Iraq for sale

[elucidator]

I just know I’m going to regret asking this question. But I can’t help it.

In what way, short of delusional revisionism, can Viet Nam be seen as a “success for the US and her interests”?

[Aro]

I think the confusion is that you think (rightly, IMHO) of the US as a country which is a product of all its citizens, not just those who are in power.

William Blum says:

Most people believe that the US lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, by poisoning the earth, the water and the gene pool for generations, Washington had in fact achieved its primary purpose: preventing what might have been the rise of a good development option for Asia.

J.W. Smith says:

It is said that America lost in Vietnam but three million people were slaughtered (four million if one included the previous twenty years of French suppression), millions of acres of forest poisoned with herbicides were destroyed, rice fields were pockmarked with bomb craters and, after winning its freedom, Vietnam was further decimated by embargoes. Vietnamese resources are now available to intact imperial-centers-of-capital. That makes that war a success. After all, control of resources to feed the industries of imperial centers is what these wars are all about.

[Milum]

This much is true. The** United States** is in Ir****aq and will not be diverted from its altruistic mission by…

cowardly snipers
weak-kneed panty-waisted liberals
Suicide Bombers who kill babies.
the Al Qaeda
the French
the U.N.
and fellow travelers.

And you who poof and puff and wring your hands can put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[PatriotX]

Originally posted by Milum *
**
The* United States** is in Ir****aq and will not be diverted from its altruistic mission by…
**

What is our altruistic mission? Do you have a cite showing a gov declaration of that mission?

[Grey]

Originally posted by Milum *
This much is true. The United States* is in Ir****aq and will not be diverted from its altruistic mission by…

cowardly snipers
weak-kneed panty-waisted liberals
Suicide Bombers who kill babies.
the Al Qaeda
the French
the U.N.
and fellow travelers.

And you who poof and puff and wring your hands can put that in your pipe and smoke it. **

Apparently you may be diverted from your altruistic mission by penny pinching patriots.

[spogga]

The puzzling thing is the fact that although the UK also have troops in Iraq they do not seem to be vilified and very few are shot at.
Admittedly we have far fewer armed personnel in the country but even so I would have expected that being allies of the US that our troops would also have been made targets.

[Milum]

Overall spogga, UK troops in Iraq have unfortunately experienced combat deaths at twice the rate of the troops of the US.

#Troops deployed___ Killed_________Death rate_

US________150,000______300_________1 out of 500
UK_________11,000_______50_________1 out of 220

/////////////** May God Bless these Brave Men** \\\\\\\\

[elucidator]

I would be remiss if I did not refer you to Mr. Josh Marshall, of the just esteemed Talking Points Memo

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Go down a bit from the first shocking bombshell revelation, scroll to the ordinary mundane story of high-power Pubbies going into the Iraq business. Yessiree, Bob, there’s gold in them thar kills!

[adaher]

Two reasons the British aren’t being shot at as much.

1. They are in a friendlier area. Stick the British in the Sunni Triangle and they’ll get shot at too.
2. They are less hamfisted in dealing with the population, according to Iraqi bloggers who have been in both regions.