Can I add in that a good proportion of that "active guerilla movement" is made up of people pissed off that some other country is trying to control what they understandably see as theirs? The same thing Americans are incredibly proud of? And in much the same way? (See: American Revolution) Is this guy gonna say next that we invaded Iraq to "defend freedom" in the USA? And follow that up with "Of all the possible targets that are a threat to the USA, Iraq was certainly Number 1... I can go on no longer. The pro-Iraq group...well, it's like someone else said - "Pres bush ate that baby on the White House lawn for its own good."
hrm, a 2002 document. Maybe you missed the little snafu round about the election time, where the republicans put up on their "translate this" web site a document, picked up in Iraq, which pretty much everyone said was "everything you needed to make a bomb except the enriched uranium." So - a document not translated until 2006 - hrm, I wonder why everyone kept saying for years and years they had no capability?
Yeah, when Saddam was fighting Iran, we backed him. Some goofball in Washington D.C. thought it made sense to keep the Ayatollah's jihad from actually going anywhere.
The inspectors spent about 18 months trying to get into places that were listed clearly, and the Iraqis stalled them. you can re-write history all you like, but that's the facts. U.N Resolutions at the end, based on the testimony of the inspectors. Including the war.
War is always a frustrating choice: people will die in war. That's why it's not a first choice today. 50,000 died in Viet Nam. 400,000 Americans died in World War II. 500,000 died during the Civil War. this war is nothing - it's more dangerous to live in Chicago's South Side than to be a soldier in Iraq.
OK, let's consider the casualty rate: 3800 dead, 27,000 wounded. 31,000 total. For a deployment averaging 140,000 - a casualty rate of less than 0.5% per month. World War II, we peaked at 2 million under arms, but the average was more like 1 million. In the 3 years, the DEATH rate was 0.4 over a period of just about 42 months. that is, nearly 1% of deplioyed troops DIED - never mind the 2 or 3 to one wounded. The Iraq war is seeing astoundingly low casualty rates. Despite the silly criticism that everybody needs more armor of every sort deployed there for years and years.
And, what's more - the insurgency is losing strength and vigor. it's breaking up, failing. We are imposing order.
I can't make you see, I can't force you to actually pay attention to something besides rhetoric. I can't make you a tactician, a strategist, or even someone who has a clue about what is going on.
All I can do is appreciate you making funny songs.
I'm very glad you like my funny songs. This gives us common ground. Apparently, though, it is the only common ground. You are reciting discredited talking points up and down, and you are WRONG about them. They are not facts. They are nothing more than BushCo's wishful thinking. They have been disproven a gazillion ways from Sunday, and you only have to Google to find that out. The only places that contend otherwise are those that fervently support BushCo, e.g., RedState, LGF, Townhall.
I am not rewriting any facts. I don't have to. The reason that report is dated 2002 is to make a point which you apparently don't grasp: THE INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE WELL BEFORE THE START OF THE INVASION, before Colin Powell's disgusting lie session at the U.N.
Somehow, I really don't think you want to get into the last hundred years of British/American/etc. imperialism in the Middle East.
Yeah, the Iraqis stalled 'em. Until they let them in.
They let them in. They were not happy. BUT THEY FUCKIN' LET THEM IN.
This WAS a war of first choice. It was against an "enemy" which had not attacked us and which could not attack us. It was done pretty much on our own, with such bold military powers as Poland and Lichtenstein helping out. The biggest ally was Great Britain, and his sucking up to Dubya is costing Tony Blair his career.
And, WHY do you insist on comparing WW2 with this deployment? They are not the same. Not in any way. How can you compare full frontal assault against a major military power with house-to-house fighting against guerillas?
Oh, yeah. Losing strength and vigor (http://tinyurl.com/3c5fz3). I believe the phrase you're looking for is "last throes".
You can't make me see what isn't fucking there. I can't force you to actually pay attention to well-documented facts and the debunkings of cruel lies told by greedy and power-hungry men. I can't make you an analyst, a realist, or even someone who has a clue about what is going on.
All I can do is show you the truth -- not as I see it, but as it is documented and verified.
Oh, and -- I remember that document (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/world/middleeast/03documents.html?ex=1174536000&en=2e7e4f90d64afe42&ei=5070). The one summarizing their research before the Kuwait War, Gulf War I. Yeah, that had lots of info. Yeah, that was in Arabic.
Yeah, OUR FUCKUPS posted it on the Internet.
And, oh my goodness, they had the information... but NONE of the facilities or materials or people. It was at that point, no pun intended, a pipe dream.
Yeah, Saddam wanted nukes. Absolutely. But he did not have anything necessary to make them besides a mostly-complete instruction manual. Do you not see the difference between this and actually having a nuke program?
I don't consider casualty comparisons between World War II and Gulf War II to be particularly useful.
