• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

A grim week in Iraq

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
In spite of elections, constitution, more elections, promises by VP Cheney, the insurgency continues to kill Iraqis and Americans. Excepts; link below; my emphasis.

“It was another grim week in Iraq, with more massive attacks inflicting casualties on Iraqi civilians and security forces alike, and U.S. fatalities rising again, with little, if any signs of significant progress.
The total number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq through Monday, Jan. 17 since the start of U.S. operations to topple Saddam Hussein on March 19, 2003, was 2,242 according to official figures issued by the Department of Defense, a rise of 33 in only seven days, and an average of 4.7 soldiers killed per day. This was even worse than the figure of 28 in the previous seven-day period when the average death rate was 4 U.S. soldiers killed per day.
These figures unfortunately confirm that the revived high casualty figures of the previous week were no fluke: After more than two-and-a-half years of activity and of Department of Defense and U.S. military studies and implemented plans, the Iraq Sunni insurgency remains undiminished in its lethal capabilities. Contrary to repeated Bush administration predictions, the Dec. 15 parliamentary elections in Iraq did nothing to drain support from the insurgency.”



The total number of Iraqi police and military killed from June 1, 2003, to Jan. 16, 2005, was 3,977, according to the Iraq Index Project figures. The longer-term monthly trends on Iraqi security forces killed also showed a discouraging rise: For the first half of January through Jan. 16, 108 of them were killed by insurgents. If maintained for the rest of this month, that would give a total casualty figure of around 210-215 Iraqi security forces killed, a significant rise on the 193 killed during December and a rise of more than 15 percent on the 176 killed in November.”

In the first 16 days of January, 231 people were killed in these attacks and another 326 wounded. These figures were far worse than for the entire month of December, a period twice as long. Through the 31 days of December, MFB attacks killed 155 people and wounded 174. “

Those figures, therefore, would -- if true -- mean that the insurgency had lost 60 percent of its active manpower in only five months, a rate of attrition that has only been seen historically in the closing stages of counter-insurgency operations when the guerrilla movement is literally disintegrated and rapidly losing its ability to inflict casualties.
There has so far been no sign of that process so far in Iraq and almost no respected U.S. military analyst believes it is happening.
2,000 per month revised figure for October through December, like the 3,000 per month figure for August and September, therefore appears to be little more than guesswork. “
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
502
Reaction score
0
Location
Oregon
I bet you've just got a big stupid grin on your face don't you, Dis? You continue to sink to new lows with your gloating.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
mp.freelance said:
I bet you've just got a big stupid grin on your face don't you, Dis? You continue to sink to new lows with your gloating.

No, mp, I have a heavy heart. But pretending all is going well in Iraq doesn't make it true and as this article shows, things are not going well at all in Iraq, in spite of the Bush Bunch's claims.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
28,906
Reaction score
231
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
I just listened to Michael Regan this evening on the radio. He said that if you are not in support of the war, you are the same as giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. That they believe American is losing resolve from what is portrayed on the news. Do you think that bodes well for our fighting men and women, Dis?

He also said that this day, 25 years ago, his father was sworn in as 40th President of the United States. That was the day Tehran released the 52 hostages. He interviewed one of them today. That man said the captors did not like or fear Jimmy Carter's administration. But when Ronald Regan was sworn in, he with his tough talk, made them think they were in deep trouble and they released all the hostages.

Do you understand why a President has to stand firm, Dis?

No, of course you don't.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Faster horses said:
I just listened to Michael Regan this evening on the radio. He said that if you are not in support of the war, you are the same as giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. That they believe American is losing resolve from what is portrayed on the news. Do you think that bodes well for our fighting men and women, Dis?

Micheal Regan has his opinion. I'm happy for him to express it. Unlike some people on this board, I wouldn't try to stop him from expressing his opinion. Like it or not, polls show Americans are losing resolve for this war. Why? I think it's because they finally realize that Saddam had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack on this country. They look at Americans with no health insurance because large companies are cutting back on offering them to their employees; retirement programs being looted by incompetent management; they're discouraging their children from enlisting in the military; they see the Sec of State, very carefully, describing how, legally, the United States of American doesn't torture (but like sex, we all know torture when we see it); the elderly wondering if they'll be able to afford the drugs they need; Americans on the Gulf Coast still living in tents or hotels; a huge and growing Federal budget deficit; GM and Ford cutting tens of thousands of jobs; and Osama bin Laden still wandering around the world, free to make threats on this country. But, hey, we got Saddam! To try to paint those of us who point out the lies and misrepresentations that the Bush Bunch used to get us into this war as "unpatriotic" is, well, unpatriotic. I don't think anything about Iraq bodes well for our military men and women. Nothing ever did. When the Bush Bunch refused to listen to Gen Shinseki and send enough troops, right then, at that point, they put our soldiers in a situtation they couldn't win. This is what he said "“I would say that what's been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers, are probably, you know, a figure that would be required. We're talking about post-hostilities control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. And so, it takes significant ground force presence to maintain safe and secure environment to ensure that the people are fed, that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this." Even if you believe the war was justified, that you continue to defend the incompetent management of it, is beyond my comprehension.

He also said that this day, 25 years ago, his father was sworn in as 40th President of the United States. That was the day Tehran released the 52 hostages. He interviewed one of them today. That man said the captors did not like or fear Jimmy Carter's administration. But when Ronald Regan was sworn in, he with his tough talk, made them think they were in deep trouble and they released all the hostages.

I'd like to see that interview. I saw one former hostage on CNN and his opinion was quite different. He felt his captors didn't fear the US. They're setting on oil that the Western world can't/won't do without; they believe they'll set at Allah's side if they die for their religion. A tough talking president wasn't the reason, in his opinion, they were released.

Do you understand why a President has to stand firm, Dis?

No, of course you don't.

Of course I do. But I want a President who can and will admit he's made a mistake and fix it. Bush has admitted "mistakes were made" :roll: in Iraq, but he's apparently unable or just unwilling to fix them.

Link to Shinseki's comments: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/etc/cronagon.html - go down to Feb. 25, 2003 - be sure and read the Bush Bunch's response to his comments. :mad:
 

Latest posts

Top