Fallujah Casualites: Michael Moore asked Bill O'Reilly

[host]

last summer if O'Reilly would send his own child to fight in Fallujah to "retake"
that city from "insurgents". Now that we know the "price" of our current
"progress" in Fallujah is 38 dead American troops and 275 wounded, and......
in view of the current conditions in Iraq, would you volunteer to go there to
fight for the "liberation" of another Iraqi city, or urge a member of your own
family to do so? Why, or why not?

......While U.S. forces have won a military victory, the process of rebuilding Falluja, assisting around 150,000 residents who fled, and preparing it for January elections could take months.

Iraq's Red Crescent group sent seven truckloads of food and medicine to the city, but U.S. forces blocked the aid convoy at Falluja's main hospital and said it could not enter. The convoy turned back on Monday after three days of frustration.

"It's our third day here at the hospital and all we have done is receive promises from the Americans," Hassan Rawi, a member of the International Federation of the Red Cross, said.

American commanders say they are working to deliver assistance to the city themselves, and urged any Iraqis needing aid to go to Falluja's main hospital, on the western outskirts Iraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said he did not believe any civilians were killed in the offensive, which has left 38 U.S. soldiers, 6 Iraqi troops and more than 1,200 insurgents dead. But witness accounts contradicted him.

A member of an Iraqi relief committee told Al Jazeera television he saw 22 bodies buried in rubble in Falluja's northern Jolan district on Sunday.

"Of the 22 bodies, five were found in one house as well as two children whose ages did not exceed 15 and a man with an artificial leg," Mohammed Farhan Awad said. <a href="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6816418">http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6816418</a>

Fighting erupts in Sunni Muslim heartland

CTV.ca News Staff

As U.S. forces reportedly mop up the last remaining pockets of resistance in Fallujah, fierce battles are being waged in Iraq's Sunni Muslim heartland.

The death toll is mounting as U.S. and Iraqi forces face opposition in several Iraqi cities, including Baqouba, Ramadi and Mosul.

In Fallujah, where the offensive is now in its second week, warplanes are making between 20-30 bombing sorties in the city.

The assault has left at least 38 U.S. troops and six Iraqi soldiers dead. Another 275 American soldiers have been wounded. <a href="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1100519625068_21?hub=World">http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1100519625068_21?hub=World</a>

[filtherton]

I'd send a child of george bush to honorably serve our great country in a second.

[Locobot]

O'Reilly was about to answer but he got a call from his producer that he had to take in private, with some kleenex, and some lube. Why would we send his children and not Bill himself? I'm not sure Bill could pass the mental health requirements for enlistees though, seeing as he's a pathological liar.

[Lebell]

It's too bad that the responses have to start out snide.

To the point,

If a child of mine chose a military career, that would be fine with me.

[daswig]

hmmmm....38 dead americans, as compared to 1200 dead insurgents. That's one dead US troop for every 38 dead insurgents. Compare this with 2700 dead Americans and 19 dead insurgents, and Fallujah is a screaming bargain for the US.

[quicksteal]

I would, in fact, encourage some of my family members to join the military if they were considering it, because some of them are lazy bums that need some direction in their lives. Instead of wasting away their youth, they could help the world by serving our country. Things are most definitely not going as planned in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that we should just give up. Would I go over there?...no way, but that's because I know that I have something different to offer--I can be a supernerd. Many people--such as Bill O'Reilly--have different duties as Americans than those called to serve in the military.

What I'm saying is, for some people, despite the fact that we're in a time of war, the rewards outweigh the risks of being in the military.

[Coppertop]

Originally Posted by daswig

hmmmm....38 dead americans, as compared to 1200 dead insurgents. That's one dead US troop for every 38 dead insurgents. Compare this with 2700 dead Americans and 19 dead insurgents, and Fallujah is a screaming bargain for the US.

You still believe that 9-11 involved Iraq? I weep for this nation.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Lebell

It's too bad that the responses have to start out snide.

