22 Soldiers Dead in 3 Days

[guido911]

You really think that the current Iraqi government is all tulips and rainbows?

I NEVER said that or made such a claim. I was responding to your borderline insane assertion that life for the Iraqi people and the world was better under Saddam. Period. Since you started this debate with "[life in Iraq is] worse than if Saddam was still in power" and that the U.S. "succeeded in installing a Shia dominated pro-Iranian government" (the latter which remains unsourced, I gather because simply being Shia does not mean that you are the same holocaust deniers and funders/exporters of international terrorism as exists in Iran), and which now you have plainly abandoned in the face of my uncontroverted arguments, in particular the response to your stupid U.S. "installed" the Shia government, I should have expected you would go down the "talk radio parrot" road.

[swake]

I was responding to your borderline insane assertion that life for the Iraqi people and the world was better under Saddam. Period.

I never said that "life was better" under Saddam, but, even if the average Iraqi hated Saddam, polls show that after 8 years of war, 100,000 civilian deaths, millions of injuries and a completely wrecked infrastructure that yeah, Iraqis believe it's even worse than it was under Saddam.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/about/

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14282

And the world is dramatically less safe now. The Muslim world never liked the US much, but there was a good deal of sympathy for us after 9/11. Now there is not, mostly due to Iraq, and Obama has not changed that.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1300/many-muslim-nations-less-favorable-to-obama

The Iraq war was good for our enemies. Ql Queda used it as a world wide recruiting tool and Iran used the Iraq War to scare it's own population and clamp down on dissidents. Iran may have even taken part in tricking us into war (using Chalabi for instance, who is now part of the Sadr led faction and, according to Fox News, a spy for Iran):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3756650.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/25/usa.iraq10
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120535,00.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLF559498

Since you started this debate with "[life in Iraq is] worse than if Saddam was still in power" and that the U.S. "succeeded in installing a Shia dominated pro-Iranian government" (the latter which remains unsourced

Who are you wanting for a source? I linked to six different and relevant news articles from five different reputable news agencies as sources. I have seven additional sources in this post.

, I gather because simply being Shia does not mean that you are the same holocaust deniers and funders/exporters of international terrorism as exists in Iran), and which now you have plainly abandoned in the face of my uncontroverted arguments, in particular the response to your stupid U.S. "installed" the Shia government,

I never said that all Shia were pro Iranian, but I have sourced that two main Shia groups are, specifically, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and Moqtada al-Sadr's political party are in fact, pro-Iranian. And that the Dawa party has radical roots.

You have made almost no argument, your arugment seems to be "Saddam was a bad guy and anything that happened after him is good", well, he was a bad guy and that's a stupid argument.

you have sourced nothing, it may well be that your dictionary is also faulty because it seems that the meanings of words like "uncontroverted" and "source" escapes you.

I should have expected you would go down the "talk radio parrot" road.

I went there because it's the only rational location for you to come to these misguided beliefs.

[rwarn17588]

Checkmate against guido. 

[guido911]

Checkmate against guido. 

Still see you're wincing over my calling you out earlier. Sad.

[guido911]

I never said that "life was better" under Saddam, but, even if the average Iraqi hated Saddam, polls show that after 8 years of war, 100,000 civilian deaths, millions of injuries and a completely wrecked infrastructure that yeah, Iraqis believe it's even worse than it was under Saddam.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/about/

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/14282

And the world is dramatically less safe now. The Muslim world never liked the US much, but there was a good deal of sympathy for us after 9/11. Now there is not, mostly due to Iraq, and Obama has not changed that.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1300/many-muslim-nations-less-favorable-to-obama

The Iraq war was good for our enemies. Ql Queda used it as a world wide recruiting tool and Iran used the Iraq War to scare it's own population and clamp down on dissidents. Iran may have even taken part in tricking us into war (using Chalabi for instance, who is now part of the Sadr led faction and, according to Fox News, a spy for Iran):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3756650.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/25/usa.iraq10
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120535,00.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLF559498

Who are you wanting for a source? I linked to six different and relevant news articles from five different reputable news agencies as sources. I have seven additional sources in this post.

I never said that all Shia were pro Iranian, but I have sourced that two main Shia groups are, specifically, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and Moqtada al-Sadr's political party are in fact, pro-Iranian. And that the Dawa party has radical roots.

You have made almost no argument, your arugment seems to be "Saddam was a bad guy and anything that happened after him is good", well, he was a bad guy and that's a stupid argument.

you have sourced nothing, it may well be that your dictionary is also faulty because it seems that the meanings of words like "uncontroverted" and "source" escapes you.

I went there because it's the only rational location for you to come to these misguided beliefs.

First, you are correct, you did not say life was better under Saddam; you said this: "It's worse than if Saddam was still in power."  Wow, big difference, but I will concede the point.

Second, this is what you posted about the current regime:   "We have succeeded in installing a Shia dominated pro-Iranian government."

As I pointed out, and which you refuse to address, is that this government was ELECTED by the Iraqi people.  The U.S. didn't "install" any government as you stated, that whole democracy, right to vote thing that did not exist while Saddam was in charge, took care of that.

As for your "Shia dominated pro-Iranian government, I read your sources and not one of them stands for the proposition that the Iraqi government is in any way "pro-Iranian" as you allege. Indeed, one source noted the following:

"Both al-Maliki and his rivals in SIIC are seeking to portray their movements as nationalist and not defined by the sectarian politics that previously dragged Iraq to the brink of collapse."

A non-sectarian approach? Sure sounds like Iraq is well on its way to becoming the theocracy that is Iran. Your same article goes on:

"Al-Maliki, who became prime minister in 2006, has seen his political fortunes soar in the past two years. His decision to challenge the militia of a former backer, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, for control of the southern port of Basra in March 2008 reinvented him as a defender of the law and allowed him to take credit for security gains in Baghdad."

Not quite sure how a split in two Shia factions helps your case, but it does not matter. In fact, I do not see how any of this answers my posit: The U.S. won the Iraq war. Have we achieved both militarily and politically the objectives spelled out prior to the invasion? I argue yes. My question to you, do you think the U.S. lost the Iraq war?

Now, were there problems with the execution of the war and the handling of its aftermath? Sure. But that's war. I read the Angus-Reid poll of Iraqi people and there feeling that life was better under Saddam. The article citing the poll was dated January 3, 2007, nearly three years ago, when sectarian violence was raging in Iraq, and before the surge. I am curious what polling data would show today. Here is a poll from earlier this year which reflects an improvement in how the Iraqi's generally feel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7942974.stm#hash

As for my not sourcing any fact, you cannot be serious. Are you sincerely suggesting that you never heard of the thousands killed by Saddam's chemical weapons attack, or his rape rooms, or any of the other examples of cruelty he wreaked on his own people? Here are some:

Re: The Kurds: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/obituary-saddam-a-symbol-of-cruelty/29826-2.html
Re: Torture and cruelty:  http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/153317.php (warning: Graphic images)

Furthermore, I do not recall ever being accused of not sourcing facts I set out (I could be wrong). But in some cases, hoisting one on their own petard is just as effective an argument strategy. Your turn.

[rwarn17588]

Still see you're wincing over my calling you out earlier. Sad.

Uhhh, no. 

[cannon_fodder]

Are we arguing over semantics now, not to be a dick . . . just trying to follow the argument while skimming.

It seems you both agree:

1) Most Iraqis polled in 2006 said things were better under Saddam

2) The current government of Iraq is Shia dominated

3) Elements of the government and other powerful forces are pro-Iranian.

4) The Kurds are essentially in the same limbo they were under Saddam (after the U.S. began enforcing the no-fly zone)

5) At least as many people have been killed in the invasion/occupation/insurgency as were killed by Saddam
- - -

I understand the Iraqi's sentiment.  It would suck unimaginably to live in fear of being blown up, kid napped, or otherwise pressured into craziness.   Under Saddam at least you knew the rules:  what he says goes; if you followed them you were generally left alone.  When the poll was taken there were several factions that might kill you for being a member of any other.

