For anyone interested. Here's some stats on the 4000 who gave their lives for our country.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080324/ap_on_re_us/4000_fallen_by_the_numbers

What's so intersting to me about the 4,000 dead soliders is:

(1) The Administration's apparent or percieved desire to sweep them and their deaths under the rug in furtherance of their political goals; and

(2) The fact that 4,000 is the big number, with barely a mention of the estimated 90,000 civilians killed.

That said, I almost started crying on my cimmute to work today as they played a stoey on NPR about a fallen soldier.

That said, I almost started crying on my cimmute to work today as they played a stoey on NPR about a fallen soldier.

Audio link (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88939595).

(2) The fact that 4,000 is the big number, with barely a mention of the estimated 90,000 civilians killed.
Conservative estimate. Would be helpful if the Administration actually compiled and published those numbers. But like so many other things ...

Conservative estimate. Would be helpful if the Administration actually compiled and published those numbers. But like so many other things ...

Compiled numbers on civilian casualties? Wouldn't that be a responsibility of the Iraq government? atmo (:D), I don't think this is an administration shortfall, not ours anyway.

Compiled numbers on civilian casualties? Wouldn't that be a responsibility of the Iraq government? atmo (:D), I don't think this is an administration shortfall, not ours anyway.
Fair enough.

But if that's indeed the case, then whose responsibility is it when you (illegally) overthrow said Iraqi government?

Fair enough.

But if that's indeed the case, then whose responsibility is it when you (illegally) overthrow the government?

In The Beginning...when the CPA was in charge of Iraq, they should've been doing this. Once the Iraqi government got up and running, the responsibility turned over.

As for illegally overthrowing the government, I'll say that I'm not well-read enough on different sides of how we actually came to enter Iraq to argue this point on either side.

In The Beginning...when the CPA was in charge of Iraq, they should've been doing this. Once the Iraqi government got up and running, the responsibility turned over.

As for illegally overthrowing the government, I'll say that I'm not well-read enough on different sides of how we actually came to enter Iraq to argue this point on either side.
my thought was the determinate was a holdover from the cease fire born out of Desert Storm.

Conservative estimate. Would be helpful if the Administration actually compiled and published those numbers. But like so many other things ...
Yeah, I've hear much larger figures. No one really knows.

I think it's our responsibility to account for and justify and/or rationalize these deaths. We overthrew the Iraq government (for better or worse) and are thus a factor, if the the cause of these deaths. It's also the admitted position fo the U.S. government that the Iraqis need us there while they get their sh*t together, so it seems unfair to say that this is their responsibility.

The inevitable conclusions I seem to come to is not that it's not our responsibility, but rather, that we just don't care about the deaths of Iraqui civilians.

my thought was the determinate was a holdover from the cease fire born out of Desert Storm.

Why ?

Why ?
oh, great. ask me to remember..:)

If I recall, it has to do with various resolutions voted on by the UN. Iraq's non-compliance with those resolutions. I can't list them all. But a quick google can list them.

oh, great. ask me to remember..:)

If I recall, it has to do with various resolutions voted on by the UN. Iraq's non-compliance with those resolutions. I can't list them all. But a quick google can list them.

I think I'm misunderstanding your point. Your post about the determinant being a holdover from the Desert Storm cease fire...relates to responsibility to account for civilian casualties?

Yeah, I've hear much larger figures. No one really knows.

I think it's our responsibility to account for and justify and/or rationalize these deaths. We overthrew the Iraq government (for better or worse) and are thus a factor, if the the cause of these deaths. It's also the admitted position fo the U.S. government that the Iraqis need us there while they get their sh*t together, so it seems unfair to say that this is their responsibility.

The inevitable conclusions I seem to come to is not that it's not our responsibility, but rather, that we just don't care about the deaths of Iraqui civilians.

My point isn't that Americans shouldn't care about Iraqi civilians. Of course we should. And civilians are taken in to account when planning all military operations. If America were invaded by Canada, would it be Canada's responsibility to provide civilian casualty numbers to the World (assuming America still had a governmental body)?

Should America take responsibility for Iraqi civilians right now? Maybe...certainly if [EDIT] one's point of view is that the country was invaded illegally, and that Al Qaidi in Iraq wouldn't have existed, and Sadr's militia wouldn't have had the power it wields, and the random kidnappings wouldn't be happening, if Saddam were still in power.

My point isn't that Americans shouldn't care about Iraqi civilians. Of course we should. And civilians are taken in to account when planning all military operations. If America were invaded by Canada, would it be Canada's responsibility to provide civilian casualty numbers to the World (assuming America still had a governmental body)?

Should America take responsibility for Iraqi civilians right now? Maybe...certainly if your point of view is that the country was invaded illegally, and that Al Qaidi in Iraq wouldn't have existed, and Sadr's militia wouldn't have had the power it wields, and the random kidnappings wouldn't be happening, if Saddam were still in power.
I know that's not your point, but I was rounding out my perspective, i,e. that we really don't care. To your post, comparing the capability and responsibility of the Canadian and Iraqi governments is a stretch. My basic point is that the Iraqui government currently lacks and certainly has lacked in the past five years the ability to care for its own citizens. That's why we are there, that's why Bush did the surge. It's a massive co-out to wipe our hands of this issue and say this is your responsibility (even though we know you can't and won't do it).

America is, in fact, taking responsibilty for Iraqui citizens and the Iraqi government rigth now. Quite frankly, it's my perspective that we broke the country and it's out responsibility to fix it, or at least make it viable. This is now, the rationale for starting the war is in the past and has no link to the current need for pragmatism. History will judge harshly the Bush Administration's ineptitude. Again, that is and has been for the past year or so our rationale for being in Iraq. How we chnage this state is a different issue.

Lastly, I do not appreciate you attemnpting to put words in my mouth and creating a straw man based on over-simplified views that I do not share. Moreover, they are only tangentially-related to your post and really not necessary, or at least, lack explanation.

Lastly, I do not appreciate you attemnpting to put words in my mouth and creating a straw man based on over-simplified views that I do not share.

Fair enough. Let me know if my edit doesn't satisfactorily take my words out of your mouth. :)

Fair enough. Let me know if my edit doesn't satisfactorily take my words out of your mouth. :)
No worries. We cool. My underlying concern, I suppose, is that the media, politicians and the like keep feeding us the idea that there are only ideologically polar opposite positions on the Iraq S.N.A.F.U. when that isn't the case.

No worries. We cool. My underlying concern, I suppose, is that the media, politicians and the like keep feeding us the idea that there are only ideologically polar opposite positions on the Iraq S.N.A.F.U. when that isn't the case.

And my concern is that the media, politicians, and spinsters keep focusing on how we got there, rather than figuring out the smart way to get home. At least, that's my take on how the war is portrayed in the US. Maybe I'm too close, it's hard for me to watch...maybe the talking heads get to a valid point somewhere in the middle of their expose.

There's something viable between pulling out 1 week after inauguration and a long term (read: Germany/Korea) occupation. We have a lot of smart people...we should be able to figure this out. And not the American way, this needs to be the Iraqi way.

And my concern is that the media, politicians, and spinsters keep focusing on how we got there, rather than figuring out the smart way to get home. At least, that's my take on how the war is portrayed in the US. Maybe I'm too close, it's hard for me to watch...maybe the talking heads get to a valid point somewhere in the middle of their expose.

There's something viable between pulling out 1 week after inauguration and a long term (read: Germany/Korea) occupation. We have a lot of smart people...we should be able to figure this out. And not the American way, this needs to be the Iraqi way.
I agree. It's frustrating, especially as a registered Democrat, to hear so much about how we got into this mess. The country needs to move on and make things better so we can leave. I tend to think that us starting to leave will make the Iraqui leadership actually do something.

As for the American/Iraqui way, I'm sorry, but that sounds like a vacuous talking point. The current Iraqui way is to ethnic cleanse and rely on the US to police the country.

And my concern is that the media, politicians, and spinsters keep focusing on how we got there, rather than figuring out the smart way to get home. At least, that's my take on how the war is portrayed in the US. Maybe I'm too close, it's hard for me to watch...maybe the talking heads get to a valid point somewhere in the middle of their expose.

There's something viable between pulling out 1 week after inauguration and a long term (read: Germany/Korea) occupation. We have a lot of smart people...we should be able to figure this out. And not the American way, this needs to be the Iraqi way.

That's the problem, this is such a colossal f*ck up that all the kings horses and all the kings men can't put Iraq back together again.

Not to mention that Bush alienated half of our country, and more than half of the world, and they don't even wanna help him outa his mess. Sounds pretty cold, but I've talked to more than a few linguists and other technical experts who refuse to even offer this admin their services.

"You don't just bring the military to war, you bring a nation." That didn't happen...

It's spelled "Iraqi", not "Iraqui".

...As for the American/Iraqui way, I'm sorry, but that sounds like a vacuous talking point. The current Iraqui way is to ethnic cleanse and rely on the US to police the country.

What I was trying to say with this, is that in general Americans tend to think that if we can get a nation pointed in a capitalistic direction, that country (and its citizens) will start making money. This draws the country into the global economy and then it becomes harder to act out violently or state sponsor terrorism because the country still relys on other countries of the world...kind of like the US' desired strategy to peacefully end the Cold War with the USSR.

From the classes I've been to (not saying this is right, and I'm certain this is an over-simplification) what I understand is that the Iraqi point of view is just different. Seperation of church and state doesn't exist, and the parliament is still tacitly controlled by the mullahs. If the world was able to bring Western Capitalism (successfully) to Iraq, individual successes would likely been seen as Allah's Will. If that success were to fade to nothingness, again it would likely be seen as Allah's Will.

What Americans consider radical islam didn't happen over night. It's been building over decades. Most of the world's population of Muslims are not jihadists. But groups like AQ are good at recruiting, filling a hole in someone's life somewhat similar to recruiting for a cult. We (the world community) need to reach as many of the potential recruits in some way so that the pipeline can be stopped. There will always be some that are just way out there, like in every nation in the world. But to stop the mainstreamers from getting into the pipeline...that would be a good thing/.

For anyone interested. Here's some stats on the 4000 who gave their lives for our country.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080324/ap_on_re_us/4000_fallen_by_the_numbers


Here's some imagery to go with that number.

Here's some imagery to go with that number.

I wonder why anyone would think this piece of "imagery" is appropriate. Regardless of what side of the aisle you hang your hat in, this image is tasteless. I doubt that the loved ones of these brave men and women appreciate the fact that their images are being used to further someone's political agenda. It's a shame. Their images should be presented with honor and praise, not some tasteless political ploy. I suppose this is how some people "support the troops". Here's a thought, support the troops, go and vote. It's a right these 4,000 Americans raised their right hands and swore to defend so people could go and use.