Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/23/07 12:29 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 11/22/07 08:54 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Try about 25 per day.

According to the most recent monthly stat (October), there were 758 Iraqi deaths related to the war, that's out of 31 days. That's less than 25 deaths per day.

What's wrong with the latest weekly stat, Nov 15 - Nov 21, 280 deaths, that's 40 a day.

I don't consider 40 deaths a day "winning". An improvement yes, but not winning.

what they don't seem to understand is that nobody wins in war. This isn't a football game.

i'm having trouble seeing the point of this thread. the topic was stupid, ill-informed and didn't allow for any real discussion. now its seems to have become nothing more than a turd slinging carnival, like just about every other Iraq, Vietnam or Bush thread. fucking hell.

At 11/23/07 12:29 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 11/22/07 08:54 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Try about 25 per day.

According to the most recent monthly stat (October), there were 758 Iraqi deaths related to the war, that's out of 31 days. That's less than 25 deaths per day.

What's wrong with the latest weekly stat

Because they don't represent a trend. That was just one week, and they included peculiar attacks that increased the total amount of deaths, as well as the discovery of bodies. It won't necessarily affect the stats for larger amounts of tim.

We'll see what the stats were of november

, Nov 15 - Nov 21, 280 deaths, that's 40 a day.

I don't consider 40 deaths a day "winning". An improvement yes, but not winning.

Once again, you have no clue what you're talking about so what you consider to be winning amounts to precisely jacksquat. Not only are you the kind of person who roots against the US anyway, and therefore even if you thought the US was winning you'd say we weren't, but you're also only looking at casualties only.

Even a complete absence of civilian death wouldn't mean victory. But would constitute "winning" is the fact that violence has gone down, sectarian killing specifically has gone down, Sunnis that once supported the insurgency are fighting alongside Americans, Iraqi streets and markets that used to be deserted are now becoming more busy, Iraqis are coming back from their exodus to neighboring countries.

Signs are good, the US is winning. The surge has been resoundingly successful thus far. If it is maintained then we can anticipate even better news to come.

At 11/22/07 08:03 PM, Musician wrote:

that doesn't mean he's literally there

Him? No.

His organization? Yes.

He's told his organization to go by numerous names before. He's mentioned Zarqawi in tapes for crying out loud.

oh lawd, you have no idea what would have happened in japan if we hadn't dropped the bomb. But no goverment could have withstood that kind of political pressure forever. I mean we decimated 50-90% of 50 japanese cities (look at my link)

That's because we cared more about our own soldiers and civilians than that of the enemies and their supporters.

We did not have the mentality that a military government who spends its time attacking civilians, executing and raping them deserved any humane treatment.

And honestly, do you really believe that the Japanese government would've actually surrendered? Near the end of the war they were telling their own civilians that the American troops would kill you and rape you if you were caught. These people used children to blow up tanks.

What possible reason can you give me to suggest they would put down ALL arms?

because any person who isn't a complete idiot is opposed to any casualties, but at the same time sometimes casualties are neccesary. However I don't think Iraq has been worth the casualties we have suffered, and most american citizens would agree with me.

Most Americans lack historical and factual knowledge as well as information to give any accurate opinion on current circumstances.

you're an idiot, just because there have been a few superficial successes in Iraq does not mean that Iraq is stable.

A few?

EXCUSE ME?

I point you to Cellar's most recent post AS WELL AS my links. How the hell can you say a 50-80% reduction in violence is "a few"? Not to mention low level Al Qeada operatives as well as Iraqi's who were formerly sided with the terror organization that are now siding with us AGAINST them?

You're incredibly narrowminded.

I look at the facts, which is more than I can say for you.

facts? what facts? all I see is you being a generic narrowminded conservative dipshit and occasionally shooting off an unrelated link.

Really now?

Did I EVER give you a link from FOX?

Shit, man. I gave you a link from the New York Times... THE NEW YORK TIMES!

At 11/23/07 01:42 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 11/23/07 12:29 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 11/22/07 08:54 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Try about 25 per day.

What's wrong with the latest weekly stat

Because they don't represent a trend.

Oki doki:
Nov 16 - Nov 22 - 307 = 43
Nov 9 - Nov 15 - 238 = 34
Nov 2 - Nov 8 - 245 = 35
Oct 26 - Nov 1 - 258 = 36
Oct 19 - Oct 25 - 306 = 43

It would appear that the "trend" is 38 deaths per day for the last 35 days.

Once again, you have no clue what you're talking about so what you consider to be winning amounts to precisely jacksquat.

As long as there are civilian casualties, there is no winning. Although I'm sure it gives you wood to say "w00t were winning in Iraq", do what you have to do to make yourself feel better cellar.

Not only are you the kind of person who roots against the US anyway, and therefore even if you thought the US was winning you'd say we weren't,

I said it was an improvement for fuck sakes.

but you're also only looking at casualties only.

Oh am I?

Electricity
Baghdad receives 6 hours of electricity a day. Sept 07, Iraq produced just under 5000 megawatts per day. The U.S. CPA aimed to have 6,000 megawatts per day by July 2004. 3 years after the goal date, they are still behind their goal.

Water
Baghdad has seen more than 80 new cases of Cholera in the past week due to poor water.
70 percent of Iraqis lack access to adequate water supplies and 80 percent lack effective sanitation.

I don't have time this morning to look into the political situation in Iraq, but I know earlier this year it wasn't looking very good.

So considering theres shit water, shit electricity, shit politics and still almost 40 deaths per day due to the occupation in Iraq, I'm confident in saying, the US is not winning in Iraq, and the Iraqis are still losing.

I'm just quoting. No point spending too much effort here. Anyone using statistics to argue that anything is "looking up" in Iraq has their head in the sand.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/14295/

"There is a growing debate over the data used to support claims of progress in Iraq. In particular, it has been widely asserted that Gen. David Petraeus and MNF-I (Multi-National Force-Iraq) have produced artificially optimistic data on civilian casualties. Petraeus has argued that civilian fatalities climbed over the course of 2006, but fell forty-five percent over the last eight months as surge brigades have arrived in Iraq. [1] These findings have been challenged on a variety of grounds. Some accept the observation that casualties have declined, but argue that much of this is due to sectarian cleansing rather than improved security: where the intended targets have already been driven out, violence becomes unnecessary but the neighborhood is no more secure for targeted minorities. [2] But others dispute the observation of decline itself. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, Spencer Ackerman of the American Prospect, and John Podesta, Lawrence Korb, and Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress, for example, argue that violence is not falling. National security expert Rand Beers argues that claims of a decrease cannot be verified by independent sources. [3]

Iraq data are inherently messy and all empirical claims need to be treated with caution. But two broad points seem clear nonetheless. First, sectarian cleansing is an important factor in Iraq 's violence, but it is hard to know how important it has been relative to the surge in reducing civilian casualties. No claim for the relative importance of the surge and cleansing for Iraqi civilian casualties can be sustained from available data. Second, MNF-I is not alone in finding a reduction in civilian deaths since 2006. Multiple, independent sources find similar trends, and there is very little evidence to suggest any upward trend in violence in 2007. Given this, the Petraeus testimony is not inaccurate or uncorroborated in the way many have claimed. But neither is it complete: while the testimony does not explicitly attribute the casualty reduction to the surge as opposed to sectarian cleansing or other causes, its weight of emphasis implies a primary role for the surge. A more complete assessment would have addressed potential alternative causes explicitly, and would have clarified the limitations on what can be known about the surge's effects."

Nix those last two paragraphs, read these two, and stop trying to prove a point with death counts.

But if one is willing to take selective subsets out of context, then it is possible, in fact, to support any conclusion from these data. This is because the data are noisy and non-monotonic: values rise, then they fall, and both the rise and the fall are subject to apparently random fluctuations from month to month along the way. A misleading two-point comparison can thus easily be structured to imply that casualties are getting worse, not better, in 2007; or that the drop in 2007 is much greater than it is; or that there has been no change at all. If one chooses July and August of 2007, for example, then casualties go down for the MNF-I and Washington Post data, but they go up, during the surge period, for the AP, Reuters, and icasualties.org data (and all but the Washington Post data show a twenty to thirty-five percent one-month increase for June to July 2007, including MNF-I). But this is at least as likely to be an artifact of month-to-month instability as a sign of an underlying real reversal of security: much as the stock market bumps up and down even in the midst of long term trends to the contrary, so do these data, and the clear trend for 2007 as a whole is down.

Alternatively, many have compared 2007 data with figures for the same month from 2006; in each case, the 2007 figures are higher. But this hardly means that casualties are now increasing-on the contrary, the slope is now downward for all sources save the latter months of AP. The downward slope for 2007 is shallower than the upward slope for 2006, hence comparisons separated by twelve-month spans will show that the later values have not yet declined to the earlier levels. But if the current trend continues, they will. And there is nothing magic about twelve-month intervals; if one compares casualties at quarterly intervals, for example, the later values are generally lower than the earlier ones for 2007, not higher. For cyclic businesses in the civil economy, twelve-month comparisons are important because they compare like quantities (Christmas season sales this year and last year, for example). But there is no reason to suppose that Iraq is a seasonally cyclic business, hence there is no special significance to same-month comparisons per se.

At 11/23/07 08:40 AM, bcdemon wrote: Oki doki:

Links?

It would appear that the "trend" is 38 deaths per day for the last 35 days.

Even if that's true, that would still a dramatic reduction.

As long as there are civilian casualties, there is no winning.

Yes, in that case WWII is still going on and is unsuccessful because murders exist in Germany, Italy, France, the Netherlands and Japan.

Not only are you the kind of person who roots against the US anyway, and therefore even if you thought the US was winning you'd say we weren't,

I said it was an improvement for fuck sakes.

And you based your argument that there is no "winning" going on, on part of the US, because civilians still die...

That's pretty illogical considering it's impossible to prevent civilian death, and that's not even the goal. It's impossible to entirely get rid of civilian death altogether.

Oh am I?

Electricity
Baghdad receives 6 hours of electricity a day.

Lol, so now in order to "win" the war, Baghdadis have to have 24 hour electricity.

Water
Baghdad has seen more than 80 new cases of Cholera in the past week due to poor water.
70 percent of Iraqis lack access to adequate water supplies and 80 percent lack effective sanitation.

So now the war depends upon huminatarian issues... which were apparently pretty bad before the invasion.

I don't have time this morning to look into the political situation in Iraq, but I know earlier this year it wasn't looking very good.

Lol... the Sunnis - the demographic that once were the driving force behind the insurgency - are now allied with the US against al Qaeda.

The issues about water and electricity, which involve an overhaul of infrastructure, are not going to be fixed by any military action. Nor are those even the goals of the surge.

So considering theres shit water, shit electricity, shit politics and still almost 40 deaths per day due to the occupation in Iraq

"due to the occupation"

Lol. So how many of those deaths do you think are due to coalition forces? As opposed to forces that are against it?

So now I guess the war is the occupation... against the occupation.

I'm confident in saying, the US is not winning in Iraq, and the Iraqis are still losing.

Wait... so isn't that a change of tune from your previous claims about the war? I thought the war was about the US against the Iraqis, according to you...

At 11/24/07 04:40 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 11/23/07 08:40 AM, bcdemon wrote: Oki doki:

Links?

Iraqbodycount dot org

It would appear that the "trend" is 38 deaths per day for the last 35 days.

Even if that's true, that would still a dramatic reduction.

I do believe I said that....But thanks for regurgitating what I already stated.

As long as there are civilian casualties, there is no winning.

Yes, in that case WWII is still going on and is unsuccessful because murders exist in Germany, Italy, France, the Netherlands and Japan.

No you idiot, the war is over. Are those murders you just referred to due to the Germans invading Europe? You're a fucking tool.

I said it was an improvement for fuck sakes.

And you based your argument that there is no "winning" going on, on part of the US, because civilians still die...

Yep.

That's pretty illogical considering it's impossible to prevent civilian death, and that's not even the goal. It's impossible to entirely get rid of civilian death altogether.

Civilian death due to your war dumbass.

Lol, so now in order to "win" the war, Baghdadis have to have 24 hour electricity.

No stupid, but the US mission was to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and rebuild Iraq. Considering the goal of the CPA was to generate 6000MW a day by July 2004, and they are only at 4300MW a day now (3.5 years after their goal date)I would say the rebuilding of Iraqs electricity generation abilities is a complete failure.

So now the war depends upon huminatarian issues... which were apparently pretty bad before the invasion.

GW Bush: When we started the reconstruction progress in the spring of 2003, our focus was on repairing and building large-scale infrastructure -- such as electrical plants and large water treatment facilities.

Apparently rebuilding infrastructure was a main focus when the invasion began, according to the guy who initiated the invasion anyway.

Lol... the Sunnis - the demographic that once were the driving force behind the insurgency - are now allied with the US against al Qaeda.

Ok, some Sunni members have stopped fighting the USA and the terrorists, and are now just fighting the terrorists. Good for them, but how does that depict the "USA is winning"?

The issues about water and electricity, which involve an overhaul of infrastructure, are not going to be fixed by any military action. Nor are those even the goals of the surge.

I understand that military action isn't going to fix electricity, water and sewer etc., maybe you can inform your president of that. I didn't decide to invade Iraq, he did.
And I never said they were the goals of the surge, they were part of the goals of the invasion though.

So considering theres shit water, shit electricity, shit politics and still almost 40 deaths per day due to the occupation in Iraq

Lol. So how many of those deaths do you think are due to coalition forces? As opposed to forces that are against it?

ALL OF THEM. If the coalition forces weren't there, then there wouldn't be an opposing force now would there?
How many terrorists were attacking people in Iraq before the US waltzed in? The only reason there are terrorist attacks in Iraq today, is because the USA invaded Iraq.

Wait... so isn't that a change of tune from your previous claims about the war? I thought the war was about the US against the Iraqis, according to you...

Were you not fighting Iraqis when you invaded? And are you not still killing innocent Iraqis? I believe "yes" to both questions is the appropriate answer. The only people that are ever going to "win" in this entire situation, are the Iraqi people. Providing they can ever get back to living peaceful lives again.

At 11/24/07 07:23 AM, bcdemon wrote: Iraqbodycount dot org

Um... the links for the days that you listed?

No you idiot, the war is over. Are those murders you just referred to due to the Germans invading

Europe? You're a fucking tool.

And now you're proving how incapable you are of thinking objectively.

Deaths will happen regardless. Therefore your concept that murder in Iraq automatically means the US isn't winning is hilariously absurd, because it's impossible to get rid of it, and getting rid of it is unnecessary.

And you based your argument that there is no "winning" going on, on part of the US, because civilians still die...

Yep.

Yep, and therefore according to you the allies didn't win WWII, because murder still existed and continues to exist in the countries that were occupied.

That's pretty illogical considering it's impossible to prevent civilian death, and that's not even the goal. It's impossible to entirely get rid of civilian death altogether.

Civilian death due to your war dumbass.

How do you know that the civilian death is due to the war? What about the civilian death that happened in Iraq before the war?

Lol, so now in order to "win" the war, Baghdadis have to have 24 hour electricity.

No stupid, but the US mission was to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and rebuild Iraq. Considering the goal of the CPA was to generate 6000MW a day by July 2004, and they are only at 4300MW a day now (3.5 years after their goal date)I would say the rebuilding of Iraqs electricity generation abilities is a complete failure.

That's reconstruction efforts. Just because reconstruction is not going as planned doesn't mean that the surge isn't working, and causing a reversal in the previous chaos in Iraq.

The US is winning. Lack of progress in some areas that aren't directly affected by the surge doesn't negate that.

Lol... the Sunnis - the demographic that once were the driving force behind the insurgency - are now allied with the US against al Qaeda.

Ok, some Sunni members have stopped fighting the USA and the terrorists

Try the leaders of basically all the major Sunni tribes, especially in Al Anbar Province... which is the areas of Iraq that was previously the most violent.

and are now just fighting the terrorists. Good for them, but how does that depict the "USA is winning"?

Lol how fucking retarded are you?

Maybe because the enemy in Iraq no longer has a base of support? Maybe because the point of the surge was to pacify lawless areas, to provide a foundation of security for Baghdad. One of the major changes was to get the Sunnis, previously the biggest threat to peace in Iraq, to side with the US against Al-Qaeda.

Done, done, done.

Winning.

The issues about water and electricity, which involve an overhaul of infrastructure, are not going to be fixed by any military action. Nor are those even the goals of the surge.

I understand that military action isn't going to fix electricity, water and sewer etc., maybe you can inform your president of that. I didn't decide to invade Iraq, he did.

Lol the purpose of going into Iraq wasn't to fix their infrastructure.

It's one aspect of the change in tactics that occurred post-invasion. And considering how degraded Iraq's infrastructure was, considering how big of a country Iraq is, and how many cities it has... it's quite a fucking feat to turn that around, and it's only one part of the objectives in Iraq, and a secondary one.

You can't rebuild when the places you need to rebuild are filled with Al-Qaeda who will kill workers and destroy any progress by sabotage. Thus... the surge. Thus... getting Sunnis behind the US to allow security so that rebuilding can take place.

This is being achieved, therefore rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure will be easier, and more successful as a second part of the surge.

And I never said they were the goals of the surge, they were part of the goals of the invasion though.

Lol they weren't the goal of the invasion you fool. They were post-invasion plans that were made before the onset of the insurgency, without anticipation of the current goals we now have, that we are now achieving, and therefore now winning.

Lol. So how many of those deaths do you think are due to coalition forces? As opposed to forces that are against it?

ALL OF THEM.

Lol... so you mean like... the coalition made people strap bombs to themselves? So the coalition made people blow other people up?

So you mean that even though very little of the deaths are actually due to the coalition, the people that are actually doing the killing are blameless because idiots like you say they are?

How many terrorists were attacking people in Iraq before the US waltzed in?

How many thousands of Iraqis were killed by Saddam Hussein before the US entered? How many Iraqis have actually been killed by US and coalition forces as opposed to the "opposing forces" that you find blameless for the death that they ACTUALLY cause themselves due to THEIR actions?

At 11/21/07 10:16 PM, InnerChild548 wrote: There is good chance they're repeatedly changing they tactics, we're just not informed about it.

I find it just a likely that they aren't changing tactics since neither side has any evidence to support their case. 8+|

the military should start killing everyone over there just so we don't have hear people over whining about ineffectiveness. or send them all to camps...
in centuries before, invasions were meant to kill all the indigenous peoples so that the land could be safely occupied by colonists. so why not do the same there?

At 11/24/07 05:25 PM, qu3muchach0 wrote: the military should start killing everyone over there

19 my ass.

At 11/24/07 05:32 PM, animehater wrote:

At 11/24/07 05:25 PM, qu3muchach0 wrote: the military should start killing everyone over there

19 my ass.

yep, 19.
i'm just tired of people offering crappy solutions.
mine will at least work shorthand, because people are too damn impatient. :P
wars aren't won in months, you silly person. ^^

At 11/22/07 12:42 AM, Musician wrote:

At 11/22/07 12:03 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 11/21/07 09:13 PM, LightandDark wrote:

How can you say we're winning? Just because there are less roadside bombs? that's a victory?

Actually, it is. Increased rates of Iraqi military/police recruitment is a sign that the Iraqis are seeing themselves has having a stake in post-Saddam Iraq. Decreased IED attacks indicates: 1) the insurgents have less logistical support 2) insurgents have less resolve. This is a sign that they are loosing the ability to continue their guerilla war.

boy have we lowered are standards. So what if there are less troops dying in Iraq? how is any loss of life acceptable.

It is this attitude that makes this military member want to pull our troops out of the world and only become a defensive force. I don't give a FUCK if it is a Democrat or Republican in office. We can do good in the world, but internal politicians manipulating the opinions/support of the ignorant masses (and yes Musician you are part of that mass). History will most likely show that the Iraq war is a highly effective and successful war.

The number of casualties on BOTH sides is incredibly low for a conflict of this size/length.

Jesus, who tells you we're winning? we're up against an enemy force of unknown size whom we can't predict. this is an insurgency we're fighting, and if we learned anything from vietnam it's that this is the kind of war that's impossible to win.

After WWII we face insurgencies in both Germany and Japan and look at them. We have had to deal with insurgencies in every war we've fought in. Bush has found his Grant in Gen. Patreus (sp?).

If you wish to be informed on this subject, I suggest you start learning about military science & history rather than relying upon bumper sticker logic.

At 11/24/07 09:06 PM, TheMason wrote: bumper sticker logic.

Hope you don't mind if I use that phrase one of these days.

At 11/24/07 09:09 PM, animehater wrote:

At 11/24/07 09:06 PM, TheMason wrote: bumper sticker logic.

Hope you don't mind if I use that phrase one of these days.

As one human nationalist (yeah I know I just posted very jingoisticly) to another, I hope you use it against me! (Gotta keep me honest.)

At 11/24/07 09:06 PM, TheMason wrote: internal politicians manipulating the opinions/support of the ignorant masses (and yes Musician you are part of that mass).

Oh the irony

History will most likely show that the Iraq war is a highly effective and successful war.

Oh please, Iraq will go down in history the same way Vietnam did, a gigantic blunder.

At 11/24/07 10:26 PM, Musician wrote:

At 11/24/07 09:06 PM, TheMason wrote: internal politicians manipulating the opinions/support of the ignorant masses (and yes Musician you are part of that mass).

Oh the irony

So where is the irony?

History will most likely show that the Iraq war is a highly effective and successful war.

Oh please, Iraq will go down in history the same way Vietnam did, a gigantic blunder.

The future is not written, that is why I used the words "most likely" to condition my statement. Who knows what will be unclassified in the next 20-50 years...those who claim the administration lied about WMDs may end up vindicated...or they could be proven wrong.

Same thing with the outcome, Iraq could end in quagmire...or could turn out like Germany and Japan.

At 11/24/07 10:42 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 11/24/07 10:26 PM, Musician wrote:

At 11/24/07 09:06 PM, TheMason wrote: internal politicians manipulating the opinions/support of the ignorant masses (and yes Musician you are part of that mass).

Oh the irony:

So where is the irony?

You say that anti-war politicians are trying to control the ignorant masses. History shows that almost always the opposite is true. As far as I'm concerned the whole "War on Terror" is an attempt to recreate the cold war, only we've replaced the "commies" with the "terrorists".

History will most likely show that the Iraq war is a highly effective and successful war.

Oh please, Iraq will go down in history the same way Vietnam did, a gigantic blunder.

The future is not written, that is why I used the words "most likely" to condition my statement.

oh please

Who knows what will be unclassified in the next 20-50 years...those who claim the administration lied about WMDs may end up vindicated...or they could be proven wrong.

There are no WMDs in Iraq, that much is certain at this point.

Same thing with the outcome, Iraq could end in quagmire...or could turn out like Germany and Japan.

It can't turn out like Germany and Japan because Hitler and Tojo not only posed a geniune threat on the world around them, but also led an attack on us. Sadam Hussien was no active threat, nor did he ever attack america. There we're no WMDs found in Iraq so our pre-emptive strike was completely unjustified.

Iraq will "most likely" go down in history as one giant mistake, and George Bush will be remembered as the idiot who made it.

At 11/25/07 01:55 AM, Musician wrote: You say that anti-war politicians are trying to control the ignorant masses. History shows that almost always the opposite is true. As far as I'm concerned the whole "War on Terror" is an attempt to recreate the cold war, only we've replaced the "commies" with the "terrorists".

History also shows that some of the greatest tyrants come to power promising peace...not war. Do not be naive, a politician is a politican and that involves manipulating emotion to mobilize their followers.

Yes the NeoCons surrounding Bush have attempted to supplant one fear with another. However, terrorists do pose a threat and we cannot treat them as mere criminals...we have to recognize the fact that the see themselves as soldiers. However, we cannot fall into the trap of the only solution being purely military....

Who knows what will be unclassified in the next 20-50 years...those who claim the administration lied about WMDs may end up vindicated...or they could be proven wrong.

There are no WMDs in Iraq, that much is certain at this point.

Oh really? What reports have you seen? While no one is claiming that Saddam was close to a nuke...much of his chemical and biological stockpiles (the real nightmare weapons) are unaccounted for. Just because we can't find them...doesn't mean he didn't have them.

Same thing with the outcome, Iraq could end in quagmire...or could turn out like Germany and Japan.

It can't turn out like Germany and Japan because Hitler and Tojo not only posed a geniune threat on the world around them, but also led an attack on us. Sadam Hussien was no active threat, nor did he ever attack america. There we're no WMDs found in Iraq so our pre-emptive strike was completely unjustified.

That has nothing to do with how Iraq will turn out. The reason we were successful following the German/Japanese insurrections was that we stayed on and rebuilt nations that were far more destroyed than modern day Iraq.

Iraq will "most likely" go down in history as one giant mistake, and George Bush will be remembered as the idiot who made it.

Iraq started in 1991 under the first Bush. In many ways the war never ended for the USAF and USN...all through Clinton's presidency. In fact Clinton even considered invading towards the end of his administration because of the threat Saddam posed to the dollar.

Given this, and given that Gore's money (like Bush's) comes from big oil...had 2000 gone differently we would've still invaded Iraq.

At 11/25/07 03:52 AM, TheMason wrote:
History also shows that some of the greatest tyrants come to power promising peace...not war. Do not be naive,

Yeah like Ghandi. oh wait...

a politician is a politican and that involves manipulating emotion to mobilize their followers.

haha mobilize, like we're a secret army of al gore followers. I'd say some politicians do that more than others.

Yes the NeoCons surrounding Bush have attempted to supplant one fear with another. However, terrorists do pose a threat and we cannot treat them as mere criminals...

You see, going into Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or the terrorists. It was about WMDs remember? or does the media have you believing we went in there to wipe out Al Queida?

we have to recognize the fact that the see themselves as soldiers. However, we cannot fall into the trap of the only solution being purely military....

Bush has never thought diplomatically. he has the "If they don't agree with us, then we'll blow em up" mentality that is typical in texas presidents. Therefore the only solution we could have ever expected from him is "purely military".

Oh really? What reports have you seen? While no one is claiming that Saddam was close to a nuke...much of his chemical and biological stockpiles (the real nightmare weapons) are unaccounted for. Just because we can't find them...doesn't mean he didn't have them.

You see the thing is, it was implied that Saddam Hussien had a nuke. That's the only reason we could have gone in there. Chemical and Biological weapons do not pose a threat to us. And even if they did, they still havn't found any. Besides it's been shown that the information we used to enter Iraq was from an unreliable source (they probably knew this but wanted to enter iraq anyways).

That has nothing to do with how Iraq will turn out. The reason we were successful following the German/Japanese insurrections was that we stayed on and rebuilt nations that were far more destroyed than modern day Iraq.

The difference there is that there wasnt an insurgent force shooting at us while we were trying to rebuild germany and japan. Just face it the wars were nothing alike.

Iraq started in 1991 under the first Bush. In many ways the war never ended for the USAF and USN...all through Clinton's presidency. In fact Clinton even considered invading towards the end of his administration because of the threat Saddam posed to the dollar.

Bush Sr never entered Iraq, and Clinton had the common sense not to. Clinton knew that one of the biggest responsibilities of a president is to avoid war, if at all possible.

Given this, and given that Gore's money (like Bush's) comes from big oil...had 2000 gone differently we would've still invaded Iraq.

See, there you go again pulling a conclusion completely out of your ass. Would Gore have entered Iraq? Nobody knows, especially not you. But I'll tell you one thing, if gore had become president the patriot act would have never seen the light of day.

On a side note, is this you admitting that the war was over oil? I think it is.

At 11/25/07 02:13 PM, Musician wrote:

Yeah like Ghandi. oh wait...

Hitler...

haha mobilize, like we're a secret army of al gore followers.

Mine as well be...

You see, going into Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or the terrorists. It was about WMDs remember? or does the media have you believing we went in there to wipe out Al Queida?

Correct.

However:
-Iraq was responsible for the attempted assassination of one of our presidents.
-Lying to the UN.
-Crimes against Humanity.
-Attacking US allies.
-Broke the peacefire treaty 17 times.

There are 4 VERY GOOD reasons for invading Saddam right there. And even more.

Oh, and you're right. Saddam didn't have WMD's.

However, since you're claiming that Iraq was all about WMDs to begin, you should be praising Bush for stopping Saddam from getting a hold of them.

FOX
CNN

IN SUMMARY: Saddam did not have WMD's. He feared Iran so tricked the US and Europe into thinking he had WMDs so that Iran would think he had WMDs. Saddam's closest people even thought he had WMDs, and he purposely held back information to the UN in order to raise suspicion on him. His plan was to keep Iran at bay with his supposed WMD trick, until the sanctions against his country would fall so that he would be able to create Nukes. He did this by paying off UN members. But 9/11 happend which screwed up his plans for future nuclear capabilities.

Basically, you should kiss Bush's ass for preventing him from obtaining them in the first place.

Bush has never thought diplomatically.

Iran. Syria. N. Korea. Saudi Arabia.

Sure think, pal.

You see the thing is, it was implied that Saddam Hussien had a nuke. That's the only reason we could have gone in there. Chemical and Biological weapons do not pose a threat to us.

But are still illegal by the UN.

And it's people like you who point to the UN every time you find something to blame Bush for.

HYPOCRITE ALERT!

The difference there is that there wasnt an insurgent force shooting at us while we were trying to rebuild germany and japan. Just face it the wars were nothing alike.

Yes, there were.

Bush Sr never entered Iraq,

and Clinton had the common sense not to. Clinton knew that one of the biggest responsibilities of a president is to avoid war, if at all possible.

I'll leave this amount of ignorance to the other guy...

See, there you go again pulling a conclusion completely out of your ass.

That certainly explains what you've been doing...

On a side note, is this you admitting that the war was over oil? I think it is.

For Clinton? Partial Yes.

For Bush? No.

But hey, if you honestly think you can beat a military man in an argument over the military... Good luck... hahaha

At 11/25/07 02:13 PM, Musician wrote:

At 11/25/07 03:52 AM, TheMason wrote:

Yeah like Ghandi. oh wait...

Stalin,
Mao
The Kim Dynasty...they all say they want peace and had the best of intentions when they took power...

a politician is a politican and that involves manipulating emotion to mobilize their followers.

haha mobilize, like we're a secret army of al gore followers. I'd say some politicians do that more than others.

Mobilization has more than military applications. In political science it is commonly used to describe a political leader or group of leaders/elites to garner support from the population. This is the sense in which I use the term.

You see, going into Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or the terrorists. It was about WMDs remember? or does the media have you believing we went in there to wipe out Al Queida?

I actually don't watch much of the news. I get my information from scholarly journals and briefings I get when I go do guard duty. <justified arrogance>I simply have access to better information than you.</justified arrogance>

Bush has never thought diplomatically. he has the "If they don't agree with us, then we'll blow em up" mentality that is typical in texas presidents. Therefore the only solution we could have ever expected from him is "purely military".

Actually it is common thought in political science that it is structures that matter, not individuals. We would've gone into Iraq and Afghanistan regardless of whoever from wherever won in 2000.

You see the thing is, it was implied that Saddam Hussien had a nuke. That's the only reason we could have gone in there. Chemical and Biological weapons do not pose a threat to us. And even if they did, they still havn't found any. Besides it's been shown that the information we used to enter Iraq was from an unreliable source (they probably knew this but wanted to enter iraq anyways).

You were what, 12 when we invaded? There was just as much discussion about his chem/bio as there was his nukes. In fact most of the people in the intel community I talked to at that time feared these more than they did his nukes.

Chem/Bio poses more of a threat than nukes. They are easier and cheaper to manufacture, and easier/cheaper to employ. This makes it obvious you have no clue what you're talking about.

The difference there is that there wasnt an insurgent force shooting at us while we were trying to rebuild germany and japan. Just face it the wars were nothing alike.

Actually when we occupied both countries, we had to deal with insurgencies...well after Hitler and Tojo were no longer factors. Face it, you don't know what you're talking about.

Bush Sr never entered Iraq, and Clinton had the common sense not to. Clinton knew that one of the biggest responsibilities of a president is to avoid war, if at all possible.

Again, you show that you're in over your head. While we never entered Iraq during Desert Storm, we kept bombing Iraq in the space between. We had troops over there doing combat, just not a massive ground invasion. The USAF and USN do not view these as seperate wars...but one single conflict. For us the 1991/2 war never ended.

Given this, and given that Gore's money (like Bush's) comes from big oil...had 2000 gone differently we would've still invaded Iraq.

See, there you go again pulling a conclusion completely out of your ass. Would Gore have entered Iraq? Nobody knows, especially not you. But I'll tell you one thing, if gore had become president the patriot act would have never seen the light of day.

It comes down to structures. When you grow-up and go to college, take an introductory International Relations course. The prevailing view is in most cases the personality of leaders does not matter in decisions such as going to war...stuructural pressures are what really determines these things. See we were heading to war with Saddam regardless of who won in 2000. Saddam was considering selling his oil under the "Oil for Food" program in Euros instead of dollars. This would've devalued the dollar tremendously since the dollar's value is now based upon the fact that under the Marshall Plan all oil is sold in US dollars (this is what allowed us to take the dollar off the gold standard in the 1970s). Saddam presented a threat to our economy...one that no president could ignore.

On a side note, is this you admitting that the war was over oil? I think it is.

Not really, just the anti-war side wants to pick on Bush for coming from a family who made much of their money in oil. However, they totally ignore the fact that the Gore family forture came from Gore's father's close ties with Occidental Oil...

If anything it was to protect the economy.

At 11/25/07 04:41 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 11/25/07 02:13 PM, Musician wrote:

At 11/25/07 03:52 AM, TheMason wrote:

Yeah like Ghandi. oh wait...

Stalin,
Mao
The Kim Dynasty...they all say they want peace and had the best of intentions when they took power...

ah but there are so many more who came to power in the opposite way. Hitler in particular came to power promising to restore the economic and military might of germany. And Stalin came into power after a vicious civil war, when the country was desperate for order. Not only that but Stalin didn't exactly come into power because of his "promises", he used alot of dirty politics to get to his position.

I actually don't watch much of the news. I get my information from scholarly journals and briefings I get when I go do guard duty. <justified arrogance>I simply have access to better information than you.</justified arrogance>

Oh of course, the perfect excuse for you to say whatever you want without citing your sources right?

Actually it is common thought in political science that it is structures that matter, not individuals. We would've gone into Iraq and Afghanistan regardless of whoever from wherever won in 2000.

Unfortunantly the "individual" (Bush) had a great influence on the "structure". He was able to convince the republican run congress to authorize a war in Iraq. We might have gone into Afganistan if Bush hadn't won, but Iraq is a bit more of a stretch. We have no idea what choices what Gore would have made and unless you have the ability to read minds then I suggest you shut your slimy pie hole on the matter.

You were what, 12 when we invaded? There was just as much discussion about his chem/bio as there was his nukes. In fact most of the people in the intel community I talked to at that time feared these more than they did his nukes.

Bullshit, The only thing that Saddam Hussien could possess that actually posed a threat to the United States were nuclear warheads.

Chem/Bio poses more of a threat than nukes. They are easier and cheaper to manufacture, and easier/cheaper to employ. This makes it obvious you have no clue what you're talking about.

They certainly aren't easier to employ at long range. Give me one scenerio where Saddam Hussien could have dealt a real blow to the United States? And even if that scenario could happen, why would Saddam do it? Saddam did not want a war with the US, he knew that it would decimate him.

Actually when we occupied both countries, we had to deal with insurgencies...well after Hitler and Tojo were no longer factors. Face it, you don't know what you're talking about.

Thanks for the very informal link. Oh wait there isn't one? I guess you must have gotten all your information from your "better sources" right ;)?

Again, you show that you're in over your head. While we never entered Iraq during Desert Storm, we kept bombing Iraq in the space between. We had troops over there doing combat, just not a massive ground invasion. The USAF and USN do not view these as seperate wars...but one single conflict. For us the 1991/2 war never ended.

We never invaded Iraq, that's the key thing to remember. We never declared war. </discussion>

It comes down to structures. When you grow-up and go to college, take an introductory International Relations course. The prevailing view is in most cases the personality of leaders does not matter in decisions such as going to war...stuructural pressures are what really determines these things. See we were heading to war with Saddam regardless of who won in 2000. Saddam was considering selling his oil under the "Oil for Food" program in Euros instead of dollars. This would've devalued the dollar tremendously since the dollar's value is now based upon the fact that under the Marshall Plan all oil is sold in US dollars (this is what allowed us to take the dollar off the gold standard in the 1970s). Saddam presented a threat to our economy...one that no president could ignore.

economical wars and military wars should be kept seperate. A countries effect on our economy is not reason to declare war. If you believe differently, then you take war too lightly.

