US Conducting Military Ops In Syria: Iraq War Rapidly Becoming Viet Nam Part II

[Mr-Blonde]

Expanding Iraq War into Syria is lunacy

by Dan Simpson

Source: ToledoBlade.com (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051019/OPINION04/510190380/-1/OPINION)

AS I suspected six months ago, and U.S. military and Bush Administration civilian officials confirmed, U.S. forces have invaded Syria and engaged in combat with Syrian forces.


An unknown number of Syrians are acknowledged to have been killed; the number of Americans - if any - who have died so far has not yet been revealed by the U.S. sources, who, by the way, insist on remaining faceless and nameless.

The parallel with the Vietnam War, where a Nixon administration deeply involved in a losing war expanded the conflict - fruitlessly - to neighboring Cambodia, is obvious. The result was not changed in Vietnam; Cambodia itself was plunged into dangerous chaos which climaxed in the killing fields, where an estimated 1 million Cambodians died as a result of internal conflict.

On the U.S. side, no declaration of war preceded the invasion of Syria, in spite of the requirements of the War Powers Act of 1973. There is no indication that Congress was involved in the decision to go in. If members were briefed, none of them has chosen to share that important information with the American people.

Presumably, the Bush Administration's intention is simply to add any casualties of the Syrian conflict to those of the war in Iraq, which now stand at 1,970. The financial cost of expanding the war to Syria would also presumably be added to the cost of the Iraq war, now estimated at $201 billion.

The Bush Administration would claim that it is expanding the war in Iraq into Syria to try to bring it to an end, the kind of screwy non-logic that kept us in Vietnam for a decade and cost 58,193 American lives.

Others would see the attacks in Syria as a desperate political move on the part of an administration with its back against the wall, with an economy plagued by inflation, the weak response to Hurricane Katrina, investigations of senior executive and legislative officials, and the bird flu flapping its wings on the horizon. The idea, I suppose, is to distract us by an attack on Syria, now specifically targeted by U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad.

And then there is the tired old United Nations. An invasion by one sovereign member, the United States, of the territory of another sovereign member (Syria), requires U.N. Security Council action.

Some observers have argued that destabilizing Syria, creating chaos there, even bringing about regime change from President Bashar Assad, would somehow improve Israel's security posture in the region. The argument runs that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was the biggest regional threat to Israel; Mr. Assad's Syria is second. The United States got rid of Saddam; now it should get rid of the Assad regime in Damascus.

The trouble with that argument, whether it is made by Americans or Israelis, is that, in practice, it depends on the validity of the premise that chaos and civil war - the disintegration of the state - in Iraq and Syria are better for Israel in terms of long-term security than the perpetuation of stable, albeit nominally hostile, regimes.

The evidence of what has happened in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in early 2003 is to the contrary. Could anyone argue that Israel is made safer by a burning conflict in Iraq that has now attracted Islamic extremist fighters from across the Middle East, Europe, and Asia? Saddam's regime was bad, but this is a good deal worse, and looks endless.

Is there any advantage at all to the United States, or to Israel, in replicating Iraq in Syria?

For that is what is at stake. Syria in its political, ethnic, and religious structure is very similar to Iraq. Iraq, prior to the U.S. bust-up, was ruled by a Sunni minority, with a Shiite majority and Kurdish and Christian minorities. Syria is ruled by an Alawite minority, with a Sunni majority and Kurdish and Christian minorities. That is the structure, not unlike many states in the Middle East, that the Bush Administration is in the process of hacking away at.

It seems utterly crazy to me.

One could say, "Interesting theory; let's play it out," if it weren't for the American men and women, not to mention the Iraqis and now Syrians, dying in pursuit of that policy.

What needs to be done now is for the Congress, and through them, the American people, the United Nations, and America's allies, the ones who are left, to have the opportunity to express their thoughts on America's expanding the Iraq war to Syria.

A decision to invade Syria is not a decision for Mr. Bush, heading a beleaguered administration, to make for us on his own.

Dan Simpson, a retired diplomat, is a member of the editorial boards of The Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

[outsyder]

Um, what?

I call shenanigans.

[MacReady]

Edited because my toes are pushing against my stomach at this point.

[EVILxxx]

America conducts black ops all the time. In war or peace time. A substantial number or terrorist are coming from Syria to Iraq. We probably destroyed one of their bases.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by MacReady
I can hear Lynn masturbating furiously with joy over this news as we speak...
very unecessary cheapshot!

[MacReady]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
very unecessary cheapshot!

I felt the same way at every one of her distrubing prayers for war to reign over the Syrian population.

[JohnTheHenchman]

So you talk about her masturbating? Really, very mature.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
So you talk about her masturbating? Really, very mature.

I'm being lectured on maturity froma guy who still uses "LOL"?

I'm just repulsed by her war mongering online. There's an unwinnable and repugnant going on with alot of effort to try to put a stop to it and she wants more?

[outsyder]

Originally posted by MacReady
I felt the same way at every one of her distrubing prayers for war to reign over the Syrian population.


You may not like it, but that's not a personal attack against you. What you just said IS a personal attack against her.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by MacReady
I'm being lectured on maturity froma guy who still uses "LOL"?

I'm just repulsed by her war mongering online. There's an unwinnable and repugnant going on with alot of effort to try to put a stop to it and she wants more?

What does my saying LOL have anything to do with anything? Like really?

She's a war monger.

You're a guy talking about her masturbating, something very personal that is no one's business. You're honeslty going to justify your crudeness with her politics? Seriously, resulting to things that low is a great way to get people to listen to you.

[MacReady]

Fine. I shouldn't of said it. I'll take it back if I have to. I'm still appalled at her hopes for another war.

[JohnTheHenchman]

And I'm appalled by you talking about her masturbating. When you resort to a personal attack it's because you don't have the ability to prove yourself to be right.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
And I'm appalled by you talking about her masturbating. When you resort to a personal attack it's because you don't have the ability to prove yourself to be right.

Okay John we get it. I edited the damn thing.

[MacReady]

Allright, here's what I'm gonna do:

I'm sorry to those who got offended by my comments.

[JohnTheHenchman]

All is well :)

[MacReady]

Thank the invisible one (Appy-polly-loggies again just to be sure).

Anyway name-calling aside, if this is true it's an idiotic move. Increasing U.S. will cause a higher occurance of insurgent attacks.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Yeah, there's no need. We need to clean up the mess we've made, try to do something right, and get a lot of our people out there as soon as we can.

However, I'm sick of the comparisons to Vietnam. True, any life lost is a valuable one but it's just not the same numbers.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
However, I'm sick of the comparisons to Vietnam. True, any life lost is a valuable one but it's just not the same numbers.

Funny, this segment is starting to remind me of Cambodia (nearby neutral nation has plenty of enemy soldiers hiding out and is subsequently attacked).

[JohnTheHenchman]

Funny, not as many american soldiers are losing their lives. That was kinda the big thing with Vietnam, I think.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Yeah, there's no need. We need to clean up the mess we've made, try to do something right, and get a lot of our people out there as soon as we can.

However, I'm sick of the comparisons to Vietnam. True, any life lost is a valuable one but it's just not the same numbers.

Yeah cause over 30,000 dead Iraqi civilians is insignificant.

The comparison is not in the casualty numbers but in the methods being employed and the same inevitable quagmire we are facing there.

[JohnTheHenchman]

I hate to be cold but I don't care about Iraqi civilians. I don't think we should have ever gone there, and we're losing the lives of our soldiers for no reason. I think too many have died, but not enough to draw comparisons to Vietnam.

But we can't pull out now, so I don't get why people complain.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
I hate to be cold but I don't care about Iraqi civilians.

You would if you or your family lived there. Don't objectify people because of their race and ethnicity. That's borderline sociopathic.

But we can't pull out now, so I don't get why people complain.

Why not? Answer: Because of all the beautiful oil Johnny!

[JohnTheHenchman]

Wow.

When the hell did I say anything about race or ethnicity? If I'm sociopathic then you're plain old schizophrenic. Last I checked, Iraq was made up of different people! Like most countries! I don't care about them and it has nothing to do with what they look like. You're kind of a jerk for even implying that. Sorry dude, but please don't make arguments where they don't exist!

Yeah.

War for Oil.

Give it a rest.

[BakeTheMooCow]

So what's the reason you don't care about Iraqi civilians?

[Scorpio24]

Well i'm not Iraqi and it bothers the hell out of me that there are so many people being killed out there.

There are inoccent men, women and children being murdered out there every day and you don't care?

Interesting way to look at the world.

As for the raids into Syria? Is there any clear evidence that this actually happened or is it hersay? I only ask because I haven't heard anything about it before this thread.

If they have gone in there then i agree with Evilxxx. It's not such a big deal. Black op's are a common practice outside of a war never mind in the middle of it. I should imagine they had leads on Terror suspects and went to work. I think it would be a major mistake to invlove Syria in this war. Thankfully i don't think that is going to hapen.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by BakeTheMooCow
So what's the reason you don't care about Iraqi civilians?

Because they're not white, blonde haired and blue eyed.

[BakeTheMooCow]

Haha, you're as funny as Schindler's List

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Wow.

When the hell did I say anything about race or ethnicity? If I'm sociopathic then you're plain old schizophrenic. Last I checked, Iraq was made up of different people! Like most countries! I don't care about them and it has nothing to do with what they look like. You're kind of a jerk for even implying that. Sorry dude, but please don't make arguments where they don't exist!

My mistake, you just don't care because it doesn't affect you personally. That attitude seems to be very prevalent these days.

Yeah.

War for Oil.

Give it a rest.

You say that as if we'd still be there if Iraq didn't have one of the largest proven petroleum reserves in the world.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
You say that as if we'd still be there if Iraq didn't have one of the largest proven petroleum reserves in the world.

No, you're wrong. This has nothing to do with oil. (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/31/bush_gives_new_reason_for_iraq_war/)

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
My mistake, you just don't care because it doesn't affect you personally. That attitude seems to be very prevalent these days.



You say that as if we'd still be there if Iraq didn't have one of the largest proven petroleum reserves in the world.

Oh cool, you made another assumption as to my reasoning. You're pretty bad at this game.

Oil is part of it, but if you're really gonna say that it's the only reason we're still there...then I just don't know.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Oh cool, you made another assumption as to my reasoning. You're pretty bad at this game.

Enlighten us then. Why don't you care about innocent Iraqi civilians?

[Joshmo]

If our fighting soldiers and leaders of nations masturbated at the same time, war as we know it would cease if only for a short while so that cooler heads may prevail and recognize the folly of warfare
- Sir Winston Churchill




Well..maybe not, but it sure seems weightier than typing "Joshmo" after the quote. :D



Seriously, I very much care for the dead Iraqis. Why?

1. We should care for anyone who is innocent and dies tragic

2. Whats the best way to continually breed a new generation of America haters and possible future terrorists? ... tell a young boy or girl their parent isnt coming home from the market cause some "smart bomb" lobbed by the Americans wasnt so smart and missed its intended target, thus killing their mommy and/or daddy

3. Tell some parent their child isnt coming home from school today cause an American lobbed bomb "accidentally" blew to smithereens the school they were in.

I could go on... but point has been made why we should care...if not for reason number 1, then most def' #2 and #3

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
Enlighten us then. Why don't you care about innocent Iraqi civilians?

Nah, you can just come up with a reason. If you cared, you would have asked me in the first place.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Nah, you can just come up with a reason. If you cared, you would have asked me in the first place.

Nice cop out.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Nah, you can just come up with a reason. If you cared, you would have asked me in the first place.


Then may I ask why?

Just curious.

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
Enlighten us then. Why don't you care about innocent Iraqi civilians?

So let me see if i have this right. . . . You don't care when Sadaam is filling mass graves, but you do care when civilians die in American bombing raids?
I'm confused.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
So let me see if i have this right. . . . You don't care when Sadaam is filling mass graves, but you do care when civilians die in American bombing raids?
I'm confused.

Both are terrible-- however we haven't exactly improved anything by being there have we? Although the Bush administartion loves to insinuiate it, we didn't go there to stop Saddam's atrocities. I could point out several other more alarming examples of genocide that are occuring around the globe that the US seems completely apathetic to.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
Nice cop out.

It's not copping out when you obviously don't respect my opinion enough to ask for it in the first place.

electriclite,

Perhaps I shouldn't have made my view seem entirely apathetic towards the plight of the people of Iraq. They are people just like us and their lives are just as precious, but I guess it just comes down to American lives taking precedence in my book. Casualties are expected in war, and I'll openly admit that Iraqi civilian casualties do not have as much of an impact on me as Americans. It's not like they give a shit whether we die or not.

But you're talking to someone who never thought there should have been a war in the first place. That's why Mr. Blonde makes me laugh.

And anyway, we didn't enter World War Two to stop Hitler's atrocities, but that doesn't mean it was a bad thing that it did stop.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
It's not copping out when you obviously don't respect my opinion enough to ask for it in the first place.

electriclite,

Perhaps I shouldn't have made my view seem entirely apathetic towards the plight of the people of Iraq. They are people just like us and their lives are just as precious, but I guess it just comes down to American lives taking precedence in my book. Casualties are expected in war, and I'll openly admit that Iraqi civilian casualties do not have as much of an impact on me as Americans. It's not like they give a shit whether we die or not.

But you're talking to someone who never thought there should have been a war in the first place. That's why Mr. Blonde makes me laugh.

And anyway, we didn't enter World War Two to stop Hitler's atrocities, but that doesn't mean it was a bad thing that it did stop.

I'm sorry that I assumed anything about your beliefs. But all I am saying is since the administration decided to invade Iraq under false pretenses it makes Iraqi civilian deaths either due to a terrorist attack or an errant US retalitation campaign that much more henious and outrageous. Now apparently we are doing the same thing in Syria.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman


electriclite,

Perhaps I shouldn't have made my view seem entirely apathetic towards the plight of the people of Iraq. They are people just like us and their lives are just as precious, but I guess it just comes down to American lives taking precedence in my book. Casualties are expected in war, and I'll openly admit that Iraqi civilian casualties do not have as much of an impact on me as Americans. It's not like they give a shit whether we die or not.

But you're talking to someone who never thought there should have been a war in the first place. That's why Mr. Blonde makes me laugh.

And anyway, we didn't enter World War Two to stop Hitler's atrocities, but that doesn't mean it was a bad thing that it did stop.

Thanks man, fair enough.

[The Postmaster General]

I sort of agree with John's sentiments that we need to look out for ourselves first.

America has some pretty serious problems, and I think we'd have more influence over countries if we didn't have so much obviously bad stuff going on.

We are attacking other countries because they are harboring terrorists, but we are harboring a whole bunch of other topics that took a back seat this past election. We export a sort of cultural depravity into other lands with our evironmental blitzrig, our poverty kibosh and a war on drugs were only the wealthy win.

Other developed countries don't have the extent of these problems like we do, but thats just another reason that America is number fucking one, and in a position to go mess some shit up. Boo-yah!

[Mr-Blonde]

Attack Syria? Invade Iran? By What Constitution?
source: CommonDreams.org (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1020-26.htm)

by Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on October 19, Condoleezza Rice was asked whether the Bush administration was planning military action against Syria. She answered, “I don’t think the President ever takes any of his options off the table concerning anything to do with military force.”

Last time we read the U.S. Constitution, the grave decision to use military force against another country was a matter for Congress to decide -- not an “option” for a President.

And last time we read the UN Charter, it provided that “all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

We’ve been here before. President Bush used trumped-up fears (like mushroom clouds over American cities) and frauds (like imaginary “yellowcake” uranium) to fool the American people into attacking Iraq. Now we and the Iraqi people are paying the price.

With the American military bogged down in what Lt. Gen. William Odom, director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, calls “the greatest strategic disaster in United States history,” and with a majority of the American people saying the US made the wrong decision in using military force against Iraq, it may be hard to believe that the Bush administration is really contemplating further adventures.

But regimes facing military embarrassment are notorious for expanding the theater of war – witness Nixon’s expansion of the Vietnam war into Cambodia. And the same delusions that got us into Iraq – from imaginary threats of illicit weapons to dreams of welcome from cheering crowds – are being repeated about Iran and Syria.

