Litterbox: I know Im a little late to the party, but can someone point out where we are paying these factions not to fight?

they aren;t getting paid not to fight specifically, but the Allied forces are setting up jobs/training for them so there is something to do besides join a militia, blow up a market, kidnap a journalist, etc.

If your hands are tied from fighting a real war it is the only to defeat an insurgency.

Cargo
danlpoon: Libertarian? God no. I am a TRUE American Democrat unlike the Obama-fellating noobies who registered last week and don't intend to vote in November.

Then why does everything you've done and said in this thread appear to have come right out of "The Complete Idiot's Guide to GOP Talking Points"?

Because he realizes that posting the same picture of a hot mom all the time has grown wearisome so he's trying trolling to increase his cachet?

canyoneer: It is also a sign that it's time to seperate the wheat from the chaff: This battle is between Shiites loyal to Iraq and Shiites loyal to Hokumat-e Islami. (new window)

You just read up on that today?

That's the second thread you've dragged that book into in an attempt to paint the Iraq war as a battle against religious extremism.

You know perfectly well what is going on there, and in fact you state it very clearly in other threads.

THIS. IS. ABOUT. OIL.

I am disappointed that you are trying to catapult that particular propaganda.

liam76: they aren;t getting paid not to fight specifically, but the Allied forces are setting up jobs/training for them so there is something to do besides join a militia, blow up a market, kidnap a journalist, etc.

They are getting paid to fight.

See my link up in the thread.

danlpoon: Detriot: 400 Homicides per year.

Iraq: 800 deaths per yr.

How is a "war" only twice as dangerous as an American city?


There are a lot more than 800 violent deaths per year in Iraq. An awful lot more.

Of course, you were probably only referring to peace-keeping troop deaths in Iraq, in which case you should probably be comparing them to murders of police in Detroit. But I guess you know that, because I guess you are only trolling.

MassD: danlpoon: How's that? Detroit roughly 400 killings per year and Iraq has 4000 deaths in five years. I fudged a little but they are basically true. Detroit is actually a little safer, not much.

4000 US troop deaths,

82,408 - 89,928 DOCUMENTED civilian deaths in Iraq from war violence.

= 16,482 - 17,986 deaths per year, slightly more dangerous than

Detriot [http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ (new window)]

Repeatedly stating a totally erroneous conclusion does not, in fact, make it true.


It's close enough. Detroit isn't quite to 400 murders per year but close enough>

2000: 395

2001: 396

2002: 402

2003: 366

2004: 384

And the Iraq deaths are pretty commonly reported as 4000 over five years or 800/yr.

So. I will re-assert that

Iraq, a "war" zone where Americans ride around in flak-jackets and Humvees isn't even twice as dangerous as Detroit, a city where kids ride their bikes and play stickball.

danlpoon: Or does Obama get special treatment?

He does. So special that the Democrats will be embarrassed into nominating him despite Hillary's obvious advantages in a battle versus McCain.

Yep. Nothing more embarrasing than nominating the smartest individual in the room with the most forward thinking agenda.

We'd be much better off as a country with Hillary or a man that will almost certainly die of cancer halfway through his first term. Not before opening a third front in the "war on terror" by bombing Tehran of course.

danlpoon: That didn't stop you the first time.

How's that? Detroit roughly 400 killings per year and Iraq has 4000 deaths in five years. I fudged a little but they are basically true. Detroit is actually a little safer, not much.

Only 4000 people have died in Iraq? What exactly is your definition of "people"?

There are a lot more than 800 violent deaths per year in Iraq. An awful lot more.

The Iraqi deaths don't factor in because 3.5 million Kurds would be dead if we hadn't stopped Hussein.

If you want to count 90,000 arguably dead Iraqi's I get to count all the people who lived as result of our being there, too.

danlpoon: And the Iraq deaths are pretty commonly reported as 4000 over five years or 800/yr.

So. I will re-assert that

Iraq, a "war" zone where Americans ride around in flak-jackets and Humvees isn't even twice as dangerous as Detroit, a city where kids ride their bikes and play stickball.

You failed all of you math and statistics classes, didn't you?

This has probably already been covered, but just in case.

Detroit: 4,000 deaths/950,000 inhabitants = 0.4%
Iraq War: 4,000 deaths/~150,000 soldiers = 2.7%

I'll take Detroit any day of the week and twice on Saturday.

danlpoon: Iraq, a "war" zone where Americans ride around in flak-jackets and Humvees isn't even twice as dangerous as Detroit, a city where kids ride their bikes and play stickball.

You idiot. You use only troop death numbers as proof and then mention that they have Humvees and flak jackets. Do I have to spell your idiocy out for you?

In proper Islamic tradition, a truce, cease-fire, or treaty is just a period in which to regain your strength in men and materiel after which combat is resumed.

This is backed up by examples from the sunnah and hadith. Why would anyone think that there would ever be a permanent peace anywhere in the Muslim world?

danlpoon: Detriot: 400 Homicides per year.

Iraq: 800 deaths per yr.

Detroit: As of the 2000 census², there were 951,270 people residing in the city.

Iraq: As of December 2007, there were around 154,000[11] Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force, and Marine Corps personnel deployed to the western, northern and central regions of Iraq.

As of now, you have been proven to be a retard.

/not to mention that you don't count civilian deaths, you monster

boomaze: I mean, it must give these guys headaches trying to spin like this. This is insane. Wowsers...just...wow.


Nope. That's just one guy's honest assessment. From me, to the internets, free of charge and worth every penny...

From your reaction I'm assuming you disagree. What do you think the real reason why this offensive is happening is, and why do you think the Iraqi forces are conducting it themselves - and against these particular opponents?

Taking all those questions and answers together makes it easy to reverse-engineer a likely real motivation behind this offensive. To me the situation seems pretty transparent, but who knows... We all make mistakes... Maybe you'll have some insight I missed or something...


Koalaesq: I agree 100%. At the same time, I think us being there makes the government look weak- like it needs us- and sends a bad message to the people that we are there to say.


That's probably why they're saying that this is specifically an Iraqi offensive and that coalition forces aren't involved (in reality I'm sure we're *at least* going to be providing real-time intelligence to the Iraqis). I'd guess Maliki and the US forces agreed that they intentionally needed to do this on their own to send the message I mentioned.


canyoneer: It is also a sign that it's time to seperate the wheat from the chaff: This battle is between Shiites loyal to Iraq and Shiites loyal to Hokumat-e Islami. (new window)


Exactly. And to the average Iraqi civilian... they've been waiting for a time like this. I'm sure they've been in a tough spot, caught between local figureheads and extra-governmental power structures all vying for a piece of the pie in the abscence of the strong national control they've pretty much *always* known.

Now the Maliki government seems to have the forces they (trained and equipped to be competent enough to use) need to start asserting central control over the country.

I think if folks honestly are not just rooting for the bad guys to give us a bloody nose (and not thinking through what that will mean in terms of innocent suffering going forward in Iraq) then they should be able to realize this too... But the blame-America-firsters are kind of predictable on this...

mediaho: Do I have to spell your idiocy out for you?

Pretty sure you do, he's too stupid to figure it out by himself.

hattrick999: DEC 29 2007 Clinton made sniper-fire remark too:

Link (new window)

BWAH!

Man, the woman really has some serious gall...

danlpoon: The Iraqi deaths don't factor in because 3.5 million Kurds would be dead if we hadn't stopped Hussein.

If you want to count 90,000 arguably dead Iraqi's I get to count all the people who lived as result of our being there, too.


I was pointing out that you're comparing civilian deaths in Detroit to security forces deaths in Iraq. Compare like with like and then we can have a discussion. The comparison you are making is meaningless.

Danlpoon, you can't just use the number 4,000 -- and you have to know that. That's ridiculous.

If Detroit had 4,000 police officers killed over 5 years -- that would make the point you're hoping for.

stereosaur: MassD: danlpoon: How's that? Detroit roughly 400 killings per year and Iraq has 4000 deaths in five years. I fudged a little but they are basically true. Detroit is actually a little safer, not much.

4000 US troop deaths,

82,408 - 89,928 DOCUMENTED civilian deaths in Iraq from war violence.

= 16,482 - 17,986 deaths per year, slightly more dangerous than

Detriot [http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ (new window)]

By DOCUMENTED, of course you mean "from a source whose numbers have been massaged to fit your world view". Because it's lots higher than that.

BlorfMaster: I thought that saddam silver coin thing was a hoax, but naw, its real.

Shouldn't it say "Defeat" on both sides?

danlpoon: The Iraqi deaths don't factor in because 3.5 million Kurds would be dead if we hadn't stopped giving Hussein the weapons and satellite data he used to kill Kurds.

ftfy

danlpoon: There are a lot more than 800 violent deaths per year in Iraq. An awful lot more.

The Iraqi deaths don't factor in because 3.5 million Kurds would be dead if we hadn't stopped Hussein.

If you want to count 90,000 arguably dead Iraqi's I get to count all the people who lived as result of our being there, too.

"Arguably dead" = confirmed and documented by the Iraqi government (or what there is of one)

And as far as Kurds go, if Hussein's not killing them then Turkey is.

IH8PPL: Curious Hussein: In my book, if it's OK to compare the current president with a monkey, then it has to be OK to compare the next one with a monkey.

Or does Obama get special treatment?

Of course he does. He's black. It's okay to call a white guy a chimp, but never ever say the same thing about an African American.

That would be racist.

Then I don't want him for president.

I don't want someone who gets special shielding because of some genetic trait that he has no control over. An unscrupulous candidate would exploit that to deflect any kind of criticism (in this case skin color).

What, like that hasn't happened before? See Kwame Kilpatrick, John Street, Sharpe James, Marion Barry, and on and on and on.

In fact, I would say that this country is not READY for for black president... not because of the fact that HE'S black, but because this country treats blacks as special groups, affirmative action cases, charity cases, etc. Because of their skin color. Because the CULTURE is retarded, we're not ready for a black president.

If this country's attitude on skin color were more like, say, Brazil's, where dark skinned descendants of slaves also exist, but are not treated as a special group... THEN, this country would be ready for a qualified black candidate.

Sorry Barry, you're ahead of your time.

Skleenar



Yes, it's about oil & gas and the enemy is the same in either place. Not to mention that our enemies are medieval barbarians, and we're doing the world a favor by getting rid of them.

Yep. Nothing more embarrasing than nominating the smartest individual in the room with the most forward thinking agenda.

"Twirling. Twirling. Twirling" will win the Democratic Primary but it will fall flat in a real race with real issues.

Will "twirling, twirling, twirling", bring manufacturing back to the US? Will it hold off stagflation? Will "twirling, twirling, twirling" keep civil war from destabilizing the Middle East after a hasty US retreat?

Curious Hussein: I don't want someone who gets special shielding because of some genetic trait that he has no control over.

Like, who's your daddy when it comes to military service assignments?

Curious Hussein: If this country's attitude on skin color were more like, say, Brazil's, where dark skinned descendants of slaves also exist, but are not treated as a special group... THEN, this country would be ready for a qualified black candidate.

Aside from the ridiculousness of the rest of your "argument", this is a complete myth. Color-based racism is endemic to Brazilian society. Just Google "Brazil racism".

Curious Hussein: Sorry Barry, you're ahead of your time.

Sorry, Curious -- you'll be proven wrong in November. The Republicans have farked things up far too badly to reward a guy like McCain.

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: stereosaur: MassD: danlpoon: How's that? Detroit roughly 400 killings per year and Iraq has 4000 deaths in five years. I fudged a little but they are basically true. Detroit is actually a little safer, not much.

4000 US troop deaths,

82,408 - 89,928 DOCUMENTED civilian deaths in Iraq from war violence.

= 16,482 - 17,986 deaths per year, slightly more dangerous than

Detriot [http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ (new window)]

By DOCUMENTED, of course you mean "from a source whose numbers have been massaged to fit your world view". Because it's lots higher than that.

"[IBC] data is drawn from cross-checked media reports, hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures to produce a credible record of known deaths and incidents."

Yeah you're right I'm making it up. Ass. "Lot's higher than that." Are you trying to make a case that I'm trying to downplay civilian deaths . . . if you are, then realize that we're on the same side dumbass. I realize that it is probably a lot higher than that, but this is just what's officially documented.

danlpoon: Repeatedly stating a totally erroneous conclusion does not, in fact, make it true.


It's close enough. Detroit isn't quite to 400 murders per year but close enough>

2000: 395

2001: 396

2002: 402

2003: 366

2004: 384

And the Iraq deaths are pretty commonly reported as 4000 over five years or 800/yr.

So. I will re-assert that

Iraq, a "war" zone where Americans ride around in flak-jackets and Humvees isn't even twice as dangerous as Detroit, a city where kids ride their bikes and play stickball.

Wrong dummy. you have to take the population of Detroit vs the number of troops in Iraq.
that's like a 9:1 ratio

mediaho: Do I have to spell your idiocy out for you?

I don't understand why people continue to reply to this pathetic adolescent who has already admitted to trolling.

I'd say he didn't get enough love from daddy.

Curious Hussein: I don't want someone who gets special shielding because of some genetic trait that he has no control over.

He also has no control over whether he gets any "special shielding", so maybe you shouldn't hold his genetic trait against him.

and then as you say everyone is running around in flak jackets and protective headgear etc.. If everyone in Detroit wore that and it was under curfew and had martial law with natl guard on every corner would there not be less deaths?

you're gutting your own argument with those statements.

mediaho: "There wolves!"

I thought you wanted it that way...

That's it. Now, back to the

danlpoon:

Iraq, a "war" zone where Americans ride around in flak-jackets and Humvees isn't even twice as dangerous as Detroit, a city where kids ride their bikes and play stickball.

You are comparing U.S. police officers (troops) killed in Iraq, with civilians killed in Detroit.

You either need to compare civilians killed in Iraq with civilians killed in Detroit, or police officers killed in Iraq with police officers killed in Detroit.

Somebody above already did the civilian-civilian math for you, so I looked up the police data:

Law Enforcement Officer Deaths, 2007

In all of Michigan last year there was exactly one officer killed while on duty. Compare to Iraq with 400 officers killed while on duty. And that's just the U.S. ones.

Then go back under your rock.

Curious Hussein: In fact, I would say that this country is not READY for for black president... not because of the fact that HE'S black, but because this country treats blacks as special groups, affirmative action cases, charity cases, etc. Because of their skin color. Because the CULTURE is retarded, we're not ready for a black president.

Well said! Come to think of it, this situation parallels the mid 19th century pretty well. Back then, we treated blacks like illiterate unskilled laborers, and so we were not READY to free them. Not until we treated them like equals. That's why we have so many problems today.

Same thing goes for suffrage. The day that men stop treating women as special--doing things like staying at work as his wife gets to stay home all day with the kids--is the day that women deserve to vote. Until then, we're just not ready.

mediaho: danlpoon: Iraq, a "war" zone where Americans ride around in flak-jackets and Humvees isn't even twice as dangerous as Detroit, a city where kids ride their bikes and play stickball.

You idiot. You use only troop death numbers as proof and then mention that they have Humvees and flak jackets. Do I have to spell your idiocy out for you?

When danlpoon hears that "90% of heat-loss in cold weather is through your head" he goes skiing naked in with a cap on.

Skleenar: You just read up on that today?

That's the second thread you've dragged that book into in an attempt to paint the Iraq war as a battle against religious extremism.

You know perfectly well what is going on there, and in fact you state it very clearly in other threads.

THIS. IS. ABOUT. OIL.

I am disappointed that you are trying to catapult that particular propaganda.


I hate to point out the obvious here... but who ever said it couldn't be about BOTH (and more, actually)? In the real world, conflicts usually involve numerous issues, not just one. Why must we expect to fixate on ONE?

Is that simply the most convenient way of forcing/controlling the discussion? Hmmmnnnn? Speaking of propoganda efforts...

Curious Hussein: IH8PPL: Curious Hussein: In my book, if it's OK to compare the current president with a monkey, then it has to be OK to compare the next one with a monkey.

Or does Obama get special treatment?

Of course he does. He's black. It's okay to call a white guy a chimp, but never ever say the same thing about an African American.

That would be racist.

Then I don't want him for president.

I don't want someone who gets special shielding because of some genetic trait that he has no control over. An unscrupulous candidate would exploit that to deflect any kind of criticism (in this case skin color).

What, like that hasn't happened before? See Kwame Kilpatrick, John Street, Sharpe James, Marion Barry, and on and on and on.

In fact, I would say that this country is not READY for for black president... not because of the fact that HE'S black, but because this country treats blacks as special groups, affirmative action cases, charity cases, etc. Because of their skin color. Because the CULTURE is retarded, we're not ready for a black president.

If this country's attitude on skin color were more like, say, Brazil's, where dark skinned descendants of slaves also exist, but are not treated as a special group... THEN, this country would be ready for a qualified black candidate.

Sorry Barry, you're ahead of your time.

My sarcasm, I think you missed it. You are absolutely right, however. Only when people stop playing the race card (or the gender card for that matter) can there be a society of equals. You can have black pride parades, you can have gay pride parades, you can have feminist pride parades, but imagine what would happen if you had a white pride parade.

Orwell had it right. All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

McCain wants to make 2 things 'permanent': Tax cuts and War.


The Tax cuts are a good idea.

the weapons and satellite data he used to kill Kurds.


Yeah. And we don't do that anymore. We are saving Kurdish culture everyday. You'd think the Kurds would be a bit more appreciative.

"Arguably dead" = confirmed and documented by the Iraqi government (or what there is of one)


I used "arguably" in jest. Some of us don't take our anonymous internet message board posting so serious. Why don't you use that stick up your ass to pull that bug out of your ass?


If Detroit had 4,000 police officers killed over 5 years -- that would make the point you're hoping for.


I'm not making a point one way or the other.

I'm saying 800 deaths per year due to X.
X equals being in Iraq.

I'm saying 400 deaths per year due to "Y".
"Y" equals being in Detroit.

X equals 2Y. Or- Iraq is twice as dangerous as Detroit.

I'm sorry if it this fact doesn't perfectly suit your hatred of the war or love for Obama.

Obama NEEDS you to hate the "war". He also knows you all are emotional twats who react to puppies and rhetoric moreso than facts or what is best for America.

How does a guy like me get a check to not kill people?

A clash between the government of Iraq (and by proxy, the United States-or perhaps the other way around, more accurately) was inevitable. Even if you defeated most of the insurgency, the private militias, especially one as numerous and entrenched as Sadr's, had to engaged: you could not scale down American involvement with such things lurking in the darkness. It will be interesting to see where this develops. It will make a mess of things, no doubt.

Equally true, however, is the necessity of the Iraqi government to crush Sadr and his thugs. If you can break him and the various gangs who have assumed controlled of Basra following the British capitulation, you go along way towards extending governmental control outside of Baghdad.

canyoneer: Yes, it's about oil & gas and the enemy is the same in either place.

Only if you define them as being "natives of the area with the resources who don't want us to take it"

Not to mention that our enemies are medieval barbarians, and we're doing the world a favor by getting rid of them.

Some of our enemies could be defined as having beliefs akin to medieval barbarians. But that hardly can apply to all of them.

And they are our enemies largely because we are there, not the other way around.