Study Of Satellite Imagery Casts Doubt On Surge's Success In Baghdad

[waronyou]

Satellite image of night lights in Baghdad. By tracking the amount of light emitted by Baghdad neighborhoods at night, a team of UCLA geographers has uncovered fresh evidence that last year's U.S. troop surge in Iraq may not have been as effective at improving security as some U.S. officials have maintained. (Credit: Image courtesy of University of California - Los Angeles)ScienceDaily (Sep. 22, 2008) — By tracking the amount of light emitted by Baghdad neighborhoods at night, a team of UCLA geographers has uncovered fresh evidence that last year's U.S. troop surge in Iraq may not have been as effective at improving security as some U.S. officials have maintained.

Night light in neighborhoods populated primarily by embattled Sunni residents declined dramatically just before the February 2007 surge and never returned, suggesting that ethnic cleansing by rival Shiites may have been largely responsible for the decrease in violence for which the U.S. military has claimed credit, the team reports in a new study based on publicly available satellite imagery.

* Spam Deleted *

[Gaffer]

:link: :link: :link:

I think your just another liberal spammer.

[theHawk]

So having the lights turned out is proof "the surge didn't work"?

I thought Obama said it worked "beyond anyone's expectations"?

[Yurt]

So having the lights turned out is proof "the surge didn't work"?

I thought Obama said it worked "beyond anyone's expectations"?

:lol:

and he just campaigned over there

[retiredman]

decreased violence under the watchful eye of American troops does not mean that sectarian enmity has been reduced to the point where sectarian violence will not immediately increase upon our departure. The surge worked militarily and no one should be too surprised by that. Suggesting that sunnis and shiites in Iraq will somehow forget how much they have hated one another for over a millenium just because Americans have acted as well armed hall monitors for five years is not rational.

[mundame]

I thought Obama said it worked "beyond anyone's expectations"?


He meant at all, even a little.

[Immanuel]

decreased violence under the watchful eye of American troops does not mean that sectarian enmity has been reduced to the point where sectarian violence will not immediately increase upon our departure. The surge worked militarily and no one should be too surprised by that. Suggesting that sunnis and shiites in Iraq will somehow forget how much they have hated one another for over a millenium just because Americans have acted as well armed hall monitors for five years is not rational.

We're not leaving. Not in our lifetimes anyway.

Immie

[retiredman]

We're not leaving. Not in our lifetimes anyway.

Immie

that is certainly your opinion. I do not happen to share it.

[Immanuel]

that is certainly your opinion. I do not happen to share it.

Don't tell me you think that Obama is going to bring us out! :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::lol::lol::lol:

Obama doesn't have the where withal to fight his way out of a paper sack with a blow torch.

Immie

[mundame]

Don't tell me you think that Obama is going to bring us out!

Obama doesn't have the where withal to fight his way out of a paper sack with a blow torch.

Immie


But that's the point --- he doesn't have to fight to bring us out, he just has to stop fighting.

I'd like to see our troops brought home from Afghanistan, too, and you realize that's bound to be the Next Big Issue.

[Immanuel]

But that's the point --- he doesn't have to fight to bring us out, he just has to stop fighting.

I'd like to see our troops brought home from Afghanistan, too, and you realize that's bound to be the Next Big Issue.

I am not sure I understand what you mean here. If they stop fighting they die. I don't think that is what you, Obama or MFM want.

Can you explain what you mean by that, please?

Immie

[mundame]

I am not sure I understand what you mean here. If they stop fighting they die. I don't think that is what you, Obama or MFM want.

Can you explain what you mean by that, please?

Immie


I don't understand YOU, Immie ---------

Obama says he wants to bring the troops home. So he does; they climb on troop carriers and they fly or sail home, right? There's nobody killing them; they're leaving out.


Sooner the better, though I agree with you I'm not holding my breath for any of that to happen. Promises, promises.................usually they're just lies politicians tell.

