Sad milestone, American victims of Islamic terrorists reach 3,000!

[hypewaders]

"Sorry, Hype, but you're gonna' have to do a lot better than that to get me to believe that "all Americans" are against the war or even that they want a change."

You know that I have not claimed that all Americans are against the war in Iraq or want a change. I have informed you that most are, and most do. I have offered you corroboration. There is not much more I can offer you, regardless of what I may take the time to inform you about. If you summarily discount all sources of information, then there is no way for me to convince you that the sky is blue on a clear day. There comes a point when you must choose to open your own eyes to what surrounds you.

 

[Baron Max]

"What do you consider a "broad spectrum"? And additionally, how do you find the time to listen to all those people's opinions? "

I meet a broad spectrum of people in my work. I get around. I talk politics in the course of a day. I read extensively. I follow the news. I'm interested in people's opinions, and I'm interested in the future of my country. That's how.

Of the 300 million Americans, what percentage do you think you've talked to?

And you can actually say that that's a "broad spectrum" indicating the opinions of all Americans? You take it like the polls, huh ....where they ask 1,000 people, then claim that that's how the entire nation feels? Don't you think that's pretty odd and strange ...and inaccurate???

(edit): I would remind you, Hype, that the last election, while being touted as a great victory for the anti-war Democrats, was not such a grand show of overwhelming vote, was it? In many of the races, if not all, it was not a landslide victory for anti-war folks.

Baron Max

 

[jumpercable]

Of the 300 million Americans, what percentage do you think you've talked to?

And you can actually say that that's a "broad spectrum" indicating the opinions of all Americans? You take it like the polls, huh ....where they ask 1,000 people, then claim that that's how the entire nation feels? Don't you think that's pretty odd and strange ...and inaccurate???

(edit): I would remind you, Hype, that the last election, while being touted as a great victory for the anti-war Democrats, was not such a grand show of overwhelming vote, was it? In many of the races, if not all, it was not a landslide victory for anti-war folks.

Baron Max

Read this article:

http://www.dailymirror.lk/2006/11/10/opinion/01.asp

 

[Baron Max]

Read this article:

So one article by one person is supposed to mean something to anyone? It's just one person's opinion written out and published in a paper ...big fuckin' deal!

It's so easy for people to make such a big deal outta' the recent congressional election, as if it was some kind of major, monumental event. But I must warn y'all that the Democrats won the congress by only the barest of margins! Don't take that as such a big deal, okay?

What it seems to show for some is that ...."..the American people have spoken!" Yet some of you seem to forget that there were many Republicans that were voted for in that election. Why do you see only the one side of the voting????

"The American people have spoken!" Yep, that's right ....and they're still about 50-50 split!! So don't make it out to be more than it is.

Baron Max

 

[Genji]

3k US military deaths mean nothing to armchair chickenhawks. This is precisely why we need a draft. The pain and loss needs to be spread across all income levels to ensure the supporters of the war on Iraq are forced to justify the cost.

 

[Neildo]

3k US military deaths mean nothing to armchair chickenhawks. This is precisely why we need a draft. The pain and loss needs to be spread across all income levels to ensure the supporters of the war on Iraq are forced to justify the cost.

Yeah, we need a draft to kill off the rest of our middle class and replace them with cheaper illegal immigrants.

- N

 

[Genji]

Yeah, we need a draft to kill off the rest of our middle class and replace them with cheaper illegal immigrants.

- N

More like: We need to make the sons and daughters of the wealthy deploy to Iraq and die in Iraq. Until then the chickenhawks won't see any reason to stop sending mostly working class youth to die for their profit margins.

 

[Skater]

Yeah, we need a draft to kill off the rest of our middle class and replace them with cheaper illegal immigrants.

- N

Gotta have that talk with CNN's Lou Dobbs.

 

[crazy151drinker]

For Baron Max:
Since we are a 'Democracy/Republic' (both highly debateable) we elect officials who in theory 'vote' for us in all matters. If the public is against it then the elected official should be against it. His/Her opinion should not matter as they are representing the people not themselves.

Though some would say the opinion and will of the minority needs to be protected and fought for....

For Hypie:
Max's WWII comparison is completely valid. The problem is that you forget to include the media which did not exist in WWII (have you ever seen those black and white Victory films? Propaganda at its finest!). Even Korea with its 30,000+ deaths failed to create a stir- yet you add color film and up to date death toll broadcasts and Vietnam turns into an anti-war shark fest. The Media is now the biggest factor in any US conflict. Can you imagine the news if the Battle of Gettysburg happened today? 50,000 dead in what 3 days?

3,000 dead in 3 years of war. 14,000 dead each year due to drunk driving. 500,000 a year dead due to cigarettes. Which one is most likely to recieve a protest in DC?

 

[Baron Max]

For Baron Max:
Since we are a 'Democracy/Republic' (both highly debateable) we elect officials who in theory 'vote' for us in all matters. If the public is against it then the elected official should be against it.

Agreed. But the problem, of course, is who or what makes that determination of how the public feels or thinks about some issue? Do you listen to the news broadcasts to see the fervent few protestors? Or do you watch the polls, where they use the responses of only some 1,000 people?

Or do you 'listen' to those who remain silent and go about their jobs and lives, and let their representative do the job they hired him to do? (Most people only complain loudly when things aren't going the way they expected.)

Somehow, just somehow, I get the general idea that our system was not designed in such a way to allow for a vocal few loud and boisterous protestors to control our government policies.

3,000 dead in 3 years of war. 14,000 dead each year due to drunk driving. 500,000 a year dead due to cigarettes. Which one is most likely to recieve a protest in DC?

You forgot to include the number of Americans murdered or killed in drug wars, gang wars, etc. But your point is more than valid ...Hype is more interested in using the war deaths in an attempt to convince others to surrender to the terrorists and violent civil/religious protestors.

Baron Max

 

[terryoh]

Agreed. But the problem, of course, is who or what makes that determination of how the public feels or thinks about some issue? Do you listen to the news broadcasts to see the fervent few protestors? Or do you watch the polls, where they use the responses of only some 1,000 people?

Polls are just a sampling of what the whole might be. I don't understand why you're so against sampling and polling, especially when there's an entire mathematical method behind it. You probably might not have taken it or learned it, which is why you're so against it. I don't know.

It's just like sampling they do for food production. After they make a packet of cupcakes, for example. Do you think the manufacturers take a bit out of every cupcake they produce? No. They choose a sample (maybe 100 out of every 100,000 or more). As long as it's a RANDOM sample, and not targetted, then that sample should (but not always) respresent the whole. But probably what I've just said it too difficult for you to understand, so I'll stop.

Or do you 'listen' to those who remain silent and go about their jobs and lives, and let their representative do the job they hired him to do? (Most people only complain loudly when things aren't going the way they expected.)

Somehow, just somehow, I get the general idea that our system was not designed in such a way to allow for a vocal few loud and boisterous protestors to control our government policies.

Our system of government is designed so that the elected official is elected by a majority; thus, the elected official listens to that majority and gives them what they want. If there are silent people, then tough luck for them. It's sad how not enough Americans don't protest, send letters, or call their elected official if that official doesn't keep his/her promise. We complain, but that's just about it. It's sad.

You forgot to include the number of Americans murdered or killed in drug wars, gang wars, etc. But your point is more than valid ...Hype is more interested in using the war deaths in an attempt to convince others to surrender to the terrorists and violent civil/religious protestors.

Baron Max

I've embarrassed you before when quoting numbers about American casualties before.

You tried to use the argument that we shouldn't withdraw from Iraq because WW2 deaths were higher than Iraq War deaths and we didn't withdraw in WW2. You also tried to argue a long time ago that more Americans died from car accidents than in Iraq. And it kept going on and on.

I'll repeat again and embarrass you again. You and others fail to mention, in all cases, is that your comparison is totally flawed.

How many troops are there in Iraq? 150,000? Almost 200,000 in the beginning?

How many troops were there in WW2? Something like 1,000,000+?? Probably more.

Can you compare the actual deaths when there were a lot more troops serving in one war (thus, increasing the chance of instances of death) compared to the other?

How many drivers are there in America? It's not only 150000 or 200000. It's more in the tens of millions. Can you compare Iraq and car accidents when there are millions more drivers than soldiers in Iraq?

I'll use a crappy example to show the crappiness of these comparisons.



Let's say there are 10 apples in every apple tree. There is a field of 10 trees, with 60% of the apples are rotten. There is also a field of 30 trees, with 40% of the apples rotten. Which field has more rotten apples?

Obviously the latter, because there are more apples to begin with in the field of 30 trees; thus, with a 40% rotting rate, the field of 30 will undoubtedly have more rotten apples.

What you are saying is, because there is 120 rotten apples in the field of 30, it's 100% OK AND FINE that there are "only" 60 rotten apples in the field of 3 trees, when in fact, the actual RATE of rotting apples is higher in the former compared to the latter.

I've mentioned this before, but I guess you've ignored it or weren't bright enough to understand, but it seems like you keep going back to the numbers comparison argument, even though it's been proven flawed again and again.

 

[Baron Max]

Polls are just a sampling of what the whole might be. I don't understand why you're so against sampling and polling, especially when there's an entire mathematical method behind it. You probably might not have taken it or learned it, which is why you're so against it. I don't know.

Done properly, polling can be a relatively accurate tool. But the problem is that it's seldom done "properly" ..it's done by pollsters who are out to prove something that their clients want to hear! Big difference, wouldn't you say?

As long as it's a RANDOM sample, and not targetted, then that sample should (but not always) respresent the whole. But probably what I've just said it too difficult for you to understand, so I'll stop.

And may I ask just how one can tell if the poll is taken randomly or not? Do you think pollsters would remain in business if the polls didn't reflect what the client wanted them to?

And thanks for you concern about my ignorance and about my ability to understand. I'm often quite ignorant about topics and issues, but I've never been afraid to say so. As to understanding lessons, sometimes I can, sometimes I can't.

If there are silent people, then tough luck for them. It's sad how not enough Americans don't protest...

So you think our govermental policies should be determined by a few loud protestors? That whatever a few loud protestors want, the government should give them what they want?

You and others fail to mention, in all cases, is that your comparison is totally flawed.

And I've told you and others many times before, it's not the numbers that I'm drawing out in similarity, but the use of the number of dead in Iraq as a tool for decision-making. It's not a comparison of numbers or even a percentage of deaths. You should read my posts again and you'll see clearly that I never attempted to compare the numbers ...only the methodology of argument.

I've mentioned this before, but I guess you've ignored it or weren't bright enough to understand, ....

Why not both?

Again, please read my posts and you'll see that I never attempt to make any comparison to the number of deaths ...only the use of it as decision-making statistic.

Baron Max

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Genji, Baron walked the walk, he knows far more than you about death, and the loss of troops, he has carried the body bags of his buddies and turned them over to people like me to take back to graves registration, we know the sadness of empty bunks and missing buddies at the mess table, and the two faces of people who use the deaths of our friends and buddies for political purposes.

 

[spidergoat]

I'm glad the public is made more aware of our military adventures by the media. Maybe war will become unpopular?

WWII was a good cause, therefore there is no comparison.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

spidergoat

WWII was a good cause, therefore there is no comparison.

And if the Germans had won you would be saying the same thing.

 

[spidergoat]

True, if the Germans had won, fighting the Germans would still have been a good cause.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

But you would only know history the history from the German's NAZI point of view, so you would respond from that perspective. Yes fighting them would have been a good thing but you would have never known it.

 

[Neildo]

"All of us have heard this term 'preventive war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." - President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953), Supreme Allied Commander during WWII



- N

 

[spidergoat]

But you would only know history the history from the German's NAZI point of view, so you would respond from that perspective. Yes fighting them would have been a good thing but you would have never known it.

I wouldn't know it because I would be dead. In contrast, Iraq was not a threat to the US in any way.

 

[Sci-Phenomena]

Here is all I have to say about the military occupation of Iraq:
If the soldiers are willing to pick up guns and be soldiers, then they must also be willing to die under the command of the country which employs them? Isn't that the risk of being a soldier anyway? It's one of those personal choice things.