think its time for The DINOs and RINOs to get honest also and admit they cannot read minds and therefore cannot tell whether or not the Bush administration knew at the time they told falsities that those falsities were false.

Prove it.

I don't mean where they try to whitewash it with false and misleading success stories mixed in with their admitting of mistakes, just state out right that we are losing and have been losing but we got to stay because if we left the Iraqis would even be worse off than they are now which is already a nightmare. Don't try to pass this off as something to do for US security; but something that we have to do because we messed up Iraq going in and so we have to stay to manage it the best we can. That argument I would buy.

The valid argument you would buy has been stated more than once by the Bush administration. But it is not the only valid argument the Bush administration has made. Their primary argument is that the war in Iraq is necessary to protect Americans at home against al-Qaeda.

You are the one who accused the Bush administration of lying. You prove that. You prove the Bush Administration knew when it made false statements that those statements were false.


By the way, would you have me believe without proof that everytime you make a false statement that you know it is a false when you make it (i.e., you are lying)?