Not that you're likely to have heard this from any regular news outlet, but more American soldiers have been killed in Iraq in 2004 so far than were killed in 2003 (a longer period of time than 2004 until now). Also, we are averaging more coalition deaths per day since the "end" of the occupation than during it.
How is this not being officially declared a clusterfuck?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
This chart chart shows the U.S. deaths by month starting with March 2003 and ending with August 2004.
And even though it is linked in the story, here is the direct link to Iraq Coalition Casualty Count web site.
Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
Well, I supported the basic concept of attacking Iraq, but absolutly nothing about the way its been carried out. This is because it was carried out by an incompetent executive branch and a bunch of mostly incompetent generals.
To answer your colorfully worded question, it has not been declared a failure because the incompetent ones are those who make the official announcements.
As for the 2003/2004 death count, it does not really have anything but symbolism, and for that the media is probably waiting for 1000 dead. It is the daily average at different times that gives interesting information (terrorist casulties would be useful too, but I doubt that they will be released). Noting this, it would be more informative to count only those that died after major combat operations (not related to the present insurgency) were concluded. This shows an even more marked change!
Edit: the above post was made before I finished. That graph has many features of interest. Thank you for posting it. It seems to me that the insurgents are operating at full capacity now, but we may see another decline and sudden rise if the terrorists want to cause a shock effect. It seems that they must have decent coordination.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:As for the 2003/2004 death count, it does not really have anything but symbolism, and for that the media is probably waiting for 1000 dead.
If you add in the casualties from Afghanistan you go over the 1000 mark.
U.S. casualties in Iraq currently stands at 970 U.S. casualties in Afghanistan currently stands at 132 For a current total of 1102
Non U.S. casualties in Iraq stands at 131
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Terrorists or insurgents? The graph deals with military dead, and thus probably ought to be discussed in the context of military insurgency. The same people (or at least some of them) are responsible for acts of terror against civilians, too, but those aren't shown in the graph. And then there's the murky middle ground: if you kill a dozen people who wanted to join the army/police force opposing yours, was it terrorism or a preemptive military strike?
In any case, this rate of casualties appears unsustainable from the US point of view, as it no longer ranks so far below the levels of losses in previous US military conflicts. It probably will not start to have an actual military impact any time soon, though (apart from discouraging people from enlisting - but wars also encourage enlisting; what's the balance nowadays?).
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:(apart from discouraging people from enlisting - but wars also encourage enlisting; what's the balance nowadays?).
The U.S. military is at a point where is has been forced to maintain troop levels with the use of stop loss orders.
Which the military apparently does because basically there are not enough new troops to fill the positions of troops already in the field. Troops who have served out their enlistment and want to leave the military. When they leave the military, they take their training and experience with them. Which wouldn�t be so much of a problem if there were a pool of trained and experienced replacements waiting to take over. Apparently there is not.
So to prevent the lack of trained personnel from becoming a problem, you just prevent the trained personnel you already have from leaving.
And you call up others from the Ready Reserves. These are people who had left the military and returned to civilian life, but still meet the fine print criteria of being in the reserves because they didn�t serve an allotted number of years in their enlistments.
So, to answer the question, I�m going with Mr. Bush�s handling of Iraq and the War on Terror� has been probably been a net loss for military enlistments.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
The manifest lack of any sort of proper planning for the post-war period is also not helping. Apparently the US DoD decided that the privatisation of industry in Poland was the best model for what would happen. Great idea. Then there's the fact the US armed forces simply don't have the institutional experience or training to deal with the current situation. Then there's the nature of the opposition; fervant religious nationalism is usually very hard to beat, especially when you take into account the guerilla type warfare the opposition are using.
quote: If you add in the casualties from Afghanistan you go over the 1000 mark.
If you add in all the Coalition deaths then it goes over the 1000 mark as well.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Noting this, it would be more informative to count only those that died after major combat operations..."
More informative how? The number of deaths due to terrorist actions is an indicator of Iraq's purported stability (or lack of it), not just a symbolic value to score higher Nielsons with.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
It might also be informative to provide numbers on US casualties in Iraq before the start of hostilities. You know, as sort of a 'What if'?
My uncle was a navigator on one of those tongue depressor landing boats in the National Guard in Washington State. He got called up. The man's like fifty-five years old, more or less blind in one eye and his hip is going. They had him marching around in a helmet and flak jacket in 115�F heat with boots a size too small. What the hell kind of desperate operation does that?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: Terrorists or insurgents?
Depends on your point of view. What are the differences? How should each catagory be defined?
I would describe terrorists as those who mount attacks at either civilian or military targets, using any means and regardless of whether or not the target represents a threat to them.
Insurgents would be those who restrict themselves to attacks on military targets, using generally conventional methods.
This is not to say, of course, that terrorist groups will not conduct attacks which could fit in with an 'insurgent' description or that insurgents are always sweetness and light. In fact, it's entirely possible that the difference is entirely academic, especially in a confused situation such as Iraq, where there are a multitude of groups, all with different aims and methods. Not to mention the large number of non-Iraqi, non-coalition civilians from various NGOs who may get caught up in fighting.
