The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 8, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Where for art tho Lancet threads?
EW3    10/14/2006 6:52:31 PM
Is SP getting hacked.
We've had 1 thread lock up so it can't be posted to.
And the two replacement threads hacked.
Seems like right after sheck makes cogent points about the fallacy of the report, the thread he does it on disappears.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14   NEXT
Plutarch       11/1/2006 12:16:26 PM
There are at least four different conflicts going on in Iraq at this time.  Even Central Command believes Iraq is at near critical mass when it comes to violence according to this chart:
 
Photo
 
NY Times
 
That is current as of Oct 18th, 2006.  It hasn't gotten any better in the last two weeks.  Not only are we far far away from democracy but we are very very close to a violent break-up of Iraq.  Not an insurgency and not a civil war?  Then what is it?
 
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus       11/1/2006 12:56:10 PM
"Well 70 were killed today and another 40 were kidnapped and thus they are presumed dead...so that's 110."
 
 
...and when you fish them outta the Tigris, it's 150. When the police respond, it's 190, when the morgue processes them it's 230.
 
 
You are correct sir, on insurgent. I harken back to founding fathers and probably shouldn't..The word is ruined, but it's not just terrorist's fault. Alot more race war and crime behind the motives as opposed to the right, or a better, way to govern Iraq, IMO.
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       11/1/2006 1:27:41 PM

"Well 70 were killed today and another 40 were kidnapped and thus they are presumed dead...so that's 110."

 

 

...and when you fish them outta the Tigris, it's 150. When the police respond, it's 190, when the morgue processes them it's 230.

 

 

You are correct sir, on insurgent. I harken back to founding fathers and probably shouldn't..The word is ruined, but it's not just terrorist's fault. Alot more race war and crime behind the motives as opposed to the right, or a better, way to govern Iraq, IMO.


The only proper way we will know the actual death toll from Iraq is via a census after the violence is over.  But the whole point of this debate is to prove that Iraq is a mess...no one disputes that notion except maybe the President and VP who are in denial and their most ardent supporters, who also are in denial.  Can democracy flourish in this mess?  I say no.  Our armed forces are now taking orders from Maliki who takes his orders from Sadr.   We are not doing any good there since Iraq will hit critical mass regardless if US troops are there or not.  The proposition has failed:
 
"At times during the conversation, the president seemed vexed ? not beaten, not downcast, but vexed ? by conditions in Iraq. Bush didn’t say so, but from his words it seemed hard to deny that in some significant measure the insurgents and the sectarian killers are in control in the country, and that the fate of the American mission is in their hands. “The frustration is that the definition of success has now gotten to be, how many innocent people are dying?” the president said. “And if there’s a lot dying, it means the enemy is winning.” He paused. “That doesn’t mean they’re winning.”

But what does it mean? NRO and CNBC's Larry Kudlow asked, “How can you measure winning? The last couple of years, there just don’t seem to be any signals or signs that we’re winning.”

“This is the significant disadvantage we have in this war because the enemy gets to define victory by killing people,” Bush answered. In World War II, Bush said, progress, while hard to gain, was easier to describe. One could point to ships sunk, and battles won. “We don’t get to say that ? a thousand of the enemy killed, or whatever the number was,” Bush said. “It’s happening. You just don’t know it.”

So if the U.S. chooses not to reveal how many of the enemy it has killed ? and if, in any event, that death toll is not stopping the sectarian violence ? then how does one assess what is going on? “I’ve thought long and hard about this, because it is precisely what is frustrating most people,” Bush said. “A lot of people are just saying, ‘You’re not doing enough to win. We’re not winning, you’re not doing enough to win, and I’m frustrated, I want it over with, with victory.’ And I’m trying to figure out a matrix that says things are getting better. I think that one way to measure is less violence than before, I guess…”
 
But in the end, there is still that frustration with a level of violence that U.S. forces don’t seem able to control. The consequences tear at Bush every day, but he remains convinced that the war will ultimately succeed. “If we can’t win, I’ll pull us out,” the president said. “If I didn’t think it was noble and just and we can win, we’re gone. I can’t ? I’m not going to keep those kids in there and have to deal with their loved ones. I can’t cover it up when I meet with a family who’s lost a child. I cry, I weep, I hug. And I’ve got to be able to look them in the eye and say, we’re going to win. I have to be able to do that. And I’m not a good faker.”
 
link

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    Stooping Low Again - NYT LEAKS Classified Document    11/1/2006 3:49:04 PM
New York Times Leaking Classified -- and Doctored? -- Information, Again [Mario Loyola]
I would just like to point out that the New York Times appears to have doctored the slide referred to in this brilliantly well-timed link href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/world/middleeast/01military.html?hp&ex=1162443600&en=ae294d1d13aed188&ei=5094&partner=homepage">bit of election propaganda by removing the classification markings which are invariably found at the top and bottom of these slide (even when they are unclassified ? and this one was classified, as Central Command has already confirmed).  I want to know whether there is any level of national secret the Times is not willing to betray for the political advantage of its pet causes.  And I would like to know what else they may have doctored on the slide. 

And while we're at it, I would love to understand why the law doesn't prohibit the propagation of strategic national secrets in wartime ? which has always been understood as treason. 

 
swhitebull
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       11/1/2006 4:06:40 PM

New York Times Leaking Classified -- and Doctored? -- Information, Again [Mario Loyola]

I would just like to point out that the New York Times appears to have doctored the slide referred to in this brilliantly well-timed link target=_blank titlelink href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/world/middleeast/01military.html?hp&ex=1162443600&en=ae294d1d13aed188&ei=5094&partner=homepage">bit of election propaganda by removing the classification markings which are invariably found at the top and bottom of these slide (even when they are unclassified ? and this one was classified, as Central Command has already confirmed).  I want to know whether there is any level of national secret the Times is not willing to betray for the political advantage of its pet causes.  And I would like to know what else they may have doctored on the slide. 


And while we're at it, I would love to understand why the law doesn't prohibit the propagation of strategic national secrets in wartime ? which has always been understood as treason. 



 

swhitebull




Talk to the person who leaked it.  The Times just didn't walk into the Pentagon and start rifling through desks...some high-up muckety-muck gave them the slide.  Irregardless of who removed the classification/nonclassification markings, Central Command has yet to deny that the slide came from them or is inaccurate in any other way.
 
Quote    Reply

shek       11/5/2006 11:01:14 PM
eu4ea,
 
Still standing by for your counterarguments that you said you could cut and paste to refute my statements. 

Cheers.
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch    150,000 Iraqis killed by insurgents   11/9/2006 2:11:35 PM
150,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed by insurgents according to the Iraqi government:
 

"About 150,000 Iraqis have been killed by insurgents since the U.S.-led invasion more than three years ago, a senior Iraqi official said Thursday.

For every person killed about three have been wounded in violence since the war started in March 2003, Iraq's Health Minister Ali al-Shemari told reporters in Vienna.

It was the first overall casualty figure for the war to be released by the Iraqi government, which took office on May 20.

Al-Shemari did not explain how he arrived at the figure or say whether that number included Iraqi soldiers and police, as well as civilians. Also unclear was if it included Iraqis killed in sectarian violence or only in insurgent attacks. But he said the count was of "innocent" victims, suggesting civilians only.

In October, the British medical journal The Lancet published a controversial study contending nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war ? a far higher death toll than other estimates. The study, which was dismissed by President Bush and other U.S. officials as not credible, was based on interviews of households and not a body count.

Al-Shemari disputed that figure on Thursday.

"Since three and a half years, since the change of the Saddam regime, some people say we have 600,000 are killed. This is an exaggerated number. I think 150 is OK," he said.

Other estimates, largely based on body counts or media reports, have held that about 50,000 Iraqi civilians have died in the conflict.

Violence continued Thursday in predominantly Shiite areas of Baghdad when nearly simultaneous car bombs struck two markets, killing at least 16 people.

In northern Baghdad's Qahira district, a car bomb blew up outside shops as noontime shoppers were gathering, said police Lt. Ali Muhsin. He said seven people were killed, 27 were wounded and seven cars were destroyed.

Around the same time, a suicide bomber plowed his explosives-rigged vehicle into crowds gathered in a commercial complex for spare parts, killing at least nine people and wounding 27 in Baghdad's downtown Karradah district, police Col. Abbas Mohammed Salman said.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, meanwhile, told the British Broadcasting Corp. that Saddam Hussein could be executed before the end of the year if an appeals panel upholds his death sentence.

Prosecutors have said Iraq's appeals court is expected to rule by the middle of January on Saddam's guilty verdict and death sentence for the killings of more than 140 Shiite Muslims after an assassination attempt against him in the town of Dujail in 1982.

