Quotes on War

#26
#26
It's not just the media saying this. It is Iraqi military leaders, Iraqi politicians, US commanders, US troops, NGO's, etc. Way to deflate the situation. Sectarian violence is not scarce and confined. And it is not just around Baghdad. The troops are dealing with it and have been for some time and the situation is not getting much better. Hundreds of people dying each day in these areas as an example is not just some isolated and contained occurrence.

These militias have threatened US forces since we went in these areas. These militias have caused trouble to troops from the get-go. This is solid fact.

Of course you know more than anyone else here and have the perfect and truthful answers to everything. I've seen firsthand much of this and talk to many who experience this constantly. I can say your very warm and fuzzy assessment is far different from the info on the ground and what is being disseminated by numerous very credible sources there. Seeing how your comments don't even match with the info coming from the brass half the time makes me question your own knowledge of the situation even from someone in the service. Your picture is far different from even what the brass have painted much less many on the ground both within our government and the Iraqi government.
 
#27
#27
And, I guess our ambassador to the UN also has the situation wrong:
Bolton said 81 percent of the violence occurred in four of Iraq's 18 provinces -- Baghdad, al-Anbar, Salahaddin and Diyala. Baghdad and al-Anbar were the most violent, with 55 percent of the attacks, he said.
Click to expand...

That seems pretty confined to me...and to the infantry platoon leaders on the ground that I consult on about a weekly basis.
 
#28
#28
First of all Bolton has little credibility from anyone because of his own actions and behavior. Second of all, his own words don't indicate isolated incidents only around Baghdad. There are still 20% coming from outside the 4 provinces. This is quantatative as well and does not reflect the quality of the attacks or how many people died as a result of them. Your own quote here disproves your own statements.
 
#29
#29
CSpindizzy said:
First of all Bolton has little credibility from anyone because of his own actions and behavior. Second of all, his own words don't indicate isolated incidents only around Baghdad. There are still 20% coming from outside the 4 provinces. This is quantatative as well and does not reflect the quality of the attacks or how many people died as a result of them. Your own quote here disproves your own statements.
Click to expand...
And this statement proves that you know nothing of the geography of Iraq. The Baghdad province is bordered by the al Anbar, Salah ad Din, and Diyala provinces. Most all the reports of violence in those provinces are coming within very close proximity to Baghdad. So, only 20% of these acts of sectarian violence are being committed outside of Baghdad and you state that it is not confined. Also, this 20% is largely occuring in the Kurdish north, where the Kurds have been at war with the Iraqi's since the 1970s.
 
#30
#30
OK. I guess studying it and traveling there has nothing to do with my knowledge. My bad. I must have ignored everything I've been dealing with for 2+ years in my job.

These provinces take up a full third of the country while Baghdad is a small sector on the southern edge of these provinces. It's like saying violence in Atlanta compares to all over the southeast to include Memphis. I guess TN needs to figure into Atlanta's crime statistics since as you say are all tied closely together.

No. Your mangled geography needs a little straightening. Basically 1/3 of the nation (4 provinces mentioned) and all of the Sunni areas are accounting for 80+% of the violence. The other 20% is made up of the Kurdish north and the Shiite south. You're telling me that the other 20% of the violence is all in the predominantly Kurdish north and not in the Shiite south?

Your math and geography along with reality are not matching up here.
 
#31
#31
Iraqi's killed by sectarian violence so far in the month of September. And, FYI, 1500 Iraqi's died in August as a result of violence...I think you will have a hard time finding between 200-300 throughout the rest of the country.


September 16
200 dead, Baghdad (since September 13)
18 dead, Kirkuk

September 11
14 dead, Baghdad
3 dead, Karbala

September 2
14 dead, Karbala (they were Asian Muslims making a pilgrammage, if you want to chalk that up to sectarian violence...)

August 31
43 dead, Baghdad

August 30
29 dead, Baghdad
12 dead, al Hilla
3 dead, Kirkuk
5 dead, Suwaira
5 dead, Buhriz

August 29
10 dead, Baghdad
10 dead, Diwaniyah

August 20
20 dead, Baghdad

August 17
11 dead, Baghdad

August 16
8 dead, Baghdad
5 dead, Mosul

August 15
63 dead, Baghdad
9 dead, Mosul

August 10
35 dead, Najaf

August 8
24 dead, Baghdad

August 7
16 dead, Baghdad
7 dead, Baquba

August 6
7 dead, Mosul

August 4
3 dead, Ubaydi
19 dead, Mosul

August 3
10 dead, Baghdad

August 1
37 dead, Baghdad
7 dead, Mahmoudiya
2 dead, Kirkuk

These are all the violent deaths reported by the world media during these two months, in which U.S. Army units were not involved.
 
#33
#33
Gen. Abizaid has just stated that the militias need to be taken out. I guess precedent contradicts his own statement.
 
#35
#35
CSpindizzy said:
Gen. Abizaid has just stated that the militias need to be taken out. I guess precedent contradicts his own statement.
Click to expand...
He very well could have. Rubaje though is stating that with the continued growth and training of the Iraqi military (325,000 strong now) that the Iraqi government should have complete control of Iraq by next summer. He also stated that it is not so much sectarian violence as it is al Qaeda operating to make it look like sectarian violence.

Also, the precedent that was set is that we have not disarmed those who cooperate. Obviously, the militias and clans that are involved in the violence are not cooperating.
 
#36
#36
Well those sources you quoted have no info that I could find. I could find a few others that corroborate my point.
 
#37
#37
And these militias have cooperated? Since we went in they've been picking us off with IED's, kidnappings, mortar fire, and snipers. If that is cooperation I'd hate to see full hatred and war.
 
#38
#38
Let me toss out this example....the Civil War here in the US. Battles were limited to a few states and only certain areas within those states. But the fact remains that a Civil War existed and all areas of the nation felt some aspect of this conflict.
 
#39
#39
CSpindizzy said:
Let me toss out this example....the Civil War here in the US. Battles were limited to a few states and only certain areas within those states. But the fact remains that a Civil War existed and all areas of the nation felt some aspect of this conflict.
Click to expand...
Civil War Battles occured in Nevada, Texas, Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Alabama...those are just the ones I can name off the top of my head, though. That is a very large geographic radius. Considering that most all the current violence in Iraq is either occurring in Mosul or Kirkuk (the Kurdish north 20% which has been in a civil war with Iraq since the 1980s,) and then a 50 mile radius of Baghdad, which most all the violence is actually occuring within the confines of the Baghdad city limit, I would say your comparison holds little, if any, water.
 
#40
#40
The comparison holds more water than your logic. The point is that a civil war does not have to cover an entire nation. Most civil wars are limited to specific fighting in select urban areas with minor skirmishes in outlying areas. On a micro level the comparison is quite similar. Only select areas saw major engagements proportional to what is going on in Iraq.Doing some mathematics take the proportion of geography, areas of battles, size of battles, etc. and apply to both.
 
#41
#41
CSpindizzy said:
The comparison holds more water than your logic. The point is that a civil war does not have to cover an entire nation. Most civil wars are limited to specific fighting in select urban areas with minor skirmishes in outlying areas. On a micro level the comparison is quite similar. Only select areas saw major engagements proportional to what is going on in Iraq.Doing some mathematics take the proportion of geography, areas of battles, size of battles, etc. and apply to both.
Click to expand...
On any level the comparison is not similar, not in the slightest. There were over 350 major battles of the America Civil War (which is a misnomer, btw) Around 125 of them cast obervable influence on their campaigns. These influential battles did not occur in only "select areas," either. Also, what is proportional to the situation in Iraq. Around 1,500 to 2,000 people are dying, as a result of "sectarian violence," a month in Iraq. Over 20,000 people were killed at Shiloh, in less than 48 hours. Let's remember that the total US population in 1860 was just over 30 million and right now the total Iraqi population is right around 26 million. The population sizes are very comparable, therefore, the carnage is not even close to being proportional.
 
#42
#42
OK. Let's throw this in the mix then. How many fought in those specific engagements and how many are fighting in the engagements in Iraq?

And again, your assertion is that the violence is only limited to key areas of Iraq with minor exceptions. During the American Civil War a large majority of the battles were limited to TN and VA with other battles scattered in other areas. Since you equate Iraq's unrest in four provinces out of 18 let us look at how many major engagements took place in the top four states. Comparisons are VERY similar.
 
#43
#43
CSpindizzy said:
OK. Let's throw this in the mix then. How many fought in those specific engagements and how many are fighting in the engagements in Iraq?

And again, your assertion is that the violence is only limited to key areas of Iraq with minor exceptions. During the American Civil War a large majority of the battles were limited to TN and VA with other battles scattered in other areas. Since you equate Iraq's unrest in four provinces out of 18 let us look at how many major engagements took place in the top four states. Comparisons are VERY similar.
Click to expand...
How about we look at how many engagements took place within a 45 mile radius, since that is the furthest that any "escalation of violence" is taking place from Baghdad?
 
#44
#44
Sure especially since you've said repeatedly that a bulk of fighting is taking place up north as well. Which is it? All in Baghdad? All up north? A majority? Four out of 18 provinces?Exceptions? I cannot keep up with your two step.
 
#45
#45
CSpindizzy said:
Sure especially since you've said repeatedly that a bulk of fighting is taking place up north as well. Which is it? All in Baghdad? All up north? A majority? Four out of 18 provinces?Exceptions? I cannot keep up with your two step.
Click to expand...
I said at most 20% is occuring in the Kurdish north. I still stick to that number. I don't ever recall 1/5 of anything being referred to its whole as "the bulk." And yes, violence is occuring in 4 out of 18 provinces, it just so happens that it is all concentrated in and around Baghdad (45 mile radius).
 
#46
#46
Again, I will repeat myself. Most of the battles in the American Civil War were confined to a few states - TN and VA being a majority of the action. A majority of the states and territories saw little to no action at all. See a pattern here?
 
#47
#47
CSpindizzy said:
Again, I will repeat myself. Most of the battles in the American Civil War were confined to a few states - TN and VA being a majority of the action. A majority of the states and territories saw little to no action at all. See a pattern here?
Click to expand...
I definitely see where you are reaching to pull this together, and I completely disagree with your assessment.
 
#48
#48
How can you disagree? Geography and events prove my point. How many Civil War battles occurred in the following states? VT, NH, ME, MA, NJ, MI, OH, IA, WI, MN, etc? Battles of any significance were for the most part limited to the south and of those over half were in TN and VA.
 
#49
#49
CSpindizzy said:
How can you disagree? Geography and events prove my point. How many Civil War battles occurred in the following states? VT, NH, ME, MA, NJ, MI, OH, IA, WI, MN, etc? Battles of any significance were for the most part limited to the south and of those over half were in TN and VA.
Click to expand...
So, now you are comparing the geographic area of the combined TN and VA to a geographic area of 45 square miles? Comparing campaigns, in a nations of similar populations mind you, that involved at a minimum over 600,000 troops to sectarian violence that involves less than 50,000 (which is an extremely generous estimate) Arabs? Your proportionality in this issue is about as precise as the study of civilian casualties that came to the following conclusion 95% CI:5,000-184,000.

If those are the assumptions and restrictions you are placing on your argument, then you apparently win.
 
#50
#50
Do you know what the definition of proportion is? Look at geography here. The four provinces you named with the violence occurring in them make up a third of the nation's land size. If you want to toss in that Kurdish north it grows more. Sectarian violence occurs all over Iraq. You have stated that a majority of it occurs in or near Baghdad and the Kurdish regions. Flipping to the Civil War, battles occurred in several states but a majority of them occurred in TN and VA and not all over those states either.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top