Mentioning “extreme” anti-war factions in a thread about a debate question that deals with propaganda is inevitable. Characterizing the entire anti-war movement and supporters as anti-Semitic and anti-American as Carlito has through innuendo by suggesting those who view themselves as anti-war need a little distancing to do is not inevitable—it’s intentional. I admit, the post I linked in the last sentence is carefully worded, but no less a straw man.

The idea behind generalizing everyone who considers themselves to be in the anti-war camp is not to make the anti-war camp come up with a viable exit strategy for Bush to ignore, it’s to discredit the movement’s raison d’etre: objection to the invasion, occupation, and continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. A sort of anti-anti-war propaganda in itself.

It is just like Christopher Hitchen's innuendo. As one unimpressed Slate Frayster put it in response to casually clumping conscientious protesters and freaks together:



Do you agree or disagree with Colonel Boylan's statement that the deaths of 2,000 U.S. soldiers is NOT a milestone moment in the Iraq War?

It is a milestone on some psychological level for both participants in this argument whether he can say that in front of a microphone or not. I agree with Titus, though. This guy needs a lesson in PR etiquette.

Histrionics? That's a good word. The problem is while you point the finger at me carlitoswhey, three more are pointing back at you.

I don't engage in "histrionics." You must have me confused with some other nighttimer. Nor have I ever proposed, only a military guy with dead veteran relatives can command the military" .

What I do propose is people like George W. Bush, who see nothing wrong in sending the children of other people off to fight and die in the wars they start, be required to send their own kids too. In fact, send 'em first. I don't think Jenna Bush's life is more precious than my son.

Let's move on to your other points:

- You start a debate, angry about letter written by a US soldier who is mad about anti-war protesters using the "2000 dead" milestone to rally their cause.

Yes, I am angry that some mouthpiece for the military would dare to trivialize the deaths of 2,000 G.I.'s as a meaningless statistic. If there is manipulation of the loss of lives by those opposed to the war, what makes you think this is a one-way street? The Pentagon and the Bush Administration have shamelessly manipulated the sacrifice of the soldiers to prop up support for the war as it drags through its third year. I never would say the anti-war forces aren't guilty of twisting the numbers to win support to end the war. I'm just not going to kid myself that the pro-war forces aren't equally guilty of the same offense.

- I mention that I agree with this soldier because he's right - most of the anti-war protesters don't really care about the troops, live or dead
- I point out the lunatic rantings of their messiah, one Cindy Sheehan
- You 'feel no need' to distance yourself from her, incinuating that she has (quoting Maureen Dowd) moral authority due to her dead son

Your opinion is well-established CW. You don't think those who are against the war don't care about the troops. Cool. But where's your proof?

No, I do not feel ANY need to distance myself from Cindy Sheehan. She's hardly my "messiah." I happen to agree with her that this is the wrong war being waged for the wrong reasons. It appears I must be redundant and reinterate as it hasn't sunken in yet that I do not believe in guilt-by-association, though apparently you do.

You've established that you don't like Cindy Sheehan. That's your business. I personally don't care about that. What I DO care about is when you attempt to disparage my views by disparaging Sheehan's and clumsily trying to link the two.

For the record, I'm not a big fan of Maureen Dowd. But I do agree that she has far more moral authority due to her dead son than some chickenhawk beating the drum for a war they aren't willing to fight in. If that's a "chickenhawk argument" then I'm good with that. Chickenhawks are beneath contempt.

- You intimate that 'cheap politicos' and 'wealthy elites' have no authority to support the war unless their children are dying

Okay. You got me there. I should not have equivocated.

I SHOULD have said, "Cheap politicos and wealthy elites have no moral authority to support the war unless they're willing to let their own kids go off to fight and die in it."

- Using this logic, what the hell gave you the right to question the opinion of a US soldier in the first place? Unless you are there yourself? It makes no sense.

It makes sense this way. I questioned the opinions of U.S. soldiers while I was in the military from 1974 to 1980 and I'm still questioning the opinion of Colonel Boylan when I believe he's blowing smoke.

I've always questioned authority. Especially when the authority is engaging in lies, political spin and propaganda.

Nobody gave me the right. I always had the right. Same as it ever was.

Do you agree or disagree with Colonel Boylan's statement that the deaths of 2,000 U.S. soldiers is NOT a milestone moment in the Iraq War?

It seems to me that Boylan’s comments trivialize the sacrifice that those 2,000 soldiers made. Characterizing 2,000 human beings who are no longer living as nothing more than “marks on a wall” is far more offensive (to me, anyway) than calling it a “milestone”. It seems to me we’ve had this argument before, at 1,000 casualties.

Whether it’s 1, 1,000, 2,000 or 10,000, it’s too many.

And that 2,000 "milestone" doesn’t even include the many thousands grievously wounded men and women, many of whom are multiple amputees, or irreversibly brain damaged.
Sources: Army Medevac Stats

As usual, we agree.

Well, Roger Ailes will be heartbroken to know that you 'consider' his network to be a US form of Al-Jazeera. After all, wearing US flag lapel pins is exactly like airing a documentary miniseries on "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"

Dude, it's not ad hominem. I've been to anti-war protests. I've also seen much coverage of protests online and in the media.These vermin stood outside of Walter Reed every night for months taunting families of wounded soldiers. As I stated before, there are more Palestinian flags and keffiyehs than there are American flags at these events. I stand by my statement regarding the majority. If you disagree, provide some contrary evidence. I'm not demonizing anyone, just saying "most" and I stand by that assertion.


I'm not anti-Sheehan. I'm anti-lunacy and anti-anti-Semitism. She demonized herself, and my quotes prove it.


If you stand for the wrong thing, you do not earn my respect. I will continue to try and elect officials who govern from logic and not emotion.

Again, if you've ever been to one of the anti-war protests, and you see the Palestinian flags, the keffiyehs, the Israel and America flags with the swastika, the Bush = Hitler signs, you would know what I mean. You may disagree, but I've been there, seen it and felt it and I stand by my assertions.


68%?


So why bring it up? Do Rumsfeld or Tommy Franks have policy-making authority, but Bush does not? Would Al Gore have authority only to write about war, since he went as a reporter? As I noted, the Constitution gives civilian elected officials control of the military. Do you want to change the Constitution?


This is fair. Both sides use whatever tools they have for propaganda. Bush landing on an aircraft carrier could be legitimately compared with 1800 crosses in Crawford (where was the ACLU on that one - crosses on public land!). That said, there was a time when this country would celebrate pro-US patriotic exercises rather than calling them an "offense."

Google "moonbat war protests" or something. My statement stands.

What makes you think that those making policy decisions are not willing to let their own kids go off and fight and die? I'm certainly willing, as I'm sure are many of the leaders. What - It's Dubya's fault that he had twin girls? This is silly.

The second part of your statement I agree with. I only have problems with your first sentence. As I stated before you can disagree with her, agree with her on some occassions, or completly agree with her. But what you do is almost demonizing (?? not sure if this is a word ) this woman just because you disagree with her. "If you stand for the wrong thing..." ..... this mother lost her son. How does her understandable critizism justify such an attack upon her morals?

BTW as I have stated earlier I do understand the army's perspective. I just do not understand the fierce attacks on Sheehan.

I agree with CW that there are some dunderheaded left-wingers out there whose protest is an exercise in inanity. However I suspect that CW might not agree that many of the right-wing pundits (Christopher Hitchens, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, etc..) are equally as shrill and unbalanced in thir opinions. It would make for an interesting thread, a point - counterpoint using only quotes from political mouthpieces.

I admit that I am sometimes embarrased when I happen to agree with the liberal side of an issue and I see "activists" out protesting the cause. They are often foolish and ill-informed. The same can be said for most people holding fast to either pole.


The idiocy of these people, however, can't be used as an argumentative weapon attacking the validity of the opinion itself. It's not sound logic. Also, I am uncomfortable with the easy use of the term "anti-semitic" nowadays. It seems that, if one agrees with Palestinians on any issue, they are anti-semetic. Not fair and not true. Israel has blood on its hands as well and it is fair to point out their culpability as it is fair for us to find our own. Desiring for Israel to back down a little does not equal the desire for Idrael to be destroyed. Do fools express this inappropriately? They SURE do. But it doesn't mean the point is wrong.

So back to the numbers: I think it is moot to talk about the people to the extreme sides of the issue and argue from their voices. We have our own. If the Colonel was calloused and made a clumsy attempt to diminish the power of such a statistic then he was calloused. Period. I think Cindy Sheehan and certainly Sean Hannity would have flubbed it equally as well.

Out of the 535 members of Congress, only one had an enlisted son in Iraq.

Only four of the 535 members of Congress have children in the military; only one, Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., has a child who fought in Iraq.

--- Kevin Horrigan, “Hired Guns,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 11, 2003.

The politically connected and the monied elites do not send their children off to fight the wars they start and benefit from. They are very happy to send anybody else who isn't them. They are not bothered by allowing your child to die for their war.

There is nothing silly about it. It is both common sense and indisputable fact.

Thank you for the links. What I see are middle-aged and older people demonstrating. No beads or chest-baring ala New Orleans mardi gras, no flamboyant cross-dressers, nobody dancing and shouting to exuberant music, just people who smile when a camera is pointed their way. And this is PARTYING???

Seems to me the only sin these Quakers and other demonstrators committed that can be documented is smile when someone was taking their pictures. (And maybe the photographer said, "Smile!" when snapping their pictures!) Jeez, that's sooo disrespectful, isn't it? I don't see it that way. So they're not drama queens or actors who decide to emote appropriately on cue when the camera is rolling. That does not translate to disrespect to my mind. It translates to the lack of someone coaching them on what to do and say, unlike the troops the Prez was speaking to during the infamous "impromptu" video conference.

Look again at these pictures. Yeah, they're a subversive-looking bunch, aren't they, a real threat to the peace in their communities--not. They look anything but strident to me. They are ordinary, and maybe a little care-worn looking, citizens commemorating the loss of 2000 men and women and demonstrating to send a message that 2000 deaths are too many, and that the U.S. should pull out of Iraq.

Nighttimer, I hate to say it, but you are making this too easy for me. Let's do a little math, shall we?

US population aged 18-64 = 175 million
Total persons in the miltary = 1.4 million
Total persons serving in conflict (Iraq / Afghanistan / horn of Africa / etc.) = 250,000 maximum

Expressed as a whole fraction, 1 in 125 adults are in the military.
Expressed as a whole fraction, 1 in 700 adults are serving in a combat arena.

Given the figures above, and assuming one adult child for each Congressman** (535 total), odds are that there should be ...





3 to 4 kids of congressmen in the service, and probably 1 serving in the war.

... Which is exactly what your article shows.

PS - I think that Representatives Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina) and Duncan Hunter (R-California) both had sons mobilize to Iraq after the article you cite.

**Disclaimer - I haven't bothered to search every Congressperson's website to count kids, but 1 each seems fair enough, since many have young kids or no kids. But if I were a journalist, I sure would have done the homework and checked the math. Bet you a dollar I'm pretty close, and this took me all of 10 minutes online.

Well, thanks for the remedial course in Journalism 101, carlitoswhey, but I'm afraid in your zeal to debunk the numbers you missed the point.

The point being it's not the sons of Congressmen or Senators or Presidents or anyone among Forbes list of richest Americans dying and being wounded in Iraq. It's a disproportionate of the working class, the urban, the rural, the middle class and the less than wealthy that are. Working class and middle class people don't start wars. Rich people do. Working and middle class people don't reap financial windfalls from war. Rich people do.

It's the ordinary people who die in these stupid, wasteful wars. Same as always.

The posthumous Purple Heart rested near the folded American flag on the modest dining-room table of his parents' home in Cleveland. Edward (Augie) Schroeder, a Boy Scout turned Marine, was killed along with 13 other soldiers on their fifth trip into Al Hadithah, Iraq, to clean out insurgents. Their fifth trip. "When you do something over and over again expecting a different result," Augie's grieving father, Paul, told me, "that is the definition of insanity." As the death toll of American soldiers in Iraq reached 2,000 last week, Paul Schroeder concluded that the military had not sent enough troops to Iraq to do the job properly and that the president was incompetent: "My son's life was thrown away, his death was a waste." Then, noting that he shared a birthday with his boy, he broke down and said he would not be able to celebrate his own birthday anymore.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9865068/site/newsweek/

Not one of the 2,025 soldiers that have fallen in Iraq or the thousands that came home crippled, maimed and damaged for life will benefit in the way Bechtel, Lockheed Martin, Custer Battles, Chevron and Haliburton have. The warriors rarely share in the fruits of battle. The war profiteers make sure of that.

Statistics have a tendency to testify for whichever side wishes to employ them. But the cold fact remains it's not the children of the elites like Bush who are fighting his war. If you can prove otherwise, I eagerly await your evidence.

Now for a bit of unfinished business...



Leaving aside General Kimmitt belief that Al Jazeera and other Arab televised news stations are presenting a skewed version of reality (unlike the rah-rah flag wavers at Rupert Murdoch's Faux News Channel), you took me to task Carlito for selectively quoting General Kimmitt. Others have PM'ed me to second that emotion.

Well, what I'm guilty of is not linking to the website where I saw that quote. My bad. I will have to plead guilty to taking a shortcut and not seeking out the entire quote from the general. You did and provided a link back to the entire quote. Thanks for that.

However...

Your link is from a column written by Derrick Z. Jackson and while you quoted General Kimmitt's remarks you did not include Jackson's following remarks about Kimmitt's quote. An oversight?

These innocents never existed, either in Iraq or Afghanistan. "We don't do body counts," said both Gen. Tommy Franks, former commander in Iraq, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. When Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt was asked about the images of American soldiers killing innocent civilians on Arab television, Kimmitt said: "My solution is quite simple: Change the channel. Change the channel to a legitimate, authoritative, honest news station. The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda. And that is lies."

The United States waged its own war of propaganda by refusing to conduct a legitimate, authoritative, honest accounting of the deaths of innocent civilians. As it urged people to change the channel, the Bush administration cut off all channels to finding out what we did to women, men and children who were shopping, working, or leaving their mosques. In an invasion based on falsehoods, the truth of the civilian carnage might have been too hard for Americans to take, and support for the war might have ended in the first few weeks.

The propaganda of an invasion with invisible innocents surely allowed Bush to seamlessly switch his stated reason from the unique horrors of weapons of mass destruction to liberating an oppressed people. It is a lot easier to tell the world you are their great liberator if you do not have to own up to the thousands of dead people who will never get the chance to vote in that free election.

Worse, this denial of death, in a war that did not have to happen, is sure to fuel the very terrorism we say we will defeat. The innocents in the so-called war on terror are always "our" citizens or the citizens of our allies. The only innocent Iraqis are those killed by "insurgents." Our soldiers clearly did not intend to kill innocents. But this posturing of America as the great innocent, when everyone knows we kill innocents ourselves, is likely only to make us look more like the devil in the eyes of a suicide bomber.

Two more things, Carlito: Today it was reported the Pentagon apparently does do body counts. In a bar graph included in a Congressional report, the Pentagon reported 26,000 Iraqis have been killed since 2004.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/st...1604985,00.html

2025. That's the number of soldiers (and families) that have joined the exclusive club that Casey Sheehan and his mom belong to. All you have to do to join is go and die in the kind of war Dubya made sure he'd never be part of.

I disagree being I feel it’s a conservative statement, or not really an objective or open statement to make. The one point I can agree with by the officer is that its really not his place professionally to speak a truly personal opinion or stance on the “milestone” or the war in general. If memory serves officers in the armed forces are not even allowed to speak negatively on the president, I don’t know all the situations this applies to, point being I don’t now if the officer would truly be allowed to make its own statements on personal feeling and would not be shocked if such statements have not already been generated in advance.

It would probably not sound to good, and it would most likely get the officer fired if he or she was to make a negative comment on the situation. Another aspect is how the soldiers will view the statements their chain of command will make, which most likely ties into what an officer can say again.

