No news is good news !

[ChicosBailBonds]

Pakuni, question for you....if in say 2 years or 5 years or whatever, we find that WMD did exist, that is was hidden or shipped off to Syria or whatever, will that change your tune?

Is pre-emptive war always wrong...do you wait until you're attacked and then react?  Just curious


I think you took my response and blew it out of proportion, but that's ok.  The bigger point was that 3600 deaths in military terms over 4 years is almost UNHEARD of.  It's very small.  That's just the facts.  You may not like them, but I dare say find another major war that involved ground troops that lasted that long with so few casualties....I'd be surprised if you found one that came within 200% of that figure.  I don't blame the media for spending every waking moment covering it, it's what they do.  But we will have about 800 deaths due to this war this year....there are cities in this country (NOT IN A WAR ZONE) that will have close to that many MURDERS.  No IEDs in Baltimore or D.C., or L.A but still people dying daily due to violence.  That hardly registers a peep out of the news anymore.

You view it at unnecessary losses (the 3600) which you're entitled to do.  Not everyone views it that way, including many in the military.  No one wants to see these young men and women die...I would be devastated if my niece is killed over there or my secretary's daughter and husband.  But I have to look at it from a macro level, long term, big picture.

[Murffieus]

Well by showing 200,000 deaths in the 4 years of the Iraq war on US roads and highways, I show Pakuni and others how miniscule 3,500 death are in comparison----plus the soldiers who died in Iraq were volunteers (God bless them)----whereas people who die on the highways aren't (big difference).

And Pakuni, please don't give me that sob story about the love ones missing their fallen bretheren in Iraq. The families of traffic deaths miss their loved ones just as much in fact probably more-----as a soldiers family is at least semi prepared as they know their loved one isn't going off to a dance!

It's always a complete shock when you get the news of a friend or relative losing his life on the nations highways!

[Untucked]

What about the couple hundred thousand Iraqi's that have died? Americans aren't the only ones that count.
Impeach Bush now!!

[Murffieus]

And who killed the 100,000 Iraqi's?----not GWB-----Al Quida either directly or indirectly killed those Iraqi people (stirred up the sectarian violence by blowing up that Mosque in Sammara in 2005) !

BTW----finish the job in Iraq and elsewhere or there will be 100,000+ Americans dying from WMD in the years to come----you might be one of them!

[ChicosBailBonds]

What about the couple hundred thousand Iraqi's that have died? Americans aren't the only ones that count.
Impeach Bush now!!

Evidence that a couple hundred thousand Iraqis have died please...thanks

[Pakuni]

Pakuni, question for you....if in say 2 years or 5 years or whatever, we find that WMD did exist, that is was hidden or shipped off to Syria or whatever, will that change your tune?

Whether their were WMD or not isn't the point. My anger isn't over the initiation of this war, it's over the conduct of it. The administration sent hundreds of thousands of young Americans to war ill-prepared with a doomed plan and inadequate equipment. If you're going to start a war and send thousands of people to their deaths, you sure as hell do everything possible to ensure their chances of success and survival are maximized. In that regard, this administration failed drastically. If you'd like me to rehash their litany of blunders, I'll gladly do so.

Is pre-emptive war always wrong...do you wait until you're attacked and then react?  Just curious

Pre-emptive war against an enemy that presents no immediate threat is always wrong. Lots of countries out there, many of them unfriendly to the United States, possess WMDs and are run by nasty totalitarian regimes. You don't see us starting wars with them, right? To me, that's not enough to start a war.

I think you took my response and blew it out of proportion, but that's ok.  The bigger point was that 3600 deaths in military terms over 4 years is almost UNHEARD of.  It's very small.  That's just the facts.  You may not like them, but I dare say find another major war that involved ground troops that lasted that long with so few casualties....I'd be surprised if you found one that came within 200% of that figure.

It's utterly disingenuous to compare this war to any other "major" war. This is not a battle pitting armies numbering in the millions against one another over fronts stretching thousands of miles. It is a low-level insurgency contained within a relatively small area, far more akin to the Algerian insurgency or even what the Soviets faced in Afghanistan. Comparisons to "major" American wars are simply ludicrous. What's happening in Iraq today has nothing in common with a world war, or even Vietnam.

You view it at unnecessary losses (the 3600) which you're entitled to do.  Not everyone views it that way, including many in the military.  No one wants to see these young men and women die...I would be devastated if my niece is killed over there or my secretary's daughter and husband.  But I have to look at it from a macro level, long term, big picture.

The question isn't whether people die in war. It's obvious that happens. The question is whether some of those deaths were preventable. Throw out all debate over whether this war is necessary. Instead, focus on the conduct and execution of the war. If this war were planned and executed competently, and if our soliders had been equipped properly, how many more lives might we have saved? As I said earlier, if you're going to start a war, then you sure as hell better have a competent plan for it. This administration did not.
That's what angers me.

Well, that and the fact you and Murff continue to minimize the war's losses.

[mviale]

The surge in vietnam was working too

It worked in WWI, WWII, etc.


You know, it's dangerous to keep looking at everything through the lens of Vietnam...but since the left basically cost us that war (the words of the Viet Cong leadership, not mine) and is trying to do the same now, I guess it's natural for you to do that.   

We might want to review our recent history -especially forays into another country to quell civil wars and sectarian violence.

[ChicosBailBonds]

July 26, 2007 -- TO a military professional, the tactical progress made in Iraq over the last few months is impressive. To a member of Congress, it's an annoyance.
The herd animals on Capitol Hill - from both parties - just can't wait to go over the cliff on Iraq. And even when the media mention one or two of the successes achieved by our troops, the reports are grudging.

Yet what's happening on the ground, right now, in Baghdad and in Iraq's most-troubled provinces, contributes directly to your security. In the words of a senior officer known for his careful assessments, al Qaeda's terrorists in Iraq are "on their back foot and we're trying to knock them to their knees."

Do our politicians really want to help al Qaeda regain its balance?

Gen. David Petraeus and his deputies sharply prioritized the threats we face in Iraq: Al Qaeda is No. 1, and Iran's Shia proxies are No. 2. Our troops hunt them relentlessly. And we don't face our enemies alone: Iraq's security forces have begun to pick up their share of the fight.

A trusted source in Baghdad confirmed several key developments that've gone largely unreported. Here's what's been happening while "journalists" focused on John Edwards' haircuts:

* Al Qaeda lost the support of Iraq's Sunni Arabs. The fanatics over-reached: They murdered popular sheiks, kidnapped tribal women for forced marriages, tried to outlaw any form of joy and (perhaps most fatally, given Iraqi habits) banned smoking. In response, the Arab version of the Marlboro Man rose up and started cutting terrorist throats.

* Since the tribes who once were fighting against us turned on al Qaeda, our troops not only captured the senior Iraqi in the organization - which made brief headlines - but also killed the three al Turki brothers, major-league pinch-hitters al Qaeda sent into Iraq to save the game.

Oh, and it emerged that the Iraqi "head" of the terrorists was just a front - in the words of one Army officer, Omar al Baghdadi was "a Wizard of Oz-like creation designed to give an impression that al Qaeda has Iraqis in its senior ranks."

* Al Qaeda has been pushed right across Anbar, from the once Wild West to the province's eastern fringes. The terrorists are still dug in elsewhere, from the Diyala River Valley to a few Baghdad neighborhoods - but, to quote that senior officer again, "our forces have been taking out their leaders faster than they can find qualified replacements."

Even the Democrats yearning to become president admit, when pressed, that al Qaeda's a threat to America. So why didn't even one of them praise the success of our troops during their last debate?

But let's be fair: Congressional Republicans, terrified of losing their power and glory and precious perks, haven't rushed to applaud our progress, either. They'll give up Iraq, as long as they don't have to give up earmarks.

* It isn't only al Qaeda taking serious hits. After briefly showing the flag, Muqtada al-Sadr fled back to Iran again, trailed by his senior deputies. Mookie's No. 2 even moved his family to Iran. Why? Though he's been weak in the past, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is now green-lighting Iraqi operations against the Jaish al Mahdi, the Mookster's "Mahdi Army."

With its descent into criminality and terror, the Mahdi Army, too, has been losing support among Iraqis - in this case, among Shias.

And Iraq's security forces increasingly carry the fight to the militia:

* The Iraqi Police Tactical Support Unit in Nasiriyah came under attack by Mahdi Army elements accustomed to intimidating their enemies. Supported by a brave (and tiny) U.S. advisory team, the police commandos fought them off. Instead of a walkover, the militia thugs hit a wall - and got hammered by airstrikes, for good measure. Then the Iraqi police counter-attacked. The Mahdi Army force begged for negotiations.

* In Mosul, Iraqi army and police units stuck to their guns through a series of tough combat engagements, with the result that massive arms caches were seized from the terrorists and insurgents. In Kirkuk, Iraqi police reacted promptly to last week's gruesome car-bombing - in time to stop two other car bombs from reaching their intended targets.

* In Baghdad, the surge isn't only about American successes - Iraqi security and intelligence forces conducted a series of hard-hitting operations against both al Qaeda and Iran-backed Special Group terrorists.

What were you, the American people, told about all this? Well, The New Republic published a pack of out-of-the-ballpark lies concocted by a scammer claiming to be a grunt in Baghdad. Our soldiers, he wrote, spent their time playing games with babies' skulls, running over dogs for fun and mocking disfigured women in their mess hall.

Anyone who knows our troops or has visited Iraq could instantly spot the absurdities in this smear and the soldiers in the unit denied that any of it happened - but The New Republic (which refuses to produce its source) isn't exactly staffed by military veterans.

The editors wanted to believe evil about our men and women in uniform, and ended up doing evil to our troops. (Those editors ought to be sentenced to spend August in Baghdad with the infantrymen they defamed, cleaning out military port-a-johns in the 130-degree heat.)

Is success suddenly guaranteed in Iraq? Of course not. The situation's still a bloody mess. But it's also more encouraging than it's been since the summer of 2003, when the downward slide began.

Gen. Dave Petraeus and his subordinate commanders are by far the best team we've ever had in place in that wretched country. They're doing damned near everything right - with austere resources, despite the surge. And they're being abandoned by your elected leaders.

Maybe the next presidential primary debate should be held in Baghdad.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Pakuni, which equipment are you referring to when you say they were ill prepared?

[Pakuni]

Pakuni, which equipment are you referring to when you say they were ill prepared?

Body armor, armored vehicles, night vision goggles, radios and even guns.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-26-body-armor_x.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/31/60minutes/main652491.shtml

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/06/21/marine_units_found_to_lack_equipment/

[ChicosBailBonds]

Duncan Hunter would like to respond


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsr8U3TSGco


and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyECBCcTSeU


and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISWZ7xRAFvQ

[Pakuni]

Ah yes, how could I forget the mantra.

It's all Clinton's fault.
It's all Clinton's fault.
It''s all Clinton's fault.

Really, that's the best you can come up with?
Unfortunately for you and Mr. Hunter, what equipment the army had under Clinton is irrelevant. Clinton didn't send them into Iraq in 2003 without the best available equipment. Bush did. I'd say 'Nice try', but it's really kind of weak.
Perhaps we should blame Reagan also. This body armor wasn't given to the troops when he was in office.
Clearly, Ronnie is to blame for what happened years after his administration.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the shortage of armored vehicles. Or machine guns. Or radios. Or night vision goggles.
Nor does it address the fact U.S. soldiers and their families can buy body armor on their own, but the Pentagon seems unable to get it to them.
That darn Clinton!!!!
And I'm sure the New York Times is at fault somehow.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Apparently you didn't watch the 3 clips

[Pakuni]

Apparently you didn't watch the 3 clips

Actually, I did. And they were entirely irrelevant.

[Murffieus]

Pakuni----There's logistical problems in every war----no war goes perfectly----but in this war there are far fewer U.S. casualties than in any other major war we've fought of this duration (there have been up 750,000 to 1,000,000 troops that have had tours of duty in Iraq at one time or another).

Bottomline----so our military hardware can't be that bad---can it be improved upon----you bet----like with the new triangular shaped hull of the new class of humvees (suppoded to be 80% more effective in shielding its occupants)----plus more sophisticated bomb sniffing equipment that are coming on line.

Yes necessity is indeed the mother of invention!

[ChicosBailBonds]

You said they were not prepared and didn't have the proper equipment.

Through the course of American military history we've always had shortcomings....always.  Guys bringing their own shotguns, their own pistols,etc.

No exception here, but that doesn't dismiss the notion that this current force was the best prepared, best equipped in US history as Hunter properly explains.

