To: PROLIFE who wrote (379563 ) 3/26/2003 3:49:29 PM From: CYBERKEN Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670 No one at the Pentagon or White House said it would be quick. As for easy-they are both extremely satisfied at the microscopic casualty rate. Time is on the Coalition's side. The enemy runs out of ammunition and we don't. Each day the enemy survives reveals targets, and those targets are destroyed. Accidents happen even back at training camp, and, if ignored, the KIA's can be counted on one hand, with fingers left over. I don't happen to agree with the goal of not attacking the enemy when he is observed to have civilian hostages in the line of fire. The Brits should have gunned down Basra, and extracted the new leadership class from the survivors. Same for Baghdad. But it appears that the US is determined to wait them out for as long as it takes, because victory is guaranteed. The media (all of it) is drawing legitimate criticism. Any resistance is described as "heavy" and "determined", and is "holding up the advance". Holding up the parade-sure, but the advance is just fine. The "in depth" analysis is OBSESSED with "what went wrong" blabber when the only thing "wrong" is that network TIME must be filled. To the uninitiated, ANY resistance can be thought of as "heavy". But the war story is simply being distorted by a bunch of journalists who don't have the fundamental knowledge of history required to put what they are seeing in perspective. I guess that's why a large portion of our republic was able to be fooled by William the Bastard: The left wing revisionists have destroyed the public's sense of history. On the bright side, I believe most Americans are re-learning unrevised history both during, and in the wake of, this war. What a disappointment that must be for the Marxist/Leninist anti-American left...