Reply
Wed 17 Aug, 2005 03:42 am
Well, pals, the matter is that Bush together with his ****-faces tries to crock of **** again. There is a real bloody bath in Iraq now. Our soldiers refused to pull duty there because any their appearance out of doors ends with a sniper's shot or mine's explosion. However look at the point of reference by yourselves Edit [Moderator]: Link removed .
Iraq is hardly a blood bath for our soldiers right now. The amount of time we have been there and the low #'s of losses we have incurred are quite good. For being in theater almost 3 years and having only had 1800 soldiers killed is very good. We have been doing well and I hope that we continue to do well.
Baldimo wrote:Iraq is hardly a blood bath for our soldiers right now. The amount of time we have been there and the low #'s of losses we have incurred are quite good. For being in theater almost 3 years and having only had 1800 soldiers killed is very good. We have been doing well and I hope that we continue to do well.
3 years huh?
The world's self-proclaimed sole superpower being drug through the mud for
three years by unwelcoming
civilians.
...if that's your idea of a party Baldy, have at 'er.
Baldimo wrote:Iraq is hardly a blood bath for our soldiers right now. The amount of time we have been there and the low #'s of losses we have incurred are quite good. For being in theater almost 3 years and having only had 1800 soldiers killed is very good. We have been doing well and I hope that we continue to do well.
Only 1800 soldiers killed!
Very good?
Doing well?
Continue?
What in hell have you been smoking, Baldimo?
It's all relative Frank.
1800 people in 3 years is only, like, 600 per annum.
No big deal.
....unless it's you, your Dad, your brother or anyone else who dies to further the PNAC under the false pretense of pseudo-American freedom loving.
That reminds me of Sturgis's classic post.
"more people die in car accidents every year"
candidone1 wrote:It's all relative Frank.
1800 people in 3 years is only, like, 600 per annum.
No big deal.
....unless it's you, your Dad, your brother or anyone else who dies to further the PNAC under the false pretense of pseudo-American freedom loving.
Unless you're going to say that no war is reasonable, then you have to judge casualties, etc. by the standard of past wars.
Brandon9000 wrote:candidone1 wrote:It's all relative Frank.
1800 people in 3 years is only, like, 600 per annum.
No big deal.
....unless it's you, your Dad, your brother or anyone else who dies to further the PNAC under the false pretense of pseudo-American freedom loving.
Unless you're going to say that no war is reasonable, then you have to judge casualties, etc. by the standard of past wars.
No, it's nothing of the sort because you are falsely stating as fact that this was is and was reasonable.
That's where we disagree, and any discussion that follows from that is trivial because we disagree
from the first instance.
It's not been three years, it's not yet even been two and a half years. The figure of 1800 bandied about does not count the deaths of English, Spanis, Polish, Italian, Australian and Ukranian soldiers. It also ignores the horrendous and continuing high casualty rate among Iraqi civilians.
Conservatives lie through their teeth on this one shamelessly. First it was alleged we were going over there to take out weapons of mass destruction we knew they had, and to take out an ally of al Qaeda, and would find the proof of the latter contention. No weapons of mass destruction have been found, no evidence of a connection to al Qaeda has surfaced, so the conservatives changed their dance step, and began weeping crocodile tears for the Iraqis. The two biggest human disasters in recent history, not including this war which seems to be the biggest human disaster in their recent history, are the gas attack against Iraqi villagers and the failed 1991 uprising. In the case of the gassing, all reliable evidence points to the Persians as the culprits, and not the Ba'atists, which makes sense as retaliation for the constant missle and gas attacks launched against Iran. In the case of the failed uprising, Pappy Bush encouraged the Shi'ites to rise against the Ba'atist regime, and then stood by and did nothing while they were slaughtered. Both of those are eclipsed now, though, by the death and destruction wreaked by our invasion, and the resultant insurgency, which increasingly targets Iraqis rather than foreign troops.
So now we hear that 1800 dead ain't much? ! ? ! ? That's just too disgusting for words.
Thanks Set...you always put things into perspective more eloquently than anyone....
A broad perspective is sometimes required to enlighten the narrow scope through which some justify this conflict to themselves, and the nation.
If you remove your partisan glasses and put on your historian glasses, yes, 1800 dead for an invading force that completely annhilated the defending army, usurped the current leadership, and reformed a new government is not bad. Especially considering the time frame.
Can you compare that to past wars? What were the death counts?
Your emotional attachment is nice and all, but really has no place in the discussion.
Your partisan hatred has no place in the discussion. The point of the thread is that the invasion was unnecessary, it was intended to fulfill the narrow objectives of a small interest group, and it has wreaked untold havoc on the Iraqi people at least as bad as anything it was previously claimed the Ba'atists had done, the more so as there is no end in sight.
In Bosnia and Kosovo, we sent in more troops, anihilated the opposition, put the leadership out of business, sending many off to war crimes tribunals, and allowed the local people to institute a government of their choosing. Far from suffering 1800 casualties and an ongoing insurrection which claims more civilian than military lives, in the Balkans we haven't had 180 deaths, and the lives of the inhabitants (apart from the Serbian death squads and facist paramilitaries) have improved immeasurably. But that's what happens when you go in with a sound plan and clear objectives for transparent reasons.
Partisan hatred? The only one spewing that garbage around here stares at you in the mirror, boss.
The lives of the Iraqi's (apart from the Ba'athist death squads and al Qaeda terrorists) have improved immeasurably as well.
Quote:Partisan hatred? The only one spewing that garbage around here stares at you in the mirror, boss.
The lives of the Iraqi's (apart from the Ba'athist death squads and al Qaeda terrorists) have improved immeasurably as well.
Untrue. How you can say things like this, I'll never know...
Cycloptichorn
McGentrix wrote:Partisan hatred? The only one spewing that garbage around here stares at you in the mirror, boss.
The lives of the Iraqi's (apart from the Ba'athist death squads and al Qaeda terrorists) have improved immeasurably as well.
Yeah, forget about those pesky little minions...they don't amount to much.
Wasn't that Bush post war contention?
That's right, McG, partisan hatred . . . you began your day of spewing your hatred at me by telling me to shove it. Had you forgotten already?
That wasn't partisan hatred, that was just your usual, run of the mill disgust of your post..
Do us all a favor then, and keep your foul-mouth to yourself--if you're disgusted, all you need to do is write: "I'm disgusted." It's pathetic the moral tone you take with others in light of your constant hatefulness.
Nope. I'll not let you get away with the stuff you say as though you are an authority. Your historical perspective, I admire, but your partisan hate speech I will not stand for. Your haughty attitude gets in the way far too often and I will call you on it when ever I feel like.
I suggest that if you do not like my posts, or find them contemptible, that you ignore them. I will not stop writing them though.
panzade wrote:That reminds me of Sturgis's classic post.
"more people die in car accidents every year"
Thank you for bringing that tidbit to our attention again. I said it and I stand by it.
And for those who want it, I no longer have to locate mounds of information or proof about anything, the events and reveals of the past few days have done more to make clear the facts than even I could have imagined. Fact of most importance Warren Christopher and Bill Clinton knew things well in advance and had ample opportunity to do something yet chose to do nothing (perhaps they were admiring Bill's cigar collection).
Another fact...oh hell why even bother with the denial ridden left sitting around looking to pounce like cats on garlic toast. It is amazing and amusing how the anti-Bush folks are still attacking Bush even though we now know that Clinton and his gang knew something and had ways of at the very least attempting to handle the situation. Would they have succeeded? Who knows, the point is they did not even try, instead spending the last nearly 4 years blaming the Republicans. In 2001 I made clear that the Clinton White House was in some part responsible and now it is known to be true, but don't worry. In typical Democratic fashion the Democrats will find a way to shift focus and blame someone else.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace