Remember the good old days when Walter Crankcase would give us the daily numbers killed in Vietnam? Gee, if he had only been on TV during the Normandy invasion, we could have cut and run from the Germans.
This war is only forgotten by those who forget that we're at war.
Historical perspective: World War II, Normandy Invastion, (June 6, 1944 - August 25, 1944) 81 Days: US 29,000 dead; 106,000 missing or wounded (Average 358 American deaths per day)
Iraq War (March 20, 2003 - October 18, 2006) 943 days: 2,775 (Average 2.94 American deaths per day)
You can't "support the troops" and "not support their mission." Every time you downplay America's resolve to win, you embolden our enemies, who then go on with renewed confidence to kill our soldiers.
Just ask yourself which political party Osama bin Laden aligns himself with. (Hint: It ain't al Qaida.)
6:11 and others who get apples and oranges all mixed up. In WWII Japan attacked us and we declared war on them. Germany then declared war on us and we followed with a declaration of war on them. These were governments with national territory and invaded territory. Terrorist have no country or territory and have not actually declared war on us. We chose to invade Afghanistan (with justification) and invaded Iraq (without justification). Now after 3+ years we have a mess in Afghanistan and a truly dysfunctional government in Iraq. And you propose to sacrifice more dedicated servicemen and women in this hopeless cause. Cut and run wasn't an option in WWII. Staying in Iraq is not making us safer but is actually making us less safe.
So don't smear the honor of the soldiers of WWII and the soldiers of the current mess by comparing their sacrifice. One war was justified and the other is not.
Anon 8:17 PM There were those who criticized Roosevelt for his actions, saying that the war (WWII) was unjustified, etc., etc. Politics don't change. The difference is that even Roosevelt's political enemies stopped their carping and tried to help the U.S. win the war. Compare that to how Democrats are doing everything within their power to make sure America can't win this one, lest Bush somehow get the credit.
If it weren't so serious, I'd laugh at your statement that "terrorists have not actually declared war on us." I admire your inclination to "stick to the rules," but not to the point of suicide. Did September 11 not happen in your universe? Islamic terrorists have proven themselves able and willing to kill us without a formal statement.
As I mentioned, many of the problems we face can be attributed in part to the ability of the Democrats and the media to encourage our enemies. The New York Times published a story on the secret program America used to track financial transactions to help catch terrorists. Look at the statements of Democrat leaders (e.g., Kerry on Face the Nation, basically calling U.S. soldiers terrorists)and compare them to the statements of our Islamic terrorist enemies. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy; every time a Democrat talks about how terrible America is, or how poorly the war is going, or how America needs to leave Iraq, the terrorists are encouraged.
Don't talk to me about smearing the honor of American soldiers. Every time a Liberal Democrat helps our enemies for political gain, it kills American soldiers. Every time the media reveals secrets to our enemies, it kills American soldiers.
The greatest honor we can show our soldiers is to help them not get killed. Democrats have shown their willingness to forsake that to hurt Republicans.
I just hope people note that the story describes how violence is an INTEGRAL part of the Islam religion. It will NEVER be a "peaceful" religion, because violence is an OFFICIAL part of its foundational beliefs. Other religions have led to violence when they have been interpreted by extremists, but Islam doesn't even need to be "interpreted" as violent--it just IS. I don't know how long the world can "put up" with this "religion".
For those who say the terrorists did not declare war on us, your wrong. Osama did declare was on us during Clinton's administration. Also, the former Iraqi government did support 9/11. They also hit and helped the Al-Qaida.
As someone who graduated from college with a degree in history, and who has a pretty good understanding of what has happened in the past, I would be interested to know who disagreed with Roosevelt asking Congress for a declaration of war after the Japanese attacked us on our own soil and killed almost 3,000 Americans at Pearl Harbor? There were certainly some isolationists who thought we could stay out of the conflict who may have disagreed with his decision to provide arms, planes and ships to the British in the months leading up to our entry into the war, but there was virtually none once we were attacked. There is nothing even remotely similar to the events that took us into World War II, in which our nation's independence hung in the balance as two foreign powers tried to defeat us, and what has taken place In Iraq in the past 3 years. Regardless of what some want to believe, Iraq and Suddam Hussein did not represent a direct threat to our country, had absolutely not role in the 9-11 attacks and did not actively support Al Quida, because like most despots in history, Suddam had no interest in sharing power or influence in his country with anyone else, including Al Quida. Their presence in that country has only come about been since we invaded, destroyed much of the country's infrastructure, destabilized the government, and in the process, given the militants a new breeding ground, and unleashed the pent up hostilities that has existed between the Suni and Shiite Muslims for centuries who refrained from going after one another only so long as Suddam ruled with an iron fist. We saw the same thing with the breakup of repressive Communist rule in Yugoslavia several years ago when the Christian Serbian government under Molosavik, began to kill Muslims who lived in that country along with those in Bosnia and Montenegro and eventually led to the U.N sending in forces under American miltary command, to stop the slaughter.
While Muslims are taking the heat today for the violent acts of a few, it is certainly not the only religious sect to have a violent history. Just think about how many years the Catholics and Protestants (two Christian Religions) killed one another in Northern Ireland over nothing more than their religion? And then there were the Crusades in which both Christians and Muslims of that time period killed one another over both sects desire to control the areas along the eastern Mediterranean Sea which both religions held to be sacred ground. Anyone with half a brain and a true understanding of the history of the region's people and culture should have seen the mess we're in now coming. Why our leaders didn't is beyond comprehension. As for support of this war, I seem to see a lot of Conservatives also speaking out against our continued presence in Iraq, so let's stop the Bullshit about Democrats being disloyal and the Republican party being our only hope. We'll see in three weeks how the majority of people in this country feels, and I strongly suspect there is going to be a change in leadership in Washington.
To 11:30 a.m., as ANOTHER someone with a college degree in history, I can only say ..... amen.
And I'm getting pretty damn sick of ignoramuses like Wordkyle making a pretzel out of historical facts to "spin" out so-called historical lessons for their own political purposes. As you note, there were plenty of folks around who didn't like Roosevelt, and who wanted to stay out of the war, BEFORE Pearl Harbor. There was virtually NO opposition to our participation in WWII after that.
And it is mindless to suggest that once our troops have made sacrifices, we can never turn back from that direction lest we "dishonor" them. After Pickett's Charge, Robert E. Lee did not keep sending his troops across the field. Rather, he acknowledged his error ("Don't worry boys. This was all my fault.) and withdrew. We could use a little of that intelligence and honor today.
1130, I will forward your comments to my friend who is and has been in Iraq for 2 years now, on an Al qaida eradication team. I will also forward it to my Army unit, who just returned, so they too can have a laugh at your comments related to Iraq.
Wow, they must be handing out degrees in history like McDonald's game pieces. Let's see if I can address Anon 11:30 AM and Anon 1:56 PM in a brief way.
FDR's political enemies did oppose his actions (See FDR Radio Address, December 29, 1940). You both reiterated the point that I made: Once we were attacked, and our soldiers were in harm's way (and I quote myself here): "...even Roosevelt's political enemies stopped their carping and tried to help the U.S. win the war."
I'll finish the main point I maide by quoting FDR directly:
"There are also American citizens, many of them in high places, who, unwittingly in most cases, are aiding and abetting the work of these agents. I do not charge these American citizens with being foreign agents. But I do charge them with doing exactly the kind of work that the dictators want done in the United States.
"They tell you that the Axis powers re going to win anyway; that all this bloodshed in the world could be saved; and that the United States might just as well throw its influence into the scale of a dictated peace, and get the best out of it that we can.
"They call it a "negotiated peace". Nonsense! Is it a negotiated peace if a gang of outlaws surrounds your community and on threat of extermination makes you pay tribute to save your own skins?"
Anon 1:56 here, ... and Wordkyle, "there you go again."
NOBODY is suggesting that we attempt to enter a "negotiated peace" with terrorists. Obviously, there is and can be no such thing. What many of us ARE complaining about is that .. as far as Iraq goes .. we are in the wrong place, fighting the wrong people, in the wrong way. And I reject any notion that the only way to honor our dead is to continue repeating the mistakes that got them that way.
If we want to enhance our security ... and we do ... we need to get our troops out of the quagmire and get them rested and prepared to act - when the need arises - somewhere where they can do some good. At the moment, we are sacrificing that security on the altar of folly.
Anon 1:56 I was quoting FDR's idea that you have to meet threats head on. Obviously no peace can be negotiated with terrorists. But to abandon Iraq now is handing it over to the terrorists.
With the constant drumbeat of bad news that the media puts out -- the daily death count, for example -- the morale and the will of the American people have been battered. My original post pointed out that in WWII the death count was immensely higher, yet the media did not broadcast such things. The Democrat leaders assault morale the same way, in essence doing the propaganda work for our enemies. Informing and influencing are not the same thing.
The reasons for going into Iraq given the information available in 2003 were sound. Among other things, everyone (including the UN and the Clinton administration) knew Iraq had WMD. Additionally, Iraq had terrorist ties, and would inevitably supply them with the weapons necessary to attack America again.
Imagine this: What if Bush had decided to do nothing, and America had been attacked again? That's the more salient point. That decision would have been completely indefensible.
Your so-called "quagmire" is partly a result of enemies being encouraged by comments and actions of Democrat leaders and the media. Why is the coverage overwhelmingly negative, if not for political purposes? There are huge numbers of successes that receive little or no coverage.
Of course there have been mistakes and miscalculations. Every war has them. But to trumpet those errors as the totality of the American effort is blatant propaganda -- propaganda that only the Democrats and the terrorists benefit from.
603, If you are asking about the body count for my unit, it would be 0 soldiers lost. As far as Iraqis or terrorists, I couldn't tell you. I have not been over yet and was just re-assigned to this unit last week. If i knew, i would tell you.
.jpg)
October may be the bloodiest yet.
23 comments:
Perhaps W will listen to his Dad and James Baker and "not stay" the course.
Remember the good old days when Walter Crankcase would give us the daily numbers killed in Vietnam? Gee, if he had only been on TV during the Normandy invasion, we could have cut and run from the Germans.
This war is only forgotten by those who forget that we're at war.
Historical perspective:
World War II, Normandy Invastion, (June 6, 1944 - August 25, 1944) 81 Days: US 29,000 dead; 106,000 missing or wounded (Average 358 American deaths per day)
Iraq War (March 20, 2003 - October 18, 2006) 943 days: 2,775 (Average 2.94 American deaths per day)
You can't "support the troops" and "not support their mission." Every time you downplay America's resolve to win, you embolden our enemies, who then go on with renewed confidence to kill our soldiers.
Just ask yourself which political party Osama bin Laden aligns himself with. (Hint: It ain't al Qaida.)
6:11 and others who get apples and oranges all mixed up. In WWII Japan attacked us and we declared war on them. Germany then declared war on us and we followed with a declaration of war on them. These were governments with national territory and invaded territory. Terrorist have no country or territory and have not actually declared war on us. We chose to invade Afghanistan (with justification) and invaded Iraq (without justification). Now after 3+ years we have a mess in Afghanistan and a truly dysfunctional government in Iraq. And you propose to sacrifice more dedicated servicemen and women in this hopeless cause. Cut and run wasn't an option in WWII. Staying in Iraq is not making us safer but is actually making us less safe.
So don't smear the honor of the soldiers of WWII and the soldiers of the current mess by comparing their sacrifice. One war was justified and the other is not.
Anon 8:17 PM There were those who criticized Roosevelt for his actions, saying that the war (WWII) was unjustified, etc., etc. Politics don't change. The difference is that even Roosevelt's political enemies stopped their carping and tried to help the U.S. win the war. Compare that to how Democrats are doing everything within their power to make sure America can't win this one, lest Bush somehow get the credit.
If it weren't so serious, I'd laugh at your statement that "terrorists have not actually declared war on us." I admire your inclination to "stick to the rules," but not to the point of suicide. Did September 11 not happen in your universe? Islamic terrorists have proven themselves able and willing to kill us without a formal statement.
As I mentioned, many of the problems we face can be attributed in part to the ability of the Democrats and the media to encourage our enemies. The New York Times published a story on the secret program America used to track financial transactions to help catch terrorists. Look at the statements of Democrat leaders (e.g., Kerry on Face the Nation, basically calling U.S. soldiers terrorists)and compare them to the statements of our Islamic terrorist enemies. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy; every time a Democrat talks about how terrible America is, or how poorly the war is going, or how America needs to leave Iraq, the terrorists are encouraged.
Don't talk to me about smearing the honor of American soldiers. Every time a Liberal Democrat helps our enemies for political gain, it kills American soldiers. Every time the media reveals secrets to our enemies, it kills American soldiers.
