Text 23324, 145 rader
Skriven 2006-10-02 13:19:00 av LEE LOFASO (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av GARY BRASWELL
Ärende: The War in Iraq
=======================
Hello Gary,

GB>There is no doubt we are far better at fighting than we used to be, we have
GB>gotten better after each conflict by lessons learned. Training, education an
GB>technology have reduced our battle deaths and thank God.

We are no better at fighting today than we were during WWII.  Sure, we
have better weapons and technology to fight with, along with lots of
well-trained soldiers.  But that does not mean that we are any better
at fighting today than we were during yesterday's wars.

The reason why we have not seen the number of deaths in Iraq that we
have seen in Vietnam is not due to better fighting techniques, etc., but
rather the relative speed in which we are able to get wounded soldiers
in the field help.  To date, we have lost 2,709+ soldiers, and an
additional 20,000 mained/wounded, in Iraq.  Over the same period of
time in Vietnam, the total number of killed/wounded was virtually
the same.  The difference is the ratio of killed to wounded.

Also, the number of journalists/reporters killed in Iraq has made
the Iraqi conflict the bloodiest in history.  Vietnam was a cakewalk
in comparison.

GB>But we are also not facing massive killing machines like the Wehrmacht or
GB>Japanese Imperial military dug in by the tens or hundreds of thousands.
GB>I hope we never do again.

During WWII certain rules were followed, by all sides.  Generally
speaking, civilians were considered non-combatants, and journalists
were able to conduct their business.  Allied POWs in Germany were
treated relatively well.  Even though the Imperial Japanese Army did
not ascribe to the Geneva Conventions, the U.S.A. did.

In Iraq, everybody is considered as being a combatant, regardless
of who they are.  In Afghanistan, there is no distinction between
who is and who is not a combatant.  Even the U.S.A. is forced to
make choices as to what to do with "enemy combatants" who are
captured.

GB>Sure we have lost comparatively less, but we also should not ignore it or sw
GB>it under the rug either. I don't have a problem with that drumbeat at all. I
GB>real and its costing this nation. I don't want to minimize their loss or
GB>sacrifice.

Bush's "war on terror" is a phoney war.  That is the only conclusion
that can be made given the past few years.  IOW, our soldiers have been
dying for a lie.

GB>The fact is some enlistments in the recent past were down. Now they are up.

Quotas are set each year.  Lowering the quota enabled the military to
say that enlistments are up this year, relative to last year.  You see,
last year the military did not meet its quota.  This year, the military
exceeded its quota.  Unnerstan'?

GB>Three anecdotal examples in my experience.

GB>The guy at Sears I bought my AC from 2 months ago was a Ranger out of Iraq.
GB>tours. I asked him if he was going back. He said they offered him $20,000 to
GB>stay in. He turned them down. He left the Army. He said he never wants to go
GB>back to Iraq.

GB>I was back over there last week. I figured I would check in on him. He is ba
GB>in the Army. Back in Iraq. Manger say he had no choice. They forced him back
GB>in.

He should have run away to Canada while he had the chance.

GB>A guy down the street who is a roofer. He just got out. One tour in Iraq. He
GB>wanted to go back to Iraq, but they turned him down. Ran into his co-worked
GB>just yesterday. The boy is back in Iraq now.

He should have run away to Canada while he had the chance.

GB>My very good friend Daniel. He is in SF. He has posted here in the past.  I
GB>can't remember how many tours he did in Afghanistan. He has done 2 in Iraq.
GB>is going back for a 3rd.

Probably smart enough to take the money rather than being forced to go
to Iraq at lower pay.

GB>He thought the war in Iraq was a mistake. When he came home for some R&R bef
GB>being sent to his first tour in Iraq, he said Afghanistan was going to pay f
GB>the war in Iraq. He said the Taliban would come back. Promised money has not
GB>come to Afghanistan, along with promised infrastructure improvements, crop
GB>alternatives for farmers who have gone back to poppies in a bumper crop this
GB>year. He was right.

GWB said he would do "whatever it takes" to rebuild New Orleans and
the Gulf Coast.  Even though over $300 billion has been spent in Iraq,
only $44 billion has been spent to rebuild N.O. and the Gulf Coast.
That should tell you how full of BS our president is when it comes
to helping Americans.  Had we spent $300 billion to rebuild Afghanistan
there would be no Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Mullah Omar, Taliban, etc.,
ruining that country.  In fact, Afghanistan would be heaven on Earth.
Instead of invading Iraq under false pretenses and spending $300 billion
on that lost cause, imagine what that same $300 billion could have done
in regards to rebuilding New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.  Also consider
how many thousands of our nation's finest would still be alive, as well
as how many tens of thousands of our nation's finest would still have
all their body parts and mental health.

GB>After his 2nd tour he said most Iraqis regard us as an occupying army. He sa
GB>you can't trust Iraqi police. In fact its SOP to keep guns trained on them.
GB>said they act as spotters for insurgents. He said Iraqi trainees for their
GB>army, most show up for one paycheck and are then gone. Others are spies and
GB>serve up intel to the insurgents. He said there is massive corruption in Ira
GB>where the millions we spend to rebuild Iraq disappear.

All the more reason for us to get the hell out of Iraq.

GB>He said he is going back for two reasons. His fellow soldiers and to win so
GB>more Americans will not die because of this mess in Iraq.

A soldier does not go to a war zone in order to be with his fellow
soldiers.  A soldier does not go to a war zone so more Americans will
not die.  A soldier's first rule of thumb is to stay alive.  Nothing
more, nothing less.

GB>Let me say I was against this war too.

Guffaw!  You were FOR this war before it even got started!

GB>But we are in it now and we have to win it.

Guffaw!  You are FOR this war as you always have been!
Not that it is a war that we can win.  In fact, we have
already lost.  Actually, we have lost two wars.  The war
in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq.  So why stay in
either place?  Let them folks deal with their own mess,
the best way they know how.  You want to call it "cut and
run"?  Fine.  Reagan "cut and ran" from Lebanon.  We can
"cut and run" from Iraq.  And from Afghanistan, too.

Redeployment is our best and only option.  Whether we
leave today or ten years from now makes no difference.
Except in the number of dead Americans we leave behind.
So we'd best leave now, rather than later.

--Lee


 * SLMR 2.1a * Lee's First Rule of Holes - If in a hole, keep digging.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)