IRAQ: A point of no return ?

[bluestar]

This past weekend, an article came out in the Washington Post titled: "What Next ?". This article is mind opening and worth reading by everyone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...081800983.html

Its been 3 yrs 5 months (a total of 500+ days) since the war with Iraq began. And its been 3 yrs and 3 months since President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, and the end of military hostilities. Today's Iraq is a far-cry from Saddam Hussein's Iraq.... Sad as that statement is, but its also very true.

President Bush has publically admitted there was NO connection between 9/11and Iraq. He has also claimed we will NOT leave Iraq while he is in office. In 2003 when the war began, our monthly expenditure on the war was a pittance $2B / month. Today its grown to $7B / month. Where is this money coming from ? How are we paying for this war ? Should we continue to pay for staying in Iraq despite our obvious needs here at home ? Our roads, our utilities (energy, water, etc), our dependence on fossil fuels (gasoline), our cities that need rebuilding like the Gulf Coast of Mississippi and New Orleans, etc.. all cry out for help from the govt, but our eyes are all on Iraq.

So what do we do about Iraq ? What happens if the Iraqi civil war overwhelms our troops and spills over into neighboring Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria ? How do we protect 135,000 American soldiers/marines stuck in that country ?

I cannot see a way out to ending this peacefully. The Iraqi govt has NO jurisdiction outside of the Green Zone. The Kurds control the North, the Islamists control the South, and Baghdad is a free-for-all among the Sunnis insurgents versus the Shia death squads.

Is it not time to bring our troops home ? Thoughts, opinions welcome...

[Lil4X]

First, you seem to again be under the impression that we should emulate France and surrender at all costs. Nothing is worth fighting for, especially the people who we liberated from Sadaam. Remember the US kept troops in Japan and Germany for over TWENTY YEARS after WW2 to stabilize the country and ensure a peaceful transition from a military dictatorship to a popular democracy. Iraq won't be any different. We have already begun planning a drawdown of troops

Second, I believe our soldiers and marines in country are perfectly capable of defending themselves - especially from an all-out attack. What they are not so good at is playing village policemen. A pitched battle would probably be welcomed by many, where the rules of engagement are simple: kill everyone who shoots in your direction.

Iraq is NOT on the brink of civil war. The Sunni, never comprising more than 20% of the population, are so outnumbered they couldn't take and defend more than a city block or two anywhere in Iraq, and they haven't the coordinated leadership required even for the most rudimentary assault. Worse, many of the Sunnis have emigrated - to Saudi Arabia, reducing their numbers to about 15% of the population. If you can't recruit much of an army, you're going to have a difficult time mounting a civil war.

Although they once comprised a large portion of the Army and Police forces, the Sunnis now find themselves in a overwhelmingly minority position - surrounded by well-trained and equipped Shi'a troops. Not the position from which you would want to launch a war. Now, not only are they outnumbered, they are outgunned as well.

Once the enforcers for the Ba’athists’ Arab Socialists, the Sunni find themselves at a HUGE disadvantage in Iraq - and every now and then even a suicide bomber gets a clue. ANY sort of armed rebellion will not end well for them

See "The Civil War Myth" by James Dunnigan over at StrategyPage for an outstanding review of Iraqi history from the days of the Ottoman Empire:
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/arti...0068150825.asp

[bluestar]

Originally Posted by Lil4X

First, you seem to again be under the impression that we should emulate France and surrender at all costs. Nothing is worth fighting for, especially the people who we liberated from Sadaam. Remember the US kept troops in Japan and Germany for over TWENTY YEARS after WW2 to stabilize the country and ensure a peaceful transition from a military dictatorship to a popular democracy. Iraq won't be any different. We have already begun planning a drawdown of troops

I don't mind debating well reasoned posters like you, Lil4X, so I'll respond to yours as well.

I am not under any impression we should emulate anybody. I am simply concerned that based on what has been obvious in the last 3+ years of our Iraqi adventure, our policy, strategy and tactics have failed at huge costs to the US taxpayers. I am not confident in the Bush govt's ability to rectify the situation, especially since there is no real plan anybody is aware of, excpt than "stay-the-course".

In yesterday's Press conference, President Bush was asked about our strategy to win in Iraq. Here is his response:

President Bush: "The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That's the strategy."

Huh ! That is NOT a strategy, that is a GOAL.... A strategy requires action on how you achieve a goal. Does the President not understand the difference ? These are the kinds of things that does not inspire confidence in our leaders to get the job done right.

Originally Posted by Lil4X

Second, I believe our soldiers and marines in country are perfectly capable of defending themselves - especially from an all-out attack. What they are not so good at is playing village policemen. A pitched battle would probably be welcomed by many, where the rules of engagement are simple: kill everyone who shoots in your direction.

No doubt in my mind, you are 100% correct. However, like in Vietnam, it doesn't bode well even for an elite force like ours to be in enemy territory bogged down in fortified locations only. Iraq is big country, and 135,000 soldiers and marines, with superior armaments and skills can be overwhelmed even by a rag-tag force in large numbers... And Iran is only a few hundred miles away to the East...

Originally Posted by Lil4X

Iraq is NOT on the brink of civil war. The Sunni, never comprising more than 20% of the population, are so outnumbered they couldn't take and defend more than a city block or two anywhere in Iraq, and they haven't the coordinated leadership required even for the most rudimentary assault. Worse, many of the Sunnis have emigrated - to Saudi Arabia, reducing their numbers to about 15% of the population. If you can't recruit much of an army, you're going to have a difficult time mounting a civil war.

Maybe, maybe not... I doubt if its just the Sunnis that have emigrated. The Shia's as well since they have been the one dying the most in the conflict. The Sunnis, small as they are, are darn good soldiers and can mount a serious offense. No one should doubt the skills of the Fedeyin and the Hussein Secret Police, many of whom were Sunni Baathists. Many of these people are the leaders of the Sunni Resistance fighting the Shia's and us.

Originally Posted by Lil4X

Although they once comprised a large portion of the Army and Police forces, the Sunnis now find themselves in a overwhelmingly minority position - surrounded by well-trained and equipped Shi'a troops. Not the position from which you would want to launch a war. Now, not only are they outnumbered, they are outgunned as well.

Once the enforcers for the Ba’athists’ Arab Socialists, the Sunni find themselves at a HUGE disadvantage in Iraq - and every now and then even a suicide bomber gets a clue. ANY sort of armed rebellion will not end well for them

Like I said, I won't underestimate the Sunnis. The Shia'a size advantage puts Iran ahead, but Iran has enemies in the region who'd come to the aid of the Sunnis. This won't be a one-sided battle when it blows up. And it will, sooner or later...

But at what cost to us.... and our future....

[mmarshall]

Part of the problem ( and I have said this before in other threads ) is that we are trying to make Iraq one country when it really isn't. Long ago I suggested that the northern third be given to the Kurds, the central part to the Sunnis, and the southern part perhaps to the Palestinians so they can finally have a homeland and get off of Israel's back. Any Palestinians wishing to emigrate there and establish a home could get UN help doing so. Instead of this, though, we chose instead to try and make it one country under one government instead of three.

[Lil4X]

You're right mm - we traditionally think of "war" in terms of nations, but this is something entirely new. This is a war of cultures that has no regard for national borders. Throughout the Cold War it was Capitalism vs. Communism, with the growing Euro-socialists falling somewhere in between. They spoke in glowing terms of Socialism, but when the Russians started grabbing territory in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, they came straight to the US to bail them out.

The war in Iraq is a close cousin of the war in Afghanistan. Both nations were victims of a series of slow-motion coups that put a ruthless dictator at the helm of government. Both of these governments came to power through assassination and ritualized violence, and large numbers of their citizens died for real or imagined crimes against the state.

