Vietnam: 50,000 (or more but used as a baseline) deaths out of an approximate 1.5 million troops = .03333333333333
or 3.3% mortality rate.

Iraq ‘03-present: 3680 (not confirmed, but was the worst case I found on the web) out of an approximate 500,000 troops = 0.00736 or slightly more than 7/10ths of 1% mortality rate.

Reported or suspected fatalities divided by number of troops yields the percentage.

MB4, your numbers would yield 76% and then 73.6% mortality rate in your subsequent posts. Clearly not accurate.

Spc Steve on August 7, 2007 at 3:12 PM

Thank you for your service. And thank you for speaking up on this thread. As you can see, other than Esthier, mostly no one on this thread is interested in hearing anything good or positive about Iraqis that is contrary to their belief that the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim.

Texas Nick 77 on August 8, 2007 at 1:41 AM

And thank you for speaking up too and doing your part to help Iraqis rebuild their lives. It’s going to take a long time and the help of people just like you for them to do that.

Esthier, I admire your guts for standing your ground.

I think this thread is really a poor reflection on Michelle and Hot Air.

I am doing a small part of a much larger job: giving to the decent Iraqis a chance of a better life. It is really up to their leaders to allow that to happen.

What he said goes double for me.

profitsbeard on August 7, 2007 at 10:51 PM

Thanks for the favorable mention, profitsbeard. My comments seem to prompt few replies, for the most part, so I rely greatly on the few they do receive, for a perception they may be being read.

[I]f we actually go and attack Iran, we might start a more serious conflict, involving more than one country.

Esthier on August 7, 2007 at 6:37 PM

Esthier, the Americans are already in “a…serious conflict, involving more than one country.” If they actually go and destroy the governments of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia; seize their oil, ports, and wealth; ransack their offices for their Rolodexes and files; interrogate the survivors; and then dismantle their networks worldwide; they might get some rest from that “serious conflict, involving more than one country.”

Esthier, do you know why I’m taking time to refute you? One reason is that it’s easy and fun; you’re my brain candy for the day. You’re a little more challenging than Nonfactor, but I’m still not breaking a sweat.

Kralizec

kralzec-

What he said goes double for me.

Look, if Islam cannot evolve, then it will die, but if it can evolve humanity in general will benefit.

Esthier on August 7, 2007 at 3:37 PM

It does seem worthwhile to try, at least, to transfer evolutionary thinking to the problem of Islam, but your attempt appears to be just nonsense. For if it happens that muslims already have high reproductive fitness, just as Islam is now, then it doesn’t seem to be advantageous to muslims that their religion change. If reports are at all reliable, muslims do already have high reproductive fitness. Their women stay at home and stay pregnant. Many of their men are aggressive enough to risk warfare whenever it seems possible to extend or increase muslims’ power. It appears Islam is already very much what muslims need it to be. If that’s so, then Islam won’t “die” if it remains the same; it seems likely to go on spreading to more of the Earth unless it changes.

Instead, it seems to be Americans with traditional pieties who need to “evolve.” I have in mind not so much Christian or Jewish piety as left-liberal piety. It seems the Americans will have to return to the opinion that it’s important to be exclusive and selective regarding residency and citizenship. They will have to return to the opinion that motherhood and large families are good. They will have to stop pitying old men and women so much and demand to keep more of their money, untaxed, for their children. They will have to return to the opinion that some things are worth killing for; they will have to learn to honor men who rout their enemies. They will have to return to the opinion that some things are worth arguing for; they will have to learn to honor men who convert their enemies. Soldiers, religious missionaries, political missionaries (diplomats and artists), and economic missionaries (businessmen) will have to kill or convert muslims by the millions.

Esthier, if all this seems like “devolution” to you, it may be because you have some fixed opinion as to what biological evolution is, other than the natural selection of whatever has afforded the greatest reproductive fitness to some group. If we’re to apply evolutionary thinking at all to a religion or any other feature of a regime, it only seems reasonable to try to transfer the core concepts intact. Islam seems already to confer reproductive fitness by encouraging high birthrates, group loyalty, defeat of competitors, expansion of territory, and transfer of resources. Islam already seems much like a highly evolved predator or parasite. In terms of this biological simile, my hope for the Americans and their allies is that they, the host or prey, will mount a vigorous immune response or become, themselves, better predators.

American_Jihadist on August 7, 2007 at 8:46 PM

0.0076 0.76

Most people discard such childhood programming, early enough in life, out of respect of actual reality, when the world around us, and basic common sense, dictates it. Some, however, accept the ugly truth much later, the uglier – the later, and some never at all. For some, liberal orthodoxy never releases its grip on the mind, so depended it is upon its analgesic tenets for comfortable moral certitude.

Fortunately, there are few of those. Fortunate, for there is no one so blind and he who refuses to see.

And what else has changed since then? Oh, right, our military was cut to shreds.

Esthier on August 7, 2007 at 7:00 PM

Ok, let’s do some basic math here. 50,000+ Americans died in Vietnam from a force of roughly 1.5 million volunteers and draftees (assumed). That’s a 3.33333333333333333% death rate.

So far, Iraq has resulted in probably 3680 deaths out of roughly half a million troops. That’s a 0.00736 death rate. Not even 1%. What exactly were you getting at, Esthier?

Our military has not been “cut to shreds” since Vietnam. Not by a long shot.

I’ll leave it to you to clarify since my mind can’t coherently wrap around your statement. If I missed something, please expound.

I rarely read their site – could you give me a quick breakdown on what they say about the consequences of our withdrawal? Just leave and to Hell with it or what? Do they have ideas there?

Just curious. Thanks.

Professor Blather on August 7, 2007 at 7:59 PM

They say that the prospects for Iraq are pretty bleak and that our best hope is to encourage infighting within the camp of Islam rather than discourage it. Hugh Fitzgerald writes the most about it, but we’re leaving sooner or later, and sooner is better.

The Kurds, at least, have seen the light. But that’s only temporary. Kurds who grew up in the west are just as prone to jihadism as the arabs. As long as muslims blame their failures on everything under the sun except the real problem, Islam itself, any gains made will be temporary.

Our main advantages are this:

One, Islam breeds incompetence. Tank divisions flying under a green flag are not going to be rolling into Dar al Harb anytime soon. Insurgent tactics are used by the weak, not the strong, and can only prevail against the enemies unwilling to do what it takes to win. They can’t beat us; we have to surrender to lose. Sadly, millions want us to do just that.

Two, Islam withers under oppression. It is the opposite of Christianity. Look at their definitions of martyrdom. A Christian martyr is one who is murdered for refusing to forsake his faith. A Muslim martyr is one who murders others for refusing to forsake their faith.

When the Spanish did unto the Moors as the Moors did unto them, the results spoke for themselves. The Spanish Inquisition was a corrupt, immoral, inuhumane, brutal, bloodthirsty affair, but it was far more moral and just than what the muslims had been doing for centuries. Muslims (and Jews, who’d made the same mistake they’ve made time and again by trying to sit out of a civil war, earning the wrath of both sides) were given a choice: leave Iberia or convert. Those who converted and then continued to practice islam were the ones who were persecuted.

Immoral, perhaps, but I shed no tears for them. Burning at the stake might be out of date, but no muslim should be in any position of power or authority. If they want the fruits of western thinking, they should learn the values that made them possible. If they want to stay true to the rantings of a theiving, murdering, raping, podophile, let them live in tents in the desert and oppress their goats.

Much that is now desert was once green. A great swath of this planet, from Morroco to Pakistan, has been devastated by centuries of negelct and outright vandalism. As Islam makes a wasteland of the mind, so it has made a wasteland of the land wherever it takes root. Once it is driven out, the land can be restored to it’s former glory.

As to why Iraq has such a mangled power grid, have any of you ever worked with muslims? One word, summing up a multitude of problems: Inshallah.

“When will you get the stuff we need?”

“Tommorow, inshallah.”

“That’s what you said yesterday, and the day before that, and the week before that, and the month before that, and we’re still waiting.”

“You expect us to deliver on our promises? Who do you think we are, westerners?”

Everyone at JihadWatch does. Hugh Fitzgerald writes a missive about once a week on the subject.

PRCalDude on August 7, 2007 at 7:14 PM

I rarely read their site – could you give me a quick breakdown on what they say about the consequences of our withdrawal? Just leave and to Hell with it or what? Do they have ideas there?

Just curious. Thanks.

Look, if Islam cannot evolve, then it will die, but if it can evolve humanity in general will benefit.

Esthier on August 7, 2007 at 3:37 PM

How many of us will die before Islam does – if it doesn’t evolve? How long do we wait?

To give Islam the benefit of the doubt, I have a theory: it seems a strange coincidence that Christianity had some of its own most turbulent – and least Christian – times right when it was about the same age as Islam is right now.

Maybe – and its a big maybe – maybe all religions go through some maturation process, and maybe in 700 years or so, Islam will be no more violent than mainstream Protestantism is today.

But, boy … even if I’m right, its sure going to suck for the rest of us while we sit around and wait for them to grow up and quit slaughtering people.

I did already admit that Islam is more susceptible to being used this way, especially in these post 9-11 times. I’m not even trying to say otherwise.

Esthier on August 7, 2007 at 3:50 PM

And here’s the problem with the above theory – and its the absolute crux of the issue. Why? Why exactly is Islam “more susceptible” as you put it?

Here’s the thing. Most people, especially on the Left, cling to one belief: all religions are pretty much the same, at least in terms of their effect on society, if not on the soul of the believer. In other words, most people will say that Judaism or Hinduism isn’t any worse than Christianity (setting aside for the moment the argument about who gets into Heaven and who doesn’t). Why? Because they all have certain core beliefs. Life is precious. Be good to each other. Treat others as you want to be treated. Don’t do evil. Be good to your family. Don’t kill or steal. Stuff like that.

We cling to that … but its a fiction. It has to be, logically. I’m guilty of it myself. I want desperately to think that Islam is morally (if not spiritually) no different than any other religion.

But it is a lie. It’s logically impossible to suggest that all groups are the same. We avoid admitting that because it scary – if we admit there are differences, we might make judgments. And judgments are so two centuries ago. Evil doesn’t exist anymore – its just bad child-rearing or poor nutrition.

But its not true, no matter how we pretend. Groups of people, belief systems, forms of government, are NOT all morally equivalent, no matter how fashionable the idea may be.

And you’re right: Islam IS more susceptible. Now tell me why.

I am no Islamic scholar and won’t hazard a guess. But there *does* seem to be some fundamental difference that leads to your increased “susceptibility.” It seems that the Koran both explicitly allows and in some cases suggests or commands behavior that is not only not allowed in any other mainstream religion – but is explicitly forbidden.

I guess my point is simple: if Islam at its core really is no different than Hinduism or Buddhism or Mormonism, then I guess it’ll outgrow its troubles when national and regional cultures get over their own political conflicts.

But what if that’s not true? What if Islam is *not* like other major religions? What if it doesn’t share those near universal tenets? Obviously millions of Muslims DO believe in a global jihad; obviously millions of Muslims think terrorism is justified by their faith.

The bottom line question: are they wrong and abusing their faith? Or are they being good followers of Muhammad?

We have to answer that question before we decide who and what we are actually at war with.

If the Americans are going to bring Islam to heel, they should stay in the Dar al-Islam. If they’re not going to do so, it doesn’t seem to matter much whether they stay or go. At any rate, I think I need to start spending more time reading JihadWatch, inasmuch as they seem to take Islam seriously as a problem, thinking that Islam and muslims, as such, are threatening, not just this decade’s crop of good muslims.

Kralizec on August 7, 2007 at 7:42 PM

Spencer et al advocate eliminating Muslim immigration, sealing the borders, and confronting the jihadist ideology of Islam head-on. All common sense things. They don’t see any benefit to the ‘invade Dar Al-Islam/invite Dar al-Islam’ strategy being employed by our elites.

Everyone at JihadWatch does ["wants our guys to leave Iraq]. Hugh Fitzgerald writes a missive about once a week on the subject.

PRCalDude on August 7, 2007 at 7:14 PM

If the Americans are going to bring Islam to heel, they should stay in the Dar al-Islam. If they’re not going to do so, it doesn’t seem to matter much whether they stay or go. At any rate, I think I need to start spending more time reading JihadWatch, inasmuch as they seem to take Islam seriously as a problem, thinking that Islam and muslims, as such, are threatening, not just this decade’s crop of good muslims.

Whichever militia emerges as dominant in the south is going to control most of it [oil] and, as with the power situation, they’re not going to be in any hurry to share it with Baghdad.

Baghdad as capital seems to be an anachronism founded in nostalgia for ancient greatness.

1. There are more people on earth today than there were back then.
2. Technology has made it easier to kill more people than it was back then.

You don’t think those two facts might be important when appreciating the scale of violence?

Esthier on August 7, 2007 at 5:51 PM

But this only makes my point. They were able to kill millions even back then, from the Arabs to Tamerlane. And Islam justified it.

So Robert Spencer wants our guys to leave Iraq? That’s news to me.

Esthier on August 7, 2007 at 6:21 PM

Everyone at JihadWatch does. Hugh Fitzgerald writes a missive about once a week on the subject.

Follow that last link, by all means, and see what the Brits’ “sensitivity” about looking like occupiers produced.

Have I mentioned how cruel pity can be?