|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Negative U.S. media linked to increased insurgent attacks By Shawn Waterman March 24, 2008 UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL Researchers at Harvard say that publicly voiced doubts about the U.S. occupation of Iraq have a measurable "emboldenment effect" on insurgents there. Periods of intense news media coverage in the United States of criticism about the war, or of polling about public opinion on the conflict, are followed by a small but quantifiable increases in the number of attacks on civilians and U.S. forces in Iraq, according to a study by Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government. The increase in attacks is more pronounced in areas of Iraq that have better access to international news media, the authors conclude in a report titled "Is There an 'Emboldenment' Effect? Evidence from the Insurgency in Iraq." The researchers studied data about insurgent attacks and U.S. media coverage up to November, tracking what they called "anti-resolve statements" by U.S. politicians and reports about American public opinion on the war. "We find that in periods immediately after a spike in anti-resolve statements, the level of insurgent attacks increases," says the study, published earlier this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a leading U.S. nonprofit economic research organization. In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent following what the researchers call "high-mention weeks," like the two just before the November 2006 election. Erica Chenoweth, a postdoctoral research fellow studying terrorism and insurgency at the Belfer Center and a specialist in the statistical analysis of violent events who has read the study, told UPI that it was "a good one." "They have picked up some important and interesting data," she said. "I would say the findings are preliminary, and they need to be made more robust." Ms. Chenoweth said the study could be improved if the authors included what she called "pro-resolve statements" as well. She said this would help to control for "the possibility that insurgent violence was provoked by [anger at] declarations of U.S. intent to stay in Iraq," as well as fueled by any encouragement gleaned from statements suggesting U.S. forces might be leaving. She added that the authors had submitted the study to the Quarterly Journal of Economics, a peer-reviewed academic journal published at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and she expected it would be accepted. "It is good enough to pass peer review," she said. The study also found that attacks increased more in parts of Iraq like Anbar province, where there is greater access to international news media, measured by the proportion of households with satellite TV, which its authors say increases the credibility of their findings. The researchers conclude that the increases in attacks are a necessary cost of the way democratic societies fight wars and say they are concerned that the research may be seized upon by the Iraq war's supporters to try and silence its critics. "We are a little bit worried about that," Mr. Monten said in an interview. "Our data suggests that there is a small, but measurable cost" to "anything that provides information about attitudes towards the war." http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080324/FOREIGN/259963993/1003
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
Ralpie...I was very specific in what I wrote..."neocons"
Do you even know what or who the "neocons" are or what they believe?
I'm just guessing, but you probably have no idea who I'm talking about, when I say "the neocons" do you?
I refuse to spoon feed those that not willing to look up the facts. Your post does not even apply to what I wrote.
Try again, this time using the subject I used in my post.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,445 |
Quote:
Quote:
A. To stop the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
B. To bring stability to the region
C. To stop the murderous madman Saadam
D. To stop the spread of Radical Islam.
E. Oil
F. All of the above
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” ...Alan Greenspan
I don't really get it either. I mean, I don't expect any government official to acknowledge it, but it's almost as if (most) people just can't even acknowledge the possibility that our foreign policy is based on what we think is best for us (ie. back to the oil comment). I'm not even saying this as a bad thing. I just find it kind of humorous.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671 |
OK FloridaFan let's try this....
On Tues.3/25/08 today at 7:21 AM Mac wrote this paragraph, "...Here is an interesting fact most have no knowledge of...None of the neocons have a son or daughter serving in our military...not a one of them."
I listed several Congresspersons whose family members served or are now serving in the ME.
You wrote...
"...Not sure what your list proves?
Not belittling your post. It's just that it doesn't prove anything without a full list of all Reps and Dems and the # of children in their family & ages..."
I hope the point is a bit clearer...when someone presents an incorrect statement as a fact in an attempt to belittle another we need to call him out.
MAC...how about rescinding your false fact!
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Like I said I wasn't belittling, or disputing your facts. I was merely stating that without complete stats it's hard to make much from them.
I wasn't even including anything mac said into my comments.
Maybe I misunderstood your post because I wasn't including macs comments into my interpretation of it. Even after re-reading your post, I had a hard time differentiating what you claim mac said, and what you said.
You should use the bb-code quoting feature to really help separate quoted lines from your own comments.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671 |
Quote:
Ralpie...I was very specific in what I wrote..."neocons"
Do you even know what or who the "neocons" are or what they believe?
I'm just guessing, but you probably have no idea who I'm talking about, when I say "the neocons" do you?
