I agree wholly with your post Bulldog, but, I think it would be better to use some sort of gas instead of nuclear bombs, that way everything won't be radiated and we can go get the oil .

Because the rest of the world already LOVES the usa, and that could do nothing but help our image with other countries that we depend on for imports and exports, as well as the UN.......

If we say "forget about the civilians, kill them all", how are we any different than the terrorists?

In my opinion the same number of USA haters in other countries are about the same as the number here in the USA.

You can't make the USA a wonderland or good nation in everyones eyes. The same people who truly back the USA now IMO would back us in a bombing mission.

This is was civilians are going to die. Civilians are a lot of the gun carrying bomb hiding individuals. I didnt say kill all civilians.

What I am saying is if I can take a sattalite picture of my house then I would imagine they know where a "Target" is at. If it is a civilian area.......drop the bomb and get your target.

It is complicated but civilian deaths is part of war.....that is how this whole snowball started was with civilian deaths. If we fight them on thier terms the same way they have been fighting for centuries it will continue.

When the war began the only terroists active were Osama. When the bombs stopped is when they started popping out of the woodwork.

Bulldog...the numbers you posted don't say much at all, in fact. Comparing the levels of violence and brutality of the wars throughout history by simply using each war's reported death toll is like comparing apples to Volkswagens.

For one thing, you can't compare the motives for the different wars. I dare say that WW2 and perhaps the Civil War were not avoidable...which is hardly true for Korea, Vietnam, and completely false for Iraq.

You also are not taking into consideration the type of fighting involved; tactics, weapons, medical technology, ect. For example, in the Civil War more people died from disease than in combat. Also, part of the reason the casualties were so high in that war was because the tactics hadn't changed much from the Revolutionary War, yet the weapons had become more advanced.

Compare Korea and Vietnam: about the same number died, but Korea lasted 3 years and Vietnam stretched out over 10.

Also, keep in mind that in Iraq, our forces are not fighting constantly against another army, as in the conflicts you mentioned.

Here are some more numbers for you. While almost 3000 killed seems like a relatively low number, there have been roughly 20,000 wounded. That's almost a 7 - 1 ratio of those injured to those who actually die. This is a quite a spread...mostly due to the type of many of the injuries sustained (ie, roadside bombs and such) and medical advance since Vietnam. My point is, without modern medicine...if this conflict had happened 50 years ago...the death toll would have been much higher, methinks.

Now, as for your comments about the Democrats in Washington: During the 70's, the economy was in a state of stagflation...ie, both inflation AND unemployment kept rising. Neither Keynesian nor Classical economic schools have many solutions for this situation. Since as you pointed out, much of the catalyst for the problem was external, I doubt that the party in power would have made much difference.

The growth in the 90's was so high for so long partly because of a good mix...among the elements was the tech boom, a Democrat in the White House, and Republicans who actually cared about a balanced budget...unlike the ones that just got kicked out...



I suppose this is true. But the fact that the war was completely avoidable to begin with doesn't make that sentiment any better. Again, I think there is a big difference between an Iraqi majority revolting against Saddam with US support and the simple invasion of Iraq by the US. If the Iraqis had chosen this war, civilian deaths would have at least been their choice. Perhaps in the end this is a thin line...but I still feel like it is an important one.



I am sure that makes you sleep better at night...I am sure it justifies what's going on for you. But let me ask you this: if the US were invaded and occupied by another force, don't you think we'd have plenty of people taking potshots at the occupying force from the woods? I would argue that any occupation of another country, regardless of the motivation for the occupation, will create a resistance. Resistance to foreign power is human nature. Therefore, it is a mistake to confuse resistance with terrorism...or to pretend that all terror the same, whether it's al Qaeda or Palestinian suicide bombers...without understanding the local situation.

And no, Bulldog, I do not agree that the sword is the best tool for international relations.

the ratio of death to injured are not as bad as pwnd pointed out. the cuasualty rate is actually down 75% fomr the first gulf war! we all know we ownd in that war. people have to realize this war isnt against an army in uniform that you can fight and be over fast, no. this war is on terrorism and those peopel who use women and children to cover themselvs as they run into a crowd and blow themselves up. theese are the people that are willing to do anything to stop the spread of peace and democracy. we will not allow them to take away others freedoms, terrorism stops here.

locally pwned-

I appreciate you starting this post, Here are my responses to those you gave to mine...Please bare with me I am tired and it is late but I would like to respond,



actually you really cant compare an apple to a Volkswagen. You should really compare fruit to fruit and car to car for your analogy to make since ie. apples to watermelons or apples to pumkins and again either Volkswagen to a school bus or Volkswagen to Semi-truck.



I didnt mention motives, I said:



I dont know where your coming from, I think we should be THANKFUL that we have only lost 2342 of our brave men and women defending our contry and giving you the right to come on BC and say what you want, compared to hundereds of thousands or tens of thousands in the past wars.

While you say you can't compare motives for diffrent wars, however, you just did saying that the Korean, Vietnam, and Iraq were avoidable.

In response to your entire thought about the war, I can simply say that I am thankful for not loosing more men and women than what we have and I am also thankful for the advancement in the medical technologies.

The death rate is 14%. If one gets wonded there is a 14% chance you will die.



The catalist was between the House the Senate and President Carter. The only thing I mentioned was the problem of Foreign Oil. The problem was arguing between the two branches and the President wanting to do his own thing and not listening to his fellow party. Comical



oooooorrrrrrr it was because the Republican have had control of both branches since the carter administration....and I agree that is a excellent mix. Oh yeah and that one Democrate.



?????? I don't think the Iraqis were in a postion to rebel against Saddam....



Well....to answer your first question is sure, they be getting shot at NOW...but who knows now that the Democrates have control, they have always wanted to get rid of our guns and our protection.......Man if someone invades I hope they come quick before they take them away. Well I am not arguing that there is or would be a local resistance and or confusing it with terrorism. Like you said is human nature and I agree, but If they get killed because of thier resistance..........sorry. I am not trying or wanting to understand a suicide bomber......you bring that bomb over here or to a U.S. Embassay......sorry....I wont ask you how you feel about me.....it would be over.


Uh....yea I gathered that......Maybe you can go over there now and talk to the armies fighting against the USA and understand and talk to them...I'm sure they will listen

I believe you are mistaken, ussr1943. The total coalition losses in Desert Storm: 345 dead, 1000 wounded. By contrast, our current occupation has produced about 20,000 injured and about 3000 dead.

But again, it's like comparing apples to small German cars! Desert Storm was an international response to Iraq's invasion of another country. Saddam used his military in an internationally illegal way; we responded with the correct amount of force to counter the infraction.

The invasion of Iraq, however, had no provocation. Iraq had a fraction of the conventional military that it had in 1990 during the Gulf War. And, had the weapons inspections been allowed to be completed, no WMD stock piles would have been found. Therefore, we had no right to invade; Iraq had no military or WMD's and was completely contained by quarantined airspace and constant recon. It posed no threat, in that state, to the rest of the world (at least, not that we could not have observed and countered).



Which people are you talking about? Perhaps that description applies to al Qaeda members, but that certainly does not describe all resistance in Iraq. Granted, there are more al Qaeda recruits in Iraq and the surrounding areas than before, as the occupation has flared anti-US sentiment and more and more civilians suffer losses and indignity. But there is plenty of resistance simply because we are an occupying force. It has been a major goal of the Bush administration to blur the lines between the forms of terror and resistance; mainly because having a simple, black and white enemy is easier to rally the public against. Don't be fooled by such a simplistic view of social behavior.

As for the "spread" of democracy, I have always found that to be an interesting word to be used in that context. "Spread" tends to be a word that suggests dominance. Disease spreads over a population; fire spreads across a forest; butter is spread on a bagel. But how is "forced democracy" anything but a contradiction? How can Jeffersonian democracy ever exist when the people didn't choose to embrace it on their own? What if the people of Iraq in the end choose Islamic theocracy? Would you allow them that freedom?

Again, I believe that if the majority of Iraqis had revolted, as they tried in the early 90's (back when Bush Sr. actually tried to instigate revolt but when it came refused to help), we would be obliged to help make sure it was successful. After all, the US owes much of its independence to France and the aid we received from them (though perhaps their largest contribution was simply that they were a far larger threat than a few squabbling colonies across the Atlantic).

Edit: Bulldog, your post just showed up, but I have to work, so I will respond when I get a chance!

pwnd, i meant the death to injured rate, thats is the cuasualty rate.
casualties arnt just deaths, they include injured.

BULLDOG Dropping a nuke is not a good plan ANYTIME.

It not only kills many more lives than a normal bomb but ruins the enviroment that we live in. Look at hiroshima and its still got radiation today!

What I cant seem to figure out with the war in iraq is this.

They seem to be able to go into the camps of the terrorists(camera people even record them shooting people) and yet the americans cant go blow them up while they are all together?

True CGM, we have big enough bombs now we really don't need nukes.

That always got me also. Dan Rather can go interview some high ranking Al Quidea Terroist, but we cant find them. They may find them but they maybe meeting in area in the middle of a civilian area and of course we hold back from confratation as not to involve civilians.

That was supposed to be a joke; part of my point that you can't compare the current conflict with others in history.



Well we can all agree, I am sure, that the death toll is not worse. But again, I am not convinced in the slightest way that the sacrifice that our troops have given has in anyway "given us the right to come on BC and say what we want."

Bulldog, and ussr1943, the reason I pointed out the vast number of injured troops is that sometimes it appears as if the effect of this war is trivialized by the argument that "only 3000 have died, compare that to 650,000 in the Civil war; so it's not that bad!" Obviously, after your comment about being glad the death toll is so low Bulldog, you aren't using the argument like that and I appreciate it.

I think our troops did a fantastic job in the initial part of the war; they did exactly what they were trained for. No military in the world could do it better. But the fact that they are sitting there, held out to dry, constantly being threatened...and the administration has no plan what so ever about getting them out...is absolute folly. Blindly supporting those who mis-managed the occupation from the start in the name of "supporting the troops" is absolutely ridiculous, in my opinion. Now, I am not saying that we should pull out instantly, of course. But some plan needs to be set in motion for us to begin an organized withdrawal. A permanent presence in Iraq is not a solution!

The impact of any war is enormous. The pain for the families of fallen soldiers; the pain that the wounded have to endure, many for the rest of their lives; the mental scars that will be carried by many more soldiers than even the physically wounded. And that's why war should always be the absolute last option. I am not convinced that the administration would agree.

Bulldog, as for the economic part of the discussion, I detect that your attitude is something like, "Republicans only make good economic decisions; Democrats only make bad ones." I would love to debate economics with you, but I think that if I continue on that train of thought we will deviate too far from the thread, as it would involve economic theory. As most folks have noticed, I am pretty bad with tangents, so I will try to avoid that! But perhaps we will work on that in another thread. I actually tried to start an economics thread, perhaps I should have used a title that was more broad, like, "Economics" for example..



Maybe not , but if you will recall, they might have been shortly after the first Gulf War, had they recieved our help. Bush Sr. actually tried to incite them to rebelion, but when the time came, he didn't support them and they failed. Some of the mass murders that Saddam conducted were in response to this failed revolt. Is it any surprise that many Iraqis have trouble trusting the US? We might have forgot easily, but I am sure they didn't!




I was thinking about this one. There are so many great sound-bytes both sides use against each other. Let's see, the conservative side says, "The Democrats will take your guns!" "The Liberals control the media!" "The Democrats will raise your taxes!" (Bush was still using that one on the stump, quite viciously, just before the elections). Or how about some more sound bytes, from the other side of the isle? "Republicans just want tax cuts for the rich!" "Corporations are EVIL!" "Republicans want more class distinction!"

Granted, there might be at least some measure of truth, in the right context, for each...but for the most part such comments are emotion-grabbers and aren't constructive in any way. I am trying to avoid them...though I'll admit that sometimes they pop into my head as well...



But you are looking at a specific situation once the violence has already begun. What I am saying is that perhaps international terror starts decades before you see the results; for one, because of our meddling with other countries. Remember, the CIA trained Osama and his buddies...and we thought it was a good idea, so long as they only killed Soviets. Oops.

Yes, perhaps groups such as al Qaeda can't be reasoned with. But they are a tiny minority, and will have to be dealt with; hunted down and destroyed, but brought to trial if possible. However, the strife in Iraq right now is mainly secular violence. It is violence between factions that have been enemies for a very long time, much longer than "Iraq" has existed. Without any real understanding of the local culture, the history, the customs...how can we succeed there?

What bothers me most about the way the administration has dealt with Iraq (besides invading it without justification, of course) is that they don't just lack knowledge and understanding about the local situation there...they don't even understand why they should have such knowledge. They simplify human behavior into hypothetical models. When reality doesn't match these models, they simply 'trudge on' in the same direction claiming "everything is ok" and that the 'liberal media' is over-stating the negative aspects of the conflict.

But hopefully, regardless of which party takes the White House in '08, this will be the last "faith-based" presidency the Union ever has.*





*For clarity, when I say "faith" I am not referring to religiosity. By "faith-based" I am talking about the administration's habit of using ideology and beliefs to make decisions rather than facts and empirical problem-solving.

I have saw vids of people from CBS going INTO THE CAMPS way out of the way where only the CBS reporters can go and talk to a whole GROUP of alkida people.

Yet the US troups cant go get rid of these people?!

I bet the reporters only found the terrorists because they WANTED to be found, CGM. I am sure they would not actively encourage a meeting with an Abrams tank.
Cheers,
John

I agree and all but the US could not track them or the reporters who are on the US side could not say where they were and then once they are out of there the us comes in with a unmanned plain and bombs the whole camp.

CGM, how could the administration perputate eternal war if they actually got rid of the enemy?




Sorry, I couldn't resist...I just re-read (actually, I suppose, re-re-read) 1984.

This is truly a deplorable statement. Nowhere in history have we had the need to create this false dichotomy and say to those that don't support a war that you don't support the troops fighting the war. I urge anyone in support of the war to ask one how doesn't, "So you want US soldiers to die then, right?" I have a feeling you'll never get "yes" as an answer.

Not supporting the war simply means that. Nothing else. The Policy has NOTHING to do with the men and women in harms way. If it did, then everyone who supported the conflict would be fighting it themselves!

silmaril8n - well said!!

I don't support the war but support the solders fighting it, just as you said - thank you!

Yes, as I have said before, it seems to me that there is no better way to "support the troops" than to risk their lives only as a last resort.

I support the troops as well but this is what happens when you send in poorly trained and inexperienced soldiers. I bet none of you saw this clip on the mainstream media.

What the media does not want you to see.

The wee video was enough to make me weep.

Sending in poorly trained and inexperienced soldiers - well, the same thing happened during Vietnam - and I suspect in earlier wars, as well. (A friend who spend 2 tours in Vietnam said, "Like lambs to the slaughter").

But for me at least, this video doesn't show inexperienced soldiers - rather it shows a cruelty that is undoubted part of who this soldier truly is and would be true even if he were still a civilian - ugh! I suspect most soldiers would feel contempt towards him, just as they have down towards other inappropriate actions by other soldiers - and want us to understand and truly believe that he is the exception and not 'the rule'?

I hate the fact there is a War, truly hate it. But once the soldiers are 'commited' by governments, they are there whether we like it or not - and I try to show them as much support as humanly possible. (The poops in the video however, do not deserve my respect or support!).

