Analysis: Iraq is no Vietnam

[GaryC 7]

The silence here is deafening.

What, you want people to argue with the dittohead column you posted?

Or to point out that it's scary to think that the U.S. occupies a country and we're patting ourselves on the back because it's not as bad as some other places?

Too boring.

I think I showed by my "dittohead" column that Iraq isn't the death trap the lefties make it out to be. We are doing great work there and we ARE winning. The left just does not want to admit it. I know at least 15 people personally that have been to Iraq and they ALL say we are winning. But that does not fit the "template" of the left so it's ignored. Only the death and the mis-stepps are reported. It's propaganda for the enemy and it's wrong.

[kaydee457 13]

The silence here is deafening.

What, you want people to argue with the dittohead column you posted?

Or to point out that it's scary to think that the U.S. occupies a country and we're patting ourselves on the back because it's not as bad as some other places?

Too boring.

Yeah if Iraq is safer than half the southern USA, perhaps we should all move over there

erekose- I'll ask you one more time. Please do not disrupt this thread.

Thanks .....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The silence here is deafening.

What, you want people to argue with the dittohead column you posted?

Or to point out that it's scary to think that the U.S. occupies a country and we're patting ourselves on the back because it's not as bad as some other places?

Too boring.

Yeah if Iraq is safer than half the southern USA, perhaps we should all move over there

erekose- I'll ask you one more time. Please do not disrupt this thread.

Thanks .....

It's my party and I'll cry if I want to eh?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think I showed by my "dittohead" column that Iraq isn't the death trap the lefties make it out to be.

Well, I'd rather take my chances living in Atlanta, thank you very much.

Besides, whatever the death rate compares to in terms of other countries, cities, etc. (one has got to wonder why NO is listed as a city while South Africa is listed a country where listing J'burg on it's own should be much more impressive seeing that that is the world's most violent city - statistically speaking), what about comparing Iraq pre- and post invasion?

According to the survey results, Iraq's mortality rate in the year before the invasion was 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people; in the post-invasion period it was 13.3 deaths per 1,000 people per year. The difference between these rates was used to calculate "excess deaths."

Of the 629 deaths reported, 87 percent occurred after the invasion. A little more than 75 percent of the dead were men, with a greater male preponderance after the invasion. For violent post-invasion deaths, the male-to-female ratio was 10-to-1, with most victims between 15 and 44 years old.

Gunshot wounds caused 56 percent of violent deaths, with car bombs and other explosions causing 14 percent, according to the survey results. Of the violent deaths that occurred after the invasion, 31 percent were caused by coalition forces or airstrikes, the respondents said.

WP

What this says is that the mortality rate in Iraq has almost tripled since we illegally invaded the place for no reason whatsoever and that about a third of the violent deaths are attributed to the coalition forces. Right or wrong, that's the perception of the Iraqis. I wouldn't exactly call that progress or anything like that.

We are doing great work there and we ARE winning.

I sure don't see that we're winning or what we're winning.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

What does that have to do with it? Why should I adapt my modes of conventional speech just because someone might be offended? Interpret it that way if you want, but that's not what was intended - and if you don't believe me you're perfectly free to ask another Brit what "crackers" means.

oh so you don't have to adapt but the rest of us do? interesting, coming from the one who's introduced vj to the term " racialist" when someone makes an off color joke........

Crackers just means "insane."

crackers

SYLLABICATION: crack·ers

PRONUNCIATION: krkrz

ADJECTIVE: Chiefly British Slang Insane; mad.

ETYMOLOGY: Probably from cracker, breakdown.

(bartleby.com)

Looks like the only person who insinuated something bad about Marc was you Chuckles!

don't play dumb with me alex, you know exactly what cracker means.......

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Certainly the figures are suspect because there's no reference to the source studies or the methodology.

But what's the suggestion - that we should start more wars because it makes country's "safer" than certain American cities and South American countries.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

But what's the suggestion - that we should start more wars because it makes country's "safer" than certain American cities and South American countries.

Sure, next thing you know, Baltimore will lay off half their police force and then the politicians will gloat over the fact that Baltimore is safer than fcuking Johannesburg. That will then be sold as "winning the war on crime" in Baltimore. Great concept, really. I got to get into fcuking politics, man.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Another skewed article

Blair accepts 'disaster' in Iraq

Downing Street said Mr Blair's views have been misrepresented

Tony Blair has publicly accepted that the violence in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003 has been a disaster.

The prime minister's remark came during an interview with Sir David Frost on the new al-Jazeera English-language Arabic TV channel.

The Liberal Democrats have seized on his comment saying he has finally accepted the enormity of his decision to go to war in Iraq.

But Downing Street has insisted that Mr Blair's views have been misrepresented.

Mr Blair made the remark when he was challenged by Sir David that the Western intervention in Iraq had "so far been pretty much of a disaster".

He replied: "It has, but you see what I say to people is why is it difficult in Iraq?

"It's not difficult because of some accident in planning, it's difficult because there's a deliberate strategy - al-Qaeda with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other - to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war."

The remark came after the Trade Minister Margaret Hodge was reported to have told a meeting of Labour supporters that the Iraq war was Tony Blair's "big mistake" in foreign affairs.

Commenting on Mr Blair's interview Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: "At long last the enormity of the decision to take military action against Iraq is being accepted by the Prime Minister.

"It could hardly be otherwise as the failure of strategy becomes so clear.

"If the Prime Minister accepts that it is a "disaster" then surely Parliament and the British people who were given a flawed prospectus are entitled to an apology."

Downing Street insisted it was not Mr Blair's view that the violence in Iraq had been a disaster.

A spokeswoman said: "He was simply acknowledging the question in a polite way before going on to explain his view.

"To portray it as some kind of admission is completely disingenuous."

Mr Blair was the first guest on the Frost Over the World programme on al-Jazeera International, which launched on Wednesday this week.

In the interview he stressed the importance of progress in the Middle East peace process in winning the "war on terror".

He said it would cut support for Muslim extremism and added the issue was the "most important" thing for him before he leaves office.

He also said Syria and Iran could play a "constructive" role in the Middle East.

"If you are prepared to be part of the solution, there is a partnership available to you," Mr Blair said.

"But at the moment - and this is particularly so in respect of what Iran is doing in supporting terrorism throughout the Middle East and acting in breach of its nuclear weapons obligations - you are behaving in such a way that makes such a partnership impossible."

He said it was completely absurd to suggest that talking to the countries amounted to "appeasement".

Mr Blair said securing progress in the Middle East would have great "symbolic importance".

"It would send a signal to the whole of the world that this was not a battle between westerners or Christians and Muslims, but it was a battle between all those who believe in tolerance, in living together in harmony, in a non sectarian future against those who want to divide us.''

And he repeated that UK troops would remain in Iraq "for as long as the government needs us to stay".

He was also asked if he would stay on as foreign secretary if the job was offered to him by his likely successor Gordon Brown.

Mr Blair said: "I think when you step down as prime minister you step down".

[GaryC 7]

I think I showed by my "dittohead" column that Iraq isn't the death trap the lefties make it out to be.

Well, I'd rather take my chances living in Atlanta, thank you very much.

Besides, whatever the death rate compares to in terms of other countries, cities, etc. (one has got to wonder why NO is listed as a city while South Africa is listed a country where listing J'burg on it's own should be much more impressive seeing that that is the world's most violent city - statistically speaking), what about comparing Iraq pre- and post invasion?

According to the survey results, Iraq's mortality rate in the year before the invasion was 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people; in the post-invasion period it was 13.3 deaths per 1,000 people per year. The difference between these rates was used to calculate "excess deaths."

Of the 629 deaths reported, 87 percent occurred after the invasion. A little more than 75 percent of the dead were men, with a greater male preponderance after the invasion. For violent post-invasion deaths, the male-to-female ratio was 10-to-1, with most victims between 15 and 44 years old.

Gunshot wounds caused 56 percent of violent deaths, with car bombs and other explosions causing 14 percent, according to the survey results. Of the violent deaths that occurred after the invasion, 31 percent were caused by coalition forces or airstrikes, the respondents said.

WP

What this says is that the mortality rate in Iraq has almost tripled since we illegally invaded the place for no reason whatsoever and that about a third of the violent deaths are attributed to the coalition forces. Right or wrong, that's the perception of the Iraqis. I wouldn't exactly call that progress or anything like that.

We are doing great work there and we ARE winning.

I sure don't see that we're winning or what we're winning.

You don't see that we are winning because you don't want to see. You don't see the schools, hospitals and other services we have rebuilt. You don't see that the VAST majority of the country is peaceful. You don't see the business coming back.

Any time you overthrow a dictator that has been in power as long as Sadam has you will have a power struggle. It wouldn't matter how it was done, with a war or a covert operation. I suppose your one of those that thinks Saddam should still be running Iraq. Very nice. Ask any Iraqi whether he wants Saddam back and you will see him loose 5-1.

Oh, I like you changing my quote to dittohead. I am a proud Rush listener. RUSH IS RIGHT and it pisses you off! I love it!!!!

[kaydee457 13]

Another skewed article

Blair accepts 'disaster' in Iraq

Downing Street said Mr Blair's views have been misrepresented

Tony Blair has publicly accepted that the violence in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003 has been a disaster.

The prime minister's remark came during an interview with Sir David Frost on the new al-Jazeera English-language Arabic TV channel.

The Liberal Democrats have seized on his comment saying he has finally accepted the enormity of his decision to go to war in Iraq.

But Downing Street has insisted that Mr Blair's views have been misrepresented.

Mr Blair made the remark when he was challenged by Sir David that the Western intervention in Iraq had "so far been pretty much of a disaster".

He replied: "It has, but you see what I say to people is why is it difficult in Iraq?

"It's not difficult because of some accident in planning, it's difficult because there's a deliberate strategy - al-Qaeda with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other - to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war."

The remark came after the Trade Minister Margaret Hodge was reported to have told a meeting of Labour supporters that the Iraq war was Tony Blair's "big mistake" in foreign affairs.

Commenting on Mr Blair's interview Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: "At long last the enormity of the decision to take military action against Iraq is being accepted by the Prime Minister.

"It could hardly be otherwise as the failure of strategy becomes so clear.

"If the Prime Minister accepts that it is a "disaster" then surely Parliament and the British people who were given a flawed prospectus are entitled to an apology."

Downing Street insisted it was not Mr Blair's view that the violence in Iraq had been a disaster.

A spokeswoman said: "He was simply acknowledging the question in a polite way before going on to explain his view.

"To portray it as some kind of admission is completely disingenuous."

Mr Blair was the first guest on the Frost Over the World programme on al-Jazeera International, which launched on Wednesday this week.

In the interview he stressed the importance of progress in the Middle East peace process in winning the "war on terror".

He said it would cut support for Muslim extremism and added the issue was the "most important" thing for him before he leaves office.

He also said Syria and Iran could play a "constructive" role in the Middle East.

"If you are prepared to be part of the solution, there is a partnership available to you," Mr Blair said.

"But at the moment - and this is particularly so in respect of what Iran is doing in supporting terrorism throughout the Middle East and acting in breach of its nuclear weapons obligations - you are behaving in such a way that makes such a partnership impossible."

He said it was completely absurd to suggest that talking to the countries amounted to "appeasement".

Mr Blair said securing progress in the Middle East would have great "symbolic importance".

"It would send a signal to the whole of the world that this was not a battle between westerners or Christians and Muslims, but it was a battle between all those who believe in tolerance, in living together in harmony, in a non sectarian future against those who want to divide us.''

And he repeated that UK troops would remain in Iraq "for as long as the government needs us to stay".

He was also asked if he would stay on as foreign secretary if the job was offered to him by his likely successor Gordon Brown.

Mr Blair said: "I think when you step down as prime minister you step down".

How would you know it's skewed? Do have have fisrt hand knowledge to the contrary?

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

Another skewed article

Blair accepts 'disaster' in Iraq

Downing Street said Mr Blair's views have been misrepresented

Tony Blair has publicly accepted that the violence in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003 has been a disaster.

The prime minister's remark came during an interview with Sir David Frost on the new al-Jazeera English-language Arabic TV channel.

The Liberal Democrats have seized on his comment saying he has finally accepted the enormity of his decision to go to war in Iraq.

But Downing Street has insisted that Mr Blair's views have been misrepresented.

Mr Blair made the remark when he was challenged by Sir David that the Western intervention in Iraq had "so far been pretty much of a disaster".

He replied: "It has, but you see what I say to people is why is it difficult in Iraq?

"It's not difficult because of some accident in planning, it's difficult because there's a deliberate strategy - al-Qaeda with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other - to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war."

The remark came after the Trade Minister Margaret Hodge was reported to have told a meeting of Labour supporters that the Iraq war was Tony Blair's "big mistake" in foreign affairs.

Commenting on Mr Blair's interview Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: "At long last the enormity of the decision to take military action against Iraq is being accepted by the Prime Minister.

"It could hardly be otherwise as the failure of strategy becomes so clear.

"If the Prime Minister accepts that it is a "disaster" then surely Parliament and the British people who were given a flawed prospectus are entitled to an apology."

Downing Street insisted it was not Mr Blair's view that the violence in Iraq had been a disaster.

A spokeswoman said: "He was simply acknowledging the question in a polite way before going on to explain his view.

"To portray it as some kind of admission is completely disingenuous."

Mr Blair was the first guest on the Frost Over the World programme on al-Jazeera International, which launched on Wednesday this week.

In the interview he stressed the importance of progress in the Middle East peace process in winning the "war on terror".

He said it would cut support for Muslim extremism and added the issue was the "most important" thing for him before he leaves office.

He also said Syria and Iran could play a "constructive" role in the Middle East.

"If you are prepared to be part of the solution, there is a partnership available to you," Mr Blair said.

"But at the moment - and this is particularly so in respect of what Iran is doing in supporting terrorism throughout the Middle East and acting in breach of its nuclear weapons obligations - you are behaving in such a way that makes such a partnership impossible."

He said it was completely absurd to suggest that talking to the countries amounted to "appeasement".

Mr Blair said securing progress in the Middle East would have great "symbolic importance".

"It would send a signal to the whole of the world that this was not a battle between westerners or Christians and Muslims, but it was a battle between all those who believe in tolerance, in living together in harmony, in a non sectarian future against those who want to divide us.''

And he repeated that UK troops would remain in Iraq "for as long as the government needs us to stay".

He was also asked if he would stay on as foreign secretary if the job was offered to him by his likely successor Gordon Brown.

Mr Blair said: "I think when you step down as prime minister you step down".

How would you know it's skewed? Do have have fisrt hand knowledge to the contrary?

you can't win against the pompous pontificating #######

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Another skewed article

Blair accepts 'disaster' in Iraq

Downing Street said Mr Blair's views have been misrepresented

Tony Blair has publicly accepted that the violence in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003 has been a disaster.

The prime minister's remark came during an interview with Sir David Frost on the new al-Jazeera English-language Arabic TV channel.

The Liberal Democrats have seized on his comment saying he has finally accepted the enormity of his decision to go to war in Iraq.

But Downing Street has insisted that Mr Blair's views have been misrepresented.

Mr Blair made the remark when he was challenged by Sir David that the Western intervention in Iraq had "so far been pretty much of a disaster".

He replied: "It has, but you see what I say to people is why is it difficult in Iraq?

"It's not difficult because of some accident in planning, it's difficult because there's a deliberate strategy - al-Qaeda with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other - to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war."

The remark came after the Trade Minister Margaret Hodge was reported to have told a meeting of Labour supporters that the Iraq war was Tony Blair's "big mistake" in foreign affairs.

Commenting on Mr Blair's interview Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: "At long last the enormity of the decision to take military action against Iraq is being accepted by the Prime Minister.

"It could hardly be otherwise as the failure of strategy becomes so clear.

"If the Prime Minister accepts that it is a "disaster" then surely Parliament and the British people who were given a flawed prospectus are entitled to an apology."

Downing Street insisted it was not Mr Blair's view that the violence in Iraq had been a disaster.

A spokeswoman said: "He was simply acknowledging the question in a polite way before going on to explain his view.

"To portray it as some kind of admission is completely disingenuous."

Mr Blair was the first guest on the Frost Over the World programme on al-Jazeera International, which launched on Wednesday this week.

In the interview he stressed the importance of progress in the Middle East peace process in winning the "war on terror".

He said it would cut support for Muslim extremism and added the issue was the "most important" thing for him before he leaves office.

He also said Syria and Iran could play a "constructive" role in the Middle East.

"If you are prepared to be part of the solution, there is a partnership available to you," Mr Blair said.

"But at the moment - and this is particularly so in respect of what Iran is doing in supporting terrorism throughout the Middle East and acting in breach of its nuclear weapons obligations - you are behaving in such a way that makes such a partnership impossible."

