Herbert: How Many Deaths Will It Take?

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/10/opinion/10herbert.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

It was Vietnam all over again - the heartbreaking head shots captioned with good old American names:

Jose Casanova, Donald J. Cline Jr., Sheldon R. Hawk Eagle, Alyssa R. Peterson.

Eventually there'll be a fine memorial to honor the young Americans whose lives were sacrificed for no good reason in Iraq. Yesterday, under the headline "The Roster of the Dead," The New York Times ran photos of the first thousand or so who were killed.

They were sent off by a president who ran and hid when he was a young man and his country was at war. They fought bravely and died honorably. But as in Vietnam, no amount of valor or heroism can conceal the fact that they were sent off under false pretenses to fight a war that is unwinnable.

[Nay]

1. Well, it took about 55,000 in Vietnam...and the pukes are still

yowling about how they weren't allowed to win that war...

[dweller]

2. Roster of the Dead

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20040909_THOUSAND_GRAPHIC/index_PICTURES.html

dp

[USA_1]

3. "How many ........." before Americans condemn Bush's war???

I do not believe that the number of deaths will determine when Americans will start to condemn Bush's criminally illegal war. Thus far, the number of deaths has not been shown to be altogether significant for most Americans.

The actual determinant will be the return of the military draft and the forcible use of conscripts for Bush's criminally illegal war.

Thus far, many people have allowed themselves to be duped into believing that this criminal war is "justified". Just like in Vietnam during the 1960s.

But when the draft was used to fill out the roles served by initial volunteers whose terms were up and people were forced to die for the corporate profiteering, that's when the majority of Americans condemned that stupid war.

Guaranteed = that's what will happen in this war as well.



Warmongers = :nuke:

[teryang]

4. Americas "willingness... to suffer casualties"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20040908/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_040908000729

<Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld cited progress on multiple fronts in the Bush administration's global war on terrorism and said U.S. enemies should not underestimate the willingness of the American people and its coalition allies to suffer casualties in Iraq and elsewhere.>

Is this stupid or what? This is not the sign of a successful military strategy.