Mission Accomplished!

[Mephisto]

I'd often wondered if this event would pass without attention. Thankfully, I'm wrong again.

War Price on U.S. Lives Equal to 9/11

Sep 23, 1:36 AM (ET)

By CALVIN WOODWARD

WASHINGTON (AP) - Now the death toll is 9/11 times two. U.S. military deaths from Iraq and Afghanistan now surpass those of the most devastating terrorist attack in America's history, the trigger for what came next.
The latest milestone for a country at war came Friday without commemoration. It came without the precision of knowing who was the 2,974th to die in conflict. The terrorist attacks killed 2,973 victims in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.
An Associated Press count of the U.S. death toll in Iraq rose to 2,696. Combined with 278 U.S. deaths in and around Afghanistan, the 9/11 toll was reached, then topped, the same day. The Pentagon reported Friday the latest death from Iraq, an as-yet unidentified soldier killed a day earlier after his vehicle was hit by a roadside bombing in eastern Baghdad.
Not for the first time, war that was started to answer death has resulted in at least as much death for the country that was first attacked, quite apart from the higher numbers of enemy and civilians killed.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060923/D8KACG100.html

 

[shemp]

Well, I guess we can all go home now.

 

[Mycroft]

I'd often wondered if this event would pass without attention. Thankfully, I'm wrong again.

War Price on U.S. Lives Equal to 9/11

During WWII, we should have stopped the war against Japan as soon as the death toll in US lives equaled the number of those killed in the attack at Pearl Harbor.

Does that about sum up the logic here?

 

[The Atheist]

During WWII, we should have stopped the war against Japan as soon as the death toll in US lives equaled the number of those killed in the attack at Pearl Harbor.

Does that about sum up the logic here?

You are a strange and twisted little man.

A guy makes a post, dismayed at the toll of death and all you can do is turn it around, twist the meaning and sing your own tune.

Nice.

 

[fishbob]

During WWII, we should have stopped the war against Japan as soon as the death toll in US lives equaled the number of those killed in the attack at Pearl Harbor.

Does that about sum up the logic here?

A REAL apologist could do better than that.
Tough Saturday night?

 

[Pardalis]

You were actually counting, Mephisto?

So in the expression "Who's counting?", that's you?

BTW that avatar is really freaking me out.

 

[Mycroft]

A REAL apologist could do better than that.
Tough Saturday night?

Do better how?

Perhaps you could explain the logic of the OP?

If Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, why does it make sense to compare the number of dead in Iraq (as well as Afghanistan) to the number that died in 9/11?

Even if Iraq did have something to do with 9/11, what would be the point of comparing the number of dead except to imply that we should have kept our casualties below that number?

Remember, these forums advance critical thinking. Where is the critical thinking here? What is this except an emotive but ultimately meaningless argument?

You are a strange and twisted little man.

A guy makes a post, dismayed at the toll of death and all you can do is turn it around, twist the meaning and sing your own tune.

Nice.

Except they're not "dismayed" at the death toll, they are cynically using it to push a political agenda.

Is that nice?

 

[fishbob]

Do better how?

Perhaps you could explain the logic of the OP?

Instead of ducking the subject, perhaps you could explain the logic of your post that I responded to.

 

[Mycroft]

Instead of ducking the subject, perhaps you could explain the logic of your post that I responded to.

I believe that is obvious, but since you claim not to get it, I will explain.

Comparing the number of dead from 9/11 to the number of dead US soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq is purely emotive and illogical. I think that is illustrated nicely by making a comparison with the US war against Japan in WWII.

 

[The Atheist]

Except they're not "dismayed" at the death toll, they are cynically using it to push a political agenda.

Is that nice?

"Not for the first time, war that was started to answer death has resulted in at least as much death for the country that was first attacked, quite apart from the higher numbers of enemy and civilians killed."

Oh yeah, that's a cynical, politically charged statement. Damn, I wish you'd teach me to read so that I could see all that hidden meaning as you do. I'm so semi-literate in these matters.

 

[fishbob]

Comparing the number of dead from 9/11 to the number of dead US soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq is purely emotive and illogical.

Assertion in place of explanation noted.

 

[toddjh]

I have to agree with Mycroft on this one. Why does it matter that the death toll in Afghanistan and Iraq has surpassed the number of deaths on 9/11?

Wouldn't a more rational comparison be between the number of people killed in Afghanistan and Iraq and the number of people who would've died if we hadn't gone to war?

Now, I'm no fan of the "war on terror" as fought by the Bush administration, and I have no idea how many people would've been killed if we hadn't gone to war -- maybe the war prevented a nuclear attack that would've killed 100,000 people. Or maybe the war didn't prevent it and it'll still happen. I have no clue how many lives might've been saved or lost by fighting this war, compared to the doing nothing, but either way I still can't see what the number of people killed on 9/11 has to do with anything.

 

[steverino]

I have to agree with Mycroft on this one. Why does it matter that the death toll in Afghanistan and Iraq has surpassed the number of deaths on 9/11?

