Progress in Iraq

[Redleg]

Some progress is going on - regardless of the nay saying of some and the politicial failures that are evident.


http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2...1001_2904.html

This is the first joint mission, planned and led by the 2nd Public Order Brigade. The Iraqis are out front," said Army Maj. Rick Ackerman of the Special Police Transition Team. "There was no American intervention - 3rd Squadron, 7th Cavalry provided an outer cordon and the Special Police Transition Team provided a liaison between coalition forces and the Public Order Brigade."

A site that has several different monthes of press releases and stories on the reconstruction effort

http://www.defendamerica.mil/iraq/rebuilding.html

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

While talking about the constitution process...

There is progress of some sort... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4309164.stm

At least it'll get voted... by absentees

Louis,

[Kraxis]

I'm sort of undecided about the progress. When you look at it with a fair and unbiased viewpoint it does look rather bad.

But when I think about it it seems to be at least changing, for the better or worse I don't know.

First the insurgets attacked the US forces directly. That was apparently not very effective as they stopped that in any large capacity quite fast.
Then they moved onto assasinations and abductions (not the 'nice' ones for money, but those we end up seeing on Al-Jazeera) as their main forms of attacks. That has been declining too. It seems the attacks are now concentrated on the new Iraqi police and military in the forms of recruits or transports, and attacks on congregations of Shia (take note of the big bully's words that he will drive them to war with attacks).

It looks like that every time the insurgets try another 'headline' strategy, one that involves lots of publicity and scaryness. And now it seemslike they have finally given in totally and are just targeting what they can with any effect. It is still visible and disruptive, but hopefully it is an indicator of a weakening position for them, or at least a beginning loss of belief in eventual victory.

[Tribesman]

A site that has several different monthes of press releases and stories on the reconstruction effort

Very good Red , my first posts say that they seem to be making up contradictory statements about the numbers and training abilities of Iraqi recruits , and you provide a link that contains (amongs other things) statements about the numbers and training of Iraqi recruits . .
Some nice releases there on reconstruction , and there has been some progress , but some of those releases (especially concerning schools and healthcare) are exactly the same as were released 2 years ago i.e. plans to carry out X amount of work .
You will notice if you visit the POC site that they talk of money spent , projects approved for start up and already commenced, yet remain silent on the proportion of "money spent" that has dissappeared , and "projects approved" that they no longer have money for , or "already commenced" where the work hasn't commenced because the contractor did a bunk with the money or the lack of security has prevented actual commencement. You have to read the US general auditor report for that .

BTW I do like the release about the police getting radios for some of their police cars .....wow police cars with radios , what a novel concept , welcome to the 21st century

(take note of the big bully's words that he will drive them to war with attacks).

That is one of the more worrying developments Kraxis , though I think the changes in the voting rules will do just as much to sideline any moderate voices amongst the Sunni Arabs and push the extremists to the fore .

[Kraxis]

Yes, but so far the Sunni in the right as a group aren't the insurgents, they are to a great extent foreigners or west-haters (for a lack of a better word). There are of course Sunnis in there too (well most of the foreigners are actually Sunnis, just like 90% of all muslims), but they are fighting more from a anger point of view, rather than a 'war for the sake of war' point of view.
Thus one could argue we are talking about two different groupings, but for all we know they might atually be on friendly terms (my enemy's enemy is my friend).

All this could of course change if the Sunnis find themselves sidelined too much, and they rise up in significant numbers (we have to admit that there isn't likely to many thousands of insurgents now).

My point was that in terms of fightingthe insurgents it seems to be going fairly well. They have been forced to change their behaviour and pattern of attacks, seeking easier targets, targets that are less spectacular than what they did before. For a PR-savy group like Al-Zaqawi's it is interesting would you not think so?

[Redleg]

A site that has several different monthes of press releases and stories on the reconstruction effort

Very good Red , my first posts say that they seem to be making up contradictory statements about the numbers and training abilities of Iraqi recruits , and you provide a link that contains (amongs other things) statements about the numbers and training of Iraqi recruits . .

Unlike you - I just provide the information - you can pick and chose your idealogue opinion based upon it.

Some nice releases there on reconstruction , and there has been some progress , but some of those releases (especially concerning schools and healthcare) are exactly the same as were released 2 years ago i.e. plans to carry out X amount of work .

Actually they are only similiar - some things are indeed different. However that would require you to actually think verus spouting idealogue opinion.

You will notice if you visit the POC site that they talk of money spent , projects approved for start up and already commenced, yet remain silent on the proportion of "money spent" that has dissappeared , and "projects approved" that they no longer have money for , or "already commenced" where the work hasn't commenced because the contractor did a bunk with the money or the lack of security has prevented actual commencement. You have to read the US general auditor report for that .

Again the site contains press releases - it means one must read and investigate and draw opinion from the documents. However don't let that interfer with your negative views and idealogue opinions.

BTW I do like the release about the police getting radios for some of their police cars .....wow police cars with radios , what a novel concept , welcome to the 21st century

Yep it seems that many nations don't have radio's in all of their police cars.

[Tribesman]

Kraxis , the estimate is still 18/20,000 , despite the killings and imprisonments the figure seems to remain fairly constant .
As for the "fighting from anger" thing , the changes to the voting process are very likely to increase that . It was originally formulated to ensure that all groupings had a voice . One grouping didn't like that voice and is now making moves to silence it .
If the prospect of making a political noise is taken away then it is highly likely that they will make a noise through other means .
For a PR savvy group like Zaqawis this could be a real bonus .
As for the spectaculars , yes they have decreased , but they are still attempting them , another attempt at the Green Zone yesterday , luckily the suicide bomber went off without penetrating the cordon .

[Tribesman]

Yep it seems that many nations don't have radio's in all of their police cars.
Yep it seems that many police forces are issued with brand new police cars by people who really want to make an efficient coordinated security apparatus , but neglect an important piece of apparatus that is vital for coordination .

it means one must read and investigate and draw opinion from the documents. However don't let that interfer with your negative views and idealogue opinions.

Yes of course I never read , investigate and draw opinions on any documents Red . Just like I never read any of the links you posted or any links off of those links .
I make it all up as I go along out of thin air .

[Redleg]

Yep it seems that many nations don't have radio's in all of their police cars.
Yep it seems that many police forces are issued with brand new police cars by people who really want to make an efficient coordinated security apparatus , but neglect an important piece of apparatus that is vital for coordination .

Obviousily they made an initial mistake in the purchase of the cars - not what you are trying to initially imply with your sarcasm.

it means one must read and investigate and draw opinion from the documents. However don't let that interfer with your negative views and idealogue opinions.

Yes of course I never read , investigate and draw opinions on any documents Red . Just like I never read any of the links you posted or any links off of those links .
I make it all up as I go along out of thin air .

Actually I was thinking more in the line that you pull it out of your rear end..

[Tribesman]

Obviousily they made an initial mistake in the purchase of the cars
Oh another mistake , how unusual .
Actually I was thinking more in the line that you pull it out of your rear end..
Actually I get most of the information from your government , so it must be your rear end .

[Redleg]

Obviousily they made an initial mistake in the purchase of the cars
Oh another mistake , how unusual .

You should try purchasing items in mass some times - its not an easy task. Care to guess how many upgrades I had to do on new equipment to put in items that were not in the initial contract. Both in the military and civilian life.

Actually I was thinking more in the line that you pull it out of your rear end..
Actually I get most of the information from your government , so it must be your rear end .

[/quote]

Can't be mine - I only read and make conclusions on factual information that I find. Only the government pulls it out of their rear-end to make the media happy. Grain of salt is what I take everything in with.

By the way if you haven't figured out by now - I have been messing with you for the most part because of your earlier comment. Devils advocate so to speak.

The adminstration has made a mess of the events from the conclusion of the invasion to now - but the soldiers on the ground are doing the best that they can with the limited resources that the government actually sends to them.

By the way - my bother is about to return to Iraq to train some more of the Iraqi security forces - so the progress is still ongoing even as we type.

Don't believe all the negative press - while most of its true - it does not paint the complete picture of what is going on.

[Tribesman]

Can't be mine
I meant your government , not you personally
The adminstration has made a mess of the events from the conclusion of the invasion to now
We differ there slightly , I think the mess started before the invasion .
Don't believe all the negative press
Don't believe most of the press anyway positive or negative , same with politicians and organisations .

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

LOL looks like you didn't like the answer now does it. You claim that lies was not a crime - perjury shows that you are incorrect.

Errr.... Perjury is perjury, and that's a crime. Lie is a lie. Noone is going to prosecute you for a lie, unless it's under oath. Then it's perjury. You don't see a difference?

The original point was that since noone convicted US administration officials of lying, then they had not lyed.
My answer was that, since US administration is not talking under oath, it's not a crime to lie, they can't be prosecuted for that.

Saying that there is no lie, because there is no conviction is a serious misunderstanding. It's odd: I suspect you know that, so I wonder why you make obviously wrong statement.

If all the press conferences were under oath, then yes, it would be a lot of fun, and I guess we would see a lot more prosecution

the whole hindsight thing- Maybe so - but that was not the initial arguement spewed forth by the anti-war crowd.[

Had you been listening back then... I guess it was easier to believe that all war opponents were fitting the stereotypes you built for them.

The danger with caricaturing the people you oppose is that you end up believing the caricature, and not the actual arguments.

So you would excuse them all. Again how very noble of you.

I would certainly not excuse them all. The underlying point that you have so obviously missed is that this nobility seems to be very conveniently targetted.
We get noble in Iraq, but not with Russia or China. That's a very convenient kind of nobility. Noble with the weak, bargaining with the strong. Hypocrisy?

Would I allow those dictatorship to exist? Short of other acceptable alternatives, yes. War is rarely an acceptable alternative.
Do I excuse them? No.

War is sometimes necessary - are you attempting to say Saddam honored every ceasefire condition?

War is sometimes necessary. I don't think it was necessary in that case, even if Saddam was a treacherous bastard. The current situation is an expensive price to pay to punish someone who was not honoring all and every ceasefire conditions.

Louis,

[Adrian II]

Saying that there is no lie because there is no conviction is a serious misunderstanding.

There has always been a lingering suspicion that the 'intelligence failures' with regard to Saddam's WMD, his ties to Al Qaida, etcetera were intentional lies. This is because such 'mistakes' were mainly promulgated by neoconservatives. Part of the creed of their founder Leo Strauss (+1973) is that democracies are inherently unable to produce and pursue a strategic vision of the world, and that democratic leaders and civil servants are required to lie from time to time if they want to pursue such a vision anyway. This was deemed an important strategem in the struggle with the Soviet Union, which the first generation neocons (Albert Wohlstetter, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Richard Perle) claimed to have settled in the West's favour.

An important part of the vision of the 2nd generation, post-1989 neocons (Bill Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, Zalmay Khalilzad) was a regime-change in Iraq in order to remove the linch-pin from the Arab anti-Israel front. They had a vision in which a democratic, pro-American Iraq would take the lead both in a reconciliation with Israel and in democratic reform throughout the region.

I would not be surprised if it turns out that they have used their influence to spread - how shall I put it? - intentional mistakes about Saddams' activities in order to convince a wider public of the need to invade Saddam's country. I also strongly suspect that some of their economic 'expectations' - such as that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction out of its oil revenues, and that the post-Iraq world would be awash with Iraqi oil - were intended to convince the 'oil-wing' of the Republican party to support the war.

[Tribesman]

Good news , they have gone back to the old method of vote counting which should make some Sunni Arabs happy .
Bad news , that means the vote on the constitution may well end in rejection .

[Geoffrey S]

There has always been a lingering suspicion that the 'intelligence failures' with regard to Saddam's WMD, his ties to Al Qaida, etcetera were intentional lies.

Not the least because thus far any evidence to show the truth behind such claims is conveniently lacking, both before the war and (more suspiciously) after.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Not the least because thus far any evidence to show the truth behind such claims is conveniently lacking, both before the war and (more suspiciously) after.

Conveniently

You mean it's a conspiracy from anti war crowd?

Louis,

[Redleg]

Errr.... Perjury is perjury, and that's a crime. Lie is a lie. Noone is going to prosecute you for a lie, unless it's under oath. Then it's perjury. You don't see a difference?

The original point was that since noone convicted US administration officials of lying, then they had not lyed.
My answer was that, since US administration is not talking under oath, it's not a crime to lie, they can't be prosecuted for that.

You stated you could not be prosecuted for a lie - that is incorrect you can.

Saying that there is no lie, because there is no conviction is a serious misunderstanding. It's odd: I suspect you know that, so I wonder why you make obviously wrong statement.

That is not what I stated - I said there is no evidence of a lie, just misinformed, incorrect, or proven to be wrong. Provide evidence of a lie - before making accusations of it.

If all the press conferences were under oath, then yes, it would be a lot of fun, and I guess we would see a lot more prosecution

Again you would have to prove that they lied - a hard thing to do.

Had you been listening back then... I guess it was easier to believe that all war opponents were fitting the stereotypes you built for them.

I listened to them - and like I stated already the majority stated what I said they did.

The danger with caricaturing the people you oppose is that you end up believing the caricature, and not the actual arguments.

Well when its done in an arguement by one side - I believe its perfectly acceptable to do it back. If one doesn't like it being done in return - one should not attempt to do so themselves.

I would certainly not excuse them all. The underlying point that you have so obviously missed is that this nobility seems to be very conveniently targetted.
We get noble in Iraq, but not with Russia or China. That's a very convenient kind of nobility. Noble with the weak, bargaining with the strong. Hypocrisy?

And in this you would be incorrect. Iraq was a consistent issue since 1991. A war was fought in 1991 where Iraq promised to abide by a cease fire - which it failed to do. China and Russia are not under the same conditions - neither is North Korea, they have yet to violate the conditions of thier cease fire with the United States and South Korea. It seems your now attempting to lump them all together. Each nation mentioned have seperate situations then that of Iraq. Again Iraq failed to abide by a cease fire signed by both warring parties. No other nation falls within that same situation no matter how much some would like to try to make it so.

Would I allow those dictatorship to exist? Short of other acceptable alternatives, yes. War is rarely an acceptable alternative.

War is the last resort. Just like it was with Iraq. 12 years of failed diplomacy is often overlook in the anti-war crowd. Care to guess how many times 1st Cavarly Division deployed in the 90's to Kuwait to provide security and threat to Iraq? I will give you a guess its more then one.

Do I excuse them? No.

Well that is a good thing then.

War is sometimes necessary. I don't think it was necessary in that case, even if Saddam was a treacherous bastard. The current situation is an expensive price to pay to punish someone who was not honoring all and every ceasefire conditions.

Louis,

Again we differ in opinion.

[Redleg]

There has always been a lingering suspicion that the 'intelligence failures' with regard to Saddam's WMD, his ties to Al Qaida, etcetera were intentional lies. This is because such 'mistakes' were mainly promulgated by neoconservatives. Part of the creed of their founder Leo Strauss (+1973) is that democracies are inherently unable to produce and pursue a strategic vision of the world, and that democratic leaders and civil servants are required to lie from time to time if they want to pursue such a vision anyway. This was deemed an important strategem in the struggle with the Soviet Union, which the first generation neocons (Albert Wohlstetter, Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Richard Perle) claimed to have settled in the West's favour.

suspicion is just that - its not proof nor does it support a claim of its an intentional lie.

An important part of the vision of the 2nd generation, post-1989 neocons (Bill Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, Zalmay Khalilzad) was a regime-change in Iraq in order to remove the linch-pin from the Arab anti-Israel front. They had a vision in which a democratic, pro-American Iraq would take the lead both in a reconciliation with Israel and in democratic reform throughout the region.

The horror of it all - again it does not prove a lie.

I would not be surprised if it turns out that they have used their influence to spread - how shall I put it? - intentional mistakes about Saddams' activities in order to convince a wider public of the need to invade Saddam's country. I also strongly suspect that some of their economic 'expectations' - such as that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction out of its oil revenues, and that the post-Iraq world would be awash with Iraqi oil - were intended to convince the 'oil-wing' of the Republican party to support the war.

Again does that fit into claiming that President Bush told a lie. It doesn't unless your attempting to say he told them to do it.

[Adrian II]

suspicion is just that - its not proof nor does it support a claim of its an intentional lie

Nor did I claim that. I merely explained what I think is the root of the suspicions with regard to these gentlemen.

[Geoffrey S]

Conveniently

You mean it's a conspiracy from anti war crowd?

Not quite. Evidence is conveniently lacking after the war to prove the claims that WMDs were present in Iraq and the like, despite supposed clear evidence before the war.

I'm not really certain how to phrase it. Basically the US hasn't had to provide evidence to support their claims before the war, which is convenient for the Bush administartion; they made claims about Iraq, started a war after which they were supposed to find evidence to support those claims, and didn't find (or at least show) evidence to back up the earlier statements. Convenient for the Bush administration, don't you say?

Edit: why do people post before me?

[econ21]

Yes, but so far the Sunni in the right as a group aren't the insurgents, they are to a great extent foreigners or west-haters (for a lack of a better word). ...All this could of course change if the Sunnis find themselves sidelined too much, and they rise up in significant numbers (we have to admit that there isn't likely to many thousands of insurgents now).

My point was that in terms of fightingthe insurgents it seems to be going fairly well....

Kraxis, I'd be interested in any facts or statistics to support those claims. My perception is that the insurgency now is very significant - on average, a couple of dozen Iraqis seem to be being killed by insurgents each day. That requires thousands of insurgents - Iraqi intelligence estimates 200,000 with 40,000 hardcore fighters.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0122-08.htm

I haven't seen any figures on the proportion of foreigners in the insurgency but suspect it is small. Yes, there are groups of them but I suspect they would be slaughtered if they did not have the support of the Iraq communities in which they are hiding out.

[Redleg]

Not quite. Evidence is conveniently lacking after the war to prove the claims that WMDs were present in Iraq and the like, despite supposed clear evidence before the war.

I'm not really certain how to phrase it. Basically the US hasn't had to provide evidence to support their claims before the war, which is convenient for the Bush administartion; they made claims about Iraq, started a war after which they were supposed to find evidence to support those claims, and didn't find (or at least show) evidence to back up the earlier statements. Convenient for the Bush administration, don't you say?

Edit: why do people post before me?

The Duelfer Report clears some of that up - if one bothers to read the complete thing. It does not give a pass on the Intelligence Failures of the United States and Great Britian - but it explains why some things are confusing regarding the issue.

In short Duelfer concludes that given the methods used by Saddam and his regime they were attempting to protray that they still had some capablity. This was done primarily by denying inspectors access to all the documents that they were required to give to the inspectors.

Then one must understand that after 1992 - the United States Intelligence primarily focused on electronic gathering of intelligence - very little was done by human intelligence gathers. That has also been identified in several congressional reports if one bothers to look for it.

[Adrian II]

Edit: why do people post before me?

Only an insolent Dutchmen would have the guts. I apologise!

[yesdachi]

It is really not that surprising to me that we didn’t find any WMD. We basically told the world we were going there to look for them. If I saw on TV that the cops were coming to my house on a certain date to look for pirated MP3’s I would get rid of any I had (if I had any of course). Is this a bad analogy?

[Hurin_Rules]

Where the Bush administration clearly did lie is in claiming that they 'knew' Saddam had WMDs, that they knew where they were, and that this knowledge was certain. Cheny and Rumsfeld were particularly dishonest in this. At one point, they claimed that they 'knew' Saddam had WMDs and that they 'knew' where they were. That is a lie. They didn't know; they suspected. And that is therefore just as much a lie as any other.

If I claimed, "I know Redleg will agree with me here", that would be a lie. I may have my suspicions one way or another, but I really don't (and cannot) "know" how he will react. My statement is a lie. If it is a lie that leads to war, it is a reprehensible lie.

[Tribesman]

neither is North Korea, they have yet to violate the conditions of thier cease fire with the United States and South Korea.
Rubbish Red , there are numerous and continuing violations of the conditions . As there have been since the day it was signed .
Also it is not an agreement with the US and S.Korea , it is the UN and South Korea .

[Redleg]

neither is North Korea, they have yet to violate the conditions of thier cease fire with the United States and South Korea.
Rubbish Red , there are numerous and continuing violations of the conditions . As there have been since the day it was signed .

LOL - yes indeed rubbish it is - at least it shows that you might know the exact circumstances of the treaty. Care to state which parts of the cease fire are being violated on a continuing basis.

Also it is not an agreement with the US and S.Korea , it is the UN and South Korea .

It was the United Nations, North Korea and China. What nations are always involved in the talks between the two Koreas. Poor Tribesman you have fallen into a minor trap. Hell your history statement here is more incorrect then me stating that the United States by default is a signature nation on the cease fire. You got the country completely wrong. How funny is that.

The Korea Times notes that, despite North Korea's insistence on a peace treaty, it has tried to exclude South Korea from peace talks in the past on the grounds that South Korea did not sign the 1953 armistice treaty. That treaty was signed by North Korea, China, and the US-led United Nations Command.

Care to guess what General signed it for the United Nations - and the United States. Care to guess why North Korea only wants to negotate with the United States for a peace treaty to end the conflict and not the United Nations or South Korea?


Edit:

The text of the Korean War Armistice argeement can be found here

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/k...agr072753.html

Notice how the United States General had his name written on the document.

[Redleg]

Where the Bush administration clearly did lie is in claiming that they 'knew' Saddam had WMDs, that they knew where they were, and that this knowledge was certain. Cheny and Rumsfeld were particularly dishonest in this. At one point, they claimed that they 'knew' Saddam had WMDs and that they 'knew' where they were. That is a lie. They didn't know; they suspected. And that is therefore just as much a lie as any other.

Now there we go get into the spefics of the allegation - not just throwing out buzz words because you don't agree with a politicial motiviated decision.

For instance I can rightfully state that in 1991 I know from experience that Saddam's Regime had WMD because I saw the international chemical markings on Mortar and Artillery rounds. I can truefully state that I had access to information in 1998-2000 that would lead me to conclude that the Iraqi Regime was with holding information and playing cat and mouse with the investigators. After that I could only draw conclusion based upon information provided soley from the media and the government. I could conclude safely from what I have read that Saddam's Regime was not being truthful in their reporting and destruction of programs involving WMD - and could even still say that - since that is exactly what Duelfer Report states.

Now when some states they know where they are - one must then really examine what is being stated and where they base their information off of. For instance did they know from human eyes seeing the physical evidence of the WMD - or were they basing their knowledge soley on the electronic intelligence that was gathered. In one you can actually get to proving that a lie was stated - with the other the adminstration can still claim that the intelligence was faultly and lead them to the wrong conclusion.

Lots of grey - which makes it very difficult to prove that an intentional lie was told verus just bad information.

If I claimed, "I know Redleg will agree with me here", that would be a lie. I may have my suspicions one way or another, but I really don't (and cannot) "know" how he will react. My statement is a lie. If it is a lie that leads to war, it is a reprehensible lie.

Its only an reprehensible lie if you were using the statement to promote a war that you intented to happen regardless of what the evidence really was. In other words if you understood at the time of making the statement that you were indeed making a false claim of truth.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I thought you were stating that there really was progress in Iraq, so I had to come see what you were talking about. Now that I see it's just one of Bush's 'who-haas' stating it, then I'm fine.

P.S: Now I know 'who-haas' is slang, but is that correctly spelled slang? If anyone knows what I'm trying to say that is...