Iraq General Thread

[kapkomet]

And it all, as always, depends on what you want to believe.

 

Here's the bottom line. IF things were better, most people don't want to believe it anyway, and pretty much outright dismiss it as "BushCo lying again". I've heard it more then once in the last week, plus the instant EVERYTHING SUCKS IN IRAQ quotes that appear here on a daily basis.

 

I'm not saying it's all rose smelling poop or anything over there, in fact, quite the opposite... but ANY traction and gain we get on anything over there is a sign that things could turn around, if given the chance. But, since everyone is so gung ho to "lose" and "get the ef out of there"... nothing positive is going to matter to you people.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

And it all, as always, depends on what you want to believe.

 

Here's the bottom line. IF things were better, most people don't want to believe it anyway, and pretty much outright dismiss it as "BushCo lying again". I've heard it more then once in the last week, plus the instant EVERYTHING SUCKS IN IRAQ quotes that appear here on a daily basis.

 

I'm not saying it's all rose smelling poop or anything over there, in fact, quite the opposite... but ANY traction and gain we get on anything over there is a sign that things could turn around, if given the chance. But, since everyone is so gung ho to "lose" and "get the ef out of there"... nothing positive is going to matter to you people.

Tell me... how is it that a rising or stable death toll can be seen as a positive for stability? I fail to see how that aspect has anything to do with "what you want to believe".

 

[kapkomet]

Tell me... how is it that a rising or stable death toll can be seen as a positive for stability? I fail to see how that aspect has anything to do with "what you want to believe".

Because you can cherry pick #'s all day long and make them tell you anything you want them to. I could go find some #'s right now that says the violence is subsiding... but it won't matter.

[NorthSideSox72]

Because you can cherry pick #'s all day long and make them tell you anything you want them to. I could go find some #'s right now that says the violence is subsiding... but it won't matter.

1. Please do. I haven't seen a single number that says something positive. There probably are some... can you provide one?

 

2. Cherry pick? Its a simple measure - civilian deaths per month. How on earth is that cherry picking? Cherry picking would be saying "deaths in the X sector" or "deaths attributable to car bombs". No, this is a nice simple measure, and its got a negative result.

 

[kapkomet]

Hell, even Little Dick Durbin says the surge is working. What now?

 

http://www.nysun.com/article/60135

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Hell, even Little Dick Durbin says the surge is working. What now?

 

http://www.nysun.com/article/60135

You're not serious. Here is his direct quote:

 

Speaking to CNN yesterday while visiting Baghdad, Mr. Durbin said, "We found that today as we went to a forward base in an area that, in the fifth year of the war, it's the first time we're putting troops on the ground to intercept Al Qaeda."

 

Which the NY Sun writer somehow stretches into the idea that Durbin thinks the surge is working? He isn't even talking about the surge. This is nothing more than laughably bad journalism.

 

And before you come back with "see, you can read anything into it you'd like", lets at least try to stick to reality. Read that quote and tell me how that says the surge is working.

 

You, my friend, seem to be in denial of the factual reality in Iraq.

 

[kapkomet]

You're not serious. Here is his direct quote:

Which the NY Sun writer somehow stretches into the idea that Durbin thinks the surge is working? He isn't even talking about the surge. This is nothing more than laughably bad journalism.

 

And before you come back with "see, you can read anything into it you'd like", lets at least try to stick to reality. Read that quote and tell me how that says the surge is working.

 

You, my friend, seem to be in denial of the factual reality in Iraq.

/tinfoil hat exits far stage right.

 

 

[vandy125]

Just throwing this out there, I don't know how true it is, but weren't there stories out there about death counts being artificially inflated by the "insurrectionists" (I think that is what we are calling them now). They were having people report more dead than actually occurred to make it seem worse and to try and get us out of there.

 

Anyone else remember this, or do I need to grab a tinfoil too?

[Balta1701]

Just throwing this out there, I don't know how true it is, but weren't there stories out there about death counts being artificially inflated by the "insurrectionists" (I think that is what we are calling them now). They were having people report more dead than actually occurred to make it seem worse and to try and get us out of there.

 

Anyone else remember this, or do I need to grab a tinfoil too?

The number at that article is the official government count, and the people in that government who are coming up with that number are people we're working with. The real number is almost certainly significantly higher, because there are probably thousands and thousands of bodies who don't get processed by the morgues.

[Big Hurtin]

Billy Krystal was just there and he said that things are getting better!

 

Did he say it looked mahvelous?

 

[Balta1701]

Oh for crying out loud...

Senior congressional aides said yesterday that the White House has proposed limiting the much-anticipated appearance on Capitol Hill next month of Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker to a private congressional briefing, suggesting instead that the Bush administration's progress report on the Iraq war should be delivered to Congress by the secretaries of state and defense.

 

White House officials did not deny making the proposal in informal talks with Congress, but they said yesterday that they will not shield the commanding general in Iraq and the senior U.S. diplomat there from public congressional testimony required by the war-funding legislation President Bush signed in May. "The administration plans to follow the requirements of the legislation," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in response to questions yesterday.

 

White House officials suggested to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week that Petraeus and Crocker would brief lawmakers in a closed session before the release of the report, congressional aides said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates would provide the only public testimony.

 

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) told the White House that Bush's presentation plan was unacceptable. An aide to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) said that "we are in talks with the administration and . . . Senator Levin wants an open hearing" with Petraeus.

Now they don't even want the people who they've been holding up as the saviors of the mission to testify publically about it. Yeesh. Thankfully, I'm pretty sure it's written into the law that they have to...but of course, the law only seems to matter so much any more.

[Balta1701]

Today's must read.

[Balta1701]

Since I doubt this deserves a new thread, here's a brief round-up of yesterdays' interesting Iraq news...and there were actually 3 interesting bits of it.

 

1. About a month ago, the administration released a report which stretched to say that the Iraqi government had made some progress on about half of the 18 benchmarks Congress set for it at the beginning of the year. Yesterday, a different version leaked from the non-partisan Government Accountability Office saying that they had in fact only really done anything on 3 of them. And another interesting note...the reason the leaker says that they leaked the draft report was that they believed that the DOD or the administration would "Water down" the final conclusions of the report before releasing it, as supposedly happened to the very negative National Intelligence Estimate that came out a few weeks back.

 

2. The generals in the Pentagon have finally gotten to the point where they seem to be basically telling Mr. Bush "It's up to you" by not even being able/willing to give him a unified plan for the next few months.

In a sign that top commanders are divided over what course to pursue in Iraq, the Pentagon said Wednesday that it won't make a single, unified recommendation to President Bush during next month's strategy assessment, but instead will allow top commanders to make individual presentations.

 

"Consensus is not the goal of the process," Geoff Morrell, a Pentagon spokesman, told reporters. "If there are differences, the president will hear them."

 

Military analysts called the move unusual for an institution that ordinarily does not air its differences in public, especially while its troops are deployed in combat.

 

"The professional military guys are going to the non-professional military guys and saying 'Resolve this,'" said Jeffrey White, a military analyst for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "That's what it sounds like."

 

White said it suggests that the military commanders want to be able to distance themselves from Iraq strategy by making it clear that whatever course is followed is the president's decision, not what commanders agreed on.

 

And finally, 3., the Bush Admin. has decided to ask for an additional $50 billion in funding for the war as part of the upcoming Dept. of Defense funding bill that is coming up before Congress...thus putting nearly $200 billion in funding in that bill (enough to, presumably, make it so that the administration does not have to come back to this Congress for another supplemental appropriation until the Bush Administration departs office and the next President starts cleaning up his mess). But if that weren't interesting enough, according to Secretary of Defense Gates...out of his own mouth and even on Fox News (so no one can possibly call the source biased, video @ the site), the administration decided to add in this additional $50 billion without even telling the Secretary of Defense. I have absolutely no idea how that works.

[BigSqwert]

About 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in the area covered by the US military "surge" of the past six months, an opinion poll suggests

 

LINK

[kapkomet]

LINK

And quite a few accounts on the ground counters that OPINION poll. It just depends on where you are.

 

But hey, if these further your cause, then it must be true.

[NorthSideSox72]

And quite a few accounts on the ground counters that OPINION poll. It just depends on where you are.

 

But hey, if these further your cause, then it must be true.

I haven't seen anything positive yet that wasn't scrubbed. All I've seen and read, including Nuke's posts, suggests that some areas are getting better, but others are getting worse. They are just moving from one place to another.

 

Also, Sqwert provided an actual poll. Where are these "quite a few accounts" you refer to countering that opinion? And I don't mean quotes from administrators that have been scrubbed by 10 layers of federal eyes.

 

[BigSqwert]

And quite a few accounts on the ground counters that OPINION poll.

 

Really where? And isn't the opinion of the actual Iraqis pretty important?

 

 

But hey, if these further your cause, then it must be true.

What exactly is my cause?

[kapkomet]

Really where? And isn't the opinion of the actual Iraqis pretty important?

What exactly is my cause?

That is pure comedy gold right there.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

That is pure comedy gold right there.

I, like a large percentage of the American populace, think we should get out of Iraq. Not really sure that would be a 'cause'.

 

EDIT: Instead of "American populace" what I meant was "the American, European, and Iraq populace".

Edited September 10, 2007 by BigSqwert

[kapkomet]

I, like a large percentage of the American populace, think we should get out of Iraq. Not really sure that would be a 'cause'.

 

EDIT: Instead of "American populace" what I meant was "the American, European, and Iraq populace".

Which further goes to show that any poll taken could perhaps be biased, unless again, it's for your cause, then it's an "important" poll showing just what you all (those wanting to "get out of Iraq") want it to show.

 

I'm not saying that you're "wrong", but you might be biased.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

Which further goes to show that any poll taken could perhaps be biased, unless again, it's for your cause, then it's an "important" poll showing just what you all (those wanting to "get out of Iraq") want it to show.

 

I'm not saying that you're "wrong", but you might be biased.

 

 

I linked an article that polled 2000 Iraqi citizens that actually live in Iraq. They don't want us there so why are we spending billions and killing our children over there?

 

The poll suggests that the overall mood in Iraq is as negative as it has been since the US-led invasion in 2003, says BBC world affairs correspondent Nick Childs.

 

The poll was conducted in more than 450 neighbourhoods across all 18 provinces of Iraq in August, and has a margin of error of + or - 2.5%.

[kapkomet]

And, again, there is information to counter some of the information in this poll. Every time I say that, I get told to "prove it" or it just gets immediately dismissed as bulls*** - whatever - I'm sick of playing that game. Look at NUKE'S blog, for an example. And there's plenty of other examples like that which would counter the "poll" information. When I post stuff like this, my intent is to counter the validity of the poll and perhaps get some of you to realize that everything that is spoon fed to you might not necessarily be the exact truth. Is this poll relevant? Absolutely! But there is more then meets the eye. Of course, though, my messages and my intent is "bulls***" and I should "prove" every letter of the alphabet that I type.

 

Another example: 450 neighborhoods in a country the size of California. That would be like taking a poll in 25 neighborhoods in or near downtown Chicago and saying that they are most likely to vote Democrat. DUH!

 

Edit: And by the way: I think that the rose colored bulls*** that the White House produces should be taken under the same scrutiny. I also think that the truth is somewhere in the middle, as it damn near always is... but whenever I say things like that, it gets glossed over as though I have spoken nothing - and my negativity toward "Democrats" and "Liberals" gets cherry picked as me being an asshole. I am finding the pack mentality on a lot of these topics quite interesting... and I'll just leave it at that.

Edited September 10, 2007 by kapkomet

[Texsox]

Kap is correct in questioning every bit of information especially polls. Bottom line is, it makes perfect sense to me that the average Iraqi does not want a war in their living room. Duh. Pick the worst neighborhood imaginable in the US. Then start bombing it, have an army tossing grenades and other weapons around, and tell me the average citizen will think it's better. They are now living in a war zone with a foreign country controlling their lives. Well duh they are unhappy.

 

Back to the good news - bad news thing.

 

The "out party" always benefits from bad news. Nixon benefited from Vietnam f*** ups. Reagan benefited from Iran seizing hostages. Clinton benefited from Bush problems.

[BigSqwert]

Another example: 450 neighborhoods in a country the size of California. That would be like taking a poll in 25 neighborhoods in or near downtown Chicago and saying that they are most likely to vote Democrat. DUH!

It was across all 18 provinces across the entire country of Iraq. They didn't cherry pick the provinces. Your analogy does not work.

[Texsox]

It was across all 18 provinces across the entire country of Iraq. They didn't cherry pick the provinces. Your analogy does not work.

 

To be scientifically valid, there must be steps to assure it is a representative sample. A lot of factors, besides geography, must come into play. I'm not saying it wasn't, but I doubt it.