This is what I love about journalism. It's OK to present statistics as showing something that they don't as long as "the point" is made. Not good enough.

I demonstrated that members of Congress are mathematically represented in the military and the war at a rate equal to the general population. You don't like the evidence, so you say I'm missing "the point."


What are you asking me to prove? That "children of elites" are over-represented in the enlisted personnel in the military? No one is saying that - even those in the military are probably more likely to be officers.

White Americans in the military are slightly below average household income. Black americans in the military are slightly above average economically - something like $32K HH income for black military personnel vs. $28K USA average, if I remember the numbers. But let me not be blinded by facts, when I should focus on "the point" ...

Looking at your statement above, I think you've hit on something.

Working class and middle class people don't start wars. Rich people do. Working and middle class people don't reap financial windfalls from war. Rich people do.

Working class and middle class people don't start hospitals. Rich people do. Working and middle class people don't reap financial windfalls from hospitals. Rich people do.

Working class and middle class people don't start farm subsidies. Rich people do. Working and middle class people don't reap financial windfalls from farm subsidies. Rich people do.

Working class and middle class people don't start football stadiums. Rich people do. Working and middle class people don't reap financial windfalls from football stadiums. Rich people do.

Michael Moore made more than $100 million by exploiting a national tragedy and the Iraq war, even while using the same type of misleading statistic that you cite above. And he doesn't pay union wages or hire black people. Just sayin.

Let me try more statistics. How many of the following 350,000 people are "sharing in the fruits of battle?" How many are "middle class" vs. "elite? What do you have against these workers? These are good-paying, American manufacturing jobs, the ones we want to keep, right?

- Halliburton (100,000 employees)
- Bechtel (45,000)
- Lockheed Martin (130,000)
- Chevron (56,000)

I'm not in the habit of making your arguments for you. You can easily follow a link and and agree with Derrick Jackson, just like you did here. As it happens, I disagree with his point on a few counts. I'll just list a few, so as not to re-argue the war in this thread...
- The Bush administration "cut off all channels"? Are you and I on the same planet? Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera, CNN, ABC, NBC, BBC, DW? I have seen Iraqis shopping, working and leaving their mosques on TV 24/7.
- "invisible innocents" - You tell me why the media focuses on 2000 dead soldiers, and not the innocent Iraqis being bombed by terrorists. As for the civilian carnage in the early stages of the war, some of it was broadcast live.
- "thousands of dead iraqis" in mass graves don't interest Derrick Jackson. Only the ones killed in overthrowing the Ba'athists. Why is this?
"is sure to fuel the terrorism" - this coming from journalists who print, without question, that a Koran was flushed down a toilet, directly leading to rioting and deaths in the Muslim world. That fomented racial unrest by reporting black cannibalism, throat-slitting and child rape in New Orleans. Pot, meet Kettle.
- "our soldiers clearly did not intend to kill innocents" - Do you disagree? The "insurgents" target innocents as a matter of policy. This seems relevant.


Thanks for posting this. Hussein and his regime would have killed, on average, 20,000 of their own citizens in a given year. I'd be happy to prove this, but of course it would be facts and statistics and I'm sure I would miss "the point" somehow. The only good thing to come of these deaths is freedom for the Iraqi people. The ones killed by the Ba'athists died for nothing. For sport, in some cases.

Question - were the 40,000 civilian dead in Brittany and Normandy in 1944 worth it? Does it "miss the point" to argue that the Russians would have killed many more, had they displaced Hitler in France?


nighttimer, we agree on this. Every one of the deaths is tragic. It's horrible. What we are debating is how the anti-war side has chosen to use this number to further their agenda, without acknowledging that the vast majority of those 2,000 believed in their mission. They volunteered to serve. Casey Sheehan volunteered for a dangerous mission and was tragically killed. MoveOn.org used the 2,000 for a fund-raiser. To me, it is not respectful of the dead.

I've pretty much stayed out of it on this one, as I believe my personal involvement changes my views on this topic.

However, nighttimer, what you negate to discuss is that every single person that joined the military in this war did so voluntarily.

If there was a draft or some other form of involuntary service, the discussion might be pertinent. (Please don't forget that Selective Service was begun by FDR and reinstated by Carter...)

The overwhelming feeling among soldiers is that they understood their obligation the day they signed on the line. I personally agree. If you joined for the College money or because you had nothing else going on, you assumed the risk of joining the US military. If you joined during the past 25 years, you could've been deployed in numerous dangerous capacities. I personally volunteered to do a service to my country, and happened to be blessed enough to serve in Afghanistan, a less controversial deployment.

Citing George Bush as a monster while avoiding the idea that many Presidents have deployed our military into harms way, without serving, negates your point. The same argument could be made for FDR in WWII or Clinton in Somalia, Bosnia, etc. Wealth and priveledge is always going to keep one out of less desirable situations... whether it be working hard labor or serving in a combat zone... it's universal. It transcends gender, race, age, and national origin... to use it as a sounding board against George Bush is very near-sighted.

Carlito, I'll get back to you on your most recent post.

You hit the nail on the head, aevans176. I totally concur that it is a voluntary miltary force. As I was explaining to a younger co-worker, the military is a great option if you want to get in the best physical shape you'll ever be in, learn from some of the sharpest minds in the world, grow up as a man, establish some order, discipline and purpose to your life and meet some of the greatest people on the planet.

The trade-off is all this means nothing if you get killed in the process. The military gives you much because it can take away all that you have.

