1700 American casualties -- How many Iraqi ??

Tuesday, 6/28/05, RIP [Ripley's Internet Press] American President George Bush's speech tonight on the status of the invasion of Iraq yields some answers but leaves unanswered questions. oOo oOo

While we and the American leadership all grieve the loss of any and all soldiers, and we all wish for the fighting to be over, it must be seen that the level of military loss in this war (1700 was the figure bantered about, how do we verify this?) is nowhere near to an incredible, horrible, and irrational level. Compared to the losses in Vietnam, Korea, Arab-Israeli war, the Gulf War, Bosnia-Croatia, etc.--virtually any other conflicts-- we see in these past examples far greater unacceptable numbers of dead.

Frankly, if it were "17,000 dead" this would motivate me to protest in alarm and be concerned! We are not at this level, and God forbid, we never will be. oOo oOo We can stem the tide of further deaths. We should be doing everything humanly possible to thwart any more killings.

-- I personally agree with a Zero Tolerance policy to Death. --

But for those Americans who are swayed by horror over the dead already, I say that with your protest of our government's actions in Iraq, you should proclaim this value to the "insurgency"! See what their reponse and attitude is. oOo oOo It will be more of the same-- total disregard for human life and rights, for the sake of their own twisted agenda. [ This goes, of course, the same for Palestinian, Irish, African, and any other terrorists as well. ]

I do not believe for a moment that these scattered, scrappy militants have any support from the REAL people of Iraq. They are not independents, freedom-fighters, defenders of Islam or any such thing.
They are merely outlaws & renegades. They do not care about anyone but themselves.
They should not be trusted or have any voice. They are a festering boil and a blight on humanity. oOo oOo

I do not mourn their suicidal self-killing, they can help us all they like, in the vermin-iradication process.
But to murder the people around them is never acceptable and will be resisted.

Less than 1,000 casualties (!) were sustained in the "invasion" of a foreign stronghold of terrorists,
and a dictator rallying his thug "army" to remain in tryannical control!? I don't know the actual figures,
but that must be seen as a great relief and sound victory for the strategists and the brave military forces
that we have sent to these lands!

-- We have not forgotten to get Osama bin Laden, but we will also have to

eliminate his underlings and wanna-be's --

oOo oOo oOo
The military action in Iraq must be compared to a police action in the middle of Chicago (or LA or NY for other examples) to attack a conclave of gangs, criminals and mobsters bent on controlling and terrorizing the city.
It would be a very brave move to inject those forces into the middle of these criminals in order to destroy their operations-- and they would be open and vulnerable to continued re-attacks while they remain on the criminal's own turf. oOo oOo

But as Bush has again told us, from the viewpoint of his advisors and American military leaders, the battle against terrorism must take place on the terrorists' own turf. It must be in those areas they have chosen to infest with their subversive presence, or it will happen again on our soil. Thus we have taken the fight across the globe to get directly face to face with terrorists, and hope to eradicate their stronghold before they can regroup to attack more of the countries of the world. oOo oOo

-- Who's Kidding Whom!? --

The question remains for me (if we have to count numbers)-- HOW MANY innocent men, women, and children of the Iraqi people have been slaughtered, murdered, and terrorized by these punks and mobsters that continue to wage war on their own flesh and blood in the supposed name of driving out the "Evil Americans"!! oOo oOo

The numbers do grow daily-- "averaging 70 a day" as reported-- but the casualties are not mounting so fast in American soldiers (and those of our allied coalition forces) as they are rising much faster, steadily, with each car-bombing, suicide mission, grenading or rocket firing carried out by these "insurgents" in their midst.

The death toll continues to rise, demonically among the Iraqi people themselves. oOo oOo

The cost of this war, and of our staying the course-- of "not standing down" until the "Iraqi forcese are able to stand up" for themselves and the protection of their country-- must not be measured in money! oOo oOo

See my "Cost of the TerroristThugMob Gang-Rape-of Islamic-Countries Murderous Insanity Network counter"

-- the true cost of this "war in Iraq" is the brutally shattered lives of the population forced to

endure these shameful acts by the very few lawless ones in their midst.

-- The Pundits' - Observers' - Peanut Gallery - Sidelines Commentary --

After President Bush's speech tonight, the inimitable Tim Russert of NBC is heard to say that a "new outlook"

or rationale for the "war on terror" is given by Bush, by stating that "instead of WMD now the battle is to ensure

that Iraq does not become a haven for terrorists." oOo If we remember correctly, it was

1. the paper [ cellphone / computer / email ] trail. . .
2. the smoking gun [ hijacked plane / bomb / gas / WMD ] trail. . .
3. the money [laundering / "charities" / secret wealthy families ] trail. . .
4. the terrorist network [ recruiting / training / harboring / support ] trail. . .

that (surprise!) led us to connect the dots first to Afghanistan and then to Iraq. oOo oOo oOo

oOo oOo Amazing! Terrorists are loose on the world!

they have money and weapons support from "somewhere"- oOo

-- Bin Laden has ties and para-military allegiances with radicals in Iraq oOo oOo

(and, it must be said, ALSO SCATTERED AROUND [ STILL! ] IN VARIOUS OTHER COUNTRIES)--

AND THERE IS A DICTATOR, Saddam Houssein, in Iraq:

• WHO SUPPORTS TERRORIST ACTIVITY (at the very least, by rhetoric, attitude and example!)
• who oppresses his own people;
• rapes their economy and their women;
• steals and hoards their national treasures and profits;
• gouges the very eyes and hearts of dissenters to his tyranny;
• supports his own network of thugs, thieves and criminals;
• allows unchecked brutal power in his "leadership"-- for over 30 years;
• and is "reported"(reputed among the intelligence community) to be developing WMD--

for what use? To adorn the walls of his palace(s)? Is he going to help us get the terrorists? Not hardly.

Thus, what better place for other terrorists of the world to re-group, amass, strategize, prepare and launch yet more attacks on innocent popoulations, the US included, than in a vulnerable, volatile hotbed of hatred and tacit support as that given under Saddam?

THEREFORE, OF COURSE it made and makes sense to cut out the dark sinister debased heart of this global criminal enterprise that would set itself up in the Iraq-Iran-Syrian-Jordanian quadrant of the instable Middle-East!

So has the American strategy and purpose in carrying on the War Against Terror into Iraq changed?

NO-- even though the threat was less than we were led to believe (without amassed WMD's) the grave danger would still remain with Saddam and his crony leaders in power. More than other totalitarian regimes (with the exception perhaps of N. Korea and China now) they could act as a catalyst to draw more terrorist actions to the middle-east, to become a veritable staging area to attack the world at large. At least this is my hindsight theory. oOo oOo

Why can't freedom-loving people over the world see this? Is it because they really AREN'T FREEDOM-LOVING, actually just Self-interest-loving at heart? oOo oOo

Are some of us blind to the ramifications of allowing ANY criminals to thrive and survive in our cities, states, nations and continents?

Don't we all want a peaceful, crime-free, open and caring "neighborhood", to live together in this "global village"? Why don't we support the efforts of the anti-mobster deputies, man-hunters, private eyes, "Elliot Ness and the Untouchables" willing to risk their own lives for these great values?

I'm not saying the means justify the ends. This is never right. Far from it.

The Ends must Justify the Means beforehand.

And we can't allow the "good guys" to usurp our [the world's] freedoms for the sake of their helping us.

We all understand this.

oOo oOo But are we "too afraid" of losing our [ and other nations' ] high and mighty "personal rights"? oOo oOo

- - - Con't. below - - -