I'm very glad that Iraq hasn't cost as many lives as Vietnam -- yet. But that's missing the point. When lives are being lost NEEDLESSLY, that is the problem. WW2 cost many, many more lives than Vietnam or Iraq but no one questions that sacrifice because the war was imposed on us by enemy aggression, had clear goals to define victory, and was led competently at all levels. Neither Vietnam nor Iraq meet any of those standards and that's why Americans became sick and tired of the waste of lives and fortune in both cases.

blackcat - UM, "lead competently at all levels"? You, my friend, really need to read up on WWII history. While FDR and Gen. Marshall made a splendid team, there were PLENTY of disasters on our side in WWII -- many of them due to incompetence.

I thought it was funny! I'm an RN in the ed and we had a slow period and watched the hearing. There were 8 of us and we all burst out laughing and high fiving it for Boxer. Most here think that Boxer was being too polite and Condi deserves a lot less respect than she got. Give me a break. Condi Rice is a disgrace to the human race. Barbara Boxer deserves accolades. She shouldn't ever apologize!

blackcat77 you begin with a completely fallacious assumption - that the lives lost so far in the Iraq War were lost "needlessly". In the view of many Americans - and more important in the view of those whose lives are at risk in Iraq - there is no "needlessly" involved.

My nephew is in Iraq as we speak and many of my friends have children, brothers and sisters there. None of us consider it "needless" - including the family members who are in harm's way.

We consider this part of the price for the many freedoms and benefits we receive from the simple fact of being fortunate enough to be American citizens. If you don't, that's something you'll have to reconcile with your own conscience, but please do not attempt to lay YOUR situational ethics on those of us who have the real thing.

And as to enemy aggression - in what way was 9/11/01 different from Pearl Harbor? And do NOT bring up the nonsense about there being no weapons of mass destruction when paperwork subsequently unearthed in Iraq shows that they DID have them - just shipped them out to other nations for good hiding. Saddam's regime enabled terrorists around the world, up to and including paying suicide bombers to kill innocent and unarmed civilians.

Lynette,

It's because you're jerks who endorse and revel in the 'chickenhawk' canard, and you think that landing a rhetorical cheap shot is the same as a well thought out argument. You may be however old you are, but mentally, on this topic, you're puerile.

In the view of many Americans - and more important in the view of those whose lives are at risk in Iraq - there is no "needlessly" involved.

You are very wrong about this. Most Americans believe invading Iraq was a mistake, and even more believe that the loss of American lives was not worth it.

While a slight majority believe the Iraq war contributed to the long-term security of the United States, 70 percent of Americans think these gains have come at an "unacceptable" cost in military casualties. This led 56 percent to conclude that, given the cost, the conflict there was "not worth fighting"

I'm sorry your nephew is in Iraq, and I'm even more sorry that you seem to think that simply because he's a soldier and is willing to put his life on the line for his country, that means that any possible death he may face will automatically therefore have purpose. If Bush ordered him to jump off a cliff, he would be just as patriotic, but his death would be just as needless. I hope you don't need to learn that the hard way.

It's because you're jerks who endorse and revel in the 'chickenhawk' canard, and you think that landing a rhetorical cheap shot is the same as a well thought out argument. You may be however old you are, but mentally, on this topic, you're puerile.

Ummm... replace "chickenhawk" up there with "cut and runner" or "Defeatocrat" or any number of other "rhetorical cheap shots". Just do it while looking in a mirror.

Uh, I don't make those arguments Brian. Way to stereotype. You look in the mirror.

PARENTS

Teach your children well.

Thou shalt not kill living breathing humans.

Period.

PARENTS

Teach your children well.

Thou shalt not kill living breathing humans.

Period.

Brian- who the F are you to tell any soldier's mother anyhting about the value of her son's service?
Stupid idiotic chickenshit bastard.

Lynette,
I didn't know The View was being broadcast from your medical facility yesterday.

Brian,
Do you have any understanding of the military? I am asking because you seem to think that a life lost in an unpopular war (that is the "argument" you made) is not of value or purpose. Do you feel the same way about the deaths of those in combat exercises here in the U.S.?

Unfortunately, those deaths, as the ones in Iraq, serve a valuable purpose. Even those who do not die fighting in combat contribute value because there are things learned through those deaths that translate to other conflicts in the future. Maybe you will see as pointless or senseless or of no value the deaths of those in Iraq, but there may be things learned through those deaths that can be used when your next Democrat president wants to pull a Mogadishu or go into a Kosovo without UN approval, or do some meals on wheels mission that you do support.

This might completely blow your mind, but there are also times that it is necessary we demonstrate that we are not too soft and spoiled to accept military casualties. We should always do everything possible to minimize them and to give our troops the equipment and support and the planning to keep them from getting killed, but when it does happen if the American people decide they would prefer to run than fight and risk additional caualties, our enemies will have gained the huge upper hand.

I fear we are close to that point now. If that is the case, Osama will have been proved right. He said the Americans were too soft to fight back and risk their lives and those of their loved ones. We thought we proved him wrong when we fought back after 9/11, but maybe our "fight" had a limit and 3,000 lives was it. I hope not, but if the current trend holds, fed everyday by a media that will only show one side of the story, then he might be proved right indeed.

