# Ya Gots It Backward



## rmcrobertson (Sep 24, 2004)

I've read several comments lately to the effect that Iraq is no biggie, because there're at least as many deaths and injuries daily in America.

Well, claptrap. And here's why--from www.juancole.com 

A site whose a... democracy are just around the corner?

Hm.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 25, 2004)

That has to be one of the most sensationalistic pieces of creative thinking I've seen in a while.  I compare it to the fine work by Bester in the Ninjutsu forums on his "Atlantian Ninja" theory.

While it makes a few valid points, much of the rest is simply put, ridiculous.
The author should take a look at crime and death rates.  Maybe we don't have air force bombings, but some parts of US cities are practically abandoned by the cops.  Chicago, NYC, Washington, LA, Detroit are just a few that have 'no-go' zones.  Drivebys are common.

Warring factions?  You've obviously missed those stories about the "Crips" and "Bloods".  Better check your fashion sense, else you get shot for wearing the wrong 'colors' in the wrong part of town.  Hell, my last trip through Detroit I was informed that you better be sure the tank is full once you get off the one bridge.  It's not a 'safe zone' to be in.

I'm all for statistics, but any moron can manipulate them.  It takes a bit more intelligence to do a real apples to apples comparison.

That guy?  -NOT-


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 25, 2004)

Really. I seem to recollect that some of YOUR posts claimed that things couldn't be that bad, because if we compared the mortality and morbidity stats in Iran to those in this country, we'd need to accept paying the quite reasonable price. So if it's reasonable to compare the stats, why isn't it reasonable to compare the stats? After all, it's a "what if...," and you relied on precisely the same sort of logic.

You also seem to be leaving out that all of the things the good professor mentions are in fact true of Iraq...not to mention the stuff about, "no-go," zones in this country being either a) untrue (worked in Compton, California, dead center, nine years...and others...don't know what they told YOU, cobber, but c'mahn) or b) confirmation of my point. 

"That guy," incidentally, teaches history at the University of Michigan. Granted that such a position isn't an automatic guarantee of intelligence or even common sense, but he ain't a dummy, either. I agree with the basic premise, and sorry--I do indeed know what I'm talking about, though to be sure I am far from being always right.

And if that don't float yer boat, try this: perhaps you are quite right about the inner cities. Well, then, so it proves this: colonialism in Iraq, repression at home; now, as ever, flip sides of the same coin. 

Sorry again, but that's what your historical analyses consistently lack: a clear understanding of capitalism. For example, yes, North vs. South can be read as 
one version of slavery against another. But that's an old analysis--Marx's, in fact, which compares a feudal system's slavery to the rise of the modern wage-slavery that the North represented in "the War of the Rebellion."

The South wasn't fighting for liberty; they were fighting for the right to remain pre-capitalist and slave-owning. The North wasn't fighting for liberty: they were fighting for the right to become industrial capitalists. Personally, if those are the only choices, I'll take the modern....better dentistry. But there's something to be said for the Poul Anderson approach...especially if you're a white guy.


----------



## GAB (Sep 25, 2004)

Hi Robert,

I was wondering while reading this, if you asked your english students to write about the war effort, but then I reread it an realized it was not from your writing but it is from your view.

I have read both of the mentioned posit's. I have to say a lot of thought went into both of them. Both of you guy's are into heavy thinking regarding, what if.

I have always enjoyed reading your thoughts because of the ability you have to put words together. I also like to read Kaith's post's for the same reason. 

It will be interesting to see how this thread goes, one thing for sure it will be discussed with proper decorum, or else, someone will be on vacation for a few.

Regards, Gary


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 25, 2004)

No, I actually avoid such assignments...partly because I despise English-teacher, "relevance," ("Now class, when you listen to "Sounds of Silence," try to relate....") and partly because I can't see how most students can possibly cut through the Enormous Mountain of Mediatized ******** and actually write anything interesting of their own...

I just thought it was an interesting viewpoint, which I hadn't thought of.

Thanks, GAB.


----------



## bignick (Sep 25, 2004)

i think rmcroberston has valid points...i don't see much sensationalized there at all...if we directly apply what's going on in Iraq to the equivalent locations and people, you'll have what he posted...

what he forgot to add was the country that invaded us to destroy something we never had...and then it decided to ''liberate'' us...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 25, 2004)

Robert, I find it interesting that you revisit the 1860 discussions, considering you pretty much abandoned the field.  We can return there and continue that debate if you like.

There are parts of my own city (Buffalo) where people are afraid to go out at night due to drug gangs having over run neighborhoods.  Dealing from their porches, or an abandoned house next door, with the police unable to really dislodge them.

When one compares numbers, one must compare likes.  You yourself implied my numbers weren't applicable as I didn't have a "decapitated by fanatics" count for the US.  While that was true, I do have a homicide stat which it gets lumped into.

That article compares things in a sensationalistic way.  One cannot simply do a base multiplication.  One must also take into consideration other variables.

However, I'll play.  I'll go through that with my normal 'fine tooth comb'.  It may take me until Sunday however as it's late and I'll be tied up on Saturday.

Here is part 1:



> Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.



Violence killed 300 Iraqis.  This number most likely includes those who were engaged in violence against local police, Allied and Iraqi Soldiers.  It also would include regular crime (murders not part of the civil unrest).  On the average week in 2000, 322 Americans died domestically by violence.

I disagree with the 300=3,300 figure.
According to http://www.world-gazetteer.com The US Population is 293 million, compared to Iraqs 27 million.  That gives a ratio of 10.86:1 Therefore using the simplistic logic of your writer 300 Iraqis = 3,255 Americans.

I call it simplistic logic however because the writer is implying that these deaths are a result of this war.  During Sadamns reign, the Death Rate was listed at 5.84 deaths/1,000 population. (2003)  That = an annual death rate of 157,680 (aproximately) from -all- causes.

It is currently listed at 5.66/1000 (2004 est), which is a DECREASE.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

By comparison, the US death rate is 8.34 deaths/1,000 population (2004 est)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

This "Deaths Per Thousand" is an established standard on comparing such data, and is used by leading government agencies such as the CIA to 'compare and keep score".


(US Stats in this post http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=280816&postcount=47)

[qyuote]And what if those deaths occurred all over the country, including in the capital of Washington, DC, but mainly above the Mason Dixon line, in Boston, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco?[/quote]

Again, simplistic logic at work here, creating sensationalism.  While the "Deaths by Violence" he is writing about did occour 'all over the country', the great majority of them were in fact centralized withing a small geographical region.  I really don't have time right now to compare the geographical sizes of the 2 countries (info is at those CIA links above), but once one works out the percentages, one can easily compare the 'problem regions' size.  A better comparison might be if he had suggested say, DC, Virginia and South Carolina as the main location of the violence, with a few drive bys in Kansas every odd thursday.

I would be interested in his sources for the rest of the figures he cites.  As a Professor at a college, he must of course understand the importance of citing his sources.  Otherwise, one can pull numbers out of almost anywhere. But you as an educator know that.  You would not accept such shoddy research from your students. Show me the data. Otherwise, it's all sensationalist speculations without backing.

If I have time, I'll punch more holes in this drivel.  If not, I've put up the start for others to research it on their own.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 25, 2004)

The rest of the rebuttel:

====


> What if the grounds of the White House and the government buildings near the Mall were constantly taking mortar fire? What if almost nobody in the State Department at Foggy Bottom, the White House, or the Pentagon dared venture out of their buildings, and considered it dangerous to go over to Crystal City or Alexandria?


Sensationalism.  It fails to take into consideration other factors. How about if you lived in constant fear and hatred, and never knew if that next trip to the coffee shop would be your last as a suicide bomber detonates next to you?  Or if the police (armed with machine guns and paroling with safeties off) will mow you down because you were 'there'?

How is Iraq different from say, Beirut, Somalia, or any of a dozen other 'war zones'?



> What if all the reporters for all the major television and print media were trapped in five-star hotels in Washington, DC and New York, unable to move more than a few blocks safely, and dependent on stringers to know what was happening in Oklahoma City and St. Louis? What if the only time they ventured into the Midwest was if they could be embedded in Army or National Guard units?



Please, trap me in a 5 Star hotel. How is Iraq different from say, Beirut, Somalia, or any of a dozen other 'war zones'?



> There are estimated to be some 25,000 guerrillas in Iraq engaged in concerted acts of violence. What if there were private armies totalling 275,000 men, armed with machine guns, assault rifles (legal again!), rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar launchers, hiding out in dangerous urban areas of cities all over the country? What if they completely controlled Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Denver and Omaha, such that local police and Federal troops could not go into those cities?


Again, his numbers don't add up. I've seen the estimates range from 1,000 to 50,000 armed 'fighters' in Iraq. Without citing the source, it is hard to take him as credible.  In addition, he acts as if the Assault Ban expiration was a big deal. That has already been proven to be little more than a useless 'feel good' piece of legislation.



> What if, during the past year, the Secretary of State (Aqilah Hashemi), the President (Izzedine Salim), and the Attorney General (Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim) had all been assassinated?


What if the Iraqis rigged an election, held massive recounts and eventually had the issue decided by their courts, ignoring the true will of the people? Lets look at the situation is Russia, shall we? Your writer left out all the other governors, generals, etc. also being assassinated. Maybe they need to improve their own security? 



> What if all the cities in the US were wracked by a crime wave, with thousands of murders, kidnappings, burglaries, and carjackings in every major city every year?


 While we don't have a huge amount of RPGs on the street of Washington, we do have, Detroit. We also have St. Louis, MO; Atlanta, GA; Camden, NJ and Washington, DC, all of which have the dubious honor of being the highest crime cities in the US.  Yes, our own nations capital is in the top 5 most dangerous places in the US to live, despite being on a 'war' footing security wise.

Wait, our crime rate is at a "30 year low". It's still high. 
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/12/crime.rate.ap/
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

"The 2003 violent crime rate -- assault, sexual assault and armed robbery -- stood at 22.6 victims for every 1,000 people age 12 and older. That amounts to about one violent crime victim for every 44 U.S. residents." 1 out of 44 huh? I don't know if I like those odds.
With over 1 Million Motor Vehicle thefts, that puts our odds of having our car stolen at 1:290. I wish the lottery was that good.
5.4 Million violent crimes.  Odds are 1:54 you will be a victim of a violent crime.

Now, to truly get the facts, you must adjust those odds based on local crime rates.  I think you have a much lower chance of being carjacked in Amish country for example, than if you were to drive through Detroits high-crime zones.



> What if the Air Force routinely (I mean daily or weekly) bombed Billings, Montana, Flint, Michigan, Watts in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Anacostia in Washington, DC, and other urban areas, attempting to target "safe houses" of "criminal gangs", but inevitably killing a lot of children and little old ladies?


What if they just let the criminals and drug gangs control those areas and act with impunity? Again, sensationalism.



> What if, from time to time, the US Army besieged Virginia Beach, killing hundreds of armed members of the Christian Soldiers? What if entire platoons of the Christian Soldiers militia holed up in Arlington National Cemetery, and were bombarded by US Air Force warplanes daily, destroying thousands of graves and even pulverizing the Vietnam Memorial over on the Mall? What if the National Council of Churches had to call for a popular march of thousands of believers to converge on the National Cathedral to stop the US Army from demolishing it to get at a rogue band of the Timothy McVeigh Memorial Brigades?



This is pure sensationalism. If those involved in an armed uprising choose to use sacred spaces and national treasures to try to shield themselves from retaliation, the time will come when a commander must decide if preserving the past is worth sacrificing the future. Those who do use such places in such way do not truly honor them, but defile them.

I do not recall reading much about people crying about the thousands of irreplaceable treasures lost during WW2.  I haven't found a mention of "Please, spare the fountains!" when whole cities were being leveled.  Those in Iraq who are violating those sacred spaces are doing so in order to say 'See, they defile us", while conveniently ignoring the fact that they themselves are already in major violation of their own culture, laws and beliefs.



> What if there were virtually no commercial air traffic in the country? What if many roads were highly dangerous, especially Interstate 95 from Richmond to Washington, DC, and I-95 and I-91 up to Boston? If you got on I-95 anywhere along that over 500-mile stretch, you would risk being carjacked, kidnapped, or having your car sprayed with machine gun fire.



Lets see....
Ohio Sniper on I90
Shootings of tourists in Florida
etc.

It has happened here, abet on a smaller scale.



> What if no one had electricity for much more than 10 hours a day, and often less? What if it went off at unpredictable times, causing factories to grind to a halt and air conditioning to fail in the middle of the summer in Houston and Miami? What if the Alaska pipeline were bombed and disabled at least monthly? What if unemployment hovered around 40%?



Florida.  State of emergency due to 3 (soon to be 4) hurricanes smashing through the region.
Unemployment in certain sections of the country is much higher than the national average.
What were the unemployment figures under the previous regime?  
70% sounds outrageous, 40% terrible, but if we are going to imply that it is a result of this war, let us compare to pre-war figures.

One source (ABC News) reports that the pre-war rate was 60%.  So unemployment is falling.  But what of pay?
"The coalition has transformed the employment and income picture across the country. Oil workers in the north who earned 100,000 dinars (nearly $60) a month, now pull in 360,000 (more than $210). Workers at the Najaf Water Treatment Plant have seen a weekly pay spike from roughly $4 to $120."

Looks like it's getting better to me.



> What if veterans of militia actions at Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma City bombing were brought in to run the government on the theory that you need a tough guy in these times of crisis?


Again, sensationalism.  Where are the facts to back up this fictitious comparison?



> What if municipal elections were cancelled and cliques close to the new "president" quietly installed in the statehouses as "governors?" What if several of these governors (especially of Montana and Wyoming) were assassinated soon after taking office or resigned when their children were taken hostage by guerrillas?


- Bush administration examined how to postpone the election.
- Ross Perot dropped out of the 92(?) election after receiving threats against his family. 
- Patronage jobs are a 'way of life'
- 2000 Election debacle.



> What if the leader of the European Union maintained that the citizens of the United States are, under these conditions, refuting pessimism and that freedom and democracy are just around the corner?


"There are no American Soldiers in Iraq. We are winning." - Iraqi Information Minister as US tanks rolled a few blocks away through Baghdad. Anyone can create fictions. Lets back them up with facts, because this piece of sensationalistic drivel certainly didn't.

Robert, if you are going to debate things, please back them up with verifiable (or at least checkable) facts. Not this trash that uses scare tactics and an uninformed opinion as such. In a previous thread, you stated the Iraqs oil production was all but nonexistant. I disproved you by pointing out oil production was at 100% in the north. In another thread you yourself insisted that the US civil war was 'all about slavery', but I used Lincolns own words and historical -fact- to successfully rebutt your uninformed opinion. 

I don't mind a debate, and I most certainly do not mind being wrong. So far however, you too often bring little more to the table than popular misconceptions and opinions. Please, if you are going to engage in public debate, cite some verifiable sources. It's been a requirement for school papers in my part of the country for over 30 years.


----------



## GAB (Sep 25, 2004)

Hi All,

This discussion brings back many memories when crime was at a very much higher rate, back in the 60's and 70's.

If you want a little realisim on a similar scale go to our nearest neighbor on the southern border.

I visited the country for 30 days, (1987) I really enjoyed the time and the customs, but for my wife it was a pure terror state of mind. 

On every street corner, in every large city or small town. Federalies with automatic H&Ks and H&Ks side arms, (at that time LAPD had 38 revolvers, and were just coming into the simiauto 9mms) SWAT with the heavier weaponry from the early 70's. 

These Federalies were around 18 years of age, my wife keeps saying, "they are looking at us". (we were the only USA persons within miles and some of the towns we were in, had not seen but a couple of USA persons, to far off the beaten path.) 

Constantly getting shaken down for the "bite". Begging was rampent. I carried a lot of coins and gave many coins to them. 

At that time the Peso was 2700 to $1.00. Hard to believe now, but it was at that time I had read that the Peso was in for a change. So we took advantage of the exchange rate. I would do it many times over, but the wife would not.

We have been helping the Mexicans for years, I am not sure if it is better in the heart of Mexico, but I would think so, just because of the money that goes there each year from the people who live & work in the USA, and send money home..

This war is bad, yes, but the type of living conditions these people in Iraq have, we cannot conceive unless you have been in similar countries.
There are many of the people who have come to America from Iraq who have relative's still living there. 
Most of the ones who are fortunate enough to have gotten out are looking forward to going back when they will be able to enjoy a small amount of the freedom we take for granted. 

When in the early years of the American Revolution, It was give me liberty or give me death, etc. etc.

I for one am following this election, very closely, we will see how the popular vote will go.
If it was like the last and the outcome the same, I can see more problems in America by our own citizenry. 

If it had happened with the left, winning the same way as the right did, we would already be in a more of a in-house type of terrorism, along with the on going criminal activity we see so prevelent in the major cities. IMO.

Regards, Gary


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 25, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> How is Iraq different from say, Beirut, Somalia, or any of a dozen other 'war zones'?



Here's a quick answer: Beirut and Somalia didn't become war zones because of an illegal US occupation.



			
				Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Please, trap me in a 5 Star hotel.



So it's a good thing that Baghdad is so dangerous that people can't move around?

I've actually lived in Camden.  There were very dangerous places there.  I wasn't comfortable walking around at night in many areas.  I could drive anywhere in the city, any time of day or night, without being machine-gunned in my car or carjacked.



			
				Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> It has happened here, abet on a smaller scale.



A *dramatically* smaller scale.  An *incomparably* smaller scale.

>Looks like it's getting better to me.

For some, certainly.  I guess I'd be more comfortable with the whole country having basic water, sewer, and electrical services first.  But that's just crazy me.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 25, 2004)

So, you are saying that if the US had not invaded that these deaths and other problems wouldn't have happened? 

Hard to fix the plumbing when the tenants are shooting at ya.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 25, 2004)

Oh, pish and tosh. This from the avatar of alternative history? The "South wasn't so bad," guy? The "Well, we have just as many people killed proportionately," guy? The, "Will you all please just stay on topic," guy?

It's a hypothetical, dude. It asks what would happen if this country were suffering what Iraquis suffer. It's meant to counter all the breezy cheery government nonsense we're getting. 

Incidentally, if you'll actually read my posts, you'll perhaps note that at no time did I argue that the Civil war was simply about slavery--but it looks as though this particular argument has so pissed you off that you've abandoned your frequent common sense. 

You're bugged because I don't agree with your view of the Civil War, and a lot of what you have to say about our history. I think it's wrong. So, just deal with it...nice tactic to accuse of sensationalism, I suppose, but doesn't help much when the whole point of the comparasion is to be sensationalist.

Hey, do school essays really require facts and support now? I'll be damned; 'tis meet I write that down.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 25, 2004)

Yes Robert, it is hypothetical, based on false numbers and inaccurate conclusions, as well as uninformed ignorant opinion.

I read your posts and found them to be little more than popularist drivel based on the 'common belief' rather than historical fact. 

I could care less if we agree. It is your ignorant viewpoint based on misinformation, and an inability to stick to a topic without tangenting into areas that have little to nothing to do with the base idea that 'bugs' me. I had expected more from someone with your credentials. 

Back to the topic, you have not refuted my points. Can you do so? Can you back up your writers article with facts? Can he? Personally, I doubt it.

I expect more personal shots, as well as even more fantasy-land tripe. That or you will yet again flee the field of debate, unable to substantiate your commentary with verifiable facts.

Prove me wrong Robert, on -any- of those threads. I will welcome it.
But please, cite your sources. I'd hate to have to give you an "F".


"Have a Nice Day" - Mick Foley


----------



## GAB (Sep 25, 2004)

Hi all,

I guess I was wrong with the word decorum.  

I was involved with a discussion when I first came on the board, accused of sarcastic behavior, warned and then suspended for one week. I was a newly arrived white belt and felt at the time it was wrong (the suspension).
I am not saying someone should get spanked but I am saying, is we need a moderator to step in and say something.

Who will it be? What rules are we going by? Are they the ones for the goose or the gander? :idunno: 

Just an observation. :asian: 

Regards, Gary


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 25, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> So, you are saying that if the US had not invaded that these deaths and other problems wouldn't have happened?



Yes, I am.  Insurgents were not engaged in street warfare before the US invaded.  The country's basic infrastructure was not destroyed before the US invaded.



			
				Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Hard to fix the plumbing when the tenants are shooting at ya.



Sure is.  It's also unnecessary until you've destroyed the plumbing and pissed off the tenants


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 25, 2004)

Ah, speaking of facts and figures:

More Iraqis have died since April 9, 2004 than were killed in the September 11 attacks.  Most of those Iraqis were civilians.  More Iraqi civilians were killed by the United States than by insurgents.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/9755859.htm

Supposedly we learned lessons from Vietnam; winning the hearts and minds and effectively combatting insurgency were not among these lessons, it would seem.

The figures quoted in this article, BTW, are from Iraq's Health Ministry.


----------



## Marginal (Sep 25, 2004)

On the topic of Iraq death rates being "overhyped", I'm kind of curious how that particular brand of number crunching Kaith employed breaks down when comparing US fatality rates with the death rates in Iraq while Saddam was fully in power. 

Somehow I think tub deaths are still going to win. Does that imply that Saddam wasn't really that bad of a guy?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 25, 2004)

While it is tempting to respond to Kaith's considerable bad manners (which are rather peculiar), I'd like to try and get the thread back on track.

Let's assume that Professor Cole's (he teaches history at the U. of Michigan) hypothetical came true. Well, I'd be over the mountain and the hell outta here--but what would the country be like?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 25, 2004)

So Robert, you can't dispute my facts so you resort to that comment?  My facts are there, and so is your 'what if'.  I proved my points, and you can't back yours up, again. Ok....whatever.


To answer your question.....provide more data to base the hypothesis on.

Comparing the Iraq situation to the US...is hard.
In Iraq, you have many different factions:
- Religious groups: Sunni, Shia, Kurds, Christians.
- Criminals: political and 'regular' law breakers
- Insurgents: Bath party, religious fanatics, foreign terrorists, Saddam's supporters
- Coalition troops
- Iraqi civilians

_What would the factions be in this hypothetical US?_

The infrastructure in Iraq was in extreme disrepair after 10 years of embargo and internal corruption.  A great deal of it was non functional, and obsolete.  Communications networks as well as some services were damaged or destroyed by the war.

_What is the scope of damages to the US infrastructure?_
Remember, the US internals are of a different configuration than Iraq's.  It's power grid for example, while overloaded and obsolete does have safeguards and redundancies that Iraq didn't.


Iraq is currently surrounded by hostile regimes. These countries are allowing a great deal of foreign fighters to cross their borders in the hopes of disrupting the country further. 
_To what extent do you or your source see Canada and Mexico serving as a conduit for foreign fighters?_


The majority of the unrest in Iraq is centralized in the regions of Baghdad and Tikrit, both strongholds of Saddam. This area also contains a great deal of open desert, as well as smaller towns.

_What region of the US would be most representative of the same geographical and political organization?_

Would it be safe to say "Texas and Oklahoma"?

_What are the aproximate distribution of 'enemy' forces, and what is the current strength and ROE for 'friendly' troops?_



If we are going to discuss 'theory', let's get all the data out there.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 25, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Yes, I am. Insurgents were not engaged in street warfare before the US invaded. The country's basic infrastructure was not destroyed before the US invaded.


You are correct.  They were not. However, how many Iraqis would have died at the hands of Saddams own thugs?

The countries oil processing systems were in great disrepair, as were the water, sewage, and electric systems.  Much of this disrepair was caused by the first Gulf War, and a decade long embargo on much needed parts and technologies.



> Sure is. It's also unnecessary until you've destroyed the plumbing and pissed off the tenants


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 25, 2004)

Kaith, of course if you compare the numbers, the life of a US citizen is currently a helluva lot better than the life of an Iraqui citizen.  But the point of the hypothetical isn't to ask whether the same scenario could happen here, it was to counter the claim that things are vastly improving, or just plain good to go, in Iraq for its citizens.  Yes, the probability of that occuring in the US is low, yes it's an abstract speculation.  The hypo was meant to point out the importance of such conditions, not the reality of it.  

Anyway, that's it for me.  You guys continue with your, um, exchange.  *grabs a new bag of spectator's popcorn*


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 25, 2004)

Rp, I understand that, but the original posting is flawed, which is why I protested.

Playing RRs game here is why I asked my last round of questions.  It is not enough to say 'its all aflame', one must lay out the players and their dispositions.  This -can- be a fruitful exercize, if outlined and detailed correctly.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 25, 2004)

Gosh, Lando, what'd I do? Identify a usually-reasonable writer's diatribe as symptomatic?

"Yes Robert, it is hypothetical, based on false numbers and inaccurate conclusions, as well as uninformed ignorant opinion.

I read your posts and found them to be little more than popularist drivel based on the 'common belief' rather than historical fact. 

I could care less if we agree. It is your ignorant viewpoint based on misinformation, and an inability to stick to a topic without tangenting into areas that have little to nothing to do with the base idea that 'bugs' me. I had expected more from someone with your credentials."

Well, at least you didn't write, "disinformation."

It isn't your job--or mine--to change minds, or reform an errant soul. It's more like badminton--or if you prefer, to go after false ideology.

So, here's my view of the false ideology around which this particular discourse circulates. Your arguments ground themselves upon what seems to be hypotheticials; in fact, when examined, they reveal a certain nostalgia. One shared by Molinari himself: ah for the Days of Empire! ah for the Days of Greatness! ah for chivalry!

Embedded in that discourse (note the absence of personal pronouns? the signifier always exceeds the control of the subject) remains: a) them pointy-head intellectuals; b) the foreclosure of real historical analysis; c) a certain, over-determined, science-fictional approach to understanding the consequence of our present decisions.

I sympathize. (Here are them pronouns.) More than that, I share the blindness. Why "blindness?" Well, I'm thinking of Freud and Paul DeMan (hey! right-wingers!! you really want to tap into a leftist nightmare? Do a search on Paul De Man!!! Read Derrida's responses to the right-wing attacks!!!...no, I didn't think you'd actually want to learn anything. Figures.): it's blindness and insight. 

It isn't like you not to acknowledge that turnabout is fair play....especially since, "coherence in contradiction expresses the force of a desire."

The post I cited precisely laid out its players and their dispositions. You simply didn't like the game, preferring Battleship to Parcheesi.

So again I ask: what would our country be like, if we simply multiplied by eleven?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 25, 2004)

ok, I'll bite.

If we simply multiply by eleven, and ignore all conflicting or 'fantasy' date the answer is simple.

One hell of a huge mess, with a lotta dead folks, and absolute anarchy.
On the other hand, a crapload of mcdojo mcbozos will finally get to see if they are really any good.  (probable result, bodybag stocks soar.)

:asian:


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 26, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> So, here's my view of the false ideology around which this particular discourse circulates. Your arguments ground themselves upon what seems to be hypotheticials; in fact, when examined, they reveal a certain nostalgia. One shared by Molinari himself: ah for the Days of Empire! ah for the Days of Greatness! ah for chivalry!
> 
> Embedded in that discourse (note the absence of personal pronouns? the signifier always exceeds the control of the subject) remains: a) them pointy-head intellectuals; b) the foreclosure of real historical analysis; c) a certain, over-determined, science-fictional approach to understanding the consequence of our present decisions.


So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying here that Kaith's disagreement with you is based on a subconscious desire to justify a nostalgia for Empire?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 26, 2004)

I wouldn't say subconscious, I'd try "a good reflection of general ideology." And, I'd note that a lot of my own love for science fiction derives from the same sources.

But otherwise, yep.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 26, 2004)

So, some of the Bah-Humbug boys are at it again. Gee, I missed you guys when I went offline. (BTW, that was directly due to the lack of sane and incisive discussion in this section and I was fed up with the Bible thumpers and flag wavers.)

When you two are civil to one another it's a great match. Go for it. 

Hey Random, pass the popcorn! KT


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 26, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say subconscious, I'd try "a good reflection of general ideology." And, I'd note that a lot of my own love for science fiction derives from the same sources.
> 
> But otherwise, yep.


Wow, what a convenient position.  If anyone disagrees with you, you can just say they're being brainwashed and controlled by ideology.  That way, no matter what they argue, you can just disregard it.  Slightly more sophisticated version of "they've been corrupted by the Devil".  Truly marvelous.  

*Passes the popcorn to KT* Care for a drink?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 26, 2004)

Please read my platform in the Kaith 2004 subforum.
If that says I support "Empire Building", I've definately mis-worded something.
My position is that the US needs to stop being the "Worlds Policeman" and return to some of the ideals of the founding fathers.


Sidebar - I know not who this "Lando Molinari" might be, though I did a search on the last name and found many notables shared it, most notably Gustave de Molinari, a noted 19th century economist and social theorist , also originator of the theory of 
Market Anarchism. I'm however not familiar with his works.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 26, 2004)

Yah, it's "Molari," shall we discuss the "Signorelli episode," from Freud's "Psychopathology of Everyday Life," now, or wit till later?

"Empire Building," is just a rough cut of the ideological formation. As for the notion that I am pretending complete innocence in respect to the benighted, please read what I actually wrote--which included a note that I shared some of the same ideological formation.

Three slaps with a copy of Louis Althusser's "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses." 

Hey! Rightist defenders of America! Ya wants to get all down with the Louis Althusser thing, given a) his association with Stalininst theory--see E.P. Thompson on the matter; b) his having cracked up. I mean, if you're going to dump on left-wing intellectuals, will ya PLEASE take advantage of the ripe opportunities for horrified critique and general hilarity we provide?

But seriously, folks, if you're going to express a nostalgia for the Good Old South and Its Knightly Heroes, you might as well brace for an occasional remark about non-synchronism in relation to dialectics--AKA hanging on to illusions of the past in advanced capitalism, in this case...

The original point of the thread, lest we forget, was to stand on its head the notion that Everything Is Going OK in Iraq, because they suffered nothing worse than happens in all American cities...

Spinach, says I.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 26, 2004)

I'd ask, but I know better...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 26, 2004)

It's a wish for what could have been, not what was. IN any event, I think you have misrepresented my points, be it intentional or not.  In any event, it is moot as no one else seems to want to discuss fantasy land and extremist 'what ifs'.  

Pity.  I was so looking forward to discussing the progress of the Elite Canadian Kilted Yaksmen Division as they blitzkrieg through Buffalo again.  I even got out my Zamboni battle manual to help things along.

Now, if ya need me, I'll be at the Ballet trying to get intoxicated enough to actually take your writer serious....is there that much beer in Canada?  I wonder.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 26, 2004)

This from the guy who wrote recently, in a thread titled, "Hmm...What if? Very Scary:"

"Alternative WWII ideas:

- Germany finishes off England before turning on Russia. Europe dominated by Nazis, no place to land attack force.
- Japan attacks Russia, not US
- Normandy Landings a failure, allies driven into sea
- Italy succeeds in conquering northern Africa.
- US Isolation keeps it neutral until too late (Germany gets the bomb first)
- Czar was never toppled, Russian Empire plays crucial role.

and, my favorite:
Aliens invade in 1943 causing a 3 way dance as invaders fight both axis and allies, who fight each other.  (Book series by Harry Turtledove)"


And who is, as well, presently carrying on a "What-if I ran for President," thread.

I guess it's all a matter of whether or not we approve of the other guy's point that determines whether or not we get to whip out the hypotheticals, eh? 

Pity. I was so looking forward to discussing what would happen if the knightly Robert E. Lee, the courageous George Armstrong Custer, and the brilliant if eccentric Adolf Hitler were to take on the aliens from, "The High Crusade," and/or "Footfall."

The point of the hypothetical I cited was that if what's going on in Iraq were taking place in this country, we'd believe (to quote Heinlein) that we were in "The Last Days of the Sweet Land of Liberty." So, we might want to be a little cautious about Bushian optimism.

So...what's the point of the other, stamped-as-legitimate, hypotheticals?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 26, 2004)

Alternative WW2 ideas were a reply to a question. I was stating what others had already hypothesized.

Thank you for finally getting to your point on why you suggested this thread.  The initial question is not what I questioned.  I questioned his 'what ifs.  That is why I asked for more information.  I can debate "What if the South won?" because there is an extensive body of work on the subject, which includes the Southern Confederacy's own plans for the future.  I can debate "Would it have made a difference if Gettysburg had been a Southern victory?" because, again, there is extensive information to base it on.  I can debate "What if the US hadn't invaded Iraq?" because there is extensive data on the conditions upto the invasion that we can use to extrapolate possibilities.

Your writer however just says "What If the US was in flames?".

I ask you "What if Iraq had invaded the US?"
What if Mexico, Cuba and Canada all allowed themselves to be a conduit for fanatics to flow into the country further destabilizing it?
What if white supremacists took the opportunity to declare themselves independent?

The difference, and what -I- am looking for to examine such things is more data to build on.  Asking "What if?" allows a great deal of lattitude for thought.  Asking "What if the Martians invade?" is all well and good.  But where?  Defensive tactics are going to be much different depending on if they land in the US midwest, or the North Pole.
More data, and then we can look at the 'what ifs'.

As to my little experiment...its simple.
I'm curious.  Come play Robert. It'll be, interesting.
I'm 34 now. You have to be 35 to run for President.
I'll be 38 in 2008.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 26, 2004)

Well, if you find debating what happens if the Martians invade--providing, of course, one provides exact specifications for where they land, blueprints of the heat-rays employed, and no doubt a pre-game roll of the die to assign charisma points--more significant and intellectually rigorous, what can I possibly say?

As I mentioned, I demand an account of your campaign finances. I also demand full disclosure of your position on Quebec. 

But anything further on how decapitations in Iraq are--if memory serves--"no big deal?"


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 26, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, if you find debating what happens if the Martians invade--providing, of course, one provides exact specifications for where they land, blueprints of the heat-rays employed, and no doubt a pre-game roll of the die to assign charisma points--more significant and intellectually rigorous, what can I possibly say?


Actually, since superior technology has always been the whole alien schtick, I think Wisdom and Intelligence would be the abilities to concentrate on more than Charisma. 

While we're on the subject of pointless debates and all, I figured I'd contribute what I could.....

:boing2:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 26, 2004)

Quebec is free to leave Canada.  My position is, they can join France.
Odds of decapitation in Iraq (if 1 per day, only target is non-military foriegner, 30,000 population to select from) : 1.21% chance (1:82)
Chance of dying in a terrorist attack while visiting a foreign country: 1 in 650,000
Chance of dying from heart disease: 1 in 3
Dying by sharp object : 1:1,874
Dying by firearm : 1:325
Dying by other means (violent) : 1:880

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm


Odds from http://www.funny2.com/odds.htm and


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 26, 2004)

It is pretty pointless isn't it?  I do wish Robert would present that background data and stop tangenting into the other while interesting, but in the scope of things meaningless sidelines, but, it seems that's normal for him.

He can't debate me on facts, so he tries misdirection, some obscure references and some personal sniping about my hair. It's a moot point, but I sometimes wonder if I were to take a poll on who wins these little exchanged who the score would fall.

Robert cited a source. My question here is, what makes this particular source qualified to make not the question (for it is a valid question) but the conclusions that he did make.  We know he is a "History professor", but that's no big deal. Being a college professor doesn't mean much.  In fact, it has been my experience (based on my time at 3 different colleges) that it means they are even more 'out of touch' than us civilians.  I'd like to know his credentials and most importantly, how much time he spends outside his 'ivory tower' to make his conclusions.  I mean, what was the saying? "Those that can, do.  Those that cant', teach?"

:asian:


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 27, 2004)

Most of the college professors I've dealt with (which, admittedly, has consisted of one small undergraduate school and a law school currently) have been pretty damned smart, and have actually inspired further analysis on some of my former assumptions.  However, what gets to me is the idea that "I'm a professor, so I am automatically right, or at least more right than you".  I have seen plenty a professor during undergrad get it completely wrong.  Credentials are important, but they don't make a person infallible.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 27, 2004)

This report as of yesterday:


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=reutersEdge&storyID=6333795



> Iraq Now World's Most Hostile Environment-Analyst
> Sun Sep 26, 2004 09:27 AM ET
> By Andrew Hammond
> 
> ...


The article continues at the linked page.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 27, 2004)

Kaith said:  

"What if Mexico, Cuba and Canada all allowed themselves to be a conduit for fanatics to flow into the country further destabilizing it?

What if white supremacists took the opportunity to declare themselves independent?"

And this isn't happening?

[Snide remarks about your hair _from others_ notwithstanding:  Canada has ballet?

Robertson is a _History_ prof?  Not English Lit?  *Gee whiz* I'm so confused...:xtrmshock :erg: ]


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 27, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> "What if Mexico, Cuba and Canada all allowed themselves to be a conduit for fanatics to flow into the country further destabilizing it?" ......<snip>......
> And this isn't happening?


Canada is not "allowing" itself to be a conduit for fanatics flowing into the country.  "Allowing" implies specific intent to support the fanatical influx, and this is not the case.  Our government here is working on solutions to tightened border security, however, we tend to be significantly less willing to restrict the freedoms of Canadians granted by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms than the US executive to overlook its Constitution.  That doesn't equate to passive assistance of terrorism.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 27, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Canada is not "allowing" itself to be a conduit for fanatics flowing into the country. "Allowing" implies specific intent to support the fanatical influx, and this is not the case. Our government here is working on solutions to tightened border security, however, we tend to be significantly less willing to restrict the freedoms of Canadians granted by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms than the US executive to overlook its Constitution. That doesn't equate to passive assistance of terrorism.


artyon: 


And I appreciate it.

Michael


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 27, 2004)

The writer of the article Robert used is a history prof. in Mich.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 27, 2004)

1. I stipulated as to your facts about Iraq, on this particular thread, Mr. Rustaz, so I'm not sure what the kvetch is in this case. It appears to be a problem with anybody else generating a hypothetical to illustrate a point.

2. No, being a college professor does not make you jesus, or anything remotely resembling a god. Gee. 

3. Here are Professor Cole's credentials, which he posts on his website--something that good academics routinely do, and something that a lot of martial artists and conservative whack jobs might learn from.

Professor Juan R. I. Cole
Professor of History
1029 Tisch Hall
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1003
Voice: (734) 764-6305, 763-1599
FAX (734) 747-4811
Internet: 

Juan R. I. Cole is Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History at the History Department of the University of Michigan. A bibliography of his writings may be found here. He has written extensively about modern Islamic movements in Egypt, the Persian Gulf, and South Asia. He has given numerous media and press interviews on the War on Terrorism since September 11, 2001, as well as concerning the Iraq War in 2003. His current research focuses on two contemporary phenomena: 1) Shiite Islam in Iraq and Iran and 2) the "jihadi" or "sacred-war" strain of Muslim radicalism, including al-Qaeda and the Taliban among other groups. Cole commands Arabic, Persian and Urdu and reads some Turkish, knows both Middle Eastern and South Asian Islam, and lived in a number of places in the Muslim world for extended periods of time. His most recent book is "Sacred Space and Holy War" (IB Tauris 2002). This volume collects some of his work on the history of the Shiite branch of Islam in modern Iraq, "Iran and the Gulf." He treated Shi`ism in his co-edited book, "Shi`ism and Social Protest" (Yale, 1986), of his first monograph, Roots of "North Indian Shi`ism in Iran and Iraq" (California, 1989). His interest in Iranian religion is further evident in his work on Baha'i studies, which eventuated in his 1998 book, "Modernity and the Millennium: The Genesis of the Baha'i Faith in the Nineteenth Century Middle East" (Columbia University Press). He has also written a good deal about modern Egypt, including a book, "Colonialism and Revolution in the Middle East: Social and Cultural Origins of Egypt's `Urabi Movement" (Princeton, 1993). His concern with comparative history and Islamics is evident in his edited "Comparing Muslim Societies" (Michigan, 1992). 

Professional History

*	1975 B.A. History and Literature of Religions, Northwestern University
*	1978 M.A. Arabic Studies/History, American University in Cairo
*	1984 Ph.D. Islamic Studies, University of California Los Angeles
*	1984-1990 Assistant Professor of History, University of Michigan
*	1990-1995 Associate Professor of History, University of Michigan
*	1992-1995 Director, Center for Middle Eastern and North African Studies, University of Michigan
*	1995- Professor of History, University of Michigan


Scholastic Awards and Grants ; Hudson Research Professorship, Winter, 2003 ; Award for Research in Turkey, May, 1999, International Institute, U-M ; Research Excellence Award, College of LSA, U-M, August, 1997 ; OVPR and LSA Faculty Assistance Fund Grants, June, 1995 ; LSA Faculty Assistance Fund Grant, March 1994 ; Rackham Research Partnership, 1992-93 ; National Endowment for the Humanities, Jan.-June, 1991 ; Office of the Vice-President for Research, U-M (Pakistan), Summer 1990 ; Horace H. Rackham Faculty Grant, Egypt, Summer 1988 ; SSRC/ACLS Post-Doctoral Award, England, Summer 1986 ; Fulbright-Hays Islamic Civilization Postdoctoral Award, Egypt, 1985-86 ; SSRC/ACLS Doctoral Fellowship, Pakistan, India, UK, 1981-83 ; Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Fellowship, India, 1982


At the University of Michigan, I teach courses on the modern history of the Middle East and on South Asia. I regularly teach a survey, History 443 Modern Middle East History. I also offer with fair regularity an upper-level class, History 542 Modern Iran and the Gulf States. Among my favorite courses, which I do not get to teach as often, is History 456 Mughal India. For graduate students I offer History 664 Studies on the Modern Middle East, History 749 Seminar on the Modern Middle East, and History 793 The Study of the Near East, and have co-taught History 615 Comparative World History. In fall, 1998, I offered for the first time History 334, "War and Society in the Modern Middle East."

For those of you who can't read the code, this is an extremely reputable senior professor at a first-rate university, with a VERY strong publication history and an excellent educational background. He has spent his professional life learning, writing, and teaching about the Mid-East and Islam.

But hey--what do them pointy-head collitch boys know, anyway?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 27, 2004)

Robert,
 I am disinclined to acquiesce with your conclusions as to my statements,  I do however rejoice in your presentation of your writers credentials. I now await the data upon which he based his conclusions.

I am however in agreement with you on the desire that more martial artists followed similar policy in detailing their own resumes. I myself have. But that has little to do with this topic.

You have successfully established his credibility in commenting on historical events in the Middle East. I can not find a hole in his credentials in that area.  What is missing here however is his credibility in commenting -as he did-.  I do not agree that 1 fanatic in Iraq = 100 here. 

I answered originally because the conclusion hypothesized in the writings are flawed. They are flawed based in part on the wrong numbers, as well as the wrong scope.  Iraq is about the size of California. There is an issue of scale there, hence my initial response.  Upon suspending the required amount of 'belief', I answered the question honestly.

I do however stand by my statement that I believe his article to be extremist, sensationalist, and flat out wrong.

We are deadlocked in disagreement at this point. We can tangent, sidebar and snipe all you wish, however it does not change the fact that you have not presented any evidence to cause me to reconsider my position. Therefore I can conclude that you can not do so, and that this is yet another exercise in futility.  I see no more need to debate this.  The answer is simple: If the US was in a comparable state as Iraq, it would be an unarguable disaster.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 27, 2004)

> September 27, 2004: There are some 400,000 organized and armed security personnel policing Iraq, with some 238,000 of them Iraqi, and the rest foreign (mainly American.) There are also several hundred thousand unorganized Iraqis (local militias) who provide security, especially in the Kurdish north and Shia Arab south. With a few exceptions (like the Shia al Sadr gunmen and many Sunni Arab groups), these gunmen keep pro-Saddam and criminal gangs from causing trouble. Most of the Iraqi security forces are deployed in these areas, where there is no resistance to the central government. But the Sunni Arab areas, where Saddam had nearly all of his support, and was the source of his enforcers, are still fighting to regain power.


http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=Iraq

There is more there.  Short version, lt getting rougher there.  Many believe this is the 'big push'. Me, I'm honestly not certain what the state is.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 27, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> We are deadlocked in disagreement at this point. We can tangent, sidebar and snipe all you wish,


 Nope.  No sniping.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





			
				Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> The answer is simple: If the US was in a comparable state as Iraq, it would be an unarguable disaster.


Can't argue with that.  The word unfathomable comes to mind.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 27, 2004)

Again, Mr. Rustaz, IT'S A HYPOTHETICAL. It can't be "wrong," or "sensationalist," in the fashion you clearly intend. 

Did you have anything to contribute to the thread? Other than attacking me?

I say again: that is the c.v. of a senior professor who knows an extraordinary amount about Iraq and the region and Islam. As much as you try and dismiss that, you're kinda stuck.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 27, 2004)

I dont have much to add, except that professor Cole was on NPR's All Things Considered this evening (along with Fareed Zakaria). 

It seems every question asked by the host was answered by Mr. Cole as "Well, that's not exactly the correct question." 

While he didn't come right out and say 'Iraq is an absolute disaster' ... he seemed to be dancing around that idea.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 27, 2004)

I answered your question.  What part of "The answer is simple: If the US was in a comparable state as Iraq, it would be an unarguable disaster." are you having trouble understanding? 

It is very nice that he knows Iraq, etc.
What does he know about this country, it's factions, etc?
The US is 10+x bigger than Iraq.
If the US was in a comparable mess, it is logical to assume it would be at least 10X the bigger mess.

I didn't try to dismiss his credentials.
I asked you to present them.
It's not my job to do so, however I was quite aware of them having Googled his name at the beginning of this exercise in futility.

Contributions to this thread? Are you honestly that dense Robert? Quite obviously you are.  I've hit this from 'logical', 'theoretical', 'hypethetical' and 'conceptual'
What -ELSE- do you want?

"Oh no! That would be real bad. Bush is a bads man, we must getz him now!"


As to the "attack" part.  Have I? Have I hit you any harder than you've hit me?
Anyone? Have I crossed that line?

In any event, I am debating with YOU, not him. Try to focus on a topic for a change, I grow tired of your constantly redirecting and misrepresenting.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 27, 2004)

*=============
*Mod. Note. 
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-
*=============*


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 27, 2004)

While it is disingenuous to demand the presentation of information that one already has, I believe it best if I simply let the Moderator's comment and request stand, Mr. Rustaz.

I have no trouble believing that an academic said, "Well, that's not exactly the right question," about forty-eleven times. It's what we--well some of us, anyway--do. Kind of related to philosophy, where everything hinges on asking the right question...though of course the great example comes in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy."


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 27, 2004)

Robert,
 What
 Response
 Do
 You
 Want
 From 
 Me
 In
 This 
 Thread?


----------



## Tgace (Sep 27, 2004)

Im glad to see Im not the only one who gets torqued up by this guy....... 

In through the nose Bob...out through the mouth. Center, Relax, Think Happy Thoughts.


----------



## Seig (Sep 28, 2004)

ADMIN WARNING

This Thread is exactly one insult away from being locked and seeing both Bob and Robert suspended.
Seig
MT OPS ADMIN


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 28, 2004)

Aw guys.  You can play nice.  It'd be a shame to have the thread locked because of dueling egos when you're both great sources of information.


----------



## Bester (Sep 28, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I've read several comments lately to the effect that Iraq is no biggie, because there're at least as many deaths and injuries daily in America.
> 
> Well, claptrap. And here's why--from www.juancole.com  [i]claptrap remov...ike deeper research into "Atlantian Ninjas" .


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 28, 2004)

I've posted a number of facts about the degeneration of the Iraq situation here and in the "Reconstruction" thread, but I think our participants are too focused on the insults to absorb them.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 28, 2004)

PM, I read em, and appreciate em.  Keep on posting them.

- Bob


----------



## Phoenix44 (Sep 28, 2004)

This is just my personal opinion, but minimizing the horrific tragedy of the >1000 American casualties in Iraq by comparing them to accidental traffic fatalities makes me want to vomit.  By the way, this disgusting comparison originated with Rush Limbaugh on his Sept 20 program, as part of his criticism of John Kerry's speech about Iraq.

But I'll put that aside.

Trying to minimize the import of these 1000+ deaths is like saying, "So what if smoking causes 400,000 deaths every year?  Cancer and heart disease are so common anyway, what's another 400,000?"

The argument is ridiculous.  The point is that we lost >1000 human beings for no good reason.  That we lose people in car accidents is tragic also, but completely irrelevant to the argument about the war.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 28, 2004)

I was not minimizing them. I was putting them in context on the risk factors. You have a higher chance of being in a car accident than one of our troops do dying in combat. (about 80% of those 1000+ are combat/hostile losses/  the other 20% are not.) That was my only intent.  I was examining risk factors, and statistics.

Each one of those lost I feel is 1 too many. Before you judge me, and decide I don't care, take a moment and read through the memorial forum here...and note who has listed the majority of the military casulties, so that they may be remembered and honored.

We should not have gotten involved in Iraq. I do not agree with the reasons we were given, and are still given. A search of this forum will indicate that disagreement.

My arguments surrounding the use of statistics have looked at risk factors, causes and probabilities. It is safer to be a US serviceman in Iraq, than in many parts of the US today.  Safer != safe.  And, death, regardless of the cause, is still death.

So, no, I am not minimizing their sacrifices.  I am sorry if anyone feels that I am.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 28, 2004)

Exactly my..oh, best to let this go.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 28, 2004)

Were you replying to me, or Phoenix?

Anyway, you never did answer my question. What response, if any, did you expect?
Agreement, debate, discussion, disection, etc?
I am honestly curious.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 29, 2004)

My humble contribution.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/casualties/facesofthefallen.htm


----------

