Use of statistics in Iraq, can we trust them now? - Page 3

DosEquis · 03-20-2007, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by MTdream

Sorry, this is pure conjecture on your behalf based upon your bias...

Where was the outrage in prior administrations?

Where was the same standard?

hard to admit isnt it...the left has misled to merely use these soldiers death for their gain...i.e. they used death for political gain...

it is reprehensible!!!!!!!!

Deaths from training accidents, or accidents in general are all equally tragic.

Again all soldiers lives are equally valuable, I will agree with you to that extent. However, the conflict in which they die has every right to determine whether it was lives lost or lives wasted. Iraq is the current conflict, Iraq is what the original topic was about, and thats why I discuss Iraq. Iraq is a waste of soldiers lives, Iraqi lives, and 400 billion of our tax dollars.

Now, any other conflict that wastes american lives I will be equally as critical.

370-ish combat related in Afghanistan. 0 died in combat in Kosovo. 29 combat related in somalia. 148 combat related in Gulf War 1. 23 died in Panama. 18 died in grenada.

MTdream · 03-20-2007, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Deaths from training accidents, or accidents in general are all equally tragic.

Again all soldiers lives are equally valuable, I will agree with you to that extent. However, the conflict in which they die has every right to determine whether it was lives lost or lives wasted. Iraq is the current conflict, Iraq is what the original topic was about, and thats why I discuss Iraq. Iraq is a waste of soldiers lives, Iraqi lives, and 400 billion of our tax dollars.

Now, any other conflict that wastes american lives I will be equally as critical.

370-ish combat related in Afghanistan. 0 died in combat in Kosovo. 29 combat related in somalia. 148 combat related in Gulf War 1. 23 died in Panama. 18 died in grenada.

well, the topic was use of stats in iraq...not opinions on "lives lost or wasted"

and again, it is merely your opinion as to whether it is lost or wasted...and these opinions are usually created because of a political agenda...otherwise, there would be the same outrage for the lives lost under any preceding president...but hmmm that never has happened???? hmmmm odd isnt that?

nah, the left cant admit to using the deaths of soldiers for political gain....

Scrum · 03-20-2007, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by MTdream

However, the military has not had trouble meeting their recruiting goals...<---link

I love this argument too.

They have lowered the standards many times in the past couple years so they could meet them.

Scrum · 03-20-2007, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by MTdream

well, the topic was use of stats in iraq...not opinions on "lives lost or wasted"

and again, it is merely your opinion as to whether it is lost or wasted...and these opinions are usually created because of a political agenda...otherwise, there would be the same outrage for the lives lost under any preceding president...but hmmm that never has happened???? hmmmm odd isnt that?

nah, the left cant admit to using the deaths of soldiers for political gain....

They are not there defending our freedom. No matter how pathetically you try to spin this, it won't make it happen.
They are there fighting for a political/economic agenda. Not to protect us. They are losing their lives to put money in someones pocket and to push a shitty brand of imperial "democracy".

DosEquis · 03-20-2007, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by MTdream

well, the topic was use of stats in iraq...not opinions on "lives lost or wasted"

and again, it is merely your opinion as to whether it is lost or wasted...and these opinions are usually created because of a political agenda...otherwise, there would be the same outrage for the lives lost under any preceding president...but hmmm that never has happened???? hmmmm odd isnt that?

nah, the left cant admit to using the deaths of soldiers for political gain....

So I guess we can't establish whether a conflict was right or wrong, because obviously it is only political.

Vietnam was bullshit. We wasted 50k+ lives. LBJ was a democrat. If i was alive then I would have even more 'outrage'. Vietnam has a democrat president with a bunch of liberals and democrats protesting. War protests for Gulf War 1 were minimal if any.

It is possible to recognize when a war is bullshit without it being politically motivated. Somalia was bullshit, grenada was bullshit. Gulf war 1 was legit, Kosovo was legit, Panama was legit. We lost lives in all of them but kosovo, but the conflicts were about defending our interests and our country.

