Victory in Iraq

Ron Getty wrote:

What will a "Victory in Iraq" mean for America and Americans?

If the question is about exit criteria, see

If the question is about the justification for liberating Iraq, see

On May 1 that'll be 3 years ago - 2,200 KIA's

Don't trust what you're told by the liberal media. There have not been 2200
KIAs. Of the first 2236 American military deaths, only 1752 were by hostile
action. See

tary_casualties

It's politically incorrect to complain that accidents in the theater of
operations are rolled up into the war casualties, so I won't. But I will
point out that there is no counter-balancing accounting for lives that may
be saved by deployment to Iraq. I remember once reading an actuarial claim
that the Gulf War actually was a net savings of U.S. military lives, because
of the limited access to alcohol and vehicles during the long pre-war
deployment in Saudi Arabia, as compared to normal accident rates while
stateside. A few minutes' searching couldn't dig up a reference, however, so
YMMV.

Brian Holtz
Libertarian candidate for Congress, CA14 (Silicon Valley)
http://marketliberal.org/>
blog: http://knowinghumans.net/>

Dear Brian;
   
  It is not a question about exit criteria - It is a very specific question. If you are so inclined to do so -
   
  Please give specific benefits a "Victory In Iraq" will provide to America and Americans.
   
  Personally as a Libertarian there is absoultely no justification for the US to have invaded Iraq to " free the Iraqis" and depose a dictator and impose an Army of Occupation.

  As far as deployment in Saudi Arabia cutting down on accidents and alcoholism drunk driving as compared to duty in the US - if the US did not have a standing army which was an anathema to the Founding Fathers there wouldn't be any drunk driving or alcoholism or vehicle accidents from the military at all.
   
  The military is an anachronsim we do not need and its $500 billion dollar budget as we do not expect to be invaded by either Canada or Mexico. The Atlantic Ocean will prevent the Red Army from pouring through the Fulda Gap swimming across the Atlantic and invading the US. And it will prevent the Red Chinese Army from swarming across the Taiwan Straits and swimming across the Pacific Ocean and invading the US.
   
  Ron Getty
  SF Libertarian
   
  P.S. The old bromide of the Liberal media is pure hogwash as an example the NY Times sitting on the NSA spying on Americans without search warrants for a whole gol' dang year. Some Liberal Media!!!!!!!! Baloney!!!!!!!
   
Brian Holtz <brian@...> wrote:
      Ron Getty wrote:
   
  > What will a "Victory in Iraq" mean for America and Americans?
   
  If the question is about exit criteria, see http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans?p=211
   
  If the question is about the justification for liberating Iraq, see http://blog.360.yahoo.com/knowinghumans?p=201
   
  > On May 1 that'll be 3 years ago - 2,200 KIA's
   
  Don't trust what you're told by the liberal media. There have not been 2200 KIAs. Of the first 2236 American military deaths, only 1752 were by hostile action. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq_casualties#Coalition_military_casualties
   
  It's politically incorrect to complain that accidents in the theater of operations are rolled up into the war casualties, so I won't. But I will point out that there is no counter-balancing accounting for lives that may be saved by deployment to Iraq. I remember once reading an actuarial claim that the Gulf War actually was a net savings of U.S. military lives, because of the limited access to alcohol and vehicles during the long pre-war deployment in Saudi Arabia, as compared to normal accident rates while stateside. A few minutes' searching couldn't dig up a reference, however, so YMMV.
   
  Brian Holtz
  Libertarian candidate for Congress, CA14 (Silicon Valley) http://marketliberal.org
  blog: http://knowinghumans.net