Propaganda

[sequestrum]

Chicago averaged just under 50 homicides per month in 2003.  What he's trying to say is that if you think about it, although about 1000 soldiers have died in Iraq since the war's onset, its not really that bad. 

If it ain't that bad than why aren't you over there fighting or providing aid?

[kenhoeve]

This logic is positively killing me. No pun intended. Because X number of people die per year in Y city, it justifies Z number of people dying in Iraq? You people have completely lost it. Those soldiers have willingly placed their lives on the line. I would venture a great portion of those homicides involved both unsavory persons and activities. The two situations are not comparable.

And as for the history lesson:

Interesting that we only entered upon Japan's attack. That is a two-edged sword. We knew what was going on in Germany with the anti-semitism and other fascist activities even before WWII got started. It is well documented. But after we place a few critical embargoes on Japan, iron and oil for example, we get bombed by Japan knowing that we probably would, and then head into WWII with a large emphasis placed on territorial and economic interests in the pacific theater. Yes, many died. Relevant? No.

Korea

Cold war. Communism. Not much in it for us. Number of people that died relevant? No.

Vietnam

Cold war. Listen to Robert McNamara's take(the friggin secretary of defense at the time) in "The Fog of War" on DVD. Lives lost relevant? No.

Bosnia

Ethnic cleansing widely known to be taking place. We went in when we knew it. Pre-emptive? Yes. Economic or political interest? No.

Bush's record

Put nuclear inspectors in Iran and North Korea? Quois? Think they've already been there and it hasn't done a darn bit of good. Captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300k of his own people; a decade later. Even after we had already invaded the country and then withdrew subsequent to this slaughter; a decade earlier. A good argument? No.

Please use some fundamental argument that is not simply argumentative to substantiate a current war. Propaganda? You bet. True? Yes, but subjective.

If I were to give my life over there, surely I would want something more to substantiate it than the previous post.

[sequestrum]

Thats because CBS and NBC are not allow to say anything positive about the war when a Republician is in charge.  Dirt sells more.

←

I'm sure you weren't complaining when the media was tearing apart Clinton 24/7. For some reason it's ULTRA important that Clinton lied about sex but not so important that Bush lied about Iraq. Typical liberal media for you.

[mmetz]

I'm sure you weren't complaining when the media was tearing apart Clinton 24/7. For some reason it's ULTRA important that Clinton lied about sex but not so important that Bush lied about Iraq. Typical liberal media for you.

←

Bush didn't lie about Iraq - thus explaining it's unimportance. Obviously the media twisted facts enough to lead you to beleive that you were lied to, when in fact the entire country was convinced of what Saddam was up to.

And, not that it is of any current importance, Clintons bold face lie was important based on the idea that if you can't be truthful in the smaller issues, why should I beleive you in the larger issues. Let's be honest though, Clintons fixation on his own legacy is of no relivance to this topic.

[mmetz]

If it ain't that bad than why aren't you over there fighting or providing aid?

←

the point trying to be made is NOT that the US forces don't have it too bad, however the point is that the liberal media / Kerry continue to portray the war in Iraq as a grave mistake based on the lives being lost, and the comparison of war casualties to homicides in our own mainland put into perspective that the war is actually going rather well in spite of what you may be hearing.

no one here is devaluing the lives and responsiblities of US men and woman being risked daily in Iraq or anywhere

[mmetz]

This logic is positively killing me.  No pun intended.  Because X number of people die per year in Y city, it justifies Z number of people dying in Iraq?  You people have completely lost it.  Those soldiers have willingly placed their lives on the line.  I would venture a great portion of those homicides involved both unsavory persons and activities.  The two situations are not comparable.

And as for the history lesson:

Interesting that we only entered upon Japan's attack.  That is a two-edged sword.  We knew what was going on in Germany with the anti-semitism and other fascist activities even before WWII got started.  It is well documented.  But after we place a few critical embargoes on Japan, iron and oil for example, we get bombed by Japan knowing that we probably would, and then head into WWII with a large emphasis placed on territorial and economic interests in the pacific theater.  Yes, many died.  Relevant?  No.

Korea

Cold war.  Communism.  Not much in it for us.  Number of people that died relevant?  No.

Vietnam

Cold war.  Listen to Robert McNamara's take(the friggin secretary of defense at the time) in "The Fog of War" on DVD.  Lives lost relevant?  No.

Bosnia

Ethnic cleansing widely known to be taking place.  We went in when we knew it.  Pre-emptive?  Yes.  Economic or political interest?  No.

Bush's record

Put nuclear inspectors in Iran and North Korea?  Quois?  Think they've already been there and it hasn't done a darn bit of good.  Captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300k of his own people; a decade later.  Even after we had already invaded the country and then withdrew subsequent to this slaughter; a decade earlier.  A good argument?  No.

Please use some fundamental argument that is not simply argumentative to substantiate a current war.  Propaganda?  You bet.  True?  Yes, but subjective.

If I were to give my life over there, surely I would want something more to substantiate it than the previous post.

←

i don't beleive anyone was "justifying" the deaths of anyone. however, a perspective on what is occuring in Iraq compared with what happens in US cities was offered.

how is the number of deaths not relevant to a topic discussing, um... number of deaths?

you gave nothing more substantial than your opinion in response to facts

[Deltablade]

Thank you mmetz.

[kenhoeve]

Critical reading skills are lost on many here. Not saying you Metz, just saying people need to evaluate the core argument.

Charles's post, the very first one. What does it say? Not literally, but really say? It says a few things and allow me to break it down.

1. This war isn't bad at all.

Why?

2. Lots of people have died in wars. Just as many people die in US cities.

3. Relative to other extraneous subject matter it isn't taking that long.

Now, let's evaluate these whys. Are the number of people who died in large conflicts really relevant? If it is, then you are saying that the measuring stick as to whether a conflict is bad is if we've killed X number of people. I find that flawed. My opinion? Yes. Is it an opinion whereby you have subjectively applied a fact of people killed in previous wars to evaluate our current situation? You bet. This applies equally to the second why.

So what am I really saying? Stating a few facts and then implicitly tying them as concrete evidence in a separate argument really isn't facts at all. They are a subjective argument. Of course it is muddled with political sleight of hand, but ignore that and still look at the core argument. Ultimately, it is opinion, just as is mine, and is hidden in a veil of facts that purport themselves to be directly applicable.

yee-haw.

[patrick]

yea i mena i think its really cool that our friends and family have died over there for ____ reason, even if it is only as many as the number of crack heads and homeless farts(edit) who die in chicago, that makes it cool then. Im sure our dead fellow americans are resting in peace knowing what they died fighting for. And wow, i am so excited about the possibility of Gee Dub reinstating a draft, so i myself might even be able to be forced to go over there and die without even making the choice! Not that kerry is going to magically make everything ok or anything, he has his own flaws which carry quite a bit of weight. however i cant see myself voting to support this madness we call a war. Bush could have done worse with his decisions, but he certainly could have done ALOT better. And the fact that we are still over there in the numbers we are just seems pointless. I cant beleive we do not have more people on the board that have already been and been back from Iraq, i have several close friends who have been, going back or are about to go. Every single one of them is voting for the same person, or should i say against the same person...

[gdizzle]

yea i mena i think its really cool that our friends and family have died over there for ____ reason, even if it is only as many as the number of crack heads and homeless farts(edit) who die in chicago, that makes it cool then.  Im sure our dead fellow americans are resting in peace knowing what they died fighting for.  And wow, i am so excited about the possibility of Gee Dub reinstating a draft, so i myself might even be able to be forced to go over there and die without even making the choice!  Not that kerry is going to magically make everything ok or anything, he has his own flaws which carry quite a bit of weight.  however i cant see myself voting to support this madness we call a war.  Bush could have done worse with his decisions, but he certainly could have done ALOT better.  And the fact that we are still over there in the numbers we are just seems pointless.  I cant beleive we do not have more people on the board that have already been and been back from Iraq, i have several close friends who have been,  going back or are about to go.  Every single one of them is voting for the same person, or should i say against the same person...

←

Where is everyone getting this "Bush is going to reinstate the draft" stuff? Kerry wants to add 2 more divisions and increase special forces in Iraq. A division consists of about 20,000 troops, so that is roughly 40,000 more troops. Were are these troops going to come from, not to mention X number of soldiers added to the special forces? Can anyone say draft.....?

[Guest DougK]

I'm sure you weren't complaining when the media was tearing apart Clinton 24/7. For some reason it's ULTRA important that Clinton lied about sex but not so important that Bush lied about Iraq. Typical liberal media for you.

←

hahaha wait

are you saying the media that tore apart clinton yet is "sympathetic" to bush is LIBERAL?

Im sorry go find a dictionary and read it. TWICE. If you think the media is really as liberal as you think it is your very wrong.

Third, Patrick, trivilalizing the victims of violent crime in any city as only happening to bums and crackheads is foolhearty at least.

[Guest Guest]

Greg, its so hard to tell truths from rumors these days. IF bush doesnt do anything w/ a mandatory draft etc, great...between the media and the hype that has developed over this particular election, its really frustrating for those of us who are borderline between the two candidates. Whats true and whats not?

however i dont feel kerry's plan necessarily suggests any mandatory enlisting, i will agree no definate info on bush's plan to do that either.

[Guest Guest_Patrick_*]

that was me above, and doug... part of the point of my complaint through sarcasm above was about generalizations in general. Generalizations, stereotypes and assumptions lead to trouble always, forever and now. i suppose i was trying to point out a reason the previously mentioned comparison could be null n void here.

[Deltablade]

Goddammit...THERE WILL BE NO DRAFT. And Kerry said that he will put more troops in Iraq because he realizes that there is still conflict there and if we pull out now like many people endorse all hell will break loose and an entire group of oppressed people will be slaughtered. He knows more troops will be necessary and he's not gonna have a draft either.

And about the Chicago analogy: I wasn't trying to justify anything or in any way devalue the lives of American soldiers. I was just trying to make a point about an argument that is so often brought up: "Look how many soldiers have been killed in the war! It's Vietnam all over again!" When in fact, not that many people have died. I know it sounds terrible but war is war. War is killing and destruction. I know war is terrible but sometimes necessary. This is how the Iraq war went: we thought Saddam had weapons. (Everybody had something to say about Saddam's threat to the world, democrats, republicans, everybody.) Everybody agrees that Saddam is a bad man and should be removed from power. So congress declares war and we start bombing and invading. Saddam is found and arrested. Now we did what we had to do but it doesn't end there. It turns out that there are many happy people but some really angry people. The angry people try to kill our soldiers as we try to set up a new, more fair government for Iraq. Now we have a bit of a mess and we must clean it up.

[gdizzle]

Goddammit...THERE WILL BE NO DRAFT.  And Kerry said that he will put more troops in Iraq because he realizes that there is still conflict there and if we pull out now like many people endorse all hell will break loose and an entire group of oppressed people will be slaughtered.  He knows more troops will be necessary and he's not gonna have a draft either.

Thats right, but my point is, where is he going to get all these troops? 40000+ volunteers? hmmmm..... :monkey: