Politics As Usual - Page 102

Not Me · 06-04-2004, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Au contraire, mon frer.

I remark all the time that it is an absolute miracle that so few people died in that carnage. It could have been 65,000.

I heard Guiliani say the same thing in front of the 9/11 commission. There were family members heckling him in the audience and he stood by his words - the fact that under 3000 people died in the WTC attack is amazing. It shows how good of a job the first responders did. The numbers could have been much, much higher.

In any sort of nightmarish disaster like that, there are always going to be things that you can critique with your 20-20 hindsight. But the evacuation of the WTC was a job well done. It wasn't perfect, but definitely well done.

Tyrone Slothrop · 06-04-2004, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I was kidding. The sad thing is that I actually checked the map before I posted the first time. Israel is so damn small that I missed it.

I was setting you up for Moses thing . . . .

ltl/fb · 06-04-2004, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Au contraire, mon frer.

I remark all the time that it is an absolute miracle that so few people died in that carnage. It could have been 65,000.

I feel for your friend's family. I really do. But there is loss whenever a loved one does, however the cause.

Bottom line is that ~850 deaths over an entire year out of a current mass deployment of over 138,000 troops (a lot more if you count rotations) is a SMALL amount.

Hardly the mess. If anything, I'd say the minimal loss of life is quite the SUCCESS.

What difference does it make if it's a miracle? Maybe it's an absolute miracle that 25,000 soldiers haven't been killed in Iraq. You are so emotional about the damn WTC thing. If you were not just not me, but that thing, I would ask you if you would be more outraged about the places that exposed workers to asbestos, knowing it would fuck them up, if they had darker skin.

Not Me · 06-04-2004, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I was kidding. The sad thing is that I actually checked the map before I posted the first time. Israel is so damn small that I missed it.

I think you were just temporarily blinded by the glare of the sun reflected off that 20 trillion high penny stack.

The Larry Davis Experience · 06-04-2004, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Au contraire, mon frer.

I remark all the time that it is an absolute miracle that so few people died in that carnage. It could have been 65,000.

I feel for your friend's family. I really do. But there is loss whenever a loved one does, however the cause.

Bottom line is that ~850 deaths over an entire year out of a current mass deployment of over 138,000 troops (a lot more if you count rotations) is a SMALL amount.

Hardly the mess. If anything, I'd say the minimal loss of life is quite the SUCCESS.

In relative terms it could have been worse, in other words. OK. But 850 soldiers dying is a big deal. Just like our inability to sustain the current levels of deployment without a stop-loss policy is a big deal. Not unprecedented, not worthy of panic and despair, but a Big Deal nonetheless. To me it seems like things have gone worse than expected, esp after the stated prewar expectation was that we'd be drawn down to 30,000 troops by now.

FWIW, I haven't really been one of the "it's a mess" people on this board, and I truly respect and admire the wide ranging jobs our troops have undertaken over in Iraq, but to call it an all-caps success in my mind lacks, um, perspective.

SlaveNoMore · 06-04-2004, 07:08 PM

Quote:

ltl/fb
What difference does it make if it's a miracle? Maybe it's an absolute miracle that 25,000 soldiers haven't been killed in Iraq. You are so emotional about the damn WTC thing. If you were not just not me, but that thing, I would ask you if you would be more outraged about the places that exposed workers to asbestos, knowing it would fuck them up, if they had darker skin.

Go back to your post-lunch nap, you aren't making any sense whatsoever.

SlaveNoMore · 06-04-2004, 07:09 PM

Quote:

The Larry Davis Experience
FWIW, I haven't really been one of the "it's a mess" people on this board, and I truly respect and admire the wide ranging jobs our troops have undertaken over in Iraq, but to call it an all-caps success in my mind lacks, um, perspective.

You want me to clarify - so be it:

"...If anything, I'd say the minimal loss of life is quite the SUCCESS"

ltl/fb · 06-04-2004, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Go back to your post-lunch nap, you aren't making any sense whatsoever.

Why are you so upset about people killed and injured at the WTC but hate the regulation and plaintiff's lawyers that discourage companies from killing even more people?

ETA I will now to go my post-work nap, or whatever you want to call it.

The Larry Davis Experience · 06-04-2004, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You want me to clarify - so be it:

"...If anything, I'd say the minimal loss of life is quite the SUCCESS"

I think we're talking past each other, and that's probably due to my inability to sort out why your original post bugged me so much. Anyway, apologies.

Didn't I order a drink a while ago? Where is that waitress?

Not Me · 06-04-2004, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
But 850 soldiers dying is a big deal. .

No one said it wasn't a big deal. Just like no one said it wasn't a big deal when almost 3000 people died on 9/11.

It is just that it was expected that there would be US casualities in Iraq. No one in their right mind thought otherwise. And hopefully all who enlist in our all volunteer military realize that they can be deployed to a war zone if they enlist.

Does anyone know what the pre-war estimates were regarding the number of US casualties? For both the invastion and post-invastion period.

sgtclub · 06-04-2004, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Me

Does anyone know what the pre-war estimates were regarding the number of US casualties? For both the invastion and post-invastion period.

I saw 3,000-10,000.

Tyrone Slothrop · 06-04-2004, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
FWIW, I haven't really been one of the "it's a mess" people on this board, and I truly respect and admire the wide ranging jobs our troops have undertaken over in Iraq, but to call it an all-caps success in my mind lacks, um, perspective.

Saying that it's a mess in no way disrespects the troops over there, or the many fine things we have done there.

The Larry Davis Experience · 06-04-2004, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Saying that it's a mess in no way disrespects the troops over there, or the many fine things we have done there.

I agree. Those were two separate thoughts.

SlaveNoMore · 06-04-2004, 07:28 PM

Quote:

ltl/fb
Why are you so upset about people killed and injured at the WTC but hate the regulation and plaintiff's lawyers that discourage companies from killing even more people?

When did Paigow steal your login?

Not Me · 06-04-2004, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I saw 3,000-10,000.

I just did a quick google and didn't find any official reports, but retired general Barry McCaffrey was estimating a few thousand in a pre-war NYT article.

Interestingly, the World Health Organization was estimating 250,000 injured Iraqi civilians and the UN was estimating 500,000 injured Iraqi civilians.

Oh and pre-war, anal-fixated Bob Graham claimed that if we invaded Iraq, there was a 75% chance that there would be a retaliatory terrorist attack on US soil.