Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 03/26/07 5:16 pm:
some considerations :Each year approximately 50000 Americans die violent deaths.
Iraqi violent death rate is 27.51 per 100,000.
New Orleans -53.1 deaths per 100,000
Washington, D.C-45 per 100,100
Detroit - 41.8 per 100,000
Baltimore - 37.7 per 100,000
This American civil war is a quagmire !!!!
Now let's look at another comparison . In 20 years of Saddam's rule about 5% of the people of Iraq were killed or mysteriously disappeared never to be seen again after being arrested. Since liberation, hundreds of thousands of the "disappeared" have been found — in Iraq in mass graves.
The dropping of chemical weapons on the Kurdish city of Halaja in Iraq in March of 1988, killed over 5,000 civilians. The Kurds have since reported that five to seven thousand people of 80,000 inhabitants died immediately and a further 20,000 to 30,000 were injured, many severely. Initial studies indicate approximately 52% of current inhabitants were exposed at the time of the chemical attack on Halaja.
The Anfal campaigns, also against the Kurds, when Chemical Ali, Hussein's cousin, was given the orders to slaughter the Kurds. Somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 Kurds were killed.
The invasion and occupation of Kuwait on August 2, 1990 in which Saddam Hussein's forces killed more than 1000 Kuwaiti nationals, and an uncounted number from other nations .After the war 30,000 to 60,000 Iraqi civilians, mostly Kurds and Shiites were killed by Saddam.
In the early 1990s, Saddam Hussein drained the southern marshes, which deprived over 100,000 people of their livelihood and their ability to live on land their ancestors had lived on for thousands of years.
400,000 Iraqi civilians were seized by Saddam Hussein's various "security" organizations and simply never heard from again.
Iraq, a country approximately the size of California, but with only 2/3rd its population, suffered more than a million violent deaths under Saddam Hussein's regime. That would average out at about 50,000 deaths a year in a population of 25 million before the Americans got involved.
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/26/07 6:52 pm:
You clealy missed my point PH. My point is that the Iraq War isn't a civil war. My point is that the Iraq war isn't even a "war" in the traditional sense. There are very few "battles" taking place. Iraq can best be defined as an "assymetrical military operation" that is one small part of the global war on terror.
As for your question to Tom about how we define winning in Iraq, the answer is actually quite simple: winning is defined as establishment of an Iraqi government capable of handling its own issues without outside interference. Winning in Iraq is a necessary step in winning the global war on terror, because winning in Iraq will eliminate one more safe haven for terrorists.
How are we progressing in the global war on terror? Well, lets see, it has been 2,022 days since 9-11, with no successful attacks against American soil. This compares to an average of 1.5 attacks against US soil per year under the Clinton administration. Ergo, we are being successful in the global war on terror.
The fact that you can't see any of this is why you have fuzzy vision.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by PrinceHassim on 03/26/07 9:45 pm:
Thank you for pointing out my optitical defects. If I can ever return the compliment.......
Look here, whatever you say, and whatever you dearly believe, I have been IN what you call "assymetrical military operations" and I can tell you from first hand experience that they are still wars. People get injured, maimed, abused, tortured, raped and killed. Civilisation cannot afford to dwell on the niceties of calling something something else to pretend it isn't what it clearly is.
Calling a spade a 'horticultural implement' does not changes its charcter from what it really is - a spade.
The death of any of the coalitions forces in this civil war should give you pause to acknowledge the tragedy that it undeniably is.
If your only concern is what happens on US soil and not what happens to US citizens in its military, then I suppose if a million of them get killed overseas, as long as nothing happens on the 'mainland' you consider that to be very nice for everyone.
If you are under 55 as you sound, you can join the Iraq War through volunteering for the Marines or NG, and when you are IN the middle of the bloodshed let us know how well you like it and if you have to change your opinion on what its nature is.
Clarification/Follow-up by tropicalstorm on 03/27/07 12:26 am:
PHA--
The age is 42. I tried signing up for a reserve and was turned down due to age. They said they had just raised the age to 42.
Clarification/Follow-up by PrinceHassim on 03/27/07 1:07 am:
They will take volunteers in the NG. Try Virginia State NGs who seem to have a high prooprtion of their number in the war.. Lst week on TV News was a NG serving soldier in Iraq and she was 56! I am 72. Do you think I am safe from having to go into hell yet again?
Clarification/Follow-up by tropicalstorm on 03/27/07 1:11 am:
PHA--
I think that is if you have already prior military experience because last 4th of July they all told me their age limit had just been
raised from 35 to 42 unless you had already served at any time prior to turning 42.
I think you are safe; IF NOT tell them your
alzhmeirs kicked in!
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/27/07 1:13 pm:
PH,
>>>Look here, whatever you say, and whatever you dearly believe, I have been IN what you call "assymetrical military operations" <<<
As have I, as part of the Israeli military in 1987-1988.
>>>and I can tell you from first hand experience that they are still wars.<<<
To the people who are experiencing them, yes, there is no difference. The PERSONAL experiences of a person in a war and those of a person in an assymetrical operation are essentially one and the same. But in taking a GLOBAL view, there is a huge difference between the two. And one cannot make POLICY DECISIONS based on personal experiences. They have to be made based on a global view of the effect of those decisions in the global environment. And that means that the difference between a war and an assymetrical military operation will effect how President Bush runs the operation. On that basis, Bush is making the decisions that are 100% correct for fighting an assymetrical operation, as opposed to fighting a "civil war" which this is NOT.
>>>People get injured, maimed, abused, tortured, raped and killed. <<<
Yep. That happens all over the world, regardless of whether there is a war going on or not. In fact, civillian deaths in Iraq (according to Iraq Body Count) due to the hostilities per 100,000 of population is roughly 2.36. That's for a 4-year period. The 2005 murder rate in the USA is roughly 5.6 per 100,000, more than twice the rate of deaths in Iraq. And that's just in ONE year. By that way of analyzing safety, Iraq is about six times as safe as the USA.
>>>Calling a spade a 'horticultural implement' does not changes its charcter from what it really is - a spade.<<<
Yes, but exagerating and calling a spade a steam-shovel doesn't make it a steam-shovel. It's still just a spade. Just as exagerating and calling the sectarian violence in Iraq "civil war" doesn't make it anything more than sectarian violence... on a very small scale at that.
>>>The death of any of the coalitions forces in this civil war should give you pause to acknowledge the tragedy that it undeniably is.<<<
Again, calling it a civil war doesn't make it a civil war. And the death of any member of the coalition forces in Iraq, while personally tragic, is not the basis on which to make policy decisions. While I mourn the death of every soldier, that doesn't mean that I'm about to call for a change of policy on that basis.
Nor do the soldiers want that to be the basis of policy decisions. Just ask them. I have. The soldiers are there to protect us... that is their jo and they are proud to do that job. And they see attempts by liberals to use bogus arguments about their safety to change policy on the war as insulting to their bravery, courage and sense of duty. The soldiers that I have spoken to feel that they need more protection from the libs who are undermining their efforts in Iraq than they do from IEDs, enemy snipers and car bombs.
>>>If your only concern is what happens on US soil and not what happens to US citizens in its military, then I suppose if a million of them get killed overseas, as long as nothing happens on the 'mainland' you consider that to be very nice for everyone. <<<
While it is not my only concern, it is the best measure of how successful we are in the war on terror. And again, the soldiers know that that is why they are in Iraq, and they find efforts to use their "safety" as an excuse to change policy insulting.
Not only that, but they know that, crime statistics being what they are, they are roughly 4 times more likely to be a victim of a violent crime back here in the USA than they are to die in Iraq.
And they know that if the enemy comes here to the mainland, they will have to fight them here on their own doorsteps. They would rather fight the enemy in its own back yard where their families will be safe than here where the enemy has a good chance at targetting their families. And that global view is the basis for making policy decisions.
>>>If you are under 55 as you sound, you can join the Iraq War through volunteering for the Marines or NG, and when you are IN the middle of the bloodshed let us know how well you like it and if you have to change your opinion on what its nature is. <<<
Like I said, been there, done that. I served in Israel during their first Intafada. I know exactly what insurgency looks like. I know exactly what it looks like to be shot at. I know what sectarian violence looks like. It doesn't change my opinions... or perhaps it makes those opinions stronger, not weaker.
Let me ask you this: when you served, were you drafted or were you a volunteer. It has been my experience that those who volunteered for military service have a different perspective than those who were drafted. Vietnam era vets who were volunteers tend to support the war, whereas Vietnam era Vets who were drafted tend to be against the war. This is not universal, of course, but it tends to be true in many cases.
I believe that those who were drafted see the current crop of military as being forced into something that they didn't want to do... just as they were. Volunteers tend to see the current crop of military as people who made a choice to serve. And the fact is that the second view is closer to reality... and is also the reason that the military doesn't want to reinstate a draft. They don't want people joining up who don't really want to be there. They want people who are enthusiastic about their jobs.
But the point is that the current crop of active duty soldiers are volunteers. They ween't forced to join. They are not conscripts. Many prior-service soldiers reinlisted after 9-11 KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THEY WOULD BE GOING TO WAR. Many have re-upped several times since being in Iraq, and knowing exactly what the situation is there. You can't argue that they didn't know what they were going to experience, and didn't realize what they were in for. They are satisfied with the "safety" issues surrounding their reinlistments. So why are YOU so concerned for their safety, when they, knowing full well what lies ahead, don't seem to be bothered by it? I have a feeling that the reason for that is that you believe they were forced. But they weren't. You can't view them through the lens of your own experiences, because their experiences and yours were different.
>>>Do you think I am safe from having to go into hell yet again? <<<
That depends on whether you and other libs are successful in getting us to pull out of Iraq. If you are, you can expect hell to come knocking on your doorstep. If the soldiers remain in place to finish their jobs, however, there's a good chance you won't have to face hell again. Your choice.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by PrinceHassim on 03/27/07 7:56 pm:
Just to set you right on my position. I am not a 'lib,' but a socialist, and a British socialist at that. Partly Blairite, but very much my own man. I submit to no man's labelling.
Just to remind you of my original post, from which you have extracted so much that I did not mention! WOW!
I told you it was a civil war and ye believed me not!
Since al-Qaeda bombed one of the most important Shiite shrines in Iraq 13 months ago, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed and whole neighborhoods have undergone sectarian cleansing. The bombing caused the once-relatively quiescent Shiite community to rise up in a campaign of revenge.
The United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq said 34,452 Iraqis died last year alone.
Perhaps the American war of independence was nothing but an insurgency. Mel Gibson fought in it in the patriot and he and his militia wore farm clothes not military uniform.
Being a prophet is a hard calling. Ho hum!
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/27/07 8:18 pm:
>>>I am not a 'lib,' but a socialist, and a British socialist at that. Partly Blairite, but very much my own man. I submit to no man's labelling.<<<
So you're not a lib, but an uber-lib. Socialism is still liberalism... its just extreme liberalism. Same difference.
>>>Just to remind you of my original post, from which you have extracted so much that I did not mention! WOW!<<<
You did mention having been in the military. I didn't draw conclusions about that did I? And based on your clear dislike of things military and anything that the military stands for, I would make an educated assumption that your service in the military was not voluntary. I didn't have to stretch too hard to figure this all out. Nor have you denied my assumption.
And coming back to your original post again, I told you it's not a civil war. It's not even a real war in the classic sense. With 66,000 dead or even 90,000 dead in 4 years, it's still a piddling little insurgency. By contrast the US Civil War had over 650,000 casualties in 4 years.
The so-called "quiescent Shiite community" spent 20 years under Saddam being oppressed. What did you expect when they were finally freed of their tyrrany, and were finally able to defend against Sunni violence against their religious sites. Did you expect the finally freed surfs to simply go back to being surfs again?
But the fact is that the vast majority of Shia want an end to the revenge. Seven in 10 Iraqi Shia want to see the militias disarmed. The majority of those you claim are out for revenge really aren't. So we are left with a small minority of Shia and a small minority of Sunni who are committing these acts against each other. The situation isn't good, but it doesn't qualify as a "civil war". The majority are not only non-combatants to the factional violence... they are actively AGAINST the factional violence.
And yes, I would say that being a prophet is a hard calling if you can't SEE.
Clarification/Follow-up by paraclete on 03/27/07 11:32 pm:
In your comment you only confirmed what I said, the British lacked the will and wit to win, that they were led by a german may have accounted for this. Iraq is I think very different although there may be a similar lack of will and wit in the american leadership
Clarification/Follow-up by PrinceHassim on 03/28/07 4:40 am:
ELLIOTT,
I do not accept any labelling by any man, and especially from someone who insists that I am something I am not. I doubt that you have any real grasp of British Socialism. I am what I am, you am what you am, and I will not tell you what you atre, because I do not know, just as you do not know what I am although you are conceited enough to think you do.
Just to remind you of my original post, from which you have extracted so much that I did not mention! WOW!
I told you it was a civil war and ye believed me not!