I refuse to spoon feed those that not willing to look up the facts. Your post does not even apply to what I wrote.
Try again, this time using the subject I used in my post.
MAC-In my original post this is what I said ," Does neocon have a selective membership roster open to just a few...or can most Republicans join the ranks.."?.
MAC- If you would climb down off your high horse for a moment you'd realize that many of us do know the term neocon and the hateful disgust with which your side spews the word forth.
A neocon is any Republican that you consider is not a true conservative[ as judged by your standards of course] who is willing to go to war to protect numerous interests of the United States and oppressed peoples. The funny thing is that not too many Republicans choose this term[neocom] since it is a term made up by opponents of the Republicans and these opponents seem to a patent on whom the term may be applied.
The term is not a popular one with positive elements just as "LIBERAL" has been a term that Dems still run from...and from for the last 25-30 years.
This addiction that the Dems have for "Identity Politics" will be their undoing once again...you owe the Congresspeople I mentioned an apology sir!
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671 |
Florida Fan perhaps you are right on the use of the quote device that is available; however, how a quote by him attributed to him and in quotes could be confused with my remarks that follow is hard to understand.
After my words I used quotes to present the Congresspeople whose family members have been active duty soldiers, thus negating his false fact claiming no war supporters on the Republican side have family fighting in the ME.
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Mac...While I understand your feelings of anger and resentment considering your overall opinion of Republicans and war supporters I must point out what I believe to be exceptions to your post below.
Mac wrote "You want to stay in Iraq?...Send your kids to fight in Iraq.
You want to stay in Iraq?....Support a draft so our nation has a shared sacrifice by all Americans....the rich, the poor, those who graduate HS and those who are in college.
Here is an interesting fact most have no knowledge of...None of the neocons have a son or daughter serving in our military...not a one of them."
Does neocon have a selective membership roster open to just a few...or can most Republicans join the ranks...because...
"I find it amazing that the American media does not give much coverage to a higher percentage of Democrat and Republican politician's sons that are serving or have served in the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars!
This is a higher percenatage of U.S. Politicians with sons in the military than the general U.S. population..............................
Talk about a personal decision. Amazing young men, who could have done anything with their lives, but have chosen to join the U.S. Military.
*Former Senator & Attorney General John Ashcroft (R- MO)
His son, Andy, is in the Navy and has served in the GulF in support of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.
This is a little known fact, because Ashcroft did not want to bring unwanted attention to his son and of course the left-leaning media never did a story on it, because that would hurt their agenda of hurting him.
*Senator Christopher Bond (R - Missouri)
(son, Sam, is in the U.S. Marines and is currently serving in IRAQ.)
Kit Bond’s son leaves for Iraq Marine duty
*Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-California)
(son, Duane, is a U.S. Marine and Served in IRAQ)
Serving on two fronts | The San Diego Union-Tribune
Rep. Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina)
(Three sons in military:
*Alan is a captain in the Army National Guard served in IRAQ,
*Addison is serving in the Navy,
*Julian is in the Army National Guard)
Senator elect James Webb (D- WV)
Son is a U.S. Marine and serving in Iraq.
Senator John McCain (R- AZ)
Son is a U.S. Marine serving in Iraq War.
Rep. John Kline, (R-Minn)
(son, Dan, is a Black Hawk Helicopter pilot in the 101st Airborne and serving in IRAQ)
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colorado)
(son, John, serving in the Navy and sent to Iraq)
*Rep. Ike Skelton (R-Missouri)
(has a son serving in Army serving in Iraq)
*Rep. Todd Akin (R-Missouri)
(has a son, Perry, in the Marine Corps who is a combat engineer serving in Iraq.)
John McCain's support of the troops Surge has actually sent his own son, Jimmy, to Baghdad. """"
Above are listed 10 well known politicians whose sons serve,have served or may serve in Iraq defending our nation 9 are Republicans and one is a Democrat...there are more pols kids in the service but these I know of for sure.
The war is a terrible,brutal conflict and we all wish the thing had never been started...but it is here...the least we can do is to honor those who serve and not distort the sacrifices of sons and parents participating.
As far as trying to make political points by claiming that the side you oppose are all "chickenhawks"...research the subject or STFU!!! please and thanks
Because unless you have read and retained mac's post, the only thing separating what you said from what mac says is the "", and after staring at orange text on a black screen all day, those little things tend to start to disappear, especially on a board where the common practice of the bb-code quote system is the accepted method of separating ones comments from another's within the same post. 
Be honest with you, between the yellow text and the constant usage of the word "neocon" I have skipped alot of macs posts.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Just clicking......
On a side note:
63 years ago today, the death toll of a mere 5 week long (February 19-March 26) battle for a tiny 5 square mile piece of volcanic dirt reached just shy of 7,000 U.S. dead with over 26,000 casualties.
There were 70,000 troops sent... that is 1 in 10 dead, more than 1 in 3 wounded.
This was Iwo Jima.
That was a single battle in a shorter war.... just a little perspective on what a truly horrible casualty rate is.
While what we have isn't great, it is greatly overblown by the media and by no means as truly horrible as it could be.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618 |
I hear you. However, I think the "cause" was a little bit more legit. Gawd..........I really hope no one tries to compare the two. 
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,671 |
Is a dead American soldier, a combat veteran...especially one who ENLISTS...any different from another dead American combat veteran?
The sacrifice in terms of human tragedy is immense...no less or more so due to the cause of the combat.
The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618 |
I should have known better.
First of all.........where did I ever diminish a lost life?
Secondly............are you really comparing .............ahhhh........nevermind.
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 805
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 805 |
Quote:
Just clicking......
On a side note:
63 years ago today, the death toll of a mere 5 week long (February 19-March 26) battle for a tiny 5 square mile piece of volcanic dirt reached just shy of 7,000 U.S. dead with over 26,000 casualties.
There were 70,000 troops sent... that is 1 in 10 dead, more than 1 in 3 wounded.
This was Iwo Jima.
That was a single battle in a shorter war.... just a little perspective on what a truly horrible casualty rate is.
While what we have isn't great, it is greatly overblown by the media and by no means as truly horrible as it could be.
Nice post PPE
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,682
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,682 |
Quote:
That was a single battle in a shorter war.... just a little perspective on what a truly horrible casualty rate is.
While what we have isn't great, it is greatly overblown by the media and by no means as truly horrible as it could be.
I agree.
45,000 died in Vietnam, and that was only 3-4 years longer than this..
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Ballpeen, OSU, and prp, thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 563 |
Quote:
Quote:
That was a single battle in a shorter war.... just a little perspective on what a truly horrible casualty rate is.
While what we have isn't great, it is greatly overblown by the media and by no means as truly horrible as it could be.
I agree.
45,000 died in Vietnam, and that was only 3-4 years longer than this..
Do the advances in medical treatment skews those numbers? In other words, are there a lot of causalties but not as many deaths?
Either way, one lost life for this war is a complete waste. We've accomplished nothing, much like we did in Vietnam.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
We've accomplished nothing, much like we did in Vietnam.
And "enlightened"  people such as yourself are doing everything in their power to insure that to be the case....
Quite convenient that one of the most important posts in this thread is completely ignored by you and your ilk.
Quote:
Negative U.S. media linked to increased insurgent attacks
Thanks for the post Jules. 
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,374
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,374 |
My thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the 4000 fallen servicemembers.
LET'S GO BROWNS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/OldSixty-Two/new0400001.jpg) [b]WOOF WOOF[b]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Just some #'s to consider....
When you look at the losses as a percentage of the US Population....it kind of puts a different look on how badly we are being hurt... I mean if ons side has a 1000 men and another has 500...and they both lost 250 men....Who ended up taking the bigger hit???? Obviously the second group who had a 50% casulty rate....
The 7,000 lost at Iwo Jima constituted .005% of the total US Population. That is a small number to be sure(but no less tragic).....However, consider that was over a period of 2 weeks. And it is 5 times the hit we took in all the years of fightng in Iraq.....which is a .001%......
#'s for other Wars...
The 45000 in Viet Nam was a whopping .02%
The Korean War was about the same .02%
World War II was .3% for the whole of the war(that is 300 TIMES our current situation)
World War I was .1% which is still 100 times our current hit.
The Civil War....1.1% for the Union and .42% for the Confederate for a monster 1.5% of the US population yes that is 1500 times the hit we are taking now.
(figured as a % of the US pop that was censused in 1860 before the war....all others on Census of the last Year in the conflict)
The deaths of 4000 Americans is a sad and tragic event. But I think some belittle the sacrifices of those that came before us by treating those 4,000 as reason to give up, when the others had sacrificed far more and continued to fight.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
Quote:
A neocon is any Republican that you consider is not a true conservative[ as judged by your standards of course] who is willing to go to war to protect numerous interests of the United States and oppressed peoples
Ralphie...sorry to tell you this...but you did not look up the term "NEOCON"...you gave the wrong answer yet again.
I have asked you to look it up to "educate" yourself...but for some reason you refuse...
So, let me try this.. web page
Neocon 101
Some basic questions answered.
What do neoconservatives believe?
"Neocons" believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action.
Most neocons believe that the US has allowed dangers to gather by not spending enough on defense and not confronting threats aggressively enough. One such threat, they contend, was Saddam Hussein and his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Since the 1991 Gulf War, neocons relentlessly advocated Mr. Hussein's ouster.
Most neocons share unwavering support for Israel, which they see as crucial to US military sufficiency in a volatile region. They also see Israel as a key outpost of democracy in a region ruled by despots. Believing that authoritarianism and theocracy have allowed anti-Americanism to flourish in the Middle East, neocons advocate the democratic transformation of the region, starting with Iraq. They also believe the US is unnecessarily hampered by multilateral institutions, which they do not trust to effectively neutralize threats to global security.
What are the roots of neoconservative beliefs?
The original neocons were a small group of mostly Jewish liberal intellectuals who, in the 1960s and 70s, grew disenchanted with what they saw as the American left's social excesses and reluctance to spend adequately on defense. Many of these neocons worked in the 1970s for Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a staunch anti-communist. By the 1980s, most neocons had become Republicans, finding in President Ronald Reagan an avenue for their aggressive approach of confronting the Soviet Union with bold rhetoric and steep hikes in military spending. After the Soviet Union's fall, the neocons decried what they saw as American complacency. In the 1990s, they warned of the dangers of reducing both America's defense spending and its role in the world.
Unlike their predecessors, most younger neocons never experienced being left of center. They've always been "Reagan" Republicans.
What is the difference between a neoconservative and a conservative?
Liberals first applied the "neo" prefix to their comrades who broke ranks to become more conservative in the 1960s and 70s. The defectors remained more liberal on some domestic policy issues. But foreign policy stands have always defined neoconservatism. Where other conservatives favored détente and containment of the Soviet Union, neocons pushed direct confrontation, which became their raison d'etre during the 1970s and 80s.
Today, both conservatives and neocons favor a robust US military. But most conservatives express greater reservations about military intervention and so-called nation building. Neocons share no such reluctance. The post 9/11-campaigns against regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate that the neocons are not afraid to force regime change and reshape hostile states in the American image. Neocons believe the US must do to whatever it takes to end state-supported terrorism. For most, this means an aggressive push for democracy in the Middle East. Even after 9/11, many other conservatives, particularly in the isolationist wing, view this as an overzealous dream with nightmarish consequences.
How have neoconservatives influenced US foreign policy?
Finding a kindred spirit in President Reagan, neocons greatly influenced US foreign policy in the 1980s.
But in the 1990s, neocon cries failed to spur much action. Outside of Reaganite think tanks and Israel's right-wing Likud Party, their calls for regime change in Iraq were deemed provocative and extremist by the political mainstream. With a few notable exceptions, such as President Bill Clinton's decision to launch isolated strikes at suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, their talk of preemptive military action was largely dismissed as overkill.
Despite being muted by a president who called for restraint and humility in foreign affairs, neocons used the 1990s to hone their message and craft their blueprint for American power. Their forward thinking and long-time ties to Republican circles helped many neocons win key posts in the Bush administration.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 moved much of the Bush administration closer than ever to neoconservative foreign policy. Only days after 9/11, one of the top neoconservative think tanks in Washington, the Project for a New American Century, wrote an open letter to President Bush calling for regime change in Iraq. Before long, Bush, who campaigned in 2000 against nation building and excessive military intervention overseas, also began calling for regime change in Iraq. In a highly significant nod to neocon influence, Bush chose the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as the venue for a key February 2003 speech in which he declared that a US victory in Iraq "could begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace." AEI – the de facto headquarters for neconservative policy – had been calling for democratization of the Arab world for more than a decade.
What does a neoconservative dream world look like?
Neocons envision a world in which the United States is the unchallenged superpower, immune to threats. They believe that the US has a responsibility to act as a "benevolent global hegemon." In this capacity, the US would maintain an empire of sorts by helping to create democratic, economically liberal governments in place of "failed states" or oppressive regimes they deem threatening to the US or its interests. In the neocon dream world the entire Middle East would be democratized in the belief that this would eliminate a prime breeding ground for terrorists. This approach, they claim, is not only best for the US; it is best for the world. In their view, the world can only achieve peace through strong US leadership backed with credible force, not weak treaties to be disrespected by tyrants.
