| |
| Writings Discussion Authors Help Search Home |
American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Webber on 1/18/2004; 4:19 PM And what was that Bush was saying about Misison Accomplished back in May? Get this a-hole out of office and get our troops home already, before we lose more to suicide bombers, acidents, and suicides (you heard me right. There have been AT LEAST a dozen suicides since Bush's declaration that the war was over)! This whole mess is ridiculous. You hear about those chemical warheads the Danes found a little while back? Turned out to be useless (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=5&u=/ap/20040114/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_mortar_shells You may have to cut-n-paste). To the warfloggers' credit however, most of them didn't jump on this one as a justification for the war. Also something to keep in mind is that the "final verdict" isn't in yet, so stay tuned. All things considered, however, it looks like another Great Blight Hope turned into another wild goose egg -- Truth a thousand, Bush zero. And then there's this, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/154067p-135566c.html (again, may have to cut-n-paste). If Bush really believed that Saddam had ANY sort of responsibility for 9/11 (other than probably being happy about it, which, while bad, is not justification for a pre-emptive war of agression comparable to what the Japanese did to us in 1941), why would he be holding back the investigation? Let me quote to you my favorite parts of the article. 1: "Getting an extension could be a political headache for Bush if the final 9/11 report is issued in the summer. Kean, a Republican, has said the report will name names and point to failures in the Bush administration." Good to know there are still some honest Republicans out there. And 2: "The White House proposed greenlighting the extension if the commission would agree to release the report after the November election, but then officials pulled back the offer, Newsweek reported yesterday." Sure, we all know Karl Rove was a crafty SOB, but, but so openly?!? They can't think they can get away with it, can they? Oh, wait. So far, they have. Never mind... One Wing to Bring Them All and in the Darkness Bind Them In the Land of Crawford Where the Shadows Lie
Re: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Carnell on 1/20/2004; 8:35 AM At 04:35 PM 1/18/2004, Brian Webber wrote: >And what was that Bush was saying about Misison Accomplished back in May? > >Get this a-hole out of office and get our troops home already, before we >lose more to suicide bombers, acidents, and suicides (you heard me right. >There have been AT LEAST a dozen suicides since Bush's declaration that >the war was over)! 1. The suicide stuff is typical media nonsense. There were 21 suicides in Iraq during 2003. That works out to a suicide rate of 13.5 per 100,000. That is very close to the overall suicide rate of Americans 20-24 which was 12.0 per 100,000 in 2001. Factor in the disproportionately male makeup of the force deployed in Iraq (males:female suicide ratio is 4:1 overall and 7:1 among 20-24 year olds) and the suicide rate in Iraq isn't all that newsworthy. Same thing happened with Vietnam -- a few anecdotes about total numbers, but suicide rate was in line with general population. It's just like all the hype over the supposed high rate of pneumonia like problems last summer that also turned out to be occuring at roughly the same rate as in the general population and promptly disappeared as a story. 2. Why would you want to abort one of the most successful military operations in world history? Can anyone else remember a situation in which a country conquered and occupied an entire nation of 22 million people in a country the size of Iraq while sustaining something like 350 combat deaths? Certainly the Iranians must feel like incompetents -- they suffered on the order of 300,000 killed in order to fight Iraq to a standstill over eight years. The only comparison here really is to Grenada and Panama, but neither of those countries had any military capabilities of any note. People can reasonably criticize whether the war was moral/just or whether the administration was honest about WMDs and other issues or whether we're going to be able to transform Iraq into a democratic country, but from a strictly military standpoint the invasion and occupation of Iraq was accomplished with amazing ease and at an incredibly low loss of life.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Webber on 1/21/2004; 3:35 PM You call the sucide thing "media nonsense" (which media I wodner. Can't be the Liberal media since they are a boogeyman created by Ann Coulter and bernie Goldberg), yet, you say ONLY 21, which is HIGHER than the number I presented in my essay. BTW, who funded those studies? What kind of numbers did they give? Who asked the questions, adn what kinds of questions were asked? And why is the So-Called Libral media not paying much attention to a story I found buried under underwear ads in The Denver Post (I don't know if the website has the story, so I can't link it. Sorry)., about a marine being charged with things like "cowardice" for ASKING to see a psychiatrist, to talk about the horirble mangled bodies he's seen being carried out of, not an iraqi prison but a MARINE INTEROGATTION TENT!?!? The military provides these shrinks for soldiers who've just seen too much, but this guy is being branded a traitor by some for just asking. My gradnmother cut that story out and saved it. Next time I'm over there I'll have her dig it out so I can give you the whole story.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Webber on 1/21/2004; 3:38 PM Why would you want to abort one of the most successful military operations in world history? Um, because it's wrong? That might have something to do with it. Say your son is succesfully climbing a very tall, but very precarious tree. Do you shout encouragement beucase he's been amazingly succesful with a surprising lack of falss? No, you get his ass out of the tree! I know that seems like a poor analogy, but since when did doing well trump being right?
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Mark Morgan on 1/21/2004; 4:16 PM Somehow I missed Brian C's response to this. "The military provides these shrinks for soldiers who've just seen too much, but this guy is being branded a traitor by some for just asking. My gradnmother cut that story out and saved it. Next time I'm over there I'll have her dig it out so I can give you the whole story." That'd be great. I'd imagine there's more to the story than that, or I'd hope there would be. I don't think the justifications we were given were acceptable--it's common now for the warbloggers to downplay the "weapons of mass destruction" rationale now that they're not showing up, but even Bush can't let it go. I'm glad I'm not the person who had to stand up in front of the entire country and say "Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day." with a straight face. Now it's the hint of threat of a program to possibly plan to create WMDs? How is that an imminent threat? You got me. The attack on Iraq was incredibly successful, and now that we're there I believe it would be a disaster to just bail out. But that doesn't make the original act a decent act. At the very least Bush could have been honest: "We have a long term objective to wipe out the threats to us caused by radical Islam and to do that we have to start with Iraq." Instead we got BS about WMDs and imminent threats. Either through deceit or incompetence we were not allowed to know the real reason we were going in and that fact tarnishes all successes after it's happening.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Carnell on 1/21/2004; 4:35 PM At 03:51 PM 1/21/2004, Brian Webber wrote: >You call the sucide thing "media nonsense" (which media I wodner. Can't be >the Liberal media since they are a boogeyman created by Ann Coulter and >bernie Goldberg), yet, you say ONLY 21, which is HIGHER than the number I >presented in my essay. BTW, who funded those studies? Leaving aside the pain and confusion of the families and friends of those who committed suicide, the total number of suicides is -- in and of itself -- a *completely* useless statistic. Knowing how many people committed suicide in Iraq last year in and of itself tells us nothing about whether or not this is abnormally high. What we need to know is the suicide *rate* among people stationed in Iraq and whether that rate is significantly higher than the general rate of suicide. And the answer is, so far, the suicide rate among soldiers stationed in Iraq is comparable to the suicide rate of the general population after adjusting for demographics -- i.e. the perponderance of young males stationed in Iraq, who also happen to be the people most likely to take their own lives (in fact, given the easy access to weapons that soldiers have, it's interesting that the rate *isn't* much higher.) This also explains why 18/21 of the suicides have been Army personnel and why the Army routinely has the highest suicide rate of all the armed services -- it also has the highest proportion of younger males. If we woke up one day and the suicide rate was significantly higher, say 20 per 100,000 then there might be cause to wonder if something is going on, but "Suicide Rate For Young Men In Iraq About the Same as It Is in the United States" isn't something to exactly get excited about. > about a marine being charged with things like "cowardice" for ASKING to > see a psychiatrist, to talk about the horirble mangled bodies he's seen > being carried out of, not an iraqi prison but a MARINE INTEROGATTION > TENT!?!? The military provides these shrinks for soldiers who've just > seen too much, but this guy is being branded a traitor by some for just asking. This was widely covered at the time it occurred last October. The Marine's charges were later reduced to dereliction of duty, and it's not clear if they'll even pursue that charge, so we may never get the details of what happened. The U.S. military has flown back about 400 people who experienced psychological distress related to their service in Iraq, so the Pentagon is mindful of that problem. OTOH, this guy was in a Special Forces Marine unit -- probably not the types who are going to be sympathetic to hearing someone's story of panic attacks after seeing a dead body.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Carnell on 1/21/2004; 4:53 PM At 03:54 PM 1/21/2004, Brian Webber wrote: >Why would you want to abort one of the most successful military >operations in world history? > >Um, because it's wrong? That might have something to do with it. Say your >son is succesfully climbing a very tall, but very precarious tree. Do you >shout encouragement beucase he's been amazingly succesful with a >surprising lack of falss? No, you get his ass out of the tree! I know that >seems like a poor analogy, but since when did doing well trump being right? Well, Brian, let's look at what you originally posted, "And what was that Bush was saying about Misison Accomplished back in May? Get this a-hole out of office and get our troops home already, before we lose more to suicide bombers, acidents, and suicides (you heard me right. There have been AT LEAST a dozen suicides since Bush's declaration that the war was over)! . . . . . . (other than probably being happy about it, which, while bad, is not justification for a pre-emptive war of agression comparable to what the Japanese did to us in 1941), why would he be holding back the investigation? Let me quote to you my favorite parts of the article." Again, though, losses in Iraq have been extraordinarily low. Compare it to the other war you mention -- the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. More than 2,500 American deaths in a single coordinated attack on a single day. How did FDR ever think he'd be able to prevail against the Japanese while sustaining that many combat deaths (not to mention the occasional suicide and the wounded)? Shouldn't we have gotten all our troops stationed overseas home immediately and kept them here to avoid such large scale losses of life? Whether or not the war in Iraq was morally justifiable is a huge can of worms. But by all traditional measures of military success, this victory was unprecedented against a country this size that possessed relatively modern weaponry (even if it was crappy Soviet-made technology). A better comparison than the one I made earlier is that this was as amazing a victory as Israel's victory in the Six Day War (in fact Arab countries seem incapable of beating anyone except their own people). It's still fascinating to me that in the early 21st century there can be such large technological military gaps -- anything made more than 10 years ago is likely to find itself toast on a battlefield if it runs into latest generation gear.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Carnell on 1/21/2004; 5:02 PM At 04:32 PM 1/21/2004, Mark Morgan wrote: >At the very least Bush could have been honest: "We have a long term >objective to wipe out the threats to us caused by radical Islam and to do >that we have to start with Iraq." Instead we got BS about WMDs and >imminent threats. Well, Iraq was never a site of militant Islam, though it may yet become one. But didn't Bush say very close to the above during the 2003 State of the Union Address (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html), "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.) Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)" Anyway, I do largely agree with you. Bush should have emphasized this point more. The problem is that this line of reasoning, while sound IMO, is exactly what sent Russia, France, etc. into a tizzy and why the administration then focused so much on the WMD and trying to gain a second UN resolution. And the reality is they didn't need to exaggerate. Most polls I've seen on this show that Americans generally couldn't care less whether or not they ever find WMDs -- they're just glad Saddam is gone. The Europeans, on the other hand, are not so pleased.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 1/24/2004; 8:16 PM 500 American Soldiers dead is "low?" I challenge that. I say it is far too high. What number is too high? Keep in mind that the Iraqi civilian casualties are from between 8041 and 9878 as of today; and also keep in mind that the US wounded numbers are huge and growing: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031113-074311-4128r Excerpt: U.S. casualties from Iraq war top 9,000 By Mark Benjamin WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 (UPI) -- The number of U.S. casualties from Operation Iraqi Freedom -- troops killed, wounded or evacuated due to injury or illness -- has passed 9,000, according to new Pentagon data. In addition to the 397 service members who have died and the 1,967 wounded, 6,861 troops were medically evacuated for non-combat conditions between March 19 and Oct. 30, the Army Surgeon General's office said. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Why would you want to abort one of the most successful military operations in world history? Can anyone else remember a situation in which a country conquered and occupied an entire nation of 22 million people in a country the size of Iraq while sustaining something like 350 combat deaths? Um, Saddam's defensive capabilities had been greatly reduced over the course of the years following the Gulf War, and the spirit of his people was largely broken. The fact that it was easy to destroy the troops, and that no WMD were used upon the troops that came to occupy this country begs the question of just how much of threat Saddam really was to the US. Most polls I've seen on this show that Americans generally couldn't care less whether or not they ever find WMDs -- they're just glad Saddam is gone. I have not seen any polls that show this to be true of MOST Americans. Could you tell me where I can find such polls? Also, I have to point out that if this is true, it is not a good thing. The question I don't hear answered enough is "what have we accomplished through this military venture?" I don't think we've accomplished anything that justifies this amount of death and destruction. We flexed our muscle, but we didn't have a plan. That's not anything to be militarily proud of. What do we do now? Have we secured the country? I say "no." We beat down a ragtag army, and allowed most of them to disappear into the population. I just don't see how that's much of a victory. A whole lot of brave Americans, and innocent civilians have died, and for what? Bush himself said we're no safer now than we were before. It's in his state of the union speech.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Webber on 1/24/2004; 10:37 PM Right on Rich. Right on.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Carnell on 1/29/2004; 8:59 AM At 08:32 PM 1/24/2004, Richard Davidson wrote: >500 American Soldiers dead is "low?" > >I challenge that. I say it is far too high. What number is too high? Yes, it's extraordinarily low. >Keep in mind that the Iraqi civilian casualties are from between 8041 and >9878 as of today; Where are you getting those numbers? And by casualties, I'm assuming you're meaning deaths. That, a well, is an extremely low figure. I mean, come on -- we are talking about a *war* here. I mean, if you want to say 500 deaths is too high for training exercises or too high for a Boy Scout convention, I could see the point, but we're talking about conquering a country roughly the size of California with a population of >20 million and with a modern military. I haven't been able to find stats that give me precisely what I'm looking for, but if you look at the Korean War and Vietnam War, the death rate of soldiers in those two wars combined was about per 2,000 per 100,000. By contrast, so far in Iraq we're looking at somewhere around 400 deaths per 100,000 if existing trends continue (caveat: both of those figures are wrong, with both likely significantly lower but like I said, it's hard to find good stats that give a straightahead measure of the odds of being killed per man-hour spent in-country -- instead all I can find is total # of people served, which is problematic for reason that should be obvious). > and also keep in mind that the US wounded numbers are huge and growing: > >http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031113-074311-4128r > >Excerpt: >U.S. casualties from Iraq war top 9,000 >By Mark Benjamin > >WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 (UPI) -- The number of U.S. casualties from Operation >Iraqi Freedom -- troops killed, wounded or evacuated due to injury or >illness -- has passed 9,000, according to new Pentagon data. > >In addition to the 397 service members who have died and the 1,967 >wounded, 6,861 troops were medically evacuated for non-combat conditions >between March 19 and Oct. 30, the Army Surgeon General's office said. Frankly, those aren't huge at all. Again, we are talking about a war. If you look at Vietnam, the wounded:killed ratio was roughly 6:1. In Iraq, it's roughly 4:1. Modern warfare is like that -- even if the enemy doesn't kill you with a car bomb, they're likely to injure you and probably severely. Or look at it a different way -- from what I can tell, the war with the lowest ratio of wounded:killed was the Korean War, but largely only because the death rate among soldiers in Korea was so much higher than in either Vietnam or Iraq. The death rate in Korea was close to 6,000 per 100,000 (that's including all the soldiers listed as MIA). >2. Why would you want to abort one of the most successful military >operations in world history? Can anyone else remember a situation in which >a country conquered and occupied an entire nation of 22 million people in a >country the size of Iraq while sustaining something like 350 combat deaths? > > >Um, Saddam's defensive capabilities had been greatly reduced over the >course of the years following the Gulf War, and the spirit of his people >was largely broken. The fact that it was easy to destroy the troops, and >that no WMD were used upon the troops that came to occupy this country >begs the question of just how much of threat Saddam really was to the US. Generally it is considered a *good* military strategy to engage an enemy that is significantly weaker than you are. Going toe-to-toe with a military that is your equal is not generally a good idea unless it is absolutely necessary. That being said, the performance of the Iraqi military was particularly poor. It's difficult to believe that they couldn't have done much better if they had actually had decent military leadership. Still would have lost, but still ... thank goodness their military leadership was so inept. And, of course, nobody ever claimed that Iraq posed a conventional threat to the United States but rather that he posed an unconventional threat given his open support of terrorism and Iraq's failure to account for truckloads of WMDs. Someone who a) openly provided financial support for terrorist acts, b) openly celebrated and privately planned terrorist attacks against Americans, and c) was easy to conquer, is as close as you're ever going to find for a good reason to go to war. Most of the other countries that are unconventional threats typically possess conventional capabilities that make such an option impossible (North Korea being the obvious example).
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 1/29/2004; 11:59 PM In response: >500 American Soldiers dead is "low?" > >I challenge that. I say it is far too high. What number is too high? Yes, it's extraordinarily low. Not to me. 500 American Soldiers is a lot of good, brave young men. This IS the 21st Century, you know. There has to come a time when what has been acceptable is questioned, and re-thought. It was 500 deaths too many, in a completely unnecessary action that could have been avoided. >Keep in mind that the Iraqi civilian casualties are from between 8041 and >9878 as of today; Where are you getting those numbers? And by casualties, I'm assuming you're meaning deaths. That, a well, is an extremely low figure. I don't remember where I got it. It may be wrong. The fact that it is a low figure speaks more to my point. A whole LOT of human beings have died. I mean, come on -- we are talking about a *war* here. I mean, if you want to say 500 deaths is too high for training exercises or too high for a Boy Scout convention, I could see the point, but we're talking about conquering a country roughly the size of California with a population of >20 million and with a modern military. There's no need to be extremely condescending about this. I assure you, you are not in a position to be talking down to me. We ARE talking about a war with an enemy that has been weakened non-stop for over a decade, and an invasion that came AFTER the vaunted "Shock and Awe" campaign that was supposed to make them surrender in droves, and enable us to waltz in. We ARE talking about a substantial number of those deaths coming AFTER the President stood on a ship with a "Mission Accomplished" banner waving proudly behind him, and we ARE talking about thousands of women and children needlessly slaughtered. I haven't been able to find stats that give me precisely what I'm looking for, but if you look at the Korean War and Vietnam War, the death rate of soldiers in those two wars combined was about per 2,000 per 100,000. By contrast, so far in Iraq we're looking at somewhere around 400 deaths per 100,000 if existing trends continue (caveat: both of those figures are wrong, with both likely significantly lower but like I said, it's hard to find good stats that give a straightahead measure of the odds of being killed per man-hour spent in-country -- instead all I can find is total # of people served, which is problematic for reason that should be obvious). I take no comfort in what you say here. I don't think relativity between various 20th century wars is a significant factor to be weighed. I'll bet both of those wars look favorable compared to the 25 million or so Russians killed in WWII. And yet, WWII was a scenario in which major powers were invading other major powers, and wiping whole countries off the map in a full-scale invasion, thus the remaining countries had NO CHOICE but to fight that war. By contrast, neither Korea NOR Vietnam can be justified on such clear grounds. I hate to use an obvious cliche like Apples and Oranges, but when the Shoe Fits, you might as well let a Stitch in Time Save Nine. Frankly, those aren't huge at all. Again, we are talking about a war. If you look at Vietnam, the wounded:killed ratio was roughly 6:1. In Iraq, it's roughly 4:1. Modern warfare is like that -- even if the enemy doesn't kill you with a car bomb, they're likely to injure you and probably severely. What you're talking about here relates more to what should have been considered when mounting this invasion. That is, whether the objective will justify that kill ratio. You can tell me all day it is relatively low, and I will say it is far too high. Those other kill ratios you speak of were BLOODY RIDICULOUS, and another case of men being wasted, for no discernable objective. That's primitive warfare, and the fact that in Iraq we're doing a bit better than that doesn't really count for a damn thing. Or look at it a different way -- from what I can tell, the war with the lowest ratio of wounded:killed was the Korean War, but largely only because the death rate among soldiers in Korea was so much higher than in either Vietnam or Iraq. The death rate in Korea was close to 6,000 per 100,000 (that's including all the soldiers listed as MIA). That's really not looking at it in a different way. It's more of the same. Justifying over 500 DEAD YOUNG AMERICANS, whose families will NEVER see them again, by speaking of monstrous wars that never should have happened. We've been in Iraq 3/4 of a year, and what we have over there is chaos, and a good chance of a Shiite Fundamentalist Government coming to power, in a country we used to endorse for their help against precisely that kind of government in Iran. So we propped up Saddam to fight the Shiites, then got over 500 of our guys killed to remove him, and set up a situation where the two neighboring powers will both be controlled by the people we supported the guy we just took out against. And yes, I purposely typed that to be as confusing as possible, just to emphasize how sensible the whole thing is. Over 500 wasted deaths, man, that's what I see here. >2. Why would you want to abort one of the most successful military >operations in world history? Can anyone else remember a situation in which >a country conquered and occupied an entire nation of 22 million people in a >country the size of Iraq while sustaining something like 350 combat deaths? > > >Um, Saddam's defensive capabilities had been greatly reduced over the >course of the years following the Gulf War, and the spirit of his people >was largely broken. The fact that it was easy to destroy the troops, and >that no WMD were used upon the troops that came to occupy this country >begs the question of just how much of threat Saddam really was to the US. Generally it is considered a *good* military strategy to engage an enemy that is significantly weaker than you are. Going toe-to-toe with a military that is your equal is not generally a good idea unless it is absolutely necessary. OK, you're being really condescending once again. Specifically, in the line "Generally it is considered a 'good' military strategy..." And in doing so, you're minimizing the basic fact that Saddam was no threat; the fact that Saddam's army was a miniscule force, and not simply weaker. There is simply nothing to brag about in this invasion, and doing so is remarkably strange. It hasn't worked out very good. It appears the planning was't as good as it might have been. There's been a lot of questions about shortages in body armor, as well as serious issues with using fighting vehicles that couldn't withstand impact from the type of rounds they KNEW the enemy would be using; and thus, quite a bit of unnecessary death and dismemberment. This doesn't make sense. We have fighting vehicles with better armor, but rushed to war without making enough of them available. The justification for the IMMEDIACY of this action was the THREAT that Saddam was to have posed. I don't see a lot of "good" military strategy in any of this. Do you? Can you give specific examples of how this invasion was a model of modern warfare? That being said, the performance of the Iraqi military was particularly poor. It's difficult to believe that they couldn't have done much better if they had actually had decent military leadership. Still would have lost, but still ... thank goodness their military leadership was so inept. Inept? How about poorly equipped, and with troops that had low morale? Geez, they sure would've been a lot more formidable if they'd actually had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Seems to me, every time in History someone's been invaded that had weapons of that nature, THEY USED THEM, just like both sides did in WWI. You don't just "let" your country be overwhelmed by force. And, of course, nobody ever claimed that Iraq posed a conventional threat to the United States but rather that he posed an unconventional threat given his open support of terrorism and Iraq's failure to account for truckloads of WMDs. Then why the rush to war? Why not take a few months longer, and be better prepared? The reason we were given at the time were actual stockpiles of WMD, and they were listed quite specifically. Now it's just "nobody ever claimed Iraq posed a conventional threat..." umm, what they DID claim was that we didn't want to see "a mushroom cloud." Someone who a) openly provided financial support for terrorist acts, b) openly celebrated and privately planned terrorist attacks against Americans, and c) was easy to conquer, is as close as you're ever going to find for a good reason to go to war. Most of the other countries that are unconventional threats typically possess conventional capabilities that make such an option impossible (North Korea being the obvious example). That's right. Every single country that poses an ACTUAL threat to the United States cannot be engaged, because of the carnage that would result. So the only way we could invade Iraq would be if they posed NO THREAT of any type of retaliation at all that could harm the US, or any of our allies in the region. This basically means we could send people in any time we wanted to do damn near anything we wanted to do. We were in an excellent position to negotiate, and before the unilateral invasion, we had the backing of much of the world. We could have been forward thinking, and modern, and come up with a better way of handling it, but instead we did the same old thing: Dropped a bunch of bombs that killed plenty of innocent people, marched in with troops, and made one hell of a mess. I just wanted to make sure you were going on record as saying that's what you considered sound, effecient warfare.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Seth Dillingham on 1/30/2004; 9:25 AM On 1/30/04, Richard Davidson said: >Inept? How about poorly equipped, and with troops that had low morale? >Geez, they sure would've been a lot more formidable if they'd actually >had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Seems to me, every time in History >someone's been invaded that had weapons of that nature, THEY USED THEM, >just like both sides did in WWI. You don't just "let" your country be >overwhelmed by force. Have you been reading, listening to, or watching recent reports? They're saying now that Saddam was basically insane for the last few years (at least). "Inept" is actualy an understatment. A complete lack of leadership is perhaps more accurate. I'm not arguing Brian's point, I actually agree with you (mostly) Richard, but not that one point. Seth
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Carnell on 1/30/2004; 11:25 AM At 12:15 AM 1/30/2004, you wrote: >In response: > > >500 American Soldiers dead is "low?" > > > >I challenge that. I say it is far too high. What number is too high? > >Yes, it's extraordinarily low. > >Not to me. 500 American Soldiers is a lot of good, brave young men. This >IS the 21st Century, you know. There has to come a time when what has >been acceptable is questioned, and re-thought. It was 500 deaths too >many, in a completely unnecessary action that could have been avoided. Like the original posts by Brian, you're mixing military and non-military concerns here. By any standard yardmark of traditional military success, the war in Iraq has been an amazingly easy victory. I can't imagine you could take any general aside at any point in history and say, "Okay, you're going to conquer a nation of 166,000 square miles with a population of 20 million and a modern military and only lose about 600 soldiers" and have that general reply, "Ohmigod, what a disaster! Who would want to be involved in that sort of a quagmire?" Now I suppose you could politically say that even 1 death per million troops is too high a price to pay, but I think the 600 American lives lost so far in the war on terro -- regrettable as any individual death -- is more than offset by removing two of the most brutal, terrorism-supporting regimes in the world. >I take no comfort in what you say here. I don't think relativity between >various 20th century wars is a significant factor to be weighed. I'll bet >both of those wars look favorable compared to the 25 million or so >Russians killed in WWII. And yet, WWII was a scenario in which major >powers were invading other major powers, and wiping whole countries off >the map in a full-scale invasion, thus the remaining countries had NO >CHOICE but to fight that war. By contrast, neither Korea NOR Vietnam can >be justified on such clear grounds. I hate to use an obvious cliche like >Apples and Oranges, but when the Shoe Fits, you might as well let a Stitch >in Time Save Nine. Russia did not have anything like a modern army during that period. In fact Russia vs. Germany is much like Iraq vs. the U.S. technology wise, except the Russians had a lot more people to throw at the Germans as well as crappy weather (of course, Germany, like Iraq, also had an insane leader who didn't know jack about military strategy). >That being said, the performance of the Iraqi military was particularly >poor. It's difficult to believe that they couldn't have done much better if >they had actually had decent military leadership. Still would have lost, >but still ... thank goodness their military leadership was so inept. > >Inept? How about poorly equipped, and with troops that had low >morale? Geez, they sure would've been a lot more formidable if they'd >actually had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Seems to me, every time in >History someone's been invaded that had weapons of that nature, THEY USED >THEM, just like both sides did in WWI. You don't just "let" your country >be overwhelmed by force. Go back to the Russian example, though. The Russians defeated a far superior invading force because they were willing (forced) to accept unbelievably high casualty rates. Iraq could not have defeated the United States, but it certainly could have inflicted more than 139 deaths in the general combat phase of the war. That was just mind boggling considering that there were 292 total combat deaths in the 1991 war with Iraq. If anyone had said before the war that fewer Americans would die occupying Bagdhad and the rest of the country than they did in ejecting Iraq from Kuwait, they would have been ridiculed. >Someone who a) openly provided financial support for >terrorist acts, b) openly celebrated and privately planned terrorist >attacks against Americans, and c) was easy to conquer, is as close as >you're ever going to find for a good reason to go to war. Most of the other >countries that are unconventional threats typically possess conventional >capabilities that make such an option impossible (North Korea being the >obvious example). > >That's right. Every single country that poses an ACTUAL threat to the >United States cannot be engaged, because of the carnage that would >result. So the only way we could invade Iraq would be if they posed NO >THREAT of any type of retaliation at all that could harm the US, or any of >our allies in the region. This basically means we could send people in >any time we wanted to do damn near anything we wanted to do. We were in >an excellent position to negotiate, and before the unilateral invasion, we >had the backing of much of the world. We could have been forward >thinking, and modern, and come up with a better way of handling it, but >instead we did the same old thing: Dropped a bunch of bombs that killed >plenty of innocent people, marched in with troops, and made one hell of a mess. You would have preferred to wait for another possible Hussein sponsored terrorist plot? Would you have also left the Taliban in power -- after all, they also did not present any sort of conventional threat to the United States -- we could have taken action against them anytime before or after 9/11. Heck we could have waited 10 years and they'd still be no threat. But I'm glad you're on record as opposing military force against countries that plot terrorist acts against the United States even when they can be defeated by conventional warfare rather easily (I think that's the Kucinich Doctrine). We have a clear difference of opinion on that count that is unlikely to be altered in VOU (i.e., don't worry Mark, I know you don't want your site turned into a flame war on on the Iraq war -- if anyone wants to discuss these issues more on my site at http://brian.carnell.com/, I'm more than willing to continue the debate there).
