The UN, US and Iraq IV

Lower Level Ba'ath party loyalists are also often the only ones with management or technical knowledge to run things.

hobit,

I agree that it can come across as callous. But soldiers sign up knowing they risk their lives.

A more apt criticism might be the disregard for the Iraqi civilian lives. Many more Iraqi civilians were killed than American civilians killed in 9/11 attacks.

A terroist network of our enemy and enemy of democracy built a network which was made stronger and stronger funded by middle east countries like Iraq, which makes it a connection,

The Iraq UN building being bombed is another connection to me, the whole region is contaminated with enemies coming across boarders who don't care who they kill, why would they all come to Iraq's rescue if there weren't a connectiion?

I don't care if we ever find WMD's, we found mass graves of kurds that he he used them on in the past, proof enough for me he would do it again.

if so can you provide me with a reputable link to one stating casualty numbers and Iraqi protest relating to it?

The previous administration reduced military employees by over 200,000, in effect dismantled much of the CIA

I think it would be a great strategy to keep the borders open so we can fight them in Iraq, it saves us a lot of time and trouble.

Well, the problem with that thesis is that yes, "our force in Iraq attracts terrorists" - most of them new ones.

Al-Qaeda is recruiting like crazy and, according to the rare reports that come to light, being pretty succesful - thanks to the US invasion of Iraq. (Timber posted a link to an interesting article 'bout it.)

Thats what the point about this not being a zero sum game is about. Way we're going - there'll be ever more flies.

[and:]

In the meantime, the US occupation of Iraq has [in itself also] opened up a whole new recruiting ground for them, that was practically closed to them altogether, before – and even the various insults and incidents that by nature go with a military occupation alone, will ensure a steady, additional inflow there.

Brand X wrote:

I think it would be a great strategy to keep the borders open so we can fight them in Iraq, it saves us a lot of time and trouble. Fighting them there our casualties are reduced to maybe a soldier per day, not persuing this war and letting the terrorist periodically bomb our ships, embassy's and towers poses much more loss of lives and economic damage for us as demonstrated on 9/11.

Seeing just how little you value the lives of those in the military certainly goes a long way toward accepting the validity of your views. Have you thought of contacting the recruiters and suggesting they use this as a slogan? When you don't have less on you have...?

hobit,

I agree that it can come across as callous. But soldiers sign up knowing they risk their lives.

A more apt criticism might be the disregard for the Iraqi civilian lives. Many more Iraqi civilians were killed than American civilians killed in 9/11 attacks.

I'm saying you certainly don't go to war with a strategy to max your own casualties do you?

Craven de Kere wrote:

hobit,

I agree that it can come across as callous. But soldiers sign up knowing they risk their lives.

A more apt criticism might be the disregard for the Iraqi civilian lives. Many more Iraqi civilians were killed than American civilians killed in 9/11 attacks.

I'm pretty sure all or at least most of the people in the twin towers were civilian, the question is, how do you tell a civilian form a military/terrorist/ resistance in Iraq. That's where that Voo Doo IBC math gets very fuzzy.

Brand x wrote:

I'm saying you certainly don't go to war with a strategy to max your own casualties do you?

Why not, the Bush admin did.

Brand X wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:

hobit,

I agree that it can come across as callous. But soldiers sign up knowing they risk their lives.

A more apt criticism might be the disregard for the Iraqi civilian lives. Many more Iraqi civilians were killed than American civilians killed in 9/11 attacks.

I'm pretty sure all or at least most of the people in the twin towers were civilian, the question is, how do you tell a civilian form a military/terrorist/ resistance in Iraq. That's where that Voo Doo IBC math gets very fuzzy.

Er....how do you get from the twin towers to Iraq? And what is your solution, kill everyone? To quote Commander Vimes in Jingo, when someone ahs suggested that the war will be simple, one just has to kill the "bad" Klatchians, he replies, "that's just great, but how do you tell which ones are the bad Klatchians?"

Indeed, but do you contest the assertion that the US has killed more civilians since 9/11 than those that died in 9/11?

Because though the numbers may be fuzzy they are also so far apart that being off by a subsstantial amount would still not change the validity of that assertion.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Indeed, but do you contest the assertion that the US has killed more civilians since 9/11 than those that died in 9/11?

Because though the numbers may be fuzzy they are also so far apart that being off by a subsstantial amount would still not change the validity of that assertion.

I hope we didn't, like you guys I'm not there so I can't be sure, the point is we tried not too, they intended to kill as many as possible. Furthermore, if they get their hands on a nuclear weapon and a means to deliver it, they will. This makes the effort all more important because it's going to bring a lot of things to light like North Korea, Iran etc, as far as that goes. The good thing about N. Korea is they don't want to die,but these islamic crazies just as soon strap a bomb onto themselves or you and me.


One area where I'm pretty sure the numbers won't be fuzzy is if we blew any of the rotted bodies out of the mass graves that Saddam killed, that could raise the count into the millions.