Wouldn't a more rational comparison be between the number of people killed in Afghanistan and Iraq and the number of people who would've died if we hadn't gone to war?

Now, I'm no fan of the "war on terror" as fought by the Bush administration, and I have no idea how many people would've been killed if we hadn't gone to war -- maybe the war prevented a nuclear attack that would've killed 100,000 people. Or maybe the war didn't prevent it and it'll still happen. I have no clue how many lives might've been saved or lost by fighting this war, compared to the doing nothing, but either way I still can't see what the number of people killed on 9/11 has to do with anything.

I agree. Another way to look at it is what if the administration were to say, "Hey they killed about 3000 of us on 9/11. So let's go to war, kick butt, give it a shot, until about 2999 of our soldiers die. Of course, then we quit."

The point of our waging war is to protect our 300,000,000 people, plus our allies. Playing statistics with bodies seems vulgar to me, but there it is. Now if you want to have a pissing match over whether or not we are more protected thanks to our soldiers giving their lives, that is a valid, but separate, argument.

 

[Dorian Gray]

During WWII, we should have stopped the war against Japan as soon as the death toll in US lives equaled the number of those killed in the attack at Pearl Harbor.

Does that about sum up the logic here?

Yes. Your logic = 0.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Wouldn't a more rational comparison be between the number of people killed in Afghanistan and Iraq and the number of people who would've died if we hadn't gone to war?

I have no idea how many people would've been killed if we hadn't gone to war -- maybe the war prevented a nuclear attack that would've killed 100,000 people. Or maybe the war didn't prevent it and it'll still happen. I have no clue how many lives might've been saved or lost by fighting this war, compared to the doing nothing,

Turns out, it wouldn't be a more rational comparison.

Comparing a finite and known number of lives lost on 9/11 to a finite and known number of lives lost in the resulting (or "resulting") wars is rational. Comparing a finite and known number of lives lost on 9/11 to a whole laundry list of speculative figures taken from a source you're sitting on, paired with admitted ignorance? Not so much.

 

[Dorian Gray]

I agree. Another way to look at it is what if the administration were to say, "Hey they killed about 3000 of us on 9/11. So let's go to war, kick butt, give it a shot, until about 2999 of our soldiers die. Of course, then we quit."

The point of our waging war is to protect our 300,000,000 people, plus our allies. Playing statistics with bodies seems vulgar to me, but there it is. Now if you want to have a pissing match over whether or not we are more protected thanks to our soldiers giving their lives, that is a valid, but separate, argument.

Don't you mean ~299,850,000 people, since ~150,000 are risking their lives? Or don't you mean ~299,997,000, since ~3000 were killed? Oh, I forgot, playing statistics with bodies is vulgar. I know! Let's just ignore the dead bodies and round the figure up to a nice even number!

 

[Mephisto]

Remember, these forums advance critical thinking. Where is the critical thinking here? What is this except an emotive but ultimately meaningless argument?

You apparently didn't read the end of the article:

"Eye-for-an-eye vengeance was not the sole motivator for what happened after the 2001 attacks any more than Pearl Harbor alone was responsible for all that followed. But Pearl Harbor caught the U.S. in the middle of mobilization, debate, rising tensions with looming enemies and a European war already in progress. Historians doubt anyone paid much attention to sad milestones once America threw itself into the fight.
In contrast, the United States had no imminent war intentions against anyone on Sept. 10, 2001. One bloody day later, it did."
_______

Notice how we also attacked Japan instead of Belize after December 7th?

We've lost more soldiers in a pre-emptive war having nothing to do with 9/11, yet 9/11 was freqently referred to as justification for this war. It's amazing that the administration that thought this entire escapade in Iraq wouldn't take longer than a few months is now claiming that it's unpatriotic to suggest anything besides staying to face the rising casualty count of American soldiers as well as Iraqi citizens.

I will support "staying the course" when Jenna and Barbara Jr. are patrolling the streets of Iraq like so many others their age.

Except they're not "dismayed" at the death toll, they are cynically using it to push a political agenda.

I know you're not talking about me, Mycroft. I have never show anything other than an overly-passionate concern for our soldiers, and the only political agenda I'll push is the reminder that we've let a solemn event silently pass. We've lost as many U.S. soldiers in Iraq, where they have no business fighting, as we lost in the WTC attack.

Another thing I've often wondered . . . will we be smart enough to stop before we reach the 59,000 mark or is that another quiet non sequitur events I'll sadly mourn?

 

[Mycroft]

You apparently didn't read the end of the article:

I hadn’t read it at all, except for what you had quoted. Now that I’ve gone back and read it, I can now regret the 5 minutes of my life I’ll never get back that’s been wasted on that piece of emotive hogwash.

We've lost more soldiers in a pre-emptive war having nothing to do with 9/11, yet 9/11 was freqently referred to as justification for this war. It's amazing that the administration that thought this entire escapade in Iraq wouldn't take longer than a few months is now claiming that it's unpatriotic to suggest anything besides staying to face the rising casualty count of American soldiers as well as Iraqi citizens.

We get it. You don’t like the administration. That’s why you derail every thread you participate in with some smirking, smart-arsed jab at Bush & company.

Guess what? I don’t like the administration either, but I still take issue with bull-flop like this. If you think we should pull out, why don’t you make a case that doing so would be less of a disaster than staying? There are 25 million people in Iraq, tell us how plunging them into civil war is the right and moral thing to do.

I will support "staying the course" when Jenna and Barbara Jr. are patrolling the streets of Iraq like so many others their age.

And that would change what? How? Truly, this is more emotive garbage. We have a volunteer army, and unless you want a draft, I think it should stay that way. Do you disagree? Or can you think of a really good reason to put men’s lives under the command of drug-abusing flakes like Jenna and Barbara?

I know you're not talking about me, Mycroft. I have never show anything other than an overly-passionate concern for our soldiers, and the only political agenda I'll push is the reminder that we've let a solemn event silently pass. We've lost as many U.S. soldiers in Iraq, where they have no business fighting, as we lost in the WTC attack.

Let me be clear: I was talking about you. You and Calvin Woodward and anyone else who seeks, as you do, to hijack the death of this soldier and falsely claim it’s any different from the one that came before, or the one that will come after, simply because he’s numbered one higher than the number that died in 9/11.

The “solemn occasion” is the death of a human being, but you make him a number and nothing more.

 

[Mephisto]

I hadn’t read it at all, except for what you had quoted. Now that I’ve gone back and read it, I can now regret the 5 minutes of my life I’ll never get back that’s been wasted on that piece of emotive hogwash.

Oh brother! Like this wasn't being overly emotional.

We get it. You don’t like the administration. That’s why you derail every thread you participate in with some smirking, smart-arsed jab at Bush & company.

This is my thread and I haven't derailed it at all. Besides, who deserves smirking, smart-arsed jabs more than Bush? Okay, maybe you're right, more time should be given to Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Guess what? I don’t like the administration either, but I still take issue with bull-flop like this. If you think we should pull out, why don’t you make a case that doing so would be less of a disaster than staying? There are 25 million people in Iraq, tell us how plunging them into civil war is the right and moral thing to do.

For not liking the administration you sure seem to defend them a lot.

How could I make a case for pulling out when the only case that can positively be made is that losing 3,000 people a month to sectarian violence can ONLY be described as civil war. Maybe you could enlighten us all how invading a sovereign country NOT responsible for 9/11 is the "moral thing to do," in the first place.

And that would change what? How? Truly, this is more emotive garbage. We have a volunteer army, and unless you want a draft, I think it should stay that way. Do you disagree? Or can you think of a really good reason to put men’s lives under the command of drug-abusing flakes like Jenna and Barbara?

Who said they should command troops? Certainly their name doesn't qualify them to command anyone other than the secret service agents they're always trying to ditch. I think if the Bush girls were sharing the same dangers as many of the young women soldiers in Iraq, "stay the course," would seem less appealing to Bush.

Let me be clear: I was talking about you. You and Calvin Woodward and anyone else who seeks, as you do, to hijack the death of this soldier and falsely claim it’s any different from the one that came before, or the one that will come after, simply because he’s numbered one higher than the number that died in 9/11.

The death of THESE soldiers. I'm not hijacking a damn thing other than your wish that this event had passed quietly and without notice. People SHOULD know that we have lost as many soldiers in Iraq (where we have no business fighting) as we lost people during the WTC attacks on 9/11. If you're upset that I don't hesitate to blame Bush for their deaths, I'm happy to disappoint you.

The “solemn occasion” is the death of a human being, but you make him a number and nothing more.

No, YOU want him/her/them to be nothing more than numbers that would have passed without notice. Which brings me to the next question; how can the article be "emotive hogwash" AND reduce the deaths of these soldiers to numbers? That sounds contradictory. Oh, and as far as "making him a number and nothing more," you apparently didn't read the entire article carefully:

"Altogether, 3,031 have died abroad since Sept. 11, 2001.
The toll among Iraqi civilians hit a record high in the summer, with 6,599 violent deaths reported in July and August alone, the United Nations said this week.
Among the latest U.S. deaths identified by the armed forces:
_Army 2nd Lt. Emily J.T. Perez, 23, Fort Washington, Md., who died Sept. 12 in Kifl, Iraq, from an explosive device detonated near her vehicle. A former high school sprinter who sang in her West Point gospel choir, she was assigned to the 204th Support Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.
_Marine Sgt. Christopher M. Zimmerman, 28, Stephenville, Texas, killed Wednesday in Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C.

A new study on the war dead and where they come from suggests that the notion of "rich man's war, poor man's fight" has become a little truer over time. Among the Americans killed in the Iraq war, 34 percent have come from communities reporting the lowest levels of family income. Half come from middle income communities and only 17 percent from the highest income level."

 

[chulbert]

While 9/11 and Iraq remain unconnected by fact, the United States government has consistently connected them, implicitly and explicitly, in the minds of a majority of Americans. As such, I find it at least interesting that our "response to 9/11" has cost more lives than the incident itself.