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 1/30/2004; 9:05 PM At 12:15 AM 1/30/2004, you wrote: >In response: > > >500 American Soldiers dead is "low?" > > > >I challenge that. I say it is far too high. What number is too high? > >Yes, it's extraordinarily low. > >Not to me. 500 American Soldiers is a lot of good, brave young men. This >IS the 21st Century, you know. There has to come a time when what has >been acceptable is questioned, and re-thought. It was 500 deaths too >many, in a completely unnecessary action that could have been avoided. Like the original posts by Brian, you're mixing military and non-military concerns here. By any standard yardmark of traditional military success, the war in Iraq has been an amazingly easy victory. I can't imagine you could take any general aside at any point in history and say, "Okay, you're going to conquer a nation of 166,000 square miles with a population of 20 million and a modern military and only lose about 600 soldiers" and have that general reply, "Ohmigod, what a disaster! Who would want to be involved in that sort of a quagmire?" Now I suppose you could politically say that even 1 death per million troops is too high a price to pay, but I think the 600 American lives lost so far in the war on terro -- regrettable as any individual death -- is more than offset by removing two of the most brutal, terrorism-supporting regimes in the world. 1. You assume that there has been a victory in Iraq. That we "occupy" the country, and are "in control." That is not the case. 2. Most of what you are saying assumes the reader has no concept of military strategy. Again, I say that modern warfare has to change, and that it is trying to change, but old ways of thinking inevitably mar the progression of strategy. History bears this out. Nearly every war was fought with the techniques of the previous one, and as the 19th century evolved into the 20th century, this became more absurd as technological advances would render attacks pointless. 3. Your statement that we have removed two of the most brutal, terrorism-supporting regimes is rendered somewhat impotent by the fact that there are two very brutal regimes that sponsor terrorism, that we hold as allies. Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. Both have incredibly strong ties to Bin Laden himself, and are the very root of Al Qaeda, who IS THE "GROUP" RESPONSIBLE FOR THE 911 ATTACKS. 4. Finally, "more than offset" is subjective, and I am offering my disagreement with this. This point cannot be argued between us. I feel as I do, and you feel as you do. That cannot be breached, no matter how much we write. >I take no comfort in what you say here. I don't think relativity between >various 20th century wars is a significant factor to be weighed. I'll bet >both of those wars look favorable compared to the 25 million or so >Russians killed in WWII. And yet, WWII was a scenario in which major >powers were invading other major powers, and wiping whole countries off >the map in a full-scale invasion, thus the remaining countries had NO >CHOICE but to fight that war. By contrast, neither Korea NOR Vietnam can >be justified on such clear grounds. I hate to use an obvious cliche like >Apples and Oranges, but when the Shoe Fits, you might as well let a Stitch >in Time Save Nine. Russia did not have anything like a modern army during that period. In fact Russia vs. Germany is much like Iraq vs. the U.S. technology wise, except the Russians had a lot more people to throw at the Germans as well as crappy weather (of course, Germany, like Iraq, also had an insane leader who didn't know jack about military strategy). Whether Russia had a modern army is irrelevant to my point. I could have used different examples, I was merely pointing out the futility at comparing kill ratios of various wars. You are assuming I am a pacifist, when I am nothing of the sort. I don't have as big a problem with justifiable deaths as you may think. I just don't believe the over 500 and growing in Iraq is justified, and I'm entitled to think that. I have come to that conclusion weighing every bit as much of the evidence as you, and you and I simply feel differently about a point that is, again, subjective. In THIS CASE, I don't feel these deaths are justified at all. >That being said, the performance of the Iraqi military was particularly >poor. It's difficult to believe that they couldn't have done much better if >they had actually had decent military leadership. Still would have lost, >but still ... thank goodness their military leadership was so inept. > >Inept? How about poorly equipped, and with troops that had low >morale? Geez, they sure would've been a lot more formidable if they'd >actually had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Seems to me, every time in >History someone's been invaded that had weapons of that nature, THEY USED >THEM, just like both sides did in WWI. You don't just "let" your country >be overwhelmed by force. Go back to the Russian example, though. The Russians defeated a far superior invading force because they were willing (forced) to accept unbelievably high casualty rates. Iraq could not have defeated the United States, but it certainly could have inflicted more than 139 deaths in the general combat phase of the war. That was just mind boggling considering that there were 292 total combat deaths in the 1991 war with Iraq. If anyone had said before the war that fewer Americans would die occupying Bagdhad and the rest of the country than they did in ejecting Iraq from Kuwait, they would have been ridiculed. 1. You and Seth have both assumed I've taken the position that there was nothing wrong with Saddam's leadership. I have not taken that position. I have pointed out, instead, that there is more to it than that, and no one has presented an argument that disputes that fact. The Iraqi Army was in shambles, and the people of the nation were lacking in hope. Any kid on the street knows that much. 2. The Russian willingness to take heavy casualties could've led to a bitter defeat, if not for the scorched earth policy of leaving nothing for the invaders at every turn had not been implemented, and if not for the seige mentality of the Russian people. These were people who really felt strongly that they didn't want the invader to take their land. 3. Again, I stubbornly and solemnly REFUSE to think like "a General" and talk about acceptable casualties without examing the point of the action itself. THAT is where we get into a problem. I have stated that Bin Laden and his pals have made camp in Pakistan, and are still getting support from people in Saudi Arabia, and that Iraq is a very questionable action in light of the stated objective. Soon, I will comment on Afghanistan, and then you're in for a treat. That's when you will see how easy it is to assume you know "who" you're talking to. >Someone who a) openly provided financial support for >terrorist acts, b) openly celebrated and privately planned terrorist >attacks against Americans, and c) was easy to conquer, is as close as >you're ever going to find for a good reason to go to war. Most of the other >countries that are unconventional threats typically possess conventional >capabilities that make such an option impossible (North Korea being the >obvious example). > >That's right. Every single country that poses an ACTUAL threat to the >United States cannot be engaged, because of the carnage that would >result. So the only way we could invade Iraq would be if they posed NO >THREAT of any type of retaliation at all that could harm the US, or any of >our allies in the region. This basically means we could send people in >any time we wanted to do damn near anything we wanted to do. We were in >an excellent position to negotiate, and before the unilateral invasion, we >had the backing of much of the world. We could have been forward >thinking, and modern, and come up with a better way of handling it, but >instead we did the same old thing: Dropped a bunch of bombs that killed >plenty of innocent people, marched in with troops, and made one hell of a mess. You would have preferred to wait for another possible Hussein sponsored terrorist plot? OK, here you employ a hostile and unfair tactic; attributing an argument to me that I have, in no way, made. It is a flame-war trick, and I am not about to fall for it. What Hussein sponsored terrorist plot has hatched in America? I know of no such thing. Why have you used a tactic such as making something up as if it had already happened? The 911 attack was hatched by Osama Bin Laden. Why are we speaking of ANOTHER Hussein attack? There was a Hussein attack? When? Where? Would you have also left the Taliban in power -- after all, they also did not present any sort of conventional threat to the United States -- we could have taken action against them anytime before or after 9/11. Heck we could have waited 10 years and they'd still be no threat. Actually no. I was in favor of the action in Afghanistan, because it was an attack against a country where the leadership was harboring Al Qaeda terrorists, and made perfect sense towards the stated objective. It was necessary, and right. It was not properly planned, though, and it hasn't done what it should have. Taliban still ARE running loose there, and you know it. The Opium trade is running well, and we have left the impression on the rest of the Middle East that we will come in, and turn your country into a squalid mess, as we have also done with Iraq. Now, in the next part, you will show why you think this will become a flame war, which it won't, because I would never flame on Mark's site. I have "a little" in the past, and I feel bad about it. This is a creative writing site, and if we are to have discussions, we should be creative, and not hostile. I bear no ill will against you for what you are about to say, but really, Brian, this is a cheap trick here, and Robin Zander is nowhere near: But I'm glad you're on record as opposing military force against countries that plot terrorist acts against the United States even when they can be defeated by conventional warfare rather easily (I think that's the Kucinich Doctrine). WTF? This is the sort of tripe I would expect to read on a political board, by a poster with a name like Patriot_4_Bush, or something. Kucinich? What in Heaven's Name are you speaking of here? Why are you "glad" I'm on record as saying ANYTHING? You are twisting my words. I'm saying that the reason given for attacking Iraq was that it was a THREAT, and that the fact that we could just invade it pretty much proves it was NOT a threat. 1% Democratic Candidates were never part of our discussion. We have a clear difference of opinion on that count that is unlikely to be altered in VOU (i.e., don't worry Mark, I know you don't want your site turned into a flame war on on the Iraq war -- if anyone wants to discuss these issues more on my site at http://brian.carnell.com/, I'm more than willing to continue the debate there). No, I don't think I need to open up more debates about this at the present. I merely saw some things pointed out to readers in a condescending manner that didn't take into light several key facts, and felt a need to point out a few things of my own. The reader can now wade through the posts, and decide for themself what to take from this discussion. And again, that Kucinich comment was way out of line, especially since the framework of the words insinuates that I, in some way, wouldn't want to see terrorist activity stopped, or keep the country I love with all of my heart safe from bad guys. That kind of thing really ticks me off, and rightly so, so stop it, OK? That would be very nice. The invasion of Iraq may one day be seen by History as a war crime. It's not just far out left wingers who see that; in fact, more and more people are grasping that basic truth every day. There's been an awful lot of doubletalk about "Mushroom Clouds," and "500 tons of Sarin Gas," and "Threats," but people have this memory of the war on terrorism once being about fighting "a new kind of war." I don't see any "new kind of war." I see the same old thing we've done for centuries, which is sheer insanity. Sheer lunacy.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 1/30/2004; 9:18 PM My friend Seth asks: Have you been reading, listening to, or watching recent reports? They're saying now that Saddam was basically insane for the last few years (at least). "Inept" is actualy an understatment. A complete lack of leadership is perhaps more accurate. I'm sorry, but "who" is saying this? As the Church Lady would say, "well, isn't that conveeeeenient?" Saddam could testify for about three weeks without letup about the dirty dealings of the Iran/Iraq war, involving Rumsfield, Bush the Sr, and a bunch of other guys; he could sing for months about Cheney's business dealings with Iraq all through the Clinton years, and could basically fry about 100 important people from many countries, even if his testimony were to be impugned in some way. Having him just be insane, and asking how he can go to the bathroom while his people are in bondage is just a little TOO much for my brain to handle. What drove him to this madness? I can't wait for the expert psychiatric testimony from the team of doctors who treat this deposed dime store dictator. "Yeah, in the beginning; you know, back when he gassed his own people in the 80's with our blessing; he seemed like a pretty good guy, and had a real good head about his shoulders," I can hear them saying now, "but sometime during the '90's, he just sort of lost it, and stopped being the same old reasonable chap." Give me a break. Was he, maybe, ALWAYS INSANE? Or is he just a really bad guy? I guess now, he can be locked in an asylum forever, instead of tried for THE WAR CRIMES HE PERPETUATED FOR DECADES, WITH THE HELP OF VARIOUS WORLD GOVERNMENTS INCLUDING OURS!!!!!!!!!!!!
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: John Verion on 2/7/2004; 12:52 PM Saddam Hussein lost a war against the United States. He sued us for peace and agreed to our terms. They included: 1) Recognition of our right to patrol a no-fly zone. 2) Unfettered access to inspect their country for weapons in violation of the UN resolutions. 3) Implementation of a systematic timetable for the destruction of weapons he already had AND written proof of progress. In all of the years since the cease fire agreement that ended Gulf I, Saddam didn't comply with a single portion of the cease fire agreement. Instead he: 1) Repeatedly fired on our jets in the no-fly zone. 2) Kept inspectors from key sites in a timely fashion. 3) He provided no discernable schedule, no records of weapons destroyed. In fact, while he may not have had WMD, he believed that he did and had given several of his weapons developers orders to procure the same. That they lacked the resources to do his bidding doesn't excuse the fact that he was trying (and thought he was succeeding). All of those points pale in comparison to point 1) above. IMHO, the first time he lit one of our fighters up with one of his SAM sites, we should have gone back to Bagdad the next morning. Instead we played patty cake with him for ten years while those who hate us learned how "tolerant" we were of attacks on our embassies, warships, and office buildings. Invading Iraq was eleven years overdue.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Webber on 2/7/2004; 3:45 PM no records of weapons destroyed. Not true. Have you been wathcing Fox News? Accoding to U.N. Weapons Inspectors, i.e. people who've actually BEEN to Iraq as opposed to whining about it on the internet, there was evidence and documentation. In fact, some of the weapons that Colin Powell showed to the U.N. in February of 2003, were pictures of weapons that had ALREADY BEEN DESTROYED. That they lacked the resources to do his bidding doesn't excuse the fact that he was trying (and thought he was succeeding). And that Bush lacked the evidence to justify attacking a soveriegn nation doesn't excuse the fact that he did it. All of those points pale in comparison to point 1) above. What you either choose to leave out, or have simply forgotten, is that many times the U.S. and British planes in the NFZ would drop missiles on civilian targets. So basiclaly, Iraq was defending itself. But apparently only the U.S. is allowed to defend itself. Everyone else has to roll over or be declared agressors and terrorists. IMHO, the first time he lit one of our fighters up with one of his SAM sites, we should have gone back to Bagdad the next morning. But, if we did that, Bush wouldn't be able to use a war to try and win an election (I won't say re-election becuase he wasn't elected). Instead we played patty cake with him for ten years while those who hate us learned how "tolerant" we were of attacks on our embassies, warships, and office buildings. So tolerant that when a President atcually tried to go after them, we said "Oh no you don't! Not until you answer for this blow job you got!" And BTW, agressive weapons inspections, sanctions, and what not were working. The only difference between the peacful Way and the Warmongering way, is that the War route is faster and more bloody, and benefits Halliburton. The peace way would've slower, relatively free of bloodshed, and would benefit the iraqi people. What fun is that? Invading Iraq was eleven years overdue. WMDs, opression of civil liberties, and violating U.N. resolutionsa re enough for war you say? Well then! I know who George Bush should invadse next! The United States! We have 10,000 nukes, stockpiles of Bio-chem weapons, the PATRIOT Act is eroding civil liberties, anyone who disagrees with the Unelected Leader is branded a traitor, and we have killed civilians in other countries. using the Bush Pre-Emption Doctrine, an attack on US is the next logical step. Then we can invade Russia and then Isreal, and then the Vatican. War should ALWASY be the absolute LAST step. The Bushies don't even know what the other steps are.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 2/7/2004; 5:59 PM John, that's a good case you make there. Too bad it's not the case the Bush administration made to the American people, huh? The case I heard involved Mushroom Clouds, and 500 tons of Sarin Gas. Isn't that the case YOU heard? So, we've got Iraq. Now, what exactly, if anything, are we going to DO with her?
