More bad news

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/25538.htm

[The Diabolical Biz Markie]

Would that be in his four part series "Iraq: all hope is lost"?

[Paddyboy1]

The only American channells that send me their American feed are Foxnews and E. Foxnews spends half their time complaining that nobody is talking about the good things we brought to Iraq, that we liberated their people. The other half of the time is split between showing video of fires in Baghdad and bringing on establishment liberals who won't oppose the war but might quibble about the cost, or some vague problems with the incredible death toll. One wonders where the fair/balanced part is, where they bring on the republicans to scream about how can you be so heartless and so inconsiderate of democracy as not to invade Syria. But maybe that is next season's episode.

Absent from the conversation also is any discussion of the war dead, of international law, of precedent, or of the domestic security breach. To get that you have to go on the internet. But if you want to find out how the latest bombing effects Dean/Bush 04, turn to Fox or Rather.

[Truth Soldier]

The better things get in Iraq, the more desperate the terrorists become. Or so Bush says. So I don't know if this is good news or not.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Vietnam, 1968:
1) 550,000 US troops, close to zero allied troops
2) 500-1000 KIA per month
3) Enemy controls or influences large sections of the country, has massive foreign support and secure bases of operation in the North
4) US withdraws five years later

Iraq, 2003:
1) 140,000 US troops, many (?) allied troops
2) 20-30 KIA per month
3) Enemy controls nothing, influences small areas around Baghdad, Tikrit, has virtually no foreign support and no secure bases of operation
4) Tell me again how we're losing?

[DonkeyPunch (Banned)]

My favorite part from that news conference is the first question from the press:

QUESTION: Hi, my name is Khaled Abdel Kareem with Middle East News Agency of Egypt, and my question is: You just told us about the good news, and that's great. But can we get back for a moment to the bad news?

[Harry]

Originally Posted by Aaron Brachowitz

Vietnam, 1968:
1) 550,000 US troops, close to zero allied troops
2) 500-1000 KIA per month
3) Enemy controls or influences large sections of the country, has massive foreign support and secure bases of operation in the North
4) US withdraws five years later

Iraq, 2003:
1) 140,000 US troops, many (?) allied troops
2) 20-30 KIA per month
3) Enemy controls nothing, influences small areas around Baghdad, Tikrit, has virtually no foreign support and no secure bases of operation
4) Tell me again how we're losing?

Who said we're losing?

As for allied troops, isn't there only something like 12,000 British troops? And they make up most of the allies.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

Originally Posted by DonkeyPunch

My favorite part from that news conference is the first question from the press:

Knowing the state-controlled Egyptian media, if we didn't give them the bad news they would just make it up anyway.

[2pac Shakur]

Originally Posted by Aaron Brachowitz

Vietnam, 1968:
1) 550,000 US troops, close to zero allied troops
2) 500-1000 KIA per month
3) Enemy controls or influences large sections of the country, has massive foreign support and secure bases of operation in the North
4) US withdraws five years later

Iraq, 2003:
1) 140,000 US troops, many (?) allied troops
2) 20-30 KIA per month
3) Enemy controls nothing, influences small areas around Baghdad, Tikrit, has virtually no foreign support and no secure bases of operation
4) Tell me again how we're losing?

Lessons of Viet Nam:
How to wage military aggression against a small defenseless nation more effectively.

Not learned:
How to win over the people of the nation.

For years after Vietnam, Americans talked of the war's lessons, but just what lessons were those? For a while, many believed the lessons might concern the values of the Bill of Rights, words so often abused as hollow marketing slogans. America's armed forces would never again be sent to kill and torture for colonial interests.

But that was a hasty conclusion, as we see in Iraq. America perfected its technology for killing and terrifying so that at least for a small county, it is able to overwhelm fairly quickly. Relatively few American soldiers die, those that do are professionals, and the whole thing is quickly over.

http://www.rense.com/general43/bang.htm

[Truth Soldier]

It's not about winning and losing, it's about return on investment.

The US has invested a few hundred billion dollars and a few hundred casualties for a "feel-good" situation in Iraq, and it doesn't feel that good.