Dems determined to ignore progress in Iraq

[solypsist]

DING!! DING!! DING!! DING!!! Sounds like you are finally getting it even though you probably won't really analyze what you just said. Take the fight to them and don't let it come to our country. Thanks for putting it so eloquently. Sounds lie a sound stratagy to me.

fact: since the US invaded Iraq the number of terrorist attacks around the world has increased.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in614786.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/10/powell.terror.report/


so please tell (for example) london, spain, belgium, bali, myanmar, egypt, bangladesh, riyadh, jakarta, jeddah, the phillipines, and of course, iraq (which didn't have a single terrorist attack since the early 80s on its citizens until 2003) that this is a sound strategy.

[Tachikaze]

fact: since the US invaded Iraq the number of terrorist attacks around the world has increased.

As many of us here predicted before the invasion was launched, not needing high intelligence or crystal balls, but common sense.

It's so depressing that the logical conclusion that we reached in 2001/2002 in the virtual world of The Org has become so real. We were watching as the hawks condemned those people to death and maiming.

The violence is escalating and no one will listen.

[Xiahou]

As many of us here predicted before the invasion was launched, not needing high intelligence or crystal balls, but common sense.

It's so depressing that the logical conclusion that we reached in 2001/2002 in the virtual world of The Org has become so real. We were watching as the hawks condemned those people to death and maiming.

The violence is escalating and no one will listen.

Yes, when will we learn? It's so easy to stop the terrorists- if we would just surrender and give into their every demand and move western society back to the stone ages, then they might just leave us alone.

[Geoffrey S]

Lieberman and Murtha present two options: either do the job properly by using more troops to control borders or pull out. I'd support the first, but certainly not the current half-and-half policy excercised by the Bush administration, which drags things out needlessly.

[Tribesman]

They're building the freest society in the region, and the only truly federal system.
OMG has he been following Iraqi poitics at all
Another brillant piece by that Canadian Conservative:

Yeah brilliant for blind optimism and refusal to face facts .

[Tachikaze]

Yes, when will we learn? It's so easy to stop the terrorists- if we would just surrender and give into their every demand and move western society back to the stone ages, then they might just leave us alone.

A few months ago, I started a thread about ending or greatly reducing terrorist and other violent acts commited by Middle Eastern Muslims against the US. It did not involve surrender. It did involve greatly reducing our presence in that region.

How would giving up the "war on terrorism" send us "back to the stone ages"?

[Slyspy]

Yes, when will we learn? It's so easy to stop the terrorists- if we would just surrender and give into their every demand and move western society back to the stone ages, then they might just leave us alone.

That is not what he was saying. He was saying that the whole invasion of Iraq was a strategic blunder that has done nothing to reduce terrorism. Instead, IMO, it has increased the fear and so the threat of terror acts real or imagined. The "yes why not surrender you traitorous dogs" style statement as an alternative to actually admitting that mistakes have been made is used too often and is of little value.

[Hurin_Rules]

Ah, the Sun-Times, that bastion of penetrating insight, which puts girls in bikinis on page 2.

Yes indeed, its journalism at its best.

Was there some actual news here? Because it seems that, in light of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary (rising body count, increasing sectarian tensions, torture 'as bad as it was under Saddam', the US military undermining the Free Press, and an insurgency that is anything but 'in its last throes'), things in Iraq are going quite badly.

Too many people now know the emperor has no clothes.

[Xiahou]

fact: since the US invaded Iraq the number of terrorist attacks around the world has increased.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in614786.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/10/powell.terror.report/


so please tell (for example) london, spain, belgium, bali, myanmar, egypt, bangladesh, riyadh, jakarta, jeddah, the phillipines, and of course, iraq (which didn't have a single terrorist attack since the early 80s on its citizens until 2003) that this is a sound strategy.

Oh yes, the Iraqi's were better off under Sadam werent they?

That does bring up an interesting question.... the statistics that show increases in terror attacks- do they include Iraq? If so, and I suspect they do, then it gets a big fat "no-duh" from me.

[Hurin_Rules]

Oh yes, the Iraqi's were better off under Sadam werent they?

That does bring up an interesting question.... the statistics that show increases in terror attacks- do they include Iraq? If so, and I suspect they do, then it gets a big fat "no-duh" from me.

Interesting. So, instead of providing actual facts in a thread that is complaining that the facts are being ignored, you're telling us how you would spin facts that contradict your opinion, if your baseless assumptions should prove correct?

FYI: your baseless assumptions are incorrect. The attacks in Iraq account only for about a third of the total terror attacks in the world, yet the number of terror attacks has more than tripled since 2003.

Sources:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0428/dailyUpdate.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042601623.html

But I guess this us just all part of a secret plot by evil democrats to ignore the facts, isn't it?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

FYI: you are wrong. The attacks in Iraq account only for about a third of the total terror attacks in the world, yet the number of terror attacks has more than tripled since 2003.

This is almost to silly to address. Lets see we declared a war on terror. Now there are battle being fought in this war. What do you expect when you declare war? The otherside to just lay down their arms and give up or fight harder? Again if we had this attitude in either world war we would have lost. In fact any nation who has this attitude in any war is doomed to loose.

[Hurin_Rules]

This is almost to silly to address. Lets see we declared a war on terror. Now there are battle being fought in this war. What do you expect when you declare war? The otherside to just lay down their arms and give up or fight harder? Again if we had this attitude in either world war we would have lost. In fact any nation who has this attitude in any war is doomed to loose.

???

Silly? I was responding to a false assertion, which alleged that Iraq accounted for most of the increase in terror attacks. I showed that assertion was false. Now you're accusing me of being silly for pointing this out? Should I just have kept my mouth shut and bought the Bush party line then? Would that have been better?

Sheesh. Getting ridiculed for pointing out the facts is getting a little tiresome.

[Tribesman]

Sheesh. Getting ridiculed for pointing out the facts is getting a little tiresome.
Don't worry , as now the Iraqi vice-president has pointed out the falseness of some of the Whitehouses "facts" . So add that the Alawis statement and you have two senior Iraqi politicians deserving of ridicule eh .

Oh yes, the Iraqi's were better off under Sadam werent they?
Well thats the second senior Iraqi leader to make the same statement this week about things currently being worse than under Saddam and rapidly declining to even lower levels , so perhaps you might want to stop throwing that silly statement around Xiahou , why not try "but you support the terrorists then" or "go and live in Iran if its so good" for a change , they make just as much sense .

[Geoffrey S]

Well thats the second senior Iraqi leader to make the same statement this week about things currently being worse than under Saddam and rapidly declining to even lower levels , so perhaps you might want to stop throwing that silly statement around Xiahou , why not try "but you support the terrorists then" or "go and live in Iran if its so good" for a change , they make just as much sense .

Couldn't possibly have something to do with the fact that they'll be running against the current government, could it? Politics are politics, even in Iraq.

[Xiahou]

Oh yes, the Iraqi's were better off under Sadam werent they?
Well thats the second senior Iraqi leader to make the same statement this week about things currently being worse than under Saddam and rapidly declining to even lower levels , so perhaps you might want to stop throwing that silly statement around Xiahou , why not try "but you support the terrorists then" or "go and live in Iran if its so good" for a change , they make just as much sense .

Where are you getting the statement from the vice prime minister? As I've said Allawi's statements are at least partially politically motivated as he's campaigning for re-election and the current PM slammed him for making those comments.