If the ruling is upheld, Iraqi officials have told The Associated Press, Iraq's three-man presidential council would allow Saddam's hanging. The execution must be carried out within 30 days of the appeals court's decision.

"The way I understand the law that we passed when we were in the National Assembly that the execution of the sentence should happen within a month, one month," al-Maliki said. "I expect it to happen before the end of this year."

Iraqis welcomed Wednesday's announcement of Rumsfeld's resignation as many blamed him for policy failures and scandals that have contributed to the daily sectarian carnage that continues to wrack their nation, more than three years after the U.S. invasion.

"Rumsfeld's resignation shows the scale of the mess the U.S. has made in Iraq," 44-year-old Oil Ministry worker Ibrahim Ali said. "The efforts by American politicians to hide their failure are no longer working."

Hard-line Sunni politician Hamid al-Mutlaq said Rumsfeld's departure was evidence of the downfall of those who engineered the invasion and what he called their "evil project" in Iraq.

A director of Baghdad's main morgue, Dr. Abdul-Razzaq al-Obaidi, said as many as 60 bodies were arriving each day. Many go unclaimed and are buried in a public cemetery after photographs are taken for later identification.

"We can't keep them all this time," al-Obaidi said.
 
 
It's not 650,000 but greater than 30-50,000,  That number may or may not include sectarin violence.  At the pace violence is going in Iraq we will get to 650,00 in less than 10 years though.
 
I believe I stated somewhere in this thread that the actual total was between 100,000 and 200,000.  Anyone want to comment now on the violence levels in Iraq being less than Dominica?
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch    150,000 Iraqis killed by insurgents   11/9/2006 2:16:14 PM
Oh yeah I forgot to add:
 
150,000 dead/ by 1,300 days since invasion= 115 dead per day.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       11/9/2006 2:36:35 PM

Oh yeah I forgot to add:

150,000 dead/ by 1,300 days since invasion= 115 dead per day.
424 dead per day in US Civil War

28000 dead per day in WW II

603 dead per day in Operation Desert Storm

400-500 dead per day in Sudan since 2003


Hey look at that I can count too! Wow everybody brace yourself for breaking news. People actually get killed in Wars! Would you believe that? No it cant be. Thank Plutarch for helping to bring this to light. Let us know when you want to discuss the relevant points of this war. Especially with regard to how it affects American security.

DA
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       11/9/2006 3:52:37 PM




Oh yeah I forgot to add:



150,000 dead/ by 1,300 days since invasion= 115 dead per day.


424 dead per day in US Civil War

28000 dead per day in WW II

603 dead per day in Operation Desert Storm

400-500 dead per day in Sudan since 2003


Hey look at that I can count too! Wow everybody brace yourself for breaking news. People actually get killed in Wars! Would you believe that? No it cant be. Thank Plutarch for helping to bring this to light. Let us know when you want to discuss the relevant points of this war. Especially with regard to how it affects American security.

DA

Wow the unashamed equivocating begins in earnest.  I can go back and find all the old posts that state that Iraq is not in a state of civil war, it is not unstable, blah, blah, blah, some even posted by you DA.  NOW you want to talk about the relevant points of the war?  Okay how about how do we stop the violence that is killing 115 Iraqis (at a minimum) per day?  Oh wait that's sectarian violence that has nothing to do with the US and the GWOT, we are only focused on AQI...but according to you we beat AQI, so why can't we just leave now?
 

Oh wait that's right we have to do something about the violence in Iraq; and around and around we go.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       11/9/2006 5:35:45 PM








Oh yeah I forgot to add:





150,000 dead/ by 1,300 days since invasion= 115 dead per day.




424 dead per day in US Civil War

28000 dead per day in WW II

603 dead per day in Operation Desert Storm

400-500 dead per day in Sudan since 2003


Hey look at that I can count too! Wow everybody brace yourself for breaking news. People actually get killed in Wars! Would you believe that? No it cant be. Thank Plutarch for helping to bring this to light. Let us know when you want to discuss the relevant points of this war. Especially with regard to how it affects American security.

DA



Wow the unashamed equivocating begins in earnest.  I can go back and find all the old posts that state that Iraq is not in a state of civil war, it is not unstable, blah, blah, blah, some even posted by you DA.  NOW you want to talk about the relevant points of the war?  Okay how about how do we stop the violence that is killing 115 Iraqis (at a minimum) per day?  Oh wait that's sectarian violence that has nothing to do with the US and the GWOT, we are only focused on AQI...but according to you we beat AQI, so why can't we just leave now?
 


Oh wait that's right we have to do something about the violence in Iraq; and around and around we go.

When you get from behind your bias and listen to warriors about wars rather than left wing news and blogs this will start to make sense to you. Until then I guess you are Lima-Lima-Mike-Foxtrot!
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       11/9/2006 5:54:06 PM
















Oh yeah I forgot to add:








150,000 dead/ by 1,300 days since invasion= 115 dead per day.






424 dead per day in US Civil War

28000 dead per day in WW II

603 dead per day in Operation Desert Storm

400-500 dead per day in Sudan since 2003


Hey look at that I can count too! Wow everybody brace yourself for breaking news. People actually get killed in Wars! Would you believe that? No it cant be. Thank Plutarch for helping to bring this to light. Let us know when you want to discuss the relevant points of this war. Especially with regard to how it affects American security.

DA







Wow the unashamed equivocating begins in earnest.  I can go back and find all the old posts that state that Iraq is not in a state of civil war, it is not unstable, blah, blah, blah, some even posted by you DA.  NOW you want to talk about the relevant points of the war?  Okay how about how do we stop the violence that is killing 115 Iraqis (at a minimum) per day?  Oh wait that's sectarian violence that has nothing to do with the US and the GWOT, we are only focused on AQI...but according to you we beat AQI, so why can't we just leave now?
 




Oh wait that's right we have to do something about the violence in Iraq; and around and around we go.



When you get from behind your bias and listen to warriors about wars rather than left wing news and blogs this will start to make sense to you. Until then I guess you are Lima-Lima-Mike-Foxtrot!

Lost Like a Motley Fool---when you get your officer's commission let me know...no wait I'll be able to tell since your spelling and grammar will improve.
 
Quote    Reply

Pseudonym       11/9/2006 7:00:16 PM
"Lost Like a Motley Fool---when you get your officer's commission let me know...no wait I'll be able to tell since your spelling and grammar will improve."

How are you today you John Kerry wannabe.

Let me guess, this statement is a botched joke and you didn't just call our soldiers stupid?

Enjoy being ignored, you just got put on the John Kerry hit the mute button list.

God pricks like this make me wish I could swear on here.

 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       11/9/2006 7:11:03 PM

"Lost Like a Motley
Fool---when you get your officer's commission let me know...no wait
I'll be able to tell since your spelling and grammar will improve."



How are you today you John Kerry wannabe.



Let me guess, this statement is a botched joke and you didn't just call our soldiers stupid?



Enjoy being ignored, you just got put on the John Kerry hit the mute button list.



God pricks like this make me wish I could swear on here.



No it's just me getting tired of DA's bombastic attitude and arrogance, it gets to the point of serious derangement.  On the other hand Shek, a fine soldier, West Point grad, and instructor is verbose and knowledgeable on many subjects, and someone I have great respect for; DA could learn a lot from him.

 
It doesn't hurt my feelings for you to ignore me, and I'd rather be ignored than insulted.
 
Quote    Reply

shek       11/9/2006 7:41:27 PM

When you get from behind your bias and listen to warriors about wars rather than left wing news and blogs this will start to make sense to you. Until then I guess you are Lima-Lima-Mike-Foxtrot!
Darth,

Plutarch's points about the civilian deaths in Iraq are tremendously important and appropriate, at least according to the CENTCOM commander, General Abizaid.  His #1 concern is the sectarian violence in Iraq, and in fact, MG Caldwell published an oped on the subject of sectarian violence today, demonstrating how important the top leadership in Iraq feels about the sectarian violence.  The fact that the level of sectarian violence is on an upward trendline is not comforting news for the stated goals in Iraq - a secure and stable democracy that is an ally in the GWOT.  If you disagree with his numbers that were presented earlier in the thread, you can look here:
 
link
 
These numbers were provided by the Iraqi government, and hardly a conspiracy by the left wing. 

Lastly, please do not try to invoke that service automatically makes one right when discussing Iraq.  If that were so, then the coercive tactics and collective responsibility tactics that were pursued in part under General Sanchez would have been effective.  However, the insurgency grew, demonstrating that being in the military does not make one right. 

Cheers.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy