A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
There's the "good soldier" thing. Also, I suspect that it's a difficult thing to own up to the fact that people are dead because you cared about your career too much to stand up to the jackass heading up DOD.

So you don't trust him. OK. But GGG was saying how much he trusted Franks.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Cletus Miller
Also, the dramatic improvement in the body armor available to the troops has undoubtedly turned a lot of would-have-been-deaths-in-prior-conflicts into major (and even minor) non-fatal injuries.

I don't think we have to factor out the body armor. I'm just thinking that (aside from psychological effects) in the past it's been more that there have been a relatively large proportion of soldiers who survived with no debilitating, expensive, permanent or long-lasting injury; a chunk of soldiers who died; and a relatively small number of soldiers who survive but have debilitating, expensive, permanent or long-lasting injuries.

I'm thinking the proportions of the groups may have changed, with a shift toward a greater proportion of survivors, but of those survivors, a greater number are kinda really severely fucked up. I mean, yes, they are doing amazing amazing things with artificial limbs, etc., but that is really expensive and not the same thing as being whole-ish.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
I was talking about the Iraqi people.

If you want to talk US politics here, the Founding Fathers gave the president four year terms. Longer than the term of congressmen so they wouldn't be as suseptible to the changing and fickle moods of the public. The people gave Bush four more years to try and make Iraq succeed. In addition, since the Democrats were all over the board on the war (I heard last night some new head of a committee, maybe intelligence, is saying we should send in more troops) the only message sent by the American people was they wanted change.

The people were for what Bush & Co. sold them about the war. Once they realized they had been lied to, they went the other way.

And the internet is full of polls showing that the Iraqis overwhelmingly want us out.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't know you tell me. But has Powell said we should have used more troops?

Over and over and over again. Start here and if you want more, google. You'll find he even said this publicly while still Secretary of State, though he was somewhat more forgiving in his tone at that point in time.

Why will he always tow the party line? Other retired generals are not. Why is he any different? Won't he do what he thinks is in the country's interest? He is from the military not the Republian party. If he says something, why shouldn't we trust him? If you say you trust him, why are you questioning his veracity or his intentions now? Why should we trust what anonymouse sources are saying and not trust this guy you say is competant. .

Books by other generals are not exactly anonymous sources. Again, feel free to look into this, but you'll find lots of first hand accounts on the subject. Franks' memoirs have been noted as unreadable military line-towing. You haven't hung around the military much, have you?

I don't think it is ranting. I would like us to succeed in Iraq and if we fail I would like us to have tried everything we could have done to win. The success of the occupation is really important. When I hear people saying it is too late, or the eggs are broken and they can't be fixed, that sounds like people who are not committed to winning. It would be one thing if the people saying that could be sure that we can't win, but they cannot be sure. There are no certainties in this thing, so when people talk in certainties, it just says to me that they don't know what they are talking about and are pushing a political agenda. People saying it is too expesive, costing too many lives, I doesn't sound to me like people understand the stakes. If we could succeed, the price we have paid so far is incredibly cheap for what we would accomplish. If we could insure victory by spending ten time the lives and ten times the money we have spent I think it would be worth it. But of course we can't know that.

Do you thing we should give up? I believe if you decide to do something you give it your best shot. So if we have not decided to give up, what is our best shot. What is the way we can insure we did everything we could to win? Why is that so crazy?

Identify winnable objectives in the real world and I'm all for it. Wishing it won't make it so. Spend a little time looking at those polls and tell me how we convert the population to people who trust western style Democracy. It is time to pull the troops out and send the businesspeople in -- I have more faith in building support for Democracy in Iraq through trade than military force at this point, because there are not identifiable military objectives that help the cause.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I don't think we have to factor out the body armor. I'm just thinking that (aside from psychological effects) in the past it's been more that there have been a relatively large proportion of soldiers who survived with no debilitating, expensive, permanent or long-lasting injury; a chunk of soldiers who died; and a relatively small number of soldiers who survive but have debilitating, expensive, permanent or long-lasting injuries.

I'm thinking the proportions of the groups may have changed, with a shift toward a greater proportion of survivors, but of those survivors, a greater number are kinda really severely fucked up. I mean, yes, they are doing amazing amazing things with artificial limbs, etc., but that is really expensive and not the same thing as being whole-ish.

if this is about the penis pump, I KNOW I told you the doc said it is likely just something temporary, and I could be "whole" again. Anyways, that's all inside, does it really matter to a women?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Can you cite that? I was not aware of that. If they do, their politicians are singing a different tune. They are saying they don't want us to leave and that it is illegal for us to leave.

I believe I have seen many such polls. This one is pushing 2 1/2 years old:

• The first survey of Iraqis sponsored by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal shows that most say they would feel safer if Coalition forces left immediately, without even waiting for elections scheduled for next year. An overwhelming majority, about 80 percent, also say they have “no confidence” in either the U.S. civilian authorities or Coalition forces.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Umm. That is not 1/5 of one percent. 0.20% is 1/5 of one percent. I is smart that way. Carry on.


ETA: Hank, can I count this towards my PB argument win tally or should I wait to see if Spanky can change the way math works?

I'm inclined to give you the win, but Ty and them all came out against Spank last week on the FB. I'm not sure he's still licensed to fight on PB , given that rebuke. Judges?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
19 US soldiers died in the Granada conflict.

A little-known chapter of the Spanish-American War?

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
Other nations contributed significant numbers of them (cue Slave to declare that they were worthless fuckers anyway)

Depends.

Our only real allies, the Brits and the Aussies, were there and supported our efforts, as always. The Poles are the next best, as they recall our support during the Cold War.


Who else? The Belgians? The French?

The French - then, as now - are worthless.

Today, a "robust" force of the French are in Lebanon supposedly purported minding the Israel border and preventing the re-arming of Hizzbollah. But their commanders have ruled they (i) cant go into Hizzbollah areas because they are "dangerous" and (ii) wont patrol at night. Brave men, indeed.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
And the internet is full of polls showing that the Iraqis overwhelmingly want us out.

Are Iraqis used to being polled yet? Do you feel proud they can voice opinions now? How do the numbers stack up with how many Japanese wanted us out of Japan after WWII? Don't know- that's okay- because the answer to both is who cares.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Depends.

Our only real allies, the Brits and the Aussies, were there and supported our efforts, as always. The Poles are the next best, as they recall our support during the Cold War.


Who else? The Belgians? The French?

The French - then, as now - are worthless.

Today, a "robust" force of the French are in Lebanon supposedly purported minding the Israel border and preventing the re-arming of Hizzbollah. But their commanders have ruled they (i) cant go into Hizzbollah areas because they are "dangerous" and (ii) wont patrol at night. Brave men, indeed.

say we're choosing up sides for a pick up game of war- US and China are captains and we get first pick. Who do you pick? No brainer- the UK, right?

I'd almost say "let us have 1st pick then you can pick the next 2."

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
Um, I vaguely recall an election, say, a month ago, where the people were pretty clear about how they wanted a change in leadership. Seems to me that we had a confirmation hearing yesterday that sort of reflected an acknowledgement of that very clear message from the people.

Except Gates, while making nice sound bites for the left by saying we "aren't winning the war" (which is different from "losing", but the Associated Press isn't as smart as me) ,and the other "wise men" are basically saying to stay the course.

How is that changing anything?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Umm. That is not 1/5 of one percent. 0.20% is 1/5 of one percent. I is smart that way. Carry on.

The fraction was 3/20. But since the number is not so easy to conceptualize, I averaged it up to 1/5. Since I was trying to point out what a small number it was, averaging the number so it was a larger number seemed like the honest way to go when averaging.

I know it is hard for you to focus on what I am posting because you have that massive stick shoved so far up your derriere, but I thought you might be able to understand that.

I had you on ignore but once I saw that you had posted I had a sneaking suspicion it had something do with me. Itl/Fb's post quoting you confirmed that. Why else would you post here except to snipe at something I said?

Why are you so obsessed with me? I throw out a mild insult and you are so massively insecure that now you just lurk around waiting for opportunities to make little jabs at me. How long were you stewing about my hostility comment to you before you found an opening to bring it up on the FB board again? Weeks or even months? How long were you lurking on the politics board waiting for an opportunity when this fraction presented itself?

I guess I won't get a chance to see your answer unless someone else quotes it. Oh well. Such a loss.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Are Iraqis used to being polled yet? Do you feel proud they can voice opinions now? How do the numbers stack up with how many Japanese wanted us out of Japan after WWII? Don't know- that's okay- because the answer to both is who cares.

I bet the soldiers in Iraq care.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
The people were for what Bush & Co. sold them about the war. Once they realized they had been lied to, they went the other way.

I thought the lack of WMDs came out before the 2004 election? Is my memory faulty?