The death toll for U.S. soldiers in Iraq has reached 3,000, a number that's both unbearable and, compared to previous military operations, a pittance
So what does this mean?
To some, it is a number that can be exploited for political gain...and will be...
But really, when is the number too much?
Anyone who can read a history book must know that the number of American troop deaths is far lower now than in past conflicts. But many liberals will say that too many have died and we need to send the troops home.
Okay, so, when did the number get too high?
At 100....10,000?
Is it 3,000 that makes it too much?
Should we have never fought WWII? We lost too many then as well?
Should we get rid of the military so that no soldiers ever die again?
Focusing on this number seems completely wrong to me. The focus should be on obtaining our goals.
When people say we are losing or lost the war on terror...how can that be?
We went into a country, displaced their government and put in a new government...that seems like a 100% fantastic win to me...
The debate can be about what we do now...but if it is up to some, there will be no debate.
If you are for our country using the military, you are a war monger, you are evil in insensitive, you want to kill our young troops for oil or whatever made up crap liberals are saying the war is for this week...
Posts
12 comments:
well done again jason
"If you are for our country using the military, you are a war monger, you are evil in insensitive, you want to kill our young troops for oil or whatever made up crap liberals are saying the war is for this week..."
Baloney! "They don't want to go to war unless there is a surrender strategy". More baloney. When do YOU want to go to war? To everything there is a season, a time for war and a time for peace. Only the most radical would deny there is a time for war. The question is when is that time? Many people including myself believed before the invasion that 2003 was NOT the time for it. MOST people now agree that in hind sight, it wasn't the time. They realize that this was a war of choice, not of necessity.
Most sane people believe that war should be made when it is necessary. Most will agree that fighting World War II was necessary. The Iraq war was not. It was a means for political gain, it was not a war of self defense, it was not a war to bring democracy to Iraq.
If you want to talk about the politicization of 3,000 deaths, you need look no further than the 2004 Republic convention where the phrase "9/11" was used some 210 times.
Automobile deaths in the US run about 40,000 per year. In 2003 over 19,000 deaths were caused by unintentional poisoning. So why is 3,000 deaths in Iraq a "pittance" and 3,000 deaths in the WTC enough to justify attacking another nation which had nothing to do with it? Why is 3,000 deaths justification for giving up civil rights, for giving one person unlimited power?
Displacing a government and putting in a new government may be 100% fantastic to you, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the war on terror. We only lose the war on terror by not fighting it. Iraq is a costly diversion from the war on terror.
It's not liberals who make up crap about what the war is for. It is the White House and the wingnuts that support it that make up crap about what the war is for. Get your facts straight.
Apparently a large percentage of our troops don't support our troops.
Jim-
You continue to amaze me. I'll let Al Gore make my case.
"Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table.” Al Gore, February 12, 2002.
What happened since then? Howard Dean. The Dems learned they can raise a ton of money by appealing to affluent upper-middle class liberals with university educations. This group deeply resents the fact that a guy who appears like a no-nothing hillbilly who can't speak proper English, like Bush, has the nerve to take action to work for good in the world where liberals only talk. He therefore must be a puppet, must doing the good of sinister forces, whether it be the oilmen, those greedy joooooss, Hitlerburton, since a man with a Master's from Yale can't think for himself.
It is about politics, yes-- about Dems flipflopping and screaming like maniacs to appeal to irrational Bush-haters. We didn't see the same level of protest before Clinton bombed the crap out of Yugoslavia without U.N. approval. And that clearly was not a war of self-defense.
I can imagine today's Democrats during Pearl Harbor. "The death toll was only 2,403 people, while cigarettes kill 400,000 people every year! Can't we just talk to the Japanese?"
The problem continues to be that liberals do not understand the scope or goals of Revolutionary Islam. They see the 1,900 people that have been killed by the Islamic insurgency since January in Thailand, like the war in Somalia, or the 8,000 terrorists Saddam trained for wars in Algeria and Sudan, as completely separate events with no relation to each other.
If you try to point out to the left that there is a movement in the **world** very similar to the revolutionary movements in Europe during the 1920s and 30s-- they first accuse conservatives of bigotry by saying all Muslims are fascists, and then infer from this that no Muslims are fascist. All of this is ignoring that some Muslims are fascists does not entail that all, or even a majority, are.
And even Bush can understand this.
Pardon me, Bush got his MBA at Harvard.
Read the link, Jim. Ain't no thang, bro. Most of us have different ideas on Bush's "handling" of the war.
You can say that again, Marshall! Which link, though?
So why is 3,000 deaths in Iraq a "pittance" and 3,000 deaths in the WTC enough to justify attacking another nation which had nothing to do with it? Why is 3,000 deaths justification for giving up civil rights, for giving one person unlimited power?
Displacing a government and putting in a new government may be 100% fantastic to you, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the war on terror. We only lose the war on terror by not fighting it. Iraq is a costly diversion from the war on terror.
Right on the money Jim!
To do everything they can to minimize the deaths seems like someone who hates our troops to me. I wonder what the dead soliders familys think about your analogy.
Jason, we bombed the hell out of them too. Maybe we should have hired more Ethiopians at Blackwater.
ron--
Care to specific which civil rights I have lost since the removal of Saddam Hussein?
Again, if this was WWII, you guys would be clamoring to bring the troops home. You'd claim that the hawks were hysterical about the 2,400 who died at Pearl Harbor, but didn't care about the 300,000 who died in the war.
Zawahiri, bin Laden and others have proclaimed Iraq as the central front in the struggle to bring back the Caliphate. Liberals shouldn't keep their heads in the sand about reality, and then blame people for failures of imagination after bad consequences happen.
Oh well, at least you guys have authentic feelings of caring to substitute for your lack of logic.
Jason, if you aren't aware of the government snooping or the 4th amendment to the constition or habeus corpus or you don't care you haven't lost any civil rights but I have.
by the way, this has nothing to do with the death of saddam hussein. Karma gave him some of what he deserved.
Post a Comment