How long has it been since they established the "Green Zones" in Iraq.
It just amazes be that those zones are not all that big, yet they can not keep those areas 100% secure.
Every week suicide bombers are STILL getting in to those zones.
I don't care what city you are in.
Figure out the how big the Green Zone is and then try and duplicate it in your own city.
Are they 5 square miles? 10?
Would it be that hard to secure a small area in your city if you had BILLIONS of $$$ to spend in a 3 year period?
How about just 1 Billion?

I'm not (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about them not being able to secure all of Baghdad since this war started. I'm just talking about the small Green zones within the city.

How could the Bush Administration hope to secure an entire country 4 years later?

I've noticed that the main media has also "flipped flopped" on their news reporting just like the Administration.

The White house is trying to take the public's eyes off Iraq and back to Afghanistan.
That war has been going on since just after 911.
When that war wasn't going well, They shifted the media focus to Iraq.
Now public opinion is not going well for Iraq, so they shift back to the first war they started.
If both wars do not get public support, are they going to start a 3rd new war? Maybe Iran or North Korea?

3rd time is a charm they say LOL

I suppose you missed the reports of violence in Baghdad being down 80% since the surge.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Glad to see you had an opinion on why the Green Zone are not 100% secure after 3 years and billons of $$$

Down 80%? what do they base that % on?
It amazes me that people can pull % and ratios to justify their argument.
I'm sure that someone with the opposite opinion of you can pull out some statistic too to suppose their opinion.

Forget statistics.
I'm asking why the Almighty USA can not secure a very small area of Baghdad in over 3 years now.

On balance, violence in Baghdad is not much worse than violence in Detroit (39.4 homocides for every 100,000 in population) or other urban cities (Baltimore--41.9, Washington DC 44.0 and New Orleans 57.7 homocides per 100,000 in population). I little perspective might clear up your thinking.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

I would imagine that it's very difficult to stop a determined suicide bomber. They have nothing to lose after all. I don't think that it would be easy to keep the peace on occupied territory.

__________________
its time to change our democracy
http://www.isupportthismessage.com/

baghdad to any of our cities?

Your "numbers" reflect homocides per city, when Baghdad's violence death rate before the surge was 238 per 100,000. I consider daily explosions via suicide bombers as "violence" and you dont see much of that in Detroit.

You claim that violence has reduced 80% since the surge...lets see a link.

heres what it was in November 2006

http://mediamatters.org/items/200611300002

so if reduced by 80% then Baghdad should be at about 50 per 100,000 since the surge, right?

__________________
America is a melting pot, the people at the bottom get burned while all the scum floats to the top.
- - - Charlie King

I love the way you put your statistics. LOL
I guess it makes you sleep better at night.
Are those statistics per day? per week? per month? per year?
The problem with your thinking is that you think it's the citizens of Baghdad killing citizens on Baghdad. IT'S NOT! So therfore your statistics mean nothing. You are comparing apples and oranges.
For a true comparision under your guidelines. How many people from Chicago go to Detriot to kill people?
You are comparing random acts of violence in inner cities to what is going on in Iraq.
Hello? NEWSFLASH!! It's people from the outside going into Baghdad to do the killing.
Again your statistics are like apples and oranges.
Now back to my original post and use your comparission.
Would your statistics go down dramatically if those American cities had the same BILLIONS of $$$ to spend like they are spending in Iraq?
If your inner cities had the same military strength in thier city like Baghdad, would not your statistical numbers go down?

I started this thread to ask why, after 3+ years and BILLIONS of $$$ the USA can not secure a small area (Green Zone) inside one city?
Give any of the cities you mention 3+years and BILLIONS of $$$ and see how much safer those cites are after 3 years.

"Badr News Net reports that the level of violence in Baghdad is down by 80% since the launch of the new security operation, according to Colonel Qasim Atta Al-Musawi, a Defense Ministry spokesman. Colonel Al-Musawi stated in a press conference today that the Medico-legal Institute (main morgue) in Baghdad has received 20 corpses over the last two days, compared to the usual 40 or 50 corpses each day prior to the start of the Imposing Law military operation. He added that 130 displaced families have returned to their areas and that commercial stores in Allawi Al-Hilla and Haifa Street in Baghdad were reopened as a result of improved security in central Baghdad. 144 wanted suspects were detained in Baghdad over the last three days, among them members of an armed group suspected to be behind the deportation of families from the Adil district, west of Baghdad, in addition to the suspected perpetrators of the Bab Al-Sharji and Mustansiriya University bombings that killed and wounded hundreds last month. “What distinguishes the Baghdad security operation from its predecessors is that the troops will remain and hold the areas that are cleansed from terrorism so that displaced families can return to them,” said Al-Musawi, who also warned the bodyguards of governmental officials that they will be detained if they are caught carrying weapons on their own."

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=1&gl=us

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

From 40 to 20 is 50% not 80%
Those US Cities you quotes earlier...
Are there 20 murders EVERY day in those cities?
You said ealier that Baghdad is not any more dangerous than those cities.
Your stats not mine.

That links still does not answer my question as to why, after 3+ years and Billions of $$$, the USA can not secure a small area of Baghdad like the Green Zone.
If they can not secure the Green Zones, after 3+ years, how can the world be expected to believe that the All Powerful USA can keep our countries safe from terrorism.
Joining the war on terror di not protect the British. It just moved them up on the terrorists priority watch list.
Look at the terrorist attacks around the world and compare them to countries that supported the USA.
We in Canada joined your fight in Afghanistan because it was a just fight after 911.
We made a choice not to join the war in Iraq and we have not seen a terrorist attack here in Canada, unlike the British who chose to fight with you in Iraq.
In fact, we stopped a terrorist cell in Toronto without a lot of help from the USA.
The USA has turned it's nose up at all the countries that did not support them in Iraq.
Now 3+ years later it has been proven that it was a wise move not to join the fight in Iraq.
Canada is still in Afghanistan. In fact, last year, Bush asked Canada to take the lead role in the major city over there.
As usual, American starts a war and the rest of the world has to pay the price to clean it up.
The truly sad fact is that the Almighty USA could not stop 911.
They can not secure a small green zone in Baghdad after 3+ years.
There own borders and ports are full of security holes almost 6 years after 911.
Billions spent on two separate wars on terrorism and not any safer than before 911.
Your own news reporters like Anderson Copper on CNN are telling of major vulnerabilities within the USA.
The terrorist don't need to come up with ways to attack the USA.
Your own medias are giving them clear instructions on how to do it.
Talk about laying out a blueprint for disaster.

Let's take those post-surge numbers Barney cited at face value.

20 violent deaths a day in a city of 2.3 million is still 317 violent deaths per 100,000 over the course of a year.

10 violent deaths a day is still 159 violent deaths per 100,000.

Imagine what it was pre-surge.

Claiming Baghdad isn't that much more dangerous than Detroit is simply absurd.

__________________
Man up.