US military deaths hit 4,000 in Iraq. (See This AP Article). Nighttimer posted an emotional statement regarding this grim event on the Post Surge Strategy forum. (See Forum Post 100). However, the milestone deserves its own forum. We had one marking the 2,000th death. (See This archived Forum). In that forum in Post #5, I stated,



We have now marked the 4,000th and probably the 1,000,000th Iraqi, to say nothing of the wounded and maimed.

State clearly what policy goals in Iraq justify this carnage in both American and Iraqi lives!

How can the public's opposition to this on-going nightmare be made meaningful?

Do you favor a campaign of civil disobedience and would you participate?

1) Stabilization of a moderate, Arab state in the midst of the oil and jihad belt, enabling us to keep a physical presence there and to project land-based power from bases there into the indefinite future.

2) The public isn't really so opposed to the war, and certainly is more optimistic than it has been:

"Forty-six percent (46%) of likely voters believe the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror, according to a new Rasmussen Reports survey. Twenty-two percent (22%) say the terrorists are winning, 27% say Neither.

"The 22% who say the terrorists are winning reflects the lowest level of pessimism measured in more than four years of ongoing tracking polls. This measure of pessimism peaked at 36% in July 2007. Pessimism has been dropping more or less steadily since then. "

"All of these questions see a fairly sharp split between Republican voters and Democratic voters. For example, 73% of Republicans now believe the U.S. is winning the War on Terror, while only 29% of Democrats agree. Less than a fifth of Democrats express either long-term or short-term optimism about Iraq, while almost two thirds of Republicans do. "

Here is the entire poll link: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...n_terror_update

3) No. We are there, and must stay there. This battle to "just get out" was lost when we invaded in the first place.

As Colin Powell said, "You break it, you bought it." We cannot pull out quickly, as a bloodbath would insue for which we would be responsible. In addition, a quick pullout will cede the area to Iranian influence, which we must avoid. We will be there in some capacity for years.

As McCain said, the problem is not that we are there, but that we are there and soldiers are being killed. As the killings have gone down, we have been working to stabiliez the govt and their defense forces. As this process continues, we will gradually pull down forces, but we will always keep a strong presence there.

I would like to see some kind of agreement reached where the Iraqi govt pays for the cost of this continuing presence from oil revenues.

State clearly what policy goals in Iraq justify this carnage in both American and Iraqi lives!

The Number 1 stated goal of the war in Iraq: removal of Saddam, the Dictator (as George Bush 41 was fond of calling him). The "stalemate" in the Middle East revolved around Baghdad. There was an assumption (since possibly disproven) that Saddam was involved in terrorism. For example, the Boeing Jet they kept on the ground for "training" of terrorists. He certainly rewarded Palestinean suicide bombers for their "service" by paying their families.

How can the public's opposition to this on-going nightmare be made meaningful?

"On-going nightmare"? It is an on going war. War is hell. Some nightmares might seem like hell. Okay I see the connection... /sarcasm off

People will die during war. War is a continuation of politics by other means. The political solution failed in Iraq. Saddam could not be uprooted except via war. Iraq is now on the path to joining the civilized world.

The public is not so against this war as many seem to think. quick linked one of the polls. The American public is against us losing wars. We hate losers. Since we seem to be winning over the past year, the public is back on board--supporting the winning side.

Do you favor a campaign of civil disobedience and would you participate?

I am in favor of people expressing their views in non-violent ways. I was going to throw "non-disruptive" in there as well, but I do believe it is okay to be disruptive if the need is urgent. If a sizeable number of the "public" want to be civilly disobient, then have at it. From my point of view, the Congress hasn't gotten the message that the public is against this war. They control the pursestrings and they keep funding the war. My suggestion: start with your Congressional representatives.

Geesh, talk about a slant...

State clearly what policy goals in Iraq justify this carnage in both American and Iraqi lives!

I haven't anything clear in mind. As I understand it, once the military/administration/Iraqi government comes to some kind of consensus about goals before departure then we will leave. I'm sure it has something to do with achieving a degree of stability on the ground both in terms of military and political competence. These goals justify the sacrifices thus far.

Are there scenarios where if things changed for the worse in Iraq you would justify the ongonig carnage?

How can the public's opposition to this on-going nightmare be made meaningful?

What makes you think it isn't meaningful already?

Do you favor a campaign of civil disobedience and would you participate?

No, I do not and would not.

I agree the latest death figure is just a number. However, it we should take heart that at least someone bothered to count. The Iraqis had no such luxery and any attempt to do so was discredited through political punditry.

State clearly what policy goals in Iraq justify this carnage in both American and Iraqi lives!

There is an unstated belief that as soon as one presence vanishes another power will occupy Iraq to some degree. Whether true or false the fear of relinquishing control holds a spot in the American pysche. This fear will have to be addressed before a pull out is feasable. I'm sure energy development will play a role as well.

How can the public's opposition to this on-going nightmare be made meaningful?

Reassess the two party system. Short of formulating a third party not much. The only thing I can recommend is when Bush does leave office and does his retroactive "we did nothing wrong" thing, have the public go after him with a vengence and replace any representitive that balks at the idea.

Do you favor a campaign of civil disobedience and would you participate?

I favour a campaign that makes continuing policy into the future much more difficult. This is already happening as injured veterans return home. If enough of them can pull together something might happen.

A hands on approach would entail general strikes that would bring business to a close and bounce the stock market. Obviously this would require mass support. If you could convince "the world" to support a third party this would force a change in policy. I think there are rules on accepting foreign donations but if USAID can pull it off I'm sure some creative accountanting can be done here as well.

What I'd like to see is another country come in and start practicing the same sort of rendition tactics - except on American soil. I'd like like to see this performed on some former high value officials and I'd like them taken to the Hague. The growing disconnect between American politicians is that no matter how they choose to interfere in the affairs of other countries they can do no wrong. This idea needs to be flipped on its head where they are the recipients of such measures to better appreciate the end results of imperialism. Unfortunately this could start a new war, but would ultimately be worth it in my opinion.

No, because the motivation and judgement of those leading such protests is completely without merit.

Here in Chicago, we had a moronic convergence downtown over the past week, although the turnout was really low compared to a few years back. The only protestors left are the hardcore Stalinists and other fringe types. Their numbers were a bit off by my calculation - the ones at the Art Institute had the Iraqi deaths at 1,200,000.

I nearly hit one of these idiots with my car as he was teetering on the median on Michigan Avenue with a big "no blood for oil" sign. Speaking of blood, some of the useful idiots at the "International Solidarity Movement" (aka anti-Israel pro-terrorists) went to Holy Name cathedral downtown and threw fake blood on parishioners at Easter service. Stay classy, anti-war 'pacifists.'


The injured vets are pulling together all right, in opposition to the various groups protesting outside the military hospitals. They are sick of being insulted and called baby killers and being reminded of their own survivors' guilt by the communists stacking up coffins as part of their 'civil disobedience.'

update - patriots protesting in portland. putrid punks. pathetic.

State clearly what policy goals in Iraq justify this carnage in both American and Iraqi lives!

Quite obviously as ever evolving stated goals aren’t being met, none.

How can the public's opposition to this on-going nightmare be made meaningful?

It’s hard for the public to really understand what goes on in Iraq, since it is so far from our shores; no sacrifices are required of our citizens; and the premise for the war never amounted to any threat to our borders. Add to that, speaking out against the war can get you labeled unpatriotic, communist, peacenik, or other more colorful names.

American civilians aren’t present when remains are scraped out of a HMMWV or Bradley by Mortuary Affairs specialists. They don’t see brothers in arms standing quietly at attention while bodies are carried onto waiting helicopters for a hero flight. They aren’t sitting with the young Company Commander when he breaks down and cries while trying to write a letter to a fallen soldier’s family.

The horrors and chaos of war are never truly brought home to American shores when we wage war halfway around the world.

Therefore, I don’t believe that public opposition will ever match the pro-war propaganda, and have any meaningful impact on the Iraq war. Too many people living in the US are lulled into believing that they are free because they have the right to vote and elections are held periodically. Too many sheep stick with the flock.

The anti-war opposition can have a greater impact if they streamline their operations a bit. To be an effective protestor, one has to appeal to the opposition, not the like-minded. If protests drew people who looked a bit more mainstream, America might take more notice, sad as that is to say. Middle America tunes out immediately when they see the unwashed, tie-dyed, dreadlocked, ‘alternative’ looking protestors……..who also seem to include in their anti-war protests, Free Mumia, save the sea turtles and ‘liberate’ Palestine.



What exactly is the difference between your wishes and colonial policies of the last century? It’s morbidly comical when people advocate waltzing around the world kicking over beehives……..and getting upset and puffing their chests when the bees want to sting us.

State clearly what policy goals in Iraq justify this carnage in both American and Iraqi lives!

And to which 'carnage' are you refering to? 4,000 dead in 5 years is not carnage. Thats life. Equal numbers are killed on your roads.

How many soldiers did the USA lose when fighting the Germans? Were the Germans any great threat to the USA, more or less so than Saddam Hussein?

Iraq is, was and probably always will be a violent tribal society weighed down by traditional and religious intolerance. This current incursion by US troops has not made Iraq worse (nor better). It has merely provided a cosmetic change. Had the USA not invaded, then Iraqi society would be equally as bloody as the sanctions gradually eroded Saddam Husseins grip on power. The only difference is now the USA controls the high ground and not Iran.

That might not make a blind bit of difference to the left wing thugs protesting in our streets here, but the bottom line is, socialists have never shied away from using political violence against their opponents and for as long as there was a non socialist government in play, these morons would be on the streets regardless.


How can the public's opposition to this on-going nightmare be made meaningful?

