Iraq war worse than thought

[wade]

I'm now seeing that the estimated number of insurgents are at over 12,000, up from previous estimates of about 5000. And it is believed that the ranks are growing at an increasing, not decreasing rate. Furthermore, 90% of the insurgents are believed to be Iraqi's, not foriegners, and this is increasing. The Baath's are also becomming organized and active.

Funding of the insurgents is also evidently at a high level, from Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Some $500 mil. in funds from Saddam are evidently available to the insurgents from Syria.

Source: CNN and FOX news channels within the last 3 hours (2-5am Sat. Morning).

 

[drowe]

I believe that the rise of insurgents is attributed the election (here in the US). The world has seen how a potential US president has denounced the war in Iraq and how the media and the Kerry campaign have provided the quagmire image to the bleeding heart American public. This has done damage to our effort in Iraq; it has only emboldened the Jihadists. Kerry needs shut up and run for president like a true American. As for the media, I think with the vast number of Americans with internet access, the media has been exposed for the most part.

 

[Merlin1047]

I don't see the rise in insurgents as a bad thing. Neither was it unforseeable.

The fact is that none of the countries in the middle east want to see a democracy develop or flourish. If Iraq successfully makes the transition to democracy, then the days of the royal, or dictatorial or theocratic governments in the region are numbered.

If Iraq is succeeds in forming its own form of representative government, can Iran be far behind? Already there is evidence of mounting interest for democracy in Iran. The established governments fear this. As a result they encourage and assist the insurgency in Iraq.

All the more reason that we must see this through to the end. Failure to do so will have catastrophic consequences not only throughout the middle east, but certainly here at home as well.

 

[Shattered]

Methinks Kerry only needs to perform half of your statement.. SHUT UP!

Well, he could drop dead, too, but I suppose that might be the tiniest bit drastic.

 

[sagegirl]

I'm now seeing that the estimated number of insurgents are at over 12,000, up from previous estimates of about 5000. And it is believed that the ranks are growing at an increasing, not decreasing rate. Furthermore, 90% of the insurgents are believed to be Iraqi's, not foriegners, and this is increasing. The Baath's are also becomming organized and active.

Funding of the insurgents is also evidently at a high level, from Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Some $500 mil. in funds from Saddam are evidently available to the insurgents from Syria.

Source: CNN and FOX news channels within the last 3 hours (2-5am Sat. Morning).

I understand that alot of the insurgents that are coming into Iraq view the war as a religious occupation. This war and many many in the past have been fought by religious fanatics. Our presence in Saudi Arabia during and since the gulf war by papa Bush enraged islamic fundamentalists. The crimes of Abu Graib, the intentional shaming of islamic men, has been countered by the abhorrent pictures of beheadings. War truly brings out the worst in us.

It is my concern that both sides on this are going to be so stubborn that the situation can only worsen. How much destruction, how much money, how many lives, is this going to cost. ????? From the US side, it will probably go on until we have stretched our resources so thin that the war will lose it support, from the Iraqi/Islamic side, I think they may finally want to get back to their everyday existence. If the Iraqis would just slow down the violence (less car bombs, less beheadings) that would give our administration the opportunity to claim a victory and get out. Victory to them will be when we leave.

 

[wade]

With the number of insurgents (90% Iraqis) rising at it's current rate , there will be 19000 by december, and over 25,000 by the time of the elections in late January. If the report is true, and the rate is actually accelerating, there will be even more.

There are something around 90 attacks by insurgents per day, by the lections this will be nearly 200 per day. And apparently insurgents have infiltrated the Iraqi security forces which are now being trained and which we are relying heavily upon in the near future. It only takes a small percentage of jihadists willing to die within the ranks of these forces to completely immobilize them.

This is not a good thing. Democracy in Iraq is looking less and less likely by the day.

 

[Flying Duck]

With the number of insurgents (90% Iraqis) rising at it's current rate , there will be 19000 by december, and over 25,000 by the time of the elections in late January. If the report is true, and the rate is actually accelerating, there will be even more.

There are something around 90 attacks by insurgents per day, by the lections this will be nearly 200 per day. And apparently insurgents have infiltrated the Iraqi security forces which are now being trained and which we are relying heavily upon in the near future. It only takes a small percentage of jihadists willing to die within the ranks of these forces to completely immobilize them.

