Iran knows the truth

[Aabe]

How about 'there is no baseline?' There has never, in US history, been a preemptive war. Therefore, we have no working model.

Grenada?
Panama?

[Ddrak]

We are going in circles, so no point going on with it. But I would ask: what baseline would you suggest?

Agreed on circles - it's really a conflict of ideologies.

My whole point is there is no baseline. That's why I'm saying that there's no real way to guage from what happens whether it was a mistake or not. My whole position is the only way to determine if it was a mistake is to look at what happened at the time it happend and not judge an action by "results" but by the action itself.

Dd

[Rsak]

Have I stated otherwise Relbeek?

My comments were directed only at those showing them, which Michael Moore is one such individual. These individuals are the ones who can have motives not the images.

[Relbeek Einre]

Rsak - I think you cannot delve into the minds of everyone displaying the images.

[Rsak]

Seeing how I have not seen every occurance of the images shown you would be correct.

But I can see the images that Moore used in the context of the movie he made and reach a conclusion that he was artificially trying to promote fear and hatred in his attempt to get Bush to lose re-election.

[Partha]

How many generations you willing to feed into Iraq to make sure?

I dont know how many did we feed into post war Japan and Germany?

Lemme give you a hint, chuckles - our troops are still there. We're on four generations and counting - would you like to guess how many deaths will be caused in four generations of 'peacekeeping' and 'security' in Iraq? After all, we know how many Lebanon cost us.

I assume by feed you mean must die. Why dont you benchmark the percent dead per 1000 marines in IRAQ vs the percent dead marines in the US from drunk driving accidents.

Because they're not similar things.

http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/castop.htm

Come to think, you can go run the numbers, they only graph to 1999.

We could also talk about the character growth of the people sent over there, possibly feeling they are risking their lives for a greater good.. Are most of them feeling they are making a difference. Are most of them being thanked for thier effort by the people there? Or are the marines being spat upon, told they are not wanted and feel the whole thing is a horrible waste of their precious little time they have that we call life? Lots of costs, losses and benefits to be considered.

Character growthp. WTF you talking about, Willis? Some kind of self esteem program?

To say "feed generations" is a thoughtless statement and communicates nothing more than your bitterness about the whole Iraq engaugement. If you really want to influence peoples attitudes, I suggest a more rational approach.

Well, when we tried to argue the rational approach that there weren't WMD, we were dismissed.

When we tried to argue the rational approach that Saddam was in no way, shape, or form an imminent threat to the US, we were dismissed.

When we tried to argue the rational point that the UN was the way to go, and not in a self led phony coalition, we were dismissed.

Ya'll gave up rationality on this subject a LONG time ago. I'm now through trying to talk reason with a bunch of Flatearthers.

[Ddrak]

Why dont you benchmark the percent dead per 1000 marines in IRAQ vs the percent dead marines in the US from drunk driving accidents.

Why don't you try to tell a bunch of marines that you're in favor of removing alcohol from their diet? I'll be right behind you! Honest!

Dd

[Aabe]

Why dont you benchmark the percent dead per 1000 marines in IRAQ vs the percent dead marines in the US from drunk driving accidents.

Why don't you try to tell a bunch of marines that you're in favor of removing alcohol from their diet? I'll be right behind you! Honest!

Dd

Heh heh, I may be dumb, but I am not that stupid. =P

Benchmarks tell us what risks are in comparison to other accepted risks in our society.

What are you chances of dying from walking to your car in a parking lot versus smoking death. Gives you some perspective. If smoking risk is less, whats the big deal, if its a lot more, maybe we should worry atout it, that kind of thing.

Too many times people grab something like shark attacks or killer bees, scare that pants off people (which I enjoy if they are attractive females) and make people have troubled sleep when a few benchmarks of acceptable risk would help give some perspective.

Some doctor walked in last friday, said 18000 people died from lack of health care and declared it an epidemic. He showed lots of graphs and charts good info, but then leaped into the unbenchmarked domain and started declaring stuff that had no factual basis. I took his numbers at face value and quickly calculated that his epidemic effected less than .007 pecent of the populus.

Now deaths from lack of health care is a bad thing, but he never told us what constitutes an epidemic. The young students in the room were soaking it up like sponges and probably thinking it was as bad as other epidemics they heard of that may ave effected hugh percentages of the populus like polio or small pox before preventions were in place. I really get annoyed at the misuse of stats to scare people.

[Aabe]

How many generations you willing to feed into Iraq to make sure?

I dont know how many did we feed into post war Japan and Germany?

Lemme give you a hint, chuckles - our troops are still there. We're on four generations and counting - would you like to guess how many deaths will be caused in four generations of 'peacekeeping' and 'security' in Iraq? After all, we know how many Lebanon cost us..

And our losses dimimished to practically nothing (compared to mortalitaly rates in soldiers in country) over the generations. They have also provided us with presents in remote areas otherwise difficult to stage from without bases in those countrys. So the continued effort is not without benefit in Germany or Japan. Although now that USSR has fallen, we probably will continue to decrease forces there.

I assume by feed you mean must die. Why dont you benchmark the percent dead per 1000 marines in IRAQ vs the percent dead marines in the US from drunk driving accidents.

Because they're not similar things.

http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/casualty/castop.htm

Come to think, you can go run the numbers, they only graph to 1999.

Risk is risk. You want to show the pain of the risk of war, compare it to things that are acceptable risk. If war is much worse you reinforce your point, if it less or the same as everyday risks, your arguement needs something else.

We could also talk about the character growth of the people sent over there, possibly feeling they are risking their lives for a greater good.. Are most of them feeling they are making a difference. Are most of them being thanked for thier effort by the people there? Or are the marines being spat upon, told they are not wanted and feel the whole thing is a horrible waste of their precious little time they have that we call life? Lots of costs, losses and benefits to be considered.

Character growthp. WTF you talking about, Willis? Some kind of self esteem program?.

For your side of the argument I would argue the increased divorce rates, single parent home costs in this catagory. Stuff lost besides "lives".

But the gain I talked about, "character" is much different than self esteem. One of the problems with our society is more and more people do not do things of 'percieved real value' (helping dad work the farm so you can have food to eat or go hungry).

I am a stong proponent of some sort of "rite of passage" for our young. Be it overseas volunteer work, service in the military, or volunteer service at home. Something that drives the value of life and citizenship home. Something that makes you reach inside and give something hard. Sitting around playing video games when you grow up as your life challenge, gives little appreciation of your freedom or wealth compared to many in the world. Why support or serve your society if it has little value to you? Rite of passage tasks are no guarentee, but they have a huge success percentage in achieving what I would hope.

I can't begin to go over "rite of passage" and "earn your citizenship" concepts here. Beek hates me enough already for making the lengthy posts on this thread.

But the value is far greater to a society, if their young people perform service to others, the greater the giving (money, time or risk to life or limb) the more commitment and effort they put into group they striving to serve. It's a really tough issue.

I guess kind of like, if you just meet someone and decide the next day to get married at a Justice of the Peace. Your committment to that relationship is pretty slim to start off with. You lose near nothing to get a divoce the next day. The more you sacrifice to get someone to marry you. The more you start out with a commitment to it. If society required you wait 2 yrs and pay 20,000 dollars to get married, you wont so easily let the realationship go, if it gets troubled. ( additionally you would be a WHOLE lot more selective as to who you would consider for marriage.)

Some cultures have a formalized "rite of passage", we dont really have any. You are just born here and you are a citizen. My point was that the young men and women we get back from Iraq are probably going to pay more attention to voting responsibilites and work harder to make America a better place. There is significant benefit to having people serve anywhere including Iraq "IF" and only "IF" they believe it was for good fo Iraq and for the good of our country.

To say "feed generations" is a thoughtless statement and communicates nothing more than your bitterness about the whole Iraq engaugement. If you really want to influence peoples attitudes, I suggest a more rational approach.

Well, when we tried to argue the rational approach that there weren't WMD, we were dismissed.

When we tried to argue the rational approach that Saddam was in no way, shape, or form an imminent threat to the US, we were dismissed.

When we tried to argue the rational point that the UN was the way to go, and not in a self led phony coalition, we were dismissed.

Ya'll gave up rationality on this subject a LONG time ago. I'm now through trying to talk reason with a bunch of Flatearthers.

.You make a good point, I am often torn on this site. It is called a "Rant" board, there is value in just venting and ranting. Though that seldom changes anyones mind about anything.

I mostly enjoy the discussions that are rife with logic and facts. Watching ideas turned over and seeing the paradigms people use to veiw life and current events. Even when someone does not convince me to change my point of veiw on a topic, I come to appreciate their logic and understand them better. I often end up with more respect for people that oppose my point of view. Instead of just thinking they are "dumb as a Relbe.. er rock."

[Zyllen]

Bush has sentenced more people to die than any president Ive ever seen (or been alive to see).

Holy shit! Read a fucking book or check out the history channel for goodness' sake!

[Ddrak]

What are you chances of dying from walking to your car in a parking lot versus smoking death. Gives you some perspective. If smoking risk is less, whats the big deal, if its a lot more, maybe we should worry atout it, that kind of thing.

That's not exactly great thinking. A death is a death. If we can do something reasonable to prevent it we should. After all, if you're going to talk about risks and death statistics then we should be dumping all our spare cash into finding a cure for old age.

Now, I assume since you've argued that the soldiers are not at significant risk in Iraq you'll be jumping up and down about their hazard pay and the proposal to blow out the death benefits their family gets paid (which I think goes way too far personally).

Dd

[Aabe]

What are you chances of dying from walking to your car in a parking lot versus smoking death. Gives you some perspective. If smoking risk is less, whats the big deal, if its a lot more, maybe we should worry atout it, that kind of thing.

That's not exactly great thinking. A death is a death. If we can do something reasonable to prevent it we should. After all, if you're going to talk about risks and death statistics then we should be dumping all our spare cash into finding a cure for old age.

Now, I assume since you've argued that the soldiers are not at significant risk in Iraq you'll be jumping up and down about their hazard pay and the proposal to blow out the death benefits their family gets paid (which I think goes way too far personally).

Dd

Umm, I never said they were NOT at significant risk. I really dont know the statistics over the last year of the deployment.

I said it would be nice to see the benchmarks, look at all the costs and benefits, THEN make arguments one way or the other for bringing them home or leaving them there.

As for old age, we have deemed that risk of death from age as acceptable. If not we WOULD be dumping money as you say to cure it.

Some would argue any death is too many, but looking at the drinking and driving death numbers, obviously it is an acceptable risk at some level or we would have enforced draconian laws for drunk driving (life in prison, permanent loss of drivers license, ect)

I just want the information, that backs the arguement, so I can assess your points and either counter them, see that I already agree with them or change my mind to join your point of view.

Iif you are going to ever say one death is too many, you have already lost you cause. If one death is too many was our criterion, cars would be made from titanium, have multiple straps to secure you in, autmatic fire extinguishers, and other expensive things.

No matter what you say, it comes down to cost (right to and pleasure of drinking alchohol, cars that are affordable, raw dollars, time lost (global speed limit of 20mph, would save lives but cost you time), ect) verses probability of lost life. We just need some benchmarks to help judge the claims people make "it saves a life so lets do it".

[Partha]

Iif you are going to ever say one death is too many, you have already lost you cause.

If you are going to send soldiers to die, nebulous reasons are not the best ones. Certianly not false reasons either.

[Aabe]

Iif you are going to ever say one death is too many, you have already lost you cause.

If you are going to send soldiers to die, nebulous reasons are not the best ones. Certianly not false reasons either.

Agreed!!
WMD's inteligence (which was bad world wide), we were in clean up mode for terrorist support, so they call Sadam to one last time honor his surrender agreement, now more concerned with the bad inteligence that he might provide the fun packages.

So the invasion happened. But as with all events unseen costs and new opportunities. You can believe the actions there will stabalize or destabalize the area. Some feel it is the first time in many years the mideast has a chance to resolve many long festering problems. Others feel we are just throwing meat to a grinder with no effect.

We are there, I do see progress, to pull out now would be very costly to the Iraqis and in the end possibly us.

Not a fun senario, but I personally am an optimist, I see incredible posibilities and I see risks. I think at this time the potential gain is worth the cost to continue. More than a few Iraqis would agree with me and I am sure many Iraqis would not.

I can see your point of veiw. I just dont agree with your judgements enought to think it is a waste of lives and resources. Time will tell one of us correct. I personally hope time decides in my favor.