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: John Verion on 2/8/2004; 3:43 PM Well, Mr. Webber, I guess as a "Bushie" and a "warmonger" who supports the "unelected" President, I guess you know just where I stand. Meanwhile I will keep my feet in reality and you can worry about your impending arrest for disagreeing with Dictator Bush. Mr. Davidson, I don't know what you remember hearing. All of the information I have provided has been laid out by the government for the last two years and ample documentation exists (including NPR and Meet the Press on my first google hits.) Sure WMD is more thrilling, but they are/were only the tip of the iceberg. As for your question about what to do with Iraq? We do what we have been doing. We ferret out insurgents and turn the reins of government back to the Iraqi people in increments that provide the best assurance that the next tin pot dictator doesn't become Saddam part II. Its not pretty, but its what we have and it is war. Its not a video game and these are the big leagues. We do what we can. So while the death toll in Iraq is too high (in absolute terms which death toll isn't?) the "Warmongering" way has the advantage of not specifically targeting the sick and elderly, plus women and children the way that our "peaceful" sanctions did. I would rather lose 1000 combatants in war than 100 children by starvation and if that doesn't resonate as true then I am afraid we are at a wall that no amount of discussion will breach.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: John Verion on 2/8/2004; 3:56 PM Incidentally, Brian, when you attempt to have an intelligent discussion regarding Iraq, it helps your credibility if you don't bring up the notion that George Bush and the Supreme Court stole the election from Al Gore. Your truest motivations come to light when you do.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Seth Dillingham on 2/8/2004; 4:50 PM On 2/8/04, John Verion said: >Incidentally, Brian, when you attempt to have an intelligent discussion >regarding Iraq, it helps your credibility if you don't bring up the >notion that George Bush and the Supreme Court stole the election from >Al Gore. Your truest motivations come to light when you do. So, because you disagree with another of his opinions, his credibility is lessened on this issue? Actually, I don't think any of us have much credibility on these topics. There's so much going on, so much has already happened, so much to keep track of, and so many gray areas that I think very few people really know the whole story. Seth
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 2/8/2004; 7:15 PM John, I said "The case I heard involved Mushroom Clouds, and 500 tons of Sarin Gas." Do you intend to DENY this? Bush said "Mushroom Clouds," and I'm pretty sure it was Cheney who said "500 tons of Sarin Gas." Perhaps the President of the United States of America LIED to the American people. Perhaps? I don't really come to this board to have political debates. I already have a number of sites I do that at. I prefer to use this site as it was intended: for CREATIVE WRITING. However, when I see one side of a case being made, I feel a need for balance. As for your "answer" about what we do with Iraq, I guess I'm not seeing anything that addresses the big picture, which is that Iran will now have a neighbor that is every bit as much a Shiite Muslim Theocracy as she is. How will that play on the stage of world politics? Just curious.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Webber on 2/9/2004; 12:25 AM Why does the turth hurt my credibility? I am 22 years old. That is true. Does this mean I can't argue about Iraq anymore? Maybe it's lack fo slep, but I fail to see how you can think that calling Bush's legitmacy into question is actuall a detrement to an arguemnt about Buish's lies.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Mark Morgan on 2/9/2004; 1:17 AM At 1:03 AM -0500 2/9/04, Brian Webber wrote: >[Talkback about Essays: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 by Brian Webber] >---------------------------------- > >Why does the turth hurt my credibility? I have to go to bed and I have a much longer response coming, but I'd like the comments about each others' credibility to go away now and for stay that way. Please keep your comments on the evidence (such as it is) and away from each other.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Carnell on 2/9/2004; 9:05 AM At 07:31 PM 2/8/2004, you wrote: >[Talkback about Essays: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 by Brian >Webber] >---------------------------------- > >John, I said "The case I heard involved Mushroom Clouds, and 500 tons of >Sarin Gas." Do you intend to DENY this? Bush said "Mushroom Clouds," and >I'm pretty sure it was Cheney who said "500 tons of Sarin Gas." > >Perhaps the President of the United States of America LIED to the American >people. Perhaps? I don't really come to this board to have political >debates. I already have a number of sites I do that at. I prefer to use >this site as it was intended: for CREATIVE WRITING. > >However, when I see one side of a case being made, I feel a need for balance. Richard here provides a perfect example of how Bush's statements are distorted. The "Bush said 'mushroom couds'" line is is an odd thing to offer up given Richard's position, because Bush invoked the mushroom cloud image to argue that the United States could not wait until it had 100% certainty about the extent of Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. For example, here's Bush in an October 2002 speech: "Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril." 'Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon." People forget that the CIA was wrong about Iraq's nuclear program before -- in the early 1990s it was convinced it had contained and prevented Saddam's efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Then in 1995 an Iraqi defector told the U.S. that it had been deceived and lo and behold it turned out that Hussein had gotten much further than anyone imagined toward building a nuclear weapon. Now, of course, we know that the intelligence this time was wrong in the other direction -- analysts tilted the other way and instead of underestimating Hussein's capabilities, they overestimated them. Which brings us to the other part the "500 tons of sarin gas" which Cheney, Bush and a lot of others cited. But this 500 tons of sarin gas isn't some chimera -- we know that the Iraqis had this in the early 1990s. Hussein claimed it was destroyed but never offered proof that it actually had been destroyed. This was the sticking point after Iraq issued its 12,000 page weapons declaration -- it still did not include evidence that Iraq had ever destroyed that sarin gas nor a lot of other chemical and biological agents. As Blix put it in Dec. 2002, "These have not been answered by evidence in the new declaration. The absence of that evidence means, of course, that one cannot have confidence that there do not remain weapons of mass destruction." Blix wanted more time. The U.S. argued that was simply not acceptable anymore. BTW, we are starting to get answers on the most perplexing question of this war. Since it appears that Hussein *did* have the sarin gas destroyed, why not provide the evidence that Blix and the United States wanted? Bush let Powell paint the U.S. into a corner -- if the Iraqi declaration had provided credible evidence of that, there is no way they could have gone along with the claim that Iraq was still in breach of UN Resolution 1441. According to the Washington Post, captured Iraq scientists are telling the U.S. that if Iraq would have provided this information it would have given the UN and US basically a bird's eye view of the weapons program and that the UN and US would have almost certainly demanded/forced the destruction of dual use facilities that Hussein wanted in place so Iraq could gear up production again once the sanctions were lifted. The intelligence community certainly got the current state of Hussein's WMD programs wrong, but Bush and the intelligence community appear to have been absolutely correct about Hussein's long term intentions and the importance Hussein attached on maintaining whatever remnants of his WMD program so that he could start anew once the heat was off (and remember, prior to 9/11 Iraq was clearly on the fast track for lifting of the sanctions -- some European countries were already violating them and Hussein had done an excellent PR job of casting the sanctions as inhumane).
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: lindsay on 2/9/2004; 7:57 PM i would like to say one thing to which i am confused. what is the point of all of this? does it change the past? i would greatly like an answer to this... i am very curious to the answer of this question. thank you Lindsay P.S. I will be even more scarce than i usually am because i am starting a novel...
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Mark Morgan on 2/9/2004; 8:13 PM Whew! I got tired just scrolling through all of that. I don't have anything to add to the debate at hand. I can tell it's going to be heated and I'll be watching to make sure it doesn't become too heated--or devolve into personal attacks. While I find heated discussion unsettling as long as it doesn't escalate I don't see any reason to stop it. But I do have a bone to pick about Brian W's original essay. It's short. It has no structure. It's a gut-level reaction to a news item. You know what? It's a weblog entry. The weblog is a fantastic concept. Stavros the Wonderchicken has posted what is to my mind the Dogma2k4 for weblogs, Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Wonderchicken. Weblogging is raw and punk and is honestly whatever the hell you say it is when you're writing it. It's really a fantastic view of the weblogging phenomena. Some kinds of weblogs--the link+rant--are an entirely new kind of writing, something fundamentally weblike and impossible to duplicate in any other venue. Love or hate the idea it's something new that wasn't done before and I think it's great to be a writer when something new comes around. End caveat. This essay would have worked a lot better, in my opinion, as an actual essay. Webber, I have some materials from college I can post when I find them (I'm pretty sure I know where they are) that lay out exactly how to put together a good essay, quickly. The late Dr. Robert Fulford of the University of Portland wrote some wonderful step-by-step instructions. Pulling what I remember out of my head I see several things that would make this a much better essay:
There's more I'm not remembering. I'm not saying a good essay is a twelve page college essay--and I'm not sure I'd want to read such a thing online. I *am* saying that some time structuring your writing with a beginning, a middle, and an end, filled in with some examples that involve real people, and you'll make your point much more effectively. See how Brian Carnell is able to pull actual data up to back up his claims? Examples are much better than rhetoric and honestly he's whomping you all because he has actual evidence. I don't necessarily agree with him, but his part of the argument is stronger for that reason. And just to make it clear to everyone who knows me well, I'm *not* talking about scientific, empirical evidence. A great example might have been "a marine being charged with things like 'cowardice' for ASKING to see a psychiatrist" had that example gone anywhere. Something like that adds fire and vigor and life to any essay in a way that endless versions of "No, you're wrong! He said this!" can't. I'm always hoping that Brian C. will wander over to the Cauldron and shares some tips for how quickly he manages to put together information. It's astonishing. And it's something we can all do to be better writers. After all, isn't that why we hang around here?
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Seth Dillingham on 2/9/2004; 9:42 PM On 2/9/04, Mark Morgan said: >I'm always hoping that Brian C. will wander over to the Cauldron and >shares some tips for how quickly he manages to put together >information. It's astonishing. And it's something we can all do to be >better writers. After all, isn't that why we hang around here? Having your own, dedicated Conversant server is very important to writing like Brian. I strongly recommend it! ;-)
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Carnell on 2/10/2004; 10:06 AM That's weird ... I didn't repost these messages.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Seth Dillingham on 2/10/2004; 10:20 AM On 2/10/04, Brian Carnell said: >That's weird ... I didn't repost these messages. As I explained (privately) last night, those messages were never mailed out. After a Conversant bug was fixed yesterday, it sent out all of the messages which had (for some reason) been sitting in the queue. Notice that they weren't reposted to the web site, so most of the readers here don't even know what you're talking about. :-) (To those readers: three of Brian's messages went out in email last night, although they were posted to the site days earlier.) Seth
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 2/11/2004; 7:53 PM Mark, I cannot agree with you that Brian Carnell has "whomped" anybody on this thread. Sure he supplies a lot of data. But data is worthless when it is interpreted incorrectly, or with only opinion. Here's why Brian hasn't whomped anybody: Richard here provides a perfect example of how Bush's statements are distorted. The "Bush said 'mushroom couds'" line is is an odd thing to offer up given Richard's position, because Bush invoked the mushroom cloud image to argue that the United States could not wait until it had 100% certainty about the extent of Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. For example, here's Bush in an October 2002 speech: "Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nations security to constitute maximum peril." WHY is "Bush said 'mushroom clouds'" an odd thing to offer, given my position? I don't get that at all, and believe it is patently false. What I said is COMPLETELY focused on the point made by John, where he makes a case for war with Iraq. Brian then says I somehow TWISTED Bush's words!!!! That is FALSE. I did no such thing, and Brian himself proves it by posting Bush's words. Bush said, "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." I posted that Bush said "mushroom cloud." That IS what he said! First of all, to say we were facing clear evidence of peril (in relation to Iraq) has been PROVEN false! Second to say we are facing clear evidence of peril from Iraq, and then to talk about the proof coming in the form of a mushroom cloud is a HUGE leap! In order for that to happen, Saddam would have to have a nuclear program! WHERE is the evidence of that? Intel wasn't saying it; they were only saying it was POSSIBLE. You don't go to war because something is POSSIBLE. Brian is using false logic here, and does not make a strong case at all! Again, he says I twisted Bush's words, when I only quoted them. And Brian does not play fair on this thread. Do we need examples? Here are some: I mean, come on -- we are talking about a *war* here. I mean, if you want to say 500 deaths is too high for training exercises or too high for a Boy Scout convention, I could see the point, but we're talking about conquering a country roughly the size of California with a population of >20 million and with a modern military. In this post, he is talking down to the reader, and is NOT sticking to facts. He is also incorrect. Iraq did NOT have a modern military when we invaded. They had bits and pieces of a modern military, and no more. So he's talking down to us, while he's WRONG. And at one point, he turns downright MEAN, and is looking for a fight: You would have preferred to wait for another possible Hussein sponsored terrorist plot? Would you have also left the Taliban in power -- after all, they also did not present any sort of conventional threat to the United States -- we could have taken action against them anytime before or after 9/11. Heck we could have waited 10 years and they'd still be no threat. But I'm glad you're on record as opposing military force against countries that plot terrorist acts against the United States even when they can be defeated by conventional warfare rather easily (I think that's the Kucinich Doctrine). The fact that I didn't give him one obviously gives ME the upper hand in the dialogue. He says "You would have preferred to wait for ANOTHER possible Hussein sponsored terrorist plot?" I challenge Brian to tell me of even ONE Hussein sponsored terrorist plot that has endangered America, and he never does. Point goes to me again. He asks if I would have left the Taliban in power, as if I WOULD, and I respond that I supported Bush in that war. To me, the question is trying to paint me as some kind of "unrealistic," or "pacifistic" peacenik, that doesn't even support defending my own country. That's playing dirty, and is typical of internet political discussions. On another board, I would've flamed big time, but I have too much respect for this site to do that. THEN, in a leap of logic, he states that the Taliban were behind 911! The Taliban harbored Al Qeada terrorists all right, but they were not the sole force responsible. What about the Saudis, the Egyptians, and the Pakistanis, all of whom we have never confronted? Who was it that danced in the streets that day? I think I saw Pakistanis! We know there are still Al Qeada in all three countries, and many more! How exactly is Brian winning when he plays so loose with the facts? I'm repeating myself, but this last part is where Brian just plays DOWN AND DIRTY: But I'm glad you're on record as opposing military force against countries that plot terrorist acts against the United States even when they can be defeated by conventional warfare rather easily (I think that's the Kucinich Doctrine). This is a smear tactic, and I have NOT gone on record as saying any such thing. What I did say was this: That's right. Every single country that poses an ACTUAL threat to the United States cannot be engaged, because of the carnage that would result. So the only way we could invade Iraq would be if they posed NO THREAT of any type of retaliation at all that could harm the US, or any of our allies in the region. This basically means we could send people in any time we wanted to do damn near anything we wanted to do. We were in an excellent position to negotiate, and before the unilateral invasion, we had the backing of much of the world. We could have been forward thinking, and modern, and come up with a better way of handling it, but instead we did the same old thing: Dropped a bunch of bombs that killed plenty of innocent people, marched in with troops, and made one hell of a mess. So I am saying I do not support engaging countries that cannot pose a threat to us. Isn't that a sloppy leap to say that my position is "opposing military force against countries that plot terrorist acts against the United States even when they can be defeated by conventional warfare rather easily?" He hasn't made a case that Iraq ever DID plot a terrorist act against the United States. I'm sorry, but in my opinion, Carnell has posted links to the State of the Union, and the links and exceprts he has provided do NOT support his argument. He has also smeared his opponents with "Kucinich Doctrine" malarky, and applied the infamous STRAWMAN. That is not a very solid debate, and I honestly encourage you to read the posts again in this light. Please tell me where I have been guilty of any of these tactics on this thread, or where my tactics have been anything but fair and reasonable. I am quite interested, because I take strong exception to the concept that a non-biased reader who happened upon this forum would award any kind of "win" to Carnell on this thread. Unfortunately, most people have solid opinions on all this anyway. That means Right leaning posters would say Carnell makes a stronger case, and left leaning posters would say I did, no matter WHAT either Carnell or I post. (I'm not including you in that, in fact I'm blown away that you stated Carnell "whomped" anybody.) I am sticking to my assertion that he played fast and loose with other people's posts, and the facts. I STILL want to hear about that Hussein attack against America. That is purely made up, and never happened.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Mark Morgan on 2/16/2004; 8:23 PM Okay, does anybody else find it absolutely hilarious that I managed to heat up this flame war while trying to calm down this flame war? >Mark, I cannot agree with you that Brian Carnell has "whomped" anybody on this thread. Sure he supplies a lot of data. But data is worthless when it is interpreted incorrectly, or with only opinion. SNIP! I'm not going to get into the middle of this again. It's clear to me that there are some strong feelings about this topic and I don't want in any way to provoke them again. I can see why people would get offended by what other people would say. In some cases I myself might, or might not, get offended as well. Sometimes depends on the day, and if I have almost killed myself in my car that day with only a valiant lamp post to save me from myself. Here's what I think: It's not personal. So don't take it personally. Hey, maybe it is personal. But you know what? Still don't take it personally. Everyone involved in a discussion is responsible for keeping it non-hostile, for veering the discussion off track or back on track. For reacting to what others say. I clearly wasn't keeping a close enough eye on the debate and it got out of hand. Please trust me that any further condescension, hot-temperedness, or other personal assaults will be dealt with by an immediate removal of the message to the Bleachers. I want Unreason to be a place where people feel safe to share their innermost thoughts and their most painful ideas and their most secret joys. I do not see how the previous discussion on this topic meets that goal. (Did you know that I was the one who asked that e-mail addresses be allowed to be anonymous? It wasn't for spam protection. It was so that, say, someone could write about an abusive spouse and not have that spouse ever find out it was them. We should be safe harbor.) I stand by the remainder of my post that if Brian W. should choose to rewrite his work into an actual essay it could become the basis for a very good one. But, just posting a link and reacting to it does not an essay make. I think Brian W. has the potential to be a much better writer than he gives himself credit for, and so the remainder of my comments will be toward that goal. -- ---Mark "The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world he didn't exist."
