July deadliest month yet in Iraq

[kosar]

3500 killed in sectarian violence. That doesn't really sound like progress to me. Stay the course.

And yeah, yeah, i'll save somebody a post (probably Wayne), a lot of people died in car crashed here and downtown Detroit is dangerous.

 

[dawgball]

From what I hear, cars and Detroit are dangerous.

Especially, cars IN Detroit.

And even worse, cars FROM Detroit!

 

[smurphy]

This is a funny looking 'final throes'.

 

[StevieD]

It's the media making it look worse than it really is.

 

[djv]

August on pase for repeat.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Looks like we are changing our tune from troop deaths to now civilians deaths--would be because troop deaths went down would it?

However I quess which ever is worst news for any particular time fits the agenda

Fact of the matter is most of Iraq is much more stable--over 90% of deaths occur in triangle around and including Baghdad between Sadr's fanaticle Shites and Sunni remnants of Saddam--

Best scenero would be to have both wipe each other out in one day.

That would amount to bout 50,000-- add "ALL" civilian deaths in Afgan-Iraq- Lebenon--Solmolia-Africa and you might have 25% of civilian deaths that occurred as result of our with drawal from Viet Nam--and liberals cheer that as their greatest victory--go figure--agenda-agenda-agenda:nono:

 

[kosar]

Wayne,

I think it's great that troop deaths are down. Not way down, but down. Those people have changed their tactics over the last 4 or 5 months and now apparently think that the more effective way to fight for control of the government is sectarian violence instead of IED's.

It's curious that you are so flip about people getting blown up 20 at a time at markets. And mass slaughter of Iraqi policemen.

Now, me personally, I really don't give a shit about Iraqi civilians in itself, but I never pretended to, unlike others.

But it certainly illustrates the point that conditions aren't exactly improving over there.

This is a neverending endeavor and hopefully the Iraqi government asks us to leave, because I think that's the only thing that would get any sort of redeployment going, at least for a couple years when hopefully the new admin (repub or dem) will see this thing for what it is.

 

[Chadman]

Did troop deaths go down last month? I don't know, just asking. If so, is that a trend, for a couple of months or more, or just a blip? Again, I don't know, just asking.

Interesting to note that we are now to the "it would be best if they just wiped each other out" phase of the Iraq war defense. Hell, we could have left the country alone and just said that, however it could have been Iraq vs. Iran, or pick your country poison.

I know that's not what you meant, Wayne, but the justifications of late, the look how great Iraqi's have it now kind of spin is just kind of a hollow log. Maybe parts of the country are more stable now, compared to when the insurgents and terrarists (take your pick) were roaming freely wherever our soldiers weren't - and sometimes before they got there, sadly, for our soldiers - kaboom. Seems the different factions are realizing that if they are going to have the control they want of the country they'd better start fighting the non-Americans and start cutting down the "opposition" numbers for the really big fights to come - when many of the "good guys" pull out.

I'm not sure I would rate Iraq a more stable country overall now than when Saddam was cranky and in control. Life for many has to be better, but life for many is, well, no longer, and for many is not better, other than being able to vote, I guess. Just better hope your voting in the right place come the next election - one that won't be riddled with gunfire or targeted by a dumb-bomb.

I just don't think that in my generation that I'll see "democracy" installed in many of these places, no matter how good it would be for them. And, I doubt in my lifetime that I will ever see that the effort of time, money and lives in Iraq will have been worth it for the people of the U.S., compared to what else we could have been spending our time, soldiers and money on. You know, like working in disaster-riddled Katrina areas, looking for real terrorists, finding Bin Laden, preparing for future disasters and terror strikes, paying down - and/or avoiding altogether - massive debt, and finding areas of our own country and economy to try to improve. Maybe immigration issues. Oil/gas concerns. Pick your own personal pork barrel, I don't care. I just don't - and don't think I ever will - get it.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I understand Matt--deaths have decreased on troops Chad mainly because Iraqi's are taking over more of responsibilty--but as Matt pointed out they are not doing too well a job.

Would be nice if troops could sit back more--however I believe Rummy is making mistake by bringing more troops in that area this week to try and curtail deaths--rather them than us in my view--look for deaths of troops to ratchet back up after this move.

