U.S. Iraq war casualties reach new milestone

[Phanatic]

It matters because of how we approach it and sell it. In this capitalistic society everything must be sold. Even if it is foreign policy decisions and government spending choices. Watching people in charge fail to understand that and fail miserably because of it is not fun.

[Geowhizzer]

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. - George Santayana



(Edit - Sorry, just noticed that I had accidentally erased part of the quote.)

[Drunkmasterflex]

As far as defining this as a war or police action, it clearly at this point is a police action.  However, as BB said it is really semantics, the end result is the same.  Troops and civilians dead.  As far as comparing wars goes, from a tactical standpoint very few can be compared to one another.  That being said political climate and the social/economic factors as it pertains to war can definately be compared. 

[Diomedes]

3,078

At least we can rest assured that they died for a worthy cause.  And that the wounded survivors will be well taken care of...

[Rome]

McCain blasts 'vote of no confidence'

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

58 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - The top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee sought to weaken support for a resolution opposing President Bush's Iraq war strategy, saying Sunday that supporters are intellectually dishonest.

Arizona Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), a 2008 presidential candidate, contended the bipartisan nonbinding resolution amounted to a demoralizing "vote of no confidence" in the U.S. military because it criticized Bush's plans to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq without offering concrete alternatives.

"I don't think it's appropriate to say that you disapprove of a mission and you don't want to fund it and you don't want it to go, but yet you don't take the action necessary to prevent it," McCain said.

"In other words, this is a vote of no confidence in both the mission and the troops who are going over there," he said, noting the proposal does not seek to cut off money for troops.

"I do believe that if you really believe that this is doomed to failure and is going to cost American lives, then you should do what's necessary to prevent it from happening rather than a vote of "disapproval," which is fundamentally a vote of no confidence in the troops and their mission," McCain said.

An early test vote is tentatively set for Monday.

A fellow Vietnam veteran, GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska, disagreed with McCain's assessment. Hagel said the resolution would make clear the Senate's belief that Bush's policy is misguided.

Hagel said the proposal also lays out alternatives such as moving troops away from the sectarian violence and closer to the Iraq border to provide "territorial integrity."

"We can't change the outcome of Iraq by putting American troops in the middle of a civil war," said Hagel, who is considering a run for the White House in 2008.

The Democratic-controlled Senate heads toward a showdown this week on the bipartisan resolution by Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va. In a bid to attract more GOP support, Warner added a provision pledging to protect money for troops in combat.

The newly worded resolution states that Congress "should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field."

That compromise, however, drew the ire of some Democrats, including Sens. Christopher Dodd (news, bio, voting record) of Connecticut and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, who said it leaned too far in endorsing the status quo. They want to see binding legislation to cap troop levels, force a new vote to authorize the war or begin bringing troops home.

Republican leaders worked to block a vote on Warner's resolution. They insisted that several proposals be considered and each be subject to 60 votes — a strategy that could dilute support for Warner's measure and make it tougher for any measure to pass.

McCain, who is sponsoring a resolution expressing support for a troop increase and setting benchmark goals for the Iraqi government, sought to capitalize on some of the Democratic division. Democrats hold a 51-49 working majority in the Senate.

He said Warner's proposal makes no sense for Democrats who want stronger action. It also risks undercutting a military mission that could haunt the U.S. in the future should it fail.

"The consequences of failure are such that you will see a level of violence that far exceeds anything that we have seen," McCain said. "I believe we've got a great general there. I believe that this new strategy has a good chance of success."

Hagel said the Warner resolution strikes a careful balance for a majority of senators who oppose a troop buildup but differ on the appropriate response. If the resolution passes, some Democrats may choose to move forward with stronger measures against the war, he said.

"This is not a cut and run resolution," Hagel said.

He called McCain's proposal meaningless because it offers benchmarks but does not spell out what the U.S. government will do if the Iraqi officials fail to meet them.

"What are the consequences? Are we then going to pull out?" Hagel asked. "Are we going to cut funding? Now, that falls more in the intellectually dishonest category."

Hagel and McCain appeared on ABC's "This Week."

Now it's intellectually dishonest to vote your conscience?  I see.



McCain in 2008!

[Diomedes]

Cut the funds.  Bring 'em home. 

Kucinich has the best plan anyone's bothered to propose.

http://kucinich.us/node/1803

[Diomedes]

3,097 btw

[Diomedes]

The dems are shooting themselves in the foot if they go with a non binding resolution or anything short of cutting off the money.  They need to stick their necks out and end this shtein.  They're weak though, and it won't happen.

[Rome]

The territorial integrity thing is a joke as well.  We can't even police our own borders in this country yet the U.S. military is supposed to keep insurgents out of Iraq by being border patrol guards??

That's laughable.

[Drunkmasterflex]

We were given our mission this week during a brief by my CO.  According to him we will be going to Southern Baghdad and will go somewhere between the June and September time frame.  It is funny we were given our plan of action, basically an ambiguous outline and it is pretty much the same as what is supposed to be happening.  Rebuild their infrastructure and create jobs to reduce insurgency.

[Diomedes]

You're being lied to.

The RIP Drunkmaster thread is gonna suck.

[Drunkmasterflex]

I know that is why I said it was funny.  My mission is stay alive, because the DMF RIP thread would suck.

[General_Failure]

When in doubt, start frenching your CO.

[Drunkmasterflex]

When in doubt, start frenching your CO.

Thanks!

[Diomedes]

http://www.wane.com/Global/story.asp 6049621&nav=menu32_2

WASHINGTON Critics charge the military is obscuring the actual number of troops wounded in both Iraq and Afghanistan by leaving out soldiers and Marines who suffer non-combat injuries.
The most frequently circulated number of those who've been wounded is about 23-thousand. But when troops hurt in other ways, including accidents, is added in, the number more than doubles to about 53-thousand.

Senators Barack Obama and Olympia Snowe are introducing legislation to require what they call "honest numbers" about the wars' toll.

Presidential hopeful Obama says the effects on soldiers and their families is the same whether the soldier is hit by enemy fire, injured in a crash or made sick by service in a war zone.

Who woulda thunk the secret Bush government would hide the real cost of the war?  I mean...they're doing what's best for our boys, right?  Support our troops by lying about how many are hurt, preventing a supposedly free nation from photographing flag draped coffins bearing fallen heros, etc?

Bush and his regime...worst ever.