Top Chinese General warns U.S. over attack.

[redguru]

Well, if I were redguru, I would start by pointing out that my nice little graph starts in 1980, not 1967, and that you're a stupid butthole for trying to bring Vietnam-era statistics to bear on a piece of evidence that starts in 1980.

But that's just me.

LOL, very good point!

 

[Lumberg]

LOL GD is getting owned but good in this thread and redguru gets all the credit.

Citing sources, using evidence to back up claims. Something gd apparently has maybe overlooked in his storied academic career?

 

[paridhm]

I just hope we don't blow up all the Gen Tso's Chicken factories over there..

Awesome stuff..

I agree. I love that stuff.

 

[GoldenDelicious]

Not really since my graph includes accidental death and death by natural causes, and the non-war years are still higher death ratios per capita. Also, isn't it interesting how I cite all statistical information and historical data but you always seem to provide anecdotal evidence?

well, your link no longer works, so i cant take a look at it. repost link.

secondly, do you expect me to accept the idea that more soldiers die during times of peace than during times of war? what exactly are you trying to say, by saying that "during non war years there are still higher death ratios per capita"

ratios? per capita?

you guys are dying and being maimed at a rate of about 2 dead and 22 wounded (wounded = legs blown off) per day. PER DAY. and you want me to say, oooh, nice graph, nice statistics, your soldiers are sooo much safer when theyre at war. come on.

to quote some unknown dude, there are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics. sure, you linked a page during your post, but the inclusion of those statistics doesnt make you any more correct, or your argument any more weighty, than mine (which you describe as anecdotal, which is incorrect )

So now the elected government of Iraq is an oppressor? Is this because the Sunnis elected to not participate in the election?

it seems that i was quite clear in my statements, though since you are asking questions, then continue reading, my child, and be schooled

when i refuted your description of iraqi combatants as 'insurgents' an instead labelled them risistors to occupation, it was to counter the presumptive language used by your government to insinuate that the interim iraqi government was legitimate, and further that the resisting iraqis were fighting against their own governemtn, rather than american/coalition invaders.

the original government of iraq was hardly elected, it was installed. prime minister alawi has longtime links with the CIA, and has been implicated in some rather shady terrorists acts himself, including a few exectutions and a truck bombing. i would hardly describe the installed, impotent, toothless puppet government headed by a person more befitting the description of terrorist than many of the abu ghraib inmates himself an elected government representative of the iraqi people, which is horrendous enough, even if it were not for the massive conflict of interest in his appointment as minister.

and the non participation of the sunnis has nothing to do with that.

As I said before, the insurgents and foreign terrorists that are carrying out these attacks are more frequently targeting indiginous people than coalition forces. In fact, Iraqi neighborhoods are forming militias to stave off these attacks.

From CNN/Reuters

It's better to have our own militias because we can recognize every stranger who comes into our neighborhood and the police can't," said Sattar Hashim in New Baghdad, a district where a bomb blast last week killed nearly two dozen children.
Hashim said local men guarding the area at the funerals of those killed in the blast detained a Libyan man strapped with explosives who was aiming to attack the ceremonies.
Neighbors supported the informal security.
"When they blocked this road, less people came to my shop and sales went down, but I don't mind as long as we're all safer," said Sheikh Mohammed, the owner of a herbal pharmacy on a street blocked off by water pipes, gates and palm tree trunks.​

is that a CNN link? CNN? please. who is shiekh mohammed? what is the name of his pharmacy? do you actually believe that news comes through the propaganda network you watch?

and what are you trying to insinuate, that the bombings are perpetrated only by foreigners against iraqi locals, and therefore imply that true iraqis are not actively involved in the resistence?

what is your point, exactly? that iraqi nieghborhoods are forming militias to protect them against foreign bombers? you mean, the foreign bombers who wouldnt be there if it werent for the united states? you mean, militias, to take the place of the military that the de-baathification of iraq dismantled, at the behest of the united states?

You missed the boat on my French statement, I wasn't dissing thier imperialism, I was making fun of their abyssmal war record. Sorry you missed it, I'll footnote stuff like that next time so you don't feel left out.

well, given that french criticism to the war has arguably been the most scathing in the western world, i would think that an ambigous statement like yours above should certainly be taken in the context of that opposition and not as some quaint, historical reference to their war record (and might i add, the US has an less than exemplary war record) so perhaps, when you decide to make an obscure reference to a comparitively meaningless bit of trivia via an ambiguous statement, perhaps you SHOULD bloody well footnote it.

I think we know a little about geurilla warfare. We used it fairly effectively in the American Revolution. The US is not bleeding to death in Iraq. Wishing something so does not make it so. If you really think so, click your heels and and recite three times "There's no place like home". It'll get you farther in the long run.

really? you dont think so? lets see....the resistance in iraq is in no way diminished (i can fish around and get the article for the american 4 star general who said that, if you like, but id rather not because i cant be arsed) while military recruiting targets in the US are down by 40%, the war (which has cost about 600 billion so far) has been financed through debt, the word 'draft' has been thrown around quite a bit lately, 49% of americans do not think that the war was worth it (i can fish for that one too, if you like) and this merely 2 years into a war that rumsfield has said may go on for 12 years, indicates a bit of a problem in regards to support at home (i can draw a dotted line for your thoughts to follow to understand that one, if you like) the polish have just described their participation in the war and its justification as 'being taken for a ride', the english are pulling out of iraq, the australians are also pulling out of iraq, the japanese are kind of left with their balls hanging out because they arent carrying guns...meaning, you know, theyll likely pull out soon, the american economy is shitting itself (again), the words 'impeach' 'bush' and 'downing street memo' are in the air (finally)....how much longer do you think this war can possibly go on? the US doesnt have an exit strategy, but niether does it have a game plan, the puppet government it hoped for looks to be out of the question, with a secular religious government (with ties to iran, no less...lol) poised to take power...bud i dont really see that youre winning here....and if you know so much about guerilla warfare, (do i have to say it again?) if you arent winning, youre losing.

Since a vast majority of the people in Iraq want to make this government work, and in fact, even the Sunni clerics are advocating voting in upcoming elections, your point of a growing insurgency is not valid.

USA Today/Christian Science Monitor

Except for the Sunni insurgent fringe, every faction appears eager to move forward to the constitutional referendum and the next elections. For many Sunnis, the elections appear to hold greater importance, as an opportunity to achieve genuine representation at a national level.

The General Conference of Sunnis, a loose-knit group of clerics and politicians, urged Iraq's Sunnis to register to vote to claim their rightful share in decisionmaking. Sunnis — the sect that held sway before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 — have been hindered, unlike the Kurds and Shiites, by their inability to agree among themselves on major national issues. Shiite parties, in contrast, are reaching out to their supporters for input on constitutional issues. More than 1,000 Shiite women recently gathered to discuss the role they want in the future Iraq. ​

invalid?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050718/pl_afp/uspoliticsiraq
WASHINGTON (AFP) -
Iraq rebel attacks will peak in six months and US troops can begin withdrawing in a year, retired US general Barry McCaffrey told Congress.

"January through September 2006 will be the peak period of the insurgency and the bottom rung of the new Iraq," McCaffrey told the Senate foreign relations committee.

'invalid' lol i dont think so and given that this whole war was meant to be a 'cakewalk', when i hear 'peak in 6 months' and 'us out in a year', i read 'its going to be fucking bad for the next 6 months, but hold tight, and in a year, youll hear the next excuse as to why the US cant leave'

but its nice that women are voting, isnt it?

the reason the clergy is advocating elections is because they know that if they dont, iraq will spiral into civil war, and it will be worse for everybody.

Why are you putting up an Iraq War strawman in a thread about China? Why do you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about the US? Why do you denigrate the other poster instead of refuting their argument?

because there is overlap between this thread and the other iraq thread, and it was appropriate contextually.

 

[75th]

really? you dont think so? lets see....the resistance in iraq is in no way diminished (i can fish around and get the article for the american 4 star general who said that, if you like, but id rather not because i cant be arsed) while military recruiting targets in the US are down by 40%, the war (which has cost about 600 billion so far) has been financed through debt, the word 'draft' has been thrown around quite a bit lately, 49% of americans do not think that the war was worth it (i can fish for that one too, if you like) and this merely 2 years into a war that rumsfield has said may go on for 12 years, indicates a bit of a problem in regards to support at home (i can draw a dotted line for your thoughts to follow to understand that one, if you like) the polish have just described their participation in the war and its justification as 'being taken for a ride', the english are pulling out of iraq, the australians are also pulling out of iraq, the japanese are kind of left with their balls hanging out because they arent carrying guns...meaning, you know, theyll likely pull out soon, the american economy is shitting itself (again), the words 'impeach' 'bush' and 'downing street memo' are in the air (finally)....how much longer do you think this war can possibly go on? the US doesnt have an exit strategy, but niether does it have a game plan, the puppet government it hoped for looks to be out of the question, with a secular religious government (with ties to iran, no less...lol) poised to take power...bud i dont really see that youre winning here....and if you know so much about guerilla warfare, (do i have to say it again?) if you arent winning, youre losing.

LOL this "argument" was priceless. This is going to be fun.....

lets see....the resistance in iraq is in no way diminished (i can fish around and get the article for the american 4 star general who said that, if you like, but id rather not because i cant be arsed)

Why dont you find it.

while military recruiting targets in the US are down by 40%

Army. Not military. Theres more than one branch in the military. Did you know what in May of this year was the first time in TEN years that the Marines missed their recruiting goal? You said yourself the war has been going on for the past 3 years, so why not a decline back then? By the way, both the Navy and Air Force EXCEEDED its recruiting goal for both 2003 and 2004.

Using one branch as an example that encompasses all is kinda ignorant. But of course, we have come to expect nothing less.

has been financed through debt, the word 'draft' has been thrown around quite a bit lately

By whom? Democrats wanting to have TV sound bites available. What a pathetic argument.

the words 'impeach' 'bush' and 'downing street memo' are in the air (finally)

By whom? Oh yea, angry kids who dont know any better. And nice try with the Downing Street Memo. You should really read up on current events regarding that subject before you throw it out as an argument against us. Little do you know, you just scored our side a point. You are definately the best player on our team.

the US doesnt have an exit strategy

You retards and your "exit strategy." We dont want or need an exit strategy. We came in with a victory strategy, which despite what folks who dont know any better may think, is playing out quite well. The advancements made in Iraq over the past year alone are completely unprecedented, and something that folks such as yourself argued could never be done.

with a secular religious government (with ties to iran, no less...lol) poised to take power

Do you know anything about Iran? If so, please detail what exactly is wrong with that country and why the US shouldnt involve itself in a positive diplomatic relationship with it.


Basically, your argument boils all down to "soldiers are dying and college kids want to impeach Bush, so therefore you are losing the war."

 

[GoldenDelicious]

Well, if I were redguru, I would start by pointing out that my nice little graph starts in 1980, not 1967, and that you're a stupid butthole for trying to bring Vietnam-era statistics to bear on a piece of evidence that starts in 1980.

But that's just me.

well, if i was looking at a bunch of war data during peacetime that said more soldiers were dying during times of peace than during times of war, then id be inclined to think that something smelt fishy about the data.

but thats just me.

and if i were thinking about data in 1980 and the battlefield first aid available from then until the present day, as well as the advances in life support and trauma recovery over the same period, with their combined implications on combat trauma survival, particularly in the context of a marked improvement since the vietnam era, then simply imagining a graph of the likely survival rates vs chronological year from the vietnam era, through 1980, to present day, with the obvious assumption that the curve would be somewhat linear, or exponentially curved, upwards from vietnam through 2004 with 1980 at a midpoint between the two, then i would certainly think that the transition between the 1:4 and 1:11 dead:wounded ratio from vietnam to the present day would most certainly be applicable

but again, thats just me

its good to be me

 

[GoldenDelicious]

75th, my sleeping pill is kicking in, so my fingers look funny, and im going to have to reply to you tomorrow...but first, after having read your post, i just have to say....Welcome to Earth, Spaceman! which part of the galaxy are YOU from? wow, you must travelling a looooooong time to get here!

 

[redguru]

well, your link no longer works, so i cant take a look at it. repost link.
secondly, do you expect me to accept the idea that more soldiers die during times of peace than during times of war? what exactly are you trying to say, by saying that "during non war years there are still higher death ratios per capita"

I clicked on the link in the original article and it worked fine. It's a pdf chart, btw, provided by the US Defense Department and is required by Congressional oversight. Sorry, per 100,000. The ratio of death to per capita is 1:1 as time approaches infinity.

you guys are dying and being maimed at a rate of about 2 dead and 22 wounded (wounded = legs blown off) per day. PER DAY. and you want me to say, oooh, nice graph, nice statistics, your soldiers are sooo much safer when theyre at war. come on.

No what I am trying to show you is that statistically the US loses as many men in training for war as we do in war. We're pretty damn good at making war. Better than anyone else on the face of this planet. We've had to be for the last 50 years, what other country would foot the bill in money and men for the Cold War?

to quote some unknown dude, there are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics. sure, you linked a page during your post, but the inclusion of those statistics doesnt make you any more correct, or your argument any more weighty, than mine (which you describe as anecdotal, which is incorrect )

You are the one who quoted statistics without providing cites. If you are going to use statistical data in an argument, you must back it up with the data, or it is anecdotal.

it seems that i was quite clear in my statements, though since you are asking questions, then continue reading, my child, and be schooled

I will let your personal attack stand without comment.

when i refuted your description of iraqi combatants as 'insurgents' an instead labelled them risistors to occupation, it was to counter the presumptive language used by your government to insinuate that the interim iraqi government was legitimate, and further that the resisting iraqis were fighting against their own governemtn, rather than american/coalition invaders.

the original government of iraq was hardly elected, it was installed. prime minister alawi has longtime links with the CIA, and has been implicated in some rather shady terrorists acts himself, including a few exectutions and a truck bombing. i would hardly describe the installed, impotent, toothless puppet government headed by a person more befitting the description of terrorist than many of the abu ghraib inmates himself an elected government representative of the iraqi people, which is horrendous enough, even if it were not for the massive conflict of interest in his appointment as minister.

and the non participation of the sunnis has nothing to do with that.

Ok, so Allawi is as detestable as Hussein and his sons? Tell that to the Kurds and the Shi'a. It seems the only people on record actually blaming Allawi for terrorist acts are the former government of Iraq and unnamed former agents of the CIA. But back to the here and now, he hasn't been in power since January, so the insurgents are still attacking because of him? Another strawman argument.

is that a CNN link? CNN? please. who is shiekh mohammed? what is the name of his pharmacy? do you actually believe that news comes through the propaganda network you watch?

CNN is probably more leftward leaning and is a more vocal opponent to the war than most networks in the US, excluding CBS. That is a Reuters article linked through CNN, but I suppose you think Reuters is a propaganda network for the US, as well.

and what are you trying to insinuate, that the bombings are perpetrated only by foreigners against iraqi locals, and therefore imply that true iraqis are not actively involved in the resistence?

what is your point, exactly? that iraqi nieghborhoods are forming militias to protect them against foreign bombers? you mean, the foreign bombers who wouldnt be there if it werent for the united states? you mean, militias, to take the place of the military that the de-baathification of iraq dismantled, at the behest of the united states?

The implications of that quoted article is that a majority of Iraqis are not in favor of and some are standing up to your so-called resistance. Only a small faction of Sunni are the truly radical insurgency besides the foreign terrorists coming in through Syria.

really? you dont think so? lets see....the resistance in iraq is in no way diminished (i can fish around and get the article for the american 4 star general who said that, if you like, but id rather not because i cant be arsed) while military recruiting targets in the US are down by 40%, the war (which has cost about 600 billion so far) has been financed through debt, the word 'draft' has been thrown around quite a bit lately, 49% of americans do not think that the war was worth it (i can fish for that one too, if you like) and this merely 2 years into a war that rumsfield has said may go on for 12 years, indicates a bit of a problem in regards to support at home (i can draw a dotted line for your thoughts to follow to understand that one, if you like) the polish have just described their participation in the war and its justification as 'being taken for a ride', the english are pulling out of iraq, the australians are also pulling out of iraq, the japanese are kind of left with their balls hanging out because they arent carrying guns...meaning, you know, theyll likely pull out soon, the american economy is shitting itself (again), the words 'impeach' 'bush' and 'downing street memo' are in the air (finally)....how much longer do you think this war can possibly go on? the US doesnt have an exit strategy, but niether does it have a game plan, the puppet government it hoped for looks to be out of the question, with a secular religious government (with ties to iran, no less...lol) poised to take power...bud i dont really see that youre winning here....and if you know so much about guerilla warfare, (do i have to say it again?) if you arent winning, youre losing.

Would that 4-star General happen to be one of the challengers for the Democratic Party nomination in the previous Presidential election, Wesley Clark? Every single word that comes out of his mouth is skewed to the left side. He's a political animal, as he was even during the Kosovo campaigns when he was SACEUR. And again you are spouting numbers with no cited references.

The only people talking about a draft in the US are Conyers and his rabble in the minority party in the House of Representatives. In case your news is a little slow over there, the US economy isn't foundering at all, GNP projections for 2005 were just raised to 3.5% GROWTH.Reuters/LA Times

The government in Iraq is currently working on thier Constitution, due to be unveiled in August. Hold off judgement on the form of government, everything said until then is just speculation of the press. And even so, if that's the will of the Iraqi people, so be it. That's the thing about democratic governments they can work to the detriment of the people as long as they will it. Look to your own ethnic background for that.

Downing Street Memo? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA, copy of a copy of a re-typed memo that only the reporter verified ever existed? I can write one on some toilet paper that would hold just as much weight.

invalid?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050718/pl_afp/uspoliticsiraq
WASHINGTON (AFP) -
Iraq rebel attacks will peak in six months and US troops can begin withdrawing in a year, retired US general Barry McCaffrey told Congress.

"January through September 2006 will be the peak period of the insurgency and the bottom rung of the new Iraq," McCaffrey told the Senate foreign relations committee.

'invalid' lol i dont think so and given that this whole war was meant to be a 'cakewalk', when i hear 'peak in 6 months' and 'us out in a year', i read 'its going to be fucking bad for the next 6 months, but hold tight, and in a year, youll hear the next excuse as to why the US cant leave'

but its nice that women are voting, isnt it?

the reason the clergy is advocating elections is because they know that if they dont, iraq will spiral into civil war, and it will be worse for everybody.
because there is overlap between this thread and the other iraq thread, and it was appropriate contextually.

You do know who Barry McCaffrey is, right? He was the Drug Czar in the Clinto Administration and is a party hack. He has had no access to military strategy or intelligence for over 5 years now. Where is he getting his intelligence? Howard Dean? The last time he was in Iraq was 1991. I'm sure he doesn't want to talk about that.

 

[75th]

75th, my sleeping pill is kicking in, so my fingers look funny, and im going to have to reply to you tomorrow...but first, after having read your post, i just have to say....Welcome to Earth, Spaceman! which part of the galaxy are YOU from? wow, you must travelling a looooooong time to get here!

In every instance when an argument is presented to you that is obviously one you cannot retort, automatically you are either drunk, sleeping, or prettying yourself up.

You would command a little more respect if you just admitted that, hey, you may be wrong. I do it all the time, and Im the most respected member of this board that my mom knows.

 

[bluepeter]

In every instance when an argument is presented to you that is obviously one you cannot retort, automatically you are either drunk, sleeping, or prettying yourself up.

You would command a little more respect if you just admitted that, hey, you may be wrong. I do it all the time, and Im the most respected member of this board that my mom knows.

lol