The administration has recently changed their position on reporting enemy casualties. so here you go, try this link:

http://northshorejournal.org/index.php/2007/06/the-truth-about-american-deaths-in-iraq#comment-7576

God help this nation.

“submandave–

I appreciate you making the distinction and I accept your caveat. For this very reason we (the U.S.) are negotiating with the insurgents to bring about whatever resolutions are possible. This must be done. To label the entire opposition as ‘terrorists’ is reductive and foolish. For on one reason it makes the U.S. absolute hypocrites ‘we do not negotiate with terrorists’—except for the ones we do? And that’s just for starters.”

See you lost the minute you started “talking” to the insurgents. They just want you dead. They don’t give a rats ass what you think or believe. It’s ALLAH all the time and ALLAH all the way.

Many Americans are too young to remember, but the history of terrorism against Americans (and our allies) may help us understand the reasoning for ““The War in Iraq””, and many others need to be reminded. See the web-site listed below if you want a history lesson or a reminder of the Americans and others who have been murdered in the name of Islam.

http://www.geocities.com/ktkris.geo/victims.html

Americans have been attacked by Islamic Extremist (terrorists) over four dozen times in the last 40 years before 9/11. Over 1200 Americans were killed and thousands injured (for non-Americans, you can almost triple these numbers). We have done virtually nothing about it. Why? Because they are cowards who strike and then hide. They are using the same strategy in Iraq, Afghanistan and many other places in the world. They hide in countries that will protect them or they are in regions of those countries that are very isolated with little or no government control. These terrorist groups were not Al Qaeda, so don’t be fooled into thinking this war is against them alone. Let’s not forget about Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatwa, Hezbollah, PFLP, PLC; and there are many, many more. They have all attacked and killed many Americans for decades. They hate what we are, not what we do, so don’t think that the war in Iraq is creating more terrorists; it is merely bringing them out of their hiding places, finally. We have waited for this opportunity for too many years. But there is a much larger problem. The terrorists know they can not defeat the American war machine. They can only hope to kill as many of us as possible to bolster their support in the Islamic world to win over more recruits while they wait for their ultimate strategy to succeed. You see, their only hope is to use the free western media against us, and its working. The terrorists remember how we lost in Viet Nam. It works like this. Just get the media to report all the soldiers dying, which will eventually outrage the American public, who in turn will protest against the war until the government gives in and brings all the soldiers home (so they can get re-elected). Then all the terrorist groups can claim victory and get even more powerful.

Wake up America, don’t let this happen. Their vision of the future is parallel with the Taliban government of pre-9/11 Afghanistan. But first they must KILL the infidels. That’s us. Think about the things we know about the terrorists: They have hated who we are (infidels) for half a century, they want us dead, they will commit suicide to kill us, they believe they will go to heaven if they do so. We have seized laptops and literature that proves they are trying to acquire a nuclear weapon or the technology to make one. It is inevitable that they will succeed one day if we don’t act now. North Korea, Iran or Pakistan could supply this technology one day. Another coup in Pakistan is possible in the next few years, Iran will soon have a nuclear reactor, and you know what they think of us. Will we wait for a nuclear explosion in a major US city before we understand what their goals are?

We are in Iraq not only to fight a long time enemy that has killed hundreds of our loved ones, but to change the face of the Middle East by opening their minds to religious and cultural tolerance. This can be done by giving them a taste of real freedom and financial security for their families. The region has the financial wealth to accomplish this with the right government in place. This is why a diverse, democratically elected, non-corrupt government is Iraq is critical. This is what changing the hearts and minds of the people is all about. And it will spread throughout the Middle East. They are hungry for freedom but many are afraid to express such ideas.

Open your eyes America, don’t let the media affect your good judgment. They have their own agendas which has priority over our National Security.
God Bless America and its Warriors

Ask any solder returning from Iraq what they think of the American media.

God Bless George W. Bush for standing firm. Beware of Iran after his term because the Demos are worse than the French. Their heads will be in the sand until they loose it, then we will all have to pay the price to salvage what is left.

“There’s a sucker born every minute.”
David Hannum (P.T. Barnum’s competitor)

Under Islamic law, a young man cannot have sex outside of marriage and he cannot take a wife unless he has a job. Since he only has a degree in Islam studies (if he has one at all), there is no job available except in religious circles. Islamist mosques typically are funded by individuals (sometimes well to do individuals, like Bin Laden or Muqtada al Sadre). If the young man doesn’t do things the way the check signers want it, then he has no job, and probably lose a limb in the process. So, he can’t have sex outside of marriage, and can’t have a marriage w/o a job, the prospect of 72 virgins and getting some Al Qaeda money to his family simply by blowing himself up starts to look pretty good.

Exactly… and that has been going on for years.

While studying in Paris in the 70′s, I often had political discussions with several of my fellow students. One of the students, a Morrocan I came to know a bit better than others, had a really skewed view of life in the US(shaped, in part, by the good ole’ American film industry). I challenged him to come and study here, to experience first-hand life in the US. Of course, that wouldn’t do! It would be too dangerous for him, he wouldn’t be able to walk down the streets safely. He told me that the US must be destroyed, that it didn’t matter how long it took, the battle would continue. If one generation didn’t accomplish that goal, the next would continue the stuggle.

Radical Islam’s battle against the US/the West didn’t start with the war in Iraq, with 9-11 or even back in 1993 with the first WTC attack. It’s been going on for literally at least a couple of generations, now. It just took 9-11 for most Americans to become aware of it.

Eisenhower sent advisors to many other countries as well as South Vietnam. As have every other president since.

It was JFK and LBJ that planned and executed that war. It should also be noted that the Democrats controlled both houses during those years.

Like the Democrats in March 2003 the Republicans were the loyal opposition, but the Bush Administration gets the credit with planning the liberation of Iraq (although the Dems controlled one of the houses, I dont remember which one). So lets put things in a proper perspective here.

Ironically it was the Democrats that sold out South Vietnam. However, I disagree with Steven about the conduct of U.S. troops in the war. While the French couldnt match the Communists outside of the Vietnamese cities, our troops successfully took the fight to the enemy’s own turf and bested them every time. The South Vietnamese guerillas (Vietcong) were effectively defeated and the North Vietnamese regulars resorted to disguising themselves as guerillas in order to maintain the appearance of a popular revolution.

After all, its all about “appearances” in guerilla/terrorist warfare.

So if we had honored our obligations to the South Vietnamese government after our troops pulled out the NVA invasion would have failed, but the Democratic Party (that planned the war in the first place) did everything they could to defeat our allies.

It was a pity and in that regard similar to the Iraq War.

You seem to have a “defend liberals at any cost” attitude, which makes me think that you are missing the forest for the trees. Liberals or conservatives don’t win or lose wars. Democrats or Republicans don’t win or lose wars. Nations win or lose wars. In the case of Iraq, we had a united nation going into the fray. Then, as far as I can see, the dems put are putting their own political interests in front of the countries.

I did not blame hippies for anything and I’m not up-to-snuff on German Military tactics in WWI. So, I’ll agree with what you say there. That said, you reminded me that liberal Wilson led the US into WWI – and, just to throw fuel on the fire – liberal roosevel led the US into WWII. (If liberals hate war so much, they sure have a bad track record).

Regarding Vietnam, I believe Ike sent a hundred observers, which Kennedy turned into ten thousand trainers, which Johnson turned into a half a million soldiers, which Nixon – by congressional mandate – withdrew. Support for the Vietnam war, when it was popular, was as much a liberal as a conservative cause and villification when it was unpopular was also bi-partisan.

The US military in Vietnam, as has been pointed out many times on this thread previously, performed great – especially the soldiers in the field. Did they suceed at everything? No, of course not. Were there bad apples? Unfortunately, yes. But did they overall do what was needed/expected from them? Resoundingly yes. I find your criticism of them incorrect and incoherent.

I do blame the leadership (especially Johnson/MacNamara), for foolishly micromanaging the Vietnam conflict. We should never have had half a million soldiers. We should have had enough soldiers needed to secure the borders and then fought a battles against an insurgency (which is what Patreus is proposing in Iraq). Staying in concentrated masses and seek and destroy is a bad tactic. The army can fight either way (again, yur criticisim is incoherent).

As applied to the situation in Iraq, I think it would be a mistake for the govt. to apply timelines for withdrawal. It’s the worst idea possible. If we have to quit in a year, then let’s get the hell out ASAP and save our resources. Why? Because within 5 years of a premature withdrawal, there will be a lights-out, take no prisoners war and we will be sucked into it.

I find it extremely disingenuous to suggest that because Kennedy and Johnson (who are indeed known for their liberal domestic policy) began the war in earnest that liberalism as an ideology and liberal politicians had as much to do with starting the Vietnam war as did conservative politicians. Lets be realistic. Support for the Vietnam war was almost exclusively the purview of conservatives. It was, after all, Ike Eisenhower who made the original commitment to French Indochina. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe then, as now, the further to the right one was politically, the more likely one was to support Vietnam.

Second: I believe the oft-repeated notion that politicians ruined the war with micromanagement to be, like the same ‘stabbed in the back’ myth in post WWI Germany, a way to deflect blame from the basic inadequecies of the defeated military. There was nothing Germany’s politicians could have done or not done to avert their defeat; they were outmatched from the first day.

You cannot blame the ‘hippies’ and politicians for the U.S. military’s basic failings in Vietnam, the failings which turned the rest of the nation against that conflict: The U.S. military had no experience in counterinsurgency and was incapable of ‘winning hearts and minds’ as they put it. Furthermore, in actual combat with guerillas, the firepower and mobility focused U.S. army was at a fundamental disadvantage and often found itself fought to a standstill or stymied by poorly equipped indigenous fighters.

Though never defeated on the battlefield exactly, make no mistake; the U.S. military was beaten in Vietnam. They were defeated in the chronic underperformance of the well-equipped ARVN, they were defeated in the unquestioning willingness of any Vietnamese outside Saigon and a certain plateau to harm, hamper or confuse Americans whenever possible, they were defeated in the many emberassing setbacks dealt to the USAF by the comparatively tiny Vietnamese airforce. We were defeated in our inability to keep our soldiers under control and enforce discipline in a supremely chaotic environment (Mai Lai, et al.) Even if we held the battlefield at the end of the day, by simply facing us on our own terms and holding their own, the Vietnamese perceived a victory, and rightly so, for a narrow victory over a force with perhaps one tenth of your resources is nothing to be proud of.

To say that the U.S. military succeeded in everything it did, and that it was the politicians who caused defeat in Vietnam is to turn a blind eye to our military’s inabilities. The Army can beat any force in the world in the air or on open ground, but the same technology and doctrine which allows us to do so is more a hindrance than a help in a situation like Vietnam.

In summary,
1. We lost Vietnam.
2. Our military’s basic structure is a disadvantage in such a war.
3. The Soviets/Chinese got massive return for their investment in Vietnam. Our investment went right down the tubes.
4. Even if North Vietnam was finally assaulted and taken following the Tet offensive, we STILL lost Vietnam because of our proportional losses.