Page 57 of 58 FirstFirst ... 74755565758 LastLast
Results 561 to 570 of 579

Thread: U.S. troops hope Afghanistan sacrifices not in vain

  1. #561
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: U.S. troops hope Afghanistan sacrifices not in vain

    Ok, Lets put an end to this reliance on flawed numbers. If we are going to debate, and not just throw talking points back and forth, then we should at least agree on sourcing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    They are not associated with Commondreams.org.

    Oh my! That is funny.... You obviously are just typing from your extensive left wing notes, and not bothering to read anything disputing your hallowed view.

    Even though IBC is as partisan as they come, the media took the bait — hook, line, and sinker. And in the rush to publish the blaring headers of the report — U.S. forces killed four times as many civilians as “anti-occupation forces”! — hardly anyone examined the underlying data.

    But they should. The report itself is premised on two years worth of newspaper and web data — well, “data” in a loose sense. IBC rests its laurels on numbers generated from newspaper reports of deaths and newspaper reports of mortuary and hospital logs. The methodology is flawed from the get-go, and though the citations are noted, there are no links to the articles. (That’s not exactly true; there are a couple links to particularly gory stories, like one with the headline, “I saw the heads of my two little girls come off.”) The lack of transparency, however, is only a small flaw in an ocean of methodological errors. Deaths only have to be verified by two of their accepted sources — which include (the non-fair and balanced) CommonDreams.org, Al Jazeera, and ReliefWeb — and often the second source is just a reprint of the first. A death count only has to be mentioned in passing in the article, like a doctor or bystander who gives a reporter casualty estimates.


    Alston B. Ramsay on Iraq Body Count on National Review Online

    Read it this time. And with that we put away IBC forever more on the trash heap of flawed anti war rhetoric.


    considered by both the right and left to be the most authoritative source on Iraqi deaths.

    And the laughs keep commin', show me the sources on the 'right' who agree with this travesty of supposed war time counting. Can you? Or is it just a throw away tag meant to stifle, and detract from the fact that you are caught like a fish on a hook with this leftist agenda.


    Let's see your source that is more authoritative than Iraq Body Count? I have asked you before and you have provided nothing.

    I think I would stick with the link kansaswhig was so gracious as to provide. iCasualties | Operation Iraqi Freedom | Iraq They seem sound, and fair.

    Aside from that I have always relied on what the Pentagon has said in relation to numbers in Iraq.


    Do you have anything to add to this discussion?

    Sure, the question is, are you willing to debate it? See, if by add you really mean agree with me, then no, I won't. Because your anti American view of our geo political status seems to emanate from whatever leftist, MoveON, self deprecating info you can find. I am truly sorry for you that you view your own country in such a light, and wonder if there is anything I can do to help alleviate your obvious suffering of living here. This:Unsupported Browser May be more to your liking.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  2. #562
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: U.S. troops hope Afghanistan sacrifices not in vain

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Ancient history.

    We still have two active wars that were spawned from it. To me, that makes it relevant.



    My analogy does apply. It is not about the differences with how we got to those places and Iraq. It is about what we did when we got there and rebuild the countries.

    It makes a difference if our reason for being there was invalid.




    We are buying it on the open market.

    Iraq was not safe for oil contractors (and US oil companies were not allowed) before the war. Now, via our heavily armed occupation they are.



    We'll see how the Iraqis decide the Open List/Closed List issue to see how much influence the Iranians have.
    That's right, it is all up in the air. Much too early to be talking successes which all are likely to evaporate after our troops are removed.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  3. #563
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: U.S. troops hope Afghanistan sacrifices not in vain

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    True, but we didn't install him. The Iraqi coalition that won the election selected him.
    Could not have happened without our invasion, armed occupation and appointment to the Interim government. We enabled the whole pro-west government we still defend with American tax dollars and lives today!
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  4. #564
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: U.S. troops hope Afghanistan sacrifices not in vain

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Damn, that's a big decision. Is he happy about his choice?
    While he regrets not staying in until retirement but he could no longer condone what we were doing to the Iraqis. I admire and love him very much for making that tough personal decision.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  5. #565
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: U.S. troops hope Afghanistan sacrifices not in vain

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I think I would stick with the link kansaswhig was so gracious as to provide. iCasualties | Operation Iraqi Freedom | Iraq They seem sound, and fair.

    If it makes you feel better to use Kansaswhig's site, we can go with that. Being responsible for the needless deaths of 46,000 civilians to me is just as immoral for being responsible for 100,000 civilians as determined by the British Research Group.

    The terrorist were only responsible for 3000 deaths on 9/11.


    Aside from that I have always relied on what the Pentagon has said in relation to numbers in Iraq.
    "We don't do body counts," Gen. Tommy Franks, who directed the Iraq invasion, has said.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/03/MN98747.DTL#ixzz0VeToe91e
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  6. #566
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: U.S. troops hope Afghanistan sacrifices not in vain

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    If it makes you feel better to use Kansaswhig's site, we can go with that. Being responsible for the needless deaths of 46,000 civilians to me is just as immoral for being responsible for 100,000 civilians as determined by the British Research Group.

    This isn't about me. This is about you trying to pass of a debunked, bias site, pulling numbers out of their ass.

    I am glad you concede on this....Considering you said:

    considered by both the right and left to be the most authoritative source on Iraqi deaths.
    An utterly false statement.

    Now, about the 46,000 casualties. Regrettable ofcourse, and they gave their lives in the making of a free Iraq. But I think that is amazing. At NO time in the measurement of casualties in wartime has a count been so low. The US showed great restraint, and technological know how to keep collateral damage so low.


    The terrorist were only responsible for 3000 deaths on 9/11.

    Oh, so war should be a tit for tat exercise should it?


    "We don't do body counts," Gen. Tommy Franks, who directed the Iraq invasion, has said.

    So?


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  7. #567
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.S. troops hope Afghanistan sacrifices not in vain

    Catawba, welcome back. I thought you had conceded these last few points! We have put a lot of sweat into it! We are reaching points which we will not resolve so it may be best to say "we don't agree". I would like to take this opportunity to point out that it is a lot of work on me to sort out your lack of correct multi-quotes in your responses. Please start multi-quoting, or I will have to end my participation this interesting debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib
    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba
    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib
    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba
    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib
    Yes. Perhaps you just don't realize the effort made to prevent civilian casualties. In stark contrast was the terrorists intentional targeting of civilians. You need to ackowledge that.
    You mean excepting when we strike water treatment plants and electricity plants that result in the deaths of a hundred thousand innocent civilians?
    We did not do this in Operation Iraqi Freedom. When did we do this?
    In Gulf War 1. Is this the first you've heard of it?
    Ancient history
    We still have two active wars that were spawned from it. To me, that makes it relevant
    It has nothing to do with "the effort made to prevent civilian casualties. In stark contrast was the terrorists intentional targeting of civilians." in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    You need to ackowledge that!

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib
    My analogy does apply. It is not about the differences with how we got to those places[Germany, Japan, Korea] and Iraq. It is about what we did when we got there and rebuild the countries.
    It makes a difference if our reason for being there was invalid.
    Not one bit. My analogy was that we have previously built democracies successfully and that has nothing to do with how we went in. Our reason for being there is not invalid. We are there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Iraq was not safe for oil contractors (and US oil companies were not allowed) before the war. Now, via our heavily armed occupation they are
    Yes, indeed. This is another good thing. The US oil companies won their contracts through open bidding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib
    We'll see how the Iraqis decide the Open List/Closed List issue to see how much influence the Iranians have
    That's right, it is all up in the air. Much too early to be talking successes which all are likely to evaporate after our troops are removed.
    It is all not up in the air. Only the amount of Iranian influence is in question and that is a question for the Iraqis to answer. They are not "likely to evaporate after our troops are removed". Prove that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib
    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba
    He would not be where he is with out us
    True, but we didn't install him[al'Maliki]. The Iraqi coalition that won the election selected him[al'Maliki]
    Could not have happened without our invasion, armed occupation and appointment to the Interim government. We enabled the whole pro-west government we still defend with American tax dollars and lives today!
    Yes, you are correct. That is the meaning of my "True" above. My point still stands: we didn't install him, he was placed in power through the Iraqi democratic process.

  8. #568
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: U.S. troops hope Afghanistan sacrifices not in vain

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post

    Now, about the 46,000 casualties. Regrettable ofcourse, and they gave their lives in the making of a free Iraq.

    You speak as if the 46,000 Iraqi citizens voluntarily gave their lives for freedom, when in fact it we that sacrificed their lives so we could control the middle east oil reserves.

    But I think that is amazing. At NO time in the measurement of casualties in wartime has a count been so low.

    It is not a war it is an optional and immoral invasion and occupation of a country that never attacked us.

    The US showed great restraint, and technological know how to keep collateral damage so low.

    What are you talking about? Is your defense that we kill more people accidently than the terrorists do on purpose?

    Oh, so war should be a tit for tat exercise should it?

    No, there should be a reason for invading and occupying another country.

    So?
    It is why your statement is bogus that you would go by the Pentagon's numbers. As pointed out Tommy Franks, the US military does not do body counts.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  9. #569
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: U.S. troops hope Afghanistan sacrifices not in vain

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Catawba, welcome back. I thought you had conceded these last few points! We have put a lot of sweat into it! We are reaching points which we will not resolve so it may be best to say "we don't agree". I would like to take this opportunity to point out that it is a lot of work on me to sort out your lack of correct multi-quotes in your responses. Please start multi-quoting, or I will have to end my participation this interesting debate.

    You will be missed.

    No concession, just life.




    It has nothing to do with "the effort made to prevent civilian casualties. In stark contrast was the terrorists intentional targeting of civilians." in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    You need to ackowledge that!

    I see no difference in us knowingly bombing civilian infrastructure that we knew would result in the deaths of tens of thousands.

    The Islamic extremists certainly saw it that way, hence their attack on 9/11!



    Not one bit. My analogy was that we have previously built democracies successfully and that has nothing to do with how we went in. Our reason for being there is not invalid. We are there.

    We are there for immoral reasons which some try to validate by saying we killed thousands for their own good.


    Yes, indeed. This is another good thing. The US oil companies won their contracts through open bidding. What you consider a good thing I consider an immoral trading of human lives for future oil.

    You are right, I will never agree with you on this.




    It is all not up in the air. Only the amount of Iranian influence is in question and that is a question for the Iraqis to answer. They are not "likely to evaporate after our troops are removed". Prove that.

    Just as soon as our military occupation ends, I will! Until that happens all that you can say for sure is that we have a successful occupation. We outgun Iraq. We knew that before we attacked them.


    Yes, you are correct. That is the meaning of my "True" above. My point still stands: we didn't install him, he was placed in power through the Iraqi democratic process.
    Now you are just talking semantics. If he was popular, his own country would protect his government rather than us having to protect his government from his countrymen for the last 5 years, and still cannot stand without our protection.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  10. #570
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 03:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    6,763
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: U.S. troops hope Afghanistan sacrifices not in vain

    K, I enjoyed it! See you around.

Page 57 of 58 FirstFirst ... 74755565758 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •