If Americans supported the Iraqi war more, what would be different?

[MobBoss]

Mobboss vis versa is also true.
Given the US experience during Vietnam all competent commanders and capable civilian leadership would plan according to avoid the mistakes of vietnam.

Well, to be honest FF, I think we have. Our casualty rate is a trickle today in Iraq compared to Vietnam. Our tactics and intel assets far more up to the job we are doing.

 

[JollyRoger]

Actually, it's the antiwar people who are embracing Orwell, though they don't seem to be satisfied by the time limit of the Two Minute Hate.

The AP is making a solid run for promotion to Minitru, considering how many of their reports appear to have a Winston Smith byline.

Got any specific examples there? You have just prattled on about the AP without any substanative evidence. Let me guess, we evil leftists have dumped it down the memory hole, so you can't provide it?

 

[malclave]

Got any specific examples there? You have just prattled on about the AP without any substanative evidence. Let me guess, we evil leftists have dumped it down the memory hole, so you can't provide it?

Well, there's the whole Jamil Hussein thing, even though apparently the AP claims to not use pseudonyms.

Or how about the AP reporting (and apparently being picked up qithout questionby its outlets) that the Republicans "blocked debate" on a resolution in Congress, when what Republicans blocked was a vote for cloture... a vote to END debate.

How about some substance for your prattle?

 

[FriendlyFire]

Well, to be honest FF, I think we have. Our casualty rate is a trickle today in Iraq compared to Vietnam. Our tactics and intel assets far more up to the job we are doing.

casualtiy rates i suspect have more to do with advances in battlefield medican and body armour. I think WIA for vietnam was 1:3 and Iraq is 1:8.

Tactics wise though as in "fiasco" only the marines and certain generals were able to graps and succesfully execute counter insurrgency stratergies. Without any postwar plan each general acted independenly so you have very mixed success. (and counterproductive actions as well)

Civilian government wise though has been shocking.

 

[JollyRoger]

Well, there's the whole Jamil Hussein thing, even though apparently the AP claims to not use pseudonyms.

Or how about the AP reporting (and apparently being picked up qithout questionby its outlets) that the Republicans "blocked debate" on a resolution in Congress, when what Republicans blocked was a vote for cloture... a vote to END debate.?

A pseudonym (Guckert/Gannon anyone?) and an article worded just like every article on a cloture vote (it was worded the same way when Dems were in the minority) is all you've got? I'm honestly a little disappointed - the AP is really falling down on its job as a left wing propaganda machine.

How about some substance for your prattle?

You have a prime example in the original post of mine that you responded to. I was debunking a line of argument that has been put out there by the administartion and its apologists.

 

[RedWolf]

casualtiy rates i suspect have more to do with advances in battlefield medican and body armour. I think WIA for vietnam was 1:3 and Iraq is 1:8.

I saw an article yesterday saying that 800 Pentagon civilian contractors have been killed so far. Traditionally those would have been US troops so for any comparison those should be added to the equation as well.