Not really, just the anti-war side wants to pick on Bush for coming from a family who made much of their money in oil. However, they totally ignore the fact that the Gore family forture came from Gore's father's close ties with Occidental Oil...

If anything it was to protect the economy.

I like how you jump around why we started the war. first it's because "terrorists are a real threat" even though that's not because we entered Iraq, then it's because "there we're stockpiles of chemical/biological weapons), now you're saying "if the war was caused by anything it was the need to protect our economy". Just admit it, the war was completely unjustified.

Oh of course, the perfect excuse for you to say whatever you want without citing your sources right?

Not all sources are available through the internet son.....

"Link or it didn't happen" don't apply in the Real World. WHY in god's name it applies on NG I'll never understand.....

At 11/25/07 06:11 PM, Imperator wrote:

Oh of course, the perfect excuse for you to say whatever you want without citing your sources right?

Not all sources are available through the internet son.....

"Link or it didn't happen" don't apply in the Real World. WHY in god's name it applies on NG I'll never understand.....

If you want to be taken seriously you generally have to provide a link. Unless what you're saying is common knowledge.

If you want to be taken seriously you generally have to provide a link. Unless what you're saying is common knowledge.

On THIS forum.

Lectures from noteworthy profs are not exactly handy dandy in link form. Plus, JSTOR is not available to everyone. He COULD quote you lines from books, but this is an internet politics forum, and a very casual one at that and he is a doctorate student in a political field.

I think you can give him some benefit of the doubt on things said in his relative field here.....just for the sake of conversation if nothing else.....

In any case:

I think history is gonna show this war as the great experiment of the 21st century. Outcome regardless, we're gonna find out how much tolerance the American people has, how the US will wage wars, how they will unfold, and the process of nation building in the 21st century.

I think history will have a hard time figuring out why we're actually there, simply because you need a time frame to really get answers. Pre-2003: Nukes Saddam had. Post 2003: removing a dictator. 2007: Building a country.

The goals have changed so much over the course that I think (barring new evidence historians may discover down the road) history will simply see this war as a big experiment of what the US can do in a global setting in the post-9/11 world.

At 11/25/07 06:51 PM, Imperator wrote: history will simply see this war as a big experiment of what the US can do in a global setting in the post-9/11 world.

I don't think anyone will allow Iraq to be put down in the history books as an "experiment". War is an abomination, and nobody will ever have it referred to as something that neutral.

At 11/25/07 05:50 PM, Musician wrote:

At 11/25/07 04:41 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 11/25/07 02:13 PM, Musician wrote:

At 11/25/07 03:52 AM, TheMason wrote:

Oh of course, the perfect excuse for you to say whatever you want without citing your sources right?

Considering I have military experience and a graduate degree in which I speak of, I am a perfectly legitimate authority on the subject.

Unfortunantly the "individual" (Bush) had a great influence on the "structure". He was able to convince the republican run congress to authorize a war in Iraq. We might have gone into Afganistan if Bush hadn't won, but Iraq is a bit more of a stretch. We have no idea what choices what Gore would have made and unless you have the ability to read minds then I suggest you shut your slimy pie hole on the matter.

You can bury your head in the sand if you want...

Bullshit, The only thing that Saddam Hussien could possess that actually posed a threat to the United States were nuclear warheads.

Again, you are speaking on a subject that you have little knowledge in nor do you understand.

They certainly aren't easier to employ at long range. Give me one scenerio where Saddam Hussien could have dealt a real blow to the United States? And even if that scenario could happen, why would Saddam do it? Saddam did not want a war with the US, he knew that it would decimate him.

A direct attack on the US is not the only threat that Saddam or any other dictator in the third world can employ against us. There is also the possibility of an attack on allies or other key interests.

Thanks for the very informal link. Oh wait there isn't one? I guess you must have gotten all your information from your "better sources" right ;)?

My grandfather was stationed in Germany after WWII and witnessed the insurgency first hand. My great-uncle was stationed in Japan, saw the same thing. That there was a post-war insurgency is well known and therefore does not require sourcing. However, I'm sure that you can wiki it, pick up the slack of your high school.

We never invaded Iraq, that's the key thing to remember. We never declared war. </discussion>

Actually it's not the end of the discussion and again you prove you are in over your head. The last time we declared was WWII so the point you made in bold is not only irrelevant...but patently wrong.

Again, I am a credible source on whether or not the USAF and USN considers this to be one long war or two seperate.

economical wars and military wars should be kept seperate. A countries effect on our economy is not reason to declare war. If you believe differently, then you take war too lightly.

No...I just know what I'm talking about.

If anything it was to protect the economy.

I like how you jump around why we started the war. first it's because "terrorists are a real threat" even though that's not because we entered Iraq, then it's because "there we're stockpiles of chemical/biological weapons), now you're saying "if the war was caused by anything it was the need to protect our economy". Just admit it, the war was completely unjustified.

If I'm jumping around it is because the decision to go to war is not one that is taken lightly...nor can it be reduced to one issue such as WMDs, terrorism and negative effects on our economy (ie: way of life). These all played a part in the decision to go to war. I'm sorry that the world is more complex than you would like.