Reply With Quotedo you think the families of those lost in this tragedy would have liked this policy to have been in effect beforehand?
do you think the families of those lost in this tragedy would have liked this policy to have been in effect beforehand?
It might have prevented it.
Why not just declare a free-for-all war and let the bodies lay where they may?
Conservative neocons talk tough but would probably seek a deferment like their good friend Cheney when the time came to ante up.
And of course all the pansy liberals would go over, cut themselves three times, get three Purple Hearts, and come home to protest
Would you step up McBragg, or flee to Canada to cover your ass?
At least the Russians have learned that appeasement wont work. The Dumbocrats never will!
Oh come on now. There are plenty of repugnicants who apposed the war.
This liberal democrat has no problem kicking some ass to defend the USA!!
Nothing bites my ass more!!
It would be nice if Bush would fight the war on terror rather than diverting valuable resources to his escapade in Iraq.
Osama mocks you Bush.
story
Bush's doctinre must be do as I say, not as I do
Russia castigated the United States on Wednesday for its willingness to hold talks with Chechens agitating for independence and suggested the issue could harm bilateral relations, the Interfax news agency reported
so do you agree or disagree?
take a stand and stop patronizing.
you do remember the diplomatic red tape the US went through prior to the war in Iraq, don't you?
Thank you Zak for trying to set the pandering straight!
A lot of us believe the two are related. More than don't, as a matter of fact."It would be nice if Bush would fight the war on terror rather than diverting valuable resources to his escapade in Iraq."
As the old saying goes..."It's hard to mock under a ton of rock." :o )"Osama mocks you Bush."
Mockity, mock, mock!!
The problem is so many democrats can't realize the bigger picture of Iraq.
that being that we've shifted the front lines of the war on terror from our civilians, airplanes, and skyscrapers to halfway around the world, but hey - 9/11 wasn't so bad after all.
The war in Iraq is not shifting the front. Al Quada cannot have daily or weekly bombings in the U.S. (thank God). They take years to plan their attacks, WTC 1 (1993), Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies (1998) , U.S. Cole (2000) and 9/11 (2001).
Just because an attack hasn't happened on our soil since 9/11 doesn't have jack to do with Iraq.
Finish the war on those who attacked us and quite worrying about nation building in Iraq.
God forbid another terrorist strike should hit the USA.
But if it does, I'm sure Bush will find a way to blame anyone or anything other than his own selfish war mongering policies.
Ruby,
I don't give a about the time frame.
All things being equal, would you rather have them killing a couple thousand civilians every couple of years here or have thousands of them killed for every one ARMED troop they kill over there?
It's not just about location, it's about them having to face heavily armed US Armed Forces instead of flight attendants, people at their jobs in an office, families headed on vacation, etc.
Afghanistan was halfway around the world last time I checked.The problem is so many democrats can't realize the bigger picture of Iraq.
that being that we've shifted the front lines of the war on terror from our civilians, airplanes, and skyscrapers to halfway around the world, but hey - 9/11 wasn't so bad after all.
i'm sure the 10,000 plus iraqi civilians killed over there appreciate this.that being that we've shifted the front lines of the war on terror from our civilians, airplanes, and skyscrapers to halfway around the world, but hey - 9/11 wasn't so bad after all.
so, we liberated them in order to make a more convinient battlefield/
interesting.
Hey Manny, how many Iraq and non-Iraqi combatants have been killed since March 2003?
Irrelevant. We pursued a like policy in the Vietnam war only then we called it Vietnamization. We created a project called Phoenix which were paramilitaries that sought out to find insurgents in the general populous and eliminated them without prejudice. Unfortunately, the policy made more enemies faster than it could eliminate them and was a failure. In Vietnam, it was China supplying the Viet Cong forces with endless amounts of fighters, in the Iraq war it is Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Syria and Iran.Hey Manny, how many Iraq and non-Iraqi combatants have been killed since March 2003?
God forbid another terrorist strike should hit the USA.
But if it does, I'm sure Bush will find a way to blame anyone or anything other than his own selfish war mongering policies.
and i'm sure the libs will find a way to blame it 100% on GW, as if he ing flew the plane himself on 9/11.
I don't think so. Why? Because the 10,000 number that's being tossed around doesn't say if it's civilians, combatants, or a mixture of both."Irrelevant."
I want to know if that number represents non-combatants or combatants. It's definitely relevant.
I also want to know, of the non-combatant deaths, how many occurred in areas where the coalition forces pleaded with residents to seek refuge for days before they went in. Place like Fallujah or Sadr City or Tikrit, etc...
I think you'd see that 10,000 number drop sharply if you take out the combatants and stubborn.
It's irrelevant because it doesn't jive with Dan's version of reality.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
