Chat/Comment thread

For whatever it might be worth:EvC Forum: Poll: Should U.S. etc. go to war against IraqMoose

Quetzal's remarks about the overwhelming technology were spot on, as were his concerns about possible heavy U.S. and civilian casualties during urban fighting, although those tolls characterized the occupation more than the war.

quote:

---

No. Not, however, because I have any concern either for Iraq itself or the "morality" of a war there. My main concern is that this one promises to be much bloodier and more costly than the previous. Oh, I have no doubt that we'll quite handily obliterate Iraq's armor and what is jokingly known as an "air force". After all, even though ol' Saddam has been busily getting his mitts on as many goodies as he can over the last ten years, the overwhelming qualitative advantage remains.

​

However, a full-scale invasion is much more problematic than simply booting him out of Kuwait was. Consider - at no time during Desert Storm was there any urban warfare (with the exception of Khafji, which was Saddam stupidly sticking his neck out to get cut off [...] How many civilian casualties do you think we'll have if we have to lay seige (or worse, fight through) some place like Basrah or Baghdad?

---

Message 12The invasion went great, though sold with lies. The occupation was bungled. An already bad idea became a disaster.

Thanks. I apologize for my overly brusque response which was triggered by the initial post more than by yours.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No problem. I welcomed the opportunity to clarify my views: my initial comments were inadequate.

I'm pretty sure I would have agreed with you. I had no specific thoughts at the time, just general ones along the lines of, "Oh, God, this is going to be a big mess." In any event you were right:From Casualties of the Iraq War:

quote:

---

As of May 29, 2012, according to the U.S. Department of Defense casualty website, there were 4,425 total deaths (including both killed in action and non-hostile) and 32,223 wounded in action (WIA) as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

---

From Casualties of the September 11 attacks:

quote:

---

During the September 11 attacks, 2,996 people were killed: 2,977 victims and 19 of the perpetrators.[1] These immediate deaths included 246 victims on the four planes, 2,606 victims inside the World Trade Center and in the surrounding area, and 125 victims at the Pentagon.

---

--Percy

Ya, I agree it is primitive and ignorant to take any sort of glee in the death of a fellow human being.
I am not as evolved in my humanity as many others. I am glad Osama bin Laden is dead and I am glad Jihadi John is dead. And if by chance they can track down and kill every member of ISIL I won't lose any sleep either. Call me a ignorant barbarian, I know I am.
And before anyone want to point out that they have a right to exist I would say so do others. And if a group wants to kill, destroy and wipe from the face of the Earth everyone who does not embrace their theology then guess who is gonna get some drone ordinance up their ass?

What did Quakers do when barbarians were at the gates? I believe self-defense was allowed. Well, sure, but I think Omnivorous's post (which NoNukes was replying to) was acknowledging the emotions while lamenting the consequences of our inability to fine-tune our targeting down to single individuals. Sure we're angry about the innocent lives lost here at their hands, but what about the innocent lives lost there at our hands?--Percy

Hi Percy, This is a unfortunate and very sad aspect of war.
I am reminded of a Gandhi quote,
"An eye for a eye only ends up making the whole world blind."It is a shame the U.S. ever invaded Iraq. The U. S. lost all credibility when we did that imo. The blood spilled there is on our hands. We left the region destabilized and now another group wishes to destroy that culture and institute their own. What is the world to do? Now that there is a army bent on the destruction of anyone who does not bend to Sharia law. How will this end? Can the world concede to ISIL? Do we leave the countries we destabilized to the wolves? I am afraid the only answer is going to be bloodshed and alot more of it.

Carly Simon today revealed that her 1972 hit song You're So Vain was about three men, not one: Carly Simon Spills a Big 'You're So Vain' Secret. Simon long ago confirmed that the second verse was about Warren Beatty, but many then concluded the entire song was about Beatty. Turns out the other two verses were about other men, but she doesn't say who. This changes the meaning of the song from one of rebuke to more a commentary on the nature of men, or at least of men that Carly Simon used to date.Now if we can just find out what she and Billie Joe threw off the Tallahatchie Bridge, and what, exactly, did mama see down by the schoolyard? In related news, Bob Dylan is now appearing in a TV commercial with Watson.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

And just what in the hell did "I am the Walrus" mean ?

That explains the repetition.I wonder if each of those three men thought that song was about him.

Billie Joe's diary where he confesses he is gay. Paul and Julio sharing a joint. And all three would be right.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I seem to remember her saying that years ago. Mind you, as I get older I'm developing the ability to remember things that never happened.And I'm pretty sure that song is about me.

Who put the bomp in the bomp bah bomp bah bomp? / Who put the ram in the rama lama ding dong? / Who put the bop in the bop shoo bop shoo bop? / Who put the dip in the dip da dip da dip?

How many roads must a man walk down before you call him a man?