Declining US Casualty Rate

[Touchmaster]

We lost the stomach for the war in Viet Nam thanks to our left wing friends here in the U.S and cut and run and 58,000 Americans (6 good friends of mine) and millions of Cambodians and Vietnamese died for nothing........

We must never make that mistake again......Say what you want about President Bush but I don't think he will let it happen as long as he is prez.....

i dread to think what staying the course would have meant if being weak was dropping more bombs than in the whole of the European theater of war in WWII and killing millions of North Vietnamese......?

 

[Navy Pride]

i dread to think what staying the course would have meant if being weak was dropping more bombs than in the whole of the European theater of war in WWII and killing millions of North Vietnamese......?

Not withstanding what your hero Kerry said I have a flash for you..The NVN and the Vietcong were the bad guys...They killed 58,000 Americans (6 of which were personal friends of mine).....We were the good guys..............

 

[Touchmaster]

Kerry is a fool. Im British and I couldnt care less about the false divide between your two craven 'democratic' and 'republican' parties (ironic names if ever i heard them).

Back to topic, Id like to ask how killing millions of people in their own country in an unprovoked war makes you the good guys? (and i guess a similar argument could be made in Iraq) - your friends, regrettably, died for no reason at all, good intentions though im sure they had.

 

[Navy Pride]

Kerry is a fool. Im British and I couldnt care less about the false divide between your two craven 'democratic' and 'republican' parties (ironic names if ever i heard them).

Back to topic, Id like to ask how killing millions of people in their own country in an unprovoked war makes you the good guys? (and i guess a similar argument could be made in Iraq) - your friends, regrettably, died for no reason at all, good intentions though im sure they had.

Are you familiar with the history of Vietnam from 1954 and forward? Do you know what Communism is?

I do agree with you about Kerry except I think he is a war criminal.........

 

[RightinNYC]

We invade a country that neither attacked us, threatened us, or was ever involved in any terrorist attack against us

:shock:

wow. guess you've been asleep for the past 15 years.

 

[RightinNYC]

Events in Iraq have shown that democracy cannot be installed by the barrel of a gun.

This is such a bullshit fallacy that I hear repeated over and over again. Have you heard of the tiny little obscure country called Japan?

 

[RightinNYC]

Are you familiar with the history of Vietnam from 1954 and forward? Do you know what Communism is?

Of course not, he's British. History began and ended with British dominion over the world.

Of course, he won't mention the fact that his own country was responsible for perpetrating some of the most vicious colonizations of countries around the world, nor the fact that England and the other European powers were responsible for the slave trade and the arbitrary dividing lines between African countries, which is still causing genocide and war today.

 

[Navy Pride]

Exactly, I just heard that the fatalities for Americans in March was 29, the lowest since early 2004...........

Things are getting better in Iraq...........I just wish the left wing media would say so......

 

[G-Man]

This is such a bullshit fallacy that I hear repeated over and over again. Have you heard of the tiny little obscure country called Japan?

Hmm..yes but explain how it was democraticed by an occupying force with the threat of violence?

 

[G-Man]

Exactly, I just heard that the fatalities for Americans in March was 29, the lowest since early 2004...........

Things are getting better in Iraq...........I just wish the left wing media would say so......

Its just a shame things aren't actually getting better for the Iraqis ain't it. But then what do we care right??

29 US dead...but how many Iraqis? More or less than last month?

Bearing in mind the mass sectarian slaughter resulting from the shrine bombing I don't think Feb and Mar have been good months for Iraq.

 

[RightinNYC]

Hmm..yes but explain how it was democraticed by an occupying force with the threat of violence?

Japan was a dictatorial/theocratic nation that was incredibly warlike, had several millenia of emperors, and believed that suicide bombing was a proper method of battling the enemy. Sound like any countries we know?

We invaded, bombed them into submission, occupied their country, helped them design a new constitution, and after instituting democratic reforms, witnessed the growth of this island from a tiny, devastated people without any natural resources into the most technologically advanced nation in the world. And they're peaceful.

 

[G-Man]

Japan was a dictatorial/theocratic nation that was incredibly warlike, had several millenia of emperors, and believed that suicide bombing was a proper method of battling the enemy. Sound like any countries we know?

We invaded, bombed them into submission, occupied their country, helped them design a new constitution, and after instituting democratic reforms, witnessed the growth of this island from a tiny, devastated people without any natural resources into the most technologically advanced nation in the world. And they're peaceful.

Provide a link to the invasion of Japan pls. Can't remember troops in Tokyo. Sounds like news to me.

Also a link to the peace treaty that demanded the country democratice would be good.

Japan changed on its own terms in its own time, a bit like the UK which eventually became a democracy after centuries of rule by the monarchy. Neither was forced into it by threat from foreign aggressors..if they were they would most probably have resisted.

Any other success stories of countries which were occupied and democratised?

N.B The suicide bombers in Iraq are mostly foreign jihadis (generally Saudi and Syrian - although not exclusively). They appeared AFTER the invasion so I'm not sure why you chose to mention them

 

[RightinNYC]

Provide a link to the invasion of Japan pls. Can't remember troops in Tokyo. Sounds like news to me.

Also a link to the peace treaty that demanded the country democratice would be good.

Japan changed on its own terms in its own time, a bit like the UK which eventually became a democracy after centuries of rule by the monarchy. Neither was forced into it by threat from foreign aggressors..if they were they would most probably have resisted.

Any other success stories of countries which were occupied and democratised?

N.B The suicide bombers in Iraq are mostly foreign jihadis (generally Saudi and Syrian - although not exclusively). They appeared AFTER the invasion so I'm not sure why you chose to mention them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan

"Official American occupation lasted until 1952, although U.S. forces still retain important bases in Japan, especially in Okinawa. In 1947, Japan adopted a new pacifist constitution, seeking international cooperation and emphasizing human rights and democratic practices.

After the occupation, under a program of aggressive industrial development and U.S. assistance, Japan achieved spectacular growth to become one of the largest economies in the world."

We invaded and occupied their country officially for 7 years, and even today, 60 years later, there are 53,000 US troops in Japan.

And yea, I'm sure they just happened to decide "in their own time" to draw up a pacifist constitution the year after we began occupying them. If you don't think we had a hand in that, you're being ignorant of political and diplomatic realities.

This was, in essence, democracy brought at the barrel of a gun. And it worked magnificently.

 

[Iriemon]

This is such a bullshit fallacy that I hear repeated over and over again. Have you heard of the tiny little obscure country called Japan?

In Japan, the US occupation forces did not face an organized insurgency that killed thousands of US servicemen and tens of thousands of Japanese.

Why? The reason explains why Japan and Germany are not good examples upon which to base our occupation of Iraq.

 

[Iriemon]

Exactly, I just heard that the fatalities for Americans in March was 29, the lowest since early 2004...........

Things are getting better in Iraq...........I just wish the left wing media would say so......

Great. Then why aren't we pulling the troops out? Why did this president say he would not withdraw the troops, but is going to pass-the-buck to the next president?

 

[Iriemon]

Not withstanding what your hero Kerry said I have a flash for you..The NVN and the Vietcong were the bad guys...They killed 58,000 Americans (6 of which were personal friends of mine).....We were the good guys..............

Apparently not to the NVN and Vietcong.

 

[Iriemon]

Japan was a dictatorial/theocratic nation that was incredibly warlike, had several millenia of emperors, and believed that suicide bombing was a proper method of battling the enemy. Sound like any countries we know?

We invaded, bombed them into submission, occupied their country, helped them design a new constitution, and after instituting democratic reforms, witnessed the growth of this island from a tiny, devastated people without any natural resources into the most technologically advanced nation in the world. And they're peaceful.

The main difference is our action was legitimate and justified in every sense of the word. We had a clear mandate to respond to their attack upon us. Our response, including the defeat and occupation of Japan, was not based upon false pretext and, at best, questionable justification.

There is a difference. It has to do with legitimacy. It is called credibility. In Iraq, we have none.

 

[KCConservative]

I hate the fact that we invaded Iraq, and I hate George Bush for starting a pointless war.

Opinions are wonderful things. Now back to the topic....

 

[oldreliable67]

Events in Iraq have shown that democracy cannot be installed by the barrel of a gun.

Interesting that you should paraphrase one of Chairman Mao's most famous sayings. I may not have it exactly right, but it is essentially, "Political power grows out the barrel of a gun."

 

[oldreliable67]

The US did not 'invaded' Japan. The unleashing of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were expressely for the purpose of preventing that necessity. Japan surrendered; we came ashore and occupied. We did not have to invade.

 

[oldreliable67]

Great. Then why aren't we pulling the troops out? Why did this president say he would not withdraw the troops, but is going to pass-the-buck to the next president?

I don't think that is what he said. He re-iterated once again that we would maintain a presence until the Iraqi government was strong enough and with a military sufficient to stand on their own. Nothing in what he said precludes a gradual drawdown of troops as the Iraqi capability increases. Given these criteria and these circumstances, it is entirely possible that some troops - perhaps many, perhaps only a handful - will remain when the next President assumes office. Nowhere did he suggest that it would be like a light switch: all here one day, all gone the next.

Despite what we read and see in the MSM today, I strongly suspect that at least some US troops will be withdrawn in the next 6 - 8 months. We don't get much of it from the MSM, but I get the impression from some of the Iraq-based bloggers and the few long-term Iraq journalists that the 'middle-class' (for lack of a better term) Iraqis are now banding together to protect their neighborhoods, mosques and homes from the various religious-based militias, insurgency groups and especially the foreign jihadis. Powerline, for example, is reporting that al Jazeera is reporting that Zarqawi has been booted out of his leadership role in the Iraqi 'resistance':

"Hudayf Azzam, 35, who claims close contacts with the fighters, said on Sunday: "The Iraqi resistance's high command asked Zarqawi to give up his political role and replaced him with an Iraqi, because of several mistakes he made.
"Zarqawi's role has been limited to military action. Zarqawi bowed to the orders two weeks ago and was replaced by Iraqi national Abdullah bin Rashed al-Baghdadi."

Zarqawi's 'mistakes' reportedly included the hotel bombings in Jordan and the indiscriminate murders of Iraqi civilians. Now, the civilians may have had enough.

If this report is correct, Zarqawi's role has been limited to "military action", which one commentator suggested is a euphemism for terrorist attacks against Iraqi and coalition forces.

Source.

 

[American]

Why not? What do you possibly imagine our military will accomplish by staying another year? And why on earth do you have faith that the leadership won't continue to **** up, as they've ****ed up time after time for the past three years?

You might think it's all F'ed up because you have nothing to compare it to, but if John Kerry had become president I have no doubt F'ed up would been preferred to what he would have done.

 

[G-Man]

Interesting that you should paraphrase one of Chairman Mao's most famous sayings. I may not have it exactly right, but it is essentially, "Political power grows out the barrel of a gun."

I think thats maybe along the lines of what he said and its true almost every dictator gained political power by the barrel of the gun.

However, when you have to force the masses to accept your will by threat of force they always rise up against you. All dictatorships and occupations eventually end..normally forced out by popular uprisings or military coups.

Only if your power is derived and given to you by the population is your position sustainable in the long term.

However, I feel Iraq represents an anomay to this theory. Political power is of little significance compared to religious authority in this special' case. It is quite clear that irrespective of who is actually voted into power and calls themself 'President',or whatever title he may wish, the power lies with the religious leaders and the masses will follow them - literally to their grave if necesaary.

 

[G-Man]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan

"Official American occupation lasted until 1952, although U.S. forces still retain important bases in Japan, especially in Okinawa. In 1947, Japan adopted a new pacifist constitution, seeking international cooperation and emphasizing human rights and democratic practices.

After the occupation, under a program of aggressive industrial development and U.S. assistance, Japan achieved spectacular growth to become one of the largest economies in the world."

We invaded and occupied their country officially for 7 years, and even today, 60 years later, there are 53,000 US troops in Japan.

And yea, I'm sure they just happened to decide "in their own time" to draw up a pacifist constitution the year after we began occupying them. If you don't think we had a hand in that, you're being ignorant of political and diplomatic realities.

This was, in essence, democracy brought at the barrel of a gun. And it worked magnificently.

I think this scenario of events is entirely different to that of Iraq. Japan surrendered and allowed US troops to stay on the islands, primarily to ensure the disarment of their forces and ensure they never went on the offensive again.

There was no invasion of mainland Japan, the ruling authority (Emporer) was not taken from power or charged with war crimes and the Japenese authorities continued to run the country. This never happened in Iraq.

As the Japanese authorities agreed to the terms of the surrender there was no insurgency (unlike Iraq).

Its doubtfull if the above would have occured if we had required Japan to hand over their ruler at the end of the war and tried to install a political process of our own desires. Democracy itself was not forced upon Japan. Certainly a favourable environment was created in which democracy could blossom but it was never a requirement to enable the end of hostility.

 

[hipsterdufus]

As most of you probably heard, I'm sad to report that our casualty rate in the first 2 weeks of April is higher than the entire month of March.

For those of you trying to argue that March's low casualty rate was proof positive of how great things are going in Iraq, I hope that you will reconsider that position.

We need to get the targets off of our troops' backs and get out of Iraq. The sooner the better. Our role is not to police a civil war.