Comments on: 2007 Deadliest Year For U.S. In Iraq

Deaths Of 6 U.S. Forces Push Toll To 853 During Year Of Massive Troop Buildup

[terrorislam4]

Posted by jowand at 11:12 PM : Nov 06, 2007

yahhhhh, sure made china, soviets and n korea happy,,,

[radiob-2009]

Whats the matter dont like a little bush bashing, even the ladies like to get their bush bashed.

[j-whitman]

jowand,,,,,, General McCarther wanted to Bomb Bomb Korea with 5 nuclear weapons, he was as neo-con as they got.

[jowand]

The war in Iraq should have never been launched, therefore us "winning" or "losing" is a moot point.
Posted by hungry1968 at 11:07 PM : Nov 06, 2007

Losing isn''t a moot point it''s a perceived political opportunity by some politicians.

[hungry1968]

wrong,,, macarthur drove them across the river and truman refused to let him take out their supply lines across the river,,, then the chinese poured back across the river after regrouping,,, same BS the demonic-rats pulled in viet nam,,,

Posted by terrorislam4 at 11:06 PM : Nov 06, 2007



Oh - I get it now. In two wars that we never should have been involved in, the ONLY reason we lost was because of the Democrats. That''s the only reason - Democrats, Democrats, Democrats.

So with Bush in charge the past 7 years, and the Republicans in both the Congress and Senate, how come all of the countries problems weren''t fixed? In fact, many hundreds of new problems were created, why?

[terrorislam4]

Posted by AJMarine1 at 11:08 PM : Nov 06, 2007

and truman was wrong,,, and macarthur was right,,, history has prove it to be true,,,

[j-whitman]

jowand,,,, It''s corrupt politics eveyone should be afraid of as soon as prospective leaders who have never worn a uniform start Swift Boating veterans, including disabled veterans & veterans of thier own party as what was done to McCain.

[jowand]

Best thing Truman did was to fire MacArthur and put General Matthew Ridgway in charge.

[terrorislam4]

Posted by Iceman_1960 at 11:08 PM : Nov 06, 2007

it is true,,, regardless,,, you do not have to believe it,,, truman lost the korean war,,, period,,, truman had it won,,, truman would not let him cross into china,,,

result,,, a n korea problem, a china problem, a soviet problem,,, 50 years on,,,

macarthur would have defeated n korea, china and the soviets,,,

[j-whitman]

jowand,, You think it''s politics I''m concerned with ?? I was a Reagan republican & helped him run for Governor, I was a republican until 1999, but never voted party lines...
.... I did my homework on Bush, at the recomendations of my 92 year old aunt
,, & I immediatly saw the mistakes Bush was making right after 9/11 talking about who was a terrorist or a terrorist threat.... I have experiance & past breifings on terrorism going back to the 70''s, & have a detailed knowledge of how to handle classified information, as well as an understanding of many cultures. --
------ Believe me, if a democrat was this bad & would have been just has hard on them.

[ajmarine1]

Posted by terrorislam4 at 10:57 PM : Nov 06, 2007



The "controversy" between Truman and MacArthur
centered not on military issues but on the right of a President to
demand compliance to his policies as Command-in-Chief of the armed
forces. These were not personal issues or petty disagreements
between a commander and his subordinate. Truman was backed by
the Constitution of the United States. Article II, Section 2 gives a
President the right and power to utilize the armed forces as an
instrument to carry out that foreign policy. This section of the
Constitution also sanctions the President as Chief Diplomat.
There is not doubt that MacArthur was a knowledgeable and
experienced commander. However, the facts do not bear out that he
was not without blame for the debacle of Korea in underestimating
the Chinese strength and will to fight. He can be brought to task
also for not recognizing Truman''s policy of containment that did
not give per-eminence to Asia but tho Western Europe where the
threat of Soviet domination was already prevalent, that his role
was to carry out U.S. policy in Korea and not to enmesh himself in
questioning what that policy was. Traditionally, a military man is
above politics or at least not involved publicly, and certainly not
in public conflict with superiors. Truman rose above the conflict
to preserve the right of the President to formulate foreign policy
as he sees fit in consultation with his advisors.

[iceman_1960]

"wrong,,, macarthur drove them across the river"

He did not.

[hungry1968]

You''''re all politics Whitman, wars against insurgents have a history of taking 10 to 15 years to win or lose depending which side your on. Right now the Dem''''s leadership , not all Dem''''s, are invested in losing the war in Iraq and sending the wrongs signals about Iran and Afghanistan.

Posted by jowand at 11:02 PM : Nov 06, 2007



Russia spent 20 years in Afghanistan - look what they have to show for it.

The war in Iraq should have never been launched, therefore us "winning" or "losing" is a moot point.

[terrorislam4]

Posted by Iceman_1960 at 11:02 PM : Nov 06, 2007

wrong,,, macarthur drove them across the river and truman refused to let him take out their supply lines across the river,,, then the chinese poured back across the river after regrouping,,, same BS the demonic-rats pulled in viet nam,,,

[hungry1968]

truman lost the korean war,,,

macarthur had it won,,, typical demonic-rats,,, putting politics ahead of victory,,,

Posted by terrorislam4 at 10:57 PM : Nov 06, 2007



Macarthur had it won? How much of North Korea had he "conquered" before Truman lost the war?

Obviously, you being one of the great military genius'' with inside information that no one else has ever heard before, can share that information with us, right?

Looks like we''re going to have to get you banned again - terrorislam5 on the way....

[jowand]

jowan,,,, Keep in mind, this isn''''t 48 & Bush isn''''t Truman, FDR, Eiesnhower or even close to a Reagan,,,, This isn''''t WW2 & the victorious honorable accomplishments of it --
--- This is Iraq War of Roses which won''''t be called victory, the "Forgotten War in Afaganistan" which isn''''t doing so hot, & a halted War on Terror that has gone in the oppisite direction.
Posted by j-whitman at 10:57 PM : Nov 06, 20

You''re all politics Whitman, wars against insurgents have a history of taking 10 to 15 years to win or lose depending which side your on. Right now the Dem''s leadership , not all Dem''s, are invested in losing the war in Iraq and sending the wrongs signals about Iran and Afghanistan.

[iceman_1960]

"truman lost the korean war,,,

macarthur had it won,,, typical demonic-rats,,, putting politics ahead of victory,,,"
- Posted by terrorislam4 at 10:57 PM : Nov 06, 2007

MacArthur divided the American forces going up the Korean Peninsula after the Inchon Landing.

It was one of the biggest blunders in American military history before Bush"s invasion of Iraq.

The Chinese crossed the Yalu (something MacArthur had assured Truman they couldn"t possibly do) and inflicted one of the greatest routs in military history.

A Chinese veteran later joked that he never knew white boys were such fast runners.

[jowand]

Jenkem originated in Africa and other third world countries by fermenting raw sewage to create a gas which is inhaled to achieve a high. Jenkem is now a popular drug in American Schools."

One more big stink on Bush"s watch.
Posted by Iceman_1960 at 10:56 PM : Nov 06, 2007

No sh*t

[j-whitman]

jowan,,,, Keep in mind, this isn''t 48 & Bush isn''t Truman, FDR, Eiesnhower or even close to a Reagan,,,, This isn''t WW2 & the victorious honorable accomplishments of it --
--- This is Iraq War of Roses which won''t be called victory, the "Forgotten War in Afaganistan" which isn''t doing so hot, & a halted War on Terror that has gone in the oppisite direction.

[jowand]

...rather than educating themselves outside of the classroom.
Posted by USAyesterday at 10:54 PM : Nov 06, 2007

Very good point