Posted on 10/07/2002 11:28:59 AM PDT by Asmodeus
I have no illusions that life can be casulty free (that's why I want to know how many troops we are expected to lose in the invasion of Iraq.) As for civilian casulties, I would note that Switzerland isn't worried about terrorist attacks and neither is Norway. There is a connection between our foreign policy and the animus other nations hold for us.
So you're saying that we ought to apologize for 9/11. That explains things.
Sigh. No, not to us they're not. They're not going on TV and saying "we think about 2000 American soldiers will die if we do this, give or take."
Only an idiot would expect a leader to even do this. For one thing, those "computer projections" she mentions are just that: computer projections. What sense is there in saying "we tried this in a video game and 2000 soldiers died"? The downside is that Americans are scared into paralysis. The upside is... wait, there is no upside. And the stupid part is, such numbers are based on smoke and mirrors in the first place! "Computer projections", for crying out loud!
And not a single reporter has stood up at a press conference -- or at one of the president's countless fundraising appearances -- and asked, "Mr. President, how many young Americans are going to die?"
Maybe most reporters don't want to appear stupid by asking inherently stupid, unanswerable questions. But go ahead Ms. Huffington, knock yourself out....
And is Saddam the clear and present danger that would justify asking our sons and daughters to give up their lives for their country?
Bush has already answered this in the affirmative. Perhaps Ms. Huffington missed it.
The question of casualties is all the more important given the weight attached to polls showing that over 70 percent of Americans support an invasion of Iraq. This purported groundswell of public opinion ....
In other words, Ms. Huffington is complaining that Americans who support a war on Iraq simply haven't been properly propagandized with trumped-up casualty projections. Thus their responses are somehow not fair or accurate; thus the groundswell is only "purported". But if they were propagandized first and then given a poll, then that poll would be accurate. I understand now.
Let's set aside for a moment the ludicrousness of basing our national security policy on the shoot-from-the-lip responses of a person who has been interrupted in the middle of dinner -- or a soapy shower or helping the kids with their homework -- and asked by a pollster, "Do you support the president's policy on Iraq?"
A poll's a poll, for crying out loud. We know they are inherently inaccurate, but for pete's sake she's complaining not only because she disagrees with the outcome here but because she wants the public to receive a different sort of propaganda before being polled. One can only conclude that she'd approve of a poll if it was phrased "Projections show that X American soldiers will die if we attack Iraq. Do you approve of attacking Iraq?" So her objection here about pulling people out of a "soapy shower" is completely disingenuous. She doesn't have a problem with polls per se, she has a problem with non-push-polls that don't go her way.
That being said, we're not going to attack Iraq "because of polls" in the first place. Yes, that would be absurd. But it's the polls which are supporting and following Bush's lead on this, not the other way around.
The fact is the number of Americans in favor of going to war with Iraq plummets -- down to only 39 percent in the latest Zogby poll -- when the prospect of "thousands of American casualties" is added to the question.
Yawn. The fact is that you can get any outcome you want out of a poll if you phrase it in the appropriately leading way.
And such a bloody outcome is very likely given the kind of urban warfare it's going to take to oust Saddam.
Says the military expert Arianna "Beard" Huffington.
We are told by the proponents of invading Iraq that it's a bold step necessary to prevent future casualties. But in order to make an informed decision on the war, shouldn't the people also be told how many present casualties we will have to suffer in order to avoid these future ones?
In a word: no. It's simply impossible to say (oh-so-accurate "computer projections" notwithstanding) and only an idiot would think otherwise. I guess we know what that makes Ms. Huffington. What she really wants is for us to pre-empt ourselves and blackmail ourselves out of acting against Saddam, in part by scaring ourselves to death with trumped-up numbers. That indeed appears to be what this column is asking for.
Get over yourself. Questions are great. It's idiotic questions which are a waste of all our time.
Getting? GETTING? Try "has past gotten tiresome."
That would be more like it.
In both cases, the opponents of involvement predicted thousands of casualties. History speaks for itself.
BTW we have already suffered 3,000 plus casualties in the current war. These were encountered on the homefront.
I'll let you figure out what's wrong with your own question.
So you're saying that we ought to apologize for 9/11. That explains things.
No, I'm saying that only a fool thinks his own conduct is always perfect.
I'll let you figure out what's wrong with your own question.
I think I'll rather try to figure out why you have such a slavish devotion to authority.
Answer: Americans, in their public discourse, are so damn trivial they want only "Fun" or "Happy" wars. Just like on thu TEE VEE!
WHAT?
I pointed out to you that there is a fallacy with your question "And, in a democracy, what's so awful about that?" There is a problem with this question. I asked you to point out your own fallacy.
But from that, you tell me "I think I'll rather try to figure out why you have such a slavish devotion to authority."
Now, you tell me, where on earth did you come to this conclusion from the point I made to you? "Slavish?" Hmmm... I'll let that go.
Enlighten me on your thinking, please. It appears that there is no way to come to this conclusion from what I said to you.
I'm all ears.
I know better now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.