Zarqawi killed - Page 6

Evo<^|SiNz|^> · 08-17-2006, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

For perspective. You could also argue that it's an unfair comparison as Iraq is more dangerous. I am willing to guess that finding a similar sized population in the US and it will suffer 1 - 2 deaths a day to any number of reasons including natural and unnatural causes.

Lucky Shot

Yes, but perspective based on manipulated statistics.

If you simply look at the figures from Iraq, that's all the perspective we need on the situation. How many soldiers are there? How many are dying or injured? What's the trend? It's certainly getting better in recent months, but the past 4 months is only a very small time frame to look at to determine it won't trend back the other way. I think we're just too hurried to say "Oh, look at the effect of Zarqawi's death". It's too early to say what the effect is.

I'd much rather see zero American casualties in Iraq.

**CingularDuality** · 08-17-2006, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evo<^|SiNz|^>

If you simply look at the figures from Iraq, that's all the perspective we need on the situation.

Ha! Yes, let's just ignore the harsh reality that is called life and look at this from an extremely narrow perspective, ignoring everything else. That is how we will solve all the world's problems![/sarcasm]

Evo<^|SiNz|^> · 08-17-2006, 03:12 PM

What I'm saying is the number of people killed in car accidents in the entire state of Wisconsin is a very poor barometer of how things are trending in Iraq since Zarqawi was killed. I can't see how comparing the number of troops killed in Iraq to the number of car accidents is any more legitimate than comparing it to the number of running-with-scissor related deaths in Wisconsin. I could paint a picture of rampant death and destuction with that. It's just a simple manipulation of statistics to mislead. It doesn't belong in the debate. I want to see what's been happening in Iraq over the last 3.5 years under Zarqawi's rule, and gague it against what's happening now.

Don't you think we should gague progress in Iraq based on what's going on in Iraq?

**CingularDuality** · 08-17-2006, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evo<^|SiNz|^>

What I'm saying is the number of people killed in car accidents in the entire state of Wisconsin is a very poor barometer of how things are trending in Iraq since Zarqawi was killed. I can't see how comparing the number of troops killed in Iraq to the number of car accidents is any more legitimate than comparing it to the number of running-with-scissor related deaths in Wisconsin. I could paint a picture of rampant death and destuction with that. It's just a simple manipulation of statistics to mislead. It doesn't belong in the debate. I want to see what's been happening in Iraq over the last 3.5 years under Zarqawi's rule, and gague it against what's happening now.

Don't you think we should gague progress in Iraq based on what's going on in Iraq?

It's not intended to be a direct comparison, it's intended to offer some perspective. We all know that Iraq is going to be a tough nut to crack. But compare this war to our "peaceful" existence in our own country, or compare it to WWII and you'll see that it's not really so bad over there.

Perspective. Use it or lose it.

Steeler · 08-17-2006, 03:30 PM

I can see the propaganda posters now.

"The March to Freedom in Iraq! It's Not as Bad as Iwo Jima, Boys!"

Evo<^|SiNz|^> · 08-17-2006, 03:38 PM

Heh Steeler...

I suppose I just fail to see how 1.47 American deaths per day in Iraq is "not so bad". I get the drift that things were worse in WW2 and in Wisconsin last month (not really, but so we're told). But the perspective thing really doesn't work if it's on a whole different scale than what we're talking about in Iraq. It's a slanted, 'spun' perspective.

TheFatKidDeath · 08-17-2006, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

I can see the propaganda posters now.

"The March to Freedom in Iraq! It's Not as Bad as Iwo Jima, Boys!"

Good idea. I'm hoping the Iraqi Tourism Ministry will use mine:

"Discover Iraq. Safer than Wisconsin!"

Lucky Shot · 08-17-2006, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evo<^|SiNz|^>

Heh Steeler...

I suppose I just fail to see how 1.47 American deaths per day in Iraq is "not so bad". I get the drift that things were worse in WW2 and in Wisconsin last month (not really, but so we're told). But the perspective thing really doesn't work if it's on a whole different scale than what we're talking about in Iraq. It's a slanted, 'spun' perspective.

There is no doubt that this is the safest major modern war the US has been in, sorry you don't see that.

WWII... 291,557 US Casualties
Iraq War... 2604

I did the research for you, so spin away Sinz. War is dangerous, but it's getting safer in Iraq for the US and much more so than in WWII. Companies are measured over quarters, I gave ya a third of a year worth of data.

Lucky Shot

Lucky Shot · 08-17-2006, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFatKidDeath

"The bomb statistics — compiled by American military authorities in Baghdad and made available at the request of The New York Times — are part of a growing body of data and intelligence analysis about the violence in Iraq that has produced somber public assessments from military commanders, administration officials and lawmakers on Capitol Hill."

How is it the New York Times opinion if the information was complied by American military authories in Iraq? Is it THEIR opinion that attacks have increased?

Please explain.

And on the contrary, it is THE outlook of the US military in Iraq. The US military is the one who gave the assessment, not the New York Times! If you have a problem with the data and intelligence it seems to me that you should be questioning the US military who complied the data and not the newspaper who is reporting the story.

Casualties to IED Fatalities by month...

April.. 49
May.. 41
June... 34
July.... 23
August... 12

Whats the trend?

Lucky Shot

TheFatKidDeath · 08-18-2006, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

There is no doubt that this is the safest major modern war the US has been in, sorry you don't see that.

WWII... 291,557 US Casualties
Iraq War... 2604

I did the research for you, so spin away Sinz. War is dangerous, but it's getting safer in Iraq for the US and much more so than in WWII. Companies are measured over quarters, I gave ya a third of a year worth of data.

Lucky Shot

This is a completely absurd historical comparsion. Are you honestly comparing casualties of WWII to those in Iraq? The two conflicts are night and day.

The United States during World War II was fighting three nations who at the minimum had a combined 4 million men under arms. The Axis powers at the time had perhaps the most advanced army and navy in the world. Germany, Italy and Japan had dozens of warships, thousands of pieces of artillery, tanks and airplanes. The United States had 500,000 to 1,000,000 (or more depending on the time) troops in theater.

The Iraq insurgency has perhaps 10,000 to 20,000 lightly armed fighters. Their greatest weapon is a car bomb and IED. The Iraqi insurgency has no air force, helicopters, navy, tanks or artillery pieces. The United states has around 150,000 troops in Iraq.

WWII was a larger wider war, hence the larger casualites for the US. The Iraqi war is fought against insurgents confined to a limited geographic region. For the reasons stated above, the Iraqi insurgency simply cannot inflect the level of casualties as did Germany, Italy and Japan.

I think you need to go back and research a conflict that supports your argument.

Lucky Shot · 08-18-2006, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFatKidDeath

This is a completely absurd historical comparsion. Are you honestly comparing casualties of WWII to those in Iraq? The two conflicts are night and day.

The United States during World War II was fighting three nations who at the minimum had a combined 4 million men under arms. The Axis powers at the time had perhaps the most advanced army and navy in the world. Germany, Italy and Japan had dozens of warships, thousands of pieces of artillery, tanks and airplanes. The United States had 500,000 to 1,000,000 (or more depending on the time) troops in theater.

The Iraq insurgency has perhaps 10,000 to 20,000 lightly armed fighters. Their greatest weapon is a car bomb and IED. The Iraqi insurgency has no air force, helicopters, navy, tanks or artillery pieces. The United states has around 150,000 troops in Iraq.

WWII was a larger wider war, hence the larger casualites for the US. The Iraqi war is fought against insurgents confined to a limited geographic region. For the reasons stated above, the Iraqi insurgency simply cannot inflect the level of casualties as did Germany, Italy and Japan.

I think you need to go back and research a conflict that supports your argument.

Evo asked...

Quote:

Originally Posted by EVO

I get the drift that things were worse in WW2

There's the answer. Guess it's too much to ask for you to read the quote.

Lucky Shot

TheFatKidDeath · 08-18-2006, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

Evo asked...

There's the answer. Guess it's too much to ask for you to read the quote.

Lucky Shot

What does Evo's quote have anything to do with your historical comparison? Evo was not the one who wrote your thread. How is his statement relevant?

Oh wait, I get it. He was the first one to say things were worse in WWII therefore validating your position. Perhaps we can get Evo to clarify his statement. I'm reasonable certain he doesn't accept your historical analysis given his previous statements.

But I will let him speak for himself.

Lucky Shot · 08-18-2006, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFatKidDeath

Oh wait, I get it. He was the first one to say things were worse in WWII therefore validating your position. Perhaps we can get Evo to clarify his statement. I'm reasonable certain he doesn't accept your historical analysis given his previous statements.

No, you misread it again. This comment ...

Quote:

I get the drift that things were worse in WW2 and in Wisconsin last month (not really, but so we're told).

makes it sound as if WW2 was safer than the current hostilities in Iraq which is way off base. I am sure he didn't mean tie both those thoughts (WWII and Wisconsin) together with the implied meaning contained within the paranthesis that both are false. Do your research on casualty counts Fat Kid and you will find this to be true. You find "The War" that is similar to the conditions in Iraq and tell me based on YOUR research that which war was/is more dangerous. Can't wait to hear about how much more dangerous Iraq is compared to Vietnam or Korea.

Lucky Shot

**CingularDuality** · 08-18-2006, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

I can see the propaganda posters now.

"The March to Freedom in Iraq! It's Not as Bad as Iwo Jima, Boys!"

Hehe... That's funny. But, seriously, it misses my point, and that is that war is hell. We're in a war, and this one is less hellish than many others that we've been in... I'm looking at this as a seperate issue from whether or not we belong in this conflict, as that's a whole 'nother discussion...

Steeler · 08-18-2006, 01:26 PM

I understand your point, Cing. My point is that you can't judge a conflict like Iraq only in terms of American fatalities. Severe injuries are more telling, and Iraqi casualties are most indicative of the progress of the war. But even those numbers are not particularly useful in judging our overall status. Comparing rates of loss here with other conflicts misses the point entirely.

What the civilian leadership, and to a lesser extent the public, needs to judge is whether or not we are A) moving toward our goals in Iraq, and B) whether the cost of achieving them is commensurate with the outcome. If our goal is a politically open, progressive, modern Iraq with a stable government able to maintain the peace without our presence, then we have to look at some social metrics in addition to the simple number of attacks/deaths/injuries/etc.

It seems like the military thinks we're stalled on question A. Attacks and overall Iraqi losses are up significantly, even if US losses are down (we seem to be increasingly in the business of Iraqi training and force protection, which would account for a more defensive posture). The attacks themselves are more sectarian in nature, and the only reason they won't call it a civil war is there are no standing armies fighting under a flag for control of territory, only shadowy assassination and terror campaigns against rival groups. This is proving just as costly as a civil war, if more difficult to define. The political process is stagnant, and many people in the US and Iraqi leadership are talking about dividing up the country and government. The President is realizing that Maliki and the Hezbollah-friendly and Shiite elements of the Iraqi government are going to fall under Iran's sphere of influence before they cater to us. So in general, it looks like we are not moving toward our primary goal in Iraq.

Which leaves us with question B. Is it worth it? I understand that you and others of varying political persuasions want us to "buck up," "take heart," and realize that this is a relatively low-cost war compared to those of previous generations. But that perspective should not trump the ongoing consideration of whether or not our mission in Iraq is achievable, imminent, being competently managed, or worth the cost in blood and treasure.

08-17-2006, 03:12 PM	#78 (permalink)
Evo<^\|SiNz\|^> Join Date: May 2006 Location: Alexandria, VA Age: 28 Posts: 1,237	Re: Zarqawi killed What I'm saying is the number of people killed in car accidents in the entire state of Wisconsin is a very poor barometer of how things are trending in Iraq since Zarqawi was killed. I can't see how comparing the number of troops killed in Iraq to the number of car accidents is any more legitimate than comparing it to the number of running-with-scissor related deaths in Wisconsin. I could paint a picture of rampant death and destuction with that. It's just a simple manipulation of statistics to mislead. It doesn't belong in the debate. I want to see what's been happening in Iraq over the last 3.5 years under Zarqawi's rule, and gague it against what's happening now. Don't you think we should gague progress in Iraq based on what's going on in Iraq? __________________ "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." - Attributed to General George Patton, Jr.

08-17-2006, 03:30 PM	#80 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,952	Re: Zarqawi killed I can see the propaganda posters now. "The March to Freedom in Iraq! It's Not as Bad as Iwo Jima, Boys!" __________________

08-17-2006, 03:38 PM	#81 (permalink)
Evo<^\|SiNz\|^> Join Date: May 2006 Location: Alexandria, VA Age: 28 Posts: 1,237	Re: Zarqawi killed Heh Steeler... I suppose I just fail to see how 1.47 American deaths per day in Iraq is "not so bad". I get the drift that things were worse in WW2 and in Wisconsin last month (not really, but so we're told). But the perspective thing really doesn't work if it's on a whole different scale than what we're talking about in Iraq. It's a slanted, 'spun' perspective. __________________ "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country." - Attributed to General George Patton, Jr.

08-18-2006, 01:26 PM	#90 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,952	Re: Zarqawi killed I understand your point, Cing. My point is that you can't judge a conflict like Iraq only in terms of American fatalities. Severe injuries are more telling, and Iraqi casualties are most indicative of the progress of the war. But even those numbers are not particularly useful in judging our overall status. Comparing rates of loss here with other conflicts misses the point entirely. What the civilian leadership, and to a lesser extent the public, needs to judge is whether or not we are A) moving toward our goals in Iraq, and B) whether the cost of achieving them is commensurate with the outcome. If our goal is a politically open, progressive, modern Iraq with a stable government able to maintain the peace without our presence, then we have to look at some social metrics in addition to the simple number of attacks/deaths/injuries/etc. It seems like the military thinks we're stalled on question A. Attacks and overall Iraqi losses are up significantly, even if US losses are down (we seem to be increasingly in the business of Iraqi training and force protection, which would account for a more defensive posture). The attacks themselves are more sectarian in nature, and the only reason they won't call it a civil war is there are no standing armies fighting under a flag for control of territory, only shadowy assassination and terror campaigns against rival groups. This is proving just as costly as a civil war, if more difficult to define. The political process is stagnant, and many people in the US and Iraqi leadership are talking about dividing up the country and government. The President is realizing that Maliki and the Hezbollah-friendly and Shiite elements of the Iraqi government are going to fall under Iran's sphere of influence before they cater to us. So in general, it looks like we are not moving toward our primary goal in Iraq. Which leaves us with question B. Is it worth it? I understand that you and others of varying political persuasions want us to "buck up," "take heart," and realize that this is a relatively low-cost war compared to those of previous generations. But that perspective should not trump the ongoing consideration of whether or not our mission in Iraq is achievable, imminent, being competently managed, or worth the cost in blood and treasure. __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Zarqawi: How they killed him	Evo<^\|SiNz\|^>	The Sandbox	3	06-14-2006 02:23 PM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links