... has now surpassed the number who died in the 9/11 attacks.
ADDED: A key question -- with an unknowable answer -- is: How many Americans would have died in post-9/11 attacks if we had not chosen the path of fighting back?
MORE: So many people -- in the comments and on other blogs -- are attributing things to me that I did not write here. Reading with comprehension has, apparently, become optional. Amusingly, the blundering blowhards out there keep calling me and idiot. Mirrors are in short supply these days.
December 26, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
90 comments:
While I grieve for those brave Americans and their families, I don't see the relevance of this post. The losses of Pearl Harbor while horrific, were quickly surpassed when we fought back.
You'll take more hits in the short term from a bully when you resist, but not in the long term. Especially when you defeat him decisively.
Iraq did not attack us, nor were they planning to. I'm surprised after 4 years after everything we know, that you still don't get this.
Re: "Iraq did not attack us, nor were they planning to."
yeah, all that terorist training stuff was meaningless.
And no, NL, I won't cite a damn thing, because you are invincibly ignorant about this; no more open to persuasion by evidence and logic than Jimmy Carter, an equal fool.
What, NL, you mean there's not just one agent called The Middle East that attacked us on 9/11?
You have to know that's more complexity than brother-john can handle. Like most of the knuckle-draggers, he can't even resist comparing Iraq to WWII.
Update: Pogo, true to form, tosses out the ridiculous claim that there were terrorist training camps in Iraq. Not even the Bush administration relied on that one, which tells you just how weak it is.
Re: "which tells you just how weak it is"
Bullshit, Doyle. Again, you can carp all you want.
You're against the war. Fine. I think it needs to be fought and won. It's pretty clear I am not going to convince you, as stuck in concrete as your opinion is.
It's not worth my time to repsond to uou, inasmuch as your assertions are so predictably far-left as to border on parody.
Fighting back?
Oh man. Ann still thinks Iraq was involved in 9/11 too.
You'd be doing the country a favor if you'd never opine on international affairs ever again.
Clueless and bellicose is no way to go through life.
I think to look at it this way is to concede that the only war is one where we are physically attacked, and then we can only respond to the level that we were attacked. So, as other posters have pointed out, we should have pulled out of WWII no later than the end of 1942.
But of course, that ignores that we didn't go into Iraq just because of 9/11, or WMD, etc. What 9/11 made obvious to the Administration and to many of us is that we had a systemic problem with (primarily Sunni) Islamic violence around the world.
The other thing that is (intentionally) ignored by the opponents of our incursion into Iraq is the question of what would have been the situation if we had not go into that country. What has to be remembered is:
- Vietnam, Iranian Embassy, Beruit Marine barracks, WTC I, Mogadisu, Cole, etc. OBL claimed that we were essentially a paper tiger who couldn't take casualties, and ran when even a couple of Americans died.
- Gulf War I was a result of Iraq invading Kuwait, and the U.S. responding at the request of the Kuwaities and Saudies.
- That war was ended by a cease fire - which Saddam Hussein was breaching ever more blatently.
- France had indicated to us shortly before our incursion into Iraq that it would not support continuing sanctions against Iraq the next time the issue came before the Security Council. (We later found out that three of the five permanent members had been bribed through OIF program and illegal the purchase of armaments).
- Without U.N. sanctions we could no longer legally implement the no-fly zones or keep Saddam Hussein from rearming.
- A failure of sactions would also have made him a hero of the Middle East.
- And even while he was under sanctions, he continued to cause problems, including: paying the families of suicide bombers who killed Israelis; attempted to assasinate President GHWB; moved an army corp towards Israel for invasion thereof, etc.
- And, of course, the sanctions and no-fly zones were the only things keeping the Kurds in the north and the Marsh Arabs in the south even somewhat safe from his brutality.
So, if we had not invaded when we did, we most likely would have been faced with: a lifting of sanctions; removal of the no-fly zones; rearming of Iraq; reinstituted or resumed WMD production; and Saddam triumphant and the hero of the Islamic Middle East for having beaten the Great Satan.
I don't think that anyone here really believes that Iraq was directly, or even that indirectly, involved in the 9/11 attack on the U.S. And that is why we invaded Afganistan first, as that country, under the Taliban, was involved.
But Iraq under Saddam Hussein was intimately involved in the environment that resulted in that attack.
So you recognize that Iraq wasn’t even indirectly involved in the 9/11 attacks, but maintain that it was “intimately involved in the environment that resulted in [them]”?
It’s funny how being catastrophically, world-historically wrong can heighten one’s appreciation of nuance.
The relevance of their latest "grim milestone" is that it buttresses the media contention that Bush, or the US in general, is the central problem in the world, not jihad.
Spreading pacifist nonsense also seems to the Crisis Group's mission. All in all, it's the 1930s all over again.
I never said I thought Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks, but I did predict I'd be accused of thinking that.
You predicted it, eh? Impressive.
I've got you beat though: I predicted that you would be evasive enough to characterize the Iraq war as "the path of fighting back," and then deny that you made any representation as to Iraq's involvement in 9/11.
How is it "fighting back" otherwise, Ann? Or is a coherent statement from you just totally out of the question?
"A key question -- with an unknowable answer -- is: How many Americans would have died in post-9/11 attacks if we had not chosen the path of fighting back?"
It's not only a question with an unknowable answer, it's a pointless question. No one of any importance after 9/11 argued that we shouldn't fight back, so that option wasn't on the table and therefore isn't worth discussing (and no, some band of vocal antiwar activists in Madison doesn't count as anyone of importance, or as a counterpoint). The issue was how we should fight back, and it looks pretty clear that history will record the Bush method of fighting back (squander the initial victory in Afghanistan, ignore or demonize those outside your political circle, and invade Iraq) as being at best a lost opportunity or at worst an outright failure.
Ann, you connect Iraq to "fighting back" by citing the deaths of soldiers in Iraq. If you're not arguing that fighting in Iraq means us fighting against the forces that attacked us on 9/11, then what is your point? I don't get it, I freely admit.
There's no reason to believe that attacking Iraq has changed anything for us in terms of would-be or averted terrorist attacks, so I wouldn't call the Iraq war "fighting back." Someone has to have attacked you first for you to "fight back."
Doyle
Yea I actually heard that one last weekend at my in-laws. One brother in-law unfortunately is heading to Kuwait and/or Iraq as a diesel mechanic out of Ft McCoy as an Army Reserve Specialist. His shorter orders I'm sure will be supplying another warm body to recover broken down or shot up vehicles on roads in Iraq.
The other brother in-law has been subject to the Might Wurlitzer for the past 2 years from his latest girlfriend, and their right wing nut job family. Anyways, it all came together for a crappy and awkward holiday -- especially after said girlfriend buys my mother in-law Culture Warrior by Bill O'Reilly for a present. Dude is totally changed in some weird Stepford Wives sort of way, and I knew the sad transformation was complete when I heard "leftists" at the kitchen table.
They see absolutely no difference between Afghanistan and Iraq. Even today, if you ask them if they had a choice between staying in Afghanistan and destroying Al Qaeda, and putting the boot on the necks of other countries to cough up terrorists using the world support we received after 9/11-- or occupying Iraq for 4 years in a bloody civil war where we are irrelevant, and would have to pick a side to "win" -- they say they would do it all over again.
The far Left has a mindset that the only problem with radical Islam...
Iraq was not an Islamist state.
Next!
Doyle - Ann is correct. She never claimed that Iraq was behind 9/11. She simply asked a question.
If your answer was "There would have been zero more attacks, because Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 in the first place", that's a valid response to her question.
That's what I happen to believe. But I think it's important to note that there have been many attacks against the West (including Americans) since 9/11. The anthrax attacks. The attacks at Bali. The London underground bombings. The Spanish railways attacks. The attacks in Turkey against Jewish temples. The attacks in Morrocco.
And I think the reason those attacks have happened is because we've been so focused on the false enemy in Iraq that we've diverted attention from the real enemy - Al Qeada.
And Osama Bin Laden is still not captured.
Sad.
As for the number of Americans in the military that died - nobody was predicting that. Nobody. In fact, at the start of the attack on Afghanistan, many people were saying how this would be the first war where there would be more civilian casualities than in the military.
Wrong.
It seems there is only one segment of this society who believe that Iraq is worth the effort, our military. The people who are fighting, and in some cases, being wounded and killed, are re-enlisting in still-record numbers.
I was in the Southeast Asian War Games, When the soldiers and Marines started losing faith in the war, re-enlistment dropped way back.
As long as the Corporals and Captains believe in the war, so will I.
I wonder want you people would have been saying in 1942..."North Africa never attacked Pearl Harbor" or in 1943...Sicily never attacked Pearl Harbor".
"I am certain less Americans would have died in post-9/11 attacks if we had not gone into Iraq."
Freder, I congratulate you on your certainty that you possess facts not known to the rest of us. For the enlightenment of us all, though, please share how you came to know this. Secret phone calls from Zawahiri? Clairvoyant visions? Some other occult method? An anxious nation needs to know, so that you can guide us with your special insights.
Re: "the only one that we could semi-affectively monitor"
Only if by "semi" you mean "not at all".
Re: "Clueless and bellicose is no way to go through life."
The master speaks from experience, of course. Next, tell us about your inability to separate good and evil, and your continual mistaking of "comfortable liberal tropes" for "the right thing to do". It's where you shine, Doyle.
What I always find interesting is how the past doesn't seem to extend before 9/11. We were in the Middle East already before then, because we kept up a presence and patrolled the no-fly zone since '91. Bin Laden has said one reason for his efforts were because of America's presence in Saudi Arabia. Invading Iraq took us out of Saudi Arabia, and basically addressed a decade long stand-off.
We were at war with Iraq prior to 9/11, a suspended war since '91 as long as everyone played according to the UN rules. People didn't, so the war resumed.
Whether this saved more lives is indeed a question we'll never answer. Though, I do know that people would be as up in arms against Bush had he not invaded. Just like they are attacking him for how he is approaching Iran and North Korea.
People keep questioning me as if I devised the plan to fight. Bush chose to do it the way he did for some reason. For him, there seems to have been one interwoven plan. Obviously, it is open to the criticisms people are making. All I'm saying is that if you want to compare deaths from the path he took, the right point of comparison is to the path not taken. I'm willing to concede that there are more than one not-taken paths.
People keep questioning me as if I devised the plan to fight.
Fight? You mean "fight back" don't you Ann?
Re: "but certainly not Iraq"
Only if by "certainly" you mean "I haven't the slightest goddamned idea what I'm talking about, but blustering and table-pounding looks alot like knowledge, so I'll go with that."
Then, yeah. Certainly it is.
On my map Iraq and Afghanistan make wonderful staging grounds for invading Iran.
Trey
Re: 'Gee, I must have missed ..."
Well, Freder, you miss alot, grasp little, and know even less. So count me unsurprised.
Frankly, I don't care what you think. We disagree about Iraq (still). BFD. What difference does it make? Problem is, we are in Iraq, and that cannot be changed just by being a blowhard.
So, be constructive instead of just your usual coprolalic self. What, precisely, do we do now that we are where we are, not "what would we do if Freder billboards graced all the walls in the city"?
Far fewer than have died in Iraq, especially if we spent the, you know, hundreds of billions of dollars that we're spending over there to actually make America more secure.
Oh - he's in Pakistan. Boo hoo.
We've obliterated other terrorists in Pakistan. Why is that stopping us from capturing Osama if he's there???? And as if you would know where he was.
Let's face it. The only reason we haven't captured him is because we haven't been looking very hard.
We have about 150,000 troops in Iraq. And we have about 10 looking for Osama.
Actually, Downtownlad:
We have about 20,000 troops in and around Afghanistan hunting bin Laden.
But your point is well taken. The argument can (and has) been made that we are not more involved with searching for him or with the Afghan war in general because we invaded Iraq.
Perhaps Ann's question could be answered by, "What would be the situation now if we actually HAD fought back against the 9/11 attackers and kept it as our first priority until we got them?"
(or put another way: I made a prediction in September, and I was right.
ADDED: A key question -- with an unknowable answer -- is: How many Americans would have died in post-9/11 attacks if we had not chosen the path of fighting back?
wadda fatuous bint.
it's answer is 'unknowable' because it is a wholly spurious question. the 'key question' assume facts not in evidence: that the Invasion, Conquest, Occupation, Rape, and Pillage (ICORP) of Iraq prevented or obstructed of subsequent possible attacks in the US.
as far as i am aware, no airline hijackers, no shopping-mall bombers, no tunnel-flooders have been apprehended among the 500THOUSAND or so Iraqis brought to death under the sword of the US ICORP...
Evidence, please...
yeah, all that terrorist training stuff was meaningless.
Pogo:
USer forces train for nuclear warfare.
by your logic, that is defacto a threat to the peace and stability of the planet, and would therefore make the US liable for invasion by peace-loving adversaries, innit?
Freder quoted me and typed: "On my map Iraq and Afghanistan make wonderful staging grounds for invading Iran.
This is just the kind of insane thinking that makes me fear for the rational thought processes of some people on the right. Who exactly is going to invade Iran? Our military is currently stretched to the breaking point."
Insane? Is your map different? Even if my geography is poor, is that sufficient cause to lable me insane? OR, is this just an ad hominem attack? I thought so.
