2000 DEAD

It has nothiong to do with freedom in America. It has to do with the freedom in Iraq.

Saddam is gone...you have been following along, haven't you?

At this rate it comes to roughly 1,000 deaths per year and GWB says the US may be there for 10-12 years which means 10,000 or more dead GIs. Whose children will they be, Republican or Democrat?

If you see 6 kids beating up a handicapped child, do you just sit and watch and wonder why the handicapped kid doesn't try to stop them?

I hope not. You intervene and help those that can't help themselves.

Many of you seem to be under the impression that Iraqi's enjoyed living under the tyranny Saddam provided and that they wanted it that way... The good old days, right?

McGentrix wrote:

It has nothiong to do with freedom in America. It has to do with the freedom in Iraq.

I disagree that it has anything to do with freedom in Iraq.

Based on your premise, however, would you die to bring freedom to Iraq? And leave your children?

talk72000 wrote:

At this rate it comes to roughly 1,000 deaths per year and GWB says the US may be there for 10-12 years which means 10,000 or more dead GIs. Whose children will they be, Republican or Democrat?

Just Americans. Seems liberals have to try to drive wedges between people by putting them in categories, even after they are dead. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.

McGentrix wrote:

If you see 6 kids beating up a handicapped child, do you just sit and watch and wonder why the handicapped kid doesn't try to stop them?

I hope not. You intervene and help those that can't help themselves.

Many of you seem to be under the impression that Iraqi's enjoyed living under the tyranny Saddam provided and that they wanted it that way... The good old days, right?

There are/were worse monsters in the world than Saddam Hussein. Who do you suggest we invade next? Syria? The Sudan? Howabout we stop parents from murdering female babies in China? There's a cause I could get behind. Perhaps we should do some real good and spend that $200 billion on healthcare in Africa.

Your armor is tarnished with your hypocrisy, Sir Knight.

DrewDad wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

It has nothiong to do with freedom in America. It has to do with the freedom in Iraq.

I disagree that it has anything to do with freedom in Iraq.

Based on your premise, however, would you die to bring freedom to Iraq? And leave your children?

Is it oblivious day on A2K and no one told me?

That is not my premise at all. Many Iraqi's have died. Some people here seem to think that focusing on their deaths being pointless is a way to forward their own agenda. I say that many of those that have died have done so to insure a free life for thier children, their parents, their aunts, uncles, etc.

My premise is that Iraqi's have died for Iraqi freedom. How you come to your conclusion bewilders me.

McGentrix wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

It has nothiong to do with freedom in America. It has to do with the freedom in Iraq.

I disagree that it has anything to do with freedom in Iraq.

Based on your premise, however, would you die to bring freedom to Iraq? And leave your children?

Is it oblivious day on A2K and no one told me?

That is not my premise at all. Many Iraqi's have died. Some people here seem to think that focusing on their deaths being pointless is a way to forward their own agenda. I say that many of those that have died have done so to insure a free life for thier children, their parents, their aunts, uncles, etc.

My premise is that Iraqi's have died for Iraqi freedom. How you come to your conclusion bewilders me.

I think the thread started about American deaths. Then you tried to conflate dying for one's children with dying for freedom in Iraq.

Try again, McG.

DrewDad wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

If you see 6 kids beating up a handicapped child, do you just sit and watch and wonder why the handicapped kid doesn't try to stop them?

I hope not. You intervene and help those that can't help themselves.

Many of you seem to be under the impression that Iraqi's enjoyed living under the tyranny Saddam provided and that they wanted it that way... The good old days, right?

There are/were worse monsters in the world than Saddam Hussein. Who do you suggest we invade next? Syria? The Sudan? Howabout we stop parents from murdering female babies in China? There's a cause I could get behind. Perhaps we should do some real good and spend that $200 billion on healthcare in Africa.

Your armor is tarnished with your hypocrisy, Sir Knight.

I didn't realize you were so gung-ho about the military being used. Perhaps you can suggest the next place and I will just concentrate on the conflicts we have now.

DrewDad wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

It has nothiong to do with freedom in America. It has to do with the freedom in Iraq.

I disagree that it has anything to do with freedom in Iraq.

Based on your premise, however, would you die to bring freedom to Iraq? And leave your children?

Is it oblivious day on A2K and no one told me?

That is not my premise at all. Many Iraqi's have died. Some people here seem to think that focusing on their deaths being pointless is a way to forward their own agenda. I say that many of those that have died have done so to insure a free life for thier children, their parents, their aunts, uncles, etc.

My premise is that Iraqi's have died for Iraqi freedom. How you come to your conclusion bewilders me.

I think the thread started about American deaths. Then you tried to conflate dying for one's children with dying for freedom in Iraq.

Try again, McG.

Then why would you say "Based on your premise, however, would you die to bring freedom to Iraq? And leave your children?"?

CR, my point was that there was an irony in that you wanted to eliminate labels, yet labeled them as Americans. I was trying to point out that they are people, and that more people than just Americans are dying in Iraq.

I think this war is a mistake; I make no bones about it. I can even see the possibility of benefits from the war, I just think the price is too high, and the danger of negative effects too great. But I have no beef with folks who support the war, so long as they have done some soul-searching, and can back their position coherently.

We invaded Iraq for other reasons. we stayed in Iraq to ensure it did not fall into anarchy and to insure a free future for the country. You can differentiate between those two I assume.