Current Article

Horseshit Alert!!

By Larry Johnson on August 15, 2007 at 4:47 AM in Current Affairs

by
Larry C Johnson

There is a piece of disinformation circulating on the net claiming that Washington, DC is more dangerous than Iraq. BULLSHIT!! Here’s the claim:

There has been a monthly average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths. That gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capital than you are in Iraq .
Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington

Now for the facts. Go to http://www.statemaster.com/state/DC-district-of-columbia/cri-crime. The actual Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 is 31.2 . That makes DC 1st among 50 states and the District. [1st of 51] Not even close to the alleged figure of 80.6. But most of our troops are not dying from gunshot wounds. They are being blown to bits from roadside bombs and mines.

Oh, by the way. Guess what the death rate per 100,000 is from Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Devices in the District of Columbia? ZERO. The nimrods circulating the nonsense that Washington, D.C. is more dangerous than Iraq deserve a one way, all expenses paid trip to Baghdad.

So how are things in Baghdad?
The Associated Press reports:

BAGHDAD (AP) – Three suicide truck bombers targeted members of an ancient religious sect in northwestern Iraq on Tuesday, killing at least 20 people, while the crash of an American transport helicopter near an air base in Anbar killed five U.S. servicemembers.

Four more U.S. soldiers were reported killed in separate attacks – three in an explosion near their vehicle Monday in the northwestern Ninevah province and another who was died of wounds from combat in western Baghdad.

In a separate attack, a fourth suicide truck bomber struck a strategic bridge on the main highway linking Baghdad with the northern city of Mosul, killing at least 10, police said. The span was bombed three months ago and only one lane had reopened, according to the police officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information.

Yep. Sure sounds like your typical day in DC.

chris

Salud!
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Its like watching these boobs come back after 6 days in the green zone saying, “its all cool over there, everyone is so professional, the surge is working”

Explain that to the families of the 175 dead and over 200 injured in the Sinjar district yesteday.

Got to love a false dichotomy.
Pingback: links for 2007-08-15 « MissM’s Blog
http://caffeinesoldier.blogspot.com Gray

Uh, hello? Is my brain not yet booted up, or can’t those NeoCons compute? The firearm death rate for US troops in Iraq is 60/MONTH, or 720/YEAR. The numbers for Washington are 31.2 for the YEAR of 2002.

Imho there is a SIGNIFICANT difference between 720 and 31.2, don’t you think so, too?
8-|
http://caffeinesoldier.blogspot.com Gray

Hint: Never trust NeoCons with everything. They will even screw up basic math to make their point!
http://caffeinesoldier.blogspot.com Gray

Larry, I guess you were confused by that statistic, thinking it shows monthly numbers. But it says clearly: “DEFINITION: Number of Deaths Due to Firearms per 100,000 Population, 2002.”
See? 2002! These are the numbers for the YEAR.
http://caffeinesoldier.blogspot.com Gray

Well, imho you should rewrite this story. This right wing spin is even worse than you thought. The numbers are totally made up. They make Washington (with its majority of Afro Americans!) look even more deadly than it is (Racism at work?), and at the same time shamelessly downplay the number of US troops that gave their life for Bush’s criminal Saddam adventure. US soldiers in Iraq face a death risk from armed violence more than 23 times higher than at home! That’s the ugly reality, no matter how much NeoCons want to deny it.
http://caffeinesoldier.blogspot.com Gray

Sry, don’t want to spam this thread, but the shamelessness of NeoCon spin absolutely enrages me. Pls look up if at least the number of 2112 casualties is near the truth. I wouldn’t be surprised if its actually higher.
http://caffeinesoldier.blogspot.com Gray

Ok, there’s one way the anonymous spinster really thought he made an honest comparison, but idiotically screwed up the math (a simple ‘rule of three’ that every mentally unhandicapped person should be able to compute). He stated “The firearm death rate in Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 persons for the same period.” Ok, maybe in the last 22 months, the firearm death rate in D.C. actually has been 80.6 /100000 (sudden outburst of violence? Shouldn’t this be in the papers?).

But, even if this is true, you have to compare this with the casualty numbers per 100000 US troops in Iraq for the same range of time. So x = (2112/160000)*100000 = 1322 (again, simple ‘rule of three’). Well, this still doesn’t look as if the spinster really has a case here, right? Even when using his own numbers, they show that the risk is 16.4 times higher for the US soldiers than for the folks in Washington, D.C.! This isn’t comparable. It isn’t even close. Washington is dangerous, but Iraq is a death trap.

Ok, that’s my last comment on this issue. Promise! Sry for spamming the thread.
taters

Great thread Larry. You nailed ‘em, buddy.
Really good stuff Gray, you’re not spamming.
mudkitty

Semantics. Interesting.

I remember back in the Vietnam days “casualties” meant injuries as well as fatalities – that’s how we amassed, what… 50,000 casualties back then. (Interesting term…what’s so “casual” about casualties?)

The Bush Administration is trying, in it’s most Orwellian fashion, to rewrite the dictionary.

Now they want to put an actual army (in Iran) on the list of terrorists. One of the classical definitions of a terrorist, is that they don’t wear uniforms. But what do the Bushies care about reality?

These are the Bushies last days, and they are trying to get away with as much as they can, in the little (but all too long) time they have left. They say the last rattles of dying rattlesnakes are the fiercest.
raoul

I simply don’t believe ANYTHING they say and that keeps me pretty stable and calm. They are such liars that they could say the sun will shine tomorrow, I look out my window the next day and see a big round shiny thing, and simply conclude I’m hallucinating. LOL
Jerome

Those fake numbers have been going around for years. I especially like comparisons to WW2 numbers and how fighting in Iraq is just like that time. I wish. In WW2 we never had to watch our back and there Was a front and we always continued ahead. That only occurred for thirty days when we invaded. Now it’s Iraqnam in the middle of oil country. The right wing must have never heard the phrase, ‘Never shit where you eat.’

I would not be the least surprised to see Cheney attack Iran before his term is up. If that happens there Will be a draft for sure.

It now looks like Bush’s “last chance” is being push forward to 2017.

http://www.liberaltopia.org RS Janes

That’s true, Jerome. I’ve had many neocons make the false comparison between Iraq, with a population of about 22 million and 150,000 of our troops in combat, to WWII with tens of millions of combatants deployed around the globe, all fo them with navies, air forces and front-line ground forces. Meanwhile, in Iraq, we’re fighting a war of occupation with guerilla militias armed with samll arms and crude explosive devices.

If anyone is wondering why we’re having problems over there, one of the reasons is the neocon inability to tell a basketball from a golf ball.

Montag

Are you sure this didn’t come from the Mitt Romney Campaign? After all, one of his service-shy sons IS dodging IEDs in an RV doing “convoy duty” in Iowa. Iowa makes Iraq look like a picnic I hear. No, wait, he GOES to picnics. Yeah, that’s it.
Diane

Be careful!
With story headlines like this, you too could end up on Bill O’Reilly’s show!
I really thought you were going to credit this to Fox News!!!

http://NoQuarterUSA.net Larry Johnson

Remember, Fox is just bullshit. And not very alert.

http://www.liberaltopia.org RS Janes

For years now, neocons have trumpeted every temporary decline in the death rate in Iraq as a sure sign that we’re winning.

Now, with Bush’s idiot ‘surge’ producing higher casualties (read this AP story today: “Bombings are deadliest since Iraq war began
Officials’ death toll estimates range from 250 to 500; U.S. blames al-Qaida“), they will argue the increase in fatalities ‘proves’ the surge is working. “See — we’re smoking out the bad guys!”

This is such a reeking pile of Kentucky Derby-sized horse crap, you’d need a bulldozer to get rid of it.
Delia

I think what the alert really means is that it’s much more dangerous to your bullshit detector to be in Washington than in Baghdad.
PrchrLady

*-/ Lord Randy… I can’t believe you can even write such crap, and think you have a handle on reality… You talk of FDR’s invasion of German/Axis strongholds before a planned invasion of mainland Japan, as if it was not wise… if you are not aware, FDR also had generals and war councils, the difference between the FDR and Bush’s folly is that FDR was wise enough to listen to his military advisors, whereas the fool who is residing in the WH completely ignored the advise of the War College, and his own military advisors. In fact, if you didn’t agree with them and sign on early, you were quickly put out to pasture, or sent the way of the rest of the ‘lowly masses’… Lord Randolph indeed… take your own brand of bullcrap and stuff it where the sun don’t shine… it ain’t welcome here.
Fred C. Dobbs

KIA=Killed in action=a Casualty
WIA=Wounded in action=a Casualty
DOW=Died of wounds=a Casualty

Vietnam produced just over 58,000 KIA’s. Another 43,000+ soldiers, sailors airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen perished due to accidents, stupidity and reasons other than hostile action.

Like drowning at the beach, accidentally electrocuting themselves, falling off balconies, getting throats cut by whores, etc.

A high school friend of mine rolled a truck over in an area not subject to hostile fire.

He’s still dead, but his demise was categorized as Death By Misadventure.

Clarifying the Terms, as usual, helps debunk the crap.

Jess Wonderin

Neil sat behind me in Mr Varnarva’s Spanish class, shortly after graduation he was an “Accidental Death Due To Non Hostile Fire” when the chopper he was returning to duty crashed in the wire . . . mechanical failure . . . there, dead, but didn’t “count” . . .

You flicked my ears and pissed me off, Neil, but you deserved better . . . thought of you when I got my “Freedom Bird” . . .

Jess Wonderin

Zeus – U bk again??? should we also factor in the relentless destruction of the German industrial heart and resource supply lines that MAY have had an impact on the German ability to fight a two front war – and, like a certain interesting parallel political interference, the war was micro managed by a politician rather than a military leader, making stupid top down CYA military structure SOP – and as I recall the military generals were opposed to the decision to invade another county (Russia – an ally) at that time – another interesting parallel . . . and how many Generals are calling for an Invasion/attack on IRAN???

I am glad you came down from your throne to enlighten us mortals but maybe you “history lesson” over looked the fact that the “massive civilian” losses were the result of a certain German leaders decision to bomb London into dust . . . Winne wanted payback . . Dresden was considered an outrage at the time – hardly a “willing” attempt to inflict civilian casualties . . . we lost a shitload of young airmen due to precise bombing runs aimed at military targets within heavily fortified cities – and Tokyo was revenge for Pear Harbor – had we REALLY been serious we would have targeted the Palace and Government Center instead of a fricking industrial seaport. Just maybe your elementary school teacher may have simplified your “My Pet Goat” version of WW2 a little TOO much . . .

and you are right about the war duration – with no bid contracts, endless funding, no accounting, no mission, who cares? . . . my KBR stocks are doing fine and Exxon has declared the GREATEST profits of any businees on earth over last Quarters world record, I don’t commute, my kids “have other priorties” . . . may it last long enough for your son to get his “man on” . . .
http://caffeinesoldier.blogspot.com Gray

Larry, I hate to break promises (another comment on this issue!), but I’m somewhat disturbed to see that obviously you read the comments, but didn’t add anything to your story. Well, sry, but the problem here is, by not pointing out the totally flawed math of that anonymous spinmaster, you actually help in giving his argument additional weight it doesn’t deserve. You counter his comparison with an ‘apple and oranges’ kind of response (that’s, honestly, pretty lame, imho. For the killed soldier it doesn’t make much difference if he died by IED or sniper fire. For his family, neither). But this makes this idiotic comparison appear as if it is a serious point at all. It isn’t! There isn’t any serious point to discuss here. The risk is at least 16 times higher for the soldiers, not 25% lower. The writer was wrong from the very start. Period.

It seems you never did a google search on this ‘urban myth’, right? If you would have done it, you would have found that a) this nonsense is circulating since November 2006, if not earlier, and b) that there have already been a lot of thoughtful responses, most of them correctly pointing out that the whole comparison is a fraud. Here’s just one of those good examples of debunking the madness, a story at ‘SadlyNo!’ from November 2006 (!):
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/2080.html

Larry, shit happens, and sometimes we don’t see the forest because of the trees. However, in such a case we should openly declare we have been fooled in order to prevent others from falling into the same trap. Don’t you agree?
:-/
http://caffeinesoldier.blogspot.com Gray

Oh, and btw, while ‘Sadly, No!’ concentrated on comparing the real (empirical) numbers, ‘puroprana’ at DKos did the same math I did:

“Let’s assume for a moment that the statistics supplied are correct:

160,000 troops / 100,000 = 1.6

2,112 / 1.6 = 1,320 deaths per 100,000 troops

Versus 80.6 per 100,000 in DC

So, right away, one must wonder how this email continues to be offered by so many as support for their pro-Iraq war position. I mean, really, the conclusions are staggeringly wrong.”

Actually, that’s the first hit you get when you google for “160,000 troops Iraq 22 months 2,112 deaths”:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=160%2C000+troops+Iraq+22+months+2%2C112+deaths+&btnG=Google+Search

Both approaches, the mathematical and the empirical, debunk the crap once and forever. Discussing whether deaths by IEDs and firearms are comparable leaves a shady appearance of nitpicking and may convince some readers that the anonymous right winger made a valid point. But he didn’t.
http://caffeinesoldier.blogspot.com Gray

Another point:
Your story already ranks at #16 and #17 on this google search:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22There+has+been+a+monthly+average+of+160,000+troops+in+the+Iraq+theatre+of+operations+during+the+last+22+months,+and+a+total+of+2,112+deaths.%22&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

Regarding this prominent placement, don’t you think that for the sake of searchers coming here in the future, it is preferable that they don’t be fooled into believing that the anonymous spinmaster has a valid point? Again, pls point out the real problem with that insane comparison in an addendum here and at Booman tribune!

P.S.: I just noticed that noone less than Brad DeLong debunked this shit in November 2005! And still this piece of crap is circulating and fooling people into believing that service in Iraq is essentially the same as holidays in Washington, D.C. Unbef***ingleavable!
http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2005-3_archives/001736.html
Donovan Fraser

speaking of horse hit, did you hear that the bush clan declared Iran’s elite forces a terrorist group???

let me say that again slowly,they declared a special forces group of soldiers a terrorist group. aren’t special forces in any country or soldiers in general supposed to terrorize and kill people? Isn’t that what they are trained to do efficiently? hell while they’re at it why not call the Chinese, the russians or any other army we don’t care for the same thing? Or why don’t they call ours terrorist for that matter? This is fucking goofiness at it’s greatest.

Leslie

Oh contraire, it’s not goofiness at its greatest…it’s all about rolling out the new war product by fall. By the way, Bush says there are no plans to go to war with Iran. So it must be true.

PrchrLady

I want to ask a question/give info about ‘casualties’ as defined above… from the sailors who are corpsmen for the marines, and I know many, I have been hearing that this administration is counting casualties differently than in previous conflicts. I hear that they are using the distinction of combat related as counting toward the total, but are excluding the ‘non combat’ types more and more to avoid having to pay for long term care (as well as to help keep the numbers down. For example, one of my sons team was picking up body parts after an IED incident. While doing so, he was injured by a sniper. He was medivaced to base, and sent on to Germany. His injury, while not life threatening, will require he have long term therapy. Because this did not occur during “combat’, he was not included in combat totals, AND is now fighting to get any compensation at all following discharge. I would appreciate input. thanks.

Leslie

PchrLady,
Lord Bullshit and Zeus [lol about the names these guys chose]…their casualty argument is false, and it has nothing to do with Larry’s post. A majority of Americans aren’t comparing casualty rates between wars as a reason to demand withdrawal.

mudkitty

Zuesless – you must be very young, and home schooled (nothing wrong with that? Eh? – so don’t get all defensive…)

*****

Today, broadcasters say/”report” “15 troops were killed today” without even mentioning how many of our troops were injured. Back in the Vietnam days, the networks, of which they were only three, would report casualties, and not ferret out only the dead, in a craven attempt to make the numbers sound lower.
apishapa

I love that Iraqi deaths in Iraq don’t factor into that “Iraq is soooo safe” story. Add in the 600,000+ Iraqis who have died, then the picture looks a little bleaker. Of course we don’t count those do we?

But it seems to me that the whole comparison is skewed because we are comparing armed U.S. soldiers’ deaths in Iraq with mostly unarmed civilian deaths in D.C. That is wrong. In D.C., I will bet the number of armed policemen killed in combat by either gunshot or bombs is much lower than it is in Iraq. Expecially if we count Iraqi police.

But if we are just counting just Americans in Iraq, I do not see any numbers in the story about American contractors. Surely those need to be included. And what about injured? I’ll bet there haven’t been 30,000 people in D.C. shot or blown up on the last few years.

99% of those who live in or visit D.C. are able to go about their lives without wearing armor and carrying a big gun, and suffer no injury. They do not have to travel in aromored vehicles in groups. I’ve never been to D.C. but I’ll bet you can get from the airport to a hotel without dodging I.E.D.s all the way.

I would love to see whoever wrote that story go for a stroll through any part of Iraq unarmed, with no armor or army to protect them. And that includes the so-called safe Green Zone.
PrchrLady

Iraqi death totals will probably not ever be known. Nor will we ever know how many of those who are now refugees from thier own land will suffer the mental as well as physical scars of their forced exit from their own homeland. And let us not forget the damage that will occur from the use of depleted uranium… These and the countless innocents who have suffered in a war of choice, set into motion by lies, by a group of very sick and devious people. This same group who effectively accomplished destroying many of the humane and wonderful things that this country has accomplished in its 200 year history… May these evil ones rot forever in hell…

Since we are talking about these horrors, here is a post I just read that sheds even more light onto the savagry of this war compared to vietnam, as well as supports data with statistics…I found it an excellent read on the numbers on Iraq including contractors…

“The number of taxpayer-paid private contractors in Iraq, the number of bullets fired for each insurgent killed, the percentage of amputations performed on U.S. war-wounded: a compilation of numbers puts Iraq into perspective.”

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/59881
Andre

Let me add that comparing a city with a country isn’t fair. Washington DC, a capital, should be compared to Baghdad, a capital.
Rob

Lord Randolph,

You are kidding? Comparing WWII to Iraq is like comparing the A-Bomb to fire works. This is suppose to be a intellectual argument? Tunisia, Italy and France before Japan? eh… if my fading memory serves me right, we were committed and already at war with the other guys…da.. Germans. You remember them don’t you? Ever watch Hogan’s Hero’s? They were lead by a Bavarian Corporal with a little black stash…

BTW, bright boy, we also fought a two theater war against two very well equipped and rather LARGE militaries and it took us less time than it has in Iraq and we have the more advanced military…

How disingenuous of an augment… You twit…..
Jess Wonderin

Lawdy Lawdy Mas’r Randi -
Lest we forget that in WW2 we had an enemy, front lines, professional MILITARY leadership, intelligent worldly elected leaders, mobilized industry and population, unified world support and a defined mission . . .

Such a grasp of military and historical perspective must come from one that has served his country well. What was your MOS? I really miss your point, but as my Uncle used to say “You talk like a man with a paper asshole” – that phrase had me confused for years, but I think I now know what he met . . .

and I am a little curious . . . from WHERE would you have proposed FDR invade Japan in 1942?? Foggy memory served me, that there was concern that “them JAPs” would wade ashore unopposed, at Blacks Beach in Summerland . . . I don’t know but may have had something to do with logistics and that Bonehead McArthur and that sailor . . . Vice Admiral William F. Halsey – but hell, you are a “lord”, so what’s grunt or swabby know about fighting . . .?
http://www.liberaltopia.org RS Janes

I’m well aware of what a neocon is, ‘Lord Randolph,’ and for someone who claims he isn’t one you sure quack like one.

You could use a brush-up on your history of WWII, if not a complete overhaul.

I’d suggest for a start The Second World War by Spartacus Educational.

Regarding your comparisons to Iraq, pay special attention to the section that describes the composition of the German army, air force and navy; the Imperial Japanese army, air force and navy; and the Italian army, air force and navy in WWII. Millions of combat troops, thousands of aircraft, hundreds of ships. In case you haven’t been following things closely in Iraq, the insurgents have none of these items in any quantity.

At any rate, read the website and, should you have any trouble with the big words or the concepts, come back here and we’ll help straighten you out. We understand that aristocrats, even the fake kind who haunt the Internet, often get things wrong.
Rob

Lord Randolph

You have to be the Court Jesters brother… I know a village looking for an idiot… you should apply….

You cannot compare a World War and its undertakings or the generational differences to anything like Iraq or AQ and today…. What part of that are you not getting you dam fool?

Got to tell you the Japanese in WWII make AQ look like a bunch of dancing fairies… Just ask any vet of the Rock or Phiippines campaigns…

What the hell have you been smoking?
Jess Wonderin

Lawdy Randi -
One again your have shown a “Golden Book History Of World War” – just to refresh your memnory – Japan Attacked Dec 7, FDR asked Congress to Declare a state of war with Japan, on December 11 “The German Charge d’Affaires, Dr. Hans Thomsen, and the First Secretary of the German Embassy, Mr. von Strempel, called at the State Department at 8:00 A.M. on December 11, 1941. The German representatives handed to Mr. Atherton a copy of a note that is being delivered this morning, December 11, to the American Charge d’Affaires in Berlin. Dr. Thomsen said that Germany considers herself in a state of war with the United States.” (Source:
Department of State Bulletin, December 13, 1941) and on the same day the “Government of Italy has formally declared war against the Government and the people of the United States of America” (Avalon Project Yale Law School) . . . so . . . I guess old FDR had ample reason to “invade Italy” and linking war with Japan – and what happened to those Generals that said Bush would need 500,000 troops and would be there for years . . kinda “retired”?

Are you here for a reason or just taking a break from the home . . . talking to you is like poking a dead jellyfih on the beach, interesting, transparent, but gotta move on . . .
http://www.liberaltopia.org RS Janes

Lord Randolph, you may not be a neocon, but you sure sound like one.

For example, only a confused person with neocon tendencies would write a line like “Italy and Japan had even less of an operational relationship than Iraq and Al Qaeda-indeed, they had none at all.”

Italy and Japan, along with Nazi Germany, were part of the Axis Powers and they had a very close operational relationship strategically. But this is only one of the many errors and vacuous flaws in your dizzy diatribe.

I suggest you read, for a start, The Second World War by Spartacus Educational.

Regarding your comparisons to Iraq, pay special attention to the section that describes the composition of the German army, air force and navy; the Imperial Japanese army, air force and navy; and the Italian army, air force and navy in WWII. Millions of combat troops, thousands of aircraft, hundreds of ships. In case you haven’t been following things closely in Iraq, the insurgents have none of these items in any quantity.

At any rate, read the website and, should you have any trouble with the big words or the concepts, come back here and we’ll help straighten you out. We understand that aristocrats often get things wrong.
Jess Wonderin

POLE EEEZE!!!
Japan attacked the US Dec 7, we declared war in the Senate Dec 8, Dec 11, Germany AND Italy declared a state of war exists between the US-Germany and Italy. We declared war on “them” . . .
” . . . (Germany and Italy) neither had committed any acts of war against the US at the time the US invaded Tunisia and, later, Italy. Try to come to grips with that fact. The point, for those still to slow to grasp it, is that you attack those who have hostile and warlike intentions toward you when and where you can. That is why we invaded Tunisia and Italy, and that is why we invaded Iraq.” . . . OMFG!!! WHERE did you go to school?? Your grasp of history is astounding!!!! Sounds like you not only got “left behind” but maybe dropped on your fucking head . . .
http://www.liberaltopia.org RS Janes

Zeus, you wrote: “surely you understand the point that Italy and Germany had nothing whatsoever to do with Pearl Harbor, and neither had committed any acts of war against the US at the time the US invaded Tunisia and, later, Italy. Try to come to grips with that fact. The point, for those still to slow to grasp it, is that you attack those who have hostile and warlike intentions toward you when and where you can. That is why we invaded Tunisia and Italy, and that is why we invaded Iraq.”

You’re dead wrong, Zeus, just as most of the rest of what you’ve written in dead wrong. According to the American Encyclopedia of Facts and Dates, a German submarine sunk the USS Reuben James on October 31, 1941, killing 100 American sailors, so Germany had committed an act of war against the US prior to the Pearl Harbor attack.

You’re also wrong to say that Italy and Germany had nothing to do with Japan; they were all part of the Axis Powers who cooperated strategically with each other.

We invaded Tunisia mainly to give our troops a chance to confront the battle-harded German Army in an area where a loss wouldn’t matter as much as it would have on European soil. We invaded Italy in 1943 because, not only did Mussolini’s army fight us in North Africa, but due to the presence of German troops in the country — and because they were part of the Axis nations that had declared war on us.

We invaded Iraq for the oil and to give sweet no-bid contracts to Bush’s biggest campaign contributors. It had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, global terrorists, nor any of the other rot they’ve been spewing. It was, and is, all about the money.
Rob

Zeus

To bad you can’t talk to my Pop! He was part of the Bataan Death March. He had a very good understanding of how the Japanese conducted themselves. He passed away 5 years ago with the cane he came home with. Ask your father about that campaign. I am sure he heard about it.

BTW I perscribe to the theory of using war as a last restort, and when you go to war you want 100% of the odds on your side, use the proper force strengths and take names and kick ass. Unfortunately that is not what we are doing in Iraq, my confused friend. If we are not going to fight a war the proper way, then either don’t get involved or get the hell out as soon as you can…

One last point… After Afghanistan was completed and its still not, I had assumed Iran was the next logical target, not Iraq. Anyone with any common sense knows that Iran was and is the ‘most active sponsor of terrorism” according to the state department back in 2000 and nothing changed since then and taking baghdad with the shia in control and buddies with Tehran would kind of make it harder to take on Iran. The arguement that Iraq was a stepping stone to Iran is about as logical as the verbal diarrhea that sometimes comes out of your mouth.
Jess Wonderin

. . . sorry typo . . Germany and Italy declared war on December 13th, 1941 . . . and the invasion of Tunisia (Operation Torch) began November 8, 1942 . . . even allowing for the use of snail mail, PLENTY of time for the Italians to know that as a result of their declaration of war on us, that by the end of the following year, we MIGHT be there . . .
putz . . .
Jess Wonderin

Larry – where is the “Full of Crap” flag?
Rob

Zeus

Your points are well taken, and you can say the same thing about Nixon’s campaign to bomb North Vietnam and no I don’t perscribe to the “kill them all, let God sort them out” combat theory. But you have to admit its effective. Just ask Hilter… (I hope you don’t het the chance)

And that is not the point I am making. You just cannot in any shape or form take WWII and compare it to Iraq. Even if the war started two years before our entrance. That still does not matter, we still did the “mission complete” dance in both theaters in less time than we have in one country (Iraq) and yes with greater inflection to all involved militaries and civies.

You make to some degree take a battle or campaign and compare them, to some degree with a lot of limitations. But the entire WWII Campaign? No way… reason for our entrance (we did not cherry pick the intel and lie about it), resources, technology, intelligence, tactics, politics, generational differences etc…where totaly different. That would be like trying to compare the Blackhawk Down story to the Little Big Horn story….

BTW, I did very well in history through out school… but thanks for sharing….