So, the US and Iraq. What do you rekon?
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Justification...
Huh? Read back a couple threads. Mike was responding to fat_boy's comment that 80 murders/month would be cause enough to influence an American withdrawal. It wasn't a justification for an invasion as you're trying to frame it. You're equating (I assume) the 9/11 death count as an inappropriate justification for war when weighed against auto accident deaths. However, that assumes that we treat death and murder equally. If organized crime in Detroit rose to a level that thousands of Americans were killed as a result, the federal government would certainly take those people out of power.
Red Stateler wrote:
Huh? Read back a couple threads. Mike was responding to fat_boy's comment that 80 murders/month would be cause enough to influence an American withdrawal. It wasn't a justification for an invasion as you're trying to frame it.
Mike was asserting that 80 US military deaths per month in Iraq is not a big deal considering that we are at war -- justification -- and that there are far more traffic deaths -- magnitude.
Red Stateler wrote:
You're equating (I assume) the 9/11 death count as an inappropriate justification for war when weighed against auto accident deaths. However, that assumes that we treat death and murder equally.
Wrong on all counts. I, in fact, feel that the 9/11 death count -- actually far less than that -- completely justified war in Afghanistan. Just not Iraq. However, in this thread, I was merely responding to Mike's comment.
Red Stateler wrote:
If organized crime in Detroit rose to a level that thousands of Americans were killed as a result, the federal government would certainly take those people out of power.
Actually, if organized crime in Detroit rose to a level that thousands of Americans were killed as a result, the current administration would probably invade Iran in retaliation, citing the obvious connections between Ahmadinejad and organized crime, and the necessity to fight crime in Iran so that we don't have to fight it here.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
Huh? Read back a couple threads. Mike was responding to fat_boy's comment that 80 murders/month would be cause enough to influence an American withdrawal. It wasn't a justification for an invasion as you're trying to frame it.
Mike was asserting that 80 US military deaths per month in Iraq is not a big deal considering that we are at war -- justification -- and that there are far more traffic deaths -- magnitude.
Red Stateler wrote:
You're equating (I assume) the 9/11 death count as an inappropriate justification for war when weighed against auto accident deaths. However, that assumes that we treat death and murder equally.
Wrong on all counts. I, in fact, feel that the 9/11 death count -- actually far less than that -- completely justified war in Afghanistan. Just not Iraq. However, in this thread, I was merely responding to Mike's comment.
Red Stateler wrote:
If organized crime in Detroit rose to a level that thousands of Americans were killed as a result, the federal government would certainly take those people out of power.
Actually, if organized crime in Detroit rose to a level that thousands of Americans were killed as a result, the current administration would probably invade Iran in retaliation, citing the obvious connections between Ahmadinejad and organized crime, and the necessity to fight crime in Iran so that we don't have to fight it here.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Mike was asserting that 80 US military deaths per month in Iraq is not a big deal considering that we are at war -- justification -- and that there are far more traffic deaths -- magnitude.
Ummmm...No. Saying "we are at war" is not "justification". It's a statement of fact. Saying, "We are at war because they kill 80 people per month" would be a justification. And he stated that in response to fat_boy's claim that such a death toll would cause American voters to want a withdrawal. That has to do with justification of withdrawal, not of attack. Attempting to draw equivalence to auto accidents in the context in which you did was completely tangential to Mike's comments.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Mike was asserting that 80 US military deaths per month in Iraq is not a big deal considering that we are at war -- justification -- and that there are far more traffic deaths -- magnitude.
Ummmm...No. Saying "we are at war" is not "justification". It's a statement of fact. Saying, "We are at war because they kill 80 people per month" would be a justification. And he stated that in response to fat_boy's claim that such a death toll would cause American voters to want a withdrawal. That has to do with justification of withdrawal, not of attack. Attempting to draw equivalence to auto accidents in the context in which you did was completely tangential to Mike's comments.
Red Stateler wrote:
Ummmm...No. Saying "we are at war" is not "justification". It's a statement of fact. Saying, "We are at war because they kill 80 people per month" would be a justification.
Ummmm...no. He wasn't justifying the war, he was justifying the deaths. Saying "the fact that they kill 80 US soldiers per month is to be expected, because we are at war" is justification.
-
Mike Gaskey wrote:
liberals would bitch.
Since when has liberal bitching had any affect on what this administration does?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Since when has liberal bitching had any affect on what this administration does?
Since when has liberal bitching had any effect on any administration?
-
AndyKEnZ wrote:
illegal invasion isn't it?
Not to be nit-picky here ... but who determines "legal" in terms of world politics?
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
International Treaties and International Bodies. Of course the Evildoers defy and ignore both. Only The Evildoers, of course.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify! || Fold With Us! || sighist -
Red Stateler wrote:
Ummmm...No. Saying "we are at war" is not "justification". It's a statement of fact. Saying, "We are at war because they kill 80 people per month" would be a justification.
Ummmm...no. He wasn't justifying the war, he was justifying the deaths. Saying "the fact that they kill 80 US soldiers per month is to be expected, because we are at war" is justification.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Ummmm...no. He wasn't justifying the war, he was justifying the deaths. Saying "the fact that they kill 80 US soldiers per month is to be expected, because we are at war" is justification.
Context, Vincent. Again, read back to his reply. It's a comparison of magnitude. He said that auto accidents cause greater harm to our country than Iraq and therefore Iraq's influence during an election would be treated accordingly. Even if we all decided to stretch the boundaries of logic and reframe Mike's response, your comparison with auto accidents is completely tangential. He's saying the cultural significance of soldiers' deaths is not heavy enough to weigh politically. You're saying that his use of that logic is equivalent to an invasion of Detroit being justified. That simply made no sense.
-
International Treaties and International Bodies. Of course the Evildoers defy and ignore both. Only The Evildoers, of course.
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify! || Fold With Us! || sighistpeterchen wrote:
Of course the Evildoers defy and ignore both. Only The Evildoers, of course.
A term that is defined by the victors in a conflict to be those they just defeated.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Ummmm...no. He wasn't justifying the war, he was justifying the deaths. Saying "the fact that they kill 80 US soldiers per month is to be expected, because we are at war" is justification.
Context, Vincent. Again, read back to his reply. It's a comparison of magnitude. He said that auto accidents cause greater harm to our country than Iraq and therefore Iraq's influence during an election would be treated accordingly. Even if we all decided to stretch the boundaries of logic and reframe Mike's response, your comparison with auto accidents is completely tangential. He's saying the cultural significance of soldiers' deaths is not heavy enough to weigh politically. You're saying that his use of that logic is equivalent to an invasion of Detroit being justified. That simply made no sense.
I'm aware of context, and there is not that much reply to read. In fact, I quoted it in its entirety more than once. One more time, I guess... He said, "This is war and the count is far surpassed by traffic deaths...", in the context established by fat_boy regarding the PR ramifications of the Iraq body count -- US military body count, specifically -- having an effect on US strategy in the region. In that context, the phrase "this is war" indicates that the US public will consider the loss justified by the fact that we are at war, and the magnitude acceptable relative to auto accident fatalities. Mike put combat and auto fatalities side-by-side in his comment. I merely exaggerated the comparison in order to highlight the absurdity of accepting a thousand deaths a year as justified.
-
peterchen wrote:
Of course the Evildoers defy and ignore both. Only The Evildoers, of course.
A term that is defined by the victors in a conflict to be those they just defeated.
If you decide to become a software engineer, you are signing up to have a 1/2" piece of silicon tell you exactly how stupid you really are for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week Zac
Well - since I said "only", you can also use my statement to tag "Evildoers"... ;)
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
Linkify! || Fold With Us! || sighist -
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
its former President
Defined by what? A rigged election?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
he could have been the person to pull together Iraq
He had years to try it and all it got was him with all the money and his people wasting away as sick, skinny oppressed slaves.
I am not saying that his presidency did not have its problems. But I am saying that during his presidency there was a stability of sorts, terrorism in his country was non-existant. There is no getting away from the fact there was violent oppression, but everybody in that country knew their place and lived according to whatever those then Iraqi rules were. Now Iraq is a country in name only. The Government, the Police, the Iraqi Armed Forces are all unable to ensure peace and stability, and alas terrorism appears to be rife. The Foreign forces of UK & USA appear to be unable to force peace and stability. If the truth be known, I suspect UK & USA forces have more or less given up hope in that country. The daily violence that troubles that country is not going away soon and I fear for a very bloody civil war, so perhaps the UK & USA should facilitate that by leaving and letting Iraq find its own solution, howsoever bloody that might become. Peoples in UK, USA, Iraq and other countries would like the UK & USA forces to go home and in my opinion, the sooner the better.
-
I'm aware of context, and there is not that much reply to read. In fact, I quoted it in its entirety more than once. One more time, I guess... He said, "This is war and the count is far surpassed by traffic deaths...", in the context established by fat_boy regarding the PR ramifications of the Iraq body count -- US military body count, specifically -- having an effect on US strategy in the region. In that context, the phrase "this is war" indicates that the US public will consider the loss justified by the fact that we are at war, and the magnitude acceptable relative to auto accident fatalities. Mike put combat and auto fatalities side-by-side in his comment. I merely exaggerated the comparison in order to highlight the absurdity of accepting a thousand deaths a year as justified.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm aware of context
Apparently not. Reread the thread and see who came up with the contextual difference between his statement that the magnitude of deaths is not equivalent to your statement that those deaths justify domestic military action. If you were seeking absurdity, you definitely found it.
-
fat_boy wrote:
I give it a month, then it gets split into three regions
$10 says you're wrong.
fat_boy wrote:
With 80 US troops dead so far this month, the US is heading for a thousand dead a year
This is war and the count is far surpassed by traffic deaths, no change unless we elect cowards on 11-7.
Mike Dear NYT - the fact is, the founding fathers hung traitors. Vincent Reynolds: My opposition is as enlightened as your support, jackass. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
Mike Gaskey wrote:
This is war and the count is far surpassed by traffic deaths, no change unless we elect cowards on 11-7.
Yeah, all that and Ann Coulter says so too! Everyone knows Ann is an authority! We do what Ann says. She should marry George Bush.
-
I am not saying that his presidency did not have its problems. But I am saying that during his presidency there was a stability of sorts, terrorism in his country was non-existant. There is no getting away from the fact there was violent oppression, but everybody in that country knew their place and lived according to whatever those then Iraqi rules were. Now Iraq is a country in name only. The Government, the Police, the Iraqi Armed Forces are all unable to ensure peace and stability, and alas terrorism appears to be rife. The Foreign forces of UK & USA appear to be unable to force peace and stability. If the truth be known, I suspect UK & USA forces have more or less given up hope in that country. The daily violence that troubles that country is not going away soon and I fear for a very bloody civil war, so perhaps the UK & USA should facilitate that by leaving and letting Iraq find its own solution, howsoever bloody that might become. Peoples in UK, USA, Iraq and other countries would like the UK & USA forces to go home and in my opinion, the sooner the better.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
terrorism in his country was non-existant
Instead he exported it to Israel.
-
I give it a month, then it gets split into three regions, virtual autonomous, nominally controlled by a 'central government' in Baghdad. That way the US can say it didnt 'partition' Iraq, but can get out sooner, a civil war is averted, and the cvililian death rate drops. With 80 US troops dead so far this month, the US is heading for a thousand dead a year. And thats a figure that isgoping to force Bush to be 'flexible' on strategy. ie, do a U turn, but dress it up to look like success.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
I give it a month, then it gets split into three regions, virtual autonomous, nominally controlled by a 'central government' in Baghdad. That way the US can say it didnt 'partition' Iraq, but can get out sooner, a civil war is averted, and the cvililian death rate drops.
...and 6 months later (at most) civil war erupts. Neigboring nations join in and we have ourself another Vietnam. If we wanted regime change - we should have simply (and quietly) assasinated SH. :sigh:
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I'm aware of context
Apparently not. Reread the thread and see who came up with the contextual difference between his statement that the magnitude of deaths is not equivalent to your statement that those deaths justify domestic military action. If you were seeking absurdity, you definitely found it.
Red Stateler wrote:
your statement that those deaths justify domestic military action
:laugh: Maybe next you can enlighten me on the moral ramifications of Henny Youngman soliciting for the removal of his spouse. I was exaggerating to make a point, which -- big surprise -- you missed. At no time have I advocated domestic military action. And I fully expect to see a healthy dose of absurdity and surrealism in all conversations in which you are involved. You are the Salvador Dali of forum trolls, Red.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
your statement that those deaths justify domestic military action
:laugh: Maybe next you can enlighten me on the moral ramifications of Henny Youngman soliciting for the removal of his spouse. I was exaggerating to make a point, which -- big surprise -- you missed. At no time have I advocated domestic military action. And I fully expect to see a healthy dose of absurdity and surrealism in all conversations in which you are involved. You are the Salvador Dali of forum trolls, Red.
Exaggeration is an expansion on the already-existing. My point (which you continue to miss) is that you attempted to apply a tangential and unrelated situation and mask it as exaggeration.
-
I am not saying that his presidency did not have its problems. But I am saying that during his presidency there was a stability of sorts, terrorism in his country was non-existant. There is no getting away from the fact there was violent oppression, but everybody in that country knew their place and lived according to whatever those then Iraqi rules were. Now Iraq is a country in name only. The Government, the Police, the Iraqi Armed Forces are all unable to ensure peace and stability, and alas terrorism appears to be rife. The Foreign forces of UK & USA appear to be unable to force peace and stability. If the truth be known, I suspect UK & USA forces have more or less given up hope in that country. The daily violence that troubles that country is not going away soon and I fear for a very bloody civil war, so perhaps the UK & USA should facilitate that by leaving and letting Iraq find its own solution, howsoever bloody that might become. Peoples in UK, USA, Iraq and other countries would like the UK & USA forces to go home and in my opinion, the sooner the better.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
fact there was violent oppression
Right, but it was OK? I guess it was if they were 'stable'. :)
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The Foreign forces of UK & USA appear to be unable to force peace and stability.
Right again because it is difficult to 'force' stability when the entire world is watching and just waiting for you to do something THEY consider wrong. If we were to do what IMHO needs to be done then WE would end up being branded as bad as Saddam was. The plain simple truth of the matter is that we went in there with the intent to be nice. We should have gone in there with the intent to slap the shit out of them and FORCE them to play nice or not play at all. That is after all why we went over there in the first place, really it is.
-
if a 25 year old beats up a 2 year old, you don't call it a fight, do you?
-
Exaggeration is an expansion on the already-existing. My point (which you continue to miss) is that you attempted to apply a tangential and unrelated situation and mask it as exaggeration.
Yes, and my current point, which you continue to miss, is that you missed my original point.
-
fat_boy wrote:
I give it a month, then it gets split into three regions, virtual autonomous, nominally controlled by a 'central government' in Baghdad. That way the US can say it didnt 'partition' Iraq, but can get out sooner, a civil war is averted, and the cvililian death rate drops.
...and 6 months later (at most) civil war erupts. Neigboring nations join in and we have ourself another Vietnam. If we wanted regime change - we should have simply (and quietly) assasinated SH. :sigh:
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
Mike Mullikin wrote:
If we wanted regime change - we should have simply (and quietly) assasinated SH
Yep, he was getting on abit anyway, and his sons were none too popular. If the US had backed a more moderate, pro west ambitious underling, a far beter result would have been achieved.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception