he's talking about the early '80s, so unless you're just trying to be an idiot, no great strain i'm sure, i'm not sure why you can't recognize a typo.
I'm not sure why you can't recognize sloppy logic, analysis, and writing. Oh wait. Yes I am. You're the most intellectually dishonest poster on this BBS.
Yes I do. Everything you cite could be brought about through much simpler ways, mainly paying off Saddam. I have a very hard time buying this was a conspiracy. If it is its a gigantic Rube Goldberg contraption of a conspiracy. This is an off the wall thought that might be totally off base but it occurred to me that the reason why you might see conspiracy where as I don't is that you faith is in a sentient deity whereas mine isn't therefore you might be inclined to see intelligence where I see coincidence. Just a tangential rambling.
I agree there is a major fallacy regarding using those statistics in regard to debating the Iraq invasion and occupation but was just pointing out that Basso is correct that there are military deaths during peacetime. The problems I see with somehow making the argument that this war isn't so bad in terms of costs of lives is that this is ignoring the context of those deaths. We know that around 3,200 deaths in Iraq are combat related or in the theatre of combat therefore those deaths were obviously avoidable if there hadn't been combat. If they might've died in a military training accident, getting sick or some other cause doesn't mean that we should've gone ahead and sent those people in combat because they might've died anyway. First that's a very callous view of soldiers lives and is unknowable if in that same time they would've died some other way. For that matter everyone will die but noone is advocating a mandatory draft on the basis that since we all will die of something we might as well go fight in a war anyways. The other problem is that what these statistics indicate more is that the military has likely gotten safer and smaller since if we remove the combat and in theatre deaths there are fewer peacetime deaths than under prior admins.. That is to be commended but also expected as training techniques improve along with safety and medical technology.
i agree that the number of deaths is an essentially meaningless measure of how successful the war has been. but so is the number days/years said war has lasted. and if someone is going to highlight those ~3k deaths as a means of trumpeting how tragic the war has been, then those numbers need to be put in some sort of context.
so if a war lasts 15 years that's irrelevant? is money spent relevant. how about money spent vs. goal, or lives spent vs. goal, or time spent vs. goal. we've spent 4 years, 3K lives, and billions in a nation that's about the size of California. Is that a fair way to judge progress?
and to top it all, it was a needless war.. so every single death is one too many.. but basso thinks if soldiers are gonna die during peace time they might as well die during a needless war..
depends on what you heard. i never heard W say the war was going to be quick or w/o cost. more over, the war w/ Saddam's government was over in three weeks. we've been at war w/ islamic fascism for years prior to the invasion of iraq, and that war will continue long after we exit.
Time with my girl I spent it well I had to be strong for my woman (you must be joking, o man you must be joking) She needed to be protected The good life was so elusive Handouts, they got me down I had to regain my self-respect So I got into camouflage The girls they love to see you shoot I love a man in a uniform I love a man in a uniform I love a man in a uniform I love a man in a uniform To have ambitions was my ambition But I had nothing to show for my dreams Time with my girl I spent it well (you must be joking, o man you must be joking) The good life was so elusive Handouts, they got me down I had to regain my confidence So I got into camouflage The girls they love to see you shoot I love a man in a uniform I love a man in a uniform I love a man in a uniform I love a man in a uniform I need an order (shoot, shoot) I need an order (shoot, shoot) I need an order (shoot, shoot) I need an order (shoot, shoot) To have ambition Was my ambition Time with my girl I spent it well (you must be joking, o man you must be joking) The girls they love to see you shoot The girls they love to see you shoot I love a man in a uniform I love a man in a uniform (they love to see you shoot) I love a man in a uniform The girls they love to see you shoot I love a man in a uniform (they love to see you shoot) The girls they love to see you shoot I love a man in a uniform (they love a… they love a… they love a…) (they love to see you shoot) The girls they love to see you shoot (bang bang youre dead) I love a man in a uniform (they love a… they love a… they love a… bang bang) (they love to see you shoot) The girls they love to see you shoot I love a man in a uniform (they love a… they love a… they love a… bang bang) (they love to see you shoot) The girls they love to see you shoot (bang bang youre dead) I love a man in a uniform (they love a… they love a… they love a… bang bang) (they love to see you shoot) The girls they love to see you shoot (bang bang youre dead) (they love a… they love a… they love a…) (I love a man in a uniform)
Wow, you have a very selective memory, or else you are lying again. I don't feel the need to catalogue the vast array of speeches in which administration (in many cases - via sworn testimony) pitched the idea of a short, easy war. Regardless of whatever generalities the President spoke in, the fact is that actions speak louder this words, and the actions in this case match the words: a short term deployment and rapid reconstruction was -- stupidly, despite lots of evidence to the contrary -- the only contingency that was planned for. That plan failed, and the result is the failure of a presidency.
please highlight an example of where W pitched the idea of a short, or (relatively) painless war (aside: i can cite chapter and verse to the opposite, but perhaps that's an inconvenient truth). no can do? ok, as to your latter point, and i'm pretending for the sake of argument that you actually have a coherent one, so what? tactics change, as they should, once the enemy has actually been engaged. in fact, the ability to adjust to realities on the ground demonstrates a remarkable degree of tactical flexiblity. i'd think you'd want to support that, unless your real enemy is not islamic fascism, but george bush. which is it shammy?
"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam’s security forces and his army. Hard to imagine." –Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the House Budget Committee prior to the Iraq war, Feb. 27, 2003 "My answer is bring 'em on." —President George W. Bush, challenging militants attacking U.S. forces in Iraq, July 2, 2003 "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." –Vice President Dick Cheney, "Meet the Press," March 16, 2003 "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." —President Bush, discussing the Iraq war with Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, after Robertson told him he should prepare the American people for casualties->http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/...ost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49088-2004Oct20.html Mmm...how do you like em facts?
Aside from your cute little - and ultmately failed - attempts to divorce the President from his administration, his hand picked subordinates, to whom he delegated authority and acted in accordance with, and whose decisions he supported - and more importantly enforced - throughout no matter how inept or stupid, Below is an example of the President telling us how easy Iraq is: too easy. Nice job Northside Moss, btw. Like I said before though - regardless of whatever cover your ass generalities were uttered - actions speak louder than words. And the actions were aligned with words. They expected a cakewalk, planned accordingly, and they got something else. This is fact. You cannot refute it. You lose. Yes, what amazing tactical flexibility - it only took him 4 years to get rid of idiot rumsfeld and decide that more troops would have been a great idea. That's not tactical flexibility, that's too little too late. It's his inflexibility and refusal to acknowledge reality ("Hey, let's send a bunch of politically appointed hacks with no experience out there and use Iraq as an example of privatization!!!!") that has doomed his administration to failure. YOu're really makng this too easy basso. Find me a worthier foe. Go search the blogs or something.
"And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." Donald Rumsfeld--Feb. 7, 2003, to U.S. troops in Aviano Air Base, Italy, a month before the Iraq war "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." President Cheney--March 16, 2003 "I think it'll go relatively quickly, …Weeks rather than months." Cheney, 3/2003. "Liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk." Ken Adelman, 2/2002.
