How Many More Must Die?

About a week ago when I came home from work I learned that 4 Americans were killed. Probably along with the stress of my work day I sat down and almost lost it. I came to the board hopefully to join in on some discussion about this situation we are in over there but alas not a mention of it here. In fact not a mention of it anywhere.

Are we all not reading the same papers and listening to the same news reports of Americans dying daily. Isn't it pissing you guys off that these basturds are picking off our guys like sitting ducks. Does anybody here realize that we have lost over 50 guys since Bush declared the war was over.. How Many More Must Die!!!

Is America becomming immune to death!!

Can someone tell me why America isn't in an uproar. Is there some magical number where we will say Okay thats Enough..lets pull our boys..Why isn't the UN involved. I mean aren't you guys Fuckin Pissed..I know I am and let my Senators know..

Imagine standing in the open and all of a sudden Pow or Kaboom..

Damn these fuckers..

Sorry, it's not entirely clear which fuckers you mean to damn. Is it the fucking conquered who keep unfairly killing the conquerors after victory was declared? Or is it the fucking conquering government who keeps the soldier victims in harm's way? As a veteran of the Southeast Asian War Games of 1967-68, where we won Second Place, I think they're both damned fuckers, but I don't know if that's what you intended.

To answer your question Godiva, "alot more".

Once Bush 'flew' (ha!) the plane on the aircraft carrier, the majority of the US populance thought the war was over. And little did/do they know that the real war was just beginning, we will be there for many expensive years. I was just overseas, and the prevalent feeling from friends was "glutes, we cried for you after 9-11, but not anymore". GWB/Wolfowitz & crew have really fucked us.

Look at todays news reports of the al queda tie to the Jordanian Embassy bombing, the media manipulation continues.

On the NewsHour yesterday was a Newsweek reporter who said that people he had interviewed just 3 weeks ago in Iraq were pro-US, but the sentiment had changed - and quite pervasively.

>To answer your question Godiva, "alot more".

>

>Once Bush 'flew' (ha!) the plane on the aircraft carrier, the

>majority of the US populance thought the war was over. And

>little did/do they know that the real war was just beginning,

>we will be there for many expensive years. I was just

>overseas, and the prevalent feeling from friends was "glutes,

>we cried for you after 9-11, but not anymore". GWB/Wolfowitz &

>crew have really fucked us.

>

>Look at todays news reports of the al queda tie to the

>Jordanian Embassy bombing, the media manipulation continues.

>On the NewsHour yesterday was a Newsweek reporter who said

>that people he had interviewed just 3 weeks ago in Iraq were

>pro-US, but the sentiment had changed - and quite pervasively.

>

I resurrect this post because 4 more Americans died again yesterday, the average is now 2 a day.

Notice how Bush hasn't gone to any of the funerals for our dead, nor even done a photo op with any of the numerous injured?? Guess it would be bad politics to be pictured with someone with a missing limb...

>About a week ago when I came home from work I learned that 4

>Americans were killed. Probably along with the stress of my

>work day I sat down and almost lost it. I came to the board

>hopefully to join in on some discussion about this situation

>we are in over there but alas not a mention of it here. In

>fact not a mention of it anywhere.

This is so childish. In wars, people die. The question is not whether more troops will die. Sadly, everyone knows the answer to that. The question is whether or not there is a better alternative.

Do you think that after promising the people of Iraq and promising the world that we would bring stability and democracy to their country that we should just pull out all our troops and leave their country in shambles and chaos? You think we should just violate our promises and abandon our missio in order to ensure that no more soliders die?

If we did what you wanted, way more people would end up dead. Showing the kind of weakness that you want to show - weeping over deaths and then retreating - will ensure way more attacks on our country and our citizens, and way more deaths.

Sometimes, the deaths of our soliders, while tragic, is necessary to prevent more deaths. Simply coming on here and talking about how you cry when you hear about it and wish it would stop is not a solution or a serious political view - it's just a melodramatic attempt to make yourself feel better. It belongs on a therapist's couch, or on your mommy's solider, but not in a venue deveoted to the discussion of political and religious ideas.

while the start of the war can (and should be debated), we have an obligation to finish what we started. i am with thomas freedman's view as expressed in his new york times columns that we can succeed and radically change the entire middle east. except for the bathist party members and saddam loyalists, it appears things are getting better every day. NPR had a report today that public services that have not been available for decades are now starting to be furnished. daily terror from a tyranical regime is gone. there is much to be done such as catching saddam.

most of the countries in the area do not want us to be successful(iran, syria and even our "friends" the saudis); many european countries like france are watching out for their mercantile interests and prefer to deal with corrupt governments as long as get get their business deals. i think the bulk of iraq's people want us to succeed so they can have a better life. i imagine the religious leaders in iran are terrified that their young people will see freedom of thought and action next door and demand it in iran which is ready to explode from the demands of the young anyway.

we have done much wrong in attempting nation building but we are learning. the price of failure by cutting and running will be huge as we will be exposed as a paper tiger and our own leaders for years will not use military power even when it is necessary. as a former navy man from the viet nam era (they didn't ask and i didn't tell) i know the sadness with military deaths and i understand the desire to stop the american deaths by leaving. such actions for short run benefit will be costly in the future. as much as i dislike military adventure, there is no choice but to stay the course and finish the job.

that saddam's government is gone is only a good thing; the posibilities of the future can be great if we have the national will to help the people of iraq create a democratic nation. we could have walked away from euorpe (and japan) after world war two like we did after world war one but we stayed and helped create a stable europe (and japan) to our long term benefit as well as to the people who lived there. in the short run it was expensive but it turned out to be the best money we ever spent.

>while the start of the war can (and should be debated), we

>have an obligation to finish what we started. i am with thomas

>freedman's view as expressed in his new york times columns

>that we can succeed and radically change the entire middle

>east. except for the bathist party members and saddam

>loyalists, it appears things are getting better every day. NPR

>had a report today that public services that have not been

>available for decades are now starting to be furnished. daily

>terror from a tyranical regime is gone. there is much to be

>done such as catching saddam.

Do you ever read or cite any non-jewish or non-American sources? Perhaps, that accounts for your rather interesting view that everything is coming up roses in Iraq, not to mention, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Iran, I suppose. The jewish neo-con revolution continues, I guess!

>>while the start of the war can (and should be debated), we

>>have an obligation to finish what we started. i am with

>Do you ever read or cite any non-jewish or non-American

>sources? Perhaps, that accounts for your rather interesting

>view that everything is coming up roses in Iraq, not to

>mention, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Iran, I suppose. The

>jewish neo-con revolution continues, I guess!

hey you lose points when you paint all jewish people with the same brush......many of us do have a clue.

although i do believe you to be an anti-semite,and not a person i would want to hang with,or hell even be in the same room with, i have to grudgingly agree with you on some things. yeccchhhh

i did not say that everything is coming up roses in syria, iran, etc. what i said was that if we are successful in nation building in iraq, that the results will be felt all over the region. there have been large demonistrations at universities in iran showing the restlessness of the youth there; in the three decades that have passed since the shaw there are millions of young people that only know the repression of the religious authorities but are aware via the internet of what is going on outside their small world.

also, i did not say that everything is coming up roses in iraq. the NPR show talked about failures as well as successes; my post mentioned that we have not done all things right but are learning.

yes, i read/listen to sources that are hardly zionist/jewish/israeli controled (i know you think they control everything but the news in the muslim world). the internet is a great source of information of all types including blogs from our soilders overthere providing firsthand information not filtered through any mews source. as for the liberal media in the united states, i think their hatred of bush colors their spin to harp on all things that go wrong in iraq; hardly pro american government.

i think that on balance, things are improving for the people of iraq. there is a long way to go and much to do. progress is not always a straight line foward and there are backsteps as well. capturing saddam would be a huge blow to the oposition there and must be done; not only would that end the hope of his former supporters of his return but alot of people still fear him and they will only come foward after his death/capture.

thomas freedman who i mentioned is not a neocon and a huge critic of the government as is his paper, the new york times. what i believe to be correct is is view that it is critical to our future to finish the work overthere.

i suggest people read/listen/view news from multiple sources including as many firsthand ones as possible. that is how i have formed my views.

>i did not say that everything is coming up roses in syria,

>iran, etc. what i said was that if we are successful in nation

>building in iraq, that the results will be felt all over the

>region.

So you agree with the jewish neo-cons?

>thomas freedman who i mentioned is not a neocon and a huge

>critic of the government as is his paper, the new york times.

>what i believe to be correct is is view that it is critical to

>our future to finish the work overthere.

