New England DUers: I'm going to be on TV tonight

[WilliamPitt]

NECN (New England Cable News) at 8pm on the Newsnight program. They want me on to discuss this:

The Ramadan Offensive
http://truthout.org/docs_03/102803A.shtml

Check it out, if you have a half-hour to spare. There should be a web video of this by tomorrow morning.

[Khephra]

1. I won't be able to see you

But GOOD LUCK!

:hi:

[MUAD_DIB]

2. Thanks for the heads up. I'll be watching.

Give 'em hell: a.k.a the truth.

[mistertrickster]

3. Cool . . . give 'em hell, and keep us posted on the video link.

EOM

[meegbear]

4. I'll be getting drunk ...

but I'll try to watch. If not, I'll see it hung over on web video.

Knock 'em dead!!

[Caution]

5. just told my tivo to record it

ahhh tivo...what would i do without you? TiVo, the single greatest invention since the television!!

[Bombtrack]

6. to lose as many troops in Iraq as were lost in Nam at this rate

we'd have to be there for 140 years.

And 2 million Vietnamese were killed. Does that mean everything is going as well as could have? No. But I think implying that things are close to as bad as Vietnam are very unfounded. Bush isn't in Johnson's shoes. We still have an uphill battle to climb if we want a democrat elected to really level the ship that is America.

You're alalysis is definetly astute and worthy even if I'm not quite in the same place as you perception-wise.

It's certainly better than most of the randomness and ranting that polutes this board

[Caution]

8. IIRC deaths in vietnam started at a fairly small rate

and increased over time. The same thing is happening here. We've only been in Iraq for a very short time and the death rate is increasing. Has anyone done an analysis of what the death rate will look like in two years? In 5 years? 10? the vietnam war lasted an awful long time.

As for the sheer numbers this was will probably never actually rival vietnam, but numbers alone do not tell the whole story. Divided country, no world support for the action, an administration that is simply unwilling to tell the truth about the situation on the ground, more and more dissent among the troops, the slow realization that we have bitten off more than we can chew, the discussion of re-activating the draft, a hostile local population, a guerilla war in a hostile landscape.

[Bombtrack]

10. This is a transitional occupation, Vietnam was a containment of Soviet

expansion.

The draft re-activisation talk came from the war's opposition.

And Johnson was a democrat with a devided party on the war. Bush is a republican with uniform party on the war, facing no prospect of a challange for his nomination

everything else you mentioned pretty much happens in all wars and conflicts, such as positive spinning from the wars proponents and alot of negativity.

[Caution]

12. Ahhh just dismiss the entire argument

Good job. Your argument is almost Rovian in skill. You did address one though, the draft, though still managed to miss the point of it which has nothing to do with who asked for re-instatement, just the fact that it is being discussed.

Guerilla warfare does not occur in every conflict, nor does a lack of support from any country that actually holds even a tiny amount of power on the global playground, nor does massive dissent amongst the troops, etc

How about the following:
1.) The local population will never accept an american presence and attacks and deaths among american troops will continue until that local population drives the US presence out. This will come once the American people determine that the loss of life has become unacceptable
2.) The war had absolutely nothing to do with the stated purpose given for the war (brutal dictator vs current regime "asked for our help")

all of the above misses the actual point. The point is that this is a war which we had no business fighting, which is causing the unnecessary death and suffering of both american soldiers and vietnamese (ooops, i mean Iraqi) citizens, and which is essentially unwinnable since there is no actual end objective. The actual details are unimportant. Articles like Will's make a comparison to specific events in order to illustrate the over-arching similarities, not to say the Iraq War is EXACTLY equal to the Vietnam war. They aren't but they are in fact remarkably similar when root causes are examined.

There *will* be American troops inside Iraq for at a bare minimum 10 years, probably permanently. It is too strategic a position to give up and to leave would mean the US had virtually no military presence in the area. A permanent base in Iraq gives the US immediate access to Saudi Arabia in the case of a theocratic coup, to Iran for when (not if) we decide to take out the current government, to Syria (ditto), to Lebanon, maintains our control over Kuwait and of course provides a large degree of protection for Israel. Anyone who actually thinks that the next President (who will be a Democrat) will vacate Iraq militarily is simply kidding themselves. Once the next President is briefed on the strategic importance of the base in Iraq (particularly with our total dependence on Gulf oil), there will be no choice but to stay. The whole thing is incredibly depressing because rather than attempting to actually foster good relations with this area it was decided to simply take over.

[WilliamPitt]

7. kick

[Gato Moteado]

9. wow....great article bro!

here in texas, i'll have to catch the replay of the show on the web.

[VelmaD]

11. Too kewl

Knock 'em dead honey. We're all rooting for ya. :-)

[Liberator_Rev]

13. Sic 'em, Will !

[WilliamPitt]

14. kick

[Gato Moteado]

15. kick

nt

[Caution]

16. kick

[arendt]

17. Watched it. Do you have a deal not to interrupt?

Tom Nichols from NWC said three heinously false
things, and the outrage meter never moved from zero.

1) Nobody ever said this would be over in six months.
2) Its a great thing that Al Quida is killing our boys in Iraq
3) Only outsiders could organize the latest bombings

In reverse order:

3) If the Iraqis couldn't organize three bombs, why were
we so scared of them?

2) Like the email to CNN said: if this is a success, would
a nuke in a US city be total victory?

1) You did say the word "Rumsfeld" in a level tone of voice.
Why couldn't you at least say "there you go again" to this
flat out lie?

WHY do you let that jerk spout the party line, repeat the lies,
and not hammer him into the ground? Did you agree to
pull your punches and let him put these lies out there?

The thin moderator was tougher on him than you were.

arendt