War with Syria is already dangerously close. A series of clashes between US and Syrian troops have killed Syrians and, according to current and former US officials, raise the prospect that cross-border military operations may become a dangerous new front in the Iraq war. According to press accounts, US forces have crossed the border into Syria, sometimes by accident, sometimes deliberately. An October 1 meeting of top Bush officials in the White House considered “options,” including “special operations” against Syria. Bush administration officials are already laying the groundwork for attacks with the kinds of justifications they used to ensnare the U.S. in Iraq.

The Bush administration seems to believe that the President has the power to make war on anybody it chooses without even having to consult with Congress. Senator Chafee observed to Secretary Rice, “Under the Iraq war resolution, we restricted any military action to Iraq.” Then he asked, “So would you agree that if anything were to occur on Syrian or Iranian soil, you would have to return to Congress to get that authorization?” Rice’s reply? “Senator, I don’t want to try and circumscribe presidential war powers. And I think you’ll understand fully that the President retains those powers in the war on terrorism and in the war on Iraq.”

The provisions of the Constitution that limit the power of the President to make war are wisely designed to protect the people of our country from just the kind of dubious war that the Bush administration conducted against Iraq – and that the great majority of Americans now believe was a mistake. Similarly the restrictions on aggressive war in the UN Charter protect not only countries that might be attacked, but also the people of countries whose leaders may be tempted to conduct such attacks. Nothing could do more for American’s national security today than a reinvigoration of these constraints on military adventurism.

While we are debating how to extricate ourselves from our quagmire in Iraq, the Congress and the American people need to make one thing perfectly clear: Attack on Iran, Syria, or any other country without the explicit endorsement of the U.S. Congress and the UN is not an “option” for the President.

As the old saying goes, “fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!” Congress and the American people allowed President Bush to fool us into war with Iraq. Shame on us if we allow him to do it again in Syria, Iran, or anywhere else!

[The Postmaster General]

Apparently, Congress surrendered its power to declare war during World War One - technically, and left it up to the president. Then this by-law was never changed after the war. therefore, on paper, leaving the president to engage in any way he wants. Vietnam, Gulf War, War on Terror -- All technically not wars for some reason or another.

This fact has been disregarded by many as reading too much into things.

[EVILxxx]

The way American politics work is basically no one from Congress fucks with the presidents foreign policy. It almost never happens. He is our chief foreign diplomat after all.
Secondly America is not invading Syria. We are conducting "black ops". Standard practice really from nearly every nation in the world. We have probably been conducting such ops in Syria for months maybe even years.
Thirdly, we are not going to invade Iran. But we can't let Iran think that that is not a possibility. It is fairly obvious what Iran is doing any way. They see Kim Jong Ill getting blown by the UN for the simple fact that he has nukes. As soon as Iran gets nukes the UN will have to get on it's knees once again.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by EVILxxx
Thirdly, we are not going to invade Iran. But we can't let Iran think that that is not a possibility. It is fairly obvious what Iran is doing any way. They see Kim Jong Ill getting blown by the UN for the simple fact that he has nukes. As soon as Iran gets nukes the UN will have to get on it's knees once again.

I think the U.S. wants to invade Iran (Bush has alluded to it) along with North Korea (again, an allusion). However it's simply not in the cards as he can't even gurantee a voluntary pullout after victory in Iraq.

As for Iran and NK, keep in mind they can be compared to post-WWII America. A country that was terrified by the thought of an invasion of a seemingly superior world power with a perceived fondness for invasion and looked for a way to deter an attack. Instead of forming NATO, they simply got nukes, because nobody ever invades a nuclear power.

I understand where they are comgin from, but I sincerly wish neither of them would get nukes. One country is a theocracy and I shiver will roll down my spine if a government who's testament mentions an apocalypse gets weapons that could all seal our fate while the other is a backwards, Stalinist, single-person state where there's gulags that some people are sent for petty crimes like having haircuts that Lil' Kimmy dosen't approve of.

As for the U.N. bending over backwards now, they actually recently decided to cut off food supplies to North Korea. There may a famine, but I think this is a good move as it's only going to feed the army. Furthermore they are trying to talk them down from getting (more) nukes, but I find it silly Bush is trying to spearhead this campaign considering how well he listened to them in the past.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Apparently, Congress surrendered its power to declare war during World War One - technically, and left it up to the president. Then this by-law was never changed after the war. therefore, on paper, leaving the president to engage in any way he wants. Vietnam, Gulf War, War on Terror -- All technically not wars for some reason or another.

I love all of the legalities surrounding these things. Viet Nam wasn't a war. It was a police action. A fifteen year police action that left tens of thousands of American's dead and hundreds of thousands of Viet Namese just as dead only to end up as a complete and total failure for the US. Which is what pretty much what will happen after the US leaves Iraq. The nation will be seized by radical Islamists.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
I love all of the legalities surrounding these things. Viet Nam wasn't a war. It was a police action. A fifteen year police action that left tens of thousands of American's dead and hundreds of thousands of Viet Namese just as dead only to end up as a complete and total failure for the US. Which is what pretty much what will happen after the US leaves Iraq. The nation will be seized by radical Islamists.


Yeah, I'm trying to find more information on that deal about Congress having given up its actual power to declare war decades ago. It's totally substantiated too - technically, they have no pull and the President can do whatever he wants. I can't remember the exact name, but it all came down to someone not signing something, or something never being voted on correctly.

It probably means nothing, but have been great fuel for conspiracy theories - especially why we have had so many things that look like wars, but weren't really called wars.

I love the freedom to be paranoid!

[EVILxxx]

I think the U.S. wants to invade Iran (Bush has alluded to it) along with North Korea (again, an allusion). However it's simply not in the cards as he can't even gurantee a voluntary pullout after victory in Iraq.

Well I don't think we do. We're not as war-mongering as you might think.The only reason why Bush and past presidents have had aggressives policies towards countries like these is because that is all they understand. We give them aide, they stab us in the back. We aren't shmucks.

As for Iran and NK, keep in mind they can be compared to post-WWII America. A country that was terrified by the thought of an invasion of a seemingly superior world power with a perceived fondness for invasion and looked for a way to deter an attack. Instead of forming NATO, they simply got nukes, because nobody ever invades a nuclear power.

"simply got nukes" is an interesting phrase. I don't see anything simple about less than harmonious countries acquiring weapons that can wipe out cities. They may have their own logic for aquiring these weapons but that line of thinking endangers the rest of the world.

As for the U.N. bending over backwards now, they actually recently decided to cut off food supplies to North Korea. There may a famine, but I think this is a good move as it's only going to feed the army. Furthermore they are trying to talk them down from getting (more) nukes, but I find it silly Bush is trying to spearhead this campaign considering how well he listened to them in the past.

Yeah just in time to. I mean the people of North Korea have only had their rations reduced to 1000 calories below minimum daily requirments for about 8 months now. Quick thinking UN. :thumbs up:

[TheSpleen]

There is a statement in this thread which is particularly revealing about our political culture. The reference to the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese casualties from the Vietnam war.

In early 1991, the University of Massachusetts conducted a survey on attitudes about the Gulf War crisis. It was a study of how the media - in particular, television, affects our beliefs and attitudes. One of the questions they asked was, How many Vietnamese casualties would you estimate there were during the Vietnam War? The average answer was about 100,000.

Do we actually know how many Vietnamese died in the war? No, we don't, because we never count our victims. We know exactly how many Americans died, right down to the last soldier, but estimates for Vietnamese casualties actually vary within millions. The official figure is around two million. The actual figure is more like 3 to 4 million. An estimate by former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, an architect of the war, estimates the toll at 3.2 million. Does it bother anyone that we don't know, literally within millions, how many people we killed in Vietnam? What does it tell us about our political culture?

This is the same as if - imagine there was a survey taken in Germany today, asking the people how many Jews died in the Holocaust, and the average answer was 300,000. What would we think about German political culture? We would think that there is something seriously wrong in Germany, and we'd surely be screaming about it and denouncing Germans. But can we apply the same principle to ourselves?