There's nothing particularly miraculous about less people dying when they have Kevlar, improved medical technology, and better systems for collecting intelligence, which means that people don't get shot at in the first place. One might as well compare deaths per car crash in 1950 to deaths per car crash in 2000. Between seat belts, airbags, and improved construction, there's no way to make a useful comparison.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-20 01:10 am (UTC)Besides your "bluebird of happiness" response above, let's see. You're:
- wrong (http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.10B.msnbc.iraq.htm)
- forgetting who was financing the nutcase at the time (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0703-01.htm)
- wrong (http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2003/07/15/bush/index.html)
- what the fucking fuck
- wrong (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1822196.ece) wrong (http://www.donaldsensing.com/2004/12/more-on-iraq-casualty-rates.html) wrong (http://www.slate.com/id/2111432/) wrong (http://upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060322-030818-1584r)
Care to try again, but with facts this time?(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-20 03:27 am (UTC)Is this guy gonna say next that we invaded Iraq to "defend freedom" in the USA?
And follow that up with "Of all the possible targets that are a threat to the USA, Iraq was certainly Number 1...
I can go on no longer. The pro-Iraq group...well, it's like someone else said - "Pres bush ate that baby on the White House lawn for its own good."
**tromps off in disgust**
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-20 04:16 am (UTC)Yeah, when Saddam was fighting Iran, we backed him. Some goofball in Washington D.C. thought it made sense to keep the Ayatollah's jihad from actually going anywhere.
The inspectors spent about 18 months trying to get into places that were listed clearly, and the Iraqis stalled them. you can re-write history all you like, but that's the facts. U.N Resolutions at the end, based on the testimony of the inspectors. Including the war.
War is always a frustrating choice: people will die in war. That's why it's not a first choice today. 50,000 died in Viet Nam. 400,000 Americans died in World War II. 500,000 died during the Civil War. this war is nothing - it's more dangerous to live in Chicago's South Side than to be a soldier in Iraq.
OK, let's consider the casualty rate: 3800 dead, 27,000 wounded. 31,000 total. For a deployment averaging 140,000 - a casualty rate of less than 0.5% per month. World War II, we peaked at 2 million under arms, but the average was more like 1 million. In the 3 years, the DEATH rate was 0.4 over a period of just about 42 months. that is, nearly 1% of deplioyed troops DIED - never mind the 2 or 3 to one wounded. The Iraq war is seeing astoundingly low casualty rates. Despite the silly criticism that everybody needs more armor of every sort deployed there for years and years.
And, what's more - the insurgency is losing strength and vigor. it's breaking up, failing. We are imposing order.
I can't make you see, I can't force you to actually pay attention to something besides rhetoric. I can't make you a tactician, a strategist, or even someone who has a clue about what is going on.
All I can do is appreciate you making funny songs.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-20 05:08 am (UTC)I am not rewriting any facts. I don't have to. The reason that report is dated 2002 is to make a point which you apparently don't grasp: THE INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE WELL BEFORE THE START OF THE INVASION, before Colin Powell's disgusting lie session at the U.N.
Somehow, I really don't think you want to get into the last hundred years of British/American/etc. imperialism in the Middle East.
Yeah, the Iraqis stalled 'em. Until they let them in.
They let them in. They were not happy. BUT THEY FUCKIN' LET THEM IN.
This WAS a war of first choice. It was against an "enemy" which had not attacked us and which could not attack us. It was done pretty much on our own, with such bold military powers as Poland and Lichtenstein helping out. The biggest ally was Great Britain, and his sucking up to Dubya is costing Tony Blair his career.
And, WHY do you insist on comparing WW2 with this deployment? They are not the same. Not in any way. How can you compare full frontal assault against a major military power with house-to-house fighting against guerillas?
Oh, yeah. Losing strength and vigor (http://tinyurl.com/3c5fz3). I believe the phrase you're looking for is "last throes".
You can't make me see what isn't fucking there. I can't force you to actually pay attention to well-documented facts and the debunkings of cruel lies told by greedy and power-hungry men. I can't make you an analyst, a realist, or even someone who has a clue about what is going on.
All I can do is show you the truth -- not as I see it, but as it is documented and verified.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-20 05:12 am (UTC)Yeah, OUR FUCKUPS posted it on the Internet.
And, oh my goodness, they had the information... but NONE of the facilities or materials or people. It was at that point, no pun intended, a pipe dream.
Yeah, Saddam wanted nukes. Absolutely. But he did not have anything necessary to make them besides a mostly-complete instruction manual. Do you not see the difference between this and actually having a nuke program?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-20 04:00 pm (UTC)I have everything I need to become pregnant except a second X chromosome.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-03-20 08:15 pm (UTC)There's nothing particularly miraculous about less people dying when they have Kevlar, improved medical technology, and better systems for collecting intelligence, which means that people don't get shot at in the first place. One might as well compare deaths per car crash in 1950 to deaths per car crash in 2000. Between seat belts, airbags, and improved construction, there's no way to make a useful comparison.