Ho hum, another American soldier killed

[Cyrus]

The news gets relegated to the bottom of the page nowdays.

[ QUOTE ]
N.Y.Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/25/international/middleeast/25iraq.html?) :
BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 24 - Worried about a political deadlock in Iraq and a spike in mayhem from an emboldened insurgency, the Bush administration has pressed Iraqi leaders in recent days to end their stalemate over forming a new government, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney personally exhorting top Kurdish and Shiite politicians to come together.
<font color="white"> . </font>
A bomb killed a U.S. sailor Saturday who was assigned to the 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force in Falluja, the U.S. military said. The number of American troops killed in the Iraq war is 1570, according to the U.S. military.

[/ QUOTE ]

CNN : Helicopter carrying American civilans shot down (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/22/iraq.copter/index.html)

CNN : Death toll from Iraq attacks rises to 24 (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/04/25/iraq.main/index.html)

[Felix_Nietsche]

US Troops believe in their mission and are dedicated to completing their mission. Most are quite shocked when the learn of the newspaper stories written by the New York Times, LA Times, and the Washington Compost.

Rush Limbaugh has made the remark that American Democrats are HOPING the mission fails in Iraq for they see this to be the quickest way for their party to win the house, senate, and the executive branch. Several times Democrat party 'leaders' have cited the increased casualty figures almost with an apparant glee (while at the same time expressing remorse at the fallen soldiers demise).

It is as if.....Democrats view the more dead soldiers there are, the more they are winning and the more Bush43 is losing. Posts like this one makes Rush look like the Oracle of Delphi....

After the Vietnam war, soldiers flying back into the USA via San Francisco (DEMOCRAT STRONGHOLD) were assaulted with urine, feces, and spit upon. Soldiers were encouraged NOT to wear their uniforms as they would probably be attacked. Yep.....Democrats are supporting our troops now.....just like they did back during the Vietnam War....

[Utah]

how many people were killed in the U.S. yesterday from:

Homicide
Medical Malpractice
Disease
Traffic accidents
Neglect

[bisonbison]

US Troops believe in their mission and are dedicated to completing their mission. Most are quite shocked when the learn of the newspaper stories written by the New York Times, LA Times, and the Washington Compost.

Any evidence for these claims at all?

Rush Limbaugh has made the remark that American Democrats are HOPING the mission fails in Iraq for they see this to be the quickest way for their party to win the house, senate, and the executive branch.

Is that an argument? I'm sure your mom thinks you're handsome. That don't make it so.

Several times Democrat party 'leaders' have cited the increased casualty figures almost with an apparant glee (while at the same time expressing remorse at the fallen soldiers demise).

No, really, any evidence at all.

It is as if.....Democrats view the more dead soldiers there are, the more they are winning and the more Bush43 is losing. Posts like this one makes Rush look like the Oracle of Delphi....

It is as if....Democrats view the continuing casualties in Iraq as proof that Bush's strategic planning was piss poor.

After the Vietnam war, soldiers flying back into the USA via San Francisco (DEMOCRAT STRONGHOLD) were assaulted with urine, feces, and spit upon. Soldiers were encouraged NOT to wear their uniforms as they would probably be attacked. Yep.....Democrats are supporting our troops now.....just like they did back during the Vietnam War....

And by evidence I mean links, quotes from credible sources, etc.

[Beerfund]

[ QUOTE ]
US Troops believe in their mission and are dedicated to completing their mission. Most are quite shocked when the learn of the newspaper stories written by the New York Times, LA Times, and the Washington Compost.

Any evidence for these claims at all?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yea talk to some soldiers or marines. When I went, I'd say %90 of the people in my battery wanted to go and once we we were there %100 wanted to complete our missions. Maybe not all of them supported the exacts reaons for why we were there but everyone was there voluntarily and didnt ask questions, like why are we here?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Any evidence for these claims at all?

[/ QUOTE ]

What Beerfund said. Two of my best friends are officers in the Marine Corps and from what they have told me morale is fine and dissenters are a distinct minority.

[ QUOTE ]
t is as if....Democrats view the continuing casualties in Iraq as proof that Bush's strategic planning was piss poor.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Bush doesnt do strategic planning. He has people that do this for a living that work for him.
2. No war in the history of man has gone exactly as planned.
3. Urban warfare is incredibly difficult and dangerous. The fact that the casualty figures are as low as they are is a testament to our military capability and the abilities of our soldiers.

Im not going to say I think that Democrats want us to lose in Iraq (which isnt going to happen at any rate) but I think its reasonable to say that they would certainly like to use the casualty figures for political gain.

[Chris Alger]

.

[Felix_Nietsche]

US Troops believe in their mission and are dedicated to completing their mission. Most are quite shocked when the learn of the newspaper stories written by the New York Times, LA Times, and the Washington Compost.
"Any evidence for these claims at all?"
************************************************** ******
I'm an ex-Army officer and I still maintain relationships with people I knew in the military. I have NOT conducted a 'scientific' poll ........but....EVERYONE I still know in the military is gung ho about their mission. I'm not a mind reader but I think it is pretty safe to conclude you have never been in the military....for if you had served you would know what I said was true. Also the USA Today polls should 70% plus of the military were voting for Bush. I think that evidence speaks volumes...


After the Vietnam war, soldiers flying back into the USA via San Francisco (DEMOCRAT STRONGHOLD) were assaulted with urine, feces, and spit upon. Soldiers were encouraged NOT to wear their uniforms as they would probably be attacked. Yep.....Democrats are supporting our troops now.....just like they did back during the Vietnam War....
"And by evidence I mean links, quotes from credible sources, etc."
************************************************** ********
"When Vietnam veterans returned to the States from Vietnam, the older generation told them they had lost the war. Their peers called them baby killers. Robinson was spit on when he stepped off the plane in San Francisco."
http://www.burningofthemarriagehat.com/ptsd.html

"AFTER I CAME HOME, I FELT BETRAYED BY MY COUNTRY. I was made to feel guilty about being there or having fought there. I returned to San Francisco in November of 1967, right after the Summer of Love had ended. I made the mistake of wearing my uniform while on leave. I wanted to show off my ribbons and medals. I was home less than 5 hours when I had more troubles than I wanted. Hippies taunted me and followed me down Broadway Street, as I tried to enjoy my first night back in the States after my tour. I was called names and, yes, I was spit on by these young long haired righteous butt heads. They did not welcome me home, but made me feel isolated and depressed. Not a very joyous memory at all."
http://www.burningofthemarriagehat.com/ptsd.html



And if you read the newspaper you no doubt have read the stories of people calling the wives of veterans telling them their husband was killed in Iraq. I can't prove all these people were democrats, but follow the logic.
1. The people making these sadistic phone calls are against the Iraq War.
2. Most people that are against the Iraq war are Democrats.
3. Therefore mathematically the odds are the people making these sadistic calls are Democrats.

Obviously not all Democrats are anti-military but the vast majority of people who are anti-military are democrats.

[Felix_Nietsche]

.....Democrats will FOREVER be a minority party in the USA. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bisonbison]

What Beerfund said. Two of my best friends are officers in the Marine Corps and from what they have told me morale is fine and dissenters are a distinct minority.

Well, excuse me if I don't crap myself over anecdotal evidence. Color me not convinced (http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/mar/26iraq.htm) (can anyone find a troop morale poll more recent than a year ago?)

1. Bush doesnt do strategic planning. He has people that do this for a living that work for him.

Yeah, and he picks those people. He's ultimately responsible.

2. No war in the history of man has gone exactly as planned.

No s[/i]hit sherlock. You have to allow for that when you're deciding whether the conflict is worthwhile.

