NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's see now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is killed on June 6, 2006 and the US touted that as a major blow to the insurgency in Iraq. Yet in the 4 months following, they have been the deadliest in terms of casualties:

U.N.: Civilian Death Toll in Iraq Climbs (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2472188&page=1)

U.N.: Civilian Death Toll in Iraq Climbs to a Record-High 6,599 in July and August

The number of Iraqi civilians killed in July and August hit 6,599, a record-high number that is far greater than initial estimates suggested, the United Nations said Wednesday......

For the previous period, the U.N. had reported just under 6,000 deaths 2,669 in May and 3,149 in June.
That is 4 months of record deaths. Civil war anyone?

The report attributed many of the deaths to the rising sectarian tensions that have pushed Iraq toward the verge of civil war.

Torture and illegal detentions:

The report from the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq's Human Rights office highlighted the sectarian crisis gripping the country, offering a grim assessment across a range of indicators worrying evidence of torture, unlawful detentions, growth of sectarian militias and death squads, and a rise in "honor killings" of women......

"These figures reflect the fact that indiscriminate killings of civilians have continued throughout the country while hundreds of bodies appear bearing signs of severe torture and execution style killing," the report said. "Such murders are carried out by death squads or by armed groups, with sectarian or revenge connotations."

Death Toll Conservative Figure?

The U.N. investigators who compiled the report said it was likely that even those numbers were low. In July, for example, the Health Ministry reported no people killed in Anbar, the chaotic province that includes the extremely violent cities of Ramadi and Fallujah.

Beacon of Democracy?

The U.N. has also received several reports of Iraqi journalists facing prosecution for their reporting. In one case, for example, three reporters working for a newspaper faced trial for articles criticizing a regional government and accusing police and the judicial system there of violating basic human rights.

The report said more than 35,000 Iraqis were under detention, including 13,571 by multinational forces. That represents a 28 percent increase over the number at the end of June, it said.

The U.N. special rapporteur has received allegations of torture in prisons run by Iraq's interior and defense ministries, as well as ones under multinational control.
Iraq is a shithole but it does not seem to deter the invade Iran crowd in the slightest. Get real!!

Get real!!

You might as well ask a mountain to tapdance, CH.

Bush supporters will read this thread, decide you're a liberal commie homo fag dyke terrorist UN supporter, and ignore every fact presented here.

Try to get some people to stop saying that the situation in Iraq is improving though. Evidence doesn't really stop people from being delusional.

The number of Iraqi civilians killed in July and August hit 6,599, a record-high number that is far greater than initial estimates suggested, the United Nations said Wednesday......
*pops the cork on that champagne bottle he's been saving for a "special occassion"*
We're Number One!

The sad reality is that these records will be broken. :(

Let's see now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is killed on June 6, 2006 and the US touted that as a major blow to the insurgency in Iraq. Yet in the 4 months following, they have been the deadliest in terms of casualties:

U.N.: Civilian Death Toll in Iraq Climbs (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2472188&page=1)

U.N.: Civilian Death Toll in Iraq Climbs to a Record-High 6,599 in July and August


That is 4 months of record deaths. Civil war anyone?



Torture and illegal detentions:



Death Toll Conservative Figure?



Beacon of Democracy?


Iraq is a shithole but it does not seem to deter the invade Iran crowd in the slightest. Get real!!

And your point is....?

Bush supporters will read this thread, decide you're a liberal commie homo fag dyke terrorist UN supporter, and ignore every fact presented here.
And also French.

Regarding Clamponia -

Try "empathy" or "simply human kindness". It will help you understand issues such as these.

And your point is....?

Exactly my point. Just going to explain everything away aren't you?

Just going to explain everything away aren't you?

I wouldn't count on it. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11723070&postcount=41)

At least we liberated them from Saddam! At least they have a stable democracy now!



[/sarcasm]

Let's also not forget that American troop casualities in Iraq and Afghanistan are now higher than the number of people killed on 9/11.

But it IS getting better! It certainly does not climb. The death toll was 3.590 in July, but ONLY 3.009 in August. See!?! 581 better in just one month!
Hearts and Souls!

The sad reality is that these records will be broken. :(
Sadly, I agree with you:

IRAQ DEATH TOLL IN THIRD YEAR OF OCCUPATION IS HIGHEST YET (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr13.php)

The civilian death toll has risen inexorably for the entire duration of the US-led military presence in Iraq following the initial invasion. That is the grim reality uncovered by ongoing tracking of media reports by the Iraq Body Count project (IBC).

Figures released by IBC today, updated by statistics for the year 2005 from the main Baghdad morgue, show that the total number of civilians reported killed has risen year-on-year since May 1st 2003 (the date that President Bush announced “major combat operations have ended”):

6,331 from 1st May 2003 to the first anniversary of the invasion, 19th March 2004 (324 days: Year 1)
11,312 from 20th March 2004 to 19th March 2005 (365 days: Year 2)
12,617 from 20th March 2005 to 1st March 2006 (346 days: Year 3).
In terms of average violent deaths per day this represents:

20 per day in Year 1
31 per day in Year 2 and
36 per day in Year 3.

The IBC figure for Year 3 includes no deaths from March 2006, excludes the bulk of killings which followed the 22nd February bombing of a major Shiite Muslim shrine in Samarra, and lacks Baghdad morgue data for January and February this year. If January and February 2006 are excluded as being clearly incomplete, then the daily death rate for the remaining part of Year 3 rises to 40 (11,480 deaths over 287 days = 40 per day). However even before Year 3 has ended, and with incomplete data for its final months, the number of civilians reported killed is already higher than for all of Year 2 (12,617 vs. 11,312).
So, if you take the death total for the 4 months May, June, July, August, it averages 100 deaths per day!! That is a total of 12417, almost equal to the total for Year 3 of the occupation.

So, if you take the death total for the 4 months May, June, July, August, it averages 100 deaths per day!! That is a total of 12417, almost equal to the total for Year 3 of the occupation.Why do you hate freedom? Is it because you are Canadian?

I wouldn't count on it. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11723070&postcount=41)

He will be back and haunt the forum. It is inevitable I think.

Why do you hate freedom? Is it because you are Canadian?
Surely you jest?

Why do you hate freedom? Is it because you are Canadian?

Stop saying "Why do you hate freedom?". It's getting annoying. Just because we don't want our troops to die for the sake of giving democracy to people who don't even want it doesn't mean we hate freedom.

I find it interesting that Americans have become chary of the Iraq war as quickly as they have. It took us roughly eighteen months to tell Gallup that most of us were against the Iraq war-- just as things were starting to get truly uncomfortable. Before then it had mostly been mopping-up work and general cleanup; the insurgency had only just started in earnest.

When compared to Vietnam, the last real occupation/counterinsurgency war that America fought, the real disillusionment only became an issue amongst Americans after three and a half years, close to the amount of time that we've been in Iraq all together.

On the other hand, America's death toll in Vietnam was astronomically higher than it has been in Iraq, with as many as a thousand men dying in a month, and that's just on our side. Casualties amongst the Viet Cong were huge, as were civilian deaths.

So, is it that Americans have become more interested in the welfare of our fellow man? Obviously not, most people don't care at all for Iraqis in any real sense--myself included. I'm not saying that I don't care that people are dying, just that it doesn't affect me-- nor does it the vast majority of Americans. Instead, I think that we've become enamoured with the idea that real life should mimic the one-hour television program. Face it, we've become used to quick fixes and happy endings, be it in entertainment, politics or war. I'm not saying that because we watch TV we can't deal with reality, although that's certainly part of it. I think that it's in our culture, something promoted by advertising and the media as a symptom, not a cause.

As for the cause, I don't know what it is. But I do think that it's harmful, and not because Iraq is the best thing ever. It isn't, and we have no business there. But because in conflicts where we do have business, I'm not at all convinced that we as Americans have the capability to see them through.

Stop saying "Why do you hate freedom?". It's getting annoying. Just because we don't want our troops to die for the sake of giving democracy to people who don't even want it doesn't mean we hate freedom.

I could be wrong but isn't he trying to be funny? It is old and should never be used again but it is a joke I think. I hope anyway.

As for the cause, I don't know what it is.
It's because it's easier to get better information of what is really happening. Remember, when Vietnam started things were still going along the lines of government propaganda. It was only during that war that investigative journalism really began to develop as a way of reporting warfare, and that shocked the bejeesus out of the US public, which shouldn't surprise anyone.

Today, investigative journalism is much better developed...plus there is the internet and that kills the last hope the government has of controlling what we learn and how we do it.

In the Fifties, it was easy to tell people "We're fighting the Commies in Korea, which is great!" and they believed it. Not because they were stupid, or because they were particularly scared, but simply because they couldn't know any better.

During Vietnam the same line stopped to pull. Now they might as well stop bothering completely.

Does that mean that the people won't support a really "good" sort of war, fought for the right reasons and the right way? No, of course not. But it does mean that you'll get a lot more dissent about what a "good" war is, and so you'll always have big groups that are against it.

And that can't be a bad thing since, let's face it, we (as in Western civilisation and our lifestyles) aren't under threat and won't be for a long time to come. There isn't any reason to fight for life and death, and that would be the only time that you could really argue that this sort of scrutiny might be out of place.

I find it interesting that Americans have become chary of the Iraq war as quickly as they have. It took us roughly eighteen months to tell Gallup that most of us were against the Iraq war-- just as things were starting to get truly uncomfortable. Before then it had mostly been mopping-up work and general cleanup; the insurgency had only just started in earnest.

When compared to Vietnam, the last real occupation/counterinsurgency war that America fought, the real disillusionment only became an issue amongst Americans after three and a half years, close to the amount of time that we've been in Iraq all together.

On the other hand, America's death toll in Vietnam was astronomically higher than it has been in Iraq, with as many as a thousand men dying in a month, and that's just on our side. Casualties amongst the Viet Cong were huge, as were civilian deaths.

So, is it that Americans have become more interested in the welfare of our fellow man? Obviously not, most people don't care at all for Iraqis in any real sense--myself included. I'm not saying that I don't care that people are dying, just that it doesn't affect me-- nor does it the vast majority of Americans. Instead, I think that we've become enamoured with the idea that real life should mimic the one-hour television program. Face it, we've become used to quick fixes and happy endings, be it in entertainment, politics or war. I'm not saying that because we watch TV we can't deal with reality, although that's certainly part of it. I think that it's in our culture, something promoted by advertising and the media as a symptom, not a cause.

As for the cause, I don't know what it is. But I do think that it's harmful, and not because Iraq is the best thing ever. It isn't, and we have no business there. But because in conflicts where we do have business, I'm not at all convinced that we as Americans have the capability to see them through.
You make some good points for sure. As far as Vietnam and Iraq is concerned, I believe that the difference in public opinion is not so much based on the number of casualties but more so the political circumstances. Another huge difference has to do with the fact that information is gathered and shared much more quickly today with modern technology then it was back in the late 60's early 70's.

NL: Surely, there are some people who are morally outraged that there is killing taking place at all. There always have been, from Quakers in the Civil War to hippies in Vietnam to an as-yet unlabelled, but vociferous group today. But the truth is that it's hard to care, for most of us, that there are X number of faceless people dying in Y country Z number of miles away, especially when Z> 5,000. Forgive me, I'm still thinking in calculus from finishing my homework.

Even the American deaths, which seem to bother us the most (and not surprisingly, they're from around here, in a general sense) aren't a personal thing-- they can't be, since many anti-war people have never met a soldier who is or was in Iraq. Not to say all, but most.

I'd still suggest, though, that it's a lack of patience. We were fine sticking our noses into Kosovo (I know, Kosovo was a nasty place), because no NATO/Americans died in Kosovo. Much the same in Iraq the first time 'round. Gulf War II was always going to be harder than the two of those-- we were trying to occupy a nation, not just blow some stuff up. But Saddam was hardly a poster-child for peace, love and spare change, it was reasonable to expect some kind of support. And there was support, for a while. But when the Americans started dying, American people quickly turned off the war. It's an almost immediate correlation, and one that bothers me.

Again, not because of the current conflict, I think that we should get out as soon as it's safe to do so. We're not making any points by staying, after all. I'm concerned because it seems as though the majority became opposed to the war almost immediately after Americans started dying. I have nothing wrong with people being disturbed at the idea of Americans dying, I'm kind of glad that we care. But face it, not many people have died so far. The entire Iraq War has thus far amounted to perhaps as many American casualties as there were ANZAC deaths in one day at Gallipoli, the entire civilian body count of the war has come out to roughly a tenth of the deaths in the fighting at the Marne, which lasted a month.

Obviously, this isn't the Great War. People aren't charging machine gun nests or being gassed. However, when held up against every single conflict, from the American Revolution to the Vietnam War, Iraq comes in as the least bloody, least expensive* conflict that we have ever fought.

Certainly, the freedom of information plays a role. But again, it's not moral outrage that's fuelling the American disillusionment, it's impatience. We were promised a sort of imperialist grand show, a bit like the battle of Salamanca in which people in the Spanish town of the same name came out to watch the French crush the invading Englishmen, or the time when Washingtonians watched the Battle of Bull Run/First Manassas. We didn't get our show, and we certainly didn't get our easy victory.

I do blame the administration--particularly Donald Rumsfeld-- for underestimating the resistance after all the military professionals studying the situation requested that the number of soldiers be increased. But I don't think that they were the root cause. Rumsfeld knew that Bush wouldn't approve a plan involving the requested number of soldiers, and Bush wouldn't have approved it because Americans would have been put off by the idea that we'd be involved in a conflict that would take years, rather than weeks or months.

As an interesting note, the British put down a rebellion in Iraq similar to this one many years ago, in rather similar situations to the one presented to America. But the problem for America isn't an insurgency, it's that Americans don't like long war.

How did the British do it? They flooded the country with soldiers (who apparently behaved well enough, but we can't be sure), and had a ratio of one soldier per eight Iraqis. America has a ratio of 1:32, and it's rising as we pull troops. We're not going to do anything besides destabilize the region more by reducing American presence in Iraq, but I digress.

*In relative terms. For example, the American Revolution nearly bankrupted the government, despite costing less than a million pounds. Iraq, on the other hand, has only added to the deficit. But notice: our government continues the fantastic expenditures that it has for decades with little change, and a reduction in taxes.

Why do you hate freedom? Is it because you are Canadian?
Too right!
CanuckHeaven, all I can say to you is this:
http://gallery.dodgubishi.com/d/8480-3/STFU_CommunistNaziJew.gif

may i remind you that in a war people die?

I have an actual question. Havent read through the threads.

Isn't every death adding to a new record? Like... Wasn't last week a new recrod because it was more than the previous week?

may i remind you that in a war people die?
May I remind you that for the last couple of years, we've had everyone in the Bush Administration constantly telling us that the situation in Iraq is improving, that the insurgency is a broken ineffectual beast and that there is no civil war looming?

May I remind you that for the last couple of years, we've had everyone in the Bush Administration constantly telling us that the situation in Iraq is improving, that the insurgency is a broken ineffectual beast and that there is no civil war looming?

iam aware of that iam also aware of the fact the you cant blindly trust a gov't. they may be telling us a lot of things that does not mean that they are true.
war=people dieing....not some thing a gov't will usualy tell you:)

Why do you hate freedom? Is it because you are Canadian?

yes, Canadians, like terrorists, hate our freedoms. They hate our democracy. They hate our way of life. :rolleyes:

iam aware of that iam also aware of the fact the you cant blindly trust a gov't. they may be telling us a lot of things that does not mean that they are true.
war=people dieing....not some thing a gov't will usualy tell you:)
True, but my point is that the Bush Admin has beein trumpeting that the situation in Iraq is improving. Yet everything seems to indicate otherwise.

The big fear/problem here is not that they're lying to us (as politicians are wont to do), but that they actually believe their own lies. If this is the case, they're not making the necessary plans to deal with the mess Iraq is in (and is leading towards), which is just going to exacerbate the situation.

True, but my point is that the Bush Admin has beein trumpeting that the situation in Iraq is improving. Yet everything seems to indicate otherwise.

The big fear/problem here is not that they're lying to us (as politicians are wont to do), but that they actually believe their own lies. If this is the case, they're not making the necessary plans to deal with the mess Iraq is in (and is leading towards), which is just going to exacerbate the situation.

that may be true, we dont have the intell that they do, we only know what they tell us, they being the media and the admin ect. it is possible that they do see a way out but that it need to be kept under wraps to be taken care of. if this is not the caes the blessing is that every four years we have elections and we can chang this sorta thing.

The sad reality is that these records will be broken. :(
Well that can't be allowed.
We need that timetable for withdrawal now! If we don't get out before having another, say, 4-"Bloodiest Months Ever", then my liquor cabinet will be all used up, and then what shall I celebrate with?

Well that can't be allowed.
We need that timetable for withdrawal now! If we don't get out before having another, say, 4-"Bloodiest Months Ever", then my liquor cabinet will be all used up, and then what shall I celebrate with?

lighter fluid?:) ;)

21 drinks in four hours, and I'm still fully conscious! Record high drink total! Yay!

Too right!
CanuckHeaven, all I can say to you is this:
Hi, I am a Communist Nazi Jew from Socialist Canada. :p

I am truly unique. :eek:

Hi, I am a Communist Nazi Jew from Socialist Canada. :p

I am truly unique. :eek:

I'll drink to that!

I'll drink to that!
According to your previous post, it appears that you will drink to everything? :p

I'd still suggest, though, that it's a lack of patience. We were fine sticking our noses into Kosovo (I know, Kosovo was a nasty place), because no NATO/Americans died in Kosovo.
Well, when you say 'patience', do you mean time or do you mean the number of casualties?

Oh, and two Americans died in combat over Kosovo, and more NATO troops died from accidents, mines and so on. But that doesn't detract from your point.

Much the same in Iraq the first time 'round.
The UN lost somewhere between 350 and 400 dudes then. Time-wise, well it actually took longer than many might remember if you count the time UN Forces were just sitting in the desert, waiting.

Gulf War II was always going to be harder than the two of those-- we were trying to occupy a nation, not just blow some stuff up. But Saddam was hardly a poster-child for peace, love and spare change, it was reasonable to expect some kind of support. And there was support, for a while. But when the Americans started dying, American people quickly turned off the war. It's an almost immediate correlation, and one that bothers me.
But correlation doesn't imply causation, and that's the thing. I think the reason for the current swing in opinion away from supporting the war isn't so much due to the fact that Americans are dying there (although that will always be quoted that as a reason, obviously), but because they were (as you say below) promised a quick and easy victory. And a "victory" is close to impossible now...at best a total defeat can be avoided, but no more.

But again, it's not moral outrage that's fuelling the American disillusionment, it's impatience. We were promised a sort of imperialist grand show, a bit like the battle of Salamanca in which people in the Spanish town of the same name came out to watch the French crush the invading Englishmen, or the time when Washingtonians watched the Battle of Bull Run/First Manassas. We didn't get our show, and we certainly didn't get our easy victory.
Exactly.
I mean, go and find someone who used to support the war and now is against it (there should be enough of them around, afterall ;) ). They won't be telling you that the sheer number of casualties are the reason, they'll probably talk about the pointlessness of them.

The US invaded Iraq for the wrong reason, based on ideology and a total disregard for the realities on the ground. The Neocons assume (or at least used to) that democracy and freedom is sorta the default state of society, and that the only reason some aren't free is because of oppressive governments. And importantly, they thought that once you remove the oppressive government, democracy will almost happen by itself. All their initial post-war plans confirm this.

It was one of the biggest follies in history, but unfortunately many Americans (be it ignorance or laziness...or did Hollywood et al play a role?) bought it and thought this was what is going to happen.

As it became more and more obvious that it wasn't, people started to get just a little more disillusioned with the whole thing. Incidentally, this was also the time US casualties rose and became more of a common occurence, so it could easily seem like that people are just cowards who don't want to pay the price of war.

But generally I'd think that it's not so much that they don't want to pay the price, they just aren't sure anymore what exactly it is they're buying. If someone told you you were going to buy a new BMW for a thousand bucks, and it turned out to be a 1998 Corolla, you'd be annoyed too. And even though a thousand dollars might still be a good price for the car, many people wouldn't do the deal because they've been bullshitted.

Obviously the question of whether Iraq now is a 1998 Corolla or a 1965 Lada hasn't been answered yet. :p

Rumsfeld knew that Bush wouldn't approve a plan involving the requested number of soldiers, and Bush wouldn't have approved it because Americans would have been put off by the idea that we'd be involved in a conflict that would take years, rather than weeks or months.
That's probably true. But then, most Americans might have stopped buying the idea of Iraq being a real threat, because they'd have started thinking themselves.
The American public can certainly be motivated to stand together and fight something for some time. I mean, the Cold War lasted fifty years, give or take. But there better be a good reason, and it must be explained well.
It's sad that it was so easy to con them, but part of the reason that it was would have been that they were essentially told "Look, this'll be easy. We bomb the place, everybody cheers, we wave flags and celebrate July 4th, and then they make a movie about it."

But the problem for America isn't an insurgency, it's that Americans don't like long war.
I'd argue that no one does. I mean, look at the Soviets in Afghanistan - the government obviously put down dissent fairly well, but it's not like the Russians (and all the others in the USSR) enjoyed that time.

How did the British do it? They flooded the country with soldiers (who apparently behaved well enough, but we can't be sure), and had a ratio of one soldier per eight Iraqis.
Easy enough...back in the day. Iraq has 28.8 million people today - do you want to send 3.6 million US Soldiers there? Can you afford it?

But to address the point: more troops aren't necessarily going to help in this case. Afterall, no one is really fighting battles there. The problem is terrorism, and soldiers can only either fall victim to it or stand by and watch...destroying terrorism through military action is impossible. And secondly, there is more and more ethnic violence, and while it might be possible to put guards everywhere, it's not going to provide long-term solutions.

If more troops need to be send anywhere, it's Afghanistan. Iraq might well have close to as many as are needed (I'm not a strategist or military expert, so I don't know really). The question there is whether the US Government (together with the Iraqi Government) can work out better ways of putting them to good use.

While we're on about Iraq, here's another interesting tidbit:

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat
A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.
...
The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.
...
On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee released a more ominous report about the terrorist threat. That assessment, based entirely on unclassified documents, details a growing jihad movement and says, “Al Qaeda leaders wait patiently for the right opportunity to attack.”

The estimate concludes that the radical Islamic movement has expanded from a core of Qaeda operatives and affiliated groups to include a new class of “self-generating” cells inspired by Al Qaeda’s leadership but without any direct connection to Osama bin Laden or his top lieutenants.
...
In recent months, some senior American intelligence officials have offered glimpses into the estimate’s conclusions in public speeches.

“New jihadist networks and cells, sometimes united by little more than their anti-Western agendas, are increasingly likely to emerge,” said Gen. Michael V. Hayden, during a speech in San Antonio in April, the month that the new estimate was completed. “If this trend continues, threats to the U.S. at home and abroad will become more diverse and that could lead to increasing attacks worldwide,” said the general, who was then Mr. Negroponte’s top deputy and is now director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

For more than two years, there has been tension between the Bush administration and American spy agencies over the violence in Iraq and the prospects for a stable democracy in the country. Some intelligence officials have said the White House has consistently presented a more optimistic picture of the situation in Iraq than justified by intelligence reports from the field.
...
More recently, the Council on Global Terrorism, an independent research group of respected terrorism experts, assigned a grade of “D+” to United States efforts over the past five years to combat Islamic extremism. The council concluded that “there is every sign that radicalization in the Muslim world is spreading rather than shrinking.”
Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?hp&ex=1159156800&en=22b7a0941b08007f&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

While we're on about Iraq, here's another interesting tidbit:


Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?hp&ex=1159156800&en=22b7a0941b08007f&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

No, you're wrong! The Iraq War has made us safer! If we weren't fighting them in Iraq, we'd be fighting them at home.

[/sarcasm]

Another 6,599 Iraqis liberated! Way to go, America! Way to GO!

*joins Fiddlebottoms celebration*

Another 6,599 Iraqis liberated! Way to go, America! Way to GO!

*joins Fiddlebottoms celebration*
Perhaps you missed an earlier post of mine that details even higher numbers?



IRAQ DEATH TOLL IN THIRD YEAR OF OCCUPATION IS HIGHEST YET (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr13.php)

So, if you take the death total for the 4 months May, June, July, August, it averages 100 deaths per day!! That is a total of 12,417, almost equal to the total for Year 3 of the occupation.

While we're on about Iraq, here's another interesting tidbit:

Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?hp&ex=1159156800&en=22b7a0941b08007f&ei=5094&partner=homepage)
Another interesting article that details how the US administration continues with its' lies and deception when it concerns Iraq.

Another interesting article that details how the US administration continues with its' lies and deception when it concerns Iraq.

Freedom seems to be really on the march. :rolleyes:

Freedom seems to be really on the march. :rolleyes:

What do you want? If you talk on the phone now to someone and you cannot remember what you said, you can ask the government to play back the conversation to you. Isn't that freedom?

What do you want? If you talk on the phone now to someone and you cannot remember what you said, you can ask the government to play back the conversation to you. Isn't that freedom?

They can also monitor what you do on the internet. Better watch our criticism of Bush or those shadowy government agents will come and take us to Gitmo. :p

Freedom seems to be really on the march. :rolleyes:
I think the sad part is that the US is going to stay in Iraq come Hell or high water. This will be a long term occupation despite public opinion.

I think the sad part is that the US is going to stay in Iraq come Hell or high water. This will be a long term occupation despite public opinion.

I feel that if you get a Democrat in the White House then you may at least be able to pry a withdrawl timetable out of such a president. We can't stay there for years into the future or we will be an undeniable occupation force. We are already propping up a "democracy" that won't be able to stay in power if we leave and things don't seem to be changing in that regard. But then we have our image to look after right? If we decide to pull out at a certain date and things haven't calmed in Iraq then we look like we are going to be "cutting and running". Staying and having our soldiers be killed and causing Iraqi civilians to die is much better then the possibility of looking weak or causing the terrorists to "win". Personally I think the world will approve us leaving Iraq and will give the extremists one less tool to use against us.

But then we have our image to look after right?

If there was truly any justice in this continuum, the PR hacks and spinmeisters'd be the first sorry bastards up against the frickin' wall come the revolution.

If there was truly any justice in this continuum, the PR hacks and spinmeisters'd be the first sorry bastards up against the frickin' wall come the revolution.
To make their deaths appropriate, they should first have to put the most positive spin they can come up with on their own executions.

If there was truly any justice in this continuum, the PR hacks and spinmeisters'd be the first sorry bastards up against the frickin' wall come the revolution.
No, they shouldn't be executed.....they should spend the rest of their lives cleaning toilets at Gitmo. :p

Personally I think the world will approve us leaving Iraq and will give the extremists one less tool to use against us.
Almost everyone except diehard conservatives would applaud this decision.

21 drinks in four hours, and I'm still fully conscious! Record high drink total! Yay!

Congrats! What exactly have you been drinking my friend?

Congrats! What exactly have you been drinking my friend?
My guess is his own urine.
or dog's milk.
Maybe both mixed.