This is interesting:

71% want US & British troops out,
75% said the troops' presence is causing more violence than preventing
61% approve attacks agains US troops in Iraq

A large majority strongly diapproves of Osama bin Laden, and over half are opposed to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president.

source (in Finnish):

http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/oikea/id44027.html

Hmm, it's almost as if they don't like to be occupied by foreign nations...

Silly Iraqies...

[email protected]

Hmmm anyone care to translate to English? Tis a bit late for me to take up Finnish . . . or anyone have a link in German???

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 2): Hmmm anyone care to translate to English? Tis a bit late for me to take up Finnish . . . or anyone have a link in German???

I've got one in Ethiopian if you'd like...

[email protected]

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 2): Hmmm anyone care to translate to English?

Amply three quarter irakilaisista rate Yhdysvaltain force raising underfoot more väkivaltaisuuksia like obstructive them. September ship mill mielipidekyselyn profitable by wholly 61 percent irakilaisista approving stab underfoot behaving amerikkalaisjoukkoja versus. Vastaajista 71 percent desperate Iraq hallituksen having Yhdysvaltain deriving corps indelible maasta season and 37 percent already poland season over. Three quarter irakilaisista credence , that States suunnittelee dependable sotilastukikohtansa underfoot enduring. Again tutkimuksesta appearance , that Iraqi suhtautuvat dead negatiivisesti also terroristijohtaja Instalment bin Ladeniin. Thus age Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejadia object past half Iraq nation. Marylandin university teettämään enquiry but 1 150 anthropology. Tutkimuksen virhemarginaali is three prosenttiyksikköä into.

So much for the online Finnish-English Translator!
  

Kieron747

Quoting Kieron747 (Reply 4): deriving corps indelible maasta season and 37 percent already poland season over.

  

Quoting Kieron747 (Reply 4): bin Ladeniin

Wait, I think I know this one... 

[email protected]

Quoting Joni (Thread starter): 71% want US & British troops out, 75% said the troops' presence is causing more violence than preventing 61% approve attacks agains US troops in Iraq

If this is how the Iraqis sees it, I don't really care, but just a question... How do you see Iraq if the US and UK pulled out "prematurely"?

If they want them out, well then there is no point in staying, except to prevent further slaughtering.

Boaz.

Here's an English link with more info:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi.../250.php?nid=&id=&pnt=250&lb=hmpg1

Quote: A large majority of Iraqis—71%—say they would like the Iraqi government to ask for US-led forces to be withdrawn from Iraq within a year or less.

Quoting Joni (Reply 7): Here's an English link with more info:

Excellent - thanks for this . . .

I appreciate the info in the link because rather than the usual blather in a poll, this link provides the details on the questions and the breakdown on the responses to the questions. Excellent.

Interesting to see the Sunni's are the most upset with the US presence. Also falls in line with those credited with most of the in-fighting and violence in Iraq. it should not be a surprise . . . of course they want to US out - so they can eliminate their competition.


Excellent link, excellent article. I'll take some time to digest this - re-read and comment again. Thanks Joni!

I'll second the Sgt. Major comments, its no to often where a in depthrnlook at the questions are provided to the reading public in order torndigest the numbers and try to make sense out of all this.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 8): Interestingrnto see the Sunni's are the most upset with the US presence. Also fallsrnin line with those credited with most of the in-fighting and violencernin Iraq. it should not be a surprise . . . of course they want to USrnout - so they can eliminate their competition.

Thats the American way to eliminate the competition.    Seriously if over 90% of the sunni believe the US causes more problems that it solves, I would say that our efforts with them has been less than successful, and I would doubtnthe future of Iraq after the allies leave would be bright.

So for anyone who's keeping track of Iraq War record.

