http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSCOL24813120071022?rpc=92

Iraq is calming down and the strategy of Bush is working. This has proved to be indeed better than the strategy of cutting and running.

See Spidergoat? I told you this would happen :-)

We have been saying all along that there weren't enough troops to secure the country. However, this is not changing the basic political climate.

If you think things are really turning around in Iraq, you are fooling yourself. We have increased bombing from the air by 400% in an attempt to make Bush's surge look like it's accomplishing something.

Doesn't the statistic show "something" has been accomplished?

70% is certainly something. It doesn't matter what they're doing, the strategy is working :)

You conveniently leave out this part of the story: the Interior Ministry said on Monday.

Maybe they are right, and maybe they aren't. The rest of the story pointed out several bombings and firefights. There are certainly other points of view.

Iraqis' Own Surge Assessment: Few See Security Gains (http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3571504)
Barely a quarter of Iraqis say their security has improved in the past six months, a negative assessment of the surge in U.S. forces that reflects worsening public attitudes across a range of measures, even as authorities report some progress curtailing violence.

Iraqis' own views can differ from military evaluations of the surge for good reason. Public attitudes are not based on a narrow accounting of more or fewer bombings and murders, but on the bigger picture -- which for most in Iraq means continued violence, poor services, economic deprivation, inadequate reconstruction, political gridlock and other complaints.

Actually I heard general petraeus himself assures this on TV. Iraqis will never say good about anything, I don't care what they say; let the numbers talk :)

He's a tool.

Things are getting better, believe it and live with it.

It is never wrong to remove a tyrant.

Probly cause we have killed 70% of the Iraqi people:D

70% is certainly something. It doesn't matter what they're doing, the strategy is working :)

Maybe they've killed off 70% of the population by now...

Probly cause we have killed 70% of the Iraqi people:D

LOL you beat me to it :D

Maybe...but still, the strategy is working...

Maybe...but still, the strategy is working...

Hmm, so if they really did kill of 70% of the population you'd think that was a good thing ? :bugeye:

I acknowledge some positive effects of increasing the number of US troops, but this is no real solution. It was supposed to buy room from Iraqis to find a political solution, which is going nowhere.

Average Number Daily Insurgent Attacks In Iraq: Nov 06-Feb 07 - 148.9
Average Number Daily Insurgent Attacks In Iraq: Feb-May 07 - 159.8 (http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/the_surge.htm)

In fact, the surge increased fatalities when it was first started, with 69 (749 wounded) in Jun-2007, one of the highest of any month. Now deaths are down to typical levels (http://icasualties.org/oif/), so it's nothing to brag about. This september showed casualties about the same as February of 2006, before the surge.

You're doing exactly what you accuse the other side of doing: Playing with numbers and showing what you want in order to make a political argument. If violence is down, it's down.
Further more you, like your party, have been against the surge from the start. So why should anyone listen to you?

Yesterday, I saw on TV that the number of civilian casualties in Jan 07 was about 1900, wheras in this October it was only about 200.

countezero,
If the surge made casualties go up, then they go back down again, does it really mean anything? I am quoting real numbers.

Even if I believed in the surge, it is working to help Iraq achieve political reconciliation? Where's your numbers on that?

How do you call Sunni tribes fighting al-qaida all over Iraq and joining the political process?

We've been throught this before, you just keep repeating yourself.

That was in Anbar, now it's "all over Iraq"?

Isn't the war in which someone tried to convince us that the violence was down by omitting car bombs, or suicide bombs, or something like that?

Okay, anyway, we have to account for government-speak. Since the measure of "violence" is so murky coming from this administration, I thoiught I would note an old conventional wisdom regarding budget cuts.

Statement: "I cut twenty percent from the department budget."

Meaning: "I cut twenty percent from the expected increase in the department's budget."

In effect: If the department budget was a billion dollars last year, and the projected budget is $1.1b, that twenty percent cut represented a $20m cut from the increase, so that a $1b budget reduced by 20% has actually grown to $1.08b.

I don't know if they can actually get away with this argument these days. It was a popular argument back before Clinton. I would think people might catch on ....

That was in Anbar, now it's "all over Iraq"?

Yea... Anbar was when we talked last time, but now it's all over Iraq.

Things are happening, the strategy is working :)

Hani are you an Iraqi?

re: surge "working", it's a good development, but nothing is clear yet. as one US general noted a few weeks ago, "we have done everything military possible to prevent Sunni vs. Shia infighting. now it's up to them to talk over their differences".

any drop in carbombs is temporary. the 2 sides must address things between themselves to deal with the underlying issues

Isn't the war in which someone tried to convince us that the violence was down by omitting car bombs, or suicide bombs, or something like that?

Okay, anyway, we have to account for government-speak. Since the measure of "violence" is so murky coming from this administration, I thoiught I would note an old conventional wisdom regarding budget cuts.

Statement: "I cut twenty percent from the department budget."

Meaning: "I cut twenty percent from the expected increase in the department's budget."

In effect: If the department budget was a billion dollars last year, and the projected budget is $1.1b, that twenty percent cut represented a $20m cut from the increase, so that a $1b budget reduced by 20% has actually grown to $1.08b.

I don't know if they can actually get away with this argument these days. It was a popular argument back before Clinton. I would think people might catch on ....

Well, I am sure that they can get away with going down from 1900 civilian casualties in January to 200 in October.

Hani are you an Iraqi?

re: surge "working", it's a good development, but nothing is clear yet. as one US general noted a few weeks ago, "we have done everything military possible to prevent Sunni vs. Shia infighting. now it's up to them to talk over their differences".

any drop in carbombs is temporary. the 2 sides must address things between themselves to deal with the underlying issues

I am Syrian. Actually I don't think there are any real differences between them, at least not ones that they would fight over...

The only real differences are between Iran/Syria/Qaida and the US. And since that al-Qaida is fading away, things are getting better. Remain Iran and Syria, and here is the REAL issue.

It was more like 595 in October.
http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeathsByYear.aspx

2007 sees the worst bombings ever – and more of them (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/biggest-bombs/)
Early indications are that roughly 20,000 violent civilian deaths will be recorded for the first 9 months of 2007. By year’s end, 2007 looks to be the second-worst calendar year for violence in Iraq since the 2003 invasion, trailing only behind 2006, and still almost twice as deadly for civilians as the first year.

It is important to place the events of 2007 in context. Levels of violence reached an all-time high in the last six months of 2006. Only in comparison to that could the first half of 2007 be regarded as an improvement. Despite any efforts put into the surge, the first six months of 2007 was still the most deadly first six months for civilians of any year since the invasion.

According to your numbers, the number of civilians deaths in Iraq came down from 3014 in Feb 2007 to only 595 in Oct 2007.

595 is the lowest number of deaths since April 2005.

Actually I don't think there are any real differences between them, at least not ones that they would fight over...
You must mean there are no differences worthy of fighting over. Because rest assured there is real hatred going on, and people are dying over thsoe differences.

I heard there were less coffins being made or something also. Gravediggers getting less work. Not sure if it's true of course; but I don't know it's not either.

Hani, the surge started in February. How can you brag about reducing the deaths we caused to be artificially high in the first place? This isn't a sustainable increase in the US presence there.

This is true. But if you're discussing whether deaths have come down as an unrooted issue, there may be a case for saying there has. What the likes of politicians might do or not do with such numbers, of course, probably defies in sum immorality what Haliburton considers a "decent profit".

The deaths are not accurately counted - and the Iraqis now in charge of counting are keenly aware of what numbers are desireable.

But there could easily have been a decrease in violence, for several reasons besidels the surge. For one thing, the walls and ethnic cleansings have made progress - Iraqis no longer live in mixed-sect neighborhoods as often as they used to, and many ghettos and sanctuaries have walls now, newly constructed. This reduces both motive and opportunity.

For another, many more thousands of Iraqis have fled the country recently, reducing both motive and opportunity - at some point, the thinning of the population has an effect even if the deomgraphics that fled were not the commonly targetted, which they often were.

And so forth.

The deaths are not accurately counted - and the Iraqis now in charge of counting are keenly aware of what numbers are desireable.

Possibly. But this charge could apply to any survey of violence in Iraq, and has also been leveled at the Lancet article.

But there could easily have been a decrease in violence, for several reasons besidels the surge. For one thing, the walls and ethnic cleansings have made progress - Iraqis no longer live in mixed-sect neighborhoods as often as they used to, and many ghettos and sanctuaries have walls now, newly constructed. This reduces both motive and opportunity.

Quite agree.

For another, many more thousands of Iraqis have fled the country recently, reducing both motive and opportunity - at some point, the thinning of the population has an effect even if the deomgraphics that fled were not the commonly targetted, which they often were.

Here I disagree. I don't think the population has been "thinned" in most places.

Hani, the surge started in February. How can you brag about reducing the deaths we caused to be artificially high in the first place? This isn't a sustainable increase in the US presence there.
The bolded part has received a surprisingly small amount of attention in the mainstream, at least less than I'd expect. The extra manpower that was rostered up for the surge came mostly from units whose ordinary deployment cycles would have had them relieving units that are in Iraq right now. Naturally, this raises the question of who will be relieving them when their 8/12/15 month tours are over. The hope is that the surge will create enough lasting stability so that MNF-I can begin drawing down its presence in-country, reducing manpower levels to what they were in 2006 by the summer of 2008, and to under ~120k personnel by election season. The timing isn't meant to look politically motivated - this particular timetable was predicated on the analysis of Petraeus and his advisors, and passed onto the CINC through the JCS - though it will probably look that way and be spun as such.

Basically, the endstrength in the surge was created using units that would've been deploying in the future, which means that there won't be enough assets to relieve them even to the levels we had back in 2006 before the surge began. There will need to be a reduction in troop levels once they get back, whether the situation in-country is compatible with that or not.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSCOL24813120071022?rpc=92

Iraq is calming down and the strategy of Bush is working. This has proved to be indeed better than the strategy of cutting and running.

See Spidergoat? I told you this would happen :-)

According to several studies, about 75-90% of Iraqi deaths are underreported by media.

Here I disagree. I don't think the population has been "thinned" in most places.

4 million refugees are inconsequential?

4 million refugees are inconsequential?

Most of said refugees are internal, so they don't result in any "thinning" of the population.

4 million refugees are inconsequential?

They are not a "thinning". Are they all out of the country?

You're doing exactly what you accuse the other side of doing: Playing with numbers and showing what you want in order to make a political argument. If violence is down, it's down.
Further more you, like your party, have been against the surge from the start. So why should anyone listen to you?

if something rises by 50% then goes down 20% has it really gone down( note these are not real percentages they are being used just to make a point)

if something rises by 50% then goes down 20% has it really gone down( note these are not real percentages they are being used just to make a point)

Yes, it has. The logic behind that is used for the stock market report every single day.

In other news, this thread (and the attitudes on display here) is precisely why I've given up on talking about/caring about the Iraq issue. No matter what information is put out, the two sides of the political spectrum will carp about something else so they can still be "right" and claim to "really know" what's going on. Why any rational person attempts to follow this anymore is beyond me...

Basically, the endstrength in the surge was created using units that would've been deploying in the future, which means that there won't be enough assets to relieve them even to the levels we had back in 2006 before the surge began. There will need to be a reduction in troop levels once they get back, whether the situation in-country is compatible with that or not.

it can't be that bad. there must be some soldiers left somewhere...

They are not a "thinning". Are they all out of the country?

About 2 million are (probably more); what would you consider a thinning?

The deaths are not accurately counted - and the Iraqis now in charge of counting are keenly aware of what numbers are desireable.

But there could easily have been a decrease in violence, for several reasons besidels the surge. For one thing, the walls and ethnic cleansings have made progress - Iraqis no longer live in mixed-sect neighborhoods as often as they used to, and many ghettos and sanctuaries have walls now, newly constructed. This reduces both motive and opportunity.

For another, many more thousands of Iraqis have fled the country recently, reducing both motive and opportunity - at some point, the thinning of the population has an effect even if the deomgraphics that fled were not the commonly targetted, which they often were.

And so forth.

Hani, the surge started in February. How can you brag about reducing the deaths we caused to be artificially high in the first place? This isn't a sustainable increase in the US presence there.

This is all really irrelevant. O.K. America raised the death rates and half the Iraqis are dead now, but still......... violence is down and things are turning around.

Maybe you were wishing too much for defeat that now you can't see victory when it's coming.

According to several studies, about 75-90% of Iraqi deaths are underreported by media.

O.K. I'll give you that. So the reported 10% of deaths is now 70% down. This is a huge success for the victory-strategy of president Bush, given the defeatist-surge that he had to confront this year.

Yes, it has. The logic behind that is used for the stock market report every single day.

In other news, this thread (and the attitudes on display here) is precisely why I've given up on talking about/caring about the Iraq issue. No matter what information is put out, the two sides of the political spectrum will carp about something else so they can still be "right" and claim to "really know" what's going on. Why any rational person attempts to follow this anymore is beyond me...

is not just a little cold and crass to compare our soldiers lives with stock prices

O.K. I'll give you that. So the reported 10% of deaths is now 70% down. This is a huge success for the victory-strategy of president Bush, given the defeatist-surge that he had to confront this year.

How do you know that the underreporting has not intensified?

You mean like they are now reporting only 3% of the actual deaths?

I don't think hiding 97% of the casualties is really possible.

is not just a little cold and crass to compare our soldiers lives with stock prices

You can try to cast sentiment into this all you like, but I believe the topic of this thread was percentages and you asked whether the decline you outlined in your scenario was actually a decline. It is. And I gave you a real-world example of why it is.

I never did wish for defeat and I resent the implication. I don't see another victory coming (remember Bush on the battleship?), and neither do most Americans or Iraqis. The only ones still living in a fantasy world of optimism are the Bush administration and their loyal lapdogs on the right.

You mean like they are now reporting only 3% of the actual deaths?

I don't think hiding 97% of the casualties is really possible.

Why? Who's checking?

First, it is extremely difficult to gauge with any accuracy how many civilians are killed in Iraq, so any empirical findings should be greeted with skepticism. That is because census data is poor; many deaths go unreported; and there is often double-counting because it is oftentimes difficult to determine a civilian from a combatant. Morgue, hospital or government statistics are also notoriously unreliable. And any statistical analysis by outside researchers generally relies on cluster sampling, which poses problematic issues with sample sizes because of Iraq's shifting demographics.

Second, even if casualties are down overall this year, they are still dangerously high and way above 2004-2005 levels, not to mention that whatever number is reached does not include those tortured or kidnapped. Plus, many Iraqi Muslims simply bury their dead and do not go through an undertaker or hospital.

Third, trend lines are often short-lived and futile to predict. Proclaiming civilian casualties are sloping downward is akin to saying the insurgency is in its last throes. Plus, these trend lines obscure the fact that any temporary decline in casualties can be explained because of the ethnic cleansing of once heterogeneous Iraqi cities and neighborhoods. Of course, an Iraq comprising just Sunni Arabs could result in zero sectarian casualties but a homogeneous Iraq is presumably not the end goal.

Finally, the fault for all this confusion lies with the U.S. military, which decided early on it was not worth counting Iraqi civilian casualties. Even the term given to their tragic loss at the hands of U.S. forces -- "collateral damage" -- smacks of bureaucratic hubris. (A chilling segment on 60 Minutes reports that 30 civilians killed was the magic number Pentagon officials could live with when targeting a "high-value" terrorist in Afghanistan; anything higher requires approval from the defense secretary or president.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lionel-beehner/are-civilian-deaths-in-ir_b_70276.html

Actually I heard general petraeus himself assures this on TV. Iraqis will never say good about anything, I don't care what they say; let the numbers talk :)

Right, because we always believe what our generals say... along with what statistics say..Surges tend to work for a short time, then when they cut out, troops find themselves overwhelmed.

But...it's all quiet on the western front.

This things will never end as long as there is the Iranian regime and the Syrian regime; I don't want to oversimplify issues.

But things have changed in Iraq in a deep and a dramatic manner. It was not just because of the surge, the surge had a minor effect. Change happened because Sunnis have been turning against al-qaida and fighting it, this is the main reason for improvement there.

So, things are going great AND there is no end in sight. AND we need to fight Iran and Syria. Is that what we are supposed to believe?

In other news, this thread (and the attitudes on display here) is precisely why I've given up on talking about/caring about the Iraq issue. No matter what information is put out, the two sides of the political spectrum will carp about something else so they can still be "right" and claim to "really know" what's going on. Why any rational person attempts to follow this anymore is beyond me...
This has been the case for a while; from the start of OIF to a lesser extent. Outside of my fellow Marines and a few former college professors, trying to find people who are interested in discussing the facts and realities of the situation objectively is usually a fool's errand. As an otherwise politically disinterested participant in and observer to this conflict, it is hard to have conversations about it with the average citizen because I'll find myself being shouted down by partisans of all sides who feel their position threatened. Bragging rights are more important than understanding the best way forward. Sad.

Considering we went into this war, not for self-defense, but for political reasons, by choice, it is impossible to have a complete picture of what's happening without talking about politics. Bush/Cheney's views are far from "objective", and that must be taken into account when responding to their rosy images of Iraq.

So, things are going great AND there is no end in sight. AND we need to fight Iran and Syria. Is that what we are supposed to believe?


Actually you could have arranged these sentences in a better way:

Things are going great; but there is no end in sight if we don't fight Iran and Syria. This is what we are supposed to believe.

Spidergoat

I did it for you, even with the name and everything :p

Great plan. I gotta go work on my bomb shelter now.

This things will never end as long as there is the Iranian regime and the Syrian regime; I don't want to oversimplify issues.

But things have changed in Iraq in a deep and a dramatic manner. It was not just because of the surge, the surge had a minor effect. Change happened because Sunnis have been turning against al-qaida and fighting it, this is the main reason for improvement there.

Hmm quite coincidentally, the "Al Qaeda" is most prolific until the "Sunni insurgents" obtain arms and funding from the US troops. After that, they immediately stop; almost as if they were just waiting for the insurgents to get the money.

What shelter? who's going to shell you?

Hmm quite coincidentally, the "Al Qaeda" is most prolific until the "Sunni insurgents" obtain arms and funding from the US troops. After that, they immediately stop; almost as if they were just waiting for the insurgents to get the money.

Well if this has broguht violence 70% down then where is the harm? and it will last because I don't think al-qaida can sacrifice the US money payments.

What shelter? who's going to shell you?

What do you mean? If we are going to war all over the place, there must be a real threat. Isn't there?

In fact no one is going to shell us, so there's no point in starting WWIII with Iran. We might try talking to them, they are here to stay, and they need to establish good relations with Iraq, as recommended by the Iraq Study Group.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSCOL24813120071022?rpc=92

Iraq is calming down and the strategy of Bush is working. This has proved to be indeed better than the strategy of cutting and running.

See Spidergoat? I told you this would happen :-)

Any country will be peaceful once someone's killed enough people and broken enough stuff.

Considering we went into this war, not for self-defense, but for political reasons, by choice, it is impossible to have a complete picture of what's happening without talking about politics.

There is a very real difference in discussing the politics of the situation in Iraq and the foreign politics it affects and in couching any and all discussions about Iraq in partisan terms where one side is "right" the other "wrong" or "lying" purely so your "side" of the aisle can score political points and further their specious political aims. In other words, if you want to talk about the politics that are important and matter, that's fine. But that's typically not what you talk about and typically not what the Donkeys and the Elephants talk about. Everything is reduced to this worthless partisan red team/blue team, endless campaign contest that currently grips/ruins American politics. And I won't participate in it, nor do I think it's even possible to do so, objectively speaking. The argument isn't about reality. It's about the perception of reality and what that means for 2008.

Bush/Cheney's views are far from "objective", and that must be taken into account when responding to their rosy images of Iraq.

And the Democrats are no better. They are just as untrustworthy, skew just as much information and say and do just as many asinine things. Hence, my initial remarks about tuning the whole fiasco out.

What do you mean? If we are going to war all over the place, there must be a real threat. Isn't there?

In fact no one is going to shell us, so there's no point in starting WWIII with Iran. We might try talking to them, they are here to stay, and they need to establish good relations with Iraq, as recommended by the Iraq Study Group.

They hear you. You just have to give them nuclear capacity and everything will be fine.

I know you're fine with that, but you can't make other people accept to furnish a terrorist country with nukes.

They are allowed under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to enrich uranium.

Also, there is no such thing as a terrorist country.

There is a terrorist regime; and you couldn't convince others to supply a terrorist regime with nukes under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

No there isn't. Terrorism is defined as the action of a non-state entity.

Iran is allowed to enrich uranium under the NNPT, and there is no proof of any nuclear weapons, so you deny this?

Israel, India, and Pakistan have all NOT signed on to the NNPT.

And the Democrats are no better. They are just as untrustworthy, skew just as much information and say and do just as many asinine things. Hence, my initial remarks about tuning the whole fiasco out.

Well no, they didn't go to war by choice and based on lies. They don't hold fake press conferences. This whole war is partisan. It's based on the Neo-Con philosophy, not any need to defend the nation.

The Democrats voted for the war. They had a choice. Quit making excuses for them.

You can try to cast sentiment into this all you like, but I believe the topic of this thread was percentages and you asked whether the decline you outlined in your scenario was actually a decline. It is. And I gave you a real-world example of why it is.

so what your saying a relitive decline is the same as an absolute one?
because thats what it seems your trying to imply

The Democrats voted for the war. They had a choice. Quit making excuses for them.

Two thirds didn't.

so what your saying a relitive decline is the same as an absolute one?
because thats what it seems your trying to imply

I'm not impying anything. I was responding to this question: "if something rises by 50% then goes down 20% has it really gone down." Yes, it really has gone down. And I gave a real-world correlation. Now, you're introducing the modifiers "relative" and "absolute" to try to make some larger point — after the fact. Personally, I'm tired of playing this game. As I've said before in this thread before, for people like you and Spider, there is no data from any source that you wouldn't take apart, parse over and manipulate in order to make it fit into your preordained viewpoint, and in doing so, satisfy your partisan objectives.

Shouldn't we take apart and question the data we are bring told from an administration with a history of deception?

Sure, but not if you're doing it for partisan reasons and your conclusions are preordained. You — and a few others here — have demonstrated time and again that this is exactly what you're doing. It's entirely partisan and political, and nothing can shift your appreciation of the war. So again, I say why bother talking with you?

Considering that everything about this war was partisan, including the preordained decision to invade no matter what happened with inspections, you're damn right nothing will shift my "appreciation" of it's effectiveness. I will remain deeply skeptical of any claims from Iraq, but if the news were really that good, it shouldn't matter.

Edit: My favorite cartoonist, Tim Krieder, said it best:

Yeah, I know it’s a bigass tragedy, and we’re not supposed to dwell on how we got there or point fingers or play the Blame Game now because we’re all in it together and we have to figure out where to go from here—but actually, no, fuck that: we’re not all in it together. Those neocon pinheads from the Project for a New American Century thought up this war, the Republican party followed the administration in docile goosestep, and the shithead voters supported it with bumper stickers and magnetic ribbons and their children’s lives, like they always do, every single time, and of course it’s a fucking disaster, exactly like us wussy liberal peaceniks said it would be. Things did not go unexpectedly, inexplicably wrong in Iraq; they went predictably, inevitably wrong. Conservatives have had absolute control over America’s destiny for the last eight years, and they finally got everything they ever wanted. It’s a big grisly Monkey’s Paw wish come true for Red America. And unfortunately, unlike the horrified parents in “The Monkey’s Paw,” who can hear their mangled son’s corpse shambling toward the door, coming home, they’re out of wishes.

Sure, but not if you're doing it for partisan reasons and your conclusions are preordained. You — and a few others here — have demonstrated time and again that this is exactly what you're doing. It's entirely partisan and political, and nothing can shift your appreciation of the war. So again, I say why bother talking with you?

The notion that fair and equable evaluation of the Iraq War entails accepting claims manifestly contrary to fact as equivalent to claims in general agreement with fact is very odd. We are not choosing between two parallel universes here.

I'm not impying anything. I was responding to this question: "if something rises by 50% then goes down 20% has it really gone down." Yes, it really has gone down. And I gave a real-world correlation. Now, you're introducing the modifiers "relative" and "absolute" to try to make some larger point — after the fact. Personally, I'm tired of playing this game. As I've said before in this thread before, for people like you and Spider, there is no data from any source that you wouldn't take apart, parse over and manipulate in order to make it fit into your preordained viewpoint, and in doing so, satisfy your partisan objectives.

yes it has really gone done relative bot overall the net is an increase that is my point

The notion that fair and equable evaluation of the Iraq War entails accepting claims manifestly contrary to fact as equivalent to claims in general agreement with fact is very odd. We are not choosing between two parallel universes here.

At the end of the day, you have no real way of knowing what is "fact" and what is not. All you have to go on is the primary sources in the region or the secondary sources here reporting on data collected there. Both require a leap of faith of sorts. And your as biased as Spider, so what I said for him goes for you, too. You're going to find the data that backs your appreciation "factual" and the data that doesn't "contrary." Again, to argue with people like you on this issue is a waste of time.

Notice the bar graph...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/21003.html

What, nothing to say?

We have been saying all along that there weren't enough troops to secure the country. However, this is not changing the basic political climate.

If you think things are really turning around in Iraq, you are fooling yourself. We have increased bombing from the air by 400% in an attempt to make Bush's surge look like it's accomplishing something.

It's accomplishing some stabilty alright, but still the whole thing is messed up, US should leave, the earlier the better.

I think now is actually a good chance [saving face] for US to start withdrawing the troops, before the trend changes...

George Bush isn't interested in saving face. He wants to win. For that, I commend him.

Can't wait for him to unfurl that Mission Accomplished banner again. It must be getting dusty.

So now that things are getting somewhat better, Pelosi wants out?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1107/Pelosi_plans_new_Iraq_measure.html

The escalation was not an end unto itself, you do realize it was supposed to help the political process? How's that going?

This year has also been the deadliest year for Us troops in Iraq so far.

The escalation was not an end unto itself, you do realize it was supposed to help the political process? How's that going?

It is going great.

Anything specific?

How about the link I posted, which no one saw fit to comment on. I don't deny that this year for the US hasn't been deadly, because it has. But things seem to be getting better now, and rather than continue to push ahead, the Democrats will once again try to leave. Either Americans agree with that or they don't. I suppose we'll see...

