Progress Being Made in Iraq (NY Times)

[fundingfather]

<p>"As far as the Iraqi taking control, I think you are a tad optimistic, FF. It is still unclear which side the man in the Iraqi uniform is on. As long as there continues to be this level of sectarian strife, I don’t think you can be celebrating the Iraqi victory over their own insurgents. "</p>

<p>OK, so you won’t go and look for the good news. fair enough - I’ll serve it to you from the same german reporter:</p>

<p>

As of May 16, Mosul has its own legend to help it emerge into a new era. Every child in the city knows the story of how, on May 16, 2007, terrorists attempted to stage a massive attack. Using four car bombs, they first blew up two bridges across the Tigris River in the city’s northwest. A short time later, three other car bombs exploded in front of the headquarters of the district police. They, too, were packed with explosives, ripping craters into the ground the size of swimming pools. An eighth bomb struck a police station in the southeast. The attackers followed each of the bombings with an assault with rockets, machine guns and Kalashnikovs. It was clear, on that May 15, that the terrorists were intent on scoring a major coup. But they failed, and in doing so they lost their war.</p>

<p>The Iraqi police officers and soldiers, who until then had not been expected to perform well in combat, threw themselves into battle. Even the wounded refused to be carried off the battlefield, continuing to fight as best they could. Heroes were born on that day in May, the kind of heroes that the entire country sorely needs – not Sunni, not Shiite, not Kurdish or Assyrian or Turkmen heroes, but Iraqi heroes.

</p>

[mini]

<p>"Burns effectively says that it’s obvious the mission is irretrievable.</p>

<p>Do you have no respect for our American troops?"</p>

<p>The Hate America crowd who would keep them there indefinitely certainly don’t. To them, to paraphrase Dick Morris, the soldiers are just our version of ‘suicide death squads’, because if the “enemy” can shoot at the soldiers in Iraq, they won’t be shooting at us in the U.S. </p>

<p>“How, indeed, do you ask a man (or woman) to be the last to die for a mistake, for a failure?”</p>

<p>You don’t. And it’s worse still to die for a lie of such epic proportions. </p>

<p>“Can you imagine if you have been there multiple times and seen friends killed and perhaps been wounded yourself and, just when the thing that you have been working for for years start to shows signs of improvement…”</p>

<p>And what exactly might that be? The stabilization of the Iraqi government???</p>

[conyat]

<p>FF, one day does not make a trend.</p>

<p>Let’s hope today, with nearly 200 dead from suicide bomber attacks, does not become a trend for Mosul either.</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>I don’t know how anyone is heralding today’s news as evidence of anything positive at all:</p>

<p>

Four suicide bombings kill 175 in Iraq</p>

<p>By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer 31 minutes ago</p>

<p>BAGHDAD - Four suicide bombers struck nearly simultaneously at communities of a small Kurdish sect in northwestern Iraq late Tuesday, killing at least 175 people and wounding 200 more, Iraqi military and local officials said.</p>

<p>The death toll was the highest in a concerted attack since Nov. 23, when 215 people were killed by mortar fire and five car bombs in Baghdad’s Shiite Muslim enclave of Sadr City. And it was most vicious attack yet against the Yazidis, an ancient religious community in the region whose members are considered infidels by some Muslims.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070814/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070814/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[fundingfather]

<p>“I don’t know how anyone is heralding today’s news as evidence of anything positive at all:”</p>

<p>Yeah right, plenty of pro-war, pro-blood and guts crazies are jumping for joy right now at this good news. Please be serious. Of course there is bad news flowing every day. No one is trying to sugar coat it. But, whether we were there today or not that attack was going to happen plus the many other attacks that, by our being there, were able to be avoided. You choose: one horriffic attack that kills 175 or ten that kill 1,000.</p>

[conyat]

<p>I guess it’s no surprise that most Iraqis think that the security situation will improve immediately after we leave Iraq.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf[/url]”>http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>53% say improve; 26% say no change; 21% get worse.</p>

<p>I think if we respect the Iraqi people, we should respect their assessment of the situation.</p>

<p>

But, whether we were there today or not that attack was going to happen plus the many other attacks that, by our being there, were able to be avoided.

</p>

<p>An appeal to magical thinking that is not supported by facts. Look at the statistics on attacks in the Brookings graphs. Over the years we’ve occupied, the trend has gone up, up, up. Our staying makes things worse, not better.</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>Moments ago, FF, you were claiming that the Iraqi were taking control.</p>

<p>Evidence points otherwise, so I was wondering what control(and that “positive news” you highlighted) you thought we should be heralding.</p>

<p>Also, your speculation about 1000 dead without the US occupying is merely speculation. You have absolutely nothing whatsoever on which to base that claim. However, the 175 dead today is no speculation…just the reality of another day in occupied Iraq.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>“Moments ago, FF, you were claiming that the Iraqi were taking control.”</p>

<p>AM, I’m sure you know the difference between “taking” and “have taken”. If they “have taken” control, I would be the first to say let’s get out.</p>

<p>“You have absolutely nothing whatsoever on which to base that claim.” Nothing other than the view of just about everyone who has been there. I’ll take their word for it over your happy talk express.</p>

[conyat]

<p>

Nothing other than the view of just about everyone who has been there.

</p>

<p>The people on the dog and pony shows you mean? Like John McCain who thinks that Gen. Petraeus rides around the countryside in an unarmored Humvee?</p>

<p>The people who live in Iraq think that things will get better after we leave. But I guess in the neocon world, years of actual personal experience is no substitute for a two-day whirlwind tour.</p>

<p>But please show us your evidence that the casualty rate per month in 2003, 2004, 2005 or 2006 was higher than 2007. Even considering how bad things got at the end of 2006, I still don’t think you’ll find any evidence to support your daydreams about all the other attacks that would be happening if not for our presence.</p>

[k_amp_s]

<p>There is NO QUESTION that Bush, Cheney and Co. mislead the nation with regard to Iraq.</p>

<p>

I have plenty of respect for the troops. I question your respect for them, however. Every single one of them volunteered after this war was started, so they all knew what they were doing when they volunteered. Many have gone to Iraq and then re-upped to see this through. They are the ones who have invested with their blood and are the ones who see firsthand the positive effects of their efforts.

</p>

<p>And how many of them have re-upped for the re-enlistment bonus $$ the military is throwing at them (much less the new recruits)?</p>

<p>And actually, a lot of the rank and file are wondering why the hell we are still there – esp. since they don’t particularly trust their Iraqi “allies” (which have changed as the political circumstances have fluctuated).</p>

<p>

Yet, it is people who claim to have the soldiers best interest at heart and who are not there who are insisting that they come home. Can you imagine if you have been there multiple times and seen friends killed and perhaps been wounded yourself and, just when the thing that you have been working for for years start to shows signs of improvement, you get pulled out by people with a political agenda and all of your efforts go down the drain.

</p>

<p>Once again, the improvement is with the lessening of attacks from Sunni insurgents and not Shia insurgents (you know, the ones we freed from the shackles of the Baathists) who have gone on killing American troops.</p>

<p>And this has to do with letting the Sunnis take control of their police/security instead of the previous blockheaded move of insisting that the Shia-dominated police/army take control.</p>

<p>Take Basra in the South which is pretty much all Shia – it’s probably even more dangerous for Western troops there than it is in some Sunni areas.</p>

<p>

Why? The Clinton genocide specifically and knowingly targeted a civilian population, especially the young, in a concerted policy that resulted in a million dead, to weaken the population’s resolve to resist. Would you like me to cite the specific Geneva Convention on genocide that several members of European governments were planning to charge Clinton with before the International Court of Justice?

</p>

<p>Despite what a couple of people have stated, what Clinton did doesn’t really fall into the definition of genocide.</p>

<p>Was Bush I, Clinton and Bush II’s policy with regard to sanctions problematic to say the least?</p>

<p>Yes - but to equate that with “genocide” is taking the term a bit off base (actually, Bush I calling upon the Shia and Kurds to rise against Saddam and then doing nothing as his forces slaughtered them would be closer to the definition, but even that doesn’t quite foot the bill; btw, “Stormin’ Norman” made the biggest mistake of his career when he, as part of the settlement ceasing hostilies bwtn the Allied forces and Iraq, allowed Saddam to continue to use his air power - which he did in full force against the Kurds and Shia).</p>

[mini]

