Our stake in this is too esoteric, too far past our nose to do anything about it except wring our collective hands. Now if it had consequences payable on your annual income tax, there might be some real public outcry and action.

Imagine if everyone that voted had to pay a larger percent based on their candidate of choices’ decisions in office, and not voting at all meant you automatically “voted” for whoever won.

Perhaps they would ask that candidate to make good on his campaign party promises. Perhaps they would consider more closely how they want their candidate to spend “their money” instead of “everyones money”. They might, instead of crying for blood, start crying for better healthcare, greener solutions instead of pollution or any number of more positive causes.

The system would be self-correcting.

From my experience, most of my fellow Americans consider themselves good, honest citizens. The good guys. If you gave them a choice that required more thought than a quick political soundbite that they held up like a yardstick to their own fears of security, one that affected what they would pay, and how the money would be used, I think the decision would be different.

Imagine this decision is represented by a few of those donation checkboxes (like we see on ballots and our water bill):

Please check how you wish your tax funds to be allocated –

Check Here ___ Candidate A

• reduce pollution by holding manufacturers to higher emission standards
• decrease use of oil by moving to alternate energy vehicles quickly
• increase tax cuts for the poor and middle class to decrease the wealth gap
• increase taxes to provide better education of our young people
• increase taxes to eradicate hunger and homelessness in our country

Check Here ___ Candidate B

• increase taxes to finance multiple wars with nations who we consider a threat
• increase tax cuts for the wealthiest 15% of our citizens to spur spending (trickle down)
• decrease emission controls for manufacturing to lower prices of material goods
• reduce the EPA / other gov’t watchdog agencies to save money by letting the corporations police themselves
• increase taxes to buy more arms and nuclear weapons to fight multiple wars

So I ask you, if you knew up front what the very real and immediate cost was, (and that it would be hitting your pocketbook the same year, hard) would you rather spend your money on building your nation or tearing down someone else’s (based on fear)? And if your candidate of choice did the opposite he or she promised, would you re-hire them next term?

I wonder.

Best to just label them as a blind, insane, destructive and faith-based cult !!!

This is not a response to anyone in particular, but rather a thought that has been in my mind for some time. I need to get this out.

I find it rather pathetic that we seem to place such little value on life – from the soldiers from the US, Canada, and other countries both in Iraq and Afganistan, to the lives of soldiers and others who are “the enemy”, and to innocent citizens caught in the middle of all of this violence. Multiply one death by a spouse, children, parents, brothers, sisters, and I am probably not far wrong in saying that for every life given up in this cause, whatever the cause really is, there are likely at least 10 other lives severely and forever negatively impacted as the direct result of the death of one person.

I can speak with direct knowledge of this, because one of our employees had a son killed recently in Afganistan, and I have seen first hand, the hurt and pain that has been forever inflicted on this family. It is not pretty.

When I see this up close and personally, it puts the value of a life in a whole new light for me. Was it cause worth it? Does this death bring a solition to the conflict just that much closer? Each of us should answer this question in their own mind and rethink the whole idea of armed conflict.

My answer is NO – what a pathetic, useless waste of life!

Actually, that’s the definition of rejecting the premise of the quesiton. My whole point is that WE don’t get to make the decisions as to how many Iraqis get to die for our preferred level of government. We don’t get to chose what’s an acceptable death toll.

Secondly, you wrote “That comes from the fact that you believe your opinion about the war in Iraq to be more valid then someone as qualified as Patraeous.”

You haven’t read a word I’ve written have you? Read over what I said again (I’ve said it twice now) and you’ll have your answer to this question. Start with my most recent post about the fallatiousness of this line of reasoning and then work your way back.

Thirdly, you wrote “And I dare say, most Iraqis wouldn’t want that either.”

Seeing as how you’ve not even bothered to read what I point you to, there seems little point in going on. I’ll save you the trouble of doing all the pesky reading I pointed you to in my previous post: You’re wrong. Read the data. A growing MAJORITY of Iraqis what you gone and do not support your continued presence in their country. Neither I nor them need a history lesson as to what the Baath Party did to them in order for you to justify your country’s continued presence. And moreover, Iraqis most certainly do not need to be told how incapable they are of coming to the correct conclusion on this matter from somebody who’s now misspelled “Bathe Party” (it’s supposed to be “Baath” or “Ba’ath Party”) twice.

I also liked how you slipped in the “Even if they are true” with regards to statistics you never even bothered to read.

Lastly, since I have finally gotten you to admit that I used the best, most reliable sources for my post, I am pleased that you have finally surrendered your initial criticisms of my sources.

Do you have anything else of substance pertaining to the subject matter of this thread to address? Or do you want to go around in circles over items we’ve already discussed some more?

Moreover, if you DO have anything else of substance pertaining to the subject matter of this thread, answer me this: Is it even worth the time of me pointing you to the evidence you ask for seeing as how recent experience demonstrates that you’re simply not going to read it anyways?

