More Proof That The Surge Worked
To all the naysayers and “doom & gloomers” who predicted utter failure and disaster regarding the troop surge in Iraq: you were WRONG! Totally and utterly WRONG!
Trackposted to Take Our Country Back, Allie is Wired, Faultline USA, Woman Honor Thyself, Shadowscope, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices. Also, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
November 14th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
This shows that additional military did their job. It has nothing to do with the morality of an unjust war. It just shows that the empire can quell rebellions as long as it’s there in force. Peace through victory not through justice, that’s the way of empire not of Jesus.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Caption Hillary Clinton!…
This dress begs to be mocked, and who better to do it than me and my three readers…
Ladies and Gentlemen, Bill hasn’t touched me in a biblical way for decades and I suffered in silence. With the rumors swirling of the position of Sec of ….
November 14th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Scott, we will just have to agree to disagree on this. The war in Iraq was quite well justified and overwhelmingly supported by Congress when it was declared. Now if you feel that Saddam Hussein was a nice guy and taking him out was wrong, that’s your problem, not mine. Taking all the facts into consideration (not the liberal spin nor the hindsight) it was obviously the right thing to do. However I am of the opinion that the war was not handled properly after Hussein was removed and his “army” vanquished. Now we can argue the Scriptural aspects of war til we’re both blue in the face. It is obvious that neither of us is going to change our minds on the matter. I contend that God does allow ourselves to defend ourselves against evil both individually as well as a country (NOT an empire — quite a misnomer) and frankly, Saddam Hussein and Islamic terrorists are quite evil.
November 15th, 2008 at 12:25 am
[...] Cat, , third world county, Faultline USA, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, Walls of the City, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Rosemary’s News and Ideas, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, and Gone [...]
November 15th, 2008 at 4:25 am
It is good to know that the US military was finally able to be flexible enough to create more successful tactics. However.
1) Iraq had no WMD. Iraq was never a threat to the US or its neighbours.
2) Iraq was not involved in 9/11.
3) The war has resulted in the deaths of over 1 million Iraqis after “Mission accomplished”, and the mass exodus of millions more into neighbouring countries like Syria.
Given a hypothetical choice between the current situation and a theoretical continuation of Saddam Hussein’s rule, it is obvious that Iraq would’ve been better off with Saddam, sad as that seems. If Gaddafi could change his tune, so might’ve Saddam.
November 15th, 2008 at 5:00 am
One:
Actually, some points in regards and in response to your three:
1) At the time, multiple reliable intelligence sources from many countries indicated Iraq has WMD’s. Congress believed them at the time as well including an overwhelming majority of Democrats. Hussein kept bragging that he had ‘em and was willing to use ‘em. And he has used gas attacks and other instances beforehand. Furthermore, violating U.N. mandate after U.N. mandate merely added to the issue. And kicking out U.N. inspectors didn’t help matters either.
2) The invasion of Iraq was never about 9/11. This is a non sequitur point.
3) Your figure of “over 1 million Iraqis” dead is a blatant and debunked exageration.
So your three points become moot since they are all based on misinformation and come from very faulty premises.
And if you believe Iraq would have been better off under Saddam Hussein then you truly are living in a weird bizarro world. All those Iraqis who are now free to do business and live life without having to worry about Saddam’s death squads and other life threatening issues disagree with you. Those thousands upon thousands of Iraqis who risked their lives to come out and vote in their first legitimate election in decades disagree with you.
In short, you’re wrong factually. You’re wrong theoretically. And you’re wrong on the hypothetical as well.
November 15th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.
There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, al-Qaida, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board.
The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses.
But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.
- Senator Robert Byrd, 19 March 2003
November 15th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
The Lancet study has never been debunked.
There are plenty who disagree with it, but no one has successfully debunked it
November 16th, 2008 at 2:55 am
Actually the Lancet study has been effectively refuted and exposed to have use faulty methodologies in its statistical formula. So to claim it has never been debunked is being intellectually and factually dishonest. For example, Cambridge University experts studied the criteria and methodology of the Lancet study and found major flaws in the setup and execution of the study. Numerous other experts in the fields of statistics, epidemiology, medicine, mathematice, etc. have studied the Lancet study and concluded that its findings are quite unreliable. Furthermore, even the Lancet study’s finding do not support your claims of over 1 million deaths. That number is simply unsupported by any reliable scientific data and was plucked out of thin air by opponents of the war and passed along by gullible individuals like yourself. More reliable studies, such as the 2004 United Nations Development Programme Iraq Living Conditions Survey give a much lower number than the Lancet studies. One other minor tidbit you either were unaware of or either intentionally left out was that George Soros funded the Lancet study and Soros’ liberal bias definitely influenced it. Also many experts showed questionable assumptions, implausible data, and ideological leanings among the authors, Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, and Les Roberts. The lack of openess in the amassing of the raw data as well as details of the methodology also raise serious questions concerning the validity of the results. The authors of the Lancet studies have to even this day kept most of the information need to independently verify their results under lock and key. Also much of their methodology that has been made public have been proven to be unethical. For example, Les Roberts, began the studies by smuggling himself into Iraq with $20,000 stuffed in his money belt and shoes. Not exactly proper actions in conducting valid statistical surveys. In legitimate scientific an experiment must be transparent and repeatable in order to receive proper credence. Submitting to that scientific method, the authors would make the unvarnished data available for inspection by other researchers. Because they did not do this a most basic question about this research has been raised: Was it verifiably undertaken as described in the two Lancet articles? Upon intense examination the majority found that it was most like not. Therefore the Lancet studies are not credible under standard scientific methodology.
Fritz Scheuren, vice president for statistics at the National Opinion Research Center and a past president of the American Statistical Association, said, “They failed to do any of the [routine] things to prevent fabrication.” The weakest part of the Lancet surveys is their reliance on an unsupervised Iraqi survey team, contended Scheuren, who has recently trained survey workers in Iraq.
I suggest you read up on all of this since you failed to acknowledge the major problems and flaws that have been shown in the Lancet surveys concerning the Iraq war.
Former KKK member Robert Byrd’s words are merely the opinion of a politically driven individual who has a long history of doing and saying whatever he feels necessary to keep him in office. Quoting him doesn’t change the fact that your position based upon what you have presented, it wrong. Byrd’s words that you quoted were a blatant misrepresentation of the Bush administration’s position on the Iraq war and a typical liberal attempt to paint the Bush administration in the worst light possible irregardless of facts. Byrd’s comments do not support your contention that a reason for going to Iraq was 9/11. George Bush made it abundantly clear such an accusation was patently false yet liberals still cling to it like a worn-out mystical mantra.
In short, you’ve presented falsehoods, misrepresentations and a lot of liberalistic nonsense to try to counter the proper and factual justifications for going into Iraq which I remind you an overwhelming majority of Democrats voted FOR.
Now thus far I’ve allowed your comments to be approved but if this lack of factualness and intellectual honesty continues, that privilege will be rescinded.
November 16th, 2008 at 3:17 am
Bottom line, the surge worked in Iraq.
November 16th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Please give links, and I’ll look at the evidence.
November 16th, 2008 at 8:07 am
BTW, it’s privilege, not priviledge
November 16th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Thank you for pointing out the spelling error. I never claimed to be all that outstanding in spelling and grammar. I do the best I can but FWIW, I majored in mathematics in college. My wife has the master’s in English lit.
As to your request: Frankly, I don’t have time to go about getting all the URLs. If you are truly interested in getting all the info and background materials on the Lancet studies (including, but not limited to, the errors and flaws contained therein) as well as numerous other, more accurate studies, etc. then you’ll just have to do the work yourself. Most of it is available on the Internet so you can use a good search engine. And there are journal articles and also some books that also have valuable info on the topics of not only the Lancet studies, but also proper methodologies in conducting proper surveys/studies, subsequent peer review techniques, etc. You will have to do the research yourself on this. I’ve done my own, now you may do yours.