Thanks for your link rsd79.
You are completely right.
Soldiers that do such a thing, I think, at least, they are poorly trained and inexperienced soldiers, like MaraM said.
I'm with you too silmaril8n. I think Scarlett it's a very emotive girl. Did you already saw her blog and home page? If yes, you will understand why she said that. I admire her for what she is doing, but I don't agree with her opinion and she knows it.
Regards,
Darthy

I thought my ears were burning. Emotion has nothing to do with it.

I am an Air Force brat (now grown of course ). So my experience growing up, with my Dad being involved all his life in the service of our Country, raised in a religious home, instilled with conservative values. That is what I am made of. Adding a dash of sugar and spice and everything nice.

If you lived at Hitler's Reich, you would support his policy forever? By your way of thinking, I suppose so.
One thing are the brave US Soldiers that everyone must support because they are only obeying orders emanated from the politicians, another thing are the policies of the politicians I think you support too. You must not confuse both things.

So, I'm sorry, but it's worst than I thought.
Respectfully,
Darthy

BTW I still stand by my statement, which you so kindly quoted.








Understand?



First of all I do not blindly suport all Republicans. I just prefer most conservative policies as opposed to the dems. Oh and it just wouldn't be right, no matter what political side one leans toward, to bad mouth the troops. Now would it? That is one area (most) liberals wont venture. The kerry debacle went south for him, many democratic politicians were upset with him and spoke out about it.
I communicate with a group of US Vietnam Veterans, and they do not care at all for those that protest against the war. Some even gather near protesters, standing quietly while waving and saluting passers by.

Ahhh, you had to quote Revel. He was one of the few europeans that defended the american values, although he was a socialist. In his latter book, once more, he criticize those europeans who said that the terrorist attacks upon WTC were the result of a misguided foreign policie by your Country.
But what he didn't know was:
This, this and this.
If he did, I think his latter book would be another absolutely different.
For your full and completely rest, I say that I understand very well your point of view. For you, who wants peace in the world it's an appeaser and an appeaser, in your opinion, it's what Ayn Rand said, isn't it? OK. You are a catholic girl and you don't conceal it from anyone so, I think, Christ was the ultimate appeaser because He offers Himself into the cross to appease the wrath of God, His Father, towards the Humankind and his sins. How can you conciliate these two points of view?
I think men like Ayn Rand and Winston Churchill who said "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile--hoping it will eat him last", never wanted to bring the true peace to the world.
The peace for them is their welfare and let the others live their lousy and stinking lives, because they had nothing to do with them. For them, peace, is a matter of equilibrium and nothing more.
You can say what you want, but this is my last direct answer to you.

With respect,
Darthy

//Mod edit: Please read the forum posting rules at the very top of the page. Hereafter watch your language and don't attempt to circumvent the censor-bot or the rules.

I thought the liberals where going to lower the gas prices and solve the war when they took over both houses.

Ahh, dog those were campagin promises not to be confused with real life.
I'm surprised you fell for those being your from the "The Show Me State".

Actually, this is a pretty standard sentiment when power changes hands in the government.

The irony is that the strongest feelings of this sort are coming from those who supported the Democrats.

There was a town hall meeting in my hometown a few months back with our Senator, Ron Wyden. I didn't attend but there were many articles about it afterward. The consensus of those who did attend was something like this: we should be out of Iraq right now, the impeachment process should be under full swing, ect.

I think these kinds of demands are very impractical, considering that the Democrats have only a modest hold on the House and tenuous control of the Senate; not to mention the fact that they are facing a sitting president with veto powers who refuses to face reality on almost any issue.

They are jumping into deep, complex problems that have been going on for years.

How much change was going to happen by now?




The damage caused by the invasion of Iraq, in my opinion, could resonate for decades.

That would be contrary to their ultimate goal - the destruction of America.

I was purely sarcasm. Whats is sad is that most people actually believed them. I am actually losing some faith in the GOP.