- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 31,645
- Reaction score
- 7,598
- Location
- Canada, Costa Rica
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You're using a word, "Vietnamization" that really has no meaning and one you apparently want to apply wherever the American military is involved. Perhaps you should also investigate words such as the "Koreanization", the Japaneseification' or 'Germanification', and so on. You're being sold a bill of goods and should ignore it.Vietnamization didn't work. it also didn't work in Iraq, and it won't work in Afghanistan.
it's past time to get our troops out of there and to let the regional powers handle their own problems.
So Obama was lying at the time? Do you know what the casualty rate was at the time? That Iraq was actually 'stable' and that people had voted in an election? It was the removal of the troops which created what we see today.The "word" of no president "proves" anything.
Your article was written in 2008, and obviously proved wrong later. Obama made the claim, and it was legitimate, in 2011.
By Dan Murphy, Staff writer JANUARY 10, 2014
You're using a word, "Vietnamization" that really has no meaning and one you apparently want to apply wherever the American military is involved. Perhaps you should also investigate words such as the "Koreanization", the Japaneseification' or 'Germanification', and so on. You're being sold a bill of goods and should ignore it.
You're right about the date and my apologies. Nonetheless the well trod points he made has been debated many times and have proven to be lightweight excuses that just don't wash. You can try to make a case on any of the points he has made, if you choose.the byline :
The minimum was 10,000 but the recomendations went as high as 50,000. It seemed 30,000 was a realistic number, and of course that should have been made up of troops from many countries.so, what you're saying is that you support long term occupation of a big part of the Middle East. ok, let's discuss that idea. what does it look like? how many troops?
Why is that number important, or any number? The point was to maintain order and long term peace. Leaving on a predetermined date without regard for the facts at hand is what has contributed to this mess, and consequent genocide.60 years?
You spun out in some other sphere here. I have no idea what you're talking about.which half of the holy war that has lasted more than a thousand years should the US declare to be the winner?
This is mostly more gibberish but the cost and participation should be borne by all the democracies and a portion of the oil in Iraq, now in the hands of ISIS, should offset any tax increases.what will the occupying force do when the losing side doesn't just say "aw shucks, ok." what does the occupying force do when other Middle Eastern nations decide that the US picked winner might not be the winner, and how will they respond to our long term occupation? finally, what will this cost, and how much are you personally willing to pay in tax increases to support the occupation?
The minimum was 10,000 but the recomendations went as high as 50,000. It seemed 30,000 was a realistic number, and of course that should have been made up of troops from many countries.
Why is that number important, or any number? The point was to maintain order and long term peace. Leaving on a predetermined date without regard for the facts at hand is what has contributed to this mess, and consequent genocide.
You spun out in some other sphere here. I have no idea what you're talking about.
This is mostly more gibberish but the cost and participation should be borne by all the democracies and a portion of the oil in Iraq, now in the hands of ISIS, should offset any tax increases.
Retaking the region was not mentioned, only that Iraq had been won and had been stabilized.so, first, we retake the region, right?
It's easier to discuss one issue at a time and drawing deadlines without understanding the future, as we have seen, is a fool's game.How much of the region? the US would have to take Syria this time, too. that's a lot of territory, and a good chunk of it is an absolute disaster. i assume you support rebuilding it. how much will that cost? how many years of occupation?
You've allowed yourself to get sidetracked.
If you can't read just a couple of sentences on a recent post, how can you claim to have absorbed the history of religion in the Middle East?lol. so we occupy Iraq and Syria and take the oil? i'm sure they'll be just great with that. their neighbors will be ok with it, too, as will Russia and China.
Retaking the region was not mentioned, only that Iraq had been won and had been stabilized.
It's easier to discuss one issue at a time and drawing deadlines without understanding the future, as we have seen, is a fool's game.
You've allowed yourself to get sidetracked.
ludin said:You spun out in some other sphere here. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Helix said:which half of the holy war that has lasted more than a thousand years should the US declare to be the winner?
ludin said:If you can't read just a couple of sentences on a recent post, how can you claim to have absorbed the history of religion in the Middle East?
The minimum was 10,000 but the recomendations went as high as 50,000. It seemed 30,000 was a realistic number, and of course that should have been made up of troops from many countries.
Why is that number important, or any number? The point was to maintain order and long term peace. Leaving on a predetermined date without regard for the facts at hand is what has contributed to this mess, and consequent genocide.
You spun out in some other sphere here. I have no idea what you're talking about.
This is mostly more gibberish but the cost and participation should be borne by all the democracies and a portion of the oil in Iraq, now in the hands of ISIS, should offset any tax increases.
So Obama was lying at the time? Do you know what the casualty rate was at the time? That Iraq was actually 'stable' and that people had voted in an election? It was the removal of the troops which created what we see today.
So we can blame GW Bush for signing an agreement to withdraw all troops by 2011 then. That was his mistake because the Iraqi's held us to that agreement to the letter. They also wanted no part of paying for their own invasion but I guess what the Iraqi's want is not something you figure matters since we "won". International courts see things quite differently but they apparently don't matter to you either.
Lol. Using the word of a democrat to prove something.
You just revealed a depressing fact about your posting philosophy.
Apparently, you care more about winning the argument than posting the truth.
I would cite Adolph himself if what he said was the truth!
You find it LOL-able that a Conservative would quote a Democrat to establish a fact?
Tsk, tsk.
Let it be known by all that you are thus afflicted.
Nope, I was pointing out that in your accusation of exaggeration on my part you actually exaggerated.
Al-anfal: 182,000 (from your source)
Systemic starvation under Oil-for-Food abuses: 400,000-500,000
Repression of 1991 uprising: up to 280,000
Total: 962,000
The only gross overstatement was made by you.
We can cope with ISIS, we just choose not to. Don't mistake the barbarism you see in our absence with how things would be if US troops were still in Iraq.
Saddam murdered an estimate of 1 million people in his 25 years in power. ISIS is small time compared to Saddam.
Thank you for FINALLY defending your number. As weak as the defense was, the effort is duly noted.
the Kurds reported 182,000 deaths in the Al-Anfal campaign. Most third party sources say the number is 50-100,000. So, just taking the Kurd report is erring on the side of exaggeration.
The 1991 crackdown resulted in 80 to 230,000 deaths. You declaring this 280,000 is also airing on the side of exaggeration.
Finally, and most egregious, you are calling the estimated 500,000 that died as a result of sanctions an act of overt brutality by Sadaam. That is a ridiculous stretch. The sanctions were put on Iraq by the US and others, designed to squeeze the economy. While he certainly is responsible, its not the same thing as overt brutality. Saddam did not KILL or order the deaths of the 500,000. Instead, his policies merely allowed that to happen. Frankly, the coalition nations are also culpable in these deaths.
If you want to hold a leader responsible for deaths under their watch and call it an autrocity, then we could make a laundry list of deaths that resulted in negligence of US policy and declare every US president an oppressive tyrant, but that is a bit absurd, just like calling the deaths if Iraqi citizens under the period of sanction a murder by Saddam. Sorry, you don't get to add that to the ledger....
So, all in, you have at least showed us you were not pulling numbers out of your A, you are just working with numbers that smell as if they were from the A.....
So, lets get back to your original statement that I objected to....
Net, net.... telling us Saddam MURDERED 1 million of his people is indeed an exaggeration.... It appears that is off by somewhere between 2.5 and 5 fold (it looks like the number of 130,000 to 380,000 is much closer to the real number). If you said he was responsible for 1 million deaths, you might be on more solid ground.
No question he was a tyrant and a bad guy. The discussion of whether his removal was worth between $2 and $6, the lives of 4,500 US soldiers (not to mention the forever altered lives of those that served, but did not die) and the lives of 100-200,000 Iraq citizens (nothing like killing 200,000 Iraq citizens to overthrow a guy that killed 200,000 Iraqi citizens), but that is another discussion...
That is a lot of wording to admit you are wrong. Your claim that I exaggerated by a factor of 10 was an exaggeration on your part, and your revised claim is really no better.
It isn't an exaggeration to go by numbers that have been claimed by reasonable sources. You have no idea if the numbers your are relying on are any more accurate than mine are, so trying to quantify what you see as an "exaggeration" is simply foolish.
Still, you take the high numbers when pointing to casualties of Hussein's and the low numbers when pointing at the casualties inflicted by the U.S.
Where have I quoted US casualties?
Previous threads on the topic. It will come up again.
[citation needed]
Why not hash the numbers out again now, it's quicker. Upsideguy already smacked you around with them. It's a wash. I love how you conservatives get all twisted into knots over casualties, that is until it's the U.S. racking them up, then suddenly it's the cost of business, got to break a few eggs to make an omelet, and the other squirrelly things you all say to diminish its effects.
So Saddam Hussein has now been re-invented as a good and benevolent leader responsive to all versions of Islam?A secular leader that had zero tolerance for the religious fighting between Islamic extremists, As opposed to the Islamic State, HELL YES, not you?
You keep making unfounded claims about what I do and do not believe. If you have evidence to back up your claim the post it, otherwise you are just a liar talking out of your ass.
Afflicted?? You've not been around long so I'll let you off the hook for not recognizing it, But the hatred of Obama by the fringe right here is such that they wouldn't trust him if he told them what time it is. So quoting him once, as "truth" just because it can then be used to further beat him up is disingenuous!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?