Iraq War Can Only Be Lost in the United States

[Guest charlie]

In Vietnam, we chose to abandon ship when things looked bad, rather than provide the means to fix the mess. The South fell within weeks of our departure. Yes, in that sense, it was now a tragedy.

American involvement (war) in Vietnam lasted from 1965-1975 with 58,000 dead American troops....for nothing.

Do we want the same for Iraq?

I certainly don't; do you?

[a little off topic now]

Question Ted; maybe you know this. How does the govt. determine the number of troops killed in Iraq? I read that those who are wounded and die either in route to the hospital or days later in the hospital are not counted among the "official" number which is currently over 1700. Do you know if this is true... or not? The article I saw only briefly said that the "real" number should be somewhere over 7000 not 1700; I didn't know if there was anything to it or not.

[ted]

Question Ted; maybe you know this. How does the govt. determine the number of troops killed in Iraq? I read that those who are wounded and die either in route to the hospital or days later in the hospital are not counted among the "official" number which is currently over 1700. Do you know if this is true... or not? The article I saw only briefly said that the "real" number should be somewhere over 7000 not 1700; I didn't know if there was anything to it or not.

Actually, I'm not sure, Charlie. It wouldn't do any good for me to guess, so I'll defer this one to someone who might know.

Do you have a link to that article? I'd like to see it if you can remember where you read it.

Thanks,

t.

PS, I don't believe that those 58,000 died for nothing. The cause was real. It was for the exact same reasons that we went to Korea in 1950. I don't think that was for nothing, either. Somewhere along the line, our leadership failed to hold the resolve needed to carry on in a way that would ensure victory against the communists in Vietnam.

I can actually see why with so much resistance in the States at the time.

This idea of only waiting until we are hit to react that permeates the halls of Congress today is dangerous business, IMO. It's a very real threat that we face today, as we saw on 9/11/2001. Personally, I don't think that simply pulling out all of our troops in the Middle East would solve the problem. Us being there is a convenient battle cry for them, but the truth is, they don't play by the same rules that we do. Cutting off our pursuit of them would not stop their ways, but will only embolden them to strike again and again.

I know it's impossible to stop them all, but we can try to put a halt to the countries and nations that encourage their actions, and pay their bills.

Anyway, I hope your weekend is a good one.

May the Lord help us both to come closer to the truth.

t.

[ted]

Ted: !! 

i don't know who y0u are

i DON'T even agree with you!

But I gotta luv you Bro. 

Even though you are a pain in the neck! 

Awww.....

If we all agreed on everything, we would cease to think, wouldn't we?

That might be the way it is in Heaven, but down here, that's dangerous stuff!

Have a good weekend!

t.

[Guest charlie]

Whether Korea was a right or wrong action for us to take, you have to admit, the Koreans fought like heck; they wanted their freedom, they wanted democracy, and they were more than willing to fight and die for it. The Vietnamese weren't... to put it bluntly and neither are the Iraqis by the looks of it.

I think Afghanistan has been almost forgotten here. I think Americans would have kept their resolve there because that's where Al Quaida and Osama bin Laden were hiding out and operating from. Can you imagine if we'd focused on Afghanistan after 9/11 and went after Al Quaida/Osama there with overwhelming force? I think we'd have gotten him quickly and that the war there would be winding down. Also I think the world would have supported our actions there. BUT instead of doing that, the administration took us into Iraq and all that support vanished because it was the wrong thing to do. Here we were all pumped up and "together" after 9/11 then the big "let down" was announced; we were invading Iraq. I gotta tell ya, I was puzzled but gave Bush the benefit of the doubt at the time; guess my first instinct was right after all.

I don't think we can attack people because they might attack us. If you turn that around, especially after our invasion of Iraq, there'd be a lot of countries, gunning for us. Did you see an article yesterday about some veiled threat from China and Russia?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wi...0,2586297.story

I'll see if I can find that article and pm it to you Ted. I don't know if it's legitimate/correct so I wouldn't want to post it publically withou being fairly confident about it.

[ted]

I think Afghanistan has been almost forgotten here. I think Americans would have kept their resolve there because that's where Al Quaida and Osama bin Laden were hiding out and operating from. Can you imagine if we'd focused on Afghanistan after 9/11 and went after Al Quaida/Osama there with overwhelming force? I think we'd have gotten him quickly and that the war there would be winding down. Also I think the world would have supported our actions there. BUT instead of doing that, the administration took us into Iraq and all that support vanished because it was the wrong thing to do. Here we were all pumped up and "together" after 9/11 then the big "let down" was announced; we were invading Iraq. I gotta tell ya, I was puzzled but gave Bush the benefit of the doubt at the time; guess my first instinct was right after all.

Seems reasonable, except that we had reached a point in Afghanistan that is much like a "mexican standoff". The focus was there, and in fact, still is. My friend has just come back from there last week, and I got to see him today for the first time. He was stationed in the same place I was, and placed in the same situations. It's business as usual there, much like it was last year. We wait for Osama to slip up, and in the mean time, we repel attacks from, and pursue any remnants of the Taliban. It's like hunting mice with a slingshot, really.

IMO, having thousands of additional troops there right now would be hinderence, not an advantage. There's only so much we can do there, and that many more troops would cause a lot of sitting around and meaningless tasks to keep them busy. Based on all info we can dig up, Osama is held in a mountain range in Pakistan. Neither the US or Pakistan is willing to go into that area because it would be fruitless, and cause many to die on a fleeting chance that we would stumble upon him. The area is run by local tribes that are fiercly independent of the Pakistan Gov't. It's the same idea related to why some cops just don't go to certain areas of a city, except on a national level.

Trust me, if we could pinpoint the exact location of him and be confident that he would stay there for more than a day or so, he would be in our hands already. He's not free today because we took recourses from Afghanistan and put them in Iraq. That implies that we were hot on his heels and suddenly took several divisions out of the race, and placed them in Iraq, thereby blowing our chances at getting him. That's simply just not the case.

So that brings up the question, why don't we just invade Pakistan and get Osama?

Well, you have to remember that the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan for the recent period before, and up to 9/11, was supported by Pakistan. What Mushariff (sp?), the President of Pakistan did for us was to cut off his support from them, and lend us the support needed to hunt them down. It was a total and complete turning of his back on the regime he supported prior to 9/11. This seems simple on the surface, but we have to take into account how this is seen in the Middle-East. The Pakistani President did a brave thing, IMO, and for this, his life will forever be in jeopardy. One of the rewards that we gave him was that he would not be invaded for his early support of the Taliban. Hence, we don't go there.

A tangled web we weave at times, but in this case, it's a needed web. If you remember, we layed into him pretty hard right after we figured out who hijacked the planes, and it took a few days for him to come around. But, he didn't have to think about it too long. He saw what was going to happen if he chose to remain allies with the Taliban. (BTW, if we had the same force behind our words today, as a nation, we wouldn't be having much trouble in Iraq, either.)

So, as a result, we now sit in Afghanistan and wait for Osama to make a mistake. Of course, "sit around" is a misnomer, because it's still very active there, but you get the idea.

I don't think we can attack people because they might attack us. If you turn that around, especially after our invasion of Iraq, there'd be a lot of countries, gunning for us.

No, I don't think we should go around attacking every country that sticks it's tongue out at us, simply because they might attack us. But, there are lessons to be learned from past situations that should be able to lend us an intelligent deduction where we should strike in anticipation of an attack. We absolutely have to take things into account where we didn't before. The simple life of "they won't hit us because we are so much more powerful than them" is over. We have to be careful now and when all signs are leading to a potential critical mass concerning another nation, we have to be able to have the leeway to act before things get to a point where we would be in jeopardy if we didn't. I know that is an awful broad stroke of the pen, but this stuff is not exact science, either. Waiting things out and hoping we don't get stung is no longer an option, but we can't go around bombing everyone that seems a little mean to us, either.

I sure wish the UN wasn't as useless as they are, but they are, and we are forced to protect ourselves. Or, at least attempt to, anyway.

It's a hard game, this life stuff.

t.

[Guest charlie]

So, as a result, we now sit in Afghanistan and wait for Osama to make a mistake. Of course, "sit around" is a misnomer, because it's still very active there, but you get the idea.

Why don't we just find out where dialysis is done and watch those places; request that the Pakistanis do the same. Osama's gotta get it sometime or die.

I agree with a lot of what you say Ted, obviously not all. I do think that not inteferring in the domestic affairs of sovereign nations in the first place would go a long way in avoiding terrorist attacks. I know people don't want to hear it but we're not always the good guys. Since WWII we've (our govt) supported brutal dictatorships and regeimes that oppress the people so that they feel forced to take action; as a defensive measure. Much the same way the American colonists took action against Great Britian; those colonists were considered terrorists by the loyalists.

I would like to see us go back to being the good guys all the time.

[jacob]

If we lose the war in Iraq it's because it's not in Heavenly Fathers' plan for America to win. He doesn't love Americans more than the Iraq people. Why would a Christian support war? it seems silly, but Christians love a good war. Jesus wants us to protect our house from the influences of evil, that makes simple sense. Killing in the name of ...... Wake up, stop being hateful in a loving way.

Satan will always tell you that war is just. Any war.

[Ovedya]

If we lose the war in Iraq it's because it's not in Heavenly Fathers' plan for America to win. He doesn't love Americans more than the Iraq people. Why would a Christian support war? it seems silly, but Christians love a good war. Jesus wants us to protect our house from the influences of evil, that makes simple sense. Killing in the name of ...... Wake up, stop being hateful in a loving way.

Satan will always tell you that war is just. Any war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The thing about generalizations is that they never apply to every person in the group you are generalizing about. Especially since it is quite often that the person making the generalization is the exception.

Are you a Christian? Do you hate war? Then "Christians" cannot "love a good war."

[Guest charlie]

Why don't we just find out where dialysis is done and watch those places

In the words of Rosanne Rosannadanna, "nevermind", my wife just informed me that dialysis can be done at home.

Are you a Christian? Do you hate war? Then "Christians" cannot "love a good war."

I agree; some *Christians* around here need to take note imo.

[Work in Progress]

Why would a Christian support war?

God sanctioned war and complete destruction of whole peoples - including their families and children. The Old Testament is full of "just" wars.

You think we shouldn't have fought WWII? Seriously?

What should a Christian do when attacked?

The Scripture is full of references to taking up arms. The Bible says that the Lord "prepared Davids arms for battle".

An anti-war stance is not Biblical at all.