If the answer is no, then we truly are done here.

Look, we are arguing apple and oranges. It isn’t just about killing efficiently–its also about managing the rebuilding of the countries infrastructure, training their security forces, and judging when and how to make our exit. Patraeous is qualified to do that. If America doesn’t see noticeable decline in violence, and progress as far as government, security, etc goes, after Patraeous executes his plan, then I’ll be the first to agree with you that the U.S should exit.

And I already told you, you know I’m not going to produce any other stats or surveys that you haven’t already seen! Stop asking me for one! Even if the numbers are true, does that justify immediate pull out? I think no, you think yes.

This is what I said that I felt wasn’t responded to:

“Suppose it takes 6 more years, and Iraq’s government and economic infrastructure is is developed and functional and they become a wealthy, independent nation. Would that be a bad thing? If it takes 1 life to have a nation of 50 million achieve that, is the price too high? What about 100, or 1000, or 1,000,000. At what point is the price too high? At Iraq’s estimate of 70k civilians? Or at Les Roberts 655k? Are both too high? How do you measure the value of 50 million free Iraq’s trading and participating in the free market? Or the value of 50 million people no longer living in fear, who couldn’t leave the country if they wanted to, had very little outside media, and who were controlled, town by town by the bathe party? (and yes, every town we went through, thats how it was. People lived like animals, and the bathe party had houses that were well furnished, electricity, and running water. They controlled all weapons, and food from the U.N. These people we arrested)”

This is how you responded to that paragraph: “B) your second question about the future of Iraq is patronizingly authoritarian in its assumption that you and only you know what is best for the country of Iraq, ergo I reject the very premise of the question altogether”

Do you really think that the U.S would be sticking around this long if Iraq would work out splendidly? You can’t simply avoid my questions because you reject the premise. The question was fairly simple: What price is worth paying for a country of 50 million living free and joining the world community?

Also, on what logical grounds does the U.S take action based on those stats of 78%? Even if they are true, that Iraqis have been subjected, force to live in fear of the bathe party, and now after the U.S invasion, subjected to internal strife. Their logic is reasonable, but simple–this wasn’t happening until the U.S came, so if they leave things will get better. Are you saying that the situation will really improve if the U.S leaves immediately? Well Paul, as much as you disagree with U.S policy, we can’t leave just yet. Not while it would be an easy target for Iran and terrorist factions to take hold of. And I dare say, most Iraqis wouldn’t want that either.

If did believe that nobody could question me or if I didn’t want people questioning me, I wouldn’t host a blog where people like you can guzzle up my time left right and centre. Seriously, why would I have responded to all of these comments by you if nobody was allowed to question me? Isn’t that just a bit rich?

Secondly, I did answer your questions, honestly and forthrightly. Read the response again if you don’t believe me.

Lastly, you are arguing in circles again when you appeal to the authority of General Patreous. Now, generally speaking, an appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy, but the appeal has to be based on the proper grounds. The grounds of my critique are moral and statistical. Ergo, your appeal to Patraeous on strategic grounds IS fallatious.

Seriously, Armando, we’ve been over this before. Remember when I said that I was quite certain that General Patraeous and the U.S. military can kill Iraqis more efficiently than I could? Remember when I volunteered that point and it had no bearing whatsoever on my argument?

I do.

If you’ve nothing left to argue against my original post such that you’re resorting now to arguing in circles, then please don’t waste my time. I’ve responded to all of this already. If, on the other hand, you have something new and of substance or if you come up with that better, more thorough and more reliable survey that I’ve asked now 7 times for, then please do present it to me.

Oh my, this sounds like its right out of fairy tale book. They want to know what California is like? The internet? Surely you have to be embarrassed even to say this, and if you’re not, you should be.”

…say what you will, I was there, as a U.S Marine infantryman in 2003 and that was my personal experience. Thanks for calling it a fairy tale though. I’m sure you know much better than I.

So you interject a post in the middle of me and Paul just to say you wont respond if I reply? I think Paul is more than capable of handling this discussion without your hit and run comments.

And no, others have not been patient–just Paul.

And now back to Paul.

Ah, but you still didn’t respond to the big picture of Iraq. Apparently none of that should come into play when these decisions should be made I guess.

And as to my contention for pulling out being unfair, I already told you why it could be very reasonable to not make a decisions purely based on a survey done on people who are in a very bad situation. What I said was very reasonable and was nowhere near the “height of arrogance” But hey, apparently you are a better judge of the situation then Gen. Patraeous, right? I mean, if Paul says we should pull out immediately, who is anyone to question Paul?

Firstly, I never called you brainwashed. I have, however said that you demonstrate an alarming trust for your government’s statements without ever having read the documentary record yourself. And, what is more, everytime I have asserted this fact, I have backed it up with your own words.

Secondly, you write “And no, I won’t look up documentary record of aid to Khmer Rouge. You are the accuser, thats your job. I don’t need to prove innocence. You have to prove guilt.”

You claim to want to engage in a rational debate, but then you violently eschew reading something for yourself? Never have I met anybody who is so opposed to learning about something.

I’m not here to waste time accusing the U.S. of supporting the Khmer Rouge. The accusation doesn’t need to be made — and it most certainly doesn’t need to be made by a Canadian socialist. I was merely informing you of the fact of the U.S. support for the Khmer Rouge in the hopes that you would bother to be slightly interested in learning something and do a little research on your own. There’s plenty to read on the subject for anybody who’s interested in doing so and I have already pointed you to sources several posts ago which you may find interesting. These sources do discuss, among other things, U.S. support for the Khmer Rouge. Specifically, I recommend ‘A People’s History of the United States’ by Zinn as I found it to be an easy read.

As for your continued contention that “It would be unfair to them to pull out now.” Please explain to me what in your experience makes you so omniscient that you get to say what is and is not good for Iraqis? Your contention that you know more about what is good for the Iraqis than Iraqis do is the height of arrogance.

You are, however, right that I did not answer your two questions. I did not answer them because:

A) you have exhausted your critique of my original post and have now veered dramatically off the topic of this thread and onto subjects which, by your own admission on two different occasions, you have little knowledge about. Moreover, you have demonstrated little interest in building upon your knowledge of this subjects when presented with the opportunity.

and;

B) your second question about the future of Iraq is patronizingly authoritarian in its assumption that you and only you know what is best for the country of Iraq, ergo I reject the very premise of the question altogether. And your first question makes use of a false dichotomy which, even if it weren’t a fallacy, would still be overly simplistic. No, I never said that American soldiers directly killed every Iraqi casualty. I took the numbers from the Les Roberts survey and from various NGOs for the portion of the fatalities pertaining to the sanctions imposed during the 1990s. All sources acknowledge that these fatalities were CAUSED by the U.S. involvement in their country which does not mean that all of these fatalities were caused by U.S. bullets. For instance, if a guy fills a house with radioactive material (and ironically enough, since you’re the only country which uses depleted uranium in your munitions, this isn’t far from what your country’s actually doing) and then stuffs 100 people into it, what happens? Of course, they all die, but he could stand there and honestly say that HE didn’t kill them: it was the radiation that killed them.

America’s soldiers don’t have to have personally fired a bullet into the heads of 650 thousand Iraqis for America to have CAUSED these deaths. Nobody is saying that U.S. soldiers personally killed all of these Iraqis. Not me. Not Roberts’ survey. Not Unicef. Not any of the other NGOs I employed. However the U.S., according to the best statistical evidence to date, did CAUSE 650 thousand Iraqis to die since the invasion began.

If you dispute this fact, I will for one final time (which is the seventh time now, I think?) ask you to present to me a better, more thorough and far-reaching survey of the Iraqi populace with EPSEM standards than Roberts’ survey.

You are a real piece of work. Yes, you are the tenacious pit-bull who will never give up, always seemingly to need the last word.

You quote “I’m saying is that what I described for Iraq’s future would benefit everyone, and I really do believe thats what America, and it’s leaders, would like to see happen.”

Wow, what a profound statement. Who does the USA think they are to dictate what is best for some other country? Some other country should just accept what America thinks is good for them? Surely you dont think they are that stupid?. I wouldn’t give you a damn nickle for American-style democracy and the way the US government is run…high deficits, corruption running rampant, low education standards, and on and on it goes. Be truthful with yourself. America went after Iraq for control of its oil. Period. Nothing more, and nothing less. Not weapons of mass distruction, not to find the terrorists to destroyed buildings of the WTC. Its the oil.

You also say “It’s also what the Iraqis would like to see happen. When we first came in there, the kids would mob us and they would want to know if we had the internet, and what was California like.”

Oh my, this sounds like its right out of fairy tale book. They want to know what California is like? The internet? Surely you have to be embarrassed even to say this, and if you’re not, you should be.

You quote “We went to Iraq for strategic reasons (Iran is between Iraq and Afgansistan)”.

Strategic reasons? I thought they went there because they were after the WMDs.

You quote ” and to help people at the same time.”

Help people? Really? Was the USA invited in by the Iraqi people for help? Help to do what? Paulitics got it right when he said you have bought into the BS (yes, hook, line, and sinker), that your government has been feeding the good citizens of the USA. The government is relying on the fact that, on the whole, people in your country generally are not prepared to think independently and critically, and they therefore blindly accept that what the goverment says, must therefore be the gospel truth. I prefer to think of this as the people of the USA have been “hood-winked” by their own government.

And finally, I expect that you will fire back a response to this. I won’t respond further to any comments you make, because I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into an opened ended, never ending verbal battle with some one who appears to have a closed mind on this whole Iraq situation. Others have shown remarkable patience to respond to your numerous and lengthy remarks. No one seems to be able to get thru to you. I wont even attempt to.