Because some northeastern United States white people agreed amongst themselves that small-town/rural F. B. I. offices should be active somehow -- whether with part-time staffing or ATM-type computer terminal -- the automatic response to the as-yet-unuttered infor-mation pool was that a Ku Klux Klan revival was in the works. As a joke or as a way to stave off Bureau access to complaints about the demands of offensive troop members operating within communities, the brouhaha has been almost totally effective to suppress that initiative which would have given us all FBI-linked ATMs first and foremost as a priority much greater than money-dispenser machines.
In other words, the FBI never gets all the information from intimidated constituencies that the Bureau should have, and the nation's foreign policy lock-steps troop offenders into unknown territory.

>>Currently, 1774 American soldiers (all age groups) are reported as being killed in Iraq.
19 of them were only 18 years old; and
107 of them were 19 years old.<<

So, based on the statistics you quote in the article your title is essentially a lie.

18 year olds make up less than 1% of the deaths and 19 year olds make up slightly over 6%, so they are small minorities of the total casualties. So it's not a 'teenage graveyard'. It is, in fact 20-somethings who are hit the hardest. And of course, the total death rate is less than 1/10th of 1% of the total number of troops who have been deployed there. For comparison the total rate of death over the 9 years of Vietnam was almost double that. In both cases taking rotation and total troop deployments into consideration.

Here's an article you might want to check out by the leading military analyst in the world, Jim Dunnigan.

Dave

Even if they were 18 or 19 they are still adults who decided to join the military and fight terrorism. And how dare you guys speak on behalf of the troops. They voted over 90% to reelect Bush. My cousin died in Iraq and his mom cries every time a democRAT talks about the war in Iraq and how our men are dying for no cause. His parents are damn proud of him and I envy him hoping I get a chance to also go fight the war on terror. Only if Hillary isn't our commander and cheif.

My responses to Dave and Anthony's comments are as follows:

To Dave- The statistics you call "essentially a lie" come from a site called
Iraq Coalition Casualties. You might want to visit it as it has some incredibly detailed breakdowns of casualties, links to CENTCOM and various DOD sources, news from Iraq, from Afghanistan, and from the homefront (hometowns of those killed and/or injured as well as major newpapers from around the world).

For instance, on the same day you wrote your comment about how the statistics were a lie and that very few teenagers die in Iraq, the following happened and was reported through the soldier's hometown newspaper linked to the site:

"Ramon Villatoro, 19, was a 2004 graduate of Foothill High School and died Sunday in or near Baghdad. The Army private was married less than a year and his wife Amanda is due to give birth to the couple's child in November."

The site even has a link to the Armed Forces Relief Trust which is a very worthwhile non-profit that helps serving and returning members and their families (like Ramon's wife and soon to be born child) of the armed forces in a real and positive financial way. Perhaps a donation to them could find its way from you. Personally, I find it beats chest-thumping any day.

As for the Jim Dunnigan article, I didn't even mention Vietnam but since you bring up his article as some sort of definitive proof (of something):

It's dated Nov. 17, 2003 (long before all "heck" really broke out) and he references the time frame between March 19 and October 30, 2003 claiming, "...the reporting of casualties is different in Iraq. There is no "body count" (of enemy dead) mentality, a deliberate decision meant to avoid the mistakes encountered with that sort of thing in Vietnam." He also states, "While the number of Iraqi attacker deaths are not made public..."

Perhaps that was true in 2003 but today every time there is an attack on our troops we are told of how many of the enemy was killed (there have even been Senate hearings where even Republicans (Lugar, McCain, Hagel, etc) have taken the Pentagon on regarding these reports- if you recall there were just a few "dead-enders" that had to be changed to "insurgents" after so many "dead-enders" were claimed to have been killed and the numbers weren't quite adding up.

The article also states, "Iraq is very different, with much more precise firepower and many more journalists running around looking for the few civilian deaths that do occur". It seems to me that journalists aren't leaving the green zone and dead bodies are being piled up at the door (due to fighting and suicide bombers).

Furthermore, a recent report by the Iraqi government shows 25,000 civilian deaths. Maybe that means that 25,000 Iraqi civilians don't matter or, to put a better face on it, maybe it shows that looking at a 2 year old article at the start of a conflict as definitive proof (of something) is a bad idea.

In response to Anthony- I don't pretend to speak for the troops. I'm speaking for myself. As for "how dare I..", I thought that's what the troops were fighting for- my right to dare to speak freely.

I'm sorry to hear about your cousin. I really am. That was the point of what I wrote. I hope you give it some thought or, at the very least, I hope that when you're ready to go, there's a plan in place for a victory in a "war" against a method.

And again, no, I don't deign to think I speak for your cousin. As a matter of fact, I very much wish he were here to speak for himself.

There was a time when 18 year olds were considered adults, and treated that way. In WWII, a 20 year old sergeant was considered an old man. Everyone of these "teenagers" made the choice to enlist, and serve, and go to war. They don't need your pity, just your respect.

AP, a anecdotal example of one teenager who died does not change the innacuracy of the statistics you quote.

As for the Dunnigan article, it's relevant for the general points it makes.

In fact, the current percentage of deaths is somewhat lower than it was when Dunnigan wrote his article because more troops have cycled through Iraq and the death rate has not changed significantly overall.

And I didn't make my comparison based on Dunnigan's article, I did the calculations myself. All you need to do is take the number of deaths as a percentage of all the troops who've served in Iraq to see how small the level of deaths is. Fewer than 1 in 1000 soldiers has died there.

In point of fact, the chance of a teenage soldier being killed in Iraq is only a little bit higher than their chance of being killed in a car crash over the same period of time if they had remained here in the US.

Dave

LOL, speaking lies, damned lies and statistics, I just stopped by the census website.

The percentage of deaths in the general population here in the US and the percentage of deaths among soldiers in Iraq are virtually identical.

Dave

Response to Dave:

Your numbers argument is with the Iraq Casualty Count. Considering their sourcing and the relaince of major media and even gov't reports on them, I'll stick with their numbers.

Also, why do you keep referring to total number of troops served? I never referred to that number. I was talking about total killed and the age brackets involved.

As for the 1% and 6% numbers for 18 and 19 year olds- please note that I mentiond the 18-20 year old range as being the second highest. The actual numbers are 18 = 1.1%; 19 = 6%; 20 = 11%. The total % therefore equals 18.1%.

But I digress. Frankly, I don't understand your comments. You seem to take a certain glee in this back and forth. From my end we're talking about death, regardless of age, and the point should be to find out if we have a plan for this war. From where I'm sitting, I don't see it.

As for the other references to 18 year olds enlisting, being men, etc, well, I agree. Let them drink and don't ever tell one they're too young if they come to rent an apartment from you or get a bank loan for a large amount of money. Let them join major metropolitan police departments and make major airline carriers have them as pilots. Personally, I think all those things should happen. I would love to see an 18 year old surgeon.

Unfortunately, I find that those that tell me to shut up about 18 and 19 year olds getting killed because enlisting was their decision and they're entitled to it because they're adults are reluctant to let them buy alcohol, fly a plane with 300 people on it, loan them any money at all, not to mention renting to them and the last thing they want is an 18 year old with a scalpel coming at them (surgery room or not-trained or not).

Be consistent and I'll listen.

In the meantime look into yourself and see if you can define this war before you are so quick to dismiss the lives lost as "statistically insignificant".

