Captain's Quarters -

Since, from the beginning, "we don't do body counts" how would we know that civilian casualties have dropped? We don't.

I do know that Najaf officials report that they recorded over 40,000 UNIDENTIFIED bodies buried in their huge cemetery since March 2003. They are keeping records on that, so that people can later try to identify their missing relatives and friends. Of course, that is only UNIDENTIFIED bodies from Baghdad to Basra - north of Baghdad, they are buried in local cemeteries.

No firm records on the total number of people buried there, or what they died of.

Yeah. But there's a personnel riot at State. (Per Drudge.)

He says Rice is "dictating" that 250 professional diplomats be assigned to the new embassy in Irak. And, she's short of volunteers.

Does "being short of people willing to go to Irak" count against anything?

The embassy, the largest one the USA has ever built, is frought with problems. (The engineers are Kuwaitis, who got billions, to build this monstrosity.)

Whatever numbers you use, you also have to see that Maliki hates Bush's guts. And, the saud's don't think much of our troops! You know, they once paid terrorists families $25,000 a piece "for sacrifice."

And, here? YOu see our American troops welcomed into anything run by the Saudis? You know. Can an American troopster vacation in Dubai, and ski on their ski slope? Just asking.

In the past, when we sent Americans to war on foreign soils, we always got back separate stories of Paris. And, Saigon.

There used to be musicals, too.

Wonder what happened?

In addition to the overall downward trend in violence there are some interesting subtrends revealed in that graph. It looks like combined IEDs (both cleared and detonated) are as low as they have ever been. And within that set a record proportion never detonate. Also it looks like mortar and rocket attacks are also about as low as they have ever been since the beginning of operations.

So, do these statistics require "a willing suspension of disbelief?" It will be a cold day in H*ll before the current crop of Democrat presidential candidates admit to any improvement in Iraq, not to mention their colleagues in Congress and the MSM.

If it bleeds it leads, if it doesn't bleed, it doesn't happen.

Carol,

Being a "guest" of the Saudis for 6 months during the Gulf War, Saudi Arabia is the most godawful place I've yet to see. If Allah deigns that mudhole as the promised land, he sure has a bizarre sense of humor.

But I had a blast in Manama, Bahrain and Abu Daubi, in the UAE. Alcohol is legal in both countries and the Saudis hypocritically flock to both on Wednesday nights. Manama is just across the causeway.

I've got some great stories about Manama and the Gulf Air Girls (stews).

The LAT article you cite is leftist/MSM spin.

Violence is down because the Surge targeted and decimated al Qaeda-as is clear to anyone who reads the MNF website. It was al Qaeda that was responsible for suicide bombings that caused mass casualties and it was al Qaeda that provoked sectarian violence with the bombing of the Golden Mosque in February 2006.

Once the Sunni tribes, emboldened by the Surge, joined the fight against al Qaeda it was only a matter of time until al Qaeda and its foreign fighters were defeated. The job isn't finished yet but it is well underway.

The MSM understates the role of al Qaeda in the violence in Iraq yet whenever al Qaeda is removed from an area peace breaks out.

So, Susan, do you believe civilian casualties haven't dropped? Why do you believe "Najaf officials report" and ignore every other report?

Good news.

Cue the paid Soros/MoveOn paid blogger shills to pollute this forum their narrative.

Carol,

" You know, they once paid terrorists families $25,000 a piece "for sacrifice.""

That was Saddam. Remember him? He was last seen hanging from a rope somewhere in Baghdad.

And it was for Palestinians who killed Israeli Jews.

So from June to September violence dropped to levels not seen since 2006 before the Samarra shrine bombing... defeatists said "well that means we're just where we were a year ago that's not good enough," and now violence in October at levels not seen since 2005... I wonder if that progression is fast enough for them?

"I wonder if that progression is fast enough for them?"

How many MSM "journalists" does it take to pick up and move a goalpost?

Or, "Bring me the witches broom".

There's just no satisfying some people. Ignore them and move on (no pun intended).

By golly, I'm starting to sense that there are some in the MSM and in the Democratic Party who would rather not win this war.

Stop the presses!

Sometimes, you have to define "win."

Irak? We've got Maliki voted in. I don't think he likes Bush all that much.

So, if "winning" includes leadership ... There ya go. Stinkers on both sides.

Then?

To "win" you'd have to have something men really like. Like Paris. Or Saigon.

Where we don't even see the "hospitable arab behaviors" extended to our soldiers at all. This is an odd fact all in its own right.

How can we "win" in Irak, when the game plan was to give the Saud's the "PERCH" over which they extended their ruling dynasty in the Mideast?

Sure. We've been fighting.

But did you notice how Israel shifted syria out of the nuke business? All we get to hear are the apologies. And, the denials.

Olmert apologizes for any "misdirected" flights ... while Assad says "Israel never flew in." And, the north koreans say "we never established a nuke facility as far away as syria."

For active nukes in the region, though, you could go to Pakistan. They're loaded.

Putin's loaded, too. Unless their stock deteriorates. And, they use it to poison a defector; who went to London.

I just don't know whom to root for.

Can Bush hand the saud's more weaponry? There's a 16-billion request for the latest in jets. What would they do with this? Try, I think, to shove it up Israel's ass.

And, try to convince all the other arab leaders that they were king of the hill.

Bush, though, is having trouble with his "close."

Doesn't mean he can't flop land this one, as he's heading out of office.

Or the fighting, ahead, can get much dirtier.

Either way, victories just don't smell as good as they used'ta.

And, it's a $3-trillion-price-tag-to taxpayers, here.

The saud's aren't gonna pay a penny.

And, ya know what? They don't honor our troops. Let alone all those whose lives have been sacrificed, for the free-loading saud's. I could scream. It's a wonder I don't.

@ Susan
Since, from the beginning, "we don't do body counts" how would we know that civilian casualties have dropped? We don't.

Maybe YOU and your friends don’t, but there are many institutions that do make an attempt to keep abreast of civilian casualties in Iraq. I would agree that we do not have the degree of the statistical certainty that we have with death statistics in the US, for example.

The most current Brookings Institute report on Iraq, pages 12-14 of the October 29 edition, lists: November 2006: 3,500 civilian violent deaths and September 2007 1,100 violent deaths. This includes “ordinary” crime. Depending on which source is used, Brookings comes up with somewhere between 70,000 and 90,000 civilian deaths in Iraq since March 2003.

Starting in 2006, we have found it is no longer practical to differentiate between acts of war and crime

http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index.pdf

The IraqBodyCount website lists 82,776 documented civilian deaths from violence.

You cite 40,000 unidentified buried at Najaf to bolster your case. Here is a passage from a Yahoo article. (“ As violence falls in Iraq, cemetery workers feel the pinch”, By Jay Price and Qasim Zein, McClatchy Newspapers)
“A drop in violence around Iraq has cut burials in the huge Wadi al Salam (Najaf) cemetery here by at least one-third in the past six months.”

The article also states that there were about 150 funerals per day in the 1990s, and now there are “4,000 or less” per month ( from 6,500). In other words, funerals are roughly down to what they were before 2003. Do the math: 4000/30= 133 funerals per day currently, compared w 150/ day in the 1990s. These are rough figures.

So, if you claim that we don’t know that civilian casualties have dropped, yet cite the Najaf cemetery to support your claim, you are heist on your own petard.

The following passage should explain why the 40,000 unidentified burials in Najaf might not be readily correlated with any attempt to gauge violent deaths of civilians in Iraq, since the cemetery is used by Shiites from Iraq and all over the world.(from globalsecurity.org)

“Shiites from all over the world, not only Iraqis or Iranians, but Shiites from Pakistan, India, Bahrain, all over the world go to Najaf and they ask to be buried in Najaf close to that mosque….Millions of Muslims over the centuries have been brought here for burial from all parts of the world of Islam. So Najaf is embraced by a vast semi-circle of graves- by an immense City of the Dead….The trade involving transporting dead bodies from far off areas of Shi'a dead has been operating for centuries. Saddam had curtailed the "corpse traffic" from Iran after the war started in 1980, but after his fall it resumed, reviving the local economy with a profitable "corpse traffic" of at least a 100 funerals a day. The corpse traffic is organized and regulated by the Customs and Health Departments -- Customs collects duty on the corpses and Health keeps watch to prevent epidemics.”

On the other hand, it may be a safe assumption that most of the foreign dead would have been identified-perhaps there is a reluctance to transport an unidentified corpse across international borders. If you can pay for transport, you would want the body to be identified, most likely, so that you can later find the grave of the deceased. It is likely that a very high proportion of the civilian dead from Iraq ended up in Najaf, given its iconic status as a burial ground. Some articles have pointed out that even unidentified Sunni dead have been sent to Najaf for burial. So, 40 thousand unidentified dead, even assuming these are all Iraqi , correlates with the estimated 70-90,000 dead, especially since many would have not been identifiable due to being blown up by IEDs and the like.

My aunt in law has both a bush countdown desktop and keychain clock (rebranded y2k clocks), half a dozen daily show t-shirts, and probably another 1500 bucks worth of anti-bush propoganda. And a "no war for oil" bumper sticker on her Matrix. It may be a small niche market, but they are vehement consumers. (And yes, she complains she can't afford to invest in her 401k and health insurance, and being a federal employee expects to be taken care of after she retires. And gas costs too much.) Bush and iraq controversy go away, and a profitable market for selling propoganda crap made in china dries up. Perhaps its as crazy an idea as the pharmeceutical companies lobbying for the war on drugs to protect their bottom lines, but stranger things have happened.

The slope of the dropoff starting at the surge is impressive. Perhaps insurgencies behave like nuclear reactions, and will lose critical mass to the point were the insurgency simply disappears. Or goes to a place without control rods.

What a terrific graph. It makes fools out of the Petraeus skeptics and those who are invested in an American defeat.

In spite of the most savage acts of violence against fellow muslims and the desecration of holy places, al Qaeda has failed. The Sunnis who had invited them in realized they had made a bargain with the devil Today, they pray for the success of the brave and powerful warriors of the al Ameriki tribe.

Arch

Part of the progress has come from shifts in population that have created more homogeneous neighborhoods. Instead of mixing the various populations, shared areas such as Baghdad have instead transformed into self-segregated territories.

That's an interesting way to describe sectarian cleansing. "Shifts in population." Nice.

Susan:

People are still dying in the United States. Less violent death is good.

Carol:

I'll try to limit my paragraphs to 12 words each.

Maliki isn't the candidate we would have picked, but we didn't vote.

Pakistan has maybe 80 nukes and they are on our side.

Sauds, as you call them, are as vulnerable to al Qaeda as anyone.

Wars I fought were not set to music.

Men are not solely driven by the blind worm.

Susan and Carol:

You see a fly in the soup. If you are starving, you take out the fly and eat soup gratefully.

Arch

Anyone who calls Iraq "Irak" honestly needs to get their head out of their ass.

I missed one peak in violence on your graph until I looked at it enlarged - November 2006 US Congressional elections.

Arch

Left side blog Think Progress (which is an oxymoron of both) cherry picks with Iraqi Government stats that show about a steady to slight rise.

However they manage to skip the part about where their figures are about 20% or more above every other report all the time.

Kathy wrote,
That's an interesting way to describe sectarian cleansing. "Shifts in population." Nice. first off, its not ethnic cleansing simply because groups segregate themselves amongst people like themselves so as to protect themselves. As the left is so quick to remind us, Iraq is in the middle of a civil war after all.If one is in the midst of a civil war, its not necessarily ethnic cleansing if someone who is say a Sunni, moves to an area where he has people who has his back its not necessarily ethnic cleansing,so much as self preservation. Likewise, refugees fleeing a warzone doesn't necessarily denote ethnic cleansing so much as people who don't want to be where bombs are going off.

But why are you acting as if ethnic cleansing is bad? It's the left that is counting on ethnic cleansing as part of its strategy. After all, isn't the left always saying we're in the midst ofa civil war and we should get out of the way and let them fight. Surely you should recognize that if there is a civil war in Iraq, that since it will involve sunnis aagainst Shia against Kurds that there will be ethnic cleansing going on (especially considering apparently any movment of populations is ethnic cleansing in your book).
Yet another argument from the antiwar crowd, completely devoid of substance. You want to get all high and mighty that because of the war, and our occupation that ethnic cleansing is going on, when your side knows that if we got out of the way and let the civil war commence that there would be plenty of ethnic cleansing going on. In fact, as per the NYT even if genocide occured (which as it would be done against various groups in Iraq thus constituting ethnic cleansing)were we to leave, its still better than us being there. If you are espousing such a view, please oh please don't insult our intelligence that you are suddenly so concerned with things like ethnic cleansing in Iraq.
If you're going to pretend that someohow liberals are realists then would you mind ceding the moral argument and faux outrage at (gasp!)ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing and genocide are both normal outgrowths of letting the Iraqis fight it out in a vast civil war.

Yup! The upticks of violence parallel mischief efforts by AlQaeda, starting significantly with the bombing of the mosque in Samarra and at every other critical event in Iraq's gaining its own autonomy. As AlQaeda falls apart, the deadliness diminishes.

Carol: I believe that Maliki doesn't like our intrusive armchair generals in Congress even more, especially those who keep harping on a partitioning of Iraq. The "idjits" who keep drumming the political benchmarks' tom-tom cannot even address our own problems regarding Social Security, borders and illegal aliens, and health insurance for the working poor (unless it carries a bonanza for the middle class). They're too busy naming post offices and subsidizing a hippie monument in upstate New York.

Apparently you haven't seen "hospitable Arab behviors" to our troops who mingle with villagers as part of the surge strategy in securing neighborhoods. Try looking in on some of the milblogs. This isn't official PR; it's feet on the ground experience that the troops are recording.

Maybe the Saudis need a little "protection" from the hegemonic saber rattlings of the little madman of Iran and his puppetmaster mullahs. Ya think that they might not like to seize Mecca and Medina for the caliphate when the 12th imam pops up from the well?

The State Department is in mutiny mode? Isn't State riddled with Arab "realists" who aren't too crazy about protecting Israel? Aren't these the careerists and Clinton holdovers who have been working at cross purposes with the Bush Administration since day one?

And to the loons who snarkily wonder about whether we "don't do body counts": You can be sure that the DoD has had a general idea all along. However, unlike the narrative of Viet Nam and the "efforts" of Iraq Body Count, the measure of success (or setback) has had much broader and more meaningful benchmarks.

first off, its not ethnic cleansing simply because groups segregate themselves amongst people like themselves so as to protect themselves.

Right, except that that's not what happened. Shiite and Sunni neighborhoods were cleaned out via a campaign of terror, murder, and forcible eviction. Have you forgotten all the news accounts of hundreds of dead bodies appearing overnight, every day, bound and gagged, many showing signs of torture? Shiite corpses in Sunni areas and Sunni corpses in Shia areas? I mean, at the time, war supporters were condemning the torture and murder and saying, See? These people are barbarians, this is why we have to stay in Iraq.

You want to get all high and mighty that because of the war, and our occupation that ethnic cleansing is going on, when your side knows that if we got out of the way and let the civil war commence that there would be plenty of ethnic cleansing going on.

The civil war has already happened. The sectarian cleansing WAS the civil war. And our military helped Iraqis carry it out. It's over now, and both civilian and U.S. troop deaths have gone down because there's no one left to kill.

Kathy

Look at the graph. Al Qaeda's civil war in Iraq failed. Drs Petraeus and KilCullen had the better narrative.

Arch

Last time around for the required report to Congress there were as many cameras as people in the room almost.

With news like this next report coming up we will hear crickets chirp.

kathy wrote:
The civil war has already happened. The sectarian cleansing WAS the civil war. And our military helped Iraqis carry it out. It's over now, and both civilian and U.S. troop deaths have gone down because there's no one left to kill.
So I guess you guys can't use the old "We have to get out of the way becuase there's a civil war going on and we're targets" argument anymore. Since the civil war is over, I guess that argument can be put to be bed like the rest of the slogans, routinely brought out.
And funny, but we seem to have plenty of troops left in the area, so obviously there are plenty of them to kill, and there are plenty of iraqi soldiers, and plenty of civilians still left to kill. And Im sure if casualty rates go up again, you'll find some argument as to how that jibes with your previous argument that casualty rates were down because noone was left to be killed.

Also, while we're on the subject of ethnic cleansing, I remember it was the dems touting the Biden partition plan as an alternative solution. Partitioning the various groups into their own regions. Er, how is that not ethnic cleansing? Ethnic cleansing as stated policy no less.

But please spare us your indignation. You wanted our troops to get out so that the Iraqis could fight their civil war and we weren't in the middle of it. SO you'd have to have known that it would involve both mass killing and ethnic cleansing were we to listen to your side and withdraw to okinawa. Your moral outrage is unwarranted, and frankly pathetic.

OK, let's assume the numbers aren't being fudged:

So Iraq ISN'T the central front in the GWOT anymore? Did I not get copied on that memo?

Did we kill all the Al Qeada in Iraq? So there were actually what, a couple of hundred guys? That's it? The whole Islamofascist Global Caliphate Army that was poised to conquer the planet? They actually had fewer guys than the local softball league? Who'd of thunk it?

Or maybe they aren't in Iraq any more. M-M-M-Maybe they already followed us home!!!

I'd like to take a pass on the wrangling over the numbers for the moment and just try to wrap my head around the sudden shift in narratives, because this is like a cheap movie with really bad continuity.

Anyone notice from this graph how the Iraq violence took an upward spike in the runup to the 2006 mid-term elections in the US?

"Neo-con"-the new Leftist "N" word for a new century.

Yahoo News

This link seems to contradict what you post captain...

I will say though, it's nice to see the numbers going down a bit. Still way too much death, but possibly improving.

Keep in mind, though, that you guys have claimed success in something or another for about 4 straight years now (the republicans). I would like to be sure this is sustained before feeling good about it.

The 884 number comes from counting Iraqi civilian and Iraqi Security Force deaths together. It doesn't contradict anything. Civilian deaths in September were lower than in October.

And of course the link is from the AFP and the first quarter of it is sprinkled with blatantly editorial statements masquerading as recitations of fact, like "...a blow to a nine-month-old US troop surge policy," and "the increase on September dented boasts from both US and Iraqi leaders that the crackdown on insurgent and militia violence was leading to a significant fall in casualties." After the first four paragraphs some actual news as opposed to opinion is reported.

ck, were you even aware that the yahoo article, which you claim contradicts what Captain Ed wrote, written by Salam Faraj, is referring to the exact same report as the story Captain Ed linked to, a report by the Iraqi Health Ministry?

Same report, yet the article by Salam Faraj seems to arrive at the exact opposite conclusion.

Any clue as to why? Yes indeed, the article by Salam Faraj was buttressed by citing the hard-left propaganda site iraqbodycount.net, trying to pass it off as a reputable news source.

Any thinking person can see that when good news is reported by official sources in Iraq, the hard left will see defeat in the news, because that's what it wants to see.

And that's nothing new.

What do Americans know about Irak?

Then, what do you know about human nature?

Some people, by the way, know about as much of Outer Mongolia, as they do the positions of guys in the street. In Irak.

For instance. Saddam was respected.

And, ALL of the IRaqis know their oil fields were being ripped off by the kuwaitis. Which is why Saddam went down to his border with Kuwait. To put a stop to it.

All Iraqis know that the USA, using diplomacy, ganged up on Iraqis. With all sorts of interferences with trade.

Still, there was no hatred for Saddam.

Then? Well, we know that Bush #41 got mad! We also know there was a lot of lying, in our Congress; when Kuwaitis came in and gave false testimony. (The babies tossed from bassinettes were lies. Never checked out, afterwards. No reality. Just the "cousin to the saudi family links; al-sabah ... sent his own daughter to Congress. To give false testimony.) Never got the truth told. EVER.

So, Americans live with assorted lies.

Saddam could'a taken out the real menace! Yes. With sunni tribesmen. And, his Baathists. Who were once "sunnis" who went secular.

Saddam had his eye on the prize. The OIL FIELDS. He also knew that the weakest arabs, alive, belong to the Saud's "federation." Stinkers. With the biggest bag-fulls of money. So they buy politicians far and wide.

I still don't think people want to face the truth.

But if we were really doing a great job in Irak, wouldn't you at least see parades for our troops in Riyadh? Kuwait. And, Dubai?

How come our troops don't do rest and recuperation in the moneybags terrain?

How come the saud's think of our troops as their men's room attendants? Where there's never any thanks, given. EVER.

Sure seems that there's a story to be told.

Now that we've spent $3-trillion from our Treasure. To do WHAT?

Wake up. The Saud's sent Bush out on their agenda. He wasn't fast enough for them; so they gave us 9/11.

And, whose voice, among republicans rises? Ron Paul.

Ya gotta give it to the Saud's ... they purchased a designer set if there ever was one.

And, we're stuck.

While most Iraqis know that Saddam would have cleared house (his way). Yes, Saddam was a terrorist. (Not a general with any idea on how to fight conventional warfare battles.) Which is why he got his head removed.

We do some things, well.

But we don't understand the arabs.

And, we're clueless about Irak.

Of course, there will be weak leadership "rising."

This meets with so much diplomatic approval, you have no idea. (Even the Israelis are willing to live with this.)

The Israelis, however, are not willing to use the IDF, to do the bidding of James Baker.

I learned that one. When Olmert balked. (At taking off Assad's head.) And, James Baker has been kicking the furniture in the White House, ever since.

At least the blogs provide you with some juice.

You don't have to believe me.

But where else is this stuff even discussed.

The answer is NOT Ron Paul! he's just the tip of the iceberg.

Dubya still plans on rewarding the Saud's.

But Condi? Ran into trouble from foreigners, including arabs. When it came to the "switch and bait" of Annapolis. Does she still have time to pull this off with invitations for the November 26th "event?"

Her house is falling down around her.

Her own diplomats are retreating from her "will."

You can call them names if you want to.

But workers who dig in ... can cause havoc with "production lines."

So, Bush probably doesn't have one.

He keeps digging, though.

Yeah. I keep worrying.

And, I keep thinking the Israelis live in that neighborhood. Someday? Someone may even write a book.

How can this stuff stay so well buried, I do not know.

Chaos and Jeff from Mpls:

The Iraqi death toll is higher this month compared to last month. I don't see why it matters if they're civilians or civilians and police.

And your opinion that iraqbodycount.net is a hard left site is merely an opinion. Exactly what are your disputes with iraqbodycount.net - and what makes you believe it's a hard left site? Is it because they are counting deaths in Iraq? Does that automatically make them left leaning?

I did say in the post right after the link, that I do like seeing the numbers going down... I'm just not willing to see this as evidence anything is "for sure" yet, as we have seen dips before. I hope it is, I'm not willing to bank on it yet though.

Seriously, where does Carol Herman come up with this crap? Saddam was loved? Kuwait was at fault in 1990? The US used diplomacy to interfere with Iraqi trade? When was this, when the US Navy smacked the Iranian Navy in the mouth in 1988 to protect Iraqi and other Arab shipping in the Gulf?

What possible relevance could the presence or lack of parades in Riyadh, Dubai and Kuwait City have on Iraq?

James Baker is running around the White House trying to tell Ehud Olmert what to do? James Baker told Olmert to kill Assad, Olmert said no, and now James Baker goes around kicking furniture in the White House?

When was the last time James Baker was even in the White House?

Could you possibly make your ramblings more incoherent Carol?

Carol Herman says: Some people, by the way, know about as much of Outer Mongolia, as they do the positions of guys in the street. In Irak.

For instance. Saddam was respected
*****************************************
Carol, how many Iraqis do you know? I know a number of them. They did not respect him, they feared him. The Baathists may have known he buttered their bread but Saddam made sure that even they feared him. The Shia and Kurds not only feared him, they loathed him, they felt he was stupid, cruel, was completely unfaithful to Koranic teaching (couldn't even get his religious practices right when doing propaganda takes),his public speaking was pathetic, he had a bizarre family and e rewarded thugs while murdering respectable people.Some Respect!

chaos

No she can't. It's more likely that Rodham Clinton will wake up tomorrow morning as a pro lifer. I can usually tell after the first line that it's one of Carol's posts. At that point I skip to the next comment.

The Iraqi death toll is higher this month compared to last month. I don't see why it matters if they're civilians or civilians and police.

The title of this post is "Civilian Deaths Fall To New Lows In Iraq." That is undeniably true. You originally claimed that what Captain Ed posted was false. It clearly is not, as civilian deaths are about 120 less this month than last month.

There have been numerous new casualties among ISF forces since the Anbar Awakening, as tribal fighters killed by al-Qaeda are counted in the statistics. This tribal switching of allegiances in Anbar and other provinces is the largest reason for the turnaround in Iraq. Viewed through your limited prism, the increased ISF casualties must mean failure - when, if one looks at all the data, it clearly means the opposite. Former al-Qaeda allies turned on them and fierce combat has resulted and is ongoing in formerly AQIZ-dominated areas. By your logic, if an area was completely controlled by AQIZ and there were no battles between AQIZ and the ISF, thus resulting in lower ISF casualties, that would be better than there being higher ISF casualties as a result of the successful previous and ongoing offensives against AQIZ.

And your opinion that iraqbodycount.net is a hard left site is merely an opinion. Exactly what are your disputes with iraqbodycount.net - and what makes you believe it's a hard left site? Is it because they are counting deaths in Iraq? Does that automatically make them left leaning?

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/about/rationale/2

3. US and UK citizens bear particular responsibility for events in Iraq

IBC is undeniably a hard-left anti-war site, they have never made any attempt to hide that. Don't waste our time with ignorant, hectoring questions. The wide-eyed innocent vibe isn't working.

Yes I did notice that the violence peaked in time to elect a baker's dozen of Jackass politicians. The MSM was careful not to call it a "Tet" Ofensive since everyone remembered that was a phony, one time, shoot-your-wad gambit on convincing the American homefront it was hopeless.

Back then the only media was left wing socialist. They sold it and Reality never intruded. Phony creeps like Al Huber said they were war heroes against the war, and no one called them for the phonys and Liars that they were.

The MSM never picked up on "Tet in Iraq" so they could say it wasn't an aberation or a one-time thing, but a permanent growing insurrection.
Too bad reality intrudes. It was a one time shoot-the-wad effort that has made the AQI loathed by the civilian Sunni sea that guerillas need to swim in for invisibility and protection.

You might be able to sell withdrawal when you're losing. You Jackasses will never sell it when Victory is happening, and Peace is breaking out.

Game, Set, Match, to America.

All this leftist outrage about "Iraki" casualties is hilarious, because leftists want us to leave "Irak" immediately and let the mother of all ethnic cleansings and massacres take place. They don't give a tin-plated crap about "Irak."

And check out this priceless gem from some fifth-rate jackass who still thinks recycled Michael Moore snark is hip:

"So Iraq ISN'T the central front in the GWOT anymore? Did I not get copied on that memo?

"Did we kill all the Al Qeada in Iraq? So there were actually what, a couple of hundred guys? That's it? The whole Islamofascist Global Caliphate Army that was poised to conquer the planet? They actually had fewer guys than the local softball league? Who'd of thunk it?"

Seriously: Have you ever read anything stupider in your life? These are people who have voluntarily lobotomized themselves, yet they insist that the rest of us take them seriously.

"I'm a moron! Let me in! Listen to me! Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!"

Thank God these nitwits stay out of the military, or we'd be utterly screwed.

Chaos -
Are you denying that the U.S. and British invasion of Iraq has anything to do with the high number of civilian casualties? You claim my "wide-eyed innocent vibe isn't working," but I really don't think that has anything to do with it. Stating a fact does not make an organization "hard left." Really, it's pathetic to use the link you used to try and prove they are a hard left site. I have no problem saying a place like media matters is entrenched on the left side, but you have absolutely shown nothing that would make me believe iraqbodycount.net is hard left. You seem to be also looking through very thick glasses.

The title of the post WAS civilian deaths. Very good. I was wrong to say the article contradicted Captain. It didn't. It did contradict what our government is trying to say though. They are claiming overall violence is continuing to go down, and although it has decreased from last year, it has actually risen from last month.

I could post all day about how "women with blond hair in Iraq are not dying as frequently", but I'd rather post about the overall violence. Violence, no matter if it's law enforcement or civilian tend to point toward trouble. I'm glad after 4 years of a horrific war, you are finally able to actually back your/republican statements about how Iraq is getting better everyday. My point remains that I'm not quite convinced, although I am glad to see a pretty large drop in total number of violent deaths compared to last year - who wouldn't be?

I'm sorry for my "hectoring" questions. Usually, though, questions don't intimidate people unless the person has no real answer... are you saying you have no real answer? (I'm sorry, was that hectoring again?)

Tom W. --
Have you seen many recent surveys of the military? There's quite a few liberals there... Sorry if that doesn't coincide with your world view.

Have you seen many recent surveys of the military? There's quite a few liberals there... Sorry if that doesn't coincide with your world view.

Where are these surveys? Odd how you decline to link them. Maybe they're like the one where more than 3/4 of the military personnel polled had never been to Iraq...

Are you denying that the U.S. and British invasion of Iraq has anything to do with the high number of civilian casualties?

The statement wasn't "they have something to do with it" it was "they bear principal responsibility." I would think that, you know, the ones actually doing the vast majority of the killing - the terrorists - would bear "principal responsibility."

You claim my "wide-eyed innocent vibe isn't working," but I really don't think that has anything to do with it. Stating a fact does not make an organization "hard left." Really, it's pathetic to use the link you used to try and prove they are a hard left site. I have no problem saying a place like media matters is entrenched on the left side, but you have absolutely shown nothing that would make me believe iraqbodycount.net is hard left. You seem to be also looking through very thick glasses.

Your impassioned wails would be more interesting if, you know, they actually adhered to reality instead of your distortions, like "principal responsibility" changing to "had something to do with it."

The title of the post WAS civilian deaths. Very good. I was wrong to say the article contradicted Captain. It didn't. It did contradict what our government is trying to say though. They are claiming overall violence is continuing to go down, and although it has decreased from last year, it has actually risen from last month.

This is the kind of "reasoning" that has made the anti-war campaign so ineffective. Violence from terrorist attacks is not distinguished at all from violence from anti-terrorist operations. If ten ISF soldiers die in a raid against al-Qaeda, you make no distinction between that and ten Iraqi civilians dying in a car bombing. In one case, violence comes as a result of a failure in achieving US objectives. In the other, violence is simply an unavoidable outcome of the process of achieving US objectives. It doesn't matter to you if the violence is part of an anti-terrorist operation that makes it harder for al-Qaeda to kill Iraqis in the future - undeniable that such operations are a success considering the decline in civilian deaths - it's all the same to you.

You have no interest in what the outcome of the violence is: deaths with al-Qaeda not weakened, or deaths with al-Qaeda weakened.

It's a fundamentally dishonest and stupid way to reason, it's so transparent and easy to blast through, but you cling to it because you have nothing else.

I could post all day about how "women with blond hair in Iraq are not dying as frequently", but I'd rather post about the overall violence. Violence, no matter if it's law enforcement or civilian tend to point toward trouble. I'm glad after 4 years of a horrific war, you are finally able to actually back your/republican statements about how Iraq is getting better everyday. My point remains that I'm not quite convinced, although I am glad to see a pretty large drop in total number of violent deaths compared to last year - who wouldn't be?

Hilarious reasoning. There is no distinction between violence occurring during anti-terrorist operations - end result: less terrorism, as seen by the drop in civilian deaths - and violence occurring as a result of terrorist operations - end result: more terrorism - in your reasoning.

I'm sorry for my "hectoring" questions. Usually, though, questions don't intimidate people unless the person has no real answer... are you saying you have no real answer? (I'm sorry, was that hectoring again?)

Your blustering nonsense is indeed an attempt at intimidation. It doesn't have to be successful to be called hectoring.

Seeing as how once again I've demolished your argument, your arrogance is even more hilarious. But the shelf life of that kind of amusement is pretty slim, your blatant inability to reason is starting to get boring. Get some better arguments or stop wasting my time, because "violence is violence" really just isn't cutting it. By your reasoning the Normandy Landings and Operation Cobra were failures because land combat on the Western Front rose from essentially zero to a full-fledged theater of its own, ignoring that the end result of that violence was the liberation of France and the destruction of numerous German units. But I thought our objective was to make Germany stop fighting, not create more fighting with Germany! wailed ck in July 1944. We've failed to accomplish our objectives, look at how violence between the Allies and the Germans has grown since we landed at Normandy!

If our military was really winning in Irak, then you'd find State Department diplomats willing to fill the 250 open embassy positions.

Well? We built it. And, it's ready. In Baghdad.

And, Condi has a revolt on her hands. Seems there are people at State who don't want to go. Won't volunteer. And, are fighting being pushed in.

Why is that? If we're winning?

Of course, "winning" has been defined as spelling out reality to the sunni's, half of whom are no longer in Irak. Unless you want to count the dead. And, buried, underground. And, the millions of others who live "elsewhere." Syria has a million. Jordan probably has a good share.

Seems these two countries don't want any more, either.

SO, "winning," seems to be defined as "surge." Where the tribes in Irak caught on that Maliki was gonna turn his Shi'a goons against them. And, if they didn't have guns. And, NO MORE TERRORISTS ... they'd be dead. One way. Or the other.

Petraeus put a stop to that!

Winning?

Perhaps.

But even what the Saud's wanted hasn't exactly been placed on the table, yet. No appetizer. No meal. And, no great celebrations, either, in Dubai, Kuwait, and Riyadh's palaces.

Where did all that arab hospitality go?

You mean are troops are nothing more than men's room attendants? And, the arabs hate their guts because our American men are braver than the lot of all the others, living on sand dunes?

I do know we're not appreciated.

I do know we're still targets; but only if we are "easy pickings."

And, I do know the saud's burn with "attitude." That I'd like to shove right up their collective arses.

But winning?

We fight better. Where terrorists aren't known for great battle savvy, anyway.

What's missing is "what's it all about?"

We took out Saddam. His people put up with him. He got their respect. And, he was aiming to clear the world of the saud's. Which would have been beneficial.

Yes. Saddam would have been better at controlling the faithful; because he envisioned himself as Saladan.

Still, he was weak. By the standards and definitions Israel uses, when she decides she can live with the fakers and despots that are such good friends of the Bush Family business.

We rid the world of Saddam. But it was the Iraqis who didn't want to see him go. And, they certainly didn't want, imposed on them, the Saudi "plan" ... where the Saud's would become masters of the Mideast.

So, part of what was sought, like the fountain of youth. Remains outside of everyone's reach.

Maliki, himself? Hates Bush's guts. He also doesn't like Mubarak, or the shimp sized king in Jordan. On the other hand? He can live with Assad. And, the midget in Iran.

And, that's how peace is made around the arab tables. Well. The arabs and the persians.

You were expecting Solon?

Then, what's the "timetable" for Bush to "do something" (that lasts longer than a day; or the overflights of a few planes?) He can get away with this now? In iran?

Oh, what a mess we have, when our players in the Oval Office are second rate.

ANd, it looks like more of this crap is blooming, ahead, for 2008.

Will we still let the Saud's buy themselves the seatings they want at our table?

I dunno.

Stay tuned.

Today, we know how brutal the front was during WW1. But we didn't know this right away.

At first? We had the songs. Irving Berlin. And, "Over there." Next, we had the French postcards.

While the real stories didn't come out for about ten years. But when they hit? Then, people identified. Then, the demoratic countries went "isolationist" in a very big way.

It's possible what's happening now is similar?

The Mideast is far away. It doesn't register, unless you know someone over there.

And, then?

What do you depend on for news?

And, what do you think the results, down the line, will look like?

Plus, today, you heard that there's a rebellion in Condi's State Department; because there are less than 250 people willing to be sent to Baghdad.

Doesn't sound very "winning."

No country can clean up every pocket of terror, either. The world's just full of terrible places. And, places where the worst sorts gain political leverage.

Heck, Americans had trouble believing we'd even want French troops watching our backs. Can you imagine if we thought our troops were going to be supported by Saud's?

Believe it or not, cooking on James Baker's back burner, is an attempt to "enrich" the Saud's with the latest in air power. $16-billion's worth. So they can "partner to us" IF we take on Iran.

HELP !

This is the worst news to grow out of the current "success" as we could get, ahead.

Oh, it's not just the news organizations that remain less than enthused when covering Irak. (Spelling by the way, is optional. English really does absorb variations.) They're just like opinions.

Anyway. When lots of Americans go to vote on November 4, 2008, I think they'll be carrying their doubts with them, into their voting booths.

It will be nice to hear how this all tracks out. Maybe, all we're getting now are the advertisements?

Meanwhile, Chris Muir's cartoon is very funny! (Ya think? Americans may want "8 more years?")

"It's over now, and both civilian and U.S. troop deaths have gone down because there's no one left to kill."

NO! No one -actually- tried to make this argument seriously. I cannot believe that. That -had- to be a deliberate parody. It -had- to be.

*boggle*

Qwinn

Kathy wrote:
"The civil war has already happened. The sectarian cleansing WAS the civil war. And our military helped Iraqis carry it out. It's over now, and both civilian and U.S. troop deaths have gone down because there's no one left to kill."

Gee, what a small civil war compared to others of its type throughout history...I guess it's a good thing we've got troops there, huh?

No. You did NOT just claim that our troops helped Iraqis carry out a civil war. You d*mn well better have some facts backing that one up, or "liar" is the least offensive insult you'll get.

And of course, the claim that "there's no one left to kill, therefore we've stopped killing" when more and more troops have been engaging the enemy in recent months. The narrative sounds great until it runs into the facts. Then it just dies.

Moving on, BurfordHolly wrote:
"OK, let's assume the numbers aren't being fudged:"

Yes, let's, considering that they've been reported by various news agencies on both sides of the aisle. I'm surprised you even bothered to bring this up.

"So Iraq ISN'T the central front in the GWOT anymore? Did I not get copied on that memo?"

Lolwut? Iraq remains a central front in that war. AQ made it so, and they're paying for it now. There was no memo.

"Did we kill all the Al Qeada in Iraq? So there were actually what, a couple of hundred guys? That's it? The whole Islamofascist Global Caliphate Army that was poised to conquer the planet? They actually had fewer guys than the local softball league? Who'd of thunk it?

Or maybe they aren't in Iraq any more. M-M-M-Maybe they already followed us home!!!

I'd like to take a pass on the wrangling over the numbers for the moment and just try to wrap my head around the sudden shift in narratives, because this is like a cheap movie with really bad continuity."

Or maybe, just maybe, we've been killing/capturing guys from AQI for longer than three months. One would think that a liberal of all people would remember the four years before the surge began.

Next: I was going to bother writing about Carol Herman's posts, but they're too incoherent and the allegation that "Saddam was respected" left me flabbergasted, and then there was the comment that the decline in violence doesn't mean we're winning because some diplomats don't want to go to Iraq, so I'll skip those.

ck wrote:
"And your opinion that iraqbodycount.net is a hard left site is merely an opinion. Exactly what are your disputes with iraqbodycount.net - and what makes you believe it's a hard left site? Is it because they are counting deaths in Iraq? Does that automatically make them left leaning?"

I'd be willing to guess that the reason people view them as left-leaning is the statement that "none of the deaths we record would have happened were it not for the invasion." Such willingness to ignore everything Saddam would have done is generally a lefty trait. On top of that, such willingness to blame all the deaths of civilians at the hands of insurgents on us is definitely leftist. These are people who have thrust the civilian population out in front of them - and then blow them up to discourage us.

The good news is, Iraqis have figured out that this is going on, and they don't like it. you argue that declines have happened before - this is true. At the same time, there's an element to this decline that didn't occur with the other(s?), and that's the Awakenings. Those give us huge momentum.

It's important to consider the death counts by demographic as well as by absolute numbers because the absolute numbers can indicate various things that aren't necessarily related to our progress/lack of progress in Iraq. As chaos points out (though undiplomatically), the increase in military deaths is probably due to the increased engagement with the enemy recently, and thus that's a statistic that's hard to use as an indicator of progress. The civilian body count, being uninfluenced by such things, is a more reliable indicator at this time, and it's showing a steady downward trend.

Aaarrgh, I HATE talking about death and the dead this way. It feels like I'm devaluing them by discussing them as a statistic. But what else can I do?

Carol Herman: Which would be worse, a nuclear Iran or a US invasion of Iran? Just to see where you stand.

Looks like I hit a nerve!

If we just beat Al Qeada in Iraq, then AQII was yet another world class hoax, grossly inflated so we could later claim to have "defeated" them. AQII was easier to defeat than a Salvadoran street gang, not counting the trillions we pissed away on sole source contracts.

I'm happy to take you guys at your word, because now we can take out the garbage in America. Let's find out who cooked up the AQII hoax, put these torturing, wiretapping, law breaking loons and their war profiteering cronies on trial and send them to prison.

So who are all of those black men and men with long beards that our gallant soldiers continue to assist in assuming room temperature? Are they perhaps Saudi, Syrian, Jordanian and Sudanese immigrant tax drivers with attitudes?

I'd always assumed that they were foreign fighters brought into Iraq through the auspices of Al Queda. Are you saying, Burford, that they are being bussed in by some other group... like, say, Iran? That would certainly change the complexion of things wouldn't it?

>Are you saying, Burford, that they are being
>bussed in by some other group... like, say, Iran?

If you say so. AQII has been slaughtering Shiites and blowing up their holiest shrines, not to mention the hellish war that Iran fought against the Sunnis. Saying that Shiite Iran is going to ally with AQII is like saying that Jews are going to team up with the Nazis, Jesse Jackson is going to join the KKK, and the cats are going to team up with the canaries. There's not enough crystal meth in the world to make me believe that. And I have never seen an African in Iraq.

Only by combining these relatively minor threats into one massive fictional threat can this be turned into a boogie man big enough to justify turning America upside down.

And then these reports came out that AQII fell down like a house of cards. Just like the Taliban did 5 years ago. But we keep letting them regroup and rebuild.

Saudis? We all know the Saudis are behind this, but they are the business partners of the administration.

Michael Yon has just posted that Sheik Omar Jabouri, a spokesman for the Islamic Party of Iraq announced, "Al Qaeda is defeated."

http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/iraqi-islamic-party-says-al-qaeda-is-defeated.htm

Arch

>Michael Yon has just posted that Sheik Omar
>Jabouri, a spokesman for the Islamic Party of
>Iraq announced, "Al Qaeda is defeated."

Which is exactly what critics of the war said was going to happen to "Al Qaeda." These tribes live at the crossroads of the Middle East and have been expelling trespassers since the Bronze Age, defeating any and all comers.

It'll be nice if this holds up, but remember this is exactly what the war's critics said was going to happen.

Calling those asshats an "existential threat to America" was just building a house of cards so we could declare victory when it fell down. That's like me doing a "rain dance" on my lawn and taking all the credit when we finally get a shower.

The surge was the catalyst here. Without the US forces to break the foreign fighters grip on the Western providences and to arm and support the Sunni Sheiks, Al Qaeda would have continued to rule them Taliban style.

Alone the tribes were forced to accept al Qaeda to defend against the Shiite militias. AQI, once they had taken control, ruled through terror. The Sunnis were trapped. The Anbar Sheiks asked us to help to break al Qaeda's grip. We forced the Baghdad government to allow the Sunni tribes to control their local police. Al Anbar control the trade routes through Syria - the conduit for weapons, money and foreign fighters. When AQI lost the Anbar Sheiks, they lost access to the border making resupply difficult. These Sheiks also provided a template for other tribes under the control of al Qaeda.

With Saddam and his Baathist leadership dead or holed up in Syria and the Sunni tribes supporting the war against al Qaeda, Shiites are questioning the need for al Sadr's Mahdi army and his Iranian masters. Maliki's government has purged the Interior Ministry of Sadr supporters, eliminating his power base.

Anyone who believes that al Qaeda would have been defeated by the Shiite dominated Iraq government without our help fails to grasp the central issue in any counterinsurgency - popular support. General Petraeus' Al Ameriki tribe are neither Shia nor Sunni but they are a might force indeed. The Kurds support us, the Shiites support us and now the Sunnis do too.

Perhaps we need a victory parade to coincide with next Summer's political conventions.

Chaos -- Ok, you're humorous. I'll give you that. You claim you demolished my logic. You didn't. You think you did, you didn't. You're funny

You are denying that we are the principal reason for the large number of deaths in Iraq over the last 4 years? Really? So, if we hadn't invaded Iraq you believe that AQI and the insurgents and the car bombs and all that nasty stuff would have been happening? You're off your rocker if you believe it would be. We were the catalyst. Now, whether or not we should have or shouldn't have doesn't matter; we were the catalyst and a lot of people died because of our decision. It doesn't matter if Saddam had killed his people before, because that's not the discussion; the discussion is whether or not these deaths in the last 4 years are principally our responsibility. And you can't (simple cannot) argue that this would have happened if we hadn't gone in there.

So no! I do not think that proves they are a hard left site. You, my friend, seem to be a bit delusional for thinking it does... sorry, but that's my opinion.

As far as distinguishing between anti-terror ops etc... No I do not. I feel that that will even itself out over time. If we are still getting deaths from anti-terror operations, then we are still fighting terrorists. It does not always equal less violence in the future, but sometimes it does. Next month, if the rates keep going down, and the month after that and so on, then we can say we are experiencing less violence overall. But violence is violence. And violence indicates problems. Sorry you can't seem to grasp that very very simple concept.

You end with telling me how I can't reason very well. It's always a good laugh when I hear such irony. But it's getting a bit old. If you can't even figure out how we are the principal reason for the skyrocket in civilian deaths in Iraq, then you have no business reasoning at all...

Dude - I just demolished your arguments - w00t (how bout them apples?)

BurfordHolly,

Well, here is an African in Iraq.

http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12458&Itemid=21

As for Iran "teaming up" with AQI...probably not, but probably more than willing to assist or allow AQI to further the instability that allows AQI to cause mayhem. Continued mayhem makes the conditions for Iran to "rescue" Shia's in Iraq all the more easy...and possibly more palatable for Maliki, if he had his back to the wall. Last year, surely possible. This year, far less so.

But, as the surge continues, and there are less and less living AQI on the ground, the conditions for Iran to "rescue" Shia's in Iraq become less and less probable. At the same time, though, Iran is becoming more and more bold in using the Quds Force and the Revolutionary Guard to keep the mayhem going nevertheless, depending not on Shia's in Iraq running to them to be "rescued" but to cause Americans here at home to toss in the towel. Without the American presence right next door, Iran could easily move en masse to secure large portions of southern and eastern Iraq, offer the rest of the world a fait accompli, and then watch as the rest of the world did...well, nothing.

Well yes there are Africans in Iraq in the sense that Egyptians are Africans. I was more thinking of the statement about "black terrorists."

As for "black terrorists," haven't seen any cross the screens in Iraq, but then again, Osama had a few things to say about Black Africans, and I wish I could find the darn source.

Suffice it to say, Sub-Saharan Africans in the eyes of most Moslems, especially Arab Moslems, are children of a lessor God. It was Arab Moslems who initiated the larger African slave trade, first along the Eastern Coast, Dar es-Salam was an entrepot for captives Blacks taken to be used all over the Arab Moslem regions, and later dipping down from Mauritania and across the Sahara from the North, Arabs had a healthy business in Black slaves going, and well into the 20th Century, too. There have been a number of UN reports on such still ongoing, and Sudan being the entrepot for Black slaves being transported to Saudi Arabia within the last few years.

Osama's and other jihadi support for the regime in Khartoum killing Black Darfurians, Moslem and Christian alike, mimics this prejudice.

So, enlisting and training Black Africans would be a major departure for the jihadis of the bin Ladin type. But, in Mali, Niger, and inside Ethiopia and Somalia, there is indeed a growing islamist movement, mostly Blacks, non-Arab, and Moslem, who are generating a good deal of problems. I have no doubt that given the opportunity and a modicum of success these Black Africans will be embraced by Osama at some point.

As for Blacks in Western countries who have embraced Islam...this is a ripe ground for recruitment. There is additionally a bit of effort in the Caribbean to recruit to jihad from the local populations.

By the way, just a cautionary note, if ever in Egypt, never but never refer to an Egyptian as an African. From personal experience, they don't take it too well, at all. They are Egyptians. First, last and always.

Burford Holly:
"Looks like I hit a nerve!

If we just beat Al Qeada in Iraq, then AQII was yet another world class hoax, grossly inflated so we could later claim to have "defeated" them. AQII was easier to defeat than a Salvadoran street gang, not counting the trillions we pissed away on sole source contracts.

I'm happy to take you guys at your word, because now we can take out the garbage in America. Let's find out who cooked up the AQII hoax, put these torturing, wiretapping, law breaking loons and their war profiteering cronies on trial and send them to prison. "

You keep saying it was so easy to defeat them. Why? Haven't we been fighting them for years? Or was that all a dream?

ck:

"You are denying that we are the principal reason for the large number of deaths in Iraq over the last 4 years? Really? So, if we hadn't invaded Iraq you believe that AQI and the insurgents and the car bombs and all that nasty stuff would have been happening? You're off your rocker if you believe it would be. We were the catalyst. Now, whether or not we should have or shouldn't have doesn't matter; we were the catalyst and a lot of people died because of our decision. It doesn't matter if Saddam had killed his people before, because that's not the discussion; the discussion is whether or not these deaths in the last 4 years are principally our responsibility. And you can't (simple cannot) argue that this would have happened if we hadn't gone in there."

No, AQI and insurgents and car bombs wouldn't have been killing people. But you act like nobody else would have been killing Iraqis, that life would have been rosy and sweet if only the big bad mean US hadn't invaded. That isn't the case. Instead of us, it would have been Saddam. And it wouldn't have been working towards anything, either. We must take responsibility for these deaths, yes, but the deaths that would have occurred under Saddam's regime had we not decided to go in would also have been our fault, and there would be nothing we could do about it - except invade.

What we did when we decided to go into Iraq in 2003 was a choice between many deaths under Saddam, working towards...well, more Saddam; or many deaths under an American occupation, working towards democracy.

I'm not really arguing about whether iraqbodycount.net is a left-leaning site or not; IMHO, Chaos is making a mountain out of a molehill with his blatant cherry-picking of one quote among many to prove that ibc is hard-left. The tone of the place, from what I can tell, is slightly pacifist, but never mind that. I just wanted to get this one point across - that you CAN'T ignore Saddam's presence in the equation of invasion. After all, he's almost the principal reason why we invaded.

Math Mage --- You're right, if we were looking at the big picture... But, as you pointed out, we were only discussing one thing: "The deaths we are seeing today; would they have been caused without the invasion?" And the answer is no.

Maybe Saddam would have killed a hundred thousand Iraqis in 4 years, but I doubt it... But can you really equate a number of deaths with the price of freedom? No... It's up to the Iraqis to decide if their life is worth fighting for freedom or not.

Some people think it's going to take another hardliner like Saddam to get Iraq under control, and if that's the case, it makes you wonder whether this was all worth it or not. Of course we all hold out hope it will be different than it was under saddam, but that region is notorious for hardliners being the only ones able to control so many different political/religious views.

Anyway, Saddam was a bad person and a bad ruler. I'm glad he's not ruling the country anymore, but I wish we would have gone about it in a much more sensible way --- i.e. maybe have a sound post invasion plan? or maybe take saddam up on the offer he put forth to be exiled... That would have saved a whole lot of lives...