« Abortion is Funny! Just Ask Larry King! | Main | Sound the Refrain »



The American people are smarter than you think. The war is simply wrong. It never should have been started, it has made us less safe and less respected in the world, and we should end it ASAP. It was never about defending America, unless you want to count attempting to take over Iraqi oil as defending America.

You think you know better than the American people, and you're simply wrong.


Guess you never took statistics...or for that matter any math class. You cannot compare WW11 Vietnam or any other war with this. We have 139,000 troops in Iraq. We had 8 times as many in Vietnam and 15 times that many in WWII. Your denigration of the sacrifices being made by the military and their families is appalling.
ENLIST. See how you'd like being canon fodder.

Lars Gruber

Mr. Nacho,

There is a recruiting office probably very near to where you are. Or, if you publish your address, I'll look up one for you. I understand that they are having trouble finding new recruits and it appears that you are more than willing to be sent to the middle east. That is, unless you have an excuse of anal cyst or 'other priorities' as other Chicken Hawks have declared. Bon Voyage.


This is the most bizarre apology for the Iraq war I've seen yet. If Iraq isn't a "real war", then why on earth are we there? Much less spending billions of dollars and thousands of lives? If it's as inconsequential as you are arguing, we should never have invaded at all.

If the Iraq war really is as important as the Second World War, why isn't the President calling for shared effort and sacrifice instead of rewarding his corporate cronies and the wealthy and telling the rest of us to go shopping? The entire burden of the war is being carried on just a few shoulders. The Army, the National Guard and the Reserves are stretched to the breaking point. Yeah, these people are volunteers who knew that it was risky to enlist. But their leaders have the corresponding responsibility not to spend their lives in vain. And it's their leaders who have failed miserably in successfully prosecuting this war, disregarding all advice from professional military leaders and experts in the State Department.

Even die-hard Bush supporters whose gas-guzzling monster SUVs are plastered with flags and yellow ribbon magnets want no part of fighting this war. They may be spineless hypocrites and wimps, but they aren't fools.

When in your opinion will the Iraq war become a "real war"? When 10,000 Americans are killed? 100,000? It's easy for an armchair general like yourself to set such a threshold. You clearly have no concept of what war really is.


Dear Kos Kids,

I allow pretty much anyone who wants to to yell and scream around here and in general have their fun. However, any comments containing profanity will be summarily deleted, so keep that in mind if you'd like for anyone else to read what you have to say.

Secondly, I don't respond to non sequiturs, of which the "chickenhawk" meme is the among the largest in history.

Matthew Benz

Well, at least 23,589 Iraqi's have died so far, and probably 1000s more. Is that enough to qualify as a real war worth getting weary of?



Profanity has nothing to do with this argument, or any other, which is why I don't allow it on my site. It has everything to do with respecting the webspace of others.

Now, if you are capable of formulating an argument without resorting to schoolyard language, you may say about me virtually whatever you wish. Or, I can just ban your IP from posting here and report you to your ISP for abuse.

Your choice.



If you want to start comparing enemy casualties with enemy casualties in WWII, we can do that, too. But since the point of the post was about our resolve as a nation when it comes to losing our troops, that's another non-sequitur.

fran liscio

i am stunned by your argument about the statistic of 1800 american casualties in a three year period. i do hope you are planning to enlist this afternoon so that you can go to help out with this fight. this is absolutely the most immoral, staggeringly callous and disturbing rationale for ignoring this war that i have read yet. i appreciate and respect your desire to keep profanity off your website, however, i perceive the real profanity to be the support of a heinously wrongminded involvement in iraq.


Oh geez. I'm so sorry I offended your delicate sensibilities.

Here's an idea. Let's go find a Marine just back from Iraq. I'll say something intemperate about his mother, and you tell him what he did over there "barely qualifies as warfare."

We'll ask him what he finds more offensive.


Somebody help, Sven's being oppressed!

I've got a far more relevant idea, how bout if we find someone who lived through the Battle of the Bulge and have Cindy Sheehan explain to him why our troops have to come home RIGHT NOW THIS VERY INSTANT!

Whaddya say?


Margaret Mead wrote a study for the government -- very interested at that time in understanding American attitudes toward war and the values that motivate them to fight -- in 1942, titled "Keep Your Powder Dry." I happened, during the time when the Vietnam war was raging, upon an old copy of the book that was made from this study. I thought her observations were correct -- among them that Americans' dislike for bullies and our traditional notion of fair play made it unlikely we would ever be comfortable, certainly not for long, in a fight where it was perceived that this nation was a naked aggressor -- especially against a smaller, weaker enemy. As Mead pointed out, Americans prefer to see themselves as protectors of the weak. Genuinely challenged by a powerful enemy, or, faced with the necessity of coming to the aid of a weak ally, we will not flinch.

But, I think the implications of her observations make it obvious why support for a war like that in Vietnam eventually waned. And why support for this war is falling off.

Over the last 40 or 50 years, it seems to me, this nation's elites have developed a fondness for notions of "empire" that just don't mesh with the American public's still republican (small "r") value system.

People who normally would be uneasy with the idea of invading a country as militarily weak as Iraq really was, were happier to do so when they were told it was a dangerous state that was close to striking us with powerful WMD.

They were also happy to remove Saddam -- a leader who did terrible things to his own people, and from whom it was assumed his people would be happy, and grateful, to be liberated.

But now Saddam is captured, we know there never was any WMD, we know Iraq was never a threat to us, and while we are seeing a lot of chaos and violence being visited upon the Iraqi people, we aren't seeing much happiness or gratitude flowing from the Iraqi people to us.

Of course American's are starting to ask "is it worth it?" in terms of the continuing death of our troops, and, "was it worth it?" in terms of the on-going suffering of the Iraqi people.

When Cindy Sheehan asks "What 'noble cause,' Mr. President?" she is asking the quintessential American question. We ARE willing to fight for a noble cause.

But it better be a real one.

Lars Gruber

Chicken Hawk = Coward.

A person that will fight to the last drop of someone else's blood. I know the term "Chicken Hawk" hurts you, but it's true. It cuts to the truth of your core. Until you and the other Bush boys are willing to risk your own death for your half-baked theories, you and the rest of your crowd are cowards. Or you could prove that you are not a coward by signing up for your cause. It's really not that complex.

Also, something is not a non-sequitor merely because you wish to play dumb.

Matthew Benz

"If you want to start comparing enemy casualties with enemy casualties in WWII, we can do that, too. But since the point of the post was about our resolve as a nation when it comes to losing our troops, that's another non-sequitur."

Maybe so, but to compare this war to WW2 is itself a non-sequitur. The nation as a whole was committed to fighting that war, to do whatever it took to finish it; in all areas of life, there was sacrifice. The Iraq war was started as a matter of policy, the administration has made a point of not asking for sacrifice, and the country was never fully committed to invading Iraq. If your generation seems wobbly about the war after just 3 years and less than 3,000 deaths (and what is it, over 10,000 more injured?), then all that shows is that your generation never really wanted this war, not at this cost. Hardly surprising. This is not how it was sold to us, with reasons for the war changed to suit the President, 1000s dead, 1000s injured, no end in sight, and finally, setting up what seems to be an Islamic Republic. So why be surprised if the public turned against it just 3 years in?


"The reality is that 1,800 deaths casualties in a span of almost three years (approximately 600 per year, approximately 2 deaths per day) barely qualifies as warfare."

So the root of your argument is this: we should welcome the death of our sons and daughters. More have died before. Why shouldn't more die now?

I guess you'd rather more soldiers die, then? Are you sad that we haven't had a "real war" yet? Do you think public opposition to the war would be justified if more of our soldiers died?


Interesting. Mr Nacho finds even the most innocuous "swear words" offensive enough to warrant censorship, but then feels free to post the most foolishly offensive apology for the Iraq war that I've yet read.

A Baptist Minister once began his sermon this way:
"I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a sh*t. What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said sh*t than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."
- Dr Tony Campolo, Mount Carmel Baptist Church, West Philadelphia.

Now Mr Macho, before you start bleating "non-sequitur", I am sure that if you think real real hard, even you might dimly perceive the multiple connections here.


Your argument regarding other's unwillingness to sacrifice is contemptible, but it doesn't even bear examination because your fundamental assumption is wrong.

Most people who are opposed to the war do not hold that position because they are unwilling to sacrifice to protect their country. They are opposed to the war because they believe that Iraq was never a threat to the U.S., and that our war efforts have made the U.S., and the world in general, a more dangerous place.

I am personally opposed to the war. I believe that Iraq was never a threat to the U.S. Here is why:

A) Saddam Hussein had been in a box, under U.S. and U.N. control for over a decade since the first Gulf War.
B) Saddam Hussein was a secularist, disliked by fundamentalist terrorist groups such as al-Qaida.
C) The WMDs, identified in great detail by Colin Powell, unseen by active weapons inspectors, proved to be a fabrication.
D) Most of the 9/11 hijackers were either Saudi or U.A.E. citizens – None were Iraqi.

I shouldn’t even have to mention (D), but 9/11 and Iraq have been conflated so often that I think it bears repeating.

I believe that initiating a war in Iraq, and maintaining our presence there, have made the U.S. less safe. Here is why:

A) We have distracted ourselves from capturing Bin Laden – the real source of the 9/11 attacks.
B) We have alienated our allies and buried valuable intelligence within the fog of war.
C) We have created a perfect recruiting tool for al-Qaida – An apparent Christian jihad against Islam.
D) We have squandered lives and enormous military, monetary and political resources in occupation.
E) We have substantially raised the cost of oil, weakening our economy.
F) We have stained the soul of our country, by abandoning our role of the protector for that of the bully.

It is also worth noting that it appears that the new Iraqi constitution will be subordinate to Islamic law. We have gone to war only to help create a new theocracy.

I think that the facts strongly support the thesis that the war with Iraq is bad for the U.S. and bad for the world. If you have some different facts that support the war, I would be happy to listen.

Howard West

Are you serious? People complain that war protestors are harming troop morale in Iraq. I can just imagine how it must look to someone over there that someone stateside thinks its not really war because not enough of their buddies are getting killed.

The question of resolve is really "resolve for or to what?" The real lack of resolve was before the war started when their wasn't enough counter Bush's head-long rush to it. Now that we're hip deep in it and it has become clear that it is a war that was initiated under manifestly false pretenses, is there any surprise that enthusiasm for it is down and doubts about the President's credibility are up?

I agree with you on the surface with respect to disappoinment at this generation. However, my disappointment is at its credulity, not its resolve.


To all you anti-war idiots who are wasting Nachos bandwidth with your illogic, the soldiers in Iraq that are fighting for you and me don't consider their efforts to be in vain nor do they consider themselves to be cannon fodder, and I suspect if they read your bilge water dissertations they would vehemently disagree with you. In case you have forgotten there are still people in this country that love it and are willing to lay down their lives for it. These brave warriors, men and women, do not need your cowardly run-home-with-my-tail-between-my-legs kind of support.


I am appalled at those who profess righteous indignation at the moral relativism of today's society and blithely make statements like "infinitesimal casualties".

You and our current leaders talk like global politics is some kind of game and because we have the biggest offensive line we can do anything we want.

And enough with the comparisons to WWII. In that war we were called to action by allies and faced a unified and belligerent enemy that clearly threatened us. We had no choice. And moreover, since we knew we had to win, we took steps to insure that, which meant sacrifices for all, including corporations and businesses.

The Iraq war was and still seen by our leaders as part of some kind of global game of chicken. "We'll show 'em whose boss as long as we don't flinch." This "war" was never about establishing democracy; there was no call from Iraqis for assistance in their war for independence. This was a game of Texas hold 'em played by a bunch of guys who play fast and loose with the truth and wagering with other's lives.

The fact that you justify a senseless war because it has less deaths belies the justness of the cause. Tell that to the wounded and maimed. Have you thought about them? Or the fact that they are having trouble getting health care?

No. You want to sit tall in that saddle and question my manhood and my patriotism because only a couple of thousand men have died in two years of conflict.

Where is your outrage concerning body armor? Where is your outrage at the insufficient number of troops? No are so insecure in your own manhood that you need to criticize "wimps" who have no stomach for fighting just because a few people have died. This is stunning.

You and our president are more concerned about your macho nachos than democracy or the value of anyone's life.


docdave; I guess a majority of Americans don't really love this country then.

And its not about being cowardly. Its about common sense.


I don't think non sequitur means what you think it means. Run it by your law professors.

Also, I'm more than war weary. I'm weary of jerk offs painting all military servicemen and women with the same brush. Ask Paul Hackett what he thinks of the war.

Lars Gruber

dear doc "The Chicken Hawk" dave,

I'm sure if you ever found the nerve, you too could enlist in your 'noble cause'. If you're lucky, you might even get a little body armour.

Does bush jr. refer to his theory as a 'noble cause' because it benefits all the Nobles?

btw. where's Osama?

Percy's PoP

For docdave.
Chill for a minute and think about what you just ranted. In what way are the soldiers in Iraq fighting for you and me? I am in no way putting down the troops. They are valiantly trying to do the impossible task Fearless Leader has given them.
What I want to know is - What do you see them doing for us? Are they preserving our country? Our country was not at risk from Iraq. Are they preserving our freedoms? Our freedoms were never at risk from Iraq. Are they preserving our oil? Oooops - that's right, it wasn't our oil.
Every time I hear knee-jerk rants like yours I despair for our country. The USA was founded on higher principles than 'might makes right' and 'love it or leave it'.
This war was and is a criminal misuse of our armed forces. The fault is completely and totally with our Commander-in-Chief and if you all believe in it so strongly - by all means, get your sorry behinds over there. Don't try and tell those of us who take a different view that we don't love our country. We love it enough to want it to be better than it is. It isn't love of country that turns a blind eye to its faults. That's ignorance.


You are condemning most of a generation of Americans for not being willing to make a sacrifice - that YOU YOURSELF are unwilling to make.

Why don't you think the Iraq War is worth risking YOUR life?

The answer to that question, is the answer to why other people aren't interested either.

I seriously suggest you introspect on that a bit. You might find that not even you think the Iraq War is worth a life - when it's yours that's on the line.

The comments to this entry are closed.