|
Death toll for Iraqis falls (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I know Erdega is not here to defend himself, but I do have to say GOOD FREAKING GOD MAN! I get the distinct impression that he somehow equates being an American and loving our country is somehow equivalent to supporting the war, being a ing neocon, being an imperialist, and coddling the nutsack of George W. Bush.
It does not, nor has it ever equated to that, Erdega. If I didn't know any better (and hey, maybe I don't), it really looks like you're demonstrating some sincere borderline paranoia here.
There's a great many of us (i.e. the majority of our country) that do NOT support this war, do NOT support Bush, and do NOT support neocon foreign policy. So please, please, please kindly understand this. While I think you've made some cogent points about certain leaders and demonstrating corruption, doublespeak, and short-sighted views amongst both parties representing American government, you really need to take a step back and understand that not EVERYONE supports ALL leaders in this regard. Furthermore, hardly ANYONE supports a given leader on ALL political stances he/she takes.
You seem very passionate about neocon imperialism. I fully support your views on this, and it is most certainly one of the biggest factors I examine in all of my candidates with their foreign policy. But keep in mind that it's not THE deciding factor for me in choosing a candidate, although it is a major one. And for others, it is not THE deciding factor at all. Does that make me a "neocon" like you accused me of once before? Does that make anyone a neocon when this issue is not their deciding factor in choosing a candidate? Of course not.
So when you do come back, all I ask is for you to have a bit more of a perspective on this. I know how much you are against this war, and again there's many others like myself that share your feelings. Just keep that in mind, please. |
Well stated :)
and sorry about your loss last weekend to mizzou.... frigging Daniels :(
I am heading down to SA tomorrow to catch the big 12 championship.... |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Joe Biden: everyone's most hated neocon had this to say:
| quote: | Biden: Impeachment if Bush bombs Iran
By Adam Leech
[email protected]
November 29, 2007 5:03 PM
PORTSMOUTH — Presidential hopeful Delaware Sen. Joe Biden stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval.
Biden spoke in front of a crowd of approximately 100 at a candidate forum held Thursday at Seacoast Media Group. The forum focused on the Iraq war and foreign policy. When an audience member expressed fear of a war with Iran, Biden said he does not typically engage in threats, but had no qualms about issuing a direct warning to the Oval Office.
"The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach," said Biden, whose words were followed by a raucous applause from the local audience.
Biden said he is in the process of meeting with constitutional law experts to prepare a legal memorandum saying as much and intends to send it to the president.
When local resident Joel Carp asked Biden why not impeach now, given what has already been done, Biden said it was a valid point, but might not be constitutionally valid and potentially counterproductive. A case for impeachment must have clear evidence, Biden said, and blame should be directed at the right parties.
"If you're going to impeach George Bush, you better impeach (Vice President Dick) Cheney first," said Biden, again drawing applause.
Biden said the best deterrent to prevent pre-emptive military action in Iran is to make it clear, even if it is at the end of his final term, action will be taken against Bush to ensure "his legacy will be marred for all time."
Biden took shots at the Bush administration's idea to centralize government in Baghdad and called his decentralized plan the only way to political settlement. The recent decline in violence in Iraq, which some have credited to the surge, is the result of the military doing its job.
President Bush, he said, has not done his job in using the relative peace to find a political compromise as he promised.
"There's no evidence it has happened and no evidence it will happen," he said.
Throughout the forum, Biden stressed the need to improve foreign relations throughout the world and pointed to his 29-year resumé as proof that he can make that happen.
Biden joked about his low poll numbers, how the national media does not cover him and the lack of funds compared to the coffers of fellow hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
"This is why I'm in New Hampshire and Iowa," he said. "It's the last level playing field."
Biden went to the next appearance knowing he had at least one more vote. As the forum was coming to and end, Byrl Short stood up and announced his support.
"I came here an undecided voter," he said. "And you are the man."
http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/...9/NEWS/71129018 |
Yep, sounds like a global imperialist to me - wanting to impeach a president who may attack a country without congressional approval. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
and sorry about your loss last weekend to mizzou.... frigging Daniels :(
I am heading down to SA tomorrow to catch the big 12 championship.... [/SIZE] |
That'll be a great game. Have fun.
I had Mizzou as the winner from the start. Really wasn't much of a game, and after I saw how our running game got shut down, and how quickly Daniels put up 14 pts., I knew it was over. Nice comeback at the end, however. But Daniels and Maclin are amazing. I'd pick Mizzou over OU again, even though it looks like OU is completely healthy this time around. Daniels just scores so freakin fast. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
That'll be a great game. Have fun.
Daniels just scores so freakin fast. |
like my boy
If tech had any kind of defense,,,,,, :( |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I know Erdega is not here to defend himself, but I do have to say GOOD FREAKING GOD MAN! I get the distinct impression that he somehow equates being an American and loving our country is somehow equivalent to supporting the war, being a ing neocon, being an imperialist, and coddling the nutsack of George W. Bush.
It does not, nor has it ever equated to that, Erdega. If I didn't know any better (and hey, maybe I don't), it really looks like you're demonstrating some sincere borderline paranoia here.
There's a great many of us (i.e. the majority of our country) that do NOT support this war, do NOT support Bush, and do NOT support neocon foreign policy. So please, please, please kindly understand this. While I think you've made some cogent points about certain leaders and demonstrating corruption, doublespeak, and short-sighted views amongst both parties representing American government, you really need to take a step back and understand that not EVERYONE supports ALL leaders in this regard. Furthermore, hardly ANYONE supports a given leader on ALL political stances he/she takes.
You seem very passionate about neocon imperialism. I fully support your views on this, and it is most certainly one of the biggest factors I examine in all of my candidates with their foreign policy. But keep in mind that it's not THE deciding factor for me in choosing a candidate, although it is a major one. And for others, it is not THE deciding factor at all. Does that make me a "neocon" like you accused me of once before? Does that make anyone a neocon when this issue is not their deciding factor in choosing a candidate? Of course not.
So when you do come back, all I ask is for you to have a bit more of a perspective on this. I know how much you are against this war, and again there's many others like myself that share your feelings. Just keep that in mind, please. |
*sigh*
You said better in one post what I've been trying to say in a dozen. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I know Erdega is not here to defend himself, but I do have to say GOOD FREAKING GOD MAN! I get the distinct impression that he somehow equates being an American and loving our country is somehow equivalent to supporting the war, being a ing neocon, being an imperialist, and coddling the nutsack of George W. Bush.
It does not, nor has it ever equated to that, Erdega. If I didn't know any better (and hey, maybe I don't), it really looks like you're demonstrating some sincere borderline paranoia here.
There's a great many of us (i.e. the majority of our country) that do NOT support this war, do NOT support Bush, and do NOT support neocon foreign policy. So please, please, please kindly understand this. While I think you've made some cogent points about certain leaders and demonstrating corruption, doublespeak, and short-sighted views amongst both parties representing American government, you really need to take a step back and understand that not EVERYONE supports ALL leaders in this regard. Furthermore, hardly ANYONE supports a given leader on ALL political stances he/she takes.
You seem very passionate about neocon imperialism. I fully support your views on this, and it is most certainly one of the biggest factors I examine in all of my candidates with their foreign policy. But keep in mind that it's not THE deciding factor for me in choosing a candidate, although it is a major one. And for others, it is not THE deciding factor at all. Does that make me a "neocon" like you accused me of once before? Does that make anyone a neocon when this issue is not their deciding factor in choosing a candidate? Of course not.
So when you do come back, all I ask is for you to have a bit more of a perspective on this. I know how much you are against this war, and again there's many others like myself that share your feelings. Just keep that in mind, please. |
What you're running across Opus are the 'recent' Canadins who have a hate on for just about anything American.
They figure because they live in Canada and have internet anonymity they can just shoot their mouths off with the brain filter off.
They're vehement in their convictions and worse than any Bush haters down there.
Even though there may be some over-lap on neo-con believes, etc., on behalf of Canada, I'm sorry you have to deal with this ilk...
/also Toronto is a very heavy unionized / subsidized thinking town which permeates the air around here... |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
What you're running across Opus are the 'recent' Canadins who have a hate on for just about anything American.
They figure because they live in Canada and have internet anonymity they can just shoot their mouths off with the brain filter off.
They're vehement in their convictions and worse than any Bush haters down there.
Even though there may be some over-lap on neo-con believes, etc., on behalf of Canada, I'm sorry you have to deal with this ilk...
/also Toronto is a very heavy unionized / subsidized thinking town which permeates the air around here... |
You don't need to apologize for him. Everyone's entitled to their opinions, and erdega's more than entitled to his. Like you said there is a good deal of overlap of anti-war and anti-neocon feelings between him and the majority of Americans, and that's fine too. I get that.
I also get that there's a great deal of anti-American sentiment not just with our neighbors but worldwide. Hell the Mrs. and I have been contemplating on where we'd like to go on vacation after I graduate in May, and we've been told by numerous folks not to travel to this country, don't travel to that country, blaa blaa and so on (I think we're set on Cabo, Mexico, however, no matter how much they may hate Americans down there :D).
The only thing we can do is discuss our likes and differences, and understand that one person, one Administration, one group of members in Congress does not represent the entire sentiment of a country. I would hope that may be obvious, but perhaps that needs to be emphasized more. And that's fine with me too. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
like my boy
If tech had any kind of defense,,,,,, :( |
He's a sophomore, right? I agree - build the defense and they could be in the top 10 next year. |
|
|
| LatinLover |
BAGHDAD - The number of Iraqis killed last month fell to 718, an Associated Press tally showed, the lowest monthly death toll since just before the 2006 bombing of a Shiite shrine provoked a vicious cycle of retaliatory sectarian violence.
The figures come as the military says violence has fallen to levels not seen in nearly two years, while acknowledging that Iraqis are still dying in unacceptable numbers.
An expert on the effect of conflicts on civilians agreed, saying that while the downward trend was positive, it needed to be kept in perspective.
"We've gone from horrific levels of murder to very bad, which is an improvement but not a reason to celebrate," said Richard Garfield, a professor at New York's Columbia University and a manager of health and nutrition for the World Health Organization.
"At these so-called low levels, there's a massive number of excess deaths still likely to occur."
It was the third consecutive monthly decline in the death toll of Iraqi civilians and security forces since August, when a massive suicide bombing targeting minority Yazidis in northern Iraq helped push the figure to at least 1,956.
Some 500 are thought to have perished in the bombing of the Yazidis.
At least 1,023 Iraqis were killed in September, 911 in October and 718 in November, the lowest since January 2006, when 615 Iraqis were killed, according to figures compiled by the AP from hospital, police and military officials, as well as accounts from reporters and photographers. Insurgent deaths were not included. Other counts differ and some have given higher civilian death tolls.
The number of U.S. troop deaths also declined for the sixth consecutive month, with at least 37 recorded in November, according to an AP tally based on military figures. That was the lowest number since March 2006, when 31 American service members died.
The U.S. military has said the decline in the number of deadly attacks is largely due to a troop buildup this summer of some 30,000 additional troops that enabled them to get closer to the population, as well as a sharp turn of public opinion against al-Qaida in Iraq and other extremist groups.
But American commanders and other officials have gone to great lengths to warn that militants on both sides of the Sunni-Shiite divide still pose a major threat, and violence continues.
"We're always encouraged by any downward trend in violence, but we can't get complacent," said Navy Lt. Patrick Evans, a military spokesman.
"There have been improvements in security, however, militants, insurgents, extremists and criminals out there will continue to keep looking for opportunities, so we have to remain vigilant and on alert," he added. "There's still a lot of work that needs to be done."
The numbers were high even before the Feb. 22, 2006 bombing in the city of Samarra north of Baghdad, which devastated the golden dome of a revered Shiite shrine. But the attack caused longstanding tensions to boil over and assassinations, bombings and execution-style killings were rampant.
November of that year was one of the deadliest of the war, with at least 2,250 Iraqis killed, dwarfing recent figures.
Garfield, the Columbia University expert, expressed concern that the recent reports of the decline in violence could tempt people to ignore the fact that the numbers are still high amid rising public criticism of the war.
"I think there is a great potential to close the door on Iraq, bring the troops home, wash our hands of it," he said in a telephone interview from Geneva. "But the improving trend suggests that the right kind of presence of the international force can make a tremendous difference in how the Iraqis are doing and they will need that presence for a long time."
He also estimated the count was only one-third of the actual total, underlining the difficulties in keeping track of the number of Iraqi civilians who have been killed since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. Wide-ranging estimates cannot be confirmed due to the tenuous security situation.
Iraq Body Count, an independent organization that tracks media reports as well as official figures, estimates that 77,573 to 84,502 civilians have been killed.
In a bid to better detect trends in the violence, the U.S. military is planning to increasingly use Iraqi data while warning that both sets of information are flawed.
"We recognize that when we only use coalition reports we underreport," said Col. Bill Rapp, a senior aide to the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus.
Rapp, speaking to reporters at a recent briefing on measuring trends, said the increasing use of Iraqi data became a priority as Petraeus shifted the U.S. command's focus to protecting the Iraqi people. It also will help the military fill in the gaps as it draws down forces and transfers more security responsibilities to the Iraqi government in coming months.
U.S. officials acknowledge that Iraqi government data is often incomplete and imprecise as well as tainted by potential sectarian bias.
But the military is working with the Iraqis to develop an automated database of their own that would help eliminate duplicate reports, among other attributes.
LINK |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| Oh good, peace at last. Jesus be praised. |
|
|
| LatinLover |
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Forty senior al Qaeda in Iraq members were either captured or killed in November, including a senior adviser to the Sunni Islamist group's leader, the U.S. military said on Tuesday.
Violence levels in Iraq have fallen to their lowest levels since January 2006 after a security crackdown, which included a deployment of an extra 30,000 U.S. troops, targeting al Qaeda and Shi'ite militias across the country.
But while attacks have fallen by 55 percent since the additional troops were fully deployed in mid-June, allowing thousands of Iraqis who had fled abroad to return home, U.S. commanders say violence could easily flare again.
"There is no question that al Qaeda in Iraq remains a dangerous and vicious threat to the Iraqi people and to the security forces and the coalition forces," U.S. military spokesman Major-General Kevin Bergner told a news conference.
"Al Qaeda continues to try to seek spectacular attacks which were so damaging and which continue to be so damaging in inciting sectarian tensions ... we still have a tough fight ahead of us even amidst the progress," he said.
Bergner said one al Qaeda member killed last month had been identified as Abu Maysara, a Syrian he said was a senior adviser to al Qaeda in Iraq leader, Egyptian Abu Ayyub al-Masri.
He said Maysara was killed along with five other al Qaeda fighters in a raid on a building near Samarra, 100 km (60 miles) north of Baghdad on November 17.
"EXTREMIST GUIDANCE"
The six were killed when U.S. ground forces called in air strikes after coming under fire from the building. Bergner said Maysara had been identified by DNA tests.
"Abu Maysara was responsible for providing extremist guidance and justifications on terrorist matters to Abu al-Masri," Bergner said.
Maysara was captured in November 2004 but escaped from Iraq's Badush prison in March 2007.
He was an adviser to al Masri's predecessor Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Falluja, west of Baghdad, where al Qaeda fought battles against U.S. forces in 2003 and 2004, Bergner said.
"He also ran an illegal court in Falluja that was responsible for the brutal murders of countless innocent Iraqis," he added.
Maysara usually signed off on al Qaeda in Iraq Web statements for Zarqawi, who was killed in a U.S. and Iraqi military raid in June 2006.
Bergner said Maysara was one of nine senior al Qaeda figures killed last month, with another 31 captured. Of those 40, four were described as senior level emirs and nine as cell leaders.
The fight against al Qaeda has shifted from its former stronghold in western Anbar province to areas north and south of Baghdad after the troop increase and growing use of local police units organized by mainly Sunni Arab tribal sheikhs.
Bergner said the recently completed Operation Iron Hammer north of Baghdad had "captured or killed hundreds of terrorists." It has been replaced by a new offensive named Operation Iron Reaper, which involves four U.S. combat brigades and three Iraqi army divisions.
Earlier on Tuesday, Iraq's cabinet agreed to seek a final one-year extension on the U.N. Security Council mandate allowing U.S.-led foreign troops to conduct a wide range of military operations in Iraq.
The current one-year mandate expires at the end of 2007. When the U.N. mandate ends in 2008, bilateral agreements will govern U.S.-Iraqi relations. The White House has said formal talks will begin early next year on the future relationship.
LINK |
|
|
|
|
