I am still at the point where I know more people that died in training accidents than in combat, it is somewhat misleading because I wasn't in a field that is at much risk in either Afghanistan or Iraq, but it is true.

In one of the simple facts of being in the military, if you actually perform a mission instead of training, people will die, due to enemy actions or friendly fire or something. It always happens. When it happens it shouldn't lesson your resolve because you should have known it would occur before it started. If you do lose your resolve it says something about you, your ability to comprehend what is going to happen, or to deal with adversity, or that you are attempting to exploit something for some reason.

For those people that seem to think we never should have gone, that is irrelevant. We went. No point in even discussing it as it pertains to this conflict, it's too late. Using it to learn how to get better information or make better decisions in the future, fine that's good and it should be done, but in no way does it affect what is happening now.

None of that lessons the grief of the families affected, it is simply the harsh realities of military service.


Well, the MSM are folks of the deluded Daily Kos, cindy Sheehan variety of idiotarians. Hence their desire to actually try to slant the news to advocate an anti-Administration, anti-war, pro-insurgent posture. Thank God we have the Blogsphere to help us not have to rely on these leftist, idiotarians for news and analysis.


Good post, doc.

You are right to say that we don't really know what we, as a nation, now stand for. We are letting the media define values.

Bart Simpson as Abe Lincoln.


The Navy losses aircrew each time a carrier deploys, it is the nature of the calling. Each time a unit goes to the Desert Training area, good men die. Aviation units traditionally lose people . This is simply the nature of defending these United States. For the record, my old MOS was 55D30. For those who want to scream about chickenhawks, feel free to look it up.

This was a good post ,Doc.


the MSM sees itself as post-national/transnational.

and is distinctly
unqualified for the job(s).

in a truly baffling manner,
Newsweak both prints a Japanese-edition cover with an American flag in a trash can along with a provacative anti-American headline(thinking perhaps only the Japanese market would view it),
in the same quarter as it
seeks to drum up global anti-American sentiment over Guantanamo Bay
with the non-flushed-Quran story
(thinking perhaps only the Western market would view it)resulting in riots and deaths in Afghanistan.

global social engineering
is a bit of a challenge.

they just need to practice a bit more before they get it right,hey?

and oh,how glorious it will be
when the gates of Utopia open.


Thank you for such an impassioned explanation and defense of our military's mission. From the bottom of my heart, I don't understand why the left and our media seem to be rooting for the failure of our military. What do they think life is going to be like for them if we lose and islamic extremists eventually rule the world. I don't care how much they loath the President and think he's an idiot, it's no reason not to understand this fight is too important to aide and abet the enemy. Anyway, thanks for such passionate eloquence.


Good, doc. Very good.


I fear we do stand for nothing--or at least 50% of us do.


According to at least one account, a spokesperson clarified the announcement by saying this type of information was always available at little or no charge - but it had not been publicised and so few requested it.

Considering some of my own travails in discovering how to get something I knew was available, I can certainly believe there are things unknown to more than a few file clerks...


It hasn't occurred to most journalists today that you can be fair and balanced even if you are passionate about a cause. Today's leftist journalist are passionately opposed to every action of the US, but they will deny it and cling to the delusion that they are "objective".


Little problem with your angry criticism of the Arlington gravestones story: the piece doesn't mention PR or slogans. I guess you're referring to this one sentence - "...slogan-like operation names the Pentagon selected to promote public support for the conflicts."
So you think the Pentagon DOESN'T select operatin titles to promote public support for the conflicts?
Uh oh, there I go again, aiding the enemy and hoping for American deaths.


Sheesh, did you even read the headline, Joe D.? Let me play it for you: Troops' Gravestones Have Pentagon Slogans.

Did you even read the article, Joe D.? Let me refresh your memory:The Department of Veterans Affairs says it isn't. "The headstone is not a PR purpose. It is to let the country know and the people that visit the cemetery know who served this country and made the country free for us," VA official Steve Muro said.

Or why not check out this moron's take on it--oops! sorry, you probably agree with him, don't you, dontcha Joe?

What losers you all are.


Objection to the tombstones is like so many of the other efforts the left is employing to undermine the honor these brave men and women who have sacrificed so much deserve.

It's a campaign that is active on many fronts, some subtle, others less so.

Take for example the Lt. Governor of Pennsylvania, Catherine Baker Knoll (D) who showed up uninvited at the funerals for fallen soldiers and tells family members at the funeral home how much she was opposed to this war, then goes out and holds television interviews in front of the building:

http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com...es- funeral.html

Of course Muther Sheehan's protest of crosses is pretty sad. The fact that she was using the names of fallen soldiers on the crosses in her protest WITHOUT the permission of many family members, even refusing to remove them at the families request is a perfect example of the "absolute moral authority" which has corrupted these people's judgement absolutely.

http://mikesamerica.blogspot.com...y- corrupts.html


Several key points are being glossed over.

Freedom of the press is an American value. It is the responsibility of journalists to question the government, and to label them as traitors for doing their job seems rather un-American to me.

Secondly, not all wars are the same. While our soldiers in Iraq may be performing their duties with the same sense of honor and purpose as the soldiers in WWII, that doesn't mean that the two wars are equally defensible. They are not. There were plenty of dissident voices (Lindbergh comes to mind) who argued against America entering WWII, and yet public opinion turned and stayed in favor of our fighting against the Axis.

Was it simply that reporters were more patriotic back then? Or could it be that with Iraq, our President has lead us into a war that:
* we started
* we could have decided not to start
* was justified using documents known to be false
* was supposedly preemptive, but there turned out not to be a serious threat
* was to liberate a people who do not seem grateful to have us there
* was supposedly over years ago, despite the continued bloodshed and cost
* is looking a lot like Vietnam, a war that even McNamara repudated as a mistake

Perhaps the American people were patriotic about WWII because it actually made sense for us to fight it. Perhaps there was more support because we had stronger leadership calling for shared sacrifice, not lying to us that it would be an easy victory, not using a backdoor draft to get more bodies into uniforms, not cutting taxes for the wealthy at the same time we send poor kids to die overseas.

In the classic book 1984, the country is in a constant state of war which justifies an unquestioning obedience to Big Brother, and suppression of all dissent. We need to guard against this eventuality, and a critical press is the first line defense.

A press, that I might add, which gave Bush a free ride for long after 9-11.

http://media.putfile.com/OlbermannSwings


" A Nation that Stands for Nothing, will Fall for Anything"

And we do, every time!


Yes, we sure do fall for anything.

What lies do we fall for? Let's see:

That the elections of 2000 and 2004 were remotely legitmate. Why can't liberals just get over this, you might ask? I ask - why do so many Republicans so easily surrender their rights to fair elections? A bald-faced lie like "exit polls aren't accurate" is only easy to swallow if it benefits your side.

Another big lie so many people swallow: eliminating the climatologists on the payroll of petroluem industry, there's any serious debate whether global warming is caused by humans.

Another whopper: Bush chose to take us into Iraq as a last resort. Read this and note the date and signatures.

http:// www.newamericancentury.or...intonletter.htm

We are being fed BIG LIES. Don't swallow them.


I am retired military reserve. 10 years active, 15 years reserve. Served in two services.

The Powerline post you quote said "between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one."

Deaths of active duty due to accident, if not caused by misconduct of the individual (e.g. drunk driving or being shot while attempting an armed robbery) are characterized as "in the line of duty," with full insurance and survivors' benefits payable, and military honors rendered at the funeral. Suicides are also characterized this way.

Do you know what the #1 cause of accidental death in the DoD among active duty servicemembers was during many of the years I served? Motorcycle accidents. Had very little to do with military service, other than the military was paying young guys enough to buy Harleys and Suzukis.

I will acknowledge the danger from peacetime helicopter crashes, tank accidents, explosive mishaps, etc., but what the statistic quoted mostly states is the accidental death rate among a million-plus cohort of young Americans.

To compare that peacetime death rate, which I would wager is lower than the death rate among those of similar age not in the military, to the extra deaths and maimings due to this war is a form of a lie. Remember, the accidents due to things like cars, motorcycles and banana peels have not ended for those lucky enough not to be in Iraq.

Unless you want to argue that "they're safer in Iraq, driving down roads with roadside bombs dodging RPG-7s, because otherwise they might be home riding their Harley, which is dangerous."

Powerline: the usual distorted propaganda. If those boys had served, they couldn't be so ignorant.


The last poster is completely right. If you want to make such a ridiculous correlation for your point, then you must include the accidental military deaths that have occurred since March of 2003.

Why are you trying to deny that Iraq is not a safe place? You are obviously completely out of touch.


Interesting, isn't it that there are so many trolls on this thread? They are sounding fairly desperate to me--so they have to set up straw men and shoot them down. I think you will find, if you care to look, that accidental deaths in the military in Iraq are included in the overall death toll. Shocking, I know, but people do have accidents even in war zones. And yes, Iraq in some places are fairly safe compared to some places in the U.S. (e.g. NOLA). More people died from Katrina in 1-2 days than died in Iraq in a year. Life is dangerous. Life as a soldier is even more so. The GWOT has cost fewer military lives than any other war in US history; and considering the accomplishments --a free and democratic govt in Afghanistan; a free election in Iraq and a new constitution etc.--it is f***ing amazing. Go sulk somewhere else.


I would be pleasantly surprised if this war ended in a stable, democratic Iraq. We're a long ways off from that yet. It's far too soon to crow "Mission Accomplished" again.

The election was designed to give the new government legitimacy to allow the U.S. to withdraw without losing face. It was at best a dry run at democratic elections, at worst a puppet show. The candidates weren't listed by name, supposedly to prevent them from being assasinated. It was arguably better than nothing, but don't call it a "free election".

This administration is no friend to Democratic elections - witness Haiti and Venezuela, much less NAACP v. Harris. Would we truly allow a candidate with anti-American leanings to be "elected" to high office in Iraq? Frankly, while I'm a big fan of democratic elections and respecting sovereignty, I'm not sure this would be such a good idea at this point.

By the way, if we're going to try to tally the deaths caused by this war, shouldn't we also consider the Iraqi civilian deaths?

I don't want America to fail. I want America to stop repeating the mistakes of the past. I want America to refocus its energy from trying to control diminishing resources in other countries and start planning for the post-Oil future.


life insurance for senior citizens life insurance for senior citizens life insurance for senior citizens // byte mortgage software byte mortgage software byte mortgage software


Name:

Email:

URL:

Comment:  ?

Commenting by HaloScan.com