BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 05:46 AM

Arne,

Science 20 October 2006:
Vol. 314. no. 5798, pp. 396 - 397

you and Teribus seem to read in my posts what is not in there. I have said nothing yet about which side I find more credible. (Though I must admit that the statement of the Iraq body count scientists made an impression on me. They are against the war in no unclear terms and at the same time criticise the Lancet people. That's a welcome change from right wing people always believing the lowest number of dead and left wing people always believing the hightest.)

My links simply refute the wrong statement by TIA: The figure has been publicly challenged, but not by scientists.
To this aim, whether these scientists are only two small groups or whether their arguments are convincing is completely irrelevant.
BTW, that a group of scientists whose methods are criticised say that the critique is wrong means nothing at all. One very rarely sees another reaction.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Dec 06 - 02:25 AM

Some previous questions of mine for you to answer first Ron:

1. You want the troops of the Multi National Force out of Iraq as soon as possible. Now taking into account that the vast majority of acts of violence being perpetrated in Iraq today are sectarian bombings, kidnappings and murders, does anybody think that reducing the forces of law and order would be beneficial at this point.

2. "Payback" is what the ARAB SUNNI minority fear, the prospect of it causes them to distrust the Iraqi Police and Iraqi Army. OK Ron, where does this collective concern come from? Could it possibly be "collective guilt" for past behaviour towards the majority of Iraqi citizens during the period 1979 and 2003?

3. Why is there no reconstruction work in the Arab Sunni Provinces Ron? Anything to do with a bunch of terrorists telling them that any work on any reconstruction project will be regarded as collaboration with the "enemy", and that the penalty for collaboration is death?

4. Who, or what is stopping young ARAB SUNNI men from applying for employment and positions in the new Iraqi Army and Police Force?

5. Who is it that is attacking and sabotaging the power grid and generation capacity of Iraq within those areas Ron? Shia or Sunni Kurds? - No. SHIA ARABS? - No. SUNNI ARABS? - YES

6. Who is it that is attacking and sabotaging water supplies in these provinces Ron? Shia or Sunni Kurds? - No. SHIA ARABS? - No. SUNNI ARABS? - YES

7. Considering your contention that the ARAB SUNNI population simply want electricity and running water, etc. Are the bulk of the SUNNI ARAB population in these provinces doing anything about the attacks on the people of Iraq and their essential services? Are they behind the forces of law and order trying to stop these attacks? Or are they actively or passively assisting those carrying-out those attacks?

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 11:44 PM

Teribus--

If you do make a distinction between ordinary Sunnis and hardcore Baathists, this is a change. I can cite you chapter and verse from your own postings--so don't try to allege that you have not not lumped all Sunnis together as equivalent to hardline Nazis in 1945.

But you're making progress towards sense, anyway.

Now, how about that CLEAR statement rejecting "payback"-- though "payback" is your most recent favorite buzzword?

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 12:24 PM

Ron, let's just stick to the situation we are discussing, no need to transpose things to other places and othr times.

What I have said is perfectly clear - the Arab Sunni's have to catch up to the political process and get involved, they have to renounce support for the insurgents, they have to demonstrate that they are Iraqi's first and Arab Sunni's second.

By the way Ron I do make the distinction between Arab Sunni's and others of the Sunni faith in Iraq as it has generally been the Arab Sunni's who:
- were given preferential treatment during the reign of Saddam Hussein.
- made up the numbers of The Republican Guard.
- made up the numbers of The Special Republican Guard.
- made up the numbers of The Feydaheen Saddam.
- have given material support to the insurrection
- have given material suport to Ba'athist hardline elements

Elsewhere in Iraq those of the Sunni and Shia faiths seem to living together quite peacefully. Only in the Sunni triangle does there seem to be any great problem. It is entirely down to what the people who live there choose to do, back the government and get onboard politically, or continue to support the insurgency, either way the have to accept the consequences that go with their choice.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 07:30 AM

Teribus--


If you claim to actually be aware that the Iraq situation is at bottom political, let's have a CLEAR statement from you REJECTING your recent favorite buzzword "payback". Otherwise I'll have to say you're trying desperately to straddle the fence. Must be a bit painful.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 07:22 AM

Ah yes, another point for you to ponder.

"Payback"--which you again seem to be endorsing--so much for your edging into civilized behavior--appears to have been a feint--is not in fact what Sunnis in general fear.

Why?--since it's a misnomer. Most Sunnis did not participate in Saddam's torture and killing of political opponents. So there is no ""payback" in which they should be involved.   But despite this they are being targeted by the Shiite militias, inside and outside the police--and sometimes their own neighbors.

If you look for a parallel try this: Most whites in the US did not participate in the lynching of blacks. Yet according to your analogy, it would be perfectly understandable for whites to be killed by blacks--and the only solution would be for whites to flee. Or if you want a closer analogy, perhaps the end of apartheid in South Africa.

According to you, when the black majority took over, it would be perfectly understandable for black policemen to torture and kill whites--after all, some blacks had suffered that under apartheid. Instead of that, there was a real attempt at reconcilation---very imperfect, but the process in South Africa is still going on.

One major difference in the South Africa situation--after the fall of apartheid, whites could still trust the police. This is absolutely essential.

It appears you've never heard of the old saw "An eye for an eye--and soon everybody is blind".

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: GUEST,Ramsey
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 06:53 AM

Five hundred to one thousand people die each year in the United States from aspirin, usually from internal bleeding.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: GUEST,UP AP AND THE BEANO.
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 05:28 AM

Big news, Bush has posponed his address to the nation, his excuse is he hasn`t it prepared yet, so far he has go to, my fellow citizens, we are now much closer to winning the war in Iraq, eh, er, er,.
Will leave that until the new year.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Dec 06 - 03:28 AM

Ron Davies - Point 1:
Ron Davies - 12 Dec 06 - 11:36 PM

"Uh, Teribus--will you ever start reading your own questions? Even when you provide your own answers, you don't seem to notice.

But just to pick one question of yours that actually makes sense--a major step forward: Why aren't young Sunnis signing up for the Iraqi army or police? As you noted yourself, even trying to do so would be very dangerous. Do you by some chance recall the attacks on young men lining up for such jobs?"

In ALL reports of such attacks on Police or Army recruitment centres Ron the attacks were carried out by insurgent groups - SUNNI ARABS.

From the same post:

"You are falling into the old military trap (being one of the old military, it's not surprising)--you think every problem can be solved by military means."

Just demonstrates your propensity to read what you want to read - In actual fact I have stated exactly the opposite on many occasions - Ron you really should work on your english comprehension skills.

Of course at bottom it has to be a political solution, and one in which the USA has no say. The Arab Sunni's, or more correctly those "leaders" who instruct the Arab Sunni's in what to say and think, decided very early on to have no part in the emergent political process. Those same people now complain that they have been left behind - their choice then, it's their choice now, what they have to do is catch up, what they have to do is actively engage. They cannot do that, Ron, with any degree of credibility if they are going to talks during the day and making bombs for insurgents and sheltering them and their activities by night. It is one of those things where a decision has to be made, same thing happened in Ireland, where Bertie Ahern stated that Sinn Fein would never form any part of government while the IRA remained under arms, because you cannot have anyone engaged in a democractic process who maintains a private army. What they are doing at the moment is they have issued a list of what the Government must do to get them to the table - That Ron is blackmail, and no Government should submit to it.

They want employment in the Arab Sunni provinces of Iraq? Then they should turn their backs on the insurgents. Last bomb went off in the Kurdish area of Iraq which is mixed (Both Sunni and Shia) two years ago - Erbil is now a tourist destination, there is no shortage of jobs in either the Kurdish North of the country or in the predominantly Shia South - Only in the Arab Sunni Provinces where the insurgency has it's base.

As far as I am aware activities relating to purging the Iraqi Police Force and Army of Shia Militia members is already underway. Has it been completed? no these things take time, but it is incorrect to say that the problem has not been recognised and that nothing is being done about it.

As for the revenue from Iraq's natural resources, the deal struck meant that the Arab Sunni provinces got whatever share of the oil revenue that they received before (the bulk of Iraq's oil coming from existing fields). New fields and exploration would be subject to a different division of revenue as the "Federal Areas" would take a share in the costs of exploration and development in partnership with the oil companies. All of that can be up for negotiation at a later date, at the moment that is not a priority, nor should it be. What the "leaders" of the Arab Sunni minority need to hoist onboard and quickly as possible is that if they do not engage in the political process (difficult as it is for those "leaders" as it will involve a bit of a U-turn with subsequent "loss of face") they will be left astern, with no other hope save their doomed insurrection, which in the ensuing "civil war" will be crushed. It is entirely their decision and they must accept the consequences of whatever it is they decide.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 11:44 PM

Teribus--

One more thing--no matter what you say--and it's fascinating how after a full year, you still have no sensible counter-argument--the 2 issues I have been noting MUST be addressed:

Sunnis must:

1) be able to trust the police--which means purging it of Shiite militias

2) be guaranteed more oil revenue than would accrue to them from just the "Sunni areas" of Iraq. Perhaps you might want to do some reading on the federalism plans now being discussed in the Iraq parliament--plans which are precisely the reason for Sunnis' concern on this score.

Who knows, if you start reading, you might learn something.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 11:36 PM

Uh, Teribus--will you ever start reading your own questions? Even when you provide your own answers, you don't seem to notice.

Don't have much time now. But just to pick one question of yours that actually makes sense--a major step forward: Why aren't young Sunnis signing up for the Iraqi army or police? As you noted yourself, even trying to do so would be very dangerous. Do you by some chance recall the attacks on young men lining up for such jobs? It shouldn't take you long to find such references. And just think, if you wait a little while, it may well happen again.

You are falling into the old military trap (being one of the old military, it's not surprising)--you think every problem can be solved by military means.

It should be obvious to anybody with a modicum of sense--might that possibly include you?--that the Iraq situation is at bottom a political question. As long as the political issues are not settled, it won't make any difference how big the Iraq army or police is. At this point, Sunnis in general want no part of either. As much as it annoys you- it really breaks my heart to tell you--for the n th time---I wonder how many more times it will take until you start to understand--- Iraq will have to take Sunnis' interests into account.

In fact, it appears the US military may finally be realizing what it will take you a few more centuries to grasp---that actually one of the best counterinsurgency techniques in Iraq would be to provide civilian employment. The army is now trying to convince US firms to set up shop in abandoned or underused facilities. With unemployment at 70% in some areas, and breadwinners responsible for up to 15 dependents, some heads of household are taking insurgents' money to set up bombs, etc. As well as being so discouraged and infuriated as to strike out against anybody.

Both of which could be addressed by employment.

And not by your favorite solution--a bigger military and police.

So sorry--but maybe you'll realize this eventually.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 02:56 PM

Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 10:08 AM

OK Ron let's recap shall we?

On any specific points please tell me where I am wrong:

Ron Davies - wants the troops of the Multi National Force out of Iraq as soon as possible.

Teribus - wants the troops of the Multi National Force to remain inplace until such time as the Government of Iraq asks them to leave or they are ordered to leave when their UN Mandate expires.

Now taking into account that the vast majority of acts of violence being perpetrated in Iraq today are sectarian bombings, kidnappings and murders, does anybody think that reducing the forces of law and order would be beneficial at this point.

When was the last time anybody heard anything about Al-Queda-in-Iraq? When was the last notable insurgent strike against "the-forces-of-the-oppressor"?

Ron Davies - Gravely concerned about the ARAB SUNNI minority, who in general are currently backing the insurgents, albeit in various degrees in terms of active support, passive support or in mainting a sort of strict neutrality. Ron's concerns are centred on how this ARAB SUNNI minority might be treated by the newly elected Iraq Government operating under the terms of the new Iraqi Constitution.

Teribus - Not concerned about the ARAB SUNNI minority in the slightest. They have exactly the same rights under law as any other Iraqi citizen. Teribus believes that it is up to the ARAB SUNNI minority to demonstrate to the entire population of Iraq that they actually want to live peacefully as Iraqi citizens. For them to do this they have to abandon ALL support for the insurrection, they must provide the forces of law and order with ALL necessary assistance in order to establish rule of law and order in their country.

