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

Dirty Mosquito

newagehippie wrote:

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

jlew24asu

chiefojibwa wrote:

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

jlew24asu

chiefojibwa wrote:

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.

Byrnzie

Dirty Mosquito wrote:

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.

hippiemom

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.

jlew24asu

chiefojibwa wrote:

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.

Dirty Mosquito

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.

jlew24asu

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.

hippiemom

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.

hippiemom

chiefojibwa wrote:

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.

Byrnzie

Dirty Mosquito wrote:

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.

jlew24asu

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

Jeanwah

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.

Dirty Mosquito

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.

jlew24asu

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.

Jeanwah

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.

hippiemom

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.

jlew24asu

chiefojibwa wrote:

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.

hippiemom

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"???

miller8966

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?