U.S. deaths in Iraq exceed 9-11 count

24

Comments

  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    miller8966 wrote:
    You couldnt hurt national security in the old days either for a news story......
    Oh, I forgot, you can't say BOO! without it being directly meant to be aimed at National Security.
  • enharmonicenharmonic Posts: 1,917
    See what happens when American voters become complacent. we could have ended this in 2004, but NOOOOOOOOOO. American's had to put Bush back in office.

    If you vote for a guy who thinks he's on a mission from God, you get what you get.
  • dg1979usdg1979us Posts: 568
    enharmonic wrote:
    See what happens when American voters become complacent. we could have ended this in 2004, but NOOOOOOOOOO. American's had to put Bush back in office.

    If you vote for a guy who thinks he's on a mission from God, you get what you get.

    Even though I didnt want to see Bush win in 04, and I think Kerry would have been a little better at least, John Kerry made no promises that he would end the war, and in fact said if he had to do it all over again he would still vote for the war. In 04 we had to pro war candidates running against each other. There is no guarantee Kerry would have ended the war by now.
  • enharmonicenharmonic Posts: 1,917
    With a Republican congress, you can bet that nothing would have been done.

    That is why I am glad that those jackasses lost the congress. They would have needlessly stonewalled Kerry...just as they kept Clinton fighting for his political life when they ALL should have been keeping an eye on the shop. I blame the Republican congress more than any President for our lack of preparation prior to 9/11. They were so blood thirsty and self serving that tey put their own agenda before the security of this country.

    Bush has enough American soldier and Iraqi civilian blood on his hands to tarnish any accomplishment of his administration. History will not be kind to him, I assure you.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Byrnzie wrote:
    So you believe that the mainstream media in America is Anti-American?

    That is the most ridiculous statement I've read on the message board. Even Dino's posts don't top that one.


    you must not watch the mainstream american news. most of it is anti bush which isnt necessarily anti american but it goes hand in hand.
  • dg1979usdg1979us Posts: 568
    enharmonic wrote:
    With a Republican congress, you can bet that nothing would have been done.

    That is why I am glad that those jackasses lost the congress. They would have needlessly stonewalled Kerry...just as they kept Clinton fighting for his political life when they ALL should have been keeping an eye on the shop. I blame the Republican congress more than any President for our lack of preparation prior to 9/11. They were so blood thirsty and self serving that tey put their own agenda before the security of this country.

    Bush has enough American soldier and Iraqi civilian blood on his hands to tarnish any accomplishment of his administration. History will not be kind to him, I assure you.


    I dont think anyone thinks history will be kind to him. And I agree about the congress, they didnt do their part in keeping the executive branch in check. Lets just hope the democrats perform more responsibly now.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    jlew24asu wrote:
    you must not watch the mainstream american news. most of it is anti bush which isnt necessarily anti american but it goes hand in hand.

    Most mainstream news in America is anti-Bush? Surely this is a recent development?
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    Byrnzie wrote:
    Most mainstream news in America is anti-Bush? Surely this is a recent development?
    yes, please show me any anti-Bush news other than his poor approval ratings...
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    oh fuck get a clue man! once again you spout this utter bullshit that being anti-bush is somehow being anti-american? what about all those fuckers like limp-baugh who continually trash bill clinton. uh, he was a president of the united states too, right? so, by your logic, mr. oxycontin is anti-american?

    look, bush is a shitty president. that's a fact. when the news reports on facts, i don't see a problem with it.


    calm the fuck down. maybe if you could read past a 4th grade level you would see what I said.

    being anti bush isn't necessarily anti-american.


    the word isn't is abbreviated to mean is not.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    but it goes hand in hand

    you know what you meant. don't try to deny it. you are a one-trick pony. you regurgitate the same tired arguments over and over, but that does not make it so. i bet that, deep down, even YOU don't believe the garbage you type. but it just keeps coming, like a reservoir of shit held back by a tissue paper dam. time to wake up, jspew, and smell the truth.

    Easy tiger! You'll be getting yourself kicked off the board like this. And for the record, I think Jlew has calmed down a lot recently and isn't half as bad as he's sometimes been in the past. (And I'm not intending to sound patronising, but how else can I put it?) I don't think he deserves knocking like this at the moment.
  • Agreed! I am not in agreement with W or the war, but let's put it in perspective.

