Oh no not again....

Page 3 of 5 First 12345 Last

  1. Frigggin Armegedon

  2. Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by yeahright
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/wo.../09report.html
    April 9, 2006
    U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord
    By ERIC SCHMITT
    and EDWARD WONG

    .

    Please, I have a hard enough time holding my sides in laughing at CNN. I don't tihnk I could take it form the New York Times who seem to me getting more outragoues by the day since their stock has plummeted in the last year.



    And could someone please tell the minister what the definition of civil war because obvisouly he does not.


    "A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, both have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations."


    Sorry, no civil war but it will sure sell those papers.


    As I said before, conflict sells....for every one of those reports you state of sectarian violence I can find 10 about a murder here in the US. The news is predominantly negative for a reason.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
    •   
       


  3. Quote Originally Posted by The Experiment
    Are you sure that his ratings wouldn't go up Bobo? I mean most Americans still think Saddam had a hand in September 11. All Bush has to do is say something and the uneducated masses will take it as fact. By claiming to be an Iranian freedom fighter, his ratings will climb up, ensuring a Republican will be elected in 2008.

    I have two friends doing a second tour and three more doing their first. They like what they're doing but they never really believed it was going to be as bad as it was. I can't wait until I enlist, which is probably around when I graduate from college, about a couple years from now.

    I hate Bush and the war but at the same time, standing and whining about it here in the US isn't going to do a bit of good. People are still dying over there. So I guess you could say that me going to the war to help out as best I can is my way of protesting.

    No, they won't go up. Its a fact of presidents as war goes on. Some of the most popular presidents in the world had awful approval ratings as war's dragged on. Check the history books

    "Presidents who seek to change the nation's direction know that they are bound to alienate those who profit from the status quo. Great presidents go ahead anyway. "Judge me," FDR said, "by the enemies I have made." Truman's approval rating at the end of his presidency was down to 31 percent. Look where he ranks now."

    Approval ratings means jack ****. History repeats itself.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  4. Here is a pretty good analysis of second term presidents:

    "At this point, we can see a first pattern:
    Presidential failure in the second term consistently has been the result of
    unsatisfactory wars or perceptions that the president was a criminal. Wilson
    fought the First World War successfully but tried to bring it to an
    unacceptable conclusion at Versailles. Truman could not terminate the Korean
    War; Johnson could not terminate the Vietnam War. All were perceived, by the
    end of their terms, as having entangled themselves in a war with unrealistic
    goals. It was not always the war itself that damaged the presidents' service,
    but the growing sense that these presidents did not have a strategy in the
    war that served the national interest.

    The issue, however, is more
    complex than this. All four failed presidents were reviled by the end of
    their second terms. But so were FDR, Reagan and Clinton. Even Eisenhower,
    though it is hard to recall now, was treated with extreme contempt by the
    press and others for his perceived personal, intellectual failings --
    however, the level of animosity was neither as deep or as broad as with the
    others. The intensity of feeling against all eight men during their second
    terms was enormous: All faced a substantial group of vitriolic,
    irreconcilable opponents. At various points, this group expanded to
    constitute a majority. But the core issue -- the key differentiator between
    the two groups of "failed' or "troubled" presidents -- was this: Among the
    troubled presidents, at no point did their own base of support crack.
    Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton were reviled and at times on the
    defensive, but at no point did their own core supporters waver
    significantly.

    The failed presidents, on the other hand, all failed
    not because their opponents reviled them or even because those opponents
    became a majority, but because their own base of political support lost
    basic confidence in them. Wilson had suffered a revolt among the Democrats.
    Truman no longer could get the Democratic nomination. It is doubtful that
    Johnson could have won his party's nomination had he sought it. Nixon
    collapsed when Republican senators turned on him. On the other hand, no
    matter what attacks were launched against FDR, Eisenhower, Reagan or
    Clinton, their base held like a rock. Even when FDR was outgunned by the
    isolationists, he held his base, and he was never broken.

    Bush's
    problem, therefore, is the war in Iraq. But the issue is not his Democratic
    opposition, nor even whether his opponents swell to become a majority. The
    threat to Bush's presidency will come if, and only if, his own political
    base breaks. By all polls, that base -- which historically has been at about
    40-42 percent -- is holding. If that continues to be the case, he will be
    able to execute foreign policy effectively. If that base is shattered, he
    fails."
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982
    That is so very true. I believe the exact same thing.. what we are doing over there is right... I've done 2 tours so far.. volunteering for a 3rd.

    Adams
    You can't. The New York Times says you are disgruntled and your morale is at an all time low.

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
    •   
       


  6. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    You can't. The New York Times says you are disgruntled and your morale is at an all time low.

    hehe... roger that... NOW I have seen the light.

    Adams
    The Historic PES Legend

  7. I'm afraid we're going to be biting off more than we can chew. With our troops (including reserves) already being deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq we don't have all the resources available that we would like to have. We can still run air strikes, but it is debatable how effective these would be and what the consequences would be. Iran after all is a significant power on the oil market which gives them a lot of leverage.
    At the same time we would be messing around with yet another Islamic country (the self-declared most Islamic of all Islamic countries), though I'm not sure if we can make things any worse with respect to our image in the mid-east.

    The only real option would seem to me as another democratization of a lucky country, but that would require troops from somewhere... hmmm - seeing it like that, bush could actually pull the troops out of Iraq - hey, isn't that what everybody wants anyway - and move them into Iran...

    Finally - at some point with the costs for all our endeavors piling up, the s*** will hit the fan.

    I think this is a bluff - given the list above I can't realistically see how this should work out for us. But I've been wrong many times...

  8. Recent news reports are showing the white house backing down from talks of military strikes:

    http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS...eut/index.html

  9. Of course they will because it will only hurt them in terms of public opinion.

    Those battle plans have been around forever but this is another exmaple of the news media digging up something that has been around for years and trying to put a spin on it because lets face it, the news mdeia and the current administrsation do not get along especially when you have the vice president publically blasting them. From that point on the media has another objective besides making money and that is to embarrass the White House.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  10. Again, none of this is really new news. The US is always planning preemptive military plans when/if it sees a threat. And last I recall, the US has been going through the UN to use their diplomacy with the situation in Iran...

    Someone just decided to write an article to the masses as "breaking news," suggesting as if these military plans were "imminent."

  11. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Those battle plans have been around forever but this is another exmaple of the news media digging up something that has been around for years and trying to put a spin on it
    You beat me to it...

  12. Ha! Same thought, same time.


    This is like someone digging up battle plans for the invasion of Cuba and writing how we are planning to invade.

    They are called military contigency plans. If something happened and we didn't have plan s for it, the same people would blast them for not having them...
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    They are called military contigency plans. If something happened and we didn't have plan s for it, the same people would blast them for not having them...
    Exactly!!

  14. Quote Originally Posted by BigVrunga
    Recent news reports are showing the white house backing down from talks of military strikes:
    Yeah - I heard bush this this morning. Whatever it may mean... Then he said something like 'Didn't I tell you so, when I put them in the axis of evil'...

  15. You guys are right...after looking into things further, that first report wasn't from the white house. Just from the sensationalist media. Granted, Im sure there are plans drawn up for a military strike - but the US was discussing using tactical bunker buster nukes at the beginning of the Iraq war too, could have been someone just digging for a story.

    BV

  16. Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982
    That is so very true. I believe the exact same thing.. what we are doing over there is right... I've done 2 tours so far.. volunteering for a 3rd.

    Adams
    Stay safe.
  17. Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Please, I have a hard enough time holding my sides in laughing at CNN. I don't tihnk I could take it form the New York Times who seem to me getting more outragoues by the day since their stock has plummeted in the last year.

    And could someone please tell the minister what the definition of civil war because obvisouly he does not.

    "A war between factions of the same country; there are five criteria for international recognition of this status: the contestants must control territory, both have a functioning government, enjoy some foreign recognition, have identifiable regular armed forces, and engage in major military operations."

    Sorry, no civil war but it will sure sell those papers.

    As I said before, conflict sells....for every one of those reports you state of sectarian violence I can find 10 about a murder here in the US. The news is predominantly negative for a reason.
    I'd encourage you to read the article. The New York Times is quoting a report produced by the US Military command in B aghdad and the US Embassy in Baghdad.

    As to the definition of civil war, the one you quote isn't the standardly accepted one by scholars and military strategists. Maynardmeek acknowledged that when I challenged him on quoting such a restrictive definition.

    Currently, 50-100 Iraqis are dying EACH DAY. Most of whom are being kidnapped, tortured and executed by militias of one political faction or another. If you adjusted for population size, that is the equivalent of 750-1500 Americans. If 1500 Americans were being executed EACH DAY by militias run by the Democratic and Republican parties, I imagine it would look an awful lot like a civil war to the average American.
  18. Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by yeahright
    I'd encourage you to read the article. The New York Times is quoting a report produced by the US Military command in B aghdad and the US Embassy in Baghdad.

    As to the definition of civil war, the one you quote isn't the standardly accepted one by scholars and military strategists. Maynardmeek acknowledged that when I challenged him on quoting such a restrictive definition.

    Currently, 50-100 Iraqis are dying EACH DAY. Most of whom are being kidnapped, tortured and executed by militias of one political faction or another. If you adjusted for population size, that is the equivalent of 750-1500 Americans. If 1500 Americans were being executed EACH DAY by militias run by the Democratic and Republican parties, I imagine it would look an awful lot like a civil war to the average American.
    I read the article. Its pure spin.


    The New York Time expects the US to wage war with no casualties, have every contigencny plan 100% fool proof and for every report to be 100% accurate. If not, its a conspiracy.

    "If you adjusted for population size, that is the equivalent of 750-1500 Americans. If 1500 Americans were being executed EACH DAY by militias run by the Democratic and Republican parties, I imagine it would look an awful lot like a civil war to the average American."



    Where are you getting these numbers of how many Iraqi's are killed each day? Plius equating numbers to our population is ridiculous.




    "However, the number of Iraq civilians killed per month has been rising steadily again through January and February after dipping to much lower levels during the October through December period. Some 511 were killed and 894 injured by insurgent action through February, the Iraq Index Project said. These were markedly higher figures than the 418 killed and 732 injured in January that it had previously documented."

    That is nowhere near 50-100/day. Not even close. At the highest that is 17/day in a country at war with 25 million people.

    Sorry, not civil war to me. Saddam and his gov't probably killed 17/day before lunch.


    I would like for all of you that think this is Armegeddon to feel secure in your position, Ben Aflack is on your side!!! Check out his latest quotes. You guys are in good company....
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  19. Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    Where are you getting these numbers of how many Iraqi's are killed each day? Plius equating numbers to our population is ridiculous.

    "However, the number of Iraq civilians killed per month has been rising steadily again through January and February after dipping to much lower levels during the October through December period. Some 511 were killed and 894 injured by insurgent action through February, the Iraq Index Project said. These were markedly higher figures than the 418 killed and 732 injured in January that it had previously documented."

    That is nowhere near 50-100/day. Not even close. At the highest that is 17/day in a country at war with 25 million people.

    Sorry, not civil war to me. Saddam and his gov't probably killed 17/day before lunch.

    That's an interesting quote because it actually CONTRADICTS the reports issued by the Iraq Index Project. The most recent (April 2006) report put the civilian death toll at between 44,000 and 89,000 (or 40 to 81 per day). These numbers are necesarily imprecise because neither the Iraqi government nor the coalition forces are actually keeping count of civilian deaths.

    As to normalizing the population samples (adjusting populations so that there could be an apples to apples comparison), it's what statisticians do when trying to convey an accurate comparison.

    In this case, we have 4 armed factions (suni insurgents, foreign fighters, 2 different Shia militias - the Badr Brigade and the Mahdi army) fighting the Coaltion forces and fighting themselves (although many Americans think of the Shias as united, the two Shia armies regularly engage in combat with each other). The death toll (from your source) of 40 to 81 a day.

    Normalized to compare with America's population, that is the quivalent of 600 to 1215 deaths a day largely from violence between rivial political factions. You don't have to agree but I believe that if 600 to 1215 Americans were dying a day from violence related to private armies run by political parties, the average American would call that a civil war.

    That same report shows that a number of indicators of violence went up dramatically between 2004 and 2005:

    Roadside Bombs doubled (5607 to 10,953);
    Insurgent Attacks upon Coalition forces (26,496 to 34,131);
    Suicide Car Bombs more than tripled (133 to 411);
    Car Bombs more than doubled (420 to 873).

    Oil Production is 20% BELOW pre-war levels;
    Electricity availability is down 2/3 in Baghdad (only 8 hours a day currently).

    And it goes on and on.

    Regardless of whether one supports this war or not, the picture is a pretty grim one as to its progress.
  20. Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by yeahright
    That's an interesting quote because it actually CONTRADICTS the reports issued by the Iraq Index Project. The most recent (April 2006) report put the civilian death toll at between 44,000 and 89,000 (or 40 to 81 per day). These numbers are necesarily imprecise because neither the Iraqi government nor the coalition forces are actually keeping count of civilian deaths.

    As to normalizing the population samples (adjusting populations so that there could be an apples to apples comparison), it's what statisticians do when trying to convey an accurate comparison.

    In this case, we have 4 armed factions (suni insurgents, foreign fighters, 2 different Shia militias - the Badr Brigade and the Mahdi army) fighting the Coaltion forces and fighting themselves (although many Americans think of the Shias as united, the two Shia armies regularly engage in combat with each other). The death toll (from your source) of 40 to 81 a day.

    Normalized to compare with America's population, that is the quivalent of 600 to 1215 deaths a day largely from violence between rivial political factions. You don't have to agree but I believe that if 600 to 1215 Americans were dying a day from violence related to private armies run by political parties, the average American would call that a civil war.

    That same report shows that a number of indicators of violence went up dramatically between 2004 and 2005:

    Roadside Bombs doubled (5607 to 10,953);
    Insurgent Attacks upon Coalition forces (26,496 to 34,131);
    Suicide Car Bombs more than tripled (133 to 411);
    Car Bombs more than doubled (420 to 873).

    Oil Production is 20% BELOW pre-war levels;
    Electricity availability is down 2/3 in Baghdad (only 8 hours a day currently).

    And it goes on and on.

    Regardless of whether one supports this war or not, the picture is a pretty grim one as to its progress.
    I don't know where you are getting your numbers from because they certainly don't match up with the PDF that I am looking at. I will attach the report so everyone can see it. You are inlcuding crimes since the beginning of the war which is NOT a reflection of what is happening now.


    Here is another source:

    http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/


    Sorry, I don't see anything that indicated 50-100 people being murdered, kidnapped, and tortured every single day. Its not even close.

    Now lets look at your stats from 2005-2006.

    Car bombs March 2005 - 69 March 2006 - 22
    Car bomba April 2005 - 135 April 2006 - ?


    What you do have is more Iraqi Police being killed as they are handling more situations. What you also have is multiple fatality bombings up since last year but overall less bombings. In other words the incidents are much less but the ones that od happen kill more people.


    Look at most stats in that PDF and I don't see any evidence its getting worse at all. I see the opposite. I also don't understand why you comparing 2004-2005 when civil war wasn't even mentioned at that point.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  21. Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by yeahright

    And it goes on and on.

    Regardless of whether one supports this war or not, the picture is a pretty grim one as to its progress.

    Actually it doens't because if you look at the stats from 2005-2006 in the pdf above the trend is the complete opposite of what you are stating.

    Its war. Its not supposed to be conflict free. War and conflict tend to go together and sometimes you have to get your hands dirty to get something done. It seems the the vets on this board tend to believe in what they are doing.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  22. I'd also like to make a point that - I guess that is regardless where you stand in your view on this war - the ethnical problems within Iraq are not really a result of the American intervention.

    The tensions were there before the Americans came in, Saddam, like any successful dictator, just suppressed them. That itself is really not that special either - we've seen a similar scenarios before, e.g. after the (still ongoing) ethnic conflicts after the breakup of the former Soviet Union and it's satellite countries. The former Yugoslavia that broke up after Tito's death comes to mind. They all have one thing in common - as long as the dictator has a strong hold on the country the tensions stay canned. But once the cap is off it always leads to some more or less violent quarrels among the groups.

