Posted by zeugma on October 21, 2006, at 15:07:27
In reply to Re: Iraq death toll, posted by tealady on October 21, 2006, at 5:05:38
the U.S. is an occupation force, not an invading one, and while U.S. casualties are getting higher, they hardly approach levels seen in this nation's bloodiest wars (War Between the States, both world wars, Vietnam). But the Iraqi death toll is staggering. And President Bush says in his radio address today, "The fighting is tough, but our nation has seen difficult fights before."
Ah, the moral calculus. Sure, more Americans died in Hitler's last Ardennes offensive in a day than during the entire Occupation Era in Iraq (a "comma" in Iraq's history, according to Mr. Bush, who is known for his wide-ranging historical imagination, which must have flown pretty far into the stratosphere to see the chaos become a mere "comma." Maybe he's preocupied with militarizing the Moon, in which case I can understand his "long range" view. I can understand- the "long range" view looks a lot more appealing than the shortsighted view of, say politician X- insert there, I don't know, the name of a generic politician who would be kicked off PBabble Politics more frequently than I am. Thank the deity that Donald Rumsfeld is inspired by that such politicians would not stick their uncivil heads into Dr. Bob's sedate bubble, here).
Yes, our nation has seen "difficult fights" before. But we are fighting it with a fraction of the force we invested in Vietnam. If the construction of Fortress Mesopotamia is "the central front on the war on terror," one of the few matters on which both Osama bin Laden and Mr. Bush agree (at least, they say they agree), then why fight it with a depleted, vounteer force? The simple expedient of instituting a draft, as Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.) has implored Mr. Bush to do, would deprive bin Laden of his central front in less time than it took the U.S. to liberate France in WWII.The more I think about it, the more obvious it seems.The carnage the American people experienced breaching Hitler's Fortress Europa will surely not be comparable to that suffered by a conscript army defending Mr. Bush's Fortress Mesopotamia, and the causes are clearly equally noble (nothing less than the salvation of the free world- yes, we hear this kind of thing in America, and I choose to believe it because it makes me a kinder, gentler, more patriotic person, if a bit unusual for d*mned liberal New York. Imagine what i go through at the workplace, where I suspect certain colleagues of holding less than "American values." I am sure this information will be useful someday to the Department of Homeland Security, which has already saved us from no less than 21 plots planned by al Qaeda members posing as 14-year-old girls on the Internet in order to learn where we store our nukes). But Mr. Bush has been strangely silent when Rep. Murtha has pressed him on this. (Perhaps he will soon change his mind. After all, Tony Snow has informed us that Bush's "plan is to win." This is not a plan but a goal, but I take that to be an enthymeme for "Mr. Bush will implement the most rational strategy for ensuring that Fortress Mesopotamia serves its intended purposes indefintely.) The Iraqi terrorist trainees are nothing compared to the well-trained infantry of the North Vietnamese Army, and we could have kept Saigon non-Communist indefintely, until n*ive *ppeasers like George McGovern (f*ck his Distinguished Flying Cross in WWII, the man was [and is]...no, can't say, I won't be able to participate in these honest, informative, and truthful discussions anymore.
-z
poster:zeugma
thread:694045
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20061009/msgs/696563.html