Two interesting links on Iraq

[ACPlayer]

I came across these on my morning scan of the internet.

Iraq map (http://www.obleek.com/iraq/index.html)

withdrawal anyone? (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GF30Ak02.html)

[shots]

I don't know what the point of the first link is. I know a lot of people have died in Iraq and that's a tradgedy but it's also inevitable. It's a war, do you know how many troops died on D day?

As for the second link it's an interesting article but I disagree with it's conclusions I found one line at the beggining really interesting. "As calls to set a timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq grow with each new casualty" Is that the reason we should withdraw, because it's not as easy as we'd hoped. The article goes on to say that the UN could take over security in Iraq I doubt very much that they would and I'm not totally convinced that they could. It does seem to me that some people want to leave just because of mountibg casualties, what kind of precedent is that to set we made that mistake in Mogadishu. Do we really want to send the message to people that already think we're week that they can win if they simply commit enough attrocities?

[ACPlayer]

You leave because it is not working.

The article lays out an option which is (possibly) sensible but (definitely) politically unpalatable.

Incidentally Vietnam is also a precedent. The end result would have been the same if we had left years before we actually did.

If we worked with the UN, they likely would (specially if we ponied up the long promised fees, a pittance compared to the expenses we are incurring). They definitely could do no worse.

Is folding a bad band a mistake or a sign of weakness?

[RiverFenix]

The second article is totally asinine.

[shots]

An interesting article regarding the difference between the ability to win and the will to win.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3968

[ACPlayer]

To quote RiverFenix: This article is totally asinine.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

It starts with a bad premise (other than the obvious say whatever to support Bush) which is that the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with going after the bad guys who WERE attacking us circa 2001.

But perhaps it is best not to rehash those hot potatoes.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
how many troops died on D day?

[/ QUOTE ]
On Omaha Beach alone...
- 2 Divisions
- One day
* 2,400 casualties, most in the first few hours

Fast forward to Iraq:
- ~260,000 U.S. Troops
- just over 2 years
- ~1,800 deaths

A little perspective goes a long way.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how many troops died on D day?

[/ QUOTE ]
On Omaha Beach alone...
- 2 Divisions
- One day
* 2,400 casualties, most in the first few hours

Fast forward to Iraq:
- ~260,000 U.S. Troops
- just over 2 years
- ~1,800 deaths

A little perspective goes a long way.

[/ QUOTE ]

So...what's your point? One war had more death than another? What's that prove? The real question is what did they die for?

I'll give you a point: the first war you mention was worth the deaths (and is one of the rare wars in history that was worth it), the second is not.

-ptmusic

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
So...what's your point?

[/ QUOTE ]
PERSPECTIVE!!!!!!
You can't intelligently talk about the death toll in a war without putting it in perspective of other wars. Put into perspective, the amount casualties in Iraq are fewer than the amount of casualties on one day on one beach during WWII.