I meant is there anything good to report on political reconciliation in Iraq? That's the whole point of the escalation.

Again,

Sunnis of Iraq have revolted against al-qaida. Al-qaida has significantly diminished in Iraq thanks to Sunnis not to Americans.

Sunni Iraqis who have been fighting al-qaida are in total accordance with the Iraqi government. There is not any single issue between the bulk of Iraqi Sunnis and the Shia.

The problem in Iraq is between Iranian militias, Syrian backed Ba'thi gangs, and the new Sunni-Shia Iraqi state. The outside forces have been exploiting religious extremism and inferior life conditions of some people (Sunnis and Shias) to recruit fighters.

Now that religious extremism is losing its appeal, remains the inferior life conditions. Those are being seriously addresed now by the Iraqi government and the US.

Permanent stability in Iraq is impossible unless the Iranio-Syrian axis be dealt with. If you know ANYTHING about Middle East you should be sure about that. I recommend reading the history of Lebanon, a country in which a war has been running since the 1950's primarily because of outside influence.

I'm reading From Beirut to Jerusalem right now. It's almost unbelievable.

I meant is there anything good to report on political reconciliation in Iraq? That's the whole point of the escalation.

Political stability is impossible without safety and security. I'm sure this can't be that difficult to fathom...

Sunni Iraqis who have been fighting al-qaida are in total accordance with the Iraqi government. Baloney.
But things seem to be getting better now, and rather than continue to push ahead, By continuing the "surge" ?

Are you sure that "leaving" and "pushing ahead" are conflicting strategies?

The Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds seem to have separated themselves, in amny places, which has reduced the death squad activity and other violence aimed at ethnic cleansing (they succeeded, in other words)

and a few hundred thousand targets of violence have left Iraq altogether

Sadri has enforced a moratorium on most Shia violence from his faction, for various reasons possibly including the near prospect of victory and an Iranian-allied Shia theocratic state

and AQ has suffered setbacks in losing the allegiance of many Sunni insurgents, which have become (not by coincidence) better armed and trained and supported by the US

So the prospects of a reasonably peaceful (only ordinary civil war) dissolution of Iraq into stable (capable of defending themselves, coherently governed) components might be better than they were a few months ago. Maybe.

But the US presence and goals do not fit well with these prospects, and getting rid of the US will prove more difficult than getting rid of AQ, probably.

btw: A link for "From Beirut to Jerusalem" http://www.selectbooks.com.sg/getTitle.cfm?SBNum=9496 ;)

Political stability is impossible without safety and security. I'm sure this can't be that difficult to fathom...

So where is it?

It hasn't happened yet. Do you think the political situation will improve if the US leave?

We are at the end of our rope here, don't you understand that? The surge was a hail mary pass. If the Iraqi government doesn't run with the ball, that's it.

Baloney.

You don't know shit about Iraq.

Sunni tribal leaders are political allies of the Shia IUC against the Tawafuq front of al-hashimee. Just today Nori Al-Maliki has accepted the resignation of the Twafuq ministers supported by the promise of tribal leaders that they will substitute for the resigning ministers. Sunni leaders accepting to replace other Sunni ministers who resigned in protest shows how asshole one can be when he talks about stuff he doesn't know shit about.

Notice the bar graph...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/21003.html

I see bar graph where the death rate goes up and down on a regular basis. There are 6 months of decline up to March 2006, so was that proof that things had improved?

The numbers are low, historically speaking. Someone here was arguing they aren't low, because they climbed so high that the decline didn't take them down to some objective "low." That graph proves that person (or people, I can't remeber) are totally wrong...

The Iraqi deaths are low because we keep adding in various types of deaths to omit so the count winds up appearing less.

- N

The graph I posted is from McClatchy, so it comes from a variety of sources, government and non. It's their best effort to assess the deaths. In other words, it has not been manipulated by officials the way you claim.

I refute that fact. Point blank.

So McClatchy is lying and their reporters are wrong? Where's your proof?

Fewer people are getting murdered than before, yay. Doesn't mean it's not a fraking mess over there, and it's our fault.

The news.

Every single day, we are shown graffic images, and scenes of disturbing death and violence on the streets of Iraq. I dont see how someone can say that violence is down 70 %. how can you resource that?

So because you "see" something on the news, your mind immediately establishes a trend? I'm sorry, but that's not scientific. The story I posted is. The way the bar graph is compiled is discussed. So are the percentages that are mentioned. Read the story.

The news.

Every single day, we are shown graffic images, and scenes of disturbing death and violence on the streets of Iraq. I dont see how someone can say that violence is down 70 %. how can you resource that?



The news is if it bleeds it leads, the number of incidents are down, there is less violence, that doesn't mean their is no violence, but there are enough incident that it can be front page news everyday no matter how small they are, the news is invested in trying to prove that the war won't work, but the fact are as shown in the graph, and as stated in many news stories that the violence is way down the deaths are the lowest that they have been in 21 months, with a little research you can find stories all over Google that report the same thing, the Surge is working.

The news is if it bleeds it leads, the number of incidents are down, there is less violence, that doesn't mean their is no violence, but there are enough incident that it can be front page news everyday no matter how small they are, the news is invested in trying to prove that the war won't work, but the fact are as shown in the graph, and as stated in many news stories that the violence is way down the deaths are the lowest that they have been in 21 months, with a little research you can find stories all over Google that report the same thing, the Surge is working.

With luck, the trend will continue and this wasn't just a high point of the war.

I don't know why you even bothered putting in that one last period. :p

More good news — and from the LA Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq20nov20,1,4897130.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true

The news is if it bleeds it leads, the number of incidents are down, there is less violence, that doesn't mean their is no violence, but there are enough incident that it can be front page news everyday no matter how small they are, the news is invested in trying to prove that the war won't work, but the fact are as shown in the graph, and as stated in many news stories that the violence is way down the deaths are the lowest that they have been in 21 months, with a little research you can find stories all over Google that report the same thing, the Surge is working.

actually all it means is less people are dying. also it is irrelevant if the surge is working because it is not sustainable.

More good news — and from the LA Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq20nov20,1,4897130.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true

That's not really good news, it's expected. They sent 20,000 more troops to Baghdad, set up road blocks all over the place, and there was still over 300 bombings last month. Sure it's down, but it says nothing about the prospect for peace in Iraq. As one resident of Baghdad said, there is quiet in many neighborhoods, but it is not safe. It's only quiet because the militias have taken over.

Right. Nothing is ever good news. It can always be spun to be bad news. The template is the same with you all the time. Typical.

I couldn't read that link, but the political situation has dramatically improved even since the last time I posted here.

Now there are Sunni ministers again in the government. A major development is the following:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/11/sunni_clerics_turn_o.php

Those people had so destructive influence on Iraq that might have been second only to the influence of al-jazeera, a terrorist media organization stationed in Qatar.

You can't really trust any reports given out to the public. The government moniters everything and makes up stories that they think the public can handle or understand unless you actually tallied up all of the deaths yourself, don't trust everything you read. I know this because my father was one of the people who made things up for the government.

Right. Nothing is ever good news. It can always be spun to be bad news. The template is the same with you all the time. Typical.

Deaths in my family are down 70%, last month 100 of them died, this month only 30. Good news... good news.

Maybe...but still, the strategy is working...:wtf:

You do realize that Iraqis never attacked Amercia, Iraqis never planed to do so, and Iraqis didn't make any WMD that could do so.
Just who makes up this decrease in 70%?
What I've read is it's Sunni Iraqis, normally they are trying to oust us - an invader. So what you're saying is we invaded a sovereign nation and it appears we've finally killed off enough of the Sunni population where they are no longer attacking us anymore? It's funny that we Americans can be convinced to fight so hard and give the ultimate sacrifice for something that stands against the principals of our founding.

Iraq will never be at peace. Just look at the Kurdishstan - Turkey's biting at the bit to attack - yet the whole thing is working??? What's maybe working is Sunni's see there is a new sheriff in town and they will play ball until they can exact their revenge on the Shia. Mark my words, the Sunni will never rest until they are all either killed off or they control Iraq again.

Wait, there was a strategy besides planned chaos?

Those people had so destructive influence on Iraq that might have been second only to the influence of al-jazeera, a terrorist media organization stationed in Qatar. Al Jazeera is a terrorist media organization, the newly-armed Sunni who have banded against AQ are also joined up with the Shia government and have no differences with it, and the drop in violence to only 500 attacks a month or so in and around Baghdad is good news marking a fundamental change directly attributable to the new US tactics, for sure.

Back on the planet: Does anyone have any numbers on the air war, or the Iraqi casualties outside the Baghdad region ? Is that also down since June ? We seem to be having the same trouble getting numbers out of the official sources that we have always had, and the reporting from Iraq is just as constrained and stage-managed as ever.

"We seem to be having the same trouble getting numbers out of the official sources that we have always had, and the reporting from Iraq is just as constrained and stage-managed as ever."

