To Understand Bush Failure in Iraq, Crunch The Numbers

Justin....please do not insult a blade of grass in such fashion!

Porgie, perhaps a sound critique, but how do you define "failure" and what is your alternative other than to critique your perceived failure?

Justin, cute, but inaccurate as usual. Did you know that Bush's IQ is actually higher then John Kerry's? Or that he grades in school were actually higher than Kerry's? Just Google but watch out for the disproved urban legend.

You make a good point about making the numbers more comparable. Republicans have been falling away from this policy like leaves in Fall.

Thomas:

How do I define failure? How about Afghanistan being on the brink of toppling back into chaos with it's people giving control back over to the Taliban if there is not some major changes seen by the people within the next six months...that according to the top NATO commander on the ground there. Failure...how about the fact that Iraq is embroiled in a civil war in all but name only, and the Pentagon's own reports saying THINGS ARE NOT WORKING.

Staying the course is NOT WORKING as our troops get injured and are dying in record numbers for this war. Last months injuries with the second highest since the invasion began, and this month is WAY AHEAD of last month with three hundred of our troops injured in the first five days of the month.

Alternative plans...there are only TWO viable options. The first is too pull our troops back (not out), and use them as a swift strike tactical deployment force to back up Iraq's own forces. The other option is to truly use overwhelming force, which would mean increasing troop strength to over 500,000 troops, and declaring Marshall Law for the entire nation of Iraq. Problem is, for America's military to really implement this policy is going to mean bringing back the draft, and both George Bush and Rumsfeld know this.

We may need to change our direction. One way maybe (and they have discussed this idea) is to divide Iraq into three separate areas. Kurds, Shites and Sunnies. This may help someone. Let them each have their own separate goverments. We wouldnt be having as much problems over there as we our if some of these other countries would of helped us. I hope the USA remembers who backed and didnt back them, when they were asked for help. Those who chose not to, will need help someday and I hope the USA doesnt give them any help at all.

I'm not so sure separating Iraq into three different countries based on religion and ethnicity is the best idea. Oil is not distributed equally among all of the regions of the country (it is mostly in the Shi'ite and Kurdish regions) so there would still be a LOT of tension and possibly warfare going on.

Also, maybe some countries didn't help us in Iraq because they could see that the war was completely rushed and could guess what a fiasco it was going to turn into. Who in their right mind wants to endanger their troops for a "cause" like that? Also, I would hope that the US would not act like kindergarteners and withhold aid from a country that needs help simply because they didn't support us on an issue. That would be really immature behavior.

Yes.

Two huge failures.
And what would William be saying if this had been a war begun by Democrat?

And before you go off William, remember the history of major terrorists events (By the militant Muslims) directed at the U.S. began with bombing the Marine Barracks in Lebanon. Regan choose to withdraw.

Cena apparently is willing to go back far enough in time to blame Reagan as the "source" for the "beginning" of this war, but she conveniently forgets it goes back even further, to the hostage taking in Iran, and it is the same terrorists we are fighting in Iraq today, Iranian shi'ite fundamentalist wackos ready to die for 72 virgins.

Yes, it was a Democrat that started this war with his feckless response to the illegal taking of over 50 Americans and held for over 1 full year.

To stick to the point (Jack it's like you didn't read the article), the numbers are bad. There are other issues as well. Many soldiers surviving eaven with minor injuries are suffering brain damage from IEDs. The blasts that throw an APC into the air while loaded with troops has to be large. Better armor protects everthing but internal organs from the shock. Also there is DU (depleted uranium for those who only watch FOX, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS for information). We use it on projectiles that require armor piercing capability. In an urban environment, these bullets often practically vaporize when hitting stone or cement. Bagdad and other cities are full of tons of radioactive dust sized particles. Let some of that sit in your lungs. Bush says the history books will tell the story. They already do, it's called the crusades and Bush is right to call this "the Long War".

jJack,
The insurgents, as they are called are a mix of Sunni, (Saddams crowd) and Fundamentalist Shiite and "possibly" the very extremist Wahhab if it is true bin Laden followers are now fighting there. They were not there in the beginning.

The Shiite are the majority in numbers, and along with the Kurds were subject to extreme oppression by Saddam. Kind of hard to find what we expect to do there when the majority population is of the same religious belief as the Iranian powers, and religion, not secular law is the order of the day.



Anyway, jJ, I would never have thought of mention the Lebanon disaster, but some conservative Republicans mentioned it. You and I care not one bit for each other's thoughts it is ok with me.

I read the article, and I'll agree, the numbers are "bad." So what? It's called war for a reason, and if you didn't expect injuries, if you didn't expect deaths, that's your problem not mine.

Cena, as you yourself admit, the shi'ites are the vast majority of those fighting in Iraq, and the vast majority of those shi'ites are from Iran. That's exactly what I said.

The sunnis have quit fighting, for the most part, and seek the protection of unity. The former baathist scum are still fighting, but they fight along with the shi'ites and represent the past.

Porgie didn't just "crunch" the numbers, he read them like tea leavings, inventing his own little interpretations of numbers he's incorrectly analyzed, and given false meaning to. Big deal, a third grader could have done the same thing, it's called MAKE BELIEVE.

No, it is not called MAKE BELIEVE. Check it out for yourself jJAck. In Vietnam we lost 1 in 3 soldiers who had serious battle injuries. Medical breakthroughs see that number now at 1 in 8 lost. There have been numerous TV reports on the so called Golden Hour and how important it is in saving a soliders life. Deaths are way down in Iraq, multiple amputees WAY UP.

In short, Bush has us in another Police action where are troops are ordered to take a location, only to give it up again.

jJack
The source for these numbers is http://worldfacts.us/Iraq.htm

Jack you are trying to pretend the Shiite or Shi'a population seeped over the border from Iran. That is not true.

Ethnic groups: Arab 75%-80%, Kurdish 15%-20%, Turkoman, Assyrian or other 5%
Religions: Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%
Languages: Arabic, Kurdish (official in Kurdish regions), Assyrian, Armenian
Literacy: definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 40.4%
male: 55.9%
female: 24.4%


But you can make up your own population numbers, few will check them.

Jack you are trying to pretend the Shiite or Shi'a population seeped over the border from Iran.

No I'm not, I'm simply going on what our generals tell us, that the "insurgency" is filled with imported terrorists, from Iran, and Syria both. I don't have to make that up, it's a fact.

Yes Porgie, your analysis of the numbers is MAKE BELIEVE fantasies.

As jJack has correctly pointed out, it's called war. On Iwo Jima, we lost 40,000 in just a few hours. Sad and horrible, yes; a fact of war, absolutely! It's not jJack's fault, nor is it mine, that you have no nuts, or a taste for what it takes to do WHAT'S RIGHT! I thank God that those brave men understood this in 1944-5, that we have courageous men who understand it now, and that you aren't in any way involved in positions that require an iotem of courage.

The men making the decisions have no nuts. Say what you want, but at least Kerry and Murtha know war. Maybe if Bush had a real clue about war, rather than having gone AWOL from his Guard service he would not have lied to us in taking us into this fiasco.

THAT tired old argument? Porky, how old are you, 12?

jJack, you say.

Cena, as you yourself admit, the shi'ites are the vast majority of those fighting in Iraq, and the vast majority of those shi'ites are from Iran. That's exactly what I said.

( I did not say the vast majority of shi'ites are from Iran, you did)
(I said the majority population of people in Iraq are Shia or Shi'ite}

jJ you say
"The sunnis have quit fighting, for the most part, and seek the protection of unity. The former baathist scum are still fighting, but they fight along with the shi'ites and represent the past."


The baathist scum are sunni.

Muqtada al-Sadr, one of the most important shia' leaders of anti U.S. insurgency and is most definitely an Iraqi native.
Here is a link from the Council on Foreign Relations: copy and paste so you can see the web address
http://www.cfr.org/publication/7637/#1


I do not think you can provide me with a quote and a link to the quote that the vast majority of shia insurgents in Iraq are from Iran.

I did not say the vast majority of shi'ites

I didn't say you did, I did however correctly point out YOU YOURSELF ADMIT THEY ARE SHI'ITES.

The baathist scum are sunni.

No shit, which is precisely why I said the sunnis have quit fighting except of course for the few disgruntled baathist scum still fighting with the Iranian shi'ites.

Muqtada al-Sadr, one of the most important shia' leaders of anti U.S. insurgency and is most definitely an Iraqi native.

So what ??? He is DIRECTLY under the control of Tehran.

I do not think you can provide me with a quote and a link to the quote that the vast majority of shia insurgents in Iraq are from Iran.

I don't care what you think, you've proven you don't have the facts.

huh? Where do you have facts?

Ok now I understand,
You can't read and don't remember what you write.
I left links to back up my statements. The links are opinion pieces or news, the link to the Sadr article is probably conservative.

Cena....that's jJack's normal debate mode....he's right, everyone that disagrees with what he believes in is wrong. He WALTZ's into arguements and makes his pronouncements as if he is God...hmmmm....must be a Bush.

It's easy to bash Bush, but you have to admit that he's done the most heavy lifting since WWII. Sept 11, 2001 was as bad or worse than Pearl Harbor. Add to that, we have 50 percent of American's have their head up their ass beating up on Bush since the 2000 election when he BEAT Gore. Despite all that, Bush is doing a fairly good job on the whole.

Don.....stop drinking the KOOLAID.

The aspect of the 2000 election that ticked so many people off was that Bush managed to become president despite the fact that he did not win a majority of the popular vote. Legally, of course, he is the rightful president because of the way the electoral college is distributed, but it grossly over-represents the smaller states--so is it obsolete today? The framers of the Constitution only wanted it to make sure that the uneducated "commoners" wouldn't take over the government. The electoral college is outdated now. Shouldn't each person have one full vote? Otherwise the votes of a Democrat in Texas or a Republican in California are completely unimportant, and that is not how our democracy should be functioning in this day and age.

Also, is Bush doing the most "heavy lifting" really a good thing? I'm not bashing his post-9/11 policy. It was right of us to invade Afghanistan and oust the Taliban regime from power because they were giving al Qaeda safe haven. But then Bush proceeded to rush us into a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with the "war on terror." And what exactly do you mean when you say "heavy lifting" anyway? If you mean that he is the president who has led us into the most wars, you're probably right, and he's got a lot of work to do because of that. I just think that he can't really be compared to other post-WWII presidents. The Cold War presidents (for the most part) tried to avoid all-out war, whereas Bush seems to rush into it headfirst. Which is the better strategy? Just look at our image abroad and the size of our national debt.

Mark-John K. "THAT tired old argument? Porky, how old are you, 12?" in reference to Bush's AWOL during Viet Nam.
Mark this statment shows you are an open vessel in which the Bushies pour their ideas. The strange and illogical assumtion that because knowledge is old, it is invalid, is the newest spin technique used by Rumsfield and Rice. It is an attempt to spin away problems for the administration that they can't disprove or wish would go away without explanation. It is not honest, it's running away. In a democracy, our leaders should be accountable to the voters. Corruption and deceit are still corrution and deceit EVEN if it's "THAT tired old argument..."

The aspect of the 2000 election that ticked so many people off was that Bush managed to become president despite the fact that he did not win a majority of the popular vote.

Then perhaps those people should learn about our constitution and how we elect a president. Two candidates in the 19th century as well as George W. Bush in 2000 were elected president without winning the popular vote, and it didn't end the Union then either.

Where do you have facts?

Contained in every post I've offered. Your links to opinions prove nothing.

I'm constantly amused by the so called "progressive" types that believe if they simply provide another opinion that jibes with theirs, they have "proven" their point. I am further amused in a more general way by the very idea they are in some way "superior" because they have bothered to offer "proof" at all.

As mere citizens, without the benefit of hard intel, all we ever know is what we read and absorb, see on TV or hear on the radio, etc.

As such, it's all opinion, and nothing more, for we have no real "facts" to base our opinions on, other than what we see in the "media." These "facts" are openly available to all, and in an environment like gather, are uniformly known to all.

The basic difference is we interpret these "facts" in very different ways, based on very different ways of perceiving the world.

If you want to pretend I am the only person that states my opinion "as if I am God," by all means, console yourself with self serving platitudes about how infallible you are. I state my convictions, my opinion, with passion, and yes, as if there is no doubt, for I have no doubt about what I believe.

If you do, and fail to present your opinions in a similar fashion, please, don't blame me.

I made a typ0, I meant to say my links were NOT to opinion or news pieces,
but you could see that if you looked so I didn't correct.

Now please tell me where the facts are in the above comment.

Now please tell me where the facts are in the above comment.

Obviously I can't get through to you, and I'm not sure why I tried. You simply parrot your own silly questions as if they are meaningful. They aren't.

Cena....thinking here jJack is one of those Arm Chair General's who has read Soldier of Fortune Magazine, and now thinks himself and expert.

Porgie, you only think you're thinking.

I notice you don't refute the statement jJack...by the is your middle name off?

How do you refute a lie, other than to say liar?

jJack....get a CLUE....just because some anal retentive chimp tripping on LSD says its a lie does NOT MAKE IT SO....go eat some more shrooms, maybe you'll get a clue.

As I said on the previous string Porgie, every side kick needs the classical straight man for his very existence.

Come on man, answer the question, don't you wonder why your strings get the greatest number of comments? Or do you know? Have you figured out which part is circus, strictly for show, and which part is real, like the lions?

I have a clue, believe me, which is the only reason I continue to indulge a fool like you. I fully understand even ignorance requires a fair hearing.

But enough is enough don't you think? The numbers you've "crunched" are intangibles, even you must admit. Like the mist in a breeze, the truth you squeeze from such "facts" is as ethereal as your desire to be recognized, to be heard, and respected for your GPA.

The "numbers" you've offered are nothing more than interesting bits of irrelevant comparisons. Vietnam has nothing to do with Iraq, and Iraq has nothing to do with Vietnam.

I'm surprised really, it's taken you so long to utter that word, as it seems to be the guiding light in your list of mental priorities. Say it again with me, Vietnam.

Why not offer up your "credentials" in this area too, and we'll get to the heart of the matter, the basis for your beliefs, and the reasons you see the world the way you see it. Be honest for a change and bring your agenda out into the open.

I am sure the families of those injured and survived and had the audacity to survive and keep down the real deaths caused in the war are grateful for your astute observation.

"Damn it!" I hear them in a collective sigh, "If only the bastard didn't live I could go join that Cindy Sheehan-i-gan in Venezula kissing Chavez's rightous, loving ass"

jJack, I've gone through this entire thread and it strikes me as strange that you are criticizing people for not using facts in their arguments when you yourself seem to be doing a substantial lack of qualifying.

"Yes, it was a Democrat that started this war with his feckless response to the illegal taking of over 50 Americans and held for over 1 full year."
Explain a little more, why don't you? That's all you said. You can state words,
but why don't you TELL US with actual historical information why you feel
Carter's response to the Iran hostage crisis was the reason for the start of the
Iraq war? Can you prove that? With sources?

"Yes Porgie, your analysis of the numbers is MAKE BELIEVE fantasies."
Okay ... good job proving your point with facts.

Also, when someone asked you specifically to provide them with a newspaper quote or fact to qualify your claim that the majority of terrorists in Iraq come from Iran, you said "I don't care what you think, you've proven you don't have the facts." Why don't you give the person some facts to help them understand? Oh, right, you don't appear to have any yourself. You haven't given us any facts in any of your arguments.

"I'm constantly amused by the so called "progressive" types that believe if they simply provide another opinion that jibes with theirs, they have "proven" their point. I am further amused in a more general way by the very idea they are in some way "superior" because they have bothered to offer "proof" at all."
This is so hypocritical I'm not even going to go there.

Once again, when someone asked you to qualify your statement, you responded, "Obviously I can't get through to you, and I'm not sure why I tried. You simply parrot your own silly questions as if they are meaningful. They aren't." Why are you so unwilling to qualify your arguments with facts, statistics, or something CONCRETE that would give grounds to what you're saying?

Porgie might not be completely right with everything he says, but at least he can qualify his statements with statistics about the number of combat-related injuries in Vietnam and today. You don't have a single fact in any of your arguments.

Oh, and by the way, if you're going to respond to this post, I'd appreciate it if you would read through my ENTIRE post instead of just the first sentence like you did before when I was talking about the electoral college.

why don't you TELL US with actual historical information why you feel
Carter's response to the Iran hostage crisis was the reason for the start of the
Iraq war?

If it isn't self evident, my explanation would serve no purpose for a closed mind.

Okay ... good job proving your point with facts.

