Al Qaeda In Iraq Far Stronger Than Bush Administration Admitting
- Thread starter FriendlyFire
- Start date
holy king
Deity
Swedishguy
Deity
In my basement, in small pellet bags.
Den Valdron
King
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 834
Give it time. The Iraq war is now only five years old. Vietnam went eleven years, and was pretty light on the first few years. We still have six more years to go for a Vietnam level casualty count.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Primary reason why a pull out is a bad idea.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Actually, yes, it is. The Huffington post is precisely known for its left leaning spin and changing the title to such a story to something they want to see is exactly the kind of propaganda spin he is accusing them of.
You trying to deny it is simply pathetic.
Den Valdron
King
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 834
I dunno.
* The aggregate population of the Southeast Asian region, including the two Vietnams, Laos and Cambodia, where the war went on was probably around 40 to 45 million.
* Iraq is about 24 million.
* Maximum US/Coalition forces in Iraq have, during the period of occupation, wavered between 110,000 and 160,000. Added to that is an undefined number of 'Iraqi' 'soldiers' and 'security' of perhaps 100,000.
* The Vietnam contingent varied from year to year, but at its height there was about 500,000 American forces deployed in or around Vietnam. This together with a South Vietnamese force of as much as 1,000,000.
* I don't think its unreasonable, under the circumstances to assume that a dramatically smaller starting population, and a much more dramatically smaller occupying population would produce lower rates of casualties. It may not automatically follow that this will occur. But its a starting point that will get you there.
* In terms of the levels of damage suffered by the Civilian population, it's really hard to mix and match. How do we compare electrical power generation or potable water delivery, rates of disease proliferation, health care standards in Indochina versus Iraq? My impression is that throughout the war, most Vietnamese urban areas maintained a functional infrastructure, while villages functioned effectively at 19th or 18th century levels. In Iraq's case, I don't think urban areas are functioning as well, nor can we really make generalizations like that about rural areas. There seems to be no real parallel in Indochina to the vast refugee movements we've seen in Iraq, nor the wholesale ethnic cleansing of Baghdad or regions. How then to quantify or compare that. Estimates of fatalities and excess mortality in Iraq, adjusted for population and time seem to be broadly consistent with Vietnam, but even these estimates are controversial. I think that the reasonable low end estimate of Iraqi mortality is 100,000 to 200,000. The high end is probably 800,000 to 1,000,000. - in a country half the size of Indochina, in a state of war half the duration.
I'm reminded of an episode in South Park, involving a girl whose premature breasts make her popular. Her mother was similarly popular and puts it down to them being smarter and more likeable. The little girl asks her mother how much is six time eight.
The mother blinks a couple of times and replies: "Those are completely different numbers, dear."
Vietnam is not Iraq. The country is shaped completely differently. The history and circumstances, the environment, the population and ethnic make up, the politics and geopolitics are all completely different.
But having said that, there are parallels. History does not repeat itself. Rather, it spirals endlessly, with similar but never identical sorts of situations recurring. This is as it should be. If the past has nothing to offer, we would never learn anything. If the past was merely repetition, then learning would be rote.
Nowadays, many in the United States take the wrong lessons from Vietnam. The lesson that 'we coulda won', that 'we weren't savage and brutal enough', etc. Well, its a lesson, but perhaps mistaken. Other lessons? Perhaps not so well learned.
MobBoss,
He didn't complain that they changed the name, and even though they had, it has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the body of the article, which is what was dismissed so casually. Heck, if somebody linked to NewsMax pointing to an AP report on something -- even if it had a different title -- it's stupid to dismiss it simply because it was promoted by NewsMax.
Cleo
He didn't complain that they changed the name, and even though they had, it has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the body of the article, which is what was dismissed so casually. Heck, if somebody linked to NewsMax pointing to an AP report on something -- even if it had a different title -- it's stupid to dismiss it simply because it was promoted by NewsMax.
Cleo
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Oh please come on. The Huffington post alludes something other than what the regular title of the story was presented as. You know this.
Why couldnt the Huffington Post just use the same title all the rest of the media outlets used? Hmmm? They didnt because it wasnt 'liberal' enough for their purposes. Again, you know this as well.
Let me simply point out that the Huffington Post isnt Newsmax. And never will be. The H-post is nothing more than a left/liberal blog....not a valid news source. And again, its rather pathetic for you to even try to draw a similarity between them.
Den Valdron
King
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 834
Because that will open the door to the Mahdi Army and Badr Brigades going full bore to sort out each other's hash?
Well, in a sense, its already happening. There's an ongoing low level conflict between the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades, and an ongoing political conflict between SCIRI (as it was) and Sadr. In the end, there will be bloodbaths, the only question is the timing and pacing of the bloodbath. We can't even say whether letting them have it out full bore, or low intensity warfare between them will produce more casualties in the long run.
Neither of these groups is affiliated with the United States in any meaningful way. Both are pro-Iranian. The less pro-Iranian group, Sadr's is more explicitly anti-American.
The American occupation is caught between two dominant Shiite, fundamentalist, pro-Iranian, anti-American who are using it to further their own goals, goals which may well be antithetical to the United States. It's difficult to imagine it ending well.
It's all 'worst outcomes', the best of the worst outcome is the eventual domination of one anti-American, pro-Iranian Shiite fundamentalist group which feels secure enough in its authority to demand the United States leave.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
In a word, 'yes'.
Den Valdron
King
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 834
ROTFL. I like the way you think.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
Den, while I like your overall line of thought there, your attempt a number crunching was ridiculous (I hope you were not being serious).
For ever "parallel" with Vietnam people concoct, I can easily produce a dozen factual differences. The comparison real is the definition of a strawman.
For ever "parallel" with Vietnam people concoct, I can easily produce a dozen factual differences. The comparison real is the definition of a strawman.
Narz
keeping it real
Sounds like propaganda to me.
Den Valdron
King
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2008
- Messages
- 834
Excuse my number crunching. I didn't take time out to double check things like the population of Vietnam and Indochina during the Vietnam war period.
In terms of Iraqi statistics, I feel I'm on firmer ground. The refugee population is generally estimated to be four million or thereabouts, which includes roughly two million displaced internally, and about the same number displaced outside the country, primarily to Syria and Jordan. It's probably higher than that, but I've prefered to be conservative.
In terms of casualties and mortality, I'm acknowledging a range from multiple sources. At the high end are statistical surveys which produce mortalities or excess death estimates in the range of one million or better. Numbers that high are viscerally difficult to accept... they're often politically unacceptable to certain parties, and for others, they can be physically repulsive. The nature of the methodology tends to abstraction, assessing and extrapolating on fatality rates rather than counting corpses.
At the bottom end are groups like Iraq Body Count (around 75,000), or political estimates from the Iraqi 'government' (perhaps 150,000, I'd have to double check), which either admit their limitations or possess fairly large flaws. Iraq Body Count, for instance, freely admits its recording techniques only capture a portion of the fatalities - assessments in other jurisdictions suggest that the capture rate may be as low as 20%. If that's really the case then IBC's real fatality score is well over 350,000... a hideous number again. So, I feel comfortable in recognizing a range of assertions on the low side between 100,000 and 200,000 and on the high side in the range of 800,000 to 1,000,000.
As for comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq, or between Iraq 1920 and Iraq now, or between Mexico 1863 and Iraq, or between Spain 1810 and Iraq, or Iraq and Afghanistan 1985, I'd continue to argue that there are valid comparisons to be made and parallels to be drawn.
Actually, I don't like the word parallels in this context. Occasional congruities and intersections would be a better term.
Anyway, I think its tolerable to draw comparisons and congruities for purposes of argument and analysis.
Are the two countries entirely the same? No. No. Not at all. In a hundred ways they're different
In the end, Patroklos, I have the sense that this is probably an area that we don't have much real dispute. I mean, if we both work hard, we could probably have an argument. But is there a point, when there's so much more substantive things to fight over?
Have a nice day.
In terms of Iraqi statistics, I feel I'm on firmer ground. The refugee population is generally estimated to be four million or thereabouts, which includes roughly two million displaced internally, and about the same number displaced outside the country, primarily to Syria and Jordan. It's probably higher than that, but I've prefered to be conservative.
In terms of casualties and mortality, I'm acknowledging a range from multiple sources. At the high end are statistical surveys which produce mortalities or excess death estimates in the range of one million or better. Numbers that high are viscerally difficult to accept... they're often politically unacceptable to certain parties, and for others, they can be physically repulsive. The nature of the methodology tends to abstraction, assessing and extrapolating on fatality rates rather than counting corpses.
At the bottom end are groups like Iraq Body Count (around 75,000), or political estimates from the Iraqi 'government' (perhaps 150,000, I'd have to double check), which either admit their limitations or possess fairly large flaws. Iraq Body Count, for instance, freely admits its recording techniques only capture a portion of the fatalities - assessments in other jurisdictions suggest that the capture rate may be as low as 20%. If that's really the case then IBC's real fatality score is well over 350,000... a hideous number again. So, I feel comfortable in recognizing a range of assertions on the low side between 100,000 and 200,000 and on the high side in the range of 800,000 to 1,000,000.
As for comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq, or between Iraq 1920 and Iraq now, or between Mexico 1863 and Iraq, or between Spain 1810 and Iraq, or Iraq and Afghanistan 1985, I'd continue to argue that there are valid comparisons to be made and parallels to be drawn.
Actually, I don't like the word parallels in this context. Occasional congruities and intersections would be a better term.
Anyway, I think its tolerable to draw comparisons and congruities for purposes of argument and analysis.
Are the two countries entirely the same? No. No. Not at all. In a hundred ways they're different
In the end, Patroklos, I have the sense that this is probably an area that we don't have much real dispute. I mean, if we both work hard, we could probably have an argument. But is there a point, when there's so much more substantive things to fight over?
Have a nice day.
Ecofarm
Deity
It's a string of quotes put together in a negative light. We could collect as many positive quotes on an given day. There is one reference to the AP in the beginning, and no other reference to the AP. At puffington.com, there is no indication as to the story's origion. It is attributed to a Robert Burns, and I've no idea who he writes for. Aside from the one time at the beginning when the AP is cited, where do you see its origion?
Puffington must have changed more than the title, yes? Because I really do not see the credit given in the OP link.
ps. Surge working.
EDIT: Ok, I see the little AP symbol in red. So, I click there and only the title is different? What kind of crap "journalism" is this?
Hey, this article is pretty negative. Let's change a few lines, add some foreboding background music, and change the title!
Pathetic. Seriously, stop the puffington. It's right up there with Fiasco and Soros. Just stop.
Why the hell are you arguing about "valid news sources" when you're the one who posted a scandal from the national enquirer?
