Is the surge a success?

[Dinner]

Ben just keeps spinning around and distorting facts to fit his position.

[Ramo]

I figured youhad already done the math, but I guess not.

Lame.

1. You chose an asymmetric distribution of months between 2007 and 2008 to push that number higher.
2. I specifically stated that the bombing in Samarra was the trigger for the increased levels of violence. That bombing happened at the end of February. I'm not sure why you're including April.
3. The word "resemble" doesn't appear to mean what you think it does.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Arrian
Some do, some don't. Or, more accurately:

Some want us out now.
Some want us out soon, but not quite yet.
Some want us to say for a few years.


-Arrian

No kidding? Then you should be able to recognize the problem.

[SlowwHand]

It's on ABC. An interview with Obama, asking why he had opposed the surge, that's down 80% from the same day last year. I forget the casualties numbers, but of course, dramatically down. McCain supported it.
Needless to say, also, Obama talked around it.


EDIT: To add, Obama appears quite the gentleman. He said McCain wanted to take care of the country, just like he wants to take care of the country. That he respects the sacrifices and political contributions McCain has made in his life.
That was cool. I liked that about him.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben just keeps spinning around and distorting facts to fit his position.

What did I distort?

The only facts I cited were cut and pasted from your post, which showed that the levels in 2008 are nowhere near the levels for the first part of 2006, matching up month for month.

You are the one spinning not me. Why don't you admit you were wrong and then we can go from there.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, once again you are making a strawman argument. No one has said things have not improved at all or that the surge is having no effect. Civilian deaths have declined.

Thank you for admitting that the surge is working.

What people are questioning is exactly how low civilian deaths need to go in order for it to be declared a shining example of success

I would say they are already there. Next question?

Why is it you refuse to recognize this fact? The truth is of the 18 benchmarks the White House agreed would be used to measure the success of the surge only 3 have been accomplished.

I've seen the document, and that's NOT their conclusion. Do I need to cut and paste from there, or is it enough that you take me at my word? Your choice?

Now the White House is saying they don't want to use those 18 benchmarks any more and that smells like they are changing the definition of what qualifies as a success so that they can declare victory even though they failed to accomplish their own benchmarks.

First off, the 18 benchmarks were for the success of the Iraq rebuild in general, not the surge.

Secondly, the benchmarks, many of them have absolutely nothing to do with the surge, one of the ones which has failed so far, is the one about the readiness of the Iraqi forces, which has already been noted.

Of the 18, most of them have been substantially fulfilled, if you actually read the document, it lists both the things in degrees, to which they have succeeded.

Has the surge succeeded entirely? No. Has the surge been successful? Yes. Has the reconstruction of Iraq finished? No. Will it go through, yes. How long will it take? I don't know. Should the troops stay until the benchmarks are totally finished? Yes. Is the surge a failure if at this present time not all the benchmarks are fulfilled? No.

[SlowwHand]

He blew it. He'd rather see us fail in Iraq than be proven wrong. I was really starting to think, maybe..., but, no.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I guess I should say the surge is working vice has worked. In any case, the OP is hopelessly flawed, perhaps Ramo can start a serious thread.

besides you wanting to be a douchebag, what the **** would be the point of starting a new thread given that this one already exist??? What, is Oerdin getting paid per post or something?

Obviously people are willing to have a serious discussion with you (why, I can't figure) in this very thread. What, too cowardly to take it up?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

What did I distort?

My argument and the arguments of anyone who was against you. You deliberately distorted what our arguments where in order to make strawmen which you couldn't even knock down. Shame on you.

[Patroklos]

You are using civilian and military deaths where as i said civilian deaths. I even quoted from your own source Patty. Now, I know you are being deliberately deceptive.

While you are correct, in the first numbers I posted for you on the front page were from the "Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths Details " data on the homepage, that really only showed just how disengenuous your OP was, as ISF casualties being down is very significant to the topic at hand as well. Another Oeridn failure at analysis.

Unfortunetly for you, Oerdin, the numbers I quoted for Ramo are from "Military Deaths By Year/Month" which splits ISF and civilian casualties. So, no, what you quoted is not military deaths but only civilian, and you fail.

