<p>sjmom - “I don’t mean this to be disrespectful to anyone who has lost someone in Iraq.” I have not lost anyone in Iraq, so I cannot speak for one who has, but I do not think your post came across as disrespectful at all, but in fact the reverse - you came across to me as caring about the troops. </p>
<p>Anyway, while it’s certainly true that we technically have a volunteer army, it’s a little different. First, many of the troops serving in the National Guard sign up for the Guard with the understanding that it’s a national guard, not a substitute for signing up for the regular army. Regardless of this, we send them back again and again for tours of duty thousands of miles away from the nation they may have intended to guard.</p>
<p>Secondly, even for the regular army and other servicemembers, they enlist and are willing to put their lives on the line. Yes, they know the risks. But in return for their willingness to serve, we owe them the justice of putting them in danger without misrepresenting the facts, without falsifying evidence of WMD’s, not turning them into referee’s between two factions involved in a civil war that is not their country.</p>
As to the first two, I have seen no evidence to indicate that this has happened. I know that it has been said enough times that many people believe it to be true, but it has never been proven. To the contrary, all of the investigations to date have indicated that there was no misrepresentation or falsifying. </p>
<p>As to the last point, that is a very debateable topic. Truman thought it worthwhile in Korea as did LBJ in Vietnam. Clinton said that his biggest regret was to not do so in Rwanda. I guess if the only lives that you value are American lives one can make such a statement, but not all Americans take that perspective.</p>
<p>‘…The deaths in Iraq are awful. There’s no doubt about it. But when people bring up the loss of 3,000 of our soldiers, I wonder, “How many would have died in traffic accidents?” I don’t mean this to be disrespectful to anyone who has lost someone in Iraq. But there were 43,443 traffic deaths in 2005 in this country…’</p>
<p>It makes no sense to kill more people after people have been killed. That’s just illogical.</p>
<p>Modern warfare, i.e. of the new millenium. You can’t fight this enemy with conventional warfare, as is abundantly evident in Afganistan, Iraq, Lebanon. We won’t win this one with superior firepower, unless Bushie gets itchy to push the red button.</p>
<p>Well, Allmusic, your solution seems to be to just hunker down and hide in our basements. Of course, we will win the war on terror with superior technology. That doesn’t mean “pushing the red button” but it does mean superior intelligence, both human and technological. We win through overwhelming strength, including strength of will and commitment. We lose when we give up and say it just can’t be done.</p>
<p>All you have to do is read the writings of bin Laden - he specifically cites the lack of the willingness of the US to use its “superior firepower” and absorb loss of life as a motivation to attack the US, thinking that their would be little or no sustained use of that firepower against him. He probably has the next “I told you so” chapter of his fatwa already written assuming that the left will prevail in cutting and running from Iraq.</p>
Maybe I’ve missed something, but where are we trying to bomb these people out of existence? Most of the bombing seems to be coming from terrorists inside Iraq, though the use of IED’s.</p>
<p>Let me restate, as previously (removing the word “bomb”):</p>
<p>Conventional modern warfare isn’t working. Is the enemy capitulating? What evidence do we have of our “victory”, besides Bush/Cheney/Rummy’s word?</p>
<p>I don’t have the precise data at hand, but I understand that the Allies’ worst losses were right before D Day. In my experience, things almost always get worse right before they get better. The winners stay strong, and just keep trying.</p>
<p>“The winners stay strong, and just keep trying.”</p>
<p>By figuring out what isn’t working and making changes. </p>
<p>Listen to an NFL coach after a loss. “we’ll make some changes and fix what’s wrong and we’ll be back…” Not “we’ll keep doing the same thing over and over again and eventually we’ll win.” GEE, how often do you hear that on the news? </p>
<p>Coaches unwilling to adapt to counter what the other side is doing eventually get FIRED! Let’s see in November how the fans vote.</p>
<p>Opie, why are you so sure that you know everything that’s going on inside the White House or Pentagon? I’m pretty sure that there’s all kinds of stuff that doesn’t make the NY Times or CNN.</p>
<p>Rove aide resigns in fallout over Abramoff report
By Steve Holland 20 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An aide to top White House political adviser Karl Rove resigned in the fallout over a congressional report showing many White House contacts with ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a spokeswoman said on Friday.
</p>
<p>Last week’s report by the U.S. House of Representatives Government Reform Committee said Rove aide Susan Ralston had passed inside White House information to Abramoff while she was also accepting his tickets to as many as nine sports and entertainment events.</p>
<p>Abramoff and several associates have pleaded guilty to conspiracy and fraud in an influence-peddling scandal and are cooperating with a federal corruption probe that has reached into the U.S. Congress.</p>
<p>“why are you so sure that you know everything that’s going on inside the White House or Pentagon? I’m pretty sure that there’s all kinds of stuff that doesn’t make the NY Times or CNN.”</p>
<p>FF, I believe Ben Laden attacked us, not because he thought we would respond, but because we kept not responding. Sounds strange, but this is what I think was happening. He attacked us, expecting to be attacked. </p>
<p>I believe that Ben Laden WANTED us to become involved in a war with Muslims. He wanted us to attack, and he provoked us into it. Bush walked right into the trap of allowing Ben Laden to - as Rove might say - energize his base.</p>
<p>Example - remember when the Ben Laden tape came out just before the 2004 election? Some people immediately thought he was trying to get Kerry elected, and a lot of people jumped on that as his miscalculation. Many said that it proved Ben Laden didn’t understand Americans, since he didn’t realize that we would bond together, and his tape would in fact strengthen’s Bush’s position.</p>
<p>I think Ben Laden preferred Bush as president, because Bush acts so predictably in wanting war. All war, all the time. Just press his button, and he responds like the knee hit by the hammer. That’s exactly what Ben Laden wants - for Islam to be at war with America. And we fell for it.</p>
</p>