No, it's much more contrived and stage-managed than ever. The neoconservatives are attempting to spin this fiasco into a near-victory spoiled by the next administration, in hopes of returning to power and having a positive legacy someday. They will similarly spin the looming recession. Hani, Countezero, and many duped Americans must learn to pay better attention before they will see through this and similar deceptions; the slow learners are forcing the whole class to learn the truth the hard way.

Well, thanks for chiming in with your usual conspiracy theories, Hype. We haven't seen you in this thread since the last time you popped up to attack information being reported in the media...

You're welcome- It's nice to read your thoughtful words again too, countezero. If we would all question and even attack information reported in the media more often, we'd certainly all be better informed. Or to put it another way, the more we neglect criticism of the media, the more entropy and corruption will always take the initiative there. There's so much money and power to be made through an unquestioned media establishment, that it can become dangerous not only to clarity but also to democracy. American clarity and democracy are presently undergoing a great test.

I don't quite understand your notion of "conspiracy-theory" as you've mentioned it here. Do you really see it as mere and unfounded theory that the neoconservatives who are now disappearing from power have been actively manipulating American public opinion with the complicity of major US media? Surely you've been paying attention enough to have noticed by now that this really has been occurring. That sad story is not just conspiracy theory anymore. It's part of our history now. The deceptions and self-deceptions that got America entangled in Vietnam are better understood now; are not conspiracy theories. Most Americans, like the world at large before us, have come to clearly recognize that analogous media distortions have been key to the inception and perpetuation of this war.

It's no "theory" anymore.

Nor is it any longer just a theory that many Americans remain deep in denial over the neoconservative deception. We see it all the time. countezero is one example of the many who are still desperately clinging to any apparent validation of America's post-9-11 rampage. These victims of disinformation remain trapped in a dysfunctional loop of psychological hand-washing: We can't be wrong... The Surge is working... We can't be wrong... We're turning the corner... We can't be wrong... The nay-sayers are liberal conspiracy-nuts with wild agendas... We can't be wrong- We're the Good Guys. But that isn't reality in Iraq, it never was, and the fundamental dynamics of this misbegotten occupation will always remain.

You guys really crack me up.

Here's another story to mull...

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/20/world/middleeast/20surge.html?ei=5065&en=7e7d43064c067b63&ex=1196226000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Wow, days pass without a car bomb, break out the champagne.

Permanent stability in Iraq is impossible unless the Iranio-Syrian axis be dealt with. If you know ANYTHING about Middle East you should be sure about that.

You seem to forget that our so-called "ally", Saudi Arabia, is providing the most foreign insurgents and arms in Iraq.

- N

True to form, your link is not as rosy as the headline,countezero:

By one revealing measure of security — whether people who fled their home have returned — the gains are still limited. About 20,000 Iraqis have gone back to their Baghdad homes, a fraction of the more than 4 million who fled nationwide, and the 1.4 million people in Baghdad who are still internally displaced, according to a recent Iraqi Red Crescent Society survey.

Iraqis sound uncertain about the future, but defiantly optimistic. Many Baghdad residents seem to be willing themselves to normalcy, ignoring risks and suppressing fears to reclaim their lives. Pushing past boundaries of sect and neighborhood, they said they were often pleasantly surprised and kept going; in other instances, traumatic memories or a dark look from a stranger were enough to tug them back behind closed doors.

...the achievement remains rare. Many Iraqis say they would still rather leave the country than go home. In Baghdad there are far more families like the Nidhals. The father, who would only identify himself as Abu Nebras (father of Nebras), is Sunni; Hanan, his wife, is a Shiite from Najaf, the center of Shiite religious learning in Iraq. They lived for 17 years in Ghazaliya in western Baghdad until four gunmen from Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni extremist group that American intelligence agencies say is led by foreigners, showed up at his door last December.

“My sons were armed and they went away but after that, we knew we had only a few hours,” Abu Nebras said. “We were displaced because I was secular and Al Qaeda didn’t like that.”

They took refuge in the middle-class Palestine Street area in the northeastern part of Baghdad, a relatively stable enclave with an atmosphere of tolerance for their mixed marriage. Now with the situation improving across the city, the Nidhal family longs to return to their former home, but they have no idea when, or if, it will be possible.

...they are trying to enjoy what may be only a temporary respite from violence.

What headline? I said: "Here's another story to mull..."

Can you read? Or are you in such a hurry to berate me that you no longer bother...

countezero: "Can you read? Or are you in such a hurry to berate me that you no longer bother..."

I didn't mean to berate you. I meant to criticise a headline that didn't seem to reflect the content when I read it. Why not mull this this one too, and test the headline:

IRAQ: Fewer Deaths Bring No Reassurance (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39993)

We're 2 casualties away from the deadliest year for our troops in Iraq to date.

Attacks against U.S. forces are not much less than they were last month, but media coverage has almost disappeared. The resistance is moving fast and changing locations in order to avoid intelligence provided by collaborators. Most Iraqis hate the Americans more than ever after the death and destruction caused by their occupation.

I didn't write the headline, which didn't stop you from trying to apply it to my "form." That's typical for you...

Here's something from the AP. It's on page 5A in my paper:

"The US military says overall attacks in Iraq have fallen 55 percent since nearly 30,000 additional American troops arrived in Iraq by June, and some areas are experiencing their lowest levels of violence since summer 2005."

More spin.

Riiiggghhht.

That's right. Militia knew the Surge was temporary, and have largely sat it out. Ethnic cleansing has also progressed- there is greater sectarian segregation. But this does not mean that the Iraqi civil war has run its course, nor does it mean they are approaching a lasting political settlement under the present Maliki regime. The recent American tactical switch to arming up Sunni militias is likely to ratchet up future sectarian fighting.

This war may appear to some to be going phoney in the short term, but the pressures are clearly building on multiple internal and external fronts, and not abating. Even the relationship between Washington and Maliki's isolated Baghdad government is deteriorating.

The recent American tactical switch to arming up Sunni militias is likely to ratchet up future sectarian fighting.

If you read the report by Greg Palast, it looks like the Sunni militias have actually used the US to obtain arms and funds in preparation of a civil war.

The whole sh*t will probably hit the fan as soon as they are ready.

http://yellow_pages.blogspot.com/2007/09/bushs-fake-sheikh-whacked.html

What a great source of information you've posted, Sam. Thanks so much.

Yes, thanks. Greg Palast, Rick Rowley, and David Enders do regularly help us see through the major-media smokescreen.

This from the Economist:

"But the recent numbers do raise American and even Iraqi hopes. In October, 36 American service people were killed, the lowest toll since March 2006, down from 65 in September and 126 in May. Iraqi civilian deaths are down too. A tally compiled by Iraqi Body Count, a fastidious anti-war lobby group, from press and morgue reports will probably reach around 1,200 deaths: still a terrible toll, but fewer than the 2,500 victims in August and 3,000 in July."

This from the Neoconomist:

"In-between casualties, our losses are now down to a resounding zero! We're suddenly down from 5,000+ fatalities and 20,000+ wounded to zero casualties, while Hajji dead-enders keep dropping like flies! We're winning! We can't be wrong! It's the End of History! USA! USA! USA! Mine eyes have seen the Glory of the Coming of the Lord, He is trampling out the vintage where the Grapes of Wrath are stored, Glory Hallelujah,etc"

From Faux News:

Previously dead Iraqis are now strolling home after being resurrected! Cheeses be praised!!!

From PNAC:

"It's a Murkle!"

Circlejerk detected; abort thread.

Abort Mission! Repeat, Abort Mission! Propaganda compromised! Run away!

"We seem to be having the same trouble getting numbers out of the official sources that we have always had, and the reporting from Iraq is just as constrained and stage-managed as ever."

No, it's much more contrived and stage-managed than ever. The neoconservatives are attempting to spin this fiasco into a near-victory spoiled by the next administration, in hopes of returning to power and having a positive legacy someday. They will similarly spin the looming recession. Hani, Countezero, and many duped Americans must learn to pay better attention before they will see through this and similar deceptions; the slow learners are forcing the whole class to learn the truth the hard way.

It's funny monsieur hypewaders that I end up being the duped one. It's not a surprise to me to hear you talk conspiracies, you belong to the school of Michel Aoun who is an institution in paranoia and conspiracy theories. He ****** the sister of his Christian community because he's the only good honest man in the world and everybody else are sons of bitches, even the patriarch. All the people in the world, Christians, Muslims, Arabs, Americans, French etc are all conspiring against him, they are jealous of him because he's the only one who's got the Holy Spirit in him. All the media is lying and trying to defame him, he's not allied with Hizbullah, he's not allied with Ba'th party, he's not allied with Bashar Assad. Those are all media conspiracies against him.

I wish you even more smartness. Let me be duped, I'm happy with it.

Ahlawsahla, Je vous en prie. :bow & flourish:

Personally, I think you're a delusional fanatic. The AP is wrong. The NYT is wrong. The Economist is wrong. Everyone is wrong — and you and your friends are right. Such solipsism, while comforting, is not palatable to me. Sorry.

So did you believe it when the news media showed Bush with a mission accomplished banner years ago?

So did you believe it when the news media showed Bush with a mission accomplished banner years ago?


Mission does accomplished, does not equal war over.

Many missions make a war, I flew 1,200 missions in Vietnam, all accomplished, but that didn't mean the war was over every time a mission was accomplished.

So did you believe it when the news media showed Bush with a mission accomplished banner years ago?

That's an inane argument. The Media was covering an event where the president was speaking. It was not "showing" him, whatever that means. Furthermore, it cannot control (or edit) what they president says or what he chooses to hang in the background for effect. Politicians speak in front of backgrounds with messages on them all the time. So I fail to see what your remark is attempting to postulate.

That's an inane argument. The Media was covering an event where the president was speaking. It was not "showing" him, whatever that means. Furthermore, it cannot control (or edit) what they president says or what he chooses to hang in the background for effect. Politicians speak in front of backgrounds with messages on them all the time. So I fail to see what your remark is attempting to postulate.

Hmm did the media refute his statements, call him a liar?

And are we to assume that you believe the media but not the President?

You're not to assume anything. I asked the point of what you've written, you haven't answered. Instead you've shifted the focus to what I believe, which is immaterial.

For the record, the Media can and should only refute his statement if they have evidence to the contrary. At the time of the announcement, they did not. The proof of that the stunt was a stunt came in the months and years after the actual event, when the wheels actually came off the wagon in Iraq. So again, what's your point?

WOW 70% holy dooly
thats soo gooood

For the record, the Media can and should only refute his statement if they have evidence to the contrary. At the time of the announcement, they did not. They did. Or at least some of them did, because I recall reading refutations backed with evidence at the time, and both before and after, the "Mission Accomplished" theatrical.

It was frequently described, for example, by comparing it with the pageantry and pomp involved in Big Lie presentations of 1930s Germany.

You're not to assume anything. I asked the point of what you've written, you haven't answered. Instead you've shifted the focus to what I believe, which is immaterial.

For the record, the Media can and should only refute his statement if they have evidence to the contrary. At the time of the announcement, they did not. The proof of that the stunt was a stunt came in the months and years after the actual event, when the wheels actually came off the wagon in Iraq. So again, what's your point?

So you did believe the President since you appear to have missed the contradictions. Thanks, just what I wanted to know

:D

Here's another Iraq story. It's similar to the Times piece, but a little more negative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/22/AR2007112201568_pf.html


They did. Or at least some of them did, because I recall reading refutations backed with evidence at the time, and both before and after, the "Mission Accomplished" theatrical.

Someone had evidence the mission of major combat operations (IE the war) wasn't accomplished? Please, provide a link, because I'd love to read it. The major combat was over. Period. What's made Bush's PR stunt seem ridiculous is the fact a Civil War erupted after the regime was toppled. I don't see how any media organization could have reported what had not happened yet. I mean, what would you and Sam have had them ask? What was appropriate, in your mind?

It was frequently described, for example, by comparing it with the pageantry and pomp involved in Big Lie presentations of 1930s Germany.

Sorry, I don't read publications that would make such an inane remark.

So you did believe the President since you appear to have missed the contradictions. Thanks, just what I wanted to know

:D

I've tried to talk with you, but as usual, you're incapable of following an argument on making a point that approaches anything that is cogent. When you get done trying to pigeon-hole and one-up me and you have something to say that makes sense, we'll speak again.

That was an interesting link, countezero. Although you claim that you don't read publications that would compare the official US description of progress in Iraq to Nazi propaganda, the link you provided exposes a very similar subterfuge, if you will only make the effort to compare.

Iraq is not a triumph of liberation. It is a civil war in lockdown, and for a number of clearly-visible reasons (that we can readily explore if you like) that lockdown is unsustainable. Nazi comparisons should only be taken so far, because their purpose is only to stimulate analysis from a different angle. If you find the comparison too distasteful, then compare official American platitudes about Iraq and Baghdad to the Soviet "Potemkin Village" phenomena. The Bush Administration persists in entertaining dangerous deceptions. The more you widen your sources, the more this will become apparent to you.

The problem with your paranoid (and asinine) theory is that Bush administration (that figment of evil for you) does not control the Media the way the Soviets or Nazis did. The Times and The Post are independent Media organizations with independent reporters gathering their information free from government control. Any fool can see this, but apparently you cannot.

The Times and The Post are independent Media organizations with independent reporters gathering their information free from government control. No US media organization gathers information in Iraq independent of US government influence and management.

As far as "control" - not to bog down in definitions of how much influence amounts to "control" of some kind, we note the extraordinary ability of the US military and executive administration to plant stories that receive national distribution, and frame the vocabulary and circumstances of media accounts -

we recall one such event discussed on this forum just a few weeks ago, when a couple of "respectable" "journalists" who presented administration PR as results of investigative reporting (that had not in fact been accomplished) were featured nationwide in all major media, described exactly as the PR setup required they be described (former "staunch critics" of the war effort and the Surge, just back from a stint of serious and independent nvestigative reporting in Iraq) in defiance of the plain facts -

and we note the extreme difficulty of obtaining reliable and independent information from much of Iraq, or any of the military forces there.
Someone had evidence the mission of major combat operations (IE the war) wasn't accomplished? Please, provide a link, because I'd love to read it. The major combat was over. Period. The "mission" was not to end major combat - not at that time, anyway. Several disrespectable writers offered that as a revision of the "mission" (we win? great, let's leave now), but were dismissed then by the serious and respectable herd of patriotic media. Too bad, eh?

But even that meagre redefinition of "mission accomplished" was doubted at the time, by a great many pundits and such - I recall Molly Ivins for instance, a mere desk jockey columnist with no special expertise, predicted (just before launch) that the initial invasion as would be an easy military success, followed by "the peace from hell".
It was frequently described, for example, by comparing it with the pageantry and pomp involved in Big Lie presentations of 1930s Germany. ”

Sorry, I don't read publications that would make such an inane remark. That must be how you end up saying things like this What's made Bush's PR stunt seem ridiculous is the fact a Civil War erupted after the regime was toppled. I don't see how any media organization could have reported what had not happened yet.

Quite a few media figures found W's PR stunt not only ridiculous (and disturbing) but obviously premature, at the moment it was performed - the idea that it only came to seem ridiculous months later is either evidence of extremely narrow and biased news sources or another one of your remarkably consistent memory revisions.

The similarity of style and content between W&Co's pageantry and that of the fascist political parties in Europe in the 1930s is striking - not inane at all.

The problem with your paranoid (and asinine) theory is that Bush administration (that figment of evil for you) does not control the Media the way the Soviets or Nazis did. The Times and The Post are independent Media organizations with independent reporters gathering their information free from government control. Any fool can see this, but apparently you cannot.

That is true, the control is more subtle (and voluntary). Look at who sits on the board of directors at those companies, and all the pending legislation that pertains to the companies that share those same members.

No US media organization gathers information in Iraq independent of US government influence and management.

That's just completely and utterly wrong. Reporters can go wherever they like and speak to whoever they want, with the obvious exception being military installations and military personnel. Much has been made about the disinformation or manipulation of information by officials about things such as body counts and injuries as such. This is precisely why many media organizations accept official figures but also call on a host of NGOs, non-profits and local sources to come up with the most relevant numbers possible. The graph I posted several days ago is an excellent example of how McClatchy's Baghdad reporters get the most accurate information they can with little or no regard to official sources. So sorry, you're appreciation that the media is being controlled stage-managed or controlled is a product of your bias and mania, and it's just dead wrong.

we recall one such event discussed on this forum just a few weeks ago, when a couple of "respectable" "journalists" who presented administration PR as results of investigative reporting (that had not in fact been accomplished) were featured nationwide in all major media, described exactly as the PR setup required they be described (former "staunch critics" of the war effort and the Surge, just back from a stint of serious and independent nvestigative reporting in Iraq) in defiance of the plain facts -

I assume you speak of the Pollack piece? Yes, let's talk about it. Because every major assertion he made is now being born out by other news outlets, Democratic senators and various pundits on the ground. The violence is down. Whether this is sustainable or not, I don't know. But the violence is down. Period.

Quite a few media figures found W's PR stunt not only ridiculous (and disturbing) but obviously premature, at the moment it was performed - the idea that it only came to seem ridiculous months later is either evidence of extremely narrow and biased news sources or another one of your remarkably consistent memory revisions.

I have nothing invested in this, so I wouldn't bother with revision. Sam says the Media didn't question the event, you say "quite a few" did. Perhaps I missed it because I tend to avoid punditry and editorials at all costs. Regardless, I don't know which is correct and I don't care. My only point in addressing her foolish red herring was to explain that it's not an objective reporter's job to comment on an event as it takes place in real time. And it's certainly not out of the ordinary to see a politician perched in front of a banner with a slogan on it. Turn on your television and wait for election coverage, each candidate will be speaking at a location designed to convey something on television and standing in front of a similar background. Are they fascists, too?

