Basra attacks down 90% since British troops left

[American]

This is significant to the campaign, and shows that leaving the middle east would be in the best interest of this country and proving RP right. Can we get some RP comments on these articles that allow comments?

Bottom link is google search for the title, fisrt link is the article posted.

Basra attacks down 90% since British troops left


A spokesman for the British Army said violence in Basra has fallen dramatically after the British forces withdrew from the southern Iraqi city early this year. By next month, British will end its combat role in Iraq.
In early September, 500 British soldiers left one of Saddam Hussein’s palaces in the heart of the city in early September and they also stopped conducting regular foot patrols. Since then, the overall level of violence is down 90% according to the British Army spokesman.

The spokesman said, the violence is still there, the Iraqi security still come under attack from the militants in Basra, but has declined by more than 90%.

British forces will fully relinquish control of Basra province to Iraq officials next month and will officially end Britain’s combat role in Iraq. Will US army be the next?

Supporters of war had said if army forces leave the violence will rise, but in Basra, the opposite is being seen. The US army can leave and until normalcy is restored an UN International Peacekeeping force with Arab countries participation to mollify the locals can remain in Iraq. Al-Qaeda or the separatists will have no excuse then to cause violence in Iraq.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/246289/Basra_attacks_down_90_since_British_troops_left


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=Basra+attacks+down+90%25+since+British+troops+le ft&btnG=Search

Someone should make RP aware of this stat also, it

[qwerty]

This is GOOD one!

We have a winning message behind us!

[10thAmendmentMan]

Without foreign troops, the people worried that they'd be occupied/ruled indefinitely by a foreign power aren't as active. I'm glad -- and not terribly surprised -- to see that Ron's common-sense logic is right yet again.

[FunkBuddha]

Do we have any people here with ties to the campaign? These would be excellent stats to bring up in the next debate.

[American]

We need this to go viral for google rankings so its seen by more people.

Please repost, and spread this everywhere you can.

[entropy]

not to be a wet rag, but could we not also assume that the fundamentalist Islamic element just moved the war to where the enemy is?

It is a good sign, but I do not know if it is conclusive evidence beyond refute.

[American]

not to be a wet rag, but could we not also assume that the fundamentalist Islamic element just moved the war to where the enemy is?

It is a good sign, but I do not know if it is conclusive evidence beyond refute.

Wet rag?, I can only hope this argument would be put together like this. That would mean quite simply that if we leave violence would drop. We are the occupying force there, there enemy. right?

I dont see how you could spin this any other way then what it is.

[Goldwater Conservative]

not to be a wet rag, but could we not also assume that the fundamentalist Islamic element just moved the war to where the enemy is?

In which case they left when the enemy left. What would they do if we withdrew from the entire country, hop on a plane and follow us?

Since so many of the attacks are targeted at us (which makes sense), I'm not surprised by this. They're not just going to start killing Iraqis instead, at least not nearly in equal numbers. And whatever violence is still there after we leave will be motivation for Iraq to unite for relative stability, if nothing else.

[American]

Find your location and post this in community....

http://www.craigslist.org/about/sites.html

This is what we've been waiting for on foreign policy. This WILL change some minds about our occupation. and completely discredits any of the other candidates position about staying.

[strategos]

it might be read as a sign that iran stop sending weapons into the country for fear of invasion. I know thats not how people want to read it.

[freedominnumbers]

it might be read as a sign that iran stop sending weapons into the country for fear of invasion. I know thats not how people want to read it.

That's a bit of a stretch considering there is no evidence to that effect. Why don't we just blame it on global warming or a goats milk shortage.

[American]

it might be read as a sign that iran stop sending weapons into the country for fear of invasion. I know thats not how people want to read it.

This has been reported a few months ago by Michael Ware in Iraq that both US and British forces have made a deal with the local Tribesman, the same deal they were offered 4 years ago only now they are taking them up on it. It didnt get allot of air play then, and I am sure it wont get any air play now.

Either way there is no evidence or even mention to suggest this has anything to do with Iran, actually just the opposite, they claim more nuclear capability, then stop fighting in Iraq?

Interesting point you bring though, quite a stretch also. Luntz, is that you?

FUCK YOU FRANK!!!

[American]

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p167/FvckStick/pic24.gif

[Proemio]

it might be read as a sign that iran stop sending weapons into the country for fear of invasion. I know thats not how people want to read it.

When the 'coalition' leaves an area, most 'sectarian terrorists' go with them.
They don't feel safe without TIC (The International Community) around - happens every time.
Has bugger all to do with the Iranians.

Of course Ron Paul is right...

[richard1984]

I would like to see a more indepth article, but this is definitely some very promising evidence.

[American]

This is coming from the British Army so I doubt we will get a indepth piece on it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=Basra+attacks+down+90%25+since+British+troops+le ft&btnG=Search

but its being reported in allot of places.

[Richandler]

CNN Youtube point it out to the Republican candidates and then tell them ask them why they won't listen to Paul when he was right.

[American]

Looks like this story is getting picked up by Yahoo.

Thanks Richandler, I think I might just do that.

How 4 Words From Basra Will Change Everything


A recent article about British troops leaving Basra (the second largest city in Iraq) suggests that the Iraq debate is about to experience a seismic change--a shift in the way every American talks and thinks about the most pressing issue of our time.

The change can be summed up in 4 simple words:

troops leave, violence drops

As the deafening hubbub of propaganda drowns out every attempt to talk real policy change on Iraq, this simple descriptive formula--troops leave, violence drops--cuts through it all.

And here's why it is so powerful...

A Simple Logic: Up And Down, In And Out
Often, the most far reaching changes in political debates are not caused by governments, per se, but by the emergence of new way of seeing an issue, and a new way of talking about that.

Cindy Sheehan's one-woman protest against President Bush was one of those moments. By shifting the debate on the war to the her own feelings as a grieving mom, Shehan instantly change the way every American saw and talked about the issue. Suddenly, Iraq was about the pain of America's families, and popular support for the policy dissipated.

Similarly, when President Bush launched his surge, the way Americans saw and talked about Iraq again shifted again. In an instant, Americans--including our elected officials--once again accepted the logic of waiting for success.

The British pullout from Basra, and the subsequent logic of violence dropping as a result of that pullout, will change the debate again by reimposing a simple logic of up and down, in and out. To see that logic at work, take a look at this description of the British pullout that appeared recently in the International Harald Tribune:

Attacks against British and Iraqi forces have plunged by 90 percent in southern Iraq since London withdrew its troops from the main city of Basra, the commander of British forces there said Thursday.

The presence of British forces in downtown Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, was the single largest instigator of violence, Maj. Gen. Graham Binns told reporters Thursday on a visit to Baghdad's Green Zone.

"We thought, 'If 90 percent of the violence is directed at us, what would happen if we stepped back?'" Binns said.

Britain's 5,000 troops moved out of a former Saddam Hussein palace at Basra's heart in early September, setting up a garrison at an airport on the city's edge. Since that pullback, there's been a "remarkable and dramatic drop in attacks," Binns said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20071118/cm_huffpost/073117

[Matthew Zak]

Good news. How do we blow this up?

In order for this to be the catalyst we see it as, we need to make EVERYONE see this.

Email this story to everyone you know with the title "How 4 Words From Basra Will Change Everything" -- send a link to this story to every single pundit at every single network that you can. Digg it, favorite it, flaunt it, teach it, sell it.

And STAMP it with Ron Paul '08.

[Matthew Zak]

bump

[Matthew Zak]

Bump

[colecrowe]

bump

Jeez, did anyone submit a youtube Q on this? if so post a link, please. Did anyone figure out if we have anyone here with an ear at HQ? This is just the thing Paul needs. I am worried about him getting mocked at the debate unless he has something that is very compelling to all watching to really undermine what has been parroted about the success of the surge lately, to really make a slam dunk point. I'm just saying, of course he's absolutely right--but many people are not going to go along with him just because he's right about the fact we shouldn't be there for a million important reasons regardless of whether we are "winning" or "losing" or the situation is "improving"--which really means going back to the level of violence that existed for the first three years of the war: Iraq Casualties (http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx): http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx --WOW, look, it has a bunch of ups and downs--and every darn time it goes down we hear..."It's getting better--we'll be out in a year, six months... I KNOW, I was there Jan 04 - Feb and we kept hearing, after sovereignty, after the constitution vote, after the elections, you'll be going home, the Iraqi gov't will take over.

Also, very germane to the subject...Did anyone see This Week on ABC...they were talking about how much it is being talked about/pushed that we will have to/should stay in Iraq for another 10 years with 130,000 troops--but it will be "okay" because (they seemed to believe) "nobody will be dying"!!

[doronster195]

Not to burst anyone's bubble, but I talked to a political science major (a friend of mine) about this very point, and he said that Basra (and france and Algeria for that matter)'s problems were fundamentally different than the problems posed by Iraq.

[AlexMerced]

duh, every region has different problems, the point is shwen you leave people to solve their own problems, they get solved. THe problems may be different here and there, but the only people with the power to make change are the peoples.

[doronster195]

Isn't it our responsibility to get a leader in power since we took out a leader that kept them under control (Saddam Hussein) and put them in this situation in the first place?

(I am not a troll, I can just hear these things being said by the opposition and I want to have a good answer to respond with.)

EDIT: I was talking about this particular point on the Daily Paul and it could possibly add a few more points to discuss: http://dailypaul.com/node/9062

[doronster195]

Bump. Anyone?

[AlexMerced]

Isn't it our responsibility to get a leader in power since we took out a leader that kept them under control (Saddam Hussein) and put them in this situation in the first place?

(I am not a troll, I can just hear these things being said by the opposition and I want to have a good answer to respond with.)

EDIT: I was talking about this particular point on the Daily Paul and it could possibly add a few more points to discuss: http://dailypaul.com/node/9062

no, cause they need to choose a leader, if you take the people out of the forming of the government, it's not sustainable. It may not end up with an ideal governemnt we'd hope fore, but if we let them form it your more likely to see a successful transition.

Like Afgahnistan has made some headway, but with the burning of the opium fields, I doubt that government will sustain. The people need to decide how to govern themselves.

[Goldwater Conservative]

Not to burst anyone's bubble, but I talked to a political science major (a friend of mine) about this very point, and he said that Basra (and france and Algeria for that matter)'s problems were fundamentally different than the problems posed by Iraq.

Considering Basra is Iraq's second-largest city, I think it's worth discussing, especially as the neo-cons are always talking about sparsely-populated al-Anbar province seeing a reduction in violence and linking it to the surge, despite it really owing to local leaders who don't even like us.

Plus, it does lend credence to the "they attack us because we're there" argument we've been making.

[colecrowe]

Can anybody get this to HQ? Does one person here have contact with them? More generally, Is the relative silence from the campaign for strategic reasons or are they afraid of grassroots, or are they just not listening or open to learning. I worry. But maybe I shouldn't. I really feel all my questions will really be answered by Wednesday's debate. I hinge a lot on that.