I have my bib on, Mr. President...

[scaeagles]

I am looking forward to the speech for far different reasons. I suppose it is all who you trust.

While Sac certainly shows very real inconsistencies in what has been said by various members of the administration and the President, and a change in tune on WMD, I will again point out that Jordanian, British, Egyptian, and Russian intelligence services also said they had WMD, as did Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy, blah, blah, blah. Should Saddam not have repeatedly violated those tenets of the cease fire from Gulf War I requiring instant access to any cite for inspection, perhaps verification of no existance could have been achieved. We know he had them and used them before, and we have no evidence of their destruction.

But this has all been discussed before. I guess we'll do it again.

Do I wish to trust the what I am told in the news?

The large portion of the media and many prominent dems told us around 10,000 troops would be lost in the initial assault. It was about one tenth of that.

The large portion of the media and many prominent dems told us that we'd never be able to turn over sovereignty to the Iraqis by the deadline of June 30, 2004, but it happened earlier than that.

The large portion of the media and many prominent dems told us that elections could never happen in the time frame given.

The large portion of the media and many prominent dems said we'd never be able to clean out Fallujah, or that doing so would result in hundreds of US casualties.

The large portion of the media and many prominent dems said that the Iraqis were too factionalized to ever come together and form a government or construct a constitution. They have and they are.

The media doesn't bother to inform us that after the end of "hostilities" in WWII in Germany it took about 2.5 years for the insurgency of Hitler supporters to be controlled.

I realize that "doom and gloom" makes the best news. I realize it is not going as well in Iraq as I would like it. I also realize it is better than the media told us it would be and better than they are telling us it is now. I realize that benefits of democracy in the Middle East are numerous.

I also realize that public support for the war is now below 40%. Interestingly, a poll around the same time said that trust in the national media is at an all time low.

I am certain that the speech tonight will sway that public opinion a bit. I am curious as to why NBC and CBS are, at this point, not planning on airing the speech.

I would offer that if I said a week before the invasion that over two years into the operation we would have lost only 1700 (or so) Americans, I would have been laughed at and told it would be 10 times that at least. Am I meaning to belittle the soldiers that have died? Not in the least, as every death is tragic and I do mourn for the families of the soldiers. The question is oft posed to supporters of the war "Would you want your son or daughter to die for Iraq?". Well, the answer is that I would be very proud if my child was serving in the armed services and fighting in Iraq, and I would be praying whole heartedly for their safety, as I do now for the soldiers there daily.

I know that there is no one here that wishes for bad things to happen in Iraq to further a certain political agenda. We have different reasons for and different perspectives and different people that we trust as sources for what is happening. I would offer, though, that conflict and change takes time, and I hope, as does everyone here, that it is resolved as quickly as possible.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I would offer, though, that conflict and change takes time, and I hope, as does everyone here, that it is resolved as quickly as possible.

How much time? I've heard military leaders estimate 8-10 years. In the time we have been in Iraq, we have suffered more casualties than Vietnam did in the same period of time. Due to these facts and unlike WW2, nobody is signing up for this war. If we are there for 10 more years, maybe you will get a chance to be proud of you children over there, whether they want to be there or not, because I can't see how we are going to do this without a draft coming back.

I'm not going to even bother to watch tonight. My blood pressure can't handle it. Are we going to hear that the insurgency is in its last throes, even though, by all realistic accounts it is growing, not shrinking. Are we going to hear that liberals don't have the backbone to fight? Are we going to hear all about how good an idea the social security plan is?

No thanks, I'd rather chew aluminum foil than listen to this guy lie through his teeth, while our soldiers continue to get killed on a daily basis.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

How much time? I've heard military leaders estimate 8-10 years. In the time we have been in Iraq, we have suffered more casualties than Vietnam did in the same period of time.

True, but in 2.25 years, we've lost 1700. Over a 10 year period, that would be 6800. Vietnam, if I recall my histoty, had US involvement from 1961 until 1973, a period of 12 years, with 58000+ dead. Not much of a comparison.

Now granted, it's certainly not a realistic comparison because I believe at the height of the Vietnam war we had around 500,000 troops there, but in the first 2.25 years, our troop involvement was significantly less in Vietnam than it has been in the first 2.25 years of our involvement in Iraq.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

True, but in 2.25 years, we've lost 1700. Over a 10 year period, that would be 6800.

That assumes that the level of attacks remains the same. I'm not convinced that the violence won't get much worse before it gets better. I don't buy the whole "Insurgency is in it's last throes" line of thinking. I think there are plenty more, perhaps an endless supply, of people more than willing to strap a bomb on themselves and kill as many of us as possible. I honestly believe we are breeding terrorists far quicker than we are taking them out.

All it would take is a few McVeigh-type fertilizer bombs in well placed areas to see our casualties skyrocket. And since we have less control of the Iraqi borders than our own, who knows what could be smuggled in. It's not that far-fetched of an idea, is it? I guess my point is just that, a lot can happen in 10 years, especially as the hatred for the US grows.


And as long as Vietnam was mentioned, here's a quote:

For every 10 men of mine you kill, I will kill one of yours. In the end, it will be you that grows tired of it. - Ho Chi Minh.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

I guess my point is just that, a lot can happen in 10 years, especially as the hatred for the US grows.

Yeah, like a draft being instituted - youngsters, shockingly , are not flocking to Dubya's extended jihad and recruitment has dropped to dangerously low levels* - and both my sons will be of draft age within the next ten years or so. If my sons are drafted to fight, I, unlike scaeagles who would be proud to have his children involved in this war, will be furious. Homicidal even. Or maybe just Canadian, eh?



*And nothing can go wrong by lowering the standards of enlistment, right? After all, the lowering of expectations is what the Bush boardroom is all about.

Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it?

It is worth it.

What, exactly, do you know about sacrifice, sir?

Our mission in Iraq is clear: We're hunting down the terrorists.

WMD...Spreading democracy...Hunting down the terrorists...Because we can.

9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11

Sir, I'm going to have to respectfully request that you stop poli-fvcking the 3000 corpses of September 11. It's unseemly, disgusting and, frankly, it should be beneath the POTUS. But it's probably to be expected from a man who would surround himself with the American flag and military personnel while spewing pro-war propaganda in an effort to lift sagging approval numbers.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

True, but in 2.25 years, we've lost 1700. Over a 10 year period, that would be 6800.

Gee, is that all?

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

Gee, is that all?

A bargain at twice the price!

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

Gee, is that all?

Sac, my posting of numbers was not to belittle any of the lives that have been lost or will be. It was simply in response to MBC's comparison of the numbers killed in Iraq to the numbers killed in Vietnam in the first couple years. His comparison is not really valid because we've had around 150,000 troops Iraq, but our early involvement in Vietnam only involved about one tenth of that. In making a comparison of 6800 (my extrapolated estimate) and the 58000 killed in Vietnam, I am simply saying that there really is no comparison.

[Promo-Man]

I am not commenting on the President’s speech last night.
But I am in favor of reinstating the draft.
It is my belief that if you have compulsory service you also have more pressure on the politicians to not get us into a war or police action or what ever you want to call it.
We must not count on the Reserves and the Guard to be our main ground forces. They are designed to supplement our main forces.
When you have an all volunteer forces it is easer for the general public to not pay much attention and not put pressure on our politicians, after all the forces volunteered for it.

I know from first hand experience what the draft does as I had a draft number of 52 I had to make a decision of what to do, allow myself to be drafted, enlist or go to Canada. For me the choice was to enlist. I served in the Army from 71 though 74. I was fortunate not to have to serve in Vietnam.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Promo-Man

I served in the Army from 71 though 74. I was fortunate not to have to serve in Vietnam.

Thank you for your service. I mean that quite sincerely.

[MickeyLumbo]

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

Or maybe just Canadian, eh?





What, exactly, do you know about sacrifice, sir?

gay marriage is now legal in Canada.

i like Canadian bacon.

you don't have to call me sir in the LoT.

[SacTown Chronic]

Good thinking, MickeyLumbo. I'll just have my sons marry a couple Canadian studs and the military is sure to leave them alone.

Then again, the military might be so desperate for recruits by then that they welcome gays with open, uh, arms.