This is my personal view and comments on the issues and events that I feel a need to talk about or express my view. You don't have to agree, but lets carry on a adult, discussion and maybe you will see it the right way, mine. ;)
His statements have cost lives, and he doesn't care....
Published on July 12, 2004 By ShadowWar In International
I have had it with this piece of fecal matter. I have read to many web sites and quotes that say it was an innocent statement he made when he said that Iraq was going to be another Vietnam. And that we could not win.

He obviously did not think before he spoke. The Iraq insurgents are empowered by talk that seems like anything that may show we are divided by the war. Anytime someone in any position of power says that we can not win, it makes it appear that what they are doing (the terrorist) is working to make America think we are losing. There is no comparison and we should not be publicly stating something that is not true. Especially from what is supposed to be a public leader (although that is another discussion all in itself).

Lets look at the results and compare Vietnam with Iraq. Ten years in Vietnam, we lost the war, at a cost of about 58,000 lives. In Iraq, in one year, we ousted a dictator, set the groundwork for installing a democratic republic government, freed 50,000,000 people from tyranny, at a cost of about 600 lives. So, 600 divided by 58,000 comes to 1.03%. That makes Ted Kennedy 98.97% wrong. However, since we are comparing apples to oranges, Ted is 100% wrong

He is a traitor and about as un-American as they come. He is a disgrace to the US Government and does not deserve to be called Senator.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jul 12, 2004
People like Kennedy sure do love to compare Iraq to Vietnam. I wonder if he and the other "pro-peace" people will harass the troops when they return home as they did in Vietnam.
on Jul 12, 2004
How about widespread conservative criticism of President Clinton during the war in the Balkans? Was that traitorous and un-American?

The trouble with your point is that it assumes that our form of government is not democratic, and that our leaders are beyond question. Admittedly, there are advantages to that kind of government, particularly in wartime, since policy disagreements at home can encourage our enemies. But I, personally, do not think that our enemies are mighty enough to force us to abandon the American way, which includes free discussion.

Has this led to further combat deaths? Possibly.

Could the same be said of decisions made by the President? Including those decisions motivated by politics? Probably.

However, I am sick and tired of conservatives playing this patriotism card to get their way. If anything causes a backlash from me, it is having right wingers tell me that shutting up and following conservative leadership is a prerequisite to being truly American... conveniently forgetting that conservatives have no track record for shutting up when liberals are elected.

on Jul 12, 2004
>>> The Iraq insurgents are empowered by talk that seems like anything that may show we are divided by the war.

Cite references plz. It seems preposterous to think some 20 year old Iraqi insurgent has any knowledge or care about what some fat old senator from Mass. says.

Thanks.
on Jul 12, 2004
He is a traitor and about as un-American as they come. He is a disgrace to the US Government and does not deserve to be called Senator.


It is not unAmerican to state opinions and to question.
on Jul 12, 2004
Yeah, the Iraqis were about to give up before they heard it was another Vietnam.

Someone should tell them that they cant win, to reduce their initiative to fight us!
on Jul 12, 2004
ShadowWar:
Well, before Bakerstreet says it, let me be the first, he is who he is because he is successful and gets reelected every 6 years. Do you need directions to Massachusetts so you can work against his reelction or you ok with that?
on Jul 12, 2004
Well isn't this the highest form of debate ever. Time to lower myself and inform you ShadowWar that you are 100% Unamerican. Our country is based on Freedom and to label others unpatriotic for thier opinions goes against everything this country was founded on. In fact dissent is America's highest form of patriotism. Without it this wouldn't be the USA at all, there would be nothing to be patriotic about.

By the way. Don't you think that comments from a much more visible and already reviled figure in an even higher position of leadership are far more dangerous. Comments like "Bring it On". You know the kind of stuff that wouldn't just embolden those who already hate us but anger more citizens of an invaded country and create more terrorists. Most importantly those are the kinds of comments that can set us up for a really long fall.
on Jul 12, 2004
I'd agree with Gargolye - what does a terrorist care about some once-important man in another country? Kennedy doesn't provide funding, or protection, or any other kind of support to the terrorists other than an acceptance that they exist and are going to make things difficult for US forces. Blame the Saudis who fund the rebels/freedom fighters/contras/whatever, or the unprotected arms stockpiles which arm them, or the farming collectives which make fertiliser.

If you blame people for being pessimistic about chances of a speedy victory, do you also advocate the enforcement of optimism? Must we all take happy pills in the perfect country under God? Personally I can see an argument for this - spending my life on government-funded opiates or the like would make things very easy - but there has to a point where we as citizens and as rational human beings can accept the existence of opposition without considering it a personal attack or a threat to our security.
on Jul 12, 2004
George Bush has caused more Americans to die in Iraq than Ted Kennedy.
on Jul 13, 2004
Hey,
while we're at it, lets go the whole hog.

George Washington has caused more Americans to die in Iraq than Ted Kennedy. If he hadn't created America then no Americans would be dying!


Seriously though, people need to start asking about responsibility. If someone points a gun and threatens to shoot them unless you say hello, who's responsible if you don't say hello and the kid gets shot? The person who shot them! People can always question and critise why you didn't say hello, but the responsibility lies with the person taking the action. Same with Iraq. Insurgents killed the Americans, not Ted Kennedy and not George Bush. Feel free to critise their decisions and statements, but don't place the blame where it doesn't belong. Kennedy is only responsible for his comments. Bush is only responsible for his actions and choices.

Paul.
on Jul 13, 2004
George Bush has caused more Americans to die in Iraq than Ted Kennedy.


That is the lamest form of discussion. Of course he has he is the Commander in Chief you moron.
on Jul 13, 2004
There have been over 1,000 coalition deaths in Iraq, making you greater than 40% wrong.
on Jul 13, 2004
You have to consider scale to compare the two conflicts. At the max, there were 500,000 U.S. troops in Vietnam. For Iraq, I believe the total coalition number is around 140,000. Generally speaking, the number of casualties will scale with the number of troops stationed. Thus, if ~50,000 were killed in action in Vietnam over 5 years, an equally intense campaign in Iraq at the current scale would mean around 1,400 casualties over 5 years. At 1,000 plus and counting, the scaled casualty rate is already higher than that in Vietnam.

You are right that they're not easily comparable, but I'm just trying to improve on what you attempted above.
on Jul 13, 2004
Thus, if ~50,000 were killed in action in Vietnam over 5 years, an equally intense campaign in Iraq at the current scale would mean around 1,400 casualties over 5 years


I think you mean 14,000.
on Jul 13, 2004
You might also argue that in the early years of the conflict, the American casualty rate was quite low. It's only in the later years that so many people died. Therefore, Iraq is on track to be worse than Vietnam!

Or better yet, you might abandon this silly line of argument entirely.
2 Pages1 2