When I joined the military the Vietnam War was winding down and the chance that I would have be sent into battle was significantly lessened. But any soldier goes into the military with the understanding that they can go to war ANYTIME and ANYWHERE that Uncle Sam sends them.

My problem with Bush is my belief that he sent our soldiers off to die for bogus reasons based on "evidence" that was manipulated to justify taking out Saddam Hussein.

There is nothing "near-sighted" in decrying the basic unfairness in how the wealthy and well-connected keep their own children safe and out of the wars they start. I refuse to believe "that's just the way it is." The way it is fosters the lie that some lives are worth more than others. That to me is as un-American as it gets.

I sincerely am glad you chose to serve and defend our country aevans176 and I hope you came home safe and well. Unfortunately, too many of our fellow soldiers are being chewed up and spat out in George Bush's war.

Two thousand is nothing compared to past wars, campaigns, natural disasters, and even highway deaths. As a matter of fact, its a fine example of the efficiency of our military.
The vigils held to supposedly "honour" those now deceased are rubbish: they merely spit in the face of those still serving.
Do you know how many of the enemy are now dead? Probably not, the left-wingers want to incite a sense of futility, so publishing or announcing the enemy's deaths are not important.

Welcome to the forum, EGVB.


While I will not argue with your assertion that the military is efficient, and that as far as wars go, 2000+ is not a lot of deaths, those other deaths did not occur when I was a parent. I had no sons or daughters to commit to the cause because I was too young. With this war, I had a son in the Army National Guard who was stationed for a year in Kuwait and made trips into Iraq with supplies for the troops. I am thankful that he came back unwounded and alive, and that he will not be required to return. His reason for wanting to go to a war zone? Better pay. The non-combat wages he was making was making it difficult for his family to make ends meet. Soldiers make disgracefully low wages.

The Lancet, an English medical journal, published an article some time ago, claiming that 100,000 innocent Iraqis had been killed as a result of collateral damage inflicted by U.S. troops. When that figure was brought up in this forum, it was disputed. I don't know how many Iraqis have been killed, and how many died as a result of "friendly fire". These are the people, along with dead U.S. troops and troops from other countries, for whom I feel sorry, not the enemy. But you're right: I really don't care how many bad guys are killed. I am not keeping a tally.

And I take exception to your characterization of people on the left as spitting in the face of those troops still serving. Maybe that happened with the troops returning from Vietnam, but I do not know anyone who opposes the war who holds such animosity toward soldiers. Is it possible to argue for peace without being disrespectful? Some of us think so.

Two thousand (plus--as of this writing) soldiers have died in a conflict that many of us feel was entered into predicated on lies. We don't think that soldiers should invade and occupy a country based on false information. We feel the best thing that can be done is leave before many more deaths occur, and allow the Iraqis to sort things out as best they can. The fact is that regardless of when these troops pull out, there is still going to be conflict.

This is my first post, so welcome everyone. Anyhow, theirs one thing, one pro about the iraq war, that i think has been quite overlooked. Back in the World World 2 era, before we were in the war, their were people against us going to the war in our country; like their is today. Now, the same people that were against the war back then, are against the war today. So...if we hadn't of gone to war back in World War 2, then we might all be speaking German right now! So, think about that, in comparison to the iraq war. Yes, different era, but same situation!

Actually, it is a fine example of the efficiency of the army medial corps. Far more people that would have died in earlier wars, even 30 years earlier, are now being saved, which is why though there are 2080 American dead, there are actually 17,648 casualties. Wisely, the Bush Jr. government does not report casualty figures, because they correctly assume people would be appauled to know that many American boys were killed, wounded or missing in Iraq.



You are going to have to explain that one to me. You will need to explain how vigils to honour the dead are somehow an 'insult' to those still serving. To me that seems, at best counter-intuitive, at worst absurd.



Thats an impressive attempt at blaming the left for the errors of the far right, sadly it is one based in complete ignorance of the situation.

Firstly, if you want to know how many Iraqis are dead, consult http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

That gives you a running total of Iraqi civilian deaths, as to military deaths only the US military knows. However it has been the Bush Jr. government, not 'the left' which hs decided to not publish body counts of Iraqi war dead. Such people as Donald Rumsfeld and general Tommy Franks have publicly declared that the US government does not keep a body count of Iraqi dead.

Not only does it not make sense for you to state that the left would want to hide the number of war dead, one also boggles at exactly how you imagine 'the left' could somehow keep the number of Iraqi war dead secret.




Firstly, welcome to AD.

Secondly, how exactly is this in ANY way the same situation as the Second world war? Yes, there were a lot of Isolationists who did not want to go to war in 1939, interestingly it was for the most part the conservative right wing that was opposed to war, the opposite of the current situation.


But to say 'some people opposed war' thus the two situations are the same is staggering.

One could just as easily say that 'some people opposed the war in Vietnam', and they turned out to be absolutely right, Vietnam was a massive loss of life followed by a pointless defeat that accomplished nothing. So, because some people opposed the war in Vietnam, and some people oppose the war now, by your logic does that mean that this situation is the same as Vietnam?

Yes, prior to our invasion of Iraq, Saddam Hussein had death camps generating a genocide while taking over half the world in war, I forgot about that part. He did invade for oil thus power, but the U.N got motivated like never before and put a nice stop to that. Since the latest invasion it has become generally known to the public at large that no WMD threat has been confirmed, I think so. Comparing Iraq to Nazi Germany lacks in many regards, and I will stop on that one. The only possible avenue you can take that is if the U.N failed to commit to action When Saddam ordered his forces for invasion back in the early nineties, but he was on good faith with the U.S prior to that because the U.S does not like Iran’s government, he even had asked if he could invade before he did, but that might just be mythology.

Iran is a nation that has long hated the U.S openly, and openly states it has a nuclear program. North Korea is the same, we know these people have possible some of the most deadly weapons currently at humanities disposal, Iraq was generally a ? in that regard, but it’s the one that got the invasion, why? Because the could have WMD? Could harbor terrorist? Do you think terrorists might be harboring in Iran, does Iran have WMD maybe? What ultimately made the decision on where the hammer should fall if it should? Anyways, Iraq was about the WOT right, and terrorism does not have a nicely labeled nation, it draws from all over the world and is all over the world in some for or another I imagine.

Speaking of "respect" here's a howler from Dick "Chickenhawk" Cheney:

WASHINGTON - In the sharpest White House attack yet on critics of the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday that accusations the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify the war were a “dishonest and reprehensible” political ploy.

Cheney called Democrats “opportunists” who were peddling “cynical and pernicious falsehoods” to gain political advantage while U.S. soldiers died in Iraq.

“Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein,” Cheney told the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, a conservative policy group.

Dishonest? Reprehensible? Cynical and pernicious falsehoods? "Irresponsible?"

The arrogance of the architects of war such as Cheney is breathtaking in the depths of his hubris. Cheney has done more than anyone else not named George W. Bush to turn live U.S. troops into dead ones. If ANYONE should stay far, far away from the word "opportunist" its Dick.

Is is "respectful" for Vice-President Cheney to continue to receive $150,000 a year in income from Haliburton, a company he still holds 433,333 shares of unexercised stock options, to be so involved in the creation of a war that benefits his former company so much?

Neither is it respectful for the Bush Administration to lash out against Democrats for questioning how the president took the nation to war. Dubya's attacks against his critics smack of desperation and his dismal political standing with the American people.

But while both Bush and Cheney posture the war machine grinds on, liberally lubricated with the blood of more young men sent to die tragic, useless deaths.

In continuing violence by insurgents, the U.S. military said Thursday a Marine was killed a day earlier during combat operations near the western Iraqi city of Haditha — one of seven American service members to die Wednesday. Six of them were Marines.

It was the deadliest day for American forces in Iraq since Nov. 2, when seven also were killed in four separate attacks, and it raised to at least 2,081 the number of U.S. service members who have died since the war began in 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051117/ap_on_...zkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Oh pulllleeezzzeeee.... nighttimer

Can't y'all at least come up with some new fabricated garbage to spew in your talking points against Cheney? This Halliburton crap is getting a bit on the stale side. Once again, from Factcheck.......

[quote=Vermillion,Nov 17 2005, 05:10 AM]

[quote]Do you know how many of the enemy are now dead?  Probably not, the left-wingers  want to incite a sense of futility, so publishing or announcing the enemy's deaths are not important.
Firstly, welcome to AD.
Secondly, how exactly is this in ANY way the same situation as the Second world war? Yes, there were a lot of Isolationists who did not want to go to war in 1939, interestingly it was for the most part the conservative right wing that was opposed to war, the opposite of the current situation.
But to say 'some people opposed war' thus the two situations are the same is staggering
One could just as easily say that 'some people opposed the war in Vietnam', and they turned out to be absolutely right, Vietnam was a massive loss of life followed by a pointless defeat that accomplished nothing. So, because some people opposed the war in Vietnam, and some people oppose the war now, by your logic does that mean that this situation is the same as Vietnam?

[/quote]

Vietnam? I am not talking about vietnam. In the vietnam era,(1970s) they wouldn't have been able to do any major damage to us, even when they won the war. Its not like they had weapons of mass destuction, to deal with. We knew it wasn't even a possibility! Don't be silly, vietnam isn't close enough to this situation, i'm sorry. In world war 2, the Nazi's were storming all through Europe. It was being conquered faster then anyone could keep up with. The Iraq war, may not contain so many troops etc, that they could conquer us, but they could of easily had weaps of mass destruction that could of hurt it. We know that now, that they Don't.

Do you think that we should just let the Genocide go on their thats happening? To leave those people to suffer? Also, with the troop loss were having. Its sad yes, everyone will agree. But, when you sign up for the military! You Don't do it to get your college education paid, and not expect to have to be ready to go to war. Thats what our military is for! Thats why we have it. For situations like these where we need to be able to take a stand, take action!

Actually, most of the world knew before Iraq War 2.0 that it was exceptionally unlikely that there were any substantial WMD in Iraq, or did you not notice the majority of the planet sayoing 'we told you so?'

Even if they did have WMD, they had no means to delivr it to the Unites States, and far more importantly, they had no desire whatsoever to use it on Americans. After all, they were invaded by the US twice and refused to use any kind of WMD to defend themselves either time...

Comparing Iraq 2.0 to WWII is completely absurd.



I'm sorry, which genocide is this again? Perhaps you could enlighten me, which mass atrocity in Iraq are we talking about? Would it be his killing of many Kurds? Yes, certainly the killing of Jurds by Hussein was atrocious, the only problem was he did all that back when the US and Iraq were allies. The Mass graves of Kurds that were found were all well over a decade old. You already invaded Iraq once, remember? So what genocide exactly was going on, SINCE THE FIRST INVASION, which warranted a second?