Lives lost are never insignificant, but must be viewed in context. War is ugly and brutal but is sometimes preferable to the alternative.

AmeriPundit;

The main thing to keep in mind when discussing the invasion of Iraq with Dave Nalle, is the fact that Nalle has never served in the military. He talks the talk - but he's never walked the walk. All his macho war-speak is nothing more than empty rhetoric. This may explain why he's so cavalier regarding those killed in action.

Like all Chickenhawks, Nalle has no qualms whatsover sending someone else to fight his battles for him.

MCH, how about making a positive contribution to a conversation for once. Surely you have opinions more useful than your usual whining? The next time you see me making 'macho war speak' will be the first time. You assume that just because I support truth I support war. BTW, how is your status in the reserves? I assume you remained on reserve status after your time on active duty was up? I'm surprised you haven't been reactivated. Surely you have some useful skills like deck swabbing and bilge cleaning.

Dave

>>Your numbers argument is with the Iraq Casualty Count. Considering their sourcing and the relaince of major media and even gov't reports on them, I'll stick with their numbers.<<

I've never disputed their numbers. They seem relatively accurate. The question isn't with their numbers, it's with how you choose to interpret them and the conclusions you draw.

>>Also, why do you keep referring to total number of troops served? I never referred to that number. I was talking about total killed and the age brackets involved. <<

I refer to that number because it's the relevant baseline for any statistical analysis. It's the total against which all your percentages are measured. If you're going to throw these numbers around you ought to know that.

>>But I digress. Frankly, I don't understand your comments. You seem to take a certain glee in this back and forth. From my end we're talking about death, regardless of age, and the point should be to find out if we have a plan for this war. From where I'm sitting, I don't see it.<<

I regret every death. What I'm concerned about here is your gross misrepresentation of the risk involved in the war and the weighting of the deaths towards the younger soldiers.

>>Be consistent and I'll listen.<<

I am being consistent, but you don't seem interested in listening.

>>In the meantime look into yourself and see if you can define this war before you are so quick to dismiss the lives lost as "statistically insignificant".<<

Taken individually every life is significant, but you attempted to make your point statistically, and you used your stratistics deceptively.

Fact: The percentage of the soldiers who die in Iraq who are in the 18-20 year old range is proportional to the total number in that age range who are serving in the Iraqi theater.

Fact: The percentage of soldiers in Iraq in the 18-20 year old age range who die is lower than the percentage of 18-20 year olds in the general population who die in the same time period in the civilian US.

So, your title about a teenage graveyard is incorrect. Not only do teenagers not die out of proportion to other soldiers, but statistically a teenager is less likely to die in Iraq than he is to die if he stays home in the US.

Dave

"Surely you have some useful skills like deck swabbing and bilge cleaning."
- Dave Nalle

I've never pretended that my service was anything but mediocre. But it was more than you've done, Nalle.

And, unlike yourself, I would never send someone else to do something I hadn't done myself.

Those soldiers who have died have earned your respect. They are not children. They have held more responsibility then most people on this site will ever hold. They've performed and dealt with situations that most here only see in video games.

Calling them helpless kids degrades their service and defacates on their gaves.

JB...such poetic vizin.

>>And again, no, I don't deign to think I speak for your cousin. As a matter of fact, I very much wish he were here to speak for himself<<

No, but a second cousin is here to talk about it. He brought home a couple of pictures of himself and other soldiers playing soccer with several Iraqi kids. He claimed that at leased 80% of the Iraqi people were happy to see Americans there. I do not need to see any site to believe him, because he was actually there. He has called into many radio shows.

Comment 5, well said.

Comment 14, well said, great comment. But it is my life long dream to earn as much respect as they have.

Dave, seriously have you ever sevrved? Surely you are old enough to have fought in Vietname since you are a retired professor.

I missed Vietnam by 3 years and don't exactly regret it. And I'm not a retired prof, I took my retirement money and bowed out prematurely in pursuit of other interests.

Dave

Dave,

I assume that your last paragraph is intended to address the growing concerns that parents are showing about the aggressive recruiting going on in "target"- which means low income- high schools.

I guess you're going to hit them with the, "Don't worry mom and dad- they're safer in Baghdad" line.

Incidentally, your insults are growing old. Calling something a "lie", accusing someone of "grossly misrepresenting" (you might want to look that up in Black's Law Dictionary), throwing in a "misleading" and a "deception" here and there doesn't add much. I take that back. It seems to make you happy.

By the way, I notice you must not have looked at the Iraq Coalition Casualties site or, if you did, not carefully enough.

Had you done so, you would have noticed that the 18 year old U.K. death rate is higher (percentage- wise) than the U.S. one. The puzzling thing is why their 19 and 20 year old casualty rate drops off so much as to render the percentage so much lower for the group (18, 19, and 20) in its entirety (from the U.K.) as compared to the U.S.

I'd bet that if you redirected some of the aggression you display towards a keyboard to getting to the bottom of that problem you'd become the hero that you know you are (hint: manpower shortages; rushed training; lowered standards; drill instructors ordered to "back-off" tough training techniques).

I have noticed that not one comment has discussed, or apparently wants to discuss, the issue of why it's taking so long for Iraqi's to get up to speed to defend their own country.

Every comment that claims the post is disrespectful to the troops leaves one to wonder how disrespectful it is to our troops and to the American public that we may have to have 12 more years (according to Rumsfeld) of our troops getting shot at.

I'll repeat it since nobody seems to have read that section of the post-- Doesn't it strike anybody as extremely odd that what our 18 year olds can learn at a short stint in boot camp and then apply in a foreign land, the Iraqi's (18 years of age and up), whose land it is, can't learn in over 2 years?

Isn't anybody curious about that? After all, Iraq had an army before it was disbanded by another genius decision. They've fought in a few wars recently. It's not like they don't know which end of the gun to point at the enemy. Doesn't this tiny, little detail bother anybody?

Using American soldiers as a shield from examination of policy blunder after policy blunder is worse than insulting. Questioning why our troops are dying seems, to these eyes, a duty.

Frankly, I think focusing on the age thing is a big mistake.

Iraq is a friggin' MAJOR DISASTER from about a dozen various angles, and to go off on the ages of the US G.I.s is not even necessary to critique Bush's Blunder.

Iraq is balanced on the knife-edge of two scenarios (which I've been harping on since BEFORE the invasion, btw):

1) all-out civil war

2) an Iran-friendly 'democratically elected' {neo-theocratic} government bought and paid for by american cash and lives.

Either one is an OOPS! -- and actually, we're facing the possibility that BOTH #1 & 2 will be the prevailing situation in Iraq for years, if not decades. (!)

BTW: An article in this week's New Yorker (S. Hersch) and a book by a Bush administration guy (Diamond) tells of Bush's push to FIX or INFLUENCE the "free elections" in Iraq last January.

More good PUBLIC RELATIONS from the people who brought you Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and the "Crusades" against terrorism.

feh.

We're doomed in Iraq. Admit it now, America -- and let's pack up and go home.


========

AnthonyGrande: "...My cousin died in Iraq and his mom cries every time a democRAT talks about the war in Iraq and how our men are dying for no cause."

Don't worry about Democrats: HISTORY will judge that your cousin died for NO CAUSE.

Sorry 'bout that.

Talk to Bush.

