Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

iraq- are we winning or losing ?


  • Please log in to reply
262 replies to this topic

#21 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 06 January 2006 - 08:38 AM

here's more real evidence-
hard numbers
not just opinion.

rodger sought to dismiss the drop off in our losses
as the result of better armor and training/experience,
but
the following chart clearly shows
that our losses to IEDs have been rising
at the same time as our total losses have declined.

this chart [taken from the same site cited above in my initial post]
confirms my statement
that IEDs are actually becoming more, not less as rodger claimed, lethal
and so one cannot explain away the decline in casualties
as just better armor on the humvees.

the only possible explanation for
our lower losses,
seeing that our number of troops remained constant,
is less combat, i.e. fewer attacks on our troops
by the insurgency.

Attached Thumbnails

  • Image.png


#22 Grateful_soldier

Grateful_soldier

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 132 posts

Posted 06 January 2006 - 09:54 AM

First of all, I would like to say to raul del angelo, your son in law is in my prayers, along with the rest of our troops and my constant prayer for the end to this war.
Second, what is it that makes you think that the Iraqi people are/were united in support of saddam? The fact is that they hated saddam and feared him more than anything or anyone.
Also, I think the drop in casualties also shows the fact that we are defeating the insurgency in other ways. One thing you dont see on the news is the rise in the numbers of weapons caches found, found because more Iraqi citizens are willing to give up information on the insurgents and their weapons and tactics. Also, keep in mind that, although I have no statistics to prove this, lack of water/sewer treatment plants and such have probably caused alot less trouble than one might expect, these people dont shit in indoor, modern toilets, they shit in holes in their yard as they have done for 1000 years so sewer treatment is not a big issue to them. Which reminds me of a funny story, lol, probably not the greatest for this thread but funny none the less, I will tell it in a seperate post after this one. Also, as far as the coalition targeting the electrical grid and sewage treatment plants, keep in mind that not only was this war started by Saddam as was the last one which was pointed out by hippie, saddam was a "leader" who based troops in hospitals, hotels and mosks because he thought we would not bomb them. He put anti aircraft guns on the roofs of hospitalspurposely causing us to target these kind of buildings. Also, utilities such as telecommunications, electric, etc are strategic ilitary targets, cutting leadership off from its troops in the field is 1, a good military tactic and 2, causes a need for the troops to go home to defend their homeland, hence, leaving the country they invaded. If saddam had invested money in repairing/maintaining these utilities, instead of constantly investing in military power, you would not have had the level of damage inflicted by lack of these resources in the long run. Now, I'm just a simple soldier, I dont claim to be a military expert, economist, genius, or even a well informed debator on this issue but I am also an Army Engineer so I can assure you that a great number of troops and alot of time and money are being invested in rebuilding these utilities. As a matter of fact, while you see the IED's that hit HMMWV's on the news, they neglect to show you the ones that are targeting things like the electrical infrastructure, water treatment plants, etc. Believe me, these are common targets for the insurgents!

I tried to upload a few pics to show this "new, improved" armor and the more common "hillbilly armor" but I had some troubles, I'm not sure what i did wrong, anyways, most military vehicles still use the hillbilly armor, improvised armor made from scrap metal by the soldiers themselves. The HMMWV's mostly have the newer armor but it doesnt work, they use artillary shells for their IED's and this armor really cant stand up against that and as an added kicker, they add ball berrings to the mix so they fly out just a split second ahead of the schrapnal of the arty rounds and damage/weaken the armor so the bigger pieces from the arty rounds can penetrate, I hardly think this is responsible for the drop in casualties.

once again, this is just my opinion and I am not downing anyone who disagree's, the greatest thing about this country is that we have the right to debate these things and agree to disagree when necessary, the greatest thing about this war is now, the iraqi's share that right!

#23 Grateful_soldier

Grateful_soldier

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 132 posts

Posted 06 January 2006 - 10:15 AM

Ok, now for my story...Forward operating base Ramagen, Tikrit Iraq. Engineer unit their doing force protection upgrades (hesco barriers, new entry control point, u shaped bunkers, etc). Because of a shortage in manpower, I was put on LNE one day along with several other soldiers. Our job as LNE was to escort local nationals who were working on this base. Thats what we were doing, watching them work. Like I said, they dont like using the shitters, they kept going off away from the work site to shit on the ground well we had to follow them so we didnt really like this kind of behavior. We told them that they have to use the porta-jon, same one we had to use. Well, they dont like those things any more than we do. They would go in there and stand on the seat and crouch down to take a dump. In using these tactics, they would shit all over the seat! Now, I always try to hover a bit when using a porta jon or public restroom but i dont stand on the seat, thats hovering a bit high! Well, this went on for 2 out of the 3 mornings we were on this detail so one night, after they left and KBR cleaned the shitters, we went over there and took some vasaline and put just a real light coat on the seat. Well bright and early the next morning we all volunteer for LNE and go watch the same bunch of guys working. Not long after they start, one of them has to take that morning shit, lol. He goes in about 45 seconds or so pass then the porta jon rocks to a point of almost tipping over, a very loud yelling in arabic starts as the door fly's open and this guy comes running out with pants down, covered in the blue liquid that is in the toilets, lol. Maybe you had to be there but it was one of the funniest things i have ever seen! That was my last day of LNE detail but I went to that pisser every day untill we left ramagen and i didnt see shit on the seat again!

#24 Raul del Angelo

Raul del Angelo

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 123 posts

Posted 06 January 2006 - 10:16 AM

I am not a fool. Everything I write can be fully documented. But I'm not going to play (write my comments) when others vent their frustration with personal attacks. If you doubt my comments Google your way to the deaths sanctions caused and the Clinton, Albright plan.

#25 Grateful_soldier

Grateful_soldier

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 132 posts

Posted 06 January 2006 - 10:38 AM

Where is there a personal attack? All I see is a valid debate, agreements and disagreements about facts, statistics, and opinions.
I would like to know what makes you so sure saddam was ever popular with his people? Was it Iraqi opinion polls? Keep in mind that anyone who ever voiced an opinion against saddam would have been tortured or killed, along with their family. Also bear in mind that in the last hours before the invasion, saddam issued millions of ak-47 assault rifles to the people to fight off "the aggressors". I dont care if they were throwing rocks, had the majority of the people supported saddam and wanted to fight us off, we would have suffered casualties that would have made vietnam look like a bar room brawl! Also, if he was such a loved and admired leader, why did his own military surrender in droves? The truth is, the vast majority of the insurgents arent even iraqi's. They are foreign fighters coming to iraq in hopes of taking it over in the absence of the former regime. They are as happy as any that saddam is gone, they want to set up a taliban type government where they can force their extremist rule on everyone in iraq. I would say that about the only people that aren't hppy saddam is gone would be saddam, and maybe the select few high ranking officials of his regime who actually had some power and stability!

#26 Guest_Peter Cottontail_*

Guest_Peter Cottontail_*
  • Guest

Posted 06 January 2006 - 11:40 AM

Disinformation will get you nowhere, regardless of good intentions. The vast majority of insurgents ARE Iraqi's and that is a fact. The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY is the term even the US military uses to describe the Iraqi nationality of the insurgents. It is the terrorists who are blowing up innocent civilians with suicide bombs that are coming from the other countries of the middle east.

Second, you say Saddam started this war? Excuse me. Bush started this war. Period. He started it because there was "indisputable proof" saddam had WMD and the UN was too weak to find them. He started the war because saddam tried to buy yellow cake uranium in Niger, and had reconstituted his chemical and biological weapons programs. Indisputable proof. Mushroom clouds over America. Remember?

As for the people with their AK 47's fighting us off during the initial invasion, bear in mind, we came in with tanks, bradleys, F-16's, Apache's, etc., which is hardly something citizens can fight off taking pot shots from the front porch.

It's quite obvious you were in a Shiite or Kurd area if you saw the citizens happy the US is there. Had you been in fallujah, samarra, ramadi, tikrit, or even parts of baghdad, as my son(Marine Recon) was for two tours of duty(after a year in afghanistan), you would have seen the opposite.

As for winning this war, there is no evidence of that happening, nor of the insurgency abating two years later. Yesterday was the fourth deadliest day in Iraq since dubya invaded Iraq under false pretenses. 11 US soldiers lost their lives yesterday, for what? What bush has done is start a civil war in Iraq with no end in sight. He replaced a hated, but secular ruler who was a sworn enemy of al qaida with an Islamic state aligned with Iran, joining in coalition 2/3 of his 'axis of evil'. What a moron.
RR

#27 Raul del Angelo

Raul del Angelo

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 123 posts

Posted 06 January 2006 - 11:41 AM

My figures have been called to question so read what our Secretary of State says about Iraqi children’s deaths.

CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl relied on this estimate in 1996 when she asked U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright,





We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Albright answered,





I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it.

And if you don’t consider Albright accurate how about UNICEF or Columbia University.


Most Western experts believe that bin Laden sharply overstated the death toll.(he said 1.5 million) A United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) report in 1999 concluded that half a million Iraqi children had died in the previous eight years because of the sanctions. Columbia University professor Richard Garfield, an epidemiologist and an expert on the effects of sanctions, estimated in 2003 that the sanctions had resulted in infant and young-child fatalities numbering between 343,900 and 529,000.

These excerpts came from:
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0401c.asp



In the 24 years that Saddam was in power there was an eight-year war with Iran. It’s difficult to separate the deaths from Saddam’s atrocities from those of the war with Iran. An Iraqi agency says the following:

"The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq."

But bear in mind that they are including deaths from conscripted (drafted) soldiers.

Saddam was a very bad man. But how can we expect the Iraqi people to open their arms to us after we caused the deaths of so many children. Even earlier this week, surveillance images showed two men digging a hole and rushing back into a house. It was determined that that the hole was probably for an explosive device and the building was bombed. Later the corpses of two children were taken from the building. These powerful images are hard for the people of this country to accept and they fight back. I know that if we are to protect our troops these things will happen. But as they happen the surviving family members become more willing to point the barrel of a rifle out the window and shoot back.

And now for a bit of opinion, I think we are still trying to follow a model of conquer that occurred with the Japanese. When we conquered Japan their God, the Emperor, told the people to lay down their arms and cooperate with us. In Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq there is no Emperor/ God for these people to follow and the war just doesn’t end.


#28 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 06 January 2006 - 03:01 PM

sec. albright has no idea how many died,
she's merely commenting on a figure that she heard.
all you have there is guestimates.
:lol:
so far
i am the only one here with hard evidence,
and grateful soldier is the only one who's been there.
both the numbers and the eyewitness testimony
testify to the same truth.
now
one can believe the statistics and eyewitness reports
or one can rely instead on the personal opinions and unsupported assertions
of folks who ignore the facts, and have never been there.
i've just presented the facts,
it's to each to deal with them in their own peculiar way.
;)

#29 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 06 January 2006 - 03:03 PM

btw
a word search will reveal that
raul was the first to toss out the word
fool.
i merely used his terminology in reverse.

#30 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 06 January 2006 - 03:08 PM

Yesterday was the fourth deadliest day in Iraq since dubya invaded Iraq under false pretenses. 11 US soldiers lost their lives yesterday, for what?