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 2/17/2004; 5:59 PM How is this heated? And how is this a flame war? The only post since you said Brian Carnell "whomped" us is mine, and it doesn't get personal; it doesn't condescend; and it wasn't written in anger. I simply make my points that show Brian didn't, in fact "whomp" anybody, due to some poor debating, ON THIS THREAD only. Overall, I think Brian is very intelligent, and worth reading. My comments are intended to be a rational discourse, and not heated in any way. So I have to also disagree that you heated up a flame war. Those comments of Brian's that are condescending are located up the page a bit, and were posted before you posted your contention that he "whomped" somebody on this thread. Again, I pointed out how Brian was LOOKING for a fight, due to the type of posting he did, but he never gets it! Nobody fought Mr. Carnell, and nobody is going to. Other than the comments of Brian's that I point out, and John Verion's contention that Brian Webber's "credibility" is somehow tainted, there is not a harsh word on this thread!
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Mark Morgan on 2/17/2004; 7:36 PM I dunno, Richard; you seemed upset to me. I don't see much non-flaming in using the term "condescending" and in writing "DOWN and DIRTY" (with caps), and whether you were angry or not those aren't particularly kind words. But I'm not singling you out. John Verion's "credibility" snipe, Brian C's comment "But I'm glad you're on record as opposing military force against countries that plot terrorist acts against the United States even when they can be defeated by conventional warfare rather easily..." (which followed you saying "Dropped a bunch of bombs that killed plenty of innocent people, marched in with troops, and made one hell of a mess. I just wanted to make sure you were going on record as saying that's what you considered sound, effecient warfare.") ....yes, I see that all as harsh, and it was driven by the hostile tone in the original essay. I realize there is a lot more to this discussion than these few examples but I don't see any particular value to this back and forth and I am convinced that political discussions do very poorly online and I don't want to see a group of people, all of whom I respect, involved in this sort of thing...on my site. I rarely put my foot down but I really mean it. It's fun pointing out each others' ignoble intentions, isn't it? But can't we stop now?
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Seth Dillingham on 2/17/2004; 11:57 PM On 2/17/04, Richard Davidson said: >I simply make my points that show Brian didn't, in fact "whomp" >anybody, due to some poor debating, ON THIS THREAD only. Overall, I >think Brian is very intelligent, and worth reading. My comments are >intended to be a rational discourse, and not heated in any way. > >So I have to also disagree that you heated up a flame war. Those >comments of Brian's that are condescending are located up the page a >bit, and were posted before you posted your contention that he >"whomped" somebody on this thread. I completely agree, this whole thread has been quite rational and unemotional. Mark, you've spent a lot of time on boards where the flames fly early and often. So have I. Most of us have come to expect it, whenever there's written disagreement on the internet. Heck, some folks -- and you know who I'm talking about -- can even disagree about file formats without resorting to name calling and integrity bashing. If you look at this thread again without that prejudicial mindset, and take everyone's words at face value, I think you'll find that it's been a very well self-moderated discussion. Seth
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Mark Morgan on 2/17/2004; 7:53 PM Weird. Why did this generate a new thread?
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Mark Morgan on 2/17/2004; 7:54 PM But on topic, you might have a point. This is the month I tried to drive a car off the side of an embankment, so I don't particularly trust my judgement.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 2/20/2004; 1:04 AM Mark, never forget, the site is called "Voices of Unreason." I always figured there was a reason for that. There's a chance I have interpreted that differently than others, but I assure you, I am right, and they are wrong. I think the easiest way to put the thread in perspective would be to look at Lewis Carroll. I think it falls under fair use, but if you need me to remove it for any reason, let me know. The sun was shining on the sea, Shining with all his might: He did his very best to make The billows smooth and bright-- And this was odd, because it was The middle of the night. The moon was shining sulkily, Because she thought the sun Had got no business to be there After the day was done-- "It's very rude of him," she said, "To come and spoil the fun!" The sea was wet as wet could be, The sands were dry as dry. You could not see a cloud, because No cloud was in the sky: No birds were flying overhead-- There were no birds to fly. The Walrus and the Carpenter Were walking close at hand; They wept like anything to see Such quantities of sand: "If this were only cleared away," They said, "it would be grand!" "If seven maids with seven mops Swept it for half a year. Do you suppose," the Walrus said, "That they could get it clear?" "I doubt it," said the Carpenter, And shed a bitter tear. "O Oysters, come and walk with us!" The Walrus did beseech. "A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk, Along the briny beach: We cannot do with more than four, To give a hand to each." The eldest Oyster looked at him, But never a word he said: The eldest Oyster winked his eye, And shook his heavy head-- Meaning to say he did not choose To leave the oyster-bed. But four young Oysters hurried up, All eager for the treat: Their coats were brushed, their faces washed, Their shoes were clean and neat-- And this was odd, because, you know, They hadn't any feet. Four other Oysters followed them, And yet another four; And thick and fast they came at last, And more, and more, and more-- All hopping through the frothy waves, And scrambling to the shore. The Walrus and the Carpenter Walked on a mile or so, And then they rested on a rock Conveniently low: And all the little Oysters stood And waited in a row. "The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things: Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax-- Of cabbages--and kings-- And why the sea is boiling hot-- And whether pigs have wings." "But wait a bit," the Oysters cried, "Before we have our chat; For some of us are out of breath, And all of us are fat!" "No hurry!" said the Carpenter. They thanked him much for that. "A loaf of bread," the Walrus said, "Is what we chiefly need: Pepper and vinegar besides Are very good indeed-- Now if you're ready, Oysters dear, We can begin to feed." "But not on us!" the Oysters cried, Turning a little blue. "After such kindness, that would be A dismal thing to do!" "The night is fine," the Walrus said. "Do you admire the view? "It was so kind of you to come! And you are very nice!" The Carpenter said nothing but "Cut us another slice: I wish you were not quite so deaf-- I've had to ask you twice!" "It seems a shame," the Walrus said, "To play them such a trick, After we've brought them out so far, And made them trot so quick!" The Carpenter said nothing but "The butter's spread too thick!" "I weep for you," the Walrus said: "I deeply sympathize." With sobs and tears he sorted out Those of the largest size, Holding his pocket-handkerchief Before his streaming eyes. "O Oysters," said the Carpenter, "You've had a pleasant run! Shall we be trotting home again?' But answer came there none-- And this was scarcely odd, because They'd eaten every one. I feel that poem sums up my position perfectly, and have nothing more to say. Ever.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Mark Morgan on 2/20/2004; 7:02 AM >I feel that poem sums up my position perfectly, and have nothing more to say. > >Ever. Yikes! You're not leaving Unreason? Come back, Shane!
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 2/20/2004; 8:12 PM Nah, just being dramatic. I have nothing more to say on THIS topic. Lewis Carroll said it all for me. I must exist in that side of the human brain that is averse to reason, for that is the place from where creativity springs. Political discussions are a distraction.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Mark Morgan on 2/22/2004; 11:58 AM >I must exist in that side of the human brain that is averse to reason, for that is the place from where creativity springs. Wow! Can I use this quote for the site's soon-to-be news/weblog section?
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Webber on 2/22/2004; 3:56 PM Can I put it on, um, something at my webshop (http://www.cafepress.com/nostatusquo)? I'm afriad all the shirt styles are taken. How about a box? :-)
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 2/22/2004; 10:56 PM Absolutely. I love being quoted. Here's one for you: "Say something interesting and to the point, and your name will be used forever." -Anonymous
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 2/22/2004; 10:59 PM Oh, and Brian, if you use anything of mine, anywhere, please link to my cafe shop. http://www.cafeshops.com/bizzarre They may want a book, or a calender, or a book, or a coffee mug, or a book, or a book.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Webber on 2/23/2004; 12:10 AM Not sure I can do that, since I already link the shop to my Archangel site, but I'll see what I can do. Oh, and I'm sorry to say that all the mug types are taken too. And all the baby clothes. Tell you what. I'll tell you what all is left, and you can pick. Cool? Tile Coaster Tile Box Mousepad Wall Clock Lunchbox Flying Disc Sticker (Oval) Wall Calendar Greeting Cards (Package of 6) Postcards (Package of 8) Mini Poster Print Small Poster Large Poster
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: dave buccola on 3/19/2004; 11:06 PM You astute observation is lacking. You claim the our invasion and occupation of Iraq, from a purely millitary point of view has been a huge success. You note the low number of dead (on the American side, of course) and our speedy occupation. You even go so far as to poke fun at the Iranians who fought Iraq for eight years to a standstill. The 550 plus soldiers who have died is not the entire story. You fail to take in account the thousands, even tens of thousands of soldiers who have been severely injured in Iraq. Low estimates are at least 10,000; high estimates reach 20,000. That's a lot of hurt troops. And, if Gulf War I is any indicator, there will be hundreds of thousands of troops returning from Iraq with ailments. Currently more than 25% of Gulf War Vets have claimed disability. Payments to Vets Cost $1 Billion Annually, More Are Applying. I would argue your analysis of the cost of this war is very lacking. The swiftness of our victory can largely be attributed to the 12 years of sanctions and bombing campaigns aimed against Iraq. The idea that the first Gulf War ever stopped is foolish. We bombed Iraq on a weekly basis for 12 years! But I guess you don't want to include that in your speedy timeline. Further, while we bombed them we imposed the most devestating sanctions the world has ever seen, leading to the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children (WHO estimates). As far as your comment regarding Iran. Iran was making advancements until the US stepped in and helped Saddam, something most Americans seem to have forgotten.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Carnell on 3/22/2004; 2:49 PM Dave Buccola wrote: The 550 plus soldiers who have died is not the entire story. You fail to take in account the thousands, even tens of thousands of soldiers who have been severely injured in Iraq. Low estimates are at least 10,000; high estimates reach 20,000. That's a lot of hurt troops. And, if Gulf War I is any indicator, there will be hundreds of thousands of troops returning from Iraq with ailments. Currently more than 25% of Gulf War Vets have claimed disability. Payments to Vets Cost $1 Billion Annually, More Are Applying. I would argue your analysis of the cost of this war is very lacking. Well, I said I wouldn't respond anymore to this thread, but this was too good to pass up. Tens of thousands of soldiers who have been severely injured in Iraq? Low estimates are 10,000? You do know, don't you Dave, that it is possible to actually look up precise statistics for these matters. According to Centcom, the total number of U.S. soldiers injured in Iraq was about 3,300 through the end of March 2004 (there's a very nice page here that republishes and organizes Centcom's casualty figures). Now if I'm doing my math correctly, that's about 1 soldier killed for every 6 wounded. That is simply amazing and simply adds more weight to my claims about the incredible improvement that the U.S. military has made in the post-WW II era. In World War II, the ratio was 1 soldier killed for every 2 wounded. Better protective gear combined with much improved combat medical techniques have led to an increasingly lower risk of dying on the battlefield for American soldiers. The improvement in keeping people alive -- especially the level of sophistication in mobile battlefield hospitals -- is almost as impressive as the improvement in killing people. The swiftness of our victory can largely be attributed to the 12 years of sanctions and bombing campaigns aimed against Iraq. The idea that the first Gulf War ever stopped is foolish. We bombed Iraq on a weekly basis for 12 years! But I guess you don't want to include that in your speedy timeline. Further, while we bombed them we imposed the most devestating sanctions the world has ever seen, leading to the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children (WHO estimates). That last sentence is completely bogus. WHO has never claimed that the sanctions killed 500,000 Iraqi children. All it did was republish claims from the Iraqi Health Ministry that another group then misinterpreted to reach the ridiculous 500,000 claim (to get to this level, btw, you have to a) double the Iraqi Health Ministry's own inflated childhood mortality figures, b) assume that every child who died in Iraq after 1991 would not have died had it not been for the sanctions, and c) pretend that the oil-for-food program that started in 1997 simply never happened). As for, "the swifntess can be attributed to...years of sanctions and bombing campaigns..." a) The sanctions argument won't cut it since there are plenty of examples of poorly equipped nations taking on and even defeating vastly superior forces -- the difference is that Iraqi soldiers apparently weren't willing to sacrifice their lives for Saddam Hussein in the way that, say, Russians were willing to do so for the Soviet Union, and b) as for the claim about bombings...well, the purpose of bombing the hell out of the enemy is precisely to reduce battlefield casualties. I don't understand why that would be used as an exception to U.S. military dominance.
The US never helped Saddam in ways that could have turned the tide in battle that dramatically. Iraq turned back the Iranians by upgrading its armamanets via the Soviets and Europeans and by deploying chemical weapons. Regardless, even if Iran had overrun Iraq, they would have done it at a ridiculously high cost in human lives compared to the U.S. liberation of that country. And to put this in perspective, compare the total number of deaths today to what was claimed before the war. I attended an anti-war rally this weekend at which a leader in a local group said that her group had been proven right when it claimed that hundreds of thousands of people would be killed if the United States invaded Iraq. I have fliers from anti-war groups saying U.S. deaths and wounded would likely top 50,000. Those sorts of losses would have represented a loss or, at best, pyrrhic victory for the United States. Instead Iraq has been a lopsided conflict in which the enemy so far hasn't managed to inflict significant casualties even when switching to straightahead terrorist style attacks that attempt to kill indiscriminately. In comparison, terrorists in another Middle Eastern nation on October 23, 1983 killed more American soldiers in a single attack than the Iraqi "insurgents" and regular army have been able to do in any 3 month period since the war began.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Donald Larson on 3/23/2004; 12:58 AM Here's how this proud American, this Republican sees the entire War on Terror. The world is becoming a more dangerous place. I predict in this century, the world will lose more people in the upcoming East vs. West Wars than in all the wars of the 20th century combined. In the beginning, countries will try to fight under out-dated "rules", but eventually, rules will be thrown aside and the "victors" will be the ones that used the most force on the most people. I don't see any way around it. The asshole Islamic Fundamentalist Extremists will bomb and kill whenever they please. No law enforcement group can stop them by legal capabilities alone. Even today, the countries of Europe realize they are only operating at 1/3 effectiveness with regard to law enforcement exchange of information between countries there. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/22/international/22QAED.html?hp The deaths in Madrid are the result of very poor intelligence by those that are sworn to protect the people. The terrorists can slip in and out at will to kill people as a result. Spain will not be the last country to suffer mass murder and numerous wounded at their hands. While Spaniards blame America, the terrorists are already working on their next target somewhere else. All Western militaries in this war have done a wonderful job so far. But it isn't perfect. We have yet to destroy the remaining terrorist supporting regimes in countries and make those people suffer at all. The Iranians, the Syrians, they are not being blown-up by bombs, rockets, mortars. Maybe if they were, the terrorists would see it doesn't pay to use terrorism because it would only come back down on their own people harder. But, the western world is hesitant to fully do what needs to be done. The terrorists watch this and know they can continue to kill thousands, if not tens of thousands more people while the western world is reluctant to respond in kind. I think the War on Terror will go on for decades. At some point, the WMD that nobody thinks the terrorists have will be acquired and used. It is at that point that any remaining sense of rules or civilized behavior will vanish, imho. The retaliatory strikes will be in response to those recent deaths and not for the down-payment in lives lost before that point. All lives lost thus far, must be worth less than the lives to be lost later, I guess. I know, it's "the principle" that's important, someone will say. I totally disagree. I don't expect to survive the War on Terror. I accept that the terrorists are at war with me and my family since 09/11/2001. I know only one way to fight them at that level, if I get the chance. It isn't America that is the cause of this war. It is a world that puts its faith in out-dated policies and actions; in organizations that are incapable of effecting deterrence; in the belief that we are a better people, with a better society, than the enemy. As if terrorists care about such things. The people who someday emerge from this century's horrors will likely be throw-backs and the benefactors of a new and longer-lasting Dark Age. They may even lack the knowledge of history, so they won't be able to blame us for our misguided approaches in these early years of war. We'll be able to rest in our graves knowing we tried to live up to some ridicules expectations of how to fight war even at the expense of bequeathing a future where mankind is reduced to mere survival mode all over the globe--forever. Don p.s. I won't be back on this site to read responses. I don't think of this topic as a form of "college debate." I don't try to convince any of you to my way of thinking and you certainly won't be changing my mind on how to proceed. Thank you for this space on your server and the time you took to read my perspective. Regardless of how you feel about what I wrote, I wish you the best in the time to come.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 4/5/2004; 10:07 PM Now that the official Death Toll of American soldiers is well above 600, does everyone still stand by their previous posts? Just curious.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Carnell on 4/6/2004; 8:36 AM Yes, of course. So far the cost of invading Iraq and deposing a regime that slaughtered several hundred thousand people has been the death of 1.64 American soldiers every day. That's an extremely low rate for a nation the size of Iraq (both geographically and population-wise). During the bloodiest years of the war in Vietnam, for example, the death rate among those in-country was in the 25-26 per day range. The Iraqi fascists seem to have followed their pre-war pattern -- they're very effective at terrorizing and killing civilians but shy away from any real confrontation with anyone equipped to actually fight back.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 4/6/2004; 3:46 PM Hmmm... Seems that rate of 1.64 per day has gone up just a little. The past three days its been 6.66 per day. See anything ominous in that number? (20/3=6.66666666666666666666666666667) Also, it appears the Sunnis and the Shiites are united in the cause of killing our people. I guess Bush is a Uniter, and not a Divider after all. Personally, I am beyond grief stricken over this.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Carnell on 4/6/2004; 5:04 PM Richard wrote:
The only thing ominous here is that you would pick just the last three days and say try to read something dramatic in that. I could just as easily picked three days spans in February and March where there were no American deaths and that would have been just as specious. I'm not sure why the positive integer that comes after 665 should be particularly ominous (though apocalyptics are fascinating in and of themselves).
Right...that's a bit like saying Texans are united in killing blacks because a couple racists drag some poor man to death. There's no evidence that either of these groups represent anything but a small number of Iraqis who wish to derail efforts to establish an independent democracy rather than restoring the Baathist regime or establishing some fundamentalist Muslim state.
Americans have, unfortunately, repeatedly been called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice while the rest of the world twiddles its thumbs in the face of dictators and tyrants.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Seth Dillingham on 4/6/2004; 6:21 PM Looks like that was a successful fishing expedition, Richard. You caught a Brian. ;-) I'm surprised he got caught on the 666 hook, though. There was no bait there, just a shiny, pointy hook. Seth
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 4/6/2004; 7:23 PM edited for double post
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 4/6/2004; 7:21 PM Right...that's a bit like saying Texans are united in killing blacks because a couple racists drag some poor man to death. There's no evidence that either of these groups represent anything but a small number of Iraqis who wish to derail efforts to establish an independent democracy rather than restoring the Baathist regime or establishing some fundamentalist Muslim state. Again, what is a small number? http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/78973/1/.html The US troops regained control of police stations in Sadr City after a night of fierce fighting with Sadr militants in several quarters of the impoverished district that left 39 Iraqis killed and 126 others wounded, according to hospital sources. A total of 87 Iraqis have been killed and 374 wounded in the clashes across the country between coalition forces and Sadr's Mehdi Army that erupted on Sunday. The clashes have occurred in the Shiite-dominant areas of Sadr City and nearby Shula neighborhood, as well as cities south of Baghdad, including Najaf, Karbala, Kufa, Amara, Nasiriya and Basra. Around 15 Iraqis were killed on Tuesday in fighting with Italian forces in Nasiriyah, the Italian news agency Ansa reported, quoting a spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. And 12 Iraqis have been killed and 27 others wounded in the past 48 hours in clashes in Amara between British troops and Sadr's backers, a local official said Tuesday. Already burdened by a Sunni insurgency, a full revolt among the country's 15 million-plus Shiites would spell disaster. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/06/1354213 The U.S. is facing a nightmare scenario in Iraq, fighting on two fronts against both Sunni and Shia militants after Shiite Iraqis staged an armed uprising against occupying forces this past Sunday. We go to Baghdad to speak with independent journalist and author Naomi Klein and we speak with Middle East expert Professor As'ad AbuKhalil. http://news.google.com/news?num=30&hl=en&edition=us&q=shiite+sunni Just a link to a number of stories that speak of the possibility of young Shiites joining up with Sunni forces to dispel American invaders. It also appears 12 more US Marines have died since I last posted; the number of Coalition troops is even greater, and the number of civilian casualties is also growing ever greater. I think someone declared "Mission Accomplished" just a bit too soon.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Carnell on 4/7/2004; 8:31 PM Seth: Okay, your post went completely over my head. Richard: Wow, that was a shock -- Democracy Now on the Iraq Intifada. The next thing you know, Fox News will be questioning Ted Kennedy's patriotism! It is interesting, though, that Democracy Now joins the Arab media in tagging the U.S. occupation of Iraq as nothing but an extension of the U.S. policy in Israel (and the phrase "Shiite lumpen proletariat" did have me LOL).
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 4/8/2004; 12:01 AM Never mind my page of googled links; the foreign press; and the fact that violence is still raging. You're just going to continue to parrot the party line that this is simply a small number of Iraqis who wish to derail efforts to establish an independent democracy rather than restoring the Baathist regime or establishing some fundamentalist Muslim state. Well, of course that is your right, however, I feel you are basing that on nothing.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 4/8/2004; 1:55 PM This would appear to bolster my argument on the merging of Shia and Sunni peoples. I'm no expert, so perhaps the reader can make the determination: http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9231695%255E2,00.html Here is an excerpt: Marchers break through US roadblocks April 9, 2004 THOUSANDS of Sunni and Shiite Muslims forced their way through US military checkpoints Thursday to ferry food and medical supplies to the besieged Sunni bastion of Fallujah where US marines are trying to crush insurgents. Troops in armoured vehicles tried to stop the convoy of cars and pedestrians from reaching the town located 50 kilometers west of Baghdad. But US forces were overwhelmed as residents of villages west of the capital came to the convoy's assistance, hurling insults and stones at the beleaguered troops. Again, I am merely a gifted fiction writer, and by no means a logical person, so I will leave it to the reader to discern whether or not this represents, as Brian stated, "a small number of Iraqis who wish to derail efforts to establish an independent democracy rather than restoring the Baathist regime or establishing some fundamentalist Muslim state." I guess the key point is whether "thousands" is the same as "a small number."
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 4/8/2004; 4:11 PM I've been reading lots of news stories on this, of course, and I find it interesting that we continue to give foreigners who could help our causes the same message over and over again: "You're either with us or against us. Stand with us, and we won't back you, and your countrymen will kill you. Stand against us, and we'll kill you." I say this based on what some of the Iraqi policemen are saying, which is that they're quitting the force immediately, since their lives are in imminent danger, and they are badly outnumbered. Seems they feel the Americans don't trust them, and now that they've stood with the Americans, they have targets on their backs. It reminds me of all the people who intended to help overthrow Saddam after Desert Storm, only to be slaughtered. It also reminds me of the Fall of Saigon. Funny how so many who have been for this war have said, "those who do not learn from the mistakes of History are doomed to repeat them." Oh yeah; that's called IRONY.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 4/8/2004; 4:17 PM I have something else to say. Brian said: "Americans have, unfortunately, repeatedly been called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice while the rest of the world twiddles its thumbs in the face of dictators and tyrants." That sounds pretty good. Can you give me some examples of this? I think we've actually supported more dictators and tyrants than just about anybody! In fact, be careful, because if you list tyrants we "brought down," you may inadvertantly be listing tyrants who wouldn't have stayed in power so long without our support. In fact, I'm going to be bold and call your above statement RHETORIC, which rings quite hollow, and is simply a Freeper talking point. Noriega. Hmmm. Didn't we fund him, and help him get arms? Saddam. Hmmmm. Same deal as Noriega, PLUS the guys who are now running free where he used to reign have just threatened to set some Japanese on fire! Hitler. Oh wait, the Soviets actually paid a far higher price, in terms of blood and destroyed homeland, and got to him before us. I call upon you to factually back up the statement I quoted above, or concede that it sounds good, but is nowhere near the truth. Good luck! I think you may want to consider a retraction.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 4/14/2004; 12:51 PM This thread has gone awfully quiet. I have some questions: 1. Mark: Is Brian still winning? 2. Anyone care to comment on the fact that in April we've lost 91 US Soldiers, and are no closer to stopping the "insurgency," which really can't be an "insurgency," since there's no actual government to have an "insurgency" against? 3. How about the fact that the press is reporting EVERY single Iraqi killed in April as an "insurgent," and NONE are being reported as "innocent women and children?" 4. Brian, are you still standing by THIS quote: There's no evidence that either of these groups represent anything but a small number of Iraqis who wish to derail efforts to establish an independent democracy rather than restoring the Baathist regime or establishing some fundamentalist Muslim state. That's all I have for now. Sorry if I sound smug, but I assure you, I'm quite pissed off about all this unnecessary killing. By the way, WHERE ARE THE WMD'S?
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Webber on 4/14/2004; 11:51 PM Well, Richard, I may have an answer to that last question. New Reports on U.S. Planting WMDs in Iraq BASRA -– Fifty days after the first reports that the U.S. forces were unloading weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in southern Iraq, new reports about the movement of these weapons have been disclosed. Given the recent scandals to the effect that the U.S. president was privy to the 9/11 plot, they might try to immediately announce the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to overshadow the scandals and prevent a further decline of Bush’s public opinion rating as the election approaches. Sources in Iraq speculate that occupation forces are using the recent unrest in Iraq to divert attention from their surreptitious shipments of WMD into the country. An Iraqi source close to the Basra Governor’s Office told the MNA that new information shows that a large part of the WMD, which was secretly brought to southern and western Iraq over the past month, are in containers falsely labeled as containers of the Maeresk shipping company and some consignments bearing the labels of organizations such as the Red Cross or the USAID in order to disguise them as relief shipments. The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, added that Iraqi officials including forces loyal to the Iraqi Governing Council stationed in southern Iraq have been forbidden from inspecting or supervising the transportation of these consignments. He went on to say that the occupation forces have ordered Iraqi officials to forward any questions on the issue to the coalition forces. Even the officials of the international relief organizations have informed the Iraqi officials that they would only accept responsibility for relief shipments which have been registered and managed by their organizations. The Iraqi source also confirmed the report about suspicious trucks with fake Saudi and Jordanian license plates entering Iraq at night last week, stressing that the Saudi and Jordanian border guards did not attempt to inspect the trucks but simply delivered them to the U.S. and British forces stationed on Iraq’s borders. However, the source expressed ignorance whether the governments of Saudi Arabia and Jordan were aware of such movements. A professor of physics at Baghdad University also told the MNA correspondent that a group of his colleagues who are highly specialized in military, chemical and biological fields have been either bribed or threatened during the last weeks to provide written information on what they know about various programs and research centers and the possible storage of WMD equipment. The professor also said these people have been openly asked to confirm or deny the existence of research or related WMD equipment. A large number of these scientists, who are believed to be under the surveillance of U.S. intelligence operatives, have claimed that if they refuse to comply with this request, they may be killed or arrested on charges of concealing the truth if these weapons are found by the Bush administration in the future. He said that the Iraqi scientists believe their lives would be in danger if they decline to cooperate with the occupation forces, especially when they recall that senior U.S. officer Michael Peterson once said, “Iraqi scientists are at any case a threat to the U.S. administration, whether they talk or not.” A source close to the Iraqi Governing Council said, “In the meantime, many suspect containers disguised as fuel supplies have been moved about by some units of the U.S. special forces. The move has been carried out under heavy security measures. Also, there are unofficial reports that the containers held biological and bacteriological toxins in liquid form. It is possible that the news about the discovery of the WMDs would be announced later.” He also said that such mixtures had been used by the Saddam regime in the 1990s. The source added that some provocative actions such as the closure of Al-Hawza periodical by U.S. administrator Paul Bremer, the secret meetings between his envoys with some extremist groups who have no relations with the Iraqi Governing Council, the sudden upsurge in violence in central and southern Iraq, a number of activities which have stoked up the wrath of the prominent Shia clerics, and finally, the spate of kidnappings and the baseless charges against the Iranian charge d’affaires in Baghdad are providing the necessary smokescreen for the transportation of the WMD to their intended locations. He said they are quite aware that the White House in cooperation with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has directly tasked the Defense Department to hide these weapons. Given the recent scandals to the effect that the U.S. president was privy to the 9/11 plot, they might try to immediately announce the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in order to overshadow the scandals and prevent a further decline of Bush’s public opinion rating as the election approaches. © Copyright 2004 Mehr News Agency
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Carnell on 4/15/2004; 10:19 AM Well, of course, Brian. Bush knew all about the 9/11 plot, he's planting WMDs in Iraq now, and he was probably the second shooter on the grassy knoll as well! I'm surprised you left out the incontrovertible fact the the U.S. is currently carrying out genocide in Iraq as well. And, of course, let's not forget whose ultimately responsible for all of this -- the Jews.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 4/15/2004; 7:25 PM Mr. Carnell, you have certainly done a good job of answering to any crackpot theories brought forth in all earnestness by our friend Mr. Webber, as well as some you seem to have brought yourself. The story about planting WMD's is suspect at best. I certainly don't claim that we are carrying out genocide in Iraq. Are you claiming that no women and children are being killed in the carnage? It seems to me that four American Mercenaries were brutally killed, and their bodies desecrated. Then, we killed 700 Iraqis in trying to "get" those responsible, and in the process lost 73 US Soldiers. What part of that don't I have right? More importantly, you seem to have glossed over my last four posts. That's OK, but I will ask again if you stand by this statement: There's no evidence that either of these groups represent anything but a small number of Iraqis who wish to derail efforts to establish an independent democracy rather than restoring the Baathist regime or establishing some fundamentalist Muslim state.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Webber on 4/15/2004; 9:25 PM And, of course, let's not forget whose ultimately responsible for all of this -- the Jews. Actually, that article doesn't even IMPLY that the war was a "Jewish conspiracy," it just mentions the fact that a Jewish person of Iraqi decent is working on the Constitution of Iraq. No blame is placed upon the Jewish people, and as I said there is no mention of a conspiracy. But hey, you're a Warflogger. Since when did you guys let things like 'facts' get in the way of a good rant? My favorite example is how some of you guys say Iraq needed to be invaded becuase they violated a U.N. Resolution, while conveniently forgetting that us, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Vatican have all violated several. Oh, and let me also mention that opinion polls in Israel show most of the population opposed the invasion of Iraq. Kinda kills the Jewish conpsiracy theory right there, don't it?
