El Protoolio wrote:So please shut the fuck up already.

I've already said I'm not getting involved in long winded debates about politics here. And I haven't. But ya know, telling people to shut up usually has the reverse effect.

The data I posted is useful. It's useful even to you as you had the story wrong in your earlier post.

My comment about yearly totals versus daily and weekly ones being used to measure a 6 month trend was formal. It would be true whether the numbers measured deaths, network failures, or record sales.

And since you've asked me to shut up...

If you think political stability and justice in Iraq would be more possible with an immediate US pullout than our remaining as a stabilizing force, that's your right. Many, including even a significant segment of those who identify as being anti-war, would beg to differ.

And I'm not being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. I recognize that from your point of view that may be even worse.

galanter wrote:The data I posted is useful. It's useful even to you as you had the story wrong in your earlier post.

My comment about yearly totals versus daily and weekly ones being used to measure a 6 month trend was formal. It would be true whether the numbers measured deaths, network failures, or record sales.

Well, Galanter if stats are your thing how's about the one that says more than 1.2 million people have been murdered in Iraq since the invasion.

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_detai ... ?NewsId=78

And how many displaced?

Forget the stat on that but it's up in the millions.

let me repeat that -

MILLIONS

i am frankly staggered that there are still people who think it was a good idea to invade.
I used to be one of those 'well we're there now and if we leave it will get worse so maybe we should stay' types but have recently changed my mind. 'We' (by that I mean the Western powers generally) should get out, quickly.

You base your opinions on the assumption that we went in there to stabilize the place. The facts seem to contradict this but yet it is still peddled by war supporters.

As far as i can see stabilization was never the intention and I don't see why we should think it is now. Even if it was, the missions planning has been so horrifyingly incompetent that I fail to see why we should think 'we' are the best people to clean up the mess.

You supporting types have created a game where the past - even the past since the war began (with all its stats and rivers of blood) - is conveniently forgotten until it suits your purposes. It's a political trick which ignores so many facts it is honestly shocking in someone as intelligent as you Galanter.

More than a million people are dead Galanter. A MILLION HUMAN BEINGS IN FIVE YEARS. A number so high that for emphasis you can cross off the 200,000 on top of that million that have been violently murdered since 03.

Your also forgetting that one of the means of 'stabilising' the country is to hand power over to local militias - including those controlled by extremist Islamists - killing women for not covering their heads and that sort of thing.
Well done with the freeing of the people idea. Round of fucking applause for that one.

All 'our' troops are doing is prolonging (you could say 'slowly enabling') the inevitable. The only way to 'win' a war like this is to undertake a program of inhuman brutality. Seems a sad but true fact to me, as evidenced by - oh - all of human history - and as the majority of people - you'd hope - don't want that, we should stop bleeding the world dry (in economic and literal terms) and get the fuck out.

And now you even think an attack on Iran might be a good idea?
The immediate past already forgotten to try and justify it.
For what?
So once it's done it'll become politically impossible to take it back.

The people peddling these ideas Galanter are the people who helped create the Mujahadeen/Taliban/Al Qaida. They are the very same people who have spent their lives selling the most horrifying weapons ever known to despotic regimes. They helped Pakistan get a nuclear bomb for god's sake and as far as I can see, despite all this talk of Iran, it's that little foreign policy hiccup which is most likely to come home to roost.
You rest your faith in a system that has been beaten all out of shape by a few greedy inhuman monsters and just seem to consciously ignore the faces perverting things for their own ends.

It is insanity.
Total unashamed insanity.

Phil you must be interested in longwinded political discussion or else you would have ceased rebutting by now. You say you are not trying to be contrary yet you say to me

galanter wrote:...But ya know, telling people to shut up usually has the reverse effect...

which is of course suggesting that as long as people tell you to shut up you are going to just get louder and louder instead. What would motivate that response? A desire to be contrarian just for the sake of it.

