 sj |
||
|
||
BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
|
|
|
Subject: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 06 - 05:19 PM Well, well, well... According to soon-to-be Secretary of Defense Gates during his Senate confirmation hearing today, the US is losing the Iraq war... Hmmmmmmm??? Can this possibly be right??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Big Phil Date: 05 Dec 06 - 05:29 PM Yes, makes any sensible person wonder why it has taken all this time to admit what everyone on the planet knew already, except the two major clowns Bush and Blair. They do indeed have blood on their hands |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Dec 06 - 05:31 PM Vietnam deja vu. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,KB Date: 05 Dec 06 - 05:34 PM I'm afraid it may turn out much worse than Vietnam. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Amos Date: 05 Dec 06 - 05:48 PM The Iraq war against who? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Dec 06 - 05:59 PM Well, yes, it is a far more dangerous situation than Vietnam was, that's for sure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Bill D Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:11 PM Whether you think we will win the 'war' or lose the war, we have spent money we don't have to do things that don't need to be done ...for people who are not sure they want our 'help' anymore. ....It WAY beyond "ridding the world of a dictator" or "bringing democracy to Iraq" now, and DEEPLY into "cover your ass with self-deception".......a horrible parody of "The Emperor's New Clothes". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Shields Folk Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:14 PM How can the US of A expect to deal with anything or anyone in the middle east without first dealing with Israel/Palistine? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Rapparee Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:46 PM I seem to remember Saddam Hussein saying, way back in 1991, that if the US attacked Iraq the result would be worse than Vietnam.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Shields Folk Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:51 PM Saddam Hussein what a wonderful man. Clearly he is the victim in all this! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Little Hawk Date: 05 Dec 06 - 06:55 PM Well, Rumsfeld thought he was wonderful when he was killing Iranians for them. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Richard Atkins Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:52 PM Having marched in London against the war in the first place, voters still voted Blair and Bush afterwards. why dont they think for themselves. Time for them to rethink their error then ,on both sides of the pond. American voters have done so this November. UK to follow I hope! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Peace Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:56 PM The problem in the Gulf War is that Stormin' Norman wasn't given the green light to proceed beyond the UN mandate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:00 PM Only slightly tangential to this, but related to the 'terrorism thing' - there is an Aussie citizen still held after 5 years without trial - his Aussie lawyer is going to the Federal Court saying that the actions of Little Johnny have been illegal, as they are playing politics in in not working to have their citizen dealt with 'fairly' as Britain did, etc.... should be 'interesting'.... :-) especially since these 'Military Commissions' are not considered legal for US citizens, only for foreigners.... LOL! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Shields Folk Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:01 PM I must admit I supported the war to remove Saddam from Iraq, I'm not so comfortable with us lot there in his place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Richard Atkins Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:30 PM Peace change is to was and I agree your valid point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:30 PM Excuse me if I rain on your parade just a little, but Gates did not (repeat, did not) say the US was losing in Iraq. He said that we are not winning in Iraq, but that is not the same, as losing. We are, I would submit, in a current stalemate which could go either way. Where we are losing, however, is here at home, with interpretations as above. Thank you for you time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Richard Atkins Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:44 PM John your right saw Gates on TV yesterday. Not Winning is the one! Have seen negative similar ones from Blair. Is Mr Bush going to follow ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 05 Dec 06 - 08:56 PM The only real difference with Vietnam appears to be the rate with which the disillusionment to the lies has set in... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 06 - 09:38 PM Maybe John from the Sunset Coast would like to define what winning this war would look like??? Then, perhaps we can re-examine why "not winning" doesn't mean losing??? Stalemate??? Hmmmmmmmm??? Upwards of 600,000 dead and another 100 a day, chaos, instability, a war based on lies and what we have here is a stalemate??? Hmmmmmmmm, part B... Maybe a definaition of stalemate is in order, also... Einstein said that repeating a bahavior expecting defferent results is "insanity"... What we have here is "insane" foriegn policy... Not a friggin' stalemate... And worst part about this "insane" forieng policy is abnother of Einstein's observations that a problem cabnnot be solved with the conscoiusness that created it so... ...we are screwed!!! Insane foreign policy and no truely new paradigm... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: NH Dave Date: 05 Dec 06 - 10:41 PM I think winning would be us leaving Iraq after insuring that their police and military are interested in and capable of keeping a peace on their own; not just a bunch of Shi'ia militia eager to take on some troublesome Sunnis just down the road, or a group of Sunni militia or police willing to keep the peace, as opposed to nailing a local bunch of troublesome Shi'ites. In short, Iraqi forces working for the betterment of their country, not to settle individual feuds or bad blood. Perhaps we needed a Saddam Husein in Iraq, a Joseph Stalin in Russia, or a Joseph Tito in Yugoslavia to keep all of these unhappy religious and ethic groups in line. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 05 Dec 06 - 10:47 PM Stormin' Norman would have ended up in the same shit. Iraq was carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the winners in WW1, along with other artificial 'nations'. Lines were drawn on the map by French and British politicians, and natural relationships destroyed. The only way to keep the three elements together is with a rigid dicatorship, but we can't put humpty back together- we kicked out Saddam, destroyed his army and police, and wrecked the infrastructure. If things had been left alone to evolve, in time the Sunnis, Shia and Kurds, already becoming resigned to living and working together under Saddam, might have eventually developed a vital country. It was beginning to look like that could have happened in time. Democracy has to evolve, not be imposed at gun point on cultures used to different ways. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST Date: 05 Dec 06 - 10:58 PM Back during the Gulf War Stormin' Norman may not have gotten the green light to go into Baghdad from Bush the Elder because.... Perhaps because he realized that although Hussein was a bad bad man, he was at least a stabilizing force in the country and taking him out might've led to something similar to the current sad state of affairs in Iraq now? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Ebbie Date: 05 Dec 06 - 11:10 PM Did you see the Bill Moyers PBS television documentary last night? An Iraqi who on former visits had been adamant on staying and seeing the 'war' through to the other side says now that at the first opportunity he will leave, for Syria. He said that, bad as it was, it was NEVER like this under Saddam. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:50 AM "Upwards of 600,000 dead" Where on earth did you get this figure from Bobert? Could 500,000 of those be from the, by now, widely and totally discredited Lancet article? They got their numbers, not from any serious study but by batch sampling in specific areas then applying that to the entire country. Better go to the antiwar site IraqBodyCount Bobert, every death they record, they check on, two sources being required, their worst case figures include incidents where only one verified source exists - Their worst case figure is somewhere around 56,000. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:55 AM Sorry Bobert, but I forgot to add - The Lancet article at no time ever said that 500,000 Iraqi civilians had died. What the article actually said was that up to 500,000 Iraqi civilians MAY HAVE died. Bit of a difference there Bobert, sort of like me buying a Lottery ticket and stating I have won the lottery, truth is that having bought the ticket all I really can say is that I MAY HAVE won the lottery. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:32 AM Be careful Teribus, half taking back your words like that - we may begin to believe that you are slowly maturing... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Georgiansilver Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:37 AM Does anyone remember the uniformed spokesman who declared that thousands of Americans and allies would lose their lives and could never win the war?...Was he right ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:41 AM Not at all Foolestoupe, I just never believe a word Bobert says. Just take a look at his opening post: "According to soon-to-be Secretary of Defense Gates during his Senate confirmation hearing today, the US is losing the Iraq war..." Now at NO TIME AT ALL during his Senate confirmation hearing did the soon-to-be Secretary of Defense Robert Gates say anything like - "the US is losing the Iraq war...." He was asked if he concurred with the current military commanders estimation of the situation - i.e. "We are not winning the war against the insurgents but at the same time we are not losing it" Dr. Robert Gates agreed with that assessment. Different thing entirely to, "the US is losing the Iraq war" and in fact there is a statement there to the effect that the soon-to-be Secretary of Defense Robert Gates believes that the US is NOT losing the Iraq war, or more correctly the war against the insurgents. But what Bobert has done serves as a good example of where the so-called lies and propaganda claims come from - It's from people reading into something, something that is not there and never was there. They read what they want to see as opposed to what is actually being said. The worst has been the spin put on things by the media in both Britain and in the US. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Dec 06 - 07:12 AM Yes Teribus, and the US 'never lost the Vietnam war' either... they just bravely ran away BEFORE their loyal local allies were defeated... like they will do in Iraq too... Robin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Dec 06 - 07:15 AM "a good example of where the so-called lies and propaganda claims come from - It's from people reading into something, something that is not there and never was there. They read what they want to see as opposed to what is actually being said." Pot ... kettle ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 06 - 07:59 AM OK Foolstroupe, either yourself or Bobert go through the transcript of the hearing and prove me wrong, show me where Dr. Robert Gates stated that "the US is losing the Iraq war". I can listen to something and know what is being said, I can read something and determine what being said. In no way could I translate - "We are not winning the war against the insurgents but at the same time we are not losing it" into - "the US is losing the Iraq war". Maybe you and Bobert can, and all that suggests to me is that your comprehension skills are somewhat lacking. By the bye Foolstroupe, in most situations involving an armed insurgency there is rarely, if ever a successful military victory. The conflict is usually fought to a stalemate situation in which the insurgent side recognises that it is pointless to continue the armed struggle and opts for dialogue and political compromise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 06 Dec 06 - 08:20 AM It has become de rigeur for Bush supporters to couple the phrase "widely discredited" with the Johns Hopkins/MIT/Mustansiriya University study (published in The Lancet). But statisticians defend the methodology, and it is exactly the type of sampling used by pollsters on all parts of the political spectrum. The figure has been publicly challenged, but not by scientists and not by people armed with conflicting data or methods. It has simply been called "not credible" by a) Bush, b) Bush appointees, c) Military spokespeople who work for Bush, d) political commentators who habitually defend Bush, and e) internet forum participants with pro-Bush axes to grind. Comparisons above between the Lancet number and the Iraqbodycount number are apples to oranges. Iraqbodycount lists ONLY deaths that have been positively confirmed by multiple independent sources. Of course that number will be far less than the Lancet number that clearly (and quite openly) stated that it was attempting to estimate the total deaths across all of Iraq -- confirmed and unconfirmed. Does anyone, anyone, anyone (other than Bush, and thos that depend on him for their jobs -- including the big T) think that there are no deaths other than those confirmed? Nobody has died anonymously? No bodies have been rendered unrecognizable? Nobody has been quickly buried by family (as is the middle eastern custom) before it could be properly "confirmed"? Now - as to whether Bobert made up any numbers... the Lancet study concluded that the range of estimated casualties is 426,369 to 793,663, with a probable best-estimate of 601,027. Not too damn far from Bobert's figure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Bobert Date: 06 Dec 06 - 08:41 AM Yo, T-Bird... As for you little hair splittin' academic exercise see my 05 Dec 06 09:38pm response to yer buddy, John the Sunsetter... Oh, John isn't yer buddy??? Hmmmmmmm??? Seems to think like you... You know all semanticly but semantics got you and yer buds Bush and Blair in a mess of trouble during the mad-dash-to-Iraqmire so ya might want to rethink hangin' onto purely academic arguin' points while real events are happening all around you... Or not... ibid of the Einstein comment in regards to insanity... of, BTW, the death total was acually put at between 600,000 and 650,000 and from what I heard on NPR after it was made public is that a number of scholars from Johns Hopkins had examined the methodology and found no glarin' errors... But of course you are wiser and infinately more academically qualified than a bunch of coneheads from Johns Hopkins... Not... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Teribus Date: 06 Dec 06 - 08:57 AM Yes exactly Guest TIA, it is a method used by pollsters, "Batch Sampling" does not and cannot EVER give you anything other than the roughest of estimations - It cannot in any way be treated as any sort of serious study or attempt to quantify civilian casualties. If they were to perform the same exercise in relation to drugs and gun crime in the UK and applied the "Batch Sample" from Mosside to the entire country Britain would be depicted as a war zone with 50% casualties, where those still alive were cruising around in stolen cars carrying out drive-by killings - i.e. the results would be completely disproportionate and completely unrepresentative - False picture. By the way TIA you didn't chose to comment on the difference in the report stating that XXX Iraqi civilians MAY HAVE DIED, compared to Bobert's blank statement that XXX Iraqi DIED. I believe that there is a difference in those two statements don't you? But I do believe that if you are going to quote a report - You are under some obligation to quote it correctly - True? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Wolfgang Date: 06 Dec 06 - 09:29 AM The figure has been publicly challenged, but not by scientists (TIA) Completely wrong. You mean you have not read the critique in SCIENCE? You have not read about the influence of "main street bias"? You have not read that sampling was mainly restricted to urban areas? You have not read that sampling was not equally distributed across the country, drawing less samples from the quiet Kurdish areas than they should have in proportion to the population there? The figure has been challenged publicly by scientists. You may not agree with the critique, that's alright, but you should not state as a fact what is plainly wrong. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Wolfgang Date: 06 Dec 06 - 09:38 AM link to pdf of just one paper critical of the Lancet study Webpage of one scientist critical of the Lancet study Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Wolfgang Date: 06 Dec 06 - 11:47 AM Press release of the Iraq Body Count about the Lancet article In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST Date: 06 Dec 06 - 12:08 PM Pleased to know there was only a few thousand killed in Iraq, I will sleep easier tonight, thank goodeness for the Mudcat experts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST Date: 06 Dec 06 - 12:09 PM What did the man say last night, this war against terrorism will go on for 40 years, again, that`s a relief. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: dianavan Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:02 PM Teribus says, "The conflict is usually fought to a stalemate situation in which the insurgent side recognises that it is pointless to continue the armed struggle and opts for dialogue and political compromise." What does that say about Iraq? Are we winning or losing? After all these years and the many deaths of countless civilians, I'd say we are at a stalemate. I do not hear anything about the insurgents putting down their arms in hope of a compromise. How long do you think it will take to open the dialogue that should have taken place before the U.S. decided to go it alone? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: akenaton Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:14 PM Teribus is so full of shit!! He squirms and twists meanings "US is not losing the Iraq war, its just not winning the Iraq war" A couple of days ago he spent a lot of time trying to convince myself and others that there was no Iraq War at all!! What happened to that book of facts Teribus, you seem in a bit of a muddle without it. Were in the shit up to our necks, and if you want my opinion, we wont be looking for PEACE any time soon. Were just about ready to jettison all pretence of democracy freedom and International law and make a grab for what we wanted in the first place and were denied. Could be endgame for us all, just to save an economic system which divides enslaves and impoverishes 99% of the worlds population..Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: autolycus Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:27 PM I say 'a plague on everybody's house' because most people believe in violence as a solution whether it is war, corporal punishment, discipline, hanging, punishment, a smack round the mouth depressingly etc. etc. The rest is mostly debating the numbers of angels on the pinhead, by analogy. We have government of the damaged, by the damaged, for the damaged. And there's money for colonising the moon, with Mars the longer-term aim. To slightly vary the wise words of the comedian Rebecca Front, we'll arrive on another planet one day, and demand regime change the following day. On so on to our oblivion. And all because we are not prepared to face our individual selves. Oh, and just as a reminder, it was the West that a)armed Saddam in the first place and b) gave him the money to buy the beastly arms. Gives a fresh meaning to reaping what you sow. Lots of love Ivor |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:47 PM We tried to tell George that way back in 2002, but George didn't listen. He thought 9-11 gave him a blank check, so he took advantage of that to try to finish his daddy's war. His daddy was wise enough to quit when he was ahead, but Georgie wasn't. Now look at the mess we're in. How do we get out, doing the least amount of damage possible - and how much is it going to cost us? I told you so, George. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Big Phil Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:53 PM We should pull the Troops out now, let the Iraq's sort out the problem. Bush made a catastrophic error by invading in the first place. Time to admit He was wrong, swallow his pride and resign.... But he is like our own Clown Blair, living on another planet........ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: GUEST,petr Date: 06 Dec 06 - 04:48 PM the US pretty much started losing the war - the day they allowed all that looting of the hospitals, museums, and utilities. I think the Iraqis could form their own conclusions when they saw US soldiers guarding the OIL ministry , while the watersupply and filtration complex was destroyed. at first Rumsfeld argued there was no insurgency, then Cheney said almost 2years ago that the insurgency was in its 'final throes' now they are debating whether or not there is a civil war, and whether they are losing. Semantics aside, the situation is long out of their hands. according to Peter Galbraith who's spent a lot of time there it will break up into at least 2if not 3 regions. Kurdistan is defacto independent since 91 and the Kurds will not disband the peshmerga who are currently the strongest and disciplined army in Iraq. WHether the rest breaks up into Sunni and SHia regions remains to be seen, however its ridiculous to hear how Bush will talk tough with Maliki, because the Iraqi govt really has no power over the different factions. The SCIRI party(supreme council for Islamic Republic in Iraq) and Moqtada Sadrs Mahdi army militia (both Pro-Iranian and heavily financed by Iran) are not likely to disband or give up any advantages they have. The IRaqi army whatever there is exists mostly on paper. (When the govt. called for an audit, one third of the payroll was refunded since 1/3 of the army didnt exist) Never mind that Shiites will not serve under Sunni officers or vice versa. Currently there is very little security, while Americans stay in heavily fortified bases and international visitors only venture out with a small army, Baghdad is the most dangerous city in the world. Daily there are dozens of bodies of young men turning up- tortured with power drills and executed. (LAst february there were 20young men found together with their id cards on their chest - all murdered because their name was Omar- a reference to some leader in the past) The educated and professional class is leaving Iraq in droves. THe US couldnt provide security with a 150,000 troops its hardly likely they can provide security while talking about withdrawing. Although they should move to a base in Kurdistan which is very pro-western and they request a US base. WHile the Sunni insurgency has no chance of winning it, to provide security in Baghdad and the Sunni triangle would require far more troops than the US has there now. Its time the US give up on trying to keep Iraq together, it was never a 'stable country', and dont make the same mistake like Europe and the US did trying to keep Yugoslavia together. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Donuel Date: 06 Dec 06 - 04:52 PM Today george bush looked old when speaking of the Iraq Baker report. It was as if he finally understood what eveyone else in the world has understod for many years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:05 PM Well, it sure would be a bitter pill for him to swallow, wouldn't it? I doubt that anyone can sort it out except the Iraqis themselves, and whether they can or not remains to be seen. They'll get their chance when the Americans and British leave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: Donuel Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:05 PM The Exodus from Iraq is 100,000 to 250,000 a month now. The country (formally Babylon) is now permanently destroyed, looted, ransacked and devoid of its enlightend citizens. What is the minimum punishment for those who not only let this happen but made this happen? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq... From: ard mhacha Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:15 PM There are only two people on the planet that believes Bush`s road to disaster in Iraq was a great achievement, Teribus and the Pres, the long-winded know all, still persists, even after the US now admits to the invasion being a complete wipe-out. Teribus you were so wrong, it is now an embarrassment, bye bye. |