To the point,

If a child of mine chose a military career, that would be fine with me.

What's the problem? I was serious.

I'd fight a justified war, and as for what i'd encourage my hypothetical children to do, i'd encourage them to think critically and make up their own damn mind.

I want to hear what ustwo would have to say, being a new daddy and all.

[daswig]

coppertop, nope. I also don't think that most of the insurgents in Fallujah are Iraqis either.

[Coppertop]

Originally Posted by daswig

coppertop, nope. I also don't think that most of the insurgents in Fallujah are Iraqis either.

Then why the "19 dead insurgents?"

[daswig]

they're from the same pool....muslims willing to die to try and make their political point. It's a lot easier and safer for America to kill them on the ground in Iraq than to try and kill them on airplanes in the US.

We need to provide a place for people who "will die for Jihad" to go so that we can help them realize their dreams.

[Coppertop]

Originally Posted by daswig

We need to provide a place for people who "will die for Jihad" to go so that we can help them realize their dreams.

And I'm sure they feel the same about Americans who "will die for Bush." Glad to see we've evolved as a culture.

[daswig]

most people in the US military don't sign up intending to die. They aren't promised 72 virgins if they die.

[Locobot]

Originally Posted by daswig

hmmmm....38 dead americans, as compared to 1200 dead insurgents. That's one dead US troop for every 38 dead insurgents. Compare this with 2700 dead Americans and 19 dead insurgents, and Fallujah is a screaming bargain for the US.

If those sound like such good odds then post your info, I'll help you get in touch with some recruiters. They'll be friendly, I promise.

[daswig]

loco, been there, done that, and am too old now.

[irateplatypus]

when you think about killing those insurgents piecemeal, arresting them individually or letting them slide in and out of iraq at will over the next 10 years... the assault on fallujah is a resounding success. now that we're there... we certainly did the right thing by killing so many while using our conventional means of force as opposed to doing it by policing methods.

38 dead is still a somber figure but if you consider how many would have probably died during the rest of our time in iraq by those same insurgent fighters... we did a good thing, or at least a prudent thing.

i don't think many realize how incredibly well the fallujah assault went. you're facing a determined extremist enemy who:
1) knows the city and terrain well.
2) have had months to set up booby traps and barricades
3) are fighting from their chosen entrenched positions
4) have the advantage of defending an urban environment while the opposing force is mindful of civilian and collateral damage.

all that and the KIA casualty rate was over 42:1 in our favor. we should thank the lord it wasn't worse than it was... urban combat can get very messy. this was truly an ass kicking of the finest variety.

[unbzete]

Originally Posted by Lebell

If a child of mine chose a military career, that would be fine with me.

I think that's just the point, and it's what makes Moore's antics so moot. It's a volunteer/professional military. Adults sign up of their own free will to submit themselves to the orders given them.

Moore's attempt to portray it as only the children of the poor dying, is not only propagandist, but irrelevant because of this.

Asking a parent if they would send their child to war is just silly grandstanding, because the answer is almost invariably going to be no, regardless of the person asked, or the war fought. What parent would ever answer yes?

There are plenty of military conflicts I thought were "right", Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda (eventually), but if someone asked me if I'd "send" my child there...hell no I wouldn't. But I'd support him or her if they chose a military life.

[Lebell]

Originally Posted by unbzete

I think that's just the point, and it's what makes Moore's antics so moot. It's a volunteer/professional military. Adults sign up of their own free will to submit themselves to the orders given them.

Moore's attempt to portray it as only the children of the poor dying, is not only propagandist, but irrelevant because of this.

Asking a parent if they would send their child to war is just silly grandstanding, because the answer is almost invariably going to be no, regardless of the person asked, or the war fought. What parent would ever answer yes?

There are plenty of military conflicts I thought were "right", Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda (eventually), but if someone asked me if I'd "send" my child there...hell no I wouldn't. But I'd support him or her if they chose a military life.

I also think that some on the left think that a military career is somehow shameful, or a least somehow below them or their offspring (hence Moore and his bogus "getting killed for whitey" schtick.)

What they fail to realize is that most on the right of center don't feel that way at all.

[sprocket]

Originally Posted by unbzete

Asking a parent if they would send their child to war is just silly grandstanding, because the answer is almost invariably going to be no, regardless of the person asked, or the war fought. What parent would ever answer yes?

Furthermore, once a child reaches the legal age of 18 (wich is required to join the military) a parent has no right to send their child anywhere against their free will.

[pan6467]

I have served in the military and would be proud if any of my children (had I any) wanted to serve. BUT I would not be very happy with their decision to go and die not for honor or our country but for Haliburton's wallet. I would not be happy with that decision but I would honor and respect their choice in life.

My father didn't want me to join the Navy, but when I graduated bootcamp it was one of his proudest moments. As one of mine would be to see a child of mine graduate.

[Kadath]

Originally Posted by Lebell

I also think that some on the left think that a military career is somehow shameful, or a least somehow below them or their offspring (hence Moore and his bogus "getting killed for whitey" schtick.)

What they fail to realize is that most on the right of center don't feel that way at all.

There's nothing shameful about a military career. That some poor young men are left with no option but to sign up for a four-year hitch and end up getting killed is a shame.

"Born down in a dead man's town
The first kick I took was when I hit the ground
You end up like a dog that's been beat too much
Till you spend half your life just covering up.

Born in the USA

Got in a little hometown jam
So they put a rifle in my hand
Sent me off to a foreign land
To go and kill the yellow man."

[Ustwo]

You know, you would think the men were being forced into combat at gun point like it was the Russians at Stalingrad.

The concept being that the military is filled with poor saps who had no choice but to join and are now being forced into combat is as big as myth as the concept that combat troops are disproportionately minority in nature.

[Tarl Cabot]

Originally Posted by Lebell

It's too bad that the responses have to start out snide.

To the point,

If a child of mine chose a military career, that would be fine with me.

You might not be the only one. I saw yesterday that the Marines have met their recruiting quota, and apparently the Navy and Air Force are on track as well.

[Tarl Cabot]

Originally Posted by Coppertop

You still believe that 9-11 involved Iraq? I weep for this nation.

It doesn't strike you as odd how al Quaeda is all over Iraq? Beheading people, etc.?

Even if you want to claim the al Quaeda members went there after we arrived, isn't it better to have them there than in the US?

By the way, we've neutralized 75% of its members.

[Tarl Cabot]

Originally Posted by daswig

most people in the US military don't sign up intending to die. They aren't promised 72 virgins if they die.

Yeah, but someone forgot to tell them it's 72 virgin camels.

[Tarl Cabot]

Originally Posted by pan6467

I have served in the military and would be proud if any of my children (had I any) wanted to serve. BUT I would not be very happy with their decision to go and die not for honor or our country but for Haliburton's wallet. I would not be happy with that decision but I would honor and respect their choice in life.

My father didn't want me to join the Navy, but when I graduated bootcamp it was one of his proudest moments. As one of mine would be to see a child of mine graduate.

If it's not too personal, when did you go to boot camp, and which one was it?

Only asking because I was stationed at a Navy boot camp for awhile.

[smooth]

Originally Posted by Tarl Cabot

It doesn't strike you as odd how al Quaeda is all over Iraq? Beheading people, etc.?

Even if you want to claim the al Quaeda members went there after we arrived, isn't it better to have them there than in the US?

By the way, we've neutralized 75% of its members.

They are there and here. I don't see why this either-or fallacy gets floated around and somehow retains currency. Possibly some of it has to do with the fact that the people most spouting it are not anywhere near a place that is most affected by immigration and terrorism.

For example, our nighly news has been running reports on the tens of thousands of suspected terrorists posing as mexicans and streaming across the border. and that doesn't even touch on the people already living here. damn, I would think that the military people here would be more conscious of how cells operate--after all, we fucking taught them how to organize into cells.

Nor the second notion: we neutralized 75% of al qaeda? no, the best I'd give you is that the US got 75% of the names it listed as those of interest.

How exactly do you figure out what percentage you've got if you don't know who is involved? That is, the government would need to know how many people were in al qaeda before you could even begin to believe it had gotten any percentage of them.

[Coppertop]

Originally Posted by Tarl Cabot

It doesn't strike you as odd how al Quaeda is all over Iraq? Beheading people, etc.?

Even if you want to claim the al Quaeda members went there after we arrived, isn't it better to have them there than in the US?

By the way, we've neutralized 75% of its members.

Odd? Not at all. They're there because there are a shitload of reporters there with a) heads to be removed and b) cameras to report it (among other nasty things that happen there) to the world. Not to mention US soldiers, whom I am sure they'd also love to get ahold of.

And about me "claiming" that they went there after we arrived, can you really be serious? You really think they were roaming about Iraq doing these things before the US arrived? Hussein and AQ had no more connection than Bush and AQ. That's been established already. bin Laden hated Hussein for him bringing US troops to the Gulf and Saudi Arabia (you know, his homeland) back in the first Gulf War.

And like it was mentioned before, how exactly did you come across the 75% figure? And again, knowing that would necessitate knowing the number of AQ in total. I find it odd that that information would be known to anyone, AQ included. That's not the way terrorists organizations work.

[drawerfixer]

Originally Posted by daswig

hmmmm....38 dead americans, as compared to 1200 dead insurgents. That's one dead US troop for every 38 dead insurgents. Compare this with 2700 dead Americans and 19 dead insurgents, and Fallujah is a screaming bargain for the US.

War Crimes in Fallujah

Nother Story

I'm not trying to discredit your entire argument ala strawman. I definately think we're killing a bunch of 'insurgents', though I hardly believe our justification for these attacks is right and true. However, I would be very careful on believing Pentagon numbers for 'insurgent deaths.' Widespread? Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not even going to pretend to act like I know the details nor stories of Iraqi civilians.

[D Rice]

Originally Posted by host

last summer if O'Reilly would send his own child to fight in Fallujah to "retake"
that city from "insurgents". Now that we know the "price" of our current
"progress" in Fallujah is 38 dead American troops and 275 wounded, and......
in view of the current conditions in Iraq, would you volunteer to go there to
fight for the "liberation" of another Iraqi city, or urge a member of your own
family to do so? Why, or why not?

There is a reason why you can't join the military until you are 18. You are old enough to make up your own mind. You sign the papers of commitment. Bill O'reilly wouldn't sign papers to send his kid to war his kid would sign the papers. IT is a great spin by a complete bastard. Has he taken down his completly disrespectful website yet with the pictures of deceased soilders?

[host]

Originally Posted by Lebell

I also think that some on the left think that a military career is somehow shameful, or a least somehow below them or their offspring (hence Moore and his bogus "getting killed for whitey" schtick.)

What they fail to realize is that most on the right of center don't feel that way at all.

Your opinion is that the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003, was "absolutely necessary"? The <a href="http://www.house.gov/skelton/pr031029attachment.htm">hometowns</a> that the nearly 1200 dead American troops
come from belies the accuracy of the reference in the quote below.

Why are you linking Moore to some racial reference? Moore is obviously
projecting the message that the agenda of the wealthy, powerful, and
opportunity rich class in this country includes a state of perpetual fear
driven warfare that disproportionally recruits the poor, disadvantaged youth, who grow up in areas of the country where job opportunities, other than in the military, have vanished, largely as a result of the investment and political decisions of the ruling class. Moore protests the corrupt, unpatriotic, exploitive nature of the ruling class. They order our troops into harms way to achieve goals that, they themselves would never risk their own lives or those of their own children to achieve. Are you more angry about Moore's message, or his success in projecting it? Did you watch Farenheit 9/11?

If you disagree, tell me where you think I have misinterpreted Moore's
message.

