A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into. - Page 109

Shape Shifter · 12-07-2006, 07:28 PM

Quote:

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

I'm sure their families feel that their sacrifice was worth it to keep America safe.

Cletus Miller · 12-07-2006, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I'd also recommend to you Zogby's book on his detailed survey of Arab attitudes.

Is it based on more accurate polling than his polling in the last two election cycles?

notcasesensitive · 12-07-2006, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
This war has cost us .15% (that is 1/5 of one percent) of our people in uniform.

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?

Spanky · 12-07-2006, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Start here , but if you google "poll Iraqi leave", you'll find a series of polls suggesting a majority have wanted us out for well over two years and that we are now at the point where a majority support armed action against US soldiers.

I'd also recommend to you Zogby's book on his detailed survey of Arab attitudes.

But, then, you really don't want to know about any of this, because if anyone has bad news, whether it's Baker, Powell or me, you and the rest of the fucking crazies know they just hate America.

So the leadership is singing a different tune than that of the people. However, it is a Republic and the people elected this leadership to represent them, and this leadership they elected wants us to stay. The policians, who are more intune with the situation want us to stay.

Replaced_Texan · 12-07-2006, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
So the leadership is singing a different tune than that of the people. However, it is a Republic and the people elected this leadership to represent them, and this leadership they elected wants us to stay. The policians, who are more intune with the situation want us to stay.

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.

Shape Shifter · 12-07-2006, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
So the leadership is singing a different tune than that of the people. However, it is a Republic and the people elected this leadership to represent them, and this leadership they elected wants us to stay. The policians, who are more intune with the situation want us to stay.

Sounds like politicians who are out of touch with the will of the people. But I guess you're used to supporting that type.

ltl/fb · 12-07-2006, 07:44 PM

Quote:

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.

Has anyone looked at the number of severely maimed people (who would almost certainly have died if they had sustained such injuries in Vietnam/WWII etc.)?

I don't really see any parallels to our involvement in WWII in this. We are an invading country, not a defending country, and there was no war in Iraq before we opted to invade. By the time we entered WWII, a bunch of countries had been taken over/were in the process of being taken over and there was full mobilization of a significant number of peer countries (developed world), if not nearly all of them.

I'm really curious how the death counts would compare if we had the same kind of medical care now that we had when we were in Vietnam.

ltl/fb · 12-07-2006, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
What is the annual budget now 2.5 Trillion? So what is that 1.4% of the money our government will spend this decade? The middle east is one of the few places in the world that isn't accepting democracy and free markets. If we could turn that trend around by implementing a stable and democratic, free enterprize democracy right in the heart of the middle east, isn't that worth more than 1.4%? It has cost us .001% of our populatoin so far. We lose ten times that number every day naturally.

How is the proportion of spending on Iraq to a decade's worth of spending relevant?

We've been in Iraq, what, a little over 3.5 years? So that's about $100 billion per year, or 4% of the (current) annual budget, each year.

Is that more or less than the percentage of the budget that is financed by adding to the national debt?

How does that compare to the amount we spend on humanitarian aid, etc., in developing countries?

Cletus Miller · 12-07-2006, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Has anyone looked at the number of severely maimed people (who would almost certainly have died if they had sustained such injuries in Vietnam/WWII etc.)?

I'm really curious how the death counts would compare if we had the same kind of medical care now that we had when we were in Vietnam.

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.

Spanky · 12-07-2006, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
What do you think Powell was talking about when he referred to Rummy and Wolfowitz as "fucking crazies"?

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

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy Franks will always be the good soldier and tow the line publicly, but many reports have come out, ranging from books by retired generals to articles in your favorite rag (the Times), detailing the disputes at the time. Franks started pushing hard for more troops, when he lost the fight, he pushed his generals hard to work with what they had and not ask for more.

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. .

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy And, by the way, my read is that you're one of the fucking crazies, too - in total denial and looking for rhetoric to save you where logic won't. That's what that ranting and raving "you want us to lose" is all about.

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?

Cletus Miller · 12-07-2006, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb

Is that more or less than the percentage of the budget that is financed by adding to the national debt?

Less. The annual deficit has been running $300 billion plus for the past few years. And that's counting the social security surplus as found money.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy · 12-07-2006, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Has anyone looked at the number of severely maimed people (who would almost certainly have died if they had sustained such injuries in Vietnam/WWII etc.)?

I don't really see any parallels to our involvement in WWII in this. We are an invading country, not a defending country, and there was no war in Iraq before we opted to invade. By the time we entered WWII, a bunch of countries had been taken over/were in the process of being taken over and there was full mobilization of a significant number of peer countries (developed world), if not nearly all of them.

I'm really curious how the death counts would compare if we had the same kind of medical care now that we had when we were in Vietnam.

This shows a lot, but not severity of wounds.

I agree that it's not comparable. Also, I think we were ready to take more risks and sacrifice more people in World War II - which has a lot to do with what tactics the army is willing to take.

Spanky · 12-07-2006, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

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.

Shape Shifter · 12-07-2006, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
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. .

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.

Spanky · 12-07-2006, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think we were ready to take more risks and sacrifice more people in World War II - which has a lot to do with what tactics the army is willing to take.

In other words we were more committed to succeed. Failure was not an option, and if we failed we wanted to make sure we did everything we could have done to succeed.