The Americian politicians think of 3 things, themselfs, money and there rich friends to help them get elected, in that order.

Iraq is only the first step, remember? Godwin could tell you who’s to gain from all this. Who was dancing on 911? Who specializes in hitting and then pinning blame on others? Who gained from all this?

How astute and absolutely correct. “Bring them on” worked!! Soon, there will be a major event that will impose martial law in the US. “got to be able to use those “mini nukes” without interference eh.

peace

I think compairing WWII and Veitnam to Iraq is a little off the mark, the 2 are apples and oranges. A better comparison would be Iraq to the Soviet invation of Afganistan. This is only going to get worse, The U.S. will loose this war, it’s inevitable, hell it hassnt even started yet. Do you really think it’s going to be contained within the borders of the Middle east?

Roach, FYI. less than 300,000 U.S. military forces, including Coast Gaurd died in WWII, I believe 272,000+-1000 is pretty accurate, less than your 50,000 by 1/8 compairison.

Atomic bombing of Japan, 160,000 from initial blasts, over 270,000 as of today as direct result of the bombings,(mostly womean and CHILDREN).

WWII total, 54,000,000. Men, womean and sadly, children… Mostly women and children.

Just like we should have never invaded and occupied Nazi Germany during World War II?

Or is inconsistency the latest politically correct offering from the cult of pseudo-socialism (liberalism).

—

Brooke Obberwetter: I sure am going to re-evaluate my life now.

Yeah, and come to mention it, you don’t want to sell me â??death-sticksâ?. ;)

Here’s your false dilemma.

We should never have invaded and occupied Iraq therefore:

The US troops in Iraq sh—

WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE INVADED IRAQ. END OF DISCUSSION. GO FUCKING RUB ONE OUT IF YOU NEED TO, BUT WE SHOULDN’T BE IN IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE. CUT THE FUCK BAIT AND GET THE FUCK OUT. END OF STORY. LIBERTARIANISM, AND HUMAN HAPPINESS, AIN’T THAT COMPLICATED.

No one knew ex ante that people delivering school supplies would be killed. What we knew is that we wanted to rebuild the country and cultivate good will. And that whatever we did there would likely be resistance from Islamists and Baathists. People, business, and life needed to continue regardless.

The only way to implment your strategy–if we can call it that–would be for our troops to live barricaded in their bases only venturing out to perform “necessary” work, narrowly defined. This is a sure-fire way to “lose the peace” and further reinforce the Arab and Islamic perception of the US as a paper tiger.

If we’re there, Americans will die to rebuild the country. And rebuilding schools, handing out vaccines, cleaning streets, restoring electricity (24/7), water, hospitals, and other jobs are all part of the mix. Just because school supplies seem minor or some rich-girl already had them does not make it a bad idea.

Here’s a serious question: How many lives was Okinawa? Iwo Jima? Monte Cassino? Or the Ardennes forest worth? We lost tens of thousands at each battle, and presumably WWII may have been won without some pieces of terrain that turned out to be too costly or (ultimately) unnecessary for final victory?

1. The supplies were the concern of a contractor who must deliver them or lose the contract in which case someone else would’ve stepped up to the plate.

2. Even if the supplies arrived late, the point is to win favor bit by bit with the populace. The school supplies should be seen as a means to an end and not an end in and of themselves. To do otherwise is to lose the scope of the situation and, in a rebuilding project like that going on in Iraq, nothing should be viewed in a vacuum.

3. The student in the article clearly states, “Many of us already bought some things from the market.” Keyword: SOME. The article also points out the poor quality of Iraqi school supplies; more specifically the poor quality of pencils and their limited supply. So perhaps the student quoted bought some crappy, “Iraqi-made pencils [that] wouldn’t sharpen, smeared easily and couldn’t be erased.” Now she has quality supplies. The supplies by themselves will not change Iraqi opinion but they will serve as a reason to reconsider assumptions and attitudes.

All I’m trying to say, and I think my point has been sufficiently made (albeit in a very muddled fashion), is that it’s a little ridiculous to me that we’re shipping stuff over that’s already there. In my opinion, shipping school supplies at great expense in money and life is just stupid. Especially given that a student claims that many of her schoolmates already had the necessary supplies.

In principle, I don’t think we should be there at all–I think it is a total waste whenever anyone gets killed in Iraq. I have real difficulty seeing the greater good on this one–I’m not trying to convince anyone.

But in practice, we are there. So yes, if it’s established that we’re there and we’re going to rebuild, in answer to Roach’s question, it is infinitely more reasonable to me that people get killed providing basic infrastructure needs than Cokes or #2 pencils.

So, I apologize for the incorrect information I posted, I really do. I should have read it more carefully. But my point remains exactly the same.

Aren’t you all glad I mediated that one for you? It’s not even that complicated.

In the spring, two Kenyan contract truck drivers carrying aid supplies for the British army were abducted and held hostage for 10 days. In July, three Jordanian drivers ferrying Coca-Cola cans were attacked — one was shot and killed, another one was injured and the third was held for ransom. In August, a Kellogg Brown & Root Inc. contract driver transporting mail was fired upon en route and died.

That’s included in the total of ten.

Who are you, Dick Gephardt’s daughter?

My point is, it’s a bad attempt at sarcasm, not even backed up by facts.

You can do better, young Jedi.

If you have to explain it three times, you’re obviously not making your point.