Any regime that is outwardly hostile to the US and could pose a threat would be confronted aggressively, not "appeased" or merely contained. The US military would be reconfigured around the world to allow for greater flexibility and quicker deployment to hot spots in the Middle East, as well as Central and Southeast Asia. The US would spend more on defense, particularly for high-tech, precision weaponry that could be used in preemptive strikes. It would work through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations when possible, but must never be constrained from acting in its best interests whenever necessary.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RALPHIE...now you have no reason for being "uneducated" about the "NEOCONS"....mac
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,618 |
Jesus man...............it's not just about the numbers. Sometimes there are legitimate reasons for war. Other times, it's an act of aggression that is fueled by greed. Please quit comparing WWII w/Bush's war. It's repulsive and disrespectful.
"What lies behind us and what lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960 |
Quote:
Please quit comparing WWII w/Bush's war. It's repulsive and disrespectful.
BURN!! 
President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 364
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 364 |
Here is what pisses me off about this silly war. Just ONCE I would like to hear a pundit, general, politician lay out in clear,understandable language, what it means to WIN this war. They talk about staying till we win but no one ever lays out, in black and white, what the victory conditions are. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,201 |
Quote:
Quote:
That was a single battle in a shorter war.... just a little perspective on what a truly horrible casualty rate is.
While what we have isn't great, it is greatly overblown by the media and by no means as truly horrible as it could be.
I agree.
45,000 died in Vietnam, and that was only 3-4 years longer than this..
And it was fighting the same type of enemy that blends into the populace in the same type of war with restricted rules of engagement and lots ambushes and booby traps along our known paths of movement... though we now call them by their more formal, sanitized, name of Improvised Explosive Device.
Or, how about the 30,000 Army soldiers of the 7th ID and Marines that were encircled but broke out at the Chosin River... after taking 50% casualties. That's 15,000 dead and wounded in roughly a 19 day span.... in a war that was equally as misunderstood and accepted as our current one.
4,000 sucks, but 4,000 in 5 years isn't bad. It could be a LOT worse.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
Quote:
Just some #'s to consider....
Pete...your comments diminish the sacrifices made by the 4001 soldiers who have died in the Iraq War.
Those of you saying..."it's only 4000 soldiers, look at how many died in past wars"....you diminish and tarnish the sacrifices made by every one of the 4000 soldiers who have died in this Iraq War.
But most of all, you miss the most critical point....1 soldier dying in this Iraq War, is a death that was "sacrificed" because our leaders had a "dishonest" agenda and "sold" the American people the Iraq War.
The reasons for the war have crumbled into what is now obviously, "lies".
No wmds...and it was not "bad intell" folks...they lied about the intell to scare the hell out of all Americans, in an attempt to justify starting a war in Iraq. They played on American's emotions, after we had suffered an attack by Osama Bin Laden on 9/11.
No Al-Qaeda connection...another lie that was used in an attempt to link Osama Bin Laden and 9/11 to Sadam, again in an attempt to justify going to war.
Greenspan's admission that the war was about "OIL"...a sliver of honesty from one person who dared tell the truth.
Most Americans now understand the nuts and bolts of how the war was sold to them. But some Americans continue to trivialize the loss of "only 4000 soldiers", largely due to their political concerns.
You don't send America's sons and daughters to war, just because you want to...just because you have an agenda...just because you have the power to do so.
Americans elect their Presidents, who also serves as the Commander in Chief over all our military, trusting the CIC will never send America's sons and daughters to WAR, "unnecessarily".
We trust our leaders to "never, ever" cross the sacred line of taking our country to war "needlessly".
We trust our leaders to "never, ever" lie about the need to send soldiers into harms way.
Our leaders failed the American people and the military.
Pete, by your numbers, from the #1 soldier to die in the Iraq war to #4001 ...none of them should have died in this War...none of them had to die in the Iraq War.
That is the "tragedy" of the Iraq War...it's not how many soldiers have died in the Iraq War, it's the reason they died in the Iraq War.
One soldier dying because his Commander in Chief lied about the need to go to war, is too many.
Hopefully, this will never happen in America, again!
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
The goal has always been to make Iraq and autonomous democracy. The problem with that is it's really hard to quantify or measure a country's ability to be autonomous.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 364
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 364 |
So till we decide that they are "autonomous" we wallow in this quagmire and the casualty figures continue to climb. the U.S. has historicly been second rate at "Nation Building". I hope one day the Pols get that through their heads.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,682
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,682 |
Do the advances in medical treatment skews those numbers? In other words, are there a lot of causalties but not as many deaths?