Not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq. And who could blame them? Who would want to give up their child? Would you?
[Shot of President Bush appears onscreen]
Narrator: Would he? I've always been amazed that the very people forced to live in the worst parts of town, go to the worst schools, and who have it the hardest are always the first to step up, to defend us. They serve so that we don't have to. They offer to give up their lives so that we can be free. It is remarkably their gift to us. And all they ask for in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. Will they ever trust us again? <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/quotes">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0361596/quotes</a>

[Kalibah]

Originally Posted by D Rice

There is a reason why you can't join the military until you are 18. You are old enough to make up your own mind. You sign the papers of commitment. Bill O'reilly wouldn't sign papers to send his kid to war his kid would sign the papers. IT is a great spin by a complete bastard. Has he taken down his completly disrespectful website yet with the pictures of deceased soilders?

Ahh finally someone else who gets it. Most of our soldiers support what they are doing, and Michael Moore doesn't realize that. Nevermind the fact that no one decides to 'sign someone else up'. You know, or should rather, what your getting into- acting like 'we' have betrayed our soldiers? How? By sending soldiers to war- thats their job, and their duty- to follow orders from the elected Commander in Chief.

By bring race into it- most people just tone out. What would we have America do? If its a 'fact' that blacks or other minorities cannot afford to go to college other than by joing the military, what are we to do about it? Is that America's leaders fault?

[Pacifier]

Originally Posted by drawerfixer

War Crimes in Fallujah
"The U.S. military has begun an investigation into possible war crimes after a television pool report by NBC showed a Marine shooting dead a wounded and unarmed Iraqi in a Falluja mosque, officials said on Monday"

I'm wondering if there would be an investigation if this dumb soldier hadn't killed the man in front of a camera.

[host]

Originally Posted by Kalibah

Ahh finally someone else who gets it. Most of our soldiers support what they are doing, and Michael Moore doesn't realize that. Nevermind the fact that no one decides to 'sign someone else up'. You know, or should rather, what your getting into- acting like 'we' have betrayed our soldiers? How? By sending soldiers to war- thats their job, and their duty- to follow orders from the elected Commander in Chief.

By bring race into it- most people just tone out. What would we have America do? If its a 'fact' that blacks or other minorities cannot afford to go to college other than by joing the military, what are we to do about it? Is that America's leaders fault?

Moore realizes that there is overwhelming economic power and the political
influence that it can buy, earnestly and methodically redistributing the
most of this nation's wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer entities......
......to the point that this transfer of wealth has been so damaging and
so successful, that a military draft is not even needed to "sign up" the
new recruits who are destined to be tomorrow's Bush regime's casualties.
In 1970, the wealthiest one percent controlled 13 percent of the nation's
total wealth. 3o years, later, the top one percent control 33 percent of the
wealth, and the wealthy are granted huge tax cuts, elimination of inheritance
taxes which were in effect when the top tier managed to shift an additional
20 percent of the total wealth of this nation from the rest of us, to.......
themselves......and our "all volunteer" military gets sent to fight "pre-emptive"
wars of choice. Most of America does not comprehend what the economic
impact studies and the wealth distribution trend data reveals.....and you
are convinced that 18 year old recruits can discern opportunity from
exploitation that has been ordained by the agenda of the political class's
wealthiest benefactors?

THE WALTONS <a href="http://arkansasbusiness.com/news/headline_article.asp?aid=39021">http://arkansasbusiness.com/news/headline_article.asp?aid=39021</a>
Inside America's Richest Family
Forget Buffett and Gates. The heirs of Sam Walton control about 39% of Wal-Mart, America's largest company. Their $90 billion fortune gives the clan large—if quiet—influence over the American economy and society. An exclusive family portrait

Read the conclusions of the study "Wal-Mart and County-Wide Poverty"
linked in bold type in the box below (On or about page 12)

<p align="left"><b class="b1">Periodicals</b> <a name="periodicals" id="periodicals"></a></p>
<p align="left"><i>The Ecologist</i>, <i>Yes</i>, <i>and Orion</i> Magazines
often run articles on issues related to community and business. <i>Orion
</i> and <i>The Ecologist</i> both have featured
our work. <em>In Business</em> is a green business magazine that ran a feature story
on AMIBA and local IBAs.&nbsp; Mass business publications like Forbes and Business Week now offer small business-specific issues. </p>

<p align="left"><b class="b1">Studies</b> <a name="studies" id="studies"></a></p>
<p align="left">Powerful proof of the benefits of independent businesses to
their communities. Great tools for community members and organizers to use
with planning boards, city councils and others! We expect this list to grow
substantially in the next few years. </p>
<p> <font face="Verdana"><a href="http://civiceconomics.com/Andersonville/html/reports.html">Andersonville Study of Retail Economics</a><a href="http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf"><br />
</a></font><a href="http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf"> <span class="style1">This report, released on October 20, 2004, extends the study done in Austin, Texas in 2003.&nbsp; </span></a><span class="style1">The study compares 10 independent businesses and 10 chains in retail, restaurant and service sectors.&nbsp; The results further corroborate the local economic benefit of independent businesses, demonstrating that independents generate about 3 times the local economic activity as chains.&nbsp; Further, the researchers make the case for community governments to create policy to protect their independent businesses.</span></p>

<p><span class="style2"><h2><a href="http://cecd.aers.psu.edu/pubs/PovertyResearchWM.pdf">Wal-Mart and County-Wide Poverty</a></h2></span><span class="style2"><br />
</span>A study from Pennsylvania State University from October 18, 2004 that indicates counties with one or more Wal-Mart stores experience smaller decreases in family poverty than counties without.&nbsp; Possible causes include the decrease in civic capacity due to local entrepreneurs being driven out of business--people who also tend to be community leaders. <br />
<font face="Verdana"><a href="http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/pdf/wmtstudy.pdf"><br />
Shopping for Subsidies: How Wal-Mart Uses Taxpayer Money to Finance <br />
Its Never-Ending Growth<br />
</a></font>This report by Good Jobs First documents over $1 billion in public subsidies and other forms of handouts that Wal-Mart has received for locating in communities. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.lacity.org/council/cd13/c13pfdc1c.htm">Rodino Report for the City of Los Angeles on the economic impact of Wal-Mart<br />
<span class="style1">A compelling, comprehensive case for the multi-faceted impacts of this big box. </span>
</a>(The hyperlink will take you to a report index--the parts of the Rodino report are noted). </p>
<p><a href="pdf/Chicago_walmart_economic_impact_study.pdf">Wal-Mart: A Destructive Force for Chicago Communities and Companies </a><br />
Economic impact analysis commissioned by the New School of Community Economic
Development, University of Illinois-Chicago, March 25, 2004 </p>
<p><em><a href="http://edworkforce.house.gov/democrats/WALMARTREPORT.pdf">Everyday Low Wages: The Hidden Price We All Pay for Wal-Mart <br />

</a></em>A report by the Democratic staff of the Committee on Education
and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives, February 16, 2004. </p>
<p><a href="pdf/economic_impact_study_santa_fe_11.03.pdf">Report
on Independent Business impact </a> in Santa Fe, New Mexico (Nov. 2003),
both economically and socially, and the threat the sector feels from chain
competition. Commissioned by SFIBCA, AMIBA's Santa Fe affiliate. <br />
<br />
Released in October 2003, <a href="http://www.ptvermont.org/publications/HomegrownEconomy/sprawl_book.htm">10
Reasons Why Vermont's Homegrown Economy Matters: And 50 Proven Ways to Revive
It </a> is the result of two years of collaborative research by Stacy Mitchell
of the New Rules Project and the Preservation Trust of Vermont on specific
reasons why locally owned businesses matter and practical ways to plan for
a homegrown economy, foster revitalization and unite independent businesses--no
matter where you live. <br />
<strong><br />

<a href="http://newrules.org/retail/midcoaststudy.pdf">The Economic Impact of Locally Owned Businesses vs. Chains: A Case Study in Midcoast Maine [PDF]</a></strong><br />
by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance and Friends of Midcoast Maine, September 2003.&nbsp; Findings of this study indicate that three times as much money stays in the local economy when you buy goods and services from locally owned businesses as with chains. This study tracked the revenue and expenditures of eight locally owned businesses in Midcoast Maine.</p>
<p align="left"><a href="pdf/Economic_Impact_study_tx.pdf">Economic Impact
study</a> in Austin, Texas (2002) substantiating the economic multiplier--of
over three times--of two independent businesses, Waterloo Records and
Book People, as compared to a Borders Books &amp; Music Corp. store (planned
for inclusion in a nearby--and publicly subsidized--development). </p>
<p align="left"><a href="pdf/barnstable_fiscal_impact_report.pdf">Fiscal impact analysis</a> in
Barnstable, Massachusetts (2002) that compares the tax revenue generated
by different kinds of residential and commercial development with the actual
cost of providing public services for each land use. Revenue gainers: community-based
businesses; revenue losers: big boxes, fast food chains and strip malls.</p>

<p align="left"><strong>&quot;Is it fair to give taxpayers' money to big corporations
that will then use it to help put existing firms out of business?&quot;</strong>
question Dr. Kenneth Stone and Georgeanne Artz in their <a href="pdf/stone_home_improvement_center_study.pdf">study
of big box home improvement centers and their effect on host towns and
surrounding communities</a>. Published in 2001.


Findings: sales of hardware and building supplies grow in the host communities,
but at the expense of sales in smaller towns nearby. Moreover, after a few
years, many host communities experienced a sharp decline in
hardware and building supplies sales, often dropping below their initial
levels, as more big box stores opened in the surrounding region and saturated
the market. </p>
<p align="left"><a href="http://www.lawmall.com/rpa/rpashils.htm">The Shils Report</a> (1997),
entitled " Measuring
the Economic and Sociological Impact of the Mega-Retail Discount Chains
on Small Enterprise in Urban, Suburban and Rural Communities," was groundbreaking
research by Edward B. Shils, Director Emeritus of the Wharton Entrepreneurial
Center at the University of Pennsylvania. The report details the effect of
chains and big boxes on small businesses due to economies of scale and
governmental failure to enforce antitrust laws. Other studies have built on
Shils' work. Follow the link to the 250-page downloadable report. </p>
<p align="left">Dr. Kenneth Stone's (Iowa State University, 1977) landmark
study on Wal-Mart's effect on Iowa's rural communities 10 years after the
corporation's arrival, <em><a href="pdf/stone_10_yr_wal-mart_study_plus_tips.pdf">Impact
of the Wal-Mart Phenomenon on Rural Communities</a></em>,
provides strong evidence of how this big box displaces locally owned independent
businesses in the community and the surrounding area. It also provides Dr.
Stone's advice to locals on competing with chains. </p>

<p align="left">&nbsp;</p><a href="http://amiba.net/recommended.html">http://amiba.net/recommended.html</a>

<a href="http://www.uwec.edu/geography/Ivogeler/w111/greedy.htm">http://www.uwec.edu/geography/Ivogeler/w111/greedy.htm</a>
"The growth in the incomes of the richest one percent of Americans," observes the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "has been so large that just the increase between 1980 and 1990 in the after-tax income of this group equals the total income the poorest 20 percent of the population will receive in 1990."

[daswig]

Originally Posted by drawerfixer

I'm not trying to discredit your entire argument ala strawman. I definately think we're killing a bunch of 'insurgents', though I hardly believe our justification for these attacks is right and true. However, I would be very careful on believing Pentagon numbers for 'insurgent deaths.' Widespread? Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not even going to pretend to act like I know the details nor stories of Iraqi civilians.

