U.S. Deaths in Iraq & Afghanistan Decline Dramatically in 2008

[Dayton3]

1 death due to war is 1 death too many

Sometimes only war can end tyranny.

Ending some tyrannies is worth a million deaths.

When are you signing up?

Oh right...never

Again, one death is one death too many.

Are you suggesting that someone unwilling to volunteer for military service has no right to advocate military action?

The U.S. isn't Starship Troopers you know.

 

[sidious618]

Better to fight enemies of the U.S. over there than over here.

Barf.

 

[Dayton3]

Better to fight enemies of the U.S. over there than over here.

Barf.

United States foreign policy has been based on that idea for a century.

 

[sidious618]

United States foreign policy has been based on that idea for a century.

And it's clearly working outstandingly well.

 

[Dayton3]

United States foreign policy has been based on that idea for a century.

And it's clearly working outstandingly well.

It has indeed.

The U.S. has suffered the lowest fatality rate of any world power in history.

 

[Trippy]

Sometimes only war can end tyranny.

Ending some tyrannies is worth a million deaths.

When are you signing up?

Oh right...never

Again, one death is one death too many.

Are you suggesting that someone unwilling to volunteer for military service has no right to advocate military action?

I'm suggesting it's hypocritical on your part, yes. You are willing to 'end some tyrannies' that is 'worth a million deaths' but not willing to join and 'end some tyrannies' yourself.

 

[Squiggy]

United States foreign policy has been based on that idea for a century.

And it's clearly working outstandingly well.

It has indeed.

The U.S. has suffered the lowest fatality rate of any world power in history.

Pull this one out of your ass?

 

[Tomato]

Re: U.S. Deaths in Iraq Decline Dramatically in 2008

There changed the title.

I wish you would leave this Political crap in TNZ Dayton3. I'm for sure that someone of your remote intelligence can tell that 151 > 101 as such U.S. Deaths in Afghanistan DID NOT Decline.

It was brutal month for us Cdns and I wish you would keep all the BS flag waving to wear it belongs (TNZ). Our men and women in our armed forces have suffered tremendously. And sugar coating the truth about Afghanistan to push your pro right wing agenda is not what we Cdns signed up for.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Terrorism is a tactic. It cannot be fought with a war.

Good point and one we should continually hammer home. This war is about fighting Islamic jihadism. It just so happens that they use terrorism as a prominent (but not sole) tactic, but that's a trivial point. It's not the War on Terror, it's the War on Islamic Jihadism, PC bullshit be damned!

More people should make this distinction so that the absurd euphemistic way Islam has been taken out of the equation is eventually erased from everyone's brains. Even the Bush adminstration is leery about pointing to a religion as the enemy. Well, it's not the whole religion but it sure as hell is a part of that religion, and it's not about "poverty," or "imperialism" or "Israel," it's about people who believe they can get into heaven via murder because parents and authority figures in their lives have told them so. If you want to point to a root cause other than religion, you can call it "bigotry" and "ignorance," but it's still filtered through Islam.

This is a war against Islamic jihadism, and if they suddenly switched tactics to never use terrorism again, and adopted more conventional warfare tactics, nothing essential will have changed.

And conversely, there are terrorists in the world who have nothing to do with this conflict. It's not about ridding the world of terrorism at all. Even if the inaccurate War on Terror label continues to be applied (by Obama? that would be disappointing but I guess understandable), I encourage everyone to mentally edit that to the more accurate, un-PC term that is the true meaning behind the euphemism.

United States foreign policy has been based on that idea for a century.

And it's clearly working outstandingly well.

It has indeed.

The U.S. has suffered the lowest fatality rate of any world power in history.

I have to agree with Dayton3 here - judged on results, it's been successful. (Not sure about the "lowest fatality rate" but maintenance of power and eradication of threats are the relevant standards). We've disposed of all serious enemies via this policy and I doubt jihadists will be able to accomplish what nazis and communists could not. They're a pretty lame enemy by comparison, but of course that's how you want your enemies to be.

 

[Holdfast]

Re: U.S. Deaths in Iraq Decline Dramatically in 2008

A general comment, since the topic has been raised by at least a couple of posters in thread:

Politics is allowed in Misc, provided the discussion is within the rules. Excessively inflammatorily phrased topics may be closed or moved at moderator discretion to TNZ, but the framing of this particular topic doesn't meet those criteria in my opinion.

Dayton3 has commented upthread that he does not permission to access TNZ, so asking him to post this topic there is futile. If the topics he posts start to breach Misc's general parameters on whether they're better suited to TNZ, they will be closed or moved, just like any other controversial topic started by any member can be, if its content isn't in keeping with Misc.

Calling him out on his statistical sleight of hand is fine, of course, as is having a discussion about the topic. Just don't breach forum rules during the discussion, thanks.

 

[cultcross]

The U.S. has suffered the lowest fatality rate of any world power in history.

Care to put some boundaries on that? This year? This century? What's your definition of a 'world power'? Or is it a made up 'fact'?

Good point and one we should continually hammer home. This war is about fighting Islamic jihadism. It just so happens that they use terrorism as a prominent (but not sole) tactic, but that's a trivial point. It's not the War on Terror, it's the War on Islamic Jihadism, PC bullshit be damned!

Accuracy be damned too, apparently. Jihad is not what you're fighting against. Jihad, meaning merely 'struggle', is a key part of Islam, and is a struggle in life in Allah's name. While this can include military combat, the term 'jihad' is never used in the Qu'ran to mean 'fighting'. The word you're looking for is 'fundamentalist', 'militant', something along those lines.

I don't disagree that they fight under some whipped up religious fervour that power hungry men like Bin Laden generate to give legitimacy to his thirst for power and revenge, but it is inaccurate and unfair to take simple terms from a religion and apply them to fringe fundamentalist nuts. It would be like describing the Westboro Baptist Church as 'Christian Evangelists'.

 

[Dayton3]

The information comes from various sources looking at the Roman Empire, Persian Empire, Macedonian Empire, various Chinese powers down through history, the British Empire, Spanish, French...........

And no I don't have links for those handy.

And the information is subject to various interpretations given that until 100 years ago, more soldiers died in conflicts due to disease than enemy action.

Also note that population figures for nations from more than three centuries ago might not be all that accurate.

But over the last century, even accounting for the 400,000 Americans lost in World War II, the U.S. when it comes to nations able to exercise their power on a global stage (at least in the known world when referencing ancient powers) has not had to expend vast numbers of its soldiers in maintaining its power.

 

[Squiggy]

And no I don't have links for those handy.

Because it's not a fact. You made it up.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Although it comes at such an awful cost, the fight against terrorism is necessary.

Sad, but true.

Even the Bush adminstration is leery about pointing to a religion as the enemy.

Well, he can't really emphasize that it's about religion, since his religion is causing problems of its own. However, it is a War on Terrorism; if they were trying to destroy America through the use of Talk Radio or inflammatory book publishing, we wouldn't really need to send in the Marines.

 

[stj]

US casualties in Iraq are declining partly because the soldiers are hiding in their bases and bombing instead of fighting, and partly because they have basically packed it in and the Iraqis are moving into the struggle to take over after the US wins phase. The Status of Forces Agreement that the Bush administration wanted failed and the one they got is essentially a surrender. The US may break its word of course.

The Westboro Church members certainly are Christians, just like Army of God terrorists. But if some loon shoots up a Unitarian congregation nobody goes apeshit so I guess they don't count as Christians, somehow.

Not only is it not a war on terror, it's not a war on Islamic jihadism, because the number one source of that ideology is Saudi Arabia, which is not only not being warred on, but is actively supported. The open appeal to Christian bigotry is applauded for its honesty, however.

 

[Colonel Green]

Although it comes at such an awful cost, the fight against terrorism is necessary.

Sad, but true.

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with combating terrorism OR Islamic extremism.

Saddam's regime, while brutal, was completely SECULAR in nature. It was everything that Osama et al hated most. Al Qaeda operatives (such as Zarqawi) were actively seeking to destabilize and destroy the Ba'athist regime in the years leading up to the US invasion. They were wanted criminals.

Just to be clear,

Saddam Hussein was a SWORN ENEMY OF ISLAMIC EXTREMISM
Saddam Hussein was NOT a Jihadist or Islamic Fundamentalist

Luckily for Bush and Cheney, all Muslims are the same to 90% of the American public. In fact, Saddam and Osama had about as much in common as the Pope and Stalin.

 

[sidious618]

Saddam Hussein was a SWORN ENEMY OF ISLAMIC EXTREMISM
Saddam Hussein was NOT a Jihadist or Islamic Fundamentalist

We could plaster that on every window, scream it out of cars and people would still say that Iraq was a key battle in the war on terror.

 

[Colonel Green]

Saddam Hussein was a SWORN ENEMY OF ISLAMIC EXTREMISM
Saddam Hussein was NOT a Jihadist or Islamic Fundamentalist

We could plaster that on every window, scream it out of cars and people would still say that Iraq was a key battle in the war on terror.

The sad thing is, now it IS a key battle in the war on terror. Saddam was a bulwark AGAINST Islamic extremism. Once Bush whacked him for trying to kill his Daddy Jihadists flooded the country to fill the power vacuum left by the collapse of the secular Ba'ath regime.

Iraq Invasion: THE EXACT OPPOSITE of combating Islamic extremism.

 

[sidious618]

It would be as if we invaded a country in South America during WWII and claimed it was an important part of the war. Then the Nazis sent people to attack us there and we lost more troops.

 

[Squiggy]

Saddam Hussein was a SWORN ENEMY OF ISLAMIC EXTREMISM
Saddam Hussein was NOT a Jihadist or Islamic Fundamentalist

We could plaster that on every window, scream it out of cars and people would still say that Iraq was a key battle in the war on terror.

Saddam Hussein personally flew the plane into the North Tower. Didn't you know that?