<p>“Despite what a couple of people have stated, what Clinton did doesn’t really fall into the definition of genocide.”</p>

<p>Would you like the specific section of the Geneva Convention on Genocide under which it falls? If I give it to you, you won’t believe it, so why don’t you do your own research? (And, no, Clinton’s policy was NOT the same as Bush I, nor the same as Bush II.) If there are sections of Geneva Convention on Genocide you don’t understand, I’m sure you can contact Denis Halliday through Swarthmore College, the former U.N. High Commissioner in Iraq on humanitarian aid, to explain it to you.</p>

<p>When the European nations forced Clinton to back down on his policies of genocide (with a million already dead, half of them children), he hired George Tenet. He, in turn, tried to place CIA operatives and spies as weapons inspectors (confirmed by the weapons inspectors themselves), and when found out, concocted the BIG LIE of January/February 1998 about the WMD (which not a single weapons inspector would confirm), but which led to the “experienced Democrats” - Biden, Levin, Gore, and Liebermann, to call for war. When the weapons inspectors STILL wouldn’t back up the Big Lie, Clinton ordered them out of the country in December 1998 before laying down the greatest U.S. bombing of civilian targets since Viet Nam. </p>

<p>Having backed the Big Lie in February 1998, the Democrats were in no position to question it when put forward by Tenet again, in 2002, which is what made selling the war, in terms that Tenet admits to using, but only in selling the war, not that the WMD were really there, “a slam dunk”.</p>

[mini]

<p>Again, if the term “genocide” gets under your skin, try normalizing the number killed by Clinton to the U.S. population - 12,000,000 million dead, including 6,000,000 children. Then decide what you’d like to call it. (Targeting mass civilian populations to achieve a political end is called (fill in the blanks_______ _____) but not before you read the Geneva Convention.)</p>

<p>Makes Darfur look like a picnic.</p>

[k_amp_s]

<p>You seem to overlook the term “intent” - which is a key term.</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>Updated death toll from Tuesday’s attack:</p>

<p>

Death toll in Iraq bomb attack at 250</p>

<p>By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer 21 minutes ago</p>

<p>BAGHDAD - Rescuers used bare hands and shovels Wednesday to claw through clay houses shattered by an onslaught of suicide bombings that killed at least 250 and possibly as many as 500 members of an ancient religious sect in the deadliest attack of the Iraq war. </p>

<p>…The carnage dealt a serious blow to the Bush administrations hopes of presenting a positive picture in a progress report on Iraq to be delivered by the top U.S. commander, Gen. David Petraeus, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker in about four weeks.

</p>

<p><a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070816/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070816/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[fundingfather]

<p>This seems like Alice in Wonderland logic where the existence of violence is the rationale for pulling out those responsible for keeping the peace. What next - decrease crime in the inner city by reducing the police presence?</p>

<p>I’ll give the terrorists credit for one thing though - they certainly know the psyche of the American left and its media and know how to pull their strings.</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>What “peace” is being kept? Between 250-500 people were killed on Tuesday night in Iraq! Did the American occupiers prevent that from happening? NO! In what world is 250-500 people dead considered “keeping the peace”?</p>

<p>Shaking my head at you, FF!</p>

[originaloog]

<p>I have a sneaking suspicion that if Iraq was Clinton’s fiasco Rush, Savage, and FF would be leveling their verbal howitzers at him.</p>

<p>It is interesting how political prejudices influence our thoughts. And I also plead guilty.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>"In what world is 250-500 people dead considered “keeping the peace”?</p>

<p>When the alternative world is 1,000 dead, the world of 250 looks pretty good - especially when the overall trend in killing is down since January, whereas the impact of us leaving would result in a significant spike up.</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>Based on speculation, and nothing more.</p>

<p>I’ll take real stats, thanks.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>“I have a sneaking suspicion that if Iraq was Clinton’s fiasco Rush, Savage, and FF would be leveling their verbal howitzers at him.”</p>

<p>Perhaps those who make money by being a thorn in the side of the opposition would do as you suggest, but not me. I was supportive of Clinton in the Balkans but did have issues with his tactics just as I have had issues with Bush’s tactics in Iraq. When it comes to issues of foreign policy/war, my political prejudices are turned down to at most a dull whimper.</p>