Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 116

• 0%

  TimALoftis9 months, 3 weeks ago

  According to the ICCC website;

  U.S. Casualties By Calendar Year

  Year Deaths Wounded

  2003 486 2,411

  2004 849 8,003

  2005 846 5,948

  2006 822 6,398

  2007 851 5,411

  Total 3854 28171

  http://icasualties.org/oif/

  Reply

  19 Replies

  • 0%

    NoWayMan9 months, 3 weeks ago

    also according to the ICCC website, 2007 will be the deadliest year for Iraqi civilians as well, if the current averages continue.

    2006: 1380 civilian deaths/month

    2007: 1470 civilian deaths/month (so far)

    http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

    Reply
  • 0%

    jimdoze9 months, 3 weeks ago

    Iwo Jima (now Iwo Ito) Casualties

    02/19/45 to 03/26/45: 6,821 dead 19,189 wounded 494 missing

    Total: 26,504

    Reply

    11 Replies

    • 0%

      Justice4All9 months, 3 weeks ago

      And your point is?

      Reply

      9 Replies

      • 0%

        jimdoze9 months, 3 weeks ago

        Clearly I have to spell it out: Get some perspective!

        Reply

        8 Replies

        • 0%

          djn3nunez39 months, 3 weeks ago

          Are you saying that the past years' occupation of Iraq is in some way comparable to the invasion and battle against Imperial Japan for control of Iwo Jima? If so How?

          Reply

          7 Replies

          • 0%

            GWHayduke9 months, 3 weeks ago

            The only logical comparison is: "War is Hell"

            Unjust war is debilitating.

            Reply
          • 0%

            jimdoze9 months, 3 weeks ago

            Since you asked the question that way, the answer would be that for an apples to apples you might want to think of the battle(s) for Iraq and "the occupation" all rolled into one... in comparison with the battles against Japan and its subsequent occupation. Iwo Jima was but a small part of the battle against Japan... rendering the comparison all the more stark.

            For further consideration, the U.S. had huge geopolitical interests (vis-a-vis the Soviets) in handling Japan (and Europe) the way it did subsequent to WWII. That does not negate that it was also in Japan and Europe's best interest as well. Neither Japan nor Germany are, in any way, part of "the American Empire". The same is, and will be, true of Iraq.

            Reply

            5 Replies

            • 0%

              Teech9 months, 3 weeks ago

              President Bush, what do have to say about 2007 being the deadliest year yet in Iraq for both military and civilian casualties?

              Bush: Mission accomplished. If you think 2007 was bad, just wait 'till you see what happens in 2008! Y'all ain't seen sh!t yet! Iraq was a surprise for us, but in Iran, Afghanistan, and maybe Pakistan, they really WILL greet us with flowers.

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                fishifanb9 months, 3 weeks ago

                Opium Poppies?

                Reply
            • 0%

              djn3nunez39 months, 3 weeks ago

              There is no comparison. Iraq has been all occupation.

              Reply

              2 Replies

              • 0%

                DebraJMSmith9 months, 3 weeks ago

                How does one explain the men who have served in Iraq and requested to go back after their service there was completed?

                Clearly there is good cause for us to be there.

                Let's also not forget that the Democrat controlled congress has not gotten us out. Hence they even agree that we have good cause to be there.

                Pete Grasso has pointed out that the minute we leave, Syria and Iran will move right in and take over.

                Perhaps there is more to this than meets the eye?

                Debra...

                Reply

                1 Reply

                • 0%

                  djn3nunez39 months, 3 weeks ago

                  ---explain the men who have served in Iraq and requested to go back after their service there was completed?

                  Brotherhood?

                  ---Clearly there is good cause for us to be there.

                  And that is???

                  --Let's also not forget that the Democrat controlled congress has not gotten us out.

                  They have passed several measures to get a timetable on withdrawl.

                  ---Pete Grasso has pointed out that the minute we leave, Syria and Iran will move right in and take over.

                  and every prediction the Bush Administration made about this war and it's aftermath has been incorrect. Why stop now.

                  --Perhaps there is more to this than meets the eye?

                  Perhaps so....

                  Reply

    • HanymanComment removed: User banned.
  • 0%

    KMFDM9 months, 3 weeks ago

    It will get worse before it gets worse.

    Reply

    5 Replies

    • 0%

      Locky129 months, 3 weeks ago

      This may be the worst year, but October has been the best month of the war with fewest casualties and November might be the same.

      There is reason to be optimistic. The Bush hating machine is in full effect because it can't stand ANY good news coming from Iraq.

      Reply

      4 Replies

      • 0%

        KMFDM9 months, 3 weeks ago

        there is a machine?

        does it take quarters?

        If not do you have change, because that is what we need.

        Change.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          Locky129 months, 3 weeks ago

          Do you have a brain?

          Does it take protein?

          If not do you have vitamins, because that is what you need.

          Protein. Vitamins and maybe some sleep.

          And a brain while you're at it.

          Reply
      • 0%

        RoyHobbs9 months, 3 weeks ago

        So does that mean Locky is going to sign up? Nah, didn't think so.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          Locky129 months, 3 weeks ago

          You want me to sign up twice?

          My statement above bothers you that much that we could actually win this war? You'd rather us return home in shame just to justify your hate for the current president?

          Could you do everybody a favor just pack your bags and leave this country I love. Move someplace else with other cowards of you ilk.

          Reply
• 0%

  walden39 months, 3 weeks ago

  for what?

  Reply

  25 Replies

  • 0%

    jimdoze9 months, 3 weeks ago

    To preclude massive war on a scale minimally commensurate with WWII. WWII yielded approximately 75,000,000 war deaths. If you think it couldn't happen, remember WWI was the "War To End All Wars".

    Reply

    24 Replies

    • 0%

      vor9 months, 3 weeks ago

      We will be the ones who initiate WWIII. The pre-emptive idealogy of the neocons ensures this. We were one of the last nations to enter WWII. This "War on Terror" has no relation to WWII. No direct sacrifice has been asked of the majority of the American people. This enemy is virtually unidentifiable, blended into the general populations in places a diverse as Pakistan and Great Britain. Even if we were to attack a country like Iran we are not attacking the central authority of the terrorists bacause there really isn't one, thus the fallacy of the term Islamo-Fascists.

      We lost faith in our government long ago. This administration doesn't require the support of the people. They (Cheney and the neocons) came into office with their ready set plans. 9/11 allowed them to implement that which was unthinkable before (pre-emptive war). But note their support withered when the public realized the folly of such actions.

      Reply

      23 Replies

      • 0%

        jimdoze9 months, 3 weeks ago

        Similar to the run up to WWII, WWIII has been going on for quite a long time already. There are, and always have been, wider geopolitical considerations than the so-called "war on terror".

        I have always been skeptical of our (or any government's) ability to provide for the general welfare... thus, the founding fathers specifically tasked the government to "promote the general welfare". However, I do (so far) have at least some faith in the government providing for the common defense. In terms of the common defense, the general welfare of the world economy is inextricably linked to the common defense of the country and to the prevention of major war. That was already true in the early to mid 20th century... and it is even truer today... with the consequences of not doing so today vastly more hideous than they were even back then.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          hyperbola9 months, 3 weeks ago

          """the general welfare of the world economy"""!!!!

          What loads of bulllshhhiiiittt you shovel. Basically what you are saying is that the US military has now become the property of our corrupt corporate welfare queens to militarily "guarantee" their profits at the expense of both americans and whoever they decide to invade.

          Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions

          http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/1...

          Reply
      • 0%

        jimdoze9 months, 3 weeks ago

        Do you think that this administration, or any administration, would announce that their reason for getting boots on the ground in Iraq was to prevent Iran from taking Iraq's southern oil fields and Turkey from taking the Iraq's northern fields?

        You can say "unlikely" all you want... but, the administration had to reduce that probability to zero. Could you and yours countenance the idea of the U.S. supporting Saddam again to prevent, or worse, counter such an eventuality?

        Furthermore, all the blah blah about the U.S. "taking the oil" is just that, blah blah.

        What's your solution? ...all I've seen so far is nattering negativity.

        Reply

        20 Replies

        • 0%

          vor9 months, 3 weeks ago

          Therein lies the entire problem. This administration has done everything but tell the truth as to why we invaded Iraq. The two main reasons we went into Iraq were to secure that oil and to acquire Iraq as a geo-political prize. Is there a more critical location in the world? The neocons consider those fields a vital American interest. Nevermind that they don't belong to us, we cannot be denied access, nor can we allow the Iranians, or the Chinese in particular, to claim these fields. That could swing the entire balance of power in the world. Never mind that we are borrowing the funds to pay for this war in the majority from the Chinese. The American people would not like the truth anymore than the lies we have been told. This is all explained at:

          newamericancentury.org

          You will see the neocons are not afraid to lay out their agenda. This is basically our foreign policy. You can agree or disagree but to be ignorant of this information is to be poorly informed.

          Reply

          8 Replies

          • 0%

            jimdoze9 months, 3 weeks ago

            "securing the oil" is a bad thing? particularly as it IS vital to the world economy (therefore world interest) and, as such, vital to American interest. We are not claiming the oilfields for ourselves and no amount of spin will make it so.

            Some more spin is in evidence with your use of the word "prize". Just because we are doing everything possible to keep Iraq for the Iraqis, and from someone else claiming it as a prize, does not make it a prize for the U.S. If that were the case, we could easily defend the oilfields and leave the bulk of the Iraqi population to fight out their sectarian issues in their population centers. Why aren't we doing that? If we were simply grabbing the prize, that would be plenty easy to do... and with relatively minimal risk to our military. Further, without oil, Iraqi sectarian issues would quickly become moot anyhow.

            It's time to start thinking outside the suspicious little box you find yourself in.

            Reply

            7 Replies

            • 0%

              hyperbola9 months, 3 weeks ago

              Would the Chinese (or Russians, or ...) be justified in taking over militarily NY city and silicon valley to guarantee the proper functioning of the world economy? Your silly excuses are patently lies. So is your feigned innocence. Fortunately Iraqis have seen through your kind of crrraaapppp.

              New Oil Law Means Victory in Iraq for Bush

              ... the Independent on Sunday reported. The new bill will "radically redraw the Iraqi oil industry and throw open the doors to the third-largest oil reserves in the world," says the paper, whose reporters have seen a draft of the new law....

              ...paper notes, the law will give Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell and other carbon cronies of the White House unprecedented sweetheart deals, allowing them to pump gargantuan profits from Iraq's nominally state-owned oilfields for decades to come. This law has been in the works since the very beginning of invasion - indeed, since before 9/11...

              http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010807A.shtml

              Reply
            • 0%

              vor9 months, 3 weeks ago

              If you read the end of my post I told you to view the PNAC site and make up your own mind. But somehow you don't see it as a absolute obscenity that this administration does not level with the American people. We, the consumers, will eventually pay for that oil, which is also obscene considering we will have spent nearly a trillion dollars of borrowed funds to secure it. Iraq is a geopolitical "prize", I cannot change my wording on that. It is something the neocons have wanted since GW1. We cannot have a secure situation in a volatile country. There is oil in the North and South. We cannot have sectarian violence going on and believe we have anything "secured".

              Your answers are FAR too simplistic. You seem unable to admit that we have been lied to repeatedly, or are willing to accept such false rhetoric. You also neglect that we have built permanent bases throughout Iraq. If you would read the PNAC site you would understand why.

              Reply

              5 Replies

              • 0%

                jimdoze9 months, 3 weeks ago

                Did FDR publicly discuss, at every turn, his and his administrations political, geopolitical and military strategy in World War II? No! It's time to get over it. There was plenty of all those levels of strategizing and very little, but the concept of victory, was deemed fit for public consumption. One of the very salient issues that FDR's administration had to deal with was how long the public could stomach war. As such, a lot of risks were taken and, therefore, lives lost over concern for that issue.

                I have read the PNAC site. I see absolutely nothing about Iraq as a "prize" or any such on that or any other such site. Neither is there anything resembling the common incantation of the left that PNAC is about American Empire. Those are the left's interpretations.

                What makes for a permanent base? Cement buildings and paved runways over corrugated steel quonset huts and dirt runways?

                Reply

                4 Replies

                • 0%

                  vor9 months, 3 weeks ago

                  You have to go back to FDR in a totally different media age. A different time, a different war. And no we should not be telegraphing our every military move to the press. But what on earth does that have to do with explaining your reasoning for an invasion to the people? That is not top secret information. And why the lies? Again your argument falls short.

                  You read the entire PNAC site, are you Evelyn Wood? You are using semantics because unless it has been removed there were documents discussing Iraq's geopolitical importance. It is therefore a prize. And come on there mission statement is all about American Empire. We are to be the dominant influence in the world but not an empire. A matter of sematics again.

                  What makes for a "permanent" base? When the military uses that description!

                  Keep your blinders on!

                  Reply

                  3 Replies

                  • 0%

                    jimdoze9 months, 3 weeks ago

                    Quite obviously there IS geopolitical importance to Iraq! I never claimed otherwise. If there weren't, you would have me seriously questioning our involvement there as well. To use the word "prize" is quite a sly spin of words. To Iran or Turkey (and others), the oil fields may well appear as prizes. To keep them from claiming the prizes does not mean that the U.S. has claimed them as their "prize". Did the U.S. claim Germany and Japan as "prizes". Did the U.S. claim South Korea as a "prize". If you are honest with yourself, the answer is a clear NO. Likewise, it is specious to suggest that the U.S. is (or can be or will be) claiming Iraq as a "prize". That is your mental construct as well as that of the vociferous left... not that of U.S. foreign policy. Nor, is it in any way that of the PNAC papers that you and yours are so loudly whoofin and whistlin about.

                    Reply
                  • 0%

                    vor9 months, 3 weeks ago

                    You are attaching FAR too much important to one word. In none of you posts have you dealt with the fact that we have, and are still, told lies by this administration. If you go back and read the rhetoric before the war it is filled with questionable statements. The Dems authorized the war because they were dealing with public sentiment and a President with an 80 approval rating. All that has changed and largely because of statements like "Mission Accomplished" and "Bring It On" and the obvious beefing up of information supplied by people like Curveball (a story I am sure you have avoided).

                    Why did Bush lose a full 50% in the polls? Why did the majority of the public turn on him regarding Iraq? That's not just the Left deserting him. Is it the foolish rhetoric and the lies? Iraq is the testing ground for neocon policy and that policy has been by most measures a massive failure. The troops have certainly not failed but the policy makers have.

                    Reply

                    1 Reply

                    • 0%

                      jimdoze9 months, 3 weeks ago

                      Bush's "Mission Accomplished" and "Bring it on" were, without a doubt, the two worst blunders of his administration. His mangling of the English language has been a constant and ongoing public relations problem for him and the administration. I'll certainly grant you that.

                      Reply
        • 0%

          djn3nunez39 months, 3 weeks ago

          ---Do you think that this administration, or any administration, would announce that their reason for getting boots on the ground in Iraq was to prevent Iran from taking Iraq's southern oil fields and Turkey from taking the Iraq's northern fields?

          If the World(UN) didn't allow Iraq to invade and conquer Kuwait what makes you think we would stand by and let Iran or Turkey invade and conquer parts of Iraq?

          What don't you understand about the oil contracts the Iraqi government is being forced to accept?

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            jimdoze9 months, 3 weeks ago

            "If the World(UN) didn't allow Iraq to invade and conquer Kuwait what makes you think we would stand by and let Iran or Turkey invade and conquer parts of Iraq?"

            The world (UN) would have done what then? Gone to war in support of Saddam? Given whose hands he had been greasing, perhaps so. Would that have been palatable to you?

            With whom are those contracts? and are they, or are they not, at market prices for spot contracts? and at pre-set prices for other longer term contracts, just like any other producer? How much Iraqi oil do you think makes it to the U.S.?

            Do you think the Turks would ever allow an independent Kurdistan? How long do you think Saddam could have controlled the Kurds without WMDs of some form?

            Suppose the Iranians, knowing how relatively impotent Iraqi forces were, had started massing troops and equipment on the Iraqi southern frontier. What would the appropriate response have been?

            If Saddam had no WMD, why did he play cat and mouse with it?

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%

              hyperbola9 months, 3 weeks ago

              What sdilly gymnastics you have to put yourself through to try to justify military imperialism that is killing america! Are you american jimd? Or may an "isreal-firster" traitor to america?

              You do know, for example, that Paul Volcker told us just how bushie and his friends were involved in skimming off money from Saddam?

              The Quiet Oil-for-Food Scandal

              We aren't going to hear much about the corporations that paid bribes in the Oil-for-Food scandal because Bush's family, friends and closest advisors are in it knee-deep..

              http://www.alternet.org/story/27792/

              Why are you pushing the zioncon propaganda program called "oil-for-food-scandal" long after its perpetuators have been convicted in court of lying?

              Reply
            • 0%

              djn3nunez39 months, 3 weeks ago

              --The world (UN) would have done what then? Gone to war in support of Saddam?

              Nope, in support of the oil fields.

              -- How much Iraqi oil do you think makes it to the U.S.?

              July 2007 about 460,000 barrels per day.

              http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/da...

              --Do you think the Turks would ever allow an independent Kurdistan?

