V is for Victory
Well maybe, if we could just figure out what "victory" is.
Bush has consistently been telling us that we're winning the war in Iraq/on terror/whatever, without ever expressly stating what the objective is. It's fine to have ephermal objectives like defeating terrorism, but there still needs to be some definitive goals, and I think that's the majority of the problem we have there now.
Considering we went into the country to confiscate the mythical weapons of mass destruction that never really turned up, I'd say we're doing about as well in Iraq as is to be expected. Consider also that it should have been foreseen that Iraq has a population which, much like Afghanistan way back in the day, mostly hates one another, and you end up with what we have now.
So, theoretically, the idea should be pretty simple. Terrorism? Our responsibility. Sectarian violence? Iraq's responsibility. The problem is that the Iraqi government is either unable or unwilling to come to some kind of compromise on the situation, half of them fleeing to the United States for help, the other half condemning the United States for meddling. Not really a good situation for us.
No real point to this post, other than I'm getting fed up with Bush vowing victory in Iraq with no definition of what victory is.
Also, does anyone else kinda find it amusing that the press reports casualties in Iraq like the apocalypse has come? Things like "bloodiest day since the war started" tend to overstate the situation a little bit. To wit:
The American Revolutionary War, the first war we had, for the most part, had 4,435 casualties. The Civil War, 184,594 (though, to be fair, we were on both sides of that war). World War I? 53,402. World War II? 291,557. Korea, 33,741. Vietnam, 47,424.
Iraq? 2,241. The only comparable "war" we had is the War of 1812, and much like the Revolutionary War, there were quite a bit fewer people involved in the war in general. I'd imagine back in World War II days, if the news reported that 14 soldiers died in a single day, people would have wondered if there was a cease fire called. If you want to get really technical, World Wars I and II had death tolls in the tens of millions.
Another site states the number at 2,131 total, including civilians, but you get the point. I'd cite them, but really, I don't want to type "A HREF" that much. Google is your friend. Estimates for total death toll is 43,000-58,000, which, compared to World War II's 55 million, isn't all that impressive.
Alright, one cite, because it's an interesting graphical display of the death tolls of WWII: Here. While the Holocaust was pretty horrible, where's the massive outpouring of support for the Russian casualties here?
Back on track...
While I am the first to say that it is horrific that people are dying for such an idiotic and short-sighted cause to begin with, I kind of have an issue with the media for overplaying their hand here. While it is a concern, and fewer of our soldiers dying is a good thing, they need to tone it back a little with the scale of their statements.
More Americans are murdered in the United States in a day than have ever been killed in a day in Iraq, and the numbers are shockingly close to "more in a day than in a week," instead.
Why send our sons and daughters to Iraq, when we lose so many at home?
Bush has consistently been telling us that we're winning the war in Iraq/on terror/whatever, without ever expressly stating what the objective is. It's fine to have ephermal objectives like defeating terrorism, but there still needs to be some definitive goals, and I think that's the majority of the problem we have there now.
Considering we went into the country to confiscate the mythical weapons of mass destruction that never really turned up, I'd say we're doing about as well in Iraq as is to be expected. Consider also that it should have been foreseen that Iraq has a population which, much like Afghanistan way back in the day, mostly hates one another, and you end up with what we have now.
So, theoretically, the idea should be pretty simple. Terrorism? Our responsibility. Sectarian violence? Iraq's responsibility. The problem is that the Iraqi government is either unable or unwilling to come to some kind of compromise on the situation, half of them fleeing to the United States for help, the other half condemning the United States for meddling. Not really a good situation for us.
No real point to this post, other than I'm getting fed up with Bush vowing victory in Iraq with no definition of what victory is.
Also, does anyone else kinda find it amusing that the press reports casualties in Iraq like the apocalypse has come? Things like "bloodiest day since the war started" tend to overstate the situation a little bit. To wit:
The American Revolutionary War, the first war we had, for the most part, had 4,435 casualties. The Civil War, 184,594 (though, to be fair, we were on both sides of that war). World War I? 53,402. World War II? 291,557. Korea, 33,741. Vietnam, 47,424.
Iraq? 2,241. The only comparable "war" we had is the War of 1812, and much like the Revolutionary War, there were quite a bit fewer people involved in the war in general. I'd imagine back in World War II days, if the news reported that 14 soldiers died in a single day, people would have wondered if there was a cease fire called. If you want to get really technical, World Wars I and II had death tolls in the tens of millions.
Another site states the number at 2,131 total, including civilians, but you get the point. I'd cite them, but really, I don't want to type "A HREF" that much. Google is your friend. Estimates for total death toll is 43,000-58,000, which, compared to World War II's 55 million, isn't all that impressive.
Alright, one cite, because it's an interesting graphical display of the death tolls of WWII: Here. While the Holocaust was pretty horrible, where's the massive outpouring of support for the Russian casualties here?
Back on track...
While I am the first to say that it is horrific that people are dying for such an idiotic and short-sighted cause to begin with, I kind of have an issue with the media for overplaying their hand here. While it is a concern, and fewer of our soldiers dying is a good thing, they need to tone it back a little with the scale of their statements.
More Americans are murdered in the United States in a day than have ever been killed in a day in Iraq, and the numbers are shockingly close to "more in a day than in a week," instead.
Why send our sons and daughters to Iraq, when we lose so many at home?
posted by Kindralas at 12:42 PM
1 Comments:
Facts are things that the NeoCons avoid. They deal in emotions and litanies. When you look at the facts, they look like idiots. But most voters don't look at facts. Sadly.
Post a Comment
<< Home