I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
There are US troops in Iraq?
919?
You mean US soldiers are still getting killed?
None. We've already handed over sovver-, sovereign-, slobberin', uh... freedom.
six?
But we got over 300 of the enemy, that I'm sure of!
I know the answer, but not from the TV info-tainment shows masquerading as news programming.
Damned if I know...didn't we win? Or was that Afghanistan?
924
I'm going to say 920, but my answer doesn't count. I've stopped watching corporate media news. I get my news from the net and Air America.
If you ask Bush that would be a trick question: None, they're all "coalition" members!
Zero. Have not heard it mentioned on TV. (But I think I know from the net)
That jogger in Utah, she's buried in a landfill in Iraq, yes? Along with the weapons of mass destruction?
yankeedoodle, I know as well because I visit your site every day to find out what has happened in Iraq. I don't know how you can keep going without succumbing to profound despair, but I admire you for it.
You mean in the last 7 days -- "since August 1"? Hmm.. 1 here 2 there, buried in middle pages and mid-broadcast... another 1 maybe... maybe half-a-dozen? Oh, but who's counting anymore, right?
Why would I waste my beautiful mind on meaningless stuff like that?
Ditto, veritas.
Hand over=end of serious coverage
(Until soldier 1,000 dies and that will only be for a single news cycle.)
I'll guess 14. 2 a day has been the average hasn't it? Don't more people get murdered in Houston? Houston must be more dangerous then Iraq! Storm the Enron building!
I was off by three. 18 have died so far in August, 2004.
I haven't heard anything about that.
But I did learn yesterday from President Bush that "Sovereignty means sovereignty".
At least that's cleared up...
Let's see, wasn't Ms. Hacking living in Najaf?
Seriously, on CBS in the last 7 days, I don't know if they've given a total but they have reported on the deaths of at least 10, though I know the number exceeds that.
Just another thing they don't report on. I bitched this morning about the Cable news networks myself.
Iraq is going to shit and they don't report it, and the Bush Administration now has produced outed the Pakistani version of Valerie Plame (actually even worse) and I haven't seen them mention it.
Gawd, if the Clenis was still in power and just ONE of these things happened he'd be run out on a rail.
But hey, at least Bush had to appear in front of a diverse audience yesterday.
I just read the local paper, don't watch teevee news much.
The two big headlines in our paper today:
Hundreds Dead as Violence SPreads Throughout Iraq
-and-
New Jobs Flat as Stocks Tumble
Suppose we're turning the corner?
Oh... since August 1st. D'OH!
17
I know, but then I run this little website
I was off by three. 18 have died so far in August, 2004.
And it looks like it will be a particularly bloody month. We may have a chance of hitting 1,000 about the time Chimpy bangs his banana upon the podium to accept his re-christening.
Attaturk -
I love the smell of blogwhore in the morning.
I believe if you add the two reported killed yesterday the total would be 922. To make your point though Atrios, I didn't know it had past 900 until I saw it in (I believe) a Tom Toles cartoon.
Please Mr. Kerry, talk about the war and the economy.
michaelw... thanks for that link. I've been wondering if there was a website somewhere tracking casualties. I figure there was somewhere, but I never ran into the link. It's a great resource.
Thanks again.
I don't watch TV. But I'm just funny that way.
.
I'm no statistician, but if things were getting better in Iraq we would see a gradual decline in casulties. As this chart showes the average number of deaths has risen. It seems to swing back and forth; a they-hit-us we hit them back pattern. If that pattern holds it will be a very bad weekend for the US.
Holden... are you using slashdot software for first draft? Will there be the additional possibility for meta-moderating on your first draft eventually?
Huh?! Our troops are still dying in Iraq?
All I've heard and read in the last two days is how Lt. Cmdr. Geroge Elliott said Kerry deserved his Silver Star, then said he didn't, then said he didn't mean to say Kerry didn't, then said the Boston Globe was wrong in reporting that he said he meant what he didn't mean.
Iraq=disaster
Economy=disaster
Bush campaign=talk about a war hero not deserving his medals, while hoping people with half brains don't notice the Chimp's war service record=disaster.
THEY ARE DESPERATE!!!!!
Yes, Holden, it smells like...well it doesn't smell at all actually.
By the way, one of your posts on Minnesota is stunning to me (not that I'm saying where I live or anything) but it never stuns me how bizarre the last decade has been in Minnesota politics.
No way Chimpy would have gotten a third of the vote in the Minnesota I used to know.
I think its that part of the state that touces Iowa.
Well, if you watch TV, none, because they haven't reported it.
If you get your news from other sources, you'd know two troops were killed just yesterday in some of the fiercest fighting since the war began, and that we've got a good old fashioned Intifada brewing in Najaf.
Watching CNN yesterday, the "news" consisted of Dr. Sanjay Gupta's take on the latest boner remedy, endless discussions about Kobe Bryant's accuser, and something about Theresa Heinze Kerry telling a reporter to "shove it" two weeks ago.
Come on, the media is bored with all this Iraq stuff - it's so 2003...
This week's Friday oopsie:
The Bush admin outted another covert asset. This time to justify last week's orange chinese fire drill.
Soldiers are dying, but they are just being lifted directly up into Heaven with radiant, perfect bodies. I know this because I never see any dead or wounded on TV!
michaelw,
thanks for doing that sight. i've been there many times before, as its one of the few resources of with that detailed information around. keep up the good work.
Stop me if I'm wrong, but (McNamara passim) it's accepted that body counts on either side aren't a good measure of who's winning or losing strategically, no?
You'd be being inconsistent if you discounted the 300-dead-Iraqi claim from the last couple of days as a sign the Iraqi resistance were losing - yet used the rapidly increasing US body count to bolster a claim that the US position had worsened. Not endorsing any pro-US or pro-Iraqi position here, just pointing out a logical flaw.
The Bush admin outted another covert asset. This time to justify last week's orange chinese fire drill.
MY GOD! These people really do fuck up everything they touch. And for the most crass of reasons.
From your link, JoeW:
"After his capture he admitted being an al Qaeda member and agreed to send e-mails to his contacts," a Pakistani intelligence source told Reuters. "He sent encoded e-mails and received encoded replies. He's a great hacker and even the U.S. agents said he was a computer whiz."
Can you imagine how invaluable this guy was? On top of that, of course, now he's a dead man.
It's positively criminal--and that's no hyperbole.
The "other" news from Iraq that isn't being reported is Sistani, the cleric who believes in a democratic future for Iraq and has been moderating the hard line clerics is rumored on death's door and has just been evacuated from Iraq to a UK hospital to try to save him.
If Sistani dies, the coalition troops are well and truely fucked.
You'd be being inconsistent if you discounted the 300-dead-Iraqi claim from the last couple of days as a sign the Iraqi resistance were losing
I agree Seven. In fact, I specifically remember in June after the first standoff with Al-Sadr ended, the NPR reporter on the story specifically repeated the US Government story that Al-Sadr was down to his last 100 soldiers.
Yet less than two months later we claim to have killed 300 of the Mahdi militia?
Something doesn't bode well for us in these two stories.
I haven't seen any coffins, so the answer must be none.
We may have a chance of hitting 1,000 about the time Chimpy bangs his banana upon the podium to accept his re-christening.
That's the magic number we'll be hopong for. Chimpy is so done.
Something doesn't bode well for us in these two stories.
For us or Iraq?
And it looks like it will be a particularly bloody month. We may have a chance of hitting 1,000 about the time Chimpy bangs his banana upon the podium to accept his re-christening.
I was thinking the same thing when I looked at the total. I hope I hope I hope we don't get to that magic round number, but it would just be like poor Li'l Bushie's, umm, 'bad luck' for it to happen during the convention.
Maybe some freeper will wander by and tell us it's a Dem dirty trick or something. A good laugh might relieve the sting a bit.
