People actually believe this crap?

[tooblue]

The most likely explination often is the most correct explination ... I'm sure some one more clever than a propaganda parroting noodle head such as my self would have something to say about some guys razor here.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by tooblue

When did I ever say we were safer? Now you have gone and put words in my mouth. I contend with the insinuation that people who believe in the idea mike condemed above are stupid, idiots, brainwashed bafoons (no, Mike did not specifically call people stupid etc.).

Your conjecture about not knowing the cause while dismissing the wars impact is unfathomable ... how can two wars NOT have an impact?

lol

I assume that the two wars WILL have an impact. Killing the husbands, wives, fathers, mothers of muslims will, in the long run, breed an increase of Islamo-fascist terrorism directed against our homeland.

What are the timetables before we start to see that increase? Your guess is as good as mine. But if MY son were butchered by ANYONE (let alone a member of a foreign occupying millitary), I think I would find it very hard not to go looking for blood.

[tooblue]

Now your plucking at heart strings ... abject hyperbole! Why is there already so much hate for the US and americans in that region to begin with ... George bush didn't start the cycle -he was a mere lad, or barely a twinkle in his father's eye when the cycle of hate began.

[JohnnyLingo]

Killing the husbands, wives, fathers, mothers of muslims will, in the long run, breed an increase of Islamo-fascist terrorism directed against our homeland.

So.... we leave them alone. Good idea.

But if MY son were butchered by ANYONE (let alone a member of a foreign occupying millitary), I think I would find it very hard not to go looking for blood.

And if your son were "butchered" by the police during a hostage situation where he had kidnapped 2 kids and was going to kill them? Same feelings?

[Robin]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

So.... we leave them alone. Good idea.



And if your son were "butchered" by the police during a hostage situation where he had kidnapped 2 kids and was going to kill them? Same feelings?

I'm thinking more about the recent civi killings by U.S. marines. Gitmo.

[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.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

The most likely explination often is the most correct explination ... I'm sure some one more clever than a propaganda parroting noodle head such as my self would have something to say about some guys razor here.

I don't know that Occam's Razor helps you out here. The simplest explanation is that the terrorists have great difficulty putting together an attack and require several years to accomplish such an attack.

Sure, it is possible that the war has made it more difficult. But we really don't know if that is true or not, particularly in regards to Iraq where Al-Qaeda had very few operations before the war anyways. Afghanistan could be a stronger case, but we just don't know.

If you claim that the absence of terrorist activities is proof that the war is working, I ask you why there were no terrorist activities on US soil during the Clinton presidency. Could I say then that Clinton being president prevented attacks on the US? Such a statement has as much evidentiary support as your claim about the war has.

[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.