<p>All this worrying about college... meanwhile U.S. men and women a little older than us are being killed in Iraq. Just over 3,000 troops have been killed -- and Bush is considering sending over more!
Where are our consciences?
Let us start petitions in our respective schools, let's write our local pols -- we should not remain passive, engrossed in our own immediate self-serving concerns.
Don't let Bush send more troops into the Iraq Quagmire.<br>
DO SOMETHING.</p>
<p>This isnt 1972! This isnt vietnam. Please dont encourage another liberal hippie movement.....I beg you.</p>
<p>At this point, those troops that enter the war in Iraq do so willingly. Let it be their decision to fight. If a draft is initiated (and it won't be), then we will have something to protest.</p>
<p>Exactly, brand. There was a draft during Vietnam. There's not now.</p>
<p>This anti-war and anti-Bush stuff is starting to get really old.</p>
<p>brand, pm me</p>
<p>There will be no draft. Democratic government, no chance. Besides, I would be shaking mad if my dad had to go back to Iraq. Once is enough, and plus he's retired.</p>
<p>For goodness sake, over fifteen times as many Americans were killed in only three ** days ** at Gettysburg. It's been four years...get some friggin perspective on things.</p>
<p>It is true that numerically speaking, the fatalities in the Iraq war are insignificant compared to our past wars. </p>
<p>But the casualties matter much more when the war is perceived to be illegitimate. Who protested about deaths in WWI or WWII? or Gulf War I?</p>
<p>Besides, let's be honest: we can't retreat from Iraq. The only plausible option to securing our occupation presently seems to be sending more troops and launching offensives against the insurgents.</p>
<p>That would be great if the "insurgents" were branded with a color and had their own military bases, like in videogames. Unfortunately, real life is a bit more complicated. To launch an "offensive" against the insurgency is to attack the people of Iraq, thus creating more insurgents. Sending more troops would definitely have the same effect. What we need to do now is focus on creating stability through the Iraqi government and law enforcement. America is a superpower but that doesn't mean that we have a bottomless well of resources to use.
Anyone who compares Iraq to the Civil War, or any other war, for that matter, is a fool. Gettysburg was a battle between two military equals. The forces at Gettysburg were commanded by West Point graduates, not some random Islamic cleric. At Gettysburg, men ran at each other through open fields under cannon fire. At Gettysburg, medics didn't have sterile supplies or anaesthetic. Plus, Gettysburg was fought during an actual war, whereas our Commander in Chief declared our official victory in this war over three years ago.</p>
<p>My point is not about the type of war, it's that making a huge deal about the number of casualties in this war is ignorant. It's like complaining about a paper cut to someone that just had their arm ripped off.</p>
<p>Uh, just because there's no draft and that there's not a huge number of American casualties does not mean this war should continue, and that people should not organize. Alot of INNOCENT IRAQIS are dying because of the instability we created. It's awfully selfish to only consider American losses. And just because we're not forced to fight a war we disagree with does not mean we can let it rest on our conscience that this administration should continue its blunders. </p>
<p>I hate generalizing, but it seems that in our generation, those disgusted with the current state of politics are more dazed into inaction than action, that "we can't do anything". To quote Elie Wiesel (which is most difficult, as he has so many poignant quotes on silence and indifference), "I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."</p>
<p>PS I don't understand the notion that peace movements are a Bad Thing. "Peace" is in the name. Is being anti-war bad, suddenly?</p>
<p>But see, we're not even in a war anymore. The war was over when we marched into Baghdad, or when we secured Iraq from the Saddam loyalists back in 2003. What our troops are dying in right now is a military occupation.</p>
<p>I think it's about time whiney peaceniks shut the fuc up.</p>
<p>Haha Fides, you had your surgery yet? You know...the one to get the stick removed?</p>
<p>"This isnt 1972! This isnt vietnam. Please dont encourage another liberal hippie movement.....I beg you."</p>
<p>What's wrong with an anti-war movement??? Actually this occupation bears a great deal of similarity to Vietnam. And, while I agree that there is a difference between having a draft and people volunteering to join the military, many people who joined did so under the assumption that our 'leaders' could be trusted not to send them to war unnecessarily. In other words, they volunteered to fight in wars worth fighting, not those started under false pretenses. </p>
<p>Fides, may I please remind you that Jesus was a liberal peacenik! Are you telling HIM to ****p?</p>
<p>Jesus may have advocated peace, but He was no liberal -- not in the contemporary sense. If Jesus showed up today and began preaching, liberals would call Him a brainwashed bigot.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Alot of INNOCENT IRAQIS are dying because of the instability we created. It's awfully selfish to only consider American losses.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>True, but Iraq wasn't exactly a playground before we invaded. I don't know numbers, but innocent Iraqis were killed under Sadaam's regime too.</p>
<p>Either way, if you want to do something about something, why not Sudan?</p>
<p>^ Unfortunately, liberals and conservatives will never see eye to eye on every issue. Both will think they are correct, both disregarding the evidence. And my 2 cents? This war was begun in order to instutitute peace and democracy into Iraq. Many had no objections in the beginning. However, the military [while doing their job, may I remind you, not on a draft] suffered casualties, and of course some people thought that was unacceptable and began protesting. This war has been put off track, but it no way has it "spiraled out of control".</p>
<p>We've definitely stayed too long over there (we should have probably gotten out soon after we got Saddam), but at this point getting out is a very difficult thing to do. </p>
<p>Sadly, I think Bush really does think he can help them. It's just impossible to bring peace to that region of the world any time in the near future...it's been too bad for too long.</p>
<p>from <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2398967,00.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2398967,00.html</a></p>
<p>"A new study by public health researchers estimates that up to 600,000 Iraqi people ? nearly 1 in 40 ? have died violently since the American-led invasion of the country in March 2003....The new study, published in the online edition of The Lancet, the British medical journal, also accepts a broad range of error, with its lead author, Gilbert Burnham, also of Johns Hopkins, saying the true figure could lie anywhere between 426,369 to 793,663.</p>
<p>It estimated that a total of 654,965 more Iraqis had died as a consequence of the war than "would have been expected in a non-conflict situation". Of those, 601,000 it was said had died directly of violent causes, including gunfire, car bombs, air strikes and other explosions. The rest had suffered from a general decline in healthcare and sanitary standards due to failing water supplies, sewerage and electricity supply..."</p>
<p>from a commentary about the study:</p>
<p>"...As David Brown reported in the Post on Tuesday, the Hopkins number of 600,000 "is more than 20 times the estimate of 30,000 civilian deaths that President Bush gave in a speech in December. It is more than 10 times the estimate of roughly 50,000 civilian deaths made by the British-based Iraq Body Count research group...As Eugene Robinson writes today, there is a strange phenomenon going on with this question of civilian deaths. Late last year, Robinson notes, the President gave his off-the-cuff estimate. "Now the administration is willing to allow that perhaps 50,000 civilians have died."</p>
<p>So is the Washington Times. In an editorial yesterday, the paper commented on the Hopkins numbers, opining that probably over 100,000 Iraqis have died: "The independent British organization Iraq Body Count reports 44,000-49,000 deaths, which is probably too low. President Bush's "about 30,000" in December was obviously too low. The Iraqi group Iraqiyun reported 128,000 between the invasion and July 2005, which is probably closer to the mark. Extrapolated to the present, the figure would be in the high 100,000s or low 200,000s. But nearly 400,000 couldn't possibly be the answer." </p>
<p>So, which is it? 30,000? 100,000? 400,000? 600,000? or 793,663?</p>
<p>Which number is acceptable to YOU?</p>
<p>for a country that we were supposed to be LIBERATING????</p>
<p>This is a crock. We have evil warmongers in power and people keep defending them. Unbelievable. What's really astounding is when people purporting to be followers of the Prince of Peace defend this evil.</p>