They were both the work of what could be best described as criminal gangs that took control of the government's single source of wealth, oil in the case of Iraq, opium in the case of Afghanistan. They secured and expanded their power through terror and intimidation of their citizens.

Despite our discomfort with these situations, we looked the other way - saying this was a local problem that would have to be worked out locally. We sat and waited for the regimes to self-destruct . . . as they became rich and more powerful than ever. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, one of our close partners in the Gulf region, a good friend and a buffer on the Trucial Coast against the temporarily quiescent Iran, sparked an international outrage.

The UN sat and blathered ineffectually for weeks, as George Bush assembled a rickety coalition that had token Arab support to rescue Kuwait from the invasion from the North. As fragile as that coalition was, it had a mandate – and that was its flaw. By appearing to include Arab forces in the campaign against Sadaam, it dictated that we simply throw the invaders out of Kuwait – it did not remedy the problem in Baghdad. With the Iraqi Army beaten to a pulp, thousands of Iraqi dead and practically all of their air and mechanized forces destroyed, we were by the terms of the coalition unable to deliver the fatal blow to Sadaam’s government. We had to maintain the façade that somehow the Arab nations would work out the difficulties with Sadaam at the conference table. It never happened. Meanwhile the US pulled out of the region, leaving peacekeeping to a few combat air patrols and a lot of US armor parked in Saudi and Kuwait.

9/11 changed the game dramatically. Where once this was a regional “brushfire” war, international terrorists under the banners of Hamas, al-Qaeda, Hezbullah, and other ad-hoc groups saw their opportunity. The great power had pulled out of the region, leaving a vacuum behind. Taking the name of Islam as a part of their manifesto, they accomplished a number of critical objectives. First they were seen as a “religious” group, immune to actions by the “tolerant” US government. Second, they established an “Islamic” agenda of their own selection, cloaking their activities “in the name of Allah” – and the world stupidly accepted it. Third, they took up the “Palestinian” agenda in an attempt to rally support from Arab nations against Israel (and by extension, the US). Now they had an opportunity for a single strike deep into the US homeland.

"Terrorism" came to the US. Complacent in our belief that we were protected by oceans, we were not focused on an attack from within. We had been taught that wars were fought with nations, battle lines, uniformed troops, or at worst, missiles and nuclear weapons. We didn't consider a domestic airliner filled with, fuel, passengers, and a couple of sucidal fanatics as weapons of destruction. We were alseep.

War came to our doorstep, not by a nation declaring war on us - or unilaterally dropping bombs on a strategic military facility - this was a media event. The purpose was to so frighten the American people that we would abandon our friends in the Middle East, opening the way for a loose coalition of criminal gangs to take over.

Now recall that this is still not a “national” war in the sense we are conditioned to think – but a cultural war – because a few criminal gangs made it a MUSLIM issue. They claimed high crimes had been committed against Islam by the fact that Israel had the temerity to exist – even appealing their case to the UN that had created Israel out of a desert wasteland NOBODY wanted in 1948. While more moderate nations, such as Saudi and Jordan stayed in the background, Egypt, and Syria began to play central roles against Israel. Egypt after being trounced rather severely in two brief wars saw the benefit of if not siding with Israel, cooperating with it. That left the dictatorship in Syria in power, with emerging dictatorships in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan as the focus of power in the region.

The trick in local politics in the Middle East is to keep repositioning your government in front of the mob so that you appear to be leading it. These are royal oligarchies that survive through ignorance and deception. If they can keep their subjects ignorant – either relegating public schooling to religious dogma or fabricating an image of earthly paradise right there at home – they can maintain their position of leadership by being benevolent dictators while maintaining a separate life in the playgrounds of the world. By building elaborate public facilities – understaffed hospitals, empty sports complexes, large “university” campuses that wouldn’t qualify as middle schools in the rest of the world; they construct an image of “concern” and “love” for the people. They are publicly shown to be “great men” whose first and only interest is that of their subjects. Reality is something less.

It probably wasn’t entirely greed and malice that began this policy, it was probably a lack of knowledge of how to implement nation-building – and it certainly isn’t easy, especially when you have an image of infallibility to maintain. Terror mobs were the worst nightmare of the ruling classes. If they were beginning to tilt toward the Islamic Revolution that devoured Iran, the Sheiks IMMEDIATELY got the message. They saw what happened to the Shah. They moved their lavish lifestyles offshore, and when in town ditched the Armanis and Guccis in favor of the dish-dash. They threw up high walls around their estates to exclude envious eyes, and they began a furious expenditure of public funds. From this position, it would be extremely difficult to retreat to a position of nation-building because your first B-school graduates would see reality and soon townspeople with torches would be howling at your gate.

The Islamofacist movement is a convenient ruse. Combined with rampant anti-Semitism, it functions to keep the mob distracted – marching and chanting “Death to America”, “Death to the Jews” under the guise of some kind of holy war against the enemies of Islam. As long as this can be kept up, they are safe. But there is a significant problem: now, drunk with power, the leadership of these mobs may be overstepping their authority.

We are seeing the first signs of it in Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made several recent speeches that have alarmed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei, and the Pres has been called on the carpet (Persian to be sure) for his transgressions. It seems that President Ahmadinejad, in establishing his personality cult is starting to believe his own reviews – that HE is the decision-maker. He is being reminded that – at least for the present – it is the ISLAMIC Republic of Iran, and the Mullahs are still large and in charge. The coming months will determine whether this personality cult will come to dominate the region as Iran flexes its muscle through client states through Syria, and down through Lebanon. This big right-hand hook around Saudi, the Western Gulf states, and the new government of Iraq seems to be aimed for Israel. It is presently funded by the opium trade, but Iranian oil has joined up. If they can capture the oilfields of Saudi, Kuwait, and Iraq through intimidation of the ruling class – allowing them to keep their thrones in exchange for support, they will keep the mobs from their gates.

Right now, the key to a huge conflict seems to be in the hands of the Iranian people. Better educated and far more sophisticated than their Arab cousins, these Persians have a long tradition of scholarship, integrity, and businesslike conduct unlike any other in the region. Their society is uniquely more homogenous than Arab societies, with a large intellectual middle class of more Westernized people. Thus far, President Ahmadinejad, and even Ayatollah Khamenei have been tolerated by this politically powerful group. Whether they will put an end to this foolishness by removing them from office and restoring the Republic, or will side with the poor underclass and the leadership of Ahmadinejad’s fascists remains to be seen. IF I had to guess, my money would be on the Persian on the street taking back their government from years of lunacy. We’ll see, but sitting and waiting for the problem to be handled locally is what got us here.

-0-

[mmarshall]

Originally Posted by Lil4X

a"Terrorism" came to the US. Complacent in our belief that we were protected by oceans, we were not focused on an attack from within. We had been taught that wars were fought with nations, battle lines, uniformed troops, or at worst, missiles and nuclear weapons. We didn't consider a domestic airliner filled with, fuel, passengers, and a couple of sucidal fanatics as weapons of destruction. We were alseep.

I wouldn't say we were asleep, Lil. After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1995 bombing of the Murray Building in Oklahoma City we all knew that the U.S. mainland could be hit. Few people expected four airliners to be hijacked at once, though...in that sense they DID pull a fast one on us.

[SC400DAVE]

Originally Posted by mmarshall

I wouldn't say we were asleep, Lil. After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the 1995 bombing of the Murray Building in Oklahoma City we all knew that the U.S. mainland could be hit. Few people expected four airliners to be hijacked at once, though...in that sense they DID pull a fast one on us.

Knowing is one thing, however we are in no way prepared for the type of war being waged on us. This World War is too unpredictable. There is no telling when or where the next strike will be.

[Lil4X]

After the first WTC bombing there were a number of companies, professional organizations, and agencies that were deadly serious about the possibility of an OKC or WTC-type attack. Most efforts were focused on securing parking areas, keeping parking areas away from major structural elements of a building, armoring or blanketing columns in basement parking areas, and limiting access of large commercial vehicles.

Al few groups with experience in military demolition knew a large bomb unnecessarily complicated the mission - a properly placed shaped charge or two, or three - could bring down a skyscraper. These individuals focused their research on strengthening existing structures - by internal bracing or providing significant structural changes. A few pilot projects around the nation turned flimsy curtain-wall buildings into virtual fortresses. Expanding this kind of re-thinking of building structure across the country will require many years to complete a retrofit of existing buildings - new structures will conform to the new standards from their original construction.

Although engineers, architects, and consultants developed some careful plans, NO ONE ever thought of a suicidal band of hijackers flying an airliner into a building. That scenario completely escaped them. We know better now. Medium to large commercial aircraft - particularly those capable of carrying large quantities of fuel are now recognized as guided bombs of the first order.

[DASHOCKER]

Originally Posted by SC400DAVE

Knowing is one thing, however we are in no way prepared for the type of war being waged on us. This World War is too unpredictable. There is no telling when or where the next strike will be.

One has to figure how we got to this point. Once you know the root of the problem, you can hopefully change the outcome. I spelled it out in many threads. We are at the point of no return with our current leadership.

[bluestar]

Why is Iraq at a point of no return ? Maybe a walk down memory lane with a look at IRAQ, by the numbers....

-----Quotable quotes from Bush speeches----
"I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." - George W. Bush, August, 2002.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -George W. Bush, August 2004
-----------end of quotes-----

By the numbers:

Number of Americans killed in Bush's Iraq war as of August 2006: 2577

Number of Americans killed since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" on May 1, 2003: 2,438

Number of Americans wounded in the Iraq war:
- Official count: 18,777
- Independent count: up to 48,000

Estimated number of Iraqi civilians (men, women, and children) killed in the Iraq war since Saddam Hussein was ousted: 38,960

For Iraqis, the bloodiest month of the war so far: June 2006
more than 100 civilians killed per day

Percent of Iraqis who want American troops to leave: 82%

Stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq since Bush committed Americans to war in 2003 on the basis that Saddam had and was about to use WMDs: 0

"We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." - Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary, in testimony to Congress, March 2003

The official White House claim before the invasion of what the war and occupation would cost U.S. taxpayers: $50 billion

As of July 2006, the total amount appropriated by Congress for Bush's ongoing war and occupation: $295,634,921,248

Current Pentagon spending per month in Iraq: $8 billion (or $185,185.19 per minute)

Assuming all troops return home by 2010, the projected "real costs" for the war: More than $1 trillion
(includes veterans' pay and medical costs, interest on the billions Bush has borrowed to pay for his war, etc.)

courtesy - Jim Hightower @ http://www.alternet.org/story/40678

Today's Guardian Newspaper article highlighted how our Iraqi policy has undermined our war on terrorism and handed the regional power over to IRAN, who deftly filled the vacuum left by the Talibans (Afghanistan) and Saddam Hussein (Iraq)....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1856362,00.html

Here is a pertinent quote: "In particular, Iran has now superseded the US as the most influential power in Iraq, regarding its former adversary as its "own backyard". It is also a "prominent presence" in its other war-torn neighbour, Afghanistan, according to Chatham House's analysts.

The report said: "There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East."

Another report in the Wahsington Post today suggested even the President is frustrated and pessimistic about Iraq...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082301878.html

So wither do we go from here ? Money being spent, lifes being wasted, and an entire region in a state of limbo and unrest... What should we do from here forward ? Stay or leave ?

[DASHOCKER]

Originally Posted by bluestar

Why is Iraq at a point of no return ? Maybe a walk down memory lane with a look at IRAQ, by the numbers....

-----Quotable quotes from Bush speeches----
"I'm the commander - see, I don't need to explain - I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being the president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation." - George W. Bush, August, 2002.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -George W. Bush, August 2004
-----------end of quotes-----

By the numbers:

Number of Americans killed in Bush's Iraq war as of August 2006: 2577

Number of Americans killed since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" on May 1, 2003: 2,438

Number of Americans wounded in the Iraq war:
- Official count: 18,777
- Independent count: up to 48,000

Estimated number of Iraqi civilians (men, women, and children) killed in the Iraq war since Saddam Hussein was ousted: 38,960

For Iraqis, the bloodiest month of the war so far: June 2006
more than 100 civilians killed per day

Percent of Iraqis who want American troops to leave: 82%

Stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction found in Iraq since Bush committed Americans to war in 2003 on the basis that Saddam had and was about to use WMDs: 0

"We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." - Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defense Secretary, in testimony to Congress, March 2003

The official White House claim before the invasion of what the war and occupation would cost U.S. taxpayers: $50 billion

As of July 2006, the total amount appropriated by Congress for Bush's ongoing war and occupation: $295,634,921,248

Current Pentagon spending per month in Iraq: $8 billion (or $185,185.19 per minute)

Assuming all troops return home by 2010, the projected "real costs" for the war: More than $1 trillion
(includes veterans' pay and medical costs, interest on the billions Bush has borrowed to pay for his war, etc.)

courtesy - Jim Hightower @ http://www.alternet.org/story/40678

Today's Guardian Newspaper article highlighted how our Iraqi policy has undermined our war on terrorism and handed the regional power over to IRAN, who deftly filled the vacuum left by the Talibans (Afghanistan) and Saddam Hussein (Iraq)....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1856362,00.html

Here is a pertinent quote: "In particular, Iran has now superseded the US as the most influential power in Iraq, regarding its former adversary as its "own backyard". It is also a "prominent presence" in its other war-torn neighbour, Afghanistan, according to Chatham House's analysts.

The report said: "There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East."

Another report in the Wahsington Post today suggested even the President is frustrated and pessimistic about Iraq...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082301878.html

So wither do we go from here ? Money being spent, lifes being wasted, and an entire region in a state of limbo and unrest... What should we do from here forward ? Stay or leave ?

Good post bluestar

[bluestar]

That the govt is conducting a kinda back-door draft with recalls of 25,000 Marines back to active duty, similar levels of recall of Army personnel, multiple tours of duty in Iraq, and stop-loss orders issued by the Pentagon to the Armed Forces. Our military personnel is shouldering the entire BURDEN of this war in Iraq. They and their families are paying a huge price !

Two weeks ago, I was flying back from Philadelphia to San Diego. On the flight were several US Navy officers bringing back the body of a dead Navy Seal to his family in San Diego for burial. As I sat in my seat, I watched the corpse loaded into the cargo section of the plane. I also watched as the motorcade bearing the hearse, Naval and Police personnel stood to honor the dead Navy Seal, as his body was unloaded from the plane. I watched as his body was placed in the hearse and driven away.

This is a microcosm of what happens in this country almost everyday, hidden from public view on our TV sets. To see and hear about this war, you'd not know how bad its going for our men/women in uniform over there. The families are bearing the brunt of our policies and its just unfair.

We need a policy that is workable and can ensure our success. The current *stay-the-course* is not a winnng strategy. And if Bush cannot find another strategy/way out, he should bring these marines and soldiers back home to their families and loved ones. No need dying for nothing on foreign soil in the middle of warring religious factions who have been at each other's throat for centuries...

[Lil4X]

Again the crocodile tears of the Left fail to impress. We are in a WAR, gentlemen, wars cost blood and treasure. Since September 11th we have yet to exceed the KIA figures of the WTC. We lost more troops in the first few hours of many WW2 battles than we have lost in the past ten years in the Middle East.

On the home front, we lost 881 workers in the warehousing and transportation industries in 2005, according to NIOSH.

The same source reports 1,886 fatalities in the private construction industry in the same year.

All totalled, 5,188 American private sector workers were killed last year on the job, yet no one weeps for them. While any and all loss of life is tragic, it is a part of life. Shedding mock self-serving tears over the loss of volunteers who have gone in harm's way with the full knowledge of the danger of the profession of arms demeans their sacrifice.

[bluestar]

Originally Posted by Lil4X

Again the crocodile tears of the Left fail to impress.

Crocodile tears of the left versus the lack of heart of the right ! Seems appropo comparisons... What is even sadder is that we now have a generation of Americans who act like Rambos... The word - PEACE - does not exist in their vocabs any longer. Interestingly, many are Christians, where Christ preached a message of peace and love among all... Peace be damned !!!

Originally Posted by Lil4X

We are in a WAR, gentlemen, wars cost blood and treasure. Since September 11th we have yet to exceed the KIA figures of the WTC. We lost more troops in the first few hours of many WW2 battles than we have lost in the past ten years in the Middle East.

What war are we fighting again ? The war against terror ? How can anyone fight against a "feeling"... Besides, the so-called war against terrorr is NOT related to Iraq, so why are we fighting in Iraq ? So I don't really get your point about "we are fighting a war"... This is just a fallacy, if Iraq does NOT represent the terror front. Afghanistan is on a losing track and we focus on Iraq... The war we should be fighting is against al Qaeda... When was the last time we heard OBL mentioned by the President ??? Hardly ever... These are the real terrorists, not Iraqis fighting against themselves for their own religious and ethnic differences... In Iraq, we are in the WRONG war, period.

Originally Posted by Lil4X

On the home front, we lost 881 workers in the warehousing and transportation industries in 2005, according to NIOSH.

The same source reports 1,886 fatalities in the private construction industry in the same year.

All totalled, 5,188 American private sector workers were killed last year on the job, yet no one weeps for them. While any and all loss of life is tragic, it is a part of life. Shedding mock self-serving tears over the loss of volunteers who have gone in harm's way with the full knowledge of the danger of the profession of arms demeans their sacrifice.

In other words, all these dead Americans are just mere numbers.... Casualty of war... Here is one other statistics I left out:

Number of White House officials and cabinet members who have any of their immediate family in Bush's war: 0

And I'll say it again: Any of the righties who are for WAR should be signing up right now.... But I bet none of you will, so what good is all the bravado for ? Besides, the biggest war mongers (Cheney, Bush, Rove, etc) are those with the least or pure lack of military experience or skill.

Excuse me, war mongering has only led us down the road of fostering more insecurity, more terrorists, and giving our common enemy IRAN, even more leverage against us in the fight against terrorism.

Coining the statement "War against terror" is the silliest coinage of verbage ever to deceive the American population ever !

[Lil4X]

You seem to display a terribly sad lack of knowledge of Scripture. Please, before making such statements, I would ask you to actually read and make an attempt to understand the text you dismiss with such ignorance. Jesus, the Christ proclaimed a message of peace, but He was anything but a pacifist. He taught us to stand strong in our defense of God's word, and not to fear. We know the conclusion of this story, and we know the outcome has been decided from the foundation of the world. Our lives are not centered here, but we are only visitors in this imperfect world.

We do not fight against terror, but terrorism, a political strategy that uses the threat of innocents, murder of hostages, and staged media events as instruments of their bloody agenda. As one of the thousands of dupes of the terrorist schema you actually play into their hands by promoting a program of false “peace”.

You seem to repeat this same mantra that somehow an individual’s lack of a combat record disqualifies them from a position of influence or leadership. You constantly bash the President for his lack of combat service. Fine, he wasn't flying an aircraft designed for anything but high-speed engagement of Soviet bombers - hardly useful in the Vietnam war. He had a lot of hair to strap that F-102 to his backside and point it skyward - a lot of good men did the same and were killed by this demanding warbird.

Personally, I do not recall that combat experience is a constitutional requirement for the office of President . . . Bill Clinton was a card-burning coward and was elected to that high office much to your delight . . . but if military service is going to be your litmus test of moral rectitude, please inform us of your distinguished record.

We’re waiting . . . .