They really should have gone after this guy about 2 years back when he
started the problems. Southern Iraq had been pretty quiet, and now this

right near the Iranian border. The General they have on CNN is right.
The Iraq gov't has made exuses for this guy and not gone after him. I
fthey're not willing to do something about an entire city on fire, it
will be a bad move on their part. This is going to be a big test for
the new gov't there.

"David E. Powell" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> They really should have gone after this guy about 2 years back when he
> started the problems. Southern Iraq had been pretty quiet, and now this
>

Nearly all parties involved have been trying not to wage war sufficiently
for several years now. This is just another example. From the start this
war should have been waged as if every last creature will be killed, and let
the trouble makers race each other to prove they are no longer in the
resistance business. Instead the coalition forces have been racing each
other to see which partner can avoid seeing what is plain to see. Until we
see a General Sherman approach of taking the war into the centers of
support, not just shooting the "foot soldiers" which allow the power brokers
in Riyadh, Tehran, and Islambad to indulge in their fanatsy, this war will
continue.

Our enemy isn't necessarily the rank and file of Iraq, but we should use
massive war to force them to drive out the troublemakers from among their
midst. We will never be able to read the minds of Iraqis and sort the good
Muslims from the bad Muslims. Therefore we need to demonstrate to all of
them that we are perfectly able to destroy all of their world in a moment,
and we will lose no sleep in doing it, unless they demonstrate a clear
surrender to our will. Slow war, is not an easy war. This is especially
important when fighting people from a shame/honor culture. Those are the
people that it is most important to defeat comprehensively. Our mercy
should be reserved for the day after they recognize they have been defeated.

--

Scott

Drain the swamp. Deport Islam. Until Muslims observe and protect
human/religious rights of others they should not be allowed to remain in the
West. Islam, as practiced, is incompatible with Western freedom.

David E. Powell wrote:
> They really should have gone after this guy about 2 years back when he
> started the problems. Southern Iraq had been pretty quiet, and now this
>
> right near the Iranian border. The General they have on CNN is right.
> The Iraq gov't has made exuses for this guy and not gone after him. I
> fthey're not willing to do something about an entire city on fire, it
> will be a bad move on their part. This is going to be a big test for
> the new gov't there.


The generals are politically inept as always. It would not have been
possible to go after him then, just like it's not possible now. He
always had a huge constituency among the Shiite masses, including in
2003 when he was powerful enough to openly challenge the then existing
religious hierarchy.

Right now, Al-Sadr is the best bet - probably the only one too - that
Iraqi Shiites have to form a viable state. Rather than the usual
wishful thinking maybe the same generals should start examining the
Iraqi internal situation in terms of balance of power; there are two
extremes operating over there, maybe they could cancel each other out.
A neutered Iraq would still be a strategic success.

tscottme wrote:
> "David E. Powell" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> They really should have gone after this guy about 2 years back when he
>> started the problems. Southern Iraq had been pretty quiet, and now this
>>
>
> Nearly all parties involved have been trying not to wage war sufficiently
> for several years now. This is just another example. From the start this
> war should have been waged as if every last creature will be killed, and let
> the trouble makers race each other to prove they are no longer in the
> resistance business. Instead the coalition forces have been racing each
> other to see which partner can avoid seeing what is plain to see. Until we
> see a General Sherman approach of taking the war into the centers of
> support, not just shooting the "foot soldiers" which allow the power brokers
> in Riyadh, Tehran, and Islambad to indulge in their fanatsy, this war will
> continue.

It's an insurgency. You don't win by killing the enemy. You win by
cutting off their reinforcements.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

If FDR fought fascism the way Bush fights terrorism, we'd all be
speaking German now.

That's funny Sept 11 happened when we were far more isolationist than we are
likely ever to be in the future. It has taken 5 years of fighting in Iraq
to achieve a similar body count as happened in a couple of hours on one
Tuesday morning.

Your prescription is to ceede more and more ground in the vain attempt that
those that will always find a reason to attack the US will eventually
succumb to reason and a good example. We couldn't avoid WWII by giving away
"breathing space" any more than we can .

The best compromise is to beat our enemy like a rapid dog and then withdraw.
--

Scott

Drain the swamp. Deport Islam. Until Muslims observe and protect
human/religious rights of others they should not be allowed to remain in the
West. Islam, as practiced, is incompatible with Western freedom.
"eponymous cowherd" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "tscottme" > wrote:
>
>> We will never be able to read the minds of Iraqis and sort the good
>> Muslims from the bad Muslims.
>
> Then why not leave iraq, prevent muslim immigration and make it
> extremely difficult for muslims to travel to the us. This should save
> american lives better than winning a war in iraq. The soldiers lost
> either winning or losing in iraq count as dead americans. Isolationism
> yields the fewest dead americans, that is the right choice.

"Raptor" > wrote in message
...
> tscottme wrote:
>> "David E. Powell" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> They really should have gone after this guy about 2 years back when he
>>> started the problems. Southern Iraq had been pretty quiet, and now this
>>>
>>
>> Nearly all parties involved have been trying not to wage war sufficiently
>> for several years now. This is just another example. From the start
>> this war should have been waged as if every last creature will be killed,
>> and let the trouble makers race each other to prove they are no longer in
>> the resistance business. Instead the coalition forces have been racing
>> each other to see which partner can avoid seeing what is plain to see.
>> Until we see a General Sherman approach of taking the war into the
>> centers of support, not just shooting the "foot soldiers" which allow the
>> power brokers in Riyadh, Tehran, and Islambad to indulge in their
>> fanatsy, this war will continue.
>
> It's an insurgency. You don't win by killing the enemy. You win by cutting
> off their reinforcements.
>
> --

That's why I envoked the General Sherman reference. The American Civil War
wasn't won because the Union killed all the Southern soldiers. Sherman
waged war on the plantation owners and war-making abilility of the South.
The Salafists and the Twelvers will fight until the last future cab driver
is dead in the street. They won't fight 1 month after their butt is set
ablaze.


--

Scott

Drain the swamp. Deport Islam. Until Muslims observe and protect
human/religious rights of others they should not be allowed to remain in the
West. Islam, as practiced, is incompatible with Western freedom.

"David E. Powell" > wrote in
ups.com:

> They really should have gone after this guy about 2 years back when he
> started the problems. Southern Iraq had been pretty quiet, and now this
> right near the Iranian border. The General they have on CNN is right.
> The Iraq gov't has made exuses for this guy and not gone after him. I
> fthey're not willing to do something about an entire city on fire, it
> will be a bad move on their part. This is going to be a big test for
> the new gov't there.

There has been some discussion recently about whether al-Sadr
actually controls the Mehdi Army any more. There are apparently
factions within that organisation that are no longer taking his
orders. This complicates things slightly.
Having said that we may be in for round three with these clowns.
If thats the case then not capping al-Sadr would be a crime
against humanity.

"tscottme" > wrote in message
...
> That's funny Sept 11 happened when we were far more isolationist than we
are
> likely ever to be in the future. It has taken 5 years of fighting in Iraq
> to achieve a similar body count as happened in a couple of hours on one
> Tuesday morning.

Point of fact, the body count in Iraq is 600,000+ and rising.

John Gilbert

On 21 Oct 2006, John Gilbert said the following in
link.net.

> "tscottme" > wrote in message
> ...
>> That's funny Sept 11 happened when we were far more isolationist than
>> we
> are
>> likely ever to be in the future. It has taken 5 years of fighting in
>> Iraq to achieve a similar body count as happened in a couple of hours
>> on one Tuesday morning.
>
> Point of fact, the body count in Iraq is 600,000+ and rising.

A fact based accounting puts the number between 50,000 & 100,000.

--
Regards,
Dann
Blogging at: http://www.modempool.com/nucleardann/blogspace/blog.htm

Gilbert and Sullivan...the team that made opera palatable.

"Dann" > wrote in message
0.81...
> On 21 Oct 2006, John Gilbert said the following in
> link.net.
>
>> "tscottme" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> That's funny Sept 11 happened when we were far more isolationist than
>>> we
>> are
>>> likely ever to be in the future. It has taken 5 years of fighting in
>>> Iraq to achieve a similar body count as happened in a couple of hours
>>> on one Tuesday morning.
>>
>> Point of fact, the body count in Iraq is 600,000+ and rising.
>
> A fact based accounting puts the number between 50,000 & 100,000.

A what?

We're talking about a study by the John Hopkins School of Epidemeology
published in a peer reviewed journal.

Produce a similar academic study subjected to peer review that uses 'fact
based accounting' please.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

"William Black" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dann" > wrote in message
> 0.81...
>> On 21 Oct 2006, John Gilbert said the following in
>> link.net.
>>
>>> "tscottme" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> That's funny Sept 11 happened when we were far more isolationist than
>>>> we
>>> are
>>>> likely ever to be in the future. It has taken 5 years of fighting in
>>>> Iraq to achieve a similar body count as happened in a couple of hours
>>>> on one Tuesday morning.
>>>
>>> Point of fact, the body count in Iraq is 600,000+ and rising.
>>
>> A fact based accounting puts the number between 50,000 & 100,000.
>
> A what?
>
> We're talking about a study by the John Hopkins School of Epidemeology
> published in a peer reviewed journal.
>
> Produce a similar academic study subjected to peer review that uses 'fact
> based accounting' please.
>
> --
> William Black
>


The Iraqi Health Ministry estimates 50,000 deaths in Iraq since March 20003
and the Brookings Institution estimates 60,000. Iraq Body Count estimates
44-49,000 reported deaths. The UN estimate of 19,000 deaths this year means
it would take approximately 20 years to reach the the John Hopkins numbers
at the current rate. In other words, multiple reputable sources find the
Hopkins numbers to be innacurate.

Jarg

"Jarg" > wrote in message
om...
> "William Black" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Dann" > wrote in message
>> 0.81...
>>> On 21 Oct 2006, John Gilbert said the following in
>>> link.net.
>>>
>>>> "tscottme" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> That's funny Sept 11 happened when we were far more isolationist than
>>>>> we
>>>> are
>>>>> likely ever to be in the future. It has taken 5 years of fighting in
>>>>> Iraq to achieve a similar body count as happened in a couple of hours
>>>>> on one Tuesday morning.
>>>>
>>>> Point of fact, the body count in Iraq is 600,000+ and rising.
>>>
>>> A fact based accounting puts the number between 50,000 & 100,000.
>>
>> A what?
>>
>> We're talking about a study by the John Hopkins School of Epidemeology
>> published in a peer reviewed journal.
>>
>> Produce a similar academic study subjected to peer review that uses 'fact
>> based accounting' please.
>>
>> --
>> William Black
>>
>
>
> The Iraqi Health Ministry estimates 50,000 deaths in Iraq since March
> 20003 and the Brookings Institution estimates 60,000. Iraq Body Count
> estimates 44-49,000 reported deaths. The UN estimate of 19,000 deaths
> this year means it would take approximately 20 years to reach the the John
> Hopkins numbers at the current rate. In other words, multiple reputable
> sources find the Hopkins numbers to be innacurate.

Engl;ish not your first language or something?

"Produce a similar academic study subjected to peer review that uses 'fact
based accounting' please."

Propaganda pieces produced by some US puppet doesn't count.

The UN can't even tell you how many New York parking tickets they didn't pay
this year, never mind how many dead...

With a total population of twenty seven million and a pre war deathrate of
over five per thousand a year any rate that is less than a hundred and fifty
thousand a year is telling lies

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

William Black wrote:
> "Dann" > wrote in message
> 0.81...
>
>>On 21 Oct 2006, John Gilbert said the following in
link.net.
>>
>>
>>>"tscottme" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>That's funny Sept 11 happened when we were far more isolationist than
>>>>we
>>>
>>>are
>>>
>>>>likely ever to be in the future. It has taken 5 years of fighting in
>>>>Iraq to achieve a similar body count as happened in a couple of hours
>>>>on one Tuesday morning.
>>>
>>>Point of fact, the body count in Iraq is 600,000+ and rising.
>>
>>A fact based accounting puts the number between 50,000 & 100,000.
>
>
> A what?
>
> We're talking about a study by the John Hopkins School of Epidemeology
> published in a peer reviewed journal.
>
> Produce a similar academic study subjected to peer review that uses 'fact
> based accounting' please.

His mind is made up. Don't be confusin' him with the facts.

Cheers

==bob
>

tscottme wrote:
> "Raptor" > wrote in message
>> It's an insurgency. You don't win by killing the enemy. You win by cutting
>> off their reinforcements.
>>
>> --
>
> That's why I envoked the General Sherman reference. The American Civil War
> wasn't won because the Union killed all the Southern soldiers. Sherman
> waged war on the plantation owners and war-making abilility of the South.
> The Salafists and the Twelvers will fight until the last future cab driver
> is dead in the street. They won't fight 1 month after their butt is set
> ablaze.

The Civil War wasn't an insurgency.

The Iraqi insurgency isn't "winning" by blowing up our tanks or shooting
down our aircraft. Their weapons are small arms, IEDs and RPGs. No
amount of destroying their "warmaking ability" will stop such attacks.
They're winning by picking off our soldiers in ones and twos, and by
fighting each other with small arms. By committing violence of any
significant kind, they show that we have not achieved our objective and
thereby win.

You win an insurgency by winning the hearts & minds of the people who
might otherwise become insurgents. Most of the violence in Iraq now
occurs because no one is keeping the streets safe. Keep the streets
safe, and the violence ends quickly, except for those determined to die.
Most Iraqis are not determined to die. We can deal with the dead-enders
if we choose to.

The alternative is nuking the whole place.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

If FDR fought fascism the way Bush fights terrorism, we'd all be
speaking German now.

Bob Matthews wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>> We're talking about a study by the John Hopkins School of Epidemeology
>> published in a peer reviewed journal.
>>
>> Produce a similar academic study subjected to peer review that uses
>> 'fact based accounting' please.
>
> His mind is made up. Don't be confusin' him with the facts.

There are no facts, just estimates. The 600K number comes from
well-accepted methodology.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

If FDR fought fascism the way Bush fights terrorism, we'd all be
speaking German now.

"tscottme" > writes:

> That's funny Sept 11 happened when we were far more isolationist than we are
> likely ever to be in the future. It has taken 5 years of fighting in Iraq

Isolationist doesn't mean what you imply. Of course, I am never wrong
:-) If the US didn't pursue foreign trade and engage in all the
necessary practices associated with getting contracts and deals, then
isolationasm would make sense. You can't go and engage the world in
trade (and mostly win) without making enemies in many places, and then
say "oh well, we won't think about any military strategies because we
want to practice military isolationism".

> The best compromise is to beat our enemy like a rapid dog and then withdraw.

Oh, we are in a good mood today! Isn't that what everybody says before
the fight bogs down?
--
Gernot Hassenpflug ) Tel: +81 774 38-3866
JSPS Fellow (Rm.403, RISH, Kyoto Uni.) Fax: +81 774 31-8463
www.rish.kyoto-u.ac.jp/radar-group/members/gernot Mob: +81 90 39493924

Raptor wrote:

> There are no facts, just estimates. The 600K number comes from
> well-accepted methodology.


Then you should read a little on the subject of methodology, in
general, and that study, in particular. 47 data clusters...

forssberg wrote:
> Raptor wrote:
>
>> There are no facts, just estimates. The 600K number comes from
>> well-accepted methodology.
>
>
> Then you should read a little on the subject of methodology, in
> general, and that study, in particular. 47 data clusters...

The methodology is well-accepted. We use it to assess the impact of
epidemics or genocides, and base policy on the resultant numbers.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

If FDR fought fascism the way Bush fights terrorism, we'd all be
speaking German now.

Raptor wrote:
> forssberg wrote:
>> Raptor wrote:
>>
>>> There are no facts, just estimates. The 600K number comes from
>>> well-accepted methodology.
>>
>>
>> Then you should read a little on the subject of methodology, in
>> general, and that study, in particular. 47 data clusters...
>
> The methodology is well-accepted. We use it to assess the impact of
> epidemics or genocides, and base policy on the resultant numbers.
>
The doctors are asking for too much money then.

Andrew Swallow

Raptor wrote:

> The methodology is well-accepted. We use it to assess the impact of
> epidemics or genocides, and base policy on the resultant numbers.


>From your purely theoretical answer I deduce that you're not aware of
the debate on the abnormally low number of cluster samples used in the
Lancet study. Other methodological critiques have also been moved by
credible people.

Andrew Swallow wrote:
> Raptor wrote:
>> forssberg wrote:
>>> Raptor wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are no facts, just estimates. The 600K number comes from
>>>> well-accepted methodology.
>>>
>>>
>>> Then you should read a little on the subject of methodology, in
>>> general, and that study, in particular. 47 data clusters...
>>
>> The methodology is well-accepted. We use it to assess the impact of
>> epidemics or genocides, and base policy on the resultant numbers.
>>
> The doctors are asking for too much money then.

What methodology do you prefer, and why?

--
Lynn Wallace

If FDR fought fascism the way Bush fights terrorism, we'd all be
speaking German now.

Raptor wrote:
> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> Raptor wrote:
>>> forssberg wrote:
>>>> Raptor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There are no facts, just estimates. The 600K number comes from
>>>>> well-accepted methodology.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then you should read a little on the subject of methodology, in
>>>> general, and that study, in particular. 47 data clusters...
>>>
>>> The methodology is well-accepted. We use it to assess the impact of
>>> epidemics or genocides, and base policy on the resultant numbers.
>>>
>> The doctors are asking for too much money then.
>
> What methodology do you prefer, and why?
>
In the case of Iraq simply count all the deaths. The civil
service is working so counting the number of death certificates
will give figures accurate to within 10%, no need to sample.

Andrew Swallow