| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/31/2006 12:57:17 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by TroyMosley:
only those who have not been there can say its a wast of time and that we are wrong for doing so |
I have travelled extensively in the Middle East but sadly not to Iraq. I was offered the chance to visit and considered it pre-war, but since the war, despite all the "improvements", it has become too dangerous for most people to travel through, and is certainly uninsurable.
|
|
|
|
01/31/2006 01:05:15 PM · #102 |
not was it just rebuilt better, but there are whole towns that now have water, and electricity that runs to them, that never did before, and this perspective thing, from our perspective, anything would be better then what they had before the war.
you know whats really great, is that say America didnt go to Iraq, and in 5 years Iraq used a dirty bomb on another country,
then the Whole world would be blaming Bush for not taking care of the problem when he had the chance,
just like the American people blamed clinton for not going after osama when he had the chance,
and dont even say Iraq didnt have dirty bombs because Saddam had almost a year leading up to the war to get rid of everything, so NO one really knows except saddam
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 06:06:40 AM · #103 |
Originally posted by TroyMosley:
you know whats really great, is that say America didnt go to Iraq, and in 5 years Iraq used a dirty bomb on another country,
then the Whole world would be blaming Bush for not taking care of the problem when he had the chance, |
It seems more likely that terrorist organisations will have their ranks swelled by disaffected people and that one them will obtain a dirty bomb and use it against the West. And then we will blame the leaders of those countries that fanned the flames of terrorism with their illegal war.
Saddam Hussein may not have been a great leader, but he was predictable and his actions were politically motivated, not religiously motivated. The biggest terrorist threat to the West is religiously motivated and unpredictable. I know which I would have preferred.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 11:13:31 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by TroyMosley:
NOPE, i feel the war was completely justafiable,
only those who have not been there can say its a wast of time and that we are wrong for doing so. but why dont you go there, and see what has been done, the infastructure you talk about that has been destroyed, well it has been rebuilt, and its better then it was before, the army that was disbanded, well its better trained then it was before, the school system is better then it was before, the working class is providing for their families more then they were before. |
ofcourse everything is "better" than before, you've killed or mutilated about 1 in 10 Iraqis, so the rest must have a better life since there is more to do just by supplying service for the dead and injured !
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 11:28:33 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
Originally posted by TroyMosley:
NOPE, i feel the war was completely justafiable,
only those who have not been there can say its a wast of time and that we are wrong for doing so. but why dont you go there, and see what has been done, the infastructure you talk about that has been destroyed, well it has been rebuilt, and its better then it was before, the army that was disbanded, well its better trained then it was before, the school system is better then it was before, the working class is providing for their families more then they were before. |
ofcourse everything is "better" than before, you've killed or mutilated about 1 in 10 Iraqis, so the rest must have a better life since there is more to do just by supplying service for the dead and injured ! |
nevermind, it was unprofessional
Message edited by author 2006-02-01 12:55:01.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 12:36:22 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
ofcourse everything is "better" than before, you've killed or mutilated about 1 in 10 Iraqis, so the rest must have a better life since there is more to do just by supplying service for the dead and injured ! |
Your claimed estimates appear to be grossly inaccurate. Iraqâs population appears to be around 22,200,000 people. 2,220,000 people would have to have been either killed or mutilated to support a 1 in 10 ratio. Could you link your sources?
Message edited by author 2006-02-01 12:37:53. |
|
|
|
02/01/2006 12:51:42 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by TroyMosley:
you are unbelieveable, quit watching CNN its hurting your brain, |
TroyMosley, the above post is an example of an ad hominem, attacking the arguer rather than attacking the argument. It is unnecessary, frequently unproductive and possibly cause for remedy by the Site Council. |
|
|
|
02/01/2006 01:01:42 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by DanSig:
ofcourse everything is "better" than before, you've killed or mutilated about 1 in 10 Iraqis, so the rest must have a better life since there is more to do just by supplying service for the dead and injured ! |
Your claimed estimates appear to be grossly inaccurate. Iraqâs population appears to be around 22,200,000 people. 2,220,000 people would have to have been either killed or mutilated to support a 1 in 10 ratio. Could you link your sources? |
I posted an earlier calculation that I made based on reasonably conservative estimates of total casualties and a population of 26m. I calculated 1 in 42 Iraqis have been killed or seriously injured.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 02:05:05 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
⦠you've killed or mutilated about 1 in 10 Iraqis, ⦠|
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I calculated 1 in 42 Iraqis have been killed or seriously injured. |
So you would agree that DanSigâs assertions are grossly exaggerated?
