Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: twmoore who wrote (45083)	10/24/2005 10:03:55 PM
From: twmoore	Respond to of 362515

Soldiers Lost in Iraq Top Those Lost in First Four Years in Vietnam; Expert on the '60s Reflects on Similarities, Differences CLINTON, N.Y., Oct. 24 (AScribe Newswire) -- "The nearly 2,000 Americans killed in combat (1,998 on October 24, 2005) in Iraq since 2003 are more than were lost in Vietnam combat in the first four years of U.S. combat (1961-1965, when just over 1800 died). This total is more than were lost in the last two years of combat (1971-1972, when just over 1600 died)," recounts Maurice Isserman, co-author of "America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960s." "Today public opinion polls show that the percentage of Americans who believe that it was a mistake for the U.S. to go to war in Iraq is roughly comparable to the number of Americans who believed it was a mistake for the U.S. to go to war in Vietnam in the aftermath of the Tet Offensive in 1968. The principal difference between the anti-war opposition of 2005, and that of 1968, is that in the Vietnam war a significant group of Democratic Party leaders - starting with Senators Morse and Gruening in 1964 and eventually including such figures as Senators Fulbright, McCarthy, Kennedy (Robert and Ted), and McGovern - joined the opposition to the war. This lent legitimacy and influence to the opposition. Today, the Democratic party, with a few brave exceptions, mostly in the House of Representatives, is supportive of or silent about the war," observes Isserman. Maurice Isserman, Hamilton College Professor of History, is co-author of "America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960s" (Oxford University Press, 1999, rev. ed., 2004). Isserman is an expert on 20th-century U.S. history and is widely acknowledged as one of the preeminent historians of the events that led to and defined the '60s. He is also the author of "If I Had a Hammer ... The Death of the Old Left and the Birth of the New Left." There is one major omission in this article.The number of injured American soldiers in the present war is much greater because of the Iraqi's use of IEDs. If you can believe the figures of the injured soldiers (15-20 thousand)that is about 10 injured for every death.Another thing to consider,none of the soldiers in active combat can possibly return home and lead a normal life.Probably at least 2 generations of these returning soldiers will be messed up.

To: twmoore who wrote (45083)	10/24/2005 11:13:53 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362515

Excuse me, but Saddam did invade Kuwait and was on the verge of invading Saudi Arabia if we had let him. Saddam was a crazy sadistic rightwing dictator, easily just as dangerous as the regime in Iran. He could not be trusted for a second. However, it is true than by 2003 Saddam was no longer a major threat to us. He was simply a potential threat and a major irritation. The Bushies invaded for other reasons. They wanted Saddam's oil and they wanted to steal an election or two. Rightwing Israelis also yearned to do away with Saddam, and that includes not only Bushie neocon Jews but a few DEmocrats like Lieberman.