How Could We Know?

[nuff sed]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good News...............

I didn't know!

How could we

know?

Did you know that 47 countries' have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?

Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?

Did you know that 3100 schools have been renovated,

364 schools are under rehabilitation,

263 new schools are now under construction

and 38 new schools have been completed in Iraq?

Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20 Universities,

46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers,

all currently operating?

Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States in January 2005

for the reestablished Fulbright program?

Did you know that the Iraqi Navy is operational?

They have 5 - 100-foot patrol craft, 34 smaller vessels and a naval infantry regiment.

Did you know that Iraq's Air Force consists of three operational squadrons,

which includes 9 reconnaissance and 3 US C-130 transport aircraft

(under Iraqi operational control)

which operate day and night, and will soon add 16 UH-1 helicopters and 4 Bell Jet Rangers?

Did you know that Iraq has a counter-terrorist unit and a Commando Battalion?

Did you know that the Iraqi Police Service has over 55,000

fully trained and equipped police officers?

Did you know that there are 5 Police Academies in Iraq

that produce over 3500 new officers each 8 weeks?

Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq?

They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83 railroad stations,

22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69 electrical facilities.

Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5

have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations?

Did you know that 4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primary school by mid October?

Did you know that there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq

and phone use has gone up 158%?

Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75 radio stations,

180 newspapers and 10 television stations?

Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 2004?

Did you know that 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had a televised debate recently?

OF COURSE WE DIDN'T KNOW!

WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW?

OUR MEDIA WOULDN'T TELL US!

Instead of reflecting our love for our country,

we get photos of flag burning incidents at Abu Ghraib

and people throwing snowballs at the presidential motorcades.

Tragically, the lack of accentuating the positive in Iraq serves two purposes:

It is intended to undermine the world's perception of the United States

thus minimizing consequent support,

and it is intended to discourage American citizens.

---- Above facts are verifiable on the Department of Defense web site

http://www.defenselink.mil/

.......Pass it on! Give it wide dissemination!

[Bravus]

Lots and lots of heartening good news.

How many of those things were also true in late 2002?

[there buster]

Quote:

How many of those things were also true in late 2002?

Probably about the same proportion as were true of Germany in 1938.

Mussolini made the trains run on time, so why worry about a little oppression?

Sadaam kept the peace, so why worry about a few mass graves. . . every couple of months. . . or continued treaty violations. . . or defiance of UN resolutions?

[John317]

Tragically, none of that matters any more. Most of the Democrats in both houses of congress want us out no matter what successes they are having in Iraq. For one thing, many Democrats never wanted to see Bush succeed and are now glad to see the US suffer a defeat in order for them to score against Bush. It's all politics. It has practically nothing to do with what's best for the United States and certainly not for the Iraqi people. It's about winning power and elections. What they either don't realize or don't care about is the bloodbath that will take place in Iraq when we leave and the fact that al Qaeda will also take over the country.

[Bravus]

But my point, Ed, was not that Iraq was any sort of paradise in late 2002, but that it's a bit rich for America to claim the credit for all those things, which seemed to be what the post Don quoted was implicitly doing. There are good things happening in Iraq, no doubt about it, and it's good to look at them. But there are also bad things, and to pretend they're not happening or minimise them is unbalanced. And of the good things that are happening, claiming that they're all results of the invasion is dishonest.

[Bravus]

And John, Bush was never, ever going to succeed, the war was ill-conceived and ill-executed from the start. To now start trying to blame the Democrats for the defeat is beyond dishonest. And apparently it's not playing politics to do so...?

[Bravus]

Anyway, I'll shut up now. By all means, there are things happening in Iraq (as there are in every country) that are positive and should be celebrated. There are acts of kindness and courage everywhere.

[there buster]

Yes, and it's 'a bit rich' for America to claim to have rebuilt Europe after WWII, when we did so much to destroy Europe.

There were good things done by the Marshall Plan, but claiming that they were the result of the invasion of Europe would be dishonest.

Look at how many innocent Europeans were killed by what we did. Instead of sending our military, we should have sent more stern letters of disapproval like after the occupation of the Rhineland. And the annexation of the Sudetenland. And the takeover of Austria. Now there was a moral foreign policy!

And in the Pacific, our response was totally out of porportion. If we had just bombed a Japanese Naval Base in reprisal, that would have been proportional. But we stuck our nose in places where it didn't belong, like the Coral Sea.

[John317]

And John, Bush was never, ever going to succeed, the war was ill-conceived and ill-executed from the start. To now start trying to blame the Democrats for the defeat is beyond dishonest. And apparently it's not playing politics to do so...?

I say what I did about the attitude of Democrats and far-left socialists about the war because of what I know based on conversations with them, and their writings, before we even invaded Iraq. If you read the socialist (i.e., Trotskiest) press back then--/http://www.themilitant.com/index.shtml/-- you would see that they made no bones about wanting to see the United States "defeated and defeated badly." Many of these people would even tell you right up front that they hate the United States. They consider the United States and the President the real terrorist. They consider the United States the greatest threat to world peace.

I saw the socialist views slowly become the viewpoint of the democrats. This often happens.

As far as winning or succeeding over there, when you enter a war you enter it with only one possible outcome: win it. You don't put limits on it. You don't say we will only fight if we can do it without losing x-number of men or money. The enemy doesn't care how many they lose. We do and they know it. We're concerned for every casket and every body bag. They see this and count is as a weakness. They know we don't have the stomach or the heart for it. They consider it evidence of our spiritual and moral corruption. When the going gets tough, we're willing give up our dead as a complete loss. To them it seems like it means we are more interested in beer and football and having a good time than in strong moral values and having a back bone to defend our way of life and our beliefs, and they are probably right. They knew we would buckle under and we are. Now they know we were just playing. So next time they hit us-- and they will hit us much harder next time, probably with a dirty bomb or nuclear device-- they know we will just be mostly a giant full of bluster and hot air but that we will back down yet again when the going gets really tough.

The one who wins a war is the one who is willing to sacrifice the most-- the one who most wants to win no matter what it costs them.

If the insurgents and terrorists really believed we were in it for the long-haul and were never going to give up, they would be willing to negotiate. But since they are convinced that we will pull out, they have no reason to negotiate or stop their fighting. They took their cue from what happened in Vietnam. We lost that war not in the trenches of Nam but on the streets of America. The insurgents and Al Qaeda heard the voice of democrats calling for retreat from the beginning of the war and knew it was only a matter of time before people on the homefront got sick of the body bags and began calling for a withdrawl. That is what they have been counting on, and now they are almost there.

What I said is irregardless of political considerations. If I was considering the politics of power, I would call for our immediate withdrawl because that is what's popular. But I'm firmly persuaded it would be the wrong thing to do, not only because of the Iraqi people who are relying on us and who will almost certainly meet a bloody end if we pull out, but because of all the brave wounded and dead soldiers who gave everything they had in battle.

[lazarus]

Quote:

WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW?

OUR MEDIA WOULDN'T TELL US!

Instead of reflecting our love for our country,

So telling the truth about Iraq is hating Ameirca?

I can see it on CNN....

In the news from Iraq today.....

Did you know that 47 countries' have reestablished their embassies in Iraq?

Did you know that the Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 million Iraqi people?

and finally over 100 people were killed in a car bomb in Iraq.......

Are you kidding me Don?

The truth hurts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kuRmwJNLt0

[olger]

I talked to a soldier yesterday at a reunion. I asked him what he thought of the Iraq reconstruction. He said "his concern was that we don't have a firm objective in Iraq. We are not "occupying" it in the traditional sense, and we already won the war."

What we have now is a battle against an idea, against a way of thinking by a radical minority.

He said he trusts Bush and respects him. He said Bush is a lousy speaker (heard him a couple times), but he (Bush) has decent convictions and the people in the military respect that. He further said that the election of someone like Hillary Clinton would be a huge morale hit on the military. Huge..

Anyway, he was interesting to talk to. Someone like that knows more about the situation than most of us armchair Generals.

olger

[Neil D]

Quote:

The one who wins a war is the one who is willing to sacrifice the most-- the one who most wants to win no matter what it costs them.

ummmm....that's not what happened in WWI and WW2. Japan surrendered because they were loosing people at a greater rate than Americans...and because we were nuking cities. But even before we started nuking citys, Japan made efforts to find out what a surrender would take.

Germany surrendered because they were overwhelmed, and were sending thier older population and barely young men to fight a war.

Techniquelly speaking, we are still at war in N. Korea. While we havent lost any men to speak of , we are still guarding the boarders...And they have not advanced down the penensula of korea yet, but they threaten to every so often....So, what's with that?

[John317]

Quote:

WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW?

OUR MEDIA WOULDN'T TELL US!

Instead of reflecting our love for our country,

So, do you think it's going to improve the situation for the people of Iraq or for America if we pull out right now?

I am not saying telling the truth about Iraq is hating America. The problem is that there aren't too many telling the full truth. Saying we ought to leave Iraq now is not telling the truth. The full truth takes into account everything that is happening over there, both the good and the bad, not just the bad. For instance, it is true that there are still bombings and killings. But there are many more success stories, yet you seldom hear these. The terrorists know American mass media will concentrate on the bombings. They know how to manipulate it to their advantage and most Americans just play along with them. We have to say no to such evil. Don't let criminals win just because they use hate and intimidation so skillfully.

[Bravus]

In America today, September 11, 2001, there were millions of children in school, and hundreds of thousands of students in universities. {add a much longer list of good stuff} Oh , and there were these terrorist attacks.

Of course there is a huge amount of good stuff going on in Iraq. But people are dying at the rate of 6 or 7 'September 11s' each year. It was completely unacceptable in America, and it's completely unacceptable in Iraq.

[Bravus]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/22/bond/index.html

[John317]

Quote:

John317: The one who wins a war is the one who is willing to sacrifice the most-- the one who most wants to win no matter what it costs them.

Quote:

ummmm....that's not what happened in WWI and WW2.

In WW1 and WW2, there was no limit on the number of dead and wounded we would accept in order to win. That is what I am talking about. We were in those wars to win. We lost more in one hour in some of those battles than we have lost in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 6 years. We meant business. We were completely serious and dedicated to the cause and willing to accept hundreds of thousands of casualties if necessary to see it finished successfully. We didn't stop when the going got tough. In fact, when the going got tough, we fought harder. It took the whole nation working together. And so we won.

Quote:

Japan surrendered because they were loosing people at a greater rate than Americans...

You bet, and that was the way we planned it. That is what you do in a war you mean to win. You try to kill the enemy at three or four times the rate they are killing you. That is the only way to bring a war as quickly as possible to a successful conclusion. You make the enemy wish they'd never started it and that it was over months before.

Quote:

and because we were nuking cities. But even before we started nuking citys, Japan made efforts to find out what a surrender would take.

Before the two Atom bombs were detonated, we were preparing to invade Japan with over a million men who were already being assembled and trained on the West coast. It was estimated that there could be a total of a million casualities on both sides during an invasion of the Japanese mainland. We expected to lose no fewer than 200,000 of our own American men and boys. Thousands would have been killed in the first few minutes of full scale invasion. The Japanese were prepared to fight with everything they had, from pitch-forks to knives, and they were ready to fight to the death. It would have been a horrible, horrible fight for both the Japanese and us.

Quote:

Japan made efforts to find out what a surrender would take.

They should have announced they were surrendering unconditionally. We had already let them know that is the only kind of surrender we would accept. They knew that. Until the second Atom bomb exploded, the Japanese Emperor and his military weren't prepared to surrender unconditionally. Between the first and second Atomic explosions, Russia declared war on Japan, and still Japan did not surrender. We were waiting and hoping they would surrender and stop the insanity. We waited 3 days, and after we still heard nothing from Japan, we then dropped the second bomb.

That second bomb saved over 200,000 American lives and over 1 million Japanese who would have died fighting the Americans in the planned invasion.

Quote:

Germany surrendered because they were overwhelmed, and were sending thier older population and barely young men to fight a war.

Germany came close to winning the war, but after we entered the fighting, their ultimate defeat was a foregone conclusion. Why? Because we wouldn't have stopped until we won. Germany was fighting on three fronts before it was all over.

Russia had no limit on the number of their own people they were willing to sacrifice in order to win. As it was, the USSR under the brutal Stalin gave up millions of its citizens to conquer Germany and defeat Hitler.

Germany sacrificed 3, 350,000 of its soldiers out of a German population of 7 million.

The USSR saw 13, 300,000 killed out of a general population of 190 million. (408, 000 Russians died fighting for the Axis powers of Italy and Germany.)

The United States of America sacrificed about 408,200 out of a general population of 131,000,000.

[Dr. Shane]

I don't think it is some kind of media conspiracy that keeps the good news in Iraq from being reported. It is about money and ratings. Bad news gets better ratings.

[Bravus]

Yep - as I tried to illustrate above, the good news in America itself seldom gets reported.

[John317]

I don't think it is some kind of media conspiracy that keeps the good news in Iraq from being reported. It is about money and ratings. Bad news gets better ratings.

I partly blame the Bush administration, because if it wanted to, it could see to it that those things were kept before the public eye and ear. Bush should take a page out of Roosevelt's book on how to prosecute and win a war. Sometimes I think Bush doen't really care or something... He has an odd way of showing it if he does.

[olger]

Bravus said

Quote:

Of course there is a huge amount of good stuff going on in Iraq. But people are dying at the rate of 6 or 7 'September 11s' each year.

Just checking your math comrade..

That would be between 16,512 and 19,264 people per year according to your suggestion.

og

[John317]

The question is, would it be a lot better in Iraq if the United States pulls out? What can reasonably be predicted there? Will it improve the situation for the Iraqis and the United States?

[John317]

HEY

WELL lets see here we have learned about the

good that is happening in IRAQ. I think that is

great news. Yes there are bad things happening

in IRAQ now.

Before WW I AND WWII there were dicatators in GERMANY

ITALY AND JAPAN. THERE was a dictator in IRAQ before this

war. I AM sure that schools were open in all

places before and after each war. And I am sure that

good things were happening in these countries before and after each war.

the main issue is that the people of IRAQ are have

a new experience of freedoms here that THEY have not

had in a long time.

the main point here is that the devil just loves

all wars becuase there are people that will not hear

about the LOVE and SALVATION of JESUS

With these fredoms come the chance to hear these

BIBLE TRUTHS.

dgrimm60

If the US and the democracies had given up and surrendered or been defeated in WW2, there would have been very few opportunities to hear or give the gospel. At least any time you did give it, it would have been dangerous. Both the Japanese and the Germans did not like SDA or other Christians who stood up for their beliefs. A surprising number of SDA in Germany supported Hitler, but those who didn't, often ended up in concentration camps.

If the Taliban or Al Qaeda-influenced government takes over in Iraq-- which it almost certainly will if we leave-- you will have many situations like the recent one in Afghanistan of the Christians being threatened with stoning by the Taliban.

[Bravus]

Two things:

1. This was a war of choice, and never should have been started. That should never be forgotten. Japan and Germany were both actively invading neighbouring countries, Iraq was not.

2. It is by no means likely that an Al Qaeda-influenced government would take over in Iraq - despite misinformation efforts, the fact remains that Al Qaeda is a tiny and peripheral presence in Iraq. The most probable outcome seems to be a partition of the country into Kurdish, Sunni and Shia areas, with some bloodshed and ethnic cleansing attendant upon that. It's a horrible outcome, but there are very real arguments to be had about whether it can be prevented by staying.

[Bravus]

Quote:

That would be between 16,512 and 19,264 people per year according to your suggestion.

Yep, that's a very, very large *under-estimate* of the number actually dying. You do know 'people' does not mean 'Americans', right?

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

This was a war of choice, and never should have been started.

I disagree with this logic. According to intelligence (which was wrong but we didn't know until after the invasion) Saddam was building chemical and biological with intentions of giving them to terrorists to attack the US. Numerous foreign intelligence services believed he was making these chemical and biological weapons. Russia warned the US of Saddam's plans to attack the US with terrorists and chemical/biological weapons. In the shadow of 9/11, it would have been irresponsible for the US to just wait for the attack to happen.