quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
"Petraeus said there had been a 75 percent drop in ethnic and religious killings since last year..."


Since the general's statement doesn't mesh with the numbers from a great many other, respected organizations, it must be asked to what does he attribute the difference? Natural causes?

The figures below, from a post on the previous page, surely do not indicate a 75% drop. And if the figures for US deaths are taken in account, then al Qeada might just decide to remain "off balance".

Iraqi Deaths

Jan-06 590 Jan-07 1711
Feb-06 688 Feb-07 2864
Mar-06 901 Mar-07 2762
Apr-06 808 Apr-07 1521
May-06 969 May-07 1782
Jun-06 738 Jun-07 1148
Jul-06 1063 Jul-07 1458
Aug-06 2733 Aug-07 (partial) 1196


US Military Deaths in Iraq

2006..............2007
January 61.....January 82
February 53....February 81
March 30.....March 75
April 74.....April 102
May 69.....May 121
June 59.....June 98
July 42.....July 75
August 65.....August (partial)42

Could it be that the general is playing semantics? Something caused those Iraqi deaths. If that cause isn't "ethnic and religious killings", what is it? Bad water? Heat stroke? Or could the general simply be lying? (Imagine that, a US general lying about how well his command is doing.)

It's my opinion that the general wants his medal, too, just like the other boys who went along.

Sorry, we have already been through this, and I proved what he said as being true. Here are the numbers I figured out and will post again for you.

Petraeus was correct in what he said. For the last 12 months they were losing on average 2,093 Civilians a month. If you start with the day the "surge" started, 16 July 07 thru 31 July 07, there were only 718 Civilian Deaths and Iraq Police/Military was only 77 for the month of July 07.

Now, for the month of Aug, there is 1313 Civilian deaths and Iraq Police/Military was only 60 Deaths, when on monthly average they used to lose 204.4

As for US soldiers that died of Hostil actions, in June it was 93 dead, July 41 and August 41.

So, like the General said "Civilian fatality rates have been reduced by approximately a third since the surge began, and July was the lowest U.S. casualty rate in 2007."

The website I got the numbers from is the same as the first one you used. Should you take a pen or pencil and a piece of paper, and do the count, you will find out what the General said was correct. You seriously don't think the General was lying do you.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

PS

Dorian,

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
Under the leadership of Petraeus, troop morale is up and concrete things are being accomplished. Civilian fatality rates have been reduced by approximately a third since the surge began, and July was the lowest U.S. casualty rate in 2007. - Scotty's link.

You first posted the above, and I proved the General correct in what he said.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
"Petraeus said there had been a 75 percent drop in ethnic and religious killings since last year..."

You now post this. What is it that you're saying the General said. You are arguing 2 different points. Why don't you quote what the General said with a link, then I or anyone can make there case with each of one of your complaints.

From the link Charles provided (Red = My Entry - DG) -

US Military Fatalities: By Month

Period US
8-2007 81
7-2007 79
6-2007 101
5-2007 126
4-2007 104
3-2007 81
2-2007 81
1-2007 83
Total US Military Fatalities Jan-Aug 2007 - 736

8-2006 65
7-2006 43
6-2006 61
5-2006 69
4-2006 76
3-2006 31
2-2006 55
1-2006 62
Total US Military Fatalities Jan-Aug 2006 - 462

Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths
Period Total

Aug-07 1574
Jul-07 1690
Jun-07 1345
May-07 1980
Apr-07 1821
Mar-07 2977
Feb-07 3014
Jan-07 1802
Total Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths Jan - Aug 2007 - 16,203

Aug-06 2966
Jul-06 1280
Jun-06 870
May-06 1119
Apr-06 1009
Mar-06 1092
Feb-06 846
Jan-06 779
Total Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths Jan - Aug 2007 - 9961

So, unless you disbelieve the military, who says the Surge started last spring, the only way you could even be close is if you are counting only July and August. Now I admit to the possibility that you know something that the military doesn't. (Frankly, most of us know quite a bit more than the military says publicly.) However, based on these figures and what the military said last spring, you are either bad in math, lying, or are shooting for a medal of your own. Which is it, Charles?

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
From the link Charles provided (Red = My Entry - DG) -

US Military Fatalities: By Month

Period US
8-2007 81
7-2007 79
6-2007 101
5-2007 126
4-2007 104
3-2007 81
2-2007 81
1-2007 83
Total US Military Fatalities Jan-Aug 2007 - 736

8-2006 65
7-2006 43
6-2006 61
5-2006 69
4-2006 76
3-2006 31
2-2006 55
1-2006 62
Total US Military Fatalities Jan-Aug 2006 - 462

Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths
Period Total

Aug-07 1574
Jul-07 1690
Jun-07 1345
May-07 1980
Apr-07 1821
Mar-07 2977
Feb-07 3014
Jan-07 1802
Total Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths Jan - Aug 2007 - 16,203

Aug-06 2966
Jul-06 1280
Jun-06 870
May-06 1119
Apr-06 1009
Mar-06 1092
Feb-06 846
Jan-06 779
Total Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths Jan - Aug 2007 - 9961

So, unless you disbelieve the military, who says the Surge started last spring, the only way you could even be close is if you are counting only July and August. Now I admit to the possibility that you know something that the military doesn't. (Frankly, most of us know quite a bit more than the military says publicly.) However, based on these figures and what the military said last spring, you are either bad in math, lying, or are shooting for a medal of your own. Which is it, Charles?

Great, you cut and pasted some numbers, so what do they mean? Which of the two statements you posted earlier and I quoted, do these numbers support?

You now post this. What is it that you're saying the General said. You are arguing 2 different points. Why don't you quote what the General said with a link, then I or anyone can make there case with each of one of your complaints.

Since what the general said doen't mesh withwhat the numbers show, I assume that you are going to avoid the issue entirely, a wise move on your part. For my part, I see no reason to engage in repetitive back-and-forth with someone who can't or won't comprehend basic math.

On the general's math; there was this attempt to spin the figures in April - US Officials Exclude Car Bombs in Touting Drop in Iraq Violence. I wonder if he's doing something similar now.

So, basically, Charles is telling us that the surge is working because the guy put in charge of it to make it work says it is (...kind of). What next? Bush says that he's a good president?

Seems the tag team has been trumped by the real numbers. All I hear now is incoherent murmurs. I guess the both of your have learned, that when you are going to argue a point with me, opinion doesn't count, only the facts will be taken into consideration.

Well anyway, I proved my point, in that as long as a liberal is alive, there will never be any good news coming out of Iraq. LMAO

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
On the general's math; there was this attempt to spin the figures in April - US Officials Exclude Car Bombs in Touting Drop in Iraq Violence. I wonder if he's doing something similar now.

So, basically, Charles is telling us that the surge is working because the guy put in charge of it to make it work says it is (...kind of). What next? Bush says that he's a good president?

LMAO, and neckname says it isn't working because 7 guys out of 160,000 say so. Keep trying, but observe, we are still in Iraq, the General is still running things, President Bush is still the President, you never could get Carl Rove on anything, Dick Cheney is still the VP, matter of fact, Libby has been your only accomplishment in almost 8 years. I say we need more hearings, and if nothing negative can be found, lets change faces and have another hearing until we have something negative.

A Pathetic Preemptive Strike

The Washington Post and the GAO try to mislead on Iraq.

by William Kristol
08/30/2007 12:27:00 PM


The Washington Post, working hand-in-glove with Democrats in Congress, has gotten out front in preparing the domestic battlefield for September's fight over the war in Iraq. The Post led today's paper with an account of a leaked draft report from the Congressionally-controlled Government Accountability Office (the GAO's final report is due next Tuesday). The headline: "Report Finds Little Progress on Iraq Goals; GAO Draft at Odds with White House." Here's the good news: If this is the best war opponents have to offer, the administration is in amazingly good shape going into September.

The Post reporters--both strongly anti-Iraq war--characterize the GAO judgments as "strikingly negative." But there's nothing striking about them. The Democratic Congress ensured that the report would deliver negative "grades" for the Iraqi government by asking the GAO to evaluate whether or not the benchmarks have been met now--just two months after the major combat operations of the surge began. For the report from the White House, Congress asked the administration to detail if the Iraqis are making "sufficient progress." But Congress asked the GAO, by contrast, to report if the Iraqis had "completed" the benchmarks. This ridiculous standard was a Congressional trap that forced the GAO to waste time and taxpayer money to come out with a pre-ordained and meaningless judgment, since no one ever promised or expected that the Iraqis would have met the benchmarks by now. And the GAO report doesn't really shed light on the key question: Are the Iraqis making progress?

http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Article...000/014/031oxqcf.asp

"opinion doesn't count, only the facts will be taken into consideration." Charles B.

"as long as a liberal is alive, there will never be any good news coming out of Iraq" Charles B.

Well, just as long as "opinion" doesn't count . . .

Haven't been following this thread, too depressing, as the religious loonies, led by the money-and-testosterone-fuelled American leaders, move us closer to Armageddon.

But this, by Charles, caught my eye:

quote:

when you are going to argue a point with me, opinion doesn't count, only the facts will be taken into consideration.

That's the silliest damn thing I've ever heard. It is from facts that everyone draws conclusions, and makes decisions about how to proceed in the future. Forms opinions.

This is as true in politics as it is in science, or in everyday reasoning using common sense.

Example: My kid comes home with a bad report card. I ask for facts to explain this unusual phenomenon.

He says: "The teacher hates me."
Questioned further, he says he has always finished his homework; also, he pays attention in class and tries really hard.

Then I see he has been absent from class several afternoons. I know he wasn't home on those days.

I ask to see his workbooks. I see lots of incomplete work, and lots of corrections on his homework, even basic math.

I call his best friend's mom and she says a similar phenom. has affected her son, too.

We call the school, check absences, and find that the absences coincide.

Those are facts. Do we stop there? Do we then drop the subject and accept the boys' story?

No. We form an opinion. We conclude that the boys need more parental supervision.

The boys, however, insist that we should stick to the facts. Opinions don't cut no ice with them. So un-form our opinions. Stop thinking altogether after the last fact has been stated. Accept their version of events. (One boy's name is George.)

As for the liberals impeding the progress of the war, it's true that if the likes of you killed them all, you would be free to use weapons of mass destruction: bacterialogical, ecological, nuclear, whatever -- and end the war in no time.

Another guy got rid of his liberals -- his first name was Adolph. World opinion turned on him, and he died very nastily.

However it may well be that this might not win your true goal -- to control middle east oil and further dominate the world. It might just marshall all the sane people in the world to declare economic war on the U.S. No imports of U.S. cars, machinery, agricultural products; computer equipment, oil and gas extraction equipment.

You guys don't even realize how vulnerable you -- like any industrialized country -- are. In your arrogance, you think world opinion doesn't count.

You guys don't even realize how corrupt your system is. Billions meant for building the infrastructure in Iraq just "disappeared". You're even running out of regular ammunition! Here.

LMAO

The Story of Chicken Little
A story for teaching courage
The Story of Chicken Little


"Chicken Little" is a story for teaching courage.
Don't be a chicken little.
Don't be afraid.
The sky is not falling.

Characters

Narrator
Chicken Little
Henny Penny
Ducky Lucky
Goosey Loosey
Turkey Lurkey
Villain: Foxy Loxy
Narrator: Chicken Little was in the woods one day when an acorn fell on her head. It scared her so much she trembled all over. She shook so hard, half her feathers fell out.

Chicken Little: "Help! Help! The sky is falling! I have to go tell the king!"

Narrator: So she ran in great fright to tell the king. Along the way she met Henny Penny.

Henny Penny: "Where are you going, Chicken Little?"

Chicken Little: "Oh, help! The sky is falling!"

Henny Penny: "How do you know?"

Chicken Little: "I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!"

Henny Penny: "This is terrible, just terrible! We'd better hurry up."

Narrator: So they both ran away as fast as they could. Soon they met Ducky Lucky.

Ducky Lucky: "Where are you going, Chicken Little and Henny Penny?"

Chicken Little & Henny Penny: "The sky is falling! The sky is falling! We're going to tell the king!"

Ducky Lucky: "How do you know?"

Chicken Little: "I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head."

Ducky Lucky: "Oh dear, oh dear! We'd better run!"

Narrator: So they all ran down the road as fast as they could. Soon they met Goosey Loosey walking down the roadside.

Goosey Loosey "Hello there. Where are you all going in such a hurry?"

Chicken Little: "We're running for our lives!"

Henny Penny: "The sky is falling!"

Ducky Lucky: "And we're running to tell the king!"

Goosey Loosey: "How do you know the sky is falling?"

Chicken Little: "I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!"

Goosey Loosey: "Goodness! Then I'd better run with you."

Narrator: And they all ran in great fright across a field. Before long they met Turkey Lurkey strutting back and forth..

Turkey Lurkey: "Hello there, Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, and Goosey Loosey. Where are you all going in such a hurry?"

Chicken Little: "Help! Help!"

Henny Penny: "We're running for our lives!"

Ducky Lucky: "The sky is falling!"

Goosey Loosey: "And we're running to tell the king!"

Turkey Lurkey: "How do you know the sky is falling?"

Chicken Little: "I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!"

Turkey Lurkey: "Oh dear! I always suspected the sky would fall someday. I'd better run with you."

Narrator: So they ran with all their might, until they met Foxy Loxy.

Foxy Loxy: "Well, well. Where are you rushing on such a fine day?"

Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, Turkey Lurkey (together) "Help! Help!" It's not a fine day at all. The sky is falling, and we're running to tell the king!"

Foxy Loxy: "How do you know the sky is falling?"

Chicken Little: "I saw it with my own eyes, and heard it with my own ears, and part of it fell on my head!"

Foxy Loxy: "I see. Well then, follow me, and I'll show you the way to the king."

Narrator: So Foxy Loxy led Chicken Little, Henny Penny, Ducky Lucky, Goosey Loosey, and Turkey Lurkey across a field and through the woods. He led them straight to his den, and they never saw the king to tell him that the sky is falling.

quote:

...neckname says it isn't working because 7 guys out of 160,000 say so...

Charles, you've yet to show us or tell us about just one ordinary soldier saying, in his or her own words unfiltered by partisan politicians or journalists, that the surge is working.

And, once more, of course Petraeus says the surge is working (although even he says it's only partly working, according to some measures). He has to put a brave face on it. He would say that anyway. Your naivety (or desperation to find some support, anywhere, for your idea that the surge is working) is astounding.

If your generals are coming to you with carefully crafted statistics about certain months, specific kinds of weapon and particular types of killing, you must know you're in trouble. Real success doesn't need to be so carefully packaged and spun.

It's impossible to say whether or not the surge is working. It is clear that there has been nowhere near enough political progress, without which any military successes are pointless.

'Civilian deaths in Iraq rose in August to their second-highest monthly level this year, according to figures compiled Saturday by the Associated Press.

The toll raises questions about whether U.S. strategy is working days before Congress receives landmark reports that will help decide the course of the war...' www.cbc.ca

From the original, Australian newspaper, report on Petraeus' comments:

'Another measure of progress was the increasing number of al-Qaeda members captured and killed - more than 1500 a month, as well as a significant reduction in the number of homemade bombs, "the biggest killer on our battlefield".

But there had been an increase in the number of more sophisticated bombs, which can blast armoured vehicles, and which the US Government says Iran has been supplying to insurgents.' www.smh.com.au

The Miami Herald version of this, which Charles linked to, says only that there has been "a drop in the number of coalition deaths from roadside bombs".

The insurgency is using fewer home-made bombs, but more of the sophisticated, armor-piercing ones. That's progress?

For those of you unsure about what that fairy-tale is doing in this thread:

The bogus threat of the sky falling = Hussein's WMD, nuclear weapons, bomber drones, mobile chemical labs etc.

Foxy Loxy = PNAC/Bush & Co, who tragically and catastrophically diverted the US into invading Iraq for no good reason, in the middle of a fight against terrorists

Chicken Little etc. = the various people, including - significantly - Hillary Clinton, who either swallowed Bush & Co's lies or saw advantage at the time in going along with them

(Note, the fairy tale doesn't have a representation of the millions of people, including various governments and - significantly - the UN inspection team, who didn't see the necessity for a war. Supporters of the invasion like to re-write history to pretend such people did not exist.)

To be fair, we must remember that the vote that gave bush the authority to attack Iraq, whether constitutional or not, was a vote allowing him to use his judgment in the matter. Trusting his judgment, as shown by many later event, was a huge mistake. Another point to remember is that most Congressmen only knew what the administration was letting them know, and, again, we now know that a great many dissenting intelligence reposts were not part of that mix.

The surge is working so well that the Ministry of Defence in Britain has just announced that it is planned and intended that the British forces will withdraw from Iraq this autumn.

quote:

A poll conducted by UPI/Zogby has shown that 54% percent of Americans believe the Iraq war is not lost.

quote:

In addition, 34 percent of Americans believe a US victory in Iraq is not possible, while 37 percent say it will be possible when the Iraqi government takes control of security. - http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=15545

As usual, DG feels more comfortable with the
34%.

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
To be fair, we must remember that the vote that gave bush the authority to attack Iraq, whether constitutional or not, was a vote allowing him to use his judgment in the matter. Trusting his judgment, as shown by many later event, was a huge mistake. Another point to remember is that most Congressmen only knew what the administration was letting them know, and, again, we now know that a great many dissenting intelligence reposts were not part of that mix.

"The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But . . . no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary."

Tell me, Charles, did that 96 page report have any of the information and reports that cast doubt or refuted bush's claims? Did that 96 page report include any of the reports of authors who were told to "do it again"?

There are two questions above. Both can be answered with "Yes", "No", or "I don't know." If either of the answers is "Yes", please provide some sort or generally acceptable proof. Failing to do so indicates you don't want to acknowledge the truth of the matter.