4000

[DRB]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23771735/

The overall U.S. death toll in Iraq rose to 4,000 after four soldiers were killed in a roadside bombing in Baghdad, a grim milestone that is likely to fuel calls for the withdrawal of American forces as the war enters its sixth year.


The American deaths occurred Sunday, the same day rockets and mortars pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone in Baghdad and a wave of attacks left at least 61 Iraqis dead nationwide.

The four soldiers with Multi-National Division — Baghdad were on a patrol when their vehicle was struck at about 10 p.m. Sunday in southern Baghdad, the U.S. military said. Another soldier was wounded in the attack — less than a week after the fifth anniversary of the conflict.

[Echo]

Sweet! At a clip of only 800 per year, we should only lose about 80,000 soldiers by the time McCain's hundred years are up and we get out of there.

[jimmydean]

Sweet! At a clip of only 800 per year, we should only lose about 80,000 soldiers by the time McCain's hundred years are up and we get out of there.

That's not bad compared to Vietnam. :disgust1:

Too bad the price tag is a bit much to support.

[$tinkle]

crap, i thought this was going to be a thread about hot shirtless mesopotamians eating figs between car bombings

[reflux]

These soldiers should be glad that they're able to experience the growth of a democracy firsthand.

Personally, I think they'd much rather live off Daddy's dime at a posh ranch in Texas.

[N8]

These soldiers should be glad that they're able to experience the growth of a democracy firsthand.

Personally, I think they'd much rather live off Daddy's dime at a posh ranch in Texas.

you are pretty stupid.

evey soldier in Iraq is serving there voluntarily.. it's not like anyone is asking you to go (assuming you could get into the US military).

so get off your high horse before you get bucked off

[MMike]

You wanna make a freedom omelette, you break some eggs.

[Echo]

You heard it here first, folks. N 8 just called someone stupid.

[DirtyDog]

evey soldier in Iraq is serving there voluntarily.. it's not like anyone is asking you to go (assuming you could get into the US military).


Aren't a lot of soldiers being forced into multiple tours that were not part of the original agreement when they signed up?

[N8]

Aren't a lot of soldiers being forced into multiple tours that were not part of the original agreement when they signed up?

there never has been anything saying how many tours you will do when you sign-up.

ever

[jimmydean]

you are pretty stupid.

evey soldier in Iraq is serving there voluntarily.. it's not like anyone is asking you to go (assuming you could get into the US military).

so get off your high horse before you get bucked off

It's a good thing the National Guard only has to do one tour per 8 years and there is no such thing as "stop loss".

Also, officers can just resign their commission if they disagree.



Oh wait, they changed all that, huh? Never mind.

[DaveW]

you are pretty stupid.

evey soldier in Iraq is serving there voluntarily.

Tard
Ever hear of "Stop loss"?

:poster_oops::clapping::redx:

[jimmydean]

there never has been anything saying how many tours you will do when you sign-up.

ever

Wrong.

USA Today on Aug. 26 revealed that Army planners "have concluded they will have no choice but to force thousands of troops to return to new overseas assignment after only a short time at home." The newspaper also said preliminary Pentagon estimates indicate as many as 25 percent of the soldiers now in Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan might have to serve consecutive tours.

[N8]

You heard it here first, folks. N 8 just called someone stupid.

why the 'celebration' for every 1000 soldier/marines/airmen/sailors killed in action..??

what about the 100,000's of those who served their tour and came home?

[$tinkle]

of all the 'grim milestone' stories i've read, i don't recall any of them stating the milestone was met due to "non-combat related incident".

i'm sure to break out the numbers beyond simply deaths in a combat zone would make those anti-war masturbaters go limp, and give the lie their "war heros" like 3-time purple heart "winner" j.h. kerry

[N8]

Wrong.


pfft... never ever have seen any guarantee on how often and here deployments will be.

you should know that


Stop Loss is not a new thing and again you should know that too.

[$tinkle]

Wrong.returning soldiers != soon-to-be enlistees.

i think you mean bait-and-switch

(yes, i'm playing both sides here)

[DaveW]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23771735/

Ps Beat ya to it (http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2874459&postcount=37) ;)

[jimmydean]

pfft... never ever have seen any guarantee on how often and here deployments will be.

you should know that


Stop Loss is not a new thing and again you should know that too.