Maybe now we know why people have the wrong leg amputated, wrong knee operated on etc. No wonder health care is so bad, and malpractice insurance is so high.

blackcat77,

WW2 cost many, many more lives than Vietnam or Iraq but no one questions that sacrifice because the war was imposed on us by enemy aggression, had clear goals to define victory, and was led competently at all levels.

The part that I don't agree with is "led competently at all levels". On D-Day the U.S. suffered somewhere between 2500 and 4900 solders killed. To this day experts disagree on the number killed, but they all agree that many of those deaths were needlessly lost due to tragic blunders made by those in charge of the invasion.

After the equivalent of "Mission Complete" in WW2, the US spent billions of 1940's dollars rebuilding Japan and Europe with more than half a million troops occupying Japan and Germany. It took the U.S. the better part of a decade to complete the rebuilding and we still have 40,000 personnel stationed in Japan to this day and more in Germany.

Neither Vietnam nor Iraq meet any of those standards and that's why Americans became sick and tired of the waste of lives and fortune in both cases.

Remember, we got into Iraq the first time because Saddam invaded Kuwait. Not the same as Pearl Harbor, but the threat to Saudi Arabia and the oil our way of life depends on was all too real. Having handed Saddam an humiliating defeated and knowing the vengeful kind of person he was, it was a real risk leaving Saddam in power after the first Gulf war, but we were under the illusion the U.N. would actually be able to do what it was created to accomplish. We now know Saddam was able to so corrupt the U.N. that it became powerless to contain him. We also now know that Saddam didn't have stockpiles of WMD's, but that he retained his ability to produce them. Knowing what we now know, Bush was wise taking Saddam out while he had the chance. Otherwise, we would now be facing a Saddam out from under U.N. sanctions, bent on revenge and with new allies (terrorists) in attacking U.S. civilians. And you don't think the war in Iraq is important.

"Osama will have been proved right. He said the Americans were too soft to fight back and risk their lives and those of their loved ones."

We're not fighting Osama bin Laden. We're attempting to install a democracy in Iraq, and being hit on all sides. The vast majority of those fighting us have absolutely nothing to do with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.

Our people, and the people of our allied nations, were all behind the fight to get Osama bin Laden. When Bush, and the Project for New American Century puppeteers behind the Bush administration, morphed that tremendous will and unity into a drive to paint the Middle East in His image, the mission had changed, and so did the will of the people behind it.

Quit trotting out the Osama boogeyman, Lorie -- you're beginning to sound like one of those lying Republican election ads. If you can't defend our presence in Iraq, say so... but pretending its related to OBL is disingenuous.

If Bush ordered him to jump off a cliff, he would be just as patriotic, but his death would be just as needless

The leftists in this country are beginning to be embolden by their paltry November win. Their colors are beginning show through now.

Since those that join the military are too stupid to actually believe in their mission and liberal enlightened Brian here understands it's all for nothing if they die. Wow, just effing wow.

Yep, the liberal "I support the troops" really means letting you know how stupid and needless you with "boots on the ground" are for risking your life.

Telling soldiers that being told to jump off a cliff is as simplistic as deploying to Iraq is about as condescending and elitist as it gets. ASS!!

Barbara Boxer is amazing. An anus that can speak.
If it wasn't for her husband's money she would a nobody. She is living proof that a brain is not required to be a Democrat Senator.

Condi Rice is in the position she is in. She can suffer fools like nobody's business.. Lorie, you certainly have got that right . The President has said that he has felt comfortable "asking her the most basic of questions on foreign policy" back in 2000.

Posted comments coming fast and furious.

Lee, Lorie can quote anyone she wants, Osama or Obama, without invoking Iraq is the home of Al Qeda. Another either unconsciously stupid illogical progression of your argument, or a not very successful disingenuous attempt to hijack a thread and dis Lorie.

Steve: Gotta hand you two points on that comment, Lorie set herself up for that comment, though she shows she can suffer the slings and arrows from fools/trolls here at WB pretty well too...

Gianni, no need to muddle medical system woes with the fact that there are politically immature imbeciles working everywhere.

Cuban: BB - At least she's not a complete Ahole- she does have arms and legs...

Lorie: Keep up the good work! And the contributions you and your family make for our country.

civil behavior,

Thou shalt not kill living breathing humans.

In the Bible the commandment is correctly translated "You shall not murder". There's a difference between kill and murder. If a police officer fatally shoots a criminal in the act of abducting a child it's an act of killing but not of murder.

I see that you added "breathing" to your version. Was that to justify murdering the unborn?

Mac Larry: Good points. There were tactical blunders -- I just got done reading "Sea of Thunder" which went into detail about Halsey falling for a Japanese bluff and almost losing Leyte Gulf as a result -- but overall, we had a workable plan and stuck with it. With Iraq, it seems like we either have no plan at all or we're trying to make it up as we go. Either one is a recipe for disaster in a military campaign. Regarding Desert Storm, I think Daddy Bush got it right. He could see the dangers of occupying Iraq much more clearly than his son and thus when the objectives of the UN mandate were accomplished, he declared victory and went home. The fact is that after the 1991 war, Iraq never had the ability to wage offensive war on anybody. Their WMD programs were abandoned and Saddam was left to bluff. Unfortunately for him, B43 fell for the bluff -- or at least claimed that he did -- and invaded based on a threat that simply didn't exist. That upset the applecart for the whole mideast and has cost us half-a-trillion dollars and thousands of American lives to no good end. If I were Bush, Sr., I'd be feeling pretty smug about things.

blackcat77,

The part you and I disagree on is what would the threat from Saddam be today if Bush had not taken him out in 2003. With the U.N. being successfully corrupted by Saddam, I believe most if not all the sanctions would have been removed by the end of 2004. We know Saddam suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of Bush Sr. and we know Saddam was a vengeful person. We also know Saddam retained his ability to make WMD's. Given all that, I believe Saddam would now be cooperating with terrorists and Iran to strike both the U.S. and Israel. While Saddam is gone permanently, it would still be a grave strategic mistake to lose in Iraq.

Some interesting arguments going on here. Let me just preface this by saying that I don't agree with Boxer at all. I'm sure Rice is well aware of what the sacrifices our military make mean to their families.

Lorie,

there are also times that it is necessary we demonstrate that we are not too soft and spoiled to accept military casualties.

That does blow my mind. I agree that the Iraq War, and any conflict, will yield valuable lessons for the next conflict (hopefully one of the lessons will be that fighting a hidden and entrenched guerrilla force is a recipe for endless conflict. Oh wait, we should have learned that in Vietnam), but the idea that it's necessary for us to engage in war simply to show we can is absurd. However it may reveal some of your thinking about this war in that it was not necessary from a security standpoint but rather from a readiness/machismo standpoint. Not only should we start wars just to show we can, but apparently we should do so because bin Laden dared us. What a load of childish crap. Grow up.

Civil Behavior

I've taught my children not to murder and I've also told that never to feel guilty if they must kill "another human being" in self-defense or in defense of their family.

Which is in keeping with the Ten Commandments and is proper to a person who holds rational morality.

So making rational decisions regarding what's best for the country requires one to have children ?

Boxer is now the Speaker of the House. Perhaps she should codify this by pushing legislation that forbids anyone who doesn't have children form holding public office ? Or is it just certain public offices that Boxer has a problem with ?

Lynnette?

You're a moral fool.

And look over your shoulder, your moral betters, like my eldest daughter will be taking your job.

Mac: You're right about our differing viewpoints. It's my belief that he was pretty much declawed after '91 and lacked the capacity to rebuild his war machine. It was a measure of how bad things were for him that he actually buried his fighter aircraft in the desert. And can you cite a situation where any dictator has cooperated with terrorists? The two are oil and water -- their operating principles are so different that they simply cannot work together because neither one will trust the other enough to accomplish anything. Beyond that, for Saddam to have become independently effective, he would have needed a huge infusion of capital and I don't know where it would have come from. I really believe that it was all over for Saddam at the close of Desert Storm just like it was all over for the Soviet Union when they abandoned Afghanistan. It's just that in both cases, it took a while for the fatality to become apparent.

However it may reveal some of your thinking about this war in that it was not necessary from a security standpoint but rather from a readiness/machismo standpoint. Not only should we start wars just to show we can, but apparently we should do so because bin Laden dared us. What a load of childish crap. Grow up

The one thing the military isn't shy about is after action reviews. (AAR) Whenever someone dies in the military, whether training or in combat, all circumstances surrounding the death are reviewed, then a procedure is modified so it will not happen again.

There are of course exceptions such as airborne training operations, flying any type of aircraft and other hazardous duties that no matter what does not change because it's already inherently dangerous.

But an example of doctrinal change is in urban combat in Iraq, soldiers will not try to take a building after a shooter fires from it. The building is simply leveled. Someone's life was used as an example to modify the old procedures and many more will live. This may upset some politically correct liberal armchair generals about blowing up a building, but the kid gloves need to come off sometimes to save lives.

To insinuate that a fighting war is an opportunity to strut then either you are posting crap just to say anything to get someone's gander up or you really are a clueless lib. So either you're an ass or just plain stupid or a stupid ass.

I see that this indignant uproaor about Ms Boxer has its origins in an editorial from The Post. Gee, I wonder how that happened. Murdoch's rag running to rescue Condie. That's original.

Where's the outrage about Ms Rice's participation in this complete disaster taking place in Iraq? She the principal architect of Mr Bush's folly. So, a politician should make nice to her? Give me a break.

The abscene of any meaninful discussion here about "The Surge" says it all. You can hear a pin drop in here.

Brian has zero credibility. Don't bother with him.

To insinuate that a fighting war is an opportunity to strut

I didn't insinuate that, dipshit, Lorie did:

This might completely blow your mind, but there are also times that it is necessary we demonstrate that we are not too soft and spoiled to accept military casualties.

The rest of your response was entirely irrelevant to mine.