WMD? No
Ties to 9/11? No
Meaningful support to World terrorism? No
Increased the terrorism threat? Yes
Increased the number of Iraqi deaths? Yes
Made life for Iraqi children more perilous? Yes
Use of torture in Iraq increased from Saddam days? Yes
Started a civil war? Yes
Killed over 2500 US soldiers and countless Iraqi innocent? Yes.
Cost to the US 400 Billion and counting.
US gained respect in World opinion? No, it was lost.
Created a situation where most Iraqi's approve of attacks on US? Yes 61%.
Increase Iran's influence in the Middle East? Yes.

In fairness,

Saddam deposed.
Elections held for Government that must stay within Green Zone for protection.
And can't forget about the schools. The right wingers love to talk about the schools.

A most interesting poll. It clearly suggests that the Sunni are the odd men out. Not surprising, really. They lost their grip on power.

Federal Republic of Iraq, anyone?

In IHMO, thing out there would get worse if the US troops would leave. I never approved of the idea for them going in anyways but now its too late to bail.

I wonder what would happen if the US said:

"You know folks, we screwed up.. We are sorry" and give control and command to an international force (UN?, NATO?).

How would the Iraquies feel about that?

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 10):

Care to add something quantitative to the subject matter of the thread or just present more inane blather. Your post is wholly irrelevent to the thread subject - which is a poll about what the Iraqi people think . . .

Thanks for the statistics however . . . even though they're subjective    opinion for the most part . . . even laughable in some cases.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 12): In IHMO, thing out there would get worse if the US troops would leave. I never approved of the idea for them going in anyways but now its too late to bail. I wonder what would happen if the US said: "You know folks, we screwed up.. We are sorry" and give control and command to an international force (UN?, NATO?). How would the Iraquies feel about that?

Busybodies and officious intermeddlers take notice. Iraq is what happens when you butt in where you don't belong.

So we removed the normative force (the kleptocrats of Ba'athism)that was keeping the Sunnis and the Shias from each other's throats and the Kurds from their aspirations to nationhood, and now we're holding each of them by their collars knowing that if we let go of any of them there'll be real hell to pay....it's as bad as Algeria was for the French.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 12): In IHMO, thing out there would get worse if the US troops would leave. I never approved of the idea for them going in anyways but now its too late to bail. I wonder what would happen if the US said: "You know folks, we screwed up.. We are sorry" and give control and command to an international force (UN?, NATO?). How would the Iraquies feel about that?

I agree with your first bit there.
About the handing over to the UN... Well it would be a disaster, remember the bombing of the UN installation in Iraq? The UN is unable to defend itself in the face of such ongoing attacks.

Boaz.

Ha! LOL sure ANC.. I'm not taking the bait.

You're welcome to refute any of my points. But you didn't. And I'll take that as your answer.

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 16): I'm not taking the bait.

I'm not asking you to take any bait . . . I'm asking you to make comments relevent to the thread topic . . . the Iraqi poll.

It's one of the best damn polls - and explanations of questions and results - I've ever seen posted here. CNN, BNC, BBC, all of 'em, could take lessons here.

Do you have any points to make about the subject of the thread? You have an opinion about everything else . . .

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 12): "You know folks, we screwed up.. We are sorry" and give control and command to an international force (UN?, NATO?).

No difference. Levels of violence would continue unabated. You don't really think the UN is going to anything do you???

The Sunni's aren't the fair haired child in Iraq anylonger and they have their panties in a wad. Read teh results from the poll - and not the big picture results - rather the nitty gritty details. It's pretty evidenct the Sunni's are the issue and the negative driving force.

Quoting Windshear (Reply 15): UN... Well it would be a disaster, remember the bombing of the UN installation in Iraq? The UN is unable to defend itself in the face of such ongoing attacks.

But who else though? Maybe this is also a good time for strenghened UN?

But the whoel point is that you have to get rid of this idea that ONE country is in charge and in control.

See how spin can affect reception?

Another way of reading the data:

63% or Iraqis DO NOT want the U.S. to withdraw immediately.

29% want the US to stay until the security situation improves, and think it will take at least 2 years.

34% Think that iraqi security forces can begin to deal with the problem within 6 months and 2 years, and THEN the US should be asked to leave.

Only 37% Want the US to leave in the immediate future (within 6 months). Most of these guys are the xenophobic assholes who want to create a Shia-dominated dictatorship (like Sadr) or reinstall a Sunni dictatorship.

For the first time, just over 50% belive the Iraq security forces can handle things. This corresponds nicely with the feelings about when the US should leave.

As far as provoking violence, I'm sure you can say the same thing about England in 1942. If England had given up in 1940, there would certainly have been fewer deaths and less violence in 1942. The whole argument is idiotic, because of course if you are going to fight an enemy, they will fight back.

As far as approval of attacks on US troops is concerned, it is interesting, because it does not correspond with the other data. It would be interesting to find out how exactly the question was worded.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 17): No difference. Levels of violence would continue unabated. You don't really think the UN is going to anything do you???

Again - it would dispell the image the US is in control..

And seriouly, what is the US doing? How much worse can it get?

We have confirmed reports from our own intelligence services that the Iraq war is making things worse. It is increasing the terrorism threat.

Of course if we pull out there will be more blood shed in the short term. But staying makes things worse in the long term. The damage has been done folks. There is no turning back the clock. The right wingers got us caught up in a War we have already lost. Bush is not willing to commit the amount of troops needed to secure the Country. US public opinion will not stand for the amount of sacrifice needed either.

Pull out in an orderly measured fashion to bases located in or near the Middle East as competent military experts have suggested. Iraq must be left to Iraqis.

Quoting Joni (Thread starter): 61% approve attacks agains US troops in Iraq

Well why don't they f*cking come and do it!!!! Shoot at us god damn it! The truth is, they're no longer primarily targeting allied troops. They're going insane and killing each other.

Everytime they engage us, we kick their asses up, down, and side to side. So they don't come after us anymore. They spend their time just killing each other.

----------------


So here's a new poll for all of you:

99% of American troops think Iraq is an immature nation that has little to no respect for women, the rule of law, fairness, cooperation and the value of peace.

So they want us to leave, eh? Probably because we're the only things keeping them from going totally ape shit and killing every living thing. NO RESPECT FOR LIFE.

Today a local shop was bombed.... not because the shop was sympathetic to the Americans... but because the owner of the shop was a Sunni, and the bomber was a Shiite. YEAH!!!! WOOO-HOOO! That's a f*cking brilliant reason to kill 7 individuals - they're not your RELIGION!  

I can just hear the guy who bombed the joint, "YEAH! LETS KILL THE BASTARDS!!! He's a Sunni. I'm a Shiite! Hey that's a good enough reason for me! What's that you say? There are innocent people shopping inside that store? Eh... who cares!! Life is cheap! Hey Abu, pass me some of that Haji wine, I wanna get good and drunk for this!"

Oh and don't think that just because this is a Muslim nation, people don't drink ALKY-HALL! Oh no no no my friends, let me tell you - they drink it by the gallons! Apparently even though it's forbidden by their religion (hey, doesn't that same religion say a thing or two about how murder is also wrong    ), it doesn't stop them from pounding it. Drunk driving in Iraq? "No UH60, you're wrong, there is no drunk driving in Iraq. It's a Muslim nation." Yeah... and I suppose those Iraqis are swerving all over the road and crashinginto things because of poor eye sight, not because they're under the influence of alcohol! But hey... that's not MY problem. Iraq can take of itself.

Yeah... so sure, we'll leave. And we can watch from afar as this country goes totally insane and turns into an Iraqi version of Woodstock. (except instead of sex, drugs and rock&roll... they'll have murder, alcohol and blaring prayer music from minarets. Sounds like a jolly good show. Who's bringing the popcorn?)

-UH60

PS: And if any of you are wondering why I am off my rocker today... well I just saw two dead Iraqi children a few hours ago. But hey... Iraq can take care of itself.  