[Yurt]

decreased violence under the watchful eye of American troops does not mean that sectarian enmity has been reduced to the point where sectarian violence will not immediately increase upon our departure. The surge worked militarily and no one should be too surprised by that. Suggesting that sunnis and shiites in Iraq will somehow forget how much they have hated one another for over a millenium just because Americans have acted as well armed hall monitors for five years is not rational.

what was your purpose when you were a UN advisor? what was the purpose of the UN there?

oh, and obama was surprised....it exceeded beyond our WILDEST DREAMS

:lol:

[Immanuel]

I don't understand YOU, Immie ---------

Obama says he wants to bring the troops home. So he does; they climb on troop carriers and they fly or sail home, right? There's nobody killing them; they're leaving out.


Sooner the better, though I agree with you I'm not holding my breath for any of that to happen. Promises, promises.................usually they're just lies politicians tell.

Ok, I understand you a little bit better now. When you said, "just stop fighting", I was thinking stop fighting but keep the troops in Iraq. He's not going to pull them out of Iraq. If they stop fighting but stay in Iraq, they are dead.

Obama says he wants to pull them out. But, he and other Democrats have already said, it can't be done... yet. We'll keep hearing, it can't be done yet for the rest of our lives.

As you said, promises, promises.

Immie

[mundame]

Ok, I understand you a little bit better now. When you said, "just stop fighting", I was thinking stop fighting but keep the troops in Iraq. He's not going to pull them out of Iraq. If they stop fighting but stay in Iraq, they are dead.

THAT is why we haven't won. To win, we have to get bases --- it's the form our empire takes, and I'm for it.

However, we can't hold forward-power-projection bases unless the country is pacified and STABLE. That's why we lit out of the Philippines so fast --- they went violent Muslim on us, and then the bases are just one more war. So we left. We'll probably leave South Korea soon, too --- same deal, only slower.

We cannot get bases in Iraq because as you say, if we stopped fighting, all the troops would be killed. What is going on there is a war. The question is simply is it in our national interest for us to be in that war? The answer has been "no" for a lot of years now.

There are two ways to win: vanquish the enemy and vamoose like in Serbia and Desert Storm I, or get big bases and stay in a stable country: Germany, South Korea, Philippines till lately. Neither applies to Iraq.



Obama says he wants to pull them out. But, he and other Democrats have already said, it can't be done... yet. We'll keep hearing, it can't be done yet for the rest of our lives.

As you said, promises, promises.

Immie

I have no idea anymore. Obama talks of more war in Afghanistan -- which inevitably mean war with the 160 million (!) people of Pakistan, so I am not clear that Obamlamabama is any improvement on this dreadful man in the White House now. If it meant getting Osama, it might be worth trying for awhile, but after SIX YEARS they haven't bothered to do much about him, so I doubt Obama will catch Osama ------ that's hard even to type.


So may as well just bring everyone home, reboot, start over.

[Immanuel]

THAT is why we haven't won. To win, we have to get bases --- it's the form our empire takes, and I'm for it.

However, we can't hold forward-power-projection bases unless the country is pacified and STABLE. That's why we lit out of the Philippines so fast --- they went violent Muslim on us, and then the bases are just one more war. So we left. We'll probably leave South Korea soon, too --- same deal, only slower.

We cannot get bases in Iraq because as you say, if we stopped fighting, all the troops would be killed. What is going on there is a war. The question is simply is it in our national interest for us to be in that war? The answer has been "no" for a lot of years now.

There are two ways to win: vanquish the enemy and vamoose like in Serbia and Desert Storm I, or get big bases and stay in a stable country: Germany, South Korea, Philippines till lately. Neither applies to Iraq.




I have no idea anymore. Obama talks of more war in Afghanistan -- which inevitably mean war with the 160 million (!) people of Pakistan, so I am not clear that Obamlamabama is any improvement on this dreadful man in the White House now. If it meant getting Osama, it might be worth trying for awhile, but after SIX YEARS they haven't bothered to do much about him, so I doubt Obama will catch Osama ------ that's hard even to type.


So may as well just bring everyone home, reboot, start over.

For a long time I have said, "you don't fight a war by coralling your troops in the middle of Baghdad, painting targets on their backs and telling them to fend for themselves. Especially when you have an enemy that looks like civilians". This war is not going to be won in the conventional way. We can be anywhere in the world in a matter of hours if not minutes. We need to pull our troops out, surround the Middle East with Marines and soldiers then the first time Osama sticks his bearded face out of the cave he's in, blow him to smithereens.

Immie

[Gaffer]

The lights are out so the surge isn't working. Now there's a real scientific way of looking at things. How about the fact the news media has pulled out almost every one of their reporters because there's not any US casualties to report on anymore. I would expect if there was still fighting going on there would be some reporters trying to show the surge was a failure.

Of course the lights being out in baghdad wouldn't have anything to do with the power grid still being rebuilt and sections having black outs. Or the fact that some areas NEVER had power and lines and they are being installed.

mfm how many sunni's and shite's did you know? Did they fight all the time? Did they attack each other on sight?

All the iraq government has to do is blame Israel for everything like all the other muslim countries and they can keep their population under control.

[mundame]

We need to pull our troops out, surround the Middle East with Marines and soldiers then the first time Obama sticks his bearded face out of the cave he's in, blow him to smithereens.

Immie


I have long suspected he's not in Pakistan at all; I bet Osama is in Syria, or even Iran. I know they're Shiite, but they are also determined enemies of the United States, so they might well shelter Osama.

[retiredman]

mfm how many sunni's and shite's did you know? Did they fight all the time? Did they attack each other on sight?



know, like know well enough to sit down and have a cup of coffee with, or know as in come in contact with in my official capacity? The former number? 40 or 50. The latter number? thousands. Did they attack each other on sight? No. for the most part, they lived in segregated neighborhoods so they did not come in contact with one another very often. But if they DID come in contact with one another, sparks often flew.

I remember sitting at an outdoor cafe on Hamra Street in Beirut having a cup of coffee with a sunni UN coworker when there was a fender-bender in the middle of an intersection between a sunni and a shiite. They emerged from their cars and started yelling at one another and I couldn't understand it. My coworker did and took me inside immediately. what transpired was pretty amazing...the two cars emptied out and the multiple occupants left the cars where they were in the middle of the intersection with traffic all backed up, and they ran in different directions...in less than five minutes, two gangs of armed men reappeared at the intersection and started a full fledged firefight. Nineteen dead in about three minutes. Crap like that happened often. And the hatred between sunni and shiite in Lebanon was nowhere near as intense as that felt between the sects in Iraq after the horrific treatment of the majority shiites by Saddam's group of minority sunnis.

[mundame]

I remember sitting at an outdoor cafe on Hamra Street in Beirut having a cup of coffee with a sunni UN coworker when there was a fender-bender in the middle of an intersection between a sunni and a shiite. They emerged from their cars and started yelling at one another and I couldn't understand it. My coworker did and took me inside immediately. what transpired was pretty amazing...the two cars emptied out and the multiple occupants left the cars where they were in the middle of the intersection with traffic all backed up, and they ran in different directions...in less than five minutes, two gangs of armed men reappeared at the intersection and started a full fledged firefight. Nineteen dead in about three minutes. Crap like that happened often. And the hatred between sunni and shiite in Lebanon was nowhere near as intense as that felt between the sects in Iraq after the horrific treatment of the majority shiites by Saddam's group of minority sunnis.



Hmmmmmm.

Well, maybe Osama's not in Iran, then. http://macg.net/emoticons/grin2.gif

[Gaffer]

Hmmmmmm.

Well, maybe Osama's not in Iran, then. http://macg.net/emoticons/grin2.gif

I think he is. His son just recently left iran to go back to pakistan for whatever reason. The same son who was supposedly under house arrest. The shites and sunni's may hate each other but they will assist each other to kill their enemies. Then they will go back to tearing their throats out.

I have said for years I thought bin laden was in iran. He needs dialysis and medication that would not be available in the mountains of pakistan. And iran has been supplying the taliban with arms.

[retiredman]

no response to #19 gaffer?