Amir Tehari writes about the boom outside Baghdad:

Newsweek has just hailed the emergence of a booming market economy in Iraq as "the mother of all surprises," noting that "Iraqis are more optimistic about the future than most Americans are." The reason, of course, is that Iraqis know what is going on in their country while Americans are fed a diet of exclusively negative reporting from Iraq.

Of course, it would have been better if he's written "almost exclusively negative," given that he was citing a positive Newsweek story as evidence.

And also of course, expect my anonymous and cowardly moronic leftist troll to show up in a minute or two with the daily "chickenhawk" stupidity, and demands that I go to Iraq.

What total baloney. You have to be insane to think that Iraq ain't all that bad. Heck, even Bush finally conceded that "we're not winning," which most Americans figured out a year ago. The death toll is higher than it was a year ago and how many American servicemen died in the past week?

The situation there sucks and the debate is not about whether or not it sucks, but what to do about it.

> The death toll is higher than it was a year ago

In what war has the death toll gone down? (Unless a war brings folks back to life, the death toll always increases.)

The funny thing is, these guys never figure out that our enemies fight *harder* when they think they're winning.

Oh, and they hear about what our press is saying, too.

There are many area in Iraq that are not nearly as violent at Baghdad. The Kurds are doing well for instance. But, yet again, another BDS sufferer missed the point. That, in spite of the violence, the economy is producing goods and services and some are doing quite well. This points out that if the situation is stabilized to any extent, market forces will emerge and that may help stabilize things further. It's hard to stir people up when they are improving their lot in life and they are more willing to protect what they have.

A strong economy suggests a situation that is more stable than reported. If the death toll is significant; then what is an example of its significance beyond political endeavors?

by Posted by George Grant at December 26, 2006 09:07 AM
"What total baloney.. . . but what to do about it."
This is what you can do about your baloney. Might I suggest that you do a little research and read something other than the NYT. Watch something other than CCN or [P]MSNBC.

"What total baloney.. . . and how many Americans" died in New York, or Los Angeles, or Philadelphia, or Washinton D.C. the past week? Should we pullk out of America too? The total deaths in America have increased since March of 2003.

Jihadforwhat:

The CIA factbook estimated the Iraqi population in July 2006 at 26783383, and the death rate at 5.37 deaths per 1000 population, so from that I estimate 143827 deaths in Iraq.

Fedstats.gov doesn't have such up-to-date death statistics, but there were 154870 deaths (2003) out of a population of 22859968 (2005 estimate) in Texas.

Simplistic Conclusion: it is more dangerous to live in Texas than it is to live in Iraq.

How about the rate of violent deaths? In Iraq, it is 27.51 per 100000. In Washington DC, it is 45 per 100000; Detroit, 41.8 per 100000; Baltimore, 37.7 per 100000; Atlanta, 34.9 per 100000; St. Louis, 31.4 per 100000; pre-Katrina New Orleans, 53.1 per 100000.

A civilian has a greater chance of a violent death in major US cities than they do in Iraq even though Iraq is a war zone.

Rand, I wonder whether the proponents of the chickenhawk argument realize that they are arguing for a fascist state? ... or how happy they would be to live in a country where the only ones allowed to vote were those who had served in the armed forces...

Well, you see, *anybody* can protest against a war; but only soldiers can make a case for a war, and when they do that, they're bloodthirsty babykillers.

Amir Tehari writes about the boom in the Shiite region,
a region doing most of it's trade with Iran, a region
occupied by a group of people intensely hostile to US
interests, and have been fighting the british.

Amir Tehari of Benador Associates, an entity on the
payroll of the Neo-cons and the US Government.

Rand perhaps if you wer ein Iraq reporting as opposed to
parroting Propoganda, you would be viewed as
credible.

Rand perhaps if you wer ein Iraq reporting as opposed to parroting Propoganda, you would be viewed as credible.

Apparently, given my level of readership (present company excluded) I am viewed as credible, except to illiterate and idiotic moonbats like you, and as for that, who cares?

simberg

moonbat isn't a particularly useful term of debate.

It is interesting how you cite extensively the benador
association for your blog.

how much of your material comes from the lincoln group also?

moonbat isn't a particularly useful term of debate.

And "chickenhawk" is?

moonbat isn't a particularly useful term of debate.

Neither is hiding your identity useful, but it hasn't stopped you. I'll also add that making personal attacks that involves your opponents family is a very dubious tactic in debate, but that hasn't stopped you either.

Amir Tehari of Benador Associates, an entity on the
payroll of the Neo-cons and the US Government.

Amir Tehari of Benador Associates, an entity on the
payroll of the Neo-cons and the US Government.

Rand perhaps if you wer ein Iraq reporting as opposed to
parroting Propoganda, you would be viewed as
credible.

You might try researching the biography of Amir Tehari before making such stupid comments. I did since you brought up his association with the Benador group. Basically you are validating Amir as an authority because you can't pass up an attempt to try and label Rand a chickenhawk. When you are being hypocritical, it is impossible to give credibility to your comments.

"Simplistic Conclusion: it is more dangerous to live in Texas than it is to live in Iraq."

Ed, maybe the Feds will pull out of Texas. One could only hope...

Amir Tehari is a writer, so what?

The more interesting item is who pays him?

Amir Tehari is a writer, so what?\

You're a vile troll, so what?

The more interesting item is who pays him?]

That's only "interesting" to clueless idiots unfamiliar with logic, and methods of argumentation. That's called an "ad hominem" argument, Anonymous Moron. You're apparently unfamiliar with the concept, though you should be since "chickenhawk" falls in the same fallacious class. And it seems to be the only kind of argument you're capable of making.

Simberg

tehari is a paid stooge, who pays him to stooge is an
interesting question.

That you are a stooge is well known, that you aren't
smart enough to get paid is unknown

Who pays you to be a Jew Hater? Who pays you for your rascism? Who pays you for your vile sub-human hate orgys? Who pays your for your anti-life and anti-freedom pontifications?

Perhaps you are George Soros monkey butler.

That you are a stooge is well known, that you aren't smart enough to get paid is unknown

If Chickenhawk is so smart, who is paying him to stooge for Democrats in the comment sections?