THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

old europe wrote:

... See? Tico just posted a good news article! Still, 1,500 dead....

ican711nm wrote:

Gelisgesti wrote:

.........................................................

Am I correct in inferring that you want the US to pull out of Iraq now?

Am I correct in inferring that you want the US to emulate the US's South Vietnam behavior, and desert the Iraqis people's quest for a democracy of their own design, and flee from Iraq now ?

Am I correct in inferring that you believe US desertion from Iraq is a necessary step toward solving the terrorist problem now ?

Are you one of those people who believes there should not be any cost to securing freedom, or, in other words, freedom should be free?

By The Way, are you one of those posting bad news articles and bad news cartoons in this forum who actually believes those articles are reliable descriptions of what is true?

How does this contribute?

Am I correct in inferring that you want the US to pull out of Iraq now?

Am I correct in inferring that you want the US to emulate the US's South Vietnam behavior, and desert the Iraqis people's quest for a democracy of their own design, and flee from Iraq now ?

Am I correct in inferring that you believe US desertion from Iraq is a necessary step toward solving the terrorist problem now ?

"The devil has told you that! The devil has told you that," cried the little man, and in his anger he plunged his right foot so deep into the earth that his whole leg went in, and then in rage he pulled at his left leg so hard with both hands that he tore himself in two.

ican711nm wrote:

By The Way, are you one of those posting bad news articles and bad news cartoons in this forum who actually believes those articles are reliable descriptions of what is true?

See? Tico just posted a good news article! Still, 1,500 dead....

old europe wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

By The Way, are you one of those posting bad news articles and bad news cartoons in this forum who actually believes those articles are reliable descriptions of what is true?

See? Tico just posted a good news article! Still, 1,500 dead....

Big headline this morning across all the media outlets...the death toll of American troops in Iraq has hit an astonishing 1,500. But wait...is it really all that surprising? Setting aside the obvious....that a single loss of American life is an unacceptable tragedy...let's take a look at where we are.

Two years ago the United States invaded Iraq, a nation of 25 million people, and overthrew its government, that of the evil (except to liberals) Saddam Hussein. During the run-up to the war, a number of generals-turned-talking heads predicted that tens of thousands of troops would die in the initial invasion. It didn't happen. The Baathists promised to send home American troops in body bags by the thousands...that didn't happen either.

So now here we are, two years later. We've won the war and largely won the peace. Elections have been held, and the insurgency has been all but defeated. The United States will probably largely leave Iraq within 12 to 18 months. All with less than 2,000 casualties.

If President Bush had predicted 1,500 casualties before the war started, liberals would have complained that he was being unrealistic. Of course now, it's being portrayed as if it's the next Vietnam war (58,000 American troops killed there.) By any measure, the war in Iraq has been a stunning success, the American media notwithstanding.

Link

So now here we are, two years later. We've won the war and largely won the peace. Elections have been held, and the insurgency has been all but defeated. The United States will probably largely leave Iraq within 12 to 18 months. All with less than 2,000 casualties.

During the run-up to the war, a number of generals-turned-talking heads predicted that tens of thousands of troops would die in the initial invasion. It didn't happen. The Baathists promised to send home American troops in body bags by the thousands...that didn't happen either.

"Mission Accomplished."

ican711nm wrote:

old europe wrote:

... See? Tico just posted a good news article! Still, 1,500 dead....

Ican: That's how you answer questions?
Your question was "See?" It was your response to my (Ican's) questions with a question!. So, that's how you do not answer questions! My answer to your question of "See?"is No, I don't see! What was it you thought I should see?

I would possibly answer some of your questions, but to what good? Your questions are merely rethorical. I could easily ask you a bunch of questions, like Am I correct in inferring you think it was a necessity that 1,500 soldiers died?

My answer is: No! I do not think it was a necessity. The "good" of your answering my questions is I will know something about where you really stand.

My questions are rhetorical only when I say they are rhetorical!

... and so on. Not helpful, though.

It would be helpful to me if you answered my questions. It would help me to know determine you are a US impeder or a US rooter.

Ticomaya wrote:

During the run-up to the war, a number of generals-turned-talking heads predicted that tens of thousands of troops would die in the initial invasion. It didn't happen. The Baathists promised to send home American troops in body bags by the thousands...that didn't happen either.

and, on May 2, 2003 somebody said

Quote:

"Mission Accomplished."

that didn't happen either.

Am I correct in inferring that you want the US to pull out of Iraq now?

Am I correct in inferring that you want the US to emulate the US's South Vietnam behavior, and desert the Iraqis people's quest for a democracy of their own design, and flee from Iraq now ?

Am I correct in inferring that you believe US desertion from Iraq is a necessary step toward solving the terrorist problem now ?

Are you one of those people who believes there should not be any cost to securing freedom, or, in other words, freedom should be free?

on May 2, 2003 somebody said

Quote:

"Mission Accomplished."

that didn't happen either.

Excuse me? Which mission was not accomplished?

old europe wrote:

on May 2, 2003 somebody said

Quote:

"Mission Accomplished."

that didn't happen either.

Ticomaya wrote:

Excuse me? Which mission was not accomplished?

- Saddam wasn't caught.
- Iraq wasn't liberated.
- Osama bin Laden wasn't caught.
- the WMD weren't found.

What mission are you talking about?

old europe wrote:

old europe wrote:

on May 2, 2003 somebody said

Quote:

"Mission Accomplished."

that didn't happen either.

Ticomaya wrote:

Excuse me? Which mission was not accomplished?

- Saddam wasn't caught.
- Iraq wasn't liberated.
- Osama bin Laden wasn't caught.
- the WMD weren't found.

What mission are you talking about?

End of major combat operations. We beat the Iraqi Army and were in control. If you didn't know what Bush meant when he said that, why talk about it?

"It's a person who claims he has no weapons of mass destruction, in order to escape the dictums of the U.N. Security Council and the United Nations -- but he's got them. See, he'll lie. He'll deceive us. And he'll use them."

Here are a few news stories that might clear up your confusion about the "Mission Accomplished" banner that hung behind Bush on the Lincoln. You DO know he didn't utter those words, right?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/29/iraq/main580661.shtml

Ticomaya wrote:

Here are a few news stories that might clear up your confusion about the "Mission Accomplished" banner that hung behind Bush on the Lincoln. You DO know he didn't utter those words, right?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/29/iraq/main580661.shtml

you might want to re-read the articles....