I gave a cite showing war-zone accidents and FF are heavily on the rise, and offered my opinion that the first days of this war saw an unusual amount of tragic mishaps. That’s all I got.
But, I’m interested in hearing if anyone can show that the first four, accident-prone days of this conflict were normal or expected. This is a debate afterall.
Fair enough. But I have two problems with your exhibit:
Why should we assume that anyone that attributes a single motive to the movements of the stock market is reasonable?
Why should we assume that stock analysts have a reasonable view of how the war should be progressing?
Age Quod Agis, your second question is irrelevent, as it is addressing a separate issue. The question isn’t whether a stock analyst would have a reasonable view of how the war should be progressing. The question is whether a reasonable person (be it a stock analyst or anyone else) might have expected the war to go more smoothly.
On the first question, why should we dismiss the expert opinion of stock market analysts on movements of the stock market? And no one said a “single motive”, but the implication (as I read the article) is that the overriding issue was the perception for how the war was proceeding. Who am I to question the experts? Do you offer any expert testimony to the contrary? Can you back up the assertion that it is simply profit-taking?
How about Exhibit C:
[sub]notice this aviods the “single factor” criticism.[/sub]
But I’m a little confused that you are even asking. Do you agree with DrDeth that the war is going better than any reasonable person could have expected?
I’m even surprised that I’m arguing it, as I generally agree with it. I suppose it comes down to defining what a “reasonable” person is.
First, YES, I do want to stick by that statement. Unlike some people, and I don’t mean you, I’m not in the habit of making statements that I don’t intend to stick by.
Second, YES, I think (that means it’s an opinion) every Muslim in the US armed forces should be subjected to some sort of screening interview at the least, especially those with access to weapons or sensitive areas/information.
I am a Pagan, a Druid specifically. There are no Druid nations, but if there were, I can see where I would be extremely conflicted if I had to take part in a war against one, even if religion was not a central issue. I would not resort to mutiny/treason the way Mr. Akbar did, I think the furtherest I would go would be to get some sort of deferral. But, I can see how other, edgier folks might not be able to make a rational decision in this case.
And besides, who are we fooling, Islam is hopelessly wrapped up in this whole 9-11/Afghanistan/Iraq thing. I respect the religion and 99% of it’s followers, which is more than I can say for some other religions. But, I think that a certain sect of it’s followers have an agenda against the USA and are (mis)using the tenets of Islam to support their case and are using Islamic connections/channels of communication to further their cause. For that reason, we need to check it out the same way we’d screen other likely reasons for mutiny.
**//**: “Islam is hopelessly wrapped up in this whole 9-11/Afghanistan/Iraq thing.”
What “thing” is that?
I mean, I can see the connection between Islam and 9/11 (via Al Qaeda), and between those two and Afghanistan (the country where Al Qaeda’s leader was harbored). But I’m hard-pressed to see what “thing” links either 9/11 or Afghanistan to Iraq.
Sure, there are plenty of Muslims in Iraq, but Saddam is a secular leader, with no connection to Osama, Al Qaeda or Afghanistan. By contrast, Saudi Arabia, an Islamic state, is the birthplace of Osama and most of the 9/11 hijackers. It is also not a democracy. Yet we are not even contemplating invading it. To be sure, the current rulers of Saudi Arabia are US allies, while Saddam (who was our ally for a a while) became our enemy in the Gulf War and remains a potentially dangerous “rogue” leader. Still I don’t see how Islam (or anything else) ends up providing the key to seeing 9-11, Afghanistan and Iraq until a unified “thing.”
This may be a good occasion for remembering that old Sesame Street Song: One of these things is not like the other…
BTW, are you really a Druid metalhead?!
P.S. Lest anyone think otherwise, I’m not suggesting that the rulers of Saudi Arabia are as nasty or repressive as Saddam, nor that we should inavde them. Just trying to unpack the “thing” thing.
For one thing, you misunderstood your own cite. It clearly states that the reason why the percentage of friendly fire and accidental deaths has increased is that there are fewer overall deaths. If you have 7 accidental deaths and 100 deaths total on one day, and then 7 accidental deaths and 7 deaths total on the next day, that means that the percentage rose from 7% to 100%, yet there was no actual increase in accidental deaths.
Also, your cite’s 3% fractricide rate (also known as friendly fire, blue-on-blue, etc.) is different from statistics i have found from other sites. The few that i found listed the rate between 11%-16% for major American wars, which would mean thousands and thousands for wars such as Vietnam and WW II. Sorry i don’t have the cites, but all my IE browsers closed when one site i found from my Google search caused an error.
As for the accidental deaths, i found a good site(cite): http://www.historyguy.com/american_war_casualties.html [also check out their links and sources]. It seems that non-combat military deaths make up a huge percentage of total deaths in most wars. In WW II, over 100,000 American military deaths were non-combat - about 100 per day. In the 11 years of Vietnam, there were 32,000 non-combat deaths of service men who weren’t even in Southeast Asia.
Just try to think of the logistics of it all. There are 300,000 soldiers over there, the majority of which are college-aged men (a high risk group for accidental death). They use an extreme amount of weapons and dangerous heavy machinery, performing complex military maneuvers in an unfamiliar area and terrain. And i assume that the first few days of the war would have an extraordinary amount of non-combat activity, with the deployment of troops and the setting up of base camps.
So, in my opinion, these deaths in this war don’t seem abnormal.
It seemed like a reasonable thread when the newstainment networks were claiming that Saddam might be dead. Right there in my OP, I said:
It was probably the Republican Farmer.
[Bill Paxon in Aliens] Put (him) in charge! [/BPiA]
Someone quoted much of this article in a British military aircrew bulletin board which I read. I presume that “The Times” is the London Times, but you never know.
So what we have is the following (from firther discussion):
And, in other news…
As far as I can tell, this war is going quite smoothly, thank you. The damn thing’s only been running for five days, and the Coalition forces have made significant advances into Iraq; have captured or killed a large number of Iraqi soldiers for minor losses on the friendly side. And only a couple of screw-ups – the missiles hitting Iran (I guess they were not the smartest of the snart bombs) and the Patriot hitting the Tornado.
I was appalled to find a headline on reuters.com today saying something on the lines of, “Americans stunned by US Casualties, POWs in Iraq”. I suspect that most of the US/UK soldiers aren’t stunned. Quite the opposite.
BusinessWeek, that well-known liberal periodical, devotes its March 24 issue to the failure of the Bush administration to handle the pre-war diplomatic situation (“The failure of the Bush Administration to manage its diplomacy is staggering”), the likelihood of continuing bad economic times, and the shrinking likelihood of Bush securing reelection.