| |
| 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? |