All you righties can toast to the Iraq War success. Oh...no you can't. by chrisisall

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-polya070207.htm
Quote:
The "post-invasion excess death rate/1000 of population" was 13.3 - 5.5 = 7.8 (Comparison A) or 13.3 - 4.0 = 9.3 (Comparison B). Assuming an average population of 27 million, the "post-invasion excess deaths" total (over 4 years i.e. as of February 2007) (A) 7.8 x 2,700 x 4 = 842,000 and (B) 9.3 x 2,700 x 4 = 1,004,400 i.e. ONE MILLION.

One Million.
Is that it?
Can we go home now?

Magic number Chrisisall

"Righties"? That's more partisan than I'm used to for you, Chris. Why not just "war supporters?" Not to get into too much philosopher speak, but the set of conservatives is not co-extensive with the set of war-supporters. Heck, I'd say I'm right of center (although not too much), but I'm not exactly an ardent defender of the war.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 12:13 PM

Mmm...double post-y goodness.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 12:35 PM

MALBADINLATIN

The British tried to civilize Iraq and stayed there from 1919 through 1961! The longer the Brits stayed, the more unstable the government became.

Imagine that, same thing is happening to us! The right wing machine is using the argument that if we leave, all hell will break loose and we will be in more danger. Even the lefties are buying it! Talk about thinkin were all that!

over 1,000,000 huh, it IS time to go home. It's like a relationship that's gone bad, the sooner you end it, the sooner the healing can begin.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 12:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
"Righties"? That's more partisan than I'm used to hearing from you, Chris.

Just trying to be on the edge here, all inflamatory and such...
Liberal Libertarian myself- that puts me to the right of your average leftie, don't it?

It's just with a numero that grande (1 MILL) I want to get a lot of attention to it...see if that's the number that we all feel is enough or whether we need more dead.

Hero?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 12:57 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
One Million.
Is that it?
Can we go home now?

Iraq Body Count only shows between 55,664 and 61,369. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ Looks like we got a ways to to if we can't quit until a Mil.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 1:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
It's just with a numero that grande (1 MILL) I want to get a lot of attention to it...see if that's the number that we all feel is enough or whether we need more dead.

I'd be curious what kind of timetable you think would be good. Although I am certainly no proponent of open-ended commitment, I also fear the potential consequences of an immediate and total pull-out. What say you?

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 1:59 PM

KHYRON

There's no good option, there's just bad and worse. Bad would be phased withdrawal. The other option would be worse.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 2:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
There's no good option, there's just bad and worse. Bad would be phased withdrawal. The other option would be worse.

I tend to agree here. I think that the Bush administration has the right idea: leave Iraq with a functional government and capable military and law enforcement entities. But they're not exactly getting that done, and I can't see any effective way to make it happen. So what then?

I've been cooking up a post for RWED, but here's the Cliff's notes: the 9/11 terrorists started life as Islamic mujahedin fighting against a major world power (the Soviets) in Afghanistan. They learned guerilla and light infantry tactics, terrorist methodology and rudimentary intelligence field craft. When the Soviets withdrew, they were left with an essentially ungoverned country in which they could organize and train as they pleased. They gradually radicalized (under the guidance of Bin Ladin's particular brand of Wahhabism) and started fighting elsewhere (most notably Bosnia and Chechnya). They refined their techniques and ultimately got to the point where they could execute large-scale and higly intricate operations (embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, USS Cole, the assassination of Ahmed Shah Massoud, and ultimately 9/11). In the post-9/11 era we've certainly killed and captured a number of high-level terrorists. But when we invaded Iraq (essentially kicking off an unprovoked aggressive war), there was a new round of radicalizing, and foreign fighters poured into Iraq (in a way they never did in the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan). So now we have a situation where a radicalized group of Islamic mujahedin (among others, granted) is learning to fight against a major world power (the US). Is this sounding familiar? So essentially, the people who are smart enough and tough enough to survive this war are going to be the ones who organize, equip, train and deployed the next generation of terrorists. And it's basically too late to stop that from happening. The best we can really hope for is to leave Iraq in the hands of a stable government so that at least they'll be denied one sanctuary (not that it matters, there are plenty of other places they can go).

So--not such a rosy outlook, regardless of how the Iraq war shakes out, because basically: damage done.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 2:32 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hi all,

How do we count enemy bodies in a war, anyway?

I mean, if a gunship toasts a column of vehicles, is there some guy whose job it is to sift through the charred remains, match arms and legs to torsos, and tag and number them?

If we blow up a building full of enemies, do we perform a World Trade Center style forensic examination of the remains to determine who and how many died?

That seems more methodical than a war is likely to allow.

I get the feeling it's more like, "There was probably ten or fifteen of 'em boys in that there hotel we just axed."

Or, to paraphrase a Cyberpunk role playing game book excerpt:

"Right Leg in Gutter.... Torso in Gutter... Left Leg in Gutter... Right arm in Gutter... Head in intersex... Head in Intersek... Inter... Oh, hell with it! *Boot* Head in Gutter."
-- Night City Crime Scene Investigator, filling out crime scene report.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 3:09 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Slick, "Iraq Body Count only shows between 55,664 and 61,369." For crying out loud, that metric was debunked years ago. Jeez, give it up already.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 3:22 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
One Million.
Is that it?
Can we go home now?

I thought most of the post war casualties are due to sectarian violence. It seems a little too easy to blame Bush for those. While the war most certainly affected the stability of Iraq, It's not the root cause of the sectarian strife.

The article keeps refrencing the UN's site on world population but I'm having difficulty drawing the same conclusions from the site's information that Dr. Polya does. And the zealous partisan slant of the article does not help either such as the following quotes (taken from http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-polya070207.htm).

Quote:
Three quarters of the people of Occupied Iraq and Occupied Afghanistan are Women and Children – the Bush War on Terror is in horrible reality a cowardly War on Women and Children, a War on Asian Women and Children and a War on Muslim Women and Children.

Quote:
and the carnage is largely due to gross, war criminal Occupier violation of the Geneva Conventions which demand that Occupiers do everything within their power to keep their Conquered Subjects ALIVE

Quote:
Those primarily responsible for the carnage of the Iraqi Holocaust and the Afghan Holocaust - Bush, Blair, Dr Rice (Dr Death) and their Coalition and NATO confreres such as Australia’s Howard and Canada’s Harper - should be arraigned and tried before the International Criminal Court as demanded by 2005 Literature Nobel Laureate Harold Pinter

Remember, disinformation can go both ways.

Posting to stir stuff up.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 5:21 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Slick, "Iraq Body Count only shows between 55,664 and 61,369." For crying out loud, that metric was debunked years ago. Jeez, give it up already.

Yep. We should instead trust a count in an article that begins, "It is nearly the Fourth Anniversary of the illegal Anglo-American-Australian-Coalition invasion of Iraq. What has been the economic and human cost of Bush’s Iraq War?".

Anybody with a different agenda will have a different way of figuring the economic and human cost of the war. Do you (editorial "you") just want us out of Iraq and screw the Iraqis? Do you just want Bush & Co. embarrassed? Do you want the Iraqis to have some chance at a decent life? Each scenario will lead you to fudge the figures one way or another to support your point.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 5:33 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
is there some guy whose job it is to sift through the charred remains, match arms and legs to torsos, and tag and number them?

Yes, Graves Registration, MOS 92M10.

They're the poor sodders they send out to scrape together maybe enough of you to bury, and while they don't do an exact count that I know of, if possible, on occasion they give us a quick eyeball estimate of how many of the enemy faceplanted, not to mention intel guys sifting through the wreckage for items of intelligence value.

So generally theres a fairly accurate assessment, and it's a grisly job indeed, so if you ever get to meet a 92M buy him a drink, willya ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 8:36 PM

ANTIMASON

why would we set up a 'democracy' in Iraq? our model, if we can agree that its successfull(prior to NWO corruption) WAS a republic.. and our founders understood that democracy was mob rule, plain and simple. i think the whole topic is highly suspicious in itself.. if most Americans dont even realize that we're supposed to be a republic, and not a democracy, then we should consider that maybe we are fighting a war which is superimposing (particularly liberal)socialism onto the sovereign people of Iraq. our constitution forbids these kind of foreign, preemptive entanglements, and under a republic the constitution would be inalterable; but obviously the constitution doesnt apply to everyone anymore, which is evidence enough that we are further along the road of socialism that any red blooded American of the past EVER would have tolerated(minus the last 80yrs of diception). these communist and socialist principles, which have infested both the political parties.. are being funded and implemented by our own central banks, who admittedly want a New World Order, by "conquest or consent".. in their own words

i noticed 6stringjack illuded to this in another thread, but the womens liberation movement is a good insight into the NWOs mindset, and essential intentions for Iraq. in order to break up the culture of family unity, morality, conservatism etc, the Rockefellers funded the Womens Lib movement in AMerica, in order to tax women, because before this roughly half the population was (tax)FREE.. and to take the mother out of the household as a catalyst to dismantle traditional family ethics, allowing the state to more thoroughly indoctrinate the masses, who could be put in school now at a younger age. in America, the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnagie foundations used the creation of the 'space race' to allow the federal government to infiltrate local and state schools. the Reese committee reported that they found evidence that these institutions deliberately funded socialist/communist/secular humanist idealogies throughout the curriculum

that is treasonous.. and now we're doing the same thing in Iraq, letting these corrupt forces attack their personal sovereignty, just as ours has been. so in the fog of all the media/establishment doublespeak and progaganda, this NWO agenda is progressing.. and people need to accept that its real, that human personal sovereignty is at stake the world over, which is the real war being fought(against us).. and we're letting the elite have there way, instead of waking up and seeing the crimes that are being committed, and flaunted in our faces by the establishments

there was a time in America, specifically in the south west in the 19th century, when it was lawful to have duels! people just went outside and settled disputes that way, if they chose; and the consitituion allowed it, because men were regarded as sovereign beings. this isnt the case anymore.. and now we're getting into microchips and stuff like that, people ought to know that this isnt by accident, but by design, and that goal, by which the 'end justifies the means', is a global government, microchipped population, with a class of elite ruling over the reduced mass of serfs

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 6, 2007 8:50 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Slick, how about the Lancet's figures of 660,000? Much closer to 1Mil than your 60,000. But hey, you apparently want to dicker numbers rather than talk about the topic, right?

"Anybody with a different agenda will have a different way of figuring the economic and human cost of the war. Do you (editorial "you") just want us out of Iraq and screw the Iraqis? Do you just want Bush & Co. embarrassed? Do you want the Iraqis to have some chance at a decent life? Each scenario will lead you to fudge the figures one way or another to support your point."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 4:33 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Slick, how about the Lancet's figures of 660,000? Much closer to 1Mil than your 60,000. But hey, you apparently want to dicker numbers rather than talk about the topic, right?

This topic?

Quote:
One Million.
Is that it?
Can we go home now?

Seems like discussing how widely casualty figures vary, depending on who constructs them and how, is pretty valid to this topic. The range seems to be from (a. just those who died of direct coalition action to (b. everybody who has died in the country, plus all expatriate Iraqis who have died, since the imposition of sanctions. The numbers derived from these exercises are, unfortunately, meaningless, because they've been kidnapped by true believers on all sides.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 6:44 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Yes, I know, it's a tried and true technique - confuse people with pointless non-issues and then say there is no truth anywhere.

The Lancet's figures were derived using the same techniques as those used for the tsunami, famines and other conflicts and disasters around the world. They are as valid as you will get.

So no matter if you say it's 660,000 (as of several months ago) or 1 mil it's a hell of a lot of people. At a minimum it's an order of magnitude more than your completely bogus numbers.

And that's the truth.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 6:58 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The Lancet's figures were derived using the same techniques as those used for the tsunami, famines and other conflicts and disasters around the world. They are as valid as you will get.

And the Iraq Body Count folks will say their numbers are as valid as you can get, and so will the folks who came up with the 1 million.

Quote:
So no matter if you say it's 660,000 (as of several months ago) or 1 mil it's a hell of a lot of people. At a minimum it's an order of magnitude more than your completely bogus numbers.

My point is that all the numbers are bogus.

And even if everybody, from all sides, agreed on a methodology and came up with a number they were all happy with, what then? If we agreed that as of 12:00 AM GMT today 66,213, or 632,159, or 2,341,657 people died in excess of normal mortality in Iraq, what does that mean?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 7:21 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"My point is that all the numbers ar bogus."

Yes, I get your point. And that was what my point was. To repeat, in different words: spread uncertainty and doubt, and by getting people to trust nothing you can get people to believe anything. It's a classic propaganda tactic. Do you not read my posts?

Does it matter if it was 66 or 660,000 or 660 million? I'd say it does, as would anyone with a shred of common sense, and, oh yes, integrity. If the US can go in and 'free' a country with minimal collateral damage, that's a major benefit. If the US tops all the damage ever done by Hussein, its claim to be a force for good becomes clearly untrue.

As to the Lancet numbers, they ARE the most valid you can get. Unless you are willing to throw out all other numbers achieved by the same methods - from Sudan, Ethiopia, the x-mas tsunami, and every other mass casualty number from the last couple of decades.

And that's the truth.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 9:19 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"My point is that all the numbers ar bogus."

Yes, I get your point. And that was what my point was. To repeat, in different words: spread uncertainty and doubt, and by getting people to trust nothing you can get people to believe anything. It's a classic propaganda tactic. Do you not read my posts?

Yes. We understand. Anyone who does not agree with you is just a propagandist.

Regardless of who uses what methodology to come up with what estimate, the same number of people have actually died. Quite a lot. More than anybody would like. But war isn't ping-pong. you don't stop when you get to 21. That's why Chris's original question is disingenuious - propaganda, if you will.

The war will stop when those running it declare their goals met, or when they are convinced that the goals cannot be met. Maybe the second option will happen because there are new people in power. Casualties, American or Iraqi, are just one of myriad data points in the computation of "goals met" or "goals not possible".

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 9:42 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Oh, I understood the original post to be ironic. I don't think anyone took it seriously, except perhaps you in a deliberate attempt to exonerate yourself and shift the topic yet again. (Let's point fingers anywhere but at the subject, shall we?)

But if we are debating the relative goodness of the American effort- that is the topic, right ? - the number of casualties matters. It matters if it's 6,600 or 66,000 as you claim, or 660,000 as the Lancet writes. To try to erase the topic by claiming, as you have done several time, that "... all the numbers ar bogus" is the disinformation tactic.

As to your contribution, besides FUD and derailing the discussion, If you have something of substance to contribute, I'd be surprised.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 9:49 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So anyway, to more or less get back on track - are YOU celebrating the success in Iraq ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 10:27 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Anybody wasting time on body counts is a fool.In particular, keeping score by counting the enemy's losses is dumb. Didn't we learn that lesson in Vietnam?

Body counting is a way to keep a short term score, to prove that " We had a victory today. Look how many of them we killed."

Numbers aren't at hand, but whatever the Confererate casualties were in the American Civil War, if the count had been one more, and that 1 had been John Wilkes Booth, history would be different.

As long as 1 of your enemy lives and will fight, you haven't won. Kill enough of them , and they'll get discouraged or incapable, and quit.

And speaking of the American Civil War, there were battles where the casualties were 3 to 1, 3 Yanks for every Southerner, and where the North retreated, but were turning points in the war, because the North could afford the casualties, but every life lost to the Confederacy was irreplacable.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 10:27 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 11:33 AM

ANTIMASON

the Iraq war is meaningless; ill go on record as saying that. its a material solution to a spiritual conflict, between religious and secular idealogies IMO. the west wants to impose a global secular socialist government.. and a lot of Iraqis were probably fine under their theocratic dictatorship. if indeed there was a "war on terror", the pretext to the war in Iraq, then we would be out changing the hearts and minds of people, to lead by example and prove them otherwise... instead we are fighting a potentially never ending, literal war, with insurmountable casualties, to achieve some vague sense of security that 'democracy' will solve everything. its all just rediculously transparent..

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 11:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
That's why Chris's original question is disingenuious - propaganda, if you will.

Effue, sir, my original question was designed to provoke an emotional response to the awesome loss of life associated with this war, or alert some to the fact that they HAVE no emotional response much like those who run it (and allocate funds to take care of our vets upon returning); shake the vultures out of the trees, so to speak.
BTW, hurt your neck when you hit the ground? I'll call the veterinarian.

Ingenious Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 12:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

I'd be curious what kind of timetable you think would be good. Although I am certainly no proponent of open-ended commitment, I also fear the potential consequences of an immediate and total pull-out. What say you?

I would say six months. I would also say that we should be willing to take into our country all wounded and parentless children from Iraq. I'd like to see a permanent ARMED embassey left there to assist with the transfer of the children, as well as continued medical assistance offered to the Iraqui peeps that is war-related. I would want it to be situated in an open flat area, so that the only ones to come near it must be shuttled by our vehicles, and all others would be obliterated.
I want us to be there for humanitarian assistance, and to blow away creeps that would deny that assistance to the people of Iraq. Period.
(and I know it wouldn't be quite as simple as that....)

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 12:10 PM

I'm just bummed that no one has commented on my analysis of the ultimate effect of this war (that being: training the next generation of terrorists) in my post above. Guess it wasn't as interesting as I though!

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 12:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
The best we can really hope for is to leave Iraq in the hands of a stable government so that at least they'll be denied one sanctuary (not that it matters, there are plenty of other places they can go).

So--not such a rosy outlook, regardless of how the Iraq war shakes out, because basically: damage done.

This is how I feel: human beings tend to specialize. And guys in that area of the world have specialized in getting beat down and taking revenge. Parlamentry proceedure is a strange animal to them. A stable government just isn't gonna happen until there is more general agreement amongst the populations...and this will only come after a civil war. A guy in Iraq said that this was something that had to burn itself out, and I think I agree. Unfortunately.

But your take in that post was probably the most realistic I've seen in these parts, Caus.

Propaganda-spewing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 12:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I'm just bummed that no one has commented on my analysis of the ultimate effect of this war (that being: training the next generation of terrorists) in my post above. Guess it wasn't as interesting as I though!

It was, I just type real slow....
I agree with your analysis, but I think we have a chance to turn it around some if we maintain a 'helpful' presence during their inevitable civil war, as I stated in a post above. We can't keep doing their job for them, they have to run their country.

10 wpm Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 12:18 PM

KHYRON

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
... and all others would be obliterated.

Thus making more children parentless.

Just messing with you Chris.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 12:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
if indeed there was a "war on terror", the pretext to the war in Iraq, then we would be out changing the hearts and minds of people, to lead by example and prove them otherwise... instead we are fighting a potentially never ending, literal war, with insurmountable casualties, to achieve some vague sense of security that 'democracy' will solve everything.

Well put, A.

That's how I feel Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 12:33 PM

WAFFENMAC

Well I say kill them all and let God sort them out.We all got hosed on Iraq intel.From this point forward if you harbor terrorist that have attacked us you get bombed back into the stone age .And then maybe they will get it Sadam didnt seem to have much of a problem controlling the peeps.Because he used extreme measures on them .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 12:35 PM

ANTIMASON

i guess as history records, the danger of accepting a political catch phrase like "war on terror", is that it attempts to make a distinction between criminal behavior, and crimes against the 'state', which allows them to then justify bipassing constitutional safe guards in the name of unforseen circumstances. between all the establishment rhetoric and media propoganda, the point seemed to be lost that we are in an ethical/moral conflict, if anything.. and not something requiring the immobilization of an entire military force, and a neverending 'war'. it should be obvious to most people by now that there are alternative underlying motives, which ARE likely being fullfilled successfully.. and that is their global government agenda

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 12:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
...your take in that post was probably the most realistic I've seen in these parts, Caus.

Thanks for saying.

Quote:
Parlamentry proceedure is a strange animal to them. A stable government just isn't gonna happen until there is more general agreement amongst the populations.

Actually, I've been thinking (dangerous, I know). I've heard statements like, "Arabs just can't do democracy," and they always leave me vaguely offended because it smacks of a certain racist sentiment. My response to that was always, "Well, people said the same thing about Japan." But now I'm coming around on the democracy in the Middle East thing.

I'm taking a Western Civ course, and we're currently studying the French revolution. So I read your post and it hits me: one of the conditions that allowed the French revolution to happen at all was about 100 years of intellectual ferment around the ideas of freedom and government and the role of the people in the legitimacy of the state. By the time of the revolution it had gathered so much momentum that when Louis XVI made moves that looked like disregard for the will of the people, all hell broke loose. Same deal with the American revolution: it was predicated on Rousseau's social contract theory (as well as Locke's and Hobbes' visions of government) and other enlightenment thinking. In both cases, the stage for revolution and the implementation of democratic government was set by the spread of Enlightenment ideas into virtually every corner of society such that people not only wanted a change, but felt that change was not only right but rational.

Looking at the contemporary Middle East, however, you've got to admit that there is no such foundation of thinking on which to build. Democracy is a foreign concept there not because of anything inherent to being Arab or Muslim, but because they just don't have the foundation of ideas that would really let democratic change take root and grow. They've got other categories of thought coming from other sources than the categories and sources that provide the intellectual foundation for western-style democracy. So the democracy-building effort going into the Middle East is practically doomed (from my perspective) because they're trying to build the house before they get the foundation laid. And that just won't work.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 12:42 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But if we are debating the relative goodness of the American effort- that is the topic, right ? - the number of casualties matters. It matters if it's 6,600 or 66,000 as you claim, or 660,000 as the Lancet writes. To try to erase the topic by claiming, as you have done several time, that "... all the numbers ar bogus" is the disinformation tactic.

As to your contribution, besides FUD and derailing the discussion, If you have something of substance to contribute, I'd be surprised.

Okay. Just to wind you up a bit more, I posit that a great proportion of the casualties in Iraq are not primarily attributable to the invasion/liberation/what have you. The various Baathists, Jihadists, Sunni insurgents, Shi'a death squads, etc. which have been killing most of the people since the end of the military campaign, and sabotaging the infrastructure which causes many more deaths, don't have to do so. They have free will. They could stop any time they wanted.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 12:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Just to wind you up a bit more, I posit that a great proportion of the casualties in Iraq are not primarily attributable to the invasion/liberation/what have you. The various Baathists, Jihadists, Sunni insurgents, Shi'a death squads, etc. which have been killing most of the people since the end of the military campaign, and sabotaging the infrastructure which causes many more deaths, don't have to do so. They have free will. They could stop any time they wanted.

And just to wind you up a little more, if I remember correctly, none of those people (except the Baath party) were killing anyone in the pre-invasion Saddam era. And the Baath party wasn't killing on nearly the scale we're seeing now. So the U.S. might not be the efficient cause of all those deaths (per Aristotle's four causes), but we damn sure bear some responsibility (mind you, I think that responsibility should take a right at Virginia, head north a couple hundred miles, and knock on the door of a big white house on Pennsylvania Avenue).

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 1:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
So the democracy-building effort going into the Middle East is practically doomed (from my perspective) because they're trying to build the house before they get the foundation laid. And that just won't work.

I think eventually they could have some kind of republic, but they have to get their killin' done before that.

Sorry, I just can't put it as intelligently as you can, Causal. Your above post was spot on.
I read somewhere that Buddha would never have been the Buddha we all know and love if he hadn't been well-off, and didn't have time to contemplate his navel due to poverty and lack of education...

Pony-wantin' Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 1:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
They have free will. They could stop any time they wanted.

And you could stop posting nonsense anytime you wanted to, but you don't stop either....
Why is that?

Will's cheap, but not free Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 1:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I read somewhere that Buddha would never have been the Buddha we all know and love if he hadn't been well-off, and didn't have time to contemplate his navel due to poverty and lack of education...

