see, not enough dead yet

1/26/2007 3:54:37 PM

^hey, we've been at war for over 3 years, people are going to die, wake up

1/26/2007 3:56:30 PM

how many have to die before i can be angry about it

1/26/2007 3:58:49 PM

Quote :

"not to make light of the numbers but ~3,000 deaths out of ~150,000 deaths over 3 years during a WAR is not that bad...again not to downplay the deaths of US soldiers, but ~3,000 out of ~150,000 is not a huge number Quote : "anywhere between 60,000 and 600,000 civilian deaths " that sucks but its not like it was US troops that killed all of them"

that's not the fucking point.
1) yeah, 3000/150000 is good for a war. that still ignores the fact that the death:injury ratio is way, way down in this war because our battlefield hospitals are so much better now. I heard something like in most past wars, dead:injured was something like 1:2. In this war, it's around 1:7, with over 20,000 badly injured soldiers. either way - those are US soldiers who did not have to die.

You seem to be fond of recounting "why don't you ask the families of the Kurds who died because of Saddam". Well, sir, why don't you ask the families of the US Soldiers who had to die because of our stupid invasion.

2) we're not takling about "the US Military would be better off with Saddam still in power", we're talking about Iraq.

and it's completely besides the point if US troops killed all or none of the huge number of dead Iraq civilians. The point is, our invasion has created an environment where they are basically free to kill each other, which they weren't doing in large numbers before the invasion.

[Edited on January 26, 2007 at 4:02 PM. Reason : .]

1/26/2007 4:00:17 PM

eleventy billion

1/26/2007 4:00:20 PM

Quote :

"how many have to die before i can be angry about it"

in a sense you shouldve been angry about it since the first death

but to put it in perspective...were in a very dangerous country with tons of non uniformed enemies that want to kill us...yet very crass math says we've lost about 3 troops a day...AGAIN, I'm not saying "up to x number of deaths is ok" but you have to put it in perspective

Quote :

"that's not the fucking point. 1) yeah, 3000/150000 is good for a war"

no actually that WAS my point...3000/150000 is "good", for a war

[Edited on January 26, 2007 at 4:03 PM. Reason : .]

1/26/2007 4:01:40 PM

Quote :

"but you have to put it in perspective"

yeah - how about you put it in the perspective that we are in a war that wasn't necessary in a country that we shouldn't invaded to begin with. Given that, how many of this "good number of deaths for a war" could have been avoided?

[Edited on January 26, 2007 at 4:04 PM. Reason : .]

1/26/2007 4:03:36 PM

Quote :

"we are in a war that wasn't necessary in a country that we shouldn't invaded to begin with"

thats your opinion

Quote :

"how many of this "good number of deaths for a war" could have been avoided?"

it depends...who's to say that if we hadnt taken the offensive we wouldnt have suffered another attack?

[Edited on January 26, 2007 at 4:05 PM. Reason : .]

1/26/2007 4:04:10 PM

How many of the 9/11 plot were Iraqi? And I am glad we turned Iraq upside in our search of Osama!!!!

1/26/2007 4:08:11 PM

as far as i know most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi

how many were Afghani? (/devils advocate)

1/26/2007 4:09:09 PM

Did the Taleban have a strong hold in Iraq?

1/26/2007 4:10:28 PM

Is the Taliban/Al Queda the only terrorist group in the world?

[Edited on January 26, 2007 at 4:13 PM. Reason : i think you meant Al Queda]

1/26/2007 4:13:21 PM

Were there terrorist cells in Iraq that demanded this massive campaign? Was there some overwhelming imminent threat?

1/26/2007 5:24:28 PM

i dunno but that could go back to our good but not perfect intelligence

maybe some thought iraq was gaining power...when Saddam called for the Middle East wide oil "boycott" to not export oil, no other Middle East countries went along..then Saddam dropped his own shit

Saddam brought it on himself though...why couldnt he just follow UNSCOM or UNMOVIC?

1/26/2007 5:28:34 PM

But were talking about the war on terror here. Not the campaign to remove a bad man that was a thorn in the side of the UN.

This was your comment

Quote :

"who's to say that if we hadnt taken the offensive we wouldnt have suffered another attack?"

We have went back and forth on this point eleventy times, I'm not doing it again. I'm fine with you thinking the war was justified on certain grounds (UN resolution, wmds real or not, etc), but please stop mixing "war on terror" and "Iraq". It's belittling to everyone involved to talk about it in those terms.

1/26/2007 5:45:44 PM

Quote :

"Iraq would be better off with Saddam still in powe"

It's remarkable how in 5 months, this statement went from debatable to laughable.