              No they have already said they would not accept that.

              --Suppose the Iranians, knowing how relatively impotent Iraqi forces were, had started massing troops and equipment on the Iraqi southern frontier. What would the appropriate response have been?

              You mean like what Saddam did in Kuwait? Do what Bush should have done. Warn the Iranians that we would protect the oil fields and come down on them like they were the new Hitler.

              Reply
        • 0%

          Obaku9 months, 3 weeks ago

          Is the "probability zero" yet?

          What I see is the duplicitous deployment of denial and deception designed to delay the determination of the truth.

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            jimdoze9 months, 3 weeks ago

            The probability is far far closer to zero now than it was in 2003.

            Obviously, I see differently.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              Obaku9 months, 3 weeks ago

              Obviously, you don't 'see' at all.

              Iran and Turkey are both bigger threats to regional stability than they were in 2003, and Pakistan is has gone from ludicrous to pathetic. Destablize Pakistan just a bit more, and you will have a 'world war' raging from Kashmir to Gaza, from the Horn of Africa to Chechnya.

              And to top it all off, the United States will be so economically crippled that every JDAM manufactured will mean 1000 children die of starvation or disease in Kansas.

              Fool.

              Reply
        • 0%

          hyperbola9 months, 3 weeks ago

          >>to prevent Iran from taking Iraq's southern oil fields and Turkey from taking the Iraq's northern fields?

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            hyperbola9 months, 3 weeks ago

            Well jimd, you are obviously as incompetent as bushie and his zioncons.

            The Thunder of Turkish War Drums

            ... Israel, which has its eye on Mesopotamia's oil, is secretly backing Iraq's Kurdish mini-state and hopes one day to build an oil pipeline from Iraqi Kurdistan to Haifa, either via Jordan or through a splintered Syria â;; which is also high on Israel's hit list....

            new danger looms. The US invasion devastated Iraq and effectively split into three pieces â;; fulfilling the first step in Israel's grand strategy of fragmenting Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. Iraq's Mosul oil region, which formerly belonged to the Ottoman Empire, is a mere 119 kms from Turkey's border. Kirkuk is only a bit further. After World War I, the British Empire grabbed this oil-rich region, cobbling together the unnatural state of Iraq to safeguard the oil.

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%

              hyperbola9 months, 3 weeks ago

              cont'd

              ..If Iraq slides further into the abyss, Turkey and Iran may partition Iraq. Today, Turkey has no oil. Its fragile economy is hammered by having to earn US dollars to buy oil. But if Turkey repossessed Iraq's northern oil fields, this nation of 70 million with 515,000 men at arms would become an important power that would reassert traditional Turkish influence in the Mideast, Balkans, Caucasus, and Central Asia...

              .. Iraq's huge oil reserves are a big temptation Ankara cannot ignore. After all, if the US can invade Iraq for oil, why not neighboring, ex-owner Turkey?..

              http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis90....

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                jimdoze9 months, 3 weeks ago

                "if Turkey repossessed Iraq's northern oil fields, this nation of 70 million with 515,000 men at arms would become an important power that would reassert traditional Turkish influence in the Mideast, Balkans, Caucasus, and Central Asia..."

                All the stuff about Israel aside, how much more eloquently could you make my case, Hyperbole?

                The Turks would not be trying to keep an Iraqi state a viable entity now would they? The U.S. most definitely is... and expending blood and treasure to do so. That's the difference you and yours refuse to acknowledge.

                Reply
• 0%

  mdvaldosta9 months, 3 weeks ago

  Sad, very sad.

  Reply
• 0%

  Jaydee409 months, 3 weeks ago

  Troops are facing a stronger more organized enemy then ever before but yet the surge is working, lies always catch up with people who lie.

  Reply

  13 Replies

  • 0%

    Teagen9 months, 3 weeks ago

    Not exactly. We're not facing much of an enemy. Unless you mean the wimps who plant a bomb here or there. They run when we come to town. A few might resist, but in the end, we always win.

    Reply

    12 Replies

    • 0%

      rightfromwrong9 months, 3 weeks ago

      The USA didn't win in Vietnam or have you changed history?

      Maybe if the US wants give the freedom fighters more firepower then it might be called a fair fight.

      The USA went to Iraq for Oil and to support the Jewish nation.

      There never were WMD and Saddam was not supporting Al Qaida.

      Reply

      9 Replies

      • 0%

        Teagen9 months, 3 weeks ago

        This isn't Vietnam. In that war, we were fighting a well trained and well supplied enemy. China and the USSR supplied tons to them. In Iraq, we face radical Islam and the threat is Iran. Freedom fighters are not who we fight. We're fighting folks that would want people like me barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and you in a mosque five times a day. Freedom has nothing to do with the animals we face now.

        Iraq did and does have WMD. We're still finding shells all over the place. Their creators I suspect you will find in Syria. That's why Israel hit the missile base last summer.

        As to Alqueda, they are no ones friend. Like a rattlesnake, they'll strike anyone at anytime. Even those who helped them in the past.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          DeadXXXManXXXTalkin9 months, 3 weeks ago

          '' we face radical Islam and the threat is Iran. ''

          your sentence should be 'we face radical islam and the threat is radical islam', which is not tied to a country.

          how can you miss something so obvious, with terror cells being broken up and routed out in various European countries?

          *sigh*

          Reply
        • 0%

          djn3nunez39 months, 3 weeks ago

          You're right it's not Vietnam but there are simalarities. Like the opposition has support among the locals thus making it hard to determine who the enemy is.

          Before the Gulf Wars which destroyed It was the most secular of all Arab nations.

          We know Iraq had chemical and biological weapons because President Raygun help him aquire not only the technology to manufactor them, but also, through our allies, with the means to make them. There have been no new WMD found. No giant stockpile on the magnitude the Bush Administration was touting before the invasion.

          Reply
      • 0%

        Wolfie20079 months, 3 weeks ago

        rightfromwrong

        The military of the United States never lost a battle in Viet Nam. The war was lost in Washington by the chicken hearted, liberal cowards called Congress when they cut off the money. The South Vietnamese continued to fight and might have won but the same chicken sheet liberals wouldn't fund them either. No matter what John Kerry says thousands did die after the North Vietnamese took over the south. Just some more facts and dead bodies to lay at doorstep of the liberal scum of this country. Here's something you can take to the bank, Americans don't want to lose this war!

        Reply

        5 Replies

        • 0%

          djn3nunez39 months, 3 weeks ago

          As the CiC President Ford is the one who did not help the South when the North began their unification push.

          Didn't GW sign a new trade agreement with Vietnam? One normalizing relations. Vietnam intervened in Cambodia, when no one cared, to stop Pol Pot.

          We know at whose doorstep most of the dead bodies (then and now) lay.

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            crghss9 months, 3 weeks ago

            Vietnam put Pol Pot in charge of the country in the first place.

            Clinton started "normalizing relations" with Vietnam.

            Reply
        • 0%

          hyperbola9 months, 3 weeks ago

          Well Wolfie, perhaps you are too young to know anything more than the zioncon propaganda, but actually Vietnam was ended by a troop rebellion.

          "Sir! No Sir!"

          The Story of the GI Anti-War Movement

          .. "Sir! No Sir!" documentary chronicles the "seditious" Anti-war Movement of active duty GI's and their supporters during the Vietnam War. This lost, er, stolen, from our collective memory Movement had as much or more to do with the US Military Machine's eventual abandonment of its devastating multi-million corpse-creating SE Asian wet dream as did its civilian counterpart...

          ... This history with the Pentagon itself citing a total of 503,926 "incidents of desertion" from 1966--1971 alone; officers being "fragged" (killed by their own troops); and, by 1971, entire units refusing to go into action is brought to life here at a yet another time of Imperial overreach....

          http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly08052006.html

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            hyperbola9 months, 3 weeks ago

            And, by the way, wolfie, much the same may happen in Iraq if congress doesn't hurry up and end the bushie zioncon follies.

            4000 Troops Cheer Call For Iraq Withdrawal

            http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/26/natio...

            Reply
          • 0%

            abntv9 months, 3 weeks ago

            You are so full of it your eyes are probably brown.. You watch too many movies.

            Reply
    • 0%

      Jaydee409 months, 3 weeks ago

      We always win, I thought navy officers were suppose to be well educated, how can you say that with a straight face? The US military is making new history every day on how not to conduct a battle, if it were not for your Air power you wouldn't even be safe on your ship. We always win, lady I hope that was your idea at humour.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        crghss9 months, 3 weeks ago

        "if it were not for your Air power you wouldn't even be safe on your ship"

        Explain that one?

        Reply
• 0%

  bill29369 months, 3 weeks ago

  I am glad that during WW2 we did not have the detractors that we have today. Note the numbers that died during D-Day, would you call for quitting the war against Hitler with those numbers? How about the losses at the Canal, Iwo Jima, and other pacific locations; would they have been calling for surrender of the US effort then as they are today?

  Reply

  20 Replies

  • 0%

    RussianThreats9 months, 3 weeks ago

    Do you fail to see the big difference that our participation in WWII was legal and justified?

    Reply

    17 Replies

    • 0%

      Codi69349 months, 3 weeks ago

      And this one wasn't!! Japan attacked us, but we declared the fight in Europe was more of a priority. TB/AQ attacked us, but we declared that Saddam ,known user of WMD's, and not real sure if he had them again, higher on the priority scale.

      And this is funny, we have heard jack and sh*t about Iraq for 2 weeks, NOW, the media has to come up with something negative.

      Reply
    • 0%

      Justice4All9 months, 3 weeks ago

      Wrong. Japan attacked us and we declared war on Japan. Then went to war against Japan. Then Germany declared war on us and we went to war in Europe. But it was not more important. There is no similarity between WW2 and Bush's war in Iraq.

      Reply

      7 Replies

      • 0%

        Justice4All9 months, 3 weeks ago

        Wrong. Japan attacked us and we declared war on Japan. Then went to war against Japan. Then Germany declared war on us and we went to war in Europe. But it was not more important. There is no similarity between WW2 and Bush's war in Iraq.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%

          djn3nunez39 months, 3 weeks ago

          Actually it was. The majority of men an material did go to Europe at first. Not to say the pacific was ignored. Germany decalred war on us the day after Pearl Harbor

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            Codi69349 months, 3 weeks ago

            Justice4All

            Check your facts, Your sequence was right. But the war in Europe was decided to be the priority not the Pacific.

            Yes, there is more of a similarity then you want to realize. An idealology that preaches a superior race or belief and all others most convert or die.

            Reply
      • 0%

        Justice4All9 months, 3 weeks ago

        Wrong. Japan attacked us and we declared war on Japan. Then went to war against Japan. Then Germany declared war on us and we went to war in Europe. But it was not more important. There is no similarity between WW2 and Bush's war in Iraq.

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          jimdoze9 months, 3 weeks ago

          "There is no similarity between WW2 and Bush's war in Iraq"

          Good point! On one level that is absolutely true... it is true in precisely the way the Bush administration decided to keep it from being true... to keep it from spinning massively out of control like WWII did.

          Reply
      • 0%

        djn3nunez39 months, 3 weeks ago

        No, it wasn't. By not allowing the UN weapons inspectors to finish their jobs via UNSCR 1441, the President did not comply with the act as passed by Congress.

        Japan and Germany were allies. Iraq and al Queda were not.

        I've heard alot about Iraq these past two week. Mostly that the US losses are down by more than 50% and the civilian losses are down about 20%. Feel better?

        Reply
      • 0%

        hyperbola9 months, 3 weeks ago

        The reason that you haven't heard anything about Iraq in two weeks is either that you are willingly ignorant or only get news from "corporate media" afraid to tell you truth about failure.

        The Iraq war has become a disaster that we have chosen to forget

        With the media subdued, governments have not been held to account for the biggest political calamity of our time

        ...'You think you are innocent, but you're not," said the Muslim suicide bomber in the television drama Britz last week. As the compelling actor Manjinder Virk recited her suicide statement to camera, she went on: thousands of women and children are dying every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet the governments responsible have been returned to power.

        Her assertion goes straight to the heart of how we choose to forget, choose not to understand; and how from such choices it becomes possible to imagine our innocence....

        http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2205...

        Reply
    • 0%

      bill29369 months, 3 weeks ago

      Didn't Congress vote to allow the president the power to go to war? Yes. And if you bring up what another country has to say on the issue, just ask yourself what language would they be speaking and what flag would they be flying if the US haven't enterred WW2.

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        DeadXXXManXXXTalkin9 months, 3 weeks ago

        not war, military force.

        the difference? don't ask me

        Reply
      • 0%

        djn3nunez39 months, 3 weeks ago

        SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

        (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

        (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

        (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

        Reply
      • 0%

        hyperbola9 months, 3 weeks ago

        Well Bill, here is an American from WWII. The moral degeneracy since then is obvious.

        Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?