    If this would have happened 50 years ago, nothing would have been said, it would not have been a blip in the history books. Communication is a great thing, but just because you here about one thing doesn't mean it is worse than things that happened in the past and were never publicized. People dying in war is stupid, selfish, and shows the downfall of humans as a whole. It is how it has always been, and unless we change it , it always will........

    If this happend 50 years ago, we would have just bombed the hell out of Iraq like WW2 and this war would be over...with virtually no deaths of US soldiers. That's what is so nasty about war. If it is important enough to go to war, which I think this war is not, than you have to go full force. You can't win a war peacefully. I hate to say it, but it's true. I hate war and it isn't working, but that's why we shouldn't go to war unless it's that serious...ie WW2
    Alpine Valley 06-13-99 [EV-Solo]
    Alpine Valley 10-8-00 (The Icebowl)
    Chicago 05-16-06, 05-17-06
    Lollapalooza 08-05-07
    Chicago 08-22-08 [EV Solo]
    Chicago 08-23-09, 08-24-09
    Chicago 06-28-11, 06-29-11 [EV Solo]
    PJ20 Alpine Valley 09-03-11, 09-04-11
    Wrigley Field 07-19-13
    Wrigley Field 08-20-16, 08-22-16
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    but it goes hand in hand

    you know what you meant. don't try to deny it. you are a one-trick pony. you regurgitate the same tired arguments over and over, but that does not make it so. i bet that, deep down, even YOU don't believe the garbage you type. but it just keeps coming, like a reservoir of shit held back by a tissue paper dam. time to wake up, jspew, and smell the truth.


    read between the lines buddy. its hard to have a conversation with someone with such a low IQ.

    being anti, bush or anti clinton isnt, sorry is not, anti american. it leads to it. meaning it goes hand in hand. criticizing a president is american. associating a president's bad policys to america and americans leads to anti americanism
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    he deserves it everytime he implies that being anti-george bush is being anti-american. he's been pulling the same shit for as long as i can remember, and i will NOT stand for it. if i get banned, so be it. i will stand up for what i believe and i will take the consequences of my actions.

    again, you fail to think. its difficult for you.

    its one thing to hate bush.

    its another thing to hate america because bush is the president.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    If this happend 50 years ago, we would have just bombed the hell out of Iraq like WW2 and this war would be over...with virtually no deaths of US soldiers. That's what is so nasty about war. If it is important enough to go to war, which I think this war is not, than you have to go full force. You can't win a war peacefully. I hate to say it, but it's true. I hate war and it isn't working, but that's why we shouldn't go to war unless it's that serious...ie WW2

    The U.s wouldn't have bombed Iraq back to the stone age or nuked it simply because the Bush adminstration hoped they could turn Iraq into an offshore oil field sweat shop. They sent American troops there to plunder Iraqs oil reserves in order to line their own pockets. If Iraq had ever been any kind of a threat to America (What a joke!) then they could have just nuked the place.
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    jlew24asu wrote:
    read between the lines buddy. its hard to have a conversation with someone with such a low IQ.

    being anti, bush or anti clinton isnt, sorry is not, anti american. it leads to it. meaning it goes hand in hand. criticizing a president is american. associating a president's bad policys to america and americans leads to anti americanism
    When a president has four years of bad policy and the nation re-elects him, what choice do you have but to associate those policies with Americans?

    I don't like it ... it sucks for the alomst half of us who had at least enough moments of clarity to know better than to vote for the guy. We get tarred with the same brush. But it's indisputable that those shitty policies were America's choice.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    uh, is 160 low? not that i believe the results of such subjective tests, but there you have it. i probably could have scored higher, but i was drunk.

    i completely understand your "argument". it's a simpleton's view of a very complex issue. you have, time and again, accused people of being "america haters" simply for disliking george w. bush. that is a FACT, one that can easily be verified via the search function on this board. i completely disagree with anyone, foreign or otherwise, equating the overall views and intentions of all americans with the leaders of america. if that was how you truly felt, we could agree on something. but, no, you state again that being anti-bush leads to being anti-american. this is simply not true. i am anti-bush because i LOVE america. can you understand that?


    you got me all wrong chief. I accuse america haters of being america haters. I could care less if they like bush or not.

    the act of criticizing bush (anti bush) leads to people in the media to portray america as the enemy or evil.

    and yes I understand and completely agree with your last statement.
  • Byrnzie wrote:
    The U.s wouldn't have bombed Iraq back to the stone age or nuked it simply because the Bush adminstration hoped they could turn Iraq into an offshore oil field sweat shop. They sent American troops there to plunder Iraqs oil reserves in order to line their own pockets. If Iraq had ever been any kind of a threat to America (What a joke!) then they could have just nuked the place.

    Agreed, that's what I am saying basically. The wars that have been due to a threat were treated this way...ie WW2, but the wars for power or political reasons, ie: Vietnam or Irag, etc, they are not treated the same way, which is why we can't win them. My uncle volunteered for Vietnam. He came from a pretty comfortable middle class family so didn't do it for educational purposes or anything. When he came back he was almost ready to leave the country based on the BS that he had been told. Now I know that this war isn't the same magnitude as Vietnam, but the principle is the same....we are being lied to and there is no way to win it. I have people I have met that came back from Iraq and completely feel betrayed.
    Alpine Valley 06-13-99 [EV-Solo]
    Alpine Valley 10-8-00 (The Icebowl)
    Chicago 05-16-06, 05-17-06
    Lollapalooza 08-05-07
    Chicago 08-22-08 [EV Solo]
    Chicago 08-23-09, 08-24-09
    Chicago 06-28-11, 06-29-11 [EV Solo]
    PJ20 Alpine Valley 09-03-11, 09-04-11
    Wrigley Field 07-19-13
    Wrigley Field 08-20-16, 08-22-16
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    hippiemom wrote:
    When a president has four years of bad policy and the nation re-elects him, what choice do you have but to associate those policies with Americans?

    I don't like it ... it sucks for the alomst half of us who had at least enough moments of clarity to know better than to vote for the guy. We get tarred with the same brush. But it's indisputable that those shitty policies were America's choice.


    from 2001 to middle of 2003 bush had an approval rating of 85%. He was a very good leader in the face of being attacked on american soil. yes, the next 4 years have been a disaster because of the Iraq war.
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    jlew24asu wrote:
    from 2001 to middle of 2003 bush had an approval rating of 85%. He was a very good leader in the face of being attacked on american soil. yes, the next 4 years have been a disaster because of the Iraq war.

    We were IN Iraq during the 2004 elections, and it was clearly a quagmire. Anyone who couldn't see the direction this was going by Nov. '04 ... shit, I don't even know what to say to such a person. If that's America's definition of a "very good leader," it's no wonder people don't like us.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    i'm with you. i just have this feeling now like, "i told you fuckers, but you wouldn't listen". and i take no comfort in being right. our country is fucked, this administration is the reason, and it makes me feel like absolute shit.
    It breaks my heart. I never so desperately wanted to be wrong about anything as I wanted to be about this.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Agreed, that's what I am saying basically. The wars that have been due to a threat were treated this way...ie WW2, but the wars for power or political reasons, ie: Vietnam or Irag, etc, they are not treated the same way, which is why we can't win them. My uncle volunteered for Vietnam. He came from a pretty comfortable middle class family so didn't do it for educational purposes or anything. When he came back he was almost ready to leave the country based on the BS that he had been told. Now I know that this war isn't the same magnitude as Vietnam, but the principle is the same....we are being lied to and there is no way to win it. I have people I have met that came back from Iraq and completely feel betrayed.

    I was one of millions who protested the war before the invasion. It was obvious to everyone that Bush and Blair had already made up their minds - or at least Bush had made up his mind and Blair followed behind like the pathetic fucking poodle he is. It was obvious that the WMD business was bullshit. These fuckers should have been kicked out of office a few years ago for lying to the populations. It's a shame that American kids are being sacrificed for this crap.
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    hippiemom wrote:
    We were IN Iraq during the 2004 elections, and it was clearly a quagmire. Anyone who couldn't see the direction this was going by Nov. '04 ... shit, I don't even know what to say to such a person. If that's America's definition of a "very good leader," it's no wonder people don't like us.


    does anyone read anymore? I said 2001-2003.

    you said 04? fucking read people
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    jlew24asu wrote:
    does anyone read anymore? I said 2001-2003.

    you said 04? fucking read people

    I read ya, and I disagree. Bush hardly did good after 9/11. People were desperate for a leader to get us back on track and Bush failed us by not finding binLaden. So what if he went after him, if we can't find him and capture him, we FAILED, meaning Bush FAILED. He used fear as a way to keep his fans looking up to him. Invading Iraq was never a good idea, right from the start, which was in '02.
  • Byrnzie wrote:
    I was one of millions who protested the war before the invasion. It was obvious to everyone that Bush and Blair had already made up their minds - or at least Bush had made up his mind and Blair followed behind like the pathetic fucking poodle he is. It was obvious that the WMD business was bullshit. These fuckers should have been kicked out of office a few years ago for lying to the populations. It's a shame that American kids are being sacrificed for this crap.

    Agreed!! I would love to ask BU$H how he sleeps at night, followed by giving him the finger, followed by being assasinated by the secret service or cia.
    Alpine Valley 06-13-99 [EV-Solo]
    Alpine Valley 10-8-00 (The Icebowl)
    Chicago 05-16-06, 05-17-06
    Lollapalooza 08-05-07
    Chicago 08-22-08 [EV Solo]
    Chicago 08-23-09, 08-24-09
    Chicago 06-28-11, 06-29-11 [EV Solo]
    PJ20 Alpine Valley 09-03-11, 09-04-11
    Wrigley Field 07-19-13
    Wrigley Field 08-20-16, 08-22-16
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    Jeanwah wrote:
    I read ya, and I disagree. Bush hardly did good after 9/11. People were desperate for a leader to get us back on track and Bush failed us by not finding binLaden. So what if he went after him, if we can't find him and capture him, we FAILED, meaning Bush FAILED. He used fear as a way to keep his fans looking up to him.

    I agree with you, not getting bin laden was a huge failure. but that failure happened after 2002 when we went to afgah. I think bush was a great leader after the attacks. he was able to get the country back on track and showed strong leadership. not so much since then.
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I think bush was a great leader after the attacks. he was able to get the country back on track and showed strong leadership.

    Nope, don't agree. The guy was a bumbling idiot when he went on tv the night of 9/11, I still to this day felt he owed us more. Rudy Guilliani outdid him by a longshot.
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    jlew24asu wrote:
    does anyone read anymore? I said 2001-2003.

    you said 04? fucking read people
    YOU questioning my reading comprehension abilities??? Now THAT'S funny!

    I know what you said. But if you were capable of comprehending what you'd read, you'd know that what I was talking about was the fact that we elected that asshole a second time. That happened in 2004.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    what exactly did he do that makes you think he was a great leader? standing on the rubble with the bullhorn, saying that the people who did this would be found and held responsible (they weren't)? maybe not interrupting his reading of "my pet goat" to go be president after he was told the country was under attack?

    please, give me some examples here. i'm clueless (yes, i said i'm clueless. resist the urge to point that out, ok?)


    its a matter of opinion. one we will never agree on so examples mean nothing. you hate bush, always have always will.

    standing on the rubble with a bullhorn is an example, albeit small, it showed leadership.

    he immediately overthrew the taliban. and went on a worldwide offensive to find those responsible for the attacks.

    yes, I am as pissed off as you that bin laden is not captured or killed. but el queda is greatly damaged, many top level people including the mastermind have been killed or captured, and they no longer have a central base of operations.

    im not talking about his entire 6 years in office. im talking about when he had an 85% approval rating. let hippiemom know too. im getting tired of repeating myself.
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I agree with you, not getting bin laden was a huge failure. but that failure happened after 2002 when we went to afgah. I think bush was a great leader after the attacks. he was able to get the country back on track and showed strong leadership. not so much since then.
    What the hell did he do that constituted "strong leadership"???
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • miller8966miller8966 Posts: 1,450
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Nope, don't agree. The guy was a bumbling idiot when he went on tv the night of 9/11, I still to this day felt he owed us more. Rudy Guilliani outdid him by a longshot.

    Rudy may have otu did him but what would you of wanted Bush to do?
    America...the greatest Country in the world.
Sign In or Register to comment.