Sadly, I believe I win, but the nation loses.

In April of 2007, we discussed upcoming national election and “the surge”. Evil One predicted that by

here post 188. I immediately (or at least at post 190), said “wanna bet”? , and started defining terms, “most” = 2/3, “summer 2008” we eventually hashed out to mean August 1, 2008. Evil One accepts the challenge and terms, stating in post 193

on the next page, we come up with a consensus of how many troops were there as of April of 2007, so we could accurately figure out the 2/3 gone, 1/3 still there numbers (post 209), I spell it out in post 210, that at the time of the bet, our best number was 141,000 troops in Iraq, which would mean 2/3 of 141000 = 94000, leaving 47000 in Iraq by August 1 2008.

Evil One agreed in post 212.

I know it’s still mid July, and there’s about two whole weeks left until August 1, but right now, there seems to be 140,000 still there: Last year Mr. Bush accepted General Petraeus’s recommendation to gradually withdraw the five extra combat brigades that he had ordered to Iraq. The last of those, Second Brigade, Third Infantry Division, is completing its withdrawal this month, bringing the number of combat brigades to 15 and the overall troop levels to about 140,000.. So, since April of last year, they increased the number of troops again to a peak of 170,000 (reference same), and now, 2 weeks before August 1, they’re down to 1000 fewer than there were in April of 2007.

Whaddya think? can they pull out another 84000 troops in 2 weeks? Of course, same article suggests that current plan is to

.

So that Evil One’s prediction of 47,000 inside Iraq probably won’t even be true by the time Bush leaves office.

For the record, I will donate proceeds from bet to benefit the vets.

I so fucking wanted to lose this bet. :frowning:

That’s nice.

In terms of the things that really matter most; Iraqi lives lost, dead American soldiers, progress on governance and violence, etc., things have gone about as well as could have been hoped from April, 2007.

I didn’t support the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but to say that maintaining a high force level there now is a hopeless endeavor just isn’t true. I’m not overwhelmed by the pithyness of your blue sad-faces right now.

http://www.brookings.edu/events/2008/0613_iraq.aspx

What’s pithy about them? Getting killed at a lower rate is still getting killed.

Anyway, after reading that thread, what I really want to know is where the hell is John Corrado these days?

Evil One himself appears to have pulled out.
His last post was on 04-13-2008.
His last activity was on 06-21-2008.

.
Meh. I’m gone for months at a stretch.
.

I’d say so : Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 4,527

I hate to point out the obvious but there wouldn’t be any “dead American soldiers” if we were not there.

There would be dead American soldiers on our soil, because we would’ve had to fight them “over here”.

:rolleyes:

There’s plenty of other threads where that endless argument can be pointlessly refought.

This one, I think, is for all the shamefaced conservatives to own up to the emptiness of their previously expressed optimism, and to admit that the liberal pessimists were right.

Yeah, that’s the ticket.

We’ve had plenty of “shamefaced conservatives” admit that we were right, or at least people who originally supported the war agree that it was a mistake.

Around twice that, actually (reset to 0 around 2001 just for shits and grins), but yeah. So I guess he might well check back in eventually. Might not do a vanity search if he does, though.
.

what gets me is how smug the fuckers who’ve been flat out so wrong for years still are. Must be really yummy Kool-Aide.

That was a joke right? You aren’t seriously suggesting Iraq planned to invade the US?

Not Iraq. The terrorists! Sheesh. Keep up on your Shodan, Parrot talking points!

-Joe

What’s your point?

Not a joke. President Bush has repeatedly advanced that as a rationale for the war in Iraq:

Quotations taken from SourceWatch. If you’re interested in tracking the quotations further, the linked page has links to the sources for each quotation.

If it is a joke , I think it’s a joke on the citizens of the U.S.

Which is why Stupid Reason Nº 56 for invading Iraq, so that it would be a peaceful democracy where Iraqis would live in freedom and ride ponies, was particularly stupid. You can´t have a nice, unviolent place while you play whack-a-mole with terrorists and all sorts and manners of ordenance.

I’m amazed, we in the UK only had to put up with the Tony Blair “it’s all about the WMDs” bullshit, we didn’t hear much of GWB going on about fighting in the USA.

Surely not many Americans take this literally? How likely is it that a small group, however well organised, living in parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan are really likely to invade US soil in a stand up fight?

I can see that terrorist attacks may have continued, but as Iraq was not the source of the original attacks the invasion would in no way prevent further attacks. No terrorist group is going to fight like a traditional armed force, they will always use terror tactics, it’s the only way they can do it. BTW this does not mean that I in any way condone or support terrorism.

I think the general inference is that “we’re fighting them over there so we won’t have another 9/11 over here”, rather than an invasion… but yes, lots of Americans took this literally.

40-something years is apparently not long enough for the majority of the population to fall into the credibility gap.

Ah, but as everyone knows, terrorists are mortally allergic to tea. When we have attacks, they need British guys who’ve already developed an immunity. America, with its higher reliance on coffee, poses no problem to large-scale invasions.