23,110

[Orville Wrong]

More men were killed or wounded at Antietam on September 17, 1862, than on any other single day of the Civil War. Federal losses were 12,410, Confederate losses 10,700.

That's more than 11 Iraqs in one day.

[Shlep]

More men were killed or wounded at Antietam on September 17, 1862, than on any other single day of the Civil War. Federal losses were 12,410, Confederate losses 10,700.

That's more than 11 Iraqs in one day.

I think I see what you're trying to do here, Orville. And sometimes, context does put things into perspective.

I submit that if battlefield medicine was still limited to sawing off limbs, surviving cures as bad as the injuries in other procedures as prevelant, and more of our boys died of the sort of illnesses that sideline most folks for a day or two of mild discomfort sitting around in bivouac than in combat, the figures might be different.

Though I do believe that there is an unwarranted and unjust perception often disseminated back home that our boys our hapless oafs in the face of the insurmountable resolve of our fearless foes. Fact is, we have given for better than we've gotten by any measure.

[Sovrana]

OW, with every post I become more convinced that you are a bot paid by the WH to spread "cheer."

[Sushi]

More than 7,500 seriously wounded soldiers have passed through Walter Reed since the war began. Most of them would have died in earlier wars--even in Vietnam, but advances in medical science over the past 15/20 years saved their lives. Comparing battlefield medicine in 1862 to battlefield medicine in 2005 is kind of like comparing apples and oranges.

I do see the point you're trying to make, and it's well taken. 2,000 soldiers killed in a war that's been going on for a few years is really a very small number. But it's still 2,000 husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, daughters, sons, friends killed in a war that didn't have to be.

BTW--it would take four Antietams to equal the estimated number of Iraqi lives lost since the war began. But they're ragheads, so that doesn't really matter, right?

[GISRICK]

Today KIA's reached 2000 in Iraq...It may not seem much in comparison to the large numbers in other wars...but how can you tell that to the parent who lost soldier number 98...soldier number 207...marine number 601.......

[markalot]

Are American lives more important than Iraqi lives? How many Iraqis were killed a day under Saddams rule? How many would have been if he was still in power? Do we know?

[GISRICK]

Are American lives more important than Iraqi lives? How many Iraqis were killed a day under Saddams rule? How many would have been if he was still in power? Do we know?
War is awful and no one life is more valuable than another...something many don't understand.

[The Big Crunch]

Are American lives more important than Iraqi lives? How many Iraqis were killed a day under Saddams rule? How many would have been if he was still in power? Do we know?
Well, we have figures ranging all over the place but generally between 7500 to (at the extreme high-end) 20,000 Iraqis killed as a result (direct or indirect) of the US invasion.

Oh yeah, I agree, Orville's original attempt at analogizing the deaths is so full of holes as to be insulting to my intelligence...although the typical Fox news viewer might find it convincing.

[samizdat]

More men were killed or wounded at Antietam on September 17, 1862, than on any other single day of the Civil War. Federal losses were 12,410, Confederate losses 10,700.

That's more than 11 Iraqs in one day.

sure wrong, but I hope you're just using that for the purposes of creating perspective and not to try to suggest that because military action A was worse than military action B, military action B is not too bad. I also hope you're not trying to draw a line between a military action that today is widely accepted as necessary for the purposes of suggesting that today's military action B should not be as controversial for the public.


Either way, argument-strategy aside, isn't it kind of tactless, given the immediacy of this news (I count a week as immediacy) to throw up a number to demonstrate how really insignificant all those lives lost are?

[Sofa King]

isn't it kind of tactless, given the immediacy of this news (I count a week as immediacy) to throw up a number to demonstrate how really insignificant all those lives lost are?

Tactless and Ow have far become synonymous with eachother.

[REMgirl]

I have a son in college who is of military age. If he had gone into the military and was killed in Iraq, my grief would not be tempered by the fact that more soldiers died in a single day's battle in the Civil War. They are people, mostly young people, not statistics. They're dead.

[Sushi]

Well, we have figures ranging all over the place but generally between 7500 to (at the extreme high-end) 20,000 Iraqis killed as a result (direct or indirect) of the US invasion.

The number of Iraqi civilian deaths since the US invasion is actually closer to 100,000, based on door-to-door surveys undertaken by Johns Hopkins University and published in The Lancet (a heavily peer-reviewed, well-respected British medical journal). Read about it here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html)
Direct or indirect--there are a whole lot of Iraqis who are dead today who would have been alive if we hadn't invaded.

(And yes, Saddam Hussein was a big murderous dickwad, but this was supposed to be about the war on terror. He didn't have spit-all to do with that. We couldn't/didn't catch Osama, so we shot some fish in a barrel.)

[markalot]

War is awful and no one life is more valuable than another...something many don't understand.

What are the choices?

Sanctions kill people, dictators kill people, war kills people, insurgency kills people, terrorists kill people. What are the choices? We went to war for reasons that were false, but is the war really unworthy?

Many people who hate war hate it because it brings death to the news, not because it causes more death. If the problem isn't on TV then it's not a problem.

OW was comparing this war to other wars, and it was inciteful on purpose, I'm sure. BUt you could compare the 2000 to oher numbers, like the number of people killed every day in car accidents?

There were an estimated 6,356,000 car accidents in the US in 2000. There were about 3.2 million injuries and 41,821 people were killed in auto accidents in 2000 based on data collected by the Federal Highway Administration.


That's 114 people a day!

Do I say this to minimize the significance of the American deaths in Iraq? Do I say this because I don't think mothers of these young men have reason to be devastated?

Do I say this because I think this is mostly a media event?

Ignoring a brutal dictator is easy. Some might say that it was ok to have bad information to justify a war because it was war that needed to be fought that could not have been fought without a pop reason (WMD) for going in. That's a terrible thing to do and I would like to think that a good leader could make an honest case for a justifiable war, but that didn't happen. That doesn't make this war unjustified.

I'm tired of hearing the anti-war rants, I want substance. We can look back at history to learn what happens when we ignore problems. We had inspectors yet they could not say without doubt that he didn't have weapons. You can pretend this isn't true, but I trust the investigative reporting of the washington post and others.

So take yourself back to pre-war and let's go back to the security council and pretend we wwill not go to war without the support of France and Germany. What would you do and how many lives would it effect?

[markalot]

The number of Iraqi civilian deaths since the US invasion is actually closer to 100,000, based on door-to-door surveys undertaken by Johns Hopkins University and published in The Lancet (a heavily peer-reviewed, well-respected British medical journal). Read about it here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html)
Direct or indirect--there are a whole lot of Iraqis who are dead today who would have been alive if we hadn't invaded.

(And yes, Saddam Hussein was a big murderous dickwad, but this was supposed to be about the war on terror. He didn't have spit-all to do with that. We couldn't/didn't catch Osama, so we shot some fish in a barrel.)

How many of those dead were in the Iraqi army? And how do you know more Iraqis would be alive today if we had not gone to war? What about the mass killings he did in the past? Is it because those mass killings are a number of years ago that they don't count? If we had invaded Iraq for some bogus reason days before he slaughtered opponents in the south would we have knows we prevented it?

[djudge79]

these numbers that get tossed around don't even begin to take into account the collateral damage associated with this war. every death is associated with a family, often including young children. plus, if you focus on those who weren't killed but were either physically or psychologically scarred, often scarred for the duration of the lives in the form of lost limbs or damaged psyches, the number gets a lot bigger, estimated to be around 50,000 individuals. those people's lives are altered forever as well, as are the people connected to them.

[The Big Crunch]

Yeah, my bad on the numbers, I actually reeaaallly low-balled, although the 100,000 is viewed with a fair amount of skepticism by a lot of folks including myself.

[GISRICK]

What are the choices?

Sanctions kill people, dictators kill people, war kills people, insurgency kills people, terrorists kill people. What are the choices? We went to war for reasons that were false, but is the war really unworthy?

This war has turned the Iraq into the worlds number one training ground for terrorists. They are being recruited everyday and they are killing other arabs on a daily basis...these people weren't being killed on a daily basis in Iraq before the war and Iraq wasn't the worlds number one training ground for terrorists.

[markalot]

This war has turned the Iraq into the worlds number one training ground for terrorists. They are being recruited everyday and they are killing other arabs on a daily basis...these people weren't being killed on a daily basis in Iraq before the war and Iraq wasn't the worlds number one training ground for terrorists.

That's all very true, but you didn't answer the question. See that's the problem, there are all kinds of reasons to look away and not get involved. Successfully preventing something means that something never happened.

[PeterABnny]

Tell me again why we're there?

Oh, yeah! Right, it was for all those WMD that Saddam was stockpiling, as well as the joint being overrun with Al Quida. Whew! Thank God a steadfast, moral leader like Bush got (re)elected to make sure them queers don't get married and abortion remains illegal, an' I sleep MUCH better knowing we're fighing terrorists abroad so we don't have to fight 'em here...

[PeterABnny]

That's all very true, but you didn't answer the question. See that's the problem, there are all kinds of reasons to look away and not get involved. Successfully preventing something means that something never happened.


Yeah, but do we act pre-emptively and topple every government hostle to the US? By that logic, N. Korea and Iran is next on the list to go to war with. Where does it all end?

[Tripod 3]

It ends when WE have all the toys and everybody speaks English, uses the dollar and votes for the same guy. Hmmm, sounds like a previous leadership (circa 1938 Germany).

[GISRICK]

That's all very true, but you didn't answer the question. See that's the problem, there are all kinds of reasons to look away and not get involved. Successfully preventing something means that something never happened.
I always agree with investing in the future and not always addressing issues with short terms solutions. Terrorism is an awful reality we have to deal with but I don't invading Iraq is a way of erradicating terrorism. Trust me, I can not stand terrorists...they are weak and they prey on the weak and innocent. I watched the WTC collapse out of my office window (2 miles away) and had two cousins who are NYC firemen perished...And it is true that most terrorism is born in the Mid-East. I just don't think Iraq is the breeding ground...It is Iran, Syria and was Afghanistan.

[Homsar]

Yeah, that's what, a week of abortions?

[GISRICK]

Yeah, that's what, a week of abortions?
Hmmmm...don't really get it.

[Homsar]

About 3750 abortions per day, so about 26250 per week.

Oh, and that's just in the US.

Need a link (http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm)?

[Tripod 3]

Yeah, that's what, a week of abortions?

That's true. 25,000 per week in 2002!

[Homsar]

See? I not crazy!

[Tripod 3]

About 3750 abortions per day, so about 26250 per week.

Oh, and that's just in the US.

Need a link (http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm)?


Oops, beat me to it.

[GISRICK]

I'm lost...I guess its OK to throw any sort of non-sequitur into a discussion to keep it flowing in your direction. I thought we were discussing War in Iraq and the associated death of soldiers and civilians.

[markalot]

Hmmmm...don't really get it.

Some think the war is wrong and are focusing on the numbers killed.

Some think abortion is wrong and are focusing on the numbers killed.

Get it now? :)

Take a belief and make a stand. Who is wrong and who is right?

[GISRICK]

Not really but this is why I can deal with discussions with those with completely different views. I'm out.

[Tripod 3]

How complicated can this be for people?

I don't understand, people. How can you say abortion is wrong but support a war? How can you promote the death penalty for some (infants) but allow it for others?

Last I checked, death is death is death. There is no coming back (at least not in this form).

People dying sucks. Abortions are grotesque and cruel. War is bizarre and worthless. The death penalty is just plain stupid.

In a modern (or so we claim) society, I'm sure we could all be able to find alternatives to these issues. Or maybe we have yet to reach that level of compentency.

Just a thought. :o

[summerteeth]

the only reason I opened this thread is because I thought it had something to do with Spacey's postcount. :p

[Tripod 3]

the only reason I opened this thread is because I thought it had something to do with Spacey's postcount. :p

Me too, now look what I got myself into! :)

[GISRICK]

How complicated can this be for people?

I don't understand, people. How can you say abortion is wrong but support a war? How can you promote the death penalty for some (infants) but allow it for others?

Last I checked, death is death is death. There is no coming back (at least not in this form).

People dying sucks. Abortions are grotesque and cruel. War is bizarre and worthless. The death penalty is just plain stupid.

In a modern (or so we claim) society, I'm sure we could all be able to find alternatives to these issues. Or maybe we have yet to reach that level of compentency.

Just a thought. :o

Who the hell said those who don't support war support abortion? Now that I'm sidetracked, I feel that a women has the right to choose what she wants to do...but that has little to do with war...We are from vastly different places aren't we...

[The_Buffalo]

More people need to die.
Traffic sucks!
Come on meteorite....Avian flu...N.Korea...NWO.

*puts on aluminum foil deflector beenie*

[markalot]

Who the hell said those who don't support war support abortion? Now that I'm sidetracked, I feel that a women has the right to choose what she wants to do...but that has little to do with war...We are from vastly different places aren't we...

But forget abortion just for a second.

The point is that people can have varying opinions on a subject and that right and wrong in many cases are not accepted facts.

So we want to give women the right to choose, but some choose to kill a baby. We make fun of the people who are at war with the right to life folks, but they see it as a fundamental moral issue.

We look at a war and say killing is wrong and make fun of people who support a war and say how the hell can you support killing people. Anti-war folks see it as a fundamental moral issue.

And in each case we have people so polarized that they can't seem to look at things objectively. You have right to lifers who reject abortion no matter what caused the pregnancy, you have anti war people who reject war no matter what the cost. And they take their sides and they preach their stance and they don't listen to any opposing viewpoints.

So, to me anyway, it's damn similar.

[Tripod 3]

So, to me anyway, it's damn similar.

Sweet, someone acutally made sense of my rant. Thanks.


On another note, sure everyone has a right to choose, but does it make it right?

Bush chose to send us to war, does it make it right? I chose to shoot my neighbor, does it make it right? The girl at school chose to have an abortion, killing a child, does it make it right?

Sure we all have choices to make, but they aren't all correct ones. But I'm sure not qualified to make that choice for you. I can only share (and will) my opinion with you. The point to me is that people polarize themselves on issues just because... Not because they look at the reality of the situation.

A soldier dying in Iraq is just as awful as the girl at school aborting her baby.

And many people seem to have opposite opinions on these matters just because...

[purple_octopus]

A soldier dying in Iraq is just as awful as the girl at school aborting her baby.
Ironically, many of the same people who think it's awful that the soldier died in Iraq don't see a thing wrong with the school girl aborting her baby.

[markalot]

More people need to die.
Traffic sucks!
Come on meteorite....Avian flu...N.Korea...NWO.

*puts on aluminum foil deflector beenie*

I'd like to add my support to the 'more people need to die' movement.

[samizdat]

Ironically, many of the same people who think it's awful that the soldier died in Iraq don't see a thing wrong with the school girl aborting her baby.


and many people who are aghast at thought of a school girl's abortion find the soldier's death dulce and decorum.

neither what you said nor what i just said should have a place in a purposeful discussion of either abortion or war

[purple_octopus]

and many people who are aghast at thought of a school girl's abortion find the soldier's death dulce and decorum.
I think there are very, very few people who *don't* have a problem with a soldier's death. Some may think that the cause for which they died is just, while others do not. Keep in mind that I am against this war, but I've yet to see supporters shrugging off the casualties as though they aren't a bad thing. However, there are a *lot* of people who simply do not see abortion as wrong in the least.

neither what you said nor what i just said should have a place in a purposeful discussion of either abortion or war
You're in CE/P. You want a *purposeful* discussion? Whatever you're smoking, please pass some over to me.

[markalot]

Hey, HOW DARE WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ON A DISCUSSION BOARD! WTF ARE YOU THINKING?

:D

[samizdat]

"I think there are very, very few people who *don't* have a problem with a soldier's death. Some may think that the cause for which they died is just, while others do not. Keep in mind that I am against this war, but I've yet to see supporters shrugging off the casualties as though they aren't a bad thing."

This thread began as a comparison of deaths in Iraq to deaths in Anietam. I know Wrong would never be so callous as to "shrug off" the deaths in Iraq, but his comparison does sound a lot like it's trying to reduce the significance of this death toll due to its relatively low number.

"However, there are a *lot* of people who simply do not see abortion as wrong in the least"

What pro-choicers are you talking to who are saying "yeah kill babies, I don't have a problem with that?" I don't think either of us have statistics on this, but I'm gonna put my money on the side that says the pro-lifers recognize the tragedy that a mother will give up her child in that way, but prefer that to a greater tragedy of a reluctant mother raising a child hatefully and in poverty, a child being born addicted to crack and starved of love, both mother and child dying on the table of an illegal clinic in some alley, or any of a number of things that happen when the option isn't available.

Hell I'd say that there are plenty of pro-choice women who would never CONSIDER abortion if it were a choice they had to make. Thirst for liberty does not equal thirst for blood.

but this ALL is besides the point I was trying to make originally, that both of our earlier points were stupid character arguments centered around the people who support different sides, and had nothing to do with the real meat of the matter

and finally (I'm sorry this is so long) i don't really understand how to do the quote thing so that's why I didn't do it here and just cut and pasted. i swear I didn't change words.

[markalot]

why are you sorry your post is so long? :)

You can quote by hilighting text and pressing the quote button above the edit box when writing posts. The quote button looks like a text bubble.

Only conceited people quote themselves.

[samizdat]

Oops one more thing:

You're right that this is just a silly message board sponsored by some indie rock station. But don't discount the power of word-of-mouth. Sadly, none of us have the time to be perfectly informed on complicated issues like this. People have to get their information from somewhere, and develop their opinions somehow, and they end up doing it based on what they hear (read?) around them. Even revolutions started in little cafes, with little people having silly little discussions that grew into more.

Lots of what is said on here (including things you and I have said or will say) is going to be stupid. But why not exercise some degree of care? Don't just run your mouth off because it doesn't matter, because it might. Someone's opinion might change because of something you or I say. They might not even realize it , because they got put on the spot or what have you and have to weigh in RIGHT NOW but everything they've heard on the topic will come flooding back to them and will influence what comes out of their mouth next and hell I don't want them to base their decision on some "pro-choicers don't care about babies" argument.

So don't knock an exchange of ideas just because we're not a panel of experts.

[shivui]

yeah i've seen this in places too and although i know this was a thread about iraq and antietam, i just don't understand why pro-choice=pro-abortion. i think someone needs to justify the connection or some should place words more carefully.

i really don't know what to think about politics and such anymore. the burden weighs hard.
i think i can honestly say i'm glad i'm not a father.

[purple_octopus]

What pro-choicers are you talking to who are saying "yeah kill babies, I don't have a problem with that?" I don't think either of us have statistics on this, but I'm gonna put my money on the side that says the pro-lifers recognize the tragedy that a mother will give up her child in that way, but prefer that to a greater tragedy of a reluctant mother raising a child hatefully and in poverty, a child being born addicted to crack and starved of love, both mother and child dying on the table of an illegal clinic in some alley, or any of a number of things that happen when the option isn't available.

Hell I'd say that there are plenty of pro-choice women who would never CONSIDER abortion if it were a choice they had to make. Thirst for liberty does not equal thirst for blood.
Please point out where I said that *all* (or even *most*) pro-choicers think abortion is okay? I'm just saying that there are more pro-chiocers that think abortion is A-OK than there are pro-war conservatives that think it's just fine and dandy that soldiers are dying. Even pro-war nutjobs want us to win (i.e., not have our soldiers killed).

but this ALL is besides the point I was trying to make originally, that both of our earlier points were stupid character arguments centered around the people who support different sides, and had nothing to do with the real meat of the matter
I wasn't making generalizations or character arguments. Maybe you were, I don't claim to speak for you. Tripod's post read like *everyone* thinks abortion is wrong (while it certainly may not have been his intention to make it sound that way), and that's not the case. I pointed that out, end of story. I also don't give much of a shit about the the topic of this thread. 99.99% of us agree that the war sucks, it's just that some of us want to base our judgement on facts, and some of us want to unwittingly bitch about anything and everything done by Republicans. That is just so fucking boring. So please don't expect me to care if this thread gets derailed. Most threads in here do, so you might want to get used to the idea.

and finally (I'm sorry this is so long) i don't really understand how to do the quote thing so that's why I didn't do it here and just cut and pasted. i swear I didn't change words.
Yes, the quote function will certainly improve the readability of your posts. Just hit the "quote" button on anyone's post (especially one that contains a quote), and you should get a good example.

[purple_octopus]

Oops one more thing:

You're right that this is just a silly message board sponsored by some indie rock station. But don't discount the power of word-of-mouth. Sadly, none of us have the time to be perfectly informed on complicated issues like this. People have to get their information from somewhere, and develop their opinions somehow, and they end up doing it based on what they hear (read?) around them. Even revolutions started in little cafes, with little people having silly little discussions that grew into more.
Anyone who gets *all* of their information on world events from an indie rock messageboard is a complete and utter fucktard. Why in the world would I give them any sort of consideration?

Lots of what is said on here (including things you and I have said or will say) is going to be stupid. But why not exercise some degree of care? Don't just run your mouth off because it doesn't matter, because it might.
No, it really doesn't.
Someone's opinion might change because of something you or I say.
If they're a brain dead idiot who is going to base their opinions on something you or I say, rather than becoming informed and weighing evidence, they are probably so far gone that "excercising some degree of care" is probably not going to do that much for them.
They might not even realize it , because they got put on the spot or what have you and have to weigh in RIGHT NOW but everything they've heard on the topic will come flooding back to them and will influence what comes out of their mouth next and hell I don't want them to base their decision on some "pro-choicers don't care about babies" argument.
And who made that argument? Wasn't me. Maybe you need to stop inferring things that aren't there.
So don't knock an exchange of ideas just because we're not a panel of experts.
If I were against exchange of ideas, I wouldn't be here. Don't take yourself so seriously.

[jefrey]

Oops one more thing:

People have to get their information from somewhere, and develop their opinions somehow, and they end up doing it based on what they hear (read?) around them.

Please don't do that, we're all crazy here! ;)
Seriously, I said on matt's 2000 thread that millions die every year from aids. That doesn't mean that I'm callosed to the fact that we finally reached 2000 deaths. Any death is a tragedy. What I think is a bigger tragedy is when we as a society buy into the fact that 2000 US soldiers is some how more of a tragedy than the million people that were murdered in Bosnia or that millions of people are starving to death and dying of aids every year. Those are real numbers and we or the media or whatever you want to call it don't pay it the SERIOUS attention it deserves. We as a country did nothing to help the Bosnians until the end. The sad part about it was we actually had knowledge that so many people were dying. Why the hell didn't we do something to help. Mean while, flash forward to Iraq, a government which by the way, we put together, suddenly becomes a "terrorist camp ground, WMD and nuclear test site" and we decide hey, let's take em out, and then freak out when the death toll reaches 2000. I just think that our priorities are seriously out of whack.

[samizdat]

[QUOTE=purple_octopus]I wasn't making generalizations or character arguments. Maybe you were, I don't claim to speak for you. Tripod's post read like *everyone* thinks abortion is wrong (while it certainly may not have been his intention to make it sound that way), and that's not the case. I pointed that out, end of story. I also don't give much of a shit about the the topic of this thread. 99.99% of us agree that the war sucks, it's just that some of us want to base our judgement on facts, and some of us want to unwittingly bitch about anything and everything done by Republicans. That is just so fucking boring. So please don't expect me to care if this thread gets derailed. Most threads in here do, so you might want to get used to the idea.[QUOTE]

You missed my point. I wasn't saying that talking about abortions in a thread about war derails the thread. I don't care either, and I think I'm already "used to the idea." I was more referring to your comments about pro-choicers, in that they seem to be character arguments rather than useful facts (remember that's what we "want to base our judgment on?"). I think you are making generalizations, and then trying to protect yourself by throwing in a qualifier or too.

But yeah, I don't care which direction this thread takes.

[samizdat]

Anyone who gets *all* of their information on world events from an indie rock messageboard is a complete and utter fucktard. Why in the world would I give them any sort of consideration?


No, it really doesn't.

If they're a brain dead idiot who is going to base their opinions on something you or I say, rather than becoming informed and weighing evidence, they are probably so far gone that "excercising some degree of care" is probably not going to do that much for them.

And who made that argument? Wasn't me. Maybe you need to stop inferring things that aren't there.

If I were against exchange of ideas, I wouldn't be here. Don't take yourself so seriously.

When exactly did I say that we SHOULD be getting our info here?

I DID NOT.

I would love for everyone to read several newspapers and weigh their sources, carefully checking primary sources when available, before forming any opinion about current events. BUT PEOPLE DON'T DO THAT. I know you gotta have at least that one apolitical friend who doesn't read the paper at all and it drives you nuts. That person still forms opinions, and they form them off of whatever information they have available to them. That is why, even in this casual setting, I see potential harm in just running your mouth off about pro-choicers or what-have-you.

[purple_octopus]

I was more referring to your comments about pro-choicers, in that they seem to be character arguments rather than useful facts (remember that's what we "want to base our judgment on?"). I think you are making generalizations, and then trying to protect yourself by throwing in a qualifier or too.
Again, you *really* need to go back and read what I wrote. Either you are choosing to put false meaning into my post, or really do have reading comprehension issues. Or perhaps you are claiming to know exactly what I was thinking when I wrote my post, and you feel jusified in doing so because of your exceptional psychic abilities.

[purple_octopus]

I would love for everyone to read several newspapers and weigh their sources, carefully checking primary sources when available, before forming any opinion about current events. BUT PEOPLE DON'T DO THAT.
And that's my problem because?????
I know you gotta have at least that one apolitical friend who doesn't read the paper at all and it drives you nuts. That person still forms opinions, and they form them off of whatever information they have available to them.
Yes, my sister does this. Which is why I completely discount almost everything she has to say.
That is why, even in this casual setting, I see potential harm in just running your mouth off about pro-choicers or what-have-you.
Again, if people choose to do this, this is not my problem. Just as I have no control over whether or not someone is going to erroneously inject their own meanings into my posts.

[markalot]

When exactly did I say that we SHOULD be getting our info here?

I DID NOT.

I would love for everyone to read several newspapers and weigh their sources, carefully checking primary sources when available, before forming any opinion about current events. BUT PEOPLE DON'T DO THAT. I know you gotta have at least that one apolitical friend who doesn't read the paper at all and it drives you nuts. That person still forms opinions, and they form them off of whatever information they have available to them. That is why, even in this casual setting, I see potential harm in just running your mouth off about pro-choicers or what-have-you.

No, I totally disagree.

You're making the mistake thinking that people need to be sheltered from discussion because they can't make up their own mind. I think you're also taking a shallow view of the issues. I'm pro-choice, but I think abortion is murder. Different discussion though.

To me the relevance to the war conversation is that any decision comes with a cost / benefit. To have a meaningful discussion about the war in Iraq we need to drop the bullshit that led up to it and analyze if the cost of the war is worth any benefit.

In the short term it's certainly not, but what about the long term? What if Saddam was still in power, how long would the sanctions have worked? Were they really working in the first place? Would there have been Saddam fatique and as we stopped paying attention he would have developed WMD? etc. etc. etc.

I'm not about to defend the Bush administration for getting us into this war. We seem to be focussed on if he lied or not, but it makes no difference. He's incompetent and that incompetence got us to where we are today. That doesn't make it acceptable to regard this war as useless or not worth it. I am accusing people who do that of ignoring the danger Saddam posed to the world. They like it when the media doesn't cover Iraq and therefor it's not a problem.

[samizdat]

I do not say that people need to be shletered from discussion because they can't make up their mind. I don't count ad hominem as discussion, and my concern is that people will make their mind up off of THAT.

And Octopus, it is not your problem that people don't stay as informed as they could be. But where is the harm in just exercising a REASONABLE degree of care?

I'll try to get to the rest later on.

[purple_octopus]

And Octopus, it is not your problem that people don't stay as informed as they could be. But where is the harm in just exercising a REASONABLE degree of care?
There is still no guarantee that these people will abandon their ill-informed views regardless. For example, I've told a certain someone countless times now to go back and re-read a post that he has misconstrued, yet this person is still unable to extract meaning from a simple sentence. You can hold someone's hand, but most of the time it will do no good.

[markalot]

I do not say that people need to be shletered from discussion because they can't make up their mind. I don't count ad hominem as discussion, and my concern is that people will make their mind up off of THAT.

And Octopus, it is not your problem that people don't stay as informed as they could be. But where is the harm in just exercising a REASONABLE degree of care?

I'll try to get to the rest later on.


Ok, please don't take this the wrong way, but that almost seems ... what, communist? Let's restrict speech? I'm having trouble identifying a position that requests that we 'watch' what we say so people don't get 'confused'. If you were a government official would you want to charge us with sedition?

Like I said, please don't fly off the handle here, I just want you to think about what your asking, or at least what you appear to be asking. Speech is not the enemy.

[samizdat]

I don't suggest restricting speech. Talk all you want. But I have a problem with just saying things about a certain group of people who take a particular stance, without having evidence to back up what you said as fact, and allowing it to sound as though you are stating fact and not perception.

[markalot]

I don't suggest restricting speech. Talk all you want. But I have a problem with just saying things about a certain group of people who take a particular stance, without having evidence to back up what you said as fact, and allowing it to sound as though you are stating fact and not perception.

Ok, so how are you going to find factual evidence to support how a certain group thinks? It's all bullshit. Everything seen on TV about why people voted for Bush or Kerry, for example, is total bullshit. About the only time you can get facts to back up an opinion ON someone elses opinion is when they happen to belong to a radical group with a very narrow focus.

I don't know why the people who support abortion support it. Some seem to go with the rights issue, others seem to be morally bankrupt. What's to discuss?

[Tripod 3]

:p What happened here?

[weezer6]

Tell me again why we're there?

Oh, yeah! Right, it was for all those WMD that Saddam was stockpiling, as well as the joint being overrun with Al Quida. Whew! Thank God a steadfast, moral leader like Bush got (re)elected to make sure them queers don't get married and abortion remains illegal, an' I sleep MUCH better knowing we're fighing terrorists abroad so we don't have to fight 'em here...

to me, if you bought into the war, with wmds being the only reason you supported in the beginning, you ain't too bright. that's what cracks me up when i hear people bitch about the wmds. they're pissed because to me, in all honesty, they're the dumb ones who got fooled. i could give a rats ass about wmds. saddam started a war in 1991, and got his ass kicked. he agreed to some shit so that he could keep the u.s. out of iraq, and keep his regime. he did not live up to the agreement, and gave the u.s. and the u.n. a big fuck you. i needed no other supporting evidence. the president, in order to gain some war support from the liberal folks, took a gamble and used some suspect info to push the wmd angle. it worked. the libs bought it, but difinitive wmds were not found, no one said, "hey, check this out, there's a nuclear bomb in here!" if anyone was fooled, the libs were the biggest group.

when i hear knuckleheads on the radio using the "sheeple" line, and saying that conservatives are fooled and still believe, it's bullshit. in my case, i never needed the wmd or al queda evidence. saddam should have got his ass kicked the first time he kicked inspectors out.

i will concede that the war should never have been fought, and none should be attempted in the future, even if american soil is invaded. the u.s. is so politically divided that the president, whether they be repub or democrat, can never depend on the opposing political party for support. either party, when not in power, would rather see the party in power lose a war, at the cost of american lives, for political gain.

the democrats, right now, don't want to see progress in iraq. i doubt many people on this board want to see success or progress in iraq. it might help out the republicans, and they don't want that. i bet folks on this board don't mind when dudes bite the dust in iraq, because then they can be "right". it's fucking rediculous.

anyway, about the deaths. 2000 dead soldiers is not good. but i'm one of those people that try to look at the big picture. these folks agreed to the risk. for those that say shit like "tell that to the mother of the dead soldier, tell her that 2000 isn't that many", i looked up some nyc murder stats, and they actually compete with the death toll in iraq. one article i saw said that one year the murders were less than the previous. well, tell that to the mother of the dead dude on the street. she ain't gonna give a shit, either, it still sucks.

and to those that say they support the troops, but protest the war, you're fooling yourself. protest the war all you want, i don't have a problem with that, but in doing so, you don't support the troops. you can SAY you support the troops, to make yourself feel better, but you still look like a hypocrital tool. well, maybe just to me and my dad, and well the vets that i know and my brother and brother in law that are still active. maybe just us.

look at it this way. maybe you really like sean casey of the reds. you claim, "i support sean!" you go to the reds game and yell booo reds all fucking night. "i want the reds to lose, booo, boooo, go cards." how in the fuck are you supporting sean casey?

maybe your support goes like this. boo bush, keep up the good work insurgents, escalated american casualties, public opinion deeper in the shitter, we go home, saddam's cronies take back iraq. your support = wishing for failure.

good plan.

[markalot]

Ahh,

I needed a good post like that :)

[Tripod 3]

I think what we all have learned here is that...

Killing people sucks.

Dead people suck.

And that whether you are in Iraq, NYC, or an abortion clinic, it pretty much sucks.

So go USA, we are awesome! :p

[Sovrana]

the democrats, right now, don't want to see progress in iraq. i doubt many people on this board want to see success or progress in iraq. it might help out the republicans, and they don't want that. i bet folks on this board don't mind when dudes bite the dust in iraq, because then they can be "right". it's fucking rediculous.



And I think this is what gets me most of all. You can still proclaim a pro-war stance and place the blood on those of us who opposed this war from the beginning by making crazy claims suggesting that people like me seek comfort in the death in Iraq.

Well.....fuck you!

[weezer6]

And I think this is what gets me most of all. You can still proclaim a pro-war stance and place the blood on those of us who opposed this war from the beginning by making crazy claims suggesting that people like me seek comfort in the death in Iraq.

Well.....fuck you!

no, thank you! my claims are far from crazy. do you claim to "support the troops" also?

[Tripod 3]

no, thank you! my claims are far from crazy.

Well, that's simply no true! We are all crazy. Crazy killing machines!



Wait a second, let me get this straight. If I don't like Bush or the rest of this administration, then by your logic, I want Sgt. Smith to die in Iraq? That doesn't even make sense.

[weezer6]

Well, that's simply no true! We are all crazy. Crazy killing machines!



Wait a second, let me get this straight. If I don't like Bush or the rest of this administration, then by your logic, I want Sgt. Smith to die in Iraq? That doesn't even make sense.

do you want success or failure in iraq?

[clonE]

Originally Posted by weezer6
the democrats, right now, don't want to see progress in iraq. i doubt many people on this board want to see success or progress in iraq. it might help out the republicans, and they don't want that. i bet folks on this board don't mind when dudes bite the dust in iraq, because then they can be "right". it's fucking rediculous.

Wow, man, that's hate. I was against the war from the start, have friends serving over there, and don't want ANYONE to die, American or Iraqi (the Iraqi dead don't even seem to matter to so many people.)

The Bush admin. would've regained a LOT of cred if they'd said:

Well, it turns out we were quite wrong about the WMD's. However, we are now in Iraq, and its worse off than before we came in. Our presence is disruptive, but we broke Iraq, and we need to fix it as best we can, or at least restore the infrastructure to pre-invasion levels. We will do our best to lay a sound framework for Iraqi self-governance, that the Iraqi's can then do with as they please.

But of course, Bush can't admit mistakes or be honest with the people. I believe it is unfortunate we attacked Iraq and mucked up the rebuilding so horribly (lots of money disappeared while hardly anything was rebuilt.) But I also feel that we really can't leave until a sort-of stable gov't is in place.

[The Big Crunch]

I don't think any militant would blow up a barbecue shack. Who doesn't like barbecue? :D ;)

[Tripod 3]

do you want success or failure in iraq?

What is your definition of success or failure?

Wow, man, that's hate. I was against the war from the start, have friends serving over there, and don't want ANYONE to die, American or Iraqi (the Iraqi dead don't even seem to matter to so many people.)

The Bush admin. would've regained a LOT of cred if they'd said:

Well, it turns out we were quite wrong about the WMD's. However, we are now in Iraq, and its worse off than before we came in. Our presence is disruptive, but we broke Iraq, and we need to fix it as best we can, or at least restore the infrastructure to pre-invasion levels. We will do our best to lay a sound framework for Iraqi self-governance, that the Iraqi's can then do with as they please.

But of course, Bush can't admit mistakes or be honest with the people. I believe it is unfortunate we attacked Iraq and mucked up the rebuilding so horribly (lots of money disappeared while hardly anything was rebuilt.) But I also feel that we really can't leave until a sort-of stable gov't is in place.

I couldn't have said it better. Thanks.

[Tripod 3]

I don't think any militant would blow up a barbecue shack. Who doesn't like barbecue? :D ;)

Nice try, though. ;)

[weezer6]

Originally Posted by weezer6
the democrats, right now, don't want to see progress in iraq. i doubt many people on this board want to see success or progress in iraq. it might help out the republicans, and they don't want that. i bet folks on this board don't mind when dudes bite the dust in iraq, because then they can be "right". it's fucking rediculous.

Wow, man, that's hate. I was against the war from the start, have friends serving over there, and don't want ANYONE to die, American or Iraqi (the Iraqi dead don't even seem to matter to so many people.)

The Bush admin. would've regained a LOT of cred if they'd said:

Well, it turns out we were quite wrong about the WMD's. However, we are now in Iraq, and its worse off than before we came in. Our presence is disruptive, but we broke Iraq, and we need to fix it as best we can, or at least restore the infrastructure to pre-invasion levels. We will do our best to lay a sound framework for Iraqi self-governance, that the Iraqi's can then do with as they please.

But of course, Bush can't admit mistakes or be honest with the people. I believe it is unfortunate we attacked Iraq and mucked up the rebuilding so horribly (lots of money disappeared while hardly anything was rebuilt.) But I also feel that we really can't leave until a sort-of stable gov't is in place.

i'm only saying what i see. people hate bush so much that it blurs out who really suffers when he's relentlessly protested against. how does it really hurt bush when antiwar protestors march on the white house. it doesn't! he still eats his dinner and still won't be president in 2008. but, when the media covers the shit out of the protest, and it gets al jazeera (sp?) coverage, it has to be a moral victory for the insurgents. now, it seems to me that people from both sides think we need to stay and straighten out iraq, regardless of how we got there, soooooo, why boost up the insurgents? when the insurgents realize their success through the media coverage, who bears the brunt? the soldiers, who still need to be there by the admission of both repubs and democrats. it ain't rocket science.

protest all you want, i'm still gonna think you're a selfish asshole, who can't see past their own thoughts of self righteousness.

now if you're one of those that think we should just pick up and split, i think you're just stupid.

[weezer6]

What is your definition of success or failure?



I couldn't have said it better. Thanks.

i'm asking you.

[RedRigmaJacket]

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a43/RedRigmaJacket/gwar.jpg

Gwar!

[markalot]

i'm only saying what i see. people hate bush so much that it blurs out who really suffers when he's relentlessly protested against. how does it really hurt bush when antiwar protestors march on the white house. it doesn't! he still eats his dinner and still won't be president in 2008. but, when the media covers the shit out of the protest, and it gets al jazeera (sp?) coverage, it has to be a moral victory for the insurgents. now, it seems to me that people from both sides think we need to stay and straighten out iraq, regardless of how we got there, soooooo, why boost up the insurgents? when the insurgents realize their success through the media coverage, who bears the brunt? the soldiers, who still need to be there by the admission of both repubs and democrats. it ain't rocket science.

protest all you want, i'm still gonna think you're a selfish asshole, who can't see past their own thoughts of self righteousness.

now if you're one of those that think we should just pick up and split, i think you're just stupid.

So how does one register opposition to a war? We can't have everyone agreeing, that's rather un-american. Many people don't like this war or war in general for various reasons. I happen to think they're wrong, but I don't want to squash protests because al-jazeera is going to drool over the footage.

[Tripod 3]

i'm asking you.

No, you didn't. You asked me if I wanted success or failure.

I'm asking you your definition of success or failure in Iraq.

[weezer6]

So how does one register opposition to a war? We can't have everyone agreeing, that's rather un-american. Many people don't like this war or war in general for various reasons. I happen to think they're wrong, but I don't want to squash protests because al-jazeera is going to drool over the footage.

i never said to squash protestors, i'm just saying they are dipshits. i feel it is my duty to tell them that. it would be nice if they figured it out on their own, but if they were that smart, they wouldn't be protesting in the first place.

[weezer6]

No, you didn't. You asked me if I wanted success or failure.

I'm asking you your definition of success or failure in Iraq.

hey, you're right.

success = completing the mission
failure = not completing the mission

[Wondertastic]

...the president, in order to gain some war support from the liberal folks, took a gamble and used some suspect info to push the wmd angle. it worked. the libs bought it, but difinitive wmds were not found, no one said, "hey, check this out, there's a nuclear bomb in here!" if anyone was fooled, the libs were the biggest group.

when i hear knuckleheads on the radio using the "sheeple" line, and saying that conservatives are fooled and still believe, it's bullshit. in my case, i never needed the wmd or al queda evidence. saddam should have got his ass kicked the first time he kicked inspectors out.
I totally agree on the "libs" being fooled. But it's not like conservatives and moderates had info that the "libs" didn't. The administration lied to everyone. I think if people haven't questioned any of it because of their party lines, then they are still fooled.

I was for the war at the beginning, under the basis that the reasons were true. When every argument for the war deteriorated, I was against it. There was no threat to the U.S. at the time and there really wasn't a reason to go in. I don't buy the argument that we went in because of the U.N. inspections. It sounds absurd that we went in on the U.N.'s behalf even though we didn't have their backing.

i will concede that the war should never have been fought, and none should be attempted in the future, even if american soil is invaded. the u.s. is so politically divided that the president, whether they be repub or democrat, can never depend on the opposing political party for support. either party, when not in power, would rather see the party in power lose a war, at the cost of american lives, for political gain.
That seems to be a bit of stretch for the most part, but I guess that's a difference of opinion. In the end whether we win or lose his war, it comes at the cost of american lives, for political gain.

anyway, about the deaths. 2000 dead soldiers is not good. but i'm one of those people that try to look at the big picture. these folks agreed to the risk.
I know they signed up. I know they have to go where they are told and do what they are told to do. But in many ways, the ability to mobilize our forces was abused. They are dying for another country now.

and to those that say they support the troops, but protest the war, you're fooling yourself. protest the war all you want, i don't have a problem with that, but in doing so, you don't support the troops. you can SAY you support the troops, to make yourself feel better, but you still look like a hypocrital tool. well, maybe just to me and my dad, and well the vets that i know and my brother and brother in law that are still active. maybe just us.

maybe your support goes like this. boo bush, keep up the good work insurgents, escalated american casualties, public opinion deeper in the shitter, we go home, saddam's cronies take back iraq. your support = wishing for failure.
So it's the "either you're with us or against us"? Is it really that unilateral? Is it really that black and white? I certainly don't want anyone else to die for this at the same time I don't think this war should go on because it was based on lies. Even if people support it, it is a failure.

[weezer6]

to me, wars are like that. we either don't need to be in them, or win them. we are in this one, so option one isn't possible anymore. therefore, we need to win. when you do things that help fuck up our ability to win, i'm not to cool with that.

you can say things that have a negative effect on the war effort, it's your right, but be realistic about what you are doing. if you aren't helping us win, and you participate in activities that damage war support, you are helping us lose. it IS that simple. just stop trying to tell me you support the troops, because that is total bullshit.

[purple_octopus]

Can't you support the troops by wanting to bring them all home now?

[weezer6]

Can't you support the troops by wanting to bring them all home now?

yes, i stated my opinion on that earlier. but, in my opinion, picking up all our shit right now and leaving isn't really an option. sure we'd save some of our dudes, but iraq would be completely fucked, more, no most completely fucked. mostest, that's it.

and does anyone really think that with bush in power that immediately leaving is a possibility?

[Tripod 3]

hey, you're right.

success = completing the mission
failure = not completing the mission

Please be a little more vague.



Wait, didn't we already accomplish the mission?

Dream sequence....Bush, flying a plane, aircraft carrier, big banner....nightmare over.

[weezer6]

Please be a little more vague.



Wait, didn't we already accomplish the mission?

Dream sequence....Bush, flying a plane, aircraft carrier, big banner....nightmare over.

if bush is just a talking head, why focus on what he's saying? focus on the reality. you're smart enough to know that the government in iraq is still a work in progress, and that just leaving will most likely fuck shit up worse over there.

and if i'm too vague, could you enlighten me on what success and failure really is when dealing with iraq? i need some learnin'.

[Wondertastic]

you can say things that have a negative effect on the war effort, it's your right, but be realistic about what you are doing. if you aren't helping us win, and you participate in activities that damage war support, you are helping us lose. it IS that simple. just stop trying to tell me you support the troops. because that is total bullshit.

i don't think it is total bullshit and that may just have to be where it is left. the troops are not the administration and the administration is not the troops (well technically he's commander-in-chief, but that's just a title). what is winning and losing in this war? i suppose now it is whether or not this Iraqi government makes it for over a decade. something which, in the end, we will have not control over.

I don't understand how not supporting the war as a whole is going to make us "lose". Do you think if we unilaterally supported the war that the insurgents would care? Support doesn't keep troops from being killed.

[markalot]

Tricky thing.

I can agree that once the country agrees to go to war we need everyone to support the war. The trick is: what if the reasons to go to war, the reasons everyone supported the war, were wrong?

I still think we need public support, but we can't worry about what some arab newsroom is going to pick up. You could have a 5 protestors and it will show up on Al jazeera. It's called propoganda and we can do it better than anyone else, so why aren't we?

[purple_octopus]

yes, i stated my opinion on that earlier. but, in my opinion, picking up all our shit right now and leaving isn't really an option. sure we'd save some of our dudes, but iraq would be completely fucked, more, no most completely fucked. mostest, that's it.
Who gives a fuck about Iraq? I don't think Iraq is worth a single American life. We shouldn't have been in there in the first place, but we went. Now we have Saddam. We don't need to be there now. You don't wage war by tearing everything up and then sticking around to make everything pretty again. No wonder the insurgents think we're a bunch of prancing pussies.

and does anyone really think that with bush in power that immediately leaving is a possibility?
No, but that doesn't change the fact that it would still be the best option.

[weezer6]

Tricky thing.

I can agree that once the country agrees to go to war we need everyone to support the war. The trick is: what if the reasons to go to war, the reasons everyone supported the war, were wrong?

I still think we need public support, but we can't worry about what some arab newsroom is going to pick up. You could have a 5 protestors and it will show up on Al jazeera. It's called propoganda and we can do it better than anyone else, so why aren't we?

our propoganda machines aren't pro u.s., they are pro political party. politically, it benefits the dems if the president's approval rating drops, and the easiest way to make that happen is to go on and on and on and on about the unjust war. i'm sure that iraqi insurgents are sophisticated enough to use american media output to boost support for their cause among other iraqis. if it works here, which i believe it does, since bush's approval ratings are in the shitter, it'll work over there.

[weezer6]

Who gives a fuck about Iraq? I don't think Iraq is worth a single American life. We shouldn't have been in there in the first place, but we went. Now we have Saddam. We don't need to be there now. You don't wage war by tearing everything up and then sticking around to make everything pretty again. No wonder the insurgents think we're a bunch of prancing pussies.


No, but that doesn't change the fact that it would still be the best option.

how do you wage war?

and i want to see the actual quote about the prancing pussies. i think you made that one up. <insert corny smiley face thing here>

[weezer6]

Who gives a fuck about Iraq? I don't think Iraq is worth a single American life. We shouldn't have been in there in the first place, but we went. Now we have Saddam. We don't need to be there now. You don't wage war by tearing everything up and then sticking around to make everything pretty again. No wonder the insurgents think we're a bunch of prancing pussies.


No, but that doesn't change the fact that it would still be the best option.

i think that it is impossible for my penis to grow to 10" on its own, but i'm going to scream loudly about it. if i put a lot of energy into my yelling, maybe it'll happen.

[purple_octopus]

i think that it is impossible for my penis to grow to 10" on its own, but i'm going to scream loudly about it. if i put a lot of energy into my yelling, maybe it'll happen.
Or maybe if you yell loudly enough, enough people will agree with you and they will collectively buy you a penile enlargement operation.

[Wondertastic]

i think we're putting too much weight on propaganda. most people can see through it and see it's propaganda. even if al-jazeera was showing nothing but pro-war rallies and cnn was showing nothing but insurgents being slaughtered, we would both know there is something else going on.

i don't think the insurgents care one way or another what Joe American thinks of the war. They have to get the infidels out at what ever cost. We could care less of what Joe Iraqi thinks of the war, we have to get the insurgents out at any cost.

[purple_octopus]

how do you wage war?
You level the enemy, take your victory and walk away. You didn't see the terrorists sticking around to rebuild the World Trade Center, did you?

[weezer6]

Or maybe if you yell loudly enough, enough people will agree with you and they will collectively buy you a penile enlargement operation.

but then it doesn't happen on its own.

i don't think there have been too many wars we've fought where we just left after kicking someone's ass. and yet, they are still looked at as victories.

[weezer6]

i think we're putting too much weight on propaganda. most people can see through it and see it's propaganda. even if al-jazeera was showing nothing but pro-war rallies and cnn was showing nothing but insurgents being slaughtered, we would both know there is something else going on.

i don't think the insurgents care one way or another what Joe American thinks of the war. They have to get the infidels out at what ever cost. We could care less of what Joe Iraqi thinks of the war, we have to get the insurgents out at any cost.

i'd have to disagree with the importance of propoganda. it works. ask all the pissed off libs that based their entire support of the war off the wmd angle. they didn't see through it. they apparently "believed".

[Wondertastic]

i'd have to disagree with the importance of propoganda. it works. ask all the pissed off libs that based their entire support of the war off the wmd angle. they didn't see through it. they apparently "believed".

it did work for that, i just don't think it effects people outside of your country as much. i don't buy the statement that "if you don't support us, you give hope to the insurgents", because even if we all supported the war, the insurgents would still fight. they have a region to defend against invaders.

[Tripod 3]

and if i'm too vague, could you enlighten me on what success and failure really is when dealing with iraq? i need some learnin'.


I think you are making my point for me. There is no success or failure option here. The administration has already failed us by taking us into a war under false pretences. Now you call me unamerican for voicing my opinion that the death and destruction caused by this war is ridiculous? I support the fighting men and women over there. They are doing the job they are told to do. But that doesn't mean I need to support an administrator who lied to me. You need to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges here. My lack of support for killing has nothing to do with how I feel about the soldiers fighting there. Geez.

[weezer6]

it did work for that, i just don't think it effects people outside of your country as much. i don't buy the statement that "if you don't support us, you give hope to the insurgents", because even if we all supported the war, the insurgents would still fight. they have a region to defend against invaders.

i don't know, it seems in the last war we really won, wwii, we were pretty united. when the war was over, we occupied. i wasn't around then, so i'm not sure how america reacted. i don't think we were screaming to leave and attacking the president at every opportunity. maybe we did, i don't know.

it would be nice to see how it would work out if the president got cut some slack, but politically, it is unwise for the dems to do something like that. heavens to betsy, if america stood united, and by chance, insurgencies died down, maybe iraq would straighten out sooner than later. but that would be disastrous for the dems. it is of utmost importance that iraq is a failure under republican leadership.

the stupidest thing bush ever did was hope and try to get any support from democrats. ain't gonna happen.

[Tripod 3]

the stupidest thing bush ever did was hope and try to get any support from democrats. ain't gonna happen.

Weezer, I think you got your facts a little twisted here. There was support to give Bush the right to go into Iraq. The administration lied to get this support from the dems. Now why do you think they or anybody else would support a bunch of liars anymore?

[PH Fancyboy]

the stupidest thing bush ever did was hope and try to get any support from democrats. ain't gonna happen.

ridiculous logic: "support my fuck-up". right-o.

[weezer6]

I think you are making my point for me. There is no success or failure option here. The administration has already failed us by taking us into a war under false pretences. Now you call me unamerican for voicing my opinion that the death and destruction caused by this war is ridiculous? I support the fighting men and women over there. They are doing the job they are told to do. But that doesn't mean I need to support an administrator who lied to me. You need to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges here. My lack of support for killing has nothing to do with how I feel about the soldiers fighting there. Geez.

i'm wasting my time on you with this one. there are success and failure options, but none of them can be accomplished immediately. well, failure can. once again, you THINK you support the troops.

you believe bush lied to you, so you're mad. you've been fooled. he got you. i don't personally believe he lied to me, but i'm not dumb enough to think i'm getting straight facts from any politician. i think he had enough half assed info, for and against wmds, that he could pick the option that supported his agenda, his agenda being to kick iraq's ass for sticking their thumb in our eye for 10 or so years. i don't have a problem with that. enough about me.

so you're pissed. you want bush to fail as president, don't you? he lied to you. i'll assume you do. to fail as a president, it would be best if he failed at the iraq war, since that is the main event he'll be remembered for. what measuring statistic is used and closely monitored when dealing with a war? holy shit, it's casualties! the more the better, it proves failure.

(i accidentally posted and i wasn't finished yet)

anyway, it may not be your stated intention, but if you really want gw to fail, what you want is more casualties and to give up on what has become rebuilding iraq. and if you join in on the dissent, that's what we'll get. it is already happening. maybe the drop in approval rate and popularity of the war is just coincidence. maybe it doesn't have a thing to do with the dems constantly in the presidents shit about the war. maybe it doesn't have a thing to do with the wack job cindy sheehan or the knuckleheads on air america.

[clonE]

i'm wasting my time on you with this one. there are success and failure options, but none of them can be accomplished immediately. well, failure can. once again, you THINK you support the troops.

you believe bush lied to you, so you're mad. you've been fooled. he got you. i don't personally believe he lied to me, but i'm not dumb enough to think i'm getting straight facts from any politician. i think he had enough half assed info, for and against wmds, that he could pick the option that supported his agenda, his agenda being to kick iraq's ass for sticking their thumb in our eye for 10 or so years. i don't have a problem with that. enough about me.

so you're pissed. you want bush to fail as president, don't you? he lied to you. i'll assume you do. to fail as a president, it would be best if he failed at the iraq war, since that is the main event he'll be remembered for. what measuring statistic is used and closely monitored when dealing with a war? holy shit, it's casualties! the more the better, it proves failure.


Actually, casualties mean less if we win. We lost a lot of soldiers in WW2, but we WON. We lost a lot of soldiers in Vietnam, but LOST. The outcome does make a difference in viewing the death toll. The goal of the war also colors the perceptions of casualties. We've got no idea what even fighting for over there. WMDs? Spreading democracy? Revenge because "Iraq has been thumbing our eye for a decade or more?' Lately, we're fighting and dying to avenge those that have died.

Outright failure in Iraq will be when they become a full-blown Muslim state, following sharia law, and team up with Iran to fuck with Israel and the US.

Besides, we'll always have Bush's deficit to remember him by...

[weezer6]

Weezer, I think you got your facts a little twisted here. There was support to give Bush the right to go into Iraq. The administration lied to get this support from the dems. Now why do you think they or anybody else would support a bunch of liars anymore?

he made an attempt to get support by using less than stellar facts. not a good move. he shouldn't have even tried is what i am saying. he should have know that given a little time, they'd be knee deep in his shit about the facts.

hell, for all we know, the dems might have known the facts were shady, and agreed to war anyways, knowing they could attack the shit out of bush afterwards. you know, setting him up for failure. it ain't too far fetched.

[Tripod 3]

so you're pissed. you want bush to fail as president, don't you? he lied to you. i'll assume you do. to fail as a president, it would be best if he failed at the iraq war, since that is the main event he'll be remembered for. what measuring statistic is used and closely monitored when dealing with a war? holy shit, it's casualties! the more the better, it proves failure.

I think it's pretty simple minded to think that pure body count proves failure. Not one American soldier died in Bosnia, and we can pretty much see failure there. Thousands die daily in the Congo, but no Americans. We are failing there. Success or failure in my opinion has nothing to do with body count. The ability to solve situations without bullets, death, destruction, lying, etc.; those are successful missions. But I certainly do not one more human being to die for a lie.

With that being said, in your world it would sound like I want Bush to fail. Well if failure means more people dying, then no I do not want Bush to fail. I don't need to dig the hole for him, he is pretty much doing it himself.

[weezer6]

I think it's pretty simple minded to think that pure body count proves failure.

so do i, but i click on air america at lunch, and all franken is talking about is body count. why, i wonder? because it is used in an attempt to prove that iraq is a failure. and it is used to sway support from the war effort. if it wasn't an important tool, franken would be talking about something else.

[Tripod 3]

so do i, but i click on air america at lunch, and all franken is talking about is body count. why, i wonder? because it is used in an attempt to prove that iraq is a failure. and it is used to sway support from the war effort. if it wasn't an important tool, franken would be talking about something else.

Seriouly dude, Franken? I thought we were having a serious conversation here. I'm out.

[weezer6]

i'm off for my 15 minutes of daily torture. making myself listen to randi rhodes on the drive home. oh, the humanity.

oh, and franken and the other assorted air america dorks are trying to assert themselves as the voice of the intelligent liberal, that's the only reason i mention him.

[Tripod 3]

i'm off for my 15 minutes of daily torture. making myself listen to randi rhodes on the drive home. oh, the humanity.

oh, and franken and the other assorted air america dorks are trying to assert themselves as the voice of the intelligent liberal, that's the only reason i mention him.

Just remember, no one speaks for me. Except, my wife. And that is not by choice!! Drive safe.

[akip]

you can't compare the type of combat in the american civil war to what's going on in iraq. apples and oranges. to achieve that number of casualties in one day, the iraqis would have to leave iraq, come over here and bomb an american city.