The greatest honor we can show our soldiers is to help them not get killed. Democrats have shown their willingness to forsake that to hurt Republicans.
Amen 8:17 - and Truman did the right thing - get the war over with, gut up to the horrors of dropping a bomb, and get our troops HOME!
Yes that war was justified and can we discuss a DECLARATION OF WAR?
I just hope people note that the story describes how violence is an INTEGRAL part of the Islam religion. It will NEVER be a "peaceful" religion, because violence is an OFFICIAL part of its foundational beliefs. Other religions have led to violence when they have been interpreted by extremists, but Islam doesn't even need to be "interpreted" as violent--it just IS. I don't know how long the world can "put up" with this "religion".
For those who say the terrorists did not declare war on us, your wrong. Osama did declare was on us during Clinton's administration. Also, the former Iraqi government did support 9/11. They also hit and helped the Al-Qaida.
Most of us feel helpless about the war on terror in/so/far/as it exists globally.
Recently a youngster told me a girl in her high school had a "hit" list of girls she intended to do in.
Now we can laugh about that and say, "oh, just a stupid childish prank"....or......
It is a scary world right here in Wise County.
As someone who graduated from college with a degree in history, and who has a pretty good understanding of what has happened in the past, I would be interested to know who disagreed with Roosevelt asking Congress for a declaration of war after the Japanese attacked us on our own soil and killed almost 3,000 Americans at Pearl Harbor? There were certainly some isolationists who thought we could stay out of the conflict who may have disagreed with his decision to provide arms, planes and ships to the British in the months leading up to our entry into the war, but there was virtually none once we were attacked. There is nothing even remotely similar to the events that took us into World War II, in which our nation's independence hung in the balance as two foreign powers tried to defeat us, and what has taken place In Iraq in the past 3 years. Regardless of what some want to believe, Iraq and Suddam Hussein did not represent a direct threat to our country, had absolutely not role in the 9-11 attacks and did not actively support Al Quida, because like most despots in history, Suddam had no interest in sharing power or influence in his country with anyone else, including Al Quida. Their presence in that country has only come about been since we invaded, destroyed much of the country's infrastructure, destabilized the government, and in the process, given the militants a new breeding ground, and unleashed the pent up hostilities that has existed between the Suni and Shiite Muslims for centuries who refrained from going after one another only so long as Suddam ruled with an iron fist. We saw the same thing with the breakup of repressive Communist rule in Yugoslavia several years ago when the Christian Serbian government under Molosavik, began to kill Muslims who lived in that country along with those in Bosnia and Montenegro and eventually led to the U.N sending in forces under American miltary command, to stop the slaughter.
While Muslims are taking the heat today for the violent acts of a few, it is certainly not the only religious sect to have a violent history. Just think about how many years the Catholics and Protestants (two Christian Religions) killed one another in Northern Ireland over nothing more than their religion? And then there were the Crusades in which both Christians and Muslims of that time period killed one another over both sects desire to control the areas along the eastern Mediterranean Sea which both religions held to be sacred ground. Anyone with half a brain and a true understanding of the history of the region's people and culture should have seen the mess we're in now coming. Why our leaders didn't is beyond comprehension. As for support of this war, I seem to see a lot of Conservatives also speaking out against our continued presence in Iraq, so let's stop the Bullshit about Democrats being disloyal and the Republican party being our only hope. We'll see in three weeks how the majority of people in this country feels, and I strongly suspect there is going to be a change in leadership in Washington.
To 11:30 a.m., as ANOTHER someone with a college degree in history, I can only say ..... amen.
And I'm getting pretty damn sick of ignoramuses like Wordkyle making a pretzel out of historical facts to "spin" out so-called historical lessons for their own political purposes. As you note, there were plenty of folks around who didn't like Roosevelt, and who wanted to stay out of the war, BEFORE Pearl Harbor. There was virtually NO opposition to our participation in WWII after that.
And it is mindless to suggest that once our troops have made sacrifices, we can never turn back from that direction lest we "dishonor" them. After Pickett's Charge, Robert E. Lee did not keep sending his troops across the field. Rather, he acknowledged his error ("Don't worry boys. This was all my fault.) and withdrew. We could use a little of that intelligence and honor today.
1130, I will forward your comments to my friend who is and has been in Iraq for 2 years now, on an Al qaida eradication team. I will also forward it to my Army unit, who just returned, so they too can have a laugh at your comments related to Iraq.
Wow, they must be handing out degrees in history like McDonald's game pieces. Let's see if I can address Anon 11:30 AM and Anon 1:56 PM in a brief way.
FDR's political enemies did oppose his actions (See FDR Radio Address, December 29, 1940). You both reiterated the point that I made: Once we were attacked, and our soldiers were in harm's way (and I quote myself here): "...even Roosevelt's political enemies stopped their carping and tried to help the U.S. win the war."
I'll finish the main point I maide by quoting FDR directly:
"There are also American citizens, many of them in high places, who, unwittingly in most cases, are aiding and abetting the work of these agents. I do not charge these American citizens with being foreign agents. But I do charge them with doing exactly the kind of work that the dictators want done in the United States.
"They tell you that the Axis powers re going to win anyway; that all this bloodshed in the world could be saved; and that the United States might just as well throw its influence into the scale of a dictated peace, and get the best out of it that we can.
"They call it a "negotiated peace". Nonsense! Is it a negotiated peace if a gang of outlaws surrounds your community and on threat of extermination makes you pay tribute to save your own skins?"
Anon 1:56 here, ... and Wordkyle, "there you go again."
NOBODY is suggesting that we attempt to enter a "negotiated peace" with terrorists. Obviously, there is and can be no such thing. What many of us ARE complaining about is that .. as far as Iraq goes .. we are in the wrong place, fighting the wrong people, in the wrong way. And I reject any notion that the only way to honor our dead is to continue repeating the mistakes that got them that way.
If we want to enhance our security ... and we do ... we need to get our troops out of the quagmire and get them rested and prepared to act - when the need arises - somewhere where they can do some good. At the moment, we are sacrificing that security on the altar of folly.
Anon 1:56 I was quoting FDR's idea that you have to meet threats head on. Obviously no peace can be negotiated with terrorists. But to abandon Iraq now is handing it over to the terrorists.
With the constant drumbeat of bad news that the media puts out -- the daily death count, for example -- the morale and the will of the American people have been battered. My original post pointed out that in WWII the death count was immensely higher, yet the media did not broadcast such things. The Democrat leaders assault morale the same way, in essence doing the propaganda work for our enemies. Informing and influencing are not the same thing.
The reasons for going into Iraq given the information available in 2003 were sound. Among other things, everyone (including the UN and the Clinton administration) knew Iraq had WMD. Additionally, Iraq had terrorist ties, and would inevitably supply them with the weapons necessary to attack America again.
Imagine this: What if Bush had decided to do nothing, and America had been attacked again? That's the more salient point. That decision would have been completely indefensible.
Your so-called "quagmire" is partly a result of enemies being encouraged by comments and actions of Democrat leaders and the media. Why is the coverage overwhelmingly negative, if not for political purposes? There are huge numbers of successes that receive little or no coverage.
Of course there have been mistakes and miscalculations. Every war has them. But to trumpet those errors as the totality of the American effort is blatant propaganda -- propaganda that only the Democrats and the terrorists benefit from.
Amen. At the risk of sounding redundant, stay the course.
So, what's ya'll's body count, Anon 2:29?
Gooooooood God..... Could you folks ....just once.....not write a book on your comment! Get a life!!!!
603, If you are asking about the body count for my unit, it would be 0 soldiers lost. As far as Iraqis or terrorists, I couldn't tell you. I have not been over yet and was just re-assigned to this unit last week. If i knew, i would tell you.
SkidRow said
Gooooooood God..... Could you folks ....just once.....not write a book on your comment! Get a life!!!!
Your point's well-taken. The problem is that a person can tell a lie with a word, but it takes a paragraph to refute.
I'll do my best.
How's the book coming along, Wordkyle?
Cause you are wasting
all your time to cut and paste.
Slowly, I would bet.
I'm probably as bad a haiku poet as you are a writer.
Ha ha - I must admit that was fun! Get back to work a-hole.
Anon 8:50 PM: It's coming along fine, thanks for asking. And yes, it is slow going. I'd love to see some of your haikus sometime.
I love bonding like this.
It seems that W won't be happy until all our friends and relatives are dead over there.
Post a Comment