A Picture Being Worth A Thousand Words

[clambake]

What stats? You named some other countries. You want me to grade your spelling?

[Guru of Nothing]

So, why haven't we been attacked again?

I presume Dubya and the Saudis had a "come to Jesus" meeting.

[CuckingFunt]

So, why haven't we been attacked again? After all, Osama bin Laden declared war on the U.S. and started attacking our assets, culminating in the September 11 attack on our homeland.

Outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, where have we been attacked since 9/11?

Saying that the war in Iraq has not made us safer doesn't make it so. That we have suffered no further attacks, particularly on our homeland, kind of puts the lie to it, if you ask me.

There's no logical way to make that leap.

Suggesting that there haven't been any terrorist attacks here BECAUSE we started a war in Iraq is as ridiculous as me suggesting that I haven't had any tigers prowling in my front yard BECAUSE I planted a row of roses.

[PixelPusher]

There's no logical way to make that leap.

Suggesting that there haven't been any terrorist attacks here BECAUSE we started a war in Iraq is as ridiculous as me suggesting that I haven't had any tigers prowling in my front yard BECAUSE I planted a row of roses.

Yoni is fine with "unknowables" in this case.

[sabar]

So instead of being attacked on our own soil or elsewhere and losing maybe 10-20 people in your average small attack or rarely 200+ in a major attack, we went to Iraq and got 10,800 Iraqi combatants killed, 7,500 insurgents killed, 4,200 Iraqi police killed, 2,500 Iraqi military (post invasion) killed, 4,200 coalition members killed (includes US), and 41,000 coalition wounded, in total, an estimated 57,805-63,573 dead from the Iraq war. Iraqis are 50% more likely to die from random insurgent attacks than under Saddam's rule.

I fail to see how this is a better alternative to the occassional terrorist attack, and this assumes best-case scenario that being in Iraq in-fact reduces terrorism. This is clearly not safer either. Basically, "we" (civilians) are safer because we are using another country and our military as a "terrorism sponge".

I also fail to see how you can draw a correlation between 9/11 and no further attacks. Historically attacks have been years apart, and if you include al-Qaeda in Iraq, there have been hundreds of terrorism incidents since 9/11 and the war.

[johngateswhiteley]

Shopping at the mall creates the taxes that pay for body armor that Bush doesn't provide. It also pays for the body bags that some of you come home in. Sorry you gave your life for a hoax. If your injured, you can come home and rehabilitate with the mice and the mold, but only for a short time before you're sweeped under the WH rug.

huh?

[johngateswhiteley]

There's no logical way to make that leap.

Suggesting that there haven't been any terrorist attacks here BECAUSE we started a war in Iraq is as ridiculous as me suggesting that I haven't had any tigers prowling in my front yard BECAUSE I planted a row of roses.

...he might be right.

[01Snake]

What stats? You named some other countries. You want me to grade your spelling?

Once again, you're not answering the question. Which of the 10 countries mentioned above are we bombing?

Damn, I feel like Chump on the 9/11 thread.

[clambake]

Which of those ten countries are we holding innocent detainees for torture?

Is it all about bombs or a country forcing their will on others?

[01Snake]

Which of those ten countries are we holding innocent detainees for torture?

Is it all about bombs or a country forcing their will on others?

So your not gonna tell me which of those countries is getting bombed by the US? Now it's the US is taking people and torturing them which in turn makes these people pack up their and move here? Gotcha.

[clambake]

I know as much about those countries being bombed as you do about their immigration stats.

[xrayzebra]

So instead of being attacked on our own soil or elsewhere and losing maybe 10-20 people in your average small attack or rarely 200+ in a major attack, we went to Iraq and got 10,800 Iraqi combatants killed, 7,500 insurgents killed, 4,200 Iraqi police killed, 2,500 Iraqi military (post invasion) killed, 4,200 coalition members killed (includes US), and 41,000 coalition wounded, in total, an estimated 57,805-63,573 dead from the Iraq war. Iraqis are 50% more likely to die from random insurgent attacks than under Saddam's rule.

I fail to see how this is a better alternative to the occassional terrorist attack, and this assumes best-case scenario that being in Iraq in-fact reduces terrorism. This is clearly not safer either. Basically, "we" (civilians) are safer because we are using another country and our military as a "terrorism sponge".

I also fail to see how you can draw a correlation between 9/11 and no further attacks. Historically attacks have been years apart, and if you include al-Qaeda in Iraq, there have been hundreds of terrorism incidents since 9/11 and the war.

Holy smokes, some folks cant see the forest for the
trees. Which is normal for someone who really doesn't
know what is going on in the world.

[xrayzebra]

Which of those ten countries are we holding innocent detainees for torture?

Is it all about bombs or a country forcing their will on others?

And where do you get your information about torture?
How many have we beheaded?

Care to address the other side of coin, or is it that we
are the bad guys?

[clambake]

Victims have come forward without denial from our govt.
Soldiers have come forward to admit their involvement.

I guess you have that forest-tree syndrom.

[AFE7FATMAN]

[ggoose25]

You could easily replace the words "White House" for U.S Congress, and "Bush fails every attempt to win War on Terror" for the headline on the paper.

[boutons_]

dubya's bull war in Iraq is free advertising, a huge recruiting program for terrorists, more effective recruiting terrorists than it is in recruiting US red-state kids.

dubya's own incompetence in Iraq has caused Iraq to be a lost cause. The Dems are calling him on it, or we'll pull you off the pot, and he and the right-wing slime-bots blame Iraq failure on the Dems. Petraeus is saying the military alone can't win in Iraq, and that's the fault of Congress?