Has America lost the war?

[Morrow]

Sun Tzu stated the absolute definitive basic concept involving all strategic conflicts, win before you start. Not only did we fail to do that by not having enough troops, we seem to have ensured that we couldn’t ever possibly win. The pro-war politicians poisoned the political climate with partisan rhetoric, so that the only means of getting the necessary troop level, a draft, could never be achieved. One man, and one man alone, lost this war, and his name isn’t Donald Rumsfeld, it’s George Bush.

Face this if nothing else in your life. If you support the troops, you don’t send them into an impossible war to die without hope of victory. And those responsible, if not held accountable in this life, will be held accountable without mercy by the arbiters of future generations.

 

[Duke]

Red kneed?

It's one of Topsez's favorite adjectives used to describe liberals. :roll:


Duke

 

[Topsez]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Imagine if we had stayed in Vietnam for another 5-10 years. The death toll for us would have been double. That sounds alot like what the terrorist's idea for fighting us.



A republican president being the weakest in U.S. history? Impossible.

Q: How could the Americans have won the war?

A: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13121

Following this assessment came Prez Carter... Now we have Prez Bush weakened by the red kneed libs... yes, again if Prez Bush was to fall as in Watergate fassion then Prez Chenney would follow.

There are other quotes from N. Vietnamese generals that clearly state they were ready to surrender during Nixon's bombing had it not been for anti war and Watergate they would have surrendered.

So the US Army loses more troops to traffic accidents than in the war in Iraq and Afgahaistan combined... In fact there is a net gain of living Army soldiers as a result of the war... Had these soldiers remained in their barracks more would have died on the highways. How can one protest the war first and not protest the carnage on the highway first?

 

[CoffeeSaint]

So the US Army loses more troops to traffic accidents than in the war in Iraq and Afgahaistan combined... In fact there is a net gain of living Army soldiers as a result of the war... Had these soldiers remained in their barracks more would have died on the highways.How can one protest the war first and not protest the carnage on the highway first?

Wait. Hold up. A net gain of living Army soldiers as a result of the war? You, who claim to care so deeply, to be so terribly wounded by the big black wall of shame you keep ranting about, are describing this war as positive because more men have signed up than have died?
And you call me a heartless liberal? Nice math, Topsez.

As for the traffic accident argument, your math isn't so good -- or at least, the quote you mined is either inaccurate or out of context.
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/hnh.aspx

Check that graph. It tracks how many US casualties were caused by hostile actions, and how many were not caused by hostile actions (non-hostile). The non-hostile death count was higher than the hostile one exactly once: in May of 2003. Otherwise it has been enemy action that has killed more of our soldiers. Not bad driving. Let's also note that the number of traffic accidents in Iraq is certainly higher than what the same soldiers would get into if they were still here in the US; I think the bomb craters and burned out cars, not to mention the need to watch for insurgents at all times, would tend to make driving a little bit tougher. Not so?

 

[Hoot]

The only thing I resent about these comments is the implication that 'we' should've known this war would be a long haul.

No...everything we were told by Bush administration officials was "cakewalk." Even after Saddam's statue was toppled, and even after the 'Mission Accomplished' sign, we were all led to believe democracy would sprout as easily as Bush throwing civics textbooks out of the back of a humvee.

After all, "we beat them once before, and they're weaker and we're much stronger now."

After Bush was embarrassed because the Saddam/Alqaeda connection was never established, and after the tragedy of alienating the Iraqi people, Bush administration officials use the "terrorist magnet" argument, "Isn't it better to fight them over here than at home?"

Bush took a nation that was no terrorist threat and turned it into one, using our soldiers as bait. Even so, we were all told this war would be a breeze, and that Iraq could finance it's own reconstruction, with little cost to the American taxpayer.

See how easy this was supposed to be?

 

[Topsez]

Wait. Hold up. A net gain of living Army soldiers as a result of the war? You, who claim to care so deeply, to be so terribly wounded by the big black wall of shame you keep ranting about, are describing this war as positive because more men have signed up than have died?
And you call me a heartless liberal? Nice math, Topsez.

I said earlier, sad but true. It is a fact that Army soldiers are less likely to die in Iraq and Afghanistan than had they been in a peacetime environment. I worked as a Next of Kin notification NCO in peacetime and I would bet you a beer that more Army soldiers drown on their own vomit than die in this war day for day. The same fact is true of civilians in college, it is an age group where binge drinking results in death when a young man becomes a man in an environment conducive to such events.

As for the traffic accident argument, your math isn't so good -- or at least, the quote you mined is either inaccurate or out of context.
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/hnh.aspx

Check that graph. It tracks how many US casualties were caused by hostile actions, and how many were not caused by hostile actions (non-hostile). The non-hostile death count was higher than the hostile one exactly once: in May of 2003. Otherwise it has been enemy action that has killed more of our soldiers. Not bad driving. Let's also note that the number of traffic accidents in Iraq is certainly higher than what the same soldiers would get into if they were still here in the US; I think the bomb craters and burned out cars, not to mention the need to watch for insurgents at all times, would tend to make driving a little bit tougher. Not so?

I'm speaking about Army soldiers, that includes all active, reserve and National Guard stationed in non-combat areas deaths... go back to the link I provided earlier and compare the death rate of soldiers dieing as a result of traffic accidents in 98 and 99, google the key words Countermeasure (that is an Army safety newsletter) and traffic accident deaths 1998/99. Because less soldiers are driving and drinking in Iraq and Afghanistan than would be if they were in peacetime more end up living.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

I said earlier, sad but true. It is a fact that Army soldiers are less likely to die in Iraq and Afghanistan than had they been in a peacetime environment. I worked as a Next of Kin notification NCO in peacetime and I would bet you a beer that more Army soldiers drown on their own vomit than die in this war day for day. The same fact is true of civilians in college, it is an age group where binge drinking results in death when a young man becomes a man in an environment conducive to such events.


I'm speaking about Army soldiers, that includes all active, reserve and National Guard stationed in non-combat areas deaths... go back to the link I provided earlier and compare the death rate of soldiers dieing as a result of traffic accidents in 98 and 99, google the key words Countermeasure (that is an Army safety newsletter) and traffic accident deaths 1998/99. Because less soldiers are driving and drinking in Iraq and Afghanistan than would be if they were in peacetime more end up living.

Here's a quote from your link. Note the percentage of deaths due to accidents in Iraq.

In World War II, accidents accounted for 50 percent of our deaths; in Vietnam 54 percent; in Operations Desert Shield and Storm 75 percent; in Operation Enduring Freedom 51 percent; and in Operation Iraqi Freedom 28 percent.

I tried your Google search, and couldn't come up with anything relevant. I found this blog,
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3609
in which the writer points out that accidental deaths are more common than combat deaths, but he admits that the number does not count wounded soldiers, and I would think that to be an important element of the discussion.

More to the point, the idea that this argues that war saves the lives of US soliders is utterly ridiculous. This says that 1. military training may be too dangerous in some ways, if any of these are preventable accidents, 2. people drink and drive too much, and it is a serious problem, and/or 3. accidents happen and people die. None of that says that war saves lives.

 

[Topsez]

Here's a quote from your link. Note the percentage of deaths due to accidents in Iraq..

This is a general "accident" account that includes any type of accident e.g. a forklift crushes a man with a pallet of cargo.

I tried your Google search, and couldn't come up with anything relevant. I found this blog,
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3609
in which the writer points out that accidental deaths are more common than combat deaths, but he admits that the number does not count wounded soldiers, and I would think that to be an important element of the discussion.

Yes this is a good example but again it generalizes in accidents. Take a look at this link http://www.stormingmedia.us/55/5599/A559924.html

More to the point, the idea that this argues that war saves the lives of US soliders is utterly ridiculous. This says that 1. military training may be too dangerous in some ways, if any of these are preventable accidents, 2. people drink and drive too much, and it is a serious problem, and/or 3. accidents happen and people die. None of that says that war saves lives

I was simply relating that traffic accidents in peacetime, including those in military vehicles causes more deaths than in war. More soldiers die trying to take long weekend trips to visit home or loved ones than die on the battlefield. Soldiers on the battlefield cannot drink, nor are they allowed to operate vehicles as they may in non-combat areas and the result is less soldiers die as a result of the restrictions placed by being in a controlled environment.

The Army spend a lot of time and money on these problems that are systemic to the age group of people involved... Human nature is really hard to combat... more than once I traveled from NC to NJ on a weekend and often without enough sleep to make that morning formation when my 72 hour pass expired... I woke several times as the car wondered off the edge of the road. Likewise, my dad was dieing in Pittsburg Pa. VA Center and I lived in CO. at Ft. Carson ... I drove several round trips over weekends... very unsafe.

As leaders we would inspect every soldiers car before each weekend and cancel travel plans for any soldier whose car failed a safety inspection.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Unfortunatley, the United States seems to define victory as the point in time in which the top brass is comfertable enough to dump a war on the lap of an international organization and call it victory. We lost the overall war in Afghanistan and we lost the war in Iraq.

 

[Hoot]

Unfortunatley, the United States seems to define victory as the point in time in which the top brass is comfertable enough to dump a war on the lap of an international organization and call it victory. We lost the overall war in Afghanistan and we lost the war in Iraq.

You can thank Rumsfield for this.

It had nothing to do with American impatience with this war, as some would have us believe.

 

[Topsez]

Unfortunatley, the United States seems to define victory as the point in time in which the top brass is comfertable enough to dump a war on the lap of an international organization and call it victory. We lost the overall war in Afghanistan and we lost the war in Iraq.

America has not dumped the war to an international organization... Guess you speak of Afghanistan here? Afghanistan was a tremendous victory with millions freed, they held an election and established a government. For a change NATO, an alliance of traditional allies to the US joined in support of the ongoing mission of assisting the government of Afghanistan stabilizing the government. These folks are our allies unlike the UN, we actually placed US soldiers under their commanders. We didn't do this as if they were offering handouts - this alliance has been on the receiving end of the US since the end of WWII and it is their obligation under the charter to help.

How can you even consider we lost the war in Iraq? There are problems in two or three cities and the rest of the country is stable... I say if necessary conduct a siege on those communities and end the violence or let them keep the violence inside of the siege until they work it out. The only missing componet to victory is the "will" to see it when it comes.

 

[Hoot]

I say we offer the people that kidnapped 150 people in Bahgdad, in broad daylight, twice as much money to work for us.

Or as I believe Bill Mahr suggested...hire the LAPD to police Iraq and knock some heads together. Our current approach isn't cutting it.

 

[Iriemon]

The only thing I resent about these comments is the implication that 'we' should've known this war would be a long haul.

No...everything we were told by Bush administration officials was "cakewalk." Even after Saddam's statue was toppled, and even after the 'Mission Accomplished' sign, we were all led to believe democracy would sprout as easily as Bush throwing civics textbooks out of the back of a humvee.

After all, "we beat them once before, and they're weaker and we're much stronger now."

After Bush was embarrassed because the Saddam/Alqaeda connection was never established, and after the tragedy of alienating the Iraqi people, Bush administration officials use the "terrorist magnet" argument, "Isn't it better to fight them over here than at home?"

Bush took a nation that was no terrorist threat and turned it into one, using our soldiers as bait. Even so, we were all told this war would be a breeze, and that Iraq could finance it's own reconstruction, with little cost to the American taxpayer.

See how easy this was supposed to be?

Exactly right, Hoot. What has turned public opinion against the war was that the populace was mislead into believing the neocon fantasies that hostilities would be minimal and short lived, that Iraq was involved in 9-11 and that Hussein was an Al-Queda supporter, and that Iraq represented an urgent threat to the security of the United States because of its hundreds of tons of weapons of mass destruct and reconstituted nuclear program.

As more an more realized the scope of the misrepresentations, support declined. Had Americans been told that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, that Iraq was not involved with Al-Queda, that our operations in Iraq would be displacing the ruling segment of society which would likely revolt against our occupation that would throw the nation into chaos, and that Iraq in no sense represented an "urgent threat" to the US, there would have been no support for the war.

But then, that would have ruined Bush and the neocons little plan.

They have no one to blame but themselves. But of course they don't.

 

[jujuman13]

Quote
(Actually it was Clinton who lifted the missille sales ban to China, what arms sales were lifted against China by the Republican Congress?)

Correct

Quote
(As to Saudi Arabia they recently had the first municple elections in the history of their country, it's not much but it's a first step.)

Again correct.

But with whatever level of democracy the Saudi's permit, it will never ever be a democracy as envisaged by the average American.

ME nations are used to being ruled by strong leaders, under such they prosper, encouraging them to adopt our form of democracy is dangerous, it leads to instability, which is what we currently have in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan.

When we the US leave Iraq, it will within a year revert to being led by at least one strong leader.

At a guess I would say that Sadr considers himself in line to become the next SH.