Liberal Generals in Iraq

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

Lumpy:

Here’s Detroit over the past three decades:

"The city of Detroit has seen 17,000 violent deaths over the past three decades, with working class youth representing a disproportionate number of the victims. What is the meaning of this staggering statistic?

The violent death rate in Detroit over this period “17,000 killed out of a population of one million” is greater than that of Lebanon during its civil war, when 44,000 died out of a population of nearly four million. The rate is higher than in the 20-year civil war in Sri Lanka, in which an estimated 64,000 have died out of a population of 19 million. The death toll in Detroit is five times the number killed in Northern Ireland during the same period of time, 3,300 people out of a population half again as large as Detroit’s.

While Perkins hails the current year’s projected murder toll of 300 as a 30 percent reduction in the homicide rate, this total is larger than the number killed in all but one year of “the troubles” in Northern Ireland. And similar figures could be produced for other large American cities: New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Philadelphia."

JeffR

P.S. Stay tuned.

42

Lumpy,

Found it.

2003 was hailed as a “down year” in the number of murders in Detroit.

Here are the totals U.S. fatalities in Iraq (including non-hostile action figures)

March 20-April 30, 2003: 115 Hostile; 23 Non-Hostile; 138 Total

May 1-December 31, 2003: 241 Hostile; 103 Non-Hostile; 344 Total

Number of murders in Detroit for 2003:

One fucking city!!! Not the murder capital of the U.S. A “down year!!!”

Again, if I wanted to spin this, I could go on the radio/television and report all of the murders and make a very convincing case that we live in a “quagmire” and a “disaster.”

For people who are too lazy to do their own research, these biased perspectives become very powerful tools. The liberals count on people taking their “facts” and adjectives at face value.

No thanks!!!

JeffR

43

lumpy,

My final offering for this evening.

U.S. total fatalities in 2003: 366

FBI states 2003 total U.S.murders: 16503

16503 to 366.

Anyone want to argue that I could go on the radio/television and decide to label the entire United States as a “quaqmire” or a “disaster?”

If you are ignorant, this bias can form the basis for your beliefs.

JeffR

44

[quote]ConorM wrote:
"No question the terrorists have been setting off a lot more bombs and murdering more people these last two months. "

Terrorists?? But you invaded their country? They aren’t all Saddams Cronies you know. No different than if Spain invaded the US, would you fight back then? Hell yeah and would you also be considered terrorists?[/quote]

Yes, terrorists. When they stop setting off bombs in crowds of innocent people and beheading foreign aid workers I will stop calling them terrorists.

If a foreign country occupied the US and I started setting off bombs in churches and shopping malls and beheading random people I would be considered a terrorist.

I understand a lot of people are against the war. I understand their opinions.

I don’t understand the apparent sympathy for the enemy.

45

On what xMillertimex wrote:

Do you think they would be better off under the Sadaam regime? They could vote his party back in…but didn’t. The polls in Iraq are not very sympathetic towards Sadaam. Most want him executed immediately w/o trial.

They don’t like they way we are doing things. Hmm. Ever seen the videos of when the Iraqi’s “liberated” Kuwait. I have. Heavy machine guns used against civilians in the street to disperse mobs. I saw a tanker using his 12.7mm turrent gun on a crowd of about 100 students. Not a pretty site. This was actual video not “reports”. The Iraqi’s are lucky they were not liberated by a less enlightened power. Think the Soviets or Chinese or the Iranians would have been so kind, please…

The Iraqi Govt. was out of control. Now they are under control. When they are capable of being rational we’ll leave.

By the way have you taken note of how the Syrians have suddenly saw fit to act like humans for a change. Wonder why? Perhaps they got a sternly worded letter from the UN. Or perhaps they saw that operation agianst the terrs on their border.

46

Jeff, I take your point about the negativity of news broadcasts, and how only to focus on death etc. and the use of words like ‘quagmire’ etc, can make a place look worse than it is.

But it’s not all impressions. The last time I heard, there were no car bombs in Detroit, and police weren’t getting gunned down there by the dozen. Those are true indicators that Iraq is, despite the best efforts of many over there, fucked.

47

Dean,

Thanks for responding.

Don’t be too sure about the “no bomb” thing in Detroit.

Here is the most recent: May 18th, 2005.

"Pipe bomb evacuates industrial park

Sterling Hts. workers kept out of area for 4 hours after man shows bomb to co-worker.

By Charles E. Ramirez and George Hunter / The Detroit News

Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery

STERLING HEIGHTS – Businesses in a Sterling Heights industrial park Tuesday struggled to get back to normal after an employee of a sheet metal company allegedly brought a pipe bomb into his workplace.

Several companies in the industrial park near 15 Mile and Mound roads were evacuated Tuesday after Sterling Heights police received a phone call from Detronic Industries Inc. officials about a bomb threat there.

“We were told by the Sterling Heights Police to evacuate all of our employees,” said Tim Doppel, president of Atwood LawnCare Inc. “We were out of our building from about 10:45 a.m. to 3 p.m.”

Doppel’s company is in a building next door to Detronic Industries.

After Sterling Heights police received the phone call about 10:30 a.m. Tuesday, they evacuated Detronic Industries, Atwood LawnCare and several other businesses in the area. They then called in the Michigan State Police bomb squad to aid in the search for the device.

“We evacuated the building, and we were outside for more than four hours,” said Marilyn Carne, treasurer and secretary for Detronic Industries. “They had us go down a couple of buildings to wait while they searched our place.”

Police arrested a Detronic employee from Oakland Township after investigating the bomb threat Tuesday, said Lt. Michael Reese of the Sterling Heights Police Department.

The employee, whose name was not released by police, allegedly showed the device to a co-worker.

That Detronic employee then notified his supervisor, said Carne. Her husband, James, is the company’s president and he called the police, she said.

“The police brought in the bomb squad, and they found the bomb in (his) toolbox,” she said. “The police brought in a robot to get the bomb, and they detonated it in an isolated area.”

Reese said investigators found seven 6-inch-long explosive devices in the suspect’s pickup. The devices were sent to a Michigan State Police laboratory to be analyzed, he said.

He said the suspect faces charges of manufacturing and possession of an explosive device, a felony that carries a 15-year prison sentence.

He is expected to be arraigned today."

I refuse to look up how many policemen are killed in Detroit. It would make me too damn angry.

Either way, if I had the agenda, I could make a convincing case that America is at war with itself every day.

I could even say it is “fucked.”

However, you and I know that the majority of the country is safe. People wave at the Police. Laws are obeyed. Children are raised in safety. People dream and meet their goals.

The same thing is happening with increasing frequency in Iraq.

That is progress. That is what is not being reported. Not reporting it belies the liberal news bias.

JeffR

48

[quote]JeffR wrote:
lumpy,

My final offering for this evening.

U.S. total fatalities in 2003: 366

FBI states 2003 total U.S.murders: 16503

16503 to 366.

Anyone want to argue that I could go on the radio/television and decide to label the entire United States as a “quaqmire” or a “disaster?”

If you are ignorant, this bias can form the basis for your beliefs.

JeffR[/quote]

God this is painful, Jeff R, a million people live in Detroit. There are 138,000 troops in Iraq, hence the risk to soldiers much, much higher than the risk of a Detroit citizen (hard not to laugh here). Your post prove my point over and over again so you should think about stopping.

U.S. total fatalities in 2003: 366
138,000 troops in Iraq, the risk of getting killed?
1 in every 377 troops.

FBI states 2003 total U.S.murders: 16503
US pop. 296,000,000
risk of getting killed in the US
1 in every 17,936

Jeff I know you are very very gullible and believe things that are not true, but even you can see the difference between 377 and 17,936 right?

God, what a horrible way of making light of the dangers and sacrifices of our troops—yeah its disneyland over there Jeff–jeez.

49

[quote]hedo wrote:
On what xMillertimex wrote:

The Iraqi Govt. was out of control. Now they are under control. When they are capable of being rational we’ll leave.

[/quote]

Under control? Weird that Condi would comeback saying the exact opposite, in fact saying the gov. situation is more of a risk than the military one. (i.e. way too close to Iran) When the iranian p.m came to visit—no flak jacket.

50

lumpy,

Seriously, did you look at the total numbers? Do you think the odds ratios mattered a damn to the victims? To the families of the 16,000+ killed in 2003 alone Iraq would seem FAR less dangerous.

It must be fun to cherry-pick what information you think about.

That is my beef with the reporting on the Iraq war. By not allowing yourself to see the bias and pointing it out to others at every turn, I say you are as guilty as CBS, Newsweek, CNN, NPR, etc…

Finally, let me walk you through this. I said quite clearly that if I had the desire I could use the numbers I quoted to make Iraq seem like Disneyland.

It is the exact same thing being done by the above media sources while reporting Iraq fatalities. Instead of Disneyland, it’s “quagmire” and “disaster.”

Am I clear on that one?

lumpy, I know you understood what I was saying. I also know it’s your tired tactic of changing the tenor of the argument when you’ve been repudiated.

JeffR

51

[quote]JeffR wrote:
lumpy,

Seriously, did you look at the total numbers? Do you think the odds ratios mattered a damn to the victims? To the families of the 16,000+ killed in 2003 alone Iraq would seem FAR less dangerous.

It must be fun to cherry-pick what information you think about.

That is my beef with the reporting on the Iraq war. By not allowing yourself to see the bias and pointing it out to others at every turn, I say you are as guilty as CBS, Newsweek, CNN, NPR, etc…

Finally, let me walk you through this. I said quite clearly that if I had the desire I could use the numbers I quoted to make Iraq seem like Disneyland.

It is the exact same thing being done by the above media sources while reporting Iraq fatalities. Instead of Disneyland, it’s “quagmire” and “disaster.”

Am I clear on that one?

lumpy, I know you understood what I was saying. I also know it’s your tired tactic of changing the tenor of the argument when you’ve been repudiated.

JeffR[/quote]

Repudiated?
Your argument was FALSE!
Your comparisons LAUGHABLE!
Your example DEBUNKED!
What’s tiring is your willful ignorance of REALITY. It is significantly more dangerous in Iraq than here. The situation is NOT wonderful. There are malnourished children, political unrest, a leaning toward Iranian styled government, random frequent violence, no guarantee of the future…we have a long way to go! And we’ll get there but not with your fairytale optimism that has little basis in reality.
The civilian planning was a disaster!
It put us into a quagmire!
That’s why some have demanded responsibility!

52

lumpy,

Thanks for coming back weak!!!

You are so far behind you think you are ahead.

Shall we rehash?

I discussed March/April 2004 casualties in Iraq. You decided to regurgitate the answer to a post discussing 2003.

You called that a win.

To humor you, I went with the 2003 numbers. I added various cities including Detroit. Then I hit you with the year long total.

Your response? To retype your original. Then you focused on the Disneyland comment. In effect, accusing me of being insensitive.

Again you claimed a “win.” For good measure throwing out your usual insults about lack of intelligence.

Arguing with you is like trying to grab a handful of air.

I type in clear English. You change the discussion.

Anyway, you want to replace the Republicans with Democrats. That’s the accountability you seek. No one is fooled.

Your party is getting exactly what it deserves. I’ll be thinking about you on Tuesday.

JeffR

53

[quote]JeffR wrote:
lumpy:

Are you sure you want to argue this point with me?

You do? Ok.

January 05, 2004
Some Iraq Perspective
Murder/Casualties for 2003

Combat Deaths in Iraq: 328

Murders in Chicago: 599

Murders in New York: 596

Murders in Los Angeles: 500

Since you decided to quote 2003 (I quoted 2003). Let’s do it.

JeffR[/quote]

I don’t know what is sicker, the fact that you are attempting to downplay the risks in Iraq or the fact that you are brushing off the more than 1,600 lives that have been lost over there by comparing it to random acts of violence in the US.

For those with more common sense than this, this is a web site that does follow those who have lost their lives in an attempt to “free” Iraq.
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

Iraq is not a pleasant place to be at the moment and the troops I have talked to who have just gotten back from tours were not treating the regular alarm drills and bombs going off as if it were a walk through Detroit. I am not even sure what your point is. Are you truly trying to gloss over the dangers over there? Are you trying to decrease the significance of the lives lost in this effort? I think those soldiers, of which there are many, deserve much more respect than someone on the internet trying to pretend as if their lives lost were as casual as a walk through Detroit on your average summer day.

54

[quote]JeffR wrote:
lumpy,

Thanks for coming back weak!!!

You are so far behind you think you are ahead.

Shall we rehash?

I discussed March/April 2004 casualties in Iraq. You decided to regurgitate the answer to a post discussing 2003.

You called that a win.

To humor you, I went with the 2003 numbers. I added various cities including Detroit. Then I hit you with the year long total.

Your response? To retype your original. Then you focused on the Disneyland comment. In effect, accusing me of being insensitive.

Again you claimed a “win.” For good measure throwing out your usual insults about lack of intelligence.

Arguing with you is like trying to grab a handful of air.

I type in clear English. You change the discussion.

Anyway, you want to replace the Republicans with Democrats. That’s the accountability you seek. No one is fooled.

Your party is getting exactly what it deserves. I’ll be thinking about you on Tuesday.

JeffR

[/quote]
Uhmm… What is this guy not getting?
It doesn’t matter which year you use stats for, the risk of being killed in Iraq is higher by a significant degree than anywhere in the US. You do understand what I’m saying right? There is no comparison of the risk, regardless of date. You only belittle the troops by discounting this risk. It is a HUGE risk they are facing. It is not a huge risk to walk the streets of Detroit, NYC, LA or anywhere else relative to the risks our troops are taking.

55

[quote]100meters wrote:
Uhmm… What is this guy not getting?
It doesn’t matter which year you use stats for, the risk of being killed in Iraq is higher by a significant degree than anywhere in the US. You do understand what I’m saying right? There is no comparison of the risk, regardless of date. You only belittle the troops by discounting this risk. It is a HUGE risk they are facing. It is not a huge risk to walk the streets of Detroit, NYC, LA or anywhere else relative to the risks our troops are taking. [/quote]

It is called disrespect. We have people over there risking their lives and people like this will try their absolute hardest to pretend as if Iraq is such a great place to be that it has been turned overnight into an America-replica. I don’t understand the need to do that. I don’t see why someone would ignore the truth and try to spread bullshit that shouldn’t add up to anyone who takes a second to even think about the situation. Did you see how many people have been injured on that web site? People have lost limbs, eyes and everything short of losing their own lives in this effort…but it is just like Detroit? Worse than anything, you actually have people on this site who will act as if they don’t notice these types of ramblings simply because he pledges allegience to “conservative values”.

I would love to see people like this strapped up in uniform and sent over there just to report what a wonderful place it is and how you can’t tell the difference between Iraq and Detroit except for the sand and clothing. I think our troops deserve more respect than that.

56

lumpy wrote:

“Uhmm… What is this guy not getting?
It doesn’t matter which year you use stats for, the risk of being killed in Iraq is higher by a significant degree than anywhere in the US. You do understand what I’m saying right? There is no comparison of the risk, regardless of date. You only belittle the troops by discounting this risk. It is a HUGE risk they are facing. It is not a huge risk to walk the streets of Detroit, NYC, LA or anywhere else relative to the risks our troops are taking.”

lumpy, I’ll try one more time.

I agree with you that the risks are proportionally higher of being killed in uniform in Iraq.

I have never argued otherwise.

Spare me the “disrespect to our troops” crap. Few people have been, or will continue to be, as supportive as I am.

My point is this: One can use numbers to try to push whatever agenda you want. My example is the number of people killed per year in the United States versus Iraq. I said clearly that if I so desired I could make a case for the United States having more deaths of United States citizens per year. Then I could employ your/CBS/NPR’s tactic of taking the next step and calling the United States a “quagmire” or “disaster.”

It’s the damn bias that I hate. It’s the extra adjectives used to push the agenda. It’s cherry-picking information to make the liberal “case.”

Is anything unclear here?

JeffR

57

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I said clearly that if I so desired I could make a case for the United States having more deaths of United States citizens per year. Then I could employ your/CBS/NPR’s tactic of taking the next step and calling the United States a “quagmire” or “disaster.”

It’s the damn bias that I hate. [/quote]

Bias? When 12,516 U.S. troops have been wounded in action plus over 1,600 killed, according to the Pentagon in only the War in Iraq, what would be a pleasant enough term to call that? An “oopsy”? Perhaps an “aw crap” or a “holy shit” would suffice. I would say that this is negative enough to add a negative adjective to describe it. Why would anyone want to downplay the lives of soldiers? Just to make your party look good? Aren’t their lives more important than your image? Obviously not, huh?

58

Hey POX what happened to the ridiculous Louis Cyr avatar?

What’s with the cracker comic picture now? Are you betraying OUR people? You can take away my avatar but you can’t take my dignity!

By the way you are not a physician. I’m calling bullshit. That’s like saying Howard Dean is still a doctor. Not a chance.

Farrakhan in '08 baby!

59

[quote]Professor X wrote:
JeffR wrote:
I said clearly that if I so desired I could make a case for the United States having more deaths of United States citizens per year. Then I could employ your/CBS/NPR’s tactic of taking the next step and calling the United States a “quagmire” or “disaster.”

It’s the damn bias that I hate.

Bias? When 12,516 U.S. troops have been wounded in action plus over 1,600 killed, according to the Pentagon in only the War in Iraq, what would be a pleasant enough term to call that? An “oopsy”? Perhaps an “aw crap” or a “holy shit” would suffice. I would say that this is negative enough to add a negative adjective to describe it. Why would anyone want to downplay the lives of soldiers? Just to make your party look good? Aren’t their lives more important than your image? Obviously not, huh?[/quote]

It’s called “perspective”. Not really surprising that you, lumpy, and the New York Times utterly lack it.

60

[quote]Cream wrote:
By the way you are not a physician. I’m calling bullshit. That’s like saying Howard Dean is still a doctor. Not a chance.

Farrakhan in '08 baby![/quote]

You see, this is where being a long term member of this web site has its advantages. All you have to do is ask someone to check the title if Biotest mailed my supplements that I order and whether it has been to military bases. I get my stuff mailed to me using my title. You can believe what you want for however long you want. It makes no difference to me.

I do, however, call bullshit on you being a teacher. Any kids subjected to your incessant whining and child-like responses should sue the school dictrict.