Nightmare Scenario: Over a thousand dead US soldiers and a bill of around $125bn...

[Kuciwalker]

How does wishing the death of war criminals make me a hypocrite? I don't criticise Bush for not caring about the soldier's lives. I let other people do that and enjoy the resulting political gains. Frankly, I care more for Iraqi civilians than for an American soldier. They did not chose to start this war. American soldiers may not have chosen this either, but they share the guilt by following orders.

a) do you care about the lives of Iraqi citizens who would die under Saddam's rule?

b) you "enjoy the resulting political games". Thus the entire thing is politics. Not a single shred of honesty, nor an ounce of morality. Just a perverse desire for death.

But I am right, you clearly have not read/understood my sig

Read was correct, but I don't understand it either (considering it's in a language I don't know... I think I am to be excused )

HOWEVER, if you are right, it doesn't mean you should be HAPPY about it if it means more people die. If I thought that dozens of nuclear warheads were going to land in the US in the next several minutes, I would rather be wrong than right. This doesn't mean I won't claim that I'm right. You need to understand the difference between believing a thing to be true and wanting a thing to be true.

Until the democratic party grows a spine, this is the best chance to be rid of Bush.

Again, pure politics.

Idle talk doesn't ammount to conspiracy, except in a police state.

No, it doesn't, but it's still treasonous.

Yes.

Please explain...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Communism as an ideology does not call for communist nations to attack capitalist nations.

Inciting revolution isn't 'attacking'?

And the proper term is 'states' please, not 'nations'. Nations are simply individuals with the same culture. States are those political entities with borders.

[Kuciwalker]

Imram... not in communist fairy-land, duh

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by skywalker

a) do you care about the lives of Iraqi citizens who would die under Saddam's rule?

Yes, but they are not worth the precedent that has been set and the destabilization caused. Furthermore, the US has yet to provide better conditions for Iraqis. At this point, not being clarevoyant, I can't really comment on what will happen in 2 years.

b) you "enjoy the resulting political games". Thus the entire thing is politics. Not a single shred of honesty, nor an ounce of morality. Just a perverse desire for death.

I enjoy the results, not the games. I want Bush, Ashcroft, and their cronies gone.

HOWEVER, if you are right, it doesn't mean you should be HAPPY about it if it means more people die. If I thought that dozens of nuclear warheads were going to land in the US in the next several minutes, I would rather be wrong than right. This doesn't mean I won't claim that I'm right. You need to understand the difference between believing a thing to be true and wanting a thing to be true.

No, I am happy about deaths only as long as they further a good end (regime change in the US) and they are not innocent. No good can come of nuclear warheads, just as no good came of 9-11.

Please explain...

Are you asking me to explain why punishing thought crime is bad?

[Kuciwalker]

Are you asking me to explain why punishing thought crime is bad?

No, I'm asking you to explain why punishing people WANTING US DEAD is bad.

No, I am happy about deaths only as long as they further a good end (regime change in the US) and they are not innocent. No good can come of nuclear warheads, just as no good came of 9-11.

YOU SHOULDN'T BE HAPPY ABOUT THE DEATHS. You may be happy about the results they achieve, but the deaths themselves are a bad thing. Do you see conservatives all happy about the deaths of Iraqi soldiers? Yes, we are glad they were defeated, but we don't take any particular pleasure in their deaths. We mostly take pleasure in the relative lack of American deaths.

Yes, but they are not worth the precedent that has been set and the destabilization caused. Furthermore, the US has yet to provide better conditions for Iraqis.

You mean besides not being persecuted and killed for your beloved thought crimes?

At this point, not being clarevoyant, I can't really comment on what will happen in 2 years.

Wait a second... isn't that what this whole thread was about? Gotcha.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by skywalker

Are you asking me to explain why punishing thought crime is bad?

No, I'm asking you to explain why punishing people WANTING US DEAD is bad.

Because wanting something to be is not an action, it is a thought. Punishing someone for what they think is to make certain forms of thought a crime.

YOU SHOULDN'T BE HAPPY ABOUT THE DEATHS. You may be happy about the results they achieve, but the deaths themselves are a bad thing. Do you see conservatives all happy about the deaths of Iraqi soldiers? Yes, we are glad they were defeated, but we don't take any particular pleasure in their deaths. We mostly take pleasure in the relative lack of American deaths.

I am not happy about an individual's death. I am happy about anything resembling the defeat of American forces even on a small scale.

You mean besides not being persecuted and killed for your beloved thought crimes?

That is not relevant to the fact that the US has invaded and toppled the government of a sovereign nation setting a very dangerous precedent. The US is the single greatest threat to world peace at this moment. It is an empire ruled by those who would spread their global capitalist revolution by force.

Wait a second... isn't that what this whole thread was about? Gotcha.

There's a difference between wanting an outcome and expecting it. Example: I want to win the lottery, but I don't expect it to happen.

[Kuciwalker]

There's a difference between wanting an outcome and expecting it. Example: I want to win the lottery, but I don't expect it to happen.

Actually, this thread was about predictions...

That is not relevant to the fact that the US has invaded and toppled the government of a sovereign nation setting a very dangerous precedent. The US is the single greatest threat to world peace at this moment. It is an empire ruled by those who would spread their global capitalist revolution by force.

"World peace" is not an end in and of itself. There SHOULDN'T be world peace if it prolongs injustice.

I am not happy about an individual's death. I am happy about anything resembling the defeat of American forces even on a small scale.

You are still missing the point. It's fine to be glad if you win, but to be happy about someone else being defeated (by someone other than you!) is still wrong. You are wishing bad stuff on someone else.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by skywalker

There's a difference between wanting an outcome and expecting it. Example: I want to win the lottery, but I don't expect it to happen.

Actually, this thread was about predictions...

Gasp! An off-topic thread drifted slightly from its original topic, Hell must be freezing over... oh, wait no, it's still 68F in Atlanta

"World peace" is not an end in and of itself. There SHOULDN'T be world peace if it prolongs injustice.

I see that you and I disagree here. Such a setback in progress towards world peace is certainly no justification for what the US has done. They have yet to replace the Iraqi government with something better, and if Afghanistan is anything to go by, this will not happen for a good long time.

You are still missing the point. It's fine to be glad if you win, but to be happy about someone else being defeated (by someone other than you!) is still wrong. You are wishing bad stuff on someone else.

Generalissimo Bush said, "you are either with us or against us." I'm certainly not with him and I'm certainly not with any muslim terrorists. That doesn't really leave me with much, eh? The only possible personal interest I have in this conflict is to see my enemy defeated (though not being involved, not to bring that about myself). I view Bush as my enemy and Saddam as some random bad man out there about whom I am personally indifferent. Sure it's nice that he's gone, but that doesn't matter that much to me personally.

[Kuciwalker]

Generalissimo Bush said, "you are either with us or against us." I'm certainly not with him and I'm certainly not with any muslim terrorists. That doesn't really leave me with much, eh? The only possible personal interest I have in this conflict is to see my enemy defeated (though not being involved, not to bring that about myself). I view Bush as my enemy and Saddam as some random bad man out there about whom I am personally indifferent. Sure it's nice that he's gone, but that doesn't matter that much to me personally.

Since we have already embarked on this course of action, wouldn't you rather see it work?

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by skywalker

Generalissimo Bush said, "you are either with us or against us." I'm certainly not with him and I'm certainly not with any muslim terrorists. That doesn't really leave me with much, eh? The only possible personal interest I have in this conflict is to see my enemy defeated (though not being involved, not to bring that about myself). I view Bush as my enemy and Saddam as some random bad man out there about whom I am personally indifferent. Sure it's nice that he's gone, but that doesn't matter that much to me personally.

Since we have already embarked on this course of action, wouldn't you rather see it work?

No. The best possible outcome would be the capture of bin Laden by US forces shortly after the defeat of the Bush regime in the 2004 elections. If either side loses, that's good. If both lose, that's better. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, so in this case, I preffered to see an American defeat. I would have preffered another Vietnam so that maybe the US could be taught a valuable lesson. Instead the Bush administration has learned that it can topple foreign regimes in the 3rd world at will.

[MOBIUS]

Re: Re: Nightmare Scenario: Over a thousand dead US soldiers and a bill of around $125bn...

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
That's nice. I read the transcript and unfortunately for you, Franks didn't say that. But then again, what's reality or honesty when you can gently paraphrase and spin what someone says to get the result you'd like to work with?

As usual MtG, you are absolutely right, Tommy didn't actually say that the US were f*cking up their handling of Iraq - though he should have...

All he actually said was that US forces may have to stay in Iraq for 2-4 years, which we all know is politico speak for at least twice as long...

How long did the US expect to be in Vietnam again in '65? Not that I am directly comparing this to there...

I merely decided to extrapolate known figures such as the fact that about one US soldier is dying a day on average in Iraq and the recent report that occupying Iraq was costing the US $3.9bn a month. I even decided to be reasonable and estimate this over three years as opposed to the four that Franks had mentioned as a possibility...

Assuming things stay the same and don't get worse, the figures in the title approximate the result.

Geez Mike, I always though of you as a lateral thinker able to understand a cluster of information and draw a sensible conclusion...

(a) He took the numbers and forces he was given, and knocked over Afghanistan while you whiners were talking out your arses about the Soviets, Vietnam, and how Afghanistan was going to swallow the US whole.

Don't include me on that list - I was broadly in favour of taking out Afghanistan...

(b) He took the numbers and forces he was given, and knocked over main resistance in Iraq in a month, while the leftist whiners were talking months to years of heavy fighting and half a million civilian dead.

I agree that it did look like it was going to take a few months and involve vicious fighting in Baghdad - but only because Iraq resistance didn't crumble overnight as the right-wing tub thumpers were claiming it would. So we can call that a draw...

So looks like Franks isn't the useless waste of space - the leftist whiners seem do be.

Actually I've just realised I meant Jay Garner - Oops...

Now, tell me he's not a waste of space...

The current "bleed rate" and the rate of funds being spent will both go down, not up, with transition to an Iraqi provisional government and Iraqi primary security. Franks addressed nothing more than an ongoing role for US occupying forces, not the extent or monthly cost of that role, let alone the suggestion that US losses, expenditures and activities would be conveniently static.

Just like stocks and shares, these figures are more than capable of fluctuating up as well as down...

But don't let little details like reality and actual quotes get in the way.

Well I called it a scenario after all - you know a hypothetical situation based on current figures...

There has been little to no increase in either the sophistication or success level of those attacks that have been successful.

Initial attacks involved nothing more than opportunistic and often suicidal attacks with RPGs and automatic weapons - recent attacks have involved remote controlled bombs, mortar attacks, misdirection etc.

In fact, the more the Iraqis try to coordinate and organize, the more screwed they are - where they (and all guerilla forces) are most easily successful is in relatively spontaneous, opportunistic attacks with no planning or coordination, by individuals to two-three man teams.

Actually, by organising they have lessened the type of attacks where they are also killed. A lot of the attacks now are being carried out by attackers who are able to melt away and strike again, becoming more experienced and deadly in the process...

True their comms etc could be intercepted, but that will prove to be an expensive and time consuming job in itself - and we all know how useless US intel is at finding WMD...

Nice speculation.

Thanks

This troll isn't at the level of Laurel and Hardy.

Troll? The figures are out there, US troops are dying at an average of one a day and current costs have been reported at $3.9bn a month - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to extrapolate those figures over three years...

Personally I think attacks against US forces will get worse at least in the short term. I called it a 'nightmare scenario' if things maintain their status quo - but really the nightmare is if things get worse...

Face it, you and people like DanS don't have any easy answers as so try and avoid answering difficult questions by trying to dismiss them...

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
As many US soldiers dead as it takes to oust Bush from power in 2004. If none are required for him to lose the election, then I hope no more die, if 1,000 deaths is what it takes, 1,000 soldiers is a small price to pay for freedom.

This comment makes me sick to my core!

This just shows the utter extreme level of hate the Left has towards Bush. To actually wish for Americans to die by the thousands in order to win an election, is utterly perverse and despicable. We may have despised Clinton but we never ever wished for mass murder in order to defeat him.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon


There's a stereotype? ..gasp!

Not as bad though as the stereotype of an Apple-using Canuck quoting the Spanish "revolutionary" slogan of a guy who couldn't even fight his way out of a wet paper bag.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The diplomat


We never used chems in Vietnam. And, the agent orange story was proven false. Peter Arnett resigned over it remember?

Then I suppose my brother dying as a result of Agent Orange caused cancers didn't really happen, nor did his indirect participation in Ranch Hand, which of course didn't exist because of some book or article you read which says we didn't use chemical agents in Nam.

Of course, Agent Orange wasn't a chemical weapon per se, it didn't kill things quickly enough, that's why grunts joked about it by using the old Dupont slogan "better living through chemistry"

Then again, the lack of testing on something that was the most potent "weed killer" ever developed by some orders of magnitude is a bit interesting, but no more so than the early above-ocean nuke tests where the US had enlisted men go out on deck and cover their eyes, while officers stayed inside closed quarters on the ships.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Communism as an ideology does not call for communist nations to attack capitalist nations.

Inciting revolution isn't 'attacking'?

Inciting revolution isn't official ideology either. The STATES just fall.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And the proper term is 'states' please, not 'nations'. Nations are simply individuals with the same culture. States are those political entities with borders.

What's with all the anality lately?