2078 died in Iraq in March

thankyougrandma

So i can legitimatly call George W. Bush a lier, since he's still saying to everyone who want to hear it, that things are getting better in this conflict.

It means 67 peoples are being killed, each day, despite heavy security measure.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Bush and co. are a bunch of scheming hacks... to call them politicians wold be a bastardization of the word..

know1

How many died in the U.S. during March?

my2hands

know1 wrote:

How many died in the U.S. during March?

i think they are war related deaths chief, nice try

jlew24asu

thankyougrandma wrote:

So i can legitimatly call George W. Bush a lier, since he's still saying to everyone who want to hear it, that things are getting better in this conflict.

It means 67 peoples are being killed, each day, despite heavy security measure.

how many would die if we werent there? they are killing each other, we are trying to defend people and train an army.

you want to blame us for starting this mess fine, but the above fact remains the same

thankyougrandma

know1 wrote:

How many died in the U.S. during March?

Be a proud Americans, and show us those numbers, please. I knew someone would bring that up. I guess you also compare your current life quality to Iraqui who have to go through military (and probably milice) checkpoint to go buy their vegetables at the grocery store. Go ahead and bring up those numbers, i'd be curious to see how you can "justify" people dying in a country by saying there's more peoples dying in the other country. Also make your point by bringing stats and percentage of people being killed versus population, ratios and this kind of stuffs, since you want to bring that up...

thankyougrandma

jlew24asu wrote:

how many would die if we werent there? they are killing each other, we are trying to defend people and train an army.

you want to blame us for starting this mess fine, but the above fact remains the same

I don't know, prove me there was more deaths before USA invasions. It's an easy concept, overthrow a government, and you're in for years of anarchy. But the USA govt. didn't think that way, it was the "with us or against us" policy going on at the time, no plans for the aftermath, it's like nobody in the war room asked "what will we do once we find those WMD's" (of course then the reasons change according to the trend of the moment).

Today we can all admit that it is a huge mistake just by the results, and i still believe and hope that George W. Bush will someday have to answer these crimes in front of a court. Now don't be short by saying George Bush didn't killed anybody and it is the insurgent blablabla. Milosevic probably never killed anyone too, and the insurgency wouldn't exist without a USA war in this country.

Abuskedti

jlew24asu wrote:

how many would die if we werent there? they are killing each other, we are trying to defend people and train an army.

you want to blame us for starting this mess fine, but the above fact remains the same

That is all true. We are keeping the killing steady for more than 4 years.

We have picked one side, and that side can not possibly win.

Yet we refuse to talk to any of the other groups - or even to Americans.

How many years can this last?

I am against the troop withdrawal.. I think that would be ignorant. We have to stay - and provide security. We have work will all sides on an acceptable solution - then we need to enforce it.. part of the negotiation will include help with enforcement

thankyougrandma

Abuskedti wrote:

That is all true. We are keeping the killing steady for more than 4 years.

We have picked one side, and that side can not possibly win.

Yet we refuse to talk to any of the other groups - or even to Americans.

How many years can this last?

I am against the troop withdrawal.. I think that would be ignorant. We have to stay - and provide security. We have work will all sides on an acceptable solution - then we need to enforce it.. part of the negotiation will include help with enforcement

I'm starting to believe that troop withdrawal would be a mistake, but i think the mission should change, take it out of USA citizens shoulders (only one supporting this war now) and share the responsabilities with other nations under a UN or NATO banner, i know many peoples hate UN or NATO for some reasons, and i also can see the criticism towards them. But the USA alone won't solve Iraq, stay there 10 years and it will still be the same. Change is due, trying another strategy is way overdue.

Sad thing is we'll have to wait till George W. Bush is out of office to see a change.

know1

thankyougrandma wrote:

Be a proud Americans, and show us those numbers, please. I knew someone would bring that up. I guess you also compare your current life quality to Iraqui who have to go through military (and probably milice) checkpoint to go buy their vegetables at the grocery store. Go ahead and bring up those numbers, i'd be curious to see how you can "justify" people dying in a country by saying there's more peoples dying in the other country. Also make your point by bringing stats and percentage of people being killed versus population, ratios and this kind of stuffs, since you want to bring that up...

I'm not justifying anything - just asking a question. How about you compare your life quality to theirs?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Abuskedti wrote:

That is all true. We are keeping the killing steady for more than 4 years.

We have picked one side, and that side can not possibly win.

Yet we refuse to talk to any of the other groups - or even to Americans.

How many years can this last?

I am against the troop withdrawal.. I think that would be ignorant. We have to stay - and provide security. We have work will all sides on an acceptable solution - then we need to enforce it.. part of the negotiation will include help with enforcement

The US stepped into a huge pile of shit. the terrorists can do whatever, they have all the time in the world to watch, and wait, and react.

What a farce...

inmytree

know1 wrote:

I'm not justifying anything - just asking a question. How about you compare your life quality to theirs?

oh, chirst here we go, devil's advocate talking in circles...


weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.....

jlew24asu

thankyougrandma wrote:

I don't know, prove me there was more deaths before USA invasions. It's an easy concept, overthrow a government, and you're in for years of anarchy. But the USA govt. didn't think that way, it was the "with us or against us" policy going on at the time, no plans for the aftermath, it's like nobody in the war room asked "what will we do once we find those WMD's" (of course then the reasons change according to the trend of the moment).

are you serious? saddam did kill hundreds of thousands of people?

thankyougrandma

know1 wrote:

I'm not justifying anything - just asking a question. How about you compare your life quality to theirs?

You're asking a question, and i'm asking you to bring the answer, since you want to compare the U.S. and Iraq death toll. Go ahead and bring up those numbers, i won't dig them up for you, cause i think it's a useless argument.

thankyougrandma

jlew24asu wrote:

are you serious? saddam did kill hundreds of thousands of people?

Sure he did, and he faced a trial, and was sentenced to death. Things haven't changed for the best for Iraquis, and Iraq now is way more dangerous for the USA than it was when Saddam was controlling everything.

RainDog

jlew24asu wrote:

are you serious? saddam did kill hundreds of thousands of people?

True, but he was only tried, convicted, and executed for the deaths of 148 (one hundred and forty eight) of them - and those were killed in response to an assassination attempt (real or imagined). Personally, I find that a bit suspicious. Why wasn't he tried for these "hundreds of thousands" of deaths? Did justice really need to be that swift? Or was there something those involved in the trial (and those encouraging it) didn't want let out?

know1

thankyougrandma wrote:

You're asking a question, and i'm asking you to bring the answer, since you want to compare the U.S. and Iraq death toll. Go ahead and bring up those numbers, i won't dig them up for you, cause i think it's a useless argument.

It is a useless argument....just like the original argument in this thread is useless if you do not know how many would have been killed in March without the U.S. presence.

thankyougrandma

know1 wrote:

It is a useless argument....just like the original argument in this thread is useless if you do not know how many would have been killed in March without the U.S. presence.

oh hmmmm, now i'm talking about the present, the reality, and you say it's pointless cause i don't know the "if", you're right, i don't know the "if", then we shouldn't talk about the Iraq war at all, you're right, let's talk about a pet food recall, or let's talk about a dead celebrity burial location... way more interesting isn't it?

even flow?

know1 wrote:

How many died in the U.S. during March?

From terrorist attacks? Or from a fellow Yank?

know1

thankyougrandma wrote:

oh hmmmm, now i'm talking about the present, the reality, and you say it's pointless cause i don't know the "if", you're right, i don't know the "if", then we shouldn't talk about the Iraq war at all, you're right, let's talk about a pet food recall, or let's talk about a dead celebrity burial location... way more interesting isn't it?

No - let's just demand the end to the occupation and not throw out statistics that do not mean anything.

inmytree

know1 wrote:

It is a useless argument....just like the original argument in this thread is useless if you do not know how many would have been killed in March without the U.S. presence.

here's what I do know...the 3000 plus US soldiers killed would not have been killed...the thousands injured would not have been injured...and car bombs did not go off on a daily basis....