Killfile v Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld - let the games begin.
The Democrats have made quite a fuss over American casualties in Iraq. So far, about 2,200 American soldiers have been killed in that war, and many thousands have been wounded. But compared to other wars, the losses we have suffered in Iraq cannot compare with the huge losses suffered in Vietnam, or Korea, or World War II.
Comparing Iraq to World War II, Korea, or even Vietnam does a disservice, not only to the thousands of brave and sacrificing souls who gave their lives for their country in those wars, but to those that seek to preserve human life by preventing wars. I can think of no war more just than the Second World War. Korea represented a largely successful attempt to contain the spread of communism – launched to contain and invading army and with the support of the United Nations. Vietnam was also a response (though a somewhat less legitimate response) to communist expansionism. Even today, Cold War scholars refuse to rule out the importance of Vietnam in the containment of communism in Asia.
In the Crimean War, which lasted two years in 1853-56, the British lost 22,000 men out of an army of 98,000. The French lost 96,000 out of 300,000. And the Russians lost about 400,000 men. In the Franco-Prussian war in 1870, the French lost 77,000 men out of an army of 710,000. The Germans sent an army of a million men to defeat the French, and lost 45,000 of them.
When you can pick and choose your wars from human history – you have the weight of numbers on your side. Wars have become less bloody in relation to their scope (though their scope has often increased) over the span of history. Even so – previous US presidents who have fought their pointless, dirty, little wars have done so with a far more restrained budget both in dollars and human life. To compare Iraq to the great wars of European history only demonstrates a willful ignorance of the international system and world history. Fortunately, Dr Blumenfeld’s area of expertise is Education, not history or political science, so we can forgive him his ineptitude.
Our seven-year Civil War cost us an estimated total of 700,000 lives: 304,000 soldiers in the North and a higher number in the South. Considering what is presently at stake in Iraq, 2,200 lives is a small price to pay for creating democracy in the Middle East and defeating radical Islam.
A total victory in Iraq will NOT be the death knell to Radical Islam. Any one who tells you otherwise is selling something. There are more than a BILLION Moslems in the world. Only a small minority of them have to hate America for the US to have a serious problem on its hands. More over, I would hardly characterize Iraq as equating in any way with the Civil War as far as historical importance. Loss of the Civil War represented the quite literal destruction of the United States as a sovereign nation. Withdrawal, victory, or defeat in Iraq will not impact US sovereignty one iota.
We should not forget the 3,000 Americans who were killed in one day on Sept. 11, 2001 when radical Islam declared war on us. Those Americans were our first casualties in that war. Nevertheless, the loss of one soldier is a tragedy for that brave soldier's family and for us.
Not one, not one hijacker involved in Sept 11 was from Iraq. Iraq did not train, did not arm, and did not finance the Sept 11 hijackers. It would be more logical to declare war on Scotland following the Oklahoma city bombings (McVeigh is a Scottish name… right?) than it does to in any way link Sept 11 and Iraq.
But America has been involved in many wars, and if the founding fathers had refused to wage the Revolutionary War because some soldiers would be killed, we would have never achieved our independence. And there were equivalents to today's Democrats back then. They were called Loyalists and were anti-war and anti-independence.
No – those in London who didn’t think that the American Colonies, which were neither profitable nor strategically located, were worth loosing their children over are the closest you’ll get to Democrats. It is both salicious and slanderous to accuse Democrats of cheering for defeat in this conflict. That my countrymen would say or imply that about me saddens me and demonstrates exactly how much this war is really just about politics. And again, I must protest equating the Revolutionary war, without which there would be no United States of America, with the Iraq war – which is of comparatively little historic significance.
Since the War for Independence, we have fought in the North African Barbary Coast against Islamic tyrants, the War of 1812 against England, the Mexican War which brought Texas into the Union and expanded our territory, the Civil War to rid the country of slavery, the many small wars against Indians, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the War in Grenada, the War in Bosnia, the first Gulf War, the War in Afghanistan, and the War in Iraq. Thousands of Americans have fought bravely and died for their country, and we can expect that there will be wars in the future.
The last sentence I can agree with. The rest is bullshit. The Barbary Cost war had nothing to do with religion – it was about piracy. The Mexican War was a war of territorial expansion – unjust and illegal under any interpretation. Several wars on that list were undeclared – so they weren’t really wars at all. Also, let’ not forget that just listing Iraq in with a lot of other wars doesn’t legitimate it at all – save to point out that Americans have suffered enough war already.
Already, there is talk of a war against Iran where a semi-crazed leader has advocated wiping Israel off the map, is working to acquire nuclear weapons, and is a strong supporter of Islamic terrorism.
Where have we heard this argument before? Pitty it’s TRUE of Iran. The US has already sacrificed so much international credibility on Iraq that we may not be able to deal with a real and serious threat in Iran. What a waste.
That is why we must maintain bases in Iraq – so that we can strike at Iran's nuclear facilities with a minimum of American cost. With today's technology, we should be able to destroy Iran's nuclear capability by sending missiles from warships at sea. Israel was able to destroy Saddam Hussein's nuclear facility in Baghdad without invasion or loss of life. It was done by surgical strikes.
What? We need to maintain bases in Iraq so we can attack Iran… from ships in international waters? That doesn’t make any sense! Hell ,we can even fly B2s literally half way around the world to bomb things. Of course, that requires good intel – which this President has an awesome track record on.
Meanwhile, the anti-war, anti-military drumbeat from the Democrats is nothing less than treasonous, giving aid and comfort to our enemies. Their constant harping on Bush's endeavors to maintain security at home, their publishing of wartime secrets, their endless criticism of how we treat terrorist killers in Guantanamo, their searing hatred of the president and his staff reveal a state of mind among Democrats that is so negative that they will inevitably turn off millions of voters.
Exercising first Amendment freedoms is treasonous? Questioning in poor handling of poor intelligence resulting in an unnecessary, expensive, and demoralizing war is treasonous? If that’s treason, I wonder what outing a CIA operative is. I wonder what violating US law to utilize torture in interrogation sessions is. I wonder what imprisonment of US citizens without charge, trial, or legal representation is. Treason? How fucking dare he? My party isn’t the one riding rip-shod over American civil liberties. My party isn’t the one that’s teetering on the verge of a police state.
Americans on the whole are patriotic and favor defending our country against its enemies. They are realistic enough to know that war is no picnic and that people get killed. Anyone who joins the military knows that there is always the risk of being killed. However, no president is above criticism, but when that criticism becomes a kind of sick hysteria like the Dean scream, it ought to be seen for what it is: negative, destructive and treasonous.
The Dean Scream, as its called, was a campaign moment blown way out of proportion. Ever cheered at a sporting event? It’s the same thing. They guy was excited – and good for him, though it doomed him politically. Treason is a dangerous word and a crime – accusing people of it without proper evidence is a the paragon of everything that is wrong with the neo-con movement and the twisted leadership of the Republican party.