Free Elections in Iraq

[michaeledward]

@ michael

how many years were we in vietnam...? how many soldiers died in vietnam...? compare those numbers with those of OIF and get back with me. our campaign in Iraq is far from Vietnam. you and others wish to equate the two because you have nothing else.

we've lost 1400 soldiers/airmen/marines since march 2003. granted, even one is too many but in comparision, this is FAR from what we've lost in wars past. it's actually a record breaking count. take a look at the casualty rate of conflicts the US has been involved in the past 100 years. tell me again how bad we are doing.

sorry for the rant, you got me off topic michael. either discuss the topic at hand or dont dicuss at all. you too mouse. this topic is about the one of many GOOD things to come out of Operation Iraqi Freedom. if you can't stay on topic, if you don't have something good to add to the discussion, then stay out of it.

I did not start the reference to Vietnam.

For the record, US Involvement in Vietnam began in 1961.
The Paris Peace Accords were signed in 1973.
There are more than 58,000 names on the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington DC.

Comparison for you ... How many US Soldiers died in the first two years involvement in Vietnam?

You also will be hard pressed to find anywhere where I have said the United States military is performing badly. As usual, they are performing there duties exceptionally well. They are currently involved in a task for which they were not meant. The United State military is a killing machine. It is designed to kill people and capture territory. It is not, nor should it be, a machine designed to create security so that people can hold elections.

I do not blame the military for serving this function. I blame the adminstration and leadership that somehow misunderestimates what the military is supposed to do.

As I stated earlier, the election is just one-note in the symphony that is democracy. By itself, it means nothing. It may be a vital turning point. Then again, it may be a useless gesture. Only time will tell.

I believe it is a good thing to have occured, but it is premature to call it a 'resounding success'.

Mike

 

[michaeledward]

how is what Ghostdog said so wrong...? you people claim our endeavors in Iraq are Vietnam reincarnated. thats BS. he just quoted the facts for you.

Actually, it was KANE, who claimed that 'liberals' said Iraq would be similar to Vietnam. Go yell at him. Look at the post.

 

[Melissa426]

A lot more. As wars go, this has been low impact. And I bet you just hate that.

ON MY SOAP-BOX

I don't give out red points. But you came close to getting my first. Why would anyone hate the fact that this has been a "low impact" war? And, BTW, I can not imagine you would think it was low impact if that had been your mother, father, brother or sister in one of those body bags.

OFF MY SOAP-BOX

 

[Sapper6]

@ michael

indeed, only time will tell. but i will at least acknowledge a successful event, regardless of how petty it is.

"How many body bags will it take before you consider it another Vietnam?"

who said that again...? as for my answer. i won't judge the comparison based upon casualties alone, but rather, accomplishments gained. i guess that's where we differ :idunno:

 

[michaeledward]

@ michael

indeed, only time will tell. but i will at least acknowledge a successful event, regardless of how petty it is.

"How many body bags will it take before you consider it another Vietnam?"

who said that again...? as for my answer. i won't judge the comparison based upon casualties alone, but rather, accomplishments gained. i guess that's where we differ

Is the election a 'successful event' or is it an 'accomplishment gained'?

I agree that it is an event. Measuring success by turnout and limited voter attacks is reasonable.

I am uncertain that anything has been 'gained' by this event. As I mentioned in my first post on this thread, is that time will be needed to see if this event actually 'accomplished' anything.

I hope it did, but refuse to be a pollyanna.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

A lot more. As wars go, this has been low impact. And I bet you just hate that.


I suspect this isn't something you'd readily say to a grieving family member of a soldier killed there. Nor would I imagine it'd be something you'd say to a young man or woman blinded or otherwise maimed.

I suspect the "impact" on them has been somewhat severe.




Regards,


Steve

 

[Kane]

I don't think you guys are getting ghostdog2's point. He isn't saying that it doesn't matter about the people died, because not that many died. He isn't saying to ignore those who have died. All he is saying is that compared to many other wars there hasn't been as much death.


Does that mean there were no looses from this war? No it doesn't, all those who have died were a great loose. However that is a part of war and if we are going to look at the success of the war on whether any people died then I assure you no war in history has been a success. The American Revolution was not a success because we lost troops, right? Wrong! Those who died died for a just cause. Does that mean we have to forget them? No, but we can't always regret everything or we will always look at all things as a failure. Death is apart of war. We need to look at the fruit being produced to determine whether this war was a success. I see that it is and the soldiers who died in this war did not die for vain.

 

[Kane]

Actually, it was KANE, who claimed that 'liberals' said Iraq would be similar to Vietnam. Go yell at him. Look at the post.

Not true at all. I have heard so many liberals say this will turn out to be another Vietnam. Posters on MT have even said this. Do you know how many threads anti-Iraqi war threads were there on this board with members stating this will be another Vietnam. I also know many people in my community who were against the Iraqi war saying it is going to be another Vietnam.

 

[Kempojujutsu]

I was watching CNN earlier today to get some info on how the election went. They were interviewing some American soldiers. Most of these soldiers have been injuried in combat. One soldier had his leg blown off. He had no problem how the war was going. But he said he hope the U.S would stay till the job was finished. Cause if they pulled out, losing his leg would go in vain. Another soldier said he doesn't want his nephews or neices, to have to come back here 10 years later. He also wanted the job to be done, or losing fellow soldiers would be in vain also. Opinions may vary from person to person. I know some people who have gone over from National Guard units. And yes they have suffer some loses. But they feel going to Iraq is very important and have no regrets.

 

[Tgace]

Were any wars "worth the cost"? Will any future conflicts be worth it...Would we have gone past the Normandy Beaches if CNN had been broadcasting live from location??

 

[rmcrobertson]

Walter Cronkheit and others reported pretty graphically from Normandy. Ernie Pyle and others reported pretty graphically from around the world. Ah, those wacky liberals.

 

[Tgace]

Walter Cronkheit and others reported pretty graphically from Normandy. Ernie Pyle and others reported pretty graphically from around the world. Ah, those wacky liberals.

Rarely live, rarely visual, rarely high definition....

And in association with "propaganda" about our "brave boys sacrificing their lives in a just cause, beating the Germans and fighting for freedom.." yadda yadda. Under todays standards I dont think we would have made it past the Bulge...

 

[Tgace]

BTW was it worth the cost???

 

[PeachMonkey]

Rarely live, rarely visual, rarely high definition....

And in association with "propaganda" about our "brave boys sacrificing their lives in a just cause, beating the Germans and fighting for freedom.."

There was a great deal of propaganda, but there was also hard-nosed, detailed reporting. As opposed to today, where journalism from the fields of battle are strictly controlled, shaped, and marketed by whichever administration was in power.

And yes, World War II was worth the cost. It might have been unnecessary had pesky liberals been listened to in the first place after WWI, but that's a topic for another thread.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah. So on a thread where you and others are extolling the virtue of free elections in Iraq, you're suggesting pretty strongly that citizens of a democracy shouldn't see what's being done during wartime in their name. Interesting.

By the way, it's kinda funny that it turns out we are in Iraq to nation-build after all. I guess I'm just going to wait a while before cheering, hoping I'm wrong--I mean, given the way that Hizzoner, the VP, most of thge hawkish Republicans, and the likes of Rush Limbaugh assured us all, over and over, that the streets of every city and town would be lined with cheering Iraquis from the git-go...

 

[Tgace]

There was a great deal of propaganda, but there was also hard-nosed, detailed reporting. As opposed to today, where journalism from the fields of battle are strictly controlled, shaped, and marketed by whichever administration was in power.

Yeah, I can agree there. But if they had todays live and "in your face" technology I bet they would have manipulated the heck out of it then too....

 

[Tgace]

Ah. So on a thread where you and others are extolling the virtue of free elections in Iraq, you're suggesting pretty strongly that citizens of a democracy shouldn't see what's being done during wartime in their name. Interesting.

Hmmm...Im suggesting that we appear to no longer be tolerant of human sacrifices in War anymore due to advancement in live media. Any other associations are your own.

What does ASSUME mean???

 

[PeachMonkey]

Yeah, I can agree there. But if they had todays live and "in your face" technology I bet they would have manipulated the heck out of it then too....

Yeah, I don't know if it's the technology or the knowledge of marketing combined with the intense damage done to the war effort in Vietnam when the American citizenry actually saw every night what was going on over there, but I agree.

Regardless, I think it's expected and natural for an administration to engage in propaganda for its policies, including wars. I just wish our media provided more hard information to see around it.

The American people were committed to the Second World War in a way that setbacks and more visual reporting wouldn't have turned around, I don't think. Unlike now, where the bad news coming out of Iraq is of low-level attrition by the insurgency, the Allies had a few years where things seemed extremely dicey before the war clearly turned in the eyes of the public, and people still stayed committed, even with far more depradations (a draft, rationing, etc) than we experience today.

 

[Tgace]

Dont forget, getting all those men and material back across the Atlantic in the 40's would have taken months if not years. Today, most human bodies could be back in the States PDQ....

 

[PeachMonkey]

Dont forget, getting all those men and material back across the Atlantic in the 40's would have taken months if not years. Today, most human bodies could be back in the States PDQ....

True, but photos of the dead and of coffins were allowed back then, and aren't now. Moreover, every newspaper printed lists of the dead every day, and the lists were far longer than they are now.

At the same time, every family was saving their fats and scrap metals and papers for the war, eating off ration cards, seeing huge numbers of men go away for the draft... war touched everyone far more than it did today.