Actually what he/she said isn't without logic, but you failed to think about it before posting a smarmy ass reply.

His/her point (this is just a made up example to demonstrate how %'s can swing rather easily):

If 100 people died in WWII, and 10 of them were from friendly fire: 10% died from friendly fire.

If 50 people died in VietNam, and 10 of them were from friendly fire: 20% died from friendly fire.

If only 10 people died in the Gulf War and 5 of them died from friendly fire: 50% of them died from friendly fire.

The number of friendly causalities didn't change or went down in my above examples, however, the percentage shot up each time. That was his/her point. Because less Americans are dying in modern wars, friendly fire causalities have now become a more visible percentage despite fewer overall American deaths.


>> ^nanrod:

The number one casualty of that comment was logic.>> ^Tymbrwulf:
In order to compare friendly fire statistics you'd have to compare that against actual war casualties.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that each successive war after WWII had less casualties, but the same rate of friendly fire. Mathematically this would show a statistical increase in percentage friendly fire even though the actual casualties are less and less.
I wouldn't say the problem is getting any worse, but it definitely isn't getting any better (which is still a problem).

I don't know what out of date knowledge you are talking about. This is as concise a video I can find on his view. He does leave out the issue that I think we talked about just prior that by course of action of being sick you can spread the sickness to people who are also not vaccinated. I would be interested to see his opinion on that. But his knowledge hardly seems out of date being that he is at least aware and considering the causes and effects of gulf war syndrome. Moreover, he has many family members that are doctors with even more recent information that I am sure he gleans off of. I would be interested what exact out of date reckoning you are talking about, perhaps that would provide some context. I could, however, find some suspicion in the statement of shots overwhelming the immune system. But he sates that more as something he thinks should always be a consideration, not something there is empirical evidence of. I can't even comment as to the existence or non-existence of such a unbiased study, I am no a virologist.

What makes you think that he wouldn't listen to experts? Moreover, he also has more of a backbone than Obama and won't just capitulate to the first expert that spreads fear his way. That is how I see the wall street bail out, as some clever fear mongers gaining from the fear they were able to sow. People in medicine most likely aren't so sinister, but they still are people interested in funding their objectives, and will always think that the thing they are working on is the most important thing in the world. Take my uncle for example. He works as a experimental biologist on Anthrax. And as such, he always frames it as the "most important issue of our time!". While it is not a trivial problem, his proximity to it distorts the relevance. The same could be said of this recentish flu thing. It was all over the news, so we all think it is super serious, but really, it wasn't.

The market is just democracy of money. When the government steps in and takes over sections of the market it distorts the true value of it. If you want cheap medication, you don't want the government involved, period. Government does not make things cheaper or more wildly available, ask Russia. They had plenty of tanks and nuclear bombs, but they didn't have soap or woman's pantyhose. I think it is interesting that you bring up Typhoid Mary. What about drunk driver bill? Should alcohol be banned to prevent this public health concern that is drunk driving? Where does the line for public safety begin and end? If it is completely arbitrary, then I fear the future viral police state!! Perhaps they will let me have the sick blonds in this evil future...that is my one hope!

(please frame conversation as interested in discussion and not trying to antagonizing, I don't usually come off well in text! If you placed a couple of hehehe I just fated in between some lines it should give an idea to my state of mind.)

Remember at the time everyone actually thought Iraq had WMDs, so what March came a rollin' everything got serious, curfews started, gas masks were issued for essential people and sirens were installed all over the city.

So yeah that play got cancelled.

In reply to this comment by Fletch:
How did the war prevent a play from being performed?

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
Reminds me when I acted in a Charles Dickens inspired play and then Gulf War 2 started and it was never performed.

How did the war prevent a play from being performed?

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
Reminds me when I acted in a Charles Dickens inspired play and then Gulf War 2 started and it was never performed.

Reminds me when I acted in a Charles Dickens inspired play and then Gulf War 2 started and it was never performed.

I think any war movie or movie about prisons should just be excluded right away. That's just plain stupid. Of course there are few women in a pre-gulf war era movie, it just reflects the reality. Same goes for prison movies, Cool Hand Luke is one of the best movies ever and the only two women I can think of in the movie offhand are a tease who washes her car in a very sexy manner just to play mind games with the prisoners and Luke's mom. That doesn't make it a sexist movie.

Also, on the flip side, there ARE movies about women that don't pass the inverse test. Just face it, some movies are geared towards men, and some towards women. The only ones to be concerned about are those which are not obviously 'chick' or 'guy' flicks that show these problems.

Well, since this has been promoted, I'll paste the reply I left on EndAll's profile to his question.
I'll also correct myself: In my third point I falsely claim that Lehi was responsible for the King David hotel bombing, when in fact it was the Irgun that committed that act. Those guys weren't as extreme as Lehi, but not by much.
>> ^demon_ix:

- The video seems to take it for granted that "Zionists" are a tiny fraction of Jews, when in fact, the opposite is true. The anti-Israel Jews are a tiny minority, and their only objection to Israel is that it's too early. They believe that when the messiah comes again, he will take back the land, and so there is no reason to do it before his return. They are the Jewish equivalent of Christian believers in Rapture, fanatical Muslims and so on.
- There's some nice footage at 5:50 of planes dropping bombs and cannons bombarding settlements while Mr. Rees discusses the Jewish defensive organizations, conveying the appearance that the Jews were attacking Palestinians at the time, when the biggest piece of military hardware they had at the time were rifles, often without ammo.
- The bombing of the King David hotel (6:46) was performed by a tiny splinter group known as Lehi, which was the most extreme bunch of lunatics in our history. They even attempted to ally themselves with Nazi Germany at one point. Mr. Rees generously attributes this to "The Zionists".
- In the description of UN resolution 181 (7:20), he skips completely over the actual formation of the Nation of Israel on May 14th 1948, and declares the 1948 war which involved EVERY SINGLE NATION BORDERING ISRAEL, was in fact simply Jews terrorizing Palestinians. The relevant details about the actual progress of the war are here. He mentions the actual war in about 3 words afterwards.
- The 1967 war, or the Six Day War, started with an invasion of Israel by it's bordering nations. Mr. Rees states that Israel expanded it's borders as though it was on an Imperialist quest to grab more land.
- The quickly described war of 1973, or the Yom-Kippur War, was started AGAIN by an invasion from all sides. This time, they picked Yom-Kippur as their day of attack, and managed to catch most of our army by surprise on the one day where the vast majority of Jews rest and eat nothing. This war wasn't spinnable in an anti-Israeli way for Mr. Rees, so he glossed over it quickly and moved on.
- At around 14:00 Mr. Rees describes the American aid to Jordan and Egypt as "payment for not attacking Israel", and ignores the fact that Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979 and Jordan followed in 1994. Syria and Lebanon are still technically at war with Israel, and Iraq actively attacked Israel with Scud missiles during the first Gulf War.
---------
I could probably go into further detail, find more links and keep debating this, but it's 2:15am and I'm quite sleepy. I'll be glad to continue tomorrow.
In reply to this comment by EndAll:
Can you point out for me what history was rewritten? What facts they got wrong, or left out?

Apparently Charles Jaco is the same reporter that is alleged to have done a fake news report during the Gulf War: http://www.videosift.com/video/Fake-CNN-Gulf-War-Newscast

- The video seems to take it for granted that "Zionists" are a tiny fraction of Jews, when in fact, the opposite is true. The anti-Israel Jews are a tiny minority, and their only objection to Israel is that it's too early. They believe that when the messiah comes again, he will take back the land, and so there is no reason to do it before his return. They are the Jewish equivalent of Christian believers in Rapture, fanatical Muslims and so on.

- There's some nice footage at 5:50 of planes dropping bombs and cannons bombarding settlements while Mr. Rees discusses the Jewish defensive organizations, conveying the appearance that the Jews were attacking Palestinians at the time, when the biggest piece of military hardware they had at the time were rifles, often without ammo.

- The bombing of the King David hotel (6:46) was performed by a tiny splinter group known as Lehi, which was the most extreme bunch of lunatics in our history. They even attempted to ally themselves with Nazi Germany at one point. Mr. Rees generously attributes this to "The Zionists".

- In the description of UN resolution 181 (7:20), he skips completely over the actual formation of the Nation of Israel on May 14th 1948, and declares the 1948 war which involved EVERY SINGLE NATION BORDERING ISRAEL, was in fact simply Jews terrorizing Palestinians. The relevant details about the actual progress of the war are here. He mentions the actual war in about 3 words afterwards.

- The 1967 war, or the Six Day War, started with an invasion of Israel by it's bordering nations. Mr. Rees states that Israel expanded it's borders as though it was on an Imperialist quest to grab more land.

- The quickly described war of 1973, or the Yom-Kippur War, was started AGAIN by an invasion from all sides. This time, they picked Yom-Kippur as their day of attack, and managed to catch most of our army by surprise on the one day where the vast majority of Jews rest and eat nothing. This war wasn't spinnable in an anti-Israeli way for Mr. Rees, so he glossed over it quickly and moved on.

- At around 14:00 Mr. Rees describes the American aid to Jordan and Egypt as "payment for not attacking Israel", and ignores the fact that Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979 and Jordan followed in 1994. Syria and Lebanon are still technically at war with Israel, and Iraq actively attacked Israel with Scud missiles during the first Gulf War.

---------
I could probably go into further detail, find more links and keep debating this, but it's 2:15am and I'm quite sleepy. I'll be glad to continue tomorrow.

In reply to this comment by EndAll:
Can you point out for me what history was rewritten? What facts they got wrong, or left out?

I'm just worried that without some sort of guiding body of law about how you sort the innocent from the guilty, and what sorts of consequences are appropriate for which kind of violation, it can easily wind up being just a handy casus belli to tell people whenever you feel like conquering some new territory.
I share your concern over that, but in practice that kind of system simply does not exist at an international level. The UN is supposed to be an attempt at it, but it is completely and utterly ineffectual in that capacity. Of all the wars and atrocities committed since the UN was founded, how many has it actually opposed by placing soldiers on the ground? In the absence of a good solution(an effective UN), we are left with the alternative of unilateral action against tyrants and atrocities, with all the enormous misgivings that come with that.

Maybe if there had been some sort of Holocaust-level sort of abuses going on I'd have been able to agree with it, but then if there had been, the UN probably would have gone along with it too, and it would've been the whole world working to stop it.
But when Saddam was committing Holocaust-level abuses, the UN did nothing(in part thanks to American vetos if I recall). When a million were killed in Rwanda not only did the UN do nothing, they actively withdrew all but 400 of the troops they already had in the country. Korea, Vietnam, East Timor, Cambodia, the whole of Africa and South America, all victims of horrific wars and atrocities that the UN could not or would not prevent or stop.

After the first gulf war, the sole thing that stopped Saddam from repeating his campaign against the Kurds was the unilateral, illegal act of war that was the American enforced no-fly zone over northern Iraq. Saddam's first campaign against the Kurds saw him execute an estimated 2-300 thousand people and destroy 90% of all Kurdish villages. Every single Kurd he could capture was placed in a concentration camp. The women, children and elderly were regularly beaten and malnourished to the point that virtually every last child under the age of 3 died. The men were, without exception, hauled off to pre-dug mass graves to be executed and buried by bulldozer. The concentration camps also had rape rooms, not for the amusement of the guards or humiliation of the prisoners, but with the goal of impregnating the Kurdish women with half arab children in order to breed the Kurdish people out of existence.

Saddam committed holocaust level atrocities and 'illegal' unilateral American intervention prevented him from repeating those acts a second time. In spite of the misgivings I have about unilateral wars, I support the Iraq war on the largest level, in spite of the many lies, mistakes and tragedies that came with it the alternatives were worse.



In reply to this comment by NetRunner:

Really? If this footage was aired as 'live' back during the first gulf war there should be jail time handed out.

>> ^IronDwarf:

Do you really believe that there are people in this world that are so evil that they believe they are justified in making this happen at the cost of thousands of lives, and who would actually go through with it?


Yes. Apparently you weren't around during Viet Nam and have been asleep for the last 10+ years of the Gulf Wars.

Not thousands, but many Hundreds of thousands of lives have been pissed away in the name of western goals by truly evil men during our lifetime.

This is old but having re-read it I think this must be said.

SPEVEO said:
maybe he'll let himself be invaded and occupied by the U.S Military, using their 'Shocker and Awe' doctrine, and maybe then he will revise his views yet again.


Actually, Hitchens already did exactly that. You may remember before the first gulf war when Hitchens was as prominent as he is now, only then he was opposing the war. He then backed up what he said by going to live with the Kurdish people in northern Iraq for a time, much like he recently allowed himself to be waterboarded. It was the act of going to Iraq and living with the Kurds that changed his mind and he came back STILL condemning Bush Sr. for the war, but this time for not going far enough and removing Saddam outright.

