Recent History - U.S vs Iraq

[cardcounter0]

[ QUOTE ]
The actual cost in American lives to remove Saddam from power was extremely small. Its the cost of trying to establish a free, stable and democratic Iraq that is actually proving to be very high.


[/ QUOTE ]

Jumping out of an airplane without a parachute is safe, it is only the last few feet of the fall that poses a problem.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
The actual cost in American lives to remove Saddam from power was extremely small. Its the cost of trying to establish a free, stable and democratic Iraq that is actually proving to be very high.


[/ QUOTE ]

The "liberals" who opposed the war predicted that

- there was no plan to win the aftermath of the shock and awe
- the ethnic tensions would be very difficult to manage and there was no plan to do so
- the chances of a theocracy was very high


Even the Powell doctrine was ignored, there was no exit strategy in place.

Not only the "liberals" have been proven right in their assessment that there was no present and gathering threat but in their assessment that we were entering a no-win situation.

So, on the how and the why the anti-war camp appears to have understood the situation better than the gunslingers.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
So, on the how and the why the anti-war camp appears to have understood the situation better than the gunslingers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did they have an alternative plan? Did they want to buy more oil from Sadaam until he had moeny to buy more weapons? Did they vote to faovr attacking Iraq so that if it worked out well they wouldn't be seen as soft national security?

What would be the total number of US soldiers dead if it was reported on the news everytime one if the terrorists was killed? Does the US media encourage the terrorists or do
only the Democrats in the US get joy from the US loss of life?

[cardcounter0]

[ QUOTE ]
Did they have an alternative plan?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Did they want to buy more oil from Sadaam until he had moeny to buy more weapons?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. In fact, since they weren't buying any oil it would be hard to buy "more". Also remember it was the former Republican admin that sold him weapons.

[ QUOTE ]
Did they vote to faovr attacking Iraq so that if it worked out well they wouldn't be seen as soft national security?

[/ QUOTE ]
Probably the best explanation, that, and a bunch of lies from the administration.

[ QUOTE ]
What would be the total number of US soldiers dead if it was reported on the news everytime one if the terrorists was killed? ?

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you restate this in English, please? I don't think reports on the news kills anyone, but I really don't know what the hell you are saying.

[ QUOTE ]
Does the US media encourage the terrorists or do
only the Democrats in the US get joy from the US loss of life

[/ QUOTE ]
No on both questions. At least I think. Two totally unrelated questions joined with the word "or". The word "only" in there kind of confuses me. Are you saying that you get joy from US loss of life also?

Better wait for the kool-aid rush to subside, at least until you can form half-way reasonable thoughts.

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
Did they have an alternative plan?


Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

What was it? Did it involve trusting Sadaam?

[ QUOTE ]
No. In fact, since they weren't buying any oil it would be hard to buy "more". Also remember it was the former Republican admin that sold him weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which admin sat bye and allowed him to sell oil in the 90s?

[ QUOTE ]
Probably the best explanation, that, and a bunch of lies from the administration.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which lies would those be? Being mistaken is not a lie. It is unfornate that intelligence was neglected in the 90s so the current admin acted on flawed info.




[ QUOTE ]
Could you restate this in English, please? I don't think reports on the news kills anyone, but I really don't know what the hell you are saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Currently there are just over 2k service men and women dead in Iraq. Would the rate if their dying increase or decrease if instead of reporting the 2k number everday report the number of bad guys they kill. What is the US to bad kill ratio 1:1 2:1 3:1? (It was reported as 10:1 but that was using a shorter period of time for the bad guys dead). DO you think the US media coverage of this is inspiring the rest of the world to believe the US will give up?

[ QUOTE ]
No on both questions. At least I think. Two totally unrelated questions joined with the word "or". The word "only" in there kind of confuses me. Are you saying that you get joy from US loss of life also?


[/ QUOTE ]

Let me see it I understand you correctly. You believe that the media reporting over and over the number of US dead without reporting the number of enemy dead does not serve to motivate the enemy. And you believe the Democrats are not enjoying see dead US soldiers?

I am sure the Democrats realize their only chance of winning relies on a bad result in Iraq; is seems natural that the Democrats would have a natural ally in the terroists attacking US soldiers.

How many American deaths woudl be unaccpetable to the Democrats in excahnge for the White House? What do the Democrats believe in other than turning America against itself?

Since the Democrats like to claim their administration did a better job of running the country in the 90s please list the legislative initiatives that the administration introduced that were passed into law and which ones were not passed into law. Also take a look at which policies the COngress introduced and which ones were passed into law. I was in college and grad school at the time so maybe I missed something but this is I how remember the 90s. Clinton won the election in 92 and attempted to implement his social reform he ran on (socialized medicine is the main thing I remember). The American public rejected this and there was an out pouring in the 94 midterm election to put Republicans into Congress. Clinton rebounded by dropping his social reforms and signing the legislation passed by the Republican Congress and was reelected in 1996 as Americans were happy wiht the direction the country was taking. After that I started playing more poker etc, so I know little of what happened in Clinton's second term. I remember seeing a lot of partisan bickering on TV, but I was too busy playign poker to pay much attention to it. If there was a major event I left out in the 90s please enlighten me.

[cardcounter0]

Sorry, but is English your second language? If you went to college and grad school in the US I would see about getting a refund.

Here is a question for you: Is the sky green or do you still beat your wife?

[Randy_Refeld]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, but is English your second language? If you went to college and grad school in the US I would see about getting a refund.

Here is a question for you: Is the sky green or do you still beat your wife?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here I will try to simplfly wiht a series of true flase quesiont for you.

(1) The Democrats have no stated policy agenda.
(2) The Democrats benefit fomr dead soldiers in Iraq.
(3) The Democrats are hoping for more US deaths in Iraq.
(4) The resitance to US forces would decrease if the bodies of deal soldiers were not shown on TV
(5) The resistance to US forces would decrease if there were more dead terrosits were shown on TV.
(6) Bill Clinton ran on a platform of social reform in 1992
(7) The American people do not like Socialism.
(8) The COngress in the 90s set the agenda.
(9) When Republican commit perjury they resign.
(10) When Democrats commit perjury they do not resign.
(11) I have made no ad homium attacks.
(12) Cardcounter0 hopes Americans die in Iraq.
(13) Democrats benefit from promising blacks set asides.
(14) Democrats support increasing the minimum wage.
(15) Forcing the price of labor above the market clearing value results in unemployment.

I am goign back to the poekr side; feel free to PM me if any Democrats have a plan for making America better.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Did they have an alternative plan?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure they had lots of alternative plans. However, the unifying theme was that going to war wont solve anything (and they were right about this).

The anti-war people did not vote to attack Iraq. Spineless senators voted to give Bush the authority so that he could get the UN on board at least thatis how it was sold to them.

I am not defending the Democrats or the Republicans. Unlike many on this forum, IMO, discussion of issues is best done without bringing in the positions of the parties -- that is irrelevant.

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam Hussein is a swell fellow that we didn't have to worry about at all.


[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. How many religious fundamentalist nutjobs were openly operating in Iraq when he was in charge. I think the possibility of getting of getting a visit Uday and his underlings did far more to discourage terrorists from operating in Iraq than the U.S. can possibly do. Looking at it strictly from the standpoint of U.S. interests in the middle east, a brutal, repressive, secular dictatorship that is in no way tied to the United States is far better than a theocratic "democracy" installed by us.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Remember, the number one enemy in Iraq is Zarqawi and his organization, Al Queda in Iraq. These are the people thousands of American soldiers have died fighting. They attacked us first in the United States, and then in Iraq

[/ QUOTE ]

Did Al Queda in Iraq exist on Sept 11 2001? Or even March 19 2003? What about May 1 2003?