Since al-Qaeda bombed one of the most important Shiite shrines in Iraq 13 months ago, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed and whole neighborhoods have undergone sectarian cleansing. The bombing caused the once-relatively quiescent Shiite community to rise up in a campaign of revenge.
The United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq said 34,452 Iraqis died last year alone.
Perhaps the American war of independence was nothing but an insurgency. Mel Gibson fought in it in the patriot and he and his militia wore farm clothes not military uniform.
Being a prophet is a hard calling. Ho hum!
It is especially hard when prophesying to a hard nosed and stiff necked conceited person.
T-t-t-t-t-t-t-that's all folks!
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/28/07 1:06 pm:
PH
>>>I am what I am, you am what you am, and I will not tell you what you atre, because I do not know, just as you do not know what I am although you are conceited enough to think you do.<<<
Sure you will. In fact, you already have.
"If you are under 55 as you sound"
Happens to be true, but I never told you so. You assumed it, and therefore labled me as "young" and "inexperienced" in matters of war. Oh, sure, you didn't use those terms, but your comments clearly made the assumption that it was true. It wasn't, but that's another matter.
Everybody uses lables to judge people, whether they use them openly in conversation or not. That's why people have to consider first impressions when they meet someone new. It's human nature to put people into nice, neat little boxes with which you can judge them. I just do it more openly than you do, because I'm not PC... another liberal idea that I don't accept.
But I don't have to make assumptions about you, PH. You already told me what you are and which boxes you fit into.
"I am not a 'lib,' but a socialist, and a British socialist at that. Partly Blairite, but very much my own man."
You are a Democratic Socialist. You believe in elected-government-controlled platforms for manufacture and distribution of goods and services. You are a supporter of the welfare state. You believe in redistribution of wealth. You are pro-union and anti-management. You are generally anti-capitalist, but understand that capitalism exists and will continue to be the dominant form of the world economy for the forseeable future, and so you wish to regulate it.
You are anti-globalization ala Noam Chomsky, and you see any action taken by either the USA or the UK in the global arena as "imperialism". War is by its nature always evil, according to your philosophy, regardless of the reasons for the war, and you believe that if everyone were equal in every way, there would be no war, no crime, no poverty, and no disagreement and no injustice. You believe that war is caused by one side or the other believing that they are right and the other side is wrong (moral empiricism) and that this is the cause of all wars. You believe that if we eliminate moral empiricism and replace it with moral relitavism, which decries judjements about who is "right" and who is "wrong", it will eliminate the cause for wars.
In other words, you are a liberal. Like it or not, accept the lable or not, that's the box you fit in. You can either continue to deny it and claim to be "your own man" and to "accept no man's lables", or you can live in reality, accept the fact that you are a liberal, and defend the position. Or fail to do so, as all liberals have over time... y'know, the Soviet Union, the South American socialist countries, etc. Even the Chinese have accepted the necessity of at least SOME capitalis/democratic systems to bolster their Communism. Socialism is liberalism, and British socialism and Blairite Labour-ism is still liberalism.
And repeating the same post again and again in the face of overwhelming historical and statistical evidence to the contrary doesn't make it more right the third or fourth time you say it.
I fully admit to being stiff-necked. It's in the national bloodline, y'know. Exodus 32:9 - "I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people." Being stiff-necked is almost a matter of national pride.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by PrinceHassim on 03/28/07 2:18 pm:
As I have said before, you are ignorant of British socialism. British liberalism is not socialism. I don't expect you to know the difference nor to be able to aprpeciate the distcinctions because they are perhaps too subtle for your sledgehammer mind.
Let me repeat my original post. If you can steel yourself to have the disicpline to confine yourserlf to that subject it will improve your method of discussion.
Being stiffnecked was what led bnei-yisrael into all kinds of national and religious difficulties. It also works on a personal level. It is no cause for pride according to what god has to say about it, but you do not have to please god, only yourself.
Anyway, here's your little reminder for today:
I told you it was a civil war and ye believed me not!
Since al-Qaeda bombed one of the most important Shiite shrines in Iraq 13 months ago, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed and whole neighborhoods have undergone sectarian cleansing. The bombing caused the once-relatively quiescent Shiite community to rise up in a campaign of revenge.
The United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq said 34,452 Iraqis died last year alone.
Perhaps the American war of independence was nothing but an insurgency. Mel Gibson fought in it in the patriot and he and his militia wore farm clothes not military uniform.
Being a prophet is a hard calling. Ho hum!
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 03/28/07 2:25 pm:
>>>As I have said before, you are ignorant of British socialism. British liberalism is not socialism. I don't expect you to know the difference nor to be able to aprpeciate the distcinctions because they are perhaps too subtle for your sledgehammer mind. <<<
But you haven't denied that the belief system that I described above differs in any significant way from what YOU believe. Whatever lable you may choose for yourself, you are a liberal.
>>>Being stiffnecked was what led bnei-yisrael into all kinds of national and religious difficulties. It also works on a personal level. It is no cause for pride according to what god has to say about it, but you do not have to please god, only yourself. <<<
Being stiff-necked is also what allowed a nation of no more than 13 million to survive in exile despite progroms, religious persecutions, Inquisitions, Crusades and attempted genocides. The same stiff-necked character that has lead us to sin is the same stiff-necked character that has led us to maintain our national and religious identity through the same natural and man-made disasters that have laid low every other nation in history from the Persians and Assyrians, to the Greeks and Romans, to the Soviets and even the British Empire. THAT is a source of pride. A nations that is 2/10th of 1% of the world's population has managed to survive and THRIVE under conditions no other nation has managed to survive, and we did it because we're to damned stubborn and stiff-necked to quit. And because G-d has been on our side, of course.
>>>If you can steel yourself to have the disicpline to confine yourserlf to that subject it will improve your method of discussion.<<<
I have only responded to your own posts. I have even quoted those posts to show what I was referring to in my responses. If you wish me to respond to only a single subject, then I suggest that you post only on a single subject.
>>>I told you it was a civil war and ye believed me not!<<<
And I told you it was not, and proved it with statistical and historic information that you still have failed to address.
>>>Since al-Qaeda bombed one of the most important Shiite shrines in Iraq 13 months ago, tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed and whole neighborhoods have undergone sectarian cleansing.<<<
No they haven't. Individuals have experienced sectarian violence from a MINORITY that continue to use violence as a political tool. That does not denote a civil war any more than Crips having a gang war with Bloods over "turf" in LA indicates a civil war.
>>>The bombing caused the once-relatively quiescent Shiite community to rise up in a campaign of revenge.<<<
The "once quiescent" Shiite community was never "quiescent". It was oppressed. There is a difference. Now they aren't.
>>>The United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq said 34,452 Iraqis died last year alone.<<<
And As I discussed above, that number is very small, indicative of a minor gang-war, not a civil war.
>>>Perhaps the American war of independence was nothing but an insurgency. Mel Gibson fought in it in the patriot and he and his militia wore farm clothes not military uniform.<<<
And perhaps this is really "off topic"... something you have accused me of. If the topic is "civil war", why are you discussing a revolutionary war of independence? If the topic is "war in Iraq", why are you posting about wars in the USA? Unless going "off topic" is permitted for you, but not for me.
>>>Being a prophet is a hard calling. Ho hum!<<<
Yes it is... if you have touble with fuzzy vision.
There... is that on-topic enough for you? A point-by-point response to your post.
Elliot
Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 03/28/07 3:14 pm:
ok here is my attempt at defining victory and I will concede that this has not been properly articulated by our leaders (although Tony Blair has done a superior job of it compared to President Bush)
1. Victory means that the Iraqi government and nation have achieved sufficient political stability to remain cohesive, politically and economically functional, after a US withdrawal or draw down.That means that it would be irresponsible for us to leave if there is a possibility of a killing field like Darfur . I am amazed how some argue that it would be ok for us to abandon the Iraqis to such a fate at the same time that they lobby for intervention in the Sudan.
2.Victory means that the Iraqi government has achieved sufficient political stability and military viability to prevent it from being destroyed, overthrown, or overrun, by Al Qaeda, or any other terrorist,or Jihadist, organization .Victory means that Iraq does not become a safe haven for Jihadist and is able to defend it's territorial integrity against it's neighbors ambitions ...especially Iran. I forsee a long term commitment to the last part by way of alliance or of basing comparable to the commitment that we gave Europe and Japan after 1945...and South Korea to this day .
You will note that this falls short of the goal of a democratic Iraq . I think that will evolve naturally since it has been seeded ;but it is not our duty to guarantee it. We have given the Iraqis a chance at self determination . That leaves them a hell of a lot better off than they were when stability was achieved under the jack-boot of the Baathist dictatorship.
