Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (115878)	9/28/2003 9:01:10 PM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi Hawkmoon; Re: "So OF COURSE there were fewer casualties then because there were fewer personnel operating in less overt conflict." Hey, if I thought that the level of casualties in Iraq would stay where it is I'd still be calling for us to get out. But if we hang around, I believe that eventually we will be fighting a real guerilla war and that the KIA rates will match Vietnam. Your figure for troops in Vietnam in 1965 (i.e. 200,000) is a lot more than we currently have in Iraq, so there's no question that our casualties now are lower. Do you have the 1964 data? I'm curious to know if 5 months of Iraq is equal, in terms of deaths per 100,000 to 5 months of 1964 'nam. But the war in Vietnam was already decades old in 1965, while the resistance in Iraq dates only to May 1, 2003, so I would bet that Vietnam was more dangerous. On the other hand, Iraq is better armed and the extreme elements (i.e. the preachers) hate us more deeply. Like I said before, the problem is a lack of an exit strategy in the face of a deteriorating situation. Hey, if the Iraqis were giving us ticker tape parades, or even submitting to our will, we wouldn't have to have an exit strategy. Instead, like the Israelis, were stuck in an Arab country getting pounded by the locals. Re: "Coming from a "cut and run" advocate such as yourself ... So showing any concern for your opinion is simply a wasted effort." So you agree that the data DO show that IED attacks in Iraq ARE increasing at 40% month over month? By the fact that your answer consists only of a personal attack instead of a dispute of the data, I conclude that your argument on the data is as bankrupt as your morality. Re: "Send your defeatist BS to someone who might be foolish enough to be swayed by your tripe. Those who take great pride in lending aid and comfort to the enemy, encouraging them to wage even more attacks upon our forces as they hope "cut and runners" like yourself will be able to force Bush and/or his successors into one more international humiliation." So you admit that this war is really about "international humiliation", LOL. It's clear that you don't give a prang about our young men who are dying in Iraq, but instead are so worried about our "international humiliation", that you're willing to make any gamble, even in the face of continuing and escalating hostility from the Iraqi people, to protect the US (actually George Bush), from "humiliation". And what kind of humiliation do you want? Do you want to be humiliated after losing 300 men in a police action based on a search for imaginary WMDs? Or would you prefer to lose 50,000 men in a police action based on a search for imaginary WMDs? What's your limit? How many men should die to avoid "humiliation"? How many men would be too much? And do note that if simply describing the situation in Iraq using data for IED attacks is "aiding and comforting the enemy", then a perfect explanation for all the Administration's lies and deceits is implied. The Administration isn't telling the truth because telling the truth is "aiding and abetting", LOL. Therefore, logically, we should not accept anything the administration says as truthful. -- Carl