Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Some thoughts
Published on October 26, 2005 By Draginol In Current Events

In the battle of Okinawa, a small island in the Pacific ocean, over 12,000 Americans died and another 38,000 were seriously wounded.

Mind you, this was to take an island that was tiny and had a population less than part of Baghad. And we're still there today.

Luckily, Americans were a little bit tougher of skin back then.  We didn't shirk or slink away from paying a high price to do things that were important in a larger sense. 

2,000 Americans have died in Iraq over the past 3 years.  That's 1/6th as many people who died -- within the span of a few days -- in a single battle on a single island in World War II. 

Those Americans gave their lives in a cause they believed in.  In a cause that serves our country and even the rest of the world even if much of that world (those ironically many of whom were either our enemies or sat on the side-lines back in World War II) doesn't appreciate it. 

Those Americans were not sent there to find "WMD" or for "oil".  They were sent there to topple an evil, corrupt regime that had twice attacked its neighbors, had used whatever weapons it had at hand in war, was violating the cease fire from the previous war with the coaliation, and quite clearly was working its way through the so-called "Sanctions" to the day when it could restart programs to gain for itself horrific weapons to use or distribute to enemies. 

Those Americans were sent to a country that is literally in the middle of a region that is formenting people who want to exterminate not just every single American but the entire western way of life. 

Those Americans gave their lives to help put in its place a country that we hope will become democratic and representative but at the very least won't harbor terrorists who can plan at their leisure further attacks on this country.

Those Americans gave their lives as a part of a broader war on Islamic terror.  And while some don't see the connection between Iraq and Islamic militarism, the same could be said of not seeing the connection between the attack on Pearl Harbor and the US invasion of French North Africa.

Luckily, the greatest generation of Americans were made of sterner stuff than what today's Americans are apparently made of. They rolled up their sleaves and went to work and made possible the world we have today where we have the luxury to hyper-analyse every combat death that occurs in the name of securing freedom and security both there and at home.

The families and friends of those 2,000 men and women can hopefully take comfort that they gave their lives in a cause that was as noble and true as any cause that warriors have fought and died in.  As an American, I want to express appreciation for their sacrifice that has helped make all of us a bit safer and helped make the world a better place.


Comments (Page 3)
11 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on Oct 26, 2005
>And you want to chat about the Iraqis? Where was your overly concerned
>jack-nut ass when Saddam was killing the Iraqis...where was your concern
>when his son was kidnapping, raping, and killing iraqi women? Where was
>your concern?

Let me go on record as stating:
I DONT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT ONE (NOT EVEN ONE) IRAQI.

I AM AN AMERICAN ... WE HAVE OUR OWN PROBLEMS.

Let him rape the entire country if he wants to ... he is not immortal. If
they cant get rid of him themselves thats THEIR problem not mine.

Second, he is one of many brutal dictators we have supported and continue
to support ... it just happens to be that hes lost favor with us. Thats all.

THATS ALL!!!

Get off that silly notion that we went in there to save them. If we wanted
to save them we would have built up the middle class which would quickly
overthrown him.

If we went in to save them why drop bombs on hospitals, dams, bridges, power
generating plants to destroy infrastructure that innocents depend on?

If we went in to save them why did we rally to protect the Oil Ministry at
the expense of all else?

If we went in to save them why do we kill and torture innocents ...

I could go on and on.

Both administrations ... current and former bear the blame. The former
continued the erroneous policy of sanctions that led to so many deaths.

Give me a break, stop kidding yourselfs.
You think everything is hunkydory there pick up your sack and head to the
nearest recruiting station ... so someone there who wants to come home can
get home.

We are going to pay collectively for this mistake for a long time...
History repeating itself and we are not learning.
on Oct 26, 2005

Okay, time to turn off the anonymous coward responses,

People who give their life to a greater cause are not to be pitied but admired for having the courage and perspective to do what most people cannot or will not do. 

What many on the left lack is any sense of perspective.  That lack of perspective is typically the result of having very little knowledge of history.  I bring up battle deaths in order to provide some badly needed perspective to these discussions.

2,000 Americans have given their life to protect millions of others. 

on Oct 27, 2005
Luckily, the greatest generation of Americans were made of sterner stuff than what today's Americans are apparently made of.


I would disagree in one sense - I think this generation of Americans is just as resolute, it just happens to have a small number of numbskulls like rombios and a media culture which is very biased, dishonest and cowardly. Today's media would have reported the Battle of the Bulge as a failure of the American military, wasting thousands of American lives in a forest of no strategic value. Not to mention Iwo Jima - instead of the crowning glory of American determination in the Pacific, it would have been portrayed as a senseless slaughter for control of a worthless rock in the middle of nowhere. If Eisenhower had had to deal with a media as hostile to America's objectives as ours is today, I doubt the Normandy Invasion would have succeeded.

2,000 soldiers dead is always 2,000 too many. One dead is always one too many. Instead of the gratitude & support for their mission & sacrifice that they deserve, their numbers get used by the media to advance a political agenda. Disgusting really. The only thing that surprised me about the inevitable front page above-the-fold article in our paper on the "milestone" (presumably, the 1,999th death was not? - actually I take that back, they did a couple of recent front page articles on "approaching the milestone") was that they didn't throw in the previously obligatory qualifier about the death being "the 1,xxxth death since President Bush declared an end to offensive hostilities..."

The MSM become more pathetic with each passing day.

Cheers,
Daiwa

on Oct 27, 2005
rombios:
No madam, your husband is a fool!!
He is serving the interests of a chosen few, a cabal of people whose children
will benefit from his efforts (stock options/contracts for their businesses
doing work in Iraq).

I know you would love to believe he is doing something noble.

HE IS NOT!!!
Wake up


I realize you can't comment here anymore, but I did want to address this.

If by "fool" you mean brave, selfless, competent, and disciplined, then yes.

My husband and I are not too keen on the war in Iraq, but the fact is, Soldiers don't make policy. They are given orders and they follow them to the best of their ability.

During my husband's deployment his responsibilities included providing medical care for detainees in Afghanistan, for US and other service members, and Afghani (later Uzbeki as well) civilians.

If you don't consider trying to save the life of a child who has overdosed on her father's opium stash noble work, then you have some skewed values.

You have NO RIGHT to judge the nobility of my husband's work. He has done so much, at his own detriment, to improve the lives of people in the US and the Middle East, and he does this because he loves this country and wants to provide a good life for his family.

I'm proud to say my husband is a Soldier. Sure beats the hell out of being the wife of a nobody store clerk or broom pusher.
on Oct 27, 2005
TW -

You are too kind. If that guy were within range, I'd spit in his face and feel quite good about it. He deserves worse.

I know it's been said before, but "Thank You" to both you and your husband for your service & sacrifice.

Cheers,
Daiwa
on Oct 27, 2005
That lack of perspective is typically the result of having very little knowledge of history.



while i'd prefer to think the whitehouse cabal (as lawrence b wilkerson describes it Link ) ignorant rather than deliberately dismissive of the lessons of history, neither diminishes responsibility.

did bush, cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz & perle forget what happens to civilian warhawks who believe themselves better generals than their generals? or were they so arrogant they never bothered to consider the question?

once again, it doesn't matter.

either way, a good deal of the blood shed by those 2000 brave men and women is on their hands.
on Oct 27, 2005

I DONT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT ONE (NOT EVEN ONE) IRAQI.

I AM AN AMERICAN ... WE HAVE OUR OWN PROBLEMS.


I am starting to believe that that is quite true...



I'm proud to say my husband is a Soldier.


And you have every right to be!
on Oct 27, 2005

either way, a good deal of the blood shed by those 2000 brave men and women is on their hands.


Yes, because the US is a dictatorship and the executive branch does not enforce laws made by an elected legislative.

I'm afraid it is the American voters who are to blame. You are to blame for every killed American soldier and for hundred of thousands Iraqi lives saved since the invasion. You have to live with the stigma of having traded 2000 lives for hundreds of thousands.

on Oct 27, 2005
I'm afraid it is the American voters who are to blame


only those who refused to see the obvious.

You have to live with the stigma of having traded 2000 lives for hundreds of thousands.


if it was truly necessary to go to war in iraq, it certainly wasn't necessary we do it in haste or according to some arbitrary schedule. the invasion could have been delayed for however long it took to ensure there were enough properly armored vehicles and all the combat troops were provided effective body armor. they could have waited til someone came up with real plan.

what makes you think they wouldn't have dumped eisenhower just as fast as they did shinseki?
on Oct 27, 2005

if it was truly necessary to go to war in iraq, it certainly wasn't necessary we do it in haste or according to some arbitrary schedule. the invasion could have been delayed for however long it took to ensure there were enough properly armored vehicles and all the combat troops were provided effective body armor. they could have waited til someone came up with real plan.


They had a plan. That's why only 2000 soldiers died in three years.
on Oct 27, 2005
They had a plan.


you missed the qualifier: 'a real plan' as opposed to one ya make up as you go along.

That's why only 2000 soldiers died in three years


2000 dead americans really aren't that important to you, are they? 15,000 wounded, half of em so seriously they can't return to duty? no big deal either, huh?

how many would be too many in your estimation?
on Oct 27, 2005

Theres over 100,000 Iraqi dead.

You lost all credibility with that claim.  No one but the loony fringe is claiming that.  And even Anti-American reputable sources put the total at less than 30k, and most of those from the 'terrorists', not from American Fire.

on Oct 27, 2005

maybe you should read Pat Buchannans post on www.antiwar.com. Hes a conservative
with some SENSE ... you idiots just repeat the same old warn out talking
points

Rombios Saying Pat Buchanan makes sense!    You have completely lost it!  Sold your soul to the devil because of your rabid hate!  You will forever be known as a Buchananite!  Nice way to kill your own arguement.

on Oct 27, 2005

2000 dead americans really aren't that important to you, are they? 15,000 wounded, half of em so seriously they can't return to duty? no big deal either, huh?


2000 dead Americans are indeed not more important to me than the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis saved from death under Saddam.

Why exactly would I value 2000 Americans higher than a hundred thousand Arabs? They are all human beings, aren't they?

I wonder how important these 2000 can be to you when you still believe that they died for nothing.
on Oct 27, 2005

by the way its WAYYYY more than 2000 dead. Its estimated the number is
closer to 10k.

Wrong! The 2000th one was a wounded soldier Evacced out of country.  Ok Buchannite.

11 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last