2,974

[Porsche-O-Phile]

As of today, there have been 2,974 servicemen/women killed in action in Iraq, compared to 2,973 killed by Al Qaeda on September 11, 2001.

Nice to know Bush's little oil/payback-for-daddy crusade has now done more damage to this country and shattered more families than Osama Bin Laden is even capable of doing.

Truly sad.

[pwd72s]

Into numbers are we? How about Pearl Harbor, then WWII?

[techweenie]

Originally posted by pwd72s
Into numbers are we? How about Pearl Harbor, then WWII?

That would be a really intelligent comparison if we had attacked Argentina after Pearl harbor.

[dd74]

Originally posted by pwd72s
Into numbers are we? How about Pearl Harbor, then WWII?

Nice deflection from today's truth.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by techweenie
That would be a really intelligent comparison if we had attacked Argentina after Pearl harbor.

Which would also make sense if we had invaded Iraq as revenge for 9/11. But we didn't so what's your point?

[techweenie]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Which would also make sense if we had invaded Iraq as revenge for 9/11.

Up to 70% of Americans thought that was the case (now down to 33%) because the Bush administration mentioned them both in the same sentence about a gazillion times.

So, how do you made sense of linking Pearl Harbor/WWII with 911/Iraq? Or do you agree that's just a non-sequitur?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by techweenie
Up to 70% of Americans thought that was the case (now down to 33%) because the Bush administration mentioned them both in the same sentence about a gazillion times.

Related yes, revenge for .......ofcourse not. If you don't belive it, why do you say it?

[pwd72s]

number killed in the initial attack, vs. number killed in the resulting war? It's not numbers...(hint...these people really do want to kill us...kill us all, not just conservative republicans) but the left will never understand that.
The left's hatred of Bush is so deep, their desire to return to return to power so strong, they'll say and do anything...

[scottmandue]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Which would also make sense if we had invaded Iraq as revenge for 9/11. But we didn't so what's your point?

So why exactly did we invade Iraq?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by scottmandue
So why exactly did we invade Iraq?

Res 1441 and our new Bush Doctrine required that we would do what we say and say what we do. In the broader war on terror we could not allow a terror supporting thug like Saddam thumb his nose at us or the UN resolution to disarm.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
As of today, there have been 2,974 servicemen/women killed in action in Iraq, compared to 2,973 killed by Al Qaeda on September 11, 2001....

Only 26 more until the big democratic celebration! Some just can't wait. Might as well get an early start here. You can make the 2000 dead party seem like sooo 1999.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by pwd72s
number killed in the initial attack, vs. number killed in the resulting war? It's not numbers...(hint...these people really do want to kill us...kill us all, not just conservative republicans) but the left will never understand that.
The left's hatred of Bush is so deep, their desire to return to return to power so strong, they'll say and do anything...

+1

And yes, I've been there and will go back, so shut your pie holes.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

I'm glad we agree that it's only the "left" (whomever that is) that values American soldiers being alive rather than dead.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by Porsche-O-Phile
I'm glad we agree that it's only the "left" (whomever that is) that values American soldiers being alive rather than dead.

What?

[DaddyGlenn]

If my life had taken a different path, I'd be right there with you Seahawk. Take care.

[pwd72s]

Like I said, say or do anything...

[VenezianBlau 87]

Have you chess-gamed the 3K-fest into the mid terms? It'll be a little over...maybe credit us with MIAs or whatever to make it balance. Keep on crunching the numbers on your keyboard and making a difference.

[rcecale]

Originally posted by Seahawk
And yes, I've been there and will go back, so shut your pie holes.

And there are loads of us who admire, respect and thank you for your service.

Semper fi!

Randy

[techweenie]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Res 1441 and our new Bush Doctrine required that we would do what we say and say what we do. In the broader war on terror we could not allow a terror supporting thug like Saddam thumb his nose at us or the UN resolution to disarm.

Oh, yes. Our deep respect for the UN.

Of course. That explains everything.

You are aware, of course, that Resolution 1441 was one additional vote short of authorizing military action? No? Faux News didn't bother with that detail?

Yes, Dubya was concerned that the UN wouldn't take the final step, and his plans were all made. So he went ahead without the aid & support of the majority of the world's countries.

In fact, in January '03, Iraq had complied with 1441 and let the weapons inspectors back in and produced documentation showing that it had no WMD programs.

It's instructive to go to the source.

---------------from the UN website---------------
On 8 November, the Council unanimously adopted resolution 1441 (2002), by which it held Iraq in "material breach" of its obligations under previous resolutions, and decided to afford it a "final opportunity to comply" with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime. The Council also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities and recalled repeated warnings by the Council that Iraq would face "serious consequences" as a result of continued violations. The United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have "immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access" to any sites in Iraq, including presidential sites.

On 25 November, the first inspectors arrived in Baghdad and have been continually present there since then. On 7 December, one day before the deadline set by resolution 1442, Iraq handed over to the United Nations the required declaration "of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and other delivery systems". The Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC, Hans Blix, and the Director-General of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, briefed the Council in closed consultations on their initial assessment of the declaration and progress of inspections on 19 December.

--------------end excerpt-------------

Add to this that Saddam was actively negotiating terms of exile and you quickly see the war and resulting loss of life was far from necessary.

But today, as a result of the invasion, we have a destabilized Iraq in civil war and a large faction in the legitimately elected government siding with Hezbollah and other Jihadists. We took an unpleasant situation and made it a disaster.

[930addict]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Res 1441 and our new Bush Doctrine required that we would do what we say and say what we do. In the broader war on terror we could not allow a terror supporting thug like Saddam thumb his nose at us or the UN resolution to disarm.

If it was for a U.N. resolution then this war should have been left up to the U.N. to handle. Bush is an idiot for getting us involved in Iraq. He should have gone all out in afghanistan and left Iraq to the U.N. Iraq was never a threat to us. There are many countries that support terrorists, is Bush the warlord going to take after all of them too? Bush is a nutcase and should have been impeached a long time ago.