Stop loss isn't new, but it also was not used before now either. The original agreement for National Guard was an 8 year rotation for mobilizations of 12 months or more.

One of the biggest selling points to recruit folks for Afghanistan in '06 was the idea they would be removed from rotation. My old unit was an all volunteer deployment and at least 90% did so because that would allow them to miss Iraq.

Last month, they got a memo about an '09 deployment to Iraq. Needless to say, there are many who are mildly unhappy about this.

[reflux]

you are pretty stupid.

evey soldier in Iraq is serving there voluntarily.. it's not like anyone is asking you to go (assuming you could get into the US military).

so get off your high horse before you get bucked off
:monkeydance:

[N8]

Stop loss isn't new, but it also was not used before now either. The original agreement for National Guard was an 8 year rotation for mobilizations of 12 months or more.

One of the biggest selling points to recruit folks for Afghanistan in '06 was the idea they would be removed from rotation. My old unit was an all volunteer deployment and at least 90% did so because that would allow them to miss Iraq.

Last month, they got a memo about an '09 deployment to Iraq. Needless to say, there are many who are mildly unhappy about this.


We had a stop loss on our reserve unit back in the first Gulf War and it's been on and off and back on again since 9-11 so, it's not new and has been used depending on what kind of unit you are in.

If you are serving in the guard/reserved and wanting to retire then you already know by now that mulitple deployments to SW Asia are going to happen no matter how much you wish/hope/pray they wouldnt.

anyone that is surprised by this is simply ignorant.

[H8R]

you are pretty stupid.

evey soldier in Iraq is serving there voluntarily..

Note:

When calling someone stupid, run a spell check before you post.

[H8R]

of all the 'grim milestone' stories i've read, i don't recall any of them stating the milestone was met due to "non-combat related incident".

i'm sure to break out the numbers beyond simply deaths in a combat zone would make those anti-war masturbaters go limp, and give the lie their "war heros" like 3-time purple heart "winner" j.h. kerry

4000 dead is still 1000 more than we lost on 9/11. It sucks no matter how you look at it.

Especially since we still have yet to avenge it, being that we are in the wrong fvcking spot.


What really, REALLY sucks is the thousands of maimed and disfigured soldiers coming home who will not get what they deserve, and the ones who may need mental health care who will have to wait a long time for it. It's a fvcking shame.

[sanjuro]

you are pretty stupid.

evey soldier in Iraq is serving there voluntarily.. it's not like anyone is asking you to go (assuming you could get into the US military).

so get off your high horse before you get bucked off

National Guardsmen have the choice not to deploy?

And do you think voluntarily dying makes it better than being conscripted?

I think it is horrible that Americans and Iraqis are dying.

[Echo]

why the 'celebration' for every 1000 soldier/marines/airmen/sailors killed in action..??

what about the 100,000's of those who served their tour and came home?
I didn't see anyone celebrating, except maybe some people in the country our military is occupying.

I wasn't aware of anyone tracking the 100,000s who made it home. Probably because most of them get sent back, unless their bodies are too screwed up for them to be useful anymore. Feel free to provide links though, you are good at that.

[jimmydean]

What really, REALLY sucks is the thousands of maimed and disfigured soldiers coming home who will not get what they deserve, and the ones who may need mental health care who will have to wait a long time for it. It's a fvcking shame.

When my unit got home from Iraq, it was touted as the only deployed unit to have no fatalities (and is still the only unit as far as I know). But there are many who lost arms and legs who can't return to civilian jobs and countless others who suffer from PTSD and night terrors.

I don't think there will ever be solid numbers that reflect those individuals. And I don't think society wants to see them, either.

[N8]

National Guardsmen have the choice not to deploy?

And do you think voluntarily dying makes it better than being conscripted?

I think it is horrible that Americans and Iraqis are dying.


Realistically, we're pretty much going to be there in one form or another for the next couple decades. Could be another Korean deployment site.

Pulling out isnt really an option no matter who the president is or what they 'promise' to do.

[$tinkle]

4000 dead is still 1000 more than we lost on 9/11. It sucks no matter how you look at it.

Especially since we still have yet to avenge it, being that we are in the wrong fvcking spot.so you believe the gwot is legitimate as long as we're only pursuing obl? and even then it's about revenge, and not justice?

appears like you're saying a few seemingly incompatible things here. add to that obl's latest statement once again confirms the jihadidsts' & al-Q's legitimacy in iraq, calling it the main front of this long war against the west.

even obl agrees w/ bush.

[skinny mike]

Pulling out isnt really an option no matter who the president is or what they 'promise' to do.
why not? you can't force a democracy, it just doesn't happen, especially the way the us is trying to do it. why do we need to stay and waste resources and lives to try and keep a failed democracy going?

[N8]

why not? you can't force a democracy, it just doesn't happen, especially the way the us is trying to do it. why do we need to stay and waste resources and lives to try and keep a failed democracy going?

failed? after 2 or 3 years?

puhleeeease...

[N8]

of all the 'grim milestone' stories i've read, i don't recall any of them stating the milestone was met due to "non-combat related incident".

i'm sure to break out the numbers beyond simply deaths in a combat zone would make those anti-war masturbaters go limp, and give the lie their "war heros" like 3-time purple heart "winner" j.h. kerry

_Percent of deaths that were non-hostile: 18 percent

_Number who died of illness: 66

[$tinkle]

why not? you can't force a democracy, it just doesn't happen, especially the way the us is trying to do it. why do we need to stay and waste resources and lives to try and keep a failed democracy going?why not? we've been doing it here for over 225 years

[H8R]

so you believe the gwot is legitimate as long as we're only pursuing obl? and even then it's about revenge, and not justice?

Revenge or justice, either way the administration took it's eye off the ball pretty quick.

appears like you're saying a few seemingly incompatible things here. add to that obl's latest statement once again confirms the jihadidsts' & al-Q's legitimacy in iraq, calling it the main front of this long war against the west.

even obl agrees w/ bush.


Well, good thing we invaded and brought al-Q into Iraq then innit? Bin Laden sure would have looked stupid.


I think Saudi Arabia would have been the best target. Lotsa loot there, and after all, it was Saudi hijackers on 9/11 anyway.

It's not like GWB is above stabbing a buddy in the back.

[H8R]

I don't think there will ever be solid numbers that reflect those individuals. And I don't think society wants to see them, either.

I was listening to a radio report about how many soldiers who need treatment for ptsd and other mental health issues have to wait forever for it.

Sadly, many will save the government the trouble with suicide.

[ohio]

of all the 'grim milestone' stories i've read, i don't recall any of them stating the milestone was met due to "non-combat related incident".

non-combat incidents are no small issue, nor is it playing loose with the numbers. these are real deaths, real soldiers, and are occuring in iraq as a result of the conflict even if the "final event" wasn't a gunfight. not sure if you've caught the Stiglitz paper on the cost of the war, but one of the tidbits is that while the numbers for combat-related injuries (that is, severe enough that they needed to be removed from theatre) is currently 30,000 but the total for iraq is actually 70,000.

Things like vehicle accidents making late night supply runs in contested territory on bad roads were examples of how a non-combat injury occurs. To me, those still count.

[ohio]

after 2 or 3 years?


2008 (today) - 2003 (mission accomplished) = ?

[ohio]

I don't think there will ever be solid numbers that reflect those individuals. And I don't think society wants to see them, either.

Sorry for the triple posts, but this is the paper I mentioned above. It is staggering.

http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~lbilmes/paper/iraqnew.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/07/usa.iraq

[H8R]

Things like vehicle accidents making late night supply runs in contested territory on bad roads were examples of how a non-combat injury occurs.

Worst episode of BJ and the Bear ever.

[H8R]

Sorry for the triple posts, but this is the paper I mentioned above. It is staggering.

http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~lbilmes/paper/iraqnew.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/07/usa.iraq

Makes me so happy that my child being born soon will have something to work for.

[jimmydean]

Sorry for the triple posts, but this is the paper I mentioned above. It is staggering.

http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~lbilmes/paper/iraqnew.pdf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/07/usa.iraq

Check out:

The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict (http://www.amazon.com/Three-Trillion-Dollar-War-Conflict/dp/0393067017/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206384667&sr=8-1)

Interesting book, for sure.

<edit> Book was written by the same guy who wrote the paper.

[$tinkle]

non-combat incidents are no small issue, nor is it playing loose with the numbers.

Things like vehicle accidents making late night supply runs in contested territory on bad roads were examples of how a non-combat injury occurs. To me, those still count.then how about forward deployed training deaths? back up & then let's evaluate state-side training deaths? and further back still to non-job related deaths of activated military members? inactive? domestic violence?

obviously, there's a line of distinction that isn't being acknowledged.

and why no pity for the soldiers of fortune? they're fighting for the same cause, with the same objectives, right alongside the deployed military members.

[H8R]

then how about forward deployed training deaths? back up & then let's evaluate state-side training deaths? and further back still to non-job related deaths of activated military members? inactive? domestic violence?

obviously, there's a line of distinction that isn't being acknowledged.

and why no pity for the soldiers of fortune? they're fighting for the same cause, with the same objectives, right alongside the deployed military members.

Please re-write this post. I expect better from you. This is like...n8 stupid.

[$tinkle]

Please re-write this post. I expect better from you. This is like...n8 stupid.kinda like how you conflate wahabbists with the saudi gov't? that was so spectacular i'm still considering putting that as an erratum to my pigskin-bound koran

[ohio]

then how about forward deployed training deaths? back up & then let's evaluate state-side training deaths? and further back still to non-job related deaths of activated military members? inactive? domestic violence?

obviously, there's a line of distinction that isn't being acknowledged.

and why no pity for the soldiers of fortune? they're fighting for the same cause, with the same objectives, right alongside the deployed military members.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but yes absolutely, let's account any deaths of individuals deployed in theater, whether US armed forces or contracted by the US DOD, OR US government civilian employees (diplomats, etc.). I would also include Afghanistan and Pakistan* [*I know we're "not there"] theaters as well.

[JohnE]

When talking about combat deaths, dont forget that the gubbment only counts deaths directly from combat...if you add in the deaths days, weeks or months later, the #s are a bit higher.

[H8R]

kinda like how you conflate wahabbists with the saudi gov't? that was so spectacular i'm still considering putting that as an erratum to my pigskin-bound koran




I never claim to post anything not stupid.

Just making a point - Iraq didn't attack us, a bunch of crazy-ass Saudis did.

[$tinkle]

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but yes absolutely, let's account any deaths of individuals deployed in theater, whether US armed forces or contracted by the US DOD, OR US government civilian employees (diplomats, etc.). I would also include Afghanistan and Pakistan* [*I know we're "not there"] theaters as well.what i'm on about is why the morbid fascination w/ an arbitrary number? meh, i do the same **** about other stuff on this topic.

as you were...

[N8]

PBS is nicely outlining why Iraq targeted post 9/11 on Frontline

[$tinkle]

I never claim to post anything not stupid.

Just making a point - Iraq didn't attack us, a bunch of crazy-ass Saudis did.don't you get just a teansie bit tired of being reminded the nazis didn't either?

as then, we are now fighting an ideology of hate.

[H8R]

don't you get just a teansie bit tired of being reminded the nazis didn't either?

Completely fvcking different.

[$tinkle]

Completely fvcking different.yes.
on one hand you have a leader noted as a megalomaniacal anti-semite from humble beginnings, rising up in people a sense of identity and purpose through emotional & manipulative speeches about "the struggle", and hatched a violent plan of lofting his people above the pestilence of lesser people

and the other was led by hitler

[DaveW]

yes.
on one hand you have a leader noted as a megalomaniacal anti-semite from humble beginnings, rising up in people a sense of identity and purpose through emotional & manipulative speeches about "the struggle", and hatched a violent plan of lofting his people above the pestilence of lesser people

and the other was led by hitler

Err just to clarify.... Are you talking about Sadam or have you some how got Iraqi confused with Iran?

[MMike]

as then, we are now fighting an ideology of hate.

Uh...which the US only engaged after Pearl Harbor?

Really? You're going to stick with that comparision?

[N8]

Uh...which the US only engaged after Pearl Harbor?

Really? You're going to stick with that comparision?

like Iraq, the Nazis never bombed us at Pearl Harbor

[ohio]

I'm going to assume stinkle is beating his usual drum about islamo-fascism and the GWOT here, NOT Iraq.

[$tinkle]

I'm going to assume stinkle is beating his usual drum about islamo-fascism and the GWOT here, NOT Iraq.good to see someone besides n8 is paying attention.

[MMike]

The day Osama bin Laden attacked Pearl Harbor was arguably the worst day of Jimmy Carter's Presidency....

[Transcend]

like Iraq, the Nazis never bombed us at Pearl Harbor

Unlike Iraq, the Nazis were actively engaged in genocide and were storming across the countries of the western world's allies.

[$tinkle]

Unlike Iraq, the Nazis were actively engaged in genocide and were storming across the countries of the western world's allies.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4875678.stm

[N8]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4875678.stm

oopsies!!!

i think our friend Transgend here is talking about the Sudan perhaps..?



:)

[Transcend]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4875678.stm

Human rights groups say 180,000 civilians died in the campaign.


Number of Jews murdered in Holocaust: 5,709,329

Being a dictator and killing 180 000 people in your own country, while horrendous, does not compare to invading an entire continent and systematically gassing almost 6 million people.

[N8]

Being a dictator and killing 180 000 people in your own country, while horrendous, does not compare to invading an entire continent and systematically gassing almost 6 million people.

Stalin..???

[$tinkle]

to be fair to saddam's street cred, he did invade kuwait.
and then there's that whole iran thingie w/ some mustard gas tossed toward both military & civilian iranians.

not that it matters

[Transcend]

Multiple engagements != a systematic genocide of 6 million people.

Your arguments are weak, at best.

[N8]

Multiple engagements != a systematic genocide of 6 million people.

Your arguments are weak, at best.



Economy of scale:

Iraq: 4,000 US military dead after 5 years

WWII: 416,800 US military dead after 4 years

[jimmydean]

Economy of scale:

Iraq: 4,000 US military dead after 5 years

WWII: 416,800 US military dead after 4 years

WWII = Mission accomplished

Iraq = Oops

[N8]

WWII = Mission accomplished

Iraq = Oops


WWII = US military presence in Germany, Japan and Italy 63 years later

Iraq = Same

[jimmydean]

WWII = US military presence in Germany, Japan and Italy 63 years later

Iraq = Same

Not the same, because people WANT to be stationed in Germany, Japan, and Italy.

[$tinkle]

WWII = Mission accomplished

Iraq = Oopsso what you're saying is bush missed his chance at a war-winning legacy by not nuking iraq?

awesome

[jimmydean]

so what you're saying is bush missed his chance at a war-winning legacy by not nuking iraq?

awesome

What I'm saying is WWII saved the world vs. Iraq saving the oil field.

Drink up, bitch!

<edit> Comparing WWII to Iraq is just plain funny, in a sad and dismal sort of way.

[Transcend]

Economy of scale:

Iraq: 4,000 US military dead after 5 years

WWII: 416,800 US military dead after 4 years

WW2: liberated an entire continent under siege through the concerted efforts of a dozen allied nations.

Iraq: invaded a sovereign nation as the aggressor with no real purpose or allies. in this case, the US is better compared to Nazi Germany than the USA of WW2.

[$tinkle]

Comparing WWII to Iraq is just plain funny, in a sad and dismal sort of way.i'll have to openly admit, i have stopped thinking. i mean, why engage my brain if i don't have to? "what did we ever do to iraq" & other memes will always be met with the morally valid comparison to our actions against nazi germany (& their ilk).

for this comparison to be inappropriate, then we shouldn't be fighting al-Q in mesopotamia, but this is hard to square against the "valid" fight against al-Q in *-stan, as nato forces are deployed there.

the only downside i see of this illegal war is the fact that sidney blumenthal won't stand trial for DUI (http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-clinton-aide,0,2763259.story)

[jimmydean]

As stated in the other thread:

Afghanistan is somewhat justified, but Iraq had little to do with anything. Saddam was a dick, there is no debate there. He invaded Kuwait and we kicked his ass, so he left.

Watching Frontline shows the rush to invade Iraq was done under false pretenses. The fact that we have spent ANY resources there is sickening.

[SlapheadMofo]

Not the same, because people WANT to be stationed in Germany, Japan, and Italy.

Probably not so much in '44 they didn't.

[jimmydean]

Probably not so much in '44 they didn't.

I was referring to the last 63 years. I wouldn't ever what to be stationed in Iraq, even 63 years from now.

[MMike]

I was referring to the last 63 years. I wouldn't ever what to be stationed in Iraq, even 63 years from now.

You'd be really old

[N8]

From the Front


The Real Meaning of 4,000 Dead
By LT SEAN WALSH, US Army

The passing of the 4,000th service member in Iraq is a tragic milestone and a testament to the cost of this war, but for those of us who live and fight in Iraq, we measure that cost in smaller, but much more personal numbers. For me those numbers are 8, the number of friends and classmates killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 3, the number of soldiers from my unit killed in this deployment. I'm 25, yet I've received more notifications for funerals than invitations to weddings.

The number 4,000 is too great to grasp even for us that are here in Iraq. When we soldiers read the newspaper, the latest AP casualty figures are glanced over with the same casual interest as a box score for a sport you don't follow. I am certain that I am not alone when I open up the Stars and Stripes, the military's daily paper, and immediately search for the section with the names of the fallen to see if they include anyone I know. While in a combat outpost in southwest Baghdad, it was in that distinctive bold Ariel print in a two-week-old copy of the Stars and Stripes that I read that my best friend had been killed in Afghanistan. No phone call from a mutual friend or a visit to his family. All that had come and gone by the time I had learned about his death. I sometimes wonder, if I hadn't picked up that paper, how much longer I would have gone by without knowing - perhaps another day, perhaps a week or longer until I could find the time and the means to check my e-mail to find my messages unanswered and a death notification from a West Point distro list in my inbox. The dead in Afghanistan don't seem to inspire the keeping of lists the same way that those in Iraq do, but even if they did it wouldn't matter; he could only be number 7 to me.

I'm not asking for pity, only understanding for the cost of this war. We did, after all, volunteer for the Army and that is the key distinction between this army and the army of the Vietnam War. But even as I ask for that understanding I'm almost certain that you won't be able to obtain it. Even Shakespeare, with his now overused notion of soldiers as a "band of brothers" fails to capture the bonds, the sense of responsibility to each other, among soldiers. In many ways, Iraq has become my home (by the time my deployment ends I will have spent more time here than anywhere else in the army) and the soldiers I share that home with have become my family. Between working, eating and sleeping within a few feet of the same soldiers every single day, I doubt I am away from them for more than two hours a day. I'm engaged to the love of my life, but it will take several years of marriage before I've spent as much time with her as I have with the men I serve with today.

For the vast majority of American's who don't have a loved one overseas, the only number they have to attempt to grasp the Iraq War is 4,000. I would ask that when you see that number, try to remember that it is made up of over 1 million smaller numbers; that every one of the 1 million service members who have fought in Iraq has his or her own personal numbers. Over 1 million 8's and 3's. When you are evaluating the price of the war, weighing potential rewards versus cost in blood and treasure, I would ask you to consider what is worth the lives of three of your loved ones? Or eight? Or more? It would be a tragedy for my 8 and 3 to have died without us being able to complete our mission, but it maybe even more tragic for 8 and 3 to become anything higher.

[JohnE]

The real tragedy is that we did not need, nor was there an international need, for us to go into Iraq. Two college boys sitting in a hole in North Dakota could have turned two keys, pressed two buttons (Then gone back to their Xbox), launching a nuke to shut Sadaam down if he did something stupid. Way more effective then needlessly sacrificing 4000+ young Americans and members of other countries militarys.
Yeah, we are down one tyrant, but at what cost?

[jimmydean]

I try not to talk about my personal numbers. Another awesome copy/paste, n8.

[Transcend]

The real tragedy is that we did not need, nor was there an international need, for us to go into Iraq. Two college boys sitting in a hole in North Dakota could have turned two keys, pressed two buttons (Then gone back to their Xbox), launching a nuke to shut Sadaam down if he did something stupid. Way more effective then needlessly sacrificing 4000+ young Americans and members of other countries militarys.
Yeah, we are down one tyrant, but at what cost?

Killing a few million Iraqi civilians. Yeah, you're a genius. :clapping:

[$tinkle]

Killing a few million Iraqi civilians. Yeah, you're a genius. :clapping:i think he means umbrella-tipped nukes, only used for hidey-holes.

kinda like a 1,000,000 degree snap pop.

[JohnE]

Like I'm worried about what Transcend thinks...just not happening. Like N8, he just doesnt get it...

Stinkle, you are correct Sir.

[Transcend]

Like I'm worried about what Transcend thinks...just not happening. Like N8, he just doesnt get it...

Stinkle, you are correct Sir.

Ya, I don't get that you're country sucks at negotiating and would prefer to use nuclear weapons.

Moron.

[JohnE]

Your. Not you're. Sheesh. Let me show you.

Do you think I worry about your (See?) opinion of me? I you think I do, you're (See how that works?) wrong.

My opinions. Neither right nor wrong. But mine. And I will defend to the death your (Again!) right to yours.

And we really do suck at negotiaiting. We need to butt out and leave all the third world stinkholes to their own devices.

And btw, go back and read my original post regarding this. Read for comprehension this time.

[N8]

My opinions. Neither right nor wrong. But mine. And I will defend to the death your (Again!) right to yours.



psst... Transgendered is a canuck...

[JohnE]

I will still defend his right to his opinions, no matter how fuc...much they differ from mine.

[N8]

I will still defend his right to his opinions, no matter how fuc...much they differ from mine.

typical military person you..

[H8R]

Yeah, we are down one tyrant, but at what cost?

Well, Saddam would have killed like....a few Americans. Maybe.

And far more of his own people would have survived under his rule than have died since the invasion.

And a-Q would not have a foothold there.


Thank GOD we invaded.

[N8]

Well, Saddam would have killed like....a few Americans. Maybe.

And far more of his own people would have survived under his rule than have died since the invasion.

And a-Q would not have a foothold there.
.



maybe in Neurosis Happy Fun Land World... sure.


These congressmen though so too..
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VLH37G2&show_article=1

[$tinkle]

Well, Saddam would have killed like....a few Americans. Maybe.

And far more of his own people would have survived under his rule than have died since the invasion.

And a-Q would not have a foothold there.


Thank GOD we invaded.so you're saying that although you wouldn't necessarily prefer him in power still, no one is better off today (except for al-Q, of course)?

you know we're not done, right? i mean, the fun part's over, but there's a nip & tuck left.

[jimmydean]

you know we're not done, right? i mean, the fun part's over, but there's a nip & tuck left.

There was a "fun" part? Is the nip & tuck going to take all of the 100 years, or is that just a ballpark estimate?

[$tinkle]

There was a "fun" part? Is the nip & tuck going to take all of the 100 years, or is that just a ballpark estimate?recall that iraq has had a functional gov't for some time, and is even more stable than afghanistan (http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN24339502)

what was h8r saying about the "big picture"?

[N8]

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b47/Atwater/awol.jpg

[DaveW]

recall that iraq has had a functional gov't for some time, and is even more stable than afghanistan (http://www.reuters.com/article/featuredCrisis/idUSN24339502)

what was h8r saying about the "big picture"?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :clapping:

You really are struggling today fella! :nopity:

The "functional gov't" can only survive in a fortified green zone environment, it has little real control outside of Bagdad. Yes it has more than Afghanistan but as 95% of Afghanistan has not govenment beyond Nato troops and local tribal councils...... You are to all intense purposes claiming that a cow pat is better than a dog turd. :poster_oops: