Who?
Iraq the Model and Messopotamian Michael Yon is good too, for an 82nd Airborne in Mosul perspective.
Maybe you should learn at least one of them before putting them out there.
1-“Iraq the Model”?
Zogby
2-Messopotamians (sic): You mean the civilization the Mongols destroyed? If you do, I quite agree. Great example.
PS-Sign-up yet, clueless desk-warrior?
To the OP:
Baghdad blasts mock US claims of Iraqi progress
But hey! You’re “winning” anyway! Only twenty thousand GI’s killed ir wounded so far against literally an unkown number of Iraqis – including a large number of innocent women and children. After all, the US refuses to count “collatelral deaths.” Never mind there wouldn’t be any if your main Nutter In Chief hadn’t started this in the first place.
But hey…rah rah, USA #1!
[QUOTE]
January 28, 2005
The poll also found that of Iraq’s ethnic and religious groups, only the Kurds believe the U.S. will “help” Iraq over the next five years, while half (49%) of Shiites and a majority (64%) of Sunni Arabs believe the U.S. will “hurt” Iraq.
Which means 51% of Shias believe US will help Iraq or ‘don’t know’ this is 36% for Sunnis (which is understandable considering they were knocked out of power)
However what is more important is…
Iraqis do not desire to remake their country in the image of neighboring Iran, however. Three-in-five (59%) favor a system where citizens are allowed to practice their own religion, while one-in-three (34%) would prefer an Islamic government.
No, it’s erm the name of the blog. If you want to get a rise out of me, instead of doing cheap shots, make a thread of me in BBQ, if not, then quietly reiterate from your continued emotional responses 
According to ambassador Khalilzad, the insurgents appear to be winning in Baghdad:
‘Wash Post’ Obtains Shocking Memo from U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Details Increasing Danger and Hardship
Inside the Green Zone:
Those wishing to get a handle on reconstruction are encouraged to study the figures in The Iraq Index, a project by The Brookings Institution.
In the June 15th compilation, I find the Electricity report interesting. (p. 31)
Average Hours of Electricity Per Day
Nationwide Bagdhad
Pre-War,
Before Mar 2003 4-8 16-24
Mar 2004 16 16.4
Mar 2005 11.8 11
Mar 2006 13.1 7.8
May 2006 9.9 3.9
June 2006 11.3 8.4
(so far, presumably)
We can see the Saddam Effect: Bagdhad was heavily favored. We can see reconstruction in the year following the invasion, as service was restored to 16 hours per day. And we can see the insurgency, which apparently has affected Bagdhad with greater than average intensity. I’m guessing that the US authorities had a window of opportunity to capture Iraqi hearts and minds, but they blew it.
Nationally, electricity is currently more reliable than before the war (though still well under 16 hours): the opposite is true in Bagdhad.
Polling data on page 42 freaks me out a little. From May 2004 - May 2006 Iraqis were asked whether they thought the country was headed in the “Right Direction” or the “Wrong Direction”. In May 2006 for the first time, more chose “Wrong Direction” than “Right Direction”. Let’s hope things improve.
Right Direction Wrong Direction
May June 2004 51% 39%
Apr 2005 67% 20% (Peak of Contentment)
May 2006 30 52
That last date is ambiguous: the chart heading indicates “May”, while the axis label says, “Mar”. Either way, I’d like to see another data point, maybe for July.
Brookings reports about 2500 GIs dead, so you’re off by an order of magnitude.
As of April 3, 2006, estimates of Iraqi Civilian deaths (again by Brookings) follow:
Not including deaths from crimes:
18,961 - 33,334
Including deaths from crimes:
44,000 - 89,000
More recent figures extrapolated from iraqbodycount.net have a range of 38,400 - 42,700. Page 10 of the Brookings report.
From Khalilzad’s memo of last week (referring to Baghdad):
He/she said dead or injured, not dead.
This is the first time I got enraged by seeing a weather page.
(Freaking smiling suns next to 115+ degree days %$#@!)
2501 deaths.
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
Henry
I would like to ask for an explanation from the conspiracy believers. I’m really asking, so if please for once avoid the screaming that so often goes on in this forum (which is why I hardly ever come here. I hardly learn anything in the time I can put forth to wading through the nonsense and screaming).