        A Nuremberg chief prosecutor says there is a case for trying Bush for the 'supreme crime against humanity, an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.' ..

        http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/38604/

        Reply
    • 0%

      Teagen9 months, 3 weeks ago

      Let's see, in both cases, we have evil dictators bend on destroying the USA, Israel, freedom and all democracies. It's allies are other despots. In both cases their leaders signed treaties they had no intentions of keeping. They controlled their populations through fear using secret police and the army. Death camps, prisons and mass graves. This was common in Germany, Japan, and Iraq. Did I miss something?

      If you mean the Iraqis didn't attack us like in Pearl Harbor, no. But in a larger sense, when Hitler made his moves, had France and the UK acted, WWII may never have happened, at least in Europe. Also, had they acted and stopped Hitler, Japan would have been less likely to move too.

      Reply

      3 Replies

      • 0%

        hyperbola9 months, 3 weeks ago

        Teagen, you don't seem to know much about american democracy.

        Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor

        A chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg has said George W. Bush should be tried for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. Benjamin Ferenccz, who secured convictions for 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating the death squads that killed more than 1 million people, said both Bush and Saddam should be tried for starting "aggressive" wars--Saddam for his 1990 attack on Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq....

        http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0825-06...

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          hyperbola9 months, 3 weeks ago

          cont'd

          The Gestapo Inheritance

          'We do not torture': Groans from the CIA's black sites beg to differ

          ... What has recentlyâ;;and startlinglyâ;;been revealed are the eerie parallels between these CIA "enhanced interrogation techniques" and the verschärfte vernehmung (German for "enhanced interrogation") methods of persuasion used by the Gestapo...

          http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0743,hentoff,7...

          Reply
      • 0%

        xlegultx9 months, 3 weeks ago

        Japan did not need to threaten its people into obeying. The majority followed their emperor blindly.

        Reply
  • 0%

    djn3nunez39 months, 3 weeks ago

    Iraq was never a threat like Germany or Japan.

    Comparing the Iraq invasion and occupation to WWII is still specious.

    Reply
  • 0%

    RoyHobbs9 months, 3 weeks ago

    Bill, Bill, Bill...get over it, Iraq is not the same as WW2, and Bush is no FDR.

    Reply
• 0%

  Teagen9 months, 3 weeks ago

  You know it's really great that public schools taught you how to keep count. Let's take a little step back and answer why we had higher casualty count. Some in the media will tell you it's because the enemy is so tough or battle tested or determined but that's not the case. We've had higher rates because we've taken the fight to them. We're driving them out in every fight we're having. It's not pretty, fighting house to house, block by block. Our enemy is a wimp. He will hide behind women and children when convenient, only to use them as cannon fodder when the press is around. They plant one road side bomb and it's front page news for the Times. We take out an entire terror cell, return power back to the locals or any other good news, it's bumped behind the social section. Rather than talking about how many of us have been killed or wounded, I think we should ask the press, whose side they're on.

  Reply

  12 Replies

  • 0%

    bill29369 months, 3 weeks ago

    IMHO, the reason for the higher body is that the liberals are trying to control the war and make it a 'politically correct' war, vice letting our troop loose. The present battles our troops are having to fight with one eye behind to cover for the potential attacks from the left. If the enemy in WW2 shot from a church, the church got blow away. If the US troops in WW2 had to fight with the liberals handcuffs placed on present day troops, we would have lost. So it appears that handcuffing troops by the left is part of their plan for losing.

    Reply

    11 Replies

    • 0%

      Teagen9 months, 3 weeks ago

      You're close. In this case, they shoot at us from some rat hole and some how becomes a mosque that is a shrine so something that no one ever knew about but that we have to protect. It's a load.

      Reply
    • 0%

      silvera9 months, 3 weeks ago

      Yeah right, it's gotta be those damn liberals who are handcuffing our troops and getting them killed. Of all the stupid revisionist excuses for the insanity and mayhem and instability in Iraq, that takes first prize. The country is in rubble, maybe a million civilians are dead, 3 or more million are refugees, our handpicked government is in utter confusion, our troops are in the middle of a civil war, and our treasury is being looted (with little oversight) to pay for it all.

      Think about what you just said. The liberals ( including the gutless Democrats) have been powerless to stop or effect any of the above. How in hell can you possibly pin the deaths of one single troop on them? I'd like to hear it. "Politically correct war", my ass!

      Reply

      9 Replies

      • 0%

        Justice4All9 months, 3 weeks ago

        Great post.

        Reply

        2 Replies

        • 0%