5 more die in Iraq

[Libsmasher]

Typical, in back to back posts you call the situation a war and then an insurgency. Which is it? I like how it gets twisted to suit the argument of the right.

Get a dictionary. An insurgency is a type of war. The war started out as a conventional war then changed into an insurgency. Too complicated for you? Sorry about that.

In the meantime, I would say that while there might be improvements, but the reason for this thread of new heavy fighting in Baghdad would say the situation is not improving. Basra has been relatively quiet compared to other areas. There was heavy fighting there recently. The Iraqi government is inept and so is the Iraqi security force.

You're interpreting events with oversimplification. The reason basra and baghdad has been quiet up to now is because al Sadr had pulled back his militia from conflict and was biding his time - my guess is he was conserving his forces and waiting for what he foresaw as an Obama led cut-and-run. With the US forces out of the way, he could attack the sunnis and seize power. If the US is going to cut and run, no use wasting military resources fighting them. Although the iraqi government was under no illusions about al sadr and his militia, they and the US during the past year had had to pacify anbar province and defeat the al qaeda interlopers, which they did. Having succeeded there, they could then afford to turn their attention on the illegal al sadr militia. So new fighting broke out only because one enemy was vanquished and they could deal with the last one. Naturally, the lib media (and you) warp this out of comtext and say we must be going backward because there is new fighting, when precisely the opposite is the truth.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

You're interpreting events with oversimplification. The reason basra and baghdad has been quiet up to now is because al Sadr had pulled back his militia from conflict and was biding his time - my guess is he was conserving his forces and waiting for what he foresaw as an Obama led cut-and-run.

Actually what he was doing, was his forces where getting out of control, he lost power over them, and his group was basically being labeled as just thugs. After the Cease fire he has made his militia smaller, but more loyal, more disciplined, and got rid of many of the ones who where just pure thugs. Its Smaller, more Effective in its use, better for him politically, and gave him time for better training. To Try stick Obama in this, is pure Political Bull. When al Sader laid down arms, we did not even have a clue Obama would be winning, or even close. This type of crap , trying to get political gain out of Serous Security issues, is the reason our Policy is often so poor and why out Security issues go unaddressed.

 

[Libsmasher]

Actually what he was doing, was his forces where getting out of control, he lost power over them, and his group was basically being labeled as just thugs. After the Cease fire he has made his militia smaller, but more loyal, more disciplined, and got rid of many of the ones who where just pure thugs. Its Smaller, more Effective in its use, better for him politically, and gave him time for better training. To Try stick Obama in this, is pure Political Bull. When al Sader laid down arms, we did not even have a clue Obama would be winning, or even close. This type of crap , trying to get political gain out of Serous Security issues, is the reason our Policy is often so poor and why out Security issues go unaddressed.

Uh, actually, al sadr has never "laid down his arms", that his forces were seen as thugs had nothing to do with their being "out of control", but rather from their very intrinsic islamofascist nature, the al Sadr truce began august 2007, and obama declared himself a candidate in january 2007 and immediately made cut-and-run a centerpiece of his campaign and hence the democrat party candidate's competition.

Try again.

 

[Dr.Who]

About the rate people are killed in LA from gang warfare - so what?

How long has the US stayed in Korea since the beginning of the korean war?

58 years.

How long has the US stayed in europe starting with WWII?

64 years.

Last I checked the rate of death in this war was also lower than the rate of death during peacetime in the Clinton administration. Nothing against Clinton, that was just very recent.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Uh, actually, al sadr has never "laid down his arms", that his forces were seen as thugs had nothing to do with their being "out of control", but rather from their very intrinsic islamofascist nature, the al Sadr truce began august 2007, and obama declared himself a candidate in january 2007 and immediately made cut-and-run a centerpiece of his campaign and hence the democrat party candidate's competition.

Try again.

by laid down arms I want the Cease fire. And You do knot that by declaring yourself a candidate , means very little right? You do recall how many Declared right? did not mean they would win, or that Iraqis where looking going, oooo Obama will win, lets wait for his politics ( the same policy 90% of Dems have stated as well...yet you only point out Obama)

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Last I checked the rate of death in this war was also lower than the rate of death during peacetime in the Clinton administration. Nothing against Clinton, that was just very recent.

you do know that more troops are dying right now, then peace time right? I don't know where you got that, but I doubt if you put all US troops death counted in the Stats you used for the Clinton Era "peace" Unless you are counting every single death from any cause under Clinton against only those from combat in Iraq and ignoring any other deaths....

I am willing to bet any amount of money, no troops on US Soil felt more in danger of Death then they do In Iraq.....Just a bet

 

[Libsmasher]

by laid down arms I want the Cease fire. And You do knot that by declaring yourself a candidate , means very little right? You do recall how many Declared right? did not mean they would win, or that Iraqis where looking going, oooo Obama will win, lets wait for his politics ( the same policy 90% of Dems have stated as well...yet you only point out Obama)

Obama made opposition to the war the centerpiece of his campaign - he's said a million times that he vote no on the war, and he's the leading dem in an election year when the republicans have very low ratings - al sadr was making a rational bet.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Obama made opposition to the war the centerpiece of his campaign - he's said a million times that he vote no on the war, and he's the leading dem in an election year when the republicans have very low ratings - al sadr was making a rational bet.

I forgot the other Dems who where all running all said we will stay for ever.....

 

[Dr.Who]

you do know that more troops are dying right now, then peace time right? I don't know where you got that, but I doubt if you put all US troops death counted in the Stats you used for the Clinton Era "peace" Unless you are counting every single death from any cause under Clinton against only those from combat in Iraq and ignoring any other deaths....

I am willing to bet any amount of money, no troops on US Soil felt more in danger of Death then they do In Iraq.....Just a bet

I am comparing the deaths only in the Iraq war to all military deaths in the
Clinton peacetime. Since we can assume that peacetime deaths should be minimal this comparison will show us that the deaths in the Iraq war are also minimal.

Here are the stats as of 2/2007"

The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 3,133. This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war, and we are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Each death is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and Internet sites. What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?

http://www2.nysun.com/article/48926

So let's get fair. Here are the stats if we include all deaths for any reason for both administrations:

Bill Clinton (1993 - 2000) ............. 7,500 deaths

George W. Bush (2001 - 2006) .... 8,792 deaths

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_military_deaths.htm

OK so now we know that Bushes numbers are higher. But really it is only slightly higher in war than in Clinton's peace. That data stopped in 2006. Let's assume that the wartime rate rose. It will still be marginally higher considering that the one period is during peactime and the other during wartime.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I am comparing the deaths only in the Iraq war to all military deaths in the
Clinton peacetime. Since we can assume that peacetime deaths should be minimal this comparison will show us that the deaths in the Iraq war are also minimal.

Here are the stats as of 2/2007"

The total military dead in the Iraq war between 2003 and this month stands at about 3,133. This is tragic, as are all deaths due to war, and we are facing a cowardly enemy unlike any other in our past that hides behind innocent citizens. Each death is blazoned in the headlines of newspapers and Internet sites. What is never compared is the number of military deaths during the Clinton administration: 1,245 in 1993; 1,109 in 1994; 1,055 in 1995; 1,008 in 1996. That's 4,417 deaths in peacetime but, of course, who's counting?

http://www2.nysun.com/article/48926

So let's get fair. Here are the stats if we include all deaths for any reason for both administrations:

Bill Clinton (1993 - 2000) ............. 7,500 deaths

George W. Bush (2001 - 2006) .... 8,792 deaths



http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_military_deaths.htm

OK so now we know that Bushes numbers are higher. But really it is only slightly higher in war than in Clinton's peace. That data stopped in 2006. Let's assume that the wartime rate rose. It will still be marginally higher considering that the one period is during peactime and the other during wartime.

Smacks head...ok so you are counting GWB for 5 years, 2+ did not even count for Iraq as it had not started...and ignores the last year and a half of the war as it got worse ...before it got better...to get bad again....

against 1993-2000 a longer period of time....I bet if you took those numbers and stretched them out to the same time, factor in worse Fighting in Iraq for all of 2007 basicly....Oddly what would we have....just a guess...some 4000 extra dead IE bascily the same amount that are dead from Iraq...odd

anyone who is dumb enough to sit here and actuly try to debate that US troops in Iraq are just or even close to as safe as US troops under Clinton...should be shiped to Sader City and left in the street with a big American flag on them.

and don't forget I am sure there was 25,000 Wounded, many lost arms legs, sight, suffered from huge PTS ...while under Clinton...

Your argument is a Disgrace to those fighting in Iraq...and I don't say that often.