Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Iraq War Milestone  
User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1508 times:

A short while ago the total casualty count passed 23,000 since the war started in 2003.

We now have as many casualties in Iraq over 3 years as there where at the Battle of Antietam September 17th 1862.

Why do I point this out?

While I sympathize with every soldier who put himself in harms way for us, I think we need to put the Iraq war into historical perspective.

There are politicians out there that want the US to pull out because casualties are too high. That the human cost of this war is too high. in the process they play into the hand of the insurgents. The "Black Hawk Down" incident has given the impression that the US has no will to fight. We will pull out when casualties get too high. Some politicians have fallen into that trap, they are advocating precisely what the insurgents want.

Additionally, I bring up the Civil War for another reason. The parallels are striking. Congress divided between Republican and Democrats the Democrats further divided into "Peace" and "War" Democrats. Accusations of tyranny on the part of the President. And the President dealing with a hostile media, for the most part.

I urge people read about the Lincoln Administration. See what he did, like suspending Habeous Corpus, jailing journalists and political foes. Read the NY Times of the era and you'd think that the editorial staff has remained unchanged in 140 years. Look at the similarities in what the "Peace" Democrats said then and now.

When you see the similarities, then note that this Administration has not gone anywhere as far as the Lincoln Administration did, see if you can challenge the shrill rhetoric that comes from those that want us out of Iraq now.

33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1502 times:

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter):
A short while ago the total casualty count passed 23,000 since the war started in 2003.

In the case of Antietam you're talking about the casualty total for BOTH sides. For Iraq, only one side.

If you apply the same statistical method to the Iraq conflict the count is in the hundreds of thousands.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1495 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 1):
In the case of Antietam you're talking about the casualty total for BOTH sides. For Iraq, only one side.

Since Antietam was a battle of the American Civil War all casualties were American. Therefore, the 23,000 American casualties statistic holds.

Be that as it may, it still doesn't invalidate my point.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1490 times:

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 2):
Be that as it may, it still doesn't invalidate my point.

As far as I understand your point it is as follows:-

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter):
When you see the similarities, then note that this Administration has not gone anywhere as far as the Lincoln Administration did,

I don't see any similarities at all between the Civil War and Iraq.

Except possibly that about the same number of people (around half-a-million) have died in both. So far.........



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1483 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 3):
I don't see any similarities at all between the Civil War and Iraq.

Then you haven't READ much on the American Civil War. Especially the political history.

You didn't read my original thread. Please, try again.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1478 times:

I very possibly know as much as you do about the Civil War, UAL. Certainly, as far as Antietam is concerned, I've walked the ground around the Dunker Church, the Cornfield, the Sunken Road, Burnside's Bridge, and all the rest of it.

How you can conclude that, in Iraq, the only casualties that count are the American ones frankly defeats me.

Except maybe that a noted CW general, Phil Sheridan. late in life, was quoted as expressing a similar sentiment. Is that your view - "The only good Iraqi is a dead Iraqi"?

[Edited 2006-10-24 16:08:56]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1467 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
I very possibly know as much as you do about the Civil War, UAL. Certainly, as far as Antietam is concerned, I've walked the ground around the Dunker Church, the Cornfield, the Sunken Road, Burnside's Bridge, and all the rest of it.

Take a look at my profile NAV20. Not to toot my own horn, but I'm NOT working for an Airline anymore. History is my profession.

Simply walking around a battlefield, while very helpful and informative on some things, is not the whole story.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):
How you can conclude that, in Iraq, the only casualties that count are the American ones frankly defeats me.

Not surprising. Because you are ignoring my point. Iraqi casualties, the vast majority commited by other Iraqis is not germaine to my point about American Politicians.

When Jack Murtha starts saying that, we have killed too many Iraqis and need to pull out then I will amend my statement. So far I don't hear any Politicians complaining about the casualties INFLICTED by American troops, except, and for good reason, those that were commited illegaly.

American Politicians are using caualty counts, which historically are very light, to make a point for leaving, which plays into the hand of the insurgents. Explain to me how Iraqi casualties, most inflicted by Insurgents, comes into play in American Political discourse.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1463 times:

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 6):
Simply walking around a battlefield, while very helpful and informative on some things, is not the whole story.

For tens of thousands of guys - particularly those who attacked Marye's Heights at Fredericksburg or Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg - it quite simply DID turn out to be the 'whole story,' UAL.

I don't think you can possibly compare the two wars. The Civil War was unique in that it was fought by two groups of free men over issues of constitutional principle which transcended the feverish gropings of mere politicians.

I think you dishonour the memory of the people who fought in it (on both sides) by linking it to a squalid piece of ill-judged political opportunism like Iraq.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1454 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 7):
a squalid piece of ill-judged political opportunism

Spoken like a true Copperhead.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 7):
I don't think you can possibly compare the two wars.

