Civilian deaths in Iraq drop overnight

Parent Cafe
41

<p>Yep. If it keeps working like this, we won’t have an Iraqi problem after a couple of years - there won’t be any Iraqis left.</p>

42

<p>I posted the first link to point out some good news in Iraq. Post #40 seems typical of the level of schadenfreude I’ve come to expect from the liberal left. You can’t seem to stand any good news but really get a kick out of bad.</p>

43

<p>Sjmom–you know me better than that. I was pointing out to you that it’s far too early to see this “surge” as a positive, successful thing. My gut feeling is that the death and chaos will continue no matter how many of our young Americans we put in harms way. I absolutely do NOT get a kick out of bad news. I’m just having a hard time seeing the good news in this. And as for your calling me a member of the “liberal left,” why, thank you.</p>

44

<p>Let me spell the viewpoint of “the liberal left” for you, sjmom2329:</p>

<p>“Oooh, look at how beautiful the Emperor’s new clothes are!” = bad.</p>

<p>“The first rule of holes is, when you’re in one, stop digging” = good.</p>

<p>I’m afraid your original post was an example of the first type of statement. Your desire to equate “dealing with reality” with “wanting America to lose” is a standard propaganda tool of the right. But don’t let that stop you from repeating it, if it makes you feel better.</p>

45

<p>Sjmom, I am going to weigh in here with a couple of questions: Do you honestly believe that a reduction in overnight casualties, one night, is not propaganda and spin?<br>
Why must you attack other posters by calling them liberals? How about reaching a higher level of discourse?</p>

46

<p>Why is it attacking other posters to call them “liberals?” I don’t take offense at being called conservative. For Kluge, here is a link to an opinion piece by Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe. <a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/18/irreconcilable_positions_support_troops_oppose_war/?p1=MEWell_Pos3[/url]”>http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/18/irreconcilable_positions_support_troops_oppose_war/?p1=MEWell_Pos3&lt;/a&gt;

Mini and I agree on very little – but at least he has the honesty to say that he does NOT support the troops or the military. </p>

<p>And I don’t think it’s propaganda to say the the left wants us to lose – I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.</p>

47

<p>

</p>

<p>That is just a ludicrous argument, because we already HAVE lost; it’s just that the pundits and the administration are loathe to admit it. 100’s of civilian casualties a day is not a “won war” (although I do remember being told a number of times over the past four years that we already HAD achieved victory, that insurgencies were in their last throes, etc…none of which is clearly true…).</p>

<p>Winning will be bringing our young men and women home before another 3000 die. That is how I support the troops. I support their lives.</p>

<p>And Jeff Jacoby is a terrific right wing apologist. I read his every column, and just shake my head at his myopic world view.</p>

48

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s because of the way the right wing keeps redefining liberal to mean anything that’s unpopular and conservative to mean whatever is popular.</p>

<p>Conservative used to mean fiscally conservative and isolationist in foreign policy. Yet now people claim that “conservative” means just the opposite: fiscally profligerate, even reckless, and a lust for nation-building and other foreign adventures. </p>

<p>The right wing subjects “liberals” to a constant stream of hate speech (Liberals want us to lose, the only way a liberal will defend the country is when it’s too late), conveniently ignoring the fact that liberals were fighting to free this country from Great Britian while conservatives were clinging to British rule.</p>

<p>To me, the only justification the right wing can give for supporting the politician’s escalation of this war, in the face of the opposition of veteran military strategists, is the “monkeys typing Shakespeare” rule. </p>

<p>The administration has been wrong about nearly everything about Iraq. There were no WMD, no ties to Al Queda, no link to 911. The insurgency isn’t in its last throes, we aren’t down to 5000 troops by now, the war has cost many, many times $100 billion, establishing elections didn’t bring stability, it hasn’t been paid for by Iraq’s oil, etc.</p>

<p>Already the predictions about the surge have proved false. We were told that Iraq would have three battalions ready by February 15th. It’s past that, and they have only two battalions, and those battalians aren’t nearly what they should be. We were told that the Iraqis would be stepping up into leadership roles in the sweep of Baghdad; just the opposite has happened.</p>

<p>The only you can possibly give for believing that the politicians in your administration are right about the surge and the military strategists are wrong is the rule that if you do enough random things, sooner or later one of them is bound to be right. That’s a pretty slender thread to risk GI’s lives on.</p>

49

<p>

And the left wing doesn’t do this?</p>

50

<p>Also from Jaboby’s column – by the way, why is he “a terrific right-wing apologist” for sharing his opinion, in an opinion piece?

</p>

51

<p>

</p>

<p>No we don’t.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s too bad that this is being dismissed out of hatred for the source without pondering the historical relevance. Strategically, we are in a position very like Great Britian’s during the Revolution. Trying to occupy a people an ocean away, facing a hostile populace that changes the rules of engagement to use shocking, “ungentlemanly” tactics; a war that is unpopular at home because it costs the country more than the occupied territory generates in revenue; a war effort supplemented by mercenaries; an occupied territory likely to have ethnic violence and even civil war if the occupation ended. At a certain point, Great Britian decided to cut its losses; the cost of the war simply wasn’t worth it. And somehow Great Britian managed to endure. </p>

<p>Here’s another lesson of history: I don’t think there’s ever been a time in history that a civil war has been resolved by a third party using its military to impose a solution.</p>

52

<p>

I have yet to hear a conservative or a member of the military say that we have lost in Iraq – it’s only from liberals and Democrats. Here’s another point of view from the military. I’m sure that someone whill want to slam Cal Thomas, but I’m referencing the words Army Sgt. Daniel Dobson.
<a href=“http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2007/02/13/a_letter_from_mosul[/url]”>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2007/02/13/a_letter_from_mosul&lt;/a&gt;

</p>

<p>

You can argue the merits of the Iraq war as much as you want, from the safety of homes here in the US. Those who are actually fighting in this conflict seem to have a different point of view.</p>

53

<p>SJMom, surely you must know that the troops and veterans’ opinions are all over the map on this one. Some support withdrawal, some support a modest increase, some support a very large increase, and some support pre-surge levels. Quotes from soldiers and veterans can be found to support any of those positions. Why is it that only the troops whose opinions coincide with yours are worth hearing?</p>

<p>I am curious though, what you’ve done to make sure that your state has its fair per capita share of National Guard and Reserve unit mobilizations? Shouldn’t supporting the war mean making sure that your state is doing its part?</p>

54

<p><a href=“http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html#part1[/url]”>http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html#part1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>just reading what the"plan" was and where we are at now in Iraq- that saddens me</p>

<p>the troops are doing their best, their leaders in washington, well, not so much</p>

<p><a href=“Why Should You Go For Fatcow Hosting?”>Why Should You Go For Fatcow Hosting?;

<p><a href=“http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/266638_solarosub16.html[/url]”>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/266638_solarosub16.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>and I wish the the OPs assertion was true, but todays news…</p>

55

<p>

</p>

<p>You haven’t? You must not be listening. Or as soon as someone says it, you decide they aren’t “conservative” anymore. </p>

<p>How about military: </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If you were listening, you might even have heard this testimony from General Abizaid about whether the surge was something worth doing:</p>

<p>

</p>

56

<p>Conyat do you have links or dates for the quotations you posted? I believe that only a few years ago, the generals on the ground said that they did not see the need for additional troops. The Sec of Defense was was vigorously assailed by the Democrats for supporting this view from Iraq. Of course, now it’s the opposite. As I’ve said before, my husband is in regular contact with members of the military – so I do get the viewpoint from active duty personnel.</p>

57

<p>SJ, I have already posted quotes, several times in the past, from the generals who asked for substantially more troops at the beginning of the invasion, and then at various points along the way.</p>

<p>They have ALWAYS asked for more troop support. Only now, when Iraq is in the midst of a bloody civil war (for which no 21,500 troops will make a whit of difference), does Bush comply.</p>

58

<p>General Odom has been opposed to the president’s policy in Iraq pretty consistently since 2003.</p>

<p>Here’s an example from 2005:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“http://northdenvernews.com/content/view/650/2/[/url]”>http://northdenvernews.com/content/view/650/2/&lt;/a&gt; puts the date of General Abizaid’s testimony to the Senate as 11/15/06. </p>

<p>From the same source, here’s a quote from Oliver North:</p>

<p>Oliver North: North said, “A ‘surge’ or ‘targeted increase in US troop strength’ or whatever the politicians want to call dispatching more combat troops to Iraq isn’t the answer. Adding more trainers and helping the Iraqis to help themselves, is. Sending more US combat troops is simply sending more targets.” [Human Events Online, 1/5/07]</p>

<p>About sending in more troops earlier:</p>

<p>Lawrence Korb, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense: Korb said, “we had a chance in the beginning to send the right number of troops. We didn’t, and now I think it would only make the situation worse and it would make the Iraqis more dependent on us” [Talk of the Nation, NPR, 9/18/06]</p>

<p>All this reading may not be as interesting as pillow talk, but if you do your homework, you will find that military personnel have far more diverse viewpoints than what you’re getting.</p>

59

<p>Nod, it’s frustrating. You post sources, they pretend they never saw them and ask for more sources. You post more sources at their request, and often they don’t even acknowledge them.</p>

<p>I’ve posted links to this poll before, and some warhawks still act as though all the troops were of one mind–theirs–about the war.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006poll_iraq.php[/url]”>http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006poll_iraq.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Only about half the respondants to the Military Times poll think the US is even somewhat likely to succeed in Iraq:</p>

<p>7) Regardless of whether you think the U.S. should have gone to war, how likely is the U.S. to succeed? </p>

<p>Very likely to succeed 13%
Somewhat likely to succeed 37%
Not very likely to succeed 31%
Not at all likely to succeed 10%
No opinion/no answer 8% </p>

<p>More disapprove than approve of how the president is handling the war:</p>

<p>10) Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq? </p>

<p>Approve 35%
Disapprove 42%
No opinion 10%
Decline to answer 12% </p>

<p>And there is little support for a troop level of about 168,000 in Iraq–the “surge” amount:</p>

<p>13) We currently have 145,000 troops in Iraq and Kuwait. How many troops do you think we should have there? </p>

<p>Zero 13%
0-50,000 7%
50,000-144,000 6%
145,000 13%
146,000-200,000 22%
200,000+ 16%
No opinion/Don’t know 23%</p>

<p>And SJMom, I notice you’re still avoiding the question of what you’re doing to make sure that your state has its fair share of National Guard and Reservist mobilizations per capita.</p>

60

<p>183 civilian casualties in today’s attacks.</p>

<p><a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070218/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_070218163950;_ylt=AtoOFTtm2Rk28r2ADozGBIVX6GMA[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070218/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_070218163950;_ylt=AtoOFTtm2Rk28r2ADozGBIVX6GMA&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;