In the long run, Allah willing, the idiots are killed off/pressured to quit and a normal society can develop.  It seems to have gotten much better after those polls were taken in November of 2006.  I would be very interested in seeing more up-to-date polling information on what the Iraqi's think of their own situation.  The below graph from the reference bodycount website seems to confirm that things have improved:



My brief search yielded no more current data.  But I wouldn't be surprised if many, many more Iraqis have changed their mind now.  At least, I hope so.

[guido911]

Are we arguing over semantics now, not to be a dick . . . just trying to follow the argument while skimming.

It seems you both agree:

1) Most Iraqis polled in 2006 said things were better under Saddam

2) The current government of Iraq is Shia dominated

3) Elements of the government and other powerful forces are pro-Iranian.

4) The Kurds are essentially in the same limbo they were under Saddam (after the U.S. began enforcing the no-fly zone)

5) At least as many people have been killed in the invasion/occupation/insurgency as were killed by Saddam
- - -

I understand the Iraqi's sentiment.  It would suck unimaginably to live in fear of being blown up, kid napped, or otherwise pressured into craziness.   Under Saddam at least you knew the rules:  what he says goes; if you followed them you were generally left alone.  When the poll was taken there were several factions that might kill you for being a member of any other.

In the long run, Allah willing, the idiots are killed off/pressured to quit and a normal society can develop.  It seems to have gotten much better after those polls were taken in November of 2006.  I would be very interested in seeing more up-to-date polling information on what the Iraqi's think of their own situation.  The below graph from the reference bodycount website seems to confirm that things have improved:



My brief search yielded no more current data.  But I wouldn't be surprised if many, many more Iraqis have changed their mind now.  At least, I hope so.

Quit being a dick! 

All I really want to know is if my position that the U.S. achieved its military and political objectives and thus won the war is agreed with. This other stuff is just noise, which I readily concede I participated in.

[Conan71]

Richard Cranium

[FOTD]

Richard Cranium

Is that who you will be on Saturday Nite?

[Conan71]

Is that who you will be on Saturday Nite?

Hah, funny you should ask that.  I actually did that about 18-20 years ago, fashioned a body condom out of a kitchen trash bag and wore a name tag proclaiming me as such.

You going to be at Peter and Joe's big suarez?

[cannon_fodder]

All I really want to know is if my position that the U.S. achieved its military and political objectives and thus won the war is agreed with. This other stuff is just noise, which I readily concede I participated in.

We achieved our a resounding military victory, but we planned very poorly for the ensuing occupation and transition stage.  In fact, it appears we really didn't plan for it all.  For which I am extremely disappointed as I believe much of the trouble could have been avoided with a few simple steps (keep the army in place [like Germany and Japan], enough troops to occupy the areas required, grant autonomy by region as the situation allows [pull out of areas one at a time], create jobs and security [and the people will take care of anything that messes with that]).

Per the political objective.  I'm less clear.  We ousted Saddam, which was a prime directive.  But the ultimate selling points were to get the WMDs and help the war on terror - I'm not sure we achieved those.

[we vs us]

In an academic sense, it pointed up the paradox of fielding the most powerful army in human history:  the warmaking is so simple (all things considered), you might make the mistake of thinking that the aftermath would be simple, too.

[Cats Cats Cats]

As I pointed out, and which you refuse to address, is that this government was ELECTED by the Iraqi people.

Everybody knew EXACTLY how the vote was going to go.  So yes, we knew which group we were going to get in power.  Surprise, it is the vast majority!

[Red Arrow]

I believe much of the trouble could have been avoided with a few simple steps (keep the army in place [like Germany and Japan], enough troops to occupy the areas required, grant autonomy by region as the situation allows [pull out of areas one at a time], create jobs and security [and the people will take care of anything that messes with that]).

Unfortunately, that's not politically correct.