The casualty figures, though sad and depressing, are largely irrelevant to the policy issue. The surge may be working in Baghdad on some level as one would expect it, but Hillary Clinton is right when she says it's too little too late. That's about all she's right about by the way when it comes to Iraq.

The American people, when they elected into congress a democratic majority, did so in the hopes that they would pull the troops from Iraq. The fact that they have not done so, even attempted to cut off funding, and largely just run the same dog and pony show the Republicans have for the last 5 years, points to the historically low approval of the congress. Numbers like 20% approval, are pathetic and nearly unbelievable. The surge is a good tactic for neighborhoods of Baghdad, but winning the capitol at the expense of the rest of the country just gives insurgency more areas to move freely. It also gives them a more concentrated set of targets to attack when they so choose, which is how they prefer to make their attacks.

Look at Afghanistan, how the Taliban, is still a force, not defeated, not in shambles, but a segment of society very much in power outside the capital.

The overall strategy in Iraq has been an unprecedented failure in American occupation. Because that's what happens when you occupy a country rather than liberate it. Within both Japan and Germany, after WW2 we were able to undeploy the bulk of armed forces from both regions without the mass of homicidal chaos that even as we occupy Iraq we cannot stop. It didn't take ten years as it estimated to be the minimum commitment in Iraq. The goal also wasn't to "not lose" but to get the people back on their feet and get us moving on with our lives.

This war in Iraq is less about fighting AQ than it is occupying and building a nation. It isn't what this nation was founded to do, it isn't what this nation wants to do, and it rightly is the duty and responsibility of the world community if it is to happen at all. A responsibility they have chosen to ignore at their own peril. The danger in Iraq has been removed, if the local society chooses to devour itself in chaos and hysteria and mystic laws from history long ago, so be it. There is no reason we should mortgage our children financial future as well as our soldiers of today for the benefit of a conflict that isn't winnable, but merely one we just want to not lose.

Reply By: ParaTed2k Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2007
“Right, and U.S. Troops personally murdered every single one of them, right?

The ironic thing is, if they do pull our troops out, and the killing fields that are sure to follow occur, you will still sit there on your pompous butt saying that it's our troops' fault.

Not one of our troops can do anything that will make you happy. Just curl up in a little phlegm ball and rot away.”

This has NOTHING to do with our troops not performing. They were sent on a mission that they should NEVER have been sent on and with less then 1/3 the troop levels NEEDED to do the job they were given. That is not our troops fault but the fault of GWB!


Since keeping our troops is not resolving the issues and all that is taking place is more dead and injured Americans, It is time to turn over the security of Iraq to the Iraqi Army and People. If as you suggest the killing gets worse, it will be because the Iraqi People refuse to stop it. We can not resolve the hate between the factions and we can not build a nation and should not be doing that in Iraq.

Reply By: danielost Posted: Sunday, September 02, 2007
yes up 20% in august and if we follow your policy it would go up to who knows 200%


You forgot that the death rate in 2007 is twice what it was in 2006. We can not control the killing and all we are doing is getting our troops killed, injured and NOW Bush wants another $50 Billion for the Iraq War. It is time to say NO and let the Iraqi People deal with their country. If they choose to allow the killing to increase that will on them! We will be out of the mess!

"The ironic thing is, if they do pull our troops out, and the killing fields that are sure to follow occur, you will still sit there on your pompous butt saying that it's our troops' fault."

No that's not what he is saying at all, and it certainly isn't what I'm saying. Rather then cling to the position that we can never and never lose if we never leave.

Maybe we should consider that we don't know what will happen if we leave. Certainly not anymore sure than we did when we invaded and weren't greeted as liberators. We stepped into a deep pile of shit when we invaded, and chose to occupy rather then setup shop, get R done and leave with a clear "leaving date".

To this day, there is no condition for our leaving, nor is their any time table for when we go by at the latest. The insurgency is going to fight until they are all dead, and there is no strong argument that AQ is even fighting an allied battle against the US in Iraq.

We have in a strong sense been occupying and certainly shaping the events in Iraq since 1991. In that time we have raised a generation of Iraqis who are sick of the "oppression" we have rendered onto them and choose to be part of the insurgency rather than the official government. One that is seen largely of our making, even though democratically elected. There needs to be another election when they chose that is USA hands off, and we need to get out of that country in order for them to move forward.

"yes up 20% in august and if we follow your policy it would go up to who knows 200%"

Prove it. What makes you think the insurgency would be any worse or stronger than it is or that the Iraqis would be any less capable of dealing with it if we weren't there. Explain why we lose if we leave.

To this day I see lots of politicians spinning this line but I don't see any reason except the "generals" nodding at what the administration says or they can look forward to early retirement just like Richard Clarke, George Tenet, Michael Brown, Colin Powel, Donald Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Ari Fleischer, that other guy press secretary (not Snow job) and all the other guys Bush has rear ended who weren't cutting it and spouting the company line.

Fact is, if you aren't on board with this war, you aren't part of the administration, so much so that they'll expose you as a covert CIA agent and say it was a mistake rather then a calculated move to discredit your discrediting of their bullshit intel that they used to get us into this war.

The violence is way up and not just over the course of a month, it's up over 2006, and 2006 is up over 2005, and at the continued rate it either expands or levels in 2008 either way thousands of civilians are dying and we cannot stop it or we would have already.

Reply By: Dan Greene Posted: Monday, September 03, 2007
"The ironic thing is, if they do pull our troops out, and the killing fields that are sure to follow occur, you will still sit there on your pompous butt saying that it's our troops' fault."

You have NEVER seen me blame OUR TROOPS. In fact I have always said they have done a fantastic job. It is Bush that is the problem. First for sending them into Iraq and then by not sending anything close to the troop levels required to secure Iraq.

Now Bush wants us to believe the Surge is working when the violence in both the north and south is out of control. We have SHIFTED the fighting not reduced it. The death toll continues to increase in 2007 over 2006. August 2007 over July 2007.

Reply By: danielost Posted: Monday, September 03, 2007
“Deaths in Iraq UP 20% in August!


as i said you were talking about one month not a year.
I have also posted the change from 2006 to 2007.”


"The casualty figures were released yesterday in Iraq and they will overshadow anything the September Report says from Petraeus and Corker. The data does show some reduction in the Baghdad area but violence in both the north and south have more then offset the gains in Baghdad."


No rational person can claim the violence in Iraq is not getting worse when you look at:

Double the death rate year to year.

July 2007 was the second highest Iraqi depth toll since we invaded.

The death rate is up 20 % in August over July!

Are you saying the violence is becoming less? Even you could not make such an argument given the facts!!!!!!!

which proves my point doesn't it.

Reply By: danielost Posted: Monday, September 03, 2007
CNN Just had a story about how the fighting in Basra is increasing now that the British have withdrawn their troops.


which proves my point doesn't it.


WHAT POINT? If your point is that when we leave the fighting will increase I agree. That is because we have not resolved the REASONS for the fighting and in WHY our policy will not end the violence in Iraq!

Dan,

While I would rather ignore you when you start acting this way I will say this. I have not had any loses in Iraq. My step-brother came back from Iraq in 1 piece (thank God), but we never know when he's going back since he is a Navy Seal. That doesn't mean I have to keep my mouth shut or make long explanations about anything.

I need not to argue any point on this article because Col is a tired broken record that repeats itself over and over. He jumps from one issue to another within the same article and somehow relates them to each other just because Bush has something to do with them. He never sticks to his own words, he contradicts himself more that Bush says says we're winning. Col does not look at the facts, he takes other peoples words for it. he doesn't even research those who quotes. He claims to be against the are not enough soldiers to do then job then he complains about how we are not taken them out all in the same day and sometimes same article. He even complains about how Bush controls all Gov't agencies when they say good things about Iraq but then quotes these same agencies when they have some bad news.

If you wanna side with Col, that's fine by me. There's an old saying in Puerto Rico: "Dime con quien andas y te dire quien eres". Roughly translated "tell me who you hang with and I'll tell you what you are".

“He never sticks to his own words; he contradicts himself more that Bush says we're winning. Col does not look at the facts; he takes other peoples words for it.”

When I shift to other topics it is generally because of comments that were made by others that do not conform to the subject. In many cases I believe that is because they do not want to address the facts I post. As to "Takes other peoples words” I use facts from agencies and statements from people who are knowledgeable of a subject.

that doesn't mean i will not say when he might say something that might be right. so far it has happened once.

Stop the BS Col. People here stick to what you argue, it is you who changes issues. In the same article (not necessarily this one) you start by arguing about how Bush should not have gone to Iraq with so few soldiers, when people refute your claim you jump to the amount of money being spent, once that is debated you will jump to how the baby boomers will not get their SS money, then you jump on the countries infrastructure and stem cell research. Notice how you covered 5 issues that are not related to each other, or at least not directly? You can not follow one argument without lashing out 10 thousand other issues to confuse and throw off the first one that you were losing.



I hope you know I wasn't talking about you daniel but dan greene.

The agencies you use are the same ones you claim to be under Bush's control when the facts are opposing to your views. One day you say they can't be trusted, the next you are using their words to defend your position. Talk about being a hypocrite. And the people you claim "are knowledgeable of a subject" are not always right and are usually opinions which don't always make them correct. Several times you have claimed some of the Generals to be wrong, aren't they "are knowledgeable of a subject" when it comes to how to handle the war? Funny how you will criticize those who, according to you, are "are knowledgeable of a subject" just because they do not side with your position and the use them as credible sources when they do.