The List (of our dead): How Many? How Long?

[subgenius]

http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor2.html
Read their names and stories. Each one is a devasting loss to many.
Is it too much to ask, how many American lives are worth whatever we are trying to acheive? How long do we stay? Answers to these questions are refused.
For the life of me I'm having a hard time understanding why we are there now, and why we need to "rebuild Iraq." What about rebuiling America?
And why we don't want to "saddle the Iraqi people with debt: (Colin Powell)", but its OK to saddle the American people with debt.
Are we any safer from terrorists by continuing to be there?
Yes, we just reduced our threat alert from orange, but did that have anything to do with Iraq?
How many, how long? Pick a number, any number.

[a_unique_person]

Booorrrriiiinnnngggg.

Let me know when the number gets to 50,000, so we can build them a nice memorial, or man gets to Mars.

[a_unique_person]

PS.

Don't Iraqi and Allied deaths count?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
PS.

Don't Iraqi and Allied deaths count?
None of them seem to.

[Tricky]

Well, Captain Nemo, I really don't mourn too much over the American dead. They were soldiers. Each of them took this job, knowing that they might be thrust into battle at the whim of a vengeful, misguided president. Each of them went into that battle armed and armored. To quote that eminent philosopher, Super Chicken, "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it."

It is the civilians of Iraq who deserve a memorial. They did nothing more than to try to live the best way they could in an oppressive situation. For that, they had missiles rained on their heads and are now being slaughtered by resistance fighters who can only use primative, untargeted explosives to attack the overwhelmingly powerful invaders. They are the victims. Soldiers are volunteers.

(And if you're wondering about the "Captain Nemo" comment, he was a Sub(marine) Genius).

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by subgenius
http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor2.html

483 dead.

Is it too much to ask, how many American lives are worth whatever we are trying to acheive? How long do we stay? Answers to these questions are refused.

Here (http://www.rootsweb.com/~necivwar/ww2/honorlst.html) is the list of dead for the State of Nebraska for World War Two. 2976 dead. Just for Nebraska. Each one a devastating loss to many.

How many lives were worth whatever we were trying to achieve in that war? How long should we have stayed?

[shemp]

How many? One is too many.

How long? Until the next election.

[Evolver]

Originally posted by shemp
How many? One is too many.

How long? Until the next election.

For the country's sake, I hope you're right.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Luke T.


483 dead.



Here (http://www.rootsweb.com/~necivwar/ww2/honorlst.html) is the list of dead for the State of Nebraska for World War Two. 2976 dead. Just for Nebraska. Each one a devastating loss to many.

How many lives were worth whatever we were trying to achieve in that war? How long should we have stayed?

I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that the two wars are comparable in goals to be achieved.
I'm sure you wouldn't think 2976 dead from Nebraska alone would be justified in the current action.
Well maybe I'm not so sure. You'll probably give me a well reasoned discourse in response.

P.S. How many? How long? (A ballpark estimate will suffice.)

[subgenius]

"Its always the old to lead us to the war,
Always the young to fall.
Now look at all we've won with a saber and a gun,
Tell me was it worth it all."
---Phil Ochs

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by subgenius


I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that the two wars are comparable in goals to be achieved.
I'm sure you wouldn't think 2976 dead from Nebraska alone would be justified in the current action.
Well maybe I'm not so sure. You'll probably give me a well reasoned discourse in response.

P.S. How many? How long? (A ballpark estimate will suffice.)

I was just trying to bring what this topic is really all about into the light of day. This topic is just another "The War In Iraq Is Wrong" protest topic. So it goes without saying that if a person thinks the war is wrong, then every death is a waste/tragedy/crime against humanity, but you are saying it anyway.

A cheap way to use their deaths, I must say.

[Luke T.]

I am glad I am retired from the military. I would not like war protestors saying what I am doing is wrong, and if I was killed, then have them use my death for their cause.

[Troll]

As few as possible and in as short a time as possible. But then I think that was the goal to begin with. Can you show me something where anyone has said, "Okay we can lose so many in this period of time and it'll be cool"?

By the way, my answer covers loss on both sides, well, military loss on our side and civilian loss on the other side. I'm not too concerned with the number of deaths of the people trying to kill my people. I guess I'm just cold and calloused that way.;)

[demon]

And why exactly are they over there?
And how many Americans STILL think Saddam had something to do with 9/11?
And how many think WMD have been found?

You just know the US needs to spend more on education and less on the military...

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I was just trying to bring what this topic is really all about into the light of day. This topic is just another "The War In Iraq Is Wrong" protest topic. So it goes without saying that if a person thinks the war is wrong, then every death is a waste/tragedy/crime against humanity, but you are saying it anyway.

A cheap way to use their deaths, I must say.

Actually its not (just another war in Iraq is Wrong topic) my friend, I am seriously just trying to define the limits of our involvement. For purposes of this exercise, I am assuming that the war is not wrong. Even when something is justified, it seems that there still are limits to what we will sacrifice, no?
Hope that clarifies.

[subgenius]

And regarding the deaths of others, I am focusing on our dead because it would be all too easy to sacrifice others for our cause.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Troll
As few as possible and in as short a time as possible. But then I think that was the goal to begin with. Can you show me something where anyone has said, "Okay we can lose so many in this period of time and it'll be cool"?



On the contrary, I just want to hear "If we lose this amount of people it will not be cool."
Or, if we can't achieve our goals in this amount of time we're out of there.
Again a ballpark estimate is OK.
To use extreme examples I think we might agree that 50,000 and ten years may be a limit in light of the objective.

[Monketey Ghost]

I'm at a complete loss to define what helping to pay for our latest war has brought me in return.

I just don't care about making Iraqis happy. Subgenius has asked, at the risk of being accused of using American deaths cheaply, very simple, reasonable questions:

How long? What cost?

These answers don't seem to be forthcoming from an administration that quite obviously twisted the truth to take us there, and I want to know.

[Troll]

Originally posted by subgenius


On the contrary, I just want to hear "If we lose this amount of people it will not be cool."
Or, if we can't achieve our goals in this amount of time we're out of there.
Again a ballpark estimate is OK.
To use extreme examples I think we might agree that 50,000 and ten years may be a limit in light of the objective.

Well anytime we lose anyone it's uncool, whether in peace or war. Why do you never voice your sadness over peacetime deaths? I'm not saying you don't feel anything about them, just that you appear to be far less vocal about it.

And if we leave before we finish the job then the time that has been spent has been wasted. So I wouldn't put a limit on time. This isn't a football game where you have a certain amount of time to achieve a goal. I wouldn't want someone building my house to be more concerned with the timeline than the quality of the finished product.

So as much time as it takes, in as fast a manner as we can do and still do the job right.

And as few as possible. Right now that would mean roguhly 500 as we can't bring them back, so we want to focus on not losing any more and if we do, we should try to keep the loss at a minimum.

So what were the numbers and the time frame you would have given as acceptable in WWII, WWI, Kosovo and the many other places? Surely you have to be comparing this to something in order to determine acceptable time and numbers.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by No Answers
I'm at a complete loss to define what helping to pay for our latest war has brought me in return.

Ah. What's in it for me? You are an honest man.

That's what this is all about. Was Hussein a threat to us? The answer to that question will lead to the answer to subgenius' question.

I just don't care about making Iraqis happy. Subgenius has asked, at the risk of being accused of using American deaths cheaply, very simple, reasonable questions:

How long? What cost?

These answers don't seem to be forthcoming from an administration that quite obviously twisted the truth to take us there, and I want to know.

How many American lives would have been lost down the road if we left Hussein in power? That is the number that will answer how many American lives are worth losing now.

[Troll]

Originally posted by subgenius
And regarding the deaths of others, I am focusing on our dead because it would be all too easy to sacrifice others for our cause.

yes it would be easy to sacrifice others. But then it would appear as though the objective is not to do so by way of civilians, thus making the job slightly harder than bombing the crap out of cities like everyone was doing in WWII where the entire country was the enemy

[Julia]

I don't have any answers.

I am a simple person who at times has difficulty articulating what I feel.

Recently, I located my High School's web page. I was eager to see what everyone had been up to. I was shocked. I didn't realize how many had died in Vietam. They were just kids.

The whole thing just makes me sad. It goes on and on . . .

[subgenius]

"And if we leave before we finish the job then the time that has been spent has been wasted."

"Unclear on the concept of sunk costs ____
Example: We spend millions developing a water-powered pogo stick, we can't stop investing now or it will all be wasted. "
(courtesy of Scott Adams)

Troll: I never express my sadness over peacetime deaths? Less vocal about them? I really don't understand why you said such a thing. Are you talking about highway deaths, cancer deaths, mass murders at the hands of animals like Saddam, or what?
I mourn for the senseless loss of every single life. Please make note of that. I think we all would lynch me if I started a thread on the various classes of peacetime deaths. Maybe you can direct me to the ones you started to give voice to your sadness. I will certainly add my posts in support.

"How many American lives would have been lost down the road if we left Hussein in power? That is the number that will answer how many American lives are worth losing now."
300 million? Or maybe you can define the number that would have been lost. Again, a ballpark figure will do.

I really am not trying to make any larger point here other than some kind of elemental cost benefit analysis.
I guess I could have asked additionally how much money are we willing to spend as well.
If the answer to all three is "whatever it takes", I certainly can understand the luminous clarity of your position.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by subgenius
"How many American lives would have been lost down the road if we left Hussein in power? That is the number that will answer how many American lives are worth losing now."
300 million? Or maybe you can define the number that would have been lost. Again, a ballpark figure will do.


Well, since the U.S. population is 290 million, 300 million U.S. deaths would be quite a feat. :D

Determining how many American lives would be lost over time if Hussein remained in power is anybody's guess. Your guess determines the number worth losing now for you. My guess determines the number worth losing now for me. That is my only point.

There is certainly a parallel to be made between Iraq and World War Two when you start talking about casualties in this light. We felt the Axis powers were a threat to America and that many American lives would be lost down the road if we did nothing. We didn't feel that threat was so great, though, until 12/7/41. Up until then, there was a large peace movement, with Chuck Lindbergh as one of its spokesmen. And despite current opinions to the contrary, not even FDR was in a great hurry to take on the Axis.

Germany didn't attack us on 12/7, but we would have declared war on them along with Japan if Hitler hadn't done us the favor of doing it first. I don't think anybody would have been too worried or demanding evidence that Germany was behind 12/7 if we had declared war on Germany before they did us.

My guess for how many would be lost with Hussein in power? Way more than 500. If he invaded Kuwait again, which he almost did in 1994, there would also be far more civilian deaths.

Who knows what sort of havoc Hussein would have wreaked, but I am confident havoc he would wreak.

[demon]

More deaths...it`s okay, it`s only Iraqis.

Last Updated: Saturday, 10 January, 2004, 18:52 GMT

'Six killed' in Iraq jobs protest

British forces have faced less unrest in southern Iraq
British troops have been involved in a violent confrontation with protesters in the southern Iraqi town of Amarah.
Six people are reported to have been killed when troops and Iraqi police opened fire on crowds calling for jobs.

At least one is said to have been shot by a British soldier after throwing grenades at an armoured vehicle.

Amarah, a Shia Muslim town under UK control, has seen much less unrest than Sunni Muslim areas to the north around the capital Baghdad.

Earlier, US soldiers shot and killed two Iraqi police officers after intervening in an apparent family feud in the northern city of Kirkuk.

Angry crowd

Eyewitnesses in Amarah say the crowd had been demonstrating against the recently elected governor and the lack of jobs in the region.

They began throwing stones and explosive devices at the Iraqi police and British forces.

Coalition officials said one man had came forward and thrown two grenades and, as he was trying to throw a third, he was shot by a British soldier.

They believed the man was dead, but they did not know for certain because the body was taken off by the crowd.

An eyewitness said there were big bangs and shockwaves, but it was confused and not clear whether it was Iraqi police or protestors who began firing first.

The hospital in Amarah has reported six people killed and a spokesman said 11 had been injured.

On Tuesday, four Iraqi army veterans were wounded in the main southern city of Basra when police opened fire during a demonstration about unpaid stipends.

Family feud

A military spokeswoman in Kirkuk said the Iraqi policemen who were killed there did not identify themselves to an American patrol, despite repeated requests and the firing of warning shots.

Tensions have been rising in Kirkuk
Soldiers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade had been sent to the Rahima neighbourhood to respond to reports on Friday that two families were fighting, the spokeswoman said.

When they arrived, they saw two men firing at a house, the spokesman said, and as they approached the two tried to flee.

"The soldiers pursued them, shouting and firing warning shots, but the men did not respond. They killed one outright and another died before reaching hospital," she said.

Last month, three Iraqi policemen were killed and two wounded in Kirkuk when US soldiers mistook them for bandit

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3386075.stm
__________________________________________________ ___________________________
Luke T:
"Who knows what sort of havoc Hussein would have wreaked, but I am confident havoc he would wreak."

Ahem, I think we know what havoc Saddam was capable of when he was supported by the very people that changed their minds about him when he decided he wouldn`t play their game anymore.
How many times do people need reminded that history didn`t begin on 9/11! It`s pathetic.

[subgenius]

"How many American lives would have been lost down the road if we left Hussein in power? That is the number that will answer how many American lives are worth losing now."
So your limit on lives is based on a guess. I'm asking you to guess, because otherwise there is no limit.
Do you agree that there should be a limit?
And there seems to be something unsettling about your equation to begin with.
If he had actually killed a certain number, would then that be the limit you would set on our dead? Why should those numbers be equal?
And just so that I understand your equation to begin with, if he realistically might have killed 10,000 Americans, then we should sacrifice another 10,000 Americans? Seems like suicide in self-defense.
I apologize but I can't quite wrap my tiny brain around that logic.
Perhaps you can explain it so that even someone as stupid as me can understand it.

[Troll]

Originally posted by subgenius
"And if we leave before we finish the job then the time that has been spent has been wasted."

"Unclear on the concept of sunk costs ____
Example: We spend millions developing a water-powered pogo stick, we can't stop investing now or it will all be wasted. "
(courtesy of Scott Adams)

Troll: I never express my sadness over peacetime deaths? Less vocal about them? I really don't understand why you said such a thing. Are you talking about highway deaths, cancer deaths, mass murders at the hands of animals like Saddam, or what?
I mourn for the senseless loss of every single life. Please make note of that. I think we all would lynch me if I started a thread on the various classes of peacetime deaths. Maybe you can direct me to the ones you started to give voice to your sadness. I will certainly add my posts in support.


I really am not trying to make any larger point here other than some kind of elemental cost benefit analysis.
I guess I could have asked additionally how much money are we willing to spend as well.
If the answer to all three is "whatever it takes", I certainly can understand the luminous clarity of your position.


well I was refering to the deaths of our military personel during peacetime training. All deaths of all people would be a little too much for the bandwidth of the board to handle.

But now we have men and women doing what they trained to do and as is unfortunately to be expected given the circumstances. We're good, but we're not that damned good as to avoid any deaths. But since you're voicing concern over the men and women of the military I felt it should only be justifiable that you voice said concern over their deaths when they die during training for such operations that they now find themselves involved in. You have not voiced it. May have felt it, but never voiced it here in the time I've been here and several hundred more than the Iraq war total so far have died while training for such an event.

You want a cost/benefit analysis? Well, as far as human life and cost thereof is concerned this is one of the cheapest wars ever fought. It shows that the training has paid off greatly.

How much money? Given the whole global trade and market scheme of things I'd have to say the financial investment now will pay off in the long run as it opens the door to more trade with a country that was under UN sanctions and limited in it's ability to trade. I'd say the world as a whole has more to gain financially, which may be why the US is asking for some investment from others that may desire in sharing in that gain.

Now maybe not you, but someone is bound to abide by the law of averages here and ask about why US, Australian, British, Polish, Spanish........, come to think of it, it would be assinine if anyone asked why the US troops are alone in giving their life for this cause, but someone in an earlier thread did say they would feel more comfortable if the troop numbers were more split via additional countries sending in troops, but all that would mean is a difference in distribution of coalition troops, it doesn't mean fewer would have died fighting for this particular cause.

I fought, and could have died, in the first Gulf War. Lucky for me I was able to come back alive and deal with the now, ex-wife, leaving me. But I'm also one that felt, at the time of his serving, that we failed to irradicate the key issue, which was a guy that liked killing people and taking things from others. Yes I could have died, I had enough opportunities with incoming artillery and friendly fire. But I was proud of what I did, as were many I served with, including a few who did die. And if you were to have asked me if I wanted to be home instead I would have answered yes. Who the hell wouldn't rather be home and getting laid as opposed to getting bombed? But if you wanted to pull me out of the game before we could finish it, I'd have to say I'd have wanted to slap your silly butt all over the planet. People can and often do take pride in their chosen line of work, even if the job often sucks. Don't belittle their choice and their sacrifice by saying it's all for nothing.

[Troll]

Originally posted by subgenius
"How many American lives would have been lost down the road if we left Hussein in power? That is the number that will answer how many American lives are worth losing now."
So your limit on lives is based on a guess. I'm asking you to guess, because otherwise there is no limit.
Do you agree that there should be a limit?
And there seems to be something unsettling about your equation to begin with.
If he had actually killed a certain number, would then that be the limit you would set on our dead? Why should those numbers be equal?
And just so that I understand your equation to begin with, if he realistically might have killed 10,000 Americans, then we should sacrifice another 10,000 Americans? Seems like suicide in self-defense.
I apologize but I can't quite wrap my tiny brain around that logic.
Perhaps you can explain it so that even someone as stupid as me can understand it.

At least the 500 or so that have lost their lives already but less than the total that have volunteered to serve. That's the number you want.

[corplinx]

I heard some conservative on the radio the other day espousing the casualty count and saying it was amazing that there were so few casualties (especially since some foes of the plan thought there would be thousands lost just taking Baghdad).

However, he is misleading. With the trauma technology and procedures we have nowadays, we can keep a soldier alive as long as he has a lifesign. So instead of high death counts we have a nice pool of wounded people, some of whom have traumatic brain injuries and missing limbs.

I think the wounded count needs to be taken more seriously than the death count if you want to ask one of those "how many more" questions.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I am glad I am retired from the military. I would not like war protestors saying what I am doing is wrong, and if I was killed, then have them use my death for their cause.

Indeed, so am I Luke. :(

Originally posted by Tricky
Well, Captain Nemo, I really don't mourn too much over the American dead. They were soldiers. Each of them took this job, knowing that they might be thrust into battle at the whim of a vengeful, misguided president. Each of them went into that battle armed and armored. To quote that eminent philosopher, Super Chicken, "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it."

It is the civilians of Iraq who deserve a memorial. They did nothing more than to try to live the best way they could in an oppressive situation. For that, they had missiles rained on their heads and are now being slaughtered by resistance fighters who can only use primative, untargeted explosives to attack the overwhelmingly powerful invaders. They are the victims. Soldiers are volunteers.


It's amazing to me how a person like Tricky can care so much for civilian lives, yet be so callous at the loss of a soldier. Soldiers, Tricky, are men and women who have volunteered to put themselves in danger for your sake. If you cut them, do they not bleed?

Now before you huffily sputter an indignant "My Sake??!!" I'll answer you. Yes, if you are an American citizen they are there for your sake, for our collective sakes. Soldiers come to the aid of their country all the time, not just war time. They fill sandbags during floods, they provide food and shelter after hurricanes. They come to the aid of sinking vessels, they perform search and rescue, and yes, they have even guarded our ports and airports during emergencies. Knowing you as I do, I can confidently say that for you to look upon their deaths with such disdain is below you. Any innocent death is a tragedy, and the reality is that there are tragedies big and small every single day. There is no axiom that holds the death of one human to be any less tragic than that of another, no matter what clothing that person happened to have had on at the time of his death.

People such as you look at a human being in a uniform and see only the uniform. You dislike the government, so you hate the uniform. It's okay when the uniform dies...hey, they were volunteering to be shrub's flunkies after all right? I mean, wasn't that the point of your little comment? You and SG then use these dead "uniforms" as numbers to bolster your claim that they died in vain. Was it not enough to protest them every day? Must you now use even their untimely deaths against them?
:mad:
In reality, people who think, know that they did not die in vain as long as Iraq has a chance to become the Arab world's first real democracy. As long as some, any good comes from this deployment. Who are you to attempt to invalidate their very real sacrifice in order to bolster your own biased political perspective? They were human beings much as you. SG, and I are. They lived and breathed and touched the lives of their loved ones no less than do you. Most of them died doing what they thought would make this world a better place. Who are you to say that they did not?

Most of us here like to banter about politics as if we know better than those who are in charge. But the reality is that neither the conservatives, nor the liberals have a real clue whether their perspective is the correct one. Perspective Now there's a word that means alot in this forum. Place yourself in that uniform Tricky. I'm not saying that you have to believe GWB's every word. I'm not saying that your soul must stir at sound of the national anthem, nor that your pride must grow at the sight of the stars and stripes. It's just you, say ate the age of 18. A kid trying to find his way in the world. Maybe you're from a small town in Arkansas, or a housing project in Chicago. Just looking for a way out, and perhaps a tad bit of adventure in your life.

And now you're dead in Iraq, or Afghanistan....and as if that's not bad enough, the anti-establishment, indolent, and hipster children of the upper middle class (the same ones who drove the cool cars in high school, and never worried about having enough money for college) are using your death in order to justify their accusations that your mission was meaningless. Amazingly, the same people who would most likely have mourned you and tried to justify your life had you stayed in the projects and been a crack-head.

These people Tricky,...and I do mean people have taken jobs in the military for many reasons. They are not all patriots. I'd say most of them are pragmatists. (I know I was) Homeland security, and hence the military, are the fastest growing sectors of this economy and likely will be for some time to come. They are not the sons of the rich. They are not the lazy willing to live off government handouts. They are just people who for a vast variety of reasons have chosen to put in a few years of their precious lives in uniform.

Lives that you so inexplicably hold so cheaply Tricky. You should be ashamed of yourself.

-z

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Troll


At least the 500 or so that have lost their lives already but less than the total that have volunteered to serve. That's the number you want.
Again I apologize for my slowness. Are you saying we should not be willing to sacrifice the total number of people who volunteered to serve?
Again its not a trick question, c'mon give me any ballpark number you want.
Should there be a limit (whatever it is)?

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by subgenius
"Its always the old to lead us to the war,
Always the young to fall.
Now look at all we've won with a saber and a gun,
Tell me was it worth it all."
---Phil Ochs

If any wonder why we died
Tell them, because our fathers lied
-Rudyard Kipling.

[shemp]

As for "how long?": This will all end after the next election.

1) Bush is reelected. He no longer needs to continue the George W. Bush Reelection War, and brings them all home.

2) A Democrat is elected and brings them all home.
As for "how many?": At the present rate of deaths, we can estimate another 400-450 U.S. deaths will occur.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by subgenius
"How many American lives would have been lost down the road if we left Hussein in power? That is the number that will answer how many American lives are worth losing now."
So your limit on lives is based on a guess. I'm asking you to guess, because otherwise there is no limit.
Do you agree that there should be a limit?
And there seems to be something unsettling about your equation to begin with.
If he had actually killed a certain number, would then that be the limit you would set on our dead? Why should those numbers be equal?
And just so that I understand your equation to begin with, if he realistically might have killed 10,000 Americans, then we should sacrifice another 10,000 Americans? Seems like suicide in self-defense.
I apologize but I can't quite wrap my tiny brain around that logic.
Perhaps you can explain it so that even someone as stupid as me can understand it.

We supposedly attacked Iraq because Hussein was a threat to the United States, right? Well, what kind of threat? Buying up all the birthday candles on the planet so we couldn't have any? Nope.

Obviously, it was felt he presented a danger in terms of lives not only to us, but to his neighbors. Mostly to his neighbors, who we would then have to rush in to help defend, and lose American lives in the process. If he had WMD, the losses to his neighbors had the potential to be very great, and possibly to us, too. If he was sponsoring terrorism, then any deaths caused by his sponsees must be factored in. A couple planeloads of American civilians (edit: or 50,000 residents killed by a sabotaged nuclear power plant) is more than what we have lost so far.

"And just so that I understand your equation to begin with, if he realistically might have killed 10,000 Americans, then we should sacrifice another 10,000 Americans? Seems like suicide in self-defense."

Huh?

If he might have killed 10,000 Americans, then if we lose more than that in a preventive measure, then the cost was too high. I don't know how you intepreted anything I said to mean we should make sure we lose the same amount. Less is better.

[Troll]

Originally posted by subgenius

Again I apologize for my slowness. Are you saying we should not be willing to sacrifice the total number of people who volunteered to serve?
Again its not a trick question, c'mon give me any ballpark number you want.
Should there be a limit (whatever it is)?

I'm never willing to sacrifice each and every single person at my disposal as such a feat would equate to none being able to see the fruits of their labor. So, please allow me to have at least one man or woman remain to recall the selfless sacrifice made by his or her fellow warriors so that they may ensure the lesson, the struggle, the sacrifice, the willingness to give all is not forgotten.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by subgenius
"How many American lives would have been lost down the road if we left Hussein in power? That is the number that will answer how many American lives are worth losing now."
So your limit on lives is based on a guess. I'm asking you to guess, because otherwise there is no limit.
Do you agree that there should be a limit?
And there seems to be something unsettling about your equation to begin with.
If he had actually killed a certain number, would then that be the limit you would set on our dead? Why should those numbers be equal?
And just so that I understand your equation to begin with, if he realistically might have killed 10,000 Americans, then we should sacrifice another 10,000 Americans? Seems like suicide in self-defense.
I apologize but I can't quite wrap my tiny brain around that logic.
Perhaps you can explain it so that even someone as stupid as me can understand it.

You are attempting to do a cost/benefit analysis without the ability to know either the costs or the benefits! Really SG, do you work for the government??

The fact is that we are talking of geo-politics. It is a subject of discussion, not a scientifically verifiable object with fixed value. You will never come up with a magic number, this is not an exercise in mathematics.

What it is is a military objective. The country decides, for good or bad reasons, to go to war. War is an act of last resort. The only quantifiable objective of war is victory. Yet even victory is many times defined by others according to their political bias.

For instance, even if the US pulls out of Iraq after installing a stable government, those who were against the war can define it as a loss because the number of dead were too high, or the stable government is not yet an elected one...etc...etc...ad nausium. Perhaps GWB pulls out the Army right now causing chaos, and lawlessness...GWB could say, "Well we beat Saddam's army and removed him from power." Again, perspective rears it's ugly head.

How many dead? We could have lost ten times, ten times as many people yet still have scored a victory....or we could have lost none at all, turned tail and called off the invasion, emboldened Saddam, the Ba'athists, and the terrorists and lost our war before it ever really began.

What of the consequences SG? Had we forgone taking the war to the terrorists and tyrants what then? In a world given over to our enemies, how long do you suppose Tom Ridge and his "orange alerts" could save us? .....save you??
:confused:

-z

[Troll]

And yes we have wounded. Someone insanely mentioned 9,000 wounded.

As of december 18, 2003 the counts are as follows

Killed as a result of hostile action 314

Killed as a result of non-hostile action 147

Non-mortal wounds 2,246

Number of people facing a good chance of freedom from being one of the over 300,000 dead under the previous regime roughly 24,000,000.

So few sacrifing all for so many. In fact, fewer than almost any other conflict. No loss is acceptable in so much as it can be written off. But no loss for the cause of a free people can be considered anything less than heroic.

Sure it'd be better if all there was to it was a risk, but risks have consequences at times.

And as for my numbers? I get them not from media outlets, not from groups wanting to prove a point but from the guys that have to inform the loved ones of their dead, wounded or missing freinds and families.

http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/casualty/OIF-Total.pdf

[Troll]

In no way, shape or form am I trying to state that you concern is unwelcomed, Subgenius. I just want you to think ahead and realize that maybe the wording or the reasoning behind it isn't what those that you're concerned about would want to see used on their behalf.

You are concerned about the loss of life and I, even though it may have appeared to be so in previous posts, in no way condemn you for those feelings. If I was not clear before, I apologize. I also do not intend to belittle those who have not served that voice concern.

But from the perspective of those that have served and a friend of some that have died for a cause, I simply ask that you take into consideration a possiblity of a different mindset amongst them from yourself and others and accept that many died proudly doing what they felt was right. Though to be honest, the goal was to make the other guy do it.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by rikzilla

It's amazing to me how a person like Tricky can care so much for civilian lives, yet be so callous at the loss of a soldier. Soldiers, Tricky, are men and women who have volunteered to put themselves in danger for your sake. If you cut them, do they not bleed?Okay, Rik. You are my pal, so I will be as gentle as possible with you. Yes they bleed. They volunteered to bleed. I do not denigrate their service, but they are warriors, and warriors are supposed to bleed. Citizans are not.
Originally posted by rikzilla
Now before you huffily sputter an indignant "My Sake??!!" I'll answer you. Yes, if you are an American citizen they are there for your sake, for our collective sakes. Soldiers come to the aid of their country all the time, not just war time. They fill sandbags during floods, they provide food and shelter after hurricanes. They come to the aid of sinking vessels, they perform search and rescue, and yes, they have even guarded our ports and airports during emergencies. Knowing you as I do, I can confidently say that for you to look upon their deaths with such disdain is below you. Any innocent death is a tragedy, and the reality is that there are tragedies big and small every single day. There is no axiom that holds the death of one human to be any less tragic than that of another, no matter what clothing that person happened to have had on at the time of his death.
Me? Huffy? I prefer Schwinn.

But you will not get any argument out of me that we need the military. I have a brother who retired from the Air Force. I have argued with Shanek that we need to keep income tax because we have to support the military. Don't preach to me about what the military has done and is doing for our country. I know.

But remember my main point. They chose to do so. There is no draft. Every soldier is a volunteer. And I salute them, and all the good they do even in peacetime. I am happy to help pay their saleries. But the death of a warrior is less tragic than the death of a non-combatant. Certainly they both leave behind loved ones, but one chose to do so and the other did not. Surely even a prehistoric reptile like you can see the difference.

Originally posted by rikzilla
People such as you look at a human being in a uniform and see only the uniform. You dislike the government, so you hate the uniform. It's okay when the uniform dies...hey, they were volunteering to be shrub's flunkies after all right? I mean, wasn't that the point of your little comment? You and SG then use these dead "uniforms" as numbers to bolster your claim that they died in vain. Was it not enough to protest them every day? Must you now use even their untimely deaths against them?
I don't know who the hell you think you are addressing here, Rik. I am a big fan of the government and of soldiers. I am not so crazy about this particular war (which is killing good soldiers for bad reasons) or our current president, but do not mistake my liberal politics for a lack of patriotism. If anything, I care more about the soldiers than you, since you seem to not care if the cause for which they die is a good one.

Originally posted by rikzilla
Most of us here like to banter about politics as if we know better than those who are in charge. But the reality is that neither the conservatives, nor the liberals have a real clue whether their perspective is the correct one. Perspective Now there's a word that means alot in this forum. Place yourself in that uniform Tricky. I'm not saying that you have to believe GWB's every word. I'm not saying that your soul must stir at sound of the national anthem, nor that your pride must grow at the sight of the stars and stripes. It's just you, say ate the age of 18. A kid trying to find his way in the world. Maybe you're from a small town in Arkansas, or a housing project in Chicago. Just looking for a way out, and perhaps a tad bit of adventure in your life.
Nice emotional plea, but extremely biased. The sad stories of how Americans joined the military to find a better life is no different than the sad stories of Iraqis who were trying to have some kind of life. But the naked truth remains. The soldiers volunteered. They were well armed and well armored. My patriotism is high (hell, I'm probably one of the few people who knows all the verses to the national anthem), but not so high as that it makes me callous as to the suffering of others besides my fellow citizens.

Originally posted by rikzilla
And now you're dead in Iraq, or Afghanistan....and as if that's not bad enough, the anti-establishment, indolent, and hipster children of the upper middle class (the same ones who drove the cool cars in high school, and never worried about having enough money for college) are using your death in order to justify their accusations that your mission was meaningless. Amazingly, the same people who would most likely have mourned you and tried to justify your life had you stayed in the projects and been a crack-head.
This is simple demonization at it's worst, Rik, and I am dismayed to see such drivel coming from you. The soldiers came from many walks of life, not just poor families. The people who oppose the war are not just drug addicts and hippies. You would be offended if anyone made such straw men about your position. The worst one is that you seem to think that those who use war deaths to argue against the war are somehow less respectful of the dead than you. No. They are more respectful. They wish the deaths hadn't happened for such poor reasons. You, on the other hand, are probably overjoyed that they died looking for WMDs. (That is an obvious straw man and I don't really mean it, but it is placed there to illustrate your own blanket condemnation and demonization of those who disagree with you.)

Originally posted by rikzilla
These people Tricky,...and I do mean people have taken jobs in the military for many reasons. They are not all patriots. I'd say most of them are pragmatists. (I know I was) Homeland security, and hence the military, are the fastest growing sectors of this economy and likely will be for some time to come. They are not the sons of the rich. They are not the lazy willing to live off government handouts. They are just people who for a vast variety of reasons have chosen to put in a few years of their precious lives in uniform.

Lives that you so inexplicably hold so cheaply Tricky. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I stand firmly by what I said and I am not ashamed of myself. I am ashamed of some of my fellow Americans who care nothing about lives of people who are not Americans. And I am saddened that you would stoop to this sort of jingoism. But I still like you. I know your heart is in the right place. Unfortunately, your brain seems to have migrated in a posterior direction. And I hope they will both be home soon. The soldiers and your brain.

[subgenius]

I am having a hard time understanding the problem with knowing one's limits. I doubt that you, the military, or anyone embarks on a task and doesn't say to themselves "This is as much of my resources that I will devote to the task. Beyond that the price is too high."
Otherwise its like not setting your limit when bidding at an auction. You'll pay too much.
I doubt that any soldier has a problem with that concept.
I don't think I'm making myself clear.

[rikzilla]

Nice try Tricky,

You can't turn this around quite that easily though. By your logic the death of anyone wearing a uniform magically is transformed to ....aw crap...can't type now.

Carolina and St. Loius are putting on the best post season overtime game I have ever seen.....

...that, and this topic blows...it REALLY does blow.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Ya know some of you people want to make me puke, little twit asses who's only experience of war is duke nukem. If I could I would reach thru the screen and slap you silly. Typical armchair generals who haven't experienced any conflict outside of what color your new Honda should be. The people most opposed to war are the people who have experienced it first hand ( like Colin Powell ) not some suburban quasi right wing spoiled spawn of the people who have given the last final measure of thier devotion to country. Do you think caskets and a folded flag is an even trade of for the life of some Mothers son? Is a child mauled by cluster bombs justifiable as "collateral damage " In an effort to stop terrorism?

The people in the service of thier country do thier duty as sworn, they follow orders. The fact is that the orders come from a corrupt lying ,greedy , hateful entity that we haven't seen since Nixon. That there are people who on examination of the preponderance of evidence which points to lies and obsfucation by the people that sent our sons and daughters to death and dismemberment ignore that fact in order to support thier myopic , insular view of the world according to George II makes me despondent.

[Troll]

Originally posted by subgenius
I am having a hard time understanding the problem with knowing one's limits. I doubt that you, the military, or anyone embarks on a task and doesn't say to themselves "This is as much of my resources that I will devote to the task. Beyond that the price is too high."
Otherwise its like not setting your limit when bidding at an auction. You'll pay too much.
I doubt that any soldier has a problem with that concept.
I don't think I'm making myself clear.

You aren't.

But that's out of sheer ignorance on your part.

Most of us feel we are there to be ready to do what is asked of us and do the best we can to obtain that goal.

Why would you set a limit on that? What would you say about the high school football player that set a limit as to what he would do to win? It's okay that you stopped caring because you hurt one of the other teams players? so now you can just throw the game and not give a damn?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by subgenius
On the contrary, I just want to hear "If we lose this amount of people it will not be cool."
Or, if we can't achieve our goals in this amount of time we're out of there.
Again a ballpark estimate is OK.
To use extreme examples I think we might agree that 50,000 and ten years may be a limit in light of the objective.

Well, one thing to consider is what possible projections were before we went in. People talked about possibly many thousands of casualties in the invasion, and Bush decided to go ahead. So I would guess that this administration thinks that the whole endeavor would still be worth it at a few thousand lives, meaning our losses haven't been too high yet. And I'm not sure I disagree. As for the time table, perhaps you haven't been paying attention, but we should expect to start scaling back our military presence in a year or two.

But there's another fallacy you're falling for. This is a war, it's not a day at the tracks. You figure out the risks, you decide whether the probable losses are worth it, and then you commit to action. But once we're in there, there isn't some magic number of losses beyond which we should just completely drop the whole effort. That's a pretty good way to ensure your own defeat. I'm not saying that we should commit troops regardless of losses if things go wrong, but it's stupid to say if they just kill this many of us we'll give in. And quite seriously, our losses HAVE been low so far, and hopefully will remain low. When losses get to high, you change your tactics, possibly start scaling back, but what you DON'T do is simply through up your hands and say "I give up".

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Troll


You aren't.

But that's out of sheer ignorance on your part.

Most of us feel we are there to be ready to do what is asked of us and do the best we can to obtain that goal.

Why would you set a limit on that? What would you say about the high school football player that set a limit as to what he would do to win? It's okay that you stopped caring because you hurt one of the other teams players? so now you can just throw the game and not give a damn?
Try and grasp this concept: if the objective is minor (and by the way, I'm not saying our objectives in Iraq are minor) you don't expend all your resources trying to achieve it. You don't bid $100,000 on a $10 item.
If we want to depose Manuel Noriega, but it would cost 50,000 lives, under your scenario anything less would be "throwing the game."
High school football players do set limits on what they would do to win.
The inablility to concede a reasonable point weakens your position.
Under your position rebuilding Iraq, even after Saddam has been captured is worth losing any amount of lives.
I understand your position, you have made it clear. Any objective is worth expending all your resources.
I don't think you understand mine. You have not restated it in a fashion that is close to it.

[Ion]

In another thread, I posted this on January 8:
Originally posted by Ion

...
For example, today, I read in the San Diego Union Tribune, under 'Team hunting Iraqi weapons taken off duty':

"...The 61-page study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a non partisan research institution...criticizes President Bush and top officials for systematically misrepresenting the threats...what the study shows is that this war wasn't necessary..."

(hint: look at how much U.S. money was taken from the U.S. economy, look at how many people were murdered, when "...this war wasn't necessary...")
...

The Carnegie study is here:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040108/wl_nm/iraq_usa_weapons_dc_2

and shows that for the reasons stated by Bush, "...this war wasn't necessary..." also when adding from other news the fact that Bush supports a dictator similar to Hussein (Iraq) in Uzbekistan.

Now, there are also reasons that are not stated by Bush, namely decline of world's oil production and Bush's conquest of Middle East's oil from Iraq.

All in all, for reasons that are stated by Bush and for reasons that are not stated by Bush, to me and to most of the world's population the war in Iraq is not worth one single human killed or maimed (whether non-American life or American life, it doesn't matter), while Bush took -by lying without shame- money from the U.S. consumer economy during an economic recession in order to finance his orgy.

[subgenius]

And to be clearer: this thread is not about whether the action was justified, (once again let's assume that it is) although some want to make it that to avoid the tough question.
Its about whether or not there is any limit on what we will pay, in money, and lives, to achieve our stated objectives.
I think its just plain stupid to not pick a figure(even if only in your head), yes its a difficult thing, it requires thinking, and say we will pay this much, and no more. (Obviously you may not wish to communicate this figure to the other side.)
There is a limit for everyone, although some may not wish to admit it.
Just because you want a piece of dirt doesn't mean you should pay any price for it.
Those arguing with this do in fact have a limit, but just won't bother to define it. This alone leads to paying too much.

[Tesserat]

I tried this topic a couple of times. The last one was
What's your limit? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=29192)

I think the question boiled down to "What are you willing to pay, in the blood of Americans, for the freedom of Iraq?"

Lots of discussion, but very few numbers.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Tesserat
I tried this topic a couple of times. The last one was
What's your limit? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=29192)

I think the question boiled down to "What are you willing to pay, in the blood of Americans, for the freedom of Iraq?"

Lots of discussion, but very few numbers.
And the issue should be much more quantifiable now.

[Ed]

Originally posted by subgenius
And to be clearer: this thread is not about whether the action was justified, (once again let's assume that it is) although some want to make it that to avoid the tough question.


But what is the justification?

If it is to remove WMD from a nut, then we might say some thousands. If it is simply to topple a nut, you have me cuz I would not have gone in in the first place.

If, however, this is the first real battle in a fight to the death between cultures, I think that the liability is unlimited. If you believe that Islam is the blood enemy of the west then we are in it for the long haul.

Without some framework, the original question is emotional and meaningless.

[demon]

Troll:
"Most of us feel we are there to be ready to do what is asked of us and do the best we can to obtain that goal."

Glad you agree with your President.

"Bring `em on"

[ceptimus]

I guess the USA administration is satisfied that the number of USA deaths so far is reasonably low.

The objective of the war was to secure future oil supplies for the USA. The USA does not want a stable Arab coalition or cartel controling the supply of oil. There will most likely be future USA invasions of other oil producing countries, Iran, Libia, Saudi Arabia etc., to allow the USA to maintain its profligate oil consumption.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Ed


But what is the justification?

If it is to remove WMD from a nut, then we might say some thousands. If it is simply to topple a nut, you have me cuz I would not have gone in in the first place.

If, however, this is the first real battle in a fight to the death between cultures, I think that the liability is unlimited. If you believe that Islam is the blood enemy of the west then we are in it for the long haul.

Without some framework, the original question is emotional and meaningless.
Let's assume its to achieve the goals as stated by the administration.
You still have to have a limit on what you will pay or the costs outweigh the benefit.
What's the sense in gaining something if you pay more than its worth? I don't know why that concept is so hard to accept. Its difficult to put a value on it, but that you must do.
Do you go to the car dealership and give the guy a blank check?
Its far more respectful to the soldier to say "We don't just consider you cannon fodder and worthless."
If you are willing to let the bodies pile up without limit, then what are they worth?

[Troll]

Originally posted by demon
Troll:
"Most of us feel we are there to be ready to do what is asked of us and do the best we can to obtain that goal."

Glad you agree with your President.

"Bring `em on"

It has nothig to do with agreeing with any particular president. It has to do with taking on the job, knowing the job description and doing the job to the best of your ability. No. That doesn't mean being some mindless robot, but no one serves without knowing they may be sent somewhere they may personally disagree with. And if anyone is serving under the assumption of anything different, then let us hope they return safely and call it quits after their first tour.

[Troll]

Originally posted by subgenius

Let's assume its to achieve the goals as stated by the administration.
You still have to have a limit on what you will pay or the costs outweigh the benefit.
What's the sense in gaining something if you pay more than its worth? I don't know why that concept is so hard to accept. Its difficult to put a value on it, but that you must do.
Do you go to the car dealership and give the guy a blank check?
Its far more respectful to the soldier to say "We don't just consider you cannon fodder and worthless."
If you are willing to let the bodies pile up without limit, then what are they worth?

But you haven't placed a worth on the objective, so it is left open to interpretation as is cost/benefit.

I never said you expend all, as you previously stated, but you either expend what it takes or you don't get the job done.

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by subgenius

...If you are willing to let the bodies pile up without limit, then what are they worth?

You can't handle the truth... pick up a rifle and go stand a post... phone calls and foot-lockers...

Man, don't even bother trying to ask. You don't understand or respect the soldiers! They're the only people who know what honor means... you pointing out that this war was a lousy idea is disrespectful... soldiers like Presidents who send them off to die, regardless of the cause. That's the incredibly honorable inner truth of the duty-bound soldier.

Isn't the motto of the Marines "Happy to die for any stupid cause you come up with!"

[Ed]

Originally posted by subgenius

Let's assume its to achieve the goals as stated by the administration.
You still have to have a limit on what you will pay or the costs outweigh the benefit.
What's the sense in gaining something if you pay more than its worth? I don't know why that concept is so hard to accept. Its difficult to put a value on it, but that you must do.
Do you go to the car dealership and give the guy a blank check?
Its far more respectful to the soldier to say "We don't just consider you cannon fodder and worthless."
If you are willing to let the bodies pile up without limit, then what are they worth?

Then it is a WMD thingie. Thousands.

But this misses the point, I think. The question that is not trivial is whether this is the first battle that the Neocons have been clamoring for. If it is, the liability will be unlimited.

[Troll]

Originally posted by No Answers



Isn't the motto of the Marines "Happy to die for any stupid cause you come up with!"

No. It's more like "My enemy is willing to die for his cause, I'm here to assist"

[subgenius]

500
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040117_523.html
Now that we have liberated Iraq, and caught Saddam, what is the specific goal, how will we know when we've achieved it, and how much is it worth?
What is the downside to us in leaving as fast as we can?
What is the cost of that downside relative to what we are paying now?

[Frank Newgent]

Likely that Iraq will end up partioned. The Shiite south and Kurdish north is where the oil is anyhow. The Sunnis will have no choice but to negotiate with them.

Arrange for the export of Kurdish oil with generous commission through Turkey and, likewise, the export of Shiite oil with generous commission through Saudi Arabia.

There will have been around 666 US servicemen and women killed when this plan is finalized. That ought to scare everyone.

Catch the entire story on ABC's This Week with Frank Newgent special pre-election coverage coming in late October.

[subgenius]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Seeking to avert an exodus of part-time soldiers, the chief of the U.S. Army Reserve on Tuesday faulted the Army's treatment of reservists and proposed to give them a firmer notion of when they may be plucked from civilian life for active duty.

The Army has been stretched thin by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and has relied heavily on part-time Army Reserve soldiers, as well the Army National Guard.

Army Reserve soldiers have complained about getting very little notice before being summoned to active duty, repeated mobilizations, and equipment shortfalls.

Lt. Gen. James Helmly said changes are needed to prevent a "crisis" in retaining these soldiers in the all-volunteer U.S. military. There is concern within the Army that thousands of reservists will leave the military as soon as they are given the chance, undermining U.S. defense readiness.

"We have not, in the Army Reserve, applied the positive leadership necessary both in terms of how we treat people but also in our personnel practices and procedures to entice them to feel wanted, respected, admired," Helmly told reporters at the Pentagon.

Helmly said the Army Reserve needs to get the message across to reserve soldiers that "we value your service and we're not going to run this like a doggone flesh farm."
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/282619|top|01-20-2004::18:48|reuters.html

"Flesh farm".
He said it, not me.
A vivid update of "cannon fodder."

[subgenius]

rikzilla:
"You are attempting to do a cost/benefit analysis without the ability to know either the costs or the benefits! Really SG, do you work for the government?? "

rik: are you saying that no one in the administration has made any detemination of what the potential benefits are? Let's use their figures if they have, or your figures if you have.
How many are worth that? Give me a number. Or else its a bottomless pit.

[fishbob]

But you haven't placed a worth on the objective, so it is left open to interpretation as is cost/benefit. It is hard to place a cost on the objective when we don't know what the objective really is.

WMDs - couldn't be, there were none.
Regime change - why now, why by invasion?
Free the Iraqis - get real.

[subgenius]

Well, well they have put a price on it, but they just don't want to tell you until after the election.

Now you wouldn't vote for a pig in a poke would you?

___________
Noticeably absent from next year's request is money for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. White House budget director Joshua Bolten estimated that another $50 billion would be needed to cover those costs next year. The White House expects to cover the war costs with supplemental funds after next fall's elections.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/7858468.htm

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Tricky
Well, Captain Nemo, I really don't mourn too much over the American dead. They were soldiers. Each of them took this job, knowing that they might be thrust into battle at the whim of a vengeful, misguided president. Each of them went into that battle armed and armored. To quote that eminent philosopher, Super Chicken, "You knew the job was dangerous when you took it."

It is the civilians of Iraq who deserve a memorial. They did nothing more than to try to live the best way they could in an oppressive situation. For that, they had missiles rained on their heads and are now being slaughtered by resistance fighters who can only use primative, untargeted explosives to attack the overwhelmingly powerful invaders. They are the victims. Soldiers are volunteers.

(And if you're wondering about the "Captain Nemo" comment, he was a Sub(marine) Genius).

As to your first paragraph: I agree completely.

As to your second paragraph: IMO, I can think of no better "memorial" than to see an Iraq ruled by all the people of that country, or their chosen representatives, in one form or another.

After the commitment we've made in money and lives, we owe them nothing less...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by shemp
How many? One is too many.

How long? Until the next election.

As Homer Simpson once said to Lisa: "You're living in a world of make-believe!!"

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
How many, how long? Pick a number, any number.

Impossible to quantify in advance.

Like obscenity, I'll know it when I see it.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Impossible to quantify in advance.

Like obscenity, I'll know it when I see it.
Sounds like a blank check.
Wanna buy a car?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius

Sounds like a blank check.
Wanna buy a car?

This "apples and oranges" response just illustrates your ignorance and naivete concerning military armed conflict and its role in modern geopolitics and diplomacy.

A good stating place:

http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/BOOKS/Porter.gif


or


The Nature of Modern Warfare (http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/healthcarewelfareorsocialsecurity/naturewarfare.html)


or


Warfare Theory (http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/review/1996/autumn/wft-a96.htm)

[Bottle or the Gun]

As a former member of the US MIlitary I don't really have a problem with going to war as long as it's for the right reason, and not because it's some b*llsh*t political chess game.

My feelings on it:
1- Q: Is America safer with Hussein out of power?
A: Yes.

2- Q: Do I believe for one second what the US administration has said about Iraq?
A: Hell, no.

3- Q: Why is it wrong to give a loaded gun to a chimpanzee.
A: Primitivism coupled with technological advancement is dangerous.


4- Q: Why should we stop or control other countries with the capability to create weapons of mass destruction?
A: See #3.

-I think alot of what the US is doing now in the mid-east is about stability. It's too late to stop North Korea from waving a nuke around, but when it comes right down to it, they are more controllable than the small cell of fanatics with connections.

-I think it is naive to say that the governments of any of those mid-east nations are in charge. I think the real power is in the many, many terrorist groups that their governments seem to coddle, ignore or work with for the sake of their position or internal security.

- I am not able to think of any way to get our enemies to back off other than diplomacy and violence. There has to be a way other than marching in the troops.

- If diplomacy fails, then the problem and the threat should be dealt with in the only way the terrorists will allow, and do it without screwing around. If it costs 1 billion dollars so the missile takes out an armory and not the orphanage next door, so be it.

-The Saddams, the Bin Ladens and that ilk should be terrified of stepping out of their cave for fear of being painted with a targeting laser. They should worry the cell phone they are about to use has a layer of C-4 in it, just waiting for the signal to go off. They should lose sleep, worried that their closest associate is going to betray them. Their resources of cash should not be available. If some wealthy clown is supporting them, he should be taken care of. Period. If he has oil so we are hesitant about about shutting him down? Then take his oil.

-I do not believe for one moment that the US does not have the resources, if we really wanted, to repair what is broken. Our border and immigration system is a seive so cheap labor can come through. Also bad guys. I lived in California for years. People driving up from Mexico do not need car insurance, because if required for entry, that would drive up the cost of labor (Good luck collecting if you get hit by someone from Mexico in the US, but you better have cash if you are in an accident on the other side of the border, because you will not be allowed to leave until you pay). See also: Giving Illegal Immigrants The Vote.

- I am upset that Visas for some of the 911 Hijackers were approved for renewal months after the attack. (See B*llsh*t Chessgame above)

- I worry that soon I won't be able to drive from Maryland to Virginia without a passport.

Anyway, any thoughts?

[subgenius]

Kodiak,
Admittedly my ignorance knows no bounds, but apparently the administration has put a price tag on it, they just don't want to reveal it right now.

[Kodiak]

I may be misunderstanding you, and if I am, forgive me and feel free to set me straight, but it seems to me that you are saying two opposing things simultaneously.

First you say this:


Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
As a former member of the US MIlitary I don't really have a problem with going to war as long as it's for the right reason, and not because it's some b*llsh*t political chess game.


And then you say this (I underlined the key words and phrases):


Originally posted by Bottle or the Gun
-I think alot of what the US is doing now in the mid-east is about stability. It's too late to stop North Korea from waving a nuke around, but when it comes right down to it, they are more controllable than the small cell of fanatics with connections.

-I think it is naive to say that the governments of any of those mid-east nations are in charge. I think the real power is in the many, many terrorist groups that their governments seem to coddle, ignore or work with for the sake of their position or internal security.

- I am not able to think of any way to get our enemies to back off other than diplomacy and violence. There has to be a way other than marching in the troops.

- If diplomacy fails, then the problem and the threat should be dealt with in the only way the terrorists will allow, and do it without screwing around. If it costs 1 billion dollars so the missile takes out an armory and not the orphanage next door, so be it.

[demon]

Bottle or the Gun:
"The Saddams, the Bin Ladens and that ilk should be terrified of stepping out of their cave for fear of being painted with a targeting laser."

Priceless.

Just how did you feel about Saddam in the 80`s? Bin Laden come to that?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
Kodiak,
Admittedly my ignorance knows no bounds, but apparently the administration has put a price tag on it, they just don't want to reveal it right now.

Hopefully, acknowledgement of your ignorance will be followed by you remedying the situation.

The assessment of risks and rewards has of course been addressed by this administration. Unfortunately, nobody can provide the specifics you naively/ignorantly expect.


BUT...


Military planners and political leaders must consider a "worse case" risk, namely the possibility of 100% losses. Since the invasion was given the go-ahead, it is reasonable to assume one of three things:

1) 100% losses are an acceptable risk.

2) 100% losses are extremely unlikely and that very light losses are instead likely.

3) Both.



Also, as far as an "exit strategy" is concerned, specific arbitrary dates are almost never used. Instead, exit strategies are almost always determined by the accomplishment of specific mission goals, but occasionally by other unique factors (weather, time of day, time of year, moon-phase, supply capability, etc...)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by demon
Priceless.

Just how did you feel about Saddam in the 80`s? Bin Laden come to that?

Indeed.

Some people are able to change to respond to changing conditions! Why don't you try it?

[Kodiak]

*bump*

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by demon
Bottle or the Gun:
"The Saddams, the Bin Ladens and that ilk should be terrified of stepping out of their cave for fear of being painted with a targeting laser."

Priceless.

Just how did you feel about Saddam in the 80`s? Bin Laden come to that?

The same. Playing one despot or fanatic against the other, "the enemy of my enemy is still my enemy" isn't how we should do things. We supported Saddam and Noriega as long as it suited us, then we take him out. Ridiculous. Oliver North, way back during the Reagen-era, and I paraphrase, said that Bin Laden was the greatest threat America faced. Every administration since then had an opportunity to resolve the threat, and did not.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I may be misunderstanding you, and if I am, forgive me and feel free to set me straight, but it seems to me that you are saying two opposing things simultaneously.


I'll stand by my statement. If I have to, if the reason is valid, then okay, I'll go to war. An over-simplified example would be Japan as opposed to Vietnam. The popular perception is that there was a valid cause to fight Japan because of Pearl Harbor. The reasons for US involvement in Vietnam are not so clear to me. Using those as a scale, I would rather protect against Japanese aggression than go to Vietnam to stymie communism, help Thailand, protect the Bearing Straight shipping lanes or whatever reason that conflict was for.

I prefer diplomacy, who doesn't? In anything, violence is a last resort. Perhaps better than diplomacy or war is never to play those damn chessgames in the first place. Supporting Hussein because he is against an Ayatollah, just to take him down later seems insane. In the 1st Gulf conflict, US soldiers had to fight against weapons we sold or arranged to have sold to him. I read that the US has been in involved in the mid-east since at least the 1930's, helping, over-throwing, etc. Are events there finally coming to a head?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Hopefully, acknowledgement of your ignorance will be followed by you remedying the situation.

The assessment of risks and rewards has of course been addressed by this administration. Unfortunately, nobody can provide the specifics you naively/ignorantly expect.


I have repeatedly said I don't need specifics, that a ballpark estimate would do.
You're getting a little deep for me.
The thread is about what price you would put on achieving our objectives.
Some have said you can't put a price on it.
The Administration has, at least in terms of dollars. (And length of time bears some relationship to dollars.)
Just asking everyone here to do the same, if they can.
Kind of simple actually. You can agree with the administration's figure, or say you would pay more or less.

Eg. "I think our goals there are worth 150 billion dollars and 2,500 lives."
I just think that to say our goals are worth any amount of money, lives and time is unwise.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius

I have repeatedly said I don't need specifics, that a ballpark estimate would do.
You're getting a little deep for me.
The thread is about what price you would put on achieving our objectives.
Some have said you can't put a price on it.
The Administration has, at least in terms of dollars. (And length of time bears some relationship to dollars.)
Just asking everyone here to do the same, if they can.
Kind of simple actually. You can agree with the administration's figure, or say you would pay more or less.

Eg. "I think our goals there are worth 150 billion dollars and 2,500 lives."
I just think that to say our goals are worth any amount of money, lives and time is unwise.

Other than the exit strategy put forth by the President(a viable government chosen democratically by the people of Iraq), I am unaware that anyone had put a time OR casualty limit on our presence in Iraq. The money requested by the President is simply his estimate of the funds necessary at this time to continue the mission. The price Bush is willing to pay for success in Iraq is probably much higher.

How this for "ballpark":

More money, lives and time than we've currently invested thus far, but less than "any" amount of money, lives and time. Like you said, that would indeed be unwise.

[subgenius]

Names of the Dead

Published: February 13, 2004


The Department of Defense has identified 536 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the death of the following American Wednesday:

MARIANO, Jude C., 39, Master Sgt., Navy; Vallejo, Calif., 615th Air Mobility Operations Squadron.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/13/international/middleeast/13LIST.html?pagewanted=all

[subgenius]

Ah, finally a definitive answer to "How Long?"

"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s chief spokesman, Larry Di Rita, told reporters at the Pentagon that there is a “fairly confident belief” that most Iraqis accept the U.S. view that American troops will be needed over the long haul to ensure a stable transition to democracy."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4312686/

How long is the long haul? As long as a haul is long.

(1500/1=my answer to my questions)

[subgenius]

Oooh, just noticed that artful quote "fairly confident belief" that "most".
Wonder what that really adds up to.

Add "long haul" and you get some pretty solid statements.

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Tricky
Well, Captain Nemo, I really don't mourn too much over the American dead. They were soldiers

I felt a little like that about the British dead.

It felt a bit different when the brother of the person who sits next to me at work was among them.

[Kodiak]

As of February 20th, 2004 (from MSNBC)...



Killed since May 1st:

U.S. - 397
U.K. - 26
Other - 38
Total - 461


Total Killed in Iraq:

U.S. - 543
U.K. - 58
Other - 38
Total - 639

Never forget them, or their sacrifice...

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Kodiak
As of February 20th, 2004 (from MSNBC)...



Killed since May 1st:

U.S. - 397
U.K. - 26
Other - 38
Total - 461


Total Killed in Iraq:

U.S. - 543
U.K. - 58
Other - 38
Total - 639

Never forget them, or their sacrifice...

That is certainly one of my points. We completely agree on that.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius


That is certainly one of my points. We completely agree on that.

Just because you're a liberal doesn't mean that you're an unfeeling monster!!

We all know you have feelings... :p


:D

[subgenius]

By the way my true political orientation can be termed neoretrolibconanarchoradtradprogmod, and don't you forget it.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
By the way my true political orientation can be termed neoretrolibconanarchoradtradprogmod, and don't you forget it.





"Monster" is so much easier! :dl:

[subgenius]

...
Niederer was one of about 600 demonstrators Sunday who marched to the gates of the base to protest the war and complain about restricted access to installations, like Dover, where the bodies of those killed in Iraq are returned.
...
The media have been barred from covering the arrival of remains at Dover, which has the military's largest mortuary, since 1991. Before the start of the Iraq war last March, the Pentagon expanded the no-coverage rule to its installations worldwide.

Critics contend the Bush administration did this to keep pictures of flag-draped coffins being unloaded from planes from possibly undermining public support for the war. Pentagon officials say the decision was made out of concern for families who lost a relative in the war.

But some families have complained that they have also been denied access and deprived of the chance to witness a solemn and formal military homecoming ceremony.
...
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8186714.htm

Are they traitors and "useful idiots" too, or do they have a right to free speech?
Are they not entitled to respectful consideration?
They are protesting not just the war.

[subgenius]

Well here's one hint to the answer to "How Long?"

“The plan is for the camps to last five to 10 years,” said Col. Lou Marich, commander of the 1st AD engineers. “They will last longer if we take care of them.”
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=19192&archive=true

Got a problem with that?

[subgenius]

Oh, what the heck, let's not forget the wounded:

Keep in mind that many of the casualties listed are missing arms, legs, hands, feet, eyes etc. These numbers are D.O.D numbers. Not mine! On November 14th, a report released by the Pentagon states that U.S. casualties from the Iraq war have topped 9,000 .
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031113-074311-4128r

http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Wnd.aspx

[subgenius]

No Surprise That Media Briefing on Iraq Costs Was Cancelled

(March 18, 2004) -- While President George W. Bush, his war cabinet and their consultants are making the rounds this week in their current Iraq war anniversary blitz, pushing their message on the benefits of the conflict, a long-awaited media briefing by the army on the cost part was cancelled.
...
For me, the army's suicide data and the tragic homecoming narratives of some Iraq war soldiers are beginning to impugn the administration's apparent cost-benefit ratio. Postponing the release of the Army's long awaited suicide report because it conflicts with the administration's anniversary "take" on the war may alter perception but it doesn't change the indicators that suggest thousands of OIF soldiers could be suffering from the burden of that war.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000465506

If you keep that pig in the poke it doesn't seem like such a bad buy.

[subgenius]

Nightline tonight finally stated the issue as I did at the outset of this thread.
Unless we define the mission we can't know what it is worth.

No one here, but me, has been willing to put a limit on what they are willing to spend, or have others sacrifice. I have been specific. I have asked only for ballpark estimates which no one here, or in the White House, has been willing to make.

We will therefore pay more than whatever the mission is worth.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
Nightline tonight finally stated the issue as I did at the outset of this thread.


Ooooh...."Nightline"



Thread over, man...thread over... :(



:nope:

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Kodiak



Ooooh...."Nightline"



Thread over, man...thread over... :(



:nope:

I will always cherish the initial misconception I had about you.

Please excuse my use of language, rather than smilies to express my thoughts.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius


I will always cherish the initial misconception I had about you.

Please excuse my use of language, rather than smilies to express my thoughts.

How dare you attempt to pique my interest? ;)

C'mon...what was your initial misconception? Please?

Pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease...

[subgenius]

US death toll in Iraq hits 600: Pentagon
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040402165111.wtqkp20b.html

[subgenius]

NEWSDESK

04 Apr 2004 17:27:21 GMT
More US troops may be needed in Iraq - key senator

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WASHINGTON, April 4 (Reuters) - The United States may need to bolster its troop presence in Iraq and extend the deadline for transfer to Iraqi rule, amid an insurgency that could lead to civil war, a leading Republican lawmaker said on Sunday.

"It may be that we do need more troops ... because I think we have to have security (in Iraq)," U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican and head of the Senate foreign relations committee, said on ABC television's "This Week."
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N04331833.htm

"Some folks are born made to wave the flag,
ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail To The Chief",
oh, they point the cannon at you, Lord,

It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no senator's son,
It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no fortunate one, no,

Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don't they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman come to the door,
Lord, the house look a like a rummage sale, yes,

It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no millionaire's son.
It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no fortunate one, no.

Yeh, some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
ooh, they send you down to war, Lord,
And when you ask them, how much should we give,
oh, they only answer, more, more, more, yoh,

It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no military son,
It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no fortunate one,"

---John Fogerty

[subgenius]

NAJAF, Iraq (AP) - Supporters of an anti-American cleric rioted in four Iraqi cities Sunday, killing eight U.S. troops and one Salvadoran soldier in the worst unrest since the spasm of looting and arson immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

The U.S. military on Sunday reported two Marines were killed in a separate "enemy action" in Anbar province, raising the toll of American service members killed in Iraq to at least 610.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040404/D81O8E581.html

[subgenius]

Part of the myopia of the Iraq is hunky-dory crowd was not to recognize -- and in this case I'm talking really about political spinners in Washington, the policy types across the political spectrum understand this -- that the key ethno-factional groupings in the country have been hanging back and strengthening themselves to have it out with each other after we depart. As I noted earlier with the Shia, they were in no rush: why not let us kill a lot of their Sunni opponents while they prepare for the real battles -- either political or paramilitary -- after we leave?

It will be critical to see, in the coming days, whether this is one spasm of violence (organized by the young firebrand Muqtada Al-Sadr in response to being shut out of the political process by the Americans) which can be brought under control or whether this is the first day of a new phase of violence or even uprising.

The reality is that the US doesn't have anywhere enough soldiers in the country to control the place if there's this sort of widespread violence on an on-going basis. That could quickly lead to a vicious cycle which will put a virtual end to reconstruction and prevent the coming into being of any entity for us to hand the place off to. In Jefferson's ugly phrase, we may end up holding the wolf by the ears.

That's my brief take -- I'm drowning in several deadlines, so no more for now. For a more lengthy and far more knowledgable overview see Juan Cole's running coverage. ( http://www.juancole.com/2004_04_01_juancole_archive.html#10810994644980719 8 )

-- Josh Marshall

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_04_04.php#002799

[subgenius]

"Intolerable Casualties

Saturday, April 10, 2004; Page A13


Lawrence F. Kaplan [op-ed, April 3] says a survey shows that the American public will "tolerate" 29,853 fatalities among our troops in Iraq, and that it is our leaders who get happy feet when casualty rates rise, not average Americans. His conclusion is false because his premises are false.
..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A565-2004Apr9.html


Well at least someone put a number on it.

[subgenius]

Here's the original article citing the 1999 survey.

"In 1999 a massive opinion poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates for the Triangle Institute for Security Studies asked various groups what level of casualties they would be willing to tolerate in the event of war with Iraq. The survey found that military leaders consistently show less tolerance for casualties than civilian leaders, who in turn show less tolerance for casualties than the public at large. (In Iraq, the survey showed the public would tolerate, as a mean figure, 29,853 American fatalities; civilian elites would tolerate 19,045; and their military counterparts would tolerate 6,016.) "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46699-2004Apr2.html

See the problem is what I've been trying to illustrate in this thread. The cost you are willing to pay depends on the goal you are trying to acheive.

Now that the goal is murkier (and we've acheived two: assuring that there are no WMDs, and the ouster of Saddam), the figure cited in the survey is certainly subject to adjustment.

Interesting, however, for illustrating that the military, presumably people who have seen the horrors of war, are less tolerant of casualties.

[Mr Manifesto]

I believe this thread is in need of updating.

[Hexxenhammer]

The answer for a Wisconsin family: 1, and no longer.

Saving Private Witmer (http://www.startribune.com/stories/1762/4716676.html)

[subgenius]

I'm crying:

"The family said that in lieu of flowers, contributions could be made to an orphanage in Baghdad operated by The Sister's of Charity, which made such an impression upon Michelle."

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by subgenius
I'm crying:

"The family said that in lieu of flowers, contributions could be made to an orphanage in Baghdad operated by The Sister's of Charity, which made such an impression upon Michelle." Hmm...that part of the story isn't on the page anymore, but those reading it now, rest assured it was there.

[subgenius]

Pat Buchanan 4/14/04:

"So we must decide. How much blood and treasure are we willing to invest in democracy in Baghdad, and for how long?

Americans supported Bush's war because we were persuaded that the malignancy of Iraq's leader and the horrific nature of the weapons he had or was seeking meant we must destroy his regime or our country was in mortal peril. With that threat gone, what we are fighting for? Democracy in Iraq? Or is it now just to avoid defeat in Iraq?"
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38031

[subgenius]

British troops 'may have to stay 10 years to keep order'
By Paul Kelbie, Scotland Correspondent
20 April 2004

British troops might have to stay in Iraq for up to 10 years to help local forces maintain security after the proposed hand-over of power to the Iraqi government on 30 June, the commanding officer of UK forces in Basra has warned.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=513262

[subgenius]

But according to a closely held Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) memo written in early March, the reality isn't so rosy. Iraq's chances of seeing democracy succeed, according to the memo's author?a U.S. government official detailed to the CPA, who wrote this summation of observations he'd made in the field for a senior CPA director?have been severely imperiled by a year's worth of serious errors on the part of the Pentagon and the CPA, the U.S.-led multinational agency administering Iraq. Far from facilitating democracy and security, the memo's author fears, U.S. efforts have created an environment rife with corruption and sectarianism likely to result in civil war.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0416/vest.php

[subgenius]

On Wednesday before the House Armed Services Committee, Wolfowitz focused more on answering questions that have been raised, though he gave few new details.


"Some say we have no plan. We have a plan," he said referring to U.N. suggestions for forming an interim government to take over from occupation authorities. Senators want to know more — exactly who those people will be, how they will be picked, what happens if fractious Iraqis cannot agree on their selection before the handover?


Appearing with Wolfowitz, Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the committee Wednesday that recent violence — and the resulting extension of tours of duty for some 20,000 troops — "is going to cost us more money" than budgeted.


He said defense officials are studying their budget now to determine how much. "We're in the middle of that analysis right now," he said.


Wolfowitz was attending two of five sessions planned before three separate panels this week — military panels in the House and Senate and Lugar's foreign relations panel.


Former officials and think tank experts have made up the witness list the first two days. Lugar had strong words for the administration Tuesday when it appeared Wolfowitz was refusing to testify at the senator's hearing scheduled for Thursday.


Saying success in Iraq depends on the administration's credibility, Lugar noted that over the past year and a half the administration has "failed to communicate" its plans to Congress and the American people. But he announced Wednesday that Wolfowtiz had phoned him — said he could not come to due to a family wedding — and was sending another Pentagon (news - web sites) official.


Some lawmakers have said that they not only want to hear more about the administration's plans for any problems in the transition of sovereignty back to Iraq, but they want to know what the pricetag will be for a continuing U.S. presence there.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&u=/ap/20040421/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_21&printer=1

[subgenius]

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said on the same show that lawmakers want the administration "to be honest with the Congress. Be honest with the American people. ... It's going to be $50 to $75 billion in additional money."


The administration previously has relied in large part on so-called supplemental spending bills — emergency legislation that is apart from the regular budgeting process — to meet war costs.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=512&u=/ap/20040421/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_21&printer=1

Who is this liberal Hagel, and how dare he ask for the administration to be honest with the American people?
How un-American.

So we should spend "Whatever it takes" to acheive "whatever it is" for "as long as it takes" which is defined as "the long haul."

[subgenius]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration has failed to provide a realistic assessment of how much the war in Iraq will cost taxpayers, lawmakers charged Wednesday.

That charge, leveled by Democrats and Republicans, came as Pentagon officials spent a second day on Capitol Hill talking about the situation in Iraq.

At a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, several lawmakers suggested the administration was avoiding committing to any firm costs until after the general election in November.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/congress.iraq/


You don't mind not being told the cost. Just "whatever it takes."

[Kodiak]

How does one know when a thread has become a propagandist diatribe?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Kodiak
How does one know when a thread has become a propagandist diatribe?

When it resembles the chain of subgenius posts like those in this very thread?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Kodiak


When it resembles the chain of subgenius posts like those in this very thread?


We have a winner!!!

:clap: :th: :wow2:

[Mr Manifesto]

No pictures, please (http://www.boston.com/dailynews/113/nation/Woman_fired_by_military_contra:.shtml)

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Kodiak
How does one know when a thread has become a propagandist diatribe?
The fact that it is a bi partisan issue, if you had bothered to read the last story, has no apparent effect on your ability to consider or respond to the issue, much less come up with a more effective technique than labelling and smilies.

Please convey your opinion that we shouldn't bother trying to determine the cost of government to Sen. Lugar. I'm sure he has better things to do.

If ignorance is bliss, you must be in nirvana.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius

The fact that it is a bi partisan issue, if you had bothered to read the last story, has no apparent effect on your ability to consider or respond to the issue, much less come up with a more effective technique than labelling and smilies.

Please convey your opinion that we shouldn't bother trying to determine the cost of government to Sen. Lugar. I'm sure he has better things to do.

If ignorance is bliss, you must be in nirvana.

You've turned this thread into your personal anti-Bush, anti-Iraq "rant and harp zone" where you repeatedly post string's of articles that supposedly support your views.

True, two dems and two GOPers are a bi-partisan group, but hardly a concensus.

Its truly sad that you and most of the dems have fixed their star on the possible failure of this administration and the armed forces it commands in the War on Terror and in the current occupation of Iraq.

I'm ignorant because I don't give your posts the weight you think they deserve? How typically elitist...

[subgenius]

Your interpretation of my purpose and of me personally is incorrect.

The issue is how much, how many, how long.

I believe that somewhere you probably stated your views, and I thank you for your contribution. It certainly has been given all due consideration and weight.

Others continue to try and get an answer, as evidenced by the recent news article. That's why I posted it: it is a new development.

The issue is not going away, as much as you may like it to.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
Your interpretation of my purpose and of me personally is incorrect.

The issue is how much, how many, how long.

I believe that somewhere you probably stated your views, and I thank you for your contribution. It certainly has been given all due consideration and weight.

Others continue to try and get an answer, as evidenced by the recent news article. That's why I posted it: it is a new development.

The issue is not going away, as much as you may like it to.

The issue is not going away, and I don't care if it does or doesn't. What I do know is that your repeated posting of every little new tidbit regarding this issue is what colored my, and probably many others, impressions of your views and underlying motives.

I apologize if I offended you by what you consider a mischaracterization. I admit I could be completely off base, and if I am, I'm sorry.

A simple bump every once and a while would suffice, but who the "H - E - double hockey sticks" am I to tell you what to do?

Take care and GO WINGS!!!!!! :)

[subgenius]

There was a news story about a new development, comprende?
I didn't bump to bump.

[subgenius]

I just noticed me mentioned in your sig.
Name calling and labelling should be beneath you.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Kodiak


The issue is not going away, and I don't care if it does or doesn't. What I do know is that your repeated posting of every little new tidbit regarding this issue is what colored my, and probably many others, impressions of your views and underlying motives.

I apologize if I offended you by what you consider a mischaracterization. I admit I could be completely off base, and if I am, I'm sorry.

A simple bump every once and a while would suffice, but who the "H - E - double hockey sticks" am I to tell you what to do?

Take care and GO WINGS!!!!!! :)

Would you rather he did like Richard G does, or Trinky Wusser in his heyday, and start a new thread every ten seconds?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
Name calling and labelling should be beneath you.

Look at the bulk of your posts and tell me it isn't appropriate...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Would you rather he did like Richard G does, or Trinky Wusser in his heyday, and start a new thread every ten seconds?

This thread didn't start the way I described though. It started off as any other, then degenerated into the "subgenius news hour".

Regardless, like I already said, when it comes right down to it, he can post any way he wants.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by subgenius
By the way my true political orientation can be termed neoretrolibconanarchoradtradprogmod, and don't you forget it.

I had suspected as much. Now that we have the label, we can properly dismiss you...

As to the answer to your questions... how about too many and too long? I sometimes wonder why people deny the obvious.

Before the war started, it was pretty clear that GW was rushing us into Iraq. Now Woodward's book adds to the idea that the war had been in the cards for a much longer period than previously suspected. Yet there are many out there who still cling to the "we're helping Iraqis" line because they bought GW's lies.

After we invaded, it was pretty clear that the WMDs that were supposed to be in Iraq didn't exist. And yet we still have Cheney, recently, claiming the "jury is still out" on the subject.

So maybe the answer to your question is: until the American public accepts the obvious. There is no purpose to our continued involvement in Iraq because there never was such a purpose initially. The same thing happened in Vietnam and the number was 50,000. I hope we do better this time around.

[fishbob]

Name calling and labelling should be beneath you. In that post, the name calling and labeling WAS beneath Kodiak - by about 7 inches.

By the way, both my nephews that went to Iraq have made it back, I think. The kid in the Marines (21st bday next week) is currently in California somewhere. The kid in the Army Reserves (turned 21 in Iraq) is supposed to arrive in Texas today.

[smalltlalk_2k]

How about posting a list of the 100's of thousands of Iraqi people who finally have the oppurtunity to live without fear of being killed by Sadam Hussein or some other ruthless tyrant. How bout posting a list of the 1000's of people who we freed from Sadam's "political" prisons. Or maybe a list of the people in Iraq who can now worship or not worship God(s) as as they so choose with out fear of death. How about posting a list of all the children who will now have an oppurtunity to go to school and learn something besides state propaganda.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by smalltlalk_2k
How about posting a list of the 100's of thousands of Iraqi people who finally have the oppurtunity to live without fear of being killed by Sadam Hussein or some other ruthless tyrant. How bout posting a list of the 1000's of people who we freed from Sadam's "political" prisons. Or maybe a list of the people in Iraq who can now worship or not worship God(s) as as they so choose with out fear of death. How about posting a list of all the children who will now have an oppurtunity to go to school and learn something besides state propaganda.
Go for it.
The point of this thread is not to argue with those points but to determine the costs for it, as congress is now starting to do.
If it costs 100 billion or 100 trillion I think we have a right and duty to know.

[Luke T.]

Does Afghanistan count?

Ex-NFL player Tillman killed in Afghanistan (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4815441/?GT1=3256)

WASHINGTON - Pat Tillman, who gave up a lucrative contract with the Arizona Cardinals of the National Football League to join the Army Rangers, was killed in action in Afghanistan, military officials said Friday.

Tillman, 27, who turned down a three-year, $3.6 million contract with the Cardinals to enlist in the Army in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, was first deployed to Iraq in March 2003 with the 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, based at Fort Lewis, Wash. It was not immediately clear when he was sent to Afghanistan.

What do you make of that?

[subgenius]

A real American hero.

[Furious]

When a member of the Vikings secondary ships out to Iraq, then the price is too high and we have stayed too long. ;)

They can't afford any injuries, much less losing a player forever.


The problem with asking about a price is that people have their own various ideas of what the objectives are in this particular war. I'll post examples of some possible objectives and quantify how much I'd be willing "spend" in human lives, but the matters are entirely subjective.

Some of these are going to be intentionally out of proportion of what I think most people believe, but I want to cover a few bases.

If the goal is:

To preserve the American way of life: virtually unlimited.

To settle a score against a man who tried to have his father killed: none.

To keep cheap oil flowing into the country (assuming accidental or suicidal deaths don't count): None.

However, who they die to must be taken into account for calculation, assuming we can accurately know.

Foreigners in Iraq attacking U.S. forces? If this is a "fly-paper" approach the war on terrorism (assuming that these foreigners are fighting for the same causes as terrorists.), I would much rather fight it in the middle east than wait for the planes to start smashing our cities. What cost in american lives in this scenario? Virtually unlimited. We didn't wait for Germany to attack our mainland directly in WWII, and I don't think we have to wait now. Our current force is overkill for this purpose, but there are reasons we have as many troops as we do, which are highlighted below.

My qualms with this approach is how many innocent Iraqi lives will be lost, but then again, you simply asked about American lives. Until you do I'm going to avoid talking about it. :p

Saddam loyalists? Greyer area, but basically as many as it takes until a free Iraq can handle them on their own. While there is a certain nostalgia to some Iraqis about the security under Saddam, I think by and large most are still happy to see him gone. Until it is reasonably certain that Iraq itself can prevent a Ba'ath party takeover and a return to dictatorship, we owe it to them to keep our committment to keep them free, regardless of our initial motivations to remove those elements.

Iraqi nationalists? Assume we are not talking about those looking for a power grab and are talking about those that simply desire that the U.S. not occupy their land.

Sadr is in my opinion, making a power grab, as evidenced by the alleged assassination of another Shiite leader. I think he's basically just trying to be a Shia version of Saddam.

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, however, I think makes some valid get-the-****-out-of-here-already points and is working well within the constraints to effect that change. The current administration and al-Sistani differ on the timeline of a democratic handover, but whenever this magical day happens, I feel we no longer have any business in Iraq if a democratic government no longer wants us there. Any death after moment in time (allowing for a reasonable exit plan) is one too many.

In general with regards to expenditure of lives, the representation/truth and historical moral relatitivity of causes might change, but the cost of them is, to me, absolute: one way or the other.

Vietnam was a dandy war when it was protecting democracy, the South Vietnamese wanted us there and to prevent the expansion of communism. However, when it became clear the first two were not reality and the third was a dubious idea to spend lives on, the war became unjust and any expenditure of lives was too many.

However, WWII was about a select few wanting to dominate the world using an expansionist war. The deed of preventing that expansion and ultimately ensuring that those leaders could never do it again was a just deed, and any expenditure of lives was justified in preventing it.

The Iraq invasion is open for debate as to whether it is a just war, but either it is or it isn't and your answer on lives is virtually all or nothing.

[subgenius]

Furious, very thoughtful post.

[subgenius]

The number of American troops wounded in Iraq soared in the past two weeks as the insurgency flared in south-central Iraq and in the Sunni Triangle north and west of Baghdad.

The Pentagon announced Friday in its weekly casualty report that 3,864 troops have been wounded in action since the war began in March 2003, an increase of 595 from two weeks earlier.

The U.S. military death toll as of Friday stood at 707, according to the Pentagon's count. At least 100 have been killed this month, the highest total for any month since the U.S.-led invasion began. Most deaths were in the early part of April; about 25 have died in the past two weeks.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/04/23/national1446EDT0642.DTL&type=printable

[subgenius]

According to the Rand think tank study on peacekeeping, we would need 450,000 to 500,000 troops in Iraq just to provide security.
http://www.rand.org/commentary/121003ND.html

[subgenius]

"We've got to get hold of this situation. We've got to do it quickly and we've got to spend a whole lot of money," Arizona Republican John McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Thursday on NBC's "Today" show.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040422/D823V3NG0.html

"A whole lot".

Now we're getting somewhere.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
The answer for a Wisconsin family: 1, and no longer.

Saving Private Witmer (http://www.startribune.com/stories/1762/4716676.html) An update:

Sisters not going back to Iraq (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040427/D827ATCO0.html)

[subgenius]

Pat Buchanan:

President Bush should have listened to his father, who kept the neocons at some remove, and he had best beware, because they have a major card yet to play. That card is escalation.

With the situation in Iraq deteriorating, the neocon agenda is to widen the war into Syria, Iran and perhaps Saudi Arabia, and convert it into "World War IV," the war of their dreams, a war of civilizations, an Armageddon, with America and Israel on one side and Islam on the other.

Exiting Iraq with honor and avoiding the wider war for which the neocons are even now scheming is the first duty of patriots.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38206

[subgenius]

"Nightline" devotes show to reading war dead names
LOS ANGELES, April 27 (Reuters) - A U.S. television news program is to dedicate an entire broadcast to a reading of the names of American servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq.

Ted Koppel will read aloud the names of those killed since the March 2003 start of the Iraq war on the Friday edition of ABC News "Nightline", the network said on Tuesday. The reading will be accompanied by a photograph of each person named.
http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/newswire/2004/04/27/rtr1349868.html

[Hutch]

Originally posted by subgenius
Pat Buchanan:

President Bush should have listened to his father, who kept the neocons at some remove, and he had best beware, because they have a major card yet to play. That card is escalation.

With the situation in Iraq deteriorating, the neocon agenda is to widen the war into Syria, Iran and perhaps Saudi Arabia, and convert it into "World War IV," the war of their dreams, a war of civilizations, an Armageddon, with America and Israel on one side and Islam on the other.

Exiting Iraq with honor and avoiding the wider war for which the neocons are even now scheming is the first duty of patriots.



Urrggghh....Aahhhhh...Ummmmm...I agree with Pat Buchanan on something. Gasp....shudder....pant.

Don't do that to me too often, subgenius, I can't take it that well in my old age. :p

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by subgenius
According to the Rand think tank study on peacekeeping, we would need 450,000 to 500,000 troops in Iraq just to provide security.
http://www.rand.org/commentary/121003ND.html

So, are the US armed forces for defence or attack?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Hutch



Urrggghh....Aahhhhh...Ummmmm...I agree with Pat Buchanan on something. Gasp....shudder....pant.

Don't do that to me too often, subgenius, I can't take it that well in my old age. :p
You'd be surprised...the old line conservatives have a lot of problems with the Bush neo-cons.
I've had stranger bedfellows, but we won't go into that.

[Mr Manifesto]

Bush To Iraqi Militants: 'Please Stop Bringing It On'
(http://www.theonion.com/)

WASHINGTON, DC—In an internationally televised statement Monday, President Bush modified a July 2003 challenge to Iraqi militants attacking U.S. forces. "Terrorists, Saddam loyalists, and anti-American insurgents: Please stop bringing it on now," Bush said at a Monday press conference. "Nine months and 500 U.S. casualties ago, I may have invited y'all to bring it on, but as of today, I formally rescind that statement. I would officially like for you to step back." The president added that the "it" Iraqis should stop bringing includes gunfire, bombings, grenade attacks, and suicide missions of all types.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Bush To Iraqi Militants: 'Please Stop Bringing It On'
(http://www.theonion.com/)



Ah yes...500 casualties in nine months! The end is nigh!

Why, imagine if casualties where five or ten or a hundred or a thousand times worse! NOTHING is worth this, let alone any of those fantastic scenarios...

(oh wait...WWI, WWII, Korea, Veitnam...hmmm....)

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
"Nightline" devotes show to reading war dead names
LOS ANGELES, April 27 (Reuters) - A U.S. television news program is to dedicate an entire broadcast to a reading of the names of American servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq.

Ted Koppel will read aloud the names of those killed since the March 2003 start of the Iraq war on the Friday edition of ABC News "Nightline", the network said on Tuesday. The reading will be accompanied by a photograph of each person named.
http://www.forbes.com/business/businesstech/newswire/2004/04/27/rtr1349868.html

How fortunate we are that all of the names can be read in a single telecast.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Ah yes...500 casualties in nine months! The end is nigh!

Why, imagine if casualties where five or ten or a hundred or a thousand times worse! NOTHING is worth this, let alone any of those fantastic scenarios...

(oh wait...WWI, WWII, Korea, Veitnam...hmmm....)

I guess, then, if I shoot you for no good purpose, that's okay. I mean, there are 300 million other Americans I didn't shoot, right?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


I guess, then, if I shoot you for no good purpose, that's okay. I mean, there are 300 million other Americans I didn't shoot, right?

As usual, you've ignored the point. Your post suggests that Bush might regret saying "Bring it on!" because, according to you, we're getting our asses handed to us in Iraq. As my response illustrated, 500 casualties in nine months, while unfortunate and sad, is nothing in comparison to other instances of military conflict seen by the US since the begining of the 20th century, nor even in comparison with worse-case scanarios deemed possible for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

As far as trying to shoot me, you might want to pick an easier target.

Here's a suggestion: As your sigs indicate, maybe you should stick to video games and comic books.

If you want to play here, at least do us the favor of directly addressing the points made to you.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Kodiak


As usual, you've ignored the point. Your post suggests that Bush might regret saying "Bring it on!" because, according to you, we're getting our asses handed to us in Iraq. As my response illustrated, 500 casualties in nine months, while unfortunate and sad, is nothing in comparison to other instances of military conflict seen by the US since the begining of the 20th century, nor even in comparison with worse-case scanarios deemed possible for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

As far as trying to shoot me, you might want to pick an easier target.

Here's a suggestion: As your sigs indicate, maybe you should stick to video games and comic books.

If you want to play here, at least do us the favor of directly addressing the points made to you.

"Might want to pick an easier target" :roll: :roll: :roll: I love keyboard heroes.

Speaking of people who like to make tough comments from the safety of their home- Bush's comment is up there with Antoinette's "Let them eat cake": it shows that he has little appreciation of the reality of the common soldier. "Bring it on" is something you say at a football match, it isn't something you say when you are talking about a situation where people can get badly wounded or killed.

There are 134 families so far this month who won't be seeing their loved ones come back, and dozens more who'll be seeing them come back minus a limb or two. "Bring it on!", right?

[Hutch]

Originally posted by Kodiak


As usual, you've ignored the point. Your post suggests that Bush might regret saying "Bring it on!" because, according to you, we're getting our asses handed to us in Iraq. As my response illustrated, 500 casualties in nine months, while unfortunate and sad, is nothing in comparison to other instances of military conflict seen by the US since the begining of the 20th century, nor even in comparison with worse-case scanarios deemed possible for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Big Bear, one small nit to pick. "Casualties" normally include dead, wounded and missing combined, so I think your 500 casualties figure is really fatalities and the true number of casualties in the nine months is probably closer to 4,000, based on subgenius's numbers.

While I am in agreement with you that the casuality lists are nothing like previous conflicts (Day 1 on Tarawa was worse than all of Iraq to date, and it'll take us about 4 years at this rate to equal one day at Antietam Creek), the American public (again, IMHO only) has been raised in the past couple of decades on relatively limited war with few if any casualties and a swift denouncement--i.e, Gulf 1 and 2, Grenada, Panama, et. al. This drawn-out conflict with a steady (albeit small) bleeding and no apparent end in sight is something the American public hasn't seen for awhile--and apparently is what is driving the Vietnam comparisons, again, IMHO.

It's the small, but constant drip-drip-drip that is causing the worry, rather than any "large effusions of blood" as the Victorians might have said. As long as there is something there for the news each day......

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


"Might want to pick an easier target" :roll: :roll: :roll: I love keyboard heroes.

Speaking of people who like to make tough comments from the safety of their home- Bush's comment is up there with Antoinette's "Let them eat cake": it shows that he has little appreciation of the reality of the common soldier. "Bring it on" is something you say at a football match, it isn't something you say when you are talking about a situation where people can get badly wounded or killed.

There are 134 families so far this month who won't be seeing their loved ones come back, and dozens more who'll be seeing them come back minus a limb or two. "Bring it on!", right?

Think what you want and act as you wish...

I've been in harm's way in defense of my country and have probably forgotten more military training than you've ever learned.

You know nothing of the reality of the common soldier. You ran like a startled deer when I asked you the simplest questions about how you would redistribute US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan after you pontificated that "this" and "that" MUST be done for military success.

Instead of mourning the dead and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, why don't you instead give thanks that men and women of that calibre ever lived!

Yes, indeed...Bring It On!!

Whine and cower and tremble if you want, Manifesto...

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Hutch


Big Bear, one small nit to pick. "Casualties" normally include dead, wounded and missing combined, so I think your 500 casualties figure is really fatalities and the true number of casualties in the nine months is probably closer to 4,000, based on subgenius's numbers.

It was Mr Manifesto's quote from his link which mentioned 500 casualties in nine months (see about 8 posts above this one...).

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Hutch
While I am in agreement with you that the casuality lists are nothing like previous conflicts (Day 1 on Tarawa was worse than all of Iraq to date, and it'll take us about 4 years at this rate to equal one day at Antietam Creek), the American public (again, IMHO only) has been raised in the past couple of decades on relatively limited war with few if any casualties and a swift denouncement--i.e, Gulf 1 and 2, Grenada, Panama, et. al. This drawn-out conflict with a steady (albeit small) bleeding and no apparent end in sight is something the American public hasn't seen for awhile--and apparently is what is driving the Vietnam comparisons, again, IMHO.

It's the small, but constant drip-drip-drip that is causing the worry, rather than any "large effusions of blood" as the Victorians might have said. As long as there is something there for the news each day......

How long would Americans in the 1940's have tolerated our involvement in WWII if the media had quoted exact casualty numbers every day?

How long would it take Ted Koppel to recite every name?

Hell, the world is currently losing 1200 WWII veterans every day according to recent estimates...

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Think what you want and act as you wish...

I've been in harm's way in defense of my country and have probably forgotten more military training than you've ever learned.
Wow. I'm impressed. No, really.


You know nothing of the reality of the common soldier. You ran like a startled deer when I asked you the simplest questions about how you would redistribute US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan after you pontificated that "this" and "that" MUST be done for military success.

Your memory has failed you again. I said that the resources being wasted in Iraq could have been put to better use in Afghanistan. You then said, "Exactly how many troops, A-10's, etc, etc would you have in Afghanistan". That is irrelevant- I don't need to know exactly how many forces are required in Afghanistan to know that there aren't enough forces there, and that the forces in Iraq are wasted.

Instead of mourning the dead and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, why don't you instead give thanks that men and women of that calibre ever lived!

Yes, indeed...Bring It On!!

Whine and cower and tremble if you want, Manifesto...

I'm curious- do you think this sort of bombast helps forward your argument at all?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Wow. I'm impressed. No, really.

Your memory has failed you again. I said that the resources being wasted in Iraq could have been put to better use in Afghanistan. You then said, "Exactly how many troops, A-10's, etc, etc would you have in Afghanistan". That is irrelevant- I don't need to know exactly how many forces are required in Afghanistan to know that there aren't enough forces there, and that the forces in Iraq are wasted.

I'm curious- do you think this sort of bombast helps forward your argument at all?

You're still avoiding the original point, but you know that don't you...

Ah, the good ol' "something MUST be done, I just have no idea WHAT..."

I'd rather have bombast and an argument, than just bombast, Manifesto...

Care to address my original point regarding your "Bring it on!" link and quote??

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Kodiak

Care to address my original point regarding your "Bring it on!" link and quote??

Those lives still mean something, even though there aren't as many dead as in Vietnam. Keep in mind, too, that the war in Iraq is either for greed or grandiosity, but it serves no purpose. At least in Vietnam, there were Communists.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Those lives still mean something...

True. I've never said otherwise...


Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
even though there aren't as many dead as in Vietnam. Keep in mind, too, that the war in Iraq is either for greed or grandiosity, but it serves no purpose. At least in Vietnam, there were Communists.

I disagree with you here. UN resolution 1441; no fly zone violations; violations of the terms of surrender; intel (now known to be wrong) at the time suggesting Iraqi WMD's; known history of WMD use; aid to terrorists (though not Al Quida); oppression, torture, and murder by the regime on its own citizens...

[Hutch]

Originally posted by Kodiak
How long would Americans in the 1940's have tolerated our involvement in WWII if the media had quoted exact casualty numbers every day?

How long would it take Ted Koppel to recite every name?

Hell, the world is currently losing 1200 WWII veterans every day according to recent estimates...

Kodiak, I'm losing you here...IIRC correctly about 1.1 million Americans were wounded during WWII and a significant majority came home--plus the US War Department informed folks of their son's death and they were remembered...and we seemed to have tolerated it just fine--the nickname 'The Greatest Generation' is well deserved.

But I'm lost in how you are relating it to today's events. If this were a life-and-death struggle against another nation-state, I think we could and would recognize and accept the 'butcher's bill', but this 'death by a thousand cuts' is frustrating. And as an aside, whoever put up that 'Mission Accomplished' banner on the Carrier should be hung from the yardarm...it gave a false sense of closure that has not helped the situation.

[tedly]

How long? Take a look at the news reports on Cyprus.

Even though the UN did not establish a peace, but merely patrolled a cease-fire line, Canadian troops were there for 3 decades, we lost 27 dead. It aint over till its over.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Hutch
But I'm lost in how you are relating it to today's events. If this were a life-and-death struggle against another nation-state, I think we could and would recognize and accept the 'butcher's bill'...

I wish that were true, but, IMO, I don't think you'd be proven correct, unfortunately. Many (most?...I don't know...) it seems are of the view "Better Red Than Dead", or "I'd gladly sacrifice my freedom for a little safety", or "Nothing is worth fighting or dying for".


Originally posted by Hutch
...but this 'death by a thousand cuts' is frustrating. And as an aside, whoever put up that 'Mission Accomplished' banner on the Carrier should be hung from the yardarm...it gave a false sense of closure that has not helped the situation.

I feel the same frustration, but I'll not let simple frustration make me waver in either my support or my determination to stay the course in Iraq and finish what we've started.

Yes, instead of "Mission Accomplished" it should have read something like "The First Step Has Been Taken" or "Goodbye Saddam - Hello Liberty"...

[Hutch]

Originally posted by Kodiak
I wish that were true, but, IMO, I don't think you'd be proven correct, unfortunately. Many (most?...I don't know...) it seems are of the view "Better Red Than Dead", or "I'd gladly sacrifice my freedom for a little safety", or "Nothing is worth fighting or dying for".

See the Isolationists and peace movements of the 1930's...there was quite a bit of that before WWII

I feel the same frustration, but I'll not let simple frustration make me waver in either my support or my determination to stay the course in Iraq and finish what we've started.

Which takes us back to if we should have started the thing in the first place :dio: ...but that has been and can be argued in threads other than this one.

the problem is there will be a finish...but what sort is still to be determined. History can be pushed and shoved, but it can never be rushed.

[subgenius]

"WASHINGTON - Asked how many American troops have died in Iraq , the Pentagon's No. 2 civilian estimated Thursday the total was about 500 — more than 200 soldiers short.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was asked about the toll at a hearing of a House Appropriations subcommittee. "It's approximately 500, of which — I can get the exact numbers — approximately 350 are combat deaths," he responded.

"He misspoke," spokesman Charley Cooper said later. "That's all."

American deaths Thursday were at 722 — 521 of them from combat — since the start of military operations in Iraq last year, according to the Department of Defense.

Wolfowitz, an architect of the military campaign in Iraq, was responding to questions from Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, on the costs of the war.
....
"
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&u=/ap/20040430/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_deaths_wolfowitz_2&printer=1

Aw a hundred here a hundred there...its "nothing" when you have been given a blank check for all the lives time and money you want. Who's counting? Not the administration, obviously.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
Aw a hundred here a hundred there...its "nothing" when you have been given a blank check for all the lives time and money you want. Who's counting? Not the administration, obviously.

Ahhh...nice strawman... :clap:

So an individual politician's simple mistake is automatically the administration's official attitude.

Got it...Thanks... :rolleyes:

:nope:

[subgenius]

Yeah, just a simple mistake. By 221. By the number 2 guy who pushed the war. Don't even watch the evening news. If the number 2 guy doesn't represent the administration then no one does right. Fantastic. Of course some think that 721+ is "nothing" anyway.
No one should have any oversight over, or offer any criticism of, our fearless leaders. That's the American way.

Too hard to even say, "What a boneheaded mistake. Anyone watching the evening news could have gotten that question right."

Gosh that emperor's got a lovely new outfit.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
Yeah, just a simple mistake. By 221. By the number 2 guy who pushed the war. Don't even watch the evening news. If the number 2 guy doesn't represent the administration then no one does right. Fantastic. Of course some think that 721+ is "nothing" anyway.
No one should have any oversight over, or offer any criticism of, our fearless leaders. That's the American way.

Too hard to even say, "What a boneheaded mistake. Anyone watching the evening news could have gotten that question right."

Gosh that emperor's got a lovely new outfit.

Of course you're right! String 'em up!! :rolleyes:



You're becoming positively unhinged!! :eek:

At this rate, you'll never make it to November...

[subgenius]

"But every American has a responsibility to understand fully the terrible costs of war and the extraordinary sacrifices it requires of those brave men and women who volunteer to defend the rest of us; lest we ever forget or grow insensitive to how grave a decision it is for our government to order Americans into combat. It is a solemn responsibility of elected officials to accept responsibility for our decision and its consequences, and, with those who disseminate the news, to ensure that Americans are fully informed of those consequences."
---John McCain

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
"But every American has a responsibility to understand fully the terrible costs of war and the extraordinary sacrifices it requires of those brave men and women who volunteer to defend the rest of us; lest we ever forget or grow insensitive to how grave a decision it is for our government to order Americans into combat. It is a solemn responsibility of elected officials to accept responsibility for our decision and its consequences, and, with those who disseminate the news, to ensure that Americans are fully informed of those consequences."
---John McCain

So organize a recall, or a congressional censure for incompetence...

Start a letter writing campaign to have him removed from office for "lack of solemnity"...

:nope:

[subgenius]

So how about that sexual abuse and torture? Helping to reduce terrorist attacks against our country?

The worse we make it, the more we have to stay?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
So how about that sexual abuse and torture? Helping to reduce terrorist attacks against our country?

The worse we make it, the more we have to stay?

Ahhh...


The "Propaganda Minister" hard at work:

Depose despot, supply food and water to tens of thousands, protect citizenry and their homes and businesses, repair infrastructure, and restart oil production -- benefits completely ignored...

Abuse and torture by a handful -- cited as making things worse and helping increase terrorist attacks.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Hutch
See the Isolationists and peace movements of the 1930's...there was quite a bit of that before WWII

But not during WWII...

[subgenius]

As for reconstruction, nothing has actually changed since the end of the war. All the ministries, administration buildings and communication centres are still in the same derelict condition we’ve seen them in since the end of the war. The occupation seems to have bypassed time for a whole year. During the last year the economic crisis has been hitting civilians, starting with shortages in drinking water, petrol for transport and oil for heating and cooking. But the biggest shortage has been the loss of electricity, which has affected the lives of millions of people all over Iraq. It is frustrating to see that even Saddam’s regime managed under severe international sanctions to return most of the electricity and water supply to large cities within 3 months after the Gulf war in 1991. The whole might of the American economy could not return the electricity, petrol and fresh water to the Iraqi people even after one year.

Reconstruction has become nothing but business contracts to American companies, costing billions of dollars, whilst nothing has been done to improve the economic infrastructure of Iraq, apart from some refurbishment in some schools and hospitals, building new garrisons needed for the occupation and 4-metre-high concrete walls around the palaces, police stations, hotels and other CPA and Governing Council buildings.

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/6085/

[subgenius]

WHITE HOUSE MISLED AMERICA ABOUT COST OF WAR

In a transparent effort to mask the true costs of war
and reduce the size of the mounting budget deficit
the White House left funding for Iraq and Afghanistan
out of the 2005 budget it submitted on February 2.
[1] Since that time, the "administration has
steadfastly maintained that military forces in Iraq
will be sufficiently funded until early next year."
[2] White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton
insisted "no request [for more money for Iraq] would
come until January at the earliest."

From_the beginning, military officials predicted that
the Administration's game playing would create
problems. General Peter Schoomaker, Army Chief of
Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on
February 11, "I am concerned...on how we bridge
between the end of this fiscal year and whenever we
could get a supplemental in the next year...I do not
have an answer for exactly how we would do that." [3]
Marine Commandant General Michael Hagee agreed.

As predicted, it was revealed last month that, without
additional funding, US troops would face a $4 billion
shortfall as early as this summer. [4] Yesterday, the
President was forced to come clean and request "an
additional $25 billion to finance military operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan." [5]

SOURCES:
1. "Deficit Is $521 Billion In Bush Budget",
Washington Post, 2/2/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=33605.
2. "War May Require More Money Soon", Washington
Post, 4/21/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=33606.
3. "U.S. Military May Run Out Of Money", UPI,
2/11/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=33607.
4. "Rice Delivers 'Upbeat' Iraq Report", CBS News,
4/22/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=33613
5. "$25b sought for Iraq, Afghanistan", Boston Globe,
5/5/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=33609.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by subgenius
WHITE HOUSE MISLED AMERICA ABOUT COST OF WAR

In a transparent effort to mask the true costs of war
and reduce the size of the mounting budget deficit
the White House left funding for Iraq and Afghanistan
out of the 2005 budget it submitted on February 2.
[1] Since that time, the "administration has
steadfastly maintained that military forces in Iraq
will be sufficiently funded until early next year."
[2] White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton
insisted "no request [for more money for Iraq] would
come until January at the earliest."

From_the beginning, military officials predicted that
the Administration's game playing would create
problems. General Peter Schoomaker, Army Chief of
Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on
February 11, "I am concerned...on how we bridge
between the end of this fiscal year and whenever we
could get a supplemental in the next year...I do not
have an answer for exactly how we would do that." [3]
Marine Commandant General Michael Hagee agreed.

As predicted, it was revealed last month that, without
additional funding, US troops would face a $4 billion
shortfall as early as this summer. [4] Yesterday, the
President was forced to come clean and request "an
additional $25 billion to finance military operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan." [5]

SOURCES:
1. "Deficit Is $521 Billion In Bush Budget",
Washington Post, 2/2/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=33605.
2. "War May Require More Money Soon", Washington
Post, 4/21/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=33606.
3. "U.S. Military May Run Out Of Money", UPI,
2/11/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=33607.
4. "Rice Delivers 'Upbeat' Iraq Report", CBS News,
4/22/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=33613
5. "$25b sought for Iraq, Afghanistan", Boston Globe,
5/5/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=33609.

Ah...the propaganda continues...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Ah...the propaganda continues...

My Fellow Americans, we are about to embark on an invasion of Iraq to rid the Iraqi people of the brutal dictator, Saddam Hussein. This will cost billions of dollars, which we will have to borrow, and the Iraqi people will hate us for inisting on staying past our welcome. We will torture, kill and rape, but not as much as Saddam. We will provide Al Quaeda with area of operations, diverting their attention from the US mainland and hence making your life safer. Israel will benefit, however.

[subgenius]

WHITE HOUSE MISLED AMERICA ABOUT COST OF WAR

In a transparent effort to mask the true costs of war
and reduce the size of the mounting budget deficit
the White House left funding for Iraq and Afghanistan
out of the 2005 budget it submitted on February 2.
[1] Since that time, the "administration has
steadfastly maintained that military forces in Iraq
will be sufficiently funded until early next year."
[2] White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton
insisted "no request [for more money for Iraq] would
come until January at the earliest."

From_the beginning, military officials predicted that
the Administration's game playing would create
problems. General Peter Schoomaker, Army Chief of
Staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on
February 11, "I am concerned...on how we bridge
between the end of this fiscal year and whenever we
could get a supplemental in the next year...I do not
have an answer for exactly how we would do that." [3]
Marine Commandant General Michael Hagee agreed.

As predicted, it was revealed last month that, without
additional funding, US troops would face a $4 billion
shortfall as early as this summer. [4] Yesterday, the
President was forced to come clean and request "an
additional $25 billion to finance military operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan." [5]

SOURCES:
1. "Deficit Is $521 Billion In Bush Budget",
Washington Post, 2/2/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=33605.
2. "War May Require More Money Soon", Washington
Post, 4/21/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=33606.
3. "U.S. Military May Run Out Of Money", UPI,
2/11/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=33607.
4. "Rice Delivers 'Upbeat' Iraq Report", CBS News,
4/22/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=33613
5. "$25b sought for Iraq, Afghanistan", Boston Globe,
5/5/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=33609.

Visit Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration
distortion. -->
<http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2710236&l=33610 >

[subgenius]

A Time for Truth
Patrick J. Buchanan

May 12 2004

With pictures of the sadistic sexual abuse of Iraqis in Abu Ghraib prison still spilling out onto the front pages, it is not too early to draw some conclusions.

The neoconservative hour is over. All the blather about "empire," our "unipolar moment," "Pax Americana" and "benevolent global hegemony" will be quietly put on a shelf and forgotten as infantile prattle.

America is not going to fight a five- or 10-year war in Iraq. Nor will we be launching any new invasions soon. The retreat of American empire, begun at Fallujah, is underway.

With a $500 billion deficit, we do not have the money for new wars. With an Army of 480,000 stretched thin, we do not have the troops. With April-May costing us a battalion of dead and wounded, we are not going to pay the price. With the squalid photos from Abu Ghraib, we no longer have the moral authority to impose our "values" on Iraq.

Bush's "world democratic revolution" is history.
...
http://www.theamericancause.org/patatimefortruthprint.htm

How weird is the world when my new hero is Pat Buchanan?

True conservatives and true liberals have much in common.

Neo-cons, and others who either forgot all history, or never knew it, are the current problem.

[subgenius]

I gotta emphasize that Pat directly answered the questions of how many, how long, how much and even a bigger question:

"America is not going to fight a five- or 10-year war in Iraq. Nor will we be launching any new invasions soon. The retreat of American empire, begun at Fallujah, is underway.

With a $500 billion deficit, we do not have the money for new wars. With an Army of 480,000 stretched thin, we do not have the troops. With April-May costing us a battalion of dead and wounded, we are not going to pay the price. With the squalid photos from Abu Ghraib, we no longer have the moral authority to impose our "values" on Iraq."

Which is more than the neo-cons here, and elsewhere, who simply said, "Whatever it takes."

[varwoche]

Originally posted by subgenius
How weird is the world when my new hero is Pat Buchanan?

True conservatives and true liberals have much in common.
[/B]
Amen.

One thing you gotta say for Buchanon -- he tells it like he sees it, regardless of party in power.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by varwoche

Amen.

One thing you gotta say for Buchanon -- he tells it like he sees it, regardless of party in power.
And you know what? (Of course you do)
He's got a brain, knows history, and has a command of his native language.
Oh yeah, he has principles, too.

[subgenius]

Let's hope Drudge is right this time:
"President Bush and Tony Blair are drawing up plans to speed the pullout of coalition forces from Iraq by giving it full control of its own security as soon as possible, the UK TIMES is splashing in Monday runs... Developing... "
http://drudgereport.com/

I was surprised to see a state departiment official tell Congress that if the Iraqi's who we turn sovereignty over to ask us to leave, we will. Although it was immediately contradicted by a Pentagon witness, I thought either that guy's gonna lose his job, or they're floating a trial balloon.

I think it would be a good way to get out.

[subgenius]

MR. RUSSERT: How are we going to know we've won in Iraq?

SECRETARY POWELL: We'll know we have won when the security situation is under control, when the political process is well underway and a constitution is in place, elections are taking place and we're preparing for the turnover of the government to the Iraqi people, and they have put in place the institutions of government so that we can leave, if that's what they wish us to do, and we will see a responsible government that will live in peace with its neighbors, not abuse its people, and not develop weapons of mass destruction.

MR. RUSSERT: That'll be years.

SECRETARY POWELL: I don't know how long it will take, but the process has begun.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/23857.htm

[subgenius]

MR. RUSSERT: How are we going to know we've won in Iraq?

SECRETARY POWELL: We'll know we have won when the security situation is under control, when the political process is well underway and a constitution is in place, elections are taking place and we're preparing for the turnover of the government to the Iraqi people, and they have put in place the institutions of government so that we can leave, if that's what they wish us to do, and we will see a responsible government that will live in peace with its neighbors, not abuse its people, and not develop weapons of mass destruction.

MR. RUSSERT: That'll be years.

SECRETARY POWELL: I don't know how long it will take, but the process has begun.
(9/7/03)
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/23857.htm

[subgenius]

Retired Gen. Zinni on 60 Minutes tonight said we should not get in to anything without knowing what we would pay.
Hmmmmm.

[subgenius]

In total, the Iraq conflict has taken the lives of more than 800 American troops so far, and last week the Pentagon reported that the number wounded in action is approaching 4,700.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&u=/ap/20040530/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_us_casualties_1&printer=1

[subgenius]

There has not been a more pointless, ill-advised, ill-conceived, poorly executed, counter-productive, cost-ineffective military misadventure in our history.

[subgenius]

Republican Senator Rejects 'Blank Check' for Iraq
Wed Jun 2, 2004 03:06 PM ET
By Anna Willard
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A powerful senator from President Bush's own party rejected his administration's request for broad leeway on a $25 billion reserve fund it wants for Iraq and said on Wednesday he intends to limit how the money can be used.

"We expect this to be used only for Afghanistan and Iraq," declared Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which approves government spending and oversees the federal budget.

Stevens told administration officials at a hearing: "Some of my colleagues have said that you're asking us to give you a blank check because of the word 'may' in this provision. I would intend to change that to say it 'shall' only be used for these accounts."

The emergency reserve fund is intended to finance military operations in the two countries until the White House makes a separate request for a larger supplemental spending bill early next year.

Until early May, when it suddenly asked for the $25 billion, the Bush administration had insisted it would not seek more money for Iraq until next year.

That would have put off debate on the issue until after the Nov. 2 presidential election, but pressure from the military and deteriorating security in Iraq forced the request.
....
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5325923

[VicDaring]

This is outrageous.

Mr. Stevens is playing politics with this issue while American troops are on the ground with their lives at stake.

What? He's got an "R" next to his name you say?

oh

nevermind

[subgenius]

U.S. force in Iraq to grow as Marine deployment pushed up General: Corps badly stretched
By Tom Squitieri and Dave Moniz
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon will increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to about 145,000 this summer, from the current 140,000, in recognition of the continued difficulty coalition forces are having in providing security leading up to the hand-over of political power to Iraqis on June 30.
.........
http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20040609/6270289s.htm

[subgenius]

how many more? how much longer?

[The Atheist]

how many more? how much longer?

"Until the last AK47 is pried from the cold, dead hands of the last Muslim to die?" Because that's how long I think the "war on terror" will last.

Whatever the rights or wrongs of what's happening, there can be little doubt that a generation of terrorists is being bred in the Sunni and Shi'ite suburbs of Iraq, the hills of Kashmir and the streets of Beirut.

The attack on WTC kills thousands, the violence is ratcheted up by USA and tens of thousands are dead in Iraq. Iran ratchets up the rhetoric and a nuclear strike becomes a possibility, with attendant millions of deaths.

Until one side is able to show the maturity to stop and try a nonviolent means of solution, the death toll will grow. With the protagonists being such men of honour as Bush, Armedinejad, Blair and Bin Laden, maturity is not an option.

[Giz]

Until one side is able to show the maturity to stop and try a nonviolent means of solution, the death toll will grow. With the protagonists being such men of honour as Bush, Armedinejad, Blair and Bin Laden, maturity is not an option.


When one side stops? Do you think that if Bush/Blair pull out of Iraq/Afghanistan that Bin Laden will call off Al Quada attacks?

Do you honestly think Blair and Bin Laden are morally comparable? Do you think both sides are equally to blame?

Disgusting. No, make that willfully blind and disgusting.

[fishbob]

When one side stops? Do you think that if Bush/Blair pull out of Iraq/Afghanistan that Bin Laden will call off Al Quada attacks?

Do you honestly think Blair and Bin Laden are morally comparable? Do you think both sides are equally to blame?

Disgusting. No, make that willfully blind and disgusting.

Taking part of a statement and blasting away at it, while ignoring the important part, trying something different, is willfully blind. Consider yourself busted - caught red-handed flogging the talking points out of the admin apologist playbook.

[Giz]

Taking part of a statement and blasting away at it, while ignoring the important part, trying something different, is willfully blind. Consider yourself busted - caught red-handed flogging the talking points out of the admin apologist playbook.

There was a more important part than the bit where western leaders are put on a level with a fanatical terrorist hell bent on holy war and the holocaust denying nuke wannabe leader of a theocratic state?

Was it where he blamed both sides for a 'cycle of violence'?:
"The attack on WTC kills thousands, the violence is ratcheted up by USA and tens of thousands are dead in Iraq. Iran ratchets up the rhetoric and a nuclear strike becomes a possibility, with attendant millions of deaths."

Perhaps you'd like to say what you thought was important, why it was important, and why we should pay attention to that rather than his summation...

Or we could just conclude - occam like - that you're a partisan hack.

Why do you hate America?

[demon]

Sub:
"how many more? how much longer?"

Of course, you`ll notice if you look around here, that the JREF`s very own Special Airborne Divison, who are still calling for troops to continue an occupation, up to their necks in it, in a phony war based on lies...are the ones who are still here with us, enjoying their families and their children and their everyday lives, still talking the talk but not walking the walk.
Many of the soldiers who they "support" however, are not here, they are dead.
Makes you wonder.

[The Atheist]

When one side stops? Do you think that if Bush/Blair pull out of Iraq/Afghanistan that Bin Laden will call off Al Quada attacks?

Do you honestly think Blair and Bin Laden are morally comparable? Do you think both sides are equally to blame?

Disgusting. No, make that willfully blind and disgusting.

Blair and Bin Laden comparable? No, I think Blair is far worse. Bin Laden, while a murdering terrorist of no morals, guts or character, at least stands for something. Horribly wrong, but he knows who he's attacking and why. Blair is a US-lap dog not worthy of being scraped off the feet of the world - enjoining Britain in their almost unique invasion of a sovereign state which did not attack Britain, its forces or its territories first.

Bush and Ahmadinejad are highly comparable as well. Two religious lunatics hell-bent on destroying each other.

As to whether Al Qaeda would stop attacks if US disarms, do you think they'll stop if the "war" continues? What disarming might do is stop the next generation becoming terrorists; cluster bombs and Humvees won't.

Why do you hate America?

Why do you assume that I do?

[The Atheist]

Many of the soldiers who they "support" however, are not here, they are dead.
Makes you wonder.

2872 "coalition" personnel killed in Iraq
19323 US personnel wounded.

Only a god would know how many of the other side.

What part of this makes people want to continue?

[demon]

The Atheist:
"As to whether Al Qaeda would stop attacks if US disarms, do you think they'll stop if the "war" continues? What disarming might do is stop the next generation becoming terrorists; cluster bombs and Humvees won't."


Never mind, they've arrested the second-in-command of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Again.

That should sort things out

[Mephisto]

Ahhh...


The "Propaganda Minister" hard at work:

Depose despot, supply food and water to tens of thousands, protect citizenry and their homes and businesses, repair infrastructure, and restart oil production -- benefits completely ignored...

Or completely concocted.

The lack of basic services has been a source of intense frustration among Iraqis, many of whom have said they expected a substantial upgrade following the U.S. invasion in 2003. Across Iraq, key areas of infrastructure -- such as water and sewage, the oil industry and electricity -- operate at or below prewar levels, according to U.S. officials in Baghdad and previous audits by Bowen's office.

Bowen acknowledged in an interview that three years of reconstruction projects -- paid for largely by more than $18 billion in U.S. funding, most of which has been spent -- had "been punctuated by shortfalls and deficiencies."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/30/AR2006043000910.html

[Mephisto]

Never mind, they've arrested the second-in-command of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Again.


This is always pointed at by those who want to show what progress we've made in our war against terrorism. We've captured Al Qaeda's #2, #3 and #4 man over and over again - without anyone realizing that there is always another fanatic waiting in the wings.

If chipping away at a terrorist hierarchy is in anyway useful, I'm sure the Israeli's would know - has anyone kept track of how many #2 men in Hamas Israel has killed? Has it stopped terrorists from taking innocent Israeli lives?

[subgenius]

I am having a hard time understanding the problem with knowing one's limits. I doubt that you, the military, or anyone embarks on a task and doesn't say to themselves "This is as much of my resources that I will devote to the task. Beyond that the price is too high."
Otherwise its like not setting your limit when bidding at an auction. You'll pay too much.
I doubt that any soldier has a problem with that concept.
I don't think I'm making myself clear.
hmmm

[The Atheist]

Never mind, they've arrested the second-in-command of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Again.

That should sort things out

Does that mean we've won? Who came second?

[subgenius]

I think I hear crickets saying, "Whatever it takes."
No one ever defined "it", "whatever", or "takes".

[subgenius]

"And we we ask 'em how much should we give,
The only answer's more, more, more...."
--John Fogerty

[subgenius]

Well I started this thread with this link which listed our dead:
http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor2.html
seems they've stopped counting....now what are they dying for?
So that some don't have to admit a mistake and lose political power.
Is Iraq better off now? Has anyone calculated how many Saddam killed vs. how many have died since "this" began?

[subgenius]

Seems there's so many they have to break it down by year:
http://www.militarycity.com/valor/honor.html
How many (years)? How many lives? How much money?