The post was not about Bush. It was about Kennedy. The arguement that "equally Intense" is flawed as we all know this is not nearly as intense a war.

All that said, I will revert to the original post. Kennedy's statements were out of line and may have caused the terrorist to step up their actions basing it on the fact that they (the terrorist) see the US governemnt (Kennedy) stating they think we can't win and that it will be another Vietnam. Thus causing the deaths of US Military members. Is that plain enough for you?

Let me repeat my previous post addressing your very point -

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

To the best of my knowledge the terrorists/freedom fighters/contras/etc want the US forces gone and, if they care at all about Vietnam, already know the importance and usefulness of guerilla warfare against a numerically superior and technologically superior foe. They may have also read Machiavelli, Sun Tzu or any of the myriad of war manuals which emphasise the importance and effectiveness of concentration of force, determination and effective use of cover. To assume that a lowly US senator will be the motivation for a war of independence is to insult the very intelligence of Iraqis.

Please note that in using terms like "war of independence", "freedom fighter" I am merely trying to show that terrorist is an extremely subjective label, and there are other equally subjective and irrational ways of looking at the resistance movements/foriegn imports/whatever.

Terrorist has nothing do do with your ideology. It has to do with your methods. If you purposely pick innocent civilians to kill in order to effect change, then you aren't a "fighter", you are a terrorist. A "fighter" entails fighting. The people who get blown up on a bus or who died in the WTC weren't soldiers, nor were they human shields for a military target.

The people they behead aren't military targets, if they were they really woundn't be preferable. Terrorists purposely target third parties to promote "terror"...

I'm fairly familiar with Machiavelli, and have read some Sun Tzu, and I find it difficult to believe either would characterize stepping onto a bus with a bomb to make a point "warfare". When you call them "Freedom Fighters", you just legitimize the practice.

Who's leading the anti-war movement? Congressional Republicans. - slate.msn.com article

Last weekend, three of the top five Republicans in Congress--Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles of Oklahoma, and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas--went on television to discuss the war. Here's what they said. 1. The atrocities are America's fault. "Once the bombing commenced, I think then [Slobodan] Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started," Nickles said at a news conference after appearing on Meet the Press. "The administration's campaign has been a disaster. ... [It] escalated a guerrilla warfare into a real war, and the real losers are the Kosovars and innocent civilians." On Fox News Sunday, DeLay blamed the ethnic cleansing on U.S. intervention. "Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode," DeLay charged in a House floor speech replayed on Late Edition. 2. The failure of diplomacy to avert the war is America's fault. "I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning," Lott offered on Late Edition. "I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." Nickles called NATO's prewar peace proposal to the Serbs "a very arrogant agreement" that "really caused this thing to escalate." 3. Congress should not support the war. When asked whether they would authorize Clinton "to use all necessary force to win this war, including ground troops," Lott and Nickles --who had voted a month ago, along with 70 percent of the Senate GOP, not to support the NATO air campaign--said they wouldn't. Nickles questioned the propriety of "NATO's objectives," calling its goal of "access to all of Serbia ... ludicrous." DeLay, meanwhile, voted not only against last week's House resolution authorizing Clinton to conduct the air war--which failed on a tie vote--but also in favor of legislation "directing the president ... to remove U.S. Armed Forces from their positions in connection with the present operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." When asked whether he had lobbied his colleagues to defeat the resolution authorizing the air war, as had been reported, DeLay conceded that he had "talked to a couple of members during the vote" but claimed not to have swayed anyone since it was "a vote of conscience." 4. We can't win. "I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag," warned Nickles. DeLay agreed: "He's stronger in Kosovo now than he was before the bombing. ... The Serbian people are rallying around him like never before. He's much stronger with his allies, Russians and others." Clinton "has no plan for the end" and "recognizes that Milosevic will still be in power," added DeLay. "The bombing was a mistake. ... And this president ought to show some leadership and admit it, and come to some sort of negotiated end." 5. Don't believe U.S. propaganda. On Meet the Press, Defense Secretary William Cohen argued that Yugoslavia had underestimated NATO's resolve more than NATO had underestimated Yugoslavia's, and Joint Chiefs vice chairman Gen. Joseph Ralston asserted that Milosevic "had already started his campaign of killing" before NATO intervened. Nickles dismissed both arguments. "This war is not going well," he declared. "I heard Secretary Cohen say, 'Well, Milosevic miscalculated how, you know, steadfast we would be in the bombing campaign.' But frankly ... we grossly miscalculated what Milosevic's response would be." Later, Nickles volunteered, "I would take a little issue with [what] Gen. Ralston said. ... The number of killings prior to the bombing, I think, has been exaggerated." Moreover, given NATO's desperate need to "bring Milosevic to the table," DeLay cautioned, "It is not helpful for the president's spin machine to be out there right now saying that Milosevic is weakening." The truth, said DeLay, is that "nothing has changed." 6. Give peace a chance. Cohen said it was "highly unlikely" that Clinton would meet with Milosevic in response to Yugoslavia's release of the three captured American soldiers over the weekend, since the Serbs were continuing their atrocities and weren't offering to meet NATO's conditions. DeLay called this refusal "really disappointing" and a failure of "leadership. ... The president ought to open up negotiations and come to some sort of diplomatic end." Lott implored Clinton to "give peace a chance" and, comparing the war with the recent Colorado high-school shootings, urged him to resolve the Kosovo conflict with "words, not weapons." 7. We have no choice but to compromise. Unless Clinton finds "a way to get the bombing stopped" and to "get Milosevic to pull back his troops" voluntarily, NATO faces "a quagmire ... a long, protracted, bloody war," warned Lott. Clinton "only has two choices," said DeLay--to "occupy Yugoslavia and take Milosevic out" or "to negotiate some sort of diplomatic end, diplomatic agreement in order to end this failed policy." 8. We're eager to compromise. NATO has insisted all along that Milosevic must allow a well-armed international force in Kosovo to protect the ethnic Albanians. When asked whether "the administration ought to insist" that these requirements "be met" as a condition of negotiation, DeLay twice ducked the question. Nickles advocated "a compromise," and Lott expressed interest in Yugoslavia's proposal for a "lightly armed" U.N. peacekeeping force in Kosovo rather than a fully equipped NATO force. "Surely there's wiggle room," said Lott. "Obviously, [the Serbs] don't want them heavily armed, but they've got to be armed sufficiently to protect themselves. ... So, I think something can be worked out." 9. We'll back off first. Nickles discounted the administration's demand that Yugoslavia halt its ethnic cleansing in order to halt NATO's bombardment: "Secretary Cohen says, 'Well, Mr. Milosevic has to do all these things, then we'll stop the bombing.' Tim, I strongly believe we need a simultaneous withdrawal of the Serbian aggressive forces, have a stopping of the bombing, and an insertion of international police-keeping force." Lott's formulation put NATO's withdrawal first: "Let's see if we can't find a way to get the bombing stopped, get Milosevic to pull back his troops, find a way to get the Kosovars [to] go back in." And DeLay suggested that the United States should pull out unilaterally: "When Ronald Reagan saw that he had made a mistake putting our soldiers in Lebanon ... he admitted the mistake, and he withdrew from Lebanon."

the best part?

Some Democrats call Republicans who make these arguments unpatriotic. Republicans reply that they're serving their country by debunking and thwarting a bad policy administered by a bad president. You can be sure of only two things: Each party is arguing exactly the opposite of what it argued the last time a Republican president led the nation into war, and exactly the opposite of what it will argue next time.

increased body armor effectiveness, better field medic techniques and equipment, more intense training in urban ops: all of these help lower the casualty rate. just like when the murder rate in certain cities held steady a few decades ago: it wasn't because of efficient policing, the hospitals had new, better shock trauma units that kept piles of bodies from stacking up by saving people's lives.

you could just as easily point to post-wwii occupations of japan and germany where there were ZERO casualties and claim iraq is a bad place to be.

http://slate.msn.com//Default.aspx?id=2087768&MSID=42B9ECADF5F64D85AFE74500A85F91D1

According to America's Role in Nation-Building: From Germany to Iraq, a new study by former Ambassador James Dobbins, who had a lead role in the Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo reconstruction efforts, and a team of RAND Corporation researchers, the total number of post-conflict American combat casualties in Germany—and Japan, Haiti, and the two Balkan cases—was zero.

russellmz2 - You do have your own blog to post that sort of thing, y'know.

SW - I think I'm going with some of the other posters in the thread, man. Stating a dissenting opinion is not a traitorous act (unless maybe you're a soldier). Additionally, I don't feel that any American's statements are going to "empower" your typical Irhabi. However, if you want something better to point at in this vein: Link
I would think that would show your "divided America" a little more clearly to the Arab terrorists... And yet, their message is actually positive. But, still empowering for terrorists?

I'm fairly familiar with Machiavelli, and have read some Sun Tzu, and I find it difficult to believe either would characterize stepping onto a bus with a bomb to make a point "warfare". When you call them "Freedom Fighters", you just legitimize the practice.

Perhaps they wouldn't call them warfare, but I doubt they would question its effectiveness as a tactic of war. After all, did not Sun Tzu tell his readers to know their enemy's weaknesses as they know their own? The US's weakness is its own nationals; attacking them is only good tactics. Attacking their soldiers where they are strongest would be stupid and certain to lead to defeat. Machiavelli also believed that fear and "terror" had their place as a method of subjugation and control. He mentions this in the Prince when he speaks of conquered provinces.

Anyway this is all off-topic. What I was trying to say was that Iraqis have other examples, other people to turn to for advice and counsel than a US senator with a famous name. To me it's as ludicrous to suggest this senator is important as the Australian PM's suggestion was - that the Opposition Leader's comments on Iraq were one of the reasons the resistance/terrorism continues.

That is the lamest form of discussion. Of course he has he is the Commander in Chief you moron.

You are the lamest form of discussion. This war was executed with the utmost incompetence and ignorance of middle east politics and long term goals. Even if military action in Iraq was justified (and it was not), the decisions made by administration neoconservatives from Bush down to Bremer have cost the lives of far more people than Ted Kennedy (bless his bleeding heart) can hope to 'cause to DIE' in his life. Of course in real life we can't question Bush, because then we might be weak on terrorism and cruel dictators, but if we could, I would like to sit him down without any 'help' and ask him how much faith the administration actually placed in so called 'neoconservative optimism', ie. the stuff that was fed to the presses about 'liberation'.

pseudosoldier: "russellmz2 - You do have your own blog to post that sort of thing, y'know."

and this blog has a comments section to post that sort of thing. if the author truly believes his article, doesn't that mean he should be calling those republicans names for voicing dissent, too? i am not calling the republicans in the article traitors. i firmly believe they are not traitors and merely voicing their opinion.

but i do want to see if someone who accuses other americans of being traitors is consistent and has a firm enough belief to call their own side on their crap, not just those who disagree with their side. if shadowwar feels that those republicans don't fit his traitor criteria, i would like to know why. if they do, i would like to see if he will accuse them and call them names.

The atrocities are America's fault. "Once the bombing commenced, I think then [Slobodan] Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started," Nickles said at a news conference after appearing on Meet the Press. "The administration's campaign has been a disaster. ... [It] escalated a guerrilla warfare into a real war, and the real losers are the Kosovars and innocent civilians." On Fox News Sunday, DeLay blamed the ethnic cleansing on U.S. intervention. "Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode," DeLay charged in a House floor speech replayed on Late Edition.

Ahh HELLO??? Anyone home? They are talking about the Kosovo War.. Not Iraq.. And the Kosico Government not ours. Man talk about taking something out of context. They were talking about a DIFFERENT COUNTRY AND NOT OUR WAR.. You have to be stupid to think this was Iraq they were talking about, it even says so in the above quote.

but i do want to see if someone who accuses other americans of being traitors is consistent and has a firm enough belief to call their own side on their crap, not just those who disagree with their side. if shadowwar feels that those republicans don't fit his traitor criteria, i would like to know why. if they do, i would like to see if he will accuse them and call them names.

They were talking about the Kosovo government and the Russians. So I think it may not apply to being traitors of the US.

and this blog has a comments section to post that sort of thing.

      yes it does have a "comments" section, not a "post-an-entire-blog-on-their-comments-section" section. By all means wrtie a rebuttal and link to it. You are far more likely to actually get folks to read it that way in any case. Most of the "forum" scanners just automagically roll on when they see page+ long screeds in a "comments" section. Your "comment" was longer than the original article!

pseudosoldier: "russellmz2 - You do have your own blog to post that sort of thing, y'know." and this blog has a comments section to post that sort of thing. if the author truly believes his article, doesn't that mean he should be calling those republicans names for voicing dissent, too? i am not calling the republicans in the article traitors. i firmly believe they are not traitors and merely voicing their opinion.

As my associate mentioned, this forum has a comments section, yes. Making a valid point counter to a point in his article is more than fine, it's downright outstanding. Cut-and-pasting an entire article (that you also link to) is much less so plus-plus good.

Additionally, I was referring to ShadowWar when I mentioned the "calling people traitors" bit, not you. (Indicated by the "SW -" in front of my comment.)

ok, you're right, next time, i'll explain it out in full detail instead of assuming that the quotes i bolded were obvious and self-explanatory. also, i tend to post long replies in comments because i am used to normal forums where i don't start threads that often, but often make long replies.

shadowwar: yes, i knew it was about kosovo. my point was to highlight some comments during that conflict that were just as bad as what you said kennedy said.

let me take a comment from your original article:

The Iraq insurgents are empowered by talk that seems like anything that may show we are divided by the war.

now, given all the quotes i bolded shows at least some division between clinton and the republicans while us military forces were involved in a military campaign, why do the republicans get a by on saying things like we should use "words, not weapon", that the war will be "a quagmire ... a long, protracted, bloody war"? or the part where they compared it to lebanon and that we should cut and run.

wouldn't that sort of talk empower milosovic? whether you think the starting the war was right or wrong at that point, the us was already engaged.

In the most successful wars you don't leave until the enemy is defeated utterly. We seem to have stopped doing that about halfway through the last century. Something about relativism and understanding and "international law" and whatnot. Seems to have something to do with making war about NOT killing people... I don't get it, but I am sure when Europe gets into their every-century-or-so mess that they'll show us how it is done.