Here Today... Gone To Hell!

By STEVEN R. HURST
 
BAGHDAD (AP) - The number of American troops and Iraqi civilians killed in the war fell in September to levels not seen in more than a year. The U.S. military said the lower count was at least partly a result of new strategies and 30,000 additional U.S. forces deployed this year.

Although it is difficult to draw conclusions from a single month's tally, the figures could suggest U.S.-led forces are making headway against extremist factions and disrupting their ability to strike back.

The U.S. military toll for September was 64, the lowest since July 2006, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press from death announcements by the American command and Pentagon.

More dramatic, however, was the decline in Iraqi civilian, police and military deaths. The figure was 988 in September - 50 percent lower than the previous month and the lowest tally since June 2006, when 847 Iraqis died.
 
The Iraqi death count is considered a minimum based on AP reporting. The actual number is likely higher, as many killings go unreported.

Nevertheless, the heartening numbers emerged just three weeks after U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and commander Gen. David Petraeus argued before a divided Congress that more time was needed for Iraq to begin seeing results from President Bush's dispatch of an additional 30,000 forces to pacify Baghdad and surrounding regions.

On Monday they issued an unusual joint statement to the Iraqi people that credited them for the decline in violence.

"We must maintain the momentum that together we have achieved. We are confident that you and your fellow citizens will continue to display determination, that Iraqi security forces will remain vigilant and that additional Iraqis will join our combined effort," they said.

Their message opened with greetings to the Iraqi people during the holy month of Ramadan, when Muslims focus on their spiritual lives and fast from dawn to dusk.
 
"Please know that we remain absolutely committed to this effort. ... Much work lies ahead of us. Despite the challenges, we can, together, achieve success," the two men wrote in the statement signed and dated by each.

Of particular note, the message referred to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr by his honorific, Sayyid Muqtada. Sayyid is a title designating a religious figure as a direct descendant of the Prophet Muhammad.

"We also sincerely hope that the cease-fire declared by the Sayyid Muqtada will continue to be observed and be further extended to all members of Jaysh al-Mahdi (Arabic for Mahdi Army)," Crocker and Petraeus wrote.

After a violent confrontation between the Mahdi Army and guards at a religious shrine in the holy city of Karbala in August, al-Sadr said he was standing down his fighters for six months to reorganize.

Col. Steven Boylan, spokesman for Petraeus, said there was "no silver bullet or one thing" responsible for the declining death tolls. But he credited increased U.S. troop strength, saying that had allowed American forces to step up operations against al-Qaida in Iraq and other insurgent and militia fighters.
 
Anthony H. Cordesman, former director of intelligence assessment at the Pentagon and analyst with the private Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said the decline in violent deaths was a positive trend that does seem to be related to the increase in U.S. forces. But he said it was too early to know if it will last.

"We tend to focus too much on killing rather than wounded, on extreme acts of violence rather than patterns of displacement or ethnic cleansing." He said that when looking at overall stability in Iraq, killings are only one measure.

"This is, I think one of the great difficulties. It's a very complex pattern of fighting and people look for simple statistical bottom lines rather the overall pattern," he said.

"You know you've won when you've won, not when you get the first set of positive indicators," he said.

While civilian deaths were sharply lower last month, Baghdad remained the center of violence in percentage terms. For this year, 54 percent of all sectarian killings occurred in the capital and suburbs. That figure declined to just above 49 percent in September. For the year, the next two most violent regions were the provinces of Diyala and Nineveh.

The number of civilian deaths in Baghdad, 487, also far outstripped any other region in September. Next highest was Diyala province, an al-Qaida sanctuary immediately north and east of the capital, where 124 civilians were killed.

AP tallies civilian, Iraqi military and Iraqi police deaths each day as reported by police, hospital officials, morgue workers and verifiable witness accounts. The security personnel include Iraqi military, police and police recruits, and bodyguards. Insurgent deaths are not included.

In Washington, Senator Joseph Biden issued a statement clarifying what he said were misconceptions about a nonbinding Senate resolution that passed last week under his cosponsorship.

The resolution calls on the Iraqi government and parliament to adhere to the country's constitution, which lays out a plan for a loose confederation of regions under a limited central government, leaving the bulk of power with the regions.

"Since then, some political leaders in Iraq have misunderstood the amendment. Instead of working to clear up any misunderstandings about the Senate amendment, the U.S. embassy in Baghdad issued a statement that dangerously mischaracterizes it," said Biden.

He said the amendment, co-sponsored by Republican Senator Sam Brownback, "does not call for the partition of Iraq. To the contrary, it calls for keeping Iraq together by bringing to life the federal system enshrined in its constitution.

"Partition, or the complete break-up of Iraq, is something wholly different than federalism. A federal Iraq is a united Iraq, but one in which power is devolved to regional governments with a limited central government responsible for protecting Iraq's borders and oil distribution.

"It leaves the door open for stronger unity if and when passions cool, as we're seeing in the Balkans. Nor does the amendment call for dividing Iraq along sectarian lines," Biden said, adding that the resolution only calls for Iraqis to implement their constitution.

The U.S. Embassy joined a broad swath of Iraqi politicians - both Shiite and Sunni - in criticizing the resolution, seen here as a recipe for splitting the country along sectarian and ethnic lines.

Biden contested the Embassy's assertion that the resolution could lead to "bloodshed and suffering" in Iraq and charged the Bush administration was "pursuing a fatally flawed policy in trying to create a strong central government in Iraq." Biden is a Democratic candidate for president; Brownback is seeking the Republican nomination.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20071001/D8S0M4BG0.html

Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) has documented 1280 civilian deaths for Sept. While there has been about a decrease from gunfire and executions, relatively; the death toll from car bombings has more than doubled.

As the article noted, the military used the "best case senario" for "crunching it's numbers".

Succes/Failure for this war has been reduced to statistics and number crunching.  Whoever can manipulate the stats best wins.

just like vietnam. we cant win, so we "justify" it by showing the #s. a war by #s

it's the Enron War

Speaking of which, the Senate just asked each of us (Americans, that is) for $500 to continue the war.  Fork it over.  I'm, uh, the war money collector.  ;D

That is every man, woman, and child. What will that money get us? 5 or 6 more months? 7 or 8 thousand more deaths?

This is actually good news.  If this keeps up maybe we can bring more troops home.

I Agree.? I also think we shouldn't be fighting a PC or US political battle in Iraq by proxy.? I also believe the E.U. should step in and help out with humanitarian and infastructure support to speed up the process of ending the war.? They don't have to send troops but enginnering and corporate groups with money would help.? I don't think it's a stretch especially when there is a large muslim population in the E.U. and keep the media at arms length to prevent bias on either front.
? ? Troops and/or NATO should make itself available to secure the borders and make a presence in the waters sorrounding Iraq and Iran (The staits of Hormuz) so the pressure is up to show support for the effort to end the Iraq war and keep an Iranian war from happening.? Dialog can also be big in this process.? It may work?? It's better than just talking about what isn't working and that the US should just leave.? Backseat driving doesn't work either.? If the living conditions are a big concern, than maybe if those problems are alieveted it would help on several fronts.?

only a thousand civilian deaths? - what an achievement......

This is repeating the same mistakes we've been doing for ever.
What we want to portray as "rebuilding" and "foreign direct investements" are in fact colonial actions. Corporate groups will harvest ressources, keep the local industry at the lowest level of the Global Supply Chain and transfer raw ressources to home countries, or transform then in off-shore factories, keeping the benefits, the gain, the value, out of the local market.
The last report form the UN on the least developed countries (iraq wasnt listed as one, but we'll be in the next draft) proved that the only way out for local economies was inovation and technological learning; And they have shown that in the past 20 years, this has not happen, because the west have been following what you advise: send American or French companies there, take advantage, and make billions that the local people never see, and keep the local economy competition as low as possible (no technological transfer).


I dont understand your point ....

THIS is exactly what NOT to do.

The only way out (long term) is for the West to GET THE F*CK OUT OF THERE.
First step to world peace is to realize that the New World Order doesn't work, and as Ahmadinejad (Un speech) said:
" Without doubt, the first factor lies in the relations arising from the consequences of the Second World War. The victors of the war drew the roadmap for global domination and formulated their policies not on the basis of justice but for ensuring the interests of the victors over the vanquished nations. Therefore mechanisms arising from this approach and related policies have not been capable of finding just solutions for global problems since 60 years ago.

Some big powers still behave like the victors of the World War and regard other states and nations, even those that had nothing to do with the war, as the vanquished, and humiliate other nations and demand extortion from a condescending position similar to that of the master/servant relationship of the medieval ages. "

Many things have to be done, at the same time, concordantly:
1- Take a drastic turn in how Super powers regards other countries. In less than a year, both the US and France have shown disgusting manners, from the speech of the French President Sarkozy in Africa saying that "the african man has not entered history yet" to the amazing hypocrizy of the west regarding the Iran case (start with basing all arguments on AIEA, then when AIEA says things are ok and Iran is working with them, base arguments on *experts*, then talk about homosexuals) - oh and burmas is under dictature for 20 years now, but no one moves ....
2- Change our point of view on israel and palestine.
3- Impact all out international institutions with this new state of mind : IMF (starts with the new socialist french president of IFM), World Bank, UN ... smaller, poor, weaker countries need a voice ! Get rid of the security council.

While doing that, we can
- slowly widthdraw amezrican troops from iraq
- limit presend to UN toops (if possible no british/american kids in there)
- ask for REGIONAL help: Iran, Saudis, Syria must step in
- re-construction should be focused on local growth, and Total, Exxon, any other western companies MUST KEEP THE FUCK OUT this place.


The Biggest mistake to make would be to keep a presence there and "promote our democracy". Not only our actions must shift, but also our words, i have never heard such bullshit in the past 5 years, and our leaders speech actually got into kids mind, i even read, online, young people posting things like ?: " arabs and africans dont understand democracy, they can't behave or be organized, we have to teach them" ....

You are quoting Ahmadinejad to back up your points?  :hihi:

yeah, and? It invalidates the rest of what i said?

Not exactly. I can see where you are coming from with some of it even if I do not agree , but Ahmadinejad's quote does not make your position stronger considering his track record - ie. no gays in Iran, the Holocaust is a myth, wanting to wipe Israel off the map, women are the most free in Iran, and so on.........

i know it was just a bit provocating ... but i stand by my words, the man speaks some truth in between all the insanities ...

That's not his track record, it's the medias interpretation (propaganda) of his track record.

Ahmadinejad, and his party's record speaks for itself. His quotes and speaches have been widely distributed. This man has had numerous chances to "clarify" his positition, but has steadfastly refused to repudiate quotes made in his name. No amount of revisionist interpretation is going cleanse the record of this "petty and cruel dictator".

 ? ?Instead of cherry picking my points and instead of listening to the reasonings of the iranian president who is not trusted by his people or by the High Clerics, try to read and shape it into a workable solution. ?Bear in mind the conditions that exist ex:Military Forces are there and won't be leaving.? Not just U.S. and British either.? Who really knows how many announced or unannounced but welcomed forces operate in the theater?
 ?Iraq will have a presence until things are stable and rebuilt. ?They can be used to make sure another country doesn't try to send it's own agents of hostility in to inflame the situation at hand. ?Instead, if the true muslims of the EU and the middle east wish to help the Iraqi situation then they should help rebuild with cash, ideas and a managed plan to do so; like investing in oil, banking, schools, plants etc. not unlike what any western country is doing. ?BTW besides fighting a war, there is a large amount of rebuilding and building in areas that have never been developed before.
 ? The people of Iraq should build their country but without aide, they're not getting anything done. ?Without corporate monies and ideas no country will flourish. ?Some corporations are the only ones able to get things done including Exxon. ?Some of these or most big companies are global not just "western."
 ? These things will not change so I try and be a realist and use some common sense. Instead of swimming against the tide, I tend to swim with or under the tide and try and think through the muck and try to see if there exists a viable solution with the cards you are dealt. ?Just beating a rebellious drum or a pro drum doesn't work but using what you have is better than starting either over or redoing some things that have already been started.
    I don't understand your statement regarding Israel and Palestine fits but again some things may be lost in translation. ?

Read your statement again.? This is just a rediculous statement.? Name one thing that he has said that means squat when you put it in context with what he believes.? I'd assassinate the man if it wouldn't result in some other shithead taking his place.? It's ok to be far left or far right, but use some sense and stay away from defending evil dictators, moveon.org, politicians that commit adultry or Bush's foreign policy.

I watched his speech at Columbia. I know what he said. Are you saying the interpreter blatantly lied?  If that is your argument I am not sure you are living in reality.

I have to wonder if you listened to the speech as poorly as you read the prior statement? ^^

Did he say Holocaust was a myth at Colombia? That Israel should be eradicated?


He did clarify his position at Columbia.

Being widely distributed is hardly an argument when it's based on falsehoods from the propaganda media.

He didn't clarify anything, but instead threw a bunch of red herrings and dodged a bunch of hard questions.





You want to cling to this argument, but as of yet, have not offered shred of evidence of these "falsehoods from the propaganda".

I'm about as liberal as they come, however, I would never "through the baby out with the bathwater" in an attempt to discredit one fascist to the benefit of another. I think all tyrants deserve the fate of Il Duc?.

Well, that's your subjective opinion.


I am concerned with the truth, not sides. The Iranian government is ludicrous, no doubt, but that is not the issue. The issue is that Western powers construct lies so they can justify bombing a country and exploit their resources.

And here's the evidence for my propaganda claim:

The Guardian's Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word "map" used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word "map" used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/260107offthemap.htm

One of the Secretaries of his Party/Government made the claim for the destruction of Israel; Ahmadinejad is too coy to fall into that trap. Anyway, he had the oppurtunity to distance hinself from the remark, and chose not to. To me, that is an implicit acceptance of the remark.

While I share your concern about the ratcheting up of rhetoric intended to bring a West v. Iran military conflict, there are to problems here.  First, Prison Planet is hardly a credible source for anything.  That said, I'm willing to believe that a direct translation of Ahmadinejad didn't read "Wipe Israel from the map."  My second point, however, is that it doesn't really matter.  "Wipe Israel from the map" strikes me as a Western (American?) colloquialism, and one which he wouldn't use.  And there's really no tangible difference between that phrase and what it is claimed a direct translation of his speech says: "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."  Sure, one might read as "we're coming to get you," while the other is more a call to arms against a perceived enemy, but they're both overtly hostile, and seem to reflect his belief that Israel should not exist, whether it's through an extermination of its Jewish population or simply a fading away of Israel as a political entity. 

Lastly, I'd say that the absence something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  I doubt Bush has said he wants to "Wipe Iran off the map."  Do you believe he doesn't?

That's pure assumption, invalid in any form as an argument. The evidence is pretty clear, he never said Israel should be wiped off the map in the way Western media has scrupulously portrayed it . In fact, the alleged quote is just another quote from the former Ayatollah, used to enhance a point.

The only assumption I made was that he was coy. The rest is fact or logical conclusion.

I agree with your skepticism of the source, but I have seen this case been made in several smaller outlets, so I stand confident behind it's integrity.


No, I don't doubt that many Iranian leaders would probably be delighted to see another holocaust, or at the very least, a victory in conventional war.

But this is not what has been said, and while I'd very much like a change of government in Iran, I simply can't ignore that our leaders is deliberately manipulating the populace to gain support for another power grab. This is not what I've been taught is the civilized way, and I'm not prepared to abandon such principles because of "goal justifies the means" rethorics. Especially not when those rethorics are based on dishonesty.

And just so that it is said, Iran pose no threat to the world, with or without nuclear capabilities. I find that notion so ridiculous that it frightens me people are falling for it. The West got the world by the balls. They dictate policy wherever they please, and if somebody refuses to play ball they get a visit either from a black agent with a gun or 200.000 killers in uniform. They all know this. And if somebody should be stupid enough to launch nukes....well what do you think would happen to them? That's right, and the Iranian leaders know this very well. It's a defensive strategy on their behalf, nothing more.

People need to start focusing on why certain countries possess such hatred of us. Nobody is born with evil thoughts. If enough people started doing that we would be calling for our Presidents head, not Irans.

Anybody who knows a little bit how israel is constructed (and what are the basis of this state) knows that, one day, soon enough, the state israel, as we know it, will disapear.
Parameters like demography, globalization, world travel, countries mash up (EU, south asia ...) clearly show that the idea of "israel" as we know it, does not have any future.
It'd be like creating a country for "redheads" today.

I'd like your opinions on the last part of my post (as we stopped on ahmadinejads) :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some big powers still behave like the victors of the World War and regard other states and nations, even those that had nothing to do with the war, as the vanquished, and humiliate other nations and demand extortion from a condescending position similar to that of the master/servant relationship of the medieval ages. [/i] "

Many things have to be done, at the same time, concordantly:
1- Take a drastic turn in how Super powers regards other countries. In less than a year, both the US and France have shown disgusting manners, from the speech of the French President Sarkozy in Africa saying that "the african man has not entered history yet" to the amazing hypocrizy of the west regarding the Iran case (start with basing all arguments on AIEA, then when AIEA says things are ok and Iran is working with them, base arguments on *experts*, then talk about homosexuals) - oh and burmas is under dictature for 20 years now, but no one moves ....
2- Change our point of view on israel and palestine.
3- Impact all out international institutions with this new state of mind : IMF (starts with the new socialist french president of IFM), World Bank, UN ... smaller, poor, weaker countries need a voice ! Get rid of the security council.

While doing that, we can
- slowly widthdraw amezrican troops from iraq
- limit presend to UN toops (if possible no british/american kids in there)
- ask for REGIONAL help: Iran, Saudis, Syria must step in
- re-construction should be focused on local growth, and Total, Exxon, any other western companies MUST KEEP THE FUCK OUT this place.


The Biggest mistake to make would be to keep a presence there and "promote our democracy". Not only our actions must shift, but also our words, i have never heard such bullshit in the past 5 years, and our leaders speech actually got into kids mind, i even read, online, young people posting things like ?: " arabs and africans dont understand democracy, they can't behave or be organized, we have to teach them" ....

thx,

I agree with much of the latter part of your post, though, I don't think it is that simple ... international affairs never are.

Regarding the former, It would be like forming a country for redheads ... if they had lived there for ten or twelve thousand years. Israel is a State. Irael will remain a State. Israeli and US relations are intimately intertwined; the US would never allow Israel lose her national identity ... nor should it.

I generally agree with this, though I haven't seen any evidence that the anti-Iranian rhetoric from the US government is actually swaying public opinion toward a pro-war stance.  Just because I haven't seen it, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, so if someone has seen a poll indicating increasing support for US action against Iran (:nervous:) then I'd appreciate seeing those numbers.  Of course, the real question is whether the Bush admin will manage to start a conflict a.) without Congressional approval and b.) with little public support.  I doubt the public support will be there.  I seriously doubt people in this country will be so quick to believe any "evidence" provided by Bush, and they don't have Colin Powell as their uber-credible spokesman, anymore.  What concerns me much more is the categorization of parts of the Iranian military as terrorist organizations, which Bush could use as reason to initiate a conflict as part of the "war on terror."  While he's a kook, Gravel was right when he said "I'm ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it." 

In addition to Congressional/public opinion problems Bush might have in starting such a conflict, there would be far less international support for it than there was for going into Iraq.  The US had much more trust from and clout within the international community, then, and I doubt we'd get any to go with us.  It would be a very lonely venture, and I've often wondered, if the UK hadn't joined us in Iraq, would we have gone? 


I'm not sure exactly what you mean.  Certainly Israel will evolve, somewhat, as all countries do over time, but it will disappear?  I suppose a ridiculously optimistic view might see and eventual state of Israel-Palestine, but it seems more likely that there will be either a period of two states, first before any unification, or a long, slow fading off of violence, before full Palestinian political rights come to pass as part of a new, larger Israel. 

I don't believe there exists any rational or common sense in many posts.? Maybe it's life expierence?? I wonder why I entertain some?? Even though we may not agree on certain issues or ideologies, we understand that you have to deal with what you have and it's not easy and there are so many variables involved that it makes things more complex then what some have posted or believe.? In actuality things could and probably would get worse if we were to do some proposed international affairs options?? Troubling to me is the anti-semitism undertones are really not hidden in a couple of threads by 1 or 2 posters and that's is wrong.? Just for the sake of others who may be a member of the fan site in general, it doesn't belong here.? Maybe I'm taking things out of contexts here? I'm tappin out..Later..JM

Bonaducistan?

HaHA Any country that attacks better have a dental plan because there will be a lot of missing chicklets