While we've been distracted by Katrina and Rita, events in Iraq have been moving towards key turning points.
The title's not exactly accurate, but it's much closer to the truth than it ever has been before. No country of 26 million is going to be death or even violence free on any given day, but the number of civilian and military casualties is going down, terrorists are becoming increasingly ineffective and marginalized and life in Iraq is looking remarkably normal. While we've been worrying about other things here in the US, life in Iraq has gone on, moving step by step towards normality.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - simon hb
It's not true today, either, Dave:
here
Gunmen in Iraq have killed five school teachers - all Shias - at a school near Iskandariya, south of Baghdad.
[...]
Earlier, a suicide car bomber killed at least seven people and wounded 30 outside the police academy in the Iraqi capital.
Five men queuing to join the police and two police officers were instantly killed in the blast, which took place near several government ministries.
[...]
It is estimated that up to 200 members of Iraq's security forces are being killed each month.
...but then, hey, what country of 26 million isn't going to have 200 members of its police force killed every month and five teachers executed every so often?
27 - Dave Nalle
>>Our after-the-fact justifications now about human rights, torture and rape weren't our reason for going into the war and weren't part of the pitch for the war. <<
Those things were as true before the war as they are now in retrospect. They aren't 'after the fact'.
They were cited specifically in the resolution which authorized the use of military force.
>>It's cynical and truly sad that people can now talk about the moral value of the war in Iraq based on rights abuses and political violence when there is ACTUAL genocide going on on a FAR, FAR worse scale than anything Iraq has ever seen in Darfur.<<
The war in Iraq has been over for more than a year. What we're talking about here is the establishment of a stable government and society in Iraq, a process in which we are committed to playing a role. I agree that Darfur is a huge problem, but that doesn't mean we should abandon our obligations in Iraq.
As a rule I'm against an interventionist foreign policy, but if you want to do something about Darfur, I can think of no better place to start intervening. But when it comes to Darfur we do have to ask where are the Europeans, who aren't committed elsewhere already, and where is the UN?
Dave
28 - Dave Nalle
>>It's not true today, either, Dave:<<
It may never be true, you know. Violence has gone on in Israel for almost 60 years, yet they have a funcitoning society despite it.
>>...but then, hey, what country of 26 million isn't going to have 200 members of its police force killed every month and five teachers executed every so often?<<
You really don't get it at all, do you. The point is that despite this violence people still go to teach school, kids are still attending, and new recruits are lining up around the block to join the security forces. This has been true for months. Terrorism cannot win in the face of the relentless desire of a large population for peace and order. and a normal life.
Dave
29 - Jon Sobel
Gunmen in Iraq have killed five school teachers - all Shias
Yeah, but at least they took them to a part of the school where there were no children present before executing them. What stand-up guys. You're right, this is just the sort of normal criminal activity that happens everywhere.
Dave, your post is an example of the time-honored policy of "if you can't win, declare victory and go home." Nothing remarkable about that kind of redefinition - it's basic PR. BUT...
Your redefinition of terrorism as "just another form of crime" is pretty weird. Have you ever talked to anyone in Israel, or visited there? Do you have relatives or friends there? If so, you know full well that the fact that civilization can go on and people can live their lives in the midst of terrorist attacks doesn't make it "just another form of crime." You write with a rational tone, but as usual, you're reporting from some alternate universe.
30 - Dave Nalle
>>Dave, your post is an example of the time-honored policy of "if you can't win, declare victory and go home." Nothing remarkable about that kind of redefinition - it's basic PR. BUT...<<
Actually, I believe my position is more along the lines of recognizing the progress and continuing to work on it - as opposed to the mainstream position of denying any progress and just giving up randomly. Nothing in the article about declaring victory or going home.
>>Your redefinition of terrorism as "just another form of crime" is pretty weird.<<
That WOULD be weird, had I actually done it. My point was that there is normal crime and that people are learning to deal with terrorism. I can go beyond that to say that a lot of those labeled terrorists are basically just criminals who use threats, intimidation and kidnapping as ways to extort money.
>> Have you ever talked to anyone in Israel, or visited there? Do you have relatives or friends there?<<
Yes, yes and yes. Though the family friends we have there are all Palestinian. And in fact, they are far more troubled by the great lack of civil rights of the Israeli Arabs who are looked on with suspicion and treated like scum just for being Arabs, even if they own businesses that have catered to a largely Israeli clientele for 30 years.
>> If so, you know full well that the fact that civilization can go on and people can live their lives in the midst of terrorist attacks doesn't make it "just another form of crime." You write with a rational tone, but as usual, you're reporting from some alternate universe.<<
At the most technical level all terrorism is just violent crime. The motivation is irrelevant to the victim. Are you less dead because you were shot in a gang drive-by than a religiously motivated sniper? People learn to live with violence and build a normal life despite it. They can do this in violent inner city neighborhoods in America and they can do it in Baghdad. The names and the motivations may change, but it's all violent crime to serve ends which are basically selfish.
Dave
31 - troll
Dave - how in the world did you come up with Barbie Fairytopia - ?
troll
32 - Jon Sobel
Nothing in the article about declaring victory or going home.
Saying that essentially the population can just accept a certain amount of terrorist crime as the status quo amounts to just that.
had I actually done it
I quote from your post: "When it comes down to it, terrorism is just another form of crime." You can't have it both ways. Either it is "just another form of crime" or it isn't.
the great lack of civil rights of the Israeli Arabs who are looked on with suspicion
Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. We're talking about the effects of terrorism on society (Israeli, in this case), not whether the Palestinians are "justified" in perpetrating it.
The motivation is irrelevant to the victim.
That's beside the point. Of course the dead person doesn't care any more. I'm arguing that the effects of terrorism on society are distinct from the effects of "garden-variety" crime. I stood on the street and watched the towers come down on 9/11. I know first hand the effects of the attacks on New Yorkers because I am one. Granted, 9/11 was an exceptionally dramatic example of terrorism, but that's why I brought up the example of Israeli society, which you parried with a diversion about the Palestinians.
That's not to even address the different approaches society must take to combat street crime vs. combatting terrorism.
33 - Dave Nalle
>>That's beside the point. Of course the dead person doesn't care any more. I'm arguing that the effects of terrorism on society are distinct from the effects of "garden-variety" crime.<<
What makes them different? Is terrorism's impact different from organized crime, from gang crime, from terrorizing a neighborhood because it's your drug selling territory? I don't see it. Organized, targeted violence is going to have the same impact on society whether the motivation is money or political power.
>>That's not to even address the different approaches society must take to combat street crime vs. combatting terrorism.<<
The response to this is that, in Iraq the same people are doing both.
Dave
34 - Dave Nalle
>>Dave - how in the world did you come up with Barbie Fairytopia - ?<<
I had just ordered one for my 3 year old and I figured, why not - don't we all wish we lived in Fairytopia? I'm sure the Iraqis do, and I know there are some on the left who seem to already be there.
Dave
35 - Bob A. Booey
The US, as it did with Rwanda, is actively undermining support for intervention within the UN. The US even fought recognition of Darfur as a genocide until long after the UN and the EU had already declared it as such, just as they did with Rwanda. The US and now John Bolton are actively working against language in UN resolutions to mandate intervention in Darfur in a more focused way than we ever did with Rwanda. Europe has shown some, but probably not enough concern about Darfur. Europe primarily takes its lead in humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts from the UN. Hell, it could be a NATO effort if the US showed any leadership on this issue.
The point remains that if the US said today that it was leading a humanitarian intervention to stop genocide in Darfur, we'd have NATO and the UN drawing troops and funding from all over Europe and the rest of the world.
We knew about the developing situation in Darfur before we declared war on Iraq. In retrospect, the greater moral mission was obvious and Darfur would have required much, much less loss of life, money, and troop commitment than Iraqi reconstruction currently does.
The defense that our resources are now stretched too thin (which is true) forces you to look at it as a zero-sum tradeoff, especially when people insist on justifying Iraq now on largely moral grounds.
The US has blood on its hands in Darfur and none of us, conservative or liberal, should be apologists for that fact if you ever trot out moral language about foreign policy interventions. It's rank hypocrisy.
One other consideration is that a growing problem in Africa is the presence of terrorism, including al Qaeda cells. An unstable Africa will become a breeding ground for terrorism. Rather than chasing phantoms in Iraq, we could have won hearts and minds in a continent where the future is still very much up in the air and where the ideological/cultural debate could actually be won.
That is all.
36 - Dave Nalle
>>Hell, it could be a NATO effort if the US showed any leadership on this issue.<<
As I recall the reasoning behind the original US opposition to intervention in Darfur was that we wanted it to be a NATO operation, but NATO wouldn't cooperate.
>>The point remains that if the US said today that it was leading a humanitarian intervention to stop genocide in Darfur, we'd have NATO and the UN drawing troops and funding from all over Europe and the rest of the world.<<
Probably true. For what it's worth, Sec. Rise has been very outspoken in stating our opposition to what's going on in Darfur.
>>We knew about the developing situation in Darfur before we declared war on Iraq. In retrospect, the greater moral mission was obvious and Darfur would have required much, much less loss of life, money, and troop commitment than Iraqi reconstruction currently does.<<
The great moral mission, if there is such a thing, is to defend US interests first. There are no real US interests in Darfur. Intervening there is purely a humanitarian act, not an act of vital national interest.
>>The defense that our resources are now stretched too thin (which is true) forces you to look at it as a zero-sum tradeoff, especially when people insist on justifying Iraq now on largely moral grounds. <<
Actually, I think this argument is bull. Our resources aren't stretched too thin. We have about 700,000 active duty troops who are deployed on bases at home and abroad where there's no conflict or vital need for them. I bet we could spare a few for Darfur.
>>The US has blood on its hands in Darfur and none of us, conservative or liberal, should be apologists for that fact if you ever trot out moral language about foreign policy interventions. It's rank hypocrisy.<<
How? The situation there was created by local warlords with the support of (primarily) French business interests. How is the blood on our hands?
>>One other consideration is that a growing problem in Africa is the presence of terrorism, including al Qaeda cells. An unstable Africa will become a breeding ground for terrorism.<<
Now there you have a good point. Quite a few Al Qaeda recruits already come from Sudan and Somalia.
>> Rather than chasing phantoms in Iraq, we could have won hearts and minds in a continent where the future is still very much up in the air and where the ideological/cultural debate could actually be won.<<
I think YOU live in Barbie Fairytopia, Babs. People would hate us for intervening in Darfur just as much as for doing it in Iraq.
Dave
37 - Jon Sobel
One difference is that terrorism often (not always, of course) comes from outside the country.
Another is psychological: localized violence may be just as serious as the terrorist variety occasionally, but it usually has targets that make some logical, if evil, sense.
A third is sociological and political: gang violence, mob violence and so on can, and must, be tackled on a local, community level. Yes, one must sometimes bring in the feds (a problem now, since W. has worked so hard to emasculate our feds), or whatever "big guns" in law enforcement are available - but feds alone can't heal communities.
The NYPD has been forced to become more of an anti-terrorist force than it should have to be, because W.'s government will neither give us a fair share of funds nor do the national security job we all pay them taxes to do.
38 - Jon Sobel
The great moral mission, if there is such a thing, is to defend US interests first.
Why? Because the US has been such an admirable moral exemplar lately? Please. There are perfectly realistic reasons to "defend US interests first," but a "great moral mission" it sure as hell ain't.
39 - Dave Nalle
>>One difference is that terrorism often (not always, of course) comes from outside the country.<<
Domestic terrorism is probably more of a real threat here in the US than outside terrorism is.
>>Another is psychological: localized violence may be just as serious as the terrorist variety occasionally, but it usually has targets that make some logical, if evil, sense.<<
Terrorist targets are pretty logical too. Kill government officials, law enforcement, teachers and leaders, or maximize civilian casualties. Of course in Iraq where often as not the terrorists are really in it for the money, the line gets very hazy.
>>The NYPD has been forced to become more of an anti-terrorist force than it should have to be, because W.'s government will neither give us a fair share of funds nor do the national security job we all pay them taxes to do.<<
The blame for that rests squarely on the shoulders of Congress which insisted that anti-terrorism money should be divided evenly between the states regardless of how much risk they really faced. It's pork spending under a different guise, and it's truly abhorent.
>>The great moral mission, if there is such a thing, is to defend US interests first.
Why? Because the US has been such an admirable moral exemplar lately? Please. There are perfectly realistic reasons to "defend US interests first," but a "great moral mission" it sure as hell ain't.<<
No, because the US government is the government of the US above all else, not the government of the world. If they neglect domestic need to pursue a foreign policy agenda then they are not fulfilling their primary purpose.
Dave
40 - simon hb
>>It may never be true, you know. Violence has gone on in Israel for almost 60 years, yet they have a funcitoning society despite it.<<
Nothing like in similar levels, Dave - not hundreds and hundreds dying, month after month. Besides, didn't your post start off with the jolly news that "terrorists are becoming increasingly ineffective" - with 200 murders a month of security forces alone, I'd hate to see what they were like if they were really up to their game
>>You really don't get it at all, do you. The point is that despite this violence people still go to teach school, kids are still attending, and new recruits are lining up around the block to join the security forces. This has been true for months. Terrorism cannot win in the face of the relentless desire of a large population for peace and order. and a normal life.<<
No, Dave, you don't get it - people will continue to push on in the face of terrorism because they have very little choice. In the same way that they went to school in the face of dictatorship. Life goes on, because life has to go on. It's not a victory over terrorism, because people are still scared. Look, I know you desperately need to believe that the two thousand dead Americans are having some sort of positive effect on people's lives, and if it makes you feel better to think that only a dozen or so deaths on a normal Monday in September is a sign of a nation living a normal life, then please do. But let's not pretend that Iraq is like a council estate with a bad element who might burn a car every so often.
41 - Maurice
I heard more people have been shot and killed in D.C. than in Iraq. If this is true we should pull out of Washington ASAP.
42 - Dave Nalle
>>Nothing like in similar levels, Dave - not hundreds and hundreds dying, month after month. Besides, didn't your post start off with the jolly news that "terrorists are becoming increasingly ineffective" - with 200 murders a month of security forces alone, I'd hate to see what they were like if they were really up to their game<<
Your 200 murders a month isn't accurate, except maybe for August of this year when the terrorists had their major offensive. And remember, you have to compare that with 5 times that many terrorists killed or arrested at the same time. Who do you think has more men to spare, the terrorists or the Iraqi security forces?
As to the Israel comparison, it still stands. Go read up on the number of terror related deaths in Israel and remember it's a country with 1/10th the population of Iraq.
>>No, Dave, you don't get it - people will continue to push on in the face of terrorism because they have very little choice. In the same way that they went to school in the face of dictatorship. Life goes on, because life has to go on. It's not a victory over terrorism, because people are still scared.<<
2/3 of the land area of Iraq is basically terrorist free at this point. People living in those areas aren't scared.
>> Look, I know you desperately need to believe that the two thousand dead Americans are having some sort of positive effect on people's lives,<<
I think that's incontrovertible, and not something I'm much worried about. Just getting rid of Saddam met that criteria.
>> and if it makes you feel better to think that only a dozen or so deaths on a normal Monday in September is a sign of a nation living a normal life, then please do. But let's not pretend that Iraq is like a council estate with a bad element who might burn a car every so often.<<
Actually, my comparison was to the urban gang territory of the US, not to some British slum. If you think the comparison is not a good one, you don't know what life is like in Miami or parts of East LA or Oakland.
>>I heard more people have been shot and killed in D.C. than in Iraq. If this is true we should pull out of Washington ASAP.<<
IMO pulling out of Washingotn is always a good idea.
Dave
43 - Bob A. Booey
No one would hate us for intervening in Darfur, CERTAINLY not to the degree we've lost allies and international support based on Iraq. It's likely a Darfur intervention rather than a war in Iraq would have given us a huge amount of international credibility we currently lack in peacekeeping and human rights efforts, especially when the UN has been so outspoken about Darfur.
It's funny that you precede that statement with accusing me of being in "Barbie Fairytopia," Dave. It's almost as if you knew what you were going to say was silly or as if (maybe, just maybe) Dave Nalle was joking?
The national interest involved in Iraq besides energy concerns is murky.
Rice has been consistent in saying that Darfur IS a genocide, which makes it all the more frustrating. However, she and the official US administration statement that it WAS a genocide came far after the UN declared it as such. And the US's actions within the UN to undermine the language required to intervene in the case of the genocide in Darfur and even quibbling with its status under the definitions of genocide in the Geneva convention run contrary to Rice's candor.
I'm glad you think we could "spare a few troops" and think the over-stretch defense is BS, but I think it's bad choices like Iraq which force the rhetoric of false choices and too readily excuse our moral commitment to other parts of the world.
That is all.
44 - diana hartman
bush did not invade another country to stamp out human rights violations with military force nor does he have a reputation for doing so...those who suggest otherwise can neither explain the wmd/saddam-9/11 justification bush used to invade iraq nor can they explain why we are not globe-hopping with our military to stamp out violations where ever they exist...
bush didn't say jack about human rights as a reason to invade until his whole wmd/saddam-9/11 justification fell through...
deferring to the EU or the UN about dafur is a cozy way of defending bush' stance of "i don't want to help that country"...if he wanted to help dafur he would, and no question-answer session with the EU or UN would stop him just as it didn't stop him from invading iraq...
we owe the people of iraq for the mistake that was made and the result of that mistake...
if you blow up your neighbor's car because you're just sure there's a serial killer asleep inside of it, you still owe him for the car (and the driveway and the side of his house that went with it) even though it's proven there was no serial killer inside the car...
and while making the repairs, don't expect to explain yourself with "oh, yea, well, i blew up your car because i thought you could use a new one"...
45 - Dave Nalle
>>No one would hate us for intervening in Darfur, CERTAINLY not to the degree we've lost allies and international support based on Iraq.<<
Can we really say that? They seem to hate us for reasons which are either irrational or related to political agendas which nothing we could do would satisfy.
>> It's likely a Darfur intervention rather than a war in Iraq would have given us a huge amount of international credibility we currently lack in peacekeeping and human rights efforts, especially when the UN has been so outspoken about Darfur.<<
We've been outspoken too. Everyone's been outspoken. No one seems interested in doing anything but talking. And remember all the great international credit we built up in Somalia - they sure loved us after that.
>>The national interest involved in Iraq besides energy concerns is murky.<<
I'm not going to go over the strategic reality of the war on terror again. you know as well as I do by now what the purpose of the Iraq war is in the general war on terror and it has nothing to do with humanitarianism or WMDs.
Dave
46 - Scott Butki
Dave, I thought of you as I read a NY TImes story today about all the deaths and problems in Iraq yesterday. Certainly didn't sound like a slowdown in violence to me.
47 - wow
This guys either been doing a lot of acid or listening to scott mclellan. iraq's a mess.
48 - Dave Nalle
>>Dave, I thought of you as I read a NY TImes story today about all the deaths and problems in Iraq yesterday. Certainly didn't sound like a slowdown in violence to me.<<
Ironically, by the time the day was over the article I'd written was somewhat belied by events later in the day. But in fact, I was referring to the trend for the month, rather than the day alone. Both coalition casualties and terrorist caused casualties are down more than 50% compared to last month.
Dave
49 - Dave Nalle
>>iraq's a mess.<<
My office is a mess, but I still get work done in it.
Dave
50 - Anthony Grande
>>iraq's a mess.<<
A simple Yes or No question:
Is Iraq a better place then it was 6 years ago???
51 - Silas Kain
Is Iraq a better place then it was 6 years ago???
Depends on which Iraqi point of view is taken. In many ways it is better and in many it is worse. It will be 25 years before one can say that what this Administration did accomplished what it set out to do.
A more important question would be Is the United States better off than it was 6 years ago? I think not.
52 - Rich
Bob A. Booie
Thanks for your posts and responding to Daves responses.
At best we are learning, while others try to make crap smell like flowers.
53 - Dave Nalle
"A more important question would be Is the United States better off than it was 6 years ago? I think not."
The Patriot Act alone would be enough to make that statement true. Were it not for the remarkable economic recovery there wouldn't be much at all to be happy about.
"At best we are learning, while others try to make crap smell like flowers."
And even more try to turn everything indiscriminately into crap.
Dave
54 - simonhb
>>Your 200 murders a month isn't accurate, except maybe for August of this year when the terrorists had their major offensive. And remember, you have to compare that with 5 times that many terrorists killed or arrested at the same time. Who do you think has more men to spare, the terrorists or the Iraqi security forces?<<
Oh. Sorry, I thought this was meant to be a rational conversation. I didn't realise 200 deaths didn't matter so long as 1,000 arrests or other deaths "cancel them out" somehow. I didn't realise that the strategy was to let the slaughter continue until one side runs out of people. And as for who the last men standing would be - terrorists or security forces - well, I wouldn't like to guess. If 200 people a month continue to die - sorry, that was during an especially busy month, wasn't it, although with another ten dead today, it looks like September is pretty busy too - I'd suggest the terrorists might manage to edge it.
>>As to the Israel comparison, it still stands. Go read up on the number of terror related deaths in Israel and remember it's a country with 1/10th the population of Iraq.<<
Righto... 1,075 Israelis [according to the Israeli government] and 3,663 Palestinians since 2000. I'm not entirely sure why you think the size of the population makes a difference as suicide bombers don't adjust their bombs to take account of demographic factors. Do you scale down the effect of the September 11th deaths to take account of the much larger US population?
But even so, the lowest estimates of deaths amongst civilians in Iraq is around 20,000 - if you make the demographic adjustments, it still suggests that Iraq is a much bloodier place, doesn't it?
>>2/3 of the land area of Iraq is basically terrorist free at this point.<<
This sounds like one of those signs they sometimes have outside the nuclear powerplant in The Simpsons - "04 Days Without A Major Nuclear Incident"
Even if your claim is true - that's one-third that isn't.
>> People living in those areas aren't scared.<<
Really? Can you show me the source for this claim?
And if so: the people in the other third of the country pretty much are.
>>Actually, my comparison was to the urban gang territory of the US, not to some British slum. If you think the comparison is not a good one, you don't know what life is like in Miami or parts of East LA or Oakland.<<
In Miami, in all of 2004, there were 69 homicides. Ooh, it's just like Basra, isn't it?
55 - Vox Populi
I don't mean to butt in on your little convo, but here's something I just couldn't let stand. Bad math always irritates me.
Righto... 1,075 Israelis [according to the Israeli government] and 3,663 Palestinians since 2000.
That's a total of 4738 deaths from terrorism. Israel has a population of 6.2 million. That's 1.8 deaths per 10,000 population per year.
I'm not entirely sure why you think the size of the population makes a difference as suicide bombers don't adjust their bombs to take account of demographic factors. Do you scale down the effect of the September 11th deaths to take account of the much larger US population?
The answer to this is obvious. The number of terrorist-caused deaths per capita is the measure of the risk which an individual in a given nation is exposed to from terrorism. This ought to be obvious. And yes, the 9/11 attack taken together with all other terrorism in the last 4 years in the US makes us much less at risk mathematically than Iraqis or Israelis.
But even so, the lowest estimates of deaths amongst civilians in Iraq is around 20,000 - if you make the demographic adjustments, it still suggests that Iraq is a much bloodier place, doesn't it?
Not really, no. If you look at the figures on Iraq Body Count, you'll note that about 9,000 of the 20,000 were casualties of war and about another 3,000 of those counted as 'civilian' casualties are actually terrorists or other criminals killed while wearing civilian clothing. If you use the remaining 8,000 as your terrorist death count you end up with a death rate of under 1 death per 10,000 population per year - half the death rate in Israel. If you use the full 20,000 you end up with 1.9 deaths per 10,000 per year, about the same as Israel, unless you'd like to argue that 1 death in 100,000 population makes Iraq enormously more dangrous than Israel.
And just for the record, the overall death rate in Iraq from all causes is 1/1000 lower per capita than in Israel according to the CIA fact book.
Now, that's using your figures, working from Iraq Body Count and the CIA fact book.
Let's do a more accurate assessment using better data. Even more important, let's not include the period of the actual war in Iraq and just look at 2004 and compare Israel and Iraq so we have exactly the same time period without any major military conflict factored in. Interestingly, 2004 was one of the lowest years on record for terrorist attacks in Israel. I bet you can guess why if you really, really try.
Terrorist Killings Population Per 10K
Israel 589 6.2 million ,95
Iraq 2160 26 million ,83
I treid to use IBC for the death count, but discovered that because their data is taken from multiple news sources they have registered many deaths 2 or more times because of duplicate stories about the same incidents, so their figures are quite inflated. I ended upusing multiple sources including the CIA and Iraqi Ministry of Health to get an accurate count specific to terrorist attacks for the period. I also included coalition military casualties, because Israeli security forces are in the figures for Israel. Interestingly, Iraq accounted for about 1/3 of the total terrorist killings worldwide.
I hope my small efforts help clear this confusion up. It's pretty clear that you're in more danger from terrorism in Israel than in Iraq.
Vox
56 - Bob A. Booey
Thanks, Rich. You flatter me.
And this is just hilarious and um, yeah, ironic or something:
"Ironically, by the time the day was over the article I'd written was somewhat belied by events later in the day. But in fact, I was referring to the trend for the month, rather than the day alone."
Doesn't it just suck when facts get in the way of your ideological rants and take away the whole premise of your "Good News" posts?
That is all.
57 - Shark
Dear Vox, aka Voice of the People,
What sort of people use the word "convo"? Who the fuck do you 'represent', anyway?
Thanks in advance,
Vox Carcharodon Carcharias
58 - Shark
Dave: "I was referring to the trend for the month..."
IRAQ - SEPT, 2005
1.31 dead americans per day
...on *'average'
* only a non-combatant or some General off the front lines can use such a word, methinks.
59 - Bob A. Booey
It's such an inconvenient irony when poor kids way out there on the other side of the world die and prove my Internet posts wrong! Now my Internet jousts won't be nearly as much fun. Damn you, you dead kids who ruined my perfect sunny day of commentary. Fight harder next time so I can be right about the "general trend." Cruel, cruel irony. I have egg on my face and I'll have to hit the "reset" button on my Internet global strategy game.
That is all.
60 - Anthony Grande
Is the United States better off than it was 6 years ago? I think not."
How has YOUR life changed since 6 years ago???
61 - Dave Nalle
Wow Babs, condescension and personal insults all in one paragraph. You're so clever. I'll remember that the next time I want to have an argument over the title of my article with someone who can't be bothered to read any farther.
Dave
62 - Bob A. Booey
Is everything OK, Dave? You seem awfully mad at me for some reason today :)
I thought we were pals, pal o' mine :)
I wasn't personally insulting you, I was just poking some fun is all. Pretty tame stuff.
That is all.
63 - Shark
SEPTEMBER 25 (The day Dave "Pollyanna" Nalle wrote this big wet kiss to George Bush)
[Shark's Note: Pollyanna's philosophy: "Things are always better than they seem."]
HILLA - A suicide bomber on a bicycle killed four civilians, including a woman and a child, and injured 35 when he blew himself up in a crowded market in the southern Shi'ite city of Hilla, police said.
BAGHDAD - U.S. troops clashed with militia fighters loyal to rebel Shi'ite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in eastern Baghdad on Sunday, killing eight militiamen and wounding five, Iraqi police said.
BAGHDAD - The bodies of four Iraqis were found blindfolded and bound in the impoverished Baghdad district of Shula. Police said the victims were each shot with one bullet to the head.
THULUIYA - The U.S military said one of the militants it killed in the town of Thuluiya on Friday was Jabbar Ateyia, a member of the city council.
BAGHDAD - A dairy shop owner was killed by gunmen on his way to a mosque in western Baghdad, police said. It was not clear why the man had been targeted.
SEPTEMBER 26
BAGHDAD - At least 10 people were killed and 30 wounded when a suicide bomber rammed his car into a bus carrying employees of Iraq's oil ministry near a police academy, police and witnesses said.
BAGHDAD - Three U.S. soldiers were killed in two separate attacks in the southeast and west of the capital. "Two U.S. Soldiers died when their vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device early Sept. 26 in western Baghdad," a U.S. military statement said. A third U.S. soldier died when his vehicle struck a roadside bomb 80 km (50 miles) southeast of Baghdad.
BAQUBA - A local official was killed by gunmen who shot him in the Hashimiya district of western Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) north of Baghdad. A police source said Ra'ad Hussein was in his shop when he was attacked.
KIRKUK - An oil official said a pipeline junction on Iraq's crude oil export line to Turkey was bombed and nine employees of an oil complex were briefly detained by insurgents in the city of Kirkuk, 250 km (155 miles) north of Baghdad.
BAGHDAD - An Egyptian man was kidnapped by unknown gunmen in the capital. Police said the man was travelling in a black BMW with an Iraqi friend when gunmen opened fire, took the Egyptian away and left the Iraqi behind.
BAGHDAD - A suicide car bomber killed 13 Iraqi police commandos and wounded 10 when he detonated his vehicle near a convoy of police special forces in eastern Baghdad, police said.
SEPTEMBER 27
BAGHDAD - The second-in-command of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Azzam, was shot and killed by U.S.-led forces in Baghdad on Sunday, the U.S. military said on Tuesday. Abu Azzam, a financier and religious aide to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed while hiding out in a high-rise apartment building in the capital, the military said.
BAQUBA - At least 10 Iraqis were killed and 28 injured when a suicide bomber attacked a large crowd of people outside a police recruiting centre in the town of Baquba 65km (40 miles) north-east of Baghdad, police said.
LATIFIYA - Iraqi police found the bodies of three Iraqis, bound and blindfolded, with gunshot wounds near the volatile town of Latifiya, just south of Baghdad, police said. The identity of the victims was not immediately clear.
KIRKUK - A roadside bomb on a police patrol killed an Iraqi civilian and injured two policemen in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk, police Captain Salam Zengena said.
KIRKUK - Insurgents assassinated police Major Fakhir Jalal Amin in central Kirkuk. Amin worked for the city's counter- insurgency centre, police Colonel Sarhat Qadir said.
BAGHDAD - A car bomb wounded five civilians near a restaurant in central Baghdad's Nidhal street as a convoy of foreign security contractors passed, police said.
SEPTEMBER 28
TAL AFAR - (At least seven people were killed and 37 wounded when a **female suicide bomber attacked a large crowd of people outside an army recruiting centre in the town of Tal Afar west of Mosul, 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad
**A sign that Gender Equality is taking hold in Iraq's growing Fudamental Islamic Theocracy! "Thanks, Rich Stupid Americans!"
TAJI - Seven bodies of people who had been shot dead were found in Taji, 20 km north of Baghdad. Police said they were bound and blindfolded.
SAFWAN - A U.S. soldier and an airman were killed and another soldier wounded when their convoy was struck by a roadside bomb near Safwan, in southeast Iraq near the Kuwait border.
BAGHDAD - Gunmen attacked two vehicles belonging to the Jordanian embassy on the Abu Ghraib highway, west of Baghdad, as they headed to the Jordanian hospital in Falluja. There were no casualties reported, police said.
BAGHDAD - One policeman was killed by gunmen in northeastern Baghdad while heading to work, police said.
BAGHDAD - Men wearing commando uniforms detained six people on Tuesday in the northwestern Huriya district of the capital. They were found shot dead in Baghdad's morgue, police said.
BAGHDAD - Two policemen were wounded when a roadside bomb exploded near their patrol on the Doura highway in southern Baghdad
SEPTEMBER 29
BAGHDAD - Two people were killed and seven wounded when gunmen opened fire on a minibus in the eastern New Baghdad district of the capital, police said.
BAGHDAD - Two people were killed and one wounded when gunmen opened fire on a bakery in the southern Doura district of the capital, police said.
RAMADI - A U.S soldier was killed on Tuesday by small arms fire in Ramadi, 110 km (68 miles) to the west of Baghdad
===========
GENERAL GOOD NEWS (aka "Gospel")
* Lynndie England, the US soldier pictured holding a leash to a naked Iraqi inmate at Abu Ghraib, was sentenced to three years in prison. Many Iraqi citizens say they will never forget what was done to them in Abu Ghraib, and one man interviewed for CNN said, "This is worse than what Saddam did!"
(Way ta go, America! Way ta stake out that "moral high ground"!)
* George W Bush has warned that insurgents in Iraq will step up their attacks
[NOTE: May, June, and August of 2005 were three of the worst months since the invasion of Iraq -- averaging almost THREE DEAD AMERICAN SOLDIERS PER DAY; Bush wants you to know it's going to get worse as we approach yet another important "step" toward Iraqi "democracy" and America's "withdrawal". (See this for Shark's humorous take on Bush's past promises regarding the eternally receding goalposts in Vietn... um, Iraq]
* The commanding general of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq is backing off of a prediction he made two months ago that a substantial number of U.S. forces could be withdrawn from Iraq next year. The general made the statement after a private meeting at the U.S. Capitol with members of the Senate, some of whom were critical of what they see as a long-term U.S. commitment in Iraq.
In late July, General George Casey made this prediction.
"I do believe that if the political process continues to go positively, and if the development of the security forces continues to go as it is going, I do believe we'll be able to take some fairly substantial reductions after these elections in the spring and summer of next year."
But asked Wednesday whether he still believes that is true, the commander of multi-national forces in Iraq was more cautious.
"I think right now we're in a little greater period of uncertainty than when I was asked that question back in July and March..."
July and March?
Wha?
Is this bullshit?
Just another waffling, weasel of a General with no personal integrity?
A guy who spoke what was on his mind and then retracted when slapped down by the ChickenHawks in the Bush Administration?
Coalition Killed/Average Per Day
March = 40/1.29
April = 52/1.73
May = 88/2.84 <---THIRD WORST month since the invasion!
June = 83/2.77<--- another "record" month since the invasion!
July = 58/1.87
Aug = 85/2.74 <--- another "record" month since the invasion!
Sept = 47/1.62
=========
Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice: They Lied.
1,928 Americans Died (so far)
Number of WMDs FOUND: ZERO
======
Your turn, Dave.
64 - Dave Nalle
>>Nalle wrote this big wet kiss to George Bush<<
Shark, as long as you keep thinking things like this, you're just never going to get it at all. This isn't about Georrge Bush or your petty partisanship and irrational hatreds. It's about the people of Iraq, democracy, human rights and free secular society under threat from fanatical totalitarianism.
I realize that you're blinded by ideology and your hate for Bush, but I challenge you to step outside of your preconceptions for just one minute and think about what's good for other people and for the world as a whole for just a second, and look at Iraq from that perspective.
Dave
65 - Shark
Reports say 50 killed by Iraq car bombs
Last Updated Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:12:05 EDT
CBC News
Reports say as many as 50 people have been killed in three apparently coordinated suicide car bombings north of Baghdad - more than 100 have been injured.
An Iraqi man raises his hands looking at a burning US military vehicle, in Baghdad, Sept. 29. (AP Photo/Karim Kadim)
Sorry, Dave, I was trying to read your reply on this "No One Died In Iraq Today" post, but I got distracted by this:
66 - Silas Kain
I hear the Administration is going to save paper and change one letter in the beneficiary section of our next occupation proclamation. Take the "q" out and throw in the "n". Isn't it amazing to consider that which is considered most profane usually consists of 4 letters?
67 - Dave Nalle
Shark, doing a little quick math I've calculated that for every US soldier who's died in Iraq 10 Iraqis are alive who would be dead if Saddam were still in poiwer.
Those break down into 4 racial minorities killed genocidally, 3 dissenters abducted, tortured and murdered, 2 women repeatedly raped and then murdered, and 1 miscellaneous political termination.
Based on the size of the mass graves found so far, the deaths of those almost 2000 US soldiers have probably saved us from another 40-50 mass graves piled full of bodies.
Even counting all the coalition casualties and all the deaths from terror attacks, we've still preserved thousands of innocent lives just by eliminating Saddam.
Are those lives worth saving, or do you really think that Iraqi lives are so worthless?
Dave
68 - Shark
Dave, you're pathetic. And your math is pathetic.
Why don't you email this to the family of Sgt. Steve Morin, Jr., 34, of Arlington, Texas -- who was in the National Guard out of Mineral Wells, Texas -- and gave his life on Tuesday so ten Iraqis could live.
=========
Doing a little quick math, I've calculated that if Barbara Bush had scraped her womb with a rusty coat hanger instead of squirting out her Satanic failure of a human turd, George W. Bush, then:
1,933 AMERICANS would still be alive;
*14,641 AMERICANS WOULD NOT currently be blind, brain damaged, and/or wearing plastic protheses due to injuries received in a quest for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
*as of 9/17/2005
BTW: Total WMDs found in Iraq: ZERO.
=========
MORE GOOD NEWS FROM VIETN...um, IRAQ:
HILLA, Iraq, Sept 30 (Reuters) - A car bomb exploded in a crowded vegetable market in the southern Iraqi town of Hilla on Friday, killing at least seven people and wounding 30, police said.
The attack came one day after three car bombs killed at least 60 people in the town of Balad, just north of Baghdad.
Insurgents are waging a relentless campaign of suicide bombings, shootings and assassinations in a bid to topple Iraq's U.S.-backed government.
On Feb. 28, a suicide car bomb attack on a crowd of people in Hilla killed 125 people.
=== end of Reuters story ====
MORE GOOD NEWS FROM VIETN...um, IRAQ:
SEPTEMBER 29, 2005
BAGHDAD - Two people were killed and seven wounded when gunmen opened fire on a minibus in the eastern New Baghdad district of the capital.
BAGHDAD - Two people were killed and one wounded when gunmen opened fire on a bakery in the southern Doura district of the capital.
RAMADI - A U.S soldier was killed on Tuesday by small arms fire in Ramadi, 110 km (68 miles) west of Baghdad, the U.S. military said in a statement.
* KHALIS - The head of the city council was assassinated in this town, 70 km (45 miles) north of Baghdad, by gunmen. Police said two people with him were also wounded in the incident.
* KHALIS - A policeman and his brother were killed by gunmen in Khalis, police said.
* KIRKUK - A police colonel escaped death when a roadside bomb exploded near his convoy in Kirkuk, 250 km (150 miles) north of Baghdad, police said one of his guards was wounded.
69 - Shark
Dave: "...for every US soldier who's died in Iraq 10 Iraqis are alive..."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the original intent of the US Military was to sacrifice one American soldier's life to save ten fellow Americans...
...or has the Libertarian Party decided to expand the definintion?
Please explain.
....Hypocrite.
70 - Dave Nalle
Actually, Shark. The Libertarian Party wants to disband the US Military alltogether as unconstitutional.
And your concern over individual deaths in the US Military, while laudable, doesn't answer the question of whether those individuals lives are worth more than the lives of the people their efforts saved. I'll even give you that one US Soldier is more dear to me personally than several Iraqis, but doesn't there come a point where the benefits in lives saved by their presence outweighs the number of deaths?
Dave
71 - Shark
No One Died In Iraq Today
Nalle: "The title's not exactly accurate..."
No, not exactly. To be exact, we'd have to say it was more like 110 people who died in Iraq on Friday, Sept. 30
=========
MORE GOOD NEWS from Barbie's Fairytopia:
HILLA - Police and health officials said at least 12 people were killed and 47 wounded when a car bomb ripped through a crowded market in the southern town of Hilla, 100 km (62 miles) south of Baghdad.
BALAD - The death toll from the three apparently coordinated car bomb attacks on Thursday near a busy market in the predominantly Shi'ite town of Balad, north of Baghdad, rose to 98 killed and 119 wounded, hospital director Kassim Aboud said.
KIRKUK - Gunmen attacked a motorcade carrying Housing and Reconstruction Ministry officials in the northern city of Kirkuk, 250 km (150 miles) north of Baghdad. Police said a guard was killed.
====
In other news, GEN. RICHARD MYERS -- the General who oversaw this FUCKING DISASTER IN IRAQ (and apparently a guy who doesn't mind [figuratively] giving Rumsfeld blow-jobs in public press conferences) -- DECIDED TO CUT AND RUN.
That's right, he's heading for the couch and the remote. Doens't want a big "LOST" note next to his name and Iraq.
Let's hope he enjoys his 'retirement' while young Americans continue to die for his lies and incompetence.
...Oh, and that he rots in Hell.
72 - troll
*think about what's good for other people and for the world as a whole for just a second, and look at Iraq from that perspective.*
playing geopolitics with the lives of Iraqi people on a field littered with their dead is good for no one...in fact - it's bad
common knowledge - 'two wrongs don't make a right'...I've more faith in this than in the reasoning of all your strategists
read the sign: This bridge is not an ethics-free zone...
troll
73 - MCH
Shark;
I believe you're asking Dave Nalle the wrong questions regarding the U.S. military.
Nalle's expertise is more along the lines of avoiding service during time of war (ie, Desert Storm), and then fabricating phony excuses of why he didn't enlist.
74 - Dave Nalle
>>playing geopolitics with the lives of Iraqi people on a field littered with their dead is good for no one...in fact - it's bad<<
You and Shark STILL don't get it. Even with everything the terrorists do, even with every bomb and every attack, there are STILL fewer people dying per day in Iraq than there were under Saddam. Which is better for people - freedom with the threat of random violence which they can work to overcome and contain, or slavery with the guarantee of institutionalized violence from which there is no escape?
Let me be tedious and quote Franklin here - "They that would give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
To suggest that people should choose slavery and slow death as better than freedom and risk is the most contemptible argument there is.
Dave
75 - troll
*To suggest that people should choose slavery and slow death as better than freedom and risk is the most contemptible argument there is.*
true but not the point...the question is: who chose what for whom - ?
troll