Hillary In 08!!! Urban Legend

[jasonxctf]

i.e. I'm going to lie and spread unsubstantiated rumors and act like its no big deal when I get called on it.

 

 

[kapkomet]

Agreed. No one named Kerry, Edwards, Biden or McCain, please.

And Clinton's not on this list? She should be.

 

Other then that gross omission, that's a good start.

[FlaSoxxJim]

And Clinton's not on this list? She should be.

 

I agree on Hillary, but I'd still like to see Gore change his mind and make a run.

[NorthSideSox72]

And Clinton's not on this list? She should be.

 

Other then that gross omission, that's a good start.

Well, I don't like her, but I wouldn't call her a retread (which was the post earlier). She isn't much like her hubby.

 

Gore would definitely be a retread. But, I'd probably vote for him well before I'd vote for Clinton, or any of the aforementioned retreads.

[kapkomet]

Well, I don't like her, but I wouldn't call her a retread (which was the post earlier). She isn't much like her hubby.

 

Gore would definitely be a retread. But, I'd probably vote for him well before I'd vote for Clinton, or any of the aforementioned retreads.

Gore's a "retread" as well... but Gore wouldn't be as much of a "pacifist" as some might think, imo.

 

In fact, all these liberals are going to get really giddy on the "war" when they get in office, because at that point, they are responisble and they won't want to "lose" like they want Bush to "lose" now.

 

It's all about power and making the other side look as bad as possible. Gotta love our screwed up country.

[NorthSideSox72]

Gore's a "retread" as well... but Gore wouldn't be as much of a "pacifist" as some might think, imo.

 

In fact, all these liberals are going to get really giddy on the "war" when they get in office, because at that point, they are responisble and they won't want to "lose" like they want Bush to "lose" now.

 

It's all about power and making the other side look as bad as possible. Gotta love our screwed up country.

They want to make the other side look bad, but I have a hard time believing either party is interested in trying to make someone lose a war. In their own way, I think almost all of them, on the subject of war, want to save lives.

[Texsox]

I think almost all of them, on the subject of war, want to save lives.

 

Bingo. The question becomes which saves more lives, leaving quickly or increasing troops and trying for a quick victory.

[kapkomet]

They want to make the other side look bad, but I have a hard time believing either party is interested in trying to make someone lose a war. In their own way, I think almost all of them, on the subject of war, want to save lives.

Oh, I do. I absolutely do. They know the risk of withdrawing (ooooooooops, wrong Democratic word, "REDEPLOYMENT") and how it makes us lose and lose terribly right now. But, they're heros, because they "defeated the war" (read: GEORGE BUSH'S war, as they so like to refer to it.).

 

Interesting stat: we lost more troops during the mid 1990's in "peacetime" then we have in Iraq to date. I'm not diminishing the value of any of these lives, but we certainly do get a count for Iraq pretty quick in the MSM during these debates.

 

Anyway, it's a game of political chicken, on BOTH sides, and it's disgusting.

[Texsox]

Interesting stat: we lost more troops during the mid 1990's in "peacetime" then we have in Iraq to date. I'm not diminishing the value of any of these lives, but we certainly do get a count for Iraq pretty quick in the MSM during these debates..

 

I'd like to see those stats. when and where were the mid 90s deaths?

[FlaSoxxJim]

I'd like to see those stats. when and where were the mid 90s deaths?

 

I'm highly dubious as well. What battles cost us 3,000+ combat troops in the mid 1990s??

[Texsox]

I'm highly dubious as well. What battles cost us 3,000+ combat troops in the mid 1990s??

 

Maybe by "lost" he meant they couldn't find their destination and thus GPS was invented

[kapkomet]

I'm highly dubious as well. What battles cost us 3,000+ combat troops in the mid 1990s??

There were more "peacetime deaths" in the mid-1990's then Iraq "combat deaths" war to date.

 

I'll see if I can find the document, I heard a short snippet this morning on my traffic station, but I don't remember the source.

 

http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASU...eath_Rates1.pdf

 

Edited for link.

 

Is this somewhat skewed? Absolutely. But it's interesting nonetheless.

Edited February 21, 2007 by kapkomet

[StrangeSox]

It also only goes up to 2004 -- we've had more years of the Iraqi war after that than before that.

 

And, of course, the hostile action percentage is WAY up during 2003 and 2004.

Edited February 21, 2007 by StrangeSox

[FlaSoxxJim]

There were more "peacetime deaths" in the mid-1990's then Iraq "combat deaths" war to date.

 

I'll see if I can find the document, I heard a short snippet this morning on my traffic station, but I don't remember the source.

 

http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASU...eath_Rates1.pdf

 

Edited for link.

 

Is this somewhat skewed? Absolutely. But it's interesting nonetheless.

 

Yes, it is skewed in a number of ways to force a point of view that is doesn't stand up under scrutiny.

 

First, there isn't a single year in the mid-1990s where total military deaths from all causes was more than in either 2003 or 2004. 1990 and 1991 rival the 2003-2004 totals, but that is another matter.

 

Second, like you said, the stated statistic is slanted in such a way that it compares ALL peacetime military deaths from the mid-1990s to just the Iraq War deaths in te present conflict. The truth of course is that now as well as then there are more military deaths due to accident than to combat so that background value is swamping the system.

 

Finally, if you take into accout the fineprint in that table, that the data "excludes full time Guard and Reserve," so that is a substantial number of Iraq War casualties not taken into consideration.

 

Also – and I'm not suggesting intentional sleight of hand on your part – your first statement suggested more peacetime deaths in the mid-1990s than total deaths in Iraq in teh current conflict (i.e., the accidental deaths in Iraq would still be counted in the total tally), but your follow-on refined teh comparison to only considering Iraq "combat deaths" but not the accidents. In the latter scenario, again, the number of accidental military deaths regardless of time and place swamp the systm and render the comparison meaningless, other than pointing out that even in peacetime the military represents a hazardous career choice.

[kapkomet]

What my point was in saying what I said is there are risks and always will be ANYTIME you go into the military.

 

However, the politicization of the IRAQ DEATH COUNT NOW AT 3,1XX is disgusting, because there's deaths no matter when it is, and I find it interesting that there were more "peacetime accidental deaths" over a 4 year period then there are during "combat years" specifically in Iraq that we hear EVERY DAY in the MSM.

 

That was more my comparison, and I also think I made that pretty clear by saying that I realize the numbers are indeed "skewed" depending on how you want to use them.

[Texsox]

What my point was in saying what I said is there are risks and always will be ANYTIME you go into the military.

 

However, the politicization of the IRAQ DEATH COUNT NOW AT 3,1XX is disgusting, because there's deaths no matter when it is, and I find it interesting that there were more "peacetime accidental deaths" over a 4 year period then there are during "combat years" specifically in Iraq that we hear EVERY DAY in the MSM.

 

That was more my comparison, and I also think I made that pretty clear by saying that I realize the numbers are indeed "skewed" depending on how you want to use them.

 

Are you claiming that it was more dangerous to be in the military in the 1990s than now? That if we could magically leave Iraq tomorrow, that there would be more dead American military over the next year?

[southsider2k5]

The French don't seem to think that 3000 dead people is very many...

[NorthSideSox72]

What my point was in saying what I said is there are risks and always will be ANYTIME you go into the military.

 

However, the politicization of the IRAQ DEATH COUNT NOW AT 3,1XX is disgusting, because there's deaths no matter when it is, and I find it interesting that there were more "peacetime accidental deaths" over a 4 year period then there are during "combat years" specifically in Iraq that we hear EVERY DAY in the MSM.

 

That was more my comparison, and I also think I made that pretty clear by saying that I realize the numbers are indeed "skewed" depending on how you want to use them.

If its disgusting that the evil MSM broadcasts those death counts, then how do you feel about Bush's obsession with blurting out death counts of everyone in Iraq other than American soldiers?

[kapkomet]

I think any time you politicize "death counts", it's disgusting.

 

I also think my point has been very clear.

[FlaSoxxJim]

The French don't seem to think that 3000 dead people is very many...

 

At least Jeran-Marie Le Pen doesn't.

 

He makes one cogent point, though:

 

3,000 dead, that is how many die in Iraq in a month.

[Texsox]

I think any time you politicize "death counts", it's disgusting.

 

I also think my point has been very clear.

I think anytime deaths are trivilized by proponents of war to argue about continuing a conflict, they are not honoring the Troops. One needless death is too many. There are no acceptable death counts above zero.

[FlaSoxxJim]

I think any time you politicize "death counts", it's disgusting.

 

I also think my point has been very clear.

 

Your point is quite clear, yes. It's just not fully substantiated by the figures you provided.

 

Of the 1.35 million members of the US military that have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan (sorry, couldn't quickly find just Iraq), 380,000 of these have been National Guard and Reserve members. That's nearly 30% of US fighting forces not accounted for in the tables you posted. That also translates to a lot of Iraq military casualties not included in those numberss.

 

And the point Tex is trying to raise remains. Qe're STILL suffering the same lavel of non-combat military casualties now as in the 90s regardless of the ongoing conflict. The meaningful comparison would be to exclued ALL of those deaths from both timeframes and then stare at the cold reality of the cost of war in terms of American lives. Of course, such a comparison would not suit the purposes of those trying to downplay the US military body count in Iraq.

 

[And before you jump down my throat, Kap, I'm not lumping you into that group].

 

As an aside, I'm somewhat struck by the logical conundrrum you present when you bemoan the politicization of death while at the same time pointing out that the MSM has in the past failed to make a big deal about the sizable number of peacetime military deaths. Obviouslythe solution for you would not be to have the MSM report these because you would likely see that as inherently politicized.

Edited February 21, 2007 by FlaSoxxJim

[kapkomet]

As an aside, I'm somewhat struck by the logical conundrrum you present when you bemoan the politicization of death while at the same time pointing out that the MSM has in the past failed to make a big deal about the sizable number of peacetime military deaths. Obviouslythe solution for you would not be to have the MSM report these because you would likely see that as inherently politicized.

 

ZING!

 

What I'm trying to point out is, the 3,1XX that gets told to us by our representatives (D) and senators (D) in Congress (and I'll add a ® for Chucky Hagel) every day in their LOOK AT ME camera moments - DOES count combat deaths, whether in Nat'l Guard or full time military, yet, there were 4,000+ deaths in peacetime due to military accidents in JUST the full time military during the Clinton years.

 

It's NOT an apples to apples comparison, and I grant you all that... which is why I've been (trying) to be very delicate about how I phrase this - I'm not trying to paint a worse picture unlike some of these other nutballs do.

 

But - the politicalization of it all is just sick. On both sides.

[Texsox]

Kap, the greatest cost we face in this war are the lives that are lost and can not be replaced. An argument can be raised that ignoring or publicizing those deaths is politicizing the deaths. If an error is to be made, then reminding us of this cost is the error I would like to make.

 

To elaborate. The Pro-War Hawk's agenda is advanced when we discount all costs of the war. The Anti-War Dove's agenda is advanced when we inflate all costs of the war. So no matter what we do, it is politicized. So which is the lesser of two evils? Which supports the Troops in a respectful manner. Again, both sides will rightly believe theirs is the correct path. Because intelligent people fall in both camps, I believe we are best served by healthy debate and in the resulting balance comes strength. For me, I want everyone to recognize the expenses and what we lose in time, talent, and treasure while we fight this war.

[StrangeSox]

Kap, the greatest cost we face in this war are the lives that are lost and can not be replaced. An argument can be raised that ignoring or publicizing those deaths is politicizing the deaths. If an error is to be made, then reminding us of this cost is the error I would like to make.

 

To elaborate. The Pro-War Hawk's agenda is advanced when we discount all costs of the war. The Anti-War Dove's agenda is advanced when we inflate all costs of the war. So no matter what we do, it is politicized. So which is the lesser of two evils? Which supports the Troops in a respectful manner. Again, both sides will rightly believe theirs is the correct path. Because intelligent people fall in both camps, I believe we are best served by healthy debate and in the resulting balance comes strength. For me, I want everyone to recognize the expenses and what we lose in time, talent, and treasure while we fight this war.

 

Speaking of that....

 

http://majorityleader.house.gov/docUploads...arColleague.pdf