BTW: After YEARS of the Administration yappin' their BS about the progress made in "training" the Iraqis to take over their own security, the Pentagon now admits that at MOST, they can muster about THREE battalions of Iraqis.

Jeesus.

A handful of Crips in Los Angeles could whip three battalions of Iraqis.

At this rate, we'll be in Iraq for at least two or three ye.... oh, wait, we already have...

um... we'll be in Iraq for at least a decade or more.

Thanks, George!

"Dave, seriously, have you ever served?"
- Anthony Grande

Since Nalle failed to give a complete and honest answer here, the truth is, Anthony...No, Dave Nalle has never served in the U.S. military. Even failing to enlist during Desert Storm, when he had a perfect opportunity to put his money where his mouth is...

I mean, why take a risk when you can use others who are brave enough to do your fighting for you...right Nalle?

Well, I don't want to get on anyone's bad side. But instead of arguing about what is going on, just acknowledge that it is going on. Be supportive of our troops, they need us now more than never. On a side note: Ramon Villatoro PFC of Bakersfield Ca, who just died in Iraq was a good friend of mine. His wife, also a very good friend, wants people to know that he loved the Army, and though she may or may not be for the war she understands that he wanted to serve his country. So that is all we can do for these soldiers. Let us be thankful for people like Ramon, and hope that he, and people like him, are in heaven now.

Re: Juan's comment:

I see no reason to doubt the validity of your claim that Ramon was a good friend. The comments are too heartfelt and eloquent as their sense of loss jumps off the screen/page and wraps around the those who see them.

Thanks for the contribution and thanks for helping to add a fuller dimension to Ramon's life for the rest of the readers.

As you may have noted, his death was brought up in a local paper, was brought up herein, and was subsequently dismissed by a comment as, "a [sic]anecdotal example of one teenager who died".

I would like to point out for readers that questioning a policy that led to the death of Ramon is not being unsupportive of the troops. As a matter of fact, his name probably only became known to the majority of readers through the questioning. We have too many people willing to dismiss him as an "anecdotal example" rather than as a human being.

Best of wishes to Ramon's family, his friends, and his comrades-in-arms.

Contrary to what MCH thinks in his bizarre delusional world I don't set national policy, did not deploy troops to Iraq and did not launch the US invasion of Iraq.

If he chooses not to support national policy and not to support our troops in Iraq, that's his choice. He did his service, and it alienated him from our military policy, and that's fine for him. I did not serve in the military, but I do at least have the good sense to back up my government and our soldiers when their lives are at stake.

As I've said before, no one in the US has an obligation to serve in the military. That's why we have and should have a volunteer military. I suppose MCH would prefer a draft, but IMO that's a violation of fundamental human rights. As far as my service, I think I served my country by working in government, teaching kids about wars of the past so they could make informed decisions about whether to join the military or not, and by working to stop the draft and fighting against registration (unsuccessfully) when it was implemented. It's not the same as serving in the military, but there are lots of ways to serve.

What could be more hypocritical than someone who is against war, yet thinks everyone should serve in the military whether they want to or not?

Dave

AmeriPundit, referring to Ramon as an 'anecdotal example' doesn't belittle him or his service, it just puts it in context. Each individual story of a death in Iraq is tragic. But all those individual tragedies don't alter the larger facts of the situation which you are apparently unwilling to address, such as the deceptiveness of the title and content of this article, and the fact that the death rate among US Soldiers fighting in Iraq is lower than the death rate among civilians of the same ages. Care to put aside the emotional arguments and look at those actual facts?

Dave

Dave,

Re: "deceptiveness of the title and content of this article...".

Earlier you stated you had no issue with the numbers in the article. Now they seem to be deceptive. That's unfortunate because the source, as mentioned earlier, seems to pass muster with every reputable reporting agency and is closely tied into and tracks all gov't agencies that deal with casualties.

The title also apparently really bothers you. To back up your argument you state that, "the death rate among US Soldiers fighting in Iraq is lower than the death rate among civilians of the same ages."

Please note that the article refers to soldiers. It breaks down a group (American soldiers) into ages and makes a comparison. The only other comparison is between U.S. and U.K. soldiers, and again, soldiers by age group. The controlling factor is soldiers. In other words, healthy men and women who undergo tests and training.

Were you the statistician you pretend to be then you would realize that it is impossible to compare our soldiers and our civilians. If we did, then we'd have to exclude all factors that are the causes of civilian deaths. In other words, you must first subtract all deaths from cancer, heart problems (yes even for young Americans), diabetes, suicide, and accidents.

The three leading causes of 18-24 year old civilians dying are automobile accidents (by far), homicide, and suicide. That means you'd have to take out 2 of the three categories immediately or, at least, adjust for them. You could argue that if an 18 year old wasn't in Iraq getting shot at, he or she would probably die in a car accident, but that would be irrelevant as the two causes of death have nothing to do with each other. Furthermore, that argument would mean you were clairvoyant in which case you should head for the closest store that sells lottery tickets and pick your winning numbers. You could also tell us all how many more will die in this conflict and name them in advance.

You'd still have to deal with the other causes in the general population (cancer, etc). Soldiers are screened for these things and are unlikely to die from cancer in theater (although our use of depleted uranium shells might keep that in store for them years down the road).

The last time I saw/heard someone make these ridiculous soldier/civilian comparisons was Britt Hume on FOX. It was in 2003 and he said, "Two hundred and seventy seven U.S. soldiers have now died in Iraq, which means that, statistically speaking, U.S. soldiers have less of a chance of dying from all causes in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California..."

By the way, do you remember when the number of deaths was 277? It was right about the time our leadership told the country and 1,500 soon-to-be dead soldiers and their families that the "MISSION (was) ACCOMPLISHED".

Hume went on to draw some statistics to show that, in essence, Californians (civilians) were 5-6 times more likely to be murdered than if they were serving in Iraq. You can look up his statement 2 ways. One is to search through FOX's archives. The other is to 'Google' or use any other search engine to look up the keywords, "Britt Hume Stupid Comments American Casualties".

He was rightly criticized for his false comparisons in using civilian versus soldier deaths. He was also criticized for comparing the geographic size of Iraq to that of California in his rationale. Both criticisms were based on relevance.

Your analysis parallels Hume's and is subject to the same dismissal. You don't take into consideration all causes of death that face civilians versus those that face soldiers (which alters the stats dramatically); you don't take into account that the screening process for soldiers (boot camp, etc) weeds out many of the sick and primarily the healthiest among us serve; you don't take into account that the chances of dying for the age group in question for the civilian population is dictated by disease or carelessness with only a small part being homicide; you don't take into account that virtually all of the 1700+ deaths in Iraq were what a civilian (or gov't reporting agency) would call homicide if it happened in Boise.

So if you want to draw comparisons first identify your group. Identify what they die from. Then draw a conclusion. If you find that the primary cause (90%+) of deaths among 18 and 19 year old civilians is by homicide and less than 10% of their deaths are the result of automobile accidents, suicide, cancer, etc., then you're right. If not, then I'm sure you'll find a way to say you're still right.

To further show why an anlysis using civilians and soldiers is invalid consider this reprint of a 2004 NY Times article:

The article relates to a report commissioned by the Army when they became concerned about suicides in Iraq. The results were disturbing and varied among the different branches. The Army, which had the highest rate, had nothing else to say so it hung its hat on the "civilian" rate of suicide (which was higher than for those serving in Iraq). The following is a representative response to that comparison (note the screening factor):

"We are concerned that the Army is equating the suicide rate in Iraq with that of the general population," said Wayne Smith, a spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation and a Vietnam combat medic. "This is misleading in the extreme, given that military personnel are supposed to be screened for the kind of psychiatric disturbances that can lead to suicide. To suggest that the Army's suicide rate is not worrisome, based on this comparison, only further confuses the issue."

As an aside, where, in your scenario, would you fit amputees, brain damage, and post traumatic stress disorder?

Consider:
"US troops injured in Iraq have required limb amputations at twice the rate of past wars, and as many as 20 percent have suffered head and neck injuries that may require a lifetime of care, according to new data giving the clearest picture yet of the severity of battlefield wounds."

There are many more sites that deal with the civilian/soldier comparison and the sheer folly of it but for some reason I'm sure they will have no impact on you.

>>Earlier you stated you had no issue with the numbers in the article. Now they seem to be deceptive. That's unfortunate because the source, as mentioned earlier, seems to pass muster with every reputable reporting agency and is closely tied into and tracks all gov't agencies that deal with casualties.<<

I have never said your numbers are incorrect. It's your interpretation of them which is flawed. You take the numbers and draw conclusions from them which are at best inaccurate and at worst deliberately deceptive.

>>The title also apparently really bothers you. To back up your argument you state that, "the death rate among US Soldiers fighting in Iraq is lower than the death rate among civilians of the same ages."<<

Yes, please note that I said 'of the same ages', invalidating your criticism based on statements made by Brit Hume and others who did not make comparisons of comparable groups.

>>Were you the statistician you pretend to be then you would realize that it is impossible to compare our soldiers and our civilians.<<

Not at all, so long as you compare groups which fit the same basic criteria. It may not be an entirely perfect comparison, but there is still a valid point to be made, to wit that the rate of death among 18-20 year olds over the course of the war in Iraq has been higher among those who stayed in the US than among those who went to Iraq. Not the NUMBER of deaths, but the percentage of deaths out of the population in that age range in the two locations. That's a comparison of similar groups for the same time period and on a proportional basis, so it's a valid comparison.

>> If we did, then we'd have to exclude all factors that are the causes of civilian deaths. In other words, you must first subtract all deaths from cancer, heart problems (yes even for young Americans), diabetes, suicide, and accidents.<<

Why? All those causes of death are still present in Iraq and they're counted among the casualties. Fewer soldiers die in car crashes and from suicide. More die from getting shot. The point is not to compare the number of gunshot deaths in the two places, but the general rate of death.

>>The three leading causes of 18-24 year old civilians dying are automobile accidents (by far), homicide, and suicide.<<

Also the top 3 sources of death of people in that age range in Iraq, just in a different order.

>> That means you'd have to take out 2 of the three categories immediately or, at least, adjust for them. You could argue that if an 18 year old wasn't in Iraq getting shot at, he or she would probably die in a car accident, but that would be irrelevant as the two causes of death have nothing to do with each other<<

No, because I'm not comparing causes of death, I'm just comparing total rates of death. What you're suggesting I do is pointless. Comparing causes of death isn't relevant to the point I'm making, which is that if you get a lot of teenagers together anywhere a certain percentage will die, and that they die at a slightly higher rate if they don't go to Iraq than if they do.

>>>>Hume went on to draw some statistics to show that, in essence, Californians (civilians) were 5-6 times more likely to be murdered than if they were serving in Iraq. You can look up his statement 2 ways. One is to search through FOX's archives. The other is to 'Google' or use any other search engine to look up the keywords, "Britt Hume Stupid Comments American Casualties".<<

Yes, Hume's comparisons are idiotic. They're apple/oranges type comparisons. They are not the same as comparisons of the gross death rate among two different groups of people who are in the same age range. My comparison is as valid as a comparison between teen deaths in the US and Sweden, for example.

>>Your analysis parallels Hume's and is subject to the same dismissal. <<

Wrong. I'm comparing equivalent things, Hume was not.

>>You don't take into consideration all causes of death <<

Right, because I'm not comparing causes of death or number of deaths from a specific cause, I'm comparing total number of deaths, and that's all I'm doing. I'm not trying to make a great statistical analysis, I'm trying to make a point - which is that life is dangerous, whether you're in Iraq or not, especially if you're a teen AND that the rate of death among teens in Iraq is extremely low compared to other wars. The point of it all is that you're trying to make what is actually a low casualty rate sound like something much worse, and you're doing it by misrepresenting what the statistics you've raised actually mean by not presenting them in context.

In the context of deaths in the same age range and deaths in prior wars the rate of deaths among teen soldiers in Iraq is lower. That's a fact. You can't just deny it away.

>>So if you want to draw comparisons first identify your group.<<

18-20 year old soldiers.

>> Identify what they die from.<<

All possible causes of death.

>> Then draw a conclusion. <<

A higher percentage die in America than in Iraq.

That's it. That's the entire comparison. There's no need or reason to break it down any further, unless you want to try to bogusly undermine the argument with irrelevancies.

>>As an aside, where, in your scenario, would you fit amputees, brain damage, and post traumatic stress disorder?<<

That's an entirely different issue and it has nothing to do with the point I was making. However, based on the fact that auto accidents in the US account for more than half the teen deaths I would bet that the civilian maiming rate is comparably high.

>>"US troops injured in Iraq have required limb amputations at twice the rate of past wars, and as many as 20 percent have suffered head and neck injuries that may require a lifetime of care, according to new data giving the clearest picture yet of the severity of battlefield wounds."<<

Brilliant example of double think. These 'additional' wounded soldiers are, of course, soldiers who would have died in past wars. So in reality they recommend a reduction in the death rate rather than an increase in the casualty rate.

>>There are many more sites that deal with the civilian/soldier comparison and the sheer folly of it but for some reason I'm sure they will have no impact on you. <<

Right, because I'm not trying to manufacture bogus arguments against the War in Iraq.

Dave

Re: D's last comment

>>"No, because I'm not comparing causes of death, I'm just comparing total rates of death. What you're suggesting I do is pointless.<<"

Pointless? Perhaps you're right. This discussion is pointless. My point is that 18 and 19 year olds die of "homicide" in Iraq at a rate of 90%+. Your point is that they would die at a higher rate if they stayed in the U.S.

Your point is that soldiers suffer from the same other causes of death as civilians. My point is that there is a screening process involved that is supposed to disallow the sick and frail from becoming soldiers thereby throwing the comparisons out-of-whack.

My group is made up of young, healthy, men and women who are getting either shot or blown up. Your group is civilians regardless of health dying from all causes.

You are, like Hume, comparing apples and oranges and are attacking the following statement (which makes the point clearly):

"We are concerned that the Army is equating the suicide rate in Iraq with that of the general population," said Wayne Smith, a spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation and a Vietnam combat medic. "This is misleading in the extreme..."

"Misleading in the extreme..." According to you, I guess he's wrong too. I suppose you would tell him that you can't distinguish between the civilians and those serving because that would be "pointless".

As for the casualties and how they would have died in other wars. I agree. It goes to show that because of certain improvements in both body armor and medicine we are capable of keeping them off of the "Killed in Iraq" list. It is also intended to show just how dangerous the environment of this "adventure" is.

Thank you for all the comments you posted. I think I can safely say that they have been of minimal value.

How long were we in Japan or Germany? How long have we been in the former Yugoslavia (Remember, when we went in with IFOR in December of '95, it was only going to be for a year--we're still there).

How many troops died in one day at Normandy? How many died in a year in Korea?

If we turn tail and pack up every time the going gets tough, we are doomed. Maybe it was a mistake to go into Iraq, maybe it wasn't, but it would be incredibly stupid to just pack it in because we have been losing 2 troops a day.

Do our troops die in war? Yeah. Our some of them teens? Yeah. That is reality folks. This ain't no stupid TV contest on some friggen island. It isn't a friggen video game. This is what happens in conflicts. This is what has always happened in conflicts. Suck it up and see it through, because the consequences of backing out will be far worse. And about those guys who died? Give them the respect they deserve by not throwing in the towel just because it figuratively hurts.

>>Thank you for all the comments you posted. I think I can safely say that they have been of minimal value.<<

True, they didn't back up your myopic negativistic viewpoint, so their value to you was minimal. I'm not here to help you run down the war effort and paint a negative picture of the US and our military, I'm here to put your comments in a more realistic perspective.

You are, of course, correct, that the conditions under which people die in Iraq are different from those under which they die at home. Put the ultimate point - which you will never accept - is that even though every death in combat is regrettable, the total number of casualties in Iraq is not outrageous or unacceptable, it's low and acceptable when taken in context. To present it as a holocaust of some sort is deceptive and essentially propagandistic.

Dave

Actually Dave, what I was referring to by "minimal value" was the following:

Directed to me (by you):

>> your title is essentially a lie

>> speaking lies, damned lies

>> your gross misrepresentation

>> you used your stratistics deceptively

>> the deceptiveness of the title and content of this article

>> conclusions from them which are at best inaccurate and at worst deliberately deceptive

>> you're doing it by misrepresenting what the statistics you've raised actually mean

>> unless you want to try to bogusly undermine the argument with irrelevancies

>> Brilliant example of double think

>> Right, because I'm not trying to manufacture bogus arguments against the War in Iraq

>> your myopic negativistic viewpoint

>> deceptive and essentially propagandistic.

Directed to others who commented (by you):

>> your usual whining

>> Surely you have some useful skills like deck swabbing and bilge cleaning

>> Contrary to what MCH thinks in his bizarre delusional world

Well argued.

Hmmm. I think I drove home the point that you are being deceptive pretty thoroughly and consistently. Your little out of context quotes certainly support that observation.

As for the comments to MCH, he's a troll and he needs slapping down on a regular basis.

Dave

Re: Dave's last comments

Directed to me:

>> you are being deceptive pretty thoroughly and consistently

Directed to others who commented:

>> As for the comments to MCH, he's a troll and he needs slapping down on a regular basis

Just add those to the other fine contributions Dave's made to this discussion.

The justification for all the name- calling seems to be that I'm trying to make up reasons against the war, according to Dave's following comment, "Right, because I'm not trying to manufacture bogus arguments against the War in Iraq."

People can differ as to whether the war was and/or is a positive development in either the micro or the macro view of political dynamics. However, it is difficult to imagine that anybody would need to manufacture reasons against the war. There are plenty out there. Just as there are plenty of reasons to have gone in the first place. Time is the only thing that will prove either side right.

Dave also feigns offense at what he sees as my attack on the military. He says, "I'm not here to help you run down the war effort and paint a negative picture of the US and our military...". First, "running down the war effort", whatever that means, is not my intended goal. I have no goal. I have observations. The reader can draw their own conclusions and agree, disagree, or modify the observations to suit themselves. I do not pretend to be "driving home any points" because to do so would be to think too much of my abilities and too little of the reader.

Second, "paint a negative picture of the military". This is perhaps the most overused and frankly, cowardly phrase from those who are stuck defending indefensible positions taken by power brokers in Washington.

It is hiding behind the blood of the military and, it casts any critique of policy as being anti-military.

What is interesting about that comment is that it is made against, in this case, me, without knowing me, knowing my background, or knowing anything about where I put the use of force in the spectrum of available responses should a threat arise.

I also take exception to being criticized as "painting a negative picture of the military" by someone who wrote the following in a commentary to an article on this site called, "U.S. Military in Iraq Caught Posing Propaganda As News":

To that author from Dave:

>>Military press releases are and have been utter crap for at least 60 years. This isn't news to anyone familiar with them. I accept your lack of familiarity, but the fact is that this is no better or worse than their usuall[sic] absolute lack of standards or competence. It's not even really propaganda, because they really are too clueless to realize it might be taken that way.

I have a friend who worked as a photojournalist for Stars and Stripes and for the Army press office which releases stuff like this. He was always putting together bogus feel-good stories for them, basically designed to make everyone happy about the military.

My point here is that this press release is no better or worse than anything else they've put out over the years. The quotes are bogus, the journalistic value of it is nil, and the accuracy is certainly in question. It's a press release from the US military, no more no less - absolute garbage from the word go. The military press officers are just dumb. Expecting anything competent from them is a waste of time, but at the same time they really are too incompetent to deliberately engage in deception.<<

So according to Dave, Military Press Officers put out "utter crap", have an "absolute lack of standards or competence"; are "too clueless"; and they are liars since he has a friend who put together press releases for years and, "He was always putting together bogus feel-good stories for them, basically designed to make everyone happy about the military"; their "quotes are bogus, the journalistic value of it is nil"; their product is "absolute garbage from the word go"; and they are all too stupid for their own good, "The military press officers are just dumb. Expecting anything competent from them is a waste of time, but at the same time they really are too incompetent to deliberately engage in deception."

While Dave may attempt to distinguish between Military Press Officers and military, that dog won't hunt. If you accuse someone of "painting a negative picture of the military" then you mean the "military" and all of the different parts of it. Since the concern seems to be around the "war effort" those in charge of keeping up morale both at home and abroad are in a particualrly sensitive position and name-calling them seems counter-productive.

Frankly, with allies like Dave, our military needs no enemies and one will not be found in this author's observations. Policy, on the other hand, is fair game because it's generally created by armchair warriors who have seen one too many Rambo movies.

To Dave:

As for comments about others who have commented on the article, "he's a troll and he needs slapping down on a regular basis", I do not know the nature of your relationship to MCH. I do know that trolls are fictional characters. I also know that anyone who says anybody deserves "slapping down on a regular basis" has some serious issues that need to be dealt with. That is usually language associated with wife-beaters and/or gang-bangers.

If you are friends with MCH and are saying that in jest, fine, but please clearly identify it as a joke. If you are not friends, then I am requesting that you refrain from those types of comments when commenting on my articles. I only ask this because your comments are appended to my article and I do not wish to be associated with your gratuitous attacks on other readers.

Furthermore, it may not have dawned on you, but perhaps someone has something constructive to say either way but they may feel as though they do not want to place themselves under attack for their thoughts. Needless to say, all of us lose by not getting their contribution.

I thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Sorry, AmeriPundit. I don't feel guilty about telling the truth. You seem to have problems with even knowing what the truth is. You just want to misrepresent statistics to make your political point and then expect not to be challenged on it. Sorry not to oblige.

As for MCH, read his comments on this thread and others. All he ever does is call people 'chickenhawks'. That doesn't contribute positively to any discussion and I'm going to call him on it when he does it. I would think that since you're so protective of the followups to your articles you wouldn't want his behavior to mar them.

>>Furthermore, it may not have dawned on you, but perhaps someone has something constructive to say either way but they may feel as though they do not want to place themselves under attack for their thoughts. Needless to say, all of us lose by not getting their contribution<<

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. I'm not inclined to stand by and let utter distortions of fact stand unchallenged. If you want to post statistics and then misrepresent them to make a partisan point, that's your right. But don't expect people not to challenge you when your bias is so blatant and transparent and your interpretation of the facts is so easily refuted.

Dave

Dave,

I am simply asking you to refrain from name calling.

As for your not feeling guilty about telling the truth, as you see it, more power to you. I mean is it really asking much to ask that you stop hurling personal insults?

As for MCH, I don't know him but I seriously doubt that, "...ALL he ever does is call people 'chickenhawks'."

Wouldn't that mean that his comments would read as follows: "Chickenhawk, chickenhawk, chickenhawk, chickenhawk, chickenhawk,etc..." I seriously doubt that they read that way.

Perhaps your use of the words "All he ever does" is akin to your insisting on using "All causes of death" to 'prove' your point regarding my article. In both instances the use of the language and the category are inapplicable.

As for your kitchen comment, I'm not sure if you directed it at me or the people I referred to as perhaps not wanting to be subject to attack. If it was directed to me, then I say again, how do you know how hot of a kitchen I can stand. Incidentally, if you think this inane conversation is a hot kitchen, then you don't really know what "hot" means and, by extension, are wrongly elevating this level of debate.

If, on the other hand, it was directed towards potential comments from others, then unless you're in charge of this site, I don't think it's up to you to decide who can or can't take the temperature. If you feel that is your job then post an article and attack away. I am simply asking for you to tone it down here.

As for my 'bias' being so blatant, since, again, you don't know me, you must be drawing conclusions from something that you think is definitive of me as a human being. Since you think you know my biases, tell me Dave, am I pro- Ranch dressing or anti- Ranch dressing? Do I like steak or am I a vegetarian? How do I feel about seafood? Beer or wine guy? Scotch maybe? Those are easy. Seeing what's in my heart and mind is not.

The food references are not irrelevant. You've already put me in one of your mental boxes as a liar, bogus, misleading, etc. I'm right next to the Military Press Officer. You, of all people, should know our food preferences since you keep us in your boxes and feed us just enough so that when you need us we'll have barely the strength (in your mind) to be dragged out of the box and you can prove to yourself that you are a man by calling us some names and "slapping down" certain of us on a "regular basis".

Be a man. Post an article. Police it all you want. Slap down whoever you want. That is your right as well as the choice of those who visit your article.

I'm just politely asking for you to stop insulting people here.

>> am simply asking you to refrain from name calling.<<

The only name I've called anyone is 'troll' and I believe that applied to MCH where it's entirely appropriate. Identifying your postings as deception may seem like I'm calling you a name, but it's more in the nature of just identifying what you're doing.

>>As for your not feeling guilty about telling the truth, as you see it, more power to you. I mean is it really asking much to ask that you stop hurling personal insults?<<

Is it too much to ask you to admit that you're engaging in gross distortion of reality to serve a political agenda?

I believe in the truth, and when you take the truth and pervert it to serve a propagandistic agenda I find it offensive.

>>As for MCH, I don't know him but I seriously doubt that, "...ALL he ever does is call people 'chickenhawks'."

Wouldn't that mean that his comments would read as follows: "Chickenhawk, chickenhawk, chickenhawk, chickenhawk, chickenhawk,etc..." I seriously doubt that they read that way.<<

Then you're ill-informed. Here's a link to all his comments - enjoy. MCH Talks About Chickenhawks. You will find that he uses the actual word 'Chickenhawk' in about 70% of his comments and insults people for commenting on Iraq without having served in the military in 100% of his comments.

(comments too idiotic to respond to deleted)

>>As for my 'bias' being so blatant, since, again, you don't know me, you must be drawing conclusions from something that you think is definitive of me as a human being. <<

No, I'm just referring to what you have written. I can only comment on what I know and all I know of you is what I read. Your biases are blatant in what you write. Anything else I commented on would be speculation, so I don't comment on anything else. That's why it's not personal, it's just factual analysis of what I read.

>>Since you think you know my biases, tell me Dave, am I pro- Ranch dressing or anti- Ranch dressing? Do I like steak or am I a vegetarian? How do I feel about seafood? Beer or wine guy? Scotch maybe? Those are easy. Seeing what's in my heart and mind is not.<<

None of that has anything to do with your post here, so why would I have any basis to form opinions?

>>The food references are not irrelevant. You've already put me in one of your mental boxes as a liar, bogus, misleading, etc.<<

No, you put yourself in that box by the deceptive techniques you use.

>> I'm right next to the Military Press Officer.<<

No, they mostly misrepresent out of good intentions and ignorance. You apparently do it out of some darker motivation.

>> You, of all people, should know our food preferences since you keep us in your boxes and feed us just enough so that when you need us we'll have barely the strength (in your mind) to be dragged out of the box and you can prove to yourself that you are a man by calling us some names and "slapping down" certain of us on a "regular basis".<<

What the hell are you talking about? Your original article was full of weak minded misinterpretation, but I didn't think you were delusional until now.

>>Be a man. Post an article. Police it all you want. Slap down whoever you want. That is your right as well as the choice of those who visit your article. <<

I've written over 100 articles on BC. You're welcome to read and comment on any of them.

>>I'm just politely asking for you to stop insulting people here.<<

The only insult here is the original article, which insults the good sense of anyone who reads it.

Dave

Dave,

I've read your most recent post. I didn't think there was much point to commenting on your observation that:

>> Mom, Dad and Kid running while holding hands is now the official international symbol for "Don't hit the Border Bunnies or you'll have to hire them to do your yardwork and build a new patio." <<

If you don't get the point of my comment regarding boxes people place others into and attribute it to being 'delusional' then so be it.

Thanks for the contributions.

Have you ever heard of something called 'satire', AmeriPundit. It's a tag at the head of that post.

I've noticed that humorlessness is a characteristic of those who are most earnest and defensive in their purveying of disinformation. I think the humorlessness is a characteristic of the same lack of self-awareness which is necessary to swallow a skewed view of reality and be so influenced by it that you want to pass it on to others.

Dave

Yes, it is clear that by his own admission, Dave is a chickenhawk.

Yes, after reading the above, it is clear that Dave uses insulting language.

And yes, Dave is a troll.

Ever considered thinking for yourself, RKC, or has that been programmed out of the current generation of ideo-bots coming from moveon.org.

Dave

Only a troll would go off the issue and refer to a true conservative as someone who takes direction from the referenced website.

Your response shows that you shoot blindly from the hip with your eyes closed.

Huh? True conservative? I have yet to see it, but I'll take your word for it. There are plenty of misguided conservatives - just look at the Neocons and Pat Buchanan.

I assumed that if you're backing up people like AmeriPundit you're a fellow traveller, especially when you start throwing around 'chickenhawk' like a 'Bush is Hitler' fanatic. You should always be prepared to be judged by the company you keep.

Dave

A chickenhawk is one who having never served in the military, promotes others doing so. You appear to fit that bill.

As a combat veteran, I am against the war in Iraq and I don't need any liberal organization to tell me it is a failed policy.

I don't refer to Bush in any derogatory terms. I say that he has been misled by the neocons. They succeeded because of his inexperience in foreign policy.

The company I keep has nothing to do with liberalism.

My position is clear.

I independently assess government policy and speak out against it when it is not in the best interest of our country.

Anyone who believes that the war in Iraq benefits our country has some explaining to do.

Average age 26.27
Age # 0%
18 19 1.07
19 106 5.96
20 194 10.91
21 209 11.75
22 183 10.29
23 116 6.52
24 125 7.03
25 95 5.34
26 94 5.29
27 73 4.11
28 59 3.32
29 57 3.21
30 51 2.87
31 54 3.04
32 34 1.91
33 36 2.02
34 30 1.69
35 22 1.24
36 40 2.25
37 25 1.41
38 23 1.29
39 23 1.29
40 14 0.79
41 13 0.73
42 14 0.79
43 16 0.90
44 9 0.51
45 11 0.62
46 8 0.45
47 6 0.34
48 2 0.11
49 4 0.22
50 3 0.17
51 4 0.22
52 1 0.06
53 1 0.06
54 1 0.06
55 1 0.06
56 0 0.00
57 0 0.00
58 0 0.00
59 1 0.06
60 1 0.06

That is based on the 1778 I have ages for.

Please note that not all of these are combat related deaths.

According to those numbers, only about 7% are "teenagers". 82% are old enough to drink.

It bears repeating:

RCK to DaveNulle: "A chickenhawk is one who having never served in the military, promotes others doing so. You appear to fit that bill.

As a combat veteran, I am against the war in Iraq and I don't need any liberal organization to tell me it is a failed policy.

I don't refer to Bush in any derogatory terms. I say that he has been misled by the neocons. They succeeded because of his inexperience in foreign policy.

The company I keep has nothing to do with liberalism.

My position is clear. I independently assess government policy and speak out against it when it is not in the best interest of our country.

Anyone who believes that the war in Iraq benefits our country has some explaining to do."

=====

Too many on this site mindlessly regurgitate the drool & drivel fed them by BushCo. They repeat the Spin For Today as if it were gospel; some of them may even marginally believe it, to a degree, which is even more astounding considering all the evidence out there to the contrary for their own consideration, but which they are apparently afraid or unwilling to consider. I don't mind calling Smirk any foul name I can think of, because IMO he's proven himself to be foul enough in terms of integrity, etc. to well deserve the worst that can be said (or that can happen) to him. He & those of his administration are liars, cheats, deserters, thieves, conspirators, traitors to the US, and yes, chickenhawks. They have no defense for their behavior & words, and there is no defense for them.

Comment 6
"...the chance of a teenage soldier being killed in Iraq is only a little bit higher than their chance of being killed in a car crash in the same period of time if they had remained here in the U.S."
- Dave Nalle

Nalle, you just pissed on the graves of those 125 teenagers who were killed in Iraq. To even remotely compare their enlistment, training and combat service - for our country in an overseas war - to driving a car, only verifies your ignorance of military affairs.

Perhaps if you had actually served in the armed forces, you might have a better concept of the ultimate sacrifices these young people have made for our nation.

Re comment #27 by Dave Nalle;

Just the fact that you would compare "...serving my country by working in government, teaching kids about wars of the past...and working to stop the draft and fighting against registration..." to the courage it takes to serve in combat, proves just how far out-of-touch with reality you are, Nalle.

Wow, Nalle, you worked in government. So what's the hold-up on your Medal of Honor?

Dave isn't responding to the above...

It looks like he left to join the witness protection program.

>>Dave isn't responding to the above...<<

I get to sleep don't I? And I don't respond to MCH, he's a troll. You I'll respond to since you at least appear to be rational.

>>A chickenhawk is one who having never served in the military, promotes others doing so. You appear to fit that bill.<<

I don't promote anyone joining the military. If I had my way we would dissolve the federal armed forces alltogether. I don't believe their existence is justified under the Constitution. I also oppose any form of draft. However, I do believe in supporting our troops and I do believe in fighting terror and oppression where it can be done and where it is necessary for the protection of our nation. That doesn't make me a chickenhawk, it makes me a concerned citizen.

>>As a combat veteran, I am against the war in Iraq and I don't need any liberal organization to tell me it is a failed policy.<<

I didn't support the idea of going to war in Iraq initially either, but I don't set national policy. I'm not yet convinced it's a failed policy, though I think it may have been poorly conceived and executed.

None of this changes the fact that we are there and have initiated an effort which HAS to be seen through to an acceptable conclusion. Abandoning the people of Iraq is not acceptable. We have a responsibility to do what we can to see that they come out of this better than they would have been had we not intervened.

>>I don't refer to Bush in any derogatory terms. I say that he has been misled by the neocons. They succeeded because of his inexperience in foreign policy.<<

Except that the war in Iraq really doesn't serve their objectives terribly well either. They've basically screwed themselves with it - which may be one of the more positive outcomes.

>>I independently assess government policy and speak out against it when it is not in the best interest of our country.<<

Hey, that's what I do too. It's not what most of the people currently opposing the administration do. Most of the opposition is operating on an agenda which has nothing to do with the actual merits of administration policy.

>>Anyone who believes that the war in Iraq benefits our country has some explaining to do.<<

I think that it COULD benefit the country, but it all depends on how we conclude the war. If we just bag out and leave the job undone then it's a disaster. If we follow through and leave a better situation there and in the rest of the middle east then it's a success. Right now we're on the balancing point between those two outcomes, and those who oppose the war on ideological grounds are basically trying to push towards the more disastrous possible outcome to benefit their own political factions. To me that's unacceptable. Worse than anything Bush has done. Bush at least had a reason for risking our troops. Those who want to abandon the war would make that sacrifice meaningless.

Dave

The war in Iraq was a bad idea. A terrible idea whose justification has changed whenever necessary.
That said, we are not in a position to leave. In one of the least quoted, least talked about news atricles I have read on Iraq, the DOD reported it had found 400,000 tons of muntions in Iraq. Estimates of Hussien's total run between 650,000 tons and 1.1 million tons. Of munitions. Guns, bombs, rocket launchers, grenades, explosives, etc. A little remedial math for those who need it: a ton is 2,000 lbs, so 1,000 tons is 2,000,000 lbs, a 100,000 tons is 200,000,000 lbs of what every terrorist wants to get his hands on the most.

To Anthony Grande: I hope you put your money where your mouth is and get over there kid. No one who didn't vote for Bush should have to die cleaning up the hundreds of millions of pounds of of guns and explosives that can now fall into the wrong hands thanks to this war.

"Anyone who believes that the war in Iraq benefits our country has some explaining to do" -- remains unanswered.

Your reasons don't come even close to explaining how the war in Iraq benefits our country.

"I think"... and "COULD benefit the country" and "it all depends"... are not convincing in any sense of the word.

Those phrases and excuses don't take a country into war and don't keep a country at war.

War is not a game of weak excuses.

You say, "If we just bag out and leave the job undone then it's a disaster."

But the way it is going -- it will be a BIGGER disaster.

Yes, we should just leave the Iraqis to find their own way. if they can't find their own way, there is nothing we can do for them.

The more we hold their hand the less they will do for themselves.

We cannot instill in people a different philosophy of life. If we can do that let's start by convincing all of the opposite political party to join the party we belong to.

It should be clear that we have not made the Middle East a safer place since invading Iraq.

There are ways to impove the Middle East but killing more people in Iraq is not the way to do it. You have to be blind not to see that.

You say that "we're on the balancing point between... two outcomes, and those who oppose the war on ideological grounds are basically trying to push towards the more disastrous possible outcome to benefit their own political factions."

Aside from the false notion that there would be a more disastrous outcome, which is far from proven, the corollary to this is that Bush should continue the war in Iraq because to do otherwise would reward his political foes.

And to you, "that's unacceptable."

If "Bush at least had a reason for risking our troops" that reason has never made sense. I can tell you that when the "war" was being proposed, there are few that I know that did not see it as a farce.

However, the lead-in to war was well orchestrated from a political point of view. Karl "Rasputin" Rove is an expert at what he does.

And you say, "those who want to abandon the war would make that sacrifice meaningless."

The sacrifices already made do not justify making more sacrifices.

RE: Comment 56

Yes, we are in a position to leave.

Your concern about munitions should be directed toward the fact that as long as we are there, the munitions will be used against Americans.

Guns, bombs, rocket launchers, grenades, explosives, etc. are much more likely to be used against Americans if Americans are where the munitions are located.

And yes, most of us know what a ton is.

And what "every terrorist wants to get his hands on" is Americans "the most" because we are there.

When we are gone, they will use the munitions on others -- but not Americans.

>>"I think"... and "COULD benefit the country" and "it all depends"... are not convincing in any sense of the word.<<

Neither is just asserting that the war is bad and a mistake, which is about all you've done. I provide qualified justifications because the war in Iraq isn't black and white as you seem to think it is.

>>Those phrases and excuses don't take a country into war and don't keep a country at war.<<

I didn't take the country into war. I didn't vote for the war, I didn't vote for a president with any stated intentions of going to war. In fact the guy I voted for was going to have a non-interventionist foreign policy.

>>You say, "If we just bag out and leave the job undone then it's a disaster."

But the way it is going -- it will be a BIGGER disaster.<<

Only if we don't improve the way in which we're managing the war. There's no reason why we can't allocate more resources to the war, take a harder line with the terrorists and stabilize things adequately.

>>Yes, we should just leave the Iraqis to find their own way. if they can't find their own way, there is nothing we can do for them. <<

They had their own way - they had Saddam Hussein. I suppose we coudl give him back, then watch as every good person in that country is put to death. Is this the solution you want?

Or do you prefer an islamic state where women are chattel and children are taught to hate America in their schools?

If you don't like doing what's necessary to wrap up the war in an effective way, give us a suggestion that won't produce worse results.

Just pulling out and leaving the Iraqis to die in a bloody civil war is unquestionably worse than staying there as long as needed to solve the problems.

>>The more we hold their hand the less they will do for themselves.<<

I agree here, but we have to provide them with the security they need to stand on their own. Otherwise they have no chance at all. There are people there who yearn for freedom and we're the only ones who can give them a chance to earn it.

>>We cannot instill in people a different philosophy of life. If we can do that let's start by convincing all of the opposite political party to join the party we belong to.<<

But they're fanatics who hate us. You don't understand the situation at all , do you? This isn't some sort of political argument, it's a fight to the death between good people and murderous, fanatical madmen who cannot be negotiated with.

>>It should be clear that we have not made the Middle East a safer place since invading Iraq.<<

Hardly. Look at the improvements in other parts of the Middle East. And although we hear lots of news reports about deaths in Iraq, the daily death total there still adds up to less than the deaths over a similar period of time under Saddam.

>>There are ways to impove the Middle East but killing more people in Iraq is not the way to do it. You have to be blind not to see that.<<

IMO you have to be blind not to see that we have an obligation there which we cannot abandon and retain any kind of legitimacy in international affairs. You'd have to be blind or just cruel to think that abandonning innocent people who are counting on us to murder, rape, enslavement and terror is the right thing to do.

>>Aside from the false notion that there would be a more disastrous outcome, which is far from proven,<<

What do you think will happen if we pull out unilaterally. Do you want to take responsibility for all the deaths and horrors which will ensue?

>> the corollary to this is that Bush should continue the war in Iraq because to do otherwise would reward his political foes.<<

That's not what I said. The onus is on the political foes here, not Bush. Abandonning the war would be a political mixed bag. Bush could easily turn the blame on the Democrats, so that's not really an issue. The issue is the Iraqi people and the principle of standing up to terrorism.

>>And to you, "that's unacceptable."<<

I don't give a rat's ass what happens to Bush. He's failed on so many of his important promises that I'd just as soon move on.

>>If "Bush at least had a reason for risking our troops" that reason has never made sense. I can tell you that when the "war" was being proposed, there are few that I know that did not see it as a farce.<<

So easy to say in hindsight. Where were these people at the time - they sure weren't outspoken or bringing forward any evidence or alternative plans that made any sense.

>>The sacrifices already made do not justify making more sacrifices.<<

Good, then you agree that sacrificing the entire nation of Iraq is not a viable option.

Dave

i was just br0wsing the internet about inf0rmati0n of a recent soldiers death n it took me to this site..Ramon Villatoro(19) fr0m bakersfield,Ca was my ex-boyfriend he died saturday when his tank exploded in Baghdad.I just hope people can see that there are alot of young lives being lost and lives period.i just wish this war would end and that everyone could be in peace and with there loved ones.I pray each day that our soldiers return and i pray even more for the ones wh0 didnt because now...there Heavens Soldiers..R.I.P Ramon A.Villatoro..i will always love n remember u babe.

Dave Nalle,

While I disagree on some of your statements, you are 100% that pulling out now would be stupid and would demean the sacrifices of those who have died or been injured.

"I'm not a Chickenhawk. I don't promote anyone joining the military. If I had my way, we'd dissolve the federal armed forces alltogether(sic)."
- Dave Nalle, comment 55, 3:36pm

seven hours later...

"You don't understand the situation at all, do you? This isn't some political argument, it's a fight to the death between good people and murderous, fanatical madmen who cannot be negotiated with."
- Dave Nalle, comment 59, 10:39pm

Nalle, in your own words, do you even read what you write?

You do more flip-flops than John Kerry. If there's no military, Nalle, than who's going to carry out your fight for you?

Someone is supposed to be spectro-graphing all recorded music with the cooperation of SUNY (State University of New York); habitual game-players will probably not be the best choice of recruit where fidelity and accurately- graphed identification charts are the actual category of work planned.

"I'm not a Chickenhawk. I don't promote anyone joining the military. If I had my way, we'd dissolve the federal armed forces alltogether(sic)."
- Dave Nalle, comment 55, 3:36pm

Fear of a standing army was one of the predominent views of our founding fathers.

"This isn't some political argument, it's a fight to the death between good people and murderous, fanatical madmen who cannot be negotiated with."

Which doesn't really negate his issue about a standing army.

You mentioned that we can train our teenagers rather quickly and send them into combat unprepared, while adult iraqis have been training for 2 years and they are still unprepared. Well first off being over in iraq for 12 months and seeing first hand...these iraqi male adults are rather immature and almost all have no post education and their former primary education was very very poor, compared with our education. heck, under saddams schools, they were taught how to use weapons, these iraqis were not schooled to learn the things we do and how to succeed. The iraqis were taught basic reading and writing and mainly instilled fear into every child of the 'powerful president Saddam.