Did you get the larger point? If even the safe zone is that dangerous, lack of reporting about other areas notwithstanding, the security picture and the hearts-and-minds picture in the rest of the country are almost certainly pretty shitty - unfortunately not as positive as LCOL Ryan would like it to be perceived. No doubt he and his unit are doing their best, and not getting enough thanks either, but a quagmire is still a quagmire.
Um … What were the poll data on support of the war before it happened? Remember who is being sworn in again today? What percentage of Bush voters believe that there is a link between 9-11 and Saddam? Not only are far too many Americans sheep who are easily led, Bush and Company seem to count on it.
Yes, that is what I gathered from it.
I have another take though. Doesn’t it make sense for the terrorits to strike in areas that are called ‘Green Zones’ where people are supposedly safe and in areas where there are Americans and Coalition soldiers present? This would be to the terrorists advantage, no? - more bang for the buck. I think other parts of the country are probably safer, for Iraqi citizens anyway. If you’re an insurgent why bother messing with a rural town that has no occupation forces, no political weight, and no press coverage. It’s kind of circular. The reason the soldiers are getting attacked and the press are in danger in certain areas is because they are in those areas. It’s obvious, -just thought I’d point it out anyway.
I was going to say something along those lines, but I thought I stirred the pot enough already.
Um, yes, it does make complete sense for nationalist forces to attack an occupying enemy where the enemy happens to be. The occupying force casualties will oxxur where the nationalist forces happen to be, too. Amazing, huh? Problem being, the nationalists are everywhere and the occupiers are holed up in safe zones they can’t make small enough to *keep * safe. Whose military situation is stronger, ya think?
You think so based on what information? The press reports you complain about not having? All the spotty action reports we get with a high multiplier factor for Iraqi body count vs. American body count? What?
It’s not like the insurgents are wasting their time and resources by attacking the farmers. What I’m getting at is that there must be large areas of Iraq that are relatively peaceful for the Iraqi’s that live there. The deadliest and most dangerous areas are the one that have the most impact when attacked.
Green Zones and occupied areas.
Is this unreasonable to assume?
So, this guy is an expert on nation building who has full access to the entire campaign? Or is he just as full of shit as those he is claiming to criticize?
Yes, because they want to know if there are any threats to their own security and pursuit of happiness. They want to see that other people’s lives are more miserable than theirs. They also want to know how to avoid such tragedies, so they want learn from the mistakes of others.
Fictional books and movies have happy endings so people can escape from the depressing reality of their lives.
Pardon?
IAW Fear Itself’s observation - that the cathartic effect has something to do with why papers sell better with bad news.
I also believe that religion is the counterbalance to secular news’ doom and gloom. For many, the escapism of movies, TV and books have the same effect.
Yes, the areas controlled by the insurgents, where there were never significant numbers of occupying forces to create indigenous collaborators. The areas already lost to us, IOW. That’s not something to take credit for.
How about a factual cite for that ridiculous assertion?
Which assertion is ridiculous? That there are areas of Iraq not under our control?
You want a cite for the sun being hot too, while I’m at it?
Watch the “Outfoxed” documentary. It showed how Fox News had lots of nice little stories about the new Iraq like new schools or swimming pools or games they play, etc.
BTW this is from an Australian travel site:
“The security environment in Iraq remains extremely dangerous, as underscored by continuing terrorist activity, kidnapping and other attacks against Iraqi and foreign civilians. Kidnappings for ransom and hostage taking for political gain are common in Iraq and may be fatal… Mortar and rocket attacks are common and indiscriminate. The International Zone has increasingly been a target of such attacks.”
So basically it’s a war-zone. Sure not everything about Iraq’s situation is bad, but I don’t think every bad news story in Iraq should have phrases tacked on like “despite that event, a lot of progress is being made in turning Iraq into a peaceful democracy” - especially when repeated kidnappings, killings, etc, are involved. Remember that the progress of the upcoming elections in Iraq have been reported a lot. That is a positive thing. And there was the hand-over of power to the Iraqi transitional government, etc.
Since you are playing at coy today, let me bold the particular ridiculous assertion of yours, and once again ask for a factual cite.
Which, I should remind you, was in response to:
So the areas under the control of the ‘insurgents’ are relatively peaceful, huh? I stand by, ready to be awed by the cite that you are going to provide.
In light of this thread, I found it interesting that on livejournal, a former poster addressed this very issue from the perspective of a businessman who is looking to invest (carpetbag?) in Iraq.
Also remember that Republicans have a huge amount of air time on the news, particularly Fox News, and they’re often saying how well the war is going.
Silly question. Unless there’s some kind of native, non-Coalition-affiliated counter-insurgency going on against the insurgency – and nothing of the kind has been reported here, even on Fox – why wouldn’t those areas of Iraq controlled by the insurgents be relatively peaceful compared to those areas controlled by the Coalition/Interim Government? It’s in the latter areas where all the battles, bombings, kidnappings, etc., seem to happen – except when the Coalition decides to move in on an insurgent-controlled area, as with Fallujah.
BrainBlutton, My take on the situation is that the insurgents are concentrated near the action. It does them no good to take over a remote hillside 80 miles from the city. I think we can assume that a very high percntage of the insurgents are where the millitary thinks they are. That’s why we attack where we attack and that’s why the fighting is so fierce. We’re pushing them into a corner and they will do anything to survive.
This is why I think a larger portion of the country than you are willing to admit is actually safe, or fairly safe -as far as couintries in this situation should be concerned.
I’d like to see a cite that contrasts this. I bet Elvis will have one up pretty quick here.
Um, we aren’t being fought against in areas we aren’t even in, Brutus.
The ethnic/religious civil war between groups now called “insurgent” won’t get into full swing until the insurgent groups are deprived of their common enemy, if that’s what you mean. Meanwhile, that’s what passes for “peaceful”.
Oh, you mean the idea that there are areas controlled by insurgents is “ridiculous”! Tell ya what, go fly into Baghdad and get a taxi into the Green Zone, detouring through Sadr City. We don’t even control that.
Cite for the sun being hot still pending. Let me do some more Googling first. :rolleyes: