AP Asks: Why So Many Upset by Iraq Death Toll?

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003526309

The country largely kept the faith during World War II, even as about 400,000 U.S. forces died - 20,000 just in the month long Battle of the Bulge. Before turning against the wars in Korea and Vietnam, Americans tolerated thousands more deaths than in Iraq.

Has something changed? Do Americans somehow place higher value on the lives of their soldiers now? Do they expect success at lower cost? Or do most simply dismiss this particular war as the wrong one - hard to understand and harder to win - and so not worth the losses?

The Associated Press recently posed these questions to scholars, veterans, activists, and other Americans. Their comments suggest that the public does express more pain over the deaths of this war.

A death toll of 3,000 simply sounds higher to Americans in this war than it did in other prolonged conflicts of the past century, for a number of reasons, the interviews suggest.

"As fewer Americans die in war, their loss is more keenly felt, not necessarily at a personal level, but at a collective and public level," says historian Michael Allen at North Carolina State University.

[Critters2]

1. Something to do with the pointlessness of this war, maybe? nt

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

23. Hello Captain Obvious, LOL. Not obvious enough for these idiots though.

[applegrove]

26. Ding ding ding ding ding!

[bdamomma]

27. numbers of people are being killed, wounded and not only our

troops but numbers of Iraqi civilians who do not have the means or money to leave Iraq, we invaded a country with no weapons of mass destuction, and we silenced a dictator who should have been tried and convicted at The Hague.

[Imagevision]

2. Because we've learned from 58,000 lost in Nam because of our government

3002 lost in Iraq, we weren't attacked, Iraq wasn't a threat, we went to war with fabricated intel, according to Powell!!

[Phredicles]

3. "Has something changed?" Cripes, we may already have a finalist

for Dumbest Question Of 2007.

Pointless AND pushed under false pretenses. But hey, Saddam did the rope dance, so what's all the long faces for? Yeeeeeeeee-haw! :eyes: :puke:

[uppityperson]

4. What about those 46,880 non-mortal casualties also? And WHY are they dying?

Yes, less are dying, but what are they dying for? Including how many are wounded, physically wounded that is, there are quite a bit more. But the main problem I see is why are they dying?

[ellisonz]

9. Bingo.

Medical techonolgy has advanced quite far. About 25,000 of those have required transport out of Iraq. So let's say, if this was 1944, 80% would have died in the field. So the historically comparable Iraq total is 18,000-25,000 dead. And that would be with ceramic body armor, which has undoutably saved many many lives. So it's not the death that is troubling Americans, it is the casualty rate. The question posed by the above is a false one. This war is just as violent and virulent as any in our history.

Edit: If you try to factor in lives saved by body armor, which was totally absent in WWI and WII the total is maybe 30,000-40,000. No laughing matter.

[Nite Owl]

5. What don't they understand

they died for a lie and not a noble cause as we saw in WWII. It's a senseless killing and the troops are being abused by being sent to a foreign land without due cause, without proper equipment for far too long. Fewer have died but the injuries are devastating and there is little help and support for them.

[bdamomma]

28. and if they send more troops to Iraq, that equipment they have

is not in operating shape, thus more deaths and for what, a senseless war for a senseless man, 3,003 deaths for lies.

[Octafish]

6. Each human life is priceless.

Every person represents a universe of infinite possibilities.

We can not afford to lose a single person, needlessly.

[ConsAreLiars]

8. "needlessly" - that is the key to this bogus question.

A war based on delusions is impossible to justify when reality calls "bullshit." But the deaths are real.

[GeneCosta]

7. Well

In WW2 we had the German and Japanese war machines breathing down our allies necks -- and eventually our own.

Most people didn't oppose the Afghani war for a reason.

[kentuck]

10. One of the most difficult questions to answer...

First of all, this is not WWII. This war is an illegal occupation. We have not only lost 3000 lives - we have lost much more. We have lost our respect around the world. We have given up our freedoms to a tyrant. This war affects every American, not just the family that lost a family member. Violence begets violence and hatred. It is not the same as if someone died from a disease or from an accident. There are consequences to this war are far-reaching and undefinable. We are losing our soul.

[bdamomma]

29. I agree wholeheartedly with your comment, for all of our sakes

we got to turn/salvage this needless war. We are losing everything we ever stood for.

[Imagevision]

11. Fighting for your country is one thing,-- fighting so that big business survives is another!

[Amonester]

12. Big business would have "survived" anyway.

Their CEOs and a few other have-mores R those who take all the benefits of this war, plus all the tax cuts.

Would they have "survived" anyway without this illegal and immoral war?

That's the question. I mean, one thousand times their average worker's earnings was not enough for them...

In fact, it's never enuf.

[Imagevision]

13. US. troops guard the pipelines, contractors deliver supplies

[Old and In the Way]

14. The fact that AP has to ask this question, rhetorically, is proof positive

that they are no longer part of the solution, but part of the problem.

[noamnety]

15. Did they ask that question about 9-11? (nt)

[happyslug]

16. Look at the level of Support for WWI., WWII, Korea and Vietnam at the start.

Except for WWI, the vast majority of Americans supported going to war in these wars. WWI had the MOST OPPOSITION do to the lack of support for going to war to save the Western Allies. In the late 1930s Churchill commented the biggest mistake of the WWI was Wilson entering the US into the War, had the US NOT entered the war a Peach treaty was possible in 1917, but with the US in the War the Western Allies wanted their "Victory" and fought on with US Support. Churchill observation that the Communists in Russia and the Nazis in Germany would NOT have come to power if a negotiated treaty had been made in 1917 AS BOTH SIDES SUFFERED FROM INCREASE OPPOSITION TO CONTINUING THE WAR. You had Mutinies iii in the German Navy, Strikes in Britain and France and Revolution in Russia. The Emperor of Austria Hungary was working full time for a negotiated peace, all he needed was support from the Western Allies and a Treaty was possible, but once the US entered the War the Western Allies smell blood and wanted their pound of flesh, which lead to the October Revolution in Russia and the Defeat of Imperial Germany in 1918.

Even in the US, opposition to the war was extensive, combined with fear of Communism, lead to the Palmer Raids of 1919.

On the other hand, Germany was clearly the aggressor in WWII, and FDR put out a clear case against Hitler, but even then refused to go to war without some clear act of provocation by the Axis. That clear provocation was Pearl Harbor which united the US against Japan. Three Days later Hitler declared war on the US, then and only then did the US declared war on Germany. FDR even before Pearl Harbor asked Americans to sacrificed to defeat Hitler, by asking for increase taxes to support both Britain and the USSR (after June 1941), and the Draft in 1941 but No declaration of war till the US was actually Attacked. Most Americans supported these actions for the actions were viewed as defensive and just careful planning NOT part of a plan to go to war. Only with the collapse of almost all opposition do to Pearl Harbor did the FDR have the US declare war, FDR wanted to make sure he had the vast support of the American people before he lead the US into war.

Korea is similar, Truman called going into Korea the hardest decision in his Presidency. The reason was his fear of fighting the Wrong Enemy, at the Wrong Time in the Wrong Place. The enemy was NOT North Korea but the USSR, yet no Soviet Troops were in Korea when the Attack began. Furthermore if you did advance where do you stop? If the enemy is Moscow, to attack it from Korea is the long way. China had been "lost" the year before so Truman was familiar with prospects of winning back China if the US invaded China after taking all of Korea (The chances were slim or none given the massive support for Mao and his Communist Chinese in China in 1950).

At the same time the House and Senate both overwhelmingly voted to support South Korea, and Americans overwhelmingly supported defending South Korea. Opposition to the War only started in 1952, and mostly form Right wingers who disliked Truman's decision to make the 49th parallel as the best solution to Korea as opposed to Invading China. On the left you had some opposition, more do to the lack of "progress" under this policy. Eisenhower made his promise to visit Korea (which he did) but that was meant to show he could better manage the War than Truman NOT that he would pull out of Korea. Thus even as late as 1953 the Majority of Americans still supported the War in Korea, through opposition was growing on the left, through was minor compared to the opposition of Truman's policy on the right.

The same with Vietnam, the majority of Americans supported going to war to "save" South Vietnam from the Communists. The Majority of Americans would support the war till 1968 when the Tet Offensive occurred and the America people started to ask what is the progress in Vietnam? If after three years of extensive American combat in Vietnam how can the US be winning of the Viet Cong could launch such a massive offensive like Tet? Unlike Korea opposition to Vietnam started early as people fail to see some sort of Attack on South Vietnam by North Vietnam when most of the fighting was against Viet Cong living in South Vietnam. Unlike Korea and WWII (but like WWI) you had no direct attack by an aggressor. The US entered the War do to Germany's declaration of unrestricted Submarine Warfare int he Atlantic, something that was NOT an attack on America, like the Gulf of Tonkin Incident which was an attack from North Vietnam in waters off the coast of North Vietnam. You had hostile actions, but no invasion. Thus WHO was Americans fighting in South Vietnam? Why not attack North Vietnam (Which we did right after the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the answer why no ground invasion was the US did NOT want to engage the Chines Peoples Liberation Army, PLA, which Mao promised to send into Vietnam of the US ever invaded the North). Thus an attack off North Vietnam, was used to justify Military actions in South Vietnam. Internal American opposition started immediacy from the left (Unlike Korea when the opposition from the left did not start till about 1952-1953 as the war came to an end).

Thus unlike WWII and Korea you had opposition to Vietnam from the Start of the War. This extended into Congress where Congressmen and Senator started their opposition (Unlike Korea with its almost Unanimous Congressional support for the war as it started, I believe it was Fulbright who told LBJ to" Declare Victory and Pull out"). After three years of apparently no progress you had the Tet Offensive. From that point onward the Majority of Americans no longer believe what the Military was telling them about the progress in the War. Even among supporters, the Government was not believed, the defense was the US could not abandon its Friends in South Vietnam, not that the war was winnable.

Thus the difference is that even in Vietnam the majority of Americans supported the war. When it came to Afghanistan you also had that level of Support, but you NEVER HAD THAT LEVEL OF SUPPORT TO INVADE IRAQ. Remember in 1968 over 50% of the population wanted the US out of Vietnam, but you also had almost 50% of the Population who wanted to stay in. From 1968 till 1974 when Saigon Fell, support for th war steadily fell, but even in 1974 at least 25-33% of the population still supported US support for the South Vietnamese Government. You barely had over 50% of the population supporting the War in Iraq on day one of the War, and support has fallen since that date. You had more supported of the Vietnam war in 1974 then you have supporters of this war within two years of start of the war. In simple terms, support for Vietnam started at a high level and declined slowly. Support for the War in IRaq started out with just a bare majority supporting it and declining rapidly as it quickly became apparent that the US had no popular support in Iraq.

Thus the reason is NOT the number of people killed, is WHY THEY WERE KILLED. If Americans support the war, they will accept all levels of causalities (As can be seen in the US Civil War, the Revolution and the French and Indian War, all of which as a percentage of the population the US had greater losses than anything since the US Civil War). As one old soldier told me years ago, if American Mothers support the war they will send their sons off to fight it, but if they do not, they will not. Right now American Mothers do NOT support this war and thus will NOT tolerate the death of their sons in such a war (On the other had most American Mothers will support the War in Afghanistan to get bin Laden do to 9/11, but not Iraq just to have access to oil).

[pnorman]

18. I regard myself as "heir" to the tradition of those who opposed US entry into that war

Specifically, Eugene V. Debs, Emma Goldman, and so many others. I've done much reading of that period, but I had never heard of that observation by Churchill until just now. I'll have to Google it further for cross-checking, but it certainly makes much sense. THANKS! You've opened up a whole new line of Google-research for me!

I DO know that much of the anti-war arguments of the Socialist Party of America, were later picked up by Republicans, to be used against FDR.

pnorman

[happyslug]

31. Some people said he never made that quote, thus it is often marked "Disputed"

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

My own opinion is that Churchill did make the comment but as a Politician realized it hurt him among the
conservatives in his own Conservative Party so later claimed he did not. Remember he was a politician, first and always.

(From Wikiquote):
Disputed quotations
* America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these 'isms' wouldn't today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government — and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives.
o Published as having been made in an interview with William Griffen, editor of New York Enquirer (August 1936) In a sworn statement before Congress in 1939 Griffen affirmed Churchill had said this. Congressional Record (1939-10-21) vol. 84. p. 686. In 1942, Churchill admitted having had the 1936 interview but disavowed having made the statement (The New York Times, 1942-10-22. p. 13).
o In his article "The Hidden Tyranny," the antisemite Banjamin Freedman attributed this quotation to an article in Scribner's Commentaor in 1936. This is impossible. This journal did not exist until 1939. The sentiments and style expressed here are in any event distinctly un-Churchillian.


Others who SUPPORT that this was Churchill's position:
http://www.greatwar.nl/frames/default-churchill.html

Thus by the winter of 1916 you had in place enough people who wanted peace even if that meant no Victory. The Pope had been arguing for Peace since 1914 (and had proposed a Christmas Truce in 1914, which all sides denounced as impossible but occurred in certain British and to a lesser extent French units facing Germans on Christmas Day 1914, to prevent this from happening again in 1915 and 1916 both sides opened all day artillery fires on Christmas 1915 and 1916 and again on Christmas 1917).

Thus you had the Leader of Austria urging some sort of peace, with people in the Government of Germany, Britain and France also supporting peace (But only the Emperor of Austria in actual position of Power).

More on Karl I of Austria-Hungary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_of_Austria
http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/karl.htm
http://www.catholicism.org/karl-hapsburg.html

On Benedict XV (Pope at the time of WWI):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XV
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xv/
http://www.cfpeople.org/Books/Pope/POPEp256.htm

[pnorman]

17. Good Point!!!

It wasn't until the Tokyo War Crimes Trials in the late Forties , that we had conclusive proof that it was the JAPS who were behind that DASTARDLY attack on Pearl Harbor! Had FDR (The Dubya of his time) waited until then to declare war, we'd all be speaking Japanese! (Actually, I already do, and apologize in advance to anyone offended by that ethnic slur-word).

pnorman

[annabanana]

21. self delete

[B Calm]

19. Could it be dying in vain makes no sense anymore?

[Disturbed]

20. Thanks happyslug for that excellent breakdown.

War is killing and maiming. Does it usually solve problems?

[happyslug]

33. Rarely, more often then not causes more problem them it solves

THe American Civil War is a good example of a War solving a problem, the problem was Slavery and it was abolished by the War. Now the South hated the result of the Civil War (and later the movement to desegregation) but as a whole the abolishment of Slavery balanced out in favor of the Civil War. The American Revolution is the more common "good solution" where something had already occur but someone rejects that change and tries by military force to undo it (in the case of the American Revolution, the British tired to undo the de facto American Independence the US had had since at least the 1680s).

Another type of War that generally does more good than bad are revolutions, provided they do not go overboard (and most often do). Revolutions that change the impediments to change tend to do more good than bad, but sooner or later most revolutions try to do all the needed changes at once, and this leads to excess. This is what happen to the French Revolution, the first couple of years was good, then they went overboard during the reign of Terror and later the corrupt Directory and then the turn to Military rule under Napoleon. This is the pattern for most revolution. The Russian revolution did the same, some good from the March 1917 Revolution, continuing through the October Revolution, but then the turn to terror during the Civil War and then the Dictatorship of Stalin. China followed a similar pattern, the Revolution and Civil War overthrowing the Nationalists in 1949, the vast improvements in China during the early 1950s then reaction as Mao tried to stay in power with his "Great Leap Forward".

On the other hand, if a country survives its Revolutionary period, it can become a better country. Britain after the Commonwealth is the Classic Example, as the changes under Cromwell came to fruit after his death and the Restoration of 1660. The same for France in the 1800s. China in 1949 had half the GNP as India in 1949, but is now has twice the GNP of India, the chief reason appears to be the ending of just a few People owning all of the land of China that the communist changed in the 1950s.

None of these advances in these countries could have happened unless you removed the impediments against the advances. Those impediments were removed by the Revolution. Even in the US, when you had violent conflict, that often lead to removal of impediments to improvements. For example in 1877 you had the General Strike, while it was put down, Congress saw the grievances as legitimate and started to address them in the form of Federal rules on interstate Railroads. Homestead in 1892 was another defeat by Labor, but started the Federal Government to a more neutral position as to Labor (and would lead to Theodore Roosevelt's negotiation during the Anthracite Coal Strike of 1903). The same with the Labor problems of the 1920s and 1930s, it lead to the Federal Government becoming more "Neutral" in any dispute between Labor and Management (then the Wagner Act, giving Labor a decent Chance of forming unions).

My point here is while violence often causes more problem then it solves, sometime violence can solve problems. The key is knowing when you are causing more harm then good. For example you can see several "Failed" attempts at unionization actually helped the advancement of Unions. The attempts failed and were put down, but the cost to do so upset so many people that changes were made. Often this is preferred to a "Successful" revolution in that most "Successful" Revolutions keep on making changes even when the change causes more harm then good .

One of the best example of a Change that is not fully thought out so to minimize the harm the change leads to, is when Forfeiture of asset ceased to be automatic when it came to Murder. Under the Common Law if you were convicted of Murder, your assets became the assets of the King. Thus if someone killed his parents upon his conviction the killer's assets became the property of the King. This was NOT a problem till Forfeiture was dropped when it came to Murder. You then had the problem where someone killed his parents and then received his inheritance AND COULD KEEP IT for forfeiture had been abolished. To end this "problem" all states to my knowledge passed laws forbidding inheritance from someone you killed. It is an example of a change that was NOT fully throughout when Forfeiture was drooped as part of conviction of Murder.

There are other examples where things went beyond what was needed. Some of these were minor (Like the French attempt to make a "Decimal" Calendar), others are major like France's Reign of Terror.

My point is sometime violence is necessary to push reforms forward, but the most common situation are failed attempts to stop change or people who prefer to take the easy route and not upset their Friends by saying the fighting is NOT doing any good. Often this is a decision NOT being made by the people doing the actual fighting and have to respond to any opposition to end the fighting (Like LBJ when it came to Vietnam, the main opposition to his Vietnam policy was NOT from the left but from the Right till 1968 and the Right said he was NOT doing enough). WWI is the classic situation where continued war did no good. The fighting was only hardening people attitude to the war, while millions of people died, and their deaths was just a waste of soldiers for it did not good (Yes, very much like Iraq today).

My point is every use of Violence is different, but any use has to careful so that the good expected of it is less than the harm caused by the use of Force. Most times that is NOT the case, but sometimes it is even if the side offering battles losses (As did American Labor in many of the Violent Strikes between 1866 and 1938).

[cassiepriam]

22. The new meme: Today's Americans are wimps

Don't have the backbone they used to.

See, it is all our fault.

[spanone]

24. Pre-Emptive Wars Need To Be Held to Higher Standards.

People seem to forget that this war was a WAR OF CHOICE. We were NEVER attacked by Iraq. Iraq was NO strategic threat to the US.

[leesa]

25. Ahhh...pretending it's a just war, I see.

It's always frightening when editors and publishers are so obtuse.

[w8liftinglady]

30. the numbers for the other wars

November 2006 Word | PDF




American Revolution (1775-1783)
Total Servicemembers ..................................217,000
Battle Deaths ..................................................4,435
Non-mortal Woundings......................................6,188
War of 1812 (1812-1815)
Total Servicemembers...................................286,730
Battle Deaths..................................................2,260
Non-mortal Woundings.....................................4,505
Indian Wars (approx. 1817-1898)
Total Servicemembers...................................106,000
Battle Deaths...................................................1,000
Mexican War (1846-1848)
Total Servicemembers.....................................78,718
Battle Deaths...................................................1,733
Other Deaths in Service...................................11,550
Non-mortal Woundings......................................4,152
Civil War (1861-1865)
Total Servicemembers (Union).....................2,213,363
Battle Deaths (Union)....................................140,414
Other Deaths in Service (Union)......................224,097
Non-mortal Woundings (Union).......................281,881
Total Servicemembers (Conf.)......................1,500,000
Battle Deaths (Confederate).............................74,524
Other Deaths in Service (Confed.)....................59,297 *
Non-mortal Woundings (Confed.) .................Unknown
Spanish-American War (1898-1902)
Total Servicemembers (Worldwide).................306,760
Battle Deaths......................................................385
Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater)................2,061
Non-mortal Woundings......................................1,662
World War I (1917-1918)
Total Servicemembers (Worldwide)...............4,734,991
Battle Deaths.................................................53,402
Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater)..............63,114
Non-mortal Woundings..................................204,002
Living Veterans......................................Less than 25
World War II (1941-1945)
Total Servicemembers (Worldwide).............16,112,566
Battle Deaths................................................291,557
Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater).............113,842
Non-mortal Woundings..................................671,846
Living Veterans..........................................3,242,000
Korean War (1950-1953)
Total Servicemembers (Worldwide)..............5,720,000
Battle Deaths.................................................33,741
Other Deaths (In Theater)..................................2,833
Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater)..............17,672
Non-mortal Woundings..................................103,284
Living Veterans..........................................3,086,400
Vietnam War (1964-1975)
Total Servicemembers (Worldwide)..............8,744,000
Deployed to Southeast Asia........................3,403,000
Battle Deaths.................................................47,424
Other Deaths (In Theater)................................10,785
Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater)..............32,000
Non-mortal Woundings..................................153,303
Living Veterans..........................................7,286,500
Desert Shield/Desert Storm (1990-1991)
Total Servicemembers (Worldwide)..............2,322,000
Deployed to Gulf...........................................694,550
Battle Deaths......................................................147
Other Deaths (In Theater).....................................235
Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater)................1,590
Non-mortal Woundings.........................................467
Living Veterans...........................................2,260,000
America's Wars Total
U.S. Military Service During War................43,185,893
Battle Deaths................................................653,708
Other Deaths (In Theater).................................14,560
Other Deaths in Service (Non-Theater).............525,930
Non-mortal Woundings................................1,447,281
Living War Veterans..................................17,835,000
Living Veterans (War & Peacetime)............23,976,000
* Does not include 26,000 to 31,000 who died in Union prisons.



Source: Department of Defense (DoD), except living veterans, which are VA estimates. Estimates are as of September 30, 2005.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Global War on Terror (as of Sept. 30, 2006)**
Total Servicemembers (Worldwide)...............1,390,765
Deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan....................185,329
Battle Deaths...................................................1,674
Other Deaths (In Theater).....................................563
Non-mortal Woundings....................................15,991
Living Veterans.............................................433,398***


http://www1.va.gov/opa/fact/amwars.asp

Obviously does NOT have the most current numbers

also,fact sheets on previous wars-I couln't find one on OIF
http://www.va.gov/OAA/pocketcard/worldwar_summary.asp
http://www.va.gov/oaa/pocketcard/vietnam.asp
http://www.va.gov/oaa/pocketcard/korea_summary.asp

[Warren DeMontague]

32. "harder to understand". Yeah. Those of us who have realized from the go that EVERY rationalization

for this clusterfuck has been a clear, obvious bald-faced lie...

we must be having "trouble" being able to "understand" this war.

Hmmm.

How about someone explain it without resorting to bullshit or obfuscation?

[Crunchy Frog]

34. Why were people so upset by the death toll of 9/11?

How do those numbers compare with the yearly numbers of traffic fatalities in this country? Big fuss over nothing, I say. :shrug:

[Rex]

35. Most costly American war of THIS century!

Let us not beg from the past for modern misdeeds. :eyes:

This war is fucked up so much so in that we invaded a country that had no intention of fighting with the US. Up until Gulf War I, no one even knew where Iraq was. Well over 10 years later? 70% of Americans still believe Saddam caused 911 and Iraq was a base for terrorists.

And 15 years later? Nothing could be further from the truth. Well, some of it is true NOW. Call it a self fulfilling prophecy - we threaten another country, occupy it, kill its leader and all the while declare it a threat to our country.

It worked, the M$M eats it up every second of the day. Billions of dollars have been made by warmongers. It still goes on and gets worse by the minute. And now Bush wants to escalate the war in Iraq by sending more troops. Great.

No wonder we never win.