Violence in Iraq down 70%

Obviously, the more people you kill, the less you have to kill. Maths!

I have zero proof but I don't think violence went down. If anything it went up as it ALWAYS does. Funny how all sorts of good things happen around election time huh? The troop boost worked, this whole war just turned around, free oil for all. The b-crats where right all along. We should never question the decider again. Pause......not.

i say support the republicans. We went in the middle east for a reason and were commin out when we finnish that reason. KILL OSAMA AND ALL OF AL QUEDA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by PleiadianC


Reality check, if our President was after Alqaida and Bin-Laden they are in the wrong nation killing the wrong people.

reply to post by twitchy


There's a difference in "killing" civilians, and having killed civilians. It's one thing to say that in the course of a firefight, which occurred in close proximity to civilians, that there were some bystanders hit. It's quite another to say unequivocally that Blackwater is driving out looking for groups of civilians to kill. That's an entirely different situation. Even those that are investigating Blackwater aren't making those assertions, but rather that contractors had used less care to prevent collateral damage than they should have. It's one thing to not use good fire discipline in positively IDing targets, when there are friendlies around(and I would agree that this is not acceptable). It's another to say that their mission was specifically killing innocents. There's zero evidence of that, other than speculation from folks that are biased against the concept of contractors in general.

As for the SAS incident, where they busted some operators out of a jail.
SOF forces regularly wear civilian attire, as they have to be able to blend in, to operate in certain areas. Unless you were briefed on what mission that they were conducting when they'd been arrested, it's merely speculation. There's an awful lot of info that you don't(and won't ever) have access to, which could give proper context to what happened. You don't know what their target was, what they knew about the specific Iraqi police involved etc...(there was a time where the IPs were heavily infiltrated by insurgents, or those sympathetic to insurgents), so to armchair quarterback without all the facts is an excercise in futility.

As for acceptable news sources- some sort of major outlet, that doesn't represent only one view point. The ones I mentioned don't even come close to being objective or even handed in their reporting. It'd also be nice if there were multiple corroborating sources to add some credibility, and the ability to cross reference.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
There's a difference in "killing" civilians, and having killed civilians.

The only difference in killing and having killed, is the participle. Nobody has said they are out looking for civilians to kill, however the ones they DID kill weren't just bystanders in the proximity of some firefight, these were people that were gunned down, if I'm not mistaken one of them was a High Ranking Iraqi offical who was shot dead in a simple altercation.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Even those that are investigating Blackwater aren't making those assertions, but rather that contractors had used less care to prevent collateral damage than they should have.

Um, you have been following the news? Actually the folks investigating this are saying exactly that, that's why I quoted them. Another thing the folks investigating Black Water are saying is that they are selling weapons on the black market there that are ending up in the hands of the 'insurgency' there, that's treason and that's war profiteering. Sound like some real heros.

Originally posted by BlueRaja
There's zero evidence of that, other than speculation from folks that are biased against the concept of contractors in general.

Yeah I'm sure the Justice Department and other Federal investigative entities just makes up baseless accusations all the time. I don't have a problem with contractors, I have a problem with mercenaries who are given legal immunity for their crimes against humanity, and are apparently trying to use that legal immunity to literally get away with murder, not to mention illegal arms deals to the very folks they are supposed to be securing against. As to the SAS operatives, you can mentally whitewash it all you like, but the fact remains they were shooting at Iraqi Police and hauling around a car load of explosives while dressed as arabs. Do you really think these guys were just riding around enjoying the beautiful countryside? Are you familiar with the term agent provocatuer?
As to acceptable news sources, I've not seen you source a single one in your rebuttals, but just so you know the SAS operatives story was on just about every major news outlet when it happened. I have a hard time believing you don't remember the story given your interest in the subject, and I've linked to some less opinionated sources just for you already.
Contactors is one thing, we all know and understand that someone has to justify the billions of dollars in reconstruction funds (most of which that amazingly never got spent on reconstruction), but mercenaries are a completely different animal, and call it what you will, when you hire people with guns that operate outside of military authority and accountibility, then they are mercenaries period. They've been called alot of things through history, peace keepers, privateers, contractors, but make no mistake, Black Water is a mercenary organization.

reply to post by twitchy


If any contractors are found guilty of selling weapons to insurgents, unlawfully killing civilians, or any other criminal activity, then they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. My dispute is that every contractor is being lumped into the same group. There have been military personnel that have done some messed up things too, but they're not the norm either. The vast majority of contractors or military personnel downrange conduct themselves in professional and lawful manners.

As for the SAS- again, you don't know the full context of their mission(the why, where, when, who, and how info). It's your right to say- "my opinion is that....." but when you try to present it as fact, is when we are going to disagree.

We went 2 Iraq because sadam was helping the terrorists. He had chemical weapons that he either destroyed or hid even more. Thoes ******* terrorists are distracting us so they can get the WMD's out. I SAY KILL EVERY SINGLE terrorists to avenge 9/11. slaughter al queda until there bodys are less than an atom HEY osama u guna die soon 4 wat u did.

For me the issue was never the violence level in Iraq. I originally supported the invasion of Iraq mostly because I thought we should have finished the job during the first gulf war. In fact we won the war quite decisively shortly after it began, just as we did in Afghanistan. I don't support occupation or the rebuilding of infrastructure. The fact is, both Afghanistan and Iraq have become one giangantic welfare program.

We have spent billions of dollars building schools, bridges, power plants, etc, and in the end we will end up with what we always end up with in the middle east, a bunch of people that hate us. If we've been wronged or attacked or damaged in some way, it is our right to respond, however, it is not our responsibility to rebuild and occupy. If we have to go to war, we should send in our military to do what they do best, destroy the enemy. Then we should leave.

As for the argument that it will leave instability in the area we destroyed. So what? As if there has ever been stability in the region. We would be better off if we just left them alone. Sure the crazy factions will probably war with each other, that's fine. Maybe the irrational people will just destroy each other until only the rational people remain.