Who will attack Iran is us and Israel. With a little help from our friends. When is as soon as the situation in Irag cools down and our forces are not busy elsewhere.
What makes you say that our forces are strained to the breaking point???? Facts please!
The few soldiers in the field that I talk to have never made any mention of being understaffed. Now I do happen to think that 30,000 more troops on the ground in the capital would be a good idea. Al Sadr would have a simple choice, join the democracy or the graveyard. I think he would rock the vote.
Trey
"We must prepare to rule the world."
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran
"We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization."
Hassan Abbassi,
Top advisor to Iranian Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei
But hey, no problemo; just keep on looking for that dried up old dead guy, Osama, and everything will be so September 10th again. Only a conservatard would believe otherwise.
bruce hayden
But Iraq under Saddam Hussein was intimately involved in the environment that resulted in that attack.
Whatever that supposedly means -- sounds like "weapons of mass destruction program realted activities" to me.
As for those "intimately involved" -- Iraq was at the bottom of such countries in the Middle East. Just grow up and admit that Iraq was attacked for reasons having nothing to do with Al Queda. As for the grand neo-con dream that attacking Iraq would somehow improve our relations with the Middle East and lessen terrorism, time has shown how horribly wrong that idea was.
The correct answer is ZERO. Lawyers, Guns, and Money provides explanation
Woody Guthrie's Guitar....
You use outright sexist language to make your point. Where does that put you on the political spectrum?
Michael A. Litscher:
Abdul Rahman Yasin, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Ansar al-Islam, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi...
Yasin (a native of Iraq) was arrested and imprisoned by Saddam's regime. He is now at large someplace. Score one for our invasion (not).
Abu Nidal made the mistake of 'retirement' in Iraq after his stint with Fatah. Officially he is said to have committed suicide in 2002 but in fact it appears that he was likely murdered by Saddam's security agents.
Abu Abbas-- you have a case. However in the overall scheme of international terror he is a pretty small fish. He has no known connection whatsoever to al-Qaeda.
So of your first three, at best you can claim that we were better than Saddam at fighting terrorists on one out of three.
Ansar-al-Islam: An al-Qaeda training camp in Iraq. Only you have to have quite a stretch to link it with Saddam. Look at a map-- it was located miles behind Kurdish lines, along the border with Iran, and at least a hundred miles from any place in Iraq that was under the control of Saddam Hussein. So he couldn't have had any influence on it even if he wanted to.
Zarqawi-- entered Iraq in December 2002 (by which time a U.S. invasion of Iraq was pretty much already a given), ostensibly for dental work, but in fact to organize al-Qaeda in Iraq following a U.S. invasion (which he did). So he came there to fight us. And we got him but not the organization he has built.
Which only points out what a lot of people are saying. By invading Iraq, we have handed them a great training/recruiting ground and (at least to Muslim eyes) have verified bin Laden's claim that the U.S. 'seeks to occupy muslim lands).
So you gave me 5 examples, and only one of the five (far less than I think you would find in, say, our perfidious 'ally,' Saudi Arabia) can you even make the case that 1) Saddam brought him in and 2) Saddam didn't exercise his own paranoid internal rule to stamp out a perceived 'threat.'
Clutching at straws to try and come up with connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda is what the supporters of the disastrous war in Iraq are reduced to. They wanted this war, they pushed for it, they have it, and with the failures of the original rationale (WMD) and the election of a fundamentalist Iran-friendly government, that is about all that is left to them anymore.
No one is seriously arguing that Iraq was directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. But not even the 9/11 commission believes that there were no ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Indeed, the commissioners found, and I quote, "all kinds of ties; all kinds of connections" between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime.
They just couldn't tie Saddam to 9/11 specifically. But given the relevations surrounding the invitation of Ayman Al Zawahiri to Baghdad at Ibrahim Azzat al-Duri's request in 1999 (a year after the African embassy bombings), given blessed july, given the relevation that there were terrorist training camps in Iraq (and yes, moron, there were,), given a nuclear centrifuge buried in a scientist's back yard, given hundreds of WMDs found undestroyed and hidden in the desert (by my count between 500 and 750 (500 definite, 750 including some unconfirmed reports), and give Saddam's connection to chemical weapons manufacturing in Sudan (even the Clinton administration came to that conclusion), it's pretty obvious that Saddam was 1.) in violation of the UN continuing resolutions, 2.) in violation of the terms of his cease fire - either of which were cassus belli even had 9/11 never occured. (Discounting, of course, thousands of instances of his firing on aircraft enforcing the NFZ, and discounting his attempt to murder George H.W. Bush -- two more cassus belli).
In short, Saddam was not taken out because of any alleged involvement specifically with 9/11. He was taken out because he was an obvious potential sponsor of future 9/11's.
Riddle me this - we are currently attempting to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear program.
Is a hostile Saddam Hussein, rebuilding his WMD program in Iraq, likely to cause the Iranians to be more likely to strike a deal in which they abandon their own nuclear plans? Or less likely?
What are the chances Iran would give it up when they could not be sure that Iraq had done the same thing?
I think that Professor Alt has yet to grasp the enormity of this disaster. But then she’s in good company. So also has President Bush.
I disagree, I think President Bush understands that he screwed up bigger and worse than just about anybody else. I know his fathers thinks that.
You deleted this?...
*sigh* Althouse is ruining the Internet.
Whoa. Getting a might brittle aren't you?
Military considers recruiting foreigners
Expedited citizenship would be an incentive
An Armed Forces center in Plymouth. US officials are trying tactics to find recruits; one involves attracting noncitizens. (JULIA CUMES/ASSOCIATED PRESS)
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | December 26, 2006
WASHINGTON -- The armed forces, already struggling to meet recruiting goals, are considering expanding the number of noncitizens in the ranks -- including disputed proposals to open recruiting stations overseas and putting more immigrants on a faster track to US citizenship if they volunteer -- according to Pentagon officials.
Foreign citizens serving in the US military is a highly charged issue, which could expose the Pentagon to criticism that it is essentially using mercenaries to defend the country. Other analysts voice concern that a large contingent of noncitizens under arms could jeopardize national security or reflect badly on Americans' willingness to serve in uniform.
The idea of signing up foreigners who are seeking US citizenship is gaining traction as a way to address a critical need for the Pentagon, while fully absorbing some of the roughly one million immigrants that enter the United States legally each year.
Ann asked what if we had not taken the actions (Afgahanistan& Iraq) we did post 9-11, what would the death toll be?
And the ususal suspects jumped on her for allegedly supporting both actions. All she was saying was "what if" you morons.
How delusional that Democraps (I like that word) still refuse to see Iraq and WMD was a reasonable target based on the info from the CIA which was run by a an idiot (high-five Tenet) appointed by Clinton?
I believe Iraq War has contributed to keeping us safe here and it is indisputable fact that we have not been attacked since 911. I give Bushco fing bigtime credit for that.
Removed?!
I thought I made a very pertinent point, i.e. fantasy horrors are less consequential than real ones.
Shame on you.
AA, you deleted my post! How pathetic. I suppose it didn't fit into your neocon dream world; rather be with your good vs evil cheerleading squad. Too bad you can't delete reality because it won't be kind to the neocon cause.
yoskie...
while diva AA is running for some rightwing vanity award, she tends to delete. No one dares call it censor an open blog.
the answer to the posed question is: WHERE? in iraq? most of the killing that bush found as an excuse for the war (one of his many excuses) came during the Reagan Bush I years when we were arming him to the teeth. do we forget that the gas that killed the kurds was US produced?
Instead the question is: how many have died just as needlessly in iraq as in new york and how many more will die needlessly while president idiot-boy cuts brush in texas waiting for some divine inspiration to strike life into his brain.
dreamingmonkey said...
It's worth asking whether Iraq now more or less resembles, in Bruce Hayden's words, "the environment that resulted in that attack." To me it seems that it resembles that environment significantly more than it did before.
As for the "milestone," get real. Anyone who didn't think that there would be this many casualties, and many many more, was living in a complete fantasy."
that about sums up the bush presidency....greeted with flowers...oil pays for war....everyone home in 6 months...flowering democracy taking hold throughout the mideast....iran will revolt....ohhh the list of "complete fantasy".
Other things that, by your logic, have been prevented by "fighting back" against a country which had no connection to the attack:
-No meteors have hit the continental U.S. We showed those chickens**t meteors!
-The Kansas City Chiefs haven't won a Super Bowl--a regrettable side effect of freedom, I suppose.
-No neoSoviet troops have landed in Michigan, forcing young men to grow mullets, turn all insurgenty and yell "WOOOLLLLVEEERRRIIINNNNES!"
-You haven't posted a coherent thought to her blog.
Well, OK. Althouse delete comments without explanation. Good to know.
A tenured law professor acting as an Orwellian propagandist. I'd say it's game over for Ann Althouse.
Fortunately for us, President Bush had a much more strategic view of the war on terror than the critics on this board. Osama attacked us on 9-11 because he wanted us to invade Afghanistan so he could defeat us there just as they did the Soviets in the 1980s. Afghanistan is a terrible place to fight for us. The country is made for defense. It is mountainous and easy to hide – it is the best terrain for a guerilla war which has been proven time and time again in wars against the British and the Russians. Afghanistan is completely surrounded by skeptical allies and enemies (Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan). There is no port to supply troops – we would have to rely on enemies and skeptical allies to supply our troops. There is no significant populace there allied to us – Afghans have a long history of changing alliances. The country is completely impoverished and has no resources so no local government could ever fight the terrorists on its own. Osama expected that our invasion would rally tens of thousands of arabs to come and fight for jihad in Afghanistan just as they did in the 1980s.
We would have been defeated by the terrorists in Afghanistan.
Fortunately, Bush out strategized the terrorists and invaded Iraq. We chose the battlefield instead of the terrorists. Osama’s expected jihadi army went to Iraq instead of Afghanistan because it is closer and easier to get to. Iraq is a country with a port, so we can supply a significant sized army. We had allies in Iraq – the Kurds. The country is not completely surrounded by enemies. Besides Iran and Syria, also bordering Iraq are Saudi, Jordan, and Turkey - three countries where we have a significant long term military and strategic relationship with. The country has significant wealth and resources so that it could train and maintain a large army to help us fight the terrorists even after we leave. The country is difficult for guerrilla defenders. – it is mostly urban and desert, and a large part of the population is hostile to the terrorists.
People think Iraq is a disaster, but it has been the ticket to winning the war on terror and crushing the terrorists just as the disaster of Iwo Jima where 6,000 Americans fell was required to defeat Japan. Currently there is a mini-civil war going on in Iraq that has nothing to do with global jihad, but that war will come to and end, and global jihad will die with it. Al Qaeda is no longer a credible force other than for rhetoric. It’s forces have been liquidated in the deserts and cities of Iraq.
We will in the end eventually win. If we would have not invaded Iraq, the terrorists would be on the rise and we would have been attacked again. Iraq is the key to victory over the terrorists.
Every one of the 9/11 deaths was as a result of hostile action. Besides, what is the actual significance of the comparison?
Also, it is true that there have been no more terrorist attacks. This is largley due to the inavasion of Iraq and the destruction of the terrorists in Iraq. Without Iraq, we would have been attacked again and again and again.
Here's what I think is a more appropriate key question -- with an unknowable answer -- is: How many PEOPLE would have died in post-9/11 attacks if we had not chosen the path of fighting back?
We do know that the number is closing in on 750 thousand. I don't think this number would be higher if we had not chosen to "fight back".
Re: "Man, I wish I could get some of the drugs you are on."
It would be unwise to mix them with your current cocktail of hallucinogenics and antipsychotics, but it's your call.
Comment deleted? Shame on you.
Ann Althouse noted that the American death toll in Iraq has surpassed that of 9/11, and then goes on to ask the unanswerable and mind-bogglingly inane question "How many Americans would have died in post-9/11 attacks if we had not chosen the path of fighting back?" How many indeed? The derth of logic in that question, which asserts an unknowable premise as its foundation - that more Americans would have died had we not jauntily stepped on the road to perdition - is astounding for someone who's supposed to be a law professor. But then, as the scion of a whole family of lawyers and professors, I can comfortably conclude that endless sematicism is the bailiwick of far too many lawyers and academics.
When called on her conflation of Iraq with 9/11 - and really, Ann, how can your question be anything else - she responds with "I never said I thought Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks, but I did predict I'd be accused of thinking that." Really, Professor Althouse? Seems to me that's precisely what you implied - a lie by omission is still a lie. Is such specious reasoning all you have to offer? Because if that's the case, then you should be paying a portion of their tuition back to your students and apologizing for wasting their time.
The whole thread is quite a revealing look at what happens when someone falls out of the Tree of Knowledge and hits every Stupid Stick on the way down. I feel bad for the commenter, Doyle, who is attempting to interject a little bit of fact into the good professor's false syllogism. In answer to your question, friend: Yes, coherence of though is apparently far too much to expect.
Homer: Ah, not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away!
Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around here, do you?
Homer: (Looks around) Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.
Sorry, HT earlier to Lawyers Guns and Money for the extremely apt Simpsons dialog.
I just don't get the claim that many more Americans would have been killed if we hadn't attacked Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam ruthlessly suppressed the Islamist elements in Iraq, that is why he was our ally in the region for years, until he made HW Bush look weak by ignoring his mealy-mouthed entreaties not to attack Kuwait.
