[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by Viracocha711

I am a disabled Vet...Your not making sense at all. 13% is 13%? half think we need more troops means some think we have enough already...And so on and so on. You were wrong to say my buddies opinions were in the minority!

There is a huge difference between calling the idiot Bush an idiot, and tarring EVERYONE who is against this war as a coward. HALF of the men on the ground don't think we need more troops-! Thats a very serious number particularly among a group that always supports the the commander and chief. The more important number is that the majority think he has managed Iraq horribly! Viracocha it was nice to hear that the government just opened up a 50,000,000 dollar facility to work with amputees from this war. As I said, the people of AMerica are behind the troops, thats why the VAST majority have had it with this fake war.

[Viracocha711]

Lol!!!

[poochee]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

There is a huge difference between calling the idiot Bush an idiot, and tarring EVERYONE who is against this war as a coward. HALF of the men on the ground don't think we need more troops-! Thats a very serious number particularly among a group that always supports the the commander and chief. The more important number is that the majority think he has managed Iraq horribly! Viracocha it was nice to hear that the government just opened up a 50,000,000 dollar facility to work with amputees from this war. As I said, the people of AMerica are behind the troops, thats why the VAST majority have had it with this fake war.

[Viracocha711]

Lol!!!

[Fidelista]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

You brought up statistics for warfare casualties.

I think gbrumbs analysis was right on the mark.

As wars go, throughout US history, US casualties in Iraq are quite low. But that will never be appreciated by anyone who sees Iraq as an unnecessary conflict, nor by those who wish to effect political change using this war as a platform to do so.

"As wars go, throughout US history, US casualties in Iraq are quite low {thankfully >f}. But that will never be appreciated by anyone who sees Iraq as an unnecessary conflict,"
You got that right!. Anyone who see it otherwise is crazy. Why would anyone be happy about our losses {even though "only " in the thousands } if it is for a failed purpose?.
Each soldier that I read about dying or wounded in this adventure grieves me --for him and his loved ones, not to mention those of mine that I worry for.
What you seem not to understand is this, I and most others would accept any sacrifice in right circumstance --for the right reason/cause---this just isn't one.
I have seen what has been "accomplished" ? over the years in Iraq , and its not worth one more life -IMO. >f

[LANMaster]

We disagree.
I think the Iraqi people deserve the change for independence from insurgent kill squads and IEDs in schoolyards.
While I will admit that the war was based on faulty intel, the fact remains that if we up and leave there will be a vacuum that will suck so hard that Iraq will develop into a place where we will have no choice but to return again for a 3rd time.

So, while you can call this an unnecessary war, and you may have a point with regard to the situation that took us there to begin with, I think it is quite necessary that we continue to train the Iraqis to take over full control under leadership which will remain an enemy to terrorism rather than an ally to it.

[poochee]

As of Feb 2, 2007

US Casualties: 3088

Coalition Causalties: 3341

Total US non-mortal casualties: 47,657!

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/

[LANMaster]

Will be much higher if we flee, only to find we have to go back a 3rd time.

[combsdon]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Will be much higher if we flee, only to find we have to go back a 3rd time.

.............and three wrongs..........will make you "right"......................

[poochee]

As of Feb 3, 2007.

US Casualties: 3097

Coalition Causalties: 3350

Total US non-mortal casualties: 47,657!

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by combsdon

.............and three wrongs..........will make you "right"......................

So you think the US was wrong to engage Iraq in the first Gulf war to remove Iraq from Kuwait.

Big shocker there.

[WarC]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

So you think the US was wrong to engage Iraq in the first Gulf war to remove Iraq from Kuwait.

Big shocker there.

The liberal sense of human decency forbids enforcing human decency. It's the "its not our house, why do you care if its on fire?" hands-off civility approach.

Saddam might have been an evil guy, but gosh darnit, we didn't have to hear about it before the Bushies came along!

[linskyjack]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

We disagree.
I think the Iraqi people deserve the change for independence from insurgent kill squads and IEDs in schoolyards.
While I will admit that the war was based on faulty intel, the fact remains that if we up and leave there will be a vacuum that will suck so hard that Iraq will develop into a place where we will have no choice but to return again for a 3rd time.

So, while you can call this an unnecessary war, and you may have a point with regard to the situation that took us there to begin with, I think it is quite necessary that we continue to train the Iraqis to take over full control under leadership which will remain an enemy to terrorism rather than an ally to it.

I think the people of Dafur, Central Africa, Sri Lanka etc deserve a chance for indpendence. Lets invade.

[Gibble]

Originally Posted by linskyjack

I think the people of Dafur, Central Africa, Sri Lanka etc deserve a chance for indpendence. Lets invade.

Get a brace for that knee.

[linskyjack]

Lets also include the Congo, North Korea, and Southern Africa. Lets just invade everyone and bring the "freedom".