Ya Gots It Backward

[rmcrobertson]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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