The Body Countdown Begins: Gen. Abizaid Says There's < 5000 Insurgents in Iraq

[XT]

sigh /em braces shoulder for another futile effort…

From OliverH

I would suggest you heed your own advice. Liberation usually does not imply preventing the locals from administrating themselves. The reasoning you implied as to why the US was running Iraq implies 1:1 that this is not a war for the benefit of Iraq, but rather the US.

When has liberation of a country through force of arms EVER had the ‘locals’ instantly in charge? Give me an example, cause I sure can’t think of one. Lets see…France after WWII? Nope, not instantly, took months. Was under initial allied control, once liberated. The PI after we took it back from Japan? Nope, same. Well, how about YOU give ME an example where the ‘liberated’ country was instantly under ‘local’ control…I can’t think of any off the top of my head.

Not that this is a valid arguement on YOUR part though…I never said this was a war about liberation. If YOU are saying so, its YOUR position to back up or not…not mine. Show me where I said that this was a war of liberation, OliverH. I always saw this as a war of conquest (thats spelled C O N Q U E S T btw, not C O L O N I Z A T I O N…in case you remain confused). And, if memory serves, again in wars of conquest, the ‘locals’ get fairly short shrift governance wise…at least in the short term. No?

Once again you set up a straw man position and try and pigeon hole me into it. Instead of assuming you know my mind (something you clearly haven’t got a clue about) why not…gasp…ASK me what my position on it is, and THEN attack that? Maybe you and Aldebaran could try this new and innovative tactic out together some time?

Moving on. Again, how about YOU show ME where I said that the war was a benefit of Iraq and not the US. Frankly I’ll be quite shocked, being as I don’t think that. So, unless I totally fucked up a post, I have to say you are still making shit up and trying to tag it on me.

From OliverH

Under the Geneva Conventions, the US is responsible for ensuring a proper infrastructure and security in the occupied area.

Actually this IS a valid arguement. Blind squirels and acorns I suppose. However, in my own defense, you didn’t exactly SAY this…was I supposed to pick up this point through some psychic medium or something. THIS is what YOU said and what I was going on:

From OliverH

Ah, the US would have been gone? Thanks for declaring so freely that the Geneva conventions are nothing you bother yourself with.

You are right…on review all that is in here…NOT! If you HAVE a point, maybe next time actually list it out, elaborate on it, flesh it out, instead of venting like the above. Don’t assume I’m a mind reader like you obviously think you are.

From OliverH

I would recommend more reading, less frothing, and you might already know. Because I already said that the objections is that YOU justify what is necessary.

(lol…ya, I’m frothing. Keep telling yourself that bro) Damn, I must have missed the corronation! Shit, I hate when that happens. When exactly DID they make ME king? Your assertion is simply ridiculous. We ALL judge thing based on our own inner morality weather vein…you do (obviously), I do, everyone does.

However, its not ME that makes the decisions…its a nation state. I simply judge things based on my own impressions and information…just like you do. If they make BAD decisions (like the US did with reguards to Iraq) then there are consequences (like Bush not getting re-elected). If they make REALLY bad decisions, like say Nazi Germany, then they REALLY pay a price (like losing, standing up against a wall and posing for gun fire, dancing on the end of a rope, etc).

From OliverH

I hate to break this to you, but it is you who is living in a fantasy world, because I never said that war wasn’t necessary sometimes. But don’t let that keep you from cheering on the troops.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth and pinning attitudes on me that I’m not saying. WHERE did I ‘cheer the troops’? How about a direct quote. This is getting tedious to be honest. You are either willfully misreading what I said, or you are basially making strawmen left and right and shoving me into them. I’m thining…the later.

Do I support the troops? Sure I do (thanks for asking)…not only do I pay my taxes which provides them with a salary, food and toys to play with, but I also have several cousins in Iraq. Have I stated my open support for the troops in this thread? Not that I’m aware of. Where exactly am I ‘cheering on the troops’ OliverH?

From OliverH

You have already proven your claim to have been more receptive to them a lie, because you don’t bother to actually listen what people are saying. You are spooling your regular propaganda drivel and invent arguments the other side allegedly made for the sheer sake of having something you can actually debunk. You grab some headlines and declare them ‘anti war’ side positions, without actually bothering to thoroughly research any point, be it yours or that of the other side.

Um…right. What exactly IS my regular ‘propaganda’ in your mind, OliverH? Are you trying to say that the anti-war crowd was NOT howling “No War For Oil”, and other such retoric and slogans?? If you are really trying to claim that, I can find you a cite…hell, I’m looking at a picture of a protester right now with that sign in his hand! Throughout the entire prelude to the war and the war itself, the only place I saw even a hint at the anti-war crowd trying to use reasoned arguements and language against the war was…here, the SDMB. There are some very articulate and knowlegable people on this board that were against the war, and I truely respect many of their opinions…I’ve learned a LOT from them to be honest.

However and unfortunately, this board isn’t exactly main stream. In addition, and unfortunately for the few people on this board that could be reasonable about it, they were drowned out by people like YOU OliverH…people howling with nothing to say except war bad, peace good…no war for oil…Bush antichrist, evil, stupid, blah blah blah. At a guess there WERE other voices of reason out there in the various media that were anti-war but were using reasoned arguements and calm language…but they too, IMO, were totally drowned out by the howling of the anti-war mob. I suppose THIS must be my ‘propaganda’ in your mind. If so, so be it…howl on, and more power too ya. Maybe it wouldn’t have made a wit of difference…but I bet the perception of the ‘average joe’ towards the anti-war crowd would be radically different now.
From OliverH

No, you talk the talk, but you don’t walk the walk.

And you make this claim with what evidence? Because I’ve been short with you, who are misquoting me, mischaracterizing me, strawmaning me, and being willfully stupid? Well, I suppose you are right.

From OliverH

Except you were the only one doing any misquoting, and in fact, completely invented positions. You were the one who put things into other people’s mouth that they had never said.

Um…I see. Well, how about some examples of me doing so? I’ve certainly given PLENTY of examples of YOU doing so, and backed them up. How about you actually produce something, like a quote from me AND analysis of the parts you disagree with, showing me putting things in anyone else’s mouth (baring my wife…I do put things in her mouth, but thats not your concern).

You make a several bald statements in this post, without backing them up at all. I have STATED the things you are mischaracterizing me on, and backed them up with quotes from both you and me. Who do you suppose has the better case atm? Well you do of course!! The world IS flat, I should have seen it before OliverH!! Mea Culpa…

From OliverH

And I apologize if I don’t accept responsibility for your not thinking through your arguments.

Rrriiiggghhhttt. What ever you say OliverH.

Well, last post for me unless you can actually come up with something substantial to discuss. So far I’ve seen nada from you. If you don’t want to actually list out your problems with my positions (such as they are in this thread…sort of ‘positons light’) and back them up with things I’ve actually said, then I’m pretty well done with ya.

-XT

[Aldebaran]

*Originally posted by OliverH *
And thanks for demonstrating that it was not for the benefit of the world, because otherwise the world would have won.

Salaam aleikum OliverH

My experience is that most posters on message boards like this don’t understand these type of sentences. Even if there aren’t any more words needed and things can’t be said more clearly otherwise then you did here.

Salaam. A

[RTFirefly]

In a box on page A-16 of the print edition of this morning’s Washington Post (but unfortunately not online), we’ve killed 14 insurgents and captured 104 this week. (The box accompanied this story.) Add in today’s two suicide bombers, and that brings the total to 120. So fewer than 4880 to go.

[Capt_B.Phart]

I hesitate to post in a thread that has degenerated to the poking-each-other-with-sticks phase, but here goes:-

This is not a mathematical problem, like some WWI meat-grinder action:- (“There are 25,000 of us and only 20,000 of them, so we’ll win by 5,000”)

It’s about making Iraq ungovernable as far as the insurgents are concerned - or stabilising it as far as the coalition is concerned- that’s very different to “winning” or “losing” a war - incredibly difficult to measure how things are really going.

I think pantom’s post is the most relevant to how this will proceed - it’s about factions, alliances, hearts and minds - not raw numbers. For instance, are Baathists in an alliance with Al Q? Will a particular Shiite cleric tell his flock to attack the occupation troops? How many water pipes and schools get fixed, how many satellite dishes get bought?

And will people please stop suggesting that those of us who opposed starting this war are all for a quick bug-out now it’s turned out as (some of us anyway) warned. Pulling out just isn’t an option - the war’s given Al Q’s ambitions in the region enough of a boost without now handing Iraq and Saudi to them on a plate

[CarnalK]

The general may be pulling the number out of a hat: which would be a minor bad, implying knowledge that really isn’t there. Certainly he’s not minimizing the situation. He sure as hell doesn’t want to encourage any decrease in troop numbers. Nowhere is he denying that this number could increase so the “start the body count” is a little off, IMHO.

As links by SimonX and London_Calling show, the US gov hasn’t quite come out with a single voice on this. My dreams of a dog with blood on it’s paw would seem to indicate an imminent disclosure, soon all shall be revealed. just seeing who read the whole post

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by Capt B. Phart *
I hesitate to post in a thread that has degenerated to the poking-each-other-with-sticks phase, but here goes:-

This is not a mathematical problem, like some WWI meat-grinder action:- (“There are 25,000 of us and only 20,000 of them, so we’ll win by 5,000”)
<snip>
I think pantom’s post is the most relevant to how this will proceed - it’s about factions, alliances, hearts and minds - not raw numbers.

Well, yeah, that’s sort of my point: the claim that there are fewer than 5000 insurgents in Iraq suggests a false manageability of the problem - that they may be dangerous, but if those <5000 people were taken out, our problems would be over.

When coalition forces kill their 5000th insurgent, and the war still goes on, the untruth will be manifestly clear, if anyone still remembers. By then, of course, the Admin will have told dozens of other lies, and it will be hard to recall this particular one. Hence this thread.

[CarnalK]

Well, yeah, that’s sort of my point: the claim that there are fewer than 5000 insurgents in Iraq suggests a false manageability of the problem - that they may be dangerous, but if those <5000 people were taken out, our problems would be over.

Not really though. The Iraqi guerrillas could say that there are 135,000 American troops. They’d be pretty dumbass to say that after 30 deaths “Only 134,970 to go”. The admin has mentioned that the resistance is being aided by foreign fighters. Other gov sources point out worries of growing internal support. This general’s personal estimate of the current situation may be BS but I really don’t see the need for alarm.