"Payback" is what the ARAB SUNNI minority fear, the prospect of it causes them to distrust the Iraqi Police and Iraqi Army. OK Ron, where does this collective concern come from? Could it possibly be "collective guilt" for past behaviour towards the majority of Iraqi citizens during the period 1979 and 2003? Unfortunately in looking at this Ron employs his American mindset and outlook to the problem. So "most" ARAB SUNNI's had nothing to do with the excesses of Saddam's regime, Ron, don't look to the ARAB SUNNI man in the street to jump up and proclaim that. The ARAB SUNNI man in the street does not even have an opinion, or if he does he knows full well never to express it if it runs counter to what he was told to think and how he was told to behave the previous Friday at the Mosque. Because his local tribal chief, his local Sheik, his local Immam do his thinking for him. Politically the ARAB SUNNI minority are not a mass of individuals they are basically a flock of sheep, the same can be said for the ARAB SHIA, they will blindly do what one or two people tell them to do, irrespective of whether or not it happens to be in their best interests. This is true throughout the region.

Ron Davies - believes that their way forward is to carry on as they are doing and just sit back and demand rights and privileges, whilst blackmailing the country at large with insurrection and terrorist attacks. Ron's way supports their boycott of the political process and complete lack of political dialogue

Teribus - believes that their way forward is to actually take a step of faith in their new government. Get behind the forces of law and order. Actively engage in the political process.

All of this is demonstrated in one of Ron's posts:

"You want Sunnis to provide proof that they are willing to live in Iraq with the same rights as others. I submit that most already do so-- and would only like to have jobs, electricity, running water etc.-- the same desires as other Iraqis. However the Sunnis would also like to not be arrested or killed for having a Sunni name."

Now have a good read of that.

With regard to JOBS:
Plenty of jobs in Kurdish areas, well paid jobs too. People from Anbar and Sallahadin Provinces go there to find work. Why is there no reconstruction work in their own Provinces Ron? Anything to do with a bunch of terrorists telling them that any work on any reconstruction project will be regarded as collaboration with the "enemy", and that the penalty for collaboration is death? Don't they need Policemen and Army Recruits from those Provinces Ron? Surely the ARAB SUNNI minority would trust their own kind wouldn't they Ron? Who, or what is stopping young ARAB SUNNI men from applying for those positions?

With regard to ELECTRICITY, RUNNING WATER, ETC:
Who is it that is attacking and sabotaging the power grid and generation capacity of Iraq within those areas Ron? Shia or Sunni Kurds? - No. SHIA ARABS? - No. SUNNI ARABS? - YES

Who is it that is attacking and sabotaging water supplies in these provinces Ron? Shia or Sunni Kurds? - No. SHIA ARABS? - No. SUNNI ARABS? - YES

Are the bulk of the SUNNI ARAB population in these provinces doing anything about that considering Ron's contention that they want electricity and running water, etc - NO.

"However the ....... (Insert name of whatever ethnic/religious sect) would also like to not be arrested or killed for having a .......(Insert name of whatever point of distinction that identifies anyone as belonging to that ethnic/religious sect)" The bulk of the violence in Iraq today is sectarian both and is largely restricted to the ARAB population both SUNNI and SHIA, both sides have their concerns that I am sure they can fully justify, but somebody somewhere along the line has to take that first leap of faith, in today's Iraq that has to be the SUNNI ARAB section of the population.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 07:54 AM

"chastised"

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 07:22 AM

"enthusiastically"

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Dec 06 - 12:09 AM

Teribus--

So, you finally admit that not all Sunnis are latter-day Nazis--some are vicious criminals, but most are ordinary humans. Thanks so much. Does this also mean that your "payback" which you so enthusistically endorsed recently, is not in fact the best idea? Again, a big concession to civilized behavior on your part--do you really think your masculine self-image can take it? But it sounds like there may be hope for you yet.

One more thing--you seem to live on false dichotomies and red herrings--(what a diet!).
You want Sunnis to provide proof that they are willing to live in Iraq with the same rights as others. I submit that most already do so-- and would only like to have jobs, electricity, running water etc.-- the same desires as other Iraqis. However the Sunnis would also like to not be arrested or killed for having a Sunni name.

Now are you willing to admit that Shiite religious militias should be purged from the Iraq police? Keep in mind this may impair your "payback". Can you live with that?

So sorry it has bothered you so long that I support minority rights (for Sunnis, in this case)--you certainly have chastized me for this heinous crime enough in the past year.

As I said, it's called S E N S E. And F A I R N E S S. Still foreign concepts to you evidently. But maybe in capital letters you might begin to understand.

And maybe--in a few eons--make them part of your own approach.

We can always hope.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 10:48 AM

Wrong Teribus. They would see similarities between what they fought against and what the US does now.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 10:44 AM

"If the US founders were to see the US (government) today. They would say thier principles were already lost."

Damn right they would!!! The first thing that those Founders, who scribed all that high moral stuff about equality and freedom", would notice is the fact that their slaves had been freed.

Agreed Ron Davies the concepts of "Truth and Justice" are completely foreign to most Arab States, particulary Iran, where both are dictated to the entire population by 12 Old Gits who occasionally gather together and agree as to what exactly constitutes "Truth and Justice" for that particular week.

"Your "payback" will result in permanent civil war--or total ethnic cleansing. Both obviously fine with you."

It might, it might not. Oh and remember Ron I am one of those wishing that the MNF troops stay to complete their task in both Iraq and in Afghanistan. You on the other hand are part of the crowd who would like nothing better than to see the MNF withdrawn in ignominy, all just to shout at Bush - "We told you so" - that is what it is all about for most on this forum - Please do not for one minute attempt to portray yourself as a person who gives a toss for the people of Iraq or the middle-east region as a whole - you don't, it's all about getting Bush.

Now as you want the troops withdrawn, and you don't think that the Iraqi Army is up to much. You believe that civil war, with it's almost inevitable period of ethnic cleansing would be the choice of the people living in Iraq? Well they were given the opportunity of living peacefully and chose different - their affair, not ours right? After all you don't want to do anything about it, so let'em get on with it, not worth the life of a single MNF soldier. I do not for one minute believe that it would be permanent - The French, Russians and Chinese would step in to protect their investments. The Sunni's of Anbar and Salahadin Provinces might have a bit of a shock, the Russians could show the Residents of Fallujah, Samarra and Ramadi television coverage of what they did to Grozny. It would be most enlightening for them.

I agree Ron it is a reasonable requirement that Sunnis should be able to trust the police. And it's about high time that the bulk of the residents of the predominatly Sunni Arab Provinces started getting behind the forces of law and order. Their choice entirely, support the insurgents and take the consequences, or provide proof positive that you are prepared to live peacefully in Iraq with exactly the same rights as anybody else.

"Some Sunnis are the equivalent of hardcore Nazis in 1945. Most are not." Then it is high time that those who are not started acting like Iraqi's first instead Arab Sunni's first Iraqi's second.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Ebbie
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 01:04 AM

The image I'm getting is of a purple-faced kid with a stick, swinging widely, weeping, his eyes tight shut.

On the other hand, that is just about the image I'm getting of Bush too. Does that mean that the T is in good company?

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Dec 06 - 12:36 AM

Teribus--


"Truth and Justice"---spelled S E N S E. Too bad it's a foreign concept for you.

Your "payback" will result in permanent civil war--or total ethnic cleansing. Both obviously fine with you.

Despite what you may think, it is a reasonable requirement that Sunnis should be able to trust the police. And they can't now.

Some Sunnis are the equivalent of hardcore Nazis in 1945. Most are not. When will you get that into your giant brain?

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 11:46 PM

Teribus. If the US founders were to see the US (government) today. They would say thier principles were already lost.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 11:42 PM

I do not call the failure of an unjustified, illegal war of aggression "abandonment of hope". I call it a just and well-deserved conclusion.

Of course, Hitler abandoned hope finally, didn't he? But that was a just and well-deserved conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 11:33 PM

You are absolutely right Ron Davies, and the rest of you who subscibe to the inevitability of abandoned hope.

Demographically Iraq is composed of 26 million people of whom Shi'as make up 60%-65% and the Sunni's, that Ron Davies is so concerned about make up 32%-37%.

So let's follow the general concensus of this forum:

- US and MNF forces must pull out immediately

- Accept that Iraq will descend into civil war

- Insurgency problem will dissappear because by and large so will a very large proportion of the Sunni population of Iraq ( Hey Ron it's an absolute bastard when for the last 24 years you have been top dog and all of a sudden you have to descend to being content with the level of equality - But what the fuck it's called pay-back, richly deserved for tacitally supporting an insurrection that targets innocent supposedly fellow citizens - don't tell me Ron that you don't believe in cause and effect)

- Possibility that Iraq will disintegrate into two separate states one Kurdish and one Arabic Shia state. I have no problem with that, have you Ron? After all you left-wing, anti-war, anti-bush. anti-Blair types have been droning on about the borders of Iraq being artificially drawn by those evil bastard Brits for ages - this would seem a perfect time to put matters to rights - Perfect. At least in the future we will know who to fight and know that they have defined the boundaries. It also gives us a chance to eliminate the Turks from EU membership as we would probably have to fix their wagon when they attempt to have a go at the newly emergent Kurdistan, Iran might be involved in this stramash as well, but what the hell the more the merrier.

Now let's have a look at the good ol' US of A:

- Osama is still your enemy, he can appear in some form or other and publically declare to the world that he has defeated the major super-power in the world and that his intention is still aimed at destroying you.

- All future attacks will now take place within the United States of America, because your government and your military have got absolutely no credibility outside your own borders, having shown your propensity to "cut and run" in any given situation, your on-the ground intelligence stream will just dry up, no matter because since the days of Peanut Farmer Jimmy Carter you have only believed in electronically gathered intelligence.

- Your government no longer has the confidence to send US troops abroad, and those troops themselves will not go on what they see as being a fools errand. After all why go abroad and risk being killed when all those back home do not believe we should there in the first place, far better to stay at home and let the enemy come to you, than at least you have the comfort of fighting shoulder to shoulder alongside such stawlart believers of truth and justice as Ron Davies, Arne "Viking" Langsetmo and the redoubtable Bobert - frightening prospect, why indeed should Islam tremble, Arne and Ron on their own could bore them to death.

- Of course this will result in another of the dearly held beliefs of those on this forum - the creation of a drafted armed force to defend the United States of America, only problem is they won't defend you even if all the action takes place on your own doorstep.

Yes, listening to most contributers to this forum maybe it is time you all curled up and accepted the inevitable - I don't for one second thing that you will relish, or enjoy the result. You all take great pride in the past achievements of The US - great pity that none of you are prepared to fight to actually maintain those rights and freedoms against a person who has singularly identified you, your freedoms and your way of life as his target.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 08:28 PM

Teribus--


The "Iraqi Police Forces" will solve civilians' problems?. Unless you happen to be Sunni.

But of course, according to you, a Sunni--any Sunni-- is the equivalent of a hardcore Nazi in 1945.

And as I said, your attitude, shared as it is by some prominent Shiite politicians, is what's responsible in large part for the worsening civil war.

Sunnis don't trust the "Iraqi Police Forces". For good reason.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 05:15 PM

Teribus obligingly and optimistically gave his "best guess".

My best guess is that the current elected Iraqi government will be overrun and disbanded.

You have no idea of what pain that expresses.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 04:17 PM

"by the end of January 2007 more than 50 % of the 18 regions that make up Iraq will be under sole control of the Iraqi Authorities including all police and security matters, which in comparison to Greece at the end of the Second World War means that Iraq is slightly ahead of schedule, by about a year"

Even if true, so what? Hows about compared to what we were told by our governments before and during the ilegal invasion. The people of Iraq were supposed to welcome us with open arms. It doesn't even matter if it all finshed here and now. "We" would still be years behind schedule.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 04:08 PM

Dianavan asks how we're doing, let's see by the end of January 2007 more than 50 % of the 18 regions that make up Iraq will be under sole control of the Iraqi Authorities including all police and security matters, which in comparison to Greece at the end of the Second World War means that Iraq is slightly ahead of schedule, by about a year. Probably by March next year Iraq's second largest city will be handed over to full Iraq Authority control. My best guess is that in the South the British will have withdrawn apart from training and support duties by summer 2007.
Teribus

T, have you noticed a curious discrepancy between what is forecast and what the situation is right now? It is easy to say that a month or two from now the Iraqis will be able to do thus and so. But the whipped up expectations wane somewhat when it is admitted that the count of those trained and ready to go is going DOWN, not up.

"The last bit of effective US military planning was WWII D-Day, and don't forget that the English refused to let 'the bloody Yanks' have total charge of that, you know... In the Pacific, the tactic was mostly just an inevitable "roll up the carpet with concentrating superior force on a weak spot".
Foolestroupe

FT, keep in mind that the "English" installed a US general as overall commander. Not as dismissive as you make it sound.

I've been listening assiduously the last few days to speeches and hearings and interviews with major players, both singly and in tandem. The attitude that comes across is absolutely amazing. Anyone who does not see that the US and 'coalition' believe that their 'cause' is lost is not paying attention.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Arne
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 11:57 AM

Teribus:

Akenaton, there is no "War" in Iraq, there is a duly elected Government and a duly mandated UN Force in Iraq both of whom are currently combating an insurgency, but there is no "War" civil or otherwise being fought in Iraq other than the ongoing war on terror. Terminology regarding the Senate hearings can be accredited to those participating in those hearings do not attribute them to me.

Tell that to the soldiers coming home. When those that still have all their legs left get done with you (and perhaps even those that don't, but they'd at least piss on you if you got close enough), let us know how many teeth you have left. 'Kay?

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Arne
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 11:44 AM

Wolfgang:

You mean you have not read the critique in SCIENCE? You have not read about the influence of "main street bias"?

Yeah, and I've heard the JH folks say that this claim of "main street bias" is bogus.

As for the "critique in Science", would that be a LTTE? Cite, please.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Arne
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 11:41 AM

Teribus:

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.

Except that it is same method used for casualty figures in the Congo and Darfur, which are accepted because they don't have the political implications of the Iraq numbers (see my link to discussions above).

This garbage about "the roughest of estimates" is just that. Statistical sampling is an "estimate" (in fact, that's what it's designed to be; if you wanted the actual number, you'd count everything and wouldn't sample ... be my guest, Teribus, go over and count 'em all). You can use various methods to reduce the uncertainty (narrow the "confidence interval"). Increasing sample size does that. If you do totally random sampling, you reduce it the most, but if that's not practical, you can reduce it by counting a "cluster" (as they did the the study) of houses physically adjacent.   This reduces variability, but you can account for that as well by looking at "within-group variance" and "between-groups variance" to estimate by how much the variance is reduced (and thus the effective sample size). This they did. It's a perfectly legitimate methodology, used in situations where the costs (and risks) of completely random sampling are too high (such as in war zones where your researchers are in danger of getting killed just to get your data). And it increases the sample size over just looking at the first home selected (albeit not as much as selecting the same number of houses completely at random).

IOW, you're just ignerrent of statistics ... and science, for that matter.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Arne
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 11:11 AM

Teribus:

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.
Ummm, no. They said the best estimate of the excess deaths that did occur is 600K or so. That is the mean, with a confidence interval of 426-793K (95%). So perhaps as many as three quarters of a million "may have died".

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Arne
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 11:05 AM

Wolfgang:

link to pdf of just one paper critical of the Lancet study

Webpage of one scientist critical of the Lancet study

So where's the rest? One scientist (or group of such) isn't "widely and totally discredited" as Teribus puts it.

The paper Wolfgang cites above is based on false assumptions, promarily that the sampling was biased towards main streets. The authors of the Lancet study have responded to this mischaracterisation of their study. See here for more discussion on this.

In addition, the critics, in their paper (which, AFAIK hasn't been peer-reviewed or published) make up their own numbers out of thin air, rather than actually measuring them, in pretending to show the amount of bias due to the non-existent 'bias towards main streets'.

Here's the Lancet paper. As they state, they selected region, town, neighbourhood, and then house using random numbers.

Wolfgang's web site reference is just a rehash of basically the same stuff as the paper cited, which, as I pointed out, itself has two major flaws (aside from apparently being unreviewed).

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 10:21 AM

Hello there Arne Langsetmo, my little Viking, nice to see you back.

From your question I take it that you have not looked at Wolfgangs posted information relating to the study that was published in the Lancet which stated that 500,000 Iraqi civilians MAY HAVE DIED.

I would advise you to go and read the links supplied by Wolfgang.

I take it that you would agree with me that something that says that, "500,000 Iraqi civilians MAY HAVE DIED", cannot be translated by any stretch of the imagination into, "500,000 Iraqi civilians HAVE DIED"

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Arne
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 09:56 AM

Teribus:

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?

"[W]idely and totally discredited"? Where? How so? Do tell.

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 09:52 AM

The situation in Iraq is far from simple, as Bobert would like us to believe.

Point 1: No one is currently "at war" in Iraq, be that civil war or otherwise, if there was a civil war in Iraq at the moment everybody and their dog would know about it - widespread large scale operations - extremely heavy casualty figures - clearly identifiable sides, those sides or factions having clearly stated aims. None of these are present in Iraq at the moment, there is no cvil war in Iraq.

Point 2: What you do have in parts of Iraq is an insurrection by a number of disparate, disaffected groups with widely varying agendas.

These groups can only be combatted by effective intelligence and with the help of the local communities in the areas that these insurgent groups operate in. It is far easier for Iraqi Army units to implement this, rather than MNF units. This is the tactic that is increasingly being used. The other means of combatting these groups is by education, you show the people in the conflict areas how people in the more peaceful parts of the country are progressing - give them something to compare their situation with along with the message get rid of the insurgents and your lives will improve dramatically.

Point 3: What you have in parts of Iraq is sectarian violence and out-and-out criminality (7 out of 10 kidnappings in Iraq are criminal aimed at obtaining ransom).

This can only be countered by the Iraqi Police Forces because you are dealing with the crimes of murder, kidnapping, extortion, etc. Remember Saddam emptying all the prisons just prior to the invasion (He didn't let his political prisoners go though - He had all of those executed).

Now MNF troops can train and provide as much support and technology as required but it will be the Iraqi troops and policemen that will deliver the goods. They will not do that unless the firmly voiced commitment to stand alongside them is given time, after time, after time. You have got to realise that this will take a long, long time, unacceptable and unpalatable as this may be to the left-wing, anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-Blair camp who tend to have the attention spans of goldfish - Oh and Bobert if you check you will find that that is what I have always said.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Bobert
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 08:25 AM

I half way agree with you, T-Bird, that trainin' Iraqis probably won't increase the attacks against Americans but it sho nuff will increase attacks against their fellow countrymen in what has become a civil war...

That is why I have repeatedly come down hard on this approach as component of of any possible action that the US/UK should consider in Iraqmire... They don't need more folks with military training... They have enough allready...

I mean, lets get real here... Iraq has fallen into civil war, just as I and many other Catters predicted would occur during the lead up to the invasion... Training and/or equiping one side or the other right now is like pouring gasoline on a fire... But given Bush's history of making very bad and grave decisions that have backfired he probably will keep his streak alive and endorse this very stupid idea...

BTW, in endorseing it, guess who wins???

(Clue: Eisenhower's farewell speech...)

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Dec 06 - 05:46 AM

This thread would benefit from people talking about one issue at a time - namely the one at hand. The whys and wherefores Russia and America got into ww2 are not germane.

I only said that our war effort was greatly aided by a lot of Russians putting their lives on the line, which I think is fairly undeniable. The guest with a number that sounds like an airfix kit opined that a blood sacrifice of drafted soldiers would be a way - albeit totally unacceptable - to wage this present ongoing war.

I think you would be surprised who would fight for your country. My father fought and he had known little except starvation and bad treatment in the 1920's and 1930's. The Oxford Students who said in debate that they would not fight for their country all did. I used to teach in the inner cities of Nottingham, Derby and Birmingham. I have heard the people (young men) who have recntly emigrated into our country say quite without any prompting they would gladly fight for England. This is in some schools where the National Front arseholes have been picketting outside giving out hate literature to the white kids. You see, the recent immigrants appreciate the freedoms that our country offers them more than people who are used to them.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 07:25 PM

OK 282AR start your draft to fail and face defeat in Iraq, but done to save US "face", start it on Monday - How many hundreds of thousands of people turn up? Where do you send them? Where do they report to? Who trains them? Who decides what specialisations they are trained in? Conscripts = Cannon Fodder in modern warfare they are completely fuckin' useless.

They are more motivated because they want to get home quick, you have got to be kidding right? Quickest way home is to drop your weapon and run like fuck at the first opportunity. Oldtime motto of the US armed forces in the Vietnam era when up against it - "Let's get the fuck out of here" - The Australians in Vietnam would rather be surrounded by Viet Cong than supported by US Conscript Troops - That is a measure of how good your draftees would be. Your conscript troops got their arses kicked and were totally defeated in Vietnam and the same would happen to them in Iraq, now tell me that wasn't the case, and tell me why you think your daftees would do better in Iraq.

When it comes to gathering intelligence information on your enemy in a counter-insurgency situation the "local element" is essential. Now America has never faced this sort of enemy before, and at present you are not doing very well, you do not have a clue how to win the local populace over to your side, but the locally recruited volunteers of the new Iraqi Army does. Believe me 282AR the average Iraqi civilian would sooner talk to one of his own than to any body-armour bedecked US Army or Marine Corps squaddie armed to the teeth enclosed in his Humvee, kitted out in Kevlar Helmet and sunglasses. Your comment - "who cares about subhuman towleheads, right, Teribus?" are YOUR WORDS NOT MINE - I would NEVER subscribe to such a view, and I would very much doubt if any serving member of HM Forces would either.

Your comment - "By training them, we are teaching them how to beat Americans. That is extremely stupid. We have to get our troops oout of there BEFORE we train them or they will use our own tactics against us." Has got to be the most ludicrous thing I have EVER read. Are you really that idiotic "We have to get our own troops out before we train them" - utterly fuckin' ridiculous, your statement makes no sense at all.

Believe me if attacked on US soil again, if left to most people on this forum you would roll over and surrender.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Cruiser
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 04:53 PM

Q stated:

"Democracy has to evolve, not be imposed at gun point on cultures used to different ways."

That one statement is worth a billon other statements regarding war. Reflection on such profundities could have saved countless numbers of lives, destruction, and misery throughout history if democracies that profess democratic doctrine would have considered such statements before imposing their views through aggression.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 04:27 PM

Well, if a proposed draft tears the country apart, that says all we need to know about whether the country at large really wants to fight this war.

As I said earlier, so far the sacrifice the country at large has been asked to make to fight the war is to---go shopping, so the economy doesn't falter.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 12:39 PM

No point arguing about conscripting young Americans into the army would make it possible to carry ion the warin Iraq to some kind of victory.

It won't happen.

Assume that it is true that a massive increase in the size of the occupation army would succeed over a number of years in bringing about a regime in power in Iraq that wouldn't collapse as soon as the troops were pulled out.

Even assunming that, the impact on America at home rules it out. It'd tear the country to pieces. It'd be the anti-war movement from the Sixties, but multiplied many times over. No politician is going to risk it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 10:43 AM

I understand full well you are saying. Your use of the verb 'let' betrays your argument. If Stalin had not participated in the Russo-German non-aggression pact, Hitler probably would not have attacked west. In that sense, for 2 years Stalin 'let' the west fight Nazis.
And you're correct, Stalin did not write the lies I read...he wrote the lies the Russians read.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 10:34 AM

>>I asked how long he thought it would take to put his draftee's into the frontline - He didn't respond, but later states that it would take at least five years to make units of the new Iraqi Army combat effective.<<

That isn't what I said at all. Go back and read it. You won't, of course, but you should.