It's their job? Oh, ok then, That makes everything ok. Its their job to be sent into a nation without justification, without the proper equipment or protection, to get killed by leadrers who lied about the reason why.

I didn't realise it was their JOB to get wounded and killed in such staggering numbers, clearly because it is their JOB that removes any moral ambiguity from the situation ENTIRERLY!!


Look, for or against the Iraq war v2.0, it doesnt matter. Either way, comparing it to WWII is something beyond any reason or justification.

Oh, pulllleeezzzeeee yourself, Aquilla. In your zeal to protect the good name of Dick Cheney (a hopeless task if ever there was one) you came up with some "new fabricated garbage" of your OWN that you spewed, but you missed one teeny-weeny little point.

I never SAID Cheney was profiteering from Halliburton's no-bid contracts in Iraq. I SAID he was still receiving financial compensation from Halliburton (which he is) AND continues to hold stock options in Halliburton (which he does).

WASHINGTON -- Senator Frank R. Lautenberg reiterated his call for Vice President Dick Cheney to forfeit his continuing financial interest in the Halliburton Co (HAL), in light of the surging value of Vice President Cheney's Halliburton holdings. Vice President Cheney continues to hold 433,333 Halliburton stock options, now worth $9,214,154.93 (at close yesterday.)

The Vice President has attempted to fend off criticism by signing an agreement to donate the after-tax profits from these stock options to charities of his choice, and his lawyer has said he will not take any tax deduction for the donations. Valued at over $9 million, the Vice President could exercise his stock options for a substantial windfall, benefiting not only his designated charities, but also providing Halliburton with a tax deduction.

The Vice President also continues to receive "deferred salary" from Halliburton. While in office, he has received the following salary payments from Halliburton:

Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2001: $205,298

Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2002: $162,392

Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2003: $178,437

Deferred salary paid by Halliburton to Vice President Cheney in 2004: $194,852

http://lautenberg.senate.gov/~lautenberg/p...2005915804.html

Next time before you go off on one of your yawningly predictable "I Love Everything About the Bushies" partisan rants, Aquilla, you might want to check see if the facts being presented are actually the facts before you jump in hacking away like Conan the Barbarian.

Now you wanna take a swing at explaining WHY your well-compensated Vice-Prez isn't America's Biggest Hypocrite or just continue to regurgitate this week's talking points approved by Dubya, Rush and the rest of the right-wing disinformation factory?

Let's see some of your oh-so-selective outrage brought to bear on the actual subject of this thread about the 2,081 dead American soldiers and the chickenhawk Vice-President who helped make them that way.

Vermillion, as part of being in the military, you go in, do what you have to do, with what you've been given. Troops do not need justification. They do what their commanded to do. If a soldier is told to go to iraq, he doesn't ask why, he just has to do it! Since in iraq, they didn't have WMDs, how would we ever know what exactly their intentions were. Besides China, and a few others, we are a very powerful country! With a person like Saddam, why wouldn't he attack us. Again, this is not based on anything, because their is nothign to base it on that we know is a loyal source

Hawkish Democrat calls for Iraq pullout

From the same link, and again I emphasized statements with boldface print:

It seems to me that 2,000 deaths do constitute a milestone when a well-respected former Marine and Vietnam war veteran is calling for a pullout in six months and has introduced a resolution to do just that.

nighttimer, you are injecting not one but two or three red herrings into this debate, and I don't see how it is helping your case.

1 - Dick Cheney is going to get deferred salary from Halliburton no matter what. He was the CEO, it was part of his deal. Even if they went bankrupt, I'm pretty sure they would owe him this money. They also employ lots of American workers. How that makes him more of a hypocrite than pick-a-Democratic senator I don't know.

2 - Cheney's speech you cite as hypocrisy merely points out that many Democrats who voted for this war are completely reinventing history. It's almost Orwellian. The same folks who saw the same intel came to the same logical conclusions. And, in the case of the Clinton administration, launched a freaking bombing campaign while saying the same thing as Bush said are now just pretending it never happened. For Cheney to point this out is hyprocisy. Paging Winston Smith, hello?

3 - I hereby promise to never, ever use the word chickenhawk in a debate because I don't question the wisdom of our founders in putting civilians in charge of the military. Looking around the globe, this seems smart to me. So, while I may question the decisions of the executive branch, I won't bother making irrelevant references to their respective military records. Unless they lie about their records like Harkin to make themselves heroes maybe.

Sorry that the above wasn't super on-topic.

My outrage about the 2000 milestone remains. Those opposed to the war were using it to force the discussion away from the greater issue. As the flow of this thread indicates, it didn't work. So now, the strategy seems to be to re-invent how the war started, pretend that it wasn't bipartisan, impugn the intelligence services of the US and western europe, leak secret CIA info to compromise the war. Whatever it takes to try and get us out of war and ensure that the mission resulting in 2000 dead will be compromised or at least not seen as victory.

Let's say just for argument that this war is mostly wrongheaded. The mission of liberating the Iraqi people was a good thing, but the intel was wrong, the strategy was wrong, whatever you want to say. Could take years to fix everything, and our UN allies show no signs of pitching in to help, for various reasons. But there we are, in Iraq, fighting terrorists who are blowing up people indiscriminately. What exactly is the point of rooting against our own side? I don't get this.

1. Cheney is a hypocrite because he directly benefits from the blood spilled by American troops in Iraq. He is a hypocrite because he was a major player in fabricating the reasons for the war that benefit both him and Halliburton. He grows wealthy from the policies he created. I don't care how many people Halliburton employs. All that does is remind me of the saying, "War is good business. Invest your son." It is obvious that doesn't bother you, but it does bother me.

2. Ah yes...here's "The Official Story" from the Bush Administration. Now it's "Okay, So Things Ain't Going So Great, But it's Your Fault Too." And the crux of the matter seems to be "the Democrats saw the same evidence for war that we did, so what are they complaining about now."

Sorry, Carlito's Whey, but that doesn't wash. There is a vast difference in the intelligence available to the President and members of Congress. Fred Kaplan in SLATE pointedly demonstrates this.

That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and Senate—who had access to the same intelligence—voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. (President Bush)

This is the crucial point: these Democrats did not have "access to the same intelligence." The White House did send Congress a classified National Intelligence Estimate, at nearly 100 pages long, as well as a much shorter executive summary. It could have been (and no doubt was) predicted that very few lawmakers would take the time to read the whole document. The executive summary painted the findings in overly stark terms. And even the NIE did not cite the many dissenting views within the intelligence community. The most thorough legislators, for instance, were not aware until much later of the Energy Department's doubts that Iraq's aluminum tubes were designed for atomic centrifuges—or of the dissent about "mobile biological weapons labs" from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

Intelligence estimates are unwieldy documents, often studded with dissenting footnotes. Legislators and analysts with limited security clearances have often thought they had "access to intelligence," but unless they could see the footnotes, they didn't. http://www.slate.com/id/2130295/

But since you'll probably just say SLATE is a liberal rag, howzabout this from Knight-Ridder:

A recently declassified Defense Intelligence Agency report from February 2002 said that an al-Qaida detainee was probably lying to U.S. interrogators when he claimed that Iraq had been teaching members of the terrorist network to use chemical and biological weapons.

Yet eight months after the report was published, Bush told the nation that "we've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and gases."

Meanwhile, lawmakers didn't have access to intelligence products that may have been more temperate than what they got, even after they investigated the prewar intelligence assessment. For instance, the Director of Central Intelligence refused to give the Senate committee a copy of a paper drafted by the CIA's Near East and Southeast Asia Office examining Iraq's links to terrorism.

Lawmakers didn't see the main document concerning Iraq and WMD - the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate - until three days before their vote authorizing war. The White House ordered the NIE compiled only after lawmakers, including the then-chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., demanded it.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13185357.htm

There is nothing "almost Orwellian" in the transparent and desparate attempts of the Bushies to try and rewrite history. It is doublespeak at its worst. Bush and Cheney have lied--often and repeatedly--to the American people and every poll proves they have grown tired of those lies. Winston Smith and the Ministry of Truth have taken up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.


3. I like the term "chickenhawk." It's a fine phrase. A powerful word and one that so well describes why Rep. Murtha, Paladin Elspeth and myself are repulsed by guys like Bush and Cheney who think the wars they start are so noble, justified and righteous. Then they get some other poor sucker to fight it. What a nice break for them.

I don't have a problem with civilians commanding the military instead of the other way around. This isn't Chile and Bush isn't Pinochet. Not yet, anyway. What I DO have a problem with is civilians who evaded serving their country putting those that do in harm's way for reasons that aren't the least bit noble, justified or righteous.



Those that supported the war used 9/11 as the pretext to attack Iraq. The intelligence didn't support the excuses (weapons of mass destruction, involved in 9/11, imminent threat to America), so the books were cooked and we went to war based on flawed and faulty intelligence. That was foisted upon the nation by the war's supporters, not the opponents.

The Bush Administration has blamed the CIA for the intelligence they received. The Bush Administration leaked the name of a CIA operative in a craven act of political retribution. The Bush Adminstration wants to retain the right to torture detainees and operate "black sites" for that purpose.

I'm not "rooting against our own side." That sounds like a bad football analogy and this is not a game. I just don't believe in the infalliability of George Bush and Dick Cheney and apparently you do. They took the nation to war based on lies and 2081 (and counting) died because of it.

Not only is there no exit strategy out of this mess, I don't see any strategy at all.

Unka Dick is just blustering, as usual. I have a new hero, and he's a Republican .
(emphasis mine)
Hopefully, the George and Dick show will continue their lies and deceptions about the "war on terrah", and other prominent Republicans (who aren't administration whores) will get the stones to speak out against them.

Nighttimer, this thread could be something far better than rhetorical comments thrown in an inflammatory manner....

Firstly, nearly all of Congress voted to go to war. It's a fact. Even Mr. Kerry voted for the war.

As far as disinformation, it's a fact that we've found uranium, to the tune of 1.77Metric Tons. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
That's a LOT! What could they possibly have been doing with that?? hmm...

It's a fact that a bomb w/ sarin gas was found... I suppose the gas came from the Sarin Gas fairy? lol(just a joke...)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3722255.stm

How 'bout those Chemical Warheads?? Hmm...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2003/01/17/iraq_ed3__7.php

I think that American media sources know that these stories don't sell their agenda, but frankly, if you wanna talk about disinformation, call the NY Times or CBS kind sir.

As far as Haliburton is concerned, they received no bid contracts from the Clinton administration as well... and simply due to their ability to handle the job. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=15426

If Mr Cheney was a part of Halliburton's corporate success, he should be so compensated. Anyone would expect such... but the relationship with said company and our government didn't start there...