Yet another epiphany

Yeah, I saw him today. He's a sharp one, that GW. I think he even gets it that nobody likes him.

I'd be willing to wager that every single person who ever fought in any OTHER war ever fought in the history of the entire earth would laugh in your face at your definition of "heavy casualties."

BTW... I just watched the press conference... Can YOU find the spot where he acknowledges "heavy casualties?" Because I can't. The AP invented that.

Media bias?

Or media ignorance?

Your call.

Here is the exact quote (the ONLY reference to the word "heavy" in the entire speech. You tell me. (I acknowledged in my post that it was an AP creation, and not yours. Yet you chose to accept it on face value).


Recently, American and Iraqi forces have launched some of the most aggressive operations on enemy forces in Baghdad since the war began. They've cleared neighborhoods of terrorists and death squads, and uncovered large caches of weapons, including sniper scopes and mortars and powerful bombs. There has been heavy fighting. Many enemy fighters have been killed or captured, and we've suffered casualties of our own. This month we've lost 93 American service members in Iraq, the most since October of 2005. During roughly the same period, more than 300 Iraqi security personnel have given their lives in battle. Iraqi civilians have suffered unspeakable violence at the hands of the terrorists, insurgents, illegal militias, armed groups, and criminals.



For those who are critical-reading-deficient (apparently everyone at the AP? Or are they biased?) "Heavy fighting" <> "Heavy casualties."

In the same manner "we've suffered casualties of our own" <> "we've suffered heavy casualties."

Neither I nor the president is denying that soldiers are dying, nor that their deaths should be honored, both for the loss of life and their sacrifice, but for God's sake, that's what soldiers DO in a war. They die. You don't complain about the loss of your woodpile when you burn a fire. You can't complain about the deaths of soldiers during a war. Especially when the number of men dying is so danged small.

I find this thread to be hateful and hyperbolic.

blacbird said:

If we got the "Mission Accomplished" and were "greeted as liberators" back in 2003, why are any soldiers dying in Iraq in 2006?

caw.

Click to expand...

Perhaps in addition to not understanding what "heavy casualties" means, you also do not know the difference between a mission and a war? This is a common problem among journalists, too.

Sometimes folks just need to be reminded of the costs of liberty.

See? Was that so hard?

dclary said:

Sometimes folks just need to be reminded of the costs of liberty.

Click to expand...

Tell that to the Iraqi people, Deek. Tell them how anarchy and civil war are the costs of becoming liberated. And while you're at it, explain to the peoples of other dictatorships in the neighborhood why they shouldn't be afraid of tearing down their governments and starting over from scratch. And after that, explain to the families of the 3,000 Americans who have died in Iraq how tiny and insignificant the body count is, in comparison with other wars.

SC Harrison said:

Tell that to the Iraqi people, Deek. Tell them how anarchy and civil war are the costs of becoming liberated. And while you're at it, explain to the peoples of other dictatorships in the neighborhood why they shouldn't be afraid of tearing down their governments and starting over from scratch. And after that, explain to the families of the 3,000 Americans who have died in Iraq how tiny and insignificant the body count is, in comparison with other wars.

Click to expand...

I don't have to, Harrison. They already know.

Instead, why don't you try to explain how they're not worth fighting for?

MacAllister said:

I changed the word "hateful" just for you, Billy.

Click to expand...

dclary said:

Instead, why don't you try to explain how they're not worth fighting for?

Click to expand...

I've been staring at this question for a while trying to figure out how you arrived at this...I give up.

I have an idea—why don't we ask them if they want us there? Not Parliament, but the Iraqi people themselves. We all know the answer to this already, but what they want matters even less now than it did pre-invasion.

SC Harrison said:

Not Parliament, but the Iraqi people themselves.

Click to expand...

Let's do it.

Let's not rely on the reliable "polling data" and "statistics" that come from Iraq about whether we are wanted there or not.

National Referendum.

International monitors.

Vote away my Iraqi friends.

What you say, goes.

I'm up for it.

Thank you.

SC Harrison said:

I've been staring at this question for a while trying to figure out how you arrived at this...I give up.

Click to expand...

I'm inexplicable that way.

Question for Democrats...

When it comes to leaving Iraq A.S.A.P. do you not care that it will delve into a massive civil war with hundreds of thousands slaughtered OR do you believe that wouldn't happen and the country will stabilize after our exit?

Please go on the record.

Thank you.

blacbird said:

And if they vote in a Shi'a religious slate with Taliban-like leanings and maybe Moqtada al-Sadr as its leader . . . ?

caw.

Click to expand...

Oh, that's a foregone conclusion.

A. We kill THAT guy before we leave.

B. And I've stated many times, that if we have to blow the middle east off the map, the one great thing that comes from the Iraq war is that we can sleep at night and say "Hey, we friggin tried our best to help these people and give them freedom and democracy."

I know I'll sleep better knowing that we tried, before having to destroy them.

I say we leave it up to the Iraqi people and they can live with the decisions they make. However poorly they may choose.

That's weird, Steve, 'cause I've been staring at the same question for a while, too. And I've no idea what the answer is.

Yes, the Iraqi Parliament wants us there. But if a poll were to be taken amongst the Iraqi people, I'm fairly sure that the larger percentage of them would want us gone, yesterday. To them, we're interferring.

At the beginning of this, both sides of the aisle appeared to agree w/ the invasion. Now, both sides of the aisle disagree w/ their prior decision. And for good reason. All the points have been argued, we know them by rote. It boils down to Afghanistan was the right thing to do and Iraq was a monumental mistake. And Rumsfeld's arrogance will keep us there, unfortunately.

He never should have been made Sec. of Defense--he's a jerk w/ no military experience. Powell should have had that job.

***In case you're wondering, JM's busy at the moment. I'm her clone. Depending on how things go, I may stay on, permanently***

Further, Rumsfeld should be pulled from office. And the sooner, the better. His defiance has gone so far as to no longer share requested information w/ Congressman Shays. How do I know this? From a town hall meeting that I attended and Shays talked about it, in public. I doubt he'd make that up.

ETA: Obviously we can't leave Iraq immediately. But, we need to withdraw, soon. The Iraqi leadership has become too dependent on our troops. Time they learn to fly on their own.

I don't believe the phrases "leave Iraq" and "asap" can even be used in the same sentence. We stuck our nose in where it didn't belong and now we are going to have to stay and try to clean up the mess we've made as best we can. But I don't think that country will heal itself for years and I also don't think we can heal them. It's going to be ugly, no matter what happens. You can't change centuries of behavior and ingrained thinking and beliefs in months, and you can't actually CHANGE behavior at all. Sooner or later, we are going to have to leave and let the Iraq people stand on their own two feet.

DeniseK said:

Sooner or later, we are going to have to leave and let the Iraq people stand on their own two feet.

Click to expand...

I agree.