This is not a good thing. Democracy in Iraq is looking less and less likely by the day.

Have you calculated how many years it be until everyone on the planet is an Iraqi insurgent?

 

[wade]

where are you getting these numbers from Wade, or are you just calculating from the original post?

The new report is 10 weeks after the old report, and shows an increase in insurgents of some 5-8 thousand from 5-7 thousand to 12-13 thousand. According to the news reports, the insurgency is growing at an accelerating rate, but I held the figure constant and roughly extrapolated the numbers from the the mid point values.

It is obvious to me that they intend to stop the elections in Iraq, or make them uncredible.

 

[onedomino]

The new report is 10 weeks after the old report, and shows an increase in insurgents of some 5-8 thousand from 5-7 thousand to 12-13 thousand. According to the news reports, the insurgency is growing at an accelerating rate, but I held the figure constant and roughly extrapolated the numbers from the the mid point values.

It is obvious to me that they intend to stop the elections in Iraq, or make them uncredible.

"uncredible?" Your posts are difficult enough to read without illiterate un-words. Get a dictionary.

Your description of a possible future increase in the number of Iraqi terrorists as a simple mathematical progression is incredible.

 

[wade]

"uncredible?" Your posts are difficult enough to read without illiterate un-words. Get a dictionary.

Your description of a possible future increase in the number of Iraqi terrorists as a simple mathematical progression is incredible.

You are right, I should have used "non-credible". The price of typing as fast as most people talk.

Hmmm.. the reports indicate that the rate of growth of the insurgency is increasing - so wouldn't this means my estimates are most likely LOW?

What's "increadible" about that?

 

[onedomino]

You are right, I should have used "non-credible". The price of typing as fast as most people talk.

Hmmm.. the reports indicate that the rate of growth of the insurgency is increasing - so wouldn't this means my estimates are most likely LOW?

What's "increadible" about that?

I actually have to explain this to you?

Your "logic" is obviously flawed. It assumes that what has happened in the past categorically determines what will happen in the future.

For example, the first person that passes you is a 4 ft. tall child, the next is a 5 ft. tall woman, and then a 6 ft. tall man. According to your logic, the next person to pass will necessarily be 7 ft. tall.

Your original assertion was: "With the number of insurgents (90% Iraqis) rising at it's current rate , there will be 19000 by december, and over 25,000 by the time of the elections in late January." Your statement entails categorical necessity and is therefore incredible.

 

[ajwps]

With the number of insurgents (90% Iraqis) rising at it's current rate , there will be 19000 by december, and over 25,000 by the time of the elections in late January. If the report is true, and the rate is actually accelerating, there will be even more.

There are something around 90 attacks by insurgents per day, by the lections this will be nearly 200 per day. And apparently insurgents have infiltrated the Iraqi security forces which are now being trained and which we are relying heavily upon in the near future. It only takes a small percentage of jihadists willing to die within the ranks of these forces to completely immobilize them.

This is not a good thing. Democracy in Iraq is looking less and less likely by the day.

Also a fact little reported is that the insurgents are being killed by the Iraqi and American armies at a average rate of 1,254 per day. At that rate there will be a total number of dead insurgents accounting up to an almost 123,426 dead by election day in January election. Probably this is a low estimate.

Did you really believe that the US Army, Marines and Iraqi armies are sitting on their hands playing tittly winks?

 

[wade]

Also a fact little reported is that the insurgents are being killed by the Iraqi and American armies at a average rate of 1,254 per day. At that rate there will be a total number of dead insurgents accounting up to an almost 123,426 dead by election day in January election. Probably this is a low estimate.

Did you really believe that the US Army, Marines and Iraqi armies are sitting on their hands playing tittly winks?

I'd like to see where you get that figure. I followed the kills data pretty closely for a while and on a typical day, 30-200 insurgents were killed, and perhaps an equal number of civilians.

It is pretty far fetched that 2-3 months ago there were 5,000+ insurgents, and today there are 12000+, and that in those sixity days there have been some 80,000 insurgents killed.

 

[ajwps]

I'd like to see where you get that figure. I followed the kills data pretty closely for a while and on a typical day, 30-200 insurgents were killed, and perhaps an equal number of civilians.

It is pretty far fetched that 2-3 months ago there were 5,000+ insurgents, and today there are 12000+, and that in those sixity days there have been some 80,000 insurgents killed.

Do you really think that the US army is keeping a running diary of insurgents kllled (body count) for the liberal media like in the Vietnam War?

I'd like to know where you found that kill data and perhaps an equal number of civilians. Did you read that data in the Enquirer at your local grocery store counter?

When the Marines and Army lose their friends and foreign contractors and Iraqi policmen are murdered by foreign insurgents who entered Iraq from neighboriing Arab countries, did you really think that the US military commanders limit their daily kill from jet warplanes and helicopters to a few hundred murderers and just for kicks, a bunch of civilian Iraqis?

Did you just get off a turnip truck?

 

[nakedemperor]

I don't see the rise in insurgents as a bad thing.

I disagree. Vehemently.

 

[nakedemperor]

Do you really think that the US army is keeping a running diary of insurgents kllled (body count) for the liberal media like in the Vietnam War?

So you intuited 1,300 insurgents killed per diem? That figure doesn't seem anywhere near a reasonable "guesstimate", seeing as that's what it amounts to.

 

[vision1]

There are a lot of fallacies here:
We have a simple rule for counting insurgents, if they are dead then they must be insurgents. So, we have men insurgents, women insurgents, and children insurgents. So the high insurgent death rate may be misleading.

Secondly, we are assuming the population of Iraq is constant. As you know, Zarqawi is from Jordan (a friendly country). All of the Sept 11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia (another friendly country). We have so many friends like that, so why are we surprised by the high insurgent counts.

Thirdly, we have increased Al Qaeda recruitment more than recruitment in our armed forces. Most mothers don't want to send their sons to a foreign country to fight a religious crusade.

So, this is not a very promising picture. We have stepped into cowdung and it is not going to come off easily.

 

[nakedemperor]

There are a lot of fallacies here:
We have a simple rule for counting insurgents, if they are dead then they must be insurgents.

Not true.

Thirdly, we have increased Al Qaeda recruitment more than recruitment in our armed forces. Most mothers don't want to send their sons to a foreign country to fight a religious crusade.

True, and scary. 10/10 terrorists created by U.S. incursion into Iraq agree: anyone but Bush?

So, this is not a very promising picture. We have stepped into cowdung and it is not going to come off easily.

True.

 

[ajwps]

Not true.

True. Dead insurgents are counted by the mark of Saddam under their left armpits. American is strategically bombing insurgent strongholds in major and minor Iraqi cities like Falujah. As the insurgents congregate in mass within buildings or on streets they are wiped out in large blasts. Much like red ants in their mounds (mosques). Do you think that the Army goes in afterward and counts the heads?

True, and scary. 10/10 terrorists created by U.S. incursion into Iraq agree: anyone but Bush?

False:

Insurgents, whether Iraqi, Jordanian, Iranian, Syrian, Egyptian or from far flung countries gather in Iraq to fight the hated Americans and their anti-Islam freedom democracy. There they are killed in their rather large numbers and if not for Bush, would be busy blowing up US cities like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Des Moines, Dallas and many more. But of course the Kerry voters don't think that is possible or that Bush has done the impossible by keeping our shores free from destruction after 09/11.

Elect Johns Kerry and Edwards and find out for yourself.

True.

It was Clinton who stepped into cow dung instead of around the piles. George Bush for some reason beyond understanding has not only avoided stepping in cowdung but has actually forced the radical Islamists to walk right into a very large pile of cowdung in Iraq.

How easily you are fooled by the main stream media in the US.

Right now, we have one guy saying one thing. Then the other guy says something else. Who to believe? Lemme see; have I got this straight?

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good..
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists- good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad..

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...

Ahh, it's so confusing!

Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is the day
after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government. This year, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has been since 1991.
Its latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything special about those dates?

Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim.

Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth
several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).

Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does that sound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.

 

[wade]

9 out of 10 insurgents are Iraqi's. You make it sound like there is a flood of foriegn insurgents into Iraq, when in fact there is a trickle.