Roonie · 03-20-2007, 05:41 PM

I think we should have all Iraq's get bar codes tattoo'ed on them so we can just scan them remotely to tell if they are terrorists or not. :rofl:

MTdream · 03-20-2007, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

I love this argument too.

They have lowered the standards many times in the past couple years so they could meet them.

lowered standards...yet still above the american public...

good position...too bad it has no merit...

MTdream · 03-20-2007, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

They are not there defending our freedom. No matter how pathetically you try to spin this, it won't make it happen.
They are there fighting for a political/economic agenda. Not to protect us. They are losing their lives to put money in someones pocket and to push a shitty brand of imperial "democracy".

I have no goal of convincing you of anything...

However, to say they are doing as you suggest is merely opinion, no matter how pathetically you try to defend your biased opinion...

mere hatred of conservatives, proves nothing, other than someone is jaded by their own beliefs..

to discount out military soldier as being of a lower standard today, than any other time, is quite directly a complete error...

accident rates...lower
training accidents....lower
friendly fire...lower
educaton...at or above
application/use of technology...best ever
KIA...lower than any previous engagement
accidental civilian deaths...lower by factors (despite iraq bodycounts feeble attempts to show otherwise)

Some people wont agree ever regardless of facts (like this thread)as it would mean they would have to give a modicum of credit to someone that causes them to writhe, seethe, and spew forth hatrid...you know like they claim conservatives do...

some people twitch every time conservative is mentioned...

some people cannot handle that a conservative has any level of positive contribution...

some people cannot handle any conservative to be seen in any light other than negative

So despite me even showing irrefutable data about the lives lost...which show the deaths to be conservative comparatively...some choose to pretend it is not true...

conservative...

MTdream · 03-20-2007, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

So I guess we can't establish whether a conflict was right or wrong, because obviously it is only political.

Vietnam was bullshit. We wasted 50k+ lives. LBJ was a democrat. If i was alive then I would have even more 'outrage'. Vietnam has a democrat president with a bunch of liberals and democrats protesting. War protests for Gulf War 1 were minimal if any.

It is possible to recognize when a war is bullshit without it being politically motivated. Somalia was bullshit, grenada was bullshit. Gulf war 1 was legit, Kosovo was legit, Panama was legit. We lost lives in all of them but kosovo, but the conflicts were about defending our interests and our country.

all wars are political...thus this is not the criteria with which we can judge...

The person or group carrying the biggest stick...their opinion, is the one that wins...

You dont like that The President who was elected carries the stick for us to make this decision...that is transparent...

to try and say that what these soldiers have done is in some way ethical, or not a noble as others...is utter BS...and only serves your political agenda...

why is that so tough to admit?

the stats are undeniable...

the conflict is real...

ignoring that these extremists dont want to kill us, and that they arent engaging there against us is completely misleading, and completely wrong...

Scrum · 03-20-2007, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by MTdream

I have no goal of convincing you of anything...

However, to say they are doing as you suggest is merely opinion, no matter how pathetically you try to defend your biased opinion...

mere hatred of conservatives, proves nothing, other than someone is jaded by their own beliefs..

to discount out military soldier as being of a lower standard today, than any other time, is quite directly a complete error...

accident rates...lower

training accidents....lower

friendly fire...lower

educaton...at or above

application/use of technology...best ever

KIA...lower than any previous engagement

accidental civilian deaths...lower by factors (despite iraq bodycounts feeble attempts to show otherwise)

Some people wont agree ever regardless of facts (like this thread)as it would mean they would have to give a modicum of credit to someone that causes them to writhe, seethe, and spew forth hatrid...you know like they claim conservatives do...

some people twitch every time conservative is mentioned...

some people cannot handle that a conservative has any level of positive contribution...

some people cannot handle any conservative to be seen in any light other than negative

So despite me even showing irrefutable data about the lives lost...which show the deaths to be conservative comparatively...some choose to pretend it is not true...

conservative...

