>>The idea is to make sure that their casualties are far greater than ours.

Well, not exactly. The Nazis accomplished this with their invasion of the USSR, but they still got their asses handed to them in the end. Some might argue that the Americans had the same result in Vietnam. If the enemy is prepared to lose 100 men for your one, and they win in the end, then they win - period.

You have to keep your target in sight, and I don't think Bush has.

The reason the Nazis inflicted so many casuaties on the USSR was that before the war Stalin had most of the officers of the Red Army above the rank of Major murdered--40,000 in all. A lot of the Soviet equipment was the equal of or even superior to that of the Wermacht and of course their army was many times larger.The reason the Germans ended up defeated was that the abilities of the new Soviet officers finally caught up with the courage and doggedness of the average Soviet soldier. Leadership on both sides made all the difference in that war (as it usually does.)
We lost Vietnam because the American people had had enough of a war where it seemed that there were no vital American interests at stake. I don't recall the Viet Cong ever murdering people by the thousands in New York City though.

That's what makes this war a little different.

I think Bush has kept HIS target in sight--I just don't think that his target and yours are the same. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Regards, Vince

Since this has become somewhat of a historical discussion I will "brave the waters" and chime in while still keeping silent my political veiws. <img src="/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> The other big mistake with Hilter and the USSR was Hilter's attempt to try to fight a two-front war. The Germans simply didn't have the resources for it. Not to mention that the USSR is some very harsh land the Soviet soldiers were well "dug in" and well acustomed to harsh environment as well. I believe Hitler's ego got the best of him there (as well as other places) as is the case with many people who obtain such enormous influence and power over others.

>>The reason the Nazis inflicted so many casuaties on the USSR was that before the war Stalin had most of the officers of the Red Army above the rank of Major murdered--40,000 in all.

There were many other reasons. For example, Stalin appointed political commissars who had no military training or experience, but who were political toadies who had authority over the military commanders on scene. In some cases, the commissars accepted the "advice" of the military officer; in others (such as the Kerch peninsula) they overrode the military advice with horrific results. (As I recall, the commissar at the battle for Kerch - where John Demyanyuk was taken prisoner - decreed that anyone more than a 100 metres from the front line was a coward and would be shot; as a result, the soldiers were crammed in shoulder to shoulder, creating a perfect target for the German artillery.)

When I studied Russian at the Canadian Forces Language School, our instructor (who had been evacuated from Leningrad as a child during the first year of the siege) insisted that Stalin was the one who secretly arranged for the food warehouses to be torched, destroying much of the city's food supply; many Leningraders to this day believe that Stalin wanted Leningrad to fall and had sent many of his political adversaries there so they could be denounced for their "failure" when it did.

He also gave ironclad orders that not one inch of Russian soil should be given up without a fight to the death. Commanders who staged a tactical withdrawal, even if the end result was successful, were court-martialled and executed. As a result, I believe whole divisions began the war surrounded on three sides and were quickly annihilated because they weren't permitted to fall back to a more defensible location.

The fact remains, the Soviets suffered much higher casualties than the Nazis but ended up winning the war, which negates your assertion that inflicting higher casualties necessarily equates to military victory.

>>We lost Vietnam because the American people had had enough of a war where it seemed that there were no vital American interests at stake. I don't recall the Viet Cong ever murdering people by the thousands in New York City though.

>>That's what makes this war a little different.

Are you so sure Americans aren't already losing their stomach over the mounting casualties in Iraq - especially after it was discovered that there were no WMD, and there were no ties to Al Qaeda?


>>I think Bush has kept HIS target in sight--I just don't think that his target and yours are the same.

They took a bunch of young reservists, whose only "crime" was being patriotic and wanting to serve their country, sent them over to a land that was in total anarchy, gave them no proper training in how to run a prison, allowed them to do it without proper supervision, and then hung them out to dry when they screwed up.

If Bush's "target" is American civil rights and democratic freedoms, then I'd have to agree with you. That doesn't make him right - only right wing <img src="/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

"The fact remains, the Soviets suffered much higher casualties than the Nazis but ended up winning the war, which negates your assertion that inflicting higher casualties necessarily equates to military victory."

My assertion had nothing to do with WWII. You brought that up. My assertion has to do with the war on terror. And it is, I believe, quite valid.

"Are you so sure Americans aren't already losing their stomach over the mounting casualties in Iraq - especially after it was discovered that there were no WMD, and there were no ties to Al Qaeda?"

Well, I'm one American who is not losing his stomach for the war on terror. But I'll admit, it's the soldiers actually doing the fighting whose stomach matters more than yours or mine. From what I can see they are doing the job and doing it well.

And there were WMD (at least according to the UN). And, according to the 9-11 commission, there WERE Al Queda ties to Iraq--they just haven't established the connection to 9-11 (yet).

"They took a bunch of young reservists, whose only 'crime' was being patriotic and wanting to serve their country, sent them over to a land that was in total anarchy, gave them no proper training in how to run a prison, allowed them to do it without proper supervision, and then hung them out to dry when they screwed up."

Wow, you must be running out of arguments to bring up the prison abuse scandal now. Let's see: 20-30 (at most) bad apples at Abu Ghiraib and 199,970 soldiers serving their country honorably. I like those odds myself.

"If Bush's "target" is American civil rights and democratic freedoms, then I'd have to agree with you. That doesn't make him right - only right wing."

That's hilarious. I frequent several boards (mostly gun-related) and the general concensus there is that Bush is too PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER.! Anyway, I've concerned myself with American civil rights and democratic freedoms far longer than you have and you can take it from me: they are in far less jeopardy than you think.

Regards, Vince

There is something to Roland, the headless Thompson gunner.

ps - The sh-t has hit the fan

I think this discussion is getting a little lengthy, but I love that it has lasted this long.

I always try to remember that no opinion is wrong. It is just an opinion. What bothers me is when people try to speak for me or beat me with their opinion without anything to back it up.

Forums are great for letting people know other opinons, facts and circumstances. And a little thread drift here and there...

Rena

Some Americans may be losing their stomach but I'll guarantee that many others feel that we had plenty of provocation to do what-ever we want, where-ever we want, WMD's or not. As for the "prison incedent", the prisoners in question are lucky that they didn't have professional, determined interigators working on them, although, if that had been the case, the general public most likely wouldn't have ever heard a word. I've said enough now, I'm going to try to follow bountyhunters lead.

Troy

Since you attached your message to my last entry, I will reply by saying that, in jest, we are both referring to songs by Warren Zevon..............no secret message or slight intended and I for one, have not taken the liberty to speak for anyone else.

Well, let me clarify what I meant. I think it's a huge mistake to assume that Americans are any less capable of taking a fight to its finish than other nationalities, when the situation warrants it. The blood that was spilt at Guadalcanal and the Battle of the Bulge should have dispelled that myth before it ever got started. The idea that the USA will give up and call off the dogs as soon as they realise they're not going to have it their own way is a dangerous delusion for anyone that wants to tango with them.

Nor do I think that Americans have forgotten or forgiven what happened on September 11, or that it has ceased to matter to them.

However, I think it's also a dangerous delusion to believe that the Iraqis will give up once they see how strong your resolve is. Maybe some of them are killing American soldiers because they're Saddam supporters or Al-Qaida sympathisers; but if my country were invaded by a superpower - even one that claimed to have my best interests at heart - I'd probably think it was my patriotic duty to take up arms against them, and I'd be very surprised if the average Iraqi citizen didn't feel the same way. (Sure, they were cheering the "liberators" in the streets of Kabul - if my country were invaded and overrun by the world's greatest superpower, I'd probably want to do some serious ass-kissing too. But would that reflect my true feelings toward the invaders? Maybe not.)

But I think that some Americans - even maybe some on this forum - are beginning to wonder if George W. Bush didn't abuse their righteous anger in order to settle a personal score. We were all told that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (Always Capitalised). Oops, sorry, no he didn't. Our bad. <img src="/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> But he was in league with Al Qaeda. Well, oops again. Sorry, no he wasn't. Our bad. <img src="/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

So are Americans going to lose their stomach for a fight? Not as such, but they might well start to question whether the "security" measures being implemented are really for their benefit.

I guess we'll know for sure when - I mean if - Kerry wins the election <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

My point about the Military Police reservists who are going to go to prison for their handling of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib was that these were ordinary young men and women whose only intent was to go overseas and do their patriotic duty; because they were plunged into a situation for which they had no training, no experience, and inadequate supervision, they're going to be hung out to dry by the people they volunteered to risk their lives for. Maybe it's just me, but I think that sucks.