The similarity of style and content between W&Co's pageantry and that of the fascist political parties in Europe in the 1930s is striking - not inane at all.

And that's your opinion. And you're welcome to have it and to read about it in Socialist quarterlies. I think it's ridiculous and beneath considering. So I won't.

That's just completely and utterly wrong. Reporters can go wherever they like and speak to whoever they want, with the obvious exception being military installations and military personnel. Much has been made about the disinformation or manipulation of information by officials about things such as body counts and injuries as such. This is precisely why many media organizations accept official figures but also call on a host of NGOs, non-profits and local sources to come up with the most relevant numbers possible. The graph I posted several days ago is an excellent example of how McClatchy's Baghdad reporters get the most accurate information they can with little or no regard to official sources. So sorry, you're appreciation that the media is being controlled stage-managed or controlled is a product of your bias and mania, and it's just dead wrong.



I assume you speak of the Pollack piece? Yes, let's talk about it. Because every major assertion he made is now being born out by other news outlets, Democratic senators and various pundits on the ground. The violence is down. Whether this is sustainable or not, I don't know. But the violence is down. Period.



I have nothing invested in this, so I wouldn't bother with revision. Sam says the Media didn't question the event, you say "quite a few" did. Perhaps I missed it because I tend to avoid punditry and editorials at all costs. Regardless, I don't know which is correct and I don't care. My only point in addressing her foolish red herring was to explain that it's not an objective reporter's job to comment on an event as it takes place in real time. And it's certainly not out of the ordinary to see a politician perched in front of a banner with a slogan on it. Turn on your television and wait for election coverage, each candidate will be speaking at a location designed to convey something on television and standing in front of a similar background. Are they fascists, too?



And that's your opinion. And you're welcome to have it and to read about it in Socialist quarterlies. I think it's ridiculous and beneath considering. So I won't.
um having talked to people who have lived during both times in both places they tend to say it is the same.

Anecdotal evidence is suspect. I talk to Marines all the time who say just the opposite, which is why the numbers are important.

Reporters can go wherever they like and speak to whoever they want, with the obvious exception being military installations and military personnel. ? ! You are aware that we are talking about the reporting from Iraq ?
I assume you speak of the Pollack piece? Yes, let's talk about it. Because every major assertion he made is now being born out by other news outlets, Democratic senators and various pundits on the ground.
Perhaps I missed it because I tend to avoid punditry and editorials at all costs. Regardless, I don't know which is correct and I don't care. My only point in addressing her foolish red herring was to explain that it's not an objective reporter's job to comment on an event as it takes place in real time.

Uh, right. Objective reporting consists in transmitting the government's PR initiatives exactly as presented by said government, without "comment" - except praise and expressions of appreciation, of course, by the more respectable journalists.
And that's your opinion. And you're welcome to have it and to read about it in Socialist quarterlies. I think it's ridiculous and beneath considering. So I won't. But you will deliver uninformed opinions of your own, carefully uncorrected by common sources of information about the reality you find unworthy of your attention - such as the notion that W's carrier deck theatrics were only made to look silly in retrospect, by a coincidence of unpredicted events months afterwards.

But the puzzle remains: if you are willing to acknowledge at least that events months afterwards did make Codpiece Day (as it was described by the unworthy who got the facts straight right away) look pretty bad, how did the "journalists" who fell all over themselves signing on to that bit of tragicomic Goebbellian staging keep your respect ? If as you claim reporters have a free hand in Iraq, how does someone who did what Pollack did and presented it as on-the-ground independent reporting keep their status as a respectable journalist in your eyes ?

see below

Desert Shield was also the lul before the BANG that became Desert Storm.

Spending is being argued. While that happens President Bush regroups his forces, calls on available troops, activates the reserves and then goes on the offensive. { after a bit of shock an awe of course } Then he will pull something out of his...um sleeve to prove that a good job was done in hopes of a better public opinion.

Then wash, rinse, & repeat, like always.

? ! You are aware that we are talking about the reporting from Iraq?

Yes, I am.

Uh, right. Objective reporting consists in transmitting the government's PR initiatives exactly as presented by said government, without "comment" - except praise and expressions of appreciation, of course, by the more respectable journalists.

You're so full of bile and bullshit, I'm not even sure this is worth pursuing. I outlined in previous posts how many larger news organizations go well beyond official sources for things like casualty figures. They also conduct polls in Iraq fairly frequently, and are actively engaged with speaking to people beyond the green zone. In other words, any journalist worth his salt does not go and sit at press conferences all day, and most of the journalists in Iraq are their organization's premier reporter. To contrast, you've done nothing but parrot the typical Leftist bullshit about the Media being propaganda and PR. In other words, this is all about you and your hatred of the Media because it doesn't accurately reflect your politics. The problem is that on this issue you're wrong about the Media, and it can be demonstrated how wrong you are by examining some of the methods the Media uses, which I have done. So you need to grow up, quit being so paranoid and recognize reality when it bops you in the head.zx

But you will deliver uninformed opinions of your own, carefully uncorrected by common sources of information about the reality you find unworthy of your attention - such as the notion that W's carrier deck theatrics were only made to look silly in retrospect, by a coincidence of unpredicted events months afterwards.

I really don't care about W's landing. It's in the past. The only people who still crow about it are people like you and Sam who want to nyah-nyah about the incident, as though we are all on the school yard. The only reason it came up is because Sam said something stupid (surprise) about the background and seemed to question why the event was covered. I think that's been addressed, so I see no point in continuing to analyze an event that has already been analyzed before. He did it. It was showmanship. It was stupid and it was wrong. But can we please move on to the issue at hand here: Whether the violence in Iraq is down and what that means. If you want to crow about Bush go and start a thread. I'm sure plenty of people will flock to join you in that enterprise.

If as you claim reporters have a free hand in Iraq, how does someone who did what Pollack did and presented it as on-the-ground independent reporting keep their status as a respectable journalist in your eyes ?

Pollack has always had my respect. As has been noted, his piece was accurate. The downturn in violence reflects this. And as usual, all you have on Pollack is your opinion and your anger. You cannot prove he was manipulated or failed to report what he saw. You can only whine that he didn't see or report what you think is going on over there. Unfortunately for you, a number of other sources (including the Democrats themselves) have since said what Pollack did. His piece isn't so controversial now, is it?

Another Times story

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/politics/25dems.html?ei=5065&en=790f06535d9a5ea7&ex=1196571600&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&adxnnlx=1195930847-xrlMleXS/EfHPOXHzQDwig

I agree with that story's concluding remark, even if what preceded it was not about clarity, but political cover:

Let’s be clear: 40 dead American troops is 40 too many... Measuring progress through body counts is wrong. Sixty-five percent of Iraqis support killing American soldiers. There is no national political progress. None. It can only happen when we send a clear signal we are leaving.

This lull is everyone's chance to pay major media's obligatory lip-service to great expectations, but the cold reality is that the American Mandate in Iraq is already over.

Right. Pick and choose what you want to believe and disregard the rest...

I considered the entire article. What I quoted was the point within your link that addressed the most salient aspect of how the American project in Iraq is going, and what reasonable expectations are for a likely end to chaos and violence there. The keystone issue is whether the USA will be allowed by Iraqis to preside over a comprehensive solution to their chronic domestic problems.

So the prognosis in Iraq hinges entirely on what Iraqis think of the American nation-building enterprise there.
Sixty-five percent of Iraqis support killing American soldiers. There is no national political progress. None. It can only happen when we send a clear signal we are leaving.

The American mandate in Iraq is not, and was never illegitimate because of anything I think. It does not require ill-will against America, or American hegemony, to realize that the American Mandate in Iraq has fallen flat. It's an illegitimate mandate because Iraqis can't accept it. They never have, and it is quite reasonable for us to observe that they never will. To ignore this reality is not only denial, but also heartless political malpractice.

Had a superpower intervened in our own Civil War, Americans would never have accepted foreign hegemony. Yet American supremacists expect Iraqis to yield. With every lull, apologists for this reckless and failed experiment in Iraq wish to distract from the most decisive issue, and point to transient statistics- Anything to avoid dealing with the fact that American hegemony; moral supremacy; clout; the American Mandate have flopped because Iraqis never accepted it, in no small part because they were never offered a chance to.

"Pick and choose what you want to believe and disregard the rest..."

I'm not advancing what I want to believe here. I want to believe that we will all forgive each other and get back to normal lives. I want to believe that Iraqis will decide to coexist with themselves and the USA under a secular and democratic government. I want our troops to come with honor. I want to believe that more good times lie ahead for me (a white, blonde American) in the Middle East. But that's not what reality looks like from here forward.

It isn't hard to see why American authority in Iraq and the Mideast is precipitously breaking down. It isn't hard to see that we are looking at the brink of momentous change. It isn't hard to see that the transition to new leading power-brokers is going to be turbulent and tragic, and it is not likely that Iraqis, or many other people in the Mideast will be spared increased carnage.

As this experiment in Iraq is revealed as an ever-more-obvious American fuckup, there is more grasping at straws by those who do not wish to see. holocaust-deniers (small h) like you, countezero are not forthcoming with counterpoints. Instead, you impugn the motives of those who observe the tragic, precarious, and unsustainable state of present affairs in Iraq.

Let me be clear, since you persist in maligning my motives: I don't want any more people to die in Iraq. I don't want the international clout, and the economy of the USA to take a direct hit. I don't want more blowback to impact my life here in the USA, and I don't want for the blowback to impact my life in the Mideast. It is my desire to be a proud American wherever I go. It is ridiculous that I am forced to announce this, but the kind of slurs that are increasingly leveled for observing the obvious repeatedly force this tangential clarification.

Small "h" or not, I resent the holocaust deniers remark. It's bombastic language and totally unnecessary, though typical of you.

As for the rest of your post, I appreciate your sentiments, but sentiment is not what we're talking about here. You have continuously chosen to ignore reporting from the region that documents how the surge has decreased the violence. Everything else you say, not matter how warm and fuzzy, is irrelevant. You are part of the crowd who refuses to accept information that does not show what you think is happening in Iraq. Your methods (and theirs) are to attack the methodology of the reporting or to try to place it within a large enough context that other concerns you want to address can be included in the debate, because those tertiary points enable you to make more negative arguments that confirm your preordained viewpoint. This is a rhetorical stunt, nothing more. So, honestly, who is the person who is in denial here? My position changes based on whatever data is put before me. Yours does not.

PS - No one is "slurring" you, either. I do not believe in personal attacks (and questioning motives and bias is NOT the same thing). I am simply questioning your beliefs and holding you accountable for some of the arguments you put forward. In another thread, for example, you waxed philosophical about superior knowledge on certain issues, such as terrorism, then disappeared when I confronted you with direct evidence that disputed your unsubstantiated opinions. This is a pattern. You (and your friends) think your conclusions are sacrosanct and above reproach. People who don't agree with you are to be mocked at best, silenced at worst. To offer a crude quotation: "I don't play that way."

countezero:"Small "h" or not, I resent the holocaust deniers remark."

You are denying a holocaust that continues as a direct result of the obvious denial that you are a party to. All of the factors that precipitated and perpetuate this Iraqi holocaust remain in place. Denial on the basis of temporary statistical dips is still denial.

You have continuously chosen to ignore reporting from the region that documents how the surge has decreased the violence."

No, I have recognized a temporary lull in a situation where the over-arching political and military situation is deteriorating.

"everything else you say, not matter how warm and fuzzy, is irrelevant."

More denial.

You are part of the crowd who refuses to accept information that does not show what you think is happening in Iraq."

Look, the Iraqi government is a shambles, so is American clout there, while the militias are being armed up. That's not just what I think- that is what is happening.

"Your methods are to attack the methodology of the reporting or to try to place it within a large enough context that the story presented is dwarfed by other concerns you want to address because they enable you to make more negative arguments."

Recognizing a deteriorating situation does not equate with being negative. It is impossible to be constructive without looking at reality there, and the reality is threatening a crisis of political power and a bloody re-structuring in Mesopotamia that further threatens to spread into regional conflicts.

"This is a rhetorical stunt, nothing more."

No stunt. It's sober observation of a tragic situation that I'm not happy about.

"So, honestly, who is the person who is in denial?"

The one who is most consistently avoiding the exploration of the issues in detail, by repeatedly introducing ad-hominem diversions.

"No one is "slurring" you, either. I do not believe in personal attacks (and questioning motives and bias is NOT the same thing)."

Your repeated negative references to my motives have often forced me to explain them.

"In another thread, for example, you waxed philosophical about superior knowledge on certain issues, such as terrorism, then disappeared when I confronted you with direct evidence that disputed your unsubstantiated opinions."

Not at all- I just have a life beyond our conversations. Point the way to the thread where you feel I disappeared, and I'll see you there.

"People who don't agree with you are to be mocked at best, silenced at worst. "

I have no means nor desire of silencing you. A little mockery can be fun sometimes, but I'd rather stick to the topic here.

You are denying a holocaust that continues as a direct result of the obvious denial that you are a party to. All of the factors that precipitated and perpetuate this Iraqi holocaust remain in place. Denial on the basis of temporary statistical dips is still denial.

Holocaust is a specific term that carries powerful historical and political connotations with it. I think it's totally inappropriate to be applied to this situation, but if you want to use it, and in doing so look like an ass, then it's not for me to stop you. However, when you stretch the rhetoric to the point you're calling people "holocaust deniers" because they do not agree with you on Iraq, you've gone over the edge. What you said was stupid, inappropriate and intentionally tries to frame the debate in loaded terms. I won't have it, so take your rhetoric elsewhere.

No, I have recognized a temporary lull in a situation where the over-arching political and military situation is deteriorating.

You're forecasting then, which is fine. Any logical assessment of the present should attempt to predict future events so that one can attempt to establish a foundation for the best possible future possible. However, you've been denying the documented reductions in violence for days now. This is quite different than speculating about the future. You're patently ignoring, or obfuscating about current events.

Look, the Iraqi government is a shambles, so is American clout there, while the militias are being armed up. That's not just what I think- that is what is happening.

Some legitimate sources, beyond your brilliant opinion, would be appreciated then. But assuming you find some, as I am sure you can, the topic of this thread is clear: It's about violence being down. Not governments in shambles and appreciations of clout. Sticking to the topic is an admirable trait, one you should learn.

No stunt. It's sober observation of a tragic situation that I'm not happy about.

It's a stunt. You're intentionally ignoring the topic or widening it until it can fit into a box you've fashioned for it.

The one who is denying the issues with ad-hominem diversions.

You're the person lobbying clumsy grenades about "holocaust denial." Grow up...

countezero: "Holocaust is a specific term that carries powerful historical and political connotations with it. I think it's totally inappropriate to be applied to this situation, but if you want to use it, and in doing so look like an ass, then it's not for me to stop you. However, when you stretch the rhetoric to the point you're calling people "holocaust deniers" because they do not agree with you on Iraq, you've gone over the edge. What you said was stupid, inappropriate and intentionally tries to frame the debate in loaded terms."

I took pains to use the word holocaust in a generic sense:hol·o·caust (plural hol·o·causts)
noun
Definition:
1. destruction of human life: wholesale or mass destruction, especially of human life

"I won't have it, so take your rhetoric elsewhere."

You're overdramatizing, as if to distract from the topic.

I have recognized a temporary lull in a situation where the over-arching political and military situation is deteriorating; conditions persist that are tragically conducive to the perpetuation, and not the cessation of this holocaust.

"You're forecasting then, which is fine."

That's not forecasting. It's an observation of the present, which I think you can see.

Any logical assessment of the present should attempt to predict future events so that one can attempt to establish a foundation for the best possible future possible."

If you say so...

"However, you've been denying the documented reductions in violence for days now."

I have not denied the lull. I have been helping you to put in into perspective.

"This is quite different than speculating about the future."

OK.

"You're patently ignoring, or obfuscating about current events."

What specifically have I ignored? Is the Iraqi government functional? Is American clout in Iraq gaining ground? Are the militias being disarmed? No, no, and no. Who's ignoring?

"Some legitimate sources, beyond your brilliant opinion, would be appreciated then."

Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN16169154)
Oxford Analytica (http://www.oxan.com/worldnextweek/2007-11-22/Reportsoffewerdeathsexaggerated.aspx)
Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2937104.ece)
AFP (http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Army_ex_captains_want_US_out_of_Ira_10162007.html)
Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/News/Ideas/article/279581)

"But assuming you find some, as I am sure you can, the topic of this thread is clear: It's about violence being down."

Agreed. It is also about the significance of violence being down.

"Not governments in shambles and appreciations of clout."

These are significant factors in the violence Iraqis face.

"Sticking to the topic is an admirable trait, one you should learn."

Teach on.

"You're intentionally ignoring the topic or widening it until it can fit into a box you've fashioned for it."

I'm not ignoring this topic. The "box" or thesis I often return to is that Pax Americana isn't taking in Iraq. It's a pertinent thesis, with abundant corroboration.

"You're the person lobbying clumsy grenades about "holocaust denial." Grow up..."

Iraq has been a holocaust since US intervention, and it isn't over yet.

I took pains to use the word holocaust in a generic sense.

I don't care what pains you took. We're in a political forum, in case you didn't know, and the word holocaust carries powerful political and historical meaning. At best case, if your intentions are honest, find a thesaurus and choose another word. Or if you insist on sticking with that word, which is your right, I propose you avoid tying to "denier." In other words, I can stomach the former, but not when it's attached to the latter. When y