1/26/2007 6:21:30 PM

Thousands dead in public explosions

versus

hundreds dead in secret torture/executions

...except in the first scenario you still have the secret torture/executions

1/26/2007 6:24:28 PM

^and also no americans gave a flying fuck about dead iraqi's when saddam was in power, now all of a sudden we care about dead iraqis

Quote :

""who's to say that if we hadnt taken the offensive we wouldnt have suffered another attack?""

that doesnt mean iraq had anything to do with 9/11...it means if we had done like 1991 and basically not done shit, we couldve had another attack from SOMEONE...oh look we did, 10 years later

1/26/2007 6:28:11 PM

I cared about dead Iraqis all along

well... ever since we killed 500,000 of them with munitions and trade embargoes during and following the first Gulf War (see: The Christian Science Monitor)

1/26/2007 6:31:44 PM

i think its misleading to say we killed hundreds of thousands of people by way of trade embargoes

1/26/2007 6:33:35 PM

okay

Our trade embargoes triggered a humanitarian crisis that led to the starvation deaths of thousands and thousands of Iraqis - mostly children and the elderly. Fully aware of the situation, our government made no moves to alleviate the suffering.


is that more palatable?

1/26/2007 6:35:21 PM

its certainly more palatable

but its also funny that its the US's fault and not their leader Saddam's fault

i mean if somehow a bunch of americans died of hunger im sure nobody would blame our leader

1/26/2007 6:38:52 PM

this isn't about placing blame

this is about not being barbaric
it's about taking the moral high road

we should strive to be above reproach

we should have the cleanest air and waters for the best educated and best medically cared for people in the world
then there will be no contesting that America is the greatest country in the world

1/26/2007 6:41:54 PM

That's a giant pile of bullshit. Scandanavia is clean, educated, and well cared for, but nobody outside of it thinks Norway is the greatest country in the world.

This "above reproach" stuff is just juvenile wishful thinking with a better vocabulary than the four-year-olds who at least have some business being stupid enough to say it.

1/26/2007 6:45:48 PM

not being barbaric would be removing a barbaric dictator from power

being barbaric is what insurgents are doing, not US troops

shouldnt we also try to free millions of people from the rule of a tyrannical dictator? giving the gift of freedom to a struggling people who have been oppressed their whole lives? under saddam's reign, criticizing saddam was punishable by death...by fucking death...now consider that while you bash bush and face zero scrutiny...we want all countries to have that freedom

unfortunately to quote a great philosopher (Patrick "Dalton" Swayze in Road House) "its gonna get worse before it gets better" (or some shit)

let alone the true answer to this thread's question cannot be answered yet because not enough time has passed...if in 50 years iraq is a thriving democracy, surely everyone will agree that it is better (in 50 years as a democracy) than it was with saddam in power...however you must understand that this transitional period that we are currently in is a necessary step to reach that goal...and since its necessary, and its a phase of rebuilding iraq, it IS better than it was before, it has to be

[Edited on January 26, 2007 at 6:49 PM. Reason : .]

1/26/2007 6:46:29 PM

those ad hominem attacks really tore apart my idealism

you've thoroughly changed my mind

^ and that's fucking hilarious that you quoted Road House... and I'm not questioning the value of the quote. it's honest wisdom

[Edited on January 26, 2007 at 6:50 PM. Reason : Road House is a great movie... it just was funny]

1/26/2007 6:49:14 PM

those ad hominems you quickly dismiss were in direct response to your previous post

and call them what you want, it doesnt mean what i said isnt true



[Edited on January 26, 2007 at 6:52 PM. Reason : i gotta add a little lighthearted content to keep the spirits positive]

1/26/2007 6:50:42 PM

I agreed with you... freeing a lot of people from tyranny is a noble pursuit

the only issues I have with the Iraq war are timing (we should have finished the job in afghanistan first) and the possibility of corruption

1/26/2007 6:52:20 PM

i just think too many people cant even imagine the forest because they only see the trees, but a new tree every day...too many people dont imagine the ends justifying the means because they cant see past the means, regardless of the end

i think too many people underestimated the length of the war and dont see what the outcome could be down the road...the administration fucked up predicting how iraqi's would greet us, and predicting the timeline...but i still feel in the ultimate goal of making the world a safer place its necessary

[Edited on January 26, 2007 at 6:56 PM. Reason : sounded gay]

1/26/2007 6:55:14 PM

see I'm at the moment uncertain as to whether or not we should pull our troops in Iraq

I think we need far more troops if we're going to do it
but if that means reinstating the draft then no

if we hadn't alienated the international community so thoroughly on this issue we could pull this off

1/26/2007 7:03:46 PM

the international community usually just waits for the US to do everything anyway

1/26/2007 7:23:05 PM

I have a question concerning our occupation there.

We did have 150,000 or so there while we were in the middle of transitioning some home and some to start their tours, and this coincided nicely with the election period. At the moment, it's 130k with 21.5k more headed over to help.

We currently have the most modern technology available there from tanks to gunships to everything a modern military needs to invade a country. Our military also has decades and decades of experience, training, and leadership to go with all this wonderful technology. Despite all this firepower, we still see what amounts to a very small scale civil war between shia and sunni. And you have to be a little delusional to think that 21.5k extra is going to be a magic bullet.

So with that in mind we consider the Iraqi army. Which at the moment is about 100,000. They don't have anywhere close the firepower we have (indeed, it's mostly cheap soviet shit, top to bottom), and there is some talk that we are hesitant to give it to them for fear it will make the fall out from a civil war worse. They don't have the experience, the leadership, or the training we do. And on top of all that, there seems to be a real lack of will on their part to do the job needed.

With all that in mind, is there any rational person that thinks it is anywhere near possible to equip a brand new Iraqi army in any reasonable amount of time (5yrs? 10yrs? what's reasonable?) with the training, the firepower, the manpower, and everything it needs to do this job alone - especially when it appears their will is lacking AND then considering how the mighty mighty US military WITH the Iraqi's aren't able to quell sectarian violence?



It seems like to me, our best case scenario would be to hang around long enough until both factions get tired of attacking each other. And with a well funded Iran, Syria, and Turkey sending in freshly indoctrinated and motivated kids, the day the shias and sunnis tire of fighting may never come (hasn't happened in 1000 years as is).

[Edited on January 26, 2007 at 8:29 PM. Reason : a]

1/26/2007 8:21:37 PM

Your daily dose of dead people

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6305037.stm

1/27/2007 9:42:43 AM

Things are getting better over there. Now, even little girls can go to school without fear of being blown up

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/28/iraq.main/index.html?eref=rss_world

1/28/2007 2:22:47 PM

i'm still puzzled that you keep posting about a dozen deaths here and there, all the while hoping that the number of casualties approaches and surpasses all the innocent deaths during that "stable" time of the country where innocents were routinely killed...by the govt no less

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html

maybe if US Troops insurgents can kill a few hundred thousand more it will be as bad for children as Saddam's regime...I know you HOPE insurgents kill a lot more since you want the US to lose

it's kind of a sick obsession you have, getting off on the deaths of children because it makes saddam look better than dubya...man you're a sicker fuck than i originally thought

[Edited on January 28, 2007 at 2:53 PM. Reason : ]

1/28/2007 2:39:46 PM

Your rhetoric is pretty tired.

1/28/2007 3:08:01 PM

^^ Just curious why you haven't taken a shot at my most recent question in the thread. Do you rather prefer just making dumb accusations and non sequitor type replies?

1/29/2007 4:44:21 PM

Your rhetoric is pretty tired.

ps: nice double post

pps: oh wait, not as nice as your triple post above

[Edited on January 29, 2007 at 4:45 PM. Reason : .]

1/29/2007 4:44:56 PM

TypeA is a fucking idiot

1/29/2007 5:05:56 PM

nah, he's actually on point. We fucked up iraq pretty badly. HORRAY DESTABILIZATION!

1/29/2007 5:13:03 PM

Quote :

"Your rhetoric is pretty tired. ps: nice double post pps: oh wait, not as nice as your triple post above [Edited on January 29, 2007 at 4:45 PM. Reason : .]"

So you don't have any original thought of your own to add to my quandary about the Iraqis being able to control their country after we pull out?

1/29/2007 5:35:01 PM

TypeA is a fucking idiot

1/29/2007 5:37:34 PM

you are really fucking annoying

1/29/2007 5:50:56 PM

It wouldn't be a day in Baghdad without some death and destruction.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.main/index.html?eref=rss_world

• Bombs, gunfire and mortar attacks target Shiite pilgrims
• U.S. Marine, Army soldier killed in separate incidents
• Insurgents in Najaf battle are part of messianic cult, Iraqi officials say
• Plot to attack Najaf apparently involved killing Shiite clerics

1/30/2007 12:35:52 PM

salisburyboy just copies and pastes articles too

1/30/2007 1:43:22 PM

I didn't see you reply to the post dated

1/26/2007 8:21:37 PM

So what else can I put in here?

1/30/2007 2:00:44 PM

Quote :

"I didn't see you reply to the post... "

I see NOBODY replied because nobody gives a shit about anything you have to say

1/30/2007 2:07:49 PM

Maybe they just know you'll shit on the thread with comments like ^


Face it, you didn't answer because you don't have one. If it isn't a question you can echo a Tony Snow statement to, then you're dead in the water as far as the debate goes.

1/30/2007 2:57:12 PM

whatever you have to tell yourself to convince yourself that anybody cares about what you post

1/30/2007 2:57:49 PM

Go back to your pot and your lame call center job if you aren't capable of a reply.

1/30/2007 3:02:26 PM