How very dense your response is. I did not equate the safety of the soldiers in Iraq with the safety of the nation--you and O'Bill see intent on repeating that canard, as though continually saying so makes it true. I simply pointed out that soldiers in Iraq being killed is at the least not evidence that Americans are safer thanks to the invasion--they are being killed precisely because they are Americans.
You attempted to make an analogy with the Second World War, but you failed. In the Second World War, we fought the Empire of Japan, with more than 7,000,000 troops, and in many respects, the most modern navy in the world in 1941. We also participated in the war against Germany, with more than 8,000,000 troops, and some of the most modern weapons systems on land at that time. After less than four years, both nations had surrendered--and after they surrendered, American civilians and soldiers were no longer killed by the Japanese or the Germans.
In comparison, in Iraq, we faced a small army, a mere shadow of the army which had fought in the Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War. We defeated their armed forces, we drove their government from power, we rounded up as many of their leaders as we could get our hands on, and we abolished the political party which had held power. Yet more than four years later, Americans are still being killed in Iraq, soldiers and civilians, just because they are Americans. Sure as hell doesn't sound safer to me.
Nice retraction, Setanta.
What you say is true, but also let us remind ourselves how many American died in WWII, then compare that with Iraq, with a much higher U.S. population I would also add, the comparative losses that we are suffering now pale in comparison. Also, if you wish to look at the comparative risks if we do not confront terrorist organizations in their staging areas, how many people could die as a result of weapons of mass destruction at some point in the not too distant future? Granted, we must also do other things besides confronting them in places like Afghanistan, such as controlling our borders and using intelligence work around the world and hunting them down all over the world. Add into it the disruption of their financial connections.
But then again, there are the John Edwards of the world that simply think the "war on terror" is nothing more than a slogan, or an excuse to do anything we desire to do. I don't know where you stand on that, but as we've already discussed, I think confronting them is a better strategy than sitting back and waiting to be hit, which is what we did before 911. The Clinton administration treated it as a law enforcement problem, and we see how that worked.
I didn't retract anything. Are you so desperate to appear clever that you have to make this sh*t up?
Certainly far more people died fighting in the Second World War, that's a no-brainer--were fighting 30 times as many enemies, and over tens of thousands of miles of the globe--From China to Germany, the long way around.
Your argument assumes that Iraq was or is a staging area for terrorists. That may be true, but if it is, it is because we have created the situation, because there was absolutely no evidence in 2002-2003 that Iraq was or ever had been a staging area for terrorist attacks on the United States. Following your line of thinking, we are now less safe than we were in 2002, because we have created a terrorist staging area, in your terms.
As for the rest of it, don't try to involve me in your witless conservative propaganda screeds.
Whatever. I think the anti-American interests and terrorists have chosen to confront us in Iraq, regardless of what their presence was there before the war. I think Hussein was a danger in terms of giving terrorist organizations access to dangerous weapons. That was one big reason, among others that we chose to take him out. You probably do not agree, but in any case, the organizations that oppose us realize that if we are successful in Iraq, it hinders their position in the Middle East and elsewhere, so they are doing their best to stop any positive progress there.
no one is safe, period. from anything. anytime. anywhere. ever. death lurks around the corner. every corner.
so why obsess? Let's party.
BPB, You hit the nail on the head; why obsess? Hell, more people get killed driving their own car close to home. It seems conservatives would have us believe we're safer from terrorists because of Bush's war in Iraq. What a crock!
Bush must act quickly:
Court won't delay Libby prison sentence
By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
33 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby cannot delay his 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case, a federal appeals court unanimously ruled Monday.
The decision is a dramatic setback for Libby, who likely will have to surrender to prison in weeks. The ruling puts pressure on President Bush, who has been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.
Roxxxanne: Dershowitz is a nut.
As a matter of fact, I nicknamed him "Jerkowitz."
Libby has received a pardon.
oralloy wrote:Libby has received a pardon.
Wrong, his prison sentence was commuted.
Cycloptichorn
oralloy wrote:Libby has received a pardon.
well, to be honest Scooter is not pardoned, he just isn't going to prison.
Another example of our dear president bringing integrity back to the white house.
Bush at least saved one man from being tortured. Everybody is against torture I thought?
And guess who instituted torture in our prisons? Habeas corpus, anyone?
Saved him from torture? Do you allege the prisoners in the Federal penal system are tortured? Must be something new they brought in during the Shrub's administration.
Nothing new instituted. But things can now be defined as torture that was never considered torture before, like prolonged standing, being too hot, or too cold, beds too hard, listening to noise, and other things, all of those I am sure we could find somewhere in most prisons. Come to think of it, I have been tortured today, and I'm not even in prison.
okie speaks from "personal" experience in our prisons.
I have suffered torture lots of places that probably was as bad or worse than Gitmo. Especially in the Army. Prolonged standing, extreme cold, prolonged running, near heatstroke, excessive noise, sleep deprivation, need I say more? In fact, I have suffered all of those working on the farm as well. I have never needed to go the the country clubs, excuse me, prisons, to experience it.