He said it was completely absurd to suggest that talking to the countries amounted to "appeasement".

Mr Blair said securing progress in the Middle East would have great "symbolic importance".

"It would send a signal to the whole of the world that this was not a battle between westerners or Christians and Muslims, but it was a battle between all those who believe in tolerance, in living together in harmony, in a non sectarian future against those who want to divide us.''

And he repeated that UK troops would remain in Iraq "for as long as the government needs us to stay".

He was also asked if he would stay on as foreign secretary if the job was offered to him by his likely successor Gordon Brown.

Mr Blair said: "I think when you step down as prime minister you step down".

How would you know it's skewed? Do have have fisrt hand knowledge to the contrary?

Here's the difference - I posted the actual article. You posted a completely different article about disgruntled hoteliers who were refusing to air CNN because of a specific report (which you hadn't seen).

And Kaydee - you'll have to ACTUALLY READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE to find out if it is really skewed, or if I was merely being sarcastic. Imagine that.

you can't win against the pompous pontificating #######

You guys can't win by actually addressing the issue - so you resort to ridicule. And you aren't even good at that

Edited November 18, 2006 by erekose

[Cristy 4]

I am glad all republicans are not like you guys. Scary.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think I showed by my "dittohead" column that Iraq isn't the death trap the lefties make it out to be.

Well, I'd rather take my chances living in Atlanta, thank you very much.

Besides, whatever the death rate compares to in terms of other countries, cities, etc. (one has got to wonder why NO is listed as a city while South Africa is listed a country where listing J'burg on it's own should be much more impressive seeing that that is the world's most violent city - statistically speaking), what about comparing Iraq pre- and post invasion?

According to the survey results, Iraq's mortality rate in the year before the invasion was 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people; in the post-invasion period it was 13.3 deaths per 1,000 people per year. The difference between these rates was used to calculate "excess deaths."

Of the 629 deaths reported, 87 percent occurred after the invasion. A little more than 75 percent of the dead were men, with a greater male preponderance after the invasion. For violent post-invasion deaths, the male-to-female ratio was 10-to-1, with most victims between 15 and 44 years old.

Gunshot wounds caused 56 percent of violent deaths, with car bombs and other explosions causing 14 percent, according to the survey results. Of the violent deaths that occurred after the invasion, 31 percent were caused by coalition forces or airstrikes, the respondents said.

WP

What this says is that the mortality rate in Iraq has almost tripled since we illegally invaded the place for no reason whatsoever and that about a third of the violent deaths are attributed to the coalition forces. Right or wrong, that's the perception of the Iraqis. I wouldn't exactly call that progress or anything like that.

We are doing great work there and we ARE winning.

I sure don't see that we're winning or what we're winning.

You don't see that we are winning because you don't want to see. You don't see the schools, hospitals and other services we have rebuilt. You don't see that the VAST majority of the country is peaceful. You don't see the business coming back.

Any time you overthrow a dictator that has been in power as long as Sadam has you will have a power struggle. It wouldn't matter how it was done, with a war or a covert operation. I suppose your one of those that thinks Saddam should still be running Iraq. Very nice. Ask any Iraqi whether he wants Saddam back and you will see him loose 5-1.

Oh, I like you changing my quote to dittohead. I am a proud Rush listener. RUSH IS RIGHT and it pisses you off! I love it!!!!

Me pissed off because Rush is shitting into your skull? Since this is a free country, you have the fcuking right to let this self-righteous hypocrite addict that ought to be checking himself into jail if he was to be taken seriously shite into your skull all you want. That's not my problem.

Now, there isn't a single foreign affairs and/or policy expert out there that will agree with Rush and his parakeets that we're winning in Iraq. The numbers (remember that we're still below pre attack oil production, energy supply, job supply, health service supply, school service, etc. levels) and the situation on the ground just don't support such nonsensical assessment. Even the Baker commission, appointed by Rush's (and subsequently your) Bush doesn't think so. No person in his right mind does. "Iraq Is Not Winnable". It's just a matter of time now that Bush will flip-flop the troops home. Mark my words.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's just a matter of time now that Bush will flip-flop the troops home.

Not that Bush will take responsibility for it of course. He'll let others take the blame seeing as he doesn't believe in executive accountability.