Found this on a Liberal outlet so Herb, DJ, DD's and Nwokie will dismiss it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20543737/

"Civilian deaths rose slightly in August as a huge suicide attack in the north "

We're not killing them, the bad guys are.

What's the point of the Surge then, again, if Iraqi security isn't improving?

Andrew

You want to guess how big the number would be if we suddenly pulled out?

14

Deane writes:
You want to guess how big the number would be if we suddenly pulled out?

Irrelevant since I do not support an immediate pull out (except for the two clowns at the top, which will have to wait until 1/20/09).

How big do you think the number of Iraqi deaths will get once we un-Surge next year?

Andrew

22

Having a little Saturday night smoke are we CJ.

Right along with your LSD trip DJ....

Somehow I don't feel like joking much about thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians killed, as an indirect result of my tax dollars. How many more were wounded, maimed, blinded, emotionally scarred, suffering today?

Andrew

""Civilian deaths rose slightly in August as a huge suicide attack in the north "

We're not killing them, the bad guys are."

And once again, why are the "bad guys" there? Because of US.

Actually most of the bad guys were there before we got there, and hopefully they will still be there when we leave, just 6 feet under.

>>>"And once again, why are the "bad guys" there? Because of US."

Proof?

There there because most of them live there, you have the various relegious factions, throw in bin ladens group, and they havent bought into the "melting Pot " theory.

These are not nice people, they will bite the hand that feeds them.

We took down an existing order. IMHO, there were some baddies in Iraq already, but Saddam ran things tough. This mitigated them.

When we failed to establish order, and more importantly, failed to deliver on core life needs, the incentive to keep the peace was largely lost. Peace has to be worth something, and when life really sucks hard, people have less to lose.

Enter the baddies!

In this kind of environment, they offer hope, change, revenge, etc...

We've hashed this dynamic around before. Insurgencies, are powered by this kind of thing. Misalignment of core life needs and actual reality, breeds strong emotion and the potential for manupulation runs high. Thus, recruits are always available.

This remains true, until said misalignment is corrected. Who ever does it, wins the prize period.

We built a big ass embassy, are struggling for the oil, but are not addressing the core things that cause trouble --that's the monkey trap bit. We've got our hands on a prize, but don't grok the real problems, so we are stuck, just like the monkey is.

Thinking this stuff through, requires a degree of self-acceptance of our own failures, and a strong desire to rectify them. These things are not present in our current leadership. Next cycle maybe...

This kind of scene attracts baddies of all kinds, it's largely our doing, and isn't going to stop until the core human issues are addressed.

Remember, no matter how many are killed, there are always recruits, ripe for the picking, because of the misalignment of human issues. All they have to do is not lose, and that brings hope, no matter how twisted.

We either grok that and do what it takes to address it, or level the place and just move the problem somewhere else, or punt and install an asshole to replace Saddam.

Given the money we've spent, seems to me, we would have been far better off just doing the right things in the first place. Of course, that time has passed, but the human problems just have not.

This is not a difficult dynamic to understand Deane. History is full of examples. We really should know better. Sadly, a ton of us do understand this in various degrees. It's the 20 something percenters, need for power, need to escape accountability, and other character issues getting in the way.

Today, those are combined with growing economic and military impotence, likely rendering a solid solution beyond our reach.

Saddam kept order by killing far more people than are being killed today. That, of course, doesn't set well with the "blame America first" crowd (also known as liberals).

Did we really have 30 - 60 dead people, on average, per day under Saddam?

Also, didn't we empower him to do much of that killing, because it served our interests too?

And, of course, that can be set aside as we are talking about what is happening right now, today.

That's what my post is about. It's real, documented, and clearly supports the idea that we've helped create an environment that attracts the wrong kinds of people, which is a solid start on the answer to your question, Deane.

To be very clear, I don't blame America first. We are good people, who by and large, just want to help.

I blame our leadership. I also blame corporate interests, gaming our system. Neither of those things are "America", but manifestations of what is wrong with America. We can fix these things, but it's gonna take greater acceptance of the harm being done by not doing so.

That, in turn, requires some honest and rational discussion. Clearly you are just not there yet.

Over the years, I've been stunned at the number of associations between America and it's horrible leader.

Bush does not equal America.

Finally, the view I just expressed, is shared by a growing majority of people. That means, it's shared by all parties, not just one in particular.

Do the math.

Edit: Notice how I just post back some rational discussion Deane. No nasty labels, no real dodges, manupulations, etc... You should try this. It works!

>>>Did we really have 30 - 60 dead people, on average, per day under Saddam?"

I believe the number was in the millions. You can decide how many days you want to average those over.

Let's not forget the rapes, broken arms, amputated hands, etc. I guess those don't count much.


>>>"we've helped create an environment that attracts the wrong kinds of people,"

Our liberal courts have done that right here in America.

Ok, that's what I thought.

Let's stay focused!

The discussion is about the bad guys.

Again, remember ends cannot justify the means --if one is to be rational that is. This is not to say we can't look back and say, "Well at least Saddam is gone." We can! But that's not a justification that can go back and erase the fact that our actions breed terror.

This is a war on terror remember! We were hit on 9/11. We are pissed about it. We asked the world for help, they gave us an emphatic, "Yes Please!"

So, eliminating terror is priority number one. It's not getting oil, not removing Saddam, not building a big ass embassy, etc...

Actually, there is a case for Saddam being a terrorist. But, if we make that case, we also must own up to enabling him, just as we are the insurgents right now.

The big question is about those bad guys and if we are really enabling them. I think a lot of what we are doing, does exactly that.

If you don't, let's hear about that, not all this other distracting stuff! Maybe it isn't really like that! Won't know until we get past this ends justify means stuff and talk rationally.

Deane writes:
Saddam kept order by killing far more people than are being killed today. That, of course, doesn't set well with the "blame America first" crowd (also known as liberals).

Are you talking about the gassing of the Kurds in the 80s where Reagan and Bush I let Saddam get away with it? Or are you talking about the thousands of Shiites Saddam mowed down in 1991 when Bush I urged them to rise up then did nothing to help them? I don't think Saddam had been killing people in great volume like that in the years leading up to 2003. Can you document that?

Andrew

DJ said>>>
Proof?

Show us otherwise......