NationStates Jolt Archive

From the Washington Post

US Not Winning War in Iraq, Bush Says for 1st Time
By Peter Baker
The Washington Post

Wednesday 20 December 2006

President discloses order given to Pentagon to plan for expansion of Army, Marine Corps.
President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and said he plans to expand the overall size of the "stressed" U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists.

As he searches for a new strategy for Iraq, Bush has adopted the formula advanced by his top military adviser to describe the situation. "We're not winning, we're not losing," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. The assessment was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, "Absolutely, we're winning."

Maybe I'm just misunderestimating him.

I remember a few years back there would always be those guys who lusted after my girlfriend but never had a chance. So they acted so stupidly that I guess they thought she would give them a pity fuck. Bush kinda reminds me of that.

We're waffling. It's a skill they teach at Yale.

At least he seems to have moved beyond 'stay the course'. And with the recent changes in the administration, this could be a sign that the reality based community is becoming more influential in Washington.

We're waffling. It's a skill they teach at Yale.

That is a truth.

Bush flip-flops! (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/20/bush-presser.html)

"My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we're not succeeding nearly as fast as I wanted … and that conditions are tough in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad," he said.

So, we're not winning, we're not losing. But we're winning, just that it's "tough."

Bush flip-flops! (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/12/20/bush-presser.html)



So, we're not winning, we're not losing. But we're winning, just that it's "tough."

It's Okay If You're A Republican.

I thought we'd already won...

you know: "Mission Accomplished" and all that?

I thought we'd already won...

you know: "Mission Accomplished" and all that?

Nah.That was a joke.Just everyone took it the wrong way.:rolleyes:

I thought we'd already won...

you know: "Mission Accomplished" and all that?

Phase 1: Ousting Saddam was the mission when we entered Iraq in March 2003. So yes, the mission was accomplished. I love it how people try to point to that and say he lied when in fact, he didn't. Nice out of context.

Phase 1: Ousting Saddam was the mission when we entered Iraq in March 2003. So yes, the mission was accomplished. I love it how people try to point to that and say he lied when in fact, he didn't. Nice out of context.

He also wanted to rid the country of WMDs.
Has he done that yet?No.
Are there any actually there?
No.
Hence,he lied.He bullshitted us and a good deal of us took it in.He's a terrible leader.

Phase 1: Ousting Saddam was the mission when we entered Iraq in March 2003. So yes, the mission was accomplished. I love it how people try to point to that and say he lied when in fact, he didn't. Nice out of context.

Bullshit.

The mission was "regime change and stabilize the area."

Seeing as the new Iraqi government hasn't done that could remotely be called governing and Iraq is currently the most unstable place on the facr on Earth with at least 150 attacks by insurgents occurring every single day, there is no way any sane person could call the area stable.

Which is a longwinded way of saying you're full of shit.

Which means you smell and need to wipe yourself down.

He also wanted to rid the country of WMDs.
Has he done that yet?No.
Are there any actually there?
No.
Hence,he lied.He bullshitted us and a good deal of us took it in.He's a terrible leader.

PHase 1 was Saddam then came the part that you are talking about while trying to rebuild the country.

*snip*

By attacking me when I have not attacked you shows that you do not know how to debate properly. Please respond more rationally to my posts the next time.

We have a tie game! Terrorists have possession and they're making Team America fight for every inch!



What the.....someone get that streaker out of here!

We have a tie game! Terrorists have possession and they're making Team America fight for every inch!



What the.....someone get that streaker out of here!

*snipes the streaker for being immodest in a modesty event*

PHase 1 was Saddam then came the part that you are talking about while trying to rebuild the country.

No,for months before the war both Bush and Blair were banging on about WMDs and how they were a threat to our safety.
More recently, the threat of potential WMD in Iraq was used by George W. Bush to generate public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction#Historic_use_of_the_term_WMD
See?I speak many truths.

Phase 1: Ousting Saddam was the mission when we entered Iraq in March 2003. So yes, the mission was accomplished. I love it how people try to point to that and say he lied when in fact, he didn't. Nice out of context.
Back to your usual huh? I thought WMD was the number one reason for invading Iraq?

The mission was not accomplished and I predict, never will be.

FAILURE (http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=failure&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)

No,for months before the war both Bush and Blair were banging on about WMDs and how they were a threat to our safety.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction#Historic_use_of_the_term_WMD
See?I speak many truths.

WMD were a main point for the war yes. I have not desputed the point. However, we needed to get rid of Saddam before we took on the WMD issue which the intl was absolutely wrong on.

Back to your usual huh? I thought WMD was the number one reason for invading Iraq?

One of several if you want to read the Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force.

WMD were a main point for the war yes. I have not desputed the point. However, we needed to get rid of Saddam before we took on the WMD issue which the intl was absolutely wrong on.
And so far, it has cost over $300 BILLION to remove Saddam from power and put in a government that leans towards Iran and Islamic laws. Throw in the deaths of 2,900 US troops, and over half a million Iraqi casualties and I can clearly see how Iraq has been a victory. :rolleyes:

How deliciously noncommital.

And so far, it has cost over $300 BILLION to remove Saddam from power and put in a government that leans towards Iran and Islamic laws. Throw in the deaths of 2,900 US troops, and over half a million Iraqi casualties and I can clearly see how Iraq has been a victory. :rolleyes:

I really do not like it when people try to point to death tolls as a supposed failure. Death tolls =/= failure at all. In regards to civilians, that is just one figure of many that are all over the numbers chart.

On to the rest of your post, we will have to wait and see what happens.

I really do not like it when people try to point to death tolls as a supposed failure.
The grim reality is that most people do.

Death tolls =/= failure at all.
If one does not succeed at the asigned task, it sure does.

In regards to civilians, that is just one figure of many that are all over the numbers chart.
I picked a number in the middle.

The grim reality is that most people do.

Which is a sad truth.

If one does not succeed at the asigned task, it sure does.

However, no one knows if it'll succeed or not. Things aren't looking good but that does not mean that we will not succeed in the end. Look at World War II. Things started out rocky and not looking very good and things were turned around.

I picked a number in the middle.

I figured that.

At least we are debating civily this time :)

Phase 1: Ousting Saddam was the mission when we entered Iraq in March 2003. So yes, the mission was accomplished. I love it how people try to point to that and say he lied when in fact, he didn't. Nice out of context.

As part of the war on terror and to save us all from WMD

You seem to like out of context much

As part of the war on terror and to save us all from WMD

You seem to like out of context much

:rolleyes:

I really do not like it when people try to point to death tolls as a supposed failure. Death tolls =/= failure at all. In regards to civilians, that is just one figure of many that are all over the numbers chart.

On to the rest of your post, we will have to wait and see what happens.

Actually the given that he referred to Iraqi civilian casualties not deaths
no one would begin to dispute the figure for casualties.

The number of Iraqi civilian deaths is disputed on the one side
there are the lancet published estimates, which were done
using the same method used in other conflicts in other countries
where the US government not only had no problem accepting the resulting figures but actively quoted them (kosovo)
and on the other side you have the us government, the aggressors who went to lengths to avoid there being any actual counting done for over a year after they invaded.

Gosh can't think which would be more likely

It seems to me to be a political ploy to round up support for a troop boost.

Actually the given that he referred to Iraqi civilian casualties not deaths
no one would begin to dispute the figure for casualties.

Go back and re-read what I wrote. I was not talking about civilian deaths. I was talking about death tolls of soldiers.

Go back and re-read what I wrote. I was not talking about civilian deaths. I was talking about death tolls of soldiers.

Perhaps, you should consider rereading what you wrote.

I really do not like it when people try to point to death tolls as a supposed failure. Death tolls =/= failure at all. In regards to civilians, that is just one figure of many that are all over the numbers chart.
...

Perhaps, you should consider rereading what you wrote.

But if you notice I did not say civilian deaths. I said figures. Even CH knew what I was talking about.

But if you notice I did not say civilian deaths. I said figures. Even CH knew what I was talking about.

He had quoted a casualties figure

I had pointed out that there is no dispute at all nor wildly varying
estimates of casualty figures only disagreement about civilian deaths.

So your comment about the figures was wrong in the first instance.

You then said you weren't talking about civilians at all
so you were wrong in the second instance.

How wrong do you have to be before you go
sorry got it wrong or are you simply bush like in your inability to comprehend?
Or is it an inability to be truthful?

WMD were a main point for the war yes. I have not desputed the point. However, we needed to get rid of Saddam before we took on the WMD issue which the intl was absolutely wrong on.


actually much of the intel was not wrong on it. Much of the intel said that Saddam didn't seem to have anything anymore and that more research needed to be done. Not that I am disagreeing with you. Hell, I thought they had it and I more than most folks would know. I was wrong. But Bush never has quite owned up to being wrong. He's not very good at that. Humility never was a republican strong point.;)

He had quoted a casualties figure

I had pointed out that there is no dispute at all nor wildly varying
estimates of casualty figures only disagreement about civilian deaths.

So your comment about the figures was wrong in the first instance.

Interesting since CH himself pointed out that he picked the middle number. That tells me that casualty figures are all over the numerical chart which he agrees with me on so what I said was indeed correct. Maybe you should follow the exchange a bit better unless English is not your first language.

You then said you weren't talking about civilians at all
so you were wrong in the second instance.

Again! Go back and re-read the exchange between CH and myself.

How wrong do you have to be before you go
sorry got it wrong or are you simply bush like in your inability to comprehend?
Or is it an inability to be truthful?

I would advise that you stop trying to attack me personally. I do have a high tolerance but it only goes so far.

AC, if you must bandy words, why not try to do so clearly and by pointing out when you are do it, instead of baiting people into yelling at you? You've done this once or twice to me I think...Although it may have been somebody else, and I am just thinking I remember you doing it. REgardless, it is kind of frustrating and pointless. I am not syaing you are trying to, just that you deney having said something or that a factoid is wrong and then don't explain, so we end up arguing over apples and oranges when we are in fact saying damn near the same thing. I'd rather talk to you than get steamed up at you, ya know?

Interesting since CH himself pointed out that he picked the middle number. That tells me that casualty figures are all over the numerical chart which he agrees with me on so what I said was indeed correct. Maybe you should follow the exchange a bit better unless English is not your first language.


and I had pointed out he was wrong, the only "disputed" numbers
in the area he quoted are deaths not injuries.


Again! Go back and re-read the exchange between CH and myself.


I seem to have a better grasp of it than you do but don't worry
I won't force you to drag your finger across the screen again.


I would advise that you stop trying to attack me personally. I do have a high tolerance but it only goes so far.

No personal attack was intended ,condescension and indicating a certain level of contempt both was and is.
I was hoping to lead you to face reality and grasp hold of it tightly
to prevent yourself from losing contact with it again
but now you've proven, re-proven and confirmed that you are an idiot
My only concerns are that you are decidedly a danger to others, certainly Iraqis and probably your neighbours but possibly even yourself.

AC, if you must bandy words, why not try to do so clearly and by pointing out when you are do it, instead of baiting people into yelling at you?

I know you are new around here so let me tell you something. I do my best not to bait people. As to bandying words, I am not doing so in this case either. I am trying to point out to Dunlaoire here that he is misinterpreting what I am saying and asked him politely to go back and re-read what has been said between CanuckHeaven (AKA CH) and myself.

You've done this once or twice to me I think...Although it may have been somebody else, and I am just thinking I remember you doing it. REgardless, it is kind of frustrating and pointless. I am not syaing you are trying to, just that you deney having said something or that a factoid is wrong and then don't explain, so we end up arguing over apples and oranges when we are in fact saying damn near the same thing. I'd rather talk to you than get steamed up at you, ya know?

I only deny things that people think I said that I have not said. That is what I am doing here. In case anyone has not noticed, CH and I agreed on this very issue that the casualty number (notice I did not say death toll) is all over the chart.

and I had pointed out he was wrong, the only "disputed" numbers
in the area he quoted are deaths not injuries.

Then why attack me and tell me that I am wrong when your beef is with him? Maybe you should question him then instead of me.

I seem to have a better grasp of it than you do but don't worry
I won't force you to drag your finger across the screen again.

You know, this is the third character attack.

No personal attack was intended ,condescension and indicating a certain level of contempt both was and is.

Yea right. If you want me to believe that, I have a bridge for sale in San Francisco.

I was hoping to lead you to face reality and grasp hold of it tightly
to prevent yourself from losing contact with it again

:rolleyes:

but now you've proven, re-proven and confirmed that you are an idiot

You have just lost this exchange.

My only concerns are that you are decidedly a danger to others, certainly Iraqis and probably your neighbours but possibly even yourself.

*dies of laughter*

I only deny things that people think I said that I have not said. That is what I am doing here. In case anyone has not noticed, CH and I agreed on this very issue that the casualty number (notice I did not say death toll) is all over the chart.

Tell you what

one last chance to show the slightest glimmerings of intelligence

give one link
just one that relates to wildly varying reports for numbers of casualties
or even one that suggests a casualties figure(not deaths)
at around the figure he mentioned.

If it helps, he said about half a million

Tell you what

one last chance to show the slightest glimmerings of intelligence

give one link
just one that relates to wildly varying reports for numbers of casualties
or even one that suggests a casualties figure(not deaths)
at around the figure he mentioned.



Funny thing is that most of the figures that i see most are those of attacks o civilians by the terrorist themselves. If anyone is to blame for the many civilian deaths it would be the terrorists/insurgants, not American soldiers. I am going to find a site that was given on another forum that i contended that was being skewed and used wrongly.

Also they DID find containers and other instruments that is used for chemical and biological warfare in Iraq during the look for Hussein and after his capture.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Funny thing is that most of the figures that i see most are those of attacks o civilians by the terrorist themselves. If anyone is to blame for the many civilian deaths it would be the terrorists/insurgants, not American soldiers. I am going to find a site that was given on another forum that i contended that was being skewed and used wrongly.

Also they DID find containers and other instruments that is used for chemical and biological warfare in Iraq during the look for Hussein and after his capture.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

so no link to injuries or casualty figures then?

A little bit of a weird response to a question asking for one link relating to casualty figures
either wildly varying or at the half million mark, even weirder when its a response
to a question for someone else anyway.

Purely for your own education,
find out how many terrorist or insurgent caused deaths there were in Iraq before the invasion.

Funny thing is that most of the figures that i see most are those of attacks o civilians by the terrorist themselves. If anyone is to blame for the many civilian deaths it would be the terrorists/insurgants, not American soldiers. I am going to find a site that was given on another forum that i contended that was being skewed and used wrongly.

Also they DID find containers and other instruments that is used for chemical and biological warfare in Iraq during the look for Hussein and after his capture.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
Rick Santorum tried to fight an election on this gobbley gook and he got clobbered. It was old unreliable news and was downplayed by the US administration and rightly so.

It seems to me to be a political ploy to round up support for a troop boost.
This would be a HUGE mistake. Iraqis want less US troops, not more.

This is soooo offensive. That's a fuck of a lot of lives WASTED on a goddamn stalemate!!!!!

Fuck you duby. You go to hell!!!

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/us-hands-najaf-control-to-iraqi-forces/20061220155509990030?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Iraqi forces have control of Najaf now.

We should put valium in the water.

I mean sure, they'll be pissed when they find out, but by that time they'll be too mellow to do anything about it.

Also they DID find containers and other instruments that is used for chemical and biological warfare in Iraq during the look for Hussein and after his capture.

[[/url]

Totally wrong. Never happened. No weapons. Fox as a source? Fox isn't news. Fox is entertainment for people woth IQ's below 70.

However I will state this as a fact: We havenever found NBC weapons tehre. We have never found any trace or them tehre. We have never found manufacturing equipment or anything related to tehm THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN OLD SHIT FOR 20 YEARS AGO.

Try and etch that over the myth Dubya burned into your brain before he found out he was worng, eh?

What gets m,e is CHeney is STILL Saying this shit.

What gets me, is CHeney is STILL Saying this shit.

He has to. The Fearometer is getting dagerously low. When it reaches zero his pacemaker will fail. If you aren't afraid of the evil brown people Prickie will die!!

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/us-hands-najaf-control-to-iraqi-forces/20061220155509990030?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Iraqi forces have control of Najaf now.

still no link on the casualties (not deaths) eh?

Don't worry I am not in the least bit surprised.


Wonder when Iraqis last had control of Najaf?
wasn't it in 2004 ?

Can't help but wonder what they will do without US support there

"U.S. forces will continue to support Iraqi troops in an advisory role and with logistics, Boylan said"

Oh ok

But 100's of US troops I mean that's like some kind of major percentage
of the 138,000 in country isn't it.

Actually have to ask
was there a point to quoting that news story?

Totally wrong. Never happened. No weapons. Fox as a source? Fox isn't news. Fox is entertainment for people woth IQ's below 70.

However I will state this as a fact: We havenever found NBC weapons tehre. We have never found any trace or them tehre. We have never found manufacturing equipment or anything related to tehm THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN OLD SHIT FOR 20 YEARS AGO.

Try and etch that over the myth Dubya burned into your brain before he found out he was worng, eh?

What gets m,e is CHeney is STILL Saying this shit.


You didnt do a very good job debating why it is wrong....
And so WHAT if it is old or not, the point is he HAD them and hid them, what part of that you dont get? SO your liberal media is any better? I come on, a media is a media, it provided a link to a document that talks about the facts, does the facts hurt your feelings that much, does it hurt you so much that is proves you wrong, come on, grow up a bit.....

so no link to injuries or casualty figures then?

A little bit of a weird response to a question asking for one link relating to casualty figures
either wildly varying or at the half million mark, even weirder when its a response
to a question for someone else anyway.

Purely for your own education,
find out how many terrorist or insurgent caused deaths there were in Iraq before the invasion.

I guess you dont know how to read huh? Didnt i just say that i am looking for it for YOU? COme now, learn how to read.....

You didnt do a very good job debating why it is wrong....
And so WHAT if it is old or not, the point is he HAD them and hid them, what part of that you dont get? SO your liberal media is any better? I come on, a media is a media, it provided a link to a document that talks about the facts, does the facts hurt your feelings that much, does it hurt you so much that is proves you wrong, come on, grow up a bit.....

See you need to be able to see the difference between lies and truth
'cos both can be in documents and both can be in speeches.

Surely you managed to read all of the article you quoted,
never mind even looking for more reliable sources than fox.
"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."


But would you say perhaps that you might just accept the statements of the Iraq Survey Group
whose job it was after the invasion to search for wmd at the behest of the US administration.

"The Bush administration commissioned the Iraq Survey Group to determine whether in fact any WMD existed in Iraq. After a year and half of meticulously combing through the country, here’s what the administration’s own inspectors reported:

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

The White House should immediately announce whether it stands with Santorum or whether it stands behind the review conducted by Charles Duelfer and the Iraq Survey Group. Recall, in October 2004, Bush said of Duelfer’s analysis:

The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."


Nah never mind, probably too liberal for you.

Here is the link i found.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/

Read each individual description. All you will see is: bomb, shot and so forth. Which in my mind doesnt show how it was resulted from an american shot or bomb. Now blaming on how the troops are even there is a lame excuse in my mind. Now if they were able to link it to a American gun, bom or whatever, then it would be more showing....
But removing a dicator is NOT easy....

Sorry, but just shouting numbers doesnt show anything....

[QUOTE=Earabia;12115672]lots of inane argument tat hardly applies to me and is in no way relevant to anything [QUOTE]

dude, I am a veteran. I worked MI. I am not quoting or debating anything. I am stating a fact. I am not using liberal sources, I am not using conservative sources. I am using what I know to be true as a result of many years of being in the military, and knowing a shitpot of people who are in fact still part of the loop. No NBC gear. Since well before '91. I have said before EVEN I THOUGHT THE REPORTS WERE TRUE.
but sadly they were not. Time for you Fox watchers to finally get over it. Oreilly and HAnnity were wrong. In fact Oreilly finally admitted it. Sadly, about 2% of the population never got over that initial propoganda campaign. You lucky 2 percenter you.:rolleyes:

Here is the link i found.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/

Read each individual description. All you will see is: bomb, shot and so forth. Which in my mind doesnt show how it was resulted from an american shot or bomb. Now blaming on how the troops are even there is a lame excuse in my mind. Now if they were able to link it to a American gun, bom or whatever, then it would be more showing....
But removing a dicator is NOT easy....

Sorry, but just shouting numbers doesnt show anything....

This link shows wildly varying casualty figures (not deaths) as requested does it?
Does it show casualty figures at appx half a million, the other option you could have gone with.

And have you figured out how many Iraq civilians were killed by terrorists or insurgents pre the invasion yet?

The words lame and your mind in consecutive sentences ... man.

President Bush is of the same opinion as the vast majority of Americans: we are not winning or losing. We should not leave right away.

So now our dear leader is in with the cut-and-run-Democrat-all-hail-bin-Laden crowd? God will forsake us!

The President is not a member of the group that says ....oh things are not going well....hey I have a bright idea.....lets give up! That will make the terrorists into sweet old ladies who will invite us over for tea.

The President is not a member of the group that says ....oh things are not going well....hey I have a bright idea.....lets give up! That will make the terrorists into sweet old ladies who will invite us over for tea.

Never
after all he was determinedly opposed to those who said invading Iraq would
create lots of terrorists

If he was right then , then he is right now

Never
after all he was determinedly opposed to those who said invading Iraq would
create lots of terrorists

If he was right then , then he is right now

Can you source a quote from him saying that he did not think Iraq would "create terrorists"? (yes or no)

Have lost already.

You thought Vietnam was bad? Just wait. America has been humbled by the righteous warriors of Islam.

There will be more humiliation to come.

Allahu Akhbar

Can you source a quote from him saying that he did not think Iraq would "create terrorists"? (yes or no)

Did he invade Iraq?

Did he claim doing so was part of the war against terrorism?

Have lost already.

You thought Vietnam was bad? Just wait. America has been humbled by the righteous warriors of Islam.

There will be more humiliation to come.

Allahu Akhbar

Those "righteous warriors" were really terrific when they slaughtered 2,000 innocent office workers in my home town in 2001.

Lame.

Did he invade Iraq?

Did he claim doing so was part of the war against terrorism?

SO in other words your answer to my question is no you have no source.

SO in other words your answer to my question is no you have no source.

Absolutely

I have no source to back up what I did not say.

Have lost already.

You thought Vietnam was bad? Just wait. America has been humbled by the righteous warriors of Islam.

There will be more humiliation to come.

Allahu Akhbar

Yea. That's what the cathars thought too.

Absolutely

I have no source to back up what I did not say.

You said that the President did not believe those who warned him. You have no source for him ever saying that. President Bush made Iraq the battleground of the War on Terror on purpose.

You said that the President did not believe those who warned him. You have no source for him ever saying that. President Bush made Iraq the battleground of the War on Terror on purpose.


What I said was he opposed those who warned that it would create terrorism.

Oh there is no question that there was purpose but
if you imagine the purpose of a war on terror is to create lots of terrorists
then what exactly are you saying about your administration.
Any action that unnecessarily increases your enemies is a foolish one.

There was plenty of advice before the unnecessary, immoral and illegal invasion
that it would create terrorists, so to commit the action, if you
hoped to control oil and install a US friendly puppet government
or even if you hoped to create a stable, safe democratic state
or even to make the world safer would be idiocy,
and could have no explanation unless the principal actors believed that it would not create terrorism.

Rather then respond to the same canned talking points from Michael Moore that I read week in and out I will inform you of somthing:

The vast majority (upwards of 80%) of Americans believe that we are either in a stalemate or winning in Iraq.

Only about 1/5 want a withdraw of soldiers right away.

You said that the President did not believe those who warned him. You have no source for him ever saying that. President Bush made Iraq the battleground of the War on Terror on purpose.

Ass! So you are totally in favor of the POV that Iraqi lives are only worth 1/10 that of a USian. Go away asshole. If you're so in favor of this war of choice then go down to your local recruiter and sign up. Otherwise STFU. (if you're a current serviceperson then you need to get your head out of this admins ass)

Ass! So you are totally in favor of the POV that Iraqi lives are only worth 1/10 that of a USian. Go away asshole. If you're so in favor of this war of choice then go down to your local recruiter and sign up. Otherwise STFU. (if you're a current serviceperson then you need to get your head out of this admins ass)

I never claimed that about the Iraqis. I am not eligible for combat. And I resent your silly childish insults and you silly USian (wtf?) wording.

"go away asshole" .....simply because I hold a different point of view....you need to chill out a little bit buddy.

I think its time americans faced the facts
1. The ONLY reason anyone has anything against Bush is the war
2. The american people can't get mad at him for flip-flopin when thats exactly what they've all done. They re-elect then they bitch and moan that he's not meetin their standards (sort a double standard huh?)
3. WE ARE WINNING IN IRAQ its the Iraqis who are losing, I think its about time them numnuts got off their asses and started fightin for their country the way the Afghanis did.

Have lost already.

You thought Vietnam was bad? Just wait. America has been humbled by the righteous warriors of Islam.

There will be more humiliation to come.

Allahu Akhbar
What in the holy hell are you talkin about? Are you just stupid or somethin. Let me explain somethin for you boy, The American people and the American Armed forces ain't scared of some religious nutcases and you can bet your ass that we won't step down so long as we can keep a sensible person in office (Hilary Clinton is not a sensible person)

Anyone who openly opposes this countries mission in the world is nothing short of a traitor in my eyes. It amazes me how people can sit there and call for "withdrawl" and other bullshit when so many men and women have given their lives in the name of upholding freedom and democracy. And if you need a reason for us going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan then I got two words for you9/11

Rather then respond to the same canned talking points from Michael Moore that I read week in and out I will inform you of somthing:

The vast majority (upwards of 80%) of Americans believe that we are either in a stalemate or winning in Iraq.

Only about 1/5 want a withdraw of soldiers right away.

The majority of US citizens also believed Iraq had WMD and that it was involved
somehow with 9/11

There's reality and theres what a lot of americans believe, and they are not
the same thing.

I understand your reluctance to respond to the points that do not fit
with the beliefs you choose to hold and quite frankly am just as glad
not to continue this nonsense with you.

Someday however there will be a reckoning, there will be trials and there will
be punishments and it will be ultimately the US that suffers for what
its citizens have allowed to happen in their name and the shame that they
have allowed to be brought upon their nation.

I think its time americans faced the facts
1. The ONLY reason anyone has anything against Bush is the war
2. The american people can't get mad at him for flip-flopin when thats exactly what they've all done. They re-elect then they bitch and moan that he's not meetin their standards (sort a double standard huh?)
3. WE ARE WINNING IN IRAQ its the Iraqis who are losing, I think its about time them numnuts got off their asses and started fightin for their country the way the Afghanis did.


What in the holy hell are you talkin about? Are you just stupid or somethin. Let me explain somethin for you boy, The American people and the American Armed forces ain't scared of some religious nutcases and you can bet your ass that we won't step down so long as we can keep a sensible person in office (Hilary Clinton is not a sensible person)

Anyone who openly opposes this countries mission in the world is nothing short of a traitor in my eyes. It amazes me how people can sit there and call for "withdrawl" and other bullshit when so many men and women have given their lives in the name of upholding freedom and democracy. And if you need a reason for us going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan then I got two words for you9/11

Gunkoko don't let the Turkeys (and there are many of them) get you down on this forum. We need people like you. This is a group of rabid leftists who are highly intolerant (see above post) ,,,just bare with them, the right side will prevail.

The majority of US citizens also believed Iraq had WMD and that it was involved
somehow with 9/11

There's reality and theres what a lot of americans believe, and they are not
the same thing.

I understand your reluctance to respond to the points that do not fit
with the beliefs you choose to hold and quite frankly am just as glad
not to continue this nonsense with you.

Someday however there will be a reckoning, there will be trials and there will
be punishments and it will be ultimately the US that suffers for what
its citizens have allowed to happen in their name and the shame that they
have allowed to be brought upon their nation.


oooo I am terrified.

Gunkoko don't let the Turkeys (and there are many of them) get you down on this forum. We need people like you. This is a group of rabid leftists who are highly intolerant (see above post) ,,,just bare with them, the right side will prevail.

Its good to see you have a friend who maybe will live with you in fantasy land.

Now why don't you to go off to the playroom the grown ups would like to talk.

...the right side will prevail.

You mean like they did on Nov 7? ;)

Its good to see you have a friend who maybe will live with you in fantasy land.

Now why don't you to go off to the playroom the grown ups would like to talk.

Was that you trying to prove that the comment I made about rabid angry condecending radicals infesting this forum was correct?

Well done.

Its good to see you have a friend who maybe will live with you in fantasy land.

Now why don't you to go off to the playroom the grown ups would like to talk.

Now wait a second there, what do you mean fantasy land? The only fantasy land here is the leftist world were all are problems can be solved by "diplomacy". I say theres a time for talk and theres a time for action, and the time for talkin is way up.

You mean like they did on Nov 7? ;)

No. I am not a big believer in the American voting system. More than 60% chose not to vote at all. Elections mean little in the USA. Besides, if you are expecting a radical change in Iraq policy when Mrs. Pelosi is sworn in Speaker this January you might be in for a little let down.

.

Now wait a second there, what do you mean fantasy land? The only fantasy land here is the leftist world were all are problems can be solved by "diplomacy". I say theres a time for talk and theres a time for action, and the time for talkin is way up.

So, how many people have to die so that you can have your "action"? How many more americans have to die so that you can have your violent jizz fest?

You mean like they did on Nov 7?

Its not supprising that the Dems won, because the liberal media does nothing but put out every dark and horrible thing they can on the republicans and sing all the praises they can for the Left.

No. I am not a big believer in the American voting system. More than 60% chose not to vote at all. Elections mean little in the USA. Besides, if you are expecting a radical change in Iraq policy when Mrs. Pelosi is sworn in Speaker this January you might be in for a little let down.

Oh, so when things don't go your way it's an "abberation." But when a "president" "wins" two of the most quetionable elections in US history it's a "mandate?" Is that what you're saying? Jerk?

So, how many people have to die so that you can have your "action"? How many more americans have to die so that you can have your violent jizz fest?

More petty insults. It is getting tired. Why are you so uncivilized?

Its not supprising that the Dems won, because the liberal media does nothing but put out every dark and horrible thing they can on the republicans and sing all the praises they can for the Left.

What is this "liberal media" you speak of? FOX? CNN? The New York Post? Etc. You're not even in the same sport, much less the same ballpark.

Oh, so when things don't go your way it's an "abberation." But when a "president" "wins" two of the most quetionable elections in US history it's a "mandate?" Is that what you're saying? Jerk?

Once again, closing with the petty insult...I never do that to you....but you seem to constantly do it to me. It is very irritating. Where did you get the word abberation from in quotes, I never used it. Where you putting words in my mouth? I am now aware that you lack a basic knowldge of US history. If you think 2004 was one of the "two most questionable elections in US history) you would do well to look up the elections of 1800, 1824, 1876, 1888, and 1960. You will find some fascinating things.

So, how many people have to die so that you can have your "action"? How many more americans have to die so that you can have your violent jizz fest?

You know what the best part of the american military is? Its all Voluntary, that means those people over there knowingly put their lives on the line because they beleive in and love their country and would do anything to protect you and me.

Let me share a little quote with you-
The planes swarmed in, and the rising sun
Glowed fiercely on the evil done
To men whose blood runs through our veins,
Men who died, and whose remains
Life forever locked in waters deep.
Now, is it right that they should sleep
While the warm sea laps at a twisted hull
And see the torch of liberty grow dull?
Anzio...Cassino...and the Po!
St. Mere Eglise...Le Mans...St. Lo!
Gardelegen...Buchenwald...
On and on the roll is called!
And why?...Why Are You Marching, Son?

No matter where the big guns roar,
Our fighting men, like those before,
Take the torch we all hold dear
And face freedom's enemies without fear.
Our fathers died from sea to sea,
And blessed the torch of liberty.

More petty insults. It is getting tired. Why are you so uncivilized?

There's a vast difference between "uncivilized" and "through being nice to jerkoffs like yourself, who try to defend the indefensable". Learn it, and you'll go far.

What is this "liberal media" you speak of? FOX? CNN? The New York Post? Etc. You're not even in the same sport, much less the same ballpark.

Any major city's newspaper, the broadcast media, and all of those lame blogs.

There's a vast difference between "uncivilized" and " \through being nice to jerkoffs like yourself, who try to defend the indefensable". Learn it, anf you'll go far.

See? More insults. You are not capable of basic pleasantness or respect. That is tiresome. If you learn to be polite and respect the view points of others you will be respected more in return "anf you'll go far."

Any major city's newspaper, the broadcast media, and all of those lame blogs.

Check out The Oregonian some time. The biggest repo appology machine I've seen on the west coast. Not to mention any of the "news" channels owned by Rupert Murdoch. Bush appologists are all over the "liberal media" like deer ticks. Try again, high schooler.

See? More insults. You are not capable of basic pleasantness or respect. That is tiresome. If you learn to be polite and respect the view points of others you will be respected more in return "anf you'll go far."

The meer fact that all you've got is to say that I'm "discourtious" to you is quite telling. Go on, please, go on.

Check out The Oregonian some time. The biggest repo appology machine I've seen on the west coast. Not to mention any of the "news" channels owned by Rupert Murdoch. Bush appologists are all over the "liberal media" like deer ticks. Try again, high schooler.

Ummm, I am not in High School.....but then again why should I expect any accuracy from what you claim. The "oregonian" and anything "owned by Rupert Murdoch" make up what percent of the media? (answer with a statistic)

The meer fact that all you've got is to say that I'm "discourtious" to you is quite telling. Go on, please, go on.

Well thats the thing. I don't read anything once I see a personal insult in it direct towards me. People who write such things have nothing to say.

Was that you trying to prove that the comment I made about rabid angry condecending radicals infesting this forum was correct?

Well done.

Such a silly statement, but lets analyse it and see if we can come up
with something that makes sense eh?

Rabid is just nonsensical and presumably just part of your attempt to be negative to me as you didn't like being told to go play when you failed to have
an adult conversation.
For angry you should try irritated with know nothings who haven't the sense they were born with
Condescending - I can live with
Radical can't work as most of the world holds that the invasion of Iraq
was both a bad mistake and an attempt to gain control of middle eastern oil.
We are all aware of the level of deaths, the torture, the secret prisons,
the kidnappings and the lies. As this is common it is the norm and therefore not radical.
Infesting - I suppose I could give you points for spelling it correctly.

So if we rephrase your sentence as
was that you trying to prove that the comment I made about this forum
being infested with people who get irritated with know nothings who haven't
the sense they were born with and are condescending towards them, was correct?

Well done

Then I would have to say I was not aware of you making such a statement
and I would be happy if it did prove it. Unfortunately this forum is
populated by a great many know nothings like yourself.

Have a lollipop but don't get the furniture sticky and play nice. Shoo

Such a silly statement, but lets analyse it and see if we can come up
with something that makes sense eh?

Rabid is just nonsensical and presumably just part of your attempt to be negative to me as you didn't like being told to go play when you failed to have
an adult conversation.
For angry you should try irritated with know nothings who haven't the sense they were born with
Condescending - I can live with
Radical can't work as most of the world holds that the invasion of Iraq
was both a bad mistake and an attempt to gain control of middle eastern oil.
We are all aware of the level of deaths, the torture, the secret prisons,
the kidnappings and the lies. As this is common it is the norm and therefore not radical.
Infesting - I suppose I could give you points for spelling it correctly.

So if we rephrase your sentence as
was that you trying to prove that the comment I made about this forum
being infested with people who get irritated with know nothings who haven't
the sense they were born with and are condescending towards them, was correct?

Well done

Then I would have to say I was not aware of you making such a statement
and I would be happy if it did prove it. Unfortunately this forum is
populated by a great many know nothings like yourself.

Have a lollipop but don't get the furniture sticky and play nice. Shoo

Another one proving my point once again. :D

Ummm, I am not in High School.....but then again why should I expect any accuracy from what you claim. The "oregonian" and anything "owned by Rupert Murdoch" make up what percent of the media? (answer with a statistic)

Why should I? You don't seem to want to provide any evidence of anything you say. Fox is one of two cable news networks that broadcast nationwide. The other, being CNN doesn't have anything resembling a "liberal bias" either.

Here's a quesiton. What exactly do you have against "liberals"? And, another. What exactly has dubya done to deserve your, apparently, undying faith?

George Bush immediatly took it to the enemy after 9/11. He didn't pussy foot around.
Now look at history-Jimmy Carter-Tehran-444 days-a failed rescue attempt-that is how a liberal handles a situation with diplomacy and in that situation diplomacy is void and Bush knew that. he brought the fight to the enemy, and made them regret their actions.

Why should I? You don't seem to want to provide any evidence of anything you say. Fox is one of two cable news networks that broadcast nationwide. The other, being CNN doesn't have anything resembling a "liberal bias" either.

Here's a quesiton. What exactly do you have against "liberals"? And, another. What exactly has dubya done to deserve your, apparently, undying faith?

You said that the cable news media is dominated by Conservatives. I asked you to back that statement up with statistics. You could not. I have nothing against liberals except how rude they are in this forum along with their position on abortion. President Bush is the President and deserves my respect as such.

George Bush immediatly took it to the enemy after 9/11. He didn't pussy foot around.
Now look at history-Jimmy Carter-Tehran-444 days-a failed rescue attempt-that is how a liberal handles a situation with diplomacy and in that situation diplomacy is void and Bush knew that. he brought the fight to the enemy, and made them regret their actions.

Made who regret who's actions?? So far more iraqi civilians who have 100% nothing to do with Al Qaida, or 9/11 have died by American hands than there were people in both towers, and all three planes. Do you condone the deaths of more than 10 Iraqis to every one American? Are you that callous/racist? Are you?

Let me say this I think the Iraqi people are WEAK. They fight amongst each other over shit that happend in the 6th century, they're at each others throats when they should be banning together to fight the insurgency not adding to the mix.

Look at the Afghanis, they got down to bussiness as soon as they could, they are practicly fighting their own war. The Afghanis show strength.

You said that the cable news media is dominated by Conservatives. I asked you to back that statement up with statistics. You could not. I have nothing against liberals except how rude they are in this forum along with their position on abortion. President Bush is the President and deserves my respect as such.

What "evidence" would you have me provide that you can't readily see for yourself by simply turning on the TV? You don't want that from me and you know it. All you really want is for me and other progressives is to capitulate to your delusion of superiority. Good luck with that. But, in the meantime, piss off.

Made who regret who's actions?? So far more iraqi civilians who have 100% nothing to do with Al Qaida, or 9/11 have died by American hands than there were people in both towers, and all three planes. Do you condone the deaths of more than 10 Iraqis to every one American? Are you that callous/racist? Are you?

You have no source for that.

Look at the Afghanis, they got down to bussiness as soon as they could, they are practicly fighting their own war. The Afghanis show strength.

Accept that Afganistan is in a total mess as well. A resurgent Taliban has taken over large chunks of the souther territory, and on a smaller note women are back to wearing burkhas lest they be stoned to death. Try again.

What "evidence" would you have me provide that you can't readily see for yourself by simply turning on the TV? You don't want that from me and you know it. All you really want is for me and other progressives is to capitulate to your delusion of superiority. Good luck with that. But, in the meantime, piss off.

Statistics on reporter ideologies, telling me what percent of the sum total of the media is Murdoch owned, etc.

ewwww, crying again.....go away go away scary traditionalist. Please. Spare me.

Accept that Afganistan is in a total mess as well. A resurgent Taliban has taken over large chunks of the souther territory, and on a smaller note womer are back to wearing burkhas lest they be stoned to death. Try again.

How many attacks on US soil have we had since 911. (this answer requires a numerical response).

Progressive-ack Ptooy!!-

People who beleive the goverment owes you that everyone is equal.

You see thats what I like about the capitalist system, if you want something you gotta work for it.

you say Progressive I say, "Communist, Socialists, Nazis"

You have no source for that.

Why should I do your homework for you. No cheating off me!! :p

Progressive-ack Ptooy!!-

People who beleive the goverment owes you that everyone is equal.

You see thats what I like about the capitalist system, if you want something you gotta work for it.

you say Progressive I say, "Communist, Socialists, Nazis"


And I call you a jerkoff pissant. Tomato, Tomata

The Taliban is coming back? Hah! them sonsofbitches are pissin themselves tryin to figure out what their gonna do to get out alive.

The Taliban is coming back? Hah! them sonsofbitches are pissin themselves tryin to figure out what their gonna do to get out alive.

Try reading sometime. The "reality based community" is actually a nice place once you get that conservative crap out of your eyes.

Why should I do your homework for you. No cheating off me!! :p

You made an unsourced claim :p

And I call you a jerkoff pissant. Tomato, Tomata

More insults, same old lame insults.

Try reading sometime. The "reality based community" is actually a nice place once you get that conservative crap out of your eyes.

More lame insults......:p

You made an unsourced claim :p

So you don't have fingers?? Do you use one of those blow-tube typewriters that can't recognize the words "conservative schill" or something?

Try reading sometime. The "reality based community" is actually a nice place once you get that conservative crap out of your eyes.

Reality? You want Reality? Hows this? The Taliban RAN AWAY when we came in. They took off and now, yes, they are trying to come back. But it ain't happening, they are fighting a lost cause.

More lame insults......:p

Hey, if you ain't got the chops, perhaps you should be hanging somewhere else. Otherwise learn to stand the heat in the kitchen.

So you don't have fingers?? Do you use one of those blow-tube typewriters that can't recognize the words "conservative schill" or something?

More lame insults.

Hey, if you ain't got the chops, perhaps you should be hanging somewhere else. Otherwise learn to stand the heat in the kitchen.

Um.....personal insults are not part of rational debate. Your comment is not relevant.

Your comment is not relevant.

Okay, Locutus...

Back to the subject though. You never answered my questions that I had posed. At least the other guy tried, why don't you?

Okay, Locutus...

Back to the subject though. You never answered my questions that I had posed. At least the other guy tried, why don't you?

What questions.

Have lost already.

You thought Vietnam was bad? Just wait. America has been humbled by the righteous warriors of Islam.

There will be more humiliation to come.

Allahu Akhbar


I love it when this guy shows up. Somebody get him a beer and a hooker. He's allll right :D

What questions.

Dude, try reading this thread! Jeez. Why can't you do your own legwork? Get your head in the game!

I love it when this guy shows up. Somebody get him a beer and a hooker. He's allll right :D

I agree, pure comedy. I'd clap if I were in the audience.

EDIT: Though he does have something resembling a point. Al Qaida has actually stated that they WANT the US to stay in Iraq as it serves their purpose better than anything else could.

I love it when this guy shows up. Somebody get him a beer and a hooker. He's allll right :D

Nothing like praising terrorists.

Dude, try reading this thread! Jeez. Why can't you do your own legwork? Get your head in the game!

You didnt ask one question that I did not answer.

Nothing like praising terrorists.

Nothing like spamming the thread with snarky little one-liners designed to provoke people.

This link shows wildly varying casualty figures (not deaths) as requested does it?
Does it show casualty figures at appx half a million, the other option you could have gone with.

And have you figured out how many Iraq civilians were killed by terrorists or insurgents pre the invasion yet?

The words lame and your mind in consecutive sentences ... man.

Excuse me, did i attack you? I didnt think so....

I mean your post was good up till you insulted me, thanks....:upyours:

Nothing like praising terrorists.

by offering him a cheap woman and alcohol? :headbang:

Nothing like spamming the thread with snarky little one-liners designed to provoke people.

What I said was true. He praised terrorists. Sorry for being blunt.

[QUOTE=Earabia;12115672]lots of inane argument tat hardly applies to me and is in no way relevant to anything [QUOTE]

dude, I am a veteran. I worked MI. I am not quoting or debating anything. I am stating a fact. I am not using liberal sources, I am not using conservative sources. I am using what I know to be true as a result of many years of being in the military, and knowing a shitpot of people who are in fact still part of the loop. No NBC gear. Since well before '91. I have said before EVEN I THOUGHT THE REPORTS WERE TRUE.
but sadly they were not. Time for you Fox watchers to finally get over it. Oreilly and HAnnity were wrong. In fact Oreilly finally admitted it. Sadly, about 2% of the population never got over that initial propoganda campaign. You lucky 2 percenter you.:rolleyes:


Um, that is not my quote.....:mad:

by offering him a cheap woman and alcohol? :headbang:

Yeah it was more dumb then insulting. But whatever.

What I said was true. He praised terrorists. Sorry for being blunt.

Rooseveldt did not.

And what I said was also true. You're spamming the thread with your flamebaiting.

The majority of US citizens also believed Iraq had WMD and that it was involved
somehow with 9/11

There's reality and theres what a lot of americans believe, and they are not
the same thing.

I understand your reluctance to respond to the points that do not fit
with the beliefs you choose to hold and quite frankly am just as glad
not to continue this nonsense with you.

Someday however there will be a reckoning, there will be trials and there will
be punishments and it will be ultimately the US that suffers for what
its citizens have allowed to happen in their name and the shame that they
have allowed to be brought upon their nation.

If its anyone that should be punished and ashamed its those that wanted to sit on their hands and "talk" to these dictators twenty years or so ago....

Rooseveldt did not.

And what I said was also true. You're spamming the thread with your flamebaiting.

I most certainly am not. I live in Manhattan. I was here on 911. Posts like the ones we are talking about are not acceptable. You are concerned with silencing debate and cutting off those whom you disagree with. Sounds familiar.

What I said was true. He praised terrorists. Sorry for being blunt.

When did "blunt" = "delusional". Get a grip, man. Get over yourself. Your attitude is the single reason why people here hate you. I'm a big fan of reasonable conservatives personally, Juan Cole is a great example. You, on the other hand, are of the type that I feel deserves no quarter.

When did "blunt" = "delusional". Get a grip, man. Get over yourself. Your attitude is the single reason why people here hate you. I'm a big fan of reasonable conservatives personally, Juan Cole is a great example. You, on the other hand, are of the type that I feel deserves no quarter.

"People here" hate me because they are ideologues who disagree with me. I have insulted nobody. Yet that is all you did for half a dozen posts in a row....insult after insult. Sometimes a person who has hate in their heart (like people here) need to release negative energy in a more constructive way than insults.

[QUOTE=Rooseveldt;12115713][QUOTE=Earabia;12115672]lots of inane argument tat hardly applies to me and is in no way relevant to anything


Um, that is not my quote.....:mad:


sorry I somehow messed up my quotes. My point was that I was not sourcing. I was simply stating a fact, using my own experiences and sources that I cannot link to because they are actually doing the work involved in the search and verification. I was also not debating. You can take or leave my claim as you like. But it is fact, not opinoin, not something I heard on the cafferty files. I lived it, and believed it, and was horrified when it came about that he really didn't have anything.

We know he had some stuff as of 91 because we lost guys in destroying some of it (accidently) but after that there is absolutely no evidence taht he had any, so for all we know we destroyed the last of it just like he claimed.

"People here" hate me because they are ideologues who disagree with me. I have insulted nobody. Yet that is all you did for half a dozen posts in a row....insult after insult. Sometimes a person who has hate in their heart (like people here) need to release negative energy in a more constructive way than insults.

You go the extra mile beyond simple disagreement. That extra mile being actual conding of murderous and ruinous policy by one country perpetrated upon another, and upon itself. You don't deserve anything more than what you've been given.

You go the extra mile beyond simple disagreement. That extra mile being actual conding of murderous and ruinous policy by one country perpetrated upon another, and upon itself. You don't deserve anything more than what you've been given.

So you would silence, slander, and insult me without any chance for recourse simply because we disagree. Sounds like the very dictionary example of fascism.

So you would silence, slander, and insult me without any chance for recourse simply because we disagree. Sounds like the very dictionary example of fascism.

I wouldn't "silence" anyone, but I do reserve my right to ridicule them mercilessly. Especially one such as yourself. Deal

Hey Greed,

Do i have to repeat myself again on these forums? When you come on here with what you think is factual statements, back it up, dont go telling others to do your homework.

The fact remains, Taliban is NOT making a comeback. Sorry, but calling on a couple hundred men to make short lived attacks wont live long, even in Taliban strong holds the locals are getting tired of the Taliban starting trouble or keeping it up.

I wouldn't "silence" anyone, but I do reserve my right to ridicule them mercilessly. Especially one such as yourself. Deal

No you dont. You have a right to debate logically and civilly. You have a right to express that you dont agree, but to add insult is wrong.

and the time for talkin is way up.

Absolutely. So stop talking on these boards.

More insults, same old lame insults.

You know, your constant defense, and the method you choose to defend it, of this Gunkoku entity makes me believe you are actually one and the same.

I think its time americans faced the facts
1. The ONLY reason anyone has anything against Bush is the war

No. Many people have many things against Mr Bush. I, for one, have issues with his ignorance and greed. I deeply resent his environmental policies (lets drill and destroy to make my friends and me very rich,) his economic policies (lets tax poor people but not my friends and me as we'd like to keep our money,) his international policies (lets use our economic power to dominate markets around the world in the name of free trade but protect our own markets in the face of global competition - this will help keep me in power and my friends and me wealthy,) and his militant christianity (I can do what I like as God is on my side.)
2. The american people can't get mad at him for flip-flopin when thats exactly what they've all done. They re-elect then they bitch and moan that he's not meetin their standards (sort a double standard huh?)

That's democracy. People can complain. Its ok. Still - with you on the re-election. Wtf?
3. WE ARE WINNING IN IRAQ its the Iraqis who are losing, I think its about time them numnuts got off their asses and started fightin for their country the way the Afghanis did.

Come back. This universe makes more sense than yours. In what way is the US winning anything right now? US service folks and Iraqi civilians are being slaughtered in ever-increasing numbers, a once-stable (if unpleasantly run) country is now the global centre of Islamic fascism and chaos, and America is more widely-hated in the world than it has ever been. The "Iraqis are losing"? Eh? You can't go round invading sovereign nations, stripping them of their resources, executing their leaders and dismantling their army and police forces and then blame them for not maintaining law and order. This is America's mess, and America's war that is being lost.


What in the holy hell are you talkin about? Are you just stupid or somethin. Let me explain somethin for you boy, The American people and the American Armed forces ain't scared of some religious nutcases and you can bet your ass that we won't step down so long as we can keep a sensible person in office (Hilary Clinton is not a sensible person)

Anyone who openly opposes this countries mission in the world is nothing short of a traitor in my eyes. It amazes me how people can sit there and call for "withdrawl" and other bullshit when so many men and women have given their lives in the name of upholding freedom and democracy. And if you need a reason for us going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan then I got two words for you9/11

Again, this is lunacy. Very happy you're not scared of religious extremists. What does that have to do with the political decisions that need to be made to extract yourselves from this mess? This is realpolitik, nothing more. That Love of Allah bloke is clearly way over the top but surely you can understand that many muslims see this military action not as "upholding freedom and democracy" but as an occupation of their lands. Do you see nothing odd in pointing a gun in somebody's face and demanding that they adopt a democratic system? Nothing at all..?

And finally:

9/11 =/= Iraq

Wake up and smell the bullshit.

If its anyone that should be punished and ashamed its those that wanted to sit on their hands and "talk" to these dictators twenty years or so ago....

20 years ago?

1986?

People were not sitting on their hands 20 years ago.
There were people opposed to Saddam and his regime 20 years ago
but the others were not sitting on their hands.

20 years ago Saddam was the blue eyed boy for the US
20 years ago the dictator was being supported by the US in his
aggressive war against Iran. The US was selling him weapons and satellite
imagery to better prosecute that war and bomb the heck out of the Iranians.
It was also the same year that the US was selling arms to Iran as well
to help fund their terrorist friends in Nicaragua in their aim of overthrowing
the government there.

Why was it you brought up Iraq and 20 years ago?

I most certainly am not. I live in Manhattan. I was here on 911. Posts like the ones we are talking about are not acceptable. You are concerned with silencing debate and cutting off those whom you disagree with. Sounds familiar.


"911" has nothing to do with Iraq.

Also they DID find containers and other instruments that is used for chemical and biological warfare in Iraq during the look for Hussein and after his capture.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

The article links to a pdf of a fax where the following is written:
Since 2003, Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

That's it. That is the extent of the WMD found.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/us-hands-najaf-control-to-iraqi-forces/20061220155509990030?ncid=NWS00010000000001
Iraqi forces have control of Najaf now.

Najaf is apparently mainly shiite, borders on another province that is already stable, and is also mainly shiite, and there are still 15 out of 18 provinces to go. None of the three provinces where Iraqi forces ostensibly have control are being secured solely by Iraqi forces.

Also, the rate of combatant and civilian death is a better indiactor of success and failure. What needs to happen now is for these rates to go down. Only then can we say that the war is ending.


If its anyone that should be punished and ashamed its those that wanted to sit on their hands and "talk" to these dictators twenty years or so ago....

You are entirely correct, which is why I believe that Kissinger should be immediately extradited to Chile for crimes against humanity.

20 years ago?

1986?

People were not sitting on their hands 20 years ago.
There were people opposed to Saddam and his regime 20 years ago
but the others were not sitting on their hands.

20 years ago Saddam was the blue eyed boy for the US
20 years ago the dictator was being supported by the US in his
aggressive war against Iran. The US was selling him weapons and satellite
imagery to better prosecute that war and bomb the heck out of the Iranians.
It was also the same year that the US was selling arms to Iran as well
to help fund their terrorist friends in Nicaragua in their aim of overthrowing
the government there.

Why was it you brought up Iraq and 20 years ago?

Boy, do i have to be more blunt with you? My point was we wouldnt be in this mess because of certain Democrats and Republicans who sat on their hands everytime a dictator rises up or rules because they want to appease the internatonal community or the dictator....i mean come on, comon sense here....

The article links to a pdf of a fax where the following is written:
Since 2003, Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent.

That's it. That is the extent of the WMD found.

Read the rest of the article, stop being selctive reader....



You are entirely correct, which is why I believe that Kissinger should be immediately extradited to Chile for crimes against humanity.


And why is that?

Read the rest of the article, stop being selctive reader....






And why is that?

I am not quoting the article.
I am quoting the pdf linked to in the article, which is found here:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

The article you quote has some nice tidbits like this though:
Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."

It also implies that the report was declassified to sow dissension in Democrat ranks.
The release of the declassified materials comes as the Senate debates Democratic proposals to create a timetable for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq. The debate has had the effect of creating disunity among Democrats, a majority of whom shrunk Wednesday from an amendment proposed by Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts to have troops to be completely withdrawn from Iraq by the middle of next year.

I quoted the actual document because it shows the reality of what was found, not what politicians and talking heads would like us to believe.

As for the Kissinger/Pinochet thing, just google the two names together and start reading. Here's one:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB123/chile.htm

From the horses mouth....

"Washington, D.C., May 26, 2004 - Five years after the National Security Archive initiated legal action to compel the State Department and the National Archives to recover the transcripts of Henry Kissinger's telephone calls from his "private" collection at the Library of Congress, the National Archives today released approximately 20,000 declassified pages (10 cubic feet) of these historic records, spanning Kissinger's tenure under President Nixon from 1969 to August 1974 as national security adviser and also as secretary of state beginning in September 1973."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB123/

This link shows wildly varying casualty figures (not deaths) as requested does it?
Does it show casualty figures at appx half a million, the other option you could have gone with.

So because it does not show a half million, you are calling it wrong? Be advised, even CH stated that the 500,000 number was a middle number. There are no accurate casualty count. That is what we are trying to tell you.

And have you figured out how many Iraq civilians were killed by terrorists or insurgents pre the invasion yet?

Welp, if you tally up each suicide bomb and executions that are being documented, you could very well figure out just how many the Insurgents killed.

Have lost already.

You thought Vietnam was bad? Just wait. America has been humbled by the righteous warriors of Islam.

There will be more humiliation to come.

Allahu Akhbar

Oh this is nothing like Vietnam. Vietnam was worse than this. Hell, Vietnam had more dead in 3 years than we do now.

Did he invade Iraq?

Did he claim doing so was part of the war against terrorism?

Nice question dodging.

Its good to see you have a friend who maybe will live with you in fantasy land.

Now why don't you to go off to the playroom the grown ups would like to talk.

Care to can the insults? Its not a proper way to make friends. Oh and because someone has a different opinion is not a reason to insult either.

Its not supprising that the Dems won, because the liberal media does nothing but put out every dark and horrible thing they can on the republicans and sing all the praises they can for the Left.

Oh brother. :rolleyes:

True yes but it goes both ways as the Press's motto is "if it bleeds, it leads"

Made who regret who's actions?? So far more iraqi civilians who have 100% nothing to do with Al Qaida, or 9/11 have died by American hands than there were people in both towers, and all three planes. Do you condone the deaths of more than 10 Iraqis to every one American? Are you that callous/racist? Are you?

I hate to break this to you but more civilians died in World War II than Military personel. Same with Korea, Nam, Persian Gulf, Bosnia, etc. It is not just limited to this war but dates back to World War II.

The Taliban is coming back? Hah! them sonsofbitches are pissin themselves tryin to figure out what their gonna do to get out alive.

Oh brother. I see someone is not watching the news at all.

Reality? You want Reality? Hows this? The Taliban RAN AWAY when we came in. They took off and now, yes, they are trying to come back. But it ain't happening, they are fighting a lost cause.

Are you sure they are not going to succeed?

Dude, try reading this thread! Jeez. Why can't you do your own legwork? Get your head in the game!

Those who make claims are the ones responsible for providing the information to back up the claims.

Rooseveldt did not.

And what I said was also true. You're spamming the thread with your flamebaiting.

BOTH SIDES are flamebaiting eachother with the insults.

Boy, do i have to be more blunt with you? My point was we wouldnt be in this mess because of certain Democrats and Republicans who sat on their hands everytime a dictator rises up or rules because they want to appease the internatonal community or the dictator....i mean come on, comon sense here....

Bzzt! Wrong reasoning. The reason why this mess occurred isn't because the politicians sat on their hands. It was because they decided that it was better to meddle with foreign nations so as to better suit their goals. Saddam for example, was the US's golden boy until he went and invaded Kuwait, and that on what seems like a "meh, we don't care" go ahead from the US.

Saddam was practically groomed by the CIA to become head boss in Iraq.

There wasn't any appeasement going on. They just wanted to have a bully boy in the Middle East they could control. These people thought they could play puppet master.

And that sure as hell wasn't done by sitting on their hands.

You know, your constant defense, and the method you choose to defend it, of this Gunkoku entity makes me believe you are actually one and the same.

Something that I was thinking.

Boy, do i have to be more blunt with you? My point was we wouldnt be in this mess because of certain Democrats and Republicans who sat on their hands everytime a dictator rises up or rules because they want to appease the internatonal community or the dictator....i mean come on, comon sense here....

Did you forget about the Cold War? That was why we supported some of the dictators around the world. We did so because they opposed communism.

Bush has been flip flopping since day 1 of his presidency. This is nothing new. See Israel-Palestine.

Alleghany County 2:

12 of the last 13 posts are yours. Does that tell you something?

Oh this is nothing like Vietnam. Vietnam was worse than this. Hell, Vietnam had more dead in 3 years than we do now.

-Viet Nam was national war for the Vietnamese, once the USA left it was no longer a target it became strictly a civil war...the NVA won, hostilities ended....

-War with Islam is different, being a religious war international borders are meaningless to the opponent, there is no victory possible.... this is not USA vs Iran or USA vs Syria; it's USA against every fundamentalist Muslim in the world, they can not be defeated(they have no army to defeat) they can only be stopped by coming to a diplomatic consensus with them...so it is worse than the Vietnam war in that it could drag on for decades.....

Did you forget about the Cold War? That was why we supported some of the dictators around the world. We did so because they opposed communism.

How is a dictator better than a communist? How many civilians did Pinochet kill vs the democratic Allende government? How is a free enterprise system run by a murderous thug preferable to a socialist system run by a democratic elected government?...why should we care what economic system a country chooses...why should their citizens die because we don't like their choice of economics?.....was it worth it to support the Argentina Juanta that butchered tens of thousands to prevent socialism taking hold in Argentina?....

there is this bogeyman mentality associated with communism/socialism that it's bad and evil, why is that?...The cold war was never about freedom and democracy vs oppression.....it was about unrestrained capitalism vs socialism, people were dieing over economics?.....

How is a dictator better than a communist? How many civilians did Pinochet kill vs the democratic Allende government? How is a free enterprise system run by a murderous thug preferable to a socialist system run by a democratic elected government?...why should we care what economic system a country chooses...why should their citizens die because we don't like their choice of economics?.....was it worth it to support the Argentina Juanta that butchered tens of thousands to prevent socialism taking hold in Argentina?....

there is this bogeyman mentality associated with communism/socialism that it's bad and evil, why is that?...The cold war was never about freedom and democracy vs oppression.....it was about unrestrained capitalism vs socialism, people were dieing over economics?.....

Hey, I did not say that it was right in what we did but you have to think about the era. Things were a bit different then and in order to look at things logically about that time era, you have to put yourself into that time era.

Hey, I did not say that it was right in what we did but you have to think about the era. Things were a bit different then and in order to look at things logically about that time era, you have to put yourself into that time era.

I lived through that era. Communism and socialism were used as a bogeyman to excuse US intervention in Latin America whenever it suited them.

The US supported dictators around the world because it served US economic interests. How much more logical can you get?

I lived through that era. Communism and socialism were used as a bogeyman to excuse US intervention in Latin America whenever it suited them.

The US supported dictators around the world because it served US economic interests. How much more logical can you get?

To a point, I agree with you.

Hey, I did not say that it was right in what we did but you have to think about the era. Things were a bit different then and in order to look at things logically about that time era, you have to put yourself into that time era.

sure I accept that, there was a paranoia about socialism at the time, but it's still with us today....I see it all the time in this website "the evils of Socialism", it irrational and unfounded, it's a standard belief on Fox( I've lost count of how times I've heard Canada referred to as Canukastan)....Canada and much of Europe are socialist, they don't oppress their own people, they're democratic ,free and nonaggressive.....

sure I accept that, there was a paranoia about socialism at the time, but it's still with us today....I see it all the time in this website "the evils of Socialism", it irrational and unfounded, it's a standard belief on Fox( I've lost count of how times I've heard Canada referred to as Canukastan)....Canada and much of Europe are socialist, they don't oppress their own people, they're democratic ,free and nonaggressive.....

Yes it is still with us today. I wish we can shake that for Communism and Socialism are two different things.

By attacking me when I have not attacked you shows that you do not know how to debate properly. Please respond more rationally to my posts the next time.

That's it attack the messenger when they utterly destroy your premise instead of trying to mount a comeback.

Typical troll tactic.

That's it attack the messenger when they utterly destroy your premise instead of trying to mount a comeback.

Typical troll tactic.

:rolleyes:

I lived through that era. Communism and socialism were used as a bogeyman to excuse US intervention in Latin America whenever it suited them.
And "Western Imperialism" was used as a bogeyman to justify appalling management of controlled economies. (Controlled economies aren't done yet. Look at Singapore and Japan. Arguably China. For that matter, look at Haliburton.) And intervention in Eastern Europe.

The US supported dictators around the world because it served US economic interests. How much more logical can you get?
Nah, describing economic interest as "logical" is an insult to logic. Economic incentive has an element of ego and self-interest which logic doesn't require at all. Perhaps "cynical" would be a better word.

And "Western Imperialism" was used as a bogeyman to justify appalling management of controlled economies. (Controlled economies aren't done yet. Look at Singapore and Japan. Arguably China. For that matter, look at Haliburton.) And intervention in Eastern Europe.


Nah, describing economic interest as "logical" is an insult to logic. Economic incentive has an element of ego and self-interest which logic doesn't require at all. Perhaps "cynical" would be a better word.

I stand corrected.

I stand corrected.

You may sit. Can I buy you a beer?

the war thats going on, I understand that we aren't winning and that we "aren't losing" but why are we trying to cast blame about how it started? shouldn't we be more focused on what we can do to stop the war?

So because it does not show a half million, you are calling it wrong? Be advised, even CH stated that the 500,000 number was a middle number. There are no accurate casualty count. That is what we are trying to tell you.

I am not calling it wrong it is simply irrelevant to the question

You have claimed that figures for casualties(not deaths) are all over the place.
You claimed that in response to CH stating that Iraqi casualties were
appx half a million. For all I know CH meant to say deaths or assumed that
it would be understood that he meant deaths when he said casualties
in which case he would be about right but also for all I know he did just mean
casualties in which case we would need some link to information like
that as it Iraqi civilian non lethal casualties are not widely known or cared about.

I pointed out that the only disputed figures in those areas were for deaths
not for casualties, that the only place an appx half a million figure has been disputed is relating to claims of Iraqi
deaths and that there has been almost no debate or concern for Iraqi civilian injuries.

You then argued that you didn't refer to civilians although that was in fact
what you were referring to.

You have insisted that casualties (not deaths) have in fact had wildly varying estimates.

That accurate count of Iraqi's maimed and injured as a result of the
invasion is not available is not in question but there are no sets of
Iraqi casualty figures that are disputed. A standard for estimating
non fatal injuries is to multiply the number killed by about 5.
Which if the Lancet published estimate of deaths (654,965 )
were used it would give us more than 3 million but an estimate derived from an estimate is hardly reliable.
Interestingly, due to improved body armour and equipment the multiple
for US soldiers injuries to deaths is more like 15 to 1
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/


You were asked for even one link to support your claim
or even a link to support the idea that there has been any claim that
the number of Iraqi casualties(not deaths) were appx half a million people.

You have not offered any such link.

Earabia for reasons best known to themselves decided to offer a link
to further your argument but linked to a list of Iraqi civilian deaths.
Rather than the casualties(not deaths) that were being discussed.

Even in this one small area you not only cannot back up the claim you make
but also cannot recognise when another one of your ilk offers as evidence
something that has no bearing on the question?



Welp, if you tally up each suicide bomb and executions that are being documented, you could very well figure out just how many the Insurgents killed.

Yes we could indeed work out roughly how many people the insurgency has killed but the point you are repeatedly failing to grasp is that the insurgency is a creation of the invasion.
The invasion took place in 2003 it is now 2006
count up the Iraqi civilian deaths due to insurgency between 2003 and 2006
count up the Iraqi civilian deaths due to insurgency between 2000 and 2003

see the difference in the numbers?
do you?
maybe?

Does anyone really pay any attention to the fecal matter that comes out of the White House? I mean other then finding the best propaganda that you can snicker at.

Have lost already.

You thought Vietnam was bad? Just wait. America has been humbled by the righteous warriors of Islam.

There will be more humiliation to come.

Allahu Akhbar

The Allah you claim to worship is either not the being of peace your people like to claim he is, or you like to ignore the whole peace part; I haven't figured out which yet, but it is because of people with your radical idealogy that people are dying who shouldn't be.

And yes, Iraq is about to turn into Vietnam. Pretty soon, those terrorists will start popping out of ratholes in the massive jungle that is Iraq...

:rolleyes:

salaam

count up the Iraqi civilian deaths due to insurgency between 2003 and 2006
count up the Iraqi civilian deaths due to insurgency between 2000 and 2003

see the difference in the numbers?
do you?
maybe?

Because Hussein wasn't an iron-fisted dictator who'd kill his own people in droves :rolleyes: .

Dunlaoire,

Definition of a casualty

ca·su·al·ty (kzh-l-t) KEY

NOUN:
pl. ca·su·al·ties
An accident, especially one involving serious injury or loss of life.
One injured or killed in an accident: a train wreck with many casualties.
One injured, killed, captured, or missing in action through engagement with an enemy. Often used in the plural: Battlefield casualties were high.
One that is harmed or eliminated as a result of an action or a circumstance: The corner grocery was a casualty of the expanding supermarkets.

So if we want to use the definition of casualty, one can say we were indeed talking of dead civilians as loss of life is considered a casualty by definition. Unfortunately, one does not seem to keep track of the wounded in this war but the death toll which they say yadda yadda casualties today.

Just thought I through in the definition of a casualty before we go off on another argument.

On that very topic, here's some simple logic in regards to casualties. If we do not have an accurate death count of civilians, what makes you think we're going to have accurate wounded civilian information?

Because Hussein wasn't an iron-fisted dictator who'd kill his own people in droves :rolleyes: .

The question however, is whether things are better now that mass murder has gone from a monopoly to a highly competitive market.

I don't really think so.

Go back and re-read what I wrote. I was not talking about civilian deaths. I was talking about death tolls of soldiers.

But if you notice I did not say civilian deaths. I said figures. Even CH knew what I was talking about.

... In case anyone has not noticed, CH and I agreed on this very issue that the casualty number (notice I did not say death toll) is all over the chart.

Dunlaoire,

Definition of a casualty
So if we want to use the definition of casualty, one can say we were indeed talking of dead civilians as loss of life is considered a casualty by definition. Unfortunately, one does not seem to keep track of the wounded in this war but the death toll which they say yadda yadda casualties today.

Just thought I through in the definition of a casualty before we go off on another argument.

On that very topic, here's some simple logic in regards to casualties. If we do not have an accurate death count of civilians, what makes you think we're going to have accurate wounded civilian information?