So what you really mean to say is that since you can't defend the indefensible you will just fire a few shots here and there in the interest of having the last word and/or ruffling some feathers.

Your links are useless for me because I don't share the assumption that we should still be throwing people and money at the problem or that we should have gone in there in the first place. Our presence has upset the detente between Iraq and Iran and diminished our standing in the world and our military readiness. Bush's entire foreign policy strategy is not a strategy at all. Without a strategic plan or a strategic advantage there is no victory. Just a bottomless pit in which to toss more money and more lives.

The longer we stay the less of a strategic advantage we have anywhere else in the world. Years of crafeul statecraft and diplomatic leverage have been arrogantly swept away. Were we to embark on another ground war at this point we would have neither the troops nor the resources to fight it. We'd probably not even have many allies. That is a strategic disadvantage and possibly a fatal one.

Similar arguments against pulling out of Vietnam are being used to argue against pulling out of Iraq today. Yet today Vietnam is a stable nation and a trading partner of the United States. Those arguments assume that only US policy can solve the problems that US policy created. Since those arguments were bullshit then I think they are most likely bullshit now.

I am tired of middle aged men like you who have never served in the military or risked their lives for anything telling the rest of us why we must continue sending young men and women to be maimed and killed in a senseless and illegal war. So please, unless you are signing up for active combat duty in Iraq, kindly shut the fuck up already.

It's screeds like these, those that insult and misrepresent, that make reasonable political discussion on this board so impossible.

I say I'm not contrarian because to imply otherwise is to say I'm insincere. And there are few insults that bother me more than implying I'm saying something other than what I believe. You may disagree with me, but you should have the good grace to allow that my statements are in good faith. Call me terribly mistaken, but don't call me a liar.

FWIW the 1 million death count is a highly disputed figure...most do not quote a number nearly that high.

And referencing Saddam as a stabilizing influence in Iraq is no better than referencing Stalin or Hitler as a stabilizing influence. At some point the world has to say "enough!" and slay the dragon.

As for the current situation...and I have no problem calling it an occupation...a precipitous withdrawl risks far more lives than staying, and many if not most of those entirely against the war tend to agree. Most Democratic presidential candidates, for example, agree.

And yes, Vietnam is now a stable nation and trading partner. And millions died in the region when the US pulled out quickly. Far more than died during the actual war.

Is that what you want to see happen again, this time in Iraq? Of course not. But how will your plan prevent it?

Go ahead and take the last word if you want it.

galanter wrote:FWIW the 1 million death count is a highly disputed figure.

*sighs*

Of course it's a highly disputed figure. It doesn't look good on the CV so those knee deep in blood are bound to dispute it.

As far as I am aware the techniques used to arrive at the number are widely used to estimate death tolls in war zones around the world. If it is politically expedient to cite the numbers elsewhere (derived from using the same technique) then politicians are happy to do so.

It is considered a reliable method and - I'll add - that it is an underestimate.

galanter wrote:And referencing Saddam as a stabilizing influence in Iraq is no better than referencing Stalin or Hitler as a stabilizing influence. At some point the world has to say "enough!" and slay the dragon.

With this amount of killing I could reverse this right back at you.
If you do think our presence is a stabilising influence then why is it a better stabiliser than a Hitler, Stalin or Saddam - millions died under their watch too?
Answer - it isn't better.

And I notice you tactfully ignore the current policy of engaging with extremists, gangsters and militias in order to create the semblance of 'stability' there.
To labour your dragon metaphor (with all its horse shit Knights in Shining Armour connotations) this is like Slaying the Dragon then nurturing the Dragons offspring.
One day - soon enough - them Dragons are going to grow up.

galanter wrote:a precipitous withdrawl risks far more lives than staying, and many if not most of those entirely against the war tend to agree.

It risks it yes but it is by no means certain no matter how many people might think it.
Why don't we work on what's certain - that while we are there we are slowly bleeding the country to death. In fact make that 'countries'.

galanter wrote:And yes, Vietnam is now a stable nation and trading partner. And millions died in the region when the US pulled out quickly. Far more than died during the actual war.

Is that what you want to see happen again, this time in Iraq? Of course not. But how will your plan prevent it?

I presume 'the region' you are talking about was Cambodia - not Vietnam. A country America (illegally) bombed into the previous century creating the conditions that allowed the Khmer Rouge to thrive.

Nice one Knights in Shining Armour.

You say 'how will your plan prevent it?' and I say - 'how does the status quo prevent millions dying when - erm - millions are dying under the status quo?'

You - again - are coming to all your conclusions based upon the assumption (erroneous in the face of all evidence) that 'we' are some how a benevolent force for good bringing civilisation to the heathen. I imagine this is exactly what many citizens of Rome felt while their soldiers were wandering around massacring barbarians.

It is shockingly ignorant - at least those Ye Olde Romans had the excuse of an absence of a Mass Communications system as developed as ours.

galanter wrote:It's screeds like these, those that insult and misrepresent, that make reasonable political discussion on this board so impossible.

Boo fucking hoo. This is a rock an roll forum populated mostly by people who are against the war. We have heard from the warmongers. Their point of view has been expressed every day on every channel and in every paper for 6 years. Anti war voices have been marginalized and ridiculed for those same 6 years. So in my opinion, your opinion is to be marginalized and ridiculed here. You don't like it and you don't think I'm being civil enough? Don't respond to it. Or better yet, just fuck off with it entirely and take it to Red State or Little Green Footballs or Michelle Malkin's site where you can hear your opinons echoed back at you.

You sure have thin skin for someone who supports war and aggression.

galanter wrote:I say I'm not contrarian because to imply otherwise is to say I'm insincere. And there are few insults that bother me more than implying I'm saying something other than what I believe. You may disagree with me, but you should have the good grace to allow that my statements are in good faith. Call me terribly mistaken, but don't call me a liar.

Ok, sure, you believe what you say. Whatever. But then what you have to say on the subject is fucked and should be ignored and marginalized by sane and rational people.

galanter wrote:FWIW the 1 million death count is a highly disputed figure...most do not quote a number nearly that high.

Well I dispute your facts and figures that conclude the troop escalation is working. Your sources are suspect and it's too early to really see what kind of net gain the escalation has had.

galanter wrote:And referencing Saddam as a stabilizing influence in Iraq is no better than referencing Stalin or Hitler as a stabilizing influence. At some point the world has to say "enough!" and slay the dragon.

The world had already said "enough!" to Saddam and was marginalizing him through sanctions. Then George W. Bush decided to take him out all by himself. The world didn't do that, George did that, all by himself. Military action is not always to ones strategic advantage.

galanter wrote:As for the current situation...and I have no problem calling it an occupation...a precipitous withdrawl risks far more lives than staying, and many if not most of those entirely against the war tend to agree. Most Democratic presidential candidates, for example, agree.

I don't give two flying fucks what any Democrat has to say. They don't speak for me or represent my values. Their behavior and lack of action or principles is part of why we are in the mess we are in. Fuck them.

galanter wrote:And yes, Vietnam is now a stable nation and trading partner. And millions died in the region when the US pulled out quickly. Far more than died during the actual war.

Millions is a highly disputed figure...most do not quote a number nearly that high.

galanter wrote:Is that what you want to see happen again, this time in Iraq? Of course not. But how will your plan prevent it?

See what happen? See Shias and Sunnis killing each other? See the Iraqi government become splintered and ineffective? See American oil interests pressure the Iraqis into cutting them in on the revenue? See the Kurds commit terror inside Turkey? See Turkey move closer to Iran? See Iraqi's Shia majority move closer to Iran's Shia majority?

galanter wrote:Go ahead and take the last word if you want it.

I will. Nyah! Nyah!

Rick Reuben wrote:Just a minor point, related to our discussion of KO. If you simultaneously complain about what you are not getting and then say you don't want it when you get it,...

I get what I want, just not from television. You either misunderstand me or are misrepresenting what I said in that thread. Either way I won't go crying to a moderator about it.

Rick Reuben wrote: ...it looks a little weird.

You are the master of looking weird.

Rick Reuben wrote:I think you've added some great posts to this thread, EPT

Yes I have.

Rick Reuben wrote:

El Protoolio wrote: I want the war ended now.

It's not looking good, since Iraq is a sub-war of a new crusade, the War On Terror, which can never be proven to be ended.

They have invented the perfect open-ended war. It's bullet proof. Think about it.

All some war monger has to do to deflate any American politican's claim that victory has been achieved against terrorism is to ask two questions:

"Are you sure?"

"How do you know?"

How do you beat that argument?

They have declared war against an invisible enemy that plots in secrecy, not a war against a uniformed army. It is impossible to say that the terrorists are gone, because 'not seeing terrorists' and 'not being attacked by terrorists' can be instantly spun by the warmonger-controlled media two ways:

"You see, they're plotting something big!"

"You see, our strategy of invading foreign lands and rooting them out is a complete success! Now, where should we invade next?"

If the rhetoric doesn't keep America on a war footing, then all you need is one little bomb on home soil and the whole game resets to zero. New Game.

Starting the War on Terror absolutely mandates that you plan to run the table, until all the balls are in the pockets or someone takes the cuestick away from them. It is, transparently, the declaration of the march towards the Final Battle. I'm really surprised more people don't see this future, because it isn't hidden. All I can guess is that the reality of the War on Terror has terrorized people into not thinking.

Good thing I'm still around, putting things in their proper order.

I will tell you exactly when the War will be ended: When the people you have hired to fight this war have you completely in their grip- when you are all completely bagged, scanned, chipped and processed, then the Overlords will tell you that the War on Terror is over, and by doing so, they will reveal to you who the real enemy has been all along: you.

Hey Rick I completely agree with this and I was wondering what parallels you see between our current war and the battle France saw with terrorism in places like Algeria.

Rick Reuben wrote:

El Protoolio wrote:

You didn't understand the question. Why do you complain to Galanter about anti-war talk being marginalized and ridiculed, when you turn away from anti-war talk that appears on your television?

Because anti war talk has been marginalized for the last 6 years. Just because some commentators are expressing it now does not negate that fact. That marginalization contributed to the war policy becoming realized.

I also can watch or not watch whatever the fuck I want, just like you can. What about that can your authoritarian mind not grasp? There is no congnative dissonance here except for yours.

Rick Reuben wrote:Either accept the portion you get, or stop complaining that you don't get it when KO proves that it is on there if you want it.

I get my own portions elsewhere. What about this do you not understand? Why do I have to watch MSNBC?

Rick Reuben wrote:If you want to have a grudge against all television networks, then prove it- stop watching all television.

My actions and my decisions are not to be dictated by you nor do they need to be justified to you so fuck you. What about that do you not understand? Why do you constantly attempt to bully and push people into thinking and acting a certain way? We do not all think alike. We can't possibly all think alike. You are an authoritarian asshole.

Rick Reuben wrote:If you continue to complain about what the networks are not giving you, that means that you are still investing belief in the corporate media as a valuable force, and then, if you don't take what you say you want when it is given to you, that just makes you look tempermental and confused. To continue to complain about what TV is not giving you when KO is broadcasting exactly what you claim to want- factual dissent- is weird.

Whatever the fuck you want to say about it sounds great to me.

Rick Reuben wrote:If you could fix your cognitive dissonance, then you'd make some really great posts to this thread, EPT.

If you weren't such a crybaby bullying authoritarian asshole people might actually respect you. Fuck you pal.

What a dick.