Hey, Democrats. This Is The Goddamn Point

What a marketing strategy.

Our Toy War: Still Not as Bad as Vietnam.

Good luck with that, Chris.

 

http://www.ngb.army.mil/news/archives/2007/04/042307-Recruiting.aspx

I don't recall the media making a big deal of this. Of course if the military had trouble making their recruitment or retention numbers - I'm sure it would have been front page news.

 

Apples Oranges

 

How many Vietnam deaths were there after "major combat operations have ended"?

And one thing every goddamn chickenhawk forgets is the WOUNDED.

There have been more than 25,000 wounded in Iraq.

About 6,000 of them would be dead --- giving us an Iraq death total of close to 10,000 --- if not for the miraculous work done by the medical personnel over there who saved their lives.

It's pretty pathetic that amazing medical advances have disguised the fact that war --- all war --- is hell.

 

Tell that to the 31,500 dead and wounded.

 

They don't need to be told. They know.

It's people who post stupid Vietnam-Iraq death comparisons that have no clue.

"Gee, the current clusterfuck doesn't seem nearly as bad as the previous clusterfuck."

 

The site I linked to is for active service military who are either serving in or will be serving in Iraq. The graph comparing Iraq to Vietnam comes from their site.

The other article I linked to was a military release about National Guard retention numbers among men and women who have served in Iraq but have chosen to re-up.

Which of them are you calling a chickenhawk? My guess is that they have a better handle on what is going on over in Iraq than you.

 

And my guess is that a blue-ribbon group --- let's call them the Iraq Study Group --- whose sole purpose was to spend months analyzing the best strategy for the United States in Iraq would have a better handle on what is going on over there than the chickenhawks who dismissed pretty much every one of their recommendations.

 

Care to point out which recommendations were followed and which were ignored? Or are we just supposed to take everything you write at face value? I'm pretty sure that the statement the Bush Administration "dismissed pretty much every one of their recommendations" is patently false.

Why are you making such blantantly wrong statements?

 

From the ISG Executive Summary:

The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating. There is no path that can guarantee success, but the prospects can be improved.

In this report, we make a number of recommendations for actions to be taken in Iraq, the United States, and the region. Our most important recommendations call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly.


It seems the administration didn't bother reading down to that fourth sentence.

Here's the full report. Some of us keep posting it. Others keep ignoring it.

http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_group_report/report/1206/index.html

 

Let me put it this way:

The surge was Bush's "Fuck you" to the Iraq Study Group.

Understand?