    I don't know why that is the case, but I would like to speculate that the situation as it is now in Iraq would not have been all too different if the people of Iraq would have freed themselves from Saddam in other ways.

    The other question is - well, we opened this can of worms. Should we now leave and let others deal with the problems?
  23. Re: U.S. Study Paints Somber Portrait of Iraqi Discord


    Quote Originally Posted by Bobo
    I don't know where you are getting your numbers from because they certainly don't match up with the PDF that I am looking at.
    Page 10. Bottom right-hand corner of the boxtable: Estimates of Iraqi civilians killed since the start of the war including deaths from crime as of April 3, 2006: 44,000 to 89,000.

    My math: (3 years since invasion) 365 x 3 = 1095 days. 44,000 divided by 1095 = 40.1 deaths per day. 89,000 divided by 1095 days = 81.2 deaths per day. Thus, 40 to 81 per day. These figures also exclude the deaths of all police and security forces and the death of civilians that took place during the initial stages of the war (when it is regrettable but expected that civilians will die).

    As to the 2006 data, the same report qualifies their data saying that numbers for 2006 are incomplete, don't include any of the deaths since the February 22nd mosque bombing (after which violence took a radical upswing) and are "most probably lower than the actual number."
  24. Angry


    The administration is also coming under pressure from Israel, which has warned the Bush team that Iran is closer to developing a nuclear bomb than Washington thinks and that a moment of decision is fast approaching.

    And this is why we should destroy Iran? Because Israel says they're developing a nuclear bomb faster than we figure? Who's next on Israels list? Why not just have the silly ole United States send ALL their troops and spend ALL their money to fight Israel's battles?

    In going to war against Iraq (like will be with Iran), America fought against Itself. It launched a war certain to cause more hatred and terrorism against the U.S., cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and inflicted terrible damage to American economic and diplomatic interests at home and abroad.

    Even more importantly, it was a callous betrayal of the brave fighting men of the American military who should never be put in harms' way other than for the true security and freedom of the American people.

    The Israeli lobby is the one lobby in Washington that no American politician dares to forthrightly oppose. It should disturb any patriotic American to think that the most powerful lobby in America's congress is in the service of a foreign nation.

  25. I'd also like to make a point that - I guess that is regardless where you stand in your view on this war - the ethnical problems within Iraq are not really a result of the American intervention.

    The tensions were there before the Americans came in, Saddam, like any successful dictator, just suppressed them. That itself is really not that special either - we've seen a similar scenarios before, e.g. after the (still ongoing) ethnic conflicts after the breakup of the former Soviet Union and it's satellite countries. The former Yugoslavia that broke up after Tito's death comes to mind. They all have one thing in common - as long as the dictator has a strong hold on the country the tensions stay canned. But once the cap is off it always leads to some more or less violent quarrels among the groups.

    I don't know why that is the case, but I would like to speculate that the situation as it is now in Iraq would not have been all too different if the people of Iraq would have freed themselves from Saddam in other ways.

    The other question is - well, we opened this can of worms. Should we now leave and let others deal with the problems?
    I think our leaders were foolish to think that this wouldnt happen. After all...I can't think of one democratic country on the map today that wasnt born from destruction, chaos, and outright civil war.

    I think its more of a human issue than anything else...people are *******s - in general they just cant live and let live. Just like chimps that have to raid and kill other chimp clans in the forest because they dont like the way they look. (Did you know that chimpanzees and man share that similarity in that they both declare organized war on eachother?) We are what we are

    BV
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. OH NO! Not ANOTHER Superdrol/PP Log!!
    By ex-tightend83 in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 04-20-2007, 07:12 AM
  2. Not again...
    By jjohn in forum Nutraplanet
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-30-2007, 08:51 PM
  3. Sore Nip question. ( No, Not gyno )
    By Stinger124 in forum Male Anti-Aging Medicine
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-07-2007, 03:07 PM
  4. Oh no...I'm on a roll....
    By Dwight Schrute in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-28-2003, 01:00 AM
  5. No! Not the "natural guy!"
    By bigpetefox in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02-18-2003, 05:41 PM
Log in
Log in