What is the rational, elucidated explanation for your beliefs about Bush’s motivations regarding Iraq? I so often see statements about “It was for the oil”, but I never see a citation, and it doesn’t make sense to me. Even the explanation above doesn’t make sense to me, as it needs venal actions on the parts of so many people with so many different political backgrounds.
How could this idea of getting better profits for oil companies benefit Bush so much? His numbers are in the toilet, and he has to know that war is NOT good for the economy, no matter how many facile people say otherwise. War spends money on things that we’d rather not have to do, and wastes time and effort, too. Bush will be rich enough after 2008, I can’t understand how he’s supposed to have sold out his historical legacy for even more money.
Anyway, I’m willing to listen. Just please try to be clear and answer responses calmly.
Thank you, my bad (sorry RedFury).
Total US Troops wounded through 6/14/06 are 18,490. Add in 2501 and we get 20,991: RedFury was spot-on, or even a little conservative 
.
I’m not a conspiracy believer, but I’ll submit that people have difficulty getting their heads around colossal blunders executed by the powerful. Heck, I sure do.
My explanation for the Iraq Imbroglio
I put it down to decisions made by people who know they’re right, which isn’t the same as actually being right. Thus, the CIA is pressured into cooking intelligence, rather than analyzing it. Combine this nonempiricism with a base-only political strategy that shuns admitting error and we get the Iraq war abroad and endless budget deficits at home.
The devil is in the details, and if you don’t go after the devil he will go after you.
Well, for one, as either a Freudian slip or an in joke that got outed ( I’ve heard both claims ), the campaign was originally called “Operation Iraqi Liberation”; OIL , and only later changed to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Could be a coincidence, but . . .
Then, many of Bushes associates are members of the Project for a New American Century, which called for the Invasion of Iraq; they’ve been trying to get Iraq conquered since Reagan IIRC.
As well, our troops rather famously bypassed the alleged WMD sites and grabbed our first priority; the Iraqi oil ministry.
Payoffs from the Saudis, perhaps; wouldn’t be the first time.
What makes you think Bush or his friends care about the economy ? First, just because the economy tanks doesn’t mean they, personally, lose wealth. Second, they get the chance to gloat over the suffering of the common people. Third, even if things get so bad they personally lose money, as long as they lose wealth slower than the rest of us, their relative wealth and power will only increase; I expect many would welcome a new Great Depression, or even better a permanent one.
I think the author/commentator David Brin had it nailed when he said the distinguishing characteristic of the people in power at the moment is insatiability. Nothing will ever be enough for them; taxes cannot be too low, profits cannot be to high, no amount of power is enough.
Complete speculation
Please provide a cite.
Is this as much a fanciful character assassination as it seems? I clearly asked for citations and clear explanations.
I meant that having a bad economy is very likely to make people look back at your presidency with distaste.
That may be even greater pure partisan, unsupported, uncited, speculative hatred than I heard against Clinton in the late 90s.
Again, unsubstantiated speculation about incredibly venal motives.
I’m sorry, but this hasn’t helped.
I’m more inclined to go with Measure for Measure, and I’ve never even voted Democrat.
What I said in post # 79 and that it was known that the victory would be quite easy and very certain.
Bush really believed everything was over, when he declared “Mission Accomplished!”
As we know now, it had only begun. But unfortunately for Bush, there was no way out of Iraq. USA is stuck in Iraq. The laughter in the corridors of Kremlin is even louder than it was in Wasington when Soviet was stuck in Afghanistan.
Besides, it is not only Bush that makes the decisions, as you can easily find out in the text of Bernstain’s book (“Attack …” something, I can’t remember the title just now.)
As it is said here by Der Trihs:
PNAC, Project for a New American Century, you find here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
and all the text here:
More critical views:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm
If you read the official PNAC documents + the above, and think a little bit, trying to turn tables with the rest of the world and how it will effect the ordinary citizens of USA…, you will come to some conclusions that I think are quite parallel to what others that has read it, thinks.
About how the things were handled in the beginning of the conquest:
http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html
Riverbend is maybe the most trusted bloggers fom Iraq. It is a long read, but from that we can learn a lot of Iraq and be able to ‘turn the tables’.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
You can also find her writings in book-form. Here is what the Publishers Weekly says about her and her book:
Sorry, I meant, “Please provide a cite for the following:”
It’s not famous enough that I’ve heard of it.
It says killed OR wounded. The numbers are right on the money.