Comments on: What’s Really Happening in Iraq? http://oneutah.org/2007/10/23/whats-really-happening-in-iraq/ Utah's Favorite Public Square for Loud Political Debate Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:51:40 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Danny http://oneutah.org/2007/10/23/whats-really-happening-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-101968 Danny Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:26:00 +0000 http://oneutah.org/2007/10/23/whats-really-happening-in-iraq/#comment-101968 Richard, I can see where you do make a point,-and would be happy to elaborate-but you still didn't answer my question. What would you do? Richard, I can see where you do make a point,-and would be happy to elaborate-but you still didn’t answer my question. What would you do?

]]> By: Richard Warnick http://oneutah.org/2007/10/23/whats-really-happening-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-101935 Richard Warnick Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:01:47 +0000 http://oneutah.org/2007/10/23/whats-really-happening-in-iraq/#comment-101935 Danny, listen to yourself. Imagine if America was occupied and your house was bombed as collateral damage. That's what the Iraqis are going through, and the sooner our combat forces leave the better for everyone. Certainly you cannot argue that the occupation of Iraq helps our national security-- it's destroying America's military and our country's reputation. Throwing away the rules of civilized warfare is both wrong and counterproductive. Danny, listen to yourself. Imagine if America was occupied and your house was bombed as collateral damage. That’s what the Iraqis are going through, and the sooner our combat forces leave the better for everyone. Certainly you cannot argue that the occupation of Iraq helps our national security– it’s destroying America’s military and our country’s reputation. Throwing away the rules of civilized warfare is both wrong and counterproductive.

]]> By: Danny http://oneutah.org/2007/10/23/whats-really-happening-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-101932 Danny Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:34:42 +0000 http://oneutah.org/2007/10/23/whats-really-happening-in-iraq/#comment-101932 Richard, You said, you look at all the facts and try to sort out what is most credible. Though you may be correct, you take your "facts" and twist them so you side with the insurgency. The problem is that you look at a situation and turn it against the US Military. Why, I don't know. You said you were in the military years ago, you must have really been picked on. Do me a favor and humor me for a minute here. Say you were in during a war time. We don't need to say what war or if you agree with it, just any war. You are with your troops and you start taking fire. You spot the enemy and there is no way to effectively destroy him because he has surrounded himself by innocent civilians. What do you do? Let him get away so he can kill more soldiers? And past that, go tell other enemy buddies of his that you let him go so attacks go up? Or do you take him out with the resources you have? Yes, obviously you want to minimize civilian casualties, but unfortunately we are at war, and people get killed. I am not saying that I condone civilian casualties. I am just saying that it is a sad truth that it happens and there is no way any soldier or marine is going to let the enemy get away after either shooting at them, especially if it wounded or killed a comrade. I sure hope you wouldn't let them get away. But, apparently, you would blame the soldiers for it. You just did. It is not the enemies fault that he surrounds himself by civilians, it is ours. That is your logic? (illogic?) That is exactly why the insurgents and enemy combatants surround themselves. To get people like you to believe it is our fault that civilians die. If you are correct and the end result in Iraq is nothing but negative. You just remember that you assisted the enemy by believing that is is us and not them that are the bad guys. You know as well as I do, that morale is everything in the battlefield. One more thing, I really hope I never meet you Richard. I might try to slap some sense in you, and I don't like having to do that. Richard,
You said, you look at all the facts and try to sort out what is most credible. Though you may be correct, you take your “facts” and twist them so you side with the insurgency. The problem is that you look at a situation and turn it against the US Military. Why, I don’t know. You said you were in the military years ago, you must have really been picked on.
Do me a favor and humor me for a minute here.
Say you were in during a war time. We don’t need to say what war or if you agree with it, just any war. You are with your troops and you start taking fire. You spot the enemy and there is no way to effectively destroy him because he has surrounded himself by innocent civilians. What do you do? Let him get away so he can kill more soldiers? And past that, go tell other enemy buddies of his that you let him go so attacks go up? Or do you take him out with the resources you have? Yes, obviously you want to minimize civilian casualties, but unfortunately we are at war, and people get killed. I am not saying that I condone civilian casualties. I am just saying that it is a sad truth that it happens and there is no way any soldier or marine is going to let the enemy get away after either shooting at them, especially if it wounded or killed a comrade. I sure hope you wouldn’t let them get away. But, apparently, you would blame the soldiers for it. You just did. It is not the enemies fault that he surrounds himself by civilians, it is ours. That is your logic? (illogic?)
That is exactly why the insurgents and enemy combatants surround themselves. To get people like you to believe it is our fault that civilians die. If you are correct and the end result in Iraq is nothing but negative. You just remember that you assisted the enemy by believing that is is us and not them that are the bad guys. You know as well as I do, that morale is everything in the battlefield.
One more thing, I really hope I never meet you Richard. I might try to slap some sense in you, and I don’t like having to do that.

]]> By: Richard Warnick http://oneutah.org/2007/10/23/whats-really-happening-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-101250 Richard Warnick Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:15:45 +0000 http://oneutah.org/2007/10/23/whats-really-happening-in-iraq/#comment-101250 You have it exactly backwards. I look at <em>all</em> sources of information and try to sort out what's objectively credible, in the broadest possible context. General Petraeus and the Bush administration carefully cherry-pick stats that make things look better, for political purposes. What do you think the mission is in Iraq? If the main mission is force protection, why not move the forces somewhere safer? You have it exactly backwards. I look at all sources of information and try to sort out what’s objectively credible, in the broadest possible context. General Petraeus and the Bush administration carefully cherry-pick stats that make things look better, for political purposes.

What do you think the mission is in Iraq? If the main mission is force protection, why not move the forces somewhere safer?

]]> By: Matthias http://oneutah.org/2007/10/23/whats-really-happening-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-101249 Matthias Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:56:18 +0000 http://oneutah.org/2007/10/23/whats-really-happening-in-iraq/#comment-101249 It is instructive that you are trying to lump all of 2007 into the same statistical bag. Aggressive military techniques will inevitable result in rising casualties on all sides. Simply put: If you do more fighting, more people are going to die. The question is whether or not aggressive military techniques give way to a long term reduction in casualties. The number from recent months suggest that the answer is yes. By trying to lump all of 2007 together, you are essentially saying that we should ignore the last three months of data because the four months previous to that sucked. But the point being made in all these news reports is that the violence is on the decline. You can't point to 6 months ago and say "No it isn't!" It would be like me saying that, according to the weather reports from May, it looks like it's going to get really hot soon. I would be ignoring the recent data for the simple reason that it doesn't fit what I want to hear. But more important to this topic is the issue of sources. Which sources do you trust and which ones don't you. And (most importantly) why? You have pointed (in this post and others) to numerous reports from multiple news sources when they said things were going badly. And then you say that they aren't trustworthy when they say things are going well. Well, do you trust these sources or not? My suggestion is that you do trust these sources... when they tell you what you already believe. And you don't trust them when they tell you what you don't want to hear. In the end, your source of truth and trust is your own mind. Everything external to yourself that agrees with you is right and everything external to yourself that disagrees with you is wrong. Aligning the world to your own presuppositions... it's very post-modern, I'll give you that. But all you've done is announced yourself as the reigning god of all truth. Good luck with that. It is instructive that you are trying to lump all of 2007 into the same statistical bag. Aggressive military techniques will inevitable result in rising casualties on all sides. Simply put: If you do more fighting, more people are going to die. The question is whether or not aggressive military techniques give way to a long term reduction in casualties. The number from recent months suggest that the answer is yes.

By trying to lump all of 2007 together, you are essentially saying that we should ignore the last three months of data because the four months previous to that sucked. But the point being made in all these news reports is that the violence is on the decline. You can’t point to 6 months ago and say “No it isn’t!” It would be like me saying that, according to the weather reports from May, it looks like it’s going to get really hot soon. I would be ignoring the recent data for the simple reason that it doesn’t fit what I want to hear.

But more important to this topic is the issue of sources. Which sources do you trust and which ones don’t you. And (most importantly) why? You have pointed (in this post and others) to numerous reports from multiple news sources when they said things were going badly. And then you say that they aren’t trustworthy when they say things are going well.

Well, do you trust these sources or not? My suggestion is that you do trust these sources… when they tell you what you already believe. And you don’t trust them when they tell you what you don’t want to hear. In the end, your source of truth and trust is your own mind. Everything external to yourself that agrees with you is right and everything external to yourself that disagrees with you is wrong.

Aligning the world to your own presuppositions… it’s very post-modern, I’ll give you that. But all you’ve done is announced yourself as the reigning god of all truth. Good luck with that.

]]> By: Nephi http://oneutah.org/2007/10/23/whats-really-happening-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-101248 Nephi Wed, 24 Oct 2007 16:17:40 +0000 http://oneutah.org/2007/10/23/whats-really-happening-in-iraq/#comment-101248 And, of course, our friends over at ASP are ejaculating all over themselves at the "news" - the surge is working, the surge is working ... surge, surge, surge. <a href="http://" rel="nofollow">http://www.soldiersperspective.us/2007/10/24/us-deaths-in-iraq-drop-sharply/ </a> And, of course, our friends over at ASP are ejaculating all over themselves at the “news” – the surge is working, the surge is working … surge, surge, surge.

http://www.soldiersperspective.us/2007/10/24/us-deaths-in-iraq-drop-sharply/

]]> By: Jeff http://oneutah.org/2007/10/23/whats-really-happening-in-iraq/comment-page-1/#comment-101232 Jeff Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:48:55 +0000 http://oneutah.org/2007/10/23/whats-really-happening-in-iraq/#comment-101232 You should take a look at the Wounded Warriors Project. It raises awareness for severely wounded combat U.S. combat veterans in Iraq and Afghanistan. It really puts a face on the cost of this war. Here's a link: http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/aarwebshow Jeff You should take a look at the Wounded Warriors Project. It raises awareness for severely wounded combat U.S. combat veterans in Iraq and Afghanistan. It really puts a face on the cost of this war. Here’s a link:

http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/aarwebshow

Jeff

]]>