4 ms·

It'll be interesting to see what happens if the oil money flows to the people in Iraq. Strategically, it would be a very wise move on the part of the US, as it

by jcnnghm 17y ago

It'll be interesting to see what happens if the oil money flows to the people in Iraq. Strategically, it would be a very wise move on the part of the US, as it would assist in shoring up relations with the region. If for their entire lives they've been told that the United States is the Great Satan, then the US invades, lets them kill Saddam, and makes everyone that's left rich in the process, it may reverse some of that. So far this year, Iraq is safer for US servicemen than where I am today, Baltimore. (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2010/01/man_pleads_guilty_in_murder_of.html http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/blog/2010/01/man_...) The unpopular decisions made by the Bush administration seem to be paying off.

jacquesm 17y ago
If you make your sample small enough you will always be able to say that. A one month period is not long enough to make sweeping statements like that. To suggest that Iraq is safer for US servicemen than Baltimore you'd have to look at a period long enough to include your 'anomaly', which by the way was written in January. And you'd have to qualify the slayings as combat, which they clearly were not, if you'd include non-combat deaths from Iraq it would look quite different. http://militarytimes.com/valor/ http://militarytimes.com/valor/ shows that if you take that up to now (that's only a bit under two months later) that it no longer is true even if you were to qualify those deaths as combat.
- mnbvgfhjk 17y ago
  Since the start of the war in Iraq, deaths (in action) of US servicemen have been lower than the preceding decade. Training is actually more dangerous than war these days! It's a little bit worse if you include suicides.
- jcnnghm 17y ago
  How about a three month period then. So far this year there have been 36 homicides in Baltimore. This is actually a record low because of the six feet of snow that have been dumped on the city this year, another record. In Iraq there have been 16 military fatalities, all US troops. 6 of those military fatalities were combat related. If that's not good enough for you, let's take a look at all of 2009. In Iraq in 2009 there were 150 total military fatalities, 149 of which were US troops. In Baltimore, there were 238 homicides. Of those military fatalities, I count 75 combat deaths. No matter how you slice it or dice it, Baltimore city is more dangerous for US citizens than Iraq is. It's worth noting that Baltimore isn't a combat zone, and the people being killed aren't issued body armor, assault weapons or armored vehicles to defend themselves.
jsz0 17y ago
That would be an ideal outcome but oil rich nations don't traditionally pass the wealth down to the population. We haven't fundamentally solved any of the religious or sectarian conflicts however have improved security to stop the most obvious evidence of these conflicts. It's also very unclear what happens in a post-Malki Iraq or how the Iranian influence plays out -- or what happens when extremists rise to power via the democratic process. So ultimately I think we can reach a clean point in the near future to declare victory and leave the country in a better state than we found it but personally I don't see a future where significant US military forces aren't back in Iraq within the next decade. Politically I cannot imagine any situation short of spontaneous middle east peace that would justify this war even if the nation building project ends up being successful. A good parallel would probably be Vietnam. Public opinion has actually gotten worse about the Vietnam war over time even as Vietnam itself reconciled and prospered and the Soviet Union collapsed.
- miked 17y ago
  even as Vietnam itself reconciled and prospered Per capita income is $2,900 / year (PPP). https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/vm.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/... While they have recently begun freeing up their economy, that still is less than what some people reading this make in a week.

by jcnnghm 17y ago

jacquesm 17y ago

If you make your sample small enough you will always be able to say that. A one month period is not long enough to make sweeping statements like that. To suggest that Iraq is safer for US servicemen than Baltimore you'd have to look at a period long enough to include your 'anomaly', which by the way was written in January. And you'd have to qualify the slayings as combat, which they clearly were not, if you'd include non-combat deaths from Iraq it would look quite different. http://militarytimes.com/valor/ http://militarytimes.com/valor/ shows that if you take that up to now (that's only a bit under two months later) that it no longer is true even if you were to qualify those deaths as combat.

mnbvgfhjk 17y ago
Since the start of the war in Iraq, deaths (in action) of US servicemen have been lower than the preceding decade. Training is actually more dangerous than war these days! It's a little bit worse if you include suicides.
jcnnghm 17y ago
How about a three month period then. So far this year there have been 36 homicides in Baltimore. This is actually a record low because of the six feet of snow that have been dumped on the city this year, another record. In Iraq there have been 16 military fatalities, all US troops. 6 of those military fatalities were combat related. If that's not good enough for you, let's take a look at all of 2009. In Iraq in 2009 there were 150 total military fatalities, 149 of which were US troops. In Baltimore, there were 238 homicides. Of those military fatalities, I count 75 combat deaths. No matter how you slice it or dice it, Baltimore city is more dangerous for US citizens than Iraq is. It's worth noting that Baltimore isn't a combat zone, and the people being killed aren't issued body armor, assault weapons or armored vehicles to defend themselves.

jsz0 17y ago

That would be an ideal outcome but oil rich nations don't traditionally pass the wealth down to the population. We haven't fundamentally solved any of the religious or sectarian conflicts however have improved security to stop the most obvious evidence of these conflicts. It's also very unclear what happens in a post-Malki Iraq or how the Iranian influence plays out -- or what happens when extremists rise to power via the democratic process. So ultimately I think we can reach a clean point in the near future to declare victory and leave the country in a better state than we found it but personally I don't see a future where significant US military forces aren't back in Iraq within the next decade. Politically I cannot imagine any situation short of spontaneous middle east peace that would justify this war even if the nation building project ends up being successful. A good parallel would probably be Vietnam. Public opinion has actually gotten worse about the Vietnam war over time even as Vietnam itself reconciled and prospered and the Soviet Union collapsed.

miked 17y ago
even as Vietnam itself reconciled and prospered Per capita income is $2,900 / year (PPP). https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/vm.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/... While they have recently begun freeing up their economy, that still is less than what some people reading this make in a week.