I recalled hearing about two. I doubled my estimate based on the fact that I didn't catch the news every day this month, and again based on the fact that our media has decided that soliders dying in Iraq is no longer newsworthy. So I guessed 8. That's still less than half the truth. My first response when I clicked through the link is still all I can come up with: "Holy Fuck!"
Something doesn't bode well for us in these two stories.
For us or Iraq?
Both I guess.
We may have a chance of hitting 1,000 about the time Chimpy bangs his banana upon the podium to accept his re-christening.
Then:
That's the magic number we'll be hopong for.
Excuse me???
But, ..., but the press has assured me that casualties have been dropping since June 30!
Sad. I was led to believe that a certain level of freedomicity or soverness had been achieved.
Mondo? It's a fuck up of of an unbelievable scale. One of the constant problems we hear is how difficult it is to penetrate al qaeda.
As you say, this guy is a dead man. What do you think of our ability to recruit competent people to infiltrate AQ now?
Who would undertake such a task, knowing their life would be traded for the political equivilant of a cheeseburger? It's mind boggling.
And this isn't going to help either...
In other words, the Bush administration just blew the cover of one of the most important assets inside al-Qaeda that the US has ever had...."
"...Why in the world would Bush administration officials out a double agent working for Pakistan and the US against al-Qaeda? In a way, the motivation does not matter. If the Reuters story is true, this slip is a major screw-up that casts the gravest doubts on the competency of the administration to fight a war on terror. Either the motive was political calculation, or it was sheer stupidity. They don't deserve to be in power either way.
Reuters quotes British security expert Kevin Rosser speculating what might have been the political calculation if that was the motivation. He
' said such a disclosure was a risk that came with staging public alerts, but that authorities were meant to take special care not to ruin ongoing operations. "When these public announcements are made they have to be supported with some evidence, and in addition to creating public anxiety and fatigue you can risk revealing sources and methods of sensitive operations," he said. '..."
"...In this scenario, he or someone in his immediate circle decides that a mere double agent inside al-Qaeda can be sacrificed if it helps Bush get reelected in the short term.
On the other hand, sheer stupidity cannot be underestimated as an explanatory device in Washington politics."
http://www.juancole.com/
2004_08_...185597245383648
Looks like time for another special prosecutor. Them Crawford Pig Farm boys are on treason count two, now.
That's the magic number we'll be hopong for. Chimpy is so done
Troll, no? No one who opposed the war needs any magic number to continue opposing it for good reason. The 1000 number is only relevant because it's the sort of thing the shallow media will pay attention to. I don't know any anti-war person hoping for more death when there's been far too much already.
Stop me if I'm wrong, but (McNamara passim) it's accepted that body counts on either side aren't a good measure of who's winning or losing strategically, no?
It's not a fucking game. We don't keep score and decide who wins and who loses by the body count. The point is that 17 US soldiers have been killed in the last week, and nobody gives a rat's ass in the media. They've just accepted the Bush position that Iraq is sovereign and therefore no longer part of the news cycle. Corporate media whoredom at its worst. That smirking ball of dung at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is butchering the young people of 3 nations, including this one, which he swore to protect. That he's getting essentially a free pass from the media to do so is almost as outrageous as his own actions.
How many undercover intelligence agents have been exposed under the EnronCheneyBurton administration? Billmon discusses another politically expedient leak last week.
http://www.billmon.org
Wishing for the deaths of real people who did nothing but want to get a job and/or a scholarship and/or serve their country is disgusting.
OT, but David Brooks complains that he doesn't know anything about Kerry's positions a week after Krugman derides the media for reporting only the trivial.
Bonus: Brooks invokes Spirit of 1984.
The 1000 number is only relevant because it's the sort of thing the shallow media will pay attention to.
That's what I meant. Obviously, I don't want to reach that mark but since we are going to we might as well exploit it.
Kelli Arenas and Candy Crowley told me that these things are trivial details.
The story of what we've done in the postwar period is remarkable. It is a better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day.
Dear Trolls/Fucking Idiots (Erik and Anonymous):
If you want soldiers (from any nation) to die in order for you to score cheap political points, you'll find much better company on pro-war, pro-killing-soldiers sites such as Free Republic and Little Green Footballs.
There is no place for your kind here...
That smirking ball of dung at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. is butchering the young people of 3 nations, including this one, which he swore to protect.
I don't like the war either but Bush is not butchering anybody. Those who detonate car bombs are doing the butchering.
Who would undertake such a task, knowing their life would be traded for the political equivilant of a cheeseburger? It's mind boggling.
JoeW
I will gladly pay you Tuesday(Nov 2nd) for a cheeseburger today.
-W impy
Nancy... it's not "wishing" for deaths. It's a recognition that deaths of US troops are happening and will continue to happen unless policies are changed. Recognition of a fact based on evidence is not a political position, no matter what the freepers try to rant.
I did some quick culculating and if it keeps up at this rate, there will be over 70 U.S. casualties by the end of the month. I find that alarming, but then I'm an Unamerican Liberal who doesn't care about our troops.
"The 1000 number is only relevant because it's the sort of thing the shallow media will pay attention to.
That's what I meant. Obviously, I don't want to reach that mark but since we are going to we might as well exploit it."
-Anonymous
I seem to remember "Nightline" tried to recognize the troops that have dies at a point when the number of troops dead was a prime number on a date without significance by simly saying the name of the fallen and showing their picture, AND THE NEO-CON REPUNLICANS SCREAMED BLOODY MURDER for daring to suggest the fallen should have their name said and picture shown on network television.
Shiva: When Brooksie says he knows nothing about Kerry's positions on the issues, he neglects to mention the effing book that JFK just published.
What a tool!
OT, but can someone explain to me why that yahoo that faked his own decapitation isn't in deep doodoo?
Well, it's August you know. All the A-team scribes who routinely ignore and minimize events as their corporate script dictates are off enjoying the fruits of perfidy. We are left to the mercies of the B-team scribes, who, lacking clout, are even better at ignoring and minimizing untidy events. Hmm, now there's an item for the next human resources and budget committee meeting.
And I'm with attaturk on coverage of that Pak laptopper 'hasty' announcement, and its possible compromise of operations. Only one mention I have noticed was on MSNBC just now, and it was couched to downplay the possible snafu, as in al Queda knew the score as soon as he was busted. The Today Show reported the arrests without any mention of the busted sting controversy. Guess it's not only the B-team, but the week-end B-team.
-
Check this out, from the Reuters source article in the Juan Cole article referred to by bannedmann:
"The announcement of Khan's name forced the British to arrest 12 members of an al-Qaeda cell prematurely, before they had finished gathering the necessary evidence against them via Khan. Apparently they feared that the cell members would scatter as soon as they saw that Khan had been compromised. (They would have known he was a double agent, since they got emails from him Sunday and Monday!) One of the twelve has already had to be released for lack of evidence, a further fall-out of the Bush SNAFU. It would be interesting to know if other cell members managed to flee."
So much of this international anti-terrorist activity we've been hearing about (and for which Bush will no doubt take credit) is the result of their incompetent (and criminal) fuckup. As usual, even the "success" is compromised because of the screw-up.
These idiots have perhaps the best military that has ever existed, and they are just wasting it for their theocratic power-play.
The silver lining here is that they have so alienated the military and intelligence establishements that one hopes a military coup would be very difficult for them to pull off. (And, yes, they would do it if they could get away with it.)
To be fair to Erik and Anonymous, there was a similar debate between Rosa Luxemburg and Lenin at the outbreak of WWI. Lenin welcomed the war, thinking that mass upheaval was a good opportunity for revolution, while Rosa L was appalled by his cynical calculation, saying it vitiated any "higher ideals" he might claim. Lenin considered her dangerously naive and sentimental. Both were right in their way.
bring them on
MichaelW: thanks for the site. I know it is hard, but I know people appreciate your work.
Magic numbers and the Chimp? The only magic number I am looking at is how many days until he becomes a lame duck.
On June 26,2003 I wrote this:
Seems as though every day now, a scene of incredible power and sadness is being played out in our great country. Shortly after the sun has graced the morning sky, a military car pulls up in front of someone’s house. They seldom use the driveway as this would seem to be too much of an effrontery. Instead the cars stops and several uniformed men exit. You can see the official looking envelope in the leader’s hands as he walks slowly up the driveway to the home: eyes staring at the ground before them as if wanting to keep from seeing the home they are about to devastate. The men are clean shaven with set jaws and dark eyes under their dress hats. In the stillness, the sun glints from the brass buttons on their dress uniforms. Their appearance belies their evil deed. This duty, telling a mother and father that their son has been killed, is among the least desired, but most honorable in the history of the military. It is not their fault and they cannot take responsibility for the action: they can only give it the solemnity it deserves. Soldiers have been bearing ill news since we first decided that fighting is preferable to talking.
A woman glances out of the window as the dog barks their arrival. She knows. Tears flow. Lost in a fog of emotion she walks to the door. Self consciously she brushes her hands down her dress and straightens it imperceptibly. She opens the door and tries to see through her tear stained eyes. A young man gives the speech, the same one given since time immemorial – “We regret to inform you that . . .” The rest of the words are lost in a flood as the woman staggers back as if being struck. The men help her to sit. She whimpers softly into her hands. The men stand awkwardly and wait. Pitifully. Desperately her tears fall. Words fail, a cry: the cry of anguish escapes her lips, “Oh, why?” There is no answer.
Two hundred times this scene has been repeated in homes across America
In other words, nearly 800 have died since last summer. Very sad.
"We may have a chance of hitting 1,000 about the time Chimpy bangs his banana upon the podium to accept his re-christening."
You should vote for Bush, since both seem to view our military as little more than toy soldiers who can be manipulated
in some twisted little game.
Sorry, but using troops to garner votes is not a liberal value.
Consider this - remember when the generals said that "we don't do body counts"? Now we are announcing we killed 300 of the enemy.
Der Chimpenfuerher is getting desperate to spin any positive news out of this iraQuagmire.
Dear GOD! The outing of a double agent and all the senseless death is almost enough to knock the breath out you. The fucking deluded supporters of this Resident ought to hang their sorry heads in shame.
Stinky, perhaps you should read what I WRITE, as opposed to what other people say in response.
If you can find ONE POST where I've taken any happiness or relief in the death of American soldiers, as opposed to putting reponsibility squarely upon the annointed Commander in Chief, have at it.
Click my homepage and feel free to go through the hundreds of posts I have put up in addition to this little comment string.
I really don't get my news from television since the US media wrapped its collective lips around the shriveled head of W's cock. That said, I recall only hearing of 5 US troops killed since 1 August, and that was yesterday.
Look! Mark Hacking lied about smoking cigarettes!
You mean, an American other than that pregnant Mormon woman has died? Oh, you must be thinking of Rick James.
Wait, they weren't in Iraq...where's Iraq?
George W Butcher is completely incompetent at fighting terrorists, that's the key. While asstrolls try to make the point that car bombs are killing people, not Prez Butcher, I can recall no carbomb reports before Butcher george invaded a sovereign nation just because he could. Of course the Congress (love that, since they're all fucking each other and us, congress indeed), including Kerry, managed to do the typical cowardly CYA with the authorization vote, and if they didn't know that this insane monster who "leads" us around blind corners was going to do whatever he wanted, then they are complicit and just as incompetent. Kerry will only slow down the inevitable collapse of another greedy empire run by sociopaths, fascists and fundamentals, which is reason enough to support him, but his feet will need to be held to the fire to get him back on the track he was on when he was first elected to the senate. In the meantime, Bushco should hang...
George Nethercutt>> is that supposed to be funny ?
If so , you really need a bit of info. Read some Fisk and some Pitt and ...well , anything but the Project for the New American Century-sponsored dis-information ( keep the public STOOPID!) outlets. Just cause 'Whatta-Rush" says they are doing great things doesn't make it so .
Everything that has gone wrong in Iraq was foretold over and over in advance of the invasion ,now they will simply play it all out to it's worst case scenerio , inevitable conclusion.
Iraq shuts al-Jazeera’s Baghdad office
1-month closure; leaders have accused network of biased reporting
During a July 25 interview with Al-Jazeera in Moscow, interim Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari accused the channel of tilted reporting and implied its journalists could be barred from the country.
Zebari described the network’s coverage as “one-sided,” and also condemned the reporting of several other Arab stations.
So... when can we expect the punitive shutdowns of CNN, MSNBC and Faux News?
The fucking deluded supporters of this Resident ought to hang their sorry heads in shame.
There is, IMO, only one solid logical explanation for anyone who is not among the super-rich to still support Bush: a belief that he is, indeed, inherently Good, that he is carrying out some Religious Destiny.
The theocratic agenda looms large in the Bush administration, and no matter how strong you you might already think it is, don't make the mistake of underestimating it.
Everyone should read Rick Perlstein's The Church of Bush over at the Village Voice.
Also, Mark Crispin Miller gives an excellent, and chilling, summary of just how deeply heretical Christian extremism has penetrated the thinking of the administration, and how the Neocons, Theocons, and Likudniks each see each other as useful idiots.
You can find the audio of Crispin Miller's interview on Bob McChesney's Media Matters radio show (same name, but a different than Brock's). Scroll down to the July 18th show.
It's Clinton's fault
- 1 Million Ditto Monkeys
Remember folks: Counting American dead in a war fought for lies is anti-American treason... but refusing to count the number of Iraqi civilian deaths in order to delude yourself that you are saving them is patriotic.
And I've just realised that I've met in passing at least one, possibly two of the founders of the Iraq Body Count webpage... gosh, what a small world indeed.
"There are no concrete numbers of dead Iraqi soldiers. U.S. Central Command has given few figures on the subject, but officials did estimate 2,000-3,000 Iraqi troops were killed in one day alone, during an April 5 blitz into Baghdad. In November 2003 The Guardian estimated that between 13,500 and 45,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed by American and British troops during the six weeks of war. " - Link
----
"Say whatever the fuck you want about Islamic fundamentalism or whatever your excuse is for not opening your eyes. May the world remember the heroic resistance to the occupation, Fallujah, April 2004. For Osama and Reem. May they rest in peace." - David Rovics
"Fallujah"
Play LoFi || Play HiFi || Download ||
Maybe you'll hear about me
When you watch the evening news
So I write this letter for you, my friends
The truth then you may choose
I had a good time at Oxford
And the world I did roam
When my studies were finished
Then I went back home
All I wanted were good things
Land and liberty
And all the sorts of things we learned
At the university
I'm not a fan of dictatorships
I'd rather say live and let live
But for those who would threaten my family
There's nothing I won't give
(Chorus)
I will fight for my country
I'll defend this land
I will stare at the whites of your soldiers' eyes
With this Kalishnikov in my hand
When you break down the doors of my neighbors
When you say that might makes right
When you say you're looking for terrorists
In their bedroom late at night
When you torture my brother at gunpoint
On his head a canvass sack
All I can say to you, soldier
Is you'd best watch your back
(Chorus)
When you come with your tanks on our city streets
And you say these streets are yours
When you say you'll rebuild us with bombers
And oil tankers on our shores
When you have gunned down my child in Fallujah
You needn't wonder why
I look at you through the blades of your 'copter and say
It's a good day to die
(Chorus)
Created April, 2004
Copyright David Rovics 2004, all rights reserved
George W Butcher is completely incompetent at fighting terrorists
His competence is not supposed to be in fighting terrorists--his supreme skill is supposed to be to bring about the chaos needed to satisfy either the Neocons' secular or the Theocons' nonsecular apocalyptic fantasies, cleansing the world to start anew.
Seems like he's pretty damn good at that to me.
Cheeky Monkey Here, maybe OT, maybe not - you decide.
Go to this BBC radio website:
http://tinyurl.com/6gxzw
Click on Listen Again to the latest edition (available after the Saturday repeat) and skip in 24 minutes and 50 seconds
It's Clinton's fault
- 1 Million Ditto Monkeys"
--George Johnston
Close. The Clenis did it.
(for you newbies, that blogglish for Clinton's penis)
Holden... are you using slashdot software for first draft? Will there be the additional possibility for meta-moderating on your first draft eventually?
bannedmann
It's really Athenae's old writing blog. She knows more about it that than I.
Dunno. Let me ask Paul Wolfowitz (surely he'd know) and get back to ya.
"...double agent..."
So now she's a double agent?
Seventeen dead in Iraq so far this month? Holy sh*t!
Another covert agent outed for crass political gain? Holy sh*t!
I keep thinking the outrages have to end, if only so Karl Rove can keep criticism of Chimpy off the front pages tp present a good face for the campaign. So far, I keep getting surprised.
Damn, i guess that Lincoln guy had something, when he said his bit about not fooling all the people all the time. Did he ever go anywhere in politics?
I am taking the Douglas Adams approach to the question.
42
Is it close?
"...double agent..."
So now she's a double agent?
"double agent" refers to the al Qaeda operative who was working with the Pakistanis and who got outed by the Bush (mis)administration in the raising of the terror alert level this past week.
michaelw, I used your data to wrest an apology from the New York Times. (This email exchange is edited to fit into the Haloscan 3000 character limit. Exchange is in reverse chron order.)
Dear Cathleen,
Please accept my apologies for our confusing message. I had misread numbers provided by different sources, and am looking further into it. I hope to get back to you soon.
Yours sincerely,
Daniel Okrent
Public Editor
At 09:03 PM 7/22/2004, you wrote:
I appreciate your reply, but I beg to differ. 47 US soldiers died between June 28, 2004 and july 21, 2004. Here are the dates, their names,service branch, unit, and place of death:
[list of 47 soldiers who died courtesy ICCC]
That calculates to 47 deaths divided by 23 days = average 2.04 US service deaths per day. Your 1.39 figure is an error.
Below is a table of average fatalities by month..
[Explanation of table]
[table of military fatalities by month courtesy ICCC]
In addition, the average wounded per day has risen from 17.7 per day from June1 through June 29, 2004 to 19.5 per day during the period June 30 to July 20, 2004.
[My observations about the credibility of the NYT omitted for brevity]
Best,
Cathleen
My source for military casualties is http://icasualties.org/oif/
Public wrote:
Dear Cathleen,
Several readers voiced similar concerns about the following sentence in the 7/21 article, "Bush Plans No Rest in Next Month; 2nd Term Agenda Near," by Adam Nagourney and Richard Stevenson.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/2...pagewanted=2&
hp
Mr. Bush has other factors potentially in his favor, several Republicans said. The economy is showing signs of
strengthening, though it remains an open question whether that is happening in time to change voter attitudes about how
Mr. Bush is managing the economy. In Iraq, the transfer of sovereignty has led to some reduction in American casualties.
We raised your concerns with Mr. Stevenson who noted that according to the Department of Defense's web site, for the month leading up to the transfer on June 28, there were 48 Americans killed in action in Iraq. During this period the rate of casualties was between 1.5-1.6 deaths a day (48 deaths divided by either 30 or 32 days depending on which day is used as a starting point; the Defense Department figures were not updated each day at the end of May.)
According to the Department of Defense's web site, from the transfer of sovereignty on June 28 through July 21, there were 32 Americans killed in action in Iraq. During this period of 23 days the rate of casualties was 1.39 deaths per day (32 deaths divided by 23 days.)
[Bovino's defense of Stevenson's statement]
Sincerely,
Arthur Bovino
Office of the Public Editor
The New York Times
At 11:01 PM 7/21/2004, you wrote:
There you (at the New York Times) go again, making things up:
Nagourney says:
"In Iraq, the transf
How many soilders will die during the Republican convention? That says it all for me...balloon drop.
Well, it depends on whether he was claiming to be spying on Pakistan/the US to Al Qaeda or not, doesn't it? If he did make that claim then technically yes, he was a double agent, in so much that he is pretending to be an agent for one side, when actually working for the other.
Outing your own agent though, be he single or double, and thus sacrificing both him and America's security, even if you believe it's in America's long term security interests, is just as reprehensible as hoping that many, many more American troops die in Iraq in order to save more American lives in the future, wouldn't you say?
Crap, here's the rest:
At 11:01 PM 7/21/2004, you wrote:
There you (at the New York Times) go again, making things up:
Nagourney says:
"In Iraq, the transfer of sovereignty has led to some reduction in American casualties."
(Bush Plans No Rest in Next Month; 2nd Term Agenda Near; July 21, 2004)
[My information about the casualties in Iraq omitted for brevity]
What is Nagourney's source for his claim of a reduction in American casualties? My source is Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, whose owner compiles and documents casualties from CentCom. You can check my figures at http://icasualties.org/oif/Details.aspx, where every single death is fully documented.
[My observations about the credibility of the NYT omitted for brevity]
Cathleen
America's Nemesis, do you and others think its right that victims of an RPG attack on an Iraqi police station should make it into the 'Iraq Body Count?' Are all violent deaths occurring in Iraq the sole responsibility of the United States?
So now she's a double agent?
not she. he. as bannedmann points out:
Them Crawford Pig Farm boys are on treason count two, now.
i know it's hard to keep track these days, but the pakistani al qaeda source the administration was using to cover their asses on the latest cry of wolf had been a double agent. now he's in witness protection or dead. good work war president!
many links upthread on treason count two
I guessed 924, but that must be a few days old already. Thank god that mission was accomplished!
'America's Nemesis, do you and others think its right that victims of an RPG attack on an Iraqi police station should make it into the 'Iraq Body Count?' Are all violent deaths occurring in Iraq the sole responsibility of the United States?'
Isn't it a wondeful sign of how pathetic you are that I can spot you from just one small example of pedantry and then draw you out into the open with it? And now the smackdown:
Why, according to the Geneva Conventions, which the US is not only a signatury to but also one of the chief architects, the Occupying Power is indeed solely responsible for all security issues within said territory
There's also lots of interesting things Occupying Powers also shouldn't get up too... Article 60's a good one, and was in the news quite recently: Or is this smackdown sufficient for you? Ahah-ha-ha, no of course it won't be, you have another whole day of trolling ahead of you, right?
"How many US soldiers have been killed in Iraq since August 1?"
I had guessed at 910 +/- 5.
What I think Kerry should hit on is not the actual dead, but the number of maimed and mutilated.
That is where the numbers get disturbing.
If Kerry were to put out an ad at the last month showing the maimed and permantly injured soldiers filling up the hospitals, then followed up with a question statement asking whether they too would be angry if their mommy or daddy had lost his sight, or his arms, or his legs, due to a lie?
MYOB'
.
America's Nemesis, it's amazing how a simple harmless question can bring on (yet again) another trademark Baby-Jane-Hudson style meltdown.
Baby-Jane-Hudson style meltdown.
ad hominem. game over.
you have another whole day of trolling ahead of you, right?
could be considered ad-hominem, especially 'round these parts...
oops. I didn't see that the question was directed at August 1'st. Ignore my post.
MYOB'
.
So AN, I take it that from your reading of Geneva, ALL violent deaths occuring within Iraq can be attributed to the occupation. Is this your claim?
My beautiful mind wants to know - what precisely is a "blogwhore", and can I be one?
"America's Nemesis, it's amazing how a simple harmless question can bring on (yet again) another trademark Baby-Jane-Hudson style meltdown"
Which of course you have no experience of, having never posted here before, yes?
I mean, it's not like a regular here would ever have seen a poster try and take a cheap shot over a grammatical point he actually gets wrong himself, (getting important facts on the same issue wrong at the same time) and then proceed to try and change the topic quickly when his ass gets busted on his attempt to appear intellectual... No, there was absolutely nothing about your behaviour at first or since which would lead any logical and sane person to doubt that you truly were not anything other than a brand new poster, asking honest questions.
But you do have one good point: it is amazing how a simple harmless question can bring on (yet again) another trademark Baby-Jane-Hudson style meltdown.
Questions such as: So will you admit then that you don't know what a rhetorical question is, or at least you don't know who to accurately phrase one? Because the answer to your question is actually why yes, America is responsible according to the law it helped write itself.
Settle in folks, today's 12 hour trolling session is about to begin again!
I've been watching the twenty four hour news channels all morning and there's been nothing about the outing of the double agent. Are we living in a parallel universe? Is any name journalist willing to risk the vacation house in Newport or Nantucket to deliver the truth to the American people?
ad hominem. game over.
flatulus
Flatulus, America's China Syndrome-like Meltdown shot first, read his own ad hominem laden response to a quite innocent question.
Do any more serious people want to try the question? Do you think the occupying powers are responsible (in the cause-and-effect way suggested by the IBC project) for ALL deaths, even RPG attacks on Iraqi policemen?
AN, here's an example for you: a policeman is "responsible" for patrolling his beat. Is he criminally culpable for murders occurring on his watch?
So now she's a double agent?
not she. he. as bannedmann points out:
Them Crawford Pig Farm boys are on treason count two, now.
I think I "pointed it out" first. 
Pakistan: U.S. Blew Undercover Operation
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - The al-Qaida suspect named by U.S. officials as the source of information that led to this week’s terrorist alerts was working undercover, Pakistani intelligence sources said Friday, putting an end to the sting operation and forcing Pakistan to hide the man in a secret location.
RCSanders | Email | Homepage | 08.06.04 - 7:51 pm | #
Looks like time for another special prosecutor. Them Crawford Pig Farm boys are on treason count two, now.
bannedmann | Email | Homepage | 08.07.04 - 10:46 am | #
I'm just sayin'. 
Do you think the occupying powers are responsible (in the cause-and-effect way suggested by the IBC project) for ALL deaths, even RPG attacks on Iraqi policemen?
I like your parenthetical remark. That's quite a loophole you're trying to leave yourself.
Mondro Dentro, that loophole seems to be invited by those who use the IBC stats to suggest even partial culpability (as they obviously do.)
Some comments are not noticing the "since August 1" stricture. And I have only just now noticed the "US soldiers", which, to US Marines, are different critters. And leathernecks are notorious contributers to the casualty pool, God bless 'em.
"Troops" covers all, but still leaves me wishing there were a better reference.
-
Add one. An Iraq Vet from Vermont was killed last week, driving from Ft. Stewart, Ga. to see his girlfriend in Florida.
a policeman is "responsible" for patrolling his beat. Is he criminally culpable for murders occurring on his watch If I killed or disbanded the old police force and declared myself the new without providing an adequate replacement force. Yes.
All I know is that Adam Nagourney of the NYTimes, backed by his editor despite evidence to the contrary, has said the number of U.S. soldiers killed is going down since the "handover." So everything is getting better in eye-Rak. I don't know why you even care about this. Because if I follow Nagourney's logic, soon all the dead U.S. soldiers will come back to life...
Or do I have it wrong?
-
'could be considered ad-hominem, especially 'round these parts...'
Only if you've never seen him troll before. Otherwise it would be called 'An accurate summation of the true state of things'. You can simply go to any other thread here and count for yourself how many hours he trolls.
You can also so the level of intellect and consistency in this lovely comment here:
'So AN, I take it that from your reading of Geneva, ALL violent deaths occuring within Iraq can be attributed to the occupation. Is this your claim?'
And this is after I pointed him to the actual Geneva Conventions themselves, which by some amazing coincidence, seem to give an exact answer to that question. Think he's read them though? Of course he hasn't, because if he had, he'd know not to say something so foolish... especially not to ask something so foolish that the answer was contained in the very text describing the link I suggested he click.
Of course, if you rummage around, you can probably still find the thread where he spent 2 hours or so demanding I state what I'd do about the Sudan, then realised I'd already told him before, then refused to accept any answer, then...
Ad-hominem attacks are only unjustified when you are attacking the person instead of the idea: But this person has no ideas. He's become so consumed with hate that all he cares about is attacking Eschaton personally. See how he has to try and weasel away from a question himself, even though he just claimed questions are supposedly so upsetting to me?
By my reckoning, we are due at least another 10 hours of trolling: I came back from a most entertaining evening at 3am GMT today and he was still here then, and as the weekends are always hard for the sad and lonely, we've almost certainly look forward to that kind of trolling programme ahead of us again this afternoon.
But now a simple answer has upset him so much that "Onan" wasn't even able to last two posts before becoming impotently enraged, my work here is done... so see you all intermittently during the day!
America's Nemesis, it's amazing how a simple harmless question can bring on (yet again) another trademark Baby-Jane-Hudson style meltdown.
-Onan the Librarian
Yes... we all remember America's Nemesis as a child actor in his role of Skippy on "Family Ties" and have seen his mental health spiral downward as his career has imploded at the same time America's Nemesis's brother, America's Premisis, has become a superstar movie actor in films such as "The Blair Witch Project" and "The Hulk." It all been so tragic. Like you said, "Another trademark Baby-Jane-Hudson style meltdown," right?
Mondro Dentro, that loophole seems to be invited by those who use the IBC stats to suggest even partial culpability (as they obviously do.)
But that's my point: there is clearly partial culpability. What your parenthetical remark is trying to do is argue that only strict "causal" culpability is legitimate. But how far back in the causal chain are you willing to go?
We invaded. We toppled the existing order. We failed to secure Iraq leading to massive looting. We contributed to the natural cynicism of the population with corrupt or corrupt-appearing contracing practices... on and on. That RPG attack probably would not have even happened without our invasion.
Are the insurgents culpable? Yeah, of course they are. But that is not in in any way contradictory to the idea that the Bush administration is, too. The two classes of culpability do not form disjoint sets.
One last thing, Onan: I would agree that a splitting of the Iraqi deaths into "directly killed by US forces" and "not directly killed" would be better. But we still have some degree of responsibility, even in the latter category.
(shatner)Preeeeeeemmmmmiiiiissssiiiiissssss!(/ Shatner)
*ahem* criminal negligence enshrined in law *ahem*
929.
cheney bush.
mondo,
The IBC page lists simply "Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq." Nothing in this phrase suggests anyone other than occupying forces are blameworthy. And the statistics are used to inflate more valid "collateral damage" estimates that should need no inflation, diluting their appropriate use as the basis of a coherent anti-war argument.
Thanks for not carefully reading or responding to my serious post, Onan.
You've completely evaded my critique your implication that the only culpability that really matters is "causal", whatever that is.
*ahem* Criminal Negligence Enshrined In Domestic Law *ahem*
*cough* International Law Re: Geneva Convetions Which State Occupying Power Solely Responsible For Law And Order and Security *cough*
And he used the "other name makes claim that he then agrees with tactic too".
You see, Ad Hominems are valid arguments when the person making a claim is not a valid authority. It's been most amusing to learn of yet another term he doesn't understand.
There's even more evidence for that worthlessness too, but I'm laughing my ass off at his complete ignorance of it. It involves another example of not understanding what he's read at a link...
"The IBC page lists simply "Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq." Nothing in this phrase suggests anyone other than occupying forces are blameworthy. And the statistics are used to inflate more valid "collateral damage" estimates that should need no inflation, diluting their appropriate use as the basis of a coherent anti-war argument."
-Onan the Librarian
Documented war atrocities committed against the civilian population of Iraq by coalition forces is a justification for armed insurrection under international law.
International law is on the side of the Iraqi insurgents, not coalition forces. If international law justifies insurrection against war atrocities, then all the casualties that take place during that insurrection would count as casualties.
mondo, I think you and I clearly disagree intractably on what "responsibility" means in both the colloquial and legal/Geneva sense. My point addresses only the IGC and the sense THEY impart by their phrase "civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq," not nearly so nuanced as even you will allow.
I weep. I guessed 15, and I get most of my news from the *internet*.
"international law justifies insurrection against war atrocities"
No international law justifies RPG attacks on civilian police stations. No international law justifies bombing of single-purpose civilian targets. International law requires of combatants identifying insignia and a clear chain of authority. Most of what you would count as "insurrection" (or even guerilla warfare) explicitly violates the terms of the fourth geneva convention.
er IBC not IGC sorry
Consider this - remember when the generals said that "we don't do body counts"?
They were talking about CIVILIAN body counts. No lie. They don't count how many civilians they kill.
"No international law justifies RPG attacks on civilian police stations. No international law justifies bombing of single-purpose civilian targets. International law requires of combatants identifying insignia and a clear chain of authority. Most of what you would count as "insurrection" (or even guerilla warfare) explicitly violates the terms of the fourth geneva convention."
Onan the Librarian
WRONG. Once war atrocities have been committed by an occupying force, self-defense of the occupied population by the occupied population becomes the overriding consideration. All the rules governing the behavior of a guerilla army are thrown out the window once war atrocities have been committed. Basically almost any action can be taken by a population defending itslf against war atrocities, especially within the borders of the occupied nation.
By the way, there are actions Iraqis could take on our soil that could be justified as self-defense against war atrocities under international law... for example attacking military industrial targets that support the occupying force, etc. You neo-cons really opened a can of worms when you started torturing prisoners.
I'm with Colin Powell (for the first and last time) on Iraq. We broke it, we own it.
"All the rules governing the behavior of a guerilla army are thrown out the window once war atrocities have been committed."
I must have missed the 'anything goes' clause. Where in the 4th convention does that appear? It seems not to be in my copy.
The US administration didn't go into Iraq for oil. It didn't go there because Saddam had WMD or ties to Al Queda. It went in because our Defense and State Departments decided we needed a permanent strategic presence in the area. It chose Iraq because of the aforementioned "plausible" excuses, exercising a kind of realpolitik which would make Richelieu sick to his stomach.
Bush lied, thousands died.
Most of what you would count as "insurrection" (or even guerilla warfare) explicitly violates the terms of the fourth geneva convention.
Onan the Librarian
Geneva Convention? You mean that quaint old thing?
Anti-war folks quoting the Fourth convention remind me a bit of Christian bigots quoting the bible to justify their homo-hatred. Some extraordinary filtering mechanisms are required.
We broke it, we own it
This kind of shorthand “straight talk” sounds decisive but says nothing.
" self-defense of the occupied population by the occupied population "
So you think bombing police stations and suicide attacks on civilian areas constitute "self-defense?" In whose world?
I had guessed at 910 +/- 5.
What I think Kerry should hit on is not the actual dead, but the number of maimed and mutilated.
That is where the numbers get disturbing.
Indeed. A wounded soldier is just as much out of the military. BushCo's war has cost our volunteer military tens of thousands of combat soldiers who will no longer be available to serve due to death, physical injury, and psycological injury.
Fuck W.
The damage done should not be underestimated. Or misunderestimated.
mondo, I think you and I clearly disagree intractably on what "responsibility"
No, this is not a matter of "disagreement". It's a matter of reason and logic--you know, the "absolute Truth" stuff that you guys like to blather on about.
You are deliberately trying to conflate "justification" and "culpability" in order to obfuscate the Truth.
So now you are attempting to just fall back to claiming it's a difference of point of view. Just like a right winger. You're all moral relativists when it suits you.
What a copout.
Shame on you.
I don't watch TV news, and I blame all of you assholes for that. I used to be addicted to cable news. You even turned me off to my once beloved
PBS/NPR. Thanks a lot.
You even turned me off to my once beloved
PBS/NPR. Thanks a lot.
Chauncy Gardner
Well, PBS went south. Long live Bill Moyer!
You even turned me off to my once beloved
PBS/NPR. Thanks a lot.
Chauncy Gardner
Well, PBS went south. Long live Bill Moyer!
If Chimpy and Bumsfeld don't feel obligated to follow the Geneva convention, why should the Iraqi people be compelled to?
If Chimpy and Bumsfeld don't feel obligated to follow the Geneva convention, why should the Iraqi people be compelled to?
Sorry.
The point here is not to be right, but to give an answer based on what you remember hearing on TV.
ha. then, that answer (based on what i remember hearing on TV) is...
we're still in Iraq? We granted them sovereignty! then everything got better, just like in Afghanistan!
Surely, if there were still American soldiers dying in Iraq, we'd hear about it from the media!
...wouldn't we?
"" self-defense of the occupied population by the occupied population "
So you think bombing police stations and suicide attacks on civilian areas constitute "self-defense?" In whose world?"
-Onan the Librarian
There is no enforcement method listed in the Geneva Conventions when signatories fail to cooperate with International investigations of war atrocities. That's all in the International case law and precident of the Nuremberg war trials and other war tribunals.
It's self defense when the police are bringing Iraqi civilians to Abu-Gharib to be tortured. It's also self-defense to kill officials who will be participating in the torture infrastructure, police and police recruits. The big bombs went off against Iraqi police recruiting efforts.
There's been several recent "crackdown" by Iraqi police forces. Hmm...
CNN just aired a live feed to Bahgdad in which their correspondent, Matthew Chance, spent a good part of his time bobbing and ducking to the sound of explosives. It's interesting how ragged and tired those reporting from even the "safe" areas of Iraq appear. Of course, you don't see them very frequently...
"So you think bombing police stations and suicide attacks on civilian areas constitute "self-defense?" In whose world?"
WHICH PART OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS DECLARING THE OCCUPYING POWERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL LAW AND ORDER ISSUES ARE YOU TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND?
But now for the real smackdown: I mentioned earlier I've met the producer of the IBC. In fact, those more intelligent than AM will have noted I stated I might even have met 2 of them. And why do I say this? Why, if you look closely they both work at the same University... Oh, I only knew them in passing: Although if John Sloboda ever wanders by here, and remembers it, I can tell him who pinched his picture from the Psych. Departments board in 1998, and why, if he feels like blushing...
You see troll... you so often try to claim knowledge of things you don't have: And I don't just mean things like common sense, logic, intelligence... I mean specific things like what it is to study at a major university. Remember when you claimed to be a biomedical researcher, and then lied and lied about how you 'understood' how such people actually work, and Phila and I just kept encouraging you to further and further idiocy because both being educated we knew the truth, but wanted to see how far you'd go in claiming you knew it too?
And here you are lying about understanding better than everyone else what the IBC is claiming... and weaseling out of addressing me because you know how you won't be able to escape the traps I lay for you: And this one's a real doozy this time, because the authors of this particular site teach at the same university I got my Politics degree from. I was there from 1995 - 1999 in fact, although in a different department. Had you any common sense at all, you could have worked out the name of the University just from my alluding to probably having met 2 of the people involved in that site: but instead, into the trap you blunder... Yes folks, I've even attended one of Dr Sloboda's lectures on International Law: He'd give them in his free time to the various political societies active on campus at that time. And although my main memory of the man is that one of his pupils had a serious crush on him (he he), I can state from my own personal experience that he knows considerably more about International Law than you do, Troll Boy. He does, after all, lecture on the subject.
Yes, whilst you mistake my behaviour here for a breakdown, what with that projection and all, everyone else can see that I'm simply toying with you on the exact same level you exist here at Eschaton at: I'm simply aping your stupid behaviour. Oh yes my trollish friend, I actually am educated in person... and have been personally educated at least once by the very person and his arguments you claim to understand better than everyone else in this case. But most posters here are educated too, and even those who aren't can smell bullshi
....
But most posters here are educated too, and even those who aren't can smell bullshit: Thus All the other Posters here get the in-jokes that you are too idiotic to ever see, and the punchline you are too stupid to ever avoid, flail around trying to deny being caught in the traps even as you do. But you never do. You just continue to degenerate into ever more pathetic irrelevance. Shall we remind him of irrelevant?
Remember how the trolls tried pushing Human Rights Watch reporting of Saddam's crimes as a justification for invading? Well, funny story, ha ha ha, but guess what HRW says about the Geneva Conventions and the Responsibilities of the Occupying Power?. Hey, wouldn't it be funny to find what Amnesty International (remember him trolling under their name too?) has to say on Geneva as well?
And you could have avoided all of that laughter by just reading the link I originally pointed to which showed how you didn't understand international law at all. Instead, you've trolled on and on and on, making more and more ignorant arguments until eventually you tried to claim that you knew what legal arguments the IBC authors where making to someone whose actually heard those arguments in person.
*laughs and laughs and laughs and laughs*
We broke it, we own it
This kind of shorthand “straight talk” sounds decisive but says nothing.
On the contrary, it says a lot. It says that we bear responsibility for leaving behind some sort of stable government in Iraq, and some working infrastructure.
It also says that we bear moral responsibility for civilian deaths and crimes like Abu Ghraib.
Or would you rather have us behave in Iraq as George W. Bush has his entire life.? Which is to say, cheney something up (TANG service, Arbusto, Harken, etc.), then walk away, counting on family connections and $$$ to bail one out and avoid accountability.
And I leave out the sort of stuff Lincoln talked about in his Second Inaugural that apply in this country: "to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."
Of course, now we should also speak of "her who shall have borne the battle and for her widower and her orphan." Other Eschatonians, who have been in combat, have posted on this board out of their own bitter experience about what lies ahead for the veterans of this little cheneyed-up adventure, so we as a nation shall be dealing with its consequences for years to come.
All this, in both of my posts, are comprised by saying of Iraq, "We broke it, we own it."
What part of this do you oppose, antiphone?
OT-sort of.
Has anybody heard anything from reporter John Burns (NYT) recently?
Never mind. Located him.
This kind of shorthand “straight talk” sounds decisive but says nothing. Interesting that you would object to this. That is precisely the style that you try to mimic in your never more than one sentence comments.
Most of what you would count as "insurrection" (or even guerilla warfare) explicitly violates the terms of the fourth geneva convention.
Good lord...violations of the Geneva Convention?!
No way...not on Dubya's watch!
Newsd for ya, monkey-boy...in addition to purposefully and explicitly trampling the Geneva Conventions (and other international laws), Bush is also legally responsible under the GC for whatever happens while the US occupies Iraq...especially as regards failing to protect civilians.
"The point is not to be right"
If the News Media has a motto, that's it.
And I'd make a slight adjustment to the "1000 points of light" idea discussed last night. As soon as possible after the 1000th GI (officially) dies in Iraq, have a peaceful gathering on the Mall, with 1000 "candles" (flashlites of some kind; more reliable) being extinguished one by one. When the last one goes out, everybody just get up and leave, quietly. No one says a word to reporters, hecklers, anyone. The ultimate peaceful demonstration in total silence. All the media will know in advance is what the organizers put in the press release.
Just a thought.
That is precisely the style that you try to mimic in your never more than one sentence comments.
“Anonymous”, what are you trying to do? You’re not going to get any brownie points for winning an argument unless you use a handle, you know, some sort of nickname. Without one you just project unfocused anger and powerlessness.
It looks like we may hit 1000 KIA by September 11th. We all have to get out the vote this fall or were looking at 4 more years of this shit.
Has Bush attended a memoral or funeral for any of the 926 fallen in Iraq?
Hell, even ESPN covered Tillman's memorial.
We broke it, we own it
This kind of shorthand “straight talk” sounds decisive but says nothing.
On the contrary, it says a lot. It says that we bear responsibility for leaving behind some sort of stable government in Iraq, and some working infrastructure.
It also says that we bear moral responsibility for civilian deaths and crimes like Abu Ghraib.
Ok Wile E. Odysseus, that’s what you mean by it, but we own it is not a particularly clear way to express that responsibility.
Or would you rather have us behave in Iraq as George W. Bush has his entire life.?
This doesn’t work too well. Bush is staying in Iraq, that makes the argument that leaving would be --behaving like Bush-- kind of silly, no? At the core of your position on Iraq are two assumptions: that we can and will fix things up in a way that fulfils the moral responsibility you mentioned. That’s assuming a lot and a meaningful debate would focus there. We’re not having that debate as a society yet. Instead we’ve got slogans like we broke it, we own it.
10 bombs went off near the green zone today and it's not headline news. Facist media.
Only because I read Juan Cole every day do I know that it is close to 3 a day for the past week.
onan, you seem to be operating from the assumption that the geneva conventions exist to protect occupation forces from harm at the hands of the population they are occupying. to put it into very simple terms that even you might understand, that is not the case.
and changing the terminology from "occupation" to "sovereignty", while keeping the situation on the ground the same doesn't wash anywhere outside of the us.
Most of what you would count as "insurrection" (or even guerilla warfare) explicitly violates the terms of the fourth geneva convention.
Fucking full of shit--you do not have the right to defend your country? We signed on to a treaty saying that? Are you quite sure, our ignorant slut?
I got it about right; maybe because I never watch television.
"legally responsible "
It is the conflation of 'responsible' and 'culpable' that I don't buy. Unlike the rest of you, I would NOT consider a policeman criminally culpable for crimes commited on his watch, under just about ANY conditions including the situation you posit. Sorry, but Iraqi (and non-Iraqi) terrorists are moral agents, not children or components of the local wildlife. By your standards the US is criminally responsible for inter-Somali murders committed on "our watch." And you would have the United States intervene on behalf of oppressed minorities in the Sudan? Utterly deranged.
No military mission (including vital humanitarian missions and international police actions) could ever be prosecuted if occupying military authorities were held culpable or criminally responsible for the entire tally of violent deaths occurring within their spheres of influence. The IBC terminology is deceptive because it does not distinguish between deaths caused directly by OUR BOMBS and those 'caused' indirectly by guerilla combatants flaunting the 4th geneva convention and killing large quantities of Iraqi non-combatants with truck bombs and mortar rounds. This distinction is one many people find meaningful even if you and the IBC people do not. Saying these people were "killed by military intervention" is quite misleading to me, if not to you.
"you seem to be operating from the assumption that the geneva conventions exist to protect occupation forces from harm at the hands of the population they are occupying"
When have I suggested anything of the kind? I am referring specifically and only to the Iraqi-on-Iraqi civilian death toll, which is included (deceptively, I think) among your IBC statistics. Read more carefully, please.
It seems like you consider all Iraqi civil institutions to be extensions of the United States military, which strikes me as both dangerously overbroad and counterproductive to the (unassailable) goal of fostering a stable and relatively humane government to replace the dysfunctional dictatorship that no longer exists.
Do you think it is in the interest of Iraqis that the US should pull up and leave Iraq immediately, consequences be damned? Of course your answer is yes, but why?
"flouting" not flaunting but you get the point
"biomedical researcher,"
??
You are completely out to lunch, Captain Ahab. Please ignore me and my posts, just scroll by, I won't be offended.
Bush is staying in Iraq, that makes the argument that leaving would be --behaving like Bush-- kind of silly, no? At the core of your position on Iraq are two assumptions: that we can and will fix things up in a way that fulfils the moral responsibility you mentioned.
It's not clear to me that Bush is staying in Iraq. When has Bush stuck with any losing proposition in his life? I see comments here and elsewhere about fourteen bases and so forth, which may well be the PNAC position, but I'm not convinced yet that it is Bush's position. I believe Bush will cut and run the first chance he gets, just as he did in Afghanistan, because he is an opportunistic swine and will do what benefits Bush before anything else. Leaving Iraq, or even just announcing that we're leaving Iraq, may even be the October Surprise, if things there really go south, or we take a lot of casualties between now and then. I certainly don't look to Bush to accomplish much in making up for the damage, to people or to infrastructure, we've done there.
If we can fix things in Iraq remains to be seen. I certainly doubt we'll be able to do so if Bush gets another term. But we have a responsibility to try, just as we have a responsibility to undo the damage the war has done in this country to the military, including the soldiers who have served and come home, who have been wounded or killed, and who have been stuck there under stop-loss, and to our political and governmental institutions, including the intelligence agencies. And I can't even begin to think how we begin to repair our credibility and our prestige abroad, including the stain on our honor represented by torture and rape at Abu Ghraib. As I've said, I think we'll be dealing with the ramifications of this war for long years to come.
I think the phrase, "We broke it, we own it," including in that second "it" all the consequences down the road we can barely guess at now, admirably expresses our situation wrt Iraq.
YMMV.
"it seems like you consider all iraqi civil institutions to be extensions of the united states military. . ."
the us military is in fact the most powerful force in the country. there is nothing even close to it.
"do you think that it is in the interest of iraqis that the us should pull up and leave iraq immediately, consequences be damned?"
i have no idea, onan. i do believe that it is in the interest of the us to do that though.
If we can fix things in Iraq remains to be seen. I certainly doubt we'll be able to do so if Bush gets another term.
The military is designed to break things and kill people and they’re very good at it. What you expect them to do is unreasonable regardless of who’s president. The presence of an occupying force in Iraq provides a cause for militants to rally around and undercuts moderates in difficult situations all around world. Saddam is in custody, if there is not a viable power base that can sustain itself without foreign occupation at this late date, as you apparently believe, the U.S. is there to stay.
I can’t help but wonder whether some Americans haven’t grown attached to a failed policy in Iraq because it’s a symbol of impotence for the Bush administration. It’s certainly that, but to think that by the time Kerry is in office there will be any possibility of redeeming that failed policy borders on lunacy.
What I expect the military to do? I expect the military to fight wars. Clinton had a mixed record with humanitarian interventions in the 90s, so I suppose on that basis one might make an argument that the military can do two things: fight wars and perform humanitarian interventions. I would say that the humanitarian interventions can only succeed under certain circumstances, none of which obtain in Iraq, but that is a side issue and need not detain us.
I'm not interested in redeeming
Bush's policy. I'm interested in doing what we can to undo the damage done in Iraq. Bush, you say, would have troops in Iraq indefinitely; I would prefer to bring them home next year; you seem to want to withdraw them tomorrow, and damned be the consequences. If we withdraw the troops tomorrow, without restoring at least part of the infrastructure and without leaving behind some sort of functioning government, who will be responsible for the ensuing chaos or even civil war? I would argue that we are, because we smashed up the country in the first place, and did nothing to replace what we'd destroyed.
Had it been up to me, we never would have invaded Iraq in March '03 in the first place. It was not up to me, however.
You seem to me to be advocating that we behave just like George W. Bush. Slink out without having done anything to make up for the damage we've done, so in the short term we can pretend it didn't happen, and avoid any accountability, and in the long term we tell people we did our duty and Iraq was a great success. President Jenna Bush can wax nostalgic about the great days of her father's war in Iraq and plot to do the same kind of things to some other country.
After perusing the above several thousand comments, I've decided to propose adding to the previously proposed 'cradle strangling' solution, something like the 'sharpened and lubricated white hot iron bar' inserted relentlessly into the anus (for select cases only). Digitalis and 'Uppers' to keep them awake throughout required. Let's have a vote (no one who posts here except to vote accepted).
Okay. My previous test didn't work. Let me try again .
Okay. This is the last time I test. The end of the test.
I kept waiting for the media to make a big deal of passing the 1000 death point last month. Then I realized that allies don't count. They're only important for photo ops and so Bush can brag that it's a coalition. Maybe we'll hear a peep when the number of US deaths alone passes the grand mark; but I wouldn't count on it.
I remember a day when we honored the sacrifice of each and every American who died for his country. Now we ignore them. Please take some time to remember these heroes, including the allies we led into war. Thank you.
Maybe we'll hear a peep when the number of US deaths alone passes the grand mark; but I wouldn't count on it.
It already has passed that mark.
The Pentagon's official "casualty" count does not use the standard definition of casualty. This fake number only counts those who die in the field during combat.
It does not count injuries, nor deaths from illness, suicide, and accidents.
The actual casualty rate is much higher than we are expected to believe.
If you can find ONE POST where I've taken any happiness or relief in the death of American soldiers, as opposed to putting reponsibility squarely upon the annointed Commander in Chief, have at it.
attaturk
I don't doubt you. I haven't verified but I don't doubt you.
As has been pointed out, the only thing about the number 1000 is the superficial press will play it up. The thing is, one CAN be completely saddened, and angry at the needlessness of that thousandth soldier to die, and still be aware that that death MAY help to get the people out of the WH that send our soldiers needlessly and without care to die. That that ONE death or the ones leading up to it, may help save more lives of soldiers.
The idea is that Bush has sent them all to die for some warped theoretical stance...needless. That since soldiers are needlessly dying, if we can get the SOBS out of the WH, they will stop dying.
But it is a slippery slope...I doubt very highly that ANY anti-war people want ANY soldiers to die.
That said, it IS completely stupid that the thousandth soldier has any more significance than the 999th.
It is up to US to make that arbitrary number meaningless. Hell, 900 is WAY more than enought to make a fuss over.
If EACH and every one of us that is against this war, were to email every day to a newspaper, demanding that they stop burying the very pertinent news about the war in Iraq, which is claiming EVEN MORE american soldiers lives as well as Iraqi lives, in the back pages or even not reporting it at all.
If they continue, cancel your subscriptions and let them know clearly why you are doing it.
We have power, we just aren't orginized like the far right. We pay for that, and it is about time we stopped griping and started shouting loud enough to be a factor.
Same deal with TV. Our dollars are the ultimate goal, simple mailing of letters to advertisers, boycotts of advertisers who run ads on Fox news.
Backed up by really not buying the product and stating why to the companies. We are mostly VOICELESS right now, our "representatives" in congress are pretty much meaningless for us, they are spineless and bought and paid for.
We never voted as a country on whether we ought to pursue imperialism. Whether we ought to be extending our military all over the world. We missed THAT particular debate, but it isn't too late. The only ones who have our representatives ears are the big corporations. The only manner we have of being heard is through that same pipeline. Bring pressure on the corporations and when it starts hitting their profit margin, watch how quickly representatives start developing spines all of a sudden.
I don't think signing petitions will do it. Each of us emailing, and boycotting or threatening to can make a difference. Start with Disney. The chumps had a winner of a film, but declined to distribute it. Didn't want the PROFITS even (sheesh...that is against their charter). Okay, their right. Just as it is our right to not spend any money on Disney products. They wrongly claimed they "didn't want to be political" yet denying the film distribution WAS a political act. One that came down full on for Bush and the status quo. They ahve done other political shows, and films.
We need to assert the only powe we have, 1) our numbers and 2) our money.
Onan, aren't you the who spilled your seed upon the stone?
Not really intending an ad hominem myself, but it is an odd monicker.
testing...
It's not Palmolive, it's kool-aid...and you're soaking in it!
how big a mortgage can i afford how big a mortgage can i afford how big a mortgage can i afford // insurance management group insurance management group insurance management group
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