For the love of... Drop the WMD thing ffs. Anyone with any knowledge of the state of the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia, prior to the beginning of the second Gulf War knows that Saddam's original possession of WMDs had absolutely nothing to do with our decision to invade Iraq. It was offered as possible cover (they figured maybe he hadn't managed to sell them all to Syria quite yet), because the true motivation for the invasion was not the kind of thing you talk about in public. Reading enough to connect the dots between the first Gulf War, Ab Qaiq, and why we were attacked by Saudis on 9/11 should help you to develop a better understanding of what we're really doing in the Middle East.

PLEASE NOTE: I am not defending Bush or the decision to invade Iraq.

newtboy: Thanks for the well thought out response. It's a welcome change to many kneejerk cliche responses others are fond of.


Osama was, if not the leader, at least an important, vocal member of the mujahideen. We supported him when the enemy was our enemy

He was simply a leader among many leaders within the mujahideen. After the Soviets were defeated dozens of different leaders amongst the mujahideen all started fighting with each other for control of the country. So it is just as accurate to describe our support for the mujahideen as support for Osama's enemies. My point is simply that in reality support for the mujahideen was support for the whole which was bad enough. Describing that as support for a specific individual within the mujahideen is not accurate and is in fact very misleading.


True, I left Carter's name out, because (besides Regan) I was mentioning the people who, in the 60's-70's, helped put Saddam and Osama into power.

I think you have your dates a little confused. The 60's-70's predates everybody you mentioned, including Reagan. Saddam didn't even take power in Iraq until 79 and Osama wasn't fighting in Afghanistan until the late 70's. The Soviet Afghanistan war didn't even start until 79. All once again predating Reagan and everyone else mentioned. Anyways, it's all more of an aside issue other than to make clear that Carter was the one around for the beginning of much of the mess.


Agreed, by the time he invaded Kuwait, there was no denying he was dangerous and no longer acting in our interests, but I propose his nature was evident far before he started killing our allies. That was just when we opened our eyes to his monstrosity.

I don't strongly disagree with this, there is a certain amount of fog/unclarity about who knew what and when. But I haven't any problem with condemning aid to Saddam any point after it was known he used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, which clearly America did not stop after witnessing. It wasn't until he used them on Halabja and it couldn't be blamed on Iran that America cooled towards Saddam, which in my eyes was also much too late.


I do agree that supporting our ally, Kuwait, was proper.

That much I'm very glad to hear.


I certainly disagree that, if we are going to be the ones removing monsters from power, that he should have been our first target.

I couldn't agree more, and for the longest time opposed the second gulf war on nearly that basis alone. Upon listening to more accounts, particularly of the plight of the Kurds, I started to see it a little differently. Saddam may not be my first choice for monsters that need removal, but I must admit that he IS on the list. If he is on my list of monsters for removal, then I support his removal, even if America is only choosing him because it coincides with their self-interest.


Far more monstrous than he were the many dictators in Africa committing genocide, and the Jihadists that had attacked us, yet we ignored them for the most part in favor of (...tried to kill my daddy...) Saddam.

I thought that too, but I've since learnt more about Saddam's rule and discovered that he may not have been the most monstrous dictators in the world, but he was in the very top of the class. In his campaign to exterminate the Kurds he setup concentration camps for them. All Kurdish men in these camps were executed and buried in mass graves. The children and elderly were so mistreated and abused that many died, virtually no children under the age of 5 survived the camps. The women were systematically raped. Not for the guards amusement or to humiliate the women, but to literally breed the Kurdish people out of existence. Oh, and the prisoners in these camps and rape rooms were not limited to the Kurdish people, but anyone even suspected of opposing or questioning Saddam's rule. Saddam was unimaginably more than just a very bad man.


I do not call Saddam an American puppet, but he was our main man in the region for quite some time because he was our enemy's enemy (Iran). As long as he was keeping Iran at bay, we ignored what he did to his own people for the most part.

Agreed, and I'll happily agree to condemn that as well.


American foreign policy is the most important factor to consider when we are talking about American foreign policy in the region.

I agree more with the rest of your paragraph than this start. American foreign policy is not the most important factor, but just one of many vitally important factors.

I again thank you for your reply and can't agree more with your overall assessment of how complicated the issues are and the importance of discussing them beyond the extreme left and right camps that so many seek comfort in.