Possibly some, but not to that extent.
Trauma wounds are trauma wounds. You don't recover from getting you brains splattered on a wall or tree somewhere.
There are two bigger factors.
First, the fighting is a lot less. It was a big fight at the beginning, but for the last few years it has been isolated stuff, sniper stuff.
Even bigger is modern weaponry. We can kill a lot more bad guys from afar without having to stick our necks in harms way.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
Quote:
One soldier dying because his Commander in Chief lied about the need to go to war, is too many.
So let me get this straight---you think that Bush basically knew that their were no WMD's but insisted there were anyway. You're saying he just openly lied in order to provoke a war and kill a bunch of people---and he got re-elected while doing this. Not only are you calling into question Bush but also you are questioning the intelligence of every person who cast a ballot with his name on it. That is pretty ridiculous.
I think Bush may have been wrong about the WMD's, but I don't think he blatantly lied so that he could sacrifice the lives of countless people.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
RALPHIE...now you have no reason for being "uneducated" about the "NEOCONS"....mac
Exactly. Now Ralphie knows exactly how one extreme liberal from the Christian Science Monitor defines neocon...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
But I think some belittle the sacrifices of those that came before us by treating those 4,000 as reason to give up
The 4,000 isn't a reason to give up. There is no 'giving up' or 'winning' -- eventually, we will leave Iraq with very little to show for it, and it won't be giving up, it will be inevitability.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Not only are you calling into question Bush but also you are questioning the intelligence of every person who cast a ballot with his name on it.
I question the intelligence of someone who voted for him the second time around.
And as for the 'lying'...the man lied by omission. If I could come to his defense, I would say that based on all of the reports and intelligence, there is a chance that it wasn't Bush who decieved as much as it was the people in the field who felt that Bush wanted a war and skimped and shaped reports for him...but even that leads me to question why people thought he wanted it so bad.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
Quote:
lied by omission
This looks like you are calling one thing another to suit your own opinion.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283 |
Quote:
So let me get this straight---you think that Bush basically knew that their were no WMD's but insisted there were anyway. You're saying he just openly lied in order to provoke a war and kill a bunch of people---and he got re-elected while doing this. Not only are you calling into question Bush but also you are questioning the intelligence of every person who cast a ballot with his name on it. That is pretty ridiculous.
You may find it ridiculous, but there are a great many people who see it exactly that way. The way the events unfolded leaves too many unanswered questions about what this administration actually knew. And IMO, Colin Powell's presentation to the UN was a joke. Drawn pictures or satellite pictures that didn't provide any proof. And his whole concentration was WMD's, not stablilizing the middle east. That was the angle we came from. That was the angle that was sold to the UN and the US.
Now from your perspective it seems you just don't believe that your government would do something this dishonest. But it's not big shock to many people who feel that this government has always had an air of dishonesty. What's funny to me, is certain people don't think the government would lie to them, but don't trust the government to get involved in everday affairs like health care. That's just funny to me.
I don't think it's a matter of intentionally sacrificing lives, that comes with the territory when you fight a war. It's about accomplishing a goal. What that goal actually is, is where this debate comes from
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960 |
Quote:
Quote:
Not only are you calling into question Bush but also you are questioning the intelligence of every person who cast a ballot with his name on it.
I question the intelligence of someone who voted for him the second time around.
President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
Thats a pretty arrogant statement.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I question the intelligence of someone who voted for him the second time around.
I was far less enamored with him in the second election.. but you can thank the Dems for running John Kerry as to why he won...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,283 |
Quote:
Quote:
I question the intelligence of someone who voted for him the second time around.
I was far less enamored with him in the second election.. but you can thank the Dems for running John Kerry as to why he won...
I can partially agree with that.
I wanted Wesley Clarke...still do!
But I would've voted Spuds McKenzie before voting for Bush
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good" Thomas Paine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
lied by omission
This looks like you are calling one thing another to suit your own opinion.
Lying by omission is most certainly a form of lying.
If I sell you a car, and fail to tell you that it's stalled out the last three times I drove it, am I not lying?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
I question the intelligence of someone who voted for him the second time around.
I was far less enamored with him in the second election.. but you can thank the Dems for running John Kerry as to why he won...
I still have a bad taste in my mouth from voting for that guy. I remember shuddering in the election booth. It was awful. It's probably soured me on voting in federal elections for good.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum U.S. toll in Iraq reaches 4,000
|
|