I'm supposed to refute Porgie's fantasies with facts ???? *ROFL*

Why don't you give the person some facts to help them understand?

I have, the idea I haven't is absurd. If you don't believe the facts I present, perhaps YOU could do YOUR research and prove the facts I present as being incorrect.

This is so hypocritical I'm not even going to go there.

And yet you did, to simply cast aspersions, how interesting.

Why are you so unwilling to qualify your arguments with facts, statistics, or something CONCRETE that would give grounds to what you're saying?

I'm not, it's just your imagination that I don't.

he can qualify his statements with statistics about the number of combat-related injuries in Vietnam and today

No, he can't, comparing apples to oranges doesn't "qualify" anything.

You don't have a single fact in any of your arguments.

Well, no facts YOU'RE willing to recognize anyway.

read through my ENTIRE post

I always do, just because I find something too ludicrous to comment on, doesn't mean I didn't read it. Your self serving assumption that I only read the first sentence of your electoral college post is misguided, and incorrect.

I see the anal retentive chimp is still at it, dancing to the tunes of the organ grinder (Bush) while putting up nothing but HIS SAY SO....God jJack, give yourself a break, that tube sausage you are always strokling has to be tired by now. I gave you facts.....in Vietnam, serious combat wounds saw us losing 1 out of three soldiers, while in Iraq, medical advances have that number at 1-8....that is the GOOD NEWS. The bad news....when you use Vietnam statistical data, we'd have almost 8,000 dead in this fiasco, but that does not phase you, you puff up your chest and say, WE DON'T THOUGH, DO WE? No jJack, instead we have almost ten thousand amputees who's lives have been forever altered.

By the way, 32 deaths in the first ten days of October jJack, and another 400 injured! Did you watch the news tonight, see where one of our ammo dumps has been blown SKY HIGH? But you....STAY THE COURSE! Well, you and Bush can have that battle cry, IT IS NOT WORKING.

why don't you TELL US with actual historical information why you feel
Carter's response to the Iran hostage crisis was the reason for the start of the
Iraq war?

If it isn't self evident, my explanation would serve no purpose for a closed mind.

Jjack- there you go again. The turth about Carter's response is he tried to rescue the hostages and tried to use diplomatic channels for their release but The GOPers, Reagan and Bush senior still has no alibi for where he was on the day he was accused of being at the meeting in Paris where they made an arrangement with the Iranina student sot hold onto the hostages until after Reagan was president in exchange for arms. What the hell do you think the Iran/Contra crap was about?

I am with you. One word of advice.. Do not fight with a pig in mud, you both get dirty but the pig loves it. Unfortunately Gather has seen fit to advertise on the propaganda machine of FOX News. These people have no desire to talk about the facts. They are just going to echo the crap Linbaugh and OReilly are saying. What sheep. What is amusing is they are in the group who gets to pay for this fiasco!

when you use Vietnam statistical data, we'd have almost 8,000 dead in this fiasco

That isn't a "fact" it is your silly analysis of numbers you don't understand.

why don't you TELL US with actual historical information why you feel
Carter's response to the Iran hostage crisis was the reason for the start of the
Iraq war?

As I said, your myopia wouldn't benefit from a rational explanation.

Reagan and Bush senior still has no alibi for where he was on the day he was accused of being at the meeting in Paris where they made an arrangement with the Iranina student sot hold onto the hostages until after Reagan was president in exchange for arms

I suppose you think this is "historical fact?" *ROFL*

What the hell do you think the Iran/Contra crap was about?

Well, as Ollie said, it was about "a neat idea."

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh....I see, jJack reads Soldier of Fortune and WATCHS Ollie North war shows, so now he's and EXPERT. Prattle on whackie jackie, prattle on.

Porgie...

You can't reason with a ddDick who has fried his brain on LSD and marijuana. It's like talking to a 5 year old with a ccCollege vvVocabulary!

And jjJerk, don't bother commenting because I won't waste my time on you on this or any other thread.

Whatever. He's not worth our time, guys.

I'm not worth your time, but you've all taken the time to tell me what a low life loser I am *ROFL*

Porky...how old are you , 12?

And Christine, who the hell cuts your hair?

Mark-John...is that your standard reply....I've seen it before.

Yes, when it applies.....