:lol:
see ?
rodger's perfectly willing, eager even,
to use the figures from ONE day
as proof of his points
but he ignores the totality of 730 days
presented above.
why ?
because that one day
fits his notion, his argument
while the other 700+ days do not.
:lol:
weak
;)

#31 Grateful_soldier

Grateful_soldier

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 132 posts

Posted 06 January 2006 - 03:46 PM

Ok, this comment is directed to rodger. I was in tikrit, I was stationed at FOB Speicher, an old Iraqi air base, I also conducted missions at Danger and Ramagen, both in tikrit. I conducted misions in Samara, thats where I recieved my perple heart injury. I have been all over baghdad, as part of the only operating combat heavy engineer unit in AO Danger/Liberty. What part of Iraq were you in? You speak with a language of a person who knows for a fact that people in this area do not like the Americans. Granted, Samara is a bad place, I have never seen an iraqi citizen wave or show a sign of any kind of approval for us, however, they did have a good voter turn out, even in samara. Remember, the insurgents have a tendency to show violence toward anyone who shows support for us so many of them were most likely acting out of fear when they did not wave, etc.
As far as Saddam starting this war, do you remember him kicking UN weapons inspectors out of his country and refusing to let them back in? Do you remember him gassing his own people? LEt me assure you, he wanted WMD's at the very minimum, probably had some and was most likely working on them. During the troop build up, leading up to the invasion, he had more than sufficient time to hide, sell, give away any weapons he wanted to.
As far as the AK-47's go, yes, we did have black hawks, apache's, f-16's, bradleys, M1A's, etc but they were busy fighting saddams tanks, planes, etc. Their were plenty of infantry soldiers on the ground and the vast majority of their vehicles were not armored at that time. I can guarentee you if they supported saddam, they could have put up one hell of a fight! One of the biggest neucences to american troops were Iraqi's making their way into the streets, even during heated battles of the initial ground assault, just to deface and tear down statues, painting, and memorials to/of saddam!
The fact is, I have been there and I have seen with my own eyes the support of the Iraqi people for the coalition forces. You tell me if I had been there, in these sunni areas, I would know they dont support us but first of all, as I pointed out earlier, these areas, pockets of sunni muslims are not the majority and 2, I have been there, have you? Dont tell me what to expect in these areas when you have never been there, I have been there, you have not. You know what you have been told by a biased media, I know what I have seen!
As far as the fighters being iraqi or foreign, they are foreign, period. There is a steady stream of them pouring in through the holes in the border all the time, right now there are truck loads of fighters and weapons sneaking into iraq. Granted, some are Iraqi, some fighting for money, some their beliefs, and some just to cause chaos. You need to keep in mind that street gands run rampid in this area of the world, and they arent armed with the tec 9's and mac 10's that our gangs are armed with, they are armed with RPG's and Artillary rounds and they want to fight against any form of authority. They act with violence because its the only thing they have ever known. You keep talking about the only support we have is in kurdish and shiite areas and not in the sunni areas but as I have said several times, Kurds and shiites are the majority in Iraq and were also the targets of saddams brutal tactics most of the time so these people's opinions are the ones that count, not the sunni's. As far as them holding us accountable for the deaths of their families, I doubt it, do you hold them responsible for the deaths of americans? These people understand war better than americans ever could, they have always been at war with someone, wether the US, Iran, or whomever. THey know people die in war and accept this cold, hard fact. If they do blame us, why are they voting and in many cases, turning in the insurgents and the locations of their weapons, activity, etc?
I know I tend to ramble a bit and skip back and forth from one topic to another but I think if you actually read my posts, you will get my point. I would also like to, once again, make it clear that I am not taking this personal nor do I have a problem with your opinion or your right to that opinion.

#32 Raul del Angelo

Raul del Angelo

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 123 posts

Posted 06 January 2006 - 08:08 PM

Not even congress knows what the situation is there. In November the Congress voted to require the President to provide them with a progress report. I don't think the President is going to say that we have less casualities this year so we must be winning.

I have to say that Grateful Soldier has some very valid points. Especially that many people want stability and peace but also many want power and chaos.

My question is how do you measure winning? Absolute domination and an end to sectarian violence, gunna take a man like Saddam to do that. This place has suffered cruel domination or chaos since the end of the Ottomen Empire.

No matter how painful it is to believe that our country is responsible for the death of 300.000 children it is unfortunetly true. It's easy to deny it but even the DOD supports that number. Through the US control of the UN sanctions we prevented the repair of sewage and water treatment plants and stopped the flow of water treatment chemicals. This also caused the infant mortality rate to raise to 110 per thousand. Analysis of Iraqi census figures in 1997 indicate that around 1.3-1.4 million died from the sanctions. Cholera, dysentary, hepatitis 2 are what you get from untreated water. I love my country and I love the people in it but this seems pretty criminal to me. 300.000 children in a country of 20 million. all for politics

#33 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 07 January 2006 - 07:57 AM

it is dishonest
to place the sole responsibility
for the deaths of iraqi children on the usa-
the usa does not 'control' the united nations as you allege,
there are 4 other countries with permanent vetos
that chose to allow/impose the sanctions,
as well as the rest of the security council.

the usa does not 'control' those other 4 nations,
not russia
nor china
nor france
nor even britain,
any one of which
could have prevented the imposition of sanctions
had they voted against it
but they did not.

it was saddam who ordered the invasion of kuwait
then turned his army on his own people,
gassing the kurds, murdering the shia by the thousands,
and triggered the imposition of sanctions, as well as the no-fly zones.
saddam was the cause,
the deaths of iraqi childrem was one of the effects.
saddam must bear the ultimate responsibilty for
all the blood shed as a result,
not the usa nor the un.

further it was within saddam's power to get the sanctions lifted
by fully cooperating with the un's inspectors,
something he chose not to do
despite repeated warnings of the dire consequences of failure to comply.

further iraq, even under sanctions, was allowed to sell oil
and buy needed medical supplies
but chose instead to divert most of its' revenue
into building more palaces for saddam
and buying more weapons for his forces.

your willingness to single out the usa as solely responsible
clearly shows an irrational bias.
the cavalier way you dismiss the deaths of iraqi conscripts
as if they did not
count
towards the death total
directly caused by saddam's actions
further demonstrates your bias.

But bear in mind that they are including deaths from conscripted (drafted) soldiers.



#34 Guest_Peter Cottontail_*

Guest_Peter Cottontail_*
  • Guest

Posted 07 January 2006 - 03:37 PM

Except for the important point you conviently left out. Saddam HAD opened up to UN inspectors and gave them free access to any site they wanted to visit at any time. It was dubya who kicked out the inspectors. Funny how you 'forget' that. Sanctions were working. There was no need to invade and cause all those casualties. You say I point to one day to show the civil war isn't over? Geezus dude, you think four fewer casualties last year than the year before is a major milestone. :lol:

Nobody but myself seems to be addressing the important point for US security. 'Democracy' in Iraq means an islamic state aligned with Iran. The shiites are the majority. If true democracy is to be enforced, it will lead to civil war because the shiites will suppress the sunni as payback for sins of the past. Now, have 2,000 americans given their lives to create a civil war or to install another islamic state?
RR

#35 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 07 January 2006 - 04:18 PM

Geezus dude, you think four fewer casualties last year than the year before is a major milestone


better take a math refresher course old buddy,
by the official count
the difference was
over 2400 fewer men
wounded in 2005
than the year before.
so get real.
your points
seem to grow lamer
the longer we talk.
:lol:
further
it is dishonest to claim that saddam was cooperating,
the un inspectors' reports
said the contrary,
that even to the end
saddam was not fully cooperating,
was obstructing and impeding the un's teams-
and possessed weapons systems that were
banned under the terms of the cease-fire,
to wit- missile launchers that exceded the
permitted range, among other violations.

the un security council repeatedly warned saddam to comply
and repeatedly cited him for his failure to do so.

#36 Grateful_soldier

Grateful_soldier

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 132 posts

Posted 07 January 2006 - 04:19 PM

Except for the important point you conviently left out. Saddam HAD opened up to UN inspectors and gave them free access to any site they wanted to visit at any time. It was dubya who kicked out the inspectors. Funny how you 'forget' that. Sanctions were working. There was no need to invade and cause all those casualties. You say I point to one day to show the civil war isn't over? Geezus dude, you think four fewer casualties last year than the year before is a major milestone. :lol:

Nobody but myself seems to be addressing the important point for US security. 'Democracy' in Iraq means an islamic state aligned with Iran. The shiites are the majority. If true democracy is to be enforced, it will lead to civil war because the shiites will suppress the sunni as payback for sins of the past. Now, have 2,000 americans given their lives to create a civil war or to install another islamic state?
RR


Isn't it kind of a racist statement to say that Shiites will seppress the sunni's? Thats like saying African Americans can never have political power because they will supress the whites as punishment for slavery! Also, Saddam offered to let the inspectors back in several times only to kick them out again, and in the hours before the invasion, and it was hours, not days or weeks, he offered to allow them in again, which was too little, too late, he should have complied when there was still time. He used the time witth no inspectors to get all the WMD's either hidden or safely out of the country then offered to let the inspectors back in. I can assure you, had he been able to avoid the invasion with this game of his, we would have been through several more chapters of him kicking the inspectors out, again and again. The fact is that the sanctions were brought on by him and any deaths caused by them were brought on by him and him alone! Look at it like this, A guy gets paroled for murder, a home invasion style robbery that resulted in rape, torture, and murder of the victims. The truth is, he never should have been paroled but now, he is in a stand off because he refuses to to comply with the rules of his parole officer and they have come to arrest him. He is holed up in his house, where his wife and kids are held hostage. The police, after a long stand off decide that they must move now and move into the home to get him. This guy hides behind his kids and some of his kids are shot and killed in the insuing gun battle....who is to blame, him or the cops? Not the case at point you say? OK, lets say during the stand off, as a point of negotiation, the police cut off the water and electric to the house where he is holed up holding his family and neighbors hostage, the cops say ok, you let us in to see that the hostages are ok and we will turn the water back on, and maybe let you have some food. We will even allow you to buy groceries, medicine, etc as long as you keep letting us check on the hostages, then he says no deal and several hostages die as a result....who's fault is it now? the police or the bad guy?
You need to keep in mind, we may have fired the first shot in this battle but we didnt exactly invade a peaceful nation!

#37 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 07 January 2006 - 04:20 PM

'Democracy' in Iraq means an islamic state aligned with Iran.


sez you.
but that is just an opinion,
not a certainty by any means.
the future of iran itself is debatable,
there may not be the staus quo there
for much longer.

you act like
you can predict the future,
who will win, what it will mean,
telling us what the shia will do.

but you could not even predict the
winner of the last election here,
you swore until the last minute
that kerry would win, blah blah blah.

you were wrong,
in your own country.
seems unlikely you'd do any better
with a country you've never seen.

#38 Jacsprat

Jacsprat

    Mycophage

  • Expired Member
  • 102 posts

Posted 07 January 2006 - 04:55 PM

Fighting has been going on in the middle east,

Iraq, Iran since the time of jesus...

Why would they stop now?

How long is the US going to play ref in the middle of
two strong militia armys one in the north (kurds)
and one in the south (shia) alined with Iran
neather having loyalty to Iraq.

#39 Hippie3

Hippie3

    DUNG DEALER

  • Founders
  • 40,642 posts

Posted 07 January 2006 - 05:12 PM

is that your best shot ?
i see nothing of substance.
:lol:

#40 Guest_Peter Cottontail_*

Guest_Peter Cottontail_*
  • Guest

Posted 07 January 2006 - 05:33 PM

Is that your best shot? You're the one calling a lemon an orange. :lol: I'm simply stating the reality of the situation, which is that the winners of the Iraq election are muslim clerics aligned with Iran. That isn't 'sez me', it's the fact, whether or not I predicted bush would be elected or not. lol. That is the democracy 2,000 of our soldiers have died for.
RR




Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!