There have been many silly statements on this board, but they are the result of a logically faulty post by the host. If, after Pearl Harbor, FDR had used the attack as the basis for starting a war with Spain, becuase they had been our former enemy, than a comparison of casualties from the two would be valid.
By choosing to attack Iraq, which had no connection to OBL, 9/11 or Islamic militantism, the US has: lost credibility in the world, set up a bloodbath among innocent civilians, given Iran more power in Iraq that us, caused American casualties, stretched our military to the breaking point, cost us $2 billion a week since 2003 and into the unknown future and created far more future terrorists than any other possible post 9/11 course. Plus, our Coalition of the Willing hs become the Coalition of no one but US.
Meanwhile Afghanistan is falling apart and the Taliban and OBL is resurgent. Just like the liberal "America haters" predicted before we went to war against the wrong enemy, this unjustified attack has caused far more problems than it solved. Every one of the GIs that have died or been permanantly maimed in this war is a waste and a crime. Every Iraqi who dies in this is a murder victim, because murder is defined a unjustified manslaughter and this war is unjustified.
As Pope John Paul said, this war is "immoral and illegal." It will go down in history as America's most serious foreign policy mistake and could eventaully bring us down as the world's only superpower. All the way folks like the right-wing posters here will be saying it is someone else's fault, probably Clinton's.
Every one of the GIs that have died or been permanantly maimed in this war is a waste and a crime.
By your description, what war isn't? Was fighting for the Union a more noble goal than the fight in Iraq?
Man, I wish I could get some of the drugs you are on. A huge pile of steaming shit must look like a hot fudge sundae to you.
Maybe so. Okay then General Freder, where would you have proposed we fight the terrorists. Osama had run over 10,000 through his training camps and tens of thousands of others waiting to be drafted.
I just don't get the claim that many more Americans would have been killed if we hadn't attacked Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.
We would have had additional terrorist attacks in the U.S., but for the war in Iraq.
We have killed over 5,000 Al Qaeda connected terrorists in Iraq - this in addition to the tens of thousands of insurgents killed.
So, if we were not in Iraq, where would we be fighting those terrorists (Osama trained more than 10,000 in his camps in Afghanistan).
Take Zarqawi for instance. We ended up fighting and killing him and his entourage in Iraq. If we were not in Iraq, where would we be fighting him? In Afghanistan... maybe.. but the American military casualty list would be much higher than 3000.
Maybe we would be fighting Zarqawi all over the world, incuding inside America. Alas, Zarqawi and thousands of his fighters, are dead in Iraq.
this unjustified attack has caused far more problems than it solved.
Are you sure about that?
Prior to the war, Saddam killed an average of 50 people a day over 20 years (based on 350,000 reportedly found in mass graves so far) since 1980. Other reports put this over $1 million not including the dead from the Iran Iraq war.
The news media failed to report on these victims. I guess it wasn't news.
At the same time, the war has rid the world of a totalitarian tyrant who collected more than $30 billion a year in cash from oil revenues and wanted his own nuclear bomb and was very close to being rid of the U.N. coalition against him.
I guess I am not sure how things are worse today? You just feel that way because the media makes you feel that way. Sucker.
By choosing to attack Iraq, which had no connection to ... Islamic militantism...
I agree, it is naive to believe that Saddam was not connected to the terrorists. but, even if he wasn't we knew the terrorists would come to Iraq if we invaded... which they did and Iraq is a far better place to fight them than any of the other alternatives.
slonasaurus, your posts might be valid, but I'd like some back-up to those numbers. Haven't seen them before... didn't know the U.S actually counted Al-Qaeda kills in Iraq? 5,000, you say? Never saw anything about that anywhere. Please cite source & provide link, if possible.
Freder, fighting in Afghanistan would have been a losing battle. Without Iraq to draw the terrorists, they would have all gone to Afghanistan, just as they did in the 1980s. We would have suffered the same fate as the Russians. Everything would be working against us in Afghanistan. The terrain of Afghanistan is great for defenst. There is no port to supply our troops. We would have had to fly over unfriendly countries in much greater volume than today. The Afghan government has no resources and no money to fight with us.
Saddam ran a totalitarian country. It used fear and killing to run the country. Your claim that such fear and killing stopped after the 1980s is naive. In fact when we invaded Iraq, we found all kinds of political prisoners, including children who had been imprisoned for the sins of their parents.
I'm sure all the Iraqi civilians are deeply appreciative of your lack of concern for their welfare and that the president
Some are and some are not - so say the polls there.
your posts might be valid, but I'd like some back-up to those numbers. Haven't seen them before... didn't know the U.S actually counted Al-Qaeda kills in Iraq? 5,000, you say
I have seen all kinds of sources. The U.S. Govenrnment does not publish their results however some news sources have quoted figures. CBS news quoted 100 killed and 500 captured in September 2006. I think 5000 killed or captured is a relatively conservative estimate based on this stat.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/04/iraq/main2059817.shtml
In addition, Wikipedia list over 75 known Al Qaeda LEADERS who have been killed or captured in Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda_in_Iraq
One would expect there are 50+ followers for every known leader....
Al Qaeda is broken and it was broken in Iraq. Zarqawi said so in his pleas to Bin Ladin.
Ann ALthouse, purveyor of right wing fictions:
"How many Americans would have died in post-9/11 attacks if we had not chosen the path of fighting back?"
Invadingh and occupying Iraq was not about "fighting back." Invading Afghanistan, yeah, that was about fighting back.
Or, if we had invaded Saudi Arabia, where the money and most of the 9/11 terrorists came from, that would have been "fighting back." As it was, it was an unprovoked act of aggression by the Republicans.
For a "moderate" Althouse, you sure carry a lot of water for the Republicans.
I delete for profanity and gratuitous abusiveness, generally. If you think it's because you're opinion is opposed to mine, you are an abysmally bad reader.
Slonasaurus,
So... you're saying you made up that 5,000 stat.
I get your M.O. now: Parade fake stats as fact to support your arguments.
Do you work for the Bush Administration, perhaps?
Well, I see Althouse modifies her post to append an insult against those who criticized her as "idiots." However, she provides no additional substance.
Ann, you a) compare 9/11 deaths and US military deaths in Iraq. Then you post that goofy sentence, "How many Americans would have died in post-9/11 attacks if we had not chosen the path of fighting back?"
What are you saying, then, if not that invading and occupying Iraq is "fighting back" for 9/11?
I see digby has ripped into this latest failed attempt to prop Bush.
"you're opinion" should be "your opinion." Sorry!
No clarification on what you intended to say, then, if not that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was fighting back for 9/11?
For someone who prides herself on her writing, you sure create a lot of confusion. PLease clarify in plain , snark-free, English.
Alpha Liberal: "Well, I see Althouse modifies her post to append an insult against those who criticized her as "idiots." However, she provides no additional substance. Ann, you a) compare 9/11 deaths and US military deaths in Iraq. Then you post that goofy sentence, "How many Americans would have died in post-9/11 attacks if we had not chosen the path of fighting back?" What are you saying, then, if not that invading and occupying Iraq is "fighting back" for 9/11?"
I linked to an AP article that seemed to think it was news to relate one number to another. With that foundation, I said it would be more apt to compare two different numbers. If you don't think the AP's comparison meant anything, you can ignore it all.
I also said, upthread in the comments: "People keep questioning me as if I devised the plan to fight. Bush chose to do it the way he did for some reason. For him, there seems to have been one interwoven plan. Obviously, it is open to the criticisms people are making. All I'm saying is that if you want to compare deaths from the path he took, the right point of comparison is to the path not taken. I'm willing to concede that there are more than one not-taken paths."
I understand the criticisms of Bush for having this view. Maybe he was wrong. But if the criticism is based on how many people died, it's fair to point out that people would have died if the other path had been taken, and you don't know how many. Our invasion of Iraq presumably has had some effect on terrorism. You simply do not know what it is.
"For someone who prides herself on her writing, you sure create a lot of confusion."
Ha. To say that is to show that you don't get this blog. I use rhetorical devices intended to engage the reader's mind. If you jump without thinking, you are missing the point. You have to think here. It may often seem simple, and you may think you know what is being said, but that is a trap for the unwary. I'm starting a discussion here, often with questions and elision. If you think I'm just sledgehammering opinions like your typical partisan political blogger, you will stumble endlessly here.
Ann says:
"I use rhetorical devices intended to engage the reader's mind. If you jump without thinking, you are missing the point. You have to think here."
Wow. You are so smart! And all those people who read words to mean what words mean are so dumb!
Quite a nice little flattering cocoon you've spun for yourself where repeating Republican talking points* is some sly elision. Yeah, you're so superior!
* - Kerry called troops losers or how many people would we have lost if we hadn't "fought back"? To name a couple RTPs.
If it's a cocoon, how did you get in?
I have had to delete a whole series of comments from people who are being abusive to me and totally oblivious to the context of this post, which is about people dying. The shameful lack of taste here is intolerable. I am closing the comments here now.
Post a Comment