Gods but it is painful attempting communication with you.
You were quite specific that you were not talking about death toll
as can be seen in the third quote of yours above.
which is the point of this entire discussion.
IE that the figures mentioned and the claim of wildly varying figures
can only be talking about death toll.

Something you have effectively been denying til now
Now of course you are saying that you could be talking about it.
Casualties can of course include loss of life but would also include
non fatal incidents and the formula to arrive at a total for that
would be number of deaths + (number of deaths multiplied by a factor of about 5).

There is and can be no accurate death COUNT partly due to the difficulties
of doing a complete count during a war and partly due to the US resistance
to even attempting one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A26305-2003Apr14?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1366349,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-10-iraq-civilians_x.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1212-15.htm

We do have a perfectly credible estimate of the number of deaths
above the Iraq norm from the pre invasion year.
That has been put at over 600,000

AND then given those deaths are above the norm from the year
pre the invasion, those deaths, whatever groups committed them ultimately
are the responsibility of those who invaded and destabilised the country.

Gods but it is painful attempting communication with you.
You were quite specific that you were not talking about death toll
as can be seen in the third quote of yours above.
which is the point of this entire discussion.
IE that the figures mentioned and the claim of wildly varying figures
can only be talking about death toll.

Which are casualties are they not? So if we add the death toll to the number of wounded, we'll have a more complete casualty total. Since we do not have an accurate account of either one, casualty numbers are all over the numerical chart.

Something you have effectively been denying til now
Now of course you are saying that you could be talking about it.
Casualties can of course include loss of life but would also include
non fatal incidents and the formula to arrive at a total for that
would be number of deaths + (number of deaths multiplied by a factor of about 5).

Now you are understanding what is being talked about. Congratulations. There is hope for you yet.

There is and can be no accurate death COUNT partly due to the difficulties
of doing a complete count during a war and partly due to the US resistance
to even attempting one.

Correct on the first part of your post and BS on the 2nd part of your post.

We do have a perfectly credible estimate of the number of deaths
above the Iraq norm from the pre invasion year.
That has been put at over 600,000

Yep.

AND then given those deaths are above the norm from the year
pre the invasion, those deaths, whatever groups committed them ultimately
are the responsibility of those who invaded and destabilised the country.

The only destabilizing force I see are the extremists who want to cause it.

The only destabilizing force I see are the extremists who want to cause it.

There really is no hope for you

There really is no hope for you

Who is preventing the complete takeover of Iraq? Terrorists and muslim militias.

Who is bombing innocent men, women, and children? Terrorists

Who is beheading people? Terorists

Who kidnaps people and executes them later? Terrorists

Do you see a pattern here or are you going to ignore facts that most of the damage being done is being done by terrorists? If Iran and others stop funding the terror groups, maybe we would have been out of there by now with a stable Iraq. You call me hopeless because I actually follow what is going on? I see more things going on than you do apparently. So why don't you stop with the character attacks before I start launching them back at you.

Which are casualties are they not? So if we add the death toll to the number of wounded, we'll have a more complete casualty total. Since we do not have an accurate account of either one, casualty numbers are all over the numerical chart.

So why so specifically state you were not talking about death toll?

Especially given that my point was that you had to be talking about death
toll.



Now you are understanding what is being talked about. Congratulations. There is hope for you yet.


I see how this works,
you finally catch up, roughly 24 hours later and then try to say
that is what you were saying all along

A bit bushlike surely
Nov 2006 "Absolutely, we're winning."
Dec 2006 "We're not winning"


Correct on the first part of your post and BS on the 2nd part of your post.

And you substantiate that comment how?


Yep.

idiot
You're accepting 600,000 deaths since the invasion but somehow imagining
no responsibility for that falls on the people who invaded.


The only destabilizing force I see are the extremists who want to cause it.

Not the hundred and something thousand foreign military occupying the country along with their countless mercenaries?
Not the people with the tanks and the missiles and the bombs and
the depleted uranium munitions and the proven history of random killing
tortures and rapes

Who is preventing the complete takeover of Iraq? Terrorists and muslim militias.

Sorry what are people who are invaded supposed to do?
Aid the takeover?



Who is bombing innocent men, women, and children? Terrorists

Terrorists, yes
Americans, yes (or have they not dropped a lot of bombs in the last 3 years)


Who is beheading people? Terorists

Killing people in a different manner does not make your side better


Who kidnaps people and executes them later? Terrorists

and americans again.

People didn't volunteer to be taken to Abu Ghraib you know, nor to any
other US run prisons. Many didn't turn up again and some who did turn
up again turned up dead.


Do you see a pattern here or are you going to ignore facts that most of the damage being done is being done by terrorists? If Iran and others stop funding the terror groups, maybe we would have been out of there by now with a stable Iraq. You call me hopeless because I actually follow what is going on? I see more things going on than you do apparently. So why don't you stop with the character attacks before I start launching them back at you.

Terrorists who didn't exist in Iraq before the invasion.
There are 2 sets of terrorists in Iraq the ones who do everything you describe
and the ones with uniforms who have planes and tanks
and do everything bar the beheading.

You don't follow what is going on
You have demonstrated over the last 24 hours an inability to follow a simple
conversation or understand even the simplest of questions.

So why so specifically state you were not talking about death toll?

Because I wanted to see how smart you were in figuring out that I ment everyone. I guess you are not that smart as I thought you were.

A bit bushlike surely
Nov 2006 "Absolutely, we're winning."
Dec 2006 "We're not winning"

You do realize that because someone says they are not winning does not automaticly means they are losing right?

And you substantiate that comment how?

What's your proof that we are suppressing it? I see no proof of it.

idiot

Moron.

You're accepting 600,000 deaths since the invasion but somehow imagining

You said pre-invasion meaning before the US and company invaded. 600,000 is about right for the number of people killed per year by Saddam and his henchmen.

no responsibility for that falls on the people who invaded.

Why should we be responsible for the deaths under Saddam's rule before we invaded?

Not the hundred and something thousand foreign military occupying the country along with their countless mercenaries?

Funny thing is, the occupation ended a while ago. We are assisting with security and assisting the Iraqi Military Forces in missions and training them. You do realize that if Iraq wants us to leave, all their government has to do is tell us to leave and we go. Uzbekistan told us to get out and we left that nation. And what mercenaries are you talking about? The ones that are coming in from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan?

Not the people with the tanks and the missiles and the bombs and
the depleted uranium munitions and the proven history of random killing
tortures and rapes

I see there is no hope for you.

We do have a perfectly credible estimate of the number of deaths above the Iraq norm from the pre invasion year.
That has been put at over 600,000
Yup, that is where I was going with that estimate that I gave earlier. Just to clear up any misconceptions.

AND then given those deaths are above the norm from the year pre the invasion, those deaths, whatever groups committed them ultimately are the responsibility of those who invaded and destabilised the country.
In other words, the US invasion of Iraq has been an utter failure and a very irresponsible action by an irresponsible administration.

Who is preventing the complete takeover of Iraq? Terrorists and muslim militias.

Who is bombing innocent men, women, and children? Terrorists

Who is beheading people? Terorists

Who kidnaps people and executes them later? Terrorists

Do you see a pattern here or are you going to ignore facts that most of the damage being done is being done by terrorists? If Iran and others stop funding the terror groups, maybe we would have been out of there by now with a stable Iraq. You call me hopeless because I actually follow what is going on? I see more things going on than you do apparently. So why don't you stop with the character attacks before I start launching them back at you.
Actually, I do believe that most of the damage is being done by insurgents at this point. That is what happens when civil war breaks out.

Actually, I do believe that most of the damage is being done by insurgents at this point. That is what happens when civil war breaks out.

And I agree with you.

A bit bushlike surely
Nov 2006 "Absolutely, we're winning."
Dec 2006 "We're not winning"
Jan 2007 "We're absolutely sure that we don't know who is winning?"

Rinse and repeat for effect.

And I agree with you.
No, you were putting most of the blame on the terrorists.

No, you were putting most of the blame on the terrorists.

If they are blowing up civilians, they are terrorists.

You do realize that because someone says they are not winning does not automaticly means they are losing right?

and yet you do not realise that there is a difference between
we're absolutely winning and we're not winning


What's your proof that we are suppressing it? I see no proof of it.


I added links to the comment to assist you with that


You said pre-invasion meaning before the US and company invaded. 600,000 is about right for the number of people killed per year by Saddam and his henchmen.

the reference point is the year pre the invasion
the lancet published estimate is of deaths over and above that
If english is not your first language I apologise for being unclear, otherwise try to keep up or shut up.
And you think 600,000 per year pre invasion is right do you? Back it up somehow.
Saddam was in power
1979-2002 = 23 years

In terms of Iraqi's killed by Saddam or his henchmen
the estimated figures (with little enough to substantiate the numbers
but no one disagrees that he killed lots of people and that is always a bad thing)
are appx 300,000 over his entire period in power.

Perhaps you are confused and including the death toll in the Iraq/Iran war.

Add appx 1 million from the Iraq Iran war to 300,000 and you get
1,300,000 which is the figure you would use if you are simply talking about
deaths that Saddam would have to be responsible for because he held
the power.
Divide by 23 years in power
and that would be about 60,000 a year if you wish to calculate things like that. Or ten times less than you suggested and that's only by including
an 8 year war that the US both encouraged and supported.

Whereas by credible figures your lot have managed 200,000 per year.


Why should we be responsible for the deaths under Saddam's rule before we invaded?

No one is asking you to be, I am saying you have to be responsible for
deaths after you invaded.


Funny thing is, the occupation ended a while ago. We are assisting with security and assisting the Iraqi Military Forces in missions and training them. You do realize that if Iraq wants us to leave, all their government has to do is tell us to leave and we go. Uzbekistan told us to get out and we left that nation. And what mercenaries are you talking about? The ones that are coming in from Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan?

A government that is utterly dependent for its security on American forces
having being elected in a country under occupation on ballots
where many candidates were not identified by name even.

That's an occupation or do you think vichy france was free ?

Ah Uzbekistan, a dictatorship, renowned for torture but which
is onside in their stance against "islamic terrorism" and allowed the
US forces a base there to attack Afghanistan.

Care to provide anything proving any mercenaries coming from
any other country that are not on the american payroll?

Whereas it is part of American policy to have mercenaries although
they tend to prefer to call them contractors.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5976.htm

according to the csis
the number of non iraqis fighting in the insurgency are between 4 and 10% of the total
and no one has suggested they are mercenaries
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0927/p01s03-woiq.html

If they are blowing up civilians, they are terrorists.
They weren't involved in this activity until the country became destabilized due to the US invasion. These aren't the terrorists that the US was looking for. They are a made in Iraq by product of the US invasion. Iraq was relatively stable before.

They weren't involved in this activity until the country became destabilized due to the US invasion. These aren't the terrorists that the US was looking for. They are a made in Iraq by product of the US invasion. Iraq was relatively stable before.

Meh. I'll give you half credit for this post :D

Whereas it is part of American policy to have mercenaries although
they tend to prefer to call them contractors.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5976.htm

according to the csis
the number of non iraqis fighting in the insurgency are between 4 and 10% of the total
and no one has suggested they are mercenaries
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0927/p01s03-woiq.html
Did you see the video "Killing Without Conscience : Iraq - The Hidden War" attached at the bottom? Gruesome indeed!!

Meh. I'll give you half credit for this post :D
I am not looking for any credit what-so-ever. What I want to see is that people remove their heads from their butts and get on with fixing this human tragedy.

We are winning the war in Iraq as much as this smily is unhappy:D
There have been some poor decisions made in the war.

I am not looking for any credit what-so-ever. What I want to see is that people remove their heads from their butts and get on with fixing this human tragedy.

And I will agree with that. Let us begin by involving the entire region in peace negotiations and move on from there.

We are winning the war in Iraq as much as this smily is unhappy:D
There have been some poor decisions made in the war.

No kidding.

And I will agree with that. Let us begin by involving the entire region in peace negotiations and move on from there.
If only Bush had concentrated on his "roadmap to peace", instead of invading Iraq..........

If only Bush had concentrated on his "roadmap to peace", instead of invading Iraq..........

Or at least overestimate the resistence instead of underestimating it.

Or at least overestimate the resistence instead of underestimating it.
Get some perspective will ya? Watch that video and then tell me about your boots on the ground sources. Everything about this war was wrong and is wrong.

Get some perspective will ya? Watch that video and then tell me about your boots on the ground sources. Everything about this war was wrong and is wrong.

I'm not going to get into that debate with you. As for my boots on the ground, the unit deactivated because their 2 year activation is over with and my father retired.

Besides that, what's the point of debating it when this issue literally has been debated to death. I"m sure you will agree with me on that statement.

I'm not going to get into that debate with you. As for my boots on the ground, the unit deactivated because their 2 year activation is over with and my father retired.

Besides that, what's the point of debating it when this issue literally has been debated to death. I"m sure you will agree with me on that statement.
Oh the debate will go on because what you were being told was not the truth. Things were getting worse not better, and they continue to deteriorate. You tried painting a false image of the reality in Iraq.

Oh the debate will go on because what you were being told was not the truth. Things were getting worse not better, and they continue to deteriorate. You tried painting a false image of the reality in Iraq.

Sorry CH but I'm not painting a false reality. One can say that from what I write but remember what I have always told you! I take a side in a debate and stay with that side until the debate (in this case, the thread) is finished.

I'll be honest with you CH. I would like to meet you one day.

Sorry CH but I'm not painting a false reality. One can say that from what I write but remember what I have always told you! I take a side in a debate and stay with that side until the debate (in this case, the thread) is finished.

I'll be honest with you CH. I would like to meet you one day.
Call me clairvoyant if you want, but I could only see negative results by the US planned invasion of Iraq. Many could. Hence the millions around the world who marched for peace. This invasion has cost the US more then money and more then US soldiers their lives.....it has diminished the US as the beacon of democracy.

Although it would be tempting to meet others from NS, I rather prefer the anonimity.

Call me clairvoyant if you want, but I could only see negative results by the US planned invasion of Iraq. Many could. Hence the millions around the world who marched for peace. This invasion has cost the US more then money and more then US soldiers their lives.....it has diminished the US as the beacon of democracy.

Although it would be tempting to meet others from NS, I rather prefer the anonimity.

That's fine. I understand that too. It would be fun to meet though. :D

Sorry what are people who are invaded supposed to do?
Aid the takeover?

Exactly. Because there was forces(Iraqi exiles) that wanted Hussein removed. Family members that wanted to go home once again but couldnt and they cried out for help...



Terrorists, yes
Americans, yes (or have they not dropped a lot of bombs in the last 3 years)

Sorry, terrorists TRY to hit innocent and defenseless persons, the USA military didnt.


Killing people in a different manner does not make your side better

SO doing nothing to remove a dictator that kills is any better?


and americans again.

Proof?

People didn't volunteer to be taken to Abu Ghraib you know, nor to any
other US run prisons. Many didn't turn up again and some who did turn
up again turned up dead.

Proof of dead showing up later and i get the feeling you would rather keep the murders/terrorists of other Iraqis and US soldiers on the streets?



Terrorists who didn't exist in Iraq before the invasion.
There are 2 sets of terrorists in Iraq the ones who do everything you describe
and the ones with uniforms who have planes and tanks
and do everything bar the beheading.

Wrong, one is purposely killing civilians while the otehr is trying to protect them from the other side. Sorry, you are wrong.

You don't follow what is going on
You have demonstrated over the last 24 hours an inability to follow a simple
conversation or understand even the simplest of questions.

Wy dont you look at your own advice here?

They weren't involved in this activity until the country became destabilized due to the US invasion. These aren't the terrorists that the US was looking for. They are a made in Iraq by product of the US invasion. Iraq was relatively stable before.


Stable? You mean as in like controlling others with the fear of death? Or the fear of losing family members? Wow, nice stability....

Stable? You mean as in like controlling others with the fear of death? Or the fear of losing family members? Wow, nice stability....
People can live with fear?

More people are fearing death now, and now more people are dying.

Ya, Iraq was rather stable before the invasion.

Exactly. Because there was forces(Iraqi exiles) that wanted Hussein removed. Family members that wanted to go home once again but couldnt and they cried out for help...

So if there are forces that want the US administration removed
thatd be just jim dandy with you I guess



Sorry, terrorists TRY to hit innocent and defenseless persons, the USA military didnt.

They're just really bad shots?



SO doing nothing to remove a dictator that kills is any better?


Its what you do when it suits you






Proof of dead showing up later and i get the feeling you would rather keep the murders/terrorists of other Iraqis and US soldiers on the streets?

I'd rather US terrorists out of Iraq and any and all other countries where
the US exerts a baleful influence.

You're awful quick to demand proof despite never offering any
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1223358,00.html





Wrong, one is purposely killing civilians while the otehr is trying to protect them from the other side. Sorry, you are wrong.

I'd love to have heard the Nazis saying exactly the same thing
and then see you explaining why its different for you.

Oh the debate will go on because what you were being told was not the truth. Things were getting worse not better, and they continue to deteriorate. You tried painting a false image of the reality in Iraq.

In your opinion you mean? Right? Sorry, but your facts are not truely the facts....

Stable? You mean as in like controlling others with the fear of death? Or the fear of losing family members? Wow, nice stability....

as in over 600,000 Iraqis not being killed in 3 years
as in 2 or 3 million not being injured over 3 years

as in children being able to go to school
as in people having work
as in having electricity and cars


Saddam was a bad man but the worst death toll in his responsibility
was the 1 million people killed in the Iraq Iran war which the US both
encouraged and supported.
Which also for some reason he is not being put on trial for.

People can live with fear?

More people are fearing death now, and now more people are dying.

Ya, Iraq was rather stable before the invasion.

Hardly.....and the only reason they fear death now is because of the ex-Baathists and terrorists, nice try.

So if there are forces that want the US administration removed
thatd be just jim dandy with you I guess

Sure, the way the world works....:rolleyes:



They're just really bad shots?

And I thought many of your posts were silly and rediculous, this one just took the cake....




Its what you do when it suits you

And you call us that support removing a terrorist/dictator sick and dangerous.....






I'd rather US terrorists out of Iraq and any and all other countries where
the US exerts a baleful influence.

You're awful quick to demand proof despite never offering any
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1223358,00.html

WHy? I have shown proof on here, you just like to ignore it....by the way that is NOT proof, since even the article says no one knows who killed that person that way...nice try.





I'd love to have heard the Nazis saying exactly the same thing
and then see you explaining why its different for you.


Nice fallacy. Changing the subject? Hmmmm......

as in over 600,000 Iraqis not being killed in 3 years
as in 2 or 3 million not being injured over 3 years

And like i said, those figures are skewered. I think you missed that or ignored that....all those figures you point out dont give us DETAILED ways of how they died other then saying they were shot, bombed and what not....not stating who did it, other then they died or injured...nice try.

as in children being able to go to school
as in people having work
as in having electricity and cars

Actually they now go without fear in many of the regions they couldnt before for fear of religion or views of their families and them.


Saddam was a bad man but the worst death toll in his responsibility
was the 1 million people killed in the Iraq Iran war which the US both
encouraged and supported.
Which also for some reason he is not being put on trial for.


Actually it was the Iraqis that decided what they are trying him for, not Americans. ANd it is sad they are not trying him for those. But that doesnt push the fact that HE DID commit those crimes....

And like i said, those figures are skewered. I think you missed that or ignored that....all those figures you point out dont give us DETAILED ways of how they died other then saying they were shot, bombed and what not....not stating who did it, other then they died or injured...nice try.


You just aren't getting it, it doesn't matter who does it
that its happening at all is due to the invasion and destabilisation
of their country. As the figures are deaths over and above the norm before
the invasion.
That was down to the US who are still there and still responsible.



Actually they now go without fear in many of the regions they couldnt before for fear of religion or views of their families and them.


any proof or evidence of this at all?
Fear of religion? is that some new phobia?
Are you saying that Saddam's secular Iraq was creating this fear of religion?



Actually it was the Iraqis that decided what they are trying him for, not Americans. ANd it is sad they are not trying him for those. But that doesnt push the fact that HE DID commit those crimes....


What? In the same way the Germans decided what crimes their
leaders were tried for?
The US made the decision of what he would be tried for and by who
and for some reason chose not to have him tried in the appropriate
court for crimes they were complicit in ... shock.

The largest loss of Iraqi lives during Hussein's time in power was during
the Iran Iraq war.
The largest loss of Iranian lives that Hussein would be responsible for
was during the Iran Iraq war.
Roughly 1 million people in total.
It was a war of aggression waged by Iraq, contrary to international
law and with the help and support of the US.
He should, like any international war criminal,be tried for
international war crimes in the appropriate court.
Saddam is not being tried for it, nor indeed for the less costly invasion
of Kuwait. Who could guarantee that being tried for one international war crime
wouldn't then allow him to be tried for the other which would then drag the US administration into the picture.
Can't have that, after all the US are the good guys.

You just aren't getting it, it doesn't matter who does it
that its happening at all is due to the invasion and destabilisation
of their country. As the figures are deaths over and above the norm before
the invasion.
That was down to the US who are still there and still responsible.

Love how you say it is our sole responsibility(USA), but forget that Hussein has done his own murders and purposely. You do know they are still investigating the murders by Hussein and his cohorts?





any proof or evidence of this at all?
Fear of religion? is that some new phobia?
Are you saying that Saddam's secular Iraq was creating this fear of religion?

Here is some evidence of improvements in Iraq, looking for more for you.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html

DId i even say he was a religious leader? Nope. Reread my post.




What? In the same way the Germans decided what crimes their
leaders were tried for?
The US made the decision of what he would be tried for and by who
and for some reason chose not to have him tried in the appropriate
court for crimes they were complicit in ... shock.

Comparing Nazi trials to Husseins is not even comparable. May i ask who you think are the judges, jury and prosecutor and defense are in his trials? Last i checked they were Iraqis....

The largest loss of Iraqi lives during Hussein's time in power was during
the Iran Iraq war.
The largest loss of Iranian lives that Hussein would be responsible for
was during the Iran Iraq war.
Roughly 1 million people in total.
It was a war of aggression waged by Iraq, contrary to international
law and with the help and support of the US.

Wow....you do realize that the USA supported BOTH sides right? Learn some history....

He should, like any international war criminal,be tried for
international war crimes in the appropriate court.

No, he should be tried in his nation THEN the international community, but dont you think one trial is enough?

Saddam is not being tried for it, nor indeed for the less costly invasion
of Kuwait. Who could guarantee that being tried for one international war crime

Um, actually they did trie him for that, they brought witnesses from that invasion by Hussein....

wouldn't then allow him to be tried for the other which would then drag the US administration into the picture.
Can't have that, after all the US are the good guys.

That is bull and you know it.....and it would drag the past administration into it, not the current one...sign....see your hatred with Bush?

No, he should be tried in his nation THEN the international community, but dont you think one trial is enough?

Legally, he can only be tried in Iraq unless an ad hoc tribunal is created elsewhere.

Um, actually they did trie him for that, they brought witnesses from that invasion by Hussein....

They tried him for the 1990 invasion of Kuwait? When did that happen?

That is bull and you know it.....and it would drag the past administration into it, not the current one...sign....see your hatred with Bush?

Any trial dealing with the intel of this invasion would drag the Clinton Administration into it.