Comments on: Slow Bleed http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/ Thu, 08 Jan 2009 16:15:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: 90322ee28d8d http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-590565 90322ee28d8d Mon, 12 May 2008 03:03:00 +0000 http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-590565 <strong>90322ee28d8d...</strong> 90322ee28d8da5cc193c... 90322ee28d8d…

90322ee28d8da5cc193c…

]]> By: grouch http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-326918 grouch Mon, 19 Feb 2007 02:43:28 +0000 http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-326918 richard is worse than a enema. did monica swallow? it's okay for clinton to be wrong but not bush? remember that clinton did bomb (actually cruise missles) sudan which did prove out that they were not manufacturing wmd; all to draw attention away from monica swallowing or not. would that qualify as an "empty gesture" ? and please do not forget the "W-80" debacle, whereas china stole our (usa) thermonuclear documents.....we ain't heard the last of that yet. that was also during billy's tenure. not to mention sandy stealing top secret documents, supposedly destroying them, and getting off with a "slap on the wrist".....if a regular grunt had done that he would be serving life at hard labor at leavenworth. richard is worse than a enema. did monica swallow? it’s okay for clinton to be wrong but not bush? remember that clinton did bomb (actually cruise missles) sudan which did prove out that they were not manufacturing wmd; all to draw attention away from monica swallowing or not. would that qualify as an “empty gesture” ?
and please do not forget the “W-80″ debacle, whereas china stole our (usa) thermonuclear documents…..we ain’t heard the last of that yet. that was also during billy’s tenure. not to mention sandy stealing top secret documents, supposedly destroying them, and getting off with a “slap on the wrist”…..if a regular grunt had done that he would be serving life at hard labor at leavenworth.

]]> By: Michael Turner http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-325604 Michael Turner Sun, 18 Feb 2007 07:20:24 +0000 http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-325604 Balter writes: "I do not believe that the American presence in Iraq is saving Iraqi lives, or else I would be in favor of our staying." Well, good. That means we might have a test of this statement coming up over the next six months or so. If the surge significantly reduces the deaths of noncombatants in Baghdad (even if it also increases our casualty rate somewhat), we should see Michael Balter reverse his position on the war and call for a dramatic troop increases to replicate something like this success wherever possible elsewhere in Iraq. I haven't paid a whole lot of attention to the details of the surge (which it turns out is closer to Kagan's 50,000 than we we given to believe). I'm now giving it a 60% chance of becoming something that the Bush administration can deceptively portray as at least a qualified success, and about a 40% chance of actually being a true success by any objective measure. Much hinges on whether Sunni Arab insurgents and the Maliki government respond by showing more willingness to deal. Much also hinges on whether the Bush administration would just as soon "reploy", only *apparently* under pressure from Congress, while still walking away with enough of a "coulda-won" case to be able to castigate the Dems for "losing Iraq" in 2008. rlc writes: "... criticizing the Clenis ..." Whoa, dude, did you really just write that? It makes a former First Couple sound like the result of botched sex-reassignment surgery. Balter writes: “I do not believe that the American presence in Iraq is saving Iraqi lives, or else I would be in favor of our staying.”

Well, good. That means we might have a test of this statement coming up over the next six months or so. If the surge significantly reduces the deaths of noncombatants in Baghdad (even if it also increases our casualty rate somewhat), we should see Michael Balter reverse his position on the war and call for a dramatic troop increases to replicate something like this success wherever possible elsewhere in Iraq.

I haven’t paid a whole lot of attention to the details of the surge (which it turns out is closer to Kagan’s 50,000 than we we given to believe). I’m now giving it a 60% chance of becoming something that the Bush administration can deceptively portray as at least a qualified success, and about a 40% chance of actually being a true success by any objective measure. Much hinges on whether Sunni Arab insurgents and the Maliki government respond by showing more willingness to deal. Much also hinges on whether the Bush administration would just as soon “reploy”, only *apparently* under pressure from Congress, while still walking away with enough of a “coulda-won” case to be able to castigate the Dems for “losing Iraq” in 2008.

rlc writes: “… criticizing the Clenis …”

Whoa, dude, did you really just write that? It makes a former First Couple sound like the result of botched sex-reassignment surgery.

]]> By: richard locicero http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-324730 richard locicero Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:15:24 +0000 http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-324730 Grouch demonstrates that politcians of all stripes can be wrong, if not craven. But he forgets one important detail. Not only did Clinton NOT invade Iraq he also did not fund that sill "Iraq Liberation Act." It amazes me that people who are alsways criticizing the Clenis for empty gestures don't recognize this as one of the emptiest. Grouch demonstrates that politcians of all stripes can be wrong, if not craven. But he forgets one important detail. Not only did Clinton NOT invade Iraq he also did not fund that sill “Iraq Liberation Act.” It amazes me that people who are alsways criticizing the Clenis for empty gestures don’t recognize this as one of the emptiest.

]]> By: Michael Balter http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-324184 Michael Balter Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:00:02 +0000 http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-324184 "You can see something like this psychology at work when Michael Balter, out of a desire to “do something”, out of some supremely self-assured “moral” imperative, posts lists of American casualties." Turner has now referred several times to my posting of the names of the dead, in a context and with the implication that I care more about American deaths than Iraqi deaths. This is nonsense, and I think most other people here know it. Nowhere are the names of the Iraqi dead listed that I know about, and if they are, I will link to them here every day as well--just let me know. I post the names because sometimes facing squarely the death of one real person with a name is the most effective way to show the human cost of a war. I do not believe that the American presence in Iraq is saving Iraqi lives, or else I would be in favor of our staying. I hope that is clear enough to prevent Turner from misrepresenting my views in the future. “You can see something like this psychology at work when Michael Balter, out of a desire to “do something”, out of some supremely self-assured “moral” imperative, posts lists of American casualties.”

Turner has now referred several times to my posting of the names of the dead, in a context and with the implication that I care more about American deaths than Iraqi deaths. This is nonsense, and I think most other people here know it. Nowhere are the names of the Iraqi dead listed that I know about, and if they are, I will link to them here every day as well–just let me know. I post the names because sometimes facing squarely the death of one real person with a name is the most effective way to show the human cost of a war. I do not believe that the American presence in Iraq is saving Iraqi lives, or else I would be in favor of our staying. I hope that is clear enough to prevent Turner from misrepresenting my views in the future.

