Being blown up by a car bomb isn't violence?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Sep 12 2007, 11:42 PM) [snapback]511750[/snapback]</div>

Before quoting you, I'd like to be able to have precise citations. Can you help me?

Peace --

Marjorie.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Sep 12 2007, 11:42 PM) [snapback]511750[/snapback]</div>

Before quoting you, I'd like to be able to have precise citations. Can you help me?

Peace --

Marjorie.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Sep 12 2007, 11:42 PM) [snapback]511750[/snapback]</div>

Some here are so caught up in the cutesy demeaning term
"betray us" that they didnt bother to read how we were actually being betrayed by false statistics.More lies from Bush, what else is new?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Sep 12 2007, 11:42 PM) [snapback]511750[/snapback]</div>

Some here are so caught up in the cutesy demeaning term
"betray us" that they didnt bother to read how we were actually being betrayed by false statistics.More lies from Bush, what else is new?

 

Burritos: The reason is that the government always lies about numbers to bolster its case. Remember Vietnam? The official numbers routinely multiplied by ten the number of enemy combatants killed, divided by ten the number of US soldiers killed, and always counted civilian deaths as enemy combatants.

Presumably, a person shot in the face is killed "in battle" and therefore a "casualty of war" rather than an "assassination," whereas a person forced to his knees and shot in the back of the head is "assassinated." But of course violence is the sum total of people killed or injured by the deliberate action of other people (whether they are the intended target or not). But our government has a desperate need to try to makes its failed policies appear successful, so it cooks the numbers.

But of course you knew this, and were asking the question rhetorically.

 

Burritos: The reason is that the government always lies about numbers to bolster its case. Remember Vietnam? The official numbers routinely multiplied by ten the number of enemy combatants killed, divided by ten the number of US soldiers killed, and always counted civilian deaths as enemy combatants.

Presumably, a person shot in the face is killed "in battle" and therefore a "casualty of war" rather than an "assassination," whereas a person forced to his knees and shot in the back of the head is "assassinated." But of course violence is the sum total of people killed or injured by the deliberate action of other people (whether they are the intended target or not). But our government has a desperate need to try to makes its failed policies appear successful, so it cooks the numbers.

But of course you knew this, and were asking the question rhetorically.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(marjflowers @ Sep 12 2007, 11:04 PM) [snapback]511778[/snapback]</div>

It appears the answer is no.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(marjflowers @ Sep 12 2007, 11:04 PM) [snapback]511778[/snapback]</div>

It appears the answer is no.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Sep 13 2007, 12:13 PM) [snapback]512043[/snapback]</div>

Well the answer is a definite no for precise citations, if that is all burrito has to offer. First of all it's not that the military doesn't count deaths due to car bombings when analyzing violence in Iraq they simply split it out into a different category and BTW burrito the precise count is 2600. It mentions nothing about assassinations, head shots, or ethnically cleansed neighborhoods. Unless burrito can offer more to back this claim up I declare this entire topic more Burrito Bull!

I suspect the military has criteria that they use for distinguishing assassinations because they have different categories they would like to split those deaths into mainly due to the type of violence. A shot to the back of the head, depending on the angle is more than likely an assassination than a wound from combat. Why they want to distinguish these as combat wounds as opposed to assassination wounds is probably because they are the military and are more interested in combat deaths than political, criminal, heat of passion or other deaths due to assassination. I'm sure if they didn't categorize these types of deaths you would find someway to obfuscate or manipulate the truth into some convoluted rant to disparage the men and women of the military that are laying their lives on the line to protect your life and preserve your freedoms.
Have a nice day.


Wildkow

 

Complaining about the numbers will work for a while, but if the numbers continue to improve, those that are complaining will be marginalized. So as a political technique, I think it lacks "foresight". Still, its the only way to continue the fantasy that the "war is lost" and is "not winnable". Absolutes like that are comforting to those who hate Bush, but it really paints them into a corner.

The real question is what will we be satisfied with at the end of our involvement in Iraq? Is the original goal what we really want, and will Bush be seen as a failure with anything less? Or will a non-democratic, but stable, Iraq partitioned into three federal districts but not requiring American deaths, be considered a "success"?

For those with unreasonable hatred of Bush, nothing will be a success, and undeniable success will be attributed to someone else.

 

For the first time in my 3 years on PC I am reporting a post by a regular member. (I have reported spam before.) Wildkow's name-calling against Burritos in post # 8 above is uncalled for and disgusting. While Burritos' political views may seem offensive to Wildkow, Burritos has always remained civil. This is supposed to be a place for the civil exchange of ideas. I would hate to see Wildkow banned for this, but I think he should be told in no uncertain terms that such behavior is not acceptable.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 14 2007, 08:06 AM) [snapback]512501[/snapback]</div>

Wow! As quickly as I posted, the offending language was removed. I don't know if the mods acted that quickly, and edited the post, or if Wildkow thought better of it and edited his own post.

[Mod Edit]
That was me. Wildkow, you will not get another opportunity to directly insult another member. You can question opinion, you can attack credintials, you can debate ideas. If you again resort to directly attacking another person - and using profanity to do it - harsher actions will be taken.
[/Edit]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 13 2007, 10:01 PM) [snapback]512263[/snapback]</div>

I do not know about Burritos' facts, but dead is dead, Kow. Divvying up the deaths does make it look like they are trying to downplay the nastiness of it all in some way. I don't see why it makes a difference, but the classified figures may give someone else a warmer fuzzy about the war in general, I suppose. For myself, I think it is a nasty business, and served no real purpose for Americans.

Regardless, I think there are very few of us who would disparage the men and women of our military. They are admirable soldiers, and I support them 100%. Yes, they do lay their lives on the line for our protection... but Iraq wasn't about our protection. Afghanistan was, as it was the safe harbor for Bin Laden, but Iraq is a different matter. I don't see how the war in Iraq protects my life or preserves my freedoms. I just see how it is killing people... killing the soldiers who normally would be protecting the country. I think it's a damn shame that our soldiers are dying for a lie. Hating the reason for their death is not disparaging them at all.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 14 2007, 09:41 AM) [snapback]512486[/snapback]</div>

The only stated goal of the invasion was to remove WMD's from Saddam Hussein.The UN achieved that even before the invasion.So not only was Bush lying about the existence of WMDs.He was lying that our goal was to remove them.