Most of the so-called "insurgents" have attacked civillian targets as much as military ones: just this morning, "insurgents" killed 12 civillians while firing into a trafic stop at a US troop carrier. One US soldier was killed- an entire Iraqi family was killed as well as people crossing the street.
I'd still call them terrorists when their own people have to live in fear.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Yes, but were the civilians deliberately targeted? After all, the US army has killed civilians while trying to get insurgents/terrorists.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Civillians were targeted yesterday when they were making the pilgrimage to the mosque in Najaf (sp?). Snipers fired on civillians with not a military (or even police) traget in sight- shooting several for no reason.
US forces were no where near the area (confirmed).
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Had a bit of a chuckle when a US Olympic shooter got disqualified for hitting someone else's target. What is it with you lot and friendly fire?
Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: If you add in the casualties from Afghanistan you go over the 1000 mark.
U.S. casualties in Iraq currently stands at 970 U.S. casualties in Afghanistan currently stands at 132 For a current total of 1102
Non U.S. casualties in Iraq stands at 131
Yes, if you add other things the total casulties go over 1000, but this is the media we are taking about here. They may make a big deal over 1000 U.S. deaths in Iraq.
Also, casualties is defined as wounded/killed/missing/captured, not just dead, so total casulties are 4000 something (very roughly).
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: "Noting this, it would be more informative to count only those that died after major combat operations..."
More informative how? The number of deaths due to terrorist actions is an indicator of Iraq's purported stability (or lack of it), not just a symbolic value to score higher Nielsons with.
Well, the initial deaths were largely due to combat with Iraq's pre-existing military/paramilitary force, so those deaths should not be counted when examining the evolution of the current insurgency/terrorism.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
When I asked why the war hadn't been declared a clusterfuck, I meant by people the general public listen to: the media.
But, it's okay. I found the answer.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Here's another reason why I think the invasion of Iraq was never really about WMD or about the post-invasion bring freedom and democracy to an oppressed people justification....
quote:Mr. Bush also took issue with Mr. Kerry's argument, in an interview at the end of May with The New York Times, that the Bush administration's focus on Iraq had given North Korea the opportunity to significantly expand its nuclear capability. Showing none of the alarm about the North's growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq, he opened his palms and shrugged when an interviewer noted that new intelligence reports indicate that the North may now have the fuel to produce six or eight nuclear weapons.
He said that in North Korea's case, and in Iran's, he would not be rushed to set deadlines for the countries to disarm, despite his past declaration that he would not "tolerate" nuclear capability in either nation. He declined to define what he meant by "tolerate."
"I don't think you give timelines to dictators," Mr. Bush said, speaking of North Korea's president, Kim Jong Il, and Iran's mullahs. He said he would continue diplomatic pressure - using China to pressure the North and Europe to pressure Iran - and gave no hint that his patience was limited or that at some point he might consider pre-emptive military action.
"I'm confident that over time this will work - I certainly hope it does," he said of the diplomatic approach. Mr. Kerry argued in his interview that North Korea "'was a far more compelling threat in many ways, and it belonged at the top of the agenda," but Mr. Bush declined to compare it to Iraq, apart from arguing that Iraq had defied the world community for longer than the other members of what he once called "the axis of evil." Nor would he assess the risk that Pyongyang might sell nuclear material to terrorists, though his national security aides believe it may have sold raw uranium to Libya in recent years.
Yes, when presented with a question about the apparently very real nuclear capability of North Korea, a nation with
a brutal dictator and;
a horribly oppressed population;
the ever-engaged President of the United States just shrugs.
And says that he hopes diplomacy will work over time.
Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
Well obviously the campaign in Iraq was not primarily for liberation or to stop weapons programs. It was more urgent to liberate North Korea, but they have a better military then Iraq, so there would have been more casulties initially including more civilian casulties if North Korea tried to attack Seoul with artillary. An attack on Seoul would be election losing for sure. There are ways to topple North Korea, though, other then military assault, which should have immediatly been implemented.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Well obviously the campaign in Iraq was not primarily for liberation or to stop weapons programs.
Obvious?
Those seem to be two main justifications for the use of military force in Iraq.
Perhaps you could to tell us what you think the preemptive invasion was primarily for then?
And I'd be interested in seeing how your answer jibes with the way the Administration promoted the invasion.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"'I don't think you give timelines to dictators,' Mr. Bush said..."
...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Perhaps you could to tell us what you think the premptive invasion was primarily for then?"
Saddam Hussein tried to kill his daddy.
I don't understand what you mean about jibing with the administration's promotion for the war. Are you asking for the reason for the war, or what they said was the reason for the war? 'Cause they're obviously not going to be the same thing.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I guess it was more of jab at just that sort of inconsistency.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Civillians were targeted yesterday when they were making the pilgrimage to the mosque in Najaf (sp?). Snipers fired on civillians with not a military (or even police) traget in sight- shooting several for no reason.
US forces were no where near the area (confirmed).
Not entirely sure how this is relevant to the incident you quoted in your previous post or that I commented on. No one's saying there aren't groups out there killing civilians deliberately. I just found it interesting how you were willing to condemn those who kill civilians while targeting US forces but not US forces who kill civilians (entirely accidentally) while trying to kill insurgents/terrorists.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
(Like, Gulf War 2 = bad, you will get no argument fundamentally otherwise from me. I want to get that out of the way. Now then, maybe it is just me, but if a foreign head of state orders the assassination of our President (or even, in this case, a former President, as the alleged plot was hatched in 1993) it's an act of war. Now, I'm not making any claims about what actually happened, or what is justified or not justified as a result. ((Just because something is an "act of war" doesn't necessarily mean that war is the best response, for instance.)) It's just that, when that particular point is raised, it often seems to be used to prove that, see, it was just a private Bush family matter, none of the country's business, whereas it seems to me that it is. Or rather, would be, as there's some question over whether any plot actually existed. Anyway, Tim was just using it is a rhetorical jab, but this has sort of been on my mind ever since all this started, so, now it is out of my system.)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith:
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Civillians were targeted yesterday when they were making the pilgrimage to the mosque in Najaf (sp?). Snipers fired on civillians with not a military (or even police) traget in sight- shooting several for no reason.
US forces were no where near the area (confirmed).
Not entirely sure how this is relevant to the incident you quoted in your previous post or that I commented on. No one's saying there aren't groups out there killing civilians deliberately. I just found it interesting how you were willing to condemn those who kill civilians while targeting US forces but not US forces who kill civilians (entirely accidentally) while trying to kill insurgents/terrorists.
The US forces have gone out of their way to avoid civillian casualties wherever possible while the insurgents are far more indiscriminate. I cant see US forces sweeping gunfire through a croweded intersection to nail one target.
The diffrence is that while some civillians have been killed in batles between US forces and insurgents, the US forces are not going out there targeting civillians to cause fear: the insurgents are killing anyone who's death they feel furthers their cause.
Recently that's their own civillian countrymen...y'know, the ones they're supposedly thrying to "liberate" from the great western occupying forces?
This hole "insurgentcy" thing is becoming one big grab for power on Al Saudr's part. The line between his "forces" and the the remnants of Saddam's loyalists is becoming less distinct every day.
Small wonder the new government would consider raiding one of raq's most hold places just to nail him.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: The diffrence is that while some civillians have been killed in batles between US forces and insurgents, the US forces are not going out there targeting civillians to cause fear: the insurgents are killing anyone who's death they feel furthers their cause.
Recently that's their own civillian countrymen...y'know, the ones they're supposedly thrying to "liberate" from the great western occupying forces?
Well yes but that's exactly the same thing all those other charming anti-imperialist movements used to do. You know, the ones the US was/is so very fond of. I don't like or support these people any more than anyone else. To be frank I wish they had that same belief in their invulnerability to bullets as the Mahdists in the Sudan did.
quote: The US forces have gone out of their way to avoid civillian casualties wherever possible while the insurgents are far more indiscriminate.
To be fair, the US forces have got slightly better at avoiding this sort of thing as the conflict has gone on, but in the early part of the war there were complaints from other Coalition armed forces about the lack of fire control demonstrated by the US armed forces on the ground.
What I object to is the branding of all those who oppose the Coalition/ the new Iraqi government as terrorists and the apparent use of this to justify any sort of behaviour toward them. We shouldn't sink to their level. All this posturing and bleating about how they're all going to be killed is unnecessary.
At least the US appears to be showing a slightly more responsible attitude towards Iraq than Afganistan. Unfortunately I don't think that'll last with the 'get out as soon as we can' attitude. If your're going to fight wars for 'regime change' (which is basically liberal imperialism) then the US needs to accept that it's going to cost time and money to effect that in a way that leads to long term stability.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Saddam's assassination plot (true or false), of course, was in response to the Gulf War, which was in response to his annexing Kuwait, which was in response to nothing in particular except maybe to the Kuwaitis draining Iraqi oilfields (true or false) and wouldn't have been much of a cause for alarm (true or false) ten years earlier, cf: Iran.
The Inevitable Moral: don't install dictators and don't appease them for two decades.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Now then, maybe it is just me, but if a foreign head of state orders the assassination of our President (or even, in this case, a former President, as the alleged plot was hatched in 1993) it's an act of war."
President, sure. But former president? How far does that go? Assassinating the sitting vice-president would be an act of war, but what if they assassinated Dan Quayle? And what if a foreign leader assassinated Alexander Haig? Is that an act of war?
I can understand drawing a line between current and former members of the government. But where is the line between former members and other former members?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That comes down kinda to popularity, I guess. If Carter got killed, then yeah, we'd be at war over it. Probably Al Gore even. I cant magine anyone trying to make a statement by whacking Quayle though, so I guess he's saved by his own ineffectivness.
A country just should'nt allow former leaders to become targets for revenge plots once they're out of office and security is not as tight.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, it doesn't happen in a contextless environment, is all I'm thinking.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Find me a world leader that has not pissed off some group of armed extremists. I'm sure some would love to kill Maggie Thatcher even now (for example).
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I recently got banned from another board for saying when Reagan died, "One down, Thatcher to go." Buncha fucking weirdoes, mostly Warsies to be honest, most popular other threads (apart from this one bewailing the death of "TEH GRAETAST PRESIDNET EVAR!!!") were one about the existence of Bigfoot, and one asking "If I get a Concealed Weapons Carry permit, what gun should I get?." Plus the usual "Michael Moore is a member of Al-Qaeda" threads of course.
This is what happens when you spend your life dressing up as Star Wars characters. If you thought plump bearded Americans in TOS costumes induced hilarity, then you've never seen a portly Stormtrooper. . .
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I cant tell what's worse: that you were a member of that kind of board or that you had to get banned to leave. Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
For some reason, whenever anyone says 'Thatcher' I suddenly think of Equitorial Guinea and start laughing...
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
They're a prop board. Prop fans are weird. They're a bit like Arabs or Americans - one-on-one they're very nice people, but get them together in a bunch and all hell breaks loose.
It was bad enough when Major revealed (before a Commons subcommittee hearing on the honours system) that he had been bullied by Thatcher into giving her the honour that she wanted; now I find out that her thankfully-pushing-up-the-daisies alcoholic arms-dealing fuck of a husband got an hereditary baronetcy, and her no-sense-of-direction arms-dealing fuck of a son now has the title, I was livid. The idea of him in a South African prison having his coat and shoes stolen will be one I'll cherish forever.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Think that'll really happen though? Rich and powerful families rarely suffer such misfortunes.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Yeah, odd that...
Actually, the South Africans do take these things quite seriously. Although it has been pointed out that the last person to overthrow a brutal dictator and replace him with a government of his choosing was Tony.
I don't really understand why so many people hate Thatcher quite as much as they do though. I don't agree with many (well, most) of the things she did but at least she was better than the corporatist, stagflated 70s. It's probably because I'm too young to really remember any of her time in power.
I do look forward to the pictures of 'Sir' Mark in prison overalls though. The thing that gets me is that they must have realised the when Dennis Thatcher died then that tosser would inherit the title. Why they didn't just give him a normal knighthood I don't know.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Maybe the whole Falkland Islands War should be revisited too. Afterall, the Brits once made the claim that the sun never sat on the British Empire. I don't recall the U.S. ever making that assertion. How many ships that have H.M.S. on them are sitting on the bottom of the south Atlantic? Surely that war was both justified and NECESSARY. How dare the Argentinians attack such a strategically placed island 200 miles from their own shores.
If Bush had NOT done ANYTHING to Iraq, the DemoNrats would be calling for his head for taking no action over Sept. 11. They would be crying "where's the justice" or "why haven't we acted". Funny how it was OK for Hill-Billy Clinton to lob Tomahawks into Iraq anytime he needed something for the news to focus on rather than his personal scandals. But that was OK cause those missles obviously didn't kill anyone nor get any Americans killed.
Am I happy that we are still in Iraq? NO. I think that the U.S., both parties, have NO CLUE about the mentality of that part of the world. An occupation isn't going to change Iraq. When we leave, I give them less than a decade before some idiot cleric seizes power and drags them back to the seventh century mentality. Fervent religious fanaticism can NEVER be reasoned with. All the "education" or "reforms" will do nothing but further incite a deepening conviction of the same blind loyalties. The truth is that it is far easier to pull someone down than it is to lift them up. Even more so when they don't WANT to be lifted up and are intent on dragging YOU down to their level or below.
Just a closing thought, has any polls or charts been made to show how many Iraqis are GLAD that we came over and nabbed Saddam and overthrew his own personal Gestapo? Has anyone asked the Iraqis people "Is your life better today than it was four years ago"? Has anyone asked the average Arab if he feels safer now that his neighboring country is no longer ran by an individual who had already invaded two other countries and used chemical weapons?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
If Bush had NOT done ANYTHING to Iraq, the DemoNrats would be calling for his head for taking no action over Sept. 11.
Because Iraq and 9/11 had SO much to do with one another.
Has anyone asked the Iraqis people "Is your life better today than it was four years ago"?
No, but I'm sure that in ten years, when some idiotic cleric has seized power and dragged them all back to their seventh century mentality, that very question will be weighing HEAVILY on people's minds.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
So what your saying is that it is inevitable that the world is turned into a 7th century Islamic state?
AND that's OK?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Uhm... the Falkands War was started by Argentina invading UK soil. Doesn't compare in any way to the Iraq war.
Look, it's probably better for the world that Saddam is gone. But the war was based on the false presumption that he posed a significant threat to the United States and the United Kingdom. Furthermore, there is absolutely NO proven link between Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda and Saddam, so the invasion had very little to do with 9/11 either.
quote: Has anyone asked the average Arab if he feels safer now that his neighboring country is no longer ran by an individual who had already invaded two other countries and used chemical weapons?
As opposed to the current occupation by the world's anti-Islamic superpower, that also happens to support that *other* occupying force in Palestine? You're right though. It's a whole different world out there, and it's not likely we'll understand eachother anytime soon.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"So what your saying is that it is inevitable that the world is turned into a 7th century Islamic state?"
No.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: Maybe the whole Falkland Islands War should be revisited too. Afterall, the Brits once made the claim that the sun never sat on the British Empire. I don't recall the U.S. ever making that assertion. How many ships that have H.M.S. on them are sitting on the bottom of the south Atlantic? Surely that war was both justified and NECESSARY. How dare the Argentinians attack such a strategically placed island 200 miles from their own shores.
Uh... once the sun never did set on the Empire, so that wasn't so much a claim as an actual fact. Also it was first said about the Spanish Empire anyway so it's hardly relevant. There is simply no comparison between the Falklands war and the Second Gulf War:
Falklands: Brutal military dictatorship invades the sovreign territory of the United Kingdom, with no provocation. The Falklands had been British for 150 years, were won fairly and the population universally waned (and wants) to remain British.
Iraq 2: Brutal military dictatorship sits around being rather poor for 10 years after being defeated, occasionally hatching crackpot plots to assassinate people and frequently verbally abusing the US. It is invaded on the basis of rather spurious evidence that it may possibly have WMD (mainly chemical weapons). The fact that it does not appear to have any reliable medium range delivery systems for chemical weapons let alone long range systems that would pose a direct threat to either the UK or US.
Falklands: The French sell additional weapons to the Argentines in order to prove that they work and therefore enable them to sell more.
Iraq 2: Most of the stuff the French sold the Iraqis is now broken/destroyed/defected to Iran. They don't really bother to do anything.
Falklands: After the defeat of Argentine forces the military dictatorship is overthrown and the nation becomes a democracy again. Or as close to a democracy as South America gets anyway.
quote: If Bush had NOT done ANYTHING to Iraq, the DemoNrats would be calling for his head for taking no action over Sept. 11.
Er... Afganistan? Remember that? No proof that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? Remember that?
quote: Has anyone asked the Iraqis people "Is your life better today than it was four years ago"?
Yes. From what I remember most of tham are relatively glad that Saddam is gone but are not impressed with the US for not managing to keep order in the country. Hence they can't really see what good it is having Coalition forces there.
quote: When we leave, I give them less than a decade before some idiot cleric seizes power and drags them back to the seventh century mentality.
Depend how long the Coalition stays and what the attitude is towards Iraq after we leave. In my view the Coalition should be prepared to be called upon to assist security forces in Iraq for at least 25 years. This is the problem with the US conception of imperialism. It doesn't involve the taking of any responsibility or any transitional stages between dictatorship and democracy.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
My point is that the U.S. is being accused of imperialism. That we are somehow trying to make Iraq into a part of our "Empire". There are vocal groups that simply think ANY warfare is wrong no matter the provocation. Forget the thousands dead from terrorist activities, we should just lay down our arms to prove that we are peaceful people....while of course the bullets and bombs would be zeroing in on our peaceful intelligent country.
When an entire population has a moral tenet that you get what you can for you and your clan, there will never be peace. Those that are strong will rise to power and those that are not will HATE them and seek to destroy them.
I believe it was King George that was amazed that George Washington actually RELINQUISHED power after his presidency. (PLEASE do not take that as a denigration of the English Monarchy)
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
There was no provocation from Iraq. Iraq has never even remotely zeroed anything in on your peaceful intelligent country.
quote:When an entire population has a moral tenet that you get what you can for you and your clan, there will never be peace.
Let's see what happens when I throw in the word 'oil' right here.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: I believe it was King George that was amazed that George Washington actually RELINQUISHED power after his presidency. (PLEASE do not take that as a denigration of the English Monarchy)
Yeah, can't actually remember exactly who it was but I think you're right. Although that reflects more on the attitude towards the American rebels than a belief in the necessity of personal rule (George III was a constitutional monarch after all). And please, please, please learn the difference between English and British. I may start refering to all Americans as Texans.
quote: My point is that the U.S. is being accused of imperialism. That we are somehow trying to make Iraq into a part of our "Empire".
Well, yeah. America is an empire. I don't just mean in the sense that the territory which now constitutes the US are imperial gains (they are) but also the exportation of your political system is the essence of liberal imperialism.
Iraq posed no threat to the US. Saddam would undoubtably have liked to have been a threat and was not an especailly nice guy or good ruler, to put it mildly. But the self-defence arguement is simply bollocks. I agree with the removal of Saddam, but think the whole political side has been grossly mishandled.
Posted by Neutrino 123 (Member # 1327) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure:
quote:Well obviously the campaign in Iraq was not primarily for liberation or to stop weapons programs.
Obvious?
Those seem to be two main justifications for the use of military force in Iraq.
Perhaps you could to tell us what you think the preemptive invasion was primarily for then?
And I'd be interested in seeing how your answer jibes with the way the Administration promoted the invasion.
1. There are countries with a more opressed population in Africa (then even Iraqis were) that need to be liberated.
2. North Korea, with an extreamly opressed population, posed a very immediate threat on a timescale of months rathers then years (like Iraq).
This means that North Korea would definely be the immediate target for 'some' type of action.
Iraq was selected, however, so the above two reasons cannot be the primary reasons for invading Iraq.
As for oil, it is likely that the U.S. could get more access to Iraq's oil anyway. The oil was just another (allbeit important) factor in the economic reconstruction. This recontruction has proceed inefficiently in part due to the rewarding of certain companies probably in exchange for election donations.
Also, a successful invasion of Iraq would have ment a signifigant boost in popularity, further increasing Bush's chances in the upcoming election.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Oh, glee - someone on another prop board (a conservative, natch) has just said that the 2000 election was so long ago, it isn't relevant to anything and shouldn't be mentioned in context to the current election or anything else, ever again.
So, by my calculations that's a three and three-quarter-year statute of limitations on recent US history. That means we only have nine months more before 9/11 whingeing has to stop forever. Roll on June 2005! I bet that'll go down well with that lot on that board, Well, if they will discuss politics. . . 8)
[ August 29, 2004, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Lee ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"And please, please, please learn the difference between English and British."
Well, if you want to get that particular, shouldn't have have said "British and Irish monarchy"? Or, in this instance, perhaps just "German monarchy, northwestern subsidiary"?
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Perhaps you should learn the difference between Prussia and Germany.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Although Tim is technically correct in that "British" does not include Northern Ireland (the UK being the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"), he is still being rather nitpicky, since in general conversation "Great Britain" and "UK" are used interchangably, even by the Irish. Just look at the Olympics as an example.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist: My point is that the U.S. is being accused of imperialism. That we are somehow trying to make Iraq into a part of our "Empire"...
Too right. Back of the class for you, Wizzychops. Just because we once had an empire ourselves - and it was a very nice empire, just about the biggest of all time in fact, but all good things come to an end and hey, we're cool with that - doesn't mean we don't get to point out imperialism in others. Just 'cause we got this major beam in our eye it don't mean you ain't got no speck in yours, you dig?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith:
quote: When we leave, I give them less than a decade before some idiot cleric seizes power and drags them back to the seventh century mentality.
Depend how long the Coalition stays and what the attitude is towards Iraq after we leave. In my view the Coalition should be prepared to be called upon to assist security forces in Iraq for at least 25 years. This is the problem with the US conception of imperialism. It doesn't involve the taking of any responsibility or any transitional stages between dictatorship and democracy.
That's the rub isint it? The US is not looking to make Iraq a territory: we'd rather have them "democratic" in a west-friendly (and beholden to us, of course)way. THe idea is to (somehow) train the new Iraqi governments' forces to maintain order and THEN LEAVE. Iraqi's don't want us US forces in thir country any longer than out troops want to be there, but most also dont think the US is going to take over either.
As to "some idiot cleric seizes power and drags them back to the seventh century mentality", check the news: it's already happening. The presence of US forces is all that's preventing a quick, bloody overthrow of the interim government by Al Sadur's forces for his own personal power.
The Iraqi government needs to eliminate him (figurativly or literally) if there's going to be a democracy in their future.
If that happens, of course, those same people denouncing the US occupation now will blame the US is a dictatorship or theocracy sets up after we leave. Just as they blamed us when they starved while saddam pocketed the money fom the "oil for food" clusterfuck program.
Having Kerry or Bush in office will make no diffrence to these events.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Perhaps you should learn the difference between Prussia and Germany."
Touch�. Though, actually, Hannover wasn't yet part of Prussia at that time. But, then, it didn't have a monarchy, either.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Isn't all of continental Europe just tributaries to Der Faterland? Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist: If Bush had NOT done ANYTHING to Iraq, the DemoNrats would be calling for his head for taking no action over Sept. 11. They would be crying "where's the justice" or "why haven't we acted".
My general problem with that particular statement is that the United States did act militarily against people more directly involved in the 9/11 attacks.
It did so in Afghanistan, remember.
Or rather, had the Northern Alliance do so in Afghanistan.
*Edit: I see that Wraith beat me to it.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: I may start refering to all Americans as Texans.
I think I may start referring to the English as Roundheads.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Well they were beaten at Preston.
And to sum up:
Saddam gone - good
GOP - BAD
Did Bush & co. lie? - Yes
Should they be given nine lashes o' the cat - yes
American Control of Iraq - Unforunate outcome
Have they made some rich people richer - yes
Are American citizens better off - no
Have they helped the terrorist problem - no
Why? - Well, just in case you hadn't noticed the whole invasion was bullshit Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You forgot a big one:
Are the Iraqi people better off now: -Yes
Sounds kooky from the doom-n-gloom of the news but they are.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Are the Iraqi people better off now..."
I'm going to have to give that one a resounding "not at present, but we'll see".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
While many amenities (like constant electrictity)are not up to their standanrds under saddam, consider the sacrifices so many others have made for even the chance at freedom the Iraquis have now.
It's literally the chance of a lifetime for all of those that never knew anything but Saddam's rule.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, that rather depends on who you're talking about, doesn't it? I suspect were I living in, say, Sadr City, I'd prefer the government under which random mortars weren't falling into my living room, even if that did mean my leader's son occasionally beat people to death. On the other hand, if I am Kurdish then post-Hussein Iraq is, I think, a 100% improvement. On the third hand, if you've got one, if I'm one of the people who are presently doing the mortar-lobbing, my situation is probably about the same.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Although Tim is technically correct in that "British" does not include Northern Ireland (the UK being the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"), he is still being rather nitpicky, since in general conversation "Great Britain" and "UK" are used interchangably, even by the Irish. Just look at the Olympics as an example.
Also, no part of Ireland was part of the UK when Washington's presidency ended. Although George III was still king of it. But he was also monarch of a substantial chunk of the known world and unless you want to list every British possession at the time it really is simpler to stick to British.
quote:Just because we once had an empire ourselves - and it was a very nice empire, just about the biggest of all time in fact, but all good things come to an end and hey, we're cool with that - doesn't mean we don't get to point out imperialism in others.
One quarter of the Earth's surface, one-quarter of it's population at the Empire's height. All living in (relative) peace and harmony, with an impartial legal system and security against outside aggressors. I always find it slightly ironic that black men in Cape Colony could vote ten years before the Emancipation Declaration.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:I always find it slightly ironic that black men in Cape Colony could vote ten years before the Emancipation Declaration.
Are you talking about the Emancipation Proclamation?
If so, that particular document didn't grant the franchise.
That would be the Fourteenth Amendment which was ratified in 1868.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Yeah, I know, but black men could still vote 10 years before it. The Emancipation proclamation didn't even end slavery in the US.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: Yeah, I know, but black men could still vote 10 years before it.
Certainly not slaves and they continued to have problems with old Jim Crow for a years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment as well.
Not to mention present day Florida.
quote:The Emancipation proclamation didn't even end slavery in the US.
You're telling me this like I didn't know. Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Jason- the idea that they are 'better off' in terms of living and safety is subjective at best. What you should say is that they are theoretically better off under the law. Then you have to figure out if that means anything at the moment.
In the long run, I hope it will.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Dammit! I go away for a week, and we start talking about Iraq--something that I'm good at. We're already off topic. Grrrrr Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
So say something intelligent then Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"On the other hand, if I am Kurdish then post-Hussein Iraq is, I think, a 100% improvement."
My understanding is that SH had no control over Iraqi Kurdistan since the end of Gulf War I. The "no-fly zones" or whatnot.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure:
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: Yeah, I know, but black men could still vote 10 years before it.
Certainly not slaves and they continued to have problems with old Jim Crow for a years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment as well.
Not to mention present day Florida.
Voting snafus aside, Florida is pretty equal to blacks: both black and white americans are in increasing minority the further south you travel here: does wonders for race relations.
Oddly, there's still plenty of racism further north in the "bible belt".
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by Daryus Aden: Jason- the idea that they are 'better off' in terms of living and safety is subjective at best. What you should say is that they are theoretically better off under the law. Then you have to figure out if that means anything at the moment.
And here are the accompanying photos.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
You have a point, Tim. However, I think the point more or less stands. Hypothetical Kurdistan is in better shape without Hussein. (In fact, one could argue that northern Iraq after Gulf War 1 was already post-Hussein, I guess.)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure:
quote:Originally posted by Daryus Aden: Jason- the idea that they are 'better off' in terms of living and safety is subjective at best. What you should say is that they are theoretically better off under the law. Then you have to figure out if that means anything at the moment.
That's sickening, Jay....and it only show that the US cant chapperone another country. At best we can advise them now- their soverignty allows them to act like asses. Mabye the first elected government will do away with this kind of prisoner abuse.
Yeah, right. Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Well, seeing as your 43rd elected government didn't manage to do away with that kind of prisoner abuse, I wouldn't put my money on it.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Not to get all defensive, but curse the United States for inventing the abuse of power!
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
I think participation is more the issue. Invention is irrelevant.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
We didn't invent it. We just perfected it.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Such humility in victory. Forgive me for not seeing your justice and mercy.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
You'll be laughing on the other sides of your faces when the Japanese make it smaller!
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's Future
By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 - A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday.
The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said. The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms.
"There's a significant amount of pessimism," said one government official who has read the document, which runs about 50 pages. The officials declined to discuss the key judgments - concise, carefully written statements of intelligence analysts' conclusions - included in the document.
The intelligence estimate, the first on Iraq since October 2002, was prepared by the National Intelligence Council and was approved by the National Foreign Intelligence Board under John E. McLaughlin, the acting director of central intelligence. Such estimates can be requested by the White House or Congress, but this one was initiated by the intelligence council under George J. Tenet, who stepped down as director of central intelligence on July 9, the government officials said.
----
The new estimate by the National Intelligence Council was approved at a meeting in July by Mr. [John E.] McLaughlin and the heads of the other intelligence agencies, the officials said.
Its pessimistic conclusions were reached even before the recent worsening of the security situation in Iraq, which has included a sharp increase in attacks on American troops and in deaths of Iraqi civilians as well as resistance fighters. Like the new National Intelligence Estimate, the assessments completed in January 2003 were prepared by the National Intelligence Council, which is led by Robert Hutchings and reports to the director of central intelligence. The council is charged with reflecting the consensus of the intelligence agencies. The January 2003 assessments were not formal National Intelligence Estimates, however, which means they were probably not formally approved by the intelligence chiefs.
Fuck: Kerry's blowing any chance he had nad we'll be stuck with this ozo for another four years.
Greeeeeeaaaat.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Why, exactly, did the American people not go for Howard Dean? He was energetic, spoke his mind, didn't have all this Vietnam stuff, and was against the war from the start.
The public: But...he screamed!
Oh well. He'd probably be behind even if he were nominated.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Veers: My impression of why Howard Dean did not get the nomination wasn't necessarily because the American people rejected him, but that Iowans rejected him. And it wasn't a momentous event that cost him. It was a death by a thousand cuts.
