Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

iraq- are we winning or losing ?


  • Please log in to reply
262 replies to this topic

#1 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 03 January 2006 - 09:55 AM

i hear alot of people here,
notably rodger rabbit and others,
making the claim that
the iraqi insurgency is growing rapidly,
that as fast as we kill them
they recruit even more fighters
as a backlash to our 'occupation'.

well,
i found this fact interesting-

US CASUALTIES BY YEAR----

2004 = 848 KILLED, 7989 WOUNDED = 8837

2005 = 845 KILLED, 5557 WOUNDED* = 6402
*as of 12/05/05

note that, for all intents and purposes,
the kill count remained stable last year,
compared to the previous year.
but the number of wounded fell off dramatically,
while our force levels remained roughly the same.

it's my opinion that this data,
collected across the entire iraqi countryside
over a full two year period,
is the most compelling evidence that
those who claim the insurgency is winning/growing
are 100% dead wrong.
the hard facts just do not support their assertions.

our total casualties [dead + wounded]
actually declined by almost ~30% last year !


further, when one factors in the forward momentum
created by the series of elections,
as well as the stable level of conflict ,
the tide is running in our favor.

by all rights
rodger et. al. should be right,
the resistance should be growing
but it is not.
which must mean that the coalition has
finally gotten something right.
but that's just my opinion.

the numbers speak for themselves.
US CASUALTIES BY YEAR----
2004 = 848 KILLED, 7989 WOUNDED
2005 = 845 KILLED, 5557 WOUNDED*
*as of 12/05/05
from
http://icasualties.org/oif/
also see
http://icasualties.o...ualtyTrends.htm

Attached Thumbnails

  • image002.gif
  • image001.gif


#2 Lefty

Lefty

    Arrogant Asshole

  • Expired Member
  • 2,333 posts

Posted 03 January 2006 - 06:35 PM

By the numbers it seems to prove "something" but we're also the ones counting. I am willing to accept those as fact, but us tearing their country to shreds is going to come back on us in a big way. Ever watch "Shootout" on A&E (I think, could be wrong)? They show some of the battles in Iraq. The last one I DVR'ed depicted troops forced to walk through a market place daily as a show of, well not force at all but I guess friendliness. They were to wave w/their right hand, never the left, and never to show the soles of their boots as thats a sign of disrespect. Several locals made a point of showing the soles of boots to troops, and troops told of being asked to leave by many people. A few days later (March 13 I think, could be wrong) the call to prayer starts screaming "Jihad" and it was on. It seems they aren't so much an organized force, atleast in what was shown in the actual battle footage, but citizens grabbing AK-47's and tearing shit up from the rooftops and windows. The show also detailed locals not taking advantage of social programs and such out of resentment.
I wish I could find it but a few days ago I was checking out this website by a journalist in Afghanistan checking out opium farming. In there was a picture of a tapestry celebrating the fall of the Taliban. Right next to it was one celebrating 9/11. They make alot more money from opium than anything else they can grow, America is the major pressure for them to not do that and in essence, starve.
I feel we don't or are unwilling to understand the culture and are just pissing them off more than anything else. Iraq police and troops are being used more & more for local patrols, I definately feel thats a move in the right direction.
I guess this all depends on how victory is defined. In a military sense, our superiority is obvious so it's our own restrictions that hamper us. If the object is just to blow the hell out of the place we have better ways than ground troops. Trying to help people that don't really want our help is virtually impossible and this has been shown time & time again. I don't think we absolutely had to meddle on this scale, CIA funding & support for a puppet government would have been an alternative, and what we'll probably do in the end in any case. That method has bit us in the ass a few times but no one hears about when it worked.
The immediate military stats are far from being as bad as they could but we've hurt alot of feelings of folks that just don't think like us and I'm sure that is going to haunt us for a very long, long time. Is an eventual victory in the military sense worth anything when the backlash is infuriating an entire culture that doesn't mind dying if they get to take a few people with them? I think we're going to find out the answer to that question.

#3 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 03 January 2006 - 08:38 PM

it simply is not true to claim that
all iraqis,
or even a majority,
'hate' us, or do not want our help.

the turn-out for the elections argues strongly
that a large majority is solidly behind the idea
of an american-created and supported democratic political state-
nearly 11 million out of a population of ~14 million eligible voters
turned out last december,
including a surprising high percentage of sunni [baathists].
further,
the absence of any widespread rioting or general strike
against the americans
further erodes the foundation of your argument.

instead the large decline in our casualties argues the exact opposite-
the vast majority of iraqis are either indifferent or friendly,
with perhaps only 10-20% actually actively hostile.
time will tell the ultimate outcome
but the trend is positive.
today the sunnis accepted the outlines of a new government
forged out of the election results.
american troop levels are already being cut back,
and iraqi security forces now control the majority of baghdad itself.

#4 Guest_Peter Cottontail_*

Guest_Peter Cottontail_*
  • Guest

Posted 03 January 2006 - 09:26 PM

You're trying to stimulate a ‘discussion’ and I'm trying very hard to stick to mycology. :) Politics and science make strange bedfellows, and I'd prefer to stick to science when on the mycology sites.

I wish the Iraqi people all the best and hope things work out for them. I think our lower rate of injured has to do more with the improved armor on the vehicles, as well as the fact the guys have been there longer and are more experienced at detecting IED’s then they were before.

The unmistakable fact of the recent election is the biggest winner was Iran, but that’s how ‘democracy’ works. The mullahs who control the Shiite coalition with the Kurds are very closely aligned with the clerics in Iran, whom if anything, have never been accused of fostering democracy. If one can read between the lines a bit, they'll see where this is headed. The Kurds are mostly secular Sunnis, yet they are aligned with the Shiite majority in opposition to the Iraqi Sunnis. Why? Both the Kurds and the Shiites are building militias and planning for the disintegration of Iraq into three states. Both have stacked the Iraqi army with troops from their own militias. This is far from over.
RR

#5 Lefty

Lefty

    Arrogant Asshole

  • Expired Member
  • 2,333 posts

Posted 03 January 2006 - 09:42 PM

I agree w/ Senor rabbit for the decline in casualties, and we've been there long enough to get acquainted with their tactics. The hate I'm mainly speaking of is the future, we do enjoy some local support but it's the kids who just know who killed daddy and have a lifetime for hate to fester that I'm mainly referring about. I think they're going to be a problem we may not have anticipated.
I wonder if peer pressure makes some of them not want to take advantage of U.S. aid? Lemme do some research, I shall return.

#6 viraljimmy

viraljimmy

    Mycotopiate

  • Expired Member
  • 452 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 09:18 AM

The Project for the New American Century


The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington, DC based think tank. The group was established in spring 1997 as a non-profit organization with the goal of promoting "American global leadership"...
Present and former members include several prominent members of the Republican Party and Bush Administration, including Richard Armitage, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Ellen Bork (the wife of Robert Bork), Dick Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis Libby, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.


The PNAC is a controversial organization. Some have raised concerns that the project has been proposing military and economic, space, cyberspace, and global domination by the United States, so as to establish American dominance in world affairs (Pax Americana) for the future—hence the term "the New American Century", based on the idea that the 20th century was the American Century. Some analysts argue that the American-led 2003 invasion of Iraq, commenced in March of that year under the code name Operation Iraqi Freedom, is the first major step toward implementing these objectives.

...In September 2000, the PNAC issued a 90-page report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, And Resources For A New Century, proceeding "from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces."

The PNAC recommends the forward redeployment of US forces at new strategically placed permanent military bases...This global police force would have the power to keep law and order around the world in accordance with United States interests. The PNAC also advocates that the United States government should capitalize on its military and economic superiority to gain unchallengeable superiority through all means necessary, including military force...


The 2000 Rebuilding America's Defenses report states "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region".


American conservatives have traditionally favored a militarily strong United States, and advocated the country take aggressive positions when its interests are threatened. Supporters thus see the PNAC as the target of unfair conspiracy theories, mainly motivated by left wing politics.


In 1998 members of the PNAC including Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz wrote to the president, Bill Clinton, urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using US diplomatic, political and military power. The letter argued that Saddam would pose a threat to the U.S., its Middle-East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in obtaining Weapons of Mass Destruction...

Some critics of the Bush administration see the 1998 letter to President Clinton as a "smoking gun", showing that a second Gulf War was a foregone conclusion. These critics see the letter as evidence of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle's opinions, five years prior to the Iraq invasion.

After the 2000 election of George W. Bush, many of the PNAC's members were appointed to key positions within the new President's administration:


Elliott Abrams National Security Council Representative for Middle Eastern Affairs President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center

Richard Armitage Department of State (2001-2005) Deputy Secretary of State

John R. Bolton Department of State U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Previously served as Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security Affairs in the first administration of GWB.

Dick Cheney Bush Administration Vice President PNAC founder

Seth Cropsey Voice of America Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau

Paula Dobriansky Department of State Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs

Francis Fukuyama President's Council on Bioethics Council Member Professor of International Political Economy at Johns Hopkins University

Bruce Jackson U.S. Committee on NATO President

Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. Embassy Baghdad, Iraq U.S.Ambassador to Iraq
Previously served as U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan from November 2003 to June 2005

Lewis Libby Bush Administration Chief of Staff for the Vice President Indicted by Grand Jury on charges of Obstruction of Justice, False Statements and Perjury and resigned October 28, 2005.

Peter W. Rodman Department of Defense Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security

Donald Rumsfeld Department of Defense Secretary of Defense PNAC founder and previously Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences Developer of Tamiflu

Randy Scheunemann U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, International Republican Institute Member
Founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq.

Paul Wolfowitz World Bank President Deputy Secretary of Defense, 2001-2005

Dov S. Zakheim Department of Defense Comptroller

[B]Robert B. Zoellick
Department of State Deputy Secretary of State Office of the United States Trade Representative (2001-2005);

http://en.wikipedia....merican_Century

#7 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 11:42 AM

:lol:
well, i guess i should feel great that you at least admit the numbers are real.
that's a pretty good start towards
accepting reality.

our lower rate of injured has to do more with the improved armor on the vehicles...


au contraire-
the lethality of IEDs has actually increased,
due to the introduction of
shaped charges,
capable of penetrating even our main battle tanks' armor,
thought to be supplied
by the iranians.
this new weapon/tactic of using shaped charges also
explains why the kill rate, while remaining numerically stable,
actually increased as a percentage of total casualties.
their IEDs are more, not less, lethal than ever before.
just fewer of them going off with their desired effect.

#8 Grateful_soldier

Grateful_soldier

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 132 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 11:49 AM

You really cant tell just how much the people support us untill you walk through tikrit, touz, or some other iraqi town and see people come running from every building just for a chance to wave at our soldiers or put their hand over their heart in order to show respect to a passing convoy or see their troops, the ING saluting us as we pass. When you see a bomb go off at an ING recruiting center and before the dust even settles from the blast, you have twice as many lined up to join as you did before the blast. The American Media doesnt show this stuff, they show areas in Samara or certain neighborhoods in Baghdad that are known as insurgent strongholds where the majority are Sunni muslems that are in the process of losing the political "upper hand" that they have had for so long. If you had ever seen an old kurdish lady who's face is still scarred from chemical burns wave at us with tears in her eye, if you had ever seen iraqi kids come out of a crowd of kids who are asking/begging for MRE's and water only to offer you, the American Soldier, a piece of candy or a piece of home made bread, or some other treat as a a gift....If you have seen Iraqi's risk their own life to do something we take for granted like vote for their own leaders, there would be no doubt as to wether they suport us or not!
The Iraqi people, in general do support us, as a matter of fact, the Iraqi people, in general, LOVE US! I think their biggest fear is that we will leave, as we have a tendancy to do, before the job is done, maybe a bit of distrust, but the average Iraqi does love us.
I once had a detail called LNE or local national escort, its where you escort locals who are working on our bases to make sure they do the job they are hired for and dont get into any mischief...When on this detail, your not supposed to talk about religion or politics or how things were when Saddam was there but most do, as did I. Well, one of the Nationals I was escorting spoke pretty good english and I had a pretty good conversation wiith him. He was a former iraqi soldier, he served for several years under Saddams arm, fought in the Iraq/Iran war, etc. He Had seven kids and a wife and once made a comment that he did not make enough money to suport his family and he wished that he made more, mostly just talking shop with a friend. Well, that friend turned him in for complaining and he was put in prison, just for complaining about his pay! I can assure you, what ever the motivation of our government to act now, these people are better off than they were with Saddam in power and they know it! They may not know what democracy is all about, but they are willing to try it, they are hungry for freedom and are willing to do anything for it and are thankful that we are there and Saddam is not! They know life is better now than it was with Saddam!
The american media doesn't show the booming economy where new buildings are going up every day, where pretty much any Iraqi man who wants a job can have one. They dont show, or cant show, that most of them have food where under Saddam, they didnt, they worked for free or almost nothing.
This is just my opinion, but its an opinion shaped by being there and seeing the support of the Iraqi people.

Attached Thumbnails

  • 2109.jpg


#9 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 12:06 PM

hey viraljimmy-
wikipedia is known to contain a great deal of erroneous/spurious info.
further a copy and paste of an article,
without citing sources or crediting alleged quotes
makes me wonder
why you bothered pasting it here ?
i find it to be
off-topic to the thread.

#10 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 03:43 PM

grateful soldier-
nice to hear from someone who has actually been there.

i agree that the true story has not been told by the media,
they seem much more inclined to undermine any positive interpretation
of the events.

you damn sure won't find cbs or cnn
telling us that our casualty rate dropped nearly 30% last year.

also seems like a pretty strange coincidence, for example,
that the new york times,
after holding the NSA spy story a year,
chose to release it
just a few days after december's stunning election success in iraq-
a move pretty clearly designed to steal bush's thunder
and re-direct public attention from the good election success
to a more negative story intended to damage bush.

#11 Guest_Peter Cottontail_*

Guest_Peter Cottontail_*
  • Guest

Posted 04 January 2006 - 04:02 PM

Of course if you go to the shiite or kurdish areas, they like the troops. Go to the sunni areas and see the welcome. It's the same old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" routine.

As for the new york times story, they held it for a year because if they had released it when they got it, they felt it would have turned the election. Some liberal media, huh?
RR

#12 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 04:08 PM

btw
here's documentation of my statement concerning
shaped charges-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8829929/

the report indicates that the use of such weapons began
last april [2005] so for most of the last year they had/used them on us
yet our casualties still dropped off sharply.


as for the NSA story and last year's elections-
hard to say what might have happened,
even harder to speculate why they refrained then.
perhaps they were a bit gun-shy after seeing
the dan rather-mary mapes fiasco unwind.
no way to be certain eh ?
nevertheless
my point concerned
not when they didn't release it
but when they did.
address that point in rebuttal plz.

btw
a year ago
was still AFTER the election
so maybe they just didn't have
their shit ready to fling
in time to influence elections
held in early november ????

#13 Grateful_soldier

Grateful_soldier

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 132 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 04:14 PM

Of course if you go to the shiite or kurdish areas, they like the troops. Go to the sunni areas and see the welcome. It's the same old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" routine.


Well, you cant please everyone, but the kurds and shiite's are the vast majority and many of the sunni's do like us as well, but we obviously are not as popular in the prominantly sunni area's. If you think this is in some way twisting the facts, your sadly mistaking...the fact is, even if not one sunni likes us or wants us there, the vast majority still favors us being there and favors the actions we have taken and to be honest, not even all sunni's dislike us.
Ofcourse, they all long for the day that they can stand on their own and a foreign army is no longer needed to keep peace and security in their country but believe me, the know that time is not there yet and the majority of the people do not want us to leave untill that time arrives!
despite what you may believe, we are not enemies of the sunni people, we are enemies of any who want to disrupt the peace process or disrupt the right and the ability of the people to have an elected democratic government, period. If people like us because we are enemies of those who oppose those idea's, then thats exactly what we want, exactly the kind of people who we want as friends in iraq, the enemies of our enemies, in this case, truely are our friends and rightfully should be!

#14 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 04 January 2006 - 04:22 PM

even if not one sunni likes us or wants us there, the vast majority still favors us being there and favors the actions we have taken and to be honest, not even all sunni's dislike us.


well said,
and point taken.
you cannot make everyone happy at once.
we must accept the fact
that a small fraction of the people will hate us,
even right here in america that is still true
so surely we must expect the same or worse elsewhere.

in every great social change
there are winners and there are losers
and it's no great surprise if the losers
resent their loss.
but do we base our actions on a minority that hates
or build on the majority support ?
doesn't take einstein to figure that one out...

#15 Guest_Peter Cottontail_*

Guest_Peter Cottontail_*
  • Guest

Posted 05 January 2006 - 12:05 AM

They had the story before the election. They held it.
RR

#16 Grateful_soldier

Grateful_soldier

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 132 posts

Posted 05 January 2006 - 09:42 PM

Regardless, WE ARE WINNING, and the world is a better, safer place because of it.

#17 Raul del Angelo

Raul del Angelo

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 123 posts

Posted 05 January 2006 - 11:40 PM

I disagree.

The use of casualities from year to year is not a measure of insurgency, it is just a measure of deaths and injuries.

Saddam was a leader at the time of the 01 invasion that was probably more popular than Bush is here now. Although the sanctions were supposed to set the people against him it actually united them.

The first war and the sanctions killed more than a million Iraqies. Worst was the more than 300,000 children who died from poor water treatment. In the '90 war we purposely bombed all the sewage and water treatment plants. The result was a huge cholera epidemic. Secretary of State Albright knew that children were dying by the tens of thousands and she said that was the desired effect. The US continued to block the importation of repair parts for water and sewage plants for 10 years hoping that the death of the children would cause the people to overturn Saddam. This is a country were everyone knows someone who had a child who died of water borne disease.

It may be difficult for these people to see us as their liberators. Far more people have died under the Bushes than Saddam. The utilities still don't work. The water is still dirity in most of the country. Rumsfeld in August said that he does not see a time when the US will not have to occupy Iraq.

Consider if your country was invaded to oust a cruel president, maybe one that has jailed more people than any other place in the world. How many of you would point that old '06 out the window to help your country. Well that's what insurgency is. But theirs is complicated with a civil war over who will rule, religous or secular. Perhaps that's like this country where the religous right is saying that the Constitution doesn't provide for a seperation of church and state.

Now make no doubt but I truly love my country, but my God these fools that run it. Clearly it was shown that the Saudi Royal family financed the 9/11 attack. Is Saudi oil so important to this Texan that he can overlook this?

My son in law is serving in the Middle East, this is his third deplayment in a war zone. I want him back as undamaged as a young man can be after so much war.

Raul

#18 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 06 January 2006 - 08:09 AM

They had the story before the election. They held it.
RR


what makes you certain ?
can you document when they obtained their info ????

#19 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 06 January 2006 - 08:11 AM

The use of casualities from year to year is not a measure of insurgency, it is just a measure of deaths and injuries.


it is not a measure of random, accidental deaths,
it's casualties caused by the insurgency
and so is a valid method of assessing
the strength of the insurgency,
even if you don't like
what hard numbers prove,
i.e. your opinion to be incorrect
;)

besides
we all know
that if the numbers were different,
if casualties were increasing
then you & your kind
would be the first to point to
the mounting casualties
as 'proof' that we were losing.

:lol:
i mean, your side already does that,
they constantly cite the losses we suffer
as evidence that we're losing.
but now i see
how that game is played-
if the news is bad
then it means something
but if it's good news
then it means nothing.
:lol:
and speaking of fools,
it's that kind of fuzzy logic
that got geo. bush re-elected
as americans were too smart
to swallow the BS being served up
by the opponents of the war.

#20 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 06 January 2006 - 08:22 AM

Saddam was a leader at the time of the 01 invasion that was probably more popular than Bush is here now. Although the sanctions were supposed to set the people against him it actually united them.
The first war and the sanctions killed more than a million Iraqies. Worst was the more than 300,000 children who died from poor water treatment. In the '90 war we purposely bombed all the sewage and water treatment plants.


even if we assume your numbers/facts were correct,
which i do not,
that would not negate the fact-
that saddam started the war
by invading kuwait,
a peaceful nation with virtually no military.

why don't you
cite the number of killed kuwaitis ?
the rape victims, the kidnapped ?

you seek to portray the world as an unjust aggressor
when saddam was the culprit.

he ordered the first shots fired,
he sent his army across his border.

you make outrageous claims backed up with zero evidence,
like your claim that the coalition has killed more than saddam did,
while you sweep the real hard facts about our casualty rate
aside as if the decline was meaningless.
:lol:

i beg to differ.
the reality is that,
like it or not,
we are winning
as the numbers show.

now i'd love to see you present some real numbers,
instead of mere assertions of opinion,
if you think you can prove otherwise.




Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!