Message edited by author 2006-02-01 14:05:33. |
|
|
|
02/01/2006 02:28:47 PM · #110 |
|
|
|
02/01/2006 02:42:18 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by DanSig:
⦠you've killed or mutilated about 1 in 10 Iraqis, ⦠|
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I calculated 1 in 42 Iraqis have been killed or seriously injured. |
So you would agree that DanSigâs assertions are grossly exaggerated? |
Exaggerated by a factor of 4 on a conservative estimate. I am not sure that it is necessarily a "gross" exaggeration (literally or figuratively).
The conservative estimate is based on 100,000 deaths at Dec 2004 (conservative estimate by Lancet report), extrapolated to 177,000 in Nov 2005 by reference to average death rate of 5,556 deaths per month. Serious injuries are based on a historical conservative ratio of 3:1.
A liberal interpretation would be based around the other end of the Lancet report. That would be 280,000 deaths at 2004, extrapolated to 496,000 by Nov 2005. Serious injuries at a less conservative 3.5:1 ratio would be 1,736,000. Total killed and seriously injured would be 2,232,000.
That is 1 in 12, based on population size 26m, or 1 in 10 based on population size 22m.
So the range is between 1 in 42 and, conceivably, 1 in 10.
There are a number of criticisms that can be levied against these methodologies. I am not promoting the highest numbers, but neither do I discount them.
I think that the likelihood is that it is somewhere in the lower middle of those estimates: I do not like the very basic extrapolation used for the estimate between the Dec 2004 and Nov 2005 figures, when death rates should have declined given the different intensity of the fighting. But until a proper update to the Lancet report is produced, we will not have reliable statistical analyses to consider.
If these figures *seem* very high, then I agree. If they are accurate, then they make for very uncomfortable reading (or at least I think that they should do).
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 02:51:02 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by TroyMosley:
Here check out these links,
|
I have never suggested that all of the deaths are caused by US troops. All of the figures I have quoted reflect the increased death rate post war from all causes: US & UK bombs, troops, insurgents, civil disorder etc. The criticism is not directed against the actions of the majority of the troops, but against those who started the war.
But for the war, these hundred thousand to million civilian people would probably still be alive and unharmed. BTW, IMO it is a travesty that the military keeps no publicly available casualty figures to head off the huge uncertainty here.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 03:20:45 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Exaggerated by a factor of 4 on a conservative estimate. I am not sure that it is necessarily a "gross" exaggeration (literally or figuratively). |
Would it help if I said a "bleedingly obvious" exaggeration?
Paraphrase of a Sarah Silverman story:
I was talking to my niece and she told me they were studying World War II and the Holocaust in school.
âThe Nazis killed like 60 million Jews â¦â
âNo, sweety, the Nazis killed 6 million Jews.â
â6 ⦠60 ⦠whatever.â
âNo! 60 million would be unforgivable!â
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 03:26:26 PM · #114 |
I have no more to debate about, i just want to leave with saying that War has been around since the begining of time, it will always be around, and there will be people who are for it, and there will be people who are against it, and no matter what, people will be hurt and killed, some of these people are just innocent people. i dont know what your beliefs are, but mine are what happens, happens for a reason, and no one is going to change it, and all we can do as people is debat it,
so as a Soldier i have seen manythings, things i wish i never had to see, but there is nothing i can do about it, Except support our troops, which i will always do. no matter who sent them there or why they are there, i will back them 100%
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 05:15:01 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Exaggerated by a factor of 4 on a conservative estimate. I am not sure that it is necessarily a "gross" exaggeration (literally or figuratively). |
Would it help if I said a "bleedingly obvious" exaggeration?
Paraphrase of a Sarah Silverman story:
I was talking to my niece and she told me they were studying World War II and the Holocaust in school.
âThe Nazis killed like 60 million Jews â¦â
âNo, sweety, the Nazis killed 6 million Jews.â
â6 ⦠60 ⦠whatever.â
âNo! 60 million would be unforgivable!â |
My opinion is that 1 in 10 is probably an exaggeration of the real figures. I don't particularly wish to give credibility to DanSig's statements given his wild and loose style of presenting them. Ironically, the 2 million figure is as unlikely to be too high as the most conservative figures are to be too low.
However, the casualty numbers for the second Gulf war are almost certainly much higher than we (and our leaders) wish to admit. This is the conclusion of the statisticians who have actually tried to objectively assess the real numbers. However, it is in the interests of politicians, and it soothes the conscience of responsible nations, to down play the numbers.
As I asked before, does it matter if the numbers are 0.5 to 2 million injured and killed, rather than the 30,000 figure that both our leaders prefer to refer to?
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 05:58:32 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
As I asked before, does it matter if the numbers are 0.5 to 2 million injured and killed, rather than the 30,000 figure that both our leaders prefer to refer to? |
See my Sarah Silverman joke. |
|
|
|
02/01/2006 06:20:23 PM · #117 |
Troy, I respect your patriotism and dedication to your job; as well as the contribution you have made. I have no doubt that many things in Iraq are better than before and that many Iraqis are happy to have us there.
The Americans in Iraq are, overwhelmingly, there as a matter of choice. Soldiers understand the dangers of war when they join the military; and reporters and contractors weigh the dangers to determine whether or not it's worth the risk.
The talk about "perspective" is ludicrous because 30,000 (or whatever the number is) innocent Americans have not died for this "noble" cause. If we really want to give perspective, we should bring all of the Iraqi citizens to the US and send an equal number of our friends and family to live (and die) over there; making sure that a matching number of random Americans are killed or mutilated.
The truth is that we are directly responsible for the death of thousands upon thousands of innocent people in a futile attempt to protect ourselves from something that is more likely to happen now than before. How can any American say it's worth the cost when none of us have put our entire family in the line of fire?
That's like saying "It's better to lose 10 Iraqis than 1 American."
The questions that I still have are: How many people must die before it's deemed too costly? And how many more nations are we obligated to rebuild now that we've set this precedent? Because, it can be argued that there are those in greater need than were the citizens of Iraq.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2006 07:04:55 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
As I asked before, does it matter if the numbers are 0.5 to 2 million injured and killed, rather than the 30,000 figure that both our leaders prefer to refer to? |
"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic" Joseph Stalin.
How many peolpe have died is secondary to the question of why our countrymen are over there at all. Our attempt to "Nation build" in Somallia was a failure, why do we expect a better outcome in Iraq?
When we back our governmet's actions under the rubrick of supporting the troops that they have ordered into the field, we fail in our role as free citizens in a democracy. It is not just our right to question our leaders, it is our duty, if not for our own sakes then for our children's. |
|
|
|
02/01/2006 07:42:33 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
As I asked before, does it matter if the numbers are 0.5 to 2 million injured and killed, rather than the 30,000 figure that both our leaders prefer to refer to? |
"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths are a statistic" Joseph Stalin.
How many peolpe have died is secondary to the question of why our countrymen are over there at all. Our attempt to "Nation build" in Somallia was a failure, why do we expect a better outcome in Iraq?
When we back our governmet's actions under the rubrick of supporting the troops that they have ordered into the field, we fail in our role as free citizens in a democracy. It is not just our right to question our leaders, it is our duty, if not for our own sakes then for our children's. |
Question all you want but never undermind it. The troops are caught in the middle and they and their families pay the price and DON"T ever be too pompous about that fact. We sit here and say what we want. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 12:26:54 AM · #120 |
This may be the first unpopular war that the troops are being honored while the mission is called into question. I hate to break it to you, but this isn't exactly a popular war with the troops.
A few months ago I was talking with a master sargent special forces guy, about twenty five years in, a year away from getting out with a full pension (disability, his kness are powdered). We were at a wedding and he was in full fig with alot of hardware on his chest. We were talking about his career in general, general polite interest on my part, when the conversation went to how the army feels about the misson in Iraq. I have never heard the term "Cluster f**k" used so many times with such vigor in a short space of time. He had little good to say about the way the mission was being carried out on the ground, or the benefits he saw from risking his men's lives or his own.
I feel it is my right to agree with him. You may think he is undermining the troops. I guess he may not be entitled to his opinion, in your opinion. Being sent into an poloitical quagmire far from home, without the support structure to win, or an clearly defined goal to strive for, might just hurt their moral a touch more than my not putting a yellow ribbon on my pickup truck. However hard my words they will lack the impact of an IED through the side of an unarmoured personel carrier.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 01:51:17 AM · #121 |
Originally posted by milo655321:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
If you don't have anything to hide, why worry about it? Spying that is. |
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin |
I commonly see this quote come up in debates such as this.
The quote might look good on paper, but just think about it. By having speed limits on highways, for example, we are giving up our liberty to drive as fast as we want to, and in return we get security and added safety - but heaven forbid that we have speed limits! We're giving up our Liberty!
And how come everyone that's in opposition to Bush just assumes that he has sinister motives?
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:28:31 AM · #122 |
How about this one " Your right to swing your arm ends at the point where my nose begin" Thomas Jefferson.
As to distrusting the current president, guilty as charged, but if it had been slick Willy in office, I think I still would have disliked the accumulation of power that the office of the president is gathering. I like our old system of checks and balances. It isn't designed for maximum speed and efficiency, quite the opposite, it is designed to be an unweildy tool, so it would be hard to use or abuse the power granted to the office holder while in office. And the system those dead white men (Franklin, Adams, Jefferson...those guys) designed followed a distrust of power. The president now claims a right to have war powers greater than any claimed (since Truman tried to seize the steel industry and was shot down by the supreme court), based on a war that has never been declared by the only body that has the right to declare war, the congress.
Two more quotes.
"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely" Lord Acton
"Who will guard the guardians?" Plato
Some belive that the terrorist are a threat unlike any we have ever faced, so we must change if we want to beat them. We have managed to fight a few more imposing foes than these guys while maintaining a system of laws, why throw in the towel now? The goal of a terrorist is to cause the system under attack to destabilse itself. Having our government decide it has to change the rules by which it operates goes a fair way in acheiving the goals of our enemies. Our strength as a nation comes not from efficient leadership, but from the people of our nation.
It isn't so much Bush I don't trust as any president. His being a glad handing, silver spoon, preppy, trust fund, alcoholic, baseball owner, oil bidness man doesn't make me trust him more. I can forgive everything but the baseball owner thing. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:40:41 AM · #123 |
this is so amusing... how people can debate about things that doesn't really matter and nobody cares about...
ok... some facts..
the Coalition Armies are killing people in Iraq
the Iraqis are killing Coalition troopers
the Iraqis are killing their own people loyal to the coalition.
the Coalition is in Iraq against the will of the Iraqi people
the Coalition is in Iraq against the will of the people in the coalition countries
the reason given for invading Iraq was to capture Saddam Hussein, it's done but they are still there WHY ?
the Coalition has trained the Iraqi army and helped it to reach satisfactory level of professionalism
the Coalition has helped rebuild the goverment of Iraq
the Coaliton has helped rebuild the Iraqi police
the Iraqi goverment has requested that the Coalition leaves their country so their army and police can take over the security of the country
the Coalition refuses to leave WHY ?
the Coalition has stated that the Iraqi army is probably capable of defending the civil rights of their people
so now that we got some facts.. lets try to answer a few questions...
1. if the reason for the invation was to capture Saddam Hussein, and that goal was achived a year ago, why is the Coalition still there ?
2. since the Coalition has trained the Iraqi army to protect Iraq and it's population, why does the Coalition refuse to leave their country, even though the Iraqi goverment has requested that they leave ?
3. since over 80% of all attacs in Iraq are aimed at the coalition and it's followers, why don't the Coalition leave so peace can be reinstated again ?
4. if there were no oil in Iraq, would the coalition ever had invaded the country with such a bad excuse that they NEED to capture Saddam ? he's one of the most predictable presidents in the world
|
|
|
|
02/02/2006 02:54:40 AM · #124 |
| Besides the oil, because the US and Britain want to remake the entire middle east to their liking. |
|
|
|
02/02/2006 05:00:12 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by justin_hewlett:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
-- Benjamin Franklin |
I commonly see this quote come up in debates such as this.
The quote might look good on paper, but just think about it. By having speed limits on highways, for example, we are giving up our liberty to drive as fast as we want to, and in return we get security and added safety - but heaven forbid that we have speed limits! We're giving up our Liberty!
And how come everyone that's in opposition to Bush just assumes that he has sinister motives? |
The Franklin quote refers to "Essential Liberty". The commonplace rules and regulations of an organized society are not infringements upon an essential liberty; these, in the American interpretation at least, are spelled out in our constitution. Such things as freedom of assembly, freedom of worship, freedom of speech, the right to a speedy trial, the right to due process of law, and so forth. To argue that a hypothetical freedom to drive in an unregulated manner is in the same category as the right to go about our lives free of government surveillance is simply ridiculous IMO.
Robt.
|
|