A few days before the caucuses an old comment was publicized where he severely criticised Iowa's influence on presidential nominations. He lost the endorsement of the Des Moines Register to John Edwards. Kerry had a just-in-time surge in the polls the weekend before. His campaign model (attract under-30 voters) was demographically misplaced in the upper Midwest. A lot of Iowan Democrats were not as anti-war as the base from which Dean's candidacy sprang. And, lastly, what damage Dean suffered in Iowa was compounded in New Hampshire shortly thereafter which he was supposed to win because he was from a neighboring state.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:It's Worse Than You Think As Americans debate Vietnam, the U.S. death toll tops 1,000 in Iraq. And the insurgents are still getting stronger
----
U.S. forces are working frantically to train Iraqis for the thankless job of maintaining public order. The aim is to boost Iraqi security forces from 95,000 to 200,000 by sometime next year. Then, using a mixture of force and diplomacy, the Americans plan to retake cities and install credible local forces. That's the hope, anyway. But the quality of new recruits is debatable. During recent street demonstrations in Najaf, police opened fire on crowds, killing and injuring dozens. The insurgents, meanwhile, are recruiting, too. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once referred to America's foes in Iraq as "dead-enders," then the Pentagon maintained they probably numbered 5,000, and now senior military officials talk about "dozens of regional cells" that could call upon as many as 20,000 fighters.
Yet U.S. officials publicly insist that Iraq will somehow hold national elections before the end of January. The appointed council currently acting as Iraq's government under interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi is to be replaced by an elected constitutional assembly�if the vote takes place. "I presume the election will be delayed," says the Iraqi Interior Ministry's chief spokesman, Sabah Kadhim. A senior Iraqi official sees no chance of January elections: "I'm convinced that it's not going to happen. It's just not realistic. How is it going to happen?" Some Iraqis worry that America will stick to its schedule despite all obstacles. "The Americans have created a series of fictional dates and events in order to delude themselves," says Ghassan Atiyya, director of the independent Iraq Foundation for Development and Democracy, who recently met with Allawi and American representatives to discuss the January agenda. "Badly prepared elections, rather than healing wounds, will open them."
----
It's not only that U.S. casualty figures keep climbing. American counterinsurgency experts are noticing some disturbing trends in those statistics. The Defense Department counted 87 attacks per day on U.S. forces in August�the worst monthly average since Bush's flight-suited visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln in May 2003. Preliminary analysis of the July and August numbers also suggests that U.S. troops are being attacked across a wider area of Iraq than ever before. And the number of gunshot casualties apparently took a huge jump in August. Until then, explosive devices and shrapnel were the primary cause of combat injuries, typical of a "phase two" insurgency, where sudden ambushes are the rule. (Phase one is the recruitment phase, with most actions confined to sabotage. That's how things started in Iraq.) Bullet wounds would mean the insurgents are standing and fighting�a step up to phase three.
Another ominous sign is the growing number of towns that U.S. troops simply avoid. A senior Defense official objects to calling them "no-go areas." "We could go into them any time we wanted," he argues. The preferred term is "insurgent enclaves." They're spreading. Counterinsurgency experts call it the "inkblot strategy": take control of several towns or villages and expand outward until the areas merge. The first city lost to the insurgents was Fallujah, in April. Now the list includes the Sunni Triangle cities of Ar Ramadi, Baqubah and Samarra, where power shifted back and forth between the insurgents and American-backed leaders last week. "There is no security force there [in Fallujah], no local government," says a senior U.S. military official in Baghdad. "We would get attacked constantly. Forget about it."
----
As much as ordinary Iraqis may hate the insurgents, they blame the Americans for creating the whole mess. Three months ago Iraqi troops and U.S.-dominated "multinational forces" pulled out of Samarra, and insurgents took over the place immediately. "The day the MNF left, people celebrated in the streets," says Kadhim, the Interior spokesman. "But that same day, vans arrived in town and started shooting. They came from Fallujah and other places and they started blowing up houses." Local elders begged Allawi's government to send help. "The leaders of the tribes come to see us and they say, 'Really, we are scared, we don't like these people'," Kadhim continues. "But we just don't have the forces at the moment to help them." Last week negotiators reached a tentative peace deal, but it's not likely to survive long. The Iraqi National Guard is the only homegrown security force that people respect, and all available ING personnel are deployed elsewhere.
quote:My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.
Dick Cheney, Sunday, 14 September 2003 on Meet The Press
Based on that little piece of incompetence, I do not see how anyone would vote to let this Administration serve another 4 years.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Because right-wingers don't believe any of it. They know they've won the war in Iraq because their president says so. All reports of the worsening situation grab their attention only as proof that the media are all liberals.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Veers: Why, exactly, did the American people not go for Howard Dean? He was energetic, spoke his mind, didn't have all this Vietnam stuff, and was against the war from the start.
The public: But...he screamed!
Oh well. He'd probably be behind even if he were nominated.
Kerry had more pull with the Dem party and more cash behind him.....connections and money rule the Democrats just as much as the republicans, make no mistake.
The "yell" thing was just a dorky moment that the press jumped on like the vultures they are.
Mabye the Dems thought they were choosing wisely when Kerry was using the words "Kennedy" and "Viet Nam" in every interview/speach/sentence.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)