"War Is Swell"

[jack]

why are all these people dying again?

oh yeah. to make me feel safer. i feel so much safer these days.

[erik]

Erik, I agree...you're right. But thats my point, we DON'T know know, and we can't determine beforehand how many deaths a situation will cause. Thats a two way street as well, we don't know how many it has saved either. As far as paying attention to the American people to as whether or not this is an acceptable level of casualties...well, I'm part of the american people too you know. Thats also part of what I am talking about, as <b>I feel </b>that the collective 'American People' have very little in the way of 'concept' of military loss in battle. For that matter, what IS an acceptable loss? Only one thousand? Only five hundred? Three thousand? Ten thousand?

I don't know. I don't want a single soldier to die. Not one more. I don't want there to be another victim at all. But as long as they are aiming weapons at our soldiers, I imagine they will be in constant danger. This was part of the deal when they decided to join our military. God bless them and I hope that they don't have to make that ultimate sacrifice.

You started off by saying that 2,000 dead American soldiers was an acceptable loss of life, and now you're saying it's impossible to know what the acceptable level of death is? You can't make both claims.

[Mogosagatai]

It looks like Hoblit's definition of "acceptable" changed midway through the argument. The second time, he meant it on a deeper level. From what I gather, at least.

[Me$$iah]

To fight a war against an evil dictator whos got those nasty chemical weapons,
Now that is swell.
And just to emphasise the nastiness of chemical weapons, to show the bad guys why they is wrong, I think its just swell to use chemical weapons against them
Swell


I mean, for Chissake.......This actually makes me feel sick....disgusting

[Hoblit]

Erik, I agree...you're right. But thats my point, we DON'T know know, and we can't determine beforehand how many deaths a situation will cause. Thats a two way street as well, we don't know how many it has saved either. As far as paying attention to the American people to as whether or not this is an acceptable level of casualties...well, I'm part of the american people too you know. Thats also part of what I am talking about, as <b>I feel </b>that the collective 'American People' have very little in the way of 'concept' of military loss in battle. For that matter, what IS an acceptable loss? Only one thousand? Only five hundred? Three thousand? Ten thousand?

I don't know. I don't want a single soldier to die. Not one more. I don't want there to be another victim at all. But as long as they are aiming weapons at our soldiers, I imagine they will be in constant danger. This was part of the deal when they decided to join our military. God bless them and I hope that they don't have to make that ultimate sacrifice.

You started off by saying that 2,000 dead American soldiers was an acceptable loss of life, and now you're saying it's impossible to know what the acceptable level of death is? You can't make both claims.

nooo, I'm saying that by your definition - The American Collective that defines what is acceptable is unable to determine what is or isn't acceptable at this time. That TIME + AMERICANS = DEFINE ACCEPTABLE LOSSES.

I feel like 2000 military soldiers giving their lives for this cause is acceptable. You don't, but neither one of us is the 'collective america'. According to you, neither one of us can say. So in MY opinion, it's acceptable. There are other people who agree, there are other people who disagree. There is a bigger picture I'm talking about.

Time + Deaths / results = Definition of acceptable.

My opinion could change as results of that formula.

Jack, as I appreciate your sarcasm...do you think people in Kansas felt any safer when American soldiers went to Europe in WWI or WWII or any 'worthy' conflict we've been involved in? Or do you think they pretty much went on with their lives with less sugar than normal? I don't particularly feel any safer with us in Iraq. But at least palestinians aren't fueled by Saddam's bank account anymore. Perhaps thats good for Isreal? meh... couldn't tell ya.

[Hoblit]

To fight a war against an evil dictator whos got those nasty chemical weapons,
Now that is swell.
And just to emphasise the nastiness of chemical weapons, to show the bad guys why they is wrong, I think its just swell to use chemical weapons against them
Swell


I mean, for Chissake.......This actually makes me feel sick....disgusting

yeah, <a href="http://chris.hoblit.net/redirect.html" target="resource window">It's exactly the same thing, exactly.</a>

[erik]

You don't, but neither one of us is the 'collective america'. According to you, neither one of us can say. So in MY opinion, it's acceptable. There are other people who agree, there are other people who disagree. There is a bigger picture I'm talking about.

Time + Deaths / results = Definition of acceptable.

My opinion could change as results of that formula.

Dude, yes, there is a bigger picture. That bigger picture is exactly what I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with my opinion, or yours, or any one person's opinion. It has everything to do with the general opinion of the American people. Just because there isn't 100% agreement doesn't mean that there isn't a general consensus about whether the level of American death is acceptable. I won't make claims one way or another as to how the American public feels about this war, but the question isn't some Zen koan that has no answer. Get a big enough sample size, and you could be reasonably sure how people feel about the death toll of this war.

I'm not saying, implying or suggesting that the only thing that matters is time and number of American deaths. I, like you, think that results play a big part in the picture. The reason why some people think that 2,000 deaths is unacceptable is because they're not seeing alot of real results.

[jack]

ok hoblit, enlighten me as to why you deem the deaths so far "acceptable". what is acceptable about them? what have we really accomplished by their deaths? what have we prevented? the spread of terrorism? don't make me fucking laugh. iraq is a bigger terrorist threat now than before we destabilized it. period. that's the fact.

as opposed to more of the Big Lie

[Hoblit]

I'm gonna stop right here. Not because I don't have an opinion or an explanation of my opinion, but because it doesn't matter. I can't answer a question that implies that I believe that this war is going well and having positive results. I can't. I do not believe that this war is going well and have already stated so. So now I believe we'd just go in circles. Not interested.

[jack]

I feel like 2000 military soldiers giving their lives for this cause is acceptable.

I can't answer a question that implies that I believe that this war is going well and having positive results. I can't.

i wouldn't be picking on you if you didn't contradict yourself.

[Hoblit]

I feel like 2000 military soldiers giving their lives for this cause is acceptable.

I can't answer a question that implies that I believe that this war is going well and having positive results. I can't.

i wouldn't be picking on you if you didn't contradict yourself.

How is that contradictory?

[Mogosagatai]

He didn't contradict himself.

I'm only stepping in here because I hate in when people refuse to read between the lines and deliberately misuse symbols as literals. That is all.

[jack]

you didn't just imply your endorsement of the war and the "acceptable collateral damage". you stated it.

[erik]

That is all.

Good.

The contradiction is this: If you (for yourself) define acceptable death count to be the relationship time * deaths / results, and you believe that 2,000 deaths is acceptable (in whatever context), then you have to believe that there are some positive results of this war. Without results, these deaths will be meaningless. Meaningless deaths, regardless of number, are never acceptable.

[jack]

anyways, i'm done arguing with you dude. your not gonna change my mind any more than i'm going to change yours. i know you think the war is bad right now, and just like the way you've changed your mind about whether or not we should be there right now, you should also be able to change your mind about supporting it to begin with. you got duped. we all did. congress did. the rest of the world, they reacted with temperance for the most part, but bush had an agenda. and cheney set it in motion.

this administration is preaching right now all this bi-partisan support nonsense that was PREDICATED ON LIES FROM BUSH AND CHENEY. they are backed in a corner and playing out this bullshit patriotic guilt card of support. they cover their lies with the big lie. the bi-partisan support lie.

and don't get me started about that fuckin smirk of his.

[Hoblit]

That is all.

Good.

The contradiction is this: If you (for yourself) define acceptable death count to be the relationship time * deaths / results, and you believe that 2,000 deaths is acceptable (in whatever context), then you have to believe that there are some positive results of this war. Without results, these deaths will be meaningless. Meaningless deaths, regardless of number, are never acceptable.

Not sure how you come to that conclusion or can back me into a corner that I must somehow agree with that absolute.

I can believe all of the following if I want to:

1. That the current casualties (just over 2000 as of now) is an acceptable part of this war.

2. There are non-satisfactory results to this war at this time.

3. That this war sucks and I wish to god it would come to an end.

4. That I support our troops and hope that they avoid all of the bullets and bombs and shells they can.

5. That all of this could still come to a positive (relative) conclusion.

I can have a complex opinion. I don't have to be blindly divided in my opinion.

[Hoblit]

this administration is preaching right now all this bi-partisan support nonsense that was PREDICATED ON LIES FROM BUSH AND CHENEY. they are backed in a corner and playing out this bullshit patriotic guilt card of support. they cover their lies with the big lie. the bi-partisan support lie.

and don't get me started about that fuckin smirk of his.

Yeah, that too makes me foam at the mouth. I want to bang my head against a wall when they pull that 'well the dems agreed,' crap.

[erik]

That is all.

Good.

The contradiction is this: If you (for yourself) define acceptable death count to be the relationship time * deaths / results, and you believe that 2,000 deaths is acceptable (in whatever context), then you have to believe that there are some positive results of this war. Without results, these deaths will be meaningless. Meaningless deaths, regardless of number, are never acceptable.

Not sure how you come to that conclusion or can back me into a corner that I must somehow agree with that absolute.

I came to that conclusion based on things you said in this thread. You said that results were an important part of the equation. You said that 2,000 deaths were acceptable. You've now said that there are nonsatisfactory results to this war. If results are meaningless to the equation of acceptable losses, then I don't know why you brought it up.

If you have a complex opinion, that's all fine and good. I never said you weren't entitled to your own viewpoint.

I think you are a swell person, and I am going to not post anymore to this thread.

[mico saudad]

I need to rant.

Now I'm a Independent who consistently votes Democratic so keep that in mind. I'm still fuming at the blatant politics behind the Democrats lack of a fight before we went in in the first place.

1. The dems looked bad after desert storm went well and we saved Kuwait from the big bad wolf. They figured if this went well then they might look even worse.

2. They figured if it went bad then they could use it as a political tool (which many are) to win back seats in Congress.

Do you know how many Senators read the f***ing dossier on Iraq? 6.
Total. They had it locked in a reading room and senators had to sign in.
6. It doesn't matter whether or not the Congress had the same intelligence because no one read the goda**ed thing. And why? Because it was almost pure politics. There were some on both sides who knew why we were really going (dominoes and power projection) and believed in it, but mostly it was politics. On both sides.

Besides I remember before they voted everyone around me was saying what bull it was, the WMD excuse, we all knew that was a front for other reasons, and if the Dems didn't know what a bunch of smuck grad students knew, then the naive idiots don't deserve power any more than the corrupt liars who currently have it.

I hate to say it but it was mainly the administration who was interested in national security here. Sure they lied about why they went to war and should be impeached for that. And not Clinton impeached, I mean real impeachment. But they believed that America would not go to war if they were blatantly honest and they also believed that they knew best and that they could change the world. The stupid a**holes didn't listen (and continue not to listen) to anyone and screwed things up worse than they could ever have planned to screw it up. Not to mention it may have been the most stupid foreign policy decision ever. Cheney in 1994 on tape said that invading Iraq would be the a catastrophe. A catastrophe!!!! He said that!!!!! Why is nobody playing that on chain loop now. And then he went on to articulate why it would be a disaster. And it's exactly what we see going on. I want to tear out my hair, but I shaved it off last week.

Respect to the first person who truly owns up to their faults. Edwards doesn't count. He played politics. Admit it, John.

* edit: I watched Murtha, the biggest Dem hawk out there turn around on television and demand that we leave Iraq. I don't know if he was put up to it by the caucus, but it sure seemed honest and genuine. Let the attacks on his character begin. Maybe he slapped a nun once. Whatcha got Rove?

[jack]

don't you feel better knowing that the war in iraq is in this guys capable hands.

[Leaf]

Actually, I think you meant that I should document that I feel secure in knowing that the war is in his capable hands... right?