I vividly remember from my youth, the morbid routine of watching Walter Cronkite on the CBS evening news, and seeing the daily casualty count from the Vietnam War. This is the type of nostalgia I can live without.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Ten U.S. Marines conducting a foot patrol outside the Iraqi city of Falluja were killed in the explosion of an insurgent bomb on Thursday, the U.S. military announced on Friday.
In a statement released in Falluja, the military said another 11 Marines were wounded in the blast caused by an “improvised explosive device” fashioned from several large artillery shells.
The attack is one of the worst single incidents to hit U.S. Marines in the war.
It would be overly simplistic to draw too many parallels between the Vietnam and Iraq wars, but one of those long drawn by the president’s defenders is embodied in the not-so-subtle attack on the media and war opponents, implicit in the warning against “losing the war at home.” No doubt, had I merely posted the clip above without editorializing, I would have generated numerous angry comments in the thread, assailing my patriotism, my courage, my morality, and my motives. (No doubt, I still will.)
But in all the recent chatter over strategies for either victory or exit, and the growing realization by the American people that the rationale with which our President sold us a preemptive war, was largely based on a relentless campaign of lies, the Bush apologists fail to understand the true cause of the steady decline in support for the war. The public’s growing discomfort with this war is not primarily due to propaganda coming from either side of the debate, but rather is an inevitable result of the White House’s biggest pre-invasion lie of all: that the war would be quick, painless, and decisive.
The American people were told that our troops would be greeted in Baghdad with flowers and candy, much like the victorious GI’s marching through the joyous streets of liberated Paris. Yes, American soldiers would die bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq, but we were promised that the cost in both blood and treasure would be relatively inexpensive… that reconstruction would be financed by Iraqi oil revenues, and that American forces would quickly bring order to a nation grown tired of conflict and oppression. This naive optimism was confirmed and reinforced mere months after the invasion, when the President proudly proclaimed “mission accomplished.”
Two and a half years later, the violence not only continues, it is escalating, and there is no end in sight. Now a new generation of children is growing up watching TV reports of other family’s sons and daughters dying in a far off war, financed by an enormous national debt that they themselves will be burdened with repaying. As the Iraq war drags on beyond expectations, is it any wonder that support at home would decline?
Fifteen years ago the President’s father promised a quick and decisive war in Iraq, and pragmatically delivered by controversially claiming victory short of Baghdad. Perhaps the second President Bush actually believed the pre-war fantasy he foisted on the nation — perhaps he still believes it. But if he loses the war at home the blame cannot be placed on the intrigues of his domestic enemies, but rather on his own failure to prepare the American people for a long, expensive, and drawn out struggle.
Oh, boy, were we watching different news stations or what? I certainly don’t remember anything about flowers and candy, nor do I remember quick, fast or decisive. I do remember lots of hard work and a really long slog.
….
You don’t remember the ‘flowers’ comments?
Rule #4 again I guess
In fairness to you, you’re confusing the rhetoric of the war on terror with the rhetoric for the war in Iraq. But thats probably just a very conveeenient mistake (Rule #1 for arguing like a conservative pundit: Present your fantasies as reality)
Democrat Party becomes the party of dictators. Note that the dems side with Saddam and wish he were back in power.
7. Do you think the world would be better off or worse off if the U.S. military had not taken action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein were still in power? (29-30 Nov 05)
Better off: 27%(all); 41%(dems); 10%(repubs); 29%(indep)
Worse off: 52%(all); 34%(dems); 78%(repubs); 47%(indep)
(Same as): 8%(all); 8%(dems; 6%(repubs); 11%(indep)
(Don’t know): 13%(all); 18%(dems); 6%(repubs); 13%(indep)
I’m perfectly happy with the dems “staking out” the radical fringe of our society. It should really help you out in 2006.
http://www.foxnews.com/project.....120105.pdf
You actually put a link to Faux news on a comment thread. Wow.
jaybo….you took the words right out of my mouth.
but i think they have always been the party of dictators. they were against the civil rights movement, remember? just how many of those “plantation” owners do you think were in the party of lincoln?
and isn’t a dictatorship just another form of slavery?
the dems motto….” you don’t know what’s best for you, but WE do. so we are going to tell you what to do, how to vote[chicago and seattle] and what unions YOU HAVE TO join[gregoire]”.
That’s funny that jaybo would cite the “are you better off” question, because it is THE ONLY question that still goess in your favor. The American people are against this war, and they are ahead of their Congress.
@1
I remember that too.
While losing even on mitary person is a tragic loss, let’s put this all in persepctive:
American Revolution:
Total Servicemembers 217,000
Total Deaths 4,435
War of 1812:
Total Servicemembers 286,730
Total Deaths 2.260
Indian Wars
Total Servicemembers 106,000
Total Deaths 1,000
Mexican War
Total Servicemembers 78,718
Total Deaths 13,283
American Civil War
Total Servicemembers 3,263,363
Total Deaths 498,332
Spanish American War
Total Servicemembers 306,760
Total Deaths 2446
World War 1
Total Servicemembers 4,734,991
Total Deaths 116,516
World War 2
Total Servicemembers 16,112,566
Total Deaths 405,399
Korean war
Total Servicemembers 5,720,000
Total Deaths 36,516
Vietnam War
Total Servicemembers 9,200,000
Total Deaths 58,198
First Gulf War
Total Servicemembers 2,322,332
Total Deaths 383
Current Gulf
Total Servicemembers ?????
Total Deaths 2,123
We need to be realistic at the cost of war and why we are fighting, by all examples, the current number of US trrop losses, while tragic, is far less than could be expected.
If Bush had been truthful and had said we’re invading to oust an evil guy, that would have set the stage much better.
Instead, he had to manufacture lies to support his pre-destined God-Given direction.
That’s the crux of the problem about better/worse….
I know..it hurts to *think* about it…but please give it a try. You’ll be happier in the end.
3
“Democrat Party becomes the party of dictators. Note that the dems side with Saddam and wish he were back in power.”
I’m gonna call you on this one. First of all, you’re taking the question out of context of the entire poll to make your point: the following question reads
“Do you think Iraq would be better off or worse off if the U.S. military
had not taken action in Iraq and Saddam Hussein were still in power?”
All respondents:20% 59 7 14
Democrats 29% 40 11 20
Republicans 10% 82 4 4
Independents 22% 57 6 15
(percentages read: Better off Worse off (Same as) (Don’t know), with the latter two not being scripted in the question).
Note that this question asks specifically about Iraq, and that the majority (40%) of Dems. surveyed responded “worse off”. Is this, then, an explicit indicator of Democrats “siding with Saddam” and “wishing he were back in power”?
Moreover, the wording of the preceding question (which you cite) asks if the respondent thinks that “the world” would be better off”, not Iraq specifically. This seems to further undermine your argument, as the wording may suggest to the respondent an opportunity to think about the Iraq war in a broader context, and whether any possible harm to an area broader than Iraq (note that “the world” is not defined) may have occurred as a result of US military action.
Dr. E…you think logic and facts will matter to jaybo?
Flowers and Candy were from Chelabi…
” … a clear pattern emerges. Bush officials first put clear pressure on the intelligence community to support their assumptions that Saddam was developing WMD and cooperating with al-Qaida. Nonetheless, significant contrary evidence emerged. Bush hawks then overlooked, suppressed, or willfully ignored whatever cut against their views. In public, they depicted unsettled questions as dead certainties. Then, when they were caught out and proven wrong, they resisted the obvious and refused to correct the record. Finally, when their positions became utterly untenable, they claimed that they were misinformed or not told. Call this behavior what you will, but you can’t describe it as either “honest” or “truthful.” ”
-Jacob Weisberg, Slate.com
What I find “amusing” about the Bush Iraq War Apologists and their comparisons of deaths per war, is how the very same people attacked Clinton for 8 straight years regarding the “Blackhawk Down” incident which killed somewhere around 18 Army Rangers But now after 2000+ dead in a war based on deceit and exaggeration, apologize away they go. Of course, after the “Blackhawk Down” incident someone was held accountable and the Secretary of Defense resigned, something unheard of with W.
Yeah, Tenet is still the chief of the CIA…
What I find “amusing” about the military/America hating liberal fringies is how desperate they are to deny reality
sgmmac @ 1: “Oh, boy, were we watching different news stations or what?”
Perhaps you weren’t watching at all. Recall the much-cited appearance of Vice President Richard “Dick” Cheney on Meet the Press, March 16, 2003:
LovinUSA @ 11: You are right—Ahmad Chalabi, Kanan Makiya and other administration / war supporters were the main sources of the “greeted/welcomed with flowers and candy/sweets” comments, and the Bush administration did nothing to discourage that sort of thinking.
And sgmmac, if you don’t remember the administration selling us the Iraq war as short, sweet, decisive and pretty much painless, you’re experiencing selective memory. Let us refresh it for you:
Compare USA Today:
And of course you have Defense Secretary (this guy hasn’t been fired??) Donald Rumsfeld saying to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy on Feb. 7, 2003, “It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
Finally, a historical footnote, from the USA Today article:
Not only have we lost many of our finest kids, but we have close to 15,000 wounded. The other night on Hardball, Murtha also pointed out to expect many many with post traumatic stress. Let alone all the innocent Iraq’s killed and wounded and the tarnished image our country will carry for years to come. This administration lied their way into this war and the lies and cover-ups continue. Murtha seems to have the best plan so far. Our image in the world community will take years to repair, but the best way to start is tossing them out at the ballot box in 06. And yes, don’t we all remember little Mary Sunshine (Cheney) telling us how we would be greeted as liberators.
@15
That was great!
Anyone know of a similar poll asking IRAQIS if they believe they are better off now that Sadman is gone? Since those 2000 plus died for Iragi freedom it would be interesting to get an Iraqi perspective.
If Iraq devolves into a civil war their deaths will stand for little…Big gamble by GWB
Horse whisperer…
Your forgetting a huge fate these vets will also have to deal with.
Gulf war syndrome…. A disease more than likely caused by troops being put in contact with Chemical and Biological warfare residue.
Then again, that would mean you would have to recognize the fact that this was legitimate risk that was one of the many causes for invading Iraq.
“What I find “amusing” about the Bush loving rightwingers is how desperate they are to deny reality ”
Wow – it is easy to type right wing!
And I served 6 years in the Army so you can shove the “hating America” crap up your arse. Real Americans question their country and demand answers.
Robert,
As a veteran, what would you like to see happen in Iraq?
Gulf war syndrome…. A disease more than likely caused by troops being put in contact with Chemical and Biological warfare residue.
or aerosolized depleted uranium.
We need to be realistic at the cost of war and why we are fighting, by all examples, the current number of US trrop losses, while tragic, is far less than could be expected.
You conveniently leave out what modern medicine makes possible: thousands of soldiers coming home with missing body parts and PTS-warped minds. And the native Iraqis: SOL.
This is why a war of choice is actually a war crime.
Attacking your own country by supporting terrorists is also a war crime
Xmas @5
Do you really know this little about the political history of the US? In a sense you are right, but your information is about 40 years out of date and now the Republicans are the party of white racism and have long-ago abandoned their status as the part of Lincoln.
Let me do a very brief sketch of the past 50 or so years of US history for you to show the point.
Before the 1950’s – 1960’s the Democratic Party coalition did indeed contain the disaffected whites from the south who believed in social conservatism and racism as practiced under Jim Crow. The southern whites who believed this were among the most solid Democratic constituencies because of the Democrats blind eye towards this type of racism.
As an example, look at this electoral vote chart from 1928 in which the only states one by the first Roman Catholic candidate for president Al Smith (D) were those of the deep south and a couple in New England. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....-Large.png
Through the Roosevelt years and up until the 1950’s, this pattern remained the same. However, in the 1960’s something changed.
The Democratic Party became the party of civil rights and became determined to do what they could to advance social equality for women and minorities.
Now, you might imagine that this did not sit well with those Southern racial thinkers who wanted to preserve their own predominate status – and you are RIGHT!
So what did they do? At the presidential level they abandoned the Democratic Party as shown here in the 1964 electoral map. http://pava.purdue.edu/pol101/....._1964.html
Now, a few years later the Republicans under Nixon had the bright idea – labeled the ‘Southern Strategy’ – to reach out to these white racist types in the South and bring them into the Republican Party. They successfully courted people such as Strom Thurmond to switch from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.
The congressional seats would follow about 10-15 years later and are the basis of Republican majorities today.
The results of all this are that the modern Republican Party is dominated by white Southerners who are still working to maintain their domination to this day.
If you somehow don’t like history, let me do a few thought experiments for you…
1)Who are the leaders of the Republican Party today and where do they come from? Bush – Texas, Delay – Texas, Frist – Tennessee, Lott – Mississippi, Hasert – Illinois, Armey – Texas, Blunt- Missouri
2)Who would a white, southern, racist redneck male most likely vote for today? (I am sure that MTR is not racist unless he would like to say otherwise…)
The racists and are still with us, they just became Republican.
Perhaps this whole misunderstanding of your is a Fox News special. I have heard from time to time that they push this.
Fox News is a bad source.
jaybo @ 3: “the dems side with Saddam and wish he were back in power.”
LoL! Wow, I am so impressed with this argument—NOT. First of all, it’s a non-sequitur; a huge, illogical leap from “Do you think the world would be better off . . . if the U.S. military had not taken action in Iraq?”. Let’s spell it out: Most people don’t like Saddam, AND don’t like the war. If you honestly believe that anyone—everyone*#8212;who thinks that we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq is a Saddam Hussein loyalist, you’re living in right-wing Fantasyland. Please come back to Earth.
Saddam Hussein was a two-bit dictator with a dilapidated army, who’d been effectively contained by 12 years of sanctions. He was no serious threat to the U.S. (Regardless, Bush really wanted to invade Iraq. Whether it was a personal vendetta, an ideological crusade to reshape the Middle East or something else, I doubt we’ll ever know.) Was Hussein a bad guy? Sure. But lots of countries were bigger threats to us, had more weapons of mass destruction, committed more human rights atrocities on a daily basis. I don’t see us on the march to be great humanitarian enforcers anywhere else, do you?
Hiding behind the rationalization, “Well, aren’t you happy Saddam’s gone?” is facetious, because there’s no equivalent push to get rid of tyrants elsewhere; it’s just an argument of convenience. As Peter Daou puts it,
You think it was worthwhile invading Iraq, just to get Saddam out of power? Fine. Then I expect you are writing letters to your Representative and Senators and the President demanding our country do something—invade?—to stop the GENOCIDE going on in Darfur. You claim moral outrage that Saddam allegedly gassed a Kurdish village during the Iran-Iraq war 17 years ago (turns out it was probably Iran); it’s time for some equal or greater outrage over the systematic slaughter in Darfur. (Or had you forgotten?) We used to say “never again”; now, for the first time, our country has acknowledged a genocide going on right now, and this Administration is just watching and doing nothing to stop it.
It appears Osama is still very much in charge…
http://www.debka.com/
“The question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many.”
–Richard “Dick” Cheney, speaking at the Discovery Institute in Seattle.
.
.
.
in 1992.
Xmas @5
Oh, and in case you do not like basic history – here is the Republican National chair admitting that they exploited race for votes and says it was wrong. For what it is worth, his honesty in admitting this is quite refreshing even if the NAACP had no doubts about what had happened.
RNC Chief to Say It Was ‘Wrong’ to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes
By Mike Allen
Thursday, July 14, 2005
It was called “the southern strategy,” started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue — on matters such as desegregation and busing — to appeal to white southern voters.
Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was “wrong.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....005/07/13/
AR2005071302342.html
Mesa @ 28: Yeah, it’s a shame Bush decided to put the hunt for Osama on the back burner, ignoring al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks so he could invade Iraq.
David @16 Nice compilation… I think one thing it brings out about the Bush folks is that they are very good at doublespeak and playing little games of telling everyone what they want to hear.
Bush will say things like “There is a reason [why we have to invade Iraq now]. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing — in fact they would be eager — to use a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”
Now read carefully, he does not say that Iraq HAS a nuke, just that we don’t want one here.
Bush knows very well that all the evidence for Iraq having a nuke are bogus and have been discredited.
He also knows that the CIA has discrdited the notion that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
But by simply putting together his words this way, he is implying that they are all connected. No wonder that some 70% of Fox News views thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and had nukes.
Bush and his handlers are very clever and the notion that Bush is stupid is one of his greatest strengths. People don’t beleive that the town fool can pull one over on them now do they.
pathetic Liberal Losres @ 22
Why does Robert’s veteran status imbue his opinion with more credibility? Particularly given the well documented non-service of the chickenhawk running this war from their comfy offices in Washington D.C., isn’t this a valid issue for ALL the citizenry to debate?
It seems a common theme among some of the conservative commentators on this blog, to dismiss the sheer validity of left leaning opinion. Is that what we’re fighting for in Iraq? A monoculture of rightist corporatist thought and expression? Is that what we were fighting for in Viet Nam?
That’s not why my father went to Nam; that’s not why Walter Cronkite, or Huntley and Brinkley or whomever read his name off the list at the end of the broadcast.
David @ 27
Excellent post. I sometimes wonder where all these bleeding-heart conservatives came from all of a sudden — they weren’t threatening military action to get rid of Francisco Macias Nguema, Jean-Bedel Bokassa, Samuel Kenyon Doe, or Charles Taylor. They’re not pounding the war drums to get rid of Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong-Il or Turkmenbashi. Is bleeding-heart conservatism a selective ideology?
big deal, where the nashing of teeth over Kosovo, hell Japan and Germany….oh I get it. “your” guy didn’t start this one so its not ok……lame ..boring…left over election sour grapes.
Martin van Creveld a professor of military history at the Hebrew University, is author of “Transformation of War” (Free Press, 1991). He is the only non-American author on the U.S. Army’s required reading list for officers:
From a review of the Transformation of War:
…argues that the theories of Karl von Clausewitz, which form the basis for Western strategic thought, are largely irrelevant to nonpolitical wars such as the Islamic jihad and wars for existence such as Israel’s Six-Day War. In the future, he prophesies, wars will be waged by groups of terrorists, guerrillas and bandits motivated by fanatical, ideologically-based loyalties; conventional battles will be replaced by skirmishes, bombings and massacres.
(Copyright 1991 Reed Business Information, Inc.)
Van Creveld wrote the book in 1991. He is considered possibly the greatest military theorist of the 20th Centaury, ranking with von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu. He wrote the following recently in the Forward:
… The number of American casualties in Iraq is now well more than 2,000, and there is no end in sight…What had to come, has come. The question is no longer if American forces will be withdrawn, but how soon — and at what cost. In this respect, as in so many others, the obvious parallel to Iraq is Vietnam.
It is over. Bush blew it. The question is not when we get out, but how do we get out with our Military intact?
Isn’t the blind notion of espoused by the right wing that you CANNOT question your leaders just shout out how ignorant they are? Anyone who believes that is a sheep and has never been a leader of anything more demanding than a football pool.
@23
Burning oil wells and fuel poured on the ground every other day to keep down the dust, parasites, bugs, & germs that American bodies are NOT exposed to at home.