That's just the thing--where has democracy flourished? The west, during two periods: 4th and 3rd century BCE and 18th-21st century CE. Look at both those periods: times of relative peace and luxury in the respective areas, where people could sit back, luxuriate and philosophize; and they dreamed up a new system of government based on original ideas and systems of thought. But when times are hard and food's scarce and someone might just try to plunge a sharp piece of bronze between your ribs, there's just no time to philosophize and come up with new and novel systems of thought and government. You've got more pressing matters: getting fed and keeping safe. And if a tyrant (or a lunatic, or a zealot, or whatever) will make that happen, so be it. The Iraqis have to get through the slaughtering each other phase and get to relative stability. Then they need to get prosperous enough that some of them can sit around and think (about their own stuff or other people's). Then they have to acheive relative freedom of thought and expression so the ideas of the thinkers can get around. Then there needs to be a crisis that will propel the ideas of the thinkers into action.

I have a feeling that that is just not all going to happen in the next 12 months. And that's not being defeatist--it's being realistic.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 2:01 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
if I remember correctly, none of those people (except the Baath party) were killing anyone in the pre-invasion Saddam era.

Absolutely right. And they could have just kept on not killing people. Most of us don't kill people all the time, although we have the means to do so.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 2:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

I have a feeling that that is just not all going to happen in the next 12 months. And that's not being defeatist--it's being realistic.

12 years would be an optimistic guess.

But not impossible Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 3:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

Absolutely right. And they could have just kept on not killing people. Most of us don't kill people all the time, although we have the means to do so.

Anger Management, Geezer?
Your weapons ARE locked up for when you have those fits of rage, right?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 4:25 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Iraq and the rest of the Middle East were Balkanized by colonialists al la Africa and, in Roman times, the Balkans. That's why you have a geographically contiguous group of Kurds running through Turkey, Iraq, Iran and on into Afghanistan. And so on for other groups. The lines were drawn - intentionally I might add - to maximize disunity.

The US fought it's own regional war a mere 140 years ago, give or take, 90 years after becoming a country.

And somehow we castigate the 'ragheads' for 'their' cultural deficiencies in the face of a problem they didn't create. Do I detect just a hint of a trace of racism?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 5:47 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Iraq and the rest of the Middle East were Balkanized by colonialists al la Africa and, in Roman times, the Balkans. That's why you have a geographically contiguous group of Kurds running through Turkey, Iraq, Iran and on into Afghanistan. And so on for other groups. The lines were drawn - intentionally I might add - to maximize disunity.

And these "colonialists" were Americans? I don't think so.

Quote:
The US fought it's own regional war a mere 140 years ago, give or take, 90 years after becoming a country.

So civil war is inevitable? Then it's obviously not our fault.

Quote:
And somehow we castigate the 'ragheads' for 'their' cultural deficiencies in the face of a problem they didn't create. Do I detect just a hint of a trace of racism?

Who's castigating the Iraqis as a whole? Most Iraqis just want to have a life. A few want to run everything exactly their way, and consider purposefully killing non-combatants and blowing up necessary infrastructure the means to that end. Just like anyone else, the "let's blow up stuff" folks are responsible for their own actions. If they hadn't started blowing stuff up, we'd be out of Iraq now and this discussion wouldn't be happening. I consider purposefully killing non-combatants and blowing up necessary infrastructure so you can run things exactly your own way to be bad things, regardless of the race, color, or creed of the people who do it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 6:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Absolutely right. And they could have just kept on not killing people. Most of us don't kill people all the time, although we have the means to do so.

So we each bear 100% responsibility for the things that we do, and no one else can be blamed for the things that a free individual does? OK, you could be right about that. If that's the case, the U.S. bears 100% responsibility for creating the conditions in which these people have the freedom to act. Before: not able to kill with impugnity. After: able to kill with impugnity. So while you may be right that they are responsible for their acts of killing, we are certainly responsible for our creating conditions that made that a live option. This is why people get mad when repeat criminal offenders are let out of prison: the justice system may not be responsible for the convict's crime, but it's damned sure responsible for his being on the street. Same sort of thing here. U.S. responsible for their acts? No. U.S. responsible for creating the conditions that make those acts possible? Bet your bippy. You're just throwing out a red herring by insisting that they could have refrained from killing. The point is: we created an nearly lawless environment in which they have freedom of action. We created that environment.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

Vote Firefly! http://www.richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 6:12 PM