Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
2,995 bytes removed ,  21:11, March 30, 2007
Deleted the Bob Park piece as it violates Commandment #5. And for pete's sake, if you censor me, at least don't revert back the typos I fix! Use some moderation in your censorship!
Line 1: Line 1: −
'''2003 Iraq War''' (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest war operation in the world{{fact}}, started when the [[United States]] and allies including the [[United Kingdom]]<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/ Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> launched a combat operation against [[Iraq]], with the stated goal of deposing dictator [[Saddam Hussein]] and bring Iraq into compliance with United Nations resolutions regarding [[Weapons of Mass Destruction|Weapons of Mass Destruction programs]].  
+
'''2003 Iraq War''' (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest war operation in the world{{fact}}, started when the [[United States]] and allies including the [[United Kingdom]]<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/11/20/prague.bush.nato/ Bush: Join 'coalition of willing'], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> launched a combat operation against [[Iraq]], with several stated goals, one of which being the removal of dictator [[Saddam Hussein]], and another being the goal of bringing Iraq into compliance with United Nations resolutions regarding [[Weapons of Mass Destruction|Weapons of Mass Destruction programs]] (which, to this date, have not been found).  
   −
The war is currently ongoing, and there exists a large debate over topics such as withdrawal of American forces and the role of nations in the region. The administration argues that the war is is crucial to the larger U.S. led [[War on Terrorism]]. Some Democrats have criticised the administration for percieved blunders in the war on terror, and have themselves been criticized for doing so.  
+
The war is currently ongoing, and there exists a large debate over topics such as withdrawal of American forces and the role of nations in the region. The administration argues that, although there are no links between Iraq and the September 11, 2001 attacks, the war in Iraq is crucial to the larger U.S. led [[War on Terrorism]]. Some Democrats have criticised the administration for perceived blunders in the war on terror, and have themselves been criticized for doing so.  
    
===Iraqi Liberation===
 
===Iraqi Liberation===
Line 26: Line 26:  
Citing safety concerns and saying the following survey was done by "An Iraqi public opinion research firm with a <i>proven record</i> of conducting scientifically valid surveys" (How long have they been doing surveys - "proven record"? Did they do them for Saddam?) the following University of Maryland survey was also cloaked from public view or scrutiny. Again, detractors ask, "How was the question phrased which was answered by the Iraqi respondents?"  
 
Citing safety concerns and saying the following survey was done by "An Iraqi public opinion research firm with a <i>proven record</i> of conducting scientifically valid surveys" (How long have they been doing surveys - "proven record"? Did they do them for Saddam?) the following University of Maryland survey was also cloaked from public view or scrutiny. Again, detractors ask, "How was the question phrased which was answered by the Iraqi respondents?"  
   −
A poll commissioned by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes in the autumn of 2006 found that Iraqi support for anti-Coalition violence had risen to 61%.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm Poll: Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Similarly, a [[U.S. State Department]] poll conducted in 2006 found that "two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops". Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have fled to neighboring [[Jordan]] and [[Syria]] since the 2003 invasion.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html Warning over spiralling Iraq refugee crisis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>
+
A poll commissioned by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes in the autumn of 2006 found that Iraqi support for anti-Coalition violence had risen to 61%.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-27-iraqi-opinion_x.htm Poll: Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref> Similarly, a [[U.S. State Department]] poll conducted in 2006 found that "two-thirds of Iraqis in Baghdad favor an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops". Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have fled to neighboring [[Jordan]] and [[Syria]] since the 2003 invasion.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html Warning over spiraling Iraq refugee crisis], retrieved March 21, 2007</ref>
    
The rather obvious result which is used to buoy this negative report (cited from the US State Department) that two-thirds of Iraqis would like their homeland free of foreign occupation is too vague a question as it does not answer the question of WHEN. The repeated requests to the UN by the Iraqi government for the coalition troops to remain in Iraq to help stabilize the country and the support of the people for the Iraqi government (and its policies, including keeping the US/coalition there) argue against the meaning of this being that the Iraqi people wish the US to simply leave with their mission unfinished.
 
The rather obvious result which is used to buoy this negative report (cited from the US State Department) that two-thirds of Iraqis would like their homeland free of foreign occupation is too vague a question as it does not answer the question of WHEN. The repeated requests to the UN by the Iraqi government for the coalition troops to remain in Iraq to help stabilize the country and the support of the people for the Iraqi government (and its policies, including keeping the US/coalition there) argue against the meaning of this being that the Iraqi people wish the US to simply leave with their mission unfinished.
Line 54: Line 54:  
Concluding that "the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective,"" these deadly agents were ignored and the view that WMD do not exist remains remains perpetuated. The same Fox News article notes, "They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas. It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News."   
 
Concluding that "the mustard gas was "stored improperly," which made the gas "ineffective,"" these deadly agents were ignored and the view that WMD do not exist remains remains perpetuated. The same Fox News article notes, "They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas. It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News."   
   −
ABC News reported on 7/1/2004 this article, "<b>Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq</b>" which stated, "Polish troops have found <b>two warheads</b> in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent. The two warheads were found in early June in a bunker in the area controlled by Polish forces, and they tested positive for cyclosarin, a substance many times stronger than sarin, the ministry said in a statement. "There is no doubt that the warheads contain chemical weapons," Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski told TVN24. "The problem is what period they came from, whether the (Persian) Gulf War or earlier, and whether they were usable, partly usable or not at all." <b>Another dozen were found later in June</b> and were being tested in Baghdad and the United States, he said. <ref> http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-01-poland-iraq-sarin_x.htm </ref> Again, finding WMD, whether usable or not, constitutes <i>finding WMD</i> and refutes those who say there never were any in Iraq. "Partly usable" means it kills only half the intended amount of people? So that means the public may safely ignore any threat these weapons could have posed?
+
ABC News reported on 7/1/2004 this article, "<b>Polish troops find sarin warheads in Iraq</b>" which stated, "Polish troops have found <b>two warheads</b> in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent. This finding was updated 2 days later though, as further testing showed that the warheads did not contain chemical agents of any sort.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24403-2004Jul2.html</ref>  
    
As for anthrax, on Jan 1st 2004, aim.org covered an article saying of Saddam's anthrax production capability, quote, "Investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter (said) that during November he interviewed <b>U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay</b> in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program. Miniter said that Kay <b>told him that, "the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying and milling anthrax—techniques that were superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had.</b> That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world."" <ref> http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html </ref>
 
As for anthrax, on Jan 1st 2004, aim.org covered an article saying of Saddam's anthrax production capability, quote, "Investigative journalist Richard Miniter says there is evidence to indicate Saddam’s anthrax program was capable of producing the kind of anthrax that hit America shortly after 9/11. Miniter (said) that during November he interviewed <b>U.S. weapons inspector Dr. David Kay</b> in Baghdad and that he was "absolutely shocked and astonished" at the sophistication of the Iraqi program. Miniter said that Kay <b>told him that, "the Iraqis had developed new techniques for drying and milling anthrax—techniques that were superior to anything the United States or the old Soviet Union had.</b> That would make the former regime of Saddam Hussein the most sophisticated manufacturer of anthrax in the world."" <ref> http://www.aim.org/publications/media_monitor/2004/01/01.html </ref>
Line 99: Line 99:     
''(Needs more statistics)''
 
''(Needs more statistics)''
Since the war is not yet over, the total cost has yet to be tallied.  However, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] estimates that the war has, as of 3/12/2007, cost less than $400 Billion.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024 Iraq: the hidden cost of the war]</ref> The numbers are highly debated, however, and other sources put the cost around $9 Billion.<ref>[http://costofwar.com/numbers.html Iraq War Cost Calculator Notes]</ref>
+
Since the war is not yet over, the total cost has yet to be tallied.  However, the [[Congressional Budget Office]] estimates that the war has, as of 3/12/2007, cost less than $400 Billion.<ref>[http://www.newstatesman.com/200703120024 Iraq: the hidden cost of the war]</ref> The National Priorities Project, though, indicates that the war costs some $195,000 '''per minute''', according to numbers based on Congressional appropriations, and the tally had reached $412.8 billion as of 3/30/2007.<ref>http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182</ref> Undeniable is the fact that the true cost of the war cannot be measured by a simple dollar amount.
      Line 105: Line 105:     
According to the US Department of Defense, over 3,200 U.S. troops have died in the war.<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil Department of Defense]</ref>   
 
According to the US Department of Defense, over 3,200 U.S. troops have died in the war.<ref>[http://www.defenselink.mil Department of Defense]</ref>   
  −
<b>Enemy Casualties</b>
  −
  −
According to Bob Parks in his Mar 28, 07 piece <b><i>Iraq: We Ain't Losing</i></b> "In war, the traditional way of gauging who is winning or not is, unfortunately, a count of battlefield casualties. We have everyone from activists to actors to congressmen and women to pundits all telling us how many of our servicemen and women have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. People keep score in blogs and even on the sides of their homes, yet we never hear the one number that may put at ease, for some, the sacrifice made by our sons and daughters. <b>How many of the enemy have we killed?  A simple question.</b>
  −
  −
The answer came from Larry Schweikart, Professor of History at the University of Dayton who sent Mr. Parks the following:
  −
  −
Last August, President Bush invited me and a few other military historians to spend an hour with him in the Oval Office. When I brought up this “enemy dead” issue, he shook his head and said, “I’m afraid since Vietnam and the ‘body counts’ we really can’t even use this as a measuring stick [as far as the public was concerned].” It was a sad commentary on how out of whack things got---especially if you think (as I do) that not all Muslims are terrorists.  That means there are a finite number, and we have to be getting pretty close to the bottom of the barrel.
  −
  −
Since then, I’ve updated the numbers with refinements and calculate that a low estimate of 30,000 terrorists have been killed since 9/11, and an upperbound number of 60,000.  On top of that, between 120 and 240,000 terrorists have been wounded.  This is where it gets tricky.  Likely because their medicine isn’t as good as ours, they have a higher death rate among wounded, which probably means that instead of 1 out of 8 dying of wounds, it’s more like 3 out of 8, and that number is in my first set of stats.  In addition, we have captured close to 50,000 terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq since 9/11, and since the beginning of hostilities in Iraq, using traditional desertion rates, I figure at least another 10,000 jihadists have put away the old IED and gone home.
  −
  −
<b>So, a low estimate is that we have removed from the order of battle about 210,000 on the low end to 360,000 on the high end.  This is an entire generation of jihadists</b>, and will, if nothing else, significantly feminize Muslim society. So those who wish to tell our nation, and the world, that we are losing the war on terror are living a lie.  Those who wish to use our soldiers for political gain are no better than those shooting at them on the ground. Number don’t lie.  People do.
  −
  −
http://newsbyus.com/more.php?id=7673_0_1_0_M
      
==References==
 
==References==
39

edits

Navigation menu