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 22): Well why don't they f*cking come and do it!!!! Shoot at us god damn it! The truth is, they're no longer primarily targeting allied troops. They're going insane and killing each other. Everytime they engage us, we kick their asses up, down, and side to side. So they don't come after us anymore. They spend their time just killing each other.

Really? Well the facts show otherwise. Coalition deaths in September are up to 2.57 per day. The highest in 5 Months. And on average higher the the overall average casualty rate.

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 23): Really? Well the facts show otherwise. Coalition deaths in September are up to 2.57 per day. The highest in 5 Months. And on average higher the the overall average casualty rate.

If you have never been there and get your facts from the NYTimes,WASH Post, or the Boston Globe. Have you ever noticed when they go after a GI they usally take out ahole lot civilians also. Ill go with what UH60 observes than the facts you read.

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 21): Bush is not willing to commit the amount of troops needed to secure the Country

Doubt you'd be happy if more troops were added. And if I am not mistaken, they have in the last few months.

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 16): I'm not taking the bait.

Shocking surprise, Artie. There is still a nice post last night in which you simply refuse to answer/argue any of our points.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 19):

Excellent points.

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 20): How much worse can it get?

     
Seriously, do you think its really bad now? Wait to see the powderkeg ignited if we leave.

1. Kurdistan declares independence. Turkey and Iran invade and carve up Iraqi Kurdistan. (Google the news for info on this)
2. Iran's support for the Iraqi Shiites becomes overt, concerning the mainly Sunny countries of the Arabian peninsula. Saudi Arabia/Egypt will not sit back and allow Iran to extend their influence. Very likely an arm race (including nuclear) will develop.

You just can't believe your lying eyes. Here is the DOD list so far in Sept.

All fatalities with active DOD links have been confirmed by The Department of Defense.
Total: 2709 Confirmed: 2701 Pending: 8