>>He's wrong of course, the new Iraqi Army and Police Force are currently responsible for about 50% of Iraqi Territory, and in most counter-insurgency operations taking place in Iraq today the new Iraqi Army lead, they are the ones that are receiving the information from Iraqi civilians.<<

And what a grand job they're doing. Maybe you didn't notice but last month was THE DEADLIEST month for Iraqi deaths since this war started. But, of course, you ignore that because it doesn't fit your delusional world-view. Besides, who cares about subhuman towleheads, right, Teribus? It's only fucking Americans that matter--just like always.

>>Now the new US draft programme that 282AR believes is the US's only chance:
- Currently no infrastructure exists to implement this draft and train the draftees and it would take time to set it up.<<

So if we're attacked on U.S. soil again, we'll just surrender because--gee whiz--we can't start the draft up now. That would be too much trouble. And you know what? That probably is what would happen.

By your "logic" we shouldn't accept any new people into the military because it takes too much time and money to train them.

>>- How well motivated will these draftees be, compared to someone who volunteers to serve knowing full well that the likelyhood is that he will be sent to a combat zone?<<

He'll be extremely motivated because he wants to come home. Professional soldiers don't. That's why so many of them get wounded and still want to go back. They have nothing else.

>>- Do the same as you did in Vietnam? Just run these draftees through boot camp (once you have them organised) and ship'em out? In Iraq or Afghanistan they would die in droves, this, of course, would further improve their morale and motivation?<<

It's what's happening now but at least we won't be running the same guys out there 3 or 4 times until they finally get killed.

>>282AR says - "So to me, we either get out and get out now or we stay and fight but we MUST have fresh, well-trained, well-armed troops and we're not going to get them from among the Iraqis."

If he really believes that the new draftees could be considered as fresh, well-trained, well-armed troops, he is deluding himself - They would be what every conscripted force in history has been - pure cannon-fodder. The only source of the troops that he says are required are from the population of Iraq, it is after all their country, and they are more likely to win the active co-operation of the civilian population than any drafted US Force.<<

They are NOT trustworthy and everybody with a brain knows it, which is why you don't know it. They are tied to militias and sects and most of them hate us. By training them, we are teaching them how to beat Americans. That is extremely stupid. We have to get our troops oout of there BEFORE we train them or they will use our own tactics against us. But if we leave right now, you know damned well what will happen. And your boy Bush won't do it because the blame will go on him--where it belongs.

>>Guest 282AR believes that the US will not only lose the "war in Iraq" but he believes that they are incapable of winning the "war in Iraq". This as WLD has pointed out is simply not the case.<<

We're not losing. We have already lost. There is no chance we can bounce back now--not without a massive influx of new troops and that's not going to happen until it is far too late to matter.

>>If the US Forces currently serving in Iraq were at war they could crush the opposition within 30 days, loss of life amongst the insurgents/militia's/etc and the civilian population would be horrendous. However the fact of the matter is that the US Forces currently serving in Iraq are NOT on a war footing, but make absolutely no mistake whatsoever the military power of the US could very easily conquer Iraq, it would be both counter-productive, highly undesireable and the consequences of following such a course of action would be wide reachingly negative, but it could be done.<<

This rant of your is SO utterly ridiculous that it disproves itself.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Black Beauty
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 10:31 AM

Boys boys this is getting nasty. Can we not just agree that American aggression is the problem and some have trouble accepting it.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 10:17 AM

>>Don't be disingenuous, 282A. You said, "...when times got tough...we sent the Russians to die battling Hitler so we wouldn't have to."
That is not a factual statement. What part of Hitler attacked his Soviet ally don't you understand?<<

What part of "we let the Russians die fighting Hitler so we wouldn't have to" don't you understand?

>>The Allies fought Hitler in Western Europe and Africa; the USSR fought in the east, a sensible logistical decision forced on all parties. Using your logic, I could say that Stalin sent England and the Allies to fight in the west so he wouldn't have to.<<

But in the end, it wasn't Stalin writing the lies you read in school about the great USA beating up all the bad guys was it? We ended up with all the power. Now how do you think we managed that and Russia got nothing for all their sacrifices? Because Russia wasn't in a position to manipulate anyone. WE did the manipulating and we're still doing it. The enemy was us all along, wasn't it? Don't be disingenuous, pal, look at Iraq and tell me with a straight face who the enemy of the world really is.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 07:23 AM

So Guest 282AR believes that the Draft will save the face of the US in Iraq.

OK let's take a look at 282AR's Drafted Troops shall we?

I asked how long he thought it would take to put his draftee's into the frontline - He didn't respond, but later states that it would take at least five years to make units of the new Iraqi Army combat effective. He's wrong of course, the new Iraqi Army and Police Force are currently responsible for about 50% of Iraqi Territory, and in most counter-insurgency operations taking place in Iraq today the new Iraqi Army lead, they are the ones that are receiving the information from Iraqi civilians.

Now the new US draft programme that 282AR believes is the US's only chance:
- Currently no infrastructure exists to implement this draft and train the draftees and it would take time to set it up.
- How well motivated will these draftees be, compared to someone who volunteers to serve knowing full well that the likelyhood is that he will be sent to a combat zone?
- Do the same as you did in Vietnam? Just run these draftees through boot camp (once you have them organised) and ship'em out? In Iraq or Afghanistan they would die in droves, this, of course, would further improve their morale and motivation?

282AR says - "So to me, we either get out and get out now or we stay and fight but we MUST have fresh, well-trained, well-armed troops and we're not going to get them from among the Iraqis."

If he really believes that the new draftees could be considered as fresh, well-trained, well-armed troops, he is deluding himself - They would be what every conscripted force in history has been - pure cannon-fodder. The only source of the troops that he says are required are from the population of Iraq, it is after all their country, and they are more likely to win the active co-operation of the civilian population than any drafted US Force.