This force has stuff that no other force ever did and yet those previous forces were successful.  You make it sound like we shouldn't send guys into theatre without a force field and some invisible cloak and a laser gun.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way and anyone in the military will tell you that.

[Pakuni]

Once again, boys, this is not a "major" war comparable to World War II, or even Vietnam. You can make that claim until you're blue in the face, but it's simply not true. The scale of the battle front and the number of combatants simply does not support your claims. This is, by no reasonable definition, a major war. It's an insurgency.

Murff ... any facts to support your 750,000 to 1 million figure? Because according to the Heritage Foundation -- hardly a liberal outfit -- the number as of one year ago was 500,000. Unless you believe the Army has sent as many as a half-million new recruits in the last 12 months, your numbers are way off.
By the way, that 500,000? It's 1/17th the number of troops that served in Vietnam. It's 1/32nd the number that served in World War II.
And this is a "major" war comparable to those? Uh-huh.

Chico's ... I did say they were ill-prepared and did not have proper equipment. I've provided numerous news articles to support that claim, most of which included quotes from troops who experienced these shortfalls. The Marines short on machine guns. Troops re-inforcing vehicles with cardboard and sandbags. Troops having to buy their own body armor. Etc., etc.
You've provided a floor speech from a conservative presidential candidate whose argument was, in effect, "It was worse under Clinton."
Unfortunately, the "At least we're not as bad as (fill in name)" argument seems to be the best conservatives can come up with these days.
Oil prices high? It was worse under Carter.
Shady commutation of Libby? Clinton's pardon's were worse.
Sent troops into battle ill-prepared? They were even less prepared eight years ago.

The argument that "there have always been shortcomings" doesn't hold. Perhaps there have been shortcomings, but those were in wars that America had foisted upon them. This is a war America started. We chose when, how and where it would take place. And, in doing so, this administration chose not to give its troops everything they needed to maximize their chances of success and survival. Your straw man about force fields notwithstanding, the troops should not have been sent into combat in a pre-emptive war without the best equipment available. Yet that's exactly what happened. And, despite all your excuse-making and Clinton-bashing, that is nobody's fault but the current administration's.

[Murffieus]

Pakuni----in Korea and in Vietnam there were 40-50,000 deaths----3,500 in Iraq---the actual size of the war is irrelevant as the Dems are making it into the MOTHER of all wars. During the Vietnam war there were huge anti war demonstrations against the war just about every weekend----there hasn't been a massive demo against this war yet-----so the people aren't as upset as the Dems make it out to be-----why because the death toll hasn't reached anywhere near Vietnam levels!

I've pointed out 200,000 traffic deaths in the USA the past 4 years----does that mean that we ban cars and close highways----of course not, because most of those deaths are the price of necessary commerce and recreation! Similarily the deaths in Iraq----or any war that we have fought----are the price we have to pay for freedom!

The only calamity here is if the Dems were to have their way and surrender in Iraq via withdrawl----then and only them would those 3,500 lives have been lost in vain and would be a huge tragedy !

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well if this isn't a major war then why does the left compare it to a major war at EVERY TURN?

And I'm sorry, I disagree with you on the preparedness,etc.  You mentioned that in WWII those comparisons don't count because war was foisted on us.  Well, even in late years like the Argonne Forest guys didn't have the right boots, winter equipment and had frost bite and/or died due to the weather.

Two nights ago I saw a fabulous docementary on the nmilitary channel about the invasion of Japan that was sure to happen.  The oredictions were an additional 500,000 to 1,000,000 American dead as the Japanese would have fought to the end. I encourage you to watch it...fabulous.  Of course the a-bombs allowed for this to never happen.

Back then we fought wars ruthlessly.  Firebombing tokyo, dropping a-bombs, etc.  It was messy, bloody, lots of collateral damage but we didn't fight with silly ROE.  Today we fight with a lawyer sitting on every guys shoulder and I've had probably 15 guys in the ranks tell me the same thing.  We don't fight to win anymore and that's why we don't

[ChicosBailBonds]

Just to ckarify, I'm not advocating nuking anyone, but I am suggesting we take the gloves off a lot more than what we currently do.  We're so damn worried what Europe thinks about us...that's B.S....fight to win.