The War as We Saw It ****Soldiers give thier first hand account of the surge

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/o...l?_r=3&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

This is much different then what the Beltway spin doctors are saying. I'm standing with the Troops on this one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What a joke.

You're standing with the troops? Which troops? The ones who confirm what you think about a situation? What about the ones who dispute what you say?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

June-July-August 2003: 113 Americans killed
June-July-August 2004: 162 Americans killed
June-July-August 2005: 217 Americans killed
June-July-August 2006: 169 Americans killed
June-July-August 2007: 229 Americans killed (August not over yet)

You're right, the surge is working, a surge in American deaths.

What a Joke? I'm sorry but the Troops aren't a Joke Counterzero. Can you believe that everyone? Counterzero is against the Troops. Sad, very sad.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The only joke is your petty — and easy to spot — rhetorical tricks. The only reason you know about and/or care about the numbers of deaths of American troops is because it provides you with fodder for your obvious political leanings, and in doing so, exposes your freakish ignorance.

Are you not aware that deaths in combat — even a large amount of deaths — can have nothing to do with success or defeat? Apparently, not. By your reckoning, battles such as Iwo Jima, fought late in the Second World War and at enormous cost, would have been a sign of failure...

 

Ha ha, cry more Count! You're just pissed because this article holds more credibility then the bullshit you posted. Suck it up man, and learn to listen to the soldiers. And not politicians.

 

One more thing. I dare you to go on the millitary.com forums and tell the soldiers you believe the Politicans over the boots on the ground. Here I even linked the discussion for you.

http://forums.military.com/1/OpenTo...ww.military.com/opinion/0,15202,146609,00.htm

 

Thousands more Americans were killed in traffic accidents. In fact, there have been more Americans murdered in our large cities and towns than have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

It seems that it's actually safer to be a soldier or a Marine in Iraq than it is to be a citizen of large American cities!

Baron Max

 

So you're "standing with the troops"? You think those 7 men represent all of the soldiers and Marines who have fought or are fighting in Iraq?

Baron Max

 

(Insert title here)

NPR has, for those interested, some audio available from yesterday's Day to Day, featuring Slate commentator Phillip Carter, who served in Iraq.

I would imagine it's frustrating for these guys to get the hell out of Iraq only to find that the political debate back home seems to be as far from the point as it can get without becoming entirely irrelevant. The first paragraph of the op-ed is striking. The rest only drives the point home. I admit, one of the things that strikes me about the piece is how carefully it is written. These guys put more thought into it than any blogger (myself included) or journalist, and whether we choose to cheer or denounce them, we at least owe them the consideration of the price they've paid for their perspective.

 

Then when are you going to volunteer for duty in Iraq? for standing with the troops you seem to be way the hell in the back, case of pin feathers?

The real point is this statement by the troops, so if your going to stand with the troops go to Baghdad and plant your feet with them in country.

 

The troop argument has been done to death. Periodically, but most especially whenever a date of some significance approaches, the Hawks produce troops who say things are going well in Iraq, the doves produce troops that say the opposite. It's an endless cycle that tells us very little.

Furthermore, as is the case with Ganymede, the people who produce these troops usually have political leanings and agendas that are very easy to discern...

I have no way of "knowing" 100 percent what's going on Iraq, so I rely on a myriad of media sources to try to reach a somewhat educated opinion about how things are there. Most of what I have read shows the surge is producing positive results. In that regard, the number of troop deaths is irrelevant. In fact, one would expect more deaths, because there is more combat and there are more troops in more dangerous areas, thanks to the surge.

 

Everyone settle down:
Soon the Government, be it Democrat or Republican, will tell you that Iraq needs a rethink in terms of Iraqi democracy and that this strong fellow who is on our side is just the man for the job. Now everyone knows to make an omelette's you have to break a couple eggs and we also know omelette's taste good. So if you like omelette's then support our new main man in Baghdad: Adolf Abd al-Majid al-Zedong.


Hey I know, why don't we find out how many people die in the average US city and then we line our US servicemen up and shoot a little less than that and then we can say, hey, so what if we're killing out own men, join the army - it's a hell of a lot safer than driving in a US city! - sounds pretty stupid huh?

Michael

 

"Adolf Abd al-Majid al-Zedong."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well, you know, among that band of brothers one was down before they even finished writing the article. The least you could do is give the article some thought, instead of grinding your axe for Ganymede.

 

Maybe if Iraq were a justified war, as in WWII, we'd have no problem with people enlisting as was the case in the surge of enlistment we saw when we first went into Afghanistan. Now-a-days, good luck finding recruits for Iraq, which is why the military continues to add new sign-up bonuses and lowering the standards of enlistment.

- N

 

Tiassa: "The least you could do is give the article some thought, instead of grinding your axe..."

I think that's fitting advice for all of us. What's important here is the message- a conclusion that was rationally explained:

This occupation has caused a greater initial diaspora, more initial deaths, and greater initial unrest than the carving-out of Israel. It is a predictable recipe for cascades of catastrophe. This occupation obviously isn't helping the USA win popularity contests, leverage, or security. It was a mistake. Now it's over. Help bring our troops home now.

 

Dude, the article came from the NEW YORK TIMES an anti American corporation. What more do you need?

That is not to say that the expressions of the soldiers are not legitimate, but you have to be realistic and understand that this is exactly what the paper is looking for.

Tell you what, how about I go find the soldiers expressions from the Washington Times, National Review, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh?

What say you?

Count is absolutely correct; you will stand by troops that support your ideas.

Get over it, you're a demagogue.

 

I don't understand the discussion, whats wrong with simply taking the troops and keeping them in the US? do you people enjoy having one foot in another country?

Whats the reasoning for keeping them there?

 

The primary reason for keeping them there has become We Can't Be Wrong.

 

This whole thing is about starting a new Cold War, but this time with Muslims in the Arab world. The sponsors of this new Cold War, however, have miscalculated grossly, and the death toll over the long run will certainly reflect that.

Our soldiers have been killed, maimed, wounded; their families are often coming apart, and some of those, indeed, have been wounded by the war as well through the psychological damage done to their serving family. Our nation is close to turning on itself. Our prestige abroad is ruined. The Middle East is seeing a greater flux of instability than usual, and may well be preparing for a monstrous political earthquake.

The point is to justify the Bush Doctrine, to look back and say, "See? We told you so!" But the argument will ring hollow; had we not made such a point of lining up the dominoes and toppling the first, things would not have gone as they have. Perhaps, in the end, there would have been no hope for the region in the first place, but the alternative is a chance that the war dogs refused to take.