I don’t know if you mean US deaths + Iraqi deaths, but if you look at US deaths alone, the trend has been going down for the last 4 months according tothis CNN site (you have to click on "graphical breakdown of casualties). Not that I’m making light of these death numbers-- I think they’re deplorable. Just clarifying things.
Yes, Hezbollah which is funded by Iran and Syria, probably one of the organisations which I hate the most in the Middle East. Hezbollah, the only militia within Lebanon in which it has not been disarmed.
I don’t know why anyone would want to rain on the parade of Lebanon of actually trying to achieve independence in its own affairs, but hey it’s what I usually expect nowadays.
Cheering on freedom and democracy is all well and good, but treating a few demonstrations as proving the inevitable dialectic of history is just silly.
I’m not seeing your trend:
month deaths per day
3-2005 1.75
2-2005 2.14
1-2005 4.1
12-2004 2.48
11-2004 4.7
10-2004 2.16
9-2004 2.9
8-2004 2.42
7-2004 1.87
6-2004 1.67
5-2004 2.71
4-2004 4.67
3-2004 1.68
2-2004 0.79
1-2004 1.68
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what you mean by “control” Right now, it seems to me that we make the judgement that the Iraqi Security can deal with it, based on whatever standards we may deem appropriate. Lots of flexibility there.
We don’t do that sort of thing. Theres lots I agree with Unka Ted about, lots I don’t. He don’t lead, I don’t follow, and you don’t get it.
Legitimacy cannot be given, nor can it be rescinded. Its not a decision you or I can make, nor would I have it otherwise. Besides which, I’m not sure they’re wrong. I have a lot of sympathy for the “we broke it, we gotta fix it” view, but if I become convinced that our efforts are futile and counter-productive and offer us nothing more than needless and pointless sacrifice, then I will be in agreement with them. Not yet, but quite close.
But I am not willing to puruse futile sacrifice in the vain hope that somehow things will turn miraculously peachy. A miracle that can then be claimed as planned and executed, like a man buying a lottery ticket hoping to pay for heart surgery.
Stop that. Its obnoxious to suggest that only those who agree with you have America’s best interests at heart. I am every bit as much a patriot as yourself, and you can believe that or go pound burdocks. But are you trying to enlist my support, or my surrender? In the first instance, chances are slim, in the second, none whatsoever.
Don’t need a deck. Don’t want a hot tub. Prefer trees. Duh, yerself.
I would like people to tell me how much 'Western intereference there is in Lebanon and compare that to the influence Syria has, then see how ridiculous Hezbollah is making itself out to be. Numbers have an effect, but they’re not all important.
reports of supporters being transported across the border
Oh! So I wonder why they’d want Syria to stay, one wonders doesn’t it :rolleyes:
Strange, Hezbollah would rather see the country be incited to violence and probable warfare to keep its militia, thats how I picture their demonstrations, they see a Syrian pullout as the precursor to their disarmnament, and eventual disbandment, so they’re going to pull out all they can to prove that the Syrian ‘brothers’ are really wanted in Lebanon.
Your cite doesn’t distinguish between deaths due to hostile actions and deaths due to other causes (friendly fire, accidents, etc). The cite that I gave does this, and I was referring to the deaths due to hostile actions. If you’re trying to gauge the strength of the insurgency, one wouldn’t count US deaths due to an accidental helocopter crash, for example.
At any rate, the number of deaths is still way too high.
Accidental deaths should be expected to be in proportion to the number of troops deployed. The totals should indeed reflect enemy action.
http://icasualties.org/oif/
It took 295 days to reach the mark of 500 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, a further 242 days to reach the 1000 mark, and a further 177 days to reach the 1500 mark. That shows an increasing rate for US troops. The Pentagon policy of not publicly announcing Iraqi deaths make them harder to estimate, but how many weeks have gone by lately without another few dozen dead in car bombings?
Which is worse, a good rally cranked out by a dictatorship or a fake PR photo op cranked out by an invader?
Translation: “I’ve got nothing to refute your points; stop beating me like a red-headed stepchild…”
Some of us bring evidence to the table; others – well, you, anyway – flail back with cheap remarks in hopes that nobody notices your empty quiver…
Agreed – fair debate point. But not this March 19, right? At least under the aegis of ANSWER?
But again, not two weeks from now, right? All we are saying is give freedom a chance.
I will not. Do you know that one of the very people in this thread said of the World Trade Center victims “I wouldn’t place any flowers on their graves, and I hope you wouldn’t either!” And that only one person who is left of the American center called him on it, and then only obliquely?
My irony meter just exploded and I’m currently wiping coke off my monitor. Thanks for the laugh though. 
-XT
OP checking in; thanks to all who have contributed substantively to this thread. Rolleyes to those who have supplied vitriol without argumentation.
PatriotX asks some worthwhile questions in post #169 and elsewhere, essentially saying that whatever good may come in the ME, the only meaningful criteria of success or failure is US national interest; but I suggest a seperate thread for that.
I would like to refocus on the original question, however: “Does anyone seriously want to argue that all of this would have happened without Iraq, or (far more plausibly) that these are not the harbingers of real reform?”
It appears that many are answering in the affirmative to the second part, questioning or minimizing the seriousness of the events of the last week or two, and pointing out that this may well just be a false spring. That seems a reasonable position to me, though it’s certainly the (ahem) *conservative * way of looking at things.
But I do note that in seven pages, no one has seriously argued that all of this would have happened regardless of US policy. A few people have asserted this, but no one has actually tried to build a plausible, logical argument that something else is causing this wave of reformist sentiment. I find that telling.
As a constructive political suggestion, I offer that one could think of acknowleding and signing on to the Bush foreign policy of actively encouraging democracy while still reserving judgement on Iraq, as this clever and electable pol does.
I’m sure the Iraq situation contributed, but I’ll re-ask the question that no one has responded to yet: Why do you assume that invading Iraq was the only/best way to catalyze democratic reform in the M.E.? If you don’t, then what is the point of harping on this?
While you’re on the “Do you know” kick, manhattan, do you know if any other participant on this thread even *heard * about the ANSWER rally you refer to, much less planned to attend? Where *did * you hear about it - do you have the courage to tell us?
You’re still badly and obviously missing the point. The peace movement is not directed by Trotskyites. Few of those who oppose our invasion and occupation have ever heard of this group you claim exists. Not only do you claim it exists, you assert that it’s actually controlling something. it is no different from a statement that, say, “The Ku Klux Klan will hold a pro-war rally on the 12th of Never in Chicago. You don’t plan to attend, I hope, manhattan. Please say you don’t support the Klan’s effort to get more good people killed. Even if your idol David Duke is going to speak”. Your attempt at well-poisoning undercuts your own position by its own sheer disgustingness.
Clear now, friend?
Sure it has, even if you disagree. Similarly, no one has seriously argued that it’s the result of US policy, or can even hypothesize about why it might be so. There has been mention of similar rallies in Bahrain and Iran, if you’ll scroll back. Hell, the anti-Shah revolution was pro-democracy, but the generation of Republicans then in power were strongly opposed to it then, as you’ll recall. What changed? When did the GOP switch from supporting raw realpolitik to dewey-eyed idealism? Just in the last few weeks, when things happened that Bush could somehow be granted circumstantial credit for, isn’t it? Have we all forgotten his desire to make the Iranian spy Chalabi, and later the collaborationist Pachachi, his puppet in Baghdad, only to fail miserably? Are we ignorant of the many years of pressure on Qadafy to comply with the demands of the world community that Bush scorns? What the fuck has he ever done in Lebanon either way? In what way can anyone say Bush’s version of leadership has led to this, if it’s real - what facts, what decisions, what actions can one point to?
I’ll stick with the “false spring” position, with no more optimism about this administration’s leadership or vision or interest in fact or basic competence than ever before. The evidence that he’s learned anything is not present.
I don’t so assume and never did. However, the question you ask is entirely speculative, and, at this point, somewhat moot.
If on the other hand, we can agree that US policy has succeeded in “catalyzing democratic reform,”
-
some people may reconsider their blanket condemnation of the Iraq war and the motives that lay behind it, and more plausibly and more importantly,
-
the discussion can then become how we can/should press forward with that objective.
One could argue that increased travel necessitated by responding to an active insurgency increases the likelihood of even non-combat related deaths. Rather than get all nitpicky, can we agree that the data showing a recent decrease in combat related deaths is at the bleeding edge of significance, as well as way too high?
Well sure, and skepticism over WMD claims that lacked adequate supporting evidence was also the conservative position, not that many conservative took it. I just don’t see the appeal of getting all worked into a lather over something that may turn out to be nothing. If that makes me a conservative, so be it.
Where? Again, I’m looking for a coherent explanation of what else might explain this confluence of events.
The Guardian, has already been linked in this thread. I do note that much of the rest of the analyses provided, from sources like NYT, WaPo and Der Speigel, seem to regard the causality as pretty much self-evident. Feel free to dismiss them as right-wingers …
Actually, that would be pretty much the moment the infamous neocons garnered GWB’s ear. I think that many oldtime repubs would very much like to return to Kissingerian self-interested hardball. Apparently, so do some Democrats.
Yes, I agree.
I don’t, however, agree with Elvis’ method of counting deaths. It gives only 3 data points for 2 years-- way to coarse of a measurement. One can always trump up some method of counting that will show you whatever result you want. Monthly data points is the most common method of counting.
Your question ISN’T speculative? Why it’s not moot, see below…
Not if there were better ways to accomplish the same goals. Hence, my question is not moot.
What more proof do you need than this very thread to see that that isn’t realistic?
I note that no one has assumed anything of the kind. I do not either. However, allow me to propose an argument for just such a point of view.
An invasion of Iraq may have been, if not the best, the only way to promote democracy in the middle east because it was, again, if not the best, certainly the only way to remove Saddam from power. One can make a very good argument that Saddam could not have attacked very many other countries given the sanctions and restrictions placed on Iraq over the 90s. However, one can make a much better argument that there was no way to remove the regime of Saddam in the next several decades without an all out invasion.
And, as an example of survival dispite defiance of the world community, Saddam may have been a stumbling block to progress in more than Iraq.
I don’t think there is much chance of such an agreement. Unfortuneately,the recent presidential election demonstrated to me that there is no way to get past the blanket condemnation of the war. 20 years from now, even if Iraq is some sort of democratic paradise, most of those currently condeming the war will still do so.
I applaud your efforts in this regard, though.
I think many people are imlicitly doing so, as evidenced by their inability to see why the anti-war folks aren’t rethinking things due to recent events.
Of course, no other state has actually become democratic. Any claims of spreading democracy is way, way, WAY too soon.
Why did it have to be Iraq? Why not push one of the US-friendly states to embrace Democracy?