[QUOTE=Pochacco]
In fact, it this study is correct, it’s practically his DUTY to release it in a way that has the maximum political effect.
Now, I eagerly await the debunking of this study on empirical grounds rather than the typical knee-jerk smearing of the author’s motivations … . :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
If I recall the debunking of the last such study, it was based predominantly on the time-tested, irrefutable argument of “Is not.” I expect this one will be much the same.
Breaking news on BBC website.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
If we pulled our guys out, and the killing increased, would you also say we “killed” all the people who would die? If so, can how can you justify backing such a plan?
[/QUOTE]
I would, sort of. We are responsible for creating a power vacuum in a tense, unstable region, so if a civil war erupts, that’s our fault. I personally think it’s our responsibility to keep slogging away in Iraq until we create some semblance of stability or until it is clear that our presence will do no good whatsoever, i.e. once the civil war breaks out.
This is why I found the “Saddam is bad!” arguments so maddening before the war. Unless you have confidence you can improve the situation, Saddam’s poor treatment of his people is not itself sufficient justification for invasion.
[QUOTE=Giraffe]
I would, sort of. We are responsible for creating a power vacuum in a tense, unstable region, so if a civil war erupts, that’s our fault. I personally think it’s our responsibility to keep slogging away in Iraq until we create some semblance of stability or until it is clear that our presence will do no good whatsoever, i.e. once the civil war breaks out.
[/quote]
Me, too. But I’m specifically asking that of Voyager, and (IIRC) he does want us out now. I don’t see how someone can say we’re directly responible for all the deaths there now and then say we need to get out right away. In my mind, that will only exacerbate the death toll.
Well, that only argues for having much better plans for how to win the peace afterwards. I wouldn’t have wanted us in there even if we had a good plan for that phase, although I certainly agree that it would’ve been better than what we ended up doing.
We did it. The power of democratic government did it. We, the people are the authority by which the war was fought. And I remember well how much we wanted to go kill someone, even on this leftie dominated web site.
We re-elected the same president, and the same congress that started it. We are only just barely willing to admit that it was a mistake. Hardly any of us are willing to admit that it was a morally reprehensible thing, even today. We would rather argue methodological minutia about whether we killed 100,000, or 600,000, or 900,000 than admit that we are wholesale murderers, torturers, and we are shaking our big stick at yet another country, even as we whine about the dollar cost of the wars.
Wake up. You did it. Not they, not we, but you. If you didn’t do it by deliberate action, you did it by uncaring incompetance of your office of citizen of a democracy. Cry with shame, for the rest of your life! And vote, damnit.
Tris
[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
We did it. The power of democratic government did it. We, the people are the authority by which the war was fought. And I remember well how much we wanted to go kill someone, even on this leftie dominated web site.
We re-elected the same president, and the same congress that started it. We are only just barely willing to admit that it was a mistake. Hardly any of us are willing to admit that it was a morally reprehensible thing, even today. We would rather argue methodological minutia about whether we killed 100,000, or 600,000, or 900,000 than admit that we are wholesale murderers, torturers, and we are shaking our big stick at yet another country, even as we whine about the dollar cost of the wars.
Wake up. You did it. Not they, not we, but you. If you didn’t do it by deliberate action, you did it by uncaring incompetance of your office of citizen of a democracy. Cry with shame, for the rest of your life! And vote, damnit.
Tris
[/QUOTE]
So, what should we do now-- withdraw or put in more troops? And what will happen to the death rate if we do what you propose?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
This is a morbidly dreadful argument. One hundred thousand innocent lives squandered is a horror, three hundred thousand a catastrophe, but six hundred thousand? Can’t get my head around it…
[/QUOTE]
Basic math, man! Six horrors or 2 catastrophes, or 1.5 horrors plus one catastrophe. We can’t even count the dead accurately, and they’re not trying to hide. No wonder America is becoming mediocre
If Japan had invaded Iraq, they would know the death toll diwn to a half a Kurd. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
Basic math, man! Six horrors or 2 catastrophes, or 1.5 horrors plus one catastrophe. We can’t even count the dead accurately, and they’re not trying to hide. No wonder America is becoming mediocre
If Japan had invaded Iraq, they would know the death toll diwn to a half a Kurd. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Er, got the math wrong… :o :smack:
[QUOTE=John Mace]
So, what should we do now-- withdraw or put in more troops? And what will happen to the death rate if we do what you propose?
[/QUOTE]
Get out. Que sera sera, but one thing’s for certain, despite your presense there things have only gotten worse - year by year by year, literally.
Even if I understand the humanistic concerns expressed by a few of the posters in this thread, it’s rather obvious that you simply can’t handle security in Iraq. I mean, really, isn’t the very definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results?
Yankee go home, cliched as the phrase might be, amply applies here. What happens next – for better or for worse – will always lay squarely on your shoulders for as Triskadecamus clearly stated, it was your collective decision that made this carnage possible.
Then again, I very much doubt this will happen on Bush’s watch, for as opposed to Giraffe’s humanistic concerns, I very much doubt that he (and those around him) 1-give a shit how many get killed or injured – and that includes your own 1,000 casualties a month or so – and 2-uses that very reasoning (that it’ll be worse without the invaders) to stay there.
Fast forward to 2009 and whomever is in charge. Let him/them make the retreat. Meanwhile, George’s USA stays undefeated and guilt-free. It’ll be someone’s else’s “mistake.”
Lastly, I wouldn’t understimate the intelligence of the whole neocon cabal. Had they secured Iraq by means that where evident even prior to the invasion they’d have no reason to stay would they? Conspiracy or incompetence? Dunno. But if a fifty year old geezer such as myself was able – with little expertise on the ME at the time – to forewarn of the myriad of negative consequences such a move could/would bring, I’d imagine such luminaries as Cheney, Wolfowitz, Condi, Pearl, Dear Decider et al, might have had a clue as well.
I’m afraid you need to get your house in order prior to expecting any positive developments in your Iraq misadventure…
[QUOTE=RedFury]
Get out. Que sera sera, but one thing’s for certain, despite your presense there things have only gotten worse - year by year by year, literally.
[/QUOTE]
So, you’re not interested in what’s best for Iraq, you just want the US out? Why?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
So, you’re not interested in what’s best for Iraq, you just want the US out? Why?
[/QUOTE]
I would think that since the majority of Iraqis want us out, then that would be the best for Iraq then.
Seems that the British army on the field is figuring out that already:
Perhaps I can help in translation, John, I speak radical.
If I read Comrade Rojo correctly, he has not so much expressed indifference to the fate of the hapless Iraqi, but our incapacity to do anything helpful, save for deleting ourselves from the situation.
As for valuing American lives over Iraqi lives, let he without sin…
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
I would think that since the majority of Iraqis want us out, then that would be the best for Iraq then.
[/QUOTE]
No. We discussed this in GD recently when **elucidator **started a thread about the recent Iraq poll numbers. The Iraqis do want us out, but mostly they want us to declare that we intent to get out at some point and that we won’t be establishing permanent bases. They are mostly concerned that we will stay indefintely. Do you remember that thread or do you need me to link you to it?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
No. We discussed this in GD recently when **elucidator **started a thread about the recent Iraq poll numbers. The Iraqis do want us out, but mostly they want us to declare that we intent to get out at some point and that we won’t be establishing permanent bases. They are mostly concerned that we will stay indefintely. Do you remember that thread or do you need me to link you to it?
[/QUOTE]
And how that contradicts what I said?
What it was clear from the last discussion is that the trend for the support for us being there was getting worse, what the British general is saying shows to me that it is reckless to assume Iraqis have the same opinions that they had last year.
Oh, and John, you really are pushing your luck when you want to pretend you can remember better than I can. 
Saudi’s so optimistic about Iraq’s future, they’re building a “maginot line” along the border.
(anybody who wants to break that out into it’s own thread is free to.)
[QUOTE=John Mace]
So, you’re not interested in what’s best for Iraq, you just want the US out? Why?
[/QUOTE]
Did you READ what you’re responding to? Your presense there has only worsened the situation year by year. That’s a fact.
Also, what GIGObuster and 'luc said.
Guess I need an interpreter from “pinko-commie” to English :dubious:
I think if we got out, one of two things would happen:
a) the nation falls into a long and bloody civil war and many more thousands die
b) some Iraqi faction gets the upper hand and establishes a despotic government and eventually the killings stop
If we stay, many more thousands die. I don’t see any hope for democracy taking root there, I think the best hope for the Iraqi people is for the west to pull out and wait for a new despot to restore control.
[QUOTE=RedFury]
Guess I need an interpreter from “pinko-commie” to English :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I was responding to the part of your post that was in Spanish. 
Que sera sera: What will be, will be. I read that as meaning that if things get worse after we leave, then so be it. Was that incorrect?
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Actually, I was responding to the part of your post that was in Spanish.
Que sera sera: What will be, will be. I read that as meaning that if things get worse after we leave, then so be it. Was that incorrect?
[/QUOTE]
Although, word for word the saying is the same in Spanish, the prhase is actually Italian – much in common between the two as I’m sure you are aware.
And yes, I’d guesstimate that there a 50/50 chance of things getting better or worse. There’s really no way of knowning til you do – get out. Butr once again, what we do already know is that your presence there is not helping at all vis-a-vis the security stuation. I mean, really, what security?
Watch and listen to what this lady says towards the end of this short video – she is speaking directly to Americans such as yourself.