]]> By: Michael Turner http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-324061 Michael Turner Sat, 17 Feb 2007 05:04:43 +0000 http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-324061 reg writes: "Jim R - I would like for you to remind me of a single thing that Bush has put forward as a rationale for this war that has proven, in reality, to be worth the life of even ONE of our young soldiers." I'm sure the best he'll be able to offer is "we fight them over there so we won't have to fight them over here." A line that many families who have lost a child over there will recite, believe it or not. They truly believe Iraq is an issue of national defense, among other things. "(A useful context would be to imagine that one fatal casualty as your kid…) " Useful in some sense. You might want to read this: www.livescience.com/humanbiology/070216_genocide_interest.html --- "We go all out to save a single identified victim, be it a person or an animal, but as the numbers increase, we level off," Slovic said. "We don't feel any different to say 88 people dying than we do to 87. This is a disturbing model, because it means that lives are not equal, and that as problems become bigger we become insensitive to the prospect of additional deaths." [....] Slovic previously studied this phenomenon by presenting photographs to a group of subjects. In the first photograph eight children needed $300,000 to receive medical attention in order to save their lives. In the next photograph, one child needed $300,000 for medical bills. Most subjects were willing to donate to the one and not the group of children. ---- We comfort ourselves with the idea that we truly believe every single human life is equally, and infinitely, valuable. But that is more preached than practiced. I'd like to see a poll that poses one of the more serious issues we now face in the following way. "You believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and that several serious mistakes were made in the occupation as well. However, if there were even 1 chance in 3 that staying in Iraq would prevent the outbreak of greater violence that might take millions of lives, would you be in favor of persisting?" The above-linked report suggests a truly odd paradox: if you gave the pollees on photograph of one "collateral damage" child victim of the violence, they'd be more likely to say "yes" than if you showed them an entire wall of such photos. You can see something like this psychology at work when Michael Balter, out of a desire to "do something", out of some supremely self-assured "moral" imperative, posts lists of American casualties. We don't know these people, but their names sound like those of kids we went to high school with, and the names of their hometowns often ring a bell -- perhaps we've seen those towns on highway signs, or even driven through on of them once. There's more in that for us to relate to than a news report that says 55 were killed by a terrorist's bomb in a market square in Iraq, while another report says it was 65. 55, 65 -- what's the difference? Maybe if I go to the polls in the next election, and push the right buttons along with enough other people, I can get this kind of numbingly bad news pushed down to page 10, or even out of the paper entirely because it will no longer be very newsworthy if we're no longer involved as a nation. And I'll feel good about myself, because I will have saved *American* lives. If it turns out that my vote was part of letting the fuse continue to burn on some bigger bomb, well ... nobody knows how I voted. And it was all other people's fault anyway, right? reg writes: “Jim R - I would like for you to remind me of a single thing that Bush has put forward as a rationale for this war that has proven, in reality, to be worth the life of even ONE of our young soldiers.”

I’m sure the best he’ll be able to offer is “we fight them over there so we won’t have to fight them over here.” A line that many families who have lost a child over there will recite, believe it or not. They truly believe Iraq is an issue of national defense, among other things.

“(A useful context would be to imagine that one fatal casualty as your kid…) ”

Useful in some sense. You might want to read this:

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/070216_genocide_interest.html

—
“We go all out to save a single identified victim, be it a person or an animal, but as the numbers increase, we level off,” Slovic said. “We don’t feel any different to say 88 people dying than we do to 87. This is a disturbing model, because it means that lives are not equal, and that as problems become bigger we become insensitive to the prospect of additional deaths.”

[....]

Slovic previously studied this phenomenon by presenting photographs to a group of subjects. In the first photograph eight children needed $300,000 to receive medical attention in order to save their lives. In the next photograph, one child needed $300,000 for medical bills.

Most subjects were willing to donate to the one and not the group of children.
—-

We comfort ourselves with the idea that we truly believe every single human life is equally, and infinitely, valuable. But that is more preached than practiced. I’d like to see a poll that poses one of the more serious issues we now face in the following way.

“You believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, and that several serious mistakes were made in the occupation as well. However, if there were even 1 chance in 3 that staying in Iraq would prevent the outbreak of greater violence that might take millions of lives, would you be in favor of persisting?”

The above-linked report suggests a truly odd paradox: if you gave the pollees on photograph of one “collateral damage” child victim of the violence, they’d be more likely to say “yes” than if you showed them an entire wall of such photos.

You can see something like this psychology at work when Michael Balter, out of a desire to “do something”, out of some supremely self-assured “moral” imperative, posts lists of American casualties. We don’t know these people, but their names sound like those of kids we went to high school with, and the names of their hometowns often ring a bell — perhaps we’ve seen those towns on highway signs, or even driven through on of them once. There’s more in that for us to relate to than a news report that says 55 were killed by a terrorist’s bomb in a market square in Iraq, while another report says it was 65. 55, 65 — what’s the difference? Maybe if I go to the polls in the next election, and push the right buttons along with enough other people, I can get this kind of numbingly bad news pushed down to page 10, or even out of the paper entirely because it will no longer be very newsworthy if we’re no longer involved as a nation. And I’ll feel good about myself, because I will have saved *American* lives. If it turns out that my vote was part of letting the fuse continue to burn on some bigger bomb, well … nobody knows how I voted. And it was all other people’s fault anyway, right?

]]> By: grouch http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323859 grouch Sat, 17 Feb 2007 01:26:48 +0000 http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323859 so, bush is a liar but clinton isn't?? "one way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missles to deliver them. That is the bottom line" President Clinton Feb 4, 1998 "if saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. we want to seriously diminish the threat posed by iraq's weapons of mass destruction program" President Clinton, Feb 17, 1998 "iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here. for the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greratest security threat we face" Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "he will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983" Sandy Burger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18, 1998 "we urge you, after consulting with congress, and consistent with the US Consititution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missle strikes on suspect iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs:" Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Leven (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D-MA), and others on Oct 9, 1998 "saddam hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process" Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Dec 17, 1998 "hussein has chosen to spend his money on building wweapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies: Madeline Albright, Nov 10, 1999 so, all after bush came is was a lie: and all before him was the truth ? so, bush is a liar but clinton isn’t??
“one way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missles to deliver them. That is the bottom line” President Clinton Feb 4, 1998
“if saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. we want to seriously diminish the threat posed by iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program” President Clinton, Feb 17, 1998
“iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here. for the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greratest security threat we face” Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“he will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983″ Sandy Burger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18, 1998
“we urge you, after consulting with congress, and consistent with the US Consititution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missle strikes on suspect iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs:” Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Leven (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D-MA), and others on Oct 9, 1998
“saddam hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) Dec 17, 1998
“hussein has chosen to spend his money on building wweapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies: Madeline Albright, Nov 10, 1999
so, all after bush came is was a lie: and all before him was the truth ?

]]> By: richard locicero http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323713 richard locicero Fri, 16 Feb 2007 22:59:23 +0000 http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323713 Don Young may be the third stupidist Man in DC but the two Stupidest people outside of town are now obvious. I know that a lot of Christain Righties don't like Evolution but now, it turns out, several aren't all that keen of Copernicus either! Representative Ben Bridges of the GA House and a Republican (natch!) sent a memo denouncing the Big Bang and the notion that the Earth goes round the sun. No it is held in place by a giant electromagnetplaced there by God and the idea that the universe is billions of years old or as big as science claims is part of the "Kaballah Evolution Conspiracy Theory" of "Jewish Pharisee" scientists intent on undermining the Old Testament (!) and destroying Christianity. Not content with Georgia, Warren Chsum, head of the Texas House "Ways and Means" Committee got a copy and promptly distributed it to all his colleagues. Now it seems the two good old boys are in some trouble since some "Pharisees" from the ADL saw a copy and complained. They both now claim they never saw the document. As someone over at KOS wrote, its days like these that make you "Really, really, miss Molly Ivins." Don Young may be the third stupidist Man in DC but the two Stupidest people outside of town are now obvious. I know that a lot of Christain Righties don’t like Evolution but now, it turns out, several aren’t all that keen of Copernicus either!

Representative Ben Bridges of the GA House and a Republican (natch!) sent a memo denouncing the Big Bang and the notion that the Earth goes round the sun. No it is held in place by a giant electromagnetplaced there by God and the idea that the universe is billions of years old or as big as science claims is part of the “Kaballah Evolution Conspiracy Theory” of “Jewish Pharisee” scientists intent on undermining the Old Testament (!) and destroying Christianity.

Not content with Georgia, Warren Chsum, head of the Texas House “Ways and Means” Committee got a copy and promptly distributed it to all his colleagues.

Now it seems the two good old boys are in some trouble since some “Pharisees” from the ADL saw a copy and complained. They both now claim they never saw the document.

As someone over at KOS wrote, its days like these that make you “Really, really, miss Molly Ivins.”

]]> By: K Nardy http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323555 K Nardy Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:36:22 +0000 http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323555 Jim, if (when) our propped up "goverment" in Iraq folds, will you and your party be responsable for fighting the first, "no tax-no sacrifice" war? It would seem to me a doomed, loser approach to a national effort that could only be thought up by the kind of spoiled, self rightous Adult/childs who vote Republican..... Jim, if (when) our propped up “goverment” in Iraq folds, will you and your party be responsable for fighting the first, “no tax-no sacrifice” war? It would seem to me a doomed, loser approach to a national effort that could only be thought up by the kind of spoiled, self rightous Adult/childs who vote Republican…..

]]> By: reg http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323429 reg Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:12:45 +0000 http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323429 Jim R - I would like for you to remind me of a single thing that Bush has put forward as a rationale for this war that has proven, in reality, to be worth the life of even ONE of our young soldiers. (A useful context would be to imagine that one fatal casualty as your kid...) Jim R - I would like for you to remind me of a single thing that Bush has put forward as a rationale for this war that has proven, in reality, to be worth the life of even ONE of our young soldiers. (A useful context would be to imagine that one fatal casualty as your kid…)

]]> By: reg http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323427 reg Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:07:47 +0000 http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323427 "You’re a loser and Americans just don’t like losers." A fitting epitaph for the Bush Administration... “You’re a loser and Americans just don’t like losers.”

A fitting epitaph for the Bush Administration…

]]> By: Michael Balter http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323405 Michael Balter Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:33:14 +0000 http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323405 Jim R seems to be a bit obsessed with sex, as if too much of it is implicated in the decline of Western civilization. Or is he just obsessed with sex between certain people? Jim R seems to be a bit obsessed with sex, as if too much of it is implicated in the decline of Western civilization. Or is he just obsessed with sex between certain people?

]]> By: richard locicero http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323388 richard locicero Fri, 16 Feb 2007 17:13:22 +0000 http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323388 Jim R to compare the current fiasco in Iraq with the sacrifices that American (and British and Canadian and, for that matter Russian) troops made in WWII is frankly obscene. I'll leave aside the question as to which was the more justified cause but consider that in the global conflict of the forties the US Chain of Command included: FDR, Henry Stimson, George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower. That is what is known as "Adult Leadership" and that is what the current clowns in Washington have not even a nodding aquaintance with. Jim R to compare the current fiasco in Iraq with the sacrifices that American (and British and Canadian and, for that matter Russian) troops made in WWII is frankly obscene. I’ll leave aside the question as to which was the more justified cause but consider that in the global conflict of the forties the US Chain of Command included: FDR, Henry Stimson, George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower. That is what is known as “Adult Leadership” and that is what the current clowns in Washington have not even a nodding aquaintance with.

]]> By: grouch http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323354 grouch Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:36:30 +0000 http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323354 as of 2002 thru feb 11, 2007, there were 3,180 homicides in new york city. as of 2002 thru feb 11, 2007, there were 3,180 homicides in new york city.

]]> By: Jim R http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323345 Jim R Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:24:40 +0000 http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323345 No MB. You'd be living in the good old US if all those white crosses in Normandy were white flags instead. Those white crosses that represent death and killing and making war not love. That represent the failure for civilized people to talk, to compromise, to reason together with thugs. Got to Normandy and take a look MB. Take a look and think what kind of world you would be living in now if you stay in France or anywhere in Europe. Yes you would be allowed to make all the love you 'fucking' want so Hitler could have your offspring to use against, to conquer the last vestige of freedom. The last vestige of a democracy able to see beyond the scrafice required to keep and spread demcracies and freedom, while you are saving lives and fucking yourselves to death, literally and figuratively, for you short term, simple and grossly naive view of the world we live in. No MB. You’d be living in the good old US if all those white crosses in Normandy were white flags instead. Those white crosses that represent death and killing and making war not love. That represent the failure for civilized people to talk, to compromise, to reason together with thugs.

Got to Normandy and take a look MB. Take a look and think what kind of world you would be living in now if you stay in France or anywhere in Europe. Yes you would be allowed to make all the love you ‘fucking’ want so Hitler could have your offspring to use against, to conquer the last vestige of freedom.

The last vestige of a democracy able to see beyond the scrafice required to keep and spread demcracies and freedom, while you are saving lives and fucking yourselves to death, literally and figuratively, for you short term, simple and grossly naive view of the world we live in.

]]> By: Michael Balter http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323333 Michael Balter Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:06:49 +0000 http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323333 Very eloquent, Jim R. The only problem is that the US effort in Iraq has failed, and the people who caused it to fail are the ones you have been cheering on for the past four years. And you have been cheering them on because you were just as ignorant as they were about what the US was getting involved in, who the enemy was, and the nature of the society into which we sent our soldiers. Your viewpoint has lost, you are the loser, get used to it. Very eloquent, Jim R. The only problem is that the US effort in Iraq has failed, and the people who caused it to fail are the ones you have been cheering on for the past four years. And you have been cheering them on because you were just as ignorant as they were about what the US was getting involved in, who the enemy was, and the nature of the society into which we sent our soldiers. Your viewpoint has lost, you are the loser, get used to it.

]]> By: Jim R http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323324 Jim R Fri, 16 Feb 2007 15:55:33 +0000 http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323324 "That’s what Americans need to hear, that those lives were wasted and that we should not waste any more. Anything else plays into the idea that we should stay in Iraq so their “sacrifice” would not be in “vain.”" Would their lives be wasted if Iraq is stablized to the point Iraqi forces can maintain it's democratic gov't for its people MB, and it's associated benefits for us and the world MB? The gov't Iraqis' risked their lives for to vote for it? The reason the large majority of our troops believe they are risking their lives for? To 'win' this noble democratic struggle for the Iraqi people and plant a ray of hope for the rest of the largest majority of innocent people in the broader middle east? All these lives lost and maimed are only wasted if the 'good' people lose, right MB. The reason the word 'wasted' is a political hot potato, is because it is only used by those who have raised their white flags, are willing to throw away all the scrafices made by our troops and the peaceful Iraqis, the good guys, who have been killed and maimed by the lowest class of thugs, mafia, gangs, extortionists, terrorist nutjobs, and power hungry Stalins, Hitlers, Mao's would be dictators. The 'bad' guys. You are willing now, and I'll bet always have been, to give up to them, to surrender to them, to waste the scrafice of those and their you want to speak for. You're a loser and Americans just don't like losers. The French, on the other hand, always have been, and I am just positing a wild guess, but you wouldn't be living there today if Americans had not liberated them and Hitler were still running things......because he would not put up with your 'democractic rights' to run your mouth. The rights you so freely exercise and take totally 'for granted'. The democratic right you and all loud, noisey, demonstrating, yelling clueless passivist are so totally willing to throw away for all others. “That’s what Americans need to hear, that those lives were wasted and that we should not waste any more. Anything else plays into the idea that we should stay in Iraq so their “sacrifice” would not be in “vain.””

Would their lives be wasted if Iraq is stablized
to the point Iraqi forces can maintain it’s democratic gov’t for its people MB, and it’s associated benefits for us and the world MB? The gov’t Iraqis’ risked their lives for to vote for it? The reason the large majority of our troops believe they are risking their lives for? To ‘win’ this noble democratic struggle for the Iraqi people and plant a ray of hope for the rest of the largest majority of innocent people in the broader middle east?

All these lives lost and maimed are only wasted if the ‘good’ people lose, right MB. The reason the word ‘wasted’ is a political hot potato, is because it is only used by those who have raised their white flags, are willing to throw away all the scrafices made by our troops and the peaceful Iraqis, the good guys, who have been killed and maimed by the lowest class of thugs, mafia, gangs, extortionists, terrorist nutjobs, and power hungry Stalins, Hitlers, Mao’s would be dictators. The ‘bad’ guys.

You are willing now, and I’ll bet always have been, to give up to them, to surrender to them, to waste the scrafice of those and their you want to speak for.

You’re a loser and Americans just don’t like losers. The French, on the other hand, always have been, and I am just positing a wild guess, but you wouldn’t be living there today if Americans had not liberated them and Hitler were still running things……because he would not put up with your ‘democractic rights’ to run your mouth. The rights you so freely exercise and take totally ‘for granted’. The democratic right you and all loud, noisey, demonstrating, yelling clueless passivist are so totally willing to throw away for all others.

]]> By: PoliticalCritic http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323253 PoliticalCritic Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:40:54 +0000 http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323253 I'm just hoping the Senate actually debates the war and stops avoiding the issue altogether. The longer they stall, the longer it takes to find a solution. I’m just hoping the Senate actually debates the war and stops avoiding the issue altogether. The longer they stall, the longer it takes to find a solution.

]]> By: Michael Turner http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323027 Michael Turner Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:07:40 +0000 http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-323027 Having gotten myself well and truly hated here, let me offer a little more comic relief: the most frequent one-word descripts of George W. Bush. Out of 740 respondents to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, here are the top 20 (numbers are for mentions, not percentages): 34 - Incompetent 25 - Arrogant 25 - Honest 19 - Good 19 - Idiot 13 - Integrity 13 - Leader 11 - Strong 11 - Stupid 10 - Ignorant 8 - Fair 8 - Determined 7 - Ass 7 - Selfish 6 - Confused 6 - Dishonest 6 - Persistent 6 - President 6 - Sincere 6 - Trying ---- I guess we can all agree on "President", anyway. "Trying" has possible two meanings, but probably falls short of consensus anyway. 47% used a negative word (presumably unprintable in some cases), 27% a positive word, 11% a neutral word, and 15% of respondents were rendered speechless by the question -- which I'm inclined to credit toward the "negative word" category. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=304 Having gotten myself well and truly hated here, let me offer a little more comic relief: the most frequent one-word descripts of George W. Bush.

Out of 740 respondents to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, here are the top 20 (numbers are for mentions, not percentages):

34 - Incompetent
25 - Arrogant
25 - Honest
19 - Good
19 - Idiot
13 - Integrity
13 - Leader
11 - Strong
11 - Stupid
10 - Ignorant
8 - Fair
8 - Determined
7 - Ass
7 - Selfish
6 - Confused
6 - Dishonest
6 - Persistent
6 - President
6 - Sincere
6 - Trying

—-

I guess we can all agree on “President”, anyway. “Trying” has possible two meanings, but probably falls short of consensus anyway.

47% used a negative word (presumably unprintable in some cases), 27% a positive word, 11% a neutral word, and 15% of respondents were rendered speechless by the question — which I’m inclined to credit toward the “negative word” category.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=304

]]> By: Michael Balter http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-322911 Michael Balter Fri, 16 Feb 2007 05:58:33 +0000 http://marccooper.com/slow-bleed/#comment-322911 Thanks to Michael Crosby for injecting some factual realism into this discussion. Many may wonder why I give Turner such a hard time. It is because if you look carefully at his long posts and cut through the incessant verbiage, they are almost inevitably intended to justify inaction and passivity. Mine may be simple in comparison, but that's because I want to see something done. We've cogitated over the mistake in Iraq for four long years, time to get off the dime, not come up with rationalizations and justifications for inaction. Thanks to Michael Crosby for injecting some factual realism into this discussion.

Many may wonder why I give Turner such a hard time. It is because if you look carefully at his long posts and cut through the incessant verbiage, they are almost inevitably intended to justify inaction and passivity. Mine may be simple in comparison, but that’s because I want to see something done. We’ve cogitated over the mistake in Iraq for four long years, time to get off the dime, not come up with rationalizations and justifications for inaction.

]]>