Well said, Rose.<
>
<
>
Since "body counts" are more important than what the deaths buy for people, I guess it's just unthinkable that we ever got involved in any war; and if we did, we should've immediately cut and run when things weren't easy. As Rose said, we never would have gotten anywhere as a country with that attitude. Yes, it would've been easier, safer, and (possibly) less bloody; but would there be as much freedom around the world?<
>
<
>
Let's look at a couple battles from previous wars fought to free people from oppression, and see where the Iraq operation stands in comparison to just those two battles, not the two wars or American military operations in toto.<
>
<
>
http://www.historylearningsite.c..._beach.htm<
>
<
>
Quote:The Americans suffered 2,400 casualties at Omaha - and this is principally why the attack is remembered. It is easy to overlook the fact that despite the casualties, 34,000 troops had been landed by the end of the day on this blooded beach.<
>
<
>
That's a 7% casualty rate -- nowhere near as high as we'd think from watching movies and documentaries, but still far higher than what we've suffered in Iraq. It was the true beginning of the end of Hitler's Reich, though there was still almost a year of combat left to go. Even then, many Nazis held out for years, conducting guerilla operations against Americans. So, America topples a dictator, frees a country, and loses soldiers to enemy combatants after the war is officially over -- sound familiar?<
>
<
>
http://www.civilwarhome.com/Battles.htm<
>
Quote:#5 <
>
Battle of Antietam <
>
Date: September 17, 1862 <
>
<
>
Location: Maryland <
>
Confederate Commander: Robert E. Lee <
>
Union Commander: George B. McClellan <
>
Confederate Forces Engaged: 51,844 <
>
Union Forces Engaged: 75,316 <
>
Winner: Union <
>
Casualties: 26,134 (12,410 Union and 13,724 Confederate) <
>
<
>
That's over 20% killed, wounded, or missing. Those are FAR higher losses (in both percentage lost of personnel engaged and in raw numbers) in ONE DAY than have been lost in two and a half years in Iraq -- and that was in one battle! This was the battle that gave Lincoln the opening to release the Emancipation Proclamation. While that did nothing for slaves in the Confederacy, it essentially ended the possibility of other countries coming to the South's aid. It also gave blacks hope that their days as slaves might soon be ended. Do you think that might've had a positive impact on how they saw their lives?<
>
<
>
Finally, there's always Cold Harbor, the ugliest half hour of fighting you can imagine: Between 3,000 and 7,000 Union men and less than 1,500 Confederates went down, out of approximately 31,000 of 108,000 (US) and maybe 20,000 of 62,000 (CS) men engaged. As the article states, Quote: The battle caused a rise in anti-war sentiment in the Northern States. Grant became known as the "fumbling butcher" for his poor decisions. It also lowered the morale of his remaining troops. Yet despite those losses and others, and constant criticism in the press, Lincoln refused to deal with the South. Bush obviously isn't Lincoln, but he realizes that leaving now would both destroy America's credibility and cause the end of democratic experimentation in the Moslem world. <
>
<
>
This isn't to minimize losses in Iraq. I've said all along that one American death is one too many. But to say, "OMGZ, two thousand of our soldiers are dead! This is a senseless slaughter! We have to surrender and come home!!" is just mind-boggling and hypocritical. Defend your rights with a lawyer, a protest rally, and a constant drumbeat of propaganda disguised as news, I guess, but to hell with protecting your country from a possible threat or freeing other people from oppression.<
>
<
>
Lincoln, FDR, and Harry Truman must be up to about 5,000 RPM in their graves.
<i></i>