Who is THE PUBLIC? This is what your country voted for.


Do you favor a campaign of civil disobedience and would you participate?

No. In my opinion democratic elections are the only just method of influencing government and if you don't like what the outcome of a vote is, then either join a party, run for office, and change the world, or shut up and suck it up.

I have no patience for people who think that just because they gather a few like minded others in a demonstration, they some how represent 'the people'. I'm sorry, but they don't. They represent, them self and no one else. No opinion polls, no demonstrations, or 'happenings', or riots or campus sit ins or any other such action devoid of political currency matters. Only elections. Dick Cheney was right when he replied 'So?'

So what if a million people gather in a park to say no to a war a hundred million voted for?


Edited to add

Exactly!

As long as the USA maintains its current political system, you are never going to see anything but apathy and indifference winning elections. You need more parties, better representation, more accountability and less non democratic influence in the form of lobbyism. First and foremost you need to divorce the office of president from holding power. What you have today is no different from an elected king.

State clearly what policy goals in Iraq justify this carnage in both American and Iraqi lives!

Duh- none, there never were any- Just some excuses so GW could finish what his daddy started- that is all- oh yeah, and get some choice no-bid contracts for his buddies. Even the so called "blood money" for suicide bombers in Palestine is a drop in the bucket to what our "allies" donate. There was and is no reason for the loss of American's lives.

Also- I want to point out that the "only 4000 dead" comments really torque me off- first off, it may be "only" 4000 dead - but there are over 50k soldiers who's lives are pretty much ruined forever, with missing limbs and chronic brain injuries. Not to mention ruined families, financial hardships due to multiple assignments due to 'stop loss" etc etc-

The callous behavior of those that "support" the war but don't enlist and sacrifice NOTHING- I just wish they could be forced to sacrifice, oh, thier own children.

How can the public's opposition to this on-going nightmare be made meaningful?

It can't- American's just haven't had to sacrifice enough to make it personal, to bring it home, so only the "fringe" groups have the courage and are willing to sacrifice, oh, getting beat up by pro-war types (one little old lady that is a quaker was beat up by a man who's son is a marine- she is 80 years old- he was charged with assault, and forced to work community service by working for the protestors- another "useful idiot" there CW? ) http://dwb.adn.com/front/story/2963889p-2997818c.html

The only pro-war type I have even a modicum of respect for are those in Afghanistan or Iraq right now- the rest are cowardly little wastes of oxygen. You are pro-war? Prove it by enlisting and fighting then!

Do you favor a campaign of civil disobedience and would you participate?

Sure- if it would do any good. "Free speech zones" and such- well, we have a regime in power right now that really doesn't care anyway- so what good does it do? Best thing they can do is go out and vote and kick republican party members out of office in droves. That will be the best way to do it.

Yes, that would start a new war. Large war. Perhaps, world war. Brilliant idea.

I assume that when the British Empire ruled from sea-to-sea in the 19th Century, and your nation was a part of it, that you would have suggested some Turkish nationals should have kidnapped Queen Victoria as a means to wean the British from their evil and domineering ways?

Bull. Your article doesn't say anything about a Quaker woman or anyone else being "beaten up." Some guy was (literally) pouring cold water on war protesters. He's an idiot, yes, but that's a pretty isolated incident.



So, no one under 18 has a right to be for either of these wars? How about anyone over 42? Anyone with flat feet? What about someone with 2 dependents under 18? Single parents?

When the entire country basically demanded a response to 9/11, and we were all giving blood and everything, did we have a right to be for deposing the Taliban, if we didn't enlist? If so, did that right expire at some point, despite the fact that it will take years to completely root them out? Is there a time limit, say, when CruisingRam deems the war "bad" and then the rest of us "wastes of oxygen" don't have the right to our opinion, lest we lose your "modicum of respect?"

I was in the military, for seven years. Do I have to go back and serve again just to meet your ridiculous expectations for someone to have an independent thought? I admit I didn't serve during any war times, but I served. To support the war, one has to be wearing the uniform? Is that your position? That view point is very simple minded and narrow. Being pro-war does not equate to enlisting. Sorry, you are wrong.

What is really amusing is the hypocrisy of the peace loving anti-war types. Go to an anti-war rally and you will undoubtedly see signs calling for peace. God bless those that promote peace. Then, the next day, you read headlines such as:

Anti-war protest turns violent

Protests turn violent in Kashmir

War Protest Takes Violent Turn

Students Arrested During Violent Iraq War Protest

Brussels Anti-War Protest Turns Violent

Violent protests will only help Pres. Bush

War Protest Turns Violent

Binghamton U War Protest Turns

Sorry, I couldn't find any violent pro-war rallies, maybe you know of some? Dumping water on a group of protesters doesn't really hold up against burning in effigy a world leader, throwing rocks at passing cars and whatever other means of idiocy the anti-war, pro-peace thugs decide to throw out.

Whilst its true that 4,000 dead soldiers and 50,000 wounded is a horrible responsibility that should be shouldered responsibily, it is not true that the word 'only' refuses to accept that burden.

When one says only 4,000 with regards to US fatalities in Iraq, one is making the comparison between combat operations in Iraq and all previous wars where 4,000 dead was all in a days work. If we are to invoke such words as 'carnage' for 4,000 soldiers over the course of 5 years, then I shudder to think what the firebombing of Dresden was, or the Battle of the Somme. Don't lets point fingers about using the word 'only' after some one has already misused the word carnage. If you want to see what carnage is, read 'The Knights of Bushido' by Lord Liverpool.


Thats pretty cold CR. Your saying you want to see some one else's children maimed, possibly killed simply because you disagree with them about the necessity for this war?

With regards to the nature of sacrifice; sacrifice is the nature of war. There is no way of being a soldier without one sacrifices something, whether it be mere days of your life, or the lifes blood in your veins. The bottom line is, when you volunteer to serve your country, then you have already taken on the responsibility for your own mutilation and possible demise.

Naturally, no sane person wants to see another persons children sacrificed for nothing, and there is much to answer for with regards to Iraq, but I do not think the case has been made that Iraq was about nothing but GW Bush's desire to finish his fathers work. I think at best, one can say the war in Iraq was fought for obscure reasons, or even for immoral reasons, but the invasion and occupation of Iraq was and is legal, no matter how many people claim otherwise. UN res 1441 granted carte blanch to the coalition.


I'm 38 years old and I've had a chronic illness since I left the military. Does this mean I am not allowed to think using military force is a credible option for fighting Muslim extremism?


Edited to correct the title of Lord Liverpools book

You know it is funny that you mention that quick, because the British empire were the ones ultimately responsible for calling in the CIA after British Petroleum was asked to renegotiate after 3 decades of unhindered access at the well head in 1953. Did you know that all the oil supplied from BP for Britain in the first half of the 20^th century was Iranian oil?

For the most part, Britain did back away from launching overt wars of aggression and was chronicled extensively by Chalmers Johnson (great book by the way). Can America accept a similar loss to middle power status? That sir is the question.

The issue here is how a super power can back away from absolute control without going ballistic – or as I like to say, how a banana republic with nukes can stop flinging bananas.

The purpose of my previous post was to highlight the two tiered schizophrenic behaviour involving violence. Death in other people's countries is treated as a statistic, an unfeeling number that is rarely even reported. Domestically it a different ballgame. Entire presidencies get hyped on the "never again" soundbyte while any Iraqis likely coming to the same conclusion are lumped together with terrorists.

The best way to highlight an unsustainable policy is to let everyone do it. Negotiating with an out of control super power is never easy, but there are times when it must encounter limits – regardless of how many people get caught up in the process. This is one of those times.

Your "research" is flawed and exaggerated Scubatim.

Of your eight links, three were not on U. S. soil. (links 1, 2 and 5)

Three of the links are about a single protest at Binghampton University in New York. ( links 3, 4 and 8.)

Link 6 is not about actual violence, but Chris Matthews advising John Kerry that violence at anti-war rallies would not help his candidacy.

Link 7 is about a sirmish between protestors and police in Seattle over a flag.

Please be advised that some of us do look at the content of links others present. It appears you tried to throw the kitchen sink at war protesting, but only managed to break a few dishes.

Cindy Sheehan is by far the best known American Iraq war protestor to date. She was arrested, but how much violence can you connect to her ralies?

I do love those anti-war protest sympathizers! Do you really want me to list all of the news articles related to pro-peace rallies that turn violent? I don't think the administration, let alone the other active members would appreciate that. The point is that pro-peace protesters are in many cases hypocritical. It doesn't matter if they are American or Dutch or Samoan; the philosophy of pro-peace and throwing rocks at passing cars is hypocritical no matter where you are. You can be petty and make your points, but your points don't refute what I have said, my friend. I do, however, like how you spun the discussion onto the shoulders of just one protester that has given up the fight. Nice try, but there are thousands others.

Compared to the 1960s, current war protesting is rather scattered and mild. That is probably because we don't have a draft.

I don't expect you to and don't think you can link "thousands" of anti-war protests to this thread, but you can do better than link one protest three times and commentary from an MSNBC analyist about somehing that wasn't violence. You got caught with your pants down scubatim and your defense is rhetoric about the person, who caught you "spinning."

BTW: Link 6 (the Chris Matthews link was from 2004.) Cindy Sheehan has been active since then.

Did you bother to read the links you posted?

The ball is back on your end of the table.

You are welcome to play ping pong all you want, but I still stand by my position that those that promote peace through violent means are hypocrites. And yes, BoF, there are thousands of war protesters and it links directly to this war that is the topic of this thread.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23700985/
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-72839855.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/11/...mmit/index.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/10/...html?cmp=EM8706
http://www.kirotv.com/news/10011996/detail...ea&psp=news

You have given us five more links scubatim.

Nos. 1-2 and 4-5 are about the same stories at Binghampton University; Sydney, Australia; Brussels, Belgium; and Seattle, Washington that you linked us to in the first series of eight.

Only link three is new. It's's about a protest that took place in Mar Del Plata, Argentina.

That is one new link out of 5 - 20%.

So what you are saying is that I have shown the hypocricy of certain war protesters? What is your angle on this conversation? Besides trolling, that is.

There is undoubtedly some hypocrisy involved, but it may be the exception rather than the rule.


Now you are down to calling names -"trolling." If pointing that your links are overlapping and repeat themselves is "trolling," then so be it.

BTW:

Do you favor a campaign of civil disobedience and would you participate?

The original question was about civil disobedience. If one is willing to go to jail or weather a life time of IRS harassment, then not paying taxes to support the war is civil disobedience, and it ain't hypocrisy.

Yes, one exception I posted was the protestors interrupting Easter mass at Holy Name cathedral and throwing fake blood on parishioners. Their bonds were set today at from $25,000 - $35,000. That's a lot of money for your typical protestor, from what I've seen.

If you are going to play link police, why don't you cruise over to Mr. CruisingRam's link and explain how throwing 2 buckets of water equals "beating up an 80-year old Quaker." Or is this your new debate form - pick on links from the side with which you disagree, but contribute zero opinion and content on the actual topic? We do have moderators here - why not just debate the topic?

I don't think every anti-war protest ends in violence, but there are more than what one would think from a peaceful group.


I don't think I called you any names, but as I see it, responses with little substance pertaining to the thread is considered trolling.


I personally would not participate in illegal activity to make a point. In my eyes, those that go to jail to protest something have accomplished nothing but to appear idiotic to me.

Edited to add: I appologize for responding again before you were done editing. For those that are looking for the quoted text from BoF, it was from before he edited.


It's nothing new, I am used to it from him.

Nor would I.

I don't know how much, if anything, you know about passive resistance scubatim. Its historic sweep includes everyone from Jesus to Leo Tolstoy to Martin Luther King, Jr to Cindy Sheehan.

Part of the idea is that one willingly accepts punishment for breaking an unjust law.


I don't think actually looking at the links and pointing out that many of them describe the same incident - in the case of Binghapton University - we're batting 4 of 13 - is playing link police, especially when one is trying to point out how common war protests are.

How mant times has CR posted the same links to the same story ad nauseam?

Civil disobedience is a very broad term and we are both discussing points of it. Sit-ins would fall under the definition, as well as violence. Again, I would not participate in a protest that was did not have the proper permits if they were required, nor would I violate other people's rights to protest anything.

BTW, what unjust law are you referring to?

I wasn't talking about any specific law. Practitioners of passive resistance have willfully violated laws thet thought were unjust and have willing accepted the punishment given out as a means of making the protest meaningful.

So in essence they are protesting not only the war (if that is the protest in question) but also the laws that prevent people from interferring with issues such as traffic, access to public buildings etc? I have not viewed those that are willing to go to jail over an issue that they are passionate about as violating laws that they thought were unjust; only that they were willing to break the law to make a point. I don't think the laws they get arrested for breaking are unjust in their eyes. They violate laws they know to be enforceable in order to bring more attention to their cause. Unfortunately for them, in my eyes, they only tarnish the peaceful, law abiding protesters image and lose credibility.

Harpig on things like traffic is trivial.

In the 50s and into the sixties, it was being denied the right to eat at a Woolworth's lunch counter, etc.

In the 60s and into the 70s Vietnam was the issue. It was easier to resist then because one could always skirt the draft by direct refusal to go or by going to Canada.

I believe in peaceful protest. Sadly, the lack of such has helped give Bush a free pass.

Note: I'll get back to you. I have some closing chores to do before I get out of here.

The history lesson is appreciated, believe me, but what unjust laws are demonstrators willing to violate in protest today?

There are parallels and differences between Iraq and Vietnam.

I think Iraq is an unjust war, and the laws proposed by Bush and approved by Congress for personnel and funding are unjust.

I don't want to see people throwing fire bombs in the streets, but more peaceful protest is needed.

In Fort Worth, we had protesters with bullhorns in front of Fort Worth ISD's Administration building for years. They were protesting the inequality of facilities across the district.

Protest may now be more localized than national.

Besides, scubatim I am talking about a subject that runs deeply through political theory. Again, it's had to do with the individual conscience and willingness to accept consequences for whatever actions someone takes. Please don't dip down again and get some ridiculous analogy about something like traffic laws.

Try to dip down within yourself and come up with a better thought out response than a one line superficial question. I know it's hard, but try.

I'd just like to share a sort article in TIME written by a young Lieutenant in Baghdad, on the subject of 4000.

The passing of the 4,000th service member in Iraq is a tragic milestone and a testament to the cost of this war, but for those of us who live and fight in Iraq, we measure that cost in smaller, but much more personal numbers. For me those numbers are 8, the number of friends and classmates killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 3, the number of soldiers from my unit killed in this deployment. I'm 25, yet I've received more notifications for funerals than invitations to weddings.

.......

For the vast majority of American's who don't have a loved one overseas, the only number they have to attempt to grasp the Iraq War is 4,000. I would ask that when you see that number, try to remember that it is made up of over 1 million smaller numbers; that every one of the 1 million service members who have fought in Iraq has his or her own personal numbers. Over 1 million 8's and 3's. When you are evaluating the price of the war, weighing potential rewards versus cost in blood and treasure, I would ask you to consider what is worth the lives of three of your loved ones? Or eight? Or more? It would be a tragedy for my 8 and 3 to have died without us being able to complete our mission, but it maybe even more tragic for 8 and 3 to become anything higher.

State clearly what policy goals in Iraq justify this carnage in both American and Iraqi lives!

You're preaching to the choir here as far as I'm concerned, TedN5. We're not even talking about how many Iraqi lives were lost, ostensibly to help them. CNN war correspondent Michael Ware is particularly good at relating actual conditions and situations in an area where the surge allegedly improved things, and it still sounds horrible.

How can the public's opposition to this on-going nightmare be made meaningful?

Boycotts would help. Boycott those industries that make profits from the war in Iraq. Write letters to the editors of newspapers revealing who is profiting from this war.

I also agree that the protesters who look more like the "typical" Mr. or Ms. John or Joanna Q. Citizen might garner more sympathy. However, since protests are an expression of freedom, most people there will not be dressed to necessarily please some segment of society.

Tell members of Congress that they will not get your vote if they continue to support pro-war policies.

Do you favor a campaign of civil disobedience and would you participate?

I find "free speech zones" repugnant in principle. But I have never engaged in civil disobedience, even though I have demonstrated against this war. I would have to feel that it was actually going to accomplish something before I would choose to purposely break the law.

I would like to remind some posters here that back in the 1960's and 1970's agitators were sent in by law enforcement to infiltrate the protest groups in order to turn public support away from their cause. While there are inevitably some miscreants who are attracted to acting out in public, most protesters (these days, at least) are not prone to violence or assaultive behavior.

When the Freedom of Information Act was passed, people could ask for their FBI files. Of course, the FBI had redacted the living daylights out of them first, entire passages being blackened out. But it is well known that FBI surveillance and infiltration of many organizations was common practice during the Nixon administration. I have no reason to believe that it isn't happening now.

Not everyone who demonstrates is violent or a hypocrite, and as a (sometimes) war protester I resent the implication.

As the occupation drags on and more handicapped spots are designated in each parking lot for those coming home with shattered limbs and lives, we will have plenty of time to reflect on the 3,000 or so killed on 9/11 and just how much we could not afford to wreak vengeance on a country that had nothing to do with those deaths. And there will still be uber-patriotic chest thumpers who will say it's worth the sacrifice, so long as it wasn't one or more of their own loved ones. Four thousand casualties or ten thousand casualties, it won't change their minds.

Well actually in 5 years we kill about 25,000 on our roads and never blink.

The real “carnage was LBJs debacle – Vietnam where after 5 years we had lost over 25,000 men.

If there is anyplace in the world we need to have troops for the stability it is Iraq and the ME. Not So. Korea, not Germany and Not Japan. Take 90% of all there – and bring em home. Then make sure we win in Iraq.

So, you think 25,000 lives in Iraq is an acceptable cost? Ted, you do realize these are not toy soldiers, don't you? If we were limited to the medical knowledge and capabilities we had back in Vietnam today, we'd have 25,000 deaths easy.

We have a nation of 300 million people. Let's assume 100 million people a year are in cars. Over 5 years, 25,000 people out of the 500,000,000 traveling on roads die. That's like 0.00005% fatality rate. Horrific? Obviously. But people choose to drive while we increase car and highway safety. So your "nobody blinks an eye" rhetoric is as empty as all your typical talking points.

How many is ok Ted? How many lives is it worth to you so you don't have to pay $5 for a gallon of gas?

I suspected it would come to these kinds of comments. You know, it's as if those who support the purposes of the war actually don't care enough about those men and women losing their lives. That's a bogus implication, DR. Your issue as with many others on this forum has been from the getgo that this effort was not worth whatever treasure would be losed. That's fine and I can respect your dissent. That such tactics as these would be used to make a cheap point about oil though is below the belt.

I suppport the war and mourn the tragedy of our lost lives as much as the next man. Why can't you dissenters accept that possibility? The table could just as easily be turned against you when asking the same question about any given war you have supported. Come on DR, without the benefit of hindsight, how many lost lives are you OK with losing from WWII? Really? Wow, how callused of you.

Tragedies such as those unfolding in Iraq on a daily basis make my stomach turn. I feel as bad for the Iraqi citizen as I do our American men and women who lose their lives. I am convinced that the purposes of this war though compel us to risk the loss of valuable American blood. It sometimes feels like a deal with the devil however. How much can I tolerate? I do not know. My only conviction is that we must figure out a way to make it work. From my mouth to God's ears...

Sorry about the passion.

You're comparing the 25000 lost on our roads to the 3000 lost in 9/11? I didn't realize you thought 9/11 was so trivial, Ted.

Actually, the comparison is deaths in five years, not one day. If you really want to compare apples and apples, let's see the death toll in wars historically. The current war in Iraq is listed as number 8 in number of casualties. Wasn't WWII six years long with over a half a million American casualties?

The United States did not enter WWII until after December 7, 1941 when Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese. The British were in since Germany invaded Poland years earlier. If you do the arithmetic, that means that Americans were actively in the second world war for closer to four years, December 1941 to after the atomic bombs were dropped, September 1945. Remember as well that Allied forces were fighting the Axis powers, which actually consisted of armies, navies and air forces. Naturally there are more casualties when there are more, organized enemies.

It is interesting to me that so many people who judge the effectiveness of any given domestic enterprise by its bottom line 'do a 180' when it comes to this quagmire in Iraq. When you look at how much money has been spent and continues to be spent, how much debt incurred, how many U.S. lives lost, how many U.S. troops maimed for life, how many Iraqis dying (for whom we are supposed to be there at this time to protect), and how much good will has been lost with other nations as a result, just what is the payoff? I mean, if we're going to be calloused about the number of lives lost because there are fewer in comparison to Vietnam or WWII, how can conservatives be calloused about the money?

What is the best scenario here? Far be it for me to say to a dead soldier's mother that his/her sacrifice was a waste, but--just what have "we" done these past 5 years to actually make Iraq a safer place? Is there any permanent good that we can claim, or will we just have to garrison troops there forever, letting soldiers who draw the short straw pull the hazardous duty ostensibly to protect the US of A? Right now in Baghdad's green zone Americans are locked down, because it is too dangerous for them to be out in the streets. This is progress?

How many deaths are too many? We passed that number a long time ago.

This was the case in every war through out history, what makes this one any different? Because you have lost faith in why the war was being fought? That also happened time and again through out history. Has there ever been a just war and if so, what was the critiera that made it so?




In point of fact Ted was replying to me, pointing out that more people die on America's roads every year than are killed in Iraq.

I made that point to illustrate how the word 'carnage' is ill used to describe the death toll for US soldiers in Iraq. If we describe the US death toll as a carnage then I think you have to re-evaluate the purpose of your armed services. Are they there only to defend the USA against military attack or, as has often been the case through out history, are they there to protect America's vital interests too?

...and can you realistically do the former without also doing the latter?




Your assuming the agenda was really to make Iraq a safer place then? Why? Because Donald Rumsfeld said so? Did you believe anything else Rumsfeld said?

I suspect the 'best scenario' was that the global economy and thus, vital US interests would not be threatened by Iranian control of Iraqi oil. Judging by the price of oil these days, I must conclude that this scenario has failed, primarliy because the US government underestimated the hatred of all things American in the Middle East and over estimated the gratitude the people of Iraq would feel for the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Of course I could be mistaken and there is no actual plausible reason for the US invasion of Iraq except that it seemed like the thing to do at the time. I don't think making Iraq safer was ever part of the plan. I think it was assumed the Iraqis would do that automtically in the face of overwhelming American military force.

No, no and no. But it is surely the reason George W. Bush is trying to use to keep the troops there. The war isn't going so well? Let's have a surge. The surge is working? Let's keep them there six more months. Iran is developing nukes for weapons? Let's keep the troops close by in Iraq because they're dangerous. Iran is NOT developing nukes for weapons according to intelligence? Well, that means it's even more dangerous, and we're going to have to impose sanctions and do other things because of the danger.

It doesn't seem to follow any rhyme or reason, U.S. policy in Iraq, that is. And again, there is no clear criterion for declaring "victory" and finally pulling U.S. troops out of the country. Bush has tried to tie it to the government there and the training of Iraqi troops to police and protect their own, but the Sh'ia are largely in control. So the U.S. bolsters the Sunnis--our former resurgent enemies who were killing our soldiers--to produce balance, and Muqtada al Sadr (?) raises a hue and cry against the favoring of that faction, calling off the cease-fire.

It's a no-win situation for American troops. All they can do is occupy until some sniper or I.E.D. takes them out.

The United States misread the situation, thinking that conventional warfare would win the day in an area where unconventional warfare is practiced. It will always be easier for extremists to talk an angry, depressed person into strapping bombs to him/herself and tell that person that there will be rewards for their so-called martyrdom (suicide is not martyrdom!) than it will be to continue to send well-trained but high-maintenance troops across the oceans to function in an environment far different from what they are accustomed to, where they don't know who their friends are. It's a dirty conflict.

The French had to leave Indochina; the Russians had to leave Afghanistan; the British had to let India have self-rule. I think it is time for us to cut our losses, or, as someone once said, Declare victory then get the hell out. No country has enough brave, worthy souls that it can spend those lives in a conflict indefinitely.

Paladin Elspeth

Without a credible reason to keep the US troops in Iraq, then I have to agree with you. I can't see why the American military is still in Iraq. I assume it is because of the oil and its proximity to Iran, and I understand the actual threat Iran poses, not just physically to Israel, but also to the global economy. No doubt there is some deep level politics with other powers in the region, specifically Saudi Arabia, that prevents the USA from a direct confrontation with Iran and so we are left with vague justifications for the ongoing fighting in Iraq

This is just a generous assumption on my part however because I haven't been able to understand why the American establishment would allow GW Bush to damage the US economy as he appears to have done by perpetuating this conflict. As of today I have not heard a single credible reason from the US government to explain why US troops are still in Iraq lest it be that a pull out would leave Iraq defenceless against the forces of Islamic extremism. Even that seems at odds with history though since by staying, the Americans are providing the various factions with a common enemy. With oil prices sky rocketing, I think we may be seeing less than is actually happening, but I concede that no democracy can fight an indefinate secret conflict on this scale.

Not necessarily true. We didn't have an organized army in the Revolutionary War, and that was pretty damned bloody.


I don't have much time now, but we will have to see what the comparison is between the wars in relation to cost. Dollar for dollar, sure we have spent a lot more today, but the actual cost to the country would be an interesting conversation.


Just last night on TV, a blinded amputee said that if he could, he would go back to Iraq to continue the work. I see two things wrong with pulling out now. First, we are turning our back on a nation that is rebuilding. Remember, it took more than five years to build the country we live in today. Second, by turning our back on a nation that we destroyed, we are letting our soldiers die for nothing.

You will also note, scubatim, that the British, who were used to standing out in a field and systematically firing volleys, were ill-prepared to fight American revolutionaries who had no qualms about ducking behind bushes or rocks to shoot at the well-organized lines of soldiers.

Actually, that's a rather nice comparison to what American soldiers are facing today. And yes, indeed, it was bloody, especially for the British troops who followed the rules of formalized European combat. You will note that the superior British force had to ultimately hang it up. How does that bode for our troops in Iraq, where the enemy doesn't follow rules of engagement, either?

But obviously, there were reasons for more deaths during World War II, and it is really inappropriate to minimize the 4,000 U.S. casualties in Iraq because there were so many more when U.S. troops were fighting Germany and Japan (and, for a while, Italy).

The human cost is still very high, especially in the cases of people like the blinded amputee you mentioned. Obviously, he has the heart of a warrior, but his body has been spent and for him it is over. How many more soldiers will find it is over for them in this manner?

Too many have died. Too many have had their lives ruined otherwise. But hey, let's commit thousands more lives that haven't been ruined yet to a cause where we're not even sure what can be accomplished or when!?

No one here has minimalized any loss of life. Context is all that is being debated. If anyone is minimalizing the loss of lives, they are dead wrong. But to make it out to be that this is such a bloody carnage as a war is inaccurate. That is the only point I am trying to make. The Iraqi people would be worse off tomorrow if we pulled out today than they were five years ago. We would be fools to leave them right now. You think the world hates us now? We would be in a much worse situation if we walked away now.

I suppose you could argue this. In fact, you have. One could argue that the Iraqi people might be better off if we had never invaded in the first place. This is not just about American deaths, but Iraqis as well. Certainly many more would be alive had it not been for Bush's folly.

Guess what, though scubatim? You and net2007 are going to get the chance to put your money where your mouths are. You guys are young. The medical costs of caring for those soldiers wounded and maimed, will be a burden that falls on you long after some of us are gone.

You may be right on target, BoF, but Monday morning quarterbacking isn't going to make any difference at this point for this war. What we should have done is irrelevant, frankly. We are there now. For those that have fallen, and for those Iraqis still there and will be there after we leave, what is best? Walk away and turn our backs, or to stay and help. Rebuilding is not an overnight process. I hate to say it, but Rome wasn't built in a day. Are we doing the best we can? I don't know if anyone on this board is qualified to answer that definitively. Anyone here ever lead 150,000 men and women rebuilding a country that he/she shook to it's knees want to chime in?

To not bring up how we got there is to give Bush one more free pass in his miserable life.

State clearly what policy goals in Iraq justify this carnage in both American and Iraqi lives!

When TedN5 asks about carnage, he is talking about more than the 4000 + American lives.

Here is a link to the number of Iraqis killed.


http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL27749894

Here's another about the more than 29,000 Americans wounded.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops..._casualties.htm

To me it spells c-a-r-n-a-g-e.