Date Name DOD
09/27/06 NAME NOT RELEASED YET Pending Confirmation
09/26/06 NAME NOT RELEASED YET Pending Confirmation
09/26/06 NAME NOT RELEASED YET Pending Confirmation
09/26/06 NAME NOT RELEASED YET Pending Confirmation
09/26/06 Riviere, Christopher T. DoD Confirmation
09/25/06 NAME NOT RELEASED YET Pending Confirmation
09/24/06 March Jr., Howard S. DoD Confirmation
09/24/06 Martinez, Rene DoD Confirmation
09/23/06 Kincaid, IV, Kenneth E DoD Confirmation
09/23/06 Dominguez, Carlos DoD Confirmation
09/23/06 Simmons, Windell J. DoD Confirmation
09/23/06 NAME NOT RELEASED YET Pending Confirmation
09/23/06 Locklear, III, Velton DoD Confirmation
09/21/06 NAME NOT RELEASED YET Pending Confirmation
09/21/06 Bevington, Allan R. DoD Confirmation
09/20/06 Rodriguez, Yull Estrada DoD Confirmation
09/20/06 Jones, Charles Jason DoD Confirmation
09/20/06 Kavanagh, Eric DoD Confirmation
09/20/06 Needham, Robb Gordon DoD Confirmation
09/20/06 Zimmerman, Christopher M. DoD Confirmation
09/19/06 Huff, Ashley L. Henderson DoD Confirmation
09/19/06 Callahan, Robert Thomas DoD Confirmation
09/19/06 Raymond, Jared J. DoD Confirmation
09/18/06 Worster, James R. DoD Confirmation
09/17/06 Knox, Adam L. DoD Confirmation
09/17/06 Davis, David J. DoD Confirmation
09/16/06 Roddy, David S. DoD Confirmation
09/15/06 Granados, Cesar A. DoD Confirmation
09/14/06 Cain, Marcus A. DoD Confirmation
09/14/06 NAME NOT RELEASED YET Pending Confirmation
09/14/06 Williams, Clint E. DoD Confirmation
09/14/06 Hartman, Jennifer M. DoD Confirmation
09/14/06 Weir, David Thomas DoD Confirmation
09/14/06 Makowski, Russell M. DoD Confirmation
09/14/06 Smith, Aaron A. DoD Confirmation
09/14/06 Miller, Ryan A. DoD Confirmation
09/13/06 Mattingly, Matthew C. DoD Confirmation
09/13/06 Shaffer, Jeffrey DoD Confirmation
09/12/06 Perez, Emily J.T. DoD Confirmation
09/11/06 Andrews, Harley D. DoD Confirmation
09/10/06 Jordan, Alexander DoD Confirmation
09/09/06 Seig, Anthony P. DoD Confirmation
09/09/06 Benson, Johnathan DoD Confirmation
09/08/06 Gordon, David W. DoD Confirmation
09/07/06 Frassetto, Vincent M. DoD Confirmation
09/07/06 Montes, Luis A. DoD Confirmation
09/07/06 Ramsey, David J. DoD Confirmation
09/06/06 Shank, Jeremy R. DoD Confirmation
09/06/06 Carroll, John A. DoD Confirmation
09/04/06 Shoemaker, Jared M. DoD Confirmation
09/04/06 Walsh, Christopher DoD Confirmation
09/04/06 Debro, Germaine L. DoD Confirmation
09/04/06 Valdepenas, Eric P. DoD Confirmation
09/04/06 Gutierrez, Marshall A. DoD Confirmation
09/04/06 Gunterman, Hannah L. DoD Confirmation
09/03/06 Johnson, Philip A. DoD Confirmation
09/03/06 Madaras, Nicholas A. DoD Confirmation
09/03/06 Merrill, Jason L. DoD Confirmation
09/03/06 Harris, Shane P. DoD Confirmation
09/03/06 Porras, Ralph N. DoD Confirmation
09/03/06 Henkes II, Richard J. DoD Confirmation
09/03/06 Miller, Ryan E. DoD Confirmation
09/03/06 Dreese, Justin W. DoD Confirmation
09/03/06 Andino Jr., Edwin Anthony DoD Confirmation
09/02/06 Alex, Eugene DoD Confirmation
09/01/06 Golla, Cliff DoD Confirmation
09/01/06 Mercado-Velazquez, Angel D. DoD Confirmation

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 25): 1. Kurdistan declares independence. Turkey and Iran invade and carve up Iraqi Kurdistan. (Google the news for info on this) 2. Iran's support for the Iraqi Shiites becomes overt, concerning the mainly Sunny countries of the Arabian peninsula. Saudi Arabia/Egypt will not sit back and allow Iran to extend their influence. Very likely an arm race (including nuclear) will develop.

They can try to invade Kurdistan, but if you think the US got a bloddy nose just wait until Turkey or Iran try. Don't think the U.S. will leave the Kurds defenseless our only friend in that neighborhood. If we arm them to the teeth or the Kurds have already done it themselves that should keep Iran And Turkey in check. What happens if Iran and Turkey want the whole thing to themselves?

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 20): And seriouly, what is the US doing? How much worse can it get?

You could let the UN take charge.

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 21): We have confirmed reports from our own intelligence services that the Iraq war is making things worse. It is increasing the terrorism threat.

Don't you love irony? A couple of years ago, people accused the Bush administration of cherry-picking intelligence, only quoting the stuff that supported their position and tossing out the rest. The media and the left gave Bush hell for that (and understandably so - cherry-picking simply wasn't necessary).

Now we have this National Intelligence Estimate. Finally a real, credible study which itself is a collation of over 20 other studies. And what do the media and the left do? They pick out ONE sentence that supports their agenda, and ignore the rest of the report, which explains how this is a natural evolution and that the US needs to stay in there and finish the job.

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf

Quotes:

United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations;

Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

I'll leave you to read for yourselves the rest (I don't want to be accused of cherry-picking  )

One thing that is not satisfactorily advertized enough over the past couple of years is that the Islamic Jihadist movement has been growing strongly for many years. It is not a new thing that Bush started (which is what many people seem to imply) - the threat has been constantly growing for many years.

When you engage an enemy (or an enemy ideology), be it Jihadism, Nazism, or whatever, the short term effect is to increase the level of violence and destruction. Unfortunately, as with the Nazis, there is sometimes no other way to defeat it, and you have to admit that life will be dangerous for a while.

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 26):

Yeah, and I have a friend on that list. Go back to one my archieved posts, and read about how I had the honor of being one of the men who carried his casket onto the airplane.

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 23): Really? Well the facts show otherwise. Coalition deaths in September are up to 2.57 per day. The highest in 5 Months. And on average higher the the overall average casualty rate.

At first they went after convoys. But then the Apaches or Black Hawks flying cover over head would swoop in and kill them. So they backed off.

Then they started mortaring the bases with fury. But we brought in radar that triangulated the origin of the mortars. We sent people to that location and killed them. So they backed off.

Then they started sniping boots on patrol. But we put in our own counter snipers, and killed them. So they backed off.

Then they started planting IEDs like tree hugger plant trees. EVERYWHERE. So we illuminated roads at night with flares. We tripled the patrols. We collected actionable intelligence. We brought in Johnny 5s (little robots that take out IEDs). So they backed off.

And then they said to each other, "Hey Abu, my friend, hear me out. Everytime we attack the Americans directly, we die. But everytime we attack our fellow countrymen, we live." SOO, they began to ignore the Americans and really focus in on people they hated. IRAQIS they hated. And hey - if there's an American caught in the crossfire? Well that's icing on the cake.

And that's what's happening - we have attacks being conducted in heavily populated areas. While the primary target is say the Sunnis or the Shiites in the crowd, they tend to also take out near by Americans. Again - icing on the cake.

But simply just coming after us like the old days? Nope, there's one thing your website's statistics can't tell you - the story behind those numbers.

-UH60

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 29): the story behind those numbers.

So what is the story behind the increase in US soldiers deaths this Month?

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 30): So what is the story behind the increase in US soldiers deaths this Month?

...Are you reading the entire post, or just bits and pieces?

Please read:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 29): SOO, they began to ignore the Americans and really focus in on people they hated. IRAQIS they hated. And hey - if there's an American caught in the crossfire? Well that's icing on the cake.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 29): And that's what's happening - we have attacks being conducted in heavily populated areas. While the primary target is say the Sunnis or the Shiites in the crowd, they tend to also take out near by Americans. Again - icing on the cake.

I don't know how that wasn't clear for you, but I will try and lower it to the lowest possible common denominator: They're targeting populated areas. A lot of times there are no allied troops there, but sometimes there are. So in those instances, they kill Iraqis AND Americans. But they've abandoned their focus on American-only attacks.

-UH60

Spin how you like, the increased deaths are by enemy bombs. Not bullets or IEDS....Whooppeee! . Leaks are coming out today on this new NIE report that dealt strictly with Iraq.

Fair use excerpts.


"Veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward tells Mike Wallace that the Bush administration has not told the truth regarding the level of violence, especially against U.S. troops, in Iraq. He also reveals key intelligence that predicts the insurgency will grow worse next year. Wallace’s interview with Woodward will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Oct. 1 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.
According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. “It’s getting to the point now where there are eight, 900 attacks a week. That’s more than a hundred a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces,” says Woodward.

The situation is getting much worse, says Woodward, despite what the White House and the Pentagon are saying in public. “The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], ‘Oh, no, things are going to get better,’” he tells Wallace. “Now there’s public, and then there’s private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know,” says Woodward."

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 11): A most interesting poll. It clearly suggests that the Sunni are the odd men out.

NO, the odd men out clearly are the Kurds as being the only ones in favour of the occupation. While the Arab majority just differs in extent and percentage points. But as the Kurds are to secede in the end anyway .....................

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 30): So what is the story behind the increase in US soldiers deaths this Month?

The Soviets suffered their highest casualty rates of WWII in April 1945, just a week or two before the end of the war. They lost over 400,000 troops KIA in April alone.

Can you give me any example that lowering casualty counts correlates with the approaching end of a conflict?

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 32): He also reveals key intelligence that predicts the insurgency will grow worse next year.

I could just imagine going back into the 40s, and hearing our friend Artie complaining about the fact that the US was going to loose the war in the Pacific, since the closer we get to Japan, the harder they fight.

This is a plain military fact, proven by history. The closer you are to defeating your enemy, the harder they fight.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 28): United States-led counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qa’ida and disrupted its operations;

This is a good post to read, Artie.

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 27): What happens if Iran and Turkey want the whole thing to themselves?

Fireworks?!

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 25): Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 16): I'm not taking the bait. Shocking surprise, Artie. There is still a nice post last night in which you simply refuse to answer/argue any of our points.

Thank you for proving me right.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 34): Can you give me any example that lowering casualty counts correlates with the approaching end of a conflict?

A strange question, as you of course know quite well that towards the end of a conflict, military commanders launch last minute efforts to achieve the "Endsieg" or at least to improve their score.

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 32): "Veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward tells Mike Wallace that the Bush administration has not told the truth regarding the level of violence, especially against U.S. troops, in Iraq. He also reveals key intelligence that predicts the insurgency will grow worse next year. Wallace’s interview with Woodward will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, Oct. 1 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network. According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. “It’s getting to the point now where there are eight, 900 attacks a week. That’s more than a hundred a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces,” says Woodward. The situation is getting much worse, says Woodward, despite what the White House and the Pentagon are saying in public. “The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], ‘Oh, no, things are going to get better,’” he tells Wallace. “Now there’s public, and then there’s private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know,” says Woodward."

You really believe what Bob Woodward has to say? The man blinks all the time like a left hand turn signal. He's about as far left leaning as a reporter can get. It all goes back to your spin comment artie.

Quoting JetJock22 (Reply 37): He's about as far left leaning as a reporter can get.

And this is why the White House gave him exclusive access to the President in order for him to write a biographical account of Bush during wartime?

And we should believe the President because he's got such a great track record? Mobile weapons labs? Chemical drones? Greeted as liberators? We know where the WMD are? Things are getting better?

Cognitive dissonance. Look it up. ...LOL I mean I post the DOD death list and you right wingers can't even accept that.

Lot of this cognitive dissonance running rampant on these boards..LOL


if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation.

and—counter-intuitively, perhaps—if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are less likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 36): A strange question, as you of course know quite well that towards the end of a conflict, military commanders launch last minute efforts to achieve the "Endsieg" or at least to improve their score.

ME, you normally make more sense than that. You mean to say that Generals say to themselves, "Oh shit, the end of the war is coming and I still have tons of troops to spend!"?

Andes had it right.

Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 35): This is a plain military fact, proven by history. The closer you are to defeating your enemy, the harder they fight.

Also, the more you are engaged with an enemy, the more fighting will happen and thus more casualties.

Like I said here a long time ago, this war is only just starting. I expect casualties to reach up into the multiple millions in the next 10-15 years (and it won't matter who is president either).

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 39): if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation.

Uh, this is the point ANC and several others made about 25 posts ago.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 40): Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 36): A strange question, as you of course know quite well that towards the end of a conflict, military commanders launch last minute efforts to achieve the "Endsieg" or at least to improve their score. ME, you normally make more sense than that. You mean to say that Generals say to themselves, "Oh shit, the end of the war is coming and I still have tons of troops to spend!"? Andes had it right. Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 35): This is a plain military fact, proven by history. The closer you are to defeating your enemy, the harder they fight.

Yes, Generals want to get as much as possible before they have to stop. It is their business. It is NOT only those "closer to defeating the enemy" but in a way also those who are somewhere in between.
-
"more sense" ? Maybe. You see, your question REALLY is a hard one. It in way, at least to me, implied that people on here believe that once you declare to get out at a particular time, the war will reduce. And here my problem begins. I usually have it with SherlockHolmes/ArthurConanDoyle that you should take the facts and then move to conclusions and theories, but in YOUR case we have THE fact that losses DO increase towards the end of conflicts, and so have to try to find the reasons.
-
btw, have you been a teacher ? because teachers at times ask questions which move the one asked into a "negative" position !
-

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 40): Like I said here a long time ago, this war is only just starting. I expect casualties to reach up into the multiple millions in the next 10-15 years (and it won't matter who is president either).

Well at least you're honest with your opinions. I only hope the GOP leadership agrees with you and will share the vision with the US public before the November elections. Just lay everything out on the table and let the voters decide.

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 38): Cognitive dissonance. Look it up. ...LOL I mean I post the DOD death list and you right wingers can't even accept that.

Accept it? Dude... I am living it.

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 39): if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know — particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge — they are likely to resist the new learning.

Ohh kind of like how when one is present with first hand accounts of how Iraqis are shifting their focus on killing Americans, to killing fellow countrymen of different religious sects... and they dismiss it as "spin."

IE:

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 32): Spin how you like

Artie I think you have sufficiently highlighted:

POT-KETTLE-BLACK. Kinda like:



-UH60

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 33): Quoting Dougloid (Reply 11): A most interesting poll. It clearly suggests that the Sunni are the odd men out. NO, the odd men out clearly are the Kurds as being the only ones in favour of the occupation. While the Arab majority just differs in extent and percentage points. But as the Kurds are to secede in the end anyway .....................

I do not think you're reading it correctly, what I was pointing to was the fact that the Sunni are in the main not sanguine at all as to the long term prospects for Iraq or their place in it. And who would be, who was in their place? I mean, they ran the show in a country where they were the minority. That had to end.

And you're probably right about Kurdish self determination....it's high time.

UH60

I hope I don't come off as not respecting what you do. I was in helicopter unit myself. I just think war is very serious and it's not the time to be side stepping inconvenient facts/ uncomfortable truths. So I attempt to tell it like it is.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 45): And who would be, who was in their place? I mean, they ran the show in a country where they were the minority.

Well, they know that it, after the withdrawal of the occupationers, will be a Sunni general who will take over.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 40): Like I said here a long time ago, this war is only just starting. I expect casualties to reach up into the multiple millions in the next 10-15 years (and it won't matter who is president either).

I somewhat agree with this. There has been a slow growing movement that has as its main purpose the creation of a world wide Islamic state. Non-muslim people of the world have several options: 1) become a Muslim 2) submit to their will 3) die. These aims are well publicized and documented if one cares to do a quick internet search.

A counter argument against this possibility is that these extreme fundamentalists are few and far between. That is true. But most extreme movements that caused millions of deaths (Nazi, communism, Pol Pot) started small and their leadership stayed small.

The longer this movement is allowed to survive, the more dangerous it becomes, since it finds that its continuous survival must mean that they are following the correct path, not that its survival is more likely to the effect that no one has really bothered to stop them (until its too late).

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 22): I just saw two dead Iraqi children a few hours ago.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 22): So they want us to leave, eh? Probably because we're the only things keeping them from going totally ape shit and killing every living thing. NO RESPECT FOR LIFE.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 29): "Hey Abu, my friend, hear me out. Everytime we attack the Americans directly, we die. But everytime we attack our fellow countrymen, we live."

Horrible to hear! All these things you witness corresponds well with what my father and uncle witnessed in wars with Arabs, apparently this is the way they fight, from Lebanon to Iraq... Monstrous! Civilians are of no importance only getting their way in the end.

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 26): You just can't believe your lying eyes. Here is the DOD list so far in Sept.

Hippie  

Boaz.