farmera1:

 

Another war would firm up his place in history, help take everyone's mind off the high gas prices, the falling dollar, the falling house prices, rising unemployment and ballooning deficits.

Bush has until his term is up to start another war.  He has been beating the war drums lately, much like he did before the invasion of Iraq.  Maybe he and Cheney can get Israel to do the dirty deed.   Make it look like it was their doing, since he already has two wars going and to start a third front might look a little dubious even to the most ardent supporters. 

 

This post is inflammatory and has been reported as such.

There's only one war. It continues.

Damn right Teddy! The Long War against Lite beer is now into the 4th decade with no end in sight. Just when we thought that we'd rid ourselves of Bud Lite to the Dutch the deal got queered by those Congresspersons. Adolph Coors was the real anti-Christ and Augie Busch the true Islamofascist.  By the way max, I read one of your posts a couple of days ago and you actually made a little sense. So in the interest of cosmic order  I  had to report you to M*. Hold on brother. Our day is about to dawn. Inshallah

The Liberals aren't aware we are at war, and Obama doesn't know what he will do.

Mark 

The Liberals aren't aware we are at war

-------------------

Its all the tax rebates that keep getting sent our way, while our troopies are dying in the sands of Iraq and Afghanistan.

We simply cannot believe our leadership would tell us to "just go shopping" while they are bleeding to death there.   

If we are "at war" then is  "just go shopping" = how our leadershiop puts the  nation on a war footing?     Strange dissonance there.  The "war on terror" seems to be waged more like the "war on drugs" -- a long twilight struggle where we under-resource the effort, and never win, because Americans are unwilling to make the sacrifices neceesary to win.  And the current "leadership" never asks for it. 

Wouldn't a war suggest we divert some significant degree of productive capacity into providing sufficient resources to bring the war to a final conclusion (i.e. total victory)?  Or is an endless war all part of the "stra-tee-ge-ry"?

An endless war, with no definite, achievable victory  will eventually result in exhaustion of the troops and the populace. 

We simply cannot believe our leadership would tell us to "just go shopping" while they are bleeding to death there.  

No hyperbole here.  By "going shopping" as you put it so cavalierly, you are helping to stimulate the economy.  Going shopping is not some diversion from the war like you seem to think it is. 

Secondly, what do you constitute a "win" in Iraq?  I think you should read "After the Reich" by Giles MacDonogh.  Fighting and casualties did not end on May 5th, 1945. 

Personally, i think victory has been achieved and over the next 12-18 months, we'll see even less violence there then the 70-80% drops we have already seen plus less reliance on our forces and greater reliance on theirs.   

 

DEATHS IN IRAQ Below there's an excerpt from an article in www.newscientist.com, in the year of 2004. The death estimates are until 2004. Other sources estimates the deaths until today in more than 600,000.

The invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by coalition forces has lead to the death of at least 100,000 civilians, reveals the first scientific study to examine the issue.

The majority of these deaths, which are in addition those normally expected from natural causes, illness and accidents, have been among women and children, finds the study, released early by The Lancet on Thursday.

Roberts12, the British Lancet study (so-called "study") that you cite has long been completely discredited.  The methodology they used was flawed in a number of respects.

The best non-government figures for Iraqi civilian casualties is at the non-partisan (but anti-war BTW) site, Iraqbodycount.org.  Its figures have gained a credible standing by those on both sides of the Iraq war issue.  Their total civilian casualty range from the start of the US invasion to the current time is 85,323 - 95,065.  For details, click here:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

MWL

Maxim:

farmera1:

 

Another war would firm up his place in history, help take everyone's mind off the high gas prices, the falling dollar, the falling house prices, rising unemployment and ballooning deficits.

Bush has until his term is up to start another war.  He has been beating the war drums lately, much like he did before the invasion of Iraq.  Maybe he and Cheney can get Israel to do the dirty deed.   Make it look like it was their doing, since he already has two wars going and to start a third front might look a little dubious even to the most ardent supporters. 

 

This post is inflammatory and has been reported as such.

Maxim,

This post is not inflammatory.  Give it a break.

Mwleach, I read the bodycount link. It seems they count only registered deaths, deaths caused by immediate effect of war, violence. They don't count, I think, deaths that happened after hurts, deaths that happened to lack of water and electricity.  Example: a bomb ell on a house, 1 died immediately and 3 hurted died 4 months after. They don't count.

Mwleach, I read the bodycount link. It seems they count only registered deaths, deaths caused by immediate effect of war, violence.

Roberts12 you have a point - but so-called "indirect" deaths are probably difficult to attribute to the war.  And given what the state of the hospitals were there right after the initial invasion was over, it is likely that those seriously injured when a bomb fell on a house (your example) died soon enough to be counted.

It is worth pointing out, BTW, that the vast majority of these civilian deaths were NOT caused by "coallition airstrikes" - or by US troops at all.  Or by Iraqi government troops for that matter The majority of violent deaths have been incurred as the result of attacks by OTHER Iraqis, whether Al Queda sponsored or during sectarian violence.  There have, admittedly, been more of such deaths than would have occurred had Saddam Hussein's tyrany been left in place

The only really fair comparison will be to look at Iraq as a whole in a couple more years and see how it is doing compared with how it was doing (and presumably would continue to have done) under Saddam Hussein's rule.  I believe we will find such comparison instructive when it comes.

In the meantime, I find it interesting that in such polling as has been able to be done, the population of Iraq is currently more optimistic on the future of their coutry than my own fellow US citizens are about the future, not just of Iraq, but also of THEIR own country.  Than may say as much about Americans right now as it does about Iraq, unfortunately - but that is what the pollsters are telling us.

MWL