3. Urban warfare is incredibly difficult and dangerous. The fact that the casualty figures are as low as they are is a testament to our military capability and the abilities of our soldiers.

No one doubts that the US armed forces are the best trained and best equipped in the world. That's completely beside the point.

but I think its reasonable to say that they would certainly like to use the casualty figures for political

Of course they'd like to use it for political gain - because they think they're right and because they think that Bush is doing a terrible job.

Political gain has a direct impact on politicians' abilities to implement what they want to implement. Political gain is morally neutral.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, excuse me if I don't crap myself over anecdotal evidence. Color me not convinced (can anyone find a troop morale poll more recent than a year ago?)

[/ QUOTE ]

And I am not particularly impressed by secondhand poll results that dont have the internals available. On the other hand, I have two of my best friends, both who just got back, that say morale is good. Yeah its anecdotal, that doesnt=dismissable.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, and he picks those people. He's ultimately responsible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Valid but dont make it sound as if Bush made up the plans when we both know it is a false implication.

[ QUOTE ]
No [censored] sherlock. You have to allow for that when you're deciding whether the conflict is worthwhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the armchair general analysis. The prewar casualty estimates were much higher than the actual number.

[ QUOTE ]
No one doubts that the US armed forces are the best trained and best equipped in the world. That's completely beside the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that the casualty figures are thrown out there, completely out of context.

[ QUOTE ]
Political gain has a direct impact on politicians' abilities to implement what they want to implement. Political gain is morally neutral.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree but thats a matter of opinion.

[bisonbison]

I'm an ex-Army officer and I still maintain relationships with people I knew in the military.

and? Anectodotal evidence sucks.

I'm not a mind reader but I think it is pretty safe to conclude you have never been in the military

Neither has Rush Limbaugh.

Also the USA Today polls should 70% plus of the military were voting for Bush. I think that evidence speaks volumes...

What percentage of the military voted for Bush in 2000? What percentage of 2000 Bush military voters voted for him in 2004?

"When Vietnam veterans returned to the States from Vietnam, the older generation told them they had lost the war. Their peers called them baby killers. Robinson was spit on when he stepped off the plane in San Francisco."

I don't see what this has to do with today's democrats.

I can't prove all these people were democrats, but follow the logic.

Hey, I've got some logic for you:

1. Pat Buchanan is a holocaust-doubter
2. Pat Buchanan draws his support from the Republican party.
3. Most Republicans doubt that the holocaust occurred.

[thatpfunk]

Wow, why don't you show up more often in this forum Bison? You might be my new favorite poster.

[bisonbison]

On the other hand, I have two of my best friends, both who just got back, that say morale is good.

Where's sample size man? Oh wait. That was me.

Valid but dont make it sound as if Bush made up the plans when we both know it is a false implication.

The man is commander in chief. A decision to go to war is an explicit endorsement of the plans presented to him.

Thanks for the armchair general analysis.

No problem.

The prewar casualty estimates were much higher than the actual number.

And?

The point is that the casualty figures are thrown out there, completely out of context.

Context. Hmmm. American casualties before Bush announced that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended": &lt; 300

American casualties since then: &gt; 1200.

[bisonbison]

Wow, why don't you show up more often in this forum Bison? You might be my new favorite poster.

Cause arguing with people who listen to talk radio is one of the most worthless past-times imaginable.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, why don't you show up more often in this forum Bison? You might be my new favorite poster.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Please post here more.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Please Keep Comparing US Soldiers to Nazis so that.......... ....Democrats will FOREVER be a minority party in the USA.

[/ QUOTE ]

The classic "I forfeit the argument, but I'm not giving up until I make some inane partisan point in the guise of something relevant" post.

[Chris Alger]

In other words, after the war on Iraq, the next five causes championed by the GOP's platform might as well be Homicide, Medical Malpractice, Disease, Traffic accidents and Neglect, it making no difference whether the causes of death are celebrated or discouraged.

To make your comparison even slightly relevant, one would have to note that the population of Americans capable of dying in Iraq is only about 150,000, meaming that about 1 our of 100 have died, while your statistics would apply to a population of 260 million. Applying the proportion of troop fatalaties in Iraq to fatalaties (like yours) that can hurt all Americans would produce a body count of 2.6 million. Or consider a town of 150,000 where 1500 have died in two years from your causes. It would be the worst place in the U.S. to live.

[vulturesrow]

I know you dont post in here much but we are definitely rehashing old ground. I'll try to make this response quick.

Sample size, yes fine. I didnt say that my account were the endall. But you have three people in here who are vets or active duty, that all relay the same message from the war. I dont think you should dimiss it out of hand. Thats all.

Bush didnt plan the war. He may have to accept the ultimate responsibility but there is no point in being disingenuous.

The point about the prewar casualties is that the planner obviously did take the chances of things going wrong into account. Id be willing to bet that at no time did someone plan a mililtary mission, no matter what the scale, and not take contingencies into account. And I have done my fair share of that planning so I know what I am talking about.

Context on the casualty numbers simply meaning a) how many did you expect and b) what is reasonable to expect. I guarantee to you that the average American has no idea of the answer's to these questions.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

RIP soldier.

Very few times in history has a foreign army managed to crush domestic resistance forces. What makes you think that it is possible this time?

As far as I know US has not succeded with this since 1945 (Germany did not manage in most countries during WWII either, Soviet Union failed in many countries after WWII).

Not to destroy morale, just to add some realism.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Very few times in history has a foreign army managed to crush domestic resistance forces.

[/ QUOTE ]

Successfully crushed domestic resistance forces don't survive to write their stories.

[Felix_Nietsche]

1. Pat Buchanan is a holocaust-doubter
2. Pat Buchanan draws his support from the Republican party.
3. Most Republicans doubt that the holocaust occurred.
************************************************
LOL.....I calling bull**** on number one.
Since your so big on evidence please provide a link backing up your silly claim.

Take my advice....
Save yourself some time and just concede you were fooled by this urban legend and plead ignorance. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Dead]

Don't be foolish.

He was making fun of your flawed argument. He doesn't really believe that most Republicans doubt the Holocaust occurred.

Jeez.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Pat Buchanan is a holocaust-doubter
2. Pat Buchanan draws his support from the Republican party.
3. Most Republicans doubt that the holocaust occurred.
************************************************
LOL.....I calling bull**** on number one.
Since your so big on evidence please provide a link backing up your silly claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Replace Buchanan with David Duke in #1. Replace Buchanan with Duke in #2. Replace "doubt that the holocaust occurred" with "are in support of the KKK" in #3 and it's essentially the same tortured logic as this:

[ QUOTE ]
1. The people making these sadistic phone calls are against the Iraq War.
2. Most people that are against the Iraq war are Democrats.
3. Therefore mathematically the odds are the people making these sadistic calls are Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you agree that not all Republicans are KKK members, but most KKK members are Republicans?

Maybe you accept that most KKK members are Republicans (you don't have to); but regardless, your '3 step logic' is just a way to portray Democrats as anti-military, the same way the left calls all Republicans racist because racists vote Republican. It's patently unfair and it fails under the softest scruitny anyway.

[ACPlayer]

I suspect that the morale of the military is reasonably high. THis is a direct consequence of training. Coming from a military family (father - Air Force, brother-in-law - special forces, grand father- Army, Uncle - Army), I can assure you when the brass says be gung-ho the (non-draft) military is gung-ho. If a survey showed say 50% of the force in Iraq had some doubts about the mission then that would be horrible.

On the other hand, I would almost never accept a military person's statement that a particular war is justified. They are too deep in it to have a proper overall perspective.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, I would almost never accept a military person's statement that a particular war is justified. They are too deep in it to have a proper overall perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont agree with this at all, esp. with regards to someone like me, just another junior officer. Whether I think it is justified or not has nothing to do with how deep I am in it. It really doesnt matter because I am still going to do my job no matter what unless I am being ordered to take part in something I think is clearly unlawfu.

[ACPlayer]

I stand by my statement.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I stand by my statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

you mean I didnt convince you to change your mind?! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Dead]

Would you shoot an unarmed Iraqi civilian if your superior officer told you to? Or would you consider that immoral and unlawful? Assume that you are on the ground and in possession of a pistol.

Let's say that the guy killed two of your friends earlier but is now handcuffed and poses no threat to you. Do you shoot him?

I have heard about incidents similar to this in Iraq.

[ACPlayer]

You wrote: ".... I am still going to do my job ..."

Exactly right, this is what you were trained to do. Ask minimal questions and do the job. This isa exactly how it should be.

You also wrote: "... unless I am being ordered to take part in something I think is clearly lawful."

Exactly right, this is exactly how it should be.

As a good soldier you cannot and should not ever doubt the need for the war (and if you do you should either go to Canada or file a formal request as an objector) otherwise you will be second guessing yourself and likely get killed. This is the essence of military training.

You should question when a superior says to torture prisoners, fire on cars carrying civilians etc. THose are not questioning the purpose of the war. That too is something you are trained to do.

[Cyrus]

Where are those brilliant rebuttals coming from? You should have them copyrighted.

[ QUOTE ]
How many people were killed in the U.S. yesterday from:
<font color="white"> . </font>
Homicide
Medical Malpractice
Disease
Traffic accidents
Neglect

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean, is that brilliant, or what?

As long as a United States policy, in war or in peace, results in a number of deaths of American citizens that is smaller than the number of deaths caused by homicide or traffic accidents, it is a perfectly correct policy and we have no business arguing or having doubts about it!

Like I said -- brilliant.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"Replace Buchanan with David Duke in #1. Replace Buchanan with Duke in #2. Replace "doubt that the holocaust occurred" with "are in support of the KKK" in #3"
************************************************** ********
1. The people making these sadistic phone calls are against the Iraq War.
(If these people are in support of the war in Iraq they have a strange way of showing it). /images/graemlins/smile.gif
2. Most people that are against the Iraq war are Democrats. This fact is backed by numerous polls. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
3. Therefore mathematically the odds are the people making these sadistic calls are Democrats.
This is BASIC probability and deduction..... If you can't understand this then you're losing LOTS of $$$ to ME at the poker tables. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

So your counter argument is:
1. David Duke is a holocaust-doubter
2. David Duke draws his support from the Republicans.
3. Most Republicans are in the support of the KKK.

This is TOO EASY. You failed to mirror my original argument and you made up a completely different argument that follows a different chain of reasoning. So therefore....YOU have INVALIDATED your own counter argument..... In my argument, I was able link my premises to the conclusion. You did not link your second premise to the conclusion. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Word of advice. If your going to discredit another argument then attack the line reason behind THAT ARGUMENT ...OR..... the premises behind the argument. Don't MAKE UP A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT argument and try to claim it is the same.... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I'll do it for you:
1. David Duke is a holocaust-doubter
2. Most holocaust doubters are republicans.
3. Therefore mathematically, most holocaust doubters are republicans.

#1 I don't know whether this is true or not but I'll take your word for it.
#2 Please cite evidence to support #2. If you can not provide supporting evidence for #2, then your premise is invalid and so are any conclusions you draw. I can cite POLLS that MOST DEMOCRATS are against the US presence in Iraq. Since I can support both premises, then my conclusion is supportable. Logic 101.

Here is my argument expressed in a different way:
1. Poodle is a dog.
2. Most dogs like chew toys.
3. Therefore mathematically it is probably that most poodles will like chew toys.
Unless you can discredit the premises, then your screwed...

If I knew how to post diagrams, I'd draw you a Venn diagram. But I don't. /images/graemlins/frown.gif
http://www.venndiagram.com/

[Felix_Nietsche]

"He doesn't really believe that most Republicans doubt the Holocaust occurred."
************************************************** ***
Jeez! Did you read my response? I don't think you did...
He claims that Pat B. denies the holocaust. I am saying this is a myth and I have challenged him to show evidence that Pat B claims this.....

If bison admits this is a UN-true......then why say it.
A. I cited two premises which I can support.
B. Based on these two premises, I drew a conclusion.

So are you saying bison's counter argument was to:
A. Cite a premise that was COMPLETLY UNTRUE.
B. Based on a FALSE premise, draw a conclusion.
??????? Huh! please explain that 'logic' to me /images/graemlins/smile.gif ???????????

It does not take a genius to know if you draw conclusions based on FALSE PREMISES, then your conclusions will probably be FAULTY. I challenge ANYONE to invalidate either one of my two premises. If you can do that, then my conclusion can not be supported and you 'win'. Otherwise you have to concede my conclusion is correct. It is that simple.....

So Bison. When are you going to cite those links?

[thatpfunk]

i dont think bison is going to respond to a pointless semantic argument that avoids the meat of his entire evidence.

[Utah]

You didnt make a policy argument. You presented commentary that the deaths are not getting enough coverage. I simply pointed out that a few deaths in Iraq is nothing compared to the massive tragedies that take place daily in the U.S.

Why should the death of soldiers carry any more reporting weight than all the other deaths? Why didn't you write - Ho hum, 500 more today die today due to poor medical diagnosis. Or - Ho hum, another 200 die today in traffic accidents.

[trippin bily]

[ QUOTE ]
how many people were killed in the U.S. yesterday from:

Homicide
Medical Malpractice
Disease
Traffic accidents
Neglect

[/ QUOTE ]
last year almost 50 ooo died from traffic accidents

I think the media, all off them from fox to cnn should be ashamed of themselves for their lack of coverage of the war.
It SHOULD be the lead story every day. Not silly michael.
Is it possible that the reason the networks have stopped covering the story is that it can no longer defeat bush ?

[trippin bily]

Hey, I've got some logic for you:


3. Most Republicans doubt that the holocaust occurred.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously, comments like this are why the republicans dominate.Michael Moore would be sooo proud of you.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly right, this is what you were trained to do. Ask minimal questions and do the job. This isa exactly how it should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can assure you that this is dead wrong. During my 4 years at the Naval Academy I had to take many classes and seminars that involved ethical and moral discussions. I was never taught that I should ask minimal questions. And not just about specific situations (as you alluded to) but about the bigger questions as well.

[ QUOTE ]
As a good soldier you cannot and should not ever doubt the need for the war (and if you do you should either go to Canada or file a formal request as an objector) otherwise you will be second guessing yourself and likely get killed. This is the essence of military training.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are misunderstanding the role of compartmentalization plays in military member's psyche, esp. those of us in combat arms. All good soldiers, aviators, etc., have the ability to divorce their concerns (be it about the war, problems at home, etc.) from the mission at hand. Generally the better you are at this, the better you are professionally in this business.

As I said, I am fully able to look objectively at a war independent of my immersion in it. Two quick anecdotal examples.

1) When we were patrolling the NFZs in Iraq, I didnt particularly think it was a great idea, for a variety of reasons. This was in spite of flying Operation Southern Watch missions on a near daily basis.

2) My roomate from college is not a Bush fan or the war. But yet he was knee deep in operations in the Persian Gulf, doing numerous interdiction boardings day after day.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it possible that the reason the networks have stopped covering the story is that it can no longer defeat bush ?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think they stop covering it because it is simply no longer fresh.

Why should it be the lead story every day? There is an average of 750 american deaths a year in Iraq. That is tiny compared to the 50,000 traffic deaths and the 200,000 deaths due to medical malpractice. Shouldn't those stories take precedence over Iraq?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
So your counter argument is:
1. David Duke is a holocaust-doubter
2. David Duke draws his support from the Republicans.
3. Most Republicans are in the support of the KKK.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry. This is my fault here. I never meant to claim David Duke was a holocaust doubter. I should have said "Replace 'holocause doubter' with 'racist' in #1."

David Duke is a racist. An avid racist, responsible for the resurrgence of the KKK during the 1970s, and ran for (and won) political office in Louisiana as a Republican. So here's the claim (to demonstrate tortured logic) that I intended to make:

1. David Duke is a racist.
2. David Duke draws his support from the Republicans.
3. Republicans are racist.

I think this is similar to:

1. Some people do mean/bad things to war vetrans.
2. Democrats are against the war.
3. Democrats did the mean things to war vetrans.

Do racists like David Duke draw their support from Republicans? Probably. But what does it tell us about Republicans? Absolutely nothing. It's just a cheap political trick. It's meant to portray Republicans as racist. It takes the actions of a few extremists (Republicans who voted for Duke) and implies all Republicans are racist. If anyone made this argument, I would criticize them for it's general disengenuousness.

And I'm criticizing you. Because you know your logic fails to prove what you want it to. You'd like to portray Democrats as anti-military. I'm willing to listen to such a claim. But if you're only proof that Democrats are anti-military is that some bad people were mean to some vetrans, and those bad people could be/are probably Democrats, you haven't proven what you'd set out to prove.

While it may be true registered Democrats/people who consistently vote for Democrats are the people responsible for doing bad things to war vetrans, it tells us nothing of meaning, except that there are mean/stupid people in the Democratic party. Oh well. There's a news flash. But the actions of a few don't say anything relevant about the supermajority of Democrats (and by supermajority, I mean 99%+) who are very respectful to vetrans. My problem is that you actually have a phantom #4, in that you're actually trying to prove this:

1. Some people do mean/bad things to war vetrans.
2. Democrats are against the war.
3. Democrats did the mean things to war vetrans.
4. [ QUOTE ]
Democrats are HOPING the mission fails in Iraq

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Several times Democrat party 'leaders' have cited the increased casualty figures almost with an apparant glee

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Democrats view the more dead soldiers there are, the more they are winning

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Obviously not all Democrats are anti-military but the vast majority of people who are anti-military are democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect the last quote I provided is what you really want to prove. In which case, let me fix it for you:

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously not all Democrats are anti-military but the vast majority of people who are anti-military (less than 1% of the population on the whole) are democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the same as this:

"Obviously not all Republicans are racist but the vast majority of people who are racist are Repbulicans." And I suspect you would rush to correct me (and be right in doing so) - you'd be quick to let me know that, in truth, there really aren't that many racist Republicans (in my estimation, less than 1% of Republicans).

You were trying to paint a picture that there's a huge contingent of Democrats are anti-military and are disrespectful/mean to vetrans. And that's as clearly false as the claim that there's a huge contingent of racist Republicans.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Very few times in history has a foreign army managed to crush domestic resistance forces. What makes you think that it is possible this time?


[/ QUOTE ]


British in Malaysia, 1950s. It is considered the textbook example on counter-insurgency. I will agree that we started out in the hole on this one but we are definitely winning now.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
As I said, I am fully able to look objectively at a war independent of my immersion in it

[/ QUOTE ]

So, how come you have it so wrong?
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
As I said, I am fully able to look objectively at a war independent of my immersion in it

[/ QUOTE ]

So, how come you have it so wrong?
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Hardy har har /images/graemlins/grin.gif I saw that one coming a mile away AC.

[bisonbison]

Felix, you're an idiot. If you can't see that I was parodying your logic, then I'm pretty much gonna abandon hope for any kind of intelligent raport here.

Nonetheless, I don't just throw the "Holocaust denial" charge around. Pat Buchanan is an incredible prick, and pretty much the only national republican figure who's willing to spout conspiracy theories about Israel, american Jews and so on and so forth. The man is a delusional fucknaught.

From a 1990 New York Post article (full text available here (http://www.holocaust-history.org/~jamie/buchanan/column.shtml)):

"This so-called "Holocaust Survivor Syndrome" involves "group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics." Reportedly, half of the 20,000 survivor testimonies in Yad Vashem memorial in Jerusalem are considered "unreliable," not to be used in trials.

Finally, the death engine. During the war, the underground government of the Warsaw Ghetto reported to London that the Jews of Treblinka were being electrocuted and steamed to death.

The Israeli court, however, concluded that the murder weapon for 850,000 was the diesel engine from a Soviet tank which drove its exhaust into the death chamber. All died in 20 minutes, Finkenstein swore in 1945.

The problem is: Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody. In 1988, 97 kids, trapped 400 feet underground in a Washington, DC tunnel while two locomotives spewed diesel exhaust into the car, emerged unharmed after 45 minutes.

Demjanjuk's weapon of mass murder cannot kill..."

Most holocaust scholars agree that Treblinka was second only to Auschwitz in death toll.

[Felix_Nietsche]

This is TOOOOO Easy. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I read the link:
1. Pat thinks Demjanjuk was innocent. OK.

"This so-called "Holocaust Survivor Syndrome" involves "group fantasies of martyrdom and heroics." Reportedly, half of the 20,000 survivor testimonies in Yad Vashem memorial in Jerusalem are considered "unreliable," not to be used in trials."
************************************************** **
2. He thinks the testimony of witnesses 40 years after an event are not reliable. This is REASONABLE.
I'll give you a real world example. Youngstown, OH use to be run by the Pittsburg mob. The city prosecuter (that the mob owned) was defeated in an election and the new prosecutor (Paul Gains, a complete boyscout) promised to end the corruption. The Mafia boss sent three black thugs to murder him before he took office. Paul was shot in his home close to 2am. He survived and fingered the courthouse janitor (who was white!!!) as the triggerman. He told the police he was 100% certain the WHITE janitor did it. The police could find no evidence. Later a informant called Paul Gains at his home and told him she knew who the assassins were. Paul Gains said he believed her because she provided details that no one else knew including all the previous dates and places where the attempted to murder him before but failed. Later the black assassins were caught, confessed, and sent to jail. Paul Gains was suffering from "THE-MAFIA-TRIED-TO-KILL-ME SYNDROME". Eye witness testimonies are often unreliable. One benefit of using DNA as evidence is we're now able to minimize innocent people going to jail. I don't know whether Demjanjuk is innocent or not but his point about the reliability of eye witnesses is well taken. When a person ages 40 years and people with 40 year old memories claim this is the person they knew 40 years ago....then wanting additional proof of guilt is not unreasonable.
http://www.americanmafia.com/Feature_Articles_3.html

3. I thought the Nazi's primarily used Zycon(sp?) gas to kill jews. I think they briefly used enclosed trucks to kill Jews with CO but this was abandon as being too 'inefficent'. The Nazi's experimented will several ways of killing Jews and ineffcient methods were abandoned. At the large death camps, it makes sense the Nazi's would used the most effcient methods to murder. CO is not an effcient way of murdering large numbers of people. If he doubts they used CO was used at those camps then that is he perogative.

BUT.....either of these points adds up to him denying the holocaust. I'm not falling for your bait-and-switch. PLEASE PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT HE DENIED THE HOLOCAUST.
Game-Set-Match. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bisonbison]

I'm pretty much gonna abandon hope for any kind of intelligent raport here.

1. He also thinks that the PTSD that holocaust survivors live with is "so-called" and involves group fantasies of martyrdom.

2. I didn't bother to read your example, cause honestly, who cares. Half of the survivor testimonies are considered unreliable for use in prosecution. That means that the testimony of 10,000 of those survivors provided testimony strong enough to stand up in court.

3. He makes a straw man of the CO. A witness in 1945 swears it was CO. Pat says "no, that couldn't have done it. Case closed: Demjanjuk's weapon of mass murder cannot kill"

A: Your honor, I think he was stabbed with a screwdriver.
B: Sorry, a screwdriver couldn't have made those type of gashes.
Pat Buchanan: Well, in that case, there was no murder.

I give up.

[DVaut1]

Thus ends the discussion for Felix. Democrats hate the military.

What's a red herring, anyway?

[Felix_Nietsche]

"Pat Buchanan: Well, in that case, there was no murder."
*************************************************
From two PatB statements, you are making a HUGE jump in 'logic' to saying he denied the holocaust. I WILL ASK ONE LAST TIME. Please provide a link where PatB. says the holocaust did NOT happen. Providing quotes where he questions the METHODOLGY of how the mass murders were committed......does NOT equate to denying the holocaust. My reading of WW2 taught me the Nazi's found CO too ineffcient to use in their mass murders and therefore these methods were phased out in favor of more efficient ways to murder...

"If you can't see that I was parodying your logic,"
************************************************** ***
Ahhhhhhhh.....you were pardodying my logic by using a FALSE premise (PatB denies the holocaust) where as MY premises are supportable. Mmmmmmmm...the philosophy departments in college must be teaching new methods of arguments these days. When I went to school, to parody another person's arguments based on true premises, you used a counter argument based on TRUE premises. I did not realize that they now teach you to use FALSE premises. I guess I've been out of school too long. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

"I give up."
*********************************************
Very smart of you.
You will never find a quote of Pat B saying what you claimed. But do not despair, there STILL may be hope for you. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


If your going to try to an invalidate a another argument based on two correct premises then invalidate the argument you must:
1. Invalidate the premises or...
2. Invalidate the argument

My argument was based on two premises I believe to be true and their are polls to back up my claims. You try to mock my argument using a FALSE PREMISE (PatB denies the holocaust). If you can not see this falacy in your parody, then perhaps taking a freshman course in logic at your local Jr College will help you understand. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


Game-set-match /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bisonbison]

Holocaust denial != "Jews didn't die"

Holocaust denial = "European jews greatly exaggerated the death count in order to punish the Germans/gain sympathy/ensure the creation of an Israeli state."

One of the most common tropes among holocaust deniers is the idea the A) the holocaust was technically impossible - which it was not and B) the jews suffer from a collective martyr complex. Both of which are views that Buchanan espouses in the article I linked.

And no, the fundamental flaw in your logic has nothing to do with the validity of the first premise. It has to do with the relevance of the behavior of a minority in a self-selecting group to the character of the group at large:

The Republican party has holocaust deniers.
That doesn't say anything about the values of other Republicans.
The Democratic party has people who make harassing phone calls.
That doesn't say anything about the values of other Democrats.

If you can't see that then you're a moron. OMG LOGIC COURSE!

I give up because you've got a death-grip on the irrelevant.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Actually what I claimed was the people making these phone calls are most likely democrats.
I will make another argument for you Dems.

1. People who murder abortion doctors are 'pro life'.
2. Most people who are 'pro-life' are Republicans.
3. Therfore *MOST* of the people who murder abortion doctors are Republicans.

Most = greater than 50%.

Both premises ares supportable (notice Bison I did not make up a false premise /images/graemlins/smile.gif ). I don't deny the conclusion that most of these murderes are probably Republicans. There are whack-out people everywhere.
I do think the Republican's support of the military is MUCH STRONGER and MUCH MORE BELIEVABLE. In the last two months I have provided links to the USA Today polls where 72% of all military personnel were planning on voting for Bush43. Evidently our military thinks Republicans support them more than Democrats...

Some Democrats have even marked the aniversity of the Abu Gharib prisoner abuse scandal. It is almost as if it is becoming a new holiday for the Democratic leadership to celebrate. I suppose in 10 years, Dems will have parties and exchange presents on the aniversity of the abuse.

Despite Bush43's screwups, the Dems keep shooting themselves in the foot. Thomas Friedman recently published an article of what the Dems could do to turn things around. The gist of the article was they should follow the Tony Blair model. But the average Dem politician are too dumb to listen....

[bisonbison]

Actually, what I said was that your claim is pointless. It does nothing to advance an argument beyond a simple "Four legs good! Two legs bad!" level of sloganeering. The fact that these people vote democrat is entirely irrelevant to whether Democratic politicians are sincere in their support of American troops.

You can construct simple logic crap all day - it doesn't make it relevant to the argument at hand. Most baseball players are above average height - BAN DDT!

Can you imagine a legitimate reason why the Democratic party would want to bring public attention to the anniversary of that scandal? It's not that hard to figure out several non-manipulative reasons. Go ahead. Try using your brain.

[Felix_Nietsche]

Holocaust denial != "Jews didn't die"
*******************************************
Ahhhhh.....very good. The first step in having a proper debate is agreement on the defintions. I accept your defintion.
Now please provide the PatB quote where he says that the Nazi's did not murder Jews.


'Holocaust denial = "European jews greatly exaggerated the death count in order to punish the Germans/gain sympathy/ensure the creation of an Israeli state."'
************************************************** **
Mmmmmmm.....another defintion???? Please choose a defintion and stick with it. No one can accuse you of being consistent. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
But in this 'defintion' there is the acknowledgement that Jews were murdered by Nazi's. So by this defintion, if a person said that 5 million Jews were murdered instead of 6 million....then by this defintion that person would be "denying" the holocaust. What if a person said ONLY 5,999,999 were murdered? Would this person be 'denying' holocaust happen?

This must be that NEW FANCY TYPE of 'logic' they are teaching in college these days. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
Wow! You just keep out-smarting me. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[DVaut1]

You made these claims:

[ QUOTE ]
Democrats are HOPING the mission fails in Iraq

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Several times Democrat party 'leaders' have cited the increased casualty figures almost with an apparant glee

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Democrats view the more dead soldiers there are, the more they are winning

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously not all Democrats are anti-military but the vast majority of people who are anti-military are democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try as you might, these were your original points; this debate about Buchanan is just a silly distraction. I realize you (Felix) didn't enter Buchanan into the discussion. Regardless, let's leave him aside for a while.

I'd personally like for you to defend the four points you made above. The first three are outrageous, and I suspect you won't bother trying to defend them anyway; I assume you can't really prove that Democrats are filled with glee when casualty numbers go up. Similarly, I also assume you can't really prove Democrats hope we lose the war in Iraq, or that Democrats see themselves as winning when American soldiers die. Please don't post a link to some editorial to prove this. Editorials aren't evidence. Post something along the lines of a link that shows Democrats has internal memos at the DNC/among campaigns that demonstrate they were hoping for soldiers to die; or perhaps just a quote from any credible Democrat demonstrating their 'glee' in regards to rising casualty numbers. Keep in mind that ‘glee’ is subjective anyway; and since you’re standard is inherent flawed (as it’s subjective), I wouldn’t bother even trying to demonstrate ‘glee’ on someone else’s behalf.

You likely can't prove the first three claims, so let’s set them aside as the silly partisan tripe that they are.

The claim you made that I'm most curious about is the last one:

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously not all Democrats are anti-military but the vast majority of people who are anti-military are democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said in a previous post, I think the claim you made is the same as this:

"Obviously not all Republicans are racist but the vast majority of people who are racist are Repbulicans."

We can all see the frailty of this logic here. It's not so much that it's untrue; only that it's implication (Republicans are racist) is clearly ridiculous.

You were trying to paint a picture that there's a huge contingent of Democrats are anti-military. And that's as clearly false as the claim that there's a huge contingent of racist Republicans. At the very least, citing that some Democrats are mean to veterans as proof that Democrats are anti-military isn’t very sound logic. Do you (Felix) disagree?

[bisonbison]

!= means does not equal.
= means equals.

And note that I said "greatly exaggerated".

The scholarly concensus is that somewhere between 4-6 million European Jews died as a result of the Nazi extermination programs.

Saying that 5 million died isn't holocaust denial. Don't be a smug idiot. Learn to read.

[Felix_Nietsche]

I thought '&lt;&gt;' is not equal...
Next time provide a Rosetta Stone....so I can translate your those runes you call english. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Felix_Nietsche]

Democrats are HOPING the mission fails in Iraq
*********************************************
Change this to "Democratic LEADERSHIP". And this is only a hypothesis. Obviously no Democrat leader would admit this publically but ask yourself this:
If they wanted to undermine the morale of US troops for political gain, how would the behave differently than they are now? We have the Dem *LEADERS* marking the aniversary of Abu Gharib and calling the war a Quagmire. How should US troops feel with this type of language. We had a successful election in Iraq and yet Kerry/Kennedy/ etc... are pooh-poohing these results. They are certainly not giving US soldiers a pat on the back...


Several times Democrat party 'leaders' have cited the increased casualty figures almost with an apparant glee
**************************************************
This is preception. I know of know way to prove a perception. But the great emphasis by Dem LEADERSHIP on increased casualties does help maintain the morale up for the troops. US troops have noticed this and the USA today poll of 72% of US troops planning on voting for Bush shows who the troops trust more.


"Democrats view the more dead soldiers there are, the more they are winning"
**********************************************
Change to Dem LEADERSHIP. This is a hypothesis. My perception is Dem Leaders are using dead soldiers for political gain. I base this opionion on:
1. What the Dem LEADERSHIP is saying
2. The high frequency they bring up this topic.
Dem leadership could spend more time complimenting the troops on their dedication but little to no emphasis is placed on this subject by the Dem Leadership. My hypothesis is they fear this would help Bush politically.


"Obviously not all Democrats are anti-military but the vast majority of people who are anti-military are democrats."
************************************************** **
I don't want to re-invent the wheel from my previous posts.
I conceded most murderers of abortion doctors are Republicans.
I used to the same chain of logic to support that most anti-military protestors are Democrats.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
but ask yourself this:
If they wanted to undermine the morale of US troops for political gain, how would the behave differently than they are now?

[/ QUOTE ]

We have to start with the premise that Democratic leaders want to undermine the moral of US for political gain? I believe this to be highly contentious. I missed where it was shown why Democrats would want to undermine the moral of US troops. I suppose if they did, they would do so openly. If, as you claim, Democratic leaders have a hidden agenda to undermine morale, I would ask why such an agenda is hidden.

I suspect such an agenda would be hidden (and I’m not agreeing this agenda exists) because, if it were done candidly, it would be disastrous politically. But, you also claimed they’re undermining US troop morale for political gain.

So, let me get this straight. Here are your two claims, and recognize their inherent contradiction:

1)Democrats would never dare openly undermine US troop morale because it would be disastrous politically. You admitted as much here:

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously no Democrat leader would admit this publically.

[/ QUOTE ]

2) Democrats are undermining US troop morale for political gain.

So, which is it? You want to claim Democrats would never publically undermine troop morale because it’s bad politically. You also want to claim they’re undermining troop morale because it’s good politically. This is a pretty awful argument all the way around.

Moving on…



[ QUOTE ]
This is preception. I know of know way to prove a perception.

[/ QUOTE ]

At least you admit there’s no way to prove this:

[ QUOTE ]
Several times Democrat party 'leaders' have cited the increased casualty figures almost with an apparant glee

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s the ‘apparent glee’ part that makes it just silly.

Anyway….

[ QUOTE ]
But the great emphasis by Dem LEADERSHIP on increased casualties does help maintain the morale up for the troops. US troops have noticed this and the USA today poll of 72% of US troops planning on voting for Bush shows who the troops trust more.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems likely some troops just thought Bush would do a better job protecting the country from terrorist attacks. Or maybe they thought Bush would do a better job on the war on terror. Or maybe some agree with Republicans on values issues. Maybe some on active duty met Bush when he came to visit Iraq/Afghanistan on numerous occasions, and found him a personable guy. Maybe some just want a tax cut. All these reasons seem pretty plausible. If you’re a Republican, I assume you think there are many valid reasons to vote Republican. Why are US Troops constrained to only one motivating factor in their decision to vote for Bush? Why should we assume troops voted for Bush because, as you say, ‘Democrats placed an emphasis on increased causalities’?

Anyway, I think you realize that 72% of the military voted for Bush doesn’t = they thought Democrats were gleeful about causalities. There’s a million reasons troops why troops could have decided to vote Republican. Perhaps you have empirical evidence that troops voted for Bush because they thought Democratic leaders were gleeful about causalities. Post a link to a poll as proof. Oh, wait. You admitted you can’t prove that anyway.


Next...


[ QUOTE ]
"Democrats view the more dead soldiers there are, the more they are winning"
**********************************************
Change to Dem LEADERSHIP. This is a hypothesis. My perception is Dem Leaders are using dead soldiers for political gain. I base this opionion on:
1. What the Dem LEADERSHIP is saying

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly are they saying? Anything in particular that would indicate that Dem. leaders think they’re winning when US soldiers die?

[ QUOTE ]
2. The high frequency they bring up this topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I honestly don’t even know what you’re getting at here. You’ll have to help me out.

Anti-Iraq war Democratic leaders mention casualty numbers with a high frequency because the more dead soldiers there are, the more they are winning?

Take a similar statement:

Pro-lifers mention abortion all the time because the more aborted babies, the more they are winning?

I assume I’m just missing something here.

Anyway…

[ QUOTE ]
Dem leadership could spend more time complimenting the troops on their dedication but little to no emphasis is placed on this subject by the Dem Leadership.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Please prove this, somehow. (Note: No editorials!)

[ QUOTE ]
My hypothesis is they fear this would help Bush politically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting hypothesis. Where’s the evidence? (Note: No editorials! Editorials aren’t proof of anything. I’m not accusing you of this specifically, Felix; but there are a few posters here who copy/paste editorials from somewhere and use it to constitute proof of something. It makes me cringe.)

Last one…

[ QUOTE ]
I conceded most murderers of abortion doctors are Republicans.
I used to the same chain of logic to support that most anti-military protestors are Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you conceded that most (99%) Republicans don’t murder abortion doctors. Concede that most (99%) Democrats aren’t anti-military, and we’ll agree on something. If you are trying to claim that a good proportion of Democrats are indeed anti-military, then this…

[ QUOTE ]
1. The people making these sadistic phone calls are against the Iraq War.
2. Most people that are against the Iraq war are Democrats.
3. Therefore mathematically the odds are the people making these sadistic calls are Democrats.


[/ QUOTE ]

…doesn’t prove that, so it’s faulty logic.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Why should the death of soldiers carry any more reporting weight than all the other deaths? Why didn't you write - Ho hum, another 200 die today in traffic accidents?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd expect people who have a personal stake in this, such as SaltCracka with a brother in Iraq, or military men such as Vultures, to rise in indignation, but I guess they're too busy defending their Wise &amp; Great Leader's actions to give that snub a second thought.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Why should the death of soldiers carry any more reporting weight than all the other deaths? Why didn't you write - Ho hum, another 200 die today in traffic accidents?

-----------------------------------------------------------

I'd expect people who have a personal stake in this, such as SaltCracka with a brother in Iraq, or military men such as Vultures, to rise in indignation, but I guess they're too busy defending their Wise &amp; Great Leader's actions to give that snub a second thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cyrus that is just moronic.

Why exactly should relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq rise in indignation any more than relatives of those killed by speeders or drunks on our highways?

In fact, the latter have perhaps more reason to rise in indignation, because many of their loved ones were not killed in carrying out hazardous professional duties. Soldiers understand the risks when enlisting as professional soldiers. However the junior accountant commuting to work on Monday morning did not choose a high risk profession yet was run over by a late-night reveller with a hangover.

Yours is a cheap attempt to enlist emotion in what should be a logical discussion. Conversely, if you do (cheaply and irrationally) enlist emotion in this debate, you cannot deny Utah the same opportunity. Yet Utah is not stooping so low; he is merely pointing out the fallacy in your so doing.

Carry on, but try to show a little more class and intellectual honesty, please.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Try to show a little more class and intellectual honesty, please. That is just moronic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it?

I am anti-war (about Iraq). You are pro-war. Most of the people who have relatives or friends there are pro-war, even if only due to circumstances.

Utah claimed that the death of one American in Iraq is as relevant, important and news-worthy as the death of any other American who dies from a car crash, a medical mishap, etcetera. I thought the idiocy of such a claim (journalistically, politically, logically or morally speaking) would be obvious. Turns out it's not.

I also thought that those with a personal stake in the war like those who do have a relative there, such as SaltCracka, would rush to respond first to that idiocy. Turns out they won't.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
There is an average of 750 American deaths a year in Iraq. That is tiny compared to the 50,000 traffic deaths and the 200,000 deaths due to medical malpractice. Shouldn't those stories take precedence over Iraq?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are obviously not aware of the fact that a chip of a hundred dollars of tournament money taken from the stack of the biggest stack is not equally valuable to a chip of a hundred dollars of tournament money taken from the stack of the smallest stack. You need to look up the relevant texts or consult a tournament expert.

Until you do that, there's no sense arguing with yous.

And by the way. In case you will then start to think that this has something to do with "sizes of stacks" (number of soldiers, etc), here's a hint: it doesn't.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
You are obviously not aware of the fact that a chip of a hundred dollars of tournament money taken from the stack of the biggest stack is not equally valuable to a chip of a hundred dollars of tournament money taken from the stack of the smallest stack. You need to look up the relevant texts or consult a tournament expert.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? This makes no sense at all. I understand the stack size issue in relation to tournament poker but for the life of me I cant see how that applies. You have completely stumped me with this one. Which is a actually a nice change from the following usual reaction to your arguments - "Boy that was another weak and pathetic argument from Cyrus"

Let's say that the war was the worst U.S. military move of all times, it served no useful purpose, and that each death of a U.S. soldier is an unneccessary tragedy. It would be nothing compared to the tragedy of the U.S. healthcare system where there are masses of preventable deaths daily. Why should your tragedy get more media play than other tragedies.

btw - tourney players are a bunch of sucks that have no idea what it is like to push a stack of real money into the center /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Try to show a little more class and intellectual honesty, please. That is just moronic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it?

I am anti-war (about Iraq). You are pro-war. Most of the people who have relatives or friends there are pro-war, even if only due to circumstances.

Utah claimed that the death of one American in Iraq is as relevant, important and news-worthy as the death of any other American who dies from a car crash, a medical mishap, etcetera. I thought the idiocy of such a claim (journalistically, politically, logically or morally speaking) would be obvious. Turns out it's not.

I also thought that those with a personal stake in the war like those who do have a relative there, such as SaltCracka, would rush to respond first to that idiocy. Turns out they won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read this exchange between you and MMMMMM with some interest since you specifically referred to me. I decided my position lies somewhere in between the two of you. On the one hand, less reporting on casualties doesnt bother me personally for all the reasons that MMMMMM mentioned, so I wont rehash them. On the other hand, I certainly agree with you, at least in theory, in that the death of American servicemembers should carry more journalistic weight. For those that wonder why, I would submit two related answers. One is that the soldiers are a direct manifestation of US foreign policy. The second reason is that even though I chose to be an aviator, I didnt choose this war. So since (at least in theory) the citizenry are the ultimate arbiters of our government's policy, it is necessary for them to have the full story of what is going on with their soldiers.

In practice its not something I get completely worked up about. And if you want to blame someone, blame the editors of the newspapers, they're the one who decided what stories go where.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
Utah claimed that the death of one American in Iraq is as relevant, important and news-worthy as the death of any other American who dies from a car crash, a medical mishap, etcetera.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I did not claim that. I claimed that the death of one soldier is no more worthy than the masses of death unneccessary deaths each day. However, in reality the death itself is no more important (although the implications of the death might be).

Please. Can you provide us with the Cyrus scale of death reporting. It would be nice to see which deaths rank as more important than others. Also, please include the calculus that tells us the relative weights so I can properly understand how many need to die from traffic accidents to make it newsworthy.

[ACPlayer]

The death of a soldier in this, by now ho hum, war is now no longer newsworthy or of interest. To the loony-right Iraq should now be relegated to the back pages, unless some day there happens to be good news.

But the Govt of Israel and executives of Haliburton both, if asked, would acknowledge that their sacrifice is recognized. Unasked, I acknowledge that their sacrifice needs recognition.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
... executives of Haliburton

[/ QUOTE ]


Arent you not tired of trotting out that old lie yet (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=2255467&amp;page=0&amp;view=c ollapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;vc=1)?

[ACPlayer]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Perhaps I misspoke. Perhaps the executives of Haliburton do not recognize the sacrifice of the troops. They may well be saying "Troops, what troops? Pass the options." /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[vulturesrow]

Of course they do, but you and I both know what the implication of your post was. Disingenousness doesnt become you. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Utah]

What do you see as a lie? I have been a moderate supporter of the war and a strong advocate against the poor arguments of the left.

However, I am deeply troubled by the actions of Haliburton and the actions of the Bush Administration relating to Halliburton. You have the former CEO of Haliburton waging war against a country and then having his former company profit greatly from that war. I see a massive conflict of interest here. Even if there isnt any improprieties taking place there is clearly the appearance of improprieties. Then we find out that Halliburton has all sorts of unethical behaviour relating to overcharging and kickbacks.

Shame on Halliburton and shame on the Bush administration for its use of Halliburton.

[vulturesrow]

Utah,

First off, Halliburton didnt profit greatly. Also, the Bush administration is not the first ones to use them. The Clinton administration used them during Kosovo. The fact is that Halliburton was uniquely suited to provide the services we needed. The overcharging allegation has not been proved.

Read this FactCheck article (http://www.factcheck.org/article201.html) for some good info and supporting documents. Here is a National Review article (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york070903.asp) that has good info on Halliburton as well, and the facts in the NR article are easily checked.

[adios]

You are correct and I've made the same points many times myself. KBR is simply one the best candidates around for handling the type of work it was contracted to do in Iraq and their aren't that many companies that are good candidates. KBR profits have been hurt by the intense DOD scrutiny of their operations. The KBR operations turned profitable during the last quarter due to the fact that many of the issues of overpayment are being cleared up. Also Haliburton has announced that it will divest itself of KBR mostly due to the fact that it's a lightening rod for criticism in a time when it's core business, oil services is taking off. The Haliburton CEO has indicated that the return to profitibility of KBR will hopefully hasten the divestiture from Haliburton. Haliburton management announced their plans to divest itself of KBR many months ago (I made a post about this as well) but hasn't found any suitors to this point for the reason that the profitibility of KBR has been in doubt. It's an urban myth that KBR Iraqi contracts have brought about large profits to Haliburton.

[Utah]

I just did a quick reading of Halliburton's annual report and the Iraqi operations can be seen as nothing but a massive windfall for Halliburton. The operations account for a big increase in halliburtons overall revenue and the Iraqi operations have dropped at a minumum of $300 million to Halliburton's bottom line. This doesnt account for hiiden values such as coverage and allocation of overhead, improved buying power, etc. Halliburton's stock price has also risen sharply since the war - and guess when the stock started to rise dramatically?? The stock now trades in the 40s while it traded in the teens prior to the war.

As most readers here know, I am a supporter of the war and I am not one to believe the kooks of the left. However, the Halliburton equation stinks. Badly.

As I said, it doesnt really matter. There is a conflict of interest here. I know other firms didnt feel that Halliburton was uniquely qualified to provide those services. However, even if that is the case, there should have been additional actions taken. We would never accept such a conflict in the course of american business life. How can if be acceptable in war. There should have been a conversation in the white house that went like:

D.C. - GW, we have a problem. We are going to war and a lot of americans are going to get killed. There is a serious conflict because my old firm stands to benefit greatly from this war
G.W. - Well, then we have to use another source. There is no two ways about it
D.C. - Halliburton might be uniquely qualified
G.W. - I dont want to make that determination given the conflict. Either find someone else to provide the service or set up an independant team that includes the democrats to determine if Halliburton is the correct choice. This is deadly serious business and we cant even allow the appearance of impropriety.

[trippin bily]

[ QUOTE ]
The death of a soldier in this, by now ho hum, war is now no longer newsworthy or of interest. To the loony-right Iraq should now be relegated to the back pages, unless some day there happens to be good news.

But the Govt of Israel and executives of Haliburton both, if asked, would acknowledge that their sacrifice is recognized. Unasked, I acknowledge that their sacrifice needs recognition.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am from the " looney right " and it was me that suggested the news media should cover the story more. Not because of the value of a soldiers life but from a news junkies standpoint what is a bigger story? Michael Jackson? Steroids in baseball?Another missing kid in Florida? We have some 140,000 troops on the ground there. A nation at war. Most newscast barely, if at all, mention it!! It seems incredible to me.
I go back tomy original point that the reason most media outlets don't cover it is because the election is over and spreading bad news about the war cannot defeat Bush. I don't think CNN and the like could care one bit if a soldier is killed, unless the can somehow damage Bush.
We are at war! It is a big story. It should be covered far better than it is.

[trippin bily]

[ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Perhaps I misspoke. Perhaps the executives of Haliburton do not recognize the sacrifice of the troops. They may well be saying "Troops, what troops? Pass the options." /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
You have no clue as to what Haliburton does do you.
Ask a sodier who has been to Iraq what Haliburton does.
hOPEFULLY A VETERAN IS AROUND TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU.
Its just a shade more than oil.

[ACPlayer]

I am from the " looney right "

You just took the first step towards your political salvation. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

Utah, while I haven't read the Halliburton report, I do remember reading within the last year that the profit margins in Iraq for KBR/Halliburton werre on the low side, that is, they typically make considerably more for such work. So while it is likely very true (as your reading of the report would indicsate) that this boosted their overall business volume and bottom line, I don't think it did so at nearly the rate that might have been anticipated or that would have been typical for such work. Just thought this is something worth considering. I also recall reading that KBR was not very happy with the profit margins (whatever that means).

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Sample size, yes fine. I didnt say that my account were the endall. But you have three people in here who are vets or active duty, that all relay the same message from the war. I dont think you should dimiss it out of hand. Thats all.

[/ QUOTE ] I will throw in my two cents as well. My brother is an office in the Army and he has heard the same thing from people he knows in Iraq. In fact, I will let you know what my brother thinks in a few months, as he is over there right now. Also, my cousin got back from Iraq a few months ago and said the exact same thing. I know anecdotal evidence doesn't float Bisons boat, but these examples are pretty consistent, don't know if that bothers you or not Bison. I would hope it doesn't.

[Utah]

Profits from Halliburton have risen $1 billion over the last couple of years.

Managing numbers are a tricky business and it is an easy thing for a company to manipulate. We know the minimum number, $300 million, but we dont know the maximum number. The reason is that overhead and fixed costs are certainly allocated to KBR. However, we dont know to what extent those costs would have been incurred anyway. Lets look at a very simple example - lets say we have a team of 100 Halliburton lawyers. Lets say they would be on staff regardless of the Iraqi war. Now, Halliburton allocates 75% of these lawyers to KBR expenses and this was a drain on KBR profits. However, this wasnt a real drain, even if they spent 75% of their time working on KBR issues. You can play a lot of funny tricks with overhead and fixed costs. I used to work on such issues for a Fortune 500 company. And, of course, we can be sure that Halliburton threw as many expenses in the KBR bucket as possible. Also, I wouldnt put it past a smart PR department to complain about the margins of such work.

Finally - you take money to the bank. You dont take margin to the bank.

[sirio11]

Great post Utah

[adios]

I looked at the annual report as well. Revenue growth from 2002-2003 was greater percentage wise than from 2003-2004. For the first quarter of 2005 revenues from Iraqi operations have declined 30% year over year. Of course revenue doesn't equal profit and looking at the operating income (earnings before interest and taxes) from 2003-2004 the increase by $117 million while revenues increased by $4.2 billion. Thus Halliburton earned a measely 2% operating profit margin on it's extra revenue. Don't like to use operating income? Lets try cash flow. Halliburton's depreciation and amoritization basically match their capital expenditures and their non cash charges from discontinued charges from discontinued operations are about the same year to year. And is Halliburton accounting suspect? I doubt it given the close scrutiny from the Defense Contract Audit Agency of Iraqi costs. There's a reason why Halliburton wants to sell KBR. Also KBR is one of the few companies that are qualified to actually provide the services in Iraq. Cheney receive deferred retirment pay from Halliburton but it's not based on the performance of the company (unless they go bankrupt and cease operations) as it was set when he quit. Cheney divested himself of all other financial interests in Halliburtion before the 2000 election.

[Utah]

Again, you take cash to the bank, not percentage. Would you rather earn 2% on a $5 billion busines or 250% on a $500 business?

I am not sure why you are mentioning cash flow as it is not an income statement item. However, your point about Capex and deprec. raises another interesting point - Halliburton is making a fortune without investing much capital. This is an ideal business equation - essentially you make money with little investment. In such scenarios you will accept much lower returns. An example - Which business opportunity would you accept - you need to invest $1000 and you expect to make $20,000 a year or you have to invest and risk nothing and you expect to make $10,000 a year.

[ QUOTE ]
And is Halliburton accounting suspect?

[/ QUOTE ]
It doesnt have to be suspect. There is nothing unethical about the allocation of overhead. However, that doesnt mean that fixes costs are not being allocated to KBR.

[ QUOTE ]
There's a reason why Halliburton wants to sell KBR.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who knows why there are selling it. Maybe they think it has negative brand equity given the Halliburton name. Maybe they think it will sell at a premium to its worth. It will be interesting to see the price it sells at. My guess is that it will be like the sale of the MN Vikings where the owner bitched about operating profits and then sells the company at a massive profit.

[ QUOTE ]
Cheney divested himself of all other financial interests in Halliburtion before the 2000 election.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesnt matter. It appears to be a conflict of interest and that is enough.

I noticed you skipped over the huge increase in stock price during the war. To me, that is the ultimate judge of a company's value. What do you attribute the price increase to?