People actually believe this crap?

[MikeWaters]

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=1924809

That if we weren't in Iraq we would have Sunnis and Shiites in the streets of America, attacking us?

LOL.

It's a lie propagated by Bush, and apparently swallowed by many, hook, line, and sinker.

187_Skillz may be a nice guy (I have no reason to believe that), but smart he is not. I would expect that he would at least understand who is causing the violence in Iraq.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=1924809

That if we weren't in Iraq we would have Sunnis and Shiites in the streets of America, attacking us?

LOL.

It's a lie propagated by Bush, and apparently swallowed by many, hook, line, and sinker.

187_Skillz may be a nice guy (I have no reason to believe that), but smart he is not. I would expect that he would at least understand who is causing the violence in Iraq.

To be blunt, there is a lot of truth in what he is saying, that’s why it is not just republicans or the president who is saying it ... I think you need to step back from your vitriol untoward skillz and Bush and reconsider the evidence.

Has there been an attack on the US since the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq? Now that is not to say there will not be another attack, in fact we all know it will happen. Regardless, why would terrorists act on this continent when it is far easier to attack Americans in their own region with nearly as much effect as if they again attacked in the US?

Please tell me you are not so blinded by disgust to be naïve as to think it is all propaganda.

[MikeWaters]

wow, didn't know you bought the Bush line also.

Do you know what the word "sectarian" means?

Do you know who is actually doing most of the the killing in Iraq?

Do you know what percent of Aghanistan is actually controlled by their elected government?

Try to imagine the difference in impact between blowing up a few soldiers (which is barely even news in the United States) and blowing up a few civilians in America.

And I guess you believe that terrorists are SO STUPID that they don't realize the difference in impact.

Listen folks, this is a LIE, this notion that we are safe because we are in the middle of Iraq, and sitting in Kabul.

I'll take the odds of less killed and injured Americans, if we take all the money that we are spending in Iraq and use it for the defense of America, here in America.

I guess you would argue that if we weren't there, there would be more than 2500 dead American civilians and more than 18,000 injured/maimed American civilians (many with severe brain injuries).

This is so ludicrous, that it does not even bear further discussion.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I guess you would argue that if we weren't there, there would be more than 2500 dead American civilians and more than 18,000 injured/maimed American civilians (many with severe brain injuries).

This is so ludicrous, that it does not even bear further discussion.

Nice strawman.

TooBlue's point was weak enough, you didn't need to put words in his mouth and then knock him over.

[MikeWaters]

He purports to make an empiric argument. That overall we have suffered less loss (or will suffer less loss in the future) as the result of our troops sacrifice.

I list the approximate numbers of dead and maimed.

Does he really mean what he says?

If the answer is yes, then I disagree vehemently. Especially when you factor in the billions of dollars that would be transferred to defense within and at our borders.

If you were in a fortress, would you send out your children with bulleyes painted on them, and then state that because they were using their ammunition on our children, that's less ammo that can be used on us?

Sorry, not buying it.

The cost of this war goes far beyond the dead and injured. What about the thousands that will suffer from post traumatic stress disorder? What about the spiritual and moral damage inherent with war (Fusnik's cousin as an example)?

Let's face it, we do not have any comprehension of the cost of this war. They are just abstractions, numbers, concepts. And the fact it is, most of us do not want to know the cost of the war, especially those that support it.

Ultimately the war is acknowledged to be unwinnable. Meaning that US commanders no longer believe we can stamp out the insurgency. The goal now is to prop up the govt. until the Iraqis can stand on their own. And we will leave not knowing whether the Iraqis (the pro-govt ones) will be successful. That's right, the plan is to leave with the outcome unsure. Meaning that to some degree our watered-down goal of a "win" will be ultimately out of our hands. Bombs and guns and tanks cannot win this war. It's hearts and minds.

Ultimately the battle against Al Qaeda is different kind of war. Al Qaeda is a virus. It's an idea. It's not an organization like we think of organizations. You can't beat a viral idea without winning the war of the mind and heart. And ultimately I think this is what Bush does not understand.

[tooblue]

You talk of this war as if it represents the begining of time ... truth is religous zealots in the middle east have been at war with Americans for decades.

You hang all of you discord on one nonseminal event and blame Bush for ALL AMERICANS, INCLUDING YOU AND I'S ignorance in regards to winning the hearts and minds of radical Muslims.

[creekster]

The "crap" skilz posted is a position reduced to extremes. It is not believeable as stated. OTOH, neither is th eposition of Robin/MW. Skilz' kill ration is about right, correct? 100 to 1. We also know from the recent Pentagon report that ther has been a large influx, even recently, of Al Qaeda into Iraq in order to fight US troops. THus, there is some empirical evidence to support Skilz' posiiton. What would those Al Qaeda people be doing otherwise? Where would their resources be going? Absent Afghanistan and Iraq would we have been nearly as successsful in capturing or killing as many Al Qaeda leaders as we have and if not, what would they be doing? OTOH, Haditha type events can only, in the near term and even in the long run, hurt our image and breed more discontrent and potential terrorists. Even our mere military presence in certains poritons of the Middle East tends to breed more terrorists.

So putting aside the hyperbole, emotion and politics, what does the evidence show? No one knows for sure. Like Tooblue, I believed that one of the reasons to fight in Iraq was to have the battle that appeared inevitable take place in their front yard instead of mine, so to speak. With hindsight, I am not sure that this is how it has worked out. OTOH, I am not sure that it hasn't either.

I do know this; abuses by our troops must be stopped. Simialrly, we must also stop all the handwringing abotu whether it is a good thing that we went in to Iraq. This is a moot point and arguning about it only distracts from the need to anal;yze what steps we can take on a go forward absis to attempt to make a positive result in Iraq.

[MikeWaters]

Kill ratio means nothing.

From Wikipedia:

The lowest casualty estimates, based on North Vietnamese statements which are now discounted by Vietnam, are around 1.5 million Vietnamese killed. Vietnam's Ministry of Labor, War Invalids and Social Affairs released figures on April 3, 1995, reporting that 1.1 million fighters—Viet Cong guerrillas and North Vietnamese soldiers—and nearly 2 million civilians in the north and the south were killed between 1954 and 1975. Other figures run as high as 4 million civilian casualties with 1 million casualties being NVA or VC fighters. Robert McNamara, in his regretful memoir of the war, references a figure of 3.2 million. The number of wounded fighters was put at 600,000. It remains even more unclear how many Vietnamese civilians were wounded.

So let's say you take that figure of 3.2 million and compare it to 58,226 Americans.

That's 55:1.

And we lost that war.

Like I said before, the military has GIVEN UP on the idea of stamping out the insurgency. It's not even a goal. Because it cannot be done. Anymore than you could kill everyone in Iraq.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Kill ratio means nothing.

From Wikipedia:



So let's say you take that figure of 3.2 million and compare it to 58,226 Americans.

That's 55:1.

And we lost that war.

Like I said before, the military has GIVEN UP on the idea of stamping out the insurgency. It's not even a goal. Because it cannot be done. Anymore than you could kill everyone in Iraq.

That wasn't my point. Kill ratio itself doesn't mean that the war is successful. My point is that if you beleive that Al Qaeda is sending fighters to Iraq to fight us, we are being very efficient in killing them. Those dead fighters will not be able to assist Al Qaeda again and will not attack us. So the war has resulted in Al Qaeda focusing resources and planning capacity on the insurgency and we are killing them very efficiently. This is empirical support for Skilz/Tooblues position. In fact, at some level, they are correct. OTOH, and as you and Robin pointed out, there is no way to know if this is the reason that we haven't had any other attacks (although I must admit I found Robin's assumpotion that we know of the attacks stateside that have been thwarted to be quaintly naive).

I think it is impossible, based on the evidence alone, to say whether or not the war has caused fewer attacks at home. Unlike Robin, however, I think both evidence AND reason can support both views and I think it is rather arrogant for supporters of either position to claim that they KNOW what is happening or how this will play out.

[JohnnyLingo]

Because it cannot be done. Anymore than you could kill everyone in Iraq.

Actually, if we really really wanted to, we could kill everyone in Iraq.