Off Topic Messages

1800 and counting

Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:28 pm

BAGHDAD (AP) — The U.S. military said Tuesday that six Marines were killed in action in western Iraq, pushing the death toll for Americans since the start of the war past 1,800....................

WHY??!!

Tom

Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:57 pm

Because we are occupying a country thats why! This is a TAME war compared to history. The reason is simple, that what is happening now will be talked about for years to come. The attack on our country should be answered in the most demanding way ever. There are PROVEN Al-Queda operatives in Iraq and this is why we have retaliated. That and the fact that we had a leader violate countless UN violations and refused to cooperate. WMD or not...without Hussein in leadership the world is a better place.

In WWII we lost 500,000 people...that is about 4000 per DAY!

The Korean War we lost 54,000

In Vietnam there have been reports as high as 70,000

If you haven't noticed our death count has gone down considerably. Go here for facts concerning period 4..post election percentage.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Looking at the FACTS...if we lost 9 people DAILY(which is the highest total for a single day and not the norm that we had in the last quarter), we would have a little over 5000 deaths. Compared that to the statistics of other said wars above.

Every life should be cherished and we should show our allegience to the soldiers who are fighting and believe in the war the most.

Whateve happened to supporting your country? We are in a war people, not monopoly. If we pull out the Terrorists win. Case closed.

Tue Aug 02, 2005 8:56 pm

Good answer Genesim,

Since Vietnam there hasnt been a draft so all the young men and women have enlisted into the forces on there own freewill.

If the US/UK forces pull out now it would be an insult to the lives of the brave soldiers whose lives have already been taken.

War is a terrible thing but im all for the US and the UK to be present in Iraq.
They need the support of there own countries people.

Anyone who thinks that the US shouldnt get involved in the middle East crisis over the years must realise what would have happened if the US hadnt gone into Kuwait. and remove the Iraq army.

Im quite sure if Saddam had gotten hold of a nuclear weapon he would have used it,proberly on Israel.
The US did the right thing going into Iraq.
Just cause there wasnt any weapons of mass destruction found doesnt mean a thing.Im glad the US didnt hesitate to wait till Saddam got hold of one.

People get angry about the US using an Atom Bomb on Japan but what they should realise is that Japan wasnt going to surrender which would have led to a land invasion of Japan which they estimated would have cost at least 1 million lives if it would have happened.

Sean

Tue Aug 02, 2005 9:06 pm

Sean -

You wrote:
Just cause there wasnt any weapons of mass destruction found doesnt mean a thing.
Im glad the US didnt hesitate to wait till Saddam got hold of one.


That's back to front.

Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

He was ordered by the UN to destroy them.

He complied.

The US [backed by the UK] then went to war because they thought he still had them.

He didn't.

Now that we're there it's kinda difficult to disengage our forces.

Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:25 pm

ColinB wrote:Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.


Correct.

ColinB wrote:He was ordered by the UN to destroy them.


So far so good.

ColinB wrote:He complied.


No, this is incorrect Colin. He stonewalled, threatened, allowed limited access, and finally kicked the inspectors out in 1998. It was only the threat of war that got Hussein to allow the resumption of the inspections program. And even when the program resumed there was still materials unaccounted for and limited cooperation. In other words no full disclosure and no full compliance.

ColinB wrote:The US [backed by the UK] then went to war because they thought he still had them.


Yes, because he didn't comply, and the intelligence indicated he still had them.

ColinB wrote:He didn't.


Yes and no. He apparently had nothing up & running. But he had dormant programs. Programs that could've been easily re-activated once the sanctions were lifted and the heat was off so to speak.

ColinB wrote:
Now that we're there it's kinda difficult to disengage our forces.


Because of the insurgents.

Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:37 pm

ColinB wrote:He complied.


See that is what I call back to front. We had no evidence that he was complying and he refused to cooperate. We live in an age now that it isn't safe to wait till they feel better about it.

Nuclear bombs up our ass is not the standard. The U.S. and U.K. gave an ultimatum and he ignored it...gave another..and he ignored that. Times up. The message was clear, he called it and knew the consequence...not once did he state that he DIDN'T want a war.

The facts are that WMD haven't been found YET..but about 2/3 of the material needed to use them as well as being able to launch them was. Also there were records of documents being concealed...etc.

We could not afford to wait. He didn't comply..case closed. Plus there is oil at stake. This cannot be ignored. His so called compliance was being found in some hole and him finally surrendering. This punk could have stopped all the senseless killing and genocide that happened before....he is the bad guy. Not the alliance.

Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:27 am

All lame answers to the big "Why?"

The simplest answer is that the politicians badly miscalcualted every step of the way.

I hope no one embarrasses himself by trying to contradict that because anyone can Google up a few dozen admissions of every sort -- whether it's related to WMDs, necessary troop strength, costs of the war, the staying power of the insurgency or the receptiveness of the public to our presence.

Hell, the administration even had the numbers wrong on the one thing they should know about: how much oil revenue Iraq will produce to help pay for this misbegotten undertaking. (Again, Google up the multiple administration admissions if you care to.)

It's a badly bungled operation, and if you add up all the grudging admissions, you can come to only one honest conclusion: They don't know what they're doing.

There's sewage running through the streets and the electricity won't stay on in the areas where we're most firmly in control. And you really want to believe we have a handle on this failed exercise in nation-building?

I said a while back in this forum that Bush is just trying to get things quiet for about 15 minutes so he can declare a phony victory and run away before everything collapses.

I don't really care to debate that reality again. Let's just meet back here and review the outcome when it finally comes.
Last edited by elvissessions on Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:31 am

Yeah but the question is will you actually come back? I remember people were saying the same things about Reagan. I remember the world being very scary and the very real thought that we were going to all die. The Soviet Union was a very real threat.

Wed Aug 03, 2005 1:36 am

sorry.. but one life lost.. is one too many.....why in this enlightened age are we still killing each other?