500th!!!!! Dead Americans, That Is. . .

[dgskydive 0]

Quote

Are you saying that no one who has not been on the ground in Iraq is allowed to comment on the situation there? That's about as unamerican in sentiment as you can get.

OF course you have the right to an opinion. That doesn't mean you get it.
What has pissed me off about this thread is that people are making comments that reflect negativley on the individual soldiers that are over ther fighting and giving there lives. Just the very name of the thread is insulting. Remember your comment in the Veterans day thread? I do. It brings up the same feelings for me.

Dom

[sdgregory 0]

Quote

Quote

It's a bad time in history to become a terrorist.

Yes it is. But it doesn't matter how many terrorists you kill if you keep breeding new ones to take their place. At least consider world opinion before you act, or try to appear as if you've paid attention. Bush I'm afraid did neither. When I hear you say how many allies you have it makes me wonder how much you even know about them. I think you might find that they are a list of nations willing to put up with you rather than whole hearted supporters of your cause.

I think, for the record, that Americans in general are great people. I just think that they should try to gain more insight into how the rest of the world sees them. Then, once they have seen that they can make up their minds as to whether they care what we think or not. Might just change your attitude. Or it might not.

All I see here(as in all your posts) is that you think America is wrong and we should try thinking like the rest of the world and see your side. And all some of us are saying is why don't you stop thinking like the rest of the world and try to see our side? You want it your way and are accusing us of being bullies. We want it our way and are accusing you of being blind.

What is the difference here? What? Because so much of Europe thinks America is wrong, then America must be wrong? Sometimes the majority is not always right. Sometimes the right thing to do is not the popular thing to do. Sometimes you have to go with your beliefs and damn the consequences. Sometimes, just because 9 out of ten people say it should be done this way, does not mean it is the best way. Sometimes you just gotta say to hell with what everyone else thinks, I know I am right and I am going to do what I know to be right, even if it later turns out to be wrong. (Not that I am saying we will end up being wrong here. I think it is good we got rid of Saddam.)

And like StevenPhelps, I do not like the idea of someone who is not American (UN) having any input into American troop control. If I want to be French I will move to France. If I want to be Canadian I will move to Canada and if I want people in Europe determining how my country should be defended I will move to Europe. I am an American. I will not apologize for this. I will not apologize for us giving the UN the collective finger and saying you are too lenient with Saddam. He gave the world the collective finger and everyone just wanted to keep giving him another chance. We give the world the finger and it is Imperialistic America being a bully on the block. Especially since we are so oppressive to so much of the world.

I miss the days when Countries were sovereign. Let's be allies, but you stick to your country's affairs and we will stick to ours. I hate the idea of the "global village". You have your views, prejudices and opinions based on a million factors like where your live, who you were raised by, what you were taught in school, the circumstance of your neighborhood, city, country, and economy and religious beliefs or lack there of. Same as everyone else and all those experiences sum up to different ideals for each person. And it stands to reason that different nations will will have different views.

What other countries think of my country has no bearing on my day. I could not care less. (Do I think we could survive as an isolationist country? No, we need world trade as much as the world needs ours.)
What does matter to me when it comes to the world? I do care when I hear of people being denied basic human freedoms, I do care when I hear of a starving people. I do care when someone cannot stick up for themselves and I have the ability to stick up for them. I believe it is our responsibility to not negotiate with people in power who oppress and slaughter the people they govern. I believe if you have the might and the might can be used for a greater good then you use it. Even if everyone else can only see the bully they want to see.


But hey, I am just an American and really only care about my chevy, my house, my money and what small country Ican bully into giving up their natural resourcesfor my own financially gain.

Blast away, but know it will probably fall on deaf ears just like my post will probably fall on deaf ears. (Or would that be blind eyes?)


Now why don't we forget this crap and find a DZ half way between here and there and jump? THAT IS WHY I LIVE NOW. Well that and to procreate. SPeaking of . . . where's my wife?

[benny 0]

Quote

Now why don't we forget this crap and find a DZ half way between here and there and jump? THAT IS WHY I LIVE NOW. Well that and to procreate. SPeaking of . . . where's my wife?

That sir, with the exception of procreation, is the best idea I've heard in a while.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[andrewstewart 0]

Quote

What has pissed me off about this thread is that people are making comments that reflect negativley on the individual soldiers that are over ther fighting and giving there lives.

Which comments are you referring to?

[sdgregory 0]

Quote

Quote

Now why don't we forget this crap and find a DZ half way between here and there and jump? THAT IS WHY I LIVE NOW. Well that and to procreate. SPeaking of . . . where's my wife?

That sir, with the exception of procreation, is the best idea I've heard in a while.

Hey buddy, you ARE a product of procreation.

[labrys 0]

Iflyme stating that the soldiers didn't even know why they were fighting, for one. But even worse, using a body count to mock the president.

Owned by Remi #?

[andrewstewart 0]

Quote

Iflyme stating that the soldiers didn't even know why they were fighting, for one. But even worse, using a body count to mock the president.

But if you look earlier in the thread there is data from a survey performed by stars and stripes magazine that found that more than one-third of soldiers in Iraq said that their mission was "not clearly" or "not at all" defined.

Secondly, if the president isn't ultimately responsible for the body count in Iraq (seeing as he is the supreme authority within the US) then who is?

[benny 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Now why don't we forget this crap and find a DZ half way between here and there and jump? THAT IS WHY I LIVE NOW. Well that and to procreate. SPeaking of . . . where's my wife?

That sir, with the exception of procreation, is the best idea I've heard in a while.

Hey buddy, you ARE a product of procreation.

Well, I'm not opposed to the process in general, just in your case Sean

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[labrys 0]

Quote

But if you look earlier in the thread there is data from a survey performed by stars and stripes magazine that found that more than one-third of soldiers in Iraq said that their mission was "not clearly" or "not at all" defined.

Secondly, if the president isn't ultimately responsible for the body count in Iraq (seeing as he is the supreme authority within the US) then who is?

1. Not having a cleary defined mission is not the same as not knowing why you are fighting.

2. I think that the president is VERY responsible for the body count. He'll be held accountable for his actions. I think that using a body count to mock the president because you disagree with his actions is tasteless and disrespectful.

Owned by Remi #?

[andrewstewart 0]

Quote

Not having a cleary defined mission is not the same as not knowing why you are fighting.

How is it different?

[labrys 0]

Quote

How is it different?

Not knowing what you are supposed to do to achieve a goal is not the same as not having a goal.

Not having a "clearly defined mission" means that leadership isn't focused on a plan or isn't sharing the plan, but it doesn't mean that the individual soldier doesn't understand why he's fighting.

Owned by Remi #?

[Ian84 0]

Your absolutely right. Someones opinion is formed through various experiences/influences. My opinion is that acting in the name of revenge doesn't work but that reason and debate and compromise might if you give it a chance.

I didn't always think this way. I am in a situation where I have family and friends who are on both sides of a particular conflict. That is Northern Ireland. I used to be what I would call Ultra-Nationalistic. I thought something like this:

"Well the Brits came over and robbed our land, so we have every right to blow them up and try to make them leave. If they try to stop us by killing some of our guys then we'll just kill some more of theirs and eventually we will win."

Having seen the effect of such an attitude I changed my way of thinking VASTLY. What you have to understand is that the other guy is thinking something very similar and so you're going to end up killing each other for many many years. I had a friend run for his life from the UDA, and my second cousin recently retired from the NI Customs Service with post traumatic stress disorder, he had survived a few too many explosions for his liking. These are just a couple of reasons I think the way I do. I'm always open to the possibility that I'm wrong and I don't think Americans are blind. I just think that europeans know everything

[n2skdvn 0]

I have read from the left,I have read from the right.
i have heard what you have said and i an going to bed...if you want to make a difference do what I do,voice my opinion to my elected official(I.E. congressman,rep.) thats what i do, talk enough and they will listen.

and to all the left and right ....goood night

if my calculations are correct SLINKY + ESCULATOR = EVERLASTING FUN
my site

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I never said it wasn't about oil. I was trying to explain what it is about for a soldier. Soldiers and the Govt. are different. WE serve the Govt. but we all have our own minds and make our own decisions. Human nature will have you look for the best in a situation. The best we can look for in this is that hopefully innocent children over there won't have to go through what thousands of others have had to indure for the entire lives in that part of the world.

AND FOR THE RECORD I AM NOT YOURS OR ANYBODIES FOOL! I DID TAKE OFFENCE TO THAT!

Then do not act like one.. KNOW your enemy is a basic tenet of war. Part if knowing him is his motivations, WHY is he doing what he is doing.. WHAT are his tactics...

From Sun Tzu's The Art of War

The Sheathed Sword:

Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

The highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans.

It is the rule in war: If our forces are ten to the enemy's one, to surround him; if five to one, to attack him; if twice as numerous to divide our force into two, one to meet the enemy in front, and one to fall upon his rear; if he replies to the frontal attack, he may be crushed from behind; if to the rearward attack, he may be crushed in front. If equally matched we can offer battle; if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy; if quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him.

He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.

He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.

He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.

If you know the enemy and you know yourself, you need not fear the result of 100 battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

[rjf98 0]

Quote

But if you look earlier in the thread there is data from a survey performed by stars and stripes magazine that found that more than one-third of soldiers in Iraq said that their mission was "not clearly" or "not at all" defined.

Product of poor leadership at the small unit level... it's gonna happen much of the time. this is not the same as the military in general not having a clearly defined mission. If you interview the junior guy and he says the mission is not clearly defined he isn't talking about the overall reason why he is fighting there, he's talking about why he's raiding a farm house that is empty all the time. That happens lots of dry holes before you turn up Saddam. You can bet the soldiers that found that SOB weren't told they were looking for him, but rather a "big figure".

Quote

Secondly, if the president isn't ultimately responsible for the body count in Iraq (seeing as he is the supreme authority within the US) then who is?

[rjf98 0]

Glad you brought this book up. I've got at least three different translations and I'll be happy to discuss our war in Iraq in relation to this necessary read for all heads of state and any military leader.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Couldn't have said it better myself.

You guys did an admirable job in the Battle of Iraq.

But the people in the region see it in far different terms. This was just a battle in a larger war. This was a battle that need not have been fought. Sadaam was contained. If our intelligence community is so inept and bumbling to have been duped by a bluff as it now appears, I fear for our future. By invading we have won a battle, but in the big picture of the geopolitic we have lost the support of most of the world in doing so. In the eyes of the muslims... of which there are about 1 billion.... we have yet again attacked a weak muslim country. I think they care far more about us infidels killing their innocents.. than a despot like SH doing it. WE have created far more many enemys who will not fight in a stand up manner.

[rjf98 0]

Sorry, disagree with you. based on personal observation of the Iraqi people.

History shows us that freedom is contagious. These people have tasted it. They will, over time, develop their own version of it. the surrounding countries and persons will want the same.

To say otherwise I believe is to look at the minority, or insult the people of Iraq and say they can't handle freedom.

They want us to leave ASAP. They protest to tell us that. I bet those people are happy to have their freedom.

We have not won the war, mearly the first battle in a larger conflict. Our actions here will determine the direction of that conflict. If we leave and don't finish the job we have stepped back and cannot be trusted. If we stay the course (regardless of body count or popular opinion) and help these people establish self government then we have taken giant leaps towards winning.

Over the course of the last 50 years America has quite a record of backing out when the going got tough. Nicaragua and Vietnam come to mind. Why did we do this? Our leaders allowed public opinion (fickle at best) to change the course that they knew to be the right one.

This time in history we (the American people) need to stay the course. Damn the cost, the prize is too high

[Michele 1]

Quote

You've got yourself a deal. I thank you for the well thought out arguments you have made. It is beneficial to this discussion. I wish we could all express our opinions in such a civil manner.

Why, you're quite welcome.

Back to the original question (uh, what was it again?) I just got back in from a bit of a hairy day, and need to get dinner into my belly (and my cats' bellies...). I'll be back with why I think AQ chose the targets they did, and the reasons I think they formed in the first place.

Gimme a few hours, and I'll post.

Ceils-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Over the course of the last 50 years America has quite a record of backing out when the going got tough. Nicaragua and Vietnam come to mind. Why did we do this? Our leaders allowed public opinion (fickle at best) to change the course that they knew to be the right one.

In Vietnam the US failed to realize it was not the communist world domination we were fighting but a nationalistic people who wanted to have their own country, who first fought their colonial masters and then we took over the role under the guise of fighting communism. We FAILED completely to ever understand WHO our enemy was. If we would have continued to help Ho and Giap after WWII as we had been doing in 1944-45 in their fight to rid themselves of the Japanese, instead of letting the French reestablish their colonial hold after WWII the First Vietnam War would not have happened and would not have precipitaed the Second Vietnam War.
http://www.geocities.com/erikgrowen/IndochinaWarVietMinhStratTac.html

Nicaragua was basically an ilegal war run under covert support of the CIA and funded by drug sales on our streets. For
most of us who watched the televised Iran-Contra hearings in 1987 -- held by Congress to determine whether the Reagan administration had secretly and illegally sold arms to Iran in order to secure the release of American hostages, then used the profits from those sales to fund the contra rebels in Nicaragua — the enduring image we came away with was a memory of an unapologetic and resolute Lt. Col. Oliver North delivering testimony in a Marine uniform. North, who was a central figure in the plan to secretly ship arms to Iran despite a U.S. trade and arms embargo, and who as a National Security Council aide directed efforts to raise private and foreign funds for the contras despite a Congressional prohibition on U.S. government agencies' providing military aid to the Nicaraguan rebels, testified before Congress under a grant of limited immunity in July 1987, becoming "the darling of the American conservative movement with his earnest, self-justifying testimony during the televised hearings" (or, to the other side, becoming a villain "who lied to Congress to support an illegal war").

Although North had been granted limited immunity for his testimony, he was later convicted of criminal charges related to Iran-Contra activities (a conviction that was eventually overturned on the grounds that witnesses had been influenced by his immunized testimony). One of the charges against North was that he had received a $16,000 home security system paid for out of the proceeds of the Iran-Contra affair and had forged documents to cover his receipt of an illegal gratuity. North admitted that he knew the security system was a "gift" but maintained he never inquired about who had paid for it or how it was financed, and he was insistent that he needed the security system because the government had failed to provide adequate protection against international terrorists for him and his family.

Here is a different view of what the Nicaraguan fiasco was all about. All of the sides are complex but only getting one side of the story leads to misinformation and the lack of knowledge of just who the enemy really is.
http://www.sdpjc.org/Data/Articles/NorthArtI.htm

There are also NUMEROUS articles tying Noriega and drug trafficing as well as the Muja's and heroin from Afghanistan...that ended up on our streets, that provided a large amount of money to support this war as well as the CIA support for the FORMER Afghanistan freedom fighters we are now fighting...as terrorists.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MENA/dea_contradicts_north.html

You would think by now the Wolfowitz boys would be getting a clue.

[Michele 1]

Quote

You said that when innocent people get killed that is terrorosm. Over 8000 innocent Iraqi people have been killed in Iraq due to the occupation to date (source previously quoted). How is that not terrorism, by your definition?

I'm sure you sourced it, but I can't find it. Can you do so again? I ran a search here for "8000", and this is the first post it comes up today. Thanks....

I also ran a search for Iraqi civilian dead (nothing showed up on "8000 innocent iraqi people"), and found this link. It speaks of Baghdad, and has significantly less numbers than what you stated.
here I can't vouch for the accuracy, nor the site's veracity.

Excerpted: "Although the majority of deaths are the result of Iraqi on Iraqi violence, some were directly caused by US military fire."

and...
"Another worrying development is that during the pre-war period deaths from gunshot wounds accounted for approximately 10% of bodies brought to the morgue, but now account for over 60% of those killed. The small number of reports available for other cities indicate that these trends are being mirrored elsewhere in the country."

Additonally, there is a comment about the Geneva Conventions /protection civilian from force...but they didn't cite a specific article nor section. I can't look it up if I don't know where I'm looking. Can you cite it for me?

I have several questions....
~Please can you re-link the source for your figures?
~What are the other 40% of the deaths caused by?
~What exact percentage is from the US military, and are true civilians - not those who simply dress as civilians, but actual non-military folks?
~What percentage is from US military?
~What is the ratio of provoked v. unprovoked? (for example, the lady walking her dog down the street, and is shot and killed bu US military, v. the lady walking up to a roadblock and taking her gun out and shooting at a US service person?)

It would seem that without understanding the circumstances, one could claim many different things. I am looking to see what happened. I suspect you are not able to give me the specifics needed to demonstrate that we can lay this at the feet of the US Military. And because of that, I consider the total "8000" spurious, inflammatory, and junsupportable.

OH! And why haven't you bothered to answer the question I asked, but want an answer to a question you asked? I have answered you as best I can without being able to really source and verify the information...and I expect the same from you. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Is it?

Ceils-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[andrewstewart 0]

Quote

I consider the total "8000" spurious, inflammatory, and unsupportable.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

To account for variations in news reporting they calculate a possible minimum and maximum value using all available news sources. I made sure to quote the value of 8000 because that is their minimum value - actually it's below their minimum value. The news sources are listed at the end of the page, and a description of the veracity of their analysis technique is given here:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm#sources

If you can find a more accurate source than that site, then I'd like to hear about it because I have not been able to find one and I have looked extensively.

So. Are you going to email them and explain to them why their analysis is "spurious, inflammatory, and unsupportable"?

Edited to add: How can you say that many innocent deaths can't be attributed to the US military when you look through http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm and read the descriptions (and their source)? Just read it.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

So. Are you going to email them and explain to them why their analysis is "spurious, inflammatory, and unsupportable"?

Dude that is not even on a Murdoch owned news site.. how can it possibly be the truth.

[Michele 1]

The entire comment, sir, was:
"It would seem that without understanding the circumstances, one could claim many different things. I am looking to see what happened. I suspect you are not able to give me the specifics needed to demonstrate that we can lay this at the feet of the US Military. And because of that, I consider the total "8000" spurious, inflammatory, and unsupportable."

Changes things when you read my entire statement, I think.

Given that the statistics from the site you linked is also the site I linked and excerpted, and it said that there are 10% deaths in Bahgdad from gunshots prior the military action, and now it runs at 60% - and it prominantly stated that most of those are not US caused...I can only wonder if you really are reading things, or just grabbing what supports your comment.

And I repeat...(and it's getting rather boring to be so repetitive): why haven't you bothered to answer the question I asked, but want an answer to a question you asked? I have answered you as best I can without being able to really source and verify the information...and I expect the same from you. I don't think that's too much to ask.

But at this point, I suspect it is too much to ask. Which is, of course, a pity, but demonstrates simply you are not looking to debate but rather argue and soapbox stand. I promised someone I'd give you a chance, and I've kept my word. However, at this point, further discussion with you seems to have hit a wall...considering you haven't answered my (and others) question.

Oh well.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[andrewstewart 0]

Okay... so those 8000 people would have just dropped dead if the US hadn't invaded? Maybe a few of them would have...

You only have to READ the entries to see that a great many of the civilian deaths are caused by american soldiers. (By which I mean the Iraqis killed were not engaged in trying to hurt the soldiers at the time they were shot or blown into bits).

It's true that not *all* the civilian deaths are caused by american munitions (bombs and bullets), but much of the tribal warfare that exists there now wouldn't have had the opportunity to flourish had the occupation not taken place. Arguing that the US is completely blameless in that is disingenuous at best and outright blind at worst.

How you can stand there and say that the reported facts do not speak for themselves amazes me. Do I have to go in there to the page and cut and paste them here for you one by one? It won't make for pretty reading.

And what is this question that you say I haven't answered? I've gone back through your posts and could not find it. Please, enlighten me.

Awaiting your typically supercilious response.