23 US TROOPS KILLED IN PAST 3 DAYS

It is the new Vietnam.

Is this what Mr. Bush wanted? "Mission accomplished"?

And he is always telling us how the Other Side targets innocent lives - how many has he taken in his war machine?

Good Q, clary.

And I have just been to Cambodia, and they still remember the suffering from the carpet bombing of the eastern part of their country done by the US back in the 70s... innocents again.

You guys are funny. "new vietnam..."

That's good stuff.

1. Mission Accomplished

2. Prancing Plastic Turkeys

3. Saddam Captured in December, but the Dates are Still on the Trees

All the world is Bush's stage to attain and maintain the mantle of "wartime President."

Vote the scumbag out in November and bring our troops home!

Just out of curiosity, how does this war compare to the duration and American casualty toll for Vietnam?

Favorably.

"Just out of curiosity, how does this war compare to the duration and American casualty toll for Vietnam?"

Not at all.

1. Vietnam lasted a generation and resulted in 58,000 needless American deaths.

2. Bush's Iraq war is a year and a month old and has resulted in 671 needless American deaths.

The similarity between the two is, we're involved in a guerilla war in Iraq where American soldiers don't know who they're fighting or even why they're there.

All the warnings are there for the USA to repeat the disaster called Vietnam -- no exit strategy and all.[/color]

So how exactly does Iraq = Vietnam?

Is this correct? Why do you believe that most American soldiers don't know who they're fighting or why they're there? Do you have some poll data I could look at, or some other evidence of this?

Viet Nam began small and grew into a monster. What's so difficult to understand?

GWB began as a small time draft dodger and the Supreme Court gave him the opportunity to become a monster.

Why a war which has not been going on for very long, and has had casualties which are very low compared to past wars is being compared to Vietnam. The reason given above for the comparison was that the soldiers don't know why they're there or who they're fighting, and I requested some kind of evidence to back that up.

There seems to be an underlying implication in many of these threads that we ought not to get involved in any war which is difficult, or time consuming, or in which there are heavy casualties, or for which a very fast exit strategy is not clear. It seems to me that the criterion ought to be whether the war is right and necessary, and, if it is, we should do our best to win it even if it is difficult, time consuming, costly, etc. Therefore, if a war is immoral or unnecessary, it should be attacked on that basis, but not because it is hard to win. A country which is unwilling to do things which are difficult and require sacrifice is not destined to play much of a role in the future history of the world.

Lets make this personal - my friend is there now and also my nephew but I don't have his picture - I pray for these guys everyday.

And this is the brother of another friend.

He joined the national gaurd - not dodging the draft like many people of that generation did. Didn't run off to Canada.

Supreme court wouldn't have been involved if it weren't for Al Gore calling foul when there was none. Al Gore couldn't even carry his own state. Show me the logic there?

Don't start talking about hanging chads. or I couldn't tell who I was voting for. If that is the case you shouldn't be voting in the first place.

Your friend and nephew and the brother of the friend all appear to be proud. Why would anyone want to lessen what they are doing over there by trying to force an end to it before Iraq is ready for it?

Iraq is not vietnam, Iraq is... well... Iraq.

It maybe guerrella warfare, but the majority of Iraqis support what we are fighting for, freedom.

That alone is enough to differentiate the two.