Numbers "Petraeying" a lost cause in Iraq

sackdance · 06-23-2008, 10:41 AM

[I]Roadside bomb attacks and fatalities in Iraq are down by almost 90% over the last year, according to Pentagon records and interviews with military leaders.[/I]

[url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-06-22-ieds_N.htm[/url]

-----------------

A war is already either won or completely in hand, not that TV or the papers care much.

nuu faaola · 06-23-2008, 10:50 AM

[QUOTE=sackdance;2597058][I]Roadside bomb attacks and fatalities in Iraq are down by almost 90% over the last year, according to Pentagon records and interviews with military leaders.[/I]

[url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-06-22-ieds_N.htm[/url]

-----------------

A war is already either won or completely in hand, not that TV or the papers care much.[/QUOTE]

Just curious: What have we "won," in your opinion? Six years in, what strategic aim benefitting the United States has been achieved?

Warfish · 06-23-2008, 11:08 AM

[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2597092]Just curious: What have we "won," in your opinion? Six years in, what strategic aim benefitting the United States has been achieved?[/QUOTE]

No attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.

Beyond that.......well, the vast amount of money and the U.S. soldiers lives lost may have been better spent elsewhere.

Jetdawgg · 06-23-2008, 11:10 AM

Iraq did not attack the USA. Furthermore, the terrorists are only in Iraq now because we are

DeanPatsFan · 06-23-2008, 11:12 AM

[QUOTE=Jetdawgg;2597141]Iraq did not attack the USA. Furthermore, the terrorists are only in Iraq now because we are[/QUOTE]

And that's a great place to kill them.

piney · 06-23-2008, 12:03 PM

[QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2597143]And that's a great place to kill them.[/QUOTE]

come for the sand....stay for the killing.....

Jetdawgg · 06-23-2008, 12:13 PM

[QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2597143]And that's a great place to kill them.[/QUOTE]

Unless they all can be killed, the problem won't be solved

nuu faaola · 06-23-2008, 12:24 PM

[QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2597143]And that's a great place to kill them.[/QUOTE]

Not particualrly productive considering a lot of the groups we have been fighting there literally only exist to be killed because we invaded in the first place, like Al Qaeda in Iraq, for instance.

Big L · 06-23-2008, 12:37 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2597137][B]No attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.[/B]

Beyond that.......well, the vast amount of money and the U.S. soldiers lives lost may have been better spent elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

Last one before 9-11 was Feb 26, 1993? WTC bombing? I guess you could then say Clinton did a good job preventing attacks after that, no? Bush takes office, and we're attacked. So you give Bush credit for not being attacked since. :rolleyes:

piney · 06-23-2008, 12:42 PM

the number of attacks on US soil are so seldom that it isn't a good enough of a barometer to determine success or not..

the lowered violence is great, but I do not think it is also a great assessment of our success or failure in Iraq...

are things getting done which will put the US in a position to withdraw...that is the real measuring stick..

how far along is the new Iraqi gov't to becoming self-reliant and secure?

Everything else is just window dressing......

Tok3535 · 06-23-2008, 12:55 PM

I cant think of anything that pisses me off more then these ****ing neo-cons who back this Iraq war saying it was because we were attacked on 9/11

I can understand the people in Oklahoma or some backwater place in Georgia thinking we attacked Saddam because of the attacks on 9/11

But you people are from ****ing NEW YORK

By you saying we attacked Iraq because of 9/11 just discredits the entire war and basically admits that all this money spent and all those people who died died for nothing

At least go with the argument that we are trying to spread freedom and democracy to Iraq, I can live with that argument

Seriously What the **** is wrong with Neo-con REpublicans, are you so in denial about your support for Bush that you cant admit he ****ed up? Are you making money from the Iraq war and trying to justify it?(most likely)

God damn you people piss me the **** off

As I said in the other thread , Neo-Con Republicans are the biggest threat to humanity, this diseased Reagan-Bush-Bush-McCain cult that has plagued this country over the last 25 years

brady's a catcher · 06-23-2008, 01:03 PM

[QUOTE=Tok3535;2597334]I cant think of anything that pisses me off more then these ****ing neo-cons who back this Iraq war saying it was because we were attacked on 9/11

I can understand the people in Oklahoma or some backwater place in Georgia thinking we attacked Saddam because of the attacks on 9/11

But you people are from ****ing NEW YORK

By you saying we attacked Iraq because of 9/11 just discredits the entire war and basically admits that all this money spent and all those people who died died for nothing

At least go with the argument that we are trying to spread freedom and democracy to Iraq, I can live with that argument

Seriously What the **** is wrong with Neo-con REpublicans, are you so in denial about your support for Bush that you cant admit he ****ed up? Are you making money from the Iraq war and trying to justify it?(most likely)

God damn you people piss me the **** off

As I said in the other thread , Neo-Con Republicans are the biggest threat to humanity, this diseased Reagan-Bush-Bush-McCain cult that has plagued this country over the last 25 years[/QUOTE]

So you're saying you're not sure where you stand on Neo-Cons?:P

Warfish · 06-23-2008, 01:04 PM

[QUOTE=Big L;2597299]Last one before 9-11 was Feb 26, 1993? WTC bombing? I guess you could then say Clinton did a good job preventing attacks after that, no? Bush takes office, and we're attacked. So you give Bush credit for not being attacked since. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

Nuu asked what we've won.

I clearly said the only clear "win" thus far has been remaining attack-free thus far. Everything else in Iraq is far too tenuous and far too amorphous to be called a win at this point.

Should these things change, so will my opinion. Then. Not now.

Clinton (and the Govt. services sword to protect us under him) rightfully take the vast majority of blame for 9/11. Bush too takes a portion. I'm not going to defend Bush. He's a abject failure as I see it, on a myriad of levels.

And should we be attacked again, before or just after he leaves office, no one in the right mind would use "no attacks" as a "win", and the blame will be squarely on Bush and and the Govt. services under him sworn to protect us.

Warfish · 06-23-2008, 01:04 PM

[QUOTE=piney;2597309]the number of attacks on US soil are so seldom that it isn't a good enough of a barometer to determine success or not..

the lowered violence is great, but I do not think it is also a great assessment of our success or failure in Iraq...

are things getting done which will put the US in a position to withdraw...that is the real measuring stick..

how far along is the new Iraqi gov't to becoming self-reliant and secure?

Everything else is just window dressing......[/QUOTE]

Good post btw.

SanAntonio_JetFan · 06-23-2008, 01:06 PM

Shouldn't we just withdraw our troops and let Iran and Syria take control of the Iraqi oil fields and pretty much the entire middle east?

Or, should we stay there indefinitely and keep Iran in check?

The choice seems fairly obvious to me.

sackdance · 06-23-2008, 01:16 PM

[QUOTE=Tok3535;2597334]I cant think of anything that pisses me off more then these ****ing neo-cons who back this Iraq war saying it was because we were attacked on 9/11

I can understand the people in Oklahoma or some backwater place in Georgia thinking we attacked Saddam because of the attacks on 9/11

But you people are from ****ing NEW YORK

By you saying we attacked Iraq because of 9/11 just discredits the entire war and basically admits that all this money spent and all those people who died died for nothing

At least go with the argument that we are trying to spread freedom and democracy to Iraq, I can live with that argument

Seriously What the **** is wrong with Neo-con REpublicans, are you so in denial about your support for Bush that you cant admit he ****ed up? Are you making money from the Iraq war and trying to justify it?(most likely)

God damn you people piss me the **** off

As I said in the other thread , Neo-Con Republicans are the biggest threat to humanity, this diseased Reagan-Bush-Bush-McCain cult that has plagued this country over the last 25 years[/QUOTE]
Eloquent. Too bad you can't scream that we're getting our butt kicked over there.

Big L · 06-23-2008, 01:18 PM

[QUOTE=Warfish;2597343]Nuu asked what we've won.

I clearly said the only clear "win" thus far has been [B]remaining attack-free thus far. [/B] Everything else in Iraq is far too tenuous and far too amorphous to be called a win at this point.[/QUOTE]

I'm just sayin, I don't think Bush or his regime have anything to really do with that. Clinton remained attack-free for 7.5 years, and we weren't even fighting anyone/anything. Maybe terrorists are on a 7.5 year cycle, I dunno. But I think you or I could have been president after 9/11 or the first WTC bombing and we'd still be attack free almost 7 years later.

Tok3535 · 06-23-2008, 01:20 PM

[QUOTE=sackdance;2597383]Eloquent. Too bad you can't scream that we're getting our butt kicked over there.[/QUOTE]

well we could probably kick the **** out of Iceland if we decided to invade it, should we invade it?

long island leprechaun · 06-23-2008, 01:24 PM

[QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2597348]Shouldn't we just withdraw our troops and let Iran and Syria take control of the Iraqi oil fields and pretty much the entire middle east?

Or, should we stay there indefinitely and keep Iran in check?

The choice seems fairly obvious to me.[/QUOTE]

Wait a minute, wasn't that what Saddam was doing? And doing it better, I might add. A perfect situation for Kissinger style (Meternich) diplomacy: manipulating antogonists, since Iran and Iraq were at each others' throats.

SanAntonio_JetFan · 06-23-2008, 01:25 PM

[QUOTE=Big L;2597391]Clinton remained attack-free for 7.5 years[/QUOTE]

The Clinton years were the "Golden Age" of Al Qaeda, where they grew dramatically and became emboldened.

* February 26, 1993, attack on the World Trade Center: 6 deaths and 1,042 injured

* June 25, 1996, Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia: 20 deaths and 372 injured

* August 7, 1998, attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania: 12 U.S. deaths out of a total of 223 deaths; 12 U.S. injured out of a total of over 4,000 injured

* October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole in Yemen: 17 deaths; 39 injured

* September 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington (occurred during Bush presidency but planned during Clinton administration): 2,975 deaths and 24 missing.

06-23-2008, 10:41 AM	#1
sackdance All Pro Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,882	Numbers "Petraeying" a lost cause in Iraq [I]Roadside bomb attacks and fatalities in Iraq are down by almost 90% over the last year, according to Pentagon records and interviews with military leaders.[/I] [url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-06-22-ieds_N.htm[/url] ----------------- A war is already either won or completely in hand, not that TV or the papers care much.

06-23-2008, 12:55 PM	#11
Tok3535 Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 259	I cant think of anything that pisses me off more then these **ing neo-cons who back this Iraq war saying it was because we were attacked on 9/11 I can understand the people in Oklahoma or some backwater place in Georgia thinking we attacked Saddam because of the attacks on 9/11 But you people are from ing NEW YORK By you saying we attacked Iraq because of 9/11 just discredits the entire war and basically admits that all this money spent and all those people who died died for nothing At least go with the argument that we are trying to spread freedom and democracy to Iraq, I can live with that argument Seriously What the is wrong with Neo-con REpublicans, are you so in denial about your support for Bush that you cant admit he ed up? Are you making money from the Iraq war and trying to justify it?(most likely) God damn you people piss me the ** off As I said in the other thread , Neo-Con Republicans are the biggest threat to humanity, this diseased Reagan-Bush-Bush-McCain cult that has plagued this country over the last 25 years Last edited by Tok3535; 06-23-2008 at 12:59 PM.

06-23-2008, 10:50 AM	#2
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,253	[QUOTE=sackdance;2597058][I]Roadside bomb attacks and fatalities in Iraq are down by almost 90% over the last year, according to Pentagon records and interviews with military leaders.[/I] [url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-06-22-ieds_N.htm[/url] ----------------- A war is already either won or completely in hand, not that TV or the papers care much.[/QUOTE] Just curious: What have we "won," in your opinion? Six years in, what strategic aim benefitting the United States has been achieved?

06-23-2008, 11:08 AM	#3
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=nuu faaola;2597092]Just curious: What have we "won," in your opinion? Six years in, what strategic aim benefitting the United States has been achieved?[/QUOTE] No attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11. Beyond that.......well, the vast amount of money and the U.S. soldiers lives lost may have been better spent elsewhere.

