Congratulations to the American Military

[Mr Manifesto]

Post-war death toll in Iraq tops number killed in combat (http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0cv=CA01)

Already I can hear some saying that the death toll is no-where near the Vietnam death toll. This point has been brought up before, and I would like to discuss this.

I believe this is a faulty point, for exactly the same reason the death toll in Vietnam during the war was a faulty point. During this war, a 'body count' was kept of US soldiers vs enemy casualties. The idea was that if 10 enemies were killed per US soldier, somehow this would show that the US was ahead. While I was not around for the Vietnam war (well, I was born in 1973, but I have to say I don't remember much about it), I also imagine comparisons would have been made to WWII death tolls. After all, nearly six times as many Americans were killed in WWII, right?

The problem with this argument is that it doesn't take into account the relative virtue of the conflict in question.

There would be very few who would not agree that America had to take part in the WWII conflict- and I am certainly not among their number. Japan could not be allowed to remain unchecked in her imperial expansion. And the atrocities of the Nazi regime speak for themselves.

However, the same didn't go for Vietnam. This war was basically the result of the dogma of the American administration, the fear that if America turned her back, the whole world would be Communist almost overnight. American soldiers found themselves dying in a country where they weren't wanted. They had little support from the American public. One could imagine that the soldiers would be reluctant to sacrifice their lives in a pointless conflict.

True, the casualties in Iraq are much lower than in Vietnam. But what was the point of the conflict? As this (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/story.php?storyID=1381)* speech shows, it was all about weapons of mass destruction. The welfare of the Iraqis rates exactly three sentences in that speech:

It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people.
The world has also tried economic sanctions—and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.
(more of an appeal to the gallery than actual concern about the Iraqi people, IMO, but you decide)
It must cease the persecution of its civilian population.

But the main concern with the Bush administration, as can be seen from the speech, were the weapons. It was all about the weapons.

Well, it turns out that Iraq wasn't as much of a threat to the US as initially thought. Now American troops are dying in a place where they aren't wanted (mainly the Sunni triangle) and with mixed support at home. So, in this sense, how long before Iraq becomes another Vietnam?









*Thanks to Frank Newgent for the link

[Ralph]

we learned a lot from our mistakes in Vietnam. Hopefully we'll stay long enough to finish what we started.

I think pulling out now because things aren't going the way we thought they would might tend to send the message--"Terrorism works"........

There's a lot more public support for what's happening in Iraq then there was for Vietnam. It's a bad analogy overall.....

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph
we learned a lot from our mistakes in Vietnam. Hopefully we'll stay long enough to finish what we started.

I think pulling out now because things aren't going the way we thought they would might tend to send the message--"Terrorism works"........

There's a lot more public support for what's happening in Iraq then there was for Vietnam. It's a bad analogy overall.....

Oh, yeah? (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/29/politics/29ASSE.html?ex=1068008400&en=d1803f31b144d9a2&ei=5 062&partner=GOOGLE)

[American]

Nice way to honor their sacrifice, dickhead. You celebrate it.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by American
Nice way to honor their sacrifice, dickhead. You celebrate it.

That reminds me... Why don't you join up? I hear a couple of positions have just been made available in Iraq.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by American
Nice way to honor their sacrifice, dickhead. You celebrate it. I think it's kind of sad to see somebody spend a very large percentage of their waking hours doing nothing but thinking up ways to bash the US..........

[ssibal]

Almost sounds like you want it to turn into another Vietnam so you can later gloat about being right....

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ralph
I think it's kind of sad to see somebody spend a very large percentage of their waking hours doing nothing but thinking up ways to bash the US..........
That was only the novice thinking.

Think harder now:

"...thinking up ways..." to criticize U.S. and improve U.S..

Is that better?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph
I think it's kind of sad to see somebody spend a very large percentage of their waking hours doing nothing but thinking up ways to bash the US..........

So I suppose if the US accidentally launched a nuclear missile that wiped out Rhode Island, and I said the US should have better checks on her nukes, I'd be "Bashing the US"?

Or can the US do no wrong whatsoever? Worldwide protests against the Iraqi invasion, but the US Posse, 'lead' (in the sense that he sat at home while others risked their lives, something he's used to doing by now) by Sheriff George Dubya moseyed on in anyway. And your troops are dying for the US administration's hubris.

But don't mind me. I'm just bashing the US.

[Ralph]

You've got over 1600 posts since 4/03....99% of them involve something negative directed at either the US or Israel....

I get the impression that scoring "points" on internet bulletin boards means a lot more to you than the lives that were lost.

As you said--you weren't around during Nam--I was----It's a lot different. The "we're stuck in a quagmire" analogy is lame.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph
You've got over 1600 posts since 4/03....99% of them involve something negative directed at either the US or Israel....

99%, huh? I take it you have facts to back this up? No, you're blowing smoke out your butt.

I get the impression that scoring "points" on internet bulletin boards means a lot more to you than the lives that were lost.

As you said--you weren't around during Nam--I was----It's a lot different. The "we're stuck in a quagmire" analogy is lame.

Well tell me how it was 'a lot different' instead of contributing to the Greenhouse effect with all your hot air.

While we're waiting, let's enjoy the Chickenhawk Hall of Shame (http://www.symbolman.com/chickenhawks.html)

[Ion]

Originally posted by Ralph

...
The "we're stuck in a quagmire" analogy is lame.
I don't think is lame.

Mr Manifesto (and me, and others), we were saying not to go in this war.

We were right.

So, it's not lame.

It's powerful.

But it was dismissed by stupids.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Ion

I don't think is lame.

Mr Manifesto (and me, and others), we were saying to not go in this war.

We were right.

So, it's not lame.

It's powerful.

But it was dismissed by stupids.

Maybe if you ask him nicely, he'll let you kiss his arse.........


What do I know though....I'm just one of those "stupids"......

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph
You've got over 1600 posts since 4/03....99% of them involve something negative directed at either the US or Israel....

I get the impression that scoring "points" on internet bulletin boards means a lot more to you than the lives that were lost.

As you said--you weren't around during Nam--I was----It's a lot different. The "we're stuck in a quagmire" analogy is lame.

Hate to harp on about this, but... out of my last 100 posts? Only 19 were anti-Israel or anti-American. True, it may be too small a sample size. I invite you to demonstrate that more than 50% of my comments are anti-Israel or Anti-American.

[Ion]

You got this one right:
Originally posted by Ralph

...
What do I know though....I'm just one of those "stupids"......
How did you do it?

Someone helped you?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph


Maybe if you ask him nicely, he'll let you kiss his arse.........


What do I know though....I'm just one of those "stupids"......

You still haven't provided any arguments on why the analogy on the issues I presented it is faulty. Keep stalling.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Ralph
we learned a lot from our mistakes in Vietnam. Hopefully we'll stay long enough to finish what we started.I was old enough to go to Vietnam myself, so I DO understand what was happening then, and I understand what is happening in Iraq now. So, a serious question arises re your comment above: What qualifies as a "success" in Iraq for the USA, such that the troops and others CAN go home satisfied they have done a good job? What IS that job that needs to be "finished" and when do you feel that "finish" will occur?

[Dancing David]

I think that it is sad that Americans are dying in Iraq, not sad because they are there on some futile cause. Sad because the government seems to take thier lives so cheaply, drape the flag in black and mute the drums, the death of our soldiers is sad.

And it does remind me , in a small way of the 'Nam war.

But what I really find sad its that I feel the planners of this death event could have been better prepared for the occupation, just my own opinion and no slam on the folks doing the crappy work.

The second part is this:

Free speach is what it is, if you don't like it then why don't you leave the USA! Mr. Manifesto can say whatever he wants, especialy since he is from a foriegn country.

Free speach sucks when it is the truth as seen from different eyes, eyes that don't agree with the narrow and jingoistic policies of the USA.

Those who disparage free speach are a shame to the soldiers who die for it and a boon to the facists who are always waiting to run our nation.

It is sad, our soldiers are dying, I support them but not the war. I respect free speach even if I don't agree with all it entails.

It is very sad, it is sad that Saddam killed so many people, it is sad that now our troops are trying to change that, it is sad when people die.

It is just sad.

[Richard G]

Please expound upon the great accomplishments of whatever rathole country YOU are from, Manifesto.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Richard G
Please expound upon the great accomplishments of whatever rathole country YOU are from, Manifesto.
Well, for starters, we supported you in Iraq, with troops rather than signing a 'coalition of the willing' petition. But you wouldn't know that because you're a moron.

Which reminds me... Why don't you join up? Plenty of room for people who like their guns in the army. You could go to Baghdad and make sure the citizens can keep their freedom by distributing weapons to them.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Ralph


Maybe if you ask him nicely, he'll let you kiss his arse.........


What do I know though....I'm just one of those "stupids"......
You could know a lot, do you chose to be a stupid?

You take offense why? Were you one of those who just dismissed those of us who oppossed the war? Only dismissing the voice of others makes you a 'stupid', for all I know you may not dismiss others who exercise thier right to free speach, perhaps you can choose to be a stupid or not?

Many of us who opposed the war have stooped protesting because we don't want to demoralise the troops or offend them, should you still dismiss us? Even though I have to pay taxes to support a war I don't believe in? Do you happen to know about David Thoureu and when he wrote Civil Disobedience?

As for your insults, are you bothered by free speach?

Take it to the flames Ralph, show that you don't have to disgrace the soldiers by showing your ugly side. Or it is just that you want everybody to kiss your *rse?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Richard G
Please expound upon the great accomplishments of whatever rathole country YOU are from, Manifesto.

As long as he doesn't expond on the long history of shameful accomplishments of the USA!

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Dancing David

You could know a lot, do you chose to be a stupid?

You take offense why? Were you one of those who just dismissed those of us who oppossed the war? Only dismissing the voice of others makes you a 'stupid', for all I know you may not dismiss others who exercise thier right to free speach, perhaps you can choose to be a stupid or not?

Many of us who opposed the war have stooped protesting because we don't want to demoralise the troops or offend them, should you still dismiss us? Even though I have to pay taxes to support a war I don't believe in? Do you happen to know about David Thoureu and when he wrote Civil Disobedience?

As for your insults, are you bothered by free speach?

Take it to the flames Ralph, show that you don't have to disgrace the soldiers by showing your ugly side. Or it is just that you want everybody to kiss your *rse?

Why are you ranting about me being against free speach???

You state that what Mr Manifesto said was "free speech.

I simply stated my OPINION that Mr Manifesto cares more about being "witty" on an internet bulletin board than he does about lost American lives.

I'm just exercising my right to free speech......

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph


Why are you ranting about me being against free speach???

You state that what Mr Manifesto said was "free speech.

I simply stated my OPINION that Mr Manifesto cares more about being "witty" on an internet bulletin board than he does about lost American lives.

I'm just exercising my right to free speech......

What was your basis for that opinion? Oh, you didn't have one.

You simply said, "Vietnam wasn't like that at all... And I'm the expert on it because I was there... So nyah!"

But no actual argument from you.

Guess we'll have to put you on the 'empty crap-talker' pile with American and Richard G.

[Ralph]

You had widespread civil unrest over the Vietnam war. Hundreds of thousands of people staging protests in Washinton. Unrest on college campuses. Students being shot by National Guardsmen.

Sorry but I don't see anything on a scale like that happening over Iraq.

Over 50,000 died in a conflict that lasted nearly a decade compared with a few hundred in a conflict that's lasted less than a year.

Your suggestion that Bush is a coward because he's not on the front lines with the troops is ludicrous. Perhaps you can name a current head of state who slings a rifle over his shoulder and heads for the front.




As far as me ignoring your posts....I learned that from you.
You're the board expert at ignoring things that don't fit into your myopic little view of the "How the world should be according to Mr Manifesto".......

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Ralph
You had widespread civil unrest over the Vietnam war. Hundreds of thousands of people staging protests in Washinton. Unrest on college campuses. Students being shot by National Guardsmen.

Sorry but I don't see anything on a scale like that happening over Iraq.

Over 50,000 died in a conflict that lasted nearly a decade compared with a few hundred in a conflict that's lasted less than a year.

Your suggestion that Bush is a coward because he's not on the front lines with the troops is ludicrous. Perhaps you can name a current head of state who slings a rifle over his shoulder and heads for the front.




As far as me ignoring your posts....I learned that from you.
You're the board expert at ignoring things that don't fit into your myopic little view of the "How the world should be according to Mr Manifesto".......

To be fair there were not huge civil demonstrations when America had been in vietnam for less than a year either. My concern would be that America has no plan for victory in Iraq. What is victory in Iraq? Will it be if/when the population grow to love american soldiers and stop shooting at them? will it be when America puts Iraq in the "oops, that was a silly thing to do" basket and evacuates, leaving a puppet Iraqi regime to be overthrown, like Vietnam....?

If the US plan in Iraq is simply "the occupation will continue until the situation somehow improves" then you may well still be there in 10 years, there may well be 50,000 casualties and there may well be mass protests in the streets.

[Ralph]

I agree...if we're still there in 10 years with 50000 deaths than I think the majority of the US will start to wonder about what we're doing there.

To assume that at this point though like Manifesto was suggesting is a little premature. This whole "knee deep in the Big Muddy" thing is a bit overdone IMO.

I think one of the reasons Vietnam turned out the way it did was because we fought the war with one hand tied behind our backs.
I have friends who had friends get their heads shot off and weren't allowed to shoot back because of the rules of engagement.

We're still bending over backwards to avoid civilian casualties but I don't think we'll make the same mistakes we made in Nam.

I think there is a clear cut goal and a defined point where we'd begin to pull out. The fact that everything hasn't fallen perfectly into place in less than a year hardly warrants the "quagmire" theory.................

I'dlike to hear some suggestions though as to what we should do instead of pursuing our present course..........

[peptoabysmal]

In it's simplest sense, if we are there ten years and there is no progress towards a viable government we have another Vietnam on our hands. If we leave now and there is wholesale slaughter and civil war, we have another Vietnam.

One big difference is that in Iraq we are in charge, in Vietnam we were just there to "support" the ARVN.

<div align="center">:hb: </div>

<hr>
We still use a version of the M-16, if you want to include that in the list of similarities.

<blockquote>http://www.doane.edu/crete/academic/social/history/his314/Weapons/image/Rifles/m16-2.gif</blockqoute>

[Zep]

Originally posted by Ralph
I think there is a clear cut goal and a defined point where we'd begin to pull out. The fact that everything hasn't fallen perfectly into place in less than a year hardly warrants the "quagmire" theory.................

I'dlike to hear some suggestions though as to what we should do instead of pursuing our present course.......... If there IS a "clear cut goal" and "defined point where we'd begin to pull out," then would someone PLEASE tell us what they are. The impression we have here is that these were originally defined as "whipping Saddam's ass" and "finding and destroying those dang WMDs" respectively. Now the Bush administration seems to be ducking and weaving, making up new and different goals and supporting reasons from day to day, as it all falls apart. And heaven knows what the troops in Iraq think of this sort of behaviour from their leaders!

Vietam and Afghanistan should have been a clear lesson: You can win the war far easier than you can win the peace. Ruling a country by military might alone makes it a military dictatorship, and if you remember back to the 1770's, there was some sort of armed revolt against a military dictatorship then too...and the revolutionaries won that one! So where is the push in Iraq for genuine democracy, even if it IS Iraqi-style?

Let me just be quite clear, though: The US troops on the ground in Iraq have my respect and concern - the job they have is frigging awful and they are ill-prepared for it. But I remain with my own stance from the beginning of the year, that their political leaders were grossly ill-advised, naive, rash and headstrong in sending them there in the first place.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Zep
If there IS a "clear cut goal" and "defined point where we'd begin to pull out," then would someone PLEASE tell us what they are.

Duh!!!! :rolleyes:

To make the Middle East safe for Halliburton!

[sophia8]

Originally posted by Zep
Let me just be quite clear, though: The US troops on the ground in Iraq have my respect and concern - the job they have is frigging awful and they are ill-prepared for it. But I remain with my own stance from the beginning of the year, that their political leaders were grossly ill-advised, naive, rash and headstrong in sending them there in the first place.
In a phrase: "Lions led by donkeys".

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Ralph


Why are you ranting about me being against free speach???

You state that what Mr Manifesto said was "free speech.

I simply stated my OPINION that Mr Manifesto cares more about being "witty" on an internet bulletin board than he does about lost American lives.

I'm just exercising my right to free speech......

Uh, quite right, I was responding to your response to Ion.

Speak on!

[Dancing David]

Ralph,

I agree with you totaly that this is not Viet'Nam, I am respectful of the sacrifice that you and others made.

I feel that the biggest hole was that there was not much a plan put in place for the occupation period, I do not feel that it is just 'foriegn terrorists' that are creating this havoc. I feel that it is the Baa'th party and that they are going to keep upping the ante, my suggestion, beter relations with the Iraqi civilians, and a whole lot more troops on the ground, the 'chaos of war' period was a deliberate choice that higher ups made.

establishing order is more difficult after that time, we need to have the sympathy of the average iraqi, because then they willrat out the ones who do the bombings.

Best regards, sorry for yanking you chain.

[Tony]

Originally posted by sophia8

In a phrase: "Lions led by donkeys".


I like that!

[Tmy]

Lots of Americans did not want to go into Iraq, but now that were in we just cant up in leave. The horse is out ofthe barn so to speak.

I wonder what you would have the US do AT THIS POINT. Complaing about the past will do nothing (see Isreal + Palistine)

Your complaints can also be directed at the UN. WHERE IS THE UN NOW???? They can help but they do want too. Why? Cause they are a bunch of whiney insencere pussies thats why. They pretend to care about the Iraqi people yet they do nothing to help them. They did s**t before Saddam was gone and they do less after hes gone. They just want to bitch n moan all day long. FOR SHAME!

[T'ai Chi]

No one wins in a war.
Violence has a nasty habit of returning.
Insert other ignored poetry here.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tmy
Lots of Americans did not want to go into Iraq, but now that were in we just cant up in leave. The horse is out ofthe barn so to speak.

I wonder what you would have the US do AT THIS POINT. Complaing about the past will do nothing (see Isreal + Palistine)

Your complaints can also be directed at the UN. WHERE IS THE UN NOW???? They can help but they do want too. Why? Cause they are a bunch of whiney insencere pussies thats why. They pretend to care about the Iraqi people yet they do nothing to help them. They did s**t before Saddam was gone and they do less after hes gone. They just want to bitch n moan all day long. FOR SHAME!

The UN want to have at least partial control of rebuilding Iraq. For some weird reason, they trust the US to the task. Of course, the control freakish Bush administration won't give the reins to anyone else. So much for the 'whiney insincere pussy' arguments.

Is there such a thing as an informed American? Except for the ones from the anomalous state of West Virigina?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


The UN want to have at least partial control of rebuilding Iraq. For some weird reason, they trust the US to the task. Of course, the control freakish Bush administration won't give the reins to anyone else. So much for the 'whiney insincere pussy' arguments.

Is there such a thing as an informed American? Except for the ones from the anomalous state of West Virigina?

SO the UN wont help UNLESS their demands are met. How nobel. Tell me how that makes them any better than the US. Bottom lien is that they could be of help in Iraq bu their too egotistical to let the US take lead. I think Illl stick wh my "whiney insincere pussy" line.

When the war started there were protests all over, bitch n moan about the poor Iraqis. Now the war is over and the same countires wont even pony up a decent amount of cash to help the Iraqis out. They want the US to do everything.

[Luke T.]

So we are looking at the number of American military deaths from around April to the present, right?

Anyone have any idea how many American military personnel die in the same length of time during peacetime? I will wager it ain't that much lower. It may even be the same, and I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to learn it is higher.

[Luke T.]

It would also be interesting to know how many Iraqis died in the same length of time under Hussein. ;)

[AmateurScientist]

Yes, and the liberal press conveniently neglects to mention that from May 1, 2003 through July 31, 2003, although 52 American soldiers died in Iraq, 66 residents of our nation's capital, Washington, DC, were murdered during the same time period.

Given those facts, I'd rather be a soldier in Iraq now than a tourist in or resident living in Washington, DC.

AS

[jayrev]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Yes, and the liberal press conveniently neglects to mention that from May 1, 2003 through July 31, 2003, although 52 American soldiers died in Iraq, 66 residents of our nation's capital, Washington, DC, were murdered during the same time period.

Given those facts, I'd rather be a soldier in Iraq now than a tourist in or resident living in Washington, DC.

AS

Well that depends on how many American soldiers are in Iraq. Washington DC has a population of 572,000 (not including surrounding metro area). So there would have to be close to half a million soldiers in Iraq for the per capita death rate to be comparable. I've been unable to find how many soldiers we have in Iraq. Anyone know?

[Tmy]

Asinine comparison.

Thats like saying we shouldnt be wasting or effort on fighting terror cause only 3000 people died in 911. More people are killed by bee stings. We should be fighting bee stings wh the $$ we "waste" on terror.

[Luke T.]

All this whining about dead soldiers only encourages the belief that all you need to do to make America run is kill enough of our guys. And not even that many.

I especially hate the whining coming from people who would never even put on a uniform, and who say they support the troops out one side of their mouth while condemning those same soldiers' actions out the other.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I especially hate the whining coming from people who would never even put on a uniform, and who say they support the troops out one side of their mouth while condemning those same soldiers' actions out the other.

Careful, Luke. I got in a lot of trouble with folks at Renata's forum for saying that very thing.

I agree with you, however.

AS

[Luke T.]

The master plan of the people killing our soldiers in Iraq is simple.

Some of their attacks have been against our soldiers, and some have been against what anyone would consider "good guys." Fellow Iraqis and U.N. personnel and people there to offer humanitarian aid. You would think these attacks against innocent people would turn the population against the attackers and in favor of Americans. But the attackers are in this for the long haul. They hope to make our soldiers so tense and uptight that they will begin to overreact and on a hair-trigger. And that is what is happening. The American media, and I am sure the media in the Middle East, is happy to pounce on stories where American troops kill little Iraqi girls at a checkpoint. It is the hope of the attackers that eventually the Iraqi people will turn against the Americans for these deaths. And the media is all to happy to help, willingly and unwittingly.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by jayrev


Well that depends on how many American soldiers are in Iraq. Washington DC has a population of 572,000 (not including surrounding metro area). So there would have to be close to half a million soldiers in Iraq for the per capita death rate to be comparable. I've been unable to find how many soldiers we have in Iraq. Anyone know?

Yes, 148,000 at the time. Your point is legitimate and a good one, but the comparison should give one pause anyway.

Here's the link where I got that.

DC murders vs. Iraq deaths (http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/7/31/111526)


I especially like Luke's point, one I have made at times as well, that the figure of how many died since hostilities supposedly stopped is meaningless unless compared with the number who die every day in peacetime, with no foreign occupations in hostile territories.
It's just a fact of life. People die in workplace accidents every day in the world. Being in the military happens to be a particularly hazardous occupation, and military folks die from accidents every day, war or no war.

For another example which may or may not be relevant, after VE Day in WWII lots of soldiers died from stupid accidents in Germany, for instance, while they remained in anticipation of a huge invasion of Japan that never took place. Should that be a condemnation of the U.S. involvement in the European theater? Obviously not.

AS

[jayrev]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Yes, 148,000 at the time. Your point is legitimate and a good one, but the comparison should give one pause anyway.

Here's the link where I got that.

DC murders vs. Iraq deaths (http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/7/31/111526)


I especially like Luke's point, one I have made at times as well, that the figure of how many died since hostilities supposedly stopped is meaningless unless compared with the number who die every day in peacetime, with no foreign occupations in hostile territories.
It's just a fact of life. People die in workplace accidents every day in the world. Being in the military happens to be a particularly hazardous occupation, and military folks die from accidents every day, war or no war.

For another example which may or may not be relevant, after VE Day in WWII lots of soldiers died from stupid accidents in Germany, for instance, while they remained in anticipation of a huge invasion of Japan that never took place. Should that be a condemnation of the U.S. involvement in the European theater? Obviously not.

AS

By the way, I don't disagree with your position. Just had a quibble with the example you gave.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Luke T.
So we are looking at the number of American military deaths from around April to the present, right?

Anyone have any idea how many American military personnel die in the same length of time during peacetime? I will wager it ain't that much lower. It may even be the same, and I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised to learn it is higher.

Irrelevant. If you die during peacetime because of accidents or whatever, that's an occupational hazard. You may as well consider all deaths experienced by the civilian population during the same period.

But with the soldiers who are in Iraq, their deaths could have been avoidable... but for a little commonsense from Sheriff Dubya. You can't avoid peace time deaths. You can avoid sending troops to Iraq purely for the purposes of adventurism.

What's even funnier -a point worth considering by those who claim that people against the war 'aren't supporting our troops' is that these soldiers have been sent by people who actively avoided military service. The message is clear: The war in Iraq is worth the sacrifice of American lives, as long as it isn't mine.

[Furious]

The UN want to have at least partial control of rebuilding Iraq. For some weird reason, they trust the US to the task. Of course, the control freakish Bush administration won't give the reins to anyone else. So much for the 'whiney insincere pussy' arguments.

Actually, didn't the U.N. pull quite a few people out of Iraq after the bombing of the embassy after refusing U.S. offers for security?

They apparently wanted to have some sort of a prescence until they started getting bombed, and have scaled it back, even though providing additional security would have been the logical thing to do. I'm not calling them pussies, but they sure seemed to have a weak backbone in that situation.

I don't begrudge the U.N. for not wanting a hand in maintaining security and giving money directly to the current puppet government created by U.S. administrators without some say in how those functions are performed. However, couldn't the U.N. do the nobel thing of rebuilding infrastructure and provide medical and food relief? Shouldn't those types of aid be policy agnostic?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Furious


Actually, didn't the U.N. pull quite a few people out of Iraq after the bombing of the embassy after refusing U.S. offers for security?

They apparently wanted to have some sort of a prescence until they started getting bombed, and have scaled it back, even though providing additional security would have been the logical thing to do. I'm not calling them pussies, but they sure seemed to have a weak backbone in that situation.

I don't begrudge the U.N. for not wanting a hand in maintaining security and giving money directly to the current puppet government created by U.S. administrators without some say in how those functions are performed. However, couldn't the U.N. do the nobel thing of rebuilding infrastructure and provide medical and food relief? Shouldn't those types of aid be policy agnostic?

I don't really have an argument for the UN pulling out, or not accepting American security (although maybe their reason was that if they distanced themselves from the US they wouldn't be a target... but who knows?). I'll concede that point.

But as to the UN aiding the US in rebuilding Iraq, well, I think the UFIUFI rule comes in here.* The US went into Iraq without UN backing, against protest by the UN. Now they want the UN to help rebuild Iraq, but with American control. (speculation)And possibly with the US getting the credit, too (/speculation).

What sort of message would the US be getting if the UN unconditionally helped to bail them out now? That the US can act like a spolit brat on the world stage with no thought for the consequences, and if things go pear-shaped the UN will bail them out? That's what I would be concerned about if I were in the UN administration.













*U Fouled It- U Fix It

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

What sort of message would the US be getting if the UN unconditionally helped to bail them out now? That the US can act like a spolit brat on the world stage with no thought for the consequences, and if things go pear-shaped the UN will bail them out? That's what I would be concerned about if I were in the UN administration.


What sort of message are countries sending by not contributing significantly to the rebuilding of Iraq? Here's at least one opinion on the matter:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/23/sprj.irq.main/index.html

"As far as Germany and France are concerned, really, this was a regrettable position they had," Allawi said. "I don't think the Iraqis are going to forget easily that in the hour of need, those countries wanted to neglect Iraq."

Is it worth it to spite Iraq in order to teach Bush a lesson? What sort of values does the refusal of aid really indicate?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Luke T.
All this whining about dead soldiers only encourages the belief that all you need to do to make America run is kill enough of our guys. And not even that many.

I especially hate the whining coming from people who would never even put on a uniform, and who say they support the troops out one side of their mouth while condemning those same soldiers' actions out the other.

That is why it is sad, the deaths are sad.

I support the troops, I question the motives of the government that sent them there. But I have not protested since the start of the war , nor will I .

My feeling is that if we are going to kill, we should do so carefully. I have frieneds who have served and are serving, I would not squander anyone's life.

I don't condemn the acts of the soldiers, I do wonder about the people in charge.

It is sad to read about more american casualties every day, no where near the grim reports of my youth, but sad none the less.

[Luke T.]

Okay. I am going to give you a perfect example of the media being a tool.

A week or so ago, someone linked a tragic story about a family that was killed by American soldiers at an Iraqi checkpoint. Read the entire article here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3212156.stm)

It reads like pure yellow journalism. It starts out like this:


On the day Human Rights Watch publishes a report on the suspected killings of dozens of Iraqi civilians by the American army, our correspondent visits survivors of one the most tragic and disturbing cases.

Inflammatory, anti-U.S. start to a BBC news item. But then it goes on like a novel more than a news item.

Example:


The blood has long dried out, but you can see clearly the dark patches where Adil received his fatal wounds in the driver's seat, and where his daughter Ola, 14, and son Haidar, 19, died where they were seated in the back.

Another daughter, Mirvat, who was 8, died of her wounds - like Adil himself - before being delivered to hospital by the American troops about four hours later.

Only survivors

Opening the boot, Ali brings out a chequered shirt, stiff with dried blood that Adil had been wearing, and Mirvat's tee-shirt, a pattern of cartoon characters and flowers still visible under the dark stains.

On the ledge behind the back seat, a toy nodding dog appears to have had its head blown off by one of the high velocity rounds.

It goes on and on like that. The who, what, where and when details, which every journalist is taught should be in the first paragraph is somewhere near the bottom of the story, surrounded by yet more yellow verbage.

Now, get this. The very same news agency, the BBC, on the very same web site, in the same subdirectory on that site, on two other stories about attacks on coalition troops, humanitarian workers, and the Iraqi governing council.

First story here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3216539.stm)

It starts out like this:


Suicide bombers have killed at least 34 people in a series of apparently co-ordinated attacks in central Baghdad.
The attacks, which wounded at least 224, targeted the headquarters of the International Committee of the Red Cross and four police stations across the city on Monday.

Bam! Who, what, where and when. Right out of the gate.

But is there a long, sad, tragic bewailing of the victims? Is anyone holding a bloody shirt? Where are the yellow words?

Nowhere.


According to Iraqi and US officials, the would-be suicide attacker who attempted to bomb the fourth and last police station was stopped by police fire and captured.

Like the family mentioned in the first story, I bet he was opened up on "without warning" at a checkpoint.

Last story. Read it

here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3185014.stm) Same news agency, same web site, same middle east subdirectory.


At least six Iraqis have been killed in the Iraqi capital in a suicide car bomb attack near a hotel used by senior coalition officials and the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC).
The car exploded after being fired on as it broke through a four-metre high security barrier into the Baghdad Hotel driveway.

Bang! Who, what, where, when and how.

No moaning, wailing, complaining. Just reportage.

Read them. Read all of it. Every word. Tell me there isn't some bias. Tell me they aren't tools. Useful idiots.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Zep
If there IS a "clear cut goal" and "defined point where we'd begin to pull out," then would someone PLEASE tell us what they are. The impression we have here is that these were originally defined as "whipping Saddam's ass" and "finding and destroying those dang WMDs" respectively. Now the Bush administration seems to be ducking and weaving, making up new and different goals and supporting reasons from day to day, as it all falls apart. And heaven knows what the troops in Iraq think of this sort of behaviour from their leaders!

Vietam and Afghanistan should have been a clear lesson: You can win the war far easier than you can win the peace. Ruling a country by military might alone makes it a military dictatorship, and if you remember back to the 1770's, there was some sort of armed revolt against a military dictatorship then too...and the revolutionaries won that one! So where is the push in Iraq for genuine democracy, even if it IS Iraqi-style?

Let me just be quite clear, though: The US troops on the ground in Iraq have my respect and concern - the job they have is frigging awful and they are ill-prepared for it. But I remain with my own stance from the beginning of the year, that their political leaders were grossly ill-advised, naive, rash and headstrong in sending them there in the first place.

Regardless of how the WMD thing turned out or will turn out or whatever, there always was a plan to replace Saddam's government. That's our job now. Fail that, and we do have another Vietnam. There is no sign of the Bush administration falling apart. There are, however, plenty of signs that the next Democratic hopeful is just a human sacrifice offered to their goddess, Hillary Clinton. Perhaps it's just a side effect of looking at the rest of the world from upside down?

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Okay. I am going to give you a perfect example of the media being a tool.

A week or so ago, someone linked a tragic story about a family that was killed by American soldiers at an Iraqi checkpoint. Read the entire article here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3212156.stm)

It reads like pure yellow journalism. It starts out like this:



Inflammatory, anti-U.S. start to a BBC news item. But then it goes on like a novel more than a news item.

Example:



It goes on and on like that. The who, what, where and when details, which every journalist is taught should be in the first paragraph is somewhere near the bottom of the story, surrounded by yet more yellow verbage.

Now, get this. The very same news agency, the BBC, on the very same web site, in the same subdirectory on that site, on two other stories about attacks on coalition troops, humanitarian workers, and the Iraqi governing council.

First story here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3216539.stm)

It starts out like this:



Bam! Who, what, where and when. Right out of the gate.

But is there a long, sad, tragic bewailing of the victims? Is anyone holding a bloody shirt? Where are the yellow words?

Nowhere.



Like the family mentioned in the first story, I bet he was opened up on "without warning" at a checkpoint.

Last story. Read it

here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3185014.stm) Same news agency, same web site, same middle east subdirectory.



Bang! Who, what, where, when and how.

No moaning, wailing, complaining. Just reportage.

Read them. Read all of it. Every word. Tell me there isn't some bias. Tell me they aren't tools. Useful idiots.

Excellent points Luke. You've hit the nail on the head. The terrorists know how to milk the media for all it's worth. At least the terrorists have learned something from the Vietnam experience.

[athon]

Originally posted by Dancing David


I support the troops, I question the motives of the government that sent them there. But I have not protested since the start of the war , nor will I .


I have to butt in and agree whole-heartedly here. I'm sick to death of hearing the 'pro-conflict' side use such nonsense as 'you're putting down our hard working men in uniform' and 'if you're not with us, you're against us'. It's an argument so infuriatingly inane that you cannot possibly fight it. It's like a child's 'I know you are, but what am I?'!

I have a couple of good mates who are AJ's. They're not the brightest kids, but they are patriotic and believe that they are there to do what they are told, that the tough decisions are best left to those upstairs. And I love them for that - you cannot have an army who decides whether or not to fight on their own.

I for one think the coalition made a poor choice to engage in conflict because the information available to the community demonstrates there was not enough evidence to rationalize an invasion. And here's the irony -

In the western world, we pride ourselves on freedom of information. Freedom is screamed from the highest buildings. So with this information, we can judge our governments (i.e., that golden idol, Democracy!). So either we are duped, and the governments hold all the cards and the people none, in which case this is not a democracy, OR we are made aware of world events and can judge our government, in which case we demand the evidence they say they have!

I posted recently the question 'Why do we still scorn Sadam as an enemy of progress and a messiah for terrorism?', to which nobody really could provide and answer. In fact, I still feel nauseous whenever anybody calls this a war against terrorism. And when pressed, nobody can say why!

Let's keep to the real issues here. Or is it a little hard to substantiate a claim for invasion when the facts are so hard to find?

Athon

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by athon


I have to butt in and agree whole-heartedly here. I'm sick to death of hearing the 'pro-conflict' side use such nonsense as 'you're putting down our hard working men in uniform' and 'if you're not with us, you're against us'. It's an argument so infuriatingly inane that you cannot possibly fight it. It's like a child's 'I know you are, but what am I?'!

I have a couple of good mates who are AJ's. They're not the brightest kids, but they are patriotic and believe that they are there to do what they are told, that the tough decisions are best left to those upstairs. And I love them for that - you cannot have an army who decides whether or not to fight on their own.

I for one think the coalition made a poor choice to engage in conflict because the information available to the community demonstrates there was not enough evidence to rationalize an invasion. And here's the irony -

In the western world, we pride ourselves on freedom of information. Freedom is screamed from the highest buildings. So with this information, we can judge our governments (i.e., that golden idol, Democracy!). So either we are duped, and the governments hold all the cards and the people none, in which case this is not a democracy, OR we are made aware of world events and can judge our government, in which case we demand the evidence they say they have!

I posted recently the question 'Why do we still scorn Sadam as an enemy of progress and a messiah for terrorism?', to which nobody really could provide and answer. In fact, I still feel nauseous whenever anybody calls this a war against terrorism. And when pressed, nobody can say why!

Let's keep to the real issues here. Or is it a little hard to substantiate a claim for invasion when the facts are so hard to find?

Athon

I don't see the war in Iraq as part of the war on terror, but I do think Hussein was a terror.

Here's the thing, speaking of "the real issues." This topic was started as a snide slap at the American military. People on here have been skating right up to the edge of saying our boys are committing war crimes. Linking to stories about children killed by our troops in Iraq, and so on.

You speak of the golden idol of democracy. Well, we also have the golden idol of freedom of the press. And freedom of the press is one of those things you must either have 100% freedom, or none at all. There really is no middle ground. And because there is no middle ground, there will be abuses, either by the unregulated or the regulators. We have complete freedom, and so we see the abuses of the unregulated, and I have posted examples.

Already, some people are calling our troops "baby-killers." And those people should be soundly slapped upside the head. They just don't get it.

You see, our soldiers don't wake up in the morning and say, "I think I'll kill some Iraqi kids and humanitarian workers today." But the terrorists/Hussein sympathizers/fifth column killers DO!

The people deliberately killing civilians don't have a conscience. Our soldiers DO!

But the media, and the gullible leftists who always blame America first, don't get it. They fail to see the master plan of the anti-coalition forces at work. And it is starting to really take off.

[athon]

Luke,

Good points, and I agree that often a spin on events is taken making the soldiers themselves seem like opportunists. While I'm not entirely sure that there aren't a few loose cannons in all factions of the coalition military (although since the Australian SAS component was essentially the best-of-the-best, if any of them were taking advantage of the commotion I'd be quite shocked), I don't think it's fair to label the coalition effort with their atrocities.

But here we also see problems understanding the issue at work. Firstly, Sadam's use of 'terror' is not the 'terrorism' we have come to understand. If it is, then it's a scarily common tool in all too many countries.

Secondly, you are making what I think is a mistake by dehumanising the so-called 'terrorists'. The biggest problem is that it removes their actions from our own view of humanity - in other words, 'I am better than them because I could never do that.' It is so common in political history - the crusaders sent back reports of the Infidel menace having 'horns and hooves', and 'consumed babies' while 'bathing in blood'. Of course, this never happened, but the mentality was the same. Make their actions inconsiderable to us, hence it is easier to make them the enemy.

You're right in that we would not get up one morning and consider blowing ourselves up to take out a family of our enemy. Thank the deities for that! What would drive a person to do such a thing? Upbringing, encouragement in extremes of faith, a view that the world is turning evil and only extreme actions can stop that...madness to us, but relevant to them.

Perhaps what we are doing here at the JREF is part of the solution. Trying to understand the problems and resolutions. Labelling Sadam Hussein a terrorist does not address the issues. Maybe really exploring what could make a human being view the world as they do would help find a solution.

Athon

[demon]

"Perhaps what we are doing here at the JREF is part of the solution. Trying to understand the problems and resolutions. Labelling Sadam Hussein a terrorist does not address the issues. Maybe really exploring what could make a human being view the world as they do would help find a solution. "

Nicely said Athon.

Let`s never forget Ms Albright justifying the death of half a million children in Iraq as a result of sanctions: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it" ("60 Minutes", 12 May 1996).

The Iraq saga is a lie and a war crime from begininning to end. It`s a disgrace. Even the military know it.

[athon]

One of my favourite quotes (I can't remember where I heard it) was 'Even Hitler had a dog who loved him'.

It helped me arrive at the concept of humility and thought, that we all view the world through our own pasts and our own prejudices. Who, then, is right, when nobody wakes up in the morning and says 'god I'm evil!'. If we can justify our actions, what gives any one person the right to condemn another?

I've arrived at an answer to this, as pitiful as it is, because we do have to live in a world where one's actions can have dramatic effects on another's life. We have to act where any one person's vision and beliefs detracts from another's wellbeing without due cause.

What is due cause? When we have an answer to that, there will be no more Iraq's, no more Vietnamns, no more world wars...

Again, mislabelling our fears will never help answer 'due cause'. Sometimes we have to admit that while we can justify our own actions, somebody somewhere will call it evil.

There is no such thing as an objective evil.

Athon

[Ion]

Whining again for the wrong reason:
Originally posted by Ziggurat

...
Is it worth it to spite Iraq in order to teach Bush a lesson? What sort of values does the refusal of aid really indicate?
Bush wants to lead the awarding of contracts to U.S..

See the thread dealing with these contracts.

France and Germany and other countries don't want to invest themselves just so that Bush takes their money and gives it to the U.S. firms.

So stop being stupid, and grow!

This was pointed to you before.

[Dancing David]

There are many viewpoints to the war in Iraq, Luke when you mention the leftist media , I hope you are reffering to the foriegn press because there is very little leftist media in the USA. And you are quite right to point out the yellow journalism as practiced in the BBC. they seem to alternate between sensationalism and hard core journalism.


More general comments:
The hard part for me about this is that there are different viewpoints:
We as Americans would like to be loyal to our country and support it's actions.
But that does not invalidate the viewpoint of the other nations and factions.(I want to make it very clear that I do not support terrorism or violence as a general solution)

Un beknownst to many American, our government has done some very crappy things in it's time, this has generated a viewpoint where other nations view us as the BIg Bad Bully on the Block, and they resent us because of this long history of interference in thier nation's affairs.

So while I do not support the terrorists (including those like the Israelis and Russians) , I do try to understand where these other viewpoints come from.

What would it be like if you lived in a nation in the Middle East, lets see, there is the whole Iran thing, where we deposed a duly elected president and then supported a facist regime, eww, bad move. Then there is our double sided support for Saddam himself, first we side with him, and then we defame him(correctly so in the second case), how would you feel about that if you lived in that part of the world? Then there is our blind support for certain regimes that side with us in the Cold War(Turkey for example) no matter how repressive they were, and then we go and invade Iraq in the name of 'freedom'.

I do not support the terroists and I do not support facist regimes, but if we look at our history, something most Americans don't do past twenty years, then it is easy to see where other nations might not agrree with our views.

[Luke T.]

athon, the stories about terrorists blowing up innocent people aren't invented, unlike the examples you gave of the Crusades.

I don't care what kind of upbringing a terrorist has, everyone knows that planting bombs that kill innocent people is wrong.
I feel your statement, "If we can justify our actions, what gives any one person the right to condemn another?" is moral relativism, something that encourages the evil done in the world.

Your statement, "There is no such thing as an objective evil" is also moral relativism and I don't buy it.

Planting a bomb to kill civilians and humanitarian workers is evil no matter how you care to slice it.

demon, did you know that the Left, which demanded sanctions against South Africa's apartheid regime, are now blaming the deaths of Iraqis under Hussein's negligence on the same kind of sanctions? Odd, isn't it?

Those in the ruling class in Iraq lived in grotesque luxury under the sanctions. Hussein built more and more palaces under the sanctions.


Dancing David, my problem with the press is subjective reporting. The example I gave of the BBC is rampant, and not just there. Everywhere. And there is certainly a vast number of leftish reporting in America.

There was also subjective, colorful reporting during the Iraq war. It tended to glorify our soldiers, and I complained about that then, too. "The soldier's eyes squint into the sun as a dust devil kicks up a golden...." Blah, blah, blah. Crap like that isn't news reporting.

State facts. American soldiers shot x number of civilians at a checkpoint. The soldiers say "this," civilians who witnessed the incident say "that." A bomb exploded at a Red Cross facility in Iraq today. x number of people were killed or wounded. U.S. officials say "this," so-and-so says "that."

[Luke T.]

Man, is this forum slow today, or what?

athon, there is only one known solution to the evil bomb-throwers of the world: Democracy.

Elections. Frequent elections. Like here in America.

If the opportunity to vote is denied, or if the opportunity to vote occurs very seldom, then those on the losing side begin to get desperate. But when elections are frequent, then when someone loses, they know the opportunity will come again, and soon, and violence is abated. If elections are not held frequently enough, then when elections do occur, passions get out of control in the desire to win.

Democracy.

The downside to frequent elections is that when one side wins, they enact a bunch of laws. If the other side wins the next time, they write a bunch of different laws. And this is what happens in America. But our founding fathers felt that it was worth it in the face of the alternative of constant revolution and violence.

Democracy is the answer, and it is inevitable as evolution that that is where all nations will one day arrive.

If you want to solve the evils of the world, get the wheels of democracy rolling.

That is our aim in Iraq.

[athon]

athon, the stories about terrorists blowing up innocent people aren't invented, unlike the examples you gave of the Crusades.

Granted, but the point I was making was that it makes the effort seem so black and white if an action can be labelled as purely evil, without cause or reason. That way, you feel justified in killing an inhuman enemy.

don't care what kind of upbringing a terrorist has, everyone knows that planting bombs that kill innocent people is wrong.

Many don't believe that. And while I don't condone it, I do think one has to understand why it is acceptable to some if in the future we are going to fight against it. The vast majority of Muslims think it is wrong, too, don't forget. How are we to fight an act when those responsible look like everybody else? That's the problem - not caring if a few innocents die along the way, IMO, is just as 'evil'. The battle cannot be fought through pixelating the issue.

athon, there is only one known solution to the evil bomb-throwers of the world: Democracy.

You're almost correct. Democracy is half the answer - having an informed population is the other half (which is maybe a stoopid statement, because I guess it isn't democracy otherwise, hey?). Indonesia is a democracy, and as far as many nations go, works well as one. But JI is still a problem, and even Indonesians are suffering from it. The whole JI issue is slowly being resolved through dismantling fundamentalist schools and funding education systems that are religious but can be monitored for extremism.

I fully agree with what you're saying, Luke. I guess I just encourage people to look beneath what makes a person do something and not label something as evil purely because it makes you feel safe.

I've done a lot of evil things in my life, according to the bible. Who ultimately has the right to decide whether they are really evil or not? Me? The government? You?

Hmmm, maybe Santa? Damn his list!

:)

Athon

[Mr Manifesto]

Hate to bump this thread ( :D ) but according to this (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=ZWHWGGIV1R0SUCRBAEKSF EY?type=topNews&storyID=3820826) article:

PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - The U.S. death toll in Iraq has surpassed the number of American soldiers killed during the first three years of the Vietnam War, the brutal Cold War conflict that cast a shadow over U.S. affairs for more than a generation.

A Reuters analysis of Defense Department statistics showed on Thursday that the Vietnam War, which the Army says officially began on Dec. 11, 1961, produced a combined 392 fatal casualties from 1962 through 1964, when American troop levels in Indochina stood at just over 17,000.

By comparison, a roadside bomb attack that killed a soldier in Baghdad on Wednesday brought to 397 the tally of American dead in Iraq, where U.S. forces number about 130,000 troops -- the same number reached in Vietnam by October 1965.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Hate to bump this thread ( :D ) but according to this (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=ZWHWGGIV1R0SUCRBAEKSF EY?type=topNews&storyID=3820826) article:



Here we go with the body counts.

392/1700 does not equal 397/130000.

So what message should we send? Killl 400 of our guys and we quit?

athon:

I fully agree with what you're saying, Luke. I guess I just encourage people to look beneath what makes a person do something and not label something as evil purely because it makes you feel safe.

Labeling something as evil doesn't make me feel safe. It makes me feel right. :D

I understand some of the motives behind the attacks. I would not like foreign interveners in my country, either. UNLESS, I was under occupation by an even greater terror. France under Hitler, say. Or Iraq under Hussein.

Maybe a better comparison of Iraq under Hussein would be Germany, instead of France, under Hitler.

How did the German people feel after we "liberated" them from Hitler?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Here we go with the body counts.

392/1700 does not equal 397/130000.

"We have your son in this box, here, Ma'am. He was taken out by an IED just outside Baghdad. But the good news is, statistically speaking, he had more chance of dying in the first three years of the Vietnam war!"
"Well, that's a relief!"

So what message should we send? Killl 400 of our guys and we quit?


Well, considering the US is using similar tactics to what they used in Vietnam (shows of forces, bombing and attacking civilian populated areas, etc, etc) maybe it's time they tried a different tactic.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto



But don't mind me. I'm just bashing the US.


Sure will be interesting to see what these America-hating aussies do when Australia becomes the 60th U.S. state. Move to Canada? Whoops, they're # 51 :D

[peptoabysmal]

One thing that developed out of Vietnam that changed warfare forever is that the war is now fought as much in the media as it is in the "trenches".

Iraq Is Not Vietnam (http://www.techcentralstation.com/111803A.html)

Perhaps the war in Iraq is justified in spite of, rather than because of what president Bush said or did not say in his State of the Union address. Is there anyone here who thinks Saddam was an all-around good guy?

Who wants to turn tail and run? Who wants to tell the families of the Iraqi citizens killed that their sacrifice was for nothing? Who wants to tell the families of killed US military personnel that their sacrifice was for nothing?

The US and UK should be congratulating one another on having the courage to undertake an unpleasant job for the betterment of humankind and do it well, instead of sniping at each other for some imaginary failure. If the US and UK didn't take Saddam out, who would? The Soviets? The Chinese? The UN? Give me a break. I'm not naive enough to believe that Saddam was willingly cooperating with the UN and had no desires of resuming his military domination of the region. Saddam's history with Iran, Kuwait and his own Iraqi population paints a completely different picture to that fantasy.

It really saddens me that just because president Bush shows a little backbone, something the socialist left just can't stand, Saddam gets to come out of this smelling like a rose and Bush comes out being called a war monger. Do you know why the socialist left hates anyone with any backbone? They can't brainwash people with backbone into loving their vision of obedience to a one-world, one-mind ideology.

Tenet has publicly apologized for including the uranium purchase in the president Bush’s speech. Yet the story is still circulating that "Bush lied about WMD". Why?
In Tenet's own words:
"The president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president."

Who started this whole "Bush lied about WMD" flap anyway? Democrats from the US, that's who. It had nothing to do with international opinion at first. These same Democrats will have lost the next US presidential election for their party. You can quote me on that.

[Garrette]

MrManifesto:

Well, considering the US is using similar tactics to what they used in Vietnam (shows of forces, bombing and attacking civilian populated areas, etc, etc) maybe it's time they tried a different tactic.

Don't rely on the media for accurate military analysis, MM.

If you are suggesting that we are targeting the civilian population then you are flat out wrong. If you are simply stating that some legitimate targets are located in populated areas, then you are correct, though stating it in an inflammatory and misleading way.

That being said, there is always room for improvement in any endeavor. The military as an institution is, despite what I believe is the common misperception, is as flexible and open to change as any, and more so than most, at least in regard to the conduct of operations.

[ahirst]

This site usually has some decent analysis of recent events, albeit primarily for the UK.

www.spiked-online.co.uk

Particularly relevant to this thread are:

'Mentioning the V word'

http://www.spiked-online.co.uk/Articles/00000006DFC9.htm

Excerpts:

'In the UK Independent, Charles Glass, ABC News' former Middle East correspondent, claims that 'the parallels with Vietnam are asserting themselves again and again in Iraq' - from President George W Bush's dubious 'justification for committing American troops to battle' to the 'body count and kill ratio'.'

'It isn't only anti-war types who are mentioning the V-word; apparently it is also being whispered in the corridors of the Pentagon. Paul Bremer, America's civil administrator in Iraq, was 'urgently summoned' to Washington on Tuesday for what many described as emergency talks on developing an exit strategy for US forces in Iraq.'

'America's war in Vietnam lasted from 1964 to 1973. Vietnam had earlier been a French colony, but as part of the postwar anti-colonial movement across much of the third world, Vietnamese forces defeated the French in 1954. France's response to its defeat was to partition Vietnam between North and South.'

'Since Gulf War II started in March 2003, 397 Americans have been killed - 271 of them in combat situations and 126 in accidents, friendly fire incidents or by natural causes. A further 75 coalition troops have been killed, including 53 Britons and the 17 Italian military policeman killed in Nasiriyah this week. That brings the number of coalition deaths to date to 472.'

'During the more protracted war in Vietnam - from 1964 to 1973 - 47,244 Americans were killed in action; a further 10,446 were killed in accidents or by disease. Among America's allies, the Southern Vietnamese forces lost 223,748 men; South Korea lost 4,407; Australia and New Zealand lost 469; and Thailand lost 351 (4). In total, America and its allies suffered around 286,665 deaths in Vietnam. The number of American wounded in present-day Iraq stands at 1,956. The number of Americans hospitalised for wounds in Vietnam was 153,329, and the number of Americans wounded without needing to be hospitalised was 150,375. Among Southern Vietnamese forces, 570,600 were wounded (5).'

'There's another difference between Vietnam and Iraq - in Vietnam, America fought a real war and faced a real enemy. The communist North Vietnamese Army was 570,000-strong by the early 1970s, organised into 18 infantry divisions, two training divisions and 10 regiments of artillery. In addition, it had 30,000 Viet Cong guerrillas in Southern Vietnam. They got financial and military backing from the Soviet Union and China, allowing them to build up an impressive array of weaponry.'

'It becomes clear that the Vietnam-talk is not specifically about current events in Iraq, when you consider that the spectre of Vietnam was being raised even before Gulf War II kicked off.'

'Indeed, the American elite's obsession with Vietnam over the past 30 years has revealed more about deep domestic crises than about problems in foreign fields.'

'This is what the American elite's Vietnam Syndrome has most clearly expressed - its loss of direction and purpose at home, as well as its loss of face in south-east Asia. The spectre of Vietnam is the spectre of America's deeper malaise and uncertainty in the post-60s world.'

(The numbers in brackets refer to references given at the end of the article.)

Also:

'War - what was it for ?'

http://www.spiked-online.co.uk/Articles/00000006DFB9.htm

and

'Bush-bashing in the UK'

http://www.spiked-online.co.uk/Articles/00000006DFCC.htm


PS. In addition to the US, UK and Australian forces in Iraq already mentioned, please don't forget that both the Poles and Italians, despite recent casualties, have said 'We're staying'.