And precisely which part of the jewish neo-con agenda for the Middle East does thomas freedman disagree with? (As for the New York Times, I suggest you consult The Guide to Jewish Periodical Litterature in your neghborhood library and see whether or not the NYT is included. You might be surprised by what you find.)

so what if my beliefs overlap in places with the "jewish neocons"; even a broken clock is right twice a day. i agree with some of your beliefs such as a palestinian state being necessary but i do not agree with all you say. no one is right all the time or wrong all the time. i detested richard nixon but his china policy was good; i loved robert kennedy but his womenizing was bad. i just do not see the world in all black and white like you; i see lots of grey and over time my positions change as i learn more; my beliefs are not set in concrete as i am willing to listen to people who do not agree with me and sometimes i change if i feel they are right.

i doubt my small town midwest library would have a jewish periodical index. it would be strange to find the new york times in it as not only is the time a secular paper but it seems to me it is highly critical of sharon and israel and george bush. it is certainly not a proisrael paper as i read it.

How Many More Must Get Wounded

I am not going to get sucked into a large discussion on this, but for the record:

Violence is never a solution; violence only begats further violence.

That said, there is a responsibility owed to humanity, not simply the people of Iraq, and not just by this country, but by the rest of the nations of the world, to build a stable, representative and responsible society. Not simply in Iraq, but in Afghanistan, the Balkans, many nations on the African continent, certain nations in South American, such as Argentina, and throughout many parts of the globe.

The idea that we can stand alone, that we are not a part of a community of nations, never was valid and in a period of global trade, global communication and global travel with ease, is simply laughable.

However, the security of Iraq (or any other country) should not depend solely on the unfortunate and tragic deaths of the U.S. military.

Finally, a number which is rarely reported is that for every death, there are many more wounded. U.S. Today had an excellent article in their October 1, 2003 edition.

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20031001/5548770s.htm

RE: How Many More Must Get Wounded

I think the tragedy is probably the naivety in which we went into Iraq. There were WMDs, we thought, so we needed to stop their spread. Once we overthrew Saddam, everything would sort itself out pretty quickly and the population would be on our side.

Instead, we haven't found WMDs, nor any convincing signs they were even planned for production and use in the near future.

The population hasn't been on our side, but generally remained cautiously neutral with its head down lest it get in the way of the bullets.

Meanwhile the fanatics have been ambushing soldiers and planting suicide bombs at regular intervals, whilst al-Qaeda, which was never present in Saddam's Iraq, is now certainly infiltrating the country.

The US is doing many good things in trying to rebuild the country (though terrorists repeatedly blowing up the oil pipeline to Turkey hasn't helped, nor has the constant theft of copper wire to rebuild the electrical supply system). But it's turning into a vastly bigger task than the right-wing loonies in the White House imagined, and meanwhile the casualties keep mounting.

Sooner or later the White House is going to have to accept the terms on which the UN will take over the task the US administration began so naively.

It seems that every generation we are doomed to repeat the simpleminded idea that we can send in some troops, overthrow a dictator, and all will be well. Sometimes we have to take arms against dictators, but never for one moment imagine that it will be quick or easy. And it is usually so much easier, before, during and after, if it's done with international sanction rather than unilaterally.

>hey you lose points when you paint all jewish people with the

>same brush......many of us do have a clue.

In Drive to Aid Israel, Lobby May Be Shifting Out of Neutral

By Dana Milbank

Sunday, October 12, 2003; Page A08

Has AIPAC gone GOP?

The powerful pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has a long tradition of partisan neutrality. So some eyebrows were raised on Capitol Hill last week when Roll Call published an article titled "GOP Turns to Israeli Lobby to Boost Iraq Support."

"AIPAC's initiative is part of an intense public and private campaign by the White House," the newspaper reported. Among the group's targets: none other than Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), an orthodox Jew who is a Democratic presidential candidate.

The report came two weeks after AIPAC, in its newsletter, scolded another Democratic candidate, former Vermont governor Howard Dean, for his statement that the United States should "not take sides" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This was too much for Jeremy Rabinovitz, chief of staff to Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) and an AIPAC research analyst in the mid-1980s. "For years, AIPAC has distinguished itself as a strictly bipartisan advocate for strong U.S.-Israel relations," he said on Friday. "It's disheartening to see the organization become an increasingly partisan voice for the Republican agenda, and this approach will not help the pro-Israel cause in Washington."

AIPAC denies this. "AIPAC is a nonpartisan organization," said spokeswoman Rebecca Dinar. "It's our job to make sure that it stays that way." She said the group was not attacking Dean but "the concept of evenhandedness." The group has previously taken shots at Bill Clinton, Jesse L. Jackson and, of course, Pat Buchanan. Apparently no tough words yet for President Bush, who last week defended Israel's attack inside Syria.