OK, let's say we only killed 600 insurgents. Or even 300 insurgents. It's still a bargain for us.

[host]

Originally Posted by daswig

coppertop, nope. I also don't think that most of the insurgents in Fallujah are Iraqis either.

Your argument is BS, because it is not supported by the facts, It is required,
though, to rationalize our disfunctional, national leadership and it's criminal
military aggression.

Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - Page updated at 12:00 A.M.
<a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002091915_fighters16.html">http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002091915_fighters16.html</a>
Insurgents mostly Iraqis

By John Hendren
Los Angeles Times

CAMP FALLUJAH, Iraq — The battle for the city of Fallujah is giving U.S. military commanders an increasingly clear picture of this country's insurgency, and it is the portrait of a homegrown uprising overwhelmingly dominated by Iraqis, not by foreign fighters.

Of the more than 1,000 men between the ages of 15 and 55 who were captured in intense fighting in the center of the insurgency over the past week, just 15 are confirmed foreign fighters, Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. ground commander in Iraq, said yesterday.

There is evidence that organized foreign fighters were present. One dead guerrilla bore Syrian identification. A number of insurgents believed to be foreigners wore similar black "uniforms," each with black flak vests and weapons superior to those of their Iraqi allies.

There has been an intense focus on the terror network of Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi by U.S. and Iraqi officials who have insisted that most Iraqis generally support the country's interim government. However, U.S. commanders said their best estimates of the proportion of foreigners among their enemy was about 5 percent.

The overwhelming majority of insurgents, several senior commanders said, are drawn from the tens of thousands of former government employees whose sympathies lie with the toppled regime of Saddam Hussein, unemployed "criminals" who find work laying roadside bombs for about $500 each, and homegrown Iraqi religious extremists.

[Superbelt]

I think the "flypaper" strategy/theory is disgusting. "We're fighting them over there en-masse so we don't have to fight them 19 at a time as they hijack planes"

Iraq had nothing to do with anti-american terrorism. That has been established. It's so appalling that there are those who advoctate flypaper being performed in a country that wasn't threatening us. What about the millions of Iraqi's who have their lives disrupted and threatened now because we want to draw all the "terrorists" in to one place to fight them. Why not draw them to Texas instead of a country that has never had anything to do with these terrorists?
Also, you don't beat an organization like Al Qaeda with the "flypaper strategy" The organization is organic, and our actions like this help fuel their recruitment drive. We can draw them to a place all we want, but the result will be an unknown limit to recruiting more willing fighters.

[Clark]

If you are under 35, male, in the US, and pro war join.

My brother is in the army I ate dinner with one of the men from the "Letters Home" program, a good friend of my brothers.

Arguments that count lives like curency sicken me.

[stevo]

Originally Posted by Pacifier

I'm wondering if there would be an investigation if this dumb soldier hadn't killed the man in front of a camera.

Who are you to call this soldier dumb? Shame on You! Whether you are against the war or not doesn't give you the right to slander an American Hero. Its a war. He had been shot in the face the day before and was right back out there on the battlefield killing the insurgents. In a war it comes down to split-second, life or death decisions. At the same time that video was shot, just one block away a booby-trapped body of a dead insurgent blew up, injuring 5 U.S. troops and killing one.

How can you expect a US soldier to do anything less than kill an insurgent who is faking dead when the possibility of that insurgent detonating a booby-trapped body or pulling the pin out of a grenade that is hidden under his clothes exists? It is the US troops who are trying to fight by the rules of "international law".

You never hear the international red cross or amnesty international criticize the insurgents from fighting from mosques, pretending to surrender and then opening fire? That is what outrages me.

It is not this marine who is dumb, but the self serving camera man who was thinking more of himself and a pulitzer prize than the effect this video would have. He knows the soldier was in the right but that didn't matter to him.

Perhaps this is a topic for another discussion. I'll see you there.

[Pacifier]

not sure, because I've heard a lot of strange vies here, but I hope you just tried to be ironic...