06-23-2008, 11:10 AM	#4
Jetdawgg All Pro Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 6,687	Iraq did not attack the USA. Furthermore, the terrorists are only in Iraq now because we are

06-23-2008, 11:12 AM	#5
DeanPatsFan Lib Free Or Die..... All Pro Annoying Chowd Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,123	[QUOTE=Jetdawgg;2597141]Iraq did not attack the USA. Furthermore, the terrorists are only in Iraq now because we are[/QUOTE] And that's a great place to kill them.

06-23-2008, 12:03 PM	#6
piney hip deep in dirty diapers All League Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 3,618	[QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2597143]And that's a great place to kill them.[/QUOTE] come for the sand....stay for the killing.....

06-23-2008, 12:13 PM	#7
Jetdawgg All Pro Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 6,687	[QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2597143]And that's a great place to kill them.[/QUOTE] Unless they all can be killed, the problem won't be solved

06-23-2008, 12:24 PM	#8
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,253	[QUOTE=DeanPatsFan;2597143]And that's a great place to kill them.[/QUOTE] Not particualrly productive considering a lot of the groups we have been fighting there literally only exist to be killed because we invaded in the first place, like Al Qaeda in Iraq, for instance.

06-23-2008, 12:37 PM	#9
Big L Plus six thousand posts Veteran Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: It's all relative Posts: 1,057	[QUOTE=Warfish;2597137][B]No attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.[/B] Beyond that.......well, the vast amount of money and the U.S. soldiers lives lost may have been better spent elsewhere.[/QUOTE] Last one before 9-11 was Feb 26, 1993? WTC bombing? I guess you could then say Clinton did a good job preventing attacks after that, no? Bush takes office, and we're attacked. So you give Bush credit for not being attacked since. :rolleyes:

06-23-2008, 12:42 PM	#10
piney hip deep in dirty diapers All League Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 3,618	the number of attacks on US soil are so seldom that it isn't a good enough of a barometer to determine success or not.. the lowered violence is great, but I do not think it is also a great assessment of our success or failure in Iraq... are things getting done which will put the US in a position to withdraw...that is the real measuring stick.. how far along is the new Iraqi gov't to becoming self-reliant and secure? Everything else is just window dressing......

06-23-2008, 01:03 PM	#12
brady's a catcher R.I.P Goofy Maloof All Pro Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Alexandria, VA Posts: 6,688	[QUOTE=Tok3535;2597334]I cant think of anything that pisses me off more then these **ing neo-cons who back this Iraq war saying it was because we were attacked on 9/11 I can understand the people in Oklahoma or some backwater place in Georgia thinking we attacked Saddam because of the attacks on 9/11 But you people are from ing NEW YORK By you saying we attacked Iraq because of 9/11 just discredits the entire war and basically admits that all this money spent and all those people who died died for nothing At least go with the argument that we are trying to spread freedom and democracy to Iraq, I can live with that argument Seriously What the is wrong with Neo-con REpublicans, are you so in denial about your support for Bush that you cant admit he ed up? Are you making money from the Iraq war and trying to justify it?(most likely) God damn you people piss me the ** off As I said in the other thread , Neo-Con Republicans are the biggest threat to humanity, this diseased Reagan-Bush-Bush-McCain cult that has plagued this country over the last 25 years[/QUOTE] So you're saying you're not sure where you stand on Neo-Cons?:P

06-23-2008, 01:04 PM	#13
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=Big L;2597299]Last one before 9-11 was Feb 26, 1993? WTC bombing? I guess you could then say Clinton did a good job preventing attacks after that, no? Bush takes office, and we're attacked. So you give Bush credit for not being attacked since. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] Nuu asked what we've won. I clearly said the only clear "win" thus far has been remaining attack-free thus far. Everything else in Iraq is far too tenuous and far too amorphous to be called a win at this point. Should these things change, so will my opinion. Then. Not now. Clinton (and the Govt. services sword to protect us under him) rightfully take the vast majority of blame for 9/11. Bush too takes a portion. I'm not going to defend Bush. He's a abject failure as I see it, on a myriad of levels. And should we be attacked again, before or just after he leaves office, no one in the right mind would use "no attacks" as a "win", and the blame will be squarely on Bush and and the Govt. services under him sworn to protect us.

06-23-2008, 01:06 PM	#15
SanAntonio_JetFan Hall Of Fame Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 5,481	Shouldn't we just withdraw our troops and let Iran and Syria take control of the Iraqi oil fields and pretty much the entire middle east? Or, should we stay there indefinitely and keep Iran in check? The choice seems fairly obvious to me.

06-23-2008, 01:16 PM	#16
sackdance All Pro Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 5,882	[QUOTE=Tok3535;2597334]I cant think of anything that pisses me off more then these **ing neo-cons who back this Iraq war saying it was because we were attacked on 9/11 I can understand the people in Oklahoma or some backwater place in Georgia thinking we attacked Saddam because of the attacks on 9/11 But you people are from ing NEW YORK By you saying we attacked Iraq because of 9/11 just discredits the entire war and basically admits that all this money spent and all those people who died died for nothing At least go with the argument that we are trying to spread freedom and democracy to Iraq, I can live with that argument Seriously What the is wrong with Neo-con REpublicans, are you so in denial about your support for Bush that you cant admit he ed up? Are you making money from the Iraq war and trying to justify it?(most likely) God damn you people piss me the ** off As I said in the other thread , Neo-Con Republicans are the biggest threat to humanity, this diseased Reagan-Bush-Bush-McCain cult that has plagued this country over the last 25 years[/QUOTE] Eloquent. Too bad you can't scream that we're getting our butt kicked over there.

06-23-2008, 01:18 PM	#17
Big L Plus six thousand posts Veteran Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: It's all relative Posts: 1,057	[QUOTE=Warfish;2597343]Nuu asked what we've won. I clearly said the only clear "win" thus far has been [B]remaining attack-free thus far. [/B] Everything else in Iraq is far too tenuous and far too amorphous to be called a win at this point.[/QUOTE] I'm just sayin, I don't think Bush or his regime have anything to really do with that. Clinton remained attack-free for 7.5 years, and we weren't even fighting anyone/anything. Maybe terrorists are on a 7.5 year cycle, I dunno. But I think you or I could have been president after 9/11 or the first WTC bombing and we'd still be attack free almost 7 years later.

06-23-2008, 01:20 PM	#18
Tok3535 Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 259	[QUOTE=sackdance;2597383]Eloquent. Too bad you can't scream that we're getting our butt kicked over there.[/QUOTE] well we could probably kick the **** out of Iceland if we decided to invade it, should we invade it?

06-23-2008, 01:24 PM	#19
long island leprechaun Don't mess with Angel Eyes. All Pro Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: greenwich village, NYC Posts: 7,223	[QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2597348]Shouldn't we just withdraw our troops and let Iran and Syria take control of the Iraqi oil fields and pretty much the entire middle east? Or, should we stay there indefinitely and keep Iran in check? The choice seems fairly obvious to me.[/QUOTE] Wait a minute, wasn't that what Saddam was doing? And doing it better, I might add. A perfect situation for Kissinger style (Meternich) diplomacy: manipulating antogonists, since Iran and Iraq were at each others' throats.

06-23-2008, 01:25 PM	#20
SanAntonio_JetFan Hall Of Fame Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 5,481	[QUOTE=Big L;2597391]Clinton remained attack-free for 7.5 years[/QUOTE] The Clinton years were the "Golden Age" of Al Qaeda, where they grew dramatically and became emboldened. * February 26, 1993, attack on the World Trade Center: 6 deaths and 1,042 injured * June 25, 1996, Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia: 20 deaths and 372 injured * August 7, 1998, attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania: 12 U.S. deaths out of a total of 223 deaths; 12 U.S. injured out of a total of over 4,000 injured * October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole in Yemen: 17 deaths; 39 injured * September 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington (occurred during Bush presidency but planned during Clinton administration): 2,975 deaths and 24 missing.