Gravitymaster 0 #51 January 12, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Yep and even though it may help you feel better about your agenda by twisting the meaning of "Mission Accomplished" you are simply WRONG. Mission Accomplished was a comment on the work done by the troops on that particular ship. Not a comment on the war. If Bush had congratulated the troops who found SH with the same comment, would you interpet it the same way? I doubt it. Your skill at doublethink is strikingly Orwellian. I am fascinated by your ability to simultaneously accuse liberals of fact twisting while attempting to suggest that George's victory announcement with accompanying "Mission Accomplished" banners was something other than a proclamation of victory. Or perhaps these accusations of lies and spin are evidence of mere psychological projection? Now doesn't your response directly contradict that little mantra you like to publish whenever you get frustrated? Or are you getting ready to publish it again? I assume that you're referring to this: QuoteRegarding the "typical liberal" part ... well, do a search for the bit about what it does for one's credibility when one makes a post claiming that anybody is a typical anybody. I fail to see how I have contradicted myself, as I never called anyone a typical anyone. Rather, I suggested that it was in fact you (read: Gravitymaster) spinning the truth while accusing others of doing so. I can only read this diversionary tactic on your part as an attempt to do the same. Haven't you contradicted yourself by first claiming that liberals distort the truth, then accusing me of making a statement that I never made? For your assertation to have any validity, you would have to prove my statements were incorrect, which of course you can't do because it's only a difference ion opinion. Post that little angry rant about how hypocritical conservatives on this forum are. That way we can all see if you aren't the hypocrit. You know which one I'm talking about I'm sure. Never mind, I found part of it. QuoteHey Mikkey, don't forget "When using logic fails, try accusing the opposition of 'misdirection,' whatever the hell that means There we go. Isn't this what you said 2 weeks ago?? Isn't this what you JUST did? Doesn't that make you a hypocrite? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FliegendeWolf 0 #52 January 13, 2004 You have now evaded the same questions three times, so I'll answer them for you. Did George declare victory on May 1? Yes Have more casualties been sustained after George declared victory than there were before, and at a significantly higher rate? Yes Does this suggest that in fact the war did not end on May 1? Yes If George thereby jumped the gun on announcing victory, is it safe to infer that he did not have an exit plan? YESA One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,131 #53 January 13, 2004 QuoteYou have now evaded the same questions three times, so I'll answer them for you. Did George declare victory on May 1? Yes Have more casualties been sustained after George declared victory than there were before, and at a significantly higher rate? Yes Does this suggest that in fact the war did not end on May 1? Yes If George thereby jumped the gun on announcing victory, is it safe to infer that he did not have an exit plan? YES That's the simplest explanation I can think of that fits the facts. Doesn't require any spinning.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,095 #54 January 13, 2004 >The book is so much hogwash . . . Did you read it? I've found that many books I disagree with actually contain some good stuff (including Limbaugh's and Pollack's, but _not_ including Coulter's.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #55 January 13, 2004 QuoteDid George declare victory on May 1? Yes Have more casualties been sustained after George declared victory than there were before, and at a significantly higher rate? Yes Does this suggest that in fact the war did not end on May 1? Yes If George thereby jumped the gun on announcing victory, is it safe to infer that he did not have an exit plan? YES Um, not really, Wolfie. Sorry.... 1. Did President Bush declare Victory in Iraq on May 1? ~No, the speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln was on May 1, 2003. While he did say that major combat operations were concluded, at no point did he declare victory...transcript here. In pertinent part: Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. 2. Have more casualties been sustained after President Bush declared victory than there were before, and at a significantly higher rate? As President Bush did not declare victory, I am not sure your question is answerable as it stands. However, I do know what you mean. Let's look at this rationally, analytically, and use correct timing (and sadly, only available that I could find is US troops...nothing personal to our brethren who fight beside us daily all over the world): Mar. 20 ~ April 30: KIA:115 KIA(83%) Accident: 23(17%) ~~Total: 138 (11 days + 30 days = 41 days total time) May 1 ~ October 25: KIA:107 (52%) Accident:98 (48%) ~~Total: 205 (147 days total) Since that's a hard comparison, the data was also broken down into a "daily rate"... Mar 20 ~ April 30: KIA: 2.74 Accident: .55 Daily: 3.29 May 1~ October 25: KIA: .60 Accident: .55 Daily: 1.15 Now, one might argue that because of the difference in time, one is extrapolating badly, but if the claim is that more have been killed post May 1 v. prior, and a higher rate, that simply isn't true. (all data was taken from this site. (The article is well worth the read, BTW, but I was just using it for the number breakdown). I obtained only KIA, and not those who were injured (rather high), medically evac'd (which includes pregnancies/gynological issues, dental issues, and phychiatric evac's...) and suicides are also not included. (I'm going for apples to apples, you know?) 3. Does this suggest that in fact the war did not end on May 1? There was no declaration of victory made on May 1, and thus one cannot conclude that something "ended" when if fact it had not been declared. The question is unanswerable. 4. If President Bush thereby jumped the gun on announcing victory, is it safe to infer that he did not have an exit plan? As he has yet to announce victory, I do believe the question is moot. I will agree, however, that there may not have been the appropriate planning in place to satisfy all people of everything, but I have yet to be able to satisfy everyone about everything on anything I do. The plans are proceeding apace, and I look forward to the day we can safely turn over power to the local Iraqi government, and gradually decrease our assistence. That will truly be a wonderful day, for all involved. And now I shall shut up.... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,131 #56 January 13, 2004 Michele, you are SPINNING like a top.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #57 January 13, 2004 QuoteDid you read it? I've found that many books I disagree with actually contain some good stuff (including Limbaugh's and Pollack's, but _not_ including Coulter's.) Nope, I suspect it is so much hogwash based on the premise of the book, which I found to be factually incorrect. I also haven't read Pollack, can't stand Limbaugh, and haven't bothered with Coulter's, either. When I spend money on books, I am very careful on what I buy. Good stuff can generally be found as raw information somewhere on the web, and because there is no spin, it's easier for me to learn from it without having to purge it for political rhetoric (irrespective of party). Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #58 January 13, 2004 QuoteIn the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. That sort of looks like someone was saying GAME OVER.. we won. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #59 January 13, 2004 Quote Michele, you are SPINNING like a top. No, that was the jump I did at the end of the day on Saturday....man, that was funny!!! You didn't bother to look at the data, did you? Between the time I posted, and the time you responded, you had no time to consider what I posted. Since you've dismissed it out of hand, I shall do the same with your comment...."poof". Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflydrew 0 #60 January 13, 2004 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/01/12/national2022EST0762.DTL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Army War College article says invasion of Iraq was 'strategic error' BOB JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer Monday, January 12, 2004 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (01-12) 17:22 PST MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) -- A report published by the Army War College calls the Bush administration's war on terrorism unfocused and says the invasion of Iraq was "a strategic error." The research paper by Jeffrey Record, a professor at the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, said the president's strategy "promises much more than it can deliver" and threatens to spread U.S. military resources too thin. Record also wrote that Saddam Hussein's Iraq did not present a threat to the United States and was a distraction from the war on terrorism. Record is a visiting professor at the Army War College at Carlisle Barracks, Pa. The paper was published last month by the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute. Lt. Col. Merideth Bucher, public affairs officer for the Army War College, said Monday it is not unusual for students, mostly higher ranking officers, at the war college to be exposed to critical thought that might be contrary to current national policy. She said students are often exposed to speakers with varying views. The director of the Strategic Studies Institute, Douglas Lovelace Jr., said it was originally founded by President Dwight Eisenhower to take a critical independent analysis of military issues from an academic perspective. "Dr. Record is a noted national security specialist. It's not at all at odds for us to analyze a given mission and arrive at a conclusion that seems at odds with national policy," Lovelace said. He said in the past the institute has released studies analyzing U.S. policy in Haiti, Afghanistan and other hot spots. Record could not be reached immediately for comment Monday through Army public affairs offices and he did not immediately respond to e-mails from The Associated Press. He is the author of six books and is a former legislative assistant for national security affairs to Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Georgia, and former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, D-Texas. Record's report concludes that the war on terrorism is too widespread and should focus on al-Qaeda and other terrorist threats to the United States. "The United States may be able to defeat al-Qaeda, but it cannot rid the world of terrorism, much less evil," Record writes. Interesting... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #61 January 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteIn the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. That sort of looks like someone was saying GAME OVER.. we won. Keep spinning them......nice job."According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #62 January 13, 2004 QuoteInteresting... I agree! Interesting.... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #63 January 13, 2004 I read an article in an April '01 edition of The New Yorker Magazine that reported "a faction in the administration is pressing for an invasion of Iraq". That and numerous media quotes that on 9-11 Dick Cheney burst forth with, "So does this move the Iraq thing onto the front burner ?" at a Cabinet meeting. The idea of invading Iraq goes back to the same people in this administration who were around during the reign of George I. But daddy was at least smart enough to squelch them, he had a better grasp of the hornets' nest it would stir up. Jr. has no comprehension of anything and more than his share of obsessions. And it is an obsession; the insistence on ignoring intelligence he doesn't want to hear, fabricating false intelligence from unreliable sources to back his position, and just plain old fashioned LYING. We're paying for it now, with blood and with taxes. Just wait 'til the interest rates go up... Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiverRick 0 #64 January 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteIn the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. That sort of looks like someone was saying GAME OVER.. we won. Who was the someone that said game over? never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkydiverRick 0 #65 January 13, 2004 QuoteQuote Michele, you are SPINNING like a top. No, that was the jump I did at the end of the day on Saturday....man, that was funny!!! You didn't bother to look at the data, did you? Between the time I posted, and the time you responded, you had no time to consider what I posted. Since you've dismissed it out of hand, I shall do the same with your comment...."poof". Ciels- Michele Just another one of Kallend's drive-by's. never pull low......unless you are Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #66 January 13, 2004 QuoteJust another one of Kallend's drive-by's. LMAO"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #67 January 13, 2004 Quote 2. Have more casualties been sustained after President Bush declared victory than there were before, and at a significantly higher rate? As President Bush did not declare victory, I am not sure your question is answerable as it stands. However, I do know what you mean. Let's look at this rationally, analytically, and use correct timing (and sadly, only available that I could find is US troops...nothing personal to our brethren who fight beside us daily all over the world): Mar. 20 ~ April 30: KIA:115 KIA(83%) Accident: 23(17%) ~~Total: 138 (11 days + 30 days = 41 days total time) May 1 ~ October 25: KIA:107 (52%) Accident:98 (48%) ~~Total: 205 (147 days total) Since that's a hard comparison, the data was also broken down into a "daily rate"... Mar 20 ~ April 30: KIA: 2.74 Accident: .55 Daily: 3.29 May 1~ October 25: KIA: .60 Accident: .55 Daily: 1.15 Now, one might argue that because of the difference in time, one is extrapolating badly, but if the claim is that more have been killed post May 1 v. prior, and a higher rate, that simply isn't true. (all data was taken from this site. (The article is well worth the read, BTW, but I was just using it for the number breakdown). I obtained only KIA, and not those who were injured (rather high), medically evac'd (which includes pregnancies/gynological issues, dental issues, and phychiatric evac's...) and suicides are also not included. (I'm going for apples to apples, you know?) I have in front of me a copy of the Austin American-Statesman dated January 11, 2004. The article is from AP so is probably available elsewhere. It indicates 479 American military service members died in Iraq in 2003. With November (after your numbers) being the deadliest month with 82 as compared to 73 in April during major combat operations. 2/3 during the counterinsurgency phase and 1/3 killed during major combat operations. An additional 2,380 were injured in hostile action and 378 in non-hostile situations. Seems to me the war part was safer. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #68 January 13, 2004 Thanks Michele. My fingers get tired when I'm typing on a rock. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #69 January 13, 2004 LOL, Newsie. QuoteThe article is from AP so is probably available elsewhere Can you search/link it for me? It didn't come up when I ran my search earlier. I did not intentionally leave out November - I could only find the numbers as of October. That's the basis for my statement. Additionally, I did not include accidents as KIA, nor suicides (which seem to be higher). Further, the data did not count injuries in the place I linked. It was strictly KIA/KIA, Accident/Accident (death), I would be interested in seeing the numbers according to "battle" v. "insurgency attacks". Like in Viet Nam, one of the best ways to attack an organized force is via ambush, or IED. What I find interesting is the number of arrests, the slowing of insurgent attacks, and some sort of comparison between the "before/after" date of May 1. Should be interesting. It's very easy to say this is right, that is right, the other thing is right. I'd like to see numbers without spin; I can make my own mind up. I'd appreciate your linking the article you referenced. Quote Thanks Michele. My fingers get tired when I'm typing on a rock Thankfully, I don't have to type on a rock...you're welcome, GM. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,095 #70 January 13, 2004 >Nope, I suspect it is so much hogwash based on the premise of the book . . . Hmm. I think I'd be more inclined to take your opinion of the book seriously if you had read it. But that's just me. >Good stuff can generally be found as raw information somewhere >on the web, and because there is no spin . . So a book has spin, but opinions of it do not? There's a short story out there called "the machine stops." It's an absolutely fascinating piece - it talks about "the perils of direct experience," how an opinion on the Net based on another's opinion of yet a third opinion is in a way more valid than an opinion based on direct experience. From the book: -------------------------------------- 'Beware of first-hand ideas!' exclaimed one of the most advanced of them. 'First-hand ideas do not really exist. They are but the physical impressions produced by life and fear, and on this gross foundation who could erect a philosophy? Let your ideas be second-hand, and if possible tenth-hand, for then they will be far removed from that disturbing element - direct observation. Do not learn anything about this subject of mine - the French Revolution. Learn instead what I think that Enicharmon thought Urizen thought Gutch thought Ho-Yung thought Chi-Bo-Sing thought Lafcadio Hearn thought Carlyle thought Mirabeau said about the French Revolution. Through the medium of these ten great minds, the blood that was shed at Paris and the windows that were broken at Versailles will be clarified to an idea which you may employ most profitably in your daily lives.' --------------------------------------- This book also talks about how it was inevitable that we give up supersonic airliners, that the world would shrink not from the great speeds those airliners could achieve but from the immediacy of communication the Web provides. And the most fascinating part of that book? It was written in 1909. (that's not a typo.) http://plexus.org/forster/index.html And now that I've left the original topic far behind . . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #71 January 13, 2004 QuoteHmm. I think I'd be more inclined to take your opinion of the book seriously if you had read it. But that's just me. You're more than welcome to not take me seriously, Bill. You often don't. I'm used to it, so it's no issue...and no insult. My statement stands. When someone writes a book, and alleges there were plans to invade Iraq when Bush took office - but conveniently leaves out the 1998 Congressional Declaration and subsequent Clinton acceptance of said premise of regime change, then I do not think my hard earned $27 dollars should be spent on something like that. If it were based in truth, if it were based in reality, and if he weren't someone who is now being investigated for leaking secret documents on the 20/20 show, then I'd consider it. I do not have lots of money to spend on bookbuying. I am a cautious consumer...and a careful one. The last book I bought because of hype was "The Da Vinci Code", and found that to be a tripefest at best...and I don't like making mistakes like that. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,095 #73 January 13, 2004 >When someone writes a book, and alleges there were plans to > invade Iraq when Bush took office - but conveniently leaves out the > 1998 Congressional Declaration and subsequent Clinton acceptance > of said premise of regime change, then I do not think my hard > earned $27 dollars should be spent on something like that. ?? You mean perhaps people think that, say, Rumsfeld was running the country before Bush? If there were plans to invade Iraq when Bush took office, there were plans to invade Iraq when Clinton left office. In any case, let me recommend a few more books that might give a more 'fair and balanced' (i.e. conservative) view. They occasionally leave out things on the other side (like our military support of Hussein in the 1980's) but I would assume such omissions are more acceptable. Overall they're pretty good. Bush at War, Bob Woodward The Threatening Storm - the case for invading Iraq, Ken Pollack Iraq - In the Eye of the Storm, Dilip Hiro Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #74 January 13, 2004 I tried searching the AAS archives and can't find it there. You can buy an electronic copy at newsstand.com. "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #75 January 13, 2004 QuoteIn any case, let me recommend a few more books that might give a more 'fair and balanced' (i.e. conservative) view. They occasionally leave out things on the other side (like our military support of Hussein in the 1980's) but I would assume such omissions are more acceptable. Overall they're pretty good. Bush at War, Bob Woodward The Threatening Storm - the case for invading Iraq, Ken Pollack Iraq - In the Eye of the Storm, Dilip Hiro How about this.... Since you seem to have read them, why not bring them to the DZ the next time we're at the same place at the same time, and I'll borrow them from you? Again, I don't tend to buy books like that...and you really shouldn't assume what is acceptable reading material, or which "slant" I tend to prefer. And why not include this book in it, as you seem to have already read it (you have read it, haven't you? If not, perhaps I shouldn't take you seriously either, as that seems to be your litmus test for opinions here....).... As to the thought about raw data, I was referring to the actual speeches rather than someone's opinion of them. Et cetera. If I cannot find raw data, I will use something (ala the numbers chart) which is about as clean as I can find. Newsie, sorry you can't find that article. I don't have the money to purchase that, so if you have the time, scan it in or something. It would be interesting. The chart did not contain November/December numbers.... Overall, my point remains. When Clinton and the 105 Congress had already adopted a regime change attitude, one can reasonably expect that the Bush administration inherited plans to invade. Thus, when one takes into account the author's history, the timing, and the flurry of media around it, I should think it's no more than a tempest in a tea pot, designed to ruffle the feathers of those who have a predetermined notion of Bush and his administration, cuase a media uproar, and create some issues. When one researchs the topic, it is apparent that something else went on. Based on that, a jump ticket and a pack job is not worth the book... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
