[quote]lixy wrote:
Give Bush some credit.
2007 deadliest for US troops in Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071230/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_casualties
[/quote]
Come on Lixy, that article isn’t fair and you know it. Why post a half story? Let us imagine for a second that you ARE for the Iraq war. Would you still be considering the surge a failure?
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Come on Lixy, that article isn’t fair and you know it. Why post a half story? Let us imagine for a second that you ARE for the Iraq war. Would you still be considering the surge a failure? [/quote]
Ignore the article. I wasn’t trying to argue that progress hasn’t been made - though whether we can attribute it to the surge is debatable.
My point is that 2007 was the deadliest year so far for American troops. Hence, me quoting the title only. That is a fact; not some subjective opinion but a stone cold fact.
Remember that those are the people who dio IN Iraq. If someone hit by an IED is transported to another country and dies there, he/she doesn’t boost that figure. Also, the death figures are tiny compared to the injuries (people losing limbs, function, disfigured, etc…)
I imagine war isn’t pretty, but when it’s taking place on the other side of the globe, people are shown video-games-like footage on TV and reporters are prohibited from showing caskets, it becomes dehumanized. While news reports and articles can deceive, figures don’t lie.
2007 is the deadliest year for American troops. Make of that what you will.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
lixy wrote:
Give Bush some credit.
2007 deadliest for US troops in Iraq
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071230/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_casualties
Come on Lixy, that article isn’t fair and you know it. Why post a half story? Let us imagine for a second that you ARE for the Iraq war. Would you still be considering the surge a failure?
mike[/quote]
Mike,
Please remember that lixy was the one who railed against me using lowered U.S. casualty figures as a sign that the surge was improving things.
Now, here he is using the U.S.'s yearly casualty total as another of his negative propaganda tools.
Even the malignant canadians have stopped supporting this guy.
I shouldn’t respond to him.
However, he’s like an addiction.
I just can’t quit.
JeffR
I guess you haven’t yet heard about the suicide bomber who killed 31 people today. The bomber struck at the funeral of a guy who got blown up Friday by a car bomb.
I’m very ashamed to admit it, but I chuckled when reading the story. How often does one come across such delicious irony?
[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
pookie wrote:
johnnybravo30 wrote:
In the time it has taken me to make 27 posts I have come to suspect that you are an intolerant bigot that can’t process information that doesn’t pass through your nationalism filter. Just a hunch though.
Personally, I hope those 27 posts are the first of at least 2,700.
So I was right about him? The fact that he needs an “ignore list” only further supports my beliefs about him.
Thanks for the kind words. [/quote]
JohnyBravo, please quit making rational, well thought out posts. As you’ve seen, it’s too much for certain board members to handle. What you post doesn’t jive with the propaganda that their TV tells them.
Jeffr is the worst of the lot, as you’ve probably noticed. You’ll see that the more factual information you post, the quicker he’ll leave a thread. His excuse is that, “you’re wasting his time”.
His number of posts are absolutely no indication to his ability to think.
Dustin
[quote]lixy wrote:
I guess you haven’t yet heard about the suicide bomber who killed 31 people today. The bomber struck at the funeral of a guy who got blown up Friday by a car bomb.
I’m very ashamed to admit it, but I chuckled when reading the story. How often does one come across such delicious irony?[/quote]
Congratulations.
JeffR
[quote]Dustin wrote:
johnnybravo30 wrote:
pookie wrote:
johnnybravo30 wrote:
In the time it has taken me to make 27 posts I have come to suspect that you are an intolerant bigot that can’t process information that doesn’t pass through your nationalism filter. Just a hunch though.
Personally, I hope those 27 posts are the first of at least 2,700.
So I was right about him? The fact that he needs an “ignore list” only further supports my beliefs about him.
Thanks for the kind words.
JohnyBravo, please quit making rational, well thought out posts. As you’ve seen, it’s too much for certain board members to handle. What you post doesn’t jive with the propaganda that their TV tells them.
Jeffr is the worst of the lot, as you’ve probably noticed. You’ll see that the more factual information you post, the quicker he’ll leave a thread. His excuse is that, “you’re wasting his time”.
His number of posts are absolutely no indication to his ability to think.
Dustin
[/quote]
johhny,
Please understand that I view dustin’s antipathy as a compliment.
Further, dustin is, as usual, factually incorrect. If you read my posts, you’ll find a pattern. I do not dodge controversial subjects.
If I’m proven wrong, I say so.
If I choose to wave off an argument, I say quite clearly that my opponent holds views that are too far removed from my own to warrant the exchange.
Oh, I wanted to say clearly that each person who calls me “dumb” from here on in, surrenders the argument in advance.
I’m just going to repost the “dumb” charge and state, “I win.”
If you can’t come up with a better cut-down than “Jeff is dumb” you don’t deserve to discuss issues with me.
JeffR
[quote]lixy wrote:
I imagine war isn’t pretty, but when it’s taking place on the other side of the globe, people are shown video-games-like footage on TV and reporters are prohibited from showing caskets, it becomes dehumanized. While news reports and articles can deceive, figures don’t lie.
[/quote]
I apologize in advance for his sounding overly Americentric. Understand that I often use America as a metaphor for people cut of a particular cloth.
Well of that I think we can agree. When you clean war, it is dehumanized in many ways. People do not truly understand the brutality and hardship of it. I suppose it makes it easier to continue to support a war. That said, when you shield the ugly of war, you fail to convey the beauty of it as well along with the nobility of the fight. That makes it harder to continue support for the war.
Though I also feel that by shielding Americans from the reality of war, we have made another giant step toward the softening of my people, leaving the generations to come weak in spirit and less capable torchbearers of liberty and in the end, of our very survival of a species.
This reminds me of the words of Chesty Puller, “Our Country won’t go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won’t
be any America because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race!”
mike
[quote]lixy wrote:
I guess you haven’t yet heard about the suicide bomber who killed 31 people today. The bomber struck at the funeral of a guy who got blown up Friday by a car bomb.
I’m very ashamed to admit it, but I chuckled when reading the story. How often does one come across such delicious irony?[/quote]
That’s funny!? WTF!?!?!
You’re a sick asshole, and you should be ashamed. Grow the fuck up.
And the trend continues.
Although 2007 was the deadliest year of the war for U.S. troops, December was the least deadly month for the U.S.-led coalition [b]since the war began.[/b]
Lixy I’m glad you havent lost your sense of humor in all of this and you were able to chuckle at innocent people dying when your own kind is the killer, but if America fights and kills we are murderous thugs who only give a shit about oil.
So lets get it right ok: Your Rules
Its okay to laugh when people are killed by a suicide bomber. (I bet your abs hurt for a week after 9/11 right? and the London bombings were the fucking best thing since knock knock jokes right?)
Having sex with teenage girls is a good thing.
Killing teenage girls after having sex with them is ok since they should have fucking known the law of the land.
Oh and most importantly, Fuck America and Bush.
Do you have anymore additions we should know about you and your peaceful friends?
Oh, and I chuckle everytime our troops catch one of your “Muhammaded Al Qaida Akbar Bin Laden Musariffs” or any other motherfucker that thinks killing innocent people is a good idea. I get a long hard laugh knowing that its one less piece of shit walking this earth.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
That said, when you shield the ugly of war, you fail to convey the beauty of it as well along with the nobility of the fight. That makes it harder to continue support for the war. [/quote]
I disagree. The reason more and more people are opposing the war is simply because it’s a BS war. If there’s a real threat, I don’t doubt for a second that any people will rise, unite and find the courage and means necessary to defend their land. I think “softening” of people has nothing to do with shielding people from the “ugly of war”.
It has more to do with the level of comfort people are getting accustomed to. We don’t skin our own beef, freeze while trying to catch fish or work in the fields anymore. Most would just pop up at the nearest McDonald’s and still consider it inconvenient. Some will just pick up the phone.
The people of imperialistic powers have always been shielded from the reality of war. Else, the people would rebel. Plus, up until a few decades back, people didn’t have TV. Were the people of the 19th century less “soft”?
Being in wars is good for to develop character and other T-qualities, but it shouldn’t be one where you are the aggressor. There is absolutely no “nobility of the fight” when attacking others. That preemptive BS is nothing but a cover for crimes against humanity.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
That’s funny!? WTF!?!?!
You’re a sick asshole, and you should be ashamed. [/quote]
If you read my post, that’s the exact term I used. Note that I preceded it with a “very” for emphasis.
But as far as black humor goes, that was a mighty fine piece of irony. Here’s another that caught my attention recently:
Roofing Billionaire Dies After Falling Through Roof at His Home
[quote]lixy wrote:
I guess you haven’t yet heard about the suicide bomber who killed 31 people today. The bomber struck at the funeral of a guy who got blown up Friday by a car bomb.
I’m very ashamed to admit it, but I chuckled when reading the story. How often does one come across such delicious irony?[/quote]
And yet you shake your little fists and present a facade of righteous anger when you are accused of siding with and defending the actions of terrorists.
Go ahead and drop the mask, lixy; no one is fooled by it anymore.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
2. Having sex with teenage girls is a good thing.
But Lixy is FOR women’s right to choose.
Talk about irony…
[quote]JeffR wrote:
lixy wrote:
I guess you haven’t yet heard about the suicide bomber who killed 31 people today. The bomber struck at the funeral of a guy who got blown up Friday by a car bomb.
I’m very ashamed to admit it, but I chuckled when reading the story. How often does one come across such delicious irony?
Congratulations.
JeffR
[/quote]
Yeah, maybe he put the vest on him…
[quote]lixy wrote:
There is absolutely no “nobility of the fight” when attacking others. That preemptive BS is nothing but a cover for crimes against humanity.[/quote]
Too bad Muhammad or his followers didn’t heed these words, the world might have been a better place.
[quote]lixy wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
That’s funny!? WTF!?!?!
You’re a sick asshole, and you should be ashamed.
If you read my post, that’s the exact term I used. Note that I preceded it with a “very” for emphasis.[/quote]
I did read your post little lady, that’s what upset me. My mistake was in not putting emphasis on “should”. So, here it is. You should be ashamed for laughing at that.
[quote]
But as far as black humor goes, that was a mighty fine piece of irony. Here’s another that caught my attention recently:
Roofing Billionaire Dies After Falling Through Roof at His Home
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317848,00.html[/quote]
Trust me Lixy, as a fireman I get black humor. What’s sad is you can’t or won’t see the difference in the two scenarios. There’s an expansive difference between terrorists killing civillians and a billionare roofer falling through his own roof. The later actually being somewhat ironically humorous. Think about it.
An article that shines a light on some good points I think. The public is beginning to envision success in Iraq, although, and understandably so, they still want the troops home as soon as possible. I mean, who wouldn’t? No sane individual would want the troops there indefinitely.
I think that what the public at large desires is for the U.S. to assist the Iraqi government in stabilizing the country, finish the job well, and get the hell home. Which is of course the exact opposite of what Muslim extemists would like; and therein lies the crux of the situation. And if we’re doing an honest assessment of the political temperature in the United States, the Dems are truly invested in U.S. failure in Iraq.
One question for all of the folks on the forum who are in favor of an immediate pullout is this; would an abrupt pullout of U.S. forces from Iraq be worse than not having invaded at all? Would the U.S. be leaving an Iraq in worse condition than the one we found? This is an important question I think due to the fact that we can’t go back in time and undue past decisions, we can only move forward. The U.S. has a duty, I think, to finish the job well. At that point I think that the U.S. has an obligation to itself to revisit it’s foreign policy and make some serious changes.
I would like to see the U.S. fashion it’s foreign policy along the lines of the vision of Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, etc. Free trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none. Anyways, read on…
January 02, 2008
Seeking Psychological Victory in the War on Terror
By Tony Blankley
In Iraq, as military and security conditions continue to improve, American war politics enters one of its stranger moments in our history. Certainly it is historically odd for war reporting to diminish almost to the point of public invisibility – just as our troops are starting to gain the upper hand. But we are fighting this war with the journalists we have, not the ones we want.
However, although the media maintained a virtual radio silence once things started going our way, the public has come to recognize the military success. Typical of recent polling is the Pew Research Center poll from Nov. 27, which shows that about half the country thinks the military effort is going very or fairly well (up from 30 percent). The public is also substantially more optimistic than it was in recent years that we are reducing civilian casualties, preventing civil war, defeating insurgents, preventing terrorist bases and rebuilding infrastructure.
Despite such optimism, by 54 percent to 41 percent (virtually unchanged from February’s 53 percent to 42 percent), the public wants our troops to come home rather than stay. Recent polls by Harris Poll, Zogby, Washington Post-ABC News and The Associated Press all show ambiguity in public attitudes. Even as the number of people who think we are going to succeed or win approaches 50 percent or more, a majority of people don’t want us to stay, and barely one out of three people thinks the war was worth the effort.
In politics, it is usually the case that when your opponents stop talking about an issue, you must be winning with the public on it. Following that almost iron rule of political communication and in light of the fact that the anti-war Democrats have virtually stopped talking about the war, they must think it is no longer a winner for them.
But the polling data cited above would suggest that if the Democrats don’t see the war as a winning issue, neither can President Bush, and those of us who support the war effort feel we have the public behind us. In other words, the public now tends to think we are succeeding, but it doesn’t think it is worth the effort and would like us to leave pretty soon, anyway.
There would seem to be no higher communications task for the president and his supporters during the coming months than to make a better case that the success that may well be within our grasp is not only worth persisting over now but also that, even knowing what we know now, the war was worth the effort from the beginning.
Assuming we succeed in establishing a stable government in Iraq that is hostile to terrorists and respectful of the United States and the legitimate order of the world – and while we aren’t there yet, we now have good grounds to expect such an end – I believe a strong case can be made for the value of not only finishing the war now but also, even based on what we now know, for having decided to fight it in the first place.
First, of course, the debit side must be noted, foremost the human cost, to date: about 4,000 dead American troops, about 30,000 injured, perhaps half seriously – including more than 600 amputees and traumatic brain injuries. Many more Iraqis have been killed. The financial cost of the war will run above $1 trillion. We also, at least temporarily, have driven thousands of Muslims into the radical ranks, created great enmity in much of the Muslim world (and not a little in Europe, also).
Against these costs and terrible human losses, on the credit side, we eliminated a vicious anti-American regime and aborted any future plans they might have had for developing nuclear weapons. We intimidated Libya to give up its surprisingly advanced nuclear program. And if the recent National Intelligence Estimate is to be believed, Iran happened to give up its nuclear program just at the moment that a few hundred thousand American troops occupied Baghdad – conveniently close to Iran.
These geopolitical facts are precisely evidence of the larger strategic purpose of the war. As I argued in August 2002, in a column in which I predicted that this war would unleash vast hostility against us, I endorsed Henry Kissinger’s argument for the war that we had to demonstrate that a terrorist challenge to us produces catastrophic consequences for not only its perpetrators but also its tacit supporters. “We had to break the will and pride of all those in the Islamic world who would dare terrorize us and the international system.”
Bin Laden said it best. His people will follow the strong horse. If, after years of stumbling and bumbling, the enduring strength and eventual wisdom of the American people can enter into the belly of the Islamist world, overturn tyrants, empower the Muslim people with peaceable and prosperous ways and intimidate two Islamist nuclear aspirants to renounce their pretensions, we will show ourselves to be the strong horse. Thereby we will hasten the day when the terrorist pretensions will fall on deaf Muslim ears and the threat of Islamist terrorism will begin to recede.
We have it almost in our hands to gain the first strategic psychological victory in the “war on terror” – and that will have been worth the suffering and the loss.