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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[scaeagles]

I've now read the transcript of the speech, and I think it was a very fine speech indeed.

I was most happy that he refuses to out any sort of artificial time table for being out of Iraq. That would be stupid, and those who call for a specific date for pullout, such as Chuck Schumer, are quite misguided in wanting one. Setting a deadline only encourages the insurgents to to stick it out until that date. Also, it's unrealisitic in any conflict to do that. I would list an example, but I don't want to be accused of Clinton bashing, and I was fully supportive of our actions in Bosnia anyway. He just shouldn't have picked a date to have our troops out.

I find it funny how critical the dems are that we are there at all. It was dems who demanded a joint resolution of Congress to vote on use of forece so that they could be seen as pro-war in the climate of public opinion at that time.

As far as the lack of applause lines, I have heard that Tim Russert mentioned that the reason NBC (and presumably CBS as well) did not want to air the speech was that they were afraid it would just be a pep rally. To assure them it would not be, NBC was told the troops in the audience would be told to hold their applause until the end of the speech, so they opted to air it.

9/11 is all about terrorism. For those who do not believe Iraq had any ties to terrorism, I refer you to an article listing numerous ways, many cited during the Clinton administration, of ways the Iraq and Saddam were supportive of and assisting Al Qaida. So I think it is perfectly valid for there to be references to 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentence. The Taliban did not attack us - the attackers on 9/11 weren't Afghanis - but the Taliban was supportive of Al Qaida. I won't bother to list the terrorist connections here, but anyone who is interested can refer to this link.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccart...0506290912.asp

Now, before there are gasps that I dare to post a link to National Review, it does not change that the listed information all happened. The list is toward the end of the piece.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

Would that be "the intelligence and facts [that] were being fixed around the policy"? When reports of tubes that could be used for nuclear warheads (in the same way a potato could be used as a cannon ball) turns into press conferences declaring definitive proof of WMD, I have a hard time believing that these supposed corroburating intelligence reports from around the world had much stronger evidence. Bush wanted a war, and he went and made sure every report was interpereted in a way that would support that war, even if it meant taking "could"s, "maybe"s, tenuous links and longshots and turning them into absolutes.