I don't compare the two wars. They are very different in many ways beyond what you have mentioned.

With regard to your other comments, I said that there were many PARALLELS. there are also important differences. Historical parallel, Democrats accuse the President of tyranny. Historical difference, Lincoln actually suspends Habeas Corpus for US Citizens by Presidential Order, Bush gets the Patriot Act passed by CONGRESS, which affects only terrorists and those aiding them.

If people can't look to history and take guidance from it then what's the point of studying it? I have actually spelled out my point about casualties, you ignore it. I have given examples of the parallels and important differences that should be noted. You don't comment on those. You have conveniently ignored the very obvious political parallels focusing solely on the battles. You cherry pick and distort to support your argument.

I urged people to read Civil War history with an eye to current events. You skip that comment, and launch into an attack. You have used this thread to spout what little you know about the Civil War, and argue I'm completly wrong. I WANT people to read on thier own and draw thier own conclusions. I think what they find however, is very enlightening.

Try to open your mind a bit NAV20, you made up your mind before you even opened up this thread.


User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1452 times:

Agreed UAL , and thanks for the parallel.

The problem for President Bush now however is that decisions are questioned at hyper speed. In addition to the mass exposure now adays the voices of dissent are also magnified. Of course in our democracy you must have dissent and we accept that. The Issue is that human nature for the most part allows us to constantly question ourselves ,this has the effect of causing indecision.

I myself have felt the effects of this regarding the war. Even though I have family members engaged in the war I sometimes find myself questioning the net worth of the effort. When I watch the bad news coming out of Iraq it causes me to question my support. I have to constantly refocus on the overall goal of the war and renew my hope that it will end well for the Iraqi people. The President must have the same type of emotions , however he must always appear positive and focused on the goal.

President Lincoln fought off many of his protractors as well and "stayed the course". President Lincoln was obviously correct in his determination , and history has proved that. President Bush has a vision of a democratic Iraq , if his goal is achieved , I believe history will be kind to him. As in the Civil war, the anti war wing of the government had only one other option; let the south succeed. The opposition of President Bush also have only one option; pull out and let Iraq slip into Iranian style oppression.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1446 times:

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 8):
You.......argue I'm completly wrong. I WANT people to read on thier own and draw thier own conclusions. I think what they find however, is very enlightening.

If you start a thread on a discussion forum you arguably have to put up with people 'discussing' what you say?

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 8):
You have used this thread to spout what little you know about the Civil War,

How do you know what my history pedigree is - or how much I know about the Civil War?

I'll tell you one thing (my opinion only) - Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest politicians that ever lived. He was worth ten of Bush or any of his Democrat challengers - he could effortlessly achieve a balance between hard-headed politics and lofty principle. As an historian, you've probably read his 1862 letter to Horace Greeley about his 'war aims' - but I'll put it on for any posters who haven't had the pleasure of reading such a masterly (and utterly sincere) piece of political writing before:-

"As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

"I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

"Yours, A. Lincoln."


http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1434 times:

Quoting UALPHLCS (Thread starter):
When you see the similarities, then note that this Administration has not gone anywhere as far as the Lincoln Administration did, see if you can challenge the shrill rhetoric that comes from those that want us out of Iraq now.

Most poeple don't want us out of the war becaue of casualties, my friend. Msot want us out because 1. They don't see the reason for it now, and 2. They don't see any hope in winning there.

I don't believe we can get out now, but I don't see, unless there is radical change, how we can make it work, either.


User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1434 times:

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 9):
When I watch the bad news coming out of Iraq it causes me to question my support. I have to constantly refocus on the overall goal of the war and renew my hope that it will end well for the Iraqi people.

There is a parallel I han't really considered. The ebb and flow of popular support for the War, then and now.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 10):
If you start a thread on a discussion forum you arguably have to put up with people 'discussing' what you say?

You didn't discuss you got off topic and attacked.

However, your latest post is a marked improvement.

Just quoting the letter leads me to wonder, what is your point? What bearing does it have? You said originally that there are no comparisons to be made at all between the American Civil War and the Iraq War.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 3):
I don't see any similarities at all between the Civil War and Iraq.



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 7):
I don't think you can possibly compare the two wars.

I am left wondering NAV20 which is it? Do you not see any parallels as in replies 3 and 7 and dismiss my premise, or are you discussing my premise like you did in reply 10? Seems a big change in just a few replies.


User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1433 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 11):
Most poeple don't want us out of the war becaue of casualties, my friend. Msot want us out because 1. They don't see the reason for it now, and 2. They don't see any hope in winning there.

Again, arguments used by "Peace" Democrats in 1862-1864.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1407 times:

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 13):
Again, arguments used by "Peace" Democrats in 1862-1864.

Different war, man. This war is NOT for the survival of THIS nation; our liberty and freedoms are NOT on the line. It is a war, now, fought, I believe, for over-riding political and personal reasons, not one that was ever going to benefit this nation.

I believe we have to stay. But I also don't see, with the current administration, how it can be turned around. I just don't, but we HAVE to try.

This war is going to be the problem of the next president, of that I have no doubt. Maybe that person, Democrat or Republican, can figure this out.


User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 1400 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 14):
It is a war, now, fought, I believe, for over-riding political and personal reasons,

Please remember South Carolina secceded because of the outcome of the 1860 election, and the other states followed suit. In the end only the real late comers like Virginia secceded for other political reasons. So you see how these parallels are valid. The reasons are different but what war isn't fought over political and personal reasons? Political and Personal reasons are exactly why people go to war.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 14):
I believe we have to stay. But I also don't see, with the current administration, how it can be turned around. I just don't, but we HAVE to try

My mistake you are not a "Peace" Democrat in the Civil War sense, you are a McClelland "War" Democrat. They believed the Union had to win but not with Lincoln as President, McClelland was thier choice to lead.

Which brings up another parallel. Democrats trotted out War hero McClelland for President, Democrats today, trotting out Iraq War Vets for office.

[Edited 2006-10-24 20:42:22]

User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 1392 times:

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 15):
My mistake you are not a "Peace" Democrat in the Civil War sense, you are a McClelland "War" Democrat. They believed the Union had to win but not with Lincoln as President, McClelland was thier choice to lead.

I believe we have to win, but I don't see how we'll win with Bush as president, and his penchant for over-riding stubbornness.

And remember, had the damn Union Generals in the Civil War just fought the war the way Lincoln wanted it-and he correctly outlined how he thought the war would be won back in 1861, long before Grant cut off the Mississippi from the Rebels-the war could have been over long before McClleland would have run for president. The same can't be said about this president.

[Edited 2006-10-24 20:52:39]

User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 1382 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 16):
And remember, had the damn Union Generals in the Civil War just fought the war the way Lincoln wanted it-and he correctly outlined how he thought the war would be won back in 1861

I don't think this is a place where history parallels. Actually, and this is something historians debate, Lincoln's actions in early 1862 probably HAPPERED the Union war effort.

Please recall that the Pennisula Campaign of George McClelland got the Union Army within 6 miles of Richmond. It was Lincoln's strategic blunder to order McClelland away from the Pennisula, although McClelland himself made matters worse because of his huge ego.

There really is no parallel for this in the Iraq war that I can see.


User currently offlineShakeZulaNJ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1361 times:

Just out of curiosity, how much was the overall cost of the Civil War, in 1860 dollars and adjusted to 2006 dollars?

User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1349 times:

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 6):
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 5):How you can conclude that, in Iraq, the only casualties that count are the American ones frankly defeats me.
Not surprising. Because you are ignoring my point. Iraqi casualties, the vast majority commited by other Iraqis is not germaine to my point about American Politicians.

i agree. Except for the "highway of death" in the first Gulf War, foreign casualty rates are simply irrelevant to our politicians. I realize that it is harsh to say this, but it is the truth. Congressman Jones and Senator Smith don't have to account to Iraqi mothers - just to the American mothers whose sons and daughters come home in a box. I can guarantee that virtually no one in the US cared how many Japanese died on Iwo Jima or how many Germans died in Normandy.....

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 10):
I'll tell you one thing (my opinion only) - Abraham Lincoln was one of the greatest politicians that ever lived. He was worth ten of Bush or any of his Democrat challengers - he could effortlessly achieve a balance between hard-headed politics and lofty principle.

Lincoln was the greatest American President - period. Most of his predecessors and successors are but pale imitations of the man.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 11):
Most poeple don't want us out of the war becaue of casualties, my friend. Msot want us out because 1. They don't see the reason for it now, and 2. They don't see any hope in winning there.

I disagree in part. Our continuing presence in Afghanistan hardly registers among the public, because 1) we aren't perceived to be losing, but also 2) because the casualty numbers are low.


User currently offlineBushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1343 times:

Yes there are some fair comparisons, but some major differences. I think the main one being that the US government chose to engage in this war. The civil war was going to happen, it was a matter of time, and Washington knew that the devisive issue would be slavery. For Iraq, nobody sceded from the union, we werent attacked etc. Both parties are guilty in this case of taking premature reactionary decisions without fully thinking through the potential outcomes except thier dream of it. The GOP wanted to appear strong in the aftermath of 9-11. Bush was drooling to go after Saddam, I honestly believe a lot of this comes from personal differences between the two. The democrats didnt want to appear weak and so sheepishly went along with it. Unfortunatly the politicians who we elect and expect to serve us are more interested in keeping thier seats and raising campaign funds than they are with making sound decisions. Now we are stuck in a quagmire which could easily be compared to Vietnam, where there is no true victory attainable.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 6):
American Politicians are using caualty counts, which historically are very light

That is a true statement but unfair. Combat was entirely different as you well know. But the other thing is that men died in the civil war in many cases from minor wounds that would be fairly easily handled with modern medicine. This is not to mention diseases, that were not caused by being wounded.


User currently offlineWingscrubber From UK - England, joined Sep 2001, 845 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1336 times:

Armed forces won't be withdrawn yet... they're in iraq and afghanistan, and whats in the middle? Oh, iran! Fancy that.
Iran is next, iraq and afghanistan will be used as staging bases for the invasion, just as soon as Iran is finished building their first nuclear power station, somebody will cry WMD and in they'll go...



Resident TechOps Troll
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1330 times:

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 20):
This is not to mention diseases, that were not caused by being wounded.

In any case, the authorities are substantially downplaying the Iraq casualty figures by only counting combat casualties, and not including figures for casualties caused by accidents, disease etc..

As of yesterday the total of US casualties in Iraq so far is not '23,000' but 47,583, including 2,804 killed. Over 30,000 'non-mortal' casualties have been bad enough to have required air evacuation so far.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

And of course there have been 238 Coalition deaths so far. But presumably they don't count?  Smile

[Edited 2006-10-25 04:40:08]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineBushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1321 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 22):

I dont disagree with you, I have major problems with how this war has unfolded. Iraqi casualty numbers are horrific, and the amount of US wounded, especially those with permanent disabling injuries go largely unreported by the US media.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1320 times:

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 17):
Please recall that the Pennisula Campaign of George McClelland got the Union Army within 6 miles of Richmond. It was Lincoln's strategic blunder to order McClelland away from the Pennisula,

Just for the (historical) record, UAL, it was one Robert E. Lee who pushed McClellan (no 'd' on the end  ) away from Richmond, in a series of battles known collectively as 'the Seven Days' (Mechanicsville, Gaines Mill, Malvern Hill etc.).

McClellan allowed himself to be driven back and bottled up at Harrison's Landing on the James River. Lincoln visited him there and found that McClellan was unwilling even to try to regain the initiative unless he was given yet more massive reinforcements, which were simply not available.

There was an obvious danger that Lee would leave a holding force to keep the over-cautious McClellan occupied, switch the bulk of the Confederate Army north, and threaten - or even capture - Washington itself. The President therefore lost confidence in McClellan, and had no option but to order him to withdraw.

PS - lovely quote from Abe Lincoln on the problems he had with McClellan:-

"Sending armies to McClellan is like shoveling fleas across a barnyard. Not half of them get there."

[Edited 2006-10-25 05:32:59]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
25 UALPHLCS : My statement though had to do with the Battle of Antietam, the bloodiest single day of the War and of American History. 23,000 Casualties in a single
26 TedTAce : UAL, you are seeking to justify an apple with an orange on many levels. Now while the #'s seem to make sense to you the reality is perception. In Linc
27 Halls120 : I wasn't aware that we ever had "control" of Iraq.
28 NAV20 : Of course I do, UAL. Any army just classifies people as 'fit for duty' or not. If you're not, you're a casualty. To my mind, the important thing is t
29 TedTAce :
30 UALPHLCS : Communication, especially with the press was not as bad as you make it out. The Telegraph made filing stories from Washington DC to the NY Times inst
31 UALPHLCS : I was mulling over the mid-term elections this morning, as NPR was talking about this month being the 4th deadliest month for US Troops in Iraq, when
33 Post contains images Scbriml : Don't you listen to anything your great leader tells you? Apparently only long enough for a stage-managed photo-op.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Iraq War Going South Fast. posted Wed Nov 1 2006 17:04:02 by ArtieFufkin
Iraq War Veterans Take On GOP posted Thu Jul 13 2006 08:27:58 by ArtieFufkin
At Falwell's University, McCain Defends Iraq War posted Sun May 14 2006 01:01:33 by SATX
Man Jailed For Plot To Kill Iraq War Hero posted Fri Jan 27 2006 02:20:22 by Jetjack74
Iraq War Veteran To Run For Congress posted Tue Dec 20 2005 03:39:12 by Tbar220
What Has The Iraq War Achieved? posted Fri Nov 25 2005 23:53:17 by Tbar220
Heated Iraq War Debate In The House Today posted Sat Nov 19 2005 02:14:45 by KC135R
Listen To John P. Murtha About Iraq War! posted Fri Nov 18 2005 17:39:53 by Bofredrik
Boston Legal Takes On Iraq War posted Thu Nov 3 2005 22:13:33 by Tbar220
Closed-Door Senate Session On Iraq War posted Wed Nov 2 2005 13:57:45 by Falcon84