Reply
Sat 12 May, 2007 12:05 pm
Approximately how many terrorists do you think there are in Iraq?
Choose an option from my poll and insert it in the question below.
(It is highly unlikely there are more than 150,000 terrorists, obviously because U.S casualties would be heck of a lot higher.)
Q) Why do we need 150,000 U.S troops to fight _____ terrorists?
Zippo, I doubt very much anybody is capable of estimating the number of terrorists in Iraq. What I see happening is that "recruitment" has always been on the upswing caused by our occupation of Iraq. Since the war is between Sunnis and Shias, Sunnis against Sunnis, Kurds against Sunni and Shia, and the infiltration into Iraq from Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, no fixed number is possible.
Most Iraqis including the majority in their government now wants the US troops to move out of their country; the only person that wants the us to stay is Maliki and a few others, their Bush puppets. Most Iraqis approve the killing of American soldiers. To add insult to injury, the Iraqi government is taking a two month vacation this summer while more Iraqis and US soldiers get killed and maimed. Bush is trying to support a weak and ineffectual government, because he doesn't know how to admit he's been wrong all along. He doesn't give a shite about our soldiers getting killed and maimed; he's interested in "winning" at all cost.
The money spent and being spent in Iraq would have provided all our citizens with health insurance, all our college students with free tuition, and reduced our national debt.
Bush is a bullheaded moron.
Here's another Bush insult against our veterans.
Bush raises health care costs for veterans. For the fifth year in a row, Bush's budget has attempted to raise health care costs on 1.3 million veterans, calling for "new enrollment fees and higher drug co-payments for some veterans."
Bush administration has claimed veterans benefits are "hurtful" to national security. In 2005, the Wall Street Journal noted the growing cost of veterans benefits due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pentagon's response was to complain that it would "rather use [the funds] to help troops fighting today." "The amounts have gotten to the point where they are hurtful. They are taking away from the nation's ability to defend itself," says David Chu, the Pentagon's undersecretary for personnel and readiness.
Just makes you wonder how those still supporting Bush can sleep at night with a clear conscience. They're either a bunch of morons or they don't have a clue.
Depends how you define terrorist. I'm sure Bush and his crew consider pretty much everybody there a terrorist. Well, maybe not everyone, but at least everyone that they've murdered.
Quote:Bush is a bullheaded moron.
Agreed cicerone imposter,
I do not believe the war in Iraq is reducing number of terrorists but increasing it.
How many terrorists are we capturing every week? How many terrorists are there in Iraq now? How many more young Iraqis are recruited by the insurgents every day?
We don't have the answer to these questions. And if we don't have the answer to these questions, how in the heck can we justify keeping our troops there with no clear objective, no coherent mission and no end in sight?
Zippo wrote:
Agreed cicerone imposter,
I do not believe the war in Iraq is reducing number of terrorists but increasing it.
How many terrorists are we capturing every week? How many terrorists are there in Iraq now? How many more young Iraqis are recruited by the insurgents every day?
We don't have the answer to these questions. And if we don't have the answer to these questions, how in the heck can we justify keeping our troops there with no clear objective, no coherent mission and no end in sight?
Regarding terrorists in Iraq, Well! For starters there's the occupation force.
The fact is, it is a very fine line between terrorism and patriotism. How would you feel if America was illegally invaded and occupied, would those who took up arms against the aggressor be patriots or terrorists?
Get your young people back to their families, the Iraqi's don't want them in their country, perhaps the puppet government does but that would be about it. This US Administration has besmirched the reputation of the once respected United States of America; now it's time to try to regain some of that respect.
Unfortunately, we'll have to wait until January 2009 for that to happen.
Bullheadedness is not an asset; it kills innocents.
None. Unless you want to catagorize local armed militias as terrorists.
Not for the first time, and probably not for the last, i agree with Woiyo.
Okay, now please answer my question :
Q) Why do we need 150,000 U.S troops to fight
Zero terrorists?
Another question:
Q) Who is Bush talking about when he said 'They' will follow us home?
zippo, Good point; who's the terrorists that'll come to our country to fight in our back yard? Our soldiers are fighting Iraq patriots who doesn't approve of our occupation. They're gonna come to the US?
Zippo wrote:
Okay, now please answer my question :
Q) Why do we need 150,000 U.S troops to fight
Zero terrorists?
Another question:
Q) Who is Bush talking about when he said 'They' will follow us home?
Answers
1) We should not have one soldier in Iraq fighting anyone. Our mission was completed many many months ago.
2) The "THEY" GW is talking about is actually not clear to me. Al Quada operatives, a/k/a Terrorists, enter this nation as illegal immigrants generally and are already here in my opinion. They are nothing more than criminals in our nation and should be dealt with swiftly and completely and without mercy or rights.