So the response is more spin and a red herring?

I have no problem with conservatives. in fact, I agree on a great deal of things with conservatives. Too bad there are so few around. Too bad many call themselves conservatives when they aren't. It makes them look bad.

Diamond Cross · 03-20-2007, 11:09 PM

So what do you consider a conservative? What are conservative ideals to you?

MTdream · 03-21-2007, 12:28 AM

Originally Posted by Scrum

So the response is more spin and a red herring?

I have no problem with conservatives. in fact, I agree on a great deal of things with conservatives. Too bad there are so few around. Too bad many call themselves conservatives when they aren't. It makes them look bad.

isnt it funny that every fact presented (documented facts, even though you throw out pitiful arguments, like the BS about Heritage foundation) you like to just summarily dismiss...it is a cute pattern you have...but I digress..

maybe we can get back to the topic...of statistics and iraq?

DosEquis · 03-21-2007, 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by MTdream

all wars are political...thus this is not the criteria with which we can judge...

to try and say that what these soldiers have done is in some way ethical, or not a noble as others...is utter BS...and only serves your political agenda...

why is that so tough to admit?

ignoring that these extremists dont want to kill us, and that they arent engaging there against us is completely misleading, and completely wrong...

Not all wars are political. We went to afghanistan because we were attacked. We went to panama because the leader declared war on us and their soldiers killed an unarmed marine. We got involved in ww2 because we were attacked at pearl harbor and japan/germany declared war on us. That shit is not political. We were defending ourselves.

The soldiers are following orders. I do not hold the soldiers accountable for the leadership policies. They are all noble and all equally valuable. It is when the leadership orders them to conflict and that conflict is bullshit when we experience a waste of lives that is when I have a huge problem. We experience a waste of these noble people who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Their service is always appreciated, appreciated by me so much that it hurts to see them ordered to battle in a bullshit conflict to die for bullshit reasons. It is a tragedy for 29 deaths of some of our finest citizens in Somolia. There is nothing tough to admit. You are having a problem admitting some conflicts are bullshit and some conflicts are not. I get upset any time we lose a soldier, i get extra upset when we lose them for geopolitical agendas, faulty intelligence, faulty war plans, and no viable exit strategy.

Nobody said extremists do not want to kill us. Thats why we fight extremists who attacked us in afghanistan. The extremist element was not prominent while saddam was and we were not getting shot by extremists in Iraq while we were not in Iraq.

tbone · 03-21-2007, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by MTdream

Sorry, I made no such statement to defend....

besides this is off topic...and dont want to get any of those precious reputation points taken away...

Not really off topic, it's right on for the original post. It was suggested we are in a war that has not made us safer, and you said that was "pure conjecture and not based in fact."

I asked for you to prove him wrong since you dismissed his entire post as invalid since it was "pure conjecture." You have thrown around the words "based in fact" and "pure conjecture" several times in this thread and it seems they are simply ways to deflect the topic to things you believe in as opposed to anything concrete or completely dismiss a posters comments.

Originally Posted by MTdream

nah, the left cant admit to using the deaths of soldiers for political gain....

And the right will never admit to using civilian lives from Sept 11th for poltical gain.

MTdream · 03-21-2007, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by tbone

Not really off topic, it's right on for the original post. It was suggested we are in a war that has not made us safer, and you said that was "pure conjecture and not based in fact."

I asked for you to prove him wrong since you dismissed his entire post as invalid since it was "pure conjecture." You have thrown around the words "based in fact" and "pure conjecture" several times in this thread and it seems they are simply ways to deflect the topic to things you believe in as opposed to anything concrete or completely dismiss a posters comments.

And the right will never admit to using civilian lives from Sept 11th for poltical gain.

hmmm you must be looking at a different first post than I am....

Here is the first post of this thread...

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld once dismissed questions about the level of combat-ready Iraqi troops by saying that numbers are only numbers and "misleading" as to the truth, but the Bush administration has supplied a steady stream of them.

...

President Bush told the nation that an additional 21,500 U.S. troops were needed to quell escalating violence in Baghdad. As of Friday, that total had reached 28,700.

...

In January 2005, Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., then the top U.S. military officer in Iraq, estimated that U.S. and Iraqi forces had killed or captured 15,000 enemy fighters in 2004 -- three times as many as an estimate by Gen. John P. Abizaid, then-Centcom commander, of the total size of the insurgency about one year earlier.

...

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's office ordered the country's health ministry to stop providing figures to the United Nations.

WP: Iraq war's statistics prove fleeting - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com

The article lists more examples and problems...given all this, how can we trust numbers coming out of the WH or Iraqi government?

Make no mistake about it...everything that goes on in DC is about the struggle for power/politics...it is completely sad!!!! but again, you take us off base...

Hmm, seems like to me, that as near of a complete majority as you can get were in support of action due to 9/11....then you have a complete "oh crap moment" by the Left regarding this and it just gave the president too much power...

thus the media and every other left leaning group has jumped on this bandwagon about "bush bad"

So, are you accepting that lives in Iraq are being used by the left for their personal political gain? or are you accepting tha tthe stats surrounding soldiers deaths are being misused and completely out of context i.e. the media is preying upon the ignorance of the average american

The war in Afghanistan...unprecedented success....
The war in Iraq....like it or not...unprecedented success
- Several fronts
  - it is undeniable that we are encountering al qaeda, and terrorists in iraq vs. other locales...if you dont think so, you might want to tell Bin Laden he is wrong...

We will continue, God willing, to fight you [US forces] and your allies everywhere, in Iraq and Afghanistan and in Somalia and Sudan until we waste all your money and kill your men and you will return to your country in defeat as we defeated you before in Somalia." Bin Laden tape from July 2006

isntit interesting that he says al qaeda defeated us in somalia before...(but this is off topic)

Lack of military deaths in Bush admin....incredible...in fact amazing w/conflict

Trying to make the "statistics" say otherwise is completely revisionistic real time history in process...

Scrum · 03-21-2007, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by MTdream

The war in Iraq....like it or not...unprecedented success

Do you really believe this?

MTdream · 03-21-2007, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Not all wars are political. We went to afghanistan because we were attacked. We went to panama because the leader declared war on us and their soldiers killed an unarmed marine. We got involved in ww2 because we were attacked at pearl harbor and japan/germany declared war on us. That shit is not political. We were defending ourselves.

The soldiers are following orders. I do not hold the soldiers accountable for the leadership policies. They are all noble and all equally valuable. It is when the leadership orders them to conflict and that conflict is bullshit when we experience a waste of lives that is when I have a huge problem. We experience a waste of these noble people who are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Their service is always appreciated, appreciated by me so much that it hurts to see them ordered to battle in a bullshit conflict to die for bullshit reasons. It is a tragedy for 29 deaths of some of our finest citizens in Somolia. There is nothing tough to admit. You are having a problem admitting some conflicts are bullshit and some conflicts are not. I get upset any time we lose a soldier, i get extra upset when we lose them for geopolitical agendas, faulty intelligence, faulty war plans, and no viable exit strategy.

Nobody said extremists do not want to kill us. Thats why we fight extremists who attacked us in afghanistan. The extremist element was not prominent while saddam was and we were not getting shot by extremists in Iraq while we were not in Iraq.

simple fact...all wars are political, domestically and internationally...simple fact...afghanistan was...iraq is...vietnam was...korea was, WWII was, WWI, genghis khan, napoleon, rock throwing cavemen...

it is all about an ethic you believe more personally than another, and then the struggle for dominance of your view...dont make more of it than it is...

your trying to make this an ethical thing about what you personally support as one being more or less honorable...but honor is only in the eye of the beholder according to their politic unless you believe in some greater authority than man...otherwise, it si a constant struggle between opposing views i.e. politics...

way off topic now, but you keep arguing this point, and it is just quite simply wrong...