Iraq 'no more safe than in 2003' , says Rumsfeld

alonzomourning23

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has acknowledged that security in Iraq has not improved statistically since Saddam Hussein's fall in 2003.
Click to expand...
Mr Rumsfeld told the BBC insurgents crossed Iraq's "porous" borders from Iran, Syria and elsewhere.

But he said Iraq's military forces were growing in numbers and he was confident the insurgency would be defeated. On Tuesday, at least 22 people were killed in a suicide bombing in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk.



Police say most of the dead were civil servants lining up outside a government-owned bank to get their salaries or pensions.

They believe the bomber walked up to the queue with up to 30kg (66lbs) of explosives hidden under his clothes.

Among the 50 people wounded were 10 children, who had small stalls on the side of the road.

More than 900 people, mostly Iraqis, have died in insurgent attacks across the country since the government of Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafaari took office six weeks ago.

The latest violence came as Mr Jaafari's 37-member cabinet and its programme secured a vote of confidence in the Iraqi National Assembly.

The Shia-dominated government, which was finalised on 8 May, was overwhelmingly approved by a show of hands in the 275-member transitional parliament.

Belief in the future

In an interview for the BBC's Newsnight programme, Mr Rumsfeld said Iraq had passed several milestones, like holding elections and appointing a government.

But asked if the security situation had improved, he admitted: "Statistically, no."

"But clearly it has been getting better as we've gone along," he added. "A lot of bad things that could have happened have not happened."



He said that efforts had shifted from counter-insurgency to helping the Iraqi security forces.

"The important thing ... is to recognise that this insurgency is going to be defeated not by the coalition - it's going to be defeated by the Iraqi people and by the Iraqi security forces, and that it's going to happen as the Iraq people begin to believe they've got a future in that country," he said.

He added that Syria was not doing enough to stop the insurgency and that Iran was meddling in Iraqi politics.

Rivalry

Tuesday's explosion took place near a bridge over the road, and people were killed both on the bridge and on the ground, the Associated Press news agency reported.

At least one report says bodies are trapped under the rubble.

Kirkuk, 290km (180miles) north of Baghdad, is an ethnically mixed city wanted by the Kurds as the capital of their autonomous region in the north. It houses communities of Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen vying for control. Correspondents say the city, a major oil-producing centre, has been the focus of intense ethnic rivalry since Saddam Hussein's fall from power.
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4090626.stm

I will now await CTL's screaming rant.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Now that I have posted, you can await PAD's thread crap by his alt account.[/QUOTE]

Ya, the kitty is irresistably cute and it was funny the first one or two times, but now he's just a little man who doesn't realize his joke died a long time ago.
 
More american soldiers died in the second year than the first year in iraq. Not only is it "not anymore safe than in 2003" -- it's worse. And it's only going to get worse as troop levels are reduced and "the coalition of the willing" dwindles.
 
Nice way to gloss over the "statistically" part of the argument.

In any event think the Iraqis could have done this in 2003?

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Iraq

Iraqi, U.S. Forces Free Australian Hostage
AP - 2 hours, 1 minute ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi troops, backed up by U.S. forces, freed an Australian hostage after more than a month in captivity, officials said Wednesday. The release came as a suicide bomber dressed in an Iraqi army uniform walked into an Iraqi mess hall and blew himself up, killing at least 23 Iraqi soldiers and injuring 29. There were no details available on the operation in Baghdad that led to the release of Douglas Wood, a 64-year-old engineer, who was abducted in late April by a militant group calling itself the Shura Council of the Mujahedeen of Iraq.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Nice way to gloss over the "statistically" part of the argument.

In any event think the Iraqis could have done this in 2003?

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Iraq

Iraqi, U.S. Forces Free Australian Hostage
AP - 2 hours, 1 minute ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi troops, backed up by U.S. forces, freed an Australian hostage after more than a month in captivity, officials said Wednesday. The release came as a suicide bomber dressed in an Iraqi army uniform walked into an Iraqi mess hall and blew himself up, killing at least 23 Iraqi soldiers and injuring 29. There were no details available on the operation in Baghdad that led to the release of Douglas Wood, a 64-year-old engineer, who was abducted in late April by a militant group calling itself the Shura Council of the Mujahedeen of Iraq.[/QUOTE]

Am I the only who doesn't get what CTL is trying to say?
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Am I the only who doesn't get what CTL is trying to say?[/QUOTE]

I don't think most of you get most of what I say. Honestly, I am ok with that.

I would however be most curious to know people's ages and degree of education when discussing these topics. I don't want to know it to use it to insult a person, but frankly some people are not old enough, or mature enough to understand some of the points being made here. I am not suggesting that is the case with you or a number of the people I regularly discuss things with. But there does happen to be fringe element here and I would just like to know if they are worth my time.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']I don't think most of you get most of what I say. Honestly, I am ok with that.

I would however be most curious to know people's ages and degree of education when discussing these topics. I don't want to know it to use it to insult a person, but frankly some people are not old enough, or mature enough to understand some of the points being made here. I am not suggesting that is the case with you or a number of the people I regularly discuss things with. But there does happen to be fringe element here and I would just like to know if they are worth my time.

CTL[/QUOTE]

Looks like you're obviously trying to compensate for something. Must suck to have women laugh at you.

In 2003, Saddam was still in control of Iraq for part of the year. American forces were in the process of pushing through Iraq, destroying the remaining remnants of the Iraqi army, and wasting time searching for WMDs. In December 2003, at the end of the year, Saddam was captured. In 2004, the insurgency started in Fallujah along with the hostages. So WTF does 2003 have to do with your argument?
 
All I got from the article was we rescued a hostage and a suicide bomber blew up 23 people. I don't see how the second doesn't event more than cancels out the first.
 
Some other goofs in the past week by CTL:

1) Trying to pass off a 9-year old missile test from China as a current event
2) Claiming that America was undergoing isolationism during WWI
3) Claiming that America is experience broad, international support for our Iraqi policies by posting an article from 2003.

NEXT!
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Some other goofs in the past week by CTL:

1) Trying to pass off a 9-year old missile test from China as a current event[/quote]

No I wasn't trying to pass anything off. I conceeded that was an error. Given that I have over 1,000 post here and you continue to harp on that one issue speaks volumes about how accurate I have been in the past.


[quote name='E-Z-B']2) Claiming that America was undergoing isolationism during WWI[/quote]

No, that was point was to counter your absurd claim there was broad based support for the US to enter WWI. In point of fact the US had a policy of isolationism up to that point and the majority of Americans wanted nothing to do with Europes dirty war.

[quote name='E-Z-B']3) Claiming that America is experience broad, international support for our Iraqi policies by posting an article from 2003.

NEXT![/QUOTE]

Which listed something like 50 countries supporting the US invasion. You have France, Germany and Russia.

Whooppeee.

Sad attempt to place my comments out of context.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']All I got from the article was we rescued a hostage and a suicide bomber blew up 23 people. I don't see how the second doesn't event more than cancels out the first.[/quote]

Thats because you are fixated on the problems in Iraq rather than the successes.

If you don't understand the significance of the oft maligned Iraqi security forces rescuing a hostage - I can't help you.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']
Thats because you are fixated on the problems in Iraq rather than the successes.

If you don't understand the significance of the oft maligned Iraqi security forces rescuing a hostage - I can't help you.

CTL[/QUOTE]

You'd be hard pressed to find a person who focuses on the 1 hostage rescue instead of the 23 killed and 29 injured.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You'd be hard pressed to find a person who focuses on the 1 hostage rescue instead of the 23 killed and 29 injured.[/QUOTE]

And you probably believe Yahoo didn't write it that way intentionally......
 
[quote name='CTLesq']And you probably believe Yahoo didn't write it that way intentionally......[/QUOTE]

Yes, Yahoo is conspiring with Democrats to try and make the Iraq war look like a failure.
 
[quote name='A Fetus Eater']Yes, Yahoo is conspiring with Democrats to try and make the Iraq war look like a failure.[/QUOTE]

If you spent time in Iraq as I did and followed the news as closely as I did you would notice a recurring trend that despite however good the news might be from Iraq Yahoo would find a negative spin to it.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Like hell you went to Iraq, unless they have mini tours of duty now.

How long were you away, 4 months?[/QUOTE]

Airforce tours are four months. I was there on an Army TTAD for 6 months.

Perhaps you forget our email exchance where you verified my IP/whatever and told me that I shouldn't spam you because you used a throw away email?

Like I would waste my time.

This is one of the few threads I wrote during that time.

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31016&highlight=CTLesq

 
[quote name='CTLesq']And you probably believe Yahoo didn't write it that way intentionally......[/QUOTE]

Wow, you're paranoid. OMG they're conspiring against us!

Though it happened around the same time, whether it was put together to make the u.s. look bad (which it wasn't) or not, the fact that the bombing occured and killed 23 people cancels out any high from rescuing 1 person.
 
The fact that the Iraqi force was able to do something positive, especially rescue someone, is great. But, in the end, I'd rather the one Australian died than 23 other people. Also, the Iraqis were "backed by US forces" so it's hard to say how much responsibility each side had. Hopefully this is indicative of more successful efforts by the Iraqis in the future though.
 
[quote name='Backlash']The fact that the Iraqi force was able to do something positive, especially rescue someone, is great. But, in the end, I'd rather the one Australian died than 23 other people. Also, the Iraqis were "backed by US forces" so it's hard to say how much responsibility each side had. Hopefully this is indicative of more successful efforts by the Iraqis in the future though.[/QUOTE]

It was probably more like "the U.S. rescued the hostage while the Iraqis served as look-outs". :D
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Wow, you're paranoid. OMG they're conspiring against us!

Though it happened around the same time, whether it was put together to make the u.s. look bad (which it wasn't) or not, the fact that the bombing occured and killed 23 people cancels out any high from rescuing 1 person.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I'd think the fact that the Australian soldier wouldn't have been a hostage had we not fouled things up so badly would cancel out the positives of rescuing that one soldier.
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']Actually, I'd think the fact that the Australian soldier wouldn't have been a hostage had we not fouled things up so badly would cancel out the positives of rescuing that one soldier.[/QUOTE]

He wasn't/isn't a soldier.

Yet again one more person critical of the war in Iraq who simply has no idea what he is talking about.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']He wasn't/isn't a soldier.

Yet again one more person critical of the war in Iraq who simply has no idea what he is talking about.

CTL[/QUOTE]

The fact that he wasn't a soldier does not change the fact that he would not have been a hostage had we not created this situation
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']The fact that he wasn't a soldier does not change the fact that he would not have been a hostage had we not created this situation[/QUOTE]

It doesn't change the fact you are incapble of reading an article, or worse decided you knew the facts without reading the article, were egregiously wrong, and yet still feel you are entitled to express an opinion about something as important and complicated as Iraq.

Its called a lack of credibility.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']It doesn't change the fact you are incapble of reading an article, or worse decided you knew the facts without reading the article, were egregiously wrong, and yet still feel you are entitled to express an opinion about something as important and complicated as Iraq.

Its called a lack of credibility.

CTL[/QUOTE]

From the guy who posted his opinion about the Downing Street memo while admitting that he didn't know what it was.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']From the guy who posted his opinion about the Downing Street memo while admitting that he didn't know what it was.[/QUOTE]

No, I apparetnly did read it. I was incredulous because I couldn't believe people could reach the absurd conclusions they have about it given what I read.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']It doesn't change the fact you are incapble of reading an article, or worse decided you knew the facts without reading the article, were egregiously wrong, and yet still feel you are entitled to express an opinion about something as important and complicated as Iraq.

Its called a lack of credibility.

CTL[/QUOTE]

Important and complicated? Wait a minute...Is this Donald Rumsfeld? I don't see how anyone not being paid by the Bush administration could readily spout as much bullshit as you do. You conveniently declare anything (document or post) that contradicts your golden image of the Bush administration as bunk or uninformed. Not once have I seen you say, "You know, you bring up a valid point, and I'm going to think about that." You assume (or at least desire to make it seem that way) that the people you are arguing with haven't read the whole article or don't have all the facts. Well, attempting to discredit the oppostion is not the same as engaging in an actual discussion. Is it so hard to come up with a rational argument that you can only resort to denegrating the other person?
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']Important and complicated? Wait a minute...Is this Donald Rumsfeld? I don't see how anyone not being paid by the Bush administration could readily spout as much bullshit as you do. You conveniently declare anything (document or post) that contradicts your golden image of the Bush administration as bunk or uninformed. Not once have I seen you say, "You know, you bring up a valid point, and I'm going to think about that." You assume (or at least desire to make it seem that way) that the people you are arguing with haven't read the whole article or don't have all the facts. Well, attempting to discredit the oppostion is not the same as engaging in an actual discussion. Is it so hard to come up with a rational argument that you can only resort to denegrating the other person?[/QUOTE]

Shouldn't you be looking for that missing Australian soldier rather than typing a response to me?
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Shouldn't you be looking for that missing Australian soldier rather than typing a response to me?[/QUOTE]

Case in point. Why don't you actually come up with a resonable response instead of trying to discredit me?
 
[quote name='BigSpoonyBard']Case in point. Why don't you actually come up with a resonable response instead of trying to discredit me?[/QUOTE]

You were discredited. Thoroughly.

CTL
 
And like a house of cards, the GOP's version of the "War on Terror" begins to crumble.

They're backing down on success in Iraq, talking about getting rid of the prison at Guantanimo...

Like a breath of fresh air, I can see their "mandate" slipping through their fingers. Methinks the republicans aren't quite as untouchable as they claimed they were after the election.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']You were discredited. Thoroughly.

CTL[/QUOTE]

No, it was a poor attempt at discrediting, at best. You caught a verbal miscue on my part. Good job. Now try making a respecteble semblence of an argument.
 
TMW05-12-04.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top