Do you think the US is doing a good job in Iraq?

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
That's one source, I could easily post something from a conseravative source that said the numbers were higher.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's one more source than you've quoted giving any hard figures on the proportion of foreign fighters amongst the insurgency. If you're implying that Global Security is generally seen as a liberal source, you're wrong.

"Getting back to the earlier point of Iraqis joining the insurgency because they're poor I just don't see any evidence to back up this claim. "

Actually there is plenty of evidence that people are planting bombs etc on behalf of the insurgency simply for cash.

If your point is that the foreign fighters have a disproportionately large impact to their numbers, I agree; but the question remains why so many Iraqis are joining the insurgency and why the country is so violent, and the answers to those questions poin to the fact that the US has not done a good job in Iraq.


http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8293410/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050800838.html

[/ QUOTE ]

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]

It's one more source than you've quoted giving any hard figures on the proportion of foreign fighters amongst the insurgency. If you're implying that Global Security is generally seen as a liberal source, you're wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_fight_061005,00.html
(edit: if link doesn't work copy and paste it)

[ QUOTE ]
Actually there is plenty of evidence that people are planting bombs etc on behalf of the insurgency simply for cash.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is this evidence? People do get money for terrorist acts but do they do it simply for the money? Are these the kind of people that would go out and get a job if the employment rate was higher? I really doubt it.

[ QUOTE ]
If your point is that the foreign fighters have a disproportionately large impact to their numbers, I agree; but the question remains why so many Iraqis are joining the insurgency and why the country is so violent, and the answers to those questions poin to the fact that the US has not done a good job in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

What evidence is there that a lot of Iraqis are joining the insurgency? There may be a lot of insurgents but the vast majority of them intended to fight against us before we even had troops on the ground or islamic fundamentalists that want to kill their own countrymen because they worship in a slightly different way they're not people who were hopeing to get a job and then when they couldn't decided to become terrorists.

[nicky g]

Your article mentions no numbers at all other than its claim that 40 percent of suicide bombers are from Saudi Arabia. It acknowledges that the vast majority of insurgents are Iraqis, although claims the proportion of foreigners is increasing.

"Where is this evidence?"

See Greg J's post "From the Iraq Press Monitor" for instance. .

"There may be a lot of insurgents but the vast majority of them intended to fight against us before we even had troops on the ground"

Really? I have a blank where my memory of 40,000 Iraqis clamouring to seek out the US army and attack it prior to the invasion should be.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Really? I have a blank where my memory of 40,000 Iraqis clamouring to seek out the US army and attack it prior to the invasion should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shots has special insight into the Iraqi mind. He knows those 40K Iraqis were preparing to invade the US prior to 9/11. We saved them some traveling time and expense by bringing the fight to them.

[shots]

The article says that milatary anylists think the ratio of foreign fighters was was in ten or 10% incase you didn't get it the first time. It also says that that number was an assessment made in the past when less foreign fighters were coming into the country how you missed that part of the article is beyond me.

As for the Iraqis planning on fighting us before we got there I never said they were going to seek us out if we didn't go in I said they were planning to fight us. When we announced we were going into Iraq we made it very clear that one of our main objectives was to remove the Bath party from power. Do you think all the Bath party loyalists intended to give us hugs and candy? I don't think they were and I'm pretty sure they had made up their minds about that long before reconstruction efforts started.

[shots]

Very typical Kurto post, you make a pompus and pointless argument against something I never said.

[kurto]

What are milatary anylists?

[ QUOTE ]
think the ratio of foreign fighters was was in ten or 10% incase

[/ QUOTE ] Its so unclear what you're trying to say. Try typing slower and thinking about what language you're using before you respond.

[ QUOTE ]
how you missed that part of the article is beyond me

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not discussing the article. I'm discussing your ridiculous omniscience. "There may be a lot of insurgents but the vast majority of them intended to fight against us before we even had troops on the ground"... how you know what 1000s of people planned to do is just amazing.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the Iraqis planning on fighting us before we got there I never said they were going to seek us out if we didn't go in I said they were planning to fight us.

[/ QUOTE ] Again.. this is so muddled. You're missing that the funny part is you thinking you know about the plans and motives of thousands of people on the other side of the world.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think they were and I'm pretty sure they had made up their minds

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, you've done nothing to show that the current insurgents are members of the Bath party. What percentage of the people are attacking the US because they've been paid to? What percentage are angry because families were killed in the invasion? How many are attacking because they simply want the US out?

Better just to use your incredible gifts of guessing and then pretending your guess is reality.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think all the Bath party loyalists intended to give us hugs and candy?

[/ QUOTE ] I believe we were promised parades. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[shots]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not discussing the article. I'm discussing your ridiculous omniscience. "There may be a lot of insurgents but the vast majority of them intended to fight against us before we even had troops on the ground"... how you know what 1000s of people planned to do is just amazing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you check my post you'll see that it was a response to a poster who was talking about the article. If you think that when we told the Bath party that we were coming for them and they would all be arrested, that they didn't intend to go underground and fight us then clearly you've abandond all logic what other options did they have? They're thugs and murderers, we'll throw them in jail if we can and if they had tried to fight us openly at the time we took Baghdad they would've been slaughtered. That you refuse to accept this proves once again your lack of intellectual honesty.

[ QUOTE ]
Again.. this is so muddled. You're missing that the funny part is you thinking you know about the plans and motives of thousands of people on the other side of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's muddled about it? I said they were planning to fight us when we got there through a simple logical thaught process. You then insinuated that I said they were all going to storm America. It seems you're incapable of argueing against the points I make so you argur against things I never said, in that areana you seem to do pretty well.

[ QUOTE ]
As usual, you've done nothing to show that the current insurgents are members of the Bath party. What percentage of the people are attacking the US because they've been paid to? What percentage are angry because families were killed in the invasion? How many are attacking because they simply want the US out?

[/ QUOTE ]

And you've done nothing to show that the people attacking us would not be doing so if the reconstruction had gone better.

[ QUOTE ]
Better just to use your incredible gifts of guessing and then pretending your guess is reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I used deductive reasoning and common sense to come to my conclusions concepts that are clearly beyond you.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe we were promised parades.

[/ QUOTE ]

We were told that the majority of the people would be happy that we had overthrown Saddam and they were. No one ever said there wouldn't be a violent minority who thaught otherwise.

[nicky g]

"The article says that milatary anylists think the ratio of foreign fighters was was in ten or 10% incase you didn't get it the first time."

It says " a small percentage _ perhaps one in ten". That's not what I call a hard number; it's also still a tiny proportion, coming from a source in whose interest it is to cite as high a number as possible.

"I don't think they were and I'm pretty sure they had made up their minds about that long before reconstruction efforts started. "

I misunderstood what you were saying and take your point - yes there were probably always some people who intended to fight no matter what, and there would have been some violence no latter how well reconstrruction went. Nevertheless it seems clear to me from articles such as the one I pointed to that there are a lot of people involved that wouldn't be if the country and its economy were not in such a mess and if the coalition forces hadn't alienated so many Iraqis. The fact that 80% of the violence in Iraq is simply criminal in nature confirms the catastrophic handling of the country post-invasion, as does the fact that the insurgency grew enormusly in in size as the occupation prgoressed - prior to the Fallujah shootings for exape there was very little in the way of an insurgency; although as a recent article on Informed Comment points out the whole project was so flawed that things were bound to go wrong and offer little in the way of grand solutions no matter what.

[fjcomm02]

Is this still really a question? Anyone who debates this for more than two seconds must be on another planet.