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Carnell on 4/15/2004; 10:24 PM Brian -- you would do well to read Richard more closely. He and I have strong disagreements, but he doesn't go in for conspiracy theories and argues from facts. That story was so weak, I'm surprised it didn't say that Bush had dispatched Bat Boy to hide the weapons. But trying to spin that article about "the Jew" who's supposedly drafting the new Iraqi constitution as anything but an appeal to anti-Semitism in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East is beneath even you. I doubt you'd give Fox News the same benefit if it reported on "the Black hired to draft the constitution." The cultural difference between the West and the Middle East is in sharp relief when comparing the view and treatment in most ME countries toward Jews compared to the views of and treatment of Muslims in Western countries.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Mark Morgan on 4/16/2004; 7:40 AM " But hey, you're a Warflogger. Since when did you guys let things like 'facts' get in the way of a good rant?" I would not characterize Brian Carnell as a warblogger. I am subscribed to the mailing list for his site; his interests range wildly, and he does not pass an opportunity to call the current administration foolish when they act foolish. It's more correct that he simply seems unable to let an ubstantiated claim go by without challenging it. I'm much the same way on matters of science, if you remember, Brian Webber. (Aaargh! Too many Brians! Pistols at dawn, to decide which of you gets to keep the name!) It drives me all sorts of crazy when people say something is "of course" an absolute fact without references. That Mehr news site is a trip. "Jew to draft Iraqi constitution?" How is it possibly relevant that someone who is Jewish is involved in the Iraqi constitution? (And, note the distinction between my very carefully chosen "someone who is Jewish" and their equally very carefully chosen repetition of "the Jew". Lovely, that.) And just to make sure nobody misunderstands me, I'm not in favor of the invasion of Iraq. I believe we were deliberately misled by the administration as to the reasons we were going; particularly, either the government lied to us about the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction or the US intelligence agencies are incredibly incompetent, or the adminstration is incredibly incompetent at understanding the intelligence given to them. The record of Hussein's time in power is clearly one of a psychotic madman whose son used to deal with people by hanging them over industrial shredders and slowly lowering them in feet first. These were not nice people and given time would probably have created a place in the middle east to rival the Khmer Rouge's Cambodia. But is it our job to go topple every psychotic ruler everywhere? Pax Americana? Is that what republican democracies do, or is that what empires do? Now that we've stepped in it we have a responsibility to finish what we started and not leave until the people of Iraq are able to live in safety with basic things like electricity and running water, and not until they have a way to decide their own destinies. I'm not convinced any of the Democratic candidates have a good endgame for Iraq. But even if we succeed in Iraq, even if we wildly succeed in Iraq, I have to wonder what kind of country we will become, wandering the world imposing our vision upon it, defeating enemies here, cutting knots there, uniting the known world, eventually dying of malaria. . . .
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Seth Dillingham on 4/16/2004; 10:55 AM There's a small extension to this conversation on my site, for anyone who's interested. <http://www.truerwords.net/fullThread$msgNum=3821> Seth
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 4/16/2004; 4:54 PM I'm not convinced any of the Democratic candidates have a good endgame for Iraq. I'm not convinced there IS an endgame for Iraq. UN Forces? American Forces? It seems the one thing all the different factions of Iraq now formally agree on is that anybody who is killing Iraqis is no longer welcome in Iraq. Is this such a revolutionary or unreasonable concept? I am thinking the answer is "no." When those four mercenaries were killed, and their bodies desecrated, our commanders made the same mistake our administration has made over and over again. They decided to be the opposite of Clinton. With Clinton, bodies were desecrated in Somalia, and in the eyes of most foaming at the mough freepers, America turned tail and ran like a wimp. So the important thing to do in the case of Fallulah, according to the current mindset, was to PUNISH THOSE RESPONSIBLE. 700 dead Iraqis later, and we have NO IDEA if that has happened! And of course, that's where things went HORRIBLY wrong. Punishing the citizens of the country you're occupying is never good, especially if those citizens are ARMED. Insurgency? Complete rebellion. Bad times have come to Iraq. To the people who have buried their children, brothers, sisters, wives and husbands, Saddam doesn't sound so bad! After all, he only murdered Kurds, and dissenters.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Mark Morgan on 4/21/2004; 3:52 PM I've been discussing this on Seth's site so I feel it's only polite to give some idea where I'm coming from to the readers on my own damn site. You think? Seth has posted a copy of an article by Stratfor that strongly criticizes the Bush administration for doing a horrible job of articulating a strategy for the war on Iraq. From Stratfor's point of view, we should see the war in Iraq as a beachhead for democracy in the Middle East. On Seth's site Brian Carnell points out this is the Domino Theory, only this time we're doing the domino-ing. Quite frankly I consider this whole exercise a horrible mistake. I'm going to quote myself: " When the US decides to do this, though--overthrowing other countries, even for arguably good reasons, I worry that it means we are moving from being a republic to being an Empire. By that I mean the more time we spend enforcing our values on foreign countries, the more time we will have to spend enforcing our values on foreign countries. Is it really plausible to believe that we can move into a country like Myanmar or Iraq and simply create a United States-style democracy from whole cloth and then go about our merry way? Probably the latter, since no President is around for more than eight years. It's a mess and Richard, I agree, there may not be any good endgame for this mess. It remains our responsibility to at least try harder. Dammit. (For those who consider Brian Carnell a warblogger, you might be a tad surprised to find he agrees with me that we'll probably not just fly down from the heavens on our winged horse and divinely grant democracy, freedom, and capitalism wherever we feel like it.)
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Carnell on 4/22/2004; 2:58 PM BTW, Orson Scott Card has a column where he puts the Stratfor-like argument as bluntly as anyone I've seen make the case,
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 4/23/2004; 2:45 PM But so far the Bush administration has destroyed two hate-filled anti-humane governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush is putting the Baathists back in power in Iraq; and the Taliban is far from wiped out; therefore this statement is pure, unmitigated BS. They have also tamed the terror-sponsoring proclivities of Sudan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Libya -- bloodless victories, folks, that we only got because President Bush showed the strength in international leadership, despite all criticism, that Kerry is promising never to show. This is opinion. Libya was headed that way before the Iraq invasion, and is simply trying to get sanctions to end, and it looks like they've succeeded in that. Whether they wouldn't have done so had Bush NOT invaded Iraq is a GUESS, and cannot be stated as anything more than opinion. Bush's "strength in international leadership" is simply a case of bad decisions, and nothing admirable. What a bunch of crap. Pakistan tamed? Anyone want to back that up with some FACTS?
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 4/23/2004; 3:21 PM Yuck. I just read the whole linked column. Why are we linking to biased opinion crap like that? I thought you were objective. The left has NEVER blamed 911 on Bush. That is a strawman. Clarke never did either. That was a sickening read, it really was, and has no place on a site like this. Brian may not be a warblogger, but he sure is showing himself to be a Bush apologist. By the way, much of the "info" in that column is out of date, and not at all in step with the current administration line of defense. Clarke-bashing is all but over, since no one ever showed him to be lying about anything, and Woodward's book has pushed Clarke's to the background. Here's the kind of opinionated CRAP the guy spews: So pay no attention to the hypocritical snipers who condemn Bush for acting whenever he took action, and for not acting whenever he didn't. It should be obvious that to these unprincipled clowns, Bush is always wrong. They're counting on us being so stupid that we don't see their game. Strawman after strawman; opinion after opinion. Geez!
Re: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Carnell on 4/23/2004; 4:51 PM Richard Davidson wrote: >But so far the Bush administration has destroyed two hate-filled anti-humane governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. > >Bush is putting the Baathists back in power in Iraq; and the Taliban is far from wiped out; therefore this statement is pure, unmitigated BS. > > He is allowing people who were part of the government but were not responsible for atrocities to rejoin the government, just as similar individuals were allowed to rejoin governments in other countries where a dictatorship has been overthrown. It would be nice to think you could just rebuild a country with using anyone who had even a scintilla of association with the old regime, but in practice it is all but impossible to do so and you end up excluding a large group of people who were members of the ruling regime because it was necessary to do so in order to get in the positions they held but who had little to nothing to do with the regime's crimes. >This is opinion. Libya was headed that way before the Iraq invasion, and is simply trying to get sanctions to end, and it looks like they've succeeded in that. Whether they wouldn't have done so had Bush NOT invaded Iraq is a GUESS, and cannot be stated as anything more than opinion. > > Huh? UN sanctions against Libya ended in September 2003, after Libya finally took responsibility for the Lockerbie terrorist attack. U.S. embargo, however, did stay in effect (and is still in effect). Certainly figuring out all of Gaddhafi's motivations is difficult, but as Islam Online noted in an editorial whose link I just lost, the overarching goal of Middle Eastern strongmen is their own political survival and Gaddhafi's son, Seif al-Islam, was quick to point out to CNN that among other things the United States had promised Gaddhafi it would not seek regime change in Libya if that country agreed to abandon its WMD program and submit to UN inspection. I think it's pretty clear that the Iraq war at a minimum accelerated Libya's timetable for suddenly acceding to most of the U.S.'s demands after resisting many of them ever since negotiations began with that state shortly after 9/11.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 4/23/2004; 4:58 PM Brian writes: Huh? UN sanctions against Libya ended in September 2003, after Libya finally took responsibility for the Lockerbie terrorist attack. U.S. embargo, however, did stay in effect (and is still in effect). I never said anything about UN Sanctions; I was just talking about what this article says: http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a0Go1wfdH2rw&refer=top_world_news U.S. Will Ease Sanctions on Libya, White House Says April 23 (Bloomberg) -- The White House eased economic sanctions against Libya to reward its efforts to eliminate weapons programs, a decision that benefits ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil Corp., Amerada Hess Corp. and Occidental Petroleum Corp., which have oil concessions in the country. Take it up with Bloomberg news if you don't like the wording. I find it interesting that eliminating sanctions benefits WHO, Brian? Why Big Oil, of course. I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
Re: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Carnell on 4/23/2004; 5:12 PM Brian Carnell wrote: >[Talkback about Essays: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 by Brian Webber] >---------------------------------- > >Richard Davidson wrote: > > > >>But so far the Bush administration has destroyed two hate-filled anti-humane governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. >> >>Bush is putting the Baathists back in power in Iraq; and the Taliban is far from wiped out; therefore this statement is pure, unmitigated BS. >> >> >> >> >He is allowing people who were part of the government but were not >responsible for atrocities to rejoin the government, just as similar >individuals were allowed to rejoin governments in other countries where >a dictatorship has been overthrown. It would be nice to think you could >just rebuild a country with using anyone who had even a scintilla of >association with the old regime, but in practice it is all but >impossible to do so and you end up excluding a large group of people who >were members of the ruling regime because it was necessary to do so in >order to get in the positions they held but who had little to nothing to >do with the regime's crimes. > > And just to beat this into the ground, this is no different than what the Allies were forced to do in Germany and Austria after they were conquered. If everyone connected with the Nazi regime in any way had been excluded from possible government service in the post-War era, it would have been impossible to govern those countries. Instead the United States policy of denazification focused on punishing those who had a direct hand in the crimes of the Nazi regime while rehabilitating those who were part of the regime but didn't play a major role in Germany's crimes. It is interesting to note, BTW, that the U.S. is widely considered to have been the most strict in enforcing denazification among the democratic countries, with the British and French being more willing to put re-establishing a working government ahead of punishing every last Nazi flunky. Stalin of course authorized the wholesale murder of Nazis and non-Nazi threats to Soviet rule alike. Rwanda has been forced to do something similar. It would be literally impossible to punish every Hutu who had involvement in the 1994 genocide there (those Hutus who refused to murder Tutsis were generally themselves murdered). The one difference is that the U.S. is rushing handing over control of Iraq back to Iraqis. That is likely to prove to be a mistake. The U.S. needs to occupy and control Iraq for several years to be able to really make a dent in bringing about long term change (after all, the group they're planning to hand power to in June is going to be viewed as a puppet government in the Middle East anyway -- better to leave Bremer in control than hand it off to an Iraqi group that many will see as illegitimate anyway). Iraq today is not all that different from what Germany was like in the post-war years (Iraq is probably actually better). Thank goodness we didn't have cable news reporting immediately on every attack by remnants of the Nazi regime on occupying Allied forces, or Truman might have been forced into the sort of quick turnaround time that the Bush administration has been forced into.
Re: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Carnell on 4/23/2004; 7:05 PM Richard Davidson wrote: >U.S. Will Ease Sanctions on Libya, White House Says > >April 23 (Bloomberg) -- The White House eased economic sanctions against Libya to reward its efforts to eliminate weapons programs, a decision that benefits ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil Corp., Amerada Hess Corp. and Occidental Petroleum Corp., which have oil concessions in the country. > >Take it up with Bloomberg news if you don't like the wording. > >I find it interesting that eliminating sanctions benefits WHO, Brian? Why Big Oil, of course. > >I'm sure that's just a coincidence. > > This is why I try to stay away from this thread. If Bush invades Iraq to disarm a brutal dictator, it was the wrong thing to do and he should have spent more time on diplomacy, inspections and/or the UN. If Bush manages to get a country to give up its WMDs without firing a shot, then it's just a conspiracy to benefit Bush's friends in the oil industry. If Bush just ignores the situation in either country and there is a terrorist attack, then he was asleep at the wheel. This isn't a debate, it's a tautology that can be reduced to "Bush is always wrong." This is just as unproductive as debating with those right wing flunkies who would cheer along if Ashcroft called for the mandatory tattooing of everyone's ass to improve homeland security.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 4/23/2004; 11:07 PM This is why I try to stay away from this thread. If Bush invades Iraq to disarm a brutal dictator, it was the wrong thing to do and he should have spent more time on diplomacy, inspections and/or the UN. If Bush manages to get a country to give up its WMDs without firing a shot, then it's just a conspiracy to benefit Bush's friends in the oil industry. If Bush just ignores the situation in either country and there is a terrorist attack, then he was asleep at the wheel. This isn't a debate, it's a tautology that can be reduced to "Bush is always wrong." This is just as unproductive as debating with those right wing flunkies who would cheer along if Ashcroft called for the mandatory tattooing of everyone's ass to improve homeland security. Brain, I'm sorry Bush and you are such victims of left wing ideology. Up above, it was said that you are some kind of great debator; always sticking to logic and reason, and backing that up with good links that support your positions. So I posted a number of times in that manner, only to be ignored. Now, after you bring a highly opinionated piece of blather to the thread that touts Bush's excellence in "containing" the incredibly dangerous Libya, I post a straight news piece that points out the main benefactors will be ConocoPhillips, Marathon Oil Corp., Amerada Hess Corp. and Occidental Petroleum Corp, and simply mention that I find that an interesting coincidence, and you're all about how Bush "simply can't win." Boo freakin' hoo.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Webber on 4/23/2004; 11:15 PM Did it ever occur to you Brian, that we may be RIGHT about Bush? I mean, it's not like this is new behavior for him; lying that is. To pick a random example, how about in 2000 when he claimed credit for a Texas Patients Bill of Rights which he vetoed? That was a completely random sampling of the dozens and dozens of provable lies. And that's not even including the "probable" lies, the "might-be" lies, and the "probably aren't, but there's a slim chance they are" lies. That last category I leave to the conspiracy nuts who no one believes anyway.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 4/23/2004; 11:31 PM And just to beat this into the ground, this is no different than what the Allies were forced to do in Germany and Austria after they were conquered. If everyone connected with the Nazi regime in any way had been excluded from possible government service in the post-War era, it would have been impossible to govern those countries. Instead the United States policy of denazification focused on punishing those who had a direct hand in the crimes of the Nazi regime while rehabilitating those who were part of the regime but didn't play a major role in Germany's crimes. I don't get what your point is. Do we know who are the good Baathists, and the bad Baathists? The larger and far more important point is that we made a big deal about getting all Baathists out of power, and now we're saying, "oops, maybe not." The large and more important point is that the piece of partisan drivel you brought to this thread as a counterpoint or something is a bunch of BS. Its author made this point: But so far the Bush administration has destroyed two hate-filled anti-humane governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is pure garbage, Brian! Whether Bush's actions have done that REMAINS TO BE SEEN! That guy can't just make that as a factual point, when it is only HIS opinion! What was YOUR point in posting that crap? It is interesting to note, BTW, that the U.S. is widely considered to have been the most strict in enforcing denazification among the democratic countries, with the British and French being more willing to put re-establishing a working government ahead of punishing every last Nazi flunky. Stalin of course authorized the wholesale murder of Nazis and non-Nazi threats to Soviet rule alike. Interesting, but completely beside the point. Most of the worst Nazis were put to work in our CIA, and helped establish the very policy that was used in this most recent war, all these years later. Rwanda has been forced to do something similar. It would be literally impossible to punish every Hutu who had involvement in the 1994 genocide there (those Hutus who refused to murder Tutsis were generally themselves murdered). The one difference is that the U.S. is rushing handing over control of Iraq back to Iraqis. That is likely to prove to be a mistake. The U.S. needs to occupy and control Iraq for several years to be able to really make a dent in bringing about long term change (after all, the group they're planning to hand power to in June is going to be viewed as a puppet government in the Middle East anyway -- better to leave Bremer in control than hand it off to an Iraqi group that many will see as illegitimate anyway). Iraq today is not all that different from what Germany was like in the post-war years (Iraq is probably actually better). Thank goodness we didn't have cable news reporting immediately on every attack by remnants of the Nazi regime on occupying Allied forces, or Truman might have been forced into the sort of quick turnaround time that the Bush administration has been forced into. Brian, what you and every lefty and righty on the internet is doing is trying to pretend that you have some kind of logical handle on this situation, and can simply analyze it like the McLaughlin Group or something, which is a bunch of BS. This is a horrible catastrophe. Being logical isn't going to make it any less so. As McLaughlin would say, you are WRONG! (please note: that was tongue in cheek) Bremer is not going to be able to handle this. Whether an Iraqi group is going to be seen as legitimate or not is NOT the issue! The big, obvious issue that everyone is trying to dance around, and which you REFUSE to address, is that the one thing uniting all these disparate factions of Iraqis is that they DON'T WANT a foreign power, (such as America,) occupying their nation. When those four MERCENARIES (American "contractors" in the press,) were killed, and their bodies desecrated, the Marines made a horrible mistake, due to the orders of their IDIOT commanders. They attacked the Iraqi PEOPLE. We made Joe Iraqi our enemy in that operation, and now Iraqi Civil War is the least of our worries. A far BIGGER concern is that EVERY American is seen as someone who should be killed, and not just by some "insurgents." ----------------------------------------------------------------- Here are some of the posts I've made that you've simply ignored: RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 4/8/2004; 2:55 PM This would appear to bolster my argument on the merging of Shia and Sunni peoples. I'm no expert, so perhaps the reader can make the determination: http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9231695%255E2,00.html Here is an excerpt: Marchers break through US roadblocks April 9, 2004 THOUSANDS of Sunni and Shiite Muslims forced their way through US military checkpoints Thursday to ferry food and medical supplies to the besieged Sunni bastion of Fallujah where US marines are trying to crush insurgents. Troops in armoured vehicles tried to stop the convoy of cars and pedestrians from reaching the town located 50 kilometers west of Baghdad. But US forces were overwhelmed as residents of villages west of the capital came to the convoy's assistance, hurling insults and stones at the beleaguered troops. Again, I am merely a gifted fiction writer, and by no means a logical person, so I will leave it to the reader to discern whether or not this represents, as Brian stated, "a small number of Iraqis who wish to derail efforts to establish an independent democracy rather than restoring the Baathist regime or establishing some fundamentalist Muslim state." I guess the key point is whether "thousands" is the same as "a small number." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 4/8/2004; 5:17 PM I have something else to say. Brian said: "Americans have, unfortunately, repeatedly been called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice while the rest of the world twiddles its thumbs in the face of dictators and tyrants." That sounds pretty good. Can you give me some examples of this? I think we've actually supported more dictators and tyrants than just about anybody! In fact, be careful, because if you list tyrants we "brought down," you may inadvertantly be listing tyrants who wouldn't have stayed in power so long without our support. In fact, I'm going to be bold and call your above statement RHETORIC, which rings quite hollow, and is simply a Freeper talking point. Noriega. Hmmm. Didn't we fund him, and help him get arms? Saddam. Hmmmm. Same deal as Noriega, PLUS the guys who are now running free where he used to reign have just threatened to set some Japanese on fire! Hitler. Oh wait, the Soviets actually paid a far higher price, in terms of blood and destroyed homeland, and got to him before us. I call upon you to factually back up the statement I quoted above, or concede that it sounds good, but is nowhere near the truth. Good luck! I think you may want to consider a retraction. ----------------------------------------------------------------- That's just TWO, but they're a good place to begin, before you start posting things like you did about Bush being "unable to win; counterproductive; blah blah blah." And I will add THIS: The "War on Terror" was supposed to be a war against Al Qaeda, Hamas, and other terrorist groups. Bush billed it as "a new kind of war." He spoke of freezing assets; forming coalitions; and uniting the world against anyone who would harbor terrorists. He BLEW THAT. I was 100 percent behind him, and the initial attack of Afghanistan was fine, but every single move made after that was a mistake. There WAS no "new kind of war." It was the same Cold Warrior crap, like fighting WWI with Civil War tactics. The phraseology has all been bogus. "Coalition of the willing?" What kind of two-bit crap is that, Brian? Why do you so blatantly refuse to answer the MAIN THRUST of my many posts on this thread, instead to tell me what you find "interesting," or to complain that poor Bush simply "can't win?" I think you should take your time, and really THINK about your answer, and post something that ACTUALLY IS interesting, instead of telling us what you THINK is interesting. Use those debating skills to actually TEACH me something, instead of going over unrelated world history, as if I didn't already know it. I WANT TO KNOW HOW ANY OF THIS HAS FOUGHT TERRORISM. All I've seen it do is, on the one hand, help terrorist groups such as those I've mentioned above grow stronger, and harder to find, and to actually foster State-sponsored terrorism, not only in the countries we've invaded and put into a state of chaos, but here at home, where the Right and the Left are willing to rip each others' throats out over whether Bush is God on Earth, or Kerry is a wishy washy man who can't lead, or whatever. And most importantly of all, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO NOW.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Mark Morgan on 4/24/2004; 12:10 AM Is it always enjoyable to come home and find a group of my friends arguing with each other AT FULL VOLUME. Good times. As much as I enjoy this little piece of the Permanent Floating Iraq Riot I will say what needs to be said: none of us are going to change our minds and all this is doing is depressing the holy fuck right out of me. And furthermore, ALL YOUR DAMN SYNDICATION FEEDS ARE FUNKY SO PTTTH! You know what? I'd much rather see the first chapter of Richard's newest book than read through this thread again. I honestly believe that both sides of this issue have a point. I agree with some and disagree with some and in the end I don't have a damn clue what we should do next and how to untie the knot at Gordia. I regret ever making the comment about Brian Carnell's debating skills since it's become such a hot button and I'd like it if all my friends--both Brians, Richard, even myself--could work some way to get past our differences and find something else to do with all this energy. I think that the discussion about Iraq is perhaps one of the most important discussions we can have at this time. I just don't think this thread is going to accomplish much in that respect. Internet discussion boards again and again have shown that they are unable to handle hot-button topics. It's nobody's fault; nobody in this thread is evil, or stupid, or willfully ignorant, or is an asshole. But the words sit there on the screen and we try to make meaning out of them and for some reason the written word is just waiting to be misunderstood and misinterpreted and tempers rise and the back and forth goes forth and back and soon XML IS AN EXCEPTION TO POSTEL'S LAW AND GET YOUR HANDS OFF ME YOU DAMN DIRTY APES! I just want my friends to get along again. Even if you're right and they're completely wrong. I have nanobots. I have creamed corn. This is your only warning.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Seth Dillingham on 4/24/2004; 8:02 AM On 4/24/04, Richard Davidson said: >ow, after you bring a highly opinionated piece of blather to the thread >that touts Bush's excellence in "containing" the incredibly dangerous >Libya I don't like Bush, but please don't play down the significance of Libya's change of heart. I had a very close friend on PanAm 103 that exploded over Scotland. Libya *was* a very, very dangerous country. Seth
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Carnell on 4/24/2004; 2:11 PM " I mean, it's not like this is new behavior for him; lying that is. To pick a random example, how about in 2000 when he claimed credit for a Texas Patients Bill of Rights which he vetoed?" Bush didn't veto it, he refused to sign it. Just a quick summary -- Bush vetoed a 1995 Patient Protection bill, then in 1997 the Texas legislature passed a veto-proof set of bills which Bush did sign except for the one that allowed patients to sue HMOs. That one he simply didn't sign which means it became law anyway, but without his explicit approval. Bush then later campaigned in 2000 that he'd give Americans the right to sue HMOs, just like he'd done in Texas. Or to put it it modern political parlance, Bush actually vetoed the bill before he took credit for it.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Richard Davidson on 4/25/2004; 12:08 AM Mark, I will gladly abandon this thread, and go back to doing nothing but creative writing here. But I will leave the thread with one final thought: Most of the points I made here went unanswered. The facts remain: 1. Iraq was not an Immediate threat to the US, or its neighbors 2. The fact that Saddam is gone does NOT justify our invasion 3. The war was misrepresented in terms of both why Bush's administration pushed for, and launched it, AND in terms of the ease of fighting it 4. When our commanders made the decision to punish the people of Fallujah en masse for the death of those mercenaries, America crossed a line most of us would not want to cross, if given a choice 5. The world will pay for these blunders for generations to come Those are facts, and NOT my opinion. I can respect Brian Carnell's ability to reason, or debate. What I cannot respect is post after post trying to call this a "good war." (granted, that's MY term) In his first point he asks "Why would you want to abort one of the most successful military operations in world history?" I submit that it was only successful because most of the Iraqi army blended back into the population, to fight another day, as we are finding out. Soon after that, he opines, "I mean, come on -- we are talking about a *war* here. I mean, if you want to say 500 deaths is too high for training exercises or too high for a Boy Scout convention, I could see the point, but we're talking about conquering a country roughly the size of California with a population of >20 million and with a modern military." I submit that post was a flame, and posted in an insulting manner. Can anyone disagree? It was reminiscent of Ann Coulter saying that in war "one is bound to get one's hair mussed." No one has responded to my point about Bush saying this was a "new kind of war," only to go out and fight the same exact kind of ill-advised war that dominated the 20th Century. I submit that at a site such as this, where CREATIVITY is the main emphasis that arguing the same tired points as can be found on any political message board is out of place, and I was not the person who tainted this site by doing so. Carnell's entire argument is a blight on Voices of Unreason, especially the posting of OPINION columns; complaining that Bush is "damned if he does; damned if he doesn't," and consistently trying to call the Iraq operation SUCCESSFUL, which it most certainly isn't. I submit that on a site such as this, the point is to look for new and interesting ways of approaching any given problem, and that this entire thread has been leaving a bitter taste in my mouth since that very first Carnell point that Iraq is the "most successful military operation in world history." I submit that the use of a creative writing site to justify war, by a person who does not post creative writing at said site is something I find offensive, and insulting in a hundred ways. And I will finish by saying to Seth, that Flight 103 happened in 1988, and although a horrible tragedy, does not reflect on the danger posed by Libya in the past few years, since sanctions were placed on it, and Ghaddafi was marginalized in the Arab world. I in no way wish to minimize the loss of life to innocent people in that incident, any more than I would minimize the loss of life in the 911 attacks on the US. However, I submit that the rampant killing of innocent civilians, including women and children in Iraq, and the loss of life of over 700 US Soldiers simply cannot be excused by an alleged stabilization of the world due to Libya wishing to be counted as one of the good guys, and to do so is every bit as disrespectful to the lives lost in Iraq. It saddens me that I worked as hard as I did to post good, solid arguments to this thread, and that most of them were never addressed. I feel very much failed by every person who posted to this thread. Brian Webber continuously segued into ridiculous conspiracy theories; Brian Carnell continued to deflect, ignore valid arguments and politicize valid points; Seth played the emotion card on that Libya point; and Mark invalidated all my points by simply chalking them up to loud argument. I forgive each and every one of those transgressions, but leave this thread feeling most unsatisfied by its lack of any kind of resolution. I feel every word I wrote in this post, and every other on this thread, were a complete waste of my time, energy and effort. And I will not post another word to this thread. I have said what I have to say.
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Brian Webber on 4/25/2004; 12:39 AM I should probably stick to creative writing myself. I can't write a political one without swiping from other sources, like my grandmother who sent me that thing about Fallujah. The only problem there is I can never fucking finish anything. :-(
RE: American Death Toll In Iraq Passes 500 By: Mark Morgan on 4/25/2004; 12:44 AM > [A]nd Mark invalidated all my points by simply chalking them up to loud argument. You have my utmost apologies. I can understand why you got this impression, but it was not my goal. I think you made fine points and I respect the points you make, every time. Your clear unhappiness with the way the discussion has gone is my point. We aren't doing debate well, here. I'm not sure it is possible to do a political or other hot-button debate well, online. Putting on my owner's hat, I don't think there's much in this thread to convince anybody to post creative work here. There are tons and tons of places talking about the war, and I don't think any of them are handling the debate well. It's too emotionally vested in us. I hate the damn thing; I hate that we went there and I hate that there doesn't seem a good way out and I hate my complete powerlessness to do anything about it. Perhaps it was a failure on my fault but I simply don't have any idea how this could have turned around to a more productive tenor. I saw your frustration--and Brian Carnell's, and Brian Webber's--and realized that nobody was going to say anything to anybody that would make anybody any happier about anything. Richard, I think your goal as stated was noble but I don't believe it was possible to achieve it, on this topic, on this site, in this medium. Or at least it's very, very, very hard to do. I have yet to see an online discussion board talk about the war and not leave everyone bitter and frustrated. Or at least not leave me bitter and frustrated! I think if we'd all been sitting in my living room drinking tea (since there's no coffee in my house), we would have had a fine debate. Without the rich texture of the human voice and human smile and the polite cought and the laughter and the clink of glasses and the smell of dinner cooking (I make a mean meatloaf) the world online misses most of what's important in conversation. I know I personally get very upset over things that probably weren't meant to be all that upsetting. From what I can see of online discussions, this is the way things go. Really, that's all I was trying to say before. It was just buried under a lot of frustration to see Yet Another Iraq Thread go off track. So, in conclusion, I apologize for making you feel I was dismissing you, as I was not. Has anyone seen the 'bots? Because the creamed corn has gone missing and now I'm worried. . . .
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Contact | |
 |
|