 

[Chadman]

Although this may sound contradictory with my ongoing stance against the Iraq war from the get-go, there is a big part of me that has long supported a massive effort there - extra troops and firepower, yes - to root out all of these supposed terrorists, and get this as taken care of as we can. I don't even know what that means, exactly, because I don't think our soldiers and their superiors understand who and what we are fighting most of the time, but it just seems silly to keep troops over there long past their return dates to just stand guard over a road, or some such thing. It just eats away at me that our troops are just sitting - or driving - ducks for these killers. And I really do believe that if our soldiers were not there, that many of these situations - other than the civil war scenario participants - would have little to do but go back to where they came from. I dunno, I just don't get much about any of this, and never have.

 

[smurphy]

Now, me personally, I really don't give a shit about Iraqi civilians in itself, but I never pretended to, unlike others.
.

I, on the other hand, have shed 1000 tears for each and every of the 400,000 mass graves.

Let's see, that would be a total of 4 billion tears.

 

[djv]

The bigger picture is our soldiers caught in middle. Who do they stick up for in a civil war. I say they shoot first and ask questions later. And if they want to keep killing each other there is not much we can do anymore. So start to bring the guys home. It is almost like Nam. We got to a point if we were going to continue to fight that war in Nam same way over and over. We might have been there another 10 years and for what. You have to come up with a better plan. Stay the course does not always work. We have to be smarter then that.

 

[Nick Douglas]

That would amount to bout 50,000-- add "ALL" civilian deaths in Afgan-Iraq- Lebenon--Solmolia-Africa and you might have 25% of civilian deaths that occurred as result of our with drawal from Viet Nam

Now who's believing media propaganda?

 

[RAYMOND]

July deadliest month yet in phila also:com:

 

[The Judge]

I just don't think that in my generation that I'll see "democracy" installed in many of these places, no matter how good it would be for them. And, I doubt in my lifetime that I will ever see that the effort of time, money and lives in Iraq will have been worth it for the people of the U.S., compared to what else we could have been spending our time, soldiers and money on. You know, like working in disaster-riddled Katrina areas, looking for real terrorists, finding Bin Laden, preparing for future disasters and terror strikes, paying down - and/or avoiding altogether - massive debt, and finding areas of our own country and economy to try to improve. Maybe immigration issues. Oil/gas concerns. Pick your own personal pork barrel, I don't care. I just don't - and don't think I ever will - get it.

Well said, Chadman.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

You can start with Cambodia Nick---you got conservative estimate of 1.7 million just there--I'll tally Viet Nams to list if you think I need it.

Seems these #'s didn't warrent any boohooing from liberal element--but let a few thousand die when it doesn't fit your agenda and the tears come streaming.:shrug:
_________________________________

In 1975, shortly before the end of the war, the Communist Khmer Rouge seized power in Cambodia after a bloody civil war. This led to a democide comparable to the Holocaust that collectively killed some 1.7 million people (possibly even 3 million), one-fifth of the country's population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

 

[Nick Douglas]

Dogs, c'mon man. You remind me of my buddy who is far more liberal than I.

I got into an argument with him a while back about the gay movement. I told him that they were making a mistake in trying to go for the, "we're the same," attitude. I told him the gay agenda should be about sexual freedom rather than treating them as another race.

He responded that the feminist movement was successful trying to go for the, "we're the same," attitude even though they obviously aren't. I offered that the feminist movement has improved some areas, but we also have negative effects like single mothers and increases in instances of rape.

He was completely taken aback by my assertion that the feminist movement caused rape to increase. He went on and on about how in very conservative cultures you'll see husbands rape wives and such.

I finally finished the argument by appealing to his sense of logic. I said, "Think about it. If rape is about power and the feminist movement is designed to empower women, then is rape going to increase or decrease because of it?"

Just like my liberal buddy, you have been bamboozled by people with an agenda. He's been bamboozled by the feminist agenda. You've been bamboozled by the anti-communist agenda. So I pose a similar question to you:

If war is based on imposing power via violence, then is there going to be more violence or less because of ending a war?

(p.s. Love the Wikipedia quote. You are exemplifying truthiness.

Noam Chomsky might be an anti-American pinko zealot, but you should at least read his writing on Khmer Rouge to get an alternate perspective.)