I bet you wish you checked the numbers first now, don't you? Does it bother you when you get caught being a complete and utter douche?

Now you are just being an ass clown. I didn't say identical I said about the same and clearly they are roughly about the same. Not huge differences, certainly not an order of magnitude different. ~500.

Well, you see Oerdin, that comparison was merely me and Ramo talking about what he said. You very specifically said 2006, so why would we use 05 numbers in your comparison? And btw, when did I ever say order of magnitude?

So lets recap, shall we. Oeridn says current civilian deaths are at 2006 levels desite deaths being 1456 or 31% lower for the same time period in 2008. Does that seem to be "roughly the same" to you (remember, your answer will be recorded here forever)?

No one claimed the surge had no effect but instead what was questioned was the assuration that the surge had some amazing, indisputable success which was absolutely undeniable. Clearly this is not so for the first half year of the surge.

It wasn't supposed to for the first half of the surge, those troops were put there specifically to fight and suppress insurgents first, and THEN enforce that achieved pacification. Are you sure you were in the Army?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ramo

Late 2005/early 2006 is the period (i.e. that just preceding the al-Askariyah Mosque bombing) that the past few months' violence most resembles. It looks like a ridiculous bout of nitpicking to criticize Oerdin over that comment.

It's pattycakes FFS. He gets turned on by the use of US military force and so the blood rushes away from his brain.

[Patroklos]

Lame.

Yes, you trying to compare completely unrelated periods when Oeridn specifically told us what he was comparing is lame.

Now, if you wish to cut Oeridn loose so he can drown without pulling you down with him, I am happy to discuss the topic with you. Oeridn is an albatross, cast him off to his own devices.

1. You chose an asymmetric distribution of months between 2007 and 2008 to push that number higher.

I didn't choose any period of time, Oerdin chose the current time and 2006. I only included 2007 because you wanted to include 2005. But actually, if I didn't include 2007 but rather May/June 08 that would only pad the numbers in my favor further. Feel free to do the math.

2. I specifically stated that the bombing in Samarra was the trigger for the increased levels of violence. That bombing happened at the end of February. I'm not sure why you're including April.

You said this, and I quote:

"a period in late 2005 and early 2006"

You said that, not me. Now, there is no reason to do that comparison regardless given Oeridn's parameters, but when I humor you by using your own stated parameters and you fail anyway don't blame me.

I humored you by including 2005 at all, Oeridn said 2006, why would I include more months of 2005 than 2006 (in reference to why March and April were included)?

3. The word "resemble" doesn't appear to mean what you think it does.

You're not good at that tac Ramo, it doesn't become you

[Imran Siddiqui]

If, say, the UN was to get Iran and the US to the negotiating table, but everything fell through in negotiations, would be calling the UN ability in getting both countries to the table a "success"? I seriously doubt it. Since the end goal wasn't accomplished.

That's why while violence has decreased, the surge hasn't been a success because the political considerations it was supposed to have created breathing room for hasn't occured. If you want to blame the Iraqis for that, you can, but the primary justification for the surge hasn't come through.

[Patroklos]

Obviously people are willing to have a serious discussion with you (why, I can't figure) in this very thread. What, too cowardly to take it up?

Ummmm, that is exactly what I was doing GePap, RTFT

In any case, the reason for a new thread is so that Oeridn won't taint people like Ramo with the idiocy of his OP. Houses built on a sinking foundation....

[Arrian]

Originally posted by SlowwHand



So you're saying that once we took Hussein, which I still maintain was warranted, we should have left.
I can almost support that viewpoint, but I'll bet you
$100 that if we could turn back time and create that scenario, the same people would be whining.
Luckily for you and your $100 that we can't turn back time.

No, Sloww, that's not what I'm saying. Nice try, though.

I'm saying we shouldn't have gone in the first place. Saddam was contained - he wasn't a threat and I said so at the time, and the facts have borne that out. Invading and taking out Saddam made us responsible for helping the Iraqis through the aftermath. I don't think that invading, knocking off Saddam, and immediately leaving would have been morally right. The chaos would likely have been worse and the end result would almost assuredly have been a bloody sectarian war that ends with a new Saddam in command.

-Arrian