Wow. So a Democrat controlled government is some sort of disease akin to malaria....

And they say I am partisan

Matt

__________________
Computers programmed * Forums moderated * Lives saved * Closet Nazis unmasked

Low rates. Inquire within.

I gotta agree with him.

__________________
A mugawump is a bird who sits on a fence with his mug on one side and his wump on the other--[COLOR="red"][B]
A fence sitter-upon[/B][/COLOR] IE: a moderate/independent:

[COLOR="Blue"]Any fool can find fault, but it takes a thinking person to find the appropriate solution[/COLOR]

This whole Iraq thing is just a Democratic attempt to distract the voters from the real pressing issues of Flag burning and gay marriage that so threaten our way of life.
(Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain)

__________________
"I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember --I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?"
-- George W. Bush, asked if the tide is turning in Iraq

There have been a number of people - left and right - who have said that what is happening in Iraq is a civil war, or is getting close to being a civil war. Here's another take, from someone close to the situation.

Civil war warning blow to Blair, Guardian Unlimited, Aug. 3, 2006:

how about that??? ---Somebody agrees with me and also sees the handwriting on the wall.

__________________
A mugawump is a bird who sits on a fence with his mug on one side and his wump on the other--[COLOR="red"][B]
A fence sitter-upon[/B][/COLOR] IE: a moderate/independent:

[COLOR="Blue"]Any fool can find fault, but it takes a thinking person to find the appropriate solution[/COLOR]

And he's not the only one....

Head of U.S. command: Iraq civil war possible, CNN.com, Aug. 3, 2006:

... the killing continues throughout the country.

Iraq attacks leave at least 30 dead Tuesday, CNN.com, Aug. 8, 2006:

Investigator: U.S. soldier poured kerosene on raped, slain Iraqi, CNN.com, Aug. 7, 2006:

Using the Reuters doctored photo example, how far up the chain of command should heads roll for this?

This is good news. Seems that they are more interested in fighting each other than fighting the USA nowadays. Couldn't have nothing to do with the USA killing droves of terrorists could it?.

__________________
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. -- Rummy

Wise words from a wise man.

Honestly, probably not. They're just focusing more on their civil war, and we're presenting less opportune targets.

__________________
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
Herman Goering

I am afraid that is just wishful thinking. To the contrary, an increasingly sophisticated Iraqi guerilla appears to have forced US troops to abandon street patrols in daylight, according to a report in Los Angeles Times.


You say that US troops have killed "droves of terrorists" in Iraq. So far the number of Coalition soldiers killed in Iraq is more than 2,800. I think that indicates that the "exchange rate" (i.e. the number of killed Iraqi combatants for each killed Coalition soldier) is rather bad for the Coalition. I think the "exchange rate" was about 1:10 in Vietnam. But in Iraq it is out of the question that it could be 1:10. I would say that perhaps it is 1:1. If we include all casualties - i.e. also wounded combatants and troops - the exchange rate ought to be to the resistance's/terrorists' favour: The extensive body armour of the Coalition troops (something most guerillas lack) has saved many Coalition troops from getting killed. The present number of Coalition troops wounded in action (due to the DoD) is far above 19,000. I think it is absolutely excluded that more than 25,000 armed combatants/terrorists have been killed or wounded by Coalition troops in Iraq.

In short: Of course the US troops have killed a large number of armed resistance combatants/terrorists in Iraq, but for each casualty the US inflict on the armed resistance, they seem to take one casualty themselves, and that has to be very frustrating throughout the US forces in Iraq.

I am very surprised that this has not caused a very serious debate on the obviously lacking capacity of the US troops. Who is responsible for this? But instead those responsible seem to be sticking their heads into the sand.

The world's mightiest armed forces have become bogged down by a few thousand lightly armed Arab guerillas. What would have happened if these US troops would have faced not these unorganised and often ill-trained guerillas, but instead the elite troops of the Hezbollah? Well, I can tell you that even if the Americans don't draw any conclusions from that, the Hezbollah and their supporters in Iraq (which do not from part of the Sunni resistance) do. As do the Iranians.