@ 25
Are accusing me of treason? So typical of the ignorant, fascistic, extremist right who have no respect for dissent as in say, disagreeing with Clinton’s intervention in the Balkans.
Let’s git them eye-rakkies over here and let the Crips and Bloods and Arayan Nations get after ’em.
They’ll high-tail it back to sandland soooooo fast…..
#16 David,
I certainly don’t remember hearing any of that stuff. But I also must say, had I heard it, I wouldn’t have believed it. I still was on Active Duty in the Army when Shock and Awe struck. I got Headline News from CNN and some FOX news. I was busting butt trying to coordinate and stay up on our requirements to get equipment and soldiers over there, so my news watching was minimal. No-one in the Army at Fort Lewis that I talked to thought it would be fast, easy, or that the flowers and candy would start flowing. Maybe we all instinctively knew better.
sgmmac-
Your C-I-C sold you down the river, buddy.
Big Time.
#37 Clinton’s intervention in the Balkans was well justified. The slaughter went on way too long.
@16,
By the way, I don’t pay any attention to VP Cheney either. I don’t like him, I would have preferred Colin Powell and I am not a Rumsfield fan either. I am a big fan of Powell’s and though he didn’t want to put his wife through a campaign, he would make a terrific President.
@40
that would be buddette!
@34 Martin van Creveld a professor of military history at the Hebrew University, is author of “Transformation of War” (Free Press, 1991). He is the only non-American author on the U.S. Army’s required reading list for officers:
1) There is no such thing is a required reading list for US Army officers. I assume you are talking about this recommended reading list: http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/ref...../list3.htm
2) There are several foreign authors on this recommended list. Sun Tzu was not an American the last time I checked.
3) Creveld’s article “Transformation of War” is not the one on the recommended reading list. Creveld is on the list, but it is his article “Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton” that is on the list.
OK then!
Thx.
sgmmac @ 44: I agree with you about Colin Powell. As far as Cheney, sadly the option “don’t pay any attention” doesn’t work to make him go away…
Just in case you really believe all the propaganda that liberal news shows and this blog try to disseminate; you may want to spend a few minutes and read the following. It really is funny how stupid some of these news shows are.
http://shepherdaway.blogspot.c.....ching.html
As an self-proclaimed liberal, I can say, and have said, Bush’s INITIAL strategy in Afganistan was brilliant. We backed the Northern ALlinace and brought down the government which clearly did support terrorism. And then he got bored, abandoned Afganistan and invaded Iraq. Was/is Saddam an evil man? Most certainly yes. Was he the most evil or most dangerout to the US? I’ll argue Kim in Korea is more of a threat. I will also argue there are more terrorists in Iraq now then there were before, and our military is weaker due to extended depolyment than it was before. Our ecomomy also suffers from the financial drain of Bush’s adventure.
You’re wrong about the war.
You’re wrong about the economy
You’re wrong about the Libby indictment and your sad little UNmerry Fitzmas…. and note the author bio blurb on this one.
And after all that, you’re STILL wrong about the war
But, then again, you’re wrong about most things.
filter stuck again.
Oil. Oil. Oil.
Fifty year potential in the many trillions. Possible sitting on reserves equalling the rest of the world put together.
No new drilling in 40 years.
You just read what gets Texas Oil Families hotter that any sex ual fantasy ever dreamed.
Old reports say that Saddam was about to sell 40 year rights to the French. Which would mean Euro control.
Cheney is the darkest soul on the planet. Speaking out for torture as a viable tactic. Please, someone, pray for his soul.
@53
The French are arrogant to believe that they would get something from Sadaam, Why not? President Chirac got a lot money from Sadaam for his UN votes. Sadaam wasn’t about to give the French anything more than anyone else that he bribed.
Boeing Bob says: “Oil, Oil, Oil”. Please prove this Mooron.org/George Soros contention? Even Nancy Pelosi/Harry Reid have stopped saying this. But not Boeing Bob. When gas was $3.00 why didn’t we nationalize the Iraqi oil fields and take them. I’m sure Halliburton (Michael Moore’s favorite stock) could have made $MIllions!!! Hell, why didn’t we nationalize the Kuwaiti oil fields since we capped their fires through Red Adair. He was in his 70s and his company led the charge to stop the ecological disaster of Saddam. BTW where were your eco buddies then? SO I call BULLSHIT to this ignorant rant.
Jaybo: That was a great link!!! I bookmarked it. I love the Elmo character. I doubt libbies here read it. It would blow their complaint structure out the window!! CNN is their news bastion. I remember Eason Jordan VP of CNN News quit over his remarks that the US military frags journalists and he is the same Eason Jordan who made a deal with Saddam Hussein to not report atrocities in Iraq in exchange for keeping a CNN news base in Baghdad. These commie libs. Sure mistakes have been made in Iraq. So lets cut and run so they’ll come to America and further attack Israel. David I am so surprised at you. You haven’t been reading the Jerusalem Post lately have you???
re 7: What are “Losres”? Did you mean ,”Losers”? I would never call someone a losre. Not because I’m nicer, just more literate.Is it a comfort to a parent of a dead soldier from the useless Iraq war we were lied into that it could have been worse?
We could have lost a lot more, so your loss is strategically more tolerable?
You’re a moron. What if I put up figures that prove that fewer policemen are killed in the line of duty than there used to be? Would you somehow be comforted by that number. You could tell the spouse: “Well , he/she died on the streets, but those stat are getting better than they used to be!
More compassionate conservatism, huh?
What is it about this blog that brings out the nutjobs, anyways?
Eason Jordan who made a deal with Saddam Hussein to not report atrocities in Iraq in exchange for keeping a CNN news base in Baghdad.
Oh, Wingnut! If only you knew how ironic that statement was. Here’s a clue: Noriega.
There must be some high school with this site in the bookmarks.
Michael @ 46
“Transformation of War” is a book, not a article. And the author is on the list. And he is considered one of the greatest Military Historians/theorist of the 20th Centuary. And he did predict the Iraq War II twelve years before it happened. And we will loose, just like he predicted in the Forward. Just like Vietnam.
Ignore him at your peril. We are so screwed, they are wheeling us into the Emergancy Room.
@59 Umm,I said he was on the list. Let me recap. There is no required reading list for army officers. It is a recommended list. What they are talking about is the US Army Chief of Staff’s Professional Reading List (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/ref...../list3.htm). Contrary to the claims, there are several non-American authors on the list. Here is the list, if you have any doubt:
Inside al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror / Rohan Gunaratna (NOT AMERICAN)
Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era / James McPherson
Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton / Martin Van Creveld (NOT AMERICAN)
George C. Marshall: Soldier-Statesman of the American Century / Mark A. Stoler
The General’s War: The Inside Story of the Conflict in the Gulf / Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor
On Becoming a Leader / Warren Bennis
The Art of War / Sun Tzu (NOT AMERICAN), Translated by Samuel Griffith
On War / Carl von Clausewitz (NOT AMERICAN), Edited and Translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret
Masters of War: Classical Strategic Thought, 3rd Edition / Michael I. Handel
The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations / Samuel Huntington
The Future of the Army Profession / Don Snider and Gayle Watkins, Project Directors
Also, @34 implies that “Transformation of War” is on the list. It is not. The Creveld article which is on the list is “Supplying War: Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton” and is quite apolitical.
ProudAs and the rest of you Righty-all-so-mighty, war-at-all-costs fools…how about some reality to make OUR point.
***WARNING, graphic content…i’m not kidding!***
http://www.informationclearing.....le6010.htm
What is your point? An estimated 1.5 million Iraqis died due to the sanctions…which were in place becaue the whole world thought Iraq had WMDs. The sanctions are now over because of the US invasion. How many lives have we saved?