Thread: Iraq News

Any comment on this stats, Boon?

Looks like attack are back to 2004 level. Hmm, 2003 and pre-invasion don't feature at all...

Those stats are certainly encouraging- violence has been steadily dropping since August, although it remains unnaceptably high.
Hopefully basic services, such as water and electricity, can follow suit and life willl begin to return to normal.

Originally Posted by stroller

Any comment on this stats, Boon?

Looks like attack are back to 2004 level. Hmm, 2003 and pre-invasion don't feature at all...

Nothing that we don't already see.
The surge is working and Person of the Year should have gone to General Patreus.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

The surge is working

which part of 'political reconciliation' don't you understand?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Person of the Year should have gone to General Patreus.

you constantly prattle on about the MSM---of which time magazine is most certainly a part---why are you so bothered about their selection as 'person of the year'. get a grip.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

The surge is working
...

I thought this is what you were getting at, was hoping for something a bit more detailed, though.
If it works long-term remains to be seen, and the comments stating Bush policies have been disastrous and that the situation now is still worse than pre-invasion stand unrefuted.
Your graphs show a steady increase in violence until a few months ago.

Yes, Patreus deserves more credit than some are willing to acknowledge.

Originally Posted by sabang

^ Unfortunately the avaerage Shiite, who initially welcomed the toppling of Saddam, would now say 'yes'. Or probably more accurately, he was a cnut but life under him was better than it is now. The Occupation has been totally mismanaged.

I suppose the difficulties in Iraq have nothing to do with Shiite militias, Al Sadyr or Iran.

What some more good news?

"Iraq says most of Al-Qaeda network destroyed in 2007"

Iraq says most of Al-Qaeda network destroyed in 2007

Another milestone: 20,000th terrorist killed in Iraq.

Americas North Shore Journal

Hmm, "The 20,000 AIF [Anti Iraqi Forces] terrorist was killed by our troops."
So all Iraqi insurgents against the occupation are "Anti Iraq Forces"? Deaths confirmed by "terrorist death watch com".

Posting this is some New Year joke on your part, right, Boon Mee?

Originally Posted by stroller

Hmm, "The 20,000 AIF [Anti Iraqi Forces] terrorist was killed by our troops."
So all Iraqi insurgents against the occupation are "Anti Iraq Forces"? Deaths confirmed by "terrorist death watch com".

Posting this is some New Year joke on your part, right, Boon Mee?

Well, the numbers look right from the source below.
What can I say...AIF can be construed as terrorists. All depends on what the meaning of "is" is I guess...

Terrorist Death Watch : Counting the enemy dead since 2006

Sure, Iraqi insurgents are "Anti Iraq Forces" and all terrorists.

Welcome to 1984, Booner.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

[ All depends on what the meaning of "is" is I guess...

If we break it down for for him....the "i" and the "s".
It must be the "s" he's having trouble with the "S". As in Stuck on Stupid!

You boys been trying to learn some semantic 'tricks' from the ant?

Liberal Math and the true numbers of civilian casualties:

Between 70-125 Iraqi civilians were killed per day during Saddam Hussein's reign.
...
That gives us a range of 600,000-1,000,000 civilians killed during Saddam's stewardship, with a median average of 97.5 Iraqi civilians killed per day during his reign, or 780,000. Over 24 years, that is a median average of 32,500 Iraqi civilians per year...
...
his does not include military deaths that occurred during Saddam's "unnecessary war of choice" with Iran from 1980-88, which which accounts for roughly one million more lives on both sides, nor casualties sustained as a result of his other "unnecessary war of choice" that resulted from his invasion of Kuwait, where an estimated 100,000+ died during the first Gulf War in 1990-91.

Combining the number of civilians killed by Saddam and number of soldiers killed on all sides during his two "unnecessary wars of choice," and we find a median estimate of 1.88 million killed during his 24-year reign, or 235 people a day"

But don't question their (a liberals) Patriotism...

Confederate Yankee: Liberal Math

^ Very odd definition of patriotism.

From my dictionary: Patriotism -- Love and loyal support of one's country.

Nothing about criticism, questioning, blindly following ...

Are you patriotic, Ant?

Originally Posted by Texpat

Are you patriotic, Ant?

Nope, I find the whole notion of patriotism to be inherently creepy. By an accident of birth you're supposed to subjugate your individuality for the whole - thank but no thanks. Pride in my country and where I'm from, yep.

You're getting the short-end of the stick/abbreviated version here though. Apologies as I've posted on it further and in much more detail recently and can't be bothered doing so here again - I'll try to find the actual post but it's a long-shot, can't even remember the thread right now.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Nothing about criticism

"Unpatriotic" is a term in vouge with certain sections, used perjoratively, against those that stand (rightly or wrongly) on principle and question. See Booners post above for one example.

Ahh righto, found it. If you'll forgive me for quoting my own post (need to quotes for context) here's what I said earlier (from the 'Noam Chomsky' thread):

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

... His far-reaching criticisms of US foreign policy and the legitimacy of US power have made him a controversial figure: largely shunned by the mainstream media in the United States,[8][9][10][11] he is frequently sought out for his views by publications and news outlets worldwide.

Chomsky has in the past received death threats because of his criticisms of U.S foreign policy...

This whole notion of 'patriotism' (or the converse being 'Un-American' for daring to question/criticise in this case) is what I find most alien about the US. In New Zealand - or at least amongst the circle of my family and friends - it's considered somewhat of a national pastime to actively question and discuss the Govt., to ruthlessly bag it even.

I forget who said 'Patriotism is what we call it, nationalism is when foreigners do it' (paraphrased obviously) now but whoever it was nailed it totally. The whole concept of being unquestioningly loyal to a country purely because by accident of birth you were born there just seems so very, very strange.

Worse than that, when criticism can be stymied, shouted down or even silenced as 'unpatriotic' ("un-American") then it actually becomes totally at odds with the notions of freedom and democracy. It's most certainly at odds with the notion of personal freedom and thinking, patriotism is almost by definition the subjudgation of the individual in favour of the group.

In a nutshell everything about it, from the slogans and the symbolism to the hive-mindishness of it all, sends a shudder down my spine. Pride in who you are and where you come from, most certainly. But patriotism as an ideal, no thanks.

Well, let's have a look at just who is funding these anti-war/gloom & doom studies shall we? The one and only far-left moonbat - George Soros:

Anti-war Soros funded Iraq study - Times Online

In addition, check this out:

"In 2006, British medical journal The Lancet released a study of Iraqi civilian casualties that ludicrously claimed more than 650,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the war.

This absurd number instantly became a mantra of the anti-war left, of course, who could not have cared less whether it was accurate, because it just felt so right to them. Many major media outlets also reported the numbers with total credulity"

lgf: The Lancet's Data Bomb Debunked for Good

^ Ok, so Soros funded the study... And? Are you disputing the actual methodolgy or the findings? Because if not that's a red-herring and irrelevant. The study is viable.

Otherwise I could just as easily claim that the report you posted from the Times is equally meaningless because it's owned by the right-wing Murdoch (kudos to Sabang).

In any event, the study is more noteworthy and reliable than any blog links you post.

So Ant is not patriotic. OK.

Love and loyalty of one's country don't apply.

Can one assume then that pride of one's country is equally lacking?

Can you have pride in something that you don't love or are not loyal to?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

.
In any event, the study is more noteworthy and reliable than any blog links you post.

Says who?
Soros is an agenda-driven fool with one objective: Make the American Government look bad. The study is only 'noteworthy' in so far as it was funded by a 'noteworthy' leftwing bleeding-heart liberal...

"His view of America is so negative," says Sen. Joe Lieberman, who, like Gen. David Petraeus, has been a target of Soros' electoral "philanthropy." "The places he's put his money are . . . so destructive that it unsettles me." Soros' aim seems to be to make the U.S. just another client state easily controlled by the United Nations and other one-world groups where he has lots of friends"

Originally Posted by Texpat

Can one assume then that pride of one's country is equally lacking?

Ahem, one might assume you didn't read the fecking post:

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Pride in who you are and where you come from, most certainly. But patriotism as an ideal, no thanks

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Says who?

Published and peer reviewed study with details of research methods and findings - cf - blogs that any idiot with spare time can have a rant on. What do you reckon Booners.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Soros is an agenda-driven fool with one objective: Make the American Government look bad. The study is only 'noteworthy' in so far as it was funded by a 'noteworthy' leftwing bleeding-heart liberal...

Oh ok, thanks for answering that. So aside from issues with the guy who funded the study (which is entirely irrelevant) you can't fault the methods and findings of the study itself.