AIPAC

as an AIPAC member, i find it silly that folks wouldn't know that AIPAC is conservative.

i've always thought it was just one of those unspoken truths, like HRC being a liberal/democratic partisan organisation.

hey hey hey ax.....don't get the idea i'm a republican (i love this country far to much to ever associate with or support people like them).

I was merely trying to say that all jews do not blindly support israel!we sure as hell don't.

and even though i find you rather distastful and anti-semitic,you do make (in my opinion) some valid points and observations.

so flame on kiddies ............

shande fur die goyim

Oren, how about some translation for us goyims??

Back to the subject of the initial thread...

I see where Bush is blaming the media today for 'not getting the truth about about Iraq'. Rully??

And CBS & ABC News covered the development last night that the Army was sending form letters to the troops in Iraq 'supporting all the good things that are going on' over there, having the troops sign them, and then sending the letters to their hometown newspapers. Talk about propaganda!

>And CBS & ABC News covered the development last night that the

>Army was sending form letters to the troops in Iraq

>'supporting all the good things that are going on' over there,

>having the troops sign them, and then sending the letters to

>their hometown newspapers. Talk about propaganda!

I wonder what happens to those soldiers who refuse to participate? Suppose their terms in Iraq will be extended? And I wonder what incentive is being given to those who agree to send the letters.

first of all, goyim is already plural. ;-) (the singular is goy.)

anyway, it basically means that he is a shame and an embarassment to the Jewish people.

i'm sefardi, so i rarely delve into yiddish, but this time, i had to.

RE: How Many More Children Must Die??

If any of you have the intellect to watch the News Hour, have you noticed how they close their broadcast?? It ends with the 'Wall of Rememberence', showing the pictures and statistics of those recently killed in Iraq.

Look at their ages! They are puppies, most between the ages of 18-25.

At least one newscast gives recongnition to our fallen heros.

RE: How Many More Children Must Die??

And this is good? Wall of Rememberence, yet another catchy phrase by the media! Am I mistaken, once again, or was this term plagiarized from the National Holocaust Museum, right along with the display of pictures?

The Washington Post is also guilty of this ploy, as they publish a bi-monthly list of all the casualties of American soldiers in Iraq, along with pictures, date of death, cause of death and statistical info. Makes the media nightly body bag count on the evening news during the Vietnam debacle seem tame in comparison.

I really don't understand your "shock?" at the age of the soldiers dying in Iraq, as the young have always been at the forefront of the casualites in wars thruout history.

On another tangent, why isn't anyone here outraged at the genocide and war deaths that is going on in Africa, Asia and eastern Europe? More people have died as victims of genocide in these areas, especially Africa, in the last 20 years, than Hitler accounted for two times over and more. ;(

RE: How Many More Children Must Die??

I'm outraged, and have been for years. I always thought it appalling that while we were condemning apartheid South Africa, we were friendly with regimes that were far more brutal to their own populations than ever happened in South Africa. The hypocrisy of western nations towards Africa in the 1970s was breathtaking.

I'm also wearied and numb by all that has happened. I see how much tragedy has occurred in places like Zaire, Rwanda, Nigeria, Liberia, Democratic Congo (what a name!) and Zimbabwe, and wonder why we have troops in Iraq instead.

After all, as Bush, Blair and Howard try to rewrite history in their justification for the Iraqi war, they say that they went in to topple a brutal dictatorship. If that's true, why aren't we invading Congo? Why did we wait so long to intervene in Rwanda? Why aren't we making plans to assault Zimbabwe?

Rwanda

well, we allowed the UN to take the lead in Rwanda. in spite of direct appeals from the canadian general in charge of UN forces in Rwanda, the secretary-general (an african, let's not forget) chose to ignore the situation (largely pressured by the FRENCH and the belgians) and allow 800,000 Tutsi to be killed in 100 days in the spring of 1994.

this is the same UN we're supposed to beg to approve our actions elsewhere in the world?

How Many Wounded and/or Suicides?

In addition to the high number of wounded (please see the article from U.S.A. Today - certainly no bastion of liberal thought - elsewhere in this forum), the percentage of suicides, both by branch of the armed services and by duration of the "combat" or "pacification" has been much higher than either in peacetime activities or for the branches involved in other missions in Bosnia, Afghanistan, etc.