Guest 282AR believes that the US will not only lose the "war in Iraq" but he believes that they are incapable of winning the "war in Iraq". This as WLD has pointed out is simply not the case. If the US Forces currently serving in Iraq were at war they could crush the opposition within 30 days, loss of life amongst the insurgents/militia's/etc and the civilian population would be horrendous. However the fact of the matter is that the US Forces currently serving in Iraq are NOT on a war footing, but make absolutely no mistake whatsoever the military power of the US could very easily conquer Iraq, it would be both counter-productive, highly undesireable and the consequences of following such a course of action would be wide reachingly negative, but it could be done.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 06:45 AM

Foolestroupe - 08 Dec 06 - 06:13 AM

"The British with their professional Army succeeded in both Malaysia and Borneo."

Sorry, I musta grown up on a different planet...

OK then Foolestroupe - The "War of the Running Dogs" 1947 to 1964, a Communist backed insurrection that attempted to exploit the grievances of the Chinese-Malay community against the majority indigenous Bumiputra Malays. So on the planet you inhabit the Chinese-Malay insurgents won did they Foolestroupe? On the planet I inhabit Foolestroupe they didn't.

Tell me Foolestroupe in what was known as the Borneo Confrontation which ran from 1964 to 1968 when Dr. Sukarno, President of Indonesia, decided that he was going to take over the Eastern Malayan provinces of Sarawak and Sabah plus the Kindom of Brunei. The UK responded to a request from the Malaysian Government for assistance under the terms of the bi-lateral defence treaty between the UK and Malaysia - That treaty still stands good to date. Tell me how many Indonesian insurgents made it from the border to the coast? Tell me how many successful insurgent attacks were carried out? Both questions are rhetorical Foolestroupe answer to both questions is NONE - what happens to be your criteria for successful defence on the planet you inhabit Foolestroupe? Tell me Foolestroupe do the provinces of Eastern Malaysia exist today as part of the Federation of Malaysia or are they part of Indonesia? Does Brunei exist as an independent Sovereign Nation or is it part of Indonesia?

Paul from Hull - 08 Dec 06 - 11:12 AM

Teribus,...."...a considerable number of the British troops deployed in the 'Malayan Emergency' were National Servicemen. I think we have therefore to look elsewhere for the reasons for the title of this thread."

You are partially correct in what you say above Paul, British National Servicemen did serve in Malaya up to 1956/57, when National Service ended in the UK, from that point onward all operations were conducted by Britain's professional armed forces.

"Currently in Afghanistan while BBC repeatedly reports that the number of deaths in Helmand Province have rocketted since the British took over, they somehow fail to mention that the vast bulk of those killed are Taleban fighters..."

While I can believe the above, do you have a source for it?

"BBC

There has been a four-fold rise this year in the number of people killed in the conflict in Afghanistan, according to a report on the insurgency.

It suggests that more than 3,700 people have died so far this year - about 1,000 of them civilians."

Now according to my maths that makes 2,700 people have been killed who were not civilians, they were insurgents actively engaged by UK/NATO troops. In the run up to UK taking over Helmand Province the BBC gleefully reported on a Taleban conference where local Taleban Commanders stated that they were going to combine forces and crush the British troops sent to the province - looks like they are having a tough time of it.

akenaton - 08 Dec 06 - 01:15 PM

"America saw Saddam's Iraq as a soft target, an easy way to gain the political initiative and grab a bunch of oil."

Well Akenaton if you actually believe that to be true can you tell us how much Iraqi oil has been grabbed by the US in the last three years? Perhaps you could tell us how many American Oil Companies operate oilfields in Iraq?

"In the UK this conflict was indeed   "Blair's War" single handedly he convinced a willing party and many here that he was fighting for freedom.

He lied and lied again.....For personal glory.
I remember arguing with wld years ago over this point.
wld excuses Blair, but most now believe that he should be tried and imprisoned......."

So Akenaton, "most now believe that he should be tried and imprisoned"??? Now that is not exactly true is it Ake? Instead of most people believing that he should be tried and imprisoned, most people relected him - didn't they??

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 01:56 AM

Churchill, the French, and the Americans all hated the Soviets and wished them no good at all....UNTIL the Germans attacked Russia. Then, all of a sudden, the Russians became "our friends and allies". Amusing, isn't it? More cynical Realpolitik. But the Allies did not "send" the Russians to do any fighting for them...Hitler delivered that situation on a silver platter, doing the Allies the biggest favour he could have done short of an immediate surrender! What a fool.

Churchill's hatred for Soviet Russia was positively visceral, both before the war and very soon after it was over. He detested them, and they detested him. He simply rescinded that hatred for the duration of combat against Germany. More Realpolitik.

It's all so predictable.

I think that if Hitler had left Poland alone, gone around them to the south (with alliances in Hungary, Rumania to provide access to the Russian border), and simply attacked Russia in 1939 or 1940, the rest of the west would have stood back and cheered the Germans on, and waited with great enthusiasm for Moscow and Russia to fall. They trusted the communists far less than they did the Nazis, truth be told.

Hitler's grave error in '39 was this: He simply did not believe Britain and France would declare war over Poland. He thought they were bluffing. It was a tremendous failure of diplomacy and strategy on his part, but his military was innovative enough to turn that error into a spectacular victory in France the following year anyway...against all expectations. The French Army was generally assumed to be the most powerful in Europe at that time, and they did have darned good tanks...better than the German tanks, in fact. They just didn't use them very effectively, because they scattered them around piecemeal for the most part in a defensive posture. Their air force was also very poorly organized. That was not the way to go if you wanted to win.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Dec 06 - 12:11 AM

Don't be disingenuous, 282A. You said, "...when times got tough...we sent the Russians to die battling Hitler so we wouldn't have to."
That is not a factual statement. What part of Hitler attacked his Soviet ally don't you understand? The Allies fought Hitler in Western Europe and Africa; the USSR fought in the east, a sensible logistical decision forced on all parties. Using your logic, I could say that Stalin sent England and the Allies to fight in the west so he wouldn't have to.

Subject: RE: BS: US Now Officially Losing in Iraq...
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 08 Dec 06 - 11:42 PM

>>But in 1941 Hitler took his eye off the prize and broke his treaty with the USSR and invaded Russia.
Russia, now the enemy of the English enemy, became the Allies ally.
You invalidate your argument with false premises.<<

I said we let Russians incur the costs of doing battle with Hitler and you just affirmed it. I'm not sure what your point was.