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

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, March 28, 2026 18:21
VIEWED: 7463
PAGE 3 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE

RUE

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 5:21 PM

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

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

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

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

And that's the truth.

GEEZER

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 7:19 PM

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

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

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

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

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

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 7:42 PM

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

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

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

RUE

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 7:49 PM

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

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 8:27 PM

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

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

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

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

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

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 8:27 PM

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

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

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

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

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

ANTIMASON

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 9:33 PM

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

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 9:50 PM

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

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

Ingenious Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 10:